H_KThere might be another aspect to the Meteor “fast track” integration, when will expire the seekers and engines of oldest batches of MICA?
If i am not mistaken the first delivered MICA´s are “quite” old, aint they?
The first 25 MICAs were delivered in 1999, but actually most of the MICA fleet is quite young. Also, a lot more MICA RF have been delivered than the initial target of 370 missiles.
125 MICA RF delivered in 1999-2001
415 MICA RF delivered in 2005-2008
–> Total 540 MICA RF
310 MICA IR delivered in 2004-2008
260 MICA IR remaining for delivery from 2009 onwards
–> Total 570 MICA IR
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a03-076-7/a03-076-72.html
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a07-094-6/a07-094-68.html
H_KJA37 Viggen would also have been an option, and not a bad one at that. (But probably more expensive?)
H_KIMHO the French journo’s article is meaningless. We don’t know his sources, and what does “satisfied with the result” mean anyway? :confused: I was just bringing it up to show that there’s more than one side to this story, and so far we haven’t heard anything from anyone that I would consider credible.
The only thing that seems clear is there were a few limited BFM exercises between F-22 and Rafales, and some maneuvers of unknown nature between Rafales and Typhoons. It also appears likely that these maneuvers weren’t representative enough of real combat for people who were involved and who know the results to extrapolate much out of them.
H_K“Any news on how the Typhoon has been performing?”
Yes. PM inbound. I’m saving the detail for an article.
“Has Rafale met Typhoon in the UAE yet?”
No, not in the way you mean, nor will it.
I don’t know which side has said no, but I’m told that Rafale and Typhoon will not go beyond the merge.
I suspect that with the UAE order still in the air, the French don’t want any HUD video emerging showing Rafale with a Typhoon pipper on it. It may be the other way around, of course….. 😉
A French defense correspondent claims that Rafale and Typhoon met in UAE, and that the French pilots were “satisfied with the result”.
“We’ve learnt that Rafale pilots may have done “a few small exercises outside of the official programme”, against Typhoons, and that they were “satisfied by the result”, but that the F-22s didn’t want to play: “The Americans are still quite cautious about using the F-22, since they don’t want to reveal its true performance and radar signature”.
http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-monde/2009-12-07/pe****-bras-les-rafale-et-les-f-22-raptor-ne-se-sont-pas-affrontes-aux/1648/0/402465
Other French sources, however, indicate that F-22s and Rafales did do “a few BFM maneuvers”, “guns only”.
http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=153398&page=12
IMHO, this just confirms that you can spin a story any way you want, depending on which unnamed source you use and which biased journo is interpreting the statements… 😉
H_KYou can fix the Jaguar’s thrust issues, but unless you also change the wing, how is that going to improve performance at altitude? :confused:
The Jaguar’s wing loading is very high, and I’m not sure that it can be turned into a good CAS platform that can loiter at altitude, dropping PGMs as needed.
H_KNot a rafale but still a nice picture 😎
©EC1.2 cigognes
I wonder whether that picture means that the Mirage 2000-5s also did BFM with F-22s?
H_KThe F-22 vs. Rafale fights were actually revealed first on a French forum on Nov. 20th, 10 days before Jackonicko’s post. So Squalls, you should just give up. 😉
The source is a member of the 6-plane Mirage 2000-5 detachment that participated in ATLC alongside the Rafales:
Translation: “The F-22 are indeed there, but they are not partipating in the ATLC exercise. They are only doing some BFM (yes, yes) on the side against the other aircraft.”
http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?p=981993#post981993
Translation: Don’t get too excited about the Le Point article. First, the F22 doesn’t do BVR, only BFM (guess why…). Also, during the exercise’s main missions, Rafales and Typhoons will fly together against a “simulated” threat played by other Rafales and Typhoons (and Mirage 2000-5s too). So a few missions will see opposition between Rafales and Typhoons, but it’s always difficult to conclude anything from that.
http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?p=983002#post983002
H_KH-K (or should I call you Honk?),
Oponk is breaching netiquette by accusing me of being a particular named person.
He is just one of several witless Rafale fans who can’t seem to believe that there might be two people who don’t sign up to the Rafale worship and uncritical acceptance of Dassault’s PR line. They assume that we must therefore be the same person.
The result is that I’m (rather flatteringly) presumed to be a double award winning journo.
Since he has sunk to the level of charm, wit and intelligence that characterised Fonk, I’ve decided to use an appropriate salutation. If he doesn’t like it, then he can ignore me, and so can you. In fact, if you can’t cope with sensible, rational, balanced debate, I’d take it as a personal favour if you would add me to your ignore list forthwith.
Jackonicko,
I’ve never had to resort to name-calling to support my points. Apparently, you do.
And I certainly have never thought it proper to insult 3 other posters in the space of a couple of hours. Shame on you.:mad::mad:
And if we’re so “witless”, then why do you feel the need to expend such disproportionate energy on every Rafale thread in the planet (including Airliners.net, MilitaryPhotos.net,PPrune and here), when you, unlike us, have the privilege of being able to express your views in industry publications?
H_KBy my calculations, the claim that the Rafale F1s still have 70% fatigue life remaining seems to be correct.
H_KJackonicko, could you please refrain from calling other people names?
AFAIK, OPIT is not the same person as Fonk, and if you don’t like him you’re free to add him to your ignore list. BTW, he isn’t the only person on this forum who believes that you are Jon Lake, so live with it or prove that you aren’t (which wouldn’t be very hard).
H_KComment on the range angle: Every gallon of fuel those big transports take on in Afghanistan has to be trucked in over the mountains – the reason Baku is so popular for gasing up when coming from Europe (besides the low fuel price). With 30 tonnes – and that might not be enough for a naked Puma IFV – the A400M will be on its *very* limit (according to current data) of making Baku – Kabul without refilling in Kabul. From eastern Turkey or the Persian Gulf he won’t make it savely, or only with AAR.
I’m not sure what data you’re using. :confused:
Range with 37t payload: 1780nm
Range with 30t payload: 2450nm
Baku – Kabul: 990nm
So the A400M should certainly be able to fly with a ~35t payload from Baku to Kabul, with a decent payload on the way back too, all without refueling in Kabul. And in addition it can bring its payload straight to a FOB, reducing the risky logistics of a land convoy from Kabul to the final destination.
H_KWhen the 400M was dreamed up, people didn’t think about going into South-Central Asia. It’s not made for that, it’s made with French North Africa in mind. The 400M is still useful, but only in an intra-theatre context. It also frees the users from the 1950’s C-130 diameter, and can easily swallow a whole 20/40ft ISO container. And if Europe doesn’t pursue the newly-built An-124 route, they should get a full wing of SAC/HAW C-17 for the long-range heavy weight work.
I was thinking exactly the opposite, funnily enough. 😉
IMHO, Afghanistan makes the A400M even more relevant for Europe, because it highlights the C-130J’s inadequacies as a strategic airlifter, as well as the C-17’s inadequacies as a tactical airlifter:
H_KMy point is that CdeG is a proper carrier designed to operate that kind of aircraft i.e it has catapaults and arrester gear but no ski jump. Our new carriers are intended to operate V/STOL aircraft so they have ski jump fore-ends and no catapaults or arrester gear. Would you fancy trying to fly a Rafale, even without a combat load, off a 100000 ton carrier under its own power alone? If your answer is yes then you are crazier than I gave you credit for
F/A-18s proved in the early 1980s that they could take off a 9 degree ski jump with little to no wind on deck in only 385ft, and at 15t weight.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA237265&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
So no reason why a Rafale with 5% more thrust, a lower stall speed and 25kts WOD couldn’t launch at a much higher weight using say a standard 450ft take-off roll.
H_KDon’t forget that manufacturers quote the best possible figures and downplay the bad aspects to win contracts. If I were you I’d take those figures with a hefty pinch of salt.
None of those cost numbers are from the manufacturer, except for the original A400M quote.
All the C-17 numbers are actual costs that various customers have been spending (US, UK) or expect to spend (NATO). It’s true that they may leave some things out of scope, such as upgrades and development work.
The revised A400M estimate is based on what the French government expects to pay by the hour (10,000-12,000 euros) and is a lot higher than EADS’ original numbers (6,600 euros), though it probably includes 20% VAT tax in it.
H_KRafale fought F-22 (DACT) today. The results were entirely as you’d predict.
Sounds like that’s a direct quote from your source. Any chance you can disclose if this person was a first hand observer or reporting from secondary sources? Also, is this is a pilot, gov. official or corporate guy? US, Middle East, UK, French? 😉
Finally, any indication whether this included BVR, or WVR only?
Sign In
