Some positive Rafale news:

Red Flag
“According to Dassault, no shootdowns were scored against the Rafale during the 10-day exercise”

Red Team opposition was “only” F-15s & F-16s, but still not bad for a self-escorting strike fighter in the world’s toughest exercise…

Swiss competition
“The French aircraft’s proven multirole capability could make it the winner, especially since the Swiss want to resume air to ground and reconnaissance missions”

Given the lack of recon pod on the Typhoon, this appears to favor Rafale over Typhoon, though I imagine Gripen is still ahead.

UAE purchase
“AIN has been told that the bilateral defense pact between France and the U.A.E. will result in a French Air Force Mirage 2000-5 interceptor squadron being permanently assigned to Al Dhafra airbase. In 2013 this squadron will re-equip with more modern and later-production Mirage 2000-9s that will be transferred from the U.A.E. Air Force. Rafales will replace these Mirages in the U.A.E. Air Force.”

So it looks like UAE and France will exchange Rafales for Mirage 2000-9s…

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/rafale-in-red-flag-and-in-switzerland/

And lastly how accurate is the cannon at what ranges and how does the mauser compare with other fighter gun systems such as aden and vulcan?

The Mauser BK-27 is a very good gun, superior to the Aden and much superior to theVulcan. For a fighter gun, the 4 metrics you want to look at are:

1) Muzzle energy (muzzle velocity x projectile weight – a good proxy for effective range)
2) Throw weight for a 0.5s burst (higher implies more hitting power)
3) 0.5s burst rate (higher implies more chances to hit the target)
4) Gun weight (reflects the efficiency of the gun system as a whole)

Based on those metrics, the best fighter gun is Giat’s 30 M791, which equips the Rafale. It’s in a league of its own in terms of throw weight and burst rate, with a very high muzzle energy. Behind it, the Mauser BK 27 probably edges it over the Oerlikon KCA (Viggen) because it offers a better overall compromise (the Oerlikon KCA is amazingly powerful, but heavy & with a low burst rate). The Vulcan M61 IMHO is not a great cannon for sharpshooting.

Muzzle energy:
1. Oerlikon KCA (378)
2. Giat 30 M791 (282)
3. Mauser BK-27 (266)
4. Aden 30mm (220)
5. Vulcan M61 (101)

Throw weight (0.5s burst)
1. Giat 30 M791 (5.7 kg)
2. Oerlikon KCA (4.1 kg)
3. Aden 30mm (3.9 kg)
4. Mauser BK-27 (3.7 kg)
5. Vulcan M61 (2.0 kg)

0.5s Burst Rate
1. Giat 30 M791 (21 rounds)
2. Vulcan M61 (20 rounds)
3. Mauser BK-27 & Aden 30mm (14 rounds)
4. Oerlikon KCA (11 rounds)

Gun Weight
1. Aden 30mm (87 kg)
2. Vulcan M61 (93 kg)
3. Mauser BK-27mm (100 kg)
4. Giat 30 M791 (110 kg)
5. Oerlikon KCA (136 kg)

For more info, here’s some good reading:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ModFighterGuns.htm
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/akandata.htm

This wins it. Workman like, yet beautiful. 😎 Makes me want to pick up “Flight of the Intruder” again (the book, not the movie ;)).

Really, the SuE (i.e. Super Etendard) weapons load is very unimpressive………..As a matter of fact during a typical Anti-Surface Warfare Mission. She could carry only 1-exocet, 1- external fuel tank, 2-magic AAM’s, and no guns! 😮

I’m not too worried about that payload. Given the plane’s size, its the best you could hope for. And it’s good enough for an anti-shipping mission while allowing for a useful radius (850km hi-lo-hi).

Why would you want guns? Do you expect pilots to strafe their targets after they launch Exocet? 😮 Even the Magics are probably unnecessary, because a heavily laden Super Etendard is not going to be doing any dogfighting. The only aircraft in the same size category (A-4) wouldn’t do any better.

But like PhantomII, I’d LOVE to know why they never carry GBUs on the external pylons. :confused:

Back to the Super Etendard… Here’s a long personal translation of the Official French Aviation History regarding the Super Etendard. It includes many interesting details and mentions some of the reasons why A-7s, A-4s, navalized Jaguars and Mirage F1s were not chosen, as well as why the Atar 8K50 engine was selected over the J52. 😎

A HALF-CENTURY OF AVIATION IN FRANCE – MILITARY AIRCRAFT
Work coordinated by Jacques Bonnet http://www.chear.defense.gouv.fr/fr/pdef/histoire/1%20Tomes%20Bonnet%20v8.pdf

Navalized Mirage F1 – 1965-1967

In order to replace the Crusader from 1975 onwards, the French Navy Staff established a requirement for a single-seat, single-engine interceptor capable of operating from the Clemenceau-class carriers. This implied a maximum catapult launch weight of 16 tons and an approach speed of approximately 125 knots.

(…) A new meeting was held on November 7, 1967. The evaluation commission’s conclusions were as follows: Based on Dassault’s brief study, it appears that the Mirage F1 cannot be navalized. To reduce the approach speed below 140kts and compensate for the 400kg increase in empty weight, it would be necessary to increase the P/S ratio by 20%. This would require an engine with 10 tons of thrust, and CAP endurance would be less than the required 100 minutes at 100nm. (…)

Navalized Jaguar 1965 – 1971

In order to replace its Etendards from 1975 onwards, the French Navy expressed an interest in the Jaguar, a Franco-British trainer and tactical support aircraft for the French Air Force and the RAF. Thus, the Jaguar’s basic operational specifications included a “Navy” appendix describing constraints aboard the Clemenceau-class aircraft carriers, such as BS5 catapults and MK13 arrestor wires. This appendix stated that “the naval version of the tactical support aircraft will match the performances of the land-based variant, except for takeoff, landing and certain unique specifications”. (Report n° 588 EMA/BPM, April 22, 1966). It was decided that one of the Jaguar prototypes would be a Jaguar Marine (Jaguar M 05), and that the Navy would pay for 20% of the French share of design work.

The Jaguar Marine prototype flew for the first time on November 14, 1969. Following initial carrier tests in July 1970, the French Naval Staff report stated: “I have the honor to announce that the Jaguar M meets the French Navy’s needs”. The Naval Staff also added that it was considering the (American) A-7 and A-4 aircraft as back-up solutions for the planned new naval attack plane (report n° 257 EMM/Air Arm addressed to DMA, September 15, 1970).

However, the Jaguar had not been tested at its maximum take-off weight during the July 1970 carrier tests. Concerns about the Jaguar’s capabilities began to appear, in particular due to the more than 1,100kg increase in empty weight between 1966 and 1970. The October 1971 carrier tests confirmed these fears, highlighting rather emphatically that the heavier aircraft was underpowered (report n° 313 addressed to the Defense Minister, November 19, 1971). The Naval Staff’s concerns focused on two areas:

– Insufficient thrust, leading to reduced safety margins aboard carriers
– Lack of radar. This had emerged as a new operational requirement, when the French Navy realized that the Alizé would not be replaced.

A-4N Skyhawk – 1971-1973

As a result, the Naval Staff expressed its preference for the American A-4N Skyhawk. Failing that, its preferences were, in descending order: Jaguar M, Mirage M and Etendard IV. Even then, the Jaguar would be acceptable only under the condition that the Adour’s thrust could be improved and a radar fitted to the plane.

From late 1971 until 1973, a furious debate raged within the Minister of Defense’s cabinet, until the Minister’s decision in favor of the Super-Etendard. The main elements of this passionate debate were:

Analysis of the Jaguar’s ability to meet the French Navy’s safety criteria
It was clear that the Jaguar’s thrust could not be increased sufficiently within the desired timeframe for service entry. In response, Dassault recommended the use of variable afterburner for carrier approaches. This solution was rejected by the Naval Staff, due to its complexity and the high fuel consumption that would result. The Naval Staff also claimed that the aircraft carriers’ catapults would have to be lengthened to launch the Jaguar M at its maximum weight of 13,400 kg., and that the arrestor wires would be stressed to their limits.

To address these concerns, Dassault offered two solutions: further studies of a “Super Jaguar” variant, and lift improvements. To this end, modifications to the Jaguar Marine prototype began in late 1972, but these were cancelled upon selection of the Super-Etendard. The slow and costly lengthening of the catapults was undoubtedly a major handicap for the Jaguar.

Dassault’s offer of the Super-Etendard
At the Navy’s request, Dassault offered in 1972 to upgrade the Etendard IV design with the American J52 engine used by A-4 Skyhawks, and a modern weapons systems inspired by Israeli Skyhawks equipped with inertial navigation systems.

Comparison of the costs and performances of each solution
From a very broad range of options, including the A-7 Corsair, navalized Mirage, Super Etendard, navalized Alphajet, A-4 Skyhawk and Jaguar, the choice was quickly narrowed down to the Jaguar M (including its “Super Jaguar” and “improved Jaguar” derivatives), the Super Etendard (powered by either a J52 or Atar 8K50), and Skyhawk. The results of these comparative studies cannot be objectively described, because the interested parties never managed to reach an agreement on either performance (operating range) or costs.

On January 13, 1973, a new offer for 100 A4 Skyhawks was made. The cost was $232.8 million for the planes, in addition to design costs of $5.56 million and infrastructure costs of $59.6 million. The average cost per plane was 15 million francs, including taxes (exchange rate $1 = 5.5 francs), which compared to a final flyaway cost of 16 million frances for 80 Super Etendards, under the same conditions but excluding design costs. The Super Etendard program would later manage to stay within the Minister of Defense’s price ceiling, but the number of acquired planes was reduced to 71 from 100.

A-7 Corsair – 1972

In 1972, SNIAS, always ready to support French fighter designs (note the heavy irony), proposed to manufacture the American Vought A-7 under license. The Ministry of Defense’s evaluation was as follows:

– It appears that the A-7s technical specifications, including its weapons system, would be identical to those aboard USN aircraft.

– SNIAS would only manufacture the airframe under license, with the rest of the aircraft’s equipment to be imported without modification. Only 52% of the cost would go to French industry.

– Even if the U.S. government authorized the sale of the A-7s weapons system without restrictions, which was highly unlikely, the French Navy had already rejected the A-7 during its first round evaluation due to its weapon system’s overly complex maintenance requirements (Personal note: The A-7s may also have had payload problems due to the French aircraft carriers’ 16t maximum launch capacity mentioned previously)

– The installation of a simpler weapons system meeting French Navy requirements would be costly and would stretch the abilities of SNIAS’ limited design team. This solution had already been discarded by SNIAS, apparently precisely for this reason.

Super Etendard – 1973

Because of the uncertainty surrounding the Super Etendard’s performance, the Minister of Defense decided to eliminate the Super Etendard. (decision n° 57079, November 13, 1972) and continue evaluating the A-4 Skyhawk and improved Jaguar M. But the French Naval Staff no longer wanted anything to do with the Jaguar (report n° 1025 EMM/Cab, November 4, 1972), and Dassault counter-attacked with a fixed ceiling price for the Super Etendard. The Minister of Defense therefore put an end to this protracted debate, ruling in favor of the Super Etendard (decision n° 3044, January 19, 1973). The choice between the J52 and Atar 8K50 engines was left open. The ceiling price, including modifications to the aircraft carriers, was not to exceed 1.800 million francs at 1970 rates, and the contract was split into conditional phases.

This prolonged debate did however help better define the French Navy’s operational criteria, performance specifications, and weapons system. Dassault had set the Super Etendard’s basic design without any official requirement or guidance from the French Navy. In the end, the French Naval Staff approved the Super Etendard design less because it had analyzed its operational needs, and more because it had rejected all alternatives.

Engine Selection – 1973
The French Naval Staff was not in favor of the Atar 8K50 for the following reasons:

– Doubtful Reliability
The Atar 8C on the Etendard had cost the French Navy dearly (not just in a financial sense) during its early years in service. However, a detailed review of the Atar family’s reliability indicated that reliability had improved considerably. By 1972, the Atar 8C’s attrition rate (number of accidents per 10.000 flight hours) had been reduced to close to 0, compared to 2 when it entered service.

– Much lower radius of action:
Radius of action was 140nm lo-lo-lo (instead of 195nm), and 210nm hi-hi-hi (instead of 305nm).

– Navalization Concerns
The J52 was already navalized, being in service in the U.S. Navy. Catapult launch simulations on an Atar 9K50 indicated that the Atar 8K50 would not have any mechanical problems, and experience with the Atar 8C on the Etendard suggested that SNECMA could handle corrosion resistance problems. Finally, the Atar 8K50’s integration would be low-risk, due to its similarities with the Etendard’s Atar 8C and to Dassault and SNECMA’s successful cooperation in the past.

– Higher Maintenance Costs
Maintenance cost estimates were difficult to pin down. Only, the engines’ acquisition price was known. For 100 engines, the J52 cost 256.9 million francs, while the Atar 8K50 cost 272.2 million francs before tax. (Exchange rate as of 1st January 1973, $1 = 4.6 francs).

– Dassault’s refusal to include the engine in its contract

However, the Atar 8K50 also offered several advantages. In particular, its performance in hot climates was superior (+ 11% thrust at + 15° C, + 50% at + 30° C, + 75% at + 40° C), leading to higher performance margins. It would also account for 5-10% of SNECMA’s workload (about 4,000 man years of work), and selecting the J52 would have worsened the “French aviation industry’s difficult situation.”

On March 23, 1973, the Minister of Defense selected the Atar 8K50 and asked Dassault to include it within its fixed price contract. Dassault refused these financial conditions, however, and on May 14, 1973, the Minister of Defense decided to order the engine directly SNECMA, under a fixed price contract.

I actually doubt that the A-4 would have performed much better.
The really superior aircraft was the A-7D or E due to its engine and higher weights.

Again, you have to be careful about how you define “superior”. The A-7 is clearly a superior bomb truck, with better payload and range, but its flight performace as a fighter or to penetrate enemy airspace is worse than both the A-4 and SEM (lower thrust/weight & higher wing loading).

Given the French Navy’s specific requirements, the A-7 probably wouldn’t have been a superior choice. They were looking for low-level performance and a plane that could also perform secondary fighter duties, since they didn’t have enough Crusaders. The A-7’s higher weight might also have been problematic- if the French carriers couldn’t launch A-7s at their 19.5t maximum take-off weight, then the A-7’s payload advantage would have been significantly reduced.

I think for the French the real choice was between the A-4 and Super Etendard. Leased A-4s might have been a good option if they could have been traded in for F/A-18s in the early 1980s. Otherwise, the A-4 and Super Etendard are both effective, though optimized for slightly different missions.

As a matter of fact the venerable Skyhawk is really a better platform than the SuE. As in a similar configuration it could carry 2-Larger External Fuel Tanks, 1-AntiShip Missile, 2-AAM’s, and still carry its Cannons like the Crusader. As for ACM the two American Types could eat the little SuE for lunch………no offense to my French Friends. 😮

Obviously you’re biased, given your name. :p

As Krav was mentioning, the Super Etendard has a very good wing that generates both tons of lift and low drag. The result is that the Super Etendard beats the A-4M in a bunch of performance areas:

– Lower carrier approach speed (122kts @ 8,100kg vs. 129 kts @ 6,600kg)
– Higher MTOW (12.4t vs. 11.1t)
– Higher low level penetration speed (mach 0.97 vs mach 0.88)
– Smaller deck spot factor due to its folding wings (7.8m vs 8.4m)
– Double the initial climb rate (6,600 m/min vs 3,100m/min), despite the fact that it has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio (larger, folding wings, low drag design –> more empty weight)
– Higher ceiling (14,700m vs 13,800m), again despite the lower T/W ratio

Do you see a picture emerging? The SuE was optimized to fit the needs of a small carrier Navy that needed an aircraft with excellent low level capabilities (for Exocet), as well as being a good secondary fighter. So let me express my skepticism about the A-4’s superiority in ACM. It may be superior in the verticals once both aircraft have bled off energy, but the SuE will enter the fight with more energy (altitude/speed) and should have superior lift in a knife fight.

Don’t get me wrong. The A-4 excels in the mission it was designed for: as a postage stamp sized bombtruck, thanks to its excellent payload/range ability. I’d choose it any day to ferry dumb bombs over a decent range. But if the mission requires penetration (at any altitude), then the SuE’s higher performance is worth the 5%-10% lower range (SuE combat radius with Exocet + 2 fuel tanks: 850km ho-lo-hi, 940km hi-hi-hi, A-4E combat radius with bomb load + 2 fuel tanks: about 1,000km hi-hi-hi).

It’s no worse for close air support than a Harrier GR7 or Jaguar… All three have pretty substantial payload/range tradeoffs.