JackonickoFor the Jag to have been ‘defenceless looking’ the Rafale mate would have had to see it….. :diablo:
There was more than one Rafale loss. Perhaps there may have been a ‘Prescott’ for the Rafale 😮 or perhaps the F-15s or the Norwegians got lucky?
Flex
You can add the MiG-15s downed by Sea Furies and Meteors, MiG-17s by A-1 Skyraiders, IDF aircraft downed by Arab Hunters, etc.
TWU Hunters regularly ‘got lucky’ against RAF Phantoms on exercise, too.
JackonickoAll we know is that Typhoon and Rafale did not encounter each other at TLP.
Maybe the Typhoon boys were leaving the easy targets – the sitting ducks – to the Jaguar pilots? :dev2:
Joking aside (and the above is a joke, ok?), I’m surprised that Arthuro and others seem to be quite happy with the thought that Rafale might have come second to the ancient F-15C, but seem really distressed that the more modern Typhoon might have achieved a better kill:loss ratio.
I would have thought that there was far more disgrace in coming second to a 1970s fighter than to another ‘millenial’ aircraft. I know that if Typhoon was second best to Gripen or Rafale in a particular exercise I’d be less concerned than if it came second to a much older aircraft, whether that was the F-15, Mirage III, or F-5.
Surely it can’t be that coming second to the USA is OK, while coming second to the perfidious Brits is a matter for shame?
Jackonicko“Les Rafale étaient intégrés parmi les “Blue”, autant pour leur capacité d’attaque au sol que pour leur capacité de défense aérienne.”
(“The Rafales were integrated among the ‘Blue Force’, as much for their air to ground capability as for their air defence capability.”)
For both roles, in other words. Certainly not simply as mud-movers, and not specifically or solely dedicated to A-G.
You say that: “The Typhoon didn’t stay during the whole TLP. They went there for a short period of time, so I would’t be surprised if the F-15 had the first place.”
The fact that there were only two Typhoons, and that they were there briefly, would lead me to expect them to score fewer kills AND to suffer fewer losses than if they had been there longer, and for them to score a smaller number of kills than the F-15. But I’d be astonished if the ratio of kills to losses wasn’t higher than the F-15s managed, and I’d be surprised if Rafale didn’t do better than the F-15, too, in terms of ratio.
We’re talking about ratios, remember, so if the F-15 scored 20 kills (say) and suffered 12 losses, that’s worse than Rafale scoring 3 and losing one, or Typhoon going away from TLP two-nil up.
JackonickoA mud mover can do well at avoiding being shot down, and thereby avoid losses, and can ‘get lucky’ and score a single kill – as the RAF Jags did.
Or the mud mover can be a versatile multi-role (sorry, Omni-role :rolleyes: ) aircraft with a very respectable and robust air-to-air capability, equal to or better than that of dedicated teen series AD aircraft – like Rafale.
I’m surprised to hear anyone on the French side describing Rafale as a mud mover, though, and especially during the last TLP.
Every time anyone points out the obvious fact that Rafale is a multi-role aircraft optimised for A-G there are howls of anguished protest at what is perceived to be a deadly insult.
And even those of us who do see Rafale as just such a “multi-role aircraft optimised for A-G” would not diminish its very considerable A-A capabilities by labelling it as a ‘mud mover’.
Were the Rafales dedicated to A-G during TLP? What weapons were they simulating? (NB that there had been no firings of AASM and Scalp, so they were hardly operational weapons at that time). Weren’t they self-escorting, armed to the teeth with BVR weapons? If not, why not? Why would the AdlA constrain the capability of the aircraft for TLP, and not give its crews the opportunity to fly their omni-role aeroplane in an omni-role mission profile?
I’m not remotely surprised that Rafale did well at TLP. It ought to do better than evens against the F-15, and really should wipe the floor with F-16s and dedicated mud movers.
And again, when the claim is that aircraft X was “second best” at something, anyone will naturally ask what aircraft beat it into second place.
JackonickoJust gentle teasing, boys, not an outright attack, nor really trolling.
But when you’re claiming “The second best kill ratio during TLP” (not the biggest number of kills) it begs an obvious question.
What was Rafale’s kill:loss ratio?
What aircraft did achieve the best kill ratio?
What aircraft “did better” than Rafale at TLP?
It may well have been the Jaguar – if none were lost and they got one kill. It may have been Typhoon. It’s unlikely to have been the F-15, which did lose several jets, though the F-15 and F-16 probably gained a larger number of kills than Rafale or Typhoon.
Jackonicko“What ended up with the best air-to-air kill ratio during TLP?”
Was it the RAF Jaguars? I know they got some kills……:diablo:
or was it Typhoon……?
JackonickoIt’s a great fighter-bomber, sure enough Nic. And not a bad fighter.
Thanks for explaining ‘en plein travers’ which defeated my schoolboy French.
My translation:
Sagem Defence Security:
Successful AASM firing
Paris, May 28, 2007
On April 23, 2007, the DGA (General Delegation for Armament ) carried out the first ‘full firing’ (‘Tir Global’) of the AASM. This firing was carried out by an Air Force Rafale pilot.
The mission connected several firings at widely dispersed independent targets, including one at an ‘off boresight’ target, and also included the firing of one salvo of three AASMs. All of the targets were hit with the expected precision and the Rafale’s OSF (Optronique Secteur Frontal) allowed the pilot to view the impacts in real time and to present video of the firings at the debriefing.
The AASM is a modular weapon developed by the Sagem Defence Company (SAFRAN Group). It consists of a guidance kit and a range-extender kit which can be fitted to in service (dumb) bomb bodies. The AASM confers on these an increased range and a high degree of accuracy.
The three qualification firings of the AASM already carried out by a Mirage 2000N demonstrated a range in excess of 50 km from high altitude and 15 km from very low altitude with higher impact velocity and accuracy than required in the specifications. This full firing of AASM from Rafale represents the first multi-target air-to-ground of its kind carried out in Europe. Without equivalent in the world, the AASM brings new air-to-ground capabilities to the forces.
‘Full Firing’ (Tir Global) is the official term used to indicate a firing under operational conditions of several series AASMs from a series production, service configuration Rafale.
And all of that is good news for Rafale on several different levels.
I’m a fan of AASM, and I believe that it’s exactly the kind of simple, cheap weapon that is needed in the post Cold War world.
It’s based on a 500-lb/250-kg bomb – which is in itself often far more useful than a 1,000-lb weapon.
It’s small enough to allow triple carriage (and I really do like that pylon they use on Rafale).
But let’s not get too carried away. It’s hardly a weapon “which makes the difference with any other in the world!”
It’s effectively an EPW with a booster motor on the back – giving you a useful bit of stand-off range at low level, and its usefulness will be enhanced when the IIR version enters service. But 15 km from low level? How far can you toss an unpowered EPW?
And what’s the glide range of an EPW from 30,000 ft? Who is going to be at ‘very low level’ anyway?
Nor is it in service, yet. It’s been fired by an AdlA pilot from a trials jet. A full frontline clearance could and should be pretty quick – but let’s wait and see whether it actually is.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s a useful weapon, and one I’d dearly like to see in Typhoon’s ‘golf bag’, and it’s a weapon that may be more useful more often than Scalp/Storm Shadow. But will it be more useful than EPW? More useful than Brimstone or an IIR Brimstone? Sometimes, to be sure, and sometimes rather less useful.
JackonickoI think DH is mistaken, but will check out what he was including in his figure.
Like Arthuro, you’re less of an idiot than Opit and Fonk, TMor, but I really don’t care whether you personally believe that the empty weight of Rafale C is 10.3 tonnes.
That’s the most reliable figure I have, and I believe it, and I believe that it’s calculated on the same basis as the Typhoon empty weight of 11 tonnes (four BVRAAM launchers but no missiles, two IRH AAM pylons but no missiles, chaff/flare dispensers but no chaff, gun but no ammunition, etc.).
It’s not my fault that French journos are so uncritical of Rafale, and simply repeat whatever the MoD and Dassault tell them. It’s different over here, and when negative news emerges about Typhoon, we report it, and don’t take it as an affront to our national pride.
And when it comes to Rafale, I’ll always tell the good as well as the bad.
JackonickoHOTAS doesn’t come into it. The RAF don’t have a FJ without HOTAS.
Even the Jag has a throttle that’s larded with buttons.
Plenty of young blades have done a tour on (say) Jag 97 or Harrier GR7 and then an exchange on F-16, and all come back loving the F-16 but glad to get back to a ‘proper stick’. It’s not that they have problems, it’s just preference. F-16 blokes who come on exchange go home shocked by the lack of performance on the Jag and Harrier, but gob-smacked by the flying, and seeing the advantage of a conventional stick.
There are exceptions, of course, but not many.
JackonickoIt’s a bug.ger if you get a hand/arm injury, too.
The biggest advantage is that it allows you to recline the seat further back for increased g tolerance.
The biggest disadvantage is that many pilots don’t like it.
JackonickoOpit,
Do stop blubbing like an upset child. Did the nasty man produce figures you didn’t like? Oh dear.
If anyone is ‘twisting and spinning’ it’s whoever is uncritically ignoring all evidence to the contrary and believing the lowest figure available – especially when that figure comes from a PR dossier.
And do stop bandying stupid accusations about ‘childish lies’.
None of the figures I quote are mine, and certainly not the 10.7 tonne figure.
The 10.3 tonne figure, which I have in front of me as I type, in a photocopy of a document from a recent export campaign, is the most reliable figure I’ve seen, and that’s why I believe it. Whether you believe it or not is of no importance to me either way.
Arthuro,
If we get to meet at Paris, I’ll show TMor (whose discretion I trust) the documents, but there’s no way on earth that I’m scanning and posting stuff that I’m given in confidence, as a favour, on the internet.
It may be linguistic, but it’s not bias (I don’t really care whether Rafale C weighs 9.5 tonnes (AdlA PR figure), 9.85 tonnes (Jane’s), or 10.3 tonnes. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, after all, and Rafale’s performance speaks for itself.
Empty weights are of limited and academic interest only.
JackonickoScorpion,
The T1A has 150-kg less fuel than the F2 – eg: 4840 kg.
How the Dossier de Presse figures contradict Dassault is that Dassault say that Rafale C has: “une masse à vide d’environ 10 tonnes.” Not 9.5 tonnes. My bet is that this means closer to 10 tonnes than to 9.5, and my suspicion is that it is probably marginally over 10 tonnes rather than marginally under.
I have little time for Jane’s figures, though I believe that they are more up to date than some of those being quoted, and that they are closer to reality.
esp,
I have three different briefing documents in front of me that either use the 10,300 kg figure for the C, or which use the 10,650 (or 10,600 kg) figures for the Rafale B. I have no reason to disbelieve them.
As to the weights for B302, they sound right to me, it’s a two seater, and the fuel quoted was the fuel state for that sortie. 10,700-Kg empty for a development jet doesn’t sound unusual or unlikely, however, and it may indicate that 10.6 tonnes is a mite high for a production B.
JackonickoScorps,
A “Dossier de Presse” and the EC7 website eh?
Contradicting Dassault themselves, Jane’s and a host of independent sources, which indicate a higher weight (9850-10300 kg) for the C F2.
JackonickoThere may have been an 11,600 kg Typhoon – I’ll bet DA4 came close to that in its final incarnation, and perhaps DA5 will weigh that with CAESAR installed, unless they strip out some of the test gear and telemetry kit.
But the weight given by EF GmbH, the RAF and BAE is 11,000 kg for the production Block 2B F.Mk 2. 11,000 kg. 11 Tonnes.
Unless you know differently?
I’m amused that you have such an emotional attachment to outdated and under-estimated Rafale weight figures.
Empty weights are of little relevance, and they really don’t matter over-much. My only interest is in ensuring that we’re comparing like with like, and that we’re using the most reliable figures. If I learn tomorrow that the manufacturers and operators have been lying, and that Typhoon weighs 12 tonnes empty, it won’t send me into a fit of depression, since all that counts is performance and payload.
But your figures do seem to be wrong, and you seem to be clinging to the most optimistic and generous figures – 9,500 kg when even Jane’s were giving 9,850 kg years ago.
Dassault, referring SPECIFICALLY to the Rafale C, described it as having: “une masse à vide d’environ 10 tonnes.”
The Armee de l’Air described the Rafale B as having an empty equipped weight of 10,650 kg, and we know that the B is supposed to be 350 Kg heavier than the C.
That ties in with other recent documents which give a 10,300 kg empty weight for the service Rafale C F2.
It was always said that the development aircraft (M01, M02, C01, B301 and B302) were limited to 21 tonnes MTOW, but the relevance of the B302 quote was that it indicated an empty weight of 10,700 kg for the B.
JackonickoOPIT,
If anyone is desparate to ‘dismiss the truth’ it’s those who are determined to cling to discredited and inaccurate figures.
Sign In
