Or maybe they just didn’t wanted to follow the “no risk no fun” route. In he end we don’t know where Rafales have operated during these first missions and whether they came close to any ADs at all. We can certainly give them the benefit of doubt.

They evaded all AD systems while carrying their interdiction missions. Those who, on purpose, underestimate the Lybian AD network during these first strikes, simply don’t know what they are talking about.
The AD threat was high, that’s a fact, but another fact was that the French Air Force was very confident in SPECTRA capabilities which eventually allowed the Rafale to fly safe through the Libyan SAM network. Believe it or not but that point has been noticed by many Air Forces (including potential customers)

That’s actually incorrect as in fact the vast majority of air forces around the world lacks dedicated SEAD platforms. Many use their multirole fighters to perform such missions, albeit we might agree that most would use dedicated ARMs.

That’s what i meant. BTW, I was talking about NATO forces engaged in the Lybian conflict only.

Well that’s all true, but the capability the AASM provides comes from the weapon, albeit the integration on the aircraft dictates whether its potential can be fully exploited or not.

So you aknowlege that the integration is a (big) part of the job (amraam first integration to the tornado F3 was so weak that the missile was almost useless) 🙂

What’s more or less unique about the AASM is its stand-off range for such a kind of weapon. In essence the AASM is a powered JDAM/LJDAM depending on the version. Delivering multiple JDAMs in a single pass has already been a capability available as far back as the late 1990s, the Rafale can do this since late 2007 when the AASM was finally cleared

This is were you underestimate the couple Rafale/AASM

First there are many capabilities that a standard JDAM doesn’t have at low altitude :

180° off boresight capability
jumping above ground obstacle
Final trajectory management to optimize the strike angle on the target ?
Target recognition (AASM-IR)

Then there is the integration into the Rafale weapon system
Self extracting GPS coordinates at a range of more than 60 km so that you can actually use the range potential of the AASM when external close range targeting is not available
Using your internal ECM system to feed the AASM with enough accuracy
Assigning the targets automatically to each AASM without any pilot input.

The AASM is a very complex weapon but the Rafale sensors and MMI makes it very simple to use.

and as many bring up the Rafale is nuke capable argument, would the French even sell the ASMP-A with this aircraft? I somewhat doubt it, but who knows?

Of course not. what’s rely under the nuke label is the ability to penetrate deep into the ennemy territory, undetected, to deliver the nuke package.

The fact that the French flew missions before the major CM strikes may demonstrate their confidence, but that doesn’t proof that other aircraft couldn’t have done it as well.

Well, apparently, the other Air Forces were not confident enough to send their own aircrafts before the tomahawk and B2 strikes 🙂

What’s funny is that the french Air Force is the only one without dedicated SEAD platform / weapon

Engaging multiple targets in a single pass isn’t new or unique either and the “@50 km range” claim is true, but that’s owed to the weapon and not the Rafale itself.

Scorpion, you can’t dismiss the extensive (and expensive) work required to fully integrate such a weapon on an aircraft.

A Brimstone can be launched in salvos against multiple targets even without acquiring them in advance and this against moving targets. That’s also something you’ll find rarely, but it is the capability of the weapon and not the carrier. There are many weapon systems with a sort of unique capability, but some try to exaggerate on that others don’t.

And none of them is integrated on the Typhoon. That’s the problem here (it’s the MMRCA thread, isn’t it ?).
Even the Brimstone could be integrated on the Rafale before the Typhoon.

It’s particularly funny how people try to discredit an aircraft by the means of criticising it for lacking stuff it was never designed for anyway. Nuclear strike was never a requirement as wasn’t the carrier mission. An F-15, F-16, Gripen, M2k, F-22 and many other aircraft weren’t designed for carrier missions or nuclear strike either so what? At the same time you are mowing about the Rafale being capable of things 10 years after it entered service which other aircraft are capable of since decades.

Yet, those “stuff” might be seen as Typhoon weakness from the Indian point of view.
The fact that the aircraft was not designed initialy for those specific roles is not relevant for the customer who just care about the capabilities it get in the end for a given price.

That’s actually a weak argument as you won’t employ the TRD unless it is necessary. And how is that autonomous decoy going to work at all?

The point of the DGA is that a clever ennemy can use the decoy to track the aircraft.

The main purpose of the towed decoy is to deceive incoming missiles. But as the decoy is attached to the aircraft it has the side effect of giving its location and trajectory to the ennemy.

For the typhoon it may not be relevant, but for the Rafale whose concept is to hide as much as possible, it is a no go (At least that is what the DGA says).

Another argument of the DGA was that a towed decoy somehow limits the evasive maneuvers of the aircraft (don’t know if it’s true though)

How will the autonomous decoy work ? Well, not much has been said about it except that it will not follow the aircraft in order to confuse both the incoming missiles and the attacking aircraft.

The Rafale is replacing 7 types, 3 of which are/have been used for nuclear strike, the nuke mission is the one the Rafale will probably (or at least hopefully) never be employed in, yet it’s the primary mission? If so one could conclude that the Rafale is in fact what many critics are saying, a low level bomb truck. On one side some of you argue that the nuke mission is priority number one and the reason why the Rafale was designed for survivability and that aircraft not designed for that mission will lack behind, on the other side you claim that the Rafale excells in all other areas as well. Sounds like a not so well thought out double standard theory.

Actualy, the rafale replaces 4 nuke capable aircrafts (Mirage IV, Jaguar, super etendard, mirage 2000N)

BTW, having to replace all the french fighters and perform all the missions, it has indeed to excell in all of them.

That means that if any compromise has to be made on raw perfermances in one domain or one system, alternative ways has to be found to compensate for one particular weakness.

For, BVR combat, for instance, weak long range radar capability will be compensated by better passive sensor/weapon suite and cooperative jamming

But they claim >100 aircraft delivered when just 98 have been delivered.

If you take the prototypes into account 102 rafale have been delivered…

They state two Rafale B prototypes when there was just one

.

May be they count the B301 as a prototype as it has never served as something else so far ?

It states 2 clients when there is just one right now (or has the UAE finally singed a contract?)…

1- French Air force
2- French Navy

A new Eurofighter World issue is now available here:
http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-world/publications/latest-eurofighter-world.html

Edit:
Had a look at it now, there isn’t much new, but spare the old news and exaggerated marketing stuff there are some info about the proposed Typhoon 2020. Interesting bits include the LERX, passive missile warners and the original LDP position (forward left fuselage station) appears to be back in consideration as well. It’s also being said that an automatic critical altitude recovery mode is to be introduced. It’s additionally stated that the RecceLite is being integrated right now providing Typhoon with a reconnaissance capability.

Is there any interference between the lerx and the gun ?