hopsalotChauvinist logic (in its original meaning, is an exaggerated patriotism and a belligerent belief in national superiority and glory).
Some guys present such behavior very frequently, so it is rather pointless to discuss with them.
Ignorance recommended.
Lets review… he claimed:
In any case, its real capabilities won’t be seen unless it is used in real war. For now, in the “smaller” type of conflicts like in Libya, it went in and out as it wanted, and that, even as the others chose to remain outside Libyan airspace until the defenses are softened somewhat. They maybe didn’t have a system like the S400, or even S300, but obviously had enough to cause other “participants” to remain cautious
I pointed out that that was false on multiple levels. There is no evidence that the Rafale “went in and out as it wanted,” only that a handful operated somewhere over Libya a few hours ahead of the rest of the coalition.
The other participants meanwhile were hardly unable to operate in Libyan airspace, there was simply no reason to do at hour zero. (with nothing to prove there was no value in somehow trying to claim superiority by arriving a few hours ahead of everyone else)
Now of course I am accused of chauvinism. :rolleyes:
hopsalot@ hopsalot
strangely, I happen to remember stories about fantastic 4th army on the globe (Irak) which was a terrible foe… yet got flattened in almost no time… (even faster than Libya if my memory serves well… did they fight back? or were they on some holidays or something else?
Are you really trying to compare Libya to Iraq in 1991? :stupid:
Do some research, seriously. The Gulf War, while a decisive victory for the coalition, was unquestionably a full-scale war. Coalition forces alone numbered well in excess of 750,000. The Iraqis lost, but they most certainly fought.
hopsalotWhen French are fighting, then it’s just a bit more than a PR stunt. When US are fighting, then they are proving themselves and their equipment.
Got your logic, brother 🙂
Where did I say anything about Libya proving something about US aircraft?
The Libyan air defenses, obsolete and mostly inoperable on their best day, had also been badly weakened by desertions and the ongoing civil war. For the most part they didn’t even try to fight back.
hopsalotFor the sake of precision, inventory of lybian air force and defenses
that Lybia had no air force is a bit exagerated. Here is the theorical composition of lybian air force at the beginning of conflict (many of these planes werent operational, i admit)
…
Who said they had no air force? The Libyans were of course engaged in air strikes against the opposition, which does imply the presence of an air force does it not?
The issue is that their air force was extremely limited in its real world capabilities, either totally inoperable or very very minimally capable. Despite theoretically possessing 200+ fighters by your figures there wasn’t a single air to air engagement in the conflict.
hopsalotand here we have JSR “western style”…
go and explain the USN, RAF and others they weren’t even able to perform a PR stunt.. we’ll see how many teeth you have when you come back… 😀
Weren’t able? Or just didn’t see any point in trying to use a small bombing campaign as a marketing opportunity?
The USAF, USN, and USMC have proven themselves and their equipment over and over again. If that isn’t sufficient look at some of the operations the Israelis and others have executed using US supplied aircraft. There was simply no need to try to be “first” to fly over Libya for the US.
The Rafale is a nice jet, but it doesn’t do anything fundamentally different than other late model 4th generation jets. Flying fast and low can be a viable tactic, especially against opponents with limited air defenses, but it would be a recipe for a very bad day against an un-degraded modern air defense network.
It is ludicrous to suggest that a few Rafales would be able to penetrate Russia’s air defenses in a wartime scenario. The combination of systems Russia would have operating would be more than capable of detecting and engaging them.
hopsalotBesides, you can put in place any network you want, if a fighter comes in at treetop level (and when I say treetop, it’s basically only meters above the ground, especially on flat terrain like most of eastern russia), you might have some difficulties to detect it, not to speak about tracking it and getting to shoot a missile at it.
The 1970s called… they want their tactics back.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225424[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225425[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225426[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225427[/ATTACH]
These are just examples, hardly an exhaustive list, and I excluded fighters…
In any case, its real capabilities won’t be seen unless it is used in real war. For now, in the “smaller” type of conflicts like in Libya, it went in and out as it wanted, and that, even as the others chose to remain outside Libyan airspace until the defenses are softened somewhat. They maybe didn’t have a system like the S400, or even S300, but obviously had enough to cause other “participants” to remain cautious
Rafale operated over Libya in the early hours of the war… so what? Announcing that it did so is little more than a PR stunt given that most of Libya’s air space(like its land) was totally empty and undefended anyway.
hopsalotCite ONE performance advantage?
This is the news thread…
I have already provided multiple examples with sources above.
hopsalotIt’s hard to be serious with you. Because you complete olitics involved.
An idea that UAE would perform a multiple vendor policy in the way that they fund the development of 2000-9 first and then supplement this fleet by a batch of 80 Rafales is way off. You know that too and are only looking for some dubious affirmation that an US product is superior to a non-US product. I am not playing that game.My father has recently decided to buy a German car and narrowed his search to BMW 5 series, Audi A6 and Mercedes E-Class.. Now, what does it say about these cars being technically superior to a Jaguar XJ or Lexus GS? Nothing. Buying German is simply his preference. Think about it for a while before you waste another 40 lines on utter nationalistic-oriented BS.
My my you do become petulant when corrected don’t you?
The UAE has made every effort to find a European supplier, negotiating first with france then Eurofighter… Imagine if your dad set out to buy a German car, but simply could not find one that was competitive and bought Japanese…
The F-16 is a good value, but it also offers key performance advantages over the Rafale and Eurofighter. It is simplistic to view this as cost vs performance.
I am quite fed up with that superiority complex of your fading nation.
Did you know there are more Norwegians in the USA than in Norway?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegians
hopsalotI don’t think that UAE rejected Rafale per se. IIRC they did not want to pay the price they were asked to pay (including desired developments). UAE then publicly berated the offer and started talking to Eurofighter. I imagine that price was again a problem. That left ordering more F-16 as the obvious solution.
It wasn’t just a problem of price… it was a problem of the upgrades the Rafale would have needed to meet the UAE’s requirements. (which would obviously have added to the price)
If the UAE signs for 60 Rafale fighter aircraft from France’s Dassault later this year, as some expect, in a deal valued at ?6 billion (Dh32.2bn) to ?10bn, it will be purchasing a jet more advanced than those being flown by the French air force.
A more powerful engine, a new air-to-air missile and cutting-edge radar systems are some of the requirements the UAE has made to Dassault and its French partners Safran, Thales and MBDA, according to media reports. Such requests for upgrades and modifications have been a central theme of the UAE’s arms deals since the 1980s as it faced a major constraint in its homeland security efforts: manpower.
…
The UAE is considering the Rafale for delivery around 2014, when it would have had to invest in a midlife upgrade for its Mirage fleet. The UAE also wants the Rafale engine to have nine tonnes of thrust, up from the 7.5-tonne thrust engine in use by the French air force and navy version, according to media reports. The French version is not optimal for take-offs in hot and dry countries, or if the plane is heavily loaded with fuel and ammunition, according to Alain Ruello, an editor with Les Echos, a French business newspaper. He says the UAE also wants an active aperture radar, improved optronics, a new sensor for missiles and the ability to carry the Meteor air-to-air missile, under development by MBDA.
The developmental costs could be huge, several hundred million euros for the new engine alone, according to French press reports. The UAE may share some of the development costs with France on technology that is beneficial to both countries, or jointly develop certain technologies with Kuwait, which is considering a purchase of 14 to 28 Rafales, the reports say. With the UAE having submitted its technical requirements, the negotiations have now entered the final stage on price. “The case is progressing very well,” Mr Ruello says. “Some imagine a conclusion in November, during the Dubai Airshow.”
http://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/uae-wants-its-fighters-its-own-way#full
One Rafale pilot at Solenzara who has flown in the UAE remarked that one reason they want a more powerful engine is that its pilots are now used to the latest F-16 Block 60, which is essentially a small airframe built around a very big engine, and so find the Rafale underpowered by comparison.
In short, to conceive what it could be a Rafale-9, that is to say a new aircraft moving away from the similarity you want with french Rafale. The Emirati experts participating in negotiations are well aware of the problem. But they are also used to have very high quality weapons systems. They want to avoid any regression with the Rafale, at least on the radar range, compared to the F-16 Block 60, the Rafale having also many other qualities. The Emirians don’t have AWACS and therefore want – it is a fundamental requirement – that the Rafale can see very far. Beyond the radar, they are showing fairly strong requirements into SPECTRA development with, for example, the expansion of some frequency bands, an increased sensitivity, adding functionalities; in short, they want we push up the current technologies. Of course, to improve the electronic warfare of our Rafale faster than originally planned could be an additional operational advantage for the Air force. However, our current approach is to consolidate the features implemented in SPECTRA, to make them more robust and make it easier for operators and programmers before wanting to go further into addition of new capabilities. The current SPECTRA is working well and even very good. In sum, what separates us, about Spectra, is a matter of timing and calendar […]. In a more general way, we share the same wishes about capabilities, but with very different maturities calendar sometimes. Budgetary constraints remain a dimensioning factor.
hopsalotI think the change in Iranian politics has made the idea of buying a whole new fleet of even more expensive aircraft less of a priority, rather than the US product being better per se.
That would make more sense if the UAE hadn’t rejected the Rafale well before anything changed with Iran, only to evaluate the Eurofighter for a while before ultimately rejecting it as well.
hopsalotErrrrr…. what exactly could Rafale offer 15 years ago?
:stupid:
It is always hard to tell if you are trying to be serious or not…
The competition between the F-16, F-15, Eurofighter, and Rafale for the UAE order was extremely high profile at the time with many on the European side claiming it would represent the coming out party for the Rafale or Eurofighter.
Read here as a starting point:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-16-and-rafale-in-dog-fight-for-uae-strike-force-order-2742/
As for what the Rafale could offer in 1998? Well one need only look at the timeline of the deal.
The F-16 Block 60 was selected as the winner in 1998. The contract was signed in 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/06/business/lockheed-deal-to-sell-f-16-s.html
The F-16 Block 60’s first flight was in Dec 2003: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-enters-new-era-of-advanced-f-16-capability-with-successful-f-16-block-60-first-flight-73229587.html
The first F-16 Block 60 was delivered in 2005: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=46
The Rafale meanwhile…
The first production aircraft achieved first flight in 1999.
The first F1 Rafales were inducted by the French Navy in 2001, and deployed for the first time in 2002. http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/08/Fox_Three_nr_4.pdf
Do check out the link, it includes such cringe worthy quotes as:
[the rafales] regularly practise dissimilar air-combat training against American fighters from USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS John C. Stennis and AV-8B+ Harrier IIs from Italian carrier Garibaldi. According to the pilots, the F-14 Tomcats, F-18 Hornets and AV-8B+ Harriers are no match for the Rafales: thanks to their high thrust-to-weight ratio, low wing loading, and extreme agility, the Rafales quickly gain the upper hand.
:very_drunk:
The first Rafale F2s first flew in 2003, before the F-16 Block 60: http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/08/Fox_Three_nr_5.pdf
So what is the bottom line? The Rafale timeline would have permitted delivery of F2 standard Rafales to the UAE in the same timeframe they received their F-16 Block 60s. These aircraft would no doubt have had some limitations… but then that was certainly true of the F-16s as well.
In any case another decade of development time doesn’t appear to have allowed the Eurocanards to close the gap…
hopsalotI imagine that UAE has opted to buy another squadron+ of F-16 aircraft and in a few years will start looking again for aircraft to replace M2K. By that time Rafale may have some extra features/improvements that would avoid UAE needing to pay extra for those features/improvements.
That is essentially the same excuse people used when the Rafale and Eurofighter first lost to the F-16 Block 60 in 1998. (15+ years ago now!)
I think what this indicates is that after years of giving both the Rafale and the Eurofighter every opportunity to close a sale the UAE just preferred the F-16. I suspect when the time comes for the UAE to make another purchase it will be a 5th generation fighter.
hopsalotTrident, this is getting painful. People are taking time trying to help you and you just don’t seem to want to accept it.
I took a moment and read back through our exchanges and frankly you have been doing a whole lot of asserting without doing much of any sourcing. I don’t have limitless time to keep providing you materials only for you to either misunderstand them or simply ignore them and continue repeating yourself.
Nobody is claiming that the F-35 is going to fly circles around the F-22/PAK FA/J-20… but at the same time the data we have available indicates that it will be right amongst the various 4th and 4.5 generation fighters in terms of its kinematics, with substantial advantages in other areas.
hopsalot“Here we go with the doctored slide, again.”
Why would adding the best fit for other aircraft using known data be doctoring it? The only difference I can see is 1600lbs of internal weight, which aren’t going to affect the metrics much at all…
Might not be exact but it looks about right to me and put the claims of “F16 or F18 like” performance into perspective at least….
EDIT: Saying that… 63 seconds actually puts it almost identical to the F5 in performance surely? If anything the graph is too generous…
The photoshopped fanboy slide is riddled with errors and problems.
1. You can’t describe a curve with two points. Even if the 63 second .8-1.2 acceleration time for the F-35 represented an apples to apples comparison, which it doesn’t (see 2 below), you still can’t describe a curve with two points. Whatever numbskull created that slide just drew a pretty curve with no data except their imagination.
2. The F-35 acceleration data is for an F-35 with a heavy fuel and weapon load, unlike the jets that were on the chart before it was photoshopped. According to Australian Air Vice Marshal Osley most 4th generation fighters wouldn’t be able to accelerate to M1.2 with an equivalent load to what the F-35 is carrying in that benchmark -at all-. Naturally this didn’t stop some fankiddie from plotting the F-35 against a bunch of jets with minimal air to air weapon loads and fuel as if it was a valid comparison. :stupid:
Why do you think there is so much conflict between the numerous actual pilot accounts of flying the F-35 where they described it as quick and powerful, and the people who want to insist it must be slow because they heard one acceleration number without context…. :confused:
Air Vice Marshal Osley: If we compare those two, the legacy aeroplane with fuel tanks and weapons on it, if we take a fourth generation fighter, typically an F16 or an F18, in that configuration it would take substantially longer than 63.9 seconds. If you took a 4½ generation aircraft it actually could not accelerate to supersonic in any time over that 0.8 to 1.2 range with a combat configuration of external tanks and weapons. The point I made originally was that we need to talk apples and apples between legacy fighters and the F35 on manoeuvrability and performance capabilities.
3. The PAK FA, Su-35, and F-22 lines are just made up completely. (or in the F-22’s case possibly mostly made up in a similar manner to the F-35)
4. The Super Hornet line, like the other photoshop additions, appears to just be wrong… (See the chart for the F-18E in post 1586 of this thread showing it topping out near M1.5 at 30k feet with the same four missiles…) That is an F-18E, not an F-18F, but the difference between the two is small and if anything the F-18F performs slightly better at supersonic speeds because the cockpit helps its area ruling slightly.
An interesting factoid, apparently the F-model is a touch faster at supersonic speeds than the E-model according to Mark Gammon, Boeing’s Hornet advanced projects chief. That’s because the longer canopy helps with the jet’s area ruling, he says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/a-super-hornets-first-flight/
Bottom line? That slide is about as real as any other fanboy photoshop job. It might as well be a cool looking Chinese fighter with missiles hanging all over it… it does not represent actual aircraft performance.
Naturally that won’t stop the usual suspects from re-posting it again and again and again as if it were a valid source. Perhaps I need to make my own version where I just draw whatever lines I want… :dev2:
hopsalot[ATTACH=CONFIG]224128[/ATTACH]
Here we go with the doctored slide, again. It must have been about a week since we last saw this huh?
Here is the original(the one that is actually from LM) :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224144[/ATTACH]
The one obligatory loves to post over and over again was photoshopped by some fanboy and does not represent an apples to apples comparison.
The F-35 curve is simply made up (same for the Super Hornet, which is also wrong, and the other photoshopped lines), with the only data-point being its transonic acceleration performance KPP, but the problem is that that KPP refers to an F-35 carrying an air to ground load… not the two IR and two BVR missiles the other jets in the comparison are carrying.
Naturally this has already been explained to obligatory before but, hey, who needs facts when you can just use photoshop to invent your own “facts.”
Sign In
