Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Please, do you see me posting all over the Rafale thread?

When people make errors I correct them. I don’t spend endless hours spamming crap onto every other thread on the board.

Then explain…

Because it is French of course, can there really be any doubt?

:rolleyes:

You got no idea what factual means. The “competition” was running in 1998-99, first flight was due to be commenced by the end of 2003, SOP in mid 2004. Unrealistic for both Typhoon and Rafale.. The Block 60 would have won even if it was made of cardboard..

The facts are what actually happened, not what you wish had happened, not what you think should have happened.

What actually happened was that both the Rafale and the EF were pushed aggressively for the UAE contract, and they were beaten by the F-16.

Is that really so complicated?

so are you saying EF would’ve been better in meeting the performance requirements of UAE?

Oh absolutely… after all it only took another ten years after the first Block 60s were delivered for the EF to get a limited ability to drop laser guided bombs and in another few years it will likely have an AESA….

Seriously, is it something in the water around here or what? :confused:

That was my point; both those countries had competitions where planes like Rafale, Typhoon, F-15 were competing — they did not invite the F-16, not even the fantastic block 60. Had the Rafale been so crappy perhaps they would not have invited it. Had the F-16 been so much better than Rafale perhaps they should have invited that one instead. Clearly they did not. Rafale did not win but scored well on the technical eval, in spite of being “underdeveloped” at that time.

Where did I say the Rafale was crappy? Why insist on trying to turn this into some kind of childish fanboy fight?

They already operated F-16s, and in some cases bought more F-16s… if they were holding a competition for more fighters it was because they wanted something else.

Singapore and Korea both bought Strike Eagles, substantially larger and heavier aircraft than their F-16 fleets. They weren’t looking for more F-16s.

Seems like you like to pretend that the UAE purchase of F-16 bl. 60 is the only one that matters.

Not at all. Remember, I don’t have to prove that the F-16 is better than the Rafale all the time or anything similar. This whole childish run-around started with some fan types here claiming that you can’t compare an F-16 to a Rafale.

There are no doubt areas where the Rafale is a stronger performer than an F-16. If those areas are important to a buyer than a Rafale may be a good choice.

There are also cases where the F-16 is the stronger performer…

Indeed; they did not offer the F-16 as a “cheap” alternative, knowing that if any of those countries should go for something else than the F-35 then most likely it will not be the F-16.

Um, what? With the exception of Canada all of them already operate F-16s. If they want more F-16s they are certainly available.

Funny that none of these countries even considered the F-16 in their recent competitions.

… not sure your point. Again, most are already F-16 operators that are upgrading to F-35s.

That’s the point; they have future growth potential, they have (with the exception of SH) some kinematic advances, and they are also in a slightly higher range/payload class.

No doubt the current F-16 bl. 60 probably scores higher in some technical parameters than e.g. the Rafal, but at the same time Rafale will score higher on others. What’s important is that Rafale has the growth potential, F-16 don’t have much growth left. Furthermore, as shown in the Swiss eval even the 2008 version of the Rafale scored consistently high in all the missions profiles examined. Since then it has improved a lot of course.

The Rafale is a good plane, no doubt. Which plane a customer chooses depends on their needs. Not every customer needs a greater carrying capacity, or for that matter even greater growth potential.

Most F-16 customers that want those things have decided to go with the F-35 as it is the most logical successor to the F-16.

hopsalot, first of all, Dassault is still in negociation with the UAE for the Rafale, second they dropped the requirement for most of their fancy upgrade after Libya. Right now they’re only being difficult about the cost, which to be honest if they were so disapointed about then they should be signing with Eurofighter, LM or Boeing right now…

Sure, and they will probably eventually get the sale if for no other reason than because the UAE clearly wants very badly to maintain two suppliers.

All of that said, the Rafale has areas of weakness compared to an F-16 Block 60. It shouldn’t be so hard to understand that.

Every purchase/development of aircraft is a political decision. Of late what has been given to public knowledge is that India decided to select an aircraft based on performance first where Rafale and Typhoon won, that decision being extremely political to start with, then the Switzerland report that showed again based on performance Rafale to be ahead, although the political choice was to prefer cost over performance.

Politics are a factor, but it is also the excuse most often used by the losing side. In India the Indians judged only two aircraft to meet their needs, and chose the cheaper one. (Rafale)

In Switzerland three aircraft met the Swiss requirements, and the Swiss chose the cheapest. (Gripen)

In the case of Switzerland it appears the Rafale received the highest marks against the Swiss grading scale, but it also showed the F-18C with some surprisingly high marks…

In the case of India we don’t know how the Rafale compared to the Typhoon on the Indian grading scale, only that both were deemed to meet the requirements and that the Rafale was cheaper.

This really isn’t all that complicated.

The decision to develop the Rafale/Typhoon was political, as well as the decision for some European countries to buy in the F-35. The day were airforces will be given the last word on which aircraft to buy, maybe we might reconsider that reality.

Again, it seems that decisions are political when you lose and performance when you win. :rolleyes:

The F-16 is an incredible aircraft, but it won’t last for the next 30 to 40 years period. It is and always was supposed to be a light fighter, and as such can’t really compare with aircraft like F-15, Typhoon, Rafale, SH etc. even if there are a number of mission it can do just as well.

That depends what you plan to do with it of course. Something like an F-15 offers more range and carrying capacity than an F-16… of course it carries more than a Rafale or EF as well.

In other cases an F-16 is very nearly impossible to beat. It may be at the limit of what its airframe can accommodate, but it is a remarkably strong performer across the board.

The point is that different jets are built to different requirements. The Rafale is a strong performer, but the fanboys around here seem intent on insisting it is better than everything at everything, which is plainly absurd.

If you want to make an intelligent argument about relative strengths and weaknesses, go for it. If you want to be a fanboy go ahead and claim that you can’t compare an F-16 to a Rafale. :rolleyes:

The very latest version was proposed during the trials in India and it didn’t make it. Typhoon and Rafale did. That should be quite clear. The US regretted that India chose to turn down a relationship, but they didn’t contest that their aircraft didn’t pass the performance bar.

Again, “the performance bar” as defined by India. Meanwhile the reverse happened in the UAE… and in Singapore the F-15 won… fifferent users have different requirements. There is no universal performance bar.

Now to get back on track with the subject of this thread, digitalizationa and AESA technology means that radars will keep improving with processing power. Maybe not the front end of the radar, but the back end which in every modern aircraft is linked to the calculators of the aircraft will. New functions, better ability to form the beam and track LO platform etc.
Look at the number of “software upgrade” taking place for the Rafale, Typhoon and those already planned for the F-35 and you will get a better idea.

I get a better idea? 😉 Says the guy who thought you couldn’t compare an F-16 Block 60 to a Rafale until recently…

BTW have you noticed as the concepts of all aspect stealth, super cruise, hyper manoeuvrability etc. are now desuet and no longer preached by the LO marketing choir now that the F-35 doesn’t have them?

Different aircraft for different missions. The F-35 is designed to be a do-everything aircraft, omnirole if you like. 😉

That requires trade-offs in design, just as it has on every other multi-role aircraft.

The F-22 is amazing at air to air, but it is a lousy striker. The F-35 is a striker first with a good secondary air to air capability.

And tbh your comparison with battleships is actually going against you. Your F-35 is the battleship, and they’re no longer being built mostly because they were way too expansive given the fact that any smaller cheaper boat with a missile could kill them. You don’t even have to wait for DIRM, any goalkeeper like system makes the job of an attacking aircraft very hard.
The main benefit of battleships were their big guns, guided projectiles, smaller yet more precise guns and unaffordable cost made them redundant.
Although called destroyer, the Zumwalt-class is an attempt by the Navy to get back to the battleship concept with a return to long range guns etc. Look at how the cost killed the program.

There is an awful lot wrong there. First off, the Zumwalt is most certainly -not- a return to the battleship. Yes, it has long ranged gun, but they are not going to be used in a way at all similar to those on a battleship.

As for goalkeeper…. forget about it. Modern ASCMs are well beyond the ability of such a system to defend against. There is a reason systems like the Rolling Airframe Missile are now becoming the standard.

I’m not critic of the F-35 because of the capabilities it might bring to the front, but because the cost/capabilities ratio isn’t respected.

My sense is that you are a critic of the F-35 primarily because it isn’t European…

Yes it is expensive, but on a cost/capability basis the Eurofighter and Rafale have also been failures.

If the program participants had taken the money spent on designing and building those aircraft and dumped it into buying F-15/16/18s they would have gotten a far better capability for the price. Of course there are good reasons why they did what they did. They wanted to maintain an independent technology base and wanted aircraft built to their needs, and with greater long term growth potential.

The F-35 is at its cost/performance nadir. Huge development costs have been sunk, but the aircraft is only just now nearing operation, and then only with limited capabilities.

On a longer time line things will reverse. Production rates will climb, costs will fall, capabilities will grow, and the F-35’s growth potential will move it ever further beyond those aircraft it replaced.

If the F-16 bl. 60 is so great how come nobody has bought it except UAE?

Did F-16 beat Rafale in India? In Switzerland? In Singapore? In South Korea?

Um, both Singapore and South Korea operate large fleets of very modern F-16s… so I am not sure what point you are trying to make there.

Besides, who says one aircraft needs to win every contest? Different users have different requirements.

Seems like people around here like to pretend the India contract is the only one that matters.

Brazil, Canada, Malaysia, Norway, Denmark, Holland all have had or will have competitions. The F-16 is absent from all those competitions. Typhoon, SH and/or Rafale are present however.

Lockheed Martin has put its F-35 forward for the Canadian, Norwegian, Danish and Dutch orders and is favored in all of them.

Malaysia will likely come down to SH or EF. Brazil eliminated the EF, so it will come down to the SH, Rafale or Gripen.

I find it strange you have a hard time accepting that the Rafale, Typhoon, and SH are more advanced and have more growth potential than F-16.

I find it kind of strange that you would automatically assume that given all the evidence to the contrary.

Don’t get me wrong, all of the above are excellent aircraft and they all have some advantages over the F-16, particularly in future growth, and to varying extents kinematics, but that doesn’t automatically mean they are more advanced.

Furthermore they are, as already noted, in a different class, being twin-engined and somewhat bigger. They will all be able to do a decent job for still some more decades; the USN, one of the biggest and most professional air forces on this planet, keeps buying the SH.

Again, there is nothing wrong with any of the above, and you are right that the SH is an excellent aircraft.

Don’t forget how this whole debate started… (with a couple certain nationalistic types claiming that you “can’t compare” an F-16 to a Rafale, which is of course absurd given the F-16’s record when compared to the Rafale.)

Of course there are areas where the Eurocanards have advantages over the F-16, but some around here have a very hard time accepting that something like an F-16 Block 60 has some advantages over the Rafale, and I don’t mean just price.