So the range estimates of the SA3 are given for the F117? Good to know.

Nic

http://www.thestory.org/stories/2013-07/pilot-meets-man-who-shot-him-down
http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-f-35-vs-the-vhf-threat/

30 to 37 miles (50-60 km)

Fascinatingly, reading about the F117 shootdown by an S125, they claim they had detected it between 50 & 60 km & shot the missile from 13 km… oh wait… just under 15 km!

Nic

So the Rafale’s radar signature, allegedly with 6 (probably) AASMs and 3 (probably) drop tanks is roughly the same as an F-117A? Fascinating.

Well I don’t think you could find a worse bunch of professional liars than french journalists, except french politicians maybe?

Then again a range of 15 km for SA3 vs a Rafale (lower signature than your average fighter when ranges were estimated for those systems) is nothing too astounding.

Nic

So it has a lower signature than an F-117A now? Good to know.

Wasn’t your point that even school children, let alone journalists could check wiki before saying things that are completely off.

a) I didn’t have the French version in mind. b) I meant to find sources, not to see what the last editor wrote. c) Understand that they might not have the very first version of the missile, which is 54 years old.

Firstly as Nic10 has shown there are no factual errors as you keep trying to allege.

Shown by linking French wikipedia? You may want to check other resources, or even other wikipedias, just saying.

Secondly even if there were so f’in what?

Well now, that says it all.

It doesn’t make the blindest bit of difference with regard to your own inept attempt to appeal to authority.
You claimed something and have been shown to have got it rather wrong.
Man up and accept it.

I’m sorry but a report coming from RAND, produced under funding from the US DoD is official.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/official

a person who has a position of authority in a company, organization, or government : a person who holds an office

one who holds or is invested with an office

I.e. not a blogspot.

Which shows that not only are you prepared to accept things which fit your views without question but more damningly you are prepared to exaggerate the nature of the data to attempt to reinforce your position.

Would you prefer I link a blogspot, which links directly to two French articles that both contain factual errors about the weapons they’re discussing.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?136822-Typhoon-vs-Rafale&p=2268484#post2268484

http://www.rand.org/about/glance.html vs http://rafalenews.blogspot.fr/

The blog links to a news article but nevermind.

Which you never linked directly because it’s factually inaccurate, making your claim that it’s from a leading defence journalist somewhat dubious.

http://www.lepoint.fr/editos-du-point/jean-guisnel/premier-bilan-des-frappes-aeriennes-francaises-en-libye-04-04-2011-1315093_53.php

Recall that the GBU consist of “smooth” conventional bombs on which were mounted “kits” Paveway produced by Raytheon Company well, with a guide assembly at the front and rear fins allowing the machine to hover. Moreover, the Rafale have led numerous missions against loyalist forces using their AASM bombs, which are also smooth bombs, but this time guided by a laser designation system and a range augmentation system designed by the French company Sagem. The scope of this gear (40 to 50 km) allowed the French aviators, during a recent raid against a site SA-3, to decline the offer of protection offered by the US Air Force, which proposed to accompany the Rafale by F-16. French planes fired their machines far beyond the reach of attack missiles, not exceeding 15 km.

I’m no defence journalist but even I know that’s wrong and even a child could have checked wikipedia.

And the second got the cost wrong.

http://www.marianne.net/blogsecretdefense/Libye-un-Rafale-a-detruit-un-blinde-a-plus-de-55-km_a209.html

While the price is high, in the order of 115,000 euros each

http://www.senat.fr/rap/a12-150-8/a12-150-815.html#toc290

The total cost of the program is 592.2 M € 2011 with a unit price (excluding development) of € 164,000 2011

Or more:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Frances-AASM-Precision-Guided-Bombs-06200/

Program cost est Said to be 5% of icts Within original budget, qui is hard to Reconcile with the 2005 parliamentary report Placed That the program’s cost at EUR 430 million. La même claim is made by American firms Often When a program is re-baselined. Sometimes it’s valid, Because The extra cost comes from extra orders. Sometimes it is not. Sources: Secret Defense external link, “A French bomb 360.000 euros piece – Sagem disputes (updated)”

Ahem… boll*cks.

It is a report by the RAND Corporation for the US. “Official Report” my ar*e.

“Appeals to Authority” are a sure fire way of identifying a weak argument.

Produced for the US government, sounds pretty official to me.

I could of course just come straight out and say that I’ve heard so much bollox from French sources about the Rafale, that I no longer believe a word of it. People allegedly blabbing classified information on the internet and when asked for proof, “oh it’s classified” etc. a) If it was classified, they’d be in jail. b) If it wasn’t classified the information would be available.

Of course we’ll never see a video of this supposed strike… ever, nor is it stated that the SA-2 was actually operational in the Safran document. So there is a fundamental difference between SEAD and destroyed a battery after the radar has been taken out. In the report that talks specifically of SEAD, the Rafale is not mentioned, which is quite notable in that it even mentions the Italian role in SEAD… 9 times. Also mentions the RNLAF and RDAF flying without SEAD support.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR676/RAND_RR676.pdf

Throughout Unified Protector, ACC presented a flight of six F-16CJs from the
77th and 55th squadrons of the 20th Fighter Wing, based at Shaw AFB, South Carolina,
to USAFE’s 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano AB, Italy. In conjunction with a similar
number of U.S. Navy EF-18G Growlers and Italian Air Force Tornado ECR aircraft,
these planes provided the bulk of the coalition’s suppression/destruction of enemy air
defenses (SEAD/DEAD) capabilities.60

The 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano
AB, Italy eventually deployed expeditionary fighter squadrons from Spangdahlem AB,
Shaw AFB, and RAF Lakenheath; these aircraft conducted combat air patrols, SEAD
and DEAD, and air strikes on regime ground forces advancing on opposition forces
in Benghazi from their home stations on the first night of operations.47

For almost eight months in 2011, Italy employed the full spectrum of airpower
capabilities, which had now expanded to roles and types unthinkable a century
before—such as SEAD, air-to-air refueling, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence

AMI Tornado ECR at Trapani, Air Base, Sicily, carrying HARM anti-radiation missiles
on its fuselage hardpoints for a SEAD mission.

The first Italian air assets placed under U.S. authority for Odyssey Dawn were
four F-16ADFs from the 18th Squadron at Trapani for air defense and four 155th
Squadron Tornado ECRs, promptly relocated from Piacenza to Trapani. Configured
for a defense suppression (SEAD) role, the latter provided the coalition with a
unique capability that only the United States possessed otherwise, including canvassing
known civilian emitters to avoid erroneous attacks.71 Four Tornado ECRs flew the
first Italian operational sorties on March 20, escorted by 18th Squadron F-16s and
supported by two Tornado IDSs (6th Wing) performing “buddy” in-flight refueling.72
The SEAD component aimed to protect other aircraft (particularly tankers and airborne
radar) from possible surface-to-air threats. The Tornado ECRs used their emitter
locator systems (ELS) to find emissions and identify sources (including “radar which
potentially would not represent a direct threat [but] which might hide an indirect
danger”)73 and—if necessary—hit them with AGM-88B HARMs.

The domestic flap spilled into the international media circuit and was interpreted
as evidence of halfhearted Italian support; in fact, the ITAF SEAD component
was in high demand, flying 38 sorties during OOD and 170 during OUP

The first ITAF missions over Libya were carried out, again from Trapani, by 6th
Wing Tornado IDS fighter-bombers, in conjunction with 50th Wing Tornado ECRs.
While 50th Wing continued to fly in the specialized SEAD role, 6th Wing saw its range
of missions evolve as the Italian role expanded.

The Tornado ECR SEAD component returned to its base at
Piacenza–San Damiano on June 21, having completed a total of 208 sorties and more
than 860 flying hours.

The “lessons identified” and “lessons learned” process was launched immediately
after the end of operations, with the closed-door airpower workshop held in November
2011. It included a “Lessons of Libya” panel that was chaired by Gen. b.a. Gabellini,
the original head of the targeting division.136 The first broad lesson that the ITAF
drew in public from the Libyan crisis was the need for interdiction, air defense and
SEAD,

As for the blog, well it’s a blog, seriously, even wikipedia doesn’t except those as sources.

And you will find this is simply the official report and it doesn’t even mention the Rafale in connection with SEAD.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR676/RAND_RR676.pdf

If it failed to engage and destroy an out-of-range SA-8 (range 12.5km, ceiling 7km), going up against an SA-2 (range 66km, ceiling 25-30km) with a functional radar would not be a good idea, especially not using a munition with 50km range.