I really doubt that Dassault has a new card left on the sleeve.
RAfale + russian project (PAK-FA ??) + UCAV, I think it’s enough;
They is a little debate in France about the ASMP.
For mirage 2000N in East of France, they are totally useless since they were use to threaten Moscow.
On super Etendard (my god, a nuclear weapon under the wing of a super etendard :rolleyes: ) or RAfale they can be more useful.
the problem is that the AdA don’t want to loose his nuclear capabiltiies so that only the Navy would ahve these (ASMP + M45).
That’s obvious for me that France could lower the budget of several branches of the Force de frappe.
Originally posted by aerospacetech
last one of Rockwell’s ATF:
Looks like pretty obsolete design according to me.

I think we will have to wait after the Olympic games to know a bit more.
BUT IIRC, Greece will have new elections since that date, so perhaps the governement will change …..
Re: Can middle weight fighters compete well in today’s market?
Originally posted by WACHENR0DER
middle weight fighters (in the export market) as in the Rafale, Eurofighter, and F-18E/F Super Hornet.it would appear that many customers prefer light weights (such as the M2K and Gripen) or heavy weights (like the F-15 and Flankers)..
Light weights for countries with a small budget (South Africa for example).
whereas for last deals with a high budget, you can’t say anything about the technical advantages of medium or high weights since it was really more politcal than technical.
Originally posted by WACHENR0DER
while the F-15 and the Sukhoi by far, have much greater carrying capabilities and range, while having alot of room for upgrades (and with the latter, has a cheaper unit cost than the 3 middle weights)..
It’s a question of proportion I think.
When I look at the difference between Grippen-Rafale and Rafale-F-15, you cannot honestly said that the Rafale does not seem to be that far (of the grippen) but the F-15 is much greater
And keep in mind that F-15 or Flanker are old fighters now, newers aircrafts are mor expensive, look at the F-22.
But I would like to point that you’re wrong about the F-15 which is not as cheap as you think. and of course, not a word about the maintenance.
*I heard that Greece would sold them to an european eastern country IIRC.
Originally posted by flex297
What is approx. the unit price of each element or the whole radar?
The amsar is late because European AF want pretty cheap MMIC.
Look at SK who may not buy the AESA with their F-15K.
And don’t forget the Japanese F-2, 800 modules I think.
Originally posted by SD-10
They should first concentrate on Aviation before going to Space.
and why ?
PILOTGHT
As I said, we cannot know if it’s just a slip in the agenda or even if it’s “just a slip”, what could prevent the french gov to said “After all, these 11 rafales won’t change much” and cancel them ?
I’m waiting a bit more information about it.
For now, it looks like a “shift” and not a cut of the final numbers even if it can happen still.
Originally posted by F-18 Hamburger
what airplanes have been cleared for Mica?i’m assuming most if not all of the Mirage 2000 variants, Rafale, and possibly the later Mirage F1s?
Supposedly Gripen is also able to carry it.
for now, only Mirage 2000 -5 and newer and the rafale.
I heard that mirages F-1 could be upgrade with a new radar to use the MICA (the rumor said that the morrocan AF is interested by it).
Grippen ? Doubtful.
Originally posted by Indian1973
there was mention of a M2000 shooting down a F16D – where was it and Mica used ?
If you want to speak of the “greek shot” IIRC it was a magic or another short a2a missile.
Originally posted by gui
anyway a 2000-9 is just a 2000-5 Mk2 +
WRONG, otherwise, why did Dassault give two different names ?
The -5 = a2a
the -9 = more a2g
Originally posted by gui
about avionics, in fact the 2000-5 and its variants took some things from the development of the Rafale.
Mostly wrong.
The -9 and mk2 has some cool updates extrapolated from the rafale but cannot use exactly the same.