The Rafale is suppose to replace the Mirage 2000 N in a close future.
About that ASMP capacity, it must be said that this vector is more and more udner threat of a budget cut because of practical issues : Range of the couple plane + missile; Importance of the logistic for nuiclear weapons that made projection close to impossible etc etc

According to Sarkozy, this will not affect the number of Rafale M with ASMP-A capabilties.

Vendredi dernier, Nicolas Sarkozy a annoncé une « réduction d’un tiers du nombre d’armes nucléaires, de missiles, d’avions » pour la composante aéroportée de la dissuasion française. Le président, qui s’exprimait lors de la présentation du SNLE Le Terrible, à Cherbourg, a précisé qu’après cette réduction, « notre arsenal nucléaire comprendra moins de 300 têtes ».La composante aéroportée est assurée, en premier lieu, par l’armée de l’air. Cette dernière a touché, il y a vingt ans, les premiers de 75 Mirage 2000 N qui équipent de nos jours les escadrons 1/4 Dauphiné et 2/4 La Fayette, basés à Luxeuil (Haute-Saône), et 3/4 Limousin basé à Istres (Bouches-du-Rhône). Toutefois, la dotation initiale en avions, capables d’emporter le missile Air Sol Moyenne Portée (ASMP), a déjà été réduite à une soixantaine, ne serait-ce que par les pertes subies au fil des années. La dernière en date est le crash d’un Mirage 2000 N en février 2008 au large de la Gironde. Cet appareil appartenait à la base aérienne 106, de Luxeuil, où seront concentrés à partir de l’an prochain tous les Mirage 2000 N. La composante aéroportée devrait en effet, en ligne avec les propos du chef de l’Etat, être resserrée autour d’une quarantaine de Mirage 2000 N, l’escadron 3/4 Limousin devant être dissous avant l’été 2009 et ses avions stockés. Se pose également la question de la marine, dont les Super Etendard assurent aussi la composante aéroportée de la dissuasion nucléaire. « La réduction de changera rien pour l’aéronautique navale car nous n’avons pas d’unité dédiée. Ce sont les mêmes pilotes et les mêmes avions qui assurent cette mission. Le groupe aérien embarqué est dimensionné pour pouvoir assurer l’armement du groupe aéronaval. Le nucléaire n’est qu’une capacité », assure un officier supérieur.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=107179

« Il est indispensable de maintenir deux composantes nucléaires »

Qu’il s’agisse de l’armée de l’air ou de la marine, les porteurs vont évoluer. L’ASMP, tiré par des Mirage et Super Etendard, sera remplacé par une version améliorée, l’ASMP-A, délivré à partir du Rafale F3. La mise en service de l’avion à ce standard est attendue à la fin de l’année, alors qu’un premier lot de plusieurs dizaines d’ASMP-A aurait été commandé l’an passé. Si la composante nucléaire aéroportée est donc réduite quantitativement, elle est en revanche améliorée qualitativement, grâce au nouveau tandem « Rafale/ASMP-A ». Le président de la République a, d’ailleurs, réaffirmé son attachement à pouvoir disposer d’une palette de moyens comprenant à la fois des sous-marins nucléaires lanceurs d’engins (SNLE) et des avions. « Pour que la dissuasion soit crédible, le chef de l’Etat doit disposer d’une large gamme d’option face aux menaces. J’ai la conviction qu’il est indispensable de maintenir deux composantes nucléaires, une océanique et une aéroportée. En effet, leurs caractéristiques respectives, notamment en termes de portée et de précision, les rendent complémentaires », estime Nicolas Sarkozy.
L’essentiel de la dissuasion est, aujourd’hui, assuré par la Force océanique Stratégique qui armera quatre SNLE du type Le Triomphant à partir de 2010. Chaque sous-marin pourra transporter 16 missiles balistiques dotés chacun, au maximum, de 6 têtes nucléaires. Depuis la fin de la guerre froide, au moins un SNLE est en patrouille en permanence. Le Terrible, en achèvement chez DCNS, à Cherbourg, sera le premier à mettre oeuvre, dès 2010, le M51, d’une portée de 9000 kilomètres. Les trois premiers SNLE, dotés actuellement du M45, seront ensuite refondus pour recevoir le nouveau missile.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=107179

What can the Super Hornet do that the Rafale cannot do?

DOGFIGHTING…

Of course you got the usual geniuses who are going to sware the BVR combat doesn’t involve maneuvring, funny everyone designs 9g aircrafts equipedwith guns……

This is what a former SENIOR flight-test pilot for Typhoon think of it.

Chris Yeo knows tone more about it then we do, so excuse Me i’ll take his word for it…

The Moroccans understandably decided that the French weren’t negotiating in good faith (& about the DGA, they were probably right),

Another free jab at the french community… We take notice.

It was reported that the DGA (state arms agency) was pushing the package to which you refer, without co-ordinating with Dassault, which was offering the Rafale at a lower price, with Moroccos choice of weapons. 🙁 The Moroccans understandably decided that the French weren’t negotiating in good faith (& about the DGA, they were probably right), & decided to have nothing to do with either offer.

That’s precisely what happened.

Dassault were furious obviously and this will not happen twice you can be sure of this.

Ah I wasn’t talking about the respective capability of these aircraft both can do the same tasks very well

??? NO rearward BVR AAM firing and remote targeting in both A2A and A2G for Rafale’s concurents, please tell it as it is.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/votre_espace/presse/communiques/2007/tir_mica_depuis_un_rafale_f2_quand_le_chasseur_devient_la_cible

To be fair it have to be said that SAAB were the first to field remote targeting in A2A with AS39 Gripen.

Where Rafale scores, is it does it in BOTH A2A and A2G and rearward firing capabilties.

Unique methinkkk.

Two Eurofighter Typhoons returned to Germany this week, having logged 31 flights and 45 flight hours. The Typhoon campaign followed flight evaluations of the Saab Gripen and Dassault Aviation Rafale.

So they were TWO Typhoon after all….

The Rafale logged the most flights, 39, and flight hours, 60

All concurents were given the SAME quota of flight-test hours for the SAME program, the additional hours flown by the Rafales were NOT part of the scheduled flight-test.

Funny, last time I checked I left the WAFF because it was full of trolls. :rolleyes: I haven’t posted there in nearly a year, but who cares about the truth eh?

Funny how I’m “pissing contest” making but c-seven is the most objective poster here. You have no credibility ‘arthuro’.

Damned right Rob L!

Since then, the WAFF is TROLLFREE.

I have reported this post as well as I am shocked deeply offended by your comments here,

Realy?

Apparently YOU didn’t read them because they weren’t mentioning YOU as the source of year’s desinformation and lies but the person you duely defended without knowing or even trying to inform yourself.

And you being half French have NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER WHEN I COMES TO THE SUBJECT…

YOU chose to make a fuss of it, it is your choice, where you are from is the last of my problems.

So since you got no substance whatsoever to counter the points i have made to prove all this year-long desinformation to be lies, next you go to complain about what exactly?

Otherwise said you got NOTHING to complain abnout nor do you qualify to even express a personal opinion since you chose not to inform yourself on the basis of lack of knowledge.

Q: How come you dare defending this guy if you do not know about it then???

Please stop complaining about being targeted when in fact you weren’t, it’s only spin and twist so far from you mate!!!.:D

And next time you insult one of us I will be reporting YOU.

BTW half of what you copyed/pasted wasn’t adressed to you, obviously you’re not into the topic but looking fo a fight and a solution to your problem; which is trying to salvage our dear Jack’s dying credibility.

Good luck with that.

For those who wonder what i ws calling LIES.

As for subject and sources…

From EAP-to-Typhoon design changes and requierements:

Quote:
-The original cranked delta planform, seen on the EAP, was replaced by a simpler plain delta when supersonic agility requirements were relaxed. Foreplane size, determined by the degree of pitch instability needed to provide the agility required, was reduced.-
DATE:16/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…-together.html

On Typhoon canard position:

Quote:
-As a foreplane located close to the wing produced too much supersonic drag when combined with a chin inlet, designers selected a long-coupled delta/canard configuration.-
DATE:16/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Coming together
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…-together.html

On Typhoon supersonic instability:

Quote:
-However,at 30,000ft (9,150m) and a speed of M1.8,Typhoon requires a 4° upward flaperon deflection to maintain level flight.
DATE:23/05/00
SOURCE:Flight International
EJ200 thrust vectoring backed
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…ng-backed.html

On Typhoon structural load factor:

Quote:
-The ability of carefree handling to control g limits precisely has allowed designers to reduce the ultimate load factor to 1.4, from the normal 1.5, resulting in a lighter aircraft. The airframe is designed for a 6,000h life.-
DATE:16/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Agile thinking
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…-thinking.html

On Typhoon supersonic DRAG:

Quote:
-Under the same conditions, but in a sustained turn, where the pitch element of the control surface deflection was 6° up, this could be reduced to 2° combined with a 4° nozzle-up component. In this configuration lift coefficient would be increased by 14%, translating into a 9% improvement in turn rate. Take-off distance could be cut by at least 25%.
DATE:23/05/00
SOURCE:Flight International
EJ200 thrust vectoring backed
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…ng-backed.html

On Typhoon Transonmic pitch-up issues:

Quote:
-Eurofighter’s flight control system (FCS) software has been modified to counter transonic pitch-up automatically and reduce pilot workload.-

-BAE Systems Eurofighter head Ross Bradley says FCS software to be delivered at the end of this year will include the ability to maintain the aircraft’s attitude as it passes through M1. The load will also include an automated low- speed recovery capability. The latter will allow the aircraft to take over control if the speed becomes too low, perhaps during dogfighting.-DATE:07/05/02
SOURCE:Flight International
Eurofighter FCS software to counteract Mach pitch-up
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…-pitch-up.html

On Typhoon Transonmic pitch-up issues: (2)

Quote:
-“After making a cautious approach to a few low-speed recovery corner points, I’ve gained confidence in the system so rapidly that I was able to enter the extreme low-speed recovery set-up with 70 degrees nose-up attitude and power idle without any hesitation”,-
http://www.eads.net/1024/de/pressdb/…low_speed.html

For the above remember Rafale passed 100* AoA and 40kt negative speed and Gripen went over 90* AoA…

On Close-coupled canards effects on turn rate:

Quote:
-The canard configured Mirage III presents a great improvement in low-speed maneuvring and INSTANTANEOUS turn rate.-
DATE:14/12/85
SOURCE:Flight International
Canard Mirage on test (Archive)
By Test Pilot Walter Spychiger
No link (Archive PDF, type title on F-I search engine).

On Close-coupled canard formula qualities:

Quote:
-The close coupled delta canard configuration’s primary feature, its stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, meaning high maximum lift coefficient, had lately been realized by the Americans, instead using large strakes as forward wing root extensions together with conventional tail arrangement, as found on the F-16 and F-17/18.-

-Spin recovery known to be acceptable for close coupled delta canard (not necessarily so for a long coupled canard configuration):-
http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html

On Close-coupled canard formula spin-resistant qualities:

Quote:
-Rebourg said that to date, they have not been able to depart the aircraft into a spin».
DAVID M. NORTH/ISTRES, FRANCE quoting Philippe Rebourg, «deputy chief test pilot for military aircraft at Dassault.-

On Close-coupled canard formula overal qualities:

Quote:
-Close coupled canard, by definition, have a more significant effect on the canard-wing aerodynamic interaction and, consequently, the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft.-
Source: NASA Technical Memorandum 11394:
“Numerical Study of Steady and Unsteady Canard-Wing-Body Aerodynamics”
Eugene L TU Aug 1996.

On Typhoon “Commitee designed MMI:

Quote:
-Tests revealed, however, that the pitch-integration rate was slower than expected, and the aircraft undergoes “roll ratcheting” during rapid roll manoeuvres. The cause is a pilot’s hand-and-arm inertia effect on the stick during rapid rolls and will be cured through adjustments to the FCS.-
DATE:16/10/96
SOURCE:Flight International
EF2000 aimed at Mach 2
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…at-mach-2.html

On Rafale MMI:

Quote:
-The ergonomy has been particularly worked out by engineers and the pilot has a very carefully designed interface-.

-Both the throttle and stick are mounted unusually high on the side of the cockpit, just below the canopy sills, with an adjustable wrist rest in the case of the stick. This arrangement releases more space on the side panels for switches and helps alleviate the problem of blood pooling in the pilot’s arms at high g.-
DATE:23/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Combat ready
Flight International puts the Rafale BO1 two-seat prototype to the test in its heavy configuration
Chris Yeo/ISTRES FLIGHT TEST CENTRE
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…bat-ready.html

On Rafale MMI: (2)

Quote:
-With so much information at its disposal, the aircraft requires a powerful processor to combine the inputs into a simple pilot display. Rafale’s modular data processing unit (MPDU) consists of up to 18 line-replaceable modules, each of which has 50 times the processing power of the Mirage 2000-5’s XRI computer. The MPDU integrates data from the FSO, datalink, Thales RBE2 electronically scanning radar and MBDA/Thales Spectra electronic warfare system, displaying each threat or ally as a single icon on the pilot’s eye-level display.-
DATE:18/11/03
SOURCE:Flight International
Forward Roles
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…ard-roles.html

On Rafale MMI: (3)

Quote:
Air chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy was impressed with the Rafale F2 performance and the intuitive cockpit layout, and greatly impressed with the sensor fusion.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/index.cfm…FB230750159FD9

On Rafale design origins:

Design origin

Quote:
-The Rafale M was conceived in 1986, after the plan to develop a carrier version of the variable Dassault Mirage G was abandoned, and the French navy opted not to buy McDonnell Douglas F-18s as an interim replacement for its ageing Vought F-8 Crusaders in service on the carriers Foch and Clemenceau.-

-In 1988, the navy requirement was merged with the French air force need for a multi-role fighter, itself the result of the decision to go ahead with a national solution instead of becoming a partner with Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK in the Eurofighter EF2000 (then the European Fighter Aircraft) programme.-

-The design for both air force and navy Rafales is derived from the original air-force requirement for an 8.5t aircraft.-
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…ing-to-go.html

All the above points were totaly twisted and repeatedly rewriten by the offenders, i spent hours recouping and researching but I for one knew the whole history, i only had to find valide sources to prove these points…

So please we have had ENOUGH of this propaganda and people started to NOTICE and know a lot better about it now. 😎

Just for your information I’m actually half French and half English with a love and fascination for aviation…I have no axe to grind or particular bias.

Well that explains a lot… You should try basic knowledge and then a little more before trying to defend the undefendable…

I’d refer you to some threads on Aerodynamics and systems… Let me get the links for you then you come back to us and tell US these are similar propaganda to what we saw writen for years, that these werent lies, unles your “passion” for the subject actualy lead to some further interest and you’re good enough to elaborate and debate technicaly that is…

Here you go… Enjoy and let’s SEE if you’re good enough for complaining this way Mr…

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=18

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=19

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=20

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=21

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=22

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=23

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=24

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=25

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=26

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=27

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=28

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=29

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80325&page=30

What I AM complaining about here is that WE have been told LIES for so long, our own newbies doesn’t even know their national aerospacial history anymore, now mate put your money where your mouth is and let’s talk reality here.

No more Jackoniko’s “I’ve been told” stories and forum legends…

I’m sick of guys like you coming in accusing other people of the very thing you are doing yourself.

PROVE i am lying please… I did prove all these Jack’s stories to be total inventions….

SEVERAL TIME OVER.

The acusations as you say mate are there for the MODS to SEE for themself as for what i post my informations are constantly checkable by links and associated articles, NOT your bunch forte it seems, plus YOURSELF repeatedly INSULT other posters should I dig these comment from you for you now?

People have been submited to constant ABUSE and insults from your group and biased/uninformed poster with an agenda, as for yourself you only can go and complain after taking side without actualy knowing much about it since you duely and conveniently skiped the offensive bits and now go and pretend you dont patricipate to this p!ssing contest and anti-french bashing our community is submited to for years…

arthuro

-arthuro- Now that we have Rob L is trolling with Lord Assap/global this thread is becoming a mess!! The previous rafale thread without them was civil before they arrived… –

Being more aware and knowledgeable than YOU (and far more than him for that matter) on the subjects of aircraft DESIGN, Aerodynamics and flight mechanics make YOU the BIASED ones.

AGAIN you keep implying a dual personality but Lordassap is ONE poster in this forum get use to it!

Start by LEARNING what Kinetics are made of and it’s certainly NOT TWR, Mister!!!

Definition OF KINETIC ENERGY:

Ordinary Level Physics Third Edition A.F.ABBOT.

“Kinetic” Energy is the ENERGY A BODY HAS BY REASON OF ITS MOTION.

NOW please keep pretending that YOU understand what YOU are talking fabout and “Admiting” that Typhoon have a greater “Kinetic energy” than Rafale.

This thread was “civilisely” desinformed by people who doesn’t realy know what they are revving about or willingly desinfom others.

Those who, when they FAIL to make a point stick and are proven wrong with due evidences, keep taking matters personaly and deny reality.

PLEASE have a GO ands try to prove mine (points) wrong, i am still awaiting for anyone here to do so or for anyone here to post as much informative material than i do since i started doing so.

I do NOT cultivate ignorance.

-Fedaykin-The problem isn’t so much over the use of AMRAAM as the Swiss are already a customer for the missile it’s rather the integration with the Rafale.-

You keep bashing up the Rafale without ANY evidence that AMRAAM would be a problem to integrate for a starter, at least it will not be more of a problem than with the RAF Tornados.. (LOL!!!).

Second; how exactly does it matter since ALL three contenders will be equiped with the next generation AAM; METEOR which BTW will render AMRAAM rather obsolete when it comes to performances…

I doubt very much that the Swiss A-F will hold to their stock of AIM-120 comes the next generation of BVR AAMs, after all they buy new aircrafts certainly not to hang outdated AAMs to them.

MICA is FAR from being a problem, it is the ONLY available IR AAM offering 360* BVR firing capabilties and as such is an ASSET to any A-F equiped with it.

Now about “concurent aircrafts” capable of remote AAM BVR firing and rearward firing?

Rafale have DEMONSTRATED these capabilties so claiming Typhoon so called “superiority” in A2A is just denying today’s REALITY.:D

@LordAssap Yes it is an insult. I don’t care about other, this was another place and i didn’t insult you.

I think telling YOU you are out of your league FOR POSTING w.h.a.t.e.v.er IS CERTAINLY hurting you.

Please stop insulting people intelligence, Votre altesse!!!:rolleyes:

Jackonicko
Rank 5 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,377

Stupid boy!
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=85983&page=13

THIS is an insult, mate!

Rom_un -OSF was mainly designed for A/A but the A/G role (AASM strike) is there using the TV.

Another controversial post:

Since WHEN is OSF camera (or ISRT) for that matter is used for cueing AASM?

It never was designed for this purpose in the first place and although it could offer a marginal A2G cueing capability the FACT that it is mounted above the nose of the airfraft limits its use for cueing A2G tasrgets, partcularly with weapons with ranges superior to that of the laser rangefinder.

For longer range (IRST) surveillance and damage assesment is what it is mostly used for, expecialy in the case of the camera which have a 60* forward PoW.

-calibration of the ‘central inertial’-

If this was possible at all there would be no problem for firing MICA EM without using the laser range finder.

All it can do is to give a precise geographic position from a ground target (like a bridge for ex) when precisely known.

ANY good IRST would do the same.

Rom_un -OSF was mainly designed for A/A but the A/G role (AASM strike) is there using the TV.

Another controversial post:

Since WHEN is OSF camera (or ISRT) for that matter is used for cueing AASM?

It never was designed for this purpose in the first place and although it could offer a marginal A2G cueing capability the FACT that it is mounted above the nose of the airfraft limits its use for cueing A2G tasrgets, partcularly with weapons with ranges superior to that of the laser rangefinder.

For longer range (IRST) surveillance and damage assesment is what it is mostly used for, expecialy in the case of the camera which have a 60* forward PoW.
http://www.thalesgroup.com/docfile/dyn/12345678LANGCCCCDDDDEEEEEEEEEE01:2A30705D4E4D496750430754302A7723:PG9565363600AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA154

Now this is Thales own 2008 PDF, dig what you wrote (- calibration of the ‘central inertial’ + – the A/G role (AASM strike) is there using the TV) for a laugh….