A 9/10 score for Rafale in Libya is a great success, of course, but it’s 1 point short of where some of us expected it to be.

Funny…

You weren’t that nice on typhoon.starstreak.net 😀

And I’m also keen for someone to publicise which aircraft struggled to keep flying the very long range sorties due to fuel transfer and engine related problems.

:rolleyes:
Usual tactics…

The typhoon did not came anywhere close that performance. It is in fact a step back from the performance of the tornado (payload,range,Atg versatility).

I think you’re going to far here, for the sake of the discussion. Jackonicko was answering to this :

still unable to claim its multi-role capabilities until 2018 which mean pilots and squadrons won’t be operational until at the very least 2020.

Yes, his point demonstrates that Typhoon is already multirole, though not with all the Rafale’s capability.

There’s no surprise in this, but some lack carefulness in their arguments sometimes.

@Mildave : I’m afraid you’re over optimistic on the HMD. The Topsight may be ‘qualified’ on the Rafale, but, AFAIK, no integration work has begun.

The ET is a 75% over priced plane

How smart…

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1826107&postcount=526

1) “in each and every competition since these two eurocanards are completing with each other, the Rafale was always ahead.”

The Swiss evaluation is the ONLY full evaluation (eg one in which the aircraft were actually evaluated by the nation’s pilots) in which Rafale can be proven to have been ahead of Typhoon.

It’s a bit of a moot point, however, since Rafale was rejected in favour of Gripen.

The selection of Gripen doesn’t make this a moot point at all. But hey, you wouldn’t miss an opportunity to twist the perception of facts when they favour Rafale, would you ?

On the other hand, all the evidence is that Typhoon emerged ahead of Rafale in Singapore.

“All the evidence” ?

The day when we will have as many “evidence” as for S.Korea or Switzerland hasn’t come yet.

But if I play the same rules as you, then, the fact that Typhoon was rejected before Rafale makes your statement a “moot point”. So, for once, show your “evidence”.

Saudi Arabia looked briefly at Rafale and purchased Typhoon.

France had no argument like BAe in SA. Your too short sentence isn’t an insight on why SA talked about the Rafale…

The Rafale was eliminated in India, and then reinstated after political lobbying.

An elimination never communicated to the French side, only to some media. How much credit can you give to such an “information” ?

We might or might not accept the French claims about South Korea – I’ve had them categorically denied by South Korean RoKAF personnel and Boeing.

What would Boeing have to do with this ? In addition, what you call “French claims” weren’t French, initially. This was a leak, just like what happened in Switzerland, with an officer prosecuted, just like what may happen in Switzerland now an inquiry is opened. And the local media reported about it, just like today.

Today, Rafale still has an edge in maturity, but that edge is eroding, and Typhoon’s future capabilities are finally starting to look more credible, and to represent less of a ‘leap of faith’.

You’re using this argument from day one.

I don’t want to knock Typhoon, which is clearly a great aircraft, and which remains ahead of Rafale in certain areas, but let’s not venture into the more Jackonickesque realms of Rafale bashing, eh?

well if true it is a shame for the Rafale crew.

The decision is not in their hands at all. They made the best possible.

Because Libyan defences were the only relevant information ? :rolleyes:

The only figure I find, though, is 95% for the Rafale M for the very begining of the conflict.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115841

According to DSI, this figure has dropped down since :

Rafale M ‘s availability rate between 80 and 90%

Thanks to Olybrius

However, for the first 3 months of operation, DSI reported that the AdA Rafale achieved more than 96% of availability.

And just to speculate; recent reports released suggested operational availability for the Typhoon (for the RAF and Italian Air Force at least and) has varied from at least 97% to 100% during various exercises and actual combat. Figures for the Rafale are difficult to come across (unless someone has any idea?), but with several emergency landings in Malta during the Lybian Campaign, and one aircraft not flight worthy and another one that had to cut short it’s flight display during Aero India 11, one might have to question it’s availability and serviceability. However, with limited information available to us it’s probably a moot point, but speculation does no harm.

No harm, of course.
For Libya, you seem to concentrate on the fact that 2 Rafale had to land in Malta. This was a patrol, one had a problem, true, the other followed. You’re also talking about a Rafale “not flight worthy” (in Libya ?).

Ok, maybe. If we count those 2, out of 900 sorties (Rafale C/B flew 900 sorties, I do not count the Rafale Ms which flew 1000 sorties), sorry, nothing too embarrassing IMHO.

The only figure I find, though, is 95% for the Rafale M for the very begining of the conflict.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115841

This message follows the one I posted on Air-Defense.net

This is a message to some French posters, I hope they will recognize themselves, as my intention is not to name anyone.

I don’t want to offend anyone, it’s some kind of warning.

I’ve spent years here to give Rafale some credibility (not sure how well I succeeded though), not alone, along with you (thanks for all of this), against professional bashers.
Today, I have the feeling that the situation has reversed.

Pro-Rafale are leading the “mine’s bigger” contest. I find it stupid, pointless, trollish, and awfully embarrassing.

Please, people, look at what we’ve been facing for years, and now, look at what you’re doing.

In my opinion, this is jeopardizing the Rafale’s credibility, a pretty lesson of counter-productivity.

I call for stopping comparison, avoiding it as much as possible (any time, always), sticking to the facts or news. Correct the mistakes about the Rafale with carefully chosen arguments, ok, but stop to attack the Eurofighter. Stop to qualify other products, because in about… 99%, you make mistakes and it’s very hard to recover.

We have good examples of what it could be, like the MP.net Rafale news thread…

Please, self-moderation is vital.