As if it was not hard enough to make an argument with a proven fact, I’m not sure we should take unconfirmed information as granted in discussions.

The MMRCA shortlist news looks very fine to me, but we have to remain cautious with it.

About AC, generally, I prefer sticking to what PY Chaltiel said. But I wouldn’t bet on AC. I don’t know what he was talking about. In fact, I don’t really care about AC.

ps, the A&C that is often quoted here is considered a weekly rag and taken at face value and isnt taken as seriously as a source

Plain wrong. You don’t understand the subtilities, which are as simple as you’re attitude toward air-defense : you pick the information that you like.:rolleyes:

There are surprises to come. M88-9 (it’s its name) may not be an absolut requirement for the first batch.

The 3 Scalp config only requires to replace the belly drop tank by a missile.

Arthuro,

It’s not to please Jackjack, but there is something wrong in your interpretation of A&C…

I read :
WVR :

“Par rapport au F/A-18 C, le Super Hornet dispose de commandes de vol améliorées qui lui permettent d’afficher un très fort angle d’attaque, de l’ordre de 65°, pour des manœuvres défensives.” […]
“L’avantage du Rafale, bridé à 30°, c’est de conserver son énergie bien plus efficacement que le F/A-18 E/F”. Même s’il dispose de réacteurs plus puissants que le Rafale, le Super Hornet a ainsi tendance à s’écraser dans le ciel à l’issue d’une manœuvre à forte incidence.

Up to this point, Arthuro is right. In terms of pure kinetics, Rafale dominate the SH in WVR.
But A&C adds :

Mais cette capacité à pointer son nez très rapidement vers la menace peut toutefois être dangereuse lorsqu’elle est associée à un viseur de casque […]

This capability to quickly point its nose toward the threat can be dangerous when combined with a HMS.

Final result is unclear, but other articles make me believe that Rafale did their best not to allow the SH to do this special trick.

BVR :

Les combats au-delà de la portée visuelle avec les Super Hornet donnent lieu à quelques enseignements : certes, le radar à antenne active de l’avion américain balaie un volume plus large que le RBE-2 PESA, et l’allonge du missile Amaraam pose toujours problème. Mais les tactiques françaises, couplées à l’emploi de l’OSF et de la liaison 16, permettent de recentrer le débat et de compenser la portée un peu plus faible des capteurs du Rafale.

It’s not said that French tactics, OSF and L16 give an edge to Rafale. They compensate for the shorter range of sensors. In the end, I don’t know what happened.

For Rafale, it will be after the 6th.

we await the return email from Thales

I didn’t send anything. :rolleyes: