Jack… you’re ignoring a lot of facts about the early hours of Rafale conception.

Am39 is about to be introduced into service (a matter of months).

What are the capabilities of M2000C that Rafale has not ?
2000N ?
2000D ?
F1 ? Well, of course there is one : ASTAC, a pod which will be transfered to M2000D.

Some FJs are still in service now, and will be up to 2020 at least, and suggesting that it’s because Rafale isn’t so omnirole is… weird. Especially when you understand the argument of money saving, low production rate, and minimum projectable force.

That’s actually conducted in sequence and hence swing/switch roles.

Yes for the crew, no for the aircraft.

Definitely, there is no sequence for the Rafale. When it engage both air-to-ground and air-to-air targets in a very short time, it’s because in fact, every systems are doing both roles at the same time.

The problem comes from the crew. One pilot can’t fire Mica while shooting AASM at the same time : for example, the symbology aren’t the same, and can’t be displayed at the same time. Hence the “sequence”.

@TMor , stop looking down on me and keep quiet .

This topic is totally ruined by the people who can’t stop comparing (you’re not the only one).

What are we learning ? NOTHING ! We are going round in circles. It’s even possible again to read the good old Jackonicko’s argument : “simple physics” !!! We are back in 2005, and we are denied the most credible sources we could have to score some point !

Any strong point of Rafale is called “maturity” while any strong point of Typhoon would be another proof that it’s superior…

The problem has nothing to do with Rafale and Typhoon (hey, in addition, we’re in a Rafale thread, what’s the Typhoon doing here ?). The problem comes from members.

I couldn’t believe my eyes when they said it had poor data fusion given the Striker helmet and VOTAS and advanced MMI focus. (Both the Swiss and the IAF found the Typhoon’s MMI superior, but the Swiss did not relate it with data integration – which to me would be part of the MMI.)

Can you, please, show me where did the Swiss say that Typhoon’s MMI were superior ?

The only clear point is that they found workload better in a particular mission (the one Typhoon is better optimized for), but saying “workload = MMI” is a bit far fetched IMHO.

We are very much used to the use of the expression “MMI” in our arguments, but Swiss didn’t use it (or I can’t remember where). They focused on more specific points. So specific that we (or most of us) don’t understand them.

You talk about a lot of things from the Indian evaluations. What are your sources ? 😎

Here is the “leaked” end of the report as sent by one of my best contacts in IAF. He said that it reproduce the general feeling after reading of the full report.

Typhoon – Rafale

True story, man. 😀

No Rafale fan should read the IPCS Special Report No.126 by Abhijit Iyer-Mitra.

It won’t do their blood pressure any good. 😮

(“The Rafale: A Bad Deal”).

I quote the report :
http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf

The Rafale’s “Omni-Role” tag only ensures it fails miserably at everything.

🙂

Well ok : let’s say you’re right. I hope it pleased you enough, because we don’t really care in this topic. The mistake is not yours : the article is not about Rafale, not even directly linked to the Rafale, but to the Swiss deal instead.

Of course, without news, we may have nothing to say here. No big deal.

The detail of Rafale standards (F1, F2, F3, F3O4T, etc.) is patchy, contradictary, and often wrong, and there is a real need to establish the facts.

There are differences between what was publically planned, finally done, and really planned.

That’s why I find it difficult to “establish the facts”. Too many details aren’t available. Too many equipments and software wouldn’t even come to our mind.

OPIT said it all in answer to your attemps..
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1885234&postcount=65