TMorJack, about the Rafale, wich tanks are you talking about ?
The Rafale has entered dogfights with 3x1125L supersonic tanks…
TMorThe new MWR will be dual band, and could use the same captors as for the A400M. Available in 2012.
MWR : Missile Warning Receiver (in French “DDM” for Détecteur de Départ de Missile, missile launching detector ? 😀 ). It’s made of 2 IR detectors wich detect and track the exhausts of a missile when its engine burns, so as it remains fully passive.
TMorThe Toan’s figures are arguable. I recognize he may have had difficulties in finding figures, but I’ll propose other inputs…
For the Captor, I remember him saying :
During the test, the CAPTOR radar showed the capability of tracking up to 20 air targets (F-4 and Mig-29) simultaneously 160~185 km away and then automatically identifying and prioritising them. (Source: EADS)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-2242.html
He considered at this time that the MiG-29 have a 5sqm RCS (a very common figure on internet). But, according to A&C Hors Série “Les avions de combat” édition 2006, the RCS reduction measures applied on MiG-29SMT have lowered its RCS from 15sqm to 1sqm (according to the OKB MiG).
According to the formula, this would make the Captor track a 5sqm target at 140km.
Of course, this new figure is quite low (i mean compared to the 185km), but it’s just intended to show something else, and discuss about the refered typical “fighter sized” figure… When manufacturers publish their figures, they say nothing about neither what they call “a fighter sized target”, nor what are the probability that such a target is detected at such a range.
Then, Toan :
RBE-2 PESA（Rafale F1/F2/F3）：
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 110~130 km+
http://www.indiadefence.com/AirNucDet.htm
The multi-mode phased array RBE-2 radar has a range of 100 kilometres even in look-down mode and significantly greater range in look-level and look-up modes.
The usual 100km range is given for look-down mode. We don’t really know for look-level, but i’ve heard that it could be ~30% different… from wich figure ? 150km look-level (so we have ~100 in look-down), or 100km in look-down (so we have a ~130km range in look-level).
I draw no conclusion, but a difference of 10km isn’t “significantly greater”.
I think the ~130km* range is more interesting.
RDY（M2000-5）：
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 60~70 km+
Obviously false, since F-16 are detected at least at 140km, and Rafale M F1 pilot say the RBE-2 has a similar range to RDY… So, that’s the same figure as above.
RCS 5.0m2 class target : ~130km*
RDY-2（M2000-5MK2 and -9）：
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 66~80 km+
Corrected figure would be ~150km*.
*Of course, we still don’t know wich kind of target Thales call a “fighter sized target”.
And the Rafale with the RBE2 may as well just stay on the ground rather than engage a Tyfoon with such a radar.
No necessarily.
Since we don’t know how compares both RCS, missile range, LPI/ECM/ECCM etc, we don’t know at what range they will engage each other. We know nothing.
TMorDoes anyone know:
Captor detection ranges for fighter size targets:
(I’ve read that the little slotted array is quite the beast & TRACKS (not detects) 5msq UPWARDS of 185km).
Actually, I thought that such detection ranges were achieved against F-4 or MiG-29 (>10 sqm for the MiG). There’s also a matter of probability in these figures, and we don’t know what’s exactely given by manufacturers.
TMorhttp://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Rolls-Royce-Phantom-Extended-Wheelbase-SA-1024×768.jpg
Ugly !! ! ! :dev2: 😉
Melissa Theuriau should be proposed as our new Marianne.
http://www.chilax.de/mediac/400_0/media/Melissa~Theuriau~chilax.de~33.jpg
=?
http://aramis.obspm.fr/~heydari/divers/marianne_buste.jpg
😀
Scorpion :
1.) How many Rafales are delivered to date to the AdA?
At least 27 (see my posts in pages 2 & 3 for details).
2.) Any news about the EC 2/7 as the next AdA Rafale unit?
No, except it should be named “Lorraine”.
3.) I assume Rafale F2 being fully operational now with AdA, is there any officially released date for full operational clearance for AdA Rafales?
I’ve not seen any, but they are, as they’re gone to Afghanistan… They also were ready for Tiger Meet and TLP…
4.) Saw the pic over Afghanistan, looks nice. My question is when did the Rafales deployed (exact date if possible), howmany has been deployed and where they are based?
They are 3 Rafale B F2 (later maybe up to 10) based at Douchanbé. They left on March, the 10th.
The Navy also sent 3 Rafale M F2 to join the CdG on the 7th.
Missions have started on the 14th.
5.) Is the batch 3 reduction to 51 aircraft officially confirmed?
Yes. This is part of the “Roadmap Rafale”, and the saved money will fund the development of AESA for production as soon as 2011 (set in prod aircraft in early 2012), as well as for new MWR.
6.) Are additional AdA squadrons confirmed for conversion to Rafale except EC 1/7 & 2/7? I know about a third unit which will replace the EC 3/4 M2k N from 2008 based at Mont-de-Marsan is it actually the EC 3/4 or another unit?
I don’t know, may someone else answer you… 😉
TMorI told you you shouldn’t have mentioned the Netherlands…..
I don’t know what it changes.
It may not be valid, there wasn’t other evaluation after.
TMorRafales go to Afghanistan as French commitment grows
By Helen Massy-BeresfordAir force and navy to deploy six aircraft to Tajikistan in support of ISAF mission
France is in the process of sending six Dassault Rafale C/M fighters to support ground troops serving as part of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Three air force and three navy F2 software-standard aircraft were scheduled to leave for the region on 10 March as part of France’s Operation Serpentaire. Their deployment follows the recent completion of ground and flight tests and crew training activities at the air force’s CEAM test centre at Mont-de-Marsan in south-west France.
France could eventually send as many as 10 Rafales to Afghanistan
Gen Eric Rouzaud, head of the test centre, says the aircraft will be stationed at Dushanbe airbase in Tajikistan, to the north-east of Afghanistan, for an initial period of “at least four months”. A decision on whether to prolong their stay will be taken during the deployment, he adds.
The detachment will work alongside French air force Dassault Mirage 2000 strike aircraft already operating over Afghanistan, and is expected to receive refuelling support from French, UK Royal Air Force and US Air Force tankers depending on availability. In addition to three single-seat Rafale Cs, the air force’s new contingent will also comprise about 50 support personnel and aircrew.
Paris could eventually send about 10 Rafales to support coalition operations in Afghanistan, says Rouzaud, who adds that a decision on this is also expected within the next four months.
France’s new fighter aircraft commitment will support ISAF ground troops, with the navy’s three single-seat Rafale Ms to be armed with GBU-12 225kg (500lb) laser-guided bombs (LGB). Air force examples will carry GBU-12s and 325kg GBU-22 LGBs, which the service says are now performing well after minor modifications were required when they were first integrated with the fighter. Both models are also to deploy with 250kg “dumb” bombs modified with Sagem’s AASM precision guidance kit, and MBDA Mica medium-range air-to-air missiles.
The joint Rafale force began ground tests in support of the new deployment during January, and flight-test activities started in mid-February. Tests performed over recent weeks at Mont-de-Marsan have included seven GBU-12 releases from air force aircraft and five from navy platforms.
France’s new deployment will be the first combat use of the air force’s Rafale F2 fighters, squadron deliveries of which began in mid-2005. The navy has previously deployed F1-standard Rafale Ms to operate over Afghanistan from its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier FNS Charles de Gaulle. The services will eventually receive 60 and 234 Rafales each.
TMorThe dutch did test the rafale.
I was there.
Are you talking of the 1999 order ? Or about what happened more recently ?
Ok, i’ll look for sources about Greece :
http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=20
The circumstances which have fed the polemic in Greece are well-known. They are those surrounding the decision taken in principle in February 1999 to purchase 60 Eurofighters. The remarkable feature of this decision is that it was preceded by no competition and by no evaluation of any sort. That is the primary reason behind France’s request that consideration be given, in the interest of the principle of competition, to an offer for Rafale fighter aircraft.
What happened there ? Again Dassault idiots ?
http://www.hri.org/news/greek/apeen/2000/00-07-13_1.apeen.html
In a related development, Defence Minister Akis Tsohatzopoulos afterwards commented on the resurgent interest by a French consortium headed by aviation giant Dassault to sell the Hellenic Air Force with its ?Rafale” warplane despite a decision in January by Greece choosing the ?Eurofighter?, built by a four-nation European consortium.
“At the moment negotiations with the Eurofighters representatives are underway … so that by next fall the contract is concluded… the Eurofighter affair is closed,” the defence minister said.
The Dassault idiots couldn’t believe the decision it seems :
http://www.hri.org/news/greek/ana/2000/00-11-30.ana.html
Regarding the 1998 tender for the lucrative fighter plane contract, which was subsequently awarded to the Eurofighter consortium, Tsohatzopoulos said that the French fourth-generation warplane “Rafale” wasn’t taken into consideration because the respective French consortium simply did not offer it up. “There’s an interesting dialogue that in many cases, however, is guided by several sides. When we decided on the reinforcement with the purchase of the ‘Eurofighters’, France’s Dassault did not come forth with its own fourth-generation ‘Rafale’; a plane that, at the time, hadn’t even been procured by the French air force … after the fact, though, it’s absurd for pressure to be applied,” the Greek defense minister stated.
Now, there’s definitely something unclear in Greece, about Rafale… It seems that Dassault complained, and could not show the aircraft (no competition polemic, and no offer !).
As far as I remember, this was because Dassault wasn’t even invited, and reacted too late. But I can’t find evidence anymore…
TMorBeat Rafale in Greece, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Norway and Singapore…..
Greece : Rafale entered competition too late… Dassault wasn’t even anounced that there was a competition (I remember I had provided an article about that in an old debate during summer 2005).
Netherlands : all planes evaluated on paper, in 2012+ standards (so : paper), according to more than 700 technical and military criteria. F-35 (6.97/8) won, then Rafale (6.95/8) and Typhoon (5.83/8). On paper, that was an impressive difference.
Later decision, i don’t know. But I never heard of newer competitions there.
As for Korea :
I’ve tried to find any evidence to support that contention (I’d far rather feel that Rafale had beaten the US contender on technical grounds) and I’ve failed.
Of course, Dassault are such liars, arrogant idiots that they charged Korea for what happened in final decision.
At least, at the time some people of some forum had some interesting material…
This was concluded from an article in Korea Herald :
Look here
“Dassault’s combat aircraft Rafale was rated as “excellent” in all five categories, while its strongest rival, Boeing’s F-15 fighter, reached the standard in only two categories.
The Boeing fighter received “excellent” in reliability and supportive combat capability, while Eurofighter, produced by a European consortium, won the top grades in the general function and reliability categories.
In the categories of weapons and electronic warfare capability, only Rafale earned the “excellent” grade, according to the officials.
Russia’s Su-35 took fourth place with “ordinary” rates in all five categories. “
But why do I bother arguing with you? Your mind is made up! Rafale is French. So of course it’s better. Dassault are not only the best fighter designers in Europe, they’re the only people in Europe capable of producing an advanced fighter. And the filthy English haven’t produced a decent aeroplane since the Spitfire (and that was inferior to the D520, of course). So of course Rafale is superior in every single respect, and there is not a single area in which Typhoon enjoys any superiority.
Happy now, in your deluded fantasy world?
I seems that you have an incredible sens of discernment. Ridiculous.
TMor,
You haven’t yet shown a single example of an area in which Rafale is ‘superior’.
No because since the very begining of this whole thread, you’re the only one who’s playing this over childish game of comparison.
I don’t deny that there are areas, and I’m quite happy that I’ve expressed my admiration for Rafale with a degree of magnanimity and generosity.
Lol
But where Typhoon is superior, and you try to deny it (or downplay it), then I’ll correct you.
Not exactely… What I wanted to downplay was your arguments against Rafale. Espacially because (ex : MMI), they are severly counter dicted by ALL French sources (PR or not).
I’ll do exactly the same if you ascribe plus points to Typhoon where they aren’t deserved.
Impossible. Typhoon is perfect for the current times and will be the best during 30 years at least.
But MMI? Sensor fusion? etc. I’m sorry, but France comes second.
To F-22 :p , Typhoon coming third, of course. :p
Hats off to the French on this one. They’ve seized the PR advantage here
Oh ! Finally, you acknowledge that we just get it right now ?! I wonder who had it before…
Take it easy… :p
TMorOh come on TMor, don’t be silly,
I feel like if i was understood…
Back to the Typhoon…
Jacko, you talk about 2000+ modules for AESA… I’ve only read about 1600+… Should i be updated ? 😀
TMorThe least I can say is that Jackonicko isn’t lacking laudatory words for this bird…
That’s ok, if only he hadn’t polluted my thread with “Typhoon’s better than Rafale” (as he’s already tryed here).
I really hope that someone will write, here, every little issues the Typhoon has had during its development, and, why not, all its current problems… 😀
TMorOK I’m getting angry.
Your turn.
That’s funny as with the cover of “Truth”, you find alternative explanations each time Rafale has proven superior.
Keep repeating again and again…
After all, it’s a well known fact that French are fed with PR.
TMorArthuro, recognize that it’s more confortable for Jackonicko to :
-criticize Moussez & Coe because of their simple and vague claims, and say they are nationalistic blokes who talk to pro-Rafale snail-munching froggies’ magazines (whatever the credibility of these guys who give their names who also are quoted in non-french articles),
-defend himself in repeating its more and more accurate claims, because he is a good english journalist who has plenty of unknown contacts at Dassault’ and AdA…
After all, we don’t know who’s true. And in case it hasn’t been clear up to now, i’m not definitely saying Jacko is wrong… This wasn’t my point. I started my thread against some tough words he had against Rafale, ESPECIALLY WHEN THIS CAVEMAN CALLED FOOFOONE made his stupids claims.
TMorAnyway, I’m still too thrilled by yesterday’s Rugby game to argue much. :diablo:
That’s fine ! I don’t care… 😡 😡 😡
😀
TMorRob, your article from AW is great !
I had troubles confirming the gun issue !
I wonder if Robert Wall asked all the questions… Some details look inaccurate, or incomplete, and leave place to interpretation…
Here is an interesting article from AW&ST, I was under the impression, mainly due to French posters, that the Rafale was way ahead of Eurofighter in integration of weapons and LDPs,
I really wonder what we have said to make you believe so.
a) Mr. Moussez is hardly impartial (just like the Eurofighter source, but journalists in well know publications imo are better sources)
b) The source in your quote does not explicitly say if he also means Singapore. Perhaps he thinks South Korea and the Netherlands are enough to stamp “systematically” on it
c) Whilst the Eurofighter source is not impartial, it is precise and official, which means that if they lied in that publication it could easily hurt Eurofighters credibility if Singapore came out and said: “That’s not true”.
d) Then there are also several journalists in well known publications, which I at least like to think are rather impartial.
e) The official Singapore MINDEF statement seems to back Eurofighter and the journalists up on the reasons why it was rejectedConclusion: I think a definitive conclusion is perhaps not possible, but imo the Arguments/sources in favour of the view Eurofighter GmbH has on it are better.
a) I agree, but his credibility ALSO is at stake.
b) I don’t agree (i mean not definitely). The quote is from 2006… he can’t have dismissed Singapore.
c) Like Boeing, Dassault never talked about what happened there. French papers simply look to have no material to deal with Singapore. Every leak serves Eurofighter GmBH… But not really, as it charges the commercials of having performed a “shambolic” bid… 😀
d) I hope so.
e) No. It backs the timescale story. That’s all. Nothing about performance.
In the articles Jackonicko quoted, actually, only the “Flight Daily News” supports the idea that the Typhoon was the prefered choice. This article is unsigned.
Eurofighter’s confidence in their aircraft performance is irrelevant, as Dassault were also confident.
Sign In
