So whom are these “losers” you speak of then? You might need to use that thing in your head more often.

The traitors who have been destroying the UK armed forces and the UK industry for decades.

Nic

Using that logic, the Rafale is not even omnirole as it cannot perform STOVL ops.

I guess that leaves just the F-35 as the only true (by your def) omnirole fighter in the world.

😉

STOVL is for losers who can’t afford an aircraft carrier.

Nic

The weapons have nothing to do with the omnirole concept. One of the roles is nuclear strike, and the ASMP-A is used only for that particular role. Conversely, the AASM can’t be used in that role either.

The fact that the AASM is a very versatile weapon doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that the Rafale replaces every combat aircraft in the french arsenal. It could use 10 times more different weapons (EPWII, PWIII, PW IV, JDAM, Brimstone, AS30L, and what not), it would still replace every french combat aircraft in the inventory.

Nic

I stopped reading just there, sorry.
The “omnirole” tag was floating around long before the AASM came to the drawing boards. Yes “omnirole” is a concept ; It is centered on an aircraft not limited to some roles only but designed to handle them all without any major changes on the aircraft itself. The concept is that you no longer need various types to cover all aspects of air warfare, be it from land or at sea.

I wonder why so many peoples feel the need to deviate from this simple concept which has more to do with general-purpose and versatility. Changing the definition to something more elitist a posteriori is not going to do any good.

+1

For the record I agree with scorpion and OPIT. Omine role just means that the Rafale replaces all the warplanes in the french air force and navy.

Nic

Not accurate, the Typhoon, Rafale and F-15 were all down selected for the final phase of the competition in October 2003. Typhoon was ultimately eliminated in late April 2005 due to uncertainties concerning the ability to match the required capability schedule. The situation in South Korea was similar and even more in favour for the US type! Neither Eurofighter, nor Dassault would have met the ROKAF’s capability schedule (a wide range of capabilities and ability to perform a wide range of missions at the time of first deliveries in October 2005). The F-15K entered service with a wide range of weapons and capabilities integrated and it was mature and proven already. On top of this the F-15 can use weapons already purchased for the F-16s of both airforces! These are important aspects which shouldn’t be overlooked. That the US has a strong political influence, on South Korea in particular, is certainly true as well as that the €/$ exchange ratio was in favour for the US type, but there were a number of other good reasons to opt for the F-15 instead of the European types. Like there are similar good reasons as for why the IAF may favour Rafale (sharing some commonalities with the M2k, proven relationship and opting for a more mature and proven solution). The arguments some of you chaps are so vocal about when it comes to India are interestingly being forgotten or not thought about in the context of Singapore and South Korea.

Very good points.

Nic

2) The sole MET sub tasks score chart is related to the air policing mission of the second phase. While the base score is still based on the 2008 evaluation results, the impact of proposed upgrades has been taken into account. The individual upgrades have been modified with a credibility factor based on the readiness level of the respective upgrade. Stuff which could be demonstrated in prototype form achieved higher scores than stuff which is less mature or not even developed at all. All scores included in that score chart reflect the estimated effectiveness of the proposed configurations Gripen MS21, Rafale F3O4T and Typhoon T3A P1E. The related detection and acquisition domains as well as situation awareness include the RBE2AA AESA raar, not the PESA as some suggested. That the Rafale would subsequently prevail in the detection and acquisition domains with its AESA is hardly surprising.
That the scores in SA were so close to each other may insist that Eurofighter may have scored well in the credibility domain of sensor fusion.

Please always mention if you talk about phase 1 or phase 2 of the evaluation. What you say about the comparison between Rafale F4O4T vs Tranche 3A P1E is true, but it was the second phase of the evaluation. I have never seen anyone, including the more hardcore Rafale fans, say that the RBE2 PESA was evaluated in the phase 2, nor that it would be superior to the Captor-E. But in the first phase of the evaluation, the swiss clearly praise the PESA RBE2, and make no mention of the Captor-M. The 1st part of the report clearly concerns the PESA.

Nic