Especially when the only operational squadron consists mainly of two seaters.

And besides I think it’s very good to use two seaters, because for the same number of flights you give the war experience to twice the number of airmen, which would be a very good reason in itself to send only two seaters even if there is no technical justification.

Nic

The french government doesn’t work for France, so it’s hardly surprising anyway. Most of those people are traitors in the truest sense.

Nic

guys one serious point on this. I don’t think the UAE would jeopardise relations with the UK by asking the UK government to come up with a detailed presentation on Typhoon if they were just trying to put pressure on Dassault (which is everyone’s natural reaction to this).

The Eurofighter RFP came after the UK had given the presentation. I just think there is now more to it than “oh the UAE are just bartering”.

EADS will be more than happy to play along and force dassault to cut the price of the Rafale, which will mean less profit from the deal, and less money to fund upgrades and such.

Why do you think EADS went on the US tanker deal. They perfectly knew they would never get it in the first place.

Nic

I’ve read it many times, albeit not necessarily on this from.

Anyway, yes meteor enjoys a true advantage in NEZ and range, but Mica IR is VERY relevant at OSF identification ranges as well as close range off-boresight fighting.

I wish they made a IR version of the Meteor.

Nic

Mica IR is part of the design philosophy. All those fighters would benefit from a medium range IR missile IMO, but the fact that one hasn’t been integrated show that those planes haven’t been thought the way the Rafale has.

And while the Mica IR could be integrated on any of them:
1/ it would cost money
2/ could the Mica IR sensor be integrated in system of those planes as an extra sensor? If so how much more would it cost?

Besides, could those fighters target enemy fighters through their ESM suite?
Which of those fighters would positively identify enemy fighters at around 40km, and then launch an entirely passive missile at close to no escape range?

1 Rafale detects radar emitting plane
2 Rafale manoeuvers out of the dangerous zone and supercruises towards the emitter
3 Rafale aims OSF onto target thanks to SPECTRA track and identifies said target at about 40km
4 Rafale launches Mica IR at that range pretty much from no escape zone OR another Rafale fires from about 60-70 km to be sure to avoid detection by enemy MAWS

No warning before the plane is shot down. Which other plane can do that?

Nic

A Rafale can fire a MICA EM without switching on its radar. The target aircraft only gets a warning when the missile radar is switched on.

A Gripen can fire an AIM-120 without switching on its radar. All you need is targeting information from another source, & that can be an optical sensor, another Gripen, a ground based radar, an AWACS.

Typhoon the same, AFAIK.

Only, with Mica IIR there is no warning at all which means:

1/ if the adversary has some kind of active cancellation technique capable of fooling a missile radar it could evade it. If the adversary is near head on and can fry the missile’s radar with it’s AESA it could evade it.

2/ there is no warning to other fighters in the area as to what happened to the fighter that has been shot down, since the pilot couldn’t warn them until it’s too late.

3/ if you know that you aren’t silent anyway, you can fire both EM and IIR Mica at the same time, making it much more difficult for the targeted fighter to get away. For instance lighting PC to avoid the FOV of the EM missile only makes you a more juicy target for an IR missile that could pick you up from farther.

But I guess that since the AMRAAM is oh so much better, then both versions of Mica suck. It makes me laugh how everyone say the meteor will be the best AtoA missile on the block, and that the AMRAAM is so much better than the Mica, while in reality the seeker of the Meteor is an evolution of the Mica’s seeker.

Ah well…

Nic

The M2K should cost much more than a F16 because it’s built with great quality, evidenced by the fact that a Mirage which ditched at sea and sunk was recovered and is now flying again! But also because it was built in a fraction of the numbers of the F16.

Nic

Tell me something, are you lot (Rafale supporters) happy if Dassault loses the deal in order to maintain its margins. Or do you anticipate Dassault would do this?

Honest queries. Because, that article appears to dismiss a valid competitive strategy using some vague reasons.

I thought Dassault should be very aggressive to get the deal, but then I don’t know if the article is true or not.

But if Dassault actually manages to make some profit on the deal, it won’t have to catch up on the support costs. Eurofighter could very well cut a real good deal up front and get the money back the support contracts.

It’s hard to tell which strategy would be better without looking at the whole deal, but in the article the impression given is that Dassault didn’t make too much effort while Eurofighter did. I hope it’s not as clear cut.

Nic