I reckon said author is smart and knows all the tricks when it comes to disinformation and propaganda.

Saying Rafale sucks at everything and Typhoon is better everywhere would be counterproductive and you know it.

Making as if you criticize the EF “on some points” and give credit to the Rafale on some other points (program management ? LOL) only gives the false impression of a balanced view. But not all things in life are balanced in the real world.

Nic

When such an article is published, then we’ll have to use our critical facultatives and read it and judge whether the author (and it might just as easily be by any of the UK writers) has made it all up, or has stitched together a lot of second-hand tosh. We’ll have to read it carefully and judge whether the article shows signs of being based on conversations with those who were actually there.

We’ll have to judge whether the explanations sound credible, or (like the Colonel’s claims) like counter-intuitive nonsense – or a highly selective interpretation of underlying facts.

And then factor in the obvious bias and prejudice of said author.

Everyone and their mother know that Jon Lake isnt going to let this french annoucement unanswered. It didn’t take him long to go and take a jab at Collins’ article.

Nic

I think we are running circles here. Without replying directly to anyone I want to raise some points however.

1.) It is true that the french deployed 15 Rafales to Afghanistan in 2007. The AdA sent 3 Rafale B F2+ to Doushabne (or whatever the name of that base was) and the CdG had 12 Rafales onboard, albeit just 3 of them were F2s. The remaining aircraft were F1 examples which supported combat operations as tankers at best, but weren’t dropping bombs or directly supporting combat actions.

You are right to point out that of those 15, only 6 were F2 standard. The F1s provided fleet air cover, and buddy buddy refueling. Being able to provide buddy-buddy refueling is a testament to the versatility of the bird though.

AdA guys from Nancy I talked to in 2008 shared the opinion that Rafale’s Afghanistan deployment in 2007 was more a politically motivated one, not one based urgent needs or operational benefits. Wether this few is shared for the newer deployments I don’t know.

I agree completely, Rafale didn’t bring anything a Mirage 2000D couldn’t until it started using AASMs. So indeed the 2007 deployment was a political one. That said, AdlA probably learned a lot about how to deploy and maintain Rafales to operational status on the field. It’s a lesson you have to take at some point when you field a new fighter, don’t you think?

2.) The RAF has received ~60 Typhoons so far, meaning as many or even more than the AdA received Rafales. But what people should take into account is that the current AdA Rafale units main task is AG, so these units are not meant to stand QRA commitments and if you take a look at the aircraft being currently replaced the Typhoon replaces fighters/interceptors in the first place while at least AdA Rafales replace AG types like the Jaguar and even those MN Rafale don’t stand QRA commitments either. So the comparison is somewhat nuts and mainly based on the lack of knowledge or understanding.

Rafale Ms have been tasked for QRA commitments, although I don’t remember where and when. But I know they have. There’s some fox 3 issues where you can read it.

3.) RAF Typhooons were meant to be deployed to Afghanistan in the second half of 2008 after the OED for multirole capability, this has been abondoned due the lack of trained pilots, upgraded aircraft and the lack of an adquate weapon (1000 lb is to much for most scenarios). Following modification of Khandahar the RAF deployed Tornado GR.4s instead to lower the load of the Typhoon squadrons which has to train pilots and provide 24/7 QRA for southern England and the Falkland Islands.

That’s why I agree with Arthuro that the Rafale is today much more usefull than the EF.

4.) Regarding the UAE results Rafale vs Typhoon I think it’s to early to draw tall conclusions as some already did (SPECTRA here, RBE2 there) we virutally know nothing except for the results, that it was BVR fighting and that the french sides missiles had a degraded range. What is not being told is wether Typhoons were in fact acting as such or as red side aggressors acting as threat aircraft (simulating the capabilities of aircraft like the Su-27 and their tactics) for example. We don’t know about the ROEs and wether the missile range on the other side is generic, which is quite common practise.

I agree the information is far too sketchy to draw any conclusion. But I seriously doubt the EFs were simulating any other threat. If they had, a RAF rebuttal would have been instantaneous. The one thing that is emerging from this is that the Rafale can in some conditions give the EF a serious run for its money in BVR, and doesn’t get butchered by the Raptor in WVR as most would have expected.

Quite a testament to the AtoA capabilities of the bird.

Nic

Definately not the same style either.

it’s his cover.

i dont get into politics, talking about planes is bad enough LOL
i knew mbda had plans for an IR but i wasnt aware it has been finished and fielded
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=345&page_id=521

if it is fielded it will add to the capability of it, do you know if it is tracking a stored image from the damoclese pod, or is it just going after a heat sourse, i havent seen any real info on it

sigh…

AASM is only marketed by MBDA, the maker is SAGEM security.

so you’re trying to say the f-16 ‘couldnt’ find any and rafale found them all, got a link ?
this is where fanboys get silly, does rafale have a sead weapon ? and how did he get a gps fix for the aasm bomb

FFS stop asking for links about stuff that have been posted HERE on various threads!!!

GPS fix could be provided by spectra. But even if it isn’t SEAD is different than DEAD. So an AASM doesn’t necessarily have to be shot. Jamming could do the trick.

couldnt is a bold word to use, didnt would be better
arent training exercises fun

It definately wouldn’t be a better word. The CJs couldn’t detect those same sites in that particular training exercise. If they could detect them then, they “would” have done so, live with it.

Nic