Nicolas10A couple of months later the Greek-French clash was repeated, this time though the numbers were fairly even.
4 Rafales M against 4 F-16 B52+, in a typical 4v4 combat. Guess what? the F-16s won…
Link-16
A friend of mine is a former Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000 pilots. I asked him about the F16 vs Mirage 2000, and he said he only flew against belgian F16s. He said the Mirage 2000 was at least as good as the F16s, that the could beat the F16, until they got the link 16 in the MLU. Then the F16s held a very superior advantage thanks to link 16.
Rafale (especially F1) isn’t a god. With L16 the F16 could more than hold its own againt planes that don’t have it. It’s just that much of a force multiplier.
Nic
Nicolas10Won against Mirage 2000-5, F-16, F-18E & Gripen in Austria.
Didn’t EADS “subsidise” the company of the chief of airforce’s wife? I’d hardly call fair game on that one.
Nic
Nicolas10I don’t believe greg’s sources that the Rafale is no better than a F16. The Mirage 2000 already is better than a F16 in the hands of a good pilots.
Now when it come to the Rafale F1, it didn’t even have L16 yet, nor the mica IR, nor many of the capabilities of the RBE2 and SPECTRA, + it didn’t have OSF. So pretty much any fighter with L16 would eat it for breakfast in bvr.
I think what greg propagates is rumours based on the bravado of F16 pilots who were too happy to claim that they managed to beat the Rafale… and maybe added to the claims of a Eurofighter mafia in the HAF who really want the EF. No matter if they have faced it or not yet.
Nic
Nicolas10The possible purchase of more secondhand Mirage 2000’s have nothing to do with the MMRCA…………..regardless of which type is selected.
Unless, in the context of a stop gap until the latter’s arrival. Which, still has nothing to do with the type selected.
100+ M2K and another 126 Rafales would be putting to many eggs in the same basket… it doesn’t work only for SU30 and Mig 35 you know
Nicolas10Well, that’s my point about the Mirage 2000-9’s. As India already operates the type and they could be intergraded very quickly……Remember, the MMRCA is still many years off……….:(
Integrate AASM for good measure in the deal and you’re set. I don’t think those planes would come very cheap though.
Nic
Nicolas10that deal to upgrade the existing 52 Mirage-2000 H/THs to the -5 standard should be signed sometime this year itself. the IAF ACM is on record as having stated that its nearing signature. and while its tempting to think of these superb Mirage-2000-9s, I doubt that the IAF would spend money on them, with the MRCA deal being on the forefront..
Well, 52+60 Mirage 2000-9 would make a pretty good force. Let alone if, for instance the Mirage 2000-5f of AdlA are offered in an improved 2000-9 standard… you get the 126 MRCA planes right there (Mirage 2000 was supposed to be the MRCA anyway once upon a time).
Nic
Nicolas10I wonder if India would be interested in the 60 Mirage 2000-9’s???
Along with a good deal to upgrade their existing fleet… that would be a pretty good force right there.
Nic
Nicolas10edited, I misread sorry
Nicolas10…not including supplimental war spending.
That’s your trillion right there… easy…
Nicolas10And as it turned out, the reason why France & Germany did not approve is because they were (in viloation of MULTIPLE UN SANCTIONS) supplying arms & other santioned materials to Iraq…
BS…
1. I don’t remember anything worthwhile being uncovered, except french weapons that was way past their expiry dates. I do remember pics of missile cases being shown in the news, and the expiry dates was clearly written on them. Talk about journalists shooting themselves in the foot!
2. Even had they found some recent french weapons, it doesn’t necessarily mean France sold them to Iraq. For instance it was the US that sold french Milan missiles to the talibans during the first afghan war, as well as they sold AKs instead of M16s because they were easier to use and maintain and so the taliban could use ammo taken from the soviets….
I am also sure that you so conveniently ignor that the OEF coalition was in fact LARGER than the ODS coalition.
What it shows is that more countries wanted to share the iraqi cake or suck up to the US pressure to gain other benefits, than countries wanted to help devend Kuwait against it’s aggressor…
Nic
Nicolas10Problems
There have, however, been increasingly critical comments about Rafale from members of the National Assembly’s Finance and Defence Commissions, and there have been reports of disagreements between Dassault and DGA about cost increases and obsolescence. According to Defence Analysis (p.17, Vol 8.No.12 December 2005) Dassault have called the RBE2 radar ‘fatally flawed’ alleging that its range was “inadequate” and averring that the Rafale therefore relied on AWACS support to overcome this.
The RBE2 PESA was supposed to be used only to lock and guide the Rafale’s weapons. Detection was to be achieved via other more discreet means (awacs and such). Or is it that they just made a radar with too short range and came up with this excuse? It’s a moot point now because RBE2 AESA has finally entered production.
The DGA also described Rafale’s OSF (“Optronique Secteur Frontal”) as “obsolescent” and production has been cut back to just 48 units, rather than the planned number, which was to have been sufficient to equip all F1 and F2 versions.
As far as I understood, the OSF was cancelled because of parts obsolescence. What point is it to keep buying systems that are built with old technology? OSF NG adresses that, and performance will probably improve as a result.
There was a two year delay in signing the production contract for the 59 F2 standard Rafales, and the order due to be placed in 2006 has dropped from 82 aircraft (65 AdlA, 17 Aéronavale) to just 66 (48 AdlA, 18 Aéronavale) (according to the Vincon Senate report). The Pintat report indicated that this reduced order has also been slipped to 2007.
Politics slowing down the project? Hardly a rare occurrence.
Still subject to delays, the Rafale (once progressing well ahead of the rival Eurofighter) has still not entered full operational service with the Armée de l’Air, and less than a dozen are in use with the French Air Force for trials, evaluation and conversion training with EC330. Though the aircraft entered operational service with the Aéronavale in 2004 Flotille 12 still has only 9 Rafales (less than a full Flotille) and is currently limited to Air-to-Air combat (F1 software/hardware standard).
That’s definately old news, Rafales have been operating in Afghanistan for almost a year with the AASM already. If that’s no proof that it is in service then I don’t know what is!
There are concerns that operational loads (especially in the long range air to surface role) will be limited by the present engine’s relatively modest thrust.
LOL just look at the pic posted by lordassap at the beginning of the page. Is that heavy enough a configuration for presently installed thrust? And off a carrier I might add!
Besides, 90KN M88 IS available right now. That the AdlA or MN don’t want it shows that at least they can do without it.
A “Post F3” configuration is now being discussed, this will be fitted with an active array radar, which is necessary to fully exploit the MBDA Meteor.
It’s not just being discussed. AESA has been funded, has entered production, and has even been demonstrated to the swiss in their fighter evaluation.
More controversially, some sources (including Francis Tusa’s industry newsletter, Defence Analysis) maintain that the aircraft compares unfavourably with Eurofighter’s Typhoon in the air to air role, though this is vigorously denied in other quarters. Though it uses a modern and extremely efficient canard Delta configuration, Rafale has been accused of being hampered by an old fashioned and ‘cumbersome’ Man Machine Interface, and it has been further suggested that this was the main reason behind the type’s rejection by South Korea and Singapore.
According to Defence Analysis and Flight Daily News, the Singapore evaluation also reportedly revealed problems with Rafale’s reliability and availability, and that the aircraft failed to demonstrate claimed radar performance or its claimed ability to supercruise. Singapore was also reportedly unimpressed by Rafale’s much vaunted “Omni role” capability. “Show us, properly” was said to have been the reaction, according to Defence Analysis. The lack of official comment by Singapore leads many to dismiss such criticism as unreliable hearsay, however.
http://www.electronicaviation.com/aircraft/Dassault_Rafale/819
All of that is unconfirmed hearsay…
Nic
Nicolas10In one of the last issues of “le fana de l’aviation”, a french magasine, you get an article about this very plane. There is a black & white pic at least and a colour profile, but the plane isn’t armed on the picture…
I would have posted it but I don’t have the magasine anymore…
Nic
Nicolas10Good point JW Cook
Nicolas10The F-22 isn’t an all-around aircraft, the F-35 is. The F-22 is more like the F-15C in mission rather than F-15E. So no, more F-22s isn’t the only thing we need. If we bumped it to like 500 and then bought more late model F-15s and F-16s maybe and all the associated ECM support and defense suppression they’d need. All that adds up to being more expensive than the current plan. Not to mention you’d still need a VTOL aircraft for the marines. You going to start ANOTHER program to do that? And if so how will that be cheaper and how will it get aircraft on the ramp in the same time period? Oh, and you’d need a LOT more Super Hornets and a lot of those will be playing tanker because the Super Hornet doesn’t have the range the F-35C will have. So you’ll need more of the G’s, more Es and Fs and more still to play tanker for the lot. Oh and you’ll also need to speed up the developement of a stealthy UCAV for the navy because they still won’t have any stealth capability without the F-35. That all sounds pretty spendy if you ask me.
F35 avionics could be retrofited to the F22 in later block to make it more multirole, while F15s and F16s keep the secondary roles.
I never think about the marines and navy. I’ve never thought VSTOL AC were usefull, so the marines could as well ditch the F35B, that said the navy would still need something better than the SH. Could the F22 be navalised?
N
Nicolas10Feminists suck
too :diablo:
Sign In
