? "On balance however its not a particularly fast airplane, or have anything special in combat range,"
It is proven to go over 1.000 nm mark in a "typical" strike configuration.
That's 4 AAMs, 2 X 1 300 kg SCALP and 3 X 2.000 l external tanks.
For that matter the strike mission profile would be flown Hi-lo-Hi, at "typical" cruising speed of 840 kt with a red line at 950 kts and this is more warload 300 nm further away than L-M own figures for the F-35 in a Hi-Hi-Hi mission flown between 30.000 and 40.400 ft.
Automatic Terrain Following mode is possible in BOTH passive and Active (radar) modes, at 300 and 100 ft respectively. Only the F-15 K does better.
More to it, Dassault keep giving it for M 1.8 but this is its operational Mach, SUSTAINED DASH is M 2.0.
Once its weapon launched it is CLEARED for M 1.6 with ALL types of external tanks, the 2.000 lincluded, 2.000 l are limited to 5.5Gs (Full/empty), the 1.250 l to 9G (empty).
Gs structural limits are 9 Gs + 90% GUARANTEED by manufacturer.
? "Even its great agility is questionable as a 21'st century asset because in todays fighter environment what are the chances of tail chasing, up close and personal dogfights?"
Been able to pull Gs is NOT only an asset in terms of close range combat.
In AdA/MN service, BVR tactics are devided over Rafale turning capabilties, "lofting" AAMs, turning hard and still retain speed are more than a necessary asset, it allows for larger engagement and desengagement envelops than been limited to 7.0/7.5gs or even 9 G for that matter.
The Rafale can pull 11.5 G going throught its "Soft" stops.
More to it this ALSO reduces SIGNIFICANTLY AAMs NEZs which are dependent on targets velocities and vectors, it will grow in size if you dont maneuver and keep coming at it, shrink if you bug out and is NOT a static bubble.
? " Extreme agility has really lost its relevance."
WRONG. All our Air Defense pilots tell the opposite story, and believe me since the entry into service of the Rafale there is a LOT of highly qualified people in a permanent brain storm over this issue.
This argument was once brought forward after US simultaion of BVR engagements untill they actually got trashed senseless by the IAF who were puting the emphasis on high-G maneuvres in BVR engagements.
No the Rafale community is confronted to a "cultural" shock, paerticularly the "Greens" (attack) who spent much of their time below 500 ft and 5.5 Gs.
So much so that in actual squadron service, the emphasis is now put to A2A tactics at 90%, this is the result of the increasing ease of use of the aircrafts in A2G, being FULLY capable of engaging 6 A2G targets SIMULTANEOUSLY and do the A2A work at the SAME time.
THIS was fully demonstrated, validated and reported byt the 1/7 pilots during/after the 2007 NATO TLP (Tactical Leadership Programme).
Now it is a well known FACT that Mirage 2000 or Rafales can launch MICAs in "Fire & Forget" mode and still expect a 75% kill rate.
If you prefer to stay 25% to 75% longer inside your opponent engagement envelop (or dont have the kinetic energy/maneuvrability to get out of it) it's your prerogative, all i can say is that you'll get killed FAST for thinking WRONG.
Rich "No Spectra and OSF offered? Sounds a bit unlikely to me. You can't sell a combat aircraft without EWS. Degrading it is another thing, but excluding it is totally senseless."
It doesnt mean NO defense suite, that of the Mirage 2000 Mk2/9 comes to mind.
EXTRACT: Ainsi, un radar air-air à plus long rayon d'action est destiné à pallier pour certaines aviations l'absence d'Awacs, ou encore une furtivité moindre du fait de l'absence de capteurs OSF ou de systèmes d'autoprotection comme le Spectra.
Audition du général Richard Wolsztynski, chef d'état-major de l'armée de l'air, sur le projet de loi de finances pour 2006 (n° 2540)
CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958
ONZIÈME LÉGISLATURE
Enregistré à la Présidence de l'Assemblée nationale le 11 octobre 2000.
AVIS
PRÉSENTÉ
AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES FORCES ARMÉES(1),
SUR LE PROJET DE loi de finances pour 2001 (n° 2585)
TANSLATION: So a longer ranged air-to-air radar is meant to compensate for the absence of AWACS in the case of some Air Forces, or even a lower stealthiness due to the absence of OSF or the auroprotection system like SPECTRA.
-----It is taken within the contest of the failure in the export of Rafale and these comments were made by général Richard Wolsztynski, AdA Head of Staff...
Waylander "If a customer needs to spend extra money for final integration of weapons like AIM-120, AIM-9, several bombs, etc. this could be part of the reasons for the export problems."
Another quote: "_ Par ailleurs, certains des développements proposés pourraient profiter un jour aux appareils français."
TANSLATION: By the way, many of the proposed developpement MIGHT beneficiate one day to the French (in French service) aircrafts.
There are MANY different issues with Rafale systems.
One noticeable is the absence of integration of the Damocles pod to the fleet, Damocles was flight-tested and integrated to Dassault test aircrafts, even Carrier tested on CDG.
But because AdA already have a significant laser designation capabilties, (plus a choices to make as to what they could afford at once), the priority was given to the integration of AASM which doesnt requiers laser illumination.
Damocled is part of the F3 standard due to enter service in 2008 but is already available for export version.
>>>>>
Very relevant point, expecially because Singapore made their choise after the US Senat cleared the full list of weapons they asked for...
Scorpion82 "And a speed of mach 1.6 with 3 drop tanks or mach 1.8 with a load of AAMs is nothing what I would call slow."
Well i tend to desagree with your figures here, althoug Rafale design was originaly that of the M 2.2 ACX, requierements were for an Ops Mach on 1.8.
The M 1.6 "Supercrusie" one was given by SNECMA in the event of a simulated upgrade with M88-3 but never validated in flight-testing.
The most likely figure is 1.4 with 6 AAMs and 1 X 1.250l, the difference in the number of AAMs is due to the actual MN/AdA policies on sparing seeker life-span.
Rafales are rarely seen carrying more than 4 wehn the actual AAM load is 8.
The 1.8 M is in effect the "Operational" speed at which the AAM release was cleared, not that even if not many people realise this, most conventional designs have similar aerodynamic/kinetic limits, including the Typhoon and the Sus, generally 0.2 to 0.5 Mach lower than the Max designed Mach to the exeption of the Mirage 2000 which was designed for launch at Max Mach.
NONE of them can launch at DASH speed or their systems have to be overided by the pilots (unlikely) and they'll take the risk of an accident.
Many speed limitation are de-facto that of the weapon manufacturers and their corresponding clearences on types.
Falstaff Well, in that case I don't understand why the French don't offer a fully "internationalized" Rafale. The market is pretty saturated and competition is hard.
The politics of France are based around the preservation of our won design/production and technologic capabilties.
Other european countrie chosed another way but the FACT is that Dassault is the only European manufacturer to have designed/produced a sery of fully indigenous fighters since 1955 or so.
This is part of France's industrial assets.
Falstaff Perhaps all western European fighter manufacturers should bundle their activities and offer all three planes (EF, Rafale and Gripen) for different roles.
SAAB are doing rather well in their own niches that of a lightweight/cheaper fighter, as for eurofighter i just cant ASEE what would be the advantage for France to go along with them,. there is NOTHING to gain for French manufacturers who can consistantly do better at a lower cost.
Falstaff There already are a lot of connections between those companies.
EF as air superiority fighter with secondary ground attack role, Rafale as superior ground attack fighter with good ATA capabilities, Gripen as a cheaper, easy to maintain multi role fighter.
Not too good for a competitive market.
I'd rather see Rafale fail on the export market than any form of collaboration which would involve a loss of capabilties in the long term.
Dassault are doing JUST FINE, the military market is only secondary to them since they are top in the Falcon-like market.
Falstaff A very sophisticated range of weapons would be offered if all companies put their heads together.
looks like you need to refresh your infos on what Rafale is scheduled to be cleared with...
For the time being: AASM, LGBs, Exocet, SCALP, ASMP, MICA IR/EM, METEOR.
Falstaff A common sensor suite (in variants according to role), cockpit and e.g. the EJ 200 for the next gen. gripen for a start.
I dont think this is a realistic approach to the issue expecially from the diverse manufacturers PoVs...
Falstaff A common marketing, training and support infrastructure as a fundament and coordinated upgrade paths for all three.
thats part of the diverse manufacturers packages as well...
Falstaff Just imagine the possibilities: Rafales as replacements for the German Tornados, EF and Gripen sold together as a Hi-Lo-Mix, full service packages according to the customers' needs for all requirements.
Rafale replaces 7 types in MN/AdA service and according to our pilots there is NO need for a Typhoon or a Gripen.
Falstaff I guess I'm just dreaming...
Yep! Quiet loud...
nfloorl: