The French Rafale Fighter Aircraft

[Scorpion82]

Yes i definitely believe the Rafale came at the wrong time.

Anyone who wants a cheap fighter buys an F-16, anyone who wants an expensive fighter buys a Eurofighter. The Rafale sits awkwardly inbetween.

Dassault should have kept going with the Mirage 4000 IMO that would have came out a decade before the Rafale and it would have been the best aircraft in the world at that time. The french could have sold it to the Eurofighter customers if they let them help manufacturer it.

BKNO whats your opinion on this? Is the Rafale similar to the Mirage 4000, The Rafale is a bit smaller and lighter, do they use similar engines?

Eh the Mirage 4000 is a completly different and older aircraft. And don't think it would be cheaper or that one of the EF partners would have bought it. The Mirage 4000 was more a kind of heavy competor for the Mirage 2000. Rafale has its own pros and cons and might fit in where others don't fit in.

 

[BKNO]

Remenber the famous "The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet:A Test Pilot Dispels The Myths"???

Well i have to say that since i am into aviation, since roughtly 40 years or so, i have never seen as much mythology writen about an aircraft than in the case of Rafale.

For a start with many US/UK/non-French writers LOVES to compare it to legacy fighters in terms of performances, forgeting that the actual NATO-Europe bemchmark have been the Mirage 2000, NOT the F-15/F16...

To summerise: A Rafale will out-accelerate, out-turn, out-climb everything bar the Typhoon and perhaps F-22 in all flight regimes at up to M 1.8.

At Farnborough i have SEEN Dassault chief test pilot Yves Kerherve turning a HIGH-AoA 360* descending spiral on the M-01 (after climbing vertical from take-off) in less time than it took the Su to pass a Cobra.

Every airfan were amazed at the performance of the Russian aircraft but quiet franckly operationaly that of Kerherve makes more sense and is achieveable by an average squadron pilot any time...

Typhoon and Rafale have a similar corner speed but Rafale have a better instantaneous turn rate by a few degrees.

Weither the TVC equiped Raptor can pass a Cobra maneuvre when flown by a top flight-test pilot during airshows, in operations it is limited to 26* AoA.

Rafale Max AoA in ALL configurations have been demonstrated at 32*.

In Operation it will be software limited to 30* AoA.

During flight-testing 100* AoA and negative speed of 40 kt have been reached and this WITHOUT TVC.

So when someone tells you it doesn't have TVC you can reply that it doesn't NEED TO (have them).

Here are some of our pilots comments to make the point stick...


On the radar...

"I think our RBE2 electronic scanning array is very good indicates Lieutenant Le Bars.

Against a F-15 or a F-16, two aircraft types that have enormous radar cross-section because of their massive ain-intakes, our detection ranges are excellent".

Maneuvrability:

A Mirage 2000 pilot: "We have to select full afterburner as soon as the fight begins while the Rafale pilot can throtle back and even remain in full DRY, military power.

The Rafale pilot: "The Rafale offering better sustained turn rates than the F-16 at low, medium and high levels.

Simulation of "Cobra" and "HERBST" manoeuvres...

http://www.onera.fr/cahierdelabo/english/amil4.htm#

These combat maneuvres have been simulated before been flight-tested at Istres.

So of course we're going to read anything from "its perfs are no better than a F-16" to "hypermaneuvrability is obsolete". Yeah! Sure....

A little story: During CdG first deployement in the Golf, they were pitted vs a raid of Saudi tornasdos escorted by F-152.

Scenario 1 vs 2 in the Saudi favour. Result? All killed for ZERO loss.

And we're talking the UNDER-DEVELOPED F-1 with avionics the generation of the Mirage 2000-5, limited SPECTRA defense suite, bugs in the radar (YEP these too for a while), NO MICA IR but still the old Magic II, NO gun integrated at the time, NO OSF and all of that on the Marine version carrying 600 kg extra weight and the M-88-2 E1.

If you guys were caring about reading about it a little you'd see for yourself that there arent many aircrafts (NOT even Typhoon) which are going to make the grade in front of a fully developed F-3 or post F-3 for that matter...

After assymetric combat mock-up vs Italian Typhoons these under-developed Rafale M F1 pilots were saying that their aircrafts compared very favourably to Typhoon T1.

I think that appart for giving more specific infos i can't bother saying more than this because anything less than reality is what it is a Myth.

>>>>>

Besides the multimode capability this included ensuring the radar was resistant to electromagnetic spikes from nuclear blasts as well as being able to withstand the shock of a carrier landing. The radar also had to be 30% lighter than that of the Mirage 2000-5 and occupy half the volume. "We have achieved this,"

DATE:09/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
RBE2 radar gets ahead
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/09/51952/rbe2-radar-gets-ahead.html

BTW The Rafale outperforms the Mirage 4000 by a fair margin, the 4000 top speed doesn't change this fact, it was heavier, had a lower TWR ratio and a fixed canard surface.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/passion/avions/dassault-militaires/mirage-4000.html

In fact it was never a French armement agency programme but Dassault own private venture and was more of a technology demonstrator than anything else.

Scorpion82 F-15K do better? The K has not even the TFR pod and I never heared about TRN for the Eagle. There're other aircraft with compareable or better terrain following capabilities.

Yes it DOES. Payload as well as range and also maximum low-level speed of 800 kts vs 750.

Scorpion82 Typhoon's design goal was mach 2 and this speed was already achieved with less powerfull RB199 MK104D and can even be achieved with 6 AAMs. Just for info.

Same in the case of Rafale which was the FIRST of the two to demonstrate a SUSTAINED M 2.0, but you dont distinguish between operational and DASH here, which was my point...

DASH is Mach Max, Operational speed is that at which the aircraft can be operationaly used in combat representative situations.

If you caree looking at the famous Typhoon website you will read this just like i did.

Since they are in the buziness of carrying AND launching weapons the Typhoon DASH speed and its operational speed are TWO different Mach limits.

DASH with the maximum number of AAMs doesn't mean weapon clearence and we're still awaitnig Typhoon M 2.0 AAM clearence after trial. Just for info.

 

[Scorpion82]

Typhoon and Rafale have a similar corner speed but Rafale have a better instantaneous turn rate by a few degrees.

So you have exact ITR for Typhoon? I doubt so. An figures flowting around are assumptions. The only thing known for sure is, that it is >30°/sec. Given the more unstable nature which results in higher g-onset which is important for ITR I tend to say they are equal, but for sure not that the Rafales ITR is superior by few degrees. I could however imagine that its STR might be slightly better, though that's a guess and not more.

Weither the TVC equiped Raptor can pass a Cobra maneuvre when flown by a top flight-test pilot during airshows, in operations it is limited to 26* AoA.

Ehm the various manoeuvres shown at Langley were performed by 27th FS pilots not by test pilots. I think you are misinformed here.

If you guys were caring about reading about it a little you'd see for yourself that there arent many aircrafts (NOT even Typhoon) which are going to make the grade in front of a fully developed F-3 or post F-3 for that matter...

Ehm other aircraft further develope as well. Though I agree that the Rafale is going to be superior to most other fighters, I wouldn't bet on it to be superior to all other platforms (I know you exclude F-22 here).

After assymetric combat mock-up vs Italian Typhoons these under-developed Rafale M F1 pilots were saying that their aircrafts compared very favourably to Typhoon T1.

I know that statement but it is very fishy and says not much, except that they weren't bad at all. The italian comment was much similar and says as much as the french one. Note that the Typhoons being flown were block 2 IOC, meaning not more developed than the F1 which are already FOC. Due to the lack of detailed info and the inaccurate statements I would say lets wait some time until both types meat more often.

Yes it DOES. Payload as well as range and also maximum low-level speed of 800 kts vs 750.

That doesn't mean anything in terms of ride quality and low level terrain following at all. The F-15s aerodynamics are far from being suited for such conditions and the F-15K has no AN/AAQ-13.

Same in the case of Rafale which was the FIRST of the two to demonstrate a SUSTAINED M 2.0, but you dont distinguish between operational and DASH here, which was my point...

The problem is the achieved speed for Typhoon wasn't accuratly disclosed as dash or sustained. Its first mach 2 flight in late 1997 was probably dash but this was already achieved with much weaker engines. I see no reason why the aircraft shouldn't be able to fly mach 2 sustained. But its operationally not relevant. Typically the aircraft will accelerate to mach 1.6 - 1.8 for BVR missile launch.

DASH is Mach Max, Operational speed is that at which the aircraft can be operationaly used in combat representative situations.

I'm well aware about that.

If you caree looking at the famous Typhoon website you will read this just like i did.

And if you would differ between officially published data and more or less free accessable ones you should know that the manufacturer does not every time state the aircraft's max performance, but design goal...

Since they are in the buziness of carrying AND launching weapons the Typhoon DASH speed and its operational speed are TWO different Mach limits.

For sure as it is the case for every aircraft. The problem is no one knows the exact speeds for the Typhoon. The only thing which is know is that it achieves more than mach 2 (demonstrated and confirmed by EADS) and that it is able to achive mach 2 with 6 AAMs.

DASH with the maximum number of AAMs doesn't mean weapon clearence and we're still awaitnig Typhoon M 2.0 AAM clearence after trial. Just for info.

I agree, but don't expect all data being published.

 

[Rich]

Rafale makes a cold meal of all "Legacy" fighters and is more than on par with Typhoon, it actually can out-turn/ out-accelerate a Mirage 2000 in DRY power only, the 2000 is the very aircraft giving the Falcon a serious run for its money.

I said legacy "strike" fighters. Exactly what does the Rafale give you over the strike Eagle as a "strike" aircraft?

I'm not talking about air show performances here.

Or do you think we dont make fighters more manueverable because we cant?

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.

The F-series aircraft in India were set up to lose by the very people flying them. I remember choking when I first heard USAF was going to take F-15s over there, while at the same time they were screaming for more Raptors. You didn't need a house to fall on your head to figure out what was going to happen during Cope India. Youve been reading to many blogs Pal.

Be that as it may I have no problem calling the SU-30 a good aircraft, or the Mirage-2000, or the Rafale. Under some conditions the SU-30, Rafale, EF, can outperform the 30+ yo legacy designs we still have flying. Tho they will have a serious problem when taking on the combined resources of the USAF and USN. Most of all if facing the F-22 and eventually the F-35.

And back to the Rafale, which is what this thread is about, does this aircraft's incremental increases really justify the huge R&D costs born by the French taxpayer, in what is the equivalent of a Govt. sponsored defense welfare program? Was it worth it?

Who are these "highly qualified people"? And what exactly was/is your position in the defense industry? This is the third time Ive asked you this, and the third time youv avoided answering. Avoid it again and we'll have to assume your full of hot air.

Oh and one more thing, for the 5'th time, why has the Rafale faired so poorly on the export market?

 

[Scorpion82]

And back to the Rafale, which is what this thread is about, does this aircraft's incremental increases really justify the huge R&D costs born by the French taxpayer, in what is the equivalent of a Govt. sponsored defense welfare program? Was it worth it?

IMO yes. There was no alternative at all. The entire Rafale programme costs about 33 bln €. That includes developement, testing, production and associated logistics etc.. Of course a lot of money for a single country, but the programme provides economical benefits for the country as well.

Oh and one more thing, for the 5'th time, why has the Rafale faired so poorly on the export market?

I think that was answered more than one time. Please reread the answers above once again.

And for more information I suggest to ask the single nations or Dassaultnfloorl:

 

[BKNO]

Rich I said legacy "strike" fighters. Exactly what does the Rafale give you over the strike Eagle as a "strike" aircraft?

Carrying 1.5 its own weight, been able to ENGAGE 6 targets simultaneously in BOTH A2a and A2G (MICA/AASM) YOU are more than welcome to SHOW us ANY US aircraft in service or even future with this capability.

+ been more maneuvrable in all configuration, a lot more steathier EM/IR and a lot less observable because smaller and lighter by a FAIR margin.

Rich I'm not talking about air show performances here.

Could YOU tell the difference?

You speak about ACMs without having any idea of what energy is as a factor...

Rich Or do you think we dont make fighters more manueverable because we cant?

Perhaps it's time to consider the possibility that you CANT, weight matters a LOT, inertia is also a b£%$&* and in view of L-M cluster-sized design FCUK-UPS with F-35 doing better than Dassault with the same sotware is not in your agenda.

Rich The F-series aircraft in India were set up to lose by the very people flying them.

I'm talking asbout the Israeli Air Force, the world's benchmark...

Rich Was it worth it?

Rafale cost us LESS than a Typhoon in BOTH developement and unit cost.

Rich Who are these "highly qualified people"? And what exactly was/is your position in the defense industry?

AdA pilots and DGA analysts for a starter.

Rich This is the third time Ive asked you this, and the third time youv avoided answering. Avoid it again and we'll have to assume your full of hot air.

I'm NOT about to disclose my military record in the internet for the stake of pulling ranks, I'm past this age mate,i rather prefer to inform myself properly...

Only reading what you post make me think that you're not in the loop and believe that everything you read in the web is validated by real life experience. It is certainly not so.

For a starter what i post is the result of DGA studies and 1/7 squadron pilots reports, if you can comprehend what it means in term of operational values.

Rich Oh and one more thing, for the 5'th time, why has the Rafale faired so poorly on the export market?

Apparently i might just prove you wrong...

http://www.dev-export.com/detailsafrique.php?numafrique=414

I think i have alrweady given some proper explainations to this question, particularly in view of the fact that these were official.

As opposed to what you might think i DONT do blogs, i leave this to guys who are happy posting copy/paste stuff they can gather in the web.

I i need an info i'll start with official sources such as DoD/MoD/DGA and in the case of French programmes the best place to start is that of the Assemblee Nationale finishing with squadrons websites.

http://www.ec17provence.org/

Like this one for example...

 

[Rich]

Carrying 1.5 its own weight, been able to ENGAGE 6 targets simultaneously in BOTH A2a and A2G (MICA/AASM) YOU are more than welcome to SHOW us ANY US aircraft in service or even future with this capability.

+ been more maneuvrable in all configuration, a lot more steathier EM/IR and a lot less observable because smaller and lighter by a FAIR margin.

I'm looking into this. I dont have time to research right now. I'll say this however, if the Rafale is out-radared it doesn't matter what it can track. Anyway, from the beginning, Ive called it a nice little ATG airplane.

That's not true. Rafale has even more LO features than the Typhoon.

That is until you talk to Typhoon people who say the EF has a RCS of 0.05~01 m2, compared to 0.1~0.3 m2 for Rafale.

Perhaps it's time to consider the possibility that you CANT, weight matters a LOT, inertia is also a b£%$&* and in view of L-M cluster-sized design FCUK-UPS with F-35 doing better than Dassault with the same sotware is not in your agenda.

Here your just being ignorant. No wonder you were put on the bench for 3 days. The F-35 wasn't even in the discussion but thanks anyway for telling us what a disaster the design is going to be. Maybe you should tell the dozen other nations who have signed onto the program already, and doing so have bypassed the Rafale. <smirk>

I'm talking asbout the Israeli Air Force, the world's benchmark...

Benchmark to who? And they fly the same aircraft as we do.

Rafa

le cost us LESS than a Typhoon in BOTH developement and unit cost.

Until you talk to EF people. Fact is they are both "about" 50 m per copy airplanes.

AdA pilots and DGA analysts for a starter.

Who?? As in "names"? Not that your word isnt golden herenfloorl:

I'm NOT about to disclose my military record in the internet for the stake of pulling ranks, I'm past this age mate,i rather prefer to inform myself properly...

I thought so.

And your sale to Libya? Well I dont read French. I dont even like crepes. Last I heard, and your article is from May 2006 "I can read that much", is that both Govt.'s are denying that sale will go forward.

Bottom line is nobody has ordered the aircraft yet even tho its been available for a couple years. Thats "no-body", as in "zero" customers.

And you call the F-35 a disaster?nfloorl:

 

[Scorpion82]

That is until you talk to Typhoon people who say the EF has a RCS of 0.05~01 m2, compared to 0.1~0.3 m2 for Rafale.

That quote was from me not BKNO.
From the external viewable features the Rafale employs more of them. I personally think the Rafales overall RCS and IR signature are lower than that of the Typhoon, but I'm not going to say how much. This is a sensitive matter and exact data are classified. All data floating around are more or less nice guesses based on hints from the industry or customers. Let me say I'm sceptical about "Typhoon people" speaking about Rafales RCS, from where can they no it? Its of course the same the other way round! My assessment is that their frontal RCS is more or less similar, but the Rafales overall signatures are lower. How much nobody knows for sure.

Until you talk to EF people. Fact is they are both "about" 50 m per copy airplanes.

If you compare the prices the french pay for F3 Rafales (3rd batch) and germans or austrians pay for tranche 2 you come to the conclusion that Rafale costs about 54 mio € and Typhoon ~60-62 mio €. That is a fact, but it's of course necessary to look what's being included in these costs and there we have few to no sight in.

 

[jaffo4011]

I said legacy "strike" fighters. Exactly what does the Rafale give you over the strike Eagle as a "strike" aircraft?

I'm not talking about air show performances here.

Or do you think we dont make fighters more manueverable because we cant?



The F-series aircraft in India were set up to lose by the very people flying them. I remember choking when I first heard USAF was going to take F-15s over there, while at the same time they were screaming for more Raptors. You didn't need a house to fall on your head to figure out what was going to happen during Cope India. Youve been reading to many blogs Pal.

Be that as it may I have no problem calling the SU-30 a good aircraft, or the Mirage-2000, or the Rafale. Under some conditions the SU-30, Rafale, EF, can outperform the 30+ yo legacy designs we still have flying. Tho they will have a serious problem when taking on the combined resources of the USAF and USN. Most of all if facing the F-22 and eventually the F-35.

And back to the Rafale, which is what this thread is about, does this aircraft's incremental increases really justify the huge R&D costs born by the French taxpayer, in what is the equivalent of a Govt. sponsored defense welfare program? Was it worth it?

Who are these "highly qualified people"? And what exactly was/is your position in the defense industry? This is the third time Ive asked you this, and the third time youv avoided answering. Avoid it again and we'll have to assume your full of hot air.

Oh and one more thing, for the 5'th time, why has the Rafale faired so poorly on the export market?

i think the rafales main problem with exports has been the typhoon and its marketing.without the typhoon it would have gained sales from pro european countries but the typhoon's makers are equally as european and the aircraft is on balance perceived as being more capable at this time.

in respect of the quote of the americans not designing more manoueverable aircraft'on purpose',i do find this pretty funny.the makers of all the aircraft set out their designs a long time ago and all of them set out to make them to the best of their ability,im sure.

the f22 was touted by numerous sources as being the most manoueverable aircraft of the next generation with its thrust vectoring etc.it obviously hasnt turned out that way in respect of the superior performance of the tyhoon and rafale in that aspect.

the f22 has advantages in some other areas but you cant just change the rules when your favourite plane doesnt match up as well as you'd hoped!

i think that the western powers are lucky to still have several manufacturing nations to produce the varying aircraft types still available which can only serve to increase competitivness and performance of the f22,tyhoon,rafale and gripen(which is unfairly neglected in these forums and which i would have liked to have seen replace the harrier and jaguar in british service)

 

[BKNO]

Rich I'm looking into this. I dont have time to research right now. I'll say this however, if the Rafale is out-radared it doesn't matter what it can track. Anyway, from the beginning, Ive called it a nice little ATG airplane.

Well you CAN look as hard as you want as for been out-radared you still dont get it do you?

That is until you talk to Typhoon people who say the EF has a RCS of 0.05~01 m2, compared to 0.1~0.3 m2 for Rafale.

Sure they talk about Rafale A demonstrator in a simulation dated from 20 years ago.

Here your just being ignorant.

Sure you're more than welcome to elaborate on aerodynamics, im YOUR man any time...

Benchmark to who? And they fly the same aircraft as we do.

And trash you senseles any time you try them out.

you talk to EF people. Fact is they are both "about" 50 m per copy airplanes.

Keep talking to all these people because apparently it is taking time for reeality to sink-in.

Until Who?? As in "names"? Not that your word isnt golden here

I will dig some infos for you...

I thought so.

You thought RIGHT we' didnt do the AF cadet school together that's all i'm going to tell you about it and i'm not in the buziness of desinforming people.

I think you should consider trying making some points here, you havent so far writen anything that made the grade.

Rich Well I dont read French.

Ignorance is blessed.

Bottom line is nobody has ordered the aircraft yet even tho its been available for a couple years. Thats "no-body", as in "zero" customers.

Not an argument representative of its performances. We have seen guys like you before they have too little to say to make an impression.

Rich And you call the F-35 a disaster?

You want a resume of L-M design FCUK-UPs?

 

[jaffo4011]

lets keep it civil bkno,by getting personal you stand to lose your arguments,most of which have obviously been researched well.

ill cheer you up by stating that i think the rafale would have been ideal for our new carriers but unfortunately i dont believe that the french would have been interested in a true manufacturing partnership with bae and the british would have been caught at cross purposes being already heavily involved with joint marketing of the saab gripen and the typhoon.then again it was the french who opted out of the typhoon so perhaps theres a lesson there.

 

[danish]

EuroFighter Typhoon is a good aircraft i think jointly developing leads a good product Always :smokie

 

[Rich]

I think you should consider trying making some points here, you havent so far writen anything that made the grade.


Quote:
Rich Well I dont read French.

Ignorance is blessed.

I did make a point. That the Rafale is so unexceptional that nobody has bought the thing. And how do you respond to that? You post some link of a French newspaper that's a year old about a rumor that the vaunted Libyan AF was going to buy a dozen Rafales.

You thought you'd slip that by me and that I wouldn't be able to read the date, which was May 2006. Then you seem to think I wouldn't be aware that both Govt.'s, since then, have denied the sale. Thus putting the Rafale back in the remarkable position of being the only fighter that never sold a copy on the INTL market.

Can anyone else name a fighter that never sold to anyone?

So now I have to ask myself exactly what are the French lieing about on this aircraft? The first thing that comes to mind is the RCS. Next is the overall performance. I mean we have 30 yo aircraft that outranges it and outspeeds it.

Put an AESA on the thing and then we'll talk. Until then its going to be at a ATA disadvantage, "exactly why did you never put AESA on it to begin with"? So until you put a better radar on it, make it faster and longer range, AND finally sell the thing to someone else, I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer to the Rafale here as The Flying Rat!

I got a feeling your not going to last long here however BKNO because you are an excitiable/obsessive little guy. I had no intention of turning this into a Rat vs F-??? thread. I actually have been fairly positive towards the rat and have always had a fair amount of respect for the French aviation industry, which historically has been very accomplished.

The history of the Mirage has been a history of "how to develop an excellent warplane". Indeed there have been several times in this forum Ive said very positive things about the French Military/Industrial complex.

Pity about The Flying Rat however. And a pity that BKNO is the best the French can drum up for this forum.

BTW we always get a kick out of how we always get beat in exercises. "In exercies"?nfloorl: "EXERCISES"?nfloorl:

 

[rjmaz1]

Most countries want a strike aircraft with great air defence capabilities.

The F-35 beats out the Rafale by quite a margin in this regard.

1. On internal fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.
2. On external fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.
3. The F-35 can detect enemy targets further away than the Rafale, this increases the F-35's survivability.
4. The Rafale can be detected much further away by enemy ground forces, this drecreases the Rafales survivability..
5. To perform the same strike mission the Rafale must carry 2 bombs, 2 AAM and 3 tanks to match the F-35's 2 bombs, 2 AAM and no tanks.
6. In this configuration the Rafale does not travel quicker than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks or uses afterburners which it cannot sustain.
7. In this configuration the Rafale does not have better agility than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks and/or bombs.
8. F-35's sensor fusion is a step ahead of the Rafale, this is open to intepretation.
9. Based on this increased range and survivability the F-35 is definitely worth the extra money

What i dont understand though is compared to the Eurofighter there is very little difference between the two aircraft.

Compared to the F-16 and Gripen the Rafale is better all round. But is it good enough to warrant the extra price tag.

Compared to the Super Hornet the Rafale has alot of advantages and few disadvantages. The only reason Australia bought the Super Hornet as we can get them straight away and we are very familiar with the Hornet. This probably applies to the F-16 as well, alot of countries buy the F-16 simply because they already have older F-16's in service.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Most countries want a strike aircraft with great air defence capabilities.

The F-35 beats out the Rafale by quite a margin in this regard.

1. On internal fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.
2. On external fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.
3. The F-35 can detect enemy targets further away than the Rafale, this increases the F-35's survivability.
4. The Rafale can be detected much further away by enemy ground forces, this drecreases the Rafales survivability..
5. To perform the same strike mission the Rafale must carry 2 bombs, 2 AAM and 3 tanks to match the F-35's 2 bombs, 2 AAM and no tanks.
6. In this configuration the Rafale does not travel quicker than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks or uses afterburners which it cannot sustain.
7. In this configuration the Rafale does not have better agility than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks and/or bombs.
8. F-35's sensor fusion is a step ahead of the Rafale, this is open to intepretation.
9. Based on this increased range and survivability the F-35 is definitely worth the extra money

What i dont understand though is compared to the Eurofighter there is very little difference between the two aircraft.

Compared to the F-16 and Gripen the Rafale is better all round. But is it good enough to warrant the extra price tag.

Compared to the Super Hornet the Rafale has alot of advantages and few disadvantages. The only reason Australia bought the Super Hornet as we can get them straight away and we are very familiar with the Hornet. This probably applies to the F-16 as well, alot of countries buy the F-16 simply because they already have older F-16's in service.

No, no. no you don't understand. Dassault has told everyone that apparently drag is not an issue for the Rafale, despite it's "dirty" airframe when carrying external stores, especially the large external fuel tanks and SCALP SOW's it needs to strike at 1000nm it STILL outperforms an otherwise clean F-35, except no-one can honestly state what the performance of an F-35 is, because a representative production model aircraft has yet to be built.

But Dassault of course is fully briefed on the project and knows ALL about it.

One of course then wonders why L-M is bothering to have a flight testing program. Why not simply get all their performance data from Dassault? Since apparently they KNOW ALL anyway...

The Rafale would have been an excellent fighter in the 90's. Unfortunately it'll be about 20 years out of date, by the time it possesses the level of technology (apart from LO, which of course it will never reach) of the F-35., if in fact it ever does...

 

[swerve]

...
Can anyone else name a fighter that never sold to anyone?
...

Rich, I'm surprised at you. The list is too long to type out.

 

[BKNO]

Rich BTW we always get a kick out of how we always get beat in exercises. "In exercies"? "EXERCISES"?

As i said previously, this is pure trolling and NO substance whatsoever, you not only make NO point you have NONE to make, please dont waste my time.

rjmaz1 Most countries want a strike aircraft with great air defence capabilities.

They're not going to get them from an SLOW mudmover limited to 9.0Gs- with no supercruise capabilties and only limited frontal L.O..

rjmaz1 The F-35 beats out the Rafale by quite a margin in this regard.

You're MORE than welcome to SHOW us how if you have what it takes to elaborate with some proper argumentation...

rjmaz1 On internal fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.

YOU wish, it's actually 300 nm SHORTER while flying a Hi-Hi-Hi missions when the Rafale does its trike Hi-Lo-Hi.

In the same mission profile it's a full 350 nm or so are you kidding???

On external fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.

Really? Still not been published i think you really are taking the piss here no>

The above strike configuration ONLY includes 3 X 2.000 L NOT the 1.150 L CFTs.

rjmaz1 The F-35 can detect enemy targets further away than the Rafale, this increases the F-35's survivability.

Not passively NO. OSF detects at a far longer range in A2A thanEOTS and is a lot less VMC limited using different wavelength.

As for radar range, evem LPI radars are detectable...

rjmaz1 The Rafale can be detected much further away by enemy ground forces, this drecreases the Rafales survivability..

Probabilly but again it is not designed for the sort of Jobs F-35 was deisgned for and is WAY more performant overal.

To perform the same strike mission the Rafale must carry 2 bombs, 2 AAM and 3 tanks to match the F-35's 2 bombs, 2 AAM and no tanks.

True but it will be able to fly at the same cruising speed in this configuration, at the F-35 MACH Max with three tanks and 4 AAMs, and 0.4 Mach faster with its AAMs only. And BTW all of this 300 nm further away from base.

rjmaz1 In this configuration the Rafale does not travel quicker than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks or uses afterburners which it cannot sustain.

Red limit is M 0.95. Try to get the F-35 to stay in dry power at this speed...

M 0.82 in typical cruising speed. Where have you guys been living the past 30 years???

rjmaz1 In this configuration the Rafale does not have better agility than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks and/or bombs.

G limits are imposed by the warload.

It remains to be SEEN weither L-M will clear F-35 fopr more than 5.5 G with its internal A2G ordonance...

rjmaz1 F-35's sensor fusion is a step ahead of the Rafale, this is open to intepretation.

W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R.

The F2 have rthe same generation of avionics, F3 will have newer post F3 even newer...

[/QUOTE] Based on this increased range and survivability the F-35 is definitely worth the extra money
What i dont understand though is compared to the Eurofighter there is very little difference between the two aircraft.[/QUOTE]

!) it's a POW based on a serie of totally misinforned and WRONG assumtions.

2) In this case you ALSO can understand that it will make a cold meal of F-35 in A2A...

Aussie Digger No, no. no you don't understand. Dassault has told everyone that apparently drag is not an issue for the Rafale,

I skip the rest, but really you have so little argumentation it's becoming hilarious.


What is more and more apperent is that the F-35 "community" is clearly pissed-off and will not accept fact as they are.

Next time you'll ask Dassault what they have for sale before jumping into the US commercial wagon. You might be surprised...

 

[BKNO]

Rich BTW we always get a kick out of how we always get beat in exercises. "In exercies"? "EXERCISES"?

As i said previously, this is pure trolling and NO substance whatsoever, you not only make NO point you have NONE to make, please dont waste my time.

rjmaz1 Most countries want a strike aircraft with great air defence capabilities.

They're not going to get them from an SLOW mudmover limited to 9.0Gs- with no supercruise capabilties and only limited frontal L.O..

rjmaz1 The F-35 beats out the Rafale by quite a margin in this regard.

You're MORE than welcome to SHOW us how if you have what it takes to elaborate with some proper argumentation, for the time being, supercruise, Max Mach and maneuvrability are not in F-35 favour...

rjmaz1 On internal fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.

YOU wish, it's actually 300 nm SHORTER while flying a Hi-Hi-Hi missions when the Rafale does its strike Hi-Lo-Hi.

In the same mission profile it's a full 350 nm or so are you kidding???

On external fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.

Really? Still not been published i think you really are taking the piss here no?

The above strike configuration ONLY includes 3 X 2.000 L NOT the 1.150 L CFTs and they are only limited to M 1.6/5.5 G.

rjmaz1 The F-35 can detect enemy targets further away than the Rafale, this increases the F-35's survivability.

Not passively NO. OSF detects at a far longer range in A2A than EOTS and is a lot less VMC limited, using a different wavelength.

As for radar range, even LPI radars are detectable...

rjmaz1 The Rafale can be detected much further away by enemy ground forces, this drecreases the Rafales survivability..

Probabilly but again it is not designed for the sort of Jobs F-35 was designed for (FIRST DAY STRIKE) can use stand-off weapons and is WAY more performant overal.

To perform the same strike mission the Rafale must carry 2 bombs, 2 AAM and 3 tanks to match the F-35's 2 bombs, 2 AAM and no tanks.

True but it will be able to fly at the same cruising speed in this configuration, at the F-35 MACH Max with three tanks and 4 AAMs, and 0.4 Mach faster with its AAMs only. And BTW all of this 300 nm further away from base.

rjmaz1 In this configuration the Rafale does not travel quicker than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks or uses afterburners which it cannot sustain.

Red limit is M 0.95. Try to get the F-35 to stay in dry power at this speed...

M 0.82 in typical cruising speed. Where have you guys been living the past 30 years???

rjmaz1 In this configuration the Rafale does not have better agility than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks and/or bombs.

G limits are imposed by the warload.

It remains to be SEEN weither L-M will clear F-35 for more than 5.5 G with its internal A2G ordonance...

rjmaz1 F-35's sensor fusion is a step ahead of the Rafale, this is open to intepretation.

W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R.

The F2 have the same generation of avionics, F3 will have newer post F3 even newer...

[/QUOTE] Based on this increased range and survivability the F-35 is definitely worth the extra money
What i dont understand though is compared to the Eurofighter there is very little difference between the two aircraft.[/QUOTE]

!) It's a POW based on a serie of totally misinforned and WRONG assumtions.

2) In this case you ALSO can understand that Rafale will make a cold meal of F-35 in A2A...

Aussie Digger No, no. no you don't understand. Dassault has told everyone that apparently drag is not an issue for the Rafale,

I skip the rest, but really you have so little argumentation it's becoming hilarious.

What is more and more apperent is that the F-35 "community" is clearly pissed-off and will not accept fact as they are.

Next time you'll ask Dassault what they have for sale before jumping into the US commercial wagon. You might be surprised...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Next time you'll ask Dassault what they have for sale before jumping into the US commercial wagon. You might be surprised...

Actually France hasn't had ANYTHING since the Mirage III that has interested Australia in fighter jets and we've evaluated them all...

 

[BKNO]

Who care? You think we do?

What matter to US is that OUR pilots have the BEST there is available to US and it is NOT F-35.

This BTW is somethnig you guys seems to be totally unaware of.

SAME for the Eurofighter nations, they only will use it in the A2G role and there is a very good reason for that.


As for WHAT our inferior aircrafts can do, you're not only ungratefull you are short in memory too, so go on keep feeding fat burger and co...