Know Your 'Rafale'

[DAC O DAC]

LOL really? Is France using Mirage 2000 as light plane and Rafale as medium plane?
Does in Dassault website define Rafale as "medium" MRCA?
Take care dear cow

Taking care?
Yes, but just about your stupidity.

DoD

 

[Flame Thrower]

Taking care?
Yes, but just about your stupidity.

DoD

It would be better if you point out his mistakes, than silly remarks.

I'd like to go through your explanation on what mistakes or stupid remaks he had made.

 

[smestarz]

Wonder why you poke your nose into something when you are not aware of the Banter,, just keep going to the next post.

Taking care?
Yes, but just about your stupidity.

DoD

 

[smestarz]

No you are not entirely correct, perhaps not even remotely
The French were using all sorts of planes in their air force and navy, Etendards, Mirages III etc and it had become a logistical nightmare for the French.
Now when the french developed and produced Mirage 2000 it was top plane but expensive in a way. It was competetive to F-16 but in reality F-16 was way better than Mirage 2000 and you see many countries buy and use F-16. The French were OK with this as they were having their own small market. But then the Russians came with their MiG-29 the Su-27 and the Americans were with their F-14 and F-15, and these were the most powerful planes available, MiG-29 could take down a Mirage 2000 as MiG-29 was a better dog fighter also it had ability to use its missiles simply by looking at the target,. Thus the French and most of Europe was caught unprepared. They came together to develop Twin engine fighter that could be used to face off against the Mig-29 and even Su-27. Now the Europeans were forced into this situation due to the new Russian planes, unfortunately the french were pushed into this situation when Mirage 2000 was maturing but it was badly outclassed by the Russian jets.,
The French thought to take advantage of it, And decided to develop and produce Rafale to replace Mirage 2000 and also make it their carrier plane replacing Super Etendards.
This very situation we see in Russia now where Mirage 2000 is Su-30 SM and Su-35 and Rafale is Su-57, The Su-30 SM and Su-35 are new and very capable plane but they are 4th Gen plane, Su-57 is 5th Gen plane, but what can it replace in RuAF? Maybe the older MiG-29 or Su-24 squadrons.

Anyway, the French would have gone with the plane but it was badly calculated and desperate plan
1. They got into building Rafale else they would be outclassed by the Russian twin engine planes
2. The Mirage 2000 had not even flown for half life and hence could not be replaced as that will mean a big loss.
3. Dassault had to produce a min nos of plane a year else it would face a loss
4. Flying a Mirage 2000 is cheaper to fly and maintain than Rafale (single engine vs twin engine)

I can say that it was badly calculated move because the French AF did not need more planes and yet they were committed to buy new Rafales to keep Dassault working, And whatever the new planes were delivered those were mothballed and stored. Do let me know which country pays and buys a new "top of the line" plane and instead of inducting it, mothballs it? That shows that my analysis that the French got dragged into Rafale to counter the Russian threat and Superiority and they got trapped in such a way, that they had to produce rafale and had to mothball it, they use Mirage 2000 because they are cheaper to fly and maintain.
The cost of operation of Rafale would be at least 60% higher than that of Mirage 2000 thus if the French fly mirage they manage to keep better budget, but if they fly the Rafale, the cost incurred will be more.

Wrong again, since they reduced the number of initially planned Rafale orders and upgraded the M2Ks instead, to keep them available for a longer time, as a more cost-effective multi role complement to Rafale. French army is even considering a light attack prop aircraft, to have own CAS capability in anti IS / Taliban conflicts, instead using more costly M2Ks and Rafales of the AF.
Btw, Rafale being x times more capable than Mirage 2000, is an advertisement slogan of Dassault, mainly aimed on the bomb loads of both. A Mirage 2000 can carry 2 x 500lb LGBs with a twin launcher at the centerline, a Rafale so far up to 6.

But that's more for PR reasons that showing the reality, which is that the Mirage is often prefer for lower operational costs and that even Rafales only fly with 4 x LGBs in standard config, while you see Dassault testing new weapon loads for the M2K, with up to 6 x AASM or most likely a low collateral damage weapon.

 

[asianobserve]

Actually Mirage 2000 was developed to counter Mig-29 while Rafale was the hi end mix to counter Su-27.

 

[abingdonboy]

Penned by yours truly, hopefully we can get these liars to silence their malicious campaign against one of the most significant purchases India has made in decades

 

[jouy31]

I can say that it was badly calculated move because the French AF did not need more planes and yet they were committed to buy new Rafales to keep Dassault working, And whatever the new planes were delivered those were mothballed and stored. Do let me know which country pays and buys a new "top of the line" plane and instead of inducting it, mothballs it? That shows that my analysis that the French got dragged into Rafale to counter the Russian threat and Superiority and they got trapped in such a way, that they had to produce rafale and had to mothball it, they use Mirage 2000 because they are cheaper to fly and maintain.
The cost of operation of Rafale would be at least 60% higher than that of Mirage 2000 thus if the French fly mirage they manage to keep better budget, but if they fly the Rafale, the cost incurred will be more.

Actually, the French Air Force has not, to my knowledge, ever mothballed a Rafale.

The French Navy did mothball 10 Rafale Marine. These aircraft, at the F1 standard, were deployed in 2004 aboard the CdG for operation "Enduring Freedom" and were limited to air-to-air capabilities. In 2006, they were mothballed and replaced with Rafale Marine at the F2 standard, the first "omnirole" standard.

These mothballed Rafale Marine (and all aircraft at the F2 standard) have since been upgraded to the F3 standard and have come back to the French Navy starting in 2014 and ending in 2017, when the final Super Etendard Modernisés were retired.

So, the reason for mothballing the 10 first Rafale Marine (M1 through M10), was the choice, quite sound in my opinion, to have squadrons aboard the CdG with homogeneous capabilities, while taking the time to upgrade the first batch that had been inducted. There were no newly delivered Rafale that were mothballed, contrary to what you state.

BTW, one can note that the first batches of Eurofighters will never be upgraded to the latest standard.

 

[Armand2REP]

The French were using all sorts of planes in their air force and navy, Etendards, Mirages III etc and it had become a logistical nightmare for the French.

The logistical nightmare was waiting for the US to give parts for the F-8 Crusaders. They were our F-14s until the Rafale replaced it. All of the Mirages to that point had long been in production with plenty of exports, getting spares for those was easy.

Now when the french developed and produced Mirage 2000 it was top plane but expensive in a way. It was competetive to F-16 but in reality F-16 was way better than Mirage 2000 and you see many countries buy and use F-16. The French were OK with this as they were having their own small market.

The M2000 had higher availability rates and lower operating costs than the original F-16. Most of US sales of F-16s were military aid packages given to nations for free. The nations that didn't get military aid opted for the Mirage. Turkey found out how well their welfare package F-16s could do against Greek Mirages when their F-16 was shot down over the Aegean for violating Athens FIR. As the F-16s went into later blocks the M2000 fell behind in its upgrades as the Rafale was coming.

But then the Russians came with their MiG-29 the Su-27 and the Americans were with their F-14 and F-15, and these were the most powerful planes available, MiG-29 could take down a Mirage 2000 as MiG-29 was a better dog fighter also it had ability to use its missiles simply by looking at the target,. Thus the French and most of Europe was caught unprepared. They came together to develop Twin engine fighter that could be used to face off against the Mig-29 and even Su-27. Now the Europeans were forced into this situation due to the new Russian planes, unfortunately the french were pushed into this situation when Mirage 2000 was maturing but it was badly outclassed by the Russian jets.,

The first MiG-29s didn't have fly-by-wire. The M2000 could easily spank them in high G manoeuvres. The Archer wasn't widely added to the MiG-29 until the time the Mica was added to M2000 C and later M2000-5. Once Mica came on line any Russian advantage was lost. With the addition of the Thales Topsight cueing system the Russians were so embarrassed by their antiquated helmet they withdrew it from the export catalogue and started offering the French system for export on their MiG-29s.

The French thought to take advantage of it, And decided to develop and produce Rafale to replace Mirage 2000 and also make it their carrier plane replacing Super Etendards.
This very situation we see in Russia now where Mirage 2000 is Su-30 SM and Su-35 and Rafale is Su-57, The Su-30 SM and Su-35 are new and very capable plane but they are 4th Gen plane, Su-57 is 5th Gen plane, but what can it replace in RuAF? Maybe the older MiG-29 or Su-24 squadrons.

The air superiority fighter on our carriers was the F-8E Crusader as I mentioned before. It was totally inadequate to the task of dealing with anything post 1980. It's obsolescence was the driving factor of an early emphasis on Rafale M production to quickly replace them. If you notice which squadrons were filled up first with Rafale, it was Aeronavale.

I can say that it was badly calculated move because the French AF did not need more planes and yet they were committed to buy new Rafales to keep Dassault working, And whatever the new planes were delivered those were mothballed and stored. Do let me know which country pays and buys a new "top of the line" plane and instead of inducting it, mothballs it? That shows that my analysis that the French got dragged into Rafale to counter the Russian threat and Superiority and they got trapped in such a way, that they had to produce rafale and had to mothball it, they use Mirage 2000 because they are cheaper to fly and maintain.
The cost of operation of Rafale would be at least 60% higher than that of Mirage 2000 thus if the French fly mirage they manage to keep better budget, but if they fly the Rafale, the cost incurred will be more.

I agree that the M2000-5 line was shut down too early. There was still export demand for that aircraft as it had excellent price to performance and would still beat an F-16 in an open competition, without US welfare package. Export clients were looking for AESA equipped aircraft by that time and the Rafale was the only one going to get it, and it got it long before any non-US aircraft.

The first Rafale Ms were not mothballed per-say, they were withdrawn in need of upgrades as they were the first batch and another squadron of Rafale of a higher block took their place. They had been rushed into service to replace the F-8Es as mentioned before. The SEMs still had plenty of hours on them and were to be used until all squadrons could be formed with Rafale. There was no dragging into the Rafale, it was designed from the outset to replace all aircraft types. The thing that slowed down it's procurement was a sudden explosion of export orders after a decade of not having one. The production line was switched to export so the defence budget could be used to procure other much needed equipment. Once the bulk of export orders were filled there would be more frames in service and the state could benefit from economies of scale. Later buys means a later block and that they wouldn't need to be upgraded for much longer such as the first Rafale Ms had to be. A Rafale M with Meteor and RBE2 AESA is the most advanced combat aircraft on the high seas.

 

[MrPresident]

Penned by yours truly, hopefully we can get these liars to silence their malicious campaign against one of the most significant purchases India has made in decades

IDRW has posted ur article and the comments section is very colorful, check it out at your own risk :biggrin2:

 

[WolfPack86]

Just buy more Rafales and close the topic of MMRCA tender.

 

[abingdonboy]

Just buy more Rafales and close the topic of MMRCA tender.

Cheapest,simplest and quickest option- not very Indian is it?

 

[Vinod DX9]

Some days ago there was a report that the Indian Air Force (IAF) is likely to issue a RFI eyeing new fighter jets which will subsequently facilitate India's own fifth gen fighter jet program AMCA.

Regarding this issue, here rise some important questions , whose answers will determine potential result of MMRCA 2:

1) How many manufactures are there who will be really agree to transfer technology of a sophisticated fighter jet? Till now only Dassault and SAAB have promised much .

And commitment to contribute/transfer sophisticated transfer technologies for a fifth gen project?

2) If we go with SAAB, question is how much technology actually they can transfer to us? They themselves don't hold 100% of all sophisticated technologies

2) Let's accept that we are getting 100% from SAAB
But why we need an imported single engine fighter jet now? IAF already committed to 324 Tejas in which 201 will be Tejas Mk II. Tejas Mk II will be such a jet which can mach Mirage-2000 in terms of payload and Gripen in terms of capability. Then still why we need both the Gripen and Gripen equivalent aircraft?

3) Forget LM F-16 Block 70/72 and Mig-35...least chances of acceptance unless diplomacy calls

4) The prime condition of selection is Transfer of Technology . Dassault already has committed on this for additional large no Rafale fleet. So if we can get that by ordering more Rafales, why there is need of MMRCA 2?

5) If Rafales are not the choice, are Typhoons? But EF didn't say on TOT. Besides, it's better to maintain large fleet of Rafales with sure shot TOT rather having both the Typhoon and Rafales in the fleet.

6) F/A-18...nothing should be said for it at the moment.

7) Previously it was reported that new deal would be a direct G2G deal. But now again TOT conditions applied. And unlikely decision will be taken fast. If deal is signed this year (unlikely), then good. But if deal is not signed this year, then can it be completed before GE 2019? Possibly no. So potential time of sign is 2019-20 (and that too , if everything goes well). So delivery of first aircraft can be expected as early as 2023. If the entire process will take so much time, then why the target should be to procure just a fourth gen aircraft?

8 ) IAF actually should look at only fifth gen aircrafts now, and Rafale deal should be commenced in large nos.

9) But again there is a problem. If India eyes only fifth gen aircraft, this will limit choice of manufacturers to only two. LM and Sukhoi.

So instead of potential 6 competitors there will be only two choices....

i) F-35
ii) Su-57

And according to latest report, IAF is interest in neither F-35 nor Su-57.

At the end, Rafale stands high on the percentage of being selected, but when Dassault is asking for deal of more Rafales for long time, is there really a need of another mega competition? Or IAF will select a different jet this time?

What do you think?

 

[WolfPack86]

Cheapest,simplest and quickest option- not very Indian is it?

I am really fed up with MMRCA tender drama again and it is better to procure more Rafales and close this MMRCA drama.

 

[abingdonboy]

Some days ago there was a report that the Indian Air Force (IAF) is likely to issue a RFI eyeing new fighter jets which will subsequently facilitate India's own fifth gen fighter jet program AMCA.

Regarding this issue, here rise some important questions , whose answers will determine potential result of MMRCA 2:

1) How many manufactures are there who will be really agree to transfer technology of a sophisticated fighter jet? Till now only Dassault and SAAB have promised much .

And commitment to contribute/transfer sophisticated transfer technologies for a fifth gen project?

2) If we go with SAAB, question is how much technology actually they can transfer to us? They themselves don't hold 100% of all sophisticated technologies

2) Let's accept that we are getting 100% from SAAB
But why we need an imported single engine fighter jet now? IAF already committed to 324 Tejas in which 201 will be Tejas Mk II. Tejas Mk II will be such a jet which can mach Mirage-2000 in terms of payload and Gripen in terms of capability. Then still why we need both the Gripen and Gripen equivalent aircraft?

3) Forget LM F-16 Block 70/72 and Mig-35...least chances of acceptance unless diplomacy calls

4) The prime condition of selection is Transfer of Technology . Dassault already has committed on this for additional large no Rafale fleet. So if we can get that by ordering more Rafales, why there is need of MMRCA 2?

5) If Rafales are not the choice, are Typhoons? But EF didn't say on TOT. Besides, it's better to maintain large fleet of Rafales with sure shot TOT rather having both the Typhoon and Rafales in the fleet.

6) F/A-18...nothing should be said for it at the moment.

7) Previously it was reported that new deal would be a direct G2G deal. But now again TOT conditions applied. And unlikely decision will be taken fast. If deal is signed this year (unlikely), then good. But if deal is not signed this year, then can it be completed before GE 2019? Possibly no. So potential time of sign is 2019-20 (and that too , if everything goes well). So delivery of first aircraft can be expected as early as 2023. If the entire process will take so much time, then why the target should be to procure just a fourth gen aircraft?

8 ) IAF actually should look at only fifth gen aircrafts now, and Rafale deal should be commenced in large nos.

9) But again there is a problem. If India eyes only fifth gen aircraft, this will limit choice of manufacturers to only two. LM and Sukhoi.

So instead of potential 6 competitors there will be only two choices....

i) F-35
ii) Su-57

And according to latest report, IAF is interest in neither F-35 nor Su-57.

At the end, Rafale stands high on the percentage of being selected, but when Dassault is asking for deal of more Rafales for long time, is there really a need of another mega competition? Or IAF will select a different jet this time?

What do you think?

I'm gonna write an article soon on this but the clear answer is.........>RAFALE.


There is no other viable option, anyone that thinks another MMRCA is going to land in India other than Rafale is deluding themselves, it is Rafale or nothing.

 

[DAC O DAC]

It would be better if you point out his mistakes, than silly remarks.

I'd like to go through your explanation on what mistakes or stupid remaks he had made.

You, or everybody else, have just to read the amount of BS written by this guy to understand he knows so few and is mainly a french basher.

 

[DAC O DAC]

when the french developed and produced Mirage 2000 it was top plane but expensive in a way. It was competetive to F-16 but in reality F-16 was way better than Mirage 2000 and you see many countries buy and use F-16. The French were OK with this as they were having their own small market.

BS again.
M2000 is better in medium and high altitude. Its instantaneous turn is better in all speed and altitude. F16 only win after some turns, because M2000 lacks energy more than F16.
first batch of F16 had a worst radar than M2000 (and no medium range missile), because studied as short range day light fighter (Sidewinder only).
intermediate batchs F16 were better.
M2000-5 was better than F16-50.

 

[DAC O DAC]

MiG-29 could take down a Mirage 2000 as MiG-29 was a better dog fighter also it had ability to use its missiles simply by looking at the target

BS again :
Mig29 can only sustain 7.5G !
and the infrared missile "guided" by helmet was a bad surprise far all, not french only. (French basching in the text)

 

[DAC O DAC]

Mirage 2000 was maturing but it was badly outclassed by the Russian jets.

:bs: .

 

[DAC O DAC]

Actually, the French Air Force has not, to my knowledge, ever mothballed a Rafale.

I think French AF did it.
They prefer to use a single plane 250 hours/year than two 125H/year. Some Rafale are stored in Chateaudun air base.

 

[BON PLAN]

No you are not entirely correct, perhaps not even remotely
The French were using all sorts of planes in their air force and navy, Etendards, Mirages III etc and it had become a logistical nightmare for the French.
Now when the french developed and produced Mirage 2000 it was top plane but expensive in a way. It was competetive to F-16 but in reality F-16 was way better than Mirage 2000 and you see many countries buy and use F-16. The French were OK with this as they were having their own small market. But then the Russians came with their MiG-29 the Su-27 and the Americans were with their F-14 and F-15, and these were the most powerful planes available, MiG-29 could take down a Mirage 2000 as MiG-29 was a better dog fighter also it had ability to use its missiles simply by looking at the target,. Thus the French and most of Europe was caught unprepared. They came together to develop Twin engine fighter that could be used to face off against the Mig-29 and even Su-27. Now the Europeans were forced into this situation due to the new Russian planes, unfortunately the french were pushed into this situation when Mirage 2000 was maturing but it was badly outclassed by the Russian jets.,
The French thought to take advantage of it, And decided to develop and produce Rafale to replace Mirage 2000 and also make it their carrier plane replacing Super Etendards.
This very situation we see in Russia now where Mirage 2000 is Su-30 SM and Su-35 and Rafale is Su-57, The Su-30 SM and Su-35 are new and very capable plane but they are 4th Gen plane, Su-57 is 5th Gen plane, but what can it replace in RuAF? Maybe the older MiG-29 or Su-24 squadrons.

Anyway, the French would have gone with the plane but it was badly calculated and desperate plan
1. They got into building Rafale else they would be outclassed by the Russian twin engine planes
2. The Mirage 2000 had not even flown for half life and hence could not be replaced as that will mean a big loss.
3. Dassault had to produce a min nos of plane a year else it would face a loss
4. Flying a Mirage 2000 is cheaper to fly and maintain than Rafale (single engine vs twin engine)

I can say that it was badly calculated move because the French AF did not need more planes and yet they were committed to buy new Rafales to keep Dassault working, And whatever the new planes were delivered those were mothballed and stored. Do let me know which country pays and buys a new "top of the line" plane and instead of inducting it, mothballs it? That shows that my analysis that the French got dragged into Rafale to counter the Russian threat and Superiority and they got trapped in such a way, that they had to produce rafale and had to mothball it, they use Mirage 2000 because they are cheaper to fly and maintain.
The cost of operation of Rafale would be at least 60% higher than that of Mirage 2000 thus if the French fly mirage they manage to keep better budget, but if they fly the Rafale, the cost incurred will be more.

Stop writing such idiocy.
M2000, in it's latest models, remain one of the finest light fighter.