Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Rafale?  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Posted (10 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2799 times:

Other than Gaullist ego, why did France bother with the Rafale? The Typhoon has almost identical specifications, and is cheaper.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2699 times:

I think they concluded building their own fighter would be more efficient. It was also designed to be carier based.



Previous Dassault designs such as Mirage3/5, Mirage2000, Etendard & Mistere were export successes, so they probably expected it to bring in more money.

Politics also played a major role.

BTW, didn´t it fly before the Eurofighter ?



User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14140 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2637 times:

Also, the Rafale is operational, what you can´t say about the Jäger 90 (the fighter aircraft for the 1990s) / Eurofighter / Typhoon.

Jan


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

1) The French wanted a smaller, lighter aircraft for export and carrier operations.

2) They considered the air-to-ground role more important than air-superiority.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

They also wanted 46% of the project, making everyone else subcontractors.

RAF wanted more fuel capacity for UK air defence, that was a Cold War requirement, they wanted it kept for overseas deployment and more range in the strike role, post Cold War.

The early Naval versions now in French service (the French AF is actually behind the Eurofighter nations in service entry, or at least the RAF), means that the Rafale pilots are keen to practice ACM with another new naval fighter, the USN F-18E.
But no reply from the USN so far.

But you could ask, why F-16 and F-18?


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2163 times:

The early Naval versions now in French service (the French AF is actually behind the Eurofighter nations in service entry, or at least the RAF), means that the Rafale pilots are keen to practice ACM with another new naval fighter, the USN F-18E.
But no reply from the USN so far.


I seem to remember reading in AFM about the first deployment of Flotille 12F on board the CVN Charles de Gaulle in the Indian Ocean that they had some dogfights 1 on 1 and 2 on 2 against the F14C/D and the hornets onboard an American carrier.
The Americans stopped doing it after a while because they got some serious ass-kicking.
It was in a 2003 issue of AFM.


I'll look it up and quote from the article.... if I still have the magazine!!
Any truth in this or more info???

[Edited 2004-09-24 01:32:16]


[edit post]
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

I'll tell you one piece of truth. There's never been an F-14C in active service.


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineJamesvf84 From Switzerland, joined Sep 2003, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

I thought also that the Naval version of the Rafale was still not properly configured in the sense that it had only the air to air software and no air to ground capabilities.

Not to mention that the radar was still not the promised one and lacks performance. This was early this year, they may have made some progress since then.

When S.Korea and Singapoure went shoppng for fighters the Rafale fell off the list quite quickly despite being in service it was still under equipped, like driving a Mercedes without any of the options inside!


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

I'll tell you one piece of truth. There's never been an F-14C in active service.

I stand corrected.



[edit post]
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2073 times:

"But you could ask, why F-16 and F-18?"


Well, the YF-17 lost the competition to the Air Force in a fly off against the YF-16, so the F-16 become the lower part of the equation in the Hi-Lo (F-15/F-16) mix. The Air Force could not afford to feild as many squadrons of F-15's as it wanted/needed, so the F-16 was the cheaper brother that could fill the numbers.

The F-16 wouldn't work for the Navy. Beyond the normal interservice rivalry and politics, the main reason would be because it is a single engined airplance and with all that water the Navy demands twin engines on their birds, the landing gear wasn't nearly beefed up enough to be 'navalized', etc.

I'm sure someone else can elaborate more on that.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2066 times:

The F-16 wouldn't work for the Navy

That and consider where the intake is relative to the NLG where the deck crew would have to work.

And you thought the A-7 earned it's nickname of "People Eater"



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineContact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2060 times:


That and consider where the intake is relative to the NLG where the deck crew would have to work.


Which is why the F-16 is equipped with a "crew chief divider"  Wow!  Wow!  Wow!


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

Which is why the F-16 is equipped with a "crew chief divider"

Yeah, you definately don't want to gulp your food.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Rafale?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Do You Underestimate Rafale & Typhoon? posted Mon Sep 24 2001 14:05:00 by Alexander
Why Did RB-57F Need The Extra J 60 Turbojets? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 23:20:31 by 747400sp
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp
Report - Rafale Out Of The Running In Norway posted Thu Aug 31 2006 22:46:33 by Lumberton
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
Why To Usaf Never Order KC-11? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:03:21 by 747400sp
Amazing Rafale posted Fri Aug 18 2006 14:23:20 by Tancrede
SR-71 Blackbird At MSP - Why? posted Fri Aug 18 2006 07:34:08 by Aviationwiz
Why Is The Phantom A Twinseater? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 23:31:58 by TheSonntag
Why No Dedicated Thunderbirds Transport Aircraft? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 04:43:57 by TheRonald
Why Can't Russia/Europe Field Stealth Planes? posted Thu Mar 6 2008 08:34:01 by Baron95
Why Didn't The US Navy Fit The F-4 With A Gun... posted Mon Mar 3 2008 05:04:45 by Blackbird
Why A Bunch Of KC-135s At Pease In NH? posted Tue Feb 26 2008 10:33:40 by ChrisNH
Why Aren't A-4's In Airshows Instead Of L-39's? posted Mon Feb 4 2008 01:22:07 by TedTAce
Rafale - Improve To Export? posted Sat Jan 26 2008 13:54:55 by EBJ1248650
Why No KC777? posted Fri Jan 18 2008 13:00:00 by LHStarAlliance
Why Bother With The ARH-70 posted Mon Dec 17 2007 12:41:39 by Cancidas

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format