User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

Why Rafale?

Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:34 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
keesje
Posts: 8751
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Why Rafale?

Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:43 am

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 ?

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Why Rafale?

Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:32 am

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

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Why Rafale?

Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:30 pm

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
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Why Rafale?

Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:10 am

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?
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Why Rafale?

Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:29 am

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]
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Why Rafale?

Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:24 am

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.
 
jamesvf84
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 5:18 pm

RE: Why Rafale?

Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:06 pm

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!
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Why Rafale?

Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:16 pm

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

I stand corrected.
[edit post]
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Why Rafale?

Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:05 pm

"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!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why Rafale?

Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:49 pm

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.
 
Contact_tower
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Saab Viggen

Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:07 am


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!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why Rafale?

Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:14 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests