Talk:Dassault Rafale/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Old talk

The open bias toward eurofighter typhoon pundits here is flooding an article on Dassault rafale, it's not a eurofighter place, no need to compare or referencing 150 times the eurofighter, also speculations based on false or no objective press medias don't bring much to reality and facts, i would like to ask to peoples downgrading this facts sources on Rafale to stop thier nationalistic bias, style "in 2004 it was an atonishing achievement at time" seems no appropriated to a fair and balanced view! why 2 years after it wouldn't still? also everything else than singaporian or korean, french MoD or Dassault communication press is not relevant and consistant! keep on selling lies to yours country fellas rather than poluting wikipedia with national grandeur childish views!

So pls eurofighter brits german et others fans like Jackonico or scorpion keep yours bias and spin to yourself!

thx

Eurofighter is NOT flat-top carrier capable, therefore comparison with Rafale is impossible. The french needed a plane for their CV de Gaulle, everything else is of secondary importance. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article to discussion: 85.168.200.129:"(*Not really. Aviation Press sources state that the Rafale has a revolutionnary MMI and that the Rafale has a data fusion only matched by the F-22 and F-35. Also, the Rafale's rejection in South Korea and Singapore was mainly on political ground both countries having strong ties with Washington. Moreover, according to the Washington Post the rejection of the Rafale in South Korea sparked an outburst of anti-americanism, militants pointing the better scores and lower cost of the Rafale compared to Boeing F-15)"

I removed this section. I can't understand some of it and other parts just seem wrong. Under 1. no F-22 has been shot down by anything - they just entered service this year. And 70's or 80's missiles were generally incapable of taking down 3rd generation stealth planes why would they suddenly work against 4th generation ones? >>Maybe you forgotten that in Kossovo War and Gulf War (I&II) different rumors talk of almost 1 F117 shooted by 70's technology SAM site missile(or ground aa-cannons, never cleared convincingly by military orgZ) and the F-22 bases all it's stealth technology on inefficient aerodinamycs (altought very cool, but also equally useful?) pushed by two supermonsters engines that can shot this plane over Mach2...

YOU HAVE REASON no 70's missile could take down a 3rd generation aircraft. simply I mean that this missile can take down a 4th gen like F-22. HOW IF IT IS RADAR INVISIBLE? siply: by IR. Because extreme anti radar design is:

FIRST- unsensed, only americans do so. Every pilot or engineer knows that in war to be stealted simply means to be not recognisable by a radar over a certain distance (predeterminated by enemy radar sensibility) but when you approach too much you became perfectly visible (specially with a 19meters ironbird tweeting like an hiroshima bomb:-) ) so the only manner to defend from enemy radar is jamming jamming and jamming again theirselves signals and respond with wrong ones to enemy radars. But only russians and frenchs are truly ahead in this way.

SECOND- the eccessively radar absorbing design is bad for aerodynamics so at same speed that an other aircraft like gripen or rafale or MiG-35 an F-22 can generate more but very more friction and so HEAT: the same heat that 70's missiles technology like so much (via IR)

Tell me what you think about. PS: from where are you from?

Under 3. the Joint Strike Fighter will also have a carrier version and a U.S. carrier carries twice as many planes as the French carrier -simply equipping the French one with newer planes is not going to necessarily make it the most powerful in the world. And what difference does it make that Rafale could carry nukes - you can't shoot down another plane with one, you are unlikely to use them against air defence installations and bombers and subs already carry them quite well in other countries' militaries. Rmhermen 00:50, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

"1. While the F-22 is a very expensive aircraft with its stealth technology, the Rafale has an hybrid design that permits it to be slightly radar invisible while remaining still with good even unstable aerodynamics: infact you can beat a 150M$ F-22 with a 3000$ IR-SAM missile due that the innefficient technology realised by americans under Stealth Technology was maybe radar absorbing but at mach2 the air all-around the aircraft profile should be so overheated that any 70's IR-SAM missile could shot clearly the hugely abnormous big profiled F-22 or even the new JSF. The Rafale first have a more cx efficient design that don't overheat air and the Stealth Technology is not only based on the radar absorbing design but on an active electronic ability of the SPECTRA to intercept "ping" signals from enemy radar and instead of let reflecting pong containg informations (distorted or not by Stealth Technology) it replaces with a computer simulated "pong" coming back to enemy with a totally artificially computer erased radar profile. SPECTRA system is developed in secret by french army and it will be probably integrated in Rafale pylons.

2- The Rafale Pylons have an active artificial intelligence on-board instead of the old F-22 ECM technology that can recognise the enemy locked missile approaching and automatically determine wich counter measure enables where (every pylon has) and the right moment to enable. Moreover a storm of Rafales could interchange informations about success in evitating enemy missiles so the other aircrafts could learns from it how to or to not act with the recognised enemy treat. Of course AI data could be collected from every missions in every corner of the world can be reexaminated and used to uprade all the aircrafts. AWESOME but possible only for French Army ones. Stranger customers doesn't have access to firmware AI upgrades.

3-Rafales has many versions: in their version "M" (marine) could trasform any carrier in the "powerful and devastating carrier in the world" because is the only 4th generation aircraft that could be hosted on carrier; in his version B can admit 2pilots to "ride and destroy" (also for the carriers will be a B/M version); last but not least while the F/A-22 could not bring a nuclear weapon the Rafale could bring 5 nuclear weapons at time mounted on MBDA Apache very long range weapons

4-Weapons firing thanks to the innovative radar FULL-Passive technology that lift the Rafale stealthed during locking and the additional bunus that Rafale pilots can fire up to 8 missiles without locking, the rafale AI can lock the 8 cibles alone while following between other 40+ radar objects in any direction recognising every object with a 3D section radar generated scanning and visualizing all the informations on a complex head up display laser projecting images directly on the pilot's retina. (If he wants the second pilot could bypass automatic AI and focus himself the fired missiles pointing on Radar Map screen with a trackball-like device) Of course the availability on the market of the tremendous Meteor missile system in the future will enhance this capabilities by factour of 2."

Please add your comments to the bottom of the page and separated from previous comments. It makes it easier to read. And if you could sign them we would know who was talking. Thanks.

First no f-117's were shot down in either Gulf War; one was shot down in Kosovo by 1940's radar and 1960's rockets. Second it is unlikely that radar absorption is based entirely on bad aerodynamics. The first generation stealth planes weren't so why would the second generation ones be. The Rafale is undoubtedly a good plane and better than most or all now flying from any country but it is very hard to make comparisons between two planes neither of which are even fully deployed, much less combat tested and for which many details are secret. Rmhermen 15:24, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

The missile that shot down the F-117 in Kosovo was optically-guided. The SAM crew could SEE it visually, and were able to guide the missile manually.

To 82.131.210.162; honestly of all the stupid things I've seen people type up, your cute, little half-assed rant only magnifies your extreme ignorance. I could waste more of my time trying to argue with a asinine, pea-brained individual such as yourself; but what's the point? You just go and spew more of your bullshit around, well go ahead; we need some entertainment around here. ;) RaptorR3d (talk 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Simply reporting Rafale's rejection by South Korea, Singapore and Saudi Arabia may be factually accurate, but without some perspective, it's extremely misleading. More generally, because much of the reporting on Rafale has been critical, it's easy to give a misleading impression. This entry has good, entirely fair sections on problems and controversies, but these do need to be balanced by more detail on Rafale's achievements, milestones and innovative technologies, in my view. JN

Why is this important?

"The Rafale will be the first aircraft in the story of aviation having a new breed of survival equipment system, defined as "Integrate aircraft survival system" driven by AI and software upgradable "online" to replace the older and obsoleteECM technology."

So they upgraded the software, so what? Everybody does for every new version of any plane. Is this really any different from EU, US or Russian systems? Rmhermen 22:31, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

The anon author who wrote a lot of this seems to have a lot of trouble writing comprehensible English. I *think* he means that the system is upgradeable without replacing hardware, through re-flashing the software, but I hardly see why this is anything new, unless there's something I'm missing. —Morven 01:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pronouciation

How do you pronounce "Rafale"? Jigen III 13:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"rafal", with a French "R". There is really nothing tricky with the word. Rama 14:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"rafal" as in RAH-FALL (short a) or RAY-FALL (long a)? Jigen III 14:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

short "a". A long one would be indicated with an accent ("â"). Rama 14:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

perhaps too late as an answer, but if you mean by the "long a" the a in make, late etc. then I think that way of reading this lettre exists only in English. Idem for the long i.

Asked a Frenchman, it's a LONG a. Rafale is pronounced "Ra" as in "rap", "fale" as "farl". Imagine it is spelt "Raffarl", that is how it sounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.15 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's how we pronounce it here in France: first and most difficult for English speaking people, you have to be able to roll the "r" to get a credible pronunciation. The 2 “a” are "short a" as in dad, the ending "e" is not heard or "silent". And in the article it is mentioned that Rafale means squall witch is wrong the best translation would be “burst or spurt”. L. heiderscheid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.85.27 (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Accurancy of information

Some edits have been made by User:81.101.64.121 and others anonymous users adding mostly rants about the plane.

Let's review some of their claims:

• As an aircraft to meet French requirements (combining a robust carrier capability and good air-to-ground potential) it is hard to see how Rafale could have been improved, while the programme's unilateral nature afforded great focus.

This is an unsourced, unsubstantiated opinion, not a fact. Most military airplanes in service today have designed in the 70s and continuously improved since they entered service, The F-15 was originally a fighter and became a attack airplane with the version F-15E. The Panavia Tornado did the opposite by with the ADV version for the RAF. Presuming that an airplane couldn't be improved just a few years after entering service is certainly not factual.

• The Singapore evaluation reportedly revealed major problems with reliability and availability, and the aircraft failed to demonstrate claimed radar performance or the ability to supercruise.

Cite your sources. If this has been reported, show it to us.

• With under-powered engines and a passive electron-scan radar viewed by many as a technological dead end

The Rafale has a thrust ratio of 1.04 when loaded, this certainly not under-powered. As an example, the F/A-18 has a 0.95 ration when loaded. This all insertion that the plane is under-powered is just plain wrong.

• and though the Aéronavale have had the type since 2003, they still have less than a full Flotille of aircraft

Well, not only that the Aéronavale got the planes since 2000, not 2003, but they actually have the Flotille 12 fully operational since June 2004 [1]. Also, it may be useful to point out that the Flotille took part of the operation Enduring Freedom in december 2001. When an airplane participates to active missions during a war, you can consider it operational.

So the whole paragraph is just unsourced rants, clearly Npov. --Sylvain Mielot 21:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sylvain, I think that User:81.101.64.121 made valid edits, and that you are misunderstanding him. I will say that this is understandable, because his edits could be mistaken for the usual moronic French-bashing which plagues France-related articles (I was fooled myself at first: [2] really seems like vandalism, [3] looks like a POV rant, and [4] like sarcasm), but there are actual pieces of informations.

For instance, the Rafale was used in Afghanistan, but it is true to say that it was alongside the Super Étendard, the dates of service seem plausible, the nuancing about the units of the Air Force which have recieved the plane seem appropriate, etc.

So, Sylvain, try to let our IP friend a little bit more room to express himself, and User:81.101.64.121, try to formulate your point in a way which cannot be mistaken for vandalism. Thank you all for your understanding. Rama 09:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: and of course, cite sources for informations when available ! Rama 09:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but let's stick to the facts and make the article as NPOV as possible --Sylvain Mielot 07:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

French sensitivities?

Rafale is a great aeroplane, but to ignore its problems is foolish nationalism.

You misunderstand the first point you criticise. When I say that it would be hard to improve on Rafale's suitability for the French armed forces, that's because it was so well optimised to meet those requirements from the very start. It's a great aeroplane. And that is unsubstantiated opinion!

The Singapore evaluation and the Singaporeans reactions to the different aircraft have been widely written about. The sources are now indicated. This isn't unsourced, unsubstantiated opinion, it's fact, however uncomfortable Monsieur Mielot finds it.

Rafale is under-powered by comparison with other aircraft of the same generation. Comparing it to the F/A-18 confirms the problem. Even Dassault themselves have been open about the need for a new version of the M88 (at the Paris Air Show, for example). This has been widely reported.

---

How can the 100 kN of dry thrust and 150 kN with afterburners of the M88-2 be considered under-powered for such light and advanced aerodynamic design? It has been reported that the Rafale was designed to be heat stealthy and it's engines generate less heat than other fighters, making IR homing more complicated. Finally, the Rafale has better range than other fighters. - I.S.

---

If a Flotille has only nine aircraft, and is unable to use most of the weapons intended for it, then it isn't operational in a real sense. During Iraqi Freedom, the Rafale Ms had Mica only, and was unable to carry out air-to-ground missions, nor to independently protect the carrier, which relied on coalition AD assets. The cruise was an extended opeval under real and rigorous conditions.

The Rafale will be operational when it can be fully declared in a real operational role. I remain to be convinced that EC 7 will achieve that even this year.

In any case, isn't the spirit of Wikipedia that you should add to, correct and edit what new users add to an entry, and not just decide you don't like what they've written, because it doesn't match the cheery tidings from Dassault's PR department and replace it with an earlier INACCURATE version of the entry? —the preceding unsigned comment is by User:81.101.64.121 (talk • contribs)

Eg JN!

Though I've added a problems section this is rigorously fair, and I've done my utmost to source, qualify and caveat the criticisms and to point out that there are other interpretations and other views. Because the rest of the entry is so skimpy, the problems section may seem a bit disproportionate, but hopefully fans of the aircraft will expand on the aircraft's capabilities and the programme's successes. I've tried to give a lead by re-posting a list of milestones from a real Rafale fan, and have added a couple of milestones of my own.

If my first reaction looks a little harsh, I apologize, it wasn't my intent and thinking about it, I may have overreacted.

I don't doubt for a second that you searched carefully for the information you wrote in the article. My point is that I can probably cite an equal number of articles stating the exact opposite. We have to be careful when using information coming through backchannels (usually unnamed officials talking to reporters) on a subject where everybody has an interest in lying, Dassault to save face after losing a contract and make the plane still look good for future prospects, and the governments to avoid any appearance of a political decision and most of the time corruption.

Also, could you sign your entries by adding this text --~~~~ at the end or even better, create an account. It is honestly hard to follow your edits coming from different IP addresses and it's a lot easier to communicate --Sylvain Mielot 08:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Signing entries

Could people please sign their edits? The current unsigned babble makes this discussion hard to follow. Dowlingm 02:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the subsequent changes to the spec figures are imaginary or unattributed - and several are incorrect - inflating Rafale's service ceiling (55,000 ft is in the clearance document) and g limits in particular. Most performance figures have been quietly increased, again without any attribution.

"clearence documents? from? dassault didn't gave this datas" "performances are from Snecma evolution etage 4 of M88-2E4, 5% increasing comsuption and trusth" unsigned comment by User:Jim G. Smtih 09:52, 13 January 2006

The addition of the claim In September 2005 Rafale was the first world airplane to fly Meteor BVR missile is less accurate than the statement in the milestones, these were GHTMs, not real missiles.

The claim that Rafale “scored better than eurofighter each time they challenged bids on foreign export.” Is not supported by any published evidence, while there are published claims that Typhoon was favoured in some evaluations. It is made clear that these are merely claims, and they are attributed.

I'm still unhappy that Rafale's achievements have not been presented more fully. This is the way to balance a definitive record of the programme - not to simply remove reports of controversies that you may be uncomfortable with, or which do not appear in the manufacturer's own sales literature. JN

"controversial issues are clearly shown as such. All are attributed." That's the problem, you are not attributing your statements. Giving the title of the publication or organisation is NOT acceptable. In an edit summary you cite the "BBC". That's great but the BBC is one of the largest news broadcasters in the world, producing 100 of hours of news output on television, radio and online, how is anyone supposed to verify what you say? Likewise you cite Defence Analysis, Flight Daily News and Aviation Week and Space Technology. To cite a source you must give the author, date/issue, name of publication and page. Mark83 11:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

• Air Combat aircrafts, Dassault Rafale
• Vector, Dassault Rafale
• SPECTRA SYSTEM, Dassault Rafale

What happened to some of the older external links, I found them very helpful. They seem to have been removed with Jim Smith's version.

Disputed section

What on earth is wrong with the Problems Section now, and why do people keep trying to remove it in toto?

"The Rafale is a major achievement for a single nation, as equivalent fighter programmes have been undertaken by much larger companies or collaboratively by several nations. As an aircraft to meet French requirements (combining a robust carrier capability and good air-to-ground potential) it is hard to see how Rafale could have been better optimised to meet these, while the programme's unilateral nature afforded great focus, and protected it from many of the political factors which have so dogged the rival Eurofighter. -

There have been increasingly critical comments about Rafale from members of the National Assembly's Finance and Defence Commissions, and there have been reports of disagreements between Dassault and DGA about cost increases and obsolescence. According to Defence Analysis (p.17, Vol 8.No.12 December 2005) Dassault have called the RBE2 radar 'fatally flawed' alleging that its range was 'inadequate' and averring that the Rafale therefore relied on AWACS support to overcome this. The DGA also described Rafale's OSF (Optronique Secteur Frontal) as 'obsolescent' and production has been cut back to just 48 units, rather than the planned number, which was to have been sufficient to equip all F1 and F2 versions. -

While UK and German newspapers have been energetic in their criticism of Typhoon, Rafale has enjoyed a much gentler ride, and many of the aircraft's problems (which have been similar in nature, scope and extent to those suffered by the rival Eurofighter) have seldom emerged until long after they were solved, or remain the stuff of rumour and journalistic gossip, though there have been exceptions. According to Defense News, Air Force Gen. Eric Rouzaud revealed that early deliveries of the Rafale were prone to a software glitch that cut out part of the flight system, requiring the pilot to hit the reset button. The fault has been fixed, Rouzaud said. -

There were reports that problems with the 'Central Processor' led to only three of five Rafales being delivered during 2004, and suggestions that the same problem led to a shortfall of deliveries (against the planned schedule) in 2005. -

There was a two year delay in signing the production contract for the 59 F2 standard Rafales, and the order due to be placed in 2006 has dropped from 82 aircraft (65 AdlA, 17 Aéronavale) to just 66 (48 AdlA, 18 Aéronavale) (according to the Vincon Senate report). The Pintat report indicated that this reduced order has also been slipped to 2007. -

Still subject to delays, the Rafale (once progressing well ahead of the rival Eurofighter Typhoon) has still not entered full operational service with the Armée de l'Air, and less than a dozen are in use with the French Air Force for trials, evaluation and conversion training with EC330. Though the aircraft entered operational service with the Aéronavale in 2004 Flotille 12 still has only 9 Rafales (less than a full Flotille) and is currently limited to Air-to-Air combat (F1 software/hardware standard). There are concerns that operational loads (especially in the long range air to surface role) will be limited by the present engine's relatively modest thrust. -

A 'Post F3' configuration is now being discussed, this will be fitted with an active array radar, which is necessary to fully exploit Meteor. -

More controversially, some sources (including Francis Tusa's industry newsletter, Defence Analysis) maintain that the aircraft compares unfavourably with Eurofighter's Typhoon in the air to air role, though this is vigorously denied in other quarters. Though it uses a modern canard Delta configuration, it is alleged that the aircraft is significantly hampered by an old fashioned and 'cumbersome' Man Machine Interface, and it has been suggested that this was the main reason behind the type's rejection by South Korea and Singapore. -

According to Defence Analysis, and Flight Daily News the Singapore evaluation also reportedly revealed problems with Rafale's reliability and availability, and that the aircraft failed to demonstrate claimed radar performance or its claimed ability to supercruise. Singapore was also reportedly unimpressed by Rafale's much vaunted 'Omni role' capability. "Show us, properly" was said to have been the reaction, according to Defence Analysis. The lack of official comment by Singapore leads many to dismiss such criticism as unreliable hearsay, however. -

With admittedly under-powered engines and a passive electron-scan radar viewed by many as a technological dead end (again according to Defence Analysis), Dassault badly need to fund the advanced F3 variant, but this is unlikely to happen quickly without an export customer (according to Aviation Week and Space Technology). A fully-developed F3 would, however, seem more likely to gain export success. In January 2005 it was announced that eight aircraft would be cut from French orders specifically to free up funding for advanced radar development. -

Whatever Rafale's supposed 'weaknesses' it must be acknowledged that the type has been quietly gathering real operational experience in the air-to-air role since the first Rafale Ms were delivered to the Aéronavale, and this alone is a significant advantage, giving the type great credibility. Moreover, while development of some competing aircraft has often been delayed because manufacturers have been unwilling to press ahead 'at risk' the relationship between Dassault and the French government and military has allowed the development programme to press ahead at a ferocious pace."

I have added a disputed section template to the "Controversies" section due to the unacceptable way "reports" are attributed. To cite a source you must give the author, date/issue, name of publication and page - not simply the title of a publication or organisation. The contributor in question should read Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words before contributing any similar "reports". Mark83 11:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why it's in a section entitled Controversies in the first place, Mark. I wrote it, and I started the Controversies section. It can be stood up, but only by those with access to serious industry newsletters like Defence Analysis, and the Society of Experimental Test Pilots newsletters and conference reports. Anyone who has spoken to pilots who have flown both types (or their respective sims) will realise that rating Rafale's cockpit and MMI behind that of Typhoon is far from controversial - you're comparing Typhoon's strongest point with Rafale's weakest.

It strikes me that Mark 83 has a problem with anything praising Rafale, but is over-eager to stress how advanced Typhoon is. I happen to think that Typhoon's a better aeroplane overall, but think that it's important to give Dassault full credit for what they've undoubtedly achieved.

As to sources, one of the big bones of contention seems to be the claim that Typhoon was favoured by the Singapore evaluation team, but 'lost' the order for reasons of timescale and bid team incompetence. This has been widely reported, initially on 13/06/05, in 'Flight Daily News' in an article entitled "Typhoon hit by Singapore". (http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/06/13/199178/Typhoon+hit+by+Singapore+.html) I can't remember the page. It's subsequently been reported in AFM.

As to Saudi Arabia, I heard Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz being interviewed on BBC World Service radio on or around 21 December. He's the Deputy Premier, Minister of Defense and Aviation and Inspector General, so should know all about Rafale and Typhoon. I'm sure that if your Arabic is up to it, there'll be plenty in the Saudi Press.

I fail to see what was contentious about the Saudi paragraph anyway.

"Early hopes of a Rafale order from Saudi Arabia (for 48 aircraft, with options on 48 more) seemed to have receded in December 2005, when reports emerged that the Kingdom was opting for up to 72 Eurofighter Typhoons instead. Prince Sultan had earlier spoken about the Rafale in glowing terms, and some reports suggested that a letter of intent for the 96 aircraft had been signed (Les Echoes et al from 15 April 2005 on). The fact that Rafale was seriously considered in Saudi Arabia, where successive Al Yamamah contracts have put BAE Systems in an entrenched and powerful position, speak volumes for the French aircraft (See Defence Analysis). Even the prospect of an order for 96 aircraft was a considerable achievement in these circumstances. (FAIR COMMENT) In any event, some sources suggest that Saudi Arabia may still opt for a two-fighter solution, with Rafale being acquired for a primary air-to-ground role. (THIS IS WIDELY REPORTED, BUT EG: 'Saudi Foreign Ministry sources note the talks with the Americans over F-16 deal are still on and the talks with the French over Rafale continue (see Tactical Report Weekly Brief – No 12/27 – 8/7/05')." JN

Or as one of our anonymous French chums says: "Most of the content written in the "Controversies section" is bad journalism by a bad english journalist desesperatly trying to push the typhoon on internet forums."

The same anti-Rafale journo who added all of the following comments to the Rafale entry:

"Rafale is widely regarded as the outstanding achievement of France's leading aircraft manufacturer."

AND

"Though restricted to an air-to-air role, with a limited range of weapons the Rafale M was claimed by some to be the most advanced fighter in service in Europe at the time."

AND

"It will then be the most advanced multi-role fighter in service in Europe."

AND

"The Korea Times (14 December 2005, Jung Sung-ki) reported that "Rafale had outperformed F-15K in the first inspection of operational capabilities" however, and it has been widely reported in France that Rafale won the 'technical' evaluation."

"Rafale's rejection in these competitions was far from being a disgrace."

AND

"These costs make Rafale the cheapest of the current crop of fighters, while the claimed lack of cost growth since 1997 would make it the most tightly managed modern fighter programme."

AND

"The Rafale is a major achievement for a single nation, as equivalent fighter programmes have been undertaken by much larger companies or collaboratively by several nations. As an aircraft to meet French requirements (combining a robust carrier capability and good air-to-ground potential) it is hard to see how Rafale could have been better optimised to meet these, while the programme's unilateral nature afforded great focus, and protected it from many of the political factors which have so dogged the rival Eurofighter."

AND who added in to the Controversies section

"The lack of official comment by Singapore leads many to dismiss such criticism as unreliable hearsay, however."

AND

"The fact that Rafale was seriously considered in Saudi Arabia, where successive Al Yamamah contracts have put BAE Systems in an entrenched and powerful position, speak volumes for the French aircraft. Even the prospect of an order for 96 aircraft was a considerable achievement in these circumstances. In any event, some sources suggest that Saudi Arabia may still opt for a two-fighter solution, with Rafale being acquired for a primary air-to-ground role."

AND

"Whatever Rafale's supposed 'weaknesses' it must be acknowledged that the type has been quietly gathering real operational experience in the air-to-air role since the first Rafale Ms were delivered to the Aéronavale, and this alone is a significant advantage, giving the type great credibility. Moreover, while development of some competing aircraft is often delayed because manufacturers have been unwilling to press ahead 'at risk' the relationship between Dassault and the French government and military has allowed the development programme to press ahead at a ferocious pace."

JN

You accused me above of not citing my sources. If you'll take the time to browse my contributions you'll see I do indeed cite sources. e.g [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

My contributions on this page have been to remove unsourced opinion and to try to present fact. I note that you've quoted several sources above, I'd appreciate it if you would add them to the page itself where relevant. However, although I'm not an authority on the acceptability of sources I don't think "I heard Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz being interviewed on BBC World Service radio on or around 21 December." is good enough. As far as reading the Saudi press goes, I didn't add unsourced comment and speculation to this page so why don't YOU start reading it. It's not up to me to go hunting for sources to back up your edits.

As for your explanation that you cant create a username: are you really telling me that you cant download a compatible browser? That's a pretty pathetic excuse and makes me think you're happier to hide behind various IP adresses. Again I state that I know it's not compulsory to sign in, but if you are going to make large scale changes it would be benefical for other users to contact you on your own talk page rather than hope you catch comments left on various article talk pages. Finally I don't appreciate being referred to as a "Nazi" simply for trying to uphold verifiability, since I've referred you to several Wikipedia policy pages, here's one more: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Mark83 13:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The way to respond to someone is not by editing their contribution with random comments

You really are a petty person, M83. Adding comments just made it easier for any reader to see my response. However, if it will keep your need for netiquette satisfied:

"I'd appreciate it if you would add them to the page itself where relevant."

• "MAKES IT UNREADABLE IF YOU DO "

"I'm not an authority on the acceptability of sources I don't think "I heard Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz being interviewed on BBC World Service radio on or around 21 December." is good enough."

• "YES, BUT YOU'RE THE ONE DISPUTING THE POINT."

"As for your explanation that you cant create a username: are you really telling me that you cant download a compatible browser? That's a pretty pathetic excuse and makes me think you're happier to hide behind various IP adresses."

• "NO, I'M SAYING THAT THE BROWSER I FAVOUR HAS THIS PROBLEM. I DON'T NEED TO CHANGE FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE."

"Since I've referred you to several Wikipedia policy pages, here's one more:"*"WHAT DOES THAT PAGE SAY ABOUT LABELLING OTHER USERS AS 'PATHETIC' OR ACCUSING THEM OF 'HIDING'?"

• So basically you're saying you are not going to cite sources because it makes an article unreadable. That is unbelievable!
• I am disputing it and what I'm saying is without an adequate source you can't put that in the article!
• 100% agree you don't have to change your broswer to please me. And it's absolutely none of my business but I'd be interested to know what broswer you are using if you don't mind posting that information here.
• I said it was a "pathetic excuse" which is different from calling you pathetic. Accusing you of hiding? If you want to classify that as a personal attack then I apologise, but I believe that's what you're doing. If thousands of other people can manage to create a user account why can't you find a way.
• KINDLY POST ANY MORE COMMENTS BELOW AND DO NOT CHANGE MY COMMENTS IN ANY WAY! Mark83 22:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have a very over-inflated view of the import of your posts. This is Wikipedia, chum, and "Kindly" note that anyone can change whatever they like. Including your pearls of wisdom. Having to quote your words in order to answer points just wastes page space and bandwidth. However, just for you.

• So basically you're saying you are not going to cite sources because it makes an article unreadable. That is unbelievable!

I'M SAYING THAT WHEN ONE IS POSTING WHAT IS ALREADY ACCEPTED AND WIDELY KNOWN BY ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT, CITING SOURCES DOES BREAK UP THE SENSE OF PARAGRAPHS. PERHAPS THERE'S A NEED FOR A FOOTNOTES SECTION, OR PERHAPS THE REASONABLE READER WOULD FIND THEM IN THIS DISCUSSION PAGE.

• I am disputing it and what I'm saying is without an adequate source you can't put that in the article!

WHO MADE YOU EDITOR? THE CROWN PRINCE'S REMARKS WERE WELL ENOUGH REPORTED THAT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE INTERESTED IN CONTEMPORARY MILITARY AFFAIRS WOULD NOT FIND THEM CONTENTIOUS.

• 100% agree you don't have to change your broswer to please me. And it's absolutely none of my business but I'd be interested to know what broswer you are using if you don't mind posting that information here.

IE5 ON MAC OS 10.4

• I said it was a "pathetic excuse" which is different from calling you pathetic. Accusing you of hiding? If you want to classify that as a personal attack then I apologise, but I believe that's what you're doing. If thousands of other people can manage to create a user account why can't you find a way.

I COULD FIND A WAY, BUT DON'T FEEL IT WORTHWHILE. MY INITIALS WILL DO JUST AS WELL AS "MARK 83" OR "JACK 69". THANKS ANYWAY.

Don't misunderstand me, anything that I post in an article can and will be changed by whoever wants to. However comments on talk pages are different, see: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I know you said you thought it was clearer but I doubt anybody but us could really follow who is talking to who. Also since our discussion seems to have boiled down to Saudi Arabia let me say that I've no doubt that they were interested in the Rafale, however I haven't heard any specific reports of that being the case and therefore I wanted to see a reference. I don't think that's unreasonable. About it not being worthwhile to create a user account? Sorry to continually quote WP policy/explanation pages, but the benefits are summarised here. Mark83 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Table

I do not know who the people at "WP:Air" are. Apparently, according to User:Mark83 [11] and User:Denniss [12], they have "agreed" and "approved" that tables should be removed.

I do not know why they did that (I don't understand why you would not want to have all informations immediately available at the top of the page along with the introduction) nor where they did (noone has taken care to provide a link to the discussion of the "agreement" and it is not easy to find).

What I do know, on the other hand, is that that WP:Air thingy has no authority over articles (and they do not claim to: "These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them", in their own words). I do not understand why people invoke these "agreements" here as a justification to remove the table. I like it. Maybe they do not. If this is the case, I am sure that they can come with better arguments than "agreed by [XXX-sub-group]". Rama 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"I do not know who the people at "WP:Air" are", see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft#Participants Mark83 12:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Tables obliterate page contents at low screen resolutions (anything less than 1024x768) and doubly so if you print the page. The ongoing task is to migrate all aircraft articles to a template to unify the layout of specs across all aircraft pages. Once this is accomplished, it will be easy to format the specs as inline text or tables if it comes to that. There are multiple tags in the edit summary and in the page itself identifying where you can find that mysterious WP:Air. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Alleged copyvio section

"NOT copied from where you said, buddy. Public source, in fact. Now paraphrased. What a pity you couldn't use your energy to add more milestones..... JN"

Public source, where? A google search for some of the exact phrases used in the section yields three results,

1. the article itself
2. the site I quoted
3. a message board.

Given that the chronology at www.iggy.co.kr/product_airforce.htm is far more comprehensive I would suggest the message board source is in fact a copy of that. Again you seem to be confusing how things work here — its up to individual contributors to source their material from appropriate sources, correctly attribute these sources and add it to Wikipedia in the correct way. It is not up to me to paraphrase what somebody else couldn't be bothered to! Mark83 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

See Disputed Section above

Why do Rama and his ilk keep removing the problems section. It's entirely legitimate and a fundamental part of the Rafale story. JN

I have read through the said section (adding proper wiki syntax and links).

Frankly, having read it, I am not impressed.

The section is WAY too long compared to what it actually says. It refers are large to hear-say, rumours, and quotes at large something called "Defence Analysis", whose seriousness seems not certain (compared to, say, Janes). Basically, this is an encyclopedia article, not en editorial, so things should be kept concise.

I am not saying this to make criticism less proeminent out of gratuitous Rafalolatry, as "JN" implies at lengths, but because the style of this section is not appropriate. I dread the day when a true Rafal lover comes and "expand" the article with the same signal/noise ration that we see in the "problems" section. Rama 10:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rama,

Thanks for your restraint. When I saw that you'd had a go at the problems section I expected the worst. As you're not an aviation expert, I should perhaps explain that Defence Analysis (which will be immediately familiar to any industry professional) is a highly regarded newsletter produced by Francis Tusa, and whose analytical content is better respected than that of Jane's or Flight. I take on board the criticism that this section is not concise - the problem is that 'concise' would probably mean removing the caveats and pro-Rafale comments, which seem to be necessary to maintain the national pride of those who would otherwise constantly remove a simple list of known problems.

And as a professional working in this industry, I can assure you that the problems listed here are far from being 'rumour' or 'hearsay'. But the section was written by a great admirer of Dassault and the Rafale programme, just not an entirely uncritical one. Thanks again.

EC ?

This article is riddled with referenced like EC 330 and EC 1/7. What on earth are these ? Unless there is an explanation included in the article, I'm inclined to suggest deletion of these (what appear to be) irrelevant technical codes.

I think they're squadrons. I don't think deletion is the way to go, explanation would be better. Please sign your comments. Mark83 11:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

EC stands for "Escadron de Chasse" or fighter squadron. More information : [13]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.78.100 (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PICTURES: Rafales land on USS Enterprise

Flight International magazine has published photos of first landing of Rafale M on US carrier, see: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/26/215776/pictures-rafales-land-on-uss-enterprise.html Interesting times... not long after first Osprey landing on UK 'carrier'.

I have added a short in the 'milestones' section. 81.86.144.210 09:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Man Machine Interface

"The Rafale core systems employ an Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA), called MDPU (Modular Data Processing Unit). This architecture hosts all the core functions of the aircraft as Flight management system, Data Fusion, Fire Control, Man-Machine Interface, etc..[1]."

This seems to rule out female aircrew then! But still a startling claim. Very surprsing if any computer could host ALL of the MMI! In fact, after reading this article, does this plane actually have cockpit? 20.133.0.14 17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. So it seems no cockpit and not even any ejection seat. Just a computer which provides all of the "MMI". Good luck all you male French pilots without the traditional bodies, eyes, ears, hands and brains. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

External link Always removed!!

Two days ago i put an external link with a youtube video showing the Rafale Landing on the USS Enterprise and an other one made by Dassault showing their chief test pilot for the rafale, Eric Gerard, showing the aircarft at the Dubai Airshow. This was not an advertising vid. So why removing these link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.168.155 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Because generally, You tube links violate Wikipedia policy by not revealing the legality or copyright status of the videos posted. Please READ Wikipedia:External links, and particularly Wikipedia:External links#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites before even attempting to post such links again. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer i didn't know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.168.155 (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the link now it leads directly to the official French navy site with the original video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.168.155 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Rafale cannot fire Exocet missile yet

The Rafale F3, updated version of the Rafale, will be able to use AM39 Exocet in 2009. So I think the Exocet should be deleted in this article in the section Armement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.168.155 (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unneccesarly presence of "citation needed"

I can see this is an overdisputed article. Guys, calm down. And for the high IQ dudes "Fact" eagered who posted all over the place the citation needed marks, the time you have spent editing other's work you've could spent it better using googles, or an internet search engine called "Google". It's so easy, you just put what are you looking for and hit "Google search". examples: Was needed (really??) a citation for how old it is the F 8 Crusader and google returned this result: http://www.vectorsite.net/avcrus_1.html. Turns out that the Crusaders was sketched first in late 40'. Bigtomsky (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)BiGTomsky

• Include some of this in the edit summary. You're right about the F-8. I fixed that a few minutes ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but first I will clean up, i'll try to find most of the facts needed. Bigtomsky (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Bigtomsky

• Sure. I have a book or two that cover the Rafale. Will try to help too. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rafale logo.png

Image:Rafale logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ROC...rate of climb..

I am changing the ROC to 333 m/s and 1000ft/s Yourdeadin (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)yourdeadin

• OK, but what's your source? Doesn't appear to be on the Rafale page used as reference for the Spec table. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to more specific info than +1000 fps, but that's what Dassault says. Unless a better source is found we should stick with them. Anynobody 02:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is here (besides dassault): http://www.military-heat.com/85/dassault-rafale-omnirole-fighter/ and http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frtypen/FRRafale.htm. Of course, Google will provide more sources. Bigtomsky (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

History section lacking

Originally France was a member of the EFA-2000 (Eurofighter) planning coalition. They demanded that EFA airframe concept incorporate optional catapult launch and hook arrest capability for traditional flat-top aircraft carrier shipborne use.

Germany and even the british resisted harshly, they did not want to bear the extra costs and weight issues associated with the required stronger fuselage and wings of a ship-borne compatible aircraft. France insisted on modernizing and maintaining their large aircraft carrier based national deterrent capability for the long term, so they were forced to leave. France then had to pursue a domestic-made next generation multi-purpose fighter, the Rafale, which is not unlike the EFA, but looks more beautiful.

It turns out the french were right and the british were fools to repeal them. The Royal Navy has just returned to large flat-top CV doctrine and building two such new ships starts soon. The Eurofighter Typhoon however cannot be made carrier capable at all, so they have to buy the american F-35 JSF, which is single engined (engine stops, pilot swims). The extra cost of having two totally different fighter bombers in parallel service will be a large burden for the british. If they had the french stay in EFA and consequently got a carrier-friendly Eurofighter design, they could operate a mostly commonitized, single european design, equipped with twin engines, which is inherently safer for over-water uses. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In one word: Crap. You make it sounds as if the British had the French removed when the French chose not to rejoin the European Fighter project at their own volition for several reasons (including demanding to lead the project and having the lion's share of production). They even put considerable pressure on the Spanish not to rejoin. The French wanted a lightweight carrier capable aircraft and this ran contrary to the needs of the other partner nations.

The Eurofighter will be tailored differently by the nations who buy it and the UK is the only nation in the group that will be using CTOL or STOBAR aircraft carriers. So applying carrier capable modifications wasn't necessary for the majority of the participants. Not to mention that RAF/RN operational strategy is about embracing flexibility (amongst many other characteristics), something that is much easier with a STOVL platform compared to a CTOL platform.

As for the two aircraft types being a large burden on the RAF, you obviously haven't heard of the tiered force structure. Two great examples of this are how the USAF uses a high-low mix of F-15 Eagles (High) and F-16 Falcons (low) and the Russian VVS uses Su-27s and Mig-29s respectively. British force structure will use a similar system from tailored RAF/RN resources during operations in the future. (192.43.227.18 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC))

Maximum Speed

There is something fishy about the maximum speed. The primary source for the speed is the official Dassault Aviation website and the values listed are Mach 1.8 / 750 kts. These values are very nice except for one small detail, the speed value corresponding to Mach 1.8 is nowhere near 750 kts. A quick conversion gives this:

• At See level:
  • Mach 1.8 -> 2,200 km/h -> 1,190 kts
• At 10,000 meters:
  • Mach 1.8 -> 1,940 km/h -> 1,050 kts

The other way around now:

• At See level:
  • 750 kts -> 1,389 km/h -> Mach 1,134
• At 10,000 meters:
  • 750 kts -> 1,389 km/h -> Mach 1.288

I don't know if there is a procedure to follow when a primary source contradicts itself. From doing a quick Internet search, the value of Mach 1.8 seems pretty consistent. If I could venture a guess, I would say that somebody at Dassault screwed up the conversion. If you run for Mach 1.8 the conversion ratio from km/h to knots twice instead of just one time, you get roughly 750, but obviously I have no way to prove it. So anyway, I'm open for suggestions.--McSly (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Superfighters book (Ref 24 now) lists the Rafale's top speed as Mach 2.0 at altitude and 750 knots as the max low level speed. The Int. Directory of Military Aircraft lists a max speed of 1147 kt (2125 kh/h) and a max low level speed of 750 kt (1390 km/h). So looks like they mislabeled the 750 kt speed. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. About the values, the Int. Directory of Military Aircraft speed of 1147 kt is also consistent with Mach 1.8. I don't really know what to say about the Superfighters book value of Mach 2, this is certainly a valid source but it seems to stand alone. Any objections if I update the article with the assumption that Mach 1.8 is for High altitude and 750 kts for low altitude ? I'll present the data the same way it's done on the F-15 Eagle article.--McSly (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we all know about the bias from the english speaking part if the rafale wiki page, no really new, they most are backing his challenger, to much fanboyism will never gets sharp clues about it!

the first one, Dassault doesn't get "performances" or sharp ones about a Rafale, but gets a class fighter of 10t with caracteristics based on the lesser one of the series, as in the dassault page picture shows the Rafale M , this article state it falsly as sharp "perfomances", Dassault never get confidentials datas on their fighters, they get class caracteristics, minimal of the lesser enveloppe, all this bias the so called "Max performances" of the Rafales C one, wich is false!

exemple: in french "plus de" means "more than" or "over" http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/defense/rafale/caracteristiques.html

Facteurs de charge........................................+9g/-3.2g Vitesse max.....................................................M 1.8+/750 kts Vitesse d'approche.........................................120 kts Distance de roulement à l'atterrissage............450 m (1,475 ft) Taux de montée...............................................plus de 1,000 ft/sec Plafond opérationnel........................................plus de 55,000 ft Rayon d'action en mission de pénétration.......plus de 1.000 NM Temps de patrouille en défense aérienne.......plus de trois heures

in this case Dassault gets indications about Rafale M performances, keeping the real datas for each version confidentials, far to be Rafale C Performances... specifications are biased volontary here..

as the M88 datas are false, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/SNECMA_M88 here are links of the constructor official web site, can check it, its an over 50kN /75kN engine in 1996, and from now more powerfull one, snecma doesn't tells more, confidentiality!

a bit like singaporian spin about typhoon stunning efficiences, good old UK magazine close to UK industrials spining for years disinformations, singaporian didn't as korean and dutch choosen the european bird for the final evaluation tests!

in 3 years the F4 will refit all the actuall airframes, with a real new aesa system, 25% more powerfull, lighter and more economic engines, OSF 2, etc...

and not an underdevelopped and budgeted "aesa" only antenna as for typhoon into a hypothetic tranche 3, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article4339728.ece

wanna serious links, you got it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim G. Smtih (talk • contribs) 13:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Number bought by French military

I don't believe it's been included in the article. Does anyone know how many Rafales the French intend to operate?

The French military intends to operate 294 Rafale (60 for the navy and 234 for the air force), and has already ordered 120 Rafale, and 60 more orders are schedulded in the 2009 budget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.84.30.39 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Marketroid Speech

The Design section of contains some elements that come across as marketing-speech. In particular, the statement, "

"The Rafale carries, for the first time in aviation history, an integrated electronic survival system named SPECTRA which features a software-based virtual stealth technology."

The SPECTRA system has radar detectors and radar jammers. That is simply a form of ECM, the term "software-based virtual stealth" is just marketing. Pmw2cc (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

True. I remove the "first time" phrase as that's unsourced and unneeded. Tag or reword marketing-type/biased wording as needed... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese fighters

The Rafale is one of the most modern fighter in the world, it is no way comparable with those chinese fighters!! The J10 and J11 can be compared with certain versions of the Mirage 2000, but certainly not with a Rafale. Sorry but China is late concerning military techs. So please someone remove the 2 chinese fighters thanks.

• "Comparable Aircraft" is not about whether or not they can take on each other in a fight. Contemporary aircraft that fulfill similar roles should be listed, and I believe the Chengdu J-10 fits the bill. As a bonus in terms of aesthetic comparison, it even shares the same wing configuration. I'm not sure about the J-11 though, since it is a larger, heavyweight air superiority fighter while the J-10 and Rafale are small, lightweight multi-role fighters.

Unless anyone objects, I'll return the J-10 to the "Comparable Aircraft" section. I think the F-16 should be added as well, since it is also a lightweight multi-role fighter aircraft. It may be older, but its more modern variants should be worthy of listing here. The fact that they have been compared by an actual air force (that of the UAE, who ultimately chose the F-16E/F instead) should qualify it as "Comparable". Vicarious Tendril (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have now added the Chengdu J-10 and F-16E/F. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But I have some doubts about JF-17 being a comparable aircraft. JF-17 being a 4th Generation A/C, with low tech Chinese avionics does not even fare decent in comparison to Chinese J-10/11 A/Cs, leave alone a State-of-the-Art 4.5 Generation Dassault Rafale. JF-17 has many issues including an extremely poor Chinese radar (due to fears of reverse engineering, no foreign aviation firm is ready to supply a PESA, let alone AESA), an Under-Powered Russian RD-93 engine, and above all the manufacturing nation i.e China is in no mood to induct it, as it has decided to stick to J-10/11 and other Russian A/Cs. I hope this anomaly is removed and Dassault is given is due credit. Tutu1234 (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No targeting pod?

http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?sectionName=Current+Events&contentId=5930830&programId=1073754900&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL On the other hand, Rafale offers superior aerodynamic performance. But its weakness includes the absence of a compatible surveillance and advanced targeting pod.

Huh? Then why does this article list laser guided weapons? Hcobb (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ground-based targeting, or targeting from another airborne source. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is not completely accurate. It is true that the standards F1 (air to air) and F2 (basic air to ground) cannot carry any targeting pods. Actually in Afghanistan, up until now, the missions have been carried by 2 aircraft. 1 Rafale F2 carries the laser guided bombs and 1 Mirage 2000 D (for the Air Force) or 1 Super Etendard (for the Navy) has the targeting pod. However, the New F3 standard has "full" air to ground capability and can be fitted among other things by the Damoclès. The first airplanes have been delivered to The French Air Force this year (the F3 is officially operational since last year) and the older Rafale will be progressively upgraded to the F3 standard. The pods have been ordered and will be received next year for the Rafale units (the Air force and Navy already have some pods in service for the Mirage 2000 and Super Etendard). By the way it's the same thing for the "surveillance" pod mentioned in that press article (I supposed they meant reconnaissance pod). The F1 and F2 cannot carry it, but the F3 is also designed to carry the "Reco NG" reconnaissance pod currently under testing and to be delivered in 2010.

So anyway, if it's alright with you I'll update the article to reflect the different standards. The Damoclès is actually already mentioned in the article'so I'll just merge a few things. --McSly (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Added ref for the pods, but I'd love to see much more. Hcobb (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to add some stuff next week (description of the 3 standards are clearly missing for example). For information, it's not like the French just discovered that they need a targeting pod for they laser guided bombs. The 3 standards for the Rafale have been planned for years. Here is an article (sorry in French) from 2000 already mentioning the steps [14]. The F3 was at the time planned for 2007. The reason the Rafale is getting the targeting pod now is because in the French arsenal, the Mirage 2000 D are supposed to deliver the laser guided bombs. The Rafale is more dedicated to stand off weapons. It was a budgetary choice. In the last few years it was used in Afghanistan, because like everyone else, the French army is sending their new weapons there for testing. --McSly (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, McSly! My gut told me this info from the newspaper was not right, but I didn't hae time to search it out myself. From the company pages for the Thales Damocles, the Rafael M is also slated for the Damocles at some point. Currently, the Super Entendard carries the pods and does the designating, but the naval F3 will be able to carry the pod also. In covering military issues and technology, one learns that the mainstream press in many countries is oftne not reliable in reporting such details, partly because the reporters just don't understand the subjects. Defense and aviation media tend to do a much better job, and are more unbieased than one might think. Efforts to confirm what one reads in mainstream sources should be made before adding it to articles as fact. - BilCat (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

See-saw editing

Gentlemen, as witnessed in the page edit history, there has been no less than 5 edits of the Brazilian order within the last 24hours. Can someone please get this article salted to prevent anymore of these see-saw edits? It is beginning to hurt Wikipedia community when all the regular editors on this page has to constantly monitor this trend. I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Some editors want to take the negotiations with Brazil as being a completed contract. BBC article -Fnlayson (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• A new French warplane for an old French warship? That's something new... wonder how they will integrate the two together? --Dave1185 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave, are you talking about the Sao Paulo, the carrier the Brazilian Navy operates (the ex-French Navy Foch)? Only the Rafale M is carrier capable, and I've seen nothing about Brazil buying those to this point. I don't believe Rafale Ms can operate from the SP anyway. - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's the ex-Foch and the Rafale had been tested from it at one stage, really. Combined it with Brazil's serious consideration into the Saab Gripen and the Boeing F-18E, even though the Rafale wasn't a done deal yet says something about the Brazilian contemplation. Another thing to consider is Brazil's intention to convert some older S-2 Trackers into AEW and aerial tanker platforms for use on the SP after the current upgrading is done. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I realize the Rafale was tested on one or both of the Clemenceaus, but I don't know if they can do so operationally without major upgrades to the ship. The BN has had trouble keepping the SP operational anyway, so it's doubtful they could afford more upgrades in addition to those it's undergoing now (unless that is part of the current upgreades). But with the Air Force probably getting the Rafale, it will be interesting to see if the NAvy does show any interest in the Rafale M. The Skyhawks ae definitely old-school, even if the actual aircraft are probably 10-15 years younger than the carrier itself. The Rafale M would be a definite upgrade in capability. - BilCat (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, this link has more info on the deal. - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I forget to check that site. It is good for translating releases into english. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Source of the Royal Navy lie

The Ralphing on the Royal Navy blogger meme seems to come from this.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm%3Fid%3D110870&prev=_t The start of construction of the Queen Elizabeth comes as Britain is considering abandoning the version short takeoff and vertical landing F-35 (F-35 B). For reasons of economy, the Royal Navy would eventually adopt the version catapulted the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also known under the designation F-35 C. This would result in the disappearance of the springboard, the front, and the addition of two catapults and stop bits. The change is made possible by the fact that the design of the Carrier Vessel Future (CVF) was studied in common with France, which wanted a version that can implement Rafale and Hawkeye. All arrangements have been made during the engineering work for the architecture of the aircraft carrier allows the introduction of catapults and stop bits. --Hcobb (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• My gawd, the translation bit from French to English really suck! Btw, that's a technical term. --Dave1185 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the text to show it was an idea for the FAA to buy the Rafale in 2006 if the F-35 got into trouble. So really an old story. The bit above is nothing to do with the Royal Navy really it was just an idea to build both British and French ships to the same standard to save a bit of money. It was to allow the French Navy to operate the Rafale from the CVF type ship. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edit on cockpit section and specification section

I have made some edit on this two part and they were reverted without a single comment. Can i hope for some sort of explanation?--92.149.197.13 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This aircraft is widely rumoured to have outperformed an F22 over hte UAE. The French even created a patch memorising the occasion. Would somebody better at digging than me please find out what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.47.126 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why when I add this info to Rafale always some Typhoonfanatic erase it. The Rafale is better than Typhoon. In AA and in AS too. The Rafale didn't win, but the victory for the Raptor wan't big (apparently 1-0). Four Rafale were victorious against four Typhoon (7-1) in air combat. In a fist combat 4-0 and in a second 3-1. The Rafale has detected more missiles sites that the F-16C. See this: Les premiers compte-rendus effectués ce matin par un pilote de Rafale français font état d'une supériorité du chasseur français sur le Typhoon de la RAF, lors de confrontations réalisées ces dernières semaines, aux EAU. La première confrontation engageant quatre Rafale contre quatre Typhoon s'est terminé par un 4-0 en faveur des Français. Malgré, explique-t-on, l'emport d'un armement air-air fictivement dégradé. Après avoir un peu dégradé encore l'armement, le Rafale l'a encore emporté, 3-1.
Le Rafale a été confronté au F22 lors d'un vol, mais dans un cadre limité au combat air-air à vue. Il n'aurait été dans le collimateur du chasseur américain qu'à une reprise, explique t-on aussi.
Le Rafale, on l'a bien compris, a donc largement amélioré sa notoriété, notamment auprès des pilotes émiriens. Il a ainsi à plusieurs reprises montré sa supériorité dans tout le spectre missionnel, en détectant des sites de missiles sol-air qui n'avaient pas été mis à jour par des F-16CJ américains. Par ailleurs, l'optronique secteur frontal (OSF) a aussi permis des détections et identifications jusqu'à 40 kilomètres, un atout qui évite à l'avion de s'exposer, pour identification visuelle, à 3-4 kilomètres, ce qui est nécessaire pour la plupart des autres types d'avions.
De même, en l'espace d'une minute, un Rafale a tiré six AASM sur autant d'objectifs, à des portées de plusieurs dizaines de kilomètres, tout en tirant également trois missiles air-air Mica.

http://blog.avionslegendaires.net/2009/11/rafale-vs-f-22-vs-eurofighter-en-combat-aux-emirats/ http://lemamouth.blogspot.com/2009/12/la-raf-nest-plus-ce-quelle-est.html http://www.aviacionargentina.net/foros/sistemas-de-armas.26/3217-el-rafale-gana-al-thyphoon-7-1-en-ejercicios.html http://www.zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/showthread.php?t=22982 --Armyfr1 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your information is being removed because it fails to meet Wikipedia's policies, not because people like the Typhool more than the Raffle. Per WP's Reliable sources policy, blogs are generally not allowed to be used as sources. In addition, exercises happen all the time, but we do not keep tallies on thier socres, or even report on their occurance. Please stop adding this infor to the article, or you risk being blocked under WP's Three-revert rule policy on edit warring. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear BilCat : I would appreciate you reconsider your threats against ArmyFR1, for the following reasons : -you dismiss the reliability of blogs owned by famous French defense journalists (JD. Merchet from the newspaper "Libération", and JM. Tanguy who writes for several magazines) ; -Those results are confirmed by Air & Cosmos and DSI which are two famous and reliable French publications ; -Initially, those results were told at a press conference BY OUR ARMEE DE L'AIR ; -The magazine Air Force Monthly also interviewed the LT Col Grandclaudon, and confirmed these stories.

THUS, I consider that they totally deserve their place in the Wikipedia page about the Rafale, whether non-French approve it or not. Whether you are not aware of all the story, or you're consciously undermining Wikipedia.

In addition, as an example, there are more than dubious rumours on the Eurofighter Typhoon page ! Reports from Singapore aren't coming from "reliable sources", and are (if not unfounded) totally misleading.

Thanks, TMor —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMor (talk • contribs) 17:29, September 23, 2010

Specifications

Thrust/weight: 1.13, Is this right? Sorruno (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

4.5th Generation?

Are we sticking with the US definition which requires AESA radar for a fighter to be considered 4.5 gen or not. As it stands certain aircraft are listed as 4th gen on some pages, "in development" 4.5 gen on others, and then outright as 4.5 gen fighters. There needs to be standardization or the info will only reflect the opinion of the most recent editor. --Nem1yan (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Are the PAK-FA, F-22A and F-35I Fifth Gen fighters? Each of these needs some work to claim that title. At least the Rafale has a defined five billion euro program to get it up to the (gold standard for 4.5th) Super Hornet level. Hcobb (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The PAK FA, F-22, and F-35 are 5th generation by all standards. But if the PAK FA and F-35 are classified as "in development" 5th gen fighters then the Rafale should be no more than an in development 4.5th gen, but not 4.5th gen outright. There are several companies investing in designs that will bring their fighters up to the American standard. The only question is will we be using the American definition for wiki purposes, and if so then why is the Rafale listed when it has not yet met all the requirements. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate hype/spin?

Is is really appropriate to include the following in the article? It seems to be just a sales pitch, and that this bit could be removed without substantially altering the article.

Former Red Arrows UK pilot Peter Collins in Flight International stated: "It is simply the best and most complete combat aircraft that I have ever flown. Its operational deployments speak for themselves. If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale."

Mike J Holmes (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)