Talk:Dassault Rafale/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Listing Egypt as a primery user in infobox

• Egypt was the first exporting target of Dassault Rafale and got the first rafale outside France.
  
• Egypt received 24 Dassault Rafale and have signed a deal with france for 30 more.Yasser Youssef (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  

Listing India

I think it's time the Indian Air Force can be listed on the infobox and the map as a current operator. Five jets have arrived in India (not counting the five still in France). --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I've no issue with updating the map, but I don't have the ability to do it myself. As for the infobox, that won't be changed until India has accepted delivery of enough aircraft to put them in the top four users by number in service. (Right now, the fourth is Qatar, with 23 in service.) This is a perennial issue in aircraft infoboxes, with many users ignoring the stated limits on the amount allowed when they feel their nation "deserves" to be added. More often than not, that nation is India. BilCat (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering why India was still not listed despite having got possession of the aircraft. Will wait for all to be delivered. As for the map, I'll ping the map's creator or someone to have it updated. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

How is Hellenic Air Force listed as Primary user? Even though they have 0 in operation and has only recently pondered over acquiring Rafale with no firm order yet. @BilCat: −−Shashpant (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have removed Hellenic Air Force, it should not be there as we only have three more users listed. The Indian Air Force is still not a significant user. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Milb. @Shashpant, good catch. That was removed once already and added back, and no one else caught it until now. BilCat (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Tbh guys, some "people" are constantly adding India to the list of users. They don't seem like they are going to stop. Which isn't in itself a reason to agree with them but let's be honest, the current situation doesn't make sense. There is a list of "primary users" for a plane exported to 4 countries so far and delivered to 3. I don't see how there can be any real "secondary users" in this case. If anything, France is the primary user and export countries are secondary due to low quantities ordered. But removing India from the list in the box makes little sense : Because they don't have operational capacity ? Then the section in the box could be changed into "in service" which separates orders from real deliveries. Right now the distinction seems based on convetion / protocol much more than on real-life significance. I mean if there are so many users that we can't list them in the box yeah a distinction much exist, but it's not the case with Rafale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRaikkonen01 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

LOL : "please take this issue to the Dassault Rafale talk page so other editors can contribute" But no one is here to discuss it :) That's OK tho, you can keep the page exactly as is; it doesn't have to look clear and sensible from the point of view of the reader, after all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRaikkonen01 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And the story continues : there will be endless modifications and corrections unless the list of users is made into something that is deemed sensible by all readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRaikkonen01 (talk)

That's not going to happen, as we're not going to list all the users in the infobox. There will always be nationalists who think their country is more important than another country, and should be listed instead. BilCat (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"as we're not going to list all the users in the infobox" Why ? Because. French wiki does it and it's both clean and clear. Current layout here is not clear and since no one is even discussing whether it is, I would say it's relatively straightforward.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KRaikkonen01 (talk)

An aircraft type article isn't special just because certain "popular" operators uses it - Listing all the operators will lead to vast bloated infoboxes - imagine what the Dasssault Mirage III or Northrop F-5 or Supermarine Spitfire infoboxes would look like.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@KRaikkonen01: This isn't French Wikipedia, and we aren't obliged to do it their way. They have very long infoboxes in their aircraft articles, which is something that WP:AIR has decided we don't want to have. As to not being "clean and clear", the guidelines are very clear about how many operators to list, and why. Once India becomes the fourth largest operator of the Rafale, it will.be added to the list, and will replace one of the operators their now. That is simple and fair. All that said, if you want to get the guidelines for this infobox changed, the place to do it is at WT:AIR. Who knows, some of your ideas may be adopted. But as Nigel said, we aren't going to make exceptions for certain "popular" operators, as that is not fair to other countries. BilCat (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That being said, it may be worth thinking about whether, where we have multiple military operators from the same country, we need to list the individual operators in the infobox or just the countries (i.e. France, Egypt, Qatar & India rather than French Air Force, French Navy, Egyptian Air Force... etc.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting how you argue the "guidelines are clear" but at no point do you think about whether or not the layout would be clearer if it changed. The only argument is "we do what we do because we do it" -_- Well so much for sharing knowledge. Also I'm sure people enjoy constantly dealing with edits on this article. It's not like one could/should even discuss of some potential changes that would end it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRaikkonen01 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@KRaikkonen01: I gave you a suggestion already: "All that said, if you want to get the guidelines for this infobox changed, the place to do it is at WT:AIR. Who knows, some of your ideas may be adopted." BilCat (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2020

in : *** Thales TALIOS multi-function targeting pod in the future (F3R Standard) delete "in the future (F3R Standard)" as th F3R standard has been qualified in 2019 Clavies (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done --McSly (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

In the "Armament" section: Change:

• • • GBU-12 Paveway II, GBU-22 Paveway III, GBU-24 Paveway III, GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II

To:

• • • GBU-12 Paveway II, GBU-16 Paveway II, GBU-22 Paveway III, GBU-24 Paveway III, GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II

(agg the GBU-16 in the list) Source: https://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actus-air/le-standard-f3-r-du-rafale-desormais-pleinement-operationnel Clavies (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done,Thanks for the request Clavies. Value has been added. --McSly (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-polluting

What is a 'non-polluting combustion chamber'? Unless that is a specific technical term (which should be explained), it sounds like marketing exaggeration. It may be a less polluting combustion chamber, but I have never heard of a combustion chamber that didn't produce some pollutants. Even if it was just CO2, that is a pollutant, and I seriously doubt that is the only pollutant in the exhaust of the M88. Also, do we really need a section for every single air force that once included the Rafale as a potential replacement aircraft, whether they procured it in the end or not? For example, Belgium:

 "In 2009 Belgium suggested that they might buy some F-35s in the 2020s to replace Belgium's fleet of 34 aging F-16A/B MLU fighters.[260] An article published in Belgian newspaper L'Avenir on 19 April 2015 speculated that if the nuclear strike role as part of Belgium's Nuclear sharing policy were retained in the request for proposals, Belgium would be almost forced to buy the F-35 in order to maintain this role.[261][262]

 Belgium officially launched its F-16 replacement program in March 2017, issuing requests for proposals to three European and two US manufacturers: Boeing Defense, Space & Security, Lockheed Martin, Dassault Aviation, Eurofighter GmbH and Saab Group, offering the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F-35 Lightning II, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab JAS 39 Gripen respectively.[263][264]

 On 25 October 2018, Belgium officially selected the offer for 34 F-35As to replace the current fleet of around 54 F-16s. In the accompanied news conference, government officials stated that the decision to select the F-35 over the Eurofighter Typhoon came down to the price, and later stated that "The offer from the Americans was the best in all seven evaluation criteria". The total purchasing price for the aircraft and its support until 2030 totaled €4 billion, €600 million cheaper than the initially budgeted €4.6 billion.[265][266] In April 2020, the first procurement contract for the F-35 was signed, with deliveries to begin in 2023.[267] "

The only part of that that has anything to do with the Rafale is that it was one of the companies issued a RFP. The Rafale was never even a serious contender. I assumed this was an anomaly, but when I looked at the rest, most of them were similar. It is all about Belgium buying the F-35, while making a gesture towards considering all the possible alternatives to prevent public complaints about the procurement process.

64.222.90.118 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Listing Greece

I think it's time the Hellenic Air Force can be listed on the infobox and the map as a current operator. Six jets have arrived in Greece (not counting the 18 in production in France). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C581:520:E4D9:F86E:47A3:59F6 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Not going to happen. See #Listing India above. The same applies to Greece until they are one of the top 4 users, which is extremely unlikely. BilCat (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Hello IP, that infobox lists only the primary and the next top 3 operators. As of now, both Qatar and India have roughly 36 aircraft so unless Greece orders more Rafales, it won't be listed there. --McSly (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias against Tejas and non American/Germany/British aircraft's with Failed bids section

Bringing to attention the bias against non American/Germany/British aircraft's with Failed bids section. F-16, F-18, F-35 pages don't have failed bids section. Just like in the Eurofighter Tyhoon page, where its Sales and Marketing, suggesting changing the "failed bids" to "Sales and Marketing". Debate has been opened in the Tejas talk page as well. Kindly contribute to make Wikipedia pages neutral across pages rather than let such bias prevail. Mifiin (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)