What's new

The Rafale carries heavy

But if KSA EFTs meet in mock up with french Rafales what you think will be result?

Doesn't matter because a much better air force (RAF) got it's clocks cleaned out by the French Rafale in both Solenzara (2007) and ATLC (2009). I'm assuming the KSA EFT's would get utterly embarrassed (even more so than the RAF).

Saudi's may have nice jets, but their AF Pilots wouldn't even make anyone's top 10 lists.
 
.
Why people here calling 80s era air defense so advance?? it was as over hyped by west as Iraqi air defense before first Gulf war. Libya was sanction for more than two decades then how the hell they have advance air defense?

Rafale's are good planes but for Libya they were more than enough.

Sanctioned by the west, but not by Russia. They had Russian SAMs. But they were all taken out by sub launched tomahawks before the aerial campaign began, so it is probably irrelevant to discuss it.
 
.
Well, the EF also has a delayed tranche software process. But once tranche 3 takes full flight it can perform those duties quite easily.

Not at all, because the T3A upgrade only adds some more LGBs, while not a single PGM, stand off weapon, ARM, Brimstone ATGM or even Cruise missile will be added, like the initial plans back in the 80/90s said. Infact all we see today with the test flights is PR based on their offer to the Saudis, which might fund the integration of Brimstone and Storm Shadow, next to the Damocles pod and AASM, but the EF partners didn't funded any credible A2G upgrade.

One has to remember the sort of mission the EF was designed to undertake.. Libyan AF or not.. It is an air superiority fighter.

No, it was designed and developed as a multi role fighter, just with higher importance to A2A, just like the F18SH is a multi role fighter which gives more importance to A2G. The problem is only, that the EF can't even provide basic multi role capabilities, once because of the slow upgrade pace of the partners, but mainly because of the design flaws of the fighter.

The LDP on the centreline decision was made because it was decided that most mission profiles did not require three tanks.. which are usually for ferry. Additionally, the usage of the front MRAAM station was an option for the TGP but cancelled in favour of centreline station due to additional tests needed(hence costs) to verify separation of MRAAMs in such a config.

Sorry but that's wrong! The plan was to develop an own LDP, that could be used at the missile stations, but that wasn't technically feasable anymore and most likely financially too, so they chose to fast induct the Litening pod as a compromise, which means it was a necessity, not a choice!
Secondly, it is not the issue if it carries 2 or 3 fuel tanks, but that the centerline station is blocked by a small payload, instead of a heavy weapon like a 2000lb bunker buster, or a 1000l fuel tank. Simple examples:

The Indian M2K in Kargil could had been able to carry 2 wing fuel tanks, a centerline 2000lb LGB and an LDP, if a heavy strike would had been needed. The EF T3A in the same role needs to carry the LDP on the centerline, a single fuel tank on one wing and the LGB on the other. So it not only would fly less ranges as the old M2K, but also would have to handle a disymmetric load config, ONLY because it had to carry on the centerline station!

Another example is the rather light CAS load with Brimstone. We have seen the PR pics with up to 18 x Brimstones, in realitly however the EF needs to carry the Litenting on the centerline to guide the missiles, but that then again means no fuel tank can be carried, so it needs to replace Brimstone missiles from 2 stations that then carries 2 x 1000l fuel tanks, which actually is far too much for such a light load and CAS. Again a result of the LDP issue.

And in all these cases, the 4 x missile stations have no value, other than the fact that it could carry 4 x BVR missiles in any role, but practically it would had been far better if they could be used for LDPs or other weapons. The only way to counter this design flaw is to add CFTs, that however is planned only for the end of the decade, when the partners go for the MLU upgrade and only then they will add cruise missiles or heavy weapons, because only then it will be able to give useful load configs, range and endurance. But with the F35 and the Brits joining the French for a NG fighter, I don't see much hope in the EF future.

Lower RCS may be useful in QRA..

Even in QRA missions, they carry at least a centerline fuel tank, so will the missiles be the factor that increases the RCS or the fuel tank?
 
.
Indian will go to any extent to make Rafale out of this world because they are purchasing it.

So that is your counter to facts?


The most stupid thing people of this forum do it that they try to compare two different generation planes Rafale with F-22

Again nonsense, because not the fighters were compared, but the fact that the F22 never saw operational service and still is considered to be the best A2A fighter in the world because of it's capabilities! That's why it doesn't really matter how capable Lybia was, just that the Rafale has highly advanced capabilities and actually proved it multiple times now.
The most stupid thing that people do is, still to come up with such silly claims about battle proven and not first getting an idea of the facts!

Rafale never operated alone there were always support assets deployed to support them. The SEAD you are talking about in Libya is nonsense

Let me quote myself:

The most stupid thing that people do is, still to come up with such silly claims about battle proven and not first getting an idea of the facts! :disagree:

Sanctioned by the west, but not by Russia. They had Russian SAMs. But they were all taken out by sub launched tomahawks before the aerial campaign began, so it is probably irrelevant to discuss it.

Before the NATO campain began, the French however deployed Rafale earlier, even when the US and UK still was arguing about the campain. Just like they did the first strikes on Libyan tanks engaging Benghazi, before a single cruise missile was used, or that they were teasing Libyan air defence to turn active, to get the positions for later strikes of the NATO forces...
 
.
The US military is no match for the Chinese military. Look what happened in Korea in the early 1950s.

Ok China is Number 123456789

Wrong. Libya's integrated air defense was knocked out by Tomahawk cruise missiles in the first day. Rafale's Spectra jammed the mobile radars.

That's what we call SEAD Mission ..Tomahawks does only destroy mission

America is no match for Iran, the Land of the Aryans.

Ok China is Number 123456789 and Iran is 10,11,12,13,14,15

J-10B is in serial production. Rafale is an old design. J-10B is brand new and much more advanced than Rafale.


Yeah J 10 B is best because of Newer model and F 16 F 18 and others are waste because of Older Model

My Personnel Question why not you choose your Country, location flags
 
.
Too bad Indians can't afford cutting edge firepower. Indians are too cheap to pay for quality stuff.
 
.
Not at all, because the T3A upgrade only adds some more LGBs, while not a single PGM, stand off weapon, ARM, Brimstone ATGM or even Cruise missile will be added, like the initial plans back in the 80/90s said. Infact all we see today with the test flights is PR based on their offer to the Saudis, which might fund the integration of Brimstone and Storm Shadow, next to the Damocles pod and AASM, but the EF partners didn't funded any credible A2G upgrade.

Sorry but that's wrong! The plan was to develop an own LDP, that could be used at the missile stations,
Even in QRA missions, they carry at least a centerline fuel tank, so will the missiles be the factor that increases the RCS or the fuel tank?

The first part I agree with. The second is not the reason it wasnt done. The first reason.. the funding issue is what kept the lightening being integrated onto the MRAAM station. So it cant be taken as an all or everything verdict on the aircraft as some failure. Thats too simplistic a conclusion to make.
 
.
Again nonsense, because not the fighters were compared, but the fact that the F22 never saw operational service and still is considered to be the best A2A fighter in the world because of it's capabilities! That's why it doesn't really matter how capable Lybia was, just that the Rafale has highly advanced capabilities and actually proved it multiple times now.
The most stupid thing that people do is, still to come up with such silly claims about battle proven and not first getting an idea of the facts!

Can a 3rd gen Mirage-III handle 4.5 gen F-16 Block-60 in air to air combat?? Generation ahead means leap ahead in tech from previous one, so the next gen plane is definitely going to eat older gen plane if older gen planes don't have proper upgrade and support to handle it. Rafale is good plane but its too costly and its not tested against real advance 21st century foes, Libyan air defense was advance in 80s but not in 2011, the tech they were against they must have known that they will be slaughtered.

Sanctioned by the west, but not by Russia. They had Russian SAMs. But they were all taken out by sub launched tomahawks before the aerial campaign began, so it is probably irrelevant to discuss it.

Really, can you please tell me what advance systems Russia provided them after 80s?? They never provided them the basic version of S-300 and all here are talking about advance air defense, where it is well known that 80s era advance air defense is obsolete without major upgrade and Libyans never had one.

Libyan Air Force (1951–2011) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
Could Libya's Rusty Air Defenses Challenge a No-Fly Zone? | Danger Room | Wired.com
.
Plotting Attacks on Libya's Air-Defense Network | TIME.com
 
.
Can a 3rd gen Mirage-III handle 4.5 gen F-16 Block-60 in air to air combat?? Generation ahead means leap ahead in tech from previous one, so the next gen plane is definitely going to eat older gen plane if older gen planes don't have proper upgrade and support to handle it. Rafale is good plane but its too costly and its not tested against real advance 21st century foes, Libyan air defense was advance in 80s but not in 2011, the tech they were against they must have known that they will be slaughtered.


In the hands of a good pilot, a Mirage III could best a Rafale. The former is faster, giving it an advantage in dogfights.
 
.
In the hands of a good pilot, a Mirage III could best a Rafale. The former is faster, giving it an advantage in dogfights.

No, Rafale will just finish Mirage-III in one on one battle, and in WVR & BVR battles Rafale will have more options available then Mirage-III. Mirage-III will only had chance when it is massively upgraded to standard of M2K9s and extremely good support assets to put Rafale's pilot on back foot.
 
.
No, Rafale will just finish Mirage-III in one on one battle, and in WVR & BVR battles Rafale will have more options available then Mirage-III. Mirage-III will only had chance when it is massively upgraded to standard of M2K9s and extremely good support assets to put Rafale's pilot on back foot.

You know this for a fact? Didn't think so.
 
.
To me personally, Mirage looks a lot sleeker than Rafale. Mirage is a much more popular plane, with 1422 Mirage III, 582 Mirage 5, over 720 Mirage F1, and 601 Mirage 2000 built, compared to only 124 Rafales built. If it were up to me, I'd be interested in a more advanced version of Mirage than Rafale. :p:
 
Last edited:
. .
I have explained my scenario if you differ kindly explain why and how?

You didn't explain anything. All you did was state a subjective opinion with no facts what so ever. In your original statement, if you switch Mirage with Rafale and vice-versa, it'd be just as stupid.
 
.
Really, can you please tell me what advance systems Russia provided them after 80s?? They never provided them the basic version of S-300 and all here are talking about advance air defense, where it is well known that 80s era advance air defense is obsolete without major upgrade and Libyans never had one.

Rafale (and other major Western NATO fighters) took place in an important exercise against S-300PMU SAM
systems operated by Slovakia, this happened in 1992.

Слика Слика

Zanimljiva vezba odrzana u Slovackoj 16-27 Aprila 2012 sa ciljem uvezbavanjem dejstva protiv PVO gde je glavni protagonist bio Slovacki S-300. Pored Slovaka ucestvovali su nekoliko Evropskih clanica Nato pakta sa raznovidnom opremom (vidi ispod). Pored aviona opremljenim opremom za elektronsko ratovanje, napadacki tim je imao na raspolaganje i cetiri kopnena sistema za ometanje (ne navodi se tip).

Zvanicne informacije sa vezbe su prilicno sture ali po svemu sudeci ometanje je bilo samo delimicno uspesno i S-300 je ostao operativan i uspesno dejstvovao...po nekim izvestajima, jedino su Francuski Rafali opremljeni sistemom "Spektra" uspeli da izbegnu gubitke.

Slovacki S-300 je S-300PMU, izvozni model iz 1992.

Translate:

Interesting military exercise held in Slovakia 16-27 April 2012 with the aim of perfecting action against PVO where the main protagonist of the SlovakS-300.

In addition to the Slovaks have participated several European members of NATO with differents equipment (see below).

In addition to aircraft equipped for electronic warfare, attacking team had available and four terrestrial systems for jamming (not according to type).

Official information from the exercises are rather terse but all indications disruption was only partially successful and theS-300has remained operational and successfully attacked by ... by some to reports, only the French Rafales equipped system "SPECTRA"managed to avoid losses.

Slovak S-300 S-300PMU, export model in 1992.

63. падобранска - ту смо кад затреба! • Преглед теме - MACE XIII 2012 - Nato vezba protiv S-300

Russian S-300PMU may seem quite old today but in 90s it was very much feared in the West. Sure,
Russian (and Chinese copies derived from them) have advanced a great deal in all these years,
but don't forget that this exercise where Rafale emerged competent against PMU back in 1992
was when the SPECTRA suite wasn't fully developed, did not have any AESA-based jammers,
and didn't have the GaN tech (which Rafale F4 will get some years down the line) either.

These powerful advancements in recent years will definitely make Raffy a feared opponent even
for latest S-350E Vityaz, S-400 Triumf or S-500 Aristocrat SAM systems.

--

I don't know why people hold the F-22 as a god of aviation, the aircraft is excellently designed, but
the technologies it carries are quite old by today's standards. F-35 has the latest & most powerful
ones. Rafale's electronics by the time IAF gets them are likely very close to F-35's. Especially in
the field of electronic warfare, particularly active cancellation of radiowaves.

For those who think only Rafale only has ground strike capability and EFT lacks it.

View attachment 14381

View attachment 14382

View attachment 14383

View attachment 14384

View attachment 14385



Rafale is good multirole plane but EFT is not far behind it in terms of being multirole plane.

EFT as I see it carries a max payload of some 7,500kg, for Rafale it's around 9,500kg.

Raffy carries 2 tons more payload than EFT. The Typhoon can bring whatever it wants, but Raffy will
still be better than it when it comes to droppin' lead on the enemy.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom