Talk:Dassault Rafale/Archive 2

Comparable aircraft
User:Jim G. Smtih balantly reverted my edits twice without giving any concrete reasons. The only thing he wrote in edit summary was (rm spin only facts reported).. huh? its not about facts.. its about common sense. Please have a look at Sukhoi Su-47 and Eurofighter Typhoon characteristics and see if the two are comparable to Rafale or not. I just don't understand why French people get so sensitive especially when it comes to comparing the Eurofighter and Rafale?! --Spartian 01:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The Mig 29 is NOT a comparable aircraft. Please remove it immediatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.84.127.70 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because ?? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because this plane is from the previous generation and has not the same capabilities than the Rafale at all. The Mig 29 can be compared with the Mirage 2000 or the F-16, but certainly not with the Rafale. If you really want to add a Russian fighter to this list, you can put the Su 30MK or the Mig 35 (even if I do not agree), but please remove the Mig-29, or I'll do it by my own. And sorry for my English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.84.127.70 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added the Mitsubishi F-2 which is operated by the Japanese Air Self Defense Force and is a 4.5 generation aircraft. --86.159.211.76 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Rafale has electronic stealth features (advanced ECM, ie ARCS) better than in any aircraft on the planet; sure it isn't the same stealth as an F-22/PAK-FA but it is still a fairly advanced aircraft. You could compare it to the Su-35BM after it gets the L-band upgrade, the Silent Eagle once it reached production or the new MiG-35, comparing it to Eurofighter (which is a simple 4th gen weapons platform) or MiG-29 is insane. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

--- I must agree with the multiple posters above who argued that the Rafale and the F-16 (and some of the other "comparable aircraft") listed on the page are not at all comparable.

Firstly, as others have stated, the Rafale has significant stealth characteristics, both electronic via the SPECTRA system and physical such as its blended fuselage and wings, smooth contours, use of composite materials, and serrated leading edges. The F-16 has no stealth characteristics whatsoever. Stealth characteristics are considered the most important of all modern fighter characteristics, and the Rafale and F-16 are undeniably significantly different in this respect.

The Rafale also has the ability to supercruise (another usually 5th generation characteristic, although the Rafale overall is not 5th generation); the F-16 has no such ability. The ability to supercruise is an enormous advantage as it allows the pilot to initiate/end engagements at all (versus an aircraft that cannot supercruise) while conserving precious fuel by not using afterburners.

Also, the Rafale is a substantially larger aircraft than the F-16 - it is a twin-engined medium-sized fighter while the F-16 is a single-engined, lightweight fighter that is at least 2,000kg lighter (8,500kg vs 10,000kg empty, and 12,000kg vs 14,000kg loaded). Indeed, the F-16's development competition was even named the "Lightweight Fighter" competition. Such a large size difference translates into a significantly larger amount of ordinance or fuel carried, or an increased range - definitely important things for fighter aircraft. The twin-engines also provide greater reliably and a backup in case of single-engine failure.

Also, the Rafale was designed from the outset as a carrier-based naval aircraft, giving it a distinction that many of its competitors (Eurofighter, Gripen, etc) lack, and a substantial potential advantage in export sales. Some commentators believe the fact that the Rafale is already carrier-based was almost certainly a factor in its recent Indian export sale (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bb21bd4a-51be-11e1-a99d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1omJTSzfy), and I must agree because India has several aircraft carriers in need of fighter aircraft and clear carrier ambitions (as evidenced by currently building its own upcoming Vikrant class carriers). The Rafale's navalization will probably be a factor in the upcoming Brazilian competition as well (Brazil has the Sao Paolo aircraft carrier, which is currently operating only the A-4 and is in need of modern aircraft).

The Rafale is a 4.5 generation fighter (with several 5th generation characteristics such as stealth and supercruise), with a maiden flight in 1986 (1991 for Rafale C model) and production beginning in 1997. The 4th generation F-16's maiden flight was in 1974 (12 years earlier) and began production in 1975 (more than 2 decades before the Rafale). Thus the F-16 is decades older than the Rafale, which incorporates literally a generation-worth of advancements since then (such as the stealth, supercruise, newer avionics, newer engines, etc).

All in all, the Rafale and the F-16 are definitely not comparable fighter aircraft by any meaningful criteria (stealth, speed, size, powerplants, avionics, navalization status). Please do not assume that I am arguing that the Rafale is superior to the F-16 in very aspect. It is not - for example, it is more expensive and it (apparently, at least) lacks an offensive SEAD ability (which certain Block 50/52 F-16s have). However, these 2 aircraft are most definitely not comparable. If anyone can provide facts or evidence to the contrary, please speak up. Otherwise, I will remove the F-16 (and probably some other aircraft such as the Mig-29) from the list of comparable aircraft. Thanks. 72.80.205.54 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * firstly WP:NOT, but that aside, the comparable aircraft list is subjective, but built up by consensus among editors. You seem to be comparing the earliest model F-16 (refering to the LWF Competition etc), while ignoring the growth in roles and capabilities of its variants over the years up to the latest Block 60. If you look at the various fighter competitions around the world you will see that a version of the F-16 is usually one of the Rafale's competitors and on that basis it merits listing as a comparable aircraft. Mztourist (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, I am not sure why you are suggesting that I have used wikipedia as a soapbox. I was merely responding to earlier comments by multiple other posters on this issue. Also, I gave solid, technical reasons for my position (see above) - this is no different then what any of the other posters did. I am not promoting the Rafale as a wonderful aircraft - I am specifically arguing that it and the F-16 (and others) are not comparable aircraft and thus should not be listed as such in that section of this webpage. Secondly, there is clearly no "consensus" among the wikipedia editors that the F-16 and Rafale (and others) are comparable aircraft. Multiple editors on this talk page have already previous disagreed with that claim (as I stated earlier) and have given reasons to do so; these editors include Jim G Smith, 77.84.127.70, and 99.236.221.24.


 * However, there  is  consensus among aviation experts that the Rafale is a 4.5 generation fighter and the F-16 is a 4 generation fighter, thus substantially different aircraft. I challenge anyone to show otherwise - show that most legitimate aviation sources place the F-16 and Rafale in the same generation of fighter aircraft (either both in the 4th or both in the 4.5 generation of aircraft).


 * I am also not sure why you claim that I am only focusing only on the early versions of the F-16 while ignoring later F-16 such as the Block 60s, since: 1) firstly, I compared the weights of the later F-16C version versus the Rafale (not the early F-16A) in my argument about their size differences, and specifically mentioned the much later Block52/50 F-16's SEAD abilities; 2) I do not see how mentioning the development project (Lightweight Fighter Comp) of the F-16 detracts from my argument in any way - in fact, it supports my argument (that the F-16 is a substantially smaller aircraft); 3) most importantly, later F-16 Blocks do not substantially change my argument in any way - they are still not stealthy, have no supercruise, are significantly smaller than the Rafale, are not navalized, etc. Bringing up later F-16s does not change this situation.


 * The fact that the F-16 and Rafale were both among the competitors in several foreign competitions does not mean that they are similar aircraft. In these foreign competitions, very dissimilar aircraft by every possible criteria (of multiple generations, vastly different sizes - "high" and "lo" and medium-sized aircraft, and markedly different performance levels, stealthy vs non-stealthy) often do compete in the same competition. Just because 2 aircraft are entered into the same competition certainly does not mean that they both competitive or similar. In these competitions, the Rafale has competed against the Mig-29, Su-30 variants, F-15, F-16, F-18E/F, Gripen, Typhoon, and F-35. In fact, it appears that the Rafale has competed against almost every other fighter aircraft out here. By your argument (that the F-16 was among the Rafale's competitors and thus a comparable aircraft), then any of these aircraft should be considered comparable as well. Are these fighter aircraft all to be considered similar? That is clearly not the case.


 * Thus, no real reason has been provided to call the Rafale and F-16 (and other 4th generation aircraft) comparable aircraft. If you (or anyone else) has a solid reason to call them comparable aircraft, please let us know. Thanks. 72.80.205.54 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You replied to a 2+ year old discussion. This talk page is supposed to be for improving the Wikipedia article, and not a discussion forum about the aircraft.  Let's get back to former.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This  is  about improving the article. I am specifically arguing that the "Comparable Aircraft" section of this article is incorrect in listing several aircraft (especially the F-16) as comparable. I provided the reasons in my previous 2 posts specifically to make this point. I am not arguing about the Rafale in any other context. And I specifically said this all in my last post (the one you just responded to, in my first section). Also, the age of the discussion is not relevent here because no consensus was reached in that discussion. I  also stated this (no consensus reached) in my last post. In any case, if the claim (that the Rafale and F-16 are comparable aircraft) is not correct and cannot be substantiated, it must be removed. Wikiarticles cannot have factually incorrect or unsubstantiated statements regardless of how long those claims have existed. Unsubstantiated claims that are challenged on wikipedia articles must be removed.


 * Please provide a valid reason that the F-16 and others and the Rafale are comparable aircraft. I notice that noone thus far as been able to do so. Also, as I stated earlier, the aviation community (the experts in the field) considers the Rafale to be a 4.5 generation aircraft and the F-16 to be a 4th generation aircraft, and thus not comparable aircraft. Therefore, wikipedia should not do differently. It appears that there is no valid reason to call the Rafale and F-16 comparable aircraft. Thus, I will remove the F-16 (and possible others) from the list if no further reason can be given. Again, if you have a valid reason, please speak up. Thanks. 72.80.205.54 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that there is no valid reason to call the Rafale and F-16 comparable aircraft. I can name several pretty good ones actually. The Rafale and the F-16 are being 'compared' by the customers/potential operators themselves E.G. They're warring for the same contracts. Now that rings a lot more solidly that the 'Generation X-point-+++' fudging/marketing mumbo-jumbo. What is competing with each other for the same contracts is inherantly comparable - and since when does something have to be of the same techno-ideological moment-of-the-hour to be compared to? If that were taken to the line, the comparisons between the Variable Wing aircraft would be up the shoot as they're got an even larger spread of time on their 'compariables'. Over-eager sub-devisions doesn't achieve much for any of us. Kyteto (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kyteto, the Air Forces around the world who are evaluating the F-16, Rafale and others for their fighter competititions regard them as comparable, no matter what forum-type arguments you have spent a lot of time setting out above 72.80.205.54. Can I suggest that rather than devoting your energy to arguing over a fairly minor point you spend your time on substantive improvements or new articles Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Kyteto. The problem with the foreign competitions is that the Rafale has competed against almost every other fighter. Are they all comparable? As I stated earlier (did you read my earlier posts?), very dissimilar aircraft by every possible criteria (different generations, vastly different sizes, stealthy vs non-stealthy, etc.) often competed in the same competition (the Mig-29, Su-30 variants, F-15, F-16, F-18E/F, Gripen, Typhoon, and F-35).


 * Aircraft in the same competition are not always comparable. Why? Because manufacturers frequently choose to enter their fighters into competitions where there chances of winning are slim or their fighter does not meet all requirements, i.e. are not comparable. This is because the potential gains of a sale are very large and the effort involved in competing is relatively small (the bulk of military aircraft costs are for development, not marketing). The cost/benefit analysis strongly favors entry into as many competitions as possible. Also, air forces allow such a situation to drive down prices and obtain favorable licensing or other deals.


 * The air forces definitely do not consider all of these fighters (or the Rafale and F-16 specifically) comparable. I know of no source that says that. Some of the Rafale's competitors are indeed comparable (Eurofighter), but many of the others (F-16, Mig-29, F-35) are not. Thanks. Please have a good day. 72.80.205.54 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd argue that the Mig-29 is entirely comparable to the Rafale. The Eurofighter/Rafale program, originally started as one and the same, was developed specifically to produce an aircraft to match and defeat a specific new Cold War aircraft at the time - the MiG 29. Both the Rafale and the Mig-29 have navalised versions, have had some degree of 'stealth' profile reduction applied to their designs in retrospect to the original early forms, and are designed for the same basic role - Agile anti-air platform, reasonably small-sized and since respun with a multi-role focus. They're as close to comparable as it gets; the designers specifically built the Rafale with the MiG-29 in mind - if that isn't good grounds for comparison, I don't know what is.
 * Likewise, the arguements that the F-16 aren't comparable don't strike me as substancial. The size difference doesn't amount to much at all, both were re-designed for 'stealth' radar-crossection reductions, both are agile light air-defense-fighters-turned-multirole aircraft. A navalised F-16 was designed but didn't attract any customer demand - similiarly, development F-16s have super-cruised, but no customer saw the expense of engine replacement as justifiable for the capablity. And the generations junk is a load of tosh thrown around with no real scale or actual meaning behind it. All of your 'proofs' that the F-16 and Rafale aren't comparable are subjective, open to alternative opinion, and currently a majority of editors believe that the comparison is valid rather than invalid. Kyteto (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Kyteto: Most fighter development projects use specifications that significantly exceed (not equal) that of opposition aircraft, meaning that the resulting aircraft (Eurofighter, Rafale) are not comparable to, but superior (in most ways) to the opposition aircraft. You said it yourself - "match  and defeat". This is especially true of Western aircraft designed to defeat vast numbers of Soviet fighters.
 * "Most fighter development projects use specifications that significantly exceed (not equal) that of opposition aircraft, meaning that the resulting aircraft (Eurofighter, Rafale) are not comparable to, but superior (in most ways) to the opposition aircraft" Yes, but you're purely guessing/hypothetising on the basis of logic that it should be superior; and I agree that in some aspects it is successful. Points of abstract logic and generalising do not make for substancial casework. Kyteto (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No aviation expert considers the MiG-29 a stealth aircraft. Do you mean the leading-edge extensions? - those increase maneuverability at high angles of attack - i.e., an agility features (not stealth). The Rafale was designed with navalization from the outset, as I stated earlier. The naval MIG-29K is an experimental derivative developed after the fact and is a near-failure. It was not even purchased by its original customer (Russia), bought in very small numbers (about 15 by India), and still not in service after nearly 20 years in development. Its great lack of success proves my point about how important navalization from the outset is. It is very difficult to navalize a plane after the fact, which is rarely done and never well. The most "successful" was the YF-17 to F-18 - which took many years, at great cost, and created an almost entirely new plane with few parts in common and weighing 10,000lbs more.
 * "No aviation expert considers the MiG-29 a stealth aircraft." Few aviation experts (that aren't French) would consider the Rafale a stealth aircraft either, so I guess that puts them exactly on the same level. The Rafale's RCS is tens of thousands of times larger than a 'real' stealth aircraft, proportionally it is far, far closer (less than ten-five times) of the MiG-29, while a real stealth aircraft like the F-117 is far, far, far, far (10,000 times) smaller. The MiG-29K is said by its manufacturer to incorperate radar reduction coatings and redesigned engine blades for a 5 fold decrease over the original MiG-29 - exactly the same kind of measures deployed on the Rafale (coatings, intake re-designing all weren't on the original Rafale demonstrator, but slapped on later as an after thought in the late 1990s... just like the MiG). And the MiG-29K's failure should probably be viewed to be far more caused by the complete collapse of the Soviet Union than it's own failures, plenty of good projects fell because there was literally no money in a devestated economy - much like how the Rafale got delayed for decades. But the MiG-29K is now inservice, it is now in Russian use, and it is actually operating over Syrian waters right now... so your information is dated. Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The F-16 case is even worse. The wt difference is significant because more wt means more payload/range, important things for fighters. No source I have ever seen claims the F-16 supercruises. The F-16 is not a stealth plane - I challenge you to prove it. As for a "navalized" F-16, the F-16N is a land-based plane used by the USN to simulate Soviet fighters. A navalized fighter is one that operates regularly from warships - the F-16N cannot. The aviation community (experts in the field) considers the Rafale/Eurofighter and the F-16/Mig-29 to belong to different generations. It is not just manufacturer ads. Also, other people did believe that the comparison was invalid (Jim G Smith, 77.84.127.70, and 99.236.221.24). Thanks. 72.80.205.54 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the F-16 supercruised - It reached speeds of Mach 1.1 without afterburner usage while being tested with the General Electric F110-129 engine, not a standard engine however; as mentioned, the cost concerns outweighted the operational need for supercruising, thus no customer has bothered equipping the engine to date - it's an option on the table that's never taken, so to speak. No, I was not referring to the F-16N, there was a navalised version touted to the USN, it was never constructed as they selected to proceed with the F/A-18. As for generic claims of "the aviation community" viewing them as different generations - tell that to the fighter aircraft article; they seem to have found plenty of sources in the aviation community that put them in the same generation, so it's hardly unanimous or the default norm opinion that they're in different generations. But even if they were in different generations, why does that suddently create a gigantic incomparable divide between them anyway? Considering there's little to no definition of a clear divider of characteristics between 4 and 4.5, and many aircraft are listed as being both 4 and 4.5; treating this tiny little number with such reverence and decisiveness is approaching the perspective of making a mountain out of a molehill. Why attach such importance to it to begin with? Because people like numbers?


 * I can't actually believe I'm wasting my time on this tiny, insignificant point though. In the last month, I wrote more than 15% of the article's current content, read dozens of books to develop its content and expand its design information - added hundreds if not thousands of changes - and we're piddling around on such a tiny change, that some editors treat as a grand crusade or divine gosiple. Isn't there bigger things to do, greater problems with the articles content? Considering how many thousands of times random editors throw in and out their favourite plane's name into the Comparables list, and even now people are considering chucking the whole Comparables list on the fire because it invites these EXACT arguements and natioanlistic editing issues, it really does strike me as completely and utterly pointless, compared with simply writing and developing the body of the article instead, the bit that'll stand for 30-40 years or so... Kyteto (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK lets close off this forum discussion now. The F-16 remains as a comparable aircraft unless the Aviation group decides to ditch comparables lists altogether. Mztourist (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Mztourist. I understand your feeling - I did not expect this much disagreement when I posted earlier! But I wanted to get others' opinions before making changes to the article... Thanks. 72.80.205.54 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday’s technology
So the consensus is that the Rafale is yesterday’s technology? Hcobb (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, these days, anything that still flies with a pilot on board is yesterday's technology. --McSly (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well i saw a Rafale fly yesterday. So yeah kinda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM This doesnt really contribute to the article people. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Times of India
The source calls the Rafale the best at dogfights and doesnt provide any factual evidence so it is merely an unproven editor's opinion. There are also factual errors in the source (an F-16 is not heavier, or in any way larger than a Rafale). All-in-all the statement is a random editors opinion after a conversation with an ill-informed or outright biased Rafale pilot. If there was information showing that the Rafale outperformed the Su-30MKI then the statement could be added, but that source provides none. -Nem1yan (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the quote. The pilot talks about "heavier to fly", i.e. how agile it feels. The configuration of the Rafale makes it comparatively maneuverable indeed. This is not a factual error. The point of the article is that the Rafale's comparative advantage is in close combat. That too is accepted. There is no ground for calling this "a random editors opinion", and there is no ground for calling the pilot ill-informed. The Times of India is a well-edited source, and while this piece is heavy on Rafale pilot testimony, the quote is the signed journalist's.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How would a Rafale pilot know how heavy an F-16 or Su-30MKI "feels"? There is no information in the article showing that the Rafale has any comparative advantage over any of the aircraft it is compared to and it is simply the opinion of the editor and Rafale pilot. You'd have an argument if it was a Aviation Week article, or if the writer was an expert on aviation or military defence, but it isnt.  At the very least it's biased beyond use.  If that journalist had interviewed a Eurofighter pilot he would've made the same statement about the Typhoon. There is no factual evidence and the opinions are biased. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you know that the professional pilot quoted has never flown the rival planes, or has no ground for knowing how they feel comparatively? For instance the very pilote interviewed, Philippe P., has SU-30 experience and that is one of the reasons he went to India (see DID). Again, you are single-handedly discounting the writer without ground. Here is the author's bio: "Prashanth GN is a special correspondent at The Times of India in Bangalore. He has been with the paper since 2006 and has been writing on science and technology, aerospace, and defence. He was selected as Robert Bosch Fellow to participate in the Euroscience Open Forum 2010, Torino, Italy, the second largest science conclave in the world, where he made a presentation on "Covering Indian Science and What Constitutes Science News"... There is no foundation for assuming away such a writer's expertise or considering it biased.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Saying that a single pilot has flown F-16's 18's and Su-30s apart from his Rafale is rediculous, Airforces dont trade about their aircraft for fun. The article is taken completely from the words of a single pilot with no factual evidence to support his claims.  I can provide a source saying the Su-30MKI is best at dogfights, which would of course contradict your statement.  You need evidence to make that sort of claim, otherwise it's just one opinion after another. If you exclude the comment about the Su-30MKI then I dont see a reason why you cant add the statement.  But as-is your statement makes it seem that the Rafale is better at dogfighting than the Su-30MKI, and there is information from several sources (all with actual performance data from exercises) that would suggest otherwise. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If "makes it seem" is the issue, and knowing that your "reasons" for your first two reversals are plainly wrong, hitting something other than "delete" would make sense. As I said, DID reported on this very pilot flying in the SU-30. You are past 3RR so I will let this cool. Quite separately, if you can find a source about the SU-30's comparative advantage being nimbleness I'd be curious. But, your sidestepping rhetoric aside, this does not belong in this specific discussion.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I welcome Fnlayson's taking the source seriously. But I am don't see ground for then moving the edit to the "France" part. The Rafale flew to India, to be compared with the SU-30. Short of assuming that India is trying to sell France used Sukhois and reverting military purchasing practice regarding the direction of travel in such instances, this is obviously a matter about exporting the Rafale.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Rafale went to India to be compared with other aircraft in the MRCA competition, not the Su-30. The Su-30's Thrust vectoring and design also give it the advantage in performing and sustaining high alpha maneuvers, which would give it an advantage in a dogfight.  The Rafale's only advantage over the Su-30 would be if it went vertical and attempted to out-climb the flanker.  But once again the angle-of-attack advantage that the Su-30 enjoys plus the R-73 missile would take away from this advantage. Still, if you are fine with Fnlayson's revision then I dont see a reason to discuss this further -Nem1yan (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not say "compete", and given that the IAF already has over a hundred SU-30s, it's pretty obvious that this is not a head-to-head competition. But of course, it is standard practice to compare current and potential aircraft.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not at all. The Su-30MKI is a heavy fighter with a greater payload and much longer range than the Rafale.  The Rafale fills a different role and was only being compared to others in the MRCA competition.  You are just making up stuff now and it's obvious.  Either read up and find a better source or just accept the current revision because this isnt going anywhere. -Nem1yan (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So now you agree that the Rafale's comparative advantage is not payload or range; i.e., to some extent, the contrapositive (or should I say contranegative) validating the source! I guess that's progress. But you also enjoin me and other editors to keep a wording to which you simultaneously object strenuously in your own talk page (21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC))? I hope you see that this does not make sense, short of being a blatant attempt at silencing the two other editors who have been trying to work this out so far.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The source says the Rafale is the best, you have yet to prove how, and the current revision of the page reflects this. The purpose of MRCA is to find a new fighter for the IAF.  The Rafale was only being compared to other aircraft in the MRCA competition, if anything the IAF's Su-30's were being used as a constant when comparing other aircraft in aerial engagements, but they were never being compared to one another.  Your statement about the Rafale being the best dogfighter was left out of the current revision for one of the main reason's I deleted it to begin with.  The source did not prove itself credible to make that claim. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The record above shows clearly that this is not about "best" - and has not been for a while - as far as I am concerned - specifically, since before my talk note above at ((22:11, 30 March 2011)). Your not seeing the meaning of the way that word was used does surprise me, but again that's not the point. Speaking of tangles, you now say that the SU-30 is a "constant" - odd word, but in a weasel-y way it implies the comparison intent I suppose: Compare the Rafale with the Su-30; compare the SU-30 with Rafale competitor X; net out the differences to compare Rafale and X. Again, though, no point in beating that horse as far as I am concerned. Now, for the important thing, which you have ignored since this indent series started: Did you read the current wording of the article ([]), in light of your own arguments above? I just have to wonder why you want that wording frozen.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

France 'near closing Emirates Rafale deal'
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/10/17/France-near-closing-Emirates-Rafale-deal/UPI-65691318865895/

Not quite ready to list? Hcobb (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to hurry, that deal will be signed soon enough, or not, or be postponed, or cancelled. Who knows. When it's signed, we'll add the information. --McSly (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, the wiki article chronology stopped when emirates were asking USA for proposal. But now it's been a very long time since everyone knows that this was a political act of emirates to put pressure on the french government under negociation for who would pay the study of the new engine. It actually didn't last long before UAE showed no more interest in USA proposals.


 * The article is written is such a form that it looks like UAE are at the moment more interested in USA offer rather than Rafale which is quite wrong, just saying, especially since libyan intervention UAE interest in Rafale has grown even more.

Why France actually left the Eurofighter design alliance was about flattop ships.
> A number of factors led to the eventual split between France and the four countries. France wanted Dassault to lead the project; moreover, France demanded a swing-role fighter that was lighter than a design desired by the other four nations. For these reasons, France and the other nations split in 1985, after which France committed to its own design. These nations would develop what would later be named the Eurofighter Typhoon.

None of those were important. What was important was that West Germany never had a flattop carrier and Britain had already decided to kill off that branch from her navy. Meanwhile the french insisted on keeping a flattop ship of their own, partly because of national grandeur, so they demanded the EFA-2000 basic design be easily adaptabe for CATOBAR ops.

That meant at least 10% more take-off weight and 20% more EFA programme cost, compared to a purely land-based warplane. Britain and Germany refused to take that burden and eventually asked the french to leave if they are so intent on having CVA / CVN class ships in the french navy. Therefore the land-sea capable Rafale was born, but it became smaller than EFA-2000, because France was not rich enough to finance the production of a huge, EFA2000 + CATOBAR weight class jetfighter.

Meanwhile the EFA is still CATOBAR/STOBAR incapable, since it hold nose so high on final glide path and the canards are in the wrong place, so the pilot cannot see the flattop desk. There would be a need for belly mounted stereo cams, with daylight, LLTV and FLIR channels for all-weather ops and that makes navalizing costs immense. 91.82.38.204 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTFORUM, if you can substantiate any of this with sources we can discuss the sources and include it in the article, otherwise all of this ought to be considered WP:OR. AadaamS (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Export section
What on earth? The Export section is listing a bunch of countries none of which have actually purchased the aircraft. I have also included the fact that India has put the new contract on hold while the data from the poor record during Opération Harmattan is looked at and the serious corruption allegationsTwobells (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And your point is, apart of finding fault with everything involving France ? It seems an old habbit you have, looking at your old contributions here... And that's true only Dassault Aviation is in front of serious corruption allegations, dont make me laugh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.204.70 (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Where to use this source
I'm not certain where I should use this source about the design, including the material used, of the Rafale A demonstrator within the article. Anybody with any idea? 05:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

DVI content development
This source says that the DVI system, "was not included in initial production units" and that it has a vocabulary of "90 to 300 words, with first-time recognition 95% of the time". I wonder does anyone have an alternative or a better (or more reliable) source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some more detail on the DVI system has been found; it hasn't been the requested information however. I will try to keep looking for verifiable material. Kyteto (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's something. "90 to 300 words, with first-time recognition 95% of the time" is a bit ambiguous, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Squall
What's the word "squall" doing in the "French pronunciation" instructions? It's wikilinked, yet, to our article Squall which explains that the word means a sudden, sharp increase in wind speed. Am I supposed to emit an increase in wind speed (=blow hard) when pronouncing the word..? And why is there only phonetic stuff for the "Rafale" bit, and not for Dassault? I would suppose vandalism, if not for the fact that it's looked like this for years, and it's hard to suppose none of the regular editors noticed. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

P.S. Aah. I suppose this version explains it. It's the English meaning of the word. Nothing to do with French pronunciation. Removing it. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Yeah, that's the translation of rafale. I don't see the problem, so I've restored it. There may be a better way to format it though, but don't simply delete it. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If the reader really wants the pronunciation of Dassault, I think it's fair that he goes to that article. As for this article, maybe something more like the structure at Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard, Saab 35 Draken or Gripen could be used? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @BilCat: Very well, since you've reverted me to reintroduce the mystery, I won't touch it again. Have you looked at how it actually looks on the page (rather than just in edit mode)? With the enigmatic "squall" link presented as part of the pronunciation information, and no mention of being the English translation? Did you notice that the squall link was properly used and formatted in the 2008 version that I linked to above? I don't understand why you didn't copypaste from that instead. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC).


 * I meant to do that, but got busy elsewhere. Milb1 has now added a template that does the same thing, and your issue should be adressed now. - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation double check
This is a continuation from a post at User talk:Kudpung.

@bobrayner -- Yes. I want to make sure the paragraph I've inserted is consistent with the French article. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the wording slightly. Otherwise, all is good. There are plenty of other francophone sources out there, of course, if you'd like to fill in other details of the project. Bear in mind the interlinked nature of stakeholders - Dassault owns part of Thales, both Safran and Thales are partly state-owned, and so on. (Incidentally, the chairman/CEO of Dassault is a senator). bobrayner (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes, and yep, Serge Dassault is a French politician. I'll keep what you said in mind. If I need anymore francophone sources, I'll look for them myself before asking you for assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Too many external links
I think there are too many external links. A link to Dassault's official page for Rafale and maybe one or two more should be enough. I get the perception that these links add nothing of value to the article but serve to promote various web sites. WP:ELNO AadaamS (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed one or two links. It is not a link farm now.  We just need to keep it that way. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we still have too many and there is still a risk of being a link farm for aviation enthusiast fansites. The French Rafale article has exactly four links. One to Dassault, one to the French Navy Rafale M page, one to some academic study in flight quality and one to the 01.091 squadron of the French Air Force. These are links to the manufacturer or users of the aircraft. That is what I think we should aim for with our external links. Aviation enhusiast sites with lots of pictures should all go so I delete them. If anyone can provide a good argument for adding them again, then do so. Many of the sites of the users of the Rafale such as the French Air Force and Navy are in French only. Can we link to sites in other languages? AadaamS (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Fnlayson, I can see that you partially reverted my edit. I just don't see why the links you re-added belong in the article as they imho fall under item 1 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. They don't provide any information that isn't already (or should be) in the article and the article is well referenced already. Why do "Air Combat Information Group", "Air Force Technology" and "Vectorsite" deserve links when for instance even the Armee de l'Air doesn't have one? I agree they aren't stricly "fansites" but I still don't see a good reason to include them. Rather than having an edit war, I would like to discuss it here. AadaamS (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I still don't see there being a real problem here. Editers are not adding links left and right.  The French Air Force should have a link there as it is an official link.  The ACIG link does have info not covered in the article.  The others probably no not and can go or stay, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see a problem with the ACIG link though, the last "Conclusion" section has some spelling errors and that makes it appear amateurish to me (I should know, I am myself an amateur aviation enthusiast), rather than the work of a professional writer. I think the ACIG link should go too. What is the info the ACIG link has that isn't already in the article? Also, the copyright notice of it says "2002-2003", so it could also be outdated. I would rather see the "See Also" section expanded with more links. AadaamS (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuel Capacity and Weights
At present the listed internal fuel capacity of 4700kg exceeds the difference between the empty and loaded weights, which makes no sense.Z07x10 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, empty weight (21,000 lb), loaded weight (30,900 lb), fuel (10,000 lb). So the difference between empty weight + fuel and loaded weight is 100 lb. Looks like a small rounding error. --McSly (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you use the lb figure, however 4700kg is actually 10,340lb not 10,000lb. This is another quibble I have about the built in kg to lb conversion.  It's inaccurate.  The difference is 440lb.  The T/W figure for the M of 0.988 with 4 MICAs also works back to an empty weight about 700lb over that quoted.  Dassault (the manufacturer and primary source of data) also quote the empty weight as 22,000lb for the C and a service ceiling of 50,000ft.http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/specifications-and-performance-data/ Z07x10 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is AESA ahead of, or on schedule?
Does this:

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20130919trib000786061/rafale-le-coup-de-blues-de-dassault-aviation.html

Indicate that the 2014 date given in this article has been beaten? Hcobb (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Supercruise
Where is the source saying Mach 1.4?Z07x10 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For which upgrade level of the engines? http://www.defencetalk.com/rafale-fighter-flies-with-upgraded-m88-4e-engine-26198/ Hcobb (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Any one.Z07x10 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Were there any other publications besides The Is Money that discussed about a potential British purchase of the Rafale? If not, the "United Kingdom" section should be removed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it ever was a serious prospect just one of many alternates fielded as bargaining counters between the services/government/industry, it can be removed, then again I would say that all the "failed bids" could be removed as not notable. Marketing and selling goes on all the time and unless it ends up with an order it is not really worth a mention. MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need a lower limit as to which bids we include in the article. What about limiting the article to only mention bids where the aircraft itself was actually technically evaluated (I mean as in fly-off) by the potential customer? AadaamS (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

French gov announcement January 2014
In January 2014, French president François Hollande and Defence Ministry Jean-Yves Le Drian announced that around 1 billion € are invested in a modernized version of the Rafale Jet. The French government added that France expected to rely on this aircraft until the years 2050. This announce has an other goal : a guaranty to the potential buyers that the Rafale will last a long time before being replaced. Source on a lot of newspapers, including Le Monde : http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/01/10/un-milliard-d-euros-pour-moderniser-le-rafale_4346022_3234.html   (1 billion € to modernize the Rafale)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.138.70 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there a source that details what's in the new program? Surely they are not suggesting that France's top fighter in 2050 shall be sans stealth, no? Hcobb (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)