Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Dassault Rafale/archive1


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Not promoted. Nominator is inactive. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale

 * Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've helped to revamp it and feel it meets all of MILHIST's A-class criteria. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments It's good to see this article on what's probably the best-looking fighter ever built developed to such a high standard. I have the following comments:
 * "France entered into an arrangement with four other European nations to produce an agile multi-purpose fighter, but subsequent disagreements over workshare and differing requirements led to France's pursuit of its own development program" - I'd suggest splitting this complex sentence into two sentences
 * Done. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * " It has also been marketed for export to several countries" - I'll comment more on this later, but this seems overly positive: the key feature in the literature I've read on attempts to sell this aircraft is the failure of multiple well-credentialed bids.
 * Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "As the Rafale would replace such a wide range of aircraft in the French Armed Forces, it justifies the high cost of exclusive French development of the airframe, avionics, propulsion system and armament," - the tense is a bit off here, and this argument should probably be attributed to someone/some organisation.
 * Reworded. Not really an argument. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This sentence lacks a clear topic now. My concern here is that this is basically an opinion - the French could arguably have gotten similar results at a lower cost (and risk) from staying in the Eurofighter program. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The aircraft normally flies with 2,000-litre (528 US gal) external tanks, two Apache/Scalp cruise missiles, in addition to four air-to-air missiles." - what's meant by "normally" here? Is this the type's standard armament load in French service?
 * Reworded. I'm positive that was the loadout during testing. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "While the Navy initially carried out a modernising program of the Crusaders" - this is a bit wordy: how about "While the Navy initially modernised the Crusaders"?
 * Done. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "but the Gulf and Kosovo Wars showed that a second crew member is invaluable on strike and reconnaissance missions. Therefore, in 1991 " - a war which took place in 1998/9 obviously couldn't have influenced a 1991 decision
 * Thanks for the pickup. Removed Kosovo. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "As of 2011, a total of 180 Rafales has been ordered by France" - can this be updated? (also, 'has' should be 'have')
 * Done. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What will F3R standard involve?
 * Added. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Rafale M is the only fixed-wing combat aircraft flown by the Aviation Navale, and plans are to upgrade all airframes to the "F3" standard, with terrain-following 3D radar and nuclear capability, from early in the decade following 2010." - how's this going?
 * Removed claim not found in ref. Added nuclear capability to following sentence. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "In 2010, France ordered 200 MBDA Meteor beyond visual range missiles, greatly increasing the distance at which the Rafale can engage aerial targets" - you should probably note that these weapons are yet to enter service
 * Done. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that MIL-STD-1760 needs some kind of explanation
 * Explanation provided. Please check. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * " minimizing the incorporation of " is a bit unclear Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Meant to write "minimizing the hassle of". Replaced minimizing with simplifying. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "enabling customers to choose to readily incorporate many of their existing weapons and equipment" - this seems overly positive: weapons clearance trials can be quite time-consuming even when there are no software integration problems - which there often are
 * Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "In 1996, production of the M88-2 engine began and the first production engine was developed within that year" - should the first 'production' be 'development'?
 * Corrected. The current interpretation was not too faithful to the ref. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Rafale could operate in Libya without the support of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) aircraft, using the onboard Spectra self-defense system instead" - this is stated earlier in the article
 * I don't think there's any issue with repeating it. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The section on India is a bit repetitive and could be cut by a paragraph or so
 * Culled. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There's been a fair bit of reportage on the Rafale's failure to win any export orders, but this isn't reflected in the article. The lack of foreign sales has led some commentators to conclude that the type is over-priced and/or inferior to the Typhoon and American designs, but the article doesn't capture this and instead presents a very positive picture of the Rafale's capabilities.
 * You're right. Where do you think I should add a paragraph about it? --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a fair bit of over-linking aircraft types in the Potential operators and failed bids sections
 * Delinked. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "However a leaked Swiss Air Force evaluation report revealed that the Rafale won the competition on technical grounds and Dassault offered to lower the price for 18 Rafales" - weren't the Gripens still cheaper overall?
 * The figures in the ref still say that the Gripen is cheaper. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The tweaked wording here addresses my comment: from memory, the Swiss Government confirmed that the Rafale had better performance, but justified the purchase of Gripens on cost grounds. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "In 2002, the Republic of Korea Air Force chose the F-15K Slam Eagle over the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Sukhoi Su-35 for its 40 aircraft F-X Phase 1 fighter competition." - needs a citation
 * Added. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Variants section needs citations. Also, what would the Rafale R involve? Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added refs. I couldn't find much. This source says that the NG PDL "is due to enter service in mid-2018, at the same time as the new Rafale-R standard". --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed: nice work. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Several upgrades to the radar, engines, and avionics of the Rafale are planned to be introduced in the near future.": If for instance most of their development budget this year is allotted to upgrading radar, engines, and avionics, then it's better to say that ... report on something factual, not what's in the brochure.
 * "advancement": This word means several things, including promotion to a military rank. It doesn't mean "advance".
 * "unprecedented": peacocky.
 * "were indigenously developed": I'm not sure what that means; I'm assuming it wasn't developed by Gauls.
 * "These advancements have enabled the integration of formerly individual components and combined with intelligent automated analysis processes, known collectively as data fusion.": I have no idea what that means.
 * "developed and produced for the Rafale programme. Originally scheduled to enter service in 1996, post-Cold War budget cuts and changes in priorities contributed to significant delays to the programme.": "Originally scheduled" should be closer to a noun it modifies. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposing. There's an unfortunate pattern here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments: (have gone through as far as "Design")
 * "The Rafale has been used in combat over Afghanistan, Libya, and Mali; features such as the SPECTRA integrated defensive-aids system have been crucial advantages in these theatres. " - the main text only lists SPECTRA as having helped in Libya.
 * " In 1975, the French Ministry of Aviation initiated studies for a new aircraft to complement the upcoming and smaller Mirage 2000," - smaller than what? (no other actual aircraft has been mentioned yet)
 * "In 1979, Dassault joined" - worth explaining what Dassault is on first use; e.g. "the French company Dassault joined"
 * " that was lighter than a design desired by the other four nations." - if its a specific design, should be "than the design". "favoured" might be more natural than "desired" here, by the way.
 * " roles previously filled by an assortment of dedicated platforms" - dedicated to what?
 * "embodying fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system." - "a fly-by-wire... system"?
 * "it was smaller and more stealthy through the coating the canopy with gold" - the "through the coating" bit doesn't parse
 * "This aircraft also saw extensive application of composite and other materials, which both reduce the radar cross-section (RCS) and weight" - tense of "reduce" (should be "reduced" to match the "saw")
 * " It is 350 kilograms (772 lb) heavier than the single-seater, but carries 400 litres (106 US gal) less fuel." - again, tense diverges from the rest of the para
 * "Later it saw validation roles regarding weapon separation" - what's a validation role?
 * "Altogether, the naval modifications of the Rafale M increased its weight by 500 kilograms (1,100 lb) compared to other variants" - tense varies from the rest of the para
 * "but the Gulf War showed that a second crew member is invaluable on strike and reconnaissance missions" - given it was 23 years ago, I'd advise "was invaluable"
 * "The use of such software made the Rafale a "truly virtual aircraft", according to Dassault officials." - does anyone agree with this? It sounds a bit like sales-spin to me.
 * "Deliveries of the Rafale's naval version was a high priority " - "were a high priority" Hchc2009 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note: the nominator appears not to have been editing since the end of January, so not sure whether any of the more recent comments will end up getting addressed at this point...Nikkimaria (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.