Rafale: License-building a modified U.S.-spec version

File: 1453599944551.jpg (68KB, 790x790px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 790x790px

>>31612605
>US
>licensing foreign products for their armed forces.
>giving Dassault free advertising.

>Dassault
>giving their most advanced tech to their main competitors.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

In the meantime, Armée de l'Air cuties because I don't have any plane on my PC currently.

>>31612605
It's not a bad bird, but it's 50% more expensive than an F/A-18E/F already. I'm also not sure how it's meant to have a low IR signature.

The other thing too is that it has a fairly small nose; it'd need to be structurally redesigned to have a decent sized AESA put in there.

File: mecano F1.jpg (103KB, 540x800px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 540x800px

>>31613014

>>31613027

It's already got a pretty good AESA 'dar in it.

>why don't we make an expensive lateral move for no strong reason

>>31613112
Id like to inspect her cockpit if you know what i mean

>>31612605

> I mean it's much more compact than an F-18

Like fuck it is. On deck a Hornet can fold its wings, Rafale just eats space.

There's a reason they can only fit 23 of them on the CdG (plus AEW/Helos) compared to the 40 Super Etendards. Rafale is a devourer of deckspace with those deltawings.

>and domestic AESA radar?

Rafale's radome is tiny, out of the in service or planned 4th gen AESAs, it has by far the smallest. Even the Gripen's is larger and it's a borderline light fighter. Super Hornet already has a better AESA anyway.

You'd have to modify the plane to be able to fire the US stock. The ONLY US munitions that it can fire are Paveways right now (and even then, not all of them). It would cost an unbelievable fuckton to do, just to end up with a plane that is only marginally better in the end.

Not to mention, it can only carry a single ASM at a time. It cripples the anti-ship ability of the USN to have.

Besides, we F-35C now. Rafale's a good bird, but it's tailored purely to the French needs, not the US'. ie - Just enough A2A to see them by, but mainly focused on being a strike aircraft with French specific munitions.

File: tumblr_nh6c2xrvIh1s9d2ieo1_1280.png (1MB, 1024x1512px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x1512px

everyone should just buy/make Gripens

>>31613378
This. Sort of.

Everyone that doesnt have the budget of the US should.

>>31613378
Austria and Swiss will soon.

>>31613688

Austria isn't looking for new fighters at the moment. They only just got Typhoons.

File: 59008_Stams__Peter.jpg (478KB, 1000x637px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1000x637px

The belgians could use a good air police / bomb truck to replace the aging F-16s, but currently it's looking like the F-35 might win, sadly.

The belgian airforce crosstrains with both the dutch (F-35) and the french (Rafale).
The only thing the F-35 can do that the alternatives can't, is using the american nukes stored at Kleine Brogel. The F-16 have the nuclear fun switch and the F-35 can have it too, but the Rafale, Gripen, etc can't.

I fear the F-35 will remain a long term money sink.
The Eurofighter isn't worth discussing due to the buying/licensing/replacement policy.
The Gripen is OK, but limited in how much munition it can bombtruck. And bombtrucking is what the F-16s do for NATO & the UN nowadays.
SuperHornet would suffice, but is it still a good choice?

>>31613703
This. Austria cant even keep their Thypoons in the air so why would they want a new jet?

The Swiss air force decided that if they should buy new aircraft they will buy Gripens. But then they decided to not buy new aircraft at all.

>>31613912
>The Swiss air force decided that if they should buy new aircraft they will buy Gripens. But then they decided to not buy new aircraft at all.

They had a referendum about it & shit got shot down.

File: gripen-ng-2.jpg (95KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x600px

>>31613879
>The Gripen is OK, but limited in how much munition it can bombtruck. And bombtrucking is what the F-16s do for NATO & the UN nowadays.

The Gripen C has a limited payload, yes. It can only take 4 larger bombs or 16 SDBs.

However the new Gripen E will have a payload capability similar to the one of a F-16.

>>31613928
Yeah, the Swiss political system is weird in that sense.

>>31613949
>Yeah, the Swiss political system is weird in that sense.

Is asking the citizens what they want to spend taxes on that weird?
Outfitting the air force with new jets is a huge expenditure in a time of financial crisis.

>>31613956
Im not saying its bad, its just very unusual for a nation to have public votes about pretty much everything.

>>31613229
The Rafale really is crippled from a sales perspective by refusing to integrate more foreign munitions. I mean really, no JDAM? No SDB? No foreign A2A or A2G missiles? They've got their own equivalents for alot of these, but they're also incredibly expensive due to low scale of production.

Though maybe they know that if they integrated foreign munitions on the Rafale then no one would buy French ones due to the price difference.

>>31613112
I'd let her inspect my front gear if you know what I mean.

Vi'va la France!

>>31613014

American. you can tell by her gear.

>>31613971
>its just very unusual for a nation to have public votes about pretty much everything.

They have a direct democracy anon. It's less efficient in theory but damn less corrupt than what everybody else has.

>>31612605
>15% more capability for thrice the price

A good deal, for sure.

>>31614431
Should a nation's military strategy really be subject to a public poll?

>>31614024
>then no one would buy French ones due to the price difference.
Independence from US embargo...

>>31614471
>decisions about starting wars
>should be outside of the public control
Hello, military industrial complex.

>>31614431
The problem is that most polls has a very low ammount of voters.

>>31614024
It's a common pattern with the French.

The Japanese were extremely interested by the Minitel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel) and wanted to buy the system and adapt it to their needs, but nope, the french forbid them to adapt it. they had to use it as is or drop the deal.

So, instead of evolving into a network that could have been a competitor to the Internet, the Minitel died, because of French pride.

>>31614545
If the Rafale incorporated US munitions, how would that make buyers subject to a US embargo? They'd still be able to buy French munitions if it ever became an issue.

>>31614471
this desu. Unnecessary referenda cause shit like brexit

>>31613112
wood grab right in the pussy/10

>>31613112
I want to check her wheels if you catch my drift

>>31614024
>The Rafale really is crippled from a sales perspective by refusing to integrate more foreign munitions
>refusing
They're not refusing at all, but you have to pay for the integration.

>>31614024
for fairness, SDB is currently only integrated with the F-15E and AC-130W

>>31613014
>>US
>>licensing foreign products for their armed forces.
You won't believe but both Roland and ADATS were both formally adopted into US service.

But the dissolution of the USSR fucked the deal.

>>31616143
And JAS 39C Gripen

>>31613014
It's happened before. eg. Harrier, Canberra bomber.

>>31616143
The Gripen and Tornado also have it.

>>31616150
What is SAW, M-9, M-240, RG-33, UH-72, C-27, AV-8, LAV-25, Stryker, ...?

>>31616291
kek, meant for
>>31613014

>>31616187
>>31616192

i thought those were still in the works. the first F-16 drops are happening and they're not certified yet from what i understand.

>>31616310
JAS 39 was integrated in May this year.

Link is in Swedish but I think it can be translated.
https://www.fmv.se/sv/Projekt/JAS-39-Gripen/Om-JAS-39-CD-version-20/

File: Tornado-with-SDBs.jpg (257KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1024x683px

>>31616310
The MS20 software update for the Gripen included integration of the Meteor and SDB.

And the Tornado has had them since last year I believe.

File: 20161002213210_2016MPAR010_016_035.jpg (97KB, 846x564px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 846x564px

>>31613229
24. Pic related is two weeks old. count yourself.

With the removal of all the technical facilities dedicated to the Super Etendard and Alouette 3, lots of place will be available for more planes. Probably around 30.
Other than that, the folding wings do exist, as well as the twin seater carrier version, at least on paper, but were never produced because money.

A squadron of Rafale will operate from a US carrier at the beggining of 2017. We're not talking touch and go. We're talking operation.

Compatibilitu is a non issue. Nato Bus. You can fix whatever you want on a Rafale. Cables are here, attachement points are here. However they were never opened because no client ever asked for amraam or sidewinder (or whatever) capability. The indians will have their Astra missile though. They also asked for the integration of russian weapons too, but this idea seems to be abandonned. However it was possible since Dassault said "integrate whatever you want".

>Rafale's radome is tiny, out of the in service or planned 4th gen AESAs, it has by far the smallest.
Yes. It still is the only aesa radar actually commissioned in Europe. 6 Rafale F3O4T are onboard the CdG right now among the 24 planes. These do embark natively a RBE2 AESA.

Not that it's a big deal though, changing a radar takes 1 hour on rafale. Open the nose, unplug the pesa, plus the aesa, close the nose, load new drivers (software is the same) have fun with your new radar. And this one still is GaaS only. GaN antennas are coming.

>>31616744
>A squadron of Rafale will operate from a US carrier at the beggining of 2017. We're not talking touch and go. We're talking operation.

I know there was speculation, I don't think this was ever actually confirmed.

>>31614024
>foreign A2A

There's Meteor.

>Why no love for Dassault's Rafale?

It's French.

Question asked and answered.

>>31616779
France is a fairly large partner in that program.

>>31616788

Sure, but that's not the point I was making.

>>31616150
The US Roland program was stopped in 1985. The fall of the USSR can hardly be blamed for it.

>>31615864

Thats what he means. They're refusing to integrate it so the customer doesn't have to, like what American jets, Gripen or Eurofighter is doing. The latter has 3 options of modern SRAAMs for example, 2 options of BVRAAM, 2 options of cruise missile all integrated or going to be integrated, just for a few examples.

>>31616744

>24. Pic related is two weeks old. count yourself.

Cheers for the proven update. 24 it is.

>Compatibilitu is a non issue. Nato Bus. You can fix whatever you want on a Rafale. Cables are here, attachement points are here

Thats not integrated though. It's a far FAR more complex process than that. Rafale does not have them integrated. Millions more would need to be spent to do it.

>Yes. It still is the only aesa radar actually commissioned in Europe.

Not exactly a point that matters. Better things are already beginning manufacture. ES-01 Raven is almost in service, and CAPTOR-E will be not too long afterwards. The US has fucktons of better AESAs already in service, and many of them stationed in Europe anyway.

>>31616788

France only funds 12.4% of the missile.

So in a sense, it is "foreign", but not quite.

>>31612605
The more self-pity Rafalefags feel the less I want anyone to buy the Rafale.

>>31613388
Its better for interoperability if you combine your resources with trusted neighbors and accept the fact that small individual countries are only sovereign because larger more powerful countries simply allow it.

A band of small countries operating as one when it comes to a defense force are much more capable in regards to a lack of pointless duplication and wasted R&D.

is South Korea and Japan etc pooled resources instead going "MY GRANDPA HATED YOURS!" they could probably create something pretty damn competitive.

Same with Turkey, China, Russia, etc.

Instead, global F-15, F-16, and F-18 dominance. Sure, other aircraft exist, and fuck, they are used, but for whats in the air and flying, there is no competition.

Why?

Europe pissed away their potential by being factious when it came to military industrial development in the 80s-90s. Now its too late for aerospace. Fuck, even airbus cant compete with an ancient design like the C-130.

>>31613937
the loss is that it is not much different than an F-16. All of that research, work, effort, etc was to simply catch up to an aircraft that first flew in 1974.

Now its technology in terms of electronics and materials are going to lag behind the F-35, J-20, etc.

For anyone that wants to update their airforce but cant afford new shit, there will be legions of used F-16s, and the US seems to be relaxing laws on who can fly them.

That is the Grippens downfall.

>>31617866
>Grippen

Yeah, I know that the old F-16s is its main competitor. But old F-16s costs a lot more to run.

Sweden wanted to export the JA-37 to India but the US said put an embargo on the engine. An engine wich was based on a old civilian passenger aircrafts engine with no secret tech at all. India even had that engine in the civilian variant in its inventory.

It was more a case of "If we stop them from exporting it we have a better chance of getting the contract"
And that shit still happens.

>>31618091
The difference between F-16 and Gripen flight hour costs isn't all that much. It's far less than the difference between it and other fighters. Plus we're not sure what the costs will be for the NG.

The new F-16V upgrade is also shaping up to be a very powerful potential competitor for the Gripen, being able to take even old Block 20s and take them up to competitive contemporary standards. Taiwan and Korea are already going for it, and for other current F-16 operators like Greece, Poland, Singapore and Portugal, the F-16V is going to be a very tempting offer.

>>31617837
>Fuck, even airbus cant compete with an ancient design like the C-130.
That is an interesting take. Many would say that Airbus won the contract. It had the clearly better plane. Then Boeing won a lawsuit that said in effect that Airbus' plane was too good, it exceeded the standards of the competition, and their cheaper, lower spec proposal must be accepted because it conformed to the standards. I am not saying Boeing shouldn't have sued or won the contract. Clearly though, Airbus didn't lose because its technology was outdated. It designed the higher spec proposal.

>>31617837
>A band of small countries operating as one when it comes to a defense force are much more capable in regards to a lack of pointless duplication and wasted R&D.

Part of the A400's problem is trying to please so many different nations though.

>>31614471

Well considering they have compulsory service, there's a good argument for that to be made.

>>31618091

Yea no, F404 is not "based on an old civilian passenger aircraft engine with no secret tech at all". India uses the F404 for the Tejas, not on civilian planes.

>>31619123
And the JA-37 doesnt use a F404 so thats not relevant at all.

How about you actually read the post you reply to?

>>31613014

We license a lot of crap, the only thing is it has to be made state side.

File: HARM.jpg (81KB, 735x341px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 735x341px

>>31613879
One thing I think the Rafale is seriously hurting for is an ARM. It has the potential to be a very good SEAD platform considering it's advanced EW suite (which gives it almost a form of electronic stealth), but it needs a weapon to do it with.