F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

[f4u7_corsair]

The fact that you consider the 2000D having not much more capability than the Viper AG-wise indeed indicates a rather poor assessment.

So does the fact that you take the Brazilian example out of the blue, without knowing any maintenance deal (or lack thereof), disregarding the fact that the airframes were some of the very first ex-French Cs at the end of their potential ($LEP anyone?), the list shall go on.. heck, I'm not even sure they were sold with Super 530D missiles.

And so does the fact that you seem to purposedly direagard the fact that the 2000 is alive, and well - both in France (D MLU) and abroad, with two significant examples of multirole export 2000I and -9s, that are as we speak being upgraded (planned for the Emiratis).

You know little of the aircraft you're talking about and it shows.

[basher54321]

I guess that I could also say that I "deplore" your comprehension skills since I never said that the Mirage 2000 was "rather poor". What I said and stand by what I said was that the F-15, F-16 and by the way the F/A-18 are were and are more advanced than the Mirage 2000 - and I could fill line after line and pages backing this up!

I don't think that is required Ric - the M2000C did have some good things about it.

[ricnunes]

The fact that you consider the 2000D having not much more capability than the Viper AG-wise indicates a rather poor assessment.

And the fact that you don't understand the concept of more capability in "overall terms" seems to indicate a very poor knowledge of human language, namely in English language.

You also ignored that afterwards I mentioned a more contemporarily aircraft regarding the Mirage 2000, the F/A-18 Hornet.

And by the way, where's that "much more capability" of the Mirage 2000D compared to the Viper, Air-to-Ground wise?? I cant' wait for you to elucidate me...

So does the fact that you take the Brazilian example out of the blue, without knowing any maintenance deal (or lack thereof), disregarding the fact that the airframes were at the end of their potential ($LEP anyone?), the list shall go on.. heck, I'm not even sure they were sold with Super 530D missiles.

As I said, what I said about the Brazil and Mirage 2000 is opened to debate (again your lack of knowledge of English language is shown).

And so does the fact that you seem to purposedly direagard the fact that the 2000 is alive, and well - both in France (D MLU) and abroad, with two significant examples of multirole export 2000I and -9s, that are currently being upgraded.

Where did I say where the 2000 is not alive?? Again your lack of knowledge of English language...

You know little of the aircraft you're talking about and it shows.

Well at least I can compensate that with the knowledge of understanding what's typed in any text (namely in English language), now in your case there's seems to be little hope of knowing anything about aircraft since you seem to lack some very basic reading and understanding skills

[ricnunes]

I guess that I could also say that I "deplore" your comprehension skills since I never said that the Mirage 2000 was "rather poor". What I said and stand by what I said was that the F-15, F-16 and by the way the F/A-18 are were and are more advanced than the Mirage 2000 - and I could fill line after line and pages backing this up!

I don't think that is required Ric - the M2000C did have some good things about it.

Again, I never said that it didn't, did I?

[basher54321]

Again, I never said that it didn't, did I?

That reworded statement comes accross to me as if to denigrate it I'm afraid Ric - if we could have less incentive for the French contingent to come back with their own extremes that would be appreciated.

[ricnunes]

That reworded statement comes accross to me as if to denigrate it I'm afraid Ric - if we could have less incentive for the French contingent to come back with their own extremes that would be appreciated.

I honestly don't see it that way and it's absolutely not my fault that aircraft like the F-16 and the F/A-18 are more advanced (in "overall terms", I REPEAT in "overall terms") than the Mirage 2000, this to start with...

Anyway, I don't wish to continue down this road (I'm a bit tired of this discussion myself). My main point when I mentioned the Mirage 2000 (among some other aircraft, the Mirage 2000 was simply a single example) was to show that and how the US fighter aircraft industry is and has been for quite awhile more advanced than the European industry and this gap is only widening and definitely not narrowing. And the fact that I mentioned French aircraft like the Mirage 2000 is simple: The French have been making the most advanced aircraft when it comes to Europe (and Europe alone) so I believe when pitting US versus European fighter industry it's more than fair to use the French as the representatives of the European fighter industry.

I hope that this doesn't "denigrate" anything or anyone...

[swiss]

One should not forget that maybe F-15/14 radar were better than M2k's (not sure RDY) , but they also had a HUGE radar signature...

Except you should run a few numbers first to be able to say that.

The F-15's radar should have a diameter roughly 1.9 times the Mirage 2000's one : viewtopic.php?t=8867

Plug that into the radar equation, with the gain proportional to the dish's surface area and assuming Pt and Pmax remain constant (big if for Pt as you've got a much bigger radar on the F-15, which is also known for having a lot of room for electronics), and the detection range is multiplied by 1.9. To offset that, the Mirage 2000 would need to have an RCS 1.9^4 = 13 times lower than the F-15's, and we're talking RCS of combat loaded aircraft, which honestly shouldn't be as great of a difference.

Not to mention this old Flightglobal article : https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive ... 00550.html

If the RDM has a maximum detection range of 60nm against an RCS of 5m^s, imagine what a radar with around 1.9 times the diameter can do...

In the link you postet, there is also the RDI Rader with a range of 66 Nm (122km) vs a 5 m2 target ( 1 Page right). The APG-70 has a range of 185 km in A to A mode.

https://www.forecastinternational.com/a ... _RECNO=729

So that would be around 50% more Range, if we assume the target has also a RCS of 5 m2.

[F-16ADF]

F4u7,

Yes, looking to anything Mirage F1 related (including F1EQ). During Iran v Iraq war in 1980's, would like an account of F1EQ combat units from Iraqi AF or ADA sources. Nothing against Iranian claims, I just would like accounts from many sources. My problem is I cannot read French or Arabic.

[Corsair1963]

F4u7,

Yes, looking to anything Mirage F1 related (including F1EQ). During Iran v Iraq war in 1980's, would like an account of F1EQ combat units from Iraqi AF or ADA sources. Nothing against Iranian claims, I just would like accounts from many sources. My problem is I cannot read French or Arabic.

Tom Cooper at ACIG is the best source for such information....

[f4u7_corsair]

I think I saw Mr. Cooper post here actually, a couple of years back. But as 1963 said, he's the english-speaking reference regarding F1s in IQ vs IR.

I don't know much about the F1 but have been quite amazed to see how capable the EQ were compared to French domestics variants. I have a couple of French magazines with potentially interesting data on them, if I put my hands on them I'll see if I can send you any translated content.

Either way, sorry for OT.

[F-16ADF]

I just checked amazon.com, Tom Cooper will have a book out in September titled: "Iraqi Mirages: Mirage F.1 in Service with Iraqi Air Force, 1981-2003"

That should be a superb read.

[monkeypilot]

I just checked amazon.com, Tom Cooper will have a book out in September titled: "Iraqi Mirages: Mirage F.1 in Service with Iraqi Air Force, 1981-2003"

That should be a superb read.

Yes. Great news! Pre ordered. And passed the word to a DA PR friend. TY.

[geforcerfx]

I think I saw Mr. Cooper post here actually, a couple of years back.

He posts mainly on the military aircraft of the coldwar sub forum

[spazsinbad]

French, U.S. Naval Aviators Learn to Work Together Ahead of Middle East Deployment
30 Apr 2018 Ben Werner

"NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA, Va. — Since carrier flight skills atrophy over time, French naval aviators are spending two months training with US Navy air wings so they’ll be ready for missions this summer when their carrier FS Charles de Gaulle (R91) finishes repairs after almost two years in the yard. For almost a month, passersby at the Virginia Beach oceanfront have caught glimpses of French Navy Dassault Rafale M fighters fighter jets thundering into the air and out to sea from Naval Air Station Oceana....

...Working alongside U.S. Navy personnel, though, is not so foreign to the French aviators, Marc said. France sends its naval aviators to Mississippi, where they learn how to land on and fly off carriers in the same courses and with the same training jets used by the U.S. Navy. From an operational standpoint, Marc said it’s easy to integrate into the U.S. Navy airwing’s operation.

“What’s nice is we have a common baseline in that their pilots go to U.S. flight school. The Rafale and E-2 pilots start their training here in the United States and continue their training in France,” Capt. Jim McCall, the commander of Carrier Air Wing 8, told USNI News. “So what we’ve done here is fully integrated here into our air wings.”...

...Flying with and sparring against the Rafale in exercises have been extremely valuable for the F/A-18E Super Hornet pilots in Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 31, squadron commander Cmdr. Kevin Chlan told USNI News. Usually his squadron practices against other Super Hornets, but he said it’s been interesting learning how the French tackle missions, arriving at the same end result but using different tactics that draw on the Rafale’s strengths,

“The Rafale is an impressive aircraft,” Chlan said. “When you go up and fight against it, it’s a little rocket ship.”

The Rafale entered service with the French Navy in 2002, shortly after the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet entered service with the U.S. Navy in 1999. Both are designed for carrier operations, and both can reach a maximum speed of Mach 1.6. But the Rafale is a lighter and carries different weapons.

The closest comparison in the U.S. is probably the F-16 Fighting Falcon, Chlan said. Originally developed by General Dynamics and now built by Lockheed Martin, the F-16 is used by the U.S. Air Force and more than two dozen foreign air forces.

“The French are great partners. We see them in the skies, we operate alongside them, but we don’t really interact with them. Here we’re actually getting the chance to talk, and to brief, and plan for a flight,” Chlan said. “I’ve been in the Navy for 18 years and I’ve never had a chance to do something like this.”"

Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/04/30/33210

[sunstersun]

It's crazy that the USA is going to let another country operate on their carrier.