Talk:Dassault Rafale

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)

Chinese fighters

The Rafale is one of the most modern fighter in the world, it is no way comparable with those chinese fighters!! The J10 and J11 can be compared with certain versions of the Mirage 2000, but certainly not with a Rafale. Sorry but China is late concerning military techs. So please someone remove the 2 chinese fighters thanks.

• "Comparable Aircraft" is not about whether or not they can take on each other in a fight. Contemporary aircraft that fulfill similar roles should be listed, and I believe the Chengdu J-10 fits the bill. As a bonus in terms of aesthetic comparison, it even shares the same wing configuration. I'm not sure about the J-11 though, since it is a larger, heavyweight air superiority fighter while the J-10 and Rafale are small, lightweight multi-role fighters.

Unless anyone objects, I'll return the J-10 to the "Comparable Aircraft" section. I think the F-16 should be added as well, since it is also a lightweight multi-role fighter aircraft. It may be older, but its more modern variants should be worthy of listing here. The fact that they have been compared by an actual air force (that of the UAE, who ultimately chose the F-16E/F instead) should qualify it as "Comparable". Vicarious Tendril (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have now added the Chengdu J-10 and F-16E/F. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But I have some doubts about JF-17 being a comparable aircraft. JF-17 being a 4th Generation A/C, with low tech Chinese avionics does not even fare decent in comparison to Chinese J-10/11 A/Cs, leave alone a State-of-the-Art 4.5 Generation Dassault Rafale. JF-17 has many issues including an extremely poor Chinese radar (due to fears of reverse engineering, no foreign aviation firm is ready to supply a PESA, let alone AESA), an Under-Powered Russian RD-93 engine, and above all the manufacturing nation i.e China is in no mood to induct it, as it has decided to stick to J-10/11 and other Russian A/Cs. I hope this anomaly is removed and Dassault is given is due credit. Tutu1234 (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No targeting pod?

http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?sectionName=Current+Events&contentId=5930830&programId=1073754900&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL On the other hand, Rafale offers superior aerodynamic performance. But its weakness includes the absence of a compatible surveillance and advanced targeting pod.

Huh? Then why does this article list laser guided weapons? Hcobb (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ground-based targeting, or targeting from another airborne source. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is not completely accurate. It is true that the standards F1 (air to air) and F2 (basic air to ground) cannot carry any targeting pods. Actually in Afghanistan, up until now, the missions have been carried by 2 aircraft. 1 Rafale F2 carries the laser guided bombs and 1 Mirage 2000 D (for the Air Force) or 1 Super Etendard (for the Navy) has the targeting pod. However, the New F3 standard has "full" air to ground capability and can be fitted among other things by the Damoclès. The first airplanes have been delivered to The French Air Force this year (the F3 is officially operational since last year) and the older Rafale will be progressively upgraded to the F3 standard. The pods have been ordered and will be received next year for the Rafale units (the Air force and Navy already have some pods in service for the Mirage 2000 and Super Etendard). By the way it's the same thing for the "surveillance" pod mentioned in that press article (I supposed they meant reconnaissance pod). The F1 and F2 cannot carry it, but the F3 is also designed to carry the "Reco NG" reconnaissance pod currently under testing and to be delivered in 2010.

So anyway, if it's alright with you I'll update the article to reflect the different standards. The Damoclès is actually already mentioned in the article'so I'll just merge a few things. --McSly (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Added ref for the pods, but I'd love to see much more. Hcobb (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to add some stuff next week (description of the 3 standards are clearly missing for example). For information, it's not like the French just discovered that they need a targeting pod for they laser guided bombs. The 3 standards for the Rafale have been planned for years. Here is an article (sorry in French) from 2000 already mentioning the steps [1]. The F3 was at the time planned for 2007. The reason the Rafale is getting the targeting pod now is because in the French arsenal, the Mirage 2000 D are supposed to deliver the laser guided bombs. The Rafale is more dedicated to stand off weapons. It was a budgetary choice. In the last few years it was used in Afghanistan, because like everyone else, the French army is sending their new weapons there for testing. --McSly (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, McSly! My gut told me this info from the newspaper was not right, but I didn't hae time to search it out myself. From the company pages for the Thales Damocles, the Rafael M is also slated for the Damocles at some point. Currently, the Super Entendard carries the pods and does the designating, but the naval F3 will be able to carry the pod also. In covering military issues and technology, one learns that the mainstream press in many countries is oftne not reliable in reporting such details, partly because the reporters just don't understand the subjects. Defense and aviation media tend to do a much better job, and are more unbieased than one might think. Efforts to confirm what one reads in mainstream sources should be made before adding it to articles as fact. - BilCat (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

See-saw editing

Gentlemen, as witnessed in the page edit history, there has been no less than 5 edits of the Brazilian order within the last 24hours. Can someone please get this article salted to prevent anymore of these see-saw edits? It is beginning to hurt Wikipedia community when all the regular editors on this page has to constantly monitor this trend. I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Some editors want to take the negotiations with Brazil as being a completed contract. BBC article -Fnlayson (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• A new French warplane for an old French warship? That's something new... wonder how they will integrate the two together? --Dave1185 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave, are you talking about the Sao Paulo, the carrier the Brazilian Navy operates (the ex-French Navy Foch)? Only the Rafale M is carrier capable, and I've seen nothing about Brazil buying those to this point. I don't believe Rafale Ms can operate from the SP anyway. - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's the ex-Foch and the Rafale had been tested from it at one stage, really. Combined it with Brazil's serious consideration into the Saab Gripen and the Boeing F-18E, even though the Rafale wasn't a done deal yet says something about the Brazilian contemplation. Another thing to consider is Brazil's intention to convert some older S-2 Trackers into AEW and aerial tanker platforms for use on the SP after the current upgrading is done. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I realize the Rafale was tested on one or both of the Clemenceaus, but I don't know if they can do so operationally without major upgrades to the ship. The BN has had trouble keepping the SP operational anyway, so it's doubtful they could afford more upgrades in addition to those it's undergoing now (unless that is part of the current upgreades). But with the Air Force probably getting the Rafale, it will be interesting to see if the NAvy does show any interest in the Rafale M. The Skyhawks ae definitely old-school, even if the actual aircraft are probably 10-15 years younger than the carrier itself. The Rafale M would be a definite upgrade in capability. - BilCat (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, this link has more info on the deal. - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I forget to check that site. It is good for translating releases into english. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Source of the Royal Navy lie

The Ralphing on the Royal Navy blogger meme seems to come from this.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm%3Fid%3D110870&prev=_t The start of construction of the Queen Elizabeth comes as Britain is considering abandoning the version short takeoff and vertical landing F-35 (F-35 B). For reasons of economy, the Royal Navy would eventually adopt the version catapulted the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also known under the designation F-35 C. This would result in the disappearance of the springboard, the front, and the addition of two catapults and stop bits. The change is made possible by the fact that the design of the Carrier Vessel Future (CVF) was studied in common with France, which wanted a version that can implement Rafale and Hawkeye. All arrangements have been made during the engineering work for the architecture of the aircraft carrier allows the introduction of catapults and stop bits. --Hcobb (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• My gawd, the translation bit from French to English really suck! Btw, that's a technical term. --Dave1185 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the text to show it was an idea for the FAA to buy the Rafale in 2006 if the F-35 got into trouble. So really an old story. The bit above is nothing to do with the Royal Navy really it was just an idea to build both British and French ships to the same standard to save a bit of money. It was to allow the French Navy to operate the Rafale from the CVF type ship. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edit on cockpit section and specification section

I have made some edit on this two part and they were reverted without a single comment. Can i hope for some sort of explanation?--92.149.197.13 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This aircraft is widely rumoured to have outperformed an F22 over hte UAE. The French even created a patch memorising the occasion. Would somebody better at digging than me please find out what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.47.126 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why when I add this info to Rafale always some Typhoonfanatic erase it. The Rafale is better than Typhoon. In AA and in AS too. The Rafale didn't win, but the victory for the Raptor wan't big (apparently 1-0). Four Rafale were victorious against four Typhoon (7-1) in air combat. In a fist combat 4-0 and in a second 3-1. The Rafale has detected more missiles sites that the F-16C. See this: Les premiers compte-rendus effectués ce matin par un pilote de Rafale français font état d'une supériorité du chasseur français sur le Typhoon de la RAF, lors de confrontations réalisées ces dernières semaines, aux EAU. La première confrontation engageant quatre Rafale contre quatre Typhoon s'est terminé par un 4-0 en faveur des Français. Malgré, explique-t-on, l'emport d'un armement air-air fictivement dégradé. Après avoir un peu dégradé encore l'armement, le Rafale l'a encore emporté, 3-1.
Le Rafale a été confronté au F22 lors d'un vol, mais dans un cadre limité au combat air-air à vue. Il n'aurait été dans le collimateur du chasseur américain qu'à une reprise, explique t-on aussi.
Le Rafale, on l'a bien compris, a donc largement amélioré sa notoriété, notamment auprès des pilotes émiriens. Il a ainsi à plusieurs reprises montré sa supériorité dans tout le spectre missionnel, en détectant des sites de missiles sol-air qui n'avaient pas été mis à jour par des F-16CJ américains. Par ailleurs, l'optronique secteur frontal (OSF) a aussi permis des détections et identifications jusqu'à 40 kilomètres, un atout qui évite à l'avion de s'exposer, pour identification visuelle, à 3-4 kilomètres, ce qui est nécessaire pour la plupart des autres types d'avions.
De même, en l'espace d'une minute, un Rafale a tiré six AASM sur autant d'objectifs, à des portées de plusieurs dizaines de kilomètres, tout en tirant également trois missiles air-air Mica.

http://blog.avionslegendaires.net/2009/11/rafale-vs-f-22-vs-eurofighter-en-combat-aux-emirats/ http://lemamouth.blogspot.com/2009/12/la-raf-nest-plus-ce-quelle-est.html http://www.aviacionargentina.net/foros/sistemas-de-armas.26/3217-el-rafale-gana-al-thyphoon-7-1-en-ejercicios.html http://www.zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/showthread.php?t=22982 --Armyfr1 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your information is being removed because it fails to meet Wikipedia's policies, not because people like the Typhool more than the Raffle. Per WP's Reliable sources policy, blogs are generally not allowed to be used as sources. In addition, exercises happen all the time, but we do not keep tallies on thier socres, or even report on their occurance. Please stop adding this infor to the article, or you risk being blocked under WP's Three-revert rule policy on edit warring. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear BilCat : I would appreciate you reconsider your threats against ArmyFR1, for the following reasons : -you dismiss the reliability of blogs owned by famous French defense journalists (JD. Merchet from the newspaper "Libération", and JM. Tanguy who writes for several magazines) ; -Those results are confirmed by Air & Cosmos and DSI which are two famous and reliable French publications ; -Initially, those results were told at a press conference BY OUR ARMEE DE L'AIR ; -The magazine Air Force Monthly also interviewed the LT Col Grandclaudon, and confirmed these stories.

THUS, I consider that they totally deserve their place in the Wikipedia page about the Rafale, whether non-French approve it or not. Whether you are not aware of all the story, or you're consciously undermining Wikipedia.

In addition, as an example, there are more than dubious rumours on the Eurofighter Typhoon page ! Reports from Singapore aren't coming from "reliable sources", and are (if not unfounded) totally misleading.

Thanks, TMor —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMor (talk • contribs) 17:29, September 23, 2010

Specifications

Thrust/weight: 1.13, Is this right? Sorruno (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

4.5th Generation?

Are we sticking with the US definition which requires AESA radar for a fighter to be considered 4.5 gen or not. As it stands certain aircraft are listed as 4th gen on some pages, "in development" 4.5 gen on others, and then outright as 4.5 gen fighters. There needs to be standardization or the info will only reflect the opinion of the most recent editor. --Nem1yan (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Are the PAK-FA, F-22A and F-35I Fifth Gen fighters? Each of these needs some work to claim that title. At least the Rafale has a defined five billion euro program to get it up to the (gold standard for 4.5th) Super Hornet level. Hcobb (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The PAK FA, F-22, and F-35 are 5th generation by all standards. But if the PAK FA and F-35 are classified as "in development" 5th gen fighters then the Rafale should be no more than an in development 4.5th gen, but not 4.5th gen outright. There are several companies investing in designs that will bring their fighters up to the American standard. The only question is will we be using the American definition for wiki purposes, and if so then why is the Rafale listed when it has not yet met all the requirements. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate hype/spin?

Is is really appropriate to include the following in the article? It seems to be just a sales pitch, and that this bit could be removed without substantially altering the article.

Former Red Arrows UK pilot Peter Collins in Flight International stated: "It is simply the best and most complete combat aircraft that I have ever flown. Its operational deployments speak for themselves. If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale."

Mike J Holmes (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2010 (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 ([[2]]), 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.