|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dassault Rafale article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Dassault Rafale has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Why France actually left the Eurofighter design alliance was about flattop ships.
- 2 Export section
- 3 Where to use this source
- 4 DVI content development
- 5 Squall
- 6 Translation double check
- 7 Too many external links
- 8 Fuel Capacity and Weights
- 9 Is AESA ahead of, or on schedule?
- 10 Supercruise
- 11 United Kingdom
- 12 French gov announcement January 2014
- 13 Supercruise to Mach 1.4?
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. 220.127.116.11 (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)
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 18.104.22.168 (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)
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 | talk 16:52, 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)
- @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 | talk 20:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC).
Translation double check
This is a continuation from a post at User talk:Kudpung#Translation request.
- 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)
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
- 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?
- 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)
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)
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 22.214.171.124 (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)
Supercruise to Mach 1.4?
- I looked at Rafale here... but no speed is specified and one of the two links there appears to be mort. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Mach 1.4 text in this article may be covered by the 2 sources at the end of the paragraph. However, the text indicates that the test Rafale used one M88 and one F404 to supercruise at Mach 1.4, which seems questionable. So I tagged that sentence as needing a cite. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)