Talk:Dassault Rafale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
January 14, 2015 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
Good article 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:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject France (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Fuel Capacity and Weights[edit]

At present the listed internal fuel capacity of 4700kg exceeds the difference between the empty and loaded weights, which makes no sense.Z07x10 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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?[edit]

Does this:

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20130919trib000786061/rafale-le-coup-de-blues-de-dassault-aviation.html

Indicate that the 2014 date given in this article has been beaten? Hcobb (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Supercruise[edit]

Where is the source saying Mach 1.4?Z07x10 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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)
Any one.Z07x10 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

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)
@AadaamS: Sounds good. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

French gov announcement January 2014[edit]

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 86.212.138.70 (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?[edit]

There is no link that supports Mach 1.4.Z07x10 (talk)

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)

Supercruise at Mach 1.4, again[edit]

This is the quote from Williams page 92,

However, in May 1990, a Snecma M88 turbofan replaced the port-side F404 and 'supercruise' in dry thrust was achieved with the new power plant when the aircraft flew at Mach 1.4.

I'm not sure why the claim was removed; perhaps I have overlooked something important? Could someone clarify this? Thanks, Sp33dyphil (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary seemed clear enough. I checked my Williams Superfighters book twice and it does not support the supercuise part. There's nothing on that page saying supercruise, without afterburners, or dry thrust, etc. for the Mach 1.4 flight in 1990. Supercruise is covered in this article's Design section and cited by other sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
And the other ref after this article text is a ffaa.net page; a translation of that page only mentions Mach 1.4 for the first Rafale M flight in 1991. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Strange, I don't know if my eyes are deceiving me, but the quote above is lifted straight from page 92. My edition's ISBN is 978-1-880588-53-6 (1-880588-53-6). Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The 1990 flight is for the Rafale A, which is a substantially different airframe than the production models (B/C/M). Also, what a test aircraft can do does not always mean the production versions can do it too, even for the same airframe. - BilCat (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)t
I agree. It's just that my book says the prototype supercruised at Mach 1.4, while Fnlayson's doesn't. Sp33dyphil (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • My book is dated 2002 and could be a different printing or there's related text on another page. It just seems questionable for the Rafale A equipped with 2 different engines (F404 & M88) engine to do a supercruise flight in testing. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Review[edit]

There is an A-class review for this article underway at WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Dassault Rafale/archive2.

Review comments and other input there is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia interested with Rafale but you all don't understand[edit]

So who deleate the Malaysia Interstred Rafale.then i will do it back.rafalemalaysia.com/.Here the sorces.124.13.234.53 (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read the source that you added earlier that says Dassault are not interested? MilborneOne (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not me.You got the worng Sorces,Malaysia interstred Rafale.but you got a wrong sorces,so i will gave you a sorces.www.malaysiandefence.com/?tag=rafale.124.13.234.53 (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The website was created a number of years ago when the MRCA program was started, this comment is from March 2014 BAE Systems plc, Boeing Co and Saab AB are said to be part of a shortlist of five companies that have been identified by the government to be possible candidates for the RMAF Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) programme. One of the two companies in the shortlist, Sukhoi Aviation Holding Co of Russia, has not indicated any interest while Dassault Aviation of France, the maker of the Rafale jet, has said it would not participate in any leasing programme.. Do you have any references dated after March 2014 that the game has changed again? MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

NO,This is silly qusetion.My Friend said That Rafale was in the list but some was Change out.Malaysia intersterd with Rafale but the not intersterd With Gripin they said.124.13.234.53 (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WP can only use what is in reliable published sources, not what some friend told you. - BilCat (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we need reliable sources, not vague rumors.--McSly (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
124.13.234.53 has violated the WP:3RR rule and I have warned the user for being involved in edit warring, rather than resolving the dispute by discussion the quality of the sources here on the talk page. AadaamS (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
User 124.13.234.53 deleted the warning from its talk page. AadaamS (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Calm Down Everyone You Guys don't uderstands.I Was Too Dificlule to know Why Those Rafale was delete.And i read the Wrong sorces.That could be,So i find read another Page.That's i found why those are not avalable.So I Change A New Link.BTW,If You Don't Understand.Please Read at http://rafalemalahttp:and //www.malaysiandefence.com/?tag=rafaleysia.com/#.Ok Thanks.124.13.234.53 (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • As noted above, sources have to meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources at WP:Identifying reliable sources. You need to have a basic understanding of this to contribute constructively on Wikipedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)