Talk:Dassault Rafale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
 

Squall[edit]

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).

P.S. Aah. I suppose this version explains it. It's the English meaning of the word. Nothing to do with French pronunciation. Removing it. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 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)
If the reader really wants the pronunciation of Dassault, I think it's fair that he goes to that article. As for this article, maybe something more like the structure at Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard, Saab 35 Draken or Gripen could be used? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 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).
I meant to do that, but got busy elsewhere. Milb1 has now added a template that does the same thing, and your issue should be adressed now. - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation double check[edit]

This is a continuation from a post at User talk:Kudpung#Translation request.

@bobrayner -- Yes. I want to make sure the paragraph I've inserted is consistent with the French article. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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)
Thanks for the changes, and yep, Serge Dassault is a French politician. I'll keep what you said in mind. If I need anymore francophone sources, I'll look for them myself before asking you for assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Too many external links[edit]

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[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)