Dassault Rafale - Variants, Characteristics, Armament and Performance

I would argue the latest block of Super Hornet is the best, or the KF-21. Missile count isn’t everything… the systems alone on the Rafale are a fierce reason to put it up there in top three… to which (imo) the Eurofighter is not in the top 5.

1 Like

I am not convinced gaijin will model those features at all, let alone correctly, so I can only make assumptions based on existing trends: missile volume/capability in specific. I’m more than glad to be wrong but I have very little confidence in them adding this aircraft or its features correctly. The 2000-5F we have in game being my main reason for doubting their ability to add in advanced features or even competitive features to france.

Well, a lot of people were theorizing that the Tornado would be better than the Mirage 2000s before it was added to the game. In fact, the amount of people who rushed to get Tornado was pretty big. People’s perceptions of planes are drastically different before and after they get added into the game.

Even now, Tornado mains are asking for Eurofighter to come into the game while Mirage 2000-5F is slated to get lots of buffs to the Magic 2s, Super 530D, flight performance, etc. this coming patch and thus do not need the Rafale to remain competitive.

In fact, I predict the Eurofighter to come first.

The same people who do not bug report the Tornados now, were hyping each other up in echo chambers discussing how the Tornados addition would change things. They did not have sources and constantly referenced this radar chart:

Now, the same people who were in echo chambers about the Tornado are now repeating the same pattern with the Eurofighter while not having any actual sources. They didn’t learn their lessons.

I would take the opinion of the Eurofighter seriously from Gunjob and Flame2512 who have worked diligently on the Tornado and were realistic in its expectations over anyone else’s opinions. They’ll also be working on the Eurofighter.

1 Like

I disagree strongly and I’d be happy to explain albeit briefly.

Eufi still has a higher range if you include its CFT version which is the main advantage of ASH (Advanced superhornet). It is still slower, still heavier, still has a lower service ceiling, still less versatile in one mission given less hardpoints, still has worse range for BVR, even if the APG radar was better which I highly doubt the ECRS MK.2 is the worse radar. It still gets rings flown round it in terms of flight performance and the PIRATE IRST is likely better too given that Selex partnered with Northrop Grumman to help share Selex’s expertise and not NG’s.

Potentially right. But that depends highly on if it is using internal or external bays given its stealth features are its only advantage. If it uses internals Typhoon is still better, if it doesn’t then it’s probably even but I can’t say for sure. Typhoon still has better flight performance and advantages associated with a bigger fighter, Typhoon produces more power and has higher electrical output potential meaning better radar, but as you see with the Typhoon vs the F-15, newer engines optimise electricity better so maybe KF-21 has an edge maybe not depends how much they have to show for these newer engines.

Agreed on the systems of the Rafale being good and it certainly makes top 3, disagreed on them being better than the Eurofighter, again i will explain but briefly.

Eurofighter radar is better, PIRATE IRST is better, the Typhoon has 2-way data-link rendering long range engagement more stable than that of the Rafale and it can be an entirely passive system. Avionics of the Typhoon were upgraded along with the addition of AESA radars, had you have said this 3 years ago you would’ve been right.

In order my ranking is, Typhoon/KF-21 for first or second, Rafale at third followed by the ASH at 4/5 tied with the F-15 EX because i find it hard to rank US aircraft.

I am done with this thread now, the Rafale is an incredible fighter so is the Typhoon and that’s enough said.

Current trends show that missile volume means little. The MiG-29 has two superior missiles and is being vetted as the “best aircraft in the game” due solely to those missiles. Previously the same was said about the MiG-23MLD with 2x R-24R.

I personally loathe the Tornado but i see where you are coming from and a lot of what you said is correct.

I personally expect to see the Rafale C at the same time as the Typhoon Tranche 1/A but after the DA/2 Typhoon given that the Rafale entered service as a true multirole and the Typhoons didn’t.

The Tornado Foxhunter 2 is one of the best radars of the late 20th century and was better than the Eagles until the E variant.

Equally i agree i dislike it when people repeat myths without sources which is why in may of my comments I credit sources with things like pictures, however today as we had a live conversation i didn’t bother for speed of response.

I am sure both the Rafale and Typhoon will both be fantastic and I wish you happy hunting.

Rafale C indeed entered service as multirole (F.2.1 followed quick by F.2.2), but the Rafale itself entered service with Rafale M LF.1 and M F.1 which had no multirole capability at all, these came with F.2.2 and late F.3s.

In that case then I hope to see them come at the same time. Realistically Gaijin doesn’t go as in-depth into Tranches and Blocks near top tier. For instance the new F-16 is an F-16C but of a variable Block. One of them will have to be better anyway so I don’t mind which as i’ll grind for both.

I anticipate that we get the Tranche 1/A Typhoon and not a true Tranche 1 so it has some limited multirole but a non-AESA radar and maybe the limit it to AMRAAMS, then i think we will get the Tranche 3/4 variant with the ECRS MK2 Brimstone, Meteor etcetera.

I am sure they will find a way to split the Rafale between an early variant with a non-AESA radar, limited A2G and no Meteor (which i think would be some sort of MICA as a long range AAM but i can’t find anything) and a late Rafale with the PESA, Meteor and its full suite of weaponry.

I apologize for being so vague with the Rafale but I’m finding it tricky to find something which comprehensively breaks the orders down into their capabilities and equipment such as Tranches and Blocks.

They can add Rafale M LF.1 first, then go ahead with Rafale C F.2.2 → C F.3-4+ and finish the line with C F.4.1. (Obv can add Rafale B F.3.3 as well, for more variantion)
Meteor is not compareable with MICA, nor with AMRAAM. Only F.3R and F.4.1 can use Meteor as off now, since the RBE2-AA (AESA) Radar is necessary for them btw.

1 Like

What was the standoff long range AAM for the Rafale before the Meteor entered service? Sorry if I wasn’t clear but that’s what i was getting at. I presumed it would be some sort of MICA?

The ranges you’ll detect and track a Rafale kind of make the ramjet powered missiles range’ pointless. Stand-off won’t be a thing. In fact, MICA will be quite useful as ranges close in and the Meteor has less room to accelerate.

Only MICA EM and IR. Both can be used for BVR though.
Meteor however needs centrain altitude and speed to reach its full potential, it can be used at lower alt too, its variable engine will increase the trust if necessary and the closer the missile comes to target, for higher PK.

Thankyou, Meteor I believe also has a booster to help accelerate it to mach 3.
Meteors PK and NEZ will be unrivalled i think but it will depend largely on the map sizes. I think It will be interesting to see how MICA performs clearly if France is still using it, it is a versatile missile and if its even half as revolutionary as the Magic 2 then it will be monstrous.

1 Like

Source on that?

From what i read the new ASRAAM is supposed to have an improved seeker, i saw nothing about improve kinematics.
If you have source i will gladly take them.
But a 88kg managing 80km would be kinda strange.
The Mica being 112kg already has more propelant to be able to make it to 80km.

It’s the 2000 version of the MICA that has a 80km range (60 for the IR one). The 2026 version MICA NG has 100km for IR and 130km for EM.

1 Like

I don’t know if you saw my other comment but i said i was pretty done with this thread but for the sake of my credibility.

9-15 miles, I’ve seen some higher, some lower, roughly ranging at least 10 miles but equally the public figure for ASRAAM performance is thought to be around half of its IRL performance as per this article and one other.

MICA (missile) - Wikipedia

MICA
ASRAAM | Air Dominance, AIR SUPERIORITY | MBDA
ASRAAM

Look at the difference in drag that is why the ASRAAM has such a high range, but I also didn’t say 80KM, I said an improvement on 50KM, which is achieved given that the cooling system is internal reducing drag further I am sure that MICA does outrange ASRAAM but my response was to him saying that ASRAAM wasn’t BVR, by many definitions it is.

CAMM-ER is land launched and reaches 45km of range, it shares a rocket booster with ASRAAM Block 6 maybe Block 5 i don’t know. Given that that land-launching missiles limits their range i find it hard to see how you could disagree that this would yield an improvement.

Source: Common Anti Air Missile (CAMM) - Think Defence

Not in service I ignored it.

Now I am genuinely done with this thread if you don’t like my sources, statements or whatever then just ignore them.

Lol, you ignore MICA NGs because its not in service, yet you want to factor in the Meteor missile dual pylons…which are not in service.

The dual pylons have been shown in service with Spanish Typhoons.
As you can see they are an export option: AEREA designs and manufactures AIR-TO-AIR Missile Rail Launchers

You mentioned MICA NG, I mentioned Meteor dual pylons in response to that.

In fact I very clearly prioritised the current maximum of 10 Meteor and 2 ASRAAM, I didn’t even say in that quote that I wanted it, I simply mentioned It existed as a capability upgrade.

Fair enough. I will however go back to the CAMM/Asraam comparison and note that the basic CAMM has a much more efficient nosecone which can affect range so it isn’t comparable to ASRAAM.

I’ll give you that, it is comparable but perhaps the nose-cone neglects the surface to air launch over the air to air launch advantage.