Dassault Rafale NEWS ONLY

eagle said:
I think the strategic nuclear mission is the one where you want stealth the most. The known concepts at least look like they could carry one large missile in a centerline weapon bay.
Click to expand...
Frankly, for the Nuclear mission, I would go in the same period of time with hypersonic. What have Russia and China in defensive counter Hypersonic that is solid enough for the next decade? ... Not much. Use geometry and surprise an it should be enough for the way french deterrence is articulated. From Paris to Moscow at Mach 5, it takes only 30 minutes, including half above denied territory...
Benefits? Defense budget agility: France can do hypersonic probably faster than it can do battle relevant stealth (and this is not a compliment).

@Hood : you are certainly right, but a more modest expectation around a french KFX scenario (Mirage 2000 also) sounds more sustainable in front of the foreseen geopolitical scenario.
Plan B is not a substitute for SCAF, as I understand it, but a return to reality that is that most of the partners (including the said so Best Athlete) have none Stealth experience relevant for 2050.

Regarding how relevant is that article, I think it is inspired by the present state of discussions in France.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
What a Super Rafale could be, if you reflect a minute on the recent progress in airframe design and what many 4.5th fighters are, is to let go the dead end Rafale formula (inlets, canard, single vertical and mini-nose, pure delta) and re-use all the systems (upgraded) in a new carbon shell with an open road to good stealth, good dynamic performances and Alpha.
Click to expand...
what's wrong with its inlets?
 
Hood said:
Is the Rafale NG/Super Rafale actually a real thing or just the fantasy of a Meta-Defense reporter?
From my reading of the articles it feels like the latter...
Click to expand...
In this context also from a Meta-Defense article...
"In this context, 3 hypotheses can be studied in order to meet these industrial, technological and security challenges: the design of a Super-Rafale, that of a Mirage NG, as well as a reboot of the SCAF with other partners, European or not....

Super-Rafale, Mirage NG: France must study a medium-term alternative to SCAF - Meta-Defense.fr

www.meta-defense.fr www.meta-defense.fr

What should then be the difference between a "Super-Rafale and a MirageNG"? Number of engines, delta wing?
 
Mirage is clearly a nod to Mirage 2000, that is a single engine low-end. To replace the Mirage 2000-5F, obviously, also the 2000D - they are now the one and only non Rafale combat jets left across the entire spectrum, Aéronavale included. Last "casualties" have been the F1s in 2014, the SEM in 2016 and the 2000N thereafters. Some antiquated Mirage 2000 B/C are still inservice for training.

I stick to my point that a 2*M88 miniature F-22 with internal missile bay is the next logical step beyond a Rafale F5 (if there is ever a F5 standard). I think France and Dassault can still re-invent a balanced combat aircraft (not too big and expensive) all alone or with Spain and no one else.
 
eagle said:
I think the strategic nuclear mission is the one where you want stealth the most. The known concepts at least look like they could carry one large missile in a centerline weapon bay.
Click to expand...
can you link the known concept you're referring to?
 
TomcatViP said:
Interesting reflection around Plan B: a vastly modernized Rafale coupled with something like a Neuron.
meta-defense.fr

SCAF ou pas, le couple Super-Rafale Neuron proposé par Dassault devrait être développé

Comme il est de coutume au début de l'été, les salons de l'armement se sont multipliés ces dernières semaines, avec Eurosatory en France dédié aux armements
meta-defense.fr meta-defense.fr

What matters the most here is the beginning of an understanding of something really important to me since almost a decade now: there is no way Dassault Aviation can wait to introduce the SCAF soldering on the Rafale alone.

Either their customer will pick one or another 4.5 or 5th Gen offer on the market, either the French state will have to exacerbate its bargaining diplomacy to push for some more sales (but what's left?).

Here the idea developed is to create a Rafale NG (called by the author the Super Rafale).
Sadly, nothing transformational is to be expected from that. The Rafale was already a Super Mirage and the formula as lived through, aging badly.

What a Super Rafale could be, if you reflect a minute on the recent progress in airframe design and what many 4.5th fighters are, is to let go the dead end Rafale formula (inlets, canard, single vertical and mini-nose, pure delta) and re-use all the systems (upgraded) in a new carbon shell with an open road to good stealth, good dynamic performances and Alpha.

That only can ensure an economy of scale b/w the Raf and the Sur-Raf but also with the loyal wingman drones that will operate in tandem.
Click to expand...
I had a similar idea
the Rafale has some good avionics and other features
its just limited in that the airframe originated from the 80s.
my idea is a "lower" cost solution, basically a 5th gen airframe with Rafale guts
something the size of the KF-21 or J-35
 
donnage99 said:
eagle said:
I think the strategic nuclear mission is the one where you want stealth the most. The known concepts at least look like they could carry one large missile in a centerline weapon bay.
Click to expand...
can you link the known concept you're referring to?
Click to expand...
Check out the FCAS thread. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...uture-combat-air-system-fcas-scaf-fsac.29201/
Here's the Airbus concept: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...t-air-system-fcas-scaf-fsac.29201/post-328403
First view of the Dassault concept: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...t-air-system-fcas-scaf-fsac.29201/post-331896
More Dassault: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...t-air-system-fcas-scaf-fsac.29201/post-338601
Dassault mock-up: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...t-air-system-fcas-scaf-fsac.29201/post-353539
etc., just go through the thread ;)
 
French AdlAE (Air & Space Force) officially voices for 42 Rafale delivery b/w 2027 and 2030 (after being forced to only introduce 1 single Rafale in 2022 - Macron's Aircraft bazaar and Dassault delivery rate nose down):

www.latribune.fr

L'armée de l'air plaide pour bénéficier d'une flotte de 225 Rafale (au lieu de 185)

Au moment où la guerre frappe en Europe et où les tensions internationales sont très élevées, l'armée de l'air plaide pour un accroissement du parc de Rafale Air. Selon le numéro deux de l'armée de l'air, la France devrait tendre vers 225 Rafale Air au lieu d'un plancher de 185 appareils. En...
www.latribune.fr www.latribune.fr
 
Makes sense. That half the Cold War / 1992 fast jet strength (450). But much more importantly, that 225number is presently filled by the very last Mirage 2000s: -5F, 2000D, plus whatever obsoletes B/C RDI left.
Since Mirage 2000s are not eternal, at some point or another, if you want a full strength 225 combat jet force, you need 225 Rafales, not 180.
Remember that the Rafale ultimate goal is to replace everything but the kitchen sink.
So far it has evicted, Mirage IIIs (in the 1990s) Mirage IV (in 2005) Jaguars (in 2007) Mirage F1s (2014) S.E (2016) and early Mirage 2000s (since 2017).
 
Archibald said:
So far it has evicted, Mirage IIIs (in the 1990s) Mirage IV (in 2005) Jaguars (in 2007) Mirage F1s (2014) S.E (2016) and early Mirage 2000s (since 2017).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the helpful summary. I get lost keeping track of who replaced what & when!

Didn’t the ground attack Mirage IIIEs and 5Fs get replaced by Mirage 2000Ds (3e Escadre at Nancy) and Mirage F1CTs (13e Escadre at Colmar)? Wondering if it’s maybe a bit of a stretch to say that the Rafale replaced Mirage III/5s…

P.S. The last Mirage 2000C RDI at Orange were retired a month ago, leaving only 7 Mirage 2000B two-seaters for pilot transformation. These Bs are now collocated at Nancy with all the ground-attack 2000Ds.
www.blogbeforeflight.net

French Air Force bids farewell to Mirage 2000C

French Air Force bids farewell to Mirage 2000C
www.blogbeforeflight.net www.blogbeforeflight.net
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Makes sense. That half the Cold War / 1992 fast jet strength (450). But much more importantly, that 225number is presently filled by the very last Mirage 2000s: -5F, 2000D, plus whatever obsoletes B/C RDI left.
Since Mirage 2000s are not eternal, at some point or another, if you want a full strength 225 combat jet force, you need 225 Rafales, not 180.
Remember that the Rafale ultimate goal is to replace everything but the kitchen sink.
So far it has evicted, Mirage IIIs (in the 1990s) Mirage IV (in 2005) Jaguars (in 2007) Mirage F1s (2014) S.E (2016) and early Mirage 2000s (since 2017).
Click to expand...
when more Rafales enter service, do you think there's still a market for those former French Mirages?
i would like to think India would be interested.. but they may have already replaced their Mirages with Tejas and Rafales by then as well.
 
The 2000-5F are too few and will be flown until the wings fall off.
Now the UAE 2000-9 over the last decade, they have become kind of Heisenberg / Schrodinger Mirages: they have been sold half a dozen times all over the Middle East, from Maroc to Irak. While staying in UAE service.
 
India recently announced that they'll let go their Mirage, I do believe, if my memory stands right, in 2030. Replaced by more Teja Mk2 (?) or their 5th Gen design (that might be plan B).
 
helmutkohl said:
Archibald said:
Makes sense. That half the Cold War / 1992 fast jet strength (450). But much more importantly, that 225number is presently filled by the very last Mirage 2000s: -5F, 2000D, plus whatever obsoletes B/C RDI left.
Since Mirage 2000s are not eternal, at some point or another, if you want a full strength 225 combat jet force, you need 225 Rafales, not 180.
Remember that the Rafale ultimate goal is to replace everything but the kitchen sink.
So far it has evicted, Mirage IIIs (in the 1990s) Mirage IV (in 2005) Jaguars (in 2007) Mirage F1s (2014) S.E (2016) and early Mirage 2000s (since 2017).
Click to expand...
when more Rafales enter service, do you think there's still a market for those former French Mirages?
i would like to think India would be interested.. but they may have already replaced their Mirages with Tejas and Rafales by then as well.
Click to expand...
The big issue with the 2000 is it’s supposedly quite expensive to maintain for what it is.
 
Archibald said:
I stick to my point that a 2*M88 miniature F-22 with internal missile bay is the next logical step beyond a Rafale F5 (if there is ever a F5 standard). I think France and Dassault can still re-invent a balanced combat aircraft (not too big and expensive) all alone or with Spain and no one else.
Click to expand...
F-22 is so different from rafale on a conceptual level that the prerequisite for doing this is that everything with rafale is wrong.
as far as we can see, rafale - as much as i personally don't like it - is among the most right aircraft on the market.
Thus repeating an outdated late 1980s approach to replace arguably* slightly more outdated late-1980s approach seems not fair.

*rafale is getting new orders when f-22 is heading towards its dusk.
 
Local coverage of the AdlAE Rafale in French Caledonia before they leave for Australia (don't miss the bootom page video with a Rafale in slight climb at high Aoa alongside a Puma helicopte):

la1ere.francetvinfo.fr

Un millier de visiteurs en huis-clos pour les Rafale avant le grand départ ce mercredi

La mission Pégase/Henri-Brown, c'est fini ! La flotte aérienne de l'armée de l'air et de l'espace présente en Nouvelle-Calédonie depuis samedi reprend son envol, cette fois, pour l'Australie. Mais avant, ils étaient un millier de chanceux à avoir vu de très près les Rafale. C'était lundi sur la...
la1ere.francetvinfo.fr la1ere.francetvinfo.fr
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Archibald said:
I stick to my point that a 2*M88 miniature F-22 with internal missile bay is the next logical step beyond a Rafale F5 (if there is ever a F5 standard). I think France and Dassault can still re-invent a balanced combat aircraft (not too big and expensive) all alone or with Spain and no one else.
Click to expand...
F-22 is so different from rafale on a conceptual level that the prerequisite for doing this is that everything with rafale is wrong.
as far as we can see, rafale - as much as i personally don't like it - is among the most right aircraft on the market.
Thus repeating an outdated late 1980s approach to replace arguably* slightly more outdated late-1980s approach seems not fair.

*rafale is getting new orders when f-22 is heading towards its dusk.
Click to expand...

F-22 can't get more orders because US Congress prohibited the export of it.
F-35 on the other hand is getting a ton of orders.

Rafale has done pretty well due to being a credible plane and one that is more politically viable for certain nations than the F-35. In the long run though Dassault is going to have to come up with something a lot more like the F-22, F-35, or KF-21 to remain relevant. I suspect that it'd probably be a bit like the KF-21, given that plane is basically a bit like a "mini", less advanced F-22 (broadly generalizing here) with twin 414s.
 
jaehaerys48 said:
F-22 can't get more orders because US Congress prohibited the export of it.
Click to expand...
Not can't. Couldn't. We're well in the 2020s now.
jaehaerys48 said:
F-35 on the other hand is getting a ton of orders.
Click to expand...
Which is a different and newer airplane.
jaehaerys48 said:
In the long run though Dassault is going to have to come up with something a lot more like the F-22, F-35, or KF-21 to remain relevant.
Click to expand...
Coming up with a 2000s plane barely newer than Rafale itself in 2020s wouldn't keep Dassault relevant.
F-22 is cool enough. As a production plane it doesn't really need another arrow cult.
 
Rafale probably has a decade before KF-21 really enters the picture. At this stage the Koreans are where Rafale was in 1991… KF-21 has a very ambitious flight test schedule (6 prototypes, 2,200 flights over 4 years) and production ramp up to 20x aircraft/year by 2027 with lots of concurrency and with domestic needs coming first I wouldn’t bet on the first export deliveries before 2035.

Will be interesting to see KF-21’s progress and where they are really in 5 years…
 
KF-21 has yet to prove in which way it will be sensibly superior to Rafale F.5.
If I understand correctly - its key physical advantage will only come at some point in mid-2030s and probably won't be retrofittable.

Before that ... at the very least French seem to be fully competitive. KF-21 is a much newer plane with newer architecture, but architecture doesn't kill by itself.
 
I think he meant that KF-21 has full stealth F-22 shape plus internal weapon bay. Two attributes the Rafale hasn't - although it might compensate elsewhere. Rafale has reduced radar signature with no external weapons. I saw that called "semi stealth".

We are presently at crossroads: there are
- old non-stealth end of series fighters (F-15 & F-16 & Superbug)
- in betweens like Rafale, reduced / limited RCS / semi stealth
- full blown stealth shapes like J-20 Su-57 F-35 Boramae F-22
 
F-16 have Have-Glass RCS treatment coating, that is now to be applied on all USAF models.
Also, early on, F-16 had some built-in RCS reduction shaping that is not much different from a Rafale, even if the latter might have some higher degree of it in some aspect.
 
The KF-21 though newer is broadly equivalent to Rafale or Typhoon.

It currently only has external weapons and has an airframe that has been designed with minimising radar cross-section etc in mind but not to a level equivalent to a F-35 or F-22, as examples.

Both the Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet would be expected to be broadly equivalent to the KF-21 in this regard.
If the KF-21 has any material advantage over, say, the Rafale from a low observability perspective is not publicly known and claims one way or another here would be certainly purely speculative.

And the KF-21, unlike the Rafale, would have significant US content giving the US the ability to block sales and/or necessary support.
 
I expect Dassault will eventually bring back the conformal missile carriage capability that was originally planned (4 AAMs under the fuselage), with the CFTs and maybe some cocoons for the wingtip missiles. Would be interesting to see how close such a « Silent Rafale » could get to a KF-21 in terms of radar signature.
 
kaiserd said:
The KF-21 though newer is broadly equivalent to Rafale or Typhoon.

It currently only has external weapons and has an airframe that has been designed with minimising radar cross-section etc in mind but not to a level equivalent to a F-35 or F-22, as examples.

Both the Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet would be expected to be broadly equivalent to the KF-21 in this regard.
If the KF-21 has any material advantage over, say, the Rafale from a low observability perspective is not publicly known and claims one way or another here would be certainly purely speculative.

And the KF-21, unlike the Rafale, would have significant US content giving the US the ability to block sales and/or necessary support.
Click to expand...
Nobody knows what are RCS specs for the KF-21.
We do know however that it comes nearly 40 years latter than Typhoon or Rafale, from a country that has an as solid aerospace industry than both of those airframe and commitments from the US where help or design support is required.

Moreover, Super Hornet have a better stealth signature than Rafale. It's survavibility was evaluated as being superior during acquisition contests.

It would be easy then to assess KF-21 effort has being one to deliver a better platform when it comes to RCS. South Korea is not a Banana republic where public funds are spent in blatant worthless expenses...At least no more than any European countries.
 
TomcatViP said:
kaiserd said:
The KF-21 though newer is broadly equivalent to Rafale or Typhoon.

It currently only has external weapons and has an airframe that has been designed with minimising radar cross-section etc in mind but not to a level equivalent to a F-35 or F-22, as examples.

Both the Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet would be expected to be broadly equivalent to the KF-21 in this regard.
If the KF-21 has any material advantage over, say, the Rafale from a low observability perspective is not publicly known and claims one way or another here would be certainly purely speculative.

And the KF-21, unlike the Rafale, would have significant US content giving the US the ability to block sales and/or necessary support.
Click to expand...
Nobody knows what are RCS specs for the KF-21.
We do know however that it comes nearly 40 years latter than Typhoon or Rafale, from a country that has an as solid aerospace industry than both of those airframe and commitments from the US where help or design support is required.

Moreover, Super Hornet have a better stealth signature than Rafale. It's survavibility was evaluated as being superior during acquisition contests.

It would be easy then to assess KF-21 effort has being one to deliver a better platform when it comes to RCS. South Korea is not a Banana republic where public funds are spent in blatant worthless expenses...At least no more than any European countries.
Click to expand...
With respect that is largely spurious logic unsupported by evidence and involving several leaps that don’t really make sense.

For example, at least as far as I know, we don’t really know the level of US involvement/ assistance in designing the KF-21 (particularly re: RCS) or that the F-18E is actually materially or at all has a lower RCS than a Rafale (or in what configuration or context that is) or how (if true) these factors might interact and/or impact in relation to the Rafale vs KF-21 RCS comparisons.
Given the relative lack of Super Hornet export customers I would be wondering which evaluation you are talking about and to better understand the detail and context of that evaluations apparent comments and their relevance here.

All you or I can really tell is that superficially the KF-21 looks more like a F-22 than the Rafale does. And considering both the Rafale and KF-21 are carrying around external weapons (no weapon bays, etc) they are clearly closer to each other re: RCS than than to a F-22.
Everything else is speculation.
And this is not at all a slight on the KF-21 or the South Korean aviation industry which should be rightly immensely proud of this hard earned achievement.
 
Archibald said:
I think he meant that KF-21 has full stealth F-22 shape plus internal weapon bay. Two attributes the Rafale hasn't - although it might compensate elsewhere. Rafale has reduced radar signature with no external weapons. I saw that called "semi stealth".

We are presently at crossroads: there are
- old non-stealth end of series fighters (F-15 & F-16 & Superbug)
- in betweens like Rafale, reduced / limited RCS / semi stealth
- full blown stealth shapes like J-20 Su-57 F-35 Boramae F-22
Click to expand...
kaiserd said:
Both the Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet would be expected to be broadly equivalent to the KF-21 in this regard.
Click to expand...
Once more, IWB for KF-21 is still only a "potential" capability. There's provision but how and when they are going to actually implement is still an open question, at least until the new ROKAF studies are concluded.

Standard F4 Rafale has two key advantages in comparison to the KF-21. One is its DDM-NG, the other is its communications capability and intra-flight data fusion which I've mentioned about shortly on this thread a few months ago. It would be fair to say that Rafale avionics in the late 20s and early 30s will still have an edge against KF-21.

In the meantime, simplifying the difference of design philosophies of the two aircraft as "broadly equivalent" is misleading. If anything, Rafale designs could be traced back to the 70s and 80s from the ECA days. KF-21 on the other hand has its roots on ATF. Apart from its designs, KF-21 uses the newest flight control model of model-sensor hybrid NDI. This is an evolution from the F-35. there are also a few other avionics advantage on the KF-21 such as its ESM operating bandwidth or LAD based HMI.

Overall I'd say both planes are very much comparable.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Standard F4 Rafale has two key advantages in comparison to the KF-21. One is its DDM-NG, the other is its communications capability and intra-flight data fusion which I've mentioned about shortly on this thread a few months ago. It would be fair to say that Rafale avionics in the late 20s and early 30s will still have an edge against KF-21.
Click to expand...
While i don't read Korean, isn't it reasonably safe to assume that KFX will aim for the same fusion/interlinking standards?
They were industry-leading half a decade ago when F-35 was entering service, but now they're becoming pretty much standard.
While they are by no means simple - there is no technomagic there, neither in soft- nor in hardware.

I simply doubt a new late 2020s fighter from a country without hard technical limitations will come out without it.
 
https://air-cosmos.com/article/defense-la-lpm-de-l-avion-de-combat-rafale-51641
« L’Armée de l’Air et de l'Espace n’a pas reçu de Rafale depuis 2018 », martèle le général Stéphane Mille, une encoche décidée sous Jean-Yves Le Drian pour laisser des euros aux deux autres armées, et engager notamment le programme Scorpion de l’armée de terre et les frégates de défense et d’intervention de la marine (lancement signé quelques semaines avant l’élection présidentielle). Cette fois, face aux menaces durables, c’est l’aviation qu’il va falloir consolider, et en peu de temps (il faudra toujours trois ans pour construire un Rafale), sans doute au détriment des deux autres composantes.
----------------------------//-----------------------------

"The [French] Air and Space Force has not received a single Rafale since 2018", insists General Stéphane Mille, something decided under Jean-Yves Le Drian to leave some euros for the two other services and engage in, notably, the army's Scorpion program and the navy's defense and intervention frigates (launch signed a few weeks before the presidential election). This time, in the face of increased threats, aviation will have to be consolidated, and, this, urgently (it still take three years to build a Rafale [!!!]), probably to the detriment of the other two components.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H_K said:
Update on M88 engine hours (divide by 2 for Rafale flight hours);
Dec 2020: 854,000 hours
Dec 2019: 753,000
Dec 2018: 664,000
Dec 2017: 574,000
Dec 2016: 495,000
Dec 2015: 416,000
Dec 2014: 350,000
Dec 2013: 295,500
Dec 2012: 241,000

Source: Safran annual reports
Click to expand...

Belatedly posting this update:
1,000,000 hours for the M88 engine

Rafale’s Safran M88 engine passes milestone of one million operating hours JULY 13, 2022​

Click to expand...
www.safran-group.com

Rafale’s Safran M88 engine passes milestone of one million operating hours

www.safran-group.com www.safran-group.com

(For those interested in a comparison, the Typhoon’s EJ200 hit 1.5 million hours also this summer. Rafale fleet of 246 aircraft delivered, Typhoon fleet of ~575 aircraft delivered. In recent years each Rafale has been flying ~220 hours/year vs ~125 hours/year for each Typhoon).
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
(For those interested in a comparison, the Typhoon’s EJ200 hit 1.5 million hours also this summer. Rafale fleet of 246 aircraft delivered, Typhoon fleet of ~575 aircraft delivered. In recent years each Rafale has been flying ~220 hours/year vs ~125 hours/year for each Typhoon).
Click to expand...
I think the Typhoon hours/year vary massively across the different operators.
 
Maths for all:

B/w 2020 & 2022, 1500000hr of M88 were recorded (1,000,000 - 850,000)

Each Rafale has two M88 engines. Hence, 75 000 flight hours were logged by the alleged 250 Rafale in two years (not counting the balance b/w deliveries and losses).

Per year, assuming that the flight hour is somewhat constant, 37500 hours are then supposedly logged (75000÷2).

Hence, per year, 250 Rafales flies each on average 37500/250= 150 hours...
 
12/2020 : 854 000 hours
06/2022 : (more than) 1 000 000 hours (if the result is from end Juny. The article is from 13 July 2022).

Then, it's not 2 years but 1,5 year. And it's not 75 000 : 2, but 75 000 : 1,5. And it's not 37 500 but 50 000.

50 000/250 = 200 hours...

Probably a little more as :

-France: 143 "flying" (theoretically) and delivered before december 2020 (including the 12 "used" to be bought by Greece during the period)
-Egypt: 24 delivered before december 2020
-Qatar: 36 delivered from 2019 to 2021 or 2022 (30 delivered on 9.11.21)
-India: 36 delivered from 2019 to 2022
-Greece: 6 new foreseen to be delivered from January to Juny 2022

The total is 245 (including 3 used for flying tests and 3 non flying because mid-air collision during the period)

According to the French minister at the time of the sale of the Rafale to Greece, there were too non flying Rafale used as spare parts for the other (14 in October 2021).
www.opex360.com

Selon Mme Parly, 14 Rafale de l'armée de l'Air sont actuellement cloués au sol pour avoir été "cannibalisés" - Zone Militaire

Au 1er juillet 2020, l'armée de l'Air & de l'Espace disposait de 102 avions Rafale. Mais elle comptera six de moins d'ici la fin de cette année en
www.opex360.com www.opex360.com

I leave it to all the SPF readers to judge whether we are much closer to H_K's 220 hours than 150 hours...
 
Last edited:
Technically July the 13th is 7.5 months and not 6 (half a year as per your calculation).
Technically also, December 2020 is 30 days from January 2021.
Hence it's not 1.5 years but 1 month + 12 months + 7 months and a half.
Hence one year and 8.5 months... Hence 180 hrs per airframe ;)

Maths Maths Maths.
 
@Deltafan is pretty spot on. “Dec 2020” means “Dec 31st 2020”. So we’re talking 18 months.

246 Rafales is the total delivered as of June 30th 2022. It’s not the average fleet over the time period, which was 227 Rafales… should be obvious why you can’t divide by 246.

146,000 hrs / 2 engines / 227 aircraft / 1.5 years = 215 hours per year
 
Last edited:
Here’s a history of Rafale fleet size, M88 and Rafale hours… thought I’d recap what I have:

Rafale fleet size (average)
2022 H1: 237 Rafale (239 deliveries starting, 246 ending, less 6 losses)
2021: 221 (214 -> 239 -6)
2020: 202 (201 -> 214 -6)
2019: 183 (175 -> 201 -6)
2018: 164 (163 -> 175 -5)
2017: 154 (154 -> 163 -5)
2016: 145 (145 -> 154 -5)
2015: 136 (137 -> 145 -5)
2014: 127 (126 -> 137 -5)
2013: 116 (115 -> 126 -5)

M88 engine hours
2022 June 30: 1,000,000 engine hours
2021 Dec 31: 950,000
2020 Dec 31: 854,000
2019 Dec 31: 753,000
2018 Dec 31: 664,000
2017 Dec 31: 574,000
2016 Dec 31: 495,000
2015 Dec 31: 416,000
2014 Dec 31: 350,000
2013 Dec 31: 295,500
2012 Dec 31: 241,000

Rafale annual flight* hours per aircraft
2022 H1: 211 hours
2021: 218
2020: 251
2019: 244
2018: 274
2017: 257
2016: 273
2015: 243
2014: 215
2013: 236
-> 3 year average (2019-21): 237 hours
-> 5 year average (2017-21): 247 hours
-> 10 year average (2013-22): 242 hours

* Includes taxi time and engine run-up… subtract maybe ~10% for actual flight time?

Source: Dassault & Safran press releases and investor presentations
 
Last edited:
When you say fleet size I assume you mean the total number of aircraft? I am unclear what averaging the total hours flown over this number actually tells us.

e.g. the UK intentionally buys more aircraft than are required for the "forward available fleet" in order to maintain these frontline numbers whilst aircraft undergo deep maintainance, repair or upgrade. And there is an additional buy of reserve aircraft for fatigue management and attrition replacements that are intentionally not flown in order to prolong the overall life of the fleet. In practice most of the aiframes rotate round to try to average the fatigue hours.

So averaging hours over the total fleet in this case when many aircraft are intentionally not flown doesn't tell us much. e.g. in reality the constant UK ops in Shader, Biloxi etc over the last many years is "lots" of flight hours per forward airframe and per pilot

But different countries have very different fleet sizing and through life management approaches.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom