So what units were all of these jets from?

Don’t thank him too quickly.

He’s wrong.

I can’t remember how to tell the difference between the original Vicon 18 601 GP(1) pod and the EO GP(1) (eg JRRP or DJRP), but it is one of the two.

With one set of side windows, I think it’s the non EO version.

The windows on the side of the pod show quite clearly that it is NOT the dedicated Vinten LOROP pod (603?)

Maximum:

Two 1,000-lb bombs in tandem on the centreline, two in tandem inboard underwing, and single 1,000-lb bombs outboard for a total of 8.

The centreline pylon could be fitted with double side by side adaptors to allow a recce pod or ALQ and TIALD to be carried side by side. This arrangement was fit checked at Boscombe Down, but a service clearance was not pursued.

The centreline pylon was hard-wired and so was the pylon used for carriage of WE177.

The outboard underwing pilots typically carried Phimat and ALQ, with winders overwing, and with offensive stores inboard (with a centreline tank) or under the belly with two inboard tanks.

HILARIOUS.

Try to dig something a little more credible than the smear we have in this forum for years expecially the articles such as Eastern smiles writed by “the one who should never be named” and which AFM Editors told us that they did NOT agree with the contents. Cheers

Trying to revive yourself now?

Let me guess, you lost your acces backstage pass and Dassault-Aviation guest list, no more seating “next to Charles” or “talking to pilots” and everyone else in the industry knows how much you can dare demolishing eminently reputable editors, writers, active RAF and RN high ranking Officers and pilots to post your usual Rafale bashing, say thank you to Fonky, Gegene and Lordassap for demonstrating it so vividely…

Now: Get us some proper sources and stop the smear campaign please, it FAILED.

I don’t have the faintest clue what you’re on about, Dare. I haven’t bashed Rafale here, at all.

But with this level of impenetrable ‘b****cks’ it’s pretty clear that you don’t have a clue what you’re on about, either.

“Twist and spin”…..

No Dare, there is no evidence for these claims, so they are not fact.

As to Singapore, I know that some people don’t like it, but the evidence that the RSAF preferred Typhoon but were overruled by MINDEF is anecdotal, but it’s also overwhelming. Moreover, the explanation for Typhoon’s ‘early bath’ is entirely believable and credible – that BAE messed up the bid process, big-time (look at their record with the Hawk in the UAE for a more recent example…..)

Much the same is true of the RoKAF’s preference for Rafale. The anecdotal evidence is that Rafale was preferred by the evaluators, but ruled out by the decision makers.

As an open-minded soul, I can believe both stories, easily.

Any observer of Rafale should be only too aware that an aircraft can win an evaluation, and then fail to be selected. Just look at Rafale in Morocco or Gripen in Poland, for example.

As to reading assemblee Nationale reports to support your misapprehensions about the Netherlands, just ask yourself what a report by the Dutch Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, prepared for the Economic Affairs Ministry, looking at the economic and industrial benefits of JSF might have looked at?

A report which did not involve flying the competitors, nor even getting proper data from Dassault or Eurofighter…..

Of course! It must have been a fully fledged technical evaluation, and so we should take its rankings as though Moses had brought them down from the Mountain. :rolleyes:

My cat prefers Rafale to Typhoon. She must do, she curls up on my desk right next to my Rafale desk model. There you go, there’s another ‘technical evaluation’ that Rafale has won. :rolleyes:

As to 2012 Rafale, whatever it does, it won’t out-accelerate EVERYTHING else, and it won’t out-climb EVERYTHING else. Nor will it out-turn everything else (out turn MiG-29OVT, F-22, Typhoon, Pitts Special, PC-21?) at all speeds and altitudes, instantaneous and sustained, in all flight regimes.

During the debate at:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=96119

Arthuro asked me for links and quotes to justify what is an enthusiast’s opinion.

I began to sketch a response, but abandoned it. Since it’s all about disputed evaluations, and since that thread has moved on, I hope it may be more pertinent here. This is what I’d started to put together:

You take this very seriously Arthuro. I do have some (incomplete) print and pdfs of online articles to hand on Singpore, but not on Korea (there was never much hard data to support the claim that Rafale won the evaluation, though, as I’ve said, I’d like to think that it did).

I can see why Rafale supporters would want to highlight the Netherlands ‘evaluation’ as Rafale did very well. (I agree with Dare2 here – had the true costs of JSF been known, and had the evaluation realized the real implications of being allowed to bid for JSF workshare, rather than having it guaranteed, Rafale would have been a clear winner, and would not have been placed second).

But it was not a technical evaluation. It was an evaluation of the economic and industrial advantages of the programmes – an area where Rafale enjoyed, and still enjoys, a major advantage over its competitors.

In the Netherlands, it’s fact that:
1) The NL did not fly any of the competitors, a prerequisite for any serious technical evaluation. JSF wasn’t even flying at the time, and Typhoon was VERY immature.
2) Both Dassault and Eurofighter have said that the CPB evaluation was conducted without their co-operation, and that they gave the Dutch no access to confidential or technical data, which would be a prerequisite for any serious technical evaluation.
3) The evaluation was by the Dutch Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis for the Economic Affairs Ministry and was primarily economic and industrial, aiming was to examine the economic and industrial advantages and disadvantages of Dutch participation in the JSF programme. The clue is in the name.

When it comes to Singapore, I remember reading all about this – and, Dare 2 (in answer to your question: “Explain how it would have won the TechEval and still being eliminated of the final stage of the competition?”), the story was that the air force and DSTA made their preference (on grounds of performance and capability) known, but that their preference was overruled by MinDef (on grounds of price and timescales). I’m sorry that I do not have a link.

Arthuro seems to accept that something similar happened in Korea where Rafale won on technical grounds but was overruled politically (something I’d like to believe, too) but not that it could have happened in Singapore.

But I do remember reading chapter and verse about how well the Singapore evaluation went, and how very badly BAE mismanaged the bid until (too late to matter) they posted in a new bid team leader, Carl someone or other.

What I do have is:

Jane’s Defence Weekly
Eurofighter Typhoon takes a nosedive in Singapore

By ROBERT HEWSON Editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons

A shock decision by Singapore to drop the Eurofighter Typhoon from a shortlist of contenders vying to be the Republic’s next-generation fighter has thrown the aircraft’s manufacturing consortium, comprising BAE Systems, EADS and Alenia, into disarray.

JDW understands that Singapore’s Defence Science and Technology Agency, an arm of the Ministry of Defence (MinDef), has delivered a letter to the Eurofighter team formally discounting the Typhoon from the NFRP competition.

While no official statement has been made by Singaporean authorities, and the Eurofighter partners have declined to comment, several sources close to the programme have confirmed the unexpected development.

The Eurofighter sales effort in Singapore is being led by BAE Systems.

Singapore’s letter of rejection was delivered to BAE Systems’ local office late last week. JDW understands that issues of pricing and the reliable release of capability within the RSAF’s required timeframe were the key concerns that derailed Eurofighter’s bid. Until recently Eurofighter was confident that its performance in Singapore’s 2004 evaluation had gone a long way to answering critics questioning the aircraft’s capabilities. The securing of funds in December 2004 for Eurofighter Tranche 2 production and development was also seen as a significant boost to Eurofighter’s export prospects.

More is in the subscriber’s version.

[i]Western Daily Press quoting Defence Analysis, August 2004

“…………………It is a very capable aircraft and better than the American F-16 he champions. In a recent competition run by Singapore to find a replacement for its F-16 fighters, Typhoon was up against the American F15E and the French Rafale. Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests. According to one observer, neither competitor aircraft could claim the same (Defence Analysis August 2004).”

[i]Flight Daily News, 13 June 2005
Typhoon hit by Singapore

Singapore’s decision to drop one of the three contenders for its Next Generation Fighter requirement only months before a final decision is expected was not only unexpected but has left the bidding team looking for answers to some searching questions.

Eurofighter GmbH and BAE Systems had some reason to be optimistic after the Typhoon reportedly ‘won’ the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) evaluation.

This was not a competitive fly-off, and was only one element in a broad evaluation, but the Typhoon demonstrated impeccable serviceability. It was able to delivery everything they wanted, including supercruise, when its competitors could not. Radar performance was reportedly far in excess of what Singapore had expected to see, and the aircraft was able to climb to operating altitude without making a tortuous series of turns to avoid Malaysian air space.

Neither the Typhoon, nor the Dassault Rafale, nor the Boeing F-15 can meet the RSAF’s requirements in their present form. But there was every reason to believe that the Typhoon in its Tranche 2+ configuration could meet – and comfortably exceed – Singapore’s requirement.

The fact that Eurofighter GmbH was able to fly Singaporean pilots in the active cockpit, demonstrating the planned capabilities and enhancements in a realistic simulated sortie, reportedly impressed the evaluation team. By the end of the evaluation phase, the Typhoon was, apparently, the RSAF’s favoured technical solution.

The aircraft was then rejected before either of its competitors, showing that it not only ‘failed to win’, but that it had become the ‘third choice.’

It is believed that the decision had little, if anything, to do with the Typhoon’s capability and planned capability per se, but was instead a natural reaction to what insiders called “a shambolic performance” by BAE Systems during the early part of the bidding process. It also apparently reflected Singaporean unease about the risks surrounding the advanced Tranche 2 capabilities it required.

In particular, the Singaporeans were concerned about delivery timescales and were said to be worried by the continuing inability by the Eurofighter partner nations to finally define the Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 Typhoon specifications.

Singapore wanted a delivery timescale that could “just about have been met with Tranche 1 aircraft”, but required Tranche 2 capabilities that are “road-mapped” but still unfunded, and whose development has not yet been started. Only a basic air-to-ground capability (using the Litening 3 laser designator and enhanced Paveway LGBs) has been set in stone, and this falls far short of the capability required by the RSAF.

Confidence in the Typhoon’s future capabilities may have been undermined by continuing doubts about the programme’s long-term future, with Britain’s Chief of the Air Staff casting doubt on Britain’s need for Tranche 3, and with the Liberal Democrat party seizing on cancellation of the project in the recent UK general election.

BAE insiders say that while in days gone by BAE had a formidable reputation for putting together watertight bids, with a highly-regarded bid centre and “red teams”, these withered after the merger with GEC. By the time the Typhoon campaign in Singapore began, the company no longer had the structures in place to put together a winning bid, with a sensible price and a convincing technical specification.

Belatedly recognising this, one of the company’s remaining marketing gurus (who had reportedly been responsible for the biggest recent Hawk sales successes) was drafted in to oversee the bid last autumn, and a price and specification was submitted to the Singaporeans in February.

Sources close to the bid have been scathing about BAE Systems and UK MoD middle/senior management, who are said to have been inefficient, obstructive or unhelpful to the bid team, though dealings with industry in the other three partner nations have reportedly been trouble-free.

Others criticised industry’s commercial performance, and compared it with Dassault’s “hunger”. The French bid was made by one government and one contractor, working closely together with a real need for a sale, and willing to make some offers which a consortium of four nations/industries, with a huge Tranche 2 order book already in place, were unable or unwilling to make.

After a week of frantic media speculation, Singapore’s MINDEF confirmed that it had “narrowed down the selection for the next fighter replacement programme to Dassault’s Rafale and Boeing’s F-15” and that it had “decided not to consider the proposal from BAE Systems any further.”

It added that the Typhoon was a “very capable aircraft”, but pointed out that “the committed schedule for the delivery of the Typhoon and its systems did not meet the requirements”

Eurofighter GmbH has officially denied that there were any problems with the bid, and chief executive Aloysius Rauen praised BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, the UK government, Procurement Minister Lord Bach, the RAF, and DESO for their “excellent support”.

There seems to be a new willingness in the consortium to offer greater flexibility, and to consider the early adoption of particular capabilities to meet the requirements of export customers, after the failed Singapore bid.”[/i]

This is very critical of BAE, and to a lesser extent of Eurofighter, so I don’t really buy the idea that it’s some kind of Typhoon fanboy disinformation exercise.

[i]Air Forces Monthly 198, September 2004
Eastern Smile

“AFM understands, however, that the evaluation, which was the first time Typhoon had flown outside Europe, was a resounding success. Though BAE and Eurofighter will not confirm any details, it is believed that the two aircraft flew 28 missions, totalling 35 flying hours, during the course of which the aircraft convincingly demonstrated its air-to-air capabilities, first against a pair of F-16s and then against a package of six F-5S and F-16C/D aircraft. It also demonstrated its ability to ‘supercruise’ (fly supersonically without reheat), achieving Mach 1.21 on a normal, hot Singapore day. This impressed the Singaporeans – and Typhoon’s rival bidders, whose aircraft require reheat for supersonic flight.
“They didn’t wait for the cool evening, they didn’t wait for a cooler day – they just went out and did it in a hot, daytime, tropical environment,” one Rafale programme insider told AFM, with grudging admiration. “The Singaporeans were astonished ask asked why they hadn’t advertised that they could do it. The answer was that these RAF jets weren’t weighed down with a tonne of flight test instrumentation, so they could do it where the Development Aircraft were probably a little slower!”[/i]

I know that this is controversial with Rafale’s supporters, though it’s positive about Rafale, stressing the ‘plug and play’ nature of the migration to AESA, and highlighting Rafale’s service status (Typhoon was described as still ‘catching up’).

And while some comments are anonymous (inevitably, in view of the news blackout imposed by Singapore), the article quotes Filippe Bagnato (then CEO Eurofighter GmbH), Peter Anstiss (then MD Typhoon Exports at BAE), Paul Hermann (EJ Business Development Exec). And there is a great deal of detail that would suggest to me that the author spoke to people closely involved in the evaluation – the dates of the Singapore evaluations at Warton and Getafe names of RAF pilots, numbers of flights, numbers of flying hours, the story of the change proposal required to deal with condensation in the box used to transport the spare engine, etc. This level of detail would lead me to conclude that it wasn’t made up in someone’s back bedroom.

And in any case, what are the unattributed comments that so irk people?

That Typhoon beat a pair of F-16s and then a package of six F-5S and F-16C/D aircraft. Big surprise then, perhaps, but knowing what we know now? Meh.

That Typhoon supercruised at Mach 1.2 in the heat of a Singapore midday, when Rafale couldn’t. Shocking then, perhaps, but knowing what we know now? It doesn’t shock me.

And it’s rather more compelling and rather more credible than the Mackenzie piece on Singapore, which attacks Typhoon but does so by quoting Francois Moussez and Bob Kemp, Dassault and Gripen PR mouthpieces respectively!
[/I]