HMEYou derail every thread you post on, Dare 2. How about giving the rest of us a Christmas present and staying out of this one?
HMEAt their current levels of capability and maturity, neither Typhoon nor Rafale have as much of an edge over legacy fighters as they may/should eventually have.
Typhoon’s performance and radar performance do give it a massive edge over F-15 in certain areas, but the lack of an operational helmet, limitations with PIRATE, and some other areas relating to equipment maturity mean that Typhoon in service may not quite match Typhoon as modelled in JOUST, though it’s still good enough that it’s plainly a bit better than F-15C overall, and will be much better. Some of these shortcomings will finally be addressed with the next software ‘drop’ and with other improvements planned to hit the frontline in 2010 – eg the helmet.
As to Rafale, it lags F-15 in performance, and radar performance, has no helmet, and has similar (though less severe) maturity issues to Typhoon. A judgement that Rafale (as it is today, with the current PESA, with no Gerfaut, with no TRD, with the current M88) is “basically no better in A2A than an F-15C” is harsh, and is somewhat simplistic and over-generalised, but not unduly so.
Remember that with no helmet, any advantage that you might have in low speed agility (an area where Rafale of course dominates F-15, with certain provisos as to excess thrust) is largely thrown away.
Today’s F-15C has JHMCS, AIM-9X, a very good Link 16 integration, good EW, and they’re playing with air-to-air use of targeting pods, and looking at IRSTs. It’s always been a bit of a hot dog when it comes to thrust to weight, it has bags of fuel and range, it’s still a 9g aeroplane (pre-Block 5/R2 Typhoons take note!) and it has plenty of persistence, with all those hardpoints and twin rails. And BVR, Eagle has good acceleration and rate of climb, and good radar performance.
This will no doubt earn me the opprobrium of every patriotic French aircraft fan (and the Brits/Germans/Italians/Spanish won’t like it much either) and will doubtless evince squeals of protest and personal attacks.
Unfortunately, for now, it’s the truth.
HMETeer,
You’re entitled to your opinion.
I’m entitled to mine.
My opinion is that Jackonicko has been subjected to far worse abuse from the French contingent than he has doled out, as have Scorpion 82, Swerve and Sintra.
The more anyone questions the ‘superiority’ of the Rafale, and certainly the more anyone suggests that Typhoon is a better fighter, or has a better man machine interface, or has a better engine, or whatever, the more likely it is that they’ll get a hysterical torrent of abuse from Dare and others, backed up by calmer but equally offensive stuff from other posters. As the most vocal critic of Rafale (and since he’s also ruder in dealing with his critics), Jackonicko gets it in the neck most and most often. Often deservedly, and often because he’s winding people up deliberately (in my opinion).
The tactic seems to be to shout down anything that doesn’t fit with their prejudices, and to attack the individual poster rather than that poster’s argument. What’s most unpleasant is that it’s usually quite offensive – questioning their opponents’ honesty and integrity.
In particular, the point of view that Rafale is a better fighter-bomber, and Typhoon a better pure fighter always attracts frenetic criticism, though you couldn’t come up with a more even handed and balanced statement – whether its right or wrong, or whether you agree with it or not.
But the point remains that however ‘back handed’ his compliments may be Jackonicko says nicer things about Rafale than Dare, Nick, Kovy and Opit ever say about Eurofighter.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t come here to read personal stuff about posters (they’re internet users, for goodness sake, which probably means socially inept and a bit sad) let alone to waste my time defending them.
My mum taught me that if you can’t be nice about someone, you should keep quiet.
It’s the frequent failure to obey this basic politeness (especially when it comes to anyone daring to express a slightly contrary opinion about the Dassault Rafale) that makes me disinclined to visit this board, let alone post. My new year’s resolution will be to stay away from this particular playground, I think, as I really don’t like the bullying and childishness that it seems to descend into so often.
And for the record, I think that Rafale and Typhoon both promise to be great aircraft, but that in their present state of maturity, both are extremely limited and flawed, Rafale less so than Typhoon, of course, but not by enough.
As an ‘Englishman in New York’ it’s in this critical area of maturity that I see the Eurocanards falling down. If they lived up to the brochures they’d be way better than the latest incarnations of the teen series, but they don’t and they aren’t. Too much doesn’t work yet, or doesn’t work properly, and too much is lacking. No helmet on either, no AESA on either, no laser designator on Rafale, no stand off air-to-surface weapon on Typhoon. It’s pathetic, to be honest, and however great the performance and potential, you’d still take an F-15E or a Super Hornet to war, if you had to go tomorrow, however much they’re yesterday’s airplanes at the very limit of their development potential.
Harry
PS: It’s Douglas Barrie, by the way, not ‘Dave’.
PPS: The journo you think is Jackonicko’s glove puppet (or vice versa) has been libelled as being a paid shill for BAE, when in fact, he has criticised them in print, and certainly seems more balanced than any of his attackers. I don’t know what vitriol-laced article you are referring to. My guess is that it was the rebuttal of the Phil Collins flight test. I saw no vitriol, myself, it seemed very critical but in pretty measured language.
HMENot a single Rafale thread without him slagging the Rafale as inferior to the EF in A2A, dismissing anyone stating otherwise as a fanboy etc, alluding to how the EF will always have the better (oh not always, almost always) of the Rafale in A2A etc etc …. hence my tongue in cheek comment.
For the record, I like both aircraft and believe that in the right hands, with some luck either ways, each can get the better of the other.
He does get quite critical of Rafale, to be sure, and he clearly rates it as inferior to Rafale in some ways but I’ve seen him make far more positive comments about Rafale (good programme management, more mature, better current Air-to-Ground capabilities) than I’ve seen his critics making positive comments about Eurofighter.
HMEIt had to be single seat (the Swiss don’t ‘do’ navigators), multi-role but with a heavy A-A emphasis, and had to fit the existing infrastructure, oh – and not be Russian.
It came down to Mirage 2000, Hornet or F-16, as Mr Dare says.
HME“After Korea, Singapore and the Neederlands technical evaluations I am curiously waiting to see J*******o arguments this time to countradict, as usual, official or tangible sources.”
If he has any sense he’ll wait until there’s something ‘official or tangible’ (as opposed to one report in a minor Swiss paper) to comment on.
If indeed the result comes as any surprise, or if it contains anything that is subject to interpretation.
But how likely is that? Didn’t the Swiss promise to release a proper summary of their evaluation results, with the reasons for their decision?
And aren’t we expecting an announcement on this in 1Q10?
Or will the whole thing be abandoned in favour of a Super Hornet buy, as many seem to expect?
As to your other examples:
Korea – F-15 won the competition, Rafale may have won the AF technical evaluation. The evidence is patchy. I like to think that it did win.
Singapore – F-15 won, Typhoon may have won the AF technical evaluation. The evidence is patchy. Thank goodness Typhoon lost out, winning a Singapore order then would have been an embarrassing disaster.
Netherlands – The F-35 (then unflown) won a paperwork exercise that was primarily economic and industrial, and its aim aim was to examine the advantages and disadvantages of Dutch participation in the JSF programme. Comparing competing aircraft was a side issue, and was still primarily economic.
None of the competiting aircraft were flown by the evaluation team – which came from the Dutch Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis!
In the absence of a technical evaluation and in the absence of official data (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), the CBP were advised by the NLR, who ‘guesstimated’ and compiled such performance AND cost data as they could.
And we know how much data Lockheed were giving their allies and partners on JSF back then…….!
Dassault submitted no bid, no price, and no specification, (nor did Eurofighter) so even the economic analysis was problematic, and Flight at the time (March 2002) reported that both Dassault and Eurofighter had complained that their proposals to supply fighters to the Royal Netherlands Air Force had not been seriously considered by the economic affairs ministry, and specifically the CPB, the Netherlands economic policy analysis office when assessing bids to supply a future fighter.
That’s right – Dassault complained that this economic evaluation didn’t seriously consider Rafale….. :rolleyes:
What we do know is that Kuwait, Morocco and the UAE DO prefer Rafale, and that Brazil will almost certainly order the type. All of those are more reliable and more recent indicators of customer preference than those you dredge up from the start of the decade.
HMENobby Nozzles,
I’d like to ask you a question. Please PM me.
HMESqualls,
In response to the remark (by Jackonicko):
“I think that the DACT offered by F-22 was WVR only. I believe that only Rafale has taken them up on the offer so far.”
You said:
“My sources there says french pilots score is amazing.”
Now you deny that there was any such meeting. :diablo: Have you changed your mind?
Airpower on Trimble’s blog is wrong, or rather has over-simplified the truth.
The F-22s are still at Al Dhafra. They are flying with the other types (mixed packages including Rafale, Typhoon and F-22 have been sighted taking off together) but they are not part of the core ATLC exercise. They have offered training ‘on the side’ of the main exercise.
The Rafale det at Al Dhafra took them up on the offer, the RAF did not.
Rafale has fought F-22 from Al Dhafra, Typhoon has not.
Rafale and Typhoon have not pressed ‘beyond the merge’ with each other. I don’t know why not, nor who has directed that WVR between the two types ‘shall not occur’.
Both types have fought Mirage 2000 and F-16E/F.
I don’t know who the F-7s have fought, nor even what F-7 variant or squadron is involved.
HMEAlertken has it wrong.
(“After Tornado was deployed Govts. kept most ex-RAFG Jaguars at Colt. as Stuka, Forlorn Hope during the flexible response, pre-nuke phase in RAFG, for which it was well-suited, and in Expeditionary Tasks, where it was less so. Airlines call this the “intelligent misuse” of assets, in the absence of tailored kit. After 1985 it was Jag, as seen, or nowt. Quite how the type lingered after USSR faded in 1991, until (‘A’, 2005, ‘S’/GR3, 2007), is odd.”)
And so does Bazv.
(Yes in britain we said the Jag managed to take off due to the curvature of the earth.
I know there are people who think the Jag was good – but the performance of the a/c was abysmal,it either needed re engining and/or a bigger and/or thicker wing right from the start.)
Jaguar was not under-powered for its primary intended RAF service role (strike/attack in Europe) nor for out of area ops on NATO’s flanks – northern AND southern, which is why the French managed perfectly OK with theirs – and they kept the original Adour 102 and then took them out to Chad and Djibouti and the like!
Jaguar was perfectly suited for Expeditionary Tasks, because of its deployability (low logistics footprint, ability to operate from austere airfields, rapid deployment capability) and role flexibility.
(It is interesting to note that a Jag deployment needed about half the manpower of an equivalent Harrier or Tornado deployment, so it’s clear that using a Jag det to augment Harrier would not have been quite as profligate as Swerve inplies, and it would have allowed the Harrier force to support its Afghan det for longer and with less overstretch.)
The aircraft proved its worth in Desert Storm and then again in the Balkans.
Its usefulness was then enhanced by the GR1B, J96 (GR3) and J97 (GR3A) upgrades, which made it, in many (but not all!) ways, a more useful air-to-ground platform than the Harrier and GR4.
Though the Adour 106 programme did not fulfil its original promise (which offered a 15% increase in thrust, with 21-25% avaliable briefly) it did reduce costs of ownership, and did confer some useful improvement in thrust.
The fact that it ‘lingered’ isn’t odd – what is ‘odd’ is that we didn’t keep it longer.
HMEIt’s easy to over-state the Jag’s lack of ‘hot and high’ performance.
No.6 Squadron undertook extensive trials and determined that they could operate from Kandahar, even on a 45° day.
They could never have done so carrying the same weapons as a Tornado GR4 or a Harrier GR7, and the RAF could not have realistically replaced either type with an all-Jaguar detachment, year-round.
But Jaguar could have spread the load by flying the recce/designation and strafe (rocket/guns) missions, allowing a mixed Jaguar/Harrier detachment to undertake the UK’s responsibilities in theatre (relieving the Harrier force of a considerable burden), or, in winter, the Jaguar Force could have taken over the commitment altogether.
Moreover, and without straying too far into areas that should remain secret, the Jaguar had particular capabilities that exceeded those offered by GR7/9 or GR4. But we should perhaps pass over 😉 any talk of that…..
HMEHe and Neil Williams turned me on to flying!
Both taken tragically early, both sadly missed.
HMELike all the Jodels I’ve flown, it’s a good honest aeroplane. Like all of them, it’s a good choice if the money and location is right, but it’s a head ruling the heart choice, for me.
HMEUsually the bag drop queue is so long that unless you have carry-on only, it’s pointless. And if you want to get an exit row seat or an upgrade, you need to do so at a desk anyway.
HMEThou can pay for an upgrade, or thou can pay for an exit row.
HMEEven if you have the attitudes and flexibility of a youngster, many employers will assume that you don’t.
They will assume that you will not ‘put up’ with the sort of treatment that a younger pilot will accept.
They will assume that you will be less malleable, and less able to be moulded to fit their particular company requirements.
They will assume that you will be less likely to agree to poor wages, that you may be less flexible as to re-locating, and that you will be more expensive to employ (for example if company healthcare is insurance based).
They will rightly assume that you are less able to learn new things than a younger pilot. They will correctly gauge that you are more likely to have ill-health, and they will realise that you cannot serve them for as long, and therefore cannot give as big a return on any investment they may make in you.
They may have concerns as to how easy younger Captains will find it to work with an older co-pilot.
They may question your motivation. Why weren’t you doing this at 23?
None of that is to say that it is impossible for an older pilot to find work, just that he (or she) will find greater obstacles in their way, and the chances will be more rare.
Edited to add: Ex military pilots will not necessarily face all of these problems, and some companies like to employ them.
Sign In
