cross posting from mp.net :
General Paloméros receives Chief of Staff of the Indian Air Force
Armee Air, May 22General Jean-Paul Paloméros, Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CEMAA), hosted his Indian counterpart, Air Chief Marshal Anil Kumar Norman Browne, on the air base 117 of Paris, Tuesday Morning, May 22, 2012.
Military honors were rendered to him by a section of the Musique de l’Armee de l’Air in Paris, while the national anthems of both countries were played . General Paloméros then met with Air Chief Marshal Browne, before presenting him the organization of the French Air Force.
In the afternoon, the Indian CEMAA also met Jean-Yves Le Drian, Defence Minister, and Admiral Edouard Guillaud, Chief of Defence Staff.
The official visit of Air Chief Marshal Browne should continue until Friday, May 25, 2012 , he will visit operational airbases 113 at Saint-Dizier, 709 at Cognac and 125 at Istres.
This movement is a continuation of a rich bilateral cooperation, reinforced by ties of friendship between the two air forces. As a reminder, General Paloméros had visited India twice in 2011: in February, the International Airshow Aeroindia ( Internet link to the brief ), then from 19 to 22 September 2011, as part of an official visit
and a tour on the rafale :



On a separate note I can understand Jacko/Lake bitterness…
The typhoon has been bested by the rafale in every single competition they took part (6 in total) and very recently lost two major competitions against its main competitor on top of Japan set back…
Then it failed to demonstrate any superiority in AtA against its main rival when this area was supposed to be its forte. ATLC, solenzara, 2 vs 2 BVR engagement well in favor the rafale after Solenzara and the Cherry on the cake the swiss evaluation which weighted the AtA criteria heavily and put the rafale ahead in every scenario even withe the PESA radar not to mention the RAF afraid to confront the rafale. Certainly the typhoon also had his share of victories in exercises but one could expect much much more from the Typhoon.
Last but not least it palled behind compared to rafale contribution in actual conflicts (Astan and Lybia) who was under the spot lights since day one and achieving a wider range of tasks including against sensitive targets.
Now with all those bad news Jon Lake/Jacknicko is working hard to find yet some other lame excuses to publish and twist the reality…But he does not realize that this little game is becoming less and less credible…After approximately 10 years of excuses we all know the music, the usual rethoric but less and less people are listening at it. It is becoming some kind of background parasite noise
I have a old good source at Thales (who his heading a BU involved on the rafale and other projects) from which I got many entries for the past years (Paris air show etc thanks to whom I brought some nice picture here a while ago). He says that the rafale was the clear winner of the indian technical evaluation especially due to its multirole capability.
Here are the reports indicating a rafale lead in the technical evaluation. The variety of sources makes it quite credible.
Even before official down-select all pointed toward a rafale lead in the indian technical evaluation :
“M-MRCA Selection To Showcase Independence & Professionalism”: Indian MOD
Livefist , April 2“If you think extraneous factors are going to guide our decision, then you may be surprised by the result.” The words of a senior MoD officer who spoke to select journalists recently about the Indian medium multirole combat aircraft (M-MRCA) competition. As the decade-stretched competition plods toward a decision, tentatively scheduled in the next few months, the near unanimous sense — from rumours, reports, leaks, hearsay, background briefings –is that the big European twins, the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon — are the IAF’s two most preferred aircraft, and in that order [It was news station Times NOW’s senior editor Srinjoy Chowdhry who first suggested this in a report last year].
Even the deccan chronicle at the spearhead of the indian anti rafale campaign states the rafale had the lead in the technical evaluation.
“Rafale figures a notch higher than Typhoon in terms of performance and involves easier adaptability as it is logistically and operationally similar to Mirage-2000, used extensively by our boys during the Kargil conflict in 1999. The French government has also cleared the technology transfer, including the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar,” sources in the IAF told Deccan Chronicle.
La Tribune business newspaper that has brought several scoop and is even quoted by Jon Lake in his own reports also say that the rafale is ahead of the indian technical evaluation :
However, even if the commercial offerings are really close, the Rafale keep an advantage operationally and technically. Trials of the Indian Air Force placed (it) ahead of Eurofighter
Dassault official (Eric Trappier) say on the record that the rafale had the technical lead :
in all competitions where the two planes were opposed, the Eurofighter has been eliminated in the first round, as in Korea, the Netherlands and Brazil, or it was ranked behind the Rafale, as in India. Or in Switzerland, as shown by the evaluation report of the armed forces published in the press.
The gripen selection in switzerland continues to make big waves after the last test of the gripen NG.
Mauer want to quell the rebellion coming from the swiss military and put them at silence but he is more and more isolated.
A military on the radio declares that the gripen selection process is not transparent and the military are rooting for the rafale.
As I’m sure most of you are aware, I’m rather fond of the Typhoon (I prefer the Lightning overall, but hey) as many are of the Rafale and Gripen, so I was routing for it in Switzerland while knowing that it would be overkill somewhat, as would the Rafale, and knowing that the Gripen would be the logical choice for a country that very rarely takes part in conflicts despite the results from the competition.
I get the impression that some people are moaning and whining just because their favourite wonder toy didn’t get selected by the Swiss. So what, the Rafale & Typhoon lost out, move on, its not the end of the world.
I would disagree here. The fact that the gripen was the logical choice has been seriously challenged according to the swiss press (both french and german speaking). Even the “NG” choice has been called into question.
Instead of saying that some are bitter over switzerland choice I would rather say that some are a bit nervous with how this “saga” turns out.
To be frank it is less about an eventual swiss rafale order (very unlikely) but the mass of technical informations coming from this evaluation.
I don’t think trying to dismiss each report and hiding the dust under the carpet is the solution. I understand some would like this kind of things to be quickly forgotten/hidden but we are on an open discussion forum. The rafale was competing is this competition so it is perfectly appropriate to speak about the on-going process in switzerland.
Especially as the rafale was benchmarked against its competitor any swiss feedback is interesting.
Speculations. Truth is we don’t know.
I don’t think so. The swiss test requires drop tanks to be achieved and if you look at pictures/videos of the swiss evaluation they also took a representative weapon load. That’s hardly a surprise as you need to simulate as realistically as possible an operational simulation.
Max figures are usually given in clean config.
I’m well aware of were you stand in the matter.
Yes but we are talking about the article not me. Also have you noticed Danell links toward german speaking article ? Would it be a conspiracy theory against the gripen ?
Well in the opinion of this author the UK should pay for themore expensive carriers, wait for the F-35C and acquire the F-18 as a stop gap. That guy appears to suggest the legacy Hornet with all his babbling and even if it’s the SH it would come on top of Tornado and Typhoon. If the SH should have been purchased as an Tornado IDS/ ADV replacement this should have been done a decade ago. Whether it makes much sense these days is rather questionable. Better spent that money on the Typhoon to boost its capabilities to a new level.
Agreed. I was not considering the whole scheme depicted by the author actually but focused on an hypothetical scenario of F18SH instead of of the Typhoon/tornado combo.
It has exceeded M 1.6. Is it capable of more in it’s currect form? It doesn’t say. We can only speculate. The Swiss testflight didn’t reach M 1.6 even though the aircraft is capable of it. It tells me that top speed wasn’t a priority during the flight. The article tries make speculation into facts. I need more.
The M1.2, M1.6 were certainly achieved clean or almost clean while the gripen in switzerland should have carried some external stores or smaller fuel tanks to attend the test in a realistic config.
True, if the article has any connection with reality that is. It is obviously very unobjective and anti-Gripen.
I think the article is anti gripen because of its not so satisfactory performance. Not the reverse.
robban The report states that the inlets of the Gripen NG has yet to be enlarged. This is completely untrue. How are we to take the article seriously if it can’t get such a small detail right.
The Gripen Demonstrator has demonstrated the capability to supercruise at Mach 1.2, and exceed Mach 1.6 on afterburner. Gripen engineers say that they have still to optimise the air intakes, which they expect will boost engine power by another 25%.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.fr/2011/12/visit-to-gripen-saab-executives-say.html
I’m not one of those that posts un-related reports or ones that are bollox such as just posted by Eagle1, whom has a bit of a history of it. So a bit of a moot point.
Whats wrong with the claims, I hear you ask? First of all look at the source they come from and do a quick check of The Register’s history and particularly it’s author.
The claim that the Tornado GR4 being “inferior” to the F-18 is rather silly to say the least, especially when one doesn’t go into detail about which areas in A/G. We all know that Typhoon has quite a way to go in the A/G department but to say that the Typhoon “probably isn’t a lot better than a Hornet” in A/A is rather far fetched.
There are reports worth posting and there are reports that aren’t. This one falls in the latter category.
So should we ask the permission to post a report now ? If you feel it is not worth replying simply ignore the report. I don’t see anything wrong with it. I can understand that this source is usually not very friendly to the typhoon but his arguments makes sense. With F18SH the UK could tackle with more efficiency and more capability the realistic threats it would face than with the typhoon/tornado combo letting appart industry consideration.
I know Le matin is not very favorable to the gripen although the link that it is a french speaking journo so it is automatically pro rafale is over stretched. Now they are pretty well informed and as always some are criticizing the source rather than the info and material of the article.
Indeed that was just an harmless post to spice the debate. It is how it works on key…You have to play the game the limit being debating with a minimum of courtesy. It is a pity that there are some miscomprehension but I don’t blame lightening who’s not a bad person.
I don’t like sanitized debate. There is plenty of other forum of news or around a single aircraft. At least there is a place to debate openly. I don’t think there is anything mean in that.
In the only likely mission for British jets in the near future – ground attack – they are both inferior in performance and capability to the F-18. As for the seldom-required air-to-air combat mission, the Tornado is incapable of this and the Eurofighter probably isn’t a lot better than a Hornet. Not that it matters: air to air combat hardly ever happens and when it does the adversary planes and pilots are never good enough to cause any proper Western aircraft a problem (unless there is a lack of radar aircraft, of course, which there will be thanks to today’s announcement).
The quoted part was just to raise a point that I advocated for years around the concept of “useful performance for the battlefield” and at the best cost. Not overhyped type of performance that like having a tad more supersonic performance etc etc…That’s my opinion on the subject nothing more.
The virtues of having a true multirole inter-army jet :
Cameron’s F-35 U-turn: BAE Systems still calls the shots at No 10
Threat of cheap, powerful kit for UK forces warded off
Comment So there it is: done. As this is written, defence minister Phillip Hammond is on his feet in the House of Commons, trying to justify the fact that he and his boss, David Cameron, have decided that the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier (maybe carriers) will not now have any catapults or arrester gear in order to save money. This means that the only aeroplanes able to fly from British decks will be the F-35B supersonic stealth jumpjets.
Maybe there’s some way you could put more doors and motors and extra doodads on there and give yourself some more stealth and maintenance headaches … it’s hard to say how, though
It’s well known that the F-35B will cost a lot more to buy and more to run than the F-35C catapult version: and it’s also well known that the main cost of aircraft carriers is not the ships but the planes. So, right out of the gate, we can see that this is a foolish decision.In fact it’s a lot worse than it seems, as the contest in real life was not between the F-35B and the F-35C: it was between the F-35B and – for the immediate future – one or another cheap, powerful, modern carrier jet already in service. This would most most likely have been the F-18 Hornet as used by the US Navy and many other air forces around the globe, but possibly the French Rafale instead of or alongside Hornets.
In fact the UK will not be able to afford either the F-35B or the F-35C in any large numbers any time soon. Both planes are, after all, brand new supersonic stealth aircraft – only the second make of supersonic stealth aircraft ever built, in fact, and the first ever which can land on ships. They are brand new, bleeding edge kit and will cost accordingly. Both planes are still in flight test at the moment, in fact, and the F-35 programme as a whole has suffered serious cost and time overruns. This has led to delays to US orders, which have in turn pushed up costs for other early purchasers. Production is still at a low rate only.
Thus, if the Royal Navy had managed to get its hands on a catapult carrier, it would have been compelled (very happily!) to buy or lease an interim carrier jet to tide it over until a reasonable number of F-35Cs could be bought for a reasonable price – probably at some point in the 2020s. There would be no need for a full force of F-35Cs any sooner than the 2030s, by which point they would be affordable and there might be a real need for their stealth and other advanced capabilities.
Fortunately in that case, the F-18 Hornet – the US Navy’s current combat plane – would be easily and cheaply obtained. Many hundreds of Hornets have already been made, a large worldwide fleet is in operation and so running costs are low, production would otherwise cease fairly soon. The Hornet would be a steal. Royal Navy pilots are already flying it, in preparation for the happy day when a catapult-equipped HMS Prince of Wales should join the British fleet and Britain would get a powerful carrier air capability again and avoid such future embarrassments as Libya, where just about everyone else was able to put more aircraft into the sky above the battlefields.
Of course this would have been disastrous news for some people. Once there were some F-18s with British markings on them, there would almost never be any good reason to send our existing landbased combat jets – the Tornado and the Eurofighter – to war. Both of these planes cost enormous sums to use: they were built by ineffient and fragmented international consortia, they aren’t in service in very large numbers, and the maintenance and support contracts under which the British forces operate them are cripplingly expensive. In the only likely mission for British jets in the near future – ground attack – they are both inferior in performance and capability to the F-18. As for the seldom-required air-to-air combat mission, the Tornado is incapable of this and the Eurofighter probably isn’t a lot better than a Hornet. Not that it matters: air to air combat hardly ever happens and when it does the adversary planes and pilots are never good enough to cause any proper Western aircraft a problem (unless there is a lack of radar aircraft, of course, which there will be thanks to today’s announcement).
So once we had some F-18s we would seldom bother using our Eurofighters and Tornados, and we would surely rethink our current plans to massively upgrade them. We might in fact, if we were smart, reconsider having them at all.
And this would be terrible news for the company which has those fat service contracts under which those planes are run, the company which built the British parts of them: namely BAE Systems plc. This firm is nowadays a multinational which makes most of its money – and has the great majority of its employees – outside the UK, but it still owns the great bulk of the remaining British defence industry. As such it would lose many, many billions if the Eurofighter was not upgraded for ground attack, if the Tornado was got rid of – or just if those two planes didn’t get flown so much.
A catapult carrier in the Royal Navy, then, is something that BAE Systems passionately does not want to see happen.
A pretty damning report on the gripen/gripen NG. Who said it was the right choice for switzerland ?
The Gripen aircraft where everything remains to be done
COMBAT AIRCRAFT – Of the 98 improvements required by Switzerland, only 7 have been installed on the prototype of the future Gripen tested last week. The plane could not be delivered until 2023 and its weaknesses will remain as they are challenging the procedures to protect airspace.
The mission of Wednesday, August 13, 2008, however, promised to be simple. A plane flies north towards the Alps of Ticino and is the intercept. To do this, the evaluation team placed the Gripen D 39-822 registered on alert on the military base of Zion. The tarmac is dry, it’s beautiful weather. At the controls of the fighter, the Swiss test pilot Peter Merz, aka “Pablo” behind him, the Saab Gripen manufacturer, to ensure that everything goes smoothly. After taking off as planned at 15 h 32, the plane goes into Swedish supersonic speed to stabilize at Mach 1.42. But suddenly, in the middle of his approach: “Bingo Fuel”! The LED Alarm fuel placed on the left of the cockpit shows the need to abort the mission and return to base.
Gripen arrived barely in contact with the F/A-18 to intercept, but was unable to intervene and had to land in Emmen (LU). Ground, the head of the Swiss Air Force Markus Gygax is stunned: excluded to buy such a flying pan. In comparison, the French Rafale, tested under the same conditions two months later, has made the interception, returned to Zion, and has been able to achieve another successful missions. On the twenty-six test flights at the time by the Gripen, the plane landed with four times the reserves of fuel below the minimum security.
Fortunately, the Defence Minister Ueli Maurer swears he will not buy the Gripen then but an improved version: Gripen E / F. Its engine is 33% more powerful, it has a completely redesigned car electronics, can carry more weapons and above all … 46% more fuel. For Federal Councillor, there is no problem: it’s a bit “like one of tuning a car,” he likes to repeat.
Tests for the gallery Unfortunately, all is not so simple. “Sunday Morning” has obtained a list of 98 improvements. She was provided by a whistleblower, federal employees, and we have it validated by three reliable sources. Contacted the Department of Defense did not wish to share its position on that list confidential.
At this stage, as shown in our graphic, only six of these upgrades have been tested in flight (green). The rest is either in the prototype stage (orange), or on planes (red). The Gripen NG Demonstrator – the plane is supposed to prove the feasibility of future product enhancements – is certainly equipped with the new General Electric F414G engine, but it lacks the new wings. Redesigned the computer, a few inches thicker, they will accommodate a few percent of additional fuel, in addition to three large drop tanks of 450 gallons (1700 liters). During the flight tests conducted May 2 to 4 in Linköping, Sweden, the Swiss delegation would just wanted to test at least those famous tanks. Because they are essential to achieve sufficient autonomy to the surveillance of an area, a task that the military assumes for example during the Davos Forum. But ultimately, “people Saab refused,” says one source. With three external tanks, the aircraft would have been too constrained. “It was not necessary to have tanks of 450 gallons for missions,” retorted the spokesman Armasuisse Kaj-Gunnar Sievert.
Despite this weight off, the pilot test Armasuisse Bernhard Berset failed to exceed Mach 1.34, according to our informant. It must be said that the reactor, which should enable the aircraft to reach Mach 2.0, could be pushed only three-quarters of its ability, the air inlets of the Gripen NG has not yet been enlarged. The constraints that Swiss pilots were able to subject the aircraft were limited on many other points. And new AMRAAM and IRST installed on the aircraft were really only jokes. The real missiles themselves are far from being operational.
“It’s like trying a new car but the mechanic told you that you do not have the right to exceed 80 km / h, or take turns too tight … and as for the new radio with GPS you need iron in six years, “laments one of our sources. But mainly in Linköping was not to test the plane. Rather it was to do well in the media: some tests that were to be conducted during the fourth flight has even been sacrificed for a new photo shoot. Images taken during the previous flight, blowing our informant, were not beautiful enough.
Overwhelming evidence of Gripen NG does not the new radar, which would increase from 200 kilos in front of the camera and would take a nosedive. “To welcome him, it will lengthen the future Gripen E / F of 37 centimeters,” says Björn Danielsson, Swedish former military pilot, now a consultant at Saab. Clearly, we must build a new plane. So, the exercise has nothing to do with tuning announced by Maurer. “Rather than modifying old Gripen C / D, it is much more rational to build any new devices,” and admitted Jürg Weber, head of the replacement project of Tigers (TTE) in Armasuisse. It was Feb. 21, before the Subcommittee of the security policy to investigate the subject. Fifteen managers of the Department of Defence (DDPS) will have already cast. The minutes of these hearings have been circulating within the administration and “Sunday Morning” has been able to consult.
They highlight the inaccuracies of the Defence Minister, since the publication of our paper by two confidential reports of the Air Force on February 12, which revealed the poor performance of the Gripen, even with 98 upgrades. At a press conference February 14, Ueli Maurer, for example, had claimed that these documents were “completely dated.” Since then, several officials have countered this statement to ensure before the House Subcommittee that “these reports remain the only valid”. And that the qualities of the future Gripen are still to be demonstrated. “We find nothing in these reports that will support the decision,” for example, stated at the hearing of April 3, Gerald Levrat, chief engineer of the evaluation team operational Air Force. Air Force who, as we know, have recommended the Rafale, the Eurofighter with an alternative. Hearings before the Subcommittee have established that the planning staff of the army, as the project manager at TTE Armasuisse, also proposed the Rafale and the Eurofighter. In fact, this is obviously after intense discussions with his subordinates that Jürg Weber finally “decided to accept the Gripen,” in his own words. To claim, as did Ueli Maurer, the entire army is united behind this third choice is simply not accurate.
Worse than the F/A-18 performance of the Gripen, “including in the new website E / F” will remain in effect very “average”, according to statements by Gerald Levrat to parliamentarians: “Like a knife that does not cut well. You can cut a string, but if it’s harder, we’ll make it harder. “In his fourth appearance before the Subcommittee, April 24, 2012, the project manager TTE Jürg Weber, meanwhile, has eventually accepted that the weaknesses of the Gripen would require “perhaps a change in doctrine of engagement”.
When, today, an F/A-18 taking off from Payerne and flies to Davos at full power, it still has enough fuel to intervene on the spot. “With the Gripen, it can get tight, admitted Jürg Weber […] And it may be necessary to patrol continuously over Davos to be able to intervene.” But, he says, we’ll certainly find solutions in order to fulfill reasonable that air policing mission, “even though it will not as effectively as with other aircraft or the F/A-18.”
In addition to significant risks of performance below the F/A-18 – fifteen years old – the Gripen E / F has a very important industrial hazard. The chief engineer Gerald Levrat, thirty years of experience in the testing of aircraft equipment, explained so clear: “In general, the seller guarantees that he will deliver the best possible equipment. But there is always a gap between what we wanted and what we receive. “
On the Gripen E / F, he confirmed, 70% of components are new. During development, problems can arise. Requirements may have been misunderstood, may be a bug accidentally introduced by a programmer, the manufacturer may refuse certain modifications to avoid cost overruns.
“Saab has offered a fixed price” say in chorus DDPS officials, asserting that the financial risk does not exist. Unfortunately, this guarantee is not comprehensive insurance. For the record, the military transport plane A400M European had also been sold at a fixed rate. But quickly, developmental problems appeared. After the renegotiation of contracts, the additional cost has now reached 38% and delayed the original schedule is four years.
Delays, precisely, are virtually assured with the Gripen. According to current planning, which has just been postponed for two years, twenty-two jets scheduled for delivery starting in 2018. But at the rate things are going, Saab may delay the delivery of the first Gripen E / F “in line with what was asked, in 2020 or 2023,” said Gerald Levrat before the House Subcommittee.
Start from scratch According Fallscheer Frieder, system support to Air Force Staff planning, if the undertakings were not to be required, “the whole process of selecting a fighter could start from scratch” he let go before the subcommittee.
But we certainly do not happen here. Of the eight members of the Subcommittee, there is no more than Hans Fehr – a friend of Ueli Maurer – who is still convinced by the choice of the Gripen. After the surrender of their report in late June, the other proposing a new offer should be requested at the three airframe manufacturers, for a fixed amount. Leaves to fall below the number of twenty-two aircraft. The assessment should then take into account the operational efficiency of all three types of aircraft. The difference is in effect between such devices must be significantly less than Rafale or Eurofighter to ensure the same job with the Gripen E / F. About fifteen for twenty-two, according to calculations made by the army in 2009. In air policing mission, for example, the first two devices are able to stay 180 minutes in flight, against 120 minutes for the future Gripen. Provided that the Swedes manage to keep their promises.
http://www.lematin.ch/suisse/suisse-veut-98-retouches-gripen-7/story/25116550