It is a bit confusing but other precisely detailed facts indicates that it was not IR and cannon. Which is consistent with AFM and other french sources :
Why bothering simulating Mig 29 or SU27 with specific missile rules if that was a simple gun dogfights ? And simulating an AA-10C is hardly an IR missile or a gun fight. Link 16 refresh would be of a little use in a WVR range fight. Finally talking about sensor fusion would be out of context in a simple dogfight.

-True that for some it is a little bit hard to admit. Ten years of belief that are now gone. Given the accuracy of the claims and the variety of the sources you can expect something very clear to debunk these reports. Which is not the case now.

PS : I’ve checked Aln warnes editorial in AFM and I don’t see him saying it is rubbish personally nor does he said that the typhoon were superior, nor where Grandclaudon tell they were other encounters such as these two ones. He just said that most of the time they flew on the same side for the rest of the UAE stay and that rafale was often task for strike unlike typhoon. In DSI article he precisely debunks the RAF (p41 in AFM) claims that the Typhoon always played red chest giving a precise example explained in the article.

Arthuro

There´s something a bit strange when you claim that you´ve read pag 41 of that precise AFM, and you´ve failed to notice this part “You said that RAFALE scored several victories over Typhoon in air-to-air combat (4:0 and 3:1). The RAF says that´s rubbish, etc, etc”, and “the only time both jets operated in the same air space flying as themselves they were on the same side. Typhoon was far, far more capable than Rafale“… One hint, that piece wasnt written by Jon Lake.
That was a direct question to Graund Claudon and is answer doesnt debunk anything, he actualy confirms that there were other missions that he doesnt give taly´s.
And yes he confirms that in those two missions they were simulating AA-10C Alamo shooters, a FOX1 mission, the exact same profile that two years ago ended up with a Phanton carrying five kill marks and a “Rafale eater” logo.
Now some time ago i´ve asked if no one finds funny that somehow two aircrafts using two SARH shoots each have managed to “kill” four adversaries, nice pk, not only that but either the oponents were of the very green type, or the ROE´s caped them, its not believable that the time used to illuminate the first and second target (SARH-continuous radar ilumination) werent used by the other two phoons to react…
About Corsica, nice one, the Adla pilots deserve bragging rights. But dont try that against 17(R)Sqn.

Cheers

That is a typical biased analysis, the Soviets had MiG-31s that would had helped the MiG-23Ps , a different situation, the Libyans did not use MiG-31 to guide them, and despite they say the Libyans had MiG-23ML in that incident the pictures do not show clearly they were carrying AA-7s.
Iraq is said to have shot down F-14s too

see this video shows a MiG-23MS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV87-7-4EyY

The MiG-31 radar would had eliminated any shortcoming of the MiG-23 radar, by 1989 they soviets had MiG-29s and Su-27s.
The Soviets analized each aircraft in order to applied tactics, you can see that in the analysis of the MiG-23MLD in combat where they do not recommened a MiG-23MLD pilot to doghfight with F-16s and F-15s.

The Mig-31 wanst available to the frontal aviation units, it was a PVO “only” bird. At least in the first phases of a shooting war there wasnt much chance of a “31” crossing paths with eagles and vipers (well, with the possible exception of the odd Norwegian flyer).

Cheers

So am I ! Given how it performs currently against some of the most potent and modern oponents there are every reason to be confident for the future.

I am especially waiting the UAE rafale with 18t of thrusts, AESA, meteors, HMS etc…The trust to weight ratio will be unbelievable.

>>As for surprising tactics you can refer To Grandclaudon’s interview in AFM. It is mostly about using passive sensors and sharing datas with another aircraft. Olybrius from MP is making the traduction of the article. We should soon have the full version here. And yes the smaller RCS is one of the reason given.

>>for the exercise were rafale were emulating mig29 here is the full story if you missed it :

Well

To put it bluntly, Lieutenant-Colonel Grandclaudon said the two air battles – battles with IR-guided missile and cannon – which opposed Rafale and Typhoon gave a score of 7 wins for the first and 0 for the second, the only Rafale considered as having been destroyed flew below the allowed flight floor !

So, actually it was WVR… Both in Corsica and during the ATLC.
And during ATLC Grand Claudon describes just two encounters, acknoladges that there were others, that those two encounters dont describe the actual picture of what really happened, and in Corsica we discover that it was a red baron gun contest. Four turns, 40 seconds? Now whats that thing called HEA that 17(R) Sqn RAF is introducing?

So, Alan Warnes, Air Forces Monthly Editor, affirmations that the RAF rubished the entire Graund Claudon interviews, stating that the Typhoon proved superior in the ATA scenario during ATLC might actually be true…

I´ve just wished that the ALA 11 pilots would be allowed to speak.

The EJ200 is a very hot running engine. Dassault has publicly assaulted the idea that the Typhoon, using a pair of these hot *******s, is ever going to be anything close to LO. (And the EJ200 engine will never be suitable for a stealth for sure!) They would be much better off going for the M88 or F414 if they intend to be tough to detect in the infrared spectrum.

Dassault never “assaulted” anything, a certain French poster with a multiple personality sindrome who has been banned dozens of times from this board did…
And he based his assertions not on actual numbers but in completely out of context IR photos. Or in other words a bucket load of “hot air”.

And by the way the maximum Turbine inlet temperature of the M88 at 2871 ºF is actually slightly highter than the EJ200 equivalent, 2700 ºF.
http://www.snecma.com/IMG/pdf/M88-2_ang-2.pdf

Sintra, if you dont want to see what i mean, you wont
let me try again using aust.
we design and build typhoon for a total of $200 mil each in a 5 nation euro partnership
or we can partner usa with 8 nations and buy the f-35a for about $70 mil each, including our R&D contribution of $144 mil or $1.44 mill per aircraft with 100 ordered and share in the work
the latter seems a better option for capability of plane and cost

Jack, neither Australia, or anyone else is paying 60 or 70 million US$ for their JSF, each and every single one of the 8 partners is paying is share of R&D, if you dont believe me just read the 2006 JSF MOU, signed by the respective Ministers/secretary of defense (its public, you can find it in JSF site). That means that the eight partners are paying more or less the same UPC (not counting some highly creative acountability that the Italians are using for their building site). In real money terms, the Pentagon is expecting to pay 382 Billion US$ for the entire program, that means an UPC of roughly 133 million US$, discount the extra R&D money spent on the B and C versions and we end with a realistic number for the partners that are going with the “A” version. And yes, in theory the UPC of the JSF will be lower than the competition by the sheer number of airframes being bought, if they are all bought.

And yes, in theory i do agree that pooling resources is the way ahead, BUT there are two main risks; in an “equals partnership”, the pork barrel fight easily turns into development delays (54 months for Typhoon, eeeeek) and efforts duplication that costs a lot of, well, money, in an “primus inter pares” partnership everyone depends on the main investor who simply dictates the rules for every one else and usually ends up killing every technical capability in the smaller partners. In this latest variant (primus inter pares), on the long run the smaller partners might very well end up with their technical teams disbanded, their production lines shut down and paying an awfull lot of money to the main investor because every single bit of kit integration and major overhaul is being done on the main investor factories and labs.
Want an example? When (and if) India signs the contract for the MRCA competition they will have a LOT more intelectual property (and an awful lot more TOT) over the chosen design than the JSF partners over the F-35.

I do understand why Australia pools is resources with the US Industry, its obvious, if i were Defense Minister of “Down Under” i would have gone the same route. With 22 million inhabitants, a defense budget slightly smaller than Spain, no defense industry to speak off, very strong ties with the USA and a dam good record of using american kit, hell, “where do i sign”?
But thats not exactly the description of Great Britain, Germany or France, is it?

Cheers

you might want to check your production numbers till 2015
i was being conservative saying 2020 for the now ordered aircraft, including the last order of 60, i read 2020-25
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php%3Ftopic%3D12085.2800&ei=1foGTO3eOsbXceuEoZUO&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.parlement-ue2008.fr/rap/a08-548/a08-54816.gif%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DGqJ%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official

but seeing this is a phoon thread, we should be talking about its price
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/11/mod_planning_round_analysis/page2.html
In terms of unit costs, Tranche 3 could be a good idea. The RAF’s 232 Typhoons will have cost the taxpayer an average £86m with Tranche 3; without, the 144 planes would each cost £138m, in the same ballpark as the Americans’ new F-22 Stealth ultrasuperfighter. (Disregard any RAF Eurofighter cost quote you see lower than £86m. These lower pricetags can be produced only after highly creative accounting, or as it is sometimes known, ‘lying’

Jack

For christ sake, have we to go again (by the bilionth time) with cost comparisons between the Phoon and the Raptor?!
When does 138 million pounds are in the same ball park than 358,79 million US dollars?
And by the way, from a person (you) that maintains that Australia is going the get the F-35A for 65 million US dollars a piece, using an article by Lewis Page and then quoting the part about “highly creative accounting, or as it is sometimes known, ‘lying'”, is not exactly bright…

Total number of fighters ordered: 180
Total program cost 39.6 bln EUR (1,46 EURUSD) = 57.8 bln $
UPC = 321 mln $

Right

Let me just use the same measure for the JSF program

Total number of fighters ordered: 101

Total program cost 382 bln US$

UPC = 3,8 bln US$

Oh, right, both the “Total program costs” are estimated numbers that havent been spent…
Has i´ve said previously someone should learn maths…