You can’t draw any definitive conclusions with this exercise but to say that you can’t learn anything is equally stupid given the quite precise info we have thanks to all the interviews/press conference etc…

With degraded missile performance, inferiors aicrafts numbers and single target mode the rafale was able to dominate the Typhoon with relatively junior pilots (relatively because I don’t think they would have sent 100% junior/non operational pilots in such an exercise).

That means (in my opinion) that the typhoon enjoys no unfair advantage in m opinion and that rafale SA/discretion might even be better to get close enough to avoid a longer range missile shot. If Typhoon MMI is that good with such a good radar/SA then regardless of the rafale pilots experience the typhoon should have win (at least more times) as it could see first, shoot first and leave first. If the advantage was so big then experience would not be very helpful…Just like against F22s.

It would be interesting to know in which condition the 8-1 for rafale story in corsica was achieved.

Arthuro

Now, please tell us what were the ROE´s/mission for those Typhoons?
Anyone that believes that somehow, two RAFALE´s went against typhoons and smashed a gaggle of four Eurofighters with an emulation of a SARH AAM is in need of reading a few things.
There´s no radar discretion, a SARH AAM has to be radar guided all the way…
Then there´s this small problem that each of the two RAFALE were emulating a red air asset carrying TWO AA-10 Alamos. Four Alamos on a flight and they were capable of bringing down four blue assets, yep… And i am Santa.
One thing i can tell you, like it or not, those four Typhoon´s were either on a ATG strike mission, or they were not using their fully sensor capability or both (or the pilots had drunk a Bordeaux bottle).

ps- And interestingly enough, if you read the two articles in AFM it becames plainly obvious that, like Eurofighter said, there were severall more missions than the ones that Graundclaudon describes…

From my memory, it was detection range, especially at lateral scanning angles. The arguments were that if you don’t need to go for A-A and A-G at the same time (which you normally don’t) and if you don’t care about enemy RWRs, then high power PESA outperfroms AESA (of course it is less flexible, noone argues about that)

And of course, cost. Riding 5 miles everyday to your work and back does not justify purchase of a Ferrari Scuderia, even if it’s probably ‘better’ than your everyday Stratus.

A PESA radar has the exact same lateral signal degradation of an AESA set. That line of argument is the one used by Eurofighter in relation to CAPTOR versus first generation AESA´s. But Captor uses a mechanical “dish”.

Well the article was about meeting requirements, not about whether an aircraft was being actively pushed by its manufacturers or not.

If a manufacturer doesnt respond to an RFI, how an Air Force/MOD is suposed to evaluate the technical specifications of an aircraft?
The specifications of an EW suite or an AESA radar are not exactly “open source”.

Typhoon is replacing Tornado F3 and Jaguar, F35b is replacing harrier and sea harrier, GR4 is going to be in service until well after all the typhoons have arrived and nearly all the F35s, their is a reason they’re over in the ‘Stan shifting mud right now, it’s to prove their worth, You’re talking about the RAF losing 7 squadrons of GR4s, 3 Squadrons of harriers (becuase under your plan the minimal F35b procurement would all go to the FAA), and being left with less than half it’s current fast jest strength, which has already been cut in half while NuLabour has been in power (1997 SDR mandated 36 fast jet squadrons). Let me remind you that the current F35 procurement is the absolute minimum required for 12 months operation of the carriers in a high tempo environment, that being 6 squadrons of 12 aircraft, 1 squadron of 4 aircraft for operational evaluation, one squadron of 24 aircraft (or therabouts) for operational conversion and leaving 38 for in service and rotational reserves, cutting that is essentially impossible, and frankly as a Tier 1 partner in the F35 program I’d be pretty sure that contracts are already in place.

They are not. The only signed production contract is for three SDD F-35B.
Lordjim is right, count on three active JCA sqn´s and maybe a training unit. And anything above five active Typhoon sqn´s will be nothing short of a miracle.
Sometimes miracles happen but not often.

Cheers

No, I (and millions of people who doesn’t agree to the British point of view) was insulted by his lies (as saying that Argentina never owned the islands and many more), ignorance (as for example, that was an unconditional surrender and many other things that I simply don0t have time to enumerate) and lack of respect to the others’ opinion (saying that I shall call the islands as Falklands, you must respect that this name is not accepted by the whole world. as I respect the name Falklands, you must respect that millions of people call them Malvinas). That’s why I stop participating on this thread.
I will not discuss with extremists, it’s not worth and it’s a waste of time.
At last, Argentina always respected the interests of the silanders. If they want to still be British, they can be, but as the UN recognizes (and this means the whole world community) they were there after the British occupied the islands by force, and that’s why the world recognize the right of Argentina to claim that they are not aborigins of the islands and that the only rights they have over the soil of the islands is the rights over their private properties. So, they have the right to chose their nationality, but they have to recognize they are on a land of which the sovereignty is in dispute.
At last, England recognized three times the Argentine sovereingty over the islands: First, when they recognize the Argentine independence over the territories of the Virreynato del Río de la Plata, including the islands, in 1823by then occupied by Argentina. Later, in 1825, when the Friendship agreement was signed by both countries, again England recognized the independence of Argentina and its sovereingty over all of its territory (the islands were still in the hands of Argentina. At last, in 1840, when Louis Vernet claimed the property of territories on the islands, purchased to the Argentine government, England recognized the power of Argentina to sell the territories, as England paid for them to Vernet, recognizing he was the owner, because he buy them to Argentina.
It’s sad, I found the same kind of extremism in some people in Argentina but I didn’t think that England was also full of extremists that only accept their way of thinking.
We live in a globalized world and you have to hear the other people. Not everyone see the world as you see it and not everyone share your points of view. I thought that the British, being an older and grown up country, had overcome this, but I see some people don’t.
I have a lot of friends in England, and because of my researches, many of them being veterans of the 1982 war, and fortunately, with them I have more mature conversations about the islands.
Unfortunately, this thread changed from a thread about the today’s situation aroudn the islands, to a British manifesto of his position over the islands and to a place to insult the other party’s position. Very infantile…

Interestingly enough, and from a neutral point of view (i am Portuguese), i would say that the British claims are vastly more consistent than anything that Argentina has ever presented…

What’s left for the shared developpements ? 😀

Thats a highly interesting question!
I´ve almost got stoned when that same question was asked in Portuguese in a Brasilian Forum and i´ve answered “probably not much”… :dev2:

If all it took was money China would have one.

The diference is that Europe (read GBritain, German, France and Sweden) has the technology but no will, China has the will, but not the technology (that should change shortly).