Rob L,

Folland Midge? Bristol 221, Bristol 188? Blackburn YA5/YB1? Beagle Airedale? DH110? Hunting 126, Vampire, Venom, Dove/Devon, Heron?

Why not edit your post into alphabetical order, and highlight the greats in bold?

Pilotwat,

Gazelle, Lynx and Puma were products of the Anglo-French helicopter agreement. Lynx was primarily British, Puma primarily French, and Gazelle collaborative, formally or informally.

So much wind, so much hot air, so much nationalistic nonsense and so little sense.

You’re a waste of time, Fonky.

Even ignoring your unsupported, unsustainable allegations about Rafale’s turn rate and energy states, you’ve managed to pack more complete nonsense into your posts than anyone I’ve ever read. You misinterpret and misrepresent the causes of the Spanish crash, you talk utter bol.locks about an eighteen month grounding, and you make infantile and ignorant comments about the FCS. You clearly have no clue about AIM-120B (let alone AIM-120C and D), and you fail to understand the most basic rudiments about BVR tactics.

Rafale was offered to Austria and to Greece. Austria didn’t shortlist it, Greece selected Typhoon. Get over it. Korea selected F-15 and claimed to do so on technical and operational grounds (I suspect otherwise, but that’s life). The RSAF preferred Typhoon but Mindef may select Rafale. If they do, then celebrate a lucky win and congratulate the French Government and Dassault for some clever, astute and very hard work.

“The frontal engagement at M 2.0/launch/break IS a cold war tactic to face a large number of Warsaw-pact assaillants.” No. It’s the best way to avoid a return missile shot by the aircraft you’ve targeted, or his wingman, and to avoid being sucked into the unpredictability of a close in engagement. If RoE permit, you always shoot your enemy at maximum range, bug out and re-engage to your maximum advantage. This applies one versus one or one versus many. Your grasp of tactics is risible.

“When was the last time there was any fully indigenously high performance/front line aircraft was designed in Britain?” Who cares about ‘fully indigenous’ if it results in second-best? Many people regard Tornado as being the best low level strike attack aircraft of its generation. It’s better as a result of Germany’s input. Certainly way better than Mirage 2000N/D. Many people regard Tornado F3 as the best BVR bomber destroyer of its era. The Jaguar was a great aircraft, thanks to the contribution of both partners. Typhoon’s better than Rafale. Mirage 2000C is a great aircraft, but is outclassed by F-16, F/A-18, etc. Had it been a collaborative venture it would have had more political problems and delays, I suspect, but might have been a better aircraft, with better avionics.

“Better than Gripen? Hornet? F-16? MiG-29? Su-27? No.”
You were the one who said that Mirage 2000 turned better than any aircraft until Typhoon and Rafale. It doesn’t.

“France aerospacial industry does a lot more with less, we are the only country in Europe to field both Navy and Air Forces equiped with our own designed engineered and produced aircrafts for more than 50 years so. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that clearly…” (Apart from the F-100, the F-8, etc.) And as a result the Armée de l’Air and Aéronavale) have had some very good aircraft (The Mirage III, and 5, the Transall, the Atlantic) and a few great ones (Mirage IV, Falcon, Jaguar, Mirage 2000) and some really mediocre aircraft types (Ouregan, Mystere II, Mystere IV, Etendard, Mirage F1 and Alpha Jet).

“The French supermen constantly top the score sheet with PGM in every conflict they are involved in alongside the rest of the coalition and in front of the USAF/USN as well, this not with Rafale but Mirage 2000s and SEMs. Don’t want to remind you further of the difference between them and the RN/RAF recent records in conflicts where the opposition wasn’t quasy inexistant.”

I wouldn’t want to disrespect French aviators, who are among the best in NATO, but only a blind fool would claim that they have performed better than the RAF in recent operations. Like in Bosnia? The RAF Harrier/Jag/TIALD combination scored a 96% DH rate. The AdlA rate was well below 75%. (Source? The official lessons of Deny Flight). Like in Warden, where the French were withdrawn from joint packages? Like in Granby/Daquet, where 12 RAF Jaguars flew more sorties than 24 French aircraft, dropping more weapons and scoring more DHs?

“Mirage 2000 wins 90% of all its engagement vs F-16” This is empty boasting, and I’ve heard F-16 pilots say exactly the opposite. Any genuinely neutral observer would agree that the F-16 enjoys an edge WVR over the M2K.

“Then, you still cannot comprehend how they manage to beat these all in mock combat day in day out. Indians Flanker, German Mig 29, all types of NATO F-16 etc.” That’s because I recognise AdlA PR spin for what it is, and listen to and read what the opposition say as well.

“The best of the Ada believde they could outurn Mig 29 with their 2000-5 Fs and they’ve done it.” Occasionally, yes. And they’ve been waxed by Tornado F3s, Lightnings, F-16As of every hue, German MiG-29s, etc. Of course they’ll win sometimes – as you infer “Mind you, all Air forces having operated both types will tell you that well flown a F-1 still can win a fight vs F-16.” Of course it can. I know RAF Jaguar pilots who have shot down F-16s and F-15s on Red Flag. But would that lead me to claim that the Jaguar is a good air-to-air aeroplane? Of course not. Any more than the drubbing that Indian M2Ks meted out to USAF F-15Cs would lead anyone to suppose that the F-15 was inferior.

“I was 15 years old, fying solo on Piper-Cub, Jodel-D-90 and MS 880 Rallyes when i saw the three competitors F-16/ SAAB 37-E and NMirage F-1/m53 flying at the Paris Air show. Even Dassault didn’t claim the Mirage F-1 M-53 to be better at the time, it actually was qualified as having a “more mature” technology, which was as bad an excuse as that you used now for Raptor.”

Solo at 15? That’s not legal here, where you need to be 16 to go solo. But whichever way you cut it, we’re virtually the same age, and I know that I hold a current PPL, and that I was also at Paris, and know exactly what Dassault claimed for the F1 – do you remember what they called it, by the way? Eurofighter!

“What i have constantly been doing it to demolish this myth you Brits have been trying to establish on the so called superiority of a German desined Fighter that some MoD fatty have pompeously named after the worse design of WWII.”

The Typhoon was a great fighter bomber, and rather more successful than the Dewoitine D520, or the Bloch, or…. (you get the picture?) Hardly the worst design of WWII, fool!

And nor is Typhoon a ‘German design.’

While it drew heavily on TKF 90, the ACA was a Warton led project incorporating elements from MBB’s design. The Eurofighter thus drew at least as heavily on the ECF and twin-engined P.110 and on other Warton AST 403 submissions (including P.106B) as it did on JF90/TKF90. Moreover, further input into the final Typhoon design was made as a result of design work on EAP, which was a similarly British-led Anglo-German design. The most obviously similar ‘pre EFA’ paper design was P120 rather than TKF90, in point of fact. I’m not in any way claiming Typhoon as a British design – it’s great strength is that it was designed and built exploiting the best that Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain could bring to the party.

i already scored a kill on you only by being honnest.

You can’t even spell honest……

“You keep thinking that i’m a teenager teasing the hell out of your bunch for the pure pleasure to flame….” No. I don’t. I think you’re a very keen aircraft enthusiast and that you work hard to try to understand Rafale. If only you had a more open mind you could be an interesting contributor to debates like this. But far from being an open-minded but over enthusiastic teenager, I think you are a sad, embittered, middle-aged loser with a massive national inferiority complex who bases his opinions on French propaganda and on the dodgy facts and figures he finds in Janes and on the internet. I suspect that you’ve never flown a fast jet (or even a full-up fast jet sim) and haven’t ever set foot in an operational crew room (or even on an operational airfield except during an air show). I suspect that you’ve never seen the Rafale production line or final assemby shed, nor any of the Typhoon facilities. You show no sign of having ever spoken to anyone currently connected with the Typhoon programme, and I doubt you’ve done more than chat ‘over the barrier’ to anyone from Dassault.

I have no clue why you should live in England, since you obviously despise and resent the English. Perhaps if you went home you’d lose the chip on your shoulder.

Glitter,

“If not for months, it’s a quick evaluation.”

There has never been a competition in the NL. No spec has been issued. There is no requirement. No Dutch pilots have flown the aircraft (except their Chief of Staff), nor the active cockpit. No evaluation team has visited Warton. EF GmbH have submitted no bid, no price, and no spec. The NL haven’t even seen Typhoon, let alone evaluated it. This supposed evaluation has been blown up out of recognition, from a very preliminary piece of staff work – quite probably conducted as a training exercise by the Dutch staff college.

“But were ranked first and when the Typhoon is kick out of the competition it’s a fantastic news for Bae.
no really, I don’t understand.”

OK. Rafale expected to win in Korea and lost. They expected an order and did not receive one. What was the natural reaction? Huge disappointment – whatever the reason for that rejection. (Just as EF GmbH were disappointed to be eliminated in Singapore). This was unexpectedly bad news for Rafale.

EF GmbH expected not to win in Korea. The aircraft was too immature, Tranche 2 was still unsigned, none of the partner nations had good links in Korea (and especially not the bid leader). They didn’t win. They hadn’t expected to win. Of course that’s not ‘fantastic news’ but nor was it even remotely surprising.

So was Korea more of a shock to Dassault or to EF?

1) Korea ranked the Rafale first and buy Eagles for political reasons. I happen to think so too, but Korea say otherwise, officially.
2) a quick avaluation in Netherlands put the Rafale really ahead of the Typhoon. There was no evaluation.
3) RSAF said the Typhoon “No thanks”. The Singapore MinDef said “No Thanks” – the RSAF said something else entirely.
4) In Austria, the Typhoon was opposed to the mirage and in few years, they will have a very basic Typhoon The main competitor in Austria was Gripen. Austria didn’t shortlist Rafale. They need Tranche 1 capabilities (A-A only) but are getting T2 standard jets.
5) Greece suddenly decided to buy overpriced Typhoon without any evaluation. Dassault make a bid 15% lower.
If I must believe an article in “Le Point” the french secret service asked to a greek minister why his brother in law got a huge fund movement on an account in Lebanon and the following week Greece dropped the Typhoon.
1) There was an evaluation, though nothing like Singapore’s.
2) The bids were based on through life support costs as well as unit procurement cost. Dassault were not cheaper.
3) I hope you have a good lawyer.
4) The competition is still running.

Sorry, the single source I know about that is an article (smiling eastern or something like that).
Eastern Smile was the name of the RAF deployment of the aircraft to Singapore. I know of at least three articles about the deployment. I wrote one of them and know who wrote the others. I know who I spoke to, and I’ve talked to the other authors about who they talked to. I could embarrass loads of French and American and Singaporean people if I named my sources, and I can guarantee that no-one could give you a BAE, EF GmbH or RAF name who talked to the press about the Singapore evaluation. Believe it or not, it doesn’t matter one iota to me, but the Singapore sources were independent, which is why the articles were written. Had it just been some BAE PR bloke saying “Ah well, we won the evaluation” do you think we’d have paid it any attention?

Fonk,

Matt Elliott was not on the AoA limit when he had his ‘spectacular’ at Fairford.

“The lower the speed, the more difficult it is to pull as high an amount of Gs than at higher speed,” What?

You keep making unfounded and baseless assumptions about the relative energy states of Typhoon and Rafale in particular circumstances. You base these on your limited understanding of the aerodynamics of different Delta winged configurations, yet ignore the effect of instability, and of the use of canards on a fully unstable configuration.

You keep talking about Rafale’s soft limits and ignore the fact that Typhoon has exactly the same thing: “The detent in the aft stick backstop is purely to give the pilot the ability to pull 15% more ‘G’ than the limiting ‘G’ present at the time. The g present at the time is a factor of mass, speed, AoA, configuration etc. The normal backstop will give either a g limit or an AoA limit and will blend seamlessly between them both.” In other words it allows the pilot to pull harder to ‘bust’ the Alpha or g limits.

You keep telling anyone who disagrees with you that they’re not ‘good enough’ and that they need to go ‘back to school’. What’s the French for ‘silly boy’ and ‘hypocrite’? If you accept that Typhoon is more unstable than Rafale, and that its canards have a longer moment arm, then the pitching moment will inevitably be higher. You state that Typhoon’s low speed “aerodynamics are (relative) not as effiscicent” yet cannot substantiate such a claim.

“This characteristic did force him to fly the aircraftr more agressively at time and just goes to show that some guys reporting the “more spectacular” display of Typhoon are more apreciatice tourists than specialists.”

I can’t speak for others, but what impresses me about the Typhoon display is the way in which it is able to predictably and accurately point the nose off-boresight – a capability demonstrated most obviously in the HAVV roll manoeuvre.

If Rafale can fly at higher Alpha, pull more g, turn more tightly, change direction more rapidly, roll faster and pitch better then why isn’t this obvious in its displays? Why don’t Dassault incorporate a high alpha velocity vector roll in the Rafale display?

In fact it is quiet obvious that Typhoons deployed there were underweight as the standard aircraft supercruises slower. More clue? The British parliament proposal to sell the first RAF Typhoons and the refusal of India to buy them among other…. You keep repeating these lies, but repetition doesn’t make it any truer. The aircraft deployed were bog-standard Tranche 1 jets straight off the Case White flight line. No lighter than any other RAF Typhoon, except the ISPA (which is loaded with instrumentation) and perhaps the T3 jets if they get conformals, etc. Only the heavyweight DAs and IPAs ‘supercruise’ any slower – not ‘standard’ aircraft. Nor has the UK offered these Tranche 1 jets to anybody. Haven’t you realised that the RAF are using these aircraft pretty heavily right now? Don’t you realise that the RAF will need these particular two-seaters as the core of the training fleet. They’re not for sale.

And no BAE/Aliena didn’t screw up with EFA wing, Typhoon FCS was never a problem either, neither was a spanish Typhoon victim of a double flame out during engine iddle test etc. Like every modern jet fighter, Typhoon has had development problems. A minor fuel leak from the Alenia wing, a fin root skin weakness, minor FCS issues, a particular engine issue in one individual engine standard. EF GmbH and BAE will give you chapter and verse on any of these historic issues, happy that they are long since solved. And Rafale has had just as many glitches and faults, all of them just as annoying, and just as temporary and short lived as the Typhoon issues you’re trying to refer to, though Dassault are much less open about them. Grow up!

“Just between us; i have been writing all of this without opening my books.” You don’t say. Perhaps you should open your mind and your books before posting any more of this unreadable propaganda and nonsense. I admire your ability to speak three languages, but if you’ve been here 14 years your English ought to be better than this, surely?

TMor,

I’ll happily bet you that at least 50% of Brits would sooner see our carriers cancelled or equipped with Rafale rather than JSF. I wish I could claim to be an original thinker on the issue, but I’m not.

One day, every fighter will use AESA radar. But not just yet. Today it’s limited by cooling, performance and reliability issues. The USAF have run a squadron strength AESA trial on the F-15C, and yet still find the original mechanical APG-63 operationally superior.

Nick

Turn rate for BVR? What the heck do you need turn rate in a BVR engagement? I don’t see how a couple more degrees per second will be decisive in a BVR fight.

Getting to your gimbal limit (putting the target on the edge of your radar’s scan limit) as rapidly as possible is of crucial importance in the BVR environment. That’s not a ‘Cold War’ only tactic – it’s a foundation stone for BVR combat, and is the reason you want an agile platform for BVR. This is why instantaneous turn rate (you’re not turning far) is more important in BVR than sustained turn rate. I suspect that even Fonk would acknowledge that Typhoon’s instantaneous turn is at least initially faster than the less unstable Rafale’s. Fonk might not appreciate the significance of gimbal limits, and minimises the significance of a 10° difference (that’s 10° each side of the centreline!) but anyone who has even heard the term f pole will understand.

I won’t buy the “better radar” argument at all.

Mechanical arrays are old fashioned technology, but still offer better performance, for the time being, according to the experts I’ve spoken to at Hughes, for example. But if you think that your opinion, as a spotter, is more accurate and reliable, then so be it.

What kind of Bull**** is that? The rafale can and will be equipped with the Meteor just as the EF will be.

But not with AMRAAM, in the nearer term. And reach is a function of the launch platforms speed and acceleration, as well as the missile’s own performance. If Typhoon accelerates quicker to launch its BVRAAM, that missile will go further. If Typhoon can support that missile to greater ranges because of its own radar performance, effective reach will be greater.

DVI and MMI… please elaborate as to why you would consider thenm superior.

DVI is easy. Bigger vocabulary, lower error rate, though I can’t prove it.

MMI is harder, because it’s so much down to subjective judgement, and it necessarily relies on my quoting what often nameless sources have said, though Typhoon’s huge HUD is obvious at first glance, and the brightness of the displays in direct sunlight is also apparent. I can only enjoin you to go and look at the manufacturer’s stands at the next Farnborough or Paris. Though the cockpits look very similar when ‘static’, you’ll notice that the Rafale pilot has to work much harder (eg make more switch selections) to achieve display and mode changes, and that automatic display changes in response to mode changes are less ‘intuitive’. Just wait for Fonk and PilotWAT to leap in and deny it, but anyone who has seen the two cockpits in operation, and who knows what they are looking at, will say the same. This makes Typhoon easier to fly, reduces pilot workload, increases pilot capacity, and thereby enables greater situational awareness. General Jumper expressed particular admiration for Typhoon’s MMI after flying the aircraft.

Just as well that Rafale is being flown by French supermen, who are inherently better pilots than anyone else in Europe…… If I could be bothered to find the rolleyes Gif, I’d shove it in here!

The anger and heat on here all seems to be coming from a handful of French enthusiasts, and seems to be based on exaggerated and misplaced national pride and anti-English xenophobia.

Unlike you chaps, I can demonstrate my neutrality – I have a track record of criticising my country’s aircraft programmes when they earn it (and sometimes when they don’t), including Typhoon! And I have done so in print, on the record. I don’t ever claim that BAE are the best, nor that anything is great ‘just because its English’ and I can find great things to say about lots of French programmes, aircraft, and people. But I’d be surprised to see any of you lot making serious criticism of any major French programme or aircraft, to admit to any error, defect, mistake or ****-up and I’d be astonished to see you offering fulsome praise of any UK programme or aircraft. In short, I don’t believe that you are neutral, or balanced, nor that you’re interested in arriving at the truth, if it runs counter to your assumptions of Rafale’s superiority, and the superiority of the French aviation industry. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Fonk illustrates the point brilliantly when he says:
“Dassault had a hugely instable aircraft with the Mirage 2000 for ages, it is reputably the best turning machine in service previous to Rafale/Typhoon thanks to a very snappy pitch control and a very low wing load.”

M2K was a relaxed stability aircraft, like the F-16 or the F/A-18. It’s a great fighter, and an excellent capability package. I know a number of M2K pilots – RAF exchange officers, Arabs, Indians (including a senior officer who dropped an LGB from one after a two-week down and dirty Litening LDP integration during Kargil) and even French pilots. All of them loved their time on the jet. It was a better air superiority aircraft than the Tornado F3, and the 2000N runs Tornado very close – especially outside the very low level environment. I rate it as highly as I rate the Viggen. But let’s not get carried away. The best turning machine until Rafale/Typhoon? I think not. Better than Gripen? Hornet? F-16? MiG-29? Su-27? No. At the wrong speed and altitude I’ve seen HUD film of M2Ks caught out by F.Mk 3s…..

The whole debate reminds me of the arguments I heard in the early 70s, when French enthusiasts loudly claimed that the F1E (not that F1E, the big engined one!) was better than F-16, better than Viggen, just as Mirage III had been ‘better’ than Lightning, MiG-21, F-4, F-104, etc. Of course it was better! It was French.

Nicholas,

If people directly involved in the evaluation tell a journalist that Captor exceeded their expectations, and outperformed the competing radar sets, should he publish the fact that this had been claimed, or not do so unless his sources were prepared to be named, and to support their claims with detailed figures – even though these may be highly classified? Is it better to rely on the figures in Jane’s?

And if a journalist is given evidence of a particular weapon’s range, but is asked not to publish that range, should he indicate that it has a longer range than its rival, or keep even that information to himself?

I’ll be frank. I don’t care whether you believe the truth when it’s handed to you on a plate. My job is just to hand you the plate.

THX,

If you can’t tell the difference between news features written within a few days of MinDef’s announcement, and the more considered, more informed pieces written a few weeks later, after speaking to those involved, then it’s you that is ‘ridiculous’. I’d suggest that you look at what the same author wrote about Typhoon in Show News at Paris.

Or you might read the following:

“Why Singapore rejected Typhoon bid

(Flight Daily News)

On Friday 15 April, the RSAF delivered a final rejection of the Typhoon bid to meet its Next Generation Fighter requirement to the BAE Systems office in Singapore.

Dropping one of the three contenders at this stage was unexpected (a final decision is expected in late June or early July) and Eurofighter GmbH and BAE Systems had some reason to be optimistic, after the Typhoon reportedly ‘won’ the RSAF’s evaluation. This was not a competitive fly-off, and was only one element in a searching evaluation, but the Typhoon demonstrated impeccable serviceability and was able to demonstrate everything the RSAF wanted to see (including supercruise) when its competitors could not, while 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 Rafale, nor the 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, and the fact that Eurofighter GmbH were 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 Singapore Air Force’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 Typhoon’s capability and planned capability per se, but was instead a natural reaction to a shambolic performance by BAE Systems during the early part of the bidding process, and that it also 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 Typhoon’s future capabilities may have been undermined by continuing doubts as to 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 Democrats seizing on cancellation of the project as an electorally popular policy.

BAE insiders have told Flight Daily News 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’, but these withered after the merger with GEC, and by the time the Typhoon campaign in Singapore began, the company no longer had the structures and processes 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 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 to Dassault’s ‘hunger’. The French bid was one 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. Hunger versus satisfaction, unanimity of purpose versus fragmented priorities. And the US bid was somewhat similar – they were hungry for sales, and were also offering an old product where they know what they have and they were more ready to give away their technology, with fewer competing demands for the available development resources.

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 of the RSAF.”

Eurofighter GmbH has officially denied that there were any problems with the bid, and CEO Aloysius Rauen praised BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, the UK Government, 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. This may be a direct result of the failed Singapore bid.”

Nicholas.

I said “If the Rafale requires no ballast” and then listed the possible reasons for that. Obviously the best option is to leave equipment in place.

Glitter.

Singapore evaluated Typhoon, with several different pilots flying it in the UK, in Spain and in country, and also flying later software standards in the rig and in the active cockpit. They had a full bid with pricing, timescales and a full technical specification to assess and analyse. That’s what I call an evaluation.

The Netherlands did not evaluate the aircraft in that way.

Korea selected the F-15, and not (as I believe they should have done) the Rafale. It’s hardly a ringing endorsement for Rafale though, is it? Typhoon was, at the time, insufficiently mature to be considered seriously, and, at THAT TIME, was patently not a serious competitor. The Typhoon programme has moved on since then. In fact, I think that Rafale is still a closer match to Korea’s particular requirement than Typhoon, and would still be my choice today, or even tomorrow (were I Korean, interpreting their requirement) however mature Typhoon might be. In exactly the same way, I can see why the RSAF felt that Typhoon matched their requirement more closely.

Remember that what prompted my remarks was the stupid claim that Korea, the Netherlands and Singapore somehow proved Rafale’s continuing superiority. Again: Korea – Rafale rejected. NL – no formal evaluation. Singapore – RSAF preference known to be Typhoon.

Kovy

There have been plenty of leaks, some of them from Boeing, some from Dassault, some from the various radar/engine/weapon suppliers and the most persuasive from the RSAF itself. None of these sources had anything to gain by intimating that Typhoon was the RSAF’s preferred choice, but all did say exactly that. All were more leaky than the EF GmbH/BAE bid team who were willing to talk about the deployment of the RAF Typhoons to Singapore, but were tighter than the proverbial duck’s backsides when it came to what went on in Singapore itself. My best sources on what happened during the evaluation, on the Supercruise success, and on relative serviceability were all astonished French people, working for companies associated with the Rafale bid team. My best source on relative radar performance was Singaporean. It’s simply inaccurate to claim that the revelation that Typhoon was the preferred choice came from Eurofighter or BAE, which is why so many journalists took it seriously. Had it just been BAE or EF GmbH saying “Well we were best, and the RSAF agreed” no-one would have given it anyt credence. But when RSAF officers (who ought to know), and Boeing and Dassault blokes (who have nothing to gain by admitting it) tell you that Typhoon was the preferred choice, supercruised at midday, first time, and proved much more serviceable, you take it much more seriously. Just as they were when Typhoon was eliminated, the French were the first, quickest and most willing to talk about what had happened.

The reasons for Typhoon’s rejection have also been set out, and are deeply embarrassing and damaging to BAE Systems, but do not reflect badly on the aircraft. The decision to eliminate Typhoon was essentially political. The fact that Rafale remains in contention merely demonstrates that it is politically preferable, not that it is NECESSARILY technically superior – in exactly the same way that the technically superior Rafale lost out to the politically stronger F-15K in Korea, or in the way that the technically superior Gripen lost out to the F-16 in Chile and Poland.

Anyone who believes that air forces get their own way when selecting aircraft, or that the best and most suitable aircraft will win competitive evaluations is naive.

I appreciate that you French Rafale fans want to believe that your country’s aircraft is clearly and incontravertibly the best. This is quite hard for an English journalist to understand, since I don’t have a problem with acknowledging that F/A-22 is a better AD aircraft than Typhoon, and that JSF will be a better ‘Day 1/Kick Down the Door’ attack aircraft, nor that Gripen is the best choice for the more cost conscious customer. National pride doesn’t enter into it, and I regard Typhoon as being a marginally better fighter aircraft than Rafale based on its potential capability and on certain key technologies, not on the basis of its national origin. And I’d acknowledge that the edge it enjoys is huge in some areas, marginal in some, and entirely absent in others. This is a considered and balanced view, and I’d suggest that it contrasts with the simplistic and crude view that Dassault are the world’s most experienced and talented fighter designers, and that Rafale is a ‘once in 30 year stroke of genius.’ As long as you guys are trying to prove such a silly and over-the-top contention, and as long as your pride makes it impossible to admit that the hated English, the Germans or the nouvelle Americans can do anything (anything, not everything) better than you can, the debate will remain ill-mannered, stupid and ultimately pointless.

Rafale is certainly the best choice for French requirements, and it will be for some other requirements, too (I’d include the UK’s carrier requirement), but Typhoon enjoys key advantages in other areas, and will be a superior choice for many users. Neither aircraft comes close to F/A-22, of course, though both are more cost effective than Raptor.

Fonk,

“Eurofighter was grounded for nearly two years with problems with the FCS.” Simply incorrect. As usual.

“I repeat: During the first Farnborough air show atemden by Typhoon a BAe Boffin was stating that lopw level/high speed wasn’t going to be one of Typhoon missions, as it was priminarly desiogned as an air sup[eriority fighter with limited A2G capabilities, if they don’t know themself what theyare talknig about it’s not too good.

I have seen the interview myself and can remember it well, so i also know that there have been some typhoon built without the extra weight at least in Britain.”

You are talking ********. Low level ground attack was always part of the spec. I have spoken to every Strike Command ‘Group Captain Typhoon’ since the post was established. It has always been a core part of the requirement, though it was always expected that the ADX squadrons would form first, followed by the FBC, followed by the MR units (before the decision was taken that all units would eventually be MR).

You’ve also stated an opinion about the development bill and unit cost, without substantiating them. The current Typhoon unit cost is £43 m, or £62 m including R&D (source UK NAO). I can’t remember what ‘FY’ £s that’s stated in……

Kovy,

“As far as capabilities are concerned, I think Dassault is, at least, 2-3 years ahead of the eurofighter consortium. The main gap being the opening of the flight envelope with heavy payloads (+ the FCS updates) and A2G weapons separation trials.”

Separation trials haven’t started, but they have flown with FOUR 2,000-lb Paveways (and tanks), they have flown with one asymmetric 2,000-lb Paveway outboard, and the A-G FCS standard (due at Block 5) is already flying on a DA, according to Chris Worning at Paris. Two years ahead? More like three or six months. When will a Rafale successfully, simultaneously, engage two BVR targets? When will a Rafale frontline squadron be able to declare a NATO QRA commitment? When will a Rafale unit be operational with autonomous LDP and LGB/GPSGB? When will Rafale gain Meteor? When will a Typhoon unit have a stand-off AGM capability? Each type will be ‘ahead’ of the other in different areas.

“The other big issue of the eurofighter is the radar. Yes, it is said to be the best mecanical radar in the world, but the near future belongs to AESA radar.”

Yes. Indeed. The future does belong to AESA. Without any doubt at all. But only when its light enough, cool enough, with a low enough MTBF and better performance. As long as going to AESA means reduced radar performance, reliability and maintainability, the customers will stick with mechanical Captor. Today (and the NEAR future) still belongs to mechanical arrays.

Pendant que vous pouvez poster dans l’anglais d’habitude compréhensible raisonnable, vous ne devez pas supposer que je ne comprenne pas quand vous écrivez:

“On the subject of Jacko do you believe that he knows what he is talking about? The only thing that he can do is always negative.” whether you post it in English or in French.

Ni devrait vous suppose que je ne répondrai pas en diant que vous êtes*:

1) Une disgrâce aux gens français, parce que vous êtes impoli et arrogant, et bien que vous vous pensez astucieux et intelligent sont en fait ignorant et très stupide.

2) Une perte de tout le monde chronomètre, avec rien ne contribuer au delà du préjugé fatigué, et la capacité aux détails de perroquet, bien que c’est clair vous n’a pas la compréhension du sujet sous la discussion.

3) Un tres grand, tres stupide, broleur. Une plaisanterie complète à n’importe qui qui comprend le sujet, un idiot et un clown, être eu pitié d’au lieu de détesté.

Finalement: *

Bien, j’ai essayé de descendre votre niveler d’abus infantile. Peut-être nous pouvons prévoir maintenant que vous ayez obéi aux règles de conseil et suit les règles simples de convenances*?

Poster dans le langauge de conseil (l’Anglais – le langue d’aviation internationale!).

Arrêter utilisant les insultes stupides, enfantines et rustres.

Si ne vous avez rien productif s’intéressant maintenant pour dire, alors fermer en haut*!

Faire de la lecture pour que vous comprenez que nous parlons de, et pour que vous pouvez soutenir la Rafale avec l’argument décent, au lieu de la bêtise bête, fatiguée, ennuyeuse et nationaliste.

*OK, I’ve tried to come down to your level of infantile abuse. Perhaps we can now expect you to obey board rules and follow the simple rules of etiquette?

Post in the board langauge (English).

Stop using stupid, childish, boorish insults.

If you have nothing productive or interesting to say, then shut up!

Do some reading so that you understand what the rest of us are talking about, and so that you can support Rafale with decent argument, rather than silly, tired, boring and nationalistic nonsense.

Though I’m not a good journalist and don’t “knows my ABC” I know enough to answer those supposedly unanswered questions of yours, and I’d have to be a complete moron not to have noticed that it’s becoming increasingly clear that this entire subject “is fare above your intellectual capabilities.”:

Why were the Typhoon dispatched to S’pore a ton lighter than the “in service” aircrafts?

They weren’t. This is a fairy story. The three jets allocated for Eastern Smile (including a reserve) were in-service aircraft pulled directly off the Case White flightline and as such they weighed exactly the same as any other RAF Tranche 1 Batch 1 Block 1 Typhoon. They were lighter than the IPA, and lighter than the ISPA (because they weren’t instrumented). Or would you prefer to think that it’s because they packed carbon-fibre versions of their mothers’ ironing planks?

How are Eurofighter designers going to increase the cross section of the air intake by a margin large enough to allow for an engine upgrade?

They aren’t, because there is already sufficient area to allow enough mass flow for the kind of upgrade envisaged. In any case, there are alternative, larger area intake designs available (including the grinning intake) drawn up when a much larger engine was studied. Perhaps they learned that when making plastic Airfix/FROG/Heller models of the Hawker Hunter?

How come that RAF Typhoon would need a ballast for the gun but Rafale wouldn’t for OSF and SPECTRA.

I’d have thought that ‘Mr aerodynamics’ would realise that the gun is a VERY heavy piece of kit, in a particularly critical location, and that a more unstable aircraft, with more critical FCS software, and greater agility would require either ballast or a software re-write/re-clearance. C of G is more critical, obviously, if you are flying an aircraft which would diverge in pitch so rapidly as to break up, without its FCS. (My goldfish told me that, and he sends you a great big sloppy kiss). If Rafale requires no ballast to make up for the removal of particular equipment it’s because:

There’s a software load that compensates for any C of G changes.
The existing software load compensates better for any C of G changes.
The equipment is more evenly distributed around the C of G, so that the C of G implications are less.
The equipment is lighter, so that the C of G implications are less.
or the aircraft has greater stability (or less instability) in pitch.

Any half-way competent enthusiast (“and i canot begin to see how you can qualify for the grade…”) would “do their homework” enough to know that:

The “Requiered specs for Typhoon” have not changed in the way that you infer (go back and look at AST403 and AST409) and that the aircraft has always been required to be a deployable, swing-role fighter.

Therefore there have been no major changes to the required empty weight for
those “very obvious reasons.”

And while we know that Scorpion is a professional member of the Luftwaffe today (not a conscript in the Armée de l’Air 30 years ago, who had a few flying lessons in his long vanished youth), with an open mind and a thirst for knowledge, we know that you have an entirely closed mind, with an astonishing inability to discern evidence right in front of your nose.

You said to him:

“I doubt you are a pilot to judge so you have to rely on what other people are saying to you.” Well if you did like me have any flying lesson you wouldn’t be writing this bag of bulls in the first place.”

and then you accuse him of

“posting bogus figures that no one can actually check on.”

I’d suggest that if you were a pilot (not just someone who has had a few lessons), and if you knew anything about how the industry works, you’d realise that the figures upon which you place such great store are largely nonsense, collated from third rate sales material by second rate journalists (like me!) and that those figures that actually reveal real world capabilities are seldom revealed outside the aircraft’s aircrew manual and operating limitations.

You might also have a more realistic appreciation of the limitations of your knowledge. Back in the late 1980s, a number of professional aerodynamacists patiently explained to me the superiority of the F-16’s aerodynamic configuration and flight controls compared to the MiG-29. But with the benefit of hindsight, which was the more agile low-speed WVR aeroplane? And how and why did that advantage shift in a BVR engagement? You loudly and rudely (and often inaccurately) shout down those who challenge your partial understanding of aerodynamics, but it is becoming clear that you have no understanding at all as to the nature of instability in a modern combat aircraft. Since you bang on and on about your flying experience I’d have thought that you’d have a bit more understanding as to the importance of cockpit workload, MMIs and displays and display modings, stick forces and control harmonisation, and all of the other things that go together to give a pilot the handling qualities (together with performance, of course) required to win.