Glitter,

1) Claims about Typhoon’s superior MMI are not made up out of thin air. Craig Penrice is a named source who has written and spoken about it extensively, and he is backed up by large numbers of unnamed sources, including from Singapore.
2) Rafale’s lack of power is certainly not ‘made up’. Singapore certainly commented on it, while the UAE’s desire for more thrust is well known.
3) Confidentiality agreements haven’t stopped French pilots talking about ATLC, nor about Singapore.
4) There’s no proof of a Rafale victory in Korea, and indeed the claim has been denied officially by the RoKAF. I happen to believe the claim, but acknowledge that there’s no proof, the fact is that F-15K won.
5) All the indications are that Typhoon won the technical evaluation in Singapore.
6) You say that: “Kovy, tmor and so on have hints but prefer to keep them since it’s the typical source that can be sound as biased. It seems that Mr Lake disagree with that way of thinking.” I dunno about anyone else, but I don’t care who tells me the truth, nor whether they are prepared to be indentified. If it’s good information, or seems to be good information, then of course I’ll pass it on. We’d never have heard about Typhoon spares shortages, or Tornado Foxhunter radar, etc. if we limited ourselves to official statements.

Scorpion,

“People cleared to talk to the public in a press conference will usually present you with pre-made statements, while people you unofficially talk to off track might be willing to tell you more. For me the thumb rule is hear as many sides and sources as possible and extract the info and puzzle it together if possible.”

Sensible advice.

Swerve,

Of course Belgium is arguably the home of the leading exponents of the art form. I don’t get Japanese comic art. It does nothing for me.

Ok T’Mor, I’ll bite.

When it comes to Singapore, what is “misleading”, what exactly is “the whole truth”, and what was “left out?”

(I appreciate the clever use of the same form of words as I used about Grandclaudon’s claim, but while clever sematically, it’s not appropriate here).

I’ll summarise my understanding:

1) Typhoon led the RSAF evaluation and was rated above the other contenders (though it was acknowledged that none of the contenders met RSAF requirements in their then-present form).
2) Typhoon did better than the competing aircraft in the A-A scenarios conducted in Singapore.
3) Typhoon demonstrated serviceability, SC and performance characteristics (especially climb) that neither of its competitors could match in Singapore.
4) There were real concerns about timescales and costs of required capabilities, and the aircraft was viewed as being immature.
5) A shambolic bid led to the aircraft being humiliatingly rejected.

1) It’s fun watching how far you chaps push this claim.
2) In view of the hints, it will be interesting to see if one of the more intelligent French posters digs out the truth for themselves.
3) It would be bad form for me to pinch another journo’s story until it has been printed.

Sancho 78,

“The Typhoon (although performing well in a2a against Singapores F16s) was out of the competition and only F15 and Rafale was shortlisted. So how can something indicate the Typhoon was the winner?”

The story is that the Typhoon was preferred by the RSAF and ‘won the evaluation’, but was then eliminated (against the wishes of the evaluation team) by the Ministry of Defence because:

“issues of pricing and the reliable release of capability within the RSAF’s required timeframe were the key concerns that derailed Eurofighter’s bid.” (Rob Hewson, Jane’s).

Typhoon was supposed to have been preferred by the evaluation team because:

“Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests. According to one observer, neither competitor aircraft could claim the same (Defence Analysis August 2004).”

The full, rather shameful story, was told in Flight Daily News, on 13 June 2005
[b]“Typhoon hit by Singapore[/b]

Singapore’s decision to drop one of the three contenders for its Next Generation Fighter requirement only months before a final decision is expected was not only unexpected but has left the bidding team looking for answers to some searching questions.

Eurofighter GmbH and BAE Systems had some reason to be optimistic after the Typhoon reportedly ‘won’ the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) evaluation.

This was not a competitive fly-off, and was only one element in a broad evaluation, but the Typhoon demonstrated impeccable serviceability. It was able to delivery everything they wanted, including supercruise, when its competitors could not. 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 Dassault Rafale, nor the Boeing 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.

The fact that Eurofighter GmbH was 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 RSAF’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 the Typhoon’s capability and planned capability per se, but was instead a natural reaction to what insiders called “a shambolic performance” by BAE Systems during the early part of the bidding process. It also apparently 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 the Typhoon’s future capabilities may have been undermined by continuing doubts about 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 Democrat party seizing on cancellation of the project in the recent UK general election.

BAE insiders say 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”, these withered after the merger with GEC. By the time the Typhoon campaign in Singapore began, the company no longer had the structures 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 are said to 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 with Dassault’s “hunger”. The French bid was 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.

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”

Eurofighter GmbH has officially denied that there were any problems with the bid, and chief executive Aloysius Rauen praised BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, the UK government, Procurement Minister 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, after the failed Singapore bid.”

In other words, the aircraft was great, and promised a great deal, but…….

Typhoon was immature, the bid was shambolic, there was real concern that promised capabilities would not be delivered in the required timescales, and the programme was in disarray.

You then asked my opinion as to why Rafale has come out ahead of Typhoon in other competitions.

1) Korea. Typhoon was extremely immature, the programme was in disarray and it’s a miracle it was considered at all at that time.
2) Netherlands. As above, and primarily not a technical/capability evaluation anyway.
3) Brazil. Price and technology transfer.
4) You might add the UAE, too!

Though Typhoon is now more mature, and though the programme is more secure I suspect that maturity and doubts about costs and timescales of future capabilities will continue to count against Typhoon and Rafale when compared to legacy US types.

I know, how dare I suggest that Rafale isn’t already fully mature, fully formed, and that any potential export customer would want more than the aircraft is demonstrating right now?

The genuinely neutral observer will get the point straight away, the fanboy will never accept it.

TMor,

A bit more English teaching is clearly needed! (Though your English is generally excellent, as you must be aware). Please assume a massive smiley Gif here!

Let me explain:
You can say that someone is wrong, and even that they have been deliberately misleading, without attacking their fundamental credibility.

Let me make it even more clear.

The CO of EC 1/7 is clearly a credible figure by virtue of his position.

However, the claims he made were so misleading as to be wrong.

He is personally credible. His claims, in this instance, are not credible.

Arthuro,

3-0? Only in your dreams.

Your quotes (all of which we’ve all seen posted by you before, you’re becoming like Fonk, why not save bandwidth and link to them?) show that:

1: Rafale may have won in Korea. Some indication, no proof, most (but by no means all) anecdotal evidence supports that view. Exactly as I said.

2: You quote the usual MacKenzie article on Singapore. It’s bol.locks. She’s not an aerospace expert and she talked to Bob Kemp (Gripen sales) and David & Moussez (Rafale sales). Moussez says Rafale won in Singapore. Utterly predictable nonsense from a known Dassault PR mouthpiece.

Again: The indications are that Typhoon won in Singapore, and the anecdotal evidence (see all the Flight Daily ‘Typhoon hit by Singapore’, and enthusiast press ‘Eastern Smile’ coverage.

Exactly as I said.

3: As for the Netherlands. What sort of analysis do you think the the Dutch CBP (the Dutch Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis) does? Hint: The clue is in the freakin’ name. Yes, AN ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL ANALYSIS.

The CBP analysed the three aircraft primarily and principally on economic and industrial grounds, and not on technical or capability grounds.

No evaluation team flew the aircraft. Neither Dassault NOR Eurofighter GmbH submitted any bid, price, specification, nor technical information, and Dassault complained about this subsequently.

AGAIN! Exactly as I said.

And as a result an unflown, unproven JSF beat both Rafale and Typhoon. Presumably you validate the Dutch judgement that JSF is superior to Rafale on more than economic/industrial grounds, and believe they had sufficient knowledge to make such a judgement? :rolleyes:

God knows why the Swiss went to such trouble flying Rafale and Typhoon – why didn’t they leave it to an obscure bureau that supports the finance ministry, and let the NLR produce a technical/operational evaluation without flying the aircraft or even getting information from the manufacturers?

3-0?

My foot.

Anyone who believes the nonsense you’ve posted, is a complete clot, Arthuro.

The important point:

The Colonel’s claims are nonsense.

Rafale did not hold F-22 to a draw 5 times out of 6.

Rafale did not gain a 7-1 exchange rate against Typhoon in the manner suggested.

Kovy,

What surprises me in this thread, is that there have been a lot of efforts made to dismiss the credibility of the source and the reality of the rafale BVR performance against the typhoon… From the point of view of many forumers, this is merely impossible that the typhoon could have been defeated by the rafale in a BVR fight.

Not quite. Firstly, no-one dismisses the credibility of Lt Colonel Grandclaudon, it has merely been suggested that his claims are wrong, and that he has given a statement that is based on a partial and misleading view of what happened at ATLC.

Nor would many people dismiss the possibility of Typhoon losing to Rafale in A-A combat (the Lt Colonel did not specify whether this was BVR or WVR, as far as I understood). Typhoon has lost to Rafale, A-A, though it has won more often than it has lost.

What is hard (not impossible) to accept is the margin of superiority suggested by a 4-0 and 3-1 exchange rate, when all of the other evidence would suggest that, in A-A combat, it is Typhoon that has the edge.

The reality of Rafale’s ‘performance against Typhoon’ is certainly challenged.

ROE : well they are the same for everyone. So unless the typhoon top speed and altitude were restricted……

The Lt Colonel did not comment on the RoE. How can you be sure that there were not restrictions? How can you be sure that Typhoon was playing Typhoon?

typhoon piloted by junior pilots. This is the other argument of the eurofighter Gmbh to explain the poor results of the typhoon and that could explain a lot of things indeed. But I think this explanation is a bit too easy not to be taken with pinch of salt :”

I agree that this explanation does not account for the exchange rate, since the Rafales would have been flown by equally junior pilots.

To fight against such high level threats, everybody would expect the RAF to select her very best pilots on the type.

Simply wrong. This was for ATLC, not a sales tour (though there may have been an element of that for Team Rafale). ATLC, after all, is an exercise specifically intended to upgrade existing ‘4-ship flight leads’ (likely to be fairly junior blokes) to mission commander status.

Your other points are founded on the assumptions that RoE favoured neither side, and that the scores quoted by Grandclaudon were an accurate reflection of what happened.

Both assumptions are incorrect.

Glitter,

Though the evidence from Singapore is anecdotal, such evidence as there is all suggests that Typhoon was rated more highly, and performed better in the evaluation. Brazil shows only too clearly that being rated better by the customer does not necessarily lead to an order.

I definately doubt that 6 targets of opportunity could be hit within a minute, let alone while firing Micas at 3 different targets. Most likely what happened was a pre-planned strike of 6 AASM while at the same time attacking 3 aerial targets. This is definately impressing enough for me!

Nic

I’m with you Nic. It impresses the heck out of me, even if they’re lined up in a row, with positions optimised.

It speaks volumes for AASM

Also, wasn’t this done with a UAE bod in the back-seat, meaning that it was effectively a one-man shot?

“The conclusion of ATCL (related to the Rafale) as seen on french forums:

– capacity of visual confirmation up to 40km instead of 5km.
– capacity to fire 6 AASM and 3 Mica in a single minute.
– capacity to detect air defence (and in some case better than F-16 CJ)
– good capacity to go on AA versus a plane as good as the Typhoon.
– good reliability.

Nothing more.”

Nothing more?

If that was all that had been said, there would have been no more than a gently raised eyebrow.

What’s being challenged is ‘something more’.

First the claim that Rafale ‘only ended up in F-22’s gunsight once, in six encounterd’.
Second the 4-0 + 3-1 = 7-1 claims against Typhoon.

Moreover, there should probably be a caveat to the “capacity of visual confirmation up to 40-km instead of 5-km”, and it should be noted that your version of the statement as to relative SEAD performanceof F-16CJ is calmer and less exaggerated than others we have seen.

This is a matter of those who are interested in facts, versus those who want to cling on to exaggerated propaganda at all costs.