JackonickoUAE Air Force source.
The hop was pure DACT (eg WVR).
The F-22 is there, and flying (my source watched a package of 2 F-22, 4 Typhoon, 4 F-7 and 4 Rafale take off the other day…….) but is not taking part in the ‘core exercise’ – whatever that means.
JackonickoIf Gripen won it will have done so in four areas.
1) Proven ease of weapons integrations from all quarters.
2) Best net centric/networked capability, & HMS and IRST already properly integrated.
3) Most cost effective and lowest cost of operation.
4) Best capabilities from austere/forward air bases.
JackonickoRafale fought F-22 (DACT) today. The results were entirely as you’d predict.
I know nothing more.
JackonickoSqualls,
I agree. It was decided in September.
But it’s absolutely clear that Rafale did not win the evaluation, otherwise why would Jobim instruct the FAB not to name the winner?
If Rafale had won, what purpose would there be in hiding it?
And it supports Saab’s contention that they had won the evaluation.
But don’t get me wrong, I’m pleased that Rafale finally has an export customer
JackonickoFirstly, I believe that friend Squalls is right, and that this decision was done and dusted in September. I’d also agree that it was a political decision.
On another forum, user Olybrius posted useful links from dedefensa.org and da Folha Online
http://www.dedefensa.org/article-le_gripen_et_sa_contre-offensive_bresilienne_27_11_2009.html
And
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u658343.shtml
The da Folha piece was especially interesting, I thought, though my Portugese is poor, so I hope that Sintra might provide a rather better translation. In the meantime, this is what I made of it, and of Olybrius’s translation.
[u]“Jobim asks the FAB to not give a winner [/u]
da Folha Online 27/11/2009
Defense Minister Nelson Jobim said that he asked the FAB (Brazilian Air Force) to not name a winner in its technical evaluation of the competitors in the competition to deliver 36 new fighters to Brazil, according to a news article by Igor Gielow, published this Friday. The expectation is that the report will come out as requested, and regardless of the form [of the text], what matters is the final evaluation made by the president of the Republic”.
For Jobim, who says he only asked the pros and cons of each competitor in items such as price and technology transfer, which will be the inputs to the decision of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
In September, the president of the commission that is evaluating the R$ 10 billion competition, Brigadier General Dirceu Noro, affirmed that he would announce a winner of the selective process.
The statement came after a gaffe from Lula, who had announced the choice of the French Dassault Rafale during the visit of his colleague Nicolas Sarkozy, forgetting to await completion of the technical evaluation of FAB.”
So the FAB announced that it would name a winner, and has been slapped down by Jobim.
“Defense Minister Nelson Jobim said he asked the FAB (Brazilian Air Force) to not indicate a winner in its technical evaluation of the competitors in the competition to deliver 36 new fighters to Brazil, “
Now why would he ask that, I wonder? What possible reason could there be to suppress what the FAB says that it wants as its new fighter?
It could not be that the FAB wants one aircraft, but that the politicians want another…..
It must be entirely unconnected with the recent claim by Tony Ogilvy, Vice-President, International Marketing for Gripen, that the 26,000-page report compiled by the nation’s air force (overseen by Lt Brig Juniti Saito) would name Gripen as the AF’s favoured platform.
Don’t get me wrong. Rafale will win, and will be selected on largely political grounds, and that is entirely legitimate. I personally hope that this first export success will open the door to further export sales, some of which will see Rafale being the favoured choice technically and operationally, as it is alleged to have been in Morocco and in South Korea.
But shouldn’t Jobim and Lula be prepared to openly acknowledge that their choice is not the air force’s, and is not Embraer’s, and should they not have to explain and justify their selection to an informed electorate and to the taxpayers who are expected to pay the bill?
JackonickoNearly.
But perhaps you should have said:
I hope I understood the code.
JackonickoRed, blue, bold, underlined, and underlined italics.
So many different ways of highlighting stuff from one article.
Why, exactly?
Let me try and work it out:
Red is bleedin’ obviously true at this moment, right? (eg: It is more operationally mature and versatile than its key European rival, the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon).
Blue is pointless highlighting, yes? (eg: “and a new-generation version of the Snecma M88-2 powerplant that will deliver lower life-cycle costs. This new package of improvements is to be available from 2012.”)
Bold indicates where the journo has believed Dassault PR nonsense and spin, or has gullibly repeated it, obviously. (eg: “Dassault officials are convinced that the Rafale was a clear winner of the new fighter evaluations in both Korea and Singapore–until superpower politics intervened.”)
And underlined italics clearly mean the same, but are a funnier joke, right? (eg: Competitors have claimed that the Rafale is underpowered. But the French air force and navy are evidently happy with the aircraft’s performance and they have declined to fund development of an increase in the thrust of the M88. Instead, it seems that the UAE will pick up the tab, boosting the M88 to 20,000 pounds to improve the aircraft’s hot-and-high performance. However, Gasparini told AIN that the Rafale’s ability to take off with the existing powerplants in a “heavy” configuration comprising two Scalp anti-ship missiles and three fuel tanks had already been demonstrated in Abu Dhabi under the hottest conditions.)
Which leaves underlined plain text….. wishful thinking, perhaps?
I’ll never remember your code, Art.
JackonickoSferrin,
Do you think anyone disagrees with ‘Desperate’ Dan Robinson? :rolleyes: Even ‘biased journalists’.
StevoJH,
But Collins didn’t at any point admit that he was comparing Rafale to just those aircraft he’d flown (Harrier GR3 and FRS1). Instead he worded his conclusions in a way that implied that he thought that Rafale was the best fighter out there.
It may be, but with his experience, he’s not qualified to make that judgement.
Kovy,
Still incapable of answering the point? Still banging on about the authors? That’s disappointing.
JackonickoNice, but the tatty F-15 was the best at Dubai, the day I saw it.
JackonickoI shall award myself one, forthwith. I will call it the Kovy award for Franco-British understanding, and I will wear it with pride. 😀 At the award ceremony I will drink only French wine and beer, and I will eat only French cheese.
JackonickoI find it fascinating that the usual suspects (invariably French Rafale fanboys) should leap so assiduously to try to undermine the Combat Aircraft web piece by attacking its author/s, and by picking on minor and relatively trivial detail while ignoring the central thrust of the piece.
I’m not surprised, since so many of them had greeted the Flight piece with such great enthusiasm, trumpeting Flight to the rafters, and foolishly making such great play of Pete Collins’ wisdom, perspicacity and credentials.
And because the central thrust of the Combat Aircraft piece is undeniable and unarguable, it is much harder to attack.
And that central thrust was that the Flight article was so over effusive that it lacked credibility, and that Collins’ reaction to the aircraft was, in part, a natural reaction, bearing in mind his almost complete lack of relevant experience.
That experience was laid out, clearly and factually and in some detail.
Some of Collins’ conclusions were put in context by someone with greater expertise – described simply as “an RAF test flying insider”. Is RAF the same as BAE Systems?
Some people seem to assume that it was Craig Penrice, but since CP has never been backward in coming forward in the past and since he was named in the same author’s podcast, I’m not so sure. Several of Penrice’s ETPS contemporaries would be likely to have flown the same types and several of them were at Dubai.
In any case, rather than whining about the source, why not address what he actually said?
The authors also reported the reactions of RAF pilots to the Flight piece, and referred very briefly to their reported opinion of Rafale. Unless you think that the reported reactions are made up by the journos, what’s the problem?
Why not answer some of the serious, substantive points, rather than whining about how unfair it all is, and rather than trying to criticise the authors.
Because you can’t, and because it’s so much easier to shoot the messenger, making stupid accusations against a journalist who has made the unpardonable mistake of not swallowing Dassault’s PR line hook, line and sinker, and has not repeated it without deviation.
Finally, if an RAF pilot has had a Rafale trip, it must surely follow that an AdlA pilot has flown Typhoon (these things are invariably reciprocal). It would be fascinating to know what he made of his experience.
JackonickoMy view of Rafale’s MMI is based on talking to pilots who have flown it and Typhoon. There are now pilots from at least four nations who have done so.
Jackonicko“I greatly prefer the Rafale’s looks. I find the Typhoon the least visually attractive of the Eurocanards, though at least it’s better-looking than any F-18.”
+1.
Typhoon looks like a Rafale that has been hit with an ugly stick.
USS Novice,
The Rafale flight test needed correcting. Its conclusions were embarrassingly effusive because the author lacked the recent, relevant experience that would have given him a valid basis for making the kind of comparisons he attempted. It was shabby journalism and it deserved to be corrected.
Swallow it.
The last thing we need is another uncritical, over-enthusiastic test by someone ill-qualified to judge. If Flight do a Typhoon test, I hope that it gets an in-depth examination that reveals what it’s really like, how it really stacks up, warts and all, weaknesses as well as strengths. Especially the weaknesses. Someone going gaga over it would be a wasted opportunity.
JackonickoNic,
Nice to see you make an appearance. Even nicer of you to persist with the claim that the double-award winning Mr Lake and I are the same person. Can you mistake me for Doug Barrie, Bill Sweetman and Steve Trimble as well, it would inflate my ego even more and make me even happier. Or why not answer the substantive point rather than obsessing about who wrote it?
Opit,
And your point is? I sat next to Serge and talked to Edelstenne in Dubai. So what? Ah, I see! I was in Dubai and so were those authors? Therefore I must be both of them, and Rob Wall, Steve Trimble and Mary Kirby as well, ‘cos it’s inconceivable that every aerospace journo would be at the world’s second most important air show this year……
Scorps,
It read to me as though the two authors talked to the kind of people they claimed to have spoken to, non attributably or off the record. It did not read as though it were all made up by journos to me, but you may disagree.
I didn’t read any reference to Spectra, so I don’t know what you mean.
JackonickoThe problem is that for many Frenchman, anything that isn’t a complete ass-kissing for Rafale is viewed as a hatchet job.
Sign In
