I wrote: “and no doubt accusing me of being one or other (or perhaps both) of the authors.” at 1618.

You made exactly that accusation at 1720.

Predictable stuff, Opit.

Though I’m pleased to be accused of being an award-winning journo…..:diablo:

I guess I wrote the Rafale piece linked to above, as well…. 😮

:rolleyes:

Depends who you are and what you want.

For some customers:
Yes, definitely.

For others:
No definitely not.

It’s amusing that the F-35 fanboys pitch in and ask for no ‘fanboy comments.’ :rolleyes:

In answer to the OP………..,

Japan is a Typhoon campaign, Canada isn’t.

Japan could conceivably have a requirement for both Typhoon and F-35, and it’s near term requirement could have been written around the Typhoon, and the aircraft represents a perfect solution to Japan’s industrial requirements too, in a way that F-22/F-35 cannot. The four JASDF officers who flew the aircraft were reportedly complete ‘converts’ after their evaluation.

The problem is that (EH101 notwithstanding) selecting Typhoon would mark a major break with Japan’s established procurement practises, and Japan will come under almost unbearable political pressure from its most important political partner not to do so.

Canada is not a Typhoon campaign, nor even an official ‘prospect’, though the more optimistic within EF GmbH believe that a requirement could still emerge, as Canada’s commitment to the F-35 becomes shakier.

Certainly, Typhoon meets certain aspects of the Canadian requirement much better than the F-35 does, though it does not offer the same ‘Day One’ capability except by using stand off weapons, and it does not offer the same levels of interoperability (though that’s easy to over-state).

At the moment, Canada is a very, very, very slender prospect.

I don’t need the ear ache that I’ll get from some of our French chums if I say:

“I was told that…..”

But sticking to the less contentious aspects, it sounds as though ATLC is viewed as being more useful than ‘Flag because of who you get to train with.

The Typhoon blokes seemed to be particularly pleased with themselves, walking tall having “kicked ass and taken names…”

“So with new orders for the Typhoon and F-22 not on the table in the UAE……..”

Perhaps not on the table this week, but the fat lady hasn’t sung when it comes to the UAE’s fighter deal, and the runes were VERY hard to read in Dubai this week – with evidence that the Rafale deal was progressing very well, and evidence that it’s vulnerable and being reconsidered.

Certainly if I were a betting man I’d put a wedge on Rafale in Brazil but not in the UAE right now, whereas I would have done two weeks ago.

When it comes to ATLC, there was a lot of information coming out, and a lot of participants were on hand and talkative, though not necessarily attributably.

Toan,

Very close to the truth:

It would be more accurate to say:
Eurofighter / SELEX: “The Captor-M is second to none of the first generation AESA radars today, but we can offer an E-scan alternative (that will not suffer from any of the usual E-scan problems within four years!!!”

[I]Uninformed technology geeks: “Customers will say…..just give us a god damn practical AESA solution, or they will go for another fighter/radar manufacturers who offer it.”[/I]

Actual customers: Just give us a radar that meets our requirements. As drafted we think we want AESA only.

Actual customers have evaluated Captor M – (eg Singapore): You know what? Captor M exceeds the raw performance of APG-63(V)3, APG-79, etc. and does meet our requirements? Is there a robust path to an AESA upgrade that will let us jump an AESA generation? CAESAR/Captor-E, you say……….?