JackonickoAl has hit the nail on the head. I certainly mean no offence to Arthuro, and I take little offence from what he has posted, though his accusations of ‘spinning’ are tiresome and uncalled for.
Arthuro,
It is only “impossible to crosscheck” what I have said here if you have no other sources than free, public source stuff on the internet.
There are plenty of sources to confirm everything that I’ve said on this thread and the latter part of the immediately previous Rafale thread.
I have not made one single empty declaration here.
Rafale did not beat Super Hornet without loss.
This year’s Le Bourget Rafale display was a bit tame and I found it disappointing.
Rafale has been beaten by Gripen and F-16 – aircraft that I’d view as inferior.
Rafale has not achieved a positive kill:loss ratio against Typhoon yet.
I’ve given up posting anything new, as it inevitably isn’t believed until you lot can google it.
I had a long sit down chat with some AdlA EW people at Le Bourget, for example, and I learned a great deal (good and bad) about SPECTRA, and I followed it up with a similar sit down with one of the Selex Praetorian people. I asked both lots about their own systems and their impressions of the competition, and I felt that I walked away with some useful knowledge, but it’s simply not worth posting any of it here. There would be an immediate protest that it was “impossible to crosscheck my infos”, and howls of protest when I refused to name my sources, some of whom spoke to me on the understanding that I would respect their anonymity.
There was a great deal of fascinating stuff revealed about F-15SE at Le Bourget, too, and I was astonished at how few of my peers picked up on it. But again, if the F-15 fanboys can’t confirm it via Google, then what’s the point in posting it here?
My username is quite obviously pseudonymic, for a good reason, so I’m not going to link to what I’ve personally written under my actual name. Despite the tradition and internet etiquette of not ‘outing’ people from their user names, other posters on this board have attempted to link the Jackonicko username to the identity of a particular journalist. Most of them have been wrong, plumping for the the winner of this year’s aviation journalist of the year award for defence, (and last year’s). Presumably they’ll now find another person to link with my username (you wouldn’t want to think that Jackonicko had won an award, after all, that might infer that I had some professional credibility).
Cola,
Boeing officials said, on the record, that the F-15’s RCS reduction was not of the same order of magnitude as an aircraft designed and built for LO. Everyone assumed they meant the F-35, but on being asked, they made it clear that they were referring to the Super Hornet. In other words, the F-15SE has a smaller RCS than a bog-standard Eagle, but a higher frontal RCS than an F/A-18E/F.
It’s a more survivable Eagle, in other words, not a ‘kick down the door, day one Stealth fighter’.
Snafu,
I would expect anyone claiming ‘balance’ and neutrality to seek to talk to both sides. I find Arthuro’s admission that he didn’t go into the Typhoon exhibit to talk to the industry people there (and his assumption that they were from BAE!) quite telling. If he was really willing to learn, he’d have gone and grabbed Craig Penrice or Chris Worning and grilled him hard about MMI, and he’d have done the same with the radar and DASS blokes on hand. Eurofighter actually make it very easy for anyone to go and ask questions and learn – to do the same on Rafale is very much more difficult, and requires more work, and visiting many more stands. He will put in the effort to do that, but won’t then take the extra step and get a balancing view from the opposition.
But all of that is getting away from the point of this thread, which is to talk about Rafale.
JackonickoYou make this great pretence of balance and neutrality, but it’s a hollow claim.
Did you even bother going and talking to the Typhoon people at Le Bourget?
Craig Penrice and Chris Worning were both there, and there were shedloads of customer pilots to talk to. You could even have seen the cockpit and MMI for yourself.
And you could have talked to folk from Selex on the radar and DASS, engine people, etc.
I’m a great deal more neutral than you are Arthuro.
On the last thread I said straight out that in the flying display, the Super Hornet and F-16 outshone both Typhoon and Rafale (if I were some dyed in the wool Typhoon fan boy I’d hardly be highlighting that), and I have criticised Eurofighter’s inability to get Tranche 3 properly squared away, and have highlighted the problems with integrating PWIV. I’m always among the first to highlight problems and negative stories about Typhoon.
And I addressed your claims about Rafale by referring to checkable stories that demonstrate them to be false, or exaggerated. The RAF Jaguar, Czech Gripen and Belgian F-16 incidents have all been pretty widely reported. As to the US Navy Super Hornets – well it’s hardly my fault that you haven’t talked to both sides, and so present a very one-sided view of the Rafale/F/A-18E/F engagements.
You go to Le Bourget, and you concentrate on Rafale, because that’s what interests you. When I’m at Le Bourget, I make sure that I talk to people from all of the major airframers and suppliers, and to any pilots that I happen across and Lockheed and Dassault are every bit as important to me as Eurofighter and Boeing, Saab and Sukhoi.
The fundamental problem is that you are inclined to dismiss and reject anything that does not show the aircraft you love in the best possible light – even when a criticism is of an isolated and unrepresentative area – eg that Rafale only won against Super Hornet most of the time, and not all of the time as you’d prefer to believe, or that at Le Bourget in 2009, the Rafale flying display was decidedly unimpressive, and failed to show what the aircraft can do.
Any criticism is unacceptable and too much for you to bear, and anyone uttering it is viewed as being a fool, or biased, or not to be believed. Your idea of balance is someone saying that Rafale is the best fighter in the world, the best thing since sliced bread, and that the French have greater aeronautical prowess and heritage than the Brits, Germans, Italians and Spanish put together, and that French superiority is unquestionable. That’s why sensible discussion with you is impossible.
I’m a fan of Rafale and Gripen, and I can see strengths and weaknesses in them and in Typhoon.
JackonickoGlitter,
“I never heard about possible export of that system (specially when you know the price). What can you say more about it ??”
I meant export possibilities for Rafale. Sorry for any confusion.
JackonickoRe: Categorically denied.
The claim that Rafale beat Super Hornet without loss is not a new one. It was categorically denied before I left for Le Bourget.
Clear?
Re: Spinning.
I’m not spinning. I make points of fact, and gently point it out when you let yourself get carried away by your enthusiasm for Rafale and make unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims.
It’s offensive and provocative to accuse another member of ‘spin’ and I’d suggest that if you want to keep this debate civilised, then you should be a little more courteous and a lot less confrontational.
Re: Junior Officer
Anything less than a full Colonel is a junior officer in my book. I took him to be a Captain/Flight Lieutenant equivalent (my knowledge of French Navy ranks is sketchy), and thought that he was on his third tour. The point is that he was there for PR purposes, and he was handing out the PR spiel.
JackonickoI would suggest that some of the Rafale fans here will believe anything if it supports their view of the superiority of ‘their’ aircraft, while rudely and aggressively trying to dismiss anything that contradicts that view.
It’s amusing that the word of one, junior Aeronavale pilot, bored and doing the ‘at the airshow barrier’, ‘meet the public’ routine is taken as gospel, while anything that contradicts it is viewed as being dodgy.
Blokes like Nicholas and TMor naturally ‘Trust what Arthuro tells them’ because he always tells them what they want to hear. And they resort to abuse and hostility when anyone tells them anything they don’t want to hear.
TMor,
MN Rafales have not yet bested RAF Typhoons. Anyone who tells you otherwise is exaggerating or lying. Rafales have beaten Typhoons on exercise, but they’ve lost too. And according to the Italians, they lost more often.
Nicholas 10,
The Belgian F-16s achieved more kills than losses against AdlA Rafales in WVR – how that wasn’t a ‘dogfight exercise’ eludes me. The same is true of the Czech Gripens.
That’s not to say that Rafale isn’t a better aircraft than either the F-16 or the Gripen (it clearly is). It just means that up against better trained pilots, using better tactics (the Belgians) or using a better datalink (the Czechs) the Rafale’s margin of superiority can be eroded.
It’s not a European equivalent to F-22 in other words.
And nor is Typhoon, lest anyone think I’m trying to make this a Rafale vs Typhoon thread.
JackonickoGood and bad news for Rafale in 2009, and at Le Bourget, I’d say.
And it’s certainly too early to be cracking the champagne.
What does India want?
The $64 m question. Do you mean the MoD? The IAF? The Government? Because that’s more than three different answers.
Above all, the IAF want a more manageable evaluation, hence the efforts to drop some of the contenders.
No-one who knows is talking to the likes of me about SEAD or stealth.
JackonickoF-16 in Morocco. As to Libya…….?
JackonickoArthuro,
I believe that Rafale did well against Super Hornet, and got significantly more kills than losses. I have never suggested otherwise. But you claimed that Rafale suffered zero losses, and according to people who were there, that’s not true, and that the Super Hornet got some kills as well, as you’d expect.
You also implied a similar level of dominance over the Gripen, F-15 and F-16.
Again, that’s misleading. Rafale may be superior, but not superior enough to avoid sometimes coming off second best.
JackonickoTMor,
The only source for the truth is you. Every comment favorable to Rafale is denied.
I’ve personally made many comments favourable to Rafale, I just challenge the more outlandish and unsupportable claims.
Arthuro,
I spoke to six Rafale pilots during the show. Two Aeronavale, three AdlA, and two industry.
The claim that “there wasn’t a single loss against the F18 and the SH” has been categorically denied by US Navy sources. Your ‘checkable sources’ on this are empty propaganda, I’m afraid.
You can find as many pilots willing to confirm that Typhoons ‘toasted’ Rafales as the reverse. It’s meaningless posturing at an air show, and Benco has no more and no less credibility than his AMI counterparts.
JackonickoI think that is from the Rapier footage, tbh.
Jackonicko“Jacko is doing as usual.
What you heard doesn’t fit his opinion, so he’s trying to discredit you or the pilot.
The fact is that, Arthuro, the pilot didn’t tell you all the story. You got the “soft” version.”
No TMor. Not correct.
I wasn’t going to comment on the PR spin that Arthuro was repeating – I’m glad to see the AdlA and MN blokes expressing pride and excitement about their aircraft on their home turf, and hope that it will help ease the funding for future blocks and improvements. It’s in everyone’s best interests for the Rafale programme to flourish at home, not least to provide a springboard for export efforts.
I intervened in this thread after you posted links to the flying display, which I thought was much less inspiring than other Rafale flight demos that I’d seen.
What Arthuro was told about the Rafale’s encounters with the Super Hornet does not fit with what US Navy sources have said about it – nor with what the MN Rafale pilot I spoke to said. To say so is not an attempt to discredit either Arthuro or his source, it’s an attempt to provide simple balance and a toehold on reality.
I’m not making claims that either aircraft dominated the other, I’m just saying that from what I’ve been able to discern, Arthuro’s conclusion is exaggerated – whether it reflects the broad, overall conclusion of those exercises or not. I think that Rafale did come out ahead, in fact, but I’m reliably informed from sources on both sides that it did not dominate to the degree that it suffered no losses.
I think that it’s quite understandable (and quite laudable) that a French pilot might say one thing to a French enthusiast and tax-payer that exaggerates what happened in reality.
What Arthuro said about Rafale vs Typhoon directly contradicts what the Italians say. I’m more than happy to believe that one Rafale pilot got the upper hand over one Typhoon, but I would say that does not seem to reflect the broad overall results of those engagements. But trying to discern the truth from the boasts of competing fighter pilots is pretty fruitless…..
And while Rafale clearly enjoys specific advantages over Gripen and F-16, Arthuro’s statement that “rafale proved to be superior than the F16, F18, F18SH, F15 and gripen in dogfight” implies a degree of conclusive and inevitable superiority that would suggest a massive advantage, when in reality the advantage is slender enough that Rafale has beaten these fighters, but has also been beaten by these types. The Belgian F-16 pilots clearly feel that they have nothing to fear from Rafale (though I suspect that this had more to do with their own training, and tactics, than with the capabilities of their aircraft), while the Czechs revealed that the first time that two Czech Gripens came up against three Rafales (from Mont de Marsan) they downed all three without loss, crediting their victory to their datalink and consequent superior SA. The Czechs were quick to laud Rafale’s superior performance, and were clearly blown away by the original OSF’s long range visident capability using the TV channel, and they were quick to say that had the engagement been repeated ten times, they thought that by the sixth or seventh time, the Rafales would have started to win.
I found Le Bourget fascinating, revealing new sides to a number of familiar stories. The Typhoon programme seems to be in trouble again, with political and industrial factors combining to do real damage to the programme, while there were some astonishing revelations about F-15SE that I haven’t yet seen fully reported, and while I learned a great deal about the realities of Spectra. I had some interesting chats with some interesting air force delegations and individuals, and now feel much better informed about Japan, MMRCA and the UAE requirements and about the likely future course of events in those countries.
JackonickoArthuro,
I wouldn’t want to question your MN pilot’s account – but it doesn’t tally with the Super Hornet community’s account of the exercises, nor with what the AMI Typhoon pilots were saying. I do believe that Rafale did well against Super Hornet – but I don’t believe that it was without loss.
And we know that the Czechs shot down three Rafales (with a pair of Gripens) the first time they met them on exercise, and that the Belgian F-16 boys landed with big grins after coming up against the Rafale……
It would be unsporting of me to mention RAF Jaguars……
JackonickoTMor,
Yes. I spoke to all of the Rafale pilots I could find! (About half a dozen over the four days I was at the show). My notebook has three names, as three said interesting things, while three were charming, and friendly, but nervous about speaking to a UK journo.
I also spoke to some Italian Typhoon pilots, who were similarly divided into ‘frank and interesting’ and ‘friendly but with little to say’ groups.
While you might think that someone questioning the Rafale display at Le Bourget must have been blind, I’d suggest that the myopia is on your side. It was a pretty, graceful display, but it lacked anything ‘show-stopping’, and it failed to demonstrate any of the edge that Rafale enjoys over M2K and F-16. No-one’s saying that Rafale could not fly a better display than those types (nor even that it could not fly a better display than we saw from Typhoon at Paris this year), only that it failed to do so at Paris this year. It’s a criticism of this display, and this pilot, not of the aircraft.
Arthuro,
I thought that the Americans flew much more impressive displays this year – both F-16 and F/A-18E/F. Rafale’s display was nice to watch, but it was tame, and Typhoon’s display was patchy, and again failed to match some of the earlier displays we saw from Keith Hartley and others, and was thus relatively disappointing. Typhoon can fly a display routine that ‘wipes the floor’ with SH, as Hartley, Turner and others have demonstrated. It failed to do so at Le Bourget.
H-K,
There’s something to be said for that point of view, though it’s a very partial one. More important at low speeds, perhaps, but not ONLY important in that regime.
And unless you’re going to fight like a Tornado F3, the ability to point the nose away from the velocity vector will always be useful – the more so if you don’t have a helmet sight properly integrated (like Rafale). Nor does ‘off axis’ nose pointing necessarily entail the kind of extreme, post stall manoeuvring that we see from the Russians – you can point the nose a little way off axis during more dynamic manoeuvres.
It’s interesting that the HAVV roll has long been a staple of Typhoon’s display.
JackonickoIt was a nice display to watch.
It didn’t show off Rafale to its best advantage.
The Super Hornet looked more impressive, despite being a less impressive aeroplane.
Deal with it.
JackonickoNice display, smoothly flown, but apart from the transition from barrel roll into a high alpha turn and fly by, one which showed off pilot skills more than aircraft performance and handling.
I watched it from a privileged position with a US TP, who expressed some admiration and also some surprise. He thought that this was a display you could have seen from an F-16 or a Mirage 2000 in the late 70s, and was clearly surprised about how much of the routine needed to be flown in burner, and was surprised at the absence of any of the manoeuvres that show the degree of agility and ‘off axis’ nose pointing capability that modern FBW FCS gives.
I thought that Super Hornet owned the display at Le Bourget this year.
The need for 90 kN engines is, in my view, as much to do with the need for greater dry power (especially at altitude) than ultimate max reheat thrust, and is of course bound up with the need for more power hot and high when carrying stores, and not when operating clean.
Sign In
