Mister Q,

France has done it and created an aircraft which meets its customer’s requirements better than any single imported aircraft would have done. Not even the Rafale’s sternest critic would judge it ‘poor’.

France may not have the resources to do it again.

Likewise for Sweden.

The UK didn’t do it alone, and has had to fight tooth and nail to keep the unique national capabilities it required. The competing needs and political requirements of the partners have added Billions to the bill, and have cost years of delays.

Speedy,

Combat aircraft are becoming more and more sophisticated and complex, requiring a bigger and bigger investment to design, develop and produce. Only by producing these aircraft in massive numbers can the programmes make sense. And today, even countries the size of Britain and France don’t have domestic requirements big enough for a fighter programme to be viable.

In the end, I suspect that neither Typhoon nor Rafale will be the commercial success that was hoped for, and I doubt that either will ever reach the production totals that their makers would have hoped for.

For Typhoon, Italy and the UK are looking shaky for their Tranche 3 commitments, while the excellent Rafale (lets avoid the arguments as to exactly how good, and just agree that it’s every bit as good as a Super Hornet) has failed to win a single, solitary export order, while there is still some doubt as to whether France will actually take its full allocation of 294.

I doubt we’ll see another single-nation European fighter. I don’t think any of them can do it any more!

But I do expect to see the French aerospace industry to continue to prosper, as arguably the senior partner in the World’s most successful rotorcraft manufacturer (something that Westland ‘gave away’ the chance of competing to become) and in Airbus – arguably the world’s best airliner manufacturer.

I have grave doubts as to whether BAE will ever produce another wholly-British aircraft again. Whether that matters or not is a moot point, though I’d be slightly saddened should that be the case.

I don’t care whether you’re Marc Sampaix, posting from the comfort of Ealing library, or some fellow traveller. You’ve registered this identity specifically to attack me and you do so on grounds that are demonstrably false.

You accuse me of being a Typhoon fanboy, and worse, as a paid shill for the Typhoon programme.

Time and again I have pointed out that each aircraft enjoys advantages and disadvantages, and have been quick to point out areas where I see Rafale advantages over Typhoon.

I’ve written negative articles about BAE and about Typhoon.

That’s hardly ‘slagging’ off Rafale, and nor does it support your contention that I view Rafale as a ‘hated French aircraft’. (In point of fact, I quite admire it, as I admire Gripen, and as I admire the F-16). I see good and bad points in the aircraft, the programme and the company that built the aircraft.

And I would say EXACTLY the same about Typhoon, the programme and the company that built the aircraft.

It’s what most people would view as being neutral, or at least balanced.

It certainly doesn’t support your cowardly accusations of shilling (cowardly because you make them from the comfort of your anonymous username), which you will never be able to substantiate, since I’ve never taken a payment from any aircraft manufacturer.

Unfortunately, however, people like you view anyone with a balanced and neutral view as being a ‘Typhoon fanboy’ because they don’t share your unlimited and unbridled enthusiasm for Rafale. People like you view anything less than shouted claims of total superiority of the Rafale as being hostile propaganda.

And if someone brings anecdotal evidence that contradicts your pro Rafale prejudices, you accuse them of lying, you infer that they haven’t spoken to the people they claim to have spoken to, and you drag in irrelevant personal attack in a desparate attempt to discredit them.

Let’s get this straight.

Rafale is a good aircraft, and a great success for Dassault and the French customer and taxpayer. The Rafale enjoys some advantages over Typhoon, in some areas. It has superior low level ride and low level handling characteristics, better payload/range and may enjoy an edge at very low speeds. It currently enjoys superior A-G capabilities, and has some more useful A-G weapons and a radar that is better suited to A-G/Swing role ops. Dassault’s programme management has been exemplary.

I don’t dispute any of those advantages.

Any reasonable, balanced, neutral observer would acknowledge that Typhoon enjoys its own advantages. I would maintain that these are principally superior performance for the BVR A-A role (including rate of climb, acceleration, supersonic acceleration, supersonic agility and Supercruise), a significantly better MMI (and I have a lot of largely anecdotal evidence to support this) and better A-A radar performance, as well as a good HMS and HOBS missile capability. I’d be the first to stress that the programme is way behind where it should be, and that particular capabilities are lagging disgracefully, and I’d acknowledge that the aircraft has characteristics that make it much less suitable for some roles.

Balance, as I say. (And balance isn’t a matter of grudgingly acknowledging that one aircraft has some very marginal advantage in one relatively unimportant area). Balance is about recognising that in some areas, the jury’s still out.

I look forward to learning more about Rafale’s low speed agility, and about the degree of ‘nose pointing’ and carefree handling suggested by Typhoon’s HAVV roll. Does the ability to go to the very edge of the envelope (and briefly beyond) trump carefree handling at very marginally higher speeds?

Grace and courtesy are earned. Regular insult, accusations of lying, deliberate misrepresentation and the like tend to come from people when they are displaying Xenophobic and/or fanboy tendencies. I should, perhaps, pay more attention to the fact that some of those who I accuse of fanboyism are just extremely proud of their country’s best fighter for decades (and I can’t really blame them for that), whose enthusiasm occasionally tips over and tips them into anger and lashing out.

People on this board make different contributions. Some trawl the internet to dredge up the smallest fact or figure. Others bring us reports from their national magazines (TMor and his little precis of Air and Cosmos, for instance). I’m sorry that good access, leading to anecdotal evidence and real insight isn’t always appreciated or believed, but that’s the modest contribution that I offer. Believe it or ignore it, but it would be nice if there could be just a little less abuse, and a few less accusations of lying.

Generally, I have a great deal of respect for the French posters on this site, but not for those who bluster and bully, making unsubstantiated claims about Rafale based on incomplete or partial facts, and certainly not to those who make a habit of attacking me personally, rather than the facts or opinions that I present. I’m sure that folk like TMor, Kovy and Arthuro (and Nic and Glitter, most of the time, despite our cross words) will already know that I view them with a mixture of respect, fondness and occasional exasperation. There are a handful of exceptions.

As a generality, that’s true. It is, however, only a generality and there are many factors that affect g tolerance.

And it’s always going to be better to have a fit, athletic tall bloke than a short, unfit one.

I must be feeling picky.

Nic,

I don’t think you ‘get’ what Joust was.

“Simulations like Joust” did not set out to show an advantage of Typhoon over Rafale, but rather to look at the advantages those aircraft had over a common threat aircraft (a derived ‘Flanker’).

Joust therefore showed that Typhoon was a better ‘Flanker’ killer than Rafale. AND THAT IS ALL. Put a different threat aircraft in the equation and you’ll get a different result.

You might compare a number of wartime fighters against (say) a Bf 110 threat aircraft. A Hawker Hurricane might be more effective against the 110 than a Spitfire (a more stable gun platform, better battle damage tolerance, etc.).

That would not necessarily mean that the Hurricane would beat the Spitfire in combat, and certainly the relative advantages of the two aircraft would change if you used the Bf109 or Fw190 as your ‘threat’. And would change again if your threat was a CR32 or a Gladiator.

If you believe that the ‘derived Flanker’ threat is no longer the most realistic scenario, or is no longer representative of the worst case, or if you believe that BVR is dead (perhaps because of RoE), then Joust loses a great deal of its validity.

And Joust never showed that Typhoon would ‘beat’ Rafale head-to-head – it showed relative advantage against a particular threat.

Nick,

Mistaken identity is neither here nor there. What is irritating is to be accused of being a paid shill for a company.

TMor,

In point of fact, the stories about the Singapore evaluation are not single source. There were references in all of the Show Dailies at Singapore, as well as the AFM piece to which you refer. I’m pretty sure that Francis Tusa wrote about it in Defence Analysis, too.

You say that: “We’re not saying that Rafale supercruises as fast as Typhoon. We say it can. Unless you’ve opened a Rafale flight manual, you can’t say, i’m afraid.” You’re wrong, “I’m afraid”. Having spoken to evaluation pilots who have flown both I CAN say. What I can’t do, without a scan of a signed affadavit, or of the evaluation report, is PROVE it.

Whenever I post that Typhoon enjoys superiority over Rafale in some areas, especially in a Rafale thread, it’s to provide balance (it’s usually just after I’ve acknowledged particular Rafale strengths), and to correct silly claims along the lines that Rafale is superior in every way. It isn’t. I suspect that my saying that each aircraft enjoys advantages and disadvantages annoys the dyed in the wool Rafale fanboys because they’re too prejudiced and too xenophobic to admit to Typhoon having any advantages over their beloved Rafale, and too ignorant to acknowledge a superior MMI, for example (which they don’t understand because it’s difficult to quantify to a lay audience).

The day I see a French forumer acknowledge Typhoon’s superior MMI (as many French pilots have done, and as I acknowledge the Rafale’s superior low level ride and low level handling characteristics, or the Rafale’s current superior A-G capabilities, or the strength of Dassault’s programme management) I’ll know that I’m dealing with a pro, or at least with an unbiased and intelligent amateur. But I won’t hold my breath, as so few French enthusiasts will admit any of Typhoon’s advantages, nor even that it has any.

How typical that you should selectively quote me as saying: “But there are ways in which Typhoon is superior” and not my even more strongly worded statement that: “The Rafale’s a great aeroplane in many ways (and enjoys some superiority over its rivals in a few areas), and for the French customer and taxpayer Dassault have truly delivered.”

It seems to me that some of you chaps are driven to portray anyone with a balanced and neutral view as being a ‘Typhoon fanboy’ because they don’t share your unlimited and unbridled enthusiasm for Rafale. You view anything less than shouted claims of total superiority of the Rafale as being hostile propaganda. And it isn’t, of course.

I must close, as this supposed Typhoon fanboy has a rather negative story to write about Typhoon, and a pressing deadline.

Kovy,

PM me your postal address, and I’ll get someone to send you a special treat in the post!

Nic 10,

Yeah, yeah. And I’m every other writer who has ever said anything nice about Typhoon, or nasty about Rafale, too. Doug Barrie, Rob Hewson, Craig Hoyle, Jamie Hunter, Francis Tusa, the whole lot of them. Especially John Lake.

Glitter,

As above. And I’m not insulting anyone (OK, apart from LardAssup/Globalpness/Thunder/Fonk/Sampaix/Gegene).

I didn’t understand TMor’s comment, and wondered whether he was attacking me. If so I was astonished since Fonk (let’s stick to one name) has attacked TMor several times:

“Tmor, pls, don’t try to talk anythink aeronautical, pls, you really sux as jackass on this matter!”

“The FACT that you canot comprehend a tenth of what i wrote doesn’t MEAN that it is propaganda Mr Tomor, it only means that you are just a tad ineducated and arrogant enough to take side without knowing. Give us a break. Alternatively you can READ a learn.”

On reflection, maybe you’re very wise. Anyone attacked by Fonk/LardAssup/Globalpenss has their credibility enhanced dramatically. If you’ve annoyed him, then plainly you’re on the right track.