JackonickoOK, to answer your question.
everyone to whom I have spoken who is read into the exercise
eg participating aircrew, ops people, etc
seems confident that JOUST was a pretty good predictor of what real world results would be
Though JOUST style classic BVR EF vs Typhoon set ups weren’t flown, the results of JOUST were repeated and validated in the more recent SILVE simulations.
Moreover, though representative sorties weren’t flown on ID, there were obviously relevant performance parameters which people were keen to see. Had Su-30 performed better in these areas than the ‘developed Flanker’ used as a threat in JOUST it would have implied that JOUST results would be over-optimistic, whereas if the Su-30 wasn’t as good as the ‘developed Flanker’ then it would imply that the JOUST results were pessimistic.
You may imagine what the parameters people might like to confirm would be. ID did not allow anyone to measure Su-30 weapons performance by comparison with the ‘parity weapons’ assumed during JOUST, nor was anyone able to compare BARS with the ‘Captor parity’ radar assumed in JOUST – though in terms of range and range at gimbal, no serious analyst would assume that the AESA would be anything other than inferior in these specific parameters.
There were opportunities to look at turn rates (though you’d have to assume that the Indian pilots might have been holding back) and at IRST performance.
But there were no unpleasant surprises (much better turn performance, better sensor performance, etc.) to suggest that JOUST was over-optimistic, and indeed some of what the RAF saw suggested that the developed ‘Flanker’ modelled during JOUST was a more capable aircraft than the real-world Su-30. That being the case, the attitude seems to be that JOUST and SILVE remain valid.
JackonickoMy ruse?
I state an honest and informed opinion about Rafale. That it’s a bloody good aeroplane with some excellent features, and with some advantages over Typhoon, and resulting from a better managed programme. That it’s a better fighter-bomber and a better carrier aircraft, and that it’s the perfect aircraft to meet French requirements. That’s hardly ‘dissing’ Rafale. And that though inferior overall to Typhoon, it’s more than a match for the teen series, and (while unable to do so with the same exchange ratio as Typhoon or F-22) will beat Su-30 twice as often as it loses.
In short, I’m impressed by the Rafale, just as I’m impressed by the spirit, elan, professionalism and competence of the IAF. But I’m less impressed by the Su-30.
The Su-30 is a warmed over ‘Flanker’ – which is a great thing in one way, and bad in several others. The original Su-27 and the MiG-29 were formidable aircraft with some unique low speed handling characteristics and agility (if lightly loaded, without the big internal tank, in ‘Flanker’s case) and these characteristics have been inherited by the Su-27M/35/37/30.
The addition of thrust vectoring further enhances the ‘Flanker’s low speed capabilities (and improves supersonic turn rates too, though here we’re starting from a low baseline).
The ‘Flankers’ all have plenty of pylons, and so can carry enough weapons to give them great persistence.
But the Su-30 is still a ‘Flanker’, with previous generation supersonic agility, and despite the shiny new glass cockpit with an MMI that’s in that class, and not in the same class as the MMI of the new generation of fighters (Rafale/F-22/F-35/Typhoon).
An F-16E is an impressive aircraft, but it’s still an F-16. A very good F-16, immeasurably better than a Charlie, but an F-16. The Su-30 is a ‘Flanker’ in the same way. Avoid it’s unique areas of advantage, and it’s really not that much of a threat. Lightly loaded, WVR, the Su-30 will eat a Tornado F3 for breakfast, but heavy, and BVR, the 25 Squadron blokes saw the aircraft as an opponent to be respected rather than feared.
JackonickoThat’s harsh, Planeman.
In many circumstances, the ‘Flanker’ remains a potent threat. In close in, WVR combat, the combination of HMSS, a HOBS weapon, and thrust vectoring makes the aircraft a tough challenge – especially if it’s lightly loaded.
With the wrong RoE, Typhoon, Rafale and F-22 would all find the ‘Flanker’ a tough opponent, especially while they all lack a helmet, and while Rafale and Typhoon lack TVC, too.
The Typhoon does have the advantage of acceleration and performance, and at combat speeds probably has an edge, but sucked into a slow speed fight, I would not be complacent.
But JOUST was about BVR.
TMor,
Singapore didn’t evaluate any aircraft that was to the standard being proposed. And there’s an obvious reason why they weren’t shown an 80 kN M88…..
JackonickoI’m not ‘read into’ the official report into ID, and people who are will speak only in the most general terms.
Since JOUST was a predictor of BVR exchange ratios (subsequently validated by SILVE), between aircraft which were all using their radar, ID was of limited relevence. However, it is clear that the Su-30’s aerodynamic performance and T:W was no better than that modelled during JOUST, and no-one believes that BARS is better than the ‘parity’ radar modelled during the original JOUST evaluation.
JOUST’s conclusions are therefore reckoned to remain as valid as they were before the exercise.
JackonickoRob L,
That’s a most odd report.
By anyone but Andy Chuter and I’d dismiss it as bol.locks.
The first Block 5 jet has been at Coningsby for ages (it came from the R2 upgrade line) not only since Monday!
We all know what the core Block 5 A-G capabilities and weapons are (Litening 3, two EPW II, 55 rounds of 27-mm) and while the so-called COIN (which might not stand for counter insurgency in this case) mod package was new to me last week it doesn’t include Brimstone.
And we all know that Litening 3 is the selected LDP for austere (and even that it’s on contract with Ultra) but perhaps not for the full LGB integration in Block 10 – though some reports suggest that austere Litening is selected for Austere, and full Litening for the definitive Block 10 LDP. So why is BAE saying to Andy Chuter that:
“a laser designator has not been selected for the Block 5 aircraft, and the company continues to consider its options ahead of contracting for a system to be fitted before Typhoon deploys for operations.”
and
“The company declined to name the laser-designator supplier for the Aug. 7 trial.”
What?
WHAT???
Has anyone told Ultra?
And why would anyone say that:
“The Typhoon’s initial ground-attack capability allows it to carry the Brimstone anti-tank missile and the Enhanced Paveway II precision-guided bomb.”
The Press Release said:
“08 August 2007
MOST CAPABLE RAF TYPHOONS YET GO ‘MULTI-ROLE’
Warton, United Kingdom. – BAE Systems has confirmed delivery of the first two Typhoon combat aircraft with multi-role capability to the Royal Air Force. The development means in addition to being able to take on and defeat other fighters in air-to-air combat, RAF Typhoons will soon be able to attack ground targets with GPS and laser-guided bombs – all in one mission.
Wing Commander Gavin Parker, Officer Commanding XI Squadron, took delivery of the first production programme version of the aircraft from BAE Systems on Monday, 6 August.
Before flying the aircraft down from BAE Systems in Warton, Lancashire to RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, he said: “I think this is, in many respects, one of the most important milestones in the Eurofighter Typhoon programme to date. Typhoon is already an exceptional air-to-air fighter and is demonstrating excellent potential in the air-to-surface role. A combination of its range, payload and performance, coupled with the planned integration of a variety of air-to-surface weapons, will make it a fantastic close air support machine.”
Having accepted the new aircraft, XI Squadron will spend several months training to use the full capabilities of the combined functionality before declaring an operational capability in Jul 08 and their readiness to be deployed on multi-role operations as and when required.
This latest development follows the RAF’s announcement that it is now using the fighter as an integral part of the UK’s airspace defence operations.
Both aircraft now delivered by BAE Systems to the RAF have air-to-air and initial air-to-ground capability, one coming from what is known as the Retrofit 2 upgrade programme, and the other from the production programme. They are the first RAF aircraft to have been upgraded to what is known as Block 5 standard, enhancing the aircraft’s handling and its systems – and adding new defensive and offensive capabilities.
Retrofit 2 will bring 115 aircraft from across Europe up to Block 5 standard. A further 25 Block 5 aircraft will be produced as part of the production programme. BAE Systems’ employees on the Typhoon programme will be working side by side with RAF personnel at bases in the UK and overseas supporting men and women on active operations.
Chris Boardman, managing director Typhoon at BAE Systems said: “We have worked in close partnership with the Ministry of Defence to introduce these enhancements and provide the RAF with a state-of-the-art combat aircraft.
He added: “By applying the principles of the Defence Industrial Strategy, we have also jointly developed a programme of combined maintenance and upgrade which will help minimise the cost of this work to the taxpayer, whilst maximising the RAF’s effectiveness.”
The maiden flight of the first Block 5 production aircraft has already demonstrated the benefits of continued improvements on the Typhoon development programme. Typhoon final assembly operations manager Martin Topping said: “The aircraft performed exceptionally well, achieving a high level of performance. This production flight acceptance testing flight was one of the best ever, achieving 90 per cent of the planned schedule.”
The Block 5 standard gives Typhoon full air-to-air and initial air-to-ground capability with full carefree handling. The aircraft is cleared for the 9g envelope as intended, with additional features such as sensor fusion; full direct voice input; enhanced global positioning system; defensive aids sub-system countermeasures including automatic chaff and flare dispensers; radar air-to-surface modes including ground mapping; and initial Forward Looking Infra-Red.
The Block 5 Typhoon will be equipped with air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, plus laser-guided bombs. External fuel tanks are certified for supersonic flight, while air-to-air refuelling is cleared for all customer-specified tanker types.
JackonickoTMor,
Well spotted – I could add via Craig Penrice, August 2007!
I don’t know what he wrote about Korea in that article, I’m afraid, I only have a few extracts.
JackonickoSo at a time when the programme was mired in delay and trouble, the Typhoon lost an industrial/economic evaluation. The same evaluation was won by an aircraft that hadn’t even flown.
The Dutch ‘evaluation’ is a useful indicator and illustration of where the programme was in a particular snapshot in time. Of great historical interest, but nothing more.
Jackonicko“Export campaigns
The more rapid progress made in the Rafale development programme gave the aircraft an edge in early export campaigns, too, and Rafale supporters took great comfort from the reported results of a Dutch evaluation that put the Rafale (with a score of 6.95/8) just behind the JSF (with a score of 6.97/8) and some way ahead of the Typhoon (5.83/8).
Unfortunately, though, there has never been a competition nor even a proper evaluation in the Netherlands, and no specification or requirement has been issued.
The ‘evaluation’ referred to was a paperwork exercise by the Dutch CBP (the Dutch Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis) an independent economic and political research institute that has been criticised for its lack of insight and technical knowledge of the programmes it has scrutinised. The CBP analysed the three aircraft on economic and industrial grounds, and not on technical grounds nor on the basis of real world capability.
No evaluation team visited Warton prior to the CBP evaluation, and no Dutch pilot flew the aircraft. EF GmbH submitted no bid, no price, and no specification, and nor did Dassault.”
JackonickoI’m a journalist, I’m allowed to use the lowest form of wit, and since it’s your preferred mode of communication, I thought that you wouldn’t mind…..
But it’s still the case that classic BVR is still relevant, and net centric capabilities and IRST will seldom compensate for inadequate radar range and inadequate performance.
If it did, there’d be no real pressure to replace RBE2….
JackonickoBetter take radar out of Rafale altogether. It’s obviously not useful at all, and anyone who thinks that it’s the primary BVR air combat sensor is obviously a dinosaur.
Perhaps that would free up enough money to buy a helmet and not go off ‘half cocked’ with the OSF NG, and to keep the useful capabilities in the DASS.
JackonickoIndia’s experience with the M2K has been phenomenal. It’s been a superbly successful aircraft for the Indians. That might win votes for Rafale, and had Dassault been able to offer more M2Ks they might have been on to a racing certainty.
Jaguar and MiG-27 pilots might also appreciate Rafale – a great fighter bomber with useful stand off weapons, PGMs, and self defence capabilities they could only dream of.
Glitter,
“I’m just asking where is the confirmation of that wonderful JOUST analysis”
SILVE.
And though the ‘Flankers’ on ID were operating without radar, and though there wasn’t much BVR, everyone who is read into the exercise seems confident that JOUST was a pretty good predictor of what real world results would be.
JackonickoArthuro,
Well done!
But in your list you omit Typhoon’s single greatest advantage (MMI) and include an ‘advantage’ that doesn’t exist.
-better supersonic performance (supercruise and agility) this is a substantial advantage
-a greater radar range this is a major advantage, but it will be eroded when Rafale gets an AESA
-typhoon has a better TW ratio: better acceleration and climb performance This is a Typhoon advantage, but my personal take is that it can be over-stated.
-a bigger political clout due to the for nations involved in this programme;
Four nations is a huge, huge disadvantage. Though it made unilateral cancellation harder, and offered potential economies of scale (many of which were p***ed away with unnecessary quadruplication of effort to salve national pride) in most respects it’s a massive disadvantage, adding cost and massive delays.
And when one partner was Germany from the late 80s-mid 90s (desperate to be a good European and not to upset France, then crippled by the costs of reunification, and demands for a Peace Dividend) and when another was Britain since about 1995 (crippled by a real lack of will, and an even greater lack of defence funding, and by internicene warfare between Army, Navy and Air Force, and by a dangerous anti-Europeanism which threatened any collaborative programme with EU partners) you have a recipe for complete *******ing disaster.
JackonickoI know JPL. He, and folk like Colonel Moussez are to Rafale what Ned Frith and Charlie Chan were to Typhoon – official mouthpieces who state the party line – especially so at an event like Paris or Farnborough.
1) The Dutch evaluation was not technical – it was economic and industrial, which is how the then-unflown JSF won against Rafale and Typhoon (which came last, and on programme grounds, at that time, who’s surprised!).
2) There are a number of Korean sources. Apart from members of the Typhoon and Rafale and F-15 bid teams, a senior member of the Korean team spoke frankly about the evaluation at an SETP (Society of Experimental Test Pilots) event after the evaluation. British, French and US TPs have reported what he said. Some journos have even spoken to him direct! Before him, I had only spoken to Boeing and Dassault people (I never found any of the EF Korean campaign team willing to talk) and had always understood that Typhoon was rejected, pretty well out of hand, because at that time, there seemed no chance that the aircraft could meet the requirement or the timescale. I’d come to understand that the F-15K and Rafale were pretty evenly matched – each having advantages and disadvantages, with Rafale marginally ahead overall. That’s not what the RoKAF, thought however, who placed Typhoon ahead on technical grounds, but who judged it too risky from a timescale point of view, and who reluctantly encouraged its rejection. But at the end of the day, the RoKAF and the Government were in agreement that the aircraft should be rejected.
3) It’s a very similar story in Singapore, though the RSAF blokes who have spoken out to me and other journos have been far more cautious about their anonymity. In Singapore, the Typhoon bid team put in what was described by a senior industry source as a ‘shambolic’ performance, angering the Singaporeans in the process. Though they later re-organised the bid team and brought in a marketing guru from the Hawk programme, the Singaporean MinDEF remained annoyed, and many believe that the way in which Typhoon was singled out for early rejection (rather than simply announcing the winner at the end of the process) was partially calculated as a punishment. The big difference with Korea was that the RSAF rated Typhoon as best on technical grounds, and pushed hard for its selection, accepting that some of the required capabilities would not be ready in the required timescale, and content to run the risk a minor slippage to delivery dates. But while the AF was happy to wait, MinDEF was not, for strategic and budgetary reasons. The rushed (long delayed and rushed-at-the-last-minute) push for a Tranche 2 production contract was intended to reassure the Singaporeans, but the failure to sign the Tranche 2 capabilities contracts (EOC>FCP) had the opposite effect.
JPL’s characterisation of what CAS said about Typhoon runs counter to what has been published. Torpy was polite about Rafale, and praised some aspects of the aircraft, but he did not rate it above Typhoon, and when asked about this was quite clear that while Rafale was an ‘excellent aircraft’ he was happy that Typhoon was superior, and better for UK requirements.
I’ve personally spoken to a number of pilots who’ve flown Rafale, and all acknowledge that it’s a bloody good aeroplane. I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t place Rafale ahead of the US teen series (with the exception of the latest F-15 variants, which do have some enthusiastic supporters). But of those who have flown both Rafale and Typhoon I have found plenty of people who liked particular elements of Rafale, but I have yet to find a single person who preferred Rafale overall.
That’s not to say there aren’t such people – find a pilot whose only experience is the M2K and there’s a chance that he might prefer Rafale overall. I almost spoke to a Greek M2K driver who I thought had flown Rafale and Typhoon, but the bug.ger pretended he couldn’t speak English and wouldn’t discuss it…..
JackonickoIf Link 16 allows you to turn 180 and flee (early enough) that’s a valid and useful tactic, of course, and pre-Meteor, it’s even likely to work. But it does take you out of the equation, offensively, and disrupts your own mission goal, and it does mean that you haven’t done much to stop the fighter-bombers the Typhoon is sweeping ahead of….
It means that the enemy fighter can steam on without having to turn to his gimbal, while if the enemy fighter can accelerate faster than you can, he can get a second shot away as he pursues you.
And if you’ve just done a max rate turn to get away while he’s been piling on the coal to close, then he might already be at a very, very dangerous position for you.
JackonickoI don’t think Craig would mind me nicking a phrase that is universal currency in RAF crew rooms from Lossiemouth to St Mawgan, and which came from Blackadder in the first place.
I could ask him, next time we speak…..
Sign In
