“i would rather evaluate the intuitivity and learning curve of my brand new MMI with someone not too much used to ONE type of modern MMI.”

That’s one point of view, of course, but I suspect that many professionals would value the opinion of current pilots more than that of senior officers who had not been active for 16 years – especially when the senior officer had any relevant role experience.

“The typhoon MMI is very similar to the teen’s MMIs. It uses the same principle, the same philosophy.”

Absolute and complete hogwash, Kovy. Rafale’s MMI is far more derivative (owing a great deaal to M2K) than Typhoon’s, which was developed from a clean sheet of paper from the ground up.

Your characterisation of the essentials of BVR is also lacking, I’m afraid. Radar range (especially at the Gimbal), supersonic agility, and the ability to maintain and regain energy are absolutely key – and cannot be ignored. If you understand F-Pole and A-Pole it will be clear to you, and if you don’t, it won’t be. And talking about IFF, sensor fusion, missile NEZs (NB: how does acceleration and agility effect the return shot?), and the like as though they were unique to Rafale is silly.

Nice pictures indeed, and ones that demonstrate Rafale’s formidable payload/range capability.

Interesting that it’s an EC7 jet. Have they got round to doing the Scalp test firings in Djibouti yet? Are they, in other words, cleared to actually use them in service?

Arthuro.

“and you? Since when did you fly a modern combat jet? Does that mean you would not be able to speak about MMI?”

No, not me. My opinion is worth nothing – as a journalist my only function is to assess and report what I’m told, and to use other people’s expertise to do the assessment, too.

I’m interested in listening to people who fly modern fast jets for a living – not senior officers who stopped doing so 16 years ago.

And ACM Torpy said that he found the cockpit layout intuitive – NOT the MMI.

Opit.

“Only those who actually fly modern fighters can be trusted, although you dismiss them too because they’re also likely to be biased. In other words, nobody is qualified enough. Nobody but you, it seems.”

Again. Not me. Definitely not me. Nor do I dismiss those who actually fly modern fighters, except when they’re boasting about their own current jet. A No.3 Squadron Typhoon pilot will not be a reliable source on the relative merits of Typhoon/Rafale, any more than a ‘stick’ from EC 7 will be reliable when it comes to Rafale/Typhoon. I’ve been around fighter pilots long enough to know that whatever they fly, they will always insist that it’s the best aircraft there is! And when being quoted in public, what they say has usually been sanitised and screened by the PR people, and will always incorporate a degree of spin.

So I view pilot reports in RAF News or Fox 3 as being PR puff, frankly, and the Aeronavale quotes from http://www.meretmarine as being no better. But when a current, frontline Typhoon pilot has good things to say about Rafale, or when his Rafale counterpart praises something about Typhoon, then it’s more interesting. I’m happy to listen to what the Korean and Singaporean evaluators had to say, and I’ll be interested in what current Typhoon/Hornet/F-16/Gripen pilots have to say about Rafale, and to what current Rafale/Hornet/F-16/Gripen pilots have to say about Typhoon.

Kovy,

“The other myth being: the typhoon is better in A2A and the joust simulation proves it.”

Not a myth.

And certainly not just because Joust says so. Because superior supersonic agility, acceleration, and radar range at the limits of azimuth minimise the A-Pole and give superior kill probability and a better exchange rate.

(How many G can Rafale sustain at the crucial Mach 1.6 speed that’s optimal for BVR engagements?)

Joust was, however, a rigorous series of man-in-the-loop simulations, which Rand (a good independent source) praised – however unpalateable that might be to some of us. It was conducted by DERA/QinetiQ – which Rand described as: “a highly professional civilian government organisation, and certainly not controlled by the RAF or British contractors.”

I can understand why French enthusiasts want to dismiss Joust as being unfair, unreliable, inaccurate and loaded against ‘their’ aeroplane (especially since BAE Marketeers exploited it so enthusiastically), but unfortunately, it was a pretty good tool.

Rafale scored worse in Joust then than it would today, because it’s WVR armament did not include IR Mica, but the difference was not huge. Joust was used by the JSF programme (quite a credit to it), and its results were borne out by the more recent SILVE simulations – and SILVE was validated by Dassault and Matra. Silve gave Typhoon an exchange ratio of 7:1 (4 vs 7 Su-35 escort & 8 MiG-29 bombers), F-15E got 2.6:1 in the same scenario, and Rafale 2.2:1.

Nick 76

“The Rafale’s approach is to combine reduced RCS with a radar with LPI characteristics. So its much ballyhooed reduced radar range may be quite sufficient when evaluated in totality, it may detect the opponent first.”

In BVR, when you’re talking about radar cross section, all that counts is frontal RCS. There is no evidence to suggest that Rafale’s frontal RCS is any smaller than Typhoon’s, and indeed with the fixed AAR probe and boxy OSF installation, some claim that it is higher. I suspect that both are very close, with Rafale shading it ‘clean’ and Typhoon better when loaded for A-A.

Moreover, the RBE2 has significantly reduced range compared to Captor M when looking ‘straight ahead’, but as a direct result of the physics of phase shifting, range performance degrades even more markedly at the extremes of the scan, whereas a mechanical array does not. This gives RBE2 a MARKEDLY reduced performance at the ‘Gimbal’ (and the Gimbal is 60° off the centerline, instead of 70°) and this is crucially important in BVR air combat, for obvious reasons.

RBE2 does allow genuine simultaneous A-A and A-G modes, of course, as well as fully automatic terrain following, while OSF gives a useful passive target identification capability. Given particular RoE this could be hugely significant.

Scorpion,

“I have theoretically evaluated both jets with help of all available data/information.”

I applaud your industry, Scorps, but the real grown ups have evaluated these jets with all of the data that you and I can only guess at, using tactics validated by the real frontline experts, and running an array of scenarios again and again and again to get the fairest and most accurate results.

Arthuro,

Who’s comparing?

I have no interest in what Torpy had to say about Typhoon after a 45 minute or one hour sortie, either.

Now put one of the Typhoon squadron commanders (or better yet a senior flight commander with an exchange tour on F-16 or F/A-18) in a Rafale and I’ll really sit up and take notice.

Glitter,

I’m not remotely surprised that ACM Torpy praised the Rafale’s sensor fusion, performance and intuitive cockpit.

Politeness alone would dictate his being fairly complimentary in public, and the likes of me will probably never see his subsequent report on the flight.

I’d expect it will be more detailed than the canned quotes on the RAF website, and more honest and thus more mixed.

I’d be most interested in what he thought of the TV/laser ranging side of OSF – which is a capability that Typhoon does not have – if indeed he appreciated the significance as a former mud-mover, rather than an air defender.

And I have to say that if anyone flew me in a Rafale, I’d be just as nice about it.

In any case, his background is Tornado GR1 and Jaguar GR1 (pre 1A, let alone 3A!) so he’s not what you’d call current, nor is he used to a halfway decent MMI. Nor did he talk about intuitive MMI, intuitive display formats or intuitive modings, but only of an intuitive cockpit ‘layout’. Having the controls and screens in the right place is a great start, of course, but there’s more to an intuitive MMI than that.

I wonder which sensors they fused for the good Air Chief Marshal? :diablo:

His grasp of capability is such that he’s just s***-canned the RAF air-to-ground jet with the best MMI, which is also the only RAF FJ with a helmet/datalink integration, with no chance of some of its capabilities being replaced this side of 2010.

Clearly a man of vision…..

But did you have to send him back?

I haven’t heard this, specifically. Carmichael always said that several of the flight got hits, so what’s the problem.

If there’s a story, then why not tell it?

The Norwegian Government have a deliberate policy of running a “balanced competition”, and this means that the Norwegian funding/investment levels with JSF/SAAB/EF GmbH will always be roughly equivalent.

Eurofighter were first to get investment from Norway, and to give the Norwegians a stake in the programme, and Lockheed and the Swedes have “piggy backed” on the success of Eurofighter GmbH’s LOU with NETMA and the current IPA (both of which have been running since 2003).

Eurofighter also drove the new IP Agreement – and though the Swedes have signed first, a similar agreement is already in place with EF GmbH, and this will be formally signed on 15th May – delayed as a result of full diaries on the EF side.

I’m a big Gripen fan, and Gripen International have done a fantastic job with desk models and photoshopped pictures of a new Gripen variant, but it remains to be seen just how long it is before any metal is cut, let alone until a ‘Super Gripen’ actually flies.

We’ll wait and see which aircraft wins in Norway, but it’s inaccurate to think that this agreement “strengthens Gripen’s chances of being selected.”

Quite apart from being as large as life and still vital and fit at 91, and quite apart from being Mr Autogyro, Ken Wallis is more than just an eccentric and a character – he’s an old school design engineer who really was touched by genius.

Wallis designed the Canberra bomb trolley/loader – small enough to be wheeled under a Canberra, but man enough to lift a 1,000 lb bomb up into the bomb bay – and his small scale hand made prototype is an incredible piece of engineering. Wallis designed a slot car system that is far more elegant than Scalextrix. Wallis built and tested a tiny, tiny, miniature revolver firing real bullets. Chatting to the man in his study you see all of these things, and it really is a life-changing experience because you know that you are in the presence of genius.

And he’s a gentleman of the old school, too.