An exageration that makes one of the salient points of the article, because the crux of that article is to show that with the Rafale, the “IAF bought the bread now instead of the cake tomorrow”.

By the way I remember our dear jack used that very same expression a few days ago in this very forum.

That’s propaganda, plain as that.

Nic

Lake attributes the not overly convincing performance of the DASS to mission data in the first place. ESM, ECM/TRD and MAWS are all dependent on programmable mission data and these are property of the respective customers. Lake states that the British are clearly ahead of the other partners here, whether that’s true or not is hard to say, but the British are definitely very active in that field and have the longest experience with the system, so they actually had a head start over everyone else. Mission data may have played a role during the Swiss evaluation, but maturity of certain sub systems (CFD, TRD and ECM in particular but also MAWS) was another issue at that time. How much more capable DASS is nowadays is difficult to say, but much has happened since, less so on the hardware front, but on the software side. DASS is a credible system and it is evolving. Albeit sub standard hardware on German examples is an unsubstantiated claim as far as the components available are concerned. I doubt that the LWR was of great importance to the Swiss AF, the Gripen lacked both MAWS and LWR, but its EWS was still rated highly, albeit for the 2015 configuration such system may have been taken into account.

Well even if you are lacking any basic sense of reality…I would remind that :

1) A&C state that they are far from beginner (re-read the report on previous page)
2) all pilots looks way too old to be rookies. I have the original picture no doubt possible.

everything put together and there is not a single doubt remaining as far as pilot experience is concerned.

next answer for latter

Sorry but you are mistaken here when it comes to the scope of OC training and pilots running through transition courses for example might well be older, experienced as jocks, but not necessarily on the type. Such a training is designed to teach pilots not only how to fly the aircraft, but also how to employ it in combat. Sure the more comprehensive and advanced tactical training follows in the frontline squadron, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t training how to fight in the first place. Operational conversion training includes an “operational” for a reason. I don’t think the AdA has a completely different physolophie in training its pilots. From what I know about the conversion courses run at Laage it includes a number of air combat sorties with increasing complexity and difficulty. From basic fighter manoeuvres to 2-ship battles in a scenario with enemy strikers and fighters. On top of that thete are reasons for FL limitations and rules in general. As said such exercises aren’t conducted to measure which aircraft is the better one, but to train pilots, learn from their errors and improve their skills. I want to point out that this is a post NOT related to the exercise at Solenzara as such.

I don’t say otherwise but as you said yourself it is “basic” certainly not enough to be deployed in an international exercise against the rafale. That would be foolish, dangerous and a loss of time and money to train rookies. You would hardly mobilize foreign assets like the rafale with the typhoon just to train rookies.

It was a bi-lateral DACT exercise, not a large international exercise with complex scenarios and COMAOs. Hardly something beyond the scope of TX- or B-courses.

I don’t say otherwise but I was merely answering bloodshot assertion that the typhoon pilots would be automatically less experienced. Especially when the rafale pilots have to train for a much wider variety of tasks.

Back then the range of missions wasn’t that comprehensive and while focusay not have been on AA, AA is certainly a field the unit trains for and places a greater priority on it than previous dedicated strike/attack squadrons. That’s the direct result from the swingrole/omnirole capability however you want to call it.

Given the wealth of exercises all around the world Typhoons have been participating and the feedback obtained from some of them (by far not all have been commented on) the Typhoon appears to offer a serious edge in comparison to most fighters currently employed. Of course there are limitations and we rarely know about the detailed circumstances, ROE, restrictions imposed, roles etc. If Rafale is allegedly so dominant as the results from the two DACTs want to make you believe, why haven’t we heard more about similar results where you guys are so keen to highlight the claimed superiority of the Rafale? I think what many may actually confuse is dominance/superiority with invulnerability. I don’t think anyone made such a claim. From what’s being known the overall simulated kill ratio of Typhoons against other fighters is in an overwhelming favor for the Typhoon. Of course there are a few other types which are certainly very demanding and where Typhoon might not be able to dominate in the same way as against some other types. Rafale is certainly one of them.

And who says that the AMRAAMs were simulated with full capability, that even ECM was allowed to be used or that the Typhoons were supercruising in this mission at all? At the end of the day we don’t really know what happened here or there in most cases. And if the story from the Italian side is true, it just demonstrates that the same could happen the other way round and that possibly without Rafales being restricted like at Al Dhafra. Every type can be defeated and it wouldn’t be the first, nor the last time that a supposedly inferior type smashs superior types, by smart tactics. Reminds me of an AF tale were a German Tornado at scored two kills against F-15Cs by hiding close to the ground, popping up a shoot them down with winders in a surprise attack. Or the good old Rhinos giving Vipers and Eagles a bad day. Things like these happen, if it is the norm then we can conclude that there is really a likely superiority of one type over another.