Well they didn’t said it this way, but meant it this way (pilots have to correlate separate sensor inputs unlike in the Rafale).

Those are the words of the DSI journalist, not A&C, not Grandclaudon… He might have misunderstood something, I don’t know.

This guy had formerly proven that he believed that Typhoon was better in A2A than Rafale (remember one awful issue of DSI Jon Lake wanted me to translate on eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk). He gave a lot of weird arguments. But since 2006, he has written pretty interesting articles about Rafale and has proven to be reliable after all.

A&C are also the first French source to have challenged the Grandclaudon’s claims about the F-22.

But today, both magazines seems to have a common point of view on some events, and that’s what make the story interesting to me.

Weren’t the results from Corsica reported before Grandclaudon reported them?

I don’t know, I thought it was first reported by Grandclaudon in AFM (and then in DSI, and A&C).

I also don’t understand how the exercise at Corsica was custom made for the Typhoon, both aircraft started at a neutral position and quite typical speed and altitude for such kind of exercise. The DSI article sounds like the French were severely disadvantaged…

According to A&C (not DSI, DSI gave no details about this), the British came to the French and required the conditions in which they wanted to fight against the Rafale. French accepted. The article then states that French think that those conditions are “custome made” for Typhoon…
I don’t know, of course, but I remember that Defence Analysis once published that RAF Typhoon pilots flying Rafale were “struggling” at 20,000ft, because Rafale is so “frightfully underpowered”. At 18,000ft, maybe they expected Rafale to be much inferior to their super Typhoon. It seems that they enjoyed the ride.

The interesting bits in the A&C article in my opinion is that RAF and AdA headquarters had planned this meeting so as to compare their fighters. Pilots of both sides were “far from being rookies” (which clearly suggests that they all were highly skilled).

The arguments provided are consistent with what French pilots said (not only to Arthuro but also to several people) during Le Bourget 2009, but also with what Ravelin Falcoz said about the canards on Rafale compared to the long moment harm formula.

Do they particularly dislike the British or weren’t the results the same maybe not in favour for the Rafale…?

Didn’t the British cheat with JOUST ?:)
Since JOUST, and because of overly copied/pasted arguments such as bigger engines/bigger radar, Typhoon was supposed to be an undisputed “second best”, while Rafale was the aircraft of every bad compromises, just as good as a Tornado, fine for “smooth low level rides” but “frightfully underpowered” and “struggling” at 20,000ft.

Every (self proclaimed or unnamed/unknown) “aviation specialists” thought so (or were said to think so). Even the guys at DSI !!!

What if facts seems to dispute what Eurofighter/British (sorry but RAF pilots are implied, ask Francis Tusa) have tried to make everyone believe ?

Today, it’s clear that Rafale can win a dogfight against Typhoon, and maybe it has a chance in BVR… 😀

“the only time both jets operated in the same air space flying as themselves they were on the same side. Typhoon was far, far more capable than Rafale”

That was a direct question to Graund Claudon and is answer doesnt debunk anything,

But you chose not to quote the Grandclaudon’s answer.

The pic with the red cross seems to have been taken during a dogfight. We can see sand dunes, and the Raptor has the AB on, and condensation over the airframe. The red cross may indicate a very close range.

The other one ? I wouldn’t bet anything, but the pilot said enough about BVR against the F-22.

If they really want to become a “first tier world power” one could argue that they should consider a 5. gen VLO fighter….

So, France is out.

We started with a legitimate intention to glorify the tiny Gripen NG, and now some are trying to imply that it’s Gripen NG OR 5th gen ?

5 t load over Afganistan ? :rolleyes:
gimme a break, you’ll need a few SDB these days, but preferably even smaller.

OTOH i’d imagine conditions in Afganistan is quite similar to Leh, where the Indians made some tough tests.
IIRC Gripen passed that test, while Rafale didn’t, despite being bigger n’ all that…

In Afghanistan, the typical payload is 2x2000L tanks and 4 AASM/GBU-12.
Without the weight of pylons and empty tanks, it makes at least 4.5 tons.

About Leh, you forgot that the particular test which made most candidates fail is something which only requires some to modify their fuel system.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1551917&postcount=432

😀 Well, ok, I agree.

The decision to purchase the KC-390 was made in September.

The “Livre blanc” said that we need 70 transport aircraft. With 50 A400M ordered, we still have to replace 14 C130 and 19 Cn 235. This is where the KC-390 may fit.

EADS, A400M ? if you want my very personal opinion, they only DESERVE it and have no word to say. :rolleyes:

For A2G. For A2A, not in their current form.