I have to agree with TMor’s comment as to the relative worth of user community/industry sources in his post 266.

Generally, I do not view a comment by a company source as being as interesting as one from a frontline pilot. Occasionally, of course, the PR source may tell the truth and be entirely accurate, and occasionally, the pilot may talk bol.locks.

But generally speaking, I’d normally be inclined to take Grandclaudon more seriously than this nameless industry source.

But then I exercise my critical faculties, find out what other people are saying, and then make a judgement.

In this case, what Grandclaudon said was counter-intuitive and sounded improbable, and with a little digging, it transpires that there are explanations for what he said. I’m sure that these will emerge in the fullness of time.

However, I also believe that the EF statement is not entirely accurate.

As to telling you who told me about a press briefing that I didn’t attend…. don’t you know that a journalist doesn’t reveal his sources?

I will, however, endeavour to find out who the French journo was. No promises, mind.

Good post.

I even agree with you that the one sided results in favor of the Rafale sound quite counterintuitive.

We probably disagree on which is superior in AtoA, or about whether both planes are equal. But we certainly can agree that the Rafale isn’t superior to the point that it would beat the EF so severly in every conditions.

Nic

i just hate political agendas, especialy in this case, when a “seminly fair” competition have been held and when FAB and the industry want something else.

FAB wants something else because of strong lobbying from SAAB/Embraer. Much of the points raised in the report have nothing to do with a purely technical evaluation. Why would the FAB care about Embraer profits? They should only be concerned about getting a plane that’s up to the job and which will bring them the most sovereignty over it in during its lifetime. T

Nic

Ah. I see. All weather weapons.

(Let’s ignore the fact that they’re not much cop unless you have all weather targeting, as well…..)

Would you like to enlighten me about how the AASM that were fired in Afghanistan (and there were quite a few) were targeted then?

The Armée de l’Air has EPWII. Can’t M2K carry it?

Well as far as I know the AdlA just ordered EPWIIs, It’s been mentionned here a couple months back.

It would have been easier and cheaper to add JDAM to M2K than to deploy Rafale, I suspect.

Yeah buy a new fighter and send it get pictures of Bears.

Jon, why do you keep ignoring the fact that the Mirage 2000 has no all weather capability, whereas the Rafale has?

Nic

Look, a Rafale with a Typhoon camo!

(hawker Typhoon that is)

But working in conjunction with M2k-Ds when using AASMs doesn’t make sense or do they operate with a mixed load consisting of GBU-12 and AASMs?

I don’t understand your question?

You couldn’t have a bigger fan of AASM than me – especially the innovative and sensible triple carriage option. If I were the UK CAS and could buy one extra weapon for Typhoon, AASM would top my list. I have said as much long, loud, and often. (I might wait long enough to have the IN/GPS, IIR and laser options, however).

I would, however, question its relevance in Afghanistan (beyond a niche) – ESPECIALLY in its original form, which effectively gives you a rather expensive, rocket-powered JDAM (not laser JDAM). It has bags of stand off range that will be of huge import in some scenarios (but not so often in Afghanistan), but it’s too expensive for many of the Afghan target sets, and it’s not a great match for Afghan requirements.

In another scenario, it would be FAR more useful than Typhoon’s current ‘one trick pony’ A-G capability of six PWII/EPWII/dumb 1,000-lb bombs.

But actually, until Rafale has an LDP, it’s not that relevant for the narrow confines of ops in Afghanistan.

Now you might reasonably point out that Rafale WILL get the kit it needs to be relevant in Afghanistan long before Typhoon will get the kit it needs to do what Rafale can already do in other, more difficult A-G scenarios, and you’d be absolutely correct. In ten or twelve months time, the points I’m making now will all have been addressed, whereas it will be five years or more before we see Typhoon’s A-G capabilities expanded significantly.

You might also point out that for all its apparent suitability for Afghan ops, there aren’t enough Typhoons to actually go and do the job, that the RAF made a big deal about EPWII and then made PWIV its ‘theatre entry standard’ weapon, thereby making the austere air to ground programme something of a waste of money, and a diversion of resources.

I note your appreciation of the AASM and I remember that you have voiced it in the past. However I disagree that it hasn’t relevance to the operations in Afghanistan.

You only have to read up on the first operational use of the AASM in Afghanistan. 2 AASMs were fired in support of a canadian ground team under ambush. LGBs weren’t used in the first place because of bad weather. A Mirage dropped a LGB half an hour later with the weather permitting. You may argue that AASM is infinitely more expensive than a few RPG and AK47, but heck a JDAM or LGB is already much more expensive. And if it allows to save soldiers on the ground at a time where a LGB can’t then is it really too expensive? Or as you say ‘not operationally relevant’?

Nic

Rafale was deployed with AASM in 2008. Bringing capabilities that the Mirage 2000D didn’t have (and that the EF can only dream of). But of course you didn’t notice that point from my post.

Nic

Edit: silly me, you already know that, which is why you specifically mentionned the 2007 deployment only!