MMRCA - has Rafale been illegally subsidised?

[snafu352]

A genuinely honest debate would see an acknowledgement of Typhoon's superior MMI and lower cockpit workload, better radar for BVR, and the inevitability of better AESA radar performance for starters.

Where, other than your articles and comments, are these all proven?

Some evidence please.

Before you go off the deep end (again) i'm not claiming that Typhoon does not have these advantages, it is simply that despite reading and viewing significant amounts of material it is only you that i can ever recall making these claims.

Unless and until you can admit to as many Rafale weaknesses as I can describe for Typhoon, and as many Typhoon strengths as I can list for Rafale, then you're a biased fanboy.

Strawman and childish.
Why does there have to be an equal amount of each??
What if the "weaknesses" are not weaknesses and "strengths" not strengths for the users intended deployment of the Rafale and vice versa for the Typhoon?

For example the Japanese if they were not to go US (fat chance) should have gone with the Typhoon as it offers the best pure a2a performance (F22 ignored) which is the primary mission they require with potential for shipping and land strike in the future.

[Jackonicko]

Snafu,

What a load of waffle!

However, if we're getting into semantics you're being a bit too selective and disingenuous about the helmet.

You said:

"Helmet & IRST: Both aircraft have these. To claim that Rafale does not is strange and does expose a bias."

This was tantamount to a claim of equality.

Confining ourselves to the operational aircraft, Typhoon has a helmet and is using IRST, and Rafale does not and is not.

I have never tried to claim equality between Typhoon and Rafale in A-G based on planned future integrations, because to do so would be pointless and foolish.

I realise better than anyone that you can't compare unfunded items on either aircraft's long term wish lists with kit that's actually in service on the other.

As to courtesy, respect and politeness beget respect and politeness. If you want to be treated properly, then take a leaf out of AlphaZulus etiquette book, rather than Fonk's.


There is plenty of evidence (some of it admittedly anecdotal) for the neutral observer to concede MMI/cockpit workload, Captor M BVR capability and Captor E as Typhoon advantages. If you can't, then that's your problem.

With regard to strengths and weaknesses, there may not be, and does not have to be, numerical parity. My point is that anyone who claims not to be a fanboy should be able to list as many weaknesses for 'their' aircraft as I do for 'mine', and should be able to list as many strengths for the opposition as I do. It's just an indicator of open-mindedness, not a strict mathematical formula.

Japan is interesting. I would agree that a non-US solution was never likely, though the AW101 shows that it was at least notionally possible.

Of the three aircraft under consideration, it won't surprise you to know that I would rate Typhoon as being the best pure air-to-air aircraft, though I'm not sure that I'd be quite as sanguine about future anti-shipping capability, just yet.

I'm not sure that AD was the driver in Japan's requirement, however. Selection of the F-35, and the shortlisting of Super Hornet (rather than F-15SE) would suggest that air-to-ground was more important than many of us thought. I don't pretend to know what goes on behind the closed doors of the Japanese MoD, but maybe the nature of the threat (especially from NorKor WMD) convinced Japan that a much more aggressive and proactive means of defence was required?

Or maybe the primary requirement was to demonstrate Japan's continuing loyalty to its big superpower ally, and to procure an aircraft that would 'fit' with US forces based in the region? It's interesting, I think, that US forces in Japan have hardly been scaled back at all, despite massive reductions elsewhere.

[snafu352]

Snafu,

What a load of waffle!

As to courtesy, respect and politeness beget respect and politeness. If you want to be treated properly, then take a leaf out of AlphaZulus etiquette book, rather than Fonk's.


There is plenty of evidence (some of it admittedly anecdotal) for the neutral observer to concede MMI/cockpit workload, Captor M BVR capability and Captor E as Typhoon advantages. If you can't, then that's your problem.

Mate,

Those in glass houses should not throw stones.

You started the personal aspect of the exchange between us. Stop crying and trying to make out you are a victim.

If you had responded politely and with the explanation you eventually, when encouraged to do so, gave to my original question there would not have been any further exchange.

Instead i got "Snafu oh goody!" and the latest "Snafu, What a load of waffle!" with a few others inbetween.

Here we have you at last admitting that your "facts" are actually anecdotal rather than the generally accepted definition of fact.

A fact that many who you object to holding an opinion that differs from yours have known or suspected for some time.

It all goes to your own credibility.

If you presented your thoughts and opinions as such and as based on anecdotal evidence, thus not yet proven, i would actually be in agreement with you on the majority of your postings.

However all too often you make claim for "fact" when it is not yet proven whilst at the same time attempting to dismiss counter arguement that takes the exact same stance.

Edit: On the subject of the helmet i do acknowledge that at present Rafale does not have a helmet integrated.
I would be interested to understand what happened to the 336 units that were to be manufactured starting back in 2007, as there is no data i can find on the cancellation of that contract.

[Lindermyer]

What if the "weaknesses" are not weaknesses and "strengths" not strengths for the users intended deployment of the Rafale and vice versa for the Typhoon?

Completely agree and my point exactly although perhaps better put, extrapolating the best aircraft from a test, a competition etc is meaning less because the winner is best fit.

For example the Japanese if they were not to go US (fat chance) should have gone with the Typhoon as it offers the best pure a2a performance (F22 ignored) which is the primary mission they require with potential for shipping and land strike in the future.

I agree (and not because im a Fanboy) I do think that the Typhoon will be the better Defensive Air fighter.

Am I right in my recollection that Dassault didnt bid because they believed the winner would be american regardless

[snafu352]

I agree (and not because im a Fanboy) I do think that the Typhoon will be the better Defensive Air fighter.

Am I right in my recollection that Dassault didnt bid because they believed the winner would be american regardless

At present it is reasonable to state that for pure interception air defence the Typhoon is superior to the Rafale.

Anecdotally i spoke to French Mirage 2000-5F pilots last year who stated that at present the RDY they employ is "better" than the RBE2 PESA on the Rafale for a2a.
(I guess they would say that being fighter pilots )

You are right with regard to the Japanese competition and Dassault participation.

[mrmalaya]

I'm wondering if the Rafale victory in India shouldn't be a good time to let bygones be bygones. The pro-Rafale crowd have clearly been deeply scarred by years of Typhoon abuse and I think as part of their therapy we should all agree to move on...

I propose these points of general agreement:

1. Both aircraft are very good at certain things
2. Rafale is an excellent aircraft and a credit to the French.
3. Typhoon will get advanced a2g weapons carriage and AESA on the timescales suggested (2015 shall we say?)
4. That both aircraft have been export successes says something about the massive latent potential of European Aerospace and fighter design despite an ever changing market.


If you are prepared to sign up to this agreement then we shall call it the Sarum Accord and from this day forth we shall all know where we stand with each other!

This might help stop passions being inflamed by certain posters who just like watching us abuse each other......

Hoorah ! (wipes a tear from his eye)....

[snafu352]

Sarum, just outside Salisbury? Lovely area of the World.

[Lindermyer]

Snafu

Sorry should have been clearer I meant that I think the Tiffy will be a better defensive aircraft than the F35.

Mr Malaya

"Dact Proves nothing"

My signiture for the Sarm Accord

[drabslab]

Rafale is a defence product and is therefore excluded from the WTO rules of international trade.

The french can even give it away for free if they like, nobody can object.

[kev 99]

I'm wondering if the Rafale victory in India shouldn't be a good time to let bygones be bygones. The pro-Rafale crowd have clearly been deeply scarred by years of Typhoon abuse and I think as part of their therapy we should all agree to move on...

I propose these points of general agreement:

1. Both aircraft are very good at certain things
2. Rafale is an excellent aircraft and a credit to the French.
3. Typhoon will get advanced a2g weapons carriage and AESA on the timescales suggested (2015 shall we say?)
4. That both aircraft have been export successes says something about the massive latent potential of European Aerospace and fighter design despite an ever changing market.


If you are prepared to sign up to this agreement then we shall call it the Sarum Accord and from this day forth we shall all know where we stand with each other!

This might help stop passions being inflamed by certain posters who just like watching us abuse each other......

Hoorah ! (wipes a tear from his eye)....

Good luck with this, you haven't got a hope though, too many members of this forum like to cause a ruck.

[Nicolas10]

Funny that the only thing that's exempted of WTO completely idiotic rules are weapons. Sad world.

[AlphaZulu]

Hi Jackonicko

Captor is not just superior in ‘raw’ range. It has a bigger scan ‘cake slice’ (that’s a characteristic of M-scan radars compared to ESAs) and has wider gimbal limits (which has obvious applicability to A/F-pole). It has longer range and MUCH longer range at the azimuth limits.
This isn’t rocket science, and shouldn’t be contentious.

I don't know what means "scan ‘cake slice’", sorry.
I agree that wider gimbal limits is an advantage.
OTOH, in the pure A-to-A role, ESA also have inherent advantages. For example the agility in conducting track while scan functions, particularly on multiple targets.
Also using less power also means you'll stay longer (closer) undetected. That's an advantage in a BVR scenario.
Please don't "limit" the ESA advantages to the A-to-G use (or the mixed mode use).
Finally, if we were to assess as a fact which radar is better (in this or that role), we would have to rank the data processing each does: speed, reliability... etc. IIRC such data are classified. Heavily classified.

AESA and PESA arrays have their advantages (especially for air-to-ground), but for pure BVR A-A use, Captor’s advantages are, or should be, self evident.

Indeed, Captor’s advantages are evident. But you translate "Captor has those advantages" into "Captor is better (overall) in BVR A-to-A role". That's one step too far if you want to stick to known, sure facts.

As to Captor-E, the bigger antenna, with more T/R modules, the repositioner and the later development timeline all make it pretty obvious that it’s going to be a better radar than RBE-2AA.

That's an opinion. I think it's a good opinion, BTW, cause it's based on credible data. But still, it cannot be presented as a fact. And I daresay I still hope that some "magic trick" will allow the RBE2-AA to come closer.

With regard to MMI, the Swiss report is not my source, it’s just a useful public source that tends to confirm what I’ve been saying for years. I’ve spoken to a number of ‘neutral’ US SETP members, as well as to British, Danish, German, Italian, Swedish and French TPs, and to pilots who have flown both types. They are my source.

I’m not an expert on MMI, and have never flown a modern fast jet (the Jag’s as modern as I get). I have to look up the names of the tools used to measure MMI (or at least double check them). But when people who really do know about MMI say something then I listen, and I take it seriously.

OK, thanks. As for myself, I have never flown a modern fast jet either. When it comes to MMI (particularly computer-based systems), I have some experience, but not related to aeronautics. That helps anyway.
On a side note, I think we must be careful with pilots who have flown both types. I'm not trying to downplay an argument, but I think the Rafale's MMI is not that user friendly 'at first glance' (see what I wrote about the HOTAS and the time needed to operate efficiencely with it). As I presume that pilots who have flown both types will have low hour number on both, or at last low number on one of them, if that one is the Rafale I'm not that surprised they judged the MMI as poorer. But I don't buy it as a proof that it really is, when fully trained on type (which is, in my opinion, what matters).

I am absolutely convinced about the superiority of Typhoon’s MMI over Rafale’s as a result of what I have been told, and view it as probably Typhoon’s biggest single advantage (even bigger than the edge in performance). I recognize that it’s not something that is easy for the lay person to get their head around, and that it isn’t something that can easily be validated by using easily accessible internet sources.

Noted. I'm not absolutely convinced about the superiority of Typhoon’s MMI over Rafale’s as a result of what I have been told, too.
Rest assured that I'm aware it isn’t something easily validated by using (only) internet sources. I hope you weren't implying I was relying solely on open (internet or other) sources to undermine my PoV: It's not what I do, hence my repeted disagreement.

Your comment about radio channel selection is particularly appropriate. This is an ideal application for DVI.

Indeed, it is. And DVI is there an advantage for the Typhoon. But I regard this particular example as anecdotic in the global picture.

In your answer to Eagle1, you said: "You suspect that Typhoon’s lower workload is down to DVI. It is, in part, but it’s also down to intuitive display modings and more streamlined menus."
OK for DVI, even if I have doubts (see my previous post), I recognize that should be an advantage for Typhoon.
I never had the opportunity to play myself with the Typhoon's system, I cannot comment on its displays and menus. OTOH, I had the opportunity to do so on a Rafale's system (I think it was an F2.2 or even an F3), and did not note any particular issue with automatic displays adjustements/mode change nor particularly bad streamlined menus. Quite the opposite, in fact.
As I said, I'm not able to compare, but based on my personal "play" and pilot's talks, I have serious difficulties in imagining what may give such an edge in favour of the Typhoon, here...
As I'm under the impression you advocate the edge is clear, I'm sorry but I don't get it. Either you can elaborate if you have the patience to do so, either we have to let that topic be with the conclusion we did not reach an agreement on it, based on our respective sources/experiences.

NB that MMI is not the same as cockpit design or architecture. It’s not about ergonomics. You can tell little about MMI from looking at the cockpit layout and design as MMI is all about what happens on the displays, symbology, how information is delivered in the minimum number of steps, etc.

I disagree. As you said, displays, symbology and the automation of those surely are an important part of MMI, but if we stick to its litteral definition, so is ergonomics & architecture. I stick to this. For that reason, as I think sidestick is better fitted for fighter operation, I count sidestick as an advantage for the Rafale. It's part of ergonomics, so it's part of MMI in my PoV.

Cheers
AZ

[snafu352]

Snafu

Sorry should have been clearer I meant that I think the Tiffy will be a better defensive aircraft than the F35.

Hi Lindermyer, i am also in agreement with you on that point.

[Jackonicko]

Snafu,

You again spent the bulk of your post waffling on about irrelevances.

Let me make it plain. I don’t care what you think about me, and it has been you that has been ‘crying’ and coming the ‘victim’ about the lack of respect that I have accorded you. If it matters to you, then follow the example set by our friend Alpha Zulu and I’ll treat you with courtesy. Continue to personalize it, and I’ll accord you the level of respect that that deserves.

Some of the evidence on which I base my arguments is anecdotal. SOME.

In any case, anecdotal does not mean inaccurate, it does not mean unreliable, and I would suggest that it often means quite the reverse. Imagine that (say) Guillaume Steuer spoke frankly and off the record to a Rafale TP – his report of that conversation would be better evidence than something published in Fox 3, or that appeared on Wikipedia, though we would have no link to back it up.

If we limited ourselves to internet validated evidence, or to named sources we’d be stuck at a very low level of information, and we’d be unable to do much more than make crude ‘Top Trumps’ type comparisons. We’d often also be stuck using older information. Perhaps that’s what you’d like, since it’s in such simplistic comparisons, and when using historic comparisons that Rafale appears to do best.

As an example of the applicability of anecdotal evidence, I said that Typhoon had a lower cockpit workload than Rafale years ago, based on conversations with pilots and engineers. My argument was immediately refuted and challenged, and I was personally attacked and abused by people just like you. And now, years on, that Typhoon advantage has been highlighted in the leaked Swiss report. Had it not been leaked, people like you would still be arguing the toss.

As a result of anecdotal evidence, I can tell you that Malaysian pilots have been flying Typhoon at Coningsby this week. I can tell you that Qatar still hasn’t rearranged the flight evaluation it had planned for last April, and that was cancelled because the pilots concerned were flying in the Libyan operation.

But the Rafale fanboys are congenitally incapable of hearing anything that reflects badly on their beloved aeroplane (nor that which reflects any credit on the hated Typhoon) unless they are forced to do so, and take particular delight in trying to rubbish any evidence that reflects poorly on their aircraft that is not carved in stone.

By contrast read my post 390, and then try to accuse me of not being ready and able to acknowledge Rafale strengths (acknowledgement of many of which absolutely relies on anecdotal evidence), or of not being more than willing to criticize Typhoon as an aircraft and as a programme.

You and those like you characterize me as being lacking in balance, as being biased, and as being a lobbyist, but the truth is that I am a great deal more balanced, more open minded and more neutral than you are.


AlphaZulu,

Thanks for your courteous reply.

Firstly, ergonomics are not the same as MMI, and (the Russian jets aside) all modern fighters have great ergonomics anyway. The big differences in MMI nowadays come in the way in which information and data can be called up, and, when called up, how that data is presented, and in how easily the weapon system and aircraft can be managed and operated. Pilot workload is a great indicator (probably the greatest indicator) of the efficacy and efficiency of the MMI.

It's a common thread among people who've flown Rafale who are familiar with Typhoon that the pilot has to work harder to achieve the same ends. That marks it as an inferior MMI - even though it may mark a quantum leap over the MMI of the Mirage 2000 (say).

Secondly, if one MMI is inferior until people are used to it, familiar with it and trained to use it, then it's an inferior MMI, albeit one whose inferiority may be partly compensated for through experience and exposure.

But if you spend the same time training a pilot to use a better MMI and he will be more efficient.

I have to confess that I find arguing about MMI irksome. This is such a clear advantage for Typhoon that arguing about it seems as pointless and fruitless as it would be to argue about the Rafale's maturity advantage, or about its wider range of integrated weapons. And since the Swiss report highlighted Typhoon's lower cockpit workload, it ought to be something that could simply be accepted, in the way that we all accept some Rafale advantages.


PS: By cake slice, I just mean the shape of the radar scan, emanating out from the nose.

[snafu352]

Whatever Jack. Continue in your self-important version of the World.

Your original motives for posting this thread are quite obvious now.

When made evident you have resorted to attacks on the man rather than the ball.

Your claims of relevance are laughable as it is you who has introduced these elements. This is simply a simplistic attempt to negate the comments without having to actually address them.

I have not at any point made a personal attack on you. I made a rather throughway comment in response to your original jibe at me, signalled as such by a great big smiley, to now justify your attacks on me as due to attacks on you by others is pathetic and illustrates a lack of ability to distinguish facts combined with a sense of self importance that somehow your jibe at me was acceptable yet mine in response was not.

If you had bothered to understand my postings you would see that i have at no point claimed any major superiority for the Rafale over the Typhoon.

Thus comments such as your "people like you would still be arguing the toss" are complete cr*p.

Your waffling about anecdotal evidence is simply one long excuse for you presenting such as un-disputed fact.
It does not stand up to any honest scrutiny, particularly when viewed alongside your attitude to any anecdotal evidence that does not support your view.

It seems to me that you are desperately trying to justify your position and abuse towards others in an attempt to prevent contacts from forming an opinion that would not look favourably upon your participation in aviation events.

That is of course presuming that you are indeed an aviation journalist and not a mere wannabe parroting Jon Lakes opinions and pieces whilst adding their own perculiar slant.
If the latter you do Mr Lake a great dis-service.

The fact is i have no strong desire for either the Typhoon or Rafale to be more successful than the other; i am happy to see two strong European contenders in play.

[glitter]

Of course we should consider both the positive and negative information about both Eurofighter and Rafale. I’ve posted far more about Typhoon weaknesses than you’ve ever posted about Rafale’s negative aspects.

I'm sorry, but I dont have anything to prove on forums, and I don't think I must show that I try to be objective.
And don't worry that when you post a message with 5 arguments against the Rafale and I react over 3 of them, you can be sure it's that it's because I think the two others were right.

The point about supercruise is that if Rafale needs A/B to get through the transonic regime, then it’s not supercruising, according to the most stringent definition of the term. Typhoon doesn’t need burner to get to and sustain Mach 1.4, and if you want to compare like with like, then you need to use the same definition…..

But we aren't in a nice and cosy cafe in Saint Germain, we are talking about military weapons
Which is the most efficient for reaching mach 1 ? Using AF or not ?
The rest is intellectual masturbation from the marketing office.

[Jackonicko]

Glitter,

Which is the most efficient for reaching mach 1 ? Using AF or not?

That's exactly the point.

If you can do it without using afterburner, then not burning all of that extra fuel is a good idea.

If you're going to criticise others on the basis of their supposed bias or lack of objectivity, it's a bit inconvenient if they can demonstrate that they are more objective and less biased than you are.


Snafu,

And again you post a long diatribe about me, or about who I'm supposed to be, rather than about the subject.

(And looking back at my posts, you must be extraordinarily thin-skinned if you can detect anything approaching insults or personal attacks. I'm simply not that interested in you to be bothered to want to attack you, to be frank).

And I can assure you that the bulk of my positive impressions of Rafale have been formed as a result of what you would call anecdotal evidence, by actually talking to the people who fly it, operate it, support it, build it and developed it.

Post 390 on page 13 of this thread demonstrates my relative neutrality (and certainly my willingness to acknowledge Rafale's strengths). There is no evidence that you have anything like the same open-mindedness, which marks you out as a biased and impartial fanboy.

[glitter]

so what is true about the Rafales ability to super cruise? Some places say it can some say it cant

Not "some places" only one person, John Lake, wrote that, from his usual "anonymous source", and in a quite funny article where the Eurofighter was suppose to have destroy the competition.
The following week, the plane was kicked out of the competition.

And who says you should consider the good points of the Typhoon only, or deny that of the Rafale?

We have here a clear example with the Swiss report.
The question of the radar is very interesting. By the technologies used (PESA vs MSA) we knew that:
- the Typhoon had a better detection range
- the Rafale had much more functions and flexibility.

And what can we read on that thread ? The definitive superiority of the captor over the RBE2, while we have a report stating (in the condition of the test) the opposite. Either you (I'm not talking about you Scorpion, most posters must know that you're a fair member of that forum) can dismissed the test, either you must conclude that "In most case the Captor enjoy an advantage over the RBE2".

Just after the result of the 2 exercises during ATLC, where the Rafale won 7-1 versus the Eurofighter, the only conclusion is that the difference of A-A capabilities between the two planes must be limited.

Isn't the same true the other way round anyway? You guys are complaining about the evil "Eurofighter propaganda" etc. and project the claims of a single person on the entire community

Jacko and PPP (with his xenophobic comments) here, Leopardus, Ger_Mark, Eric and Chris on WAFF, Ohm1860 or Cola on Starstreak, no, there isn't only one person.

but did you guys prove to be any better!?

We proved to have been much better in regard of the flow of insults toward India and Indians (and sometimes France and French) we have seen since January 31.

You are equally over critical towards the Eurofighter and uncritical towards the Rafale as it happens the other way round.

Some of the Rafale fans are like that, no doubt.
Should I remind you that Sampaix called me "son of a bitch" when I wrote that I don't think Spectra can't detect, track and launch a missile without amitting radiation ?

That there are points about that evaluation which won't apply these days anymore is a given, the main problem was software development and maturity,

Wow wow wow, I wrote on a french forum that the RBE2 AESA lack lots of software functions in regard of the possibilities available with an AESA and I have been said I was totally wrong without a single source.
And yes, we are quite a lot here to know that a report has a quite limited range.

BUT in Switzerland, that report was supposed to be future-proof too.

it's not like everything on the Typhoon is wrong or that the aircraft enjoys absolutely no advantages in any area.

My god, except Sampaix, who ever wrote such a stupid things ?

[snafu352]

The fact that you have responded each time i have made an observation indicates that there is truth in the comments. (Based on anecdotal evidence )

You started throwing around abusive pleasentaries at people and then commenced whining about being abused. I have merely pointed out that any abuse initially came from yourself.

I do not appreciate people making claims about me or my positions that are clearly not in accordance with the facts, such as you consistently insist on doing.

Reference your last post. Please indicate where i have made any assertation, such and to the same extent as you have for the Typhoon, for Rafale superiority.

You can't.

That element of your post is in-accurate and brings the credibility of your other comments into question as well.

It is also notable that you ignore the element of my post that clearly states i do not have a preference for either the Typhoon or Rafale choosing instead to focus on the non aviation related element.

I can make the factual statement that this thread is and has always been based on a lack of understanding of international law.

[Bomberboy]

The fact is i have no strong desire for either the Typhoon or Rafale to be more successful than the other; i am happy to see two strong European contenders in play.

I'll second that statement!!!

[Jackonicko]

And you, my dear chap, are obsessed with semantics.

This thread isn't based on a misunderstanding of International Law, it's based on reservations expressed in a French magazine about the Rafale having been sold more cheaply to India than to the French armed forces. That Rafale is being subsidised.

I made the mistake (and I'm happy to admit to mistakes) of assuming that such subsidies were illegal under International, European, French or Indian law. They may not be illegal, but any such subsidy is interesting, in view of the fierce debates we've seen for years over price.

I don't need to prove that you have claimed superiority for Rafale in order to label you as a fanboy, I need only point to your continued failure to address the substantive points, your determination to argue about semantics and my motivation/identity/unfairness/rudeness rather than about the actual debate, and your inability to acknowledge Typhoon's strengths, or Rafale's weaknesses.

As to my alleged abusive pleasantries - unless greeting your input with 'Ooh Goody' is deemed abusive (which would be a shame, as it was actually expressing my delight at being able to be rude about the Daily Mail), then actually it was you who began the 'abuse', with your comment about my being a naughty s**t stirrer.

Which was an interesting choice of insult, as I notice that your contributions to this thread have all been to attack me, or my credibility, and you don't seem to have made a single constructive point about the actual subject whatsoever.

[Nicolas10]

AGAIN! Canard enchainé is NOT a magazine, and much less an aviation or defense magasine. It's a leftist antimilitaristic paper. It will attack any french military programme basicaly.

BTW I'll correct it everytime I see you mention "a magazine".

Nic

[Nicolas10]

And you, my dear chap, are obsessed with semantics.

This thread isn't based on a misunderstanding of International Law, it's based on reservations expressed in a French magazine about the Rafale having been sold more cheaply to India than to the French armed forces. That Rafale is being subsidised.

I made the mistake (and I'm happy to admit to mistakes) of assuming that such subsidies were illegal under International, European, French or Indian law. They may not be illegal, but any such subsidy is interesting, in view of the fierce debates we've seen for years over price.

I don't need to prove that you have claimed superiority for Rafale in order to label you as a fanboy, I need only point to your continued failure to address the substantive points, your determination to argue about semantics and my motivation/identity/unfairness/rudeness rather than about the actual debate, and your inability to acknowledge Typhoon's strengths, or Rafale's weaknesses.

As to my alleged abusive pleasantries - unless greeting your input with 'Ooh Goody' is deemed abusive (which would be a shame, as it was actually expressing my delight at being able to be rude about the Daily Mail), then actually it was you who began the 'abuse', with your comment about my being a naughty s**t stirrer.

Which was an interesting choice of insult, as I notice that your contributions to this thread have all been to attack me, or my credibility, and you don't seem to have made a single constructive point about the actual subject whatsoever.

Hahaha you are again at it trying to start rumors. You pretend to aknowledge a mistake (the legality of subsidizing), but this is only to mask the fact that you are implying that the Rafale has indeed been subsidized, albeit "legally" without any proof whatsoever.

You are a clever one jackjack. But now we are waiting for your proofs that the Rafale has indeed been subsidised (legally or not who cares), because all your arguments about the costs of both fighters have been proven wrong in this very thread. Everything you write is trying to undermine the Rafale programme.

You are rabbidly against the Rafale, because the Rafale is a proof that a national industry can still in this day and age develop a top of the line and successful fighter itself. In other times you probably would have been criticizing the TSR2 as a useless waste of money, and advocated partnership with the US on the F111/F4/Whatever the hell they wanted to sell you.

As far as I am concerned whatever the performance, and even if the Rafale was indeed inferior, it would still be a success because it will serve France well, and helped us retain critical industries in France. At first I thought you were just jealous that the brits and BAE couldn't do the same, but more and more I think you're just yet another journalist who can't help but criticize anything remotely related to national independance.

Nic

[Breguet]

I made the mistake (and I'm happy to admit to mistakes) of assuming that such subsidies were illegal under International, European, French or Indian law. They may not be illegal, but any such subsidy is interesting, in view of the fierce debates we've seen for years over price.

No Mr Lake, you made the mistake of assuming there was subsidies in the first place. You start a thread with a question mark, because you don't have a clue (only a poorly sourced article from an anti militarist newspaper), you let people debate and then bring your piece with assumptions, misleading calculations coming from nowhere, not a single strong evidence to support your claim from insiders, and then you conclude that there has been subsidies in the Dassault offer and make it a generally accepted fact because you've managed to convince yourself that there were subsidies. You're simply the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. Proof: you can't even admit you're Jon Lake.

[Scorpion82]

We have here a clear example with the Swiss report.
The question of the radar is very interesting. By the technologies used (PESA vs MSA) we knew that:
- the Typhoon had a better detection range
- the Rafale had much more functions and flexibility.

I'm not sure whether the RBE2 offers more AA functions than the Captor, but its range of AG modes is definitely more comprehensive and the ability to interleave some functions is a plus in operational flexibility. What favours the RBE2 and any other ESA radar for that matter is the beam agility. In AA the ability to scan the entire FOV several times a second is a great plus for Situational awareness and reduces the probability that potential targets slip through the radar coverage. The ability to update target tracks more frequently has implications on track stability and reliability, which I think is the main reason why the Rafale scored better in the acquisition domain in the evaluation. Potential implications on ECM resitence are another factor as is the greater greater compliance to LPI requirements, though a PESA is still restricted in comparison to AESA solutions.

And what can we read on that thread ? The definitive superiority of the captor over the RBE2, while we have a report stating (in the condition of the test) the opposite. Either you (I'm not talking about you Scorpion, most posters must know that you're a fair member of that forum) can dismissed the test, either you must conclude that "In most case the Captor enjoy an advantage over the RBE2".

Argueably there was just that single person who insisted this. However, the evaluation doesn't in state one radar being better than the other as such, the PESA was reportedly praised, but the "sensor" weaknesses could be linked to other sensors on the Typhoon as well and the score charts talk about the general abilities of detection etc., it's repeatedly stated that the MET for detection includes the ability to detect a target with all sensors. Details like this must be kept in mind. Over at starstreak I made an attempt to elaborate on the meaning of the MET scores, I can't say whether my interpretation is right or not, but I'm missing a somewhat more serious and analytical discussion from all sides.

Just after the result of the 2 exercises during ATLC, where the Rafale won 7-1 versus the Eurofighter, the only conclusion is that the difference of A-A capabilities between the two planes must be limited.

Both aircraft are similar in a number of areas, but differ in details. Depending on the scenario and what tactics are chosen either aircraft can best the other. I rate both among the worlds best fighters, which one deserves this or that rank I don't know and I'm subsequently not argueing about it at all.

Jacko and PPP (with his xenophobic comments) here, Leopardus, Ger_Mark, Eric and Chris on WAFF, Ohm1860 or Cola on Starstreak, no, there isn't only one person.

Dunno wether all of them could be regarded as Typhoon fans as such, but of course there are several people who argue along similar lines, but that's true for both sides. Interestingly people love to refer to a single person when it comes to the critics. "Jon Lake like" was a response to me and I wondered whether people consider his claims as being unique and his only. There are points where I agree with Lake and there are those I disagree with or challage. The other way round many quickly assert that this or that Rafale fan must be Sampaix, that's equally delusional.

We proved to have been much better in regard of the flow of insults toward India and Indians (and sometimes France and French) we have seen since January 31.

Lol well if you had been on the other side I'm not sure whether everyone would have been that moderate.

Some of the Rafale fans are like that, no doubt.
Should I remind you that Sampaix called me "son of a bitch" when I wrote that I don't think Spectra can't detect, track and launch a missile without amitting radiation ?

Well either side has its black sheeps, it's just a pity that those are often regarded as representative by the other sides.

Wow wow wow, I wrote on a french forum that the RBE2 AESA lack lots of software functions in regard of the possibilities available with an AESA and I have been said I was totally wrong without a single source.
And yes, we are quite a lot here to know that a report has a quite limited range.

It's unfortunately often the case. In a lot of cases I would even be satisfied if people can reasonably explain there arguments. But that often insists a level of knowledge and understanding that is often not given.

BUT in Switzerland, that report was supposed to be future-proof too.

Of course, but there is always a risk wrt future developments and rating certain future capabilities is certainly not easy.

My god, except Sampaix, who ever wrote such a stupid things ?

I could name a couple, but I prefer to leave it at that. Why are we wasting so much time to debate people anyway? My vote goes for a subkect related debate, possibly elsewhere as this thread is pointless and dead as far as the original topic is concerned.

Cheers

[Mildave]

TMor,
Yes, Typhoon enjoys those advantages, though Captor-M is not 'vastly better' than PESA RBE-2, only 'better' in certain areas of A-A. Nor is Typhoon really catching up in A-G, just yet, but its always planned A-G capability is gradually coming in. You could say that Typhoon will never truly catch up, in that it will never have such a wide range of A-G capabilities. I do believe that Captor-E will be much better than RBE-2AA.

There may be hope for you still mate...

Then there are advantages that Rafale has enjoyed, and may still enjoy - but that it would be foolish to assume are still definitely a Rafale advantage, and that are certainly being eroded and 'caught up'.
Better EW performance.
Better Sensor fusion.
TV channel performance in the IRST.

Any fanboy is allowed to have hope. The point is so far in time, it's easy to talk about Rafale strength since they are operational today, and easy to talk about Typhoon weaknesses. We will have to wait 2020 in order to have a better picture on their full capabilities and limitations since they are both new design that should still have a lot of potential in them.

As an IT specialist I can tell you MMI is highly subjective. The reason why most people will continue to buy windows no matter what is because they are already used to it. The reason why most other competitor are trying to stick to "proven" solution is because an customer will often stick to a "inferior" system that he/she feels familiar with rather than take the time to learn to operate a new system that could potentially prove more efficient.
Some very big companies I know are still transitioning to Windows 2000 for their servers...
The only objectivity one might try to look at is efficiency. How much work can one man accomplish with the system ? Is the system efficient as a force multiplier, is it cost effective etc. So far you cannot compare a more mature system with much more functions and integration with a relatively new and untested system (except in the AtA role). The lesser workload of the Typhoon wasn't enough to make the best impression on Swiss pilot, and that's a proven and signed fact.

Complex software development take a long time (have you ever spent all night trying to find that one coma that is making your entire program bug?), with thousand of line of code. Funding delays are a very big problem for such programs. Sometimes the team that started to write the code isn't the same team that has to finish it. Priorities and focus may change, all pages may have to be re-written etc.
There is a reason why the Swiss weighted down the 2015 Typhoon with heavier risks.

[eagle1]

JLake is a master for creating rumors with him as a single source and of course no way to cross check his opinions. Hopefully his saying are seriously challenge with ATLC, Corsica, Swiss evaluation and India. It is not about that we can't accept rafale weaknesses it is about putting fact straight and making a distinction of what is an unbacked claims from a fact. Obviously he has problem between the two.

Singapore and dutch evaluation as well as the MMI are case in point where despite lacking argument and sources he keeps going on with mere lies.

Here is a traduction from a dutch article who gave an insight in the dutch evaluation process...It completely debunks the "cbc" argument which does not make any sense as the F35 would certainly not score the best if it was a mere economical and industry evaluation.

Here is true journalism with a detailed insight of the dutch evaluation unlike Lake farce :

The multi-criteria analysis, in cooperation with TNO and Dutch Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space (NLR) was performed, was a time consuming exercise. First were 700 criteria that the new fighter had to comply. Then experts gave a figure for each criterion. The weighted average of the scores was an indication of the system effectiveness of any device - in plain English: how well the aircraft was.

In the Court Brief on the JSF decision of February 11, 2002 was the multi-criteria analysis in detail. The government stressed in the letter detailed the purity of the process. The operation of the Air Force was rated by an independent working group of the Ministry of Defense, wrote the government. It had ruled that "the candidates thoroughly and carefully review''was conducted.

The evaluation itself was not the House. The same was true for the so-called B / C paper, the results were described. Both documents contain confidential commercial information from aircraft manufacturers and are therefore confidential.

According to the Air Force, the uncertainties involved. In the multi-criteria analysis, as wrote the Air Force in the B / C paper, the uncertainties "adequately addressed".

In this analysis, some criteria are not one, but three scores out. The median score, the "expected performance" again. In addition, experts also had a top and a given value. After all values were added together, the multi-criteria analysis yielded three final scores on the system effectiveness.

The median score gave the Air Force how well the aircraft would be in 2010. The top score was the most optimistic expectations of the performance, the score was the worst case scenario. "This leads to more complete picture of system effectiveness with uncertainties, risks but also potential'', wrote the Air Force.

http://vorige.nrc.nl/nieuwsthema/jsf...en_vliegtuigen
Quite consistent with the swiss methodology by the way ? But nothing like a mere industry and economical analysis only...You are not close to see anything like that from Lake who remain at the stage of vague unbacked claims.

another :

http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=84

"A surprising and important detail had been made public: the technological and operational evaluation by the RNAF of the three candidates. According to the RNAF criteria, the JSF had been graded 6.97; the Rafale, 6.95; and the Eurofighter Typhoon, 5.85. "

[snafu352]

And you, my dear chap, are obsessed with semantics.

This thread isn't based on a misunderstanding of International Law, it's based on reservations expressed in a French magazine about the Rafale having been sold more cheaply to India than to the French armed forces. That Rafale is being subsidised.

I made the mistake (and I'm happy to admit to mistakes) of assuming that such subsidies were illegal under International, European, French or Indian law. They may not be illegal, but any such subsidy is interesting, in view of the fierce debates we've seen for years over price.

I don't need to prove that you have claimed superiority for Rafale in order to label you as a fanboy, I need only point to your continued failure to address the substantive points, your determination to argue about semantics and my motivation/identity/unfairness/rudeness rather than about the actual debate, and your inability to acknowledge Typhoon's strengths, or Rafale's weaknesses.

As to my alleged abusive pleasantries - unless greeting your input with 'Ooh Goody' is deemed abusive (which would be a shame, as it was actually expressing my delight at being able to be rude about the Daily Mail), then actually it was you who began the 'abuse', with your comment about my being a naughty s**t stirrer.

Which was an interesting choice of insult, as I notice that your contributions to this thread have all been to attack me, or my credibility, and you don't seem to have made a single constructive point about the actual subject whatsoever.

I like fact. I don't like opinion presented as fact or opinion based on false assumptions.

If that is semantics in your world so be it. I call it accuracy.

Case in point:

Le Canard is not a magazine, it is a anti establishment publication.
Which rather brings us full circle to the start of the discussion.

For my part if you had had the courtesy to be clear that the story was only in Le Canard from the beginning i would not have pursued the point with such vigor.

As for the rest of your post; which part of the following makes me a "fanboy" and of what exactly?

If you had bothered to understand my postings you would see that i have at no point claimed any major superiority for the Rafale over the Typhoon.
...
The fact is i have no strong desire for either the Typhoon or Rafale to be more successful than the other; i am happy to see two strong European contenders in play.

If you presented your thoughts and opinions as such and as based on anecdotal evidence, thus not yet proven, i would actually be in agreement with you on the majority of your postings.

If you make an accusation it is rather behoven upon you to back that accusation with some solid evidence.
Otherwise one could simply make accusations at will; as i believe a certain poster has had cause to complain about when their identity has been queried. N'est pas?

All i've done was query the original "source" and then queried various statement of "fact" you subsequently made.
If you consider being challenged on your assertations an attack so be it, it does however illustrate your claims for neutrality and lack of bias in an not altogether favourable light. Frankly i don't care whether you are indeed biased or not, i do care if you claim to be one thing and are in fact another, it's that damn liking of facts getting in the way again.

By the way, the constructive point you fail to appreciate is the question re the source of the "whispers." I.e. my very first post.

[Jackonicko]

Nic,

Thanks for the clarification on Le Canard.

I don’t imply that Rafale has been subsidized (though that would explain how such a lower price was offered), I just reported that Le Canard had suggested it.

“Either Rafale is sold at an inflated price for the French, or this is dumping, special discount under cost" states the magazine.

I’m not trying to undermine Rafale, I’m just trying to get a better quality of debate, with more openness on your side, and an acknowledgement that some of your side’s long and deeply held convictions are actually nonsensical.

And on price, it is clear that the difference between the aircraft is wafer thin, as my figures and TMor’s figures show only too well, and Rafale is not, as has long been claimed, significantly cheaper than Typhoon.

Nor am I rabidly anti-Rafale, in fact it’s a programme I rather admire. I’m just not as rabidly and blindly pro-Rafale as some of your side. And it may surprise you to know that one reason for that admiration is precisely because Rafale is indeed “a proof that a national industry can still in this day and age develop a top of the line and successful fighter itself.”

You have estimated wrongly on my attitude to TSR2, as well.

And that’s why I rate Gripen as being an even greater achievement, as it is the product of an even smaller nation, and one that has been pretty successful to date.

I have argued myself that Rafale is a success precisely because it meets French requirements so brilliantly, and is giving such good service to the MN and AdlA. Nor do I underestimate its importance in helping to retain not only critical industries but also high value manufacturing jobs (and lots of them) in France.

And I am indeed jealous that Britain has not done the same, though I believe that the collaboration with Germany, Italy and Spain has, on the whole, produced a successful aircraft, and has resulted in a programme that was more resistant to cancellation, which was always a danger in the 1980s and 1990s in the UK.


MilDave

I’d meant to pick up on your previous reference to Microsoft, where you praised it for its user-friendliness and ease of use. This struck me as bizarre, as if Apple have done anything, it has been to produce a more user-friendly, more simple and more intuitive user interface.

But then IT folk (and I know you’re an IT professional) do tend to be almost illogically anti-Mac, so perhaps I should not be surprised. That’s not an insult, by the way, merely an observation.

[Jackonicko]

As for the rest of your post; which part of the following make me a "fanboy" and of what exactly?

If you make an accusation it is rather behoven upon you to back that accusation with some solid evidence.

None of the highly selective elements that you chose to extract from your posts in your latest post make you a fanboy.

I say again that what makes you a fanboy in my eyes is: "your continued failure to address the substantive points, your determination to argue about semantics and my motivation/identity/unfairness/rudeness rather than about the actual debate, and (crucially) your inability to acknowledge Typhoon's strengths, or Rafale's weaknesses....... I notice that your contributions to this thread have all been to attack me, or my credibility, and you don't seem to have made a single constructive point about the actual subject whatsoever."

Perhaps I mean troll rather than (or as well as) fanboy?

But frankly, Snafu, when you want to engage in debate about Rafale, or Typhoon, then I'd love to debate with you further, but as long as you want to pursue this single-minded and boring debate about me, it's really not very compelling or inviting. I hope that doesn't sound rude or dismissive, it really isn't meant to be.