Rafale 4 EF2000 0

[dj8work]

what do u guys make of the news that the EF2000 lost all engagements against the Rafale

quote

In November and December 2009, the Rafale took part in the Air Tactical Leadership Course in UAE. Lt. Colonel Fabrice Grandclaudon, commander of the Rafale squadron, announced to the press the scores of his squadron. Rafale's electro-optical system or Optronique Secteur Frontal (OSF), enabled to visually identify targets up to 30-40 miles. In terms of electronic warfare, the Rafale detected SAM threats that the F-16CJ did not. In air to air fighting, four Rafales against four RAF Eurofighter Typhoons, the Rafale made scores of 4 to 0 and 3 to 1. During the meeting, the Rafale was locked once by F-22 Raptors out of six dogfights.

[Jon Lake]

An RAF pilot who participated in the actual exercise said to me that: "We have no idea how good it is in comparison to us as we are not allowed to merge with it in dogfights."

A senior industry source (who also didn't want to be named) said:

"The stories about the Rafale vs Typhoon are an unjustified and unfair representation of what actually occurred.

In the exercise sorties Typhoons and Rafales worked together on the same team! There were red Typhoon/Rafale combos and blue Typhoon/Rafale combos.

During the CT (continuation training) sorties outside ATLC both Typhoon and Rafale squadrons were conducting work-up sorties for their junior pilots and yes - mistakes were made on both sides where some results like those quoted did occur (but both for and against Rafale) - however to make a big deal about training results would be unfair and entirely unrepresentative.”

I hope to learn more now that 3 Squadron are back.

I think that Rafale probably did well against F-22, but in that context, it just means they took longer to be wiped out.

[Jon Lake]

These pictures are being held up as 'proof' about the ATLC story.

The discerning will note that they date from some time before 29th September.

[Scorpion]

Quite interesting and actually what I found contradicting. Even the french site claimed it didn't came to the merge and reported about that their missile range was reduced during the second time. So those images don't add up with what is being presented to us.

[oldsoakmk2]

Perhaps the EF scored a Fox 2/4on the Rafale and then overshot ....

[Scorpion]

I hope you don't mind Jon that I posted these links over at keypublishing.

[dj8work]

An RAF pilot who participated in the actual exercise said to me that: "We have no idea how good it is in comparison to us as we are not allowed to merge with it in dogfights."

A senior industry source (who also didn't want to be named) said:

"The stories about the Rafale vs Typhoon are an unjustified and unfair representation of what actually occurred.

In the exercise sorties Typhoons and Rafales worked together on the same team! There were red Typhoon/Rafale combos and blue Typhoon/Rafale combos.

During the CT (continuation training) sorties outside ATLC both Typhoon and Rafale squadrons were conducting work-up sorties for their junior pilots and yes - mistakes were made on both sides where some results like those quoted did occur (but both for and against Rafale) - however to make a big deal about training results would be unfair and entirely unrepresentative.”

I hope to learn more now that 3 Squadron are back.

I think that Rafale probably did well against F-22, but in that context, it just means they took longer to be wiped out.

Thanks for the Info. i thought it was strange the EF every lost every time against the Rafale. Even when the two have met before with a different out come and i quot aviation magazine.

"Flug Revue" reports that in 2008 German Typhoon were pitted against French Rafales. The results are said to be "extremely gratifying", the main difference being the "much greater thrust of the EJ200 engine"

[Jon Lake]

Scorpion,

In fact, I do mind. I am tired of the dim-witted demands to post names and attribute every quote to 'prove' I'm telling the truth, and by the doubts that are expressed as to the veracity of what I post and what I write - including doubts expressed by you yourself.

If you're going to cast doubts on what I post because my source may be unnamed, then don't believe it, but don't post it or quote it either.

That's why I don't post there.

1) Unless you're going to get meaningless PR puff, or stuff from a formal press briefing, the people you speak to as a journalist almost always ask for anonymity. People will go further, and stick their necks out if they know you're not going to drop them in it. They may talk despite company rules that tell them not to.

Take the statement about ATLC. Eurofighter GmbH have not commented on the French claims, and probably won't. But senior industry sources will sometimes talk, if they know that their identity is going to be protected. As a journalist what should I do? Report the no comment, or repeat the statement, which was made by someone I know and trust.

The same goes for French industry people and pilots, though they may be more willing to talk on the record as well.

An unattributed statement does rely on the reader taking the author 'on trust' but it's likely to be more interesting and more illuminating than a 'named quote'.

The intelligent approach is to judge the information on its merits, and to treat it with caution, but to reject anything that isn't fully attributed is dim-witted and narrow-minded, and is frankly pretty insulting to members of my profession.

2) The French have a different attitude to attribution and sources. Air and Cosmos had the RQ-170 story and pictures long before anyone else because one of their correspondents saw the thing at Kandahar but would not publish because they could get no official comment or confirmation.

3) To name an RAF pilot or officer would get him in trouble unless what he had said had been officially cleared before he said it, and then again after it was written up. And at the moment, the RAF attitude to Typhoon is to tick the 'No Publicity' box. It's not in Afghanistan, and coverage is not welcomed.

[oldsoakmk2]

Can someone illuminate me on why the RAF is so tight lipped ?
At a point where the treasury is looking at filleting the defence budget, I cannot see why they dont out and say more about the EF. Silence is only going to re-inforce the "popular" opinion that its over-priced and under performing in the press - and decision makers do read the press. It cannot help sales either - which would be of some benefit to GB.
With the rumour that the Swiss are going for Rafale doing the rounds, one wonders why Eurofighter GmBH are doing more to press the superiority of their product. In the abscence of any counter claim the conclusion is going to be "well they havent denied it have they ?" As EF is a competitor to Rafale for the Indian MRCA contract, EFGmBH really do need to up the game a bit.
Whats the Luftwaffe policy on EF ? surely they've had some encounters with Rafale ?

[Jon Lake]

While this board remains largely above the fanboy led hysteria that dominates Typhoon debate at Key, I'll make another observation.

1) The RAF routinely doesn't comment on how it does in exercises, and didn't even in the days that Jags were sweeping the board in 70's bombing competitions.

It seems to be regarded as "not the done thing."

There was, as a result, no official comment when the USAF F-15s were at Coningsby, flying against Typhoon every day. Nor when Typhoons went to Oman and practised swing role missions against the Omani F-16s.

2) The situation is exacerbated by internal RAF politics. For very many years, the fast jets have dominated coverage of the RAF, but at the moment, with helicopters, transports, and ISTAR knocking themselves out in Afghanistan, there's a real policy of stressing those parts of the air force, and not Coningsby.

3) And Coningsby itself is locked up as tight as a drum - with the redoubtable PR/CR/CL staff fending off many press requests.

Any one of these factors would make covering Typhoon properly difficult. All 3 make it near impossible. And anyone who thinks that the RAF are going to come up with a press statement on this now (with most of the force already on block leave for Xmas) does not have a clue as to how these things work. Anyone who knows the situation should realise that even getting an unattributed, off the record ("now don't you use my name") quote in these circumstances is (pardon my French) f***ing extraordinary.

I have long agreed with your point that 'remaining above' public controversy is a lousy tactic, and that in the abscence of proper statements and refutations, the conclusion will be that hostile claims about Typhoon are correct. "Well they haven't denied it have they?"

The Germans aren't much better, though during a press visit to Halbergmoos/Manching/Neuberg etc. a senior German Typhoon pilot (I wasn't on that trip, due to family illness) talked to some of the journos who were there. He had flown Mirage 2000 on exchange, and met up with a former colleague who was now flying Rafale. He and his former chum went off and had at it with their current mounts, and he spoke in depth about the results. I wasn't there. I have heard this story only third hand from colleagues.

I've been trying to trace this pilot for a couple of months.

I hope to dig further and learn more, but for now I don't expect to be able to get much of an answer to what is increasingly looking like a clever PR campaign by Dassault, ably supported by the French MoD. We've seen the claim about the Swiss campaign (contradicted by the Swiss more quickly than anyone could have expected), the energetic denials about what Gripen, Embraer and Brazilian sources have said about Brazil, and now all this ATLC stuff, supported by the sudden appearance of photos which purport to have been taken at ATLC, but which actually date from before that.

I can't really work out or decide what has motivated the determined effort to run down Typhoon now - Rafale is on a roll anyway, with Brazil looking like a sure thing, and the UAE looking like a good prospect.