Exclusive online report from Jon Lake and Marcus Messalla

For many observers, the star of the Dubai air show was Dassault’s Rafale, coverage of which dominated the various air show daily newspapers. Following the June 2008 announcement that the UAE government was in discussions to buy the Rafale, many expected a contract to be signed during 2009, possibly during the show.
But while the companies that make up ‘Team Rafale’ did sign a plethora of contracts with local organisations and entities that looked like part of an ‘offset’ deal, strengthening French involvement and influence in the UAE education, technology and aviation sectors, and though Dassault’s delegation at Dubai included Serge Dassault himself, and Charles Edelstenne (Dassault President), no Rafale deal was inked.
And some have speculated that the Rafale deal may have already started to slip out of Dassault’s grasp. Brigadier General Ibrahim Naser Alalawi, deputy commander of the UAE Air Force and Air Defence, expressed his hope that the UAE would have a fifth-generation fighter within a couple of years, leading some to expect that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might win an order in place of the Rafale.
Retired Gen Khalid al Buainnain, the former chief of the UAE Armed Forces, emphasized the need for “interoperability” with other systems and weapons platforms – and especially the US-supplied Block 60 F-16E/F, and emphasized that there was no need to rush to sign a deal “because the capability of the Mirage 2000 and the F-16 is very strong”, while Riad Kahwaji, the chief executive of INEGMA, insisted that “The French government needs to find a solution for (finding a customer for the UAE’s existing) Mirage 2000s in order for the UAE to be able to purchase the Rafale.”
Others pointed to the sudden decision by Lockheed and Eurofighter to send their fighters to Dubai as perhaps indicating that the deal had not been finally sealed.

Photo Credit: Dassault

Rampant Rafale or Arrant Nonsense?
But despite all this, Dassault seemed to be winning the media battle, with the aircraft gaining a great deal of positive coverage in the local and specialist press – most notably in the UK trade magazine ‘Flight International’, which published an extended flight test in the week leading up to Dubai. This flight test (titled ‘Rampant Rafale’) was then re-printed in full in ‘Flight Daily News’ at the show, and is presented on Flightglobal at:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/09/334383/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale.html
Flight printed the cover line ‘Rafale Rules!’ on it’s front cover – together with the taster “Why we think favourite for UAE fighter contest is most complete combat aircraft we have flown.”
Flight’s test pilot (Pete Collins, a retired RAF Wing Commander, former RAF test pilot and Red Arrow) concluded that: “If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.”
From such a pilot, this ringing endorsement seemed, on the face of it, to be unarguable.
But RAF Typhoon pilots in the UAE reacted with puzzled amusement and barely disguised scorn.
“If he thought that, he can’t have flown Typhoon” one told me, bluntly, while another (who had actually flown Rafale) explained that “the Rafale is underpowered by comparison with Typhoon, and needs reheat where we would use dry. We can get through the Mach and supercruise in dry power at typical operating altitudes, and you simply can’t do that in Rafale.”
Pilots who had experienced Rafale’s much vaunted MMI were less than fulsome, concluding that it was “probably great if you’re a Mirage 2000 pilot, but the test will be how a rookie adapts to it.” Even the Armée de l’Air acknowledge that it takes more than 100 flying hours to get used to the collimated cockpit display, they told Combat Aircraft.
And looking into the Flight flight test more carefully, it became clear that the glowing praise was based on flimsy foundations, as an RAF test flying insider (who has flown Typhoon, all of the US Teen Series fighters and the MiG-29) explained to us.

The Flight pilot

“Though Flight’s test pilot is a distinguished former RAF fighter and test pilot, he has little recent, relevant experience that would provide him with any real basis for comparison with the Rafale.
“Collins’ operational RAF flying was in the old ‘steam driven’ Harrier GR.Mk 3, and he also flew in the Falklands in the Sea Harrier FRS.Mk 1. As a Squadron Leader he flew with the Red Arrows but left the team after an aircraft accident.
“He trained as a Test Pilot in 1989, but then served at RAE (later DRA) Bedford on pure Aerospace Research flying – including flying the VAAC Harrier, which was used to develop an advanced FCS for the F-35. He did not serve at Boscombe Down and thus gained no experience of clearance/assessment/’operational fitness for purpose’ testing.
“Collins left the RAF and military test flying world in 1993 and joined Fokker where he flew F60 & F70 airliners, moving to Dornier at Ober Pfaffenhofen for two years after Fokker went bust. He flew the Do 328 turboprop and 328 Jet at Dornier. He subsequently joined KLM. He joined Raytheon as the UK TP/project pilot on the ASTOR Sentinel, and is still with Raytheon, based at Broughton in North Wales.
“Collins writes for Flight as a freelance 'guest Test Pilot' - mostly civil business jets and trainers, but he has flown and ‘reviewed’ four military trainers, the Aermacchi M311 and M346, the KAI T-50 and the Pilatus PC-21.
“As far as I know, the Rafale is the first Combat jet he has flown since the Harrier. He has not written any other articles on such aircraft. He has not flown much in the way of other advanced jets even when he was in the RAF. His comparisons with the Mirage 2000 seem to be quite dated - I suspect that he flew the Mirage 2000 as part of his ETPS course.”
The article itself
“Though a magazine article, it follows a well known and internationally accepted formula for a single flight evaluation. It is important to note what is an actual part of the evaluation and what is 'background'
“The article begins with a basic history of the aircraft’s development and in-service history. (Note though, the two-year software upgrade cycle!)
“The article moves on to a detailed aircraft description (headed Superb Performance & Cockpit Image). But while he broadly follows the template, he often strays from the normal specific Test Pilot descriptions and uses journalistic descriptions and superlatives which are not proven.
“He makes much of the fact that he flew front seat with 90 minutes cockpit familiarization - as if this was an unusual attribute that somehow demonstrates the greatness of the Rafale.
“This is not the case – Test Pilot training is to do exactly that for many aircraft. RAF test pilots routinely fly fighter types like this on one or two sortie evaluations, including the Su-27 Flanker, F-14, F15, F-16 and F/A-18.
“The article then moves on to the Test Flight itself, beginning with Pre-mission planning. Overall this was a very simple sortie profile, and his comments are hardly incisive.
“350 kt, in full afterburner at 35 degrees nose up is not that impressive - at that angle Typhoon will go Supersonic! Note that he was initially only allowed to fly A/S FCS laws! The quoted turn performance (mild buffet at 4.5 g and dry power and a sustained 5g at 350 kts needing 10 deg nose down pitch) is less than startling -our test pilots could do as well in an F-15 19 years ago when they assessed it at the end of the ETPS course. The acceleration (taking approximately 10 seconds to go from 200-500 knots) is good but so it should be for a twin engine fighter at that weight and altitude.
“Roll rates were clearly assessed at 1 g - a better evaluation would have been at elevated g or AoA as a combat capability - noticeably missing in his test.
“At 25,000 ft he went supersonic in a shallow dive - he does not say what power he used - if it was using afterburner, this is not great SEP (specific excess power). He made no comments on radar handling or as to what range the TV was used at. He treated pitch sensitivity as an indication of how agile the aircraft is – and this is bad Test Pilot analysis. The assessment of the AAR laws was cursory. His comments about the tail chase were similarly lacking - he could be comparing this to a Hawk and not another advanced aircraft.
“Two approaches in Auto-throttle mode say little about the aircraft, and Collins made no mention at all of flight path stability and the ability to rapidly correct a poor line up from decision height - both essential TP tests for approaches.
“Achieving 1 hour and 25 minutes with 5.3 tonnes of fuel (needing a centre line tank) and landing with 500 kg after the profile described says to me that the aircraft is not that different from the competition when it comes to range/endurance/fuel consumption.
“He is right in saying that he ‘only scratched the surface of the sensor and weapon capabilities'. That explains his claim to be 'fully at home in the aircraft, retaining full situational awareness.'
“The evaluation was rather cursory and the concluding superlatives are more journalistic than real conclusions and recommendations. If he would risk his life in any combat situation based on the evidence of what he actually saw...... words fail me!”