Read the forum code of contact
Posts: 662
Send private message
By: Taygibay - 14th January 2010 at 18:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Still in the funny vein...
Firstly, agreed!
Secondly, so you engaged your critical faculties....?
Did they come out on top?
Maybe the statement means that the UK ( and us and
the U.S. and... ) will still be in Afghanistan after 2014.
Finally, congrats Nicholas! Only a trace and yet, lol!
And then later, of course from someone who barely
differenciates F.x standards on the Rafale GOSPEL
carries a lot of weight.
Suggestion : for a comparison to be valid, equal knowledge
of the compared is necessary.
As an afterthought, if a certains Collins was not so poorly
equipped for his job as was said here and there, you could
have lent credence to his piece and spare yourself part of the
shock!
New
Posts: 1,403
Send private message
By: Kovy - 14th January 2010 at 19:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TooCool12F,If it were only
"one e-mail, seemingly from an anonymous person working in a communications department"to weigh up against
a "french official statement, public, with names and functions of people who do the claims (basically, putting their own credibility on the line)" then you would have to be mad to give credence to the e-mail.
But it isn't.
For starters, this wasn't an official statement, it was a statement made by an AdlA officer at an official press conference (and then repeated and endorsed by the French blogs). There is a small and subtle difference.
Moreover, the claim made was counter-intuitive to the extent that balanced or neutral observers would suspect it.
And on the other side, while we've had no official comment on the claims, those of us who do get to talk to aircrew know that the good Colonel's claims have been contradicted and rejected by UK and USAF pilots.
Heavy hints have been dropped that facts that account for the claims are likely to emerge.
Nothing's proven, and an open mind would be the best policy, I suggest.
But I'd say that "to take the Grandclaudon claims seriously, to believe them uncritically and without question or reservation, one would have to be seriously biaised from the very beginning...."
I would like you to stop suggesting that the french air force officer lied during this official press conference.
And I would like you to stop spreading rumors about imaginary USAF and RAF contradictions. Show us or shvt up :mad:
Is that too much asking ?
Everybody will be glad to ear about what you have dig up from the RAF when it will be more than a "i've been told by an anonimous source"
New
Posts: 893
Send private message
By: OPIT - 14th January 2010 at 19:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This discussion is slowley but surely running circles.
I'd say it's running circles for quite some time now. :rolleyes:
That's so much boring that I'm staying quiet. What an achievement ! :D
New
Posts: 2,357
Send private message
By: Jackonicko - 14th January 2010 at 19:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't care what you'd like, Kovy.
What the Colonel said was clearly misleading. I have not said that he was lying.
I don't need to name my sources for what I say to be true. Anonymous sources are entirely legitimate.
By contrast, you are accusing me of lying.
If anyone should shvt up, as you put it, it is you.
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 14th January 2010 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The truth will out.
Let's hope it doesn't "out" through an article from Jon Lake :o
New
Posts: 1,403
Send private message
By: Kovy - 14th January 2010 at 20:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't care what you'd like, Kovy.What the Colonel said was clearly misleading.
was it ?
I would rather say it was cleary... clear.
I don't need to name my sources for what I say to be true. Anonymous sources are entirely legitimate.
Then you can understand that we don't have/need to believe a typhoon fan boy like you. Anonimous sources may be legitimate for a time but they have a very poor credibility value if nobody can check if they actually exist.
By contrast, you are accusing me of lying.
oh, Am I ?
Sorry then.
Anyway, so much for a single exercice.
The french pilots proved that the real rafale was a bit more hardcore than its virtual JOUST counterpart. Now it's up to their RAF colleagues to learn and elaborate new tactics to counter it.
New
Posts: 662
Send private message
By: Taygibay - 14th January 2010 at 20:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True OPIT and yet...
this thread carries some of the CLUE game.
Who? journalist Jack
Where? in the simulation room ( or in Al-Dhafra )
By whom? Colonel Nonsense
With what weapon? The awful truth!
New
Posts: 1,447
Send private message
By: arthuro - 14th January 2010 at 20:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jackonicko questions Lt cl grandclaudon's statement as he believes he is not neutral. He is right to ask this question...Why not ?
But he forgets that he is not in the best position to right about ATLC because one can question his independence. He is certainly not neutral as well in this affair to say the least ! I don't pretend we are but he is absolutely not a neutral observer who could give a balanced view.
When you start a thread (in another forum) by calling french porkies (in reference to the AdA guys) with obvious passion that tells a lot about his state of mind.
That would be just as we asked thunder/fonk/globalpres etc to right an article on the topic:D
The only thing he could do to defuse these attacks is to give both side of the story (right of answer) and quoting the guys he is interviewing. Otherwise any article from him will be less credible than an official statement from an official pilot.
New
Posts: 4,619
Send private message
By: mrmalaya - 14th January 2010 at 20:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
shall we call it a day for now? its just a slanging match.
roll on the new information but until tehn i for one can sleep a little easier ;)
New
Posts: 4,951
Send private message
By: MadRat - 14th January 2010 at 20:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
this thread carries some of the CLUE game.Who? journalist Jack
Where? in the simulation room ( or in Al-Dhafra )
By whom? Colonel Nonsense
With what weapon? The awful truth!
lol
New
Posts: 1,067
Send private message
By: Jwcook - 14th January 2010 at 20:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re the Eurofighter communications:-
When I was talking to the Comms manager for Eurofighter he expressed jealousy of our ability to publish details of the Typhoon on our website, he was very constrained by the national security concerns of four partner nations, and getting clearance to say anything is an absolute nightmare.
The Rafale by contrast has a much simpler route to navigate;).
Having said that when they are stung by any valid criticism Eurofighter GmbH will respond (but usually about 3 weeks later!!) :).
RAF personnel are now very tightly controlled about what they can say, even in "No Quote" briefings, I suspect that the French may also have some restrictions but don't know at what level.
Just thought I'd give some background info into the Communications problems.
Cheers
New
Posts: 2,357
Send private message
By: Jackonicko - 14th January 2010 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Arthuro,
I'm a great deal more neutral than you are.
I accept that both aircraft have weaknesses.
I don't accept any old nonsense about Typhoon just because it's positive.
As to 'Porkies', I have never called anyone a 'porky'.
Porkies is co*ckney rhyming slang: eg
Apples > Apples and Pairs > Stairs
Thus: Porkies > Porky Pies > Lies.
co*ckney rhyming slang is humorous and 'exaggerative' so it equates to a 'watered down' version of the word 'lies' - and would be taken as meaning something that stretched the truth, rather than something that was an outright untruth.
(If you saw that thread, then you also saw this explanation, so you're being intellectually dishonest, and are deliberately making trouble, since you should know exactly what I meant. I'm surprised at such shabby and underhand tactics from you.)
I accused the AdlA people of telling 'Porkies' about ATLC.
I would stand absolutely behind that charge - what the AdlA has said about fighting F-22 and Typhoon stretches the truth, and is not entirely true.
It's easy to demand that a journalist names his sources - but if the culture of the organisation of his interviewee is to speak off the record, there's very little that journalist can do about it.
You, the reader, have to assess the content and see whether it seems credible and believable, or whether it sounds like counter-intuitive exaggeration.
New
Posts: 1,447
Send private message
By: arthuro - 14th January 2010 at 21:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't pretend to be neutral but so are you...I let everyone to make his own opinion
New
Posts: 1,403
Send private message
By: Kovy - 14th January 2010 at 21:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Arthuro,
As to 'Porkies', I have never called anyone a 'porky'.
[...]
I accused the AdlA people of telling 'Porkies' about ATLC.
What you said was (I quote you)
"Perhaps more significantly, and more accurately, what does it say about the power of propaganda? (Because who believes these French porkies? Not me!)"
Your sentence has clearly 2 meanings. I find it hard to believe that you didn't write it because it could be understood in 2 different ways.
Anyway it is rather strange that a professional journalist like you, with many sources around the world has to go fishing informations in an US forum. After that, one can understand why you are so careful to keep your sources anonymous.
New
Posts: 2,357
Send private message
By: Jackonicko - 14th January 2010 at 22:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kovy,
Firstly: You'll believe whatever you like.
But you are making an interpretation that simply never even crossed my mind.
I don't even understand 'Porkies' in the sense you mean - if an English person wanted to call someone a pig, he'd say pig or porker. Not porky. English is my mother tongue, and I can tell you that while 'Porky' can be an adjective, meaning fat, but I've never heard it used as a noun in common English usage.
Whereas 'Porkies' as rhyming slang for untruths is entirely routine.
Though why would you know that?
I suspect that only someone with very good English (but to whom it was not their first language) would make the interpretation that you did. I hope that my explanation allays your concerns.
Moreover, I am aware that to call a Frenchman a 'Cochon' is extremely rude, just as 'stupide' is inexplicably ruder than 'con'. I'd therefore take particular care to avoid calling a French person a pig.
(The reverse is true in the UK. Call me a pig, call me stupid, and you're not being all that rude, but don't call me a 'ladypart'.....)
Secondly: If you had the faintest clue about what is required to get information you'd understand why many journos use Baseops and PPRuNe to augment information from many other sources.
As ATLC ended, I made formal requests to the US DoD and to the participating USAF units (the squadrons finally responded - most helpfully - earlier this week - very useful but quite a delay). The Baseops thread netted me a number of PMs and e-mails that were helpful, and it led to a number of useful phone conversations, and it did so almost immediately.
In the case of the F-16CJ unit, it was especially useful since, despite my 'many sources around the world" (your sarcasm is noted and dismissed with derision!) I did not previously have a single contact in the Carolina ANG. Now I do.
I'm still waiting for any material help from the DoD itself.
New
Posts: 1,447
Send private message
By: arthuro - 14th January 2010 at 22:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Have you contacted the Provence squadron ? Because it seems that your way of working is to get as many sources against the press conference as if you were seeking a personal revenge. Which other journalists is spending so much effort on this matter ? (none!) And who is the only journalist who spared no effort to debunk any positive report about the rafale ? answer you/JL. Kinda suspect. There is obviously something personal in this...And that will certainly lessen the credibility of your article.
Ideally an inquiry should have been done by another journalist than you...Because you are far from being neutral in this affair. But if you get both side of the story you can manage to diffuse some expected criticisms. You can manage to have names from the french party at least even if unnamed sources are far from ideal for the other party. Why don't you try to reach Lt cl Grandclaudon ? He seems willing to speak and his not affraid to give his name !
New
Posts: 31
Send private message
By: Derbedeu - 14th January 2010 at 22:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I hope to God that the next joint-European fighter plane is a collaboration between Dassault, EADS, BAE, and Saab, so that way we can avoid this stupid bickering.
Besides, it's much more fun when the discussion is Europe vs. America. :diablo:
New
Posts: 2,357
Send private message
By: Jackonicko - 14th January 2010 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep, I sniff a story here, so I'm spending some time and effort.
There's nothing personal here. I don't have EF GmbH shares, and I'd be just as interested in this even without the Typhoon aspect.
The allegation as to how well Rafale did against F-22 struck me as being counter intuitive and improbable, and as soon as I started looking into it, and as soon as people who were there started talking to me, everything I heard led me to believe that the claims were inaccurate and misleading.
It's much the same story with the Typhoon 7-1 nonsense.
And I learned a great deal more about Typhoon and Rafale via ATLC, all of which interests me, stimulates my curiosity, and makes me keen to follow things up.
But of course I'm trying to talk to all sides, so yep, I've tried three different contact e-addresses for EC 1/7 Provence (one via the Traditions Officer, one via BA113, and one via a personal contact).
I'm happy to accept any other suggested contact routes via PM.
I haven't ascertained which F-7PG unit was involved, so haven't made much headway in contacting the Pakistani side, and I don't expect any help via official channels from the UAE or Jordan, though I have other avenues to follow.
New
Posts: 1,447
Send private message
By: arthuro - 14th January 2010 at 22:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nothing personal ? lol....speechless
Ok let's move on good luck with your contacts...On my side I should have at least one source/relative from Thales which is at the head of a division (he was at the Dubai airshow and is a very close colleague/friend to Pierre Yves Chatiel as well as UAE air chief marshall). I'll try to send you his contact via PM.
New
Posts: 3,280
Send private message
By: Loke - 15th January 2010 at 08:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm.
I don't know how "neutral" Jackonicko is in this matter.
I just want to make a comment: If he is perceived as not being neutral by the French, then perhaps they will decide to not talk to him more than what is necessary.
I wonder if that could be one partical explanation why Jackonicko seems so well connected in the Eurofighter community, with lots of "unnamed sources" but seems less connected in the French community? Or am I completely wrong here?
New
