FedaykinThe Rafale fanboys are going desperately cling onto coming top in the technical evaluation as if it is winning the contest till they take their last living breath!
Getting the highest score in the technical evaluation stage does not equal won the contest if not for those meddling politicians!
In a well managed contest which as far as I am aware was the case for the Swiss the technical evaluation stage is an exercise in making sure bids meet the minimum requirements laid out. Once that hurdle has been cleared then you can then consider other critical factors like logistics and cost, the Gripen is designed to be maintained by conscripts that will save money. It is a single engine type, that will save money. It uses an engine that is similar to the one used in the Hornet, that will save money. It carries much of the same munitions as the Hornet, that will save money.
The Swiss airforce can come out of the technical evaluation stage saying aircraft X had the highest performance in all metrics but if aircraft Y will be cheaper and easier to operate yet meets the minimum requirements then it is perfectly reasonable to award the contract to the latter aircraft.
That the Rafale fanboys take this rather normal detail of procurement competitions and get so upset about it rather amusing but doesn’t really serve any purpose. We had the same nonsense from the fanboys with South Korea when they decided to buy the F-15K over the Rafale.
MY only quibble with the Swiss and SAAB is the C/D variant being used for evaluations when they were offering an at that moment in time a paper plane in the forms of the NG/E.
FedaykinAlso as an addendum to my thinking, if the driver for the contest was for a twin engine type then the obvious choice would be the Super Hornet.
FedaykinAs I said Gripen E won the first contest much to the wailing, tearing of clothes and general gnashing of teeth from the Rafale fan brigade!
Anyway Gripen D was the type submitted for testing but the NG variant or Gripen E was the one selected which is a better performing aircraft. It also has the advantage of being able to field many of the weapons that the Hornet uses.
FedaykinGripen E could comfortably fulfill the needs of the Swiss ToolCool_12f, it comfortably outperforms the Tiger and let’s not forget they have operated single engine fighters before like the Mirage-III. Frankly you are making up excuses to suit the Rafale by inferring they need a twin engine type. Gripen E won the first contest much to the wailing, tearing of clothes and general gnashing of teeth from the Rafale fan brigade! It was later rejected by the Swiss public in a referendum for rather silly politically driven reasons imho.
FedaykinA bit like what happened with the referendum to stop Swiss national service, the average Swiss voter baulked at the idea and it was headed off. The win in the Gripen referendum for the ‘Group for a Switzerland Without an Army’ set an unfortunate precedent.
FedaykinThe impression I get is the reason that they are proposing a single type fleet with a contest that will replace the Hornet and the Tiger is to head off disruption from the increasingly powerful “Group for a Switzerland Without an Army” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_for_a_Switzerland_Without_an_Army they were the ones who got enough support for a referendum on the Gripen purchase and I am certain they could get enough again to try and stop this purchase through another referendum. By making it a contest to switch to a single new type it in effect makes it a referendum on having offensive combat jets at all. I would presume the Swiss MOD and Airforce will be hoping that the average Swiss voter will baulk at that and vote it through.
FedaykinDeeply ironic that Belgium is looking to buy eight secondhand F16 from Greece considering they sold fourteen to Jordan over a decade ago!
FedaykinIt is more accurate to say they are being parted out for spares rather than scrapped. Whilst it will cause hysterics in some quarters it is actually a pretty sensible idea, they have been talking about it for a while and looking for the best moment to announce it. The writing was on the wall when it was announced six days ago that the first RAF pilots to go directly from the training pipeline onto the F-35B:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-pilots-fly-f-35-lightning-straight-training/
These are some of the oldest Typhoon operated anywhere in the world coming from Tranche 1, they also have some of the highest hours and wear in the fleet. They are also a fleet within a fleet that are difficult to update. The need for a conversion trainer is far less than a few decades back when pilots were having to transition from types like the Folland Gnat to the English Electric Lightning with its vicious flight and landing characteristics. Typhoon with its benign flight characteristics in comparison is easier to transition to and with the support of synthetic training aids and excellent simulators the need for a large fleet of twin seat dual stick variants becomes difficult to justify. There is still a small need for some of the twin seat variant for various trials and certification work so the smaller fleet of later block twin seat Typhoon will be retained. Parting them out to support the rest of the fleet is a good idea.
FedaykinNo, it’s alright JSR is still spouting gibberish…I haven’t gone mad yet!
FedaykinYou would think the French would learn this kind of thing doesn’t work! After trying to pull the same thing in Morocco a while back with the Rafale and more recently Canada with Fremm you would think France would get the message “Obey the countries procurement rules and don’t put forward unsolicited Government to Government deals!”
FedaykinAs others and Freehand has most succinctly stated Qatar is cashing in on political capital.
The thing is they are not the only Gulf state doing this, the last twelve months has been a veritable buying spree amongst the Sunni ruled GCC states! They are all putting in big ticket purchases from multiple sources.
In my opinion the penny is finally starting to drop that the Oil is finite and very few of them have properly prepared for life after Oil. Ironically Persian Iran having spent decades outside is sitting on huge reserves of Oil and Gas plus unlike the Arab states has the ability to feed itself due to its large tracts of farmable land.
(Good lord I am starting to sound like JSR!)
FedaykinWe’re talking tornado replacement. What is absurd is to state tha tthe Typhoon which was not developed for that purpose and had lagged (and still is lagging today) for 30 years behind the Rafale in the multirole department can all of a sudden be the equal of it… the obvious and only logical answer is: it can not. Now, if they decide to concentrate on Typhoons only (which would be a logical political move), ok..
If they decide that they need to buy something else as the Typhoon is not and won’t ever be a real striker, teh Rafale rdefinitely does the job at least as well and probably better than anything they may get from the US, except probably the F-35 once it’s, more or less, finished. Not including the rafale in their study while asking for information about the F-15 and F-18 means that they simply stay away from the Rafale as they don’t wont that to face the questions like “and why that french thingy you’ve been saying is garbage compared to our 9th marvel of the world is bought today to do a job that our thingy can not?”.
Fact is, even if the Typhoon is lagging (and also BECAUSE Typhoon is lagging) behind the Rafale they will not allow the Rafale to be introduced in the GAF… ever.
What’s more, they say they’re planning to develop something in collaboration with the french?
They gotta be kidding…
TooCool_12f, frankly what you are saying here is entirely detached from reality! This a pretty odd debate and you are using some rather wonky reasoning!
To pick a few things apart, where do you get this 30 year gap thing from? The Rafale and Typhoon were both conceived at roughly the same time and both had technology demonstrators in the form of the Rafale A and EAP flying in the same year 1986. If you want to be generous then certainly the Rafale A was closer to the definitive C model and the EAP was a different aircraft but even then the Typhoon had its first flight in 1994 eight years after the Rafale A and three after the C. Both the Rafale and Typhoon are contemporary when it comes to development schedules and certainly don’t have the development gap you are describing.
Typhoon as a Tornado replacement is up for debate certainly the idea was put forward early in the program amongst the consortium, that was public knowledge nevertheless the UK, Italy, Germany and Spain all had strike fighters already in service in the form of Tornado and F/A-18 Hornet so there was not the pressure to develop the Typhoon multi role capabilities that quickly. Yet you seem to be taking the position that the Typhoon was not developed to be multi role or strike capable at all, that is fundamentally not true! From its inception the Typhoon was always intended to have a multi role strike capability that was built into the program from day one. Now we can get into a debate about where they are with that capability but the idea that the Typhoon was not developed from the beginning to be capable of multi role/swing role/strike is utter nonsense!
As for saying Typhoon is not and never will be a striker is patently absurd considering the type is performing that role now and has for a number of years. As for Typhoon lagging, in what sense? The type is in service NOW and performing the roles required of it by the customer nations, over time the strike capabilities are being increased. Why does everything have to be a pi$$ing contest with Rafale? If it is performing what is required of it by the customer nations it isn’t lagging at all.
Whilst I am about it people have mentioned the F-15 and F-16 developing into multi role strike aircraft, well even that is not in keeping with reality! Both types had a multi role capability from the first day they entered service.
In the end Germany already operates the Typhoon which is already a multi role type and they have the option to buy more with added capabilities. MAybe they will and maybe they won’t buy more to replace Tornado but really this doesn’t need to be a contest in “My plane is better than yours because of reasons…”!
FedaykinI have this visual representation of Canadian defence procurement if it is a help to anybody!
FedaykinI feel like the one who pours cold water on all thoughts these days…not a chance I’m afraid.
Scotland is fearlessly protective of their fisheries protection service and has no interest in Royal Navy crewed vessels performing the role. So for Scotland to operate the Batch 1 River it would require a Scottish civilian crew. Therein lies the next problem with the idea, no doubt like the RFA the Scottish fisheries protection service has minimum habitability standards around the size of crew quarters and even access to natural light with a cabin that a River 1 won’t meet. Next Scotland already has three perfectly modern fisheries protection vessels built to their requirements. Finally gifting the River 1 to Scotland offers no financial return to the UK treasury it would actually cost it more so it is a total non starter. Another issue where are these Northern based Royal Navy volunteers to crew these vessels for Scotland, the RN is already having to play musical chairs with the MCM force just to get the River Batch 2 into service there is no way they can spare people to crew vessels for the Scottish Fisheries protection service!
As Swerve has pointed out there is a solid market for this class of vessel second hand, it is pretty easy to draw up a list of navies globally who would happily buy them if the price is right. There are possibilities in South America, the Middle East, Asia and even Eastern Europe to buy the Batch 1 and Clyde.
FedaykinJapan has little experience exporting in the defence sphere but does manage to export more than 4000 individual product lines to 200+ countries/territories worth $600mn+ a year. It is therefore not incapable of arranging export deals.
Yes Japan is very experienced at international trade but the defence arms of their major companies have been insulated from that. They have no experience managing major defence projects outside of Japan or dealing with a customer beyond their own Self Defence Force. I am keen to see Japan branch into the international export market when it comes to defence but Canada has to be realistic about its defence procurement. Japan makes some lovely ships but Canada needs to play it safe!
You are right that Europe doesn’t make an Oceanic SSK per say but they do make Submarines in the same class as the Victoria class SSK. Not particularly picking out the HDW option but they do make variants Dolphin II for example that are almost exactly the same size as the Victoria and they have decades of experience dealing with international customers.
I don’t see anything particularly wrong with Canadas current procurement plans, the midlife upgrade of the Halifax keeps them credible and the Canadian Surface Combatant Project is sensible. Canada is struggling to keep what they have going, logistically it will be far easier for them to run than a mixed fleet like you are suggesting.
My issue with Canadian defence procurement is the constant prevarication, political interference and unrealistic specification drawing.
Sign In
