HyperionAnother factor that IMHO will also be taken in account:
http://www.eads.net/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/Defence_and_Security/20080205_eads_hai_contract.html
That is, the future of HAI. In a post-cold world that even the biggest defence companies have problem surviving, putting HAI in a long term cooperation with EADS, which is most probable if we take EF, is important.
HAI has also cooperation with Dassault, but , i think that the one with EADS can be more “secure bet” and future-proof.
To tell the truth, i wish Dassault had sticked with the EF program, now everything would have been easier for everyone. I think that Rafale will be the last fighter plane that France builds on its own… Unless a cold war starts again and everyone starts re-arming of course.
Hyperion… Saab has been extremely good at picking components and bundling in a package which is cheap and easy to upgrade — COTS is a keyword. Think PC versus the “old” way of building computers that were extremely expensive both to buy and maintain. I would not worry about Gripens future… also look at …
I don’t doubt that Gripen NG is very capable. There is a discussion in a greek forum too and has 15 pages till now… 😀 Apart the press that presents it as “dark horse”, the main issues raised by other Greeks, have to do with:
– Radar performance. Its nose is smaller, hence Rafale and EF will be able to “wear” more efficient radars.
– The small size – 1 engine, makes it less agile that the 2 above for the same payload.
– The fuel autonomy. Consider that HAF since “tasted” the Block 52+, has become very “fond” of CFTs, in order to possibly be in condition to offer some assistance to Cyprus, in an eventual conflict. I know that there is a plan for CFTs in NG (have seen a drawing), but as most things for NG, it is still “on paper” and i don’t know what HAF thinks of it.
Of course Gripen has the well known advantages too, cost, maintanance, short airstrips or even roads to take off, access to source codes, open architecture etc.
Practically HAF wants an aircraft best in A2A, possibly “proven in service with other countries”, with capability of using HCMS, CFT and certification for HAF weapons, guaranteed future development and upgrades, at good price. 😀
The Gripen NG, seems to be able to provide these, but, in an uncertain date. If we leave alone A2A performance in WVR and take as “adeguate” the one in BVR, there is also the question, “what after the NG?”. I mean, the F35 will keep getting out in new blocks, with improvements. What about NG? Will it be able to keep up?
Before you think I am completely crazy please read on a few more sentences…
The way I see it, none of the mentioned fighters will stand a good chance in a 1-1 with the F-35 due to its VLO and excellent sensors. However it will have some weak points… To win against the F-35 (assuming no access to F-22) I suggest you need to go for quantity and not quality. It will be dirty and ugly, but it should work. A very simplified and unrealistic example: Assume your opponent is sending 100 F-35s at you. In such a scenario, would you prefer meet him with 75 EF or 150 Gripen NG? Keep in mind that the F-35 has a very limited internal storage and can bring few missiles; also I strongly belive that the kill rate for BVR when attacking a 4.5 gen fighter will be much lower than what some people claim… My point is that in any case you will suffer heavy losses however with 75 EF you will lose (almost) all your fighters, with 150 Gripen the 100 F-35 will not have enough missiles to take them all out. Guess what happens when the remaining F-35 tries to escape, moving slowly towards their home base, hot engines facing the remaining Gripens?
I don’t think you are crazy. It is a plausible scenario… I am sure that the Swedish must have told it to HAF.
I think this is the (only) way to defeat the F-35 using 4. or 4.5 gen fighters.
I suppose the other is to use F-35 too. Which we will most probably do, but as always we will be behind in numbers compared to Turkey…
to actually forget about both Rafale and EF and instead concentrate on choosing between F-16 and Gripen, and buy them in large numbers.
I can’t say that the proposal isn’t tempting. But i am not in HAF to know what they plan… 🙁
Gripen would have an advantage in that your opponent would not know it whereas he knows the strenghts and weaknesses of F-16 very well.
This is exactly the main reason of why Greece also bought Mirage 2000 and 2000-5. The Turks know about them what we want them to know about their capabilities. For the same reason i think that we don’t just buy F35 at once, but we will make this first “european” order.
if Greece asks for a Greec NG earlier they will get it. The changes to the airframe are after all quite minimal and testing is well underway.
What can i say. I hope someone from HAF is reading this?
F-35 is a game-changer however there are ways to change the game back…
L.
Well, for every measure there is always a countermeasure. Non NATO countries won’t simply sit and beg for mercy every time they will have to deal with F-35… The Russians and Chinese must be already working on new (low band?)radars, IR tracking or God knows what methods. The point is to deal with the F35, until we get our hands on such coountermeasures. The Erieye will give some help, also defence magazines give as certain the upgrade of S300 to S400, which the Russians say that can deal with F35 (but a SAM isn’t quite the perfect solution). We will see.
As you can see, i write too much about it, because it is a heated argument in greek fora. There are a gazillion pages about this there.
HyperionAlso, consider some factors in the previous deal.
– The socialist KYSEA, announced the decision for 60 EF, in 2000. The greek-american relations weren’t exactly ideal (today even worse, USA sides always against Greece in foreign policy matters), so i bet that Simitis was favouring the EF because european, which would reduce our dependency on american aircrafts. Like it or not, we can’t do without US aircrafts, but one can diversify his sources. Although HAF did prefer F15, there was never written in any press article, that HAF was disappointed or complained. The main problem of EF T1 back then, is that it was not mature (no active service). Still, its future having the european consortium behind it, was quite secure, much more than the Rafale’s.
– Simitis (the PM back then), was known to be particularly close to Germany in many matters, from internal EU matters to the fact that he studied in Germany. Simitis was very pro-EU and during his goverments, occured the biggest de-americanization ever in the greek armed forces. Practically the army and navy almost stopped new US material procurements, while 10 years ago, they were all “made in USA”. This has also to do with long term greek policy of trying to help european industry as a means of accelerating common european defence and foreign policy and integration, which for Greece would be the best shield against Turkey. And i fully agree. If it depended on me, i would only buy european. But our oriental border reality, makes it necessary to buy also american and russian.
– It is not a coincidence that although the KYSEA made the announcement in 2000, still the contract wasn’t signed and finally postponed (in 2001, there was exactly the first “overflow” in the Olympics budget, because we were forced to redesign all security and pay multiple times the money Sydney has spent). Until it became obvious that there weren’t going to be any money, so they postponed it (60 EFs cost quite a lot).
– I don’t remember of if a Rafale offer was made back in 1999-2000, as i said, i only remember that to our MoD the Dassault “advertized” the Mirage2000-5. If Dassault did make an offer for Rafale too, honestly, i think that anyone, HAF or not HAF, would turn it down, for the simple fact that if T1 was still premature, Rafale’s F1 future was even more in doubt. Heck, even today France is still trying to find a customer. Imagine how the F1 would look in 2000… With the T1, you knew that there are all the big countries of europe , bar France, working on it, and this would guarantee it’s future, upgrades, certification of weapons, etc.
– Add, that in 1999-2000, France wasn’t particularly pro-greek in foreign policy. Not hostile, but not particularly friendly either.
– Today most of the above factors have changed. More important, today we are in front of a “stealth” threat for the first time and this decision isn’t like the one in 2000 from HAF’s point of view.
Just some thoughts.
HyperionThe prototype assembly has been speed up to try to convince Korea.
After the F-15 victory, the program has been nearly fundless and went his way quite slowly but for what I know reach the main goals ie the possibility of a 90Kn M88 with minor change to the Rafale.
Exactly. The program is fundless. As matter of fact, the entire Rafale project is seeking foreign buyers so to retrieve the money spent for current R&D. Now, Dassault may very well be ready to fund with her own money the continuation of the 88-3 project. But, it doesn’t have to convince me, but HAF. That’s all. It also has to convince HAF for costs and costs in future support of the engine even if HAF is the only user. Also i don’t know how much HAF would like the idea of being the only user.
I think that it’s obvious a Greek Rafale with M88-3 would provoke a buy from the french side.
Such moves has been seen numerous time.
Well, if it’s true, i would consider it a point in favour of the Rafale.
Look, the initial acquisition cost of Rafale, is considerably lower, than the EF and all goverments “like” the “cheap” solutions. HAF thinks first on the “best operationally solution”, not the goverment. Politicians, before being briefed by the military men and the Buraeu of arms procurements, don’t know why a Rafale is better than a A-7… For them, they are just “names”. Add to this, that the current French leadership, has made a very “hard” pro-greek turn, which arrives at a cosy moment for Greece. The Germans would like to sell EF, BUT, the Germans would also like to make us take the Papanikolis 2 years ago , yet here it is still in Kiel… Also the Germans, have taken quite a few programs in the last years, namely U214, Leo2A6 and Leo2A4, PzH2000, upgrade of U209 and most likely the future upgrade of the MEKO frigates (also some minor deals of used material). The EADS also took the NH-90 program. Some of the previous products, will have future additional orders in the years to come. Politically we didn’t see any particular german support. So, unless the socialist’s KYSEA is binding our current gov too, i don’t see Karamanlis HAVING at all costs to buy EF, if HAF says that don’t NEED to buy EF.
If you ask me, if the Rafale is equally capable to the EF in air combat and future is guaranteed and long term costs are lower, of course it is better to take more Rafales at the same money , than fewer EF! It’s a no brainer!
But HAF is the prime line of defence. No KYSEA can simply ditch in the garbage bin the ranking list of HAF, especially now, when the Turks are about to get a stealth aircraft. This isn’t about buying an RPG or a mine, but material of primary importance. If HAF starts leaking in the press that it is an outrage or the Chief of Staff says something, the opposition parties will grab the opportunity to accuse the gov of “putting in jeopardy the national security for obscure reasons”. Not to mention what will happen if the first reports of HAF getting beated in every dogfight come to the press or worse, if even a 2 day mini-war with Turkey should occur and discover that we bought “flying coffins”, with HAF officers going to the tv.
HyperionHyperion, I truly enjoyed your well-informed and objective insights. Thanks so much for the info..
You ‘re welcome. I wouldn’t call them well-informed. I simply don’t come to claim that i know what HAF knows or that i know what’s best for HAF.
Hyperionthe main question remain how several important magazines wrote that without any problem ?
You mean like the German magazines that write without problem that there is nothing wrong with their products, other than that the Greeks don’t want to buy? 😀
Just think of how many stories are written in “important magazines” about various US plans and how much of this is proven right.
Blackmail ? My god, never.
Just that a Greek judge would haev find via a source that information.we’re between gentlemen you know.
Yes, the “blackmail” is what the gov would think, independently of how your services would operate their “revenge”. In order to blackmail someone, you must make your requests. From the time you make the request, the blackmailed part, knows who is the blackmailer or whose interests he serves anyway, which is the important thing.
Greece choose the EF before the end of the process quite suddenly, without warning any competitors but Eurofighter group.
What was the “end of the process” exactly? The end of the process in the KYSEA meeting.
Dassault and LM proposed deal 15 to 25% cheaper … in vain.
Please read again what i wrote about the KYSEA. It’s not a competition “whoever sells cheaper gets the contract”. If this was the case, we should buy Gripen. The Rafale WILL ALWAYS be cheaper compared to the EF, the Mirage2000 is the cheaper to the Rafale and the F16 cheaper than both, so what does it mean? That we must always buy F16??? The Russians also offered us the T-80 much cheaper than the Leo2A6. Well, we didn’t get T-80.
And suddenly, they remind that the Olympic games happen this very year before a “posponed” of a deal.
Please do an internet search on how much the “normal” spendings of the Olympic games were supposed to be when Athens won the bid, how much it was grown after 2001, because of the Twin Towers attacks and last but not least, about the delay in the olympic works, where the works were continuing night and day until a week before the opening of the games. The final money spent, was nowhere near the initial budget that had been predicted and also there was extra cost in order to accelerate everything in the final year. This overspending , caused general trouble to greek economy. You may also want to search in the internet to find how much urgent foreign loans the gov did in the year 2003-2004 exactly because over the overspending of the economy for the Olympics. Of course you are free to believe that we also had the modest sum to pay the 60 Eurofighters , but i beg to differ.
Sorry that i don’t bother to do a serious search on my own, just a quich sample:
In 2004, before the games.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/5761646/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3815247.stm
The burden of financing the Summer Games has already pushed Greece’s state budget deficit above the levels permitted under Eurozone rules. Earlier this week, in fact, the European Commission announced plans to issue recommendations on June 24 on how to rein in Greece’s deficit.
Rising cost overruns, however, forced the new government to obtain foreign loans and scale down a string of infrastructure projects.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2DD1739F93BA25755C0A9629C8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
And this is a final calculation, in 2005, after the games:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/news/2004-11-18-cost_x.htm
You think it rains money in Greece?
I don’t say that the “spy story” is true. I just say that I don’t believe a single second of that one.
My friend, the difference is , that i am a Greek, and know how the economy was before the games and whether money was available to buy then 60 EF or not. This is were i base my opinion.
Your opinion, is based on a theory, based on your “feelings”, that go against the facts. We were forced to take LOANS in months before the games, do you understand why? Because we didn’t have available money! How would we pay 60 EF? With a new loan???
Fortunately, the socialist gov is out of power now.
It will return… No party stays forever in power. And it will “remember” if you blackmailed it… Not to mention that by now, the conservative gov will have read your magazines too and will have investigated if there is any truth behind it. And my guess is, the conservative gov wouldn’t want to deal with such blackmailers either…
Do the serious french magazines wonder also about something else, like how exactly Dassault is doing its marketing? For example, why didn’t France offer exchange Mirage for Rafale, BEFORE we upgraded the Mirage2000-5? Instead of having just received the Mirage2000-5 and being asked to put yet another type at the place of 2000?
Regards
HyperionThe M53-PX exist, but no customers has been found.
The ECO bring a boost for maintenance, availability, something quite important I think.
More thrust ? The m88-3 has been tested too, yuo only have to ask.
What i have read from greek sources for the 88-3 is that that current status is “frozen”. Who will have to pay to “unfreeze” the program? Also, another issue for HAF is, “will we be the only airforce using that engine, when even the AdA isn’t using it?”.
This goes again back to the “future” and “costs” discussion.
The ECO of course is better than the simple 88-2, but in A2A combat, if you leave availability alone, doesn’t change anything.
HyperionOn several french magazines, they more talked about how the french secret service blackmailed the Greek governement to stop the deal thanks to a one million found from EADS Germany to the brother in law of the Greek MoD at that time.
I have never heard about any reclaim about that information neither from Greece nor EADS Germany.
This is the first time i hear this. If i were to believe all the “spy stories” that are in the greek press too, then i would turn mad.
What we know, is that the KYSEA at the time, made decision about EF (pubblically announced, finished story). Which was however “postponed” (not cancelled) for after the Olympic games, because of the excessive spending for the organization of the games. But in the meantime, the goverment changed and instead bought F16s and Mirage2000-5. It is not clear if the current goverment thinks of the socialists’ gov KYSEA decision as still binding or not. What we read is that the European consortium insists that since the previous KYSEA made the announcement, this should bind the current gov too.
Honestly, i find the “official” explanation about the funds needed for the Olympics, much more plausible than the french “spy story”. Because, ok, let’s say that EADS bribed the brother in law of the greek MoD. In the KYSEA, the minister of defence, isn’t the only politician who must decide (there is also PM, minister and vice-minister of foreign affairs, minister of internal affairs and of pubblic order and maybe someone else i can’t recall). With one vote you can’t turn the entire KYSEA to do what you want. At least bribe the brother in law of the PM for God’ sake! After all, he can sack the ministers! 😀
Also, the “spy story” has a flaw. Suppose that the french secret services did in deed blackmail the greek gov, threatening to “expose the scandal of the MoD”. And suppose that the greek gov was convinced by the blackmail to “cancel” the EF decision for that reason. How do you think that this would affect the future French-greek relations no matter what goverment? Do you think that any greek gov. would give future tenders to France, a country that uses blackmail like common criminals? I don’t think so.
From the 2 explanations which seems the most logical to you? See, the difference between “truth” and “fiction” and “rumours”, is that usually, the truth resists to any logical questions that one may put, while the “fiction” starts “leaking” once you try to examine it critically.
If you blackmail to such extend someone, he won’t buy anything from you in the future, it’s that simple… Not only that, you will damage any political, military and economical relation for many years to come.
HyperionA supplement on the Gripen story. Norway’s Gripens, according to an article of April 2008, can be delivered starting in 2016. This is too late for HAF, even if we suppose that Gripen NG was fully ready for evalution today… Judging from this, the Swedish don’t have high hopes about they Gripen for Greece either. Gripen NG isn’t even “battle ready” today, so it would be most unlikely for HAF to bet on an aircraft with even more questionable future than the Rafale.
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/9287/2rdyutdti0.jpg
Then, according to this
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4637&Itemid=46
about Gripen’s Demo maiden flight, the NG will be available starting from 2015. By 2015, HAF may be retiring the upgraded F4E too. What do we do in the meantime with retired all A-7E and part of F4?
Also and this goes for the Rafale too, i don’t think it is a coincidence that HAF sent to Larissa Block 52+ to train with the Rafale. Obviously, HAF wants an aircraft significantly superior to the what the latest F16 can give today, because also the F35 is designed to be better than the F16. If an aircraft is “slightly” better than the F16 Block 52+, then why not buy F16 Block 60? I am not implying that the Rafale is “slightly better” only. I am just saying what i assume HAF wants.
HyperionFor the same reason as Korea. They bought the US protection for the next 15 years. Korean and Singaporean air force are more or less an extension of the USAF in the neighbourhood of China
I don’t know the Korean internal politics, but it’s a plausible factor. When you have other factors too than the pure “technocratic evaluation”, it is pointless to do such a tender. I mean, ok, Singapore made the fancy tender only to choose at the end the aircraft that wanted since the beginning. So, what was the point of making such a tender really… Just to show that they are “fair”? It would have been more fair towards the French IMHO, to tell them directly “listen the Rafale is good, but we are not judging just the aircraft performace here, thank you anyway”. Instead they made this fancy “test” where for the media results that “F15 is better than Rafale”.
HyperionThis is OT but… Has Gripen NG been completely dismissed in Greece?
The Swedish, keep trying. Whether HAF has dismissed them or not, i don’t know. Again, if one has to judge by press that “leaks inside info”, the Gripen looks very nice economically, but it’s not what HAF seeks. I don’t know if the NG has been proposed, i would suspect yes.
If it has, is it because it will arrive too late (I think Saab claimed it could be ready by 2012), or because it is perceived to be too weak? Or lack of two engines? Interestingly it seems even US Navy has now decided that one engine is sufficient (F-35).
I have no idea. Simply the Gripen is the perfect Dark Horse. Just like the Russians, they do make offers but they don’t seem to stand a chance.
The engine or T/W ratio is of course an issue when you are supposed to want an aircraft for A2A. It is no secret that the main disappointment in the Mirage2000 evolution, is the weak engine. Even the Mirage2000-5 would be “another” aircraft if SNECMA had come out with improved engines. Compared to the engines of the Block 52+, the Mirage are weak and the same fear exists about the Rafale’s engines, with the -ECO being the latest which doesn’t bring real boosts. A comparison with the boost performance of the next EF engine for example, given also the history of SNECMA’s weak engines, is a big poing in favour or EF fans.
Gripen NG will have significantly increased range, increased thrust, 10 pylons, 6 tons payload, IRST, AESA, satellite comms, enhance MAW, etc, etc. It will be able to carry IRIS-T.
Yes, but it will have to convince HAF that it can fare better than EF and Rafale and this includes the future too. An aircraft, in order to have “successful” future and good cost-effectiveness, must do exports. Otherwise it becomes obsolete or costs too much. If i have to quote a greek member who insists that he has “inside info from HAF”, the Mirage, although is appreciated for specific characteristics and weapons, nowdays, is too costly compared to F16. Because french missiles cost much more, spare parts the same, the upgrade of 2000 to 2000-5 requires 28 mln euros per plane (this is almost half a Block52+) and in HAF don’t want to see the history repeated again, only worse, given the unsuccessful export efforts of the Rafale compared to Mirage. He also claims that simply put, in order to intercept turkish planes today, it much more convenient to send F16s instead of Mirage, because of the different costs.
Now, take all this with the usual grain of salt, but that french weapons and upgrade to 2000-5 is quite costly, is a fact. And the reason for high costs, is exactly because the exports and thus mass production is limited. Now, take all this and apply it to Gripen…
The biggest advantage however may be the price, not just for the plane but also upgrades and to operate.
Yes, exactly, not just the initial price is to be considered. That’s why the HAF committee is set to do long term study on the Sarko’s proposed deal. The issue is, that HAF won’t settle with just “an economic solution”. The primary concern of HAF is the best way to deal with the turkish F35s. HAF isn’t going to ask for a plane just because it’s cheap, if thinks that will be the least probable to have success against the F-35. Politicians can worry about the money much better than HAF, it’s their job after all.
As i said, there are only rumours. I can’t say what HAF offers are or the evaluations are.
For political reasons Rafale or EF may be to prefer, but if you are looking for a fighter than can take on F-16 I would think Gripen NG will be more than adequate? The low cost will allow you to buy more planes compared to both EF and Rafale.
HAF is looking for an aircraft which will be more likely to take on F35 and in the worst case scenario that won’t be able to, at least to be a very capable F-16 killer.
Gripen NG is probably the best low cost solution for any country that has no real enemies and wants a 4th gen aicraft.
The press has written that Putin has talked with our PM for planes too, but he knows that for logistical reasons alone, as well as US wrath that will follow, we won’t buy russian.
One must understand that decisions aren’t simply political. In this case, we wouldn’t buy anything, our PM would pour the money in wage increases and he would win the next elections while sleeping. Despite what some people abroads believe, that our politicians enjoy having an “imaginary” tension with Turkey and use it for arm deals and similar crap i was reading a while ago in a french forum, most greek goverments “fall”, because of people complaining about wages or high cost of life, not aircrafts. Our politicians however can’t save their skin, because they don’t want to happen to a crisis with Turkey, like in 87 or 96 and find themselves “naked” as far as weapons are concerned.
HAF is of primary importance for the greek defence, so any solution must be “good enough” for HAF to accept, no matter how much our PM wants to give a hand to Sarkozy. Let’s be honest, every country thinks at her own interests first. Believe it or not, Greece has real threat, that’s why tries to buy good stuff in good numbers and where possible buy something in better quality than the Turks (and why still retains conscripts, which isn’t very popular for a european goverment to do, when the greek citizen sees that in almost all other countries draft has stopped). Now, Sarkozy is a very able salesman. But, no matter if he “resurrects” his grandfather in every occasion or if he is ready to marry Karamanlis, do “nouvelle alliance” etc, the bottom line, is that if he didn’t want to sell, he wouldn’t care one bit about Greece. The “nouvelle” alliance, does hear very well, but it isfor the time Sarkozy will be president, while if we buy the Rafale, HAF will have to live with the conseguences for the next 30 years… And it is not a coincidence that he uses “nouvelle”. The “old” one has faded in the meantime, because other french goverments didn’t have “grandfather from Salonique”.
I repeat, that nobody can really know what offers HAF has on its table right now and what is the evaluation of each one. The press is all full of smoke and mirrors. Check the latest for example.
http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/6/26/f_18m_18d2470.jpg&srv=img33
According to this latest article from a normally “satyrical” newspaper, which yet is serious, “Sarkozy is rewriting the greek defence procurement program”.
In summary, the article claims that there is a “top secret” study of the supreme command which was made between the time our defence minister went to France and the time Sarko came to Greece. According to this “top secret”, the priority of programs is completely shifted as follows…
– The frigate program is scapped, so to accomodate the French who prefer to sell Rafale. 4 bln. And what will the navy do? Put antiballistic and antiaicraft missiles on the islands to cover the navy.
– The EF deal is “sealed” and will go on, nothing is moving it.
– The LIFT cancelled. HAF will manage taking advantage of the common trainning agreement signed with AdA (so practically our pilots are supposed to use the french LIFT aircrafts). Only the T-41 will be replaced with the Czech “Zlin” light trainner having the advantage…
– “Guerilla warfare” inside the Pentagon’s corridors from the american lobby, through a retired HAF officer, who is trying to “sink” the Rafale, in favour of more F16s.
Now, from all this delirium, i can only believe the last part. But it is indication of what underground wars are going on between the lobbies. One can’t believe anything anymore. Everyday you read one thing and the exact opposite of it.
That’s why i insist in repeating, that at least, *i* don’t know what HAF thinks, i can’t even trust the defence magazines anymore lately. My only faith is in HAF and our current Chief of Staff. Nothing more.
HyperionAs a sidenote. So, after this cynical analysis, do you understand why Singapore shortlisted Rafale and F-15 and still in the year 2005, chose an aircraft which has practically closed its life circle or future if you want to put it more politely? It doesn’t mean that Rafale is worse aircraft. Most probably, Singapore has its own “other factors” when judging, just like we have ours. So the Americans beat you there…
HyperionArg, don’t start this “points contest”, it may never ends, even after 1 000 years and whatever the actual sales/knowledge :diablo: lol
Yes, it never ends in greek fora either. The Rafale fans are fewer but are die-hard and so don’t let the EF fans have it their way. 😀
I still have questions tough, I hope you don’t mind :
– what was the Greek reaction when France/Dassault presented the 2000-5 instead of the Rafale ? EDIT : it’s always funny, by the way, to see how much an offer can be off the mark. What the hell was the 2000-5 being compared to F15 and EF when the France had the Rafale. I don’t get the commercial strategy being !
Now, this goes back a long time so i am not sure what i can remember. I think that in a defence magazine, was written that at the time the greek defence minister Tsohatzopoulos was in visit in the Dassault factory, where the French officials were giving him a tour of the facilities. Tsohatzopoulos asked about the Rafale and the delegation politely guided him to the Mirage2000-5 instead and the defence magazine wrote that the French thought of it more appropriate for Greece. According to the magazine the “more appropriate” had to do that Greece is a small country and 2-engine aircrafts are too costly to buy. Well, if you think that later that same goverment postponed the EF purchase and that the next goverment postponed it even more, buying F16 and… Mirage2000-5 instead, maybe it wasn’t completely disastrous marketing. But, now, the EADS consortium are using the socialists’ gov preference on EF as “a word of honour that must be kept from the current gov too”, so one point of pressure in favour of EF. Of course, now, according to the press , the French ask ” new comparison from scratch, to give a chance to all aircrafts”…
– why no process like the one in Singapour for the plane selection ? It looks like the process was quite paper based the first time…
Only our gov knows. If you ask me, because if you make a tender with strictly technocratic criteria, you risk of having to dump all other factors that i said earlier. For example, in greek fora comparison, the common idea is that the italian radar on the FREMMs, is overall slightly better than the Herakles. So, in a tender with only technical criteria, the italian FREMMs may come first… But, here come the other factors… With France we have a long time military cooperation, even in navy (Combattante FACs, recently upgraded), France’s policy towards Greece is lights years more supportive than the italian, so would we really want to embarass ourselves with a tender where the Italians should win the program, but the gov (and navy) thinks that this issue doesn’t weigh so much as to outshine the other 2 factors on favour of France? So, you don’t do a tender. You evaluate the ships with your navy, you put all other factors you like as long as it (theoretically) doesn’t jeoperdise the operational needs of the navy against the well known oriental threat, and you make the final decision. For example, even if we did buy Italian Fremms, Italy has so many interests in Turkey and apparently FYROM too, that the Italians would take the money and still support those 2 countries against Greece in every occasion, while we would appear ungreatful towards France that DID support us. Does a radar difference worth it? For me it does not. A radar can be even changed, the platform is more important.
Final decisions are taken by KYSEA (Govermental Council of Foreigh Policy and Defence), which is composed by the Prime minister and top ministers plus the Chief of Staff and the segretary general of the General Bureau of Arms procuremements who does a “proposal” to the KYSEA itself, which is usually what the army wants. This general secretary and Chief of Staff usually have the job of “explaining” to the top ministers the technical issues that a politician has hard time to understand. The Chief of Staff in particular is there to safeguard that the politicians don’t blow up the needs of the army, because for our foreign minister for example, by looking at them, i think a Gripen is no different than a A-7. On their side, the politicians explain to the Chief of Staff their “preferences” based on foreign policy and at the end they must agree on what the KYSEA will buy and sign it.
For example, my thought is, that if for the navy “FREMMs are OK, italian ones slightly preferable”, in the KYSEA, the politicians will turn this into “We prefer french FREMM, would this cause operational problem with you Mr. Chief of Staff or is it OK anyway?”. Most probably in the KYSEA back then when the HAF said “F15 first”, the politicians asked the 2 “military experts” “if we choose EF instead, will this be a problem?”.
That’s how things go. The only “scientific” tender i recall, is the tank deal, but i suspect that we were expecting the Leo2 to prevail anyway (as it did), so no big deal.
That’s how arms tender are made. It’s not simply “i get the best that i can test in the field”. You can also get a slightly worse in the field, but with more political or economical assets that allows you to buy more at the same price or increase the cooperation of your country with an industry that traditional cooperates with you etc.
Of course don’t expect Greece to buy Gripen , because although economically would be more than perfect, the Chief of Staff would most probably resign after shouting at the PM. As i said, we don’t have the luxury to buy anything we like, because the final decisions must in any case, pass through the reality that we face a “clear and present threat”. That’s why we ditched our home made IFV (Kentavros) in favour of BMP-3M variant. The home made IFV, would give much money to ELBO, but it didn’t satisfy in 2-3 points the army requirements (one was its fuel autonomy being shorter than what the army wanted for example). If we were a country that doesn’t have real enemy, of course we would have bought it at the end, because who cares if it’s autonomy was shorter or the fire control “too exposed”? We would only need them for parades and the money would go to a greek company… It’s armor could withstand 30mm frontally.
(bottom of page)
http://greekmilitary.net/armouredvechiles.htm
And we would give job to a greek company and we would talk of as “very good”, just like every country says about stuff produced in its own country. But, since we have Turkey next to us, Kentavros, wasn’t good enough, despite the politicians would like to give the job to ELBO…
HyperionOh, another point from the “EF fan club” against the Rafale, is that Greece partecipates in the IRIS-T program and Rafale isn’t certified for it (and if we ask Dassault for certification, the cost will fall on our shoulders).
HyperionHi again 🙂
When asking about why the HAF would favor the EF, I was meaning : did a lot of EF came in the past to show what they’re up to or was a “request for information” made (only for the EF?).
I may be mistaken, but i think no EF has come to Greece for trainning like the Rafales did. The only EF visit to Greece that i remember, was during Archangel Air-Show. Other greek members with better memory can correct me. If i well remember HAF pilots have been sent to fly with foreign EF (other can remember where and when).
In fact, up to now, for me, the Greek came suddenly a few years ago with “let’s buy X EF”, almost like a surprise. That’s why I was asking the question 🙂 Could you detail the way such a decision is taking up to you ? Is it an HAF question only or more a political one ? Because it’s not common nowadays that an air force is build with some “real” enemies in mind. UAE or Austria haven’t any real enemy to fear…
The previous gov. decision about EF, came after an evaluation of the then available aicrafts. Rafale wasn’t a candidate back then, because France didn’t propose it to us thinking it as “too expensive” and instead proposed the Mirage 2000-5. The story as we outsiders know it, is that HAF’s Chieff had ranked first F-15H (H for Hellas, an export version) and EF Tranche 1 second. The gov. turned this to EF being first. I wish i could tell you that i trust 100% our gov or HAF’s chief for what matters. An ex HAF chief for example, once retired, got involed with the LM greek delegation… So who tells me that he wasn’t part of “LM lobby” even before and he was promoting US aircrafts?
This said, we DO buy with a specific threat in mind.
If our politicians could, they would buy ZERO new aircrafts and they would use the money we spend for defence each year (about 7 blm euros) for welfare projects and salary raised, because this could give them the next elections. Because when one goes to vote, he thinks how much money he has in his waller, not how many F16s are resting at the hangars… I want to believe that the current gov. will take the issue seriously, because the “stealth” factor is very important and the current HAF Chief and even more the current Chief of Staff, have a very good reputation in the armed forces and i don’t think they will make the HAF proposal lightheartedly. HAF says she wants “air superiority “. There are 2 ways to see this. Buy air superiority aircraft, or, buy more aircrafts of other type that will give you the air superiority thanks to the numbers.
Whatever happens, in Greece nothing remains hidden forever, just like we knew about the F15 preference, we will know what HAF’s preference is this time and whether the gov will follow it or not.
BTW, what’s the position of Greece regarding technological offset ? I’ve never heard they were trying to build some “aerospace industry” but I’m quite surprised they’ve such an high interest in doing so for obvious reasons !
++
If i were to cite the rumours that have been written about supposed proposals from EADS, Dassault, LM about offsets, we would write until tomorrow.
Greece, traditionally, never tried to make a local assembly line. Until now, HAI (http://www.haicorp.com/) is doing mostly maintainance work (Dassault has certified it officially in the past) and part for aircrafts (the airduct of the F-16, the civilian aircraft’s Falcon door, stuff like this). Making assembly lines requires investment in structures and given that the cost of salary workers isn’t that low, at the end, the cost would be high, probably higher than buying from the mother company. Practically HAI is there to service our aircrafts without having to depend of foreign companies.
Greece is a small country. Wanting to make somekind of greek aircraft is laughable, nobody would buy it… Also, the long term target of our policy, isn’t to continue this cold war eternally, but to arrive somehow to the point where Turkey will either stop revendicating everything and apply the existent treaties, or force her to an international court and then hopefully reduce the greek army to size of the Irish one and use the money for more productive sectors. In the 80s we have arrived to give up to 7% of our GDP in defence, now we fell from 4 to 3,5% of GDP, which is still very high , compared to other EU countries of our size. If you ask me, i would be happy if Greece would concentrate on investing on something less glamourous, like a local anti-tank missile maybe. This would be much easier, but our minister doesn’t seem to be interested. Our local industries take programs that are “parts” manufacturing, never the complete job. Even the Leo2 Hel, in which we did get an assembly line, only some parts are made in Greece under license, the rest arrives from Germany and assembled by ELBO.
Sign In
