French Defense Ministry Faces Budget, Staff Cuts

PARIS — The French Defense Ministry must cut staff by an annual 2.5 percent and slash spending by 7 percent in 2013, and 4 percent in 2014 and 2015, respectively, as part of the government’s budget reduction efforts, a June 28 prime minister’s letter to ministries said.

The 2012 defense budget totaled 31.72 billion euros ($39.52 billion), excluding pensions, with 293,198 employees, of which 224,595 are military and 68,603 civilian.

The next year is a transition period as a defense white paper and the 2014-2019 military budget law will set the broad strategic lines, said Jean-Pierre Maulny, deputy director of think tank Institut des Relations Internationales et Stratégiques.

A report from the national audit office is awaited by the end of summer, which is expected to give a progress report on how well the present reforms have been implemented, including a staff cut of 54,000 people under way, he said.

No words yet on how exactly this will affect the Rafale’s programme but the actual government seems less likely to provides Dassault with more special favours (unfortunately). Will have to wait for the white paper for more details.

Darling Mildave, I will wager that MBDA will make as many of their future weapons F35 compliant as possible. Note that SPEAR is a UK initiative and as such it will work in the UK F35s.

“We are on track, and continue to mature the technologies,” says business executive Adrian Monks. However, MBDA acknowledges that the UK’s recent decision to revert to the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B “brings some challenges”, as the type’s weapons bays are shorter than those found on the carrier variant F-35C previously favoured by London.

Link

I wasn’t expressing my own opinion sweety:rolleyes:…

Rafale ready to take off in India!

Following the original request for proposals (RFP) issued in 2007, India announced just a few weeks ago that it intends to purchase 126 Rafale fighters from France. The definitive contract could be signed in 2012. Safran is a major contributor of systems and equipment to this new-generation multirole fighter. We asked Gérard Le Page, head of the Rafale program in India, to give us the contract background.

Which Safran companies are concerned by this contract?
At the head of the list is of course Snecma, which developed and produces the M88-2, Rafale’s engine, accounting for 75% of the Group’s contribution to the contract by itself. Other Group companies involved are Microturbo for the APU [auxiliary power unit], Messier-Bugatti-Dowty for the landing gear, wheels and brakes, Hispano-Suiza for the power transmissions, Labinal for all wiring harnesses, and Sagem, which contributes the inertial navigation systems, the engine’s Fadec electronic control unit, and the AASM modular air-to-ground guided missile, one of the aircraft’s major weapons. Other contributions come from Technofan, Aircelle, Herakles and Turbomeca. The contract will represent sales of about 2.5 billion euros for Safran, depending on the weapons chosen, and also entails major production offset arrangements.

Could you describe some of the cutting-edge technologies contributed by these companies?
Well, it’s a very long list, because this is a real state-of-the-art fighter, including advanced thermodynamics, materials and electronics for instance. The engine features single-crystal turbine blades, powder metallurgy parts and ceramic matrix composites for the nozzle flaps, along with thin-wall cases for the power transmissions, laser gyros on the inertial navigation systems and of course the very sophisticated guidance system on the AASM “smart” weapon.

Safran has been a preferred partner of India for a number of years. How will their relationship change with this announcement?
The Rafale contract will undoubtedly boost our development in this country, where we have operated since the 1960s. Today, we have more than 2,000 employees in eight subsidiaries and joint ventures, including a design bureau in Bangalore with some 550 engineers. Morpho is participating in the world’s largest biometric ID program, that will assign a unique identification number to each citizen and resident of India. CFM International’s maintenance teams support a fleet of 350 CFM56 engines deployed by airlines in South Asia. With the Rafale, we expect our business to accelerate considerably. The Indian aviation industry is now under construction. It needs training, technical assistance and technology transfers. So we are going to mobilize to support their rise up the skills chain. In consequence, this contract will result in a hefty business volume for the centers of industrial excellence in France. Furthermore, this impressive contract could have a knock-on effect in other countries who are potential Rafale customers, with proposals already under way.

Sweden could lend Swiss Gripen jets

Sweden could loan a fleet of Gripen fighter jets to Switzerland as it awaits delivery of the craft’s next generation model, Swiss Defence Minister Ueli Maurer said on Friday.

Bern announced in November its intention to buy 22 Saab Gripen E/F fighter jets to replace its ageing US F-5 fighter fleet in an estimated 3.1 billion Swiss franc (2.5 billion euro) deal.

The E/F is still under development and Sweden could loan Switzerland about 10 of the current C/D model in the meantime.

Maurer made the announcement on Friday after a two-day meeting with his Swedish counterpart Karin Enstrom, Swiss news agency ATS reported.

The loan would allow pilots to get trained up and avoid the costly upkeep of the F-5.

The Gripen, not available before 2020, was selected over the French Dassault Rafale and the EADS Eurofighter, sparking much debate in the Swiss parliament which has yet to give the purchase the green light.

A referendum will also likely be held on the deal.

So now it’s 2020… Looks like Switzerland is far from been a done deal .

Low frequencies radars are highly sensitive and are used in weather radars for example. Their main draw back has been their size, power consumption and lack of computer power allowing them to use effectively their high sensitivity and differentiate a flying aircraft from the background cluster.

However with the increase of technology these draw back have been addressed and miniaturisation + exponential increase in computing power (digital signal processing) have made these radars very effective for military applications. If these radars can be made to detect stealthy cruise missiles, and if they can detect a raindrop there is no doubt they can detect any stealth aircraft.
A low frequency radar can work with waves that are been used for commercial applications such as cell phones, TV, wifi etc. In such a context, they can be totally passive, the inbound aircraft never knowing it has been detected.
Bi static radars are becoming more common as well, and they’re now deployable on the tactical lvl on any theatre of operation.

Now looking at stealth in itself, I’m not aware of any coating or skin that can completely absorb a radar wave, which is why LO aircraft try to redirect the energy elsewhere. But since all the energy cannot be either absorbed or completely redirected a F-22 and F-35 are still going to be detectable albeit at shorter distances. Even their internal carriage won’t totally hide their weapons, making them vulnerable from high energy ground radar even before they open their bay doors. And with the networking of the battlefield, the redirected energy which will be the first give away can be picked up by bi static radars, aircraft, AWACs etc.
Talking about AWACs, because they usually fly higher than most fighter are likely to fly, they can further boost they chances to detect a LO target sooner because LO is at its worst when seeing from above (which partly explain why the F-22 was designed to fly so high).

Now take the F-35B with shorter weapon bays (and according to the article quoted earlier, they don’t even know yet if the Spear will be compatible with the B variant of the JSF), with limited payload due to its inability to take off or land vertically with heavy weapons (its empty weight is been constantly reduced to try to address such issue by removing key systems like fire extinguishers), limited range due to the fact that it likely won’t take off with a full fuel tank and if you bring in tankers then you lose the goal of having close to the fight survivable aircraft, the increase in maintenance due to complex and numerous moving parts for the propulsion system having also the side effect of not been able to operate in any conditions due to higher risk of ingestion of foreign objects, hot air ingestion issues, higher vulnerability to battle damage and especially the price tag making it the most expansive fighter aircraft after the F-22 and you should understand that such a plane should never have existed. The F-35 in itself is controversial, but the B variant is a aberration.

For one F-35B you can buy ~4+ S-400/S-500/Chinese SAMs/SAMPT etc. all capable to shoot down LO targets including cruise missiles and drones.
Looking at the track record for VTOL aircraft Harrier and V-22 included, it’s clear that they have a far higher crash history.

IMO it seems clear that the F-25B accumulate all the draw back of the stealth and VTOL technologies and when taking into account the risks, limitations and costs associated with such a plane with the capabilities offered, it isn’t worth buying.

Spanish and French Naval and air forces make joint exercices

IAF officer faces court martial for demanding bribe

The air force has begun court martial proceedings against a Wing Commander who was allegedly caught demanding a bribe from officials of French defence firm at the Aero India show in Bangalore last year.

The Court of Inquiry (CoI) into the incident had recommended Wg Cdr AK Thakur to face a court martial and the proceedings started against him in Bangalore recently, sources said in New Delhi.

They said the CoI had found Thakur prima facie involved in demanding bribe from French company Dassault Aviation for allotting a ‘more advantageous position’ for its Rafale aircraft in the ‘static’ aircraft display section at the biennial airshow.

One of the officials of Dassault Aviation, who had filed the complaint against the officer, is also there to appear as a witness in the General Court Martial (GCM) headed by a Group Captain-rank officer, the sources said.

The point is that they couldn’t afford one, so they would not have had one. The harrier/small carrier combo worked out better, and cheaper, in the end. Had the UK relied on a conventional carrier; a) they would likely not have had any carriers, period, or b) wouldn’t have been able to put up in the air anywhere near the amount of planes/sorties.

a) I’m sure they could have afforded large deck carrier had they really wanted, if they can now, they surrely could back then… But anyway that’s just me speculating…
b) You’ve no idea what would have been the sorties ratio. Given that CATOBAR aircraft can remain airborne longer and with a bigger payload while operating further, comparing the two capabilities on sortie generation only is flawed.
What is known is that Argentinians air threat was quite low, and under embargo. They did use their strength pretty well though successfully hitting UK’s boats while the Harriers were unable to provide full coverage and protection to the amphibious group. They did the best they could given the circumstances, but that’s not really what you call outstanding success when compared with the losses the British suffered and what happened in the rest of the world with power operating large deck carriers…

The point being that in order to utilize a conventional fighter, you need a large carrier. And that large carrier comes with a full battle group of ships and support. It’s not just the cost of the fighter A vs fighter B, but all the rest too. Being able to take fighter B with you wherever you want, and get the same (relatively) capabilities as fighter A, is pretty useful (and to think that the new America class ships will be able to carry 20 F-35Bs. That is a larger air-wing than any other country’s carrier)

A US ship carrying 20 F-35Bs would be carrying about 3b worth of tax-payers money. Let’s see if the USMC are willing to take the risk to operate 3b worth of aircraft in an low security environment.
20 Harriers cost would be around 300 m which is the cost of one F-35B with R&D. See the difference?

100km is very short ranged, compared to a fighter.

Not if you need to provide cover for a beach assault or coastlines operation, which is exactly what the USMC needs. For almost all other scenarios air force and Navy are more than capable to provide the needed cover.

Seems the argument being sidetracked to another F-35 discussions and not purely on VSTOL ones. If VSTOL fighters considered still have merit for future combat support, and F-35 B considered ‘too’ expensive to have or maintain in emergency front line bases, did any discussions ever considered just upgrade Harrier as say Harrier NG ?

These planes potential for modernization are more limited than other types of aircraft. None in the armed forces of the US will want to launch development of a aircraft that cannot be tagged with “5th gen” for political reasons mostly, and without US backing, only the UK would have the experience to further develop the Harrier something they weren’t willing to do.

How about this Harrier NG (called AV-8C or Harrier GR 11) can be build with stronger Pegasus but more economical fuel consumption (well I believe present aero-engine tech can delivered that), providing say 10%-15% more capacity, with 20% better fuel economy (thus around 15%-20%) more range, but still subsonic.

Modern air forces are looking toward multi-role aircraft as a way to reduce costs. The Harrier airframe doesn’t provide multi-role capabilities and survivability for the next 30 to 50 years. They army might be interested in a cheap and affordable ground support aircraft they could operate themselves but I doubt that will ever happen.

It can be developed with relative fast time, and relative much smaller costs. The only downsize is, it can KILL the need for F-35 B :rolleyes:. Well at least it can be seen like that by some of potential F-35B users.

And it would also be irrelevant…