I think […]

I can think too. 😀 But the “our” in my previous message was in fact a malapropism for “your”. Speculation irritates the Cartesian part of me, so this is the kind of exercise I find more enjoyable as a spectator than an actor.

But I’m sure you’ll find someone to play the ball, unless you were just trying to be provocative. 😉

LockMart employees and shareholders should not worry about the Rafale though. (Not that they were once…) By the time Dassault and the French administration realize that something is wrong in their marketing method, then identify it, then finally do it right, the F-35 will be offered at $50M apiece, with special offers on IR/visual stealth, time warp and teleportation.

(I really feel sorry for the hard working, talented guys at Dassault when I see their nice toy wasted like that. It might not be the absolute best, but it sure deserves a few sales.)

/OT

Hiya,

150 pages of food for thought: http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=42361

Direct link to the PDF: http://carnegieendowment.org/files/dogfight.pdf

Enjoy!

Is it fast turnaround, and VTOL in rough airfields, supercruise, F-16 class MTOW then Gripen is your choise.

VTOL? Wow, Saab should really pitch the Gripen as a competitor for the F-35B! 😉

“with no american strings attached”, which is a lot different than “with no american parts”

Exactly! You can have an ITAR free airplane with US components inside. But if you have US components in it, then you can’t promise a full transfer of technology since the American supplier may not agree (which is also true for French suppliers themselves, or Swiss/Japanese/whatever).

ITAR free US parts in the Rafale might be replaceable with French ones, but Dassault and the DGA may have had good reasons to choose the former instead of the latter: less expensive, or more capable, or more reliable, or smaller, or all these things together… Full ToT may imply different sourcing (limited to suppliers that agree to give away some of their know-how), resulting in a less attractive aircraft than AdlA ones.

I, for one, don’t know whether:
1) the Rafale really is ITAR free (i.e. contains no sensitive US component) ;
2) every US component in it does have a French-sourced equivalent (be it ITAR free or not) ;
3) every supplier of the aircraft would agree to transfer technology.

And I’m not sure any existing WikiLeaks cable could tell me that.

Strange that no one has posted this yet.

“Gulf ruler agreed France’s Rafale old technology”

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/11/30/worldupdates/2010-11-30T152452Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-532371-1&sec=Worldupdates

Another Link:

http://bhcourier.com/article/World_News/World_News/Gulf_king_mocked_French_jet_as_yesterdays_technology/72998

Better get the original than washed-out communiqués: http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09MANAMA642.html

[King Hamad] said that France was pushing the Rafale and would be there in force, although he agreed with Petraeus that the French fighter was yesterday’s technology.

So Petraeus said the Rafale was yesterday’s technology, then King Hamad agreed with him (according to the author of the cable).

What I find really interesting is that this statement made the news. Let’s try to find out why a number of journalists and defence analysts (AFP, Reuters, Stephen Trimble, Robert Wall and probably some others) found it interesting to bring this particular story to the fore.

Did they think…
1) “Look! The Rafale is overrated.” No doubt that if the aircraft was that good, Petraeus would have said something like “Yes I heard praises of the Rafales from the French forces when they were releasing GBU-12s above Afghanistan, so it must be a very good option compared to what we offer.” Especially when you know that a US general’s everyday job is the Quest of the Eternal Truth.

Or
2) “Look! US representatives are bashing competitors of the US industry.” How bizarre is it indeed to bash a competitor when you try to sell a product! Who could suspect a US general of patriotism, really? Judge and jury anyone?…

Or
3) “Look! Petraeus & Hamad know nil about military aircraft.” Well, probably more than you anyway. 😉

Or
4) “Look! King Hamad fainted to consider the Rafale an overrated product so he doesn’t raise concerns among his American friends.” Well, maybe it’s going a bit too far… But that’s probably what the King will have to tell to Dassault if he wants them to keep competing (read: investing money) in Bahrain.

Or
5) “Look! The Rafale will compete in Bahrain.” That’s indeed a good piece of information since I don’t remember having been told that before Cablegate.

Remember the cables from WikiLeaks are revealing the perception of global affairs through the eyes of the US administration, not some kind of absolute truth.

I’m not saying that the Rafale is second to none or even generally underrated, but I find Petraeus’ comment amusing when the overwhelming majority of US aircraft getting sold today (F-16, F-15, F/A-18) could probably be considered the same kind of “yesterday’s technology”.

[EDIT] The news is now popping up on Defense News, Defense-Aerospace, Bharat Rakshak & Airliners.net forums, and of course Poder Aereo. What an abundance of energy, some infos definitely are faster to propagate than others! 😀

Sad news ahead…

Under partial information, not officially confirmed, a Navy Rafale from the Charles de Gaulle would have crashed. The aircraft carrier has been involved Friday in air operations over Afghanistan.

More info to come.

Link

I doubt RR would be willing to share anything that gives them an edge in the commerical market.

RR might estimate that it could be their interest to share something in a given area (be it critical or not) in exchange for knowledge they don’t have in another area – if there is any in the case of Snecma, of course. Anyway it’s an interesting debate IMO.