Spitfire9It’s amusing to see how media has so much opinion but yet know so little about fighter aircrafts.
What they don’t seem to grasp is that it is better to be involved in assembling / manufacturing / developing a high tech product like an aircraft than just to buy the complete product from a company. That’s an advantage, not a disadvantage.
Spitfire9I strongly disagree with your assesment of the situation. Sure some profit is better than no profit at all.
But while Dassault doesn’t need to pay for the cost it has already sunk into the Rafale programme, it does have to pay for the cost of the future technologies it is developing for its next projects.
What is unusual about generating profit to cover future investment? Nothing. It is the level of profit that Dassault seeks that seems to be unreasonable when one looks at their pricing, unless they have extremely high production costs which demand an extremely high price to make a reasonable profit. The answer to that is to lower production costs. One way of getting those costs lower is by increasing throughput. To do that you have to price your product to win more sales.
Someone suggested that Dassault should not sell Rafale for less than it is worth. The value of something is not directly connected to what has been invested in developing it, setting up production etc. Did Airbus double the price of the A380 after the CATIA disaster that cost several billion euros? Did Boeing double the price of the 787 to recover massive development overspend? Of course not. Customers don’t care what you have spent on your product. All they care about is what you ask them to pay for that product.
Spitfire9The Gripen NG performance was simulated, because as many frenchists love to point out, it’s under development.
There’s no doubt in my mind that the final product will perform better than a “simulation”.
What this says (more or less) in Coilbri’s post:
“Der zweite Bericht, datiert vom November 2009, basiert auf Informationen der drei Hersteller über die im Jahr 2015 abgelieferte Konfiguration.”
The second report, dated November 2009, based on information from the three manufacturers (is) about the configuration to be delivered in 2015…
ie the second evaluation was based on the capability promised by the contenders for their product for 2015. I imagine all three aircraft were promised to have more capability in 2015.
Spitfire9and btw, the gripen is the best choice for the Swiss airforce…
In retrospect, the selection should have between Gripen, F/A-18 and advanced block F-16 IMO. How Rafale and Typhoon ever came into consideration as an F-5 replacement, I do not understand.
As has been pointed out, Switzerland has a limited defence budget. It never made sense to consider buying a very expensive fighter that was in a completely different league to F-5 to replace F-5. It would have been a very different situation if the intention was to buy an aircraft capable of replacing the Hornets in the future and which could in the meantime be used to replace F-5.
Spitfire9Congratulations to SAAB. Commiserations to Dassault and Eurofighter.
When it comes to awarding work to RUAG (assuming they will get work from SAAB), I wonder how far SAAB have already committed to manufacturing elements of Gripen in Brasil.
Spitfire9according to Air et cosmos it should well be the gripen NG but it was still deemed less capable than rafale and typhoon.
If a heavier, twin engined 4G fighter is not more capable than a lighter, single engined 4G fighter, then the designers of the twin engined fighter have got things badly wrong IMO.
Spitfire9That alone shows how stupid this bickering about the various aircraft’s technical qualities can be.
Rafale is currently arguably the best fighter type money can buy. Still it can’t score a single success, as much as I’d love to see it sell.
Why (apart from political allegiances eg S Korea)? PRICE
I have the impression that Dassault sets out to “make a killing” on Rafale deals – but fails to recognise where that is not possible.
Spitfire9No, the Swiss aren’t going to have such a good long range heavy attack aircraft as they’d have had if they’d bought Rafale. They’re not going to be carrying multiple Scalps over long distances.
When was Switzerland last involved in any offensive military acton? Regarding air defence, I’m not sure it is possible to fly more than 300Km in a straight line without leaving Switzerland so I don’t see a need for anything but a short range aircraft.
Spitfire9According to Olybrius sources on mp.net (Le Temps swiss newspaper). The latest SAAB proposal is that swiss will buy gripen C/D and Ruag will then upgrade them to a standard close to the NG (airframe and engine don’t change). This is done at very competitive price and swiss industry can participate directly.
So it is not a true gripen NG, just a gripen C/D with NG avionics.
The air force may not like it but it sounds like a winning proposition for the politicians and the public: “cheap” with the creation of substantial work for a Swiss company.
Spitfire9It looks like the USAF is looking to alternative strategies to LO penetration and strike by F-35 using a combination of F-22 and upgraded F-15 carrying cruise missiles.
From aviationweek.com:
“The F-15 can carry long-range, glide and powered weapons such as the cruise-missile-size Champ, which is critical for electronic attack. Moreover, the F-22s—operating at higher altitudes and deeper in the threat rings—can provide long-range targeting for the F-15s. The F-15s then supply a large off-board magazine of missiles for the F-22s, which can serve as command-and-control aircraft.”
Is the USAF covering the possibility of a big reduction in F-35A orders a la F-22 reduction? Looks that way to me.
Spitfire9Issue is they want it as future Hornet replacement, too. In the long run they aim at single type fleet. Benchmark therefore ist the F-18.
Gripen scored lower then the benchmark (F-18) in some categories.
This is a state with active, accessible democracy. Voltaire, when in exile in England, once made the observation that England had a political system where every five years the people were free to choose who would dictate to them for the next five years. Not so Switzerland, it seems. The government can be forced to seek their approval of its proposals.
It makes sense to me to select an aircraft capable of replacing Hornet at a later point. Rafale and Typhoon would both outperform this aircraft. The Swiss people, however, may not approve of the cost of such an aircraft being ordered. I can see them rejecting a $4 billion or $5 billion bill to replace 20 or so light fighters if they are asked to sanction a Tiger replacement.
Spitfire9Seems Gripen did meet the requirements?
If it meets the requirements it may well be chosen. Does not matter who is number 1 and who is number 3 in that respect.
If the requirement is for a Tiger replacement, they all surpass the Tiger by a very large margin, don’t they?
Spitfire9(Source: Institute for Defense Study and Analysis; issued Nov. 23, 2011)
The recent Pentagon report on US-India Security Cooperation which indicates the possible sale of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to India has created a hubbub in the media. Some have even gone to the extent of suggesting that New Delhi should scrap its ongoing, half-a-decade, effort to procure 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft from European countries and instead buy the F-35, the only fifth generation fighter that is available for international customers.
However, a careful analysis would show that the F-35 is not an ideal choice for India for a variety of reasons ranging from the delay in its developmental schedule, a tight production line, prohibitive cost, India’s own efforts to jointly develop and produce a fifth generation fighter with its traditional supplier, Russia, and little technological or industrial benefits that would accrue to India from the F-35 purchase.
Anyone think there is any chance for F-35 eg if both Rafale and Typhoon are considered too costly?
Spitfire9In the end, while the announcement from the UAE is politically and economically pretty damaging, the French offer is part of a large collaboration including industrial development (satellites, partnership on the Rafale programs…), strategic partnership etc. So I would like to see what happen once they are done with their calculators. It will be even more damaging for the Typhoon than for the Rafale if they loose.
Politically damaging? Sheik Bin Mohamed went to some length to talk of the support of Sarkozy in glowing terms. Diplomatic talk, perhaps, of course. The target of his public criticism was Dassault, not the French administration.
If Eurofighter lose, I don’t think that will be very damaging to them. Can Eurofighter buy 60 M2K’s as part of the deal or find a buyer? If they need to do that as part of the deal but cannot do it, it would not matter how good or bad Typhoon was.
If UAE orders Typhoon, that is bad for Rafale. If UAE orders nothing (that’s my current thinking), that’s not good for Rafale. It will be seen as Dassault losing another sale they could have had, I think. (Morocco).
Spitfire9Any news on the French media about M Juppé’s unscheduled visit to Abu Dhabi? According to France 24 and other French websites, he was due to go there 20th November, 3 days after the RFP to Eurofighter was announced.
Trois jours après le coup de massue infligé à l’avionneur français par les Emirats qui ont jugé son offre commerciale pour le Rafale “non compétitive et irréalisable”, M. Juppé effectue une visite inopinée à Abou Dhabi qui n’était pas inscrite à son agenda officiel.
http://www.france24.com/fr/20111117-alain-juppe-rend-emirats-a-rescousse-rafale
Sign In
