That’s kind of a generalization. MiGs were superior to BF109 at high altitude for example, very early in the war. Yak-3 was one of the most dangerous on the opposite spectrum. Of course there is no doubt the Soviet war machine substituted numbers for quality, even if the basic design was good- war time austerity and all.

Yak 3, La 7 were clearly superior or at least on par with german fighters but that didn’t happen before 1944, Yak 9 was very good but still generally inferior until the Yak 9U version which came also in 1944 if I remember right.

For the most part the VVS used older planes, including many second rate western fighters (P40, P39, Hurricanes…), and russian designs that were still inferior to their german counterparts.

Nic

Not necessary. If the service is being downsized and the F-35C is inevitable, a smaller EF force isn’t the worst thing that can happen. The T3B can be diverted to Malaysia, Oman, UAE or Saudi Arabia, or the T3A deliveries can be spread out into the future like the French Rafale orders. In 2018, the economic conditions may have improved enough to allow further orders.

Stop with this nonsense already. The economic conditions are going nowhere except down the drawer for about 10 years. We are only at the beginning of the troubles.

So ditch the F35 & just order T3B, make it multirole, and use what’s left of the F35 money (if there is any left), do develop an indigenous stealth UCAV.

Nic

Nevermind I read the thread too fast.

Nic

Nic,

Thanks for the clarification on Le Canard.

I don’t imply that Rafale has been subsidized (though that would explain how such a lower price was offered), I just reported that Le Canard had suggested it.

“Either Rafale is sold at an inflated price for the French, or this is dumping, special discount under cost” states the magazine.

Well as a journalist the first thing to do should have been to check the source, and its political stance. Failing that your posting in this forum appears to serve a purpose, for instance propagating a baseless rumor from a leftist paper, but giving it more credibility by multiplying its origins, for instance putting it on the web, and then god forbid letting Jon Lake base an article on some interweb rumors and french magasines 😡

I’m not trying to undermine Rafale, I’m just trying to get a better quality of debate, with more openness on your side, and an acknowledgement that some of your side’s long and deeply held convictions are actually nonsensical.

And on price, it is clear that the difference between the aircraft is wafer thin, as my figures and TMor’s figures show only too well, and Rafale is not, as has long been claimed, significantly cheaper than Typhoon.

Dassault made a superb job of keeping cost increase at 4,7%, if of course you exclude the addition of extra capabilities, which is completely natural.

There is no way that Dassault would sell at a loss, as evidenced by the comments of the UAE when they said the Dassault offer was unworkable. Why would Dassault try to milk the UAE, which is a huge Dassault customer, but would lower its pants to sell to India?

Besides the canard doesn’t even mention that most the Rafales will be built in India, hence at a much cheaper cost than if they were built in France. Talk about partisan journalism.

Nor am I rabidly anti-Rafale, in fact it’s a programme I rather admire. I’m just not as rabidly and blindly pro-Rafale as some of your side. And it may surprise you to know that one reason for that admiration is precisely because Rafale is indeed “a proof that a national industry can still in this day and age develop a top of the line and successful fighter itself.”

I agree.

You have estimated wrongly on my attitude to TSR2, as well.

Glad to know this.

And that’s why I rate Gripen as being an even greater achievement, as it is the product of an even smaller nation, and one that has been pretty successful to date.

It is indeed a great achievement, despite the Gripen being dependent on US goodwill, and isn’t the fighter of choice if you want to be independant from the US (US engine, US radar (until AESA), US weapons mostly).

I have argued myself that Rafale is a success precisely because it meets French requirements so brilliantly, and is giving such good service to the MN and AdlA. Nor do I underestimate its importance in helping to retain not only critical industries but also high value manufacturing jobs (and lots of them) in France.

I must have missed that. I don’t remember reading it in your posts.

And I am indeed jealous that Britain has not done the same, though I believe that the collaboration with Germany, Italy and Spain has, on the whole, produced a successful aircraft, and has resulted in a programme that was more resistant to cancellation, which was always a danger in the 1980s and 1990s in the UK.

I agree, a single UK project could have been cancelled to the profit of an all JSF fleet. Then again why not spend the 2bn spent on the JSF on the typhoon instead to give it real multirole capabilities (CFT, Brimstone, EPW II->IV, Storm Shadow), and use the rest of the fund to accelerate the development of the stealth UCAV for 1st day of war strike to accompany the Typhoon? The fighter hasn’t been cancelled, but it’s not what it should have been anyway, until 2018 at least.

Nic

And you, my dear chap, are obsessed with semantics.

This thread isn’t based on a misunderstanding of International Law, it’s based on reservations expressed in a French magazine about the Rafale having been sold more cheaply to India than to the French armed forces. That Rafale is being subsidised.

I made the mistake (and I’m happy to admit to mistakes) of assuming that such subsidies were illegal under International, European, French or Indian law. They may not be illegal, but any such subsidy is interesting, in view of the fierce debates we’ve seen for years over price.

I don’t need to prove that you have claimed superiority for Rafale in order to label you as a fanboy, I need only point to your continued failure to address the substantive points, your determination to argue about semantics and my motivation/identity/unfairness/rudeness rather than about the actual debate, and your inability to acknowledge Typhoon’s strengths, or Rafale’s weaknesses.

As to my alleged abusive pleasantries – unless greeting your input with ‘Ooh Goody’ is deemed abusive (which would be a shame, as it was actually expressing my delight at being able to be rude about the Daily Mail), then actually it was you who began the ‘abuse’, with your comment about my being a naughty s**t stirrer.

Which was an interesting choice of insult, as I notice that your contributions to this thread have all been to attack me, or my credibility, and you don’t seem to have made a single constructive point about the actual subject whatsoever.

Hahaha you are again at it trying to start rumors. You pretend to aknowledge a mistake (the legality of subsidizing), but this is only to mask the fact that you are implying that the Rafale has indeed been subsidized, albeit “legally” without any proof whatsoever.

You are a clever one jackjack. But now we are waiting for your proofs that the Rafale has indeed been subsidised (legally or not who cares), because all your arguments about the costs of both fighters have been proven wrong in this very thread. Everything you write is trying to undermine the Rafale programme.

You are rabbidly against the Rafale, because the Rafale is a proof that a national industry can still in this day and age develop a top of the line and successful fighter itself. In other times you probably would have been criticizing the TSR2 as a useless waste of money, and advocated partnership with the US on the F111/F4/Whatever the hell they wanted to sell you.

As far as I am concerned whatever the performance, and even if the Rafale was indeed inferior, it would still be a success because it will serve France well, and helped us retain critical industries in France. At first I thought you were just jealous that the brits and BAE couldn’t do the same, but more and more I think you’re just yet another journalist who can’t help but criticize anything remotely related to national independance.

Nic

By the way, are you genuninly suggesting that you think Dassault shouldn’t co-operate?

I am of the opinion that had the cold war not ended when it did, Typhoon would ahve had the full participation and backing of Germany and many of the problems is subsequently suffered would not have occurred… Obviously given the choice i would rather the cold war ended!

If you have two very motivated countries with a history of co-operation working together, many of those problems could be avoided.

Yes. I would feel much safer if France cooperated with India, Brazil or Russia than with any member of the anglo saxon world.

I find the fact that France got closer to the USA and the UK under Sarkozy very worrysome.

Nothing about the people from the UK which have proven many times that they are a great people, but seing how their elites constantly betrayed their own people in the last century, there is no doubt in my mind that they will do anything to undermine the french sovereignty just like they destroyed the UK sovereignty and sold it to the city and wall street.

Nic

Pilots say all kinds of things! And old saying, still true today…bull**** will do for skill, but not consistently.

And if the other pilot was also experienced?

He prays that the Mirage 2000 pilot is a beginner :p

Disagree the RAF would still have wanted F35 as the penetration aircraft looking to the future.

Then why would they develop a strike UCAV. Wouldn’t it be redundant with the F35 once it comes online?

Nic