Problem is France would have retained the engine and airframe capabilities, UK just the engine capability. France wanted to be the core of the fighter market in Europe, and I don’t think they would be willing to go in for anything shared except where they the ones in control. No to British control. No to shared control. Only French dominance is acceptable.

And rightly so. Just as the UK should want the same for its own industry. Unfortunately the UK politicians are bought to the americans, so they killed the UK industry to the profit of the US industry. It doesn’t seem to bother you, yet it does seem to bother you that France has so far managed to keep its fighter industry going.

Not for long unfortunately if we get sucked in those european cooperation programmes 🙁

Nic

Just in time for Syria and Iran!

😮

😀

I’m very disappointed to see cooperation. I think it should be left to Dassault alone for the french requiremens. Diluting know how for dubious benefits (see typhoon, A400M, Tigre, NH90…)

BTW this goes both ways for the brits and the french. Both would be better served with their own projects.

Nic

Although the cost went up afterwards because of the lower production rates. This problem should be solved partly thanks to the Indian order, and even more so if the UAE and Brazil actually purchase it.

Nic

Where does it say that the cost includes operating costs? I can’t find it.

Total programme cost is often (usually, in fact) used to mean total procurement cost, not total lifetime cost.

Page 60 you will find this. It relates to new procedures, not just to the Rafale program from what I can understand.

L’amélioration de la conduite des programmes d’armement.
Le ministère de la défense met actuellement en oeuvre plusieurs
actions destinées à favoriser leur déroulement, en particulier des équipes
de programme intégrées et un coût global de possession mieux pris en
compte.
C’est ainsi qu’un nouveau découpage est mis en place en six
stades du cycle de vie des opérations d’armement afin de favoriser la
coordination des différents acteurs. Pour les stades de conception et de
réalisation, la direction est désormais conjointe en équipe de programme
intégrée (EDPI) entre le directeur de programme et l’officier de
programme.
Le coût global de possession est dorénavant pris en compte
ab initio.
L’acquisition d’équipements de sécurité engage l’Etat sur le long
terme et les coûts supportés doivent tous être intégrés, comme le coût
d’exploitation, le coût de soutien en service, le coût de mise à niveau et
de modernisation de l’équipement ou le coût de son démantèlement.
La maîtrise du coût de possession nécessite que la conception du
matériel soit ainsi optimisée.
Le coût de possession sera donc désormais présenté et actualisé
régulièrement dans les documents de programme, au-delà de la seule
part d’acquisition.

Exactly. One could have gone for cheap and testes Russian helicopters or not so cheap but also testes US helicopters and ended up with expensive, unproven and badly designed deathtraps. Let the French do it and it will be an expensive but good product, add the Germans and others and it will be an expensive and very bad product.

Tell that to the Australians about their seasprites.

Nic

Nicholas10 undermines his aviation arguments with conspiracy theories that have littel to do with reality (which saddens me).

We all know that the Libyan thing worked out differently to the way the conspiracy minded would have liked, and its childish to suggest that it was to do with arms sales….

Sorry but I feel compelled to rectify when I see people spouting BHL-like (reference for the french posters) comments about what happened in Libya and Syria.

By the way those are not conspiracy theories. Do you really really believe that France and the UK spent billions and risked their soldiers just to save a bunch of Libyan civilians? Come on? Seriously?

Nic