So not partnering with other countries mean that you think the Rafale is eternal? What kind of flawed logics is that. Rafale needs a replacement, and for France it needs to be french. For the others they can do as they damn please for all I care.

What good did it do for the EF to be multinational? It’s only advantage over the Rafale is the biased reporting on the english speaking press for many years until it was pretty obvious it was completely false, at which point only jon lake kept at it.

Nic

A bilateral cooperation won’t be managed efficiently any more than a multilateral one. If you can’t build a plane because of lack of budget then you need to work on what you actually do with your money instead of who you can partner with to develop your plane.

Here’s to a gallic shrug for any partner whatsoever. Germany and Great Britain included.

I thought it was hilarious.

Nic

Don’t be so pessimistic, it will get operational at some point.

How many is that?

Actually I looked into it and it turns out I it’s not most of them, as there have been quite a few midair collisions amongst other causes. However there’s still quite a lot of room for aircraft losses due to engine failure, out of the almost 90 airframes lost for all users. Unfortunately the list I saw didn’t list the cause for the majority of the crashes.

Heck there’s even a youtube video of a 2000D/N going down because of an engine failure.

Nic

I don’t think there’s anything to laugh about.

Let’s see:

Last fighter developed by Germany in cooperation: Eurofighter. A resounding success indeed.
Last Franco-german cooperative projects: Tiger & NH90: both resounding successes.

What’s not to like in partnering with Germany?

I’m pretty sure you could develop a plane alone in the same budget. This cooperation is driven by ideology which is why it will fail.

Nic

Canadian politicians will use this as an excuse to switch back to F35. Period.