AspisOn the contrary, they do, they do. A UCAV the same size as a fighter can have much more range. The control systems take up less space & weight than a pilot & his life support, & it can be more aerodynamic. A stealthy fighter-sized UCAV could do deep strike very well indeed, as long as the targeting could be sorted out.
AFAIK the current UAV and few operational UCAVs, don’t offer good range or they offer medium range, but at very low speed for fuel economy. And aren’t as big as the newly developed drones.
A fighter-sizes UCAV is different, but i think the first UCAVs will be smaller sized (if i judge by Neuron’s dimensions). This will allow for smaller RCS even if you don’t apply a superwow stealth profile. Enough to make some of them arrive to the target. It will also allow to have many of them at a fraction of the cost of a real fighter.
In a more distant future, probably we will see fighter sized UCAVs.
With large range, there is another problem of UCAVs. The more it goes aware from its launching post and control station, the higher the probability that the enemy can jam the UCAV itself or the communication of the UCAV with your ground station. Also, the longer it flies in enemy territory the more it becomes vulnerable to enemy detection and thus to being shot down.
I think UCAVs are perfect, with today’s tech, to cover with low money and large number, a “shallow” area of your enemy land (up to 200 maybe 300 kms). The percentage of losses is justified by the inferior price and the distance isn’t so big to lose easily control of the drone. In the worst case that your enemy has enough jamming ability , once you are aware of it, you can always make your drones come closer to you before it’s too late and strike enemy targets closer to your front line or recall them and use them from a new direction.
AspisIs it worth the cost to keep buying what is in effect yesterday’s fighter given all the other pressing military needs? If you think that question is trolling then you have your head in the sand]
Ok, this is my outsider’s view on how Germany thinks.
What are the pressing military needs of Germany? Germany needs something for air defence, just in case, like most countries do and something in the eventuality that will join some US/NATO venture against some rogue country. In that case, USAF will be doing the dirty job, the Germans will offer to take air superiority role with the Typhoons and occasionally launch some LGB. Which is the potential enemy for which this isn’t enough? Say the enemy has Su-30s? Typhoons will take care of them. Now, for CAS, now that the French are in the NATO, if Tornadoes and US aircrafts aren’t enough, the French will be glad to show how Rafale is good in A2G, evading SAMs with Spectra and so on! I wouldn’t send Typhoon for CAS… And there’s no need to…
The question remains, why spend upwards of $150 million each for more of yesterday’s plane when what is on hand is sufficient and there is a need for so many other military items but they can’t be bought due to Tiffy sucking up money
1) If you noticed Signatory’s japanese article, it quotes as Typhoon price , the 100 mln $ (70 mln euros). 70 mln euros is also the price one greek newspaper mentioned. Now, it may seem much, but that’s also because of the $ that was weakened. Otherwise, it would be a 30 mln $ difference with the price of the F15SE. And the $ is weak for 2 reasons. 1) Because foreign investors have lost trust to US economic policy and 2) Because the US goverment chooses to maintain a weak $ (exports are easier to make and while the purchase power of the US citizen is reduced towards imported goods, this means that US brands get the advantage in the US market too.). If and when the US economy gets out of the recession and shows the investors that the economy can get out of the negative spiral that Bush brought it into, the $ may start going up again. So, there isn’t much to do about the fact that the euro is “healthy” and thus leading to more expensive products… With that logic, one should buy Su-30, the Russians sell them dirt cheap.
A 150 mln figure, is for complete support of the aircraft, from hangars, to spare parts and support facilities and possibly weapons.
2) Germany is building the aircraft, why not buy them? The more are built, the more the price goes down and becomes more affordable to export clients. If all EADS members were sticking to the german policy of putting all the money on the Typhoon, now the AESA would be ready.
3) Germany faces no real threat. The Typhoon’s primary design concept was for air superiority. So in the worst case that someone wants to attack Germany, it’s there to do its primary job. Then as happened with most such aircrafts, they add A2G capabilities. Maybe it won’t be as good as an aircraft that was built with A2G as primary concern, but it will suffice for the eventuality it will need to go bomb some Taliban and besides, the Tornadoes are still flying for the more dirty job of CAS. But they can’t forever. So sooner or later, a number of Typhoons must be ready to take over that job too.
4) It gives german industry workload, so jobs are saved and $ is made. If you also look at the other partners, between Typhoons and F35, the numbers are high (do they really need them?).
5) There are currently AFAIK 3 UCAV demo programs in Europe (Taranis, Neuron, Barracuda resurrection/ Advanced UAV EADS demonstrator). It is easy to suspect what will eventually happen… Germany, doesn’t need the A2G versatility of the F15SE in the immediate future and in the mid range future, these 3 demo programs will most likely give 1 or more production series UCAVs, that will do SEAD at low cost (heck, the Israeli Harop is already out doing the job) and say a 2 JDAM playload, taking part of the A2G load off Typhoon’s shoulders when no Tornado will be around anymore. And so, if you ask me, i see as possiblity in Typhoon’s future, an upgrade to a more stealth configuration (something like a Typhoon Silent Eagle lol), to be able to cope with the “super-villain” that will maybe manage to buy a few PAK-FAs… But, UCAVs don’t allow for good range you may say. The thing is, Germany isn’t planning on doing world policeman… So long range deep strike, aside using expensive stand-off weapons, isn’t a priority. For longer targets, there are stand-off weapons. Or UCAVs are slow, if detected they are helpless… Yes, but they are also very cheap.
6) As for the 3 UCAV demonstrators, that technology will be also used to allow for the design of the next EADS aircraft (hopefully with the French in the team this time), that will have stealth and better tech.
7) I am not sure of other pressing military german needs. Germany is trying to slim down her armed forces, they sell at good price good stuff, because they… don’t have pressing military needs… Last is we ll buy 24 more Pzh2000 and we ‘ll get 12 more second handed at good price. Pzh2000 are new systems but the Germans don’t need them at the numbers they produced them. That’s about how many pressing military needs they have…Because on the german agenda, there isn’t any short term necessity of occupying militarily something like Iraq, where german armour and artillery must make mass operations etc. That’s US planning, so US doesn’t sell her new systems at low prices as “second hand”.
That is where I have to disagree. You are not getting VLO, you are not getting internal carriage, you are not getting tactically significant super cruise, and you are not getting an AESA unless it gets funded with additional money
The AESA is good to have, in that allows contemporary A2A and A2G flexibility, reduced MTBF, better beam agility,etc, but, there is also to consider that for its primary role (A2A), the Captor has exceptionally good range. Eventually the AESA will come. I wish it had come earlier. It is obvious that the Typhoon program has suffered by politics and uncertainties between the partners. But, as it is now, it is enough for the Germans. So they don’t bother.
If the upgrades don’t get done then what? You have lots of half developed fighters that will in no way be suitable for front line combat in the coming years
If the upgrades don’t come, it will slowly become obsolete… The positive side which makes think that the upgrades will be done, is that this isn’t just an economical european venture, but also a political one. The Typhoon MUST stay good, because it is the 1st joint EU combat aircraft project. If the Typhoon fails as a program, it will have negative repercussions to the entire EU planning for defence integration etc. Also the consortium countries, will need something to keep their factories occupied with.
To put it in other words, the Typhoon isn’t simply a company’s venture. It’s also a political project. It’s like with the goverments giving money to save the banks. It is unlikely that the goverments will let the Typhoon end as a failure, because they have to save it for political reasons. A failure would be a blow to all the rhetoric about EU integration, common defence projects etc. And the “EU dream” can’t take many more blows. Check the percentage of people who went to vote in the June EU elections to take a hint.
Hmmm see above….. But I agree they are not going to fund upgrades because they will not have money to do so after they buy T3. What should have happened (again like what is planned for the Raptor) is to take some of the money saved by not buying T3 and use it to develop and fund the procurement (yes I know the development has been partially funded) of an AESA radar, accelerate Meteor missile integration and bring all the T1 and T2 Tiffies up to T3 standard
I ‘m only guessing, but i would say that making more airframes with the same money, must be more profitable for the consortium members, than funding the AESA radar (in terms of work hours, later support on more airframes etc), which they currently see that they don’t need themselves.
Bottom line is, Germany doesn’t have the needs of USA… And isn’t thinking like an American would. Different priorities, different long term plans…
What the Typhoon though needs, is for the partners to put individual requirements aside and work for the COMMON project. If there is to be a european successor to the Typhoon, the Typhoon must be taken care of and avoid failure. Or any attempt to make the successor will be an even bigger failure.
AspisI don’t understand why you keep arguing about the case of S. Korea. Even without bribery hypothesis, if one takes into account that the US proposal was economically better (included a good stock of ammunition, correct?) and that politically S. Korea revolves around US (common headache in N. Korea), who would you expect to win? :confused:
I ‘ve written to the death, how countries make their tenders (at least those who have interest also in the political side of the sale). The rest is for the naive.
Suppose there was a bribe and suppose the French were aware of it in time and bribed too. The Rafale would still lose… Just because you make it to a tender, doesn’t mean that you start with the same chances as everyone else.
AspisJust to be clear, i will repeat my opinion. I am SURE, that for USAF, the F35 , with the small albeit enough for forseable threats, number of F22s, is MORE than enough.
I really think that US citizens can sleep a good sleep, because USAF has no rival.
But, that, is no absolute index of the validity of the aircraft, just for ANY other customer. For example, for Greece, there aren’t enough money to have 100 F16s for CAS, that’s why the A7s are still there. Most other airforces, also keep their “low end” aircrafts for CAS, with ample use of “iron-dumb” bombs (because they are cheap). So, while for USAF for example, sending F35 for CAS, in stealth config or in non stealth is an option, for most other countries , it’s not… Well, unless you want to eat all your money there.
Depending on the final price of the F35 (including the life cycle costs), the above will become more or less important. Your GI wants much firepower. You send your A7 or F16 with full load and gets shot down? well, no big deal. You send your F35 with full load and gets shot down? If you have USAF, it’s no big deal. If you have HAF, it’s big deal, you just lost a huge asset. Same goes for ammunition. You are USAF? You have money to buy as many modern bombs or missiles as you wish. Most countries can’t.
EDIT: Above i wrote ” It’ because the $$$ generated by building 1 F35 is more than building 1 Typhoon.” To be more precise, the $$$ generated by partecipating in building 3000 F35, is more than that in building your own inferior number of Typhoons and your workers will have work on the F35 for many years.
AspisThese discussions at the end always come up to the same conclusion (that people can’t agree), with accusations from both sides.
My view on the whole subject is. You can’t really – as an enthusiast – comment on how good the F35 is, from the moment that the F35 “final edition, ready to ship to the customer”, is not flying.
The rest, is a pure conjecture depending on what and who one wants to believe and a mix of future plans (according to future plans, the Typhoon would have had AESA already, the Rafale would have Gerfaut, but future plans, are always “future” , not reality. Just like the F22s would have had another development, if the crisis hadn’t appeared.Just as example).
Only when the aircraft will be delivered to USAF and customers and starts partecipating in excercises, one will start understanding , one article after another, how the “native” and “export” versions fare.
The rest, is like throwing a dice. PR *is* part of the sale of ANY product. How much is PR and how much reality, you only come to see it when the aircraft is flying. To us, the U214 was being advertised as “state of the art”, with Papanikolis on a sunset background photo. Well, if you read how many and what kind of modifications it went through, you ‘ll see that Papanikolis in the sunset was just PR. The rest of the subs may have been state of art, but not Papanikolis. On a greek interview i had posted, the German test captain refused sea trials were ever halted because of excessive rolling. Then the journalists showed the HDW document that was showing he was lying. Did HDW fire the test Captain? I don’t think so. Did we cancel all U214 orders? No, it would take too much time to build new from scratch. And what about the greek workers at Skaramanga shipyards that would be jobless if all the contract was to be cancelled? Politics… Same for the Leo2A6. In the firing trials conducted in Germany by the German state bureau (in the presence of greek army officers), the armor was penetrated frontally where it was supposed according to PR, to be immune. Can you cancel the contract for that? No, it’s too late, you can only send it back to factory and reinforce locally the armour.
Did the RDM radar on the Mirage2000 operate as advertised from day 1? No. It took it some years to become “acceptable”. Did the goverment cancel the order because of the “PR” lie? No, it would take time to rectify the gap in airforce and the selection of Mirage had both political and operational criteria, so we kept it. It’s not so simple to say “Your test pilot lied, i don’t buy”. It’s also common in companies to say “Yeah, don’t worry, these are only child diseases, you go ahead and buy, we will fix, guaranteed”. (Guaranteed can mean several years, or a half-way fix, read Papanikolis, Collins class in Australia, RDM radar, AIM9 integration in MirageF1 and the list goes on).
No, if Beesley lies about the F-35 & it is found out (which it would) then he could/would lose his job & the entire program could be put in jeopardy. Not to mention the lost convidence & respect that for Beesley would likely prevent him from ever being paid to fly ever again & for LM could/would lead to fewer contracts in the future.
About test pilots and what they have to say. As i posted in the HAF thread, EADS has prepared a new “team” for the promotion of the EF in Greece and this time the EADS lead test pilot, Chris Worning was put in the team, to underline the “air dominance” ability of the Typhoon to HAF top brass. Now, merge that with the fact that the EADS campaign is using the slogan “F35 hunter”. So, what do you think that Chris Worning is going to tell to HAF’s officers when they ask him his opinion about air dominance against F35? You think he is going to burry EADS’ main slogan by saying “Well, to be honest, the Typhoon can’t give you air dominance there”. Somehow, i doubt it. You don’t put in your PR team someone who will “burn” your candidacy in front of the potential client…Because, Worning, is going to try to convince HAF, exactly that the Typhoon is worthy of its slogan against HAF’s future threat, certainly not against F16… If he is asked “Ok, Chris, according to you, how will you shoot down the F35?”, he must have a plausible theory or two, he needs to convince pilots, not housewives. If he says “Well, that’s a tough one really, i m still thinking about it, now if you could please show me the way to the toilet and let the EADS representative continue the talk…”, i have the feeling that the EADS bid will go straight in the trash bin.
IMHO, if Worning goes to HAF and doesnt’ say things according to EADS wishes, THEN he will lose his job…
And most countries, which face no real threat, will not cancel the order just because of what Beesley said. It’s all about a contract, not what a test pilot says. And politics (and alas, bribes) also play a role in weapons sales. You think that for most politicians there is a difference between F4 and F35? No. For a politician, defending his choice of becoming a partner, is more important than verifying if Beesley’s comments are 100% in all situations (the complete flight envelope). The world is full of arms sales, that were done with operational compromise, because they were more lucrative for political reasons or economical reasons (more jobs for local industry). So, whether Beesley or Worning swear the holy truth before a Byble or not, is the last thing that interests a politician. At the same way, i am pretty sure that Worning will present to HAF specific tactics he has thought of, that will appear convincing enough to allow EADS to go ahead with the “F35 hunter” slogan. It’s up to the customer then, EVALUATE, with his own data, whether Worning’s proposed tactics are climbing on mirrors tactics trying to BS you with PR and unrealistic tactics or are really effective tactics for the role that the aircraft is advertised (compare Worning’s tactics to HAF’s own report on anti-F35 tactics which was made last summer from the School of Weapons Tactics). And then, it’s also up to the goverment evaluate the complete offer and take into account HAF’s opinion.
Weapons dealers, want to SELL. They are companies, who want to make $, not charity or patriotic organizations that strive for the well being of the country or the soldier. Just think of how many weapons went on real “trial” in the battlefield, only to find out that the real life conditions were more harsh on the weapon than the “lab test endurance” tests and the army asked for modifications/substitutions/complete withdrawal. That’s part of the game. So what if it didn’t perform in battlefield as advertised. You pay again, and we will make you a modified version/add armour, give you the A2/A3/A4 revision and so on. Of course some GIs lost their life due to their rifle that was easily jamming (while in lab tests it wasn’t) or their armour that wouldn’t withstand an RPG hit, but , you see, weapons companies aren’t charity organizations…
On the other hand, politicians want to be re-elected. And politicians in most countries, have the political control over the Armed Forces. Getting something decent that will give much work on local industry, which will get you votes and help you re-elected, is for them more important that getting the best, but with less political gains. And since they control politically the Armed Forces, it’s improbable that the Army Chief will rush to the Press and say “we bought a lemon, God help us”, unless the system bought is a real garbage. This , is more true, for countries with no real threat. Take Switzerland. Whatever fighter they may choose, there will be no scandal of buying ” a lemon”. And technical criteria leave ample margin for all contenders to be “within parameters”, in almost all competitions around the world.
Or why do you think that countries who are in the EADS consortium went for F35s too (aside STOVL versions) or prefer to cut their own products instead of F35? They ‘re not likely to fight China anytime soon… It’ because the $$$ generated by building 1 F35 is more than building 1 Typhoon. So more working hours for their factories, more jobs, more votes, even if this, damages the local product’s future development. This to show, that politicians, couldn’t care less about if what a test pilot said is true 100% or not. They are ready to sacrifice even their own industry’s child, if it’s going to give more $$$ and more votes. Why… Because the Soviets aren’t coming this way any time soon. At the same way, don’t think that they have at heart as no1 priority the excellence of their army. (Ask Gates about F22’s excellence and what how much he cares about it).
Not in this country & not in that company.
Yes, i am sure that Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley (Morgan Stanly was also used to give credit rating to foreign states. Having one secretly bankrupt company, giving economic forecast and credit ratings to foreign countries for God’s sake. How ironic is that!) were also highly regarded in that country too, that’s why now some thousands of people are homeless and live by state food tickets.
Weapons sales are made with a lot of PR, half truths and half lies. Only when you come to finally operate the product yourself you see its weaknesses. It’s a bit like selling cars. It’s always “the best thing you can find with this money”.
AspisThere is realistic and wishful thinking.
Officially the Rafale is not out but the chances are extremely slim.
MoD was clear.
Why, did i say that the chances of the Rafale are many? Anyway, i made my point, it’s pointless to continue. To each, his conclusions.
There is news and then there are those who transform the probable result in “news” before it happens, is what i would add.
AspisAspis reminds me of Arthuro… 😀
What do you mean by that? I don’t remember if Arthuro said anything about the Rafale’s bid in Greece…
All i say, is that we know that the favourites are 2. But that doesn’t mean that the others should just sit and wait for their loss passively. They are in a competition, they may as well lose fighting for it. Heck, the Boeing with SH has no tradition or foothold inside HAF, yet she jumped in the competition by surprise and does her own lobbying. So why should Dassault quit? What does she have to lose by trying? The fact that we allowed them to inspect Tanagra, shows that there is no absolute certainty. They can’t just go and inspect greek aircrafts and spare parts stocks, without MoD’s permission. It shows rather that , with an improved offer, Dassault could manage to do an exchange deal, no matter the result of the competition.
Aspishttp://www.athina984.gr/node/35908
The same statement from another source.
I fail to see your point… The above article quotes as source the article of defencenet, which i translated just previously. So, what should i see into that?? :confused:
Might i also remind the much newer comments of the PM in visit to France when asked about the Rafale? He didn’t say “we won’t buy”. He was vague. So, why shouldn’t the french still try and be presented as the “mad men which try to sell despite the fact that the gov shut the door on their face”??? This is my whole point.
Thing is that
a. EPA wants the EF and
b. decision will be taken from the PM, who desperately needs support from Mrs Chancellor and “Le Presedant”. Seems he already got the second one…..
This is a political evaluation of the situation , which is irrelevant to what i say… My problem is about the content of the article, not about estimates on what the one or the other does. How to put it. What you say , even we take it as granted, doesn’t change the fact, that the Rafale (or Gripen or Super Hornet for what’s worth it), were never officially being told that they “lost” the tender. So, the article, is IMHO, biased. Just like “Anaxaitisi” (interception.gr) is the playground of the Dassault (every issue has at least 1 french product on cover and the last 2 magazines have the Rafale), it’s not hard to see that defencenet is biased in favour of the Typhoon. With the latest example the article “Problems to the German Eurofighters?” Why the question mark?!! It’s a fact, never denied. On the contrary, again just to make the most recent example, there was the article “Joint Strike Failure” (without question mark of course!), which is the opinion of a US Senator, so no question mark is needed. Or the article about the F16s B52 taking in water, was rather ironic. I didn’t see such irony in Typhoon’s displays being shut down in mid air.
So in this series of pro-Typhoon lobbying, we have the Typhoon presentation and the French…trying to present their own aircraft although they were openly told (twice) that we won’t buy it.
Well… as they say, one sees what he wants to see… Yes, the Typhoon is favourite, but at least a minimum of objectivity when referring news.
AspisExcept of course the statement of the minister himself of Jan 23.
When he said that we reject the proposal for exchange with Mirage, correct? Yes, this, implies, that the Rafale’s chances are overall very short. (we all know that the Typhoon was the top candidate since the 2000 selection). But, the exchange deal, technically, doesn’t cancel the chances in the tender, where no exchange is predicted, does it?
What i mean, is, did the MoD say “We won’t buy Rafale?”. Probably we won’t, but he said “we won’t exchange Rafale for Mirage”, which is a different thing than saying that “the french are out of the game by MoD’s lips”. (this is journalistic enthusiasm).
Or, did i miss some MoD announcement where the MoD in January said that the Rafale is out of the “NMA” competition? (Because in the NMA, there is no request for exchange).
I remind defencenet’s own article (posted a while back), of Jan 23 in the MoD’s press conference:
-Αντίθετα απορρίφθηκε η γαλλική πρόταση για ανταλλαγή των Μιράζ με νέα Rafale F.3 γιατί η πρόταση αφορούσε τα εκσυγχρονισμένα Μιράζ 2000-5 και όχι τα παλαιότερα -2000EGM/BGM. Πιθανόν αυτή η εξέλιξη, εκτιμούν παρατηρητές του υπουργείου Εθνικής Άμυνας και σε συνδυασμό με τα προγράμματα 3,5 δις ευρώ (6 φρεγάτες, ελικόπτερα έρευνας και διάσωσης), να δίνει τέλος στην προοπτική απόκτησης γαλλικού μαχητικού αεροσκάφους.
“On the contrary, the french proposal for exchanging the Mirage for Rafale F3s was rejected, because it was involving the upgraded Mirage2000-5 and not the older 2000EGM/BGM. It is probable, that this evolution, as estimated by observers of the MoD and in combination of the programs of 3,5 bln euros (6 frigates, SAR helicopters), to put an end to the possibility of acquiring the french aircraft”.
Now, the above has 1 fact:
– The exchange was rejected, because it was involving only the upgraded Mirage.
And has a journalistic comment, where reports “estimates by observers” in the MOD.
Today, this becomes:
Despite the fact that the French are considered “out of the game” by the lips of the MoD, they insist.
despite the fact that from the greek side (from the MoD himself) and after the selection of FREMM, it has been notified to the French that the Rafale isn’t included directly in HAF’s plans. (when did that happen btw?)
Ok, we all love Typhoon, but i think the defencenet has a bit lost the track lately, as seems that the time comes closer and everyone tries to lobby harder… And as a long time reader, i have been annoyed lately with the way the contenders are treated.
The Typhoon has much more chances , we all know that, always knew that. But, taking the rejection of the exchange deal with the Mirage and presenting it as “the Rafale is out from MoD’s lips” is IMHO fanboysm. The official tender never requested exchange. The French could have never made such an offer in the first place and still be in the competition. What i see, is that, in the effort to promote the Typhoon, it is presented as if the MoD had openly said that the we won’t buy Rafale (which never happened) and thus, now the French are presented as “die hard lunatics”, where they still try to sell, while they MoD told them flat out that they are out of the competition. There is a difference between what is the probable outcome (Typhoon or F16) and what has been officially said till now. Otherwise, the Swedes and French should pack bags and exit the competition on their own, because according to how most interpret and “estimate” things, it’s either LM or EADS in the game.
And if we want to make the Rafale’s advocate for a moment, the MoD said that “we reject the proposal because it was concerning only the upgraded Mirage”. But later, we gave permission to french to go to Tanagra and inspect the Mirage2000 in order to make a new offer about them too. Now, one, could interpret this, by thinking, that the MoD hasn’t flat out rejected the Rafale yet. Otherwise, it is very uncommon to show your aircrafts and spare parts stock to foreign delegations. If you have writen off the Rafale 100%, why allow such a thing? You know that you aren’t interested in a specific aircraft, yet at the same time you allow a foreign airforce to inspect your aircrafts and your spare parts stock (which is classified normally), just for fun??? Why not simply tell “Listen, it’s of no use, we aren’t interested in Rafale exchange, so, no inspection, sorry, let’s not waste each others time”. This is something else defencenet missed i am afraid. But as i said, it’s when fanboysm and lobbying comes to play…
AspisFree translation from defencenet:
Presentations of the EF to HAF – Rafale doesn’t give up
Within a timeframe of 2 days Dassault and EADS proceed to consecutive presentations and briefings to relative departments of the General Airforce Staff, the Tactical Air Command and the Press. Despite the fact that the French are considered “out of the game” by the lips of the MoD, they insist.
Today June 9th, there was the presentation by Dassault representatives of the Rafale to the Tactical Air Command, while at the same time EADS was doing a presentation to the General Airforce Staff. Tomorrow, June 10, EADS has planned to present her product to the Tactical Air Commad, while the french delegation will make a presentation of the Rafale in the french embassy in Athens.
At the current moment, there 2 points to be noted:
1) EADS is coming to the game with a “team” with one particular aim and target.This time, the EADS delegation includes Chris Worning, lead test pilot of EADS, who has as task to underline the air dominance capabilities of the aircraft. It is clear that the company claims that the capabilities of the Typhoon in that role is the differentiating element of her proposal compared to the competition.
2) Dassault doesn’t seem to “surrender her weapons” , despite the fact that from the greek side (from the MoD himself) and after the selection of FREMM, it has been notified to the French that the Rafale isn’t included directly in HAF’s plans.
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7982&Itemid=49
* Note to french posters: AFAIK, there is no official statement of the MoD that the Rafale is out of the competition, other than the statement that the proposal of the exchange of the -5Mk2 for Rafale is rejected. There has not been any other statement or leak to the press about any new MoD’s communication towards Dassault. It is rumoured that the Rafale is out of the game exactly because of the rejection of the proposal, but officially, there is nothing final , to the degree presented by defencenet (which is a Typhoon supporter). This would explain also why Dassault “doesn’t give up”.
Aspis– largely undetectable by optical, infrared or radio radars; and
Optical??? Clingon cloaking device? :p I knew Putin was hiding something… 7th generation.
Aspis[ATTACH]173605[/ATTACH];)
Looks like a Sukhoi-ish F22. 😀 It also looks…big! :diablo:
AspisThe good thing with the Russians at the moment, is exactly because of the hit they took with the collapse of the communism, they have delayed their own development due to funding. And they offer low prices. So, it’s more likely that will get more “cutting edge” tech from them, because you find them in a time of “need”.
While for example, the Americans are about to put the F35 on sale, but, you can bet, that their top 5th gen tech won’t be neither exported (F22) nor transferred and i would bet that they already have half way their tech for 6th generation and the income from the sales of F35 will be exactly diverted to the completion of that research. In the forum there have been already shown some Boeing artistic pictures of 6th gen. Well, i bet the technology for that isn’t an artistic picture, but it’s already being worked upon in some US facility.
So, taking tech transfer from the Russians, is today your best source for your goverment. It must come at good price too.
AspisWhy not start developing the domestic option with realistic funds and support and invest into developing the people and the facilities they need.
Say the government decides to invest into the PAK-FA program and develop a variant for the AF, and in return they get the technology of a super duper 5th gen fighter, so what?
We still need to develop the next generation which requires skills to innovate , what steps forward towards that goal will we take through this decision?
My friend, if i told you that i know the capabilities of your local industry better than you, i would be lying.
Apparently, your goverment doesn’t want to invest on an all domestic program for a 5th gen aircraft. If you gain technology from a 5th gen with the Russians, it will also be easier for your to do then the next step from the Tejas project.
I don’t know, but generally things are like this:
There are some countries that historically had an early start in some sectors. These countries, usually keep their primate in technology (when they sell you some technology, most of the times, they use the money to develop their own new technology, so you are always 1 generation behind at best in your efforts to catch them). In some sectors, the know-how is not sold at all.
If you want to do it on your own without falling far behind, you have to invest huge amount of money in reasearch, testing and also risk failiure. See how many countries try to make their own weapons, small or big, yet, the world leaders are always the same.
In this context, with Russia in a position that for economical reasons alone, would welcome the Indian partecipation, i see this as a very good opportunity to gain advanced russian technology.
What to do with it… Well, that’s up to your goverment. When you ‘re interested in co-production or indigenous production projects, i suppose you have some long term plans. Otherwise, getting a technology, without knowing where to apply it, is of course, waste of money… If you don’t use it, soon it will become obsolete (you will again fall 1 gen behind).
I don’t know, this is just my opinion as an outsider, without knowing well your internal affairs and thus what’s best for you.
AspisI ‘ll be damned, i just stumbled on the same Su-35 video but translated in english:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcLYJsGWupg
enjoy!
Sign In
