TooCool_12fone thing.. we are speaking about laser weapons and so on.. but, unless I’m mistaken, this is about developing a laser system to counter incoming missiles (meaning, laser that will try to defeat missiles from close range). It would be a defensive system for the aircraft, not offensive to down other aircraft or attack ground targets
TooCool_12fReally? What was the final ToT agreement of the Rafale deal with India? Zero. Egypt? Zero.
The F-35 deal with S. Korea included significant ToT (though not everything the Koreans wanted). You act as if France just hands over IP and source codes with all weapon purchases. B.S.
Furthermore, nations can and have added indigenous tech and weapons to US designs: Phantom FRG.2, F-4F, F-15I, F-16I, F-35I, F-16 Block 60 (which UAE funds developed and owns royalty fees should anyone buy F-16’s with the technology from it)France? Has a well established reputation of fleecing customers for updates, what was the final cost of the Indian Mirage 2000-5 upgrades? How are those Taiwan Mirage 2000-5 upgrades doing? (hint- France had refused and quoted “exorbitant” prices)
how about answering to the topic.. we speak about partnerships. what partnership is India supposed to have the the french on Rafale development? India wanted to buy the Rafale and its technology, they bring nothing to the table in the first place, except cash.. but once they started asking for various stuff, the deal was never signed… after that, they bought off the shelf fighters made in France (no partnership, again, to speak about) … they asked for offsets sot that a given amount of their spending be reinvesteed in India: you have dassault building things iwth Reliance, Safran bringing M88 technology tgo make kaveri work (finally, one may say), and so on…
What did France do to one of it’s largest weapon customers in ’67? Cut off all weapons supplies to the conflict area between Israel and Arab states (which only hurt Israel), then continued the embargo after the war to improve relations with the nations that Israel just fought. That embargo included Sa’ar 3 boats that had been paid for. Or did you forget the Cherbourg boats? Now I don’t want to get into a discussion of diplomacy, or Israel, but that sounds very much like France did exactly what you constantly accuse the US of doing as a weapon supplier.
France used to sell to Israel and arab countries… for political reasons they stopped delivering Israel but “somehow” the plans and parts for Mirages ended in Israel… when you see that even today there’s plenty of things still classified (for the french) about the Mirage III today, it is “strange” to the least that all that stuff could leak at the time for what was the latest and most advanced french fighter and yet, nobody seem to have been hurt about it… looks more like they managed to deliver stuff “unofficially” to Israel.
TooCool_12fyeah but when did the US need european partnership? and I really mean “NEED”… 😉
TooCool_12fFunny statement.. what rest of the world? who? there are, basically, 4 nations capable of making their fighters by themselves, independently:
– USA: do as they want, and if somebody is naive enough to become “partner”, he only gets to pay but doesn’t get much more than tiny bits to make eventually and a few aircraft almost as “off the shelf” (and about zero “modern” technology shared by the USA)
– Russia: do as they want.. don’t even look for partners
– China: do as they want but have still a lot to learn.. are learning as fast as they can but make no partnerships anyway
– France: why would they have to be different? they have the knowhow to do what they need, which is what they do, like it or not
Sweden is a case apart.. they design nice light stuff, but depend on others for some technologies, like engines, for example
All others: make parts at best, haven’t designed a fighter on their own since decades (some never) or are in the learning process like India, who has a loong way ahead before making something competitive
TooCool_12fLot’s of french fighters have been built without a naval version. Rafale will be good for France’s naval needs for many decades to come, when they wear out they will simply build more of them.
no (again), when they replace the Rafale, they’ll look for something better, and will want it to be common between the two, navy and the air force
Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f
as for “projecting power to 3rd world countries”, that’s what everybody does…
Really, “everybody” is a former colonial power and cruises around the Mediterranean with a nuclear carrier?
you should read the full answer, then try to understand it, before answering beside the point
And how many times have US caused troubles for France in such a scenario?
Suez crisis comes to mind… already today, the US block interventions with the weapons they sold if they don’t approve them, and with US made-fighter like the F-35, which is by default “connected”.. you definitely will be able to intervene only when and where the USA agree for you to do it
Should France see the need in the future to fill a small part of the carrier wing with 5th generation planes it is more likely to buy them from the US. Sure the people from the french industry might give another impression, but when reality kicks in that will simply be the case.
The reality is that the french are up to this day independent by making their own fighter aircraft, and when the Rafale becomes obsolete, they’ll replace it with a french made fighter unless there’s no french made fighter at all (which means, considering today’s evolution in that matter, will be the case for at least another generation)
TooCool_12fa risk, there is a risk of cost overrun with every defense procurement. What are the underlying assumptions of this risk?
maybe the assumptions are that as a program it kept having its costs rising and surpassing predictions, so, if they decide to buy something, the best chance to limit the risk is to buy something that is already in service and whose costs are more or less precisely known… Now, if, concerning the F-35, the ministry has arranged its predictions as claimed in that report, speaking about “risk” is just as politically correct as saying “excessively optimistic”
TooCool_12fAbout rafale RCS you can find a good rafale documentary which is available on YouTube :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RYZovAj54
Bruno Revelin Falcoz, the father of the rafale, states directly that Rafale frontal RCS is equivalent to a smal bird which puts it in the VLO category. That would be for a “clean” rafale of course.
copieur, va! 😀
TooCool_12fApparently they’ve spent a lot of time talking up the RCS of their product mostly. And sending out obscure and misleading RCS figures.
What have they actually done to reduce the RCS… There’s nothing on Wiki
When some guys wanted to develop a simulation about the Falklands about 15 years ago, they looked for information in detail about the Sea Harrier and the Mirage… The Sea Harrier informations were abundant and easily compiled… for the Mirages, they had nothing… from France at least.. they had to ask in Argentina as, overhere, almost all the stuff was still classified while the aircraft itself was retired from french service 20 years earlier… what would one expect about the current front line fighter, and especially in the RCS department? Wiki is filled by anybody and about publishing informations about such sensitive stuff, one rule applies: “those who speak don’t know and those who know don’t speak”
TooCool_12fit is a matter of eyesight quality first, but then, you need some training as to avoid focusing to something too close as NEEMA said. A trained pilot with good eyesight can see quite far but it is hard to get a measurement (you’d need to know the exact position of the aircraft you see).
Once, at the Ferté Alais airshow I spotted Alphajets of the Patrouille de France on their last turn inbound over Orly (25km away, which is some 13.5 nautical miles (15.5 statute miles).. without smoke of course. At altitude, the air is much clearer (less haze, pollution and so on), so, if you have good eyesight and are used to look “far” (again), and the glass you look through is of good quality as well, I’d say that for an aircraft of the size of an airliner, you can spot it at distances of more than 20 miles
TooCool_12fyes, and that RCS is..? They’ve spent a lot of time and money to reduce it because..? If any armchair expert posting on a public board knows better, why did they spend all that? they should’ve just called the guys from discussion boards to explain to them what and how to do better, no?
TooCool_12fRCS is not drag. You don’t add a new missile/bomb/pylon to the jet and add the additional RCS value.
If that was the case we would place a clean aircraft in a chamber, measure it and then place the respective missile etc in the chamber, measure it and add the two. That is not done. You place an aircraft with whole loadouts because the relationship and interaction is complex.
when somebody doesn’t want to understand… fact is, if you increase your RCS by adding stuff, where you start (low or high RCS) does still play a role. If they developed the aircraft with the aim to reduce the RCS, unless they are complete idiots they probably also studied the RCS with loadouts and did what they could to get a satisfying result. There’s a documentary on youtube where the people that have taken part in Rafale development explain the way it came to existence, why the french had to pull out of the common project, and, also, how they had to redesign it pretty much from scratch after the demonstrator as they were tasked to make it stealthy. The final product has nothing in common, except the wheels and the general similarity in shape with the demonstrator. Why would they bother if all that work was rendered useless by just hanging a thing or two beneath it?
the documentary I talk about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RYZovAj54&t=1877s
around 31min in the video you have the guy who was in charge explaining that the RCS from the front of a clean Rafale is equivalent to the RCS of a sparrow… you can believe it or not, but the fact remained, the french invested heavily in electronic warfare stuff, it’s not only because they were too rich and had no idea how to waste their cash
TooCool_12fparalay, thank you for just showing you have no clue…
TooCool_12fthing is, you explain the patching of an existing airframe that had no RCS reduction in mind, reduces its RCS significantly… Gripen and Rafale had the RCS reduction in their requirements when developed (the Rafale C was completely redesigned from the technology demonstrator Rafale A, when RCS reduction was added to requirements in second half of the 1980’s, ending with zero common parts between the two)
TooCool_12f“You think”.. ok, that’s what everybody figured out by now.. thanks for passing by… 😀
TooCool_12fany loadout makes teh RCS bigger, we agree, the thing is: how much bigger?
if you add something that increases your RCS by, say 0.5m², if your aircraft has 5m² RCS, it will increase to 5.5m².. 10% increase in RCS. Reshape the same aircraft to 0.5m², with teh same loadout your RCS will increase to 1m²… you doubled your RCS.. it can look terrible, until you compare the two where the second one still has RCS representing less than 20% of the first one
It is always about compromise and what are you willing to accept. More discretion is always better, but the real question is: how far do can you go for it to be worth it? Some consider that anything bare complete stealth is insufficient, others consider that trying to go beyond a certain level of stealth is too costly for the benefit it would bring. As far as I’m concerned, I consider that, as long as the tool does the job it is intended for, it is good enough.
Sign In
