First you complaint he did not read the reports; when I point out to you why this does not make sense you switch and says he should have read the summary of the summary reports… :rolleyes:

Again; he has experts that prepare summary reports for him. They are no-technical. We have not seen those so we do not know how they compare to the summaries in the two leaked summary reports however what we do know is that the leaks are incomplete, and highly biased….

I don’t understand why so many French are complaining so loudly; this would not be the first competition where the Rafale scored very high on the technical bit but lost in the end, partly due to high cost, partly due to politics…

No wonder you end up in flame wars with the rest of the community all the time!

I was not around when you lost in Korea and Singapore, but presumably the French were as agitated then as now? Of course one difference is the leaks… that probably makes it harder to accept that you lost this time?

Why not enjoy the victory in India instead?

And why not enjoy the fact that Rafale scored so much better than the mighty Typhoon? 😀

But I guess it’s in the French soul to complaint and be Les miserable? :p

Sorry to tell you this but you are way out of line by making this a French question.

This has become a major issue within Switzerland. The security commission of the upper house of parliament (Conseil des Etats/Standerat) has met today and invited the Defense minister to explain himself.

Another session in Parliament is now schedule for 21st February to address this question and the executive had to yield and promised that all pertinent documents will now be made available.

Politicians from all parties except that of the Defence Minister are calling him to explain himself.

Military officers are up in arms and are coming out saying the selection process was perverted.

This is becoming a big issue in and of itself in Switzerland and the French have nothing to do with it. Parliament and the people at large were already skeptical and now that it has come out that the military itself believe that the Gripen is not able to even fulfill the most basic mission (air policing), its purchase is dead. No way Parliament will be willing to give the green light for a 3 billions purchase in these conditions, it is politically untenable.

PS: I reside in Switzerland

Something like “we have no need for combat aircrafts”. Somme even say “… for armed forces”.

I don’t know how numerous they are, though…

No, this is not the point.

The point is that there is no need for additionnal combat aircrafts when the Air Force already has 33 F18, which are currently upgraded.

The point is that the Swiss AF will not engage planes in foreign operations (à la Lybia) and faces no threat from its neighbour. The only function of the AF is to police the skies (intercept civilian planes that have strayed…).

The point is that Austria, Hungary, Slovakia (countries of basically the same size) are able to fulfil that air police function with 12 to 18 planes. So why would the Swiss AF need 22 Gripen on top of the 33 F18 it already operates?

This is not any sort of pacifism/anti-military sentiment (Switzerland is one of the last European countries where conscription still applies) but one of common sense. To spend US$ 4 billions, you need a real justification.

And I am not even touching the fact that many within the Swiss Armed forces are equally opposed to this purchase as it will lead to underinvestment in other military areas where it would have made much more sense.

Fact is, there have been several referendum on military matters since the end of the Cold war in Switzerland (on the abolition of the Armed forces, the purchase of F-18, participation in UN peacekeeping missions…) which have all been turned down by the people. A vote on the purchase of addtional combat aircrafts may well see the first yes vote on such an issue.

Edited: CoC Rule 15

You are right. In fact they have not even sold it.

Airbus is a political animal, a jobs program.

Nowadays, its fashionable to try to hide that, but, for example, if one reads the book “the sporty game,” one will find numerous direct quotes from European political and business leaders about how and why the consortium was formed.

More recently, the comments by the French politicians quoted by Pierre Sparaco in Aviation Week also show the overt political nature of the consortium.

Having said all that, it is a pretty well run social program. At least Europeans get something for their dollars, Americans just give money to the “poor” and let them sit around and do nothing!

Again, trolling and ridiculous.

The aviation industry on both sides of the atlantic is seen as a strategic industry, and governments on both sides of the atlantic prop up their national champion and meddle in its business. To believe that this happens only on one side of the pond is to have one’s head way up in one’s own ***. And the issue of job creation are taken seriously also on both sides.

I mean, the US prez acts as a vrp for Boeing’s plane, you have a governmental import/export bank to finance exports that is nearly solely dedicated to propping up Boeing’s foreign sales, you have a high level of consanguinity between the Pentagon and Boeing, Boeing cannot fall under foreign ownership….

But Boeing is not a political animal, like Airbus? Right.

Thank you for your comment upon my sanity….I assume you have the qualifications to make such pronouncements?

I haven’t mention the WTO case and have made not pronouncements upon it. The articles I have read about it indicate that the judgments to date have been much different than what you indicate. At various times, both sides have claimed victory, and apparently with some legal merit. Your statements don’t seem to be vindicated by fact. You could post some links, then I could post some links and we could both claim victory.

Airbus and Boeing have different financing methodologies that share a few similiarities……the details can be twisted either way. At least you admit that Airbus receives illegal subsidies.

I note that you didn’t comment about the French polititicians comments that I referenced.

ThreeSpool’s comment was a breath of fresh air, he stated what everyone knows, that governments waste other people’s money to an appalling degree. For some reason, certain Europeans seem very sensitive to this fact, and get offended when anyone not from the continent points it out.

1) Frankly, I don’t know what you go on about (but I am not really surprised by your rambling, got used to it). The WTO was asked whether Airbus received illegal subsidies and the response was positive. It was also asked whether Boeing received illegal subsidies, and the response was also yes. There is no speaking of victory or or twisting anything. Those are the bare facts.

2) As mentioned, the European taxpayer makes money out of Airbus (because of the way funding for development is structured). No money lost there, so your call for an inquiry over lost funds does not make any sense. And thanks again for worrying about the European taxpayer.

3) Boeing is as much an extension of the US government than Airbus is of European ones. Boeing is a strategic company for the US, Airbus for some European States. On both sides, it will be ensured that a degree of control is kept on these companies. The US governments exerts some control over Boeing, its ownership cannot fall into foreign hands. When the US prez goes on foreign trips, he promotes Boeing wares.

Boeing is as much an extension of the US government than Airbus of Europeans ones. Again, sane persons have long recognised that fact.

Amiga

Orders does not translate into profitability. We have no idea what the contracts say, in other words what the specifics are. One or the other may have sold airplanes at or below cost just to get the production line moving. Your quoting of orders is like an airline quoting load factors and not releasing seat revenue. Its all about the yield, not just how many units are sold. And you call others silly and niave?

Also, you state that the Trent 500 core is used, and then say it is not. Which is it?

Tell that to Boeing, which has sold a sh*tload of 787 while it was still a paper plane and which was then hit by huge development problems that have strongly increased production costs. It sold 100s at a given price thinking that its production costs would be much lower than they actually are.

It is not clear whether that means that Boeing wil make a loss, but what is clear is that the 787 will not be the windfall that Boeing assumed it would be, notwithstanding the impressive 787 order book.

Your assertion doesn’t seem to be supported by Boeing data, which indicates that the GE90-115B has the fewest “in flight shutdowns” of all 777 engines for the last 12 months…..and far less than any widely used 767 engine.

Expand you search. Multiple shutdowns, 6 for Air France alone in the span of 6 months in 2008, that required changing numerous engines and in a need to redesign specific parts. GE had to change the alloy of those parts. Among other things.

Other companies affected as well, if I recall well air Canada and Singapour. And the source of the issue was different in all three cases.