drabslabYou are probably referring to what happened with the supposedly easy Rafale deal with Morocco, which was badly lost against the F-16. However they have been lessons learned from that rough period and the support from the french government in exporting weapons has improved hugely since then. Perhaps they are still in the learning curve and their lobbying is not as good as the one from Bae Systems and the UK government , however they have managed to significantly increase the chances of the Rafale by puting this plane in a strong position in Brazil, Switzerland, EAU, Kuwait and India.
The links between India and France are subtle but they are much stronger than you seem to suggest. Have you ever heard about Garuda?
As per EAU, France has a strong presence over there, beside I think this alternative suggested by EAU to go for the Super Hornet is an attempt to reinforce their position in their negotiation for the Rafale deal: if they buy the Super Hornet; who is going to take their Mirage 2000-9’s back?
Yes, I heard about Garuda 😉
Did you hear about sinking a greenpeace ship and the effect it had on relationships with spain and cooperation on Rafale? (never mind the disaster this joke caused for french wine)
drabslabThanks. It shows that Rafale International can communicate in different languages !
where does it say that this is a site managed by Dassault?
drabslabWhat is it?? bad omen ? probably because the swiss have also postponed the decision until 2015 ..
Bad omen? NO
Bad politics; Yes!
They have been acting the chauvinistic “we have the best technical product and if you don’t buy it then you are just an idiot” style
They ruined their opportunities with one of the Magreb countries (don’t exactly remember which one” assuming that this was such loyal customer they took them for granted. It costed them a Rafale and a series of helicopters sale
They got India angry not bothering sending a Rafale to Indian airshows at a crucial moment
Dassault and the french government used to “work” without much coordination on the persuasion of future clients… giving conflicting messages.
and their marketing is just unbelievely bad; just look at one example:
If you want info on the gripen, then type http://www.gripen.com in your browser
For the eurofighter try http://www.eurofighter.com
For the Rafale please type:
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/omnirole-by-design.html?L=1
I know that this is only a detail. It is also highly unprofessional for an organisation trying to sell a 60? million euro thingy on the open market.
drabslabYes it is. The French do not seem to be able to sell that beautiful bird.
drabslabShouldn’t this be in the dedicated Rafale thread ?
this is a dedicated Rafale thread
drabslabConsidering fierce competition between Gripen, Eurofighter and Rafale on European and international markets these manufacturers make it very difficult to find out correct figures as all price quotes are blurred by economical compensations, weapons packages, technology transfer deals etc…
Still, I quite strongly believe that the F-35 makes little sense for an ANG which is protected by F-22 anyway.
A eurofighter is definitively able to provide the needed air superiority platform to protect US airspace. Eurofighter has apparently demonstrated in trainings that it can wipe the floor with su-27, just to name one.
and prices are a consequence of the numbers of planes built. The current prices are based on a maximum volume of around 800 planes for 5? countries.
drabslabWith F-15s Literally falling from the sky, F-35 delays, Raptors being to exspensive and F-16s getting old. What will defend U.S. air space? Do we need exspensive stealth fighters to escort the occasionnal 747 or bear? Discuss.
Eurofighters!
Far better than F-15 or F-16 and a lot cheaper than F-35
drabslabWell, I have seen the red arrows regularly the last 10 years, and many other teams as well and i tend to agree with Chox, the Red Arrows are the best team, they have always been and I hope they will remain that for a long time!!!
In fact, the negative tone in this thread is making me a bit angry (although it is terribly off topic and the moderator might beat me up for this):
Apparently, some british strive for mediocrity and can’t live owning something excellent.
GB has delivered, often under extremily difficult circumstances, the most incredible achievements ranging from winning the battle of britain, to making the first operational vertical take-off aircraft, designing the TSR-2, to having the best performing display team ever.
and each time the UK finds a way to ruin it.
Throwing good things away does not serve anybody!
drabslabI have seen most teams several times over the last 30 years or so.
I also saw, in Ramstein, how two planes of the Frecce collided and crashed in the audience with many victims as a result.
Since then, and for very good reasons, security measures have kicked in, gotten more stringent every year with less exciting performances of all teams as a logial consequence.
If I am not mistaken then the Arrows had an acident recently in Greece whih could have led to additional safety measures and a more “boring” display.
In any case, to present the arrows as “boring for the last 15 years” looks like a grave overstatement to me. It probably says more about the wish of the writer wanting to state that “he/she has seen everything so often already” than the actual performance of the team.
By the way, this year i was very impressed by the performance of the Royal Jordanian Falcons, no jets but very fancy flying
drabslabOn paper, a first attempt to make a European Force has been already made with the formation of “EU Battlegroups”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlegroup_of_the_European_Union
But, as things are today, with very little to no coordination and standardization, any attempt to partecipate in real war would probably end to operational and logistical nightmare.
The same for NATO operations!
Look at Afghanistan.
The UK is fielding chinooks, Apaches… but different ones from the US types
Belgium uses F-16 there but again different than the US ones
France is there with 2 cougars, 3 tigres, a few gazelles, 3 caracales, a few Mirage 2000 and a few Rafales
and so on…
But cost isn’t the only consideration, maybe the combination of thiose different things also helps selecting the right tool for a particular task
drabslabi think that the needed gearboxes from that single engine to two props would cost you an awfull lot of power
drabslabThe UK will lose some capabilities in certain areas, that’s a fact but this idea that very knowledgable people who will work their hides off to produce some kind of review with consideration having to be taken about finances, are randomly going to cut things without thinking the strategic effect through is a bit ignorant, no?
hmmm, are you really sure that the people who will “work their hides off …” are knowledgeable???
If I am not mistaken then it will be basically the same group of people who managed to build and maintain their private swimming pools on the expense of the taxpayer, or have permitted starting a war in Iraq on the basis of lies, who are mentioned as completely incompetent in reports related to a Nimrod accident, who are responsible for the Chinook HC3 disaster… who are going to write and approve this defence review.
I would not feel to comfortable on the outcome:dev2:
drabslabIt is a great mystery why Stalin allowed Finland to remain independant, albeit neutral?
It could have something to do with the beating they have given the russian troops.
I guess that even Stalin did not want to end up in an endless guerilla war in a huge country like finland against an oponent which had demonstrated that it knew how to fight.
drabslabDefence: it needs an enemy!!!
Defence: it needs an enemy!!!
So let’s start looking at potential enemies:
There are those potential enemies that require the availability of stealth fighters, hugely expensive newest generation aircraft carriers, net-centric warfare…. These enemies can directly compromise the existence of the country and should therefore be at the core of the long term strategy.
Fashion wars like Iraq or Afghanistan (without any lack of respect for those serving there) only have a secondary importance.
So, can you think of any such potential enemy that the UK can handle alone? I guess not.
Said differently, suppose that the soviets had invaded the Falklands, would the UK have acted as bravely, determined and single handedly as they have done with Argentina? I guess not!!!
Or, if a major war breaks out (god forbid) then the UK has no other option but to effectively join forces with its allies to counter the attacks.
Maybe this idea should figure high on the agenda during peace time defence reviews. The UK should admit that they can’t rule the waves anymore like it did centuries ago and that effective collaboration, cost sharing and R&D with its likely partners in the doomsday scenario has to determine the strategy and policy instead of conservative “we do best walking alone” rhetoric.
Whatever the outcome of the defence review, i am convinced that in 10+ years the reality of a stronger China, India, new Russia… will force this union anyway.
The alternative is an economic and logistics nightmare. look at Afghanistan. The french are there with tiger helicopters, the polish had hinds, the UK apaches which differ from the US ones. There were F-16, harriers, A-10, tornado, Mirage 2000, Rafale and what else???
How much money has the alliance wasted by needing support and maintenance teams, equipment, spares for all these different platforms?
How many difficulties (lives lost) are encountered because the officiers don’t fully understand the capabilities of all these different tools?
If UK and others continue treating defence as a “my own business, no need for joint strategy” then we could come to the conclusion that the quality and the number of the equipment available to our war fighters is insufficient and to diverse to make a difference against the huge numbers that the e.g. Chinese can put in the fields.
Conclusion; the defence review should start from a strategy of collaboration with major partners, it is e.g. not about my aircraft carriers but our aircraft carriers.
Unite or dissapear!!!
drabslabOur glorious leaders try to make us believe that Iran has the technological capability to design, build and deploy nuclear bombs including the production of the necessary radio active material.
If this would be true then I can’t see Iran having troubles with backwards engineering a few old-fashioned airplane parts or even replacing them with more modern parts.
Now, the information coming from our leaders does not mean a lot of course (remember the Iraq weapons of mass destruction lie).
However, the absence of pictures and loads of data on the huge Iranian conventional threath is bit weird. If it could be proven that Iran was modernising jets then this would help creating the image of an evil state preparing for war, and justify militairy action by those wanting that war to take place.
Sign In
