Why

why is it so stupid - because you really have a rational answer or just because omg da rafale is like sooo kewl.

 

The rafale is sadly the wrong aircraft at the wrong time for the wrong market.

 

Now ignoring the fact youre an ignorant troll who has chosen to ignore the rather simplistic (and to my mind honest) comparison of the 2 aircraft i previously made (I assume because it didnt fit with youre view on reality) and instead have picked one line to try to be offensive about, I will one last time try to converse with you.

 

Had France gone for a simpler (less sophisticated possibly single engined design) It would have been ready a lot earlier it would have had a much wider market and probably been a best seller now that may or may not have meant dropping the carrier capable requirement (hence my suggestion that the hornet would perhaps have been an option). You would have had all those Mirage customers (less those France Pissed off). Ive no doubt a few recent F16 orders would have gone Frances way (esp if U.S stores werer integrated). and it may have put a nail in the Grippens coffin by being ready first.

 

To make it clear i am in no way denigrating french engineers, I just feel that in going it alone they overreached themselves (financially) on the limited budget and that this has ignificantly hampered the development. This has delayed the aircraft to the point that it is, because of the price uncompetitive.

 

I fear that regardless of how good the Rafale is it may well be remembered as an economic failure.

 

 

Thats an easy criticism to make with the benefit of hindsight but if you look at the circumstances under which the Rafale was concieved you will see that it isn't really fair. The Rafale and Typhoon first and foremost came out of a joint European Cold War requirement to beat the SU-27 and Mig-29. The SU-27 and derivatives in particular are tough customers and a less sophisticated platform would provide less certainty of achieving this goal. The attack function and the desire to achieve export orders were more important to France than Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain, which is why they split from the Eurofighter consortium, but the primary goal of being able to beat the Russian fighters was still the driving force behind the design.

 

So when you consider that the primary goal was to provide the French with a fighter to beat the Russians, going with a more sophisticated type was the right decision. I put the export performance down to a tight post-Cold War market which the French couldn't do anything about and a diverse range of choices for customers, for example from the F-16 and the Gripen at the lower end and the F-15E at the upper. Its been disappointing for the French but having a more capable type to ensure thier national security is the most important thing, something that I think the Swedes sold themselves short on with the Gripen.

 

Whats more I'm not convinced that your export oriented plan would have worked anyway. Dassault was already producing an excellent less sophisticated export earner in the Mirage 2000 so anything new that was less capable than the Rafale would just see customers saying "why would we bother upgrading?" and Dassault saying "Why would we bother establishing a new line when our old one will do the job?"

 

As alluded to by other posters the really big mistake was the decision to go with the Rafale M over the F-18, but that isbecause of the deficient state that it left French naval aviation in for so long, rather than because of any impact on the program.

 

 

New York Times article <link >

"Dassault appears to be thinking along the same lines. Eric Trappier, executive vice president at Dassault Aviation, said that Rafale?s ?successor will probably be designed through a European cooperation, from 2025.? "

So this is the end of all-French fighter aircraft.

France will have other options for the successor of Rafale as this one. As already said by others, we could develop a replacement all by ourselves, probably at the price of increased platform price because of amortisement of R&D, but it should remain manageable.

 

Another option would be cooperation with other powers than our European neighbours. Depending on more or less export success of F-35 in Europe, depending also on Berlin's policy, the possibilities of future European cooperation on fighter aircraft may not realize. However, the world is large http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emteeth.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" /> !

 

Even assuming that cooperation with the US is impracticable because we would risk becoming a mere satellite, that cooperation with Russia is not possible because Moscow prefers to remain independent and that we decide cooperation with China is not desirable because it would be provocative to the US and Japan and because we don't trust Beijing on property rights, India and Brazil could be valuable partners. Also more hypothetically Japan or Israel, depending of course of the future of their respective strategic relationships with the US, and their willingness to remain dependent on Washington.

 

This issue will be discussed during the next years, with hard decisions probably not before a decade. The global political landscape could have changed considerably then, most notably because of the next stages of the depression which began last year. The "partnership game" is therefore very much open.

 

New York Times article <link >

"Dassault appears to be thinking along the same lines. Eric Trappier, executive vice president at Dassault Aviation, said that Rafale?s ?successor will probably be designed through a European cooperation, from 2025.? "

So this is the end of all-French fighter aircraft.

France will have other options for the successor of Rafale as this one. As already said by others, we could develop a replacement all by ourselves, probably at the price of increased platform price because of amortisement of R&D, but it should remain manageable.

 

Another option would be cooperation with other powers than our European neighbours. Depending on more or less export success of F-35 in Europe, depending also on Berlin's policy, the possibilities of future European cooperation on fighter aircraft may not realize. However, the world is large http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emteeth.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" /> !

 

Even assuming that cooperation with the US is impracticable because we would risk becoming a mere satellite, that cooperation with Russia is not possible because Moscow prefers to remain independent and that we decide cooperation with China is not desirable because it would be provocative to the US and Japan and because we don't trust Beijing on property rights, India and Brazil could be valuable partners. Also more hypothetically Japan or Israel, depending of course of the future of their respective strategic relationships with the US, and their willingness to remain dependent on Washington.

 

This issue will be discussed during the next years, with hard decisions probably not before a decade. The global political landscape could have changed considerably then, most notably because of the next stages of the depression which began last year. The "partnership game" is therefore very much open.

 

New York Times article <link >

"Dassault appears to be thinking along the same lines. Eric Trappier, executive vice president at Dassault Aviation, said that Rafale?s ?successor will probably be designed through a European cooperation, from 2025.? "

So this is the end of all-French fighter aircraft.

France will have other options for the successor of Rafale as this one. As already said by others, we could develop a replacement all by ourselves, probably at the price of increased platform price because of amortisement of R&D, but it should remain manageable.

 

Another option would be cooperation with other powers than our European neighbours. Depending on more or less export success of F-35 in Europe, depending also on Berlin's policy, the possibilities of future European cooperation on fighter aircraft may not realize. However, the world is large http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emteeth.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" /> !

 

Even assuming that cooperation with the US is impracticable because we would risk becoming a mere satellite, that cooperation with Russia is not possible because Moscow prefers to remain independent and that we decide cooperation with China is not desirable because it would be provocative to the US and Japan and because we don't trust Beijing on property rights, India and Brazil could be valuable partners. Also more hypothetically Japan or Israel, depending of course of the future of their respective strategic relationships with the US, and their willingness to remain dependent on Washington.

 

This issue will be discussed during the next years, with hard decisions probably not before a decade. The global political landscape could have changed considerably then, most notably because of the next stages of the depression which began last year. The "partnership game" is therefore very much open.

 

Critisism noted.

As you say i am working with the benefit of hind sight,

 

The carrier capability was allways going to be a bone of contention to a pan european design, as for the G/A role Im sure with negotiation that role could have been designed in (theyve had to do it anyway) if France had been more willing to allow a bit of give and take.

 

I cant see a home built fighter of any sophistication emerging from europe again, the huge costs and shrinking market  dictate collaborative efforts either Pan european or across the pond.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice to see you here Alexis

Cooperation with Russia is provocative to USA and not in our interest.

Israel will stick with US products as long USA give 3 billions $ each year in aid.Moreover I don't think a lot of french politicians and diplomats would be happy to see israeli aircrafts bombing arabs.

 

BTW today Kuwait declares it is interested and waiting for Dassault offer.

I don't know, FS...de Gaulle screwing the Israelis out of the Mirage 5 really worked out well for France, didn't it?  It's not like you've had any problems with Arab terrorism since...except, of course, you have.  France of all nations should know the price of appeasement.  In any case, Israel does buy French equipment, and if they haven't bought the Rafale, it's because they don't want or need it--being satisfied with late-model F-16s until the F-35 rolls around.  (Now if the F-35 gets cancelled...maybe.)

 

Getting back to the topic--could the F-18 have operated off the Foch/Clemenceau?  I would think it would be too heavy with not enough deck space.  If that's not true, then the F-18 would've been a good choice--though I can see, given France's somewhat understandable desire to steer a middle course, why they would pump money into the Rafale and not just buy F-18s.  (Though I notice France did finally say "screw it" and bought C-130s rather than wait umpteen years for the A400M.)

 

Hello FS! I also was glad to see you reversed your decision last year not to take part on these boards.

I agree with both your points... as far as the present situation in world relations is concerned. But we're speaking of decisions which would become final maybe a decade from now. My hypothesis is that the present economic crisis is a global depression, at least as devastating as the 1930s', and whose most important stages are still to come.

In this case, geopolitical consequences can be expected to be very large, and are largely unpredictable by now.
International relations in the 2010s decade may turn out to be just as quiet, stable and devoid of surprises as they were in the 1930s. That's why I would say no cooperation scenario should be closed by now.

Actually, Sentinel, De Gaulle did not "screw" the Israelis. He just advised them - admittedly in no uncertain terms... - to refrain from beginning armed attacks against Arabs in 1967, in spite of the closure of the Aqaba gulf by Egyptian forces giving Israel the formal right to consider itself at state of war, arguing that Israeli victory was anyway certain given the forces in opposition and that the Arab bluff should not be called, and warning that France would not support (with spare parts etc.) armed attacks begun by Israel. His concern was also that Israel having conquered the lands it was yearning for (West Bank mainly) would not be ready to relinquish their control to their inhabitants after the war and that the armed conflict which would ensue against Arab resistance ("which Israel would call terrorism") would become a deadend impossible to solve, this just as the pride wound suffered by the Arabs at the time of Israel creation needed time to heal, instead of more land loss with unpredictable consequences.

This is precisely what he publicly expressed in press conference six months after the 1967 war, at a time when it had become obvious that Israel was indeed set on settling the occupied territories, never to let them go. I would say time has fully validated his concerns.

 

 

Arab terrorism in France in the 1990s had little if anything to do with the 1967 conflict. It was the consequence of French support to the Algerian government struggling against an Islamist insurgency which lost in the end, at a time when many countries, the US included, were maintaining contacts with those Islamists so as to prepare good relations after their arrival to power...

Like most Islamist forces, these were inspired by Wahhabism, the state ideology of Saudi Arabia. Which I think is more of a US ally than of a French one... even if also we are admittedly sometimes complacent about them. Had France supported Israeli occupation of the territories occupied in 1967, and continued to support until now like the US are doing, it would not have lessened any bit Islamist terrorism. Maybe it would have worsened it.