# why aint the Rafale selling?



## The Basket (Dec 22, 2013)

What the French done wrong here?

Consider the Mirage family sold like ice cream on a hot day.

Why has the Rafale not sold?


----------



## Marcel (Dec 22, 2013)

It's not compatible with international standards. Buying the plane means you're stuck buying French weapon systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 22, 2013)

The Mirage sold like hot cakes but France also got a reputation for appalling support, however that was in the past and I doubt that it is a major impact on the Rafale discussion. 

Its only a guess but I suspect a major problem was that the entire development was done and paid for in France whereas the Typhoon and Gripen spilt the development across a number of countries. For the Typhoon this guaranteed a larger order book reducing the cost per plane. For the Gripen using major parts such as the engine from the USA reduced the development cost and the UK for assistance in wing design also reduced the development cost. Both these would have made a more economical project.

The Rafale is caught between two stools. Its probably more expensive than the Gripen and not far short of the Typhoon in cost but it lacks the all round performance of the Typhoon. The Rafale has one significant plus in that is carrier capable, but even here a naval version of the Gripen has been designed and Brasil might go for it, as they have a ship capable of operating aircraft. I cannot see Brasil buying both the Gripen for the Airforce and Rafal for the Navy, the support costs would be huge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 22, 2013)

As for the engine in the Gripen, the early versions, it's the General Electric F404, which us Swedes call RM12, developed by GE Aviation and partners Volvo Aero, the F404 was developed into the larger F414, used in the F-18E/F Super Hornet and the experimental civil version GE36...
Already there, as already mentioned, you've saved a few bob in development and testing....


----------



## The Basket (Dec 22, 2013)

If you look at the list of former and current Mirage users...it huge. Dozens of countries.
and the problems of supply and French only weapons were a problem then.
Although to my understanding Rafale can use current NATO AAMs.

the problem is as I see it is that the French went alone which not only increases the risk but makes it very specific to French designs. Plus its too rich for most Mirage users and other nations can buy Eurofighter or F-35.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 22, 2013)

Why does any country in South America need top of the line fighters? There are no important territorial disputes among them that would be cause for a war.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 22, 2013)

syscom3 said:


> Why does any country in South America need top of the line fighters? There are no important territorial disputes among them that would be cause for a war.



Argentina would disagree. 
But they can only afford ropey Mirage F1 from Spain.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2013)

Australia purcahsed the Mirage IIIes in the 60's, and it is an expereience we will remember with regret for a very long time. When I worked at the DoD it was an expereience we talked about fairly regulalry. 

There wqaas not that much wrong with the aircraft, though in comparison to contemporary US types, like the F4, its onboard electronics and combat systems were pretty basic and simple. The French also less than honest about its range limitation.

But the clanger came when the french government threatened to slap embargoes on spares if we deployed our Mirages to Vietnam. That was unnacceptable control of our national interests and priorities. Given, that my generation was learning how cavalier the french were prepred to treat our region at the time these lesseons were being learned, it should come as no surprise that the RAAF has sworn never to buy anything French ever again.

ive heard the RAAC had similar expereiences with the leopard. We purcahsed those tanks in the late 60's, and had intended them to go to Vietnam in the early 70's. In the end they were late in delivery, we had problems with the reliability of secondary armamaent, and the targetting systems. we also found the armour to be over brittle, which led to to chroinic fatigue issues in our tank park. The army during the joint procurement meetings was never keen to utilise any equipment of European manufacture, where we could not undertake the manufacture ourselves. 

Weve also had issues with the Rapier air defence systems, and before that the Bloodhound SAM system. The British had promised vast improvements with Rapier, but it took a very long time to get to the point of a workable system. To be fair, the British at least did offer good after sales service. This is in contrast to Kockums, the crownd that sold us the Collins class. Their "fix" for the cavitation problems in this design was not a fix at all, and when it became obvious that it would need a lot more than what they had on the table, they walked away from their customers.

Weve purchased our LPHs from Navantia along with our Air Warfare Destroyers. The company thus far has been pretty good, in terms of the quality of product offered and after sales issues like local content. The spaniards seem keen to avoid the mistakes made by their other EU partners, but I have my doubts. The Air Warfare destoyers were not the RANs first choice.....we wanted the far more capable Arleigh Burkes, but these ships really are frightenly expensive, and Ive heard (but not confirmed) they have serviceability issues 

Australian armed forces are not keen to take Euopean equipment of any kind. It is generally overpriced, and routinely sufferes technical problems. Add toi that the near routine political interference, and you have unsaleable image problems although there will always be suckers in the market. That includes Australia. When we compare that with the Us product, which is generally excellent with matching back up service, to say nothing of compatibility issues, it will take a LOT of convincing to get the Australian Military to soften thei opinions. We wil prefer US equipment nearly every time. US equipment tends to be pricey, but its also good, as a rule. Whilst the exchange rate remains good, US prices shouldnt be an issue. if the exchange rate goes down, we are likley to source from anything other than core Euro nations like Germany, france or even England.

Deal with your image problems guys. You have the french to thank for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 22, 2013)

The RAAF has plenty European
Airbus, hawk pc9 euro copter.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 22, 2013)

....and a few Europeans are living there, right?


----------



## Alex . (Dec 22, 2013)

...and serving in the Aussie armed forces. Isn't the Austrian Steyr AUG the standard issue for you guys still too?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2013)

There have been some good products, I will concede. Hawks replaced the aermacchhi which we were very happy with. I dont think we have had the eurocopters long enough to say much....they are not really old enough to have much in the way of feedback. I dont even think they are operational yet. 

Airbus ...we have some transpport aircraft which i am not too familiar with. Hercules "J" models continue to do most of our heavy lifting in tactical sense There are some airbus aircraft purchased for Qantas, which have proven a bit of a disaster with turbine problems mostly. 

Steyr rifles are standard issue in Australia, and are all locally made. Most of the grunts i have talked to about them like them very much, though they are a bit temperamental. Most of the older diggers preferred far more the SLR. 

Trust me, European gear is NOT liked in the procurement side of the Australian military. You cannot act like the French, the Swedes, and the Germans and then expect your customers to be enthusiastic return customers. You can either learn from this advice, or continue to spend vast amounts of your taxpayer dollars on defence industries that are heavily subsidised and unable to compete in the open market because they have this massive image problem, not because the gear is that bad.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 22, 2013)

The Aussies also had the choice of the F-104 when they chose the Mirage - in fact , Lockheed's marketing was deemed to be so effective that everyone believed that the F-104 was a shoe-in, but the Mirage beat it.



> There are some airbus aircraft purchased for Qantas, which have proven a bit of a disaster with turbine problems mostly.



Airbus are an airframer, not an engine manufacturer. Airbuses are good aircraft; I've worked on both 737s and A320s and both have their benefits and drawbacks. the thing is with European aircraft compared to US ones is that the Euros choose to do things slightly differently, but in some ways these differences are better that the US methond, although sometimes its the other way round. Airbus use standard American parts and also have stuck with imperial tooling, so any airline that has used Boeings for its fleet requirements and choose to change to Airbus can do so without the added expediture of staff re-equipping personal tooling.

One issue with European equipment is the supply train. Getting parts from the USA and US suppliers is cheaper and faster. I've also worked on ATRs, which are a different kettle of fish to other contemporary aircraft of their type. ATR prefers things to be done a particular way, which, like Airbus is distinctly European, but its supply train is far less reliable than using aircraft with a US supply base. ATR is different in that its parts are on the whole not interchangeable with US stock. ATR also like to have greater control over maintenance issues in terms of manuals, updates, repair drawings and all that stuff, which can be frustrating and time consuming, compared to North American manufacturers.

I would suspect, although I don't know, that dealing with Dassault might be like dealing with ATR compared with dealing with the likes of Boeing or Lockheed Martin. Not all Euro manufacturers are/were as frustrating, though. Although I've only done a small amount of work on the F-27, to my knowledge, Fokker were an easy firm to deal with. Also the kinds of problems that affect European military equipment are also prevalent in US manufacturers, as well. 

Part of the problem the Aussie armed forces face is the demands the military staff place on the equipment and expectations - a manufacturer is of course going to endeavour to meet those demands. The Australian armed forces nominally ask for off-the-shelf, but want things to be built in Australia and modified to meet Australian needs. In some cases the Aussies have placed too much expectation on a piece of equipment - look at the Seasprite fiasco. Despite Kaman desperately attempting to produce the aircraft the Aussies wanted (the Aussie Seasprites were re-engineered old models with the work carried out by New Zealand contractors working for Kaman in Connecticut), it could not - partially because the expectations were too great. The Kiwis never had the same problem with their Seasprites as the Aussies did because they ordered off-the-shelf, whereas the Aussies did not. The British have ahd a similar problem with its Chinook upgrades, too.

In saying that, however, NHI are having issues with several countries and their new NH-90 helicopters - called the MRH-90 in Australia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Dec 23, 2013)

Fascinating. And no one has mentioned the F-111.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 23, 2013)

Capt. Vick said:


> Fascinating. And no one has mentioned the F-111.



Never open wounds.
Anyhoo wasnt Lockheed using other means of selling 104?
Reading between the lines...even today. ..procurement is about brown envelopes and huge wads of cash.
nice work if you can get it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Alex . (Dec 23, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Steyr rifles are standard issue in Australia, and are all locally made. Most of the grunts i have talked to about them like them very much, though they are a bit temperamental. Most of the older diggers preferred far more the SLR.



Ah. Fair enough. All the oldies moan on about the SLR being superior to the SA80A2, it's the same over here. Most have never touched an SA80...


----------



## The Basket (Dec 23, 2013)

The French stopped all Super Etendard/Exocet support during Falklands War.

So that good.

The Indians are said to be happy with their Mirage 2000 so may go Rafale. So that could be a saviour for them


----------



## FalkeEins (Dec 23, 2013)

Rafale is simply too expensive - it has to be , it hasn't sold at all yet, Dassault are dragging out the last remaining French examples just to try and keep the line open, whereas Typhoon orders stand at, what, approx 400


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2013)

On another thread Brasil has gone for the Grippen, having worked on a Brazilian contract I think the technology transfer would be a major part of the deal. Brazil wants to be a local power.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 23, 2013)

I think the issues with the F-111 were there before the Aussies bought it. The British cancelled its orders for the F-111 because of the rising cost of the programme after ordering it instead of the TSR.2, which incidentally the Aussies were looking to buy, but chose the TFX instead when rumblings of its cancellation were going on. Aside from the weaknesses of the F-111s swing wing pins, throughout its entire service career the problems with air intake boundary layer seperation were never cured.



> Reading between the lines...even today. ..procurement is about brown envelopes and huge wads of cash.
> nice work if you can get it.



It's what makes the world go round. The F-104 was extensively marketed and became the result of the 'Sale of the Century' with European/Nato countries snapping them up like hot cakes. At the time the British were attempting to market the Buccaneer to a number of European countries, also the Saunders SR.177 jet/rocket interceptor, which was offered to the Germans in particular, but that was cancelled. The British had too many hang-ups with offering advanced technology - radar equipment and such like to foreign powers.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 23, 2013)

Interesting, Parsifal that you mention the Collins Class subs; again, the problems with those are as much to do with the fact that the Aussies had theirs modified from the original design, when, if they'd just bought off-the-shelf they might not have had the same issues.


----------



## davebender (Dec 24, 2013)

Without a major war nations aren't willing to pay $100 million plus for a single fighter aircraft. The future belongs to aircraft like the Gripen which combine decent performance with an affordable price tag.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 25, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Interesting, Parsifal that you mention the Collins Class subs; again, the problems with those are as much to do with the fact that the Aussies had theirs modified from the original design, when, if they'd just bought off-the-shelf they might not have had the same issues.



yes, agreed, but Kockums did not object to the larger prop cavity which was the major reason for the problem. And then they said they would help fix the issue, and didnt really, well, they did, but only at a local level. The parent company acted like eurodiks over the whole issue


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 25, 2013)

davebender said:


> Without a major war nations aren't willing to pay $100 million plus for a single fighter aircraft. The future belongs to aircraft like the Gripen which combine decent performance with an affordable price tag.



The costs of these newer aircraft are so high, that even the US is at the limits.

Thats why the handwriting on the wall is saying "drones".


----------



## davebender (Dec 25, 2013)

To a large extent I agree. However you will never completely replace manned aircraft. Aircrew can make on the spot decisions which computers or remote operators cannot.


----------



## subkraft (Dec 30, 2013)

Re the Collins Class Submarine comments.
This weekend's national paper ran and editorial written by a former left of centre politician. GM are pulling out of this country, huge job losses. The politician's suggestion is that Australia immediately start work on a 12 or 24 vessel post Collins submarine design programme. Built by former car workers, managed by the unions who priced them out of their jobs in the first place. Quite apart from the fact the Navy can't even recruit enough guys to run half the fleet they have. 
Oh, and the fruit canning industry is about to close down as well. 
All we've gotta do is to shift them across to building subs. Obvious.
It must be so frustrating for politicians to havta deal with people who just lack any vision for the future of manufacturing in this country....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 31, 2013)

Why would anyone buy any military hardware from France?

Didn't Israel buy a bunch of aircraft from France, then France took their money and refused to deliver the equipment? After that Israel started buying US equipment and developing as much of their own as they could.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2013)

An example of French perfidity. 

Cherbourg Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 1, 2014)

French were as perfidious as any major power (at least they saw themselves back then) - in case they saw it fit, they were quick to discard the law(s) obliging them with a minor country.

As for the Rafale - any modern aircraft is hugely expensive (French are probably kicking themselves for not making a single engined combat jet in lieu of the Rafale); foreign governments have less and less money (those that have, buy Russian or US hardware), the sell of aircraft is much more a thing of belonging together with a major power than about 'bang-for-buck'; and indeed the past dealings of the firm's Government weren't many times a good record.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 1, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> French were as perfidious as any major power (at least they saw themselves back then) - in case they saw it fit, they were quick to discard the law(s) obliging them with a minor country.
> 
> As for the Rafale - any modern aircraft is hugely expensive (French are probably kicking themselves for not making a single engined combat jet in lieu of the Rafale); foreign governments have less and less money (those that have, buy Russian or US hardware), the sell of aircraft is much more a thing of belonging together with a major power than about 'bang-for-buck'; and indeed the past dealings of the firm's Government weren't many times a good record.




With the exception of the Soviets, who you were selling your souls to if you bought their bargain basement equipment, I have to disagree with you, and say the French were exceptionally bad at trying to make people do what they wanted rather than just sell the product and let the politics run its course. Their dealings with us and the israelis are proof enough of that. countries are risking their national sovereignty if they have any dealings with the french arms industry.


With regard to the Soviets, their treatment of the Indonesians was the case in point that I recall. Under the left wing sukarno, the Soviets sold a whole truckload o f gear to the Indonesians, and then promptly cut them loose once there was a military coup that established Soeharto. Soeharto was right up there with Sadat and Assad, but refused to bow to Soviet edicts. The Soviets retaliated by cutting his military off from all spare parts and replacements for that equipment.

its a short sighted foreign policy. I dont think the Indonesians will ever have anything to do with the Russians again, and that along with the well known tratyement of the Indian Navy more recently consistently wrecks any hope for the Russians in penetrating the Asian market. They have had some success, admittedly, like the sale olf SU-35s to the malaysians, but even this country regrets that deal.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 1, 2014)

Indonesia got it's spare parts and other support cancelled, since the Soviets find they don't dance to their music. France imposed embargo against Israel, after 6 days war and the Beirut paratroop action of 1968. Neither of big (or 'big') powers was satisfied with new actions of their previous costumers, and either tried to discipline them (France vs. Israel), or to punish them (USSR vs. Indonesia). The French also considered the Australia as non-major power (hence the Vietnam Mirages situation), ditto vs. Argentina (non-major power in French opinion), but opposite to UK (disclosing the intricacies of Super Etandard Exocets to the UK military in 1982). 
The Argentinian example might be considered as a major turn-off for people to buy French stuff - in a case of war vs. a major Western power, the buyer of French hi-tech stuff might easily expect that French will give their opponent sensitive data?


----------



## The Basket (Jan 1, 2014)

Didnt America pull the plug on Iran after the fall of the Shah?
All them Tomcats and Phantoms.

I think Rafale is a twin as it is naval so 2 engines better.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 2, 2014)

Most of the countries do not operate the 'classic' CV aircraft any more, so having two engines tends to be a disadvantage re. purchasing and operating costs. We can recall that Sea Harrier, Crusader, A-4, A-7, (Super) Etandard were fine naval aircraft, despite only one engine. Even the F-35 has only one engine.

As for big country not liking what a small country does - Stalin withheld any support for our Yaks, Petlyakovs and Stormoviks in 1948 (plus all-encompassing embargo, spiced up with firing at border guards) when Tito said 'no' to him. Yugoslavia then bought, admitedly at bargain price, the Thunderbolts and Mosquitoes, and, later, Sabres.
There was no way for Nicaragua (under Sandinistas), Cuba (under Castro) and Chile (under Allende) to purchase spare parts for anything produced in USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 2, 2014)

Plenty of twin engine carrier machines too.
I bet given western aircraft to Yugoslavia had no political motive at all.
Drive a wedge between Belgrade and Moscow?
The Rafale does look a dumb idea in hindsight. The Eurofighter was between 4 partners who shared risk and would mean a larger sales base. Rafale would be made and bought by one country and sales would be pot luck.

Oops.

Argentina only bought the Etendard because America had embargoed spares for the Skyhawks. So Americs like France was using spares and technical assistance as a game of political expediency.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 2, 2014)

The Basket said:


> Plenty of twin engine carrier machines too.



No quarrels about that. The quirk is that a country is more likely to purchase a cheaper, yet good enough aircraft for it's carrier, rather than expensive, but better ones.



> I bet given western aircraft to Yugoslavia had no political motive at all.
> Drive a wedge between Belgrade and Moscow?



Yugoslavia started negotiations with West (re. military stuff) after the wedge was already driven in by Tito and Stalin. West jumped on the opportunity.



> The Rafale does look a dumb idea in hindsight. The Eurofighter was between 4 partners who shared risk and would mean a larger sales base. Rafale would be made and bought by one country and sales would be pot luck.
> 
> Oops.



Seems like French were eager to make the 'Euro-canard' either their way (= they give orders, other listen, since they have experience with Mirage etc.), or they would do it on their own. Sure enough, others didn't like it, so it was two Euro-canards at the end (3rd, when we count in the Grippen in). Oops, indeed. 
Especially nowadays, when governments have less money to spend on expensive aircaft, and aircraft sales are more a result of belonging to political alliances, than about the qualities of aircraft currently marketed.



> Argentina only bought the Etendard because America had embargoed spares for the Skyhawks. So Americs like France was using spares and technical assistance as a game of political expediency.



Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 5, 2014)

Think that it was always the case, that Gripen would have canards, following in the success of the design of the Viggen, I think that the other manufacturers just followed as well....
Mind you, we did do some window shopping though, F-18 being one, but.....I firmly believe that SAAB's mindset was always on that we'd build our bird....

Be interesting to see how they'll get on with the carrier based Gripen, which they're working on. It's always been said that the Viggens landing gear was sturdy enough for carrier landings and looking how they land on roads, the only difference is that the roads don't roll...so I wouldn't be surprised if they designed certain parts in Gripen, to be strong enough for tough carrier service...


----------

