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.
why aint the Rafale selling?
- Thread starter The Basket
- Start date
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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.
parsifal
Colonel
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
Pacific Historian
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
1st Lieutenant
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.
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....
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....
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.
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
Pacific Historian
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.
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.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
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.
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 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?
- Thread starter
- #32
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
All them Tomcats and Phantoms.
I think Rafale is a twin as it is naval so 2 engines better.
Last edited:
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #34
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Yugoslavia started negotiations with West (re. military stuff) after the wedge was already driven in by Tito and Stalin. West jumped on the opportunity.
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.
Nothing new under the sun.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
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...
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...
