Rafale supercruise?
John Smith
(4th july 86) without the use of the afterburner. Can the production
versions of rafale do it? if so what is the optimum cruise and and max
supercruise speed?
Paul S. Owen
John Smith wrote in message <3759FAC4...@domain.com>...
|I believe that the rafale broke the sound barrier on its maiden flight
|(4th july 86) without the use of the afterburner.
IIRC it had one burner lit to break through the barrier, it then cruised in
full mil power. Perhaps Etienne or someone knows for sure though.
|if so what is the optimum cruise and and max
|supercruise speed?
ooohhhh, I'm not touching that with a barge pole, 'supercruise' is not a
good term to use in ram unless you're refering to the F-22 and/or wish a
long winded argument to ensue :)
Paul S. Owen : Add .uk to address when replying
CPSE, Imperial College
London, UK
Homepage : http://www.ps.ic.ac.uk/~pso/
John Cook (please remove -antispam- to reply.)
<pa...@sigint.in2home> wrote:
>
>John Smith wrote in message <3759FAC4...@domain.com>...
>|I believe that the rafale broke the sound barrier on its maiden flight
>|(4th july 86) without the use of the afterburner.
>
>IIRC it had one burner lit to break through the barrier, it then cruised in
>full mil power. Perhaps Etienne or someone knows for sure though.
>
>|if so what is the optimum cruise and and max
>|supercruise speed?
>
>ooohhhh, I'm not touching that with a barge pole, 'supercruise' is not a
>good term to use in ram unless you're refering to the F-22 and/or wish a
>long winded argument to ensue :)
'Spiffingcruise' anyone :-)
>Paul S. Owen : Add .uk to address when replying
>CPSE, Imperial College
>London, UK
>Homepage : http://www.ps.ic.ac.uk/~pso/
>
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Pierre-Henri Baras
Paul S. Owen <pa...@sigint.in2home> a écrit dans le message :
928685383.27017...@news.in2home.co.uk...
>
> John Smith wrote in message <3759FAC4...@domain.com>...
> |I believe that the rafale broke the sound barrier on its maiden flight
> |(4th july 86) without the use of the afterburner.
>
> IIRC it had one burner lit to break through the barrier, it then cruised
in
> full mil power. Perhaps Etienne or someone knows for sure though.
>
Yeah, I heard about a similar story. Problem is, the Rafale that flew in 86'
was the Rafale A, the project demonstrator, which is quite different from
the production aircraft.
The maiden flight was performed with GE F.404 engines, not the SNECMA M.88
that will equipe the Air Force and Navy. The French engines arrived in 89'.
For some time the Rafale A flew with both the M.88 and the F.404, one of
each on each side.
Hope this helps.
Pierre-Henri
Pierre-Henri Baras
Edward Lim <es...@nw.com.au> a écrit dans le message :
375e8...@news.highway1.com.au...
>
> John Smith <defau...@domain.com> wrote in message
> news:3759FAC4...@domain.com...
> > I believe that the rafale broke the sound barrier on its maiden flight
> > supercruise speed?
> >
>
> I think I read somewhere that it can - if my memory serves me right - it
> came from a Dassault spokesperson as well. By the way, has Rafale been
test
> fired with standard Nato weapon, aka. Sidewinders and Amraams?
No, since only french weapons are to be carried. On the other hand I think
they are supposed to use GBU-12 kits. Export clients will have to buy Mica
and Magic 2 missiles.
>
> Oh, another thing is that Typhoon suppose to be able to supercruise -
> perhaps using the same technique? Someone care to comment?
>
> Ed.
IIRC it can only supercruise up to Mach 1.1, but I'm probably wrong.
Pierre-Henri
Paul S. Owen
Edward Lim wrote in message <375e8...@news.highway1.com.au>...
|
|Oh, another thing is that Typhoon suppose to be able to supercruise -
|perhaps using the same technique? Someone care to comment?
'same technique', what 'technique' would that be? The EF has demonstrated
the ability to cruise supersonically without the use of reheat many times
now. However, like the Rafale the upper limit on achievable velocity is
(AFAIK) undisclosed as yet. Till recently the EF's higher TWR over the
Rafale would, for example, indicate the potential for a higher upper limit.
These days though the situation is unclear with both the EF's weight
increasing and the EJ's possible early uprating.
This group has seen countless arguments about what defines supercruise. To
keep the F-22 crew happy though it seems best to 'reserve' that word for
velocities in the 1.3-1.4 region. Having said that it seems to me that any
fighter demonstrating an ability to cruise supersonically without AB still
gives it a real advantage given the typical cruising speed of older aircraft
...
____________
Edward Lim
John Smith <defau...@domain.com> wrote in message
news:3759FAC4...@domain.com...
> I believe that the rafale broke the sound barrier on its maiden flight
> (4th july 86) without the use of the afterburner. Can the production
> versions of rafale do it? if so what is the optimum cruise and and max
> supercruise speed?
>
I think I read somewhere that it can - if my memory serves me right - it
came from a Dassault spokesperson as well. By the way, has Rafale been test
fired with standard Nato weapon, aka. Sidewinders and Amraams?
Oh, another thing is that Typhoon suppose to be able to supercruise -
perhaps using the same technique? Someone care to comment?
Ed.
Urban Fredriksson
Pierre-Henri Baras <lp...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>Edward Lim <es...@nw.com.au> a écrit dans le message :
>375e8...@news.highway1.com.au...
>> By the way, has Rafale been
>test
>> fired with standard Nato weapon, aka. Sidewinders and Amraams?
>No, since only french weapons are to be carried. On the other hand I think
>they are supposed to use GBU-12 kits. Export clients will have to buy Mica
>and Magic 2 missiles.
When (and why) did this change? All I've read indicates
Rafale would be basically capable of launching Sidewinder
and AMRAAM (although of course the French air force isn't
going to pay for the integration, so it's hardly done by
now).
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se Military aviation: weekly news, Swedish
military aviation and aircraft, the rec.aviation.military FAQ
The Swedish Air Force Air Combat | http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
Simulation Centre >> http://www.ffa.se/flsc/takeoff/index_eng.html
Pierre-Henri Baras
>
> When (and why) did this change? All I've read indicates
> Rafale would be basically capable of launching Sidewinder
> and AMRAAM (although of course the French air force isn't
> going to pay for the integration, so it's hardly done by
> now).
> --
I'm sorry but your sources are wrong. Putting AMRAAMs and AIM-9 would be
possible, but highly unprobable on French air force planes. We are
developping the Mica, both active and IR, specifically for the Rafale. We
aren't going to buy something else.
Nothing says that future export users already using US planes won't try to
adapt the -9 and -120, but right now nothing has been made to do so. We are
not renouncing our (more or less successful ) independance in the ordnance
domain ;-)
It is an interesting question, I'll try to know more at LeBourget next week.
Pierre-Henri
Paul S. Owen
Pierre-Henri Baras wrote in message <7jobac$iuu$1...@oceanite.cybercable.fr>...
|
|but highly unprobable on French air force planes. We are
|developping the Mica,
well, Matra-BAe continue to do so under French contract ... ;)
|both active and IR, specifically for the Rafale. We
|aren't going to buy something else.
So the continuing rumours of ASRAAM integration are untrue? Pitty if they
are.
|Nothing says that future export users already using US planes won't try to
|adapt the -9 and -120, but right now nothing has been made to do so. We are
|not renouncing our (more or less successful ) independance in the ordnance
|domain ;-)
That would be independence in terms of one such company being Anglo-French
would it ? ;)
Pierre-Henri Baras
> |
>
> |but highly unprobable on French air force planes. We are
> |developping the Mica,
>
> well, Matra-BAe continue to do so under French contract ... ;)
You mean continue to try to fit -9 and -120 on the Rafale.Gosh, you learn
new stuff every day on the net. More seriously, I never ever heard such
rumours. In the event of it being true(LOL), I wouldn't harm anyone:
Matra/BAe makes the ASRAAM and Aérospatiale the Mica. And today, Matra and
Aéro. are the same company. Fitting the ASRAAM would be nonsense, we're
already investing $1billion on the Mica, were not going to put them in
competition, all the more that the ASRAAM seems promised to a superbe career
without theRafale.
>
> |both active and IR, specifically for the Rafale. We
> |aren't going to buy something else.
>
> So the continuing rumours of ASRAAM integration are untrue?
God Forbide!!!
> |Nothing says that future export users already using US planes won't try
to
> |adapt the -9 and -120, but right now nothing has been made to do so. We
are
> |not renouncing our (more or less successful ) independance in the
ordnance
> |domain ;-)
>
> That would be independence in terms of one such company being Anglo-French
> would it ? ;)
What, you mean BAe Dynamics isn't French?
Pierre-Henri
Paul S. Owen
|You mean continue to try to fit -9 and -120 on the Rafale.Gosh, you learn
|new stuff every day on the net.
No, see below.
|Aérospatiale the Mica.
I guess I'm thinking of Magic then ... ??
|> So the continuing rumours of ASRAAM integration are untrue?
|
|God Forbide!!!
Strange ... but unfortunately it would ring true for the death of Europen
defence integration.
| What, you mean BAe Dynamics isn't French?
About as much as Rafale is British ... whoops, sorry, slipped out that ;)
Pierre-Henri Baras
> Strange ... but unfortunately it would ring true for the death of Europen
> defence integration.
>
Eurofighter, the UK and Nederlands bought the AH-64; when the Horizon
frigates programme failed, when France *quit* NATO, when the UK took part of
Desert Fox alone (with the USA), when the F-104 and later the F-16 made the
"Deal of the century".............................................I find it
hard to imagine a European Defence integration without a total idustrial and
poltical cooperation. As long as some countries continue to buy
cross-antlantic, European defence is going to be nothing less than an
European Union election campaign slogan.
But hey, you're advantaged, you've got David Ginola AND Eric Cantona 8-)
Paul S. Owen
|
|I think that beautiful project died years ago when Dassault split from
|Eurofighter,
No offence but thank God for that even though it was a very delayed thank
God ...
|the UK and Nederlands bought the AH-64;
Longbow, superior system, a very good choice on our and the their part.
|when the Horizon
|frigates programme failed,
No offence but another thank God there (and a *very* much delayed thank God,
shame we're staying with PAAMS though :( at least we have SAMPSON I
suspose.). I still would've (would?!) like to see us licence at least parts
of AEGIS and SM.
|when the UK took part of
|Desert Fox alone (with the USA),
Er, how about Italy and indeed France? Desert Shield and Fox may have been
dominated by the U.S. but it was indeed a multinational effort.
|poltical cooperation. As long as some countries continue to buy
|cross-antlantic,
Well we buy what we need, if that means we buy American, then so be it. I
too would like to see us produce more of our own equipment in certain
specific areas but sometimes others have already done it and done it well
... why waste money? Which AEW systems does France use again? ;)
|European defence is going to be nothing less than an
|European Union election campaign slogan.
Well I was thinking more in terms of defence company consolidation than a
'United European Armed Force' ... By not taking the 'trouble' to integrate
other *European* systems into Rafale France have done themselves and us no
favours. Would you buy a Rafale knowing you have little choice but to buy
MICA et al and/or pay for integration costs yourself, or would you buy a
Eurofighter, F-15, F-16, etc. knowing that it'll come with full NATO based
interoperability and the ability to carry a range of European and American
ordnance? ... hmmmmmmm. Seems thus far it's been the later which is a pity.
|But hey, you're advantaged, you've got David Ginola AND Eric Cantona 8-)
Well we have one ... the other's more into acting these days :)
Pierre-Henri Baras
>
> Longbow, superior system, a very good choice on our and the their part.
Yes but it's not european. As far as I'm concerned, the Tigre would have
looked great in British colors.....
> |when the UK took part of
> |Desert Fox alone (with the USA),
>
> Er, how about Italy and indeed France? Desert Shield and Fox may have been
> dominated by the U.S. but it was indeed a multinational effort
Yes,multinational; the UK and the USA.
On a political point of view, the UN Security Council was put aside. I'd
hate to see that in a european defence system.
>
> |poltical cooperation. As long as some countries continue to buy
> |cross-antlantic,
>
> Well we buy what we need, if that means we buy American, then so be it. I
> too would like to see us produce more of our own equipment in certain
> specific areas but sometimes others have already done it and done it well
> ... why waste money?
To promote european cooperation perhaps? It wasn't like you were asked to
buy the AlouetteII. The Tigre....., even the Mangusta! OK not the Mangusta
;-) France and Germany have done a lot to make good European machines. Why
doesn't europe help and think about buying them?
Which AEW systems does France use again? ;)
Eh......in flight refuellable homing pigeons. Hatched in Southern France!
>
> |European defence is going to be nothing less than an
> |European Union election campaign slogan.
>
> Well I was thinking more in terms of defence company consolidation than a
> 'United European Armed Force' ...
This force is on almost every campaign for the Euro. elections here; is it
the same in Britain?
By not taking the 'trouble' to integrate
> other *European* systems into Rafale France have done themselves and us no
> favours. Would you buy a Rafale knowing you have little choice but to buy
> MICA et al and/or pay for integration costs yourself,
We sold more than 1,500 Mirage III that way. Many other countries would buy
it to avoid having only one supplier( the US), in case of political
problems( Israel at one time, Taiwan, India perhaps, some Middle Eastern
countries)
> or would you buy a
> Eurofighter, F-15, F-16, etc. knowing that it'll come with full NATO based
> interoperability and the ability to carry a range of European and American
> ordnance? ... hmmmmmmm. Seems thus far it's been the later which is a
pity.
Yes,it really is. It's just another challenge for us. Do you think
Eurofighter is a lot more Nato interoperable than Rafale? IIRC Rfale will be
able to use US carriers and vice-versa, at least for the Hornet.
By the way, didn't the Royal Navy consider buying Rafales for a future
carrier?
>
> |But hey, you're advantaged, you've got David Ginola AND Eric Cantona
8-)
>
Well we have one ... the other's more into acting these days :)
Cantona's last film was about a monkey struken by lightning, and that could
talk. Made 100 seats in Paris theatres. OH-HA Cantona!
Paul S. Owen
Pierre-Henri Baras wrote in message <7jqk4h$7oi$1...@oceanite.cybercable.fr>...
|> |the UK and Nederlands bought the AH-64;
|>
|> Longbow, superior system, a very good choice on our and the their part.
|
|Yes but it's not european. As far as I'm concerned, the Tigre would have
|looked great in British colors.....
But would those colours looked so bright and fresh when it was just a
burning pile of scrap metal? ... a 'bit' melodramatic perhaps but I simply
believe we should buy best no matter where it was developed.
|> Er, how about Italy and indeed France? Desert Shield and Fox may have
been
|> dominated by the U.S. but it was indeed a multinational effort
|
|Yes,multinational; the UK and the USA.
I guess those French and Italian jets had some kind of Klingon cloaking
device then? ;)
|On a political point of view, the UN Security Council was put aside. I'd
|hate to see that in a european defence system.
When? The UNSC approved all actions taken in the run up to and the starting
of the Gulf War?
|;-) France and Germany have done a lot to make good European machines. Why
|doesn't europe help and think about buying them?
So you'd be willing to purchase (for example) Tiger over Apache Longbow
knowing that Longbow was superior simply because it's European? bad, bad way
to go.
As for France and Germany producing a 'lot of good European machines' (BMW
does spring to mind there ;) ). Why has France caused so many problems with
things like Trigat? Why did they insist on local area defence models wrt
Horizon rather than broader, longer ranging defence requirements which
would've been better for everyone? Why did France simply not go with either
ASRAAM or IRIS-T and BVRAAM instead of dual moded MICA? ... it's not a one
way thing Pierre, France has done many things over the years to stifle
European development and force Euro nations to select foreign equipment.
Similarly France seems to concede that from time to time development costs
and time are outweighed by immediate need, Hawkeye and E3 spring to mind at
once. As for Anglo-American programs, well show me the direct Franco-German
equivalents to say JSF, TRACER, etc. ... AFAIK they don't exist.
I'm for co-operation *only* when there exists a *clearly* defined common
goal (unlike ECF/ECA/FEFA, Horizon, etc.), when workshare and development
bases are agreed on beforehand in a concrete fashion and a fair way and when
the costs and/or research obtainable through such a program will bring real
benefits. AFAIK few recent 'Euro' programs have achieved these goals. Indeed
British only programs such as SKYNET-5 went ahead because of an inability to
agree common requirements and timetables. I for one am dreading the day FOAS
turns into a European program because I forsee the end of RAF requirements
and innovation.
|>Which AEW systems does France use again? ;)
|
|Eh......in flight refuellable homing pigeons. Hatched in Southern France!
Now that I would like to see, in-flight refueling of homing-pidgeons! Which
system do you use? Drogue or probe? :)
|This force is on almost every campaign for the Euro. elections here; is it
|the same in Britain?
There was a Euro-election? When? ;) Early figures here this morning have
indicated turn-out to be less than 20% for the elections, indeed one place
is reporting 1.5%! So our politicians have had a hard enough time persuading
people to vote for anything, let alone for a potential Euro army.
As for that though, well there is Euro-corp and the Anglo-French air command
based here ... again potentially good ideas but *very* dependent on common
foreign policy which sadly (look at the Balkan's) still doesn't exist.
|We sold more than 1,500 Mirage III that way.
Things have changed though ...
|Many other countries would buy
|it to avoid having only one supplier( the US),
AMRAAM is licence built by several companies and countries IIRC, true they
would require Congressional approval for sale but still, AIM-9(pre X) still
(IIRC) involves heavy German involvment. BVRAAM/EURAAM, IRIS-T, ASRAAM,
Storm Shadow, Taurus, DWS, Sea Eagle, Kormorant, etc., all European ... why
aren't they being integrated into the Rafale? (Storm Shadow/SCALP
commonality excepted).
|Yes,it really is. It's just another challenge for us. Do you think
|Eurofighter is a lot more Nato interoperable than Rafale?
Yep since many systems are built around NATO or NATO orignated standards.
|IIRC Rfale will be
|able to use US carriers and vice-versa, at least for the Hornet.
And how many nations use U.S. carriers?! I'm talking more about ordnance
integration, ground systems, flight systems, etc. Does the Rafale have full
interoperability at these levels, it was my understanding (indeed from your
previous comments) it doesn't. Look at the trouble SAAB/BAe are going to to
ensure NATO compatibility for the Gripen, already that's born fruit and the
future looks rosey in Eastern Europe. Supporting an aircraft, even in
numbers, which has uncommon equipment is going to be expensive ... in a
changing world that's simply not on for many countries.
|By the way, didn't the Royal Navy consider buying Rafales for a future
|carrier?
Never, no way, never ever ;) IIRC those were simply rumours quickly
squashed. At the moment the CVF program continues as does JSF and BAe
continue Eurofighter navalisation studies. I'll eat my cap the day the MoD
selects Rafale for the FCBA ... !
Pierre-Henri Baras
> |>
> |> Longbow, superior system, a very good choice on our and the their part.
> |
> |Yes but it's not european. As far as I'm concerned, the Tigre would have
> |looked great in British colors.....
>
> But would those colours looked so bright and fresh when it was just a
> burning pile of scrap metal? ... a 'bit' melodramatic perhaps but I simply
> believe we should buy best no matter where it was developed.
I totally agree,but in that case we have to put aside the idea of a
Integrated European Defence system. It's too bad we have to chose between a
good machine and a machine which could make industrial cooperation evolve to
a greater level.
> |> Er, how about Italy and indeed France? Desert Shield and Fox may have
> been
> |> dominated by the U.S. but it was indeed a multinational effort
> |
> |Yes,multinational; the UK and the USA.
>
> I guess those French and Italian jets had some kind of Klingon cloaking
> device then? ;)
French jets during Desert FOX? Sure those weren't Iraqi Mirage F-1?
> |On a political point of view, the UN Security Council was put aside. I'd
> |hate to see that in a european defence system.
>
> When? The UNSC approved all actions taken in the run up to and the
starting
> of the Gulf War?
Sorry I didn't make myself clear, I meant Desert fox in 1998. Nato and the
UN learned about it on CNN the next day...
> |;-) France and Germany have done a lot to make good European machines.
Why
> |doesn't europe help and think about buying them?
>
> So you'd be willing to purchase (for example) Tiger over Apache Longbow
> knowing that Longbow was superior simply because it's European? bad, bad
way
> to go.
Depends on one's view of the European Union and its future.
> As for France and Germany producing a 'lot of good European machines' (BMW
> does spring to mind there ;) ). Why has France caused so many problems
with
> things like Trigat? Why did they insist on local area defence models wrt
> Horizon rather than broader, longer ranging defence requirements which
> would've been better for everyone?
Perhaps because the UK and Italy folowed? I have never been favourable to
it. Now we are stuck wading in a pond. The UK has overcome the probleme.
Looks like only the Netherlands have a good system.
Why did France simply not go with either
> ASRAAM or IRIS-T and BVRAAM instead of dual moded MICA? ...
Because we could do it.Should we give up our entire aerospace industry just
because someone else makes the same things? We just don't want to sacrifice
the 'savoir faire'. The British have a performant industry too, but did the
Netherlands really have to buy Apaches?
it's not a one
> way thing Pierre, France has done many things over the years to stifle
> European development and force Euro nations to select foreign equipment.
>
> Similarly France seems to concede that from time to time development costs
> and time are outweighed by immediate need, Hawkeye and E3 spring to mind
at
> once. As for Anglo-American programs, well show me the direct
Franco-German
> equivalents to say JSF, TRACER, etc. ... AFAIK they don't exist.
>
> I'm for co-operation *only* when there exists a *clearly* defined common
> goal (unlike ECF/ECA/FEFA, Horizon, etc.), when workshare and development
> bases are agreed on beforehand in a concrete fashion and a fair way and
when
> the costs and/or research obtainable through such a program will bring
real
> benefits. AFAIK few recent 'Euro' programs have achieved these goals.
Indeed
> British only programs such as SKYNET-5 went ahead because of an inability
to
> agree common requirements and timetables. I for one am dreading the day
FOAS
> turns into a European program because I forsee the end of RAF requirements
> and innovation.
>
> |Many other countries would buy
> |it to avoid having only one supplier( the US),
>
> AMRAAM is licence built by several companies and countries IIRC, true they
> would require Congressional approval for sale but still, AIM-9(pre X)
still
> (IIRC) involves heavy German involvment. BVRAAM/EURAAM, IRIS-T, ASRAAM,
> Storm Shadow, Taurus, DWS, Sea Eagle, Kormorant, etc., all European ...
why
> aren't they being integrated into the Rafale?
Because we have a valid equivalent for and every weapon,except perhaps for
HARM and CBU. Perhaps our well known arrogance has it that we prefer making
our material ourselves. It's good stuff, combat proven, but too expensive.
Aérospatiale/BAe/Matra are on all the programms above, but also work
seperately on the Rafale. It's a lot better for our industry if we continue
to make Exocets rather than Kormoran, Micas instead of ASRAAMs. We make some
very good systems, but since we can't afford them, nobody's going to buy
them. instead other combat proven material is purchased. Now that is the
main obstacle for an integrated european defence system
[interesting and impossible to argue snip]
Paul S. Owen
|
|French jets during Desert FOX? Sure those weren't Iraqi Mirage F-1?
My mistake, I completely read over the Fox part, many appologies!
|> So you'd be willing to purchase (for example) Tiger over Apache Longbow
|> knowing that Longbow was superior simply because it's European? bad, bad
|way
|> to go.
|
|Depends on one's view of the European Union and its future.
hhmmm, not really, it depends on common sense. Buying something just to keep
a bunch of overpaid politicians sitting in other countries happy isn't on
when many, many lives are at stake IMHO.
| Why did France simply not go with either
|> ASRAAM or IRIS-T and BVRAAM instead of dual moded MICA? ...
|
|Because we could do it.Should we give up our entire aerospace industry just
|because someone else makes the same things?
But that goes completely against what you were saying about European
cooperation doesn't it? Building for buildings sake rather than cooperating
when common goals can be met? Just because something can be done doesn't
mean it must be done that way.
|the 'savoir faire'. The British have a performant industry too, but did the
|Netherlands really have to buy Apaches?
Yes, because it's a superior system to that which European companies
currently offer ... if that decision saves just one Dutch airman, soldier or
sailor they made the right choice I think.
|> aren't they being integrated into the Rafale?
|
|Because we have a valid equivalent for and every weapon,except perhaps for
|HARM and CBU.
ALARM also I think?
|Perhaps our well known arrogance has it that we prefer making
|our material ourselves.
That's my point you see. The French (not necessarily you I add Pierre!) are
often first to shout about (typically) British disinterest in cooperation in
Europe yet I can think of precious few military projects which involve
significant French participation these days (while several spring to mind
involving British, German, Italian, Swedish, etc. companies/governments).
You see my point was that you said a problem exists in Europe not buying
European. Well why should they when one of it's major members cannot even
include other European weaponry on its aircraft? British, German, Italian,
Spanish, Swedish, etc. all feature both European, American and other nations
weaponry yet France seems heavily set on its own. Perhaps if Rafale was
capable of firing ASRAAM (even though perhaps not the weapon of choice),
IRIS-T, ALARM, etc. it would (a) improve its overseas perception as an
adaptable platform and (b) improve British, German, etc. opinions on
France's ability to wholehartedly cooperate on European military projects
... perhaps, maybe, possibly? :)
Pierre-Henri Baras
> |Because we have a valid equivalent for and every weapon,except perhaps
for
> |HARM and CBU.
>
> ALARM also I think
I put ALARM in the same category as HARM.Was I wrong?
>
> |Perhaps our well known arrogance has it that we prefer making
> |our material ourselves.
>
> That's my point you see. The French (not necessarily you I add Pierre!)
are
> often first to shout about (typically) British disinterest in cooperation
in
> Europe yet I can think of precious few military projects which involve
> significant French participation these days (while several spring to mind
> involving British, German, Italian, Swedish, etc. companies/governments).
> You see my point was that you said a problem exists in Europe not buying
> European. Well why should they when one of it's major members cannot even
> include other European weaponry on its aircraft? British, German, Italian,
> Spanish, Swedish, etc. all feature both European, American and other
nations
> weaponry yet France seems heavily set on its own
We feel better off that way, even if we are wrong!
. Perhaps if Rafale was
> capable of firing ASRAAM (even though perhaps not the weapon of choice),
> IRIS-T, ALARM, etc. it would (a) improve its overseas perception as an
> adaptable platform and (b) improve British, German, etc. opinions on
> France's ability to wholehartedly cooperate on European military projects
> ... perhaps, maybe, possibly? :)
>
Today France isn't ready to chose:
*continue to make domestic weapons for Rafale and offer just that equipment,
or
*make Rafale compatible, without imposing Mica and Magic2 to the EF 2000 and
F-16.
Perhaps we are waiting for an encouragement that will never come (Rafale in
the Royal Navy) to sacrifice the first solution for the second.
To come back to the core of the problem, Rafale is not compatible with
foreign material.That is a fact. We are just too confident to make it
export-friendly. Add to that the problem that we can't afford to order it,
even knowing that it would stimulate exportations.
Pierre-Henri
P.S. I'm currently building a plastic model of the Rafale, alll I have to do
is to chose which of your squadrons to decorate it in ;-)
Urban Fredriksson
Edward Lim <es...@nw.com.au> wrote:
>Coming from an asian perspective, the reason why some asian countries didn't
>buy French equipment because they are worried about the interoperability
>part with other western equipment, eg. French aircraft does not fire NATO
>missiles.
Swiss Mirages uses two kinds of Falcon missiles. (Swedish
built, but American designs.) So if you want to, it can be
done, just like integrating French missiles and other
equipment on F-16.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se Military aviation: weekly news, Swedish
military aviation and aircraft, the rec.aviation.military FAQ
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
Artist's impression of Saab's UCAV http://www.saab.se/media/imagebank.html
Paul S. Owen
|
|Coming from an asian perspective, the reason why some asian countries
didn't
|buy French equipment because they are worried about the interoperability
|part with other western equipment, eg. French aircraft does not fire NATO
|missiles.
As Urban has just pointed out it's not so much a case of "can't" it's more a
case of there being little will to 'inbuild' such a capaility from the get
go. Therefore any potential purchaser has two choices, pay (and wait) for
integration themselves or purchase French weaponry. Neither are particularly
good choices when competing aircraft come with such capabilities from the
outset.
Paul S. Owen
Pierre-Henri Baras wrote in message <7js8e3$5ce$1...@oceanite.cybercable.fr>...
|
Whoops, sorry about that email Pierre, I meant to post this reply but I
guess I hit the wrong button!
|> ALARM also I think
|
|I put ALARM in the same category as HARM.Was I wrong?
Well it's the same class but most certainly not the same weapon ...
|> weaponry yet France seems heavily set on its own
|
|We feel better off that way, even if we are wrong!
So it shouldn't come as any surprise that other European countries are
cautious over buying French equipment.
|*continue to make domestic weapons for Rafale and offer just that
equipment,
|or
|*make Rafale compatible, without imposing Mica and Magic2 to the EF 2000
and
|F-16.
If MICA had fulfilled our ASRAAM requirement when it was first proposed (did
it?) and France had offered appropriate workshare (did they?) then perhaps
RAF Eurofighter's, Harriers and Tornado's would be in the process of being
armed with them ... If France wants to maximise overseas trade in the Rafale
one key way would be to remove limitations on the ordnance it carries from
the outset ...
|Perhaps we are waiting for an encouragement that will never come (Rafale in
|the Royal Navy) to sacrifice the first solution for the second.
Let's assume in our(?!) wildest dreams(!) that the MoD announces the FCBA
will
be fulfilled by the Rafale and that some (I guess) 100-120 aircraft are to
be ordered. Would France happily transfer what would I guess be around 1/2
to a 1/3 of the production to the UK? I doubt it. Would the French
Government pay for NATO interoperability modifications? Again I doubt it.
There is zero chance the MoD will select a platform that requires French
ordnance, French support and will be wholly or near wholly constructed in
France with little UK cooperation when alternatives provide the opposite.
However, if Rafale were compatible with ASRAAM, AMRAAM (and futurely
BVRAAM), etc., with the French more open to overseas construction perhaps it
would've had a better chance. I'm guessing a similar stance will be taken by
many potential customers which will select the EF, Gripen, F-15, F-16, F-22
(if and when it becomes available for overseas fulfilment), etc. instead.
|P.S. I'm currently building a plastic model of the Rafale, alll I have to
do
|is to chose which of your squadrons to decorate it in ;-)
So the Typhoon has been renamed the Rafale for French service has it? ;)
____________
Paul S. Owen : p.o...@ic.ac.uk
CPSE, Imperial College
London, UK
On the Web : http://www.ps.ic.ac.uk/~pso/
Edward Lim
Coming from an asian perspective, the reason why some asian countries didn't
buy French equipment because they are worried about the interoperability
part with other western equipment, eg. French aircraft does not fire NATO
missiles.
Edward
Paul S. Owen <p.o...@ic.ac> wrote in message
news:929135147.15630...@news.in2home.co.uk...
> Pierre-Henri Baras wrote in message
<7jrean$e83$1...@oceanite.cybercable.fr>...
> |
> |French jets during Desert FOX? Sure those weren't Iraqi Mirage F-1?
>
> My mistake, I completely read over the Fox part, many appologies!
>
> |> So you'd be willing to purchase (for example) Tiger over Apache Longbow
> |> knowing that Longbow was superior simply because it's European? bad,
bad
> |way
> |> to go.
> |
> |Depends on one's view of the European Union and its future.
>
> hhmmm, not really, it depends on common sense. Buying something just to
keep
> a bunch of overpaid politicians sitting in other countries happy isn't on
> when many, many lives are at stake IMHO.
>
> | Why did France simply not go with either
> |> ASRAAM or IRIS-T and BVRAAM instead of dual moded MICA? ...
> |
> |Because we could do it.Should we give up our entire aerospace industry
just
> |because someone else makes the same things?
>
> But that goes completely against what you were saying about European
> cooperation doesn't it? Building for buildings sake rather than
cooperating
> when common goals can be met? Just because something can be done doesn't
> mean it must be done that way.
>
> |the 'savoir faire'. The British have a performant industry too, but did
the
> |Netherlands really have to buy Apaches?
>
> Yes, because it's a superior system to that which European companies
> currently offer ... if that decision saves just one Dutch airman, soldier
or
> sailor they made the right choice I think.
>
> |> aren't they being integrated into the Rafale?
> |
> |Because we have a valid equivalent for and every weapon,except perhaps
for
> |HARM and CBU.
>
> ALARM also I think?
>
> |Perhaps our well known arrogance has it that we prefer making
> |our material ourselves.
>
> That's my point you see. The French (not necessarily you I add Pierre!)
are
> often first to shout about (typically) British disinterest in cooperation
in
> Europe yet I can think of precious few military projects which involve
> significant French participation these days (while several spring to mind
> involving British, German, Italian, Swedish, etc. companies/governments).
> You see my point was that you said a problem exists in Europe not buying
> European. Well why should they when one of it's major members cannot even
> include other European weaponry on its aircraft? British, German, Italian,
> Spanish, Swedish, etc. all feature both European, American and other
nations
> weaponry yet France seems heavily set on its own. Perhaps if Rafale was
> capable of firing ASRAAM (even though perhaps not the weapon of choice),
> IRIS-T, ALARM, etc. it would (a) improve its overseas perception as an
> adaptable platform and (b) improve British, German, etc. opinions on
> France's ability to wholehartedly cooperate on European military projects
> ... perhaps, maybe, possibly? :)
>
MSmith5048
Yes, one is more into acting than football. Eric Cantona, on the other hand,
has retired;-{)
Mike
"Sometimes the seagulls follow the trawler"