sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
@halloweene
Nice article and you definitely should do an english version, especially of the second part that explains the differences in the blocks, tranches... As you said, it's a complex matter and you could create a nice reference here in english and available in the public media.
The first part of the article is a bit too negative though, you point to production problems of a certain company, or spare procurement problems of certain forces, but both are not really quality problems of the fighter itself. Just as the extended use of Tornados is based on the fact that they can use Brimstone and not because the EF isn't capable enough to do CAS in general.
It might had been better to point to the range limits of the EF with a single fuel tank and 2 x cruise missiles (most likely funded with Saudi support), or that the partner countries still haven't decided about a fully fledged AESA development, to point out the real shortcomings of the fighter.
Wrt FCAS, very interesting! Imo the new Franco-British defence relations will definitely boost Europes defence capability, simply by the fact that old nationalistic ego problems between both countries seems to be gone and now both sides focus on the common areas. Dassaults move towards BAE was a very smart one, which poses a counterweight to Airbus and since France gets an alternative industrial option (independent from Germany and their interests), this new formation will get good government support too.
The problems in European defence developments are still the old habits to see each partner country as equal or important and to focus too much on national interests and varients. That's why the EF program has so many different leading partners, different prototype testing and production parts and if France wouldn't had backed out of the program for exactly these issues, it would had been even more complicated. It is simply not easy to join defence interests, or political and economical importance in such programs, unless there is at least 1 clear leader. That's what works better in the F35 program, where the US is the clear leader that provides partners with some workshare, but keeps decision making in house. The nEUROn development is similar, where Dassault is the key driver, while other European partners have supporting roles. If FCAS is lead by France and UK (Dassault and BAE) and just supported by other partners, it could have good potential, but then again a UCAV for Europe will not be a large number program and especially Germany will not be too interested in joining a development of an armed version. However, for Europes future combat capability, an armed UCAV is a must have and France as well as the UK must focus on their interests here.
Any news on Qatari requirements for Rafale wrt maritime attack capabilities? Are they using Exocet currently, or do they want other missiles if Rafale would be selected?
Nice article and you definitely should do an english version, especially of the second part that explains the differences in the blocks, tranches... As you said, it's a complex matter and you could create a nice reference here in english and available in the public media.
The first part of the article is a bit too negative though, you point to production problems of a certain company, or spare procurement problems of certain forces, but both are not really quality problems of the fighter itself. Just as the extended use of Tornados is based on the fact that they can use Brimstone and not because the EF isn't capable enough to do CAS in general.
It might had been better to point to the range limits of the EF with a single fuel tank and 2 x cruise missiles (most likely funded with Saudi support), or that the partner countries still haven't decided about a fully fledged AESA development, to point out the real shortcomings of the fighter.
Wrt FCAS, very interesting! Imo the new Franco-British defence relations will definitely boost Europes defence capability, simply by the fact that old nationalistic ego problems between both countries seems to be gone and now both sides focus on the common areas. Dassaults move towards BAE was a very smart one, which poses a counterweight to Airbus and since France gets an alternative industrial option (independent from Germany and their interests), this new formation will get good government support too.
The problems in European defence developments are still the old habits to see each partner country as equal or important and to focus too much on national interests and varients. That's why the EF program has so many different leading partners, different prototype testing and production parts and if France wouldn't had backed out of the program for exactly these issues, it would had been even more complicated. It is simply not easy to join defence interests, or political and economical importance in such programs, unless there is at least 1 clear leader. That's what works better in the F35 program, where the US is the clear leader that provides partners with some workshare, but keeps decision making in house. The nEUROn development is similar, where Dassault is the key driver, while other European partners have supporting roles. If FCAS is lead by France and UK (Dassault and BAE) and just supported by other partners, it could have good potential, but then again a UCAV for Europe will not be a large number program and especially Germany will not be too interested in joining a development of an armed version. However, for Europes future combat capability, an armed UCAV is a must have and France as well as the UK must focus on their interests here.
Any news on Qatari requirements for Rafale wrt maritime attack capabilities? Are they using Exocet currently, or do they want other missiles if Rafale would be selected?
