- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,273
- Likes
- 1,376
Why did he not been a single European combat aircraft, rather than the current two (Rafale and Eurofighter), and even three with the Swedish Gripen?
Obviously not everything is white or black, on a question like that, so that there has been attempt to focus energies on a single plane. Perhaps he would have been possible to reconcile the approaches, and to balance the interests quite different? It is likely that if there had been more experience of fruitful cooperation, such as Airbus, during discussions in 1985, compromises win / win would have been found.
But, in retrospect, the choice to withdraw from the French consortium in creation has led to an excellent aircraft, efficient, versatile, no real equivalent of the Atlantic, and at a reasonable cost, in spite of the development costs far below those planes U.S..
It is true that export sales of the Rafale are not (yet) to go, but unfortunately they are not extraordinary for the Eurofighter. In our article " The obvious advantages of the Rafale vs Eurofighter ", very complementary, we show that export sales depend in fact, addition of the superpower United States via its home market of Defense (50% of military spending world), previous non-US sales
Different needs between France, Germany and Great Britain
One of the reasons why France has withdrawn from the European consortium in creation (Eurofighter) is that their needs were very extensive, and she wanted a single plane for all its missions, a truly multi-role aircraft, and if possible omnirole:
One of these requirements was the availability of a naval variant of this airplane. Otherwise France was forced to purchase a second aircraft model very expensive and probably American (F-18 Hornet)?
In addition, France wanted a camera "swing-role", that allows to switch roles during an exit. [ 1 ]
And each camp (French Mirage, Tornado vs-British-German-Italian-) wanted to extend his experience and capitalize on weight characteristics similar aircraft already made Mirage Light (8 tons empty, like the American F-16), Tornado heavier (14 tons). [ 2 ]
Or design a single plane for all of these missions was refused by England and Germany, who preferred a model then "Cold War": a pure interceptor (air combat). [ 3 ] [ 4 ]:
the Germans had no reason to buy the naval version of a common plane. They wanted, however a pure interceptor, agile at high altitude, whose characteristics make it impossible for a naval version (such as ducks in the front, that promote agility at high altitude but prohibit landing on an aircraft carrier; and navalisation Typhoon is a possibility of near impossibility), they wanted a plane above all light (<10t.) to operate above the front line.
the English wanted the carrying capacity of an interceptor ocean, and no naval version of everything: their aircraft carriers without catapults were not required for aircraft (Harrier) vertical takeoff.
French and English were in competition for the supply of engines: new Snecma M88, versus development of the RB-199 British Tornado, and the French did not want a double source (engine) on the same plane.
The German will to a light aircraft could match the French program. If the Germans have accepted the British technical choice, it is most likely to benefit from the skills associated with such a program.
Since, especially after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the consortium has realized the importance of a multi-role aircraft, with such ground support (air-ground), available at best in 2018 [ 5 ] and with huge budgets, and some missions (naval version) are impossible (it would review the entire design of the Eurofighter into a plane catobar (catapultable appontant with strands and stop, the U.S. aircraft carriers and French , and the cost is excessive).
By the way, would have been if the Eurofighter Daussault had the cell following the specifications in English and using English engines? Well "a high-performance aircraft in the climb, with little longer and less good evasive skills in Very Low Altitude (and incidentally perhaps no possibility of an operation for Aircraft Carrier)". "This plane could not replace the Jaguar, F-8 and French Mirage F1-CT, it would have been a very serious contender for the Mirage 2000-5 (but more expensive)."
France does not want to reproduce the events of the European missile or Dassault be spoil his skills
In addition, France did not wish to be associated with a project without clear leadership, and to lose the advance of his champion Dassault, following a pattern of ineffective cooperation.
The project management requires an undisputed leadership, project owners and implement clear, otherwise the problems are inevitable. European projects abound that show this need:
Europa rocket (before the success of the Ariane 1) with three floors were divided between countries without common project management
A400M program without leading country, which led to cost overruns and delays that have hit the headlines last two years
Galileo project, where the definition of a non-project management has led to severe spiraling costs and delays, contributing to a delay of several years and of course the Eurofighter program, which also accumulated costs and delays.
But another factor also plays is the presence or absence of rules for real cooperation: collaboration uncontrolled can lead to transfer of skills from the most competent to less competent, while slowing the joint work, thus increasing the time and cost.
See the video (INA, TV news at the time) Interview with Bruno Revellin FALCOZ, General Manager Technical Dassault. .
It is feared that Dassault, and history proved him right: the Eurofighter program has cost more than the Rafale, while leading a flight less efficient and less versatile!
According to Germain Chambost [ 7 ], the British demands for a Rolls Royce engine, upgraded version of Tornado RB199 engine RR penetration, played a decisive role. As this would 're-engine of their Tornado air defense, sometimes qualified "asthmatics" above 20,000 feet (6,000 meters), ie lacking breath, rather annoying feature for devices to respond to high altitude. The British were thus two things at once. Support for Rolls Royce was their creed permanent, their near obsession '. ...
'Even if they are willing to make that Dassault is the prime work of the cell, the British did not give an inch on the rule left to Rolls Royce for the engines. Which condemns the Snecma to become, at best, a subcontractor of the English engine manufacturer, and pass written off almost all work on the M88. '
Because the willingness of Rolls Royce, absolute, to develop an engine of the same size (same diameter) than the RB 199 in order to re-engine the Tornado was perhaps that the official version. The unstated goal could be relegated to the status of the SNECMA subcontractor, while the French engine was very advanced (for extensive studies began in the late 1970s, and Snecma in 1985 had all the elements of M-88 required). But there is still no EJ-200 or derivative in Tornado reactor, and this has not been to the agenda ... [ 8 ] Moreover, if EuroJet 200 has a diameter close to that of RB 199 (Tornado), while 2 cm wider, the reactor with the Eurofighter is 32 cm long (4 m), This is no small thing for an aircraft [ 9 ]. The question is: Rolls Royce could not achieve what he wanted (same dimensions as the Tornado), or it was it qu'affichage?
In any case, the withdrawal of France might sound like a warning shot, and could have resulted in redefining the rules of collaboration, for an aircraft suitable for British and German, with controlled costs.
It is clear that this was not the case, with a Eurofighter both heavy, expensive and less versatile than the Rafale, keyed to the needs (extended) of France.
And "it was essential for Avions Marcel Dassault and Snecma to keep for the future a complete technical know-how of both the engine and the plane"
A plane very responsive French, for a total price reasonable, thanks to this versatility
The least we can say is that the program is successful, with a plane really omnirole, as opposed to only multi-role:
"The versatility of the Rafale will allow a rationalization of the air weapon which, from 1995 to 2030, will increase from more than 650 combat aircraft to 286, as just pointed out the Minister of Defense".
"As an illustration, a Rafale perform the tasks of two Mirage 2000.
French armies then will operate one device for the air force and naval aviation, resulting in significant savings in terms of support, where the English have had two and three Americans! "[ 11 ]
One point that is rarely highlighted: not only the Rafale can be used on 7 different missions, but also a Rafale can perform several tasks during the same output: recognition bombing AND AND dogfight for example, which is to surer (self-protection) and effective. It can even perform two different tasks (air-ground and air to air) at the same time, providing self-protection.
In addition, compatibility with U.S. aircraft carriers (especially with their catapults and their strands arrest) was demonstrated in 2008: six Rafale were able to easily integrate the group's air carrier "Theodore Roosevelt" in As part of the exercise interoperability JTFEX large, organized by the U.S. Navy. This seamless interoperability with U.S. air and naval units and Allied was emphasized by the U.S. Navy. [ 12 ]
'The hundred of aircraft delivered to date can get an idea of "‹"‹its qualities. The Rafale has already participated in two wars (Afghanistan and Libya) and ensures the daily air defense missions (permanent Security Posture) and nuclear deterrence. Its versatility is its strength: it can carry out missions of air-air interception, reconnaissance, ground attack and strategic strikes, from the ground or an aircraft carrier. The only comparable aircraft in the world is the F-18 E / F '
Burst(Rafale), the only real airplane "omnirole" in the world
And again, if the F-18 E and F (Super Hornet) are multi-role (with the two major roles that are aerial combat and ground attack), and swing-role (change roles during the same output) and use on aircraft carriers,
they are less versatile and less powerful than the Rafale (with exceptional data fusion, for example, the internal system and electronic warfare - SPECTRA, which is the basis of the excellent survivability against threats Rafale air to air and surface to air last generation.) [ 14 ] [ 15 ]
and they can not simultaneously fire a missile Mica air-air, and a bomb or a missile guided AASM air-ground ... [ 16 ] [ 17 ]
Positioning are some specialized aircraft on this route / multi-role / swing-role / omni-role, and whether they have a naval version or not.
The Rafale is the most versatile! This is the concept of Dassault aircraft "omnirole": both all roles, but also several roles in the same output [ 20 ], simultaneously. [ 21 ]
This is the paradox for France, the less silver than the United States: we need a fleet cheaply as possible, while having all missions to complete, and can perform several roles at the same time ...
Note, after aircraft built very specialized, the Americans came as the multi-role, and developers of the Eurofighter too!
The United States undertook the same replacement of several aircraft (F-14, A6 Intruder, Lockheed S-3 Viking, KA-6D), the only F / A 18 E, F ("Super Hornet") [ 22 ] , and the EA-18G replaces the EA-6 Prowler. The annual American economy has been estimated at one billion dollars through the replacement. To our knowledge the French economy has not been quantified, but it is perhaps even more important, relatively, since the number of aircraft is also halved, from 600 to less than 300 aircraft.
Incidentally, the F/A-18, like the Rafale, is one of very few had recently developed that satisfy the expected costs (the Rafale close to 4.7%, according to the Court of Accounts (page 68 ), who noted along with the Rafale program was disrupted several times in funding [ 23 ]). While U.S. planes F-22 [ 24 ], C-17, C-130J and F-35 more recently were the subject of significant deviations in cost and time.
Pilots thrilled, whatever their nationality
A major advantage of the Rafale is its ability to merge information from its various sensors providing the pilot a tactical situation unique, easily interpretable, this function is called for FSST "Function Summary of situational awareness." [ 25 ]
And pilots are unanimous testimonies, for all those who have had the opportunity to try it, especially in the testing phases of bidding. For example the Swiss pilots.
Or that British driver (old driver of the Royal Air Force, and who flew in especially aerobatic Red Arrows), reflecting the specialized site "Flightglobal" [ 26 ], with translation in French by " Flight Test : the Dassault Rafale, the ultimate fighter by Peter Collins , "and concludes with these sentences:
"Providing an answer to my own assessment objectives, it is clear that the Rafale actually deserves its designation airplane" omnirole ", even though I've only scratched the extent of its capabilities, in terms sensors and weapons systems. This aircraft offers an astounding level of performance, as befits a camera of the fourth generation and, despite the high complexity and the extreme demand for the output evaluation that I conducted onboard the Rafale, I felt perfectly at ease in this plane, at any time maintaining a full assessment of the situation. If this plane was able to ensure my safety, no doubt he will do the same with Young drivers have to face the Tactical Operations ..
Indeed, the classical definitions associated with the roles to be fulfilled by combat aircraft does little justice to make this aircraft. The Rafale fighter by European excellence and, as such, a true force multiplier. It's just the fighter the best performing and most comprehensive that I have had the opportunity to fly. Deployments in operation are also eloquent. If I had to go to a theater of operation, regardless of the type of mission that is my responsibility, regardless of the opponent, it is clear that I would choose the Rafale. "
On blogs Site "Flight International", the pilot and the editors are adding to it, especially in an article entitled: " Rafale beats F-35 & F-22 in Flight International "which is discussed with dozens of comments.
The F-35 and F-22, "fifth generation", are considered, because of their stealth, and against the Rafale, too expensive and insufficiently armed. The Rafale, like fourth-generation device, is then an excellent competitor, according to the UK site:
This is the crisis and expenses of the Kingdom must be lowered
This is the only device to be offered in European embedded version also
The Rafale has won its definition of device "omnirole"
The Rafale is "Europe's strength-the war-fighter Multiplying" par excellence
That praise from across the Channel, while here the journalists (non-aeronautical) make fun of the device, without knowing anything in military aviation.
See also the conclusion of the Greek F16 pilots, who in 2006 had the opportunity to compare the aircraft (Rafale M F2 standard, while we're at F3) on the Charles de Gaulle: "In the air, the Rafale is very agile, aim for the greek sense of the pilots flying was very different from That of the F16. It Was commented as perfectly stable, with very good response in all speeds and manouvers. Were Very good impressions left by the automatic aussi pilot as well as the Ability of Maintaining very low speed DURING approach, Prior to landing. "
A very positive feedback, Libya
Operations in Libya (2011) have verified the many benefits of Rafale, from the perspective of drivers, "those interviewed clearly adore their plane.
In addition to the avionics "that helps a lot, through a man-machine interface unusual," they appreciate the comfort of their seat and its semi-reclined position, the efficiency of air conditioning in the cockpit (" I've never seen condensation, "said one driver) and the adaptability to the handle side, on which the Rafale replaces the conventional central shaft.
These are not necessarily major aspect, a pilot notes, "but after a few days of fighting high-intensity, a Rafale pilot will be in much better shape as a pilot of another plane. '"
The performance and quality of the Rafale regularly noticed
The availability of Rafale was also excellent "As far as the availability of the Rafale goes, in the duration of 18 outputs, It Was Proved high (94%), while only one flight delayed and WAS in one more There Was a minor technical DURING flight problem. "
And for the tender Indian: 'The performance and quality of the Rafale were regularly noticed during various tenders. For example, for India: the flight evaluations, which took place during the spring and summer of 2010, lasted over a month for each aircraft in contention. Everyone went to the tail single file, the F / A 18 and F 16, Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon finally Mig.
Indian pilots have been busy! All configurations were tested: flight at high altitude, low altitude, in a desert environment, emergency landing, engine shutdown and restart ...
Similarly, the Indians fired weapons, missiles and cannon. They combed through the deployment capabilities of their aircraft maintenance crews and mechanics, with for example, the timing of exposure time-table engines.
Any cancellation of a flight for technical reasons - and it can happen in this kind of evaluation - was taken into account. According to sources, the Rafale and Typhoon have scored valuable points on such criteria. "A potential customer is not only a fighter jet super-efficient, they also want a reliable machine whose operating cost is reasonable at least 30 years," said one expert.
The planes were also in contention to face Indian MiG in simulated dogfights. And for all this to be possible, the Indian pilots had to go in each country concerned to train on simulators and actual flight. Dassault received them on his site at Istres in early 2009, more than a year before the assessments themselves. A real marathon! ' [ 29 ]
If both European aircraft were finally selected in 2011, after such a grueling series of tests, which is a plus for European industry, the Rafale program is also distinguished by its adherence to cost and time (the French Cour des Comptes speaks of a drift of ± 4.7%, compared for example to increase 51.8% for the Tiger helicopter, or + 70% for the Eurofighter).
Delays and additional costs of the Eurofighter
Unlike the Rafale, costs and delays of the Eurofighter [ 30 ] are very important, and the result, in terms of versatility and value-price performance, is unquestionably in favor of the Rafale.
For details on the poor efficiency of cooperation on the Eurofighter, see the excellent paper " The JSF/F-35 in Europe: the price of pragmatism "which here is an excerpt:
"The way of unanimous decision adds to the decision making process. If the signing of an MOU multilateral intergovernmental cohesion increases, it does not prevent the revisions of orders and changes in technical specifications due to national budgetary constraints.
The rule of fair industrial return, while maintaining the industrial skills and jobs on the floor of each Partner State, promotes technical and political haggling, the partners did not hesitate to overestimate their ordering intentions to receive a load larger work.
The multiplication of assembly lines and testing facilities, which ensures an autonomy of maintenance and modernization of the unit, resulting costs and delays.
Moreover, the issue of technology transfer is a major source of tension between business partners. Such transfers generally prove favorable to manufacturers wishing to acquire new technologies. "
Other extracts are included in our article " How to cooperate effectively? Rafale vs Eurofighter Examples and nEUROn ", which also addresses cooperation in contrast set up by Dassault Aviation for the UAV demonstrator" nEUROn ".
We can see, any other choice than the Rafale would have cost much more expensive in French taxpayer.
And if that plane has problems in its marketing, it is also because France is no longer perceived as a few decades ago as an alternative "neutral" to major U.S. & USSR. Which had enabled us to sell Mirages everywhere ... and it is partly this that plays against the Rafale abroad today.
Google-Traduction
Obviously not everything is white or black, on a question like that, so that there has been attempt to focus energies on a single plane. Perhaps he would have been possible to reconcile the approaches, and to balance the interests quite different? It is likely that if there had been more experience of fruitful cooperation, such as Airbus, during discussions in 1985, compromises win / win would have been found.
But, in retrospect, the choice to withdraw from the French consortium in creation has led to an excellent aircraft, efficient, versatile, no real equivalent of the Atlantic, and at a reasonable cost, in spite of the development costs far below those planes U.S..
It is true that export sales of the Rafale are not (yet) to go, but unfortunately they are not extraordinary for the Eurofighter. In our article " The obvious advantages of the Rafale vs Eurofighter ", very complementary, we show that export sales depend in fact, addition of the superpower United States via its home market of Defense (50% of military spending world), previous non-US sales
Different needs between France, Germany and Great Britain
One of the reasons why France has withdrawn from the European consortium in creation (Eurofighter) is that their needs were very extensive, and she wanted a single plane for all its missions, a truly multi-role aircraft, and if possible omnirole:
One of these requirements was the availability of a naval variant of this airplane. Otherwise France was forced to purchase a second aircraft model very expensive and probably American (F-18 Hornet)?
In addition, France wanted a camera "swing-role", that allows to switch roles during an exit. [ 1 ]
And each camp (French Mirage, Tornado vs-British-German-Italian-) wanted to extend his experience and capitalize on weight characteristics similar aircraft already made Mirage Light (8 tons empty, like the American F-16), Tornado heavier (14 tons). [ 2 ]
Or design a single plane for all of these missions was refused by England and Germany, who preferred a model then "Cold War": a pure interceptor (air combat). [ 3 ] [ 4 ]:
the Germans had no reason to buy the naval version of a common plane. They wanted, however a pure interceptor, agile at high altitude, whose characteristics make it impossible for a naval version (such as ducks in the front, that promote agility at high altitude but prohibit landing on an aircraft carrier; and navalisation Typhoon is a possibility of near impossibility), they wanted a plane above all light (<10t.) to operate above the front line.
the English wanted the carrying capacity of an interceptor ocean, and no naval version of everything: their aircraft carriers without catapults were not required for aircraft (Harrier) vertical takeoff.
French and English were in competition for the supply of engines: new Snecma M88, versus development of the RB-199 British Tornado, and the French did not want a double source (engine) on the same plane.
The German will to a light aircraft could match the French program. If the Germans have accepted the British technical choice, it is most likely to benefit from the skills associated with such a program.
Since, especially after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the consortium has realized the importance of a multi-role aircraft, with such ground support (air-ground), available at best in 2018 [ 5 ] and with huge budgets, and some missions (naval version) are impossible (it would review the entire design of the Eurofighter into a plane catobar (catapultable appontant with strands and stop, the U.S. aircraft carriers and French , and the cost is excessive).
By the way, would have been if the Eurofighter Daussault had the cell following the specifications in English and using English engines? Well "a high-performance aircraft in the climb, with little longer and less good evasive skills in Very Low Altitude (and incidentally perhaps no possibility of an operation for Aircraft Carrier)". "This plane could not replace the Jaguar, F-8 and French Mirage F1-CT, it would have been a very serious contender for the Mirage 2000-5 (but more expensive)."
France does not want to reproduce the events of the European missile or Dassault be spoil his skills
In addition, France did not wish to be associated with a project without clear leadership, and to lose the advance of his champion Dassault, following a pattern of ineffective cooperation.
The project management requires an undisputed leadership, project owners and implement clear, otherwise the problems are inevitable. European projects abound that show this need:
Europa rocket (before the success of the Ariane 1) with three floors were divided between countries without common project management
A400M program without leading country, which led to cost overruns and delays that have hit the headlines last two years
Galileo project, where the definition of a non-project management has led to severe spiraling costs and delays, contributing to a delay of several years and of course the Eurofighter program, which also accumulated costs and delays.
But another factor also plays is the presence or absence of rules for real cooperation: collaboration uncontrolled can lead to transfer of skills from the most competent to less competent, while slowing the joint work, thus increasing the time and cost.
See the video (INA, TV news at the time) Interview with Bruno Revellin FALCOZ, General Manager Technical Dassault. .
It is feared that Dassault, and history proved him right: the Eurofighter program has cost more than the Rafale, while leading a flight less efficient and less versatile!
According to Germain Chambost [ 7 ], the British demands for a Rolls Royce engine, upgraded version of Tornado RB199 engine RR penetration, played a decisive role. As this would 're-engine of their Tornado air defense, sometimes qualified "asthmatics" above 20,000 feet (6,000 meters), ie lacking breath, rather annoying feature for devices to respond to high altitude. The British were thus two things at once. Support for Rolls Royce was their creed permanent, their near obsession '. ...
'Even if they are willing to make that Dassault is the prime work of the cell, the British did not give an inch on the rule left to Rolls Royce for the engines. Which condemns the Snecma to become, at best, a subcontractor of the English engine manufacturer, and pass written off almost all work on the M88. '
Because the willingness of Rolls Royce, absolute, to develop an engine of the same size (same diameter) than the RB 199 in order to re-engine the Tornado was perhaps that the official version. The unstated goal could be relegated to the status of the SNECMA subcontractor, while the French engine was very advanced (for extensive studies began in the late 1970s, and Snecma in 1985 had all the elements of M-88 required). But there is still no EJ-200 or derivative in Tornado reactor, and this has not been to the agenda ... [ 8 ] Moreover, if EuroJet 200 has a diameter close to that of RB 199 (Tornado), while 2 cm wider, the reactor with the Eurofighter is 32 cm long (4 m), This is no small thing for an aircraft [ 9 ]. The question is: Rolls Royce could not achieve what he wanted (same dimensions as the Tornado), or it was it qu'affichage?
In any case, the withdrawal of France might sound like a warning shot, and could have resulted in redefining the rules of collaboration, for an aircraft suitable for British and German, with controlled costs.
It is clear that this was not the case, with a Eurofighter both heavy, expensive and less versatile than the Rafale, keyed to the needs (extended) of France.
And "it was essential for Avions Marcel Dassault and Snecma to keep for the future a complete technical know-how of both the engine and the plane"
A plane very responsive French, for a total price reasonable, thanks to this versatility
The least we can say is that the program is successful, with a plane really omnirole, as opposed to only multi-role:
"The versatility of the Rafale will allow a rationalization of the air weapon which, from 1995 to 2030, will increase from more than 650 combat aircraft to 286, as just pointed out the Minister of Defense".
"As an illustration, a Rafale perform the tasks of two Mirage 2000.
French armies then will operate one device for the air force and naval aviation, resulting in significant savings in terms of support, where the English have had two and three Americans! "[ 11 ]
One point that is rarely highlighted: not only the Rafale can be used on 7 different missions, but also a Rafale can perform several tasks during the same output: recognition bombing AND AND dogfight for example, which is to surer (self-protection) and effective. It can even perform two different tasks (air-ground and air to air) at the same time, providing self-protection.
In addition, compatibility with U.S. aircraft carriers (especially with their catapults and their strands arrest) was demonstrated in 2008: six Rafale were able to easily integrate the group's air carrier "Theodore Roosevelt" in As part of the exercise interoperability JTFEX large, organized by the U.S. Navy. This seamless interoperability with U.S. air and naval units and Allied was emphasized by the U.S. Navy. [ 12 ]
'The hundred of aircraft delivered to date can get an idea of "‹"‹its qualities. The Rafale has already participated in two wars (Afghanistan and Libya) and ensures the daily air defense missions (permanent Security Posture) and nuclear deterrence. Its versatility is its strength: it can carry out missions of air-air interception, reconnaissance, ground attack and strategic strikes, from the ground or an aircraft carrier. The only comparable aircraft in the world is the F-18 E / F '
Burst(Rafale), the only real airplane "omnirole" in the world
And again, if the F-18 E and F (Super Hornet) are multi-role (with the two major roles that are aerial combat and ground attack), and swing-role (change roles during the same output) and use on aircraft carriers,
they are less versatile and less powerful than the Rafale (with exceptional data fusion, for example, the internal system and electronic warfare - SPECTRA, which is the basis of the excellent survivability against threats Rafale air to air and surface to air last generation.) [ 14 ] [ 15 ]
and they can not simultaneously fire a missile Mica air-air, and a bomb or a missile guided AASM air-ground ... [ 16 ] [ 17 ]
Positioning are some specialized aircraft on this route / multi-role / swing-role / omni-role, and whether they have a naval version or not.
The Rafale is the most versatile! This is the concept of Dassault aircraft "omnirole": both all roles, but also several roles in the same output [ 20 ], simultaneously. [ 21 ]
This is the paradox for France, the less silver than the United States: we need a fleet cheaply as possible, while having all missions to complete, and can perform several roles at the same time ...
Note, after aircraft built very specialized, the Americans came as the multi-role, and developers of the Eurofighter too!
The United States undertook the same replacement of several aircraft (F-14, A6 Intruder, Lockheed S-3 Viking, KA-6D), the only F / A 18 E, F ("Super Hornet") [ 22 ] , and the EA-18G replaces the EA-6 Prowler. The annual American economy has been estimated at one billion dollars through the replacement. To our knowledge the French economy has not been quantified, but it is perhaps even more important, relatively, since the number of aircraft is also halved, from 600 to less than 300 aircraft.
Incidentally, the F/A-18, like the Rafale, is one of very few had recently developed that satisfy the expected costs (the Rafale close to 4.7%, according to the Court of Accounts (page 68 ), who noted along with the Rafale program was disrupted several times in funding [ 23 ]). While U.S. planes F-22 [ 24 ], C-17, C-130J and F-35 more recently were the subject of significant deviations in cost and time.
Pilots thrilled, whatever their nationality
A major advantage of the Rafale is its ability to merge information from its various sensors providing the pilot a tactical situation unique, easily interpretable, this function is called for FSST "Function Summary of situational awareness." [ 25 ]
And pilots are unanimous testimonies, for all those who have had the opportunity to try it, especially in the testing phases of bidding. For example the Swiss pilots.
Or that British driver (old driver of the Royal Air Force, and who flew in especially aerobatic Red Arrows), reflecting the specialized site "Flightglobal" [ 26 ], with translation in French by " Flight Test : the Dassault Rafale, the ultimate fighter by Peter Collins , "and concludes with these sentences:
"Providing an answer to my own assessment objectives, it is clear that the Rafale actually deserves its designation airplane" omnirole ", even though I've only scratched the extent of its capabilities, in terms sensors and weapons systems. This aircraft offers an astounding level of performance, as befits a camera of the fourth generation and, despite the high complexity and the extreme demand for the output evaluation that I conducted onboard the Rafale, I felt perfectly at ease in this plane, at any time maintaining a full assessment of the situation. If this plane was able to ensure my safety, no doubt he will do the same with Young drivers have to face the Tactical Operations ..
Indeed, the classical definitions associated with the roles to be fulfilled by combat aircraft does little justice to make this aircraft. The Rafale fighter by European excellence and, as such, a true force multiplier. It's just the fighter the best performing and most comprehensive that I have had the opportunity to fly. Deployments in operation are also eloquent. If I had to go to a theater of operation, regardless of the type of mission that is my responsibility, regardless of the opponent, it is clear that I would choose the Rafale. "
On blogs Site "Flight International", the pilot and the editors are adding to it, especially in an article entitled: " Rafale beats F-35 & F-22 in Flight International "which is discussed with dozens of comments.
The F-35 and F-22, "fifth generation", are considered, because of their stealth, and against the Rafale, too expensive and insufficiently armed. The Rafale, like fourth-generation device, is then an excellent competitor, according to the UK site:
This is the crisis and expenses of the Kingdom must be lowered
This is the only device to be offered in European embedded version also
The Rafale has won its definition of device "omnirole"
The Rafale is "Europe's strength-the war-fighter Multiplying" par excellence
That praise from across the Channel, while here the journalists (non-aeronautical) make fun of the device, without knowing anything in military aviation.
See also the conclusion of the Greek F16 pilots, who in 2006 had the opportunity to compare the aircraft (Rafale M F2 standard, while we're at F3) on the Charles de Gaulle: "In the air, the Rafale is very agile, aim for the greek sense of the pilots flying was very different from That of the F16. It Was commented as perfectly stable, with very good response in all speeds and manouvers. Were Very good impressions left by the automatic aussi pilot as well as the Ability of Maintaining very low speed DURING approach, Prior to landing. "
A very positive feedback, Libya
Operations in Libya (2011) have verified the many benefits of Rafale, from the perspective of drivers, "those interviewed clearly adore their plane.
In addition to the avionics "that helps a lot, through a man-machine interface unusual," they appreciate the comfort of their seat and its semi-reclined position, the efficiency of air conditioning in the cockpit (" I've never seen condensation, "said one driver) and the adaptability to the handle side, on which the Rafale replaces the conventional central shaft.
These are not necessarily major aspect, a pilot notes, "but after a few days of fighting high-intensity, a Rafale pilot will be in much better shape as a pilot of another plane. '"
The performance and quality of the Rafale regularly noticed
The availability of Rafale was also excellent "As far as the availability of the Rafale goes, in the duration of 18 outputs, It Was Proved high (94%), while only one flight delayed and WAS in one more There Was a minor technical DURING flight problem. "
And for the tender Indian: 'The performance and quality of the Rafale were regularly noticed during various tenders. For example, for India: the flight evaluations, which took place during the spring and summer of 2010, lasted over a month for each aircraft in contention. Everyone went to the tail single file, the F / A 18 and F 16, Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon finally Mig.
Indian pilots have been busy! All configurations were tested: flight at high altitude, low altitude, in a desert environment, emergency landing, engine shutdown and restart ...
Similarly, the Indians fired weapons, missiles and cannon. They combed through the deployment capabilities of their aircraft maintenance crews and mechanics, with for example, the timing of exposure time-table engines.
Any cancellation of a flight for technical reasons - and it can happen in this kind of evaluation - was taken into account. According to sources, the Rafale and Typhoon have scored valuable points on such criteria. "A potential customer is not only a fighter jet super-efficient, they also want a reliable machine whose operating cost is reasonable at least 30 years," said one expert.
The planes were also in contention to face Indian MiG in simulated dogfights. And for all this to be possible, the Indian pilots had to go in each country concerned to train on simulators and actual flight. Dassault received them on his site at Istres in early 2009, more than a year before the assessments themselves. A real marathon! ' [ 29 ]
If both European aircraft were finally selected in 2011, after such a grueling series of tests, which is a plus for European industry, the Rafale program is also distinguished by its adherence to cost and time (the French Cour des Comptes speaks of a drift of ± 4.7%, compared for example to increase 51.8% for the Tiger helicopter, or + 70% for the Eurofighter).
Delays and additional costs of the Eurofighter
Unlike the Rafale, costs and delays of the Eurofighter [ 30 ] are very important, and the result, in terms of versatility and value-price performance, is unquestionably in favor of the Rafale.
For details on the poor efficiency of cooperation on the Eurofighter, see the excellent paper " The JSF/F-35 in Europe: the price of pragmatism "which here is an excerpt:
"The way of unanimous decision adds to the decision making process. If the signing of an MOU multilateral intergovernmental cohesion increases, it does not prevent the revisions of orders and changes in technical specifications due to national budgetary constraints.
The rule of fair industrial return, while maintaining the industrial skills and jobs on the floor of each Partner State, promotes technical and political haggling, the partners did not hesitate to overestimate their ordering intentions to receive a load larger work.
The multiplication of assembly lines and testing facilities, which ensures an autonomy of maintenance and modernization of the unit, resulting costs and delays.
Moreover, the issue of technology transfer is a major source of tension between business partners. Such transfers generally prove favorable to manufacturers wishing to acquire new technologies. "
Other extracts are included in our article " How to cooperate effectively? Rafale vs Eurofighter Examples and nEUROn ", which also addresses cooperation in contrast set up by Dassault Aviation for the UAV demonstrator" nEUROn ".
We can see, any other choice than the Rafale would have cost much more expensive in French taxpayer.
And if that plane has problems in its marketing, it is also because France is no longer perceived as a few decades ago as an alternative "neutral" to major U.S. & USSR. Which had enabled us to sell Mirages everywhere ... and it is partly this that plays against the Rafale abroad today.
Google-Traduction
Last edited:
