"Mike" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Brooks" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
"Mike" wrote in message
...
Certainly for this last point,but because of money,and never because of
technics.
This program (Rafale),has never had any of the numerous problems of the
typhoon,still going on...
So maybe we can think we were right not to gor for it....

If it is so much better than Typhoon,

Did I say it was better than Typhoon?
These are two quite good aircrafts,differents,Rafale is better for this,and
Typhoon for that.
I did not say it was better,but that Typhoon has had really many technical
difficulties,what is
absolutely not true for the Rafale program.

None whatsoever? That would be a first...let's see:

+ Original flights had to be conducted with alternate engines (GE
F404-400's) because the SNECMA M88's were behind schedule.

+ "In the case of Rafale, the justification of the qualification of
this flight is the French government's guarantee, but we have to know
that Dassault is still developing the air-to-ground function for the
Rafale and they are not ready to deliver to customers for some years,"
he said. "French newspapers, including Le Parisien, also raised some
engine problems with the proposed Rafale fighters."
www.clw.org/atop/newswire/nw083101.html

Sometimes it is easy to say there are "no problems" when you in fact
are talking about an aircraft that does not even *exist* yet, as
is/was the case with a true "multi-role" Rafale.

The only difficulties we've had with it are financial.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Your financial problems can
be linked to lack of success in the export market (ironic, since one
of the reasons that France bailed *out* of the joint Eurofighter
program early on in favor of pursuing Rafale was that it wanted a more
marketable aircraft--only to see Typhoon beat it out in export sales
to date), and the lack of export sales is a reflection of the fact
that customers are (a) not impressed with being offered a multi-role
product that has yet to prove multi-role capability, and (b) see
problems that you claim don't exist.

As Defense Systems Daily phrased it back in July 2001:

"Now, there tends to be a rule of thumb: if there are that many
changes in a programme, then wait until the home customer has taken
delivery of the system and has discovered all the bugs. This could
mean that potential clients wait until well after 2005 before looking
at Rafale."


Both are late,Typhoon because of technics,Rafale because of money.
So we can think we may have been right,but that can be discussed,i
agree.Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
Typhoon is an interceptor.

Whoah there. Typhoon is every bit as multi-role as is Rafale. Both are
really in the "unproven" category as far as multi-role is concerned.

I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a good
multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.

Which is why Typhoon *is* a multi-role platform.

Finally,having difficulties in exporting an aircraft does absolutely not
mean it's a bad one.Look at what happened in Korea for an example.

OK, let's do that. The ROKAF turned down an offer of a Rafale that as
of then was completely unproven as a true multi-role platform in favor
of an advanced derivitive of an already proven multi-role platform
that, oh-by-the-way, happened to also offer greater commonality with
its most important military ally, and at least one ROK insider
commented about concerns over the Rafale engines (hey, that seems to
be a growing factor--ISTR Dassault has laso now offered an uprated
powerplant option to Singapore after they also expressed some concern
over Rafale power availability). Does this mean that Rafale is "bad"?
No. But it sure does not support the idea that it is supposedly any
*better* than other offerings that are available, either.

Brooks


why, despite repeated attempts,
has it not yet received an export order, even losing out to Typhoon in
a couple of competitive selections IIRC? One major reason that France
has difficulty affording rafale is the distinct lack of export success
(exports would drop the unit cost of the aircraft the French want to
buy for themselves). It appears that the Singapore competition is the
rafale's last major opportunity to redress this problem (especially as
the Brazilian F-X program is now more or less moribund); I'd imagine
the various competitors are keeping a close eye on that situation in
light of the rather dubious marketing ploys Dassault attempted during
the ROKAF competition that was eventually lost to the F-15K.

Brooks





"Kevin Brooks" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
"Steve Davies" wrote in message
...
According to the Times article, France is still buying the jet (but
there's
no mention of Spain!). Can this be true? Shoddy work, surely?!

Shoddy work? You mean shoddy as to the article, or the airplane...?

It is rather surprising that the paper decided to have France
participate in the program and procure the aircraft so many years
after it bailed when it became apparent that the Rafale-route was not
going to be chosen path of the consortium, especially as France has
experienced significant difficulty in funding the still rather paltry
procurement of Rafale to date!

Brooks


--
Steve Davies
snip