Is Rafale dead?

[Charles Talleyrand]

I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with an option of
20 more. However, I have read on the web that Dassault is to deliver 1 Rafale
this year, and only 4 next year. I have also read that there are only 13
operational Rafales with the French Military.

The slow speed of deliveries is not a start up effect. The contract for the
initial 13 aircraft was signed in 1997 (six years ago).

Will the Rafale ever become the mainstay of the French military?
What's the status of the Rafale?
Can anyone add more data.

http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/topstor02.htm

-Thanks

P.S. Anti-French jokes stopped being funny after the first few hundred.

[Ragnar]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with an option
of
> 20 more. However, I have read on the web that Dassault is to deliver 1
Rafale
> this year, and only 4 next year. I have also read that there are only 13
> operational Rafales with the French Military.
>
> The slow speed of deliveries is not a start up effect. The contract for
the
> initial 13 aircraft was signed in 1997 (six years ago).
>
> Will the Rafale ever become the mainstay of the French military?
> What's the status of the Rafale?
> Can anyone add more data.

The French don't actually need a lot of combat aircraft. They get other
people to do the work.

[tscottme]

Ragnar > wrote in message
...

>
> The French don't actually need a lot of combat aircraft. They get
other
> people to do the work.
>

....or just practice speaking German while on one of their two 6th month
vacations each year. Did they ever retaliate for the Limburg attack?

--

Scott
--------
Monitor the latest efforts of "peaceful Muslims" at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[Skysurfer]

Ragnar wrote :

> The French don't actually need a lot of combat aircraft. They get
> other people to do the work.

Our helicopters were welcomed to do *your job* to save American
citizens from Liberia while you were preparing war to find those very
dangerous weapons of mass destruction in Irak.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-09-liberia-evac_x.htm
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/6045007.htm

[Ragnar]

"Skysurfer" > wrote in message
. 0.32...
> Ragnar wrote :
>
> > The French don't actually need a lot of combat aircraft. They get
> > other people to do the work.
>
> Our helicopters were welcomed to do *your job* to save American
> citizens from Liberia while you were preparing war to find those very
> dangerous weapons of mass destruction in Irak.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-09-liberia-evac_x.htm
> http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/6045007.htm

Congratulations. You could do a perfectly safe op - airlifting passengers
in total safety - while your betters were doing the heavy lifting uner fire
in Iraq. Seems to me that you do the jobs you were qualified for.

[Skysurfer]

Ragnar wrote :

> Congratulations. You could do a perfectly safe op - airlifting
> passengers in total safety - while your betters were doing the
> heavy lifting uner fire in Iraq. Seems to me that you do the jobs
> you were qualified for.

Why should have we gone to Irak ? Oh yes I know, help to find those
WMD that Collin Powell showed us at the UN and you cannot find 8
months later ...

--
http://www.topos.org/rumsfeld.html

[Thomas Schoene]

Skysurfer wrote:
> Charles Talleyrand wrote :
>
>> I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with
>> an option of 20 more. However, I have read on the web that
>> Dassault is to deliver 1 Rafale this year, and only 4 next year.
>> I have also read that there are only 13 operational Rafales with
>> the French Military.
>
> I think the french govt has ordered about 300 Rafale.

Well, it has announced plans to order this many. However, actual orders are
120 thus far, plus 76 fairly firm projected orders in the 2003-08 budget
plan, for a total of about 200. The additional 100 will come after 2008,
and are obviously rather speculative.

http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/topstor02.htm


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[nemo]

>
> The French don't actually need a lot of combat aircraft. They get other
> people to do the work.
>
> YEah, they just hire stupid enough guy toi fight fot ****...

[J]

If your not french, no one cares.

[pcg]

> The 13 already operationnal Rafales are all in the French Navy.

Not exactly : 10 Rafale M, 2 B and 1 C have been delivered to the Navy and
the Air Force, but 9 M are operationnal in the Navy, the others are used by
Dassault for development.

[Jim Herring]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> P.S. Anti-French jokes stopped being funny after the first few hundred.

Just what made you think they were jokes?

--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[nemo]

Your stuborness...

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message .net...
> Skysurfer wrote:
> > Charles Talleyrand wrote :
> >
> >> I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with
> >> an option of 20 more. However, I have read on the web that
> >> Dassault is to deliver 1 Rafale this year, and only 4 next year.
> >> I have also read that there are only 13 operational Rafales with
> >> the French Military.
> >
> Well, it has announced plans to order this many. However, actual orders are
> 120 thus far, plus 76 fairly firm projected orders in the 2003-08 budget
> plan, for a total of about 200. The additional 100 will come after 2008,
> and are obviously rather speculative.

Yes, but the verty slow rate of delivery makes me wonder about the
program. They will have delivered 18 Rafales in the eight years between
1997 and 2005. That's only 2.25 aircraft per year.

Sure, they plan to ramp up production. But their original plans never said
18 aircraft in 8 years, so I have doubts about the current plans to. Can
anyone comment on this?
>
> http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/topstor02.htm
>
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[Mike]

Those aditionnal 100 are not so speculative.


"Thomas Schoene" > a écrit dans le message de
news: . ..
> Skysurfer wrote:
> > Charles Talleyrand wrote :
> >
> >> I understand that the order to Dassault is for 28 aircraft, with
> >> an option of 20 more. However, I have read on the web that
> >> Dassault is to deliver 1 Rafale this year, and only 4 next year.
> >> I have also read that there are only 13 operational Rafales with
> >> the French Military.
> >
> > I think the french govt has ordered about 300 Rafale.
>
> Well, it has announced plans to order this many. However, actual orders
are
> 120 thus far, plus 76 fairly firm projected orders in the 2003-08 budget
> plan, for a total of about 200. The additional 100 will come after 2008,
> and are obviously rather speculative.
>
> http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/topstor02.htm
>
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[Mike]

Is F.22 dead?If you're not american,no one cares...
Is "Dreamliner" (pfff!what a name!) dead?If you'are not american,no one
cares...
Is LCA dead?If you're not indian,no one cares....
Is Su.35 dead,if you're not russian,no one cares...

With such a logic,why not to make a newsgroup for each country,where one can
speak about planes from its own country,and only about those...




"J" > a écrit dans le message de news:
. ..
> If your not french, no one cares.
>
>

[Pechs1]

mmaq-<< Is F.22 dead?If you're not american,no one cares >><BR><BR>

It's not quite dead, The JSF would not exist w/o it, which is a more probable
french CV A/C than the rafale...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[pcg]

> Sure, they plan to ramp up production. But their original plans never
said
> 18 aircraft in 8 years, so I have doubts about the current plans to. Can
> anyone comment on this?

Production line is ready to assemble about 10 aircrafts a year, but Dassault
respects the gov plan by staging costs (hence the higher costs per
aircraft... : a traditional french budget problem....) : it's only a defense
budget issue.

On this page you can see the deliveries calendar to the French Navy :
http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/rafale/rafale_fr.htm
("Calendrier des livraisons (1999-2012)")

[WaltBJ]

IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
Walt BJ

[Bill Kambic]

Most of the "wise cracks" about the U.S. position vis-a-vis the world in the
late '30s demonstrate a remarkable combination of arrogance and ignorance.

For most American opinion makers the experiences of U.S. participation in
WWI were less than satisfactory. The monumental ineptitude of French and
British commanders was memorialized in a series of post-War flicks (such as
"All Quiet on the Western Front"). The writing of men like Hemmingway had
stripped the glory from war. The general attitude was if the foolish
Europeans want to slaughter each other in vast numbers, God bless 'em.

It was clear to the U.S. administration that war in Europe was inevitable
and that U.S. interests would demand U.S. participation. Given the general
population's feelings, any governmental action (particularly during
Depression era times) had to be considered.

Actions there were. In fact, every major U.S. combat aircraft of WWII was
conceived and the prototypes at least on the drawing board by the end of
1940. That year also saw the passage of the first peacetime draft in U.S.
history, the Two Ocean Navy Act, and Lend-Lease. A very late start in the
deveopment of armored vehicles and doctrine was being addressed. The
foundations of the Arsenal of Democracy were being laid.

The Japanese ended American political divisions on "the war question."

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
> BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
> anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
> Walt BJ

[Paul F Austin]

"WaltBJ" wrote
> IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
> BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
> anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.

It's not dead but it is very ill, for lack of foreign military sales. France
alone can't manage Rafale procurement at a rate that would give them a
viable force in reasonable time, not when she is funding the A400M, a new
carrier, procurement of the fourth Triomphant.. All those things are also in
competition with social security funding as the French population ages.

[Tony Volk]

> True. On the other hand the US Congress actually refused to
> sell weapons to Britain and France at a very critical moment.

With this timely bit of information, I'm going to thank Emmanuel for
reminding us what this thread was about and leave my comments to stand as
they are. This isn't alt.political.historical.contemporary.war.morals, and
I'm certainly not an expert on such. Thanks for the details on the Rafale
Emmanuel,

Tony

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message ...
>
> "WaltBJ" wrote
> > IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
> > BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
> > anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
>
> It's not dead but it is very ill, for lack of foreign military sales. France
> alone can't manage Rafale procurement at a rate that would give them a
> viable force in reasonable time, not when she is funding the A400M, a new
> carrier, procurement of the fourth Triomphant.. All those things are also in
> competition with social security funding as the French population ages.

It seems very unlikely that the Rafale will *ever* have a foreign
military sale. The best chance is 25 years from now when France wants
to upgrade, and the planes are both used and cheap. Or maybe politics
can force someone like Taiwan to buy them (but I doubt it).

Seriously, it's hard to imagine the nation that would pick the Rafale
when the Typhoon and the F-16/18 are available.

[Thomas Schoene]

Mike wrote:
> Those aditionnal 100 are not so speculative.

Until they're included in a current budget cycle, I'm inclined to call them
speculative. Plenty of planned systems have not been bought under similar
situations.

Please note that my skepticism has nothing to do with France or Rafale in
particular.* It's just the nature of defense procurement worldwide that
anything in the outyears, especially past five years, is always subject to
change. To assume anything past the current five-year budget cycle for any
military is a certainty is unwarranted optimism, IMO. And even the
five-year plans are never cast in stone.

* Indeed, I'm disgusted by the anti-French bigotry (verging on racism)
displayed by some posters here.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message ...
> "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
>
> Rafale is alive, but the French are more or less skipping
> the first 'series' of Rafales. Only a dozen production aircraft
> (two for the air force, ten for the Navy) were built to 'F1'
> standard, basically air-air capability only. Just enough to
> create a naval 'Flotille' for the 'Charles de Gaulle' and
> support further development.
>
> The main production is now planned to be of upgraded
> versions. Rafales to the 'F2' standard, with air-ground
> capability, will enter service in 2004, with initial operation
> capability in 2006.

This is a pretty horrible procurment strategy. It's basically ...

Research a new design
Build 13 of them
Let the design age for ten years
Update the radar software (and possibly uprate the engines)
Go into series production

Boy, I hope someone in France is regretting not signing onto the
Eurofighter deal. Almost anything would be better than the current
Rafale situation.

The final 198 Rafales for the air force
> and 35 for the Navy are to be to the final multi-role 'F3'
> standard, delivered from 2008 onwards. Then, all older
> Rafales will be upgraded to 'F3' standard.
>
> So the entry in production of Rafale is shifted into the future;
> the Mirage 2000 will serve longer. Some of the delay can be
> caused by requested modifications (significantly, after the 1991
> Gulf War, the French decided that the majority of the Rafales
> will have a seat for a WSO) but the main motive is probably
> purely financial, the French budgettary situation isn't very
> healthy at the moment.
>
> But I suspect that this is a pattern we will see more and more
> in combat aircraft development. The time when an air force
> could afford to buy models with limited capability and put
> them in stock or upgrade them afterwards, is past.
>
> > BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
> > anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
>
> True. On the other hand the US Congress actually refused to
> sell weapons to Britain and France at a very critical moment.
>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet dot be
> Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>

[AL]

I don't think it is just in defense procurement. In nearly all aspects
of corporate life. Though with a shorter horizon.

Thomas Schoene wrote:

>Please note that my skepticism has nothing to do with France or Rafale in
>particular.* It's just the nature of defense procurement worldwide that
>anything in the outyears, especially past five years, is always subject to
>change. To assume anything past the current five-year budget cycle for any
>military is a certainty is unwarranted optimism, IMO. And even the
>five-year plans are never cast in stone.
>
>* Indeed, I'm disgusted by the anti-French bigotry (verging on racism)
>displayed by some posters here.
>
>--
>Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
>"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
>special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
AL
New anti-terrorism tool, "Fly naked"
http://www.alfredivy.per.sg

[Kevin Brooks]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "WaltBJ" wrote
> > > IS the Rafale dead? Nobody answered the question.
> > > BTW the US armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, didn't have
> > > anything to fight with in 1941, let alone 1939. Look it up.
> >
> > It's not dead but it is very ill, for lack of foreign military sales.
France
> > alone can't manage Rafale procurement at a rate that would give them a
> > viable force in reasonable time, not when she is funding the A400M, a
new
> > carrier, procurement of the fourth Triomphant.. All those things are
also in
> > competition with social security funding as the French population ages.
>
> It seems very unlikely that the Rafale will *ever* have a foreign
> military sale. The best chance is 25 years from now when France wants
> to upgrade, and the planes are both used and cheap. Or maybe politics
> can force someone like Taiwan to buy them (but I doubt it).

In the case of Taiwan, politics are what would prevent any possible sale of
Rafale. IIRC the French said "uncle" after their last sale of Mirage 2000's
to Taiwan (back when the US was reluctant to provide the F-16) provoked the
ire of the PRC. ISTR France decided then to promise not to sell further
advanced weapons to Taiwan lest they lose out on (potentially) more
lucrative sales of goods to the PRC.

>
> Seriously, it's hard to imagine the nation that would pick the Rafale
> when the Typhoon and the F-16/18 are available.

I suspect that part of Rafale's problem is the perception (mostly
unjustified) of lukewarm interest in it from the French forces themselves,
which is really more of a budgeting problem. It is not a bad airplane, but
the sluggish pace of development, coupled with past overly-optimistic and
premature pronouncements regarding its capabilities (i.e., trying to sell it
as a first-rate multi-role platform when it was still just emerging as a
single role performer) during sales attempts to various nations, have
repeatedly left it in the "also ran" category. Add to that the fact that a
couple of the nations where it has been marketed were more interested in
acheiving/maintaining interoperability with US forces than they were with
French forces. I'd guess that Brazil was their best hope for an export sale,
but last I heard that competition has again been delayed due to money
concerns.

There has been some high-level talk in the recent past of India entering
into a coproduction deal with Dassault on the Mirage 2000-9. If you take the
recent reports of Indian dissatisfaction with the Su-30 into account, and
the potential impact upon plans to coproduce those aircraft in India, the
possibility of the Indians changing horses midstream and maybe looking at
Rafale as its premier future platform is a bit intriguing--rather unlikely
as of yet, but still...

Brooks
>
>

[Jim Herring]

nemo wrote:

> Your stuborness...

Let's see. You call yourself "nemo". That must be from a brightly
colored fish that flaunts itself and then yells help and retreats from
danger to the arms of a sea anemone for protection. Um, that sounds
french. It sure isn't a fictional submarine captain with some ethics.
As, that wouldn't be french.

--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mike]

Okay with you,it often happens like that...
But in this particular case,I don't think it will be.
Relations between the govt and Dassault are very special in France.Most of
the time (everytime),
the initial number of fighters ordered have been purchased to the last
one;Mirage 2000,F.1,III,and even more in some cases.
It is not rare that the budget changes everything as years go by,in France
like anywhere else.But very rare for Dassault.
The reduction from +/-320 to +/-285 has already been made.Dassault refused
to reduce it more because of the unit cost,
threatning to abandon the program...What I think S.Dassault could have
done.He has received all the guarantees that the number
won't be lowered.And it won't be unless a very strong economic crisis.
Still,the Armée de l'Air needs them,and the Marine seems to need even more
of them if its new carrier is larger than the CDG,and it
could be.

(Thank you for the precisions about "France bashing",it is useful here...
and sorry for my english...!)



"Thomas Schoene" > a écrit dans le message de
news: et...
> Mike wrote:
> > Those aditionnal 100 are not so speculative.
>
> Until they're included in a current budget cycle, I'm inclined to call
them
> speculative. Plenty of planned systems have not been bought under similar
> situations.
>
> Please note that my skepticism has nothing to do with France or Rafale in
> particular.* It's just the nature of defense procurement worldwide that
> anything in the outyears, especially past five years, is always subject to
> change. To assume anything past the current five-year budget cycle for
any
> military is a certainty is unwarranted optimism, IMO. And even the
> five-year plans are never cast in stone.
>
> * Indeed, I'm disgusted by the anti-French bigotry (verging on racism)
> displayed by some posters here.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[Mike]

Bla bla bla...


"Jim Herring" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> nemo wrote:
>
> > Your stuborness...
>
> Let's see. You call yourself "nemo". That must be from a brightly
> colored fish that flaunts itself and then yells help and retreats from
> danger to the arms of a sea anemone for protection. Um, that sounds
> french. It sure isn't a fictional submarine captain with some ethics.
> As, that wouldn't be french.
>
> --
> Jim
>
> carry on
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Jim Herring" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> nemo wrote:
>
> > Your stuborness...
>
> Let's see. You call yourself "nemo". That must be from a brightly
> colored fish that flaunts itself and then yells help and retreats from
> danger to the arms of a sea anemone for protection.

No, that must from the latin "nemo" for "nobody".

> Um, that sounds french. It sure isn't a fictional submarine captain with
some ethics.
> As, that wouldn't be french.

A smartass devoid of any cultural knowledge which has to retreat to cartoon
movies to find arguments. Um, that sounds american.

Don't worry Jim, I'm sure some day Disney will make a movie which will
enable you to learn a few latin words.

Cheers from Paris,
--
Pierre-Henri Baras
___________________________
French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net

Encyclopédie de l'Aviation
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:03:31 -0600, Jim Herring
> allegedly uttered:

>nemo wrote:
>
>> Your stuborness...
>
>Let's see. You call yourself "nemo". That must be from a brightly
>colored fish that flaunts itself and then yells help and retreats from
>danger to the arms of a sea anemone for protection. Um, that sounds
>french.

Uhh no. Nemo is a US written and produced picture.

> It sure isn't a fictional submarine captain with some ethics.
>As, that wouldn't be french.

And again you're of the mark - you may not be aware, but the author of
20k leagues under the sea was, in fact, French. And one of the most
successful author of his time.

But don't let that get in the way of your blind hatred of the French,
not your ad homeneim attacks based on a posters posting name.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[nemo]

Go and learn latin language...and you will perhaps, if you get more than
a neurone, what's mean Nemo

[nemo]

Mike wrote:
> Bla bla bla...
>
Yeap, BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA

[J]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> Is F.22 dead?If you're not american,no one cares...
> Is "Dreamliner" (pfff!what a name!) dead?If you'are not american,no one
> cares...
> Is LCA dead?If you're not indian,no one cares....
> Is Su.35 dead,if you're not russian,no one cares...
>
> With such a logic,why not to make a newsgroup for each country,where one
can
> speak about planes from its own country,and only about those...
>
>
>
>
> "J" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> . ..
> > If your not french, no one cares.
> >
> >
>
Very good suggestion! Maybe we can get rid of all you top-posters.