What if, France never left the Eurofighter consortium

[BlackBat242]

Even the relaxed requirement was still equal to the Jaguar's STOL performance.

Nice one there... very funny.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Arch: thanks for the cross-channel input which Brit-centrics need.

France leaving MRCA let UK in, so Thanks be to the Lord. But France leaving (to be EF) was more than a shame, closer to a catastrophe. Despite a decade of politicians' attempts to shot-gun Dassault+BAES into many-named Future-things, we appear now again to have failed, and are on the verge of duplication, FRG+France, UK+Italy in Team Tempest with whoever. This is a gross failure of Statecraft. Sole beneficiaries will be whoever might emerge in the sights of these mid-century assets. By wasting industrial resources on minor peculiars preventing commonality, we deny ourselves scale economies and the opportunity-work not being done by the duplicate team - for example effort in the cyber field where others are eroding our sovereignty.

We should close out "fault" on Rafale+Typhoon (+Gripen); we should learn that our neighbours must be our friends; we should talk till exhausted, to come up with a max-common solution. What McNamara tried to do with F-111A+B, succeeded with F-4s. Compromise: the good enough. Assign Centres of Excellence, so that small industries can hold up their heads in the Team: so: I do engine, you do Missile A, he does Missile B. Italy flourished thus on Tornado, Spain on EF.

Yes to all of that in theory. But I’m guessing you haven’t tried to work with the French?

As Einstein said (or perhaps not, it seems disputed), 'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

FCAS with Japan seems transformational vs yet another certain failure with the French.

Ask the Germans how happy they are in their FCAS…

(Can anyone produce a military reason for Qatar to buy Rafale+Typhoon?)

As Clauswitz said, war is politics by other means.

Qatar want every western power to be on their side vs Iran/rest of Gulf/delete as per what week it is.

Hence buying multiple is politics, which is also military.

 

[kocovgoce]

If France remained in the program, Britain would withdraw. That was the German Chancellor's goal. Helmut Kohl he wants it to be a purely German-French plane .The Germans were ready and accepted Dassault's vision for what the aircraft would look like. But the problem arose when the French demanded a 500 kg reduction in the aircraft's weight in order to install landing gear for an aircraft carrier.During that period, there was increasing thought about some kind of European military force, including a joint navy, where Europe would have several aircraft carriers in order to pursue its policy, and so here goes the naval version that the French wanted.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Pardon me, re-reading the thread.

UK is dogged by a tendency to change it's mind and in the prospect of more jam tomorrow or a superlative solution. Scrap the current effort. Rinse and repeat.
This makes military and industry keen to find international partners who will make that hard and politically embarrassing to do.
In the process military and industry accept a degree of sacrifice to achieve something good enough.

The UK is often cursed with HMTreasury saying "we will not pay for the minimum capability" as well.

See the RN carrier fights for many examples.

There have been some notable exceptions, but by and large, the French build a decent helo!

Combined response:

No my uncle had to work on French Helicopters occasionally and thought them a right pain. Too thin a shell making the addition of extras a very tricky proposition.

Agreed. A classmate of mine way back when I was working on my A&P had to buy special thin wrenches to work on the French helos.

They fly really nice, but are too tightly-optimized for their starting life. So when the French helos get older and you need to add things to them, you're in trouble.

Here again the more specific pattern I mentioned above emerges: I doubt even non-German builders would find it possible to deliver a decent warship under German MoD/Bundeswehr guidance. On the other hand, the export oriented MEKO family ranks as one of the most successful surface combatant lineages post-WWII. The secret sauce seems to be to just keep the MoD/Bundeswehr well away from writing the spec!

Which says that the German goobermint can't write design specs to save their own lives.

It sounds like any German ship specification needs to be audited for contradictions etc before the first piece of steel is cut.

Potential solution for the engine problem: what about a F-16 Block 30 "big mouth" type approach?

A common engine bay, each country (partner or export) could choose between the M88 and the EJ-200. Of course the M88 is shorter (simply put a longer afterburner duct, F-14 GE style), but only marginally narrower. The EJ-200 needs a larger air mass flow, but exactly as the GE F-110 over the PW F-100.

That would likely work quite well. Size inlet for the EJ200, job done.



===================

France had very very hard limits on their aircraft length/wingspan due to needing to fit the elevators on Foch/Clem. Similarly, they had a very hard weight limit due to catapult and arresting gear limits on Foch/Clem.

I don't believe that the other partners understood just how hard those limits were. (Else Germany deliberately forced France out) Whereas today with SCAF, the new carrier is likely to have elevators the same size as a Ford-class, so while some pretty hard limits still exist, they're a lot less limiting than the Foch/Clem limits were.

IIRC, Foch/Clem were maxed out with F-8 Crusader-weight aircraft, ~34,000lbs MTOW, landing weight of about 24,000lbs, and empty weight of right at 18,800lbs/8500kg. (Remember that US Empty Weight is not the same as European Dry Weight)

 

[BonPlan2]

France had very very hard limits on their aircraft length/wingspan due to needing to fit the elevators on Foch/Clem. Similarly, they had a very hard weight limit due to catapult and arresting gear limits on Foch/Clem.

Rafale size was absolutely not driven by Foch & Clemenceau carriers spec !
These 2 carriers were in late 80's already at the end of their life.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Rafale size was absolutely not driven by Foch & Clemenceau carriers spec !
These 2 carriers were in late 80's already at the end of their life.

They were still in service and expected to be in service when Rafale was flying. Ergo Rafale had to be compatible with them.

 

[Archibald]

50-50 you two.

Not Clemenceau, it was toast right off the mid-1980s the catapults were more and more troublesome.

But Foch, yes: it was to last until 2004. That was before it was sold to Brazil... in 2000. The first carrier landing of a Rafale M (prototype M-01) happened in April 1993, off Toulon harbor. Carrier was Foch, CdG was far from being ready.

Foch was 2.5 years younger than Clemenceau (November 1960 versus July 1963) and probably a slightly better ship overall, thanks to mistakes learned through Clemenceau early years.

Thinking about it further, early on Rafale M IOC was to be 1996 rather than May 2001, and since CdG wasn't ready the Rafale M career would have started on Foch - how about that.

 

[BonPlan2]

They were still in service and expected to be in service when Rafale was flying. Ergo Rafale had to be compatible with them.

NO.
First induction date imagined for Rafale was 1996, later it evolved to 1999, and only as a scratch program to replace the tired Crusader in a air to air mode only (Rafale M F1).

Since 1975 the replacement of Foch & Clem was identified and studied (PH75 small nuc carrier). 3 units on the agenda. The R&D proved theses ships were far too small and light to be really usefull and carry long range enough fighters.
The Charles de Gaulle production was initiated in 1987 (so just one year after the first flight of the Rafale prototyp, and 4 years before the first pre serial rafale), with an entry service date targeted to 1996, in full cooerence with Rafale timing. It was halted twice by Mitterand for cost reduction reason, after the collapse of the iron wall.

Foch carrier was sold to Brazil in 2000, and Clemenceau was disarmed in 1997. Why do you want to study a bird to fit small carrier leaving service just a couple of years after ? small carrier => small jet, for 50 years. Fully idiot.

Note that the catapults of the Foch & Clemenceau were too short (50m) to expect anything else than a air air config without external tank of Rafale.

 

[F-2]

NO.
First induction date imagined for Rafale was 1996, later it evolved to 1999, and only as a scratch program to replace the tired Crusader in a air to air mode only (Rafale M F1).

Since 1975 the replacement of Foch & Clem was identified and studied (PH75 small nuc carrier). 3 units on the agenda. The R&D proved theses ships were far too small and light to be really usefull and carry long range enough fighters.
The Charles de Gaulle production was initiated in 1987 (so just one year after the first flight of the Rafale prototyp, and 4 years before the first pre serial rafale), with an entry service date targeted to 1996, in full cooerence with Rafale timing. It was halted twice by Mitterand for cost reduction reason, after the collapse of the iron wall.

Foch carrier was sold to Brazil in 2000, and Clemenceau was disarmed in 1997. Why do you want to study a bird to fit small carrier leaving service just a couple of years after ? small carrier => small jet, for 50 years. Fully idiot.

Note that the catapults of the Foch & Clemenceau were too short (50m) to expect anything else than an air air config without external tank of Rafale.

I was under the assumption the Rafale would have been able to meet that in service date if not for budget cuts is that not correct? Was the F1 a later development?

I always assumed they wanted the Rafale on the Foch to possibly sell the Rafale to whoever bought the Foch.

 

[Archibald]

Was the F1 a later development?

Fact is that the Armée de l'air waited until F2 standard and 2004. Well they had converted 37 Mirage 2000 RDI into PESA 2000-5F and besides that they had tons of 2000 RDI and F1CT (total procurement of both Mirages : 246 x F1 and 315 x 2000)
The Aéronavale wasn't so lucky as its Crusaders literally fell into pieces. So the F1 was jury rigged and rushed into service by 2001. Early on it couldn't even fire MICA, unlike the 2000-5F.

I was under the assumption the Rafale would have been able to meet that in service date if not for budget cuts is that not correct?

Yes. For the Aéronavale it was 1996 or bust, but Peace Dividends decided otherwise. The prototypes flew from 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Testing

I always assumed they wanted the Rafale on the Foch to possibly sell the Rafale to whoever bought the Foch.

Nope, it was too marginal. Foch catapults were washed out, barely able to throw 18 mt at 100 kt. This is uncomfortably close from an empty Rafale plus some fuel and a pair of A2A missiles. The only way out would have been Douglas D-704 buddy-buddy refueling pods as already carried by Super Etendards.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Nope, it was too marginal. Foch catapults were washed out, barely able to throw 18 mt at 100 kt. This is uncomfortably close from an empty Rafale plus some fuel and a pair of A2A missiles. The only way out would have been Douglas D-704 buddy-buddy refueling pods as already carried by Super Etendards.

Not that marginal. Rafale M is 10.5t, full fuel is 4.7t, 2x MICA is .25t, 4x Meteor is ~0.760t. So we're talking a squidge over 16.25t for fighter roles. They'd be hurting for Strike roles, though.

 

[BonPlan2]

I was under the assumption the Rafale would have been able to meet that in service date if not for budget cuts is that not correct? Was the F1 a later development?

I always assumed they wanted the Rafale on the Foch to possibly sell the Rafale to whoever bought the Foch.

Rafale also suffered from cost reductions decided after the end of the iron wall.
The induction date at the beginning was 1996, probably in a F2 form standard (ie air to air and some limited air to ground capacity). It has been slowed down.
F1 was a kind of crash program, for only 10 jets produced in a preserial mode, mainly hand made. It is not a new development, it is a limited F2 one. These 10 jets are subsequently different than the other M Rafale, this is why theour upgrade to F3, later, cost a lot and was quite long.

And no, no plan to put Rafale on older carriers. The accomodation of the 2 ships would have been too costly for so few years.

It is important to know that at the very beginning french navy didn't want to wait rafale. They expected to purchase some F/A18, even 2nd hand ones. The early study of Charles de Gaulle used F/A18 foot print ! It was Marcel Dassault that used its political connection that impose the Rafale to the navy, explaing that France need the combinaison of the 232 jet forcasted for air force and the 86 forcasted for Navy to have an economical package. Navy waited the tries of Rafale on Foch (but only to land and to take off with catapult) to agree.

 

[Scorpion82]

As far as I know the AdA requirement originally cover 250 aircraft, 225 C and 25 B. After Operation Desert Storm and with the Cold War coming to an end, the requirement changed to 95 C and 139 B for a total of 234 airceaft. The MN's requirement was for 86 airframes, cut back to 60 in 1996.

It would be interesting to know, whether the nuclear strike role was only planned in for the AdA in the retrospect. As far as I understand it, the original ACT requirement specified in 1978 didn't envision the emplyoment in the nuclear strike role, but am not entirely sure about it. Interesting in this respect is the Mirage 2000N case. Was it just conceived as an interim solution to bridge the gap between Mirage IV retirement and Rafale introduction, or was the Mirage 2000N replacement more done on an opportunity basis? There is some merit to the "stop gap" theory.

 

[Archibald]

It is important to know that at the very beginning french navy didn't want to wait rafale. They expected to purchase some F/A18, even 2nd hand ones. The early study of Charles de Gaulle used F/A18 foot print ! It was Marcel Dassault that used its political connection that impose the Rafale to the navy, explaing that France need the combinaison of the 232 jet forcasted for air force and the 86 forcasted for Navy to have an economical package. Navy waited the tries of Rafale on Foch (but only to land and to take off with catapult) to agree.

This. The F-18 was the one and only fighter that could replace the Crusaders on the Clemenceau and Foch, even if its limits on the old carriers were broadly similar to Rafale (MTOW weight versus tired catapults and boilers).

That Hornet story, circa 1988-89, was absolutely scandalous. The Aéronavale just wanted 15 second-hand Hornets from USN stocks. But Dassault screamed like hell and lobbied like crazy the President - PM - defense minister trio. PM Michel Rocard was offered a ride in a Mirage 2000B that turned him into a Rafale supporter !

In the end there would be no Hornets, just the last 18 surviving Crusaders out of 42* rejuvenated with Magic 2 IR missiles and rebuilt airframe. Until 1996, then it become 1999, just in time for the NATO air campaign against Milosevic Serbia in Kosovo, which had MiG-29 : yikes. The Crusader were finally retired in December 1999 while Rafale M IOC was in May 2001, the ten planes @BonPlan2 mentionned.

*all the others had crashed. Not only USN had appaling Crusader mishap rates.

 

[orlovsky]

===================

France had very very hard limits on their aircraft length/wingspan due to needing to fit the elevators on Foch/Clem. Similarly, they had a very hard weight limit due to catapult and arresting gear limits on Foch/Clem.

I don't believe that the other partners understood just how hard those limits were. (Else Germany deliberately forced France out) Whereas today with SCAF, the new carrier is likely to have elevators the same size as a Ford-class, so while some pretty hard limits still exist, they're a lot less limiting than the Foch/Clem limits were.

IIRC, Foch/Clem were maxed out with F-8 Crusader-weight aircraft, ~34,000lbs MTOW, landing weight of about 24,000lbs, and empty weight of right at 18,800lbs/8500kg. (Remember that US Empty Weight is not the same as European Dry Weight)

The forward elevator on the Clems was 17.4x13m, the deck edge elevator was 16.4m wide (and 11m deep, but the aircraft tail could protrude). Rafale is 15.27x10.8m, elevator limit would be ~17x12.5m. The F-8 was 16.6m long, the F-18 that the MN wanted for the Clems 17.07m. (Eurofighter is shorter than both, 15,96x10.95m) So it is very unlikely the elevator size was relevant.

Also unlikely weight or size was driven by the Clems with just a few years overlap if any at all, as has been said above.

More important were cost and export opportunities. Dassault came from single engine fighters. Several domestic big twin engine projects failed for the same reasons (2 Atar or 2 M53 Mirage Gs, ACF, Mirage4000).
Also, AFVG had the same problem of the RAF driving up to Tornado size, while the french DGA would have preferred a single engine Mirage G even without the carrier issues.

 

[BonPlan2]

As far as I know the AdA requirement originally cover 250 aircraft, 225 C and 25 B. After Operation Desert Storm and with the Cold War coming to an end, the requirement changed to 95 C and 139 B for a total of 234 airceaft. The MN's requirement was for 86 airframes, cut back to 60 in 1996.

It would be interesting to know, whether the nuclear strike role was only planned in for the AdA in the retrospect. As far as I understand it, the original ACT requirement specified in 1978 didn't envision the emplyoment in the nuclear strike role, but am not entirely sure about it. Interesting in this respect is the Mirage 2000N case. Was it just conceived as an interim solution to bridge the gap between Mirage IV retirement and Rafale introduction, or was the Mirage 2000N replacement more done on an opportunity basis? There is some merit to the "stop gap" theory.

No. Initial requirement was 320 234 for air force and 86 for Navy. The 320 was fastly reduced to 286, then 234, and some more cut after more or less officials.
Now it is "225 jets of the Rafale type", including Navy (48 units) and incuding M2000D upgraded.... (a pity).

This week the french senate add in the defense multi year pre budget 14 billions, to purchase 3 more frigates AND 30 MORE RAFALE (20 for air force and 10 for Navy). Wait and see if it will be inked.

The air force chief of staff explained some month ago that the Rafale on line are used 15 to 20% more than intended, due to a shortage of jets. That means they will have to be replaced earlier than intended.

 

[Scorpion82]

No. Initial requirement was 320 for air force and 86 for Navy. The 320 was fastly reduced to 286, then 234, and some more cut after more or less officials.
Now it is "225 jets of the Rafale type", including Navy and incuding M2000D upgraded.... (a pity).

Are you 100% sure about the original numbers?

Never seen these figures as AdA only, but combined.

When France (AdA only!) was still onboard EFA in September of 1984 the French requirement stood at 150-200 aircraft and was raised to 250 by 1985, probably in order to not lack behind the UK and GE. When France pulled out of EFA and Rafale was being pursued as the next gen aircraft for AdA (250) and MN (86) for a combined 336, reduced to 320 in 1991 (AdA 234 / MN 86), 294 in 1996 (AdA 234 / MN 60) and later on to 286 (8 A/C cut) first in 2005 or so.

 

[BonPlan2]

Are you 100% sure about the original numbers?

Never seen these figures as AdA only, but combined.

When France (AdA only!) was still onboard EFA in September of 1984 the French requirement stood at 150-200 aircraft and was raised to 250 by 1985, probably in order to not lack behind the UK and GE. When France pulled out of EFA and Rafale was being pursued as the next gen aircraft for AdA (250) and MN (86) for a combined 336, reduced to 320 in 1991 (AdA 234 / MN 86), 294 in 1996 (AdA 234 / MN 60) and later on to 286 (8 A/C cut) first in 2005 or so.

You are right. It was a whole 320 : 234 for air force + 86 for navy.
My bad.
I modify my post.