Sorry for driffting the topic away but what comment did Dessault make to sell Rafale in Asia & what comment they made when India decided to go for Boeing instead of AirBus?gf0012-aust said:
actually, all the avail data says otherwise. the 2nd engine provides redundancy, and as part of certification the aircraft has to be able to be able to get home if the other engine fails. The requirement does not state that losing one engine requires the plane to get home on the remaining engine at FMP. The reason why Australia decided to go from single engine mirages to twin engine hornets was that it provided inherent redundancyjtcohen said:
That was the argument that was for the Sth Korean purchase as well. Unfortunately it doesn't wash with the facts. If you trawl through the prev history of threads you'll find a response by Highsea who pointed out the flaws in the argument. The F15 lines were not at risk even prior to the Sth Korean decision, obviously it makes the line issue "better", but they would have stayed open for various reasons anyway.jtcohen said:
They made a reference to Singapore acting like bamboo and bending under "pressure". That has probably successfull killed off any opportunity for France to make greater inroads for a few years. As for India, the French Minister implied that the Indian procurement decision was tainted. ie alleged corruption in the decision making. That kind of comment at a political level demonstrates not only terrible manners, but a lack of composure and restraint at the approp level. It defies all logic in the diplomatic scheme of things.SABRE said:
No, in the trade, an aviation orphan is one where its only sales are reflected at home and no other export has been achieved. There are more F22's flying than Rafales. (the point here being that economies of scale for orphan platforms become even more critical if base volumes are not met. In the case of the US, there is no intention of selling F-22's externally yet, so export sales to validate continuance is non-existent. In the case of Rafale, not only do they not have a large baseline requirement (which they have scaled back as well) but they also need export sales to backfill the reduced local buy up. exports are needed for helping meet "recovery" costs.)SABRE said:
No other country bought the F-14 as they couldn't afford it and their mission capability was only relevant to very few. The only other major potential purchases were australia (as the F14 was a successor to the F-111) and the UK - and they didn't have a RN requirement for a long range maritime defender when all their interceptors could fly off HMS "Gt Britain". OTOH, Rafale has been marketed as a multi-role capable platform and has yet to be agreed upon by any of the "alpha" buyers. hence its chances for an export may still exist, buts opportunity for market penetration into large volume stable repeat customers has dimnished considerably.I don't get you. I mean, I don't understand what you wrote.hydraulic said:
Mate he is simply trying to say that Indonesia and Malaysia will try to use Russian Su's for a time being to fill the gap after 5-10 years (i think ) they will try to get the US F-15's.At that time they will have enough money for those purchasings and the latest US would be easily available.Francois said:
kashifshahzad said:
In this intensive competition, The RSAF emphasize alot on avaliability of AESA from the each contending aviation company. Therefore its presence in the aircraft specification adds on merit.kashifshahzad said:
can we all NOT go through this again??? It was DACT. The purpose and reasons for DACT have been discussed ad infinitum in here. I have no desire to watch another thread go round and round in circleshydraulic said:
The tender definition was for a strike aircraft - not an air to air platform. Singapore obviously feels that it has air to air superiority for the next 15 years (again, read the tender requirements)hydraulic said:
Gripen failed to meet Singapores strict requirements. Typhoon missed out as the platform required was not available until 2010-2012hydraulic said:
Its not available for export - case closed.hydraulic said:
I hope not, its been done to death already - and people struggle to understand the Cope India results let alone the differences in tender requirements and variances in airframes.hydraulic said:
I've fired off an email to a bloke I know who works on one of their JSF programmes to find out whether it's an abnormal number. We'll just have to wait.Totoro said: