Parce que il y a personne sauf la France qui a choisi les avions de Dassault pour leur militaires.

But I have always thought it looked stunning, and the photos on the web of Flotille 12 (IIRC) about USS John Stennis showed it off remarkably.

Other than no-one buying it and dubious support costs. Probably a lack of compability with some weapon systems in the UK inventory. No presence for Dassault or Snecma in the UK military market and no way the MoD would get away with allowing Dassault and Snecma here when BAE Systems provides fast jet through-life services and Rolls-Royce engine support. Granted, Thales is here but their specialisation doesn't include fast jet and engine support. And would France really grant sufficient ToT of the Rafale to the UK to enable BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce to fiddle around with it unless they are really that desperate to sell it. To put it simply, the Rafale - whether it is the best plane around, the worst or nothing much to shout about - won't ever figure in the selection. And if it did, it would be right at the bottom of the list.

Astronaute, speaking as a Scottish Briton, and therefore more British than anyone, I personally would love for our Navy to have the Rafale!

The F35 A or C should, together with Taranis, be the Tonka replacement!

And all Nuclear equipped. This may be the answer to the expense of Trident and it's replacement. I believe SLCMs and ALCMs are what we Brits ought to consider as a Trident replacement, if cost is such a prevalent concern.:ok:

FB

It seems to me that the real problem is not the JSF, but the carriers. Aldready expensive on paper, they will be even costlier on completion, so Britain might need to reevaluate this single choise. If you get something in the region of 30.000t (Italians too would be interested), RN could find the money to buy (say) 40 naval JSF, and RAF another 50. None would be pleased with the compromise, but RN will have a good portion of what it needs and RAF will have something to start with. This interim solution could save some 5-6bn (rough estimates - 2bn from the carriers and 4 from the fighters) and leave the doors open to new orders in the near future. As far as i know construction of the first keel has aldready begun, so there is little time left for this option, but it is still possible.

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with Super Hornet (or Rafale). They are both good in their own right, affordable and have plenty of improvement ahead. It's just that the F-35 is the only option that can cover both RN and RAF.

Well you could be saying that in German.............

...or Russian - they only stopped going West because the Yanks and the Brits were heading East at the time :}

Oh dear, looks like some of you were correct, incl, Archimedes.
Please accept my apologies for doubting your honest opinions. :):O

And that reminds me ..........
 

There is little or no point in having the Ruffle, everything is labelled in French, which may be OK as the 19th Century language for cooking but pretty useless for 21st Century technological expression.

Also someone mentioned Thales, at present they are involved in the carriers design. Given that the de Gaulle came out a nose too short, if we switch to the F18, we would best remove Thales from involvement with the carriers, re-measure the flight deck and change all measurements to Imperial and labels to English.

The overall result would likely be faster implementation of design and build with resulting cost savings and ..... the Americans would understand everything!!

All round win!! :ok: :E

F-35 pricing firming up
 

OK, here's a better view... Canada's F-35A contract they just signed.

The Canadians have agreed to pay 9bn Canadian dollars ($8.5bn; £5.6bn), which comes out to $138.46 million Canadian; $130.77 million US; £86.15 million each for 65 F-35A... a "price for the package of one airplane and that airplane's share of what is needed to get the squadrons running"!

Plus more for a 20-year maintenance contract.

Note that "Maintenance support contracts" do NOT mean that the operating Air Force does nothing and needs no equipment... it means that maintenance functions above squadron level are the responsibility of the contractor... the operating Air Force still needs all the squadron-level equipment & supplies... which is part of the initial contract (the $9 billion Canadian in this case).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/bu...17fighter.html

So Canada is getting their F-35As for below $85 million each (US)... and likely about $75 million US each (taking the half-way point between Lockheed & Canada).


As the more informed around here were aware of.

Hello Chaps!

1. There is alot of spare concrete at Somerset International - Could be filled by ALL Wildcats when we (the MoD) get them.
2. Still spare concrete - Whatever lovely shiny new toys the RN get could still be based there.
3. Close Wattisham airfield.
4. The MoD budget is four times smaller than the NHS budget.....
5. We don't really know whats gonna be happening around the corner, is Mr A L Q'Ida (spelling!), gonna come out in some other guise? Or shall we start worrying about the Chinese or perhaps Venezula?
6. Will we ask to "Britishise" any new (to the UK) aircaft, or go down the raod of buying "as proved" & off the shelf AGAIN?!!!

Well either way, itr is gonna prove very interesting come the end of October.....:ok:

All good points, but has Rafale already really been entirely ruled out?

If FA18 really is a serious option, then surely any study would have to compare it with Rafale.

Or, if not, the FA18 rumour is just that...

Believe the US call this sort of rumour Horsesh*t!

I don't think the Govt would support the RN buying F-18F at all and here's why:

Dr Fox has gone on record saying that the SDSR will be looking for a UK Fast Air solution for '2020 and beyond'. Sadly that will rule out an F-18F unless we decide to replace Eurofighter with it - the platform is still a 4th Gen fighter with a slightly better AESA radar, so not exactly a quantum leap forward in technology for the money you could spend elsewhere.

HMG are going to be making swathing cuts to the UK FJ inventory that will help pay for a platform that will have contemporary, as well as future, growth; i.e. the most appropriate, affordable, variant of F-35 to match whatever SDSR decides is our 'role' in the modern World.

My personal view is that GR4 is going to go the way of the Jaguar (and perhaps the Harrier may also too) however, a Govt that wants to support Afghanistan until 2015 can still continue to do it with Harrier at a much-reduced cost to the UK tax payer whilst still providing top notch CAS for the guys and girls in the thick of it on the deck.

Rafale is pants quite frankly - and you think that the French would sell you the same version as theirs? No, seriously, non.

GK - As far as I am aware, among the "parts" not included in the $60-$65 million prices touted by Lockheed is the big metal thing in the middle that makes it go.

Also, LM is still in dispute with the government's own accountants over the real cost of the F-35A.

That sounds like the Lynx Wildcat and we are buying a !!!!

And you believe that any country will give you parity? we didn't, the yanks certainly won't either, no matter what kind of contract you think you have.

Well, since "fly-away" indicates that the aircraft has to be complete enough to fly, I would suggest that you provide proof of that rather unbelievable claim... otherwise you owe the folks at LM an apology for the slander and "alternate definition of truth".


Well, since LM has now delivered several sets of test aircraft and 3 rounds of LRIP aircraft for well below the costs "the government's own accountants" predicted, and are in negotiations for a fixed-price contract for LRIP 4 that looks like it will be signed for 20% below what "the government's own accountants" told Congress they would cost, I "respectfully" suggest that "the government's own accountants" have their heads up their ar$$es!

I'm afraid I don't understand your banter old chap! :rolleyes:

What if you don't need parity and are overwhelmingly pleased with what they tell you you're going to get? Then it doesn't matter to be honest, does it?!

As for our cheese eating sisters across La Manche, they'd sell their children if it was profitable. I don't see us ever buying their cheap Eurofighter-like rush job.

Definition of Unit Fly-away Cost Used by DOD:

The standard definition of aircraft unit fly-away cost is found in the DOD Financial Management Regulations. Standard unit flyaway cost elements include the costs of procuring airframes; engines; avionics; armaments; engineering change orders; nonrecurring costs including production tooling, software, and other costs (if funded from aircraft procurement appropriations); divided by the procurement quantity.

Flyaway cost does not include research and development, support equipment, training equipment, technical data, or spares.

What I don't quite understand is that we seem to have quite recently spent lots and lots of money upgrading Tornado ground attack aircraft with some sort of new LCD display in the back seat.

Similarly, I recall some rather extensive and presumably expensive wiring upgrades being done to Jaguar shortly before they were withdrawn.

I'm sure the generalised whining about MoD procurement procedures is well enough aired on this forum, but - for christ's sake.

Phil