Thanks, Walbut. And, yes, fuel next to a burner nozzle does seem like a strange mix. Brings to mind a sign I saw on a local store out in the sticks in the Southern States once. "Beer and Ammo", it said. Do they mix well?

One of my early sim trips on the F4 OCU, the instructor announced that, amongst other things, we were going to cover eninge fires. Not amused when I told him I thought jet engines were supposed to be on fire.

Wiki:
http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...s/rafale_9.jpg

The Germans thought so to but by then the politically negotiated industrial programs was so heavy no one could stop, or even adjust it anymore. The French had to negotiate with their own industry only, that is traditionally close.

That seems like an outbreak of common sense. L'Armee de l'Air in '2 brains can do twice as much work as one brain' shocker!

I believe that the AdlA has backpedaled to some degree, having been convinced that the Rafale's AFCS/automated systems management is such that more missions than they had expected can be carried out by one pilot.

@ keesje: Indeed, sorry I miread your previous comment as "Rafale AtoG was prioritized after Bosnia", which is not what you wrote. My bad.
The Wiki quote is spot on... or close enough:
- If the decision to make the B something "more than just a trainer" was made as ealry as 1991, then it was from Gulf's lessons, not Bosnia's nor Kosovo's ones.
- There was only one Rafale A ever: the demonstrator. Since then, it's Rafale B (Air Force, 2 seaters), Rafale C (Air Force, 1 seater), or Rafale M (Navy, 1 seater). The requirement for a Rafale N (Navy, 2 seaters) was cancelled at some point, can't remember when exactly.
Finally, as LowObservable and I noted, since then the AdlA found that one pilot was enough for most missions. :)

Wouldn't it be a beautiful irony if we were to find that Rafale M was the answer to our carrier strike requirements when the navalized Typhoon prooves to be a non-starter. Or even a good time to resurect the N. All those Tornado navs might have a future after all. :E

While it's true that a lot of missions can be done with 1 pilot, there are enough missions that are getting done by 1-pilot crews out of necessity.

The main reason is that it is becoming ever more difficult for the French AdlA to get their hands on enough viable candidates to man their fighter jets.

The difficulties of recruiting enough technical personnel are even worse, that's why they are now making big efforts in adopting the Swedish model, meaning less personnel needed to service/maintain, fuel, load, etc... .

As an example, in 2011 they had a recruiting session for 1000 jobs in the AdlA beginning immediately.
For the administrative jobs they had 10 viable candidates for every position, there where enough candidates to fill in the officer-pilot positions but way too few where deemed viable candidates to even get through the initial recruitment process.
For the tech positions they had 1 viable candidate per 3 positions.

the way things are going they are going to have to get robot mechanics before they get UAV/UCAV's.

For the interested;

Where do I send my application?

Ministry of Defence
14 Rue St Dominique
F-75997 Paris Armées
France


By the by, they have enough Generals and Admirals, somehow they always overlook those when reforms and lay-offs are in effect.

The French and British have so much in common....

Honestly, from the PoV of military forces on both sides of the Channel, I think a deal like "(FR) planes vs (UK) carrier" would have been a nice thing.
Perhaps it would even be nice on the (military) value for money PoV.
Now, about politics, that's another question. Too bad.
Can't comment about industry capabilities and jobs, too much politics in there to assess realistic figures IMO.

Uh? Where did you found that?
I don't know about engineers, but this doesn't match with the number of pilots going out of CZX... and having to wait to be assigned to a front line squadron. ;)
OTOH, budget constraints certainly could have played a part. Of course 2 brains & 4 eyes are always better than 1 and 2. But with a Rafale, it seems that the aircraft is good enough for that not being a game changer anymore. The question is then: do France need that extra-capability? Can France afford it? Is it worth it? AdlA's answer is no (except for nuclear missions, and by extension some cruise missiles missions). Noteworthy is that MN pilots are alone (and have been in much older jets) even for nuke strike.

AZR, a nice thought. That would have changed a few threads around here. :E

Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines

The public works ministry, confirming earlier leaks from senior government officials, said in a statement on Friday that Ottawa would talk to Lockheed Martin and four other companies:
- Boeing Co (NYSE:BA - News), which makes the F-18 Super Hornet
- EADS (Paris:EAD.PA - News), which makes the Eurofighter
- Saab AB , which makes the Gripen
- Dassault Aviation (Paris:AM.PA - News), which makes the Rafale

I thought the Canadians traditionally had a preference for twin engined fighters, but obviously that's something of the past..

Cancelled??! Not according to the Royal Navy who have it all planned out.
http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/51...d5620f-0x0.pdf

True.
The question is, why was this dropped for the F-35?
The only other SE option is the Gripen. I note none have been lost through engine failure so far.

I have an apology to make.

Clearly I and many others have been judging the performance of the JSF program by entirely unreasonable standards.

“I think we should be surprised when aeroplanes work, not go wrong. They’re so complex and sophisticated,”

LMT-UK CEO Stephen Ball

I bet he is even more surprised that we paid him and his company a hefty premium to ensure that JSF would buck the historical norm, just because he said it would!

The LockMart shareholders will cast a bronze statue in his honour.

Nice spin.:ok:
He was actually referencing a Boeing product in that quote, but it is universal.

What is a point is that they are going to fly US unemployed workers to work in the UK defense industry.