France desperate for Rafale sales in Persian Gulf

The French are driving hard to clinch orders for Dassault's multi-role Rafale fighter in the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait to keep the jet's production line going.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has thrown his weight behind the drive to sell as many as 60 Rafales to the Emirates, which has a history of buying French combat aircraft, and 14-28 to Kuwait, which traditionally buys U.S. jets.

But the omens aren't good for Rafale. Although the Emirates has a history of buying French combat jets, Dassault's failure to find any foreign takers for the aircraft hasn't encouraged the Persian Gulf state to acquire the Rafale.

Kuwait traditionally buys U.S. aircraft and is looking for new generation combat jets.

The Rafale completed 15 hours of flight tests in Kuwait in mid-July and is undergoing another 20 hours to assess its suitability for desert warfare.

But there is stiff opposition in parliament, which has been highly critical of weapons systems purchased earlier by the government, to buying the supersonic Rafale.

Discussions with France began in February 2008 for the Rafale in a deal worth an estimated $4.4. billion, with competition from Sweden's Saab Gripen and Boeing's F/A-18.

But opposition lawmakers aren't happy with that on technical grounds. Some insist the proposed deal is "suspicious." In the past, parliament torpedoed arms deals because of alleged kickbacks to senior officials.

The Financial Times noted that Sarkozy, who jets around the world promoting French weapons systems, has a "tendency of jumping the gun.

"He clearly finds it difficult to resist announcing to the world that he has finally pulled off a significant export sale for the Rafale even before the contract is signed and delivered."

In 2009 he boasted that France had clinched a deal to sell Brazil 36 of the jets, with a potential final order of 100. But a year later, it looks increasingly likely the Brazilians will opt for Sweden's Gripen rather than the more expensive Rafale.

A few weeks ago, Sarkozy announced the Emirates was considering replacing its older 63 Mirage 2009 jets, also built by Dassault, with the Rafale. But the Emirates indicated earlier this month it was eyeing Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet as an alternative.

Abu Dhabi, which conducts the Emirates' military procurement, complicated things for the French in February by demanding the Rafale be armed with Boeing's SLAM ER/2 missile instead of the European-made MBDA AM-39 they are designed to carry.

The Emirates' military wants missile capable of striking deep inside Iran. The SLAM has a range of up to 160 miles, while the AM-39, a version of the French Exocet anti-ship missile, has a limit of 65 miles.

France has also notably lost out on export orders to Singapore, Morocco and South Korea, which both selected Boeing's F-15 Eagle, which has been operating for years and recently underwent extensive upgrading.

Security export deals for the Rafale are crucial now for Dassault and the French air force and navy, which are expected to order 294 of the jets.

But in the absence of foreign sales Dassault will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the production line for the French forces.

The French Defense Ministry recently decided to order 11 additional Rafales in 2011, earlier than scheduled, just to keep the production line running even though it will cost the taxpayer an extra $1.1 billion.

At the same time, the United States has sharply boosted its military exports through massive arms sales to the gulf states to counter Iran, thereby maintaining hefty orders for defense contractors as the U.S. military budget shrinks amid economic woes.

The Financial Times noted, too, that Russia has also stepped up its military exports to keep its once powerful defense industry going and has overtaken France as the third largest arms exporter after the United States and Britain.

The Europeans, the Financial Times added, cause problems for themselves by constantly fielding three jets, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab's Gripen and France's Rafale, which plays into the hands of the Americans and Russians.

"Until the Europeans finally decide to consolidate their combat aircraft industry, they can only continue to lose altitude," the Financial Times warned.

I don't understand the cultural bias against the F-35 here, guess I better pick up my Sarah Palin banner also.

No need to pick your Ms Palin banner sir. It's easy to see why the F-35 makes some feel uneasy. The issue stems from what the JSF concept, which spawned the X-35 and X-32, which led to the F-35 once the competitive dust settled, was quite different in use and concept from what the F-35 will be used for. The JSF was supposed to supplement the ATF (which the F-22 had won many many years earlier), with the F-22 supposed to knock down the door and lob off the heads of any cogent adversary, after which the F-35 would be a capable workhorse to smash any roaches still scurrying about.

The problem is the number of F-22s have been cut to less than a quarter of the original target, and more than that, the F-35 has been given a starting role. Now, that is all well and good, particularly if the US continues to fight against its usual set of foes (eg Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Grenada, Panama, bombing of Tripoli Libya). However, should the US find itself against a near-peer adversary (what another FReeper called a real war instead of an aerial shooting demonstration), then the JSF will (guaranteed) lead to the death of US airmen, sailors and army (since the army needs US air dominance to operate safely) than if a more capable airframe was used. For instance, you mention maneuverability is no longer important - after all we are in the age of sensor fusion and super agile missiles coupled to helmet mounted sensors. The problem is that near-peer potential enemies either have the same or are about to. Some nations like Russia and India will soon have supercruising airframes with an element of stealth. Several nations have or are working on BVRAAMs that have exceptional range and terminal maneuverability (eg using ramjets like the Meteor). The F-35 is a great airplane, but even its stealth is significantly limited ...non existent in the rear hemisphere and certain angles, and only optimized against X band radar. Quite unlike the Raptor. In a conflagration involving a near-peer adversary (eg China), you can be assured that (say USN F-35Cs) will be running into a gauntlet of double-digit SAMs (eg S300 derivatives, the HQ-9, etc ....or even, in a bad case scenario, maybe the S400 ....Russiais working on a S500). These are connected to advanced IADS that are quite different from the Kari defense network used in Iraq that many like to gloat on how quickly it was destroyed (funny because Kari was a mishmash of French, UK and Soviet hardware that was supposed to stop a limited Iranian and/or Israeli attack, particularly after Osirak. How was it supposed to withstand the combined might of 4000 US, NATO and Allied airmight? Don't get me started on the F-15's unbeaten record against monkey model Soviet junk without BVR missiles, trained pilots, situational awareness, or even radar warning receivers. The SU-27 variants flown by the Russians would have the same unbeaten streak if they were flying against the Kenyan airforce's Northrop F-5s and BAE Hawks, with similar lack of awareness, BVR missiles, etc. An unbeaten record it is, and for sure the F-15 is a superlative aircraft that is very good, but late model F-4 Phantoms from the 80s and late model F-8s with evolved Sparrows would have had the same victory record against Iraq and in Kosovo).

Anyways, the problem with the F-35 is not that it is a bad plane. It is that it is a good plane that will end up doing a role it was not meant to. It was supposed to play second fiddle to the Raptor. Due to cuts under the Bush and Obama administrations, it will step up first in many cases. Which is ok if we want to pound Benin or teach somw Haitian despot a lesson. However, as China develops, the F-35 may find itself facing off against deeper and deeper L and S band IADS and hoping its limited X band stealthiness in the front hemisphere and limited kinematics may work. They may.

I have to politely disagree. For instance, the Iraqi force of 1990 did not have modern equipment. It had a lot of equipment, but it was not modern. The most numerous fighter was the MiG21 (and J7, a chinese made clone of the 21). It also had MiG19s, Su24s, Su20s, MiG23s, Mirage F1s and even Su7s! The most recent planes it had were the MiG 25 and 29, of which only the 25 was any good (one managed to shoot down an American F-18, and several managed to elude missiles via mostly speed). The Iraqi airforce did not have AEW&C capability (e.g. AWACS), training of pilots had degraded woefully after the Iraq-Iran war (and even then Iraqi doctrine was truly bad), they did not have any real BVR capability (their missiles included Atolls from the 60s, monkey model Apexs, AA7 Aphids, and Magics. The only missiles that were interesting were the Alamos and Acrids, but these were old and the Iraqis didn't have the radar systems on their planes to use them). Add to this their planes didn't even have jamming capability, and standard Iraqi practice eschewed aggressive maneuvering.

To this mix add Allied F-15s, 16s, 18s, 14s, Tornados etc, and what do you have? An 'unbeaten' record that leads to the shootdown of 4 Su-7s (a 1950s Soviet design), 2 Su 22s (first flight 1966), 1 Mi-8 (a helicopter that first flew in '67), 1 Il-76 (a transport/cargo plane), 2 Su-25s (a close airsupport plane that was the Soviet analogue to the A-10), two observation helicopters, 9 Mirage F1s, 6 MiG 29 Fulcrums, 2 MiG 25s, 4 MiG 21s (a vintage that the fathers of the pilots in the Gulf War knew quite well), and 9 MiG 23s.

That was a shooting demonstration as someone said. It doesn't take away from the valiant work of the brave US and allied pilots, but the Iraqis didn't have a chance against an opponent that had greater numbers, greater quality, greater training, greater awareness and support, and every other advantage one can think of.

Against a near-peer adversary, like China, those advantages would still be geared towards the US, but it wouldn't be a situation like that in Iraq. Which is the issue ....there are many airframes that can work against an Iraq type situation that would not work against an enemy who actually thinks. Also, equipment matters. For instance, now Pakistan is getting the Block 52 F16 and Amraams. Before that they only had 16As with no BVR missiles. India's MiG29s (the same aircraft American 16s were chewing up like cheap tobacco in Iraq) would have obliterated Pakistani Vipers with perfect ease. Bring in the Su30MKI, and a done deal would have been cooked further!

Iraq's 'modern' equipment was not.

That has to be one of the most insightful informative posts I have ever read here on these topics, and I must agree with it all in the way you argued it. There may be more variables involved than is ‘need to know’, and we might have things they cant even dream of yet.

Yes those other conflicts were just shooting matches for us because they were so overwhelmed, and yes that is also why makes the record of the F-15 inflated.

Yes if we are ever in a near-peer shooting war there will be great losses if its based on what we have out there for public consumption, and probably even if we do have some really advanced technology out there.

Now this is from another of my posts and maybe some could accuse my imagination of running wild, but I do have an extensive aviation background and I understand aviation engineering concepts and aviation history.

But even back in the 60’s we already had Mach 4 capable aircraft and drones. So I can forsee that we may already have hypersonic aircraft operational, which may be a drone or be manned as their choice, they could probably adapt the airframe either way. I have no idea how many there might be in existence.

All the leading edge surfaces engine inlets etc would probably be pyro- ceramic, as would large parts of the engine/s, with something like inconel-718 holding the engines together, maybe inconel-718 for the airframe also.

The plasma generated by the heat should give it natural stealth while in hypersonic flight. But its been awhile since I am up to date on all the factors so I could be wrong on some of the conceptual details.

It would probably use solid rocket boosters from a land based launch to get up to altitude and speed for the scramjets to operate as it would be to much for a B-52 etc to carry.

Since it would be way to hot in the combution area to put a turbine back there to take power off for the accessory drive boxes, the aircraft would use small ram air turbines deployed at high mach numbers/altitudes/speeds to to power all the electronics, fuel, attitude control etc.

For some of those missions you would definitely need a man in the cockpit.

The drone has the advantages, it also has its limitations.like you said. It can be a force multiplier but its definitely not ready for prime time IMO

One thing I could bet a good wad of cash on is that the US definitely must have some next-gen technology that would curl the short hairs of China, and has some next-next-gen concept that would make many of us think of sci-fi novels. The US technological base is literally overwhelming, to the point that to even conceptualize it (as it is, and particularly as it will be) brings about nigh hyperbole and conceptualization similar to magic ....because it is that good! No armed force in the world can destroy massed armies like the US can ...not even Russia comes close (and they can be quite good at annihilating massed armies). This is one reason no terrorist will ever face the US on open ground ...it would be a one ticket trip downstairs, fast. Now, there has been a focus on fighting low intensity (read Afganistan) and mid intensity conflicts, which require Predator drones, LCS ships, and the like over Raptors and other high intensity war materiel. However, the US still retains a major technological edge over all near-peer nations (the EU, Japan, China, Russia, etc), and even though it is giving up on that edge (eg skewing towards the JSF rather than the Raptor), the US most probably has capabilities we do not know of yet. For instance, the F117A Stealth Fighter and the B2 Spirit were flying for a LONG time before the public was aware of them (I am convinced a lot of 'UFO sightings' were some chap seeing the B2 flying, which would make any rational thinker question some deep held beliefs if you did not know what it was).

The only problems I foresee for the US are 2:

i) The US has been too victorious too often against nations that do not warrant much celebrating. It is like the LA Lakers beating the Rwandese highschool girls basketball team. This may make some perceive that winning is a 'right' rather than a product of money, brains, training, technique and equipment. I have read FReeper comments on why the Predator UCAV and the A-10 are more necessary over the 'useless' Raptor, yet without air superiority the Predator and Raptor are useless (a quip I heard once by some cold war warrior was that if the Soviets had invaded through the Fulda Gap, the argument between Apache pilots and Warthog pilots was which one of them would go down first). Beating up on Iraq and the other countries I listed in my other post should NOT give false confidence. China would be a different slab of pork, and while the US would not lose it would receive a butcher's bill that would make the media make Viet Nam look like child's play.

ii) My second problem is at the other end of the spectrum, and appears incogruent with my first issue. This problem is that, even though I am a strong proponent of technology, I am cognizant of the problem of cost and numbers. The costs keep going up, and the numbers keep going down. This can bring a serious problem some decades down the line - for instance, while the Indian-Russian PakFa is totally an anti-China weapon (unlike what some here think, that it is anti-US), let's imagine for the sake of it there were a thousand of them against 183 Raptors. A Raptor is better than the PakFa concept, but the PakFa concept (with its supercruise and kinematics, fuel fraction, sensor suite, new weapons and limited stealth) is better than any other plane out there (eg F15/16/18, Typhoons, Rafales, etc ....I would add F-35, but that would only bring an argument, so I won't ....but I would add it...). 183 Raptors are not enough. Anyways, the costs are going uo, and the numbers are going down. What's the problem? Well, I could wax poetic and bore you with my long posts, or I could simply direct you to the shirt science fiction story 'Superiority' by Arthur C Clarke and you can see what the problem might be.

Google it and read it - you will probably find it interesting.

Now imagine China with stealthy JXX fighters (which are not even as good as the PakFa, but are even more numerous), Aegis like destroyers (that are not as good as the Burke, but are planned to be more and NOT as far dispersed), a whole lot of AIP DE submarines (that are not as advanced as the Virginias, but only operate in littoral waters and have long range supersonic missiles), and so on. The US would not lose, for the next 4 decades at least, but it would get its nose bloodied. A US Aegis ship sunk, the media picking up the story, the US public being as polarized as it is now (where it is 50:50, meaning any Dem prez will have half the country against him/her, and any Pub prez also has 50% against as well) and the war is lost. China would not have to win ....or for that matter EVEN fight!!!! All it needs to do is develop the capability to bloody the nose of the US, and no American president from either party woild step in to save Taiwan (directly). People call Obama weak, and he is, but not even a resurrected Reagan or a Palin would send American boots! If the US did nothing to China during the Korean war, it would now step in when China is now much stronger (old saying ...the besttime to kill a crocodile is when its in its egg. Change that African saying to Dragon to make it apply to China). Anyways, read the story. Have a blessed day.

We probably already have several different platforms which are way beyond the Raptor. I would not be surprised if some of them were not based on the F-23 platform.

On another note, we probably have hypersonic stuff that can leave the atmosphere under its own power and re-enter.

We probably have like you say, things that conceptualization of it borders on the magic to the layman.

I was aware of the scramjet back in 1981.

just my take

I got to read that Arthur Clarke short story you mentioned! My two favorites of all time were ‘childhoods end’ and ‘rendezvous with rama’

Best regards friend

ps; I am having a hell of time getting a logon to Pravda, I cant find a screename that has never been used. I like their blog dialogs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.