How to Win Large Contracts in BRICS Nations: Follow the French

A New Europe

by Richard Basas | on February 17th, 2012 | 20 comments

Dassault Aviation is well known for being the firm that lead France’s military export push since its inception in the late 1940s. The formation of several state aviation companies tasked with rebuilding France’s air force and civil aviation infrastructure after the Second World War re-engaged France’s great tradition in aviation that began with some the first aircraft ever to fly. With France leaving NATO during the Cold War, French aviation was charged with the task of forming its own defence and equipment to stay politically independent, yet be effective enough to challenge the Soviets in the event the Cold War went hot. Dassault was the firm that opened French aviation to other countries when it initially sold its Ouragan and Mystere type fighters abroad, most notably to Israel. What put Dassault on the map and lead to a boom in sales was the success of the Israeli Dassault Mirage III fighters over Soviet MiG 21s during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, showing that France’s small aviation industry could produce fighters that could compete with the world’s best aircraft. After Israeli pilots made the Mirage famous, Dassault sold the fighter to Australia and several other clients and firmly established Dassault and France as a key contributor to international military sales.

With the EU in economic struggles and the BRICS becoming the source of a lot of investment between borders, France and Dassault has been able to capitalise on its position as one of the top technology producers in its field to challenge Boeing and their F/A-18E fighter series for contracts in two of the BRICS nations, India and Brazil. Much like the hard sell of the Mirage IIIs during the Cold War, Dassault has produced the Rafale fighter for export sale but have had little luck in selling it outside of France until recently. Brazil was seeking to update its air force over the last decade but was weary of the French jet as it did not sell outside of France to any nation. With competition from Boeing’s F/A-18E and Saab’s Gripen fighter, Dassault might have had to break even on the Rafale if it could not produce export sales outside of the Armee de L’Air. Interest in the Rafale took hold in India and that lead President Rousseff of Brazil to send officials to India to analyse the deal, as well as express its interest in the Rafale over its main rivals. The firm decision on the fighter has yet to be set in stone, but it looks like the Rafale will arm India and Brazil’s air forces for the next few years.

Export sales by Dassault has often established the firm over decades with the sale of Mirage IIIs, Mirage 2000s and now the Rafales. Success of Dassault fighters in the Falklands War over its British rivals always made French technology one of the most feared by any nation that had to challenge it and has produced a great deal of licensed French technology to be sold abroad, especially to China. China currently does not have Dassault fighters, but does produce variants of the French Dauphin helicopter; one that has also been purchased by the US navy, as well as one of China’s most numerous Anti-aircraft systems, the HQ-7 Crotale. Competition with giants like Boeing has been extremely difficult since companies like Dassault and Airbus are based in the EU and have to compete with American companies, often for American contracts or contracts from US allies. Aviation industry contracts can make or break a firm, or provide it with decades of support sales even after the production line has stopped on a model of a plane. Part of the decision to go with Dassault by Brazilian officials was linked to an issue a few years ago where Brazilian firm Embraer was blocked from selling its Tucano aircraft to Venezuela because it has US technology in its avionics and the US was able to block the sale. Airbus also has challenged American firms under competition regulators when they lost a contract to provide the US military with new refuelling aircraft based on its commercial airliner models. It was claimed by Airbus that there was not a fair assessment of the contact between firms, as political motivations to create American jobs became more of a factor than the quality of the product. While there have been several legal battles in the industry over competition issues, it makes a strong point that for Dassault and France to win any defence contract in a BRICS nation is extremely difficult. A detailed assessment needs to be made on how to approach large procurement contracts towards BRICS nations, please see the article here for more details.

Yawn

Australia selected the Mirage-III in 1960 long before the 6 day war.

And the only French technology that did reasonably well in the Falklands was the Exocet anti-ship missile, the Mirage-III and it’s Israeli derivatives were more or less obsolete by then.
- Richard Basas
  
  They did select some initial versions in 1960 with a British Avon engine, but it was abandoned for the Dassault Mirage with the French engine and developed in OZ by 1963. Further development of a licensed Mirage III in OZ was influenced by the popularity of the aircraft after 67′ according to Serge Dassault in television interviews. I would like to find the interview video, but I could see my understanding and your claim both being correct. While the Six Day War did influence Mirage III sales later on with many countries, the initial contract with Israel that was filled in 62′ did prompt the later contract that was filled in 64′ in OZ as it was one of the initial sales and was the first large sale and gave growth to the project. The point is that the 67′ war put Dassault in the position to become one of the major export fighter companies worldwide. No one but France had the Mirage III in 1960, but the MirageIIIO with a British Avon engine was being developed for the Aussies at the time. Excuse me if there are any historical errors, but the point is that the 67′ war put Mirages on the map, this is what Serge Dassault claimed in his interview.
  
  It is agreed by many scholars that the Exocet missile was the key to Argentina’s successes in the conflict, but the point above is not that Dassault is the only French company that produced popular equipment, but that France and its national industrial aviation project started in the late 40s and advanced in the early 50s produced items that are as effective as the Exocet apart from Dassault, but a part of French industry. As well, while Argentine Mirages did fall victim to many Harriers, the Exocets were delivered by Super Etendard jets, a Dassault jet.
Yawn

Richard,

Fair enough, but do note that the Mirage-III was developed for a very specific niche. Of a light, multirole fighter-it’s price-performance capabilities were as attractive as its combat record. Not everyone needed or (could buy) heavy duty platforms like the F-4 which Israel (and later Australia) started inducting after 1967.

The Mirage was the only alternative to countries which didn’t/couldn’t buy American and didn’t want Soviet systems. You will understand my point when you see the number of F-104 Starfighters and Mig-21s which were brought by various countries; the Mirage-III and it’s Israeli/South African avatars was easily better in specs and combat performance than those two aircraft.

I’d argue that the Rafale is in a different category. It’s significantly more expensive and competes roughly in the same category as the F-15E, despite being much lighter.
- Richard Basas
  
  Very True. I think that point could be attributed to why the Israelis bought Czech versions of the Me-109 in the late 40s, as well as the rationale for purchasing the Ouragans and Mystere series of fighters after that. Due to price and a fondness for those French airplanes the Mirage IIIs were a great choice. In addition, while the Mirage was designed in the era of the Century Series fast jets, it was at the time a multirole fighter that is a concept that follows the Rafales and F-15Es today.
  
  Speaking of Century Series, the F-104 was hard pressed to serve as a ground assault aircraft. The F-5 Freedom Fighter from the 70s on a market level would be an interesting comparison with the later Mirage series, Neshers and Kfirs. There is a variant being used today in Iran’s air arm.
  
  I think today’s market has few light and cheap multirole fighers that are in demand in the market, with countries developing many of their own, buying F-16s or Russian/Chinese fighters or opting for older fighters with useless avionics. On youtube there is a report from Russia Today on how annoyed the Russians are at the Chinese copy of the Sukhoi SU-27 series (I think its called the J-11?) now an option for purchase on the world market.
  
  In one of the links on the article it points out that India chose the Rafales in part because they were simply less expensive in a larger production run. As well, I believe India has the Mirage 2000s before as well…really difficult to know their precise rationale, but all factors in selling large orders abroad. Brazilian officials hinted that the Rafale is the best choice as it was not as expensive, was not limited to American restrictions and their reality is that there are no aggressive enemies bordering Brazil so they did not need to spend too much on fighters that were there to mostly guard their oil fields. Dassault and the French government assistance they receive seems to be working with a great deal of competition from the Americans and Russians and Chinese. An interesting read is on Marcel Dassault and his son Serge Dassault on how the firm was created, how it was marketed abroad and that the name of the firm was based on Marcel’s brothers code name as part of the resistance in the Second World War.
  
  Thanks for your comments,
  R.
  - Yawn
    
    Richard,
    
    To be entirely accurate, the Mirage-III is a predecessor of sorts of the F-16 as far as bang for buck goes. The F-15E/Rafale belong to the higher end of the spectrum and hence their lower sales figures.
    
    Bang-for-buck doesn’t mean it comes cheap. The Mirage-III was comparatively expensive against the Mig-21 and F-5/F-104, all of which also came with more comprehensive Soviet/American assistance. French weaponry has always been on the more expensive side but came with an advantage of a degree of political independence and reliable, if not excellent performance. The problem with the Rafale is that unlike the Mirage-III and 2000s, its higher spectrum performance is just not needed for a lot of nations. Which is why you have seen the Gripen and F-16 winning a number of contracts though the Rafale pretty much outperforms them on most criteria. The Rafale will sell for reasons for requiring high-end combat capability without needing to rely on the US.
    
    India purchased the Rafale for a simple reason-maturity alongwith a more comprehensive technological assistance package. The American offerings have both gotten heavier and less agile and the French are known to be willing to offer more in terms of missile and submarine technology, all of which are coveted by the Indian military.
    
    I don’t think you can apply the same logic to Brazil since the Rafale is easily the most expensive of the 3 competing fighters (Super Hornet, Gripen being the others). The Rafale’s kinematic advantage over the Super Hornet wouldn’t count for Brazil for the reason you listed (but would matter for the Indian Air force against China). If I were Brazilian, I would lean towards the Super Hornet for both political and operational reasons.
    - Richard Basas
      
      Thanks for the great response,
      
      Certainly a predecessor, how do you find the Mirage F.1 and Mirage 2000 sales compared to the F-16s, and before that the F-5s? You make a great point in that alot sales were linked to Cold War allies which can make it harder to compare on an even level or as a pure market analysis.
      
      I would love to find a comparison based on price and performance between the Rafale and Gripen, as it would be great to see the true market value of each compared to what the airforces intend to use them for in the long run. An Indian Rafale vs. a Chinese J-10 would certainly be an interesting match up, one we all hope will never take place or have a reason to take place!
      
      The articles linked above discuss the price point for the Indians and Brazilians. They factored in the increased production of the Rafale due to both contracts raising demand and reducing the per-unit cost. Really what President Dilma seems to think is that those Rafales would be a reasonable price for the task they will be required for, mainly flying cover over newly discovered oil fields out in the sea. That is the information given by both government’s militaries…information that is limited at best it seems but since there is no final agreement, the F/A-18Es might still be an option. As for India, they have one of the most diverse types of modern aircraft of any air arm, I think they purchased some SU-30s or other planes from the same family not long ago, mixing it with several different types from both NATO and ex-Warsaw pack nations. Certainly a nice mix of aircraft, they might opt for some other competitors in the long run depending on their needs.
      
      Cheers,
      R.
      - Yawn
        
        The Mirage-2000 is an excellent interceptor and some people rate it as being better than the F-16 in the air to air domain unless you get into a turning battle. Where it lost out was the fact that it’s strike capability was very marginal (3 heavy pylons vs 5 for the Viper) and also the high costs due to it’s French origins. the French pretty much abandoned development of the type by the late 90s unlike Lockheed Martin which has kept modernising the F-16 and by extension kept winning contracts. The Mirage F-1 is a strange aircraft which was built at the wrong time; it offered decent capabilities but was never in the same league as the F-16 or Mirage-2000.
        
        I don’ think you can compare the Gripen and Rafale on capability. The Gripen is more than adequate for most air defence and light strike roles, but it would fall behind on the air dominance or heavy strike requirements. While the Gripen could still win contracts, the fact that it features technology from a number of countries (Anglo-Italian radar, American engine) could prove to be headache in political and offset requirements.
      - Richard Basas
        
        Good points on the Mirage 2000. I think they were using them for strikes in Libya, bombing alot of equipment of French origin as well. During the first strikes they targeted many AA systems, including the Crotale systems possessed by Libya. I had the impression that the method of extending and upgrading systems by the US is a format that should have been adopted by the French, and the Rafale’s might follow this F-16 sales method in the future. Interestingly enough, IAI out of Israel are one of the main firms offering upgrades to MiG 21s…a plane that was often at the tip of the spear on past attacks on Israel.
        
        Interesting what you say on the Gripen, I wonder why Brazil was considering it next to the Rafale and F/A-18Es as it seems that is it almost in a different level of requirements altogether. I might assume that the Rafales might be their best option if we consider the info. in the articles on why they are choosing Rafale, as it might enable them to send a force on UN missions without lacking the ability to be assertive on missions.
        
        Now beyond the technical discussion, which of these planes do you believe is the most impressive visually? Going from the Mirage IIIs to the Rafales…
Yawn

There’s a very simple reason why nobody has been able to match the US in upgrading or selling hardware. Take the F-16/Mirage-2000 comparison which are analogous in capability and induction time ; the French Air Force purchased little around 300 of those aircraft while the USAF brought more than 2000 in roughly the same time frame. That meant significantly lower costs of airframes as well as associated systems in addition to incentives for upgrades. It’s also the reason why the Rafale has fared better in competitions like India and Switzerland compared to the Eurofighter. It had better state support and a more streamlined upgrade path.

The Israeli Mig-21 upgrade path is not surprising; they have provided upgrades (mainly electronics/sensors) for the Mig-27, Mig-29, SU-22, SU-25, Mi-17, Mi-24 to countries like Poland, Romania, Hungary and India. The fact that many of those systems were produced outside present day Russia during the Soviet times means that the Russians can’t legally enforce any Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) rights the way US or French companies do.

If you look at the Brazilian air force’s history, you will notice that they have traditionally operated light-medium fighters. The Gripen would fit nicely into the niche of the Mirage-III, F-5, AMX and Mirage-2000 while the Rafale would seem like an overkill and the Super Hornet as being out of place. I’d assume that the Brazilian F-X2 competition is as much about transfer of technology as about selecting a fighter. In India, the MMRCA competition was one of 3 ongoing acquisition/inductions (others being the SU-30 and HAL Tejas) in addition to the development of the Russian PAK FA. The Brazilians have only one such programme-the F-X2, so they would appreciate as much technology as they can get their hands on.Saab does have a lot of development work going on beyond the Gripen.

About looks, I have always had a soft corner for the Mirage-2000. The Rafale looks a bit small compared to the more hormonal American fighters!!
- Richard Basas
  
  Yes you are certainly correct. I chose this topic for the article above as the Rafale seems to be getting some sales despite the competition from the US. When you mentioned earlier that you would have chosen the F/A-18Es over the Rafale for Brazil’s needs, you are correct in your assessment, but for their own reasons Brazil seems to be choosing the Rafales. This rationale is interesting as it shows not only where Brazil sees itself in the future, but also places it apart from the US in their efforts to become more of a mediator nation between two political ideologies in Latin America, hence there is a soft policy of avoiding dependence on the US in all areas possible. As well with the PAC 2 investments their government is seeking R+D and to develop their industry beyond simple industrial products into having their own R+D base as a source of export growth in itself. While the Gripen to me seems like the lighter logical choice considering their history and your assessment of the US offer does make sense, they chose Rafale in the end as a reflection of where they see themselves in the future as an economy and on the world stage. I will certainly follow developments of this purchase from Brazil’s perspective in future articles.
  
  I agree it is not surprising, but ironic considering the problems MiG 21′s and other cold war soviet fighters has given the Israelis. I have read that this action by IAI to be a key upgrader of MiGs and Sukhois serves to keep modernisations to such equipment out of control of possible future adversaries. Since these are new systems that were never developed by the original companies, I think they legally have no issues selling the products. Until they produce a copied J-11 and market it in competition with Russia, they seem to be in the clear from the OEM issues.
  
  I also love the Mirage’s, if you want to see many Mirage 2000s see the French film Chevaliers du Ciel for excellent shots of the Mirages! The Mirage III and earlier variants look very sleek. I think my taste for them comes from the first Iron Eagle movie that used F-21s/Kfirs as the enemy plane calling it MiG-23s…I always liked the look of them for some reason. I think two very interesting types beyond the initial Mirage III is the Mirage F.1, which I think is one of the best looking planes next to a MiG-29, as well as the Mirage G.8 experimentals that mirror the form of the actual MiG-23s but with the front cone and intakes of a Mirage F.1.
  
  I enjoy our discussions and would encourage you to post information on this blog if you wish that others read your own blog or articles online if you like. Thanks again for your insights into the articles above.
  
  Cheers,
  R.
ron

India cannot afford the political limitations placed directky by the US on American products, or the presence of US arts and influence on Gripens and Eurofighters. RUSSIA and FRANCE have been the most steadfast allies of India in mil equipment, so naturally SU 30 MKI and Rafale are selected.

Brazil? I understand their position fully as an Indian. Tho they have no big enemies to fight (like Pakistan or China), they are a big nation with pride, and it’s difficult for a big country with a strong self image to accept the possibility of arrogant America dictating and controlling flow of technology, parts embargoes, and other nonsense the USA likes to do. Fine for lapdogs and virtual colonies like Korea, Japan, etc, but not for big nations with independent minds.
- Richard Basas
  
  You make a strong point, as is the reasoning behind Brazil hinting at their choice of the Rafale. I would point out that the top of the line technology from France and Russia are often not sold abroad, as well, Russia and France as well as the US sell systems to Pakistan. France and Russia specifically selling equipment and licences to build that equipment in China directly.
  
  The only incident with the US was that the Tucano aircraft assembled by Embraer had some US technology in it (might have been the radar) that was restricted when an offer was made to sell the aircraft to Venezuela. Many countries like Japan are linked to US equipment for the most part because they are bound by international treaty to only maintain a self defense force due to agreements after the Second World War made with the US, so the US often has first choice as they are working and living in Japan. I would argue South Korea as a smaller nation has limited choices, but that being said their industrial companies make a large number of electronic systems despite the small size of their nation. In reality, Japan makes alot of its own military equipment, and Brazil has its AMX program as well. To be truly independent, HAL industries would need to make many more of their own aircraft and this would only come about from an AMX type partnership or they would have to use parts from the US, Russia or France initially. France’s market strategy in this way is quite impressive if you consider the competition and political limitations of dealing with countries that are in the shadow of Russia, the US and China.
Neville

As an Englishman it pains me to see Rafale winning export orders in competition with Eurofighter Typhoon. If the latter jet fails to secure additional sales soon the production lines will close mid way through the decade with the loss of thousands of skilled engineers in aerospace and the supply chain. Typhoon is touted as a highly agile air superiority fighter with excellent thrust to weight ratio, impressive operational ceiling and a modern airframe to deliver beyond visual range missiles.
However its debut in Libya, in tandem with the strike veteran, Tornado, was generally seen as a crude PR exercise designed to allay fears that the Typhoon did not possess proven capability in the air to ground role.
It is rather ironic to me that BAE Sytems saw the future of jet fighters in collaboration with first the Eurofighter project and more recently with the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. France decided to withdraw from the European Agile Fighter Aircraft project (to become the Eurofighter) because it did not want to surrender design leadership to the other partners and maybe because it predicted the problems inherent with collaboration. Sure enough costs have spiraled out of control with Typhoon and the partner nations have been often reluctant to support vital upgrades.
Dassault by contrast, have successfully gone it alone with full support from a sympathetic government which not only wanted Rafale to succeed on the export front but also could promise, with one eye on history, that it would not withdraw support to any exported planes that became involved in armed conflicts.
Interestingly one bi product of France’s strategic approach to military aircraft design, manufacture and procurement is that it will be practically alone in entering the second half of the decade minus a plane developed with full stealth characteristics.
- Richard Basas
  
  The Typhoon and the way it was sold started initally with the combination of nations contributing to the project, thus ensuring sales ‘aborad’ within the production group and creating jobs within all of those nations. I do not think there was much of a push beyond the four nations, and if there was to be an effective export strategy all four nations would have to be satisfied with their tech being exported to that specific customer. In that way it can be said that all of the Typhoons were ‘pre-exported’ due to the make-up of the project, and since it was a symbol of European cooperation coming from the Concorde, Airbus and Tornado method, eyes were not looking at India or Brazil two decades ago and maybe there was too much focus on Europe in the project.
  
  I do think the Typhoon is a great aircraft, but I think to sell a late Generation 4 fighter you need a hungry marketing department and state support. I think Dassault having to compete since the Mirage III era as a business as well as a symbol of France, had the focus abroad as well as the do it or lose your job attitude it needs to compete against the US and Russia in their market. Saab has entered this market as well with the Gripen, interesting strategy as well with Saab having so many troubles with its auto manufacturing wing. With the F35 they will pre-secure sales and take their profits from that, but on a much larger scale. France did collaborate with Airbus, Concorde and the Jaguar aircraft on a pan-European scale, I think with Dassault specifically there has always been an independent push. Early on France as a nation has divided its aviation industry into national sections and some of those went into pan-European projects or linked with the British aerospace industry. Dassault making fighters mainly seems to operate as more of a commercial entity with French support, rather than a direct arm of French policy. To put the UK and France in a direct comparison historically, the main rivals of the earlier Mysteres were British jets that dominated the Israelis in the 50s. The only option was the Mysteres and Vautour bombers that were more of a benefit to Israel than it was to France. This might explain why there is a division even today, but there is no way to prove this to be the case beyond French fighters being the best cost effective option for many outside of the US and Russian sphere of influence. That tradition I believe follows as the Rafales are inexpensive enough to be an option as stealth aircraft may be more than they need. Often air defense systems accompany a Rafale or similar aircraft as Brazil is seeking defense more than anything else.
  
  I appreciate your perspective coming from the UK, I have visited the Colindale museum several times and appreciate your attachment to British aviation. Thanks for your comments!
  
  R.
Neville

Thanks for your detailed response Richard. I think that future export prospects for Typhoon are grim. Gulf states such as UAE, Kuwait and Qatar are seeking a common fighter replacement and may be influenced by Rafale’s win in India. Korea is no doubt using Eurofighter as a stalking horse in its fighter competition and will ultimately follow the lead of another client state, Japan, in procuring American jets. Many European countries are involved in the F35 project whilst South America is a no go area for BAE Systems because of the Falklands/Malvinas issue. Finally, African countries would be hard pushed to afford a single Typhoon between them!!
The bloated administration costs associated with the consortium approach have all but eliminated any advantages that Typhoon may have gained through economies of scale.
It would however be interesting, in the Indian context, to explore the degree to which the French taxpayer has played a crucial role in enabling Rafale, with only the French air force and navy as customers, to undercut Typhoon which has six air force orders, by a a rumored 15-25% !!

As a retired British national I would be happy to contribute further to any comments associated with foreign policy matters, with a particular interest in aerospace.

best wishes
- Richard Basas
  
  Cheers Neville,
  
  I think if the Rafale gets contracts in India and Brazil, it may not go much further as the market is quite limited for France considering ties between many of its European allies and the US and Russia abroad that would push them out of the market. Thos contracts would be enough to sustain them for another generation. I believe alot has to do with France’s vision of itself as independent and able to achieve great potential with its own method..and to be honest this perspective has served them well, and that pride is worth the cost perhaps? I speak French and English and I often find in english media and publications there is little credit given where it is due related to French technology, systems, and even culture. In the end the lack of information about Franco affairs does not benefit anyone.
  
  I think the weakest position for the Typhoon is that it came out at the wrong time. This brings me back to the V-Bombers, as “cool” and remarkable as they were, and as much of a symbol of pride in the British Aerospeace industry they have been, they simply came out at the wrong time and were not able to show their true capabilities. It is hard to say whether or not the Typhoon will have further exports as it seems as if it needs to run its course in the UK and Germany (they do not wish to sell their top of the line tech either!) before they would be willing to turn it into an export product. The Saudi’s have the Tornados and often sales of such things comes from a historical firmilarity..France always sold outside Europe, they had a natural progression to sell abroad that was not tied to any state policy (ie.ex-British colonies being filled with early jets) and this might help sell a few Typhoons if they have the salesforce to do it. If they offered both you and myself such positions I am sure we could convince a few people to invest in Typhoons Neville! ;)
  
  Cheers Neville, please feel free to comment on anything on this blog or aviation or any topic. Cheers and thanks!
  Rich
Yawn

Richard, Neville,

To understand where the Typhoon has gone wrong, I think it would be prudent to compare it with two similar predecessors (in project terms)-the Jaguar and Panavia Tornado. Without a doubt, the Typhoon is the best aircraft of this lot unlike the other two which were never designed to be the ‘latest and greatest’.

The Jaguar enjoyed a lot of export success due to a simple fact-it was essentially a sole British effort as far as export promotion/development went. The French stayed out to avoid affecting Dassault sales, so the Brits could develop the Jaguar in whatever way they wanted and it helped that it was essentially a simple, light jet. The Tornado suffered since it was a big attack jet in the days of shiny, lighter multirole jets like the Mirage-2000, F-16 and F-18 Hornet.

The problem with the Typhoon is that it was born at the wrong time with four partners who had no interest in continuing the project after Cold War.

Neville, you asked how could the Rafale be ‘cheaper’-for one, the French paid for full multirole capability, not for exports, but for their own national defense, since they have nothing but the Rafale to depend on. That costs a lot of money (new electronics, weaponry, possible structural modification) and time. For the Eurofighter, the primary customers have shown little interest in a full multirole capability beyond demands from the RAF. So in essence, you will have a Rafale which can do every role under the sun by 2013, while you may need to wait till 2020 for a similar Typhoon variant. Then you have to look at the basic nature of the projects-the Rafale is solely French, while the Typhoon is both national and multi-national. So while parts for the Typhoon are built in four nations, but final assembly happens in all the nations!! Imagine the costs involved in that more so with countries looking to cut numbers all the time. And finally, for India (and the UAE), you would have significant commonality in electronics and weaponry with the Mirage-20005, which would reduce logistics costs for the Rafale. So the 15-20% cost difference is not exactly puzzling.
- Richard Basas
  
  Thanks Yawn for that insightful response!
Neville

Fascinating stuff folks. I feel that the 50s were the golden age for the British Aviation industry and it’s been pretty much downhill ever since. Even when we designed great planes such as Comet (metal fatigue notwithstanding) Hunter, VC10, Lightning and Hawk the full export potential was rarely exploited due to aggressive marketing from the Americans and failure to support a critical industrial sector from successive governments.
Of course there have been successes in collaborative projects such Airbus but Britain lacks the funds to take design leadership in cutting edge technology although there are promising developments with UAVs (French collaboration)
My favourite all British combat jet was the beautiful, iconic, advanced strike plane – TSR2 scrapped by the Labour government of Harold Wilson in the 60s. Years ahead of its time, with advanced radar and blistering performance from its Rolls-Royce Olympus engines it was cancelled (and all prototypes destroyed) allegedly because it threatened the success of the competing American F111. The Russians were terrified by the plane’s potential to strike deep inside their airspace and the Australians were poised with a large export order.
This remains one of the worst cases of industrial butchery ever inflicted on a plane by its own government and raises questions about the role of the politicians involved and the financial inducements that were employed by the American administration at the time.
Anyway I must disappear. Take care gentlemen !!
- Richard Basas
  
  Cheers Neville,
  
  There were quite a few exports, especially the Hunter and Vampire, but I think most of it was geared towards the post colonial era where political ties with former colonies determined export policy for those aircraft. As well, the fact that post late 60s there was a funding crisis that seemed to have dragged on and took a strong hold of the economy even felt today, affected every industry and had slowly eroded Britain’s economic position during that period. When I lived there you could feel the late 60s being a strong era around London, and this is reflected in the aircraft as well I believe.
  
  I think there is the potential for economic expansion, and you will find many in the rest of Europe looking to Britain and London for economic and commercial innovation, in general in any case. Whether anyone does it or not is a different story. I always favoured the British Experimental planes above all else, as they really pushed the Concord project and shared much of the innovative spirit of Dassault and great projects of the Cold War era. I think the helicopter and tanks that have come out of the UK have represented the best of British, and this continues to be the case.
  
  Speaking of the TSR-2, in Canada the same thing happened with the Avro Arrow project. They made a 1:1 replica of the Arrow recently as still the scandal and the destruction of the Arrow really angered alot of people. While many of those Canadians went on to work for NASA, the Arrow has always been a part of the debate on how Canadians feel ‘non-American’. From what I’ve read, and I do not know if this reflects the debate on the TSR-2 (Airfix made a model kit of it, I suggest you pick one up!), the Arrow came about when Ballistic missiles changed the battlefield making bomber interceptors unpractical. This does not mean they had to all be destroyed, but the same rationale was used to explain why the V-Bombers were not as utilised as they should have been and may be part of the TSR-2 actions as well, although the TSR-2 and F-111 seemed to come later and serve a different roles.
  
  Maybe you could detail for me more information on the TSR-2 as I was unaware of the political motivations in cancelling the project. As well, can you explain why three V-Bombers was created and put into production at a time where they were coming into a new era? I always saw them as the final design development of the Golden Age of British aviation and had alot to do with promoting the nation as a whole as opposed to creating a plane for its time. I think for better or for worse, with military and even civil aviation there is always a political element that cannot be avoided. But you must admit, the Arrow, V bombers and British X-planes are very attractive!
  
  Cheers Neville,
  Rich

How to Win Large Contracts in BRICS Nations: Follow the French

Author

Global Jobs

How to Win Large Contracts in BRICS Nations: Follow the French

Author

Popular Posts

Global Jobs

Popular Tags