The International Rafale forum

Hi,
The Mirage 2000 first entered service in 1984 in the AdA and it's first export was in Egypt in 1986, two years after it was operational in the AdA.
As for the Rafale, the first Rafale scadron was inaugurated in 2006 with Rafale F2.
So if we compare with the M2000 the Rafale export is one year late.
Too bad but not dramatic.
So how come there is much more than one year that each time we see the word "Rafale" there is always the words "with no export" attached not far behind ? I can't understand that. The Rafale F3 is just entering service and we all know that no customer will decide until it have proven it's good on the french air force. Now that the F3 is operational and the concept proven good, it's just time to be impatient, but before it was pointless no ?

Maybe because there is something really unique :

Rafale was once to enter service in 1996. Image the beast it would have been in 1996. Dassault started to prospect everywhere, but because of delays (money and delivery) in France, it had to pay for 25% of the R&D so as to cope with the issue of slowing down developments.

But since 1998, it's been useless. And then, you know what happened : Greece, South Korea, Singapour Saudi Arabia (?), Morocco, who's the next ? India ?

As far as export orders are concerned, there is a good and a bad news :

good news : the assembly line should remain opened until 2020 at least. So we have 10 years to prospect new makets.

Bad news : the market is going to over saturated by the F-35, the pakfa and the chineese fighters. The french rafale will not have much room left among these giants

comon South Korea and Singapor were hopeless from the start. And the Rafale did pretty well there.
Greece ? the game isn't over
Saudi Arabia ? there was no competition
Marocco ? ah yes, this one, what a fuck up, better forget it..

What I don't understand is that the Rafale isn't advertized in Romania. Seems to me that the Rafale is at least as well adapted for Romania as the Typhoon. So what's wrong behind the scene so we don't even try ?

The common point is that Dassault has propected, but failed.

I'm not sure DA knew SK and Sing were hopeless from the start. If it was the case, they wouldn't have complained so much.
In Greece, my point is that Dassault wasn't even invited. Saudi Arabia : you're true, but it's still another failure...

Prospecting for 10 years, and still no success...

Some people argue that Rafale has been designed to match Adla needs and expectations and replace a range of very different jets (Mirages F1, IV, 2000, Jaguar, Crusader, SEM etc). And it does match Adla expectations (well I believe so at least).

But maybe Adla needs were too unique or specific? Last example that come to mind is the rumor that UAE or Saudi was interested in Rafale, but the M88 may have limitations in Middle East hot weather. (While M88 is perfect for Europe/France weather).

Another factor to take into consideration is the weapon systems available with the Rafale. Sure Mica and Storm Shadow and AASM are nice, but they are pricey too, and the potential customer has no choice but to stick to these systems.

so basically the Rafale lost two competitions, in Korea and Singapore. Big deal!
It's not Rafale fault if the market is difficult and rotten to the bone by political pressure, offset, ToT and bribes.

Now xav have a point, the lack of "standard" weapon integration is a problem from the start.
An other problem I think is that the Rafale concept is subtle and difficult to understand. Big radar and big engine a la SU30 or Typhoon, everybody understand, stealth like a F22 or F35, everybody understand as well, but discretion, SER control, passive interception, sensor fusion, let alone electronic warfare, this is..well different.

I don't understand why Greece isn't enthousiast for this aircraft: didn't they usually buy french aircraft to serve as "silver bullet" ? the Rafale could be exactly that, its concept is original, one can say it's all wrong, but there is a good probability it's all right and it may reserve nasty surprises to its opponent. The top for an airforce that doesn't put all its eggs on the same basket like Greece traditionally do.

Now 2009-2010 may be determining. Losing in Greece would be a very bad point imho.

It's also time to look at the mistakes of the past or what's wrong with former Dassault customers. Seems like upgrades are too few and too expensive. That's one thing that probably upsetted the Greek (and I'm not even speaking of Taiwan letting Taiwan down with there 2000 is a politician coward SHAME !)

Rafale was in the Norwegian fighter competition, but pulled out early -- and I don't know why!? Does anybody know?

Perhaps lack of "non-French" weapons integration? Or did Dassault pull out early because they suspected F-35 would win anyway? Eurofighter pulled out of the competition but much later than Rafale, leaving only Gripen NG and F-35, and unsurprisingly, F-35 won.

L

We don't have to forget that most part of fighter (and other weapons) purchase are based on political and economical aspects. Actual capabilities came in second position.

Indeed, patriotic prides (in every countries) make us forget that all modern planes are very similar in many aspects, much more than in the past, and even less than in the next decade.
During the 1960's, Dassault proposals for fighters were made of cheap single engine delta fighters with a single interception missile under the belly (Mirage III); the USA proposals were made of single engine light interceptors with only short range missiles (F-104) or much more expensive twin-engine fighters with 8 missiles (F-4); etc etc...

Today, contenders are very similar. All the European fighters are delta-canards, engine configurations are very similar (F/A-18E, Rafale, Typhoon, Mig-35 etc...), weapon capabilities are quite identical (AMRAAM, Meteor, SCALP/Storm Shadow, GBU-12/16/24 etc) etc...
Of course, there are exceptions (the Gripen is the low-end option, the F-35 is single engine because of its STOVL variant etc...) but the market is full of airplanes with very comparable abilities for a comparable price.

In this situation, the political and economical factors came in first position when it's time to choose a new fighter.
If Greece chose the Typhoon, it won't be because it fits its need better, but because they just bought FREMM destroyers in France and they don't want to buy all their weapons to the same contractor! The HAF could argue that the Rafale is better for its needs, politicians will answer that the superiority of the Rafale over the Typhoon is very little, while the superiority of the FREMM over german ships is obvious, something like that. (that's just a supposition, I don't know if the Rafale is better for HAF or not).

For me, losing the Greek "contest" (it's not a real contest, losing it doesn't mean they wont replace the Mirage 2000 and other A-7 with Rafale later) is not a bad thing if it allows France to sell some destroyers.
Losing the Moroccan purchase, THAT was a BIG mistake, and a POLITICAL one for sure!!

I would not discount the possibility of the Greek "contest" going to leased/second hand Vipers. The economic situation in Greece is dreadfull, it´s not the best time to try selling twin engined jets down there.

There are two places in wich the Rafale is the front runner, Brasil and the UAE.