Europe doesn’t need a carrier capable plane to defend itself. Aircraft carriers are not defensive weapons. France wants an aircraft carrier for it’s own power-projection capabilities. So I think it’s fair to question that kind of a requirement on a joint project.
Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands all have overseas territories that would be reasonable defensive concerns to get aircraft to under a more unified European military policy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be able to do it
Or you could just build an airstrip on those territories and station some land-based planes there.
I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider it. We also considered with the Eurofighter but then decided against it (which is one of the reasons France left the project and build the Rafale instead). It’s just not a capability that most nations need so it makes sense that they don’t want to invest in it.
And the rafale is better. It sells better, too, exports better, has better dogfighting capabilities, etc…
And once again, not only does Europe need to have aircraft carriers – it’s probably cheaper than to build airstrips on every single rock out there and station maintenance facilities on them all, but it’s needed to export the planes. India has aircraft carriers and bought rafales, and with rising tensions in the pacific and Indian oceans, there is a lot of money to be made here.
Even the US need to export planes to pay for their jet costs, why should we hamstrung ourselves ?
And also, why should we rely on the US to free up the bab el-mandeb strait ? Have you seen how the US reacted to that ? I’m done licking facist balls, let’s build 10 European aircraft carriers, and I don’t give a flying fuck who rides them.
And the rafale is better. It sells better, too, exports better, has better dogfighting capabilities, etc…
France struggled until 2015 to find international buyers for the Rafale, while exports were of utmost importance to refinance the development that France so far had to carry on their own, while the Eurofighter Typhoon has four strong domestic markets. France is pushing the Rafale aggressively. Still, there are 250 Rafales flying vs 600 EF Typhoons.
The way I see it: France wants a navalised version, which all the others don’t need, so the issue must be resolved why all need to fund the wish of one. That could be resolved, as France also has no interest in repeating the vastly expensive ego trip that was the Rafale and wants/needs a partner instead.
Dassault wanting 80% share and clear leadership on top of that however doesn’t help but just conveys the picture that France wants everything from the project while the others may pay for it. That’s not a compromise you spoke about earlier.
And the rafale is better. It sells better, too, exports better, has better dogfighting capabilities, etc…
Kind of, Kind of and no. The Eurofighter has the better trust to weight ratio and is more maneuver. Not dogfighting is really relevant anymore anyway.
Also most orders have nothing to do with it’s carrier capabilities.
And once again, not only does Europe need to have aircraft carriers
You can argue for that, but that will be far in the future (if it happens at all). So we can worry about that on the next jet. For now the amount of carriers we do have doesn’t justify the development of a carrier capable plane.
India has aircraft carriers and bought rafales
They have two small ones and we have another couple in Australia (but I suspect they’ll be going for the F-35 on them as well), so it’s actually a tiny market that already has competition. There is plenty of export opportunities for land-based planes.
Aircraft carriers can be defensive weapons. Britain couldn’t have won the Falkland war without there carriers (although you could argue they reconquered them, but in defence of a part of their country), they can move many men and their jets to the place that has to be defended. Remember that there are European countries with land overseas.
Britain couldn’t have won the Falkland war without there carriers (although you could argue they reconquered them, but in defence of a part of their country)
I feel this is a bit backwards. Britain can get away with relatively few defense on their oversee territories because they have aircraft carrier power projection. They could still have won the Falkland wars without carriers if they put a proper military force on the island to begin with.
Also the current biggest threat and main reason we need this new jet is the Russian threat to mainland Europe. And I don’t see the 5 European aircraft carriers that currently exist playing a major role here (and 3 of them already have F-35s anyway).
So let’s get the plane we actually need first. I’m sure France’s oversee territories will be fine with just the Rafales protecting them for now.
You’re not reading what people tell you completely. The UK have overseas territories, the netherlands, italy, spain, and several more.
And we need power projection to protect our sea trade like the bab el mandeb strait, the Suez strait, and more. The rafale having a naval variant didn’t stop many overseas countries without airplane carriers from choosing it with its non-naval capabilities.
And we need power projection to protect our sea trade like the bab el mandeb strait, the Suez strait, and more.
I agree. But we’re far from that. Let’s bother with developing a carrier capable plane when we have started building some more carriers. If relations with the US continue to deteriorate we can even get the Brits on board again next time.
The rafale having a naval variant didn’t stop many overseas countries without airplane carriers from choosing it with its non-naval capabilities.
Acquisition of expensive military hardware is very political and France has some good international relations. So with two planes of such similar capabilities that really doesn’t say that much about the plane.
What about Easter mediterranean which is one of the hotspot in Europe immediate neighbourhood ? What about Baltic sea which is the other hotspot in Europe immediate neighbourhood
Not really, more like a deterrence. Unless you park a carrier next to the territory permanently it’s not defending it. And in that case you might just build and airbase instead.
Absolutely. I think this is another french geopolitical wisdom moment germany had too much ego to acknowledge.
The only wisdom here is French self interest.
Europe doesn’t need a carrier capable plane to defend itself. Aircraft carriers are not defensive weapons. France wants an aircraft carrier for it’s own power-projection capabilities. So I think it’s fair to question that kind of a requirement on a joint project.
Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands all have overseas territories that would be reasonable defensive concerns to get aircraft to under a more unified European military policy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be able to do it
Or you could just build an airstrip on those territories and station some land-based planes there.
I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider it. We also considered with the Eurofighter but then decided against it (which is one of the reasons France left the project and build the Rafale instead). It’s just not a capability that most nations need so it makes sense that they don’t want to invest in it.
And the rafale is better. It sells better, too, exports better, has better dogfighting capabilities, etc…
And once again, not only does Europe need to have aircraft carriers – it’s probably cheaper than to build airstrips on every single rock out there and station maintenance facilities on them all, but it’s needed to export the planes. India has aircraft carriers and bought rafales, and with rising tensions in the pacific and Indian oceans, there is a lot of money to be made here.
Even the US need to export planes to pay for their jet costs, why should we hamstrung ourselves ?
And also, why should we rely on the US to free up the bab el-mandeb strait ? Have you seen how the US reacted to that ? I’m done licking facist balls, let’s build 10 European aircraft carriers, and I don’t give a flying fuck who rides them.
France struggled until 2015 to find international buyers for the Rafale, while exports were of utmost importance to refinance the development that France so far had to carry on their own, while the Eurofighter Typhoon has four strong domestic markets. France is pushing the Rafale aggressively. Still, there are 250 Rafales flying vs 600 EF Typhoons.
The way I see it: France wants a navalised version, which all the others don’t need, so the issue must be resolved why all need to fund the wish of one. That could be resolved, as France also has no interest in repeating the vastly expensive ego trip that was the Rafale and wants/needs a partner instead.
Dassault wanting 80% share and clear leadership on top of that however doesn’t help but just conveys the picture that France wants everything from the project while the others may pay for it. That’s not a compromise you spoke about earlier.
Kind of, Kind of and no. The Eurofighter has the better trust to weight ratio and is more maneuver. Not dogfighting is really relevant anymore anyway.
Also most orders have nothing to do with it’s carrier capabilities.
You can argue for that, but that will be far in the future (if it happens at all). So we can worry about that on the next jet. For now the amount of carriers we do have doesn’t justify the development of a carrier capable plane.
They have two small ones and we have another couple in Australia (but I suspect they’ll be going for the F-35 on them as well), so it’s actually a tiny market that already has competition. There is plenty of export opportunities for land-based planes.
Aircraft carriers can be defensive weapons. Britain couldn’t have won the Falkland war without there carriers (although you could argue they reconquered them, but in defence of a part of their country), they can move many men and their jets to the place that has to be defended. Remember that there are European countries with land overseas.
I feel this is a bit backwards. Britain can get away with relatively few defense on their oversee territories because they have aircraft carrier power projection. They could still have won the Falkland wars without carriers if they put a proper military force on the island to begin with.
Also the current biggest threat and main reason we need this new jet is the Russian threat to mainland Europe. And I don’t see the 5 European aircraft carriers that currently exist playing a major role here (and 3 of them already have F-35s anyway).
So let’s get the plane we actually need first. I’m sure France’s oversee territories will be fine with just the Rafales protecting them for now.
You’re not reading what people tell you completely. The UK have overseas territories, the netherlands, italy, spain, and several more.
And we need power projection to protect our sea trade like the bab el mandeb strait, the Suez strait, and more. The rafale having a naval variant didn’t stop many overseas countries without airplane carriers from choosing it with its non-naval capabilities.
I agree. But we’re far from that. Let’s bother with developing a carrier capable plane when we have started building some more carriers. If relations with the US continue to deteriorate we can even get the Brits on board again next time.
Acquisition of expensive military hardware is very political and France has some good international relations. So with two planes of such similar capabilities that really doesn’t say that much about the plane.
What about Easter mediterranean which is one of the hotspot in Europe immediate neighbourhood ? What about Baltic sea which is the other hotspot in Europe immediate neighbourhood
Easily reachable from land-based airbases with some aerial refueling.
My only horse in this race is that fuck France and fuck Germany, but presumably in a war one would want to attack rather than only defend no?
Aircraft carriers are defensive weapons when you have a lot of overseas territories, like France, Denmark, UK.
Not really, more like a deterrence. Unless you park a carrier next to the territory permanently it’s not defending it. And in that case you might just build and airbase instead.
Uh, Sir or Madam, deterrence is defense. Also, it is ridiculous to state that only permanently stationed forces are useful.
If you are in any way affiliated with a military, I hope it is the enemy’s.