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.
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.