What if, France never left the Eurofighter consortium

[helmutkohl]

So we know some time in the early 80s, France split with the UK, West Germany, Italy and Spain, and developed the ACX into the Rafale, and the others made the Typhoon.

the disagreement stemmed from a carrier variant.

What if in this scenario, France never left and somehow the five of them managed to develop something together.

so the question would be
- How could the consortium meet the needs of all the members including France?
- How would the end product look like had France stayed? would it still look like a Eurofighter? like a Rafale? something else?
- IRC, France wanted a Naval part, and the UK wanted STVOL (although in the end they didnt get that). Could the consortium have pushed for some STVOL (maybe p1216?) and urge France to go STOVL carriers instead?
or UK just end up ditching STVOL, settle for Harrier (like they did), and still have the Eurofighter designed for catobar operations to appease the French?
- how would it affect future developments in Europe? and exports?

 

[Archibald]

It was more than the naval variant... SNECMA M88 clashed head-on with RR EJ200.
And SNECMA was a public company hence the French government was involved and politics made this quite ugly.

Naval variant, SNECMA and Dassault well-known independance (reinforced by his negative feelings related to the Jaguar - after he bought Breguet in 1971) were huge roadblocks.

I have a thread somewhere in this section, trying to work around these major issues.

SNECMA stuck with the Atar for waaaay too long, scored a mixed success first with TF10/30 under licence that led to the M53 "leaky turbojet", also a mixed bag.
So it was still lagging behind in the 70's. They scored a major victory when they snatched the F101 core via the CFM56 civilian turbojet, and from there worked on the M69 that soon become the M88.

RR EJ200 had a long and rich ancestry of small and efficient military turbofans, all the way from RB.153, RB.172 and RB.199.

These two clashed headon.

 

[helmutkohl]

It was more than the naval variant... SNECMA M88 clashed head-on with RR EJ200.
And SNECMA was a public company hence the French government was involved and politics made this quite ugly.

Naval variant, SNECMA and Dassault well-known independance (reinforced by his negative feelings related to the Jaguar - after he bought Breguet in 1971) were huge roadblocks.

I have a thread somewhere in this section, trying to work around these major issues.

SNECMA stuck with the Atar for waaaay too long, scored a mixed success first with TF10/30 under licence that led to the M53 "leaky turbojet", also a mixed bag.
So it was still lagging behind in the 70's. They scored a major victory when they snatched the F101 core via the CFM56 civilian turbojet, and from there worked on the M69 that soon become the M88.

RR EJ200 had a long and rich ancestry of small and efficient military turbofans, all the way from RB.153, RB.172 and RB.199.

These two clashed headon.

was it not possible just to agree on a two engine solution. one group stays with the RRs, the other with Snecma
similar to how the F-4s had British RR engines and American options?

 

[Archibald]

I don't think it would be possible, unfortunately. The British pushed for RR, the French for SNECMA, politically it was Mitterrand vs Maggie (I dislike both !) polar opposites.

I think something would have to be done with the Mirage 2000 and M53 to keep SNECMA busy elsewhere.

 

[alertken]

Arch: thanks for the cross-channel input which Brit-centrics need.

France leaving MRCA let UK in, so Thanks be to the Lord. But France leaving (to be EF) was more than a shame, closer to a catastrophe. Despite a decade of politicians' attempts to shot-gun Dassault+BAES into many-named Future-things, we appear now again to have failed, and are on the verge of duplication, FRG+France, UK+Italy in Team Tempest with whoever. This is a gross failure of Statecraft. Sole beneficiaries will be whoever might emerge in the sights of these mid-century assets. By wasting industrial resources on minor peculiars preventing commonality, we deny ourselves scale economies and the opportunity-work not being done by the duplicate team - for example effort in the cyber field where others are eroding our sovereignty.

We should close out "fault" on Rafale+Typhoon (+Gripen); we should learn that our neighbours must be our friends; we should talk till exhausted, to come up with a max-common solution. What McNamara tried to do with F-111A+B, succeeded with F-4s. Compromise: the good enough. Assign Centres of Excellence, so that small industries can hold up their heads in the Team: so: I do engine, you do Missile A, he does Missile B. Italy flourished thus on Tornado, Spain on EF.

(Can anyone produce a military reason for Qatar to buy Rafale+Typhoon?)

 

[Mirage4000]

So we know some time in the early 80s, France split with the UK, West Germany, Italy and Spain, and developed the ACX into the Rafale, and the others made the Typhoon.

the disagreement stemmed from a carrier variant.

What if in this scenario, France never left and somehow the five of them managed to develop something together.

so the question would be
- How could the consortium meet the needs of all the members including France?
- How would the end product look like had France stayed? would it still look like a Eurofighter? like a Rafale? something else?
- IRC, France wanted a Naval part, and the UK wanted STVOL (although in the end they didnt get that). Could the consortium have pushed for some STVOL (maybe p1216?) and urge France to go STOVL carriers instead?
or UK just end up ditching STVOL, settle for Harrier (like they did), and still have the Eurofighter designed for catobar operations to appease the French?
- how would it affect future developments in Europe? and exports?

It was possible but politics and money are the problems but it is good the French went for Rafale such a beautiful aircraft, perhaps the most beautiful aircraft since 1986

 

[Archibald]

I think we need a POD before 1983 - in the 1976-1982 era, related to TKF-90, Mirage 3000, ECA/ ECF studies.

ECA was Germany going to Britain, with France joining later and ECF was born, this happening in 1977-1979 with TKF-90 in the background.
A first major crisis happened in 1981 when ECF imploded in a way very similar to Rafale / Typhoon in 1985.

When ECF imploded, France and Great Britain went their own ways and by 1983 when talks resumed it was too late: EAP and ACX mockups and future demonstrators were already under way.

In a sense, ECF imploding into EAP and ACX led to the Rafale / Typhoon split by 1985. Note that Spain nearly went with France on the Rafale bandwagon.

The only way to keep ECA / ECF into a single piece is to start as early as possible for Dassault and most importantly SNECMA to be busy with the Mirage 2000 (first flight MArch 10, 1978, IOC 1984), which also drains Armée de l'air short-term funding. This could eventually force the French to cooperate, perhaps changing the course of ECA / ECF, related to the TKF-90 and its RB.199s.
Same for the RAF by 1976-78 with the Tornado ADV.

OTL Germany went to GB first, in 1977, rather than to France. Whatif France outran GB and went to the Germans first with the British joining only later ? Whatif France and Germany found that a subscale Mirage 4000 really looked like a TKF-90 ?

That's why after pondering about a "no Rafale / Typhoon split" scenario for a long time, I'm convinced that something must happen in the ECA / ECF era and essentially bring together
- Mirage 4000 or scaled down variant
- Tornado ADV and its engines (improved RB.199 encompassing SNECMA)
- TKF-90 (as a basic shape leading to Typhoon and Rafale)

Some kind of scaled down Mirage 4000 with RB.199s as a compromise.

 

[zen]

Frankly I'm starting to think a compromise was possible between the British and French and Italians.....
But once you factor in German needs for workshare.....
It all gets messy.

Briefly the French ACF was looked at as an alternative to the ADV Tornado. The main issue being the lack of space for the Foxhunter Radar.....if it could be fitted somehow....?

And if we spool back to the AFVG, we have Bristol/SNECMA M45 engine. While RR have teamed up with MTU on the RB.153.

That's why the RB.172 emerges, as a UK only engine and it's this which is scaled down to produce the Adour used in Jaguars and Hawks.

So hypothetically a full-scale version of RB.172 might form the basis of future work with SNECMA if RR is still being favoured or a more extreme AH has Bristol survive and continue it's relationship with SNECMA. Either way a turbofan good enough for ACF and future aircraft like the ECF could emerge.

As an aside if Bristol survives will they be the ones to carry what we know as the RB.211 three shaft engine effort?

Another path forward is the MN's AN getting the PA.75 with Sea Harrier.
A French order for SHar relieves French AF requirements of the need to accommodate the Aeronavale's needs.
This might tie up nicely with RN Exocets, and Invincibles. Perhaps with Magic instead of Sidewinders?
That would imply the likes of P.1216 as the successor, with MICA AAMs.?

Though if PA.75 goes ahead does this influence the UK and see the RN switch to CVL-N?

 

[helmutkohl]

^ thats a pretty well written out plan on how they could have balanced each others needs

i do like the idea of Harriers on French ships as a compromise

 

[isayyo2]

(Can anyone produce a military reason for Qatar to buy Rafale+Typhoon?)

A lot of FU gas money they've been sitting on? But more likely its to curry favor with the EU and USA in light of their "blockade" which I think just ended.

 

[Archibald]

^ thats a pretty well written out plan on how they could have balanced each others needs

i do like the idea of Harriers on French ships as a compromise

Harrier was tested on french decks circa 1971: Foch and Jeanne d'arc.

 

[Archibald]

Briefly the French ACF was looked at as an alternative to the ADV Tornado. The main issue being the lack of space for the Foxhunter Radar.....if it could be fitted somehow....?

Now that's interesting. ACF was pretty large and a two seater was planned so ADV may be possible. That must have been before 1975 when it was canned.

 

[zen]

Timing could be quite interesting here on ACF.
I wonder if there is an RR engine alternative to M53....?

That said Super 530 with Skyflash type seeker.....

 

[Archibald]

Spey imediately comes to mind as pretty close from the M53 (except worse at high altitude.)

 

[Trident]

Compromise: the good enough. Assign Centres of Excellence, so that small industries can hold up their heads in the Team: so: I do engine, you do Missile A, he does Missile B.

This.

The vexing thing is that industry skills in Europe, are to a greater extent than not, very complementary. France excels in airframe conceptual design, Britain in all aspects of engine design (particularly conceptual), Germany in subsystem and manufacturing engineering, Italy in certain aspects of electronics (EW). Other avionics (radar, FCS, navigation etc.) can be handled by the UK and France respectively, with contributions from Germany and Spain. Same with subsets of the engine and airframe.

I regularly despair at politics managing to ruin what should be a no-brainer. It seems to have an uncanny knack for discovering and amplifying out of all proportion the isolated pieces of dissent in a vast expanse of common ground. There is some overlap in competencies, of course, but nothing that should be irreconcilable with a bit of bartering and juggling in theory.

As far as I can tell the Meteor AAM is an example where things worked much better, and the workshare distribution between Safran, MTU & ITP on the FCAS engine also strikes me as inspired. Even the fact that overall project leadership was ceded to France without much grudging was encouraging, and I this regard I'm starting to think that recent German MoD hit piece report is a good thing. If that's simply indicative of the Germans feeling they have too little input into the conceptual design, so much the better! The essential fact is: France does this better, at least for fighter aircraft (a non-nuclear submarine, armoured vehicle or gun might be a different story, but we digress). German engineering is peerless at solving a given problem - but please let others define that problem!

Frankly I'm starting to think a compromise was possible between the British and French and Italians.....
But once you factor in German needs for workshare.....
It all gets messy.

Not necessarily. As I say above, keep German politics and industry away from defining the scope and concept, let them sort out the manifold tough detail engineering challenges that they excel at. For EFA, this would have meant Britain leads the engine (which would turn out to be a lot like EJ200, but with French turbines), France leads the airframe (think Rafale A), the others contribute certain detailed aspects. Hopefully the airframe/engine split leadership would avoid the kind of Franco-British clash that led them to part ways in reality.

 

[zen]

Spey imediately comes to mind as pretty close from the M53 (except worse at high altitude.)

But worse for diameter. That's why a RB.172 variant seems more logical.
There was a turbofan for the twin engined Viggen I seem to recall.

 

[Archibald]

Well the Jaguar's Adour was very much a subscale RB.172 by Turboméca (not SNECMA) so that would make some sense.
In France it was known as the M45.
In fact when the TF306E was dropped (1969) the M53 was started from zero to replace it... when the M45 already existed and had no role except going civilian for a small German airliner.

While the M45 lacked thrust, one can wonder if it would had not be a better long term bargain for SNECMA. Thrust wise it wasn't worse than the old Atar (6 mt tons thrust) yet immensely smaller, lighter, and the SFC was much lower, too.

I wish Dassault would have flown a Mirage V with that engine. Plus it would have screwed the Jaguar even more.

I once toyed with a twin M45 Mirage IV starting late 1968 when the 62 and last rolled out of Mérignac production line: range could have been 40% better.

 

[zen]

Compromise: the good enough. Assign Centres of Excellence, so that small industries can hold up their heads in the Team: so: I do engine, you do Missile A, he does Missile B.

This.

The vexing thing is that industry skills in Europe, are to a greater extent than not, very complementary. France excels in airframe conceptual design, Britain in all aspects of engine design (particularly conceptual), Germany in subsystem and manufacturing engineering, Italy in certain aspects of electronics (EW). Other avionics (radar, FCS, navigation etc.) can be handled by the UK and France respectively, with contributions from Germany and Spain. Same with subsets of the engine and airframe.

I regularly despair at politics managing to ruin what should be a no-brainer. It seems to have an uncanny knack for discovering and amplifying out of all proportion the isolated pieces of dissent in a vast expanse of common ground. There is some overlap in competencies, of course, but nothing that should be irreconcilable with a bit of bartering and juggling in theory.

As far as I can tell the Meteor AAM is an example where things worked much better, and the workshare distribution between Safran, MTU & ITP on the FCAS engine also strikes me as inspired. Even the fact that overall project leadership was ceded to France without much grudging was encouraging, and I this regard I'm starting to think that recent German MoD hit piece report is a good thing. If that's simply indicative of the Germans feeling they have too little input into the conceptual design, so much the better! The essential fact is: France does this better, at least for fighter aircraft (a non-nuclear submarine, armoured vehicle or gun might be a different story, but we digress). German engineering is peerless at solving a given problem - but please let others define that problem!

Frankly I'm starting to think a compromise was possible between the British and French and Italians.....
But once you factor in German needs for workshare.....
It all gets messy.

Not necessarily. As I say above, keep German politics and industry away from defining the scope and concept, let them sort out the manifold tough detail engineering challenges that they excel at. For EFA, this would have meant Britain leads the engine (which would turn out to be a lot like EJ200, but with French turbines), France leads the airframe (think Rafale A), the others contribute certain detailed aspects. Hopefully the airframe/engine split leadership would avoid the kind of Franco-British clash that led them to part ways in reality.

In aircraft concept it's probably a tie up between the UK and France.
Similarly with radar.
Just don't let the Germans do software.

 

[DWG]

Getting a successful design out of Eurofighter with France still involved would be proof that eierlegende Wollmilchsau (egg laying, woolly, milk producing pigs) can still fly even when tied up in the Tricoleur.

IIRC the French demands were: an 8.5tonne rather than 9.5tonne design, M88, and Dassault design leadership. Accommodating that gets you Rafale, and (probably) the other countries involved walking away and buying F-18.

I think the real sticking point of those three is probably Dassault, and the willingness of the rest of European industry to work XwithX for them. The others could be accomodated in a national/CV variant.

 

[Trident]

In aircraft concept it's probably a tie up between the UK and France.
Similarly with radar.
Just don't let the Germans do software.

Yes, they are close in that regard, but I'd give the edge to France for a more canny understanding of export markets.

Radar is definitely one of those areas with substantial overlap (and don't sell Italy short!), I'd call that a draw, too. Still, with most of the mosaic pieces fitting together quite neatly, some kind of accommodation should be possible on the few remaining points.

You can let Germans do software no problem at all - just don't let them define it, yet again!

IIRC the French demands were: an 8.5tonne rather than 9.5tonne design, M88, and Dassault design leadership. Accommodating that gets you Rafale, and (probably) the other countries involved walking away and buying F-18.

That France by these demands contributed to the split is not up for debate - the nature of compromise would have required them to give in a lot too. M88 and the OEW cap would have to go, for sure.

 

[Archibald]

an 8.5tonne rather than 9.5tonne design,

I heard that the Europeans expressly made Eurofighter design heavier and heavier to screw M88.

Both sides were pigs, really. RR was no better than Dassault, as for the Germans... watch what happened after 1989 when they tried to screw EFA into a castrated single engine type (or buy F-18s)

 

[uk 75]

We have a number of these threads about changing the consortia that built key European combat aircraft. They all have common factors which run through each thread.
France is the only nation after 1965 able and willing to go it alone and let Dassault meets its needs.
The UK arguably has the strongest aerospace industry but its woeful economy and overreach of military commitments forces a search for European partners or US designs at the lowest price it can get.
Germany has the most successful economy. It prefers US designs from F104 thru F4 to F18. But its European and industrial ambitions drive it into programmes like MRCA and PAH Tiger.
Italy has the weakest economy and most confused politics but its aerospace industry is imaginative and punches well above its weight from G91 to EH101.
I would add Sweden (Spain, Netherlands and Canada have little impact and take what they can get.).
Sweden builds successful combat aircraft from Draken through Viggen to Gripen. It is a natural industrial partner but its political neutrality makes combined projects very hard.
Unless you can alter the ingredients for each partner that I have tried to sum up above, it is pretty hard to come up with altetnatives to Jaguar, MRCA, Alpha Jet, Eurofighter and the Mirage/Rafale family.
Worryingly the most likely outcome is a buy from the US with F18 and F35 being the current alts.

 

[zen]

Several thoughts....

UK is dogged by a tendency to change it's mind and in the prospect of more jam tomorrow or a superlative solution. Scrap the current effort. Rinse and repeat.
This makes military and industry keen to find international partners who will make that hard and politically embarrassing to do.
In the process military and industry accept a degree of sacrifice to achieve something good enough.

France is if anything dogged by the opposite problem. It's vaulting ambition is cut down to what sells abroad, at the sacrifice of desired capability.

Germany is....a special case.

Italy had too much instability, industry managed to get moving despite the politics and often because of the political flux, was left to get on with it. In turn thus made industry a stable political force inofitself.

Sweden is somewhat romanticised. Reality is often simple, tawdry even and subject to a lot of under the table help that is then not recognised publicly.

Canada overreached and made an even more dramatic change of mind than the UK.

Yugoslavia broke up, though they had prior the willpower to make things happen.
Romania needed the Yugoslavians to turn grand ideas into something real, if less ambitious.

Poland ought to have achieved much more. Even under Communism.
But they are even more their own worse enemy than Russia and Germany combined.

The Czechs have managed to thread the needle quite well here. Keep an eye on them for the future.

 

[helmutkohl]

Arch: thanks for the cross-channel input which Brit-centrics need.

France leaving MRCA let UK in, so Thanks be to the Lord. But France leaving (to be EF) was more than a shame, closer to a catastrophe. Despite a decade of politicians' attempts to shot-gun Dassault+BAES into many-named Future-things, we appear now again to have failed, and are on the verge of duplication, FRG+France, UK+Italy in Team Tempest with whoever. This is a gross failure of Statecraft. Sole beneficiaries will be whoever might emerge in the sights of these mid-century assets. By wasting industrial resources on minor peculiars preventing commonality, we deny ourselves scale economies and the opportunity-work not being done by the duplicate team - for example effort in the cyber field where others are eroding our sovereignty.

We should close out "fault" on Rafale+Typhoon (+Gripen); we should learn that our neighbours must be our friends; we should talk till exhausted, to come up with a max-common solution. What McNamara tried to do with F-111A+B, succeeded with F-4s. Compromise: the good enough. Assign Centres of Excellence, so that small industries can hold up their heads in the Team: so: I do engine, you do Missile A, he does Missile B. Italy flourished thus on Tornado, Spain on EF.

(Can anyone produce a military reason for Qatar to buy Rafale+Typhoon?)

its why i half jokingly (but half seriously) say

Let the French build the fighter jets
let the British design the naval ships
let the Germans build the tanks
let the italians build the helicopters and trainers

but do not let
the french build the helicopters
the British build the jets
the Germans build the ships
and the Italians build the tanks

 

[Trident]

but do not let
the french build the helicopters

There have been some notable exceptions, but by and large, the French build a decent helo!

the Germans build the ships

Here again the more specific pattern I mentioned above emerges: I doubt even non-German builders would find it possible to deliver a decent warship under German MoD/Bundeswehr guidance. On the other hand, the export oriented MEKO family ranks as one of the most successful surface combatant lineages post-WWII. The secret sauce seems to be to just keep the MoD/Bundeswehr well away from writing the spec!

 

[zen]

No my uncle had to work on French Helicopters occasionally and thought them a right pain. Too thin a shell making the addition of extras a very tricky proposition.

Just because it might seem neat doesn't mean it's a good idea. Different states, with different cultures have different standards and requirements.
Not all differences are wrong and making things common can mean lowering standards rather than raising them.
Differences are not wrong.

 

[Archibald]

CNES and ESA legendary manager Hubert Curien, when the British presented HOTOL in 1985, joked "After making the Harrier - an aircraft that liftoff vertically - you British have made a rocket - HOTOL - that takeoff horizontally..."

It is just like Trafalgar square in London and Austerlitz railway station in Paris. Austerlitz was a major victory, so it make sense; but why name a square after such a defeat ? there is no logic in that. Makes no sense !

https://citations.ouest-france.fr/citation-alphonse-allais/comprends-anglais-tandis-france-nous-106237.html

Alphonse Allais - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DWG]

Getting a successful design out of Eurofighter with France still involved would be proof that eierlegende Wollmilchsau (egg laying, woolly, milk producing pigs) can still fly even when tied up in the Tricoleur.

IIRC the French demands were: an 8.5tonne rather than 9.5tonne design, M88, and Dassault design leadership. Accommodating that gets you Rafale, and (probably) the other countries involved walking away and buying F-18.

I think the real sticking point of those three is probably Dassault, and the willingness of the rest of European industry to work XwithX for them. The others could be accomodated in a national/CV variant.

I was just re-reading the excellent article on the genesis of Eurofighter by Jon Lake in WAPJ Winter 98. It's really good on the international politics side of things and this is what it has to say about the French requirements for collaboration:

"By February 1985 there were two competing concepts, both based on the agreed twin-engined canard delta configuration, but differing in detail. Britain, Italy, Spain and Germany were happy to agree on the first, but France favoured an alternative design, closely based on its Rafale A demonstrator, and lighter and smaller than the first configuration. France demanded design and industrial leadership of any collaborative project on the basis of Dassault's experience of building delta-winged and canard delta aircraft. The French also expected all prototype construction and all flight test to be undertaken in France, and demanded 50% workshare and leadership of the Joint Industrial Group which would nominate equipment suppliers and look after all exports. France was effectively demanding that its partners should subsidise a French aircraft, optimised for French needs, in return for being allocated 'titbits' of work by Dassault. An insider remarked "One wonders what France would have demanded had it not been interested in collaboration and had it wanted to put us off the idea".

 

[DWG]

- IRC, France wanted a Naval part, and the UK wanted STVOL (although in the end they didnt get that). Could the consortium have pushed for some STVOL (maybe p1216?) and urge France to go STOVL carriers instead?

Going back to this from the OP, and having just re-read Jon Lake's article on the development, the UK wanted STOL, not STOVL. We'd looked at STOVL in P110, but dropped it even before involvement in EAP. The STOL requirement was still in the Eurofighter requirement after France dropped out, but was eventually relaxed when Germany was having issues getting funding through Parliament. Even the relaxed requirement was still equal to the Jaguar's STOL performance.

 

[red admiral]

An insider remarked "One wonders what France would have demanded had it not been interested in collaboration and had it wanted to put us off the idea".

And rinse and repeat for subsequent projects. To call it collaboration is a joke.

MBDA is often held up as a great example but just look at the massive duplication along national boundaries.

If you don't have sufficient industrial control for a project why not just buy better, cheaper, earlier from the US?

 

[Cjc]

What would have the typoon-rafale have looked like? Obviously some combination of the two but would it have leand to one side or the other.

Also if the uk also had a naval carrier requirement would that have helped keep the consortia together or would that have gust pushed Germany out?

 

[Archibald]

I use to call the hybrid a "Rafoon" or "Raphoon" LMAO.

Three things split France away, however

- the naval requirement, unfortunately the three Invincibles by 1985-1990 were still "fresh" CVF did not started before 1997-2007-2012
The Typhoon was made heavier and heavier past 10 mt because the RAF wanted it to patrol Germany skies out of GB, so lot of range it needed.
Rafale back then was to be light enough not only for CdG, but also for the Foch until 2004 and the CdG twin IOC (that never was). The old catapults could not handle more than 15-18 mt. Getting 15 second-hand Hornets was proven to be politically impossible, in 1988-89 (thanks you, President Crook Mitterrand).

- the nuclear strike with ASMP (could have been done by Typhoon, admittedly)

- the SNECMA - RR quagmire
SNECMA had fought long and hard to get out of its Atar paradigm. M53 was an honest break away, but still inferior to F100 / 101 / 110.
So the M88 was the engine where they truly caught up in the military field. Except RR turned the RB.199 into the EJ200, and that wasn't negociable. And since SNECMA (unlike Dassault) was public, that is the French Gvt... that wasn't negociable either.

 

[Cjc]

I use to call the hybrid a "Rafoon" or "Raphoon" LMAO.

Three things split France away, however

- the naval requirement, unfortunately the three Invincibles by 1985-1990 were still "fresh" CVF did not started before 1997-2007-2012
The Typhoon was made heavier and heavier past 10 mt because the RAF wanted it to patrol Germany skies out of GB, so lot of range it needed.
Rafale back then was to be light enough not only for CdG, but also for the Foch until 2004 and the CdG twin IOC (that never was). The old catapults could not handle more than 15-18 mt. Getting 15 second-hand Hornets was proven to be politically impossible, in 1988-89 (thanks you, President Crook Mitterrand).

- the nuclear strike with ASMP (could have been done by Typhoon, admittedly)

- the SNECMA - RR quagmire
SNECMA had fought long and hard to get out of its Atar paradigm. M53 was an honest break away, but still inferior to F100 / 101 / 110.
So the M88 was the engine where they truly caught up in the military field. Except RR turned the RB.199 into the EJ200, and that wasn't negociable. And since SNECMA (unlike Dassault) was public, that is the French Gvt... that wasn't negociable either.

Well I was thinking, if we have the uk and France work together with the Verdun class carrier insted of the cva-01 (see this thread https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...he-rn-early-60s-what-does-it-look-like.40164/ ) both powers would need new ones around the same time as this consortia was happening (insted of cvf and charals de gaulle) and that carrier would probably end up cvf sized insted of CdG sized, big enough to handle 48 typoon sized planes (although if France was getting a smaller aircraft they didn't end up with much savings, less then 400kg empty difference between the eurofighter and the M version).

The m88 is the big sticking point, frankly they would probably gust need to bite the bullet and build it with two engine options because i don't see why the rest of the consortia sould stick to a worse engine gust because of Frances hang ups, maby France is allowed to sell to nations that the rest of the consortia dosnt want but only with the m88?

 

[Archibald]

Ah yes, but this suppose a POD 30 years before.

 

[Archibald]

The M88 ain't worse than EJ200, just like Rafale / Typhoon it has different requirements.

Less thrust maybe, because the Rafale is less of an interceptor and more a multirole, swiss-knife of an aircraft. M88 could get the same thrust of 9 tons and something, it is just that upgrade was never funded and the Rafale seemingly don't really needs it even today.

Don't forget the Iraqi F1s did wonders in a dusty and very hot environment - with the old Atar - yet carrying the heaviest warloads ever dragged by a Mirage F1. Including Exocets and huge 2200 L belly tanks. A M53 would have been very welcome, and the F1M53 was already flying, and the 4000 & 2000 were being exported.
Still, the F1EQs stuck with the Atar.

Bottom line: Dassault is private, SNECMA is public, so Dassault didn't always got the engine upgrades it wanted (even if he heavily criticized SNECMA for its engines).

In an ideal world we would have had upgraded 2000s with a more powerful M53-P5 to keep SNECMA busy while the Rafale got EJ200s - but that was 1980's France, and such idea was unpalatable to Chirac and Mitterrand altogether.

 

[Manuducati]

Potential solution for the engine problem: what about a F-16 Block 30 "big mouth" type approach?

A common engine bay, each country (partner or export) could choose between the M88 and the EJ-200. Of course the M88 is shorter (simply put a longer afterburner duct, F-14 GE style), but only marginally narrower. The EJ-200 needs a larger air mass flow, but exactly as the GE F-110 over the PW F-100.

 

[Cjc]

The M88 ain't worse than EJ200, just like Rafale / Typhoon it has different requirements.

Less thrust maybe, because the Rafale is less of an interceptor and more a multirole, swiss-knife of an aircraft. M88 could get the same thrust of 9 tons and something, it is just that upgrade was never funded and the Rafale seemingly don't really needs it even today.

Don't forget the Iraqi F1s did wonders in a dusty and very hot environment - with the old Atar - yet carrying the heaviest warloads ever dragged by a Mirage F1. Including Exocets and huge 2200 L belly tanks. A M53 would have been very welcome, and the F1M53 was already flying, and the 4000 & 2000 were being exported.
Still, the F1EQs stuck with the Atar.

Bottom line: Dassault is private, SNECMA is public, so Dassault didn't always got the engine upgrades it wanted (even if he heavily criticized SNECMA for its engines).

In an ideal world we would have had upgraded 2000s with a more powerful M53-P5 to keep SNECMA busy while the Rafale got EJ200s - but that was 1980's France, and such idea was unpalatable to Chirac and Mitterrand altogether.

The ej200 and the m88 have similar thrust now, the ej200 could be uprated by about 30% whiles still fitting in the eurofighter, the m88 is basically maxed out and the only way SNECMA could figure out how to increase thrust was by increasing its diameter, thats why France was willing to spend a billion+ dollars on the indean engine, they thought they may have figured something out with a core still based on the m88 (they didn't). Not a huge deal considering nobody ended up paying for the uprated engine but the upgrade potential was the main point behind the consortias dismissed of the m88.

Potential solution for the engine problem: what about a F-16 Block 30 "big mouth" type approach?

A common engine bay, each country (partner or export) could choose between the M88 and the EJ-200. Of course the M88 is shorter (simply put a longer afterburner duct, F-14 GE style), but only marginally narrower. The EJ-200 needs a larger air mass flow, but exactly as the GE F-110 over the PW F-100.

This seems to me to be the best idea, not great but thats politics.

 

[F-2]

The problem is the engines are radically different in terms of performance. In the block 30/32 you had an engine that could leverage already existing infrastructure and a high performance engine. With this your choosing between a F404 and F414 engine. Someone is gunna ask what’s up at some point. Funny enough the P.110 is very Rafale like, if that was built and the French got on board maybe a M88 option could be available. Middle eastern customers where already looking at the F404 to replace the RB199 before the plane was built.

 

[F-2]

Dassault-Breguet Completing Design of Production Rafale​

MAY 51986
Dassault-Breguet Completing Design of Production Rafale
Paris—France’s Dassault-Breguet is completing the design of its Rafale future fighter production version, which will be sized at the 8.5 metric ton (18,750 lb.) empty weight specified by the French air force and which will accommodate the M88 combat aircraft engine under development by Snecma.
The Rafale B is about 80-90 cm. (31-35 in.) shorter than the Rafale A prototype’s overall length of 15.8 meters (51.8 ft.) and will have a slightly smaller wing area. The B version also incorporates a number of design-to-cost features not reflected in the Rafale A, which was built as a technology demonstrator. Rafale B retains the overall aerodynamic configuration of the Rafale A, which is undergoing final ground checks at Istres, France, before its first flight this June (AW&ST Apr. 21, p. 30).
Dassault-Breguet has submitted details on the Rafale B design to the French Defense Ministry for approval, but an immediate decision is not expected because of the changes in the government following the loss by President Francois Mitterrand’s Socialist administration of a parliamentary majority in recent elections. The Socialist Party lost the majority to a conservative coalition headed by Jacques Chirac, who has assumed the post of prime minister and formed a new government in which Defense Minister Paul Quiles was replaced by Andre Giraud.
The Rafale A has an empty weight of 9.4-9.5 metric tons (20,720-20,950 lb.) because it was designed to the 9.5-ton target weight used in the unsuccessful attempt to develop a European fighter aircraft (EFA) in a cooperative effort involving France, the United Kingdom, West Germany, Italy and Spain.
Disagreements over the European fighter’s size, performance and management structure for the common aircraft resulted in France’s backing away from the project in late 1985, leaving Dassault-Breguet free to develop plans for a production fighter meeting the 8.5-ton weight target originally established for its country’s own air force and navy requirements. The United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain agreed to go ahead without France to develop a common EFA.
The Rafale A was already in its final manufacture/assembly phase when France pulled out of the cooperative fighter effort, and it was too late to redesign the demonstrator for the 8.5-ton weight.
French officials said Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Norway continue to be interested in the Rafale as a potential F-16 replacement, but the discussions are in the “very early phases,” since an F-16 replacement for these countries will not be required until the late 1990s.
Dassault-Breguet officials said France withdrew from the EFA discussions late last year because it believed the program’s two key technical requirements could not be achieved. One goal was to meet performance levels established in the program’s air staff target (AST) specifications, and the other was to hold the aircraft’s empty weight to 9.5 metric tons, with a 250-kg. margin for avionics/electronics.
“We made a big concession to allow the 1-metric-ton weight growth, which we calculated would have added 7-10 billion French francs [$1-1.4 billion] to the cost of acquiring the 335 future fighter aircraft total needed by the French air force and navy,” a Dassault-Breguet executive said.
The French air force has a requirement for 250 fighters, while the remaining 85 aircraft will be for the landand carrierbased needs of the French navy.
“Our technical people said if we had stayed in EFA, and if the aircraft were designed to meet all the AST requirements, EFA would end up weighing at least 11 [metric] tons [24,244 lb.],” the Dassault-Breguet executive said.
According to company officials, France had proposed three means of partnership in the EFA program before it backed out: equal partnership, with each of the five participants receiving a 20% share; a distribution based on the number of aircraft to be ordered by each participating country for their national military needs—giving France the right to a 32% share based on the 335 aircraft intended to be acquired by its air force and navy; or a sharing arrangement based on each of the partners’ sales capacity, for which Dassault-Breguet calculated it could ask for up to 42% based on its established international customer base of 26 countries.
“They rejected the proposals for various reasons, but once we pulled out of the program, they took up the idea of share distribution based on the number of aircraft to be ordered by each country,” a Dassault-Breguet executive said. “We feel the ‘club’ they asked us to join had changed the rules depending upon whether we were in the program or not.”

Rafale A as the Eurofighter?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Arch: thanks for the cross-channel input which Brit-centrics need.

France leaving MRCA let UK in, so Thanks be to the Lord. But France leaving (to be EF) was more than a shame, closer to a catastrophe. Despite a decade of politicians' attempts to shot-gun Dassault+BAES into many-named Future-things, we appear now again to have failed, and are on the verge of duplication, FRG+France, UK+Italy in Team Tempest with whoever. This is a gross failure of Statecraft. Sole beneficiaries will be whoever might emerge in the sights of these mid-century assets. By wasting industrial resources on minor peculiars preventing commonality, we deny ourselves scale economies and the opportunity-work not being done by the duplicate team - for example effort in the cyber field where others are eroding our sovereignty.

We should close out "fault" on Rafale+Typhoon (+Gripen); we should learn that our neighbours must be our friends; we should talk till exhausted, to come up with a max-common solution. What McNamara tried to do with F-111A+B, succeeded with F-4s. Compromise: the good enough. Assign Centres of Excellence, so that small industries can hold up their heads in the Team: so: I do engine, you do Missile A, he does Missile B. Italy flourished thus on Tornado, Spain on EF.

When did the Centers of Excellence concept start up? I want to say 2010s, but that may not be correct. It feels like it came out of software engineering.

I know the Germans (in general) don't understand the idea at all, they want workshare. And usually based on how many items each member is buying...

They don't seem to like to hear, "You are the best at X, so we want you to do that part of this project." Usually because the detailed engineering that they tend to be best at is a relatively small part of the total package.

(Can anyone produce a military reason for Qatar to buy Rafale+Typhoon?)

Whoever offered the best "purchase incentives" to the officer in charge of buying at the time. You know, the kind of incentives that go right into that officer's Swiss bank accounts.