Why the F-35 was always going to sell well in export markets

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

I'm seeing a lot of these "everyone needs F-35 hence they buy them" posts by the F-35 fanboi club.

I figured it needs a thread of it's own.

Let's do a little scenario:

Assumption 1: Instead of being developed as 4th generation fighters, Rafale and Typhoon were developed as full spec 5th generation stealth fighters.

Assumption 2: Typhoon and Rafale performance exceeds F-35 in ALL parameters.

Who would win most export competitions? F-35 of course

WHY? I hear you say.

Well the answer is simple: It's American.

Look at export history of western jet fighters - I've noted Europe/NATO/Asia as they were primary buyers of combat aircraft though Middle East has since grown:

2nd generation fighters

Mirage III/V: 20 exports (includes 3 Europe + Australia + Israel).
Etendard IV: 0 exports

J-35: 3 exports (all Western Europe)

EE Lightning: 2 exports (all Middle East)
Hunter: 20 exports (1 to Asia, 5 to Western Europe)

F-100: 4 exports - 3 NATO, 1 Asia
F-101: 1 export - NATO
F-102: 2 exports - all NATO
F-104: 14 exports - 10 NATO, 2 Asia

A-4 (not 3rd gen per se but included for purposes of the point I'm making): 9 including 4 in Asia Pacific and Israel.

3rd generation fighters
Mirage F1: 10 exports + 3 second hand resale/gift (Argentina/Gabon/Iran) - only 2 were NATO.
Super Etendard: 1 export (plus 1 lease)

Jaguar: 4 exports - all 3rd world

F-4: 10 + 1 lease (includes 5 NATO, 2 Asia, Israel)
F-5: 30+ 3-4 second hand (includes 8 Asia and 6 European)

Saab 37: 0 exports

4th generation fighters
F-14: 1 export
F-15: 5 including 3 in Asia and 2 in ME
F-16: 25 including 9 NATO, Israel, 5 Asian,
F/A-18: 7 including 2 NATO, 2 European, 2 Asia Pacific and 1 ME

Tornado: 1 export

Mirage 2000: 8 export including only 1 NATO, 1 Asian,

Typhoon: 3 export (+ potential for maybe 5-6 more mainly in ME)

Rafale: 1 export (+ potential for maybe 5-6 more mainly in ME)

JAS-39: 5 icluding Switzerland (4 European, 1 Asian)

Collapse of French fighter exports
- From a high of 20 odd Mirage III/V export users to only 8 for Mirage 2000 to potentially 1 only for Rafale.

- Very few successes in NATO or Asia even at height of Mirage III/V sales.

- Has lost some big customers to other competitors - Israel, Australia, South Africa.

- Most MIII/V and F1 sales were to African/Latin American/ME countries whose airforces have collapsed either due to poverty or war (Zaire, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq).

- M2000 was a rather dismal export failure - most customers brought 20 or less and no-one brought more than 68. Compare with
many F-15 and F-16 users buying 200+ and even F/A-18 getting 3 sales of about 100 or more (Canada, Australia,Spain).

- France had no real market success in Asia (except for Taiwanese M2000s).

- NATO buyers did not buy even successful III/V or F1 in large numbers or at all.

- US has expanded market foothold in Middle East - UAE (F-16E/F), Kuwait (F/A-18), Morocco (F-16) - all traditional French markets.

Swedes were never really in the market and have done well with Gripen
- The Swedes have had success with Gripen in smaller markets and then generally for handfuls of aircraft.

- They have however lost Finland and Austria as customers.

- Not much market potential even against F-16 which had US backing.

USA has dominated Western fighter markets since early-mid 1950s

- The US established it's dominance in Western Europe and North Asia with subsidised/free F-84 and F-86s

- The US established it's dominance over South Asia, South Europe and much of Middle East with subsidised F-5 and F-104.

- Operators naturally opted for US aircraft as replacement for existing US fighters. The usual European/Asian progression was F-84G - F-84F/F-86 - F-104/F-5 - F-16 (some variations existed).

- In 1970s/80s USA could offer 4 different types of fighters to meet any type of demand:
1. Very Light (F-5)
2. Light (F-16)
3. Medium (F/A-18)
4. Heavy (F-15)

This helped cement US dominance over France which generally only offered 1 product.

Rest of Europe

- Not much success in supersonic exports for older types (Tornado, Harrier, Lightning)
- Eurofighter has exact same prospects as Rafale - basically countries who do not have access to F-35 for political reasons.

Conclusion - even if better options were available, F-35 would still be an export success
- USA has dominated fighter market since 1950s.

- Most countries that operate Western fighters usually have decades of experience on US fighters which means employment of US organisational, tactical and logistical systems that makes it hard for anyone new to get into market.

- France was only real competitor in 1960-1980s but lack of product variety, collapse of target market and lack of political muscle has seen them drop out of the race.

Original post

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Assumption 2: Typhoon and Rafale performance exceeds F-35 in ALL parameters.

This should be an assumption in all threads...Just add it to, Everyone that praises the F-35 is on LMA"s books...Test Pilots (Only those involved with the F-35) are not to be trusted...etc etc

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

This should be an assumption in all threads...Just add it to, Everyone that praises the F-35 is on LMA"s books...Test Pilots (Only those involved with the F-35) are not to be trusted...etc etc

No need to get defensive especially as I always state that F-35 is the best bit of kit around.

In this case the assumption is if Dassault/EADS designed Rafale/Lightning as 5th generation VLO fighters and not 4th generation fighters. Call it an alternate reality scenario to allow an "apples for apples" comparison of the market.

It has nothing to do with trusting LMA or Dassault or EADS.

Remember F-5A/B outsold to NATO (6 operators) even better than MIII/V (2 operators despite MIII/V being more versatile and a better performer. This includes selling to richer countries ala Norway, Canada and Netherlands.

The reason was:

1. US political dominance of defence procurement of smaller European and most allied Asian procurement.
2. US economies of scale which meant USA could sell them cheaper and even give them away for free (Turkey and Greece).
3. Smaller users already locked into US support including training, maintenance, logistics etc.

Same applies to early F-16s v Mirage 2000s or F-5E/F v Mirage F1E.

So even if there was a better European option than F-35, it'd still not sell as well as F-35.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

I don't think that level of dominance exists now...If the F-35 turns out to be crap, or if the costs are not controlled, alternatives that are available are there and ready in all shapes and sizes..From low cost FA-50's & Gripens to high performance Typhoons, rafales etc..You also have US alternatives from the Silent Eagle to the Advanced Super Hornet. Europe has 3 very capable and competitive 4.5 gen fighters, and Boeing is pushing hard with its Advanced Super Hornet. Add to that the shrinking fighter fleets around the world, Announcements by many nations that they are pursuing home grown 5th gen fighters (Sweden, South Korea, Turkey, India, Japan (?))..

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

Basically the competition in Western dominated markets isn't really there and it's even less than the 1960-80 period. It only exists where diversifcation is still pursued for political reasons (Malaysia) or where F-35 isn't cleared for export (ME).

By the way F-35 basically replaces whole Teen series.

US level of dominance exists even more now than it did in 1960-80s:

1. The USA has taken over as the sole leader in the Western world.

2. A lot of European countries that would occassionally purchase French aircraft to diversify procurements no longer have to do so e.g. Spain and Greece.

3. Shrinking fleets means greater pooling in Europe and consolidation of fleets into single type fleets (as opposed to 2+ different types).

4. Western aligned Asia are still just as close to US in terms of security cooperation as they were in the 1950-90 period due to growth of PRC.

5. French aircraft lack weapons and systems integration into existing US systems which means more difficult and expensive integration than F-35 which effectively does follow on from existing Teen series jets.

Announcements by many nations that they are pursuing home grown 5th gen fighters (Sweden, South Korea, Turkey, India, Japan (?))..

Nothing new here.

In the past you had many indigenous projects but they generally never displaced US aircraft exports:

Japan - Mitsubishi F-1 and F-2 but they still brought F-4, F-15 and now F-35.

Sweden has always developed indigenous jets - J-21, J-29, J-32, J-35, JAS-37. JAS-39 etc etc

India - never really in market for US fighter jets. Was initially Anglo-French (Vampire/Hunter/Mystere) and then switched to mainly Soviet with some French/British. Also developed local HF-24 Maruut and Ajeet (modified Gnat)

South Korea - new, but still buying US jets.

Turkey - new, but also buying at least 100 F-35s.

Israel - Lavi (cancelled and replaced by F-16s)

Egypt - Helwan 300 (cancelled in favour of MiG-21)

Argentina - cancelled as well.

There was also other:

G-91 - Sold to Italy, Germany and Portugal but never overtook US F-104 and F-4s.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

This should be an assumption in all threads...Just add it to, Everyone that praises the F-35 is on LMA"s books...Test Pilots (Only those involved with the F-35) are not to be trusted...etc etc
No, the assumption is different.
First, everyone who praises the F-35 as having near-F-22 performance is on LMA's books.
Second, everyone who claims every farmer and his weirdo brother being in need for 150 F-35s even at the cost of ruining their little economy based on exporting jojoba seeds is on LMA's books.
Third, everyone who clearly draws some hypothetical generation lines and places the schoolbus in the above category while putting fighters which can outfly and outgun it just into lower categories because they don't have DAS are on LMA's books.
Fourth, everyone who claims the schoolbus costing $60+million while throwing engine and other bowels out just to lie and deceive is on LMA books.

Give the credit where the credit is due, the stealth is most likely good, radar and DAS are excellent and the internal range is nothing short of phenomenal but this amount of deception, fanboy crap and outright bull**** surrounding this aircraft made me completely disgusted even by looking at it. I understand that every aircraft maker wants to praise their kid, but this LMA is an epitome for the single most dishonest bunch of fvckers..

-----------------------------------------------------------
Bottom line is - do we need another F-35 thread? I think not.

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 96

I don't think that level of dominance exists now...If the F-35 turns out to be crap, or if the costs are not controlled, alternatives that are available are there and ready in all shapes and sizes..

Yes, but if the F-35 turns out to be crap it will be too late for a lot of countries. They would have to pay penalties to cancel their orders and, in some cases, would lose billions in money already invested in development and paying for the right to compete for F-35 subcontracts. If it turns out be crap it won't turn out be another Starfighter thanks to its integrated systems, as it will end up being more of an expensive F-16.

Best regards,

Member for

16 years

Posts: 353

Let's do a little scenario:

Assumption 1: Instead of being developed as 4th generation fighters, Rafale and Typhoon were developed as full spec 5th generation stealth fighters.

Assumption 2: Typhoon and Rafale performance exceeds F-35 in ALL parameters.

.

I think this is impossible to fully resolve as those are two HUGE assumptions. I would imagine if Rafale and Typhoon had gone down that road and were truly better than the F-35, several countries currently showing interest in the the F-35 would have been just fine with a European solution. You had some great points in the history of "buy American" but I am not so sure it is so automatic.

Some other attractiveness of buying American is politicial as well. Good to allign with the country with the largest budget and military. And sometimes the US equipment it is the best piece of equipment out there.

Downside of American purchaces are the export limitations and political negatives as well. Some traditonal partners may no longer be so keen on US policies. I think the lock that the US had for the first few generations may not be as strong as you suggest- with your scenario of a "better" european solution.

One other area you did not mention is job share. If a superior Rafale or Typhoon were offerred with good offsets for local industries, that would increase orders as well. Politicians love bringing jobs home. Supplying knocked down kits, or manufacture under licence is attractive. If you missed the boat on being a early F-35 partner, you chance of getting work decreased dramatically. France may have been more willing to allow licencing. Typhoon seems pretty locked into under the main partners, may be harder to crack into that share. I think this would be very attractive to countries with a history of building under licence or with advanced aviation industries (Japan, Isreal, India, Brazil, Korea, Italy, Spain, many Western European countries, Canada, etc) to build a 5th generation jet under partnership.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

From the largest Air Force to the smallest, the Generals in charge know their job is power projection. Power projection means destroying ground targets because that is how wars are won. If you can only afford a single type, choose a type which destroys ground targets efficiently. The only benefit of having an airplane incapable of destroying ground targets is if it can provide assistance/support to airplanes which can destroy ground targets.

And efficient destruction of ground targets means finding and killing highly mobile targets which may be using sophisticated camouflague, concealment and deception techniques.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

I'm seeing a lot of these "everyone needs F-35 hence they buy them" posts by the F-35 fanboi club.

I figured it needs a thread of it's own.

...

Well the answer is simple: It's American.

...

Conclusion - even if better options were available, F-35 would still be an export success
- USA has dominated fighter market since 1950s.

- Most countries that operate Western fighters usually have decades of experience on US fighters which means employment of US organisational, tactical and logistical systems that makes it hard for anyone new to get into market.

- France was only real competitor in 1960-1980s but lack of product variety, collapse of target market and lack of political muscle has seen them drop out of the race.

This is awfully awfully weak reasoning.

Europe was going to buy American no matter what, and that meant the F-35 no matter what... because Europe has mostly bought American in the past?

Why not more F-16s, or maybe some F-15s?

Too old you say? Fine... why not Super Hornets? Those are similar in age to the Eurofighter and Rafale, cheaper than the F-35 and of course... American.

The real reason the F-35 is dominating the market is because it is the only 5th generation jet available and despite the Eurocanard "fanboi club" attempts to claim otherwise, it is in fact a major leap forward over earlier US and European 4th generation designs that offers capabilities real world air forces actually want.

I suspect if France or anyone else in Europe produced a 5th generation aircraft of their own they would be able to find buyers in short order, but Europe isn't willing to make that kind of investment anymore.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

This is awfully awfully weak reasoning.

Europe was going to buy American no matter what, and that meant the F-35 no matter what... because Europe has mostly bought American in the past?

It's not weak reasoning. It's fact borne out by history.

The real reason for it is not aircraft performance - it's political, diplomatic as well as overall military compatibility with the premier NATO partner.

The F-35 is actually a great example - most F-35 countries haven't even bothered to evaluate anything else and have just signed on to F-35.

I suspect if France or anyone else in Europe produced a 5th generation aircraft of their own they would be able to find buyers in short order

France had a 4th generation fighter comparable to American "Teen series" jets in the form of Mirage 2000.

Mirage 2000 was exported to only 1 European country (Greece) who brought it as part of a diversification program that started in the 1970s with Mirage F1CG.

F-16 on the other hand has sold to 8 NATO countries (Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Turkey, Portugal )and was leased to a ninth (Italy).

F/A-18 sold to 3 European countries (Finland, Spain, Switzerland) including 1 NATO.

Or look at Mirage III/V versus F-104 and F-5:

Mirage III/V - 3 Europe exports (Switzerland, Spain, Belgium) including two NATO.

F-5A/B - 4 NATO (Turkey, Greece, Norway, Netherlands)

F-104G - 8 European NATO (Belgium, Spain, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Turkey).

And then throw into mix:

F-100 - 3 NATO users (France, Denmark, Turkey) - 2nd hand

F-102 - 2 NATO users (Greece, Turkey) - 2nd hand

J-35 - 2 European including 1 NATO (Denmark, Finland). Austria brought their J-35 in 1980s.

The French have never really had a foot in the door into European jet fighter sales. A French 5th generation would've done no better than French 2/3/4 generation fighters.

The joint programs also struggle exporting to NATO/Europe:

G-91 - sold only to Portugal and Germany. Other orders for Greece and Turkey cancelled.
Jaguar - never exported to European operators
Tornado - never exported to European operators.
Eurofighter - 1 export only - Austria with 15 airframes.

USA has dominated European fighter sales since they started giving away F-84Gs for free in early 1950s.

The Brits used to do ok in 1940s and 1950s with Vampire/Venom, Meteor, Sea Hawk and Hunter. But 1957 gutted British aerospace capability - EE Lightning was so badly supported by British Government, not many export customers would touch it and certainly no European country.

Why not more F-16s, or maybe some F-15s?

Too old you say? Fine... why not Super Hornets

Super Hornet is still 4th generation - how much capability are you truly getting over an F-16AM/BM?

If Super Hornet was a true 5th generation jet, then it probably would sell better in Europe and Asia.

If Rafale was a true 5th generation jet, it would still not sell any jets to Europe and it's Asian prospects wouldn't be much better either (limited to Malaysia).

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

It's not weak reasoning. It's fact borne out by history.

The real reason for it is not aircraft performance - it's political, diplomatic as well as overall military compatibility with the premier NATO partner.

The F-35 is actually a great example - most F-35 countries haven't even bothered to evaluate anything else and have just signed on to F-35.

You don't necessarily have to run a big expensive formal competition if you already know that there is only one jet that will fit your requirements. If you are choosing between one of several 4th generation jets then it makes sense to run a competition. If you want a 5th generation fighter then the F-35 is pretty much the only game in town.

France had a 4th generation fighter comparable to American "Teen series" jets in the form of Mirage 2000.

Mirage 2000 was exported to only 1 European country (Greece) who brought it as part of a diversification program that started in the 1970s with Mirage F1CG.

F-16 on the other hand has sold to 8 NATO countries (Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Turkey, Portugal )and was leased to a ninth (Italy).

F/A-18 sold to 3 European countries (Finland, Spain, Switzerland) including 1 NATO.

Or look at Mirage III/V versus F-104 and F-5:

Mirage III/V - 3 Europe exports (Switzerland, Spain, Belgium) including two NATO.

F-5A/B - 4 NATO (Turkey, Greece, Norway, Netherlands)

F-104G - 8 European NATO (Belgium, Spain, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Turkey).

And then throw into mix:

F-100 - 3 NATO users (France, Denmark, Turkey) - 2nd hand

F-102 - 2 NATO users (Greece, Turkey) - 2nd hand

J-35 - 2 European including 1 NATO (Denmark, Finland). Austria brought their J-35 in 1980s.

The French have never really had a foot in the door into European jet fighter sales. A French 5th generation would've done no better than French 2/3/4 generation fighters.

The US has out-sold France... what is your point? That that is some kind of law of nature? That European buyers will inevitably buy American jets because they did 30 years earlier?

Sorry, that doesn't even come close to holding up, especially when you look at how much European equipment these forces buy in general. The US is a big supplier, but it is hardly the only one.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

You don't necessarily have to run a big expensive formal competition if you already know that there is only one jet that will fit your requirements. If you are choosing between one of several 4th generation jets then it makes sense to run a competition. If you want a 5th generation fighter then the F-35 is pretty much the only game in town.

Actually many Europeans signed up to F-104 and F-16 without formal comps, even though there were other "games in town" - Mirage III, Mirage F1. JAS-37 Viggen etc.


The US has out-sold France... what is your point? That that is some kind of law of nature? That European buyers will inevitably buy American jets because they did 30 years earlier?

What 30 years - F-16s were still selling to Europe up to recently (Poland, Greece, Turkey).

And Romanians are buying ancient F-16A/Bs over JAS-39s. Bulgarians are the same with a preference for older F-16s over JAS-39.

The reason for this is inter-compability with US systems, access to US maintenance and logistics and upgrades as well as access to US training.

In fact many European pilots are trained in the US as they got rid of their own training programs.

Sorry, that doesn't even come close to holding up, especially when you look at how much European equipment these forces buy in general. The US is a big supplier, but it is hardly the only one.

Europeans do buy European - usually if it's indigenous to that country (e.g. Italian Ariette tanks, various ships, small arms) or if the system is part of a joint program the country is participating in (e.g. NH90, A400M).

French gear is a poor seller in Europe in general. Land gear such as Leclercs, FAMAS, CEASAR, VBCI has generally not sold to Europe at all.

French do get sales in helos but even these were dwindling in numbers prior to creation of Fanco-German Eurocopter - e.g. compare sales of Allouete II and III with that of SA-341/2 Gazelle and AS350/550/555 series. By 1970s and 1980s Bo-105 and A109 were making big inroads here. The lighter Eurocopter helos that have sold in Europe or to US were basically derived from German BK-117 and not French helos.

The Puma was not adopted in Europe in anywhere near the numbers the UH-1/B204/205 series was.

Subs and tanks in Europe tend to come from Germany. Rifles are either based on US Armalite AR-15 or German H&K G3/-36 series. Machine guns are usually Belgian - Minimi and MAG-58 or German - MG3 (aka MG42 Hitler's Buzzsaw) and now MG4). Warships are generally indigenous.

French gear is usually joint-production stuff ala Milan, Horizon frigate, NH90, Tigre.

There is absolutely no chance a French 5th generation fighter would've sold to European users if an American option was there.

The politics and compatibility issues just wouldn't allow it just like they ultimately resulted in failure of French (and also Swedish) aircraft to get anything more than a toe hold in market.

Even if Rafale was available at full spec in 1990, F-16s still would've sold to NATO and Rafale would not have. Just like M2000, F1 and III/V never really sold much to NATO either.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

Actually many Europeans signed up to F-104 and F-16 without formal comps, even though there were other "games in town" - Mirage III, Mirage F1. JAS-37 Viggen etc.

How does that conflict with what I said?

What 30 years - F-16s were still selling to Europe up to recently (Poland, Greece, Turkey).

And Romanians are buying ancient F-16A/Bs over JAS-39s. Bulgarians are the same with a preference for older F-16s over JAS-39.

Those aren't the buyers of F-35s today.

The reason for this is inter-compability with US systems, access to US maintenance and logistics and upgrades as well as access to US training.

In fact many European pilots are trained in the US as they got rid of their own training programs.

Those are good reasons, but hardly something the European manufacturers couldn't provide.

Europeans do buy European - usually if it's indigenous to that country (e.g. Italian Ariette tanks, various ships, small arms) or if the system is part of a joint program the country is participating in (e.g. NH90, A400M).

French gear is a poor seller in Europe in general. Land gear such as Leclercs, FAMAS, CEASAR, VBCI has generally not sold to Europe at all.

French do get sales in helos but even these were dwindling in numbers prior to creation of Fanco-German Eurocopter - e.g. compare sales of Allouete II and III with that of SA-341/2 Gazelle and AS350/550/555 series. By 1970s and 1980s Bo-105 and A109 were making big inroads here. The lighter Eurocopter helos that have sold in Europe or to US were basically derived from German BK-117 and not French helos.

The Puma was not adopted in Europe in anywhere near the numbers the UH-1/B204/205 series was.

Subs and tanks in Europe tend to come from Germany. Rifles are either based on US Armalite AR-15 or German H&K G3/-36 series. Machine guns are usually Belgian - Minimi and MAG-58 or German - MG3 (aka MG42 Hitler's Buzzsaw) and now MG4). Warships are generally indigenous.

French gear is usually joint-production stuff ala Milan, Horizon frigate, NH90, Tigre.

There is absolutely no chance a French 5th generation fighter would've sold to European users if an American option was there.

The politics and compatibility issues just wouldn't allow it just like they ultimately resulted in failure of French (and also Swedish) aircraft to get anything more than a toe hold in market.

Even if Rafale was available at full spec in 1990, F-16s still would've sold to NATO and Rafale would not have. Just like M2000, F1 and III/V never really sold much to NATO either.

Sure, the European defense industry has been weakening for a long time now... but again... that hardly means that it was somehow pre-ordained that European buyers would buy American in general or the F-35 in particular.

A full spec Rafale in 1990 would have offered incredible capabilities and would certainly have drawn a lot of interest. Of course that didn't happen... but I don't see how you get from that to "it is impossible for the French to sell a fighter because of politics."

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

How does that conflict with what I said?

Those aren't the buyers of F-35s today.

Merely pointing out preference for American over anything else.

Romania has openly stated it wants F-35s but it can only afford 12 F-16AM/BM. Given their economy collapsed in 2009-ish after a big growth spurt, it'll be a long time that they can afford anything new though.

And by collapse I mean the kind of collapse where over 7% of GDP is wiped out in a single year.


Those are good reasons, but hardly something the European manufacturers couldn't provide.

Manufacturing capability is irrelevant here. USA has better flying weather and less restricted airspace and thus better facilities (e.g. low level flying, bombing ranges etc).


Sure, the European defense industry has been weakening for a long time now... but again... that hardly means that it was somehow pre-ordained that European buyers would buy American in general or the F-35 in particular.

As stated Euro jets didn't sell well in Europe when their defence industry was strong.

The political and military compatibility issues ensure most chose American by default. And current American is F-35. Politics and US compatibility trump performance.

The only way F-35 might not be chosen is if something else American was available on offer. E.g. F-16 v F/A-18.


A full spec Rafale in 1990 would have offered incredible capabilities and would certainly have drawn a lot of interest. Of course that didn't happen... but I don't see how you get from that to "it is impossible for the French to sell a fighter because of politics."

As stated Mirage III/V, Mirage F1, Mirage 2000, J-35 and JAS-37 all offered good capabilities either on par of in some exception exceeding American products (F-5A/B) yet they did not sell well (or at all) to Europe or NATO.

American sells by default and both past history and current events show this to be true.

Member for

15 years

Posts: 161

As stated Mirage III/V, Mirage F1, Mirage 2000, J-35 and JAS-37 all offered good capabilities either on par of in some exception exceeding American products (F-5A/B) yet they did not sell well (or at all) to Europe or NATO.

American sells by default and both past history and current events show this to be true.

There is a reason why the F-5A/B was called the Freedom fighter. The Americans wanted their allies to have a more sophisticated aircraft than the hand me downs they were getting previously. It was made to be a cheap aircraft from the start. Regardless of how much better the European jets were... You can't beat cheap.

And we all know why the F-104 was sold to so many countries... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

The FMS/MAP giveaway F-84/-86/-100/-102/-104/-5 had a great side effect of creating a near monopoly for the USA.

This was probably unintentional but it meant that as soon as they could afford to stand on their own, many NATO and nearly all allied Asian countries opted to buy US fighters and this hasn't changed since.

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 742

Excuse me guys, buy I believe this thread is still being looked at in a very narrow and shallow manner, please no offense intended... ;)

The post-war years in terms of fighter reequipment is characterized by a monumentous rythm of technological advance in terms of speed, range, overall survivability and systems power and complexity as well as unit cost. For instance a modern "assumption" may only ve become an "assumption" rather recently. For exemple, the idea of using a fighter model launched in the late 1940s for four decades was at the time an absolutely preposterous concept, since it would be absolutely and certainly obsolete in under 10 or 15 years! No midlife update as we universally have now was even conceivable.

The geopolitical realities of the early-mid Cold War have absolutely no parallel today. Then the "Final War" was a certain undeniable fact, a done deal, just waiting the right moment to spark. Now, especialliy in Europe, Air Forces have to go to quite large geopolitical stretches to be able find adequate/suitable "enemies" in low-key (low-menace) places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo or Lybia... The traditional "survival of the nation imperative" is now absolutely gone from anybody's head and similarly have gone away the necessary funds indispensable for major military system reequipment, modern fighters "y-compris".

Having said that, let's look at the gross realities of scope. The US aerospace industry (or the WHOLE US industry, if you wish!) was hit by no enemy bomb whatoever in WWII, quite the contrary it got a major major boost, technology and funds-wise, during all that period making it the most competitive aerospace industry in the planet.

European countries, on the other side, came out of WWII poor and economically and industrially undone. There is no possibility of comparing the two. Aeronautics technology R&D flourished only in the UK during those years, while all other countries lived through a terrible "drought" that would prove to be almost unsurmountable. Sweden was the honorable exception to this rule and France would not be here were it not for having (quite surprisingly) gotten a considerable help from direct US defense investment in their aeroindustry.

But there's still more: scale-wise, even without the profound damage of WWII, the economic sum of all the European countries, winners AND losers, would account for a hypotetical united "European country" still smaller than what the the real USA was then... None of these countries alone would ever dream to be able to compete with the US in gross number of fighters ordered and/or sold. If even today's perfectly formalised European Union is incapable of unifying its foreign, defence, or industrial defense policies in order to have a single fighter development requirement and substitution timetable, why would we think the immediate post-war till 1980 Europe would be able to get it's own game together? Fragmentation of these policies is in effect the real reason why the European fighter industry could never match its US counterpart.

The F-104 success in NATO was mostly due to the fact that Lockheed was willing to pass almost all manufacturing to their European partners namely SABCA, Messerschmitt/MBB, Fiat, Dornier and Fokker. To these companies and their governments this was quite possibly the only "train" available to them to try to regain SOME space in the whole global aeronautic industry.

Intra-European cooperation allowed for some very welcome modern fast-jet design development experience but in order to maximise the return for partner countries local industries there eventually was no space to accomodate new industrial partners from potential "client countries". This is why planes like the Jaguar, or the Tornado, or the G-91 never sold well in Europe.

Smaller more periferal and thus poorer countries had to resort to receiving preowned US fighters handed down at politically driven bargain prices this was the case during many years of Portugal, Greece and Turkey these last two in special ending up with a number of nearlydefunct F-102 interceptors...

The NATO block F-16A/B sale is virtually a repeat of the earlier F-104 strategy, Lockheed really learned from it`s successes! European partner Countries were not just buying and affordable allround good modern fighter for their airforces, they were just, once again, lighting the "fire" that would sustain their local (high tech & good jobs) aerospace industries for decades into the future. Armament compatibility is really a key aspect because as all hade learned in the Cold War if the situation ever heated up their own weapons stores would last only a number of days before new units broght in from the US caches located across the Atlantic were flown in.

And there is more: France, for instance, could never realistically expect to match such sort of operational (but in reality, economic!) advantage the US brought to the table...

The NATO countries that bought the F-5A/Bs (Norway & Spain) for instance new they were getting a second tier fighter, but also knew thay that was WHAT ALL THEY COULD AFFORD and what their local industries could build, nothing more then that.

Summing it all up I don`t see how this history that I just described here could lead anyone to believe that the F-35 "is the only game in town" especially for air forces that NOW and in the forseable future don't have a real Cold War type threat looking at them in the eye (and who, by the way, are quite nose deep into a cripling economic crisis with no imaginable way out).

Note that all recent air wars that were fought since the first Gulf War in 1991 have not NEEDED Stealth fighters to arrive at a favorable result for the winner. They are certainly "nice to haves" but no one can say in all truthfulness (like for instance the VERY relevant advent of Tomahawk cruise missiles!) that they were or still are indispensable or a prerequisite for aerial victory. The way I see it, the stealth aircraft's formost advantage is for the airforce that knows that they will be the ones STARTING the next war, the ability to count on the fact that you will always have the initiative. To be able to sneak with absolute discretion into the enemy's air defence environment well before their missiles start flying is a key motivator for stealth purchases.

Now in all sincerity how many countries you know that can justify this NEED for assured preemtion, besides the USA or the UK and France in a rather distant 2nd and 3rd place. I personally just don't see that many clients drooling for 200 million dollar (oops! Please excuse me, I meant to say "63 million dollar" ;) ) a pop next generation fighter jet... For me the 4++ generation is here to stay.

Do I make sense?

Comments?

Hammer

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

Hammer, I totally agree with your post.

It actually shows how the US managed to build up it's virtual monopoly.

The F-16A/B might be a repeat of earlier F-104 success but by the same token F-35 is expanding this even further.