Multi-national projects: Which ones would've been better if gone alone?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

Sometimes working together with other partners (significant ones who have substantial influence and workshare) creates more problems than good.
In which projects do you think it would've been better if partners went at it alone. I.E. Yak and Aermacchi going their separate ways

Eurofighter
NH-90
Tornado
Tiger helicopter
etc

I'll argue BAe should've went ahead with their EAP alone, same for France and the Tiger

Original post

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

That would have been tragic. EAP Typhoon would have been acquired at no more than Rafale levels. May have still had Saudi orders, but solely because the Saudis were strictly buying into UK immigration influence. Germans, Italians, and the Spanish were without a doubt better suited to stick with the F-16 or Hornet orders. Honestly, without shared production, they have absolutely no reason to acquire Typhoon. And hindsight showed that participating in Eurofighter was a costly mistake. Any one of them could have easily assembled their own American kit.

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

France was part of it and went on its own... and no regrets whatsoever about it...

But even if the whole consortium had been suppressed, most probably none of the partners would either build the Typhoon nor bought the Rafale, they'd most certainly remain with the US material

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 1,003

The bizarre irony of military procurement continues: EAP would have been a better fit for German, Italian and Spanish Eurofighter needs. Whilst the Typhoon as it is better fits the RAF's needs. Politically and economically that is not the case for either. And the reasons are all political and economic.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

BAe's EAP was a one-off design from Germany's TFK-90, so it's not unrealistic that Germany might have gone EAP. The TFK-90 was basically EAP with twin tails and different engines.

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

All the ones involving more than two partecipants like the Horizon/Freem programs different fates clearly show.
All the european planes Germany has buyed were multinational ones (except G-91) but until they had just one partner, discrepancies could be settled quite easily, both meeting in the middle or renouncing to something or adopting something not wanted.
Any added one partners mean a way more exponential increment of conflicting requirement.
Sometime buying something from abroad would be a solution, above all if you can get a just trade off like happened to us with the C-130J/C-27J /Boeing 767 swap.
F-16 was not the case at all, we all needed A2A specced planes, not multirole ones.

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 269

jaguar was bad. mirage f1 better. it could do th esame job as jaguar but also do fighting

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 51

Sometimes working together with other partners (significant ones who have substantial influence and workshare) creates more problems than good.
In which projects do you think it would've been better if partners went at it alone. I.E. Yak and Aermacchi going their separate ways

Eurofighter
NH-90
Tornado
Tiger helicopter
etc

I'll argue BAe should've went ahead with their EAP alone, same for France and the Tiger

If you mean "which aircraft would have been better designed and/or sooner procured", then all of them.

If you mean "which aircraft would have had better sales", then none of them. Military sales are three parts politics, one part bribes, and having more countries behind your product helps you get more sales.

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

Military sales are three parts politics, one part bribes, and having more countries behind your product helps you get more sales.

The specifications/performance of the weapon system is of course immaterial... has to be right? Otherwise the F-35 would be... naah, more likely all the air forces have been bribed.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 51

The specifications/performance of the weapon system is of course immaterial... has to be right? Otherwise the F-35 would be... naah, more likely all the air forces have been bribed.

It is not just F-35. Take a look at exports of any fighter aircraft. F-16, Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale... but yes, US could take pig **** in a box, name it a fifth-generation fighter, and it would still sell.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

The UK/French Jaguar was a typical UK mess up.
One country wanted a trainer, the other an attack jet and the result satisfied neither country's specification. The UK went a long to make nice to France to curry favour for their Common Market application...how times change...except for the UK being out maneuvered by the wiley French...who promptly did their best to sabotage exports sales in favour of a 100% French product. You'd think they'd learn.
Has the UK EVER come out on top with a collaboration with the French?

Still, the resulting aeroplane was pretty good, but typically, the UK didn't want to spend the money to develop and modernize it.

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

It is not just F-35. Take a look at exports of any fighter aircraft. F-16, Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale... but yes, US could take pig **** in a box, name it a fifth-generation fighter, and it would still sell.

LM has sold 4,500+ F-16 so far... I think they might have broken even by now.

Why? Why did the F-16 so massively outsell the Mirage 2000? It certainly wasn't a superior aircraft. In technical terms, it was roughly equivalent. Political pressure could have nudged it along but not driven it this far.

There's a very basic law of economics in play. Its also the reason why the F-35 is vastly outselling all its peers, both foreign and domestic, and it has nothing to do with kooky theories about bribery and relatively little to do with politics.

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

LM has sold 4,500+ F-16 so far... I think they might have broken even by now.

Why? Why did the F-16 so massively outsell the Mirage 2000? It certainly wasn't a superior aircraft. In technical terms, it was roughly equivalent. Political pressure could have nudged it along but not driven it this far.

There's a very basic law of economics in play. Its also the reason why the F-35 is vastly outselling all its peers, both foreign and domestic, and it has nothing to do with kooky theories about bribery and relatively little to do with politics.

The fighter aircraft sales have everything to do with politics more often than not. First and foremost, it is the politicians who decide what will be bought and when, not the military. And more often than not, you'll have the military praise the new product, publicly at least, as the guys taking the decisions are, in the same time, their bosses and can appreciate very moderately any criticism of their decision (Australia's acquisition process comes to memory, for example)

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 51

LM has sold 4,500+ F-16 so far... I think they might have broken even by now.

Why? Why did the F-16 so massively outsell the Mirage 2000? It certainly wasn't a superior aircraft. In technical terms, it was roughly equivalent. Political pressure could have nudged it along but not driven it this far.

There's a very basic law of economics in play. Its also the reason why the F-35 is vastly outselling all its peers, both foreign and domestic, and it has nothing to do with kooky theories about bribery and relatively little to do with politics.

Fighter aircraft sales have everything to do with politics. They are a declaration of commitment, in a sense. You want to buy from a country you have good relations with, and from which you can expect help (one of major problems for Gripen in terms of sales is its US-made engine). It is politicians who decide on which fighter will be bought, not military. In Switzerland, Rafale was preferred choice by the military, yet Switzerland opted for Gripen (and might have decided not to buy a fighter at all in the end, if memory serves me). Why? Gripen is cheaper, it is good enough for Switzerland, and it is made by a neutral nation. In India, Typhoon and Rafale passed technical evaluation, and Rafale was selected in the end. Why was Rafale selected? Ease of dealing with one nation instead of four, lower price, better ToT terms, greater reliability of supply (again, one nation). You yourself noted that F-16 massively outsold Mirage despite not being a superior aircraft. Part of the reason was price, but just as if not more important was the "Made in the US" stamp that came with the F-16. Second reason is experience. You will notice that almost all F-35 buyers and possible buyers are - current or former - F-16 operators. Only exceptions are the UK (which operated Harrier, and F-35B is a Harrier replacement), Canada (F-18 has same relation with F-35C as Harrier with F-35B) and Japan (Mitsubishi F-2 is modified F-16).

Take note of the overlap:

Dassault Mirage III operators
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Dassault_Mirage_III_Variants_Operators.png

Dassault Rafale operators and contracts
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Rafale_Operators.png

F-16 operators
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/F-16_operators.png

F-35 contracts
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/SiteCollectionImages/F35-Intl-Chart.jpg

Again, nothing to do with either F-35's or Rafale's qualities - but everything to do with F-16s and Mirage's qualities. Basically, F-35s sales are flying on F-16s wings, and Rafale's sales are flying on Mirage's wings. Except both F-35 and Rafale are far more expensive than F-16 or Mirage, so some countries are opting for cheaper alternatives (e.g. Brazil operated Mirage III, and opted for Gripen as a cheaper alternative to Rafale), and politics and diplomatic relations play a role as well.

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

Fighter aircraft sales have everything to do with politics. They are a declaration of commitment, in a sense. You want to buy from a country you have good relations with, and from which you can expect help (one of major problems for Gripen in terms of sales is its US-made engine). It is politicians who decide on which fighter will be bought, not military.

Problem with this thesis is that every case, the military has been firmly in favour of a F-16 buy & now an F-35 buy. And both aircraft not only outsold their European rivals but also their domestic rivals - F-18/SH/F-15E, which were presumably backed by a similar level of political support.

In Switzerland, Rafale was preferred choice by the military, yet Switzerland opted for Gripen (and might have decided not to buy a fighter at all in the end, if memory serves me). Why? Gripen is cheaper, it is good enough for Switzerland, and it is made by a neutral nation.

The Gripen was selected because it was cheaper. Neutral nation didn't come into it. The Swiss had no qualms about ordering the F-5s & F-18s.

In India, Typhoon and Rafale passed technical evaluation, and Rafale was selected in the end. Why was Rafale selected? Ease of dealing with one nation instead of four, lower price, better ToT terms, greater reliability of supply (again, one nation).

The Rafale was selected because it was cheaper. No of nations or ToT did not come into it. It was declared L1 under the bidding process and that was it (though subsequent revelations revealed the process to be extremely flawed).

You yourself noted that F-16 massively outsold Mirage despite not being a superior aircraft. Part of the reason was price, but just as if not more important was the "Made in the US" stamp that came with the F-16.

The primary reason was the price. Political leverage isn't necessary where the product is technically comparable on one hand, and considerably cheaper on the other. That being said, political factors (being a non-US type) did assist with substantial Mirage exports (Greece, India, Taiwan).

Second reason is experience. You will notice that almost all F-35 buyers and possible buyers are - current or former - F-16 operators. Only exceptions are the UK (which operated Harrier, and F-35B is a Harrier replacement), Canada (F-18 has same relation with F-35C as Harrier with F-35B) and Japan (Mitsubishi F-2 is modified F-16).

UK, Canada, Japan, Australia. Italy too (it only leased F-16s for five years). Possible buyers include Finland & Spain. Also given the number of F-16 operators in the world, there's nothing unusual about an overlap with the F-35, which too is being widely adopted.

Take note of the overlap:

Dassault Mirage III operators
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Dassault_Mirage_III_Variants_Operators.png

Dassault Rafale operators and contracts
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Rafale_Operators.png


What overlap? Of the Mirage III operators, none of them went on to buy Rafales. You'd have a better argument drawing a transition between the Mirage 2000 & Rafale (Qatar, Egypt, India). Of whom only India is notable, most Middle Eastern sales ought to be disregarded on issues of merit.

Again, nothing to do with either F-35's or Rafale's qualities - but everything to do with F-16s and Mirage's qualities. Basically, F-35s sales are flying on F-16s wings, and Rafale's sales are flying on Mirage's wings. Except both F-35 and Rafale are far more expensive than F-16 or Mirage, so some countries are opting for cheaper alternatives (e.g. Brazil operated Mirage III, and opted for Gripen as a cheaper alternative to Rafale), and politics and diplomatic relations play a role as well.

There was a very obvious answer to the choice between the Mirage 2000 & F-16, putting the politics apart. There's an equally obvious answer to a choice between the F-35 & Rafale/EF/F-15E, though a fair case may be made for the Gripen/FA-50 in smaller markets.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

That would have been tragic. EAP Typhoon would have been acquired at no more than Rafale levels. May have still had Saudi orders, but solely because the Saudis were strictly buying into UK immigration influence. Germans, Italians, and the Spanish were without a doubt better suited to stick with the F-16 or Hornet orders. Honestly, without shared production, they have absolutely no reason to acquire Typhoon. And hindsight showed that participating in Eurofighter was a costly mistake. Any one of them could have easily assembled their own American kit.

Assembled, but not designed or made. Where was the work designing & building engines, radars, assorted other avionics, etc.? And by the time they started receiving Typhoons, F-16 or Hornets would have been pretty old hat.

What overlap? Of the Mirage III operators, none of them went on to buy Rafales.

Apart from Egypt, & perhaps the UAE in the future.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 51

Problem with this thesis is that every case, the military has been firmly in favour of a F-16 buy & now an F-35 buy. And both aircraft not only outsold their European rivals but also their domestic rivals - F-18/SH/F-15E, which were presumably backed by a similar level of political support.

F-16 was better and cheaper than F-18, and regarding the F-35... I explained that later on.

The Rafale was selected because it was cheaper. No of nations or ToT did not come into it. It was declared L1 under the bidding process and that was it (though subsequent revelations revealed the process to be extremely flawed).

Lower cost was definetly a major factor, maybe even a primary one, but it was not the only factor. See here:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/132379/why-rafale-won-in-india.html

The primary reason was the price. Political leverage isn't necessary where the product is technically comparable on one hand, and considerably cheaper on the other. That being said, political factors (being a non-US type) did assist with substantial Mirage exports (Greece, India, Taiwan).

Political leverage may not have been strictly necessary, but it definetly did help.

UK, Canada, Japan, Australia. Italy too (it only leased F-16s for five years). Possible buyers include Finland & Spain. Also given the number of F-16 operators in the world, there's nothing unusual about an overlap with the F-35, which too is being widely adopted.

Japan operates F-2, which is F-16 clone, so it doesn't count. Italy operated F-16s, so again it doesn't count - doesn't matter that it wasn't bought. UK operated Harriers, and it wanted a Harrier replacement in F-35 - they can't back out even if they want to because F-35 is the only modern STOVL aircraft. Canada and Australia both operated F-18, which is US aircraft and one of aircraft that the F-35 is supposed to replace in the US service.

What overlap? Of the Mirage III operators, none of them went on to buy Rafales. You'd have a better argument drawing a transition between the Mirage 2000 & Rafale (Qatar, Egypt, India). Of whom only India is notable, most Middle Eastern sales ought to be disregarded on issues of merit.

Transition between Mirage 2000 and Rafale is obvious. And of current and possible Rafale operators, Egypt operates both Mirage 5 and Mirage 2000, India operates Mirage 2000, and Quatar operates Mirage 2000. Brazil is also a Mirage operator, but went for Gripen on cost grounds.

There was a very obvious answer to the choice between the Mirage 2000 & F-16, putting the politics apart. There's an equally obvious answer to a choice between the F-35 & Rafale/EF/F-15E, though a fair case may be made for the Gripen/FA-50 in smaller markets.

And that choice is Rafale, unless you already have a capable air superiority fighter.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765


And that choice is Rafale, unless you already have a capable air superiority fighter.

Dont forget the Dewoitine 520... If the only requirement is being French might has well go for the Dewoitine or even better a SPAD IV, they are vastly cheaper.
There´s nothing obvious in choosing a Rafale (or a Phoon) over the F-35A, you can indeed make a case for any of the twins but there´s nothing obvious on it.

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 1,081


And that choice is Rafale

Lol, no it isn't