should Dassault and France have skipped a generation? (i.e. Rafale or Mirage 2000?)

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

what happened:
Mirage 3/5 (2nd gen), Jaguar and Mirage F1 (3rd gen), Mirage 2000 (4th gen), Rafale (4.5 gen). (no 5th gen)

In the other thread, a lot of us agreed that the existence of the Rafale pretty much limited the future of m2k evolutions compared to the F-16 and MiG-29 series.

Do you think France should have skipped one generation, for example.

alt 1: M3/M5 -> F1 -> skip M2k and M4K -> Rafale. In this scenario, the F1s would go on a lot longer, with more significant upgrades, until replaced by Rafale.
alt 2: M3/M5 -> F1 -> M2K -> skip Rafale -> 5th gen aircraft. In this case, M2Ks would go a lot longer through more evolutions and rather than a 4.5 gen aircraft, it would go straight to a 5th gen

the Navy would have to find a different way to adjust such as using the Super Entendards and F-8s longer, or adopt the F-18C until either the Rafale or the 5th gen came into service in either option. (not sure if the M2K could ever be navalized, although the Skyray and the Tejas N are also delta and could also land on a carrier)

or are you fully satfisfied with
real: M3/M5 -> F1 -> M2K -> Rafale -> no 5th gen

Original post

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 269

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/mirage3/mirage3_04.jpg

mirage 2000 was good, but lets be real. airframe design is old. its from the mirage iii. 2 generations ago. it is good because of excellent french radar and engine

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/mirage3/mirage3_04.jpg

so skip mirage 2000 is correct.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 4,472

Both propositions are ludicrous.

Nic

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 1,498

mirage 2000 was good, but lets be real. airframe design is old. its from the mirage iii. 2 generations ago.

Delta 2000 was developped upon the idea that the delta wing would provide a very low wing load, hence a edge over the new F-16 (against which Mirage F1 failed in european deals). Export was the goal (Dassault hoped that France would pay for the M4000).
Though the airframe looks like the MIII's, one shouldn't discard the considerable enhancements on the wings (different optimisations) with leading edge slats and different profile. Also the strakes were what Dassault chose from previous experiences with canards on other prototypes (modified MIII). Add to this the FBW system, and whatever the appereances, the M2000 was a new airframe, very efficient, very maneuverable, not suffering from slow speed such as the Mirage III.

In the end, France chose this little airframe, because the 4000 was too costly (though incredibly ambitious). One can consider that sacrifying the 4000 allowed France to save money and finally go for her so much awaited twin engine aircraft.

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

They are two different categories, Mirage is a light plane with just an engine, while the Rafale is a medium size one.
Introduction time between the two is about 17/20 years, more than between the F1 and the 2K.
It's the normal French practise, to mass produce a single line of fighter at time, keeping in service the whole lot of precedent generation one until a thirth one is ready to be produced.
So the 2K is not the sostitute of the F1 but of the III, Rafale has instead taken the place of the F1 and the Super Etandard just now.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

From the design and manufacturing perspective, there is quite a bit of tribal knowledge which would be lost by "skipping a generation". While Rafale would likely still have been built if M2000 was skipped, it would have been a difficult struggle since the F1 designers of the mid 1960s would have retired by the 1990s. Without an experienced design and manufacturing team, the new team would have to re-learn past lessons which walked out the door with the retirees. If you want a real life example of inexperienced design team and difficult, protracted development, look at Tejas and F-35.

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

From the design and manufacturing perspective, there is quite a bit of tribal knowledge which would be lost by "skipping a generation". While Rafale would likely still have been built if M2000 was skipped, it would have been a difficult struggle since the F1 designers of the mid 1960s would have retired by the 1990s. Without an experienced design and manufacturing team, the new team would have to re-learn past lessons which walked out the door with the retirees. If you want a real life example of inexperienced design team and difficult, protracted development, look at Tejas.

what if, they skipped the rafale instead. it would be skipping half a generation.
RD resources would focus on more advanced M2k upgrades while they build an actual 5th gen design.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 621

what happened:
Mirage 3/5 (2nd gen), Jaguar and Mirage F1 (3rd gen), Mirage 2000 (4th gen), Rafale (4.5 gen). (no 5th gen)

In the other thread, a lot of us agreed that the existence of the Rafale pretty much limited the future of m2k evolutions compared to the F-16 and MiG-29 series.

Do you think France should have skipped one generation, for example.

alt 1: M3/M5 -> F1 -> skip M2k and M4K -> Rafale. In this scenario, the F1s would go on a lot longer, with more significant upgrades, until replaced by Rafale.
alt 2: M3/M5 -> F1 -> M2K -> skip Rafale -> 5th gen aircraft. In this case, M2Ks would go a lot longer through more evolutions and rather than a 4.5 gen aircraft, it would go straight to a 5th gen

the Navy would have to find a different way to adjust such as using the Super Entendards and F-8s longer, or adopt the F-18C until either the Rafale or the 5th gen came into service in either option. (not sure if the M2K could ever be navalized, although the Skyray and the Tejas N are also delta and could also land on a carrier)

Aeronavale needed a new aircraft. There was absolutely no way to use F-8's any longer, they were already about 5 years beyond the "This time we REALLY have to retire them" date. SuE in theory could have adopted Mica but would have been quite laughable as 21st century air superiority fighter. F-18 would have worked well from CdG but not so well from old carriers.

The thing is, nobody really expected USSR to collapse and Rafale program to take so long. Deliveries would have started by 1991 and Rafales would replace all old fighters in few years, by 2000 only combat a/c would be Rafales and Mirage 2k's and France could start looking for their successor. If someone back then had suggested that Super Etendard would soldier on in combat role until 2016, he would have been committed.

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 1,403

what if, they skipped the rafale instead. it would be skipping half a generation.
RD resources would focus on more advanced M2k upgrades while they build an actual 5th gen design.

what is a 5th generation design ?

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 269

what is a 5th generation design ?

http://www.wonderslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/F-22-Raptor.jpg
http://fortlauderdaleairshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/F-35-double-break-820x450.jpg
https://cdn.rt.com/files/2016.11/original/58185d0dc46188fe4b8b456f.jpg
https://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/2014/10/29/j-31-5.jpg

France is now behind China and USA

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

Totally OT there, Byoin. Please stop thread crapping

Ponder this for a minute...

Mirage F.1 skipped for a twin-engine platform with souped up Adour motors. Twin engine Mirage F.1 could have been scaled up to replace Mirage 2K. The Rafale would have been a more natural evolution. Rather than push for larger single engine fighters, push for twins and scale up the motors a little bit. Sepecat Jaguar would have augmented both production lines.

And the Super Etendard with twin dry-only Adour would have been relatively little change in performance. But, being smaller had advantage in the tight confines of an aircraft carrier.

Mirage 50 sales were so minor that it wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility that Sepecat Jaguar sales actually improve. And don't forget Hawk trainer sales augment your Super Etendard sales.

Plus, because the Adour is so much simpler, costs scale down with all the different designs sharing a common core.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

It's the normal French practise, to mass produce a single line of fighter at time, keeping in service the whole lot of precedent generation one until a thirth one is ready to be produced.

IIRC the Mirage III/V/50 was in production alongside the Etendard IV, Jaguar, Super Etendard & even Mirage 2000. The Mirage F1 overlapped with the Mirage III/V/50, Jaguar, Super Etendard & 2000. Jaguar & Super Etendard overlapped. The 2000 overlapped with the Rafale. I don't think there was a time France didn't have at least two combat aircraft building until the Mirage 2000 line closed.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

Totally OT there, Byoin. Please stop thread crapping

Ponder this for a minute...

Mirage F.1 skipped for a twin-engine platform with souped up Adour motors. Twin engine Mirage F.1 could have been scaled up to replace Mirage 2K. The Rafale would have been a more natural evolution. Rather than push for larger single engine fighters, push for twins and scale up the motors a little bit. Sepecat Jaguar would have augmented both production lines.

And the Super Etendard with twin dry-only Adour would have been relatively little change in performance. But, being smaller had advantage in the tight confines of an aircraft carrier.

Mirage 50 sales were so minor that it wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility that Sepecat Jaguar sales actually improve. And don't forget Hawk trainer sales augment your Super Etendard sales.

Plus, because the Adour is so much simpler, costs scale down with all the different designs sharing a common core.

M53 Mirage F1 was proposed to europeans.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

IIRC the Mirage III/V/50 was in production alongside the Etendard IV, Jaguar, Super Etendard & even Mirage 2000. The Mirage F1 overlapped with the Mirage III/V/50, Jaguar, Super Etendard & 2000. Jaguar & Super Etendard overlapped. The 2000 overlapped with the Rafale. I don't think there was a time France didn't have at least two combat aircraft building until the Mirage 2000 line closed.

Right. It is also a way to have ersearch bureaus up to date.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

Dassault was active selling designs to foreign governments, i.e. Yugoslavia's Novi Avon and Argentina's Pampa. Not so sure Dassault had no hand in the Soko J-22, considering the landing gear.

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

what if, they skipped the rafale instead. it would be skipping half a generation.
RD resources would focus on more advanced M2k upgrades while they build an actual 5th gen design.

It's not half a generation: those are only conventional denominations. Time between the 2K and Rafale entering service is superior to the one between the precedent generation ones.
It's that airplane design and introduction time has exponentially grown in the meantime, so that for an example it will took more time between the entering in service of the F-22 and F-35 allegedly of the same generation that between F1 and 2k (or MiG-23 and MIg-29) that are of two different ones.

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

IIRC the Mirage III/V/50 was in production alongside the Etendard IV, Jaguar, Super Etendard & even Mirage 2000. The Mirage F1 overlapped with the Mirage III/V/50, Jaguar, Super Etendard & 2000. Jaguar & Super Etendard overlapped. The 2000 overlapped with the Rafale. I don't think there was a time France didn't have at least two combat aircraft building until the Mirage 2000 line closed.

Swerve, most of them belong to different classes of planes: Jaguar is an Air force attack plane, Etandars are from the Navy. They have to be considered ecquivalent to Su-17 and Mig-27 and the A-6 and A-7 respectively, calling them fighters is a bit of an overstretch.
About production of the Mirage series i.e. the air to air combat line, how I have said the III and the F1 were not conceived one as the substitute of the other, nor the Rafale as the one of the 2k, so it's just natural that a minimum of overlapping between a plane and the one it would replace (i.e. III and 2K / F.1 and Rafale) would occour, above all when it regard top export sellers like the (earlier) Mirages.
For the rest, we are in such a situation so crazy that the production lines of both F-15 and F-16 are still up and running while the one of F-22 was closed year ago.

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

Right. It is also a way to have ersearch bureaus up to date.

Let's remember also that Dassault is a private enterprise in France's state-owned dominated industrial landscape, so skipping a generation it's not something they can just afford.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

Swerve, most of them belong to different classes of planes: Jaguar is an Air force attack plane, Etandars are from the Navy. They have to be considered ecquivalent to Su-17 and Mig-27 and the A-6 and A-7 respectively, calling them fighters is a bit of an overstretch.
About production of the Mirage series i.e. the air to air combat line, how I have said the III and the F1 were not conceived one as the substitute of the other, nor the Rafale as the one of the 2k, so it's just natural that a minimum of overlapping between a plane and the one it would replace (i.e. III and 2K / F.1 and Rafale) would occour, above all when it regard top export sellers like the (earlier) Mirages.
For the rest, we are in such a situation so crazy that the production lines of both F-15 and F-16 are still up and running while the one of F-22 was closed year ago.

Even if you exclude the Etendards & the Jaguar, you still find that there were always at least two French fighters in production until the Mirage 2000 line shut.

The reality is that there was no fixed rule. Types no longer being built by the AdlA would continue in production as long as they could be exported. As with other advanced air forces, the concept of direct replacements isn't very helpful: new types might replace multiple old types, or replace part of the role of an earlier type, or initially replace one role, then later take on others. It's a lot more complicated than you originally said, as you are obviously aware from what you've written above - which contradicts what you said before.

F-15 & F-16 are in production for export to countries which the F-22 would never be allowed to be exported to. Why's that crazy?

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 1,765

Yes, Swerwe , we are basically saying the same thing.

French front fighter line was always composed by almost two different age jets because the newest plane they produced was not conceived as a substitute for the precedent one but for the one that preceded it, so they kept two lines open offering the precedent one more updated version for export.
It was the Rafale the one that broken this tradition cause the long interval between its own design, its introduction in service and low production rate.
It's in every case interesting to note, how before the Rafale, the French always tried to introduce a larger two engined fighter plane(F2 or Mirage 4000) but in the end they ended up to acquire a scaled down version, derived by the original Mirage + the novelties of the aborted project.

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

Both propositions are ludicrous.

Nic


as an apologist, you think France has unlimited funding?