Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Grid 88"
channel.
-
@LRRPFco52
including billions we have spent saving France from Germany twice
The US didn't save France in WW1, they shortened the war for sure, but they did not save it. As for WW2, again the US played an important part, though I dislike the implications so often in these kind of statements. The US was part of a large multi-nation coalition, even without the US WW2 would have been won by the allies, the main question would be after how long and what about the situation after (for example a soviet controlled Europe or not?).
Also it isn't like the US did it out of the kindness of their heart. In WW1 they only came in after the unrestricted warfare was restarted, putting in danger US shipping and when they received an intercepted message stating Germany offered Mexico an alliance in case the US entered WW1, for which Mexico in return would invade the US, which was unacceptable to the US, obviously.
In WW2 the US only became military involved after it was attacked itself and declared war on.
then sending billions to help re-build France after both wars.
I don't think the US gave funding to France after WW1, in fact it insisted on all loans being payed back. Though there is conflicting reports on this, another source states the US forgave 2,8 billion debt in 1947 from ww1 and 1939-40 France had, though it doesn't say how much was from WW1, probably not much seeing the loans would have been close to being payed off.
Furthermore allied bombings are estimated to have caused damages to France in the hundreds of Billions and around 70 000 civilians killed. So that 'saving' came at a great cost.
All in all the marshall plan did help, but wasn't the main contribution to recovery, which already had started right after the war and by the time the marshall plan started it was well underway in France. To link France's economy in the 1980-90's to US funds from after WW2 is rather stupid.
Then during the Cold War, the US maintained the biggest military contribution to Western European security with a giant buffer between France and Russia, while facilitating friendly trade relations between Germany and France.
Which was all for US benefit, it just so happens it was also good for Western Europe. The US rather wanted that Europe again became the battlefield if the cold war became hot than closer to their home. They also realised that if the USSR took western Europe, the USSR would almost certainly become the dominant power in the world.
So the Rafale and all of the French defense industry is a bi-product of American intervention and years of infrastructure-development money that France didn’t have.
You do realise that Dassault already existed even before WW2? This kind of thinking is really a next level self-centered view.
When people from the US or UK keep bringing up the "saved in WW1 and 2" argument decades later, I can't do anything but laugh, thinking of a Frenchman telling the US that France saved the US in their independence war and to the UK that their army at Dunkirk was saved by their valiant resistance.
Rafale unit cost is $144 million per the deal with India, whereas F-35A is $77.9 million. So with Rafale, you pay more for less.
Generally the estimated cost of Rafale is around 70-75 million per unit, the problem is it depends on scale, less you buy, the higher the price. A batch of 118 rafale's has a cost of around 74 million, however the Indian batch is so small prices go up quickly (and possibly there is more to that deal too).
This is a problem that planes like the Rafale has vs a US developed plane like the F35. The F35 is ensured of economies of scale, even when the US alone buys them, the scale is considerably larger than most other developed planes can get on a worldwide scale. This increases end cost. Like I said, the Rafale's development costs were 20 times lower than the F35, however the F35 already has 3 times more built than the Rafale and probably a lot more agreed to be built, seeing how recent the F35 is. It isn't impossible that by the end of its life, it has been built 10 times or more than the Dassault. And then the question ofcourse is whether the US government doesn't partially cover the costs of the development.
So yes, the Dassault can be more expensive now than the F35, but if built in similar numbers it should be considerably cheaper.
And then there is also the expected maintenance etc. Apparently the F35 will be expensive to maintained due to parts, crews from the US needed to come over in case of problems, ... which might also possibly change the economic picture, not to mention ensured longterm capabilities in times of conflict.
And when India made the deal the F35 wasn't even a consideration, it wasn't fully rolled out yet and other countries (US close partners) would have been given preference in terms of early deliveries, especially seeing India bought S-400's from Russia, which the US doesn't like at all.
179
-
140
-
120
-
17
-
10
-
8
-
@LRRPFco52 Europe needed a lot of help after the war.
I am sorry, but by 1980 the war had been over for 35 years, I'd hardly call that 'after the war'.
as part of a scientific exchange program to help with the ECA
Could you say more about this, I can't find anything about it.
An exchange program doesn't necessarily mean it was really needed, but could also just be to increase cooperation. There are plenty of exchange programs between universities, doesn't mean one needs help from the other or would otherwise fail/get nowhere, rather they want to just cooperate for boths benefit.
My mentioning of the F404 in the first Rafales was in response to people trying to compare the development budget for the Rafale to JSF.
This is irrelevant, you are acting like the Rafale just got those engines, and like clearly said, the Rafale only used the F404 as a temporary placeholder, there still was another engine, so you can't claim it was a cost saving measure, I'd say the opposite since they had to get those 'unnecessary' F404's for initial testing of the plane.
If someone can find a reputable, accurate accounting of the Rafale development budget, that would be one place to start.
According to official French senate figures the development cost of the Rafale was around €25 billion and another €20,85 billion for building 286 for French forces.
Upon further review I can't find the exact development costs of the F35, seeing I accidentally used wrong numbers, so development cost difference might be lower, possibly around 3 times the cost of the Rafale. If we look at development + procurement (most often used numbers), it would come down to around $190 million for the Rafale (per unit) and $162 for the F35 (per unit) when looking at French and US acquisitions. Ofcourse the US has the advantage of scale (286 vs +-2456 expected F35 sales by the US), which pushes down production cost numbers significantly. Which we also see with the Rafale, when India wanted to buy just a couple dozen, costs/unit increased quite dramatically vs larger batches (100+). Though the Rafale should have lower running/maintenance costs than the F35.
Anyway, I doubt at this point there will be demand for the Rafale by anyone, seeing the F35 has started to be more interesting due to scale and capabilities.
France/European nations seem to have learned from the Rafale and Typhoon projects, being developed so 'late'. They now skip the 5th generation and are immediately moving for a 6th gen plane, which will likely come out around the same time or just a bit later than that of the US (though obviously depends on delays etc.). I so dislike that 2 6th gen projects are active in Europe, since this will lower the scale of production if both are achieved, increasing endcosts.
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1