Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rafale Sale To Morocco May Be Off-Report  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5140 times:

Twice the planes for 50% less; what a deal!
http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...sNews/idUKN2041841020070920?rpc=44

Quote:
PARIS, Sept 20 (Reuters) - French corporate and combat jet maker Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) may lose out on a deal to sell some Rafale fighter planes to Morocco, French newspaper La Tribune reported.
In an article due to be published on Friday, La Tribune said the Moroccan government was set to accept a rival offer to buy F-16 fighter planes made by U.S. company Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
La Tribune, citing its own sources, said Lockheed had offered Morocco 36 F-16 planes for less than $2 billion, while France had offered 18 Rafale planes for 2.3 billion euros ($3.22 billion).

Remember the old saw: "quantity has a quality of it's own"?


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5134 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Remember the old saw: "quantity has a quality of it's own"?

Hard to say anything without knowing what type of F-16. My judgment would be different depending on whether they refer to refurbished F-16As oder factory-new Block-52/60.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5131 times:

My guess would be new builds. L-M is hoping to keep the line going. I suspect the weakness of the U.S. Dollar will have more impact in the months/years to come in the defense export business.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week ago) and read 5114 times:

I meanwhile arrived at the conclusion that smaller or less endowed air forces are better off taking the less complex product. Last-generation fighter impose an enormous overhead in training and costs for which they have to spend money they otherwise could have spend on some sophisticated weapons or other systems.

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3417 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5082 times:

Hmm, in this case sounds like they are getting a pile of garbage for less money than a handful of decent.

User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5020 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
Hmm, in this case sounds like they are getting a pile of garbage for less money than a handful of decent

I wouldn't exactly call the F-16 a pile of garbage.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5019 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
Hmm, in this case sounds like they are getting a pile of garbage for less money than a handful of decent.

No, I wouldn't put it that extreme. Every air force needs to do comprises. Some less and some more.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4976 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1):
Hard to say anything without knowing what type of F-16. My judgment would be different depending on whether they refer to refurbished F-16As oder factory-new Block-52/60.

Someone correct me please, if I'm wrong, but I thought a previous thread had said Saudi Arabia is financing the Rafale sale. Do the Saudis have any say regarding whether this new offer will be accepted?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4933 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
Someone correct me please, if I'm wrong, but I thought a previous thread had said Saudi Arabia is financing the Rafale sale. Do the Saudis have any say regarding whether this new offer will be accepted?

I guess they will a say in general if they give the money. You won't give 2-3Bil$ to someone and accept that he might act against your will. But why should Saudi Arabia say anything against F-16s?


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4881 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1):
My judgment would be different depending on whether they refer to refurbished F-16As oder factory-new Block-52/60.

This report indicates used F-16s.....

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2521.html

Quote:
"September 21, 2007 (by Lieven Dewitte) - Although it seemed for a while that Morocco would conclude on an order for Dassault Rafales, a French twin-engined multi-role fighter aircraft, it now seems more likely that they will order used F-16s."

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
I thought a previous thread had said Saudi Arabia is financing the Rafale sale.

Saudi Arabia together with the UAE were supposed to fund an old F-16 order. However, it was not clear if the funding was still there and if it would carry over to the Rafale deal or indeed to this latest F-16 offer.....

Quote:
"In November 1991, Morocco and the U.S. Government signed an agreement for Morocco's acquisition of twenty ex-USAF F-16A/B's. Although Morocco was funded by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the deal somehow never got trough, else they would then have become the 18th country to fly the F-16."

~$2B doesn't seem too cheap for 36 used Falcons. I wonder if those are part of the first F-16Cs from the ANG headed for AMARC? The report on the first two serials on F-16.net is now gone. Meanwhile, the French made a counteroffer of 12 Rafales and 12 Mirages, or 24 Rafales for 2B euros.

Edit: Found the photo.....

http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item269018.html


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Terry Shepherd
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dan Brownlee


[Edited 2007-09-22 07:25:42]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4877 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 9):
In November 1991

I doubt that this deal would have still relevance today, although a newer one could also include used F-16As.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4881 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4800 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 10):
although a newer one could also include used F-16As.

Apart from price, why opt for A/Bs when C/Ds might be available?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4790 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 11):
Apart from price, why opt for A/Bs when C/Ds might be available?

Good question ... and why not go with a current generation airplane which will last for many years rather than a previous generation warplane? Mind you, I have nothing against the F-16, but Rafale is a much more modern design and used F-16s, whether A/B or C/D are still used airplanes and that's going to translate into high maintenance costs in a few short years.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4881 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 12):
and why not go with a current generation airplane which will last for many years rather than a previous generation warplane?

Indeed. At the end of the day, it all boils down to a country's priorities, security situation, and what it could afford. If in their judgment they could ensure their protection with good, used fighters for a reasonable lenght of time, then that is what they would choose. OTOH, if the threats against them are such that the effective means of defense are expensive cutting edge stuff within their means, they would be compelled to spend for it. At the other extreme, no matter how grave the threats, they couldn't do much about those without the werewithal to do it. Going for the latest and greatest doesn't work for everybody everytime - as there will always be newer and greater things coming along, and everchanging challenges as well.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4759 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 12):
and why not go with a current generation airplane which will last for many years rather than a previous generation warplane?

I'd like to requote my argument from th beginning of the thread

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 3):
I meanwhile arrived at the conclusion that smaller or less endowed air forces are better off taking the less complex product. Last-generation fighter impose an enormous overhead in training and costs which they have to spend money on they could otherwise spend on some sophisticated weapons or other systems. Austria being the prime example here.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4754 times:

55M$ sounds like block 52+ to me..

would take on a Rafale with a block52 F-16 any day


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4748 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 15):
55M$ sounds like block 52+ to me..

Could also be "system price" for a heavily upgraded, low hour F-16A with a ten year inventory of spare parts, training, infrastructure cost etc.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 15):
would take on a Rafale with a block52 F-16 any day

Good Luck!


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4734 times:

...In many respects, the F-16 is becoming much like the UH-1, or the M113.

You can hardly go to a western - or pro western nation - without finding one of these pieces of equipment.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 12):
and why not go with a current generation airplane which will last for many years rather than a previous generation warplane?

I wonder if it has anything to do with their assessment of their potential enemies? When you look at who could threaten Morocco's sovereignty, their is no major threat. Hell even the notion of a international conflict, in the first place, is remote.

So it begs the question... why buy the top of the line, when there is no counterpart on the other side of the battlefield? Why spend all of that money? It's far more likely, these aircraft would see action in a joint venture with a coalition... where they would benefit from the support of the better militaries of the west.

So why not buy a very capable aircraft, albeit one that isn't the cutting edge, but one that meets the reality of your current and future needs?

-UH60


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4725 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 17):
So it begs the question... why buy the top of the line, when there is no counterpart on the other side of the battlefield? Why spend all of that money? It's far more likely, these aircraft would see action in a joint venture with a coalition... where they would benefit from the support of the better militaries of the west.

So why not buy a very capable aircraft, albeit one that isn't the cutting edge, but one that meets the reality of your current and future needs?

Could not more agree.

[Edited 2007-09-23 14:02:19]

User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4599 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 16):
Good Luck!

It would be closer than you think. Am I missing something does Morocco have any outside threats that they would need anything more than some upgraded F-16's????


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month ago) and read 4490 times:

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 19):
It would be closer than you think. Am I missing something does Morocco have any outside threats that they would need anything more than some upgraded F-16's????

I believe they have issues with their neighbour Algeria. Rather large portion of dessert which they are quarelling about for ages.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4406 times:

Update.

Dogfight at the Casbah: Rafale vs. F-16


Quote:
On Sept 26/07, however, Jane's Defence Weekly reported that:
"France appears to be losing hope of persuading Morocco to become the first foreign customer for its Rafale multirole fighter. This follows indications that the Moroccan government has been deeply tempted by a US offer to supply it with less expensive F-16 fighters. French industry sources said last week that Morocco had been "within an inch" of signing a contract in May and June for 18 Rafales in a package worth EUR2.2 billion (USD3.1 billion) with manufacturer Dassault Aviation and its partners in the Rafale programme: Thales and engine-maker Snecma, a division of Safran…."
Une autre fois? We'll see.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4881 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4371 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 10):
I doubt that this deal would have still relevance today, although a newer one could also include used F-16As.

It appears that there was an offer of financing from Saudi Arabia as recently as 2006, but for Rafales. From the link above.....

Quote:
"In June 2006, Agence France Presse reported that Morocco was negotiating with Dassault Aviation of France for the purchase of 12 – 18 Rafale combat planes, with possible financing from by Saudi Arabia. Those rumors surfaced again as the Le Bourget Paris Air Show 2007 approached."

http://www.netmarine.net/aero/aeronefs/rafale/photo08.htm

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 19):
Am I missing something does Morocco have any outside threats that they would need anything more than some upgraded F-16's????

Again, from the link in Reply 21.....

Quote:
"Morocco's air force currently flies 2 squadrons of old F-5s, and 2 squadrons of slightly newer Mirage F1s. Their neighbour and rival Algeria flies MiG-23s of similar vintage, but adds far more modern and capable MiG-29s. The Force Aerienne Algerienne also flies SU-24 Fencer and SU-25 Frogfoot strike aircraft, and is set to receive 36 multi-role MiG-29SMTs, and 30 multi-role SU-30MKs as part of a multi-billion dollar weapons deal with Russia."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4368 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 22):
is set to receive 36 multi-role MiG-29SMTs, and 30 multi-role SU-30MKs

maybe they should get themselves some Typhoons then?


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4881 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4361 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 23):
maybe they should get themselves some Typhoons then?

Already lost your confidence in Block 52 F-16s so soon? Is Rafale less of an adversary than Su-30MKs? And would the Saudi's generosity stretch up to Typhoon level in significant numbers?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
25 F27Friendship : a block52 would toast a rafale any day. A SU-30 is a different story. Rafale is a good plane because it's a true multi-role fighter. It's air-to-air
26 PADSpot : I would put my money on a clear Su-30 win in a long range engagement, a Rafale win in the medium range BVR area and a draw in the WVR area (with a te
27 Wvsuperhornet : Sure why not spend un-necessary millions on taking a desert makes sense to me. Maybe we should offer them the F-22 and be done with it.
28 F27Friendship : well, there are actually people living there. I guess the US wouldn;t take kindly from a Mexican invasion to (re)claim texas and new mexico (I believ
29 PADSpot : Most of Texas was pretty green at least until a year ago or so ... Take Nevada and New Mexico.
30 Post contains images F27Friendship : thanks!
31 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : From the Algerian thread..... Algerian Air Force (by Saintsman Sep 6 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) " target=_blank>http://www.royfc.com/c
32 Lumberton : I look at this sale for the Rafale to Morocco, the same way I view the forthcoming sale of either 787s or A350s to Emirates: the French absolutely can
33 F27Friendship : this sounds very plausible. I'm curious if the Marrocans would be the first to actually get a good price from the French!
34 Post contains images Wvsuperhornet : There's acually people living in Texas and New Mexico also and if you look at the ethnicity count in both states there are probably more Mexican's li
35 F27Friendship : lol, well, would be a grand reason. To re-unite them with their kinsmen. Was a reason for war before you know.
36 Art : Below cost of production?
37 EBJ1248650 : It might, given that Saudi Arabia is buying the Typhoon themselves.
38 EBJ1248650 : There's a lower limit the French can't go below. They need the export order, and there's a possibility it might stir up further orders. My guess, tho
39 PADSpot : The Rafale is cheaper. Cost of production is a relative term, because most general costs of production have already been paid in advance or distribut
40 RIXrat : Country name: Morocco. People: Moroccans. Texas: Population 23.5 million, second largest in the lower 48 states -- hardly a desert. Thought I'd nit-p
41 F27Friendship : sorry! thanks for correcting me (it's just my Dunglish) you're not the first to point that out:
42 Wvsuperhornet : Yes I am aware of American History but last time they lost and I doubt they would want to be our 51'st state so I would assume they wouldnt want them
43 Max78 : Back to the deal, it seems that Morocco is going to pay $2bn for 36 F16. But.. what would be the cost of 20 years maintenance of 36 F16 against 18 Raf
44 F27Friendship : Hey, I agree with you, but it's just the thing the the other party already got new stuff from the Russians. To keep things balanced Morocco needs to
45 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Quote: "Oct 19/07: Les Echos reports (en Francais) that Morocco will be buying 16 used F-16s instead. They also have harsh words for the Chirac gover
46 Hunterson : The chances of the Rafale winning the Moroccan deal are not over yet, regardless of Saudi generosity or otherwise. The French president M. Sarkozy is
47 Post contains images Sebolino : They are !! And the French govt knows it for a few months. They totally screw up, and lost a nearly done deal !! These idiots offered a price differe
48 Hunterson : Yes,actually you are absolutely right. Further to my previous message, and with apologies to everyone, I just learnt that the Moroccans told Presiden
49 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Indeed, as a multi-mission frigate sale is nothing to scoff at..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...PH8AAAEAAGx-cvMAAAAF&modele=jdc_34 New Suc
50 Post contains images F27Friendship : hey not everything some guy says on a forum on the internet is true Don't believe everything you read
51 Post contains links Lumberton : Reuters is reporting that the Rafale has lost the sale to Morocco. http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...sNews/idUKL2474425620071024?rpc=44
52 Post contains links Lumberton : Reuters South Africa confirms the Rafale deal with Morocco is not going to happen. French launch post-mortem on Morocco jet deal What's left on the ta
53 Art : Are you saying that the French government offered a price that was below the price Dassault needed to make a profit on the deal?
54 Wvsuperhornet : I agree I dont agree with nations selling advanced technology and the Rafale is advanced the older F-16's theyw ould be getting are no longer conside
55 Sebolino : Not really the government, but a government agency called DGA did it, offered a price lower than what Dassault wanted. I guess Dassault was also a bi
56 Atmx2000 : That's a pretty high per plane program cost. I guess the US isn't the only one with expensive aircraft programs.
57 Lumberton : USD$40.3 billion total program cost at current euro-dollar exchange rates. Spread out over 294 planes for the French forces, as noted on this thread,
58 Post contains links Lumberton : Reuters reports that France is no longer pushing to Rafale to Saudi Arabia. http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...20_L28719512&type=comktNews&rpc=44
59 F27Friendship : Greece is still a possibility, as is Brasil
60 Post contains links DEVILFISH : This piece suggests that Morocco would be getting new-build Block 50 or 52..... http://g2globalsolutions.com/blog.html Quote: "It is also in June tha
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Rafale Sale To Morocco May Be Off-Report
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canada May Be Forced To Ground 2/3's Of It's Herks posted Fri Apr 18 2003 12:36:13 by L-188
USA Denies Jassm Sale To Finland posted Wed Feb 14 2007 21:22:56 by A342
Object Shadows Shuttle; Landing Waved Off - Report posted Tue Sep 19 2006 17:47:36 by AerospaceFan
Space Shuttle Return To Flight May 15. Too Early? posted Tue Mar 1 2005 20:44:38 by UAopsMGR
Report: Libya To Order Rafale posted Tue Jan 16 2007 11:53:41 by Lumberton
Time To Split Off The First "A" In Nasa? posted Fri Feb 2 2007 21:46:42 by N328KF
E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07 posted Fri Feb 2 2007 14:27:17 by NYC777
Orion 13 Might Be First Manned Return To Moon posted Fri Oct 27 2006 08:32:51 by AerospaceFan
Bulgaria May Have Solution To Helo RPG Threat posted Fri Oct 20 2006 14:44:06 by Lumberton
Was CV-64 Suppost To Be CV-63. posted Thu Oct 19 2006 01:31:19 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format