4 ms·

There is a joke in the France Defense sector that goes like "France has very good engineer and very bad salesman". When it come to pure "on paper" spec, Dassau

by maeln 4y ago

There is a joke in the France Defense sector that goes like "France has very good engineer and very bad salesman". When it come to pure "on paper" spec, Dassault (planes), Naval Group (submarines & boats) and Nexter (tanks) can often challenge their U.S and Russian competitor. But in the world of Defense, politics is often more important than pure spec. Buying from Uncle Sam is one way to be closer to the most (atm) powerful country in the world. Also, due to the fact that the U.S Defense budget is ludicrous, you can bet that whatever you buy will be produced in larger quantities, for a long time and will have plenty of spare parts and such. A good exemple is the fiasco of the Australian submarines contract with Naval Group. On paper, the contract was amazing for the Aussies: Not only would they have subs that would fit their specs, but the subs were planned to be built for the most part in Australia and to have a full transfer of technology. So they were buying the subs and the means and knowledge to make them themselves in the future. It would also have created a lot of jobs in Australia. But then the U.S came around and used their diplomacy to make the contract fail even though their proposition was on paper inferior. It is funny because the French, if they had been given the opportunity, could have proposed something similar to the U.S proposition (especially since France is one of the only country willing to export their nuclear subs technology), but the aussies didn't even give them the chance, clearly showing that it was not a business or a specs issue, but a diplomatic one.

creshal 4y ago
Dassault is no longer really competitive¹. The gap between 4th/4.5th generation jets and 5th generation jets is massive, no matter how many military bloggers use creative accounting to explain it away, and Dassault is really only competing in markets that would also be fine with an American F-16 if the price is right, and that's a 1970s design. ¹: Their engineers might still be, but their products are not, and France cannot fund the development of any.
- maeln 4y ago
  It really wouldn't surprise me. I don't know much about aviation but I worked in the naval defense industry in France and the gap in budget and production volume with the U.S was just ludicrous. When the U.S Navy wants a new shinny nuclear aircraft carrier, they spend billions and the manufacturer has the insurance that it will produce a few. In France, large project like aircraft carrier or nuclear subs are produced usually at a single digit volume. So they have to work hard and blow a lot of budget on R&D for years just to produce one ship. It cannot be profitable if it was not bankrolled by the state. So yeah. Also the new F-35B looks like it is the most advanced fighter plane at the moment, so I don't think anyone can compete. The U.S defense industry is just so well funded.
  - creshal 4y ago
    > In France, large project like aircraft carrier or nuclear subs are produced usually at a single digit volume. "Single digit" is extremely generous, 4 submarines over the course of a decade is the high point of French naval construction. With aircraft carriers it's closer to "one every thirty years", while the US tries to have two under construction at all times. At that point you're not even maintaining any institutional knowledge, engineers will retire before they see a second aircraft carrier being constructed. It's not as bad with aircraft: France would never export a nuclear submarine or carrier, nor would anyone be able to afford them (even the planned Australian contract wasn't nuclear, iirc). Aircraft are a lot cheaper, a lot less of a political minefield, and so sell easier. But, at the same time, the US poured $74 billions into the F-22, and $400 billions into the F-35. Just developing the F-35 would require 20% of France's GDP. Not military budget, not government budget, GDP. And while a competing design starting today would save a moderate amount of money on things like engines (France was just about able to keep up, R&D wise) and avionics (just due to general semiconductor advances in the private sector), a lot of the secret sauce of the F-35 is in its stealth technology (which is not just effective, but also easy to maintain, a very tricky balance that needs decades of experience – which the US collected with the F-117 and B-2, which collectively cost another $60+ billion) and its software stack (and the less said about the sad state of EU software dev, the better, we've been bleeding talent to the US for generations and it shows).
    - maeln 4y ago
      > At that point you're not even maintaining any institutional knowledge, engineers will retire before they see a second aircraft carrier being constructed. This was a huge talking point when I was working there. "Maintien des compétences" is a huge issue that also plague the civil nuclear industry. > France would never export a nuclear submarine Naval Group doesn't sell nuclear subs made for the French marine but they do sell the technology transfer to help a country develop their own. The Brazilian contracts was also a mess (good engineer, bad sells man :D) but we were well on track to help them make their first nuclear sub. > (even the planned Australian contract wasn't nuclear, iirc) At their explicit demand I might add. It was always stated that the subs were supposed to be conventional. I remember that it was actually kind of an issue for the engineer because they wanted specs that were way above what most conventional subs were able to handle (in term of range and time submerged), and the main design was supposed to be more or less a retrofit of the Barracuda class.

by maeln 4y ago

creshal 4y ago

Dassault is no longer really competitive¹. The gap between 4th/4.5th generation jets and 5th generation jets is massive, no matter how many military bloggers use creative accounting to explain it away, and Dassault is really only competing in markets that would also be fine with an American F-16 if the price is right, and that's a 1970s design. ¹: Their engineers might still be, but their products are not, and France cannot fund the development of any.

maeln 4y ago
It really wouldn't surprise me. I don't know much about aviation but I worked in the naval defense industry in France and the gap in budget and production volume with the U.S was just ludicrous. When the U.S Navy wants a new shinny nuclear aircraft carrier, they spend billions and the manufacturer has the insurance that it will produce a few. In France, large project like aircraft carrier or nuclear subs are produced usually at a single digit volume. So they have to work hard and blow a lot of budget on R&D for years just to produce one ship. It cannot be profitable if it was not bankrolled by the state. So yeah. Also the new F-35B looks like it is the most advanced fighter plane at the moment, so I don't think anyone can compete. The U.S defense industry is just so well funded.
- creshal 4y ago
  > In France, large project like aircraft carrier or nuclear subs are produced usually at a single digit volume. "Single digit" is extremely generous, 4 submarines over the course of a decade is the high point of French naval construction. With aircraft carriers it's closer to "one every thirty years", while the US tries to have two under construction at all times. At that point you're not even maintaining any institutional knowledge, engineers will retire before they see a second aircraft carrier being constructed. It's not as bad with aircraft: France would never export a nuclear submarine or carrier, nor would anyone be able to afford them (even the planned Australian contract wasn't nuclear, iirc). Aircraft are a lot cheaper, a lot less of a political minefield, and so sell easier. But, at the same time, the US poured $74 billions into the F-22, and $400 billions into the F-35. Just developing the F-35 would require 20% of France's GDP. Not military budget, not government budget, GDP. And while a competing design starting today would save a moderate amount of money on things like engines (France was just about able to keep up, R&D wise) and avionics (just due to general semiconductor advances in the private sector), a lot of the secret sauce of the F-35 is in its stealth technology (which is not just effective, but also easy to maintain, a very tricky balance that needs decades of experience – which the US collected with the F-117 and B-2, which collectively cost another $60+ billion) and its software stack (and the less said about the sad state of EU software dev, the better, we've been bleeding talent to the US for generations and it shows).
  - maeln 4y ago
    > At that point you're not even maintaining any institutional knowledge, engineers will retire before they see a second aircraft carrier being constructed. This was a huge talking point when I was working there. "Maintien des compétences" is a huge issue that also plague the civil nuclear industry. > France would never export a nuclear submarine Naval Group doesn't sell nuclear subs made for the French marine but they do sell the technology transfer to help a country develop their own. The Brazilian contracts was also a mess (good engineer, bad sells man :D) but we were well on track to help them make their first nuclear sub. > (even the planned Australian contract wasn't nuclear, iirc) At their explicit demand I might add. It was always stated that the subs were supposed to be conventional. I remember that it was actually kind of an issue for the engineer because they wanted specs that were way above what most conventional subs were able to handle (in term of range and time submerged), and the main design was supposed to be more or less a retrofit of the Barracuda class.