In the context of the Paris Air Show held last June – and the SINDOOR operation – Eric Trappier, CEO of Dassault Aviation, gave an interview to the French weekly business newspaper Challenges. Here is a translation from the printed newspaper, i.e.: no link. In any case, Challenges.fr is protected by a paywall. Itv by Vincent Lamigeon, defense specialist for the newspaper.
ERIC TRAPPIER, CEO of Dassault Aviation:
Challenges: The loss of at least one Rafale by India during the aerial confrontation with Pakistan in early May is raising questions in the defense community. Has the Rafale reached its limits?
Eric Trappier: The Indians haven't communicated, so we don't know exactly what happened.
What we already know is that what the Pakistanis are saying [three Rafales destroyed] is not accurate. On the other hand, when you operate combat aircraft, you are fulfilling a mission. Mission success isn't about having zero losses, it's about achieving your objectives. During World War II, it wasn't said that the Allies lost the war because they lost troops. We'll see if there were losses or not, and if the war aims were achieved. When the truth comes out, some may be surprised. Twenty years after its entry into service, is the Rafale still at the best level? It's always difficult to say that we're the absolute best, but I sincerely believe we're the best at compromise. It's obvious that in an air confrontation against an F-22 [US Air Force air superiority stealth fighter], it's going to be complicated for the Rafale. But if you want a single aircraft capable of air-to-air missions, reconnaissance, air-to-ground strikes, nuclear missions, and being able to embark on an aircraft carrier, I think the Rafale is indeed the best aircraft in the world, better than the F-35 and far better than any Chinese aircraft on the market. It perfectly meets the needs of the French armed forces and the countries that purchased it.
Isn't this "omnirole" character also the Rafale's weakness, good everywhere but better nowhere?
This is the choice the French armed forces made: to no longer have specialized aircraft, but a single aircraft for all missions. The Mirage 2000 was a good aircraft, but many versions were needed to perform all missions: the Mirage 2000D for ground strike, the 2000-5 for air-to-air, the 2000N for nuclear power. The Americans have the means to afford this entire range, with air superiority aircraft like the F-22 and the future F-47, and aircraft for each air-to-ground mission. France, which does not have a comparable military budget, has chosen versatility. It was the right choice: it has a remarkable aircraft.
A study by the French Institute of International Relations, published in January, warned of a technological decline in the non-stealth Rafale, "systematically dominated in air combat" by the F-35, and which could be relegated to the status of a "back-up" in a coalition...
The Rafale's success has made some people jealous; I imagine they're trying to make up for it. The F-35 has a slight advantage because it was designed to be stealthy, which is not the case with the Rafale, since the stealth option was not chosen by the government for budgetary reasons. But there are several limitations. First, stealth is not 360 degrees. As for saying that because you buy the F-35, you'll relegate the French Air Force and Navy to the role of auxiliaries, I'm waiting to see if the French become auxiliaries to the European countries equipped with F-35s...
The F-35 has 666 orders in Europe. With Trump's second term, has Europe understood that it must limit its dependence on American weapons?
I'm like Saint Thomas, I'm asking to see. What is factual is that Denmark, after Trump's threats to annex Greenland, told the Americans: "You're going to invade Greenland, so I'll buy you F-35s." That's still huge! Second observation: Belgium, which hosts the headquarters of the European Commission, announced, in the midst of a trade war with the United States, that it will buy the F-35. I note that even the countries developing the Typhoon (Euroeighter) are ordering the F-35: the United Kingdom, Italy, and Germany.
Spain is missing...
Let's wait and see.
It's depressing...
It's a fact. I don't believe Europeans are buying F-35s because, as very intelligent people in Brussels say, there is a fragmentation of the European supply of combat aircraft, with the Rafale, the Euroeighter, and the Gripen. Europeans buy American aircraft because there is an American preference in Europe. When I say this, everyone smiles, but it's the reality. Our major partners are elsewhere: it's the belt that starts in Egypt, passes through the Middle East and India, and goes all the way to Indonesia. It's thanks to them that we exist, in addition to France, of course.
The SCAF (Future Combat Air System) program launched by Paris, Berlin, and Madrid, which provides for the development of a new fighter, seems stalled. Could it explode in flight?
I think governments are realizing what we once explained to them. Some told them: "There's no problem, it's just Dassault that's bothering us, it'll be resolved." "The reality is that we have an organization that isn't optimal for creating an ambitious demonstrator. There are three of us around the table [Dassault, Airbus Germany, Airbus Spain], and we have the same rights. It's total equality, it's a large federation, but that's not how you create an effective program. When the United States launches the F-47, they don't say, "Half for Lockheed, half for Boeing." They say, "It's Boeing, and you sort it out." And then there's only one decision-maker: the US Department of Defense.
What should be done?
What we're asking is to be the true prime contractor. A prime contractor, in the construction industry, has the right to choose his subcontractors. We don't have that: with the principle of fair return, each state wants the most valuable share of the work, and a burden equal, down to the last millimeter, to that of the others. When I say that, everyone agrees, but we don't draw any conclusions.
Is there a Plan B for the SCAF?
No, there is no Plan B in the long term. There is a Plan B for 2035, with the Rafale F5 and its stealth combat drone, which will make it possible to wait for the future fighter jet. But we can't wait forever: after the Rafale F5 and the UCAV [combat drone], we'll have to follow up with a new fighter.
You're calling for the development of a spaceplane. Why this project?
We can clearly see that the battlefield is moving into space. Some powers could militarize it with defensive as well as offensive capabilities. I therefore propose developing an aircraft, which would be more like a space shuttle, capable of going into space and carrying out a number of missions, and returning.
What missions exactly?
It's up to the operational personnel to tell us what they need. What I can say is that this aircraft would be capable of acting in space, not just observing.
yeah technical glitch was called PL-15 but admitting that hurts too much
As for being shot down by one of their own
AF for losing so many top jets in its own airspace, what more do u want
ok sir.
TF-X / KAAN / Hürjet Turkish Fighter & Trainer Aircrafts News & Discussions (14 Viewers)
