There is another valid contender out there that the Canadian DND is totally ignoring for its CF-18 replacement.
That aircraft is the French Rafale.
Consider some of the features of the Rafale.
1.Buddy-refuel tanking like a Super Hornet
2.Excellent maneuverability
3.Two-engines
4.Two-seat option
5.Joint with NATO coalition forces (networking) and combat ops.
To add to that, as the current government LOVES to bring up the most dangerous opponent NATO could ever face--Libya--the Rafale is proven in that combat op.
It has some downsides. Because the path to the Meteor long-range air-to-air missile and AESA are not complete, the Rafale might disqualify itself for not being ready at this moment. This is critical because if any real thinking person is involved in the process, CF-18s should be fully replaced by 2020.
Since no other country has bought a Rafale, Canada wouldn't have hard, realistic info on what the jet costs to procure and sustain.
In any event, the Rafale makes a much safer play than the high-risk F-35.
Which goes back to the fact that Canada should have a real competition for its CF-18 replacement.
The idea that nothing else but the F-35 can meet "DND's requirements", is the act of a person that is gullible or a person intent on defrauding the taxpayer.
11 comments:
After Australia's recent (like the last 40 years - from the Karl Gustav to Tiger/MRH90/Air Warfare Destroyer!!!) experience with European equipment, I choke at the thought of Canberra even considering buying European again.
Will work out to be as expensive, or more than F-35. F-18E/F has similar capability, for less than either. Considering that most of Canada's mission will probably be intercept, perhaps they should consider F-15SE.
Likely Rafale Unit Cost is definitely more of an issue being realized recently, especially given the whole UAE selection debacle.
In fairness, Rafale is being produced in lessor rates than even F-35, so it could be argued that if ordered even in modest economies of scale, Rafale unit costs could be more competitive with rest of alternatives.
I do like the Rafale however as a multi-role option. The aircraft is fast and highly maneuverable, which gives it far more multi-role capabilities compared to say, the transonic Super Hornet Strike Fighter.
when configured with 3 super-sonic type EFT, the aircraft would have superior range (and lower profile) over the Super Hornet, yet remain superior in performance too. Although, I'd agree with Eric that Dassault's business plan should have been a bit more 'Meteor' friendly by now at this stage of the game. Same goes for AESA. That capability needs to be proven in-house, ASAP, in order for Rafale to remain a viable option in the near-term.
I'd concur with Anonymous #2 however, in that the relevant alternative to F-35 (which can reportedly do Mach 1.6) would not be the Super Hornet per se, but rather the F-15E+ in the near-term.
The F-15E class platform, to it's credit, would employ even superior long range situational awareness surveillance capabilities (both active and passive), than the F-35.
I admit that it is more of a gut feeling thing but I doubt Canada would go for F15SE or Rafale. They seem a bit too "militaristic". They will go with SH (cheaper buy) or get stuck with F35.
All three of the Euro-canards would work for Canada. With the amount of French-Canadian Industry in Canada I'm still surprised that the Rafale was not even considered!
The Rafale is a great aircraft and it works NOW vs. the Joint Power Point Fighter Program and its inability to deliver a functional warfighting aircraft after over a decade of mind numbing cost over runs and crazy expensive development.
On the other hand I agree that this would not be the best pick if looking for the best price-point. That would be the Superbug closely followed by the Gripen NG.
If the F-22 is never produced again the F-15SE would be a great fighter for Canada offering the most powerful US AESA now available and a dependable and interoperable platform with a measure of stealth thrown in to sweeten the deal.
The Rafale performed well in the recent North African Air Show, and has the added benefit of not being subject to ITAR - which can be a real pain when dealing with US industry.
Are you serious? The overall cost of the Rafale with sparing and support over 10 years would be nearly 3x that of the Super Bug deal. The Super Bug is JUST as manuverable as the Rafale, a few KPH slower supposedly, can carry a LOT more weapons, has a far superior avionics package, and is combat proven MUCH better than the Rafale.
Evil Bug,
The Rafale carrys approximately 1 tonne more of weaponry (9.5 vs 8.2) than the Super Hornet and it's delta-canard configurations gives it better performance at most conceivable scenarios. The Rafale's avionics package will be on par, if not better once upgraded with an AESA radar and paired with the Meteor.
About being combat proven-the Rafale has been to combat in Libya and Afghanistan, while the Super hornet has been to both those countries as well as Iraq (2003). If you ask me, neither is 'combat proven'. But then if you want to go by cost-effectiveness for a NATO member state, the Super Hornet would do fine.
Anon, the Rafale radar is far smaller than the Super Hornets and radar capability is all about aperture size isn't? I read somewhere that a 750mm dishe beats a 550mm dish every day of the week...
Where was that again?
Rafele can carry more payload on paper, but it needs to carry more fuel externally than does a Shornet carrying some 4000lbs less internally than does the Rhino.
In any case payload configurations are similar for both aircraft in real operations as to theoretical maximum payloads.
They generslly both carry 4-6 air to air missiles, 2-3 EFT's, a targetting pod and 2-4 air to ground weapons for usual multi-role missions. As SDB and similarly sized weapons, the air to ground weapon load will increase to 4-8 A2G weapons per aircraft.
For air to air they each usually carry 6-8 air to air missiles, a pair of EFT's and a targetting pod (for passive surveillance).
The difference is Rafale has a bit better air to air performance. Shornet has better radar, weapons (today) and is a fair bit cheaper.
Rafale will get Meteor which will improve it's capability. Meteor may be an option for Super Hornet too as Boeing has made discreet enquiries about this, but in any case will get AIM-120D and AIM-9x Block II and will improve it's capability too...
Bonza,
No one is denying the Super Hornet and even Eurofighter have higher internal fuel capacity, but the point is that the Rafale offers unmatched versatility with it's five heavy/wet points as well as the fact that it is already plumbed for 2 300 gallon CFTs. And before we forget, the Super Hornet is significantly bigger than the Rafale, so any advantages of increased fuel capacity is negated instantly.
Sure bigger radar apertures make a big difference-but are they the only source you rely on? Both the Rafale and Super hornet would rely extensively on AEW-datalinks and passive capabilities.
As I said earlier, most nations would/should choose the Super hornet since it covers most of their requirements but for a few, the Rafale's kinematics (in most respects) make a big difference.
Canada should purchase the F-18 Super Hornet with the Block 3 upgrades. At $60-70 million they are a deal vs the F-35. More importantly they will have a low maintenance cost per plane and quick turn around capability. This proven by years of USN and RCAF operations. The Block 3 upgrades potentially include GE414-EPE engines, giving the SH a max thrust of almost 53,000 lbs vs the older block 1/2 aircraft. This will dramatically improve the air-to-air issues against SU30/35 aircraft and could make the SH dominant vs these aircraft. CFTs will add internal fuel of an extra 3,000 lbs for increased range. The weapons pod will allow for 4 missiles or other ordnance. IR sensor and laser sensors. Last but not least a 5th gen type cockpit with a huge situational awareness screen.
Bottom Line:
- Cheaper alternative and likely more capable.
- Easy transition for classic Hornet for a "small" military.
- Significantly lower operating costs.
- Easy inter op with "Anglo" forces. i.e. US, AUS, and probably the Brits, i.e. they don't have money for F-35s for their new QE carrier.
-
Post a Comment