The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[Colin Parkinson]

Has the Rafel been cleared to carry US weapons? That might be a major factor in whether it's a contender and would affect the price?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Colin P.: Not yet it seems according to Dassault:
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-full-range-of-advanced-weapons/

But see this:

...
Rafale can carry payloads of more than 9t on 14 hardpoints for the air force version, with 13 for the naval version. The range of weapons includes: Mica, Magic, Sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; Apache, AS30L, ALARM, HARM, Maverick and PGM100 air-to-ground missiles and Exocet / AM39, Penguin 3 and Harpoon anti-ship missiles...
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[AlexanderM]

If we purchased F-35's and the Rafale, could the F-35's not use our stock of missiles, so they would be used? Also, the sidewinder, ASRAAM and AMRAAM are not compatible? I expect they would both use the Meteor missile at some point.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'm totally out of my lane here, but a few questions to ponder re: the US-weapons concern:
1.  What is the value of our current inventory?  As is "Do we have enough value locked up in inventories to make this a concern?"
2.  How out of date is it?  As in "Are the versions of weapons we have in that inventory becoming obsolete?"
3.  How much of our inventory is approaching its shelf life and will need to be replaced within the decade anyway?

Anyone have any ideas?

 

[a_majoor]

Colin P.: Not yet it seems according to Dassault:
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-full-range-of-advanced-weapons/

But see this:

Mark
Ottawa

The picture immediately shows the issue with any Gen 4 aircraft: the huge exposed weapons load which would make the aircraft quite visible. If the manufacturers could create the equivalent of the stealth weapons pod concept that was demonstrated with the Advanced Super Hornet concept (and I include the F-35 in this), then that would go a long way to making their Gen 4 and 5 aircraft more viable in a high threat environment (in the case of the F-35, it could carry a much larger weapons load and still retain much of its low observable signature).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Apparently though it's been a struggle to ensure that heat buildup or temperature differentials in the enclosed F35 weapons bay does not effect the weapons carried within. Also you give up capacity for that benefit. Seems like everything else, you give up one thing for another. It may be that people arguing for the mixed fleet might be right, the F35 might become the airborne version of a recce squadron and the Gen 4.5 aircraft become the hammer. You may not wish for your F35 to launch, so it can maintain greater concealment.

 

[AlexanderM]

Apparently though it's been a struggle to ensure that heat buildup or temperature differentials in the enclosed F35 weapons bay does not effect the weapons carried within. Also you give up capacity for that benefit. Seems like everything else, you give up one thing for another. It may be that people arguing for the mixed fleet might be right, the F35 might become the airborne version of a recce squadron and the Gen 4.5 aircraft become the hammer. You may not wish for your F35 to launch, so it can maintain greater concealment.

I don't see a problem, as long as we have both. I'm now thinking we either end up with 88 F-35's or a combination of F-35's and either Super Hornets or the Rafale. It's my understanding that both the Rafale and the Typhoon have excellent defensive systems and from what I have read both seem to be capable of supercruise, at least that is the claim and that is with missiles. The Rafale will soon have a more powerful engine, equal to the Typhoon and a HUD. If the Meteor missile turns out to be as good as advertised, with it's ramjet engine it will track down targets at over 1 km per second, with a range of 100-300 kms, although the range does vary depending on several factors. If we had fast jets with those missiles and invisible F-35's to help direct fire it doesn't sound too bad.

I don't think the Liberals can do much until NFTA gets done and I'm wondering what "America First" is going to think of canadian companies being able to bid on US defence contracts. Then if they want that changed we get back our right to design and build our own jet fighters, in which case assembling the Rafale in Canada might not be a bad first step and still buy some F-35's to keep us in that program as a partner nation for the duration. I realize this likely won't happen but until NFTA is done I will be a bit nervous.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

An interesting take on the subject, sub components for the F35 and limited production of the Rafale, likely using Bombardier lines. From a Geopolitical perspective it might be healthy to be somewhat independent of US tech, while still having access to their market, now combine that with jumping into the Aussie-French sub deal and we might see a new defense relationship form between Canada and France. (dreams of Mistrals.....)

 

[AlexanderM]

An interesting take on the subject, sub components for the F35 and limited production of the Rafale, likely using Bombardier lines. From a Geopolitical perspective it might be healthy to be somewhat independent of US tech, while still having access to their market, now combine that with jumping into the Aussie-French sub deal and we might see a new defense relationship form between Canada and France. (dreams of Mistrals.....)

It bothers me that Canada could ever pay a foreign buyers tax on anything that comes out of the North American Defence Industry as we gave up our right to develop and build our own fighter jets to become a part of that industry, so we are not a foreign buyer. Now is a good time to redefine the playing field, just as we step up defence spending, either we are a full partner or should we look at reclaiming a seperate Canadian Defence Industry in which we can start building fighters again.

 

[Kirkhill]

Apparently though it's been a struggle to ensure that heat buildup or temperature differentials in the enclosed F35 weapons bay does not effect the weapons carried within. Also you give up capacity for that benefit. Seems like everything else, you give up one thing for another. It may be that people arguing for the mixed fleet might be right, the F35 might become the airborne version of a recce squadron and the Gen 4.5 aircraft become the hammer. You may not wish for your F35 to launch, so it can maintain greater concealment.

Just thinking here Colin.  I get the advantage of having the F35 used as recce squadron - stay in low observable mode, weapons concealed, carrying for self-defence and for the ability to prosecute high value targets all the while keeping eyes on target and coordinating other forces.

I am not sure though, that that validates the necessity of a mixed fleet.  If you want to pile rounds on target and are not concerned about stealth then couldn't you just send in more F35s in the second wave but with rounds hanging from external hard points, just like the Rafales, Typhoons and SuperHornets?    I believe that the F35 would also have the advantage on the egress in that, after launching and getting out of Dodge, its signature would drop making it easier to leave and perhaps encouraging the pilots to push in a bit closer to the target knowing that their odds of leaving after launch are better.

Meanwhile you have the benefits of commonality for training and logistics.

Or were you perhaps thinking of the merits of a mixed fleet of F35Bs and F35As?  A future buy of 64 F35As with an immediate interim buy of 24 F35Bs wouldn't seem out of place.

I can see the merits of using a legacy fleet in conjunction with the F35s in recce mode, if you already have a legacy fleet and want to get full value for the available flight hours remaining, but I am not sure about the advantage of spending similar money on air frames to get less benefit and also having to spend more money to duplicate training and logistics facilities.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Doesn't the "B" model have significantly reduced range due to the lift fan taking the place of internal fuel?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Chris a quick peek at wiki indicates the Rafale has 14 hardpoints for weapons and the F35 has 10 external/internal. SH has 11 hardpoints and F15 can carry 16 weapons.

So for the scenario I spoke of, it seems on the surface a combo of the F35 and F15 would be optimal, followed by the Rafale and then SH. Of course there is more to the mix, but from sheer numbers of possible weapons to bear in an area that seems to be the mix.

 

[Loachman]

None of that justifies the cost of acquiring and maintaining two separate fleets.

It's not just two bunches of aircraft, it's also twice as many simulators, sets of tools, sets of spare parts, sets of publications, and training streams and all for no additional operational value.

For what purpose would we want F35B? We can just have notional F35Bs for our notional Mistrals.

We just need a government that makes "evidence-based decisions" to realize/admit that F35 is superior to its competition for operational, commonality, cost, and industrial offsets reasons.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's depends on the total costs, if we can have 80+ fighters of 2 types plus supporting elements as mentioned as opposed to 65 of one type for the same costs, then it's worth it. Going by Wiki the cost difference between the Rafale and F35 is approx. 6 million. If you bought 40 Rafale and Forty F-35's, the savings up front would be 240 million. That is of course depending if both of those costs represent the same thing, a flyaway complete aircraft. Would 240 million cover the necessary duplication? That is a good question.

Then there is the Geo-political and trade elements to consider. Such a combo might allow us to produce parts and support for both aircraft lines and customers, meaning a lot of opportunities for future sub component contracting. I suspect the Rafale will be the fighter of choice for those not wanting or eligible for the F-35. Dassualt has hinted at allowing a significant amount of the production in Canada, the politicians will see that money being spent here as money that generates jobs, taxes and votes, making each dollar spent here more valuable. With the split fleet, we would still retain the F-35 contracts. I could see this option be very politically attractive.

 

[AlexanderM]

That's depends on the total costs, if we can have 80+ fighters of 2 types plus supporting elements as mentioned as opposed to 65 of one type for the same costs, then it's worth it. Going by Wiki the cost difference between the Rafale and F35 is approx. 6 million. If you bought 40 Rafale and Forty F-35's, the savings up front would be 240 million. That is of course depending if both of those costs represent the same thing, a flyaway complete aircraft. Would 240 million cover the necessary duplication? That is a good question.

Then there is the Geo-political and trade elements to consider. Such a combo might allow us to produce parts and support for both aircraft lines and customers, meaning a lot of opportunities for future sub component contracting. I suspect the Rafale will be the fighter of choice for those not wanting or eligible for the F-35. Dassualt has hinted at allowing a significant amount of the production in Canada, the politicians will see that money being spent here as money that generates jobs, taxes and votes, making each dollar spent here more valuable. With the split fleet, we would still retain the F-35 contracts. I could see this option be very politically attractive.

The cost of duplication would be far more than $240M, but the cost of 88 jets even at $150M Cdn each, which is high, is $13.2B and our budget is $15-19B so I would think we have enough room. I'm all for a fleet of 88 F-35's but we need to see what the playing field is going to look like once NFTA is redone, in that if we have to change our approach or thinking in some way we need to know before we move ahead. I just feel uneasy about Trumps "America First".

 

[Loachman]

Would 240 million cover the necessary duplication? That is a good question.

Even if the costs are accurate, I'd say "no", especially considering upgrades over the lifetime of the machines.

What about deployments? That's a smaller pool of each machine, aircrew, and groundcrew to rotate. That generally means one or two more spare machines, more parts, more people, and that adds more drag over lengthy ops.

Such a combo might allow us to produce parts and support for both aircraft lines and customers, meaning a lot of opportunities for future sub component contracting.

For how many Rafales around the planet, compared to how many F35s?

Dassualt has hinted at allowing a significant amount of the production in Canada, the politicians will see that money being spent here as money that generates jobs, taxes and votes, making each dollar spent here more valuable.

I envision another LSVW factory, for some reason.

I could see this option be very politically attractive.

I do not care for political attractiveness.

I care about operational effectiveness.

A mixed fleet, especially with part of that mix having reduced capability and survivability compared to the other, is not operationally effective.

We are a small organization. Keep it simple.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The reality is that the military people don't get the final say, at the end of the day it will be a political decision. The best the military can do is to accurately show the pros and cons of each option and hope the decision makers can understand them. Let’s say if 50% of the Rafale cost is spent in Canada, as opposed to say 25% of an F-35, then combined with a lower initial purchase price, a mixed fleet takes on a politically attractive aspect when you consider that a portion of those in Canada costs are returned to government through taxes. The Liberals seem to have worked themselves into a corner as to stating that 65 aircraft is not enough (finally I agree with JT), but they don’t want them to be F-35’s. But at the same time they want to keep access to the F-35 contracting stream, which means buying F-35’s. I can see politically a mixed fleet being more attractive despite any potential higher long term costs. You can bet Dassult will play this angle and will be sure to locate any potential factory in a vote rich area of political importance and if tied to Bombardier, the government might find giving them money to assemble fighters is more politically expedient than just shoveling money at them as we currently do.   

 

[Kirkhill]

Why F35B's ?

Because I like them.  I liked the P1127, the Kestrel, the Harrier and the Sea Harrier.  They were neat. Just like the SRN1 was neat.

I don't like the Rafale.  For reasons that would probably get me disbarred.

The F35B does have shorter legs.  On the other hand it can be based further forward. And it can land on any flat surface.

But, it will never happen. 

And its all good.


Cheers. :cheers:

 

[QV]

... at the end of the day it will be a political decision....

That is the problem right there.  It should be a government decision, politics should not influence negatively the effective defence of our country.

The senior staff in the CAF should be resigning in protest/falling on their sword over the fighter jet replacement debacle and the navy ship debacle. 

 

[McG]

The reality is that the military people don't get the final say, at the end of the day it will be a political decision. The best the military can do is to accurately show the pros and cons of each option and hope the decision makers can understand them.

So, in professional military discourse we should discuss the military factors of a required decision/action?  We should understand (and maybe even appreciate) the political factors, but in the end advise on what are Canada's capability requirements and not what the manufacturing offsets might be for constituency X?