This is a discussion on Should the US Navy supplement with the Rafale? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; This is a quick question. I'm new and don't know a lot about military strategy and how this would affect ...
This is a quick question. I'm new and don't know a lot about military strategy and how this would affect us but... I heard that since the F-35 cost is going up, our numbers of buying them would (Or could) go down. And I was thinking that if the cost is going up. Should we buy some Rafales so we don't have to rely on a low number of fighter jets in the navy?
Last edited by Turian Pride; March 26th, 2010 at 02:50 PM.
This is a quick question. I'm new and don't know a lot about military strategy and how this would affect us but... I heard that since the F-35 cost is going up, our numbers of buying them would (Or could) go down. And I was thinking that if the cost is going up. Should we buy some Rafales so we don't have to rely on a low number of fighter jets in the navy?
Quick answer, no. The USN currently operates a mix of 4th Gen F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornets, and the 4.5 Gen F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornet. The Super Hornet is comparable to the naval Rafale variant and already in both production in the US (for the USN...) and in US service. IIRC the numbers of Super Hornets in US service already exceed the number of Rafales in service, with the currently planned total is expected to be twice the number of Rafales in service. What this essentially means is that if any F-35C Lightning II's are cut from the USN and replaced with fighters currently in production, it would be replaced with more Super Hornets.
I could be mistaken, but given that the Rafale is a Dassault product and has only been ordered by France in fairly limited numbers (at least in terms of US fighter programmes) a USN Rafale order would likely take nearly as long to reach IOC (Initial Operating Capacity) as an F-35C order, if not longer. Since the Rafale was never really targeted for the US market, the US weapon systems have not been cleared for carriage or deployment. This would mean that either a development programme needs to be run so that any USN Rafales could continue using weapons like the AIM-9X, AMRAAM, JDAM, JSOW, Harpoon, etc OR the USN would need to place orders and stock the various comparable Euro munitions like Magic, Meteor, Scalp etc. Either way would increase the cost of the Rafale purchase to some degree, and a programme to clear US weapons for the Rafale would also delay the IOC date further. Additionally, a training programme would need to be setup and run so that everyone who would be involved in Rafale operations would be able to perform the needed tasks. Something similar will of course be needed to have the F-35C reach IOC, but not for the Super Hornet.
Now, if the Super Hornet did not exist and it appeared that there would be significant delays or cost increases for the F-35C, then the Rafale might be possible. Since that is not the case, I do not see the USN ordering any. If they need more fighters before the F-35C is available, they would just increase the number of Super Hornets on order from Boeing.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
what the royal navy should do tho,is put catapults on the two new carriers and buy rafales or s.hornets for them instead of f35's and save a whole lot of cash ...and allowed compatibility with the french and us carriers for operations....
mind you,if they had thought ahead they would have produced a navalised typhoon in the first place and they could then have justified the 3rd trenche of tiffies.....
what the royal navy should do tho,is put catapults on the two new carriers and buy rafales or s.hornets for them instead of f35's and save a whole lot of cash ...and allowed compatibility with the french and us carriers for operations....
mind you,if they had thought ahead they would have produced a navalised typhoon in the first place and they could then have justified the 3rd trenche of tiffies.....
The basic Queen Elizabeth was designed from the onset to have the ability to mount catapults (some redesign would still be required). However, the more you look at the fundamental design of the carrier, and the peripheral technological and political issues surrounding it, I don't think it very likely that the Royal Navy is going to or ever was going to install cats on her carriers.
There's several reasons why.
Firstly, the gas turbine-drive electronic propulsion and power systems means that steam catapults, without a major redesign to the ship and the addition of auxiliary steam plant means steam cats are out the door, or at least a highly undesirable option. (http://www.rokusforum.org/pdf_files/...arrier.CVF.pdf) (on a side note: an interesting link to the propulsion system proposals for the CVF Navy Matters | Home Page /cvf6.htm)
That means EMALs (the US Navy's ElectroMagnetic Aircraft Launch System, effectively a railgun with a catapult shuttle attached to the top of it) is the best option for the Royal Navy. The problem is, EMALS is unproven on a full scale. Half-scale test versions and simulators have showed promise, but nobody quite knows if it will work. Granted, the US Navy has a huge stake in making work, especially since EMALS is key to the success of the Gerald Ford-class; but it's still a huge question mark and one the Royal Navy certainly has reason to worry about.
Secondly, there's the political aspect of it. Buying F-35Cs, navalized Typhoons, or Rafales would cost hundreds of jobs at Rolls-Royce, given the fact they are the producer (or one of the producers) of the F-35B's lift fan. Thus an F-35B cancellation is somewhat politically unpalatable for British MPs, etc. (Defence jobs at risk as MoD drops jump jet fighter engine - Telegraph)
Now, that doesn't mean Britain isn't still considering an F-35C, Sea Typhoon, or Sea Rafale deal. The F-35B doesn't have some disadvantages, among them reduced range, and concern that it "[may] prove unable to take off and land with full air-to-air armament" and hence the Royal Navy "sees the F-35C as its primary “Plan B” for naval aviation." (EMALS: Electro-Magnetic Launch for Carriers). Based off of other sources, the F-35 still seems to be the most probable contender should the RN switch to a CATOBAR setup for the Queen Elizabeths (F-35C variant has the MoD's eye - Defence Management)
The possibility of a Rafale or Sea Typhoon process seemed strongest in 2005-2006 due to ITAR tech transfer concerns and the ensuing possibility of a UK pullout from the JSF program. However, the United States' eventual willingness to share some JSF information with the UK somewhat reduced these concerns. (ITAR Fallout: Britain to Pull Out of F-35 JSF Program?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turian Pride
This is a quick question. I'm new and don't know a lot about military strategy and how this would affect us but... I heard that since the F-35 cost is going up, our numbers of buying them would (Or could) go down. And I was thinking that if the cost is going up. Should we buy some Rafales so we don't have to rely on a low number of fighter jets in the navy?
No. The Super Hornet is US-built, already well-operational, well-liked, and cheaper than the Rafale. Air and ground crews are already well-trained on it, and unlike the Rafale, it's currently capable of carrying nearly every, if not every aircraft weapon in the US Navy's arsenal
The Super Hornet is comparable to the naval Rafale variant and already in both production in the US (for the USN...) and in US service.
I don't want to get into a "VS" pissing contest but I'd put the Super Hornet ahead of the Rafale. As it stands right now the F-18E has AESA radar and all future blocks will be wired to become "Growlers" fairly easily. I've also heard about a towable decoy but I can't find any solid information about when it is supposed to become operational.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves." Forum rules, read them!
I'd say the the two aircraft are remarkably similar; perhaps a reflection of how the requirements look like for current naval aviation in Western context?
Both have RO (reduced observability) airframes with high emphasis on avionics and weapons integration focused on strike missions.
In crude terms one could replace the other.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
I don't want to get into a "VS" pissing contest but I'd put the Super Hornet ahead of the Rafale. As it stands right now the F-18E has AESA radar and all future blocks will be wired to become "Growlers" fairly easily. I've also heard about a towable decoy but I can't find any solid information about when it is supposed to become operational.
It was my understand that the decoy is already operational, just not talked about much. My impression has been that the 'not talked about' bit is not accidental either...
I had not heard that all future SHornet -F 's will be wired for Growler use. That is a good deal of additional cabling to do so as I understand it. I do know that the Block II+ SHornets all have the airframe cutouts (or whatever it is called) fo allow the wiring harness of either the -E/F or -G. This was done so reduce costs and simplify production between versions.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
...Buying F-35Cs, navalized Typhoons, or Rafales would cost hundreds of jobs at Rolls-Royce, given the fact they are the producer (or one of the producers) of the F-35B's lift fan. Thus an F-35B cancellation is somewhat politically unpalatable for British MPs, etc. (Defence jobs at risk as MoD drops jump jet fighter engine - Telegraph)
Rolls-Royce is also a partner in the EJ200 engine of the Typhoon, & builds 34.5% of each one. I expect it gets at least as much work from a Typhoon as from an F-35B.
Rolls-Royce is also a partner in the EJ200 engine of the Typhoon, & builds 34.5% of each one. I expect it gets at least as much work from a Typhoon as from an F-35B.
That does make sense, and I suppose that fact would be a major contributing factor to a Sea Typhoon purchase should the RN choose to go CATOBAR.
Although obviously if the Royal Navy went with Rafales, Super Hornets, or even F-35Cs, then the job loss issue arises again.
So I guess based solely on that aspect it's either F-35Bs or Sea Typhoons? (Obviously there are other factors involved)
Well, yes. The UK has a share in all F-35s (BAe makes parts, for example), but much more in the B than the others, & no share at all in F-18E or Rafale AFAIK. And it has a very large share in Typhoon, much more overall than in F-35B. As well as that 34.5% share of the engine, a large proportion of the airframe & avionics are British - altogether, a 37.5% share of each Typhoon. A hypothetical Sea Typhoon would probably have an even larger share.
The UK will also make about 25% of each Gripen NG, IIRC (enough for the British government to back Gripen NG sales campaigns, at least where it isn't competing with Typhoon), but I don't think the mooted Sea Gripen is considered a realistic option for the RN, even though it should be cheaper & easier to develop than a Sea Typhoon.
Well, yes. The UK has a share in all F-35s (BAe makes parts, for example), but much more in the B than the others, & no share at all in F-18E or Rafale AFAIK. And it has a very large share in Typhoon, much more overall than in F-35B. As well as that 34.5% share of the engine, a large proportion of the airframe & avionics are British - altogether, a 37.5% share of each Typhoon. A hypothetical Sea Typhoon would probably have an even larger share.
The UK will also make about 25% of each Gripen NG, IIRC (enough for the British government to back Gripen NG sales campaigns, at least where it isn't competing with Typhoon), but I don't think the mooted Sea Gripen is considered a realistic option for the RN, even though it should be cheaper & easier to develop than a Sea Typhoon.
why would the gripen be easier and cheaper to develop...is it its simpler design?
Weeellll . . . supposedly, if you were going to design a carrier fighter from scratch, you probably wouldn't make some of the design choices made for Typhoon, but the different requirements for Gripen led to design choices which make it much more like a fighter intended from the start to operate off carriers. It's designed for short, hard landings, for example.
First off shouldn't this be in the airforce forum (I'm not clear but it is mostly about aircraft so..)
I want to rehash the F-18 Rafale discussion. On the avionics part, totally. The avionics in the current Rafale's cannot hold a candle against the high-tech super computer in the Super Hornet. But airframe wise the Rafale is much better than the Hornet, with that I mean much more manouverable. Am I wrong there? Furthermore what about speed payload etc? Also the Rafale is not done developing yet, and I'm not a fanboy but they are developing some pretty nice stuff.
For the British, the F-35B looks like the only option for them. Remember, the RAF and RN dont operate VTOL aircraft because they can take off from their carriers. VSTOL assets are valuable in so many ways. Therefore, if not the F-35B only the harrier can replace the harrier or some other hypothetical VSTOL aircraft because: would you want to lose that capability???
Okay a naval typhoon would be hellacool, but totally ridiculous. There would be so much work needed on both typhoon and the carriers. But a CATOBAR carrier also has advantages you can operate a more efficient AEW option (maybe even develop one?), and you can operate your fleet from American and French carriers too.
But the whole British carrier discussion is tiring TBH. And in a discussion about the aircraft flying from them capability's are often overlooked and to much words go into talk about politics, money and more politics. But think about it, I know there are a lot of F-35 haters (I was one of them) but it is (or will be) a pretty awesome aircraft and is that not reason enough to choose this aircraft? All the other stuff besides...
Should the US Navy supplement with the Rafale? 
