Should the US Navy supplement with the Rafale?

[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?

 

[Todjaeger]

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

 

[Grim901]

No, the above post is pretty thorough on why. But in short, why buy Rafale when F18 numbers could just be increased?

If this thread takes off it has all the makings of a fanboy paradise.

 

[jaffo4011]

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.....

 

[swerve]

... in short, why buy Rafale when F18 numbers could just be increased?

Absolutely. Doesn't make sense. Just buy more of the same.

And I'd also say "Just buy more of the same" to a proposal that France should add F-18E to its fighter force.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

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/future_aircraft_Carrier.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?).

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

 

[AegisFC]

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.

 

[Grand Danois]

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.

 

[Todjaeger]

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

 

[swerve]

...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.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

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)

 

[swerve]

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.

 

[jaffo4011]

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?

 

[swerve]

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.

Gripen should therefore need less modification.

 

[Toptob]

Hey guys just my 2 cents

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...

Just my thoughts after reading the thread..

Peace guys

 

[StevoJH]

Hey guys just my 2 cents

First off shouldn't this be in the airforce forum (I'm not clear but it is mostly about aircraft so..)

Its a topic about Naval Aircraft, not Airforce, so its in the right place, given the drift from USN to RN it might need a name change to "Future Naval Aircraft Options for the RN" or similar though.

I want to rehash the F-18 Rafale discussion.

Oh god......at least the mods here keep the fanboi's undercontrol on this board......here's hoping this doesnt draw them out....

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?

Probably, but good systems+ok airframe>ok systems+ good airframe.

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.

Fairly sure F-18E/F carries more payload, speed isnt really relevent since neither can go supersonic with heavy warloads. F-18E/F currently has more stuff integrated then Rafale has and this will continue for the foreseeable future.

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???

Nothing stopping them from buying F-35C for the RN and F-35B for the RAF if they chose to go along those lines. The usefulness of STOVL aircraft, was ably demonstrated in Afghanistan where they were the only fixed wing British air cover available until just recently when the support infrastructure was built up enough to support the more capable GR.4.

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.

Yes and no. It would probably be quite easy to take the Typhoon avionics and the EJ2000 engines and design a new airframe around them, as a lot of the development of current fighters is not the airframes themselve, but the avionics and engines that go with them. F-35, Rafale and Typhoon all being current examples.

Oh, and the QE class have been designed to be fitted with Catapult and Arresting Wires for the F-35 replacement, also allowing them to hedge their bets incase F-35 fails.

But the whole British carrier discussion is tiring TBH.

As is discussion of Rafale. The amount of discussion of the Carriers in my opinion just highlights how important they are to the RN.

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.

Its not so much overlooked as that people consider that there is no point talking about them if there is a risk that the carriers themselves will be cancelled, just as carriers are useless without aircraft, carrier aircraft are just landbased without their carrier.

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...[

The problem is time, a lot of airframes are running out of life and the delays in the F-35 programme are going to cause gaps in the capabilities of many airforces unless a bridging capability (such as F-18F in the RAAF) are purchased in the meantime.

Just my thoughts after reading the thread..

Peace guys

Just my thoughts after reading your post.

Regards,
Stephen

 

[1805]

If the question is serously for the USN to buy Rafale then this has been answered the USN has US options in that space. However if it is should they develop a light attack option in the A4/A7 or even A10 role then I think there is a case.

I guess the argument has been that CVs are so expensive that it justifies very expensive multi role aircraft, but the USN may just have so much space it can justify a dedicated aircraft. Even in the heavy attack role I was very sorry to see the demise of dedicated aircraft such as the A6 & Buccaneer, and eventually the Tornado.

 

[Architect]

Nop. They should buy navalized Gripens NG just for fun.
They will be amazing, cool and cheap to operate.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

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.

Just my thoughts after reading the thread..

Peace guys

It seems to me like the STOVL route actually increases opportunities for cross-decking. Far more nations operate STOVL or VTOL-capable carriers or LHDs (India, Spain, Italy, possibly Australia, US, possibly Japan, Britain, etc.) than proper full-sized CATOBAR carriers (Brazil, US, France).

The VTOL/STOVL capability of Harriers and F-35Bs allows them to operate from a host of small, floating platforms such as LHAs, flat-decked cargo ships, etc. as well as VTOL carriers such as the current HMS Ark Royal, LHDs and assault carriers, as well as large conventional carrier like the Nimitz class.

Plus VTOL capability give F-35/Harrier-type aircraft the ability to better support Marine operations ashore should the need arise, since they can be used from rough, short forward airfields or stretches of road as temporary bases or for shuttle bombing missions.

However, there is the problem that F-35Bs (along with V-22s) melt the decks due to the fact they direct their superheated exhausts directly onto the deck. Some navies are heat-proofing their decks in response, although this can be time-consuming and expensive.

If the question is serously for the USN to buy Rafale then this has been answered the USN has US options in that space. However if it is should they develop a light attack option in the A4/A7 or even A10 role then I think there is a case.

I guess the argument has been that CVs are so expensive that it justifies very expensive multi role aircraft, but the USN may just have so much space it can justify a dedicated aircraft. Even in the heavy attack role I was very sorry to see the demise of dedicated aircraft such as the A6 & Buccaneer, and eventually the Tornado.

Based off of past trends, the US Navy has pretty much abandoned the specific aircraft, specific role route, has chosen to purchase and operate multi-role aircraft like the legacy Hornet, the Super Hornet, and the F-35C.

The way the US Navy's carriers have been and are beings used as a "strike anywhere" means of force projection doesn't really favor dedicated aircraft, since one day you may face an enemy with no air force (making your Tomcats useless) and the next you're enforcing a no-fly zone, a mission for which A-7s and A-6s are not ideal. While this is a bit of an oversimplification, dedicated aircraft and non-homogeneous Carrier Air Wings can lead to redundancy.

Multi-role strike fighters somewhat obviate this, hence the trend towards multi-role Hornets, Rafale Ms, etc on the carriers of the world.

I do agree with you, the A-6 and the F-14 were darn cool aircraft, and I was sorry to see them go.

 

[Todjaeger]

It seems to me like the STOVL route actually increases opportunities for cross-decking. Far more nations operate STOVL or VTOL-capable carriers or LHDs (India, Spain, Italy, possibly Australia, US, possibly Japan, Britain, etc.) than proper full-sized CATOBAR carriers (Brazil, US, France).

The VTOL/STOVL capability of Harriers and F-35Bs allows them to operate from a host of small, floating platforms such as LHAs, flat-decked cargo ships, etc. as well as VTOL carriers such as the current HMS Ark Royal, LHDs and assault carriers, as well as large conventional carrier like the Nimitz class.

Plus VTOL capability give F-35/Harrier-type aircraft the ability to better support Marine operations ashore should the need arise, since they can be used from rough, short forward airfields or stretches of road as temporary bases or for shuttle bombing missions.

However, there is the problem that F-35Bs (along with V-22s) melt the decks due to the fact they direct their superheated exhausts directly onto the deck. Some navies are heat-proofing their decks in response, although this can be time-consuming and expensive.

I do not think that many of the small flat-topped vessels could (safely) have F-35B's land on them. In addition to the heat issue, one does need to remember the weight footprint of the F-35. While it is roughly the same size as the Harrier, it weighs significantly more. This means that any ships which an F-35B would attempt to land on not only needs to have any needed heat-proofing but also have the deck reinforced enough to bear the load of an F-35. I believe this would eliminate the Indian and Thai carriers as well as the RN's Invincible-class.

-Cheers