Wednesday 30 January 2013

Dassault Rafale: Oui ou non?

The Dassault Rafale.
The Dassault Rafale is like like the neglected middle sibling of the "Eurocanard" family.  The Typhoon is the star quarterback, getting attention for his wins, his performance, and popularity.  The Saab Gripen is the youngest and smallest, impressing everyone with how clever and easy it is to get along with it is.  The Rafale...  Well, it just focuses on being independent and hard working.

Originally a member of the same group that went on do develop the Eurofighter, France backed out early in the program.  It was clear that what France wanted was not in sync with Germany and Britain.  Germany and Britain were in need of a air superiority fighter to rival the MiG-29s and Su-27s that the Soviets had just unveiled.  France, on the other hand, was looking for a more balanced and affordable multirole fighter to replace its aging fleet of aircraft, both in the air force (Armée de l'air) and Navy (Marine Nationale).  It was also looking to secure its own military aircraft industry, and it was unhappy with not having a stronger say in what would become the Typhoon's development.  Instead, France went off on its own and developed the Dassault Rafale.

Much like the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Rafale's development was delayed thanks to end of the Cold War and France's military budget being slashed as a "peace dividend".  Eventually, the Rafale was placed in production to begin replacing outdated Mirage 2000s, F1s, Jaguars, and Super Etendards.  The Rafale M is now the sole fighter of France's navy and is the flagship of France's air force.  Since its procurement, the Rafale has proven its worth in combat over Afghanistan, Libya and now, Mali.

A Rafale on its way to Mali.
Like the Typhoon and Gripen, the Rafale is delta-winged with front canards for added manoeuvrability and lift.  Like the Typhoon, it is a twin engined design.  One could be excused for getting the three confused, especially from a distance.  A good "spotter's guide" is to look at the jet intakes.  The Gripen's are at the front of the delta wing, the Typhoon's is underneath like an F-16, and the Rafale has two semi-circles tucked into the lower fuselage, combined with a more "smoothed out" body shape.

Will it fit?  Probably.
Unlike the Typhoon, the Rafale was developed from the start to be adept at ground attack.  Capable of carrying over 9 tonnes of weapons and fuel on its 14 hard points, the Rafale is certainly the "bomb truck" of the three.  It is also cleared to carry nuclear weapons (not a Canadian requirement!).  The Typhoon and Gripen (C/D) carry 6.5 tonnes.  All this armament is supplemented by a 30mm cannon.

The Rafale is no slouch in the air-superiority role either, it is highly manoeuvrable and it is capable of supercruise while carrying a light load.  It's top speed is slightly higher than a CF-18.  The Rafale doesn't quite enjoy the Typhoon's air superiority reputation, but it should be capable enough at the hands of a competent pilot.

For detection, the Rafale is available with a modern AESA radar and IRST (infrared search and track).


Various components of the Rafale's SPECTRA ECM system.

Another key selling point of the Rafale is its SPECTRA electronic counter measure (ECM) system.  This gives the Rafale a "semi-stealth" capability when combined with its construction of radar absorbing materials.  This enables it to avoid enemy detection by sending out false signals, decoys, or simply jamming enemy radar.

A Rafale M on landing on a aircraft carrier.
Since the Rafale was also designed from the outset to operate off of France's Charles de Gaulle and a planned future aircraft carrier, its airframe should be considered to be about as robust as the CF-18, and there should be no concern about runway compatibility.  The Rafale also utilizes the "probe-and-drogue" aerial refuelling system and should be compatible with the CC-150 aerial tankers.  The Rafale is also compatible with NATO's Link-16 datalink system.  

All together, the Rafale offers a compelling option.  It offers great versatility, robustness, and survivability.  It appears to be an easy sell for those who believe the Gripen is simply too small and the Typhoon is too expensive and specialized.  But it is right for Canada?

Not quite.

Although much of the marketing behind the Rafale emphasizes its lower cost compared to the Eurofighter Typhoon, recent sales do not seem to agree with this.  Indeed, the Typhoon and Gripen have been far more popular on the export market, with India's recent purchase being the only foreign sale of the Rafale thus far.  A future sale to Brazil is possible, but the Rafale needs to prove its value over the much cheaper Super Hornet and Gripen to do so.

One of the more controversial lost Rafale sales was Switzerland.  After an extensive competition comparing the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen; the Gripen NG was chosen.  The Rafale was said to have more capability, but Dassault could only offer 16 Rafales for the same cost as 22 Saab Gripens Es.

French fighter...  French munitions.
Possibly the biggest stumbling block of the Rafale for Canada is, for lack of a better word, its "Frenchness".  Not in any derogatory sense, but in the sheer amount of France sourced hardware built into the aircraft.  The radar and SPECTRA ECM system are made by Thales, the engines are produced by Snecma.  Almost all major components are built in France.  This, of course, includes its weapons systems.  This is where it gets complicated.

Although Dassault's website promises the ability to mount "Customer-selected weapons", the Rafale is currently outfitted to handle predominantly French made missiles. It does use the NATO standard "STANAG 1760" for compatibility but there doesn't seem to be any indication of it being tested with Canadian legacy weapons like the AMRAAM and Sidewinder.  It will be compatible with the upcoming MBDA Meteor, but will only share a one-way datalink with the missile, rather than the two-way datalink the Meteor will have with the Gripen and Typhoon.  

The Rafale's weapon compatibility isn't such a big deal for India, it currently flies the Dassault Mirage and is already equipped with a stockpile of French munitions.  Canada, however, would have to make the decision to either replace our current stockpile of American AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, Mavericks, and Harpoons for French Micas, Hammers, and Exocets; or wait (and pay) for the Rafale to be tested and cleared for Canada's current weapon stockpile.  Any price advantage the the Rafale has over the Typhoon could easily be eliminated by extra costs inherited with its weapon systems.

Is there such a thing as "Too French"?
Lastly, as loathe as I am to let politics play a role, there is the simple fact that selecting the Rafale as Canada's future fighter could be perceived as "snubbing" some rather important allies and trade partners.  Buying the Rafale would obviously strengthen Canada's relationship with France, but that's it.  The F-35, although a Lockheed plane, is a multinational project, so no problem there.  The Super Hornet is an American plane so it wouldn't ruffle any feathers if chosen, given Canada's past preferences.  Buying the Typhoon, on the other hand, would make friends in Germany, Britain, Spain, and Italy.  Even the Swedish made Gripen E/F uses an American made General Electric engine, is compatible with European or U.S. missiles, and even carries a German Mauser canon.

Dassault's recent deal with India included manufacturing the majority of Indian Rafales in India.  Whether or not Canada could get the same deal is unknown.  It isn't as likely however, as India has ordered substantially more Rafales than Canada potentially would.  (as many as 189 vs. 65-70)

If I were to rank Canada's choices for its next jet fighter, the Rafale would probably be tied for second place with the Typhoon (with the F-35 4th and the Super Hornet a distant 5th).  Although it lacks the Typhoon's ferocity in the air, it makes up for it with its (percieved) cheaper cost and superior ground attack ability.  Much like the Typhoon, Canada's potential purchase of a Rafale would depend on a lot of factors that come to light at the negotiation table:  Price, industrial offsets and future support.

11 comments:

  1. Like the Typhoon, I think the Rafale is a spectacular fighter, but I think the Gripen still makes more sense. The only new fighter out there that I think is genuinely "bad" is the F-35. The Gripen, Eurofighter, and Rafale are all amazing aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oddly enough, although the F-35 has been a an absolute mess so far, I still think it would be a better choice than the Super Hornet (with the exception of the Growler). Not that the Super Hornet is that bad, it's just that it really doesn't offer much benefit over the current CF-18 and it has very little future growth potential.

      The F-35 is still early in its development and there is still some potential of it turning out to be a good aircraft, once enough money and time is spent on it. Future improvements, like a more powerful thrust vectoring engine and more internal weapons could actually make it halfway decent. These improvements would be a long way off (if ever) and would have to wait until the F-35 is actually combat ready and in service first.

      The Super Hornet, on the other hand, wasn't that great from the start, and seems unlikely to get much better in the future. Any money that could be used for Super Hornet improvement programs would more likely be diverted to either fixing the F-35's problems or developing a planned "Sixth Generation" fighter.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Renata,

      I appreciate the kind words, but I can't accept posts with links to unrelated commercial websites. Sorry.

      Delete
  3. -> “The Rafale doesn't quite enjoy the Typhoon's air superiority reputation, but it should be capable enough at the hands of a competent pilot.”
    Strange reputations since RAF pilot were forbidden to meet Rafale in exercises after a series of understandable blow.

    -> “Another key selling point of the Rafale is its SPECTRA electronic counter measure (ECM) system.”
    Of course, but a point often neglected is its ability to disturb the information retrieved from radar of the aircraft. But also of the long range missiles in final guidedance (in the last few kilometers). Quite interesting for BVR

    -> “Indeed, the Typhoon and Gripen have been far more popular on the export market,”
    Corruption case opened for typhoon in Austia and Saudi Arabia… Only Oman seems to buy it on its own

    -> “the Rafale needs to prove its value over the much cheaper Super Hornet and Gripen to do so.”
    Proven in India and Switzeland + Lybia + Dutchland (http://a396.idata.over-blog.com/499x342/0/50/29)

    -> “The Rafale was said to have more capability, but Dassault could only offer 16 Rafales for the same cost as 22 Saab Gripens Es.”
    It was “18 Rafale can do the job of 22 gripen so let us offer 18R instead of 22” and the is mainly linked to the
    (a lots of reports on that : http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/dassault-joue-son-va-tout-pour-imposer-son-rafale-en-suisse.N182712)

    -> “Possibly the biggest stumbling block of the Rafale for Canada is, for lack of a better word, its "Frenchness". Not in any derogatory sense, but in the sheer amount of France sourced hardware built into the aircraft. The radar and SPECTRA ECM system are made by Thales, the engines are produced by Snecma. Almost all major components are built in France. This, of course, includes its weapons systems. This is where it gets complicated. »
    Completely agree but in another way. France demonstrated a long time ago its ability to share source code and things like that if the shelling country is unwilling to attack allies. The problem is with the weapons. As Canada never operated a French design, buying rafale would impose to buy also a complete weapon stock. And to change its tactics. (too expansive)
    (for data link it is to be updated in standard F3.R)

    -> “Any price advantage the the Rafale has over the Typhoon could easily be eliminated by extra costs inherited with its weapon systems.”
    Completely agreed (and for the politics even more ^ ^)

    -> Dassault's recent deal with India included manufacturing the majority of Indian Rafales in India. Whether or not Canada could get the same deal is unknown. It isn't as likely however, as India has ordered substantially more Rafales than Canada potentially would. (as many as 189 vs. 65-70)
    An old guy from dassault told me that from 60 aircraft we can think about industrialization of the deal. But the price will raise a lot. (see brazil)

    -> “Although it lacks the Typhoon's ferocity in the air,”
    I think you should ask to RAF pilots ^ ^… they might disagree

    -> “Canada's potential purchase of a Rafale would depend on a lot of factors that come to light at the negotiation table: Price, industrial offsets and future support. »
    Agreed 100% (+ politics)


    Strangely my ranking for CANADA is closer to
    1- F-18 (silent hornet)
    2- Eurofighter
    3- And after I cannot say
    But I expect for the politics
    1- F-35
    2- F35
    3- F35
    Good luck with that

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment, some very good points made.

      The first link in your comment, provided in: "Proven in India and Switzeland + Lybia + Dutchland (http://a396.idata.over-blog.com/499x342/0/50/29)" doesn't seem to work. Can you repost or elaborate on it?

      I don't buy the "18 (or 16 depending on the source) Rafales can do the job of 22 Gripens." bit. The Rafale has a superior bomb load, sure, but this is irrelevant for missions like interception, patrol, and reconnaissance. Less airframes mean that flying time can't be spread out as much, leading to more wear and tear on those airframes, meaning they will approach the end of their operational life that much sooner. There is also much less room for loss due to attrition. Sometimes, more is simply more.

      Say hi to the "old guy at Dassault" for me. ;) You can often learn more from a simple conversation with someone than you can perusing hundreds of articles and PR materials.

      I'm not doubting the Rafale's air-to-air ability, but the Typhoon has got its "Raptor salad" reputation along with a better implementation of the MBDA Meteor. (two-way vs one-way data link). Problems with the RAF may be more specific to pilot training then the aircraft, as the RAF has suffered huge budget cuts lately. This seems even more likely given a conversation I recently had with a "not-so-old guy" from the RAF.

      My ranking for Canada:
      1- Gripen (obviously)
      2- Eurofighter Typhoon
      3- Rafale
      4- F-35
      5- Super Hornet (yeah, that low)

      For politics:
      1- F-35
      2- Super Hornet (and approaching the lead)
      3- Typhoon
      4- Gripen (but gaining, I hope!)
      5- Rafale

      Delete
  4. Well hello, first of all I'd like to congratulate Doug for the blog, it is very impressive.
    As a french I needed to clarify about rafale weapon's compatibility:

    The one way link for the Meteor was forced by financial constrains: france had to support the integration cost alone to win in India, so then an absolute minimal intergration plan was adopted.

    Rafale uses the stanag-1760 standard that is a NATO compatiblility standard, in a mechanical way, just like ANY modern NATO fighterjet. In other words it is in no way harder to integrate a weapon on a rafale than it would be on a gripen. RCAF could reuse it's current mk82 and bomb units to fit the Paveway IV guidance kits, as it is used on french rafales.

    If canada goes for rafale it will buy french weapons because it will be cheaper and ready for service (same option as Switzerland would have chosen last year)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello Doug,

    As Sullivan said, Rafale is fully NATO Stanag 1760 Mil Std, see Dassault website. It is a very important point.
    www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/defense/rafale/armements-avances.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed it does, and I do mention it above, but that does not mean that a Rafale could fire AMRAAMs and the like right out of the box. Further testing and setup would be required to get fire control systems and data links in order. It would pose no problems for some weapons, like bombs, but guided missiles would likely require some work.

      This isn't a huge factor, but it would likely drive up cost slightly.

      Delete
  6. Is it ok if I use some statements you made on your website in an essay I wrote for a challenge (I want to get an Avro Super Arrow badge [only 100 will be made] and get a chance to get the blueprints)? Don't worry, I wrote where I got the info gripen4canada.blogspot.ca

    Also, I think the rafale is tied with the typhoon, the typhoon only exceeding in terms of englishness and common weapons. Yet I'm french canadian so obviously I'm more of a rafale guy... Also, don't you think the gripen is a little outdated (it is some 15 years old)? Cool website, I've learnt alot (I'm 14 but I know alot about aircraft. But your website is one of the few places I've actually learned something about aviation)!!!

    Bye bye! =)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No problems here. Tell Joe I said "hi"!

      The Gripen is no more outdated than the Typhoon or Rafale. All three were concieved at about the same time, with the Gripen going into production earlier simply due to a more streamlined design process and less bureaucracy (in the case of the Typhoon) as well as using more "off the shelf" parts (unlike the Rafale).

      All three aircraft have been upgraded throughout the years and will likely continue to see upgrades into the foreseeable future.

      Delete