Perry: 5-year search for Canada's new fighter jets 'ridiculous'

By: Graham Slaughter, CTVNews.ca Writer

An expert on defence budgeting says the federal government’s plan to hold a five-year competition to scout out a replacement for the military’s aging aircraft fleet is “ridiculous” and could be done much quicker.

“The question of why we need five years I think is one that hasn’t really been fully answered,” David Perry, a senior analyst and fellow with Canadian Global Affairs Institute, told CTV’s Power Play.

The Liberal government announced Tuesday that it plans to “explore the acquisition” of 18 Boeing Super Hornet jets until it has settled on a new, permanent aircraft purchase to replace the current fighter jets, which are more than 30 years old.

RELATED STORIES
A timeline of Canada's march to getting new fighter jets

A US Navy Super Hornet aircraft assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 115 makes an arrested landing on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) Aug 20 2013

A competition will be held to allow the federal government to consider a variety of jet models. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the process is expected to last five years.

It’s hardly the first time the issue has been studied, Perry said.

“The air force leading up to 2010 had made a recommendation, after which point the last government was unhappy with how that proceeded, and basically went through a full analysis starting from scratch. This government came in and has done the same thing,” he said.

“So since 2012, there’s basically been four years of looking at this issue. So I just find it incredulous that it would then take five years in addition to this to actually run a competition.”

Perry also cast doubt on the government’s proposed timeline to purchase the Super Hornets, which are considered a temporary placeholder until a permanent solution is made.

“If you look at the past two big aircraft we’ve purchased through non-competitive processes -- our Hercules and our Chinook aircraft -- those took three and five years, respectively,” he said.

Asked whether Canada could receive the Super Hornet jets by the time the five-year competition is over, Perry said: “I don’t think that’s out of the question.”

Perry insisted that the government could slash the competition’s timeline to as short as one to three years.

“I think five years to actually compete this thing sometime starting next spring is ridiculous. It could start today,” he said.

Sajjan: Jets should arrive by late 2020s

Sajjan defended the government’s time-frame, saying the process must be done “in a thorough manner.”

“By having an open competition that we don’t cut corners on allows us to make sure that we can look at every aspect,” Sajjan told CTV’s Power Play. “This is a significant investment, so we’re going to make sure that we get this right.”

Sajjan said the timeline was developed based on the advice of government officials with knowledge of the fighter jets.

“We’d love to be able to move it faster, but we want to make sure that the process itself is going to be thorough.”

But the five-year competition doesn’t mean Canada’s new jets will be in the sky by 2021. Sajjan said the new aircraft will require new training for pilots and mechanics, and the fleet will be gradually phased in.

“It’ll start as early as in five years, but it will take until the late 2020s to get the full fleet in,” the minister said.

The minister also slammed the previous Conservative government for failing to solve the problem while it was in power.

“We should have replaced our jets a long time ago. The previous government should have done this. Our fighters are over 30 years old,” he said. “We cannot take a chance with flying older aircraft.”

Ivison: Super Hornet Interim Buy a Political Decision

By: John Ivison, The National Post

In choosing to buy 18 Boeing Super Hornet fighters, the federal government has brought forward a political solution to solve a political problem of its own making, John Ivison writes.

The Liberals had campaigned on a promise that they would not purchase Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet to replace its aging and dwindling fleet of CF18s, which now numbers 77.

It would instead launch an open and transparent competition for a new fighter.

A former Defence official said a competition could produce an answer within a year. But that would carry the risk that the F-35 could win before the next election.

The commander of the air force has previously said he needs just 65 fighters to fulfil Canada’s NATO and Norad requirements.

But the government says it needs 18 new fighters and that any future competition would exclude “firststrike stealth capabilities.”

The solution: sole-source the interim Super Hornets purchase and delay the competition to replace the CF18 fleet for five years. The uncomfortable attempting to justify the indefensible. That was how it looked as government ministers Harjit Sajjan, Judy Foote and Navdeep Bains delivered the news that Ottawa will sole source the interim purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornet fighter jets. They appeared to be secretly ashamed at the trumpery of it all, as well they should have been.

The Liberal government had a political problem: it campaigned on the promise that it would not purchase Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet, and that it would “immediately” launch an open and transparent competition to replace the aging CF18 fighter fleet.

But it could not risk being too open, transparent or immediate, lest the F-35 win before the next election.

So political operatives in the Prime Minister’s Office came up with a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a fox: buy a small number of the F-35’s competitor and push off the competition to replace the fleet for five years.

Sajjan, the defence minister, decried the mismanagement of the previous Conservative government — “a highly politicized process” — that has left just 77 CF-18s in the fleet and no replacement jets on order. In this, he’s right but it hardly excuses instigating a repeat of history as farce.

By sole sourcing the interim purchase, the Liberals will be doing exactly what the Conservatives did when they chose the F-35 in the first place.

Sajjan waved away such suggestions. Canada has a “capability gap,” he argued, and is unable to meet its Norad and NATO commitments.

He presented the new plan as a political solution to a national security problem.

The reality, of course, is that the Liberals have brought forward a political solution to solve a political problem of their own making.

The commander of the air force, Lt.-Gen Mike Hood, who was noticeable by his absence, previously told Parliament he needs just 65 aircraft to fulfil Canada’s commitments, so the capability gap argument is unconvincing.

Chief of the Defence Staff, Jonathan Vance, was present at Tuesday’s press conference and said the Air Force cannot meet its current missions and have the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances. But really, what else was he going to say? This is a political decision and Vance is obliged to suck it up or resign.)

Hood told a parliamentary committee last spring that he was confident the Air Force could cope, if a decision on a replacement fleet was taken “in the next five years.”

That was why Foote, the procurement minister, said the government will undertake a lengthy competition “to avoid the mistakes of the past; we will not cut corners.”

Does that mean her department is cutting corners with the new warships that just went out to tender? A winner for the Canadian Surface Combatant program will be chosen by 2017.

Ottawa has already held two rounds of consultations with industry on the fighters. How much more is there to learn? Alan Williams, former assistant deputy minister of matériel at the Department of National Defence, has said a competition could produce results within a year.

But that would mean a winner could be chosen before the next election — an unacceptable political outcome for the Liberals.

Hence the curious solution of Canada now “exploring” the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornets with Boeing.

“Before proceeding, the government reserves the right to decide if they can provide the interim fleet at a cost, time, level of capability and economic value that is acceptable to Canada,” said the official news release.

But surely that decision has already been taken. If there were any doubts about Boeing’s ability to deliver or about the price, why make the announcement?

Foote said the Super Hornet was chosen because it is “not in development,” a veiled reference to the F-35, even though the U.S. air force declared its first squadron of F-35A fighters combat ready in August.

What is clear is that the interim purchase will reduce the amount available to buy a replacement fleet. The government had previously earmarked $9 billion for 65 new jets. Foote could not say what the interim purchase would cost and Sajjan would not say how many jets the Air Force might still need, after the interim purchase of 18 new planes.

But we do know Kuwait bought 40 full-loaded Super Hornets, with support, equipment and training, for US$10.1 billion this week.

We also know that the 18 jets will be more expensive than they might have been, had the downward pressure on costs of a competition not been removed.

By sole sourcing from Boeing, the government may well have skewed the outcome of any future competition. The purchase of new Super Hornets will mean the RCAF will be operating a mixed fleet. The two jets share common weapons systems but have different engines, radar and electronics. Is the government willing to complicate things further, with the attendant cost implications, of adding a third jet to the mix?

Foote said, “Anyone who meets the criteria and wants to compete will be able to compete.” Yet the Liberal platform was clear that the CF-18 replacement competition “will exclude requirements that do not reflect Canada’s interests such as first strike stealth capabilities” — for which read the F-35.

Yet what is apparent to anyone with eyes is that Canada’s interests have been supplanted by the Liberal Party of Canada’s interests.

We may never know which aircraft best suits Canada’s needs. But we can be in no doubt about which best favours Liberal fortunes.

New fighter jets could cost more than Liberals Projected

By: DANIEL LEBLANC AND STEVEN CHASE, The Globe and Mail 

The Liberal Party promised massive savings on the purchase of new fighter jets in the last election, but the recent purchase of Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets by Kuwait suggests bargains will be hard to find.

The federal government is nearing a decision on the replacement of its fleet of CF-18s, facing pressure to deliver a better deal than the previous, Conservative government had put together.

While straight comparisons are never easy in military procurement, Kuwait’s recent purchase of 40 Super Hornets for $13.5-billion raises questions about Canada’s ability to meet its own financial targets for new fighter jets.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals said they could acquire their own fleet of Super Hornets for $65-million per unit - a figure far less than then $335-million Kuwait just agreed to pay. 

Related
Read more: Breaking down the dogfight for Canada’s next fighter jet
Read more: U.S. pitches F-35 jet to Ottawa as Liberals aim to replace fleet

The deal means Kuwait will be paying an average of $335-million per aircraft, a price that includes training, spare parts and engines, weaponry and logistical support.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals said they could acquire their own fleet of Super Hornets at a flyaway price (which does not include training or spare parts) of $65-million per unit; by way of comparison, the Liberals said the Lockheed Martin F-35, which had been favoured by the Conservatives, had a flyaway price of $175-million per aircraft.

Military analyst David Perry said the Kuwaiti deal suggests the Liberals were overly optimistic before they came to power.

“This cements my skepticism about the assumption that some fighter options are horrendously expensive and others are dirt cheap,” said the senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

The previous government had set aside an envelope of $9-billion to acquire a fleet of 65 fighter jets.

Mr. Perry said it is impossible to determine how much Canada would pay for a fleet of Super Hornets or F-35s today, but the numbers out of Kuwait show “all of these aircraft are expensive.

“Some of them may be relatively more or less costly, but there is no such thing as cheap fighter aircraft.”

The federal government is promising a decision on the final process to replace its CF-18s by the end of the year. The matter will go to cabinet shortly.

“We have a lot of credible information and analysis that were done over the summertime and we’re putting the final touches onto that,” Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said in an interview.

“At the end of the day, I want to make sure that our men and women have the right type of aircraft and that we have the right benefits as a nation, because we’re making a very big decision here and I want to make sure we get this right,” the minister added.

During the campaign, the Liberals said they would change the requirements for the new fighter jets to place less emphasis on “first-strike stealth capabilities” and greater emphasis on the ability to contribute to the “defence of North America.”

“We will reduce the financial procurement envelope for replacing the CF-18s. Instead of budgeting for the acquisition of 65 F-35s, we will plan to purchase an equal or greater number of lower-priced, but equally effective, replacement aircraft,” they said.

Still, they promised to launch an “open and transparent competition” for new fighter jets, which officials at both Lockheed Martin and Boeing continue to advocate.

Sources said there are three options before the cabinet: launching a competition, buying a new fleet through a sole-source process or acquiring a few aircraft to form an “interim fleet” and finalizing the fleet at a later date.

The Department of National Defence predicts that its fleet of CF-18s will be able to fly into the next decade, with some aircraft due to be retired in 2023; but the Canadian Armed Forces will need a new fleet of fighter jets by 2025.

Cabinet could decide fighter jet plan as early as Today

By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

An RAAF F/A-18 Super Hornet. Australia recently purchased the Super Hornet as a stop-gap measure until their new F-35s are delivered. 

OTTAWA — Industry sources expect the Liberal government to decide as early as Tuesday whether to purchase a new fighter jet without a competition.

Federal cabinet ministers are reportedly considering three options for replacing Canada's CF-18s, one of which they are expected to pick during their weekly closed-door meeting on Parliament Hill.

The options include holding a competition, buying a new warplane without a competition, or purchasing an "interim" aircraft as a stop-gap measure until a future competition.

The government was eyeing the third option in the spring, with the intention of buying Boeing Super Hornets, until an outcry from industry and the opposition forced them back to the drawing board.

But while Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan held consultations with different industry players in the summer, industry sources say the interim option is back as the preferred choice.

Sajjan's office refused to comment on Monday, with a spokeswoman saying only that a decision still has not been made.

In the House of Commons, Conservative defence critic James Bezan called for an open competition to replace Canada's CF-18s.

Purchasing Super Hornets without a competition would "be foolishly putting billions of taxpayer money at risk," he said.

Sajjan would only say that the government had done "a considerable amount of work" on the file.

"We will make a decision on replacing the fighters and will pick a process that will meet the needs of Canada."

Anything short of an open competition, which the Liberals promised during last year's election, is sure to stoke anger from industry players as well as the opposition.

Part of the problem for the Liberals is that while they promised an open competition, they also promised not to buy the F-35 stealth fighter.

But the government has been struggling with how to fulfil that promise for fear any attempt to exclude the stealth fighter from a competition would result in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau nonetheless made his views of the F-35 known in June, when he panned the stealth fighter as a plane that "does not work and is far from working."

Recent memos and reports within the U.S. military appear to back up that assessment, with the Pentagon's top weapons tester warned last month that the aircraft was being rushed too fast through testing.

There is precedent for buying Super Hornets on an interim basis. Australia paid $2.5 billion for 24 of the aircraft to replace antiquated F-111 jets until newer F-35s were ready.

However, the idea of Canada needing to follow suit was largely dismissed by a government-appointed expert panel and the military's research branch as too expensive, since the air force would be operating two types of aircraft, demanding different training, infrastructure and supporting equipment.

Rival companies have argued that purchasing Super Hornets on an "interim" basis would stack the deck in its favour in any future competition.

There are also concerns that Canada would fall behind the rest of its allies — as well as potential foes Russia and China — by purchasing the older Super Hornet rather than the state-of-the-art F-35.

The Liberals have emphasized the need for speed since Sajjan warned in the spring that Canada did not have enough CF-18s to meet its commitments to NATO and North American defence.

Critics, however, accused the Liberals of manufacturing a crisis to justify buying a new fighter jet other than the F-35 stealth fighter without a competition.

— Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter

Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

Time Running out for CF-18 Upgrades as Jets continue to Age

By: David Pugliese, National Post 

Improvements to Canada’s CF-18 jets — which could cost almost $500 million — have to be done within five years or the upgrades to the aging planes won’t make economic sense, according to the officer in charge of determining how to modernize the fighters.

Two aircraft from 425 Tactical Fighter Squadron, 3 Wing Bagotville fly over l’arrondissement
Chicoutimi of ville de Saguenay. Photo: CAF Combat Camera (Feb, 2006)

Whether the Canadian government’s notoriously slow procurement process can push ahead such a project to keep the jets flying until 2025 remains to be seen.

Options on how to upgrade the CF-18s are being looked at, said Lt.-Col. Jean-Marc Brzezinski, who is leading the process in the RCAF’s fighter capability office.

The project officially kicked off last September.

“My mandate has been given roughly about one year to look at what we need to do to make sure the aircraft is airworthy (and) interoperable,” Brzezinski said in an interview.

The Conservatives originally announced the modernization project to keep the fighters flying until 2025 because they hadn’t yet determined how to replace the CF-18s. The project has continued under the Liberals.

Brzezinski said the upgrades have to be on the aircraft by 2021 if the project is to make financial sense. That means decisions have to be made and contracts placed within the next two years.

The air force will continue to monitor the state of the airframes so the planes can keep flying safely. Improvements could be made to the communications equipment to keep up with changes in aviation regulations in civil airspace. Other upgrades could be made to weapons and how the planes communicate and operate with allied fighter jets.

“We have to be able to spend money (so) that everything is ready on the aircraft so that it can used by 2021,” Brzezinski said. “If you start spending a lot of money in 2023 or 2024, and the aircraft is no longer being supported past 2025, then it doesn’t become economically viable.”

Once the air force figures out what it needs, the process shifts and approvals are required from upper levels in the Department of National Defence, Treasury Board and government. Public Services and Procurement Canada also gets involved at a later stage.

Canada’s military procurement system is extremely slow and whether it can accommodate quickly setting up the needed contacts is out of the hands of Brzezinski and the air force.

“We are on a very, very aggressive shortened timeline,” Brzezinski said.

The modernization will keep the planes flying but that doesn’t necessarily mean the fleet will be shut down at the end of 2025. Brzezinski said a smaller number of planes could keep operating for a couple of years after, but that support for the CF-18s will begin to taper off in 2025.

The DND has listed the estimated cost for the modernization as between $250 million and $499 million.

RELATED
John Ivison: On military procurement, Trudeau’s ‘political will’ meeting ‘bureaucratic won’t’
It will cost $400M to keep CF -18s flying until 2025: report
Matthew Fisher: Suitability for Arctic defence, lower cost may put F-35s on Liberals’ radar

Brzezinski said the precise cost is not known because his office has yet to determine what needs to be done to the planes, and the government and the military have not made any decisions on how to proceed.

“It really depends on where the department wants to go,” he said. “One of the options could very well be status quo which means we do nothing. We just carry on the maintenance practices.”

Canada previously spent $2.6 billion modernizing the CF-18s in a program that started in 2002. The planes were purchased in 1982.

The Conservative government had planned to buy 65 F-35 stealth fighters to replace the CF-18s. But they put that on hold as the cost of the program significantly increased and technical problems affecting the F-35 emerged.

During the federal election last year, the Liberals said they would not purchase the F-35 if they came to power. Instead a less expensive fighter jet would be bought, they said in their defence platform.

But since then, that promise has been thrown into question by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan who has claimed that any competition would be open to all jets, suggesting the F-35 could end up being purchased.

Rafale For RCAF - it Outperforms the F/A-18

Yesterday I published a repost by Doug Allan of bestfighter4canada showing that the Dassault Rafale is a better aircraft that the JSF F-35.

A few people pointed out that the comparison should be between the Rafale and the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet - widely thought to be the front runner in the CF-18 Replacement. I disagree - and think the Rafale should be the front runner - especially as they can be built in Canada.

My biggest argument here is that the Super Hornet, while more modern than the standard Hornet is still outdated and based on late 1970s early 1980s designs and ideas. Why replace our CF-18s with slightly newer models of CF-18s?

Here now is another comparison by Doug Allan; this time between the Rafale and the Super Hornet - I'll provide you with a spoiler - the Rafale outperforms the F/A-18 Super Hornet. The only way the Hornet wins is if it is the EA-18 Growler variant is used - which Canada is not looking at buying.



AIR-TO-GROUND:
Interdiction/Penetration: While not a stealth aircraft per se, the Rafale does have a lower radar signature than older "4th generation" fighters like the F-18 or legacy F/A-18. This is an added benefit to using nonmetallic composites in much of its construction. Some other "tricks", like burying the engine inlets and mild reshipping of the fuselage also help reduce radar signature. Much has been said about the Rafale's SPECTRA electronic warfare suite, capable of detecting hostile threats and either jamming enemy radar or deploying decoys and countermeasures.

The Super Hornet, while larger than older F/A-18 Hornets, offers a much reduced radar cross section. (RCS). Like the Rafale, this is done through increased use of composite construction, as well as paying close attention to body panel alignment as well as the engine inlet design. Like the Rafale, the Super Hornet carries an impressive electronic warfare suite. If the EA-18G Growler variant of the F/A-18 is considered, the Rhino wins this portion easily. The near single purpose Growler, equipped with powerful ALQ-99 ECM jamming pods and ALQ-218 tactical jamming receivers is custom made for seeking out ground based threats and eliminating them. Since the Growler is a single-purpose electronic attack aircraft, with only self-defense air-to-air capabilities, it is considered disqualified from FJFC for comparison purposes.

Since both aircraft have similar RCS combined with similar electronic warfare suites, there is little choice but to declare this one a draw. Advantage: Tie... Unless you count the EA-18G Growler.

Deep Strike: Both aircraft have similar combat radii, and any significant differences in ferry ranges or the like may benefit the Rafale based on using figures from the ground based Rafale C instead of the carrier based Rafale M. Both aircraft are capable of mounting up to five external fuel tanks. Dassault and Boeing have both studied the potential of adding CFT capability as well. Whatever the case, both aircraft can be described as having more than sufficient range.

With both aircraft being more or less tied for range, we have to look at their long range air-to-ground weaponry. Namely, stand-off missiles, also know as ALCMs. The Rafale equips the impressive SCALP EG (also known as the Storm Shadow) missile, which can deliver a 450kg warhead about 500km away. The Super Hornet's new AGM-158 JASSM-ER (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile - Extended Range) delivers a similar sized warhead, but can do so at roughly twice the range. This give the Rhino a significant advantage here.
Advantage: Super Hornet

Payload: French Air Force versions of the Rafale have a remarkable 14 hard points capable of handling 20,900lbs of ordinance. Of these, four (two wingtip, two flush with the rear fuselage) are usually dedicated to air-to-air missiles, leaving 10 hard points for fuel, bombs, or air-to-ground missiles. The Rafale is capable of handling nuclear ordinance as well.

The Super Hornet is capable of handling a slightly lower, but still impressive 17,750lbs worth of weapons. It is slightly more limited in how it carries it however, with only 11 total hard points, including two wingtip missile rails and two conformal hard points built for the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

With more payload capability combined with additional hard point options, the Rafale wins this round. Advantage: Rafale

Close-air-support: The Rafale and the Super Hornet are both easy to handle at lower speeds and altitudes. As carrier capable aircraft, they have to be. Picking a winner here is difficult, as both aircraft have similar weapon capability, but without a "killer app" like the Brimstone missile. The Rafale might have Brimstone capability in the future, but nothing is certain at the present. What the Rafale does have is the option to equip both rocket pods and a twin 30mm gun pod to supplement its built in 30mm GIAT 30 cannon.

The Super Hornet's most impressive weapon in the close-air-support arsenal is the precision SDB II (Small Diameter Bomb) which carries a 250lb warhead for minimal collateral damage.

With both fighters being incredibly competent for close-air-support, this one ends up as a draw. Advantage: Tie

Air-to-ground winner: Tie Both aircraft are more than capable ground pounders, with only minor differences in maximum payload and weapon types.

AIR-TO-AIR:
[Note: In the Super Hornet's last FJFC appearance, it lost some points due to a lack of a built-in IRST. As some have mentioned, there is a combination IRST/external fuel tank being tested. I have decided to include it here, and will continue to do so in the future. Its presence against the F-35 would likely have made a little difference (the Rhino won the WVR section, where IRSTs work best), but the outcome would have likely been the same.]

First-look, first-kill: Again, these different-looking fighters have remarkably similar capability. Both have similarly sized AESA radars and, with the F/A-18E/F's fuel tank/IRST in place, both aircraft have modern IRSTs. Neither aircraft is truly "stealth" but both have reduced radar signatures compared to older fighters.

Comparing the aircraft's EW and countermeasures pose a similar challenge. The Rafale has its famous SPECTRA, which looks to become more impressive in the future. Two infra-red sensors on either side of the tail fin will give the Rafale pilot a near 360 degree view of the airspace. Not to be outdone, Boeing is contemplating installing the EA-18G's sensors (but not jammers) on the Super Hornet. This would enable the Super Hornet pilot to detect radio emissions not normally detected.

Neither fighter has a clear advantage in detection or stealth. There may be significantly different details, but not enough for me to declare one superior to the other. Advantage: Tie

Beyond-Visual-Range: While both aircraft have a theoretical top speed of Mach 1.8, the Rafale is faster where it counts. Capable of supercruise, the Rafale is just as comfortable going supersonic as is it is subsonic. It that was not enough, the Super Hornet gets considerably draggy when weapons and fuel tanks are mounted. Both aircraft have similar service ceilings, but the Rafale has a much higher rate of climb and can get there much faster. If both aircraft are considered to have similar BVR missiles, than the Rafale has a clear advantage by being able to add more energy to them through speed and altitude.

Then, there is the real kicker. The Rafale will soon be cleared for the MBDA Meteor, while the Super Hornet will stick with the AMRAAM for the foreseeable future. While one could argue about the effectiveness of both missiles' guidance systems and the like, the big difference here is the Meteor's ramjet engine. While the ranges might be listed as similar, the Meteor's ramjet gives it more flexibility and a much larger "no-escape-zone".

Even without the MBDA Meteor, the Rafale has a clear advantage in long-range combat. It is faster and it climbs better. In air combat, speed + altitude = energy, and energy is life. Advantage: Rafale, clear winner

Within-visual-range: Assuming both aircraft have IRSTs and decent WVR missiles, like the AIM-9X Sidewinder or the MBDA MICA IR, this one gets a little tougher to call. The Rafale is the acrobat of the two, with better wing loading numbers, a higher thrust-to-weight, and higher g-load numbers. To put it quite simply, it is more agile than the Rhino.

Good thing for the F/A-18E/F that it has its vaunted "nose authority". This enables it to conduct high AoA (angle of attack) maneuvers and point its missiles where they need to go. Thanks to its helmet-mounted-display, the Super Hornet doesn't need to be as agile, however. If the pilot can see it, it can be shot. This is the one area that always seems to haunt the Rafale, while an HMD has been tested for it, there has yet to be any firm plans.

If the Rafale had an HMD, it would run away with this. That being said, shooting a HOBS (high-off foresight) missile to the side or even behind an aircraft to its intended target is certainly impressive, but not ideal. This is a tough one to call, (and I'm sure some will disagree) but I have to declare this one a draw. The Rhino has the better aim, but the Rafale is the tougher target. Advantage: Tie (if only the Rafale had an HMD!)

Dogfight: When the missiles are gone and the gloves come off, which aircraft is left standing? Both aircraft do quite well in the low speed/low altitude/high-AoA regime. The Rafale's close-coupled canard design helps put more air over the big delta wings, producing more lift. The Super Hornet's twin canted tails and trapezoidal wings help it perform seemingly gravity defying maneuvers.

With low-speed maneuverability pretty much a dead heat, the dogfight winner will likely be the one able to bring the bigger boom. Here, the Super Hornet is let down somewhat by its venerable M61 20mm Vulcan cannon. While there is nothing wrong with the M61 per se, it does take a few moments to get up to its 6,000 rounds per minute firing rate. In reality, its true firing rate is much closer to the 2,500 rounds per minute of the Rafale's GIAT 30. There is also the not-so-insignificant difference in calibre. With similar muzzle velocities, the Rafale's 30mm cannon wins this one. The Super Hornet may carry more ammunition, but it is easy to imagine which Dirty Harry would prefer.

Both aircraft are excellent gunfighters. Knowing that, I would put my money on the one with the bigger gun. Advantage: Rafale

Air-to-air winner: The Boeing Super Hornet was originally intended to replace both the F-14 Tomcat and the A-6 Intruder. Clearly, some air-to-air compromise needed to be made, but the developers seem to have erred more towards the ground attack role. While the Super Hornet is an acceptable air-superiority fighter, it does not have the same balanced approach as the Rafale. As France's sole front line fighter, the Rafale cannot have any glaring weaknesses. It succeeds in this regard with the exception of one minor detail, a HMD. Even without the HMD, the Rafale is fast enough, agile enough, and powerful enough to handle the Super Hornet. Winner: Rafale

Versatility/Logistics:
Versatility: The Rafale is marketed as an "Omnirole" fighter, and with good reason. It seems to be equally adept at either the strike or air-superiority roles. While other fighters may be better at one role or the other, the Rafale is possibly the most balanced solution out there. With the carrier capable Rafale M, alongside a choice of either single-seat or two-seat versions, the Rafale can handle just about any role given to it.

Take a look at the United States Navy, however and you will notice that they currently operating a strictly "Hornet only" fighter fleet. While some air-superiorty capability was lost with the retirement of the F-14, the USN has made do. In fact, with the legacy Hornet F/A-18C/D, Super Hornet F/A-18E/F, and the EA-18G Growler, the USN is quite happy, thank you. Senior USN brass have even gone on the records stating that they could cope just fine with a Super Hornet/Growler fleet if the F-35C does not pan out. The prospect of an "Advanced Super Hornet" with CFT's, enclosed weapon pods, and upgraded engines is being looked at with great interest. Even without future improvements, the Super Hornet and Growler provide a great "one-two-punch" for the USN. The Growler variant offering a EW/ECM capability seen nowhere else in the world.

The Rafale is a great single-type solution, but the Growler variant of the Super Hornet makes up for any faults the F/A-18E/F has as an air-superiority fighter. Advantage: Tie

Logistics: With a carrier version available, the Rafale should have no problem adapting to rough landing strips or the like. It fuels up using the "probe-and-drogue" aerial refueling system, much like Canada's current CF-18s. In all, the Rafale would be an easy aircraft to live with... If you do not mind your parts and weapons supply coming strictly from France.

The Super Hornet can go anywhere and do just about anything the CF-18 does. It is slightly larger, but other that that its logistics are the same, if not better. It uses standard American NATO weaponry. Considering that the USN operate the Super Hornet all over the world, it is pretty soon that wherever you are, parts can be made available. Advantage: Super Hornet

Versatility/Logistics winner: Both aircraft are excellent workhorse, capable of performing whatever role thrown at them. The Rafale is a better air-superiority fighter, but the existence of the EA-18G Growler easily remedies this. Any military committed to the Super Hornet should take advantage of the commonality with the Growler, much like Australia has. What really wins this for the Super Hornet is its use with the USN and the existing support for the aircraft. Winner: Super Hornet






Final Score:
Air-to-Ground: Rafale=3 - Super Hornet=3 (4 if you count the Growler)
Air-to-Air: Rafale=4 - Super Hornet=2
Versatility/Logistics: Rafale=1 - Super Hornet =2

Final Result: Rafale=8 - Super Hornet=7 (8 if you count the Growler)

Even with the Growler, I am declaring a win for the Rafale. Since the emphasis on which is the best fighter, air-to-air capability acts as a tie breaker whenever possible.

Both aircraft are excellent "Jack-of-all-trades" aircraft, with the Rafale coming out slightly ahead due to its stronger emphasis on air-superiorty without sacrificing the strike role. The Rafale would have likely done even better with the addition of an HMD.

Since the topic of price is bound to come up... Yes, the Super Hornet is indeed a cheaper aircraft. (Because it is the older aircraft)  As I have said before, it is likely the "safest" replacement for Canada's CF-18, but it lacks some of the other options' capabilities.

The Rafale on the other hand, would be a fantastic selection with only three simple stipulations: 1) HMD installation. 2) Standard NATO weapon integration. 3) Canadian manufacturing and intellectual rights.

Rafale Should be Next Fighter for RCAF

I would like to first give credit to Doug Allan of bestfighter4canada for his assessment here for the Dassault Rafale compared to the JSF F-35.

Many people claim that Canada should remain in the F-35 program despite the promise by Justin Trudeau to withdraw from the program. They say that the F-35 is a far better aircraft that any out there. Well that is just not the case. In a direct comparison to the Dassault Rafale, which better meets Canada's needs for a fighter jet - the Rafale clearly has an edge - despite it's lack of stealth.

Not only is the Rafale cheaper than the JSF F-35; it is faster; flies higher; has a larger operational radius than the F-35; and it has dual engines. Just a few reasons why the Rafale should be the RCAF's next fighter.

Oh, and a bonus - Dassault says it will allow the majority of the order to be built in Canada.

Now onto the comparison.


Air-to-ground:


Interdiction/Penetration: The Rafale's SPECTRA suite has gained notoriety for being one of the best EW suites available. Given that benchmarks for these sort of things are classified, and not available to a part-time blogger like myself, I cannot say just how good it is. There is a good chance it is the next best thing to a purpose built stealth aircraft.

The F-35 is a purpose built stealth aircraft, however. There may be some debate over whether it offers sufficient protection against current and future threats, but the truth is that the JSF is currently the stealthiest aircraft available. This may change in the future, but right now the F-35 is the best choice for sneaking past enemy ground radar. Advantage: F-35

Deep strike: Well... This one is easy. Both aircraft have a similar combat radius and ferry range using internal fuel only. So it simply comes down to which one can carry more external fuel.

The Rafale can carry massive amounts of fuel in external drop tanks. It can also be utilized for "buddy" refueling. If that was not enough, every Rafale has the plumbing to mount CFTs, which have been tested but not implemented.

As of now, the F-35 has no external fuel tanks. Some concepts exist, but problems with separation have pushed external tank capability back indefinitely. The JSF will carry the AGM-158 JASSM-ER, but that missile's extra range cannot make up the difference from having no external fuel options. Advantage: Rafale

Payload: The Rafale makes for an impressive bomber, able to carry over 20,000lbs of ordinance on 14 hardpoints. While its not a bomber per se, it certainly comes close.

The F-35 has only 10 hardpoints and carries one ton less than the Rafale. The JSF also has the limitation of its internal weapon bays. While those bays are necessary for stealth, their size limits the type of weapon that can be mounted inside. Anything longer, wider, or heavier than a 2,000lb JDAM will have to step outside.

This one goes to the French. The Rafale offers nearly the same ground-pounding capabilities as the much larger (and more expensive) F-15E Strike Eagle. Advantage: Rafale

Close air support: The F-35 is destined to replace the A-10 its iconic role. Not many are buying that. It is simply too fragile an aircraft and it burns through its fuel too fast to spend any time on station. To its credit, its EOTS acts as a built-in targeting pod and it will be outfitted with MBDA Brimstone missiles. This means it will likely be able to take out a few targets as it zips buy. 25mm cannons will be built into the A model, and available in external pods in the B and C model.

While it currently lacks a low collateral damage weapon like the Brimstone, the Rafale still gets by okay. Its airframe is more durable than the JSF, has twin-engine redundancy, and it does quite well flying low and slow, thanks to its carrier-friendly design. While it has a 30mm cannon like the A-10, it is not the same weapon and it carries far less ammo (125 rounds).

If the Rafale had Brimstone missile (or similar) capability it would get an easy win here. Even still, its ability to loiter more with external tanks give it a slight advantage. A Rafale pilot is also far more likely to fly closer to the battlefield, confident that a stray bullet will not bring the fighter down. Advantage: Rafale

Air-to-ground winner: Rafale. While the F-35 may do a fine job at slipping through enemy defenses, the Rafale does a better job at just about everything else when it comes to ground attack. It flies further, can carry more bombs, and its more likely to mix it up with the troops.

Air-to-air:

First look, first kill: The JSF is being marketed with a massive emphasis on its ability "see" everything around it without being detected itself. With an advanced AESA radar, EOTS, and DAS (which replicates IRST) the F-35 certainly will be able to get a good look at what is around it.

While the Rafale lacks the F-35's stealth, but it has a similarly sized AESA radar and a IRST. Part of its SPECTRA suite puts IR sensors high up on both sides of the tail, giving a similar "god's eye view".

The Rafale is certainly good in this department, but the F-35 is just as good if not better, plus it has its stealthy design. Advantage: F-35

Beyond Visual Range: The F-35 pilot better hope it gets a successful sneak attack in, because after that first shot, all bets are off. The Rafale is not just faster in a straight line dash, but it climbs faster and cruises faster as well. On top of that, it will carry the ramjet powered Meteor BVR missiles, which look to be superior to the F-35's AMRAAMs.

Unfortunately for the F-35, it may not even get the chance for that sneak attack. It would likely have to enter into the Rafale's passive sensor range before it gets a clear shot. Its stealth may keep it safer from radar, but not much can be done to shield its big, hot engine.

The Rafale's better high speed performance and better BVR missile make it the easy pick here. Advantage: Rafale

Within Visual Range: By now most have realized my disappointment with the Rafale's current lack of HMD. One has been tested, but it has yet to go operational with one. HMD's really do help a fighter's WVR capability when combined with HOBS missiles. Despite all this, the Rafale is still a very good WVR fighter, with impressive maneuverability, thrust-to-weight, and the ability to fire HOBS missiles with the help of data links and LOAL (lock on after launch capability).
While the F-35 has excellent HOBS potential thanks to its various sensors, it misses the mark somewhat with its disappointing wing loading and thrust to weight numbers. This alone is not enough to delegate it to second-rate WVR status. What does is the fact the F-35 cannot carry an internally mounted WVR weapon. Plans to carry the ASRAAM internally have been shelved. Any F-35 in "stealth" configuration will have to rely strictly on 2 to 4 AMRAAMs.

This is really an "either/or" scenario. If the Rafale had an HMD, it wins. If the F-35 is carrying external WVR missiles, it wins. If we give a "best case scenario" for both aircraft (HMD for the Rafale and WVR missiles for the F-35), then the Rafale wins based on its superior maneuverability and thrust-to-weight ratio. Advantage: Rafale

Dogfight: Thanks to its close-coupled canard design, the Rafale is just as happy playing it low and slow as it is supercruising. It has plenty of thrust and a big gun. No problems here.

The F-35... Notsomuch. While the F-35 said to match the low speed performance of the F/A-18, there are still concerns about its fragility and its lack of cockpit visibility.

If the JSF pilot finds themselves in a dogfight... They are going to have a bad time. Advantage: Rafale

Air-to-air winner: Rafale. The supercruising, Meteor slinging, tighter turning Rafale gets a clear win here. The F-35 will need to rely on guile and sneak attacks, a tall order given the Rafale's excellent sensors and defensive capabilities.

Versatility/Logistics:

Versatility: Hoo boy... Both of these fighters were designed as "all-in-one" systems capable of fulfilling all of your fighter needs... With a few caveats.

The Rafale has three different flavors available. A single-seat CTOL air force variant, a two-seat CTOL variant, and a single-seat naval variant capable of CATOBAR operations. All versions carry similar weapon loads, with the naval Rafale M sacrificing a weapon pylon.

The Joint Strike Fighter has three versions, the CTOL capable F-35A, the STOVL F-35B, and the CATOBAR F-35C. Sadly, no two-seater versions are available.

So which one is more versatile? If you need a STOVL, then the F-35 is the way to go. Otherwise, a two-seater version may be preferable for both training and high workload tasks. I'm going to give this one to the Rafale since STOVL operations are ratherlimited in real-world usefulness. Advantage: Rafale

Logistics: Long term support is where these two aircraft differ the most. The Rafale is completely single sourced. It is currently in use by a single nation with maybe a second coming soon. Parts and maintenance could be an issue, but Dassault is willing to grant complete access to the Rafale's software and intellectual property. Customer nations have the option of producing any and all spare parts and modifying the software as they see fit.

The F-35 is the polar opposite of this. Parts should be plentiful with JSF squadrons located all over the world. The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin are keeping close tabs on F-35's hardware and software, however. Any modifications to the JSF's hardware or software has to be done through them. This is like taking your laptop back to where you bought it in order to add an external hard drive or to install a new app. Something as simple (yet necessary) as a drag chute might have to wait until Lockheed Martin gets around to it.

Both aircraft have their advantages and disadvantages here. Advantage: Tie

Versatility/Logistics winner: Rafale. It is close, but the availability of a two-seat Rafale gives it a slight edge here.











Final result:


Air-to-ground: F-35 = 1 - Rafale = 3


Air-to-air: F-35 = 1 - Rafale = 3


Versatility/Logistics: F-35 = 1 - Rafale = 2


Final Result: F-35 = 3 - Rafale = 8


Ouch. The F-35 certainly is stealthier than the Rafale, but that is about the only real advantage it has. The makes for a better bomber or air-superiority fighter. The JSF is also hindered by its proprietary maintenance model and its lack of two-seater variant. Sure, it has a STOVL version, but few have need (or the budget) for that capability. Canada was not even considering the STOVL version of the F-35.

The real kicker for the Rafale is how much potential it has. A few simple upgrades and modifications would really put it at the head of the pack. A more "open source" model, with user selected weapons, engines, and avionics would really make it a dream machine for just about any air force in the world.