F-35B may well become a What-if program !

[jcf]

  Additionally, the Rafaele's life would be appreciably longer in service than the F/A-18s.

How do you figure? The Rafale is actually older than the Superbug.

[Taiidantomcat]

  Additionally, the Rafaele's life would be appreciably longer in service than the F/A-18s.

How do you figure? The Rafale is actually older than the Superbug.

Good question. One of the unsexy things about aircraft is spare parts... How many Super Bugs have been built compared to Rafales? Who will have better logistical support?

[rickshaw]

  Additionally, the Rafaele's life would be appreciably longer in service than the F/A-18s.

How do you figure? The Rafale is actually older than the Superbug.

I think that rather depends on how you figure age for an aircraft design.  Some people might point out that the Superbug design originated in 1965...

IIRC 60% of the F/A-18E design is common with the F/A-18D - its major aerodynamic components certain are.  The F/A-18 design originated in the YF-17, who's design started in 1965.  Rafale OTOH, started only in 1985.   However, the aerodynamic design is only one component and it could be argued less important when compared to the radars and other electronic systems.   The Rafale's radar originated in designs started in the late 1990s, the Super Hornet's in the 1980s.  Both have been already extensively upgraded and are roughly comparable.

Which is better?  I don't particularly care but the electronics of the Rafale are more recent and by default benefit from more advanced thinking in hardware and software design than the Super Hornets IMO.   In a dogfight they would be a close match for each other but the Rafale I suspect will be service long after the Super Hornet has retired.

[GTX]

Actually, from what I have seen, the avionics/sensor suite of the Super Hornet are second only to those to be offered of the F-22/F-35 (with the F-35 being the more capable here I would emphasise).  In fact there was even talk of the AN/APG-79 of the Super Hornet being a back-up option for the AN/APG-81 of the F-35.  This was also one of the main reasons Australia choose the Super Hornet as a bridging capability - not because it looked similar to the classic Hornets but because its sensors/avionics were closer to the F-35.  In fact the airframe commonality between the classic and Super Hornets is actually very low.

I certainly wouldn't rate the Super Hornet's sensors/avionics second to the Rafale's suite (despite what Dassault & Co. might try to convince people of with their marketing.."omnirole"). In fact if you wanted to compare dates (as much use as that is), the AN/APG-79 only entered service in the last 5 years but since then has undergone extensive OT&E plus proper operational use on many USN (and now RAAF) aircraft.  As far as I am aware the RBE2 radar (in it's equivalent AESA version) has only just been delivered and hasn't yet entered service (I may be wrong here) let alone gained real operational hours.

I would agree that the aerodynamic design (specifically 'dogfight' manoeuvrability) is definitely less important these days.  In fact I would argue that if a pilot finds himself/herself in such a situation in a modern war, then they have failed already.  Modern missiles such as AIM-120, AIM-9X, AIM-132, MICA, R73, etc  are extremely capable and despite what Hollywood or pilots egos might have you believe, if they gain lock on, are going to kill the target.

From experience too, I would agree that the logistics support from the USA is far and away better than that offered by France. That is independent of the platform numbers involved - though I would also agree that having more of a platform in service certainly helps enhance that even more.   Note, I'm not trying to be overly critical of the French people here.  I am simply speaking from my own experience with both and from the Australian perspective.

Regards,

Greg

[anthonyp]

OK, guys, does this really belong in the "Aircraft, armor, and ships by topic" forum, or should it go General discussion or odds and sods?  Because from the thread, I don't think it belongs here.

[GTX]

OK, guys, does this really belong in the "Aircraft, armor, and ships by topic" forum, or should it go General discussion or odds and sods?  Because from the thread, I don't think it belongs here.

I agree - move it.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Latest news on the F-35:  F-35C variant does away with undercarriage as weight/cost saving idea:



Navy says it will use either constant air-to-air re-fueling/re-arming/re-piloting or revive the idea of rubberised decks!

...sorry, I thought it was time for some levity to this thread!

Regards,

Greg

[Taiidantomcat]

  Additionally, the Rafaele's life would be appreciably longer in service than the F/A-18s.

How do you figure? The Rafale is actually older than the Superbug.

the Rafale I suspect will be service long after the Super Hornet has retired.

I would take that bet. Australia and the Super bug alone ensure it will be in service forever... how long did they have the F-111 going? The USN is planning to use them for about the next 3 decades at least. And the Rafale is still struggling to get export customers...

Design date is a total red herring. Also the F-117s Stealth fighters design dates from 1977, The SR-71 from 1958... And those things are still capable of doing there jobs and were retired due to financial reasons not obsolescence. Morover, The super bug and legacy bug are similiar in looks but are only 15 percent in common.

Greg is right on every count.

Including the F-35C in that picture. the only thing you dont see there is the ejection seat that converts to a bed 

[PR19_Kit]

Good question. One of the unsexy things about aircraft is spare parts... How many Super Bugs have been built compared to Rafales? Who will have better logistical support?

As we're talking about the BRITISH Royal Navy flying these things, whatever they are, and the Rafale is FRENCH and the F-18E is AMERICAN, there's the not-inconsiderable matter of distance involved here! France is 26 miles away and America is at least 3000 miles away.

In the worst case the RN could drive a truck to France and collect the spares.......

[GTX]

Good question. One of the unsexy things about aircraft is spare parts... How many Super Bugs have been built compared to Rafales? Who will have better logistical support?

As we're talking about the BRITISH Royal Navy flying these things, whatever they are, and the Rafale is FRENCH and the F-18E is AMERICAN, there's the not-inconsiderable matter of distance involved here! France is 26 miles away and America is at least 3000 miles away.

In the worst case the RN could drive a truck to France and collect the spares.......

Distance is not really relevant here - I can get anything just about anywhere in the world within a 24 - 72hr time frame provided it is actually available in the first place and you have a supplier willing to be responsive (something I have found the Americans better at - sorry!).  Anyway, if you are talking about a carrier based platform operating anywhere in the world (not just UK territorial waters), then it is even less relevant.

regards,

Greg

[Cliffy B]

To add to the spare parts debate, which aircraft is more reliable; Super Bug or Rafale?  IE how often are you going to be needing those spare parts and are they more likely to need simple or complex repair jobs?  Just some food for thought.

[Taiidantomcat]

Good question. One of the unsexy things about aircraft is spare parts... How many Super Bugs have been built compared to Rafales? Who will have better logistical support?

As we're talking about the BRITISH Royal Navy flying these things, whatever they are, and the Rafale is FRENCH and the F-18E is AMERICAN, there's the not-inconsiderable matter of distance involved here! France is 26 miles away and America is at least 3000 miles away.

In the worst case the RN could drive a truck to France and collect the spares.......

Distance is not really relevant here - I can get anything just about anywhere in the world within a 24 - 72hr time frame provided it is actually available in the first place and you have a supplier willing to be responsive (something I have found the Americans better at - sorry!).  Anyway, if you are talking about a carrier based platform operating anywhere in the world (not just UK territorial waters), then it is even less relevant.

regards,

Greg

Exactly. Its about number of parts and support not distance. And even if it was... doesn't the US have an ocean on each side of it?  'we're talking about the BRITISH Royal Navy' right?

Its simple numbers folks. The US built a limited number of B-2 and B-1 bombers and the spare parts shortage (not the distance as they are usually based here) is a monumental headache. There were so few bombers actually produced that you cant even cannibalize the aircraft, its a nightmare. France has ordered 120 Rafales. the RN would theoretically buy 40 more for a whopping total of 160 then an end of production due to lack of export. The F-18 on the other hand is going to be produced for at least a few more years and so far the total built including the EW version will be 653. Speaking of the EW version, thats a nice option. Not to mention that Boeing has plans for improved engines, and conformal fuel tanks, so the super hornet has better "growth potential" and that growth will be worth it to the company because there will be so many aircraft to apply it to. Plus it will be cheaper-- The More aircraft are bought and sold the lower the cost is to all customers. If the whole F-35 program goes belly up, The number of Super Hornets produced will sky rocket as nations buy it instead of the F-35 (Canada, Australia, The USAF just to name a few) And the number could easily get near the 1,000 aircraft produced range. Rafales may not seem like such a good idea then... and the MoD seems to have this way of buying little white elephants that reside in hangers, that they spend years and billions trying to fix.

If you want the Rafale thats great, but its going to be a bit costlier up front and in the long run, and won't have an EW version or as much room for improvement. Even the French Navy could not afford to develop a two seat Naval trainer version, so have fun with that as well.  According to wikileaks "French representatives have tried to spin the Rafale's dismal performance in the global market to be the result of U.S. government political pressure rather than the aircraft's shortcomings" What you choose to believe is up to you, but you don't have the money for any "do overs" so please choose wisely.

[rickshaw]

  Additionally, the Rafaele's life would be appreciably longer in service than the F/A-18s.

How do you figure? The Rafale is actually older than the Superbug.

the Rafale I suspect will be service long after the Super Hornet has retired.

I would take that bet. Australia and the Super bug alone ensure it will be in service forever... how long did they have the F-111 going? The USN is planning to use them for about the next 3 decades at least. And the Rafale is still struggling to get export customers...

Design date is a total red herring. Also the F-117s Stealth fighters design dates from 1977, The SR-71 from 1958... And those things are still capable of doing there jobs and were retired due to financial reasons not obsolescence.

Here's a question for you.  How many Mirage IIIs are still in use around the world as against F-100s?

Thats the sort of thing you should be looking at.  Dassault tries very hard to keep its customers happy and is still supplying parts for the Mirage III.   While the Rafale more than likely won't sell as many as the Mirage III did, what it does sell will receive considerable support - if no other reason it will be Dassault's major revenue stream during the rest of its life.   Once the US forces remove an aircraft from their inventory, support for that aircraft decreases markedly, while often major spares can only be sourced from the airframes stored at Davis-Montham.

[GTX]

I know many current and former RAAF guys who will challenge you re the support offered when the RAAF had Mirage IIIs.

I have also dealt with EADS, Thales and Eurocopter (yes, I know they are not Dassault, but they are similar IMHO) in recent years and can say I was less than impressed with the level of support shown.   Concurrently, the level of support from the USA companies during the same time has been light years ahead.  Again, this is only my opinion/experience.

Comparing Mirage III support to F-100 support is hardly fair - I would ask back who are the users of the Mirage IIIs vs the F-100s? For the current Mirage III operators, do they have much other choice?  Are they getting their support from France - Pakistan for one is largely self sufficient.

Also, dare I also say that every F-100 user, with the exception of France (and to a degree Taiwan - though that is more complicated) replaced their F-100s with more American sourced equipment.  

Regards,

Greg

[anthonyp]

OK, this has veered so far out of the realm of discussing the F-35B as a WHIF, I'm moving it to general discussion.