OzairFFS people! This isn’t about price or capability of any jets. Its about Canada feud with US on several trade issue. Nothing more, nothing less.
So its completely futile to debate about who’s cheaper or better for Canada.
It is very much about politics but nothing to do with a trade issue any more, just a continued attempt by the Liberal government to save face around the concept of a capability gap. There is not and there never have been a capability gap that needed to be fixed, it remains a concept made up by the Government to justify backing away from the original F-35 order and then subsequently backing away from ordering a replacement fighter in the original timeframe.
Everything about this whole sorry mess reeks of politics, deceit and cowboy economics — or in other words, procurement as usual. The “capability gap” suffers from a pronounced credibility gap: virtually no independent expert agrees it exists, defined as it is by a standard of military readiness — the ability to meet both our NORAD and our NATO commitments, simultaneously, in full — that has never been asked of us and is unlikely ever to be.
OzairNor are they obsolete.
Someone with far more knowledge and experience in fighter aircraft disagrees with you…
Former RAAF group captain Peter Layton warned yesterday that the RAAF could no longer extend the Classic Hornet’s life beyond its current retirement date of 2022 without the fighter becoming “operationally obsolescent’’.
Given the RAAF Hornets received upgrades that improved their capability beyond Canadian jets your comments, all of them in this thread, are inconsistent with the facts.
OzairOver the current Typhoon
• One of the best Automatic terrain following system based on both radar and/or digital map data (for higher discretion)
• Ability to engage air and ground threats while in terrain following mode
• Longer range (with cruise missiles, this is not even a contest) which can be used for deeper penetration or different choices of penetration axis.
• Higher payload while retaining full external fuel capacity.
• AASM missile family with extented integration into the Rafale platform allowing high speed, high alpha and low level multi-firing on off axis, stand off targets.
• A 2 seater version suited for war mission
• Apparently, easier and faster new A2G weapon integration (especially for the more demanding low level, hight speed flight configuration).
• IR decoy system better suited for low altitude (flares are fired up, not down)
• 360° IR missile warning systemOver the current F-15E
• Full Sensor fusion
• Better RCS management
• Integrated optrotic system for silent A2A monitoring/ID while in A2G mode
• A2A and A2G modes interleaved
• Lower operating cots
• Better, more secured FBW system, better agility with heavy payloads ?
Kovy, most of that is conjecture, can be compensated by tactics or can be retrofitted to the Eurofighter and as I already indicated we aren’t talking about a current Eurofighter but a Tranche 4 optimised for the Tornado replacement role.
I’m not saying the Rafale isn’t a great low level striker but it is not the answer to the replacement of the Tornado in German service. It makes no rational or logical procurement sense to acquire an airframe that is similar to the one they already operate.
OzairAnd he was whistled back to his kennel.
That is quite disrespectful; do you often make a habit of referring to people as dogs?
As for your claim, clearly Mullner, who as Chief of Air Staff wouldn’t have the time to review all this information in minute detail, didn’t arrive at this conclusion by himself. He would have had briefings and recommendations from his staff as to the best option to replace the Tornado so his comments carry far more weight that is being recognised.
Ozair1st it is nothing but contractual. It is a commitment to work “toward”
Nothing in NATO is contractual… you are correct it is a guideline but it is a guideline that everyone agreed to in 2006 and then re-iterated in 2014.
In 2006, NATO member countries agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally served as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts.
…
At the Wales Summit in 2014, NATO leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided:
• Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending will aim to continue to do so;
• Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure as GDP grows; and will move toward the 2% guideline within a decade.
While the 2% of GDP guideline alone is no guarantee that money will be spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, it remains, nonetheless, an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to devote to defence a relatively small, but still significant, level of resources at a time of considerable international uncertainty and economic adversity.
OzairThere i NOTHIN such as GDP% mandated by partners… Specially at those times.
The NATO 2% commitments goes back to at least 2006
Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance. So there was, I think, quite substantial developments in the first two meetings.
…
Q: James, could you refresh my memory as far the countries already meeting the 2% target who are concerned. How many are there? Are there any at all?
APPATHURAI: Yes, my understanding is that there are seven countries of the Alliance that are meeting the 2% target… that are meeting it
http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm
There is no need to go back much further because pre 1992 most nations were spending above 2% and most nations took the 90s peace dividend and reduced spending.
As to the original flawed argument about large purchases of F-16s in the 1980s, each European nation that acquired the jet in the early 90s has a spend percent of GDP typically greater than 2.5%.
Denmark 1981 – 2.4%
Netherlands 1982 – 3.1%
Norway 1982 – 2.7%
Belgium 1982 – 3.1%
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
Given most of those nations above now spend less than 1.5% on military equipment a budgetary allocation approaching the above numbers would see significantly more F-35 ordered.
Denmark numbers are a yardstick for militatu humorists. Comparing green peas with baobab fruits, etc. So mauch that Boeing SUED the Danish gov?!
You do know what Boeing is suing for don’t you? Access to evaluation documents which they are very unlikely to get given the commercial in confidence information contained within.
OzairIn which does not take away that Germany has reservation against buying F-35. Does it?
Germany’s reluctance appears to be almost completely associated with their desire to foster a healthy domestic military industry and has nothing to do with Russian or US relations. Given the German Chief of Air Force has already advocated in favour of the F-35 I don’t see how you can make that baseless claim.
OzairI don’t buy the idea that the F35 has the Western World sown up. It has European operators of old F16/F18s to count on (who probably bought American in the 80s for the same reason as they want the F35 now), but is not the be all and end all for everyone.
I don’t think anyone believes the F-35 has the whole market sown up if only for the fact that when you buy into the F-35 you buy into a primarily US support program and security structure. If you’re not prepared to live with those constraints then there remain other options. If you accept those constraints, then little else compares.
Ozairer, australian hornets are just a stopgap measure… to be used until the replacement is there (should equip their service ,say, some 10-15 years from now)… they don’t intend to keep them beyond that
It is somewhat doubtful that any of the RAAF jets will actually fly with the RCAF. as there are a number of differences between the two versions while reportedly the RCAF jets have higher hours but the RAAF jets have more corrosion. As the link indicates, the first two of 18 aircraft will arrive in 2019 and the last in 2022. There is zero chance of 15 years and 10 years will be an exception. Either way, their purpose is to extend the RCAF fleet until the replacement aircraft starts arriving in 2025.
Ozairwhy was it alone in doing so? why no other nation went in until the cruise missiles destroyed most of that “antiquated, poor trained and maintained Air defence system of a country going through a civil war. ” ?
I’d guess at two primary reasons, first being political and the desire for France to be seen as a strong force in North African affairs and the second being as a means of advertising the Rafale’s capabilities.
“This is turning into the best shop window for competing aircraft for years. More even than in Iraq in 2003,” says Francis Tusa, editor of UK-based Defense Analysis. “You are seeing for the first time on an operation the Typhoon and the Rafale up against each other, and both countries want to place an emphasis on exports. France is particularly desperate to sell the Rafale.”
Almost every modern conflict from the Spanish Civil War to Kosovo has served as a test of air power. But the Libyan operation to enforce UN resolution 1973 coincides with a new arms race –a surge of demand in the $60 billion a year global fighter market and the arrival of a new generation of equipment in the air and at sea. For the countries and companies behind those planes and weapons, there’s no better sales tool than real combat. For air forces facing cuts, it is a strike for the value of air power itself.
“As soon as an aircraft or weapon is used on operational deployment, that instantly becomes a major marketing ploy; it becomes ‘proven in combat’,” says a former defense export official with a NATO country, speaking on condition of anonymity about the sensitive subject.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-arms/special-report-how-libya-is-a-showcase-in-the-new-arms-race-idUSTRE7331OO20110404
A third reason may be that some opposition ground forces IVO Benghazi needed assistance but I am a somewhat too cynical to believe that.
OzairWhile Libya wasn’t exactly the highest threat environment one could find, fact is that the Rafale went in on the first day (and not even low level) while everybody else (meaning, everything NATO countries had in store except the F-22) waited until the defenses were weakened through cruise missiles strikes before going in… maybe the threat level wasn’t so low as one may have thought, after all…
Libya wasn’t high threat period and no the reason for the Rafale going in early had nothing to do with its ability to penetrate the antiquated, poor trained and maintained Air defence system of a country going through a civil war.
having no capability for terrain following, it was to do with the pilot’s Mk1 eyeball sensor to avoid hitting something… it may do well on a nice and clear day, but in bad weather or by night, I woudn’t bet so much on it…
The TFR issue is not some insurmountable block that could never be overcome, it is just a small additional capability that comes with both advantages and disadvantages.
not so moot for as long as they keep trying to sell it …
btw, they also have to “sell” the idea of it being useful to the german public opinion as well
Other than India I can’t see a single actual evaluation by any of the Eurocanard acquirers in the middle east. Clearly political interests, and potentially financial ones, plays a bigger role that capability when it comes to these nations acquiring fighter aircraft.
OzairTo the claim that “rafale doesn’t bring anything particular to the table”, the answer is “for Tornado replacement, it does”… If you have to go deep into contested airspace (GAF wants deep strike capable bird) you have to go low or be stealth… Rafale does it by going low.
Again, Rafale offers nothing at low level that is not or could not be available with other platforms. An F-15E variant is a perfectly suitable Tornado replacement and would offer better payload/range than Rafale in a low level scenario. An F-15E variant though would likely come with a greater acquisition and sustainment chain.
Your opinion may be that it’s not valuable, the two nations doing most wars over foreign countries are the USA (they chose stealth for deep strike) and french (they made the Rafale).
Neither of those countries has operated in a high threat environment for the last 25 years and the Rafale has never operated in that environment operationally.
Typhoon was not made to do that and that’s the main difference that is definitely important when one speaks about replacing the Tornado.
There is nothing inherent in the Eurofighter design that would prevent it from being a viable replacement for low level penetration.
Will they buy the rafale? NO, they won’t even consider it. Not because it doesn’t bring anything valuable to the table but rather because it does and it’s not politically (and commercially asthey still try to sell the Typhoon) a viable solution for them
I agree that politically Germany acquiring/operating the Rafale would be a death sentence for future Eurofighter exports but no one outside the Middle East and sub-continent is buying either anyway so the point is somewhat moot.
OzairFact is, we speak about the aircraft that would replace the Tornado (who has it) in missions for Tornado (strike, with deep penetration in mind).. be it for nuclear or conventional delivery, deep strike into enemy territory in contested airspace would require either the level of equipment and numbers that only USAF can have, or you’d have to be able to go in “unseen”.. stalthy and/or low level.. Something what the Rafale has been designed for from the beginning
The Rafale is nothing special over and above other currently available platforms for deep strike. In a high threat environment Rafale is likely forced low, reducing aircraft and sensor range and placing the airframe within the AAA envelope thereby negating effectiveness or requiring the use of long range cruise missiles that are only effective on a subset of potential targets.
If Germany acquires an aircraft not currently in German service for the role whatever they acquire will require a training/maintenance and sustainment chain. In that frame, the F-35 offers significantly more bang for buck than a Rafale and allows Germany to stay within Nuclear sharing.
But the best option for Tornado replacement remains a modified Eurofighter, as long as Nuclear sharing is no longer required. A T4 Eurofighter would potentially allow Germany to upgrade the existing T2 and T3 fleets to a common standard, further reducing future sustainment commitments.
Ozair– Rafale is hardened for nuclear delivery, Typhoon is not.. that one alone would require a lot of rework and testing on electronics
– Rafale has a fully automated (and proven) system for terrain following (can be useful when you have to strike deep in enemy territory) while, at the same time, it can scan the skies for threats or targets (thank you AESA), Typhoon I struggle to find a terrain following function for the Captorto start with.. when one thinks that we speak about Tornado replacement, these capabilities aren’t exactly “futile”
Let me make the claim right now that Typhoon will never be modified to deliver US tactical nuclear weapons. If that requirement persists with Germany, then either a US airframe will be acquired or the Tornado will march on and cripple the German Air Force’s sustainment budget. To modify the current F-16 and Tornado fleet to use the B61-12 will require nearly 1 billion US dollars up to 2019. Modifying the Eurofighter to that mission would likely be every bit of that billion dollars and probably more, as well as require new aircraft to be built, increasing the acquisition cost further.
As for terrain following, that is a tactical decision. The F-15E has no terrain following radar internally but uses the LANTIRN pod. If terrain following were such a required capability, it isn’t, then a German Eurofighter could be equipped with LANTIRN, or a similar system, or have CAPTOR modified.
OzairCanada has released an early indication of what they are expecting for the replacement fighter program as well as some timeframes.
Quick Facts
• Today’s announcement marks the official launch of the open, competitive process to replace Canada’s fighter jet fleet.
• The government will begin by establishing a list of suppliers, comprised of foreign governments and fighter aircraft manufacturers that have demonstrated their ability to meet Canada’s needs, as defined in the Suppliers List invitation. All companies are welcome to participate in the process.
• Extensive planning and stakeholder engagement will take place throughout 2018 and 2019.
• A contract award is anticipated in 2022 and the first replacement aircraft delivered in 2025.
• The government will engage with foreign governments, fighter aircraft manufacturers and the Canadian aerospace and defence industries to ensure they are well-positioned to participate.
• The purchase of 88 aircraft represents an increase in fleet size of more than a third of what was planned prior to the Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy (65 aircraft).
• Together, Canada’s aerospace and defence industries contribute more than 240,000 quality jobs.
• Aerospace is one of the most innovative and export-driven industries in Canada and adds $28 billion annually in gross domestic product to Canada’s economy.
• The Canadian defence sector includes over 650 firms employing highly skilled workers in high-quality jobs.
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/news-template-standard.page?doc=competitive-process-to-replace-rcaf-s-fighter-aircraft-launched/jafhm599
The following looks to be a direct hit against Boeing. Should they even bother responding to the tender?
Proposals will be rigorously assessed on cost, technical requirements and industrial, technological and economic benefits. As it is important to do business with trusted partners, the evaluation of bids will also include an assessment of bidders’ impact on Canada’s economic interests.
When bids are assessed, any bidder responsible for harm to Canada’s economic interests will be at a distinct disadvantage. This new assessment, as well as guidelines for its application as an ongoing procurement tool, will be developed through appropriate consultations.
Sign In
