Jimmy

Depends on launch speed.

wabpilot

My personal preference was to have gone more the Rafale route than the F-18E/F. Clean sheet of paper and make it do what we need. But, that was not in the political cards. We had to make the best of what we had and the F-18E/F is awesomely good. If I could give it more dead dinosaur juice, I would but not much else. As far as fleet air defense goes, we haven't had a need for the F-14 since the end of the cold war. That's when we really started to use the 'cat the way she should have been used from the very beginning!

Gun Grape

Oh yea! Well I'm having a doz Turbos from Wingos right now.

tphuang

depends, rafale is a better airframe imo. If you can get the same weapons package in terms of missiles, I would definitely go for Rafale.

BenRoethig

There is nothing wrong with the F404/f414. They pack a lot of power for their size. In fact, with the F414 a Rafale variant could give the Typhoon a real run for its money. What is wrong is the wing configuration of the super hornet for the missions its been assigned. Straight wing = slower speeds, but better low speed maneuverability. Ideal for dropping bombs. Highly swept back wing+canards = faster speeds. In fleet defense, recon, and a few air to ground missions, you want that extra speed.

The Amraam doesn't get the hornet into range to launch them faster. I would also like to note that the rafale is designed to carry the AIM-120 as well

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

hello

We're talking carrier fighters right? Rafale M vs F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

If you keep the one-off reputation of the Rafale out, I think that as an aircraft, the Rafale is better.

I don't know about it's RBE-2 PESA radar compared to the APG-79, but the Rafale is stealthier(just look at it and it's obvious), has longer range, is faster & more aerodynamically efficient, can almost(but not quite) supercruise, is more maneuverable and has better a2a weaponry. It can carry all of the 18's a2a weapons, and the long-range MBDA Meteor missile as well. The Rafale has a 30mm cannon over the SH's 20mm. It has lower wing loading and is more maneuverable since delta-canard > short, straight wings. Their bomb loads are nearly the same, but the F/A-18 can carry a bigger, better variety of a2g weapons.

In air to air, the Rafale comes out on top, but the F/A-18 is a good bomb truck nonetheless. If the Rafale were fitted with the a2g weapons the F-18 gets, and gets the tankers, carriers and AWACS that the F-18 gets, it's by far a better fighter in any way.

Bowman

My inclination is that the Rafale is considerably superior to the F-18. However, I am equating MICA to AIM-120, which might not be reasonable. The Rafale carries many more AAMs, is faster, has a higher power/weight ratio and is more maneuverable. I don't have knowledge about the relative cababilities of the avionics of the two planes. Assuming that they are broadly comparable, though, the Rafale looks like the superior fighter. Oh, but it's French, that's right. P-51 wins, then.

hello

You don't have to. If it's user wants to use AIM-120s, the Rafale can deploy AIM-120s with no modifications required. Thus the Rafale also has a wider range of readily compatible AAMs.

Gun Grape

According to the references I've seen the Raf M can carry AMMRAM on 5 hardpoints.

SuperHornets can carry them on 8. 4 of those will handle pairs.

To me thats a possible 5 AMRAAMs for Rafale and a possible 12 for SH. Not that that would happen in real life.

Raf can carry 10 Micas if they tandem the center pylon. Still less that the 12 for SH.

Short range missiles.

Raf can carry 6 short range missiles.

SH can carry Sidewinders on 8 hardpoints. The 4 inboard hardpoints can handle pairs. For a possible 12.

What info do you have that is different?

Rafs are so good that they couldn't even get the Libyans' to buy them.

We can do paper comps all day long, but in the real world SH has won out. People with way more experence and knowledge than us have spoken. And their countries fly Super Hornets.

Even the French Navy wanted to fly F-18s. If Dassault were not a government operated manufacturer, (the French government owned 45% of its shares until 1998) I'll bet the French Navy would be operating SHs right now instead of waiting for all but the 12-15 Rafs they have now.

Tin Man

Hands down the Super Hornet, mostly by virtue of the APG-79, until the Rafale team can put a decent radar in it, in my opinion, it`s a poor second. The French government (Defence) and even the ADA admit the RBE-2 has it`s shortcomings.
The SH should have first look, first shot, first kill.

SH is also a much more mature platform A2G IMO. The Rafale MAY be as good as the Rhino one day.

hello

Main reason: politics. No one wants to buy a French plane. The real market leader is the F-15, which recently beat out everyone to clinch deals with Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and South Korea(and of course the U.S). The only Super Bug deal ever(other than U.S) is this one with Australia. Yes, the Hornet as a whole has more users, but those were from the 80s and 90s and they were not Super Hornets. Currently, the Eagle is the bestseller. The Typhoon is the best performer on the market, but is expensive. F-35 is uncertain and is far from production. The F-22 is superior, exclusive, and not for sale.
Yeah, that's true, the APG-79 AESA is superior to the RBE-2 PESA, although I don't know any exact stats(do you?). However, drop a Rafale into the SuperHornet's seat(on a Nimitz class) and this is not a disadvantage, because of the E-2 Hawkeye. Given the same infrastructure, the Rafale is a better air-defender(even if it can't use the Meteor missile) but the SuperBug is the better bomb truck.

Tin Man

Specs` and radar range are highly contentious so I would rather not quote figures, which are classified anyway and I don`t have access to! I can only look to the manufacturer's official blurb on both radars.

Dassault say that RBE-2 PESA range was sacrificed to a degree to enable better interleaving mode capability. The Rafale M has E-2C back-up so RBE-2 Max` range is less of an issue for the French navy, as you suggested. The ADA use AWACS. It MAY point to difficulties with the technical side of the radar which has had it`s difficulties in-service as I have read. The main sensor/suite on Rafale seems to be SPECTRA which seems a powerful system. With the RBE-2 AESA upgrade, Rafale M could turn out to be the fighter they really wanted all along...

I can`t see the Rafale being at a disadvantage in the "turn and burn" arena with a SH, but this thread is about individual capability and what it can do for a air arm, rather than 1V1? In 2002, the French carrier CdG did a tour with the USN in the Indian Ocean, with 7 embarked Rafale M and some training was done between Rafale and F-18 E/F.. See below..
Rafale, Dassault-Breguet (Not Jane's but the only reference to hand!).

Rafale M will use Meteor, French carrier Rafale M has already carried Meteor test rounds for cat and trap testing extensively.
Basically, SH is mature right now, ready to go anywhere with the FULL range of A2G stores, Rafale is not, it depends on whether a customer is prepared to wait.. Singapore wasn`t, they also didn`t want to wait for Typhoon to develop it`s A2G capability.

glyn

[quote=hello;378660]Main reason: politics. No one wants to buy a French plane.


Not so. Many French planes have been exported over the years. You can always expect them to be viable machines, whether fixed wing or helicopter.

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

BenRoethig

[quote=glyn;378707]I assume he was talking about US military sales. It's been quite a while since a military operator other than the coast guard has bought a French plane (, the Army's UH-72 is technically German/Japanese).

Gun Grape

True, I did say SH when I should have said Hornets.


Rafale A made its maden flight in 1986.
Rafale C in 1991
Rafale M in 1991

Seems like they have had plenty of time to hawk their product.

The French normally have not had problems selling their wares. Look at the 9 countries that fly the Mirage 2000.

I would be closer to thinking that the plane of choice that the US offers is the F-15. I don't think Boeing would push for foreign F-18 sales, the US Navy has the production line filled for at least 5 more years. Where US f-15 production has just about stopped. 1s and 2s, the line depends on foreign sales so what would you push if you were Boeing? In addition unless you have a Carrier or plan to do joint operations with the US Navy it doesn't make sence to buy a navalized aircraft. McD/D offered a land version of the f-18 but didn't get any takers, I havn't seen anything on a stripped down SH being offered.