cracker wrote:Canada should get the Rafale, it's not even disputable. The UK should have gotten the Rafale, now they are stuck with a mediocre typhoon and joke named F-35 (not available before what, 4 years more?). Basically it's the best multirole fighter if you only got to have one type of aircraft. Canada smallish airforce will do great with that. If they go again with some american plane, it's pure lobbying. Gripen is useless, it's a cheap plane for the poorer countries that still want a decent and cheap to operate aircraft. Kind of F-16 alternative. Canada-France relations would benefit greatly of a good rafale deal. (80% produced in canada maybe)
Well its not that easy, while Rafale is truly very good multirole all round platform, EF2000 outperforms it in some fields, atm especially in far wider range of armaments available and somewhat more potent A-A capabilities.
To be frank Gripen is not that cheap either, and Hungarians seem to have found it quite more expencive to operate than it was claimed by SaaB. But if Canada would go for Gripen it would be Gripen NG which should be quite good fighter, alot of stuff in fairly small platform. Well 80% is abit too much, France tends to be quite conservative when its about Know-How and licence building, but assembly for sure would be possible.
US lobby in Canada is very strong, so they might try to get away from F35 and get Super Hornet instead, to mend relations they affected abit by bailing from F35 purchase, but thats just now my speculation.
If what I heard and believe is correct, then, Rafale, EF Typhoon, Gripen,... and other EU canards are just s3xtoys. Their aerodynamic characteristics are even inferior than MiG-21.
It's not like I understand all the details, but as far as I know, the largest weakness of EU canards is that, they have poor maneuverability and cannot achieve high AoA. Their wings and hulls completely block the vertical stab at high AoA. That means, at high AoA, EU canards' vertical stab lost its function, and EU canard lost the stability and fall or even broken.
Meanwhile, for MiG-21, the horizontal tail and the wing lie in different planes, between them is a big gap. At high AoA, wind can go through that gap to access the vertical stab, prevents it from lost the function. For fighters like MiG-25/31, F-15, Su-27...37, Mig-29/35, people make 2 vertical stabs at the edge of the hull, so that the hull won't block the vertical stab at high AoA.
For MiG 1.44, it is similar to EU canards, but people make 2 vertical stabs and the edge of the hull, and parts of the vertical stabs are not blocked by the wings. And the vertical stabs are angled outwards to access the wind. So that MiG 1.44 can achieve reasonable AoA. But still MiG 1.44 probably is less maneuverable than Su-27 or MiG-29.
All that means, EU canards can't have high AoA, and no high AoA means pathetic maneuverability, no ability to make a quick turn, cannot quickly change direction => very terrible in air fight. Meanwhile, MiG-25/31, F-15, Su-27...37, Mig-29/35 have good maneverability.
EU canards design, similar to A-12/SR-71, is only good for dashing foward at very high speed and can fly long distance, but for achieving this the design virtually sacrifice maneuverability and stability. In short, EU canards are pure s3xtoys.
Not to mention that, even with such "dashing foward" design, EU canards have pathetic max speed. Rafale is M1.8, Typhoon is M2.2. Meanwhile Su-27 is M2.35 and F-15 is M2.5. That means EU canards's engines are pathetic.
About Rafale... it is the most s3xtoy amongst EU canards. Rafale has ram inlet, same level at MiG-19 (while MiG-21 already has more advanced conical inlet, and MiG-25/31, F-15, Su-27...37, Mig-29/35 have electronically controlled intake ramps). It has pathetic max speed (only M1.8, even slower than Su-30), the radar is pure s3xtoy and has terrible resolution.
I expect nothing from Rafale, it is the living fossil from MiG-21 era.