Croatia has decided to buy 12 used French Rafale fighter jets for 999 million Euros / 1,2 billion USD. Contract includes 10 single-seat Rafale C and 2 two-seat Rafale B. The twelve Rafale planes will will replace aging Russian-made MiG-21s which are almost past their service life, with expiry date in 2024. French offer was chosen over bids from Israel, Sweden and United States. Acquisition of the planes will finally allow Croatia to fulfill its obligation of spending 2% of GDP on defense. The cost will cover airplanes, weapons, spare parts, logistics and training. Under the plan, France is to deliver six Rafales in 2024 and six in 2025.
Delivered Rafales will be of F3R standard, which includes RBE2 AESA radar system, Meteor long range air-to-air missile, the TALIOS designation pod and an update of SPECTRA electronic warfare suite. Like 12 of the 18 Dassault fighters that Greece decided to buy in January 2021, the Croatian Rafales will be taken directly from the inventory of the French Air Force.
The choice is a curious one. While Rafale is an excellent fighter, and superior to anything else in the region, it is not well suited for Croatian needs. Croatia is replacing MiG-21, which is a single-engined point-defense interceptor. Both purpose of the aircraft as well as the need to keep operating costs low suggest that a replacement should be similar in nature. Further, there is questionable diplomatic incentive for this choice: France was never a friend to Croatia, and has historically tended to support Serbian aspirations to a Greater Serbian empire. During the 1990s war, France and Russia had supported Serb aggression. While from a purely technical view Saab Gripen would be a better choice, diplomatic concerns would argue for procurement of F-16V. Still, France has recently supported Croatia in several instances, and US embassy has positively commented on the choice of Dassault Rafale.
Rafale has proven its mettle in Afghanistan, Lybia, Sahel and Levant. In last few years, it had also achieved significant sales successes in Egypt, Quatar and India. While it has a major competitor in Eurofighter Typhoon, fact that Typhoon’s sale has to be approved by all four partner nations is a significant advantage for Rafale. Meanwhile, F-35 is expensive, complex, inappropriate for many states and still does not work properly. Egypt and Greece had recently procured Rafales, while interest has been shown by Switzerland, Finland, Indonesia and UAE.
History and War 
You mention that the Rafale is somewhat overkill for a Fishbed replacement, yet wouldn’t it be more likely the hint of a raise in Croatia’s ambitions in its defence attitude toward the East but also the southern neighbor?
Armament contrat will include AASM (Hammer) from french sources, which is quite offensive as a message. Or at least pose a threat toward anyone would want to screw with Croatia in the near future…
Thanks for giving your take anyway.
LikeLike
It is a possibility, yes. In fact, it does suggest such a shift – yet fact remains that the rest of the Croatian armed forces also require modernization (e.g. new missile gunboats, new tanks – the M-95 Degman project got shelved long time ago…).
LikeLike
Hey Picard, how are you doing?
It’s been a rough few months due to the ongoing pandemic.
[blockquote]
Meanwhile, F-35 is expensive, complex, inappropriate for many states and still does not work properly.
[/blockquote]
The issue is that the US is pressuring other nations to use this aircraft. At least Croatia didn’t fall for it.
LikeLike
Doing fine, thank you. And yeah, F-35 would be basically useless to Croatia.
LikeLike
” Further, there is questionable diplomatic incentive for this choice: France was never a friend to Croatia,..”
Croatia is now part of the EU. France did not veto that. Diplomatic stances of the past have now changed…
“While from a purely technical view Saab Gripen would be a better choice,…” Debatable. If we speak of second hand Gripens C/D, maybe. Not as advanced as Rafale F3R, but enough for Croatia needs, perhaps. Brand new Gripen E/F would be much more expensive.
LikeLike
I hope so. But seeing how Macron is visiting Serbia, which France had always historically supported…
https://www.dw.com/hr/kako-francuska-javnost-vidi-srbiju/a-49594530
It is not just procurement but also operating costs. Gripen is a single-engined fighter that is designed to be cheap to operate, while Rafale is designed more for performance.
LikeLike
I oftenly see that comment on many sites…
No, a Gripen is not necessarily a cheaper option.
First, a large part of the purchase and maintenance costs are due to the embedded electronics. And fitting and maintaining an AESA radar, for example, costs the same on a Gripen and a Rafale.
Secondly, Rafale payload is higher. Meaning that, for some missions, 3 Gripen will be required to carry the same amount of weapons than 2 Rafales. Or 4 Gripen for 3 Rafale. It is possible to save an aircraft,a pilot, mechanics, spare parts, etc… it will be possible to save money by buying, let say, 12 Rafales in place of 14 Gripen.
I agree it is not as straightforward as that, but you get the idea. Airforces are not buying a plane, but a system that is supposed to fulfil the missions they plan for it.
And an expensive aircraft can be the cheapest option for an airforce, if only few planes are required, when the other will look for quantity because, for their mission, quantity is a quality in itself.
LikeLike
Actually, fuel is a big part of variable operating costs, as is the second engine. And question here isn’t which aircraft will be more cost effective, but which aircraft will be more cost-effective for Croatia.
Gripen is designed as an essentially point-defence interceptor, which is basically ideal for Croatian needs.
There is also the fact that Rafales being delivered have around 3800 hours left on the airframe, with an option of maybe 2000 additional hours. Granted, considering how not flying HRZ aircraft are, that might be enough for 30 years. And they will require additional infrastructure, while US offer for example included the logistical support.
Fact is that Croatia did not really utilize even MiG-21s we had. We used MiG-21s with maybe a third of their full capacity, and then politicians said that the aircraft is incapable of night operations (a lie) and that it is combat-incapable (a lie). If we use Rafale the way we did MiG-21s, we might be looking at 60 000 – 70 000 USD per flight hour for Rafale.
And as Selak said, no point buying a Mercedes CLS for a grocery trip. We don’t even have the infrastructure for a 4th generation fighter yet. If we really want French, better option would be buying Mirage 2000, learning on it, and then buying Rafales. As it is, we are basically skipping a generation.
LikeLike
Fair points. As I mentioned in a previous message, maybe second hand Gripen C/D were an option. Probably cheaper to buy and maintain.
I know nothing of the technical requirements and political reasoning, but the fact is that Croatia was looking for the state of the art, not some updated Mig 21 or M2000.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
“There is also the fact that Rafales being delivered have around 3800 hours left on the airframe, with an option of maybe 2000 additional hours. Granted, considering how not flying HRZ aircraft are, that might be enough for 30 years. And they will require additional infrastructure, while US offer for example included the logistical support.”
According to this France article: “https://air-cosmos.com/article/la-croatie-devient-le-5e-client-export-du-rafale-24876” the Rafale have very few flying hours on them the oldest of them will be 10 years in 2024. So they probably consumed 3800 hours out of 9000 not are left with 3800. Also Dassault will refurbish them and guarantees that they will be delivered with 9000 hours. According to the same article the purchase price of 980 mil Eur includes the aircraft, training, maintenance and armament. So I don’t see what the Americans could have offered extra.
“Actually, fuel is a big part of variable operating costs, as is the second engine. And question here isn’t which aircraft will be more cost effective, but which aircraft will be more cost-effective for Croatia.
Gripen is designed as an essentially point-defence interceptor, which is basically ideal for Croatian needs. ”
Actually, like you know, Snecam M88, is one of the most, if not the most, efficient modern fighter engine. Standard F3R included upgrades to the engines to reduce lifecycle cost and cost of hours of flight. Standard F4 will include even more upgrades for the engines and Croatia will be offered a chance to participate in it.
Snecma has followed an single program of improving M88 life cycle cost and fuel consumption instead of going in 3 directions like GE with F 414 or Eurojet with the EJ 200 each of which will have 3 variants I think (increased thrust or lower fuel consumption or lower maintenance). Meanwhile the price of 4000 Euro/hour for the Gripen was for the C/D variant flown by the Swedes. E/F is an unknown quantity. Meanwhile the French have followed a comprehensive program of reducing maintenance costs for the Rafale. And there is also the problem of sourcing of spare parts. In case of the Rafale or F-16 one has a single source for the spare parts. In case of Gripen one gets the Engine from US, Radar from UK and Sweden, IRST from France and UK etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. Yeah, Rafale looks better and better.
LikeLike
Do you think the rafale is a good choice for Indonesia ? What about Finland ?
LikeLike
I think it would be. Especially for Indonesia since it is kinda tropical area, and Rafale was designed for carrier operations. As for Finland, yes, though Gripen might be better.
LikeLike