Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Rafale's First Red Flag
Phaid    9/3/2008 5:22:21 PM
This is my translation of a new article from TTU Online: hxxp://www.ttu.fr/francais/Articles/rafaleredflag.html The Rafale's First Red Flag For the armée de l'air, two years after its official entry into service at Saint Dizier, the summer of 2008 was the first opportunity to fully test the Rafale in the context of a large-scale war gaming exercise in the Nevada desert, which came at the conclusion of a long journey journey across the American continent following a crossing of the Atlantic via the Azores. Planned for a year and a half, the goal of Red Flag is to prepare the French air forces for tactical interoperability. The armée de l'air has taken part in Red Flag on a regular basis since 1981, and nearly all of its combat aircraft types have participated. This time, it was the Rafale's turn, as a prelude to the participation of the Mirage F1CT/CR this fall in Green Flag -- a CAS exercise smaller in scale than Red Flag but which prepares forces for missions currently being undertaken in Afghanistan. And so, from the 7th to the 22nd August, a detachment of four Rafales from the fighter squadron 1/7 "Provence", based in Saint-Dizier, accompanied by a C-135FR tanker, spent ten days taking part in the fourth Red Flag of 2008, certainly the most demanding -- the closest thing to real war, they say -- for a Western pilot. The detachment of 85 personnel, under the command of colonel Philippe Poireault, the team's leader, and of the lieutenant colonel Fabrice Grandclaudon, commander of the 1/7, consisted in all of fourteen pilotes, six navigators, an intelligence officer, and 39 mechanics. The detachment consisted of two teams; one for missions during the day and one for missions at night. The roster was rounded out by air commandos responsible for the security of the aircraft. Taking place immediately following a 10-day base exchange at Luke Air Force Base with F-16s and personnel of the USAF's 309th TFS, the goal of the Rafale's first Red Flag was to compare the Rafale, which the squadron has been flying for two years, with combat aircraft of the same generation (called the 4th generation): F-15Es of the USAFE, F-15Ks of the RoKAF, F-15 and F-16 Aggressors, and Su-30MKIs of the IAF. It should be noted that half of the French participants had participated in the Afghan theater in recent months. The four Rafale from the 1/7 (numbers 317, 320, 321, and 325) were all two-seaters, of the F2+ standard (and thus very recent), with a total "swing role" capability and whose simulated armament was composed of Mica IR/EM AAMs and rocket-propelled inertially guided AASM/GPS weapons. The missions were supported by the SLPRM (the SAGEM local mission planning and replay system, a mission-planning computer system). During the ten days of Red Flag, the Rafale Bs undertook a total of four sorties per day, each averaging two hours (1 day strike and 1 night strike), as part of a Blue Air strike package consisting in general of fifty to sixty aircraft. This took place in outside temperatures above 45°C, nearly identical to conditions in Kandahar, Afghanistan. These temperatures were in fact more taxing on the crews and maintainers than on the aircraft; the M88's power reserve at takeoff assuring comfortable levels of thrust at the beginnings of the missions. The aircraft were normally equipped with three large supersonic external tanks of 1200 liters to mimic a heavy war load. The primary preoccupation of the armée de l'air in coming to Nellis AFB with the Rafale was first to verify the proper integration of the aircraft and its systems in a dense and complex environment of allied aircraft, notably with the participation of EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft and F-16CJs performing SEAD. General Jean-Pierre Martin, commander of the combat air forces, who even participated in one of the last Rafale B missions over the Nellis range (which is as large as the territory of Switzerland!) during the August Red Flag, commented: "After a year and a half of preparation, the system is in operational service and has been utilised in operatiosn which demonstrates that the capabilities of the aircraft are at the desired level. The Rafale behaved itself very well and fulfilled its part of the missions, and even did so easily thanks to the combination of its sensors and its networking systems (link 16). We can say that, for the first time, in contrast to previous exercises involving Jaguars or Mirage F1s or 2000, the French flew at Red Flag on an aircraft of comparable generation which had nothing to envy those of its American, Korean, and Indian comrades." Also taking into account the mission profiles undertaken in a theater saturated with surface-to-air and air-to-air threats, the Rafale also very well demonstr5ated its capacity to penetrate enemy air defenses thanks to its very capable weapon system to which the new AASM bomb is not a stranger. In fact, if the different participants were not particula
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
Softwar       9/8/2008 11:26:00 AM

Now Phaid , you show a pure bad faith , I mean C 'Mon !

It is not because the French Commander was talking about one of the numerous use of the OSF that is it the only one !

You know as well as I do what a good IRST can do , it 's not like if it was a new technology .


 

You really have something against the French aircraft , haven 't you ? You become partial , you loose your objectivity and you end up writing nonsenses .


 

Cheers .





BW - talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  Your posts have been trashed again and again as hooey (look that one up partner!).  We have noted that your assertion the Rafale uses a form of radar modeling along with SPECTRA to mask itself from radar detection was garbage.  Your recent stream on the IR signature of the M88 engines is baloney.  The inflated claims are growing old.
I once felt the Rafale was a fine airplane and needed to replace the Mirage.  You have convinced me that I was indeed wrong.  You should have upgraded the Mirage design. 
 
France has a 4th gen fighter with limited capability slated for a production run of less than 200.  My suggestion is you join the rest of the world (PAFKA, J-12, JSF etc...) and seek a new design or risk getting left behind.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       9/8/2008 11:33:41 AM

Now Phaid , you show a pure bad faith , I mean C 'Mon !

It is not because the French Commander was talking about one of the numerous use of the OSF that is it the only one !

You know as well as I do what a good IRST can do , it 's not like if it was a new technology .

Well, the OSF is not a good IRST, and you're right about one thing -- it is definitely not new technology..  Rafale pilots have always said that OSF was great when it worked, but that it is not particularly reliable.  And then in the Technologie & Armement supplement of the June 2007 Air Power:

"En effet, la double voie IR propre à l'OSF des Rafale F2 sera absente de l'OSF-IT. Il est vrai qu'il aurait sinon fallu traiter en profondeur les obsolescences et insuffisances dont souffre la partie IR des OSF des Rafale F2 entrant aujourd'hui en service. Bref l'OSF-IT se contentera donc de la voie TV. Celle-ci qui aura été améliorée (mais sans que la portée soit allongée car cela imposerait de changer de focale), permet déjà sur ralliement sur un point désigné par radar, Spectra ou via liaison 16 de repérer un avion à 85 km et distinguer à environ 40 km les différents avions d'une patrouille et même d'observer leur départ en virage avec un temps d'avance sur le radar, avantage indéniable. Néanmoins, l'absence de la double voie IR interdira de facto le combat AA de nuit en mode passif."

"Indeed, the twin IR channels present in the Rafale F2's OSF will be absent from the OSF-IT.  Otherwise, it would have been necessary to address the obsolescence and performance issues affecting the IR portion of the Rafale F2's OSF that are today entering service.  To sum it up, the OSF-IT will make do with the TV sensor.  This system will be an improvement over the current one (but without an increase in range, since this would have required changing the focal mechanisms),  which can already be cued by radar, Spectra, or Link-16, thus allowing it to detect aircraft at 85km, to separately distinguish the multiple aircraft in a flight at around 40km, and even to detect a formation break before it is seen on radar, which provides an undeniable advantage.  Nevertheless, the absence of the dual-channel IR will de facto prevent passive air to air combat at night."

Only the first 48 Rafales built even have an IR channel in their OSF; all of the ones built subsequently do not.  And the later models which are built to the F3 standard never will; they will instead have a new OSF model with an improved TV channel but no laser or IR capability at all.
 
Really, BW, there is a lot of public information about the state of the current and future Rafale out there; you should try and keep up.
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       9/8/2008 9:34:52 PM

The only thing Rafale brought to the table that was exceptional was the (simulated) AASMs.  That's great and all, but in the end it's nothing more than a less-accurate JDAM with a rocket on the back.  And you should perhaps read more about the AASM's performance in Afghanistan -- it was far from 100%, and on at least one occasion the failure of an AASM required that another aircraft strike the target with an LGB -- something that the Rafale still could not do for itself.



I hate to point the finger, but you really sound biased there. AASM isn't less accurate than JDAM (plus, are we talking about the version with an IR terminal seeker ?). Does JDAM have low-level, omnidirectional launch capability, and near vertical terminal attack ability when launched from low altitude ? The only advantage of JDAM compared to AASM is cost, which is a significant advantage in itself. 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       9/9/2008 4:28:58 PM
Phaid , we all know the paper you posted again .
 
It is very unfortunate that we loose the IR channels , nobody 's happy about it and certainly not the Pilots .
It is a BIG mistake .
It is even worse that what the article is saying :
""Nevertheless, the absence of the dual-channel IR will de facto prevent passive air to air combat at night.""
That alone is unnaceptable , and we used to do a lot of A2G scanning as well .
Then , even if the TV channel is first rate :
""allowing it to detect aircraft at 85km, to separately distinguish the multiple aircraft in a flight at around 40km, and even to detect a formation break before it is seen on radar, which provides an undeniable advantage.""
We are still unable to do a proper passive interception at more than 30km (LRF oblige) . The only thing left to use as an IRST are the MICA IR themselves with their supposed 35km aquisition range , which is ONLY 50% of the OSF range in infrared .  We loose big ...
I 'm furious because I know what it is all about .
I know the culprit (a well known French Company usually good at Optics) . I also know the people who worked on the hardware and what they told me is crystal clear : they had to cut corners because of budget restriction .
Sometimes , the French DGA is just plain wrong .
 
Nevertheless , I heard that a new dual channel IR optical device from the same company has been made and that the device full fills the technological and budget bill . Now , will the DGA accept to test it and to buy it for the 2010 budget ? Far too early to say anything ...
 
Just a reminder from the Red Flag article :
""The OSF, for its part, was unanimously praised by pilots for its great usefulness in aerial combat. "It's a sensor we will no longer be able to do without in the future", remarked one captain, "because it gives us such a discreet advantage over the adversary".""
 
Phaid , the OSF (1st generation) works great EVEN with obsolescences and performance issues . This is a clear spoken fact from a Captain flying at Red Flag . You can 't argue with that .
It is rather interesting to see a French Captain saying such thing . It is not directed at anyone by at he French DGA ;-)
Basically , they (the Pilots) want OSF-IT with a dual IR channel and rightly so . Let 's hope .
 ******************
Das Cardinal , you 're absolutly right . Phaid was just bashing around .
The USA has nothing yet comparable to AASM .
*******************
Softwar :
""France has a 4th gen fighter with limited capability""
You must be joking mate ... A pair of M2000-5s would probably stop dead a pair of Eagles or SHs and you wanna bet on Rafale ??? You have no knowledge on how we set up the MICAs while we know how to jam AMRAAMs . Now if you want to come up close with M2000s and Rafales , it 's up to you ;-)
 
Cheers .
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       9/10/2008 6:47:18 AM

I know the culprit (a well known French Company usually good at Optics) . I also know the people who worked on the hardware and what they told me is crystal clear : they had to cut corners because of budget restriction .

Sometimes , the French DGA is just plain wrong .

Nevertheless , I heard that a new dual channel IR optical device from the same company has been made and that the device full fills the technological and budget bill . Now , will the DGA accept to test it and to buy it for the 2010 budget ? Far too early to say anything ...
 
Well, "the culprit" is hardly a national secret.  Sagem was responsible for the IR portion of OSF, while Thales was responsible for the overall system.
 
Sagem did try to develop a new design for the IR sensor, but it was a failure -- the development costs became too high even before any successful tests had been carried out.  So it was dropped entirely.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       9/10/2008 7:29:25 AM


Das Cardinal , you 're absolutly right . Phaid was just bashing around .
 
The USA has nothing yet comparable to AASM .

My statement that JDAM is more accurate is correct.  The "decametric" AASM has about a 15 meter CEP, GPS-only JDAM has a less than 9 meter CEP.  Although in practice JDAM is extremely accurate, as demonstrated in this test agai....
 
But it's true that JDAM and AASM are not directly comparable.  JDAM is a much less expensive weapon and not intended as a true standoff missile.  AASM falls somewhere between a JDAM and a SLAM-ER in terms of costs and capability.
 
As far as the "yet", I doubt the US will ever be interested in developing a direct equivalent to AASM.  It is too costly to use the way JDAM is used, not really suitable for CAS, and yet not as capable as dedicated standoff weapons like SLAM-ER.  And JDAM or SDB can achieve similar ranges from higher altitudes at which the US can safely operate due to having air superiority and/or operating stealthy aircraft.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       9/10/2008 9:53:05 AM


 
Softwar :


""France has a 4th gen fighter with limited capability""

You must be joking mate ... A pair of M2000-5s would probably stop dead a pair of Eagles or SHs and you wanna bet on Rafale ??? You have no knowledge on how we set up the MICAs while we know how to jam AMRAAMs . Now if you want to come up close with M2000s and Rafales , it 's up to you ;-)
No joke - just the facts - a limited capability 4th gen fighter with hardly any prospect of exceeding a production run of 200 much less 300.  No exports BW - no one wants to buy the over-priced bird and that is a fact.  The M2000 is out of production and even being retired from some air forces - the Indians found them unsuitable for air to air combat and put them in the strike role - Taiwan is placing theirs in the bone yard.
You need a new design and quick.  Get a new plane - the only answer for France to stay up - PAFKA,  J-13, JSF are but a few of the current projects.  Rafale is a 1980s design that is rapidly aging into an obsolete * in aviation history.

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       9/10/2008 5:41:20 PM
Phaid :
""Sagem did try to develop a new design for the IR sensor, but it was a failure -- the development costs became too high even before any successful tests had been carried out.  So it was dropped entirely.""
 
You and I are talking about 2 different systems . One you know of , one you don 't . In the end it doesn 't matter as the DGA hasn 't got the funding for .
 
""My statement that JDAM is more accurate is correct.""
I disagree . While the AASM is said to be a Decametric weapon , its hits in A-Stan are telling (one direct hit and one 15m~ hit).
 
""I doubt the US will ever be interested in developing a direct equivalent to AASM""
Wrongly so ... 

And most of all , you dare say :
""not really suitable for CAS""
This is what the Rafales and the M200s are doing in A-Stan !!
AASM has been used 3 times and 3 times as a CAS weapon !
Are you loosing it or what ?..
Reminder :
""The Americans, during the "mass debriefs", lauded the precision of the AASM. Each Rafale can today engage six targets at a time over an extended area, each 250kg bomb having its own ballistics and target coordinates.""
***********
Softwar , you said :
""France has a 4th gen fighter with limited capability""
 I then said :
""You must be joking mate ...""
Your answer is :
""No joke - just the facts -""
 
No . You are still joking and there is not a single fact to back you up , but there are plenty of facts to make you wrong .
I 'm not gonna go again on what the Rafale can do but as I noticed earlier :
""Also taking into account the mission profiles undertaken in a theater saturated with surface-to-air and air-to-air threats, the Rafale also very well demonstrated its capacity to penetrate enemy air defenses""
 In an exercise like Red Flag , it is probably the best comment I 've ever heard about a swing-role Fighter .""
 
The Indian SU-30 is a fourth generation Fighter , do I have to remind you of what happened to them at Red Flag ? They can say whatever they want about a pseudo fog of war regarding their systems (?) , they 've been hammered by Ground Defenses . The SU is a barndoor a la F-15 and its ECMs ,  ECCMs , weapons systems , etc , are worthless .
Which is not the case of the Rafale .
I would like to see a US striker bomber , like the SH doing the kind of stuff Rafale did , but in Tiger Meet with the European Aggressors. That would show something to be praised for ... Until then , your only option is to get a working F-35 .
 
""Rafale is a 1980s design that is rapidly aging into an obsolete * in aviation history.""
You must be out of your mind Softwar , you ' re surely is !
Listen to me mate : as it stands , the Rafale is the most promissing of the European Fighter because it is already the best .
Only the US F-35 will match it as a swing-role Fighter and not before few years . Until that time , the Rafale will have matured and will be as deadly as it supposed to be .
You wanna bet ?
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       9/11/2008 2:26:37 AM
""Sagem did try to develop a new design for the IR sensor, but it was a failure -- the development costs became too high even before any successful tests had been carried out.  So it was dropped entirely.""
 
You and I are talking about 2 different systems . One you know of , one you don 't . In the end it doesn 't matter as the DGA hasn 't got the funding for .

LOL.  Two different systems, the one I'm talking about and one you're making up.
 
""My statement that JDAM is more accurate is correct.""
I disagree . While the AASM is said to be a Decametric weapon , its hits in A-Stan are telling (one direct hit and one 15m~ hit).

And one total failure.
 
""I doubt the US will ever be interested in developing a direct equivalent to AASM""
Wrongly so ... 

Not at all.  AASM is simply not cost effective.  Dual-mode JDAMs and GPS-enhanced Paveways are better for air support, and SDBs are a cheaper way to do medium-range standoff attacks.

And most of all , you dare say :
""not really suitable for CAS""
This is what the Rafales and the M200s are doing in A-Stan !!
AASM has been used 3 times and 3 times as a CAS weapon !
Are you loosing it or what ?..

The AASMs fired in Afghanistan (well, the ones that worked) were used against fixed-site targets like bunkers.  They were not used in direct support of troops in contact.  The M2Ks in afghanistan have been doing CAS, yes: with LGBs.

The reason I say weapons like AASM (and GPS-only JDAM for that matter) are not good for CAS is because they are not precise enough, both in navigation and in targeting.  The CEP of an AASM is too high to safely use a 250kg warhead near troops in contact.  And a laser spot is much safer than transmitting offset coordinates -- there have been several occasions where troops were killed due to sending wrong GPS coordinates, but nobody has ever accidentally pointed a targeting laser at themselves.

You should do a little bit of research about how FACs actually work, and you would quickly discover that GPS and laser-guided weapons are not considered interchangeable.
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       9/11/2008 6:54:32 AM

You should do a little bit of research about how FACs actually work, and you would quickly discover that GPS and laser-guided weapons are not considered interchangeable.


Which is precisely why LGBs were added to Rafale's arsenal in a "crash-program" just before going to A-stan. Personally, I see AASM and LGBs are complementary. 
As for the accuracy... 2 hits aren't enough to draw a statistical conclusion. OTOH, more weapons have probably been used since, but I could be wrong, I'm not keeping a count... About the 3rd one which Phaid says was a failure, I read it wasn't launched because of changing conditions... not dure about it though. You 'net professionals should verify :-)
One last comment : the Rafale's users (FAF and Navy) are enthusiastic about it and it seems that every operation and exercise underlines some of its qualities. That's not what I'd expect of the lemon described by some posters here. Anyway, France is NOT gonna start another fighter program anytime soon... I mean come on, money is already tight. Not that Dassault is standing idle either with UCAV research.


 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy