Rafale Thread

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NEXT

Bluewings12 3/11/2009 2:13:20 AM

Since we have a French poster who knows obviously more than I do , the less I can do is to try to link what he said with what I

said .

JP ' post is rather long and it goes into details I wasn 't aware of , so let 's take it slowly !!!

(technical stuff)

""- no laser designator :

was right but is no more : has been integrated (BW rightly likes the Rafale but doesn't have the best source data: "can do in no time" is no more necessary).""

I was a bit late regarding the news but I was right , the Pod is under the wing .

""- no AESA:

very soon same answer. Is being developed, is performing great and will be fitted on the next batch to be ordered this year and delivered in 2012. Current jets will be retrofited (if we don't run out of money for that part of the program by then :-) ). Cannot be said of the Eurofighter's AESA Captor, which is still very far from being developed, let alone procured for frontline aircraft""

This is also what I 've always been saying . The "Camel" is showing its tail ...

""F-22 is awesome in the area of performance and stealth, but its man machine interface is far from impressive compared with that of Rafale""

That I also always said . The Rafale 's pit is more user friendly and to switch from A to Z or from X to Y is easier on Rafale .

If you can imagine how fast the situation in an air operation is changing up there nowadays , automatisms and user friendly pit can make the difference between failure and wins . The Rafale 's pit has some unique features and its avionics and FCS are really closely linked together . Of course , it still hasn 't got the full ECM suite yet (as I said earlier) and its eyes and ears are not as good as they supposed to be because of lack of funding .

When Herald says that France does not have the tech tree , he is deeply mistaking . WE could actually teach you one thing or two about electronics ...

""From the user's point of view all I can say is the FAF and FrNavy has never met anything close to SPECTRA, regardless of what you may think of its marketing prowesses, both in sensing accuracy and jamming efficiency. EW is an area where the French are top notch: anybody who has flown in Red Flag against French ECM, including older generation on M2000 and even Mirage F1 and Jaguar, will understand exactly what I mean.""

Hey ! This is exactly what I 've been saying all these years on SP . Do you remember when I was talking about the M2000 screwing up radars and FCS of about everybody including F-15s , F-16s and F-18s ?

Does the M2000 have anything like active AESA ECM antennas ? I don 't think so but the Rafale has and our radar databank is also top notch as it has always been .

""No towed decoy (unlike the F-15, F-16, F-18, EF, etc etc) I agree with BW: towed decoy is not a requirement, it's one of many possible solutions to the requirement of avoiding and deferating incoming threats.""

I might add that towed decoys only work (if they do) against EM/EW missiles , but against IR missiles they are useless . In fact , they use up two perfectly good pylons for 2 missiles . If you need a trailing ECM decoy to protect your aircraft , come to France and speak to Thalès , but come with big money and they might teach you how to do without one .

(Herald must be boiling , lol)

""No stand-off jammer capability. Can hardly blame anyone for that "lack of". Who can afford one? The US armed forces, primarily. Whole different concept in the FAF: given what I said about optimisation and our limited budgets, we dropped stand-off jamming in the '80s and developped our expertise in self protection. Hence our excellent know how in the area of EW. 99% of customers of US hardware don't realise it's designed for a rich air force and not for their's.""

The last phrase is really important . To be able to use the US hardware , you need all the US hardware because it is intended to work as a ONE entity . Buying cheap the latest Blk 52/60 will not give you a lot if you don 't have the other air assets to go with . A "lonely" 4 F-16 Blk60s pack (understand without proper help) will do far less than 4 "lonely" Rafales .

France knows it , Dassault knows it , JP knows it and I know it too . I could say the same about the F-35 if the Rafale had its full ECM suite .

""the mix between IR and radar missiles is posing the adversary an impossible dilemma, in terms of threat reaction.""

This , I also always said . To understand the meaning , you must think as a Pilot . Do you get a warning ?.. How do you try to evade , or should you ? Should you now or later ? Are you even targeted ??? Why my EWR is not telling me anything ???

...

Just imagine .

But you have an undetected IR MICA coming at you at Mach 4.5 and its end game will be perfectly stealthy . Ouch ...

""No anti-radiation missile : once again, not a requirement. An AASM shot with near-metric precision at an emitter located with decametric precision by SPECTRA (ther he is again) will discourage the bravest radar operators and either destroy or silence anyone emitting with a SAM system.""

This is also what I said about the AASM and SPECTRA . Some posters should really look at the leatest RedFlag ...

Cheers .

Quote Reply

leroy 3/11/2009 3:15:26 AM

"Is being developed, is performing great and will be fitted on the next batch to be ordered this year and delivered in 2012. Current jets will be retrofited (if we don't run out of money for that part of the program by then :-) )."

"Low-rate production of the first active electronically scanned radars is now underway for the Rafale multi-role fighter.

Thales, developer of the RBE2 radar, says it's completed development work and now is starting series production. The radar should deliver around 40 percent greater range performance than the current standard, and be able to track many more targets simultaneously.

Final software validation and delivery of the first AESA system to Dassault is planned for early 2010. Low-rate production will involve only a handful of radars.

The production milestone is also key to Dassault's ambitions to sell the fighter overseas. India, where Rafale is competing, wants an AESA. The French government is also in advanced talks to sell Rafale to the United Arab Emirates, which operates AESAs on its F-16 Block 60s. UAE could mark the first export of Rafale.

In France, AESA-equipped Rafales would enter service starting in 2012. It would be the F4 standard of Rafale, which still has to be developed. The radar is not slated to be retrofitted on existing Rafales although it could be, says Pierre-Yves Chaltiel, senior vice president for Thales aerospace government programs. That could limit the French AESA force to 60-70 aircraft." - Aviation Week, Nov 4 2008

Do you have newer information than this? Everything I have read says there are no plans to upgrade existing Rafales.

"wrong. All the "gen" talk is 90% marketing BS and "my generation is longer than your generation". Yes Rafale is 4th gen, so as the Eurofighter and Grippen (only just). Anything older (including F-16B52+ or 60, F-15K or T, F-18 E/F as well as M2000-5Mk2/-9, Mig 29/35 or SU27 to 35 are 3rd generation platforms with 3rd generation systems architectures, with more or less bits and pieces recovered from 4th gen aircraft integrated into them: e.g. the modular mission computer from the Rafale serving in the Greek and UAE M2000-5Mk2/-9, or AESA radars in Hornets and Eagles."

I am not going to try to debate aircraft generations with you. These definitions are widely known and you aren't about to change them posting from a message board. The Rafale is a 4th generation aircraft, just like the F-15, F-16, Su-27, and Mig-29.

"F-22 is awesome in the area of performance and stealth, but its man machine interface is far from impressive compared with that of Rafale, its weapons (AMRAAM) are no better than 3rd generation a/c with the same or MICA."

Why don't you write us up a little comparison of the Rafale's and F-22's "man machine interface," since you clearly think you know something about them.

You need to realize that you can't just throw random crap like that out around here, people know you are lying and will call you on it.

"We were smart enough to copy the Mig 29's IRSTS, with the OSF, and add a very useful TV function to it, F22 designers surprisingly didn't."

Here you are wrong again... the F-22 was designed from the start to carry an IRST and it is still capable of receiving one. Current threats don't justify the cost.

"F-35 ought to be a quantum leap ahead of Rafale in terms of design given it is 10 years younger but I'm far from convinced that it will do as well either in the A/S or A/A arenas, given the extent of the combined design constraints imposed by stealth and STOVL."

The problem is that your opinion means pretty much nothing, you can't even get aircraft generations right. Take a look at the number of countries lining up to buy the F-35, and compare that to those waiting in line to buy the Rafale. The F-35 will bring a level of performance in all of its primary mission areas far in excess of any existing aircraft besides the F-22, and even then the F-22 is only superior in air-to-air.

"I don't give crap about the size of the antenna."

Perhaps this is because you don't understand how radars work?

"What I want of my radar, or rather : system, is a good SA at long/medium range to adoptthe best tactics and a good probability of detection and accuracy within the weapons' envelope that I won't miss any shot opportunities to underperforming sensors."

Long range performance? Good probability of detection? Those are exactly the primary benefits provided by a larger radar. If those are your performance criteria then a large array is what you want.

"I agree with BW: towed decoy is not a requirement, it's one of many possible solutions to the requirement of avoiding and deferating incoming threats. Was considered for Rafale on basis of cost effectiveness and robustness. The same as thrust vectoring or swept wing, who sound and look very sexy but whose added weight and complexity are lelf defeating. All three have one common flaw: they violate the KISS rule (keep it simple, stupid!)"

The truth is that France just doesn't have the resources to pursue a towed decoy, given long enough they will develop one and all the French fanboys will have to change their tune. A towed decoy is a fundamentally very simplistic device and allows some very interesting capabilities. (Even the Russians are working on them...)

"The F-35, which is a nice concept provided you can afford F-22s to wipe the sky clean of AtoA threats, or the many maintenance crews which swarm around an F-16 during the many phases of ground checks, as compared to the M2000 or Rafale, and their minimalist manpower requirements."

This is just more BS...

"It makes more sense to have one or two types of MICA (EM and IR) capable of handling threats at all ranges, rather than three separate classes of weapons: layered defence is al very well of you have hardpoints and money to spend jone size fits all has its advantage in terms of logistics (maintaining one type rather than many) and also in terms of ops. Explanation : if we had 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders on the Rafale, we would be helpless after 2 Fox two shots in the WVR arena. With a Rafale and 6 MICA, you have at any given moment ths same number of both short range self defence missiles and medium range intercept missiles."

What was it you were saying about "jack of all trades, master of none..."?

The MICA is capable of performing in both short and long range shots, but isn't a great option at either. Its long range performance in particular is well behind that of dedicated long range weapons.

Quote Reply

leroy 3/11/2009 3:29:05 AM

"That I also always said . The Rafale 's pit is more user friendly and to switch from A to Z or from X to Y is easier on Rafale .If you can imagine how fast the situation in an air operation is changing up there nowadays , automatisms and user friendly pit can make the difference between failure and wins . The Rafale 's pit has some unique features and its avionics and FCS are really closely linked together . Of course , it still hasn 't got the full ECM suite yet (as I said earlier) and its eyes and ears are not as good as they supposed to be because of lack of funding .

When Herald says that France does not have the tech tree , he is deeply mistaking . WE could actually teach you one thing or two about electronics ..."

Here is the same challenge to you fanboy...

Describe both the F-22 and Rafale's man machine interfaces, and describe how they are different.

(and no, I don't mean more of this stupid fanboy BS that you wrote above. "well gee, the Rafale's interface is like... really good... and we like it... so it must be better than that of an aircraft we have never even looked inside the cockpit of... ")

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, and it shows.

"I might add that towed decoys only work (if they do) against EM/EW missiles , but against IR missiles they are useless . In fact , they use up two perfectly good pylons for 2 missiles . If you need a trailing ECM decoy to protect your aircraft , come to France and speak to Thalès , but come with big money and they might teach you how to do without one .

(Herald must be boiling , lol)"

Not all towed decoys use pylons kid.(Do you even look this stuff up on the internet?) And no, they don't work on IR missile, just like all other self protection jammers. (Including the one on the Rafale!)

As for asking Thales about towed decoys... that would be a lot like asking Thales for an AESA ten years ago when the US started operating them. "We will have one real soon, just wait!"

"The last phrase is really important . To be able to use the US hardware , you need all the US hardware because it is intended to work as a ONE entity . Buying cheap the latest Blk 52/60 will not give you a lot if you don 't have the other air assets to go with . A "lonely" 4 F-16 Blk60s pack (understand without proper help) will do far less than 4 "lonely" Rafales ."

Kid, you are making a fool of yourself. We get it, you think your favorite airplane is really cool, but that doesn't change its real world capabilities in the slightest.

"This , I also always said . To understand the meaning , you must think as a Pilot . Do you get a warning ?.. How do you try to evade , or should you ? Should you now or later ? Are you even targeted ??? Why my EWR is not telling me anything ???

...

Just imagine .

But you have an undetected IR MICA coming at you at Mach 4.5 and its end game will be perfectly stealthy . Ouch ..."

Uh huh... now swap out "IR MICA" for virtually any other modern IR missile and you get the same thing. They are all capable of some BVR attacks, and they do offer some advantages, but MICA is nothing special, especially at long range.

"This is also what I said about the AASM and SPECTRA . Some posters should really look at the leatest RedFlag ..."

If you HAD an anti-radiation missile you would have used it. Just because you used a certain weapon for something doesn't mean it is well suited to that mission.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 SAome more sarcastic comments. 3/11/2009 4:54:33 AM

1. Towed decoys can be built into a dedicated dispenser.

2. Towed decoys can be active as well as passive both radar and infrared.

3. Read and learn.

France isn't even fielding a team much less on the field, when it comes to CURRENT EW self defense.You want to learn how? Come visit Lockheed, BAE Sanders, or RAYTHEON. Just don't send THALES thieves. They'll be tossed out on their ears.

Man machine interface......that is a joke. An obsolete pit by 1980s standards versus 21st Century distributed information

About Typhoon. It's integration isn't complete? Further along in its role, than Rafale is in its. (Apples and oranges, Darth-dedicated air interceptor with secondary A2G (Typhoon) versus Rafale-dedicated air to ground with secondary A2A.) The Typhoon is more like an F-15 C than a Beagle, but the Rafale is more like a souped up Jaguar.

When I say its the second besat fighter flying, its because in its role it is better than its American counterparts. It has more upgrade paths open to it and its better designed for its air to air mission than the current Eagle which is the previous air superiority standard...

Don't sneer at CAPTOR either. Mechanical scan track in radars like SARH in missiles works. Its now a reliable, tested. and well understood methodology. There are still some things it can do that AESA cannot. CREF above vis the PESA discussion and sidelobes for WHY.

And of course while others concede that MICA is a missile, I concede nothing on this self propelled brick. It doesn't work.

Herald

Quote Reply

Phaid 3/11/2009 6:38:12 AM

5 - no HMS, putting it at a disadvantage against every other modern fighter in WVR.

True. One of the least satisfying compromises, which will require money and time once it is decided to go ahead with the integration. This looks unescapable, eventually, it'll become a "need to have" especially for the export market. Probably the best response (and the reason the FAF and FrNavy general staffs considered acceptable to drop the requirement), is that the SA you have before the merge and the efficiency of the data fusion, including fighter to fighter datalink (L16) are such that once friends and foes are mixed up (you're never supposed to be alone in a fight), a WVR enemy has virtually no chance to escape being tracked by at least one hence vulnerable to all the Rafales in the furball. Ever heard of the Rafale's "over the shoulder" kill? Using offboard missile cueing from a wingie during a live fire test, a Rafale actually managed to shoot down a target located 7 o'clock at several nautical miles range. Has this ever been done on a F-22 or a Typhoon? Don't thinh so

Complete science fiction nonsense. Link-16 is completely useless in a dogfight. Both the spatial and time resolutions are insufficient to support targeting object at the ranges and changing bearings that occur in dogfights. And even if it could, a pilot in a dogfight is not going to sit there and stare at icons on a display to try and figure out what is going on around him.

And yes, F-22s and Typhoons, and every other Link-16 capable system can do off board targeting.

6 - no IR optics in current production models. Obviously this can be overcome with a pod, but it's worth pointing out since the OSF is so often touted as a magical solution to all problems.

Not entirely true: the first F2 batches weere bought with IR, butr then it was dropped on the following batches waiting for a new and better sensor. The OSF's IR channel was deemed not satisfactory for imagery. Although the IRST function is not the best in the world it certainly does help in building and especially maintaining the SA on any air target once they've been picked by any sensor, via the data fusion. We probably will be missing it more than expected, and I hope the next generation will be nack on board sometimes in the next decade.

Entirely true: no IR optics in current production models. The fact that the early batches had obsolete IR components installed does not change the fact the ones currently rolling off the production line do not.

7 - defensive jammer system based on three small electronically-steered antennas, which means serious angular limitations on its DJM emitters (since it is well known that beam-steering transmitters suffer from significant reduction in power as the angle of the signal becomes less perpendicular to the array).

ECM is not my best area of expertise but with no numbers to support it, the above assertion is pointless. From the user's point of view all I can say is the FAF and FrNavy has never met anything close to SPECTRA, regardless of what you may think of its marketing prowesses, both in sensing accuracy and jamming efficiency. EW is an area where the French are top notch: anybody who has flown in Red Flag against French ECM, including older generation on M2000 and even Mirage F1 and Jaguar, will understand exactly what I mean.

Go read about beam steering instead of questioning basic physics. Go see why there have been so many problems with the 737 AEW and its attempt to use a non-rotating AESA array for 360 degree coverage. Then see why a vastly smaller array of beam-steering elements will face even worse problems.

Finally, as far as "FrNavy and FAF never meeting anything like SPECTRA", the M2000-9 already have a system that even Thales states is better than Spectra. The biggest thing SPECTRA has going for it is its cool acronym.

8 - production rate of less than one aircraft per month leading to serious quality and support supplier issues. I'm not sure about the outcome in terms of service to the customer, but it certianly sucks, plus you end up paying idle workers and the unit price might be going up again.

Several aircraft have had to be returned to the manufacturer for repairs due to defects.

9 - terrible reliability (one of the four Rafales at Red Flag had to be grounded and cannibalized for parts to support the other 3). All aircraft experience failures. The two important points to ponder when raising reliability issues are : how often, and what does it take to fix it? Making a general rule of one observation in Red Flag (I'm assuming, for lack of contrary information, that what you write is accurate, although it would need double checking, given the amount of bad faith circulated in this thread)

You can easily find this online if you're interested. It was widely reported by the Indians, and was the reason for the excuses the FAF gave about their new "flux tendu" maintenance system.

Tell you what, you provide evidence for your assertions about the F-22's MMI being inferior to Rafale's, and I'll provide links about this. Of course the difference is I actually can.

10 - tiny radar aperture (550mm) insufficient for an air superiority fighter and limits radar performance regardless of future AESA. I don't give crap about the size of the antenna. It is small on Rafale to improve over the nose visibility during carrier landings (remember, intelligent compromises and optimisation, we're good at that in France because contrary to our transatlantic cousins we don't believe we can afford throwing billions out of the window). What I want of my radar, or rather : system, is a good SA at long/medium range to adoptthe best tactics and a good probability of detection and accuracy within the weapons' envelope that I won't miss any shot opportunities to underperforming sensors. Paired with data from C2 assets and L16, the Rafale does fine. Contrary to the assertion above, the AESA will do a heck of a difference concerning both the range and the quality of date, whichis critical for the PK of a missile navigating on datalinked info, before missile acquisition of the target by its own active seeker.

Size of the antenna and total radiated power (and number of T/R elements in the case of a phased array, which is obviously also limited by total size) are the critical performance parameters for a radar. You can "not give a crap" all you like, but ignorance of physics won't change the facts. There is a reason the Typhoon has a radar the size of the F-15's on a jet barely larger than Rafale.

And yes, AESA will "do a heck of a difference" compared to the myopic RBE2, but compared to other AESAs it will still underpowered and undersized.

Anyway, it's nice that you wrote such a volume of responses, but do try and learn a little bit about how things work before you come in here and white knight BW. Otherwise you really aren't helping his case.

Quote Reply

Phaid 3/11/2009 6:48:37 AM

Oh, really. I guess that explains why Australian F/A-18s use ASRAAMs, Japanese F-15s use Japanese AAMs, and Israeli F-15s and F-16s use their respective indigenous AAMs. I'm sure there are other examples, these are just the ones that leap to mind. Meanwhile not a single French fighter uses a foreign AAM.

Quote Reply

Phaid 3/11/2009 10:40:55 AM

Reading back, I now see I misunderstood what BW was trying to say there. What he actually said was even dumber than what I thought he said.

A fleet of Block 60s has more-modern systems in every category -- radar, EW, SP jammers, working IRST and FLIR, HMS, and AESA with all of the nice navigation and automatic terrain following features, not to mention integrating every weapon in the U.S. arsenal. They have greater range and are more surviveable due to their better weapons and sensors in BVR and WVR. And unlike the Rafale, the Block 60s can do SEAD, OCA, and every form of strike from anti-tank to CAS.

Which is not to say that Block 60s are all you need -- ideally you would partner them with AEW, offensive EW, and dedicated ELINT platforms -- but that is true of any tactical fighter. On the other hand, they can do so many more types of missions than the Rafale that the support requirements pale in comparison.

Quote Reply

strat-T21C hmmm.. 3/11/2009 11:02:20 AM

I think that Blue Wings 12 works for the sales dept. for the Rafeal. That's why it's doing so well!

Quote Reply

strat-T21C hmmm.. 3/11/2009 11:02:43 AM

I think that Blue Wings 12 works for the sales dept. for the Rafeal. That's why it's doing so well!

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 3/11/2009 4:49:17 PM

Slight correction, Phaid. Older Mirage III/5s are equipped with Sidewinders, and I believe the Mirage F.1 can carry them as well (though most use Magics). Now if you're referring to AdA Mirages, then no, but export Mirages can and do carry Sidewinders.

What I don't understand is, and maybe someone can correct me here, why can't the Rafale carry something besides Mica? Whatever your opinion on the Mica vs. AMRAAM, it makes sense to me to be able to carry your allies' missiles in case supplies get tight.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 3/11/2009 5:35:28 PM

"Low-rate production of the first active electronically scanned radars is now underway for the Rafale multi-role fighter.

Thales, developer of the RBE2 radar, says it's completed development work and now is starting series production. The radar should deliver around 40 percent greater range performance than the current standard, and be able to track many more targets simultaneously.

Good grief. one wouldbe seriously worried that they understood the technology if they couldn't lift concurrent processing requirements. Its good to see thta they understand the basic benefits of AESA.

Final software validation and delivery of the first AESA system to Dassault is planned for early 2010. Low-rate production will involve only a handful of radars.

Interesting, now the French have reversed the low rate production and costing process. Low rate production is now cheaper (esp interesting considering that they have low rate "sunk" costs. No doubt we will now get lectured on how Rafale has resolved the universal problem of keeping LRP Costs doen low due to anticipated sunk costs being amortised early in the development cycle (and all in anticipation of amortising those costs on the basis of anticipated volume sales no doubt!)

This would be the same enthusiastic comments made about all the other customers lining up to buy Rafale. Funnily enough not ONE european oe EU member has seen fit to buy this superior capability (gee, it works for Typhoon). Then we got the other confident claims of middle eastern buyers. Problem is that not even third tier airforces like the Moroccans have been interested. India? I'm sure the Russians will be quaking over that brave statement to chew into an already partnered nation.

Excellent news. Having been lucky enough to attend appropriate cleared briefings on JSF, Typhoon and SuperHornet, I'd love to know how a foreign national can wax lyrical about F-22 interface issues above UK and Australian cleared allies who are either embedded in F-22 Squadrons (RAF) or gone up against them and have TACTICAL clearance levels way above my paygrade. You must be special. Please enlighten us all as to how a french national who's country gets access levels to US technology below the UK, Aust and Canada knows so much?

"We were smart enough to copy the Mig 29's IRSTS, with the OSF, and add a very useful TV function to it, F22 designers surprisingly didn't."

Ah yes, this would be the ame swedish company that licenses tech to the US and France through tech sharing arrangements (hint, the swedish company now has a US parent) but who's tech release to the US is a capability set that is a magnitude order in superiroity compared to DAMOCLES (The malays will be using DAMOCLES 12-18 months ahead of the French - we all know that "tier 1" tech released to an export client as lead developer is because the foreign buyer inherits it as a mule - with all the corresponding integration and development hurt that a "mule" buyer gets gifted with. Guess who suckered the Malays? But lets ignore the fact that the F-22 is already bussed and certified for IRST, that IRST is not a panacea for an AESA set classified as a weapons system in its own right - and that again, the focus is at the fanboy level of looking at platform rather than systems and network systems collusion. Of all the platforms you vaguely select to try and establish a case, you pick the one (F-22) that is a NCW primary asset with a high degree of systems autonomy What a joke

"F-35 ought to be a quantum leap ahead of Rafale in terms of design given it is 10 years younger but I'm far from convinced that it will do as well either in the A/S or A/A arenas, given the extent of the combined design constraints imposed by stealth and STOVL."

LOL, strawman. lets pretend that you do understand the issue. Give us a coherent rundown on what TAC requirements a STOVL LO/VLO aircraft on a jump platform can even possibly have against a CATOBAR with what constitutes (in western levels) short squadron fitout levels. Why the comparison?

JSF factory builds start 2011. So a plane that has had all its sub systems tested flatbed and on mules will be mission ready and deployable from the get go. Rafale will have newbuilds with AESA coming off the lot in 2012 (assuming that France does not cut or delay production like it already has) Please explain the design constraints against the tac/strat and mission requirements of the typical user and environment. I'm sure everyone else in here will be enthusiastically waiting for an explanation as well.

"I don't give crap about the size of the antenna."

well, you don't because you don't understand onboard power constraints and dimension constraints determined by your own aircraft. if you don't understand that larger AESA real estate provides greater flexibility, emitter discretion, concurrent mission set steerage etc... then there's not a lot that can ve said except that your comprehension of why "bigger is better" when the plane has the onboard power and complimentary systems to take advantage of it - well, what can one say?

"What I want of my radar, or rather : system, is a good SA at long/medium range to adopt the best tactics and a good probability of detection and accuracy within the weapons' envelope that I won't miss any shot opportunities to underperforming sensors."

Size equates to an increased level of concurrent processing - it allows greater redundancy on emitter selection for concurrent tasks. There's a whole pile of extra issues, but one basic example has been provided. (welcome to autonomy and leverage issues)

You do understand that the decoy serves more than one role?. A very very simple but appropriate analogy. why do you think submarines have towed arrays and seducers? Before coming back and responding, make sure you understand that fluid dynamics and aerodynamics are "kissing cousins". The lst sentence is critical to comprehend properly, so don't come back like Bluewings and make some crack about how different subwarfare is against air combat. Again, in very very simple terms, one fights in a thicker medium - the warfighting and engagement constraints have relative similarity.

Good grief - its not an issue of manpower requirements - its about capability requirements. There are 9 countries and 13 services buying into JSF - 8 countries don't have overarching battlespace technical dominance like the US but we all understand how we can manage the fight using this weapons system. There are 3 other countries that are likely contenders and they are just as sophisticated as France across a number of technology and systems vectors. None of us need the F-22 to dominate our battlespace.

Again, more nonsense. All 13 current participants have an overwhelming committment to have common weapons systems and common certification so that we can use each others logistics resources (military and non military) in the event of a conflict. That statement is just ill informed nonsense. eg the americans have danish and norwegian weapons engineeers embedded in the program. we have a greater range of certified and cleared pckages available to all of us than would even be remotely possible going with a single host solution.

Quite frankly who cares what your weapons release options are for Rafale? You have a problem on selection, the member countriesfor JSF don't. We can pull in common weapons and technology spares from allies and partners across the globe. We can fight globally, and we can pick up components and weapons sets without having to uplift that logistics set from "home" thus easing and speeding up deployment at short notice (we already can and do "do it" with the US). Every nation in the JSF partnering set can do the same.

Again, in really really simple terms it's called risk mitigation, risk redundancy and logistics balancing - and it works at a tactical conflict, strategic conflict and non conflict level.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust typos 3/11/2009 6:07:31 PM

apols to all for typos/grammar/spelling and font changes - :) but patience is wearing thin...

Quote Reply

Phaid 3/11/2009 7:19:25 PM

That's true. I was actually trying to think of a concise way to say "recent / in-production" but was too tired so I gave up and forged ahead.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 3/11/2009 8:40:04 PM

Final software validation and delivery of the first AESA system to Dassault is planned for early 2010. Low-rate production will involve only a handful of radars.

correction: (brain fart and a loss in translation) should be:

Interesting, now the French have reversed the economies of scale model where low rate production and high sunk costs is now a low on sell cost benefit to a low rate production platform. (Look at the break even rate on Typhoon) Apparently low rate production is cheaper than volume rate (esp interesting considering that there are no low rate "sunk" development and production costs.

No doubt we will now get lectured on how Rafale has resolved the universal problem of keeping LRP Costs down low due to the fact that they developed a new financial model where early de velopment and production sunk costs (traditionally high) are now able to be amortised early in the development cycle (and now apparently flow on with cost differentiation on low rate production costs and a final low rate platform cost. (Remarkable when there is only one customer and that customer has slowed the purchase rate and can't offset it against anythingexcept anticipated volume sales)

Quote Reply

JP Bergerac Droit de r�ponse: warfighter vs engineer 3/11/2009 8:42:55 PM

First of all, apologise for the length of my post. But much had to be said.

Second: insults are not going to convince me I'm wrong, quite the opposite. Please stick to cartesian arguments.

Third: I gather from the comments of Herald and Co that you Rafale bashers are tech oriented (engineers etc) with access to inside info on US jets and/or Typhoon. I'm the opposite: military fighter and tester with inside knowledge of the Rafale. So I do know my stuff, with a different perspective. So you might challenge my data when we get in specific details on US hardware but I have read enormous amounts of unfounded assertions concerning Rafale's techno level, which is obviously very much underestimated. Whether by lack of recent info or straightforward hostility, I prefer not to try and guess. E.g. of course I know the difference between bolting on a pod and doing a clean integration. We have moved in recent years from solutions 1 to 2, the development is funded and well under way and =to my knowledge= (I might be off a couple of months either direction) it is qualified although not yet fielded - just a question of deliveries and fleet configuration management (not to mention ? flow).

I made a point about optimisation, any engineer will understand. My comment about antenna size was intentionally provocative. What I meant was:

1. depending on the numbers, better have a small and powerful antenna than a big lousy one. Total efficiency is what counts, not one isolated factor

2. it's no use having an antenna the size of an E-3 field if you then can't land the aircraft properly or end up having the agility of an airliner. Conclusion : the bigger the better is true only up to a point and there is no ideal size, the compromise depends on your mission requirements. Typhoon is mostly AtA focused hence big dish, Rafale is more diversified plus has the carrier reqts., hence smaller dish. Typhoon sees better at very long range (beyond missile range) but Rafale is much more comfortable at the merge, when range is not an issue but multi target tracking is.

MMI: I used to know the Rafale's inside out (including in flight, not only in ppt presentations or from aviation week) and still remember a lot. F-22 : I happened to get a ride in a demo sim at Lockheed Martin Marietta a couple of years ago. Certainly not production representative and void of any classified stuff. But it does give away the general philosophy : to me it was more an evolved version of an F/A 18 (have flown it) type, with nice big colour MFDs and a lot of pushbuttons all around, than some of the really innovative solutions tested on Rafale. In the latter case you get a much cleaner cockpit, less buttons and less screens, and a lot of work put into the way info is displayed, hence much more easy to process during fight.

Last comment before I go to sleep: Reco NG is NOT a laser designation pod, but a world class recce pod event he US doesn't have. Buffoonery to be avoided.

Cheers to all and see you all soon

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NEXT

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us