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: Rafale Thread
Softwar    3/9/2009 9:47:25 AM
Started with hope that BW will limit his comments here instead of in every other Fighter thread. I'll start off with: 1 - no export sales 2 - no laser designator 3 - no AESA 4 - overpriced 4th gen fighter
 
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 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53   NEXT
RockyMTNClimber    Rafale v. P40, one more thing...   3/10/2009 5:31:54 PM
No P40 pilot ever needed an airplane that was 10 years older than his Warhawk to aim his bombs for him.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/10/2009 5:49:14 PM
Some have link-16, some don't.  Some have an IRST, others don't.  Soon a few will have AESAs, while the rest of the fleet will not.   This is one reason why France mothballed some of its earlier Rafales rather than try to upgrade them to the current standard. 

add in the fact that a considerable number of existing JSF members are also in the Link-22 prog, then you have another capability vector that is a golden league away from what Rafale can deliver in the next 5 years. These are nations that have a Link16 footprint between air land and sea, with the same requirement for Link22.  The french have it on AWACs and some Rafales.  In absolute terms, in 5 years time(assuming no change in national military policies)  the Turks will have a larger and more capable air organic electronic sensor warfighting footprint than France.

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       3/10/2009 8:07:13 PM
I'm just trying to get, I know hopeless, BW and others to place the Rafale in a context where it needn't be "all that" or a piece of Sh*te...and the P-40 seemed one of those contexts.  It was a very important a/c in a number of theatres, just not dominant like other a/c were.
 
Rafale is ideally suited for the French military posture: it is capable of doing basic interception over its homeland or a CVBG, and just survivable enough to launch reprisal strikes against known point targets (and, as BW pointed out, one-way nuclear strikes against Russia).  Its air to air capability is an incremental improvement over the Mirage 2000-5 and its ground attack capability is an incremental improvement over the Mirage 2000N, and it combines the two.  It is not intended or equipped to perform most missions that would be required of expeditionary warfare: no CAS, no SEAD, no reconnaissance, no offensive counter-air.  Unfortunately, it keeps being put into competitions where it is expected to demonstrate those capabilities, and pitted against aircraft which have done so.
 
Because, seriously:
- It has no credible CAS weapon and is totally incapable of conducting it efficiently.  It either has to use the wildly expensive AASM or have another aircraft designate for a pair of LGBs it can carry.  Showboat capability at best.
 
- It likewise has no real SEAD ability; while a weapon like AASM can theoretically be used for SEAD, in real life its lack of an integral RH capability makes it useful only for SEAD if the Rafale is working with other assets that can locate targets for it.
 
- No reconnaissance.  Speaks for itself, there is no hardware available.
 
- No offensive counter air.  The Rafale's air to air capability is adequate for a point defense interceptor and for self-defense in low level penetration strikes, but not anywhere else.  The Rafale's radar will never be competitive with peers; by the time its AESA gets fielded, it will be facing later-generation, larger and more powerful AESA sets.  Likewise it has no competitive BVR missiles.  It is a sitting duck in a high altitude BVR fight, which is what OCA requires.
This doesn't mean Rafale is useless; it is well suited to fulfilling French military ambitions of presenting a reasonably credible nuclear threat and showing the flag in coalitions.  Unfortunately for Dassault, most potential buyers need aircraft that are more well-rounded, and for that there are simply too many airplanes that either do the same missions as Rafale more effectively, more efficiently, or both.
 
Quote    Reply

JP Bergerac       3/10/2009 8:19:29 PM
This thread is so full of vile and unjustified comment that I feel a nobligation to correct.
 
1 - no export sales
Not yet. We hope this will be corrected. Doesn't mean the aircraft is bad (look at the TSR1: great performer, killed for political reasons under US pressure in favour of the much less capable =and much less sovereign= F111, which the RAF was finally wise enough not to acquire). Reasons for this may include any of the following : I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the US do tend to dislike world class contenders to their own products, and were particularly harsh to France during the post Irak 2003 years / Dassault have great engineers but obnoxious salesmen / all technical aspects put aside, it is more conforting for a government to trust 4 European countries for quality, cost effectiveness and longevity of a fighter, than one single country, plus more diplomatic benefits. Only problem, too much national pride and legit national sovereignty /industry concerns tend to create, rather than alleviate, design flaws and cost / time overruns. Ever seen the cartoon describing "a horse designed by a committee?" You end up getting a camel. That's what the Eurofighter really is.
2 - 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).
3 - 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
4 - overpriced 4th gen fighter:
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. 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. 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. Etc. Compromises in favour of stealth bring terrible penalties in the area of weapons carriage probably not worth the price, although I hope for the peace of mind of the US taxpayer that, all things considered, it does outperform the Rafale :-). 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. "master of all trades" etc. I think the Rafale did a much better job at optisation rather than pursuing impossible compromises, as is often done in fighter pojects. Overpriced: wrong again. It's more expensive than it's 3rd gen elders but not abnormally (a Mirage 2000-5 comes at around 35M? for the French customer, the Rafale at 50M?, but one jet has the combined firepower of 2 M2000-5 and 2 M2000D, with better loiter time/range and much better SA and sensors (not to say the cool air conditioning on the ground). This is for the flya
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       3/10/2009 9:05:27 PM
1 - no export sales
Not yet. We hope this will be corrected. Doesn't mean the aircraft is bad (look at the TSR1: great performer, killed for political reasons under US pressure in favour of the much less capable =and much less sovereign= F111, which the RAF was finally wise enough not to acquire).
 
Oh this should be interesting.
 
I am curious as to why you think the F-111 was/is "much" less capable than the TSR?
 
True, the TSR had some rather innovative systems for the period, however, the Poms did eventually go for a variable geometry striker which has evolved into a better platform than even the TSR.2 could have hoped to be.
 
Nothing wrong with the old Pig when compared to the TSR.2.
 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       3/10/2009 9:23:05 PM


This thread is so full of vile and unjustified comment that I feel a nobligation to correct.


 

1 - no export sales
 
Not yet. We hope this will be corrected. Doesn't mean the aircraft is bad (look at the TSR1: great performer, killed for political reasons under US pressure in favour of the much less capable =and much less sovereign= F111, which the RAF was finally wise enough not to acquire). Reasons for this may include any of the following : I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the US do tend to dislike world class contenders to their own products, and were particularly harsh to France during the post Irak 2003 years / Dassault have great engineers but obnoxious salesmen / all technical aspects put aside, it is more conforting for a government to trust 4 European countries for quality, cost effectiveness and longevity of a fighter, than one single country, plus more diplomatic benefits. Only problem, too much national pride and legit national sovereignty /industry concerns tend to create, rather than alleviate, design flaws and cost / time overruns. Ever seen the cartoon describing "a horse designed by a committee?" You end up getting a camel. That's what the Eurofighter really is.


Eurofighter is the second best fighter out there flying. Period. 

2 - 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).
Nope. Hang from a hardpoint is not the same as wired for.

3 - 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
 
Leroy answered this as I did as well. The RBE2 is a failed radar that an  ARM can exploit.

4 - overpriced 4th gen fighter:

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. 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. 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. Etc. Compromises in favour of stealth bring terrible penalties in the area of weapons carriage probably not worth the price, although I hope for the peace of mind of the US taxpayer that, all things considered, it does outperform the Rafale :-). 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. "master of all trades" etc. I think the Rafale did a much better job at Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/10/2009 10:50:22 PM


Not yet. We hope this will be corrected. Doesn't mean the aircraft is bad (look at the TSR1: great performer, killed for political reasons under US pressure in favour of the much less capable =and much less sovereign= F111, which the RAF was finally wise enough not to acquire). Reasons for this may include any of the following : I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the US do tend to dislike world class contenders to their own products, and were particularly harsh to France during the post Irak 2003 years / Dassault have great engineers but obnoxious salesmen / all technical aspects put aside, it is more conforting for a government to trust 4 European countries for quality, cost effectiveness and longevity of a fighter, than one single country, plus more diplomatic benefits. Only problem, too much national pride and legit national sovereignty /industry concerns tend to create, rather than alleviate, design flaws and cost / time overruns. Ever seen the cartoon describing "a horse designed by a committee?" You end up getting a camel. That's what the Eurofighter really is.



Eurofighter is the second best fighter out there flying. Period. 
By what standards? That's certainly just an opinion. "Best" depends on requirements. Because if we are looking solely at absolute capability in a vacuum I think the late model F-15 variants and the F/A-18E/F could also be called "second best".

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       3/10/2009 11:25:32 PM







Not yet. We hope this will be corrected. Doesn't mean the aircraft is bad (look at the TSR1: great performer, killed for political reasons under US pressure in favour of the much less capable =and much less sovereign= F111, which the RAF was finally wise enough not to acquire). Reasons for this may include any of the following : I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the US do tend to dislike world class contenders to their own products, and were particularly harsh to France during the post Irak 2003 years / Dassault have great engineers but obnoxious salesmen / all technical aspects put aside, it is more conforting for a government to trust 4 European countries for quality, cost effectiveness and longevity of a fighter, than one single country, plus more diplomatic benefits. Only problem, too much national pride and legit national sovereignty /industry concerns tend to create, rather than alleviate, design flaws and cost / time overruns. Ever seen the cartoon describing "a horse designed by a committee?" You end up getting a camel. That's what the Eurofighter really is.








Eurofighter is the second best fighter out there flying. Period. 






By what standards? That's certainly just an opinion. "Best" depends on requirements. Because if we are looking solely at absolute capability in a vacuum I think the late model F-15 variants and the F/A-18E/F could also be called "second best".




-DA 


Eurofighter's aerodynamics are better than F-15.  F-15 is probably better on offense with its fuel load but Typhoon is better on defense or the classic message board "joust over neutral territory with 50% fuel and no AWACS."  F-15 with AESA will win unless Typhoon has Meteor.  When Typhoon has AESA and Meteor it gets close to F-22 capability in terms of engaging Su's.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/10/2009 11:28:05 PM
Softwar :
""The reason why I started this thread is to try an restrict you to the subject at hand - not Raptor, not Hornet, not F-15, not Flanker, not Falcon but Rafale and its more than obvious shortcomings.""
 
I understand , I am sorry .
I can 't answer everyone so I will stick to the thread .
 
The Rafale has many shortcomings and some that are only known to the French ... (I know it 's a bad start)
The Rafale program has only three shortcomings : the funding , the funding . And the funding .
 
Technologically speaking , the Rafale has also many shortcomings : its radar size , no real LO airframe , just enough onboard power  , it needs the latest Snecma engines , its full ECM suite is nowhere ready , its Optronics should be better , its full armory is nowhere ready , it doesn 't fly high and fast enough (to my liking) , its refueling probe should be retractable , HMS should be in use , etc ...
 
On the other hand , it has some good features : it is an excellent flyer with a very strong cellule , it has a (very) good range for a Fighter of its size , it is Carrier friendly (!) , it is discreet , it doesn 't burn a lot of fuel (economical) , its Pilot is usally excellent ;-)
 
What could be better on the Rafale : basically everything . But France being at peace and having some budget problems for now a long time just can 't spend what She should on the Military . This fact cannot be ignored .
Now , if we had :
1) the will and the money
or
2) a war threatening France
Things would be much different , but it is not the case . So we restrict the military budget . Are we right or wrong is another debate and my views cannot be shared here .
 
Now , if the Rafale program would have followed its initial plan + the new tech involved backed with a proper funding , we would indeed have a killer , which is not the case . Compare to other aircraft of the same generation , it should fare much better than it does .
We all know (some more than others) what a real F3+ Rafale could be . A Rafale with all the bells and whistles could wreak havoc over any airspace bare the USA airspace . This is what Dassault wanted from the very first paper sheet .
Unfortunatly , France did not follow Dassault . The now end product is missing much ...
Nevertheless , the AdA and the MN are doing what they can to push things forward and the Geopolitical situation of today is asking more from Sarkozy . What the answer will be is not known at this time ...
 
Since A-Stan seems to be the corner stone of the new USA-French relationship and since the CdG will be at Sea soon , some are looking closely at a new direction with the things at hand , military speaking .
Sorry for leaving a bit the thread but important things must be said . 
 
Now , what the Rafale is capable of today is to be better than our M2000s . That 's a good start .
On the international scene , unless Sarkozy decides to employ the Rafale and to fund the most wanted upgrades , France will have to find the money with its possible customers (which is a nonsence to me) . Futur will tell .
 
All these years , I believed in a full F3+ Rafale and it is why I have been so much of a supporter of the program , sometimes over the top .
 
I have tried to be as honest as I can be in this very post .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/10/2009 11:58:36 PM
JP , kudos for coming here from time to time . Maybe you shouldn 't ...
You could take Herald in the back seat , he still would hold the same talk and attitude . Poor him ...
 
Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply



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