The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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: What is wrong with the Rafale?
Rufus    5/9/2009 10:16:10 AM
I have noticed a lot of discussion on here lately about the Rafale and its inability to compete with the various other late 4th generation designs on the market today. In an effort to shed some light on this issue I have taken a moment to list some of the Rafale's major crippling flaws and their origins.

The single biggest issue with the Rafale, and the common thread throughout most of its major design flaws, is that its design team simply lacked sufficient vision of where the future of fighter aviation was heading. Throughout the Rafale's design process its designers chose to go with incremental improvements rather than generational leaps in technology. The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29. The end result is a somewhat refined, but badly overpriced aircraft that has struggled to even compete with the aircraft it was designed to match, and utterly lacks the potential to compete with newer designs.

The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features. The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders. What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.

Not only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter. As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach.

Like its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase. While the Rafale was largely successful in matching the interfaces seen in US fighters in the early 90s, its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading. Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production. It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight, and numerous other advanced features such as the Super Hornet's fully decoupled interfaces. Most critically, the Rafale's man machine interface lacks the defining features of a 5th generation design, such as advanced sensor fusion and sophisticated multi-purpose helmet mounted displays.

Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end. Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar. The best the Rafale can hope to do is close some of its radar performance gap with aircraft like the F-16, but will never be capable of competing with designs like the Eurofighter or Super Hornet.

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite. As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats. The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system. By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters. The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems. Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.) Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers, so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)

So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts. By the time the Rafale design team recognized they had misjudged the direction of future designs, they lacked the resources and time to correct their mistakes. Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.
 
Quote    Reply

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   NEXT
Bluewings12       5/14/2009 7:40:48 PM
Herald :
""(me) The French only have themselves to blame but hey , we 're not sluts and thieves .
 You're right, not sluts and thieves -- just incompetent at business.""
 
Thank you , I take it as a compliment . The rest of your post clearly shows that you do not want to talk about the USA deal to Marocco ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       5/14/2009 7:50:36 PM
I'm late to the game here (sorry, vacations don't take themselves!), but at first, I was going to praise BW for his very frank admittance on page 1 of this thread of the Rafale's shortcomings.  That is, until I read his latest "The Rafale's not selling because the evil Americans are keeping us from selling it!"
 
Please, ninja.
 
Dassault had a winner with its Mirage series, and the Mirage III/5 came out during a time when the market was also saturated with quality American products like the A-4 and F-4 and pretty decent Russian stuff too, like the MiG-21.  But Mirage III/5s sold like hotcakes.  It wasn't even that great of an aircraft--the Mirage needed long runways and suffered from engine problems; the Mirage 5 didn't even have a radar!  But they sold, because despite its drawbacks, the Mirage was a solid, robust design.  True, some nations bought it because the US wouldn't sell to them and they didn't want the strings attached that came with a Russian sale.  And there's no reason the Rafale can't do the same, because there's plenty of nations out there who don't want to buy second-hand F-16s or barely serviceable MiGs. 
 
But it's not doing it, and not because the eeeeevil Americans are weaving magic spells to keep nations from buying Rafales.  The Rafale isn't selling because it's too expensive, it's not capable enough, or there's something else wrong with the aircraft.  I may not wholly agree with Rufus on everything he posted, but when the only person you can sell to is Qaddafi the Mad, you've got problems.
 
Morocco should have bought the Rafale: they've always enjoyed close ties to France.  So has Egypt, so has India.  But they're not biting.  That should tell Dassault that either they've blown it on the Rafale's PR or they've blown it with the design.
 
I don't know.  But I do know that Rufus makes a valid point: the Rafale was designed to replace 30-year old designs like the F-8FN, the Super Etendard, and the Jaguar.  It's done all those and done it well.  The problem is that not too many nations ever flew those three designs.  Could this be a case of France trying to push the Rafale into a role it's not suited for?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Second bolo in a row.   5/14/2009 7:51:02 PM

Herald :

""(me) The French only have themselves to blame but hey , we 're not sluts and thieves .
 You're right, not sluts and thieves -- just incompetent at business.""

 

Thank you , I take it as a compliment . The rest of your post clearly shows that you do not want to talk about the USA deal to Marocco ...


 

Cheers .



That, again, is Phaid; not ME. 

Are you having trouble keeping names straight? 

Shrug. If the RAF wants an AESA this year for TYPHOON, all they have to do is contact Hughes or better  RAYTHEON and fly them over for backfit. Ours work.

They don't need them yet.. CAPTOR works just fine and CAESAR will be there when they need it.   
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/14/2009 7:56:39 PM
BW,

You should just probably accept that the Rafale is a failed program with regard to exports and the only blame lies with it being too French, too late and too much.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/14/2009 8:02:04 PM
Herald (or is it Phaid ? lol)
 
""That, again, is Phaid; not ME. 
Are you having trouble keeping names straight? ""
 
Yes I do , obviously lol ! Don 't ask me why , I don 't bloody know ...
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/14/2009 8:12:41 PM
DA :
""You should just probably accept that the Rafale is a failed program with regard to exports and the only blame lies with it being too French, too late and too much.""
 
Well ... I can 't accept that because it is not the truth . I can understand the "too French , too late , too much" the way you see it  (while I disagree) but the reason why the Rafale failed and missed around 300 sales has already been explained .
Don 't defend a ghost DA or you 'll endorse its curse .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/14/2009 8:41:26 PM
As it is now , the Rafale is perfectly fitting the FAF and the MN and could also fit any other airforce with a territory much bigger than France , it has the legs .

It is now in its F3 version and in 3 years time , the Rafale program will be completed . Typhoon and Gripen are slowly getting multi-role and are flying real A2A CAPs . F-35 is still a prototype with some problems .
 
Rafale has been operational for over 6 years , the jet has participated at real war operations for over 3 years , it has successfully demonstrated its ability to fight in various missions and meetings and more importantly , the French Rafale Drivers are at least 5 to 8 years ahead of any Typhoon , Gripen , F-35 driver in operational terms , to say the least . Think about it Gentlemen and appreciate the difference ...
 
Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/14/2009 8:53:20 PM
And some say that the Eurofighter Typhoon was a better bet for Europe and Dassault was wrong to bug out ...
Pfff ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       5/14/2009 10:57:08 PM
I appreciate the fact that the Rafale needed a 30 year old Super Etendard to lase its targets for it.
 
I also appreciate the fact that the Typhoon, the Gripen, and the F-35 have a hell of a lot more export sales than the Rafale does.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/15/2009 6:01:51 AM

I appreciate the fact that the Rafale needed a 30 year old Super Etendard to lase its targets for it.

 

I also appreciate the fact that the Typhoon, the Gripen, and the F-35 have a hell of a lot more export sales than the Rafale does.

 

 


Typhoon erxpeort sales are FAR from being a hell of a lot, not even on par with that of the Mirage 2000, as for basing the qualities of the airfraft on experot sales aloen it is forgeting a simple FACT.
In ALL competitions where Rafale was pitted against Typhoon, Typhoon was the trechnical looser.
 
Regards, PLG
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/15/2009 7:28:59 AM
I appreciate the fact that the Rafale needed a 30 year old Super Etendard to lase its targets for it.

I also appreciate the fact that the Typhoon, the Gripen, and the F-35 have a hell of a lot more export sales than the Rafale does.

Which sales?
For Gripen,  Sweden leases 28 of the aircraft, including four two-seaters, to the Czech and Hungarian Air Forces.
Not a sale but a lease of Swedish aircraft.
Gripen has won only in South Africa (against M2000-5) and Thailand (no french aircraft proposal)
Less than 40 aircafts sold.
We have sold more than 150 aircraft of its closer competitor (M2000-5/9)
 
Typhoon
Austrian sales were those of Luftwaffe which is the mother air force of Austrian air force (we could wonder if Austrian army see it self as something else than an extention of german armed forces).No french aircraft were even proposed  (and some Austrian officer regretted we did not propose M2000-5).
Sales to saudia arabia are purely political.Saudis give its air force budget only to USA or Britain since half a century to reward them (and give its navy budget to France).Saudi air force is a joke and only a symbolic force.Real defense is done by USA, UK mainly and France (so it is why we were in the Gulf war).
 
To summarize, Gripen and Eurofighter sales are marginal.
 
 
 



 
 
Quote    Reply

Seagull       5/15/2009 7:33:35 AM
There are a lot of things here that looks wrong to me.
 
StrategyPage is full of people who seems to draw wrong conclusions from prediction-less Rafale's current situation on the export market.
 
"It doesn't sell, thus, it's crap".
Looks like intellectual laziness or utter provocation, both due to boredness in reaction to what some French members systematically try to do.
 
I'm French too.
 
The Rufus message ignores facts, ignores programme history, underestimate many systems, and attacks French because in 1983, they didn't make a F-35/22. This is quite insulting.
 
I have noticed a lot of discussion on here lately about the Rafale and its inability to compete with the various other late 4th generation designs on the market today. In an effort to shed some light on this issue I have taken a moment to list some of the Rafale's major crippling flaws and their origins.
Ok, but Rafale isn't the only one to have lost to F-15 in Korea and Singapore. Ok ?

The single biggest issue with the Rafale, and the common thread throughout most of its major design flaws, is that its design team simply lacked sufficient vision of where the future of fighter aviation was heading.
Not very accurate, though the conclusion is ok. They lacked the MONEY.
Did you ever read about Rafale D ? History would tell you that the France asked Dassault to propose several level of stealth on Rafale, after the Rafale A.
The Rafale C01 was not the stealthier : it was a sufficient compromise (stealth/cost) regarding the requirements.
 With the event of F-117 during Gulf War, it had become obvious to everybody that RCS reduction was an absolute need.
 
US didn't have "sufficient vision of where future of fighter aviation was heading". They DEFINE it.
 
 
Throughout the Rafale's design process its designers chose to go with incremental improvements rather than generational leaps in technology. The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29.
No.
The catch-up for the F-16 was the M2000. Again, history would learn you that the M2000 is designed as a light fighter to beat the F-16, compete against F-16 on export market.
I'm not saying it succeeded in either of the goals. I'm just informing you about things you may have missed.
Rafale was to do much better than this. At the very begining, the project Rapace defined a highly maneuverable airframe, which became the ACX, etc. The target was obviously AT LEAST the M2000.
 
-ACX was not to replace only 30 years old designs. ACX (Rafale) was to replace EVERY fighter in France, including the M2000.-
 
 The end result is a somewhat refined, but badly overpriced aircraft that has struggled to even compete with the aircraft it was designed to match, and utterly lacks the potential to compete with newer designs.
A fighter made to match the F-15 was the Mirage 4000.
Rafale is even newer. It's obvious that the problem does'nt come from the airframe. Then ?
 
Is the Rafale overpriced ? Comparing it with Typhoon for example proves that it isn't.
 
Why do you say it's overpriced ? Because it competes with older and upgraded design which are cheaper. 
What is the reason why it looses to F-15, and F-16 ?
-Price, ok ;
-Lies : Korea wasn't a proper competition. The second part proved it, even Eurofighter refused to compete because the F-15 had already won ;
-Confusion (Morocco : no comment).
 

The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features.
Only makes sens when compared to F-22 and F-35.
Comparing Rafale with Super Hornet, Typhoon or Gripen would make your comment much uninteresting to the debate.
 
The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders.
Oh man ! You'd prefer Rafale being a paper plane ? 
"prominent intakes" ? Hidden from above, and air conduct double-S shaped.
The "non-retractable refueling probe" is a joke. Any Rafale'RCS basher will attack on this particular point. Do you think this probe is really as significant as a square air-intake ?
 
What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.
LoL.
Dude, France never wanted a Rafale with a F-22 RCS. The EM/IR signature requirements were just MUCH less demanding.
 
There were REQUIREMENTS and the Rafale had to fit them. It does. They are quite good it seems, for a "4th gen". They are 10 to 20 times better than for the M2000.
 
Thus, you're whole paragraph is just an equivalent of this one :
"Ok, we've got the Mirage 2000. We must improve it. Let's add another engine, and canards. Let's improve internal ESM/ECM. Ok.
Oh shit ! Future is stealth ! How can we make our plane stealthier ? Oh no ! We'll never make a 0.000000001m² Rafale... We failed."
This is a poor understanding of what happened, and deserves a "LoL".
 

Not only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter.
In dogfights exercises, Rafale have shown superior to later platforms :
M2000 of course, F-15, F-16, F-18, Gripen.
About Typhoon, we just don't know. Even rumors are inconsistent. There's nothing official YET proving that Typhoon enjoys an edge over Rafale in dogfight.
In a 2004 book, one of the Rafale programme manager was still confident that Rafale was to be a better dogfighter for the reasons PlG told us (effects of properly designed CLOSE-COUPLED canards).
Anything you can read is based on aerodynamic misunderstanding of one or the other and comes from marketing efforts.
 
 
As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach.
 The real reason is that Lavy would have been a competitor against F-16 and F/A-18 funded by USA. Unacceptable.
Israël couldn't go on (but wanted to) when US withdrew. 
Lavy was close to F-16C/D, slightly better in some area, but with a better supersonic performance.
I think you're trying to imply that Lavy and Rafale have similar performance. Ok. Then, let's compare conventional tail fighters : Mirage F1 and F-16 are equal in maneuverability. He he ! 

Like its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase.
Dassault claims to have pioneered the HOTAS concept (3M = Main sur Manette et Manche). I haven't checked.
 But it's true they adopted the side stick "à la" F-16, because it's a good solution.
 
While the Rafale was largely successful in matching the interfaces seen in US fighters in the early 90s, its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading. Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production.
Why ? ... ?
Pilots feel very good in a Rafale pit. You should read the reports in the media. Google it.
The cockpit layout is always described as futuristic and good. The HLD (Head Level Display) provides (as said Bill Sweetman) a God's view "a la F-22". Side screens are touch sensitive so as to use wider screens. All well compatible with NVG.
You talk about it just like if you had tested all the pits ! I sincerely doubt it's what happened.
Up to now, you describe Rafale as a badly failed F-35/22 !!! That's stupid.
 
 It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight
 True.
 
, and numerous other advanced features such as the Super Hornet's fully decoupled interfaces.
 LoL. No. Simply wrong.
 
Most critically, the Rafale's man machine interface lacks the defining features of a 5th generation design, such as advanced sensor fusion and sophisticated multi-purpose helmet mounted displays.
Sensor fusion is one of the best achievements on Rafale. Dassault is proud about it, and pilots love it. This is even the reason why it takes so long to get Damocles on Rafale. It's not the same as getting it works on a Super Etendard. You're wrong. You simply don't know what you talk about.
You think that what America do is necessarily much better than anything else especially if it's french.
 
I don't even try to say that Rafale has an edge over US tech.

Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end.
 As PlG said.
RBE-2 range is the same as RDY. RDY IS NEVER USED AT ITS FULL RANGE. There is simply NO NEED against "known threats". Go ask a French pilot about the lack of range. You'll look like a fine guy, because he will smile. People love to smile.
 
PESA is a dead-end. As is MSA.
The fact is that you prefer sticking to your wrong beliefs. Actually, RBE-2 has been designed from the begining with the AESA upgrade in mind (this has been widely reported, thus, i conclude that in fact, you are not interested in Rafale AT ALL).
PESA is ALREADY an electronically scanned array. In terms of software, it implies a lot. A lot of code simply remains, or will just have to be improved to take advantage of the new possibilities.
 
 
Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar.
Let's wait a bit before you talk about competitiveness.
 
[...]
 

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite.
Not RWR. ESM. I agree with  the word "misunderstood".  This applies to all ESM/ECM systems. LoL
 
As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats.
+ laser and IR.
 
The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system.
... ROFL. Oh, i see, you REALLY know what you're talking about... I guess you write what you've been "told". LoL
 
 By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters.
10 years at least.
Any document to support your claims ? LoL
 
 
The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems.
 Idem
 
Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.
Funding shortage ? LoL. Spectra is the costliest part of the Rafale.
So, again, what are you talking about ? Did you dream it ? 
 
Spectra antennas are AESA. I'm not sure it's the worst tech you'll find on a fighter. Then, it's the usual digital DRFM etc... Really, on public source, i don't know what it lacks.
 

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.)
Ok. So, the Captor AESA will have the same problems.
 
Question : why do you say that our MMIC are "narrow band and inefficient" ? Because US tech is the must-have ?
 
 
Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers
But what do you know about what it offers ? LoL Spectra is certainly not something we'd want to replace.
 
so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)
AAAAaaaaaaaaaaaah ok. That's what i've been expecting since the begining. F-35 is god, then everything else CAN NOT be worth the cost.
 

So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts.
Other design teams = Boeing and Lockheed (LM). God bless America.
 You underestimate Rafale systems without reasons but your belief is that F-22/35 are GOD.
 
By the time the Rafale design team recognized they had misjudged the direction of future designs, they lacked the resources and time to correct their mistakes.
LoL. Go talk with them, you'll see how well  they recognize their misjudgings.
 
Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc
No. Wrong again.
Ok for the radar, but jammers won't be modified, just upgraded, but this is natural. Computers will be upgraded so as to never be "obsolete". The F3 Rafale being delivered now already have differents chips, and this has nothing to do with export.
 
 so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.
 The same apply to all 4th gen (including Typhoon).
 

All in all, the Rufus comment is full of nonsense and stupid unfunded claims.
 
This is a pure imagination work which i first took for humour.
 
 
What is wrong with Rafale ?
Origins : lacks of funding, delays. This alone induced a lot of problems (weapon integration, lack of some key developments -engines, radar-).
 
 
Rufus seems to believe that when Rafale programme started, French were wrong not to go for a F-35 like fighter, a programme imagined much later.
 
 
What's going on for the Rafale now ?
 
-Dassault will give a BAFO (Best And Final Offer) to Brazil on the 8th of June. This include full ToT at leat ;
-France has signed agreements with Ruag and Pilatus in Switzerland. The competition just goes on ;
-At le Bourget, for the first time, we should see a Rafale with Meteors on the external wing station for UAE (i'm not talking about the wingtip  station, but the third station never used by France). Not only Meteor, but also new 68mm rocket launcher (operational need for Afghanistan) ;
-if UAE signs, it's quite probable that a 90kN M88 will be part of the contract ;
-our MoD refused to talk about Lybia, because he fears about what Americans could do (he refers to what happened to Morroco).
 
 
 
UAE, Brazil, Switzerland ? Will Dassault fail on the three ?
 
If it finally succeed at least for one... What will the conclusions of StrategyPage become, since they are all based upon the fact that up to now, Rafale doesn't sell ?
 
 
For 2012, Rafale will HAVE (no joke) AESA (with modules provided by UMS as for the future Captor), it will have Damocles for laser designation. = radar range : solved, laser capability : solved.
 
If UAE signs, it should have for 2013 : 90kN engine + Meteor + don't know what.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Not a [art of the clown circus so I can reply with clear objectivity    5/15/2009 11:59:37 AM

There are a lot of things here that looks wrong to me.

 

StrategyPage is full of people who seems to draw wrong conclusions from prediction-less Rafale's current situation on the export market.

True. Most of them belong to that camp who are technically unqualified to hold an opinion on whether the sun will even appear tomorrow
 

"It doesn't sell, thus, it's crap"
 
The Rafale is not crap. It is a bomb truck.
 
Looks like intellectual laziness or utter provocation, both due to boredness in reaction to what some French members systematically try to do.

The qualified posters receive qualified answers., Some of us are just tired of the fanboys.
 
I'm French too.

I don't see that as a problem.

The Rufus message ignores facts, ignores programme history, underestimate many systems, and attacks French because in 1983, they didn't make a F-35/22. This is quite insulting.

Maybe the point was that he overestimated the tech tree and maybe he didn't understand the FRENCH requirement at the time.  The fact is that Phaid for example on several occasions points out that Rafale fits French needs first. its logical. Some of us do know that.
 
I have noticed a lot of discussion on here lately about the Rafale and its inability to compete with the various other late 4th generation designs on the market today. In an effort to shed some light on this issue I have taken a moment to list some of the Rafale's major crippling flaws and their origins.
 
General statement.

Ok, but Rafale isn't the only one to have lost to F-15 in Korea and Singapore. Ok ?

Typhoon lost because it wasn't a good fit for Singapore at the time. its oriented to air superiority more than the Rafale. The Rafale failed because it couldn't carry the Heinenmann family of interfaced weapons and the radar and promary missile offered  with Rafale was a piece of junk. Sorry but when the choice is AMRAAM versu Mica and the choice is PAVEWAY versus NOTHING Rafale was going to lose. The BEAGLE, Singapore version, is just too good at the price.


The single biggest issue with the Rafale, and the common thread throughout most of its major design flaws, is that its design team simply lacked sufficient vision of where the future of fighter aviation was heading.

Not very accurate, though the conclusion is ok. They lacked the MONEY.
 
To be blunt: Dassault LIED. They promised the moon, and the French government asked how much and how soon?  The thieves said ten years and saomething like 5 billion Euros. Well thrice the time and almost twice the money later, the PESA radar doesn't work, the MICA doesn't work and just now are the family of standoff A2G minitions that Rafale needs as well as the targeting systems just coming out of develipment into sewrvice. There won't be many standoff weapons and there won't be many bomb trucks. That is MISMANAGEMENT and that is all Dassault and THALES. I don't bl;ame the French people or the French government for this. They gave everything Dassauklt and THALES asked.        

Did you ever read about Rafale D ? History would tell you that the France asked Dassault to propose several level of stealth on Rafale, after the Rafale A.
 
You can't rework  tjhe airframe. All you can do is tweak a little, and based on the poor Rafale product seen, I wouldn't trust Dassault to rework a paving contract.

Upgrade path is just not there. See the Boeing RCS reduction effort on the Eagle as a US farce along this line.
 
The Rafale C01 was not the stealthier : it was a sufficient compromise (stealth/cost) regarding the requirements.

Signature management was not well done on that bird. Still there are things you CAN DO.. The M-88 meeds its combustion pot fixed. That will help. Better panel fits will help, a better radar that won't leak sodelobe noise will help. Rework the tail so that it isn't a huge broadcast antenna. That will help. . 
 With the event of F-117 during Gulf War, it had become obvious to everybody that RCS reduction was an absolute need.

Sigmature management. Reduced RCS does you no good if noise, heat, radio emissions and a few other things I will not mention give you away. 
 
US didn't have "sufficient vision of where future of fighter aviation was heading". They DEFINE it.

Not true. RUSSIAN  and American interaction through their proxies and their direct confrontation defined a lot of  the direction of where air warfare trended. But Israel, India, Vietnam and the ineffective arab states as well as Iran all contributed to the trends. France in her colonial operations and Britain and the Argentineans influenced air combat (VTOL and naval cruise missile strikes). It wasn't and isn't an all American  show. 
 
Throughout the Rafale's design process its designers chose to go with incremental improvements rather than generational leaps in technology. The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29.

No.

The catch-up for the F-16 was the M2000. Again, history would learn you that the M2000 is designed as a light fighter to beat the F-16, compete against F-16 on export market.

The Mirage 2000 was designed to compete with the Falcon. As an aircraft in battle its been user mishandled.  The Falson in its upgrades has left the M2000 in the dust and in the hands of its users has outperformed expectations. FACT. The M2000 is a good aircraft that wasn't pushed as far as it could have been.  That is not the bird's fault; it was never given the chance.
 
I'm not saying it succeeded in either of the goals. I'm just informing you about things you may have missed.

CREF above.
Rafale was to do much better than this. At the very begining, the project Rapace defined a highly maneuverable airframe, which became the ACX, etc. The target was obviously AT LEAST the M2000.

Rafale was to be the French oine plane fits all missions development.  It woukld be a mracke if one plane could serve all missions but that was Dassault promised and failed to deliver. Omnirole means UNIVERSAL use-not multi-role as the US uses the term. That is something a lot of Rafalke bashers misunderstand. The Rafale has to fit all French tactical aviation roles-both land amd marine .

-ACX was not to replace only 30 years old designs. ACX (Rafale) was to replace EVERY fighter in France, including the M2000.-

CREF above.
 
Etendard  and M2000 are two very different birds.
 
 The end result is a somewhat refined, but badly overpriced aircraft that has struggled to even compete with the aircraft it was designed to match, and utterly lacks the potential to compete with newer designs.

A fighter made to match the F-15 was the Mirage 4000
 
Never was going to happen. You didn't have the engines.or the titanium tech..

Rafale is even newer. It's obvious that the problem does'nt come from the airframe. Then ?

The problem starts with the airframe planform and works out. The canard layout is a poor second choice and a bad guess for an air combat maneuverability compromised air striker, 1980s style. The US and the Russians got it right. We designed missile shovers and slab tail controlled deltas that outpoint you at all alphas, You all got it wrong in Europe. Even Typhoon is wrong in that respect..   
 
Is the Rafale overpriced ? Comparing it with Typhoon for example proves that it isn't.

Typhoon is so much better as an air superiority  aircraft as of now, that I question that statement..Bombtruck wise, Rafale has the edge-will atill have the edge for a while as the new French standoff weapons come into  service. In air to air combat, I wouldn't give much for the French pilot's chances with that current RBE2 radar or the MICA missile. Not with AMRAAM/ASRAAM armed Typhoon with CAPTOR.  No contest. 

Why do you say it's overpriced ? Because it competes with older and upgraded design which are cheaper. 

What is the reason why it looses to F-15, and F-16 ?

-Price, ok ;
 
Engines 
Weapons
Avionics 
Price.
 
A modern Eagle is far  more bang for the buck and it can blast a Rafale into scrap to boot with impunity at equivalent price.  A plane is not just a plane. its what it can use.

-Lies : Korea wasn't a proper competition. The second part proved it, even Eurofighter refused to compete because the F-15 had already won ;

Typhoon wasn't ready. The Koreans wanted the American AESA radar (it works) and the means to laiunch their Tomahawk clone and American weapons. Rafale could do neither. Funny an Americanized (Israelofied?)  Sukhoi probably could.  Rafale couldn't meet the specs.

-Confusion (Morocco : no comment).

  Dassault botched that when they tried to overreach on price. Morrocco told them to kite off.
 

The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features.

Only makes sens when compared to F-22 and F-35.

Comparing Rafale with Super Hornet, Typhoon or Gripen would make your comment much uninteresting to the debate.

Sirper Hornet is a fair comparison. Super Hornet is overall slower and but more maneuverable, has a better radar a better signature management, better weapons, better built, better avionics across the board (especially that AESA radar, which will still be superior to the RBE2 hashup that THALES trots out in two years)  is stronger built for naval use, shorter ranged and is not quite as good a bomb truck.     
 

The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders.

Oh man ! You'd prefer Rafale being a paper plane ?
 
Something is better than nothing, nevertheless, the criticisms in green are deadly accurate.  

"prominent intakes" ? Hidden from above, and air conduct double-S shaped.

Fob defense and its single S per side and still radio leads straight into the spools.
. Hidden from above is irrelevant given the radar target return that huge radar refkecting tail yields from that aspect.

The "non-retractable refueling probe" is a joke. Any Rafale'RCS basher will attack on this particular point. Do you think this probe is really as significant as a square air-intake ?

The SUPER Hornet square intake was deliberate! The Hornet has the rounded intakes similar to the Rafale.
 
 
 Hornet
 
 Now look at Super Hornet:
 
 
 
I already told you that the squaring off was to kill radio reflected return and to reduce the direct spikes as well as improve the intake geometry and full body lift..

What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scrambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.

LoL.

Dude, France never wanted a Rafale with a F-22 RCS. The EM/IR signature requirements were just MUCH less demanding.
 
A less charitable way to say that, was and is,  that Dassault had and HAS no clue, as to how to signature emission manage an aircraft. There are things well within French tech tree capability that they could do if they knew how. Some of these methods are even cost and aircraft production efficient but are EXPENSIVE as front end investment manuyfacturing costs. But they chose not too. That tewlls me a lot about those thieves.  

There were REQUIREMENTS and the Rafale had to fit them. It does. They are quite good it seems, for a "4th gen". They are 10 to 20 times better than for the M2000.

Bear in mind that 20x the wrong characteristic choice made is still the WRONG choice.
 
Thus, you're whole paragraph is just an equivalent of this one :

"Ok, we've got the Mirage 2000. We must improve it. Let's add another engine, and canards. Let's improve internal ESM/ECM. Ok.

Agreed, that makes no sense.
 
Oh shit ! Future is stealth ! How can we make our plane stealthier ? Oh no ! We'll never make a 0.000000001m² Rafale... We failed."

This is a poor understanding of what happened, and deserves a "LoL".

Actually the REAL case is FAR worse in that the REALISTIC demands that the French government made were Doable and Credible. There is NO EXCUSE for sloppy panel fits,  for exposed rivets, for mismatched seams, for a radar that screams "here I am, shoot me!" for a primary missile weapon that doesn't work, for a targeting FLIR and laser rangefinder that was obsolete the day it was ordered, for a limited self-protection jammer with a poor threat library, for an aorcraft  with an incomplete and at times confused program of weapons to be matched to the plane. Never mind that the declared upgrade path is a JOKE, depending on foreign customers to pay for all the avionics warplane BASICS which to Dassault are bells and whistles.   
 
Not only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter.

In dogfights exercises, Rafale have shown superior to later platforms :

Not to Super Hornet, the plane most like it. OUTROLLED AND OUTTURNED. (YEAH THAT WAS A SHOCK!)

M2000 of course, F-15, F-16, F-18, Gripen.

About Typhoon, we just don't know. Even rumors are inconsistent. There's nothing official YET proving that Typhoon enjoys an edge over Rafale in dogfight.

Redflag results plus basic mathematical analysis of thrust, wing area, full body lift, and avionics comparisons. Typhoon is optimised for air to air. Rafale is optimised more air to ground. What do you want the plane to do? If its air to air, Tuphoon woins hands down. if its air to ground Rafale is better.
 
In a 2004 book, one of the Rafale programme manager was still confident that Rafale was to be a better dogfighter for the reasons PlG told us (effects of properly designed CLOSE-COUPLED canards).

PLG is full of crap. Its not yank and bank. (Typhoon is better at this too)  its look first,  point,  shove, and launch.. Typhoon is just so  far superior at this (more than 5% per characteristic additve), that its a joke to even compare the two planes. .

Anything you can read is based on aerodynamic misunderstanding of one or the other and comes from marketing efforts.

What misunderstandings? Data is data.

 

As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach.

 The real reason is that Lavy would have been a competitor against F-16 and F/A-18 funded by USA. Unacceptable.

Incorrect. The Lavi was not worth the cost when an improved engine and a redesigned nose gave the same resutt
 
Israël couldn't go on (but wanted to) when US withdrew. 

Lavy was close to F-16C/D, slightly better in some area, but with a better supersonic performance.

CREF above. Shove and point are more important that momentary jerk which bleeds speed.and causes drift.
 
I think you're trying to imply that Lavy and Rafale have similar performance. Ok. Then, let's compare conventional tail fighters : Mirage F1 and F-16 are equal in maneuverability. He he ! 

No they aren't. F-16 is actually inferior in roll I think, while the Falcon outturns the F-1.

Like its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase.

Dassault claims to have pioneered the HOTAS concept (3M = Main sur Manette et Manche). I haven't checked.

F-4 Phantom and earlier the the Super Sabre and the Thud led to HOTAS.  I need to  check on this, too. I think the original idea came from the FW-190 and can be traced to Kurt Tank!
 
 But it's true they adopted the side stick "à la" F-16, because it's a good solution.

That was GD. No doubt of it.
 

While the Rafale was largely successful in matching the interfaces seen in US fighters in the early 90s, its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading. Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production.

Why ? ... ?

Yes, why? The pit can be updated with a simple rebuild. or even programming what is there if the computers are up to it..
 
Pilots feel very good in a Rafale pit. You should read the reports in the media. Google it.
Trust the trades. French solutions to some things they ran into are interesting. others are just downright wrong. stores management display interface for example.
The cockpit layout is always described as futuristic and good. The HLD (Head Level Display) provides (as said Bill Sweetman) a God's view "a la F-22". Side screens are touch sensitive so as to use wider screens. All well compatible with NVG.

Too many touch panels and not enough switches. We already discussed thbis in an F-16 thread. The HLD also is inferior to to a true HMS.
You talk about it just like if you had tested all the pits ! I sincerely doubt it's what happened.

Up to now, you describe Rafale as a badly failed F-35/22 !!! That's stupid.

That is unfair. The benchmark is Falcon/Hornet. The comparison then is not THAT  bad.  But you have to understand what the parameters truly are  There are some very bad defects in Rafale that should not be there.
 
 It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight

 True.

, and numerous other advanced features such as the Super Hornet's fully decoupled interfaces.

 LoL. No. Simply wrong.

How so? The SH is decoupled. Rafale is NOT.
 
Most critically, the Rafale's man machine interface lacks the defining features of a 5th generation design, such as advanced sensor fusion and sophisticated multi-purpose helmet mounted displays.

Sensor fusion is one of the best achievements on Rafale. Dassault is proud about it, and pilots love it. This is even the reason why it takes so long to get Damocles on Rafale. It's not the same as getting it works on a Super Etendard. You're wrong. You simply don't know what you talk about.
The comment here shiws that the commenter does not know what ssensor fusion is. That is common data presentation from ALL sources onboard and offboard. That the Rafale does not have.
You think that what America do is necessarily much better than anything else especially if it's french.

Not when it comes to satellite launch vehicles or mine hunting gear. When it comes to jet fighters, Dassault had best look at the exchange ratios between American and their aircraft IN COMBAT and thank god that France is an ally and they don't have to design aircraft to make to  FIGHT us.
 
I don't even try to say that Rafale has an edge over US tech.

The Typhoon has some features that exceeds US tech. Its not impossible to design a plane that can


Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end.

 As PlG said.

RBE-2 range is the same as RDY. RDY IS NEVER USED AT ITS FULL RANGE. There is simply NO NEED against "known threats". Go ask a French pilot about the lack of range. You'll look like a fine guy, because he will smile. People love to smile.

Meaningless statement above. Detection threshhold is a weather related (degraded) and target aspect influenced phenomenon. With that said, the Russians field better aircraft  radars-MUCH better aircraft radars..  RBE2 is a JOKE.   Sidelobes were botched.
 
PESA is a dead-end. As is MSA.
 
Tell that to RAYTHEON or the Russians. 

The fact is that you prefer sticking to your wrong beliefs. Actually, RBE-2 has been designed from the begining with the AESA upgrade in mind (this has been widely reported, thus, i conclude that in fact, you are not interested in Rafale AT ALL).

LIE> Thales and Dassault Electronique had no clue how to dump heat with the RBE2 as designed for an AESA was concerned until the US came in and SHOWED those idiots how to front end the TRs into a heat sink onto that piece of junk. I disagreed with that decision.  

PESA is ALREADY an electronically scanned array. In terms of software, it implies a lot. A lot of code simply remains, or will just have to be improved to take advantage of the new possibilities.

Electronic steered  single beam  source splut through the emitter into multi-beam emissions with 2D control gemoetry. Do you know what you are talking about? Nope.  You have to rewire the array backend and design an entire new heat sink

 

Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar.

Let's wait a bit before you talk about competitiveness.

Let's not. Nose smaller in radius than an F-16 and less kilowatts  means a SHORT RANGED RADAR. Its a directn finction of how many TR modules you can cram into the focal plane.array. Thios is even more important for an AESA because it becomes the function of the area square.  
 
[...]

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite.

Not RWR. ESM. I agree with  the word "misunderstood".  This applies to all ESM/ECM systems. LoL

Amd what is the meaning of that meaningless statement? Spectre is a self protection jammer with a radar warning receiver as its driver.  Electronic sensing measures is too broad a term to describe it, since part of an ESM siote is an IR and LASER warning inclusive term.  Spectre lacks that.
 

As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats.

+ laser and IR.

Separate and not part of the Spactre radar defense suite. Nor does Dassailt so claim. They are quite clear about this.  These are separate embeds with separate warning channels
 
The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system.

... ROFL. Oh, i see, you REALLY know what you're talking about... I guess you write what you've been "told". LoL

Disagree in part. The EU has the tech base (Ariane and Scorpene is proof sufficient for France) Dassault screwed it up completely. They went CHEAP and picked the wrong vendor. That vendor(THALES who else?)  provided a poor obsolete solution and took too long to deliver it.
 
 By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters.

10 years at least.
 
Seventeen. 1988 to IOC 2005 and still not up to a Tranche 1 standard as promised in 1980.. 

Any document to support your claims ? LoL

From the French government.
 

The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems.

 Idem

Assertion but siubstantially true. I refer you to this:
 

Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.

Funding shortage ? LoL. Spectra is the costliest part of the Rafale.

So, again, what are you talking about ? Did you dream it ? 

And it, SPCTRE  doesn't do the job. See article.
 
Spectra antennas are AESA. I'm not sure it's the worst tech you'll find on a fighter. Then, it's the usual digital DRFM etc... Really, on public source, i don't know what it lacks.

LIE. There is no AESA array used in a spike type antenna  emitter.

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.)

Ok. So, the Captor AESA will have the same problems.
 
CAPTOR is a mechanical scan radar!  CAESAR is the AESA with the jammer addon.

Question : why do you say that our MMIC are "narrow band and inefficient" ? Because US tech is the must-have ?
 
Becauase they only operate between 300 MHz to 300 GHz? What hasppens when ypou come up against Russian radar tech again?

Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers

But what do you know about what it offers ? LoL Spectra is certainly not something we'd want to replace.

Yes you do, since you ARE replacing it! F-3 in fact.
 
so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)

AAAAaaaaaaaaaaaah ok. That's what i've been expecting since the begining. F-35 is god, then everything else CAN NOT be worth the cost.

Not a fair comparison.  DASS is in a league of its own.


So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts.

Other design teams = Boeing and Lockheed (LM). God bless America.

Well there is RATHEON, Hughes, Orbital Science, Ford Aerospace, General Atomics, ATK, BAE (More US owned than you think) etc.     
 
 You underestimate Rafale systems without reasons but your belief is that F-22/35 are GOD.

Once again, the comparison is not valid.
 
By the time the Rafale design team recognized they had misjudged the direction of future designs, they lacked the resources and time to correct their mistakes.
LoL. Go talk with them, you'll see how well  they recognize their misjudgings.

Well considering the mad Dassault scramble to upgrade the avionics, to integrate scarce standoff weapons, and to wholesale replace the defective radars and the self defense systems in that bird at the insistence of the French goverment; what would you say that they admit by their acts?
 
Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc

No. Wrong again.
 
Yes, RIGHT again.

Ok for the radar, but jammers won't be modified, just upgraded, but this is natural. Computers will be upgraded so as to never be "obsolete". The F3 Rafale being delivered now already have differents chips, and this has nothing to do with export.

It has everything to do with an ANGRY French government (Sarlozy was quite a change wasn't he?0


 so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.

 The same apply to all 4th gen (including Typhoon).

The upgrade path to Typhoon is well mapped and not confised. You see some funding slippage, not the mad scramble to rectoify as with  Rafale.  
 



All in all, the Rufus comment is full of nonsense and stupid unfunded claims.

Were they? 80% accuracy is not bad.

This is a pure imagination work which i first took for humour.

Cited. and proved accurate whrre needed. 

What is wrong with Rafale ?

Origins : lacks of funding, delays. This alone induced a lot of problems (weapon integration, lack of some key developments -engines, radar-).

Dassault mismanagement.  The French government didn't ask them for anything impossible. A Typhoom like fighter or even a fat Gripen was well within French tech capability.
 
Rufus seems to believe that when Rafale programme started, French were wrong not to go for a F-35 like fighter, a programme imagined much later.

What's going on for the Rafale now ?

-Dassault will give a BAFO (Best And Final Offer) to Brazil on the 8th of June. This include full ToT at leat ;
 
Brazil will look at it. They could go Russian.

-France has signed agreements with Ruag and Pilatus in Switzerland. The competition just goes on ;
 
Meaningless. Switzerland has made nothing firm. Falcons may be their replacement.
 
-At le Bourget, for the first time, we should see a Rafale with Meteors on the external wing station for UAE (i'm not talking about the wingtip  station, but the third station never used by France). Not only Meteor, but also new 68mm rocket launcher (operational need for Afghanistan) ;

Meaningless. Even with the RBE2 AESA the Metor outflies the damned radar! Furthermore the missile/radar  integration is screwed uup. Hung from does not mean used as the ROCAF will tell you about MICA and their M2000s (They use SPARROWS/AMRAAMS  and Sky Swords
 
-if UAE signs, it's quite probable that a 90kN M88 will be part of the contract ;
 
Never happen. They aren't stupid when they can get GE F 414 engines that we can slam into that bird that  are far superior. 

-our MoD refused to talk about Lybia, because he fears about what Americans could do (he refers to what happened to Morroco).

Libyans hate the Americans. What makes you think they would BUY American? Russia before the US. 

Dreams. The 90m kM M-88 will be too long both phusically and in time, the rest of that speculation is a hope that Dassault floats that they can rob someone else like they robbed the French taxpayer..   
 
UAE, Brazil, Switzerland ? Will Dassault fail on the three ?

Two of the three.

If it finally succeed at least for one... What will the conclusions of StrategyPage become, since they are all based upon the fact that up to now, Rafale doesn't sell ?

Nothing changes the physical facts I bring here..
 
For 2012, Rafale will HAVE (no joke) AESA (with modules provided by UMS as for the future Captor), it will have Damocles for laser designation. = radar range : solved, laser capability : solved.

Uh no. Rafale will be where the Falcon was in 1995.
 
If UAE signs, it should have for 2013 : 90kN engine + Meteor + don't know what.

Meteor will not be the primary missile (Defective MICA [maybe with a fixed RH seeker?] still fills theat role-Meteor like the suite of standoff weapons is scheduled as a scarce munition for special use-TOO EXPENSIVE), nor will there be a 90 KN engine unless FRANCE funds it. 

India will buy Super Hornet long before those dreams come true.


Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/15/2009 7:06:41 PM
Herald , less than 10% of your long post is correct . I am amazed at the amount of BS you can vomit , incredible .
First , you should stop presenting your opinions as facts , they are not . 90% of your "opinions" and "ideas" are ill founded . Any poster with a reasonable knowledge of Rafale will have spotted the numerous mistakes and lies to try to spread around .
 
It might work with some foreigners rookies but it doesn 't with us French Posters .
I will not loose my time in correcting  your entire BS post . The fact is that you let your hate to take over and you loose all sense of intelligence and impartiality , you just cannot debate and certainly not with the arguments you put forward .
You act like if you were a PRC Bandit as you like to call them , all you do is trying to spread intox and lies with a patronizing tone , which is really pathetic .
 
Your technical knowledge on Rafale' s basics is surprisingly good  (I said basics) so it is obvious that you 're biaised or you wouln 't say so many stupid things . As an exemple , how can you say such rubbish ?
I quote :
""Surper Hornet is a fair comparison. Super Hornet is overall slower and but more maneuverable, has a better radar a better signature management, better weapons, better built, better avionics across the board (especially that AESA radar, which will still be superior to the RBE2 hashup that THALES trots out in two years)  is stronger built for naval use, shorter ranged and is not quite as good a bomb truck.""
 
This is entirely rubbish ! Almost nothing is correct !! This is why I know that you only post in anger and to bash . It is sooo easy to prove you wrong that I can 't resist ;-)
 
- The SH is far less maneuverable than the Rafale at any speed or altitude . The SH sustained turn rate is lower than Rafale , its instantaneous turn rate is lower than Rafale , its acceleration is lower than Rafale , its AoA is the same than Rafale (unlimited) , its FBW is not as good as Rafale and to be perfectly honest every FBW is not as good as Rafale 's FBL : fly by light . Rafale is not using "wires" and "electric cables" but optical fiber for its FBL because Dassault wanted the system to be EMP proof (EMP blast) .
 
- The SH radar sig management is not as good as the Rafale 's because :
a) SH air intakes are less efficient in term of RCS (look at space and the angle in between them and the wing/fuselage , it is an EM trap if there is one) , then the double "S" shape to make sure that no EM radio-wave is escaping is missing . A simple curved shape placed in the bottom of the intake doesn 't make up for it .
b) SH airframe in critical areas is not radar transparent composite but metal and/or allow . (ie : one composite fin on Rafale , 2 metal fins on SH) . 70% of the Rafale external airframe is made of composite which is not the case on the SH .
Picture :
h*tp://www.avions-militaires.net/images/rafale/materiau.jpg
c) Tooth edges and RAM are better fitted on the Rafale than on the SH
d) The SH doesn 't have a EM proof coated canopy a la F-22 , Rafale does .
 
Now , onto the "better weapons" BS :
- Mica is equal or better than AIM-9X and better than AMRAAM
- French LGBs are US LGBs , so parity
- Exocet AM-39 is similar to latest Harpoon
- AASM can be used as AGM-154 JSOW or as a SLAM-ER or even as a Maverick (why not lol) and is superior to JDAM
- Mk 80 serie , again parity
- the Rafale 30mm Giat 30 M791 B cannon is superior to the SH 20mm gatling style M61A2 Vulcan (better instantaneous fring rate (no need to spin) , better accuracy (by a mile) , bigger ammo , same muzzle velocity (1050m/s)

Where is the SH better ???
I continue .
 
- Better built . Well , to be honest I do not know but I don 't think so . The Rafale M is build like a tank and the Dassault fighters are known to be extremely strongly built . as Pierre explained it to you the structurals are of the highest quality . One just have to look at the Bugatti landing gears (yes , Bugatti)
Picture :
h*tp://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3324/96395162.jpg
 
This system is a world first :
""The train Messier-Bugatti is designed to accept a vertical velocity of 6.5 m / s. The nose is "jumping" because of its function for the return of energy. The shock compresses during the course of the aircraft on the flight deck, due to the catapult and relaxes suddenly in the final stage and communicating with the device speed pitch, which reduces the time required for reach the angle of incidence to the flight.""

Top aerodynamics + M-88 + "jump strut" gear = heavier take-offs and landings .

- Better avionics (?) . Well Herald , you and I both now that you lost as soon as you decided to talk about . 
I already posted pictures of the Fighters pits and Rafale is winning hands down :
SH :
h*tp://i44.tinypic.com/2yv5v2g.jpg
Rafale :
h*tp://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale-cockpit.jpg
 
The simpler , the better . Then , we can talk about touch-screen technology , sensor fusion :
Picture :
h*tp://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1202/51579686.jpg
Etc ...
 
To start with , a French Fighter never had any problem to jam the opposition because we are the best at it . As long as NATO can remember , the French Fighters since the M2000B are a nightmare to lock on , another nightmare to keep the lock and a third nightmare to up-link a missile . The -5F is known to be a formidable adversary BVR because its ECM/ECCMs are a real pain in the as* to deal with (ICMS Mk II) , the M2000-9 (ICMS Mk III) is said to be even more effectice .
Spectra in the F3 version incorporate its own latest specific technologies plus the latest interferrometry tricks and algorythms from the ICMS Mk IV . Furtermore , it has AESA antennas (unseen on the SH) to deal stealthly with adverse radars . They provide fast band jumping , band blinding , waveform jamming , side-lobes jamming in multispectral modes and they are precise to less than one degree . They could (?) also provide some kind of active cancellation by sending in real time EM "pictures" , I provided the link for everybody to think about it .
 
Then , what on Earth is telling you that the RBE2 AESA is an inferior radar to the AN-AGP 79 ???
You might have the range edge but it doesn 't matter as we are well outside any missile range (including METEOR) .
Then , AWACS can help both fighters .
Please , don 't give me your usual BS about the RBE2 AESA "leaking" anything ... We have engineerers presenting facts and you are screaming your opinion ...
 
Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply

earlm    MICA vs AMRAAM   5/15/2009 9:18:57 PM
BW, you are full of it as always.  You cant argue about MICA vs the 'winder but AMRAAM is hands down superior to MICA.  There is no need to look at classified data to prove this.  AMRAAM has a 40 kg advantage in mass that provides it with a different level of capability.  There's no getting around it.  The warheads and electronics are similar as are the structures.  That leaves the mass for what?  What do you think the 40 kg goes for?  This is in addition to no TV for AMRAAM which is a waste on a BVR missile anyway.
 
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   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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