The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 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       5/15/2009 9:22:15 PM
I am asking to the posters how can we trust a liar like Herald ?
I mean , for God sake, how can you write such lie and non-sense :
(I quote)
""the PESA radar doesn't work, the MICA doesn't work""
 
??? The PESA RBE2 can lock and track 40 targets at 150km and ... wait a minute Herald !
I don 't have to repeat that stuff , I only have to say that since day one to the latest RedFlag (including more than 6 years of operations and 3 during war time) the only radar the Rafale has been using IS the PESA RBE2 ! And you dare to say that it doesn 't work ???  Just ask the 100+ operational Rafale Drivers who have been using it , they know far more than you do ! 
You are pathetic to say the least Herald :-( 
 
Mica at its first "sortie" with M2000-5F made a virtual 40-0 kill ratio against NATO aircrafts , Mica never missed a target in testing , Mica is the finest air to air missile France ever had . When you think about the capabilities of systems like Magic-2 and Super 530 , they were already better than the American missiles .

Herald , I don 't think it is insulting you to call you a clown

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    US poster remember their Sesame Street   5/15/2009 9:34:57 PM
R-77:  175kg
AMRAAM:   152kg
PL-12:  199kg
Sky Sword 2:  190kg
Astra:  154 kg
MICA:  112 kg
 
One of these things isn't the same.
One of these things doesn't belong.
Can you guess which one is doin' it's own thing?
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/15/2009 9:57:49 PM
earlm :
""AMRAAM is hands down superior to MICA.  There is no need to look at classified data to prove this.""
 
I disagree . 
While the max range of both missiles can be discussed to no end , the NOZ is well in favor of Mica .
Why that you may ask , well the answer is simple and straight : Mica will reach the end of the NOZ way before AMRAAM because it is a faster missile and this alone brings new factors into the equation , like :
- response time shortened for the adversary (with all the minuses involved)
- if you did not fire first , you will get hit first
- if you did fire first , you still can die first
- you have less time to turn back and escape
 
I can add something else to make you think twice : up to 40km , Mica is the fastest air to air missile Worldwide as well as the more maneuverable .
 
Then , the end game is waaay in favor of Mica with its long chord wings and tail control surfaces .
There is also the ECCM capabilities and I believe Mica to be more advanced than AMRAAM , I already said why not long ago .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    BW   5/15/2009 10:13:13 PM
Please cite figures.  If you have to estimate cd for both and the mass of propellant.  I give MICA an aerodynamic edge based on what I can see with the planform but I don't see it overcoming the mass difference.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Wonder why I have to take the crap.   5/15/2009 11:13:13 PM

I am asking to the posters how can we trust a liar like Herald ?

I mean , for God sake, how can you write such lie and non-sense :


(I quote)


""the PESA radar doesn't work, the MICA doesn't work""

 


??? The PESA RBE2 can lock and track 40 targets at 150km and ... wait a minute Herald !

I don 't have to repeat that stuff , I only have to say that since day one to the latest RedFlag (including more than 6 years of operations and 3 during war time) the only radar the Rafale has been using IS the PESA RBE2 ! And you dare to say that it doesn 't work ???  Just ask the 100+ operational Rafale Drivers who have been using it , they know far more than you do ! 

You are pathetic to say the least Herald :-( 

 

Mica at its first "sortie" with M2000-5F made a virtual 40-0 kill ratio against NATO aircrafts , Mica never missed a target in testing , Mica is the finest air to air missile France ever had . When you think about the capabilities of systems like Magic-2 and Super 530 , they were already better than the American missiles .




Herald , I don 't think it is insulting you to call you a clown




Cheers .

 
Who is the person who doesn't know how rockets tanks or even the truck he drives works?
 
The poister calls me a liar and yet in the year or so I've read his chain of falsehoods errors and personal attacks on everyone who exposes him as a fraud, I've never seen him learn. Its highly characteristic odf the small man of no intellectual hoinesty that when confrointed with the truth he never changes and grows.
 
Such little men lash out at their superiors with unjustified venom.
 
At least when I tell you a man's opinion is of no merit or worth I lay out evidence thatg shows the case, as ijn the case of this cited poster.  
 
I don't have much use for them (him), I count their words and insults as I count their opinions as worth nothing.
 
The word that defines them is forbidden by the rules FOR ME.
 
But they can spread their meritless hate falsehoods and their technical nonsense all over with impunity.
 
Herald
 
 
.
   
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The man who can't tell the difference between a bore droop sensor and an auto cannon?   5/15/2009 11:23:14 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 ;-)

Leclerc 20 mm autocannon is a barrel droop sensor.

- 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) .


 Leclerc 20 mm autocannon is a barrel droop sensor.

- 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 .

Leclerc 20 mm autocannon is a barrel droop sensor.
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 .

 Leclerc 20 mm autocannon is a barrel droop sensor.

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

Leclerc 20 mm autocannon is a barrel droop sensor.
- 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 .








Anyway the point is that that pack of falsehoods that poster asserted is like:
 
 Leclerc 20 mm autocannon is a barrel droop sensor.
 
Honestly does anyone think this amateur is credible when it comes to the TRUTH?

Such incompetents have no place trying to talk to me about anything TECHNICAL on ANY subject..

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    French PESA Sidelobe   5/15/2009 11:30:31 PM
Phased array radars in France: present and future
Colin, J.-M.
Phased Array Systems and Technology, 1996., IEEE International Symposium on
Volume , Issue , 15-18 Oct 1996 Page(s):458 - 462
Digital Object Identifier   10.1109/PAST.1996.566137
Summary:The beam agility of phased arrays eases fast time sharing between search, acquisition and tracking modes for radars in a varying environment. For ground or surface applications requiring full azimuth coverage, Thomson-CSF designers chose rotating antennas instead of multi-faceted ones. Innovative designs, such as the RADANT prism, have been developed for the to-day phased arrays. To achieve high reliability and improved performance, active arrays are developed, using solid state T/R modules. Furthermore, by processing digitally the transmitted signals and/or the received ones, such arrays permit space/time signal processing for better parasitic signal cancellation, target resolution and non-cooperative recognition. These present and future technologies are illustrated by existing equipment (ARABEL, FLAIR, RBE2) and ongoing developments (RIAS), two of them conducted on an international basis (COBRA, AMSAR)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The man who can't tell the difference between a bore droop sensor and an auto cannon?   5/15/2009 11:38:04 PM

Please cite figures.  If you have to estimate cd for both and the mass of propellant.  I give MICA an aerodynamic edge based on what I can see with the planform but I don't see it overcoming the mass difference.

MICA's aerodynamic shape is POOR in lift aspect ratio for a pointer. It is a chase and turn missile that loses speed rapidly after burnout.  That puts it more in company with a badly designed missile like the AA-3 Anab in form and function.
 
It, MICA, is actually similar in actual flight performance and PK effectiveness. That is how bad a missile it is.
 
Herald :
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The man who can't tell the difference between a bore droop sensor and an auto cannon?   5/15/2009 11:45:54 PM

Phased array radars in France: present and future

Colin, J.-M.

Phased Array Systems and Technology, 1996., IEEE International Symposium on

Volume , Issue , 15-18 Oct 1996 Page(s):458 - 462

Digital Object Identifier   10.1109/PAST.1996.566137

Summary:The beam agility of phased arrays eases fast time sharing between
search, acquisition and tracking modes for radars in a varying
environment. For ground or surface applications requiring full azimuth
coverage, Thomson-CSF designers chose rotating antennas instead of
multi-faceted ones. Innovative designs, such as the RADANT prism, have
been developed for the to-day phased arrays. To achieve high reliability
and improved performance, active arrays are developed, using solid state
T/R modules. Furthermore, by processing digitally the transmitted
signals and/or the received ones, such arrays permit space/time signal
processing for better parasitic signal cancellation, target resolution
and non-cooperative recognition. These present and future technologies
are illustrated by existing equipment (ARABEL, FLAIR, RBE2) and ongoing
developments (RIAS), two of them conducted on an international basis
(COBRA, AMSAR)
Not correct. They haven't solved it yet, Earl. And until they figure out their basic physics error they won't. We had similar trouble with it through the 1960s until we finished almost two decades of work on Cobra Dane (That big PESA that gave us so much trouble in Alaska)
 
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/15/2009 11:53:38 PM
The paper mentions large sidelobes so I used it as a reference for BW.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/16/2009 12:27:37 AM
This was covered in painfully redundant detail in other threads:  Depending on initial launch altitude and speed, MICA's motor boosts for ~5s, it reaches M4.0+, then it coasts the rest of the way, gradually losing speed due to drag.  For the same initial state, AMRAAM's motor boosts for ~5s, it reaches M3.5+, then the motor sustains for ~10s more, which maintains the speed at M3.5+, then it coasts the rest of the way, gradually losing speed due to drag.  MICA can pull more Gs than AMRAAM while trusting due to TVC.  MICA can pull at least as many or more Gs as AMRAAM while coasting due to its much larger fins.  MICA also has higher drag than AMRAAM because of its much larger fins.  As it turns out, because of its higher drag and because it begins coasting after ~5s, its speed--while peaking higher than AMRAAM's--actually drops off at a faster rate than AMRAAM's does.  In fact MICA has already slowed down to slower than AMRAAM by the time ~15s go by and AMRAAM stops sustaining and starts coasting.  At this point (>~15s) the speed difference between MICA and AMRAAM continues to grow and the further out the two missiles fly, the larger the difference in speed between them, with AMRAAM retaining its momentum much further than does MICA.  Therefore, MICA is indeed more maneuverable than AMRAAM, and MICA is faster to the target out to ~20km, but for targets further away the AMRAAM will reach the target first.
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    BW   5/16/2009 4:21:21 AM
Correct me if i'm wrong, you acctually think that the Rafale would of been a better choise for the South Koreans.
I think this is nonsense. The F-15K can offer the Koreans a much better bang for the buck. The Eagle
has a AESA radar, and has had one for a while, the Rafale still does not have one. The Eagle can
deliver every single muntion in the US and Korean arsenal, the Rafale can't. Finally the Eagle is cheaper to
buy and maintain, and has a combat record that is unmached, so please explain to me why Korea should
of bought the Rafale, or why do you think it would of been economically and strategically wiser for them to
buy this French miracle bird. As I said before this is a bird that was designed to be a top of the line 4th
genaration figher. Unfortanatly the US has leaped a genration, and the Russians are almost ready to make that
leap to. Furthermore The Russias and Americns also offer top of the line 4th genaration fighers like the newer
Sukhois , Mig's, Eagles, Falcons and Super Hornets, for less money and in some cases more capability.
Look at the Indain SU-30MKI, it has a more powerful radar, better Air to Air capabilities and is almost half
the price of the Rafale. In conclusion this bird has a below average Air to Air capabilities when copared with latest
American and Russian 4th genaration fighter, not to mention the 5th genaration fighers, and even the Typhoon.
I know the French posters are not going to agree with this statment, but facts are fcts, and the only way for this
bird to prove its critcs wrong, which is almost every one outside of France, is for it to prove itself in real combat.
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/16/2009 11:48:39 AM
I, for one, find it endlessly amusing to hear the various fantasies of the Rafale fanboys.
 
The Rafale hasn't found a customer because the big mean USA is sabotaging its export chances!
 
This theory makes perfect sense doesn't it?  The USA is obviously just out to get France.  They don't care about Chinese export successes, Russian export successes, Gripen or Eurofighter exports.  They don't even care about France's exports in other areas such as submarines or ships.  Nope, the USA is out to get the Rafale and no doubt has entire offices dedicated to finding ways to keep that one plane from finding a customer.  (Which is the USA even helped France develop its first AESA prototype by giving France access to components it could not produce itself.)
 
The Rafale was designed with a different philosophy towards stealth and has achieved low observability despite violating even the most basic tenets of low-observable design.
 
Fact, the Rafale was designed by a team of engineers with only the very most basic understanding of stealth and zero experience building low-observable aircraft.  The Rafale's "philosophy" towards stealth was to ignore it completely and rely on a self protection jammer, low altitudes, and luck to survive in defended airspace.  Late in the Rafale's development the design team realized their error in failing to consider RCS reduction in their design, but without funding and without the necessary enabling technology they could do little more than slap some superficial improvements onto the Rafale and market the heck out of it. 
 
The Mica missile is just a magic wand of a wonder weapon.  It combines all of the best features of every other missile available anywhere, and improves on all of them, without any drawbacks.  It has a longer range, bigger no escape zone, and higher speed than its far larger competitors that were actually optimized for those traits.  It has better maneuverability, speed, and flexibility than its smaller competitors that were actually optmized for those traits.  It even has a silver tipped nose for killing werewolves.
 
This is one of the most hilarious of the fanboy fantasies.  The Mica is the product of France's limited budget and engineering resources.  Designing two missiles was simply asking too much and so the decision was made to go with a jack-of-all-trades design, knowing that that would compromise performance in both short and long range scenarios.  Not only that, but Mica has not received anywhere near the level of funding that missiles like the AMRAAM have.  With the benefit of billions of dollars of orders, and continual upgrades to virtually every component in the missile, the AMRAAM is the definition of state of the art.  The french fanboys would like to pretend that the Mica has somehow managed to achieve parity with the AMRAAM despite the vast disparity in resources dedicated to the two, but that is simply not the case.  The Mica's overall level of development is similar to that of the initial 'C' model AMRAAMs.  The missile is a competent performer within its limitations, but its seeker lacks many of the ECCM features and enhanced guidance modes  incorporated into newer AMRAAMs.  As with the Rafale, the Mica has proven to be a bust on the export market.  France has managed to sell them in small numbers to a few countries looking for an upgrade for their Mirages, but meanwhile the AMRAAM has become the international gold standard and achieved massive export success with numerous air forces, and even air-defense forces around the world.  If the MICA were half the missile the fanboys wish it was, it would be selling like crazy all around the world... perhaps the USA is also secretly trying to prevent the MICA from being exported?
 
The Rafale is simply a master of all flight regimes and excels in WVR fighting under any conditions.  
 
Fact, the Rafale is like any 4th generation fighter.  It has some relative strong areas and some relative weak areas.  It is at its best flying relatively fast, relatively low, which should be no surprise.  At lower speeds and low altitude the advantage goes to the Super Hornet and at higher altitudes the advantages goes to the F-15 or Eurofighter.  All of these advantages are marginal and without helmet mounted sights most fights will come down to pilot skill and luck.  If the Rafale were flying against a jet equipped with a helmet mounted sight it would be fighting at a large disadvantage against any 4th generation aircraft.  An additional risk for the Rafale is the recently announced uprated F414 engine.  With 20% more thrust the Super Hornet's region of kinematic advantage would grow to include virtually the entire flight envelope and the Gripen NG, if equipped with the same engine, would also largely surpass the Rafale.  Bad news for the Rafale's export prospects when you consider the advanced development state of the uprated F414 engine.

The Rafale can carry a massive load!
 
There is actually some truth to this, but the fanboys neglect to mention the fact that while carrying such a load the Rafale is an aerodynamic pig.  External fuel, external weapons, external targetting pod...  when carrying such a load the Rafale is anything but nimble, fast, or stealthy.  To some extent this is a problem experienced by all 4th generation jets, but the Rafale's overall small size means it is hit particularly hard.  There is simply no way around the fact that a larger jet with larger engines and aerodynamic surfaces will give up less while carrying a given load.   Also, because of its reliance on external fuel tanks the Rafale is unable to achieve the same efficiency as jets with greater internal fuel capacities.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Seagull       5/16/2009 12:48:03 PM
Herald :
 
With all due respect, there is really a lot of things you don't know about Rafale.
 
I have at leat 15 years of books and papers about it.
 
 
You said "Super hornet is decoupled. Rafale is NOT". This is a wrong statement.
 
You want F414 in a Rafale for the UAE, but did you ever notice that F414 is BIGGER than M88 ?
 
You have many comments on the RBE-2 sidelobes, but what do you REALLY know about it ?
 
You think SH is more maneuverable than Rafale, but simply dismisses articles about Rafale F2 vs SH.

 HLD isn't an HMS at all, it's nothing comparable.
 
 Rafale sensor fusion doesn't only produce a picture on a screen, it's about merging/sorting any track from any sensor (radar, spectra, OSF, Mica IR, Link 16 and other datalinks, Damocles...).
 You are just underestimating.
 
 Both USA and Russian are now going for AESA. MSA/PESA are dead ends.
 
 What do you know about kilowatts on Rafale for the radar ? 10kW for the AESA (not peak).
 
Go read Thales brochures for AESA is Spectra. Then, send them e-mails, tell them they are liars because you know more than them.
 
ETC. These above are just examples. You simply (as Rufus) don't know what you're talking about. In addition, you exagerate a lot about Rafale, and French, Dassault, etc. I know a lot of boards on which you would be called a "troll".
 
 At last, you're attitude is just all natural. This is called Dunning-Kruger effect.
 
I've nothing to add, since i receive no support on this forum. I do not enjoy trying to discusse here. There's no point in.
 
Best regards
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/16/2009 3:56:48 PM
Whoa, Seagull, I'm at least one guy who likes having you around.  Like I said, you're the only voice of reason from the French point-of-view in at least six years here, and I appreciate hearing from you.
 
 
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