The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 20, 2010




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
Herald12345       5/16/2009 4:50:44 PM

Herald :

 

With all due respect, there is really a lot of things you don't know about Rafale.

Not really.

I have at leat 15 years of books and papers about it.

I have twenty years of  work in the field.

You said "Super hornet is decoupled. Rafale is NOT". This is a wrong statement.

In order to present data on the HLD the computers are  cooperative and the software blocks are not separated.

You want F414 in a Rafale for the UAE, but did you ever notice that F414 is BIGGER than M88 ?

Yes but did you ever notice how much space the M-88 actually wastes in that tunnel?  The F-404 which spawned the F 414 is bigger than the M-88 and yet the original Rafale flew with that engine. 

You have many comments on the RBE-2 sidelobes, but what do you REALLY know about it ?

Yes. The defect is VERTICAL. axis
 
You think SH is more maneuverable than Rafale, but simply dismisses articles about Rafale F2 vs SH.

I read the French pilots complain in public about what they found as they exercised against the USN about three years ago. everything from radars to the SH being able to stay on them like a possessive boyfriend.

 HLD isn't an HMS at all, it's nothing comparable.


 
The HUD (mistranslation of a marketing term) has a window within window reflector TV capability. This is not so unique, though why anybody would try it in aircraft is beyond me. Complex fail point.
 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...).

The attempt is a Human factors fail since each display segment is cramped and SEPARATE in its own box in a screen. That is not sensor fusion that is a separate datum presentation on a "visual spread sheet". as you can plainly nsee.
 You are just underestimating.

Not really.
 

 Both USA and Russian are now going for AESA. MSA/PESA are dead ends.

Explain ARABEL and the US OTH radars please.  Mechanical gimbal and rotate in the case of ARABEL has its uses
 

 What do you know about kilowatts on Rafale for the radar ? 10kW for the AESA (not peak).

Not enough power for a first class AESA radar? Average for AN/APG 79 is 6  kW  and burnthrough is about 30 kW + If the RBE2 is trying to operate at 10 kW to propagate at the size it is; then something is designed WRONG. It shoudn't take that much power. Its also a lot of waste HEAT.
 
Go read Thales brochures for AESA is Spectra. Then, send them e-mails, tell them they are liars because you know more than them.

Active cancellation doesn't work that way. Its more like a PESA. I don't send THALES e-mails for technical readouts and publicity blurbs. Alenia Aeronautica and Raytheon are more unbiased.
 
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".

Clarified for you.  You misunderstood what you read and misunderstand what I say.
 
 At last, you're attitude is just all natural. This is called Dunning-Kruger effect.

Psychology error. It isn't unfounded biased diseased arrogance when its the truth. 
 
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.

Please stay. We need someone qualified to argue the French case.
 


Herald
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    Seagull    5/16/2009 5:13:50 PM
I have at leat 15 years of books and papers about it.
 
Than maybe you can shed light on why this amazing bird has been beaten in every competiton. I have heard them all,
it's too expensive, it's not capable, it's the evil Americans, it's bad marketing on our part, and it's a design that came
out 10 years too late. Now for me it's is a little bit of every thing mentioned above. As i said before, for people who
want a true 5th genaration bird, they are going to wait for the F-35, which is going to out class any thing in the air outside
of the Rpator. The 3,000 plus orders is going to make this bird the F-16 of the 21st century. Now for people
who do not want to wait or don't want to spend that much money, they can buy 4th genaration fighers that are just as
capable and in some cases more capbale than the Rafale. It is no secret that this bird so far is a failure in the
export market, there is no argument there. Now since you have so much knowledge on the bird, please enlighten me
on why almost every body outside of France doesn't think too highly of this bird, and please don't bring up the old
conspiracy theories. I know lots of Americans that have good things to say about Russian and other forign fighters
so the argument that its forign and Americans only think there stuff is the best doesn't have any legitimacy. The Typhoon
has a better ATA capability, the same for the newer Sukhois at half the price. The American upgraded 15's and 16's
are cheaper and have better radars and a wider range of AAM's and bombs. So than tell me what is so great about
this plane that I, and almost every forign customer and most of the avaiation world do not know, or are underestamating
about this bird??????
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/16/2009 5:45:48 PM
I know who Seagull is and it doesn 't surprised me at all . He 's a fine man and have very little time to waste with the posters we have here on SP . Myself I stay because it amuses me to correct the various clowns and bashers .
 
Herald , thank you for your long and useless posts , they really help ...
 
earlm :
""Please cite figures""
 
We both know that we can 't calculate the drag and lift coefficient for AMRAAM or Mica , we don 't have the needed datas . What is easy to calculate is the first 30km or so after launch .
Launched from an aircraft flying at Mach 1 , Mica will travel the first 10km in approximatively 8.6 seconds , 12.2 seconds for the AMRAAM . At that speed and at that precise moment in time , Mica has a 12.2 - 8.6 = 3.6 seconds advantage , which is translated into a 4.2km advantage at Mach 4 .
Basically , it means that if launched at the same time , when AMRAAM will reach 10 km , Mica will be at 14.2km which is exactly 42% further .
For the next 10 seconds , the missiles will barely loose speed (few hundred km/h) because of the initial energy .
20 seconds after launch , Mica will have made 27.5km and AMRAAM 21km . From there on , the numbers for drag and lift to calculate further the range vs speed are lacking . It is not on open sources .
So I can 't answer you . Can you earlm ?
 
Herald :
""It is a chase and turn missile that loses speed rapidly after burnout""
 
This is your opinion and nothing more as you have absolutly nothing to back up such claim , try and make us smile ..
 
""That puts it more in company with a badly designed missile like the AA-3 Anab in form and function.""
 
LMAO ! Listen to me Herald , France has always been fielding top notch air to air missiles and you dare screaming around that the French decided to field a "dog" a la AA-3 Anab ???
You are not off your mind Herald , you are clearly bashing for your own sake . You 're nasty and incompetant .
 
""It, MICA, is actually similar in actual flight performance and PK effectiveness""
 
Hop , out of a magic hat !
Listen to me nasty and incompetant clown , you have absolutly nothing to back up such a claim . In a court of Law or in a Tribunal , I would win my case against you hands down . You CAN ' T provide anything ! It is hot air and punched balloons !
On any other site than SP , you would get the ban (again) for it .

Rufus , well ... Gimme a minute (time for a coffee) and I respond to you .

Cheers .
 

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/16/2009 7:32:16 PM
Some readers whatever pro or anti Rafale should examine facts:
The only way to assess a foreign weapon without real data which are secrets is to examine relative technology positions as I mentionned.
Now I have to correct some wrong assumptions
 
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.
Radar can be changed.Not the airframe.
Rafale will have an AESA and new systems according to our armed forces roadmap and not foreign customer needs.
AESA was not a priority for our armed force until 2005 since Rafale F2 with PESA only was still far superior to any foreign design except F22 in BVR combat.
Rafale is 5th génération or at least close,  in the way we consider survivability whatever on active or passive stealth, or networking.
Of course Rafale rely on ECM plus LO instead on passive VLO like F35.
It is similar of the B1 B concept.
SU-30MKI is well inferior to Rafale F2 without the AESA.Not the same capabilities considering huge SU30 RCS and inferior ECM and networking.
F18E or Eurofighter are basically older design (while having top avionic except for ECM) and without the Rafale potential to improve especially on passive stealth.
No ECM system like Spectra is scheduled for F18E or Eurofighter even they could think about it.
For Eurofighter , countries which design it are going now for F35.And Eurofighter will be marginally improved.
Fundamental reasons are that Eurofighter basic design does not allow for strong RCS reduction, and Eurofighter design is not a good airframe for bombing wiht heavy load without a complete redesign.
 
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.
Ridiculous.France worked for 30 years on stealth but did not decided to fund a 13 tons aircraft like the F35 with an internal bay and its weight and aerodynamic penalty, and instead relied on a different concept with a roadmap for improvment.
 
The Mica is the product of France's limited budget and engineering resources. 
Again it is ridiculous.
Mica was the initial competitor for AMRAAM for USAF but not chosen as technically at risk.
Then France went alone and did a big improvment thank to a UK technology on radar seeker to improve initial  Northrop, Motorola and Matra team design.
R&D funding was similar to AMRAAM.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/16/2009 8:12:20 PM
Rufus , for reasons unknown to you and to most civilians , the USA have been "at War" with France on the economical chessboard since our refusal to endorse GW 2 .
There is no need at all to discuss such internals matters on an open forum . You trust me or not , I do not care ...
 
""Fact, the Rafale was designed by a team of engineers with only the very most basic understanding of stealth""
 
No this is not fact but again your opinion . Stop this attitude please . We have and had engineers working on stealth for a long time . We already said that funding and political will were the culprits , not the technology . Building a F-22 alike would have cost us an arm .
 
""The Mica is the product of France's limited budget and engineering resources.  Designing two missiles was simply asking too much""
 
??? Excuse me ? We could have upgraded the Magic-2 and made a more performing Matra Super-530D but we choose not  to , the Mica is a new breed and until the missile sees combat , it will be constantly looked down by amateurs . We don 't care us French , in fact we do like this attitude , the wake-up call be will be even harsher for the attacker .
 
""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.""
 
Not the case ? PROVE IT . (I 'm already waiting for some more opinions presented as facts)
 
""The Mica's overall level of development is similar to that of the initial 'C' model AMRAAMs.""
 
Wrong . Mica 's EM seeker is two generation ahead of the initial "C" model and its ECCMs are probably better .
Then , the "C" doesn 't have the initial velocity and the end game , far from it . 
Then , where is the IR AMRAAM or the IR equivalent of Meteor ???
If you want an enemy fighter to take you seriously in BVR , get a proper long range IR missile .
Seriously Gentlemen , why do you think that the Rafale is believed to be a very serious threat BVR to every foreign Air Force ? Sure , the aircraft has its good points but the IR Mica is a threat very hard to counter .
 
""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""
 
Again , half of this is wrong , the other half is opinion . The Rafale beats the SH at any altitude or speed .
At high speed and high altitude Rafale has the first look/lock on the Eagle (RCS) and its flight characteristics allow the jet to take evasive mesures an Eagle can only dream of . Versus the Typhoon , the Italians Eurofighter Drivers and French Rafale (F1) drivers had a go at each other over the Med Sea and the result seems to be a draw .
Many posters around on many different sites believe that the Typhoon is superior to the Rafale in A2A .
To this day , the only encounter seems to be a draw .
 
The French Drivers said they had nothing to envy to the Typhoon and they kept the score straight .
To most people in the know , the first encounter means nothing .
Since the Rafale has no problem to deal with F-teen generation aircrafts in the air , the Typhoon is as good (some say better) .
The most talked thing is the supposed superiority of the Typhoon over the Rafale because of a more orientated (?) air to air design . Well , this not very obvious to be honest ...
 
Whatever you may say , Typhoon is a bastard (in the good sense of the term) . They took the Dassault knowledge on delta wings , changed the angle of the delta (wrong on two terms : aerodynamics and RCS) , added some "canards" wrongly placed because they didn 't know what they were doing  , completly f*cked up the air intakes and they end up with an aircraft unable to drop two LGBs at once because the FBW is not yet good enough to cope with the suddent (?) jump of the aircraft . Assymetric loads are even more problematic ...
On the A2A side , the Typhoon is not having the upper hand on Rafale , unless the Italian Drivers are not knowing the Typhoon enough (possible) , but the Rafs were F1s so ...
 
""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""
 
??? Excuse me ? A rafale loaded like a mule can fly better than any other aircraft especilly low level !
You do not know what you are talking about , that 's for sure !
Loaded like that :
h*tp://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4311/raflourd1webnw1.jpg
 
(2 Micas and 2 Meteors are missing) , the Rafale can undertake a flight plan at less than 100ft (33m) at Mach 0.8 for an extended period of time with a 5.5Gs restriction . The Pilot can even read the latest "Air&Cosmos" while the aircraft is on full autopilot . In deep penetration strike , the Rafale ' range is just over 1.000nm , Sir .
Rafale is not an aerodynamic "pig" in any configuration (unlike Typhoon) .
 
""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.""
 
Rafale has 4.7 tons (10.300lb) of internal fuel (which is more than F-16 or Typhoon) . A Rafale on internal fuel only with 8 Micas is as deadly as you can imagine as a close in interceptor ...
 
Cheers .
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/16/2009 8:42:38 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.

 

Second that. Please continue to contribute.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/16/2009 9:29:57 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.


on top of that, I wish Francois would come back - he was one frenchman I have a lot of time for.  knows his stuff and how to get the message across

 




 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/16/2009 9:49:18 PM
Rafale will have an AESA and new systems according to our armed forces roadmap and not foreign customer needs.
 
If you want to have a mature discussion you are first going to need to learn not to try to lie to people who know better than you seem to.  There has never been any question that the drive to develop an AESA for the Rafale was primarily a result of foreign requirements.  There are numerous articles explaining this in no uncertain terms.  
 
AESA was not a priority for our armed force until 2005 since Rafale F2 with PESA only was still far superior to any foreign design except F22 in BVR combat.
 
More lies/errors.  The Rafale is at no better than parity with the various other Western 4th generation designs and is particularly handicapped by its poor radar and short ranged BVR missile when compared to aircraft such as the F-15, Eurofighter or Super Hornet, all of which have far longer ranged radars and weapons.  Perhaps you meant Russian aircraft?  That would be much more debatable at least.
 
Rafale is 5th génération or at least close,  in the way we consider survivability whatever on active or passive stealth, or networking.
 
The Rafale is not 5th generation, nor is it "close."  It is an absolutely classic late 4th generation design.  Good transonic performance, true multi-role capability and a decent internal self protection jammer.  It has none of the primary features that differentiate a 5th generation plane, specifically no meaningful RCS reduction, nothing like the advanced sensor fusion and networking capabilities of 5th generation types, and nowhere near the overall sophistication of avionics and electronic warfare systems seen in 5th generation aircraft.
 
"Of course Rafale rely on ECM plus LO instead on passive VLO like F35."
 
The Rafale is not low observable.  You might as well stop trying to perpetuate that myth.  You are dealing with people here who are clearly well above your level of understanding and are not going to be duped by such claims.  The Rafale is a 4th generation airframe with an internal jammer, just like a list of other 4th generation planes.  It is not "LO" and it is in no way comparable to the F-35 which has both stealth and a highly sophisticated EW system comparable to nothing available on a 4th generation aircraft. 
 
"It is similar of the B1 B concept."
 
This at least is true.  It is also comparable to the F-16, F-18, F-15, Eurofighter, F-10, Gripen, etc etc etc
 
None of these aircraft are low observable but they do carry self protection jammers.  When compared to these aircraft the Rafale is right amongst the pack.  Its RCS is at the smaller end of the group, but will not compete with the Super Hornet.  Its self protection jammer is at the better end of the group, but is not up to the level of those available on the F-16, Super Hornet, or Eurofighter.
 
SU-30MKI is well inferior to Rafale F2 without the AESA.Not the same capabilities considering huge SU30 RCS and inferior ECM and networking.
 
The Su-30MKI has areas of strength and weakness compared to the Rafale.  Far longer range, and a far longer ranged radar for one.  The AA-12 is an unimpressive missile however and the Su-30MKI's overall level of integration is not up to Western standards.  Neither aircraft would be likely to enjoy a significant detection range advantage.  The Rafale has the smaller signature by far, but also has a far less capable radar.  If the Su-30 were able to close to within visual range it would be at a distinct advantage with its very capable maneuverability and helmet mounted sight.
 
"F18E or Eurofighter are basically older design (while having top avionic except for ECM) and without the Rafale potential to improve especially on passive stealth."
 
The Super Hornet is already well beyond the Rafale both in its stealthiness and its self protection jammer.  The obsolete antennas and computers that make up the bulk of Spectra are simply not up to the standards of those in the Super Hornet and the Rafale still lacks a towed decoy.  The Rafale does have a smaller RCS than the Eurofighter, but like the Super Hornet the Eurofighter incorporates a significantly more capable jammer with a towed decoy.   You clearly need to do some reading before trying to participate in these discussions.  It is good that you have an interest in aircraft, but when you try to speak above your knowledge level you get yourself into trouble.
 
"No ECM system like Spectra is scheduled for F18E or Eurofighter even they could think about it."
 
Of course not.  As I already explained above the Eurofighter and Super Hornet already include significantly more capable and flexible ECM systems with more computing power and more capable transmitters and receivers than the Rafale.  The Rafale is still a very capable performer and more than capable of protecting France from its likely threat aircraft, but it would be silly for the Eurofighter or Super Hornet to step down to a similar capability as that offered by Spectra.  Perhaps on an export model, but I doubt it as a customer considering the purchase of a Eurofighter or Super Hornet would be paying top dollar and expect the best. 
 
For Eurofighter , countries which design it are going now for F35.And Eurofighter will be marginally improved.
Fundamental reasons are that Eurofighter basic design does not allow for strong RCS reduction, and Eurofighter design is not a good airframe for bombing wiht heavy load without a complete redesign.
 
The Eurofighter is a good design, but it is a 4th generation design and shares the same limitations of all 4th generation designs.  Countries must continually look ahead to the future if they want to keep pace with developments around the world.  The F-35 will allow these countries to field 5th generation aircraft in a timely affordable manner.
 
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.
Ridiculous.France worked for 30 years on stealth but did not decided to fund a 13 tons aircraft like the F35 with an internal bay and its weight and aerodynamic penalty, and instead relied on a different concept with a roadmap for improvment.
 
You need to approach this subject as an observer might and not let your personnel feelings get involved.  France has no low observable aircraft design experience to speak of.  There is no shame in being taken by surprise by the emergence of stealth aircraft, the US took the entire world by surprise in that regard.  At this point the US has built, tested and flown numerous stealth aircraft.  The F-117, F-22, F-35 and B-2 are just the best known.  Don't forget the YF-23, Tacit Blue, Bird of Prey, X-32, and other aircraft that were built as experiments or that did not proceed to production.  France has barely taken its first steps towards developing robust stealth aircraft by experimenting with some models and some radar absorbing materials. The Rafale design team simply did not have access to anything similar to the knowledge and engineering knowhow that would have been required to produce a stealth aircraft. 
 
At the time the Rafale was being designed even the US could not have produced the F-35.  The F-35 is the cumulative result of decades of massive research and development budgets that France simply doesn't have available.
 
The Mica is the product of France's limited budget and engineering resources. 
Again it is ridiculous.
Mica was the initial competitor for AMRAAM for USAF but not chosen as technically at risk.
Then France went alone and did a big improvment thank to a UK technology on radar seeker to improve initial  Northrop, Motorola and Matra team design.
 
There is nothing ridiculous about observing that the Mica was always a compromise design.  This was done because it would simply be too expensive and demanding for France to attempt to produce two new missiles with its available budget and engineering resources.  The US ultimately did what anyone would have done with sufficient funding, it created two different missiles, each optimized for their missions.
 
R&D funding was similar to AMRAAM.
 
Don't be silly, making up fantasies will do nothing to help you when dealing with people who know better.  The AMRAAM has received vastly more money and effort than any other missile in the world today.  Just look at the incredible pace of development over its lifetime.  The AMRAAM is now on its 4th major revision with several other significant upgrades between major revisions and countless software upgrades to tweak performance or address new threats.  This incredible pace of decelopment has resulted in it being selected by one first-rate air force after another as their primary or only BVR weapon. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       5/16/2009 9:54:39 PM
SU-30MKI is well inferior to Rafale F2 without the AESA.Not the same capabilities considering huge SU30 RCS and inferior ECM and networkin
 
How is the Rafale better than the Sukhoi in the A2A role, and how is it a better option for countries who do not want to pay
twice as much and get a bird that is not in the same class as the Sukhoi in the Air Superiority role. That was my point, not
the RCS of the the two fighters. As for the ECM, I beg to disagree, the SU-30MKI, has Israeli systems which are top
of the line. The N011M, is a more powerful radar for A2A operations and this much larger plane has more range and is
much better option for a air force that has defense as its number one priority, and did I mention it costs half as much as
the Rafale. So even if the Rafale has a little better surviviability, and is a better deep penatration bomber, this does not
justifie its cost, or why any air force should by this plane over any other top 4th genaration fighter. If the US lifted the ban
on the Raptor, which cost more than the Rafale, countries like Australia, Japan, and Israel would not even hasatate for
a second to buy this plane, even a waterdown version. The reason for this is obvious, there is nothing out there that
compares. The F-35 is going to end up being the most  numerous fighter in the western world. The reason for that is
also simple, the lightning gives the customers what no 4th genaration air craft can, true stealth, the best A2G capability
and the second best A2A capability in the world. Now for third world countries they are going to buy older Russian
fighters because the are  cheap and meet their requairments. So let us look back, most of Europe is waiting for the
Lightning, or is reciving the Typhoon and the Gripen. Most of the Asian countries are going for upgraded American
and Russian fighters, and most of the third world does not have mony to spend on a bird like the Rafale. For me the
best chance for Dassault is Brazil and I don't think it's going to happen there either. I think they are going to go with
the Gripen-NG, and put the final nail in the coffin for the Rafales chance to gain a major export deal.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/16/2009 11:14:12 PM
If you want to have a mature discussion you are first going to need to learn not to try to lie to people who know better than you seem to
Let see little boy.
You should have checked carefully what I said including links I provided.
When I don't know or I don't have enough facts to be certain of what I say, I don't express myself here, when I say something it is the definitive true because I'm a total rational man.I dont know anybody who could say better than myself here in average on technologies and capabilities on SP.
So learn and show humility when you speak to french stratege.
And open some book to learn what stealth technologies are.
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/16/2009 11:23:08 PM
As for the ECM, I beg to disagree, the SU-30MKI, has Israeli systems which are top
of the line.
Not at the same level than what we have on Rafale and by far.
SU30 MKI have omnidirectional classical jammers on an airframe with a huge RCS.
 
 The N011M, is a more powerful radar for A2A operations and this much larger plane has more range and is
much better option for a air force that has defense as its number one priority, and did I mention it costs half as much as
the Rafale.
Price of Russian aircraft are in accordance with their internal cost of man power.
Moreover Russian don't sell SU 30 at half of the 60 millions euros of Rafale.
And I doubt that SU30 can get close to Rafale in air to air.Its radar may be more powerfull unitl Rafale get AESA, but its RCS is giant compare to Rafale and without even speaking of ECM where french has a good technological advantage on Russians or Israelis.And for networking, SU30 is a joke.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    ZERO INFORMATION CONTENT.   5/16/2009 11:37:49 PM

I know who Seagull is and it doesn 't surprised me at all . He 's a fine man and have very little time to waste with the posters we have here on SP . Myself I stay because it amuses me to correct the various clowns and bashers .

 

Herald , thank you for your long and useless posts , they really help ...

 

earlm :



""Please cite figures""

 

We both know that we can 't calculate the drag and lift coefficient for AMRAAM or Mica , we don 't have the needed datas . What is easy to calculate is the first 30km or so after launch .

Then you are not qualified to discuss  I can and do.

Launched from an aircraft flying at Mach 1 , Mica will travel the first 10km in approximatively 8.6 seconds , 12.2 seconds for the AMRAAM . At that speed and at that precise moment in time , Mica has a 12.2 - 8.6 = 3.6 seconds advantage , which is translated into a 4.2km advantage at Mach 4 .
Google that did you? What's the launch slant?
Basically , it means that if launched at the same time , when AMRAAM will reach 10 km , Mica will be at 14.2km which is exactly 42% further .
7.5 seconds flyout versus 9.5 seconds. flyout The lie is obvious!
That's a falsehood yuou just posted.
For the next 10 seconds , the missiles will barely loose speed (few hundred km/h) because of the initial energy .

20 seconds after launch , Mica will have made 27.5km and AMRAAM 21km . From there on , the numbers for drag and lift to calculate further the range vs speed are lacking . It is not on open sources .
You just said the MICA rocket still is going Mach 4.16  15 seconds after burnout. Unfortunately for you that is a lie.  Speed falls by a whole 0.11255 per second or about 300 m/s or almost a whole Mach number
 Yes........ That's another falsehood.
 
So I can 't answer you . Can you earlm ?

 

Herald :


""It is a chase and turn missile that loses speed rapidly after burnout""

 

This is your opinion and nothing more as you have absolutly nothing to back up such claim , try and make us smile ..

Its a a fact.

""That puts it more in company with a badly designed missile like the AA-3 Anab in form and function.""

 

LMAO ! Listen to me Herald , France has always been fielding top notch air to air missiles and you dare screaming around that the French decided to field a "dog" a la AA-3 Anab ???

You are not off your mind Herald , you are clearly bashing for your own sake . You 're nasty and incompetant .

 The Anab has done what a MICA has never done. Shot down an American built aircraft.

""It, MICA, is actually similar in actual flight performance and PK effectiveness""

 

Hop , out of a magic hat !

Listen to me nasty and incompetant clown , you have absolutly nothing to back up such a claim . In a court of Law or in a Tribunal , I would win my case against you hands down . You CAN ' T provide anything ! It is hot air and punched balloons !
Try. Your bluff is meaningless and useless. When a person bombasts he has nothing. 
On any other site than SP , you would get the ban (again) for it .

Truth versus falsehood. We know where the falsehood is. And we know whop spews it,


Rufus , well ... Gimme a minute (time for a coffee) and I respond to you .




Cheers .


 





By the rules: I can say truthfully that you and the truth are strangers.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    ZERO INFORMATION CONTENT.   5/16/2009 11:44:20 PM

If you want to have a mature discussion you are first going to need to learn not to try to lie to people who know better than you seem to
Let see little boy.

You should have checked carefully what I said including links I provided.

When I don't know or I don't have enough facts to be certain of what I say, I don't express myself here, when I say something it is the definitive true because I'm a total rational man.I dont know anybody who could say better than myself here in average on technologies and capabilities on SP.

So learn and show humility when you speak to french stratege.

And open some book to learn what stealth technologies are.

 


Your information is error filled and like your partner I see no technical reason to take your false assertions as facts. In FACT your facts are so wide of the truth that they are more or less fanboy fantasy. Go learn some aerodynamics and how things actually work. Then you may be able to bluff more successfully than your friend.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    Joke???   5/17/2009 12:02:50 AM
SU30 is a joke.
 
A joke? What is a joke, the part that the air craft is cheaper to buy than the Rafale, or the part it has a much more powerful radar now, not down the line. Is it a joke that it is one of the best 4th genaration A2A fighter in the world, or is it a joke that it has more range, can carry more A2A weapons, or is it a joke that 8 countries fly diffrent variants of this plane and only one flies the Rafale. I don't see any jokes hers I see facts, and if you don't agree, show facts that prove the above statments wrong. Now as I noted before, the Rafale has a better ground attack capabilitie and has a better RCS, those are facts too. Overall it is a more surviveable fighter and probably has better ECM suits, than most SU-30 models, even the Indian version with western systems. What this bird is not, is a pure heavy A2A fighter with a long range radar. Now if I'm a country who wants Air Superiority fighter and does not want to pay top dollar for the Typoon or the F-35, the sukhoi is a very attractive bird. That is all i'm saying you do not have to get all defensive and try to defend the the Rafale, it speaks for itself, lets be reasonable and stop with the all the homering. It's good to have national pride and love of your own countries products, but you have to have a little objectivity.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    3 issues   5/17/2009 12:04:13 AM
I wouldn't look at any Rafale vs Eurofighter exercises as proof of one plane's qualities vs the other for the simple reason the French pilots are probably better than the Italian.
 
It was mentioned that the Rafale is replacing three aircraft, the F-8, Super Etendard, and the M2000.  The F-8 was htere for the same reason jeep carriers carried Wildcats instead of Hellcats.  Both the Etendard and the M2000 had thirsty engines so if the French thinking was that a decent engine would let aplane do both jobs they weren't going down the wrong path.
 
"If you want an enemy fighter to take you seriously in BVR , get a proper long range IR missile."

This has proven to be BS in several other threads.  By the time a radar missile goes active, it's basically too late.  What difference is there between the endgames of an IR vs an RF that gives this huge edge to the IR?  Obviiously there are two different conceptions onf BVR.  With AMRAAM or any decent BVR missile the pilot's mentality is to keep the enemy out of range of his missiles while getting in range of your own.  With MICA, especially MICA IR, you are conceding that both of you are in range, you got into range of your missiles after the enemy but you are somehow going to triumph because your missile allegedly has better Pk at those close ranges.  It's a dead end loser philosophy as proven by the evolution of AMRAAM, R-77 and Meteor. It is the wrong way to take advantage of AWACS and networking and it puts the pilot at greater risk.  It is also a concession that your missile tech is weaker or that you don't have the budget for a real missile.  If I were defending Rafale, I'd conced the inferiority of MICA and put my hopes on equipping it with Meteor.
 
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 - 2010StrategyWorld.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