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
duplex       5/17/2009 1:06:19 PM
link
 

Some historians have described the Dassault Mirage as the culmination of three Germans systems developed during WW2:

  1. The delta wing, patented by Prof. Alexander Lippisch in the 1930?s (and who was also awarded a patent in 1942 for variable geometry swept wings - to be evaluated in the Messerschmidt P 1011), who contributed to Convair?s F-102 and F-106 series of interceptors, where  the delta design was modified by the inclusion of a wing camber to assist with low speed handling.

  2. The BMW 003 and 018 family of axial-flow turbojets, whose post-war development was pursued by the BMW design team under the guidance of Dr. Hermann Oestrich  in Rickenbach, Switzerland, under the name of Atelier Technique Aeronautique Rickenbach (ATAR). This group was later moved to France to be incorporated in SNEMCA.

  3. Twin 30mm cannons of the type pioneered by Mauser, which were later developed into the Aden (UK) and Defa (France) gun platforms.

 
 
 
French delta wing technology and SNECMA Atar engine were develped by the Germans..
France the second after US in defence technology? My assss.. Russia is far ahead of France in every field with the possible exception of General Avionics..
 
 
France is ahead of the UK  because they built a nuclear carrier ??  This must be a joke..
 
Get this.....This is the story of the great French engineering feat..
 
Charles de Gaulle entered sea trials in 1999. These identified the need to extend the flight deck to safely operate the E-2C Hawkeye. This operation sparked negative publicity, however, as the same tests had been conducted on both Foch and Clemenceau when the F-8E(FN) Crusader
F-8 Crusader

The F-8 Crusader was a single-engine aircraft carrier-based fighter aircraft built by Vought. It replaced the Vought F-7 Cutlass. The first F-8 prototype was ready for flight in February 1955, and was the last United States fighter with guns as the primary weapon....
 fighter had been introduced. The 5 million francs for the extension was 0.025% of the total budget for Charles de Gaulle project.

On 28 February 2000, a nuclear reactor trial triggered the combustion of additional isolation elements, producing a smoke incident.

During the night of 9 November 2000, in the Western Atlantic while en route toward Norfolk, Virginia, the port
Port (nautical)

Port is the List of nautical terms that refers to the left and right side of a ship, as perceived by a person on board the ship and facing towards the Bow ....
 propeller broke and the ship had to return to Toulon
Toulon

Toulon is a city in southern France and a large military harbour on the Mediterranean coast, with a major French naval base. Located in the Provence-Alpes-C?te-d'Azur regions of France, Toulon is the Prefectures in France of the Var departments of France, in the former provinces of France of Provence....
 to replace the faulty element. The investigations that followed showed similar structural faults in the other propeller and in the spare propellers: bubbles in the one-piece copper-aluminium alloy propellers near the center. The fault was blamed on the supplier, Atlantic Industries, which had already gone bankrupt. To make matters worse, all documents relating to the design and fabrication of the propellers had been lost in a fire. As a temporary solution, the less advanced spare propellers of
Clemenceau and Foch were used, limiting the maximum speed to 24 knots (44 km/h) instead of the contractual 27 knots (50 km/h). This did not affect air operations.

On 5 March 2001,
Charles de Gaulle went back to sea with two older propellers and sailed 25.2 knots (47 km/h) on her trials. Between July and October, Charles de Gaulle had to be refitted once more due to abnormal noises, as loud as 100 dB
Decibel

The decibel is a logarithmic units of measurement that expresses the magnitude of a physical quantity relative to a specified or implied reference level....
, near the starboard propeller, which had rendered the aft part of the ship uninhabitable.

On 8 November 2001, a sailor performing a routine maintenance task lost consciousness due to a toxic gas leak. A non-commissioned officer attempted to rescue him and collapsed as well. They were immediately rescued by the on-board medical team and sent to Toulon Hospital. Both survived.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       5/17/2009 2:38:30 PM
What's wrong with the Rafale is that people insist on claiming it is something it is not.
 
It is what it is.
 
 

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/17/2009 5:23:11 PM
Re the comment about Typhoon and poorly placed canards.

I attended a briefing given by a RAF exchange pilot with RAAF on Typhoon and he made it very clear that the pilots don't regard them as canards due to the design intent.

The foreplanes are also linked, so they do not behave independantly of each other in flight - they're designed to deal with issues of lift at various speeds and have less to do with manouvre per se.

canards are not foreplanes and vice versa.  just because they're at the front doesn't actually mean that the design intent was to be a canard 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    EarlM reply.   5/17/2009 6:05:15 PM
The AIM 142 program was an American attempt to create a Phoenix replacement in a Sparrow sized package.
 
Raytheon and General Dynamics both tried. Raytheon's missile would have used a ramjet motor.^3
 
The GD solution was to use am American version of ASTER launched from the aircraft.
 
This was back in the 1980s. Both missiles FAILED. Raytheon relied on Hughes to create a dual purpose SARH receiver /IR seeker which didn't work. The SARH was to get the missile close enough after a 180 km sustained point lead merge fly out for the IR seeker to pick up the targets' heat trace and then endgame it. The IR seeker was the fail point. WHY?^2
 
GD's solution was to use a thrust vane controlled booster to point the kill body into a ballistic lob it into a ballistic trajectory so that the missile would FALL on top of the enemy aircraft no matter what its, the enemy's altitude relative to launch was so that the missile would FALL on it.. Automatic F-pole advantage, right?  Elegant and beautiful solution. The booster would fall off and then the kill body was on its way. The kill body used a dual pulse rocket motor in a MICA-sized straked missile; first segment to sharply accelerate the missile and restore what momentum had been lost to drag, and then a sustainer segment for the fully powered chase endgame so that when the missile sharp turned to close it would not lose speed in that turn. Once again it was the SARH/IR combo seeker solution, and once again the IR seeker section failed.^1 WHY?^2
 
^1 the dual pulse motors' casings kept exploding at the segment plug and frankly the booster separation at MACH 2 was giving problems as well. Then the missile killbody couldn't point and use predict intercept logics worth a damn.. Too complex, too expensive, too many steps with too many fail points.
 
^2 the cold IR imaging technology wasn't quite there, yet.  
 
^3 Raytheon used the ramjet it designed as the start basis for an FRAAM proposal to the British.
 
^4 Active radar seekers in missiles are not as vulnerable to heat burden as IR seekers; and they see farther-unless you are THALES and don't know what you are doing..
 
^5
 
Several things bappened. The Navy went back to the drawing board (where it still is) and the Air Force issued an own  requirement for a SPARROW replacement with an actual active radar seeker. Hughes Raytheon looked at  a new front end for Sparrow, rejected that, and came up with a whole new missile and an active radar that worked. The solution was to KISS the missile (dual burn rocket motor), make it  as small as they could (SPARROW size or smaller) and still produce an F-pole missile.
 
Risky: but it worked.
 
Herald
 
 
           
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    EarlM reply.   5/17/2009 6:14:31 PM

Re the comment about Typhoon and poorly placed canards.

I attended a briefing given by a RAF exchange pilot with RAAF on Typhoon and he made it very clear that the pilots don't regard them as canards due to the design intent.

The foreplanes are also linked, so they do not behave independantly of each other in flight - they're designed to deal with issues of lift at various speeds and have less to do with manouvre per se.

canards are not foreplanes and vice versa.  just because they're at the front doesn't actually mean that the design intent was to be a canard 



The purpose of a canard is to supply directed shove forces to change point by unloading inertia early. The purpose of a fore-plane is to provide added lift ahead of center of mass or center of thrust balance when you unload inertia late.
 
In that respect there is NOTHING wrong with the Typhoon solution. The plane is designed to maintain point after a hard turn.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/17/2009 6:36:58 PM

I feel oblige to respond and let every poster here know what the general feeling is in France regarding "why the Rafale is not selling" .

It is rather simple in fact . Dassault and MBDA quickly found out that the USA did not want them to sale any aircraft at all , to this purpose the USA were ready to sell fighters without making a Cent out of it , or even loosing some money on the Custom Support part of the contract (Marocco) . The USA also used political pressure (especially on South-Korea) to make the SK Gov accept and bend for the F-15K , or not .... (fill the blanks) . Same with the Singapore deal when Rafale (like in Korea) came first at the technical evaluation .


Then , there is the UK bribe (covered and backed by the UK Parliament !) to the Saudis for the Typhoon .


A perfectly natural question is coming to mind (at least to a French man/woman) : "Why the French Gov is not doing the same ?

 

Because we are one some kind of sluts .


We often read on the Net how French are arrogant , greedy , conservative , sneeky , etc ... Well , it seems that we 've been beaten .


 

 

It is the reason why French posters don 't like when you use the "Rafale is not selling" argument as a winning point , because it doesn 't reflect the true capabilities of the aircraft .


I stick to what I said and sign my deposition . 

BW .


 

Cheers .




It's all said and done isn't it? Bait (political conspiracy), switch and tackle over to funding conspiracy, then argue it actually IS better, wash, rinse, repeat.
 
I already called your debate cycle.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/17/2009 6:41:08 PM

There has been no major follow up announcement. Need to wait and see. . 


link target="_blank">link target="_blank">link


 



Congratulations, looks like you might have managed to sell 14.



 



And Benillim, about your first post. I disagree, if its biggest disadvantage was price and it was nearly equal to the 35 like BW says then it would sell reasonably to nations who can't get 35s.










 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/17/2009 6:42:27 PM
So yeah, what I was trying to say is I know jack about aviation, but it's easy to tell who knows stuff for serious realz, who might know stuff, who's playing around and who's just plain wrong. It's the second category that gets confusing.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/17/2009 6:43:49 PM
 
And the reason I said that is because I advised BW to read for several hundred hours... in case that makes it seem like I have anything like that, which I have not. :)
Do have a bit of basic knowledge though, very basic stuff, basically just conjecture with other topics.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/17/2009 6:45:03 PM
Not that this is what I wanted to talk about.
 
What's important is that RUFUS continues POSTING! ^^
 
I haven't seen any post as neutral and informative (well at least informative in plainspeak) in easily understood format as his.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/17/2009 6:48:21 PM

You know , buying an aircraft is not the same than buying a car .

When you go to Chrysler , Toyota , Nissan , Chevrolet , Renault , Saab , Ford , etc , the only pressure you have is your wallet ~your banker~ (and your wife) .

Basically , you can choose the car you like because it is the thing you want and it does look great on the leaflet and the ride you had was impressive , so you go for it . Bravo , you probably chosen the best car for you !


But you can 't buy an aircraft the same way if your are DoD because the aircraft you like is not the one chosen by the money holders . You are the DoD (the customer) , but nobody cares . Politicals decided for you ...


I know , we had the same people here in France a short while ago .


 

All of this to say that as a customer , the best car you could get (sorry , aircraft) was the Rafale . As a customer , I see :

-1) this is the best on paper and during evaluation at the time being and for the foreseeable futur .


-2) The French themselves are buying the F3 version so I can count on a good customer support

-3) their technology transfert is interesting and fair


-4) the price is higher than planned but not by much

-5) I like the French accent and my wife too :-)


 

In all fairness , 300 Rafales or so should have been sold by now on quality alone . Now , you dare asking why the USA wanted to stop Dassault ??? Are you blind or what ?! Think about the money involved .............


You can post as much as you want to defend the F-teens , your enginereers and your political themselves know that the Rafale is the better aircraft and it is why they conducted such an agressive war on Rafale . They did well .


The French only have themselves to blame but hey , we 're not sluts and thieves .

 

Cheers .




Wow. I was batting a 1000 a few days ago. You DID resort to 'economic conspiracy' after 'political conspiracy', I'm breathless in anticipation of page 11 to see if u start argueing why it's superior again!
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/17/2009 6:50:05 PM

You know , buying an aircraft is not the same than buying a car .

When you go to Chrysler , Toyota , Nissan , Chevrolet , Renault , Saab , Ford , etc , the only pressure you have is your wallet ~your banker~ (and your wife) .

Basically , you can choose the car you like because it is the thing you want and it does look great on the leaflet and the ride you had was impressive , so you go for it . Bravo , you probably chosen the best car for you !


But you can 't buy an aircraft the same way if your are DoD because the aircraft you like is not the one chosen by the money holders . You are the DoD (the customer) , but nobody cares . Politicals decided for you ...


I know , we had the same people here in France a short while ago .


 

All of this to say that as a customer , the best car you could get (sorry , aircraft) was the Rafale . As a customer , I see :

-1) this is the best on paper and during evaluation at the time being and for the foreseeable futur .


-2) The French themselves are buying the F3 version so I can count on a good customer support

-3) their technology transfert is interesting and fair


-4) the price is higher than planned but not by much

-5) I like the French accent and my wife too :-)


 

In all fairness , 300 Rafales or so should have been sold by now on quality alone . Now , you dare asking why the USA wanted to stop Dassault ??? Are you blind or what ?! Think about the money involved .............


You can post as much as you want to defend the F-teens , your enginereers and your political themselves know that the Rafale is the better aircraft and it is why they conducted such an agressive war on Rafale . They did well .


The French only have themselves to blame but hey , we 're not sluts and thieves .

 

Cheers .




*sigh* I hope you leave the board.
 
Here you call your fellow posters nationalities 'sluts and thieves', ok, got on the wheels for my general complaint of ill faith.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/17/2009 6:52:47 PM
(Yes I'm adhd and Asbergers so I get a bit obsessive.)
 

And at some point I suppose you said France is conservative, which I suppose you meant fiscally (except you're not compared to your neighbors), because socially you're not. And France is known as the land of acceptable sexual peccadiloes, so you're throwing stones in a glass house... didn't you just make some tasteless joke about 'penetrating your girlfriend' relating to some argument about planes?
 
... what kind of people argue that their plane is prettier... not in this thread.... I think... just something I remembered...
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/17/2009 6:55:32 PM

 
I don 't even understand why they beat around the bush ...

 

Cheers .
And you're never going to understand, because you're completely unable to accept a reality you hate.
 
(next post)
It's true they're not too good at business, but on the other hand they had lots of support from state.


 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/17/2009 7:00:33 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 .




Oh right, another pillar... anytime someone doesn't answer assume you're 100% correct.
Nevermind that you didn't answer why France cut budgets despite being better off than other countries not cutting fighter production (like Russia and the smaller cuts made in the US) because they couldn't have been 'intimidated by the enemy who lets us test our planes on their land carrier landings (whatever's the name)). Cue economic conspiracy.
 
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