NO disrespect but this quotes shows either the most basic lack of knowledge of the Rafale itself and its history, all this fuss means little in terms of aeronautic reality.

 One only have to look at US designs and the aerodynamic problem replicated from F-18 to F-35 including F-22, namely aerodynamic bashing of the vertical fins leading to excessive structural fatigue...

  Evolution is based on knowledge and doesn't necessarly means slow progresses, if there are conservative designs, the Rafale is certainly not one of them, and furthermore, performances speaks for themself.

Quote:Rufus
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.

  Eurogither, SAAB and even Boeing mut be VERY desapointed.

Quote:Rufus
lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter".

  Let's make it CLEAR:

1) Rafale and Eurofighter only shares apparences and their design is fundamentaly different for those who know.

2) Rafale is the 4th generation aircraft with the highest instantaneous turn rate and have a sustained turn rate equal to that of Typhoon, its proven and demonstrated Max AoA is a whapping 40* higher that that of a Typhoon and well passed 10* higher than a Gripen.

  There is 12 to 20 kt/ 4* AoA difference in their approach speed and attitude and when a Rafale can easly be put throught the soft AoA limitation to save the day, a Tyhoon FCS will prevent any flying geniuse to do so because it is AoA limited.

  A recently published document on Rafale early flight test programe reveals that its all axis level of control at all speeds and hgigh AoA is far superior to most of its competitors:

 Maximum AoA of passed 100*, negative speed of 40 kt were achieved with NO LOSS OF CONTROL, while in dissimilar combat against the Mirage 2000 some agressive test pilots flew the aircraft at speeds as low as 18 kt (Yes, read eighteen knots).

 Post-stall maneuvers were firt simulated by ONERA then flown by several test-pilots.

 Rafale integrated canards have a lot more advantages than providing with a high level of variable lift, this compared to Typhoon long moment harm and to a much lesser extend, the less integrated canards of the Gripen.

  The vortices generated at both canard roots and tips allows for the natural close coupled canard configuration increase in airflow energy to be maximised, impossible with Typhoon actual design; it is worth taking note that EADS attempted in 2008 to remedie to this problem by adding LEXs to ex- GaF Typhoon 98+30.

  This soultion proved impractical due (again) to the original inlet design aerodynamic interferences and the design of the canards themself, in real life, add-on and patch-ups doesn't work for aerodynamic optimisation.

  Serie Rafale canards and LEX were fully integrated at design stage and are part of a combination including a TWO cones vortex lift delta wing to provide with variable lift and optimise their combined advantages.

  The designers went also a step further with full used of the boundary layer compressive and expensive waves characteristics, something no other design fully achieves even today, this furter increases airflow energy around the airframe at lower speed and higher AoA.

  SAAB couldn't do thid with the Gripen either, because the airframe had to be kept as small as possible due to its mono engine configuration they had to satick to a more conventional configuration.

  The canard vortex roots have to be positioned very precisely in both plans so that they interact (like sprockets) with that of the wings before their energy dissipates.

  This set of vortexes acts as energisers for both the wing root vortexes and the fin which becomes shielded from embiant airflow at high AoA.

  In the case of Rafale, the combination of the LEX/wing crank vortex and that of the canard tips increases further the airflow above the outter wing at similar AoA as does that of the canard root vortexes.

  They are positioned suffisciently outward to increase ailerons control up to AoAs where other aircraft have none left because there is no LEX vortexes there to interact with that of the canard tips and sustain their energies.

  As a matter of FACT Typhoon is known to have a lower roll rate by a 90* margin and a lower level of dumping than Rafale.

  Eurofighter Typhoon was originaly designed with close coupled canards in the form of EFA, but aerodynamic problems created by the proximity of the chin inlet left its designers with no other choice but to relocate these canards out of their zone of interference.

  This lead to a whole new set of problems, we will see in depth what causes them, why and how.

  Studies by the most advanced aerodynamicist including that of NASA demonstrated some intersting FACTS...

  Close coupled/integrated canards have several advantages over long moment harm canards.

 a) Higher level of DYNAMIC instability.

  This means in FACT that at all flight regimes, the canards/wing wortex interaction creates a level of instability unknown from other aerodynamic arrangements.

  The airframe can then be designed with a lower percentage of static instability, which leaves the designers with a much wider range of cg range for store position (partly explaining why a Rafale can carry 1.5 its own weight) and a much less vulnerable aircraft in case of damage caused to the canards.

  When in flight, the difference of instability bewteen a more staticaly instable design is NIL, while these advantages remains even passed the transonic sone, in supersonic flight, dynamic instability remains.

  A Rafale dynamic instability will always be present from low speed/high AoA to Max Mach, while static instability all but desapear in supersonic, in short, optimising canard/wing design provides with a more instable and controlable aircraft.

   The long moment harm lack of longitudinal control isn't only known to be Typhoon problem, it was also well advertised by NASA in the case of X-31 which never achieved AoA superior to 70*, Typhoon maximum AoA as well.

  To finish with this particular; Rafale never was put into a stall, this is yet another known characteristic of the integrated canard/delta arrangement while Typhoon is notoriously dangerous at speed below 150 kt which lead to EADS developement of Low Speed Autorecovery software.

  But it doesn't stops here.

  Another critical aspect of the maneuvrability classification matrix is greatly enhanced by the higher level of canard/wing integration:

  Natural DEMPING.

  NASA defines maneuvrability in all axis as a three stage matrix including; Transcient, Functional and Potential.

  Claiming that an aircraft is "more maneuvrable" than another by taking one particular out of this matrix doesn't mean anything in terms of combat effisciency.

  In some forums, some "knowledgeable" guys come up with figures they do not understand, like Maximum sustained turn rates at a given mach and altitude or G ofstet which btw, happens to be above the aircraft Max structural G load.

  In reality, maneuvrability is defined by the combination of all qualities (and defects) in terms of true response and response time to pilot imput.

  Where demping in so important, I ask this question:

  What would you do with a 2*/sec superior sustained turn rate when your instantaneous turn rate is inferior by twice this margin, your roll rate inferior by 90*/sec and your level of roll control (ignitiate/stop roll accurately) due to inferior demping characteristics way lower?

  According to NASA and the USAF, Nothing.

  Lack of Demping also have much more adverse effects than just a lower level of surface control which pilots learns to compensate for to a certain extend.

  In the transonic flight regime, when the cG shift occurs, depending of the level of instability of the design the effects can be  ennoying and even dangerous...

  Rafale optimised design means that the transition is non-traumatic, but in the case of Typhoon it lead to Pitch-up Moment of such an amplitude that control flight could be compromised.

  An aerodynamic bump between M 0.95 and M 0.975 of about 6* AoA and 3g, forced EADS into their Transonic Pitch Up mitigation Programe.

  If most of this "bump" have now been dampened through software twicks the aerodynamic root problem remains today, explaining why EADS DID experimented with LEXs when Typhoon lower percentage of lift and lift control could be partialy compensated for with higher thrust.

  I think you know Rafale and Lavi FAR too litle (not to mention the aerodynamic characteristics of the formula) to elaborate this way...

"Quote:Rufus
 its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading."

  A similar cockpit layout to that chosen for F-35 was tested but rejected on the ground that under high g combined with a high level of stress, an average pilot was loosing track of the informations provided by a single screen.

  It is already sometime difficult to a pilot to read datas in such conditions with well laid-out and disctinct instrumentation.

  The choice was made in the case of Rafale to separate these information not only in terms of positioning but also SIZE, so that in the most extreme conditions, the pilot will still be able to read and comprehend the most vital datas.

  Rafale was the first western aricraft to boost fully decoupled interfaces, the pilot could engage A2A while the WSO could do pretty much what he needed to do, its level of advanced sensor fusion is equal to none, including all sensors and even IR wing-tip mounted MICAs.

Quote:Rufus
Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar".

  RBE2 was always meant as an interim radar, the passive array was to be replaced as early as the European industry would be capable of producing its own independently of the US.

  It requierements Were for a radar 30% lighter than that of the Mirage 2000-5 (RDY) and occupy half the volume.

  It had to have the same range, be nanalizable and be resistant to nuclear EM spikes.

Quote:Rufus
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".

  This is a visibly missinformed quote so I skiped most of it.

  SPECTRA is WAY superior in terms of performances to most of what is beig developed elsewhere.

  In terms of cost it is the most expensive part of the aircraft which negates claims of lack of funding.

  The aircraft early interim F1 standard were equiped with an  under-developed version of SPECTRA and three 2084 XRI processors which are those of the Mirage 2000,  each of them 200 time more powerful than those fitted on the F-15 A.

  The Rafale was always intended to be different from the F1 standard which was rushed into service for the sole purpose to allow the Marine Nationale to replace their F-8 FN.

  Rafale F2 and F3 are the ONLY western aircrafts with Mirage 2000 Mk2/9 to feature a 5th generation core system architectrure, they share this particular system design with F-22 and F-35, they ALSO use interferometry for their ECMs.

  Rafale F2 standard 18 processors were already 50 time more powerful than the 2084 XRI, they have been recently upgraded to new generation multi-core processors in order to asses a fast approaching obsolescence problem.

  F-22 is also faced with such an issue, Typhoon too to the difference that Typhoon core system architecture isn't designed to integrate these new technologies and that only its processors and memory were upgraded with Tranche 2, NOT the core architecture.