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
benellim4       5/18/2009 5:40:57 PM
"Yeah and ?? The fact is that 4 US aircrafts fired 6 missiles and none hit the targets . Maybe the Irakis fired too but the story doesn 't say .
At this precise moment in time , 1 M2000-C and 2 Matra Super 530-Ds would have done the job ..."
 
First of all, a little English lesson. The plural of "aircraft" is "aircraft" not "aircrafts." Don't worry a lot of English speakers screw it up too.
 
You have not described the circumstances surrounding the incident. If you could describe it, accurately, you'd know why no missile then in production would have killed the aircraft in question.

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/18/2009 5:41:24 PM

warpig    

At least I back my comments with OFFICIAL links from US or french DoD or good work available from internet (from universities or research institutes)

You don't

Who is the professional? You would be surprised what is my level of contact in USA.Very surprised.

At least I know how to search my info on US governemental sites.

Now I don't  critic USA or says that US products are bulsh*t like you say about French ones.US product are very good.

But let allow us to defend our position when it is true.And we know how to design products which did a surprise from Mirage 3 to Exocet or M2000.

BW maybe too optimitic and enthusiastic as an amateur in defense tech, but I'm not.

When Australia or NZ order a French SAM (Mistral) over the USA Stinger in a competition, or French MU 90 Torpedoes over USA MK50 torpedoes, it says a lot.

Because Australia or NZ are pro US.Not pro french.

I just comment here sometimes and I'm fact based.



 
I typically don't care to spend the time to try to find some link that supports what I say, and I consider most links to usually be of little value anyway, as typically they either can be contradicted by some other link and/or else they are wrong to begin with.  I've pretty much given up on providing links and requiring links, and just rely on the sniff test.  Feel free to knock yourself out with your links, though.  I do like looking at pretty pictures.
 
I suggest that if you can't tell who are the players without a scorecard, then you might want to keep a list.  I happen to be one of the guys who basically never uses personally derogatory language like "amateur" and "fanboy" (though I admit to yielding to temptation on occasion) or otherwise try to insult the poster's qualifications or experience, as opposed to sometimes insulting the poster for his conclusions.  Although, I do admit I do run short of patience with you two.  Also, I am someone who refuses to initiate stupid scenarios like Americans v. French, but there are times when I can't resist joining in to correct specific items within such an aburd debate that has already been started by others.  Finally, I am the guy here who thinks that most anything Frrench is actually likely to be better than most anything Russian, as opposed to many other posters who seem to think (for example) that the Su-30 is actually worth trying to integrate into a western-styled air force rather than buying any of several better choices from America or Europe, so once again your comments are misplaced about me supposedly hating on French equipment.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 5:41:47 PM
lol ben ! You 're funny , really and in good faith !
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 5:42:57 PM

FS,


My bad I assumed you were going to use a realistic RCS for the Rafale which is probably in the 1 to .3 sqm class without external tanks and missiles. Also, since this is a passive shot attempt, you will not be xmitting RF. So your range is limited to OSF which is not likely to see a Flanker at 80km in cruise especially from the front. The Flanker WILL SEE a Rafale with Radar at that distance.


Your numbers are based on the fantasy that the APG-73 already dispelled. A combat configured Rafale is nowhere near .1 sqm. You want so bad for the Rafale to be a stealth aircraft and it is not. 


The bottom line is, if you tried to use the MICA IR to shoot a Flanker totally passive. You would have to close to about 20km or less and use an LRF. That's if you are in a Rafale with OSF. As the data shows, you are not likely to close that distance since even by your own data a Flanker would see you head on at least 70km away using your unrealistically low RCS figures. So as I said, if you want to take a long range BVR shot at greater distance, you have to use radar or some other form or active emitter that can get FC quality data.


So what this shows is that while a Su-27 pilot needs to be very cautions when Rafales are around due to the difference in detection capabilities,  unless the Rafale can get to within 40 to 60 km undetected , the Flankers longer ranged R-27/R-77 will actually match and/or potentially outrange the MICA/RBE2/OSF capability to engage.


Now remember what I told you. The Flanker isn't going to be flying around 1 vs 1. It will have GCI, RWR and maybe even AWAC/AEW. It also has it's own IRST. The latter will assist the Flanker in the event that SPECTRA fouls up its RF xmissions. 


I'm a reasonable person FS. Data is data. It appears that things stack up like this.


With respect to BVR


RBE2/MICA vs BARS/R-27 or R-77


First Look=Rafale

First Fire=Flanker


So I'd say all things being equal this is rough parity since detecting the target first may allow a clever Rafale driver to take advantage of the better SA. However, once the Rafale commits, if he is detected outside of MICA range which is a distinct possibility, he may be staring down some much longer ranged BVR shots.


Does this at all seem like a reasonable approximation of the situation?


-DA

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/18/2009 5:46:06 PM

You have no clue on MICA Herald.

Is that so? How come the generated numbers describe what the missile actually does?

BTW Greecs or UAE use AMRAAMs on their F16 C or E, and they purchase in parallele Mirage 2000-5 and MICA.

Are they totally stupid?
 
Why don't YOU ask them?
 
In the meantime:
 
Is Mirage 2000 iuterfaced and coded for AMRAAM? Is the RDY even integrated with the Amerocan telemetry formats and codes? 

I don't think so.
 
I agree with three words in that statement. 

BTW it is not Thales which designed MICA seeker but ESD.And laws for flight profile by Matra.
Look again at who owns the companies NOW.
 
Legardare  Group (Matra) as subcontractor to THALES for the RH, and that is EADS, that screwed up the IR seeker  not EDS, my ill informed friend.
 
Currently its MBDA that gets the blame for the whole works.

Better look at which petrodollar funded holding comapinies own which part of you.defense.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 5:49:04 PM

benellim4   

Well, I'm the most outstanding professional from France who have ever visited this site (for fun and also to know US news quickly or check general average US opinion).It would be a little sad to expel me because I contradicted you with facts and OFFICIAL LINKS.

What DoD document have you produced here?

PS: DoD is Department of Defense in USA - LOL

 

Now for F15 experience, it is true they have never faced a decent opponent in combat.

Syrian or Irakis equipement were outdated, downgraded export versions, with poor pilots, without AWAC supports....

Mig 25 is a plane of end of sixties.First flight in 1964.A joke for air combat (but can sometime escape by speed).

At least our old Mirage F1 manned by South African have done a good job against real Russian Mig 23 with Cuban pilots (not Syrians).

 

FS,


Mig-25 has never been used under ideal conditions and almost always with pilots who are probably not as well trained as Soviet Pilots. Even so, Mig-25's did give some impressive dogfight performances in ODS even if they ultimately lost the engagements. It's my understanding that these were not easy fights. If the Iraqi IAD and C3 weren't so dislocated the toll may have been worse.


-DA 



 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/18/2009 5:50:18 PM
"Well, I'm the most outstanding professional from France who have ever visited this site (for fun and also to know US news quickly or check general average US opinion).It would be a little sad to expel me because I contradicted you with facts and OFFICIAL LINKS."
 Professional what? Airman? Soldier? Sailor? Marine? Engineer? I'd bet money you're none of these. I have yet to see a fact from you that wasn't tortured into sounding like something you want it to be, rather than what it is objectively.
 
Contradicted? When? With your assertion that the AESA radar will be IOC on the Rafale in 2011? When did you provide and official link for that? The fact of the matter is the final delivery for the FIRST system is planned for 2010, when software validation is supposed to start. There are no plans to retrofit the radar to existing Rafales, so that means you'll only get them on new aircraft. New aircraft production has been limited to less than 1 airframe per month. So even if the testing went well and you started building fighters with the new radar in 2011, by 2012 you'd have 12 at best, and more like 8 or 9.  That may be why the actual IOC is supposed to be 2012, and even then that estimate is optimistic because it assumes there will be no problems with the technology, the software validation and the integration into the airframe.
 
h**p://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/RADAR11048.xml

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 5:51:25 PM
ben :
""You have not described the circumstances surrounding the incident. If you could describe it, accurately, you'd know why no missile then in production would have killed the aircraft in question.""
 
??? Do you know something I don' t about these particular encounters ? If you do , prove it please as I am very interested (honest) .
Why do you say that you know what happened ??? I mean you said : "you'd know why no missile then in production would have killed the aircraft in question" , so ?
 
To me , it seems so far that you are only trying to get "air" because your head is under water if I may say . 
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/18/2009 6:00:29 PM
I like to give the French their due as well. The MU90 is a good torpedo. I'd buy some for the USN if I could, but let's not forget that the Mk50 is considered a dead-end even in the USN and is why the Mk54 CBASS was developed. It's not surprising those in the land of Oz decided against buying them. Not to mention the Mk50 had a ridiculous price tag, something like $3 million each. For what it did it was overpriced (Ironically, much like the Rafale today.)
 
The Mk54 doesn't have the range nor speed advantage of the MU90, but then again when you put the Mk54 on a helo or drop it off of a Vertically Launched ASROC (VLA) against a diesel sub those advantages don't matter as much.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/18/2009 6:01:52 PM




Herald



 



At the risk of adding fuel to the fire and providing more ammunition for the banal - uber missile combines two roles without compromising either role- argument.



 



and please forgive me if i sprang a herald trap.



 



BW and FS maintain that to swap IR to RF roles is just a seeker swap.



No it is not in practice.. In summary, an IR seeker can track lead by built in offset predict and the GCU will use the most energy efficient direct chase profile to close the maneuvering target.That is bearing only data (scalar) and relies on continuous point.. You  have to constantly correct lead over tau (time interval) and chase the image or the heat source as it drifts across the IR seeker's FoV This means the IR GCU uses the heat blob or image drift and nudges or slams the actuators to make small continuous or gross adjustments to fins and vanes and thrusters to mantain pursuit lead point until final merge at which it tries to center the hottest spot in the blob detected or the image and jerks directly into the target it sees.


 

Radar, at the least the active type radar on AMRAAM supplies a VECTOR not a SCALAR to the GCU missile computer which can use the vector or TRACK to predict where the target will be in the near future and the missile computer will directly POINT at the predict point. Its a fairly stupid cheap computer in AMRAAM, but its machine (hardware) logics and preset (data tables) solutions are good enough so that it applies shove forces to POINT the missile in a single correction and the missile flies to meet and greet as opposed to IR chase and meet.  When the radar guided missile is close enough that the proximty fuses kick in, it, the missile explodes its warhead and relies on spall more than direct missile impact and then explosion to do the job.  





You have stated this isn't the case as a different flight profile is required thus software package.

 

The two dufferent approaches require purpose designed missile bodies, actuators, and control systems to get the most efficient use out of the coastimg potential energy involved in flyout after rocket motor burnout.  Just how you turn dictates how you design the missile body. For example AMRAAM you unload inertia forces late (tail controls) and you reduce drag as much as possible consistent with the lift you need to maximize usable flyout after lob. The planes on the missile midbody are there for lift and to damp roll while the tail controls are for SHOVE and point and not continuous lead correction. 

 

The MICA needs all the lift she can get and relies heavily on those strakes you see on her  for it. She also relies on her fins and vane controls to fine adjust for point lead drift to center both her radar returns and IR images the same way. The software packages as stated are different logics for radar (vector/track) and IR (scalar/bearing ); but because THALES screwed up the machine intercept pursuit logics for the GCU/RH seeker combo trying to use an IR solution for an active radar thay robbed the MICA of almost 20% of its usable flyout potential energy. Furthermore, as with the stupid RBE2, they did not solve for parasitic noise in the MICA seeker so they now get a halo where the "noise" overwhelms the radar return signal giving them a FoV picture that looks something like a doughnut  when you graph the returns across that rather myopic FoV cone.      




My field of relative (in)expertise is aircraft maintenance and systems design and antegration and consequently i know little about missiles. so to me it isn't inconceivable that the seeker unit and brain could be a combined plug and play assembly.



Missiles are not piloted aircraft. Missiles are stupid. As a Human being, you have to design the missile to fly exactly right for what you want, or you will wind up with a piece of junk (Falcon, Terrier, Atlas, Sea Slug, Aster ) that won't do what you hoped, but  will do exactly what you designed into it wrong . Nowhere does KISS apply to a machine more than to Mister Rocket.  




Or more simply (and to my mind effectively) both flight profiles could be loaded and the appropriate mode selected by pin configuration of the seeker. This method is used to configure a fair amount of Avionic equiptment to aircraft types and configurations.



 Sure it could. But then look at what you add as you try to design a SINGLE machine to use the wrong software for the two different pursuit logics? You build a missile that is neither fish not fowl, that can't point, or chase, or intercept worth a damn: or you settle on that single pursuit logic (scalar/bearing) and try to adapt it to a sensor (radar) that was never intended to use that logic. You get MICA a fat rather long coasting WVR IR missile with a sharp start fastburn candle and no sustainer,  bang/bang actuators and large fins that are too massive for the BVR missile need you have.  BVR missiles can do the job with relatively small actuators and fins, and thus don't need to waste so much mass in an aeroshell for strakes, lift fins, and final side shove controllers.

 

Add electonic insult to botched missile body injury, then you screw up the IR seeker because at MACH 4.5+  that nose gets HOT!  Your cryo-chiller you designed within a restricted weight and volume limit  doesn't cool the IR sensor enough to generate a good contrast so you lose imager sensitivity.

 

We've already discussed the RH seeker problem THALES botched.

 

As I said, the IR variant is the AdA preferred one. Its cheaper than the RH one and it halfway works: at least well enohg to be a self defense missile.          




Is this not possible in a missile system (perhaps space constraints limit memory space) - asking as you certainly appear to have more knowledge on this subject than I.




The AMRAAM uses the equivalent of a souped up desktop computer. The intercept problem (three body moving predict) is already supercomputered  and solved for the possible delta vees and aspects and slants involved for the missile. All AMRAAM has to do is use the stupid tables loaded into its computer and match data sets against inputs. There should be no guiding algorithm at all aboard. Just data reads to match to controller inputs-table versus table. The algoritnm to generate that data for that specific missile, I suspect is a most closely guarded state secret.  Just as it wouold be for the R-77, or the Derby




Regards






Herald

PS, yes it was a Herald trap.


Herald, in addition to your excellent discussion of the differences in how an IR seeker tracks with out benefit of range data, compared to how a radar seeker tracks because it has range data, then there is also the difference in how a radar guided missile potentially might use a lofted trajectory against a known distance target, which can significantly increase its distance quite a bit further, whereas if a theoretical IR missile is being designed to actuially engage targets at 40, 50, 60km or more, but is flying toward the target without benefit of range data I believe it is a fair assumption to make that it will not use lofting and therefore arises another difference between using the same missile with interchanged guidance sections.
For that matter, I have yet to see any source for MICA ever using any lofting flight path, whether RF or IR versions.  Here is one instance where I would like to see a citation, any citation.  I am not saying it does not, just that I don't remember being shown any evidence of it yet.  I hope that it does, and I'd like to see something that confirms this.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 6:04:07 PM
uh ??? Should we ask Dassault to make a MU90 torpedo compatible with Rafale ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/18/2009 6:08:21 PM
"Do you know something I don' t about these particular encounters ? If you do , prove it please as I am very interested (honest) .
Why do you say that you know what happened ??? I mean you said : "you'd know why no missile then in production would have killed the aircraft in question" , so ?"
 
They were baiting the F-14s and F-15s into what is known as a "SAMbush." The Iraqi Migs would dash across the No-Fly Zone in an area where no Coalition fighters were present. When the Coalition fighters were vectored to the intruders the Iraqi Migs would then turn tail and run into the cover of friendly surface to air missile coverage. While I was not in the cockpit, I imagine the missiles were launched out of frustration as much as anything else.  A good book on the subject is F-15 Eagle Engaged.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 6:14:39 PM
Warpig :
""For that matter, I have yet to see any source for MICA ever using any lofting flight path, whether RF or IR versions.  Here is one instance where I would like to see a citation, any citation.""
 
It is in French but I will translate it roughly :
h*tp://frenchnavy.free.fr/weapons/mica/mica_fr.htm

Inertial reference : "Knowing the parameters of shooting (starting position, initial position and elements of flights of the target), it makes it possible to calculate the future position of the target, and thus to calculate the optimal trajectory to follow to detect and intercept it"
 
Is that enough or you need more ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 6:20:19 PM
ben :
""They were baiting the F-14s and F-15s into what is known as a "SAMbush." The Iraqi Migs would dash across the No-Fly Zone in an area where no Coalition fighters were present. When the Coalition fighters were vectored to the intruders the Iraqi Migs would then turn tail and run into the cover of friendly surface to air missile coverage. While I was not in the cockpit, I imagine the missiles were launched out of frustration as much as anything else.""
 
Thank you , that makes sense . But still ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/18/2009 6:23:44 PM
"Thank you , that makes sense . But still ..."
 
But still what? Even if French aircraft had a higher top speed than the F-14s and F-15s and had missiles with a longer range the Iraqis would not have come into firing range, just as they did not with the F-14s and F-15s. What the F-14s and F-15s were trying to do was "steal the bait." It's a low Pk shot, but if you're successful it causes the enemy to rethink their tactics.
 
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