The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What is wrong with the Rafale?
Rufus    5/9/2009 10:16:10 AM
I have noticed a lot of discussion on here lately about the Rafale and its inability to compete with the various other late 4th generation designs on the market today. In an effort to shed some light on this issue I have taken a moment to list some of the Rafale's major crippling flaws and their origins.

The single biggest issue with the Rafale, and the common thread throughout most of its major design flaws, is that its design team simply lacked sufficient vision of where the future of fighter aviation was heading. Throughout the Rafale's design process its designers chose to go with incremental improvements rather than generational leaps in technology. The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29. The end result is a somewhat refined, but badly overpriced aircraft that has struggled to even compete with the aircraft it was designed to match, and utterly lacks the potential to compete with newer designs.

The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features. The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders. What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.

Not only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter. As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach.

Like its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase. While the Rafale was largely successful in matching the interfaces seen in US fighters in the early 90s, its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading. Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production. It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight, and numerous other advanced features such as the Super Hornet's fully decoupled interfaces. Most critically, the Rafale's man machine interface lacks the defining features of a 5th generation design, such as advanced sensor fusion and sophisticated multi-purpose helmet mounted displays.

Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end. Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar. The best the Rafale can hope to do is close some of its radar performance gap with aircraft like the F-16, but will never be capable of competing with designs like the Eurofighter or Super Hornet.

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite. As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats. The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system. By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters. The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems. Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.) Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers, so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)

So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts. By the time the Rafale design team recognized they had misjudged the direction of future designs, they lacked the resources and time to correct their mistakes. Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33   NEXT
Bluewings12       5/18/2009 6:27:42 PM
Ok ben , what you say seems good to me . You know your business :-)
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/18/2009 6:56:35 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 .




I'm reading it as a chaser with RBE2 radar driven telemetry update for both IR and RH versions. It is supposed to have a fire and forget lob feature of sorts claimed:


(forgive the translation)

Knowing the parameters of launch (tau zero?) (starting position, initial position and flight characteristics 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 this target. (Drop basket?)
Shooting modes:
Mode 1: shooting long distance with telemetry update: plane-missile. This mode allows the missile  to obtain the longest possible ranges, by at every moment optimizing the trajectory and the scan field of the missile seeker. (chase after lob?-though it sounds like continuous pursuit lead as I described
Mode 2: shooting long distance without telemetry update: plane-missile. This mode allows the (pilot engager?) to engage several targets and to break combat. (Blind fire and run?)
Mode 3: shooting short distance with slaving of homing head in missile to aiming sight. This mode is optimized for the close combat with a very large off-boresight and uses the helmet mounted sight to steer and stare.
Mode 4: shooting short distance with homing head as free scanning before the shooting. This traditional mode allows the missile to be released in an autonomous way after "lock".

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 7:13:31 PM
Herald :
""I'm reading it as a chaser""
 
??? No ! Since you can use Google to translate , read the translation carefully .

""(chase after lob?-though it sounds like continuous pursuit lead as I described) ""
 
Again , no ! What don 't you understand in "This mode allows the missile  to obtain the longest possible ranges, by at every moment optimizing the trajectory " .
Do I have to post some more stuff on Mica ??? Believing that Mica is not using a loft flight path is utter non sense .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/18/2009 7:51:16 PM

Herald :


""I'm reading it as a chaser""

 

??? No ! Since you can use Google to translate , read the translation carefully .






""(chase after lob?-though it sounds like continuous pursuit lead as I described) ""


 

Again , no ! What don 't you understand in "This mode allows the missile  to obtain the longest possible ranges, by at every moment optimizing the trajectory " .

Do I have to post some more stuff on Mica ??? Believing that Mica is not using a loft flight path is utter non sense .


 

Cheers .


No, BW, I'm pretty sure that's the same quote you came up with the last time this subject came up (or at least I seem to recall that it sounds familiar).  No, that does not necessarily mean optimizing in the z, or altitude axis by flying the missile up into thinner (lower drag) atmosphere.  Note that it refers to continuously optimizing the trajectory; lofting doesn't require or provide "continuously optimizing" the trajectory, as in lofting the missile per se does not in itself require continuously recalculating anything.  That quote could still just be referring to optimizing in the x and y directions of the plane containing the launch aircraft and the target aircraft, as in flying toward a predicted future location of where the target is suspected to be when the missile arrives.  Doing so definitely does increase the range of the missile  It does not necessarily mean the missile flies up out of that plane and then descends back to the altitude of the target.  Once again I will repeat that I am not saying it does not do it, just that I have not see what I consider evidence that it does.
 
By the way, note how this allows the missile to obtain the longest possible range by constantly optimizing the trajectory--strange how that could be, since I thought I remenber being told by you that "range" has only one meaning and that is how far the missile can fly regardless of the various parameters of the engagement scenario?
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 8:12:29 PM
There is something a bucket load of Europeans posters cannot understand :
The American posters (and the foreign posters who will get the F-35)  can 't admit or even acknowledge that the European technology is sometimes ahead of the USA technology in matter of air warfare .
 
It is not because the USA had the money to develop Stealth than the Europeans are behind in other fields . When US posters will admit it , we 'll be able to talk equal to equal which is how a discussion should begins .
 
There are many fields where the Europeans are not only on the par with the USA but ahead .
First , there is the Optical field (visible light or Infrared) which includes IRSTs , long range cameras ,  IR seekers and Optronic devices . France , Germany , the United Kingdom , Switzerland , Sweden have all something the USA don 't have . The USA are not the crucible where the western technology sees the light , far from it
 
So it would be nice if the non European posters would tone down and read a bit more on the Net before to come here with non sense .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 8:19:58 PM
Warpig , I see your last post as a try to come back to the topic with some meaningfull words but you failed because while you lost on the main points , you loose yourself (and our time) into meaningless details .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/18/2009 8:33:05 PM
"So it would be nice if the non European posters would tone down and read a bit more on the Net before to come here with non sense ."
 
I don't get my information from the Internet. To do so would be negligent. The Internet if filled with lies and rumors. It's best to get your information from sources that give a damn about their integrity.
 
Nice of you to make it an American vs European thing. Too bad that is not the case. There are many areas where I wish the US would follow the European lead. (Corvettes, Minehunting/Sweeping gear, Hull Mounted Sonars, the Challenger II tank, to name a few) In this particular instance, radars and missiles, I'll stick with the tried, tested, and true American radars and missiles.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/18/2009 8:42:13 PM

Warpig , I see your last post as a try to come back to the topic with some meaningfull words but you failed because while you lost on the main points , you loose yourself (and our time) into meaningless details .

 

Cheers .




 
Yeah, I'm sure that's what you think, just like all the other meaningless details I lost you in when disproving the errors you and FS have made about MICA in other threads.  I would still love to see some source for the meaningless details that I question, such as a lofted trajectory for MICA.
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/18/2009 9:58:09 PM
There are many fields where the Europeans are not only on the par with the USA but ahead .

No BW.
French defense procurement agency report published in 2005 including with public extracts on french parlament reports show that France is only ahead of USA on 4% of defense technologies and on par for 30%.
Which is not bad (better than Russians or British) and we are world second.
On rest of technologies we are just few years later.
If France start a product development 10 years after USA, we are usually more advanced of course, since we can use more advanced technologies: if you are average 4 years later in technologies but start 10 years later developement of course you can include in basic design and development more advanced technologies.

But the point concercing Rafale is not that we would be ahead, we are not.Rafale development was done in parallele of F22 for the timeline and F22 use for some stuffs more advanced techs.
However we build a different and pretty good concept with some advantages US aircrafts do not have because they have followed a different path.
Of course their aircrafts have their advantage also.The point is that the best AtoA fighter in USA is F22 and not F35 which is heavily compromise for full stealth for AtoG.
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/18/2009 10:16:44 PM
PS: Just a comment for warpig  
I never made here a mistake on french technology.I know what I'm speaking about, I'm logical and if I do'nt know of it is confidential I do not speak about it. I check all the time if information is publicly available.
 
Quote    Reply

Dingc       5/18/2009 10:22:35 PM
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    FS   5/18/2009 10:23:07 PM
French defense procurement agency report published in 2005 including with public extracts on french parlament reports show that France is only ahead of USA on 4% of defense technologies and on par for 30%.
Which is not bad (better than Russians or British) and we are world second.
On rest of technologies we are just few years later.
If France start a product development 10 years after USA, we are usually more advanced of course, since we can use more advanced technologies: if you are average 4 years later in technologies but start 10 years later developement of course you can include in basic design and development more advanced technologies.
 
I have already pointed out that Russia is clearly number two. How can France be number two when it's behind in some major areas, and does not even compete in others. I have already posted where Frances situation is compared to Russia, so i'm not going to elaborate any more on this subject. If you think that my earlier post is not correct go back read it carefully and tell me how that is not so.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Delusions.......   5/18/2009 10:23:21 PM
The MU-90 is a dandy torpedo, French submarines are good to excellent, satellite launchers and ballistic missiles fine but French  aviation engineers and system designers in general as a class set are IDIOTS.  
 
Mainly because they have the arrogance and lack of clear vision exhibited by our two so called 'experts".
 
That is a shame. French engineers can be world class. They are world class when they don't try to do something beyond their tech base..
 
There was and is no good technological or ECONOMIC reason for MICA. There was and is no good reason for ASTER. There isn't even a good reason for Rafale as it actually turned out. France can produce good missiles (ASMP) 
 
I can't tell you how tired I am of hearing that France is this, or France is that relative to such and such.
 
Well guess what? France isn't. It never was.
 
She now has to use German rocket designs, Italian power reactor designs, Dutch and German electronics, Italian torpedo expertise, British aviation expertise, and  SPANISH naval engineering help to fix all the crap that French engineers have screwed up this last generation.
 
That claimed expertise France uses is therefore EU as in European.
.     
Give the people bailing your engineers out of their foul ups, the credit that is THEIR due. 
 
Herald
 
Herald
 
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 10:56:23 PM

French defense procurement agency report published in 2005 including with public extracts on french parlament reports show that France is only ahead of USA on 4% of defense technologies and on par for 30%.

Which is not bad (better than Russians or British) and we are world second.

On rest of technologies we are just few years later.

If France start a product development 10 years after USA, we are usually more advanced of course, since we can use more advanced technologies: if you are average 4 years later in technologies but start 10 years later developement of course you can include in basic design and development more advanced technologies.
 

I have already pointed out that Russia is clearly number two. How can France be number two when it's behind in some major areas, and does not even compete in others. I have already posted where Frances situation is compared to Russia, so i'm not going to elaborate any more on this subject. If you think that my earlier post is not correct go back read it carefully and tell me how that is not so.

 

Ummm I'm not so sure. Since Russia and the Europeans are different with regard to defense needs its hard to compare everything. But overall I'd say that technologically it's not a stretch that the French have gained the upper hand since the Russians have had to recover from the Soviet Era collapse. But technology isn't everything. I'd give France and Russia rough parity all things considered.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    Oy   5/18/2009 10:58:03 PM

French defense procurement agency report published in 2005 including with public extracts on french parlament reports show that France is only ahead of USA on 4% of defense technologies and on par for 30%.

Which is not bad (better than Russians or British) and we are world second.

On rest of technologies we are just few years later.

If France start a product development 10 years after USA, we are usually more advanced of course, since we can use more advanced technologies: if you are average 4 years later in technologies but start 10 years later developement of course you can include in basic design and development more advanced technologies. 

A typical US poster is willing to concede superiority to France where such has been demonstrated with facts and logical analysis.  Tube artillery, conventional subs, mines, small craft, guided specialty munitions, rations, unit tactics, strategic ruthlessness and the other areas suggested above etc. as appropriate.  He is willing to acknowledge parity as well.

The "problem" with US posters is that unlike the French ones they 1) smell b.s. from miles a way better than a dog can, 2) survived mediocre physics and chemistry teachers while bothering to learn these subjects on their own, through the military schools, employers and/or at easily accessible universities, and 3) are actually able from personal constitution and societal viewpoints to accept fail then relearn and retool.  (if you are not routinely failing in the US you are not trying to achieve anything of substance.)

You French argue simply to be heard else offer a contrarian position for its own sake, and failure is brushed past instead of being confronted with positive action.  Hard science is hit or miss with you people -- you do not revisit the past educational deficiences as we at least attempt to do.  Your train of thought gets "baked in" early on.

The French here do not convince as to Rafale.  0.02 from personal interaction with French technicals

v^2

 
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