The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 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       5/22/2009 8:22:36 PM
Please DA , feel free to take my post apart .
Can you do it with enough proofs to convince your reader ?
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/22/2009 8:31:51 PM
Da , read : feel free to tear my post apart .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/22/2009 8:50:42 PM

Please DA , feel free to take my post apart .

Can you do it with enough proofs to convince your reader ?

Cheers .

BW,

How many times do we honestly need to go through this? I'll sum it up for you. The Rafale is a respectable fighter. However, it has suffered a series of bad program management decisions that have resulted in some serious short comings with regard to all of it's competitors. That's why it can't sell. With respect to the F-35, the Rafale is completely outclassed and out priced. The latest F-Teens also outclass it since that all have capabilities that make them superior overall. It has what I would say the potential for rough parity with the Latest Migs and Su. But unlike those platforms, Rafale is still not fully developed.

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    Adding on to DA's post   5/22/2009 9:16:15 PM
F-16 with AMRAAM is a better interceptor than Rafale with MICA.  If the French want to brag in the air, stick to the Mirages.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/22/2009 9:59:48 PM
DA :
""The latest F-Teens also outclass it since that all have capabilities that make them superior overall""
 
We 've been through this many times DA , there is no F-Teen who can better the Rafale in multi-role from the land AND from the Sea .
 
earlm :
""F-16 with AMRAAM is a better interceptor than Rafale with MICA.  If the French want to brag in the air, stick to the Mirages.""
 
??? have you been drinking ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/22/2009 11:23:23 PM

DA :


""The latest F-Teens also outclass it since that all have capabilities that make them superior overall""

We 've been through this many times DA , there is no F-Teen who can better the Rafale in multi-role from the land AND from the Sea .

Meanwhile in reality...

...look, I've learned that no matter what I write, you will do one of two things.

a. Ignore it and assert that the Rafale is better-

This usually turns into BW asserting all kinds of things about SPECTRA, OSF, MICA and AASM that myself and other will spend many pages disproving while during the course of the discussion the Rafale suddenly becomes as Stealthy as an F-117 and can supercruise on one M-88 and OSF has OTH capability and SPECTRA is a DEW.

b. BW will go away for a few days or weeks only to repeat the same things over again as if the facts were never discussed.


No thanks. When you want to discuss the Rafale in some realistic way then let me know. Otherwise I don't really have time to discuss this over again and have my well thought out post trolled and ignored. For instance, if you think the Rafale as is has the capabilities overall that a late model F-teen does then that's just not realistic. BW, the Rafale has similar and in some areas under specific circumstances SUPERIOR aerodynamic performance to some F-teens and vise versa. But when it comes to fighting, since this isn't WW II and avionics and weapons actually make a difference, the Rafale lags behind. For example a Rafale cannot deliver it's own LGBs. It's radar does not offer the same capability as a AN/APG-79. It's not certified for all NATO standard weapons. These are undeniable facts that mean that if I wanted to put a LGB on a target  I CAN'T DO THAT WITH JUST A RAFALE. RAFALES CANNOT SEE AS FAR AS SUPER HORNETS. Do you understand differences? Why this matters more than 150 knots of top end speed difference that fighters can't exploit when combat configured?

Let me show you something RAFALE CANNOT DO THAT HAS MATTERED...

link width="425" height="344">
 

...and this is an export!
 
 -DA
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/22/2009 11:56:17 PM
Darth
F16 E electronic suit is quite similar to Rafale one and even APG80 has a better range than PESA RBE2 if not those of APG79 of F18E.
Only difference in Rafale F2/F3 vs F16E capabilities is range radar.
However F16E has a much bigger RCS so it nullify its 20 to 30% range advantage and its ECM suit seems less capable than Rafale at least for having a stronger RCS and not initial 3D integration with RCS features like on Rafale (where RCS and ECM were designed to be coupled and it is a huge improvment).
Rafale has also much better kinematic performance.
Now LGB capability is not introduced yet on Rafale even it has been qualified since our air force does not need it now.
 
I did NOT see either that F16E benefit of a weapon like AASM or MICA IR or Apache or ASMP.
Sure F16 has JDAM but can not launch 6 guided bombs at 50 km on 6 different targets with a meter precision.
Sure F16 has AMRAAM C but does not have equivalent of MICA IR.
 
For immediate future Rafale will get equivalent of APG79 in 2011 and will evolve, like its RCS also, while F16E is a legacy platform at its limit, and probably F16E is the last significant evolution of F16.
For now Rafale F3 is superior than F16E and F18E and this margin will extend with rafale F3 AESA, OSF2 and RCS/ECM improvement.
Rafale will have also a distributed aperture radar in few years also (multiband like PAK FA?) as a DIRCM.
Whatever F16 can have, it is a legacy platform while Rafale is a at beginning of its career with still margin of improvment in signature management.
USA deployed affordable MMIC module 5 years before us thank to a bigger investment in MMIC.
It doesn't mean we are inferior since we did not put main initial effort on radar but on ESM/ECM.
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    What?   5/23/2009 12:12:58 AM
For immediate future Rafale will get equivalent of APG79 in 2011
LOL! We have been in the AESA business for almost four decades, and you think that the first French AESA radar on a fighter is going to have the same capabilities as one of our best radars? you just don't stop do you.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    FS and BW   5/23/2009 12:35:07 AM
What is it with the both of you? Look nobody is buying what you two are selling, how many times do I have tell you guys the same thing. I don't know if you guys are saying all this BS just to piss people off, or maybe you guys think that if you say the same thing over and over that someone might believe you. Then again you guys might be pathological liars, or just plain liars.
Maybe you guys are just a couple of closed minded, patriotic people that do not want to admit the truth, because I don't believe that some one with any knowledge on the subject can be so uninformed. The things you two post about the Rafale is just mind numbingly brutal.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/23/2009 12:36:59 AM

Darth

F16 E electronic suit is quite similar to Rafale one and even APG80 has a better range than PESA RBE2 if not those of APG79 of F18E.

Only difference in Rafale F2/F3 vs F16E capabilities is range radar.


No, the F-16E also has a modern IRST. Not all Rafales have obsolete OSF. 
 
 
However F16E has a much bigger RCS so it nullify its 20 to 30% range advantage and its ECM suit seems less capable than Rafale at least for having a stronger RCS and not initial 3D integration with RCS features like on Rafale (where RCS and ECM were designed to be coupled and it is a huge improvment).

That AESA has 2 to 3 times the range of the RBE2. Also, are you planning a F-16E vs Rafale fight or something? The Rafale isn't part of the F-16E target set as it is an ally. Even so, the late model F-16s have similar RCS reduction features to Rafale.

Rafale has also much better kinematic performance.


Don't lie. It's not "much better". They are about the same.
 

Now LGB capability is not introduced yet on Rafale even it has been qualified since our air force does not need it now.

I did NOT see either that F16E benefit of a weapon like AASM or MICA IR or Apache or ASMP.
Well a lot of air forces NEED LGB and don't need AASM/MICA IR or APACHE and certainly not ASMP and the F-16E can carry equivalent, cheaper and in some cases better American weapons which are combat proven. 

 
Sure F16 has JDAM but can not launch 6 guided bombs at 50 km on 6 different targets with a meter precision.

Sure it can. JDAM has ER kits and because EVERYBODY uses JDAM, there are aftermarket kits and cost less than French only weapon.
 
Sure F16 has AMRAAM C but does not have equivalent of MICA IR.

 SO WHAT. The F-16E uses dedicated medium and short range AAMs. Equivalency and longer range due to AESA.

For immediate future Rafale will get equivalent of APG79 in 2011 and will evolve, like its RCS also, while F16E is a legacy platform at its limit, and probably F16E is the last significant evolution of F16.
 
Wrong. It is not at it's limit. Did you forget about...

 
For now Rafale F3 is superior than F16E and F18E and this margin will extend with rafale F3 AESA, OSF2 and RCS/ECM improvement.
 
BULLCRAP ABOVE

 
 
 

Rafale will have also a distributed aperture radar in few years also (multiband like PAK FA?) as a DIRCM.
Whatever F16 can have, it is a legacy platform while Rafale is a at beginning of its career with still margin of improvment in signature management.

USA deployed affordable MMIC module 5 years before us thank to a bigger investment in MMIC.
It doesn't mean we are inferior since we did not put main initial effort on radar but on ESM/ECM.

 
Rafale will have a lot of things according to Dassault. Nobody is buying or paying for it. In a few years you at 1 Rafale a month you won't even have as many Rafale F3's as there are F-22's.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/23/2009 12:50:40 AM
That AESA has 2 to 3 times the range of the RBE2.
20 to 30% better range you mean.Physic is the same for everybody

Also, are you planning a F-16E vs Rafale fight or something? The Rafale isn't part of the F-16E target set as it is an ally. Even so, the late model F-16s have similar RCS reduction features to Rafale.
I mean that advantage in range with current radar for F16 vs a Mig 35 for exemple, is nullify by F16 E stronger RCS.
F16E legacy platform and its huge pitot intakes is not designed for low RCS even some RAM and other feature have improved it maybe to the 1m² class.
USAF do no invest anymore in F16 and F16 is at end of its very successfull career.
We have 180 Rafale already ordered BTW and remaining planes of third batch  to delivered before 2016.Not far from F22 number.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/23/2009 4:39:18 AM

That AESA has 2 to 3 times the range of the RBE2.

20 to 30% better range you mean.Physic is the same for everybody

Sure it is. Thats why if you have a DIFFERENT radar, AESA vs PESA and your Tx is stronger and Rx more sensitive with better SNR and backed up by modern processors in the back end you get that kind of performance. This is why Dassault is doing what they are to try to get an AESA for Rafale.

Also, are you planning a F-16E vs Rafale fight or something? The Rafale isn't part of the F-16E target set as it is an ally. Even so, the late model F-16s have similar RCS reduction features to Rafale.

 

And... 

 

And... 


-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Because you don't even have your numbers right.   5/23/2009 2:31:20 PM

Dear Herald (I say "Dear" because your lasts posts have impressed me)

 

Where do you think I am wrong and why ?

 

Cheers .


Either for Rafale or the SH.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/23/2009 2:46:51 PM
USjoe
We have been in the AESA business for almost four decades
Yes like us for technology research.
You deployed for the first time an AESA radar on F15 (APG-63(V)2 few years ago only and in a limited number due to cost considerations which are very important for MMIC.
We were the first to deploy a jammer suit with directional AESA antenna integrated on a fighter with a similar concept of  AN/ALQ-161A Defensive Avionics System on the B-1B which weight more than a ton and use PESA antennas.
 
You simply refuse to see the true and do serious investigations and even to read what I provided as serious links.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Something about RADAR.   5/23/2009 3:16:52 PM
Fanboys talk about range, I talk about detection thresholds.

Detection threshold is when a radar generates a return that it detects well enough to produce a genuine track so you can launch a missile based on its range data .
 
EXAMPLE:
 
For non LO fighter radio- painted objects with  Russian .Sapfir series radar depending on head on aspect and the WEATHER, a generated return from a fighter target could be detected at anywhere from 150+ kilometers to NEVER (0 return at 0 meters).for a separation interval.

The averages were between 30 and 70 kilometers in clear air charge neutral dry conditions, and at 7000 meters altitude in Central Europe. Bombers could be 2x to 3x that separation interval depending on type under the same conditions..
 
This is true of most radars as to detection variance though not detection threshholds. Detection threshholds and false return rejections vary by model and type as well as by the propagating condition.
 
So........................FS' statement that physics is the same for everybody is correct, but TECHNOLOGY (as in the CRAPPY NOISY RBE2 versus the AN/APG68 (V) 9) and evem propagation conditions from one second to the next, or for two aircraft separated in different weather cells  by 150 kilometers is NOT.
 
When even the Earth's magnetic field at latitude and longitude and how you design your jammer, can measurably affect your OWN radar detection performance, you become very cautious making simplistic range statements.
 
Herald
.  
 
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