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
french stratege       5/10/2009 1:29:55 PM
  Traditional Dassault customers are out of Rafale selling envelop, as simple as that.

No Pierre Legrand.Absolutely false.
Reasons are :
What France is willing to provide
Wait and see according to F35 and Pakfa roadmaps and IOC
Our potential customer base which is shrinking
Rafale roadmap delays
Euro vs $ exchange rate
 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/10/2009 2:13:39 PM
Oh look, Sampaix is here.  Have fun with the truffle fights everyone.
 
Quote    Reply

Spiky       5/10/2009 2:40:40 PM
After reading all these posts and others from before, if I was India, I definitely go with the Superhornet. That is what I am betting they will do.
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/10/2009 2:51:51 PM

  Traditional Dassault customers are out of Rafale selling envelop, as simple as that.



No Pierre Legrand.Absolutely false.

Reasons are :


What France is willing to provide

Wait and see according to F35 and Pakfa roadmaps and IOC

Our potential customer base which is shrinking

Rafale roadmap delays

Euro vs $ exchange rate


 


 All of which results exactly in what i was saying about it.
 
"Wait and see according to F35 and Pakfa roadmaps and IOC"
 
  Don't expect much in terms of increased performances from F-35.
 
  Design results from requierements and gives you performances, and F-35 is not immune to the laws of physics and aerodynamic, i dont see its performances increasing with thrust the same way it will for a delta-canard on these ground only.
 
  Accoding to the USAF requierements for the F-22, all what is missing with the F-35 was part of what makes the Raptor superiority in A2A.
 
  With clear performances deficits the equation resumes to stealth vs counter stealth technologies, and as far as we know,
F-35 level of stealth is also lower than that of F-22, not to mention its IR signature with the hotest running engine in the word and no IR reduction feature to minimise it.
 
  It have been very fashionable lately to bash up its detractors but no one came up with anything remotly more credible than commercials with suddently different design goals (Like the famous more maneuvrable than F-16 thing)...
 
  With the event of Thales and SNECMA recent technologic developements, the balance is FAR from being in F-35 favour, first by design, then by use of technologies which we already know negates a good part of EM VLO at increasingly longer range and in more adverse MTO conditions.
 
  Some might well not believe it but long-range/all-weather IR technologies are just around the corner.
 
   So i'll be waiting as you suggest, patiently for the 90 kN M88 and the next generation of Optical and IR sensors, including multi-wavelength IR and pixel powered detection for both IRST and Near-IR cameras...
 
   If you wish to inform yourself on the subject there are some neat articles on the DGA website...
 
 
"Quote: Phaid 
Oh look, Sampaix is here.  Have fun with the truffle fights everyone"
 
   There is something for certain, you dont deserve as much attention as you seek, any proper rely to my propos?
 
  That will be all.
 
  Regards, PlG

 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/10/2009 7:14:17 PM

gf0012-aust:
AIM-9L?
a 1985 pdf?
not exactly stellar contemp references. 
You find better references as for IR AAMs (i might get the L wrong it might well be the M whatever equiped the USN F-18s and Spanich Navy Matadors in 2002) and references in terms of what I wrote.

 For the time being i can add to the agravation with more recent documents on all tackled subject, no problem.

 Now a question, what are YOUR refefrences to counter these?
Regards. PlG

ah yes.  more noise.  I have some very basic principles at work here.
when France sells one Rafale to any other country, let alone a 3rd world non peer african or arabic player (and its been unable to convince 1st and 2nd tier countries to buy it) - then I'll be impressed with the klingon like capabilities that fan boys like you wax lyrical on.
for such an uber plane its not convincing anyone else that its worth the (sometimes subsidised money, and often with other technology carrots to try and sway the deal)  - even the french are cutting back on production cycles.  You do realise that the reduction in build rates will make it even more expensive, unless the french govt decides to meet the gap?
you can sit here and tell stories as much as you like, but 9 airforces to date have walked on by.  you need to start convincing your own government before you come in here trying to wage commercial and pseudo technical war on the internet.
 

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/10/2009 7:36:46 PM
Let see in the future gf0012
You are right that a third rate air force means few for quality
Let see if Switzerland or Brasil retain it.Or UAE, since UAE order also US planes like F16E.
I'm not a fan boy.
I sustain Rafale for the exact same reason you defended Australian subs.
At the end we designed and built Rafale for ourselves first.It will be the backbone of our airforce and until now, French air force is not a second rate one.
At least some people here may have understood what is the concept behind Rafale and that its survivability concept is a mile ahead versus previous génération like M2000 or F16.
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/10/2009 7:46:48 PM
BTW Gf00012, we are not cutting production cycle even our armed forces would like to lower a little annual numbers to be delivered (if some export contracts are won since production rate has to say at least at current level), but not for quality reasons but to increase funding  on more urgent programs like helicopteres or air transport.
 
180 Rafales have been ordered until F3+standard (AESA and OSF 2).
And a post F3 is on the drawing board.
 
I should remember that F35 is not an operational plane but IOC is for 2011 (same year of Rafale F3+). 
While F35 is a very nice and advanced plane I doubt of its superiority over Rafale in air combat since F35 trade off in not so AA oriented.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/10/2009 7:50:30 PM

Let see in the future gf0012

You are right that a third rate air force means few for quality

Let see if Switzerland or Brasil retain it.Or UAE, since UAE order also US planes like F16E.

I'm not a fan boy.

I sustain Rafale for the exact same reason you defended Australian subs.

At the end we designed and built Rafale for ourselves first.It will be the backbone of our airforce and until now, French air force is not a second rate one.

At least some people here may have understood what is the concept behind Rafale and that its survivability concept is a mile ahead versus previous génération like M2000 or F16.

 
FS, 

Are you not paying attention to the things first rate air forces do with late model F-16s? The Rafale certainly takes steps to survive on a modern battlefield but none of them are new.  Heck look at the F-111 or B-1B. Both make extensive use of EW and low altitude flight. Every F-teen has some degree of RCS control measures now. All modern 4th Gens use standoff weapons too. There is nothing miles ahead about the Rafale adopting these well established techniques.

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/10/2009 8:00:06 PM

While F35 is a very nice and advanced plane I doubt of its superiority over Rafale in air combat since F35 trade off in not so AA oriented.


Why would you doubt that? An F-35 will be more likely to detect its targets before Rafale. An F-35 would be more likely to evade detection as well. The F-35's avionics are generations ahead and include EA options the Rafale cannot have. F-35's will have higher sortie rates and in WVR combat bring HMS to the fight. F-35 also has DAS which gives 360 degree EO targeting capability. FS you cannot make the Rafale more than it is out of national pride. The only thing the Rafale has as an advantage is that the top speed is marginally higher on paper. By every other measure the F-35 meets or drastically exceeds the Rafale in air to air combat.

The Rafale is a nice plane but its hard to get Frenchmen to discuss it objectively. It's like you guys are always padding the data just a bit.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/10/2009 8:24:26 PM
Herald :
""Nothing as long as you realize that it is a pedestrian bomb truck. (Think of a modernized Jaguar) It works fine for the role as the EU bombing plane of a mix that has Typhoon as the air superiority type.""
 
FALSE . The Rafale a "pedestrian bomber" ? Lol ! You know nothing and you should stay away once for all .You get an A+ for bashing and lying and a D- for not bringing facts and holding the truth . Bye . 
 
""The RBE2 radar leaks "Shoot me" sidelobe radio noise.""
 
FALSE . The PESA RBE2 sidelobes are very small and can 't be targeted easily , in fact the radar has never been jammed yet . The new AESA RBE2 is said to be even more jamming resistant , see the pdf I posted in a different thread . Again you talk without knowing ...
 
""The MICA missile fails totally as a dual use missile because the designers bungled the RH seeker and made the rocket too fat and massive for a decent IR missile.""
 
FALSE . The Mica is one of the deadliest missile around in between 400m and 80km . It has never failed in testing , it has archived an 180deg kill and its seekers (IR and EM) are highly resistant to jamming .
 
""Poor construction finish of the plane. We built WW II aircraft with a better surface finish and thus less spikey radar return points!""
 
FALSE . Again you bash freely and you know it , that 's very poor but coming from you it is obviously the best you can do . I have tried to educate you long enough with carefully choosen words and pdfs but you don 't get it . Die as an idiot if it is your will .
 
""Then there is the OBSOLETE 1980 avionocs design architecture..""
 
Pfff ... The USA have nothing flying more advanced than the Rafale bare the F-22 .
 
It is getting a wee bit tiring to repeat countless times the same things simply because some posters are right off their shoes .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/10/2009 8:39:40 PM
"Why would you doubt that? An F-35 will be more likely to detect its targets before Rafale."
Don't see the evidence compared to rafale F3+
AESA, OSF, interferometric ESM suit, networking.Both have that.
Maybe F35 has an edge but it is unproven.
 
 An F-35 would be more likely to evade detection as well. The F-35's avionics are generations ahead and include EA options the Rafale cannot have.
Please ! For the génération ahead it is laughable considering that US is few years in average only vs France.
About EA:
EA F35 variant is proposed as well one for Rafale (with carbon pod and also other features)
On standard version Rafale has Spectra and F35 its X band radar.But AESA rafale could maybe jam as well.
Well, we are not speaking about standard platform.
AT least I have absolutely no doubt for current Rafale F3+ that it will match at least export version of F35 which do not have active ECM.In fact I'm even convinced it can do better.
Vs US version it is not sure.
Main advantage of F35 is full stealth attack with standard and cheap bombs.A capability Rafale does not have.
 
 F-35's will have higher sortie rates and in WVR combat bring HMS to the fight.
higher sortie rates ? I don't think so.Similar probably.
An HMS is also proposed on Rafale but HMS main use is for A to ground today like for F35.
HMS is of marginal need for AtoA when you have an AESA and an OSF.For F22 USAF postponed it for the same reason.
Remember that F35 IOC is for 2011.
 
 F-35 also has DAS which gives 360 degree EO targeting capability.
On limited range except on front.A "nice to have" I agree.
Rafale have an OSF also with a wide angle.Probably evolved Rafale will have similar capabilities.
 
 FS you cannot make the Rafale more than it is out of national pride. The only thing the Rafale has as an advantage is that the top speed is marginally higher on paper. By every other measure the F-35 meets or drastically exceeds the Rafale in air to air combat.
No Rafale has a much better TW ratio especially with a 9 tons engine and a lower drag for supersonic speed and a lower wing load. 18 tons for 9,4 empty vs 18 tons for 13 tons empty.It is a huge difference.
I doubt of supersonic or altitude F35 abilities.Sorry.

The Rafale is a nice plane but its hard to get Frenchmen to discuss it objectively. It's like you guys are always padding the data just a bit.
Like to have US people to speak to it objectively or about F35 or F22.
My personal level of information which does not come from an amateur forum, convinced me that Rafale F3+ is much better than I thought several years ago.
It seems Dutch tought the same than me.
 
I do not say that rafale F3+ is a better plane than F35 but surely a contender in the same way F1E was a contender for F16 A in 1973.

 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/10/2009 9:21:11 PM
I'll say it again, its flaw is its price.

If I want a land-based 4th generation fighter, I'll go with something like the F-16 Block 50 or 60 or a version of the Strike Eagle for a bit more money. I can get an AESA radar now. I can get a whole bunch of weapons the USAF already paid to integrate, and I can get it cheaper than the French offering. If I don't trust the Americans, I can get the Su-27 series for even cheaper.

If I need a carrier-based plane based on the American/French style, the F/A-18C and F/A-18E/F are already there. Again, I can get things like AESA cheaper than the French aircraft. I can take advantage of a whole bunch of weapons the USN already paid to integrate.
 
If I need a smaller carrier plane, the Russians offer the Mig-29K for a lot cheaper.
 
There is simply nothing to make the Rafael standout against the competition, except its price. Even if it is/was more capable, the price makes the cost-benefit ratio tilt too much towards the cost.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/10/2009 10:18:48 PM

Let see in the future gf0012

You are right that a third rate air force means few for quality

Let see if Switzerland or Brasil retain it.Or UAE, since UAE order also US planes like F16E.

 happy to wait.  I guess I'm a bit over the issue of some arguing technical issues when they don't get the basics right.  I'm not into arguing just for the sake of arguing.  It's a pointless exercise. :)


I'm not a fan boy.
and I must say, your approach to engagement is very different from 12 months ago. (as is mine I suspect)

I sustain Rafale for the exact same reason you defended Australian subs.

I usually get into trouble by the swedes as they think I'm swede bashing. (I'm not, it always gets down to business and engineering for me).  But, I also have no difficulty into criticising my govt or ASC for their input into a project that could have been done a whole lot better. The irony being that if the americans hadn't stepped up to the plate, then we'd still be rooted in a number of areas.  unfort, the americans rarely get credit for helping out (and ditto for fixing the astutes).  I'm big on making sure people get credit where its due. I don't defend Collins because they're australian though. (at all)

At the end we designed and built Rafale for ourselves first.It will be the backbone of our airforce and until now, French air force is not a second rate one.
 
exactly, and it's a fine aircraft, but like some of the swedes who see a need to over promote Kockums and SAAB, I have some difficulty in some of the silliness thats claimed about Rafale.  (I have the same problem with another poster who is claiming that the Sth Koreans developed pixie dust to turn their platforms into LO "flugwagens" and can't draw a distinction between IP, technology transfer rights, and ITARs issues.  Academically and dispationately I don't care whether they have or not.  
 
At least some people here may have understood what is the concept behind Rafale and that its survivability concept is a mile ahead versus previous génération like M2000 or F16.

 and in principle, I don't disagree. Development and delivery is always based around how best to deliver destruction, deterrence etc wrapped around doctrine.  The Rafale was never going to be an F-16.  But the F-16 Block 60 of today is almost unrecognisable from an F16B


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Sorry: but you are wrong.   5/10/2009 10:25:54 PM




"Weak thrust output jet engines that burn out before they were expected too was a complete surprise to me a couple of years ago as I thoight the SNECMA part of the Dassault thieves brigade was actually fairly competent (they make good business jet engines). "



This is one of the most odd things about the Rafale.  I can only assume that SNECMA somehow tried to go cheap with the M88, because a reliable, long-lasting jet engine is a basic feature on any western design at this point.  If you want engines that need to be inspected every few hundred flight hours and rebuilt over and over again, buy a Russian or Chinese plane.






  M88 High pressure turbine have three time the TBO of EJ200.

 
  You're referring to the E1 which have been replaced by the E4 since 2004 and even so are mistaking issues between them.

  For the rest it is a question of budget and part availability resulting from it, NOT an issue with the engine itself.

  All in all your comments shows the greatest level of lack of information we have seen for a very long time, none of them can sustain close scrutiny, please would you be kind eough as to back up your allegations with proper links to authoritative sources?
 
  For example you totaly ignore the reality of Rafale design requierements, goals, as well as the actual roadmap and its true level of technologies and developement potential.

   Because the most serious magaZines over here are visibly disaggreing with you in all aspect and sources are LEGION to prove your claims to be all wrong.

  It looks to me as you have embarked in a personal vandetta against the aircraft but failed to inform yourself the slightest before doing so and it shows big time.

  Thanks for the links (to be posted soon i hope and not from another blog please!) we are all very interested.

  Regards, PlG

 

Sorry, but I can LOOK at a rocket and see the design defects. I don't suppose you know about lift aspects and control methods chosen as per inertia unloading over velocity? The MICA is too big and FAT for a snap turn missile that loses velocity rapidly (drag). It maneuvers in the end game like a fat turkey. The RH seeker version uses an active radar that is myopic and has tunnel vision. Too far off boresight or center of FoV and the signal drops out. Updating antenna is masked by strakes. You want me to continue? 
 
What magazines do you read?
 
Unless SNECMA developed a better micro-crystal blade casting process, they still have to tell the Rafale drivers to limit peak core temperature operating minutes. That engine still cannot perform to book specs. Its supposed to be a MILITARY jet engine. It already runs very hot because of the small diameter combustion pot (bungled design)  There isn't much you can do about that, except quality control what you have and tweak the spool spacings somewhat. Teardown and subassembly replacement MTBPF is still very short. PHYSICS.
 
No vendetta. I have very sour things to say about the Eagle, the F-22, and the Sparky. Bias is NOT one of my failings.  
 
Herald   

 
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/11/2009 2:28:32 AM










"Weak thrust output jet engines that burn out before they were expected too was a complete surprise to me a couple of years ago as I thoight the SNECMA part of the Dassault thieves brigade was actually fairly competent (they make good business jet engines). "








This is one of the most odd things about the Rafale.  I can only assume that SNECMA somehow tried to go cheap with the M88, because a reliable, long-lasting jet engine is a basic feature on any western design at this point.  If you want engines that need to be inspected every few hundred flight hours and rebuilt over and over again, buy a Russian or Chinese plane.















  M88 High pressure turbine have three time the TBO of EJ200.



 

  You're referring to the E1 which have been replaced by the E4 since 2004 and even so are mistaking issues between them.



  For the rest it is a question of budget and part availability resulting from it, NOT an issue with the engine itself.



  All in all your comments shows the greatest level of lack of information we have seen for a very long time, none of them can sustain close scrutiny, please would you be kind eough as to back up your allegations with proper links to authoritative sources?

 


  For example you totaly ignore the reality of Rafale design requierements, goals, as well as the actual roadmap and its true level of technologies and developement potential.



   Because the most serious magaZines over here are visibly disaggreing with you in all aspect and sources are LEGION to prove your claims to be all wrong.



  It looks to me as you have embarked in a personal vandetta against the aircraft but failed to inform yourself the slightest before doing so and it shows big time.



  Thanks for the links (to be posted soon i hope and not from another blog please!) we are all very interested.



  Regards, PlG



 






Sorry, but I can LOOK at a rocket and see the design defects. I don't suppose you know about lift aspects and control methods chosen as per inertia unloading over velocity? The MICA is too big and FAT for a snap turn missile that loses velocity rapidly (drag). It maneuvers in the end game like a fat turkey. The RH seeker version uses an active radar that is myopic and has tunnel vision. Too far off boresight or center of FoV and the signal drops out. Updating antenna is masked by strakes. You want me to continue? 


 

What magazines do you read?

 

Unless SNECMA developed a better micro-crystal blade casting process, they still have to tell the Rafale drivers to limit peak core temperature operating minutes. That engine still cannot perform to book specs. Its supposed to be a MILITARY jet engine. It already runs very hot because of the small diameter combustion pot (bungled design)  There isn't much you can do about that, except quality control what you have and tweak the spool spacings somewhat. Teardown and subassembly replacement MTBPF is still very short. PHYSICS.


 

No vendetta. I have very sour things to say about the Eagle, the F-22, and the Sparky. Bias is NOT one of my failings.  


 

Herald   





 


"Herald12345
Sorry, but I can LOOK at a rocket and see the design defects.
 
  I CAN see the deffects on your writing, thinking and lack of technical arguments on many particular points, what it suggest to me is that you are even more uninformed than i thaught you were, i do not think you have SEEN that many french AAMs.

 
 
"Herald12345
The RH seeker version uses an active radar that is myopic and has tunnel vision. Too far off boresight or center of FoV and the signal drops out. Updating antenna is masked by strakes. You want me to continue?  


   YES please, you're bloody HILARIOUS, make us laugh.



 Herald12345
I don't suppose you know about lift aspects and control methods chosen as per inertia unloading over velocity"

I don't suppose you know you are trying to spook a monster?

  Your little tirade on the MICA is laughable at the very least.

 
 
 "Herald12345
"The MICA is too big and FAT for a snap turn missile that loses velocity rapidly (drag)".
 
  MICA is 50g > capable but you are totaly incapable of being accurate and objective and your sentence means very little technicaly speaking, but bashing up goes on...
 
  To keep it simple for the begginers, the AAM which provides with the lowest drag/lift coefficient at high g is the one with the best aerodynamics and it is NOT the one with the most body lift (expecialy not from a circular body) but the combination of short spanned and high surface wings.
 
  Guess which one it is...
 
  MICA does SNAP turn by virtue of  LIFT AND TVC and it doesn't loose velocity as fast as an AMRAAM either or even an ASRAAM does, it sustains it way better and still is by virtue of its motor high output after 50% burn time and lift and is classified as one of the most maneuvrable in the 45/50 g category.
 
  Since the MATRA R 530 F france have fielded AAMs with higher snap-up capabilties that any of the US products, even qualified as having EXEPTIONAL AERODYNAMIC QUALITIES by specialists the world over, but you my friend you continue into trying to counterdict them.
 
   You're funny.
 
  MICA design is WAY superior to that of AIM-9X, so are its performances, even out of the rail.
 
  We understand it is always difficult for you guys to admit that France have the capabilties to design better AAMs than you do, but it get worse, it is a known FACT by now that even the Russians also CAN do better.
 
 As for the rest of your bashing up exercise YES please keep amusing the gallery.


"Herald12345
No vendetta. I have very sour things to say about the Eagle, the F-22, and the Sparky. Bias is NOT one of my failings".  

  Ignorance and desinformation might well explain what you write then...


"Herald12345
What magazines do you read?"

  SNECMA, ONERA newsletter for one, i'm sure you don't, here why i can tell...

"Herald12345
Unless SNECMA developed a better micro-crystal blade casting process",

  Go dig it boy, inform yourself properly please...

    RIP
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
gf0012-aust 
Argument not even worth replying technicaly you dont cut it...
 
    RIP
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 

DarthAmerica  
The Rafale certainly takes steps to survive on a modern battlefield but none of them are new.

  To F-35 standard, Rafale IR signature reduction features are quiet inovative.
 
DarthAmerica
"There is nothing miles ahead about the Rafale adopting these well established techniques".

  How many US aircrafts have the equivalent of OSF?

  Two channels, dual wavelength optimised for A2A?
 
   EOTS is mono-channel, it canot do both A2A and A2G simultaneously it is also mono-wawelength and is only a simplified derivative of SNIPER.

  This is part of Rafale "Discreet" culture now developed by the squadrons in many scenarios thety dont even use the radar.


"DarthAmerica
The F-35's avionics are generations ahead and include EA options the Rafale cannot have".  

  NO they are not, writing something like this only goes some way to show that you not only dont know much about F-35 systems development but also that that of Rafale are a total mystery to you, it looks to me as you stoped reading about it in 2003.
 
  Unless you assume that europe and Thales in particular are two full technology cycles behind, some of Rafale avionics are even NEWER than that of F-35, using repackaged old technologies might well fool the US taxpayers, it doesn't fool us.
 
  First of all they are of the SAME or even older generation than that of the Rafale F3.
 
   Second, all the IR developed for F-35 is either equivalent at best, inferior at worst, the fact that you guys knows nothing about Europe Electro-optical and IR developements makes no case for F-35 systems and avionics superiority.
  There is NOTHING new in that appart for the mix of two channel in one (in the case of DASS IR + Optical), US IR is still lagging behind that of Europe so is the Optic technology.
 
 
"DarthAmerica
 "The only thing the Rafale has as an advantage is that the top speed is marginally higher on paper".
  I would NOT call 0.4 Mach a marginal difference nor would I forget that Rafale supercuises at M 1.3 with 4 AAMs and a 1.250 l supersonic tank and this is not paper performancesd these are OPERATIONAL, proven performances in cluding the DASH speed of M 2.0.
  The kinetic energy advantage which provides F-22 with its spueriority in A2A ALSO prevails for anything faster than F-35, this applies to Rafale just as well even more so when the aircraft is designed with an operational ceilling 10.000 higher.
 
  More to the point F-35 is tructuraly g limited to 7.0, 7.5, 9.0 g while a Rafale can pull 11 g and have a structural load limit 90% above this guaranteed for its lifetime.
  Rafale designers didn't blow their weight targets, they didnt need to take as much metal as they could and reduce structural load limit to below the industry standards to meet performances their design couldn't meet otherwise.
 
  Rafale structural design is based on the beefed-up M, it is ABOVE the industry standard NOT BELOW.

  Now you can believe as many commercials as you want, but for ther time being no 7.0 aircraft ever out-turned a 9.0 one at the same speed with an equivalent or inferior TWR and higher wingload.

  As for being objective, i think you will find with time that many of us are WAY more informed than you are.
 

benellim4 
If I want a land-based 4th generation fighter, 

The only 4th generation fighter on your list is the F/A-18, it is out of the Swiss contest and allegedly laggs behind Rafale and Gripen in Brazil.

 The French mud movers made cold meat of the F/A-18s in A2A, wait for our specialised A2A squadrons to put their hands on them...
 
  Because yes, we ear a lot about Rafale results in A2A vs legacy fighters these days, we read tons of legends and stories that have the quality of making us laugh but all writers and so called specialists are forgeting that the Rafale pilots are relatively new to it and that the only two squadrons equiped today are striker, NOT trained for Air Superiority roles which is what they do when they pit against your top gunners.
 
  In short you're all writing a lot about us and our forces but you dont know us the slightets.
 
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