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
benellim4       5/26/2009 1:49:55 PM
Spudman, I think those are AIM-7s not AGM-88s. It doesn't look like the front fins have the "crank" the AGM-88s have.
 
Still, that's a boatload of missiles.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/26/2009 1:55:42 PM

Spudman, I think those are AIM-7s not AGM-88s. It doesn't look like the front fins have the "crank" the AGM-88s have.

 

Still, that's a boatload of missiles.


That plane can make a double ACE in one sortie!

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Agreed.   5/26/2009 2:41:12 PM

Spudman, I think those are AIM-7s not AGM-88s. It doesn't look like the front fins have the "crank" the AGM-88s have.

 

Still, that's a boatload of missiles.

HARM compared to SPARROW is huge.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/26/2009 2:43:45 PM
"As to the F-35... at IOC the F-35 will be able to carry 4 AIM-120Ds internally, 8 external AIM-120Ds and 2 AIM-9Xs... at full fuel load.
 
I know that many will scream "but it's not VLO with external AAMs", but it is still several orders of magnitude below any 4th gen with the equivilant external load."
 
This is one of the reasons it is so silly to try to compare the F-35 to 4th generation aircraft.  The F-35 gives you the option of a highly stealthy aircraft when you need that capability, but also gives you the flexibility and payload of a 4th generation aircraft when that is what you need.  Even flying with a bunch of external missiles the F-35 still has large advantages over 4th generation aircraft. 
 
Since this is a thread about the Rafale I will use it as the comparison point:
 
An F-35 carrying 10-12 AAMs will have a significantly smaller RCS than a Rafale with a similar load, a larger, longer ranged and far more advanced radar, a far more advanced EW system and self protection jammer, a far better EO/IR sensor suite, far better sensor fusion and interfaces, the world's most advanced helmet mounted sight, etc
 
Really there is no comparison between the two.  The F-35 will have all of the above advantages, combined with a fuel capacity the Rafale would have to resort to a raft of performance limiting drop-tanks to match. 
 
If you try to compare the two aircraft in missions that would allow the F-35 to carry its weapons internally the gap between the two is even larger.  (The F-35 is capable of carrying 6 or possibly 8 AAMs internally, but this is not part of the initial roll-out.)  The Rafale will be forced to carry external weapons to accomplish its mission, an external targetting pod, and external fuel tanks if it is going more than a short distance. 
 
The F-35 will be aerodynamically clean and highly stealthy.  It will not be G-limited or speed limited by its external stores and it will be far more efficient in flight.  In short, something very similar to its maximum performance specs will apply while the Rafale will be unable to come close to its advertised maximum performance with a combat loadout. 
 
An F-35 with two 2000lb class weapons and two AAMs is going to be far faster and more maneuverable than a Rafale with the same four weapons, a targetting pod, and the three drop tanks it would need to match the F-35's fuel capacity. Not only that, but the F-35 will of course be highly stealthy while the Rafale will be anything but.  If you are willing to compromise slightly on your RCS you can still put a couple AAMs out on the F-35s wings with LO pylons as the UK anticipates doing with ASRAAMs.  Your RCS will be larger, but still a tiny fraction of the Rafale's.
 
The F-35 is about real world performance, not advertised maximum specs that don't apply to real world operations.  Nobody cares which plane is faster or more maneuverable flying clean.  What matters is which plane offers better performance carrying a combat load.  
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

SpudmanWP       5/26/2009 2:51:46 PM
My bad for not zooming in to verify...
 
Why would a SH have BOTH AIM-120s and AIM-7s?
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/26/2009 4:20:20 PM

My bad for not zooming in to verify...

Why would a SH have BOTH AIM-120s and AIM-7s?

For CAP against bombers or MPAs AIM-7s are adequate, and there are still a lot of them in the inventory.
 
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



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