The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 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
DarthAmerica    To France...   5/12/2009 7:49:27 PM
Rafale looks like this to an Engineer...

 
 

And to those who might have to fight in it, if used the way some here suggest by asserting it to be some sort of F-15/117 lite...
 


 

 


-DA
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/12/2009 7:57:36 PM
Here is what a LO Rafale looks like...



 


-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/12/2009 8:45:37 PM
You are surprising me DA , did you loose it or what ???
It 's unusual coming from you ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/12/2009 9:33:56 PM

You are surprising me DA , did you loose it or what ???

It 's unusual coming from you ...

 

Cheers .

Not at all. Just not going to play pretend and say that the Rafale is an LO aircraft or any of the other myths that get associated with the plane. Look at an evolved F-16 or F/A-18, and you will see the Rafales future. Beyond that, France needs a new design if it hopes to remain competitive against F-35, PAK-FA. If not, France will have to adjust its tactics based on the limitations of pre 5th Gen aircraft. Thats why I posted pictures of the SCALP. Such weapons allow Rafale to strike targets that would otherwise be too dangerous to approach. The graveyard is the result of usinf the Rafale the way a 5th Gen fighter is used.

You guys need to be objective. You can like a platform and at the same time acknowledge its limitations.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       5/12/2009 9:47:51 PM

PlG's "Illustrations" evince something I hadn't focused on before but have come to appreciate regarding the French approach toward concealing engine fan blades.  Specifically the inelegant "chimney flue" structure in the Rafale inlets appears to be rather robust and therefore superior in terms of resilience against FOD as compared with its delicate F18 counterpart.  Which is an attribute that you want if your profile involves lo flight to exploit the creases and terrain.  I hadn't really looked at it this way until now; it represents pretty good thinking IMHO and kills two birds with one stone so-to-speak.  Not bad.  0.02

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Seagull       5/13/2009 4:27:56 AM
Once again, i side with DA.
 
Who in the AdA would pretend Rafale is designed to fly through highly protected air spaces ?
 
It can't. Spectra will help as much as possible to avoid radars, and the Rafale will try as much as possible to make its way out of the detection ranges of those radars. DOT.
 
Rafale has no LGB (yet, but Damocles will be operational in 2010), still no rockets etc. It uses stand-off waypons such as AASM and Scalp, again, to shoot as far as possible from the threats.

If Rafale has to jam a radar, that's only because it couldn't avoid it (surprised ?).
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/13/2009 8:29:28 AM

Once again, i side with DA.

 Who in the AdA would pretend Rafale is designed to fly through highly protected air spaces ?

 It can't. Spectra will help as much as possible to avoid radars, and the Rafale will try as much as possible to make its way out of the detection ranges of those radars. DOT.

Rafale has no LGB (yet, but Damocles will be operational in 2010), still no rockets etc. It uses stand-off waypons such as AASM and Scalp, again, to shoot as far as possible from the threats.

If Rafale has to jam a radar, that's only because it couldn't avoid it (surprised ?).


If Rafale has to jam a radar, that's only because it couldn't avoid it (surprised ?).
 
  F-22 have ECMs just as well. Inform yourself.
 
You and DA make exactly the SAME mistake, you are mixing up MIN, RED, LO and VLO, as simple as that.

 Rand used these classifications as:

 Minimum, Reduced, Low observable, and Very Low Observable.

 Only VLO is ?designed to fly in higly protected airspaces?.

 As for what makes F/A-18 LO "superior" to that of Rafale, it is far from being visible and you two didn't manage to counter my points technically at all.

So let's put them DOWN again in a more elaborate way to see if you can understand this:

 BOTH Rafale and F/A-18 are NOT all-aspect VLO.

All-aspect VLO fighters known to us were the YF-24 and F-22.

F/A-18 design includes LO features which are inherited from F-22.

Rafale goes the other way with features inherited from F-23.

 FRONTAL aspect:

 

 INLETS and WING LEADING EDGE SWEEP are an important design feature and were carefully chosen in the case of the ATF contenders, YF-22 and YF-23.

 F/A-18 leading edge sweep is the result of Northrop design philosophy based on the F-5 YF-17, F-18, /F20 series, a thin wing with moderate sweep that respond to US NAVY requirements for range, Moderate Max Mach values handling and low speed flight characteristics.

 F/A-18 wing design doesn?t respond to any requierement for RCS reduction, quiet the opposite, for example they posses a dogtooth leading edge which is an EM spike trap.

 On the other hand, Rafale wings leading edge is the SAME than that of YF-22 at 48*.

 You guys still have to demonstrate that their EM reflectivity would be superior to that of F/A-18 considering that they are designed within a similar planform to that of YF-22.

 Rafale use of composite is 24%/weight vs 22%/weight for the F/A-18.

 As I was saying, structural strengthening have seen an increase in use of Titanium on the F/A-18 structure, first at design stage in view of the problems encountered in operation with F-18 (wings carrythrough bulkheads) but also vertical fins.
 
  As for design feature...
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 
  So keep maintaining that F/A-18 is designed with "MORE" EM signature reduction features, designwise, you already are proven wrong on this axis only as well as the topic of the inlets design.

 

 

 

 



 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/13/2009 8:45:02 AM

Under the SAME angle the compressor blades on the Rafale inlets wouldn't be visible at all.

 


They are not visible at all on the F/A-18E/F even at that angle.  The things you see in the Super Hornet photo are not fan blades.  The angled, radiating vanes are part of the radar blocking system (reference here since you appear to be unfamiliar).  The vanes reflect RF that would otherwise strike the fan blades and redirect it into the RAM in the curved inlets.

 
As I said previously, M88 was designed with EM reduction features as well, it does posses vanes and the inlet themself are treated with serrated material to take care of the problem of returned RF, the approach is different with the advantage of a ZERO loss of dynamic pressure in the case of the French aircraft.

  Every specialists in the business are seeing the two as having an equivalent RCS.


 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/13/2009 10:37:44 AM
DA :
""You guys need to be objective. You can like a platform and at the same time acknowledge its limitations.""
 
I do . 
You think that I am over optimistic about the Rafale but I know that you are over pessimistic ;-)
A long time ago , many posters decided (?) that the Rafale was an average to good 4th gen jet , similar to a
F-16 blk 52 . They decided (?) without knowing enough and simply said so . Anyone coming to rectify their partial and wrong view is discarded with dedain , his posts are barely read and if he is French , he must be a troll .
Sorry Gents , but it doesn 't work this way in my world .
 
You often forget the big picture and loose yourselves into details to try to make your point about a minor thing . The Rafale has been designed to be the top of the line fighter for the FAF and the MN . France has a mjor C4 Net and the Country 's awareness in war zone is in the World top 3 . When the Rafales are working within such matrix , they can be sometimes used as if they were 5th generation aircrafts . It is not me who will teach you that when you have a complete (?) enemy EM blueprint of the zone you want to treat , things get much easier , planning gets much clearer and the Pilots feels better . In such scenario , a Rafale is as good as it can be .
The Rafale , when flew by the FAF or MN , is a formidable adversary .
As an exemple , never Lybia (?) will use the Rafale the way we do . They will never use the aircraft to its maximum possibilities .
 
To put it simply , for France the Rafale is not an average 4th generation fighter , it is a true 4.5 .
In every joint excercise the Rafale has taken part , it did its job with panache and impressed the other participants .
A F-16 blk-52 (or even blk-60) or a SH could not have done what the Rafale did at RedFlag and TigerMeet , that 's for sure .
 
We have to put things back into context . Googling hard for hours has its utility but simply looking at some known facts sometimes help us to understand how the strings are pulled in the background . By now , it should have become obvious to anyone that the sensor fusion on Rafale is more advanced than any of the F-teens .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    BW reply   5/13/2009 11:00:45 AM

In every joint excercise the Rafale has taken part , it did its job with panache and impressed the other participants .

A F-16 blk-52 (or even blk-60) or a SH could not have done what the Rafale did at RedFlag and TigerMeet , that 's for sure .


Cheers .



 BW,

It's commentary like this that nullifies any contributions from you. You take something you google or hear from a friend of a friend and then you blow things so far out of proportion that its category error. Moreover, mentioning Rafale in this way shows a complete and absolute misunderstanding of the purpose of Red Flag which is a training event and not some grand aerial joust. The only thing Rafales do at Red Flag that makes them stand out is that they run active ELINT/SIGINT sorties against allies in friendly airspace. THATS A FACT. As to your assertion of some other things Rafales do at Red Flag or Tiger Meet, please tell me in your words what you think Rafales did so special in any Red Flag or Tiger Meet besides espionage?

And this claim from PlG that because the Rafale has a highly swept wing its now all of the sudden LO? So I guess that means aircraft like the Dark Star had RCS like a B-52 by that criteria? Look, let me make this simple. Sweeping the wing for aerodynamic purposes is not the same as building with LO capability in mind. You guys are blowing Rafale design well out of proportion to reality. If even half of the claims associated with it were true then it would not be struggling to meet even domestic orders! 

I'm going to say something about Rafale that will put into context the Rafales so-called LO capability. The Rafale is an aircraft with some moderate consideration of RCS. Its probably comparable to a Mig-21 which is also known for small RCS due to physical size and its ECM would be comparable to the ECM on the Mig-21 Bison. Against older radars who's characteristics are well known, the relatively small RCS of the Rafale would give it a bit of an edge compared to say an Mirage F1 or Super Etendard. That combined with it's Israeli ECM with good support from intel could allow it to get to the merge without being detected in some cases. THAT IS NOT A STEALTH AIRCRAFT. Thats just common sense EW capability. Many other air forces including the USAF, Russians, Indians, IDF/AF and many many many others do this. It is not new nor is it a uniquely French tactic. Please lets stop the exaggeration and focus on reality.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Seagull       5/13/2009 11:06:04 AM
In my opinion, BW, your message has no compatibility problem with DA's.
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    Bluewing...   5/13/2009 11:10:19 AM
About sensor fusion and the results of Rafale during these exercises.
 
There is a good explaination for this.
 
 To reach the level of sensor fusion equivalent of that of F-22 you need the same system core architecture and processing power, Rafale have that.
 
NO other fighter in service today has it, this also mean that postser denying this FACT are telling that fiting a motherboard with Pentium IVs is the equivalent as fiting another one with Core2s of the same clock speed.
 
  Otherwise said; Buses banwidth and speeds, Memory bandwidth and speeds, processing power, multi-tasking capabilties CAN be the same for a P IV than a C2.
 
  Assumptions by the bucket here, but little understanding of what exactly is requiered for achieving this level of sensor fusion.
 
  Many posters here doesn't KNOW Rafale the slightest.
 
  End ot the story. 
 
Regards, PlG
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    PLG the amateur.   5/13/2009 12:14:14 PM




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 thought 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.

False. Roughly speaking the EJ 200 has 10-15 % more operating hours between teardowns.

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

Nothing has been done about the combustion pot.

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

Wrong gas flow geometry is wrong flow geometry.

  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?

I have yet to see one correct statement from you. PLG.
  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.

I called it's capabilities when I called it a bomb truck. Care to dispute that it is biased to loft and carry as opposed to maneuverability and acceleration? Look at the wing chord and crankl

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

Pardon me what magazines? What reputable TRADE journals?

  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.

Funny but I see fanboy peeking through.

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

  Regards, PlG

==============================================

Herald12345 continues:

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 defects 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.




I have enough knowledge about rockets to know that:


-a missile with midbody strakes is designed with a lot of lift and DRAG which means it should have a long burn dual pulse rocket motor (sharp start candle that grains into a slow burn sustainer to carry it efficiently through high drag over time.(common sense) Every MICA rocket I've SEEN (yes seen) uses a fast burn candle that exhausts within six or seven seconds. After that the missile loses velocity rapidly as a linear function over time. If the missile has to turn, that velocity bleedoff from the strakes is a disaster as it bleeds velocity like a barndoor flying sideways (strakes do that)

-because the myopic seeker FoV of the MICA suffers perimeter signal; dropout, the incompetents of Dassault Electronique used a bang/bang steering logic to correct for the radar seeker design defect. The MICA Zs to its target to keep the seeker return sjgnal centered.

-The strakes also are radio opaque which means the MUCA midbody antennas are occluded when the missle rolls and turns. Somebody forgot top tell the idiots at THALES to put the antennas where they can receive radio telemetry at all aspects.

-the Standard uses a dual pulse motor to maintain and sustain velocity during the critical shove ;period. The old fashioned SARH homing receiver it carries centers point on the coded signal the painting radar bounces off the target. Signal updating is handled easily by the antennas which are in the fins and aft body.

- I know enough about rockets to know that the MICA was a compromise high lift high drag design that used the wrong fuselage barrel length to width for a turning cylinder inertia unloading's moment of arc, that used strakes when vane vectoring and lifting tailfins aft of CG were a better solution for what they tried to do (ASRAAM got that RIGHT) and that the seeker and the GCU for the missile was designed wrong for a POINTING design that was bungled and compromised into a chaser.


"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

Assertions this far I read and no technical comments whatsoever show you have no knowledge on topic except what you claim you read out of articles. Please show that you have some knowledge other than insults and vague assertions, please.

 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.


 Again meaningless statements.

 

 "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...


AMRAAM is 60 gee capable. So what? AMRAAM points at target using continuous offset lead into that target. It doesn't bleed energy off in ccontinuous corrected chase as it has to turn to follow..

 

  To keep it simple for the beginners, 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.


Guess what? You forgot drag and loss of velocity over time ..beginner. The AMRAAM and the METEOR each with its small fins and slender 10/1 l/w cylinder lift aspects is the most energy conserving over fly-out and with the highest potential energy at the end of fly-out Does MICA with all its fins and strakes and its fat 8/1 L/W cylinder body with strakers that iot turns broadside to wind in a turn=that description? No. Want to bandy words PLG? Or do you wanbt to admit that youj don't know what you talk about? Thje MICA ois designed as a SHORT RANGE, high lift missile with rapid loss of kinetic energy during turns. Its short fat candle with its sharp burn gives inadequate shove over tome to make ity a true medium range missile. The NEZ for that JOKE where a it has the 1.5x jerk advantage over a manned aircraft is about the same as ASRAAM. When it reaches that limit the manned aircraft (Sukhoi referent can snap roll out of the way and the MICA fails.
 

  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.


I never said anything about thrust vector control in MICA Vane vector and thrust vector are not the same so I know you don't have a clue; PLG. The rest of your statements are falsehoods based on two simple facts AMRAAM burns four seconds longer+ than MICA.

MICA has strakes. AMRAAM and ASRAAM do not. MICA also does not have a sustainer mode in its candle. AMRAAM does.

 

  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.


I just did with technical description.

 

   You're funny.


You sure are PLG. You sure are. With no technical competence at all ypou remind me of another incompetent comedian who pretends to be a know it all.

 

  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.



I would like you to address the specific errors you made, poster.

"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..

Are you trying and failing to call me a liar? .


"Herald12345
What magazines do you read?"

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

A publicity blurb factsheet? ROTFLMAI!

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

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


Like here where you got your crap, amateur?

link
 
That is the kind of source that you to generate your BS?
 




GTH  PLG with my complements,
 
Herald

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 


 
Quote    Reply

Basilisk Station       5/13/2009 12:50:07 PM

.

 

 Rafale goes the other way with features inherited from F-23.

Huh? The Rafale was designed well before the F-23. What did it "inherit". I'm not seeing any similarities.



Okay let's look at this picture for a min. The ONLY similarity is the angle of the wings.
 
Even a quick look at the F-22 shows that there are essentially NO straight panel lines, they are all sawtoothed. A very important feature for stealth. There's the oft mentioned vertical tail on the Rafale, another no-no. The Canard does not help things either.
 
By the way, if the dogtooth on the F-18's is so horrible how is the wing tip AAM mount on the Rafale not a big mistake?



Did this picture have some point?


 

Nobody is claiming the F-18 is a "stealthy" plane. Just that it is as stealthy as the Rafale and quite possibly somewhat more so. Frankly it shares a lot more design characteristics with the F-22 than the Rafale does.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    PlG Reply   5/13/2009 12:59:05 PM
I have no interest in changing your mind at this point. If you want to believe the things you do about the Rafale, go right ahead. I disagree and I'll just be happy to take into consideration your views and biases when we discuss this aircraft. With regard to Rafales doing better at Red Flag? Nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Red Flag isn't about that. But again, if you believe the Rafale is the supreme ruler of Red Flag, hey, no problem. I just want to see it on somebody's parking ramp outside of France. I mean, why would every air force there is not be beating down the doors to get a plane that good? But lets compare training to reality. During Desert Storm a pair of F/A-18Cs on a bombing mission actually shot down two live threat aircraft AND proceeded to bomb their targets on the same sortie. Again this is real life, not Red Flag. That aircraft has had considerable export success BTW and is still a considerably capable warplane today.

Also, I already told you what the Rand report said. Maybe you do not know what the words Classified and Subjective mean. The people who created that report are unable to report any exact data so they are doing the same thing both you and I are doing. SUBJECTIVE quantification of the RCS characteristics of said aircraft. This is different from actually knowing the OBJECTIVE PARAMETRIC DATA which is classified. In French that means it's a secret.

I already told you about Rafale. In your preferred terms, the Rafale is a RO aircraft. In other words it has some features to mitigate RCS. I fully appreciate that. But it is not a stealth aircraft and a comparison to the Mig-21 Bison is not an insult. That aircraft is known to be particularly difficult to detect at range because its RCS is low as a benefit of it's size and design and it carries a very sophisticated ECM pod designed by the Israelis who in case you didn't know tend to violate neighbors airspace at will in F-15s which have a huge RCS. I'd be happy if USAF F-15/16s could do some of that stuff but I acknowledge out doctrine is different therefore it's not for lack of capability.

What this means is the Rafale when used properly is very survivable however it lacks the latest capabilities that are present in some late model 4th Gen jets and all 5th Gen.

-DA 


 
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