The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 19, 2010




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
Herald12345    Lauigh at this prevaricator.   5/13/2009 1:13:37 PM

Some interesting falsehoods:


  1. That the Rafale uses YF-23 tech tree related developments. When did the US let France have a look at ANYTHING related to L/O tech or EW?

  2. Baffles of the M-88 inlet are RCS reducing features. Where are they

  3. Leading edge wing sweep has anything to do with RCS. Z edge emphasized return: it doesn't.

  4. Rafale employs ANY FORM of spike or beam scatter management. Hint: those nose scallops just ahead of the inlets share a common feature with a three corner horn reflector used as a radar target enhancer-providing multiple bounce points and a focusing mirror effect for a radio beam!

  5. Condi nozzles affect thrust. They do little about HEAT. You need bleed inlets ahead of the exhaust nozzle to cool exhaust. The Squall doesn't have any such management.

  6. The paint used on the the ?black Rafale was found to be a thermal fail. It burned and degraded at cruise speed. It also wasn't very good at thermal conductivity. If you know what that means THEN you know why calling it a RAM paint WAS A JOKE.

  7. MIRAGE 2000 capable of Mach 2 for 2 hours. LIE.

  8. That the frame for the Rafale vertical stabilizer is composite. Not even the skin is. Count the rivets.

  9. < link

  10. That joke box sitting at the top of the fin is a radar return, Not even faired right.

  11. <link

    Flat channels and spike scatter angle deflectors clearly visible.

  12. <link

    Can you say conic radio reflector inlet and straight shot into the fans?

  13. <link

    The fits and joins and the so called serrations are a JOKE. The seams are gappy and the joins are mismatched. At least on the Hornet where you have a gap you don't have it so obvious or so poorly matched in gap to the expected frequency of the radio wave! Hey amateur! Did you notice all of you fancy arrows and blocks correspond to perfect radiating paths to return spikes on that JOKE of an airframe?

  14. No serrated material on inlets to M-88, so another falsehood.



Mate i'm laughing even louder.

 

 I wont comment further than; you lack so much in substance and credibility it's more than hilarious, it's ludicrously funny.

 

Keep amusing the gallery.

 

Regards, PlG

 

 


The only one laughing is me. You aren't even as qualified as BW and we pretty well know how qualified he is.....as in NOT.
 
You are a waste of bandwidth. PLG. Go take your own advice, LEARN something, fanboy, and stop pretending you know jack on this subject.
 
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Re: PIG   5/13/2009 1:43:20 PM
Rafale is WAY less OBSERVABLE at many levels.
 
It is way less observable because it is not sitting in any compenetants airforces inventory outside of France...we don't OBSERVE it in India, we don't OBSERVE it in Singapore, we don't OBSERVE it in South Korea, we don't OBSERVE it  anywhere else,
The only place we will OBSERVE it is as a footnote in aviation history as an aircraft that didn't measure up to expectations. It could have been a great aircraft but because of too little, too late...it will be like the TA-152...one of the graetest piston engine fighters ever....to bad jets came along.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/13/2009 1:45:07 PM
DA :
""please tell me in your words what you think Rafales did so special in any Red Flag or Tiger Meet""
 
I have already posted many times some reports and you ask me to do it again ...
Tiger Meet 2006 :
 
""The aircraft took part in two missions every day. The morning mission was a fairly classic air defense exercise, while the afternoon flight involved around 30 aircraft in a Composite Air Operation (Comao)  an attack against land-based or naval targets.
In a clear demonstration of the Rafale's multi-role capabilities, both aircraft and their crews switched easily from the attack role (simulating the use of AASM missiles) to the air defense role (with Mica missiles).
"Beyond this multi-role capability, the first thing we learned was the remarkable quality of the weapon system," Lt. Col. Pagès underlines. "We were able to confirm that the high degree of sensor fusion gave us a clear advantage in our awareness of the tactical situation. Rafale crews were able to positively identify targets at a much greater distance than other aircraft. 
The forward sector optronics (FSO) system was particularly popular with the aircrews, who were impressed by its performance: "By cueing the FSO with the tracks provided by his radar or by another aircraft via Link 16, a pilot can easily identify an aggressor force at a range of several tens of nautical miles. For example, he can pick up two Tornados and an F/A-18 preparing to penetrate at 20,000ft and the three other F/A-18s, easy to identify with their twin tails, protecting them at 40,000ft."
 
In general, the Rafale 's sensor suite generates excellent awareness of the tactical situation around the aircraft. "At the debriefing, we were able to say exactly who was doing what and where," comments Lt. Col. Pagès. "The other crews were very surprised at our global situational awareness ".
 
A quick word about Spectra to close this very brief overview.
The "Côte d'Argent" Rafales are equipped with the final version of the electronic warfare suite. Not wishing to unveil its full capabilities, the crews did not use the system to its maximum potential, particularly in the offensive role. They made full use of the passive mode, however, for threat detection using Spectra 's interferometric capability. The support teams were able to expand their threat libraries during the Tiger Meet, while increasing their familiarity with this very special system. On the second day of the exercise, the Comao included an attack on an air defense site. By combining the interferometric capabilities of Spectra, the power of the FSO and the Link 16 data link, the Rafales were able to detect, identify and destroy the site from long range by "virtually" firing AASM missiles . Thanks to its modular weapons and the potential offered by data fusion, the aircraft will be able to attack naval or land-based targets from a safe distance, with positive identification. "There is almost nothing that we cannot do with this aircraft" .
**********************
Passive detection , passive identification , passive tracking , passive firing . This is what I call 5th generation capabilities , clearly .
I can 't see a blk-52/60 or a SH doing the exact same scenario , they both lack the needed sensors , the low RCS , the sensor fusion and finally the weapon .
 
At RedFlag , the Rafales did more or less the same : going through air and ground defenses while pounding the SAMs . If I 'm correct , they also "fired" 4 Micas resulting in 4 kills (while being on a strike mission) . Some stupid people ~like the US Officer commenting RedFlag on video~ said that the Rafales did not go into a single merge , like if going on the merge proves anything . The French Pilots are not trained to shoot down every bleep they see on their displays , they are trained to fullfill the mission . If that means avoiding a fight , change course and stay undetected , they will . It is why we did not loose a single Rafale to a "virtual" kill and it is also why the missions have been acomplished .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/13/2009 2:03:17 PM

Another flamer come along.

We wont observe many signs of intelligent, educated life forms with these...

Regards, PlG


Dude, chill. It isn't necessary to insult people in order to communicate disagreement. Especially if the data speaks for itself. You going to get yourself banned. Advice, stick to discussing Rafales rather than your personal opinions of others. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/13/2009 2:22:51 PM
BW,

Again, your passion with regard to the Rafale is noted. But it's not doing anything new here. I'm not saying that with the advance of technology the Rafale isn't doing it better. I think it's great to fuse the data and fight this way. I think it's great that the Rafale has an emphasis on multirole capability. But like I already showed you, the DoD has been doing this for some time now. Conducting simultaneous air to air and air to ground combat during the same sortie with the benefit of third party data to assist is something F/A-18C's did 20 years ago in an uncontrolled hostile environment...


...so please, lets try to keep things in perspective. What the Rafale did is not a new concept or French invention. Accept that. Also understand DOCTRINE. Understand that the FAF is a much smaller organization and has to consolidate a lot of capabilities into its tactical aircraft. The USAF/USN uses dedicated platforms to destroy ground based IADS. They are far more powerful and lethal in that role than a hybrid that has many design considerations to satisfy. The penalty is the cost associated with integrating many different platforms. The US can afford this. Again, you need to get the context and stop looking at Red Flag and Tiger Meet as a joust. I almost wish they would do away with the colorful names of these exercises! I think it only amplifies misunderstanding outside the community.

 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/13/2009 2:25:56 PM
BW,

IRST are not new or unfamiliar to other air forces and navies...

link width="425" height="344">  
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/13/2009 2:37:35 PM
BW,

You need to also consider there are other way for long range target ID. Look into the NCTR mode. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/13/2009 2:44:20 PM

Practicing reverse psychology arent we?

  You got NO datas to validate all the flame posts we have seen quiet the opposite you keep denying that we post and even the obvious.

 We're still waiting to come across any seriously informed posters.

Regards, PlG


Are you joking? I've given you documented proof of everything I've written here from true multirole fighter operations to visual proof that IRST isn't anything new. You want to see a USAF Col confirm French espionage activity? Sure thing...

However, French Air Force pilots, who deployed to the same event with the Dassault Rafale fighter, apparently engaged in non-friendly activities.?They never really came to any merges,? the pilot explains. ?What they were really doing was, they had all their sensors on sniffing and seeing how our radars worked. And that?s really all they were doing out here. They came out here and they watched the whole flight, with their newest airplane and their newest electronic receiving units, and sucked up all the ?trons in the air.? The pilot also says the IAF?s MiG-21 Bison aircraft, modified with Israeli radar, active radar missiles and electronic jammers, are nearly ?invisible? to the F-15 and F-16?s current mechanically-scanned arrays, allowing the Indian pilots to sneak past the USAF radar screen and engage the F-15s and F-16s in dogfights.


...I can back up what I say. My opinions I clearly identify as such. Those who's opinions I disagree with I do so without insulting. Try that.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       5/13/2009 2:45:29 PM

Good!
You two can pat eachother on the back persuading yourslef that your gear beats the ekke of mother nature and that your links proves it.  For the time being all oyu proved it that you cant even bother reeading other's post and know too litle about French (and US) weapons/aircrafts to be taken seriously.
Apparently no other NATION on the planet does either right? Since the US is selling more planes then they can actually produce since there is a backlog that goes years into the future and not ONE nation is buying even ONE French airplane, especially the one in question!! Guess what? The US, Russia, China, Sweden and Euro are laughing all the way to the bank. lol haha hehehe I realize France at the moment has no clue what a bank is used for since they have no money to put in one, but heh, maybe one day. The US may feel sorry for ya and give ya some pointers on how to build a real military airplane. Ya never know ;-)) On second thoughs, naaaaaa. It's to much fun watching you French squirm and blow smoke over your obvious failures ;-)
 
Have a nice day lil piggy. ;-))
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/13/2009 2:50:58 PM
Pierre , cool, relax ;-)
 
Your knowledge is enough for you to debate and/or win an argument . No need to go personal , in fact you should avoid it .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Re:PIG   5/13/2009 2:57:14 PM
 
Another flamer come along.
 
!e wont observe many signs of intelligent, educated life forms with these...
 
Regards, PlG
 
Lets see....hmmm I point out the obvious and get my intelligence insulted. Homer Simpson was right about the French.
 
Quote    Reply

Basilisk Station       5/13/2009 3:23:54 PM

  LOL! Multirole is not OMNIROLE my friend expecialy not During GWI, NOW only wit hthe event of AESA is the F/A-18 the equivalent of Rafale in terms of capabilties.
You are making less and less sense.
 
Omnirole does not mean what you think it does. Omni means all, the Rafale is not a heavy bomber, it's not a stealth aircraft, it's not an EW aircraft, it's not an AWAC, it's not a transport. Omni-role in english doesn't have the meaning you want it to.
 
How was/is the F/A-18 Hornet less capable than the Rafale?
 
It carries a wider variety of ordinance.
It carries AtA and AtG ordinance at the same time.
It can and has, since it came into service been able to employ both of them on the same mission and has done so in combat. This IS the definition of multi-role.
 
It has an AESA now, not in 3-4 years.
Rafale might have had a better radar at some point, but as a newer aircraft one would hope so. It isn't better now.
 
Not that Multi-role aircraft are anything new.
 
You still didn't get it... What is not english with simultaneously?
 
 Multi-role does not imply exclusivity in the roles.  It actually implies the opposite, that it is capable of performing multiple roles at the same time.
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    @Basilisk Station   5/13/2009 3:36:48 PM
You are making less and less sense.
 
Depends for whom...
 
 Omni means all.
 
 Yes all roles for which it was designed STRIKE Air Superiority, Recce etc.
 
Your allusion to heavier aircraft is ridiculous.
 
How was/is the F/A-18 Hornet less capable than the Rafale?
 
  It have to swich from one role to the other due to its radar incapability to carry over more than one task simultaneously as for capabilties it is WAY lower in this area too, the only aspect in which the F/A1-8 E/FG beats Rafale is fuel fraction.
 
It carries a wider variety of ordinance.
 
Doesn't make it MORE capable.
 
It carries AtA and AtG ordinance at the same time.
 
Only a fraction of its weight and range compared to a Rafale, tell us which one in USAF service carries 1.5 its own weight?
 
 It can and has, since it came into service been able to employ both of them on the same mission and has done so in combat. This IS the definition of multi-role.
 
Agreed but S-H is now OMNIROLE since its radar CAN do both simultaneously, same thing as doing A2A and A2G with EOTS which is impossible as opposed to OSF which posses two independnt channel.
 
Perhaps now you start to comprehend the difference.
 
It has an AESA now, not in 3-4 years.
 
PESA does OMNIROLE just as well as a matter of FACT Rafale was the first western aircraft with the capability.
 
Not that Multi-role aircraft are anything new.
 
We have mulitrole since the F1 we know what they are thanks, but we also can tell the differences between multi and omni.

Hope this clarificatio helps.
 
Regards, PlG
 
 
Quote    Reply

Basilisk Station       5/13/2009 4:16:58 PM

 Omni means all.

 Yes all roles for which it was designed STRIKE Air Superiority, Recce etc.

Your allusion to heavier aircraft is ridiculous.
That's just multi-role in english. Calling it "Omnirole" means it does a hell of a lot more than it can do. The capability as you describe it, would make it more effective as a multi-role aircraft, but the ability to do them at the same time doesn't make it "omni" at least not in English.
How was/is the F/A-18 Hornet less capable than the Rafale?
 

  It have to swich from one role to the other due to its radar incapability to carry over more than one task simultaneously as for capabilties it is WAY lower in this area too, the only aspect in which the F/A1-8 E/FG beats Rafale is fuel fraction.

Having to switch like that isn't nearly the liability you seem to think it is. Its a flick of a switch on the HOTAS to change. It's also not possible to simultaneously conduct a precision air to ground strike while engaging in air to air combat. Nor is it wise to try to do so.
 
How does not having a HMD and an AESA radar make the Rafale superior again?
It carries a wider variety of ordinance.

Doesn't make it MORE capable.

It carries AtA and AtG ordinance at the same time.

Only a fraction of its weight and range compared to a Rafale, tell us which one in USAF service carries 1.5 its own weight?

Yes it does make it more capable. It can go after a wider variety of targets with capabilities more closely tailored to the task. BTW, what does france have that's comparable to a HARM?
 
Yes the Rafale does have better legs than the Hornet, but the ability to carry a very large war load is increasingly of less importance, with the rise of highly accurate ordinace.You don't need to carry tons of bombs to take out a building any more. One will do it just fine.
Agreed but S-H is now OMNIROLE since its radar CAN do both simultaneously, same thing as doing A2A and A2G with EOTS which is impossible as opposed to OSF which posses two independnt channel.
 

Perhaps now you start to comprehend the difference.
Not entirely. Your sentence is confusing and unclear. You say it can do both simultainiously, but then start talking about EOTS (Electro-Optical Targeting System : I assume) being impossible. What do you mean by dual channel on the OSF? That doesn't make sense.
It has an AESA now, not in 3-4 years.
 
PESA does OMNIROLE just as well as a matter of FACT Rafale was the first western aircraft with the capability.

This "omnirole" isn't as big a deal as you seem to think it is and the Rafale's radar being able to do both AtA and AtG simulaniously, still doesn't make it as good or as capable as an AESA set.

Having a terrific PESA is like having the greatest prop plane when Jets are here. Best second rate, is still second rate
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/13/2009 4:28:30 PM
Having to switch like that isn't nearly the liability you seem to think it is. Its a flick of a switch on the HOTAS to change. It's also not possible to simultaneously conduct a precision air to ground strike while engaging in air to air combat. Nor is it wise to try to do so.
 
I assume here you are talking about the pre-AESA blocks of the F/A-18E/F.  The Block II and later can do air to air and air to ground simultaneously; in fact the F model front and rear cockpits can utilize multiple completely separate radar modes simultaneously and have independent control over weapons and sensors.
 
As you say, though, it's difficult to think of a proper mission scenario where such a thing is necessary.  And "switching" from "one configuration to the other" is exactly as you describe, just flicking a couple of switches.  Thus the incident during the Gulf War in 1991 where a pair of F/A-18Cs from VFA-81 carrying LGBs on a strike mission, were engaged by Iraqi F-7As (MiG-21s), went air to air and splashed both MiGs without having to dump their bombs, then resumed their original mission and struck their targets.
 
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 - 2010StrategyWorld.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