The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What is wrong with the Rafale?
Rufus    5/9/2009 10:16:10 AM
I have noticed a lot of discussion on here lately about the Rafale and its inability to compete with the various other late 4th generation designs on the market today. In an effort to shed some light on this issue I have taken a moment to list some of the Rafale's major crippling flaws and their origins.

The single biggest issue with the Rafale, and the common thread throughout most of its major design flaws, is that its design team simply lacked sufficient vision of where the future of fighter aviation was heading. Throughout the Rafale's design process its designers chose to go with incremental improvements rather than generational leaps in technology. The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29. The end result is a somewhat refined, but badly overpriced aircraft that has struggled to even compete with the aircraft it was designed to match, and utterly lacks the potential to compete with newer designs.

The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features. The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders. What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.

Not only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter. As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach.

Like its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase. While the Rafale was largely successful in matching the interfaces seen in US fighters in the early 90s, its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading. Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production. It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight, and numerous other advanced features such as the Super Hornet's fully decoupled interfaces. Most critically, the Rafale's man machine interface lacks the defining features of a 5th generation design, such as advanced sensor fusion and sophisticated multi-purpose helmet mounted displays.

Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end. Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar. The best the Rafale can hope to do is close some of its radar performance gap with aircraft like the F-16, but will never be capable of competing with designs like the Eurofighter or Super Hornet.

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite. As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats. The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system. By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters. The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems. Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.) Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers, so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)

So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts. By the time the Rafale design team recognized they had misjudged the direction of future designs, they lacked the resources and time to correct their mistakes. Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33   NEXT
PierreLeGrand       5/13/2009 7:16:19 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/13/2009 7:35:56 PM
Phaid :
""What actually happened at Red Flag was that when the Rafales were engaged, they temporarily broke away from their strike mission to engage the air threat.""
 
This is probably what happened but I haven 't read anything to confirm your version Phaid . Any link ?
Not that I don 't believe you , I just want to know , thank you .
 
Certainly:  Echo 113 no. 107.  Check out page 8.
Avec les évolutions incessantes des chasseurs ennemis, la situation tactique change rapidement ; nous pouvons compter sur le soutien de l?AWACS pour nous transmettre régulièrement une nouvelle picture. La radio est vite surchargée. La tension est palpable car il veille particulièrement à ce que nous évitions tout tir fratricide en nous désignant bien les appareils hostiles dénommés bandits.. Notre système (radar, système de contre mesure, liaison 16, ensemble optronique?) fait le reste et nous permet d?engager les chasseurs ennemis et de nous soustraire à leurs tirs.

   Une fois les chasseurs ennemis repoussés, il nous faut poursuivre plus avant pour détruire les objectifs terrestres assignés. Cette phase est tout aussi difficile car, tout en évitant les sites de défense sol-air qui nous menacent, il nous est impératif de délivrer notre armement à la minute près afin d?assurer une enveloppe de sécurité entre les différents chasseurs (en général, nous disposons d?une toute petite marge de 30 secondes sur un trajet de quarante minutes).
My translation:
Due to the incessant moves by enemy fighters, the tactical situation changes rapidly; we can count on the support of AWACS to regularly update our tactical picture.  The radios channels are quickly overloaded.   The tension is palpable as the AWACS is particularly mindful of correctly designating hostile aircraft as bandits in order to avoid fratricide.  Our system (radar, countermeasures, link-16, optronic systems) does the rest and allows us to engage enemy fighters and avoid their shots.
 
Once the enemy fighters have been driven away, we must proceed farther forward to destroy the assigned ground targets.  This phase is equally difficult as, along with avoiding surface to air sites that threaten us, it is imperative that we deliver our weapons within a time window measured in minutes in order to assure ourselves mutual cover between the different fighters (in general, we have a very small on-target margin of 30 seconds out of a forty minute flight).
Clearly, they are not simply flying along and lobbing virtual MICAs while doggedly flying their attack profile; they interrupt their flight to engage the air targets and then resume course once the threat is eliminated.
 
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    Sorry dude you got it all WRONG.   5/13/2009 7:55:24 PM
Threat avoidance and even enghagement of A2A threats are part of the A2G mission and it wasn't interupted at ANY time.
 
Looks like you know even less than i thaught you did.
 
Regards, PLG
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/13/2009 7:59:24 PM
Very good translation Phaid :-)
Thank you .
 
Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/13/2009 8:06:00 PM
I do like this kind of reports as they show a bit more clearly what really happen during DACT meetings .
Everybody tries his best to make it as real as possible , this is not showtime and nobody wants to mess around playing the "hero" . This is a "zero BS" tolerance exercise .
 
It also does show some of the Rafale capabilities .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/13/2009 8:07:41 PM

Very good translation Phaid :-)

Thank you .

 

Cheers .







Translation is correct conclusions are all wrong:
allows us to engage enemy fighters and avoid their shots.
 
Once the enemy fighters have been driven away, we must proceed farther forward to destroy the assigned ground targets. 
 
 Doesn't MEAN the A2G mission was interupted at any time or that the WSOs were distracted from their primary mission.
 
 It means that the enemy fighters were in range, posed a high enough level of threat for them to engage, for this they might not even have to maneuver that much, staying out of their firing envelops after getting the first shot would be enough.
 
Regards, PLG

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/13/2009 8:41:57 PM




Very good translation Phaid :-)



Thank you .



 



Cheers .












Translation is correct conclusions are all wrong:

allows us to engage enemy fighters and avoid their shots.

Once the enemy fighters have been driven away, we must proceed farther forward to destroy the assigned ground targets. 

 Doesn't MEAN the A2G mission was interupted at any time or that the WSOs were distracted from their primary mission.

 It means that the enemy fighters were in range, posed a high enough level of threat for them to engage, for this they might not even have to maneuver that much, staying out of their firing envelops after getting the first shot would be enough.

Regards, PLG



Surely you aren't trying to suggest that the pilots just carried on to their targets while under duress oblivious to the fact that they could be engaged? I seriously doubt even an F-22 pilot would be so cavalier about it.  I have never seen or heard of any credible military do that. While you are on a mission, you have to categorize threats and you deal with the most dangerous first. For instance if I saw a BTR at 3500 meters and then a T-72 off to my 9 at 2500 meters. Even if he is unaware I HAVE TO ENGAGE IT FIRST and the tank demands my full attention since it is the most dangerous thereat to my mission and crew. I can't imagine fighter-bomber ignoring enemy fighters with a simple passing shot. What if the MICA misses? While you are on your way to bomb, the opponent is getting in position for a high percentage shot from position of advantage. If he engages, he could mission kill you because you may have to dump ordinance and external fuel in order to take proper evasive action. 
That just doesn't seem logical IMV.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/13/2009 8:49:33 PM
Pierre :
""Doesn't MEAN the A2G mission was interrupted at any time""
 
I 'm not so sure Pierre , let 's read it again :
""allows us to engage enemy fighters and avoid their shots.""
(then silence)
""Once the enemy fighters have been driven away, we must proceed farther forward to destroy the assigned ground targets""
 
To me , it seems that the Rafales had to manoeuver during the "silence" , so the use of the word "once" right after , don 't you think ?
They were clearly BVR so did not have to pull hard Gs , staying away from the other 's enveloppe (as you said) and firing was enough , but they most probably had to leave the flight plan for a little while . My bet is that they were flying at around 20.000ft . Then , "once the enemy fighters have been driven away" , they proceeded low level to the targets . Just my guess ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/13/2009 9:01:48 PM

Pierre :


""Doesn't MEAN the A2G mission was interrupted at any time""

 

I 'm not so sure Pierre , let 's read it again :


""allows us to engage enemy fighters and avoid their shots.""

(then silence)


""Once the enemy fighters have been driven away, we must proceed farther forward to destroy the assigned ground targets""

 

To me , it seems that the Rafales had to manoeuver during the "silence" , so the use of the word "once" right after , don 't you think ?


They were clearly BVR so did not have to pull hard Gs , staying away from the other 's enveloppe (as you said) and firing was enough , but they most probably had to leave the flight plan for a little while . My bet is that they were flying at around 20.000ft . Then , "once the enemy fighters have been driven away" , they proceeded low level to the targets . Just my guess ...


 

Cheers .






To me , it seems that the Rafales had to manoeuver during the "silence" , so the use of the word "once" right after , don 't you think ?
 
Of course maneuvers are necessary, they also are in the event of a SAM "Spike".
 
Threat avoidance is the first thing they would do whatever the nature of the threat and this always involves maneuvring.
 
It doesn't mean that the focuse on the primary mission is lost of left aside for a second, this would negate the very conceipt of omnirole and more to the point loose one of the aircraft main advantages, the possibility to do both at the same time.
 
If the WSO continues to carry its A2G missions independently it is a bonus for the crew NOT a desadvantage and i don't see any reason for him to loose it expecialy against a SAM site.
 
The pilot is primarily in charge of the A2A threat and if it can be avoided it will always be better since their mission is not A2A but A2G.
 
 When the threat is unavoidable, he will maneuver accordingly, he doesn't need the WSO assistance for this, this is only better in case of WVR combat when two par of eyes are always been proven to be better than one.
 
In short, nothing else than a normal scenario for a A2G mission.
 
Regards, PLG


 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/14/2009 6:46:44 AM
Can some Frenchman tell Bluewings what an ignorant fanboy he is? It is fun to read his fabulations, but they take up so much space for intelligent objective discussions and the occasional argument involving a semi-objective Frenchman.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/14/2009 6:52:09 AM
It is rather pathetic of him to attempt to copulate with advanced arguments only to end up calling the posters liards... and then crowning his ill faith in all its glory by pathetically scrubbing anyone anyone at any level of sympathy for information.
 
It would be a greater contribution to this forum if everyone of his posts were autoscrubbed and replaced with 'I love the Rafale' over a background of the French flag, but I understand the importance of free speech and all.
If someone who thinks the Rafale is a wonderful machine would take the time to disabuse him of even half his idiocy that would be a stellar achievement.
 
He is entertaining, like a clown, but circuses are out of style, and this is not a circus (cloned reports on Pakistan aside, seriously they could replace all their reports on Pakistan with whatever I lift from longwarjournal or my own searches).
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/14/2009 6:54:49 AM
And lastly (this is my third post, unless the second one got swallowed by the ether) I would comparing Bluewings with Pakistan... on one hand he's honestly delusional like some of the Pakistanis, but on the other hand he is like the government, perpetually peddling disinformation. And his fervor is almost on a religious level...
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/14/2009 7:19:28 AM
I for one found the OP well-written and englightening while in conjecture with all major international sources on the Rafale. I can not understand even one third of what he wrote but the gist, but as I said its in conjecture so its reasonably reliable, AT LEAST.
 
He may be wrong on points however, I wouldn't know.
 
Why are the French so nationalistic? I know a lot of Americans are, but at least they're realistic about their equipment, although I suppose that's easy when you have the best in the world. Perhaps it is that France has a proud history and has just begun to lag behind the last several decades. Denial dies last.
 
There was something I was going to say, but I've forgotten it... it was a profound point.
Let me make another instead:
 
Go find someone in France with a lot of responsibility for the Rafale, and ask them about it's capabilities and what peer-nations it could compete with. The answer would be rosy, but barely within the boundaries of realism... and you will not hear 35 or likely even 18. They'll probably try to brag by saying it's better than the 16 or competive with the Eurofighter (though they'd be lying).
 
Or heck, let's just go and find a Frenchman who HATES the Rafale... see how long it takes for BW to call him a traitor. Since afterall anyone who disagrees with him fiercely to the end to the effect that the Rafale is a lemon must be lying, deluded, evil, stupid, etc. etc.
 
In fact I'm 'a go find it and post it... Someone needs to bring BW away from the sanctum of the inner abode of the keep of the fortress of the castle of the citadel of the capital of lala-land..
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/14/2009 7:35:22 AM

Well I found something close to it on google after five seconds, enjoy:

 

link
 
 
and here:
 
link
This is old news that was cast in doubt (but probably jus to save face). Note that the F16 is still in the competition.
I suppose this must be the evil defense ministry stabbing the bird and Dassault in the back and has nothing to do with its capabilities...
 
link
...fails to meet minimum technical requirements...
 
 
link
More discussion... note how all the defenders resort to the anti-french argument.
 
 
 
I guess that's all you've really got... conspiracy theories and budget theories... there's something called 'denial' and 'confirmation bias'. I recommend you do a thorough check on these terms bluewings and take tests in accordance with the topic at hand.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       5/14/2009 7:38:25 AM
So to start off with in 'denial' you need to study for a few hundred hours about basic aviation topics. Then you'll find the errors you've made regarding basic assumptions. After that you can go on to argument and conclusion... but that's a long way off.
 
 
 
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