2009 displays of the F-22 and the Rafale

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 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NEXT

MK 7/30/2009 9:58:26 AM

What a mess over here! I have seen a lot, but this is truely the tip of the mountain or should I say ground of the sea!? It's hard to believe that some here are grown up, educated individuals while they behave like kids rather than men. Might be worth to say that I don't aim at a particular person, but the general climate here and in similar threads leaves right this impression.

Back to topic, I haven't read everything, but from what I've seen there are some valid arguments on both sides, though not from everyone and not on everything. As usual two parties are bashing each other, with each of them defending their POV. But this discussion is marked by the lack of understanding and knowledge about the other sides aircraft and its related technologies and capabilities, paired with national pride in the wrong place.

Just a few comments on some topics which were raised here:

1.) The Rafale is certainly not of the same generation as the teens/teenskis, as the Mirage 2000 is the french counter part to those types, being designed at the same time, featuring similar technologies and capabilities.The Rafale was designed more than one decade later.

2.) The Rafale is certainly not a stealth aircraft like US designs such as the F-117, B-2 or F-22. It was never meant to be, but it is also wrong to assert that the signature reduction measures were all applied as an afterthought. There were clear requirements besides the AdA for reduced signatures and claiming these are useless is quite surprising as you have to ask yourself why do so many manufacturers add signature reduction measures or have included them from the design stage when they have no effect? There several reasons why the Rafale is no full stealth a/c. Costs and requirements are the most important ones. Unlike the F-117, B-2 or F-22 which were all designed as specialised aircraft for very specific missions, the Rafale was designed to replace a varity of types in a number of roles at sufficient quantity! The F-35 is in fact the first stealth a/c to be designed as a versatile multirole fighter. All previous US made stealth designs are niche aircraft, no other country can afford.

3.) If some people would actually bother to calculate the static TWR values of the Rafale they would come to the conclusion that the Rafale is by no means underpowered. Engine thrust alone is no indicator.

4.) Regarding the capabilities of the SPECTRA's RWR, the ranging capabilities, coupled with the high accuracy and ELINT/SIGINT capabilities are in sum somewhat unique, but it has to be taken into account that the technology haven't stood still elsewere. Ranging capabilities and accuracy of other systems of that kind aren't way of at all and many of the claimed "unique" capabilities of the Rafale are in fact not unique to the aircraft and the opinion which leads to that conclusion is based on the lack of knowledge. Direction finding is something RWRs are capable of since decades, albeit the accuracy was lower than it is now adays.

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/30/2009 11:54:29 AM

StevoJH
1) Buy F-22 instead of F-35 because they think that the F-35 is crap and that the F-22 is the only thing that can match the big bad flanker.

Well at least, performance-wise they are right.

Looking at F-35 requiered specs one can clearly see (With the appropriate aerodynamic knowlege) that its design feature matches them.

Then a look at its politico-industrial history tell you the rest.

You can't expect an aircraft designed primarily for the A2G role with only A2A as secondary, with a lower celling (actually equivalent ot that of the aircraft it was designed to replace in USMC service, the Harrier II+) NO supercruise and mainly transonic to low-supersonic speeds to carry the same Kinetic energy than the Flanker, whatever version of it.

If all the advantages enjoyed by F-22 are to be tanken into account then they also apply vs F-35.

StevoJH
2) Hire their company to upgrade the RAAF's F-111's into super powerful Stealth Bombers with an AESA radar or something or other.

Not my field, i wouldn't know what the RAAF best option would be, i know too litle about it.

StevoJH
Thankfully the F-111's get retired this year to be replaced by Super Hornets in the Strike Role with F-35's replacing the F/A-18A+'s in the next 5-10 years with the SH's eventually replaced by F35's as well.

I don'T think the f-35 will replace the F/A-18 it doesn't enjoy enough performances advantages to justify this not even in USN service, it will mor elikely complement it.

StevoJH
As an example of his opinions, the article here is a quick read (two pages of dodgy looking typing).

I know that F-35 fans are quiet disliking koops but it is forgeting that the guy, if VERY opinionated have still more knowlege of the subject than many of us, in some fields, clearly more than me,. even so he can be accused of bein BIASED one way he still have the skills necessary to claim being a proiper analyst.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

MK
What a mess over here! I have seen a lot....

Lot of trolling you are right...

MK
But this discussion is marked by the lack of understanding and knowledge about the other sides aircraft and its related technologies and capabilities, paired with national pride in the wrong place.

Form what i can see personaly people talk about aircraft forgeting it is AIR as an element which make them fly...

MK
1.) The Rafale is certainly not of the same generation as the teens/teenskis, as the Mirage 2000 is the french counter part to those types, being designed at the same time, featuring similar technologies and capabilities.The Rafale was designed more than one decade later.

Rafale A flew only a few years before YF-22 this hardly justifies the difference of "generations"...

2.) The Rafale is certainly not a stealth aircraft like US designs such as the F-117, B-2 or F-22. It was never meant to be.

This is not the point.

The definition of Low Observability can beasly be breaken down in categories and if anything, RAND, using official US datas defines F/A-18 as L.O as opposed to V.L.O for those you qyoted, Rafale is a L.O aircraft by their own definition standards.

MK
3.) If some people would actually bother to calculate the static TWR values of the Rafale they would come to the conclusion that the Rafale is by no means underpowered. Engine thrust alone is no indicator.

We did this long ago, and even one better, TWR is only part of the issue, combat TWR calculated on 50% internal fuel and all AAM weapons is more realistic and actually a military standard for this.

MK
4.) Regarding the capabilities of the SPECTRA's RWR, the ranging capabilities, coupled with the high accuracy and ELINT/SIGINT capabilities are in sum somewhat unique...

Agreed.

The main difference comes from the core system architecture (comparible to that of Pentium IV and Core2s) and processing power, if anythnig, Rafale (and Mirage 2000 -5 Mk2/9) shares the same core system architecture than F-22 and F-35 with possibly the same amount of processing power and growth potential.

They also used interferometry for their ECMs.

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 7/30/2009 1:56:02 PM

Again i dont know which thread said what but i think we all know the jist

A few responses

1 the quote that the talked about cockpits and performance and ended saying the Typhoon is superior. the way it was quoted implys aircraft performance was meant. Im pretty sure it was merely an opinion of the cockpit.

Rafale being the french answer to the typhoon as quoted by a journalist means nothing, the tornado wa the RAFs equivelant to the F1-11. Used for the same role totaly different aircraft in terms of performance.

A few opinions

Im sure i will fall foul of a few people but i personally feel that the typhoon will be a better air to air Fighter than the F 35 - thats not to degenerate the F 35 in any way shape or form but the tiffy is designed primarilly for a2a. It has (i understand) a reasonably small RCS from the front (though in no way a stealth aircraft) and for its size a bloody great big radar.

Any protrusions will affect RCS - nothing with bloody great sticky out and hangy off bits will ever be stealthy or for that matter discrete. I also find it hard to believe a RAM coating is applied to the a2a refuel probe. The terms bonding static potential differenc and arcing concern me - i may be wrong.

Now questions

1. the 2 thermal shots of rafale and Tiffy to me are meaningless the tiffy photo is much highrer quality which could mean a different camera, or weather conditions, or editing without any confirmation that conditions and hardware used were the same i do not feel comfortable drawing conclusions

so with that in mind does the typhoon have an excessive thermal signature , and is it significantly higher than the rafale

2. RCS why is the rafale discrete (0.3M quoted on this site) the M2000 discrete (1M as quoted on this site) but the typhoon 0.5M not.

3. The tiffy carries the AMRAAM in recesses on the belly (i believe to reduce drag and RCS (please confirm) does the rafale do this- im pretty sure the teens do.

3a I thought the typhoon could maintain supercruise with 4 amraam on the belly - is this correct or am i mistaken

Im not to aufait with combat aircraft so i appreciate people enlightening me.

4 Stealth - the f22 (alleged) and B2 have had maintainability problems regarding RAM etc am i alone here in worrying about the f35s durability - for carrier and sTOVL ops.

Spectra - and range / bearing accuracy

im pretty sure all aircraft ECM systems can give a bearing, hell comercial aircraft can gain a rough bearing of +- 10 deg on a TCAS antenna (4 antenna in the arial - phase difference across them) im not sure given ths small distances between antennas on the rafale if an accurate fix as implied by BW is possible, id hate to try triangulating to get range and bearing on a fast moving airborne set.

and what the fuck is interfermoretty (whatever). Never heard of it except on here so somebody enlighten me

Regards

A few responses

A few opinions

a Few questions

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/30/2009 2:09:42 PM

"1.) The Rafale is certainly not of the same generation as the teens/teenskis, as the Mirage 2000 is the french counter part to those types, being designed at the same time, featuring similar technologies and capabilities.The Rafale was designed more than one decade later."

Generations refer to technology and design philosophy. There is a clear divide between 5th generation aircraft and 4th generation aircraft. The Rafale is unquestionably a 4th generation aircraft, just like the Gripen, Super Hornet(also claimed by marketers to be a 5th generation plane), F-10 and Typhoon... as well as the earlier aircraft of the 4th generation.

The Rafale's signature reduction work was an extremely low priority in its design process. That is obvious from its overall layout and lack of significant RCS reduction features. It was simply designed too early for RCS reduction to have been considered a major design goal. More recently Dassault's marketing department and of course an army of fanboys, have tried and tried to claim that there was some serious effort made to give the Rafale a reduced RCS, but this is simply "marketing" or in other words... 95% untrue.

"There were clear requirements besides the AdA for reduced signatures and claiming these are useless is quite surprising as you have to ask yourself why do so many manufacturers add signature reduction measures or have included them from the design stage when they have no effect?"

They have some effect. Even incremental improvements in RCS reduction are useful, at least up to the point that external stores dominate the RCS, which is why these efforts have been made on most 4th generation fighters to one extent or another, but it is grossly inaccurate to say that France had a clear requirement for reduced signatures. There are numerous aspects of the Rafale's layout that would simply never have been designed the way they were if that were the case. (one of the best examples being the vertical tail) It is like claiming that a car with a high boxy profile(think of a Hummer perhaps) was designed to be aerodynamic. GM probably made some small effort to make the Hummer aerodynamic, but it is obvious from its design that the efforts were extremely limited and generally low priority. That is the case with the Rafale's RCS reduction.

"There several reasons why the Rafale is no full stealth a/c. Costs and requirements are the most important ones. Unlike the F-117, B-2 or F-22 which were all designed as specialised aircraft for very specific missions, the Rafale was designed to replace a varity of types in a number of roles at sufficient quantity! The F-35 is in fact the first stealth a/c to be designed as a versatile multirole fighter. All previous US made stealth designs are niche aircraft, no other country can afford. "

This is true, but it is also important to point out that at the time the Rafale was first being designed very very little was known about the successes the US was having with stealth aircraft. The first Rafale demonstrator was finished in 1985... The F-117 was not even revealed to the world until 1988, the same year the first Rafale production orders were placed. By that point the Rafale was simply too far along in its design to incorporate significant RCS reduction, especially considering that its engineers didn't have the benefit of the massive research and demonstrator programs that had allowed the US to create the F-117. Even if they had WANTED to design a stealthy fighter, they didn't have the technology.

To put it simply, the French, like the Russians and for that matter everyone else were taken by surprise by the speed with which stealth aircraft emerged and their technology matured. I know the fanboys here are motivated primarily by national pride and hate the thought that their country is behind the curve on such a key military technology, but making up lies about he Rafale being designed as a LO aircraft doesn't do a thing to change the facts in the real world.

The Rafale is not underpowered. It isn't an oustanding performer here, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as underpowered.

Naming the Rafale's EW suite "Spectra" is one of the smartest decisions the Rafale's designers made.(It really was smart) It makes it sound like it is somehow a more significant system than it actually is. Spectra is not a bad system, it is a modern and highly capable system. However, it is not the only modern and highly capable system on the market, and while it has some good capabilities, it also has some significant weaknesses (such as its lack of a towed decoy capability) and it is facing looming issues with obsolescence.

Spectra requires significant modernization(including quite a bit of new hardware) to keep up with the latest generation of advanced radars and seekers. Currently this is not a pressing need because no threat country possesses such systems, but this is an issue of concern for export customers in neighborhoods where the possibility exists of such systems entering service in the next decade.

Quote Reply

MK 7/30/2009 3:58:32 PM

The problem today is that people define generations around some very specific things. The overall design reflects the requirements it was designed for however. There were ever differences between different aircraft of the same generation. Soviet fighters for example featured LRF, IRST, HMS and datalink when most western fighters featured neither of them. Does that mean the US designs were a generation behind? Definitely not! They had other strengthes such as glass cockpits and digital FBW in case of the F/A-18 for example, yet those aircraft were still of the same generation. Nowadays many ressort to the stealth or not stealth matter. The truth is the F-22 for example was designed with a specific mission in mind, the requirements for other aircraft of its time (Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter...) were totally different. Hence you have different aircraft suited to the needs of the respective customers. I'm steadily amused how people ignore the Mirage 2000 which is in fact an aircraft of the MiG-29s or F-16s generation and it is the precursor of the Rafale.

I don't know where exactly signature reduction measures stood on the Rafale's requirement list, it certainly wasn't the top priority as it was for the F-22 for example, but it was required by the AdA and this was taken into account when the aircraft was designed. That's my point, not more not less. I think in the previous discussions here people from both sides were talking past each other and that's the problem. Just because the Rafale is no true stealth aircraft, doesn't mean the manufacturer didn't seriously tried to reduce the signatures within the design limits. The aircraft was certainly not compromised towards stealth unlike the US designs.

As said the AdA had such a requirement, but it seems to me people have difficulties to understand that while reduced signatures were a requirement, full allspect stealth wasn't. From frontal aspect and that's the area were most non allspect stealth designs are optimised for, a single fin is highly irrelevant, not to say better than having a twin fin. The Rafale's fin is largley made of radar transparent materials, which lower the effect, albeit it's a straight "reflector" in shape. Stealth isn't about shaping only, though it is an important part of it.

You think wrong if you believe that everyone else besides the US was just starting to investigate in the signature issues when the F-117 was revealed. Just to mention one example the german Lampidyre scale model. The principles of radar reflectivety and how to avoid them weren't entirely new and if I recall right the basis for this was layed by a Russian in the 50's or so.

The other way round some americans seem to believe they invented it all and that no one else ever thought about signatures before they did or unveiled their product (F-117). The US holds the edge here due operational experience, but it would be more than unwise to underestimate the efforts of other nations in that direction.

SPECTRA is one of the most important and also most expensive systems aboard this aircraft. Would you mind explaining why it should need significant modernization? Do others not require it to the same extend? I doubt so. But I agree that the system isn't that extraordinary in the light of other advanced EW suites such as the IDECM or DASS.

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 7/30/2009 4:23:02 PM

well presented and said

The arguments tend to be the result of certain posters refusing to acknowledge any shortcoming or comprimise regarding there favourite aircraft.

I think spectras issue is parts obsolecance - seems to be a problem with a few systems.

did dassault make the same mistakes airbus made and chased a new tech into a dead end -- im thinking glare here problems with repair and maintenance are supposed to have resulted in the second wave of aircraft having conventional tail cones .. this was certainly the scuttlebut on the shop floor 2 yrs ago . And dont even ask about aluminium cable - worst idea ever (after Kapton)

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 7/30/2009 4:27:19 PM

well presented and said

The arguments tend to be the result of certain posters refusing to acknowledge any shortcoming or comprimise regarding there favourite aircraft.

I think spectras issue is parts obsolecance - seems to be a problem with a few systems.

Quote Reply

MK 7/30/2009 4:43:20 PM

I think spectras issue is parts obsolecance - seems to be a problem with a few systems.

If you take it serious every aircraft is effected by parts obsolence to a more or lesser extend. I don't see the SPECTRA suffering extraordinarily from that part obsolence in comparison to the systems of other types. This system includes some technologies and capabilities, which combined exceed that of many competors. Take the digital RWR with large frequency coverage (2-40 GHz), interfereometry and ELINT/SIGINT capabilities or the ECM with AESA and DRFM. Or the combination of radar, IR and laser warning devices. Not every piece of the SPECTRA is extraordinary, but in sum the system seems to be quite impressive, at least on paper. And from what I gathered the customer as well as foreign evaluators were quite impressed by the system.

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 7/30/2009 4:51:08 PM

i appreciate what your saying but the rafale does appear to have managed it before it entered service

Quote Reply

usajoe1 7/30/2009 5:15:22 PM

usajoe1
Nobody in Europe wants it, they are either flying the Typhoon or the Gripen, and are waiting for a real 5th gen fighter, the F-35.

The F/A-18 for example? Because just in case you didn't realise it yet, the famous "Generation" thing is muchmore of a commercial argument than anythnig else, Boeing advertises their F/A-18s are 5th generation.

Who is talking about the SH? Why would they buy the SH when they are producing their own fighters like the Typhoon and Gripen. Now the Hornet family has been exported to many coutries and the latest SH is entering service in Australia, and has a good chance at winning in India and Brazil, so the Hornet has been very successful in the export market. Now, as far as the Generation thing goes, it does matter. A 5th gen fighter is a true stealth fighter like the F-22 and the F-35. The Typhoon, SH, Rafale, and Gripen are all still 4th gen fighters.

usajoe1
While good old France is going to be the lone operator of the Rafale.

If you nkew about the technologies involved in these aircraft you would understand that for our forces it doesn't matter the slightest, even a Mirage 2000 Mk2/9 have more advanced systems than the Typhoon T3, only the Gripen NG can compare with the Rafale F2/F3s.

The Mirage 2000 mk2/9 has more advanced systems than the Typhoon T3. LOL! proof please!

It doesn't matter the slightests if France is the sole operator of Rafale as long as the aircraft is more advanced than the competition and it is, best example; 5th generation core system architecture.

The Rafale is not the most advanced in its competition. It can not supercruise, and its radar is not as powerful as the Typhoon's, nor those it have the a2a missiles of the Typhoon, which combined with the Typhoons HMS, give it the edge in BVR and WVR combat. Where the Rafale is better than the Typhoon is in the deep strike package. In this area it has an advantage on almost all the 4th gen fighters, except the SH. The SH is the only 4th gen fighter that has an advantage today against the Rafale In a2a and a2g. The AESA radar, AIM-120, AIM-9X, HMS, powerful ECM suite, much larger paylod, of SO weapons, give it the edge against any other MR fighter out there today.

usajoe1
In Asia it already lost to BW's (barndoor) F-15 twice. S. Korea and Singapore.

While being the techgnologic winner, so at the end of the day the problem remians the same.

Proof please!

usajoe1
There is only Libya that might buy a dozen or so.

Switzerland, Brazil, the EAU, India and a few more...

If you read my whole post, you would of seen that I said the UAE was most likely going to get the Rafale, and Brazil also had a chance. There is almost no chance India will buy the Rafale.

usajoe1
Than again if the Rafale had a more powerful radar, HMS, a targeting pod, more powerful engines, better a2a missiles on time, and did not cost an arm and a leg it would not be in this situation.

For your information:

Rafale is the only European fighter to have an AESA radar developed AND ordered for production.

Really! have you heard of the Captor-E AESA radar? which will be in the Typhoons, in about the same time the Rafale gets its AESA radar, around 2011-12.

The Damocles pod will be in service at year end and the NG version has alredy been tested vith PGMs.

How many years behind the SH, Typhoon, F-16,15 and Gripen? not a smart move for the export market.

HMD is available for any customers wanting it, the fact that the French forces doesn't invest in it doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

The Sukhoi, Mig, SH, Typhoon, Teens and the Gripen were offering a fully developed systems years ago, where was the Rafale? another bad export move.

usajoe1
The problem is, France built this bird with France on its mind.
France did not think it needed a more powerful radar becuse it has modern AWACS,

There you are spot-on, Rafale responds to French requierements only and it is becoming a problem in regard to the export market.

Another bad export move.

usajoe1
it did not produce a targeting pod and a HMS and a more powerful engine because it did not think it was that important or did not want to spend the money,

You are a little mis-informed here; AdA and MN already have a suffiscient number of modern target designation pod and a good PBM capability, Damocles was to equip the Marine Nationale SEMs in priority.

I'm talking about export! they were not produced in time, while its competitors already had them ready for export.

In view of the repeated failures to export it, it became more and more obvious that customers requierements were differents than that of France forces.

Ding- Ding, you hit the jack pot!

Eurojet and Volvo are lagging well behind in terms of developement, we know exactly what the state of developement of Euroject technologies are because they use our high-pressure/high-temperatures facilities at ONERA, France, they are unique in Europe.

How is Eurojet lagging behind in development. Rolls Royce has been producing engines longer than almost anyone. It has built some of the best engine in the world for over 100 years. Today they built an engine that can supercruise and Rafale can't so how are they lagging behind again?

usajoe1
but what it forgot was that the Export coustomers who were going to give up an arm and a leg for the fighter wanted all of this. That is why they went for the Typhoon, SH, and even (barndoors) as BW likes to say, the F-15 and the SU-30.

You are plain wrong here: Rafale developement cost for the whole programe is way lower than that of the Eurofighter (Gripen is not in the same category) and more to it it is also much cheaper to acquier.

When a coustomer pays for a fighter that cost as much as the Rafale and the Typhoon, they want all the goodies. Typhoon can supercruise, has more powerful radar, better a2a missiles, HMS, Targeting Pod and the Rafale did not have this ready to go from the start. Even the Russians were offering this on their Sukhois.

To finish, Rafale have demonstrated A2A and A2G capabilties not one single other aircraft in Europe have

The Typhoon is better in A2A while the Rafale is better in A2G.

Look when the Rafale finally gets its AESA, TP, HMS, more powerful engines, better a2a missiles, etc.... than it will be exportable, but buy that time, the countries that have the money to buy segnificant numbers of the bird, are going to be either flying the Typhoon, the SH, F-15E F-16 blk60 or waiting for the F-35. Brazil and UAE is the only real chance the Rafale has, it will get one and might get both, but this is almost all it has to count on, because in a decade, the Typhoon and the F-35 are going to have majority of the fighter game on lock.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/30/2009 5:15:25 PM

Of course, there have always been variations within generations, but that doesn't mean that there isn't still a general consensus what each generation is. It is silly for fanboys to try to assert that the Rafale is somehow a 5th generation plane when its design in no way resembles one. If the Rafale is a 5th generation plane then what does that make the Gripen, F-10, Super Hornet, and Typhoon? They are all technological contemporaries with variations on the same design philosophy. They are all late 4th generation jets, but clearly 4th and not 5th generation jets.

This will become clearer as more 5th generation jets emerge over the next decade. They won't be untouchable or anything, but they will offer a type of performance simply unavailable from earlier designs.

"I'm steadily amused how people ignore the Mirage 2000 which is in fact an aircraft of the MiG-29s or F-16s generation and it is the precursor of the Rafale. "

Who is ignoring it? It comes up now and again, but as it is out of production it doesn't get mentioned much in the trade press. What I find amusing is the incredible amount of time these boards spend discussing the Rafale, an aircraft in service in only one country with a tiny production rate.

The Rafale is discussed more than any other plane on this board and many others simply because of the massive inferiority complex so many French fanboys have. They all seem to be convinced that making up fairy tales about their favorite plane on message boards will somehow help it.

If indeed it was on the list at all, it was a very very low priority. Its RCS reduction measures are minimal. This has already been hashed out 100 times with the same conclusion in each case. A few features to minimize the very worst RCS issues, but otherwise a totally conventional design.

That doesn't mean that it isn't a good plane or couldn't be used effectively. All but a couple hundred aircraft in the entire world(literally) have a similar level of RCS reduction or less, and many of those are still very much front line aircraft. The problem isn't in saying "the Rafale has some RCS reduction features, its RCS should be somewhat better than earlier 4th generation aircraft." [true]

The problem is when the fanboys start trying to claim "the Rafale is "discrete" it will sneak up on other planes using Spectra and its IRST to launch silent attacks on them with IR missiles!" [False] The Rafale has some modest RCS reduction, but nowhere near enough to offer a decisive advantage. The Rafale will fight in a totally conventional manner for jets of its generation. (Nothing wrong with that, but those are the facts. Nobody here is claiming that the Eurofighter, Gripen, or whatever else will sneak around undetected because they have a few RCS reduction features, a self protection jammer, and an IRST.)

I am sorry, but the vertical tail is in fact very relevant, and simply isn't something you do if you are trying to build a reduced RCS plane. That would be very nearly the first thing you would get rid of. Single or twin, any vertical flat surface is a huge no-no. Look at any other reduced RCS design, from the SR-71 to the F-35, not one single one of those aircraft have a vertical tail. Even a canted tail is not ideal and many future designs avoid tails completely.

There are two possible scenarios here, #1 France achieved some kind of amazing breakthrough in materials science allowing a flagrant RCS offender to be rendered no big deal, or #2 Reducing the Rafale's RCS was just not a priority for its design team.

Considering the various other features on the aircraft that show RCS reduction was not a major design goal, the only logical conclusion is #2. Once again, there is nothing wrong with that. Almost all similar fighters share such a tail, but it is illogical to claim that somehow different rules apply to the Rafale.

Oh there was an awareness outside the US of the possibility that a reduced RCS plane could be built, but it is only in the US that the idea was vigorously pursued and given massive resources. The combination of the US's strengths in materials, engineering and funding, combined with Cold War secrecy meant that the US was already well advanced in its stealth designs before most of the world knew they existed.

Think about it like the atomic bomb in WWII. A number of states had varying levels of awareness that such a weapon might be possible, including both the Germans and the Japanese, but it was only in the US that a large scale effort was made and given the resources necessary to make it a reality.

For a more recent example, and one the US found itself on the wrong side of, look at the R-73. While many countries were aware on some level that a helmet cued highly agile missile was possible, it was only in Russia that such a design was actually pursued. When Western forces got a chance to experiment with the R-73 they realized they were far behind the game. Even today large numbers of Western fighters still don't have a missile as capable as what the Russians had back in the 80s.

I am not totally dismissing other countries, but it is insufficient to say that the US's advantage is merely one of "operational experience." The US has built numerous manned aircraft designed from the start to be extensively LO.

The F-117, B-2, F-22 and F-35 are or will soon be operational.

The YF-23 and X-32 were both flyable prototypes that were not produced in quantity. (but were nonetheless educational)

Have Blue, Tacit Blue, the Bird of Prey were all experimental platforms. (and there were likely more)

Can you name me a single manned stealth aircraft that was not built by the US?

There have been a few drones and models built in the last few years of course, but the US has built so many of those at this point that it gets difficult to keep track of.

The rest of the world is now very much aware of the value of stealth and is working hard to develop it, but the US has been at this a very long time and being aware of the concepts of stealth is not the same thing as having actually designed and built aircraft after aircraft.

Stealth is very very hard. Even with all their experience the US still has problems making it work the way it "should." It is foolish to suggest that country X with a small budget and a few scale models is going to catch up on 30 years of full scale R&D.

SPECTRA is one of the most important and also most expensive systems aboard this aircraft. Would you mind explaining why it should need significant modernization?

It has specific weaknesses relating to its ability to detect and process LPI signals. It was designed with the radars and radios of its day in mind, but with the incredible leaps that have been made with computers, and software driven radars and radios Spectra is looking at trouble down the road. Another issue its reliance on "AESA" antennas. While this offers some advantages, the MMICs used in Spectra are not particularly capable, the same handicap that has been holding back the French AESA effort for so long.( and also a limitation of using an AESA radar as a jammer as the US intends to do, although they mostly rely on newer generations of MMICs)

Spectra has nothing to fear from any current threat system, so don't take this as doom and gloom. Spectra is most certainly a capable system

Do others not require it to the same extend?

To varying extents, yes. The wheel never stops turning, I guess if you wanted to look far enough out everything needs to be modernized. The F-22 has faced many similar issues with early obsolescence and has already upgraded its EW system.

My issue with the fanboys is that they treat "spectra" as a magic box capable of an amazing array of incredible feats. Just as they claim the Rafale is the "best" fighter, so must Spectra be the best EW system, etc etc. It gets really really old. You would think nobody else had a jammer or RWR on an aircraft.

Quote Reply

MK 7/30/2009 6:23:00 PM

I personally don't care that much about generation labels at all, as they have become more a kind of marketing argument rather than categorising aircraft into chronological periods. In Europe aircraft like the F-16 or MiG-29 are classed as 3rd generation while designs such as the Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen are classed as 4th generation.

You miss the point here, the Mirage 2000 is the french counterpart to US/Russian 4th (3rd) generation fighters, not the Rafale. Just take a look at the technologies offered by the early teens/teenskis and compare it to what new designs such as the F-22, Rafale or Typhoon etc. have to offer. Stealth apart the differences in technology between the F-22 and its european "equivalents" aren't as large as some pretend here. MMI, avionics integration and systems in general, materials, engine technology, FCS etc. are all on an equal level. Of course there are some differences, as it was the case with previous generations of combat aircraft. The fact that the gap and technologies and capabilities between those newer designs and the legacy types isn't a large has more to do with the fact that the development of the new designs took much longer and much of the stuff has found its way into upgraded variants of the legacy designs.

No idea, I'm new here and haven't read that many threads up to date. But I can see 2 of them concerning this aircraft at the top.

Agreed.

Well "Discret" was the term used by the manufacturer for the AdA stealthier model. IR signature reduction and RF emission management and avoidance are part of this concept, next to the RCS reduction. I think some people refer way to much to the F-22, but this comparison lacks. Proper tactics coupled with all this might indeed provide an edge with some significance over older designs, but ofcourse NOT to the degree as offered by the F-22 or the F-35 in the future, at least not in form of RCS.

I spoke about the frontal RCS where a single fin is no issue, that the RCS will suffer from side aspect angles is out of question. All those aircraft such as the Rafale, Super Hornet etc. are optimised for a lower frontal RCS not all aspect stealth.

Almost all similar fighters share such a tail, but it is illogical to claim that somehow different rules apply to the Rafale

True. Yet there aren't an awful lot of right angles on the aircraft spare the fin, blended wing fuselage design, sawtooth profiles and RAS and RAM we can hardley judge. I tend to say that the Rafale has one of the lowest RCS from all non stealth designs.

No one outside the US haven't had the resources, but it's not like "oh we know it is possible, but that's it". Take a look here:

link

BTW wrote the name wrong above. And before you get me wrong, no this wasn't the same massive effort as conducted by the US, but a good proof that others worked on such things long before the F-117 was unveiled.

That was not my intention, appologise if it sounded like that.

Money isn't all. I'm not going to say anyone will present you an equal or even superior stealth a/c just tomorrow, but that while there is a gap and while the gap might remain for the next few years to come (or longer) you do yourself no favour if you believe that everyone else will need the very same time. There are countless examples in history were a relative small group of people with minior ressources was able to achieve things huge money sucking companies weren't able to achieve or required much more ressources to do so.

Can you proof any of these claims or is it just wild guessing? Sounds more like the latter one, albeit some of your thoughts are reasonable and might turn out to be true.

SPECTRA has been upgraded as well 3 times since it was introduced and I'm not even sure if the early versions fitted to the Rafale F1s featured AESA antennas for their ECM suite at all. As said every military aircraft is affected by that, some more some less, but without the specifics there is a lot of speculation which reflects a personal opinion at best, but not facts.

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/30/2009 7:10:23 PM

Quote: I am sorry, but the vertical tail is in fact very relevant, and simply isn't something you do if you are trying to build a reduced RCS plane. That would be very nearly the first thing you would get rid of.

WRONG: For many reasons.

First of all design are mostly evolutionary and the US scool of aircraft design have a long history of using twin fins INCLUDING for non L.O aircrafts, i.e. the YF-17 and F-18.

Secondly, the very fact that frontal engagement are the most likely scenarios when one tries to hunt a target in a view of intercepting it (known fighter pilots basic tactic) means that this feature is much more useful for a V.L.O (All sector RCS reduction) than a L.O aircraft such as the Rafale and F/A-18.

Third, all designs are the result of compromises, the less compromised of all were the F-177 and YF-23.

BOTH features aV-shaped fin for the simple reason that they do away with the elevators, which is obviously NOT the case of F-22 and F-35.

For the rest see my reply to Rufus about the features which are known to reduce RCS.

Quote:

from the SR-71 to the F-35, not one single one of those aircraft have a vertical tail. Even a canted tail is not ideal and many future designs avoid tails completely.

Neither does the F-15 noer the F-18 and yet they both doesn;t qualify as L.O, as opposed to F/A-18.

>>>>>

Rufus
as well as the earlier aircraft of the 4th generation.

Which one?

Rufus
It was simply designed too early for RCS reduction to have been considered a major design goal.

A S-shapped inlet glove and vanes features on its structural airframe and engine design are not ADD-ON plug and play features.

Rufus
More recently Dassault's marketing department and of course an army of fanboys,

This is a LIE.

At Roll out of the Rafale C or D for Discreet, the EM and IR reduction work was obvious and already well advertised, nothing to do with marketing, what you are doing is called revisonism.

Rufus
95% untrue.

Is the best way to describe what you keep writing about it now, sorry.

Rufus
but it is grossly inaccurate to say that France had a clear requirement for reduced signatures.

What is bovious is that you know litle about it and again the article i posted on the subject proves you wrong.

AGAIN: S-shaped inlets, engine vanes, mid-fuselage mounted wings and large blended area are not add-on features, more to it the M88 IR reduction features are obvious too and all are coming from design stage of course.

Rufus
There are numerous aspects of the Rafale's layout that would simply never have been designed the way they were if that were the case.

Really?

Rufus
(one of the best examples being the vertical tail)

I wish you'd stop coming up with this example because in the case of ALL designed US aircraft since F-18, this particular design feature have been the source of problems and was never meant for stealth in the first place...

F-18 design in no stealthier than that of a Mirage 2000, the twin fin feature is an aerodynamic arrangement inherited from YF-17, NOT a stealthy design.

If you want REAL stealth with this feature, you end-up looking like YF-23 with a 45% angle from the horizontal plan...

YF-23 was the ultimate stealh fighter and Rafale posses more than one of its most important features:

. Wing positioning.

. Leading edge sweep angles.

. Recessed inlet.

. S-shaped inlet gloves.

. Serrated areas.

ALL of which were known to reduce RCS long before the 70's.

For your information, F-18, F-22, F-35 ALL suffered from excessive structural fatigue due to aerodynamic buffeting of the fins.

To the point that the fins main beams material had to be changed from the original stealthy composite material to magnesium.

Not too stealthy considering that this was coming together with significant increase in parts and skin thicknes in the same area.

In the case of Rafale, the choice of a single fin was a compromise meant to save weight, as was the case for the EAP and later the Eurofighter Typhoon.

It is a compromise such as that made for the leading sweep edge angle of F/A-18 or F-35 which doesn't come anywhere close to the ideal 45*.

Rufus
It is like claiming that a car with a high boxy profile(think of a Hummer perhaps) was designed to be aerodynamic.

Dassault engineers were looking for was a significant step in EM and IR signature reduction compared to Mirage 2000 which already have a much lower RCS than a F-16, and they achieved just that.

Rufus
GM probably made some small effort to make the Hummer aerodynamic,

And Dassault chosed features which are known to reduce RCS such as mid-fuselage mounted wings junction and blended area, as used in YF-23.

Rufus
This is true, but it is also important to point out that at the time the Rafale was first being designed very very little was known about the successes the US was having with stealth aircraft."

WRONG:

The race for stealth was ON long before ATF was launched in 1983 even in Europe, the principles of radar reduction features are known since the invention radar and use of large Karman wing-fuselage junctions.

Germany designed fin-less fighters and already knew more than a few things bout radar return in 1945 (Horten Ho 229 for example).

As early as 1977 Flight international was already publishing articles on the subject of stealth fightrers and bombers.

In fact Europe knew more than the USA at the time US engineers started to research the subject, partly due to the German advances in this field.

Early 1980 the ATF competiton was in every week's magazines with many conceiptual drawings from all sources including the USA...
link

Rafale A was designed in precisely 18 MONTH and rolled out in December 1985, this mean ATF had already been advertised for nearly 8 years and launched a few month before the design process for Rafale A had even begun.
link A

Rufus
Even if they had WANTED to design a stealthy fighter, they didn't have the technology.

They did have the technology to design a L.O aircraft as RAND describes today, L.O features were possible to add to a design stage long before F/A-18 itself was on the design boards.

The Rockweel B1 was already applying EM reduction measures in its design, including bulkheads shaping and this was disclosed in the press at the time, so was the Mirage 2000, the only difference was the level of priority given to these features at design stage.

L.O isn't specificaly adressing stealth features the way V.L.O does and in particular with weapon and fuel storage, internal component design, specific trailing edge sweep angles, use of more developed RAM coating.

So are the F/A-18 and Rafale designed with L.O in mind, with significant EM reduction measures but only developed due to a level of compromise to aerodynamics and cost.

Trying to blur the difference between L.O and V.L.O doesn't validate your point and unless you can show us what is stealthier than V.L.O today, your agrument is pointles.

Rufus
To put it simply, the French, like the Russians and for that matter everyone else were taken by surprise by the speed with which stealth aircraft emerged and their technology matured.

Nobody was taken by surprise, i dont know which year you were born but Europe simply didn't chose to invest in the technology at the time, focusing on what was more urgent (Engines and radars in France).

At the end of WWII France industries were all but destroyed, it took more efforts and research work to get France aerospacial industry where it is today than in any other country's case.

EM reduction studies were conducted by ONERA from the 70's but Dassault already had a good knowlege of design features reducing RCS, so did I at the age of 17 serving in AdA, starting with Karman junctions and wing positoning which were well known for reducing RCS at the time.

US stealth was so much advertised in the 70's time you could hardly open a specialised magazine without reading an articles on the US advances in the field, including ATF.

Radar return and its way to beat it was explained in plain English in many published essais and articles...

Rufus
I know the fanboys here are motivated primarily by national pride and hate the thought that their country is behind the curve on such a key military technology,

You might like to think this way, we know better than you do about our aerospacial history and apparently yours occasionaly.

If you have to deny your own offical RAND work on defining levels of obvservability to make your point, we don't and more to it we can validate with proper sources and show that you are greatly mystaking only for you to deny without actually bringing any evidences forward.

Rufus
but making up lies about he Rafale being designed as a LO aircraft doesn't do a thing to change the facts in the real world.

You are making up thaty Rafale is less "stealthy" than F/A-18 and have to rewrite the book for making your point, we don't need to invent anything design features and their characteristics for RCS reductions are there for everyone to see.

Rufus
it is not the only modern and highly capable system on the market, and while it has some good capabilities, it also has some significant weaknesses (such as its lack of a towed decoy capability) and it is facing looming issues with obsolescence.

For your information the Electronic Warfare Center and Squadron based in Saint Dizier is developing the next generation of towed decoy for the RAF.

Sait Dizier ECM range it is the most advanced in the world out of the USA and the only one used for NATO MACE-X exercise in Europe, all sensitive EM-based devices developed in Europe are tested by DGA in this range...

We know about the effisciency of such devices and we also know that SPECTRA was pitted against the most advanced Air Defense systems available in the west several time over since the begining of its developement.

SPECTRA doesn't NEED a towed decoy, it never did, it was designed to be effiscient enough to do without one and it is a advanced as the ECM suite developed by BAe for F-22 and F-35, Thales are the reconised ECM european premier specialists, NOT BAe who developed US fighters ECMs.

Rufus
Spectra requires significant modernization(including quite a bit of new hardware) to keep up with the latest generation of advanced radars and seekers.

SPECTRA is already the most advanced system in service well in par with the US best, in particular it has 360*X368* AESA coverage and is also unique in Europe for this reason.

It also uses interferometry, again unique in the EUs as does F-22 and F-35.

Rufus
Currently this is not a pressing need because no threat country possesses such systems, but this is an issue of concern for export customers in neighborhoods where the possibility exists of such systems entering service in the next decade.

You are rewriting the book time and time AGAIN...

SPECTRA always was and still is the highest priority in the Rafale programe and ALSO the most expensive portion of it with about 22%+ of the total developement cost.

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/30/2009 7:20:56 PM

Quote: It has specific weaknesses relating to its ability to detect and process LPI signals.

NO it doesn;t. in the contrary, DGA tested it vs the most advanced LPI systems avialable at the NATO MACE-X exercise and it performed flawlessly.

Quote:

It was designed with the radars and radios of its day in mind, but with the incredible leaps that have been made with computers, and software driven radars and radios Spectra is looking at trouble down the road.

WRONG: It was designed specificaly for the generation of AESA Thales (Thompson Electronic) weree planning to put into service at the time.

RBE2 AESA was always planned and Thales was working with Rayethon on AESA technologies for the US DoD aty the time.

Quote:

Another issue its reliance on "AESA" antennas. While this offers some advantages, the MMICs used in Spectra are not particularly capable, the same handicap that has been holding back the French AESA effort for so long.( and also a limitation of using an AESA radar as a jammer as the US intends to do, although they mostly rely on newer generations of MMICs)

You're more than welcome to bring us any firm evidence of what you allege, results of two years of testing against LPI AESA systems in the most demanding conditions proved you wrong.

Developement of specificaly European MMIC technologies was only a matter of industrial independence, NOT a technology gap in itself, as for the state of advance of European AESA technology you might not like to hear it but it is well on par with that of the US today.

Ask the USN who tested Thales naval radars recently what they think of it, RBE2 AESA is quoted as one of F-35 possible fits.

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/30/2009 9:00:55 PM

RAND know well what they are talking about, their work was not only sponsored by the USAF, but they also based it on classified datas they turned into all-public definitions for the purpose of publication.

Considering this definition of L.O, and the work done on both engine and airframe at design stage, Rafale is fully qualifies as L.O accoding to this document.

I can't see any reason to come and say otherwise, these guys are the most qualified and informed.

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 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NEXT

	News As History - March 16, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us