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
   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 cutti
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57   NEXT
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

Herald12345    Just for my edification.   5/13/2009 4:41:17 PM
Who is this ignorant fanboy, who calls himself PLG?
 
I'm having a hard time not guffawing at some of the nonsense he posts, so I'm curious.
 
Herald 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Basilisk Station       5/13/2009 4:47:41 PM

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.

He did actually say that was the case with the E/F, but then he starts talking about EOTS and OSF and number of channels.
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.


I can see a slight situational advantage in that you could loose or miss air to air targets, while you were in A/G mode, but US Carrier aircraft are likely to have more aircraft in a strike. So it's unlikely that they would be (and stupid to boot) all in A/G at the same time. Then there's the greater AWACs capability that the US has, which should provide plenty of warning for incoming aircraft anyway.
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    @Basilisk Station    5/13/2009 4:58:57 PM
 Yes there is a "slight" operational advantage to omnirole expecialy on the two seaters.
 
  This is why  the AESA F/A-18  is a much more efficient fighter than F-18 C/D were or than what it was without.
 
  The WSO can do the A2G while the pilots do the A2A simultaneously.
 
  NO need to switch swiches or change radar modes on their respective displays.
 
  All Rafale sent to the US were two seaters and belong to a SEAD specialised squadron, the 1/7 which was flying Jaguars/AS37 previously.
 
  Now imagine a Jag scoring an A2A BVR kill without blinking while conducting its A2G DEAD mission succesfuly.
 
Regards, PlG
 
Quote    Reply

Basilisk Station       5/13/2009 5:11:26 PM

 Yes there is a "slight" operational advantage to omnirole expecialy on the two seaters.

  This is why  the AESA F/A-18  is a much more efficient fighter than F-18 C/D were or than what it was without.

  The WSO can do the A2G while the pilots do the A2A simultaneously.

  NO need to switch swiches or change radar modes on their respective displays.

  All Rafale sent to the US were two seaters and belong to a SEAD specialised squadron, the 1/7 which was flying Jaguars/AS37 previously.
Yes two seaters do have this as an advantage, but it's pretty theoretical. The violent maneuvers of AtA combat aren't really compatible with the care you want to exercise in an AtG strike. Also, if you are engaging an AtA target, I'd have to say that both of the crew's attention is better spent on taking down the enemy aircraft.
 
Historically, the vast majority of aircraft that have gotten shot down in AtA, either never saw the aircraft that killed them at all or were fixated on another target. So while you might be able to do what you describe at the same time, it's unwise to do it.
 
  All Rafale sent to the US were two seaters and belong to a SEAD specialised squadron, the 1/7 which was flying Jaguars/AS37 previously.
 
 Now imagine a Jag scoring an A2A BVR kill without blinking while conducting its A2G DEAD mission succesfuly.

Regards, PlG
You do know that there are no two seater Rafale-Ms don't you.
 
You didn't say what they'd use to conduct a SEAD mission. Does France have any thing comparable to HARM?
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/13/2009 5:12:50 PM
He did actually say that was the case with the E/F, but then he starts talking about EOTS and OSF and number of channels.

Yeah sorry, I hadn't read that far down when I wrote my response.  As far as the EOTS (I guess he means ATFLIR, the EOTS is the system on the F-35) vs OSF stuff... The EOTS and ATFLIR both act as a TV camera and an IR sensor, using the same optics but different CCDs.  The OSF has two separate sensors. Sampaix / PlG has harped on this point for years but there really isn't any distinct advantage to the OSF way of doing it.  I guess the two halves of the sensor could be independently steered by the front-seater and the back-seater, I don't know for sure however if the sensor really has that capability.  I don't really think the OSF is worth talking about too much right now anyway; only the first few Rafale F2s have the dual-channel system.
 
I think a much more useable dual-optical-sensor layout is what the Super Hornet will bring in the future, when it is carrying both the centerline IRST and the ATFLIR.  At that point obviously both sensors can be used simultaneously, and separately by the two crew in the decoupled-cockpit F models.
 
It's important to keep in mind, too, that even the older E/F Hornets can engage ground targets while their radar is in air to air mode.  For example, ATFLIR can autonomously track and designate ground targets and hand them off to GPS-guided weapons even when the radar is off or in an air to air mode.
 
At any rate, OSF isn't that useful in these kinds of scenarios, since it isn't in an optimal locaiton for air to ground.  When the Rafale is equipped with an IR/Laser pod that the backseater can also operate, then it will have roughly the same capability as the Super Hornet does in that regard.
 
I can see a slight situational advantage in that you could loose or miss air to air targets, while you were in A/G mode, but US Carrier aircraft are likely to have more aircraft in a strike. So it's unlikely that they would be (and stupid to boot) all in A/G at the same time. Then there's the greater AWACs capability that the US has, which should provide plenty of warning for incoming aircraft anyway.
 
Exactly; nobody in their right mind is going to pretend you can engage air targets while at the same time flying a launch profile for an air to ground weapon.  The advantage of being able to do air to air and air to ground modes simultaneously is that the pilot can keep an eye on the airspace while the WSO targets and launches air to ground weapons, and therefore may be able to react faster than if he had to rely entirely on off-board warning.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics