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
Phaid       5/13/2009 5:25:27 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 

Check out World's Armed Forces Forum (WAFF) and look for posts by Sampaix.  That is him.
 
I have "met" him before on French message boards, but he's banned from the ones I frequent so I hadn't encountered his posts in a long time.
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/13/2009 5:31:49 PM
The EOTS and ATFLIR both act as a TV camera and an IR sensor, using the same optics but different CCDs
 
IN ONE single channel in EOTS case, you are mystaking sensors and channels.
 
OSF have both separated, independent, near-IR TV and IRST and was optimised for A2A.
 
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.
 
That's EXACTLY what they DONT pretend but DO on a day/night/all-weather basis.
 
The fact that you are not aware or don't like the capability is no reason to pretend you know better than our pilots or that they are liars.
 
The air to ground weapon was an AASM and its launch parameters are VERY wide, with an off boresight of 90* each side of the nose it can easly be called a true fire and forget weapon even so it is a simple kited-up 250 kg bomb.
 
The AASM (air-to-ground modular weapon) is a weapon carried by fighter aircraft that can be effortlessly fired ("fire and forget") from stand-off distance (15km for low-altitude firing; 50km for high-altitude firing). It is currently developed for Mirage 2000 and Rafale air-to-ground combat aircraft. Rafales are capable of carrying up to six of these missiles. Each missile can be aimed independently at a particular target, which it will hit with a 10m accuracy with the inertial/GPS all-weather version and only a few meter accuracy with the night/day infrared terminal guidance version.
 
 This scenario is becoming the AdA NORME and you guys better get use to it.
 
Regards, PlG
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    @Phaid    5/13/2009 5:34:29 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 





Check out World's Armed Forces Forum (WAFF) and look for posts by Sampaix.  That is him.

 

I have "met" him before on French message boards, but he's banned from the ones I frequent so I hadn't encountered his posts in a long time.



Really?
 
Trying familiarities now?
 
So what's wrong with this perticular guy?
 
Did you get a bloody nose in this forum?
 
When people get to this point it is generaly an admition of failure...
 
Regards, PlG
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/13/2009 5:51:55 PM
That's EXACTLY what they DONT pretend but DO on a day/night/all-weather basis.
 
Sure, when they're playing Ace Combat 6 on their XBox.
 
The fact that the aircraft has the ability to use its sensors simultaneously gives the crew better situational awareness, which allows them to react to threats better.  It does not magically take away weapon envelope restrictions, widen seeker fields of view, or impart massive amounts of energy to weapons.   An aircraft on an air to ground mission that finds itself engaged in air to air will do one of two things: maneuver, or die.  The idea that the crew of a single seat OR two seat aircraft would not devote their ENTIRE attention to an air to air combat situation is pure fantasy.  Read the transcripts of your famous Rafales at Red Flag to see how they comported themselves in those kinds of situations.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Now I see.    5/13/2009 6:00:21 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 













Check out World's Armed Forces Forum (WAFF) and look for posts by Sampaix.  That is him.



 



I have "met" him before on French message boards, but he's banned from the ones I frequent so I hadn't encountered his posts in a long time.









Really?

 

Trying familiarities now?

 

So what's wrong with this perticular guy?

 

Did you get a bloody nose in this forum?

 

When people get to this point it is generaly an admition of failure...

 

Regards, PlG


To quote that character, Londo Mollari, from Babylon 5 talking to a character similar in traits to this  example from the  class set..
 
Londo Mollari: Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. 
 
 Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    @PlG   5/13/2009 6:02:04 PM
Trying familiarities now?
 So what's wrong with this perticular guy?
Did you get a bloody nose in this forum?
When people get to this point it is generaly an admition of failure...
 
Herald asked a question and I answered him.  I'm not sure why you are trying to hide your identity.  I have one bit of advice for you if you are going to attempt to do so in the future: use a different login name at photobucket for posting images :)
 
http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv253/phaidthegambler/sppicst.jpg" width="600" height="587" />
 
A bon entendeur.
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/13/2009 6:16:30 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 





























Check out World's Armed Forces Forum (WAFF) and look for posts by Sampaix.  That is him.







 







I have "met" him before on French message boards, but he's banned from the ones I frequent so I hadn't encountered his posts in a long time.





















Really?



 



Trying familiarities now?



 



So what's wrong with this perticular guy?



 



Did you get a bloody nose in this forum?



 



When people get to this point it is generaly an admition of failure...



 



Regards, PlG






To quote that character, Londo Mollari, from Babylon 5 talking to a character similar in traits to this  example from the  class set..

 

Londo Mollari: Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. 


 

 Herald
Better than BOTH and ignorance of top.
At least i dont need to get personal i can handle my subjects and bring as much evidences as needed, you can't.

Phaid +1
 
If you can do better, get in touch please...
 
Regards, PIG
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    @PlG   5/13/2009 6:27:09 PM
The only relevant part of your post was:
 
The two Rafale were in a DEAD mission, during these missions the WSO is in charge of the A2G segment while the pilots does the NAV and wach for A2A threats both giving their respective task as much attention as needed.
 
That is exactly what I have been saying they do.  However, if an air threat does come up, the crew will devote their entire attention to that.  Again, you only have to look at the reports from the pilots themselves at that Red Flag to see exactly that.
 
I am well aware that a Rafale, flying straight and level, fired a MICA EM at a target passed to it via Link-16 from another Rafale.  That has exactly nothing to do with flying an air to ground mission at low altitude, or indeed with simultaneously conducting multiple mission types.
 
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.  Their ability to monitor the airspace while also flying an attack profile was helpful but did not remove the need to actually maneuver to engage the aircraft.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/13/2009 7:02:13 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 .
 
""An aircraft on an air to ground mission that finds itself engaged in air to air will do one of two things: manoeuver, or die""
 
Obviously .  That 's like saying that water is wet ... Nevertheless I disagree with :
""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""
 
Yes you can . Of course this is not the wished scenario but if you are at 10sec to drop your load on an important target and your radar and FCS is telling you "Fox-2 , shoot !" at the incoming fighter , you might be tempted to press the trigger while keeping your flight plan unchanged . It is a choice , but this choice is only possible if your aircraft is capable to treat both threats at the same time . Rafale can and is not the only one ...
 
Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/13/2009 7:10:05 PM
 
 
That is exactly what I have been saying they do.  However, if an air threat does come up, the crew will devote their entire attention to that.  Again, you only have to look at the reports from the pilots themselves at that Red Flag to see exactly that.
 
NO it is NOT.
 
In MY post tasks are SHARED in yours it is done the old fashion, what you are trying to imply is that the crew are not using the aircraft full capabiltiesd when in FACT it is the best way to use it.
 
The pilot report says that while he was succesfuly decoying a SAM his wingman took on an hostile, there is NO mention at NO time of diverting from the original mission schedule, quiet the opposite they were on target when needed and succesfuly attacked the SAMs.
 
What the pilots says about it is not what you say AT ALL.
 
Source: Official Magazine BA-113 report from 1/7Provence.
 
I am well aware that a Rafale, flying straight and level, fired a MICA EM at a target passed to it via Link-16 from another Rafale. 
 
You know nothing about the lanuch conditions of this test for a starter these details havent been disclosed this goes some why to show that you invent a good part of what you write...
 
 That has exactly nothing to do with flying an air to ground mission at low altitude, or indeed with simultaneously conducting multiple mission types.
 
It have everything to do with it, a WSO does NOT need to be distracted from his DEAD role when a pilot is fully capable of handling the A2A or A2G threat on his own and it is a capability which INCREASES MICA range against threats coming from behind.

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.  Their ability to monitor the airspace while also flying an attack profile was helpful but did not remove the need to actually maneuver to engage the aircraft.
 
This is a total interpretation of what they reported and you have absolutly NO evidence of that.
 
As usual.
 
Regards, PLG
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics