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
french stratege       5/16/2009 11:23:08 PM
As for the ECM, I beg to disagree, the SU-30MKI, has Israeli systems which are top
of the line.
Not at the same level than what we have on Rafale and by far.
SU30 MKI have omnidirectional classical jammers on an airframe with a huge RCS.
 
 The N011M, is a more powerful radar for A2A operations and this much larger plane has more range and is
much better option for a air force that has defense as its number one priority, and did I mention it costs half as much as
the Rafale.
Price of Russian aircraft are in accordance with their internal cost of man power.
Moreover Russian don't sell SU 30 at half of the 60 millions euros of Rafale.
And I doubt that SU30 can get close to Rafale in air to air.Its radar may be more powerfull unitl Rafale get AESA, but its RCS is giant compare to Rafale and without even speaking of ECM where french has a good technological advantage on Russians or Israelis.And for networking, SU30 is a joke.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    ZERO INFORMATION CONTENT.   5/16/2009 11:37:49 PM

I know who Seagull is and it doesn 't surprised me at all . He 's a fine man and have very little time to waste with the posters we have here on SP . Myself I stay because it amuses me to correct the various clowns and bashers .

 

Herald , thank you for your long and useless posts , they really help ...

 

earlm :



""Please cite figures""

 

We both know that we can 't calculate the drag and lift coefficient for AMRAAM or Mica , we don 't have the needed datas . What is easy to calculate is the first 30km or so after launch .

Then you are not qualified to discuss  I can and do.

Launched from an aircraft flying at Mach 1 , Mica will travel the first 10km in approximatively 8.6 seconds , 12.2 seconds for the AMRAAM . At that speed and at that precise moment in time , Mica has a 12.2 - 8.6 = 3.6 seconds advantage , which is translated into a 4.2km advantage at Mach 4 .
Google that did you? What's the launch slant?
Basically , it means that if launched at the same time , when AMRAAM will reach 10 km , Mica will be at 14.2km which is exactly 42% further .
7.5 seconds flyout versus 9.5 seconds. flyout The lie is obvious!
That's a falsehood yuou just posted.
For the next 10 seconds , the missiles will barely loose speed (few hundred km/h) because of the initial energy .

20 seconds after launch , Mica will have made 27.5km and AMRAAM 21km . From there on , the numbers for drag and lift to calculate further the range vs speed are lacking . It is not on open sources .
You just said the MICA rocket still is going Mach 4.16  15 seconds after burnout. Unfortunately for you that is a lie.  Speed falls by a whole 0.11255 per second or about 300 m/s or almost a whole Mach number
 Yes........ That's another falsehood.
 
So I can 't answer you . Can you earlm ?

 

Herald :


""It is a chase and turn missile that loses speed rapidly after burnout""

 

This is your opinion and nothing more as you have absolutly nothing to back up such claim , try and make us smile ..

Its a a fact.

""That puts it more in company with a badly designed missile like the AA-3 Anab in form and function.""

 

LMAO ! Listen to me Herald , France has always been fielding top notch air to air missiles and you dare screaming around that the French decided to field a "dog" a la AA-3 Anab ???

You are not off your mind Herald , you are clearly bashing for your own sake . You 're nasty and incompetant .

 The Anab has done what a MICA has never done. Shot down an American built aircraft.

""It, MICA, is actually similar in actual flight performance and PK effectiveness""

 

Hop , out of a magic hat !

Listen to me nasty and incompetant clown , you have absolutly nothing to back up such a claim . In a court of Law or in a Tribunal , I would win my case against you hands down . You CAN ' T provide anything ! It is hot air and punched balloons !
Try. Your bluff is meaningless and useless. When a person bombasts he has nothing. 
On any other site than SP , you would get the ban (again) for it .

Truth versus falsehood. We know where the falsehood is. And we know whop spews it,


Rufus , well ... Gimme a minute (time for a coffee) and I respond to you .




Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    ZERO INFORMATION CONTENT.   5/16/2009 11:44:20 PM

If you want to have a mature discussion you are first going to need to learn not to try to lie to people who know better than you seem to
Let see little boy.

You should have checked carefully what I said including links I provided.

When I don't know or I don't have enough facts to be certain of what I say, I don't express myself here, when I say something it is the definitive true because I'm a total rational man.I dont know anybody who could say better than myself here in average on technologies and capabilities on SP.

So learn and show humility when you speak to french stratege.

And open some book to learn what stealth technologies are.

 


Your information is error filled and like your partner I see no technical reason to take your false assertions as facts. In FACT your facts are so wide of the truth that they are more or less fanboy fantasy. Go learn some aerodynamics and how things actually work. Then you may be able to bluff more successfully than your friend.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    Joke???   5/17/2009 12:02:50 AM
SU30 is a joke.
 
A joke? What is a joke, the part that the air craft is cheaper to buy than the Rafale, or the part it has a much more powerful radar now, not down the line. Is it a joke that it is one of the best 4th genaration A2A fighter in the world, or is it a joke that it has more range, can carry more A2A weapons, or is it a joke that 8 countries fly diffrent variants of this plane and only one flies the Rafale. I don't see any jokes hers I see facts, and if you don't agree, show facts that prove the above statments wrong. Now as I noted before, the Rafale has a better ground attack capabilitie and has a better RCS, those are facts too. Overall it is a more surviveable fighter and probably has better ECM suits, than most SU-30 models, even the Indian version with western systems. What this bird is not, is a pure heavy A2A fighter with a long range radar. Now if I'm a country who wants Air Superiority fighter and does not want to pay top dollar for the Typoon or the F-35, the sukhoi is a very attractive bird. That is all i'm saying you do not have to get all defensive and try to defend the the Rafale, it speaks for itself, lets be reasonable and stop with the all the homering. It's good to have national pride and love of your own countries products, but you have to have a little objectivity.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    3 issues   5/17/2009 12:04:13 AM
I wouldn't look at any Rafale vs Eurofighter exercises as proof of one plane's qualities vs the other for the simple reason the French pilots are probably better than the Italian.
 
It was mentioned that the Rafale is replacing three aircraft, the F-8, Super Etendard, and the M2000.  The F-8 was htere for the same reason jeep carriers carried Wildcats instead of Hellcats.  Both the Etendard and the M2000 had thirsty engines so if the French thinking was that a decent engine would let aplane do both jobs they weren't going down the wrong path.
 
"If you want an enemy fighter to take you seriously in BVR , get a proper long range IR missile."

This has proven to be BS in several other threads.  By the time a radar missile goes active, it's basically too late.  What difference is there between the endgames of an IR vs an RF that gives this huge edge to the IR?  Obviiously there are two different conceptions onf BVR.  With AMRAAM or any decent BVR missile the pilot's mentality is to keep the enemy out of range of his missiles while getting in range of your own.  With MICA, especially MICA IR, you are conceding that both of you are in range, you got into range of your missiles after the enemy but you are somehow going to triumph because your missile allegedly has better Pk at those close ranges.  It's a dead end loser philosophy as proven by the evolution of AMRAAM, R-77 and Meteor. It is the wrong way to take advantage of AWACS and networking and it puts the pilot at greater risk.  It is also a concession that your missile tech is weaker or that you don't have the budget for a real missile.  If I were defending Rafale, I'd conced the inferiority of MICA and put my hopes on equipping it with Meteor.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    Su-30 vs Rafale   5/17/2009 12:17:49 AM
Su-30 has a bigger dish and RCS, we can call it even.  Su-30 has WVR missile with HMS and a longer range BVR missile.  It also has a greater missile anf fuel capacity.  I'm thinking a Rafale pilot has to work damn hard to survive an A2A vs a Sukhoi.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/17/2009 12:22:43 AM
What difference is there between the endgames of an IR vs an RF that gives this huge edge to the IR?
Easy
Considering state of the art systems, it is much more easy to jam an RF missile especially when you have low RCS than a IR missile with modern CCD imagery and sometime with dual bands.
It is also much more difficult to achieve low IR signature at the same level you could do for RF,simply for the fact an engine exhaust is hot and would remains hot.
Moreover IR guidance is passive so give no warning.
It is why DIRCM is a "must to have" in the coming years because of advantage of IR missiles.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    IR vs RF BVR   5/17/2009 12:28:48 AM
The missile has to get there.  As I pointed out the "I have a knife and you have a spear but my knife is very deadly." is not a viable approach.  There's a reason you use RF if you want range.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/17/2009 12:43:54 AM
It's good to have national pride and love of your own countries products, but you have to have a little objectivity.
For my self I have objectivity.I know well our defense industry (ans US one BTW) and it is technologically world second and the closest to USA.
I have provided USA Pentagon assessments which says the same thing and recognize it.
Then our products leverage this French military technology.
A SU30 is simply unlikely to see a Rafale at missile range while Rafale will see it at much greater range.
I regret some stuff and delays on Rafale because I'm afraid that Rafale could not cope enough with F22 or maybe PakFa but certainly I'm not afraid for AtoA vs SU30MKI or F18E, or Eurofighter.
 
However without its (oustanding) ECM, Rafale would not be much better.
The problem is that our potential customers have no garantee on our ECM we would provide them since ECM (like in USA) are absolutely secrets.
 
BTW I have explain that with phased array radar, HMS is a slight advantage and the reason that F22 does not have one.
France did not required for now an HMS for Rafale while having developped one, for the simple reason that our air force pilots think them too heavy.They consider that an HMS overweight (even of 150 g) is a penalty for the pilot when you do 9+ g AtoA manoeuvers especially when your phased array radar or optronic system can lock 60° off boresight, diminishing greatly the need for a HMS.
F22 program managers said the same thing.Because under 9g, 150 g is equivalent to 1,35kg you have to add to existing helmet weight under 9g.
 
A little article on stealth
In 2005 a full scale model was sent to France to test its stealth characteristics, an indication that TRDI may be pursuing French assistance with other aspects of this program. In general the ADT-X design shows similarities to the F-22 in that it is a twin-engine tailed-delta with thrust vectoring and an advanced active phased array radar.
 
Strange that Japanese who want a stealth fighter of F22 performance and who consider F35 is not good enough, require France assistance to develop an indigeneous stealth aircraft.
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/17/2009 12:48:31 AM
There's a reason you use RF if you want range.
RF is stil needed in all weather but old technology.
AMRAAM is a 15 years old product even its seeker has evolved to cope with ECCM.
Still good for a SU30.
15 years ago today CCD IR captors did not exist.
However IR is a problem if you don't master problem of overheating IR window on missile
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics