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
DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 11:43:10 AM
BW,

This is why no one takes you seriously on this. You say things that suggest you do not understand the basic concepts. Fix in your mind the a MICA IR MOVING at 1300 mps + and a threat aircraft that if unaware may be moving +/- 280 mps. Now, with those speeds and for up to 90 seconds imagine the amount of area that would have to be checked for a target. There is no way you are going to have a good PK relying on those methods. YOU WOULD BE WASTING A MISSILE. And considering that the MICA IR range is well within the distance a fighter can detect a Rafale, what makes you think that it's going to be flying nice straight and level? Does that even make since to you? Let me ask you this. How did radar-less Migs find F-105's over Vietnam? You seriously think too much on the platform level. I explained to you how MICA IR works. I gave it proper credit and discussed the operational limits as the actually exist. Why are you trying to spin this into something that clearly does not exist? Do you not understand that BVR weapons are lobbed in an arching trajectory toward targets and are not underpower except for a few seconds? They need constant course corrections because being out of position a little will waste energy they cannot replenish for lack of power.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 12:07:31 PM
DA , an aircraft unaware to be shot at is nothing more than a drone , it will be where its supposed to be when the missile will arrive and the IR seeker will lock on it without problem . 
This is what "fire and forget" missiles are about .
Of course , using the up-link to refresh the missile 's course increases the Pk but this is not something you have to do .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 12:44:49 PM
To add a bit more to the discussion , I would like to say that the first time the M2000-5s with the combo RDY/Mica took part in an excercise , they archived a kill ratio of 40-1 on other NATO fighters .
pdf in French relating the meeting :
 
h*tp://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=495980
 
Of course this is relatively old stuff but it shows much .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    BW   5/18/2009 12:48:01 PM
You've lost your mind....An unaware a/c is certainly NOT a drone.  An a/c unaware of the Rafale or the Mica is simply unaware of a SPECIFIC threat.  In a combat situation the A/c will constantly be making movements in 3 dimensions  to complicate the life of any threat it is unaware of!  I can not help but believe that this will complicate the life of a Mica closing the target, as is the design of the "jinking."
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/18/2009 12:51:54 PM
That last statement is a lie. You were never part of the NATO joint missile development agreement.
 
It is FALSE (as everything you says when you dare to contradict me).France was at the beginning of NATO AMRAAM and ASRAAM program and withdraw when USA proposed to produce AMRAAM and European ASRAAM.
We wanted to have both production line in Europe (and two in USA as well) to be sure that we would never be potentially subjected to US restriction.
 
The main thing to understand is that Northop/Motorola/Matra proposal was supposed to fit the same performance requirements of AMRAAM and also was the most advanced and risky proposed design
 
Here the France then US proofs:
First official french dicuments
Notice the adress
Page 211
En 1980, un MoU fut signé par les quatre pays, la France ayant le statut

d?observateur ; il y eut un échange d?informations sur les développements des

missiles, y compris sur le Mica, jusqu?en 1990. L?AMRAAM fut adopté par

l?Allemagne et la Marine britannique, mais il ne fut pas fabriqué en Europe. En

revanche, le Royaume-Uni et l?Allemagne ne purent se mettre d?accord sur la

définition d?un ASRAAM et ils développèrent chacun un missile ; les États-Unis

développèrent aussi leur missile ASRAAM (cf. chapitre 14).

Page 234

L?histoire du Mica mérite d?être contée. À l?origine, c?est un essai de coopération

franco-américaine ; mais il a permis de lancer, dès 1977, les études préparatoires

au Mica. C?est Northrop, avionneur renommé, qui proposa à Matra, en 1975, de

s?associer pour réaliser un prototype expérimental du premier missile air-air « tire

et oublie » à autodirecteur électromagnétique actif. Northrop serait le maître

d?oeuvre du missile et le responsable de la centrale inertielle à éléments liés ;

Motorola avait autofinancé la réalisation, dans le diamètre du Sidewinder (et du

Magic), d?un autodirecteur avec un émetteur à état solide, et Matra devait dériver

du Magic10 un véhicule adapté. Le gouvernement américain fut très intéressé par

ce projet révolutionnaire et l?utilisa pour lancer, en 1978, une consultation sur le

successeur du Sparrow, qui rencontrait des problèmes de fiabilité (cf. chapitre 9) :

ce fut le programme AMRAAM : les sociétés Hughes et Raytheon ont été choisies

pour la première phase du développement ; Northrop, Motorola et Matra ont été

« out ».

10 Northrop ne voulait pas contacter un missilier américain ; il jugeait que Matra, avec son

Magic, était le meilleur missilier

Page 242
 

L?histoire de la solution américaine semble intéressante à connaître :

Dans l?exposé consacré, ci-dessus à Matra, nous avons indiqué que Motorola

avait réalisé, en 1975, un tel AD avec un émetteur à état solide ; cette société

indiquait que la puissance moyenne envisageable était de l?ordre de 100 W. Lors

de la compétition qui eut lieu en 1978, Hughes annonça 300 W et Raytheon

s?aligna ; ces deux sociétés furent choisies. Deux ans après, Raytheon annonça

243

 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/18/2009 12:55:01 PM
Drag is proportional to frontal surface and if you compare two BVR missiles you have to take in account that
AMRAAM is 152 kg and diminishing its diameter accordingly from 178 mm to 160 would lead to a 124 kg missile on first order on drag considerations.
Moreover Mica 12 kg warhead is lighter than AMRAAM (18 kg for AMRAAM C, 23 for B/A) so lead to further weight economy.
Moreover for the autodirector it is lighter than AMRAAM for RF version and also IR
Indeed it is more miniaturized than AMRAAM.
MICA was introduced in 1996 instead of 1991 and benefit of a better technology than initial AMRAAM.
 
Wow, let me just start by saying that I am honestly not sure why I am even bothering to respond to someone who obviously lives in some kind of alternate universe.
 
The Mica, as I have already explained to you, is what you get when you compromise between two different sets of requirements that call for different design philosophies. 
 
Short range missiles need a small mass, large control surfaces, short burn times, and thrust vectoring to achieve their maneuverability and acceleration requirements.
 
Longer range missiles need a larger mass, proportionally smaller control surfaces, longer burn times, and no thrust vectoring. (which allows greater efficiency)  These requirements allow the missile to carry a greater amount of energy a much longer way.
 
The Mica is a slightly over-sized short range missile.(The point I was making with my earlier size comparison)  It is quick and it is maneuverable, but this comes at the cost of efficiency and its small size prevents it from being a serious contender at longer ranges.
 
With 40Kg more mass to work with, a longer burn motor, and with a far more efficient design that avoids draggy control surfaces and thrust vectoring there is simply no comparison between the two. 
 
Not only that, but your assertions about the Mica somehow being more advanced are utterly and completely wrong.  Virtually every single component in the AMRAAM has been replaced at least once, and in some cases several times over the life of the missile.  Bubbleheaded internet experts like you look at the missile, and think that because it LOOKS similar it is the same missile. The AMRAAM has already gone through several complete seeker redesigns, several new motors, new control surfaces, a new warhead, etc.  The amount of money put into the AMRAAM absolutely dwarfs the funding available for the Mica, and it has been put to good use. Mica's seeker in particular is outclassed by the later versions of the AMRAAM.
 
 
As I said but you refuse ot read as you are very narrow minded, MICA was initially the Northrop/Motorola/Matra competitor of AMRAAM but said too risky because relying on too advanced technologies at this time
French went alone and even improved technology thank to a British technological breakthrought on electronic tube BTW.
Hyperfrequency electronic of MICA is much lighter than the AMRAAM TWT and its highvoltage supply.
This is well and publicly documented.
 
Let me make something clear to you.  Hughes received the full scale development contract for the AMRAAM in 1981 in a contest against Raytheon.(Raytheon later bought Hughes) If some pre-historic ancestor of the Mica ever competed to fulfill the requirement who cares? It lost the contest decades ago and wasn't even in the top two.  Hyperfrequency electronics?  WTF?
 
 
Now for the MICA IR it has roughly the same range than the RF version so about 80 km and can auto lock after the inertial guidance phase
 
 Keep repeating it, maybe it will come true.


It seems that I'm the only one who know what he is speaking about on SP considering french capabilities relatively to USA.
I provided links and official ones unless amateur like you.
As I says 1000 apes would not write the Encyclopedia, but few smarts men can.
<
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 12:55:27 PM
JFKY :
""In a combat situation the A/c will constantly be making movements in 3 dimensions  to complicate the life of any threat it is unaware of!""
 
In combat situation , yes . But during the flight plan (imagine a strike force 500km from their targets) the aircrafts will fly straight and level and I know that they will not change altitude and bearing every 2 minutes or so .
 
Cheers . 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/18/2009 12:57:44 PM
Darth
I can tell it cannot be blindly fired at BVR ranges and hope to hit a fast moving target. It's going to need updates in the mid course and external cuing to know where to look.
Of course
 
 That's going to involve RF.
Or IR

Now that doesn't mean that they can't use clever tactics to maintain subtlety through the engagement. Certainly. Just speculating, maybe the firing platform is only feeding updates to the missile using RF data from a third party who is tracking the threat at range. SOmething like that. Otherwise, the firing platform is going to have to provide precise enough location data on the target so that MICA IR arrives at the right place and time.
Yes
 
It's possible at that point that an opponent may be surprised because there will not be RWR data on an active missile seeker to warn of terminal approach. In this stage seconds are precious and this is a good capability. However, it's important to be objective and consider the weapons limits. Remember, if it were the end all be all and worked as some seem to think, why would the French waste money on an RF version?
A: MICA IR was ready 5 years later than RF
B: MICA RF is still better in all weather
C: having both solution is better agaisnt ECCM especially when you fire two missiles
D: MICA IR is not for export to everybody since too sensitive and too dangerous against western air forces.
It is a french silver bullet.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 1:04:44 PM

DA , an aircraft unaware to be shot at is nothing more than a drone , it will be where its supposed to be when the missile will arrive and the IR seeker will lock on it without problem . 

This is what "fire and forget" missiles are about .

Of course , using the up-link to refresh the missile 's course increases the Pk but this is not something you have to do .


Cheers .

BW,

What makes you think the aircraft wont be aware? Almost all modern air to air fighters have a detection range advantage against the Rafale because of it's smaller radar. Even if not, that's why there is GCI and AWACS which all modern airforces have. That's why I referred you to the Vietnam era Migs. The Rafale is not a stealth aircraft and it will show up on radar quite well. What's hard about that for you to get? We posted articles where F/A-18 hornets using legacy radars had a detection range ADVANTAGE. Why are you ignoring the truth? A Mig-29 has a similar radar. A Flanker even bigger. And a Foxhound puts out enough power to cook chicken at range. The F-Teens all have AESA as an option. The F-15C, F-16E, F/A-18E, F-35 and F-22 radars are in a complete separate category and have far superior radar performance compared to the RBE2. There is a reason customers ask France for an AESA. Even CAPTOR MSA is more powerful and longer ranged. BW, there really are tradeoffs when you fly a "omnirole" fighter. With regard to Rafale, its radar is always going to be limited by the size of the dish and the Rafale has one of the smallest. 

Look, I acknowledge the advantage of having an IRST and IR guided long range missile. I think it's freaking awesome. But I also know the limits as well. You need to remain objective otherwise you are going to have people attacking your credibility on obvious stuff. A fighter flying straight and level is not enough to reliably fire a BVR weapon where the missile is in the dark about what the target is doing the majority of the time. Even minor things like INS position errors or wind drift can affect this over these distances.

Fire and forget does not mean that you can simply lob missiles into the ether and hope they track and hit the right or any target. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 1:06:45 PM
Rufus , stop posting BS . Learn a bit more about the Mica then come back . To help you :
MBDA Mica :

h*tp://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/docs_wsw/fichiers_communs/docs/pdf07_mica.pdf
 
Mica ' IR seeker :
 
h*tp://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=495985
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics