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       5/18/2009 1:06:54 PM
In BVR you can not detect with a missile launch detector, exhaust plume of a MICA IR since missile launch is too far and like AMRAAM burn its fuel in few seconds.
At arrival on target when MICA  find its target, ther is no propulsion (like AMRAAM) RWR or DDM missile launch detector give no warning of missile approach.
You don't know that this silver bullet like MICA IR is, is coming on you.
No jamming possible.
Rafale+Mica IR can perform entirely silent approach (using Spectra), detection and launch (even on a LO target) and it is unique in world since F22 is a BVR RF missile.
It is why our army order more MICA IR than Mica RF now.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/18/2009 1:12:07 PM
Almost all modern air to air fighters have a detection range advantage against the Rafale because of it's smaller radar.
No
Rafale radar is not smaller than F16 radar.
And detection range depend of RCS and ECM.
No chance that a F15, SU30, get first detection on Rafale.
For the F22 it is different due to its superb radar and RCS.
Only F22 is really a BVR threat to Rafale.With any other aircraft in the world including Eurofighter, Rafale get first detection and launch.
However the combo Rafale+french ECM+Mica IR is not available for export according to french parlement..
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/18/2009 1:19:06 PM
We posted articles where F/A-18 hornets using legacy radars had a detection range ADVANTAGE.
No
It was DACT against LO F18E
No use of ECM, Rafale RCS masqueraded with use of external tank no silent tactics displayed  etc...
Like you when you present aircraft abroad.
Believe me that when a F22 is going to Europe for demos like in UK, real RCS is masked.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 1:24:40 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

FS, under certain conditions. Not at several tens of km  

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.


MICA IR is no different in concept from the other IR BVR weapons out there. Agree with you that they offer increased resistance to ECM in a ripple fire scenario, this is desirable. But it's not a new or French only tactic. Look at Russian fighters. For decades they have carried both RF and IR guided versions of their missiles to do this very thing. It's a proven concept but not new. If you guys would discuss this in proper context, then it would not be such an issue. But when you guys present this as the end all be all and somehow the French have this super duper secret IR missile with a .99 PK at 80km against spaceship moving at c, it starts to sound a little like drama.
I'm not going to bash the MICA, I think its a great idea. I like how the French have managed to get a dual role AAM operational with different seeker options. Thats an accomplishment and it simplifies French logistics. It's a lot like the JDRADM we are developing except of course that missile has an a2g mission as well. But if you want to sell us on the benefits of MICA, do so in proper context and don't try to make it seem like MICA is more than it is. The demands of a short range AAM are obviously different since the maneuvers at close range tend to be much more violent. So MICA has to have the authority to make those violent maneuvers which its wings and TV give it. But it's size and weight will be a penalty compared to purpose built short range AAMs. It's still enough to defeat the maneuvers a modern fight makes in most cases though. At long range, the missiles TV and Wings are a penalty as weight(Gravity) and drag take affect. Since it isn't as big as other BVR missiles it's range is shorter. The further out it goes, the less effective it will be. This can be an obvious problem in some cases. Think of MICA like a AAM version of a Carbine. Its a compromise design that offers more flexibility but at a price. Thats not a knock on France missile technology. Notice I'm not calling the MICA a crap missile or making unsupported statements about it's seeker that cannot be proven on the internet in OSINT. Nor am I personally attacking you or bashing France. I'm just trying to accurately characterize the weapons.

MICA is not as good of a BVR weapon as AMRAAM or R-77 which are purpose built. But then neither of those missiles have MICA close in performance either and AMRAAM doesn't have the option of IR homing. All things being equal which missile is better depends on the situation. 

-DA 
<
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/18/2009 1:24:56 PM
Mica IT have more than double the range of any advanced AIM9X or Python 5
MICA IR is not cleared for export as too sensitive.
(it could be probably for some NATO countries but they would have to buy the Rafale or M2000-5)
 
 This is the most pathetic part of your whole post.  Here you are claiming to be some kind of missile and fighter aircraft expert, on french systems no-less... and you don't even know what you are talking about then.
 
Mica IR is not cleared for export as it is too sensitive? 
 
Tell that to the Greeks, they are flying with them today.  I wasn't asking you how many times it had been exported because I didn't know.  I was asking you because I wanted to see how you answered.
 
How the heck do you not know that France has already exported the Mica IR Mr Defense Professional? 
 
It is not like you have a real real long list of export customers to keep track of.  I mean there are only 5. 
 
Even a smart kid could perform the required research to determine they have already been exported before making up some ridiculous lie about them not being cleared for export because they are "too sensitive."
 
I said it before, but I will say it again.  You might think you sound smart when you make up techy sounding BS on a message board, but you will never fool the real thing.  You wouldn't even fool an amateur who has done his reading.
 
Speaking of reading...
 
From Jane's Defense Weekly, Jan 21, 2004
 
"The HAF has ordered both the RF MICA with an electromagnetic active seeker and the IR MICA with an imaging infra-red (IIR) seeker, which provides tactical advantages in beyond-visual-range (BVR) interceptions as it offers the dual capability of BVR as well as short-range, high-threat combat situations."
 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Reply to the amateur.   5/18/2009 1:27:23 PM
A mach 5 sharp start missile that burns 5 seconds will degrade roughly about one mach number every 15 seconds of flight after burnout. 
MICA                                 ENERGY advantage over targetn end game.
25,000 meters ~ MACH 5  FAIL at some intercepts  (4x to 3x jerk)
20,000 meters ~ MACH 4  FAIL at half intercepts    (3x to 1.5x jerk) 
15,000 meters ~ MACH 3  FAIL at two third intercepts.(2x to 1x jerk)
12,000 meters ~ MACH 2  FAIL at most intercepts (1x jerk)
  5,000 meters ~ MACH 1  FAIL at all intercepts (<1x jerk)
==================
77,000 meters  FAIL
 
Add a lousy IR passive seeker that is improperly cooled for heat burden and an even worse RH seeker that cannot see very far or very wide and you get a FAT Sidewinder clone that doesn't point all that well; or is much effective if at all beyond 45,000.meters. Its MER is about 500 to 35,000 meters travel in typical head on aspects at 7000 meters same altitude launch separation and its chase MER is about 500-30,000 meters travel against a MACH 1-1.25 target-or about no more than 30 seconds chase time before it loses jerk.
 
*90 seconds my left foot!  . 
 
That is the reality.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 1:38:49 PM
FS,

We can do this anyway you want. If you want to have a professional level discussion then we have to acknowledge established truth ok. I'm cool with whichever way you want to present your data. But if you are going to say things like F-15 and Su-30 with their massive powerful radars, especially the APG-63v3/v4 will not have a detection range advantage over the Rafale small PESA RBE2/OSF then what's the point of this discussion? If you are going to ignore the fact that the Rafale dish area is smaller than the F-16 what is the point. These are obvious facts. You have read yourself that APG-73 out ranged the RBE2 and gave Hornets a detection range advantage. It's good you point out the presence of external fuel. THATS HOW THESE FIGHTERS FIGHT. The situation gets worse when the APG-73 is replaced by newer APG-79 AESA. C'mon man be honest. I don't approve of the way some choose to personally attack you guys as the data speaks for itself and makes that unnecessary but when you and BW won't even admit to basic hard facts then its a but hard to have a casual discussion.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I live it when they step into it!   5/18/2009 1:52:10 PM

In BVR you can not detect with a missile launch detector, exhaust plume of a MICA IR since missile launch is too far and like AMRAAM burn its fuel in few seconds.

At arrival on target when MICA  find its target, ther is no propulsion (like AMRAAM) RWR or DDM missile launch detector give no warning of missile approach.

You don't know that this silver bullet like MICA IR is, is coming on you.

No jamming possible.

Rafale+Mica IR can perform entirely silent approach (using Spectra), detection and launch (even on a LO target) and it is unique in world since F22 is a BVR RF missile.

It is why our army order more MICA IR than Mica RF now.

The plume launch heat signature either is or isn't detected by a French IR detector. This is the same poster who claimed that L/O fighter jet engine exhaust plumes were detectable at eighty kilometers?

Well? Which is it?
 
Another thing.........
 
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/mica.jpg" width="650" height="400" /> 
 
See those strakes and fins? That is called a big fat radar return.  
 
Since SPECTRA also has to rebroadcast a signal to spoof enemy radar, that is another falsehood.
 
Shrug. Keep on trying. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    FS   5/18/2009 2:02:51 PM
Rafale radar is not smaller than F16 radar.
And detection range depend of RCS and ECM.
No chance that a F15, SU30, get first detection on Rafale.
For the F22 it is different due to its superb radar and RCS.
Only F22 is really a BVR threat to Rafale.With any other aircraft in the world including Eurofighter, Rafale get first detection and launch.
 
There you go again, letting your love for the Rafale blind you. Look man what part of the AESA advantage over PESA don't you understand. The F-15 and the Sukhoi are heavy Air Superiority fighters with larger more affective radars, with longer range A2A weapons to complemant those radars. That is a 100% fact, and a person with below average understanding of fighters would understand. Yes I know the Rafale has a smaller RCS than those fighters but that does not change the fact that the Sukhoi and the Eagle are probably the best pure Air Superiority fighters in the world short of the Raptor. The Eagle's record in A2A combat speaks for itself. Now you can argue that the world is flat all you want, nobody with any knowledge is going to believe you, if you are trying to convince yourself go right ahead man whatever makes you sleep better at night. If you want to have a smart conversasion you should argue about the real advantages the Rafale has against other 4th genaration fighters, not this BS on radar and stealth.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Meanwhile..............whule we are at it.    5/18/2009 2:16:56 PM
http://www.liveleak.com/e/1d6_1175404613"> http://www.liveleak.com/e/1d6_1175404613" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370">
 
 
ASTER to date (2009) . has yet to take on SUCCESSFULLY a MACH 1+ target sea skimming.target.
 
MQM-8 VANDAL.
Data for RIM-8G, except where noted:
Length (w/o booster) 6.40 m (21 ft); booster: 3.35 m (11 ft)
Wingspan2.80 m (110 in)
Finspan2.05 m (81 in)
Diameter0.71 m (28 in);booster: 0.76 m (30 in)
Weight (w/o booster)1540 kg (3400 lb);booster: 1990 kg (4400 lb)
Speed Mach 2.5
Ceiling 24400 m (80000 ft)
Range185 km (100 nm);
RIM-8A: 92 km (50 nm) Propulsion
MK 11 solid-fueled rocket booster Bendix ramjet sustainer
Warhead136 kg (300 lb) continuous-rod HE warhead or W-30 nuclear warhead (2 - 5 kT)
 
ASTER was in large part based on MICA.
 
ESSM was and is based on SPARROW.

ROTFLMAO!
 
Herald

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics