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 5:24:11 PM
You have no clue on MICA Herald.
BTW Greecs or UAE use AMRAAMs on their F16 C or E, and they purchase in parallele Mirage 2000-5 and MICA.
Are they totally stupid?
I don't think so.
BTW it is not Thales which designed MICA seeker but ESD.And laws for flight profile by Matra.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 5:25:15 PM
ben :
""I think this would be a better board if you and FS were banned.""
 
I understand , this way you could say whatever you want about the poor French technology .
Well , unlucky .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 5:33:51 PM
ben :
""BW you need to get your head checked , when Mig/Su's actually challenged the Eagle, they were armed and found wanting""
 
Yeah and ?? The fact is that 4 US aircrafts fired 6 missiles and none hit the targets . Maybe the Irakis fired too but the story doesn 't say .
At this precise moment in time , 1 M2000-C and 2 Matra Super 530-Ds would have done the job ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/18/2009 5:37:32 PM
"I understand , this way you could say whatever you want about the poor French technology ."

No. This way we could have adult conversations about aircraft and missiles without having to talk about the Rafale, the MICA and the Aster.

Sorry pal, but I'm not taking your word on how missiles work when you haven't bothered to even test your primary naval surface to air missile against non-maneuvering supersonic targets.

I'm half-tempted to believe you're both either Chinese agents trying to get actual tech data by foisting these silly arguments or are some sort of social scientists trying to push buttons for a study. Being this dumb is just beyond my comprehension and I want to give you guys some sort of credit.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/18/2009 5:40:48 PM
benellim4   
Well, I'm the most outstanding professional from France who have ever visited this site (for fun and also to know US news quickly or check general average US opinion).It would be a little sad to expel me because I contradicted you with facts and OFFICIAL LINKS.
What DoD document have you produced here?
PS: DoD is Department of Defense in USA - LOL
 
Now for F15 experience, it is true they have never faced a decent opponent in combat.
Syrian or Irakis equipement were outdated, downgraded export versions, with poor pilots, without AWAC supports....
Mig 25 is a plane of end of sixties.First flight in 1964.A joke for air combat (but can sometime escape by speed).
At least our old Mirage F1 manned by South African have done a good job against real Russian Mig 23 with Cuban pilots (not Syrians).
 
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/18/2009 5:40:57 PM
"Yeah and ?? The fact is that 4 US aircrafts fired 6 missiles and none hit the targets . Maybe the Irakis fired too but the story doesn 't say .
At this precise moment in time , 1 M2000-C and 2 Matra Super 530-Ds would have done the job ..."
 
First of all, a little English lesson. The plural of "aircraft" is "aircraft" not "aircrafts." Don't worry a lot of English speakers screw it up too.
 
You have not described the circumstances surrounding the incident. If you could describe it, accurately, you'd know why no missile then in production would have killed the aircraft in question.

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/18/2009 5:41:24 PM

warpig    

At least I back my comments with OFFICIAL links from US or french DoD or good work available from internet (from universities or research institutes)

You don't

Who is the professional? You would be surprised what is my level of contact in USA.Very surprised.

At least I know how to search my info on US governemental sites.

Now I don't  critic USA or says that US products are bulsh*t like you say about French ones.US product are very good.

But let allow us to defend our position when it is true.And we know how to design products which did a surprise from Mirage 3 to Exocet or M2000.

BW maybe too optimitic and enthusiastic as an amateur in defense tech, but I'm not.

When Australia or NZ order a French SAM (Mistral) over the USA Stinger in a competition, or French MU 90 Torpedoes over USA MK50 torpedoes, it says a lot.

Because Australia or NZ are pro US.Not pro french.

I just comment here sometimes and I'm fact based.



 
I typically don't care to spend the time to try to find some link that supports what I say, and I consider most links to usually be of little value anyway, as typically they either can be contradicted by some other link and/or else they are wrong to begin with.  I've pretty much given up on providing links and requiring links, and just rely on the sniff test.  Feel free to knock yourself out with your links, though.  I do like looking at pretty pictures.
 
I suggest that if you can't tell who are the players without a scorecard, then you might want to keep a list.  I happen to be one of the guys who basically never uses personally derogatory language like "amateur" and "fanboy" (though I admit to yielding to temptation on occasion) or otherwise try to insult the poster's qualifications or experience, as opposed to sometimes insulting the poster for his conclusions.  Although, I do admit I do run short of patience with you two.  Also, I am someone who refuses to initiate stupid scenarios like Americans v. French, but there are times when I can't resist joining in to correct specific items within such an aburd debate that has already been started by others.  Finally, I am the guy here who thinks that most anything Frrench is actually likely to be better than most anything Russian, as opposed to many other posters who seem to think (for example) that the Su-30 is actually worth trying to integrate into a western-styled air force rather than buying any of several better choices from America or Europe, so once again your comments are misplaced about me supposedly hating on French equipment.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 5:41:47 PM
lol ben ! You 're funny , really and in good faith !
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 5:42:57 PM

FS,


My bad I assumed you were going to use a realistic RCS for the Rafale which is probably in the 1 to .3 sqm class without external tanks and missiles. Also, since this is a passive shot attempt, you will not be xmitting RF. So your range is limited to OSF which is not likely to see a Flanker at 80km in cruise especially from the front. The Flanker WILL SEE a Rafale with Radar at that distance.


Your numbers are based on the fantasy that the APG-73 already dispelled. A combat configured Rafale is nowhere near .1 sqm. You want so bad for the Rafale to be a stealth aircraft and it is not. 


The bottom line is, if you tried to use the MICA IR to shoot a Flanker totally passive. You would have to close to about 20km or less and use an LRF. That's if you are in a Rafale with OSF. As the data shows, you are not likely to close that distance since even by your own data a Flanker would see you head on at least 70km away using your unrealistically low RCS figures. So as I said, if you want to take a long range BVR shot at greater distance, you have to use radar or some other form or active emitter that can get FC quality data.


So what this shows is that while a Su-27 pilot needs to be very cautions when Rafales are around due to the difference in detection capabilities,  unless the Rafale can get to within 40 to 60 km undetected , the Flankers longer ranged R-27/R-77 will actually match and/or potentially outrange the MICA/RBE2/OSF capability to engage.


Now remember what I told you. The Flanker isn't going to be flying around 1 vs 1. It will have GCI, RWR and maybe even AWAC/AEW. It also has it's own IRST. The latter will assist the Flanker in the event that SPECTRA fouls up its RF xmissions. 


I'm a reasonable person FS. Data is data. It appears that things stack up like this.


With respect to BVR


RBE2/MICA vs BARS/R-27 or R-77


First Look=Rafale

First Fire=Flanker


So I'd say all things being equal this is rough parity since detecting the target first may allow a clever Rafale driver to take advantage of the better SA. However, once the Rafale commits, if he is detected outside of MICA range which is a distinct possibility, he may be staring down some much longer ranged BVR shots.


Does this at all seem like a reasonable approximation of the situation?


-DA

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/18/2009 5:46:06 PM

You have no clue on MICA Herald.

Is that so? How come the generated numbers describe what the missile actually does?

BTW Greecs or UAE use AMRAAMs on their F16 C or E, and they purchase in parallele Mirage 2000-5 and MICA.

Are they totally stupid?
 
Why don't YOU ask them?
 
In the meantime:
 
Is Mirage 2000 iuterfaced and coded for AMRAAM? Is the RDY even integrated with the Amerocan telemetry formats and codes? 

I don't think so.
 
I agree with three words in that statement. 

BTW it is not Thales which designed MICA seeker but ESD.And laws for flight profile by Matra.
Look again at who owns the companies NOW.
 
Legardare  Group (Matra) as subcontractor to THALES for the RH, and that is EADS, that screwed up the IR seeker  not EDS, my ill informed friend.
 
Currently its MBDA that gets the blame for the whole works.

Better look at which petrodollar funded holding comapinies own which part of you.defense.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics