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
Dingc       5/18/2009 10:22:35 PM
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    FS   5/18/2009 10:23:07 PM
French defense procurement agency report published in 2005 including with public extracts on french parlament reports show that France is only ahead of USA on 4% of defense technologies and on par for 30%.
Which is not bad (better than Russians or British) and we are world second.
On rest of technologies we are just few years later.
If France start a product development 10 years after USA, we are usually more advanced of course, since we can use more advanced technologies: if you are average 4 years later in technologies but start 10 years later developement of course you can include in basic design and development more advanced technologies.
 
I have already pointed out that Russia is clearly number two. How can France be number two when it's behind in some major areas, and does not even compete in others. I have already posted where Frances situation is compared to Russia, so i'm not going to elaborate any more on this subject. If you think that my earlier post is not correct go back read it carefully and tell me how that is not so.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Delusions.......   5/18/2009 10:23:21 PM
The MU-90 is a dandy torpedo, French submarines are good to excellent, satellite launchers and ballistic missiles fine but French  aviation engineers and system designers in general as a class set are IDIOTS.  
 
Mainly because they have the arrogance and lack of clear vision exhibited by our two so called 'experts".
 
That is a shame. French engineers can be world class. They are world class when they don't try to do something beyond their tech base..
 
There was and is no good technological or ECONOMIC reason for MICA. There was and is no good reason for ASTER. There isn't even a good reason for Rafale as it actually turned out. France can produce good missiles (ASMP) 
 
I can't tell you how tired I am of hearing that France is this, or France is that relative to such and such.
 
Well guess what? France isn't. It never was.
 
She now has to use German rocket designs, Italian power reactor designs, Dutch and German electronics, Italian torpedo expertise, British aviation expertise, and  SPANISH naval engineering help to fix all the crap that French engineers have screwed up this last generation.
 
That claimed expertise France uses is therefore EU as in European.
.     
Give the people bailing your engineers out of their foul ups, the credit that is THEIR due. 
 
Herald
 
Herald
 
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 10:56:23 PM

French defense procurement agency report published in 2005 including with public extracts on french parlament reports show that France is only ahead of USA on 4% of defense technologies and on par for 30%.

Which is not bad (better than Russians or British) and we are world second.

On rest of technologies we are just few years later.

If France start a product development 10 years after USA, we are usually more advanced of course, since we can use more advanced technologies: if you are average 4 years later in technologies but start 10 years later developement of course you can include in basic design and development more advanced technologies.
 

I have already pointed out that Russia is clearly number two. How can France be number two when it's behind in some major areas, and does not even compete in others. I have already posted where Frances situation is compared to Russia, so i'm not going to elaborate any more on this subject. If you think that my earlier post is not correct go back read it carefully and tell me how that is not so.

 

Ummm I'm not so sure. Since Russia and the Europeans are different with regard to defense needs its hard to compare everything. But overall I'd say that technologically it's not a stretch that the French have gained the upper hand since the Russians have had to recover from the Soviet Era collapse. But technology isn't everything. I'd give France and Russia rough parity all things considered.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    Oy   5/18/2009 10:58:03 PM

French defense procurement agency report published in 2005 including with public extracts on french parlament reports show that France is only ahead of USA on 4% of defense technologies and on par for 30%.

Which is not bad (better than Russians or British) and we are world second.

On rest of technologies we are just few years later.

If France start a product development 10 years after USA, we are usually more advanced of course, since we can use more advanced technologies: if you are average 4 years later in technologies but start 10 years later developement of course you can include in basic design and development more advanced technologies. 

A typical US poster is willing to concede superiority to France where such has been demonstrated with facts and logical analysis.  Tube artillery, conventional subs, mines, small craft, guided specialty munitions, rations, unit tactics, strategic ruthlessness and the other areas suggested above etc. as appropriate.  He is willing to acknowledge parity as well.

The "problem" with US posters is that unlike the French ones they 1) smell b.s. from miles a way better than a dog can, 2) survived mediocre physics and chemistry teachers while bothering to learn these subjects on their own, through the military schools, employers and/or at easily accessible universities, and 3) are actually able from personal constitution and societal viewpoints to accept fail then relearn and retool.  (if you are not routinely failing in the US you are not trying to achieve anything of substance.)

You French argue simply to be heard else offer a contrarian position for its own sake, and failure is brushed past instead of being confronted with positive action.  Hard science is hit or miss with you people -- you do not revisit the past educational deficiences as we at least attempt to do.  Your train of thought gets "baked in" early on.

The French here do not convince as to Rafale.  0.02 from personal interaction with French technicals

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    DA   5/18/2009 11:36:11 PM
Ummm I'm not so sure. Since Russia and the Europeans are different with regard to defense needs its hard to compare everything. But overall I'd say that technologically it's not a stretch that the French have gained the upper hand since the Russians have had to recover from the Soviet Era collapse. But technology isn't everything. I'd give France and Russia rough parity all things considered.
 
What are you not sure about?
1) Russian Areospace has accomplished more in the early 6o's to early 70's than France has in 50 years.
2) Russia has been building modern long range stratgic bombers for over 40 years and France hasn't even built one.
3) Russia has put out world class fighter jets of all types every decade since 1950. France has not put out 10% of that.
4) Russia builds its own AWACS, France buys American.
5) Russia builds world class Air defense systems that even outclass most US systems, like the S-300 family, which includes the best M/L Range SAM in the world the S-400. France does not come close.
6) Russias knowledge of Nuclear Submarines in a better part of four decades has only been second to the US.
7) Russia has been buliding true attack helicaptors for over four decades, France does not even come close, then or now.
8) Russia bulds heavy stratigic long range cargo planes France does not.
9) France does build better armored carriers, and has more of an edge on avionics and Electonic equipment.
Now I know that technology is not everything, training, morale and tactics are also important, but the subject here was technology, and by far Russia is ahead of France in some very important areas.
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/19/2009 1:57:46 AM
"Professional what? Airman? Soldier? Sailor? Marine? Engineer? I'd bet money you're none of these. I have yet to see a fact from you that wasn't tortured into sounding like something you want it to be, rather than what it is objectively. "
 
He is a "professional" that didn't know his favorite missile, the MICA IR, had already been exported.  When I asked him how many countries had purchased this amazing wonder weapon he made up a lie about it being a secret French "silver bullet" missile and thus unavailable for export.  Then when I pointed out he was wrong, and the missile was first exported years ago... he started trying to make up new BS to explain how it was he didn't know it.
 

"Contradicted? When? With your assertion that the AESA radar will be IOC on the Rafale in 2011? When did you provide and official link for that? The fact of the matter is the final delivery for the FIRST system is planned for 2010, when software validation is supposed to start. There are no plans to retrofit the radar to existing Rafales, so that means you'll only get them on new aircraft. New aircraft production has been limited to less than 1 airframe per month. So even if the testing went well and you started building fighters with the new radar in 2011, by 2012 you'd have 12 at best, and more like 8 or 9.  That may be why the actual IOC is supposed to be 2012, and even then that estimate is optimistic because it assumes there will be no problems with the technology, the software validation and the integration into the airframe."
 
Not only that, but when the Rafale does get its AESA, it is a first generation AESA, similar to what we put on our first few F-15s to receive AESAs.  It is just a new AESA antenna on an exsiting backend and will thus provide improved range performance, but nothing like the level of capability offered by newer US AESAs. (which include functionality as super high-speed datalinks, high power jammers, directed energy weapons, and more)
 
I looked at some of the old threads earlier.  This "professional" was claiming in 2006-2007 not only that France would have an AESA available by 2010, but that it would be based on indium phospate and would leap-frog ahead of the US.
 
He is obviously a troll, and I think he should be banned if this is all he does.  
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/19/2009 2:02:39 AM
"But still what? Even if French aircraft had a higher top speed than the F-14s and F-15s and had missiles with a longer range the Iraqis would not have come into firing range, just as they did not with the F-14s and F-15s. What the F-14s and F-15s were trying to do was "steal the bait." It's a low Pk shot, but if you're successful it causes the enemy to rethink their tactics."
 
The French fighters would have stayed near the edge of the no-fly zone, invisible, just like in all these hilarious scenarios they describe where the Rafale is actually a stealth aircraft. 
 
Then, when the Iraqi's appeared, they would have evaporated them with a lighting-bolt!
 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/19/2009 9:33:44 AM
usajoe1,

I'm speaking strictly from a technology point of view, not in terms of overall war making potential. That's why I added it that technology isn't everything. I've done a bit of work with French based tech companies and they are top notch.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    Rufus   5/19/2009 9:58:21 AM
FS was already outed as a pretender.  He's an internet fanboy who may or may not have friends/acquaintances in the industry.  He originally claimed to be some kind of consultant but his stunning lack of grasp of basic facts revealed him.  I think FS and BW should be banned the next time they mention Rafale in a non-Rafale thread.  We have to create Rafale threads in order to draw their fire away from every other air thread.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics