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
Bluewings12       5/19/2009 8:41:07 PM
Joe :
""Hey dude you need to tone it down a bit. Your name calling and bashing is not convincing nobody""
 
Joe , I did not insult anyone in the last 2 years here on SP . Calling Rufus a clown is not an insult , it is like calling a cat a cat . Then , what do you mean by "bashing" ? Us French have been bashed for as long as we 've been on SP (just look at the French forum name : The French "Union" (what is this ???))
 
Herald , the AN-ALQ-165 is nowhere close to the capabilities of Spectra . You should know that by now , so stop trying to make up things . 
""If SPECTRA was so good, why isn't it being used and backfitted in OTHER French aircraft?""
 
For God sake Herald , Spectra has been built for Rafale and Rafale only because Thalès and Dassault tailored the EW system from the datas they got after more than 2 years of work in anechoic chamber .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       5/19/2009 8:57:08 PM
IIRC, the Mirage 2000-9's electronic warfare system (ICMS) shares technology with Spectra. And from what I've read the ICMS is pretty good. 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/19/2009 9:08:43 PM
A little while ago , we were talking about the Mica . A lot of errors and mistakes have been posted by numerous posters who do not really know the Mica program .
 
It has been said (?) that the Mica is not using some kind of "loft" trajectories . For any knowledgeable poster , this affirmation is BS . The Mica has only enough propellant and energy for a pure and straight chase flight of about 35km when fired in a LOBL mode .
So , how do you think Mica was flying when it destroyed a target 67km away ???
""On May 8, 1998, a two-seat Di fired one MICA missile and successfully hit a target drone 67 km away.""
Link :
h*tp://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/mirage.html
 
Then , there are other things you might not know about Mica , I keep it for later just in case ;-)
 
Cheers .
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/19/2009 9:18:11 PM
Das Kardinal :
""IIRC, the Mirage 2000-9's electronic warfare system (ICMS) shares technology with Spectra. And from what I've read the ICMS is pretty good.""
 
The EW suite on the -9 is the ICMS Mk III (better interferometry algorythms than Spectra F1) . Since ,  Thalès has fielded the ICMS Mk IV (for export sales) and incorporated it in the Spectra F3 standard .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Stop the falsehoods   5/19/2009 9:28:05 PM

Joe :


""Hey dude you need to tone it down a bit. Your name calling and bashing is not convincing nobody""

 

Joe , I did not insult anyone in the last 2 years here on SP . Calling Rufus a clown is not an insult , it is like calling a cat a cat . Then , what do you mean by "bashing" ? Us French have been bashed for as long as we 've been on SP (just look at the French forum name : The French "Union" (what is this ???))


 

Herald , the AN-ALQ-165 is nowhere close to the capabilities of Spectra . You should know that by now , so stop trying to make up things . 


""If SPECTRA was so good, why isn't it being used and backfitted in OTHER French aircraft?""

 

For God sake Herald , Spectra has been built for Rafale and Rafale only because Thalès and Dassault tailored the EW system from the datas they got after more than 2 years of work in anechoic chamber .


 

Cheers .





Its long been established just who the actual REAL technologist is here.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/19/2009 9:36:01 PM
lol Herald !
Everytime you can 't attack the post itself , you go for the poster as you do now .
It is pathetic ... Why don 't you just acknowledge the truth when you see it ?
Well , maybe you don 't .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/19/2009 9:37:17 PM

 
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 
 

Ok forget about war making potential. I want to know in what area does french tech surpass its Russian counterpart, because I don't think there are many. I think this notion of Russians being bakwards in defense tech compared to western nations is not all true. This may be true when you look at comercial tech. but when we are talking about defense, Russia is clearly number two. The Soviet Union may be gone but Russia still has very capable and very educated work force in defense industries. The only thing keeping Russia from compiting with the US like the old days is economy. If Russia didn't have the decade plus economy troubles of the 90's they would still be right there with the US, some thing France has never even been close to doing. I'm not bashing the French, they have very smart people, and have contributed alot in the last half a century, but to me they are in a class with Britain, not America or Russia.

I don't want to go too far off onto a tangent. But just take a look and the electronics and build quality. You are probably using CE built or designed in France somewhere in life but probably not from Russia. France has a very strong and capable aviation and technology sector that more often than not produces 1st class war machines. If you want to see some combat proof of that just look into the the results of many dozens of encounters between Mirages and Migs in the ME. There are lots of splashed pilots who took their last flights in Russian built jets vs Jets designed in France. I'm not knocking the Russians either, they do make good stuff too. But their approach is usually a lot less focused on technological superiority but rather FUNCTIONAL SUPERIORITY
 
That's why I'm inclined to say that the Russian and French 4th Gen jets are at rough parity much as the Mig-21 and Mirage III were. Where the comparison breaks down today is quantity and cost. The French cannot afford the Attrition a competently fought and piloted air force of modern Flankers and Mig-29/31s would inflict since neither has a distinct advantage. But it's not for lack of technological capability.
 
-DA


 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/19/2009 9:50:50 PM
DA , your last post is good and I am glad that you acknowledge the French technology in aviation . But there is something I just can 't let go :
""The French cannot afford the Attrition a competently fought and piloted air force of modern Flankers and Mig-29/31s would inflict since neither has a distinct advantage.""
 
It depends where the fight is taking place DA , as usual . Also , who 's the airforce you 're talking about ? The Russian AF ?
Because to be honest , the possible kill ratio in between M2000-5Fs and Rafales against Fulcrums and 31s is well in our favor , in fact it would be a bloodbath for the russian made jets ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Stop the falsehoods   5/19/2009 10:47:16 PM
Your citation like your claim to knowledge is no good. Why not read the actual Taiwanese experience with the MICA you prevaricator?
 
 
pg. 90.
 The implications of the air-to-air missile imbalance should not be understated.
A computer simulation?aided study by California?s RAND Corporation
found that an unanswered AA-12 capability would give China an overwhelming
advantage over the ROC air force. The U.S.-China Security Review Commission
confirms that an Adder-armed Sukhoi fighter has an advantage over Taiwan?s
Mirage 2000-5 equipped with inferior MICA missiles.
75 The AIM-120Cs are doing
little to protect the ROC or deter China warehoused in the United States

 

F-16 pilots test-fire arms in Guam

By Brian Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Nov 03, 2000, Page 3

The air force recently sent a number of F-16 pilots to Guam to test-fire AIM-120 air-to-air missiles, which the US government has agreed to sell to Taiwan, defense sources told the Taipei Times yesterday.

The tests were arranged for the purpose of training Taiwan combat pilots in the use of the state-of-the-art missiles prior to deployment, defense sources said.

It was not known how many missiles Taiwan's F-16 pilots had test-fired in Guam, but the cost of each test is roughly US$60,000. Taiwan is footing the bill.

The tests follow a September announcement that the US is planning to sell Taiwan 200 AIM-120s, including launchers.

Defense sources said that more test-firings were planned.

The deployment of the missiles in Taiwan will not take place for a couple of years because the arms sale has yet to receive the full endorsement of all relevant US government agencies.

In addition, under the sales agreement, Taiwan cannot take delivery of the missiles until China acquires a similar class of weapon.

According to some media reports, China will acquire R-77 air-to-air missiles, the Russian equivalent of the AIM-120, from Russia by year's end.

Taiwan's air force bought the AIM-120, also known as AMRAAM (advanced medium-range air-to-air missile), to maintain air superiority in the Taiwan Strait.

The only air-to-air missile which Taiwan has to deter China's air force is the domestically built TC-II missile, also known as "Sky Sword II," is deployed only on the locally developed Indigenous Defense Fighter (&&2147;&>2283;&&4399;).

"The AIM-120 is superior to both the TC-II and French-made Mica, which is used on the Mirage 2000-5. It's a good buy," said Erich Shih (&>6045;&>3389;&>9771;), a senior editor with Defense International magazine.

"It has a shorter range than the TC-II, but its lighter, more powerful rocket thruster and more accurate homing electronics make it more desirable," Shih said. "It also has greater accuracy than the Mica."

Shih added that although the AIM-120 has yet to be proven in combat and has also been rejected by customers for unreliability during its initial stages of development, the missile is now fully developed and trustworthy.

The type of AIM-120 missile the US plans to sell to Taiwan is the AIM-120C.

The AIM-120C is a streamlined version of the missile, lighter and with smaller control surfaces than the original. It also has more advanced software capabilities

Although each missile costs about US$60,000 (NT$1,920,000), the actual price Taiwan pays could be higher, possibly due to a desire by the US that Taiwan share in the development cost of the weapon.

The MICA failed in the 2003 Huaduang weapon proof tests. 
 
 
For one thing, the R-77 is hardly a surprise. Peng Chin-ming, director of the operations bureau of Taiwan's Air Force General Headquarters, said test-firing was "long
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Stop the falsehoods   5/19/2009 10:58:59 PM

lol Herald !

Everytime you can 't attack the post itself , you go for the poster as you do now .

It is pathetic ... Why don 't you just acknowledge the truth when you see it ?


Well , maybe you don 't .


 

Cheers .


The trouble is that by the rules I cannot simply call you a prevaricator. I have to PROVE that you are a prevaricator and thus you can keep posting a new lie. It gets knocked down (much like another poster I know here) and you continye on your merry way withy your fantasies falsehoods and attempted bluster. Well you are a prevaricator and a person of no technical qualifgication.;.You are the guy who doesn't know what the difference is between pursuut lead and predict lead is.

You don't know how rockets work . You don't know anything about guidance and EW. You don't know the forst thing about air combat. 
 
You called a man a clown and threatened him (Rufus) . He's oibviously not since he knows his stuff backwards and forwards.
 
 
You whine a lot when I point out exactloy how ignorant you are. That is part of the price of lying to me and to others, prevaricator. To be shown as a prevaricator is a comsequence.
 
You don't like it? Stop prevaricating, stop fantasizing. Just stop.
 
Herald
.   

 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics