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
Herald12345    Stop the falsehoods   5/19/2009 11:03:39 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. 

It isn't . Flat statement  ICMS Mark 3 FAILED, as so much of French tech has recently failed.
 
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/19/2009 11:15:37 PM
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 .


You can only measure so much in a chamber - where does France do its pole tests?


 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/19/2009 11:49:49 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 . 



Who said it is not using a lofted profile?  I'd like to know, because I'd like to ask him what he's basing that conclusion on.  Of course, so far there has not been any showing that it does, but for the third time I will say that does not mean it doesn't, just that it hasn't been supported by some sort of evidence that I'm aware of.  If someone I trusted as being informed and believable said he knew it does, then I would be inclined to believe him.  So far, there's only your balls-out "of course it does" and while that may be sufficient to convince some people, it is not sufficient to convince me.
 
I for one have never said the radar-homing MICA is limited to a 35km best-case range.  I am quite willing to believe one was used to hit a drone "67km away."  I'm also quite willing to believe that if the details of that engagement became known, that they would be something like the following:  launch aircraft and drone were both at high altitude (M2000 >25,000ft), at high speed (M2000 >M0.9), are flying directly toward each other at the time of launch, the drone maintained constant heading, speed, and altitude throughout the engagement, and the distance separating the launch aircraft and the drone at the time of launch was 67km.  Under those conditions I would not be surprised at all if a radar-homing MICA could hit that target.
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    BW   5/20/2009 12:19:51 AM
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 ...
 
There you go again with your wishful and biased thinking. A modern Sukhoi and MIG-31 all have longer range radars, and A2A missiles. Plus if those jets are in the hands of well trained air man with AWACS, there is no way the Mirage or the Rafale survive. You are right there would be a blood bath but not for the Russian jets. I will bet my house on it.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    BW   5/20/2009 12:27:08 AM
As for the Fulcrum I tather be in a Mig 35 with the R-73 and a HMD in a WVR fight  against both of those birds.
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/20/2009 2:08:25 AM
Wow, I stirred up a fanboy.  Sorry for that everyone.
 
What can I say?
 
He thinks the Rafale's IRST was just great and the best one yet produced.  That is why it is out of production and awaiting replacement. (Currently unfunded)
 
He thinks the Rafale's self protection jammer, "spectra" is just the greatest thing since sliced bread and is not suffering from premature obsolescence.  That is why France wants to replace its antennas. (Currently unfunded, and frankly insufficient as its problems run deeper than that)
 
He thinks the RBE-2 is the most advanced radar in Europe, which is why it is being replaced just a few years after becoming operational.
 
He thinks the new AESA antenna for the Rafale will bring it up to technological parity with the Super Hornet, despite the fact that it is just a new antenna for a much older radar back-end, and not a ground up new design like the APG-79, nor will it have the sophisticated datalink, directed energy, electronic attack, or other specialized modes available to the AGP-79.
 
He thinks the Rafale's engines are just fine, that is why potential customers are demanding (yes, demanding) a new engine before seriously considering the plane.  (Currently unfunded)
 
He doesn't think helmet mounted sights are standard.  Maybe not on older exhisting planes, but on new production? Absolutely.  The Gripen has one.  The F-15 has one.  The F-35 has one.  The Super Hornet has one.  The Eurofighter has one.  The F-16 has one.  The Su-27s have one.  The Mig-29s have one.  So yes, they are standard.  Several of the above planes actually have more than one to choose from.  The Rafale is the only modern fighter in production today without one.  (Currently unfunded)
 
The same thing goes for towed decoys.  Most modern aircraft offer them, the Rafale does not, largely due to the fact that spectra's computers are already overloaded and could not handle additional workload.  A towed decoy will only emerge following a major rework of spectra. (Currently unfunded)
 
The list goes on and on.
 
What is sad is that he can't even admit that the program is in big, big trouble.  What kind of program sees its production rate being cut back to almost nothing only a few years into its production when all is going well?  France is stalling.  They are keeping the production line just barely open hoping that somehow new funding will be located.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/20/2009 2:17:23 AM
"3. I read where the alleged experts clain that Israel is no technical match for France in say A2A missiles.  Well excuse the heck out of me, but when you add up all the enemy aircraft blasted out of the sky by the RAFAEL Python family of missiles (at leaat 100+ last time I checked), that was more than had been splashed by MATRA missiles EVER. There is an old saying that the ultomate weapon proof is COMBAT. So...........obviously Israel does know what to design into an IR A2A missile. Don't know about DERBY yet. We may see weapon proof this year."
 
All you have to do is look at Israel's export sales.  They have zero diplomatic clout, if anything their diplomatic situation badly hurts their arms industry as it eliminates many potential customers, and yet they have been successful.  They have proven they can design good missiles and have widely exported them.  The same is true of their helmet mounted sights, jammers, radars, etc.  Their quality is well recognized and thus there is a great deal of demand for it. 
 
The same can not be said of the current generation of french equipment.   Someone mentioned the Mirage 2000-9 earlier.  Well, if it is such hot stuff, why hasn't anyone but the UAE bought it?  Why aren't we seeing its jammer, radar etc being retrofitted onto other aircraft as an upgrade package? 
 
The facts don't lie.  If you produce a good product it will sell itself.  Why do you think you see Israeli radars, jammers, etc are being retrofitted into both Eastern and Western jets all over the world?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/20/2009 2:19:37 AM
"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 ."
 
Oh yeah, it is such a top of the line system it has been exported how many times?
 
Once? 
 
To a country that is already trying to get rid of those planes only a few years later?
 
Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/20/2009 11:24:57 AM

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 .


BW,

C'mon for goodness sake open your eyes! I'm not unfairly characterizing the situation. Even if we dumb this down to the platform level where to be frank the situation is worse, it's easy to see that the technology advantages aren't going to be enough to offset the sheer performance and cost/numerical advantages Russian force could bring to bear.  The Russian jets will have the following advantages which include but aren't limited to...

More powerful radar

Longer ranged missiles

more rugged design

 purpose built ECCM

superior WVR missile and guns

Helmet Mounted Sights

greater flight envelope 

What this means in French is that they will get firing solutions BEFORE your primary BVR armament is even in range. If you use ECM they have IRST, HOJ and even BVR IR missile capability. They can shoot from higher altitude. Their jets are built tougher with less reliance on sensitive electronics. If you make it to WVR they have a dedicated short ranged IR AAM that offers superior WVR performance and a deadly accurate gun. They have much wider engagement envelop thanks to HMS. The Rafale and M2000 don't have enough of an advantage over these Russian 4th Gen platforms such that technological superiority alone will decide the fight. At the platform level the Russian jets enjoy some sort of parity or superiority in every respect.    

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Shopping for a new missile.   5/20/2009 12:03:52 PM
The EU has pinned its future air combat missile hopes on three basic missiles. These are the ASRAAM, the IRIS-T and METEOR. France will fit herself in that mix.
 
Right now it looks like the MICA IR will remain the AdAs close in self-defense missile and that they will buy METEOR in limited numbers to compliment it, as their BVR missile.    

For the US near-term the holy grail of a lob and F-pole endgame robot chaser missile combination remains the objective. We seem somehow firmly committed to the rocket as the propulsion solution as we see two burns, one for lob and one for endgame as the solution as opposed to a sustained chase to meet burn which is METEOR . 
 
That means for the US the hybrid throttable rocket is the prospect for the lobbed killbody. And further out is the scramdart killbody. I don't think there will be a step booster, but I do believe we will use a sharp start plug in the combustion pot of the missile that will turn into the plenum chamber for that hybrid rocket motor You need an extended burn duct to make a hybrid work properly and squeeze the most work out of  the exhaust plume 
 
 
Now as to seeker. After sour experiences with the AIM 142 program, a small AESA imaging radar that can switch from C to X band would be nice The TRs of such an array of course can act in the passive mode. All of that will be tough to do.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics