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
warpig       5/20/2009 1:00:21 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 .







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 


No, at this point I have to interject on behalf of the French a bit.
 
<gasp!>
 
More powerful radar, yes, but better?  I don't know enough to argue it, but I personally would put my money on a French radar over a Russian one as far as modes of operation, and particularly ECCM features and ability to gain and maintain tracking.  Then there's also the situational awareness thing, with Rafale able to share data while the Su-30 pilots send the equivalent of semophore over their air-to-air link.
 
Longer ranged missiles?  Well, the semi-active radar guided AA-10C is probably longer-ranged, but the MICA EM is an active radar missile with all the advantage that brings in terms of F-pole v. A-pole.  Also, good luck keeping a lock in order to update those AA-10Cs in flight to take advantage of that long range.  The AA-12 (if we are considering the few that the Russians have and the few aircraft they fly that can even use them) and the MICA EM are very equally matched.
 
Superior WVR missile?  What, the AA-11 superior to the MICA IR?  MICA IR has a longer range seeker, longer kinematic range, its IIR seeker is much more resistant to flares, and the missile is a bit more maneuverable (of course 50g v. 40g isn't likely to matter much).  If we're talking dog fight, then it is the lack of a HMS that will hurt, although maybe some capability to LOAL and fire over the s
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/20/2009 1:07:40 PM
And I forgot to add, if we are talking dog fight where maneuverability of the jet might actually matter (I guess both sides ran out of missiles?), the M2000 and the Rafale certainly have the edge over that flying barn door called the FLANKER.  A couple twists and turns and the FLANKER will be out of airspeed while the Rafale pirouettes back around for a gun kill.
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       5/20/2009 1:08:19 PM

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 
 
Agree 100%
Look Russian upgraded Sukhois and Migs Already have advantages over the Rafale and the Mirage in some areas and parity in others. The Russians don't build one plane to do the job of many like the Rafale.
The SU-30/35 are better BVR/WVR Air Superiority fighters than the Rafale.
The Mig-31 Is  a pure heavy interceptor that France has no equal to.
The SU-34 is a heavy bomber that can to the job Rafale can in this role and maybe better.
The SU-25SM is one of the best CAS fighters in the world that has proven itself in combat with its earlier versions.
All of this planes may not be all around as advanced as the Rafale, but each of them with their designated roles are either better, or equal to the Rafale. When the new Sukhoi 5th genaration fighter comes out it is going to end all the comparisons once and for all between Russian fighters vs the Rafale. Then again with BW an FS I highly doubtedhttp://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emangry.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

duplex       5/20/2009 2:13:52 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.



10-Along with the US ,Russia has the worlds most advanced ICBM technology  SS-19, SS-18 .. France doesn't come close ,then or now.
11-Russians have built their own space shuttle ,  BURAN  25 years ago ,something France can't even dream of today.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/20/2009 2:30:37 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 .

















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 






No, at this point I have to interject on behalf of the French a bit.

 

<gasp!>

 

More powerful radar, yes, but better?  I don't know enough to argue it, but I personally would put my money on a French radar over a Russian one as far as modes of operation, and particularly ECCM features and ability to gain and maintain tracking.  Then there's also the situational awareness thing, with Rafale able to share data while the Su-30 pilots send the equivalent of semophore over their air-to-air link.

Depends on EW I think. Can the Gardenia or the MSP-418 blank the RBE2? Probably not. What is the burn through separation? Not a big enough offset.  If its a western jam
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Warpig Reply    5/20/2009 3:00:46 PM

And I forgot to add, if we are talking dog fight where maneuverability of the jet might actually matter (I guess both sides ran out of missiles?), the M2000 and the Rafale certainly have the edge over that flying barn door called the FLANKER.  A couple twists and turns and the FLANKER will be out of airspeed while the Rafale pirouettes back around for a gun kill.

 
Yes, if zero missiles are present a Flanker may not want to get in a turning fight with a Rafale I agree. BUT WITH R-73 and the HMS, the Rafale would be at a serious disadvantage. The Rafale has to point the nose while the Flanker or Mig pilot merely need turn his neck. That's a leap ahead capability over the Rafale. Where...
1. Guns
2. Guns + Rear Aspect Missile
3. Guns + All Aspect Missile
4. Guns + All Aspect + HOBS missile
5. Guns+ All Aspect + HOBS + HMS 
It would definitely make a difference IMV. The MIG-29 however is a different story. It's maneuverability is second to none and I don't think any sane fighter pilot would choose to get into that kind of fight with the MIG. Also, I'm not sure I said the Russians had better Radar. Just that they had more powerful and IMHO would be likely to get their long range BVR shots off first. I was clear however that I clearly regard French systems as the more technologically advanced. No denying that. All of this is just my personal opinion and is in no way meant to be authoritative.
-DA
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       5/20/2009 8:15:55 PM
Rufus : you're right, Rafale doesn't have a HMS nor a towed decoy. So it's a crap plane, in your opinion. Oh, and it has obsolescent systems that are scheduled for replacement.

Well... F22 has the same "problems". Does that mean it's a crap plane too ? 
You're obviously biased. At least Herald does not have a French-bashing attitude, and of all the Rafale detractors he's the most credible one (doesn't mean everything he says should be true either, but he does contribute interesting points). 
Let's not even mention duplex. He's basically a French-bashing troll.

Herald : interesting link about the greek Mirages, but it's a 2005 one. I'd expect whatever problems to have been resolved (otherwise I'll join you in bashing Thales, promised ;-) 
I find it hard to believe that, if the problems (RBE2 being leaky, and such) you mention were true, steps wouldn't have been taken to fix them already. Are you sure your critics are still relevant ?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/20/2009 10:06:29 PM

Well... F22 has the same "problems". Does that mean it's a crap plane too ? 
 
The F-22 is by no means perfect. It had one very bad manufacturing flaw which is costing the US taxpayer a ton of money to fix. The blockheads at LockMart also screwed up a major design detail which is also costing us a ton of money to fix The new Raptors are coming off the line right, but too many of the early ones have to be reworked in depot and at first echelon .

You're obviously biased. At least Herald does not have a French-bashing attitude, and of all the Rafale detractors he's the most credible one (doesn't mean everything he says should be true either, but he does contribute interesting points)
 
Well at least I try.. 

Let's not even mention duplex. He's basically a French-bashing troll.


Herald : interesting link about the greek Mirages, but it's a 2005 one. I'd expect whatever problems to have been resolved (otherwise I'll join you in bashing Thales, promised ;-) 
 
I would hope ICMS IV was fixed. I know that ICMS 3 still doesn't work.

I find it hard to believe that, if the problems (RBE2 being leaky, and such) you mention were true, steps wouldn't have been taken to fix them already. Are you sure your critics are still relevant ?
 
Yes, the flaw is FUNDAMENTAL to the radar as designed. There is phase interference that causes signal dropout and that cursed sidelobe leak in the vertical or Y axis of the radar. The Wedgetail (another example) has a different but still somewhat related phase interference problem. Northrop Grumman and its subcontractors screwed that up in a similar fashion by not pitting everything together and TESTING it properly on a open radar range.  In that case, its two entirely separate systems that cause mutual phase interference and noise. Those NG idiots should be able to fix it, but like most AMERICAN mistakes it will cost US a ton of money. Wedgetail is too important for us not to fix it right. Australia needs it and we want it for them and US.
   

Nobody is perfect. I noticed where someone said that France couldn't build ICBM's? Let's look at THAT statement.

The American record in rockets has been very mixed.
 
Atlas was a missile that was not well-made or designed. It had to be babysitted during a countdown and it needed a lot of tender loving care It was a miracle rocket. It was a miracle it worked as well as it did. Titan was better..Saturn better still. Minuteman seems to work dandy.
 
Polaris A-3 threw bricks. (the rocket worked, but the bombs wouldn't go off) This embarassment to my knowledge has not plagued the French or the British. The C-4 was a problem child until the bugs were worked out. The D-5 is a phenomenal rocket.
 
Space shuttle. Need I point out the obvious?
 
The French rocket program has its ups and downs but on the whole.the Pluton, the M-45 were very good war rockets, and it looks like the M-51 war rocket will be likewise. Hades, a good little known replacement, for Pluton is AFAIK still in storage as a FdF tactical missile. French standoff A2G weapons seem to work just fine, from glide bombs to air launched rockets. Ariane still is the benchmark for satellite launchers.
 
The problems with Exocet seem to be fixed st last.
 
Not every French air to air missile is a dud. Matra Magic and the Super 530 work just fine as designed..They are just passed on by better tech; as was SPARROW.
 
Speaking of SPARROW, need I point out that Skyflash and ASPIDE started out as SPARROWS and that the British and Italians redesigned the missiles and corrected our initial mistakes? 
 
The point is that it is the failed systems and the SPECIFIC people who build them, who caused it to fail, not any generic bashing that is the tome of my subject.  
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Rafale Manueverabilty   5/21/2009 10:48:59 AM
It seems to me that all this talk about the Rafale being the best dogfighter in the world is meaningless....It's like a french sniper w/o a scope on his rifle bragging that he has a better combat knife and that will allow him to kill his enemies.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/21/2009 12:30:33 PM

It seems to me that all this talk about the Rafale being the best dogfighter in the world is meaningless....It's like a french sniper w/o a scope on his rifle bragging that he has a better combat knife and that will allow him to kill his enemies.

Dogfighting and absolute maneuverability is only one of many characteristics that can affect the outcome of a fight. There are many instances of more maneuverable fighters LOSING dogfights to other fighters. How many A6M pilots died to less maneuverable fighters? You cannot based outcomes on a single platform characteristic. Also, people should not assert that Rafale is the best dogfighter in the world as there are plenty of other planes from all major defense aviation companies that could claim that.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics