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
DarthAmerica       5/21/2009 2:09:44 PM
Forgot to add F-4 vs MIG-17/21 as well.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/21/2009 3:52:20 PM
What is strange Herald is that you recognize excellence of french SLBM M45 or Hades (or M51 with no failure contrary to Bulava), and you fail to recognize excellence of Dassault or Matra.Do you have a prejudice against french private companies?
Just an exemple to compare with Soviets.
France launched its first SLBM and SSBN program in 1963 and it was successfully in service in ...1971!
In a decade and without any prior experience, we designed and constructed a system including a 10 000 tons nuclear sub,  a reliable SLBM with its megaton class warhead similar to Polaris A1, while Russians needed decades to achieve that with much more ressources and manpower .
A decade later we had an equivalent of Poseidon with 6 MIRV!
 
Check when Russians build their first powder propelled SLBM ! LOL
Americans said to French at this time that it was impossible for french to achieve that with a such limited budget ...and we succeeded.
Strange that french Supermystere B2 dominated Mig 17, Mirage 3 dominated Mig 21, Mirage F1 dominated Mig 23, and Mirage 2000 dominated Mig 29 .And I can say you that Rafale dominate SU 35 .
On a civilian point of view we build Concorde with British, and Russians failed with Tupolev 144.
Soviets build a lot of different systems to cover all needs by investing a lot of their GDP in defense contrary to France and its 4% GDP in the sixties down to current 2%, but all of our system were technologically and qualitatively superiors when we needed.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/21/2009 3:56:21 PM
FS,

I generally agree with the context of your last post but please familiarize me with French M2000 domination of the MIG-29? Also, why do you think the Rafale dominates the Su-35?

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/21/2009 4:24:57 PM
 generally agree with the context of your last post but please familiarize me with French M2000 domination of the MIG-29? Also, why do you think the Rafale dominates the Su-35?
Indian says it for Mig 29 vs M2000.And they have both.
BTW French says the same thing and its seems that Serbian or Iraqis Mig 29 never dare to attack French M2000 when we were patrolling over Serbia or Iraq.
For the Rafale vs SU35, I explained it here when you asked me.
For electronic according to Herald, Thales is maybe bad but its mother company (french Thomson-CSF) won the 1965 NADGE-NATO contract radar procurement with the famous Palmier radar facing US companies.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/21/2009 4:30:23 PM

 generally agree with the context of your last post but please familiarize me with French M2000 domination of the MIG-29? Also, why do you think the Rafale dominates the Su-35?

Indian says it for Mig 29 vs M2000.And they have both.

BTW French says the same thing and its seems that Serbian or Iraqis Mig 29 never dare to attack French M2000 when we were patrolling over Serbia or Iraq.

For the Rafale vs SU35, I explained it here when you asked me.

For electronic according to Herald, Thales is maybe bad but its mother company (french Thomson-CSF) won the 1965 NADGE-NATO contract radar procurement with the famous Palmier radar facing US companies.


OK so we still disagree on Rafale vs Su-27 family. I say parity. The M2000, I need something more objective or context. The Indians are probably comparing suitability to a requirement rather than vs each other. With regard to Serbs "not daring to attack M2000" thats just you spinning. If they would take off and face F-15C, you can bet they would have no special fear of M2000. You are drawing conclusions that don't exist there.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I deal in facts.   5/21/2009 4:34:49 PM

What is strange Herald is that you recognize excellence of french SLBM M45 or Hades (or M51 with no failure contrary to Bulava), and you fail to recognize excellence of Dassault or Matra.Do you have a prejudice against french private companies?

Just an exemple to compare with Soviets.

France launched its first SLBM and SSBN program in 1963 and it was successfully in service in ...1971!

In a decade and without any prior experience, we designed and constructed a system including a 10 000 tons nuclear sub,  a reliable SLBM with its megaton class warhead similar to Polaris A1, while Russians needed decades to achieve that with much more ressources and manpower .

A decade later we had an equivalent of Poseidon with 6 MIRV!

 

Check when Russians build their first powder propelled SLBM ! LOL

Americans said to French at this time that it was impossible for french to achieve that with a such limited budget ...and we succeeded.

Strange that french Supermystere B2 dominated Mig 17, Mirage 3 dominated Mig 21, Mirage F1 dominated Mig 23, and Mirage 2000 dominated Mig 29 .And I can say you that Rafale dominate SU 35 .

On a civilian point of view we build Concorde with British, and Russians failed with Tupolev 144.

Soviets build a lot of different systems to cover all needs by investing a lot of their GDP in defense contrary to France and its 4% GDP in the sixties down to current 2%, but all of our system were technologically and qualitatively superiors when we needed.

I don'[t deal with fantasies.
 
You need to quit while you are behind.
 
 
The Inidian Air Force said it left a lot to be desired.
 
 
Mirage IV B was a better bomber than fighter. Hmmmmmmm. sounds familiar.
 
 
It was with Israeli missiles (Shafir II) that the Mirage got a rocket that worked. 
 
Better pilots then as now are the difference. I wouldn't bet the farm on the tech.
 
 
The Israelis were your best customers, they told you what worked and didn't. You shouldn't have dissed them. Dassault went tinto the toilet after a foreign combat air force wasn't there as a customer to tell them what they screwed up.
 
Herald
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/21/2009 4:40:46 PM
Herald.
Don"t try to be arrogant with me.I'm sure you were a good professional in a field where you accessed some informations.And I suppose it is SSBN field.
However you are not even close to me for proficiency and general DITB knowledge.You are an amateur compared to me.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/21/2009 4:48:01 PM
BTW it normal we did not have a WVR missile for MIII since we were using NATO Sidewinder AIM 9B until we developped the Magic 1.But Israelis never got Magic 1 since it was produced a decade after the 1967 french embargo on Israel.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    This is the reaction of the amateur.   5/21/2009 4:49:59 PM

Herald.

Don"t try to be arrogant with me.I'm sure you were a good professional in a field where you accessed some informations.And I suppose it is SSBN field.

However you are not even close to me for proficiency and general DITB knowledge.You are an amateur compared to me.


What the poster tried is called bluster. It never works.
 
The Israelis found the Mig 19 to be all they could handle (like we did over Vietnam) as a dogfighter. The Mig 21 was a little easier for them; as the arabs used the aircraft  completely wrong. It was a target defense interceptor, not a dogfighter. Used properly even today, as a slash attacker (in and out), its dangerous: so  I wouldn't go knocking the Russian tech. It was/is clumsy, but it worked/works with the right tactics.
 
I keep telling people. Simple when used smart, always WORKS. 
   
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/21/2009 5:06:51 PM
The Mig 21 was a little easier for them; as the arabs used the aircraft  completely wrong. It was a target defense interceptor, not a dogfighter. Used properly even today, as a slash attacker (in and out), its dangerous: so  I wouldn't go knocking the Russian tech. It was/is clumsy, but it worked/works with the right tactics.

I keep telling people. Simple when used smart, always WORKS. 

Herald

RAF harriers discovered this when they gamed against the Israeli modified Romanian Mig21's.  In fact the Romanians eventually elected to go with the israeli modified Mig21's rather than the modified Mig29's (Sniper) as the performance differences for their doctrine requirements were minimal.

 A plane in the right hands is dangerous.  The right plane in less capable hands and with poor system support hoes its own row.....

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics