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
french stratege       5/23/2009 12:50:40 AM
That AESA has 2 to 3 times the range of the RBE2.
20 to 30% better range you mean.Physic is the same for everybody

Also, are you planning a F-16E vs Rafale fight or something? The Rafale isn't part of the F-16E target set as it is an ally. Even so, the late model F-16s have similar RCS reduction features to Rafale.
I mean that advantage in range with current radar for F16 vs a Mig 35 for exemple, is nullify by F16 E stronger RCS.
F16E legacy platform and its huge pitot intakes is not designed for low RCS even some RAM and other feature have improved it maybe to the 1m² class.
USAF do no invest anymore in F16 and F16 is at end of its very successfull career.
We have 180 Rafale already ordered BTW and remaining planes of third batch  to delivered before 2016.Not far from F22 number.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/23/2009 4:39:18 AM

That AESA has 2 to 3 times the range of the RBE2.

20 to 30% better range you mean.Physic is the same for everybody

Sure it is. Thats why if you have a DIFFERENT radar, AESA vs PESA and your Tx is stronger and Rx more sensitive with better SNR and backed up by modern processors in the back end you get that kind of performance. This is why Dassault is doing what they are to try to get an AESA for Rafale.

Also, are you planning a F-16E vs Rafale fight or something? The Rafale isn't part of the F-16E target set as it is an ally. Even so, the late model F-16s have similar RCS reduction features to Rafale.

 

And... 

 

And... 


-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Because you don't even have your numbers right.   5/23/2009 2:31:20 PM

Dear Herald (I say "Dear" because your lasts posts have impressed me)

 

Where do you think I am wrong and why ?

 

Cheers .


Either for Rafale or the SH.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/23/2009 2:46:51 PM
USjoe
We have been in the AESA business for almost four decades
Yes like us for technology research.
You deployed for the first time an AESA radar on F15 (APG-63(V)2 few years ago only and in a limited number due to cost considerations which are very important for MMIC.
We were the first to deploy a jammer suit with directional AESA antenna integrated on a fighter with a similar concept of  AN/ALQ-161A Defensive Avionics System on the B-1B which weight more than a ton and use PESA antennas.
 
You simply refuse to see the true and do serious investigations and even to read what I provided as serious links.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Something about RADAR.   5/23/2009 3:16:52 PM
Fanboys talk about range, I talk about detection thresholds.

Detection threshold is when a radar generates a return that it detects well enough to produce a genuine track so you can launch a missile based on its range data .
 
EXAMPLE:
 
For non LO fighter radio- painted objects with  Russian .Sapfir series radar depending on head on aspect and the WEATHER, a generated return from a fighter target could be detected at anywhere from 150+ kilometers to NEVER (0 return at 0 meters).for a separation interval.

The averages were between 30 and 70 kilometers in clear air charge neutral dry conditions, and at 7000 meters altitude in Central Europe. Bombers could be 2x to 3x that separation interval depending on type under the same conditions..
 
This is true of most radars as to detection variance though not detection threshholds. Detection threshholds and false return rejections vary by model and type as well as by the propagating condition.
 
So........................FS' statement that physics is the same for everybody is correct, but TECHNOLOGY (as in the CRAPPY NOISY RBE2 versus the AN/APG68 (V) 9) and evem propagation conditions from one second to the next, or for two aircraft separated in different weather cells  by 150 kilometers is NOT.
 
When even the Earth's magnetic field at latitude and longitude and how you design your jammer, can measurably affect your OWN radar detection performance, you become very cautious making simplistic range statements.
 
Herald
.  
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    FS   5/23/2009 3:59:56 PM
 
USjoe
We have been in the AESA business for almost four decades
Yes like us for technology research.
You deployed for the first time an AESA radar on F15 (APG-63(V)2 few years ago only and in a limited number due to cost considerations which are very important for MMIC.
We were the first to deploy a jammer suit with directional AESA antenna integrated on a fighter with a similar concept of  AN/ALQ-161A Defensive Avionics System on the B-1B which weight more than a ton and use PESA antennas.
 
You simply refuse to see the true and do serious investigations and even to read what I provided as serious links.
 
The first AESA radar was fielded on a F-15C in 2000, almost 10 years ago and the Rafale still does not have one. Raytheon has deliverd more than a thousand AN/APG 63, V1, V2, V3, APG79's , and Northrop Grumman has deliverd more than 200 AN/APG 77 and AN/APG80 Radars. So tell me where is the proof that the new AESA radar that is going to be fielded in 2011on the Rafale is going to be as effective as the AN/APG79, as you had claimed before.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/23/2009 5:44:08 PM

 
USjoe

We have been in the AESA business for almost four decades

Yes like us for technology research.

You deployed for the first time an AESA radar on F15 (APG-63(V)2 few years ago only and in a limited number due to cost considerations which are very important for MMIC.

We were the first to deploy a jammer suit with directional AESA antenna integrated on a fighter with a similar concept of  AN/ALQ-161A Defensive Avionics System on the B-1B which weight more than a ton and use PESA antennas.

 

You simply refuse to see the true and do serious investigations and even to read what I provided as serious links.
 

The first AESA radar was fielded on a F-15C in 2000, almost 10 years ago and the Rafale still does not have one. Raytheon has deliverd more than a thousand AN/APG 63, V1, V2, V3, APG79's , and Northrop Grumman has deliverd more than 200 AN/APG 77 and AN/APG80 Radars. So tell me where is the proof that the new AESA radar that is going to be fielded in 2011on the Rafale is going to be as effective as the AN/APG79, as you had claimed before.





 
I freely admit I do not know if I am right, but I get a gut feeling that the B-2 had AESA radar antennas built into it (the wing leading edges?) before that.  If so, that should count as being even earlier, and we've had land and sea based AESAs earlier than that, haven't we?  I concede those earlier versions were not fighter-sized for air-to-air applications, but one step at a time, incorporating lessons learned, eh?
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/23/2009 9:10:09 PM
I freely admit I do not know if I am right, but I get a gut feeling that the B-2 had AESA radar antennas built into it (the wing leading edges?) before that.  If so, that should count as being even earlier, and we've had land and sea based AESAs earlier than that, haven't we?  I concede those earlier versions were not fighter-sized for air-to-air applications, but one step at a time, incorporating lessons learned, eh?

Could be wrong, but i seem to recall that the US mounted an ESA (or were they Planar arrays??) onto a few missile range management Orions in Hawai'i/Guam before the B2.

 
 



 


 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/24/2009 5:46:36 PM
DA , I believe the Rafale M F3 to be a better multi-role platform than the USN F-18 SH .
This is my opinion and some numbers and papers seem to go the Rafale way . In fact , if the USN was equipped with Rafales and not SHs , I believe that you would find very soon how to use the French Fighter 's edge .
 
DA , your video is nice (I 've seen it before) and there is nothing a Rafale can 't do . To be honest , the Rafale F3 can do any job a Blk-52 can do (Blk-60 & 60+ are for export only but the Rafale is ahead in survivability) and can do it better and safer .
 
I don ' t think that the AN-APG-80 (entirely funded by the UAE) has a much better range than the AESA RBE2 for at least 2 reasons : Rafale 's dish is bigger and the MMIC technology involved is of the same level) .
 
Herald , you said that I didn 't get my numbers right but you do not explain where !? That 's a bit ... light , don 't you think ?
 
Herald , you also said :
""Fanboys talk about range, I talk about detection thresholds.
Detection threshold is when a radar generates a return that it detects well enough to produce a genuine track so you can launch a missile based on its range data .""
 
This is what I 've always been talking when tracking was involved (not max radar range) . So , what make you think that the AESA RBE2 detection threshold is not up to the AN-AGP-80 ? 
The AGP-79 (SH) have the range edge but against an ECM nightmare like Rafale , don 't count on it .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/24/2009 6:08:45 PM
Btw , did you know about the Thalès IT upgrade :
 
""The evolution continues of air threat led to make evolve/move, in parallel, the definition of the homing heads in order to maintain the capacity operational of our forces. The improvements having been the subject of studies and former developments were integrated in a demonstrator of homing head 4ANG which was evaluated by the DCE, in digital simulation and hybrid with the CELAR and in-flight tests with the CEV with Cazaux (France) . The technologies developed with this occasion made it possible to treat obsolescences and to reduce the production costs of series, in particular by the generalized use of components out of plastic casing , while increasing the performances. The missiles Mica NT, Aster and Meteor will profit directly from these technological advancements. Since the drafting there is more than fifteen years of the general specifications of the first French anti-aircraft missiles with active electromagnetic guidance (primarily Mica and Aster), the operational context deeply evolved/moved with the vulgarizing of angular jamming (tractor drawn jammers, active lures?) and proliferation of targets of very weak SER (equivalent Surface radar) which includes, in addition to the cruise missiles and the drones, tactical ballistic missiles. In parallel with the production of the exemplary first of series of the missiles Mica and Aster, of the studies upstream were led to evaluate average the techniques and technological necessary to the maintenance of a satisfactory performance level in this evolutionary operational environment. These studies started with the improvement of angular discrimination to allow the continuation of a quiet targeting in the presence of dépointés jammers (towed jammers, co-operative jammers, jammers of escort, remote jammers of safety stand-off?). They gave place to the realization of a prototype of homing head called ANGEL (electromagnetic Homing head new generation). They continued with the exploitation of the progress made in the field of the transmitters and the numerical synthesis of frequency, giving access thus novel modes of operation (high-resolution outdistances, agility of frequency, intermediate frequency of recurrence?) offering significant performance profits. To develop these various studies, SPNuM entrusted at Thalès Airborne systems the realization of a demonstrator of anti-aircraft active homing head of new generation: 4ANG. This homing head has increased capacities of angular discrimination and distance thanks to the implementation of the new functionalities. These improvements could be applied to the programs Mica NT, SAMP-T, PAAMS and, later on, to the Meteor program.""

Just a bit of infos ...

Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics