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       5/25/2009 6:57:16 AM

Herald :


""Remember SPECIFICALLY what I said about jammer and radar?""

 

I am sorry Herald but I think that you do not know really how Thalès jammers are working .


Since Serval and ICMS MkI (M2000-C and first -5s)  , the US radars and ECMs (and others) had a very hard time against French ECMs because the Thalès enginereers and designers know EW tricks unknown to anyone else and I am not kidding . We 're just good at it like Dassault is good with aerodymics .


 

Cheers .




Fantasies abound with you don't they. I give you direct quotes from third parties (non US) that tell you the French stuff doesn't work , that the US stuff against it does, and you still lalalalalalala through life with your fingers through your ears.
 
Plus you post assertions and call it fact.
 
You need help to sort out fantasy from reality.
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       5/25/2009 7:22:26 AM
Unless Israel starts the WW3 ...(which is already under way) ...
I am going to talk my mind because I believe it is a very important topic . The West should not allow Israel to hit any Muslim Country first , even if it is for destroying some nuclear capabilities . The message to the Muslim World would be to bitter to swallow . That would lead to WW3 .
USA or Europe has to take the burden of the first hit , the best would be Europe . This way , the Muslim World would have to switch from a racist dialogue to a more open dialogue .
As an exemple if the USA attack Iran , the Muslim World will scream dead to the Sionists and the Americans while if Europe attack Iran , the Imams will have to find a different ground for their propaganda (Europe has far more Muslims than Jews) and they will find themselves without any backing at the UN .
Just to say that the West (Obama and Europe ~Sarkozy , Merkel) MUST put a "lid" on Israel .
 
I have a better idea.  Why don't we put a lid on Iran?
 
I love how there are people in this world who refuse to acknowledge the threat Israel (let alone the rest of the world) faces from Iran, and say we've got to stop Israel from defending itself.  Because the Muslim world will get upset if those uppity Jews actually, you know, don't roll over and die.
 
I guess they don't teach the Holocaust any longer in French schools.  Or Munich, either.  Or common sense.  What good is any tranche of the Rafale going to do when France doesn't have the balls to use them?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/25/2009 2:57:05 PM
"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."
 
Exactly!
 
It is nuts to suggest that france or any other country only just now starting production of their very first AESA radar will be able to produce something similar to the current US top of the line.  There has simply been far too much money and effort dedicated to developing AESAs by the US for anyone to match it in their first effort.  The actual engineers working on the AESA upgrade for the Rafale are well aware of this and are not even attempting to match the current US radars.  All they are doing is trying to get an AESA antenna ready that will work with the existing radar back-end in the Rafale.  This is essentially the same thing the US did with the first AESAs put into the F-15s back in 2000.   This type of upgrade gives you a significant jump in capabilities, but will never allow you to fully exploit the capabilities offered by an AESA.  That is why all current US AESAs are blank-slate designs. 
 
France is also still working against the same major component limitations that crippled their earlier AESA efforts and that are seen in spectra's limitations.  The MMICs France is using to produce their first AESA are nowhere near the current state-of-the-art.  They are sufficient to make a functional radar, but its performance will not be up to par with current US designs with regard to power, efficiency, bandwidth or agility.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/25/2009 3:17:49 PM
"As far as technology, there is no comparison.  This is Thales' first AESA radar; the original prototypes from the 90s flew with U.S. made T/R modules.  Meanwhile, Northrop-Grumman has been at it for a lot longer:"
 
A lot of the work the US was doing back in the 80s and early 90s was very early stage proof of concept and research.  France won't have to duplicate all of that because they already have a successful example to follow and the US has been giving them quite a bit of technological assistance.  As my post above says though, they are still early in the process.  What they are now working to produce is most similar to what US F-15s went operational with back in 2000.  It will be a big upgrade, but with sub-par MMICs, an old radar back-end, and an extremely low production rate this is little more than a technology demonstrator. 
 
I know everyone has gotten tired of pointing out the various aspects of the Rafale that were clearly not designed with RCS reduction in mind, but does anyone notice anything strange about the french AESA design in that photo? 
 
There are a couple good reasons for doing it the way they are, the first and most important is that this allows them to fit a slightly larger radar into the very small nose space available for it in the Rafale.  A flat face like that will be a major RCS issue, but on the Rafale that is just not that big an issue because the Rafale is not a LO design to begin with.  The second reason is that it is slightly easier to make the radar work this way, especially considering that it will offer marginal performance around the edges of its field of view as a result of the MMICs it is built with. 
 
The US accepted similar trade-offs with their first generation AESA design:
h*tp://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/photorelease/photo_release_001220n.htm

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/25/2009 5:02:40 PM

"As far as technology, there is no comparison.  This is Thales' first AESA radar; the original prototypes from the 90s flew with U.S. made T/R modules.  Meanwhile, Northrop-Grumman has been at it for a lot longer:"

 

A lot of the work the US was doing back in the 80s and early 90s was very early stage proof of concept and research.  France won't have to duplicate all of that because they already have a successful example to follow and the US has been giving them quite a bit of technological assistance.  As my post above says though, they are still early in the process.  What they are now working to produce is most similar to what US F-15s went operational with back in 2000.  It will be a big upgrade, but with sub-par MMICs, an old radar back-end, and an extremely low production rate this is little more than a technology demonstrator. 

 

I know everyone has gotten tired of pointing out the various aspects of the Rafale that were clearly not designed with RCS reduction in mind, but does anyone notice anything strange about the french AESA design in that photo? 

 

There are a couple good reasons for doing it the way they are, the first and most important is that this allows them to fit a slightly larger radar into the very small nose space available for it in the Rafale.  A flat face like that will be a major RCS issue, but on the Rafale that is just not that big an issue because the Rafale is not a LO design to begin with.  The second reason is that it is slightly easier to make the radar work this way, especially considering that it will offer marginal performance around the edges of its field of view as a result of the MMICs it is built with. 


 

The US accepted similar trade-offs with their first generation AESA design:

h*tp://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/photorelease/photo_release_001220n.htm





 

 


Got it in two, Rufus. Like I said, you know your stuff!
 
Herald
.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Good Luck   5/25/2009 6:05:57 PM
On the political level it certainly would be better for the West to deal with Iran than just Israel.  On this point I entirely agree with you.  One might of course then ask for any evidence whatsoever that the West is prepared to do anything meaningful vis a vis Iran?
 
Moreover, it would also be interesting how the west might then force Israel to not attack Iran were Israel to conclude that it was in their interests to do so?
 
On a pragmatic level the West does not appear willing to do much of anything to stop Iran.  The only question is whether Israel will attack Iran or not given the total lack of spine in the West.
 
My prediction is that this Administration will try talking to Iran for a year without result and they will then try to get significant sanctions imposed on Iran and will fail.  At that point the only option left being military force there will be no West willing to strike.  Israel might.  Even Obama might want to use force if only because otherwise his credibility will be shot but without any support from the West he won't do it.
 
Now that said if France wants to join the US in an air campaign against Iran's nuclear program instead of actively opposing US action then great the West can do something instead of Israel.  Good luck with that one.
 
 
I said :


""This is a done deal""

 

Unless Israel starts the WW3 ...(which is already under way) ...


I am going to talk my mind because I believe it is a very important topic . The West should not allow Israel to hit any Muslim Country first , even if it is for destroying some nuclear capabilities . The message to the Muslim World would be to bitter to swallow . That would lead to WW3 .

USA or Europe has to take the burden of the first hit , the best would be Europe . This way , the Muslim World would have to switch from a racist dialogue to a more open dialogue .


As an exemple if the USA attack Iran , the Muslim World will scream dead to the Sionists and the Americans while if Europe attack Iran , the Imams will have to find a different ground for their propaganda (Europe has far more Muslims than Jews) and they will find themselves without any backing at the UN .


Just to say that the West (Obama and Europe ~Sarkozy , Merkel) MUST put a "lid" on Israel .

 

Sorry to leave the topic for a minute but I think it is relevant regarding the EU Airforce .


 

Cheers .




 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/25/2009 8:16:22 PM
I know everyone has gotten tired of pointing out the various aspects of the Rafale that were clearly not designed with RCS reduction in mind, but does anyone notice anything strange about the french AESA design in that photo? 
 
Yup, exactly.  The difference is most obvious when you look at the APG-79 on the Super Hornet:
 
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/in_a_coma_dial_999/strategypage/apg-79.jpg" />

Seen from head-on, the RBE2's perpendicular array obligingly reflects radar emissions right back at the sender.  The APG-79, designed to minimize RCS, does not.  But in order to make a design like this work properly, you need practical experience in eliminating the issues phased arrays have with high offset angles, experience Thales doesn't have.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/25/2009 8:33:06 PM
Phaid,

Remember when we used to explain the finer points of the Super Hornet design and AN/APG-79 and how the AESA array reduces RCS....lol. These guys never give up. But what do you expect when some don't even understand why the F-35 has weapons bays or why vertical tail, canards, a big giant refueling probe, exposed rivets and external stores  don't help when trying to be "discrete". Or how about why a allegedly LO aircraft would have to fly a low altitude flight profile to penetrate defended airspace. You would think something is becoming very obvious about the Rafale design by now. Keep word=Obvious.

-DA  
 
Quote    Reply

SpudmanWP    SH Warload   5/26/2009 1:08:33 PM
As to the SH warload...
 
Absolute AAMs carried is 14 (12 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9)

Here are a few pics, notice that it can still carry 10 AAMs (8 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s) with two wing tanks and a belly tank.
 
12 AAMs (yes I know there are two HARMs, but those could be AIM-120s) with space for two more on the cheeks
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/fa-18-ef-superhornet9.jpg" height="534" width="800" /> 
10 AAMs with space for 3 tanks
http://www.zap16.com/zapnew/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/f18-super-hornet-taxiing.jpg" height="534" width="800" />

 
As to the F-35... at IOC the F-35 will be able to carry 4 AIM-120Ds internally, 8 external AIM-120Ds and 2 AIM-9Xs... at full fuel load.
 
I know that many will scream "but it's not VLO with external AAMs", but it is still several orders of magnitude below any 4th gen with the equivilant external load.
 
Besides, all they have to do is use a VLO forward F-35 or F-22 to designate for the missile carring F-35s that are 20+ miles to the rear.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/26/2009 1:41:42 PM
Awesome pics. Thanks for that.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics