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
Nichevo       4/14/2010 1:38:47 PM
By you or your designee, H.  Let's say the US decided it was in their interest to make the Squall useful and France pulled out the stick far enough to let them take advice.  What would YOU do?  Junk it entirely?  It's not THAT bad and after all some exist to be modified, saving time and expense.
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       4/14/2010 2:20:59 PM


Funnily, the "real" world doesn't seem to agree with the notion that Rafale is obsolete in A2A, especially in comparison with EF. Now, multinational exercises aren't perfect, they're scripted and all that, but if Rafale was such a turkey I really think it would have shown in the results. Actually, the old Rafale F1 vs Hornet events did show that in the BVR area and nobody argues with the fact that the F1 was a hack. 





But strangely, once the exercises show the Rafale performing well, then the results don't mean anything.





What results? How about no purchase orders after competition with other aircraft, competition after competition after competition?


 

H.



Aww please, you're smarter than that.  http://www.strategypage.com/Images/emsmiled.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, to keep things productive, scans of the A&C mag (I just reuploaded them). If you guys need something translated, just ask :-)
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       4/14/2010 2:35:47 PM
There is nothing wrong with the Rafale's basic concept, and to be clear, it IS an excellent aircraft.
 
It is a good solid multi-role aircraft with a high level of integration, a capable jammer, and good aerodynamic performance.
 
Its main technological shortcomings are that it has a relatively small and short ranged radar, lacks several key features its competitors already offer, and still has only a handful of weapons integrated, almost all of them French.  (and while France makes some good weapons, they are very expensive and in the case of the Mica are not particularly strong performers.)
 
 
The main problem the Rafale as a program has is that it was too late and far too expensive. 
 
If the Rafale had hit the market even five years before it did it probably would have found some meaningful demand.  If it had hit the market ten years before it did it would have been a world leading product. (Or alternately if its price were competitive it would have found demand.)
 
The problem is that by the time the Rafale finally arrived other 4th generation aircraft had received a new round of upgrades that allowed them to match or exceed the Rafale's performance at a far lower price, in a mature platform, and with more options for weapons, sensors, etc.

Now with 5th generation fighters nearing the export market the Rafale really only has a few chances left to find a top-tier customer.

So how would I "fix" the Rafale?  I wouldn't change much on the plane, but I would have to go back in time and get it on the market in the early 90s.  With export sales driving volume prices would go down, manufacturing quality would improve, and more upgrade money would be available... this would lead to more export sales...  and so forth.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       4/14/2010 3:47:36 PM

By you or your designee, H.  Let's say the US decided it was in their interest to make the Squall useful and France pulled out the stick far enough to let them take advice.  What would YOU do?  Junk it entirely?  It's not THAT bad and after all some exist to be modified, saving time and expense.

Really?
 
I'd let Finmecanica/Alenia take a crack at it.

First, as always, we start with the ENGINE.
 
EJ-200s, means tunnel redesign and a bit of work on the plumbing.
 
Then we look at the aeroshell. THAT we clean up, so that we have no proud rivets, crappy seamlines, or embarrassing bolted on heat deflectors to cover an unexpected hot spot over the tail. Access panels are fastened with 1/;4 turn flushhead and Raytheon style cross pin fasteners as needed instead of SCREWS.
 
Also we let Italy manufacture the carbon composite components. We don't want Airbus/Dassault quality control here with a military aircraft. Hence: Finmecanica/Alenia.    
 
Put a refuelling pop-up probe (See the Navy version proposed for the C-27 Spartan for the type) into the aircraft in place  of that bolt on abomination.
 
Improve the air brake.
 
Find another radar altogether: AN/APG-68(v9) with the Block 52 FCC avionics package since it is a bomb truck

Code it for US weapons-especially AMRAAM.
 
Countermeasures should be based on a derated IDECM. Add a dual function towed "decoy" with the correct IR and radio ESM architecture to perform proper interferometry with the host aircraft's ESM system (that by Elbit of course as fitted to the F-16I).
 
Fit it with a MODERN EOS that works. Raytheon makes one that is a dandy, the AN/AAS-52.
 
Fit it with the Elbit HMS system. 
 
Wire it to use targeting pods.
 
Do something about that tail. Horrible drag event.

H.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

MK       4/14/2010 5:09:57 PM

First, as always, we start with the ENGINE.

EJ-200s, means tunnel redesign and a bit of work on the plumbing.

Why an entirely new engine which requires an expensive redesign of the aircraft, if new more powerful variants of the current engine are in development? Entirely nonsense to say the least. Maybe deriving some tech from the EJ200 ok, but that's it.
 
Also we let Italy manufacture the carbon composite components. We don't want Airbus/Dassault quality control here with a military aircraft. Hence: Finmecanica/Alenia.    

And who says Alenia is better at composites? Not to say they are worse, but what do you base this "change suggestion" on? Sounds much like the usual "anti french attitude" and nothing else. But we are meanwhile used to that stupid behaviour besides you as soon as it comes to anything french.
 

Put a refuelling pop-up probe (See the Navy version proposed for the C-27 Spartan for the type) into the aircraft in place  of that bolt on abomination.

Would be nice, but probably difficult to achieve, as it should have been designed in from the very beginning. The Rafale's front fuselage doesn't appear to offer much additional room to work with.
 
Improve the air brake.

Which airbrake?
 
Find another radar altogether: AN/APG-68(v9) with the Block 52 FCC avionics package since it is a bomb truck

It's NOT a bomb truck, but a multirole fighter designed to perform both AA and AG missions. Any different assertion is a plain stupid lie. And the AN/APG-68 would be a step back. I'd rather go for an RBE2AA as planned. And there is nothing wrong with the avionics either, resorting to the F-16 blk 50+ avionics would be a step back!


Code it for US weapons-especially AMRAAM.
 
Just for export customers? 

Countermeasures should be based on a derated IDECM. Add a dual function towed "decoy" with the correct IR and radio ESM architecture to perform proper interferometry with the host aircraft's ESM system (that by Elbit of course as fitted to the F-16I).

Except for the TRD I see no advantages or reasons to replace the current SPECTRA with the IDECM and the SPECTRA's ESM system appears to be quite good at what it is supposed to do. In other words a waste of time and money for upgrades which might not even be applicable  in a satisfying manner.

Fit it with a MODERN EOS that works. Raytheon makes one that is a dandy, the AN/AAS-52.

Who says it doesn't work except for you? The IRST/FLIR has some obsolence issues and there are indications that french pilots aren't fully satisfied with it, that's the reason why no further IR sensors has been ordered beyond batch 2, but entirely new multispectral systems are under development and the TV component appears to work quite well. Fitting the AAS-52 would require some more extensive modifications to the aircraft as it wouldn't fit on the aircraft's nose, let alone that this sensor is primarily meant for AG work, unlike the OSF which has to fulfil a demanding AA requirement as well.
 
Fit it with the Elbit HMS system. 

Thales has the TopSight-E which is operational with MiG-29K and Su-30MKM. This system could be fitted to the Rafale as well if the need arise and prototype version has already been tested on the Rafale back in the 90s.
 

Wire it to use targeting pods.

Already done with any F3 aircraft

Do something about that tail. Horrible drag event.

?
 
MK







 


 

 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Its a bomb truck.   4/14/2010 6:06:19 PM
1. I carefully considered each defect as I addressed it.
 
2. The airbrakes ahead of the engine exhaust and below of that lousy vertical stabilizer tail with that huge drag pimple on it, where else?
 
3. We know Alenia composites as well as Dassault's, We've (as in the US) have seen them both. I know which one I trust. 
 
4. As for the EW, engines and avioinics? Promises and known defects as opposed to current COTSM systems that work with each other as designed and don't have current cross integration issues.
 
5. An EOS is not needed for air to air, if the radar works. The AN/APG-68(v-9) WORKS.  So does the AN/AAS-52-even for air to air, if so needed. 
 
H.

 
Quote    Reply

MK       4/14/2010 6:44:56 PM
1. I carefully considered each defect as I addressed it.
 
"Defect" lol, sorry but you virtually consider everything as a defect on the Rafale. 

2. The airbrakes ahead of the engine exhaust and below of that lousy vertical stabilizer tail with that huge drag pimple on it, where else?

Lol those "visible" on C01 (the very first prototype) were just PAINTED on to confuse observers. The Rafale has no dedicated air brakes it uses it's control surfaces to perform the braking. Just another evidence how ill informed you are about this aircraft.

4. As for the EW, engines and avioinics? Promises and known defects as opposed to current COTSM systems that work with each other as designed and don't have current cross integration issues.

Ah yes and those cross integration issues are which?

5. An EOS is not needed for air to air, if the radar works. The AN/APG-68(v-9) WORKS.  So does the AN/AAS-52-even for air to air, if so needed. 

In the case you want to observe something silently EOS are quite useful, in addition to just another source. Makes you wonder why the F-35s EOTS features AA IRST modes, if this is so useless or is it's radar junk? (excuse my irony)
The RBE2 works as well so what? Doing the back step to a radar with no better proven performance instead of moving on to a much more advanced system which is already in the starting holes? 

 

H.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       4/14/2010 6:54:32 PM
 
Mutual interference.....SPECTRA and RBE2. 
 
H.


 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       4/14/2010 8:23:52 PM


 

Mutual interference.....SPECTRA and RBE2. 


 

H.









Some people get attached to pretty names that sound more exciting/novel than a standard numerical classification, Spectra (speculum) is one of these...
 
They should have called it "superman" and then the debate would have been forever settled in favour of it having no limitations whatsoever.....
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       4/15/2010 1:36:48 AM
"Mutual interference.....SPECTRA and RBE2. "
 
 
Ok, so I read the middle column on page three... what on earth are you talking about?
 
I get tired of you posting one link after another with no relevance to the discussion at hand and acting like they somehow support your argument.
 
 
 
Read and learn!
 
h*tp://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_essm_datasheet.pdf
 
h*tp://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Indian-AWACS-Moving-Forward-on-2-Fronts-04855/
 
h*tp://www.goldengatewing.org/proptalk/speaker.cfm?ID=57
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics