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
Hamilcar       4/15/2010 1:50:36 PM

Could you do me a favour and don't post bits and pieces of your mind puzzles? The last post tells me nothing at all and I don't know what you intended to prove with your last link either. Of course I can be wrong too and I don't pretend to be the all knowledgeable super expert, but that doesn't change the fact that your opinion about the Rafale is largely based on your anti french attitude and the resulting predejuces and that's it. You call everything junk on this aircraft post dubious links which don't even support your points to the slightest degree and claim you "know". So far you have proven nothing with regards to the Rafale except that you hate it because it is french and your unmatched level of ignorance and fantasy to create stories out of articles which tell everything, but not the stories you spin up.

Neither do I claim to be a super expert, as you can now see, but I am certain about that flying Turkey, and I am certain about thieves at  Dassault, just as I am certain about those LockMart bunglers. The evidence is voluminous, is here, and goes back years.
 
I even cite the French themselves who know and declare its officially a turkey. 
 
 H
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Follow up.   4/15/2010 1:54:11 PM
Search the archives for Arianespace and the Amethyst class subs or any French subs for that matter. .
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       4/15/2010 2:29:03 PM
Hamilcar have openly stated that he had a bad experience and/or opinion on Dassault and Thales in another topic. I cant say if its justified or not.
 
But I can say that eurofighter and rafale share alot of spec and have a very similar design. If we say eurofighter is a quite successful aircraft, by correlation, we must say that what EuroFighter and Rafale have in common is not that bad, on the design and basic concept at least.
 
For the rest, engine, sensor etc... I don't know how close are the two design. Its obvious that the concept have diverge by a margin on the later stage of the development.
 
Quote    Reply

MK       4/15/2010 2:35:20 PM
And what have subs and space vehicles to do with the Rafale? You have a tremendous ability to point out entirely unrelated examples. Do you seriously believe that anyone buys that as an argument or even more as a proof? Americans, Russians, Chinese everyone is stealing technology and knowledge and use it to his own benefit...
 
The truth is this "turkey" had/has his own share of teething problems and of course weak spots, but that's not unique to this aircraft only. And most of what you say about this aircraft is merely trash talk, rarely sustainable by any substantial back up, just lose resorts to entirely unrelated stories. It's entirely okay to point out real weaknesses and problems, but just criticising and downplaying, but never even acknowledging obvious strengths is a little bit too one sided and narrow minded for my taste. 
 
If you believe that the Rafale is the last POS of aviation technology so be it, this is a free world and you are free to believe what you want, but please don't sell it as hard fact, when it is to 95+% opinion (a very biased and subjective one I might add).
 
Quote    Reply

MK       4/15/2010 3:03:39 PM

Hamilcar have openly stated that he had a bad experience and/or opinion on Dassault and Thales in another topic. I cant say if its justified or not.
 
But I can say that eurofighter and rafale share alot of spec and have a very similar design. If we say eurofighter is a quite successful aircraft, by correlation, we must say that what EuroFighter and Rafale have in common is not that bad, on the design and basic concept at least.
 
For the rest, engine, sensor etc... I don't know how close are the two design. Its obvious that the concept have diverge by a margin on the later stage of the development.


Well the Eurofighter and Rafale share a lot of similarities, but differ in a number of details. For a detailed comparison it would be necessary to know a huge bulk of details which are unavailable in the public domain, you get a very rough picture at best. There is quite often a significant difference between theory (what is advertised in the marketing brochures) and the operational reality. The Eurofighter appears to be not less mature than the Rafale despite the fact that it entered service a couple of years later, though it lacks behind in some areas while it betters the Rafale in others. The French at least managed to get some things done quite a bit earlier than their other European counterparts.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Rockets and submarines.   4/15/2010 3:26:58 PM
Are complex systems where you cannot screw up the engineering. Either they work or they fail spectacularly.
 
As an example of this witness Bulova as opposed to the M-51.
 
A submarine launched ICBM is about the penultimate aerospace achievement that combines the hardest of all systems engineering matches known to Human science.  Here you mate everything known to naval engineers to everything that aviation engineers know.
 
I can't begin to tell you how hard that is.
 
The Russians can't apparently do it. No one else has really succeeded at it well, except for America, and France.
 
 France had to use the experts at Arianespace for the rocket. DCNS, for once, didn't screw a build up, but then the French government didn't mess around here with the usual political BS like they did with the Chuckles de Gaulle. They expected Le Triomphant to work. France, as a great power, rode on it. Do it right, or else.
 
So that proves that France can deliver the technological goods when she wants too.
 
With that evidence in front of you, how do you explain the criminal incompetence that went into the Squall?
 
-The radar doesn't work.,
-Her base air to air missile doesn't work
-Her SAM oriented countermeasure system can no longer handle the latest Russian surface radars and is almost useless against Russian air to air weapons.
-She is optimized for thick air and low level operations with toss bombimg. The trend now is mid altitude and standoff powered weapons or glide missiles.
-Her engines do not meet the specced dry thrust and in fact have to be used at lower than expected thrust rating to keep the operating core temperature down because SNECMA screwed up the blade geometry and air flow path.  
 
And that is what you can glean from the open source complaints published by the French government and what I glean and know from the actual test results published from international competitive flyoffs.
 
She is expensive as heck and is not what she is advertised or claimed to be.
 
She is a strike fighter but little better than the F-16 that she actually resembles as to capability.

And that is what a rocket (which has avionics and target guidance as complex as any missile), a submarine, (which is far more complex than a fighter as a weapon system) have to do with the SQUALL. They are an order magnitude tougher to do and involve similar tech knowledge sets.
 
The Squall is by comparison to them, simple.    From guessing wrong as to the nature of nature of future air warfare, to supplying tech (OSF and RBE2) that was obsolete the day it was proposed, to incompetent manufacture of aircraft down to now and continued systems integration bungling so that the mismatched electronics interferes with each other's operation, then arm it with a worthless air to air weapon (MICA) and then to LIE about all this; and charge the French taxpayer what it costs Uncle to almost buy two Super Hornets? Dassault deserves to be destroyed because of that event. 
 
You think I'm anti-French because of that actual situation? How would I feel if Boeing did this to my nation?:
 
Anti-French? Not on your life!

H.   
.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Brad Piff       4/15/2010 5:11:46 PM
Hamilcar you obiously know allot about the failures of the french aircraft, not to mention the incompetence of Dassault. But it would be nice to see some sources that supports these claims. To me it actually look like the Rafale program has been much more effective then the Eurofighter program or the F-35 program. I find it hard to believe that the French airforce would by so many new Rafales this year if it was no better then the F-16, an aircraft which has getting it's as kicked by M.2000 and M.F1 in a couple of quite hot conflicts.
 
Quote    Reply

MK    @Hamilcar   4/15/2010 5:23:12 PM
I have no problem to accept things as they are as long as they are proven/confirmed. I'm not going to believe any wild claims, because strong claims require adequate back up and I don't see you backing up your claims properbly. You resort to point to entirely non relevant examples, post links which doesn't support your assertions to the slightest and yet demand to be taken serious? You claim that all that is public knowledge, if so why can't you back it up with public sources? Where are they? 
 
-The radar doesn't work.,

The RBE2 had its teething problems, does it mean it's still current, does it mean it doesn't work now? Back it up! You can't? Then stop it!
 
-Her base air to air missile doesn't work

Source? And no I don't want to read about this Taiwanese exercise once again, it wasn't the MICA which failed, but another missile! 
 
-Her SAM oriented countermeasure system can no longer handle the latest Russian surface radars and is almost useless against Russian air to air weapons.
 
Again where is it said if it is so much common knowledge?

-She is optimized for thick air and low level operations with toss bombimg. The trend now is mid altitude and standoff powered weapons or glide missiles.

With that wing loading it's hardly optimised for low level in the first place. It certainly was a requirement, as was air interception.

-Her engines do not meet the specced dry thrust and in fact have to be used at lower than expected thrust rating to keep the operating core temperature down because SNECMA screwed up the blade geometry and air flow path.  

Again a source please, not just claims! To be far through the flowers I heared something about issues with the engine, though it wasn't specified of what nature the problems are/were.
 

And that is what you can glean from the open source complaints published by the French government and what I glean and know from the actual test results published from international competitive flyoffs.

Where are all these open sources and more interestingly official sources?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       4/15/2010 5:23:23 PM
"What does the  ESSM, a pilot who flew SR-71s, and India's AWACS have to do with each other?"
 
Nothing at all. 
 
Those were just random links to waste everyone's time.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    Rufus   4/15/2010 5:40:38 PM
They didn't waste my time. I don't bother reading his links any more because when I have in the past, there was little or no relevance to the topic in hand.
 
It seems he doesn't change. Others might disagree, but for me, he is mostly trolling.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics