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
Hamilcar    READ.   4/15/2010 6:22:24 PM
Article
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

MK       4/16/2010 6:08:49 AM
@Hamilcar,
bravo you finally managed to post a link relevant to the discussion. Now let's move on on this base. 
 
First and foremost the "article" is written by an unnamed source and is therefore not official either. That doesn't mean that what is stated (with sources cited) is wrong. But it's necessary to take a closer look. What's being said there?
 
According to Defence Analysis (p.17, Vol 8.No.12 December 2005) Dassault have called the RBE2 radar 'fatally flawed' alleging that its range was "inadequate"

That the RBE2 had issues is known. These were reported with regards to the version fitted to the batch 1 Rafales (LF1/F1 standards). It is known that the RBE2 has been improved with the newer F2 and F3 standards. Rumoured claims from the French site claim that the range of the F2 examples RBE2 matches that of the RDY radar, which isn't the longest, but certainly not bad (~similar to the PS 05/A, Zhuk-M or AN/APG-68V9). These claims aren't confirmed by official sources however. "Doesn't" work at all isn't stated, just that the range is inadequate if that equates to "doesn't work" for you okay.
 
The DGA also described Rafale's OSF ("Optronique Secteur Frontal") as "obsolescent" and production has been cut back to just 48 units, rather than the planned number, which was to have been sufficient to equip all F1 and F2 versions.
 
This is a known fact. Though obsolescence doesn't mean that something doesn't work, but that technologies used are dated. This might affect just some components or all. Obsolescence is affecting virtually every aircraft as the technology at the time it enters service is usually succeeded by newer tech. Given the lengthy development phase it might be that the processors for example are outdated and not in production anymore. In other words no claims about the OSF not working or performing well. It has been stated elsewhere that the French weren't satisfied with the IR sensor, but the TV sensor is reportedly performing quite well.
 
 According to Defense News, Air Force Gen. Eric Rouzaud revealed that early deliveries of the Rafale were prone to a software glitch that cut out part of the flight system
 
Says it all, the problem appears to have been solved in the meantime. 
 
There were reports that problems with the "Central Processor" led to only three of five Rafales being delivered during 2004, and suggestions that the same problem led to a shortfall of deliveries (against the planned schedule) in 2005.
 
Again dated and very likely not a problem anymore as increased delivery rates show. 
 
Rafale has been accused of being hampered by an old fashioned and 'cumbersome' Man Machine Interface
 
Accused by whom? Other sources claim the MMI is actually one of the aircraft's greatest strength and the MMI was praised by former RAF Chief G. Torpy and the test pilot P. Collins for example. Craig Penrice alledgely found the MMI confusing when assessing the simulator, but even if he did is it really representive? An opinion is just that an opinion and feelings are ever subjective to a certain extend. 
 

According to Defence Analysis and Flight Daily News, the Singapore evaluation also reportedly revealed problems with Rafale's reliability and availability, and that the aircraft failed to demonstrate claimed radar performance or its claimed ability to supercruise
 
 Specialised press, but no names being given for the claims. Who said this? Note the date of the evaluations as well which where conducted during 2001/2002 and 2004 respectively. Fells well in time with the admitted performance shortcomings of the RBE2.
 
 Singapore was also reportedly unimpressed by Rafale's much vaunted "Omni role" capability. "Show us, properly" was said to have been the reaction, according to Defence Analysis. The lack of official comment by Singapore leads many to dismiss such criticism as unreliable hearsay, however.
 
Would not even wonder if this com
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       4/16/2010 6:11:34 AM
I read the linked article. Saw those dates : 2004, 2005, 2006 (the article itself doesn't have a publication date). 
There certainly were teething problems on Rafale - how else could it be on a complex piece of military hardware ? That's why you have prototypes and testing. Maybe Hamilcar's right about the problems he alludes to that did exist back then. I'd expect them to be resolved now. 
In truth, the delaying and cost-cutting of the 90s-early2000s certainly would account for such teething problems to have lasted into production series. Had the funding and drive been stronger earlier those would have been solved before. 
Again, it seems that the funding and drive did pick up in the second half of the past decade. Actual operational deployments (first by Marine Rafales, then AdA ones) and combat missions must have played a significant role in kicking some backsides, so to speak.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics