Dassault Rafale Projects

Archibald said:
I swear I've red someday Franco at some point wanted to buy a Clemenceau class carrier, but I've never been able to found again that brief mention...
Click to expand...
I also remember it. I think it was in the magazine Defensa...a few decades ago. I can't find any reference about it from the web.
Detailed description of the Spanish Armada naval procurement plans can be found at Wikipedia. There was a rather ambitious plan issued in 1965 which included two aircraft carriers similar to the RN Colossus class. I think that was the moment someone probably suggested to go even further, considering the Clemenceau class.
Nevertheless, that should be considered a fantasy well beyond the budget. In 1967, what the Armada received was the WWII veteran USS Cabot (CVL-28) instead. And she operated helicopters until 1976 when the AV-8A squadron was activated.

In the what if world, the Dassault Etendard could had made a likely choice for the air wings of that planned "Colossus-like" carriers.
 
So from Rafale A to C/B/M the aircraft was substantially redesigned, but the contract to do so was signed in 1988 three years after the Rafale A was publicly unveiled. many of the design changes came about to lower radar signature into the "Rafale D" standard. I've always wondered if this was meant to be the case from the get go. Well apparently it according to this 1986 issue of Air Forces Monthly the original plan for a production Rafale was very different. it was a lighter 9 ton aircraft with dimensions not just smaller then the demo aircraft, but also the production one we got, width length, wingspan, and wing area all substantially smaller. Radar is described as "RDX" and no mention of electronic scanning. I'm not sure if RDX was a new radar or a program name for another radar like RDY. no pictures but its described as almost identical to the Rafale A.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    646.5 KB · Views: 637
  • image_2022-01-20_203020.png
    image_2022-01-20_203020.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 336
enjoy
 

Attachments

  • 00206BEA24BC220714173000.jpg
    00206BEA24BC220714173000.jpg
    1,009.2 KB · Views: 300
  • 00206BEA24BC220714173032.jpg
    00206BEA24BC220714173032.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 290
  • 00206BEA24BC220714173048.jpg
    00206BEA24BC220714173048.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 281
  • 00206BEA24BC220714173107.jpg
    00206BEA24BC220714173107.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 274
  • 00206BEA24BC220714173134.jpg
    00206BEA24BC220714173134.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 265
  • 00206BEA24BC220714173158.jpg
    00206BEA24BC220714173158.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 255
  • 00206BEA24BC220714173220.jpg
    00206BEA24BC220714173220.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 258
  • 1659030846015.png
    1659030846015.png
    2.6 MB · Views: 281
  • 1659030897805.png
    1659030897805.png
    2.6 MB · Views: 280
  • 00206BEA24BC220714175226.jpg
    00206BEA24BC220714175226.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 260
  • 00206BEA24BC220714175243.jpg
    00206BEA24BC220714175243.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 245
  • 00206BEA24BC220714175259.jpg
    00206BEA24BC220714175259.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 244
  • 1659030975175.png
    1659030975175.png
    4.9 MB · Views: 310
From Aviation magazine 1986.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 187
F-2 said:
hesham said:
From Aviation magazine 1986.
Click to expand...
Is ONERA like NASA in that they would produce a public paper from these tests?
Click to expand...

Now that's a pertinent question. I've been wondering the same for the best part of the last two decades - where is that CNES / ONERA/ ESA / European NTRS ?
Imagine: Europe own NTRS, with all the aerospace stuff since the 1950's or better - since Lilienthal and Ader. Or Cayley !
 
Well the opening creates a suction effect that draw air outside. If the air to be drawn is heated, the effect is aggravated.
 
Does anyone know the differences between Rafale A and C? I've read from somewhere saying that Rafale A is somewhat bigger or longer than Rafale C. Other than the obvious differences like the glass area of the aft canopy, the shapes of the radome and the vertical tail fin and the exhaust, it is hard to tell if the A is longer or larger than the C.

I've got two similar pictures of Rafale A and C from the similar camera angle and adjusted them according to the size of the pilot. It does look like the A is at least longer than the C. From there I used the silhouette of both aircraft and overlapped them. It's not the best to scale, but perhaps it somewhat gives an idea that Rafale A (blue) is longer than C (red)?
 

Attachments

  • rafale a.jpg
    rafale a.jpg
    88.2 KB · Views: 122
  • rafale c.jpg
    rafale c.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 121
  • rafale overlap.jpg
    rafale overlap.jpg
    76 KB · Views: 202
I'm unclear whether there is any commonality in either outer mould line or internal structure at all. I would expect that as a demonstrator then it may just be similar layout but that all the parts would be re-designed to Rafale C for longer life and different loads as the design matured.
 
The Rafale A was only a demonstrator, powered by two GE F404, as the french M88 engine (smaller and more powerful) was not yet available. He was later flown with one F404 and one M88.
Respective lengths are 15.8 meters vs 15.3 according the first Google search result.

I've read years ago that the A was scaled up (compared to projected production variant) to retain the same engine/airframe ratio. Not sure if that's true.
 
So in an essence the Rafale A is more like the YF series in America. Personally, I found that Rafale A looks sleeker, may be it's because of its paint scheme. Thanks for all the info.
 
According to French Wikipedia :

fr.wikipedia.org

Dassault Rafale — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org fr.wikipedia.org

(...)
the final version of the Rafale (...) will be thinner than the Rafale A thanks to the M88 smaller than the F404, but in 1988 the Minister of Defense André Giraud added a clause classified as "confidential defense" of stealth in the program file . The documents of the time therefore speak of the ACE/Rafale D (for Discreet), (...)
As in the case of American stealth planes, we play on the shapes (the Rafale A is completely redesigned except for the wheels) and the materials to improve the passive stealth of the plane (...) (the plane is discreet and not stealthy),
(...)

The Rafale C01, prototype intended for the French Air Force, recognizable by the absence of a refueling pole. The Rafale C01, (...) even if it looks like the Rafale A demonstrator, is significantly different since only the side wheels have not been redesigned, the compactness of the M88 engine compared to that of the F404 makes it possible to lighten the prototype by one ton (8.5 against 9.5 tons for the Rafale A) and to reduce its length by 50 cm (15.27 meters against 15.80 meters) and its wingspan by 0, 34 meters (10.86 meters against 11.20 meters) and its wing area of 2.3 m2 (45.70 m2 against 47 m2)*. The front landing gear has two wheels compared to only one for the Rafale A.

In terms of aerodynamics, the wing itself is simplified, returning to a simple delta wing extended by an apex towards the air inlets. The empennage is shortened and its junction with the fuselage is revised, moving the auxiliary air intake from the foot of the empennage towards the canopy. (...)
the approach speed is lowered from 117 knots to 110 knots.
(...)
the canard planes are modified and can be used as airbrakes. The front tip is wider, in order to accommodate the RBE2 radar, but above all inclined downwards to facilitate visibility during landings. Finally, efforts have been made to reduce the effective radar surface, thanks in particular to the extensive use of materials that absorb radar waves.
(...)
Click to expand...
*47 - 45,7 = 1,3, not 2,3...
 
Last edited:

Saab, Dassault Upgrade Gripen, Rafale Fighters​

JOHN D. MORROCCO,MICHAEL A. TAVERNAJULY 92001
Saab, Dassault Upgrade Gripen, Rafale Fighters
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
JOHN D. MORROCCO
MICHAEL A. TAVERNA
LE BOURGET Saab and Dassault Aviation are moving ahead on longand short-term upgrades to their Gripen and Rafale fighters, as well as refining export versions.
Rather than a preplanned, mid-life update, Sweden plans a process of continually inserting new technologies into the multirole Gripen. The Swedish government is funding a number of technology efforts which will be added to Gripen once they mature, said Simon Carr, director of marketing for the Saab/BAE Systems Gripen joint venture for the export market. The Gripen Systems Development Plan includes enhanced electronic warfare systems, including laser and missile approach warning systems and towed decoys.
An infrared search-and-track system is already undergoing testing on a Swedish air force Viggen. Ericsson, meanwhile, is continuing work on an actively scannedarray radar which would provide increased detection ranges and sport a beyond-visual-range missile.
SWEDEN HAS COMMITTED to acquiring the MBDA Meteor missile, while the Denel R-Darter missile is to be integrated on the aircraft for the South African air force. South Africa, the first export customer for Gripen, has ordered 28 of the aircraft. In addition to BGT’s IRIS-T short-range missile which the Swedish air force will procure, the Rafael Python-4 and MBDA Asraam will also be available for export customers. Rafael’s Litening has been selected as the baseline targeting/navigation pod for export-version Gripens, with full clearance on the aircraft scheduled for 2004.
Another near-term problem with which Saab and BAE Systems are grappling is how to integrate NATO’s multifunction information distribution system Link 16 data link onto their export-version Gripens by 2004. Gripen already has its own, more sophisticated, tactical information data link system. It includes two data links, one for exchanging real-time combat infor-
mation between other Gripen aircraft operating in formation and another to exchange data with external sources. The easiest option would be to replace the Gripen system with the Link 16, Carr said.
“But we want to maintain the integrity of the intra-formation link. The challenge is to integrate the two together.”
More than 100 JAS 39 Gripens have been delivered to the Swedish air force out of a total order for 204. Three squadrons are now operational and a fourth is to be added soon. By 2004, the air force plans to have eight operational Gripen squadrons.
Batch 3 Gripens for the Swedish air force, which start to be delivered in two years’ time, will contain a number of features being developed for the export version. These include a night-vision-compatible cockpit, GPS integration, color displays and an air-to-air refueling capability.
This third batch of production aircraft will also include 14 two-seat Gripens for which the Swedish air force is eyeing a number of innovative missions. Maj. Gen. Mats Nilsson, inspector general of the Swedish air force, is looking to employ the two-seat D model to act as a commandand-control aircraft for strike packages or maritime operations. Suppression of enemy air defenses is another possible mission, as well as equipping the aircraft to act as a mini-airborne early warning platform or as the control ship for unmanned air vehicles.
For 2010 and beyond, Saab and the Swedish air force are looking at increased range and payload through the use of conformal fuel tanks or a fuselage plug. Carr said another option is upgraded engines.
He mentioned the General Electric F414, as well as a thrust-vectoring version of the EJ200.
Nilsson said other potential upgrades to the aircraft in 2010 include a wide-angle HUD, a binocular helmet-mounted display, a direct voice input system and an advanced missions support system.
Meanwhile, Dassault Aviation recently launched an Mk 2 export version of the Rafale in cooperation with Thales and
Snecma. The latter two companies each have a 20% stake in Rafale International, the consortium created to market the aircraft to export customers. Dassault has a 60% share.
The Rafale Mk 2 is to be equipped with an upgraded Snecma M88-3 powerplant offering 20% more thrust than the basic model. Other features include F2 ground attack software, an active array antenna in place of the passive array currently employed on the Thales RBE2 fire control radar and Thales’ new Damocles laser designator pod.
THE EXPORT VERSION will also have conformal fuel tanks that will free up five external stores positions for additional weapons or electronic payloads. Flight testing of the conformal tanks, which will increase the aircraft’s range by 20-25%, began in March and have reached speeds of Mach 1.4, according to Dassault Chairman/CEO Charles Edelstenne. The flight qualification tests are expected to be completed by the end of the year.
Under a compromise with the French procurement agency, the contractor team will fully fund the 1.3-billion-euro ($1.1billion) upgrade package, which will be available in 2005. In return, the government agreed to pick up the full cost of development of the F2 ground attack software package.
Dassault expects the French government to exercise an option later this year for another 20 production Rafales, in addition to 28 already ordered under a fullscale production contract signed last year. Another 13 aircraft were purchased in an initial low-rate production agreement. France plans to acquire a total of 294 Rafales.
Six aircraft have already been delivered to the first operational unit, activated in May by the French navy. Three more are to be handed over before year-end.
THE COMPANY RECENTLY was awarded contracts for development of the F2 ground attack software package, to be introduced in 2005, and integration of the Scalp standoff weapon and Mica/IR beyond-visual-range missile. Development of the F3 software standard (encompassing reconnaissance, antisubmarine warfare, inflight refueling and nuclear strike capabilities) is to begin in early 2003.
Only 29% of Dassault revenues were generated by military aircraft sales last year, a share that is not likely to rise in the near term, considering the brisk pace of sales of the company’s business jets (AW&ST June 25, p. 28). Nevertheless, the medium-term goal is to stabilize at 60% civil/ 40% military, said Edelstenne. ©
Click to expand...
 
Supposedly the Rafale A was sized for EFA requirements but I’ve also heard it was for the F404 engines.
Click to expand...
You have a good point here. Remember that when cooperation restarted in 1981 (after the ECA / ECF debacle) the EFA and ACX demonstrators were started and flew merely a month apart, July and August 1986.
During the same span of time (1983-86) the five countries tried very had to merge the (future) Typhoon and Rafale but failed for four major reasons
- multirole vs interceptor
- M88 vs EJ200
- naval vs ground based
- nuclear strike

Great Britain wanted a long range interceptor able to patrol West Germany skies right off the British islands. So: a 9.5 tons airframe with 9+ tons engines. This ran contrary to France naval requirements, CdG would certainly prefer a 8.5 tons aircraft.
The Rafale A was deliberately build larger to try and match the future Typhoon requirements. When this went by the window, post Rafale A were shrunk for the sake of CdG and a touch of stealth.
 
Archibald said:
You have a good point here. Remember that when cooperation restarted in 1981 (after the ECA / ECF debacle) the EFA and ACX demonstrators were started and flew merely a month apart, July and August 1986.
During the same span of time (1983-86) the five countries tried very had to merge the (future) Typhoon and Rafale but failed for four major reasons
- multirole vs interceptor
- M88 vs EJ200
- naval vs ground based
- nuclear strike

Great Britain wanted a long range interceptor able to patrol West Germany skies right off the British islands. So: a 9.5 tons airframe with 9+ tons engines. This ran contrary to France naval requirements, CdG would certainly prefer a 8.5 tons aircraft.
The Rafale A was deliberately build larger to try and match the future Typhoon requirements. When this went by the window, post Rafale A were shrunk for the sake of CdG and a touch of stealth.
Click to expand...

The ECF was a plain industry proposal from MBB/BAe, based on MBB's TKF design. It penultimately gave room to the tri-national ECA, which failed/got cancelled in 1981 as you said. Unlike the ECF, ECA had no specific configuration for the aircraft, just a loseley harmonised list of requirements, which were contradictory.

This was followed by the ACA, another industry proposal from the Tornado partners, still based on MBB's TKF. Dassault launched the ACX, which evolved into the Rafale A. The ACA failed to win support from the West-German and Italian governments and the UK went ahead with the EAP. The FEFA programme was formally launched on 16th December 1983 with the release of the Outline European Staff Target (OEST), followed by the more specific EST in October 1984. France already threatened to pull out in April 1985. A last deadline was set to 15th July 1985, which was missed. From 1st to 3rd August 1985 the five national armament directors met for the last time, in an attempt to rescue the programme that was again bound to fail. The UK, GE and IT settled the open points and signed a binding agreement, laying the foundation for the EFA's continuation (the letter F for Future had been omitted by that time). Spain joined in September 1985, France pulled out in December that year.

It's more a myth than a fact that the EFA was conceived as a pure interceptor, it was multirole from inception, but the French side emphasized AG more than the rest. Carrier compatibility was not a main blocking point either, as the MN kept the option to go for the Hornet. Only after France's withdrawl it was firmly decided that the Rafale, now uncompromised serving French requirements only, would be developed in land based and carrier variants (1986). The firm decision to develope the Rafale into an operational aircraft was taken on 13th February 1987 and the ACE International consortium between MDB, Thomson-CSF and SNECMA was founded on 9th April 1987. ACE denoting Avion de Combat Europeen. The French were willing to offer a 20% workshare to additional partners, lobbying Belgium and Spain. The EFA programme only entered development in 1988, until then any partner could still quit the programme legally without penalties. As the minor partner (13%) Spain was the natural "target" for the French to win at least one additional partner.

The main reasons for France's withdrawl from the EFA programme were:
- Demand for programme leadership vs partnership of equals approach
- Lead design authority
- Single source responsibilities for airframe, engine, equipment, avionics and general systems with France (or better its industry) demanding the lions share (50%) incl. airframe and overall design authority (Dassault) and engine (SNECMA)
- Differing requirements concerning mass and thrust
- Differing mission priorities

It would have been interesting, if a joint programme could have been realised, but that's yet another story.
 
Brilliant ! d'oh, I knew about the Hornet option, but I often forgive is was already a possibility by 1979-1986.
The reason: the Hornet decision & debate only erupted in the fall of 1989, at a point when the Crusaders were really falling appart, while Rafale would be too late: the 1993-96 gap that became 1999-2001 in the end...
But you're right, the Hornet option was certainly already in French minds in 1985 and before. Proof on the pudding: this. http://www.ffaa.net/projects/hornet/hornet_upgrade.htm
The French were all too familiar with the Hornet family right off the late 1970's. Even if (curiously enough) it was the AdA, rather than the Aéronavale, that shot first: flight testing the YF-17 as early as 1979.
Well it is a bit more subtle than that
mais, compte tenu du fait que l'appareil en question était un avion embarqué, c'est la Marine qui, par l'intermédiaire de son attaché naval au États-Unis, traita le dossier. C'est ainsi que l'attaché naval adjoint en poste à Washington depuis l'été 1976, le capitaine de frégate Michel Debray (commandant de la flottille 14.F entre mars 1970 et septembre 1971) prit l'affaire en main. Il inscrivit son nom et celui du colonel Bonnet chef du BPM à l'Etat-Major de l'Armée de l'air.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ZacYates said:
Something that caught my eye on Wikipedia is the cancelled Rafale N for the Aéronavale:
“Originally called the Rafale BM, was a planned missile-only two-seater version for the Aéronavale.Budgetary and technical constraints have been cited as grounds for its cancellation.”

Has anyone any drawings or model photographs of this proposal? Or is it safe to presume it would have been a B with M undercarriage and hook?
Click to expand...
Here some facts and numbers about the proposal Dassault Rafale BM / Rafale N. The screenshot is taken from Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 2007-2008, page 178. I haven't found any official drawings or model photographs of this proposal so far.
From the topic "French Secret Projects 1: Post War Fighters OUT NOW!":
Un projet mort-né : le Rafale N
Photo montage d'un Rafale N. (©Damien Allard)Devant la charge de travail assez impressionnante (gérer la navigation, le système d'armes, les contre-mesures, le radar...) que les pilotes des nouveaux avions type Mirage 2000 ou F/A-18E/F Super Hornet doivent accomplir et d'après les leçons tirées du conflit au Kosovo, la Marine française a décidé d'étudier une version biplace du Rafale M dés l'été 1999. Cette version prit la désignation de Rafale BM (Biplace Marine). Vue latérale d'un Rafale N. (©DR)Celle-ci devenant "N" quelques mois plus tard. Le prototype de cette nouvelle version devait prendre l'air en 2005. Le 22 septembre 2004, le projet est abandonné pour raisons budgétaires et techniques. En effet, cette version aurait entrainé un surcoût de 270 M€. La répartition entre biplaces et monoplaces devait être de 25/35. Au niveau technique, cette version biplace aurait nécessité l'agrandissement du cockpit et de la verrière ainsi que le déplacement de certains éléments logés derrière le pilote. Par ailleurs la capacité canon aurait du être supprimée et la capacité d'emport carburant réduite de 215 kg pour perdre du poids au catapultage et ainsi rester dans les mêmes limites que le monoplace.
Click to expand...
Link/Source: http://ffaa.net/aircraft/rafale/rafale_fr.htm
 

Attachments

  • 20231229_Dassault_Rafale_BM_N_Janes_2007_2008.jpg
    20231229_Dassault_Rafale_BM_N_Janes_2007_2008.jpg
    73.6 KB · Views: 109
Rafale N encountered numerous difficulties, explaining the development cost of this version.

Structurally, Dassault designed two variants of the Rafale: the Rafale M (single seater, naval) and Rafale B (dual seater, land). The Rafale C is "simply" a Rafale M with Rafale B's undercarriage, to summarize.

But Rafale N had to be something completely different, with a lot of modifications that weren't there on any previous versions. For example, by removing the gun, you had to partially redesign the front landing gear bay. Not counting the redesign of the fuel system, etc.
And beside the 270M€ development costs, the French Navy had to modify the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in order to accomodate more pilotes, not counting the creation of a new specialty in the human ressources, etc.

In short, all in all, it was judged that the additional cost induced by this version was not justified anymore.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom