Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighter For The Indian Navy - Updates & Discussions

[Picdelamirand-oil]

SH Block 2 has 116KN engines. So I think 7-7.5T payload won't be a problem.

My figure was a result from a test made on the USS CVN Theodore Roosevelt and an estimate made by Jean Claude Hironde. to take off you need thrust, but what is even more important is that you need lift.
Normal take off distance for SH: 1500 m, normal take off distance for Rafale: 500 m....

 

[randomradio]

The video doesn't say by how much the payload is reduced. Do you think it'd really lose over half its regular max payload?

With the centerline fuselage not usable, the entire payload has to be carried on the wings, which are actually needed for taking off since you need lift. Catch-22.

 

[randomradio]

My figure was a result from a test made on the USS CVN Theodore Roosevelt and an estimate made by Jean Claude Hironde. to take off you need thrust, but what is even more important is that you need lift.
Normal take off distance for SH: 1500 m, normal take off distance for Rafale: 500 m....

I think there's a mistake there. For both aircraft, the takeoff distance is 400-600m, with Rafale doing slightly better.

If it was 1500m, then they wouldn't have bothered with the tender.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

I think there's a mistake there. For both aircraft, the takeoff distance is 400-600m, with Rafale doing slightly better.

If it was 1500m, then they wouldn't have bothered with the tender.

OK you are right!

https://www.quora.com/Could-an-F-18-take-off-from-a-Wasp-class-ship

The US Navy's website (www,http://SailorsWearPanties.com), states:
F-14:

Min takeoff distance with min takeoff weight: 1,305 feet
F-18E/F:

Min takeoff distance with min takeoff weight: 1,550 feet

 

[vstol Jockey]

Rafale and F-18SH both will need 20% additional thrust to go with full load from STOBAR. I had posted those details longback. I had also posted the estimated payload with present engines and It has now been proven very correct. F-18SH Blk3 will get these higher thrust engines with 116Kn thrust and without the need for wingtip folding mechanism, they will meet the needs of IN better than Rafale-M which needs to become a completely new aircraft with revised intakes and folding wingtips.
One method for Rafale to do with present engines is to provide for "Bump Thrust" only for full load STOBAR launch and I am sure that thrust rating will not be required more than 10 times in the entire lifetime of the aircraft.

 

[randomradio]

Rafale and F-18SH both will need 20% additional thrust to go with full load from STOBAR. I had posted those details longback. I had also posted the estimated payload with present engines and It has now been proven very correct. F-18SH Blk3 will get these higher thrust engines with 116Kn thrust

How much do you think the payload is right now, with current thrust, for both aircraft?

SH is already available with 116KN engines, whereas 83KN engines can become available for Rafale-M, if necessary. So what about payload for both aircraft with uprated engines with the above thrust figures?

TWR is exactly the same for both aircraft with the new engines, so I think Rafale will get the advantage with the 83KN engines due to its superior design compared to SH.

and without the need for wingtip folding mechanism, they will meet the needs of IN better than Rafale-M which needs to become a completely new aircraft with revised intakes and folding wingtips.

SH's payload is 8T with folded wings. So we have to see how much Rafale-M's payload will drop with folded wings.

One method for Rafale to do with present engines is to provide for "Bump Thrust" only for full load STOBAR launch and I am sure that thrust rating will not be required more than 10 times in the entire lifetime of the aircraft.

Why only 10 times?

 

[vstol Jockey]

How much do you think the payload is right now, with current thrust, for both aircraft?

As of now, Rafale-M is limited to around 21.5 ton MTOW so with 10.5ton operating empty weight and 4.7 tons fuel, you get a payload of about 6.3tons. for F-16SH the figures are 26.5 ton MTOW. 14.5ton, 6.8 ton and payload of 5 tons.

SH is already available with 116KN engines, whereas 83KN engines can become available for Rafale-M, if necessary. So what about payload for both aircraft with uprated engines with the above thrust figures?

You can add one ton more to Rafale-M with 10% higher thrust and full load for F-18SH which means 29.9ton MTOW.

TWR is exactly the same for both aircraft with the new engines, so I think Rafale will get the advantage with the 83KN engines due to its superior design compared to SH.

TWR is a good measure but do not forget about the wing sweep angle. The component of lift is also dependent on the cosine of leading edge sweep angle.

Why only 10 times?

For certification of demonstrated performance we will need such thrust. But in actual operations, there will hardly be 10 odd occassions when the aircraft will need to depart wilh full load.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

As of now, Rafale-M is limited to around 21.5 ton MTOW so with 10.5ton operating empty weight and 4.7 tons fuel, you get a payload of about 6.3tons. for F-16SH the figures are 26.5 ton MTOW. 14.5ton, 6.8 ton and payload of 5 tons.

Rafale M is not limited to 21.5 t: the limit is from French Marine Nationale to ease the landing in case of failure implying assymetric load because we don't want to jettison costly weapons. Rafale in "Nou nou" mode take off from CDG at more than 22 t (I don't remember exactly how much but it's 2*2000l + 2*1250l + 4 Mica +390 kg for the nou nou pod and the full internal fuel). So finaly performance from STOBAR and CATOBAR will be the same.
During war time such restriction will be removed.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Rafale M is not limited to 21.5 t: the limit is from French Marine Nationale to ease the landing in case of failure implying assymetric load because we don't want to jettison costly weapons. Rafale in "Nou nou" mode take off from CDG at more than 22 t (I don't remember exactly how much but it's 2*2000l + 2*1250l + 4 Mica +390 kg for the nou nou pod and the full internal fuel). So finaly performance from STOBAR and CATOBAR will be the same.
During war time such restriction will be removed.

My calculation were for STOBAR launch only and not for French Navy. In cold temperatures of Europe, Rafale-M can go with even better loads but the temp specified for IN operations is 35*C.

 

[Bon Plan]

With the centerline fuselage not usable, the entire payload has to be carried on the wings, which are actually needed for taking off since you need lift. Catch-22.

Why a no use of centerline point ?

Rafale and F-18SH both will need 20% additional thrust to go with full load from STOBAR. I had posted those details longback. I had also posted the estimated payload with present engines and It has now been proven very correct. F-18SH Blk3 will get these higher thrust engines with 116Kn thrust and without the need for wingtip folding mechanism, they will meet the needs of IN better than Rafale-M which needs to become a completely new aircraft with revised intakes and folding wingtips.
One method for Rafale to do with present engines is to provide for "Bump Thrust" only for full load STOBAR launch and I am sure that thrust rating will not be required more than 10 times in the entire lifetime of the aircraft.

The "famous" and so desired 8.3 Tons of thrust M88.....

 

[Soldierstephen]

I think MoD and Navy should approach to individual vendors separately and discuss requirements and the pricing. This tendering process most of the time backfires and exaggerate the process of acquisition. Rafael-M will be the ideal choice to rule on blue water....

 

[randomradio]

I think MoD and Navy should approach to individual vendors separately and discuss requirements and the pricing. This tendering process most of the time backfires and exaggerate the process of acquisition. Rafael-M will be the ideal choice to rule on blue water....

That method is even more expensive. Corruption is also very frequent. Only competitive tendering gives you the best cost and in a transparent way.

 

[Soldierstephen]

That method is even more expensive. Corruption is also very frequent. Only competitive tendering gives you the best cost and in a transparent way.

May be I am wrong but my point was that instead of using word Tender which gives some rights to Vendors to play games, follow the same process where we have our set standards in regards to product and price. And all vendors must know that we are in discussion with their rivals. It may help to get the best. It also helps us in removing the factor L1 where even a less exeperienced company like Carcal can bound us to purchase their product as they beacame a L1. Also, now a days whenever Russians are lossing in the tenders they either try to delay the process and playing games and blackmailing us that if we do not go for their products they may look towards Porkis. Some how Porkis are always to induct the best.

 

[randomradio]

May be I am wrong but my point was that instead of using word Tender which gives some rights to Vendors to play games, follow the same process where we have our set standards in regards to product and price. And all vendors must know that we are in discussion with their rivals. It may help to get the best. It also helps us in removing the factor L1 where even a less exeperienced company like Carcal can bound us to purchase their product as they beacame a L1. Also, now a days whenever Russians are lossing in the tenders they either try to delay the process and playing games and blackmailing us that if we do not go for their products they may look towards Porkis. Some how Porkis are always to induct the best.

Actually it won't help because there's no transparency in the process. All they have to go on is whatever we claim. In a competitive tender, everyone is on the same page.

Blackmails don't work. Even we can do it.

 

[Ashwin]

A revised tender with reduced numbers will be out soon.

Navy to get new carrier-based jet by 2032, to replace MiG-29K

To revise global tender for 57 carrier-based fighters

www.thehindu.com

 

[Ashwin]

 

[rone]

its a done deal , in 2022 or 23 IN will go for a nuclear powered carrier with f18 sh blk 3, with nuclear reactors mostly delivered by french and em catapult , becoz that is the only way IN can challenge Chinese navy , vikranth and virat for coastal defense aircraft carriers and super carrier for blue water operation , so at a given time either USN Carrier or IN carrier have a presence in south china sea , similarly Chinese carrier beyond 2023 haev a permanent presence in Indian ocean , Iran new friendship with china mostly they going to give chambhar port to china and china use that port for permanent base in Indian ocean petrol's

 

[Bon Plan]

its a done deal , in 2022 or 23 IN will go for a nuclear powered carrier with f18 sh blk 3, with nuclear reactors mostly delivered by french and em catapult , becoz that is the only way IN can challenge Chinese navy , vikranth and virat for coastal defense aircraft carriers and super carrier for blue water operation , so at a given time either USN Carrier or IN carrier have a presence in south china sea , similarly Chinese carrier beyond 2023 haev a permanent presence in Indian ocean , Iran new friendship with china mostly they going to give chambhar port to china and china use that port for permanent base in Indian ocean petrol's

It's all but not sure !
french reactors? for a 70.000 tons carrier => 3 reactors. Or to study and produce a new model. It takes time and cost a lot. If french navy is to be equipped with a new nuclear carrier (the choice has not been made officialy), it will in effect need a new reactor, but not ready before 7/8 years or so.

and about SH18, I think Indian Navy don't want a plane that can be switch OFF without notice my uncle Sam....

No decisiv weapon can be purchased to America in the Indian situation.

A revised tender with reduced numbers will be out soon.

Navy to get new carrier-based jet by 2032, to replace MiG-29K

To revise global tender for 57 carrier-based fighters

www.thehindu.com

reduced? There are only 3 serious contenders : Mig29, Rafale M, SH18. More reduced? to just 2 suppliers?

 

[Ashwin]

reduced? There are only 3 serious contenders : Mig29, Rafale M, SH18. More reduced? to just 2 suppliers?

Required number, from 57 to maybe half.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Required number, from 57 to maybe half.

I don't think we will order more fighters for Navy just yet. The Ka31s for INS Vikrant was cleared but nothing on fighters yet. If the Russians fail to get Kuznetsov back into service, we might just get their Mig29K squadron though.