But then what is the point of changing the engine? It's the same bring back as the classic F-18 E!
Even the US doesn't need additional thrust for takeoffs, so there are other advantages. Overall better performance in the air, better safety margins for emergency takeoff, lesser stress on the airframe and engine, new safety features etc.
There can be failures which require immidiate landing and in such cases the aircraft may not be able to burn fuel to reach landing weight. Fire in one of the engines or some other fire onboard can result in such dire emergency. So while it remains an option to burn off the excess fuel, but in certain situations, its not an option. The final take off configuration is finally limited by the worst case scenario exigency.
I am very very clear that max trap weight for Vikky is 23 tons.
F-18 Blk2 had a very poor accelaration at mid and higher altitudes. This extra thrust has removed that problem.
If there's such a big threat to the aircraft, then why not just drop all the payload right away?
Both aircraft have to deal with the same problem. If the cables can handle 23T, then it's irrelevant 'cause both Rafale and SH need to drop down to 14.5T and 19T respectively anyway.
The Rafale has to drop all its external payload and lose 700Kg of internal fuel. The SH has to drop all its external payload and lose 2.2T of fuel. The large difference in fuel is the only difference.
This option is always there but best avoided as the weapons carried onbaord a ship are limited and can't be replenished as easily as is done on shore. Normally we plan for an immidiate turn back and landing with high value munitions still retained by the aircraft and that is why a very high bring back load is recommended for deck based fighters. But as I stated earlier, this limitation of 23 tons is not a limitation as it can be easily increased to 30tons based on the price to be paid to Russians. The slight modification being talked about for Vikrant is about this modification only.
The Rafale has to drop to 15 T and not 14.5 T and because the empty weight is 10500 kg for the Rafale M the bring back is around 4.5t.
so the maximum take-off weight from a Rafale aircraft carrier is:
15 t + 3.5t (internal fuel mass that can be evacuated) + 5.4 (3 times 1.8 t of the external tanks) that is 23.9 t... only 600 kg less than from the ground. For this to be possible from Indian aircraft carriers, 8.3t M-88s are needed, which is achievable during the 3 years needed for production.
I'm fine with MTOW, the bring back is the problem, if that's what they are referring to.
If there's time to burn or dump fuel, then the payload of both jets can be saved. If there's no time to dump fuel, then payload has to be dropped by default. Only the AAMs can be saved on both jets in the second case. The only difference is it's 200Kg of fuel on Rafale or 2.2T of fuel on SH.
Both jets have the same risk from any carrier, so it technically is not a carrier problem. Even on the Nimitz, the SH has to dump full payload and 2.2T of internal fuel before attempting landing. Rafale has to dump full payload and 200Kg of fuel.
French aircraft manufacturer Dassault Aviation’s Rafale-M has emerged as the frontrunner to bag a mega contract from the Indian Navy for 27 fighters, ThePrint has learnt, leaving behind US firm Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Sources in the defence and security establishment said the Navy has submitted a detailed report to the defence ministry on performance of the Super Hornets and Rafale-M, which is the marine version of the fighter aircraft already in use with the Indian Air Force, during two sets of demonstration.
American firm Boeing and French manufacturer Dassault Aviation carried out operational demonstrations of the Super Hornets and Rafale-M respectively, showcasing ski-jumps — a crucial take-off capability — from the shore-based test facility at INS Hansa in Goa, to demonstrate their ability to operate from Indian aircraft carriers.
Refusing to get into details, sources said the report from the naval headquarters to the defence ministry mentions the “positives” only, and that Rafale-M met all criteria.
The report to the defence ministry has been sent after a detailed analysis by the naval headquarters on the performance by both aircraft. Those undertaking the tests had prepared a ‘trial report’ that was sent to the naval headquarters for detailed analysis on performance and shortlisting of aircraft.
Asked whether the lift size of India’s indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant would be an issue, sources said both aircraft had to be brought up and down at a certain angle.
While the wings of Super Hornets fold — unlike the Rafale — these still had to be brought up and down at a certain angle. Both aircraft also have a separate process in which the wings fold.
The design and space of the lift size has been a problem because it is understood to have been made taking the MiG 29K and the naval version of the Tejas aircraft into consideration.
The Navy currently operates the Russian MiG 29K aircraft from INS Vikramaditya. But with the commissioning of INS Vikrant, the force has been seeking more fighter jets.
The new contract is meant to be an interim arrangement because the Navy is betting on its indigenous fighter. Navy Chief Admiral Hari Kumar had Saturday said the future of Indian naval aviation was the indigenous Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF), whose prototype is expected by 2026-27 and production to start somewhere around 2032.
He also said that the existing naval fighter, MiG 29K, were in limited numbers and Russian spare supplies were “also not very forthcoming”.
theprint.in
Sources in the defence and security establishment said the Navy has submitted a detailed report to the defence ministry on performance of the Super Hornets and Rafale-M, which is the marine version of the fighter aircraft already in use with the Indian Air Force, during two sets of demonstration.
American firm Boeing and French manufacturer Dassault Aviation carried out operational demonstrations of the Super Hornets and Rafale-M respectively, showcasing ski-jumps — a crucial take-off capability — from the shore-based test facility at INS Hansa in Goa, to demonstrate their ability to operate from Indian aircraft carriers.
Refusing to get into details, sources said the report from the naval headquarters to the defence ministry mentions the “positives” only, and that Rafale-M met all criteria.
The report to the defence ministry has been sent after a detailed analysis by the naval headquarters on the performance by both aircraft. Those undertaking the tests had prepared a ‘trial report’ that was sent to the naval headquarters for detailed analysis on performance and shortlisting of aircraft.
Asked whether the lift size of India’s indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant would be an issue, sources said both aircraft had to be brought up and down at a certain angle.
While the wings of Super Hornets fold — unlike the Rafale — these still had to be brought up and down at a certain angle. Both aircraft also have a separate process in which the wings fold.
The design and space of the lift size has been a problem because it is understood to have been made taking the MiG 29K and the naval version of the Tejas aircraft into consideration.
The Navy currently operates the Russian MiG 29K aircraft from INS Vikramaditya. But with the commissioning of INS Vikrant, the force has been seeking more fighter jets.
The new contract is meant to be an interim arrangement because the Navy is betting on its indigenous fighter. Navy Chief Admiral Hari Kumar had Saturday said the future of Indian naval aviation was the indigenous Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF), whose prototype is expected by 2026-27 and production to start somewhere around 2032.
He also said that the existing naval fighter, MiG 29K, were in limited numbers and Russian spare supplies were “also not very forthcoming”.
France's Rafale jets are frontrunner in race for Indian Navy contract
Forward movement by the Indian Navy would mean that the proposal for more Rafale jets for the IAF is also likely to gather speed.
theprint.in
Last edited:
In operations from the CDG, the loads are calculated taking into account the Rafale's quick vacuum, which allows the weapons not to be jettisoned in the event of an urgent need to land.
The report is a bit vague & somewhat PR push. Its main usp is more MRFA centric rather than addressing what the navy needs. Merely citing a vital criteria does not make it sure they managed to pass that criteria, and wire did not confirm it either. I am just stating my reservation based on this report.
I have the impression that if the same report was written for the F-18, you would not find it so vague and quite significant of the superiority of the US aircraft.
I wouldn't call 27 aircraft a "mega contract", certainly not for a country the size of India. Maybe if it were Malta attempting to buy 27 fighters, then it'd be a mega contract.
As for the report's worth, as always, I'll wait for something official, meaning, see you in 2037.
That's true too to a great extent.
I only have one concern, buying MRCBF shouldn't delay in release of funds for TEDBF even by a single day.
Because if indeed a 2nd Vikrant size ship is ordered, TEDBF orders for Navy alone will grow to 100+.
He's not entirely wrong . The US is exerting tremendous pressure on India to put its money where it's mouth is on the Quad. All the other members are deeply dissatisfied & distrustful of India's motives w.r.t the Quad with the US suggesting closer integration of at least the IN with the rest of the Quad navies if not the other armed services.I have the impression that if the same report was written for the F-18, you would not find it so vague and quite significant of the superiority of the US aircraft.
I don't need to spell out what the US expects from India to demonstrate it's sincerity to the Quad . Besides there seems to be a section within the establishment inclined towards the US . Whether they're contained within the MoD or NSA & allied structures or within the IN isn't known.
IN isn't too happy with the intrusive nature of surveillance it's been subjected to for operating various US platforms & at the same time the GoI is not exactly sure about the level of US commitment in the Asia Pacific besides of course not willing to openly antagonise the Chinese & face any large scale adventurism before they go Mongol on Taiwan which could be exactly what the US desires.
Personally speaking , we're already operating the Rafales . We should be going in for it .
another source.
It's a mega contract because the sole in the world for a naval variant. No 2nd deal on the horizon.
Not really, with rafale I know we can at least fly the jet & fire the weapons we got at our own will, & we got a large stock of compatible weapons already. I can not say the same with Sh18, which can turn out to be a showpiece dependent on usa whims, the jet alone. Then comes weapon procurement & we don't yet know if they will allow integration of our own weapon systems with their architecture.I have the impression that if the same report was written for the F-18, you would not find it so vague and quite significant of the superiority of the US aircraft.
Last edited:
I read the original report, their source did not confirm if Rafale M did manage to fit in the lift or not. They reported the planes needed to be moved in the lift at an angle & all that. I am sure due to contract dassult will have to remove part of wing to make it fit in the current lift eventually. Might not affect that much initially as we made it clear this MMRCA is interim measure.