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

[Bon Plan]

The canards become serrated wings if it is on the same plane as wings. Why would you want to make holes in your wing? Canards serve a purpose of vortex generation and hence are generally above the plane of wings. Tejas uses "cranks" and a double delta wing to do this job.

Canards reduce the lift coefficient of wings by acting as a barrier in front of it. Canards also provide lift themselves and may cancel this reduced lift but that will be at a cost of increased drag and reduced stealth.

I know perfectly well the effect of a close coupled canard.
You don't understand me : if a canard use the same main wing plan, but in a lower scale of course, ie same leading edge angle, same trailing edge angle and same tilt, It will not generate other wave reflections thant the main wings.
But probably the aerodynamical accord to be made between main wings and canards will be harder and less efficient to make.

 

[Bon Plan]

With the way things are going, we can expect triple digits for both IAF and IN.

I think so.
80 to 130 for IAF,
57 for IN.
It my own little estimation.

 

[Bon Plan]

How long will it take to make a prototype ?
Can we expect in two years ?
CoZ after delivery of Rafales in 2019 , we might order next tranche of Rafales . Or a large MII itself.

I want your project to run smoothly, but couldn't resist asking.

2 years ? No way.
4 years is a very minimum.

 

[randomradio]

I think so.
80 to 130 for IAF,
57 for IN.
It my own little estimation.

Those numbers could be at the low end, if things are headed the way they are.

 

[suryakiran]

Those numbers could be at the low end, if things are headed the way they are.

240+ for IAF. IN numbers will be 100+. No changes in my estimate in the past 3 years. Irrespective of which F is in the picture. The IAF wants the Rafale. Period. Governments last 5 years a term. The IAF will be there always.

The lower tier will be brought in by the single engine Indian fighter. No F-16 or Gripen.

And with Reliance in the picture, Dassault executed a master stroke.

Where the Americans will play a decisive role, will be our defensive offense equipment. Namely, AEW/ASW/UAV/Chopper/Logistics.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Rafale M (heavier model of the rafale family) weight nearly 10.5 tons dry and can carry 9.5 tons of loads. Not to speak of the lighter C or B.
SH18 weight over 13.8 tons and is limited to 8 tons.

low effectivity of the US product

And the range of Rafale with a 9.5 t load is better compare to the range of SH 18 with 8 t load.

 

[smestarz]

Not really, You are looking at "heavy" characteristic of the plane where as I see "stronger air frame" that has more life than its land based competitors. The way America are developing weapons, they would not require the planes to turn and twist in combat like in WW2, they would just develop missiles that can do that. like AIM-120 and AIM-9X
Also that helps in terms of increasing numbers if and when required. Thus if America (and this is therotical) wants to, then its possible that only with addition of tail hook (and of course training to the pilots) USAF plane can use carriers as mobile fuel dump and be able to carry out more sorties and put more than 90 planes in action, more than what the carrier can carry keeping them rolling on and off the carrier. It becomes a force multiplier. Rafale M can operate on land strips and thus it can bring help increase in land based nos of Rafale they only need to operate from land and you have more Rafales on the ground, But the Americans can have it both ways, on land and carrier

It's useless to have an air force fighter heavier when you don't need it.

NO.
If canards use the same geometric config thant the main wing (it's not the case of Rafale), it's not a problem.

 

[kollum]

@smestarz : If you want to operate the rafale M from land, nothing prevents you to. You can buy rafale M for your air force if you want !

The americans can't have it both ways, as they use the F-16 from land, not the F-18. And the F-16 is no more capable than the rafale C to land on an aircraft carrier.

Oh, and by the way, if the rafale M is heavier, it is not necessarily "stronger". At least not to sustain the kind of stress an air force puts on its airframes. A rafale M used from land bases would not have longer life than a C, and would not sustain highter G with highter payload.

 

[halloweene]

Interesting data from an incident report. Rafale B, 22T configuration. Vstop 123 Kts . After 100m roll, speed 60kts. 200m, 85Kts. Moreover, Rafale M hile rolling has a more important AoA (due to longer front gear). Add the ski jump, carrier speed it should be ok for STOBAR ops. in combat configurations.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/399428/6008740/file/Télécharger le rapport public BEAD-air-A-2009-004-I.pdf

 

[A Person]

Also that helps in terms of increasing numbers if and when required. Thus if America (and this is therotical) wants to, then its possible that only with addition of tail hook (and of course training to the pilots) USAF plane can use carriers

USAF combat aircraft are F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35A, A-10, B-1, B-2, and B-52.

Even with a Navy tailhook grafted on, none of them could land on a carrier. Or at least not in any way that doesn't result in a write-off for the airframe afterwards.

And make no mistake; if the USAF had adopted the F/A-18, it would have been a dedicated Air Force variant with a lighter airframe without the carrier ops reinforcement. That's been the case whenever they've had an aircraft in common with the Navy, they used different versions; in fact the F-35 itself is a good example of that (F-35A vs F-35C).

they would just develop missiles that can do that

So does Europe. MICA and Meteor have nothing to envy from any AIM-whatever.

 

[smestarz]

YES, F/A-18 is heavier and more sturdy built, and also carries more fuel which is almost 2 tons more than Rafale or in terms about 30% more fuel than Rafale.. For Indian navy, it is certainly not about weight, but about if a plane will fit in their lifts or not, so folding wings become important , also due to folding wings, more planes can be carried so if you place F/A-18 and Rafale M on carrier, Rafale will need more "leg room" than F/A 18 and so a carrier can carry more F/A-18 than Rafales, so, just to suggest, if a carrier can carry 30 Rafales, the same carrier can carry 40 or so F/A-18 as more can be parked without problems.. Also Boeing had already designed F/A-18 as naval plane and hence the thought of folding wings was there considering that carrier has limited space and so to utilse the limited to optimum, On other hand Dassault seems not that sophisticated with developing and building folding wings, So when they built Rafale M. that matter was maybe overlooked because maybe they did not have the expertise. Even in case of MiG-29K, and Su-33K the russians had built them with folding wings so to better utilise carrier space. Maybe if they add folding wings to Rafale M. the weight will increase as the wings have to be strengthened and that might have domino effect on performance and other aspects. That is one of the reason why Dassault are hoping that Indian navy orders their planes, and since Indian navy want folded wings, then Dassault can charge INDIAN NAVY extra for this development. The F/A-18 as the way it is, is acceptable to Indian navy, unless Indian navy comes up with specific requirement like ".. we want a carrier plane which is in operation and is non American and non Russian ..." thus trying to lobby for the obvious. I think Indian navy though is eyeing Rafale M, would end up ordering F/A-18, simply because they cannot be seen as now diluting their request for folded wings for their plane.

Rafale M (heavier model of the rafale family) weight nearly 10.5 tons dry and can carry 9.5 tons of loads. Not to speak of the lighter C or B.
SH18 weight over 13.8 tons and is limited to 8 tons.

low effectivity of the US product

 

[smestarz]

Surely there are planes like say F-15 and F-16 which were designed and built for USAF.
BUT F/A-18 was purposeful built for navy, to first compliment F-14 tomcat and then replace both A-7 and F-14 and take over air defence and strike operations for US navy. Thus F/A-18 is a purpose built Navy plane that was adopted by Air force (RAAF). There is no lighter air frame it is the same plane. If the Americans had changed something, they would come up with different designation to justify the change,.
For Example F-35. It has three variants the basic Variant F-35A which is air force version. F-35B is STOVL version used mainly by Marine carriers and F-35C is the Carrier version to be used by the likes of USS Ford etc. Though these are similar in design, they are a lot different in terms of weights, and designs and even the wing span etc. The F-35C has bigger wings and more weight.

so to answer you, the air frame used by Carrier version is same as used by the air force.

USAF combat aircraft are F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35A, A-10, B-1, B-2, and B-52.

Even with a Navy tailhook grafted on, none of them could land on a carrier. Or at least not in any way that doesn't result in a write-off for the airframe afterwards.

And make no mistake; if the USAF had adopted the F/A-18, it would have been a dedicated Air Force variant with a lighter airframe without the carrier ops reinforcement. That's been the case whenever they've had an aircraft in common with the Navy, they used different versions; in fact the F-35 itself is a good example of that (F-35A vs F-35C).


So does Europe. MICA and Meteor have nothing to envy from any AIM-whatever.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Interesting data from an incident report. Rafale B, 22T configuration. Vstop 123 Kts . After 100m roll, speed 60kts. 200m, 85Kts. Moreover, Rafale M hile rolling has a more important AoA (due to longer front gear). Add the ski jump, carrier speed it should be ok for STOBAR ops. in combat configurations.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/399428/6008740/file/Télécharger le rapport public BEAD-air-A-2009-004-I.pdf

let us assume your figures to be true. 200m and 85kts add to this 28 kts for WOD which actually a combination of ship's speed and wing speed. so the velocity ramp exit will be 113kts and time to apogee of the trajectory will be just about 1.7seconds. This means that to reach the take off safety speed on one engine the aircraft must be able to achieve its unstalled speed within 1.7 seconds. which means an acceleration of about 5m/s on single engine. An impossible figure at 22 tons. Please remember the profile assumes one engine failure at ramp exit and full loads attached, gear down and flaps in take off configuration. The time to jettison loads is taken to be 3 seconds from engine failure to, failure recognition to pilot deciding to jettison loads to loads being actually separated from the aircraft. Rafale-M does carry better load than Mig-29K but STOBAR load is lower than 22 tons.

 

[vstol Jockey]

For those who love canards. Canards can never add te kind of lift which high lift devices like LERX+Double slotted flaps and BLC can add. CCC-close coupled canards at low speeds carry negative load and for STOBAR carrier wherein there is a pitch up due to ramp at the time of exit, the usefulness of CC canards will be even lower.

 

[Bon Plan]

Dassault seems not that sophisticated with developing and building folding wings, So when they built Rafale M. that matter was maybe overlooked because maybe they did not have the expertise.

Not the expertise? Didn't they built the Etendard and super etendard with folding wings ?
French navy made the choice not to use folding wings on Rafale, because it costs, and it add weight. This was a reasonnable choice because a Delta is less width than a classical wings plane.
Sur it would have been better to have it, but it was the french navy choice, never the Dassault choice.

When you are able to study rockets or shuttle, folding wings are a joke.

 

[Bon Plan]

For those who love canards. Canards can never add te kind of lift which high lift devices like LERX+Double slotted flaps and BLC can add. CCC-close coupled canards at low speeds carry negative load and for STOBAR carrier wherein there is a pitch up due to ramp at the time of exit, the usefulness of CC canards will be even lower.

Facts is that CCC plane (Gripen, Rafale) are more agile and carry specially in the Rafale case heavy loads.
F16 and F18 or SH18, with LERX, are beaten.

 

[smestarz]

Super Etendard with folded wings yes, can you elaborate the number of accidents Etendard or super etendard have? A lot almost 20% of the planes used.
French navy made choice or Dassault convinced them for a choice thats a separate question. But India feels that they need to have folding wings so that they can have more planes.

Surely if Dassault is confident and has expertise, why do they want Indian navy to pay for development and production of folding wings?

The French had no choice. The only other carrier planes then was American Harrier AV-8B the british sea harrier, The American Tomcat which was going to be phased out and Super Etendard, which was having a nice accident rate.

So the french had no option but to take Rafale M and be satisfied with it. No options

Not the expertise? Didn't they built the Etendard and super etendard with folding wings ?
French navy made the choice not to use folding wings on Rafale, because it costs, and it add weight. This was a reasonnable choice because a Delta is less width than a classical wings plane.
Sur it would have been better to have it, but it was the french navy choice, never the Dassault choice.

When you are able to study rockets or shuttle, folding wings are a joke.

 

[randomradio]

Super Etendard with folded wings yes, can you elaborate the number of accidents Etendard or super etendard have? A lot almost 20% of the planes used.
French navy made choice or Dassault convinced them for a choice thats a separate question. But India feels that they need to have folding wings so that they can have more planes.

Surely if Dassault is confident and has expertise, why do they want Indian navy to pay for development and production of folding wings?

The French had no choice. The only other carrier planes then was American Harrier AV-8B the british sea harrier, The American Tomcat which was going to be phased out and Super Etendard, which was having a nice accident rate.

So the french had no option but to take Rafale M and be satisfied with it. No options

If you use folding wings, it drastically affects performance. So France did not go for it. The aircraft was small enough to fit the hangar bays in enough numbers so there was no need for it.

But installing folding wings on Rafale is not difficult.

 

[smestarz]

How drastic? How is the performance of MiG-29K Vis a vis MiG-29 UPG? Not really Drastic in my opinion.
Indian navy prefer to have more nos available at risk of "drastic reduction in performance" The Air craft is small enough for French hangars and lifts, CDG is not going many places just loitering mostly around French maritime waters, It is not worth comparing it to American carriers which project power. The American CBG when in operation is not only flying CAP over the CBG but also conducting strikes and missions, On other hand the french carrier is mostly undergoing repairs, and when its available, seems the other navies have to provide it security so that it can fly combat missions. Very different

Just to make a point,. Indian navy believes that Rafale does not fit the lifts of the Carriers that it operates and will produce., that says a lot about importance of how folding wings could have been useful..

If installing folding wings is that easy, Maybe Dassault should do it on their own and offer to Indian navy and not requiring Indian navy to pay for the development of folding wings.. that says much about.. " ... installing folding wings on Rafale is not difficult .." If to believe what you said about performance, then it seems that F-35B and C would seem to perform better than Rafale M !!!

If you use folding wings, it drastically affects performance. So France did not go for it. The aircraft was small enough to fit the hangar bays in enough numbers so there was no need for it.

But installing folding wings on Rafale is not difficult.

 

[randomradio]

How drastic? How is the performance of MiG-29K Vis a vis MiG-29 UPG? Not really Drastic in my opinion.
Indian navy prefer to have more nos available at risk of "drastic reduction in performance" The Air craft is small enough for French hangars and lifts, CDG is not going many places just loitering mostly around French maritime waters, It is not worth comparing it to American carriers which project power. The American CBG when in operation is not only flying CAP over the CBG but also conducting strikes and missions, On other hand the french carrier is mostly undergoing repairs, and when its available, seems the other navies have to provide it security so that it can fly combat missions. Very different

Just to make a point,. Indian navy believes that Rafale does not fit the lifts of the Carriers that it operates and will produce., that says a lot about importance of how folding wings could have been useful..

If installing folding wings is that easy, Maybe Dassault should do it on their own and offer to Indian navy and not requiring Indian navy to pay for the development of folding wings.. that says much about.. " ... installing folding wings on Rafale is not difficult .." If to believe what you said about performance, then it seems that F-35B and C would seem to perform better than Rafale M !!!

With folding wings, you cannot pull more Gs, so it affects your turn rates. But Rafale is already a 11G fighter, so it should match the Mig-29A's performance.

Dassault's final price will have folding wings in it.

F-35B and C have very poor performance anyway.