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

[A Person]

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..

And despite carrying 30% more fuel, it has less range and less payload.

Thus F/A-18 is a purpose built Navy plane that was adopted by Air force (RAAF).

That's because the export customer is too small to afford the design and development of a different version. If the USAF had selected it, they would have ordered thousands, and they would have required an Air Force-specific version.

 

[Bon Plan]

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

But I'm sure DA has made a proposal in that way ! On the other hand, as india is a fierce negotiator, DA also suggest a cheaper solution without folding delta.
If I remember well SH18 is not a 9G platform. Limited to +7,6G / -3G. some problems with the famous folding wings (lacks rigidity).

 

[Bon Plan]

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.

NO, NO and NO.

You forget the F18 (1st gen). The french navy tried it and was very keen to purchase it ! It was Marcel Dassault that used all his political weight to halt the deal in favour of the Rafale.

Rate loss : compare a single engine with other single engine. What is the last single engine attack fighter in the USN ? how many years in service? loss rate? As already said, don't compare apple with strawberry.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

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.

The thrust of M88 is 7.5 t with A/B and the mass of the plane is 22t. So acceleration is 7.5/ 22= 0.34 g that is to say 0.34*9.81= 3.34 m/s^2.
in 1.7s the velocity will increase by 3.34 * 1.7 = 5.69 m/s which is superior to 5m/s.

 

[randomradio]

The thrust of M88 is 7.5 t with A/B and the mass of the plane is 22t. So acceleration is 7.5/ 22= 0.34 g that is to say 0.34*9.81= 3.34 m/s^2.
in 1.7s the velocity will increase by 3.34 * 1.7 = 5.69 m/s which is superior to 5m/s.

The Rafale will also have a new engine with 8.3T thrust.

Isn't it possible to add bump thrust on the M88s for Stobar operations?

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

The Rafale will also have a new engine with 8.3T thrust.

Isn't it possible to add bump thrust on the M88s for Stobar operations?

In fact ma computation is without Lift and Drag, if we want something better we have to make a simulation:

Carrier & Aircraft Settings
Ramp Angle: 14.3°

Total Takeoff Strip (m): 125m

Ramp Length (m): 45

Wind Over Deck (knots): 26 kt

Takeoff Weight: 48501 lb

Thurst: 38720 lb

Optimal Speed (knots): 147

Optimal AoA: 16°

Lift To Drag Ratio: 3.4 based on single engine (to simulate the failure of one engine)

Maximal Pitch Rate (deg/s): 12

AoA Limit: 29°

So even with a 125m Total Takeoff Strip only, the take off at 22 t, fulfill the two conditions Zero Minimal Climb and Zero Altitude Loss even with one engine Failure.

 

[vstol Jockey]

The thrust of M88 is 7.5 t with A/B and the mass of the plane is 22t. So acceleration is 7.5/ 22= 0.34 g that is to say 0.34*9.81= 3.34 m/s^2.
in 1.7s the velocity will increase by 3.34 * 1.7 = 5.69 m/s which is superior to 5m/s.

you will need to accelerate at over 5m/s for 1.7 seconds which means total speed at the acceleration has to be over 8.35m/s.

 

[vstol Jockey]

In fact ma computation is without Lift and Drag, if we want something better we have to make a simulation:

Carrier & Aircraft Settings
Ramp Angle: 14.3°

Total Takeoff Strip (m): 125m

Ramp Length (m): 45

Wind Over Deck (knots): 26 kt

Takeoff Weight: 48501 lb

Thurst: 38720 lb

Optimal Speed (knots): 147

Optimal AoA: 16°

Lift To Drag Ratio: 3.4 based on single engine (to simulate the failure of one engine)

Maximal Pitch Rate (deg/s): 12

AoA Limit: 29°

So even with a 125m Total Takeoff Strip only, the take off at 22 t, fulfill the two conditions Zero Minimal Climb and Zero Altitude Loss even with one engine Failure.

recheck your figures. they are grossly wrong.
i had also told you that its only with 22tons that rafale-M can go from 190m strip after applying corrections for ISA+15*c, 1005 hPa and catering for engine thrust deterioration. This 2.5 tons of less payload, meaning it can at best carry 6.5 tons of payload only. subtract 4 tons for 2x2000lts D/Ts, and your useful payload is down to 2.5 tons. because, rafale-M without minimum 2xD/Ts is reaching no where due to its limited range on internal fuel.

 

[vstol Jockey]

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.

Read more please. Check out the wing areas of F-18SH and Rafale and check out their MTOW. can you compare two aircraft with nearly identical wing area and yet one being able to go with 30 tons while other is restricted to 25 tons? Which in your opinion is better design in terms of lift.

 

[Bali78]

The thrust of M88 is 7.5 t with A/B and the mass of the plane is 22t. So acceleration is 7.5/ 22= 0.34 g that is to say 0.34*9.81= 3.34 m/s^2.
in 1.7s the velocity will increase by 3.34 * 1.7 = 5.69 m/s which is superior to 5m/s.

The required acceleration is 5m/s^2, not the exit velocity. If the required exit velocity is 85 kts and ramp length is 200 meters, then required acceleration is 4.77 ~ 5m/s^2. According to your calculations, with one engine, only 3.34 m/s^2 is achievable. That will not be enough to reach 85kts at the end of the ramp.

 

[randomradio]

you will need to accelerate at over 5m/s for 1.7 seconds which means total speed at the acceleration has to be over 8.35m/s.

Did the Russians prove they could get the Mig-29K to take off with single engine in the same conditions as the Rafale? Because if we use the same calculation, then even the Mig-29 falls short of the required acceleration. 9.2/22*9.81 = 4.1m/s^2.

Of course, if the engine fails during landing, then it will have considerably less fuel when it takes off again, so it will reach the required speed.

 

[randomradio]

So even with a 125m Total Takeoff Strip only, the take off at 22 t, fulfill the two conditions Zero Minimal Climb and Zero Altitude Loss even with one engine Failure.

I doubt there's any aircraft that can take off at near MTOW from the first take off point, except the F-35B.

You wrote this a year ago on Older Forum.
According to my calculations, the Rafale could take off at 20 t for the distance of 125 m, at 23 t for the distance of 145 m, at full load for the distance of 190 m, 195 m, 204 m and 214 m, that are the set of distances that are cited in the RFI. Of course it is an approximation because I can not take into account the movements of the aircraft carrier that changes the angle, with respect to the horizontal, with which the aircraft leaves the aircraft carrier (for example).

 

[randomradio]

recheck your figures. they are grossly wrong.
i had also told you that its only with 22tons that rafale-M can go from 190m strip after applying corrections for ISA+15*c, 1005 hPa and catering for engine thrust deterioration. This 2.5 tons of less payload, meaning it can at best carry 6.5 tons of payload only. subtract 4 tons for 2x2000lts D/Ts, and your useful payload is down to 2.5 tons. because, rafale-M without minimum 2xD/Ts is reaching no where due to its limited range on internal fuel.

If you look at carrier aviation in general, 2.5T for weapons is a pretty good payload for the range the Rafale can manage.

That's 6 Hammers and 4 missiles. Or 1 cruise missile with 4 missiles. Pretty standard if you ask me.

 

[smestarz]

Now it sounds very strange when you are crying if the Americans are influencing India to buy American products? Since Dasault now as said by you has a history of paying kickbacks, seems Dassault does rely on paying kickbacks for getting orders.,

Like I said, its French choice what they did with it, no use bickering,

Americans were smart enough to operate Twin engine planes from their CATOBAR carriers. Thus to ensure better survival of the planes. The Marines since using smaller flat tops had to buy and use AV-8B carriers which were good for their operations where the Navy Carriers were the ones projecting power and the Marine Carrier providing direct fire support to Marine brigades.
But the french on other hand, pursued with single engine plane and they lost almost 20% of the fleet in accidents. So that might be counted as Wisdom of USN and ignorance of the French.

Surely apples cannot be compared to strawnberries. But when you purchase Starwberry and desire the taste of apples from them, its your fault and not the fault of strawberries.

NO, NO and NO.

You forget the F18 (1st gen). The french navy tried it and was very keen to purchase it ! It was Marcel Dassault that used all his political weight to halt the deal in favour of the Rafale.

Rate loss : compare a single engine with other single engine. What is the last single engine attack fighter in the USN ? how many years in service? loss rate? As already said, don't compare apple with strawberry.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

I doubt there's any aircraft that can take off at near MTOW from the first take off point, except the F-35B.

You wrote this a year ago on Older Forum.
According to my calculations, the Rafale could take off at 20 t for the distance of 125 m, at 23 t for the distance of 145 m, at full load for the distance of 190 m, 195 m, 204 m and 214 m, that are the set of distances that are cited in the RFI. Of course it is an approximation because I can not take into account the movements of the aircraft carrier that changes the angle, with respect to the horizontal, with which the aircraft leaves the aircraft carrier (for example).

I didn't have the simulation and I didn't take into account the AoA limit of 29° available with Rafale (the AOA limit is 70° but there is no usefulness above 29° so the FCS limit it to 29°).

22 t is not near MTOW there is 2.5 t less.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Read more please. Check out the wing areas of F-18SH and Rafale and check out their MTOW. can you compare two aircraft with nearly identical wing area and yet one being able to go with 30 tons while other is restricted to 25 tons? Which in your opinion is better design in terms of lift.

It's clear that Rafale is the better design because the empty mass is only 9850 kg instead of 14552 and so it carries more charge, further.
And to answer your question if You give Rafale engines with Dry thrust of 13,000 lbf (62.3 kN) each and Thrust with afterburner of 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) each it will increase it's MTOW above 30 tons if needed (because we also can limit the MTOW to perform a good thrust to weight ratio).

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

recheck your figures. they are grossly wrong.
i had also told you that its only with 22tons that rafale-M can go from 190m strip after applying corrections for ISA+15*c, 1005 hPa and catering for engine thrust deterioration. This 2.5 tons of less payload, meaning it can at best carry 6.5 tons of payload only. subtract 4 tons for 2x2000lts D/Ts, and your useful payload is down to 2.5 tons. because, rafale-M without minimum 2xD/Ts is reaching no where due to its limited range on internal fuel.

I think I know the Rafale better than you and my results are consistent with those of Dassault who claims that there is no problem for the Rafale to take off from a STOBAR. If you hope that the Rafale will have problems during testing you will be bitterly disappointed.
In this simulation I have taken a Lift To Drag Ratio of 3.4 to compensate ISA+15 and so on and the real one is closed to 4.

 

[randomradio]

I didn't have the simulation and I didn't take into account the AoA limit of 29° available with Rafale (the AOA limit is 70° but there is no usefulness above 29° so the FCS limit it to 29°).

22 t is not near MTOW there is 2.5 t less.

Even at 20T, the Rafale will be lifting the same payload as a Mig-29K at MTOW to a slightly greater range. So the Rafale is most definitely better than the Mig-29 by any margin. With the same configuration, the SH is much heavier at 26.3T, but it also slightly outranges the Rafale.

With full internal fuel and 5T payload:
Rafale M (7.6T engine) = 3.38
SH (9.9T) = 3.7
Mig-29K (9.2T) = 3.76

Rafale M (8.4T) = 3.7
SH (12T) = 4.47
Mig-29K (10T) = 4.08

None of them can achieve this enigmatic 5m/s^2 even with upgraded engines.

 

[randomradio]

It's clear that Rafale is the better design because the empty mass is only 9850 kg instead of 14552 and so it carries more charge, further.
And to answer your question if You give Rafale engines with Dry thrust of 13,000 lbf (62.3 kN) each and Thrust with afterburner of 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) each it will increase it's MTOW above 30 tons if needed (because we also can limit the MTOW to perform a good thrust to weight ratio).

I don't think that's an appropriate comparison.

In terms of thrust, the Rafale is so much better than the SH. The SH is not even close to a TWR of 1 and it can already lift 8T.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

I don't think that's an appropriate comparison.

In terms of thrust, the Rafale is so much better than the SH. The SH is not even close to a TWR of 1 and it can already lift 8T.

Rafale can lift 9.5 t, no need to increase this load and decrease TWR.
Rafale can reach 5.5g with full load, SH can reach 7.5g completely clean....