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

[randomradio]

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....

That wasn't the point being made.

The point was the SH can take off with higher wing loading and lower thrust loading than the Rafale could with the same specs because the SH has a better wing. Nobody is actually dismissing Rafale's capabilities. It's better than SH in every way.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

That wasn't the point being made.

The point was the SH can take off with higher wing loading and lower thrust loading than the Rafale could with the same specs because the SH has a better wing. Nobody is actually dismissing Rafale's capabilities. It's better than SH in every way.

Yes an A 320 with 629 kg/m^2 and a TWR of 0.314 is also better than a Rafale having 536kg/m^2 and a TWR of 0.625 At MTOW. But it's not the same performances.

 

[randomradio]

Yes an A 320 with 629 kg/m^2 and a TWR of 0.314 is also better than a Rafale having 536kg/m^2 and a TWR of 0.625 At MTOW. But it's not the same performances.

The performance difference between SH and Rafale may not be a lot if you fold the Rafale's wings and operate it from a Stobar carrier. Rafale will obviously face performance penalties in those conditions.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

The performance difference between SH and Rafale may not be a lot if you fold the Rafale's wings and operate it from a Stobar carrier. Rafale will obviously face performance penalties in those conditions.

Just slight performance penalities.

 

[vstol Jockey]

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.

Normally we calculate the ramp exit velocity only if the decision to GO has been taken in case of engine failure on deck. In all other cases it is taken for Ramp exit only with one engine failure at ramp exit.

 

[vstol Jockey]

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.

Its the SE condition which is limiting for all TE aircraft. same is true for Mig-29K and Rafale-M. The lower empty weight of Rafale-M allows it to go with higher payload than Mig-29K.

 

[vstol Jockey]

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.

Thats what even Mig-29K can carry from deck and to a larger distance.

 

[vstol Jockey]

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.

The main requirement is to fly the best Alpha after launch which in case of rafale-M cud be anything between 12-16. Its FCS is very powerful and so we can assume that it will provide accurate alpha track after launch. Any deviation from best alpha will degarde launch performance. 29* alpha is limiting alpha of FCS and will never be used for deck launch in any condition.

 

[vstol Jockey]

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.

Dear Sir, Acceleration is is directly related to Engine thrust and aircraft mass, F=MA or A=M/F, in this case F is the engine thrust. So You need to consider engine thrust deterioration only. The L/D ratio is relevant for your stall speed calculations and drag values for acceleration.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

The main requirement is to fly the best Alpha after launch which in case of rafale-M cud be anything between 12-16. Its FCS is very powerful and so we can assume that it will provide accurate alpha track after launch. Any deviation from best alpha will degarde launch performance. 29* alpha is limiting alpha of FCS and will never be used for deck launch in any condition.

At this 29° alpha Rafale degrade very few its flight conditions but get more altitude and so have more than 1.7s to accelerate.... And the vertical composante of thrust is better and it returns to 16° alpha very fast due to FCS, it's like a ski jump going to 29°.

 

[Bon Plan]

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?

I'm afraid the 8.3 tons M88 is Sci Fi.....

 

[Bon Plan]

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.

You can't compare the wing load (so the wing area) of a Delta vs a non delta.

Facts is that Rafale and Gripen are better dog fighters than F16 , F18 and SH18 (with the famous LERX) and Rafale carry a bigger load vs its dry weight.

It's a clear indication of how effective a CCC plane is.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

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.

4000 litre tanks weigh 3.2ton+ weight of aluminium tank as fuel weighs 0.8kg/l.

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).

Rafale M with hardened fuselage has empty mass 11Tonne. The 10 ton is for Air Force version only.

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.

This is wrong as internal fuel for Rafale is 4.7T while that of MiG29K is 3.5T. So, it will have different range

Its the SE condition which is limiting for all TE aircraft. same is true for Mig-29K and Rafale-M. The lower empty weight of Rafale-M allows it to go with higher payload than Mig-29K.

Rafale M has empty weight of 11tons (under fuselage is strengthened which adds weight). MiG29K also has same empty weight. But rafale has engine of 50/75kn while MiG29K has engine of 55/88kN (MiG29 is different from NiG29K in engine power). MiG29 can lift about 20% more than Rafale in A/B mode. So, I don't understand, why is Rafale any better than MiG29K. But the fuel capacity of Rafale is internally 4.7T while MiG29K is just 3.5T. In this area, Rafale may need less external fuel pods.

By considering single engine criteria instead of twin engine, the single engine planes are either ruled out or have extra advantage over twin engine ones. I don't understand why keep too much checks to make life difficult and increase costs without having added advantage. It is better to have replacement planes ready on shores with 5 drop tanks to cover 4000km instead of making too much safety criteria. Just dump the faulty plane, let the pilot eject and then destroy it with explosives after it lunges into water due to fault in one engine

 

[Bon Plan]

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.

I never said Marcel Dassauld used kickbacks to halt the french navy to purchase F18 ! He had more than enough political influence to do so.

But it's true that Dassault paid kickbacks at least in the past. It was essential when you sold Mirage 3 to arab country for exemple.
And since the french financial department modified the taxes rules so as to take in account the kickbacks in the profit calculation. It's no more the case, but it was in the 60's to 90's.

The Etendard and super Etendard were studied and produced when USN made and used Skywhawk and A7. Aren't they single engine?
So i's a mental fraud to compare Etendard or Super Etendard with F18 !
If you want to compare the loss rate, take in account how many years they were used. I'm sure the french flew much more thant the USN single engine counter part.

 

[Bon Plan]

Rafale M with hardened fuselage has empty mass 11Tonne. The 10 ton is for Air Force version only.

• Rafale B : 10 500 kg
• Rafale C : 9 850 kg
• Rafale M : 10 200 kg

 

[Bon Plan]

So, I don't understand, why is Rafale any better than MiG29K.

A fighter is not only a frame weight and engine(s) thrust. You just forget one thing : aerodynamical efficency, drag, FBW skil...
Rafale is better on that way than the older Mig.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

• Rafale B : 10 500 kg
• Rafale C : 9 850 kg
• Rafale M : 10 200 kg

A fighter is not only a frame weight and engine(s) thrust. You just forget one thing : aerodynamical efficency, drag, FBW skil...
Rafale is better on that way than the older Mig.

Acording to Wiki, Rafale M is 10.6T weight.

The delta wing is inferior to swept wing in terms of take-off speed requirements. Delta wing requires higher take off speed than swept wing. Sure, after take off, it is good in maneuver. But, taking off itself is a big deal for carrier operations. If we are speaking of CATOBAR, the fighter can be compared for flying ability. But for stobar, taking off matters more than flying ability (unless flying ability is too bad)

 

[vstol Jockey]

At this 29° alpha Rafale degrade very few its flight conditions but get more altitude and so have more than 1.7s to accelerate.... And the vertical composante of thrust is better and it returns to 16° alpha very fast due to FCS, it's like a ski jump going to 29°.

I am well aware of the vertical component of engine thrust in the vertical. But as I told you, I do not doubt the figure of 22 tons. What I am saying is that just for additional 1.5 tons of load, that too purely fuel load, IN is ditching Mig-29Ks and adding a fighter which will not be able the hangers of both its carriers. Moreover, the thrust deteriorates very fast once an engine fails. every TE aircraft loses 50% thrust and over 81% performance with the loss of one engine. In Ideal conditions of both engines operating, Rafale-M may even go with full 24.5 tons, but what happens when an engine fails? we use TE fighter for the safety, is it not?

 

[vstol Jockey]

You can't compare the wing load (so the wing area) of a Delta vs a non delta.

Facts is that Rafale and Gripen are better dog fighters than F16 , F18 and SH18 (with the famous LERX) and Rafale carry a bigger load vs its dry weight.

It's a clear indication of how effective a CCC plane is.

Its not just about wing loading. study the sweepback angles of both the fighters. The effective lift of two wings same area varies with the cosine of the sweepback angle. So F-18SH with lesser sweep has higher Cl value compared to rafale-M which makes up this lower value of CL with with Canards.
Regarding dog fighting, there are many more aspects that play a major role in it. Check out the A2A configuration TWR of F-18SH and Rafale. You will get a better picture.
CCC is not something out of this world. It is still inferior to a conventional delta tail design.

 

[vstol Jockey]

This is wrong as internal fuel for Rafale is 4.7T while that of MiG29K is 3.5T. So, it will have different range

Mig-29 had 3.5tons, Mig-29UPG has 4.7 tons and Mig-29K has 4.7 tons with engines more efficient that rafale engines.

But the fuel capacity of Rafale is internally 4.7T while MiG29K is just 3.5T. In this area, Rafale may need less external fuel pods.

Rafale-M will need more fuel compared to Mig-29K to be able to match its range.