Indian Navy more likely to select F 18 than rafales

[HariPrasad-1]

Rafale with more powerful engine is the best Choice for Indian navy. No F 18.

 

[Marliii]

Rafale with more powerful engine is the best Choice for Indian navy. No F 18.

In twitter people were saying the reverse .I don't know who to believe

 

[HariPrasad-1]

In twitter people were saying the reverse .I don't know who to believe

These are opinions And they are bound to differ.

 

[WolfPack86]

TRIALS COMPLETED; NAVY TO PICK BETWEEN FRENCH RAFALE, US'S F-18 FOR AIRCRAFT CARRIER OPS
New Delhi: The Navy requires fighter jets for its aircraft carrier operations for which it has carried out trials of the French Rafale and American F-18 aircraft.

In a press conference on indigenisation in the Navy, the Navy Vice Chief Admiral SN Ghormade said trials of the American and French aircraft have been done to know their capability for aircraft carrier operations.

"Trials of Rafale and Boeing F-18 have done to prove their capability of operating from aircraft carriers. Our aim is indigenisation. We have a Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) aircraft plan but it will take some time. By the time that indigenous project takes place, we are looking at buying aircraft from foreign sources under Inter-Governmental Agreement," he said.

The Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) is a developmental programme of the Defence Research and Development Organisation and it would be the advanced version of the Naval Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), TEJAS.

The Navy had earlier plans of buying 57 fighters under the plan to buy aircraft from foreign sources but now that requirement has been cut down by more than half.

Answering a query on by when the Navy would be able to make conventional submarines on its own, the Navy Chief said, "We want to encourage indigenisation here. The idea is that we develop some capabilities here and build capabilities for indigenisation for the future."

"We are continuing with Project 75 India," Vice Chief Admiral SN Ghormade said on the current status of Project 75 India.

Indian Navy has plans of building six modern conventional submarines under Project 75 India, a ₹ 60,000 crore project.

Trials Completed; Navy To Pick Between French Rafale, US's F-18 For Aircraft Carrier Ops

Navy carried out trials of the French Rafale and American F-18 aircraft New Delhi: The Navy requires fighter jets for its aircraft carrier ...

www.indiandefensenews.in

 

[gajapati.]

Will be a good choice i think .

 

[Super Flanker]

Rafale with more powerful engine is the best Choice for Indian navy. No F 18.

Rafale uses two Snecma M-88 engines, each M-88 is capable of producing 50 kN of dry thrust and 75 kN thrust with afterburners.

On the other hand, the F/A-18 uses two General Electric F-414 engines, each F-414 is capable of producing 57.8 kN of dry thrust and 98 kN thrust with afterburners.

So GE-414 is can generate more dry thrust and afterburner thrust than the M-88. So how exactly does the Rafale have more powerful engines? Fact is that F/A-18 has more powerful engines then the Rafale.

 

[Super Flanker]

In twitter people were saying the reverse .I don't know who to believe

If those people on twitter are saying that GE-414 is more powerful than M-88 then they are right, the GE-414 engine used in the F/A-18 is superior to the M-88 used in the Rafale as GE-414 can generate more dry thrust and afterburner thrust than M-88.

 

[Blademaster]

But Rafale may have a better aerodynamic airflow than the SH-18 and therefore is more efficient in generating lift and thrust.

 

[Super Flanker]

But Rafale may have a better aerodynamic airflow than the SH-18 and therefore is more efficient in generating lift and thrust.

The Rafale is a canard-delta wing design whereas the F/A-18 is a trapezoidal wing design.

In aerodynamics, all wing designs, be them swept wing, Delta wing or Trapezoidal wing and etc have their pros and cons. Some designs may give better performance at transonic speed, some may give better performance at supersonic speeds, some may have higher fuel capacity etc. Like I said before, all designs have their pros and cons.

 

[Javelin_Sam]

But Rafale may have a better aerodynamic airflow than the SH-18 and therefore is more efficient in generating lift and thrust.

How did you conclude this? Any docs lying around that you can share with us noobs?

 

[Tshering22]

The Rafale is a canard-delta wing design whereas the F/A-18 is a trapezoidal wing design.

In aerodynamics, all wing designs, be them swept wing, Delta wing or Trapezoidal wing and etc have their pros and cons. Some designs may give better performance at transonic speed, some may give better performance at supersonic speeds, some may have higher fuel capacity etc. Like I said before, all designs have their pros and cons.

The biggest itch that the Navy has is that they won't buy what the IAF has, no matter what it does. Their obsession with showing "we are different". Just look at the AMCA-N versus TEDBF nonsense debate.

Navy will have the advantage of 90% commonality with Rafales but instead, they want to go ahead with SH that won't be allowed to even take-off tomorrow if we hit a roadblock with Biden and Harris.

SH is a fine, fine aircraft and there's no doubt about its naval capabilities. But is it good for us? That's the biggest question.

 

[SKC]

The biggest itch that the Navy has is that they won't buy what the IAF has, no matter what it does. Their obsession with showing "we are different". Just look at the AMCA-N versus TEDBF nonsense debate.

Navy will have the advantage of 90% commonality with Rafales but instead, they want to go ahead with SH that won't be allowed to even take-off tomorrow if we hit a roadblock with Biden and Harris.

SH is a fine, fine aircraft and there's no doubt about its naval capabilities. But is it good for us? That's the biggest question.

SH is literary the best Carrier born aircraft our there apart from F-35 carrier version. It is battle proven and harden. No other carrier born aircraft comes close to it.
There is more and more chatter now online about SH being almost selected by Navy.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

But Rafale may have a better aerodynamic airflow than the SH-18 and therefore is more efficient in generating lift and thrust.

True. Rafale would have better low speed characteristics due to delta planform.

The biggest itch that the Navy has is that they won't buy what the IAF has, no matter what it does. Their obsession with showing "we are different". Just look at the AMCA-N versus TEDBF nonsense debate.

Navy will have the advantage of 90% commonality with Rafales but instead, they want to go ahead with SH that won't be allowed to even take-off tomorrow if we hit a roadblock with Biden and Harris.

SH is a fine, fine aircraft and there's no doubt about its naval capabilities. But is it good for us? That's the biggest question.

Single biggest problem with Rafale that is IMHO a dealbreaker is that its wings don't fold.
.
As for Navy pursuing TEDBF instead of AMCA, there is legit reasoning behind it. TEDBF will have much higher bring back capacity and lower maintenance requirement.

 

[Blademaster]

How did you conclude this? Any docs lying around that you can share with us noobs?

Sorry mate. It is just a conjecture thought because Rafale seems to be able to carry the same ordnance as SH-18s even though with much considerable less thrust and can go supersonic.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Rafale uses two Snecma M-88 engines, each M-88 is capable of producing 50 kN of dry thrust and 75 kN thrust with afterburners.

On the other hand, the F/A-18 uses two General Electric F-414 engines, each F-414 is capable of producing 57.8 kN of dry thrust and 98 kN thrust with afterburners.

So GE-414 is can generate more dry thrust and afterburner thrust than the M-88. So how exactly does the Rafale have more powerful engines? Fact is that F/A-18 has more powerful engines then the Rafale.

But F 18s are more Havier than Rafale. What is important is T/W ratio not merely engine power.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

The biggest itch that the Navy has is that they won't buy what the IAF has, no matter what it does. Their obsession with showing "we are different". Just look at the AMCA-N versus TEDBF nonsense debate.

Navy will have the advantage of 90% commonality with Rafales but instead, they want to go ahead with SH that won't be allowed to even take-off tomorrow if we hit a roadblock with Biden and Harris.

SH is a fine, fine aircraft and there's no doubt about its naval capabilities. But is it good for us? That's the biggest question.

True, More varieties should be avoided so far as possible. India should not operate more than 5 to 6 fighters in future. Su 30 MKI in heavy category, Rafale and MWF in Medium weight category (Non Stealth), AMCA (I-II) in Medium stealth category, Tejas and its variants in Light category (Stealth Tejas). TEBF and Rafale for Indian navy.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

The Rafale is a canard-delta wing design whereas the F/A-18 is a trapezoidal wing design.

In aerodynamics, all wing designs, be them swept wing, Delta wing or Trapezoidal wing and etc have their pros and cons. Some designs may give better performance at transonic speed, some may give better performance at supersonic speeds, some may have higher fuel capacity etc. Like I said before, all designs have their pros and cons.

Generally, any carrier based fighter which has Levcon/ Canard will have an advantage in short take off. Canard will help fighter to reduce landing speed. This sort of designs are more suitable for carriers particularly like us which are shorter in length compared to US carriers. After burner thrust is also very important to carrier based fighters compared to airforce fighters as the afterburner thrust helps in short take off. This factors becomes less important in huge carriers like the carriers of US.

 

[WARREN SS]

True, More varieties should be avoided so far as possible. India should not operate more than 5 to 6 fighters in future. Su 30 MKI in heavy category, Rafale and MWF in Medium weight category (Non Stealth), AMCA (I-II) in Medium stealth category, Tejas and its variants in Light category (Stealth Tejas). TEBF and Rafale for Indian navy.

There Is more involved than mere engine deal
In this

SH is introduction of American aviation into Indian military

And let me be blunt Tri services are already

Made there mind for American Equipments

Be it be MQ-1 or SH

Even MKI which was once love child of IAF was put it back burner.

Seeing where super -30 is going

American engines are core of India aviation
Sector
Specially LCA project

MWF, TEDF or even AMCA Prototypes

This deal have high stakes involved

French has nothing to offer for future Aspirations of Indian Navy

Which Eying on next big bird F-35 in Few years.

 

[Super Flanker]

But F 18s are more Havier than Rafale. What is important is T/W ratio not merely engine power.

What I had said was that F/A18 has more powerful engines then the Rafale. You said in your above post that Rafale's engines are more powerful, I later corrected you by showing you how the F-18's GE-414 engine is more powerful than the Rafale's M-88 engine.

 

[Super Flanker]

Generally, any carrier based fighter which has Levcon/ Canard will have an advantage in short take off. Canard will help fighter to reduce landing speed. This sort of designs are more suitable for carriers particularly like us which are shorter in length compared to US carriers. After burner thrust is also very important to carrier based fighters compared to airforce fighters as the afterburner thrust helps in short take off. This factors becomes less important in huge carriers like the carriers of US.

Canards and Levcons are good for low speed performance. Levcons have an advantage over canards as Levcons produce less drag as compared to canards. Another advantage of Levcons is that they produce a lower radar cross in comparison to traditional canards. Canards provide better manouverability than Levcons.

As I said clearly, all aerodynamic designs have their pros as well as cons. The F/A-18 is better than the Rafale. Indian Navy has already tested both F-18 and Rafale M at its Test Facility in Goa. They know very well which is better for them.