Know Your 'Rafale'

kunal1123

New Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
594
Likes
1,142
Country flag
Thanks for your reply.

As far as I can fathom, any aircraft to takeoff from Ski-jump two parameters are most important i.e. TWR and Wing Loading.

TWR = Available Power in proportion to weight of aircraft to propel it to speed.

Wing Loading = How much weight per sq mtr of wing area has bear to lift aircraft in air. The lower the Wing Loading lesser the effort Aircraft has to exert to lift itself in Air. Higher the Wing Loading higher the Aircraft has to exert to lift itself in Air.

Lower Wing Loading Aircraft needs much smaller Runway to lift itself up from the Runway in comparison to Higher Wing Loading Aircraft having same thrust.

How much superior will be Rafale-M to Tejas MK-2 in above parameters.

Specification of Rafale-M
Empty Weight: 10600 Kg.
Internal Fuel: 4700 Kg.
Total Take-off Weight: 15300 Kg.
(Without any weapons load)

Wet Thrust: (2X75kN) = 150kN

TWR (Without any weapons load) = 0.98

Wing area: 45.7 m² (492 ft²)
So the Wing Loading of Rafale-M with 15300Kg. = 334.7921 Kg/sq.mtr.


Specification of Naval Tejas-MK2
Empty Weight: 7000 Kg.
Internal Fuel: 3158 Kg.
Total Take-off Weight: 10158 Kg.
(Without any weapons load)

Wet Thrust: 98 kN.

TWR (Without any weapons load) = 0.965

Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
So the Wing Loading of Naval Tejas-MK2 with 10158Kg. = 264.5313 Kg/sq.mtr.



Rafale-M Naval Tejas-MK2

TWR: 0.98 0.965
(Negligible difference in TWR of both the aircrafts)

Rafale-M Naval Tejas-MK2
Wing Loading: 334.7921 264.5313
(Vast diff of 70.26087 Kg/sq.mtr. in favour of Naval Tejas-MK2)

Hence Rafale-M will be far inferior to Naval Tejas-MK2 in Ski-jump operations.


Please also fathom:

Rafale-M has to support 15300Kg weight with 4700Kg fuel with (50kNx2=100kN) military engine thrust.

And Naval-Tejas-MK2 has to support 10158Kg with 3158Kg fuel with 58kN military engine thrust.

Hence Rafale-M will be far inferior to Naval-Tejas-MK2 in combat range. Because where Naval-Tejas-MK2 will be burning 3158Kg fuel for 50kN and weight 10158Kg while cruising. Rafale-M will be burning 4700Kg fuel with 100kN (Twin Engine) and weight 15300kg while cruising.

Caveat: As Naval-Tejas-MK2’s specifications are not clear till now, I made above calculations on following assumptions.

1) Empty Weight of Tejas in current format + 500 Kgs of weight increase in MK-2 format. i.e. 6500+500 = 7000 Kg empty weight.

2) Fuel Capacity of Tejas in current format + 700 Kgs of increase in capacity due to enlargement of Fuselage and volume increase in fuselage due realignment of landing gear from current fuselage position to wing roots.

3) Wing Area of Tejas Remains the same as on MK-1.

Please correct the above premise where you feel it is wrong.

*My only worry is - Naval-Tejas-MK-1 passes the Arrester Wire Landing without any trouble.
here for f/a 18 e/f

Specification of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Empty Weight: 14552 Kg.
Internal Fuel: 6780 Kg.
Total Take-off Weight: 21332 Kg.
(Without any weapons load)

Wet Thrust: (2X98kN) = 196kN

TWR (Without any weapons load) = 0.918

Wing area: 46.5 m² (492 ft²)
So the Wing Loading of with 21332Kg. = 458.8602 Kg/sq.mtr.

but there are another imp factor that is range and weapon carrying capacity that will play imp role in selection.............
 

Bhoot Pishach

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
878
Likes
4,314
Country flag
here for f/a 18 e/f
Specification of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Empty Weight: 14552 Kg.
Internal Fuel: 6780 Kg.
Total Take-off Weight: 21332 Kg.
(Without any weapons load)
Wet Thrust: (2X98kN) = 196kN
TWR (Without any weapons load) = 0.918
Wing area: 46.5 m² (492 ft²)
So the Wing Loading of with 21332Kg. = 458.8602 Kg/sq.mtr.
but there are another imp factor that is range and weapon carrying capacity that will play imp role in selection.............
Bro from Ski-jump weapons carrying capacity is what you can take-off with. If you cannot take-off with any significant weight it is useless.

Example is SU-33, great carrying capacity but cannot take-off from Ski-jump with significant weight.
 

IndianHawk

New Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
9,058
Likes
37,675
Country flag
Thanks for your reply.

As far as I can fathom, any aircraft to takeoff from Ski-jump two parameters are most important i.e. TWR and Wing Loading.

TWR = Available Power in proportion to weight of aircraft to propel it to speed.

Wing Loading = How much weight per sq mtr of wing area has bear to lift aircraft in air. The lower the Wing Loading lesser the effort Aircraft has to exert to lift itself in Air. Higher the Wing Loading higher the Aircraft has to exert to lift itself in Air.

Lower Wing Loading Aircraft needs much smaller Runway to lift itself up from the Runway in comparison to Higher Wing Loading Aircraft having same thrust.

How much superior will be Rafale-M to Tejas MK-2 in above parameters.

Specification of Rafale-M
Empty Weight: 10600 Kg.
Internal Fuel: 4700 Kg.
Total Take-off Weight: 15300 Kg.
(Without any weapons load)

Wet Thrust: (2X75kN) = 150kN

TWR (Without any weapons load) = 0.98

Wing area: 45.7 m² (492 ft²)
So the Wing Loading of Rafale-M with 15300Kg. = 334.7921 Kg/sq.mtr.


Specification of Naval Tejas-MK2
Empty Weight: 7000 Kg.
Internal Fuel: 3158 Kg.
Total Take-off Weight: 10158 Kg.
(Without any weapons load)

Wet Thrust: 98 kN.

TWR (Without any weapons load) = 0.965

Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²)
So the Wing Loading of Naval Tejas-MK2 with 10158Kg. = 264.5313 Kg/sq.mtr.



Rafale-M Naval Tejas-MK2

TWR: 0.98 0.965
(Negligible difference in TWR of both the aircrafts)

Rafale-M Naval Tejas-MK2
Wing Loading: 334.7921 264.5313
(Vast diff of 70.26087 Kg/sq.mtr. in favour of Naval Tejas-MK2)

Hence Rafale-M will be far inferior to Naval Tejas-MK2 in Ski-jump operations.


Please also fathom:

Rafale-M has to support 15300Kg weight with 4700Kg fuel with (50kNx2=100kN) military engine thrust.

And Naval-Tejas-MK2 has to support 10158Kg with 3158Kg fuel with 58kN military engine thrust.

Hence Rafale-M will be far inferior to Naval-Tejas-MK2 in combat range. Because where Naval-Tejas-MK2 will be burning 3158Kg fuel for 50kN and weight 10158Kg while cruising. Rafale-M will be burning 4700Kg fuel with 100kN (Twin Engine) and weight 15300kg while cruising.

Caveat: As Naval-Tejas-MK2’s specifications are not clear till now, I made above calculations on following assumptions.

1) Empty Weight of Tejas in current format + 500 Kgs of weight increase in MK-2 format. i.e. 6500+500 = 7000 Kg empty weight.

2) Fuel Capacity of Tejas in current format + 700 Kgs of increase in capacity due to enlargement of Fuselage and volume increase in fuselage due realignment of landing gear from current fuselage position to wing roots.

3) Wing Area of Tejas Remains the same as on MK-1.

Please correct the above premise where you feel it is wrong.

*My only worry is - Naval-Tejas-MK-1 passes the Arrester Wire Landing without any trouble.
Good analysis. There are two critical factors against NLCA first being the timeline. MIG 29k are not very reliable and Vikrant will need an operational airwig from 2018-19. Nlca mk 2 will take time to mature . It's series production might start as late as 2022-23.

The other thing that it's single engine . We can't afford any mishap on AC deck as it could render entire career out of service for quite a long time . Not doubting quality or anything just to be on the safe side.

What I think is navy wants to deploy mixture of a reliable twin engine fighter (rafale m or f18) plus NLCA mk2 in the future . So that it can keep MIG 29k on shore , and yet have a balanced deck fleet.

By 2030 we might add the third carrier.
Also NLCA will be crucial to deploy on all island bases . Andmaan to Maldives where jets fly from ground but they have to fly over oceans mostly. That is where less cost and less payload of NLCA will become an advantage.
 

Bhoot Pishach

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
878
Likes
4,314
Country flag
I like your way of thinking and analysis.

Only thing I would add to your analysis is the aerodynamic properties of the two aircraft that creates the required 'lift' ! Especially the low speed handling with heavy load. I haven't done a quantitative analysis on this front, but one could make a qualitative assessment that the canards on Rafale could direct wind flows and generate proper vortexes to create better 'lift' at low speeds. LCA Navy Mk2 will come with better LEVCONs (already on LCA Navy Mk1) but perhaps the canards will do a better job at that.
And overall, the Rafale's body seems a lot more streamlined and the body itself designed to create lift when compared to LCA Navy Mk2. It would be great if we got to know the actual 'lift' generated by these two airframes at different speeds!

The above is just an objective analysis. I would back LCA Navy Mk2 anyday!!

What you are saying does not make much difference in case of Rafale-M.

Particularly in the case of "low speed handling with heavy load", because in Ski-jump you need maximum thrust (wet) to take-off. And you land with full speed on the deck to again take-off in case you miss arrester wire.

Kindly note Tejas was tested with Canards in wind tunnel but canards were rejected because they were of little use in the particular aircraft.

May be it is of great use in Rafale but on Tejas it was rejected.
 

kunal1123

New Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
594
Likes
1,142
Country flag
Bro from Ski-jump weapons carrying capacity is what you can take-off with. If you cannot take-off with any significant weight it is useless.

Example is SU-33, great carrying capacity but cannot take-off from Ski-jump with significant weight.
well that why i say it is imp factor because lcamk2 is in design phase and Rafael is not tested for ski jump
 

Bhoot Pishach

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
878
Likes
4,314
Country flag
Good analysis. There are two critical factors against NLCA first being the timeline. MIG 29k are not very reliable and Vikrant will need an operational airwig from 2018-19. Nlca mk 2 will take time to mature . It's series production might start as late as 2022-23.

The other thing that it's single engine . We can't afford any mishap on AC deck as it could render entire career out of service for quite a long time . Not doubting quality or anything just to be on the safe side.

What I think is navy wants to deploy mixture of a reliable twin engine fighter (rafale m or f18) plus NLCA mk2 in the future . So that it can keep MIG 29k on shore , and yet have a balanced deck fleet.

By 2030 we might add the third carrier.
Also NLCA will be crucial to deploy on all island bases . Andmaan to Maldives where jets fly from ground but they have to fly over oceans mostly. That is where less cost and less payload of NLCA will become an advantage.
Noob question how much weight both Rafale-M & F-18 can lift while taking-off with from Sky-Jump???

I am dead sure the story of SU-33 will be repeated with both the Aircraft.

Though Rafale-M will be somewhat near to make the cut.
 

Scrutator

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
What you are saying does not make much difference in case of Rafale-M.

Particularly in the case of "low speed handling with heavy load", because in Ski-jump you need maximum thrust (wet) to take-off. And you land with full speed on the deck to again take-off in case you miss arrester wire.
Maximum thrust does not automatically translate to maximum speed, especially during takeoffs (&landings). The aircraft will need to accelerate to its cruising/maximum speed. That's where the AoA comes into picture.Higher AoA will purport to create better lift but will also lead to 'boundary layer separation' over the wing area (that leads to losing all lift suddenly). Thrust is not everything, the airflow needs to shaped (especially at low speeds & max thrust) to keep the air flow over the wings without 'boundary layer separation'. It is in this regard I feel canards will have an edge.
F18's don't have canards, but a HUGE LEX (Leading edge extension) that does the same job as helping with low speed lift! F18's also have 2 of the very same engines that LCA Navy Mk2 will carry.
LCA Navy Mk2 lags a bit in this area (despite its LEVCONs)

One also does not land at 'full speed' on the deck; the pilot trims the aircraft for maximum lift at reduced speed (but still enough for a take off if landing is aborted).

ALSO I would advise the TWR be calculated with the weapons load. You'll see that when you add 4 tonnes of weapons load to a heavy and a light aircraft, the TWR for lighter aircraft (LCA) will be more adversely affected than for the heavier (Rafale/F18). That will be the right comparison.

Kindly note Tejas was tested with Canards in wind tunnel but canards were rejected because they were of little use in the particular aircraft.

May be it is of great use in Rafale but on Tejas it was rejected.
Canards will definitely complicate the entire flight control system; primary reason that they rejected it. Of course there are other ways to counter achieve low speed BLS - like chines, better LEVCONs etc.
 
Last edited:

IndianHawk

New Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
9,058
Likes
37,675
Country flag
Noob question how much weight both Rafale-M & F-18 can lift while taking-off with from Sky-Jump???

I am dead sure the story of SU-33 will be repeated with both the Aircraft.

Though Rafale-M will be somewhat near to make the cut.
I don't have the data (too lazy to search)
But my reasoning still stands. Navy wants to put MIG 29k on ground even if others can carry less payload.

About ski jump the biggest scare we had while designing NLCA was insufficient thrust that is why engine had to be upgraded and airframe changed.

So twin engine will help Rafael there.
 

Filtercoffee

New Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
615
Likes
214
Country flag
Sir
Putting in an additional engine means a complete redesign of the aircraft (the weight distribution, wings, air intakes, flight control software etc), it can be done but it won't be Tejas/LCA anymore - essentially it's moving towards AMCA.




GE 404 was the original engine (built for F18); it went on to become quite popular as about 1000+ F18s were built. Since Tejas project started in the late 80s/early 90s, 404 engine was chosen. GE came up with 414 much later (as an improvement for F18s again). The Tejas project kept chugging along with 404 in their design (414 being slightly larger in diameter didn't lend itself to a simple plug-n-play into Tejas design). Kaveri project never really came out of it's gestation period through the design phase of Tejas.
Indian Navy (late entrant to the project) wanted a higher thrust engine; and hence 414 became an option but still required some redesign. When Air Force noted the rework (and as they were unhappy with 404 on Tejas) they piled onto Mk2 version. But of course Mk2 was taking forever to come through as ADA wanted to get all the carrier features into the design (which effort they had totally underestimated as they had little a priori knowledge of carrier operations). Unable to wait for airforce Mk2 to come through IAF and HAL did an interim jugaad of Tejas Mk1A (with 404 engine itself).

Essentially the whole project was mismanaged. If right decisions were taken at the right time we would probably have had several squadrons of Tejas flying by now. But all is not lost!! Tejas Mk1A with very modern avionics will be a reasonably good fighter.

Buying military equipment is like buying an insurance policy; when you don't have it you're sweating all the time because you're not prepared for a bad eventuality. But once you get it, you don't care about the 'risky' duration you put yourself through (and maybe even happy that you saved money during that phase :) )
Still this problem?! Those two are exclusive cat aircraft and the Migs are already flying with us, I dont want the engineers to have more problems because of choice. Personally.
 

smestarz

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
1,929
Likes
1,056
Country flag
Are you preparing for past wars or future wars?
You want to depend on 4th Gen Rafale in air fight dominated by 5th gen planes?

We should make a take it or leave it offer to Dassault. 20+ billion USD for 300-400 rafale MII and cancel FGFA and single engine aircraft deal. Focus should be on LCA MK2 and AMCA. 300-400 rafales along with 300+ Sukhois can take on any air force in the world. Focus should be on LCA Mk2 and AMCA
 

Scrutator

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
Some time I laugh, sometime they fill me with anger.

I am literally amazed, how they murder the basic "Laws of Physics".

And the most interesting cookup is:

"These surfaces LREX, canards, LEVCONs can create vortex which will be attached to upper wing surface in assisting extra lift during high AOA near stall flight profile by delaying flow separation"

We are learning new LAWS OF PHYSICS just like "JUPITER ESCAPE VELOCITY"
Should I point out or will you be able to figure out that you made a fool of yourself?

I have 100 bucks down that you won't know what I am talking about :)

(I've already provided a hint!)
 

Scrutator

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
F-18 is mostly a strike fighter , not an RSS all 4 channel digital fly by wire all rounder like rafale & tejas.
F18 might not have been designed for RSS but it does have quadruple-redundancy, fly-by-wire.

btw...I am very impressed with Tejas's FBW - I've talked about it in several of my earlier posts. It's a impressive fighter; but I don't believe in dissing others just for the heck of it!

Keep it real guys!!
 

Scrutator

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
345
Likes
289
Why don't you go read the thread properly to see who started the comparison matrix on the naval jets?? And see what I had to say about LCA Navy jets initially!!!!

If someone is intentionally misleading people with incorrect information, I'll point it out.
 

smestarz

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
1,929
Likes
1,056
Country flag
Well you should be, And its odd that you should come with "china"
If Rafale was indeed the reply for any 5th Gen plane, I really would wonder why is India waiting for FGFA with item 30 engine? And also what is the need for AMCA ?

After all if Rafale delivery is complete by 2020 and say 40 years for its life means till 2060 we are supposed to be covered but yet, MoD is wanting AMCA to be produced by 2030 That should tell you more.

China has more experience than India to build a plane, they have made their own copy of Su-30 as well as designed their own plane J-20 which as per me is not a MRCA but more like a long range strike and interceptor (Like MiG-25) where as J-31 is more like F-22
Well the french probably should went their panties, you dont have a 5th Gen plane in the offing, do you?

5th generation planes like China's J-20 ? Soo scared ;)
 

captscooby81

New Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
7,371
Likes
27,670
Country flag
Well no Doubt china is more experienced in designing their own 5th Generation aircrafts shows why in 2017 they bought Su-35 from Russia now it might be to copy the russian Engine tech for the new Chinese 5th Generation aircraft .

What are our option s we wont get the F-22 from the American s and the F-35 is still years away from export . PAK FA even the russian s are not sure when it will get inducted in their own airforce ..

Rafale looks more like a stop gap option for our Airforce before we start getting our own AMCA


Well you should be, And its odd that you should come with "china"
If Rafale was indeed the reply for any 5th Gen plane, I really would wonder why is India waiting for FGFA with item 30 engine? And also what is the need for AMCA ?

After all if Rafale delivery is complete by 2020 and say 40 years for its life means till 2060 we are supposed to be covered but yet, MoD is wanting AMCA to be produced by 2030 That should tell you more.

China has more experience than India to build a plane, they have made their own copy of Su-30 as well as designed their own plane J-20 which as per me is not a MRCA but more like a long range strike and interceptor (Like MiG-25) where as J-31 is more like F-22
Well the french probably should went their panties, you dont have a 5th Gen plane in the offing, do you?
 

Tactical Frog

New Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
1,542
Likes
2,279
Country flag
Well you should be, And its odd that you should come with "china"
If Rafale was indeed the reply for any 5th Gen plane, I really would wonder why is India waiting for FGFA with item 30 engine? And also what is the need for AMCA ?

After all if Rafale delivery is complete by 2020 and say 40 years for its life means till 2060 we are supposed to be covered but yet, MoD is wanting AMCA to be produced by 2030 That should tell you more.

China has more experience than India to build a plane, they have made their own copy of Su-30 as well as designed their own plane J-20 which as per me is not a MRCA but more like a long range strike and interceptor (Like MiG-25) where as J-31 is more like F-22
Well the french probably should went their panties, you dont have a 5th Gen plane in the offing, do you?
The only operational 5 th generation jet i know about is the F-22. We will talk about other 5 th generation planes when they are ready for combat. F-35 is far from being ready for combat. J-20 ? if the Chinese where anywhere near mastering advanced technologies such as those developped for F-22 they would not waste precious money introducing the potent Su-35 in their inventory, don't you think ?

As for Rafale, it is not a frozen platform. Just like Boeing with their Advanced Super Hornet, Dassault will introduce solutions for improved stealth when the time is good ... mid 2020s.
 

Articles

Top