Know Your 'Rafale'

[Immanuel]

Both Rafale and SHBlock3 can fly from INS Vikky and IAC-1.

 

[Vijyes]

USA has "suggested" a 65k ton carrier with emals and nuclear propulsion with ofcourse US fighter jets !

We will only do what our budget will allow. So no nuclear propulsion and no emals. We are more likely to go for a QE class design as without nuclear propulsion even catapult system will be difficult to power.



Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Catapult system depends on steam power. It does not require much electricity. So, it is possible to use Catapult CATOBAR without nuclear propuslion. The reason why India rejected nuclear propulsion is not budget. India has indigenous nuclear technology and hence budget is irrelevant. Our scientists at BARC will do the work for their regular salary. No need of special pay for that.

India went for diesel instead of nuclear due to ease of repairing diesel ones if damaged in war. USA requirement of going long distance is not the case with India. Indian need is in IOR and hence diesel propulsion is good enough. QE class design is retarded and requires massive redesign to add CATOBAR. It is as of now only for F35.

45 Mig-29K will be used between INS Vikky and Vikrant. SH Block 3 or Rafale will be used on them as well initially till Vishal comes along. Anyways, it would take another 3-4 years before a deal is done and delivery won't begin till 2027 or so.

Read the previous replies before talking on same topic:

Do you know that current MiG29K is for STOBAR carriers? How can you buy F18 as a reserve for attrition of MiG29K when F18 can't fly from STOBAR?

What delivery in 2027? Who needs such late deliveries? Until full TOT is involved, such late deliveries will be rejected. India is already getting MWF by then. So, it makes little sense to get either of these planes

Both Rafale and SHBlock3 can fly from INS Vikky and IAC-1.

Absurd. F18 and Rafale can't fly from STOBAR as of now. There is no evidence of these making such take offs. It is only your wishful thinking.

 

[asianobserve]

Absurd. F18 and Rafale can't fly from STOBAR as of now. There is no evidence of these making such take offs. It is only your wishful thinking.

Boeing Says Super Hornet Fully Compatible With Indian Navy Ski-Jump Carriers

"We've done a lot of simulation work with the Indian Navy to better understand their requirements and we fill comfortable that the Super Hornet can operate from all their carriers, both the ones fielded today and the ones in the future... We think we can move around the deck, be very mission capable with a relevant weapons load-out and fuel load-out to give the Navy what they need... The Super Hornet as built today can operate from Indian carriers."

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...compatible-with-indian-navy-ski-jump-carriers

 

[IndianHawk]

Catapult system depends on steam power. It does not require much electricity. So, it is possible to use Catapult CATOBAR without nuclear propuslion. The reason why India rejected nuclear propulsion is not budget. India has indigenous nuclear technology and hence budget is irrelevant. Our scientists at BARC will do the work for their regular salary. No need of special pay for that.

India went for diesel instead of nuclear due to ease of repairing diesel ones if damaged in war. USA requirement of going long distance is not the case with India. Indian need is in IOR and hence diesel propulsion is good enough. QE class design is retarded and requires massive redesign to add CATOBAR. It is as of now only for F35.


Read the previous replies before talking on same topic:


What delivery in 2027? Who needs such late deliveries? Until full TOT is involved, such late deliveries will be rejected. India is already getting MWF by then. So, it makes little sense to get either of these planes


Absurd. F18 and Rafale can't fly from STOBAR as of now. There is no evidence of these making such take offs. It is only your wishful thinking.

Catapult requires lot of power that is why the British didn't put catapult on their 65k ton qe class carries meanwhile France has catapult on a 43k ton carrier ( equal to vikramaditya) .

The difference between both of them is nuclear power.

Nuclear propulsion is much more costly than diesel despite being indegenios. It's not just reactor but it's maintainance , fuel storage , fuel cycle , repair and finally even decommissioning costs a bomb due to safety reasons and requirements of very highly skilled manpower which is experienced in dealing with nuke tech.

If war time repair is an issue why does India has nuke submarine? Surely by same logic diesel - electric submarine would suffice?

Obviously that logic is flawed.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[IndianHawk]

Boeing Says Super Hornet Fully Compatible With Indian Navy Ski-Jump Carriers


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...compatible-with-indian-navy-ski-jump-carriers

What a joke . The lifts of vikramaditya and Vikrant can't fit any other aircraft than mig29k and nlca. There are only designed for these two planes , which seems like a huge blunder in the hindsight.



Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[vampyrbladez]

What a joke . The lifts of vikramaditya and Vikrant can't fit any other aircraft than mig29k and nlca. There are only designed for these two planes , which seems like a huge blunder in the hindsight.



Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

MiG 29k and F 18 E/F are near identical in their design philosophy. Air Force jets adapted for Naval purposes.

They are of the same weight class and have a similar T/W and loaded weight.

 

[IndianHawk]

MiG 29k and F 18 E/F are near identical in their design philosophy. Air Force jets adapted for Naval purposes.

They are of the same weight class and have a similar T/W and loaded weight.

Mig 29k wingspan is 11 meter
F18 e/f wingspan is 13 meter.

Our current carrier lifts can only fit mig29k with folded wings .
F18 won't fit even with folded wings neither does rafale m whose wings don't even fold.

There was a long technical discussion on this on BRF. Conclusion was that both vikramaditya and Vikrant lifts are only designed with keeping mig29k and nlca in mind.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[vampyrbladez]

Mig 29k wingspan is 11 meter
F18 e/f wingspan is 13 meter.

Our current carrier lifts can only fit mig29k with folded wings .
F18 won't fit even with folded wings neither does rafale m whose wings don't even fold.

There was a long technical discussion on this on BRF. Conclusion was that both vikramaditya and Vikrant lifts are only designed with keeping mig29k and nlca in mind.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Can you link the thread??????????????????????????????????

 

[BON PLAN]

Navy will get 57 F18 SH for it's tender. IAF will get 114 more Rafales.

As a French, I say Yes immediately

 

[BON PLAN]

Why not F35 B?no issue of S400 as navy will get them?USAF is retiring SH

Don't imagine there is no link between IAF and IN in the US eyes. It's all India.
S400 means no F35. Turkey is a hot case.

So no F35.

SH18 is far from being retired. It's first gen F18, F/À 18 that are removed.
USN will order new SH18...

 

[vampyrbladez]

Don't imagine there is no link between IAF and IN in the US eyes. It's all India.
S400 means no F35. Turkey is a hot case.

So no F35.

SH18 is far from being retired. It's first gen F18, F/À 18 that are removed.
USN will order new SH18...

US will sell India F 35 but we cannot financially afford F 35A/B, AMCA, FGFA and Rafale.

 

[BON PLAN]

There is no magic in western technology. India is happy to have whatever works. Rafale is bought only because France has offered technology transfer. The $4 billion offset involves this. Otherwise, buying western plane instead of Russian ones merely because India already has them doesn't make sense. Russian planes have indigenisation and hence can be overhauled or made in India. MiG29 can be overhauled in India whereas Su30 can be made in India. If western planes offer lesser indigenisation, obviously, it will be rejected.



Who told you that India is buying F18 planes? Why does India need F18 when it has no aircraft carrier from which it can operate?

Russian fighters are less available, for yearsss. And cost à lot to operate, but cheaper to buy.
Russian avionics can't compete with western ones.
No AESA available! Su30 only rely on PESA. A big one, but on a big plane with big RCS...

 

[BON PLAN]

US will sell India F 35 but we cannot financially afford F 35A/B, AMCA, FGFA and Rafale.

No F35 my friend. Too touchy for US air forces.
The SOLE asset of F35 is stealth. If it is broken, it less than a paper plane : slow, poorly agile. A turkey in the sky. A piece of cake even for F16 as already demonstrated in US tests.

 

[BON PLAN]

IN has a tender out for 57 fighters, main competitors being SH Block 3 and Rafale-M. The SHBlock-3 is better suited for INS Vikrant and eventually INS Vishal.

To be seen. .

 

[BON PLAN]

I don't think carriers are going to be flagships for too long ,they will downgraded to ship with unique mission profiles but the day of putting all your eggs on carriers is over,if there is a superlative platform it will be the latest nuke subs of ssbn and san variety as anything above the surface will face significant challenges in staying afloat and fighting.

It's a 75 years old question!
And the main blue navy, with the deeper carrier experience, answer by building new super carriers : so it remains a first class asset.

 

[Vijyes]

Boeing Says Super Hornet Fully Compatible With Indian Navy Ski-Jump Carriers


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...compatible-with-indian-navy-ski-jump-carriers

It is a claim. I also agree that F18 can fly from STOBAR. But the payload is suspect. If the payload is too low or if F18 needs to be refueled mid air after take off, then also it is problematic. F18 hasn't demonstrated its ability to take off with 5 ton payload and full tank as if now. So, it is simply not proven.

Catapult requires lot of power that is why the British didn't put catapult on their 65k ton qe class carries meanwhile France has catapult on a 43k ton carrier ( equal to vikramaditya) .

The difference between both of them is nuclear power.

Nuclear propulsion is much more costly than diesel despite being indegenios. It's not just reactor but it's maintainance , fuel storage , fuel cycle , repair and finally even decommissioning costs a bomb due to safety reasons and requirements of very highly skilled manpower which is experienced in dealing with nuke tech.

If war time repair is an issue why does India has nuke submarine? Surely by same logic diesel - electric submarine would suffice?

Obviously that logic is flawed.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Lets be clear. UK has no indigenous carrier worthy plane and it wanted to go with F35 from the beginning. Hence it didn't get CATAPULT. There was never a problem with CATAPULT on diesel. UK carrier doesn't even have arrestor wires as it was always designed for F35 which is STOVL.

As I said, catapult needs steam and that is from the heat of boiler. Electric power need is not much. You can check examples of USS independence launched in 1959 that had steam catapult.

Today, you can see type 002 of China that even has EMALS in conventional power.

Despite all these evidence, why insist that nuclear power is a must for catapult? If 1950s technology can have catapult with boiler propulsion, why can't 2020 Technology use it?

India is not going for nuclear submarine by discarding diesel ones. Look at UK or France and tell me whether they have any Diesel submarine at all? But India is not going their path and even encouraging more diesel submarine design.

Nuclear submarine is also being developed at the same time because of advantage like long duration of submergence. But in aircraft carrier, these don't stay hidden and hence are easy target. They have higher risk of getting hit and the long endurance of these carrier is irrelevant for short distance from Indian shores to IOR. Submarine, on the other hand has to stay hidden waiting yo ambush. This difference of role is what makes nuclear submarine useful at times. But nuclear carrier is more a liability with no advantage.

Cost of fueling etc are all low as the reactors are fueled once in 20 years. But the real problem is in repair duration and lack of real advantage.

INS Vishal will be diesel powered as it is mainly for IOR. It will be having CATAPULT, however. It will be able yo carry any plane including F18 & Rafale. But by then NMWF would be ready. It appears that MWF will be able to fly even in STOBAR of Vikrant. With such versatile MWF capable of being flown from all types of carrier, there will be no need to get any other plane. If NAMCA can be developed (it is difficult to have stealth Naval plane with arrestor landing), then even that can be used on it.

Overall, Vishal will be Catapult but even then it will select only Indian planes

 

[BON PLAN]

Absurd. F18 and Rafale can't fly from STOBAR as of now.

Boeing and Dassault say it is possible. With small load as Mig 29 K.

 

[Vijyes]

Boeing and Dassault say it is possible. With small load as Mig 29 K.

MiG29K has 5 ton internal fuel and payload of 5 tons. Rafale is not designed to take off with that much weight from a STOBAR. Rafale can only work in air superiority role with some BVR missiles from a STOBAR carrier.

Rafale has 75kN twin engine whereas MiG29K has 92kN twin engine. Obviously, this thrust difference of 20% will count in addition to the design aided lift to ensure MiG29K takes off with heavier payload than Rafale from carrier

 

[Armand2REP]

MiG29K has 5 ton internal fuel and payload of 5 tons. Rafale is not designed to take off with that much weight from a STOBAR. Rafale can only work in air superiority role with some BVR missiles from a STOBAR carrier.

You speak as if MiG-29K has a full runway to take off of.

 

[uoftotaku]

STOBAR as a concept is both flawed and combat ineffective.

Yes theoretically, Rafale, F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, Gripen-E etc CAN conduct STOBAR operation. BUT with a combat effective fuel and weapons payload? No. For that matter neither can the MiG-29K or the SU-33K.

The only reason the Russians pursued STOBAR was because it was a "cheaper" and faster way of getting an on-paper carrier aviation capability than CATOBAR (which requires greater expense on the vessel AND a much more comprehensive modification of the aircraft) or V/STOL which they had tried unsuccessfully for years with Yak-38 + Kiev-class combo.

Anyway the Rafale would be totally wasted if forced into STOBAR ops. It is beautifully engineered for CATOBAR and to force it into a different operational paradigm where its main abilities like its huge payload capability and combat radius would be negated would be a shame and a waste of resources. Why spend so much money on a platform only to hobble its capabilities?