Know Your 'Rafale'

[Vijyes]

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

MiG29k has same take off weight as Rafale with 20% higher thrust. Whatever may be the runway, MIG29K will have an upper hand.

In carriers, MiG29K can take of with 4-5 ton payload and full internal fuel. The actual maximum payload in long runway will be 6.5ton.

 

[IndianHawk]

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

It's lost in pages of BRF. But if you will search BRF you will find it. It may take some time though. Alternatively you may try to find the dimensions of lifts on both vikramaditya and Vikrant and you will reach same conclusion.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[IndianHawk]

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.


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

Ok this is way better explanation.
Yet a catapult of 1969 was designed for much simpler planes with much less payload hence required low power. We need a catapult to serve us till 2060 which can lob AMCA and future stealth plane too which will be much heavier and will carry 8-9 ton payload!

Chinese trying emals with conventional power is not very convincing as USA is still struggling with emals even with abundant power of nuclear carrier.

The point was nuclear carrier repair is lesser issue that costs as Russian also operate nuclear cruisers and ice cutters. And next Russian carrier plan is based on nuclear power. If USA France and Russia are going with nuke powered surface vessels than their military doctrine conclude that nuke power despite long repair time is still beneficial. Same applies to India .


Ins Vishal will have to patrol entire ior. From gulf to Australian coast and to Japan . Since we already have two carrier for near ocean Vishal will be expected to travel far from home. Even reaching to Pacific to cement indo- Pacific naval co-operation between USA Japan and India.

No navy wants a carrier with lesser range and less power it is the budget that forces them to compromise.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[IndianHawk]

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?

Exactly we need to stop being cheap with an asset like aircraft carrier. More than the number of planes it is important to look at what these planes can fly with and how fast.

Our carriers can be smaller than chini but they should have faster shortie rate and each plane should fly with more fuel and ammo than chini plane. In short more effective war machine than chini.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Vijyes]

Ok this is way better explanation.
Yet a catapult of 1969 was designed for much simpler planes with much less payload hence required low power. We need a catapult to serve us till 2060 which can lob AMCA and future stealth plane too which will be much heavier and will carry 8-9 ton payload!

Again, not convincing argument. How did you conclude that the CATAPULT could only work with smaller planes? It is not that the catapult power is limited to exactly match the smaller planes. CATAPULT is using steam which can have any amount of power as it is simply heating of water using the engine heat.

The longevity is not an issue as USA carriers have lasted 30+ years with catapult if 1950s. AMCA will have maximum take off weight at 25 tons and that is well within CATAPULT power.

The point was nuclear carrier repair is lesser issue that costs as Russian also operate nuclear cruisers and ice cutters. And next Russian carrier plan is based on nuclear power. If USA France and Russia are going with nuke powered surface vessels than their military doctrine conclude that nuke power despite long repair time is still beneficial. Same applies to India

France doesn't have diesel whereas India has coal to diesel ability due yo abundant coal. USA needs to deploy long range and hence nuclear carrier is better.

But Russia and China always used diesel carrier due to their limited range requirement as they didn't have enough bases everywhere. It is mainly dependent upon the range of action which necessitate Nuclear power. When range is low, nuclear power is undesirable as it will have higher repair time. The reactor needs months to start and gain full power and that makes it slow to repair.

Ins Vishal will have to patrol entire ior. From gulf to Australian coast and to Japan . Since we already have two carrier for near ocean Vishal will be expected to travel far from home. Even reaching to Pacific to cement indo- Pacific naval co-operation between USA Japan and India.

We are not crossing Malacca straits. It is impossible for our ship to survive that straits. Our range will Indonesian coast to African-Arab coast in east-west direction and till Diego Garcia in South. We are not going to go anywhere else.

 

[vampyrbladez]

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

The empty weight of the F 18 E/F is equivalent to the loaded weight of the Rafale. Mig 29K has empty weight somewhere between the two but a more powerful engine than both of them.

By design F 18 E/F is 7.6g and Mig 29K is 8g whereas Rafale is 9 - 11g. By sheer maximum takeoff weight F 18 E/F is superior to the two. Also it is currently in production so cost is less and will be kept relevant via upgrades by OEM.

Conclusion : F 18 E/F is the natural choice for our carriers. Similarity in performance and design will help transition of equipment better.

 

[Vijyes]

The empty weight of the F 18 E/F is equivalent to the loaded weight of the Rafale. Mig 29K has empty weight somewhere between the two but a more powerful engine than both of them.

By design F 18 E/F is 7.6g and Mig 29K is 8g whereas Rafale is 9 - 11g. By sheer maximum takeoff weight F 18 E/F is superior to the two. Also it is currently in production so cost is less and will be kept relevant via upgrades by OEM.

Conclusion : F 18 E/F is the natural choice for our carriers. Similarity in performance and design will help transition of equipment better.

What? Rafale and Mig29k have same empty weight and MToW. But Mig29k has 92kN engine. So, Mig29K can take off from smaller runway than Rafale.

F18 having high empty weight 14.6 ton compared to Mig29K with 11ton and Rafale M with 10.9 ton. F18 has one third more empty weight. The F18 has 98kN engine compared to MiG29k 92kN which is just 6% higher and doesn't compensate 33% higher weight. In addition, fuel requirement ia higher to carry higher weight. This means that to ensure TWR of the F18 to be same as MiG29K, it must have much smaller payload compared to MiG29k. This means F18 will have difficulty in taking off from STOBAR with decent payload.

Where is the advantage?

 

[vampyrbladez]

What? Rafale and Mig29k have same empty weight and MToW. But Mig29k has 92kN engine. So, Mig29K can take off from smaller runway than Rafale.

F18 having high empty weight 14.6 ton compared to Mig29K with 11ton and Rafale M with 10.9 ton. F18 has one third more empty weight. The F18 has 98kN engine compared to MiG29k 92kN which is just 6% higher and doesn't compensate 33% higher weight. In addition, fuel requirement ia higher to carry higher weight. This means that to ensure TWR of the F18 to be same as MiG29K, it must have much smaller payload compared to MiG29k. This means F18 will have difficulty in taking off from STOBAR with decent payload.

Where is the advantage?

F 18 E/F has design advantage of being built up from the ground as a naval aircraft. This is something the Russian MiG 29 K lacks. Super Hornets have an internal fuel capacity of 6.531 kg (14,700 lb) and external capacity of upto 4 × 480 gal tanks, totaling 13,040 lb. MiGs have an internal fuel capacity of 4,560 kg with the ability to mount 3 x fuel tanks.

Thus F 18 E/F combat radius is between 390 - 410 nm (709 - 746 km) to as much as 520 nm (946.4 km). Due to it's increased internal fuel load, the MiG 29 K has a combat radius of 850km. Ferry range of the precursor F 18 C/D is 1800 nm (3276 km) and factoring in a 41% increase in mission range gives the successor F 18 E/F around 2538 nm (4619 km) respectively. This far exceeds the competition here with Mig 29K 's unrefueled range of 3000 km and compares favourably to its refuelled range of 5500 km.

Since the main purpose of carrier aircraft is strike range and maximum payload, the F 18 E/F is the clear winner here due to it's increased thrust and greater internal fuel capacity. I could delve into radar and EW comparisons but that is simply overkill here.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20130317093834/http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm

 

[vampyrbladez]

Please continue naval fighter aircraft related discussions here :

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/indian-navy-issues-rfi-for-carrier-fighters.78313/page-3

 

[Immanuel]

What? Rafale and Mig29k have same empty weight and MToW. But Mig29k has 92kN engine. So, Mig29K can take off from smaller runway than Rafale.

F18 having high empty weight 14.6 ton compared to Mig29K with 11ton and Rafale M with 10.9 ton. F18 has one third more empty weight. The F18 has 98kN engine compared to MiG29k 92kN which is just 6% higher and doesn't compensate 33% higher weight. In addition, fuel requirement ia higher to carry higher weight. This means that to ensure TWR of the F18 to be same as MiG29K, it must have much smaller payload compared to MiG29k. This means F18 will have difficulty in taking off from STOBAR with decent payload.

Where is the advantage?

Mig-29K has two RD-33MK engine with 88.3 KN thrust in full aft, total thrust of 176KN, while the Block 2 SH has two 98KN engines with a total thrust of 196 KN. Totalling 20KN more than the Mig-29K.

The IN is offered the the Block 3 with GE F414 Enhance engine with 110KN, hence power will be 44KN more.
Block 3 SH also has a 9000 hr air frame, carrier take off with around 5-6 tons of payload is not a problem at all.

Block 3 will come with new gen IRST, MAWS, New gen datalinks, Enhanced Engine, Large cockpit display, shoulder mounted CFTs which will help in avoiding lugging drop tanks (more stores for weapons available).

Block 3 SH flight testing in the USN will begin later this year.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Mig-29K has two RD-33MK engine with 88.3 KN thrust in full aft, total thrust of 176KN, while the Block 2 SH has two 98KN engines with a total thrust of 196 KN. Totalling 20KN more than the Mig-29K.

The IN is offered the the Block 3 with GE F414 Enhance engine with 110KN, hence power will be 44KN more.
Block 3 SH also has a 9000 hr air frame, carrier take off with around 5-6 tons of payload is not a problem at all.

Block 3 will come with new gen IRST, MAWS, New gen datalinks, Enhanced Engine, Large cockpit display, shoulder mounted CFTs which will help in avoiding lugging drop tanks (more stores for weapons available).

Block 3 SH flight testing in the USN will begin later this year.

Please continue naval fighter aircraft related discussions here :

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/indian-navy-issues-rfi-for-carrier-fighters.78313/page-3

 

[Armand2REP]

MiG29k has same take off weight as Rafale with 20% higher thrust. Whatever may be the runway, MIG29K will have an upper hand.

In carriers, MiG29K can take of with 4-5 ton payload and full internal fuel. The actual maximum payload in long runway will be 6.5ton.

You are forgetting T/W ratio and wing loading, Rafale is delta wing made of composites and titanium. MiG-29K is made of Cold War era aluminum and steel with swept wings. Even without a catapult Rafale has more useful load at taking off from a carrier than a MiG-29. With buddy refueling it isn't even a contest.

 

[BON PLAN]

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

1) Mig29K with 5T fuel and 5T load IS NOT POSSIBLE ON A STOBAR CONFIG !
2) A Rafale with "only " 2x7.5T can have a load of 9.5Tons, bigger than the Mig29K with 2x9.2T . Engine thrust is not the sole parameter ! A close coupled canard delta is more effective for lift than a classical config.

 

[BON PLAN]

F18 having high empty weight 14.6 ton compared to Mig29K with 11ton and Rafale M with 10.9 ton.

NO for Rafale M (an official Dassaut sheet presented on a last Le Bourget show)

Empty weight = 22046 lb = 9.98 tons

 

[Vijyes]

NO for Rafale M (an official Dassaut sheet presented on a last Le Bourget show)
View attachment 36223

Empty weight = 22046 lb = 9.98 tons

The heading says it is Rafale airforce. Naval variant has some additional fitting to withstand arrestor landing. So, expect 800-900 kg weight extra

 

[Vijyes]

1) Mig29K with 5T fuel and 5T load IS NOT POSSIBLE ON A STOBAR CONFIG !
2) A Rafale with "only " 2x7.5T can have a load of 9.5Tons, bigger than the Mig29K with 2x9.2T . Engine thrust is not the sole parameter ! A close coupled canard delta is more effective for lift than a classical config.

MiG29K has internal fuel of close to 5ton. And it can carry payload of at least 4 ton from STOBAR. 3.5 ton payload is minimum requirement for navy. Below that the plane will be rejected. MiG29K has well above the minimum requirement and can go at 4+ ton payload with full internal fuel. Midflight refueling is only a luxury as Indian carriers can't have tanker and buddy refueling boys down useful fighter in logistical role.

Engine thrust is not sole parameter but it is one of the main parameter. There is no doubt that Rafale with 90kN engine will be able to carry more payload and have less runway length for take off than in 75kN engine.

Secondly, close couple canards provide maneuvering. Lift is another thing.

 

[IndianHawk]

Again, not convincing argument. How did you conclude that the CATAPULT could only work with smaller planes? It is not that the catapult power is limited to exactly match the smaller planes. CATAPULT is using steam which can have any amount of power as it is simply heating of water using the engine heat.

The longevity is not an issue as USA carriers have lasted 30+ years with catapult if 1950s. AMCA will have maximum take off weight at 25 tons and that is well within CATAPULT power.


France doesn't have diesel whereas India has coal to diesel ability due yo abundant coal. USA needs to deploy long range and hence nuclear carrier is better.

But Russia and China always used diesel carrier due to their limited range requirement as they didn't have enough bases everywhere. It is mainly dependent upon the range of action which necessitate Nuclear power. When range is low, nuclear power is undesirable as it will have higher repair time. The reactor needs months to start and gain full power and that makes it slow to repair.



We are not crossing Malacca straits. It is impossible for our ship to survive that straits. Our range will Indonesian coast to African-Arab coast in east-west direction and till Diego Garcia in South. We are not going to go anywhere else.

I hope you are right about catapult. We will need it on our next carrier anyway.

Russia has unveiled plan for nuclear carrier and china wants a 100k ton carrier which will obviously be a nuke powered one.

We will cross Malacca. If India USA Japan naval cooperation has to be effective against China than our carriers will have to operate as far as Pacific. Ofcourse we don't have bases but we will use US base and US support ecosystem to operate far away. That is why we signed lemoa !
It was not just to let US use our bases.

Your argument about distance is flawed as no navy will choose a vessel with lower capability if not for budget. And that was my original point . If we go for conventional carrier it will be because of budgetary constraints not any other reason.
We are already designing 150mw reactor for future SSBN and SSN same can power aircraft carriers in pairs.





Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Vijyes]

Russia has unveiled plan for nuclear carrier and china wants a 100k ton carrier which will obviously be a nuke powered one

Russia and China may be trying to get to strategic locations. Hence they need nuclear carrier to move from their shores to IOR. IOR is the most strategic location in the world. But India is located right in it. Hence the need of Russia and China will not arise for India.

We will cross Malacca. If India USA Japan naval cooperation has to be effective against China than our carriers will have to operate as far as Pacific. Ofcourse we don't have bases but we will use US base and US support ecosystem to operate far away. That is why we signed lemoa !
It was not just to let US use our bases.

USA is not a friend to have real relationship. USA is just transactional partner. We signed LEMOA with a condition that USA will not be allowed Indian bases in war without Indian government consent. This LEMOA is only to reduce logistical expense and not a key military treaty.

We uave no business operating with USA. In fact, it is better if we operate with China against USA. USA is the real enemy after all. So, it makes no sense to cross Malacca.

Secondly, Malacca is surrounded by Jihadi countries and Indian ships can't be considered safe in this location. It is very foolish to cross into such hostile territories in wartimes.

Your argument about distance is flawed as no navy will choose a vessel with lower capability if not for budget. And that was my original point . If we go for conventional carrier it will be because of budgetary constraints not any other reason.
We are already designing 150mw reactor for future SSBN and SSN same can power aircraft carriers in pairs.

An aircraft carrier of the size 65000 ton can be powered by 2 Arihant reactors too. 180MW thermal power which in turn can translate into 80 MW shaft power and 30MW additional electricity is enough to propel a carrier and take care of all its operations.

Diesel carrier is not incapable. It is better than nuclear carrier in terms of repair time, damage resistance etc. Nuclear carrier is inferior in these areas.

 

[asianobserve]

Russia and China may be trying to get to strategic locations. Hence they need nuclear carrier to move from their shores to IOR. IOR is the most strategic location in the world. But India is located right in it. Hence the need of Russia and China will not arise for India.



USA is not a friend to have real relationship. USA is just transactional partner. We signed LEMOA with a condition that USA will not be allowed Indian bases in war without Indian government consent. This LEMOA is only to reduce logistical expense and not a key military treaty.

We uave no business operating with USA. In fact, it is better if we operate with China against USA. USA is the real enemy after all. So, it makes no sense to cross Malacca.

Secondly, Malacca is surrounded by Jihadi countries and Indian ships can't be considered safe in this location. It is very foolish to cross into such hostile territories in wartimes.


An aircraft carrier of the size 65000 ton can be powered by 2 Arihant reactors too. 180MW thermal power which in turn can translate into 80 MW shaft power and 30MW additional electricity is enough to propel a carrier and take care of all its operations.

Diesel carrier is not incapable. It is better than nuclear carrier in terms of repair time, damage resistance etc. Nuclear carrier is inferior in these areas.

Everything is transactional in international relations. You think Russia is a true friend of India? Then why is it selling high tech weapons to China?

 

[Vijyes]

Everything is transactional in international relations. You think Russia is a true friend of India? Then why is it selling high tech weapons to China?

Because China is not an enemy. It is just a made up enemy and only used as distraction and deception against real enemy which is West.