Know Your 'Rafale'

[smestarz]

F/A-18 was not a groupd up design as a naval fighter.
F/A-18 was actually XF-17 and it competed with XF-16 for MRCA competition as USA wanted to arm itself and its allies with a powerful version of Multi role plane, that would be replacing F-5 in most of the air forces of NATO and USA allies. LM F-16 won the compeition and became the fighting Falcon. The XF-17 was then offered to the US Navy, who did not want to order same plane as USAF. so they tested XF-17 and with few modifications took it as F/A-18 which they used to replace the older Phantom Jets, Crusaders, and F-14 tomcts with one type that fits all F/A-18. Since then all of F/A-18 come with strong fuselage etc, they dont have "lighter airforce model" even though Australia uses its for its airforce, it still comes with the strong heavy air frame thats good enough for plane to be a carrier plane (with few modifications)

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

 

[IndianHawk]

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.

If china will operate in IOR than we will have to operate in South China sea. We can't just Allow china to tread into our waters without doing the same to them.

China is actual enemy . Don't be naive. We have an ongoing border dispute.

We will emerge as a global power and won't confine ourselves by Malacca strait. Lemoa also allows us to join peaceful exercise on USA bases in Guam and Pacific.

USA will become enemy only after china is taken care of. So as long china is there it is the prime enemy of both USA and India .




Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[BON PLAN]

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

oups ! it's not clear in fact.

Here a link of the french Navy : https://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/equipements/aeronefs/rafale-marine#eztoc491930_0_3

with that datas :
Caractéristiques du Rafale M

• Envergure : 10,90 mètres
• Surface alaire : 46 m²
• Longueur : 15,27 mètres
• Hauteur : 5,34 mètres
• Masses :
  • à vide : 10 196 kg
  • maximale : 24 000 kg

 

[BON PLAN]

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.

It's not because a plane has a 5T fuel capacity that it will take off full of fuel. I think that it will be fuel full in pure air to air capacity (is with 4 to 6 AAM) but not with a 4T load.

 

[BON PLAN]

Diesel carrier is not incapable.

No diesel carrier since WW2.
Diesel is a low consumption solution, but the high speed is nearly out of range, and if so (case of the Cassard SAM french frigate) it takes a lot of space. I don't think it is a nice solution.

 

[Vijyes]

It's not because a plane has a 5T fuel capacity that it will take off full of fuel. I think that it will be fuel full in pure air to air capacity (is with 4 to 6 AAM) but not with a 4T load.

India always asks for full tank take off. India doesn't have CATOBAR or military bases everywhere hence can't make tankers refuel the planes in the middle of deep sea. Buddy refueling is not feasible as that ties down one plane for every other plane taking off and reduces the capacity of the aircraft carrier by 50%. So, India strictly asks for full tank take off.

 

[Vijyes]

No diesel carrier since WW2.
Diesel is a low consumption solution, but the high speed is nearly out of range, and if so (case of the Cassard SAM french frigate) it takes a lot of space. I don't think it is a nice solution.

Queen Elizabeth class is diesel. So, it is possible to have diesel carrier. Of course, there will be turbofans to boost speed when needed

 

[asianobserve]

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.

Mig29 may have 5t fuel capacity but its engines are gas guzzlers. They cannot even make a clean burn of their fuel that's why it smokes like a coal power plant smokestack. A Mig29 can be spotted miles away with naked eyes due to smoke trail.

 

[asianobserve]

Queen Elizabeth class is diesel. So, it is possible to have diesel carrier. Of course, there will be turbofans to boost speed when needed

Diesel is vastly inferior to nuke in AC. The only advantage of diesel is in cost of acquisition and decommissioning while nuke power plant is supremely cheaper to operate in between. In addition, because nuke powered AC does not have to store diesel fuel then it can store more aviation fuel for its aircraft compliment. There are many more benefits nukes have over diesel.

 

[BON PLAN]

https://in.news.yahoo.com/indian-pi...Z0W8kTm3mIvmfNPcXEC1UFklAMr3W8KU4OWq2cuAwyOML

Indian pilots taking to Rafale jets during Indo-French Garuda VI 'was amazing', says French Air Force's Chief of Staff

https://in.news.yahoo.com/indian-pilots-taking-rafale-jets-021809571.html

 

[Vijyes]

If china will operate in IOR than we will have to operate in South China sea. We can't just Allow china to tread into our waters without doing the same to them.

China is actual enemy . Don't be naive. We have an ongoing border dispute.

We will emerge as a global power and won't confine ourselves by Malacca strait. Lemoa also allows us to join peaceful exercise on USA bases in Guam and Pacific.

USA will become enemy only after china is taken care of. So as long china is there it is the prime enemy of both USA and India .




Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

China border dispute is more of Dalai Lama rather than real dispute. It is just about settlement if Dalai Lama issue.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of global power. Being a global power requires special reasons which include others' cooperation and others' weakness. USA became global power because Arabs and Muslims cooperated with them to take down USSR. This gave petrodollar deal and hence USA could become global power by control of world oil. But such opportunity is hardly available now.

China coming into IOR is not true. China is only protecting its oil interests. It is not an aggression against India. India must be more concerned about USA presence in IOR.

I am surprised why you don't ever claim that India should work with China to take down USA but always regularly insist on India teaming with USA to take down China. Why are you biased towards USA and against China? What does USA give you?

I am thinking the opposite manner - work with China to take down USA. The most important region of the world is IOR. So, it is natural that India will have to focus on it more to control it. Crossing Malacca is simply absurd as there is very little action in Pacific region. What do you want India to do in SCS? Help USA? Why? IOR controls world oil supply and hence it is the key. Pacific and other regions are minor players.

So, our focus must be on completely dominating IOR and that will need carriers which are robust and easy yo maintain and repair. We don't need the range

 

[BON PLAN]

Queen Elizabeth class is diesel. So, it is possible to have diesel carrier. Of course, there will be turbofans to boost speed when needed

So not Diesel only. Diesel is well suited for 18 to 20 knots. More and you need gas turbines.

 

[Vijyes]

So not Diesel only. Diesel is well suited for 18 to 20 knots. More and you need gas turbines.

These gas turbines also use diesel. The fuels used by both engines are same.

 

[IndianHawk]

China border dispute is more of Dalai Lama rather than real dispute. It is just about settlement if Dalai Lama issue.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of global power. Being a global power requires special reasons which include others' cooperation and others' weakness. USA became global power because Arabs and Muslims cooperated with them to take down USSR. This gave petrodollar deal and hence USA could become global power by control of world oil. But such opportunity is hardly available now.

China coming into IOR is not true. China is only protecting its oil interests. It is not an aggression against India. India must be more concerned about USA presence in IOR.

I am surprised why you don't ever claim that India should work with China to take down USA but always regularly insist on India teaming with USA to take down China. Why are you biased towards USA and against China? What does USA give you?

I am thinking the opposite manner - work with China to take down USA. The most important region of the world is IOR. So, it is natural that India will have to focus on it more to control it. Crossing Malacca is simply absurd as there is very little action in Pacific region. What do you want India to do in SCS? Help USA? Why? IOR controls world oil supply and hence it is the key. Pacific and other regions are minor players.

So, our focus must be on completely dominating IOR and that will need carriers which are robust and easy yo maintain and repair. We don't need the range

Sigh! You are going of the rail. USA is not threatening to capture tawang . USA is not blocking us in nsg. USA is not shielding paki terrorism.

China is enemy not USA that is a fact . Anyway this has gone off topic for this thread.

Back to rafale.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[vampyrbladez]

F/A-18 was not a groupd up design as a naval fighter.
F/A-18 was actually XF-17 and it competed with XF-16 for MRCA competition as USA wanted to arm itself and its allies with a powerful version of Multi role plane, that would be replacing F-5 in most of the air forces of NATO and USA allies. LM F-16 won the compeition and became the fighting Falcon. The XF-17 was then offered to the US Navy, who did not want to order same plane as USAF. so they tested XF-17 and with few modifications took it as F/A-18 which they used to replace the older Phantom Jets, Crusaders, and F-14 tomcts with one type that fits all F/A-18. Since then all of F/A-18 come with strong fuselage etc, they dont have "lighter airforce model" even though Australia uses its for its airforce, it still comes with the strong heavy air frame thats good enough for plane to be a carrier plane (with few modifications)

It was runner up in the LWF competition of the 1970s. US Navy got it because F14s were really expensive.

 

[BON PLAN]

These gas turbines also use diesel. The fuels used by both engines are same.

OK.
For me diesel is not the fuel, it is the engine itself....

 

[Immanuel]

Raffy doing some cool shit!

 

[BON PLAN]

Raffy doing some cool shit!

why "shit" ?

 

[Immanuel]

why "shit" ?

'shit' means many things in urban usage, it's ok. Don't worry I mean it in a good way. Great low level flying.

 

[BON PLAN]

'shit' means many things in urban usage, it's ok. Don't worry I mean it in a good way. Great low level flying.

OK. I only understood "shit" in a bad usage....