I don't think that's how the calculation works since in any case these subs meant for littoral patrolling. It's not doing a tour of duty in the SCS . It's not meant for that. We have our upcoming SSNs for this type of activity.
Rafale or Super Hornets are 'interim arrangement' only, says Navy on mega fighter deal
Vice Admiral Ghormade said the indigenous Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter is the future of Indian Navy and the force is working closely with DRDO to make the project a success.
theprint.in
New Delhi: As US firm Boeing competes against France’s Dassault Aviation for Indian Navy’s mega fighter deal, Vice Chief Vice Admiral S.N. Ghormade Thursday said the new aircraft will only be an “interim arrangement” until the indigenous Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) gets ready.
The Navy made it clear that the force was only going to purchase 26 new fighters and a decision will soon be taken on whether it will procure the F/A -18 Super Hornet of Boeing or the Rafale M of Dassault Aviation.
The development comes as the Navy is set to commission its first indigenous aircraft carrier on 2 September, with fighter trials to start on board only by November this year.
While India will soon be operating two aircraft carriers – INS Vikramaditya and soon-to-be commissioned INS Vikrant – the fighters for them are not enough. India currently operates 42 MiG 29K of Russian origin but these have been plagued by serviceability issues, with indications that availability ratio of these aircraft is less than 45 per cent.
While the most promising timeline for indigenous TEDBF to start trials is five to seven years from now, the Navy would need additional fighters to fully operate two aircraft carriers in their true potential.
“There is a timeline that is there for the TEDBF. It will take about 5-7 years for its first flight and we need an interim aircraft. And hence the trials have been done and a report is being prepared,” Vice Admiral Ghormade said, while responding to a query by ThePrint on the aircraft carrier during a a press conference ahead of the commissioning of Vikrant.
He was referring to trials done by both Hornet and Rafale to showcase their ability to take off from the Indian aircraft carrier.
‘Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter is future of Navy’
Vice Admiral Ghormade made it clear that TEDBF was the future of the Navy and the force was working closely with the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) to make the project a success.
Asked about the availability of MiG 29K to operate from the two aircraft carriers, he said, “We have limited numbers. We will utilise them to be operationally deployed on the Vikrant. Normally, we are able to deploy 12 aircraft and we will do that.”
He said Navy personnel have been maintaining the aircraft and all necessary parts are being procured from Russia despite its ongoing war with Ukraine.
Speaking on the sidelines, Navy officers also confirmed that the force was looking at buying just 26 new fighters, either the Super Hornet or the Rafale M, and there would be no additions.
While the original plan was to buy 57 new fighters, the Navy has now decided to go for 26. However, sources underlined that any future plans of additional aircraft purchase will depend on how the TEDBF timelines are met because some of the MiG 29 Ks would be decommissioned over the next one decade.
As reported by ThePrint earlier, the Navy was looking at procuring fighters on its own rather than with the Indian Air Force. In 2020, then Navy chief Admiral Karambir Singh had said that the force was trying to work with the IAF for a possible joint procurement.
Since those are supposedly "interim only", what happens to them when the TEDBF actually enters service?Also, if the TEDBF enters service in a mere seven years, what's the point of an interim buy? With at least three years for the deal to be actually signed and budgeted, three more years for production to reach delivery point, and two years for deliveries to be completed, they would arrive after the TEDBF is ready.
Unless the TEDBF will not be ready within schedule, of course. I suppose that is a possibility.
LCAmk 2 production itself from 2027+Rafale or Super Hornets are 'interim arrangement' only, says Navy on mega fighter deal
Vice Admiral Ghormade said the indigenous Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter is the future of Indian Navy and the force is working closely with DRDO to make the project a success.
New Delhi: As US firm Boeing competes against France’s Dassault Aviation for Indian Navy’s mega fighter deal, Vice Chief Vice Admiral S.N. Ghormade Thursday said the new aircraft will only be an “interim arrangement” until the indigenous Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) gets ready.The Navy made it clear that the force was only going to purchase 26 new fighters and a decision will soon be taken on whether it will procure the F/A -18 Super Hornet of Boeing or the Rafale M of Dassault Aviation.The development comes as the Navy is set to commission its first indigenous aircraft carrier on 2 September, with fighter trials to start on board only by November this year.While India will soon be operating two aircraft carriers – INS Vikramaditya and soon-to-be commissioned INS Vikrant – the fighters for them are not enough. India currently operates 42 MiG 29K of Russian origin but these have been plagued by serviceability issues, with indications that availability ratio of these aircraft is less than 45 per cent.While the most promising timeline for indigenous TEDBF to start trials is five to seven years from now, the Navy would need additional fighters to fully operate two aircraft carriers in their true potential.“There is a timeline that is there for the TEDBF. It will take about 5-7 years for its first flight and we need an interim aircraft. And hence the trials have been done and a report is being prepared,” Vice Admiral Ghormade said, while responding to a query by ThePrint on the aircraft carrier during a a press conference ahead of the commissioning of Vikrant.He was referring to trials done by both Hornet and Rafale to showcase their ability to take off from the Indian aircraft carrier.
‘Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter is future of Navy’Vice Admiral Ghormade made it clear that TEDBF was the future of the Navy and the force was working closely with the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) to make the project a success.Asked about the availability of MiG 29K to operate from the two aircraft carriers, he said, “We have limited numbers. We will utilise them to be operationally deployed on the Vikrant. Normally, we are able to deploy 12 aircraft and we will do that.”He said Navy personnel have been maintaining the aircraft and all necessary parts are being procured from Russia despite its ongoing war with Ukraine.Speaking on the sidelines, Navy officers also confirmed that the force was looking at buying just 26 new fighters, either the Super Hornet or the Rafale M, and there would be no additions.While the original plan was to buy 57 new fighters, the Navy has now decided to go for 26. However, sources underlined that any future plans of additional aircraft purchase will depend on how the TEDBF timelines are met because some of the MiG 29 Ks would be decommissioned over the next one decade.As reported by ThePrint earlier, the Navy was looking at procuring fighters on its own rather than with the Indian Air Force. In 2020, then Navy chief Admiral Karambir Singh had said that the force was trying to work with the IAF for a possible joint procurement.Since those are supposedly "interim only", what happens to them when the TEDBF actually enters service?
Also, if the TEDBF enters service in a mere seven years, what's the point of an interim buy? With at least three years for the deal to be actually signed and budgeted, three more years for production to reach delivery point, and two years for deliveries to be completed, they would arrive after the TEDBF is ready.
Unless the TEDBF will not be ready within schedule, of course. I suppose that is a possibility.
TEDBF production will be 2033+
Actually if you think of it, this creates a new & very interesting set of problems for us in the future.
The TEDBF would in all probability start rolling out from 2033-34 onwards. They're meant to replace the MiG-29Ks.
In all likelihood we'd be going in for a 3rd AC, a sister ship of INS Vikrant within the next couple of years which'd be commissioned by say 2033-34. By 2030 we'd begin work on our definitive 65k tonne class AC which should be commissioned by 2040.
All these would feature 4.5th Gen TEDBF whereas by 2040 , US, UK, France & China would all be flying 5th & 6th Gen Fighter Aircrafts from their AC.
Our 6th Gen FA is likely going to be a replacement for the MKIs which means a heavy weight class FA. We may also go in for an LCA replacement as part of our 6.5 / 7th Gen program.
Neither of these would likely feature on our forthcoming carriers. Which in turn means we'd have to launch either a N - AMCA post TEDBF or a separate 6th Gen program or go in for imports.
As an interim aircraft, I think Rafale M could be a good choice because of the commonality with Rafales B & C.
And once TEDBF inducted, the Rafales M could be reassigned and fill the missions conducted by the Rafales B&C and team up with them.
And once TEDBF inducted, the Rafales M could be reassigned and fill the missions conducted by the Rafales B&C and team up with them.
I will try some small calculations to show the problems to be solved and answer some of the questions.
It is assumed that the aircraft carrier moves at 27 kt which is 13.89 m/s.
I have a target speed at the exit of the ski jump of 107 Kt with respect to the sea which is 80 Kt with respect to the deck (I will justify these values later).
The general equations are v=at and x=1/2 at2 where a is the acceleration, i.e. 15/24.5 = 0.61 g with our hypotheses of 6 m/s2.
80 kt= 41.16 m/s so t= 41.16/6 = 6.86 s and x=3*(6.86)2= 141.18 m.
So we can take the risk of doing this, but if an engine fails during take-off, it's a splash. In aeronautics, measures are taken to avoid making a splash, and even so, it sometimes happens.
So we have to calculate a so-called critical distance so that if the failure occurs at the beginning of the take-off, we have time to stop on the remaining runway distance and if the failure occurs after the critical distance, we are able to take off with the remaining runway distance.
I would first like to point out that if you lose an engine a is divided by 2 and as v=at, it will take twice as long to reach the same speed.
Then, in this case, as x=1/2 at2 that t is doubled which implies that t2 is quadrupled while a is divided by 2, x is also doubled.
A simple rule of thumb is that the runway lengths covered with two engines are double those covered with only one. Therefore, one engine would require 282.36 m which is not available.
So to be able to take off fully loaded in complete safety, the Rafale would have to take off on a 200 m runway and the critical distance would have to be 80 m. In fact, in this case, it would have 80 m which counts as double, i.e. 160 m plus the 200 - 80 = 120 m of runway remaining, which makes 280 m.
But he would not have time to brake for breakdowns at distances below the critical distance, i.e. within the 120 m that remains for the worst case.
I think we can aim for 50 m of critical distance, which implies a take-off in 250 m on one engine or in 125 m with two engines.
In this case we have :
x=1/2 at2=125m ==>t2=250/a but at=41,16 (that comes from v=80kt) so 41,16t=250 and t=250/41,16=6,07s and a= 41,16/t = 6,78m/s2
The mass of the plane is therefore 15*9.81/6.78 = 21.71t
I will now calculate the distance needed to brake at the critical distance limit, which is the worst case.
First, what is the speed after 50 m of acceleration?
x=1/2 at2=50m ==>t2=100/a and a=6,78m/s2 ==>t2=14,75 ==>t=3,84s
The speed is therefore at, i.e. 3.84*6.78 = 26 m/s
Now we need to evaluate an acceleration for braking. What I know is that a 14t Rafale can land in less than 450m and all I can do is find orders of magnitude.
Landing weight 14t, landing speed 120kt = 61.73 m/s
x=1/2 at2=450m ==>t2=900/a and at=61,73 so 61,73t=900 ==>t=14,6s
a=61.73/14.6 = 4.23m/s2
This acceleration which brakes the plane is valid for a 14t plane but it must be corrected for a 21.71t plane.
The acceleration will therefore be 4.23*14/21.71=2.73 m/s2
The question is therefore: is 150 m enough to go from a speed of 26 m/s to 0 with an acceleration of 2.73 m/s2 ?
x=1/2 at2=150m ==>t2=300/a and a=2.73m/s2 ==>t=10.48 and the speed will be reduced by at i.e. 2.73*10.48=28.61 m/s which is much higher than 26 m/s.
This makes it possible to realise that a simple improvement of the brakes can make it possible to take off at a higher mass
Well, I still have to show that the plane does not make a splash after exiting the ski jump at 107 kt in ground speed or 55 m/s.
If I show it for a single engine exit, it will also validate it for two engines.
First, what is the vertical component of the aeroplane's speed?
vz = 55*sin 14°= 13.3 m/s
What is the lift of the aircraft: we have seen that it is 24.5t at 155kt and 14t at 120 kt if we extrapolate linearly we have a lift of 10.1t at 107 kt and the lift of 21.71t will be at 143.7 kt.
We must now evaluate the time it takes to cancel vz due to the force applied to the aircraft due to gravity and lift.
The force at the exit of the ski jump is 21.71 - 10.1 = 11.61 t which gives a vertical acceleration of 11.61/21.71 = 0.53 g or 5.25 m/s2
As vz = 13.3 m/s it will take 13.3/5.25 = 2.5 s to have vz = 0.
During this time the remaining engine pushes 7.5 t for a mass of 21.71 which adds 8.5 m/s or 16.5 kt. So in fact the lift is not fixed during these 2,5s but varies between the values for 107 kt and 123,5 kt that is to say between 10,1 t and 15 t. It would be necessary to make an integral calculation but I am retired so I will make another approximation: I will take a fixed lift of 12,5t for these 2,5 s which modifies the 11,61 t in 9,21 t and the vertical acceleration in 0,42 that is to say 4,16 m/s2 and finally that lengthens the time for vz=0 to 3,2 s. and thus the supplement of speed passes from 8,5 m/s to 11 m/s that is to say from 16,5kt to 21 Kt.
We therefore reach more than 128 kt without ever losing altitude and from there if we consider the symmetrical of the parabola we will reach more than 149 kt before (and even well before because the lift continues to increase) to find ourselves at the altitude of the end of the ski jump whereas from 143.7 kt the Rafale flies.
This may seem a little tight, but we must not forget that this is a rather severe case of failure that we are trying to treat.
It is assumed that the aircraft carrier moves at 27 kt which is 13.89 m/s.
I have a target speed at the exit of the ski jump of 107 Kt with respect to the sea which is 80 Kt with respect to the deck (I will justify these values later).
The general equations are v=at and x=1/2 at2 where a is the acceleration, i.e. 15/24.5 = 0.61 g with our hypotheses of 6 m/s2.
80 kt= 41.16 m/s so t= 41.16/6 = 6.86 s and x=3*(6.86)2= 141.18 m.
So we can take the risk of doing this, but if an engine fails during take-off, it's a splash. In aeronautics, measures are taken to avoid making a splash, and even so, it sometimes happens.
So we have to calculate a so-called critical distance so that if the failure occurs at the beginning of the take-off, we have time to stop on the remaining runway distance and if the failure occurs after the critical distance, we are able to take off with the remaining runway distance.
I would first like to point out that if you lose an engine a is divided by 2 and as v=at, it will take twice as long to reach the same speed.
Then, in this case, as x=1/2 at2 that t is doubled which implies that t2 is quadrupled while a is divided by 2, x is also doubled.
A simple rule of thumb is that the runway lengths covered with two engines are double those covered with only one. Therefore, one engine would require 282.36 m which is not available.
So to be able to take off fully loaded in complete safety, the Rafale would have to take off on a 200 m runway and the critical distance would have to be 80 m. In fact, in this case, it would have 80 m which counts as double, i.e. 160 m plus the 200 - 80 = 120 m of runway remaining, which makes 280 m.
But he would not have time to brake for breakdowns at distances below the critical distance, i.e. within the 120 m that remains for the worst case.
I think we can aim for 50 m of critical distance, which implies a take-off in 250 m on one engine or in 125 m with two engines.
In this case we have :
x=1/2 at2=125m ==>t2=250/a but at=41,16 (that comes from v=80kt) so 41,16t=250 and t=250/41,16=6,07s and a= 41,16/t = 6,78m/s2
The mass of the plane is therefore 15*9.81/6.78 = 21.71t
I will now calculate the distance needed to brake at the critical distance limit, which is the worst case.
First, what is the speed after 50 m of acceleration?
x=1/2 at2=50m ==>t2=100/a and a=6,78m/s2 ==>t2=14,75 ==>t=3,84s
The speed is therefore at, i.e. 3.84*6.78 = 26 m/s
Now we need to evaluate an acceleration for braking. What I know is that a 14t Rafale can land in less than 450m and all I can do is find orders of magnitude.
Landing weight 14t, landing speed 120kt = 61.73 m/s
x=1/2 at2=450m ==>t2=900/a and at=61,73 so 61,73t=900 ==>t=14,6s
a=61.73/14.6 = 4.23m/s2
This acceleration which brakes the plane is valid for a 14t plane but it must be corrected for a 21.71t plane.
The acceleration will therefore be 4.23*14/21.71=2.73 m/s2
The question is therefore: is 150 m enough to go from a speed of 26 m/s to 0 with an acceleration of 2.73 m/s2 ?
x=1/2 at2=150m ==>t2=300/a and a=2.73m/s2 ==>t=10.48 and the speed will be reduced by at i.e. 2.73*10.48=28.61 m/s which is much higher than 26 m/s.
This makes it possible to realise that a simple improvement of the brakes can make it possible to take off at a higher mass
Well, I still have to show that the plane does not make a splash after exiting the ski jump at 107 kt in ground speed or 55 m/s.
If I show it for a single engine exit, it will also validate it for two engines.
First, what is the vertical component of the aeroplane's speed?
vz = 55*sin 14°= 13.3 m/s
What is the lift of the aircraft: we have seen that it is 24.5t at 155kt and 14t at 120 kt if we extrapolate linearly we have a lift of 10.1t at 107 kt and the lift of 21.71t will be at 143.7 kt.
We must now evaluate the time it takes to cancel vz due to the force applied to the aircraft due to gravity and lift.
The force at the exit of the ski jump is 21.71 - 10.1 = 11.61 t which gives a vertical acceleration of 11.61/21.71 = 0.53 g or 5.25 m/s2
As vz = 13.3 m/s it will take 13.3/5.25 = 2.5 s to have vz = 0.
During this time the remaining engine pushes 7.5 t for a mass of 21.71 which adds 8.5 m/s or 16.5 kt. So in fact the lift is not fixed during these 2,5s but varies between the values for 107 kt and 123,5 kt that is to say between 10,1 t and 15 t. It would be necessary to make an integral calculation but I am retired so I will make another approximation: I will take a fixed lift of 12,5t for these 2,5 s which modifies the 11,61 t in 9,21 t and the vertical acceleration in 0,42 that is to say 4,16 m/s2 and finally that lengthens the time for vz=0 to 3,2 s. and thus the supplement of speed passes from 8,5 m/s to 11 m/s that is to say from 16,5kt to 21 Kt.
We therefore reach more than 128 kt without ever losing altitude and from there if we consider the symmetrical of the parabola we will reach more than 149 kt before (and even well before because the lift continues to increase) to find ourselves at the altitude of the end of the ski jump whereas from 143.7 kt the Rafale flies.
This may seem a little tight, but we must not forget that this is a rather severe case of failure that we are trying to treat.
Wow, hats off to you boss. You still remember laws of physics at your age & I forgot it in a few yrs of graduating from engineering college.
BTW what was the calculation aiming to establish or repudiate? I don't see any argument here .
Now I will try to make the same calculations to show the performance of the F-18 E under the same conditions.
I have for objective a speed at the exit of the ski jump of 112 Kt with respect to the sea which makes 85 Kt with respect to the deck: it is 5 kt more than for the Rafale, and I justify it because the approach speed of the F-18 E is 125 KT whereas that of the Rafale is less than 120 KT.
The general equations are v=at and x=1/2 at2 where a is the acceleration, i.e. 19932/29937 = 0.67 g with our assumptions, i.e. 6.53 m/s2.
85 kt= 43.73 m/s so t= 43.73/6.53 = 6.7 s and x=3.265*(6.7)2= 146.57 m.
So we have to calculate a so-called critical distance so that if the failure occurs at the beginning of the take-off, we have time to stop on the remaining runway distance and if the failure occurs after the critical distance, we are able to take off with the remaining runway distance.
A simple rule of thumb is that the runway lengths travelled with two engines are double the lengths travelled with one. Therefore, one engine would require 293 m which is not available.
Therefore, to be able to take off fully loaded in complete safety, the F-18 E would have to take off on a 200 m runway and the critical distance would have to be 93 m. In fact, in this case, it would have 93 m which counts as double, i.e. 186 m plus the 200 - 93 = 107 m of runway remaining, which makes 293 m.
But he would not have time to brake for breakdowns at distances below the critical distance, i.e. within the 107 m that remains for the worst case.
I think we can aim for 50 m of critical distance, which implies a take-off in 250 m on one engine or in 125 m with two engines.
In this case we have :
x=1/2 at2=125m ==>t2=250/a but at=43,73 (that comes from v=85kt) so 43,73t=250 and t=250/43,73=5,72s and a= 43,73/5,72 = 7,65m/s2
The mass of the plane is therefore 19932*9.81/7.65 = 25560 kg
Now we must hope that the critical distance is appropriate, which is likely by analogy with the Rafale.
At 29937 KG the maximum load carried by the F-18 E is 8050 KG and therefore at 25560 Kg the payload carried will be 3673 Kg.
By comparison, for the Rafale we have 9500 kg at MTOW of 24500 kg and a take-off weight of 21710 kg. In the same conditions as the calculation we have just made, this gives a payload of 6710 kg.
I have for objective a speed at the exit of the ski jump of 112 Kt with respect to the sea which makes 85 Kt with respect to the deck: it is 5 kt more than for the Rafale, and I justify it because the approach speed of the F-18 E is 125 KT whereas that of the Rafale is less than 120 KT.
The general equations are v=at and x=1/2 at2 where a is the acceleration, i.e. 19932/29937 = 0.67 g with our assumptions, i.e. 6.53 m/s2.
85 kt= 43.73 m/s so t= 43.73/6.53 = 6.7 s and x=3.265*(6.7)2= 146.57 m.
So we have to calculate a so-called critical distance so that if the failure occurs at the beginning of the take-off, we have time to stop on the remaining runway distance and if the failure occurs after the critical distance, we are able to take off with the remaining runway distance.
A simple rule of thumb is that the runway lengths travelled with two engines are double the lengths travelled with one. Therefore, one engine would require 293 m which is not available.
Therefore, to be able to take off fully loaded in complete safety, the F-18 E would have to take off on a 200 m runway and the critical distance would have to be 93 m. In fact, in this case, it would have 93 m which counts as double, i.e. 186 m plus the 200 - 93 = 107 m of runway remaining, which makes 293 m.
But he would not have time to brake for breakdowns at distances below the critical distance, i.e. within the 107 m that remains for the worst case.
I think we can aim for 50 m of critical distance, which implies a take-off in 250 m on one engine or in 125 m with two engines.
In this case we have :
x=1/2 at2=125m ==>t2=250/a but at=43,73 (that comes from v=85kt) so 43,73t=250 and t=250/43,73=5,72s and a= 43,73/5,72 = 7,65m/s2
The mass of the plane is therefore 19932*9.81/7.65 = 25560 kg
Now we must hope that the critical distance is appropriate, which is likely by analogy with the Rafale.
At 29937 KG the maximum load carried by the F-18 E is 8050 KG and therefore at 25560 Kg the payload carried will be 3673 Kg.
By comparison, for the Rafale we have 9500 kg at MTOW of 24500 kg and a take-off weight of 21710 kg. In the same conditions as the calculation we have just made, this gives a payload of 6710 kg.
neither fighter will be a waste for the IN. They can both be used to trial future catapult systems for indian aircraft carriers. The planes can definitely be sold to other nations if there is no longer any requirement for them. Even if there is no takers/re-export is not feasible, The F-18 engines could be cannibalized for TEDBF/Tejas Mk2/AMCA engine spares. Same with the rafale-m for the IAF rafales. The main thing is getting a stop-gap carrier fighter for the short term. Vikrant will become operational next year so dilly-dallying serves no interest. Whoever can provide a better price and deliver the quickest should get the deal.
No need to sell. A&N has 4 airports. We need to develop all 4 to the full extent to ensure 20-30 multirole fighters, a medium transport squadron, a couple of AEWs and a couple of tankers in addition for a contingent of P8Is can be permanently deployed there.
In an event we loose our surface action groups, this is a cheaper alternative to defend A&N and also attack shipping from Malacca straits.
We can very well use these 26 F18s/Rafales there.
Then comes the question of 40 or so Mig29K. Jaguar IM squadron will soon retire. IN should place two Mig29 squadrons along Gujarat coast with anti shipping capabilities to counter PN.
Further dedicated IN squadron there can counter JF17s trying to launch missiles over sea at our CBGs.
So we do not need to worry about the 40 Mig29K and 26 more airframes.
Both of them will have extremely important utility under IN and TEDBF will see 4 squadrons worth of orders for 2 ACs.
I agree, might as well use what you have. Especially true with dwindling fleet strength. Keeping a few squadrons will boost interoperability with US carriers as well. I also wish they would get OTH radars along the coast and at A&N islands, might be too much wishful thinking.
Wouldn't it have been easier to say that the Super Hornet is better?
FINALLY!!!! Good to see you have come to your senses.Yes yes, it is better by divine right, we know.
The Rafale can carry twice the weapons and fuel load of the F-18 E and tops it in every technical capability and you think that shit is the best for IN ????