Rafale RB of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,075
701
California
Rafale empty weight --> 21,720 lb
Rafale maximum internal fuel load --> 10,400 lb
Rafale full weight (empty + maximum internal fuel load) --> 32,120 lb

Rafale engine max thrust AB --> 2 x 16,860 lbf --> 33,720 lbf
Rafale TWR --> 1.05


F-35 empty weight --> 29,098 lb
F-35 internal fuel load EQUAL TO THE RAFALE MAX INTERNAL FUEL --> 10,400 lb
F-35 full weight (empty + internal fuel load) --> 39,498 lb

F-35 engine max thrust AB --> 43,000 lbf
F-35 TWR --> 1.09

So with the SAME FUEL LOAD, the F-35 has a slight TWR advantage over the Rafale!
Moreover the F-35 can STILL REACH FARTHER (longer range) than the Rafale with the SAME FUEL LOAD since the F-35 has only one engine (and more advanced) while the Rafale has two engines and as such the fuel consumption of the F-35 is much more efficient!"
39999e9cd3110283ebc495408a8ac490.jpg
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RISING SUN

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,449
4,045
73
France
Rafale empty weight --> 21,720 lb
Rafale maximum internal fuel load --> 10,400 lb
Rafale full weight (empty + maximum internal fuel load) --> 32,120 lb

Rafale engine max thrust AB --> 2 x 16,860 lbf --> 33,720 lbf
Rafale TWR --> 1.05


F-35 empty weight --> 29,098 lb
F-35 internal fuel load EQUAL TO THE RAFALE MAX INTERNAL FUEL --> 10,400 lb
So if F-35 was 300,000 lb you will still add only 10,400 lb of fuel ? you need more thrust for more weight and more thrust => more fuel
This is so elementary that it is really laughable to see you repeat this nonsense.

F-35 full weight (empty + internal fuel load) --> 39,498 lb

F-35 engine max thrust AB --> 43,000 lbf
F-35 TWR --> 1.09

So with the SAME FUEL LOAD, the F-35 has a slight TWR advantage over the Rafale!
Moreover the F-35 can STILL REACH FARTHER (longer range) than the Rafale with the SAME FUEL LOAD since the F-35 has only one engine (and more advanced) while the Rafale has two engines and as such the fuel consumption of the F-35 is much more efficient!"
It's quite the opposite: by definition for a given thrust the consumption is a function of the specific consumption, but the specific consumption of the M 88 is better than that of the F-135, i.e. it induces a lower consumption for the same thrust, and moreover the F-35 needs a stronger thrust, so you are making a fool of yourself.
🥳🥳🥳
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,449
4,045
73
France
I'm going to bed because I can't make the right calculations: I found an index of 41 for the 2000 l tank of the Rafale when it should be 27 but I can't find the error.
 

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,075
701
California
So if F-35 was 300,000 lb you will still add only 10,400 lb of fuel ? you need more thrust for more weight and more thrust => more fuel
This is so elementary that it is really laughable to see you repeat this nonsense.


It's quite the opposite: by definition for a given thrust the consumption is a function of the specific consumption, but the specific consumption of the M 88 is better than that of the F-135, i.e. it induces a lower consumption for the same thrust, and moreover the F-35 needs a stronger thrust, so you are making a fool of yourself.

🥳🥳🥳
"Rafale empty weight --> 21,720 lb
Rafale maximum internal fuel load --> 10,400 lb
Rafale full weight (empty + maximum internal fuel load) --> 32,120 lb

Rafale engine max thrust AB --> 2 x 16,860 lbf --> 33,720 lbf
Rafale TWR --> 1.05


F-35 empty weight --> 29,098 lb
F-35 internal fuel load EQUAL TO THE RAFALE MAX INTERNAL FUEL --> 10,400 lb
F-35 full weight (empty + internal fuel load) --> 39,498 lb

F-35 engine max thrust AB --> 43,000 lbf
F-35 TWR --> 1.09

So with the SAME FUEL LOAD, the F-35 has a slight TWR advantage over the Rafale!
Moreover the F-35 can STILL REACH FARTHER (longer range) than the Rafale with the SAME FUEL LOAD since the F-35 has only one engine (and more advanced) while the Rafale has two engines and as such the fuel consumption of the F-35 is much more efficient!" ;)
basscustoms-crip-walk.gif
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,449
4,045
73
France
We consider a smooth Rafale

Its range with full fuel is noted X in km and full fuel is noted Y in litre

The consumption to cover 1km is therefore Z=Y/X

We now consider a Rafale with three tanks, each containing 2000 litres of fuel. The total quantity of fuel is therefore 6000 litres which we will note down as 2y, y representing a virtual tank of 3000 litres.

I have constructed a table to calculate the Index of these three tanks taken together, checking the numerical values as we go along.

Consumption to cover 1kmZ=Y/XZ= 5750/24302.366
RangeR=(Y+y)/ZR= 8750/2.3663700
Consumption for 1 km with tanks Z1 = (Y+2y)/((Y+y)/Z).Z1= 11750/37003.1757
Increase of consumptionZ1-Z = (Y+2y)/((Y+y)/Z) - Z
=Z(Y+2y)/(Y+y)-Z= Z(1-1 +y/(Y+y))
Z1-Z= Zy/(Y+y)=y/R3000/3700=0.81081
Increase of the index159*(Z1-Z)/Z159*(y/R)/Z= 159*(y/(Y+y)/Z/Z
=159*y/(Y+y)
159*3000/8750=54.5143
index for one drop tank 2000 l159*y/3*(Y+y)53*y/(Y+y)53*3000/8750=18.1714
index for one drop tank 1250 l53*y/(Y+y) with y=1250*3/253*1875/7625= 13.032
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,449
4,045
73
France
Let's start using all this:
We start with the air superiority mode of the Rafale which is represented by a drawing where the Rafale is carrying 3 tanks of 2000 l and six Mica. The drawing shows a combat radius of 920 NM

We must first evaluate the drag index of the MICA, for that we will take that of the AIM 9L which we will modify in proportion to the mass
MICA mass = 112 Kg
Mass AIM 9L = 85.3 Kg
MICA index = 3*112/85.3= 3.9

Index of the Rafale configuration:
159 + 6* 3.9 + 3* 18.1714 = 159 + 23 + 54.51 = 236.51

It was calculated that the smooth Rafale had a range of 2430 km so if its drag was not changed with 6000 l more its range would be:
2430 * (6000 + 5750)/ 5750 = 4966 km, but we have to take into account its drag index which goes from 159 to 236.51, so we have a corrected range of 4966*159/236.51 = 3229.3 which makes a combat radius of 901 Nm. (It's less than the 920 of the Brasilian picture)

In time of war it is necessary to release the drop tanks.
In this hypothesis the index of the drop tanks is divided by two which gives for the configuration 159 + 23 + 27.25 = 209.25 and thus a corrected autonomy of 4966*159/209.25 = 3773.5 which makes a combat radius of 1018 Nm.
 

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
6,134
12,063
New Delhi
It was calculated that the smooth Rafale had a range of 2430 km so if its drag was not changed with 6000 l more its range would be:
2430 * (6000 + 5750)/ 5750 = 4966 km, but we have to take into account its drag index which goes from 159 to 236.51, so we have a corrected range of 4966*159/236.51 = 3229.3 which makes a combat radius of 901 Nm. (It's less than the 920 of the Brasilian picture)
You are not wrong. The basic drag index will reduce as the fuel is burnt, so the range of 920NM is correct.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,449
4,045
73
France
Yes, by all means do a comparison of the Rafale and the F-35 with 2x 2,000lb, let me know how it goes.
I'm going to use the attack configuration shown in the Brazilian picture, replacing the 6 AASMs with 2 GBU 24.
We have the index of the configuration which is:

159 + 2*12.2 + 4*3.9 + 3*18.1714 + Pod (265 kg diam 37 cm)

The pod is comparable to a GBU 12 in mass and diameter from the point of view of the bomb body because the 45 cm diameter only concerns the fins. We will therefore take an index equal to 4. This gives

159 + 24.4 + 15.6 + 54.51 + 4 = 257.51

It was calculated that the smooth Rafale had a range of 2430 km so if its drag was not changed with 6000 l more its range would be:
2430 * (6000 + 5750)/ 5750 = 4966 km, but we have to take into account its drag index which goes from 159 to 257.51, so we have a corrected range of 4966*159/257.51 = 3066.3 which makes a combat radius of 828 Nm which is more than the 790 Nm of the Brasilian picture (It seems that the GBU 24 drags less than 3 AASM on its triple support)
 

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
6,134
12,063
New Delhi
I'm going to use the attack configuration shown in the Brazilian picture, replacing the 6 AASMs with 2 GBU 24.
We have the index of the configuration which is:

159 + 2*12.2 + 4*3.9 + 3*18.1714 + Pod (265 kg diam 37 cm)

The pod is comparable to a GBU 12 in mass and diameter from the point of view of the bomb body because the 45 cm diameter only concerns the fins. We will therefore take an index equal to 4. This gives

159 + 24.4 + 15.6 + 54.51 + 4 = 257.51

It was calculated that the smooth Rafale had a range of 2430 km so if its drag was not changed with 6000 l more its range would be:
2430 * (6000 + 5750)/ 5750 = 4966 km, but we have to take into account its drag index which goes from 159 to 257.51, so we have a corrected range of 4966*159/257.51 = 3066.3 which makes a combat radius of 828 Nm which is more than the 790 Nm of the Brasilian picture (It seems that the GBU 24 drags less than 3 AASM on its triple support)
I agree with you as the configuration accepts the D/Ts still being attached to the aircraft. Once clean and D/ts dropped, the drag will reduce further. The combat Radius as defined in that evaluation does not specify it. I assume that the aircraft returns back with D/Ts.
 

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
414
191
Australia
You aren't really doing a ferry range configuration for the Rafale, are you?
Just for something relevant. The F-35a fuel fraction, with 2x2,000lb. Would you like to do the same for the Rafale?
29,300 empty weight + 18,250 internal fuel + 8,000lb external fuel (I didn't add drop tank weight) + 5,000lb for 2x2,000 and 1,000 for missiles = 60,550 total, 26,250 fuel = .434
 
Last edited:

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,449
4,045
73
France
You aren't really doing a ferry range configuration for the Rafale, are you?
Just for something relevant. The F-35a fuel fraction, with 2x2,000lb. Would you like to do the same for the Rafale?
29,300 empty weight + 18,250 internal fuel + 8,000lb external fuel (I didn't add drop tank weight) + 5,000lb for 2x2,000 and 1,000 for missiles = 60,550 total, 26,250 fuel = .434
If you want to get a really good configuration you can do it like this:
Rafale C
Empty weight 9850 Kg
Internal fuel 4700 Kg
External fuel: 4 tanks of 1250l => 4000 Kg + 320kg for the tanks and 1 ventral tank of 2000l => 1600 Kg + 100 kg for the tank i.e. a total of 6020Kg including 5600 kg of fuel
Bomb 2000Kg
Missile 500kg
Total External Load: 8520 Below the Maximum of 9500
Total mass 23070
Total fuel 10300
Fuel fraction: 0.4465
But it makes no sense to ignore the fact that external fuel loads induce drag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herciv

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
414
191
Australia
Needs to be the same..2x 1,000kg bombs and some missiles please. They take up 2x 2,000 litre station and the outer station
I'll give you 2x 1250 litre wing. 2,000 or 3,000 litre center tank. The 3,000 litre center tank isn't cleared for the Rafale, is it? I haven't seen it in use.

1636371755592.png
 
Last edited:

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,449
4,045
73
France
Needs to be the same..2x2,000lb bombs and some missiles please.
I'll give you a 2,000 litre center tank and 2x 1250 litre wing. The 3,000 litre center tank isn't cleared for the Rafale, is it? I haven't seen it in use.
For bombs : 2000 kg is 4410 Lbs => the same!
For missiles : 500 kg is 1100 lbs same as you
Total weapons 5510 against 6000 for you but you didn't count Tank mass and I count 420 kg or 926 lb.
The Rafale has 5 wet points all capable of accommodating the 2000 l tanks but you have to make sure that you don't exceed the maximum load of 9500kg and if you count 1700 kg for one tank that makes 8500 kg for 5 and there is almost nothing left for the payload, that's why I used 4 tanks of 1250 l.
I did not use a 3000 l tank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herciv

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
414
191
Australia
You can use the 3,000 liter if it is cleared. I think you need as much as you can get. The chart shows 3x 2000 litre wet points. The 2 outer are 1250 litre. The 2 x 1,000kg bombs, will take up 2 of the 2,000 litre wet points.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,449
4,045
73
France
You can use the 3,000 liter if it is cleared. I think you need as much as you can get. The chart shows 3x 2000 litre wet points. The 2 outer are 1250 litre. The 2 x 1,000kg bombs, will take up 2 of the 2,000 litre wet points.
No the outer point can acomodate SCALP missile with a weight of 1300kg = 2900 lb

EyKG6mp308sYcCbHEHL0d0iC1Aa6ljgPpIaEBV4iEtf06rqWU43gyuNkPqrGtARc_HEXhmK0LaZj-FTt-IS5cBLL7ptPfXa1

Which increase the range by 560 km
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Herciv

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
414
191
Australia
That may well be the case for the Scalp. If you wish to challenge the chart. You will need a link, to show that chart is wrong for the 1,000kg LG bomb. It also clearly shows the outer stations are only cleared for 1250lt tanks.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,449
4,045
73
France
That may well be the case for the Scalp. If you wish to challenge the chart. You will need a link, to show that chart is wrong for the 1,000kg LG bomb. It also clearly shows the outer stations are only cleared for 1250lt tanks.
Your chart is very old and false

oLrdnmMni5GEY1AMROsBib5xQI8_F19oVLtTLLmYrAfBd-3x-Cyvtgka8Ppl_CgPc1TUk0umhUiExNaLNz6nA9wY2g

Point 2 and 13 are not yet open but will be open with F4, There are also able to carry Meteor but need test for that.
Point 7-8 are also able to carry SCALP.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AbRaj and Herciv

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
414
191
Australia
ok, I don't want to make this too hard. I'm not even asking the Rafale to carry 4x 2,000lb, like the F-35, with the 2 tanks. Lets use F4, is that picture 1,000kg, they look like 500kg.
 
Last edited: