Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions [Thread 2]

[VivasvatManu]

Eh, why not? Can you explain please?

Lower average altitude of IAF bases vs the average altitude of Chinese bases in Tibet.

Rarefied air at greater heights makes it difficult to take off with full load.

 

[Hellfire]

Lower average altitude of IAF bases vs the average altitude of Chinese bases in Tibet.

Rarefied air at greater heights makes it difficult to take off with full load.

Makes sense, but then the engines are the reason in u/m case.

IL-76 MDI vs Boeing 737-700 at THOISE. Former 8 with crew of 5 +1 at 22'C the latter 110 with load and crew 06.

So the logic seems improbable as all are within ceiling at 22'C.

Compensation comes with a longer runway, not possible at THOISE. Climb rate will be low with a full load, granted.

Again my query holds to the quoted member, what is the difference? I need clarification on that.

 

[nang2]

Lower average altitude of IAF bases vs the average altitude of Chinese bases in Tibet.

Rarefied air at greater heights makes it difficult to take off with full load.

you just need longer takeoff run to get faster speed for enough lift.

It's not from Indian sources.

I meant your sentences.

 

[A_Poster]

Eh, why not? Can you explain please?

Jagged topography on Indian side means that Indian aircrafts could hide behind mountain ranges and be invisible even to AWACS until they pop up on Chinese side,while Chinese could not as they are on a flat plateau. This too seem to be a valid advantage, apart from high altitude limiting payload of Chinese aircrafts.

 

[Hellfire]

....apart from high altitude limiting payload of Chinese aircrafts.

Explain this portion.

Rest all is irrelevant and inconsequential in todays world.

An AWACS over TAR will pick you up in a second in North Sikkim the moment you cross Yumthang.

You or @randomradio can please explain this logic of lesser payload.

 

[Taygibay]

Gems :​

So no GaN for us, that will be obsolete too, in about 3-5 years.

LOL
Don't tell anyone or Raytheon's market shares would plunge ...
they're selling it as a new technology & so are SAAB & Thales.
http://www.bidnessetc.com/65419-raytheon-company-introduces-patriot-radar-aesa-upgrade/

Ed. About the PAK-FA : First delivery expected in 2018.

I'll bet on that. Is a hundred bucks OK? More?

So we are looking forward to the Rafale deal in the next few days and the FGFA deal after October 15th.

What year?


Relax Max, you're getting your ideas tangled in your enthusiasm again.
Good day anyway, Tay.

 

[VivasvatManu]

Makes sense, but then the engines are the reason in u/m case.

IL-76 MDI vs Boeing 737-700 at THOISE. Former 8 with crew of 5 +1 at 22'C the latter 110 with load and crew 06.

So the logic seems improbable as all are within ceiling at 22'C.

Compensation comes with a longer runway, not possible at THOISE. Climb rate will be low with a full load, granted.

Again my query holds to the quoted member, what is the difference? I need clarification on that.

He is talking about fighter aircraft and I do not think the Su 30 engines are rated to operate efficiently at rarefied atmosphere.

1. At higher altitude the engine thrust is lower, this results in lower velocity

2. The Air density is lower, this results in lower lift

3. The Angle of Attack required might be higher due to presence of Mountain ranges at close proximity to airfield. With risk of stall.

Since the Lift is directly proportional to the Velocity and Air density, it will probably affect the load capacity of the Aircraft. I think the aircraft load is rated for sea level.

 

[Hellfire]

@VivasvatManu

I agree with what you have posted. Let the member who I quoted specify what was meant, it will not be fair for me to assume.

 

[VivasvatManu]

you just need longer takeoff run to get faster speed for enough lift.

I am guessing that the presence of mountains around the airfield will affect the length of the airfield. Not to mention the nature of the terrain itself.

 

[ashok321]

PM Modi-led committee all set to approve 36 Rafale fighter deal today

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/36-rafale-fighter-deal-narendra-modi-ccs/1/769319.html

 

[nang2]

I am guessing that the presence of mountains around the airfield will affect the length of the airfield. Not to mention the nature of the terrain itself.

airfield doesn't need a runway that long.

 

[Taygibay]

1. At higher altitude the engine thrust is lower, this results in lower velocity
...
2. The Air density is lower, this results in lower lift

Small correction, you need to conflate one and two in this case.
Air density is lower also means that the air resistance is lower so
less drag occurs so that less thrust is required to maintain speed.
And unless maneuvering hard, lift is not needed as much either.

The 1.8 Mach of most fighters is around 40k feet or 12k meters.

The graph is right though. Tay.

 

[VivasvatManu]

airfield doesn't need a runway that long.

Not true. e.g. Tibet airport has been rated as one of the most dangerous airports in the world.

Small correction, you need to conflate one and two in this case.
Air density is lower also means that the air resistance is lower so
less drag occurs so that less thrust is required to maintain speed.
And unless maneuvering hard, lift is not needed as much either.

The 1.8 Mach of most fighters is around 40k feet or 12k meters.

The graph is right though. Tay.

Yes I am aware of that but I do not think the reduction in drag compensates for the engine thrust. Especially since these engines are not designed for such high altitude.

I have also not mentioned the difficulty in maintaining such high value aircraft's in Tibet and the impact of such isolated air fields on the pilots psyche. Depression would be a real danger.

Also manoeuvring might be required due to the mountain ranges that surround the airfield.

 

[BON PLAN]

India Said Close to Announcing 8-Billion-Euro Rafale Jet Deal
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-to-announcing-8-billion-euro-rafale-jet-deal

 

[The Eagle]

I would ALWAYS Trust an Indian Member over a Pakistani

Not a good one, not at all.... Quite offensive though.

The best Pak options are the West even today. That's why they are more interested in Turkey's TFX than the J-31, which is another export grade monkey model.

So whatever the rivals are going to have, is called a monkey model etc. isn't that too much of undermining. I am sure, even IAF professionals wouldn't call for it like this.