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

[A.P. Richelieu]

The size info sounds ligit.



Yes, for sure.

I see how he worded that in the video. I think he was just mentioning that the only way it would fit would be removing the "wing tips" which is like throwing an example out there, not necessarily what would or needed to be done. Wing tips = pylons? Or more? I'm guessing he meant the pylons which would make more sense.

Judging by what India is paying for 26 aircraft... $8 billion, maybe Dassault is planning on using a good chunk of that money to develop something like folding wing tips for those 26 aircraft.

The removable wingtips were mentioned on PDF a few years ago as something offered by Dassault. The folding wingtips were ruled out due to the carbonfibre based wings. Removing just the pylons will not be enough reduction in width as far as I can see.

 

[Gomig-21]

The removable wingtips were mentioned on PDF a few years ago as something offered by Dassault. The folding wingtips were ruled out due to the carbonfibre based wings. Removing just the pylons will not be enough reduction in width as far as I can see.

I understand that. My question was if by "removing the wingtips" they were actually referring to the pylons themselves but didn't use the word 'pylons.' Removing "wingtips" refers more to a section of the end of the wing itself. In the Rafale's case, that would include the pylon/missile rail as well. Obviously that doesn't make any sense.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I understand that. My question was if by "removing the wingtips" they were actually referring to the pylons themselves but didn't use the word 'pylons.' Removing "wingtips" refers more to a section of the end of the wing itself. In the Rafale's case, that would include the pylon/missile rail as well. Obviously that doesn't make any sense.

The only thing that makes sense is to remove at least one meter from each wing to make a 10.90 meter wide aircraft fit a 10 meter wide lift.

 

[Gomig-21]

The only thing that makes sense is to remove at least one meter from each wing to make a 10.90 meter wide aircraft fit a 10 meter wide lift.

I'm curious why you keep saying "removable"?
Make them into 'foldable' wing ends, not removable ones.
Removing them is just not feasible, that's the whole point of this disagreement.

Despite it being a delta wing configuration, it's still doable. The Russians easily made the Su-33 naval variant not only with folding wings, but they also made the elevators/horizontal stabilizers partly folding as well. So it shouldn't be a huge endeavor.

Granted the wing seam would be much more complicated than ones made on the H-stabs because of the wiring and sensors for the wingtip pylons and hydraulics etc., but still very doable.

More pics here.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I'm curious why you keep saying "removable"?
Make them into 'foldable' wing ends, not removable ones.
Removing them is just not feasible, that's the whole point of this disagreement.

Despite it being a delta wing configuration, it's still doable. The Russians easily made the Su-33 naval variant not only with folding wings, but they also made the elevators/horizontal stabilizers partly folding as well. So it shouldn't be a huge endeavor.

View attachment 948764

View attachment 948762

Granted the wing seam would be much more complicated than ones made on the H-stabs because of the wiring and sensors for the wingtip pylons and hydraulics etc., but still very doable.

View attachment 948765

View attachment 948766

More pics here.

The problem is that the wings are made by carbon fibre which for some reason make folding wings difficult.

 

[Gomig-21]

The problem is that the wings are made by carbon fibre which for some reason make folding wings difficult.

The plant in Martignas builds the wings strictly and if memory serves, the skin only is a mix of composites that are extremely durable of course. And if you think about it, the usage of the flaps, ailerons, leading edge flaps (obviously hinged, moving surfaces) and even the canards easily absorb tremendous amounts of pressure during extreme flying conditions that the aircraft is subjected to, not to mention at supersonic speeds. Having folding wing ends shouldn't be an issue whatsoever.

Most likely one of the most advanced boundary layer engineered intakes ever. That adds to the pressure on the close-coupled canards.

 

[dbc]

Having folding wing ends shouldn't be an issue whatsoever.

It is, for one thing it will be too expensive for Dassault to tool for special wings for a small order from the Indian Navy. Then there is the cost of changes to the flight control laws followed by months of testing. Then there is flight performance, weight, range and payload all of which will be inferior to the original Rafale M.

 

[BON PLAN]

The next subject is ”How do the solution look like?”

Answer in a couple of years, on the indian carrier deck.

 

[MirageBlue]

India to see financial quotes for Rafale M from France, IAF requirement not on table

New Delhi: India will soon send a Letter of Request (LOR) to the French government seeking financial quotes for the procurement of 26 Rafale Marine fighter aircraft, also known as Rafale M, for the Indian Navy’s second aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, ThePrint has learnt.

However, while the Indian Air Force (IAF) is also looking at procuring 114 Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) for which the Rafale is the natural choice, no joint acquisition has been planned.

French aviation major Dassault Aviation, maker of the Rafale M, has previously made it clear that it would need an order of at least 100 Rafale fighter jets to manufacture them in India.
Aviation experts the ThePrint spoke to said joint acquisition of aircraft would have made sense since the IAF already operates 36 Rafale aircraft procured on an emergency basis and it would have been better to merge the Navy and Air Force’s joint requirement.

Joint acquisition would have meant that the cost would have gone down and India would have another line of fighter aircraft manufacturing, besides the Tejas fighter, they said. This is because Dassault would have then got the numbers to set up a production line in India.

Meanwhile, the Navy is hoping that the deal to procure the 26 Rafale M, which will be bought off the shelf, will be fast-tracked.

Sources in the defence and security establishment told ThePrint that once an acquisition project has been cleared by the defence ministry, the next step involves issuance of Request for Proposal (RFP). The present acquisition deal was cleared in July.

Since the deal for Rafale M is going to be a government-to-government one, an LOR would be issued within six to eight weeks of clearance, sources added.

“An LOR will be issued shortly. It is in the final stages of vetting by the defence ministry,” said one source. He added that it was being hoped that the procurement would be fast-tracked. “While a contract usually envisages deliveries starting three years from the date of signing, talks are on with the French for faster processes,” the source explained.

Training could also be fast-tracked as Indian naval pilots could train on French navy fighters rather than wait for the delivery of Indian fighters, said sources.

Explaining further the process for the Rafale M acquisition, sources said a negotiating team will be formed by both India and France to thrash out a contract which, as ThePrint reported last month, is likely to be inked only after the 2024 general election.

Sources also said that INS Vikrant, which is currently undergoing a scheduled compulsory refit/maintenance process, will be using the Navy’s MiG 29K fighters to become fully operational in the meantime.

Common sense meant that the IAF and IN's requirement would be merged to get economies of scale and an assembly line to manufacture them both. But the super complex Indian defence procurement means that this will most likely not be the case and each contract will be processed separately,

In other news, the 114 MRFA RFP is likely to be issued soon.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1696039154654597311

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

India to see financial quotes for Rafale M from France, IAF requirement not on table



Common sense meant that the IAF and IN's requirement would be merged to get economies of scale and an assembly line to manufacture them both. But the super complex Indian defence procurement means that this will most likely not be the case and each contract will be processed separately,

In other news, the 114 MRFA RFP is likely to be issued soon.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1696039154654597311

The whole reason for the new RFQ is that the Rafale choosen in the previous deal was way too expensive for 114 aircrafts. It would be very strange for India to choose the Rafale in the new procurement, unless the Rafale got a lot cheaper.
Also, noone is going to provide guarantees on something built in India by an Indian company.

 

[BON PLAN]

The whole reason for the new RFQ is that the Rafale choosen in the previous deal was way too expensive for 114 aircrafts. It would be very strange for India to choose the Rafale in the new procurement, unless the Rafale got a lot cheaper.
Also, noone is going to provide guarantees on something built in India by an Indian company.

Rafale made by HAL was too expensive (they need 2,7 more man work hours to built it compare to France !).
Now the Rafale is no more made in low serial effect with an effect on parts price, and with DRAL it is possible to built in India a afale with the same amount of man hours than in France, ie cheaper.

 

[Gomig-21]

It is, for one thing it will be too expensive for Dassault to tool for special wings for a small order from the Indian Navy. Then there is the cost of changes to the flight control laws followed by months of testing.

I'll give you that. Of course, it'll be costly, nothing's for free.
Could be why the contract offer for 26 aircraft was upwards of $8 billion, who knows.

Then there is flight performance, weight, range and payload all of which will be inferior to the original Rafale M.

That, I can't give you, sorry, ma man. Basically what you're saying is that if this killer naval fighter right here.......

.......had a sister variant that did not have folding wing tips, it would be "inferior" to one that was originally designed as a fully fixed winged aircraft?

Ever see these bad Laries flying at airshows? I'm sure you have (forgive me I certainly don't mean to patronize you even if it sounds like I am, I'm not, honestly) I've seen the Blue Angels 18 times and Navy Super Hornets 12 times and I can confidently tell you that not only does it perform incredibly well at low speeds and high AoA, but at very fast speeds just below the sound barrier.

I compare them to the Thunderbirds which I've seen about 9-10 times that I can remember since they don't come around as much (Blue Angels seem much more popular here in the United States and T-Birds perform more around the world?) and many, many solo acts of USAF F-16s including Vipers and I can confidently say the Hornet performs more difficult maneuvers at slow and fast speeds. The solos are insane. Although I will give the F-16 a better nudge in the minimum radius turn. That thing turns like it's no one else's business.

If there is any maneuver that would showcase the strength of those folding joints, it's the low altitude fast approach and sudden nose pitch up going vertical. One of the best things to see and you can only imagine the pressure that is exerted on those wings, yet is routinely done.

Never mind that; what about all the hard landings on carriers? And I think we all know the saying "he dropped that thing like he was landing on a carrier" LOL! You know what I mean. If anything would cause issues with those folding joints, it's that part of the jet's duty yet it keeps on chugging along.

Here's an example of the brutal effects on those carrier landings.
Phantom looses its starboard wingtip on a hard landing.

It's common knowledge that Naval F4 Phantoms -- not USAF ones -- when landing on carriers (or even airports just by virtue of their training for hard carrier landings) hit the deck so hard that those wingtips clank and chank and bang so loud it sounds like the aircraft is crashing. Yet this fighter has served (and still serves in several air forces) without issues of having folding wing tips.

I highly doubt that if Dassault was to create an M series with folding wingtips that it would be inferior to the standard M at all. Maybe store a little less fuel (that is if the fuel tanks/bladders extend all the way to the tip of the wings) but that's not a major detriment considering the availability of air refueling for almost all major air forces including buddy-buddy capabilities.

 

[BON PLAN]

I highly doubt that if Dassault was to create an M series with folding wingtips that it would be inferior to the standard M at all. Maybe store a little less fuel (that is if the fuel tanks/bladders extend all the way to the tip of the wings) but that's not a major detriment considering the availability of air refueling for almost all major air forces including buddy-buddy capabilities.

A Rafale M with folding wings would be heavier, for sure. So less agile, lower load, lower fuel... f rom a very little or more margin ? I haven't any answer.
Add that the serial effect for Rafale M (India will be the first and last export customer for this variant, to add to the french order already cut from 86 to 48) is too few,
=> For these 2 reasons the french marine decided to use the non folding wings.

USN on the other sens can afford the cost of folding wings because amortized on hundred birds !
Remains the fact that this system always add weight, and reduce the rigidity of the wings ! With effects (see above). But it was their choice.
Note that SH18 is not a 9G bird.

See how the F35 evolve in a model with folding wings for carrier and another with fixed ones for air force (+ ADAC/V model) . It is not without reasons, maybe found in the F/A and SH18 experience.

 

[Gomig-21]

Add that the serial effect for Rafale M (India will be the first and last export customer for this variant, to add to the french order already cut from 86 to 48) is too few,
=> For these 2 reasons the french marine decided to use the non folding wings.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of the very likelihood that it would be the only order for such an aircraft. Armée de l'air doesn't need it and there probably won't be any other future export customers, making the investment not worth it. You're right on that point.

USN on the other sens can afford the cost of folding wings because amortized on hundred birds !
Remains the fact that this system always add weight, and reduce the rigidity of the wings ! With effects (see above). But it was their choice.
Note that SH18 is not a 9G bird.

8 G's is still excellent, though. Insignificant difference especially in this day and age and moving forward where the need for higher G loading is becoming less and less important with the emphasis and focus on 'stand-off' warfare. Same with it's supposed replacement which is less @ 7.5 G limit = F-35.

See how the F35 evolve in a model with folding wings for carrier and another with fixed ones for air force (+ ADAC/V model) . It is not without reasons, maybe found in the F/A and SH18 experience.

The reason is mainly the evolution of stealth necessity as well as partly sensor fusion capability and not necessarily the folding wings. Stealth and modernization -- as well as commonality throughout the Navy, Marines and USAF -- are the primary reasons for inducting the F-35C to the USN.

Electronic warfare is another reason - to eliminate the need for an additional and dedicated platform in the EA-18G Growler.

And BTW, Boeing is going to be developing the next generation F/A-18 Super Hornet with advanced technology specifically in avionics and sensor fusion to upgrade its performance and keep it viable into the future. I bet the USN will still use it on carriers for a long time to come.

 

[dbc]

That, I can't give you, sorry, ma man. Basically what you're saying is that if this killer naval fighter right here.......

You’re very wrong the land variant of the F-18, the F-18L and the YF-17 was 9G limited while the Naval variant of the F-18, the A, B variants are limited to 7.5G. the F-18 with folding wings, arrester hook and naval landing gear is 38% heavier compared to the F-18L. The YF-17 flew circles around the Naval variant, it was lighter, faster, superior climb rate, superior instantaneous and sustained turn rates. So much so that the Senate held a hearing to find out why the Naval variant was inferior despite having a more powerful engine.