What's new

Heavy weight MKI carries 8t while Medium weight Rafale carries 9t, why? ECO

You are talking about Rafale M which is a Naval version...and Naval version are always havier then Normal version..

Secondly it will be a pure waste of fighter like Rafale if it can carry 6.5 Tonne of ordinance Only...So if not more the minimum ordinance carrying capacity of Rafale will be around 8 Tonne....

|
I can assure u it cannot be near 8tn, let alone it come to 7tn first.
|
New rafale emp wt increase is due to new ew suites(internal) and increase in fuel CAPACITY tank(remind u not here adding fuel wt) for more powerful engine.
 
.
LCA Tejas
Empty weight - 6560kgs
Useful Payload - 4000kgs

Rafale
Empty weight - 9500kgs
Useful Payload - 9000kgs


Why is that Rafale which only a medium weight fighter and only 30% heavier than LCA, can carry 225% payload of the LCA? LCA can carry only 4000kgs and its empty weight is 6560kgs. Also this medium weight french fighter carries more weight than heavy weight MKI which can only carry 8000kgs. Not only that, its empty weight is the same as its payload meaning it can carry payload which is almost equal to its own weight. What is the physics and technology behind this amazing thing. What on earth did the french put in it? Asking this questions to indians because you will know better.




From Wiki

MKI:
Loaded weight: 24,900 kg (54,895 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 38,800 kg (85,600 lb)

Rafale:
Loaded weight: 14,016 kg (30,900 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (C/D), 22,200 kg (M) (54,000 lb)


EFT:
Loaded weight: 16,000 kg[239][240] (35,000 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 23,500 kg (52,000 lb)

LCA:
Loaded weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,100 lb)

F18:
Loaded weight: 36,970 lb (16,770 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 51,900 lb (23,500 kg)

What is clear here LCA=>3,800KG Bomb, MKI=>12,900 KG, Rafael=>9,500 KG and EFT=>6,500 KG, F18=>15,000KG

We all know Rafael and F18 can carry maximum load, question is why??? Answer is very simple, these plane were design for this purpose only, while Su27 series was design to counter F15 , a truly Multirole fighter.

In design phase only rafael and F18 were made tocarry more payload. LCA was designed as point defence fighter.


Hence I have given the answer. please close the thread.
 
.
LCA Tejas
Empty weight - 6560kgs
Useful Payload - 4000kgs

Rafale
Empty weight - 9500kgs
Useful Payload - 9000kgs


Why is that Rafale which only a medium weight fighter and only 30% heavier than LCA, can carry 225% payload of the LCA? LCA can carry only 4000kgs and its empty weight is 6560kgs. Also this medium weight french fighter carries more weight than heavy weight MKI which can only carry 8000kgs. Not only that, its empty weight is the same as its payload meaning it can carry payload which is almost equal to its own weight. What is the physics and technology behind this amazing thing. What on earth did the french put in it? Asking this questions to indians because you will know better.
Very nice question. The answer is very simple, Composites! MKI is basically a 4th Gen Twin seater Su-27UB plane souped-up to 4.5 Gen standards. It has an all metal airframe with very minimal use of composites. Carbon fibers are very very strong and sturdy while at the same time lighter than Stressed Aluminium. The reason why Rafale's airframe is strong enough to carry 9 tonnes of bombs and missiles, while weighing significantly less. But saying just Composites alone is the reason would doing be a great disservice to Dassault. Eurofighter too has extensive use of composites but it can carry only 7.5 tonnes of ordnance. So just the use of Composites alone doesn't get you the required effect, you need to know where and how to apply them. And also the quality of the composite material too plays a part here. For instance if we compare the composites used in F-1 racing cars to the ones used in Rafale, the Rafale one would be of a better quality.. meaning more stronger but less weight and also much better durability.

Now you could ask when what about LCA, it also has extensive use of composites but it weighs too much and carries little. The answer to this is the same as before. You just don't need to have composites, but you also need to know the know-how of composite airframe assembly. Obviously ADA and HAL, and their scientists are nothing more than n00bs in this field. And also god knows what is the quality of composites they are using on LCA. It could be the civilian racing car one, or god forbid even the carbon composites used on racing bi-cycles. Whatever it is, it sure hell ain't the same quality as the ones in rafale for sure. And thank god they went to the route of composites. If LCA had an all metal airframe then maybe it could have carried even less than 3500kgs.
 
.
In su 30mki ordinance is 8tn load.
In rafale u add fuel+ordinance=9tn load.
Check your facts. Rafale does carry 9 tonnes of external payload.

From Wiki

MKI:
Loaded weight: 24,900 kg (54,895 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 38,800 kg (85,600 lb)

Rafale:
Loaded weight: 14,016 kg (30,900 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (C/D), 22,200 kg (M) (54,000 lb)


EFT:
Loaded weight: 16,000 kg[239][240] (35,000 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 23,500 kg (52,000 lb)

LCA:
Loaded weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,300 kg (29,100 lb)

F18:
Loaded weight: 36,970 lb (16,770 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 51,900 lb (23,500 kg)

What is clear here LCA=>3,800KG Bomb, MKI=>12,900 KG, Rafael=>9,500 KG and EFT=>6,500 KG, F18=>15,000KG

We all know Rafael and F18 can carry maximum load, question is why??? Answer is very simple, these plane were design for this purpose only, while Su27 series was design to counter F15 , a truly Multirole fighter.

In design phase only rafael and F18 were made tocarry more payload. LCA was designed as point defence fighter.
Why are you taking the loaded weight, subtracting it with the maximum weight, and giving that number? I think you are confusing loaded weight with empty weight. But even still, if you subtract the maximum weight with that of the empty weight, you'll get the weight of fuel + ordinance, and not just ordinance.

Also, you might want to check on the f-18 figure. That figure is on pounds, not kgs. No fighter carries 15,000kgs at present.
 
. .
Optimized airframe

...DASSAULT AVIATION has long been recognised for designing sturdy airframes that sustain over 30 years of operation without heavy structural upgrades.

Thanks to the DASSAULT AVIATION unique know-how in finite element modelisation, the RAFALE airframe fatigue is monitored with the same gauge-free concept which has proved its worth on the MIRAGE 2000 fleet.

Composite materials are extensively used in the RAFALE and they account for 70% of the wetted area. They also account for the 40% increase in the max take-off weight to empty weight ratio compared with traditional airframes built of aluminium and titanium...

Optimized airframe
 
.
Here are the external payload of fighters at present -

F/A 18 E/F Hornet - 8000kgs
Su-35 - 8000kgs
All Su-30 variants - 8000kgs
MiG-29M/M2 - 6500kgs
F-15E - 10400kgs
F-16 Block 52 - 7500kgs
F-22A - 10000kgs
Eurofighter - 7500kgs
Rafale - 9000kgs
F-35A - 8100kgs*
Gripen - 5300kgs
J-10 - 4500kgs
Tejas - 4000kgs
JF-17 - 3600kgs
MiG-21Bis/Bison - 2000kgs


*the other 2 variants carry less than this Airforce variant.

Of all these fighters, rafale is the only one whose empty weight is almost the same as its payload. Just goes to show the talent of French engineers and scientists. Viva la France!
 
.
LCA Tejas
Empty weight - 6560kgs
Useful Payload - 4000kgs

Rafale
Empty weight - 9500kgs
Useful Payload - 9000kgs


Why is that Rafale which only a medium weight fighter and only 30% heavier than LCA, can carry 225% payload of the LCA? LCA can carry only 4000kgs and its empty weight is 6560kgs. Also this medium weight french fighter carries more weight than heavy weight MKI which can only carry 8000kgs. Not only that, its empty weight is the same as its payload meaning it can carry payload which is almost equal to its own weight. What is the physics and technology behind this amazing thing. What on earth did the french put in it? Asking this questions to indians because you will know better.

Hi, I am by no means an expert in aeronautics, so what I am about to write is only my interpretation of the numbers floating around on the internet. Most of the numbers are from wiki, I know its not a completely reliable source, but most often the numbers are true or close to true. Any way first some numbers:

F-15E:
Empty Weight: 14300 kg
Max weight: 36700 kg
Range:3900 km (ferry) (with external fuel tanks and conformal fuel tanks)
Payload: 10400 kg (with external fuel)

Su-30 Mki:
Empty Weight: 18400 kg
Max weight:38800 kg
Range: 3000 km
Payload:8000 kg (no external fuel)

EF Typhoon:
Empty Weight:11150 kg
Max weight: 23500 kg
Range: 3700 km (ferry range)
Payload: 7500 kg

Dassault Rafale C:
Empty Weight: 9500 kg
Max weight: 24500 kg
Range: 3700 km
Payload: 9500 kg

Now that the numbers are here, lets try to understand them. First off, Su and Rafale are in two different classes. One is Heavy weight and other is medium. It does not necessarily mean the former has to carry more external weight than the latter. It means, that the Su is heavier than the Rafale. Its biggger, which means it carries more internal space: more fuel, and an extra pilot. This is evident in their ferry ranges, the Su has 3000 km but it does so with only its internal fuel, while the Rafale's ferry range of 3700 km comes from its external + internal fuel. So this means, to utilize the full range of their aircrafts, the Rafales have to use a portion of their 9500 kg payload for external fuel tanks. Which means, it wont be flying with 9500 kg of bombs.

If it did try to use its full 9500 kg payload, it will have to include its external fuel tanks (so far i have not seen any aircraft reach its max payload capacity on just bombs, they always seem to carry external fuel stores). But the Su is not constrained by this. It can carry only bombs/missiles on all its racks and still have a better range than a Rafale/F 15/EF with only missiles/bombs and no external fuel stores. So Advantage: Flanker.

Bigger does not just mean more weapons. It also means how far can you take how many weapons, and clearly, the Flanker out flanks all other aircraft. The same analogy can be pulled between LCA and Rafale. The latter is bigger.

Edit: I am going to throw in a just in case scenario. Suppose the two (Su and Rafale) are going to be used in air defense role charged with protecting and area from enemy aircraft. It means a possibility of dog fights and possible loitering/patrol. The Su can do so with all missiles on its racks and stay for a longer time. But the Rafale, to achieve the same loiter time, will need external fuel. Which means, in a dog fight, it will be dragging a big bulky useless dead weight. Su: not so.
 
. .
Tejas is the smallest light weight mult role fighter in the world designed for electronic warfare, air intercept and close air support with reconnaissance and anti-ship as secondary roles. How can you compare its useful load to a Rafale which is designed for simultaneously undertaking air supremacy, deep penetration interdiction, reconnaissance, and airborne nuclear deterrent missions?

It's pointless comparing the two which have been designed keeping in view their roles.

Read this full thread

R u shore abt that bold part?
 
.
One of the important factor is, apart from fuel and ammunition, there is weight of avionics.
A bigger plane, with more powerful engines is expected to carry heavier, more powerful avionics.

To give an idea:

Rafale's powerplant: Snecma M88 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dry weight: 897 kg
Maximum thrust: 50 kN (11,250 lbf) dry, 75 kN (16,900 lbf) wet (afterburning)

MKI's powerplant: Saturn AL-31 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dry weight: 1520 kg
Maximum thrust: 125 kN

A heavier and more powerful engine is able to provide more power to radar/avionics.

It would be interesting if some member can shed some light on avionics. Not their capabilities but data like weight and power consumption, which are effected by size of plan/power plants.

For example:

N011M BARS PESA -
Peak output of 4 to 5 kW
Average output of 1.2 kW
Radar weight 650 kg
 
.
Here are the external payload of fighters at present -

F/A 18 E/F Hornet - 8000kgs
Su-35 - 8000kgs
All Su-30 variants - 8000kgs
MiG-29M/M2 - 6500kgs
F-15E - 10400kgs
F-16 Block 52 - 7500kgs
F-22A - 10000kgs
Eurofighter - 7500kgs
Rafale - 9000kgs
F-35A - 8100kgs*
Gripen - 5300kgs
J-10 - 4500kgs
Tejas - 4000kgs
JF-17 - 3600kgs
MiG-21Bis/Bison - 2000kgs


*the other 2 variants carry less than this Airforce variant.

Of all these fighters, rafale is the only one whose empty weight is almost the same as its payload. Just goes to show the talent of French engineers and scientists. Viva la France!

thanks for the info... I think MKI's load capability could be increased with the new engines it is getting ?
 
.
If it did try to use its full 9500 kg payload, it will have to include its external fuel tanks (so far i have not seen any aircraft reach its max payload capacity on just bombs, they always seem to carry external fuel stores). But the Su is not constrained by this. It can carry only bombs/missiles on all its racks and still have a better range than a Rafale/F 15/EF with only missiles/bombs and no external fuel stores. So Advantage: Flanker.
Why does rafale has to carry external fuel tanks if it wants to carry its full load? That doesn't make sense. If the target is close by, it doesn't need any external fuel tanks.

Edit: I am going to throw in a just in case scenario. Suppose the two (Su and Rafale) are going to be used in air defense role charged with protecting and area from enemy aircraft. It means a possibility of dog fights and possible loitering/patrol. The Su can do so with all missiles on its racks and stay for a longer time. But the Rafale, to achieve the same loiter time, will need external fuel. Which means, in a dog fight, it will be dragging a big bulky useless dead weight. Su: not so.
Yup, Sukhoi always has the advantage in range and loiter time, and the resultant advantage of utilizing all its hardpoints for weapons. But during a dogfight, Rafale does not need to carry its fuel tanks. In a dogfight, all fighters drop their fuel tanks before engaging the enemy.

Thanks for the 9.5 tonne figure. So rafale carries payload equal to its empty weight! Mind blowing!

thanks for the info... I think MKI's load capability could be increased with the new engines it is getting ?
The info has a slight correction. For Rafale, the payload is 9.5 tonnes, not 9. I went along with the figure the OP gave without checking. For MKI, more than the engines, if they strengthen the airframe, it can carry more weapons. Engines do play a part, but in MKI's case, its the airframe which is the weak link, not the engine.


N011M BARS PESA -
Peak output of 4 to 5 kW
Average output of 1.2 kW
Radar weight 650 kg
Yup, engine output(dry thrust) does play a part in radar transmitter power. Su-30MKI's radar range is 140km for 5m2 while Rafale's RBE-2 is 160km for 5m2(we will be getting an AESA not the current radar on rafale). However the range given for MKI is the range of the baseline radar with baseline transmitter. We most probably would have upgraded the transmitter power, but the upgraded range is not known.
 
.
Not One has spoken of Basic aviation concept Power : Weight Ration & Lift :Stall ratio are fundamentals of a Design. If you want super cruise reduce Cd (Drag coefficient) less than 0.009 to reach supercruise for supersonic flight, if you reduce it by factor of 4 further than BISONIC supercruise can be achieved.

Till date we are not able to achieve Bisonic Supercruise for sustained flight....Imagine the challenge
 
.
Why does rafale has to carry external fuel tanks if it wants to carry its full load? That doesn't make sense. If the target is close by, it doesn't need any external fuel tanks.

I said, no fighter has been seen carrying its full payload capacity in terms of just bombs/missiles. Same applies to Rafale. I have seen pictures of it carrying munitions on all its hard points. But they don't add up to 9.5 tons. And if it does need to take maximum payload to long distances, it will have to carry drop tanks and that means it wont be carrying 9.5 tons of bombs.


Yup, Sukhoi always has the advantage in range and loiter time, and the resultant advantage of utilizing all its hardpoints for weapons. But during a dogfight, Rafale does not need to carry its fuel tanks. In a dogfight, all fighters drop their fuel tanks before engaging the enemy.

See the point I am making here? Su will not be carrying any drop tanks in the first place. Drop tanks are not cheap you know. And the hard points they use for the drop tanks can be better utilized for missiles, like in the Flanker.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom