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

[lilaspr]

That is the whole point why IAF decided to buy Rafale. or else they would have easily bought 100 - 200 more MKI. and i don't believe Russia would have any problem with TOT to MKI.
It nutshell MKI has more range with higher service ceiling.
Rafale is relatively new platform, so i am sure it is more lethal or better radar or firepower or composite. As far as LCA is concern, i believe, the whole idea is LCA is to make it as a quick reaction fighter, which india can manufacture in greater number.

 

[neehar]

haha comparing oranges and apples...

 

[MiG-21]

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.

I don't see why rafale can't carry its full bomb load using multi carriage bomb racks just because such a pic hasn't been released, or has been released and not yet seen by many. It's airframe is stressed for 9.5 tonnes, whether it be bombs or tanks. The only disadvantage of using a bomb rack is that all the bombs in a single rack drops simultaneously.

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.

Drop tanks are not cheap? Seriously is that an argument? I bet the fuel expended for a ferry range sortie costs more than the drop tank.
Besides, under dogfighting conditions, it's much quicker to drop the drop tank and gain increased thrust to weight ratio necessary for the dogfight than dump internal fuel outside.
I already said Sukhoi holds the edge in range and loiter time. It's a big aircraft with a large internal fuel capacity. No arguments in that.

 

[Black Widow]

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.

As per my knowledge, in case of Aircrafts
1. Empty weight is empty weight
2. loaded weight is "Empty Weight+Pilot weight+ internal Fuel Weight" which is same as kerb weight in Automobile terminology.
3. MTOW (Max take off weight) is weight place can take off with (Under marked performance), though the machine can carry more load than MTOW but in that case the perforce can go down.

so payload = MTOW-Loaded weight
Internal Fuel+pilot weight = Loaded weight - empty weight

Pay load can be External fuel pods, Laser Pods, weapon, missile etc....



Please let us know if our understanding is wrong...

@F18 Payload capacity: I agree with you, Look like Wekipedia information is wrong...

 

[Anony]

LCA weight is 5.8 ton. That 6560 kg was the weight of prototype flew in 2003. Engineers have managed to reduce the weight by 746 kg by changing structure and using more composites upto 45% by weight. Though there were plan to bring down the weight to 5.5 ton by reducing the number of LRUs but no update on that yet.

Internal oil of 3146 kg plus pilot weight
Therefore loaded weight is 5.8 t + 3.2 t = 9.0 ton
Maximum takeoff weight is 13.5 t
Payload 4.5 t

Above data are for Tejas mk1. Tejas mk2 will be able to carry 5 ton of payload and will have 5.5 ton of empty weight.

:-Note you can get all the above mention data from DRDO's and ADA's official website.

 

[von Reichenau]

The empty weight includes the Active array radars . The LCA can guide AAMs while up in the air.Moreover the minimum weight of engine and airframe means that lighter aircrafts' useful load / total weight is greater than high powered heavier aircraft.

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.

 

[Awesome]

Layman's view, MKI is designed with Manouverability in mind. Its supposed to do all the crazy manouveres and its not like 8tn is not enough.

 

[turbo charged]

That is the whole point why IAF decided to buy Rafale. or else they would have easily bought 100 - 200 more MKI. and i don't believe Russia would have any problem with TOT to MKI.
It nutshell MKI has more range with higher service ceiling.
Rafale is relatively new platform, so i am sure it is more lethal or better radar or firepower or composite. As far as LCA is concern, i believe, the whole idea is LCA is to make it as a quick reaction fighter, which india can manufacture in greater number.

yea very quick...so much quick that 40 years from the start of project its still going through trials.

when teja will enter service,india will enter in 1980's--welcome.

 

[kurup]

yea very quick...so much quick that 40 years from the start of project its still going through trials.

when teja will enter service,india will enter in 1980's--welcome.

40 years .......Looks like it is 2030s in pakistan now ....

Looks like he cannot comprehend b/w quick reaction and quick developement.