Loading Rafale fighters during takeoff from Indian aircraft carriers

Since the beginning of January, French companies have been actively testing the Rafale fighter, trying to set the limits for loading the aircraft when it takes off from Indian aircraft carriers. Unlike the French ship Charles de Gaulle, they (the aircraft carriers of the Indian Navy) are equipped not with an electromagnetic catapult, but with springboards.

As explained in Meta-defense, the testing company Dassault Aviation is tight-lipped. However, there are photos of the Rafale taking off from the test ramp:

The carrying capacity of the aircraft will not differ too much when taking off from the ski jump.

As indicated in the publication, the captured vehicle carried two fuel tanks of 2 thousand liters each, two Mica medium-range missiles, two Mica self-defense missiles and one AM-39 Exocet anti-ship missile under the fuselage.

The configuration [loading Rafale] is completely comparable to that used during takeoffs from the Charles de Gaulle

- it is noted in the publication, indicating that when rising into the air from a springboard, fighters are able to carry more than 5,5 tons of cargo and, therefore, achieve a maximum take-off weight of 20-21 tons, while having a flight range of almost 1 thousand km.

According to the author, for comparison, the Chinese J-15 carrier-based fighter has a weight limit of 27 tons and a payload of 10 tons, which leads to greater fuel consumption:

The Rafale M88 turbojet engine is known for its low fuel consumption, which cannot be said about the Russian and Chinese power plants that are equipped with deck-based J-15s.

Comments

[Aerodrome]

Yes, no one argues that the "Rafal" is a good machine ...

[Timon2155]

Not a damn thing is clear in terms of fuel consumption, why this comparison at all? Once again praised your engine? There takeoff takes a few seconds, the difference in costs is unprincipled. It seems that the author is so-so, not too in the subject. And to say that the configuration with and without a catapult is comparable is complete nonsense. And he invented the new term-carrying capacity))) The J-15 has a combat load weight of 6 tons, and not 10 tons.

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: Timon2155

Not a damn thing is clear in terms of fuel consumption, why this comparison at all? Once again praised your engine? There takeoff takes a few seconds, the difference in costs is unprincipled. It seems that the author is so-so, not too in the subject

The specific fuel consumption is generally comparable. For M 88 and AL-31 engines

[Timon2155]

And where does the AL-31? On J-15 they put WS-10A. Although our AL-31 was used on the prototypes. It is believed that the Chinese economy is worse.

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: Timon2155

the opinion that the Chinese are worse off with efficiency

Right. The Chinese prefer Russian engines. The Chinese so far have more specific consumption and a smaller resource.

[TermNachTer]

Actually, M - 88 is the weakest of all current engines - Russian, English and American. And engine power is acceleration characteristics, one of the fundamental parameters of a fighter. What's the point that the engines are economical if he does not have time to intercept an enemy aircraft that will launch anti-ship missiles at an aircraft carrier?

[Sergey Valov]

The efficiency of the engine is, first of all, the duration / range of the flight. Accelerating characteristics are a good thing, especially in close combat, but power is no less needed to reduce the takeoff run.

[TermNachTer]

Overclocking performance is one of the main parameters. If you, economically, do not have time to intercept the enemy aircraft before he releases anti-ship missiles at your aircraft carrier, then the efficiency of the engines. you won't need it anymore. Now mattresses are facing this problem. F - 14 was written off, and F - 18 does not provide the necessary interception range, because it has a maximum of 1900 km / h, and even then, with an incomplete load.

[Sergey Valov]

“does not provide the required interception range” - the interception range is provided not by accelerating characteristics, but by the flight range / combat radius, which, in turn, directly depends on the efficiency of the engine.

[TermNachTer]

Interception range - provided by the time of arrival at a given line, from which enemy anti-ship missiles will not reach your aircraft carrier. The F - 14, at a speed of 2500 km / h, the arrival time is much less than the F - 18 and the "Rafal", they have the same maximum speed.

[Sergey Valov]

“The interception range is provided by the time of arrival at a given line” - no, time, as it was, will remain so, and the interception range is miles and kilometers.

[TermNachTer]

We take the interception line of 250 miles (400 km.) - how long will F - 18 fly there, from 1900 km / h and F - 14, 2500 km / h. The "cat" was on time from duty on deck, the "hornet" can only be in time from duty in the air, but this is not realistic.

[V means B]

The cat at this speed will fly empty. Suspended rackets can not withstand such speed.

[TermNachTer]

And the "hornet" with the maximum load?

[V means B]

And super hornet too.

[Timon2155]

Withstand. Don't forget - 4 sparrow missiles or a phoenix F-14 carries in a semi-recessed position under the fuselage - like the MiG-31. These missiles do not experience thermal stress when flying at maximum speeds. Yes, and the MiG-25P / PD / PDS flew at maximum speeds with missiles under the wings, they did everything at 2500 km / h. Further, with the cat: when the F-14 took off to intercept, they were alerted immediately behind them and the cat tankers managed to fly to the launch lines, shoot back and refuel on the way back! No wonder the US military had requirements for a high-speed phantom interceptor F-4 no longer suited them, they did not have time to launch. The F-14 in various modifications stood in service for ~ 30 years, as an interceptor, an excellent aircraft! Now the Cold War is looming again, and the United States does not have a high-speed interceptor. This is despite the fact that the ranges of our anti-ship missiles are growing: they promise 1000+ km for hypersound, let's see if this is true. The flight time of such anti-ship missiles leaves no chance at all to intercept them from the “deck duty” position. If so, the thing with aircraft carriers is seams.

[TermNachTer]

In general, "Boeing" has not weakly won and earned, but the United States lost. The funny thing is, the F-14s were not just taken out of service, they were cut into metal. On AvB "Davis" there are no "cats" in storage, unlike other cars. The pretext was "killer" - so that the Persians would not climb in and steal spare parts for their "cats"))))

[Timon2155]

Nenene, I read something else - there is a problem with the pivot points (the hinges themselves on the beam = part of the airframe) of the wing consoles. We have exhausted our resource, the metal is tired - this is the most loaded part of the airframe. There is nothing to be done with the turning point, just sawing. By the way, the B-1B has the same trouble, so there is no smell of the resource “from the B-52”)))

[TermNachTer]

And what, it was impossible to make repairs when the deadlines approached? MiG - 27, in India they have only recently been withdrawn from service. F - 15 is still in service. There would be a desire, but if they also paid for it.

[Timon2155]

Repair of what? Replace the power set of the fuselage in the area of ​​the pivot points of the consoles? Unrealistic, it's easier to build a new plane. The MiG-27 is "land-based", it does not experience such loads as the F-14 (catapult, aerofinisher). And the F-14s flew very actively in the fleet - there is a resource both in hours and in calendars, depending on what comes earlier. I didn’t understand about the F-15 at all - there is no highly loaded turning unit, the first modifications have long been decommissioned.

[TermNachTer]

I have not heard about problems with the center section of the "Cat". The MiG - 23 were, but nevertheless they flew. About the F - 14, only the engines were scolded, until then they did not put the "General Electric", like the F - 15. If you have information, throw a link.

[Timon2155]

Problems is a big word. A question in a resource which has property to come to an end. At the nodes of the rotation of the consoles, it ends in the first place - this is the Achilles' heel of all aircraft with variable geometry. There is no information of this kind from the military, there are rumors: I heard / read somewhere, no more. The military is unlikely to give an official answer))))

[mmaxx]

The best answer is the absence of such aircraft in service.

[Timon2155]

There is. Offhand: F-14A of the Iranian Air Force, Su-24 of various modifications, MiG-23 of the Syrian Air Force, etc. There are many examples. With the exception of our Su-24s, the rest of the countries are treated carelessly as resources)))) Well, if it crashes, it's okay, like))))

[mmaxx]

Well ..... Some still have the MiG-21.

[TermNachTer]

The Su - 24 flies, in some places the MiG - 23. The idea itself - variable geometry is very good, so far, the execution has let us down. New materials and new technologies will appear, and they can return to it.

[mmaxx]

Dead end branch. She said her word and that's enough. The aircraft turns out to be heavy. And the resource of this folding unit is limited. There, yomoyo, titanium of such thickness ....

[Timon2155]

At maximum speeds up to 3000-3500 km / h, a conventional wing is also suitable, without variable sweep. And what if tomorrow it becomes possible (engines, airframe materials) to fly at 6000 km/h? I doubt that it will be possible to fly on a fixed wing at 6000 km / h and at the same time have a distinct landing speed. The MiG-31 already has 280 km / h, and with an increase in speeds, it will be necessary to increase the landing speed, it’s already a problem to land. On a fixed wing on a good supersonic in the region of 2M it shakes, but on a variable sweep, no. After the Su-24M, the pilots encountered an unpleasant feature of the Su-34 at speeds close to 1M: the Su-24M goes like an iron, and the Su-34 shakes well so that the crew gets tired. The same trouble for foreigners: F-15 pilots could not fly supersonic for a long time near the earth-shaking. So it's too early to write off the variable sweep. Heavy multi-mode supersonic bombers, in general, are all with variable sweep, otherwise you should not even dream of multi-mode.

[EvilLion]

This is for all aircraft with low wing loading. The Su-24 can still transfer the wing to a more optimal mode. Preservation on the Su-34 PGO, apparently, is also to reduce shaking.

Heavy bombers spend very little time in takeoff mode, but they can fly at 0.8-0.9M for hours, and for them the transition to a more optimal mode is stupidly more profitable than fighters with a short flight time. The very same mechanism for changing the geometry of the wing is an add. weight.

[Timon2155]

PGO on the entire dry family compensates for a heavy nose. It is more profitable to carry the weight of the turning unit than the "extra" fuel - it has been proven on the Su-7 / Su-17. The whole question is in the resource and loads. This very turning node perceives loads at one point, which negatively affects the resource. It is possible that with the development of new materials, we will still see variable geometry on fighters.

[mmaxx]

This is half an airplane gutted.

[AC130 Gunship]

I was at that base. Getting there will be quite problematic. Well, to take out the "sawn" - even more so. This is a well-guarded military facility. All planes are in Zone A - sealed with foil. There, no one wanders around them with ladders and wrenches.

[V means B]

With a load of 4 phoenixes, 2 sparrows, 2 sidewinders, 2 ptb of 1060 each, the combat radius is 247 at 1,5m. Interception from the position of duty on an aircraft carrier.

[Timon2155]

Don't forget to add the phoenix salvo launch range of ~150 km. In total, we roughly believe that the F-14 can hit targets from the “deck on duty” position at a range of ~ 350 km. Very worthy!

[EvilLion]

2500 km/h in terms of heating is not yet a problem, problems go somewhere from 2.7M.

[Timon2155]

There is an opinion that the F-18D cannot fly at maximum speed all the way to the missile launch line. But the F-14 can. I may be wrong - please correct me. In fact, the F-18D in terms of interception is not too different from the later modifications of the naval F-4s.

[mmaxx]

Something very doubtful. Afterburner mode is just pouring fuel into the prechamber

[EvilLion]

Do you even know at what altitudes these speeds are reached and how the flight takes place in order to count?

[Timon2155]

What does "weak" mean? So the Rafal is lighter than the J-15 / Su-35. Specific characteristics are important, and the M88 has them very much! Moreover, there are a lot of options, up to the M88-4 version with a thrust of 10700kgf-wiki gives info.

[TermNachTer]

Compare, at least according to Vika, the traction characteristics of the engines that are installed on the F - 18, Eurofighter, MiG - 35. The Frenchman has the weakest engines.

[Timon2155]

What M88 series are you talking about? Second? It's not the freshest. We take the latest versions of the F-18d / MiG-35 / Rafal. By engines: M88-3 thrust 9500kgf, M88-4 thrust 10700kgf - these engines are offered to customers. Vicki writes that they offer for single-engine, but they tested them on rafals - there are no problems with installation, it turns out. This means that the consumer does not need such a large thrust. On the UAE Rafale F4, it seems, there should be M88-4 - we'll see. On the MiG35 RD-33 ser. 3M thrust 8800kgf (on the MiG-29 9-13 there was a toggle switch in the chassis niche, you could click it for combat mode and increase thrust to the detriment of the resource, on the MiG-35s with RD-33 ser. 3 xs, I didn’t find it, yes and they are not yet in the army), on the F-18d F404-GE400, the thrust is 7300 kg. Again, the serial Rafal flies supersonic without afterburner, opponents do not. This means that the thrust is quite sufficient in the M88-2 variant.

[TermNachTer]

Is the latest one installed on all Rafals? And how much do you have to pay for new engines?

[TermNachTer]

P.S. I don't know which Wiki you looked at, I took it from here - 2 × Snecma M88[en] 2 × Eurojet EJ200[en] 1 × GE F110-132 2 × GE F414-400[en] 1 × GE F414G[en] 2 × RD-33MKV
Maximum thrust 2 × 50,0 kN 2 × 60,0 kN 1 × 84,0 kN 2 × 62,3 kN 1 × 62,3 kN 2 × 53,0 kN
Maximum afterburner thrust 2 × 75,0 kN 2 × 90,0 kN 1 × 144,0 kN 2 × 98,0 kN 1 × 98,0 kN 2 × 88,3 kN
Maximum speed at altitude M=1,8+[52] M=2,25[53] M=2,0 M=1,8 M=2,0[54] M=2,25

[Timon2155]

It's not worth it, but the engine is ready, tested and offered to buyers - it's there, it's not an abstraction. Conclusion: he is not weak, as you claim. And if we compare the specific indicators of engines, Rafalevsky is the most advanced of the trinity F-404 / RD-33 / M88. They don’t take M88-3/4, which means that the M88-2 version is enough, because Rafal is not cheap anyway. It will be necessary, they will order: for now, Rafal is already taken like hot cakes. Apparently, buyers do not think that the engines are weak))). A wiki is like a wiki: type M88 Snecma, go to the modification section, there is version information. The article is already old, a lot is there in the future tense - now the engines are ready. http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/rafal.html Here is another respected site, there the thrust is 9290 kgf, which is close to the M88-3 version.

[Volkof]

This disease will end soon! As soon as the time comes for the 1st repair in France and the warranty support and repair of equipment, it will be replaced by technical support and repair of blocks at the expense of the owner of the aircraft, sending everything to France and receiving everything from there ... Have you driven French cars? God forbid something breaks or you get into DDT, and during the warranty period, even anti-freeze, you will pour the one that they say ...

[Timon2155]

I haven’t driven a car for more than three years: the warranty is over, I’m selling it. You shouldn’t tell me about dealers: I can be serviced at any service station and fill in the anti-freeze that I consider necessary - it’s time to know your rights and the law on consumer protection, and not write old stories. You yourself do not know how to shut up a zealous dealer, go to a lawyer: after a couple of letters, your dealer will become silky. About repairs, there are also deadlines: the dealer missed them, go to a lawyer, sue a lot of money for downtime, lost profits, and so on. But that's off topic. Rafali contracts include both service conditions and the supply of spare parts during the operating period. Or, do you think they take planes for wild billions and then solder the blocks on their knees somewhere in the sands of the UAE?))))) No, of course, it’s not customary for them to repair like we do, they change the entire assembly to a new one, with new warranty. And they fly on. It turns out that they have most of the parts and components of the aircraft under warranty all the time. And we have whole PARMs working, up to microcircuits soldering, restoring everything. HZ what approach is better. But for not too technologically advanced Rafal buyers, the approach to replacing nodes is justified - in general, this is not a very sharable audience. The provision of spare parts is a strong point of France, unlike us. Their service is head and shoulders above. They took mirages and flew, satisfied customers, I didn’t have to read the negative. How will Rafal be different? Yes, it is more expensive, but the general principles of operation are probably spelled out in contracts.

[TermNachTer]

Overhaul with modernization - definitely in France. And this is, firstly, long, and secondly, expensive. And besides, during operation, situations may arise that the device will have to be sent to the manufacturer. so, wonderful French service is not always a blessing.

[Timon2155]

And how have mirages been exploited for decades? Similar. And no one buzzed, they took it very actively and used it.

[mmaxx]

Overhaul is the restoration of a resource. Factory only.

[nks]

It is in this case that a wonderful French service will be beneficial, because if "situations may arise that the device will have to be sent to the manufacturer", then poor service will be a problem (and such situations can arise with any "device"). And returning to the specifics, but at the moment the assigned resource of the Rafal airframe is 7500 hours (with the accumulation of statistics for new ones, they are already going to do 9000 hours) without major repairs (all current repairs can be done in parts), while the assigned resource of the su-30MKI / Mig- 29 4000/4500 h (Mig-29k has even less), with overhaul every 1500 h. At the same time, MKI and MIG-29 are designed for operation with a flight time of ~ 125 hours per year (in reality, we have less than 100 hours in India), and Rafal (and the NATO standard in general) 250 hours. That's the cost of ownership. It takes 2 sous or an instant to cover a rafal raid.

[TermNachTer]

Everything that you have listed is purely "numbers on a piece of paper", but the reality is very harsh, especially for carrier-based airplanes. For examples, we will not go far, F - 35, which dived into South Kit. sea.

[nks]

This is just the actual real data on the operation of these types. If you were even a little interested in materiel, you would know them (at least about domestic fighters).

Quote: TermNachTER

For examples, we will not go far, F - 35, which dived into South Kit. sea.

Apparently, your uncle lives in Kiev and there is an elder tree outside the window?)

[TermNachTer]

No, I have no relatives in Kueva. Uncle lives in Kherson. As for how good "Rafal" is, we will still discuss. When its operators start having problems. The French in general are very dangerous partners, "they will give up at the first jump")))

[bayard]

Rafal has one indisputable advantage over its colleagues in the category - the lightest dry weight. Therefore, even with less powerful engines, it had no less, if not more, thrust-to-weight ratio, even with engines of the second series.
And also, what is useful for a deck carrier is a relatively large wing area, which gives a better lift-off and take-off with a larger payload. In the category of light fighters, in terms of the combination of characteristics (AFAR radar and Meteor), this is the best fighter in the class.
But really very expensive. Our heavy ones are one and a half to two times cheaper.
For Indian aircraft carriers, they are by far the best choice in terms of performance. And here's how it will be for the price ... after all, the deck version is always more expensive than the usual one ... And they are more expensive in the life cycle.

[TermNachTer]

And why do you think that while the French brought their M - 88 to mind, the British and Americans were sitting still. I think they have more modern versions. The Russian engine has remained the same, because for Russia the MiG - 35 is not yet relevant. The emphasis is on heavy fighters.

[nks]

Quote: Timon2155

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/rafal.html Вот ещё уважаемый сайт, там тяга указана 9290 кгс, что близко к версии М88-3.

The site is really authoritative, but this article is bad - there are a lot of obvious errors. The maximum thrust of the m88, as it was, remained 7,5 tons (perhaps for some customers it was slightly increased to 8 tons with a little). The current version of the engine (the old ones can be upgraded) is m88-4e (eco), where the emphasis is not on increasing traction, which is considered sufficient, but on efficiency and resource (TCO “Total Cost of Ownership” program). In general, the m88 core (hot part) allows you to create turbofan engines with a thrust of up to ~ 10,5 tons. In response to requests from some customers, Safran said they could make a 88t max thrust version of the m9 with minimal modifications, but with more airflow, requiring an increase in the air intake, but Dassault did not change the design of the air intake. There was another interesting piece of news about this. DGA, together with safran, recently conducted tests in the SCAF program with an increased temperature in the combustion chamber
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/actualite/la-dga-realise-un-essai-majeur-pour-prefigurer-le-prochain-moteur-du-scaf. Вообще это отработка технологий и, хотя двигатель SCAF NGF предполагается большой размерности, эти тесты провели на базе именно M88, что в принципе дает возможность улучшения его характеристик в том числе и по тяге без увеличения расхода воздуха в ближайшем будущем.

[Timon2155]

Yes, it seems that the buyers of Rafal have a greater craving for nothing, and they don’t itch. I don’t think that for Dassault to increase the air intakes of the Rafal a little is such a problem: any whim for your money.

[nks]

In part, yes, but for the time being, there were no people willing to pay the money Dassault needed on this account.

[Vlad69]

That's right: the Frenchman is the same age as our dvigun and is far from know-how in the world engine building already.

[Fff]

Excellent, the MiG-29 takes only 2 tons, even if not from the deck. MiG-29 TTX - Weight of combat load - 2000 kg

[Charik]

and what are you comparing with Mig19

[Fff]

Here you are a schoolboy, instant-19 is not a deck worker. Palubniki are MiG-29K and Su-33. MiG-29K of the same class as Rafal

[Charik]

It’s like you were just born, Mig has 6 suspension points, Rafal has 12 pieces.

[Volkof]

And what did they grab if the plane takes off with 2 external tanks and its radius is only about 1000 km in the version of an aircraft carrier defense patrol aircraft! T e, like a fighter? And in the version of an attack aircraft with 2 hanging tanks from a springboard, are these 4 bombs, less than 2 tons? And all the French fairy tales are over! Yes, and a combat radius of 1000 km, most likely it turns out with 3 hanging tanks .... And how will this miracle then maneuver and exterminate? Of course, I estimated the performance characteristics very approximately, but in all the photos this is a "miracle" in real combat use with 3 tanks, and this is no accident! And what about the permissible overload in this embodiment and the angle of attack? So even in the interceptor version it will be difficult to take off from the springboard and in the shock version the load will be ridiculous, because the tanks are ballast, and they are included in these fantastic 5,5 tons when taking off from the springboard!

[Avior]

With three external tanks, Raphael's combat radius reaches 1800 km

Combat range: 1,850 km (1,150 mi, 1,000 nmi) on penetration mission

[Volkof]

From VIKI:

Fighting radius: 1389 km in suspension: 3 PTB, 2 UR MICA, 2 UR Meteor, 6 LGB / PGM, 1 Navigation POD.

How I like those who have reaches ! Or maybe calculate the combat radius when the plane flies without a combat load in a straight line and also in the direction of a tailwind?

[Timon2155]

There's a hitch with tanks: it's not written too clearly, what does the configuration include? Without tanks, the practical range is 2000 km. The radius without tanks is about ~ 950 km. With three tanks of 1389 km radius, something is wildly small - most likely a mistake. Judging by the weight of the fuel, it should be in the region of 1800 km. Taking off from the deck with a springboard does not require so much fuel - there, in afterburner, the engines work for a few seconds in total.

[Avior]

My quote is also from Wikipedia, from the English page
The range depends on the load and amount of fuel, therefore it is indicated for what conditions

Rayon d'action • Pénétration (3 t de bombes + 4 MICA) : 1 056 km
• Configuration air-air (6 MICA)[7] : 1 km

[Timon2155]

And at what speed does it fly in this configuration with bombs? Although, 3 tons of bombs will give a not weak increase in subsonic resistance. With 6 rockets, Mika flies 1759 km - more / less like the truth. Again, what is the speed? Afterburner mode or maximum?

[Avior]

Rafal has a non-afterburner supersonic. Do you think other fighters fly hundreds of kilometers at full afterburner?
Rafal, thanks to the efficiency of engines, is able to hang in the air for a long time

[Timon2155]

This is what you opened my eyes to about the non-afterburning mode!)))) Read the question more carefully: there the plane is loaded with bombs, etc. - obviously it will not be able to go supersonic without afterburner. I don't think I know - profiles are different. If the plane goes to intercept a specific target, it gains altitude and then flies at full afterburner, obviously without it, on the stage. Well, intermediate modes with one-time afterburner activations: as a rule, takeoff, climb, slide before an attack, acceleration towards a newly discovered target.

[Avior]

It was about intercepting anti-ship missiles, what kind of bombs?
And what is the fuel consumption at afterburner?

[Timon2155]

It is unlikely that Rafal in the configuration for interception will be able to overcome the speed of sound without afterburner. Rockets are great at adding drag. On the afterburner, fuel consumption is high, no one argues with this. For example, an F-14 with full afterburners in an interception configuration has a radius of only ~250km. But on the other hand, it very quickly gets to the missile launch line. Just interception interception strife. If the target breaks into the protected object, no one looks at fuel consumption there: full afterburners and go! On the MiG-29, for example, on alarm-takeoff on one engine (according to the RLE), the second is launched already in the air! Every second counts! If only there was enough distance. Not enough, unlucky pilot, will have to jump on the way back. Or not sitting at home. Well, if the target is detected in advance and far away, you can “slowly” intercept it, do without a constant afterburner.

[nks]

Why invent all this when you can at least read the wiki carefully?

Of course, heavy shock configurations do not imply almost any supersonic, but in some cases it is possible.

On the MiG-29, for example, on alarm-takeoff on one engine (according to the RLE), the second is launched already in the air!

hmm, the RLE simply describes the actions in case of this contingency situations. Why invent? In general, you are discussing some fantastic spherical vacuum scenarios here. No one will urgently take off to intercept anti-ship missiles.

[Timon2155]

Judging by the dock, we are talking about supersonic flight, but nowhere is it written that this is a non-afterburner mode. And I wrote above about the afterburner-the difference. The RLE describes a completely regular situation - launching the second one in the air. No one will take off abnormally with one engine, launching the second one in the air. Apparently, you are not in the know and accuse your opponent of inventing. As with Rafal above, they gave the take-off speed and that a flight with 1,4M with missiles is possible in response to my post about flying WITHOUT afterburner. You're talking nonsense off topic. No one will take off to intercept anti-ship missiles? Are you completely out of your mind!? Carrier-based fighters will take off like pretty little ones and will rush towards these anti-ship missiles at full speed! Or do you think they are on deck for fun?

[nks]

Judging by the dock, we are talking about supersonic flight, but nowhere is it written that this is a non-afterburner mode. And I wrote above about the afterburner - the difference

don't you see the word supercruise?

The RLE describes a completely regular situation - launching the second one in the air. No one will take off abnormally with one engine, launching the second one in the air.

An emergency is when things don't go according to plan. In this case, takeoff, when one of the engines went out during acceleration or takeoff, and it is too late to stop acceleration.
Everything is clear to you. Goodbye!

[Timon2155]

Supercruise is translated as "long supersonic flight". Not always it is besforsazhny. Why didn’t they write literally “without afterburner”? According to the MiG-29, you are wrong, I tell you for sure. We were told and shown at lectures to save time on takeoff. What's with the interception of anti-ship missiles? Do the pilots finish their coffee slowly and then take off? Everything is just as clear with you: another ear-pick.

[nks]

This is just for your information - you don't have to answer.
1. Do not confuse stories that poison boots on VK with reality. Well, or maybe it’s just worth listening to lectures more carefully - it’s quite possible that you misunderstood the material of the lecture.
2. RLE Mig-29, to which you refer, you should still read it - it is quite available on the Web. According to the RLE, the start of the takeoff run with one inoperative engine is not allowed. It is possible to change the order of starting engines as part of an accelerated flight preparation, but only take off with both engines running. It is possible in some cases to continue the take-off and flight immediately after take-off in case of failure of one engine, but usually this is an ejection and the loss of the car. Especially when it comes to taking off from the deck. Restarting the engine in flight has nothing to do with the topic. Again

for example, on alarm, take off on one engine (according to the RLE), the second one starts already in the air!

so no one is going to do it.
3. About RCC. If you had at least a little understanding of the subject that you are discussing, you would understand that from the position of duty on the deck, taking into account the detection range and available reaction time, the fighter simply does not have time to intercept anti-ship missiles - he not only needs to take off, but also turn around, get the control center, capture the target, and only then launch the URVV. The main interception of anti-ship missiles (in fact, this is an object air defense) is carried out by the AUG air defense missile system, in some cases, fighters can do this with their air defense missile defense systems from an airborne alert position. In general, in the context of the air defense tasks of the AUG fighter wing, it means the air defense of the area, and not the object air defense - those, in a simplified way, intercept the air carrier of the anti-ship missiles, and not the anti-ship missiles themselves.
Or we are talking about a subsonic enemy missile launcher with a range of 1000 km +, which goes to a coastal target outside the coverage area of ​​​​the AUG air defense system and which, for example, was discovered by AWACS - here and the fighter can get the task to take off, catch up and destroy.

PS: And, by the way, even if we consider a hypothetical situation where there is time to intercept anti-ship missiles from a position on deck - at least 4-5 minutes. Those fighters here don’t have to rush anywhere at supersonic speed - anti-ship missiles fly at him anyway (but attack not him, but the ship), and the speed of his URVV is much higher than his own - the main thing for him is to get the control center, capture and launch. Ideally, if the equipment allows, make a correction after the start of the URVR.

[Timon2155]

1. Listen, don't be so categorical, your nose is above the top of your head now. "Boots from the VK" - these are the teachers of the Kachin school, they taught at our institute. I trust them more than you. It was said clearly and unequivocally: takeoff on one with the launch of the second in the air to save time in case of an alarm. You can prove it as you like - on the Internet, you also had to read about the possibility of such a take-off.
2. On the interception of anti-ship missiles, you generally argue as a theorist. What makes you think that the fighters do not have time? Hokai detects anti-ship missiles at ranges of 500 km from the warrant easily, it's roughly 7-8 minutes before the warrant. What prevents fighters from flying out and intercepting? Nothing. Taking off, turning around, getting target designation is a matter of a couple of minutes, the navigator-operator does just that. And to listen to you, so they are sitting on the deck in readiness, drinking coffee. Why are they there then? What are busy? The interception of an anti-ship missile carrier from the “on-deck duty” position is just unlikely - the interceptor will not have time to fly and intercept. The launch range of anti-ship missiles is about 550-600 km. After the launch of the Tu-22M3 missiles, it turns around and leaves - its speed allows it to be done, no one will catch up with it, and it’s too late - anti-ship missiles are already flying. The carriers are intercepted from the “air watch” position - the fighter loitering next to the hokai, as the carrier of the anti-ship missiles appears, the interceptors take it into circulation.
3. Well, let's calculate the supercruise for Rafal))). So, the fuel takes 4700 kg on the internal tanks, plus outboard for 1250l (1250l x 0,78 kg / l) = 975 kg. Total fuel 5675 kg. Let's leave about 280-300 kg for reserve, for a total of 5400 kg. Engines at maximum have a thrust of 5100 kgf without afterburner and eat 0,875 kg per kg of thrust per hour. Presumably, Rafal flies at such a speed in maximum mode. Total can fly: 5400 / (2x5100x0,875) \u0,6d 36 hours \u1,4d 1700 minutes. At a speed of Mach 1030 (about 35 km/h) we get a range of only 5100 km. Well, what kind of cruising supersonic is this? It won't be enough! In general, I doubt this Rafal regime with weapons: the thrust at maximum is very close to the MiG-5300: 35 kgf for the Rafal, 1,4 kgf for the MiG, while the MiG is also lighter than the Rafal. Why doesn't the MiG-XNUMX have supercruise? Miracles or I do not understand something. I don’t think that the Rafal glider is so much better than the Migovsky one, which makes it easy to make XNUMXM with more weight, armament, tank and at the same time having less thrust at maximum. Where am I wrong? Where am I wrong?

[Avior]

below they confirm that 1,4M non-afterburning supersonic is just for a mission with 6 missiles.
In general, restrictions on the suspension of weapons apply to all aircraft, but for some reason you singled out only Rafal.
In fact, Rafal is much better suited - due to economical engines, it is easier to organize its watch in the air if necessary

[Timon2155]

Where is it confirmed that the mode is without afterburner? Translated-long supersonic flight.

[Avior]

Supercruise is an established term specifically for afterburner supersonic flight.

Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load without using afterburner
Supercruise is the sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with payload, passenger, or weaponry without the use of an afterburner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

[Timon2155]

What about the early Tu-144 and SR-71, for example?

[Avior]

And what should be done with them?
Are you talking about?

[Timon2155]

Cruise afterburner supersonic mode.

[Avior]

The specific term Supercruise was discussed
Used to refer to non-afterburning supersonic flight

[Timon2155]

The same term is used for Tu-144 with NK144 and for SR-71/A-12/YF-12. Don't play around. Here, read, this mode is not always afterburner. https://wiki2wiki.ru/wiki/Supercruise

[Avior]

Doesn't it seem logical to you to look at the use of an English-language term in a French source on the English and French Wikipedia pages, and not on the Russian page?
So the French and the British use it the way I gave you.
Out of curiosity, I looked at the German and Spanish pages. Similarly, afterburner supersonic.

[Timon2155]

See the English version https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise. In the same way, it is written about the SR-71, and about the XB-70 and a bunch of others with FRESH cruising supersonic))) This is a supersonic cruising mode. It can be both with afterburner and without. You can never understand that there are exceptions to any rule. The French can also be cunning and juggle terms. I believe unequivocally written information, but it is not! Why not write specifically: without the use of afterburner! I'm too lazy to write again - here's my answer to another friend: let's calculate the range in this mode with an outboard tank and missiles - from the brochure above. So, the fuel takes 4700 kg on the internal tanks, plus outboard for 1250l (1250l x 0,78 kg / l) = 975 kg. Total fuel 5675 kg. Let's leave about 280-300 kg for reserve, for a total of 5400 kg. Engines at maximum have a thrust of 5100 kgf without afterburner and eat 0,875 kg per kg of thrust per hour. Presumably, Rafal flies at such a speed in maximum mode. Total can fly: 5400 / (2x5100x0,875) \u0,6d 36 hours \u1,4d 1700 minutes. At a speed of Mach 1030 (about 35 km/h) we get a range of only 5100 km. And this is with PTB! It won't be enough! In general, I doubt this Rafal regime with weapons: the thrust at maximum is very close to the MiG-5300: 35 kgf for the Rafal, 1,4 kgf for the MiG, while the MiG is also lighter than the Rafal. Why doesn't the MiG-XNUMX have supercruise? Miracles or I do not understand something. I don’t think that the Rafal glider is so much better than the Migovsky one, which makes it easy to make XNUMXM with more weight, armament, tank and at the same time having less thrust at maximum. Where am I wrong? Where am I wrong? Or maybe the French are cunning somewhere? I admit that the Rafal is empty and without PTB, under certain weather conditions, it can reach such a regime, but with missiles and PTB, I strongly doubt it.

[Avior]

See the English version https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise.

Are you kidding or are you just not reading my posts? I gave you a link from the very beginning and a quote from there with a translation

Supercruise is an established term specifically for afterburner supersonic flight.
Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load without using afterburner
Supercruise is the sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with payload, passenger, or weaponry without the use of an afterburner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

Why not write specifically: without the use of afterburner!

That's exactly what it says there, without the use of afterburner.

without using afterburner

[Timon2155]

I'm talking about the French and Rafal's brochure above: why not write directly and unequivocally, without afterburner. And they use some kind of "established term", and it is very controversial. And they understand this term as they want. Well, then I painted why I consider such a regime with a load from Rafal to be very doubtful. What do you think about this?

[Avior]

They wrote directly. There is nothing controversial in the term, and everyone understands it the same way. I watched it in different languages ​​and countries - no discrepancies.
And as for the opinion, the calculations of such regimes in the forum mode should be treated very carefully - the forum format does not imply such a level of discussion.
Useful for using level arguments

I doubt it at all ..., I don’t think the Rafal glider is that much better

and similar ones.
I think Wikipedia's approach is more correct - you need authoritative sources if you intend to refute the given argument. There are too many assumptions in your arguments

[nks]

Quote: Avior

Are you kidding or are you just not reading my posts?

The comrade has such a way of thinking :)

[nks]

Quote: Timon2155

It can be both with afterburner and without.

Especially for you:
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_8.pdf
This is the official publication of the rafale consortium
8 page.
" it can supercruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a belly drop
tanks."
I hope (or are my hopes in vain?), you understand what "dry power" is. Actually, this is the same data as in the poster for Le Bourget.

Quote: Timon2155

Where am I wrong? Where am I wrong?

You argue with theses that you yourself invent, use incorrect data, think badly, etc. Start small, fix the first 3 points, and then you can move on to discussing aeronautics. Best wishes

[Timon2155]

Well, show me how to count. I believe it is reasonable to compare aircraft of the same type with the same thrust / weight indicators (the MiG-35 is even more advantageous). They should be very similar in characteristics, they cannot be so different. You have no other data, except for factory brochures.

[nks]

To begin with, you need to show that you can read the interlocutor carefully and generally lower your tone. If you can do this, then I suppose you would not need me anymore, since I already pointed out the error. airwar is an amateur site of enthusiasts, where all the data is still taken from other original (sometimes secondary) sources. It is better to use the original. Think about what and to whom you want to prove with an escapade "we get a range of only <no matter how many> km. Well, what kind of cruising supersonic is this? It will not be enough!"

[Timon2155]

Are you now discussing my manner of communication, which you do not like, or will you still write something on the merits of my comparison of the MiG-35 and Rafal? I wonder where such a difference comes from - if there is something to write (and I'm sure there is!) Write specifically without this husk here.

[nks]

No, I'm not discussing your style. And I have already written enough for you, until I see to write more. Go, at least for starters, carefully read the weight and size specifications of the aircraft you indicated, if you want to compare them. And decide for yourself in what particular aspects you want to compare them.

[Timon2155]

Apparently, your arrogance and self-confidence prevented you from reading my post above - the mass and size parameters of the Rafal and the MiG-35 are approximately (+ -) equal. As are the thrust of the engines (the MiG has more thrust with and without afterburner), and efficiency (the latest RD-33 series in the MiG is more economical than the Rafal M88-2). On paper, the MiG looks preferable, but it does not have a supersonic non-afterburner mode. How so!? Why?

[nks]

There is no arrogance of mine here - I just read you carefully, in spite of everything. You do not read carefully and thus do not respect the interlocutors and the very essence of the discussion. You wrote twice
"MiG is also lighter than Rafal." In fact, the opposite is true - the Rafal is 29-35% smaller and lighter than the MiG-10 * / 30 (if they are talking about deck versions here).
This is very easy to see why you did not succeed - it is not clear. But in general, this is not the point, and I can briefly answer the last question, since you were able to formulate it. Because the m88 engine is designed for this, but the RD-33 is not. Actually, that’s why a non-afterburning supersonic can’t even a su-57 without a new stage engine and a Rafale A demonstrator on a GE F404 couldn’t (and in fact it can’t flu on f414, because 1,2M is transonic), but it could on m88 - - This is the latest generation engine, unlike. Specifically for turbofan engines, afterburning supersonic itself has not been a problem for a long time, and therefore the Concorde flew across the Atlantic at 2M + with TWR <0,4. The problem for all turbofan engines, which still remains, is that they are optimized for specific flight modes and the Concorde used the afterburner not for supersonic, but for takeoff and climb in these modes, its efficiency was very low. Fighters need engines that are efficient enough in a wide range of modes, while the main mode is still subsonic (ask the pilots about this).

[Timon2155]

Rafal is taller than the MiG, has a larger wing area, a slightly smaller span of 1m and a little shorter. But on the MiG, the "extra" length falls on the PVD and the stabilizer brought back. Their "carcasses" are about the same. The empty MiG-35 is exactly 1 ton heavier than the Rafal. But after all, the Rafal achieves non-afterburning supersonic with a PTB weighing more than 1 ton and plus 6 more missiles, it will turn out to be heavier than the MiG without missiles and PTB. An empty Rafal weighs 10 tons + fuel inside and a PTB-another 5675 kg, and even + 6 missiles. The total is no less than 16t take-off.
I have been aware of afterburner supersonic since the days of Concorde and Tu-144D. But what exactly achieves such an effect on the M88? Specially designed is a vague answer. After all, the thrust of the engine is less than that of the RD-33. Perhaps, at speed, the M88 gains more thrust than the RD-33. I don’t remember exactly now, but on the R15B-300, the thrust at a speed of 2,5 M reaches almost 20 tf. I may be wrong, correct me.

[nks]

Quote: Timon2155

on the MiG, the "extra" length falls on the PVD and the stabilizer brought back. Their "carcasses" are about the same.

You do not respect interlocutors. You made a statement directly opposite to the factual data, which is very easy to verify, and now you continue to write some nonsense to me that is not relevant to the case.

Quote: Timon2155

The empty MiG-35 is exactly 1 ton heavier than the Rafal

This 10% is decent.

Quote: Timon2155

The total is no less than 16t take-off.

Yes, closer to 17t.

Quote: Timon2155

But what exactly achieves such an effect on the M88? Specially designed is a vague answer
After all, the thrust of the engine is less than that of the RD-33. Perhaps, at the speed of the M88, the increase in traction occurs more

You see, here is the problem. On the one hand, the answer is simple - of course, I don't know the exact and detailed answer - it's a trade secret and I don't even know it. On the other hand, unfortunately, I'm not sure that you even understand what I know, because you write like this. In turbofan engines, the maximum thrust actually changes very much in flight depending on the speed and the state of the atmosphere - it is described in the diagram. The M88 has different know-hows there, but here we are probably talking about LPC - here it provides flexibility, including a very fast set of thrust. Plus, if we talk about aircraft, the thrust-to-weight ratio is taken, m88 is less than rd33, rafal is less than mig-29.

Quote: Timon2155

I don’t remember, but on R15B-300 rods

What does this have to do with it?

[Timon2155]

Quote: nks

Quote: Timon2155
On the MiG, the "extra" length falls on the PVD and the stabilizer brought back. Their "carcasses" are about the same.

You do not respect interlocutors. You made a statement directly opposite to the factual data, which is very easy to verify, and now you continue to write some nonsense to me that is not relevant to the case.

Rafal is almost a meter taller than the MiG. The "carcasses" are approximately equal, the difference is about 1,2m: the MiG's PVD is more than a meter, the stabilizers protrude back by 800mm. And really, you and your "respect" remind me of the characters in the village - it's time to either answer or ignore.

Quote: nks

Quote: Timon2155
The empty MiG-35 is exactly 1 ton heavier than the Rafal

This 10% is decent.

Why are you taking empty weight? They are not flying empty, but with fuel. At the same time, Rafal carries a PTB weighing more than 1 ton and 6 missiles - this adds both weight and resistance. I optimistically assumed the take-off weight of the Rafal was more than 16t, you are talking about an even larger one - 17t. And the MiG-35 without suspensions, but with fuel, has a take-off weight of just 17 tons, while maintaining "clean" aerodynamics and having a head start of 400 kgf of thrust in the mode without afterburner.

Quote: nks

Quote: Timon2155

But what exactly achieves such an effect on the M88? Specially designed is a vague answer
After all, the thrust of the engine is less than that of the RD-33. Perhaps, at the speed of the M88, the increase in traction occurs more

You see, here is the problem. On the one hand, the answer is simple - of course, I don't know the exact and detailed answer - it's a trade secret and I don't even know it. On the other hand, unfortunately, I'm not sure that you even understand what I know, because you write like this. In turbofan engines, the maximum thrust actually changes very much in flight depending on the speed and the state of the atmosphere - it is described in the diagram. The M88 has different know-hows there, but here we are probably talking about LPC - here it provides flexibility, including a very fast set of thrust. Plus, if we talk about aircraft, the thrust-to-weight ratio is taken, m88 is less than rd33, rafal is less than mig-29.

Well, describe at least approximately these know-hows: what did the French do there that made such a miracle engine? You now say that you understand, and then you claim that you do not know the answer. Perhaps you have a diagram of the increase in thrust of the M88-2 with an increase in speed - about the MiG-25 with its R15B-300, I meant exactly this, read inattentively. About "less" I would write differently: the Rafal is slightly smaller than the MiG, but it also has less traction. The dimensions of the engine with a linkage do not play a role here.

[Timon2155]

Quote: nks

Actually, therefore, afterburning supersonic cannot even su-57 without a new stage engine

Maybe the Su-57 with the Al-41 can do a super cruise. In the English wiki they write. Who to believe?

[Timon2155]

where is the Rafal engine more economical than the MiG? They eat the same way: 0,875 kg / 1 kg of thrust per hour for the Rafal M88-2, and for the RD-33 0,88 kg / per 1 kg of thrust per hour. New RD-33 ser. 3M is even more economical: 0,77 kg / 1 kg of thrust per hour - even more economical than Rafal.

[Rome]

Hindus want to replace our MIG29s with Rafali on their aircraft carriers the reason, based on the note, is the short range of the MIG29K, Rafal in this regard, apparently, will be more poohmache and comparable to or superior to the Chinese J-15. MIG29 is obtained only as an air defense fighter can be used, since it does not have enough kerosene to get to enemy aircraft carriers

[Timon2155]

With the MiG, it’s generally incomprehensible: on paper, the latest versions without a top entry and based on a glider from 9-15 (the so-called MiG-29M) now have a very decent range, and the Indians say little. Xs how is it in real life. For MiG-29K without PTB they write 1650 km, 29KUB without PTB 1600 km, for land MiG-35 with non-folding consoles-1800 km without PTB.

[Rome]

Either someone brought the Indian rank for Rafali on aircraft carriers, or somehow Rafal is better than MIG
According to Wikipedia, the normal range is slightly worse than Rafal and the MIG was made according to the specification of the Hindus and the avionics in it are imported and our latest missiles. It's all strange

[mmaxx]

Everything is pouring on our MiGs when flying on aircraft carriers. He screwed up the Indians. Zadolbal. They are looking for something suitable to arm their aircraft carriers

[Timon2155]

Rafali is actively taken not only by Indians. Do the French bring everyone? Well, then let them bring ours, what's the problem? Let the rollback be included in the price of MiGs, it will still come out 1,5-2 times cheaper than the French. It seems that today our MiGs are not as good as they are written about in our press.

[Mikhail m]

Zhiguli and Gazelle also have different fuel consumption. And it is not clear why people do not carry goods in cars, because there is less fuel consumption.

[Sergey Valov]

“has a maximum weight of 27 tons and a carrying capacity of 10 tons, which leads to greater fuel overruns” - I wonder if this is a machine translation, or the work of a Russian-speaking author, because every word comes through with amateurism.

[vovochka081]

Rather, the author meant steam catapults, the technology for which the Americans transferred to France.

[Avior]

Not technology, but ready-made catapults

[vovochka081]

They were assembled in France under an American license.

[75 Sergey]

Interested to see the results

[Crash]

Unlike French ship Charles de Gaulle they (aircraft carriers of the Indian Navy) are equipped with electromagnetic catapult, and trampolines.

Am I missing something? When was it placed?

[TermNachTer]

Promised in the next deliver, if money is enough)))

[Amateur]

This is the first nonsense of the author of the article. Everything else is confirmation of his professional incompetence. Regular advertising.

[Yaro Polk]

Who counts fuel there during the war, funny and naive frog-eaters)

[Sergey Valov]

The paradox of the situation is that military equipment is created for war, but serves mainly in peacetime. So everyone thinks - and fuel consumption, and resource, and cost, and scheduled maintenance, and the upcoming disposal too.

[TermNachTer]

All this is correct, but only the war writes off all this with one sneeze. Here combat effectiveness, not economy, comes first.

[Sergey Valov]

You touched on a very complex problem - where is the golden mean between the totality of combat and economic factors of military equipment? But there are still the interests and opportunities of industry, the level of education and mentality of the personnel, climatic factors, etc. This is not a topic for comment, here even a doctoral dissertation will turn out to be baby talk.

[TermNachTer]

I don't see any difficulty. Ships, planes, tanks - are built for war. If we know that we will not fight, why do we need all of the above? If we know that we will fight, then there is no savings, because defeat will cost much more.

[Sergey Valov]

“are built for war. If we know that we won’t fight,” the problem is that no one knows whether there will be a war or not, and if there is, then when. In modern reality, the armed forces are maintained so that there would be no war. War has become too expensive an undertaking.

[TermNachTer]

In order to prevent a serious war, there is a Strategic Missile Forces. But low-intensity conflicts cannot be avoided, and one must prepare for them, and it is not worth saving on this.

[Sergey Valov]

“conflicts of low intensity cannot be avoided” - how else can you avoid it, if wisely. Japan, for example, or most of the countries of Europe, and in America, many have not fought for a long time.

[TermNachTer]

So in Japan, the rejection of war is written in the Constitution. In some other countries, this is a very relative value, which means that no one needs those countries.

[Kesha1980]

while having a flight range of almost 1 thousand km.

That is, the combat radius is about 400 km. Not enough for an aircraft carrier that does not enter the effective coast guard zone.
I'm certainly not an expert, but...

[Astra55]

The commander of the Bastion battery will be surprised when the aircraft carrier itself floats into his sight.

[tralflot1832]

Was there fuel in the PB? Maybe this is a publicity stunt. Do you have a photo of the landing?

[Sergey985]

When did the French get an electromagnetic catapult?

[Momento]

the Americans promised to give the catapult as compensation for lost Australian contracts.

[Amateur]

It's in the author's head glitches.

[Igorash]

The one who wrote the article either d ... or just d ... Rafale aircraft and the same SU-27s of a different class ... And the tasks assigned to them are also different ... Francis, as always, are hypocritical, customizing the necessary characteristics for their products. And in the end, everyone began to "throw" them ... It is necessary to compare our MIGs with the "Rafale" ... They are in the same class ...

[St_Igor]

What is sadness?

[lvov_aleksey]

The formula of economics, who remembers? P = V / T - quality = volume / time
I mean that quality is an average value, i.e. or volume, or change time.
this is a parody of Ohm's law I = U / R

[kig]

Unlike the French ship Charles de Gaulle, they (the aircraft carriers of the Indian Navy) are equipped not with an electromagnetic catapult, but with springboards.

- since when did the French have an electromagnetic catapult?