I wish we get say 36-54 more Rafales off the shelf from France and cancel MMRCA 2. And then get IAF on board this TEDBF modified for IAF specifications. That will be greatly beneficial to TEDBF.
And to IAF too.
And to IAF too.
Asper the reports, the deal will not be a tendering route. In that case IN can negotiate for f35B, f35B doesn't need much modifications for launching from our ACs since it's already operating from QE class AC . Only query is will it fit inside our lift hangers. @randomradio @vstol Jockey , is F35B dimensions are compatible with our lift hangers.
LM hasn't exactly shown interest for this tender yet and I have my doubts now that we have S400. Even though it's got nothing to do with Navy , but yet I think it will be a long shot USA offering this to India now.
I am sure Navy will like a demonstration here too.
By the time we get AF-TEDBF, AMCA will become available. Hell, AMCA will be ready even before IN's TEDBF comes in.
The IAF wants ToT to push the Rafale all the way to 2080+, so just having some 100 Rafales with limited or no ToT will be a very bad idea.
It doesn't make sense for the IAF to get the bulk of their jets from the same source either, HAL. They are creating alternative suppliers, so the private sector needs hand-holding, which is where SPM comes in.
F-35B won't. F-35C can. Since we already have arrestor cables, and with the F-35C being more capable, it's the better option. The UK couldn't switch to the F-35C because they didn't plan for arrestor cables.
But I don't think the IN is interested in it.
It's not necessary though.
Watch A Super Hornet Launch Off A “Ski Jump” During Testing Aimed At The Indian Navy
Boeing says it has proven the jet’s compatibility with Indian Navy aircraft carriers, which lack catapults.
www.thedrive.com
F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet can operate effectively from Indian Navy aircraft carriers: Ankur Kanaglekar, Boeing
For the Rs 24,000-crore project, the US aerospace giant has pitched its twin seater F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet which can operate from a `ski-jump’ ramp and be an enabler for secure Indo-Pacific.
www.financialexpress.com
That may be (a big may) because , earlier we were interested to purchase 54-57 new aircrafts via tendering route, the occupational hazard for such route in Indian scenario is ToT, which US government won't be agree with any version of F35s .
What is IN's apprehension against F35s? If it fits the hanger, then it is the right choice. FA18 may fit inside the hanger,but it is old,and lacks the punch, Rafale is superior to FA18,but it cannot fit inside the lift hanger. F35 ,if fits inside hanger it is an aircraft as good as Rafale when comes to punch, with an added advantage of having a true stealth design.F-35B won't. F-35C can. Since we already have arrestor cables, and with the F-35C being more capable, it's the better option. The UK couldn't switch to the F-35C because they didn't plan for arrestor cables.
But I don't think the IN is interested in it.
It's not necessary though.
Watch A Super Hornet Launch Off A “Ski Jump” During Testing Aimed At The Indian Navy
Boeing says it has proven the jet’s compatibility with Indian Navy aircraft carriers, which lack catapults.
F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet can operate effectively from Indian Navy aircraft carriers: Ankur Kanaglekar, Boeing
For the Rs 24,000-crore project, the US aerospace giant has pitched its twin seater F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet which can operate from a `ski-jump’ ramp and be an enabler for secure Indo-Pacific.
It will be 100% CATOBAR capable.
Or else in retrospect it will be analogues to "too small lift" .
I guess they gave the basic requirement before having their mind up on IAC2 specs.
The SH is likely far more customisable, given our need to eventually operate our own drones and such. It is also better networked with USN assets than the F-35C. It is less likely to be sanctioned.
But the most important of all is it's not WIP, it's a combat proven jet. Both the IAF and IN want proven technologies that can be quickly deployed. Our industry will deliver future tech. Note that even MRCBF is just called a stopgap, the main fighter will still be TEDBF for the IN.
Both IAF and IN don't consider tactical fighter jets to be true stealth aircraft, hence the development of drones.
We don't need a CATOBAR capable TEDBF though. With 4 operational squadrons alone, they will easily meet the needs for Vikram and Vikrant. You should remember that getting the jets quickly is the goal. Biting off more than you chew would mean losing a lot of time swallowing the bitter pill. We have already done that with LCA.
The 26 MRCBFs can meet the requirement for IAC-2 alongside drones.
Post TEDBF can see the development of a new gen jet for nuclear-powered IAC-3 and beyond. So that's easily late 2040s. The same jets can send the MRCBF back to land in the 2050s, ie, a pretty decent 30 years service life on a ship. The IN is not in a hurry to change the game.
Do decks have that much space to accommodate entire flight inventory? And what about maintenance, certain areas need isolation from open sea while opening? Rough wheather is another parameter I beleive.
Doing the maintenance on deck will take up critical space and in some cases even hamper the flying/landing of other aircrafts.
Not entire flight inventory just wanted to know if small group of Rafales can be based on deck only.
Even though I sure it needs to go in hangar for maintenance, just wanted to ask if it's possible.
Rearming, refueling , inspection and maybe repairs or maintenance which can be done easily will usually be done on the deck. But anything which requires opening any part will be done in the hanger, because there will be a problem of debris on the deck runway.
Say Rafales are indeed bought and they somehow manage to fit on the lifts of IAC1, but the lifts of Vicky will not fit them for sure. But in case of emergency the Rafale can surely land on Vicky , rearm, refuel and takeoff from Vicky. If that's what you are asking.
But the squadron/detachment cannot be attached/based out of Vicky.
1.So it seems like you can’t convert a random airforce fighter jet design to a naval aircraft by adding arrester hooks,hardening airframe or changing canopy. It takes much more to be a good naval fighter than these mods slapped on a airforce jet.
2. LCA navy can’t be used as proper naval combat fighter but for training and familiarisation to carrier landings.
3. A dedicated naval fighter built specifically for naval operations like TED BF is necessity for IN and not mere an option.
4. AMCA too is not going to fulfill the naval requirements. It will be like another LCA new attempt.
@randomradio
2. LCA navy can’t be used as proper naval combat fighter but for training and familiarisation to carrier landings.
3. A dedicated naval fighter built specifically for naval operations like TED BF is necessity for IN and not mere an option.
4. AMCA too is not going to fulfill the naval requirements. It will be like another LCA new attempt.
@randomradio
Last edited:
A fighter designed for Navy is easier to modify for ground operations.
Vice versa is not true it seems.
Vice versa is not true it seems.