You are right. What I meant was a single engine 5th / 5.5 generation aircraft to complement AMCA. Since there is not a name for Mk2, I just named it as Mk3. Thanks!!!
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
Indian Navy wants to join IAF in fighter jet shopping
Decision follows indigenous development proposal by Defence Research and Development Organisation
It might be feasible if the IAF and IN go for the F-18SH. Ordering more of the same aircraft should drive down the cost of each plane which might make it an attractive proposition. The IAF would have to accept an aircraft with a tail-hook though (like the Australian & Kuwaiti air forces did) which I'm not sure is acceptable or not. Logistics would also be shared to a degree which I'm not sure either side really wants.
The fa 18 is just not that good. Not for the IAF atleast. We can't get rafale for the navy because of our deck size..
I'm biased in favor of it (since it's one of the only 2 birds I've seen in person lol). Engine commonality with Tejas and other domestic fighters as well as the Growler option make it a winner in my book. Although I do understand the rationale of just sticking with Rafale and developing indigenous high end fighters from this point on.
Are there performance deficiencies that make the SH that unattractive?
The SH will be obsolete within the decade with respect to the IAF. And compared to even the Rafale F3R, it's already obsolete. By 2030, the USN will start receiving the NGAD and will proceed to buy 30-50 of those every year, so most of their SH fleet will likely be gone by 2040. The upcoming Chinese threat will require the USN to introduce new capabilities, which the SH cannot deliver. So what's obsolete to the USN will naturally be obsolete to the IN.
Navy Quietly Starts Development of Next-Generation Carrier Fighter - USNI News
This post has been updated to clarify comments from Bryan Clark. After nearly a decade of fits and starts, the Navy has quietly initiated work to develop its first new carrier-based fighter in almost 20 years, standing up a new program office and holding early discussions with industry, USNI...
news.usni.org
Anyway the IAF is not going to sacrifice its own requirements for the IN.
The SH is a carrier aircraft, it has a heavier undercarriage and is not suitable for an environment like the Himalayas, where the heavier than necessary aircraft is going to suffer maintenance problems in high altitude bases due to its basic design. It's best suited for a marine environment. During war, the SH will suffer from a spares problem when operating in the mountains. Furthermore, its performance envelope is unsuitable for the mountains. We need aircraft that can go vertical at the drop of a hat and zoom climb from most altitudes in the rarefied air, which the SH isn't capable of doing. Of all the MMRCA candidates, only Rafale and Typhoon are capable of meeting performance requirements that are actually needed. And, as mentioned before, the SH is going to be withdrawn from service quite prematurely in the USN. So the SH definitely does not meet the IAF's performance or support requirements.
As for the IN, frankly, their current carrier plan sucks. They need a proper nuclear-rigged carrier, they shouldn't be wasting time or money on a conventional carrier.
Their current fighter jet plan sucks as well. Neither SH nor Rafale are suitable for the IAC-1 and Vikramaditya. The IN needs an aircraft with an 8m wingspan when stowed. Anything else will fail. They should pin their hopes on TEDBF instead, and upgrade their Mig-29Ks with LCA Mk2's avionics. Perhaps even order an additional upgraded squadron. Thankfully MRCBF is being considered for cancellation. I'd actually like to see them entering the NGAD program (as an importer, not a partner) for the third carrier, they will need at least 70-80 jets. It's already flying as a TD, and it is deliberately being designed to operate in the same environment as the IN operates in and meant to fight the same adversary the IN is facing.
What else option IN do have other than SH? Rafale cannot fit inside its lift. There is a saying we have to purchase in accordance to our feet size, we will lot cut and reshape feet for a chappal we have. Rafale is a good aircraft, but there is no point in bringing rafale untill and unless they come up with foldable wing model. @Picdelamirand-oil concept of nose cone opening while lifting aircraft simply will not work in an AC.The SH will be obsolete within the decade with respect to the IAF. And compared to even the Rafale F3R, it's already obsolete. By 2030, the USN will start receiving the NGAD and will proceed to buy 30-50 of those every year, so most of their SH fleet will likely be gone by 2040. The upcoming Chinese threat will require the USN to introduce new capabilities, which the SH cannot deliver. So what's obsolete to the USN will naturally be obsolete to the IN.
Navy Quietly Starts Development of Next-Generation Carrier Fighter - USNI News
This post has been updated to clarify comments from Bryan Clark. After nearly a decade of fits and starts, the Navy has quietly initiated work to develop its first new carrier-based fighter in almost 20 years, standing up a new program office and holding early discussions with industry, USNI...
Anyway the IAF is not going to sacrifice its own requirements for the IN.
The SH is a carrier aircraft, it has a heavier undercarriage and is not suitable for an environment like the Himalayas, where the heavier than necessary aircraft is going to suffer maintenance problems in high altitude bases due to its basic design. It's best suited for a marine environment. During war, the SH will suffer from a spares problem when operating in the mountains. Furthermore, its performance envelope is unsuitable for the mountains. We need aircraft that can go vertical at the drop of a hat and zoom climb from most altitudes in the rarefied air, which the SH isn't capable of doing. Of all the MMRCA candidates, only Rafale and Typhoon are capable of meeting performance requirements that are actually needed. And, as mentioned before, the SH is going to be withdrawn from service quite prematurely in the USN. So the SH definitely does not meet the IAF's performance or support requirements.
As for the IN, frankly, their current carrier plan sucks. They need a proper nuclear-rigged carrier, they shouldn't be wasting time or money on a conventional carrier.
Their current fighter jet plan sucks as well. Neither SH nor Rafale are suitable for the IAC-1 and Vikramaditya. The IN needs an aircraft with an 8m wingspan when stowed. Anything else will fail. They should pin their hopes on TEDBF instead, and upgrade their Mig-29Ks with LCA Mk2's avionics. Perhaps even order an additional upgraded squadron. Thankfully MRCBF is being considered for cancellation. I'd actually like to see them entering the NGAD program (as an importer, not a partner) for the third carrier, they will need at least 70-80 jets. It's already flying as a TD, and it is deliberately being designed to operate in the same environment as the IN operates in and meant to fight the same adversary the IN is facing.
And lastly IAF will not agree with IN request i guess, by doing so they will end up with single vendor scenario with Boeing's SH, which will sabotage the processes since by law we cannot go for a single vendor scenario in tendor process.
So what else IN can do now. The other option is ordering more mig29K, but will IN again order this aircraft? Its a big question. Many people will not agree with me, but I believes old Mig29K cannot face Chinese AC based aircrafts. And We don't know whats the status of TEDBF, wheather it is sanctioned or just a concept we really dont know the status of TEDBF. So IN may go for G2G route with US.
The mig 29k's are pretty capable and handle every aircraft in the PLAN air force. But it's the PLAAF squadrons that the IN will be facing not the planaf
The problem for the Mig-29 isn't capability, the problem is it's not suitable for carrier ops. It's simply not a carrier aircraft, which is why it's facing airframe and engine issues at sea. Its avionics and payload are also not designed for carrier ops. You can easily say it's the worst carrier fighter operational in the world today.
Today it's fine, but in 5 years the Chinese will start introducing next gen aircraft on their carriers that only the Rafale, F-35 or better can compete with.
The problem with TEDBF is its potentially low production run. For two carriers, IN will need 90 jets, which is a very small number if the aircraft is not exported. But I suppose the cost will still be low since it's latching on to the LCA program. ADA will have to find a way to export at least 80-100 of this type. But it will be like buying a Typhoon in 2035.
IN will be facing PLANAF, not PLAAF. They have to come to us, only the PLAN can do that.
The same can be said about Rafale.... Rafale is already in the IAF arsenal, and in case of a make in India, Dassault will be ready sooner than any other thanks to its joint venture and plant already built.
Last edited:
Ehh the NGAD/F/A-XX program isn't going to outright replace the SH, at least not immediately. The USN is still acquiring new SH platforms, the latest of which have conformal fuel tanks and an enclosed weapons pod. They have also funded refit and acquisitions of the SH through the mid 2030s. I suspect the platform won't be abandoned til a lower cost option becomes available (maybe a carrier based UCAV). It will be supported for another 2 decades at the very least (by which point India should have competing local designs and even indigenous 5/6th generation platforms).The SH will be obsolete within the decade with respect to the IAF. And compared to even the Rafale F3R, it's already obsolete. By 2030, the USN will start receiving the NGAD and will proceed to buy 30-50 of those every year, so most of their SH fleet will likely be gone by 2040. The upcoming Chinese threat will require the USN to introduce new capabilities, which the SH cannot deliver. So what's obsolete to the USN will naturally be obsolete to the IN.
Navy Quietly Starts Development of Next-Generation Carrier Fighter - USNI News
This post has been updated to clarify comments from Bryan Clark. After nearly a decade of fits and starts, the Navy has quietly initiated work to develop its first new carrier-based fighter in almost 20 years, standing up a new program office and holding early discussions with industry, USNI...
Anyway the IAF is not going to sacrifice its own requirements for the IN.
The SH is a carrier aircraft, it has a heavier undercarriage and is not suitable for an environment like the Himalayas, where the heavier than necessary aircraft is going to suffer maintenance problems in high altitude bases due to its basic design. It's best suited for a marine environment. During war, the SH will suffer from a spares problem when operating in the mountains. Furthermore, its performance envelope is unsuitable for the mountains. We need aircraft that can go vertical at the drop of a hat and zoom climb from most altitudes in the rarefied air, which the SH isn't capable of doing. Of all the MMRCA candidates, only Rafale and Typhoon are capable of meeting performance requirements that are actually needed. And, as mentioned before, the SH is going to be withdrawn from service quite prematurely in the USN. So the SH definitely does not meet the IAF's performance or support requirements.
As for the IN, frankly, their current carrier plan sucks. They need a proper nuclear-rigged carrier, they shouldn't be wasting time or money on a conventional carrier.
Their current fighter jet plan sucks as well. Neither SH nor Rafale are suitable for the IAC-1 and Vikramaditya. The IN needs an aircraft with an 8m wingspan when stowed. Anything else will fail. They should pin their hopes on TEDBF instead, and upgrade their Mig-29Ks with LCA Mk2's avionics. Perhaps even order an additional upgraded squadron. Thankfully MRCBF is being considered for cancellation. I'd actually like to see them entering the NGAD program (as an importer, not a partner) for the third carrier, they will need at least 70-80 jets. It's already flying as a TD, and it is deliberately being designed to operate in the same environment as the IN operates in and meant to fight the same adversary the IN is facing.
I agree the SH isn't suitable for high altitude warfare. The strengthened undercarriage is an unnecessary weight penalty for the air force. I do still think that if the IN is going to import a carrier based fighter, they should go with the SH. It meets their capability requirements, has a well developed supply chain, fits on the elevators and shares engine commonality with all the proposed indigenous fighters. It also helps the IN integrate with western forces, namely Australia and the USN, who also operate SH and who will be the primary strategic partners against an ever expanding PLAN.
Although, all of this is a moot point if the IN is serious about the TEDBF. Why bother with a 4th gen import (however advanced) if you plan on adopting a local version in the near future? If the IN really does want to tie in with the IAF, then they must be doubtful on its performance or the delivery timeline. Or they have massive irreconcilable issues with the Mig-29k and want to replace it asap.
The biggest issue is that naval Rafale is a different variant from the standard model, whereas the SH has no other variants and will gain cost benefits from more streamlined production. I do agree with the logic of just sticking to one platform. The SH should have been chosen when the initial mother of all deals competition happened. Now that the IAF has acquired from Rafales, they should just stick to it for their medium weight demands instead of complicating their logistics with other imported platforms. Currently India has chosen to flounder and not acquire any platform in significant numbers until their adversaries catch up and surpass them though. A bold strategy, will be interesting to see how it works out.
Last edited:
Yeas, its most likely bring a single vendor scenario with SH. A single vendor scenario in a tender process is a dead end.
???
The 3 only differences are : a stronger front undercarriage, a stonger arested hook, an integrated and eletrical ladder.
THAT'S ALL with the "C" air variant.
A 4th difference not used today was on the vertical fan a system to align gyroscop with those of the carrier.
Yes? Structural modifications usually differentiate variants of an aircraft. All I was saying is the SH has no variants, its production would be more streamline. The Rafale has variants, so its standard versions are much more effective versus the SH which was designed for carrier ops.
Last edited:
SH with folded wings is 9.3m. So it will barely fit in the IAC-1, without any safe distance. Can't on Vikramaditya. The wing will require a new design so it can fold more than that. Basically, both Rafale and SH require new folded wings.