MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
I think there are two separate discussions going on. SH is the default option for the IN because it's the only aircraft that can operate from Vikrant. Rafale needs significant redesign, which no one's gonna pay for. The only other contenders are the Mig-29K, which the IN is not interested in, and Sea Gripen, which doesn't exist.
Rafale can't fit in the lift of either carrier and its ability to take off using a ramp with reasonable fuel and payload is still in doubt.
The SH B3 now comes with a new engine with much greater thrust, which is useful for operating from a Stobar carrier. The SH will be able to take off with a reasonable amount of payload and fuel due to the additional thrust. So even though it's inferior in its overall package compared to the Rafale, it can still perform the minimum amount of missions that the IN needs, while being capable of operating from our carrier. The Mig-29 is a complete failure in comparison, so the SH is a massive upgrade over it.
Hopefully the LRASM and AIM-260 are part of the SH's weapons package.
Will it be able to operate from INS Vikramaditya ? From your post, I understand that it will be operating on only IAC-1, may be on IAC-2 in future.
I am very sure that there will be an additional order for Rafales. as the infra is in pace for four sqns plus we have paid a heavy price for ISE. The order will be divided between Rafale and SH F18 blk3.
It's no Push over. It has decent capabilities with one of the best aesa radars, electronic warfare with growlers, network warfare and decent ammunition with PGMs, AIM260 AMRAAMs, etc. Operating costs and acquisition cost of American fighters are low due to mass production and during war American MIC can deliver steady supply. The only reason it was rejected was due to mindset not to buy frontline strategic American weapons which has now changed with acquisition of several frontline weapons and need for inter operatibility due to military cooperation between both the countries.
Buying F 18 is for Putting A Premium on QUAD
Navy has already asked for 57 new planes
With F 35s entering in large numbers
A lot of F 18s will be surplus
Navy has already asked for 57 new planes
With F 35s entering in large numbers
A lot of F 18s will be surplus
The mindset is still the same. Except 2 writs run deep - marta kya na karta & bhagte bhoot ki langot sahi.
Sir ji , India is like a Family home
Where you have
" Aamdani Atthhani Kharcha Rupaiya "
Based on the different options we have, F/A 18's are your best bet as long as we don't want to procure additional Mig-29K's. Even today USA is procuring these jets, for one of the 2 reasons. They can't afford to replace every F/A 18's with F35's or the production of F35's can't keep up with the demand or they want to give more business to Boeing to cushion its losses in the Commercial segment (737-Max fiasco etc). Having said that, F/A 18's provide us with the best option as a stop gap measure till TEDBF shows up. We can dedicate the Mig-29k's to the INS Vikramaditya (with 60% availability) and for INS Vikrant, F/A 18 will be used. Can we manage with 15-18 leased F/A 18's is the bigger question and I think we need close to 30 such jets, unless Indian Navy wants to operate the F/A 18's off both the Aircraft Carriers. The other option is to buy used F/A 18's (can they be upgraded to the latest Blk3 standard) which can give us 15-20 years service.
So at best a squadron of growlers 2's could come for the IAF. I don't think IAF wants something as bad as the f18 to be a first day plane. I hope we get the aim 120d instead of the c7. Would be still a capability boost compared to the present line-up of bvr we have until astra mk2 comes online..
While I'm glad the IN is sensibly acquiring the F-18 SH as a stopgap fighter, I hope the IAF sticks to the Rafale instead of continuing the "unity in diversity" strategy of supply chains.
No official confirmation as of now. For all you know there may yet be a twist in the tale.
‘Bunker buster’ for Rafale: Fighter tests 1,000kg version of HAMMER missile
French defence company Safran has announced that it has successfully completed two 'separation' tests of a heavy version of the AASM smart munition from a Rafale fighter. The AASM (Armement Air-Sol Modulaire) is also known as the HAMMER (Highly Agile Modular Munition Extended Range).
A separation test involves the release of a weapon or aircraft component in flight to ensure it clears the launch platform safely. Separation tests are a necessary precursor to start of trials of the weapon itself.
A press release from Safran on Friday announced the tests of the 1,000kg variant of the HAMMER were conducted at the French defence procurement agency’s Cazaux flight test centre in southwest France.
The 1,000kg version of the HAMMER would be the heaviest weapon to be deployed on the Rafale, with exception of the Scalp cruise missile, which weighs around 1,200kg.
Safran stated the first live firing tests of the 1,000kg version of the HAMMER—which would involve validation of the weapon's sensors and range—would be conducted in 2021 before the system is qualified for service entry by 2022.
Like the Israeli-supplied SPICE smart bombs that the Indian Air Force used in the Balakot attack last year, the AASM HAMMER is actually an add-on kit to an existing 'gravity' bomb.
part-bomb, part-missile
But unlike the SPICE, the AASM HAMMER is unique in the sense that it has features of both a missile and a glide bomb. Safran claims the HAMMER "adds a propulsion kit and a choice of guidance kits to standard bombs”. The fact that it is propelled allows the AASM HAMMER to be used at low altitudes or in hilly terrain, unlike normal bombs that are unpropelled.
The AASM HAMMER is a modular weapon, which can be equipped with a variety of guidance systems such as satellite guidance, infra-red seeker and laser. According to Safran, the AASM HAMMER can be fired at ranges of anywhere between 20km to 70km, enabling the launch aircraft to stay out of range of enemy air defences.
The AASM HAMMER kit can be fitted to bombs of different sizes: 125kg, 250kg, 500kg and 1,000kg. The French military has ordered over 1,500 units of the 250kg version of the HAMMER. In early press releases on the AASM, Safran had described the 1,000kg version of the AASM as a 'bunker buster' weapon because of its capability to penetrate several meters of reinforced concrete.
Bigger, better?
Safran notes, "The 1,000kg AASM features a guidance kit derived from the 250kg version and a specific range extension kit." Explaining the advantages of the 1,000kg version of the AASM HAMMER, Safran stated, "This new weapon will give the Rafale an enhanced strike capability, with payload configurations of up to three 1,000kg AASMs per aircraft. Its standoff range is also extended, thanks to the integrated propulsion system.”
While the Scalp cruise missile can also penetrate reinforced targets, the 1,000kg HAMMER would achieve the same at a lower cost.
In July, reports emerged that the Indian Air Force would be ordering the HAMMER on an emergency basis. Other export users of the AASM HAMMER are Qatar, Egypt and Morocco. Greece is also expected to buy the weapon when it signs a contract to buy the Rafale.
French defence company Safran has announced that it has successfully completed two 'separation' tests of a heavy version of the AASM smart munition from a Rafale fighter. The AASM (Armement Air-Sol Modulaire) is also known as the HAMMER (Highly Agile Modular Munition Extended Range).
A separation test involves the release of a weapon or aircraft component in flight to ensure it clears the launch platform safely. Separation tests are a necessary precursor to start of trials of the weapon itself.
A press release from Safran on Friday announced the tests of the 1,000kg variant of the HAMMER were conducted at the French defence procurement agency’s Cazaux flight test centre in southwest France.
The 1,000kg version of the HAMMER would be the heaviest weapon to be deployed on the Rafale, with exception of the Scalp cruise missile, which weighs around 1,200kg.
Safran stated the first live firing tests of the 1,000kg version of the HAMMER—which would involve validation of the weapon's sensors and range—would be conducted in 2021 before the system is qualified for service entry by 2022.
Like the Israeli-supplied SPICE smart bombs that the Indian Air Force used in the Balakot attack last year, the AASM HAMMER is actually an add-on kit to an existing 'gravity' bomb.
part-bomb, part-missile
But unlike the SPICE, the AASM HAMMER is unique in the sense that it has features of both a missile and a glide bomb. Safran claims the HAMMER "adds a propulsion kit and a choice of guidance kits to standard bombs”. The fact that it is propelled allows the AASM HAMMER to be used at low altitudes or in hilly terrain, unlike normal bombs that are unpropelled.
The AASM HAMMER is a modular weapon, which can be equipped with a variety of guidance systems such as satellite guidance, infra-red seeker and laser. According to Safran, the AASM HAMMER can be fired at ranges of anywhere between 20km to 70km, enabling the launch aircraft to stay out of range of enemy air defences.
The AASM HAMMER kit can be fitted to bombs of different sizes: 125kg, 250kg, 500kg and 1,000kg. The French military has ordered over 1,500 units of the 250kg version of the HAMMER. In early press releases on the AASM, Safran had described the 1,000kg version of the AASM as a 'bunker buster' weapon because of its capability to penetrate several meters of reinforced concrete.
Bigger, better?
Safran notes, "The 1,000kg AASM features a guidance kit derived from the 250kg version and a specific range extension kit." Explaining the advantages of the 1,000kg version of the AASM HAMMER, Safran stated, "This new weapon will give the Rafale an enhanced strike capability, with payload configurations of up to three 1,000kg AASMs per aircraft. Its standoff range is also extended, thanks to the integrated propulsion system.”
While the Scalp cruise missile can also penetrate reinforced targets, the 1,000kg HAMMER would achieve the same at a lower cost.
In July, reports emerged that the Indian Air Force would be ordering the HAMMER on an emergency basis. Other export users of the AASM HAMMER are Qatar, Egypt and Morocco. Greece is also expected to buy the weapon when it signs a contract to buy the Rafale.
With a 9.3m wingspan, it should be able to fit on 1 lift of Vikram and both lifts of Vikrant.
As for IAC-2, let's see. It all depends on when the jet becomes available. And we also need to see if SH will be in production by the time the decision is taken. It's also possible that the US will offer the USN's NGAD for IAC-2. It's because the IAC-2 needs at least 80 jets.
@Falcon is right when he says the option for more Rafales is not on the agenda right now. IAF has set their eyes on MRFA and until that program starts there won't be any request for an alternative that can hamper the tender. After the tender is launched and tech evals begin, the IAF can make a request for 36 more Rafales based on how the tender progresses. They may want to make up for the massive delay between 2022 and the beginning of delivery of MRFA jets, possibly beginning in 2028.
SH wasn't rejected for political reasons. It was rejected for technical reasons. One of the main ones today being it doesn't have a future since the USN plans to replace it from 2030 onwards. You can't plan for 30 years when the primary air force is replacing their jets in the next 10. And do remember than by the time MRFA delivers its first jet, it's going to be 2028 at the earliest.
The Indian Air Force’s (IAF) decision regarding the final shortlist — the ‘down-select’ in Indian procurement parlance — was made entirely on technical grounds. No political, strategic, or financial considerations intervened in any way: in retrospect, this may have been exactly the problem, but the exclusion of these factors was a necessary consequence of the ‘two-step’ procurement procedure adopted in the MMRCA competition. This procedure led to the rejection of the American contenders but it also demonstrates that the acquisition process worked largely as intended, at least at a bureaucratic level.
Although the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet remained America’s best shot at making the down-select in the MMRCA competition, the IAF ultimately rejected this aircraft on four grounds: the maturity of its engine design, the growth potential of its engine, assorted performance shortfalls, and issues related to special preventative maintenance.
So, while the engine issue has now been sorted out, the performance shortfalls and special maintenance cannot be fixed, both are inherent to the design.
Another problem is the tech advancements are not sufficient with respect to the competition. While the electronics were more than sufficient for MMRCA, it has more or less remained the same since then, and no significantly new technologies are being introduced. Otoh, both Rafale and Typhoon are getting all new electronics with completely new radar and EW suites, stuff that isn't even on the F-35. So, along with the performance shortfalls and special maintenance issues, the avionics will now be considered contemporary and become grounds for rejection.
Another problem for the SH is it requires the assistance of Growlers. So along with the 114 SHs, the IAF needs to invest in another 2 dozen Growlers at 4 per squadron or more just to make the 114 SHs viable. Growlers are very expensive and you can see how this will impact the procurement decision, especially when Boeing has to point out that some of the MRFA capabilities will have be procured outside the tender and will cost billions of dollars extra.
Very true. But if instead of buying we are leasing then we do have so option of returning it after 2030-35. That's when US will be retiring their F-18s and that's the time period till F-18s will remain relevant especially at seas as except Rafale no other naval fighter will be able to take on F-18s...
I doubt there's gonna be any plan of returning the leased jets, we will most likely have the option of buying them later on. Once capability has been developed, it's not a good idea to lose it in just 15 years, we have to use it for at least 25-30 years. Basically, to the full lifespan of the carriers. It will also be needed to train pilots for IAC-2, a proven CATOBAR-capable jet is needed for it.
Anyway, I was arguing from the PoV of the IAF, not the IN. The SH is fine for the IN, since their requirements are more payload-specific than platform-specific. Meaning, an LRASM-equipped SH is superior to an Exocet-equipped Rafale when it comes to anti-shipping. So the IN can make do with a less capable aircraft if the weapons options are superior. Furthermore, the AIM-260 should have superior range and performance compared to the PL-15, so at least the IN won't miss the Meteor until the 2030s, by which time TEDBF with Desi Meteor will become operational.
F/A 18 was built as a carrier based Jet and wasn't built for the USAF. So its characteristics are for Naval Aviation and would have come up short against the fighter jets built for Air Force. That said, there is no question about it capabilities as a Carrier based fighter. As long as the US doesn't charge us an exorbitant sum, we should go for 36 F/A-18's that can be operated on INS Vikrant and leave the 42 jets to INS Vikramaditya and IAF to share. IAF will get an extra squadron of Mig 29's as a stop gap measure till the Tejas Mk1A and Mk2 announce their arrival to IAF service. Let us also hope that Boeing and US government will allow us to use our own missiles. If signed soon, we may be getting the first jets in 2-3 years time.