MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
Unpredictable US policy may stop us going for a US fighter.
They do what they want as simple as that. Its our problem if we are dependent on them.
Unpredictable US policy may stop us going for a US fighter.
Boeing Gets US Government's Approval To Offer F-15EX Fighter Jet To India
I Don't why USA is given nod for this
Its a financially wise decision wrapped up to look like a generous offer.
Its is EOL product. It was designed long time back I think around 1970's. Now they are left with assembly line, jobs ...etc So what do you do next? Make some money from it instead of throwing it away. They are looking for some bakra's to buy it and if you guessed who .... err.
Why not? They want us to have a platform that can work in conjunction with the USAF and the USN air platforms. They also don't want us to sell f35 because of s400 and f15EX pretty much is the best 4.5 gen platform from the U.S jet fighter stable. You forget we already have a 20 billion $ in defence trade with them too. U.S MIC would love if we become a regular customer..
It's more due to Israeli influence and lobbying than anything. And the Biden administration is filled with lobbyist. If we have good lobbyist we can shape US policies to be pro-Indian. Sadly the GoI doesn't want to accept this basic reality..
Last edited:
Boeing Can Now Offer The F-15EX To India, But Does Buying It Really Make Sense?
The Indian Air Force needs new fighters, and it needs them fast, but the F-15 is just one of a bewildering number of options.
www.thedrive.com
Lobbying will only take you to certain extent but not beyond that. More ever lobbying is something lesser powers do.
After chinese , India is considered a threat to US interests and as such they will never provide any technology that might be end up used against their allies say like pakistan.
The difference with HAL is that Dassault has 49% of DRAL's capital and is responsible for the company's technical management. As such, Dassault can check that quality procedures are applied whereas HAL had refused this control. Dassault does not want to be responsible for quality if it cannot verify the application of quality procedures, but with DRAL this control will be possible.
And DRAL will need the same number of hours as Dassault to produce a Rafale, and not 2.7 times as many hours, because it will use the same processes.
Last edited:
Navy Considers Axing Conformal Fuel Tanks From Its Block III Super Hornet Upgrade Plan
The Navy says conformal fuel tanks, long-touted as a critical upgrade for its Super Hornets, may be turning out to be more trouble than they're worth.
The U.S. Navy is considering removing conformal fuel tanks, or CFTs, from the Block III upgrade package for its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets after discovering various issues with them during testing. Deciding not to pursue these tanks, which are designed to extend the Super Hornet's range even without it having to carry drop tanks in place of other underwing stores, could have significant ramifications for the service's future tactical aviation plans. It could also impact the export prospects for these jets, as well.Aviation Week was the first to report the potentially serious problems with the CFTs on Jan. 28, 2021. Boeing has been flight testing Super Hornets with the tanks as part of the Block III upgrade program since at least 2019. The company had previously experimented with adding CFTs to the aircraft, in cooperation with Northrop Grumman, as part of a proposed Advanced Super Hornet upgrade package, which it publicly unveiled in 2008.
The Navy told Aviation Week that unspecified "technical, structural, and sustainment" problems had arisen in tests of the CFTs as part of the Block III upgrade effort. The service added that the issues had emerged during testing in a "carrier environment."
While we don't know what the exact issues are, the Navy's disclosure that there is a specific link between them and the operation of CFT-equipped jets from its aircraft carriers could suggest the problems have to do, at least in part, with how the upgraded aircraft handle the stresses of catapult launches and arrested recoveries. At the same time, the tanks were designed to handle the strains of high-g aerial maneuvers.
Another possibility might be that the tanks have been found to block access to key sections of the aircraft when they are installed, requiring their removal to perform certain routine maintenance and other tasks, adding costly time and effort to those processes. It's also interesting to note that the section on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the latest annual report from the Pentagon's Office of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, or DOT&E, makes no mention of the conformal fuel tanks, at all.
"The Boeing Block III Super Hornet’s advanced capabilities provide the Navy with multiple options for increasing an air wing’s combat effectiveness," was all Boeing would say in a statement to The War Zone in response to queries about the issues the Navy has uncovered with the CFTs. "Together with the Navy, Boeing will ensure that the Block III remains the most versatile tactical aircraft in the fleet."
The addition of the tanks is just one of the planned Block III upgrades. The full package, which you can find out more about in this previous War Zone piece, also includes new coatings to help reduce the radar signature of the aircraft, new mission computers and data links, and highly customizable wide-area multi-function displays in each cockpit, including the rear ones on two-seat F/A-18Fs. The Navy is also in the process of adding improved satellite communications (SATCOM) systems and the ability to use an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor installed in a modified drop tank, the latter of which you can read about in more detail in this past War Zone feature, to its Super Hornets through separate programs.
However, the CFTs are a particularly significant part of the upgrade plan. Two of the aerodynamic CFTs, each of which can hold up to 515 gallons of fuel, are designed to be installed on top of the center "barrel" section of the F/A-18E/F's fuselage, fitted one on each side of the aircraft's central spine.
At least in principle, this provides significant benefits in range and performance over draggy drop tanks, which can only hold 480 gallons of fuel each. Jets with CFTs can also carry additional stores on underwing pylons that otherwise would have to be set aside to carry the drop tanks.
In the past, Boeing has said, by way of example, that a Super Hornet carrying two AIM-9X Sidewinders, two AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), and two 2,000-pound-class precision-guided bombs would have a combat radius of 594 nautical miles with only the fuel in its internal tanks, plus a drop tank on its centerline pylon. With CFTs, a jet with the same loadout would have a combat radius of 714 nautical miles.
The CFTs would also help make up for the loss of fuel in the new IRST-equipped centerline drop tanks. Those tanks can only carry 330 gallons of fuel, instead of 480 gallons. An F/A-18E/F with one of these drop tanks, as well as six AIM-120s and two AIM-9Xs, would have a combat radius of around 509 nautical miles, according to Boeing. With CFTs, that would be extended out to 611 nautical miles.
The Navy has touted this added range, and the additional stores capacity when operating out to those distances, as an important way to expand the overall capabilities of its carrier air wings. At the same time, it has described the benefits that the CFTs offer, together with the extra range future MQ-25A Stingray tanker drones will also provide, as a critical way to help reduce the vulnerability of its aircraft carriers. Extending the reach of these jets, as well as other aircraft in the carrier air wing, such as the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, means that flattops can launch them while staying further away from ever-growing anti-access and area denial threats, including advanced anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, especially in any potential future high-end conflict against a near-peer adversary, such as Russia or China.
If the Navy now determines that the CFTs are more trouble than they're worth, its future Block III F/A-18E/Fs will be stuck with the same range and stores capacity limitations as its existing Super Hornets. The aforementioned MQ-25As could help mitigate this, but these drones alone would inherently offer more limited range-extension benefits than they could in combination with CFT-equipped Super Hornets. Those unmanned aircraft will also be heavily in demand to support future carrier air wings' F-35C Joint Strike Fighters, which cannot, at least at present, carry external drop tanks, at all. Any such external tank would negatively impact the radar-evading qualities of the F-35s to some degree, as well, making it unlikely that these jets would carry them on missions where they would need to be in their most stealthy configuration.
The CFTs have also been seen as a feature that could be ported over to the Navy's EA-18G Growler as part of a Block II upgrade program for those electronic warfare aircraft. These aircraft would also greatly benefit from added range, something that also translates to longer time on station, while simultaneously freeing up underwing pylon space. The EA-18Gs already have to lug around extra fuel, along with large jamming pods, to perform their missions.
With the Navy already looking to stop buying new Super Hornets, eliminating the CFTs from the Block III upgrade program could place more emphasis on its efforts to acquire new manned and unmanned carrier-based combat aircraft. The service is still very much in the process of figuring out what exactly its future carrier air wings might look like as it progresses with its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which you can read about more in this previous War Zone piece and should not to be confused with the Air Force's effort of the same name.
The Navy cutting the CFTs could have impacts on Boeing's efforts to pitch Super Hornets with some or all of the Block III features to foreign countries, as well. The tanks are a notable component of the offers the company has submitted in competitions to supply jets to the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Indian Navy, among others.
If the problems uncovered so far do turn out to be limited to operations from catapult-equipped carriers, this might be less of an issue. The Indian Navy, for instance, only has one carrier in service, at present, and another under construction, both of which feature ski jumps, rather than catapults. Canada plans to operate whatever new fighter jets it ends up buying from bases on land, as does Germany, which recently decided to acquire F/A-18E/Fs as a partial replacement for its aging Panavia Tornado combat jets.
It is important to stress that the Navy has not yet made a final decision on how it will proceed, or not, with adding CFTs to its Super Hornet fleet as part of the Block III program. Still, that the service is considering axing the tanks from the planned slate of upgrades at all is a significant development that signals there are real challenges preventing the full potential benefits they offer from being realized.
Post link to actual source of the news. Do not post random unverified videos here.
Thank you.
Navy Considers Axing Conformal Fuel Tanks From Its Block III Super Hornet Upgrade Plan
The Navy says conformal fuel tanks, long-touted as a critical upgrade for its Super Hornets, may be turning out to be more trouble than they're worth.
The U.S. Navy is considering removing conformal fuel tanks, or CFTs, from the Block III upgrade package for its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets after discovering various issues with them during testing. Deciding not to pursue these tanks, which are designed to extend the Super Hornet's range even without it having to carry drop tanks in place of other underwing stores, could have significant ramifications for the service's future tactical aviation plans. It could also impact the export prospects for these jets, as well.
Aviation Week was the first to report the potentially serious problems with the CFTs on Jan. 28, 2021. Boeing has been flight testing Super Hornets with the tanks as part of the Block III upgrade program since at least 2019. The company had previously experimented with adding CFTs to the aircraft, in cooperation with Northrop Grumman, as part of a proposed Advanced Super Hornet upgrade package, which it publicly unveiled in 2008.
The Navy told Aviation Week that unspecified "technical, structural, and sustainment" problems had arisen in tests of the CFTs as part of the Block III upgrade effort. The service added that the issues had emerged during testing in a "carrier environment."
While we don't know what the exact issues are, the Navy's disclosure that there is a specific link between them and the operation of CFT-equipped jets from its aircraft carriers could suggest the problems have to do, at least in part, with how the upgraded aircraft handle the stresses of catapult launches and arrested recoveries. At the same time, the tanks were designed to handle the strains of high-g aerial maneuvers.
Another possibility might be that the tanks have been found to block access to key sections of the aircraft when they are installed, requiring their removal to perform certain routine maintenance and other tasks, adding costly time and effort to those processes. It's also interesting to note that the section on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the latest annual report from the Pentagon's Office of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, or DOT&E, makes no mention of the conformal fuel tanks, at all.
"The Boeing Block III Super Hornet’s advanced capabilities provide the Navy with multiple options for increasing an air wing’s combat effectiveness," was all Boeing would say in a statement to The War Zone in response to queries about the issues the Navy has uncovered with the CFTs. "Together with the Navy, Boeing will ensure that the Block III remains the most versatile tactical aircraft in the fleet."
The addition of the tanks is just one of the planned Block III upgrades. The full package, which you can find out more about in this previous War Zone piece, also includes new coatings to help reduce the radar signature of the aircraft, new mission computers and data links, and highly customizable wide-area multi-function displays in each cockpit, including the rear ones on two-seat F/A-18Fs. The Navy is also in the process of adding improved satellite communications (SATCOM) systems and the ability to use an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor installed in a modified drop tank, the latter of which you can read about in more detail in this past War Zone feature, to its Super Hornets through separate programs.
However, the CFTs are a particularly significant part of the upgrade plan. Two of the aerodynamic CFTs, each of which can hold up to 515 gallons of fuel, are designed to be installed on top of the center "barrel" section of the F/A-18E/F's fuselage, fitted one on each side of the aircraft's central spine.
At least in principle, this provides significant benefits in range and performance over draggy drop tanks, which can only hold 480 gallons of fuel each. Jets with CFTs can also carry additional stores on underwing pylons that otherwise would have to be set aside to carry the drop tanks.
In the past, Boeing has said, by way of example, that a Super Hornet carrying two AIM-9X Sidewinders, two AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), and two 2,000-pound-class precision-guided bombs would have a combat radius of 594 nautical miles with only the fuel in its internal tanks, plus a drop tank on its centerline pylon. With CFTs, a jet with the same loadout would have a combat radius of 714 nautical miles.
The CFTs would also help make up for the loss of fuel in the new IRST-equipped centerline drop tanks. Those tanks can only carry 330 gallons of fuel, instead of 480 gallons. An F/A-18E/F with one of these drop tanks, as well as six AIM-120s and two AIM-9Xs, would have a combat radius of around 509 nautical miles, according to Boeing. With CFTs, that would be extended out to 611 nautical miles.
The Navy has touted this added range, and the additional stores capacity when operating out to those distances, as an important way to expand the overall capabilities of its carrier air wings. At the same time, it has described the benefits that the CFTs offer, together with the extra range future MQ-25A Stingray tanker drones will also provide, as a critical way to help reduce the vulnerability of its aircraft carriers. Extending the reach of these jets, as well as other aircraft in the carrier air wing, such as the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, means that flattops can launch them while staying further away from ever-growing anti-access and area denial threats, including advanced anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, especially in any potential future high-end conflict against a near-peer adversary, such as Russia or China.
If the Navy now determines that the CFTs are more trouble than they're worth, its future Block III F/A-18E/Fs will be stuck with the same range and stores capacity limitations as its existing Super Hornets. The aforementioned MQ-25As could help mitigate this, but these drones alone would inherently offer more limited range-extension benefits than they could in combination with CFT-equipped Super Hornets. Those unmanned aircraft will also be heavily in demand to support future carrier air wings' F-35C Joint Strike Fighters, which cannot, at least at present, carry external drop tanks, at all. Any such external tank would negatively impact the radar-evading qualities of the F-35s to some degree, as well, making it unlikely that these jets would carry them on missions where they would need to be in their most stealthy configuration.
The CFTs have also been seen as a feature that could be ported over to the Navy's EA-18G Growler as part of a Block II upgrade program for those electronic warfare aircraft. These aircraft would also greatly benefit from added range, something that also translates to longer time on station, while simultaneously freeing up underwing pylon space. The EA-18Gs already have to lug around extra fuel, along with large jamming pods, to perform their missions.
With the Navy already looking to stop buying new Super Hornets, eliminating the CFTs from the Block III upgrade program could place more emphasis on its efforts to acquire new manned and unmanned carrier-based combat aircraft. The service is still very much in the process of figuring out what exactly its future carrier air wings might look like as it progresses with its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which you can read about more in this previous War Zone piece and should not to be confused with the Air Force's effort of the same name.
The Navy cutting the CFTs could have impacts on Boeing's efforts to pitch Super Hornets with some or all of the Block III features to foreign countries, as well. The tanks are a notable component of the offers the company has submitted in competitions to supply jets to the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Indian Navy, among others.
If the problems uncovered so far do turn out to be limited to operations from catapult-equipped carriers, this might be less of an issue. The Indian Navy, for instance, only has one carrier in service, at present, and another under construction, both of which feature ski jumps, rather than catapults. Canada plans to operate whatever new fighter jets it ends up buying from bases on land, as does Germany, which recently decided to acquire F/A-18E/Fs as a partial replacement for its aging Panavia Tornado combat jets.
It is important to stress that the Navy has not yet made a final decision on how it will proceed, or not, with adding CFTs to its Super Hornet fleet as part of the Block III program. Still, that the service is considering axing the tanks from the planned slate of upgrades at all is a significant development that signals there are real challenges preventing the full potential benefits they offer from being realized.
The entire piece de resistance of the SH B3 was the CFT upgrade. With that gone, it's just a mere upgrade over the SH B2. The Americans have been screwing up quite a bit lately.
The thing is the loss of CFT may slightly affect India's choice as well in case the IN even wants the CFTs. If they are happy with the current range, then it's all good. But the improved engines are necessary for extreme Indian conditions and for STOBAR performance.
Anyway, the new engine improved basic range and provides increased thrust, so although it's slightly less useful than before, it's still a necessary upgrade since the original SH was always underpowered. A 100KN engine powering a 30T plane didn't make sense. Now the aircraft has TWR greater than 1 when carrying an A2A load with a centre drop tank placing it in equal status with the Rafale and Typhoon.
A status equal to that of the Rafale? While the Rafale in AtoA configuration can get 11G and the SH must be limited to 7.5 G.
A status equal to that of the Rafale? While the Rafale in AtoA configuration can get 11G and the SH must be limited to 7.5 G.
That's for dog fights. SH can't compete with the Rafale or Typhoon in this domain regardless of the engine.
But SH needs the new engine for BVR combat which relies more on speed, acceleration and climb, so the extra power boosts these three parameters. Naturally there's also the improved takeoff performance from both carriers and high altitude bases, both necessary requirements in the case of India. And of course, naval strike, which requires range and payload.
Anyway I don't think the IN is interested in G performance. They are more interested in other aspects like long range, high endurance, large payload and BVR combat, so there is likely less focus on raw performance and stealth compared to the IAF. BVR combat doesn't need more than 5 or 6G and even that's in specific conditions. The loss of CFT may end up being more of a concern than G performance.
why arent there enough discussions on the F15? given the problems we have with the SU-30, Doesnt it make it a decent contender? still one of the best fighters around in its category - the USAF seems to be impressed by its capabilities too? theyve ordered 144 of the newly upgraded F15
Problem is that we have already purchased 36 Rafales. F15EX is the best suited fighter to Chinese.
I'm the official salesman of the f15EX here. Basically most members don't consider the f15EX a good contender simply because it's in a similar weight class as the mki. Also..
The RCS of f15ex will be similar to the mki or even more considering traditional f15E had RCS 10-15sqm.
The rafale f4.2 will be offered which will most probably have a GaN radar. The only other competitor being the gripen NG with the GaN radar. The RFI of the IAF does seem to prefer a GaN based radar..
The f15EX doesn't use a GaN radar but it does have a GaN EW suit called the EPAWSS which makes it comparable or maybe even superior to rafales spectra.
The rafale is the only plane that can supercruise though the IAF rfi doesn't specify it as a requirement.
In terms of flight characteristics rafale is superior but loses out on high altitude regime where the f15EX might excel. F 15 is also faster reaching mach 2.5
The biggest problem is lack of meteor integration with the f15EX and aim120D can't really compete with the pl15.
F 15 is a better ground striker with a much bigger arsenal of a2g munitions. Also JASSM-ER is superior to the SCALP the Rafale uses.
Due to spectra rafale can actually go inside Chinese territory which seems to be difficult for the f15EX and has slightly more range to the Rafale. Although the f15EX can carry much heavier munitions with much better capability it's A2A capabilities are lacking unless we can integrate meteor.
Also rafale will most probably be cheaper than the F15 EX. Consider the Qatari deal for 36 F15EX costed 12.1 billion$. So even if it technically outperforms the Rafale. Rafale will be the L1 winner. Although gripen NG and FA/18 super hornet seems to be the dark horse. Though is it because of swedish marketing but it somehow has more range than both Rafale and F15. Also the life cycle cost are too much for the f15EX and closer to the f35 in terms of per hour flight..