Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighter For The Indian Navy - Updates & Discussions

[Lolwa]

US jets will enver get the Meteor, as per the Europeans.

The f35 is getting it. And the deal in 1999 proves that they had a tie-up with the euroboys so chances are that Boeing is still in connection with team meteor. So I think if an ise F15EX wants the meteor integrated I think it's possible. But we will have to buy it seperately not along with an FMS deal.

Maybe you can then explain why it has never been done so.

I don't know but in gulf war 1 the f16 was used for sead/dead. If the f16 could do it I assume the growler will be far more effective since it wasn't online in 91. 2003 most of the sead dead operations were done by the f16 and f15E again.
The growler came online in 2009 the U.S hasn't fought a major war since 2003. And it has always been ragtag militias so a lot of time before we see the growler in action.

 

[Killbot]

The f35 is getting it. And the deal in 1999 proves that they had a tie-up with the euroboys so chances are that Boeing is still in connection with team meteor. So I think if an ise F15EX wants the meteor integrated I think it's possible. But we will have to buy it seperately not along with an FMS deal.

British F35s are getting Meteor. Not US

 

[randomradio]

The f35 is getting it.

It's not a US jet, the program has many partners, mostly European.

And the deal in 1999 proves that they had a tie-up with the euroboys so chances are that Boeing is still in connection with team meteor. So I think if an ise F15EX wants the meteor integrated I think it's possible. But we will have to buy it seperately not along with an FMS deal.

Meteor won a competition with Raytheon's FMRAAM.

No, an F-15EX with Meteor is not possible because the Europeans have said only European radars will be integrated with it, hence why it was rejected for both MKI and LCA Mk1A. They have only offered it with an Indian radar. And they definitely do not want it on an American or Israeli radar since it will affect the export of their own jets.

I don't know but in gulf war 1 the f16 was used for sead/dead. If the f16 could do it I assume the growler will be far more effective since it wasn't online in 91. 2003 most of the sead dead operations were done by the f16 and f15E again.
The growler came online in 2009 the U.S hasn't fought a major war since 2003. And it has always been ragtag militias so a lot of time before we see the growler in action.

The F-16 was used as a fighter jet. Growler isn't a fighter jet. It's an EW aircraft.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

And can either fighter (MRCBF) operate at full capacity from a ski jump AC?

From the Charle de Gaulle the heaviest Rafale configuration that is catapulted is the Nou Nou configuration which is over 22 t and the heaviest war configuration is about 21.5 t. But it would be possible to catapult a fully loaded Rafale because the CDG catapults are given for 25 t and a fully loaded Rafale is 24.5 t. The reason for limiting the configurations to 21.5 t is that heavier configurations could result in an asymmetrical heavy configuration on the return trip, making the landing dangerous. But in wartime one can take calculated risks and if a heavier configuration is needed it would be used.

Now Dassault have made simulations an said that Rafale from a STOBAR will have same capabilities that from CDG. AT 24.5 t the Rafale load is 9.5 t so at 21.5 t it will be 6.5 t, and Jean Claude Hironde's reported that the French and the US were competing on the Theodore Roosevelt to see which of the Rafale or the F18 SH could carry the heaviest load and the Rafale carried a ton more so it is likely that the F-18 load will be 5.5 t.

Jean Claude Hironde said me that he believes that Rafale is able to take off from the CDG without using the catapult due to the qualities of the FCS and its aerodynamic. So I made a little computation and I find that with a 250 m run Rafale at 15 t would reach 136 kt, and at 21.5t it will reach 114 kt, and Rafale can confortably fligh at 110 kt....

 

[Lolwa]

British F35s are getting Meteor. Not US

Doesn't change the fact that US f35 can get meteor if it so requires.

 

[Lolwa]

No, an F-15EX with Meteor is not possible because the Europeans have said only European radars will be integrated with it, hence why it was rejected for both MKI and LCA Mk1A. They have only offered it with an Indian radar. And they definitely do not want it on an American or Israeli radar since it will affect the export of their own jets.

A seperate integration might be possible. Who knows. Boeing has had a tie with meteor so Boeing could very well do it again...

 

[randomradio]

A seperate integration might be possible. Who knows. Boeing has had a tie with meteor so Boeing could very well do it again...

No such thing is possible.

 

[Hydra]

No such thing is possible.

If we are, i repeat if we are going for f15EX in large numbers, then Europeans will sell their meteor, if they are not selling i will call them as fools. The superiority of meteor will definitely challenged if not push down to second or third place after USA's AIM260 & our own sfdr, and its gonna happen in another 5-10 years max. If they denied, they will loose billions of dollars from us.At the end of the day F15EX is a NATO fighter, there shoud not be any political or technical hindrance to mate meteor with eagle,they denied it as a cheap buisness tactics to sell European fighter to India.
Same thing applicable to f18 with IN & IAF.

 

[randomradio]

If we are, i repeat if we are going for f15EX in large numbers, then Europeans will sell their meteor, if they are not selling i will call them as fools. The superiority of meteor will definitely challenged if not push down to second or third place after USA's AIM260 & our own sfdr, and its gonna happen in another 5-10 years max. If they denied, they will loose billions of dollars from us.At the end of the day F15EX is a NATO fighter, there shoud not be any political or technical hindrance to mate meteor with eagle,they denied it as a cheap buisness tactics to sell European fighter to India.
Same thing applicable to f18 with IN & IAF.

If we buy 36 F-15s, then at best they will sell 100-150 Meteor worth $400M. In exchange, they will lose a deal for 12 Typhoons worth billions elsewhere because now the F-15 is available with the Meteor. It's common sense for them not to equip a competitor with the best missile.

 

[Hydra]

If we buy 36 F-15s, then at best they will sell 100-150 Meteor worth $400M. In exchange, they will lose a deal for 12 Typhoons worth billions elsewhere because now the F-15 is available with the Meteor. It's common sense for them not to equip a competitor with the best missile.

That why I use the word,f15EX in numbers,108-126 F15EX.

 

[randomradio]

That why I use the word,f15EX in numbers,108-126 F15EX.

The Europeans know India will buy a European jet for MRFA, so they won't make any offer that will put America on an equal footing in the same market.

This is common sense. Which do you think is a better option for Europe, selling 100+ Typhoon/Rafale with Meteor alongside all other weapons and technologies or simply sell Meteor to equip 100+ F-15s?

 

[Hydra]

The Europeans know India will buy a European jet for MRFA, so they won't make any offer that will put America on an equal footing in the same market.

This is common sense. Which do you think is a better option for Europe, selling 100+ Typhoon/Rafale with Meteor alongside all other weapons and technologies or simply sell Meteor to equip 100+ F-15s?

That scenario is over, precisely speaking soon after the Chinese invasion at Ladakh. With Beca signatory we are fully prepared to accept US fighter jets.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

In that case, Rafale would be much better.
No need for a new aircraft and it's logistics.
If F 18 , then again won't stop at 20-30, piece meal later on would definitely follow.

Depends if any of the aircrafts can actually fly with a decent strike loadout with enough fuel first. Else gives us no imperative to buy them over Mig29K.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

There will certainly be additional orders for rafale. A minimum of 54 more for sure. It can go as high as 90 also to make it a total of 126. But F-18 is very very high in the list and should we have a war with China, F-18 will become a must have.

Will be surprised if we actually manage to sign for anything else other than 83 MK1A, maybe 36-54 Rafales and maybe one or two squadron of Su30MKIs built to super Sukhoi standards before 2030 for the IAF in fighter jets section. Maybe Russian PMF in 30-40s by end of decade too... But that's it.

Tankers, AWACS, UAVs and SAM modernization, even when spread out over say 5-8 years won't leave much room for anything new. IAF has also pressing procurement programs coming up like HTT40, LCH, 120 IJTs(or other jet trainer in its place), LUHs , either C295W or re-engine the Avro, MKI upgrade program, etc

All these won't leave much fiscal space for IAF in this decade. A war with China this decade will be fought on the shoulders of MKI and Rafales. If that happens.

 

[vstol Jockey]

From the Charle de Gaulle the heaviest Rafale configuration that is catapulted is the Nou Nou configuration which is over 22 t and the heaviest war configuration is about 21.5 t. But it would be possible to catapult a fully loaded Rafale because the CDG catapults are given for 25 t and a fully loaded Rafale is 24.5 t. The reason for limiting the configurations to 21.5 t is that heavier configurations could result in an asymmetrical heavy configuration on the return trip, making the landing dangerous. But in wartime one can take calculated risks and if a heavier configuration is needed it would be used.

Now Dassault have made simulations an said that Rafale from a STOBAR will have same capabilities that from CDG. AT 24.5 t the Rafale load is 9.5 t so at 21.5 t it will be 6.5 t, and Jean Claude Hironde's reported that the French and the US were competing on the Theodore Roosevelt to see which of the Rafale or the F18 SH could carry the heaviest load and the Rafale carried a ton more so it is likely that the F-18 load will be 5.5 t.

Jean Claude Hironde said me that he believes that Rafale is able to take off from the CDG without using the catapult due to the qualities of the FCS and its aerodynamic. So I made a little computation and I find that with a 250 m run Rafale at 15 t would reach 136 kt, and at 21.5t it will reach 114 kt, and Rafale can confortably fligh at 110 kt....

Are these figures after taking into consideration wind on deck of 28 kts? It seems they are purely accelaration figures used for nil wind conditions on shore/land. My calculations give me a better figure for 250m deck run with 28kts WOD for Rafale.

 

[randomradio]

That scenario is over, precisely speaking soon after the Chinese invasion at Ladakh. With Beca signatory we are fully prepared to accept US fighter jets.

BECA doesn't signify that.

 

[Killbot]

Doesn't change the fact that US f35 can get meteor if it so requires.

Nah, MBDA won't sell to US

 

[Hydra]

Nah, MBDA won't sell to US

MBDA will not sell to the leader of NATO? common man. If US insist, they definitely sell missile to USAF. Yeah they may not sell meteor to a non European fighter operating outside USA.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Are these figures after taking into consideration wind on deck of 28 kts? It seems they are purely accelaration figures used for nil wind conditions on shore/land. My calculations give me a better figure for 250m deck run with 28kts WOD for Rafale.

You are right.

 

[Aurora]

Not due to that reason. The USAF had the F-22, which was a far superior SEAD/DEAD aircraft than what the Growler offered.

F22s are not used as standoff jammers.
Anyways it doesn't concern our core debate.

Not at all. Weapons are designed based on how performance is affected based on the mission. For the SEAD/DEAD mission, fighter jets carry paylaods that are suitable for the role without drastically compromising performance.

Why don't you give some examples to prove your point?? I am waiting.

But when it comes to the Growler, it's no different than a business jet. The only way it can survive is if it unloads its entire payload and run away, but they would rather not risk it is such a manner in the first place, too expensive, too many secrets, which is why it doesn't participate in the strike itself. It's used no different than a business jet, which is the reason why all air forces use business jets in the first place, far superior EW performance on a business jet.

Again I would like some corroborating proofs. Any article or report on the aerodynamic performance of growlers in full load.

The USN would also use a business jet if it could be launched off a carrier.

The Growler was actually a downgrade compared to the Prowler. The Prowler had 40% greater range and had 4 operators, the most crucial aspects of an EW aircraft. The ony advantage the Growler brings to the table is a slightly higher cruise speed. A business jet has an advantage in all three parameters.

I wonder why USN opted for greater cruise speed against all those advantages.

Lastly, the Growler cannot match the range requirements of future aircraft. It's already outdated and within 10 years it will become completely obsolete.

With new engines I think it could. Our requirements are not that high anyways as we are supposed to take growlers let us say to Bejeing for a strike mission.