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

What should we select?

  • Total voters
    61
  • Poll closed .
I am curious to know with what logistical means they came.
And why 2 planes (France sent only one, i think)?
edit: …and, on board, how many hours to change an engine :devilish: ?
 
Amarante said:
I am curious to know with what logistical means they came.
And why 2 planes (France sent only one, i think)?
Click to expand...
IN shoul go with FA18 SH. The immediate benefit will be ultra long range antiship missiles, AIM260 AAM & ling term benefit will be the probability of IN getting F35 in future also ensured.
 
Hydra said:
IN shoul go with FA18 SH. The immediate benefit will be ultra long range antiship missiles, AIM260 AAM & ling term benefit will be the probability of IN getting F35 in future also ensured.
Click to expand...
…and if they don’t want your planes to take off, they won’t (ask egyptians, uae).
And no ToT.
 
Amarante said:
I am curious to know with what logistical means they came.
And why 2 planes (France sent only one, i think)?
edit: …and, on board, how many hours to change an engine :devilish: ?
Click to expand...

The same as the Rafale even with the old engine.

www.livefistdefence.com

[Vishnu Som] Update On Boeing Super Hornet Pitch - Livefist

Boeing and its F/A-18 industry partners Raytheon, GE and Northrop-Grumman held a press conference in Delhi on Wednesday. Friend and NDTV associate editor VISHNU SOM was there and has been kind enough to send LiveFist this update on what happened:As far as the transfer of source codes for AESA is…
www.livefistdefence.com www.livefistdefence.com
Engine change is done in under 30 minutes, interchangeable left and right engine installation. No need for a functional check flight after engine change.

I'd actually say, being a new engine, the new F414's logistics and maintenance are far superior to the M88.

Also, no ToT is expected from this deal. ToT is only expected from production deals like MRFA, P-75I etc. But we are expecting F414 ToT for LCA, TEDBF and AMCA, so there's engine commonality here.
 
randomradio said:
The same as the Rafale even with the old engine.

www.livefistdefence.com

[Vishnu Som] Update On Boeing Super Hornet Pitch - Livefist

Boeing and its F/A-18 industry partners Raytheon, GE and Northrop-Grumman held a press conference in Delhi on Wednesday. Friend and NDTV associate editor VISHNU SOM was there and has been kind enough to send LiveFist this update on what happened:As far as the transfer of source codes for AESA is…
www.livefistdefence.com www.livefistdefence.com
Engine change is done in under 30 minutes, interchangeable left and right engine installation. No need for a functional check flight after engine change.

I'd actually say, being a new engine, the new F414's logistics and maintenance are far superior to the M88.

Also, no ToT is expected from this deal. ToT is only expected from production deals like MRFA, P-75I etc. But we are expecting F414 ToT for LCA, TEDBF and AMCA, so there's engine commonality here.
Click to expand...
October 29, 2009 .... MMRCA .... And after
1. Mission systems flight evaluation 2. AESA 3. FLIR 4. EW 5. Weapon delivery 6. Maintenance evaluation 7. Technical evaluation.
It has been eliminated. :)
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
October 29, 2009 .... MMRCA .... And after
1. Mission systems flight evaluation 2. AESA 3. FLIR 4. EW 5. Weapon delivery 6. Maintenance evaluation 7. Technical evaluation.
It has been eliminated. :)
Click to expand...
This case is different. The parameters are different. IAF wanted a hotrod. The Navy doesn't seem to be interested in a hotrod the requirements are different. Also the tedbf changes the preferences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin
Lolwa said:
This case is different. The parameters are different. IAF wanted a hotrod. The Navy doesn't seem to be interested in a hotrod the requirements are different. Also the tedbf changes the preferences.
Click to expand...
I can't think of a single operational requirement that the Rafale can't meet, unlike the Super Hornet, even for the two-seat specification where the Rafale N can be offered.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
I can't think of a single operational requirement that the Rafale can't meet, unlike the Super Hornet, even for the two-seat specification where the Rafale N can be offered.
Click to expand...
It's not that it can't meet the requirement. It's more about which will be the more practical option for the carrier and naval operations. Rafale made sense for the IAF because they wanted a fighters that can take the nuclear role(which wouldn't happen with american fighters) sanction-proof and that provides superior a2a capability (meteor) with low RCS. The Rafale fits those requirements better than any considering neither the Gripen and typhoon were mature fighters at that time and the f-16 was outdated and compromised while the f-18 was a fat pig which was overall an inferior deal for the IAF.
In case of Navy they want a fighter that fits the lift(literally). From whatever reports the Super-hornet seems to fit easier in the lifts. The Navy already uses american platforms like the p-8i, mh 60 r and predator so fa/18 will be a natural fit here. They are not looking for a supercruising stealthy aircraft. But a reliable proven system that can fit in their carriers and integrate with the rest of the american hardware. The Rafale can do that too but there seems to be too much complications with its non-foldable design.
Who knows we will know the results soon. The superhornet seems stronger in this case. In the mmrca 2 though the Rafale, f15 and Gripen seems to be the strongest contendors. FA/18 won't just fit there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra
Picdelamirand-oil said:
October 29, 2009 .... MMRCA .... And after
1. Mission systems flight evaluation 2. AESA 3. FLIR 4. EW 5. Weapon delivery 6. Maintenance evaluation 7. Technical evaluation.
It has been eliminated. :)
Click to expand...

Picdelamirand-oil said:
I can't think of a single operational requirement that the Rafale can't meet, unlike the Super Hornet, even for the two-seat specification where the Rafale N can be offered.
Click to expand...

Being shortlisted is the most important factor, not how good the shortlisted jet is compared to its other shortlisted competitors, because it's irrelevant at that point.

But for this deal there are a whole lot of other factors that come into play, it's not merely a jet vs jet competition like MMRCA was. This deal is connected to a lot of secondary benefits, like assistance with the carrier, indigenous UAVs and fighters, ToT for the F414, and so on. The US is more important when it comes to the carrier because they have to supply the EMALS and the main propulsion system.

Unlike with the IAF, all the SH has to do is qualify in the trials, and the deal will go to the US. Boeing also claims the SH is cheaper, so even that works in their favour.

Rafale N is not operational. The initial lease will need to see the supply of M and N right from the get-go, so the IN can't wait for Dassault to take its time when the final decision is expected to be made this year.
 
Lolwa said:
It's not that it can't meet the requirement. It's more about which will be the more practical option for the carrier and naval operations. Rafale made sense for the IAF because they wanted a fighters that can take the nuclear role(which wouldn't happen with american fighters) sanction-proof and that provides superior a2a capability (meteor) with low RCS. The Rafale fits those requirements better than any considering neither the Gripen and typhoon were mature fighters at that time and the f-16 was outdated and compromised while the f-18 was a fat pig which was overall an inferior deal for the IAF.
In case of Navy they want a fighter that fits the lift(literally). From whatever reports the Super-hornet seems to fit easier in the lifts. The Navy already uses american platforms like the p-8i, mh 60 r and predator so fa/18 will be a natural fit here. They are not looking for a supercruising stealthy aircraft. But a reliable proven system that can fit in their carriers and integrate with the rest of the american hardware. The Rafale can do that too but there seems to be too much complications with its non-foldable design.
Who knows we will know the results soon. The superhornet seems stronger in this case. In the mmrca 2 though the Rafale, f15 and Gripen seems to be the strongest contendors. FA/18 won't just fit there.
Click to expand...
The F-18 SH with its wings folded has a wingspan of 9.32m and the Rafale with its missile launchers removed has a wingspan of 9.6m. This is not very different and both aircraft fit in the lift.
But the F-18 SH has a length of 18.31m compared to 15.27m for the Rafale, so you can carry less overall and put less on the deck.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
The F-18 SH with its wings folded has a wingspan of 9.32m and the Rafale with its missile launchers removed has a wingspan of 9.6m. This is not very different and both aircraft fit in the lift.
But the F-18 SH has a length of 18.31m compared to 15.27m for the Rafale, so you can carry less overall and put less on the deck.
Click to expand...

The length shouldn't matter on the deck though, since the jets are parked side to side, there's enough clearance. Gotta see how they deal with the hangar, but I don't think a full complement of these jets will be carried on the current carriers. So a mix of Mig-29s and Rafales/SHs for now, and TEDBF later on, with Rafale/SH moving to IAC-2. TEDBF is 1m longer and wider than the Rafale, but folding wings reduce wingspan to 7.6m.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
suryakiran said:
What is the effective combat range for the Rafale and SH? I am assuming both are better than the Mig-29K?
Click to expand...

Yeah, both are hands down better than the Mig-29K. But the real question is payload. Both jets can be fuelled to the brim and can provide their max ranges. Another advantage we have is the ability to be supported from Australia with mid-air refuelling. But there's a possibility that the Rafale may end up carrying less weapons than the SH. And in sea battles, a quantitative weapons advantage is very important. Rafale can carry 1 Exocet, while the SH can carry 2 Harpoons or 4 LRASMs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom