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

[Optimist]

2024 is the first flight. So it should take until 2028 before it's inducted.

This article from 2017 quotes the General. So the missile was already in the works by then.

US puts rush order on long-range air-to-air missile

Video: AIM-260 needed to counter Chinese, Russian missiles with ranges over 300km.

arstechnica.com

In 2017, US Air Force General Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle cited the Chinese missiles in a call for a new, longer-ranged missile that would allow the Air Force and Navy to "out-stick" the PL-15.

China’s New Missile Has Pentagon Spooked

America has spent hundreds of billions on stealthy fighter jets to rule tomorrow’s skies. Could a new Chinese weapon negate that edge?

www.thedailybeast.com

“Look at our adversaries and what they’re developing, things like the PL-15 and the range of that weapon,” Carlisle said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., on September 15—the same day that China reportedly test-fired the PL-15 for the first time. “How do we counter that and what are we going to do to continue to meet that threat?” Carlisle asked rhetorically.

The very next day, Flight Global magazine published an interview with Carlisle in which the general doubled down on his worried tone. “The PL-15 and the range of that missile, we’ve got to be able to out-stick [sic] that missile,” he said, using an Air Force term for “out-shoot.”

The U.S. Air Force’s F-15EX Could Lob A New ‘Outsize’ Air-To-Air Missile Nearly 200 Miles

A new model of Boeing’sBA classic F-15 Eagle fighter is the U.S. Air Force’s future aerial sniper. The flying branch for the first time has revealed its plan to arm the new F-15EX Eagle II with an “outsize … air-to-air” missile.

www.forbes.com

The “outsize” missile probably is the AIM-260, which the Air Force and Lockheed Martin LMT +0.6% have been developing under a highly secretive program that began in 2017. There are hints the AIM-260 could range twice as far as the Raytheon AIM-120, currently the Pentagon’s farthest-flying air-to-air missile.

Perhaps you missed my post on the date from the internet? i added a few years for wide operational use when i said 2026, I cant see first flight in 2026, as you said
'The JATM/260 is planned to start flight tests in 2021 and achieve initial operational capability (IOC) by 2022. The AIM-260 production is expected to overtake AIM-120 production by 2026.'

 

[randomradio]

There are instances where lessons are learnt.

Like post Balakote, intensive CAPs, when missile are on flight, their life time is reduced to like 50 hours or something.

Getting our own missile is very important.

First number of missile s available can be increased as per our need without having to let know the world by importing the numbers OEM can offer.

Second maximum numbers of target can be shot if we have more missile s.
Russia is using so many missile s in ints operations. With import we cannot use as much and sustained operations. We have to depend on OEM to provide for sustained operations.

Against china not having this sustainable capability with become major drawback.

Third Nirbhay Derivative s are being developed, we can have subsonic or supersonic bhramosNG Or both as per our need,

Fourth Our missile development time cycle is almost short & reliable now.

For such a small number of jets?

We should assume that the IN is not planning to do that though.

I'm going by the assumption that, at best, the US will allow the integration of weapons they themselves don't have, they are unlikely to allow us to replace the weapons they wish to supply. The Russian link to Brahmos will also pose problems.

 

[randomradio]

That Radar restriction is just imposed for India, we were so desperate to get Meteor after our *censored* burning incident of Feb19, so that India will choose either rafale or gripen in MRFA.

This radar clause is only for the made-in-India fighter jets, if the USA will ask MBDA to integrate the Meteor on F18 I am sure they are going to say Yes Sir! but IN will be more interested in the "LRASM" rather than Meteor

Meteor integration is only for European radars. To date they have made an exception only to Indian radars, but we need to hand the the radar in question over to MBDA along with its source codes. So it's not workable. They won't integrate it on American or Israeli radars due to competition. The F-35 is seen as a European jet because of the partner countries, so it qualifies for Meteor.

 

[randomradio]

6-7 tons apart from fuel is beyond stretching it - just not feasible without catapult.

The maximum ASM load that Rafale was supposedly qualified from SBTF was a single AM39 on the centreline - and that's only a 670kg missile - two 2000L DTs on inner wing stations and 4 AAMs. Broadly that's <5 tons payload. Mind you we don't know how much internal fuel its flying with, probably not much for a strike mission (planning to rely on buddy refuel after takeoff).

Super Hornet's Indian Ski-Jump Demo Next Month

Two U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornets will arrive in Goa late May for operational demonstration off a ski-jump

www.livefistdefence.com

"...As part of demonstrations of ski-jump launches with meaningful weapons payloads, Livefist learns the F/A-18s will be flying with two dummy Harpoon missiles — an attempt to show up the Rafale’s ability to only deploy one comparable Exocet anti-ship missile on its centreline hardpoint..."

We have seen this config flying:

View attachment 23847

The SH supposedly can pull off a similar load but with 2 x ASMs (Harpoons) - though we haven't seen any pictures of that config flying yet. So far the only pics available are with 2 x drop tanks and 2 x wingtip AIM9s.

View attachment 23846

All in all, I don't see it being very feasible to carry anything other than PERHAPS a single Brahmos-NG on the centreline of either jet. Which then raises the question isn't it better to go with 2 x or more subsonic ASMs (which will stack with every jet in a strike package so 6 planes can deploy 12 ASMs instead of 6).

From future CATOBAR flattops Brahmos-NG would make sense but from Vikrant/Vikramaditya not so much.

Aren't you underestimating STOBAR a bit too much?

Even the Mig-29K can carry 5.5T, which is considered inadequate.

 

[randomradio]

Perhaps you missed my post on the date from the internet? i added a few years for wide operational use when i said 2026, I cant see first flight in 2026, as you said
'The JATM/260 is planned to start flight tests in 2021 and achieve initial operational capability (IOC) by 2022. The AIM-260 production is expected to overtake AIM-120 production by 2026.'

I think you're confused about something. My 2024 to 2028 date was for Brahmos NG.

 

[Hydra]

260 was made as a stopgap before the LREW comes in. 120 has been outclassed. That 145Km range is at medium altitude.


Political because it's needed for interoperability.

LREW will be offered to us in future? I beleive,its a huge missile,integration with FA-18 may not be possible even with USN.

 

[randomradio]

LREW will be offered to us in future? I beleive,its a huge missile,integration with FA-18 may not be possible even with USN.

No clue. The IOC of LREW is expected in 2025, but could take longer versus AIM-260's IOC in 2022. So I think we will initially start off with the AIM-260.

Going for the SH would mean one of the main goals is commonality and interoperability with the USN. So it makes more sense to use their weapons.

 

[Parthu]

Aren't you underestimating STOBAR a bit too much?

I think you may be overestimating it quite a bit

Even the Mig-29K can carry 5.5T, which is considered inadequate.

The 29K's max payload is 4.5 tons:

Shipborne aircraft MiG-29K | Rosoboronexport

MissionThe MiG-29K/KUB shipborne aircraft/shipborne combat-training multirole aircraft is designed to handle fleet air defense missions, engage air targets in any weather, day or night, as well...

roe.ru

Which means this config here is about the maximum that 29K can manage:

1 x PTB-1500 centreline drop tank (1.5 ton)
2 x PTB-1150 drop tanks (~1 ton each)
2 x Kh-35 ASM (~500kg each)
2 x R-73 AAMs (~100kg each)

Total about 4.7 tons...which is beyond Rosoberon's own stated figure, which means internal fuel in this configuration is probably fumes, not to mention a config like this is totally unrealistic in a real combat scenario, this is probably just for show. In reality it would likely have to be a single Kh35 in the centreline, 2 x 1-ton DTs on inner stations and 4 x AAMs on the outer stations.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

I think you may be overestimating it quite a bit



The 29K's max payload is 4.5 tons:

Shipborne aircraft MiG-29K | Rosoboronexport

MissionThe MiG-29K/KUB shipborne aircraft/shipborne combat-training multirole aircraft is designed to handle fleet air defense missions, engage air targets in any weather, day or night, as well...

roe.ru

Which means this config here is about the maximum that 29K can manage:

View attachment 23848

1 x PTB-1500 centreline drop tank (1.5 ton)
2 x PTB-1150 drop tanks (~1 ton each)
2 x Kh-35 ASM (~500kg each)
2 x R-73 AAMs (~100kg each)

Total about 4.7 tons...which is beyond Rosoberon's own stated figure, which means internal fuel in this configuration is probably fumes, not to mention a config like this is totally unrealistic in a real combat scenario, this is probably just for show. In reality it would likely have to be a single Kh35 in the centreline, 2 x 1-ton DTs on inner stations and 4 x AAMs on the outer stations.

What have we actually seen it carry till date from Vicky?

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

6-7 tons apart from fuel is beyond stretching it - just not feasible without catapult.

The maximum ASM load that Rafale was supposedly qualified from SBTF was a single AM39 on the centreline - and that's only a 670kg missile - two 2000L DTs on inner wing stations and 4 AAMs. Broadly that's <5 tons payload. Mind you we don't know how much internal fuel its flying with, probably not much for a strike mission (planning to rely on buddy refuel after takeoff).

Super Hornet's Indian Ski-Jump Demo Next Month

Two U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornets will arrive in Goa late May for operational demonstration off a ski-jump

www.livefistdefence.com

"...As part of demonstrations of ski-jump launches with meaningful weapons payloads, Livefist learns the F/A-18s will be flying with two dummy Harpoon missiles — an attempt to show up the Rafale’s ability to only deploy one comparable Exocet anti-ship missile on its centreline hardpoint..."

We have seen this config flying:

View attachment 23847

The SH supposedly can pull off a similar load but with 2 x ASMs (Harpoons) - though we haven't seen any pictures of that config flying yet. So far the only pics available are with 2 x drop tanks and 2 x wingtip AIM9s.

View attachment 23846

All in all, I don't see it being very feasible to carry anything other than PERHAPS a single Brahmos-NG on the centreline of either jet. Which then raises the question isn't it better to go with 2 x or more subsonic ASMs (which will stack with every jet in a strike package so 6 planes can deploy 12 ASMs instead of 6).

From future CATOBAR flattops Brahmos-NG would make sense but from Vikrant/Vikramaditya not so much.

There is a lot of misconception about the capabilities of airborne aircraft. For example, the Rafale, even on CATOBAR, is not used at more than 22 t and yet the catapults on the CDG allow any aircraft of less than 25 t to take off and the MTOW of the Rafale is 24.5 t.

So we could catapult a Rafale at 24.5 t. The problem is the return on the aircraft carrier, and it is the same problem on STOBAR and CATOBAR. I have already mentioned the asymmetry on landing: in fact the Rafale's FCS could easily compensate for this asymmetry, but the unbalanced forces on landing would damage the Rafale's structure. One would therefore have to drop expensive weapons to be able to land.

The other problem is that the Rafale's landing weight on the aircraft carrier is limited to 15t, which allows it to bring back just over 4t of weapons and fuel, keeping only the volume of fuel that ensures safety. This 4t is the Bring Back of the Rafale, it is very slightly higher than that of the F-18 SH. We don't have this problem with the Rafale nou nou because we can dump the fuel with the vacuum quickly before landing.

The problem of take-off on STOBAR has nothing to do with all that, it is a problem of thrust, lift, wind, and carrier speed. The T/W rates of the two aircraft are comparable and the Rafale has a better lift, which explains why the Rafale can carry 9.5 t of external load while the F-18 SH is limited to 8 t only. While the MTOW of the Rafale is 24.5 t, it is enough that it can take off at 23 t to have the same performance in this respect as the F-18.

Take-off at these weights is perfectly possible from Indian aircraft carriers, but both engines must be available, and one engine would need 280 m, whereas there is only 250 m available. We solve this problem with the notion of critical distance, which is around 50 m. If the critical distance is exceeded and one of the engines fails afterwards, we can still take off on one engine. If the failure occurs before the critical distance, we will have time to stop while remaining on the aircraft carrier.

The configurations seen in the photo are not representative of the possible configurations because the aircraft carrier has a speed of 27 Kt which the ski jump does not have on the ground, so we tested configurations that we know are equivalent to those we want on the aircraft carrier.

 

[randomradio]

I think you may be overestimating it quite a bit



The 29K's max payload is 4.5 tons:

Shipborne aircraft MiG-29K | Rosoboronexport

MissionThe MiG-29K/KUB shipborne aircraft/shipborne combat-training multirole aircraft is designed to handle fleet air defense missions, engage air targets in any weather, day or night, as well...

roe.ru

Which means this config here is about the maximum that 29K can manage:

View attachment 23848

1 x PTB-1500 centreline drop tank (1.5 ton)
2 x PTB-1150 drop tanks (~1 ton each)
2 x Kh-35 ASM (~500kg each)
2 x R-73 AAMs (~100kg each)

Total about 4.7 tons...which is beyond Rosoberon's own stated figure, which means internal fuel in this configuration is probably fumes, not to mention a config like this is totally unrealistic in a real combat scenario, this is probably just for show. In reality it would likely have to be a single Kh35 in the centreline, 2 x 1-ton DTs on inner stations and 4 x AAMs on the outer stations.

The Mig-29K is limited by its own airframe. But, in order to carry 2 Brahmos NG, all they have to do is take off with empty external tanks and tank up in the air. MTOW is the max load when taking off, but once in the air, it becomes irrelevant.

Plus with Brahmos NG, the combat radius of the jet will be reduced compared to lighter missiles, so there's some fuel savings right there.

Anyway, the SH should be able to lift 7T with the new engine.

 

[randomradio]

There is a lot of misconception about the capabilities of airborne aircraft. For example, the Rafale, even on CATOBAR, is not used at more than 22 t and yet the catapults on the CDG allow any aircraft of less than 25 t to take off and the MTOW of the Rafale is 24.5 t.

So we could catapult a Rafale at 24.5 t. The problem is the return on the aircraft carrier, and it is the same problem on STOBAR and CATOBAR. I have already mentioned the asymmetry on landing: in fact the Rafale's FCS could easily compensate for this asymmetry, but the unbalanced forces on landing would damage the Rafale's structure. One would therefore have to drop expensive weapons to be able to land.

The other problem is that the Rafale's landing weight on the aircraft carrier is limited to 15t, which allows it to bring back just over 4t of weapons and fuel, keeping only the volume of fuel that ensures safety. This 4t is the Bring Back of the Rafale, it is very slightly higher than that of the F-18 SH. We don't have this problem with the Rafale nou nou because we can dump the fuel with the vacuum quickly before landing.

The problem of take-off on STOBAR has nothing to do with all that, it is a problem of thrust, lift, wind, and carrier speed. The T/W rates of the two aircraft are comparable and the Rafale has a better lift, which explains why the Rafale can carry 9.5 t of external load while the F-18 SH is limited to 8 t only. While the MTOW of the Rafale is 24.5 t, it is enough that it can take off at 23 t to have the same performance in this respect as the F-18.

Take-off at these weights is perfectly possible from Indian aircraft carriers, but both engines must be available, and one engine would need 280 m, whereas there is only 250 m available. We solve this problem with the notion of critical distance, which is around 50 m. If the critical distance is exceeded and one of the engines fails afterwards, we can still take off on one engine. If the failure occurs before the critical distance, we will have time to stop while remaining on the aircraft carrier.

The configurations seen in the photo are not representative of the possible configurations because the aircraft carrier has a speed of 27 Kt which the ski jump does not have on the ground, so we tested configurations that we know are equivalent to those we want on the aircraft carrier.

2 Brahmos, 1 tank and 4 AAMs, if this payload is achieved, it should be enough. This configuration is within the bringback load.

The SH E can bring back 4.5T and F can bring back 4.1T.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

2 Brahmos, 1 tank and 4 AAMs, if this payload is achieved, it should be enough. This configuration is within the bringback load.

The SH E can bring back 4.5T and F can bring back 4.1T.

The "bring back" is 4491 kg for the F/A-18 E and 4082 kg for the F/A-18 F, it is 4804 kg for the Rafale.

The fact that the bring back is of the same order of magnitude on the F-18 SH and on the Rafale means that there are more or less the same landing constraints, simply that the French Navy takes great care of its Rafales in peacetime or in crisis, which would not be the case in wartime, because we only have a limited number of them and we do not want to shorten their operational life by using them too laxly.

This level of constraint common to both aircraft is less strong than the take-off constraints for the F-18 SH, whereas it is stronger than those for the Rafale. This explains why the F-18 SH needs to propose an engine upgrade while the Rafale does not. Otherwise the F414 at 116 KN has no more reality today than the M88 at 8.3 t of thrust that could be proposed if there were a problem.

 

[A Person]

This radar clause is only for the made-in-India fighter jets, if the USA will ask MBDA to integrate the Meteor on F18 I am sure they are going to say Yes Sir! but IN will be more interested in the "LRASM" rather than Meteor

Last time I checked, America had decided to push back integration of the Meteor on the F-35 to 2027 at the earliest and it's likely it'll be pushed back even further -- presumably it'll happen only after every F-35 customer has been fully stocked on AM260 and not one moment sooner. So you can forget about the USA asking to integrate the Meteor on the Super Hornet; that's something they'd do only if India tells them it's a sine qua non condition for the MRCBF, and even then, only after all lobbying attempts at changing India's mind on this question have failed.

"...As part of demonstrations of ski-jump launches with meaningful weapons payloads, Livefist learns the F/A-18s will be flying with two dummy Harpoon missiles — an attempt to show up the Rafale’s ability to only deploy one comparable Exocet anti-ship missile on its centreline hardpoint..."

The only reason why the French navy never requested a two-Exocet configuration on the Rafale is due to worries about asymmetrical loadout upon returning to deck (if one Exocet was fired but not the other). The US Navy can simply afford to jettison a missile to avoid the issue; the cash-starved French navy, not so much.

There are dual Exocet configs on the Greek Mirage 2000 and it's quite likely to appear eventually on the Greek Rafale as well, since those are land-based. As landing on a conventional runway is much softer than a trap landing on an aircraft carrier's deck (which is essentially a controlled crash landing, as you don't have the room to perform a landing roundout/flare), the tolerance for asymmerical load on return is much greater.

 

[TARGET]

Last time I checked, America had decided to push back integration of the Meteor on the F-35 to 2027 at the earliest and it's likely it'll be pushed back even further -- presumably it'll happen only after every F-35 customer has been fully stocked on AM260 and not one moment sooner. So you can forget about the USA asking to integrate the Meteor on the Super Hornet; that's something they'd do only if India tells them it's a sine qua non condition for the MRCBF, and even then, only after all lobbying attempts at changing India's mind on this question have failed.

I am not sure about the USA asking for Meteor integrations into F35 B, It's the UK trying to integrate Meteor on its own F35 B with the approval of Boeing "USA" also Israel wants to integrate its own BVR on its F35, So for us, we can ask the same that's ASTRA to integrate on F18... for the Meteor we may need to check with MBDA.

Funding secured to complete missile integration on UK and Italian F-35 fleets
European F-35s: Will Meteor & Spear Missiles Make UK, Italy’s F-35 Stealth Jets Superior To The Americans'?

 

[Optimist]

It still makes more sense to me for India to add a dozen Rafales to their existing fleet. Than to start with a different platform.

 

[Hydra]

It still makes more sense to me for India to add a dozen Rafales to their existing fleet. Than to start with a different platform.

Make sense if GOI made G2G deal with French on second batch of Rafale for IAF.

 

[A Person]

I am not sure about the USA asking for Meteor integrations into F35 B, It's the UK trying to integrate Meteor on its own F35 B with the approval of Boeing "USA" also Israel wants to integrate its own BVR on its F35, So for us, we can ask the same that's ASTRA to integrate on F18... for the Meteor we may need to check with MBDA.

It's handled by the JPO, so it is up to the Americans.

Integration of Meteor missile on F-35B slips to 2027

A report from the Ministry of Defence states that "entry into service is not anticipated until 2027" and that the programme "may incur further delays".

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

“Meteor was assigned a place in the Followon Development Programme by the F-35 Joint Programme Office and contracts were awarded to Lockheed Martin in the early summer. However, entry into service is not anticipated to be until 2027 and there is a possibility that integration pressures in the programme may incur further delays because of challenges in the wider F-35 programme.”​

 

[randomradio]

It still makes more sense to me for India to add a dozen Rafales to their existing fleet. Than to start with a different platform.

It's military diplomacy at play, ie, India's long standing tradition of balancing relations between powers through military purchases.

 

[Lolwa]

It still makes more sense to me for India to add a dozen Rafales to their existing fleet. Than to start with a different platform.

The IAF and IN are different organisations.