To day nothing is better than a Rafale to take off from an aircraft carrier and it will be the same in 2040.
Same goes for TEDBF.
The design offers marginal improvements over Rafale, but nothing that cannot be surpassed by a re-engined future F5/F6.
Another reason why I think its a pointless program and most likely will not be funded through. Especially as IAF didn't show interest in the land-based version (ORCA).
My point is even Boeing doesn't think the SH will even meet requirements to get shortlisted, let alone compete with the Rafale.
I'm hoping TEDBF matches or beats it in terms of avionics, even if it will fall short elsewhere due to the folded wings.
TEDBF is navy-specific. It's riding on LCA Mk2 and AMCA, so it will be affordable even in small numbers. Plus it will get funded, we don't have a real alternative. But if it fails...
TEDBF is not expected to match F6. For a production standard between 2035 and 2040, it will be good enough to match the F5.
But we have two advantages the French lack. The first is the TEDBF's bigger airframe and superior engine which allows for lower design restrictions and twice the electrical power respectively. And the second is MRFA will help us further develop Rafale's electronics together with France for MLUs.
Back in 2002, our scientists didn't even have a clear idea about what 5th gen was, but now they already possess the tech. So there's no way to tell how much further they can go in the next 20 years. From being nowhere in 2002, we are now only slightly behind France in 2022, at least in terms of hardware.
Another important factor is we don't really know how far the Fourth Industrial Revolution will take us.
I don't see the point in pursuing the program instead of a follow-on order for a future upgraded version of whichever jet wins MRCBF. Especially given the quantities we'll need, it makes even less sense.
If we were talking about N-AMCA it would've been a different matter but that isn't happening.
Plus, Vikrant will be our last STOBAR carrier. So even the need for a jet that's design-optimized for STOBAR (one of TEDBF's selling points) will dissipate after Vikrant.
Rafale F3 version itself impossible task for us, It will be a miracle if TEDBF managed to do what today's Gripen NG is capable of doing in terms of EW, Data fusion etc. Being a twin engine fighter, TEDBF will be better with pay load.
They are different aircraft, with different specs. As is the F-16. It depends what you want to do. But all 3 and the rafale will be obsolete in the 2030's as a day one fighter against china.
If it were me, I ll would increase production from HAL to 30 / year.
Mk1A - 3 years + ( 36 Rafale F4 + 26 Rafale M direct purchase )
Mk2 - 5 years
Tedbf + orca - 5+ years
Amca - by L & T
-----------
Seems to me, delaying Mk2 is just to extend the validity of Mmrca import.
Based on what I've heard, it was the navy's decision to go after TEDBF. It's meant to be a stepping stone for ADA to design a more definitive naval twin-engine aircraft for the future, while fulfilling immediate requirements indigenously.
Vikrant will be around until 2070, so TEDBF will be necessary until then. Considering a life of 30+ years, 2035 to 2070 is just that. It will be around for 15 years on Vikram and the full 30+ years on Vikrant.
DARE's tech today is sitting between F3 and F4. You will see it being introduced on LCA prototypes in 2 years. Plus it will be an evolving platform like Rafale, so new capabilities will be introduced during production.
Being a smaller and older design, it cannot carry everything the Rafale can. But at least it has a faster roadmap for drones. So LCA will be developed with 6th gen tech very early on.
LCA Mk2 is expected to be as advanced as Gripen E, if not more. And the LCAs larger order will allow for a faster transition towards next gen tech.
And a F-14 beats 2 Su-57 !!
Tom Cruise can beat even the NGAD while paragliding.
Doesn't matter. Guess I gotta spell it out. The point I'm making is Boeing doesn't think the SH is good enough to compete with the Rafale, hence the switch over to a more advanced F-15EX to stand a chance, even if it's more expensive and less likely to win on price point.
Depends on the avionics. Rafale has a known comprehensive roadmap all the way up to 2045. So that would enable it to be even somewhat relevant until the 2060s, and we know for sure it's gonna go beyond that. The question is whether the Teens have a roadmap beyond 2030-35. The SH and F-16 definitely do not. Maybe the F-15 does, but the airframe is already outdated from the get-go.
Are you clueless about the recent competitions, where SH and Rafale both lost
You can believe that if you want to. I know France has to. Those that can will move to 5th gen
?
Irrelevant. Can't win competitions where the winner is decided beforehand. It's king like the SH vs Rafale contest in India, where the IN seems to be favouring the SH due to its secondary benefits. The only way for the Rafale to win is if demonstrates extraordinary capabilities that make those secondary American benefits irrelevant. Small air forces need those secondary benefits.
France seems to have decided to push FCAS to 2050. And it's not a done deal yet, so it could even take up to 2055 to see the serial deliveries of the completed version. This works for India because it means France will spend more on the Rafale until then.
Yes... yes he is. This is same guy that says the J-20 is better in AG than the F-35 and when called out he says General Hostage said it not him. He doesn't post the link because he knows he didn't say it the way he is presenting it here.
The Super hornet was put against the Rafale in several comps. 3 that finalised this year. So it's a ridiculous thing to say that " Boeing doesn't think the SH is good enough to compete with the Rafale, hence the switch over to a more advanced F-15EX to stand a chance"
The only one I know where the Rafale won was India and then that was downgraded to a token 36 planes and a comp started again for India. India thinks that much of the Rafale, that they are looking to introduce the Super hornet as another platform for marine.
They really need to move to a 5th gen as soon as they can. late 2030's may even be too late. 2050's is just a ridiculous proposition. If India wants to be a first tier air force.
Last edited:
That's what Boeing is banking on. They are hoping that the f-15's raw performance will outdo whatever the Rafale's offer. This seems similar to the Korean deal where the f-15's snatched the deal from typhoons and Rafale's that were competing. The superhornet is inferior to Rafale as an air force plane. It can't supercruise neither it has the meteor. The RCS is pretty much similar. The superhornet is a fat slow plane. That is it really. The IAF requires a hot rod which can do multirole missions equally well. That's why the f-15EX, typhoon tranche 4 and Rafale seem to be top contendors right now.
The IN requires a reliable system that can integrate with the rest of the american systems like P-8 and predator. The superhornet does that job better. The Rafale could do it too but still there will be some differences in integration for those systems.
the superhornet doesn't really fill the requirements of the IAF well.
You can believe that if you want to. Both are better than the Rafale in my opinion. The meteor may be a valid point, but it is a one way link on the Rafale. also most of the users still run 120c or similar as well. the US has for the super hornet, long range 120D and the new 260 will be in 2014. A 200km mach 5 missile
Last edited: