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

[marich01]

The solid rocket motor gives it mach 4+ speed to light up the ramjet. And once ramjet propulsion begins, missile cruises at around mach 2 to mach 3 until it achieves lock-on from its own seeker. Then in the endgame it could increase its burn rate and have again mach 4+ terminal speed.

Meteor and its SFDR propulsion are the current crown jewel of BVR missile technology. That's why every nation is trying to pursue it.

That terminal stage is my point, this is where the throttlable ducted ramjet works, and its best condition of work is circa between mach 2.5-3 range in a certain AoA with a certain burn time. I think (could be wrong though) the end game part has been designed as a separate stage itself where the sdr works, hence a larger NEZ, this NEZ of 50-60km area coverage is solely SFDR powered bit like having a short range AAM for that much area at a throttlable variable speed. Now if you have throttle ability, higher speed at mach 4 is a drawback since your target is max 2-2.5mach and maneuvering rapidly. SFDR works best at upto mach 3, , I get it MBDA has a good mature SD ramjet by now but even then terminal high speed like mach 4 would only harm the missile itself by shortening the burn & reducing NEZ.

What I mean is that, to have an effective BVR engagement, first priority is successfully using the gap between you detecting your adversary & your adversary detecting you. This gap, say several seconds, you can probably use to good effect by having a first stage solid rocket motor at high speed mach 4 that uses speed to gain up on your target enemy. But that high speed again via SFDR stage too seems quite improbable to me. In the latter SFDR stage idea is to have little less but variable speed so the SFDR stage can solely work for higher endgame NEZ part imo.

Sole point being, if your SFDR works efficiently at terminal stage mach 4 then outstanding work at both ramjet tech and materials part, but our studies showed its best performance is in region of mach 2.5-3 to gain a longer burn to sustain a larger NEZ.

Extremely sorry for going overboard mods

But this Hydra claims to be Indian and yet peddles Pakistani propaganda like this:

That made me slightly emotional. Sorry for that.

Hydra is not Indian, i thought you knew that.

Also equally sorry for going offtopic. Last post on SFDR here.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Understandable, as they were breaching OPSEC set by MBDA. MBDA has always called Meteor's official range as 100+ kms. But now the cat is out.

Yes, there is a difference between the performances announced by the French and the Americans or the British. For the Anglo-Saxons, if one day exceptional circumstances have made it possible to surpass the usual performance, then this becomes the performance they proclaim everywhere. For the French the real performance is hidden and the performance displayed is "more than" a relatively weak performance compared to the reality. For example, the range of the SCALP was "more than 300 km" until President Hollande said in a book that it was 560 km, similarly for the METEOR it was "more than 100 km" until the Greeks said it was 200 km. And that doesn't prevent us from hitting the bull's-eye at 250 km, but the probability is lower because the missile will not have the same dynamics at that distance and the doctrine of use will not recommend it.

 

[Rajput Lion]

@Ashwin @Ankit Kumar

Amongst me, @marich01 and @Picdelamirand-oil, we're having a nice discussion on SFDR tech and Meteor. If we would like to further continue this discussion, then where to take this? Kindly guide!

 

[Ankit Kumar]

@Ashwin @Ankit Kumar

Amongst me, @marich01 and @Picdelamirand-oil, we're having a nice discussion on SFDR tech and Meteor. If we would like to further continue this discussion, then where to take this? Kindly guide!

Military Technology

Nation wise military technology threads are there. If some specific nation is missing, one can always create a new thread.

 

[Optimist]

That terminal stage is my point, this is where the throttlable ducted ramjet works,

That is what I think is worth it. Dual stage is of value in the endgame.

 

[randomradio]

IAF is waiting for a clearance from Cabinet so that it can proceed to issue the RFP of MRFA. For wrong or right reasons, IAF is sticking with MRFA, even if it means 114 Rafales in 2030-40.

I don't see anything getting them or MoD or the PMO into their senses.

The IAF is doing it right. Anything else is just patch up. We will lose control to the OEM instead.

I am personally against spending on MRCBF before we sign a follow on P75 or P75I deal.

If we don't get a modern jet at sea within the next few years, we are screwed. Even if we get MRCBF, we will only be a little less screwed.

 

[randomradio]

You make a big deal about the need for two-seater aircraft for training, but the last time I checked, France doesn't have any. And it's the same with F-35.
In fact, if you know how to dock on the carrier with an aircraft, you know how to dock with all the aircraft you are able to fly.
So you can already use your MiG 29 in the training course. In addition, from F4.1 onwards, the Rafale has an automatic function to land on carrier, like the Magic carpet of the F-18 SH. This makes this phase of the flight so easy that I don't see the problem.
For the takeoff it is within the reach of any pilot and besides you have facilities on the ground to practice before going to the aircraft carrier.

It appears the IN is fine with both jets, they probably managed to deal with the arrestor cable issue. Advantage back with SH.

The two-seat is necessary not just for training, but for drone control and battlespace management as well. I'm sure the MN would like the Rafale N operational. Or the alternative is to wait for a time when one seat is enough because the Rafale itself will become independent of a pilot.

I dont know if the decision will take into account costs or if politics will decide the outcome.

 

[randomradio]

He just consider that IN will buy 8 Rafale B as "trainer" because IN asked for trainer. But if I had to decide I would buy 24 Rafale M.

Yeah, it should be 18+8 SH or 26 Rafale M.

 

[marich01]

If we don't get a modern jet at sea within the next few years, we are screwed. Even if we get MRCBF, we will only be a little less screwed.

MMRCA is happening, it is in much more mature stage tha MRFA. Even the companies involved in both tenders said so. My guess is Govt has taken the route of G2G deal for smaller numbers for whatever reason. That is messing up IAF wanting 114 in one go vs Govt wanting to only sign deal of 1/3rd of that. Add with it , IAF wanting F4.1 upgrades early too (and they probably have eyes on other assets which they can't get aka 5th gen). Navy does not have that much problem, their demand is much more refined, already have the IAC available & a choice between 2 options.

In reality china have a real 2 front problem so they are more screwed imo.

 

[randomradio]

Thde IN tender is for 16 single seaters and 8 twin seaters. The trainer word has been used in the context of two seater. One aspect which has been completely overlooked by all the members is that IN needs more inter operatibility between its own assets than with that of IAF. IN has inducted P-8Is and also MH-60 helos and F-18 can just join in the web of these machines.

Yep. It's the American network that we need access to if we are to survive the next 25 years at sea. To me, the SH is a no-brainer decision.

We are already part of CENTRIXS, but we need that fully operational on our air assets, P-8I, Sea Guardians, Romeos and the main fighter jet, and the American satellite ISR network after 2030.

 

[Rajput Lion]

The IAF is doing it right. Anything else is just patch up. We will lose control to the OEM instead.


If we don't get a modern jet at sea within the next few years, we are screwed. Even if we get MRCBF, we will only be a little less screwed.

Which naval jet threatens our Mig-29Ks?? J-15? But if we upgrade our Mig-29Ks with Uttam AESA and Astra 2, they can counter J-15.

So how are we going to get screwed?

 

[randomradio]

MMRCA is happening, it is in much more mature stage tha MRFA. Even the companies involved in both tenders said so. My guess is Govt has taken the route of G2G deal for smaller numbers for whatever reason. That is messing up IAF wanting 114 in one go vs Govt wanting to only sign deal of 1/3rd of that. Add with it , IAF wanting F4.1 upgrades early too (and they probably have eyes on other assets which they can't get aka 5th gen). Navy does not have that much problem, their demand is much more refined, already have the IAC available & a choice between 2 options.

?? MMRCA is MRFA. It's the 114 jet-deal with local production.

In reality china have a real 2 front problem so they are more screwed imo.

They have 5 fronts. Of the 5 fronts, only the Russian front is inactive. I'd actually say 6 fronts if we decide to divide the Russian front into Mongolia-Harbin and Central Asia.

The problem for India is, we are not prepared to deal with 2 enemies on 2 fronts, never mind our third and fourth fronts at sea. But the Chinese are prepared to deal with any enemy across all 5 fronts.

But that wasn't what I was getting at. We need MRCBF because it's really important for us to get fighter jets at sea ASAP, we are running out of time. It's also why the IN is in a hurry. And the SH is the best bet because of American network, weapons and logistics, along with a faster development mandate than the Rafale. Too bad the CFTs failed to make an impact.

 

[randomradio]

Which naval jet threatens our Mig-29Ks?? J-15? But if we upgrade our Mig-29Ks with Uttam AESA and Astra 2, they can counter J-15.

So how are we going to get screwed?

Even if we consider the J-15, the Mig-29 is automatically not in competition with it. Flanker beats Fulcrum, period.

The Chinese carrier expansion is much faster than our ability to buy some carrier jets. So we are not gonna be dealing with just 1 or 2 bigger and better carriers at once. By the time MRCBF is available, the Chinese should be able to bring a lot of capability into the IOR, and we need the MRCBF for deterrence. In case we choose SH, it's possible that it can be used from both carriers, which will allow the IN to phase out the Mig-29 from carriers.

With CATOBAR carriers coming online, the main Chinese jet will be the J-35. The J-15 is only meant for the first 2 STOBAR carriers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1550494960155230214

The Chinese have 2 shipyards capable of building supercarriers, and the Dalian Shipyard says the Type 004 supercarrier is part of their portfolio, alongside Jiangnan. With 2 shipyards, China can drop a supercarrier at sea every 2 years. So, if they start building them soon, by 2035 or so they can easily get themselves 6 supercarriers, apart from the 3 already built. Even if they add only 2 supercarriers, we are screwed, never mind 6. Otoh, the USN can only manage 1 every 5 years today.

 

[marich01]

?? MMRCA is MRFA. It's the 114 jet-deal with local production.

I thought it is the navy deal being discussed, old mmrca got separated from that joint thing to 114 IAF MRFA & 27/57 whatever navy want, deals for some time.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Even if we consider the J-15, the Mig-29 is automatically not in competition with it. Flanker beats Fulcrum, period.

The Chinese carrier expansion is much faster than our ability to buy some carrier jets. So we are not gonna be dealing with just 1 or 2 bigger and better carriers at once. By the time MRCBF is available, the Chinese should be able to bring a lot of capability into the IOR, and we need the MRCBF for deterrence. In case we choose SH, it's possible that it can be used from both carriers, which will allow the IN to phase out the Mig-29 from carriers.

With CATOBAR carriers coming online, the main Chinese jet will be the J-35. The J-15 is only meant for the first 2 STOBAR carriers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1550494960155230214

The Chinese have 2 shipyards capable of building supercarriers, and the Dalian Shipyard says the Type 004 supercarrier is part of their portfolio, alongside Jiangnan. With 2 shipyards, China can drop a supercarrier at sea every 2 years. So, if they start building them soon, by 2035 or so they can easily get themselves 6 supercarriers, apart from the 3 already built. Even if they add only 2 supercarriers, we are screwed, never mind 6. Otoh, the USN can only manage 1 every 5 years today.

Do you think Super Hornet can counter J-31/35? And IAF is there too in case PLAN decides to enter IOR to challenge us.

 

[randomradio]

I thought it is the navy deal being discussed, old mmrca got separated from that joint thing to 114 IAF MRFA & 27/57 whatever navy want, deals for some time.

I was responding to Ankit's post about cancelling MRCBF.

The navy's requirement for modern fighter jets dates back to the IAF's initial MRCA requirement from 2001. They wanted 80 jets back then. Which has since dropped to 72, 57 and now 26. They initially had this big plan of building multiple carriers back then, at least 4.

 

[Optimist]

It doesn't matter that the SH is better. Both aircraft can fulfil the role that India wants.

 

[randomradio]

Do you think Super Hornet can counter J-31/35? And IAF is there too in case PLAN decides to enter IOR to challenge us.

Not without the American ISR network. The Americans are working on a massive space-based network that will remove the need for AWACS, JSTARS etc. It should become operational by 2030. This network is necessary for us to defeat stealth.

At sea, the fighter jets themselves on their own are useless, they need a vast network to actually be useful. So, even though the Rafale is the better jet, it's absolutely useless without being part of a network. The P-8I, Sea Guardian and Romeo are parts of that web, in the future the Triton and a satellite network.

The US won't allow the IN to use the Rafale as part of their network because they have their own rules when it comes to communications. So whatever they have with the French as part of NATO won't apply to us.

 

[john0496]

Why not building your own network ? India has enough ressources to build it on its own. Depending on the US for this is quite critical for India's survavibility, don't you think ?

Example : If the US needs the whole capacity of its network and India has to manage a war with an access to the US network this could be problematic

 

[Sathya]

Yep. It's the American network that we need access to if we are to survive the next 25 years at sea. To me, the SH is a no-brainer decision.

We are already part of CENTRIXS, but we need that fully operational on our air assets, P-8I, Sea Guardians, Romeos and the main fighter jet, and the American satellite ISR network after 2030.

Isn't it like putting Entire Navy in US basket?