To be true, SH F-18 was better suited for IN as it is very well connected to P-8I and MH-60R Heloes plus soon to be acquired Drones from USA.
I remember when the f-16 and fa-18 was dumped in the comp. The air chief at the time said in an interview..They had better radar and weapons, but someone had to go. it stuck in my head at the time, because i didn't think the F-16 was that much better than the eurofighter radar.
I have also said on this site, when I said the Rafale. I said 'even though the FA-18 is a better aircraft'. As an Aussie who is going to block lll and keeping them and the Growler to 2035..I'm a bit of a fan.
However The Rafale/FA-18 isn't as much of a separation to that of the Rafale/F-35.
However the navy said both platforms fulfilled their needs. I think it doesn't have to be the best, if it does the job.
Last edited:
We understand your frustration, mate! Time to let it go. Rafale won, your darling Super Hornet lost. The end
What if our Rafale M and all other American assets(P-8I/MH-60R etc.) are connected with something like B-Net? Does that combo make Rafale better or as comparable to SH?
I was really worried when you and @randomradio said that SH was better for our Navy. I just don't like even the idea of any US fighter in our service. So for me it was Rafale M, all the way.
We are having a conversation here. Haven't you got some clickbait articles to find on the F-35?We understand your frustration, mate! Time to let it go. Rafale won, your darling Super Hornet lost. The end
Do you really think I care that much, or even a little bit? It won't affect Australia whether India has the Rafale or FA-18. the IN navy was happy with either. so am I.
I hope you send an email to Modi and tell him. I'm sure he will value your opinion. Just the other US stuff is ok. The Rafale will be connected to the US stuff and Australian stuff. It is also connected to the NATO stuff. In other ways, the Rafale can't match the FA-18, let it go, it's not that important for your navy.
Last edited:
Earlier Dassault had said that they can develop folding wing version of Rafale M but the cost of development has to be paid by Indian navy LOL
INS Vikrant the lift size is 14 X 10 metre,
F/A-18 E/F wingspan 14 m with AIM-9 on wingtips, but wings folded its 8.3 m, length is 17m,
Rafale M Length: 15.27 m Wingspan: 10.90 m which cannot be folded, how does one fit 0.90 m excess.
There was a theory that each time the Rafale M has to be sent to the Hangar the wingtip missiles have to be removed, the wingtip rails removed then the plane has to be put on the lift, and reverse when brought up, this will take 15-30 minutes per plane, each time,
Based on what you say, Indian Navy values carrying 4 more planes and accept the penalty of 15-30 mins from the plane coming up from the hangar by lift till its ready for take off?
There are two requirements that Indian navy had mentions
a) Plane should have twin seater carrier version F/A-18 F / RAfale ???
b) Folding wings F/A-18 E/F Rafale ???
So, Indian navy has compromised on its own requirements, Was any top Indian navy officer caught in honey trap as before Indian navy has purchased foreign equipment when the officer gone to inspect it was compromised. its nothing new for indian navy ..
A lot can be said about Indian procurement. Even some stuff about Australian procurement. I could only speculate why the specs were changed. They were obviously changed before the comp started, or they just would have got the FA-18.
It still makes sense to me to go with the Rafale because of the existing infrastructure. It really isn't a bad aircraft, but don't tell the French fanboys I tease, I said this. The issue has always been lack of development funds. The sales in the last 5 years, will spread this cost. So it may turn out ok. I remember when they were producing the minimum 11 a year, to keep the doors open.
Hopefully tech transfer goes ahead. Though I saw that the French are buying someone out and it will be 100% French with Indian labour. So I'm not sure where the promised or future tech transfer is going.
Super Hornet + AIM-120D3 combo vs Rafale M + Meteor combo against PLAN J-15 + PL-15 combo.... I am taking Rafale M every single time. Indian Navy made the right choice. Period.
No point in any further discussion since SH is now out for good.
No point in any further discussion since SH is now out for good.
Australian and canadian procurement makes our system looks good. Broken system and too much money to spend. At least we some industry take advantage to future proof.
Thats your opinion, Indian navy is taking plane for Multi role & not A2A missions, I doubt that Indian navy & Chinese navy would have a CBG vs CBG battle, F/A-18 has more powerful engine and hence better thrust, when Rafale shows ability to take off with 1 exocet and 2 MICA, F/A-18 has shown ability to carry 2 Anti shipping missiles and 2 A2A missiles, so purely considering
1. Ski jump take off, the advantage will be to F/A-18 to be able to carry heavier load during take off, abt 15% more without afterburner, abt 23% more with after burner
2. E-18G is one of the only plane that has ability to conduct electronic warfare, Rafale does not have any special plane, it claims that SPECTRA can do EW, but it cannot, those are only sensors for dection not Jammers. So Dassault does not have an EW version which F/A-18 has,
So F/A-18 E/F has many advantages over Rafale, Rafales limitations are well known
yes, but we are hadly getting anything for ToT, even Safran did not help with Kaveri engine which as one of the requirement when buying 36 Rafales was it not?
It's laughable the number of forumers who wake up and start attacking France, now that we have won the MRCBF and that we don't see how we could lose the MRFA. Technically it's impossible, so there remains malevolence and politics. 
The super-hornet was only better because it could be integrated with all kinds of American weapons. The biggest flaw of the super hornet is it's lack of irst. That might have been a bigger decider than I think most people assume. Rafale was a far more complete package as compared to the super hornet even though super hornet is a more mature platform. The super hornet is superior in a2g and DEAD but considering our rafales will carry the rudram the DEAD advantage will go to the rafale. The super hornet is just a more bulky and complex affair for the IN. The growlers would be just additional cost. Plus I feel the rafale m was much more similar to the mig 29k (size, irst) than the super hornet for the navy. And the rafale carry more payload too. Keep in mind the AF version of SH carries 8000-8500 kg of payload. The rafale carries 9-9500 kg of payload. And IN guys said that it was the one that carried the more payload in the trials. The rafale also has 13 hard points as compared to blk3's 11 hard points. The radar and ew capabilities are up for debate though. I would have loved if we bought atleast 2 squadrons of growlers though.
Tbf Canada and Australia are just Anglo-American extensions. They have no other option apart from buying american or british.
It is Indian matter yet we have frenchies poking their noses,
The point remains that lift of INS Vikrant are 14 X 10 and both the Rafale M & F/A-18 E/F are bigger than these, but F/A-18 has folding wings so easily fits in the SAC lifts, but Rafale does not fit, is it not concern? The French say they have won, but these are concerns that the navy should answer/Address. Also it was indian navy which insisted on Twin seater carrier based version and also that the carrier planes have folding wings, so why has indian navy compromised on this requirement.
The point remains that lift of INS Vikrant are 14 X 10 and both the Rafale M & F/A-18 E/F are bigger than these, but F/A-18 has folding wings so easily fits in the SAC lifts, but Rafale does not fit, is it not concern? The French say they have won, but these are concerns that the navy should answer/Address. Also it was indian navy which insisted on Twin seater carrier based version and also that the carrier planes have folding wings, so why has indian navy compromised on this requirement.
It is forbidden to leave weapons on the plane when it is transported in the elevator, the assembly and disassembly of the "wingtype" does not take more time than the assembly and disassembly of the weapons under the wing with their pylon, in the more it is masked time because it is done at the same time by another technician. all this explains the decision of the IN which is much wiser than you.
I wonder why the RAAf has a Dassault aircraft and our navy has Spanish ships? Army has bought some Sth Korean stuff. Just a few examples.
I smell national pride. That's ok, India will become an economic and military powerhouse in the future. Some of our stuff is good. For procurement, I would probably point to Singapore as a good example.
We don't do too bad. This article has us at second in the world for EW/EA
Australia Set To Become One Of The World's Top Aerial Electronic Warfare Powers
Along with Growlers and other capabilities, five Gulfstream jets fitted with the latest electronic warfare and surveillance gear are being ordered by the RAAF.
www.thedrive.com
Your paranoia is showing. I don't see anyone attacking France. Even I said nice things and you know how much you guys annoy me. France doesn't have to be best, to be good.It's laughable the number of forumers who wake up and start attacking France, now that we have won the MRCBF and that we don't see how we could lose the MRFA. Technically it's impossible, so there remains malevolence and politics.