Your recommendation is we should import instead of developing our own industry?
We're already importing. I just want us to develop stuff that can keep up with the times. Otherwise its obsolescence will be used as an excuse to import again & again. We've already developed a carrier-capable NLCA without IN buying any airframes. Placing orders to subsidise the production is one thing, but you're asking IN to place production orders to subsidise R&D! Even the US can't afford to do that.
We aren't a showboard Navy - we need serious fighting capabilities.
Just because IN 'agreed' to go with TEDBF back in 2019 doesn't mean the match is decided. IN is far from being invested into the program in its current form. And as shown, they've already evolved their requirements given how the threat environment + other procurements have progressed since then.
Back in 2019, nobody knew the Chinese will have a catapult carrier in the water by 2024 with navalized stealth aircraft to launch from it. We thought the worst air threat we'd have to contend with in the IOR over the foreseeable future was a Chinese Su-33 copy flying off a ski-jump.
Our threat environment is evolving way too rapidly. We adapt or perish.
By the time a decision is made, the IN will be flush with cash 'cause there won't be any new program by then, just continuation of old ones like NGD, P-75/76/77 etc. So money is not a factor.
With a $10T economy, we will actually be starting a program for a family of supercarriers by then.
So why do you want us to penny-pinch by refitting an old, sub-optimal carrier?
I'd even be okay with building two additional Vikrants (now that the new 310m dock is also nearly ready, it's actually doable) rather than refit the Vikky.
AMCA Mk1 and Mk2 are not different jets, they are the same airframe.
Already went over this with you. As of now, the only AMCA who's design is largely set in stone is the one with F414.
The one that will fly with next-gen engine is a long ways off. There's lots of room for change by then. There's no way our requirement won't evolve over the next 10 years. You've seen how much Tejas Mk2 changed between the 2014 PDR and 2021 CDR - and that's when we were keeping the same engine.
And AMCA's weapons bay is too small for carrier aviation. It's been made specifically for the IAF's needs and the capability is not transferrable. This even includes takeoff and landing performance, made more suitable for the Himalayas.
A navalized AMCA would be intended for CAT-launch. It will compare very well with PLAN J-35 launched from Fujian/004.
And no, the IN needs 40-45 jets per carrier. You can't treat airmen like slaves, they have to spend more time on land than at sea. And Rafale's at 26 because it will be split when used, until IAC-3 comes along. That's why 22 Rafales + 45x3 TEDBFs, not counting jets for the IN's Topgun and testing squadrons. For now, 45x2 TEDBF will be cleared.
22 (+4 shore-based trainers) are the bare minimum needed for a single carrier given the improvement in sustainability of ops compared to MiG-29K (thanks to better engines & an airframe that's actually purpose-built for carrier ops). The Charles de Gaulle usually deploys with 18-26 Rafales under most circumstances.
We wanted 57 MRCBF for the two carriers (Vikrant & Vikky), but cut down to 36 once we determined that we won't bother equipping the Vikky with a new air wing. Further cut to 26 for budgetary reasons, so we can't surge or rotate the numbers like we otherwise could have. 36 was a healthy number for a single Vikrant. So for two Vikrants we need 52 bare minimum or 72 to have a respectable ops tempo.
We could be operating a mixed Rafale + MiG-29K fleet till 2040 (Vikky will be entirely MiGs till it retires, while Vikrant will have Rafales with a few MiGs to fill gaps/act as refuelers).
We only need an off the shelf order of more Rafale-Ms to keep both Vikrant & Vikrant-II full. After that, we only need CATOBAR-optimized fighters.
If TEDBF is junked, considering the next jet will arrive only by 2050-55, the only alternative is to buy 90-150 Rafale Ms. Or of course, the F-35C, if the US is willing to provide sufficient ToT, fat chance.
~2045 more like. Which is by when we need a CAT jet for IAC-3.
AMCA with F414 is expected to deliver by 2036. Assuming we develop the version with 5th gen engine for IAF & IN in parallel, it shouldn't take more than 10 years after that to deliver (less for IAF variant). So by around 2046 we can have a proper 5th gen naval jet entering service. It'll operate alongside Rafale-Ms till it builds up numbers. By 2055 it can fully take over.
Instead of wasting time & money on a production-engineered TEDBF, we can focus on building additional NLCA airframes (even a twin-jet demonstrator if needed) to prove all navalization technologies in the meantime.
I mean, with 200 MRFA Rafales for the IAF and 150 for the IN, for years I had always said India needs 350+ Rafales.
So those are the alternatives today, 200+150 Rafales or 200 Rafales+150 TEDBF. So choose.
I already said what I think about MRFA in previous threads with you.
It's not. A permissible airspace means only fighter jets operate there. In a contested airspace, you gotta deal with IADS.
So an airspace where F-22s and Su-57s are battling for dominance is permissible airspace?
Sheeesh.
- Permissible is where even planes that aren't survivable on their own like AEW & tankers can operate without fear of being shot down.
- Contested is where fighters are battling for air superiority. Your survivable assets i.e. fighters/CCAs can operate here, but so can the enemy's.
- Denied airspace is where anything you fly can be shot down by the enemy due to IADS/hostile air dominance. To turn this into contested airspace, first you need to take out the IADS. After that, your fighters can come in & contest for air dominance.
USAF is actually exploring whether it can use the B-21 for the penetration role cuz it has stealth & range, and it can launch standoff weapons anyway. If this route is taken, NGAD will evolve into a smaller fighter, perhaps closer to F/A-XX in design goals.
Considering our geography, in order to fulfill the penetration mission in future, we might go for something along the lines of that 15m-class CCA powered by HTFE that we talked about. But just like the US, we too will still need a VLO fighter that can handle enemy 5th gens in order to contest the airspace afterwards.
Rafale/TEDBF can't do this job. Only F35 & AMCA can.
The IAF wouldn't be bothering with it if they didn't think it would be effective.
They aren't bothering with it.
It's been nearly a decade since the first order and IAF is just chill. In comparison, the ToT & local production contract for MKI went through just 4 years after the initial off-the-shelf purchase.
So Rafale F5 will carry more electronics than the F-35, like a 360 degree radar, but will have lesser power?
Yep - that's why it'll be handicapped.
It's just like on a submarine. An SSK can have all the same bow, flank & towed array sonars as an SSN. But it can't operate those sensors at the same power state or for as long as an SSN can. Power matters.
A lot of the F-35's electrical power is meant to go into the new electrical cooling system and actuators, not avionics, whereas older jets use conventional cooling systems and hydraulics actuators that do not need as much electricity.
The bulk of the requirement is still for the avionics. Hydraulics don't require power or active cooling all the time - things like DAS & radar do.
Not to mention, hydraulics & mechanicals don't have much of a growth requirement. Only the avionics do - like going from APG-81 to APG-85.
And you are arguing my point, that the IAF should wait until B4 matures. Like almost everything on the F-35 is impressive, but not functional today. It first needs the TR-3 upgrade fully functional by the estimated date of 2026, and then the cooling and engine upgrade by 2029 to actually power all its avionics. And then, the IAF can decide.
LM/PW/Honeywell need to properly prove that the engine can provide sufficient bleed air and that the new cooling systems takes into account upgrades into the 2050s without needing a signficant rebuild before its actual overhaul. So the engine needs 50% more bleed air, and the cooling system needs to be upgradeable up to 80 kW, up from 14 kW today.
The fighter needs more cooling system capacity to keep electronics from overheating, but long-term requirements may entail major changes.
aviationweek.com
Fifteen years ago, however, Lockheed discovered that the cooling system was insufficient, according to a report in May by the Government Accountability Office. Instead of requiring 14 kW of cooling capacity, the Block 3F F-35 demanded up to 32 kW. To close this gap, Lockheed, Pratt and Honeywell adapted the PTMS to siphon twice the amount of air out of the engine as intended, but that has reduced the propulsion system’s longevity and increased repair costs.
The cooling shortfall is widening as the Block 4 upgrade program adds more powerful electronics and sensors. The improvements have increased the requirement for the cooling system to handle up to 47 kW of waste heat. Furthermore, classified upgrades envisioned for the 2030s could drive the requirement up to at least 62 kW—and perhaps as high as 80 kW.
Jumping to a 62-kW capacity system, however, will require more extensive changes, he notes. “If you want to jump to 62 kW of cooling, you’re not able to do it with the current [diameter] of plumbing,” Milas says. “You’ve only got a certain diameter [of tube], so if you want more heat dissipation off of those, you need more fluid to carry the heat and to take it to the heat exchangers.”
The PAO tubes pass through the F-35’s drilled holes in the internal bulkheads and frames. If the diameter of the tubes increases, the holes in each of the bulkheads and frames also would have to be enlarged, Milas says. “We start making the holes bigger—a quarter-inch—but it adds up and makes a big difference from a structural loads [issue],” he added.
Honeywell claims they can get up to 80 kW without such modifications, so they gotta prove that on a real jet first. And remember, this is just for upgrades into the 2030s, not the 2040s and 50s, meaning this upgrade is for already delivered jets. So the IAF will need an entirely new cooling system that will come up later on new build airframes meant for 2030+. By then so many new better options will show up, hell, even a Su-60 capable of penetrating IADS. That's how unrealistic the F-35 is as a MRFA replacement. What we want out of it is still vaporware.
Again, these are long-term issues. IAF doesn't care about the F-35 as a long-term platform. We just need something that can hold the fort against J-20 and J-35 till the time AMCA is fully realized.
The modern Western jets (and even Tejas) are designed to go through 2 or 3 engines over their lifetime. We'd be done with the F-35 as a frontline platform by the time we get to replacing even 1.
We couldn't upgrade our Jaguars with F-125IN like we wanted originally. Are we losing any sleep over it? No, because we don't care about that platform's longevity anymore. It has outlived its usefulness. But most F-35 customers can't afford to look at it that way. We can.
We're kinda like Germany in that regard. We have a long-term capability being worked on (SCAF/AMCA), but the threat environment has gotten worse (war in Europe/Chinese & Pak build-up) so we've determined that the programs we're pursuing right now (Typhoon/Rafale) aren't enough to meet the threat. So we need a stop-gap that can do the best job between now & whenever the long-term capability is delivered.
For both of us, it's the F-35. And for both of us, we can't afford to wait around for future variants to mature cuz our needs are immediate.
One of Vikky's lifts is wide enough for Rafale, the other can only deploy Mig-29K and TEDBF, even LCA. The second lift cannot operate the F-35C or Rafale.
And you want to keep this carrier till 2070.
Very strange, as GaN are far more energy efficient...
GaN is both more efficient, and capable of handling much more power.
If you have a bigger power source, you can take advantage of the efficiency gain + increase power output. But even if you don't have a bigger power source, you can still get the efficiency boost. So GaN makes sense as an upgrade for everyone as long as producing it isn't too expensive.
www.businessinsider.com
www.airandspaceforces.com
www.thehindu.com
