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

What should we select?


  • Total voters
    45

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,960
10,948
India
F22s are not used as standoff jammers.
Anyways it doesn't concern our core debate.

It doesn't, but not using jammers is the point. The F-22 uses stealth. It doesn't carry even an SPJ in fact.

“Our role is to kick down the door,” 1st Fighter Wing commander, Col. Pete Fesler—a veteran F-22 Raptor pilot—told me during a visit to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. “We are, without a doubt, on the leading edge of whatever force you’re going to send because we have an airplane that has a capability that no one else has.”

Kicking the door down is the point of the Growler, but it does it with jamming, not stealth, or even quietly.

Why don't you give some examples to prove your point?? I am waiting.

There are two types of ARMs, once is light enough to be carried inside SAM rings without affecting performance of the aircraft, the other is standoff and is fired from outside the range of SAM rings. The lighter one gives more results hence why fighter jets typically carry such missiles, whereas the bigger and heavier ones are launched like cruise missiles.

Regardless of which missile is carried though, any fighter jet will abandon its payload to escape. The same is difficult with the Growler because its payload is too important, hence why it only performs standoff missions. Almost everything that makes the Growler the Growler is carried in pods. The USAF uses F-16CJ for SEAD/DEAD that involves penetrating SAM rings.

Again I would like some corroborating proofs. Any article or report on the aerodynamic performance of growlers in full load.

Have you ever seen a Growler carrying its payload? The answer will become evident the moment you see a picture.

It all begins with the Russian SAP-518 jammer pod that Moscow supplied with the Su-30MKI. After grappling for years with the pod, the Indian Air Force finally in 2015 realised it simply couldn’t use them for two reasons. One, they were heavy — and when slung onto wingtip hardpoints, they cut into flying envelope like a butcher’s knife.

‘With the Russian pods, the Sukhoi is basically a transport aircraft,’ one of the scientists says.


And that's just with one wing-tip jammer.

I wonder why USN opted for greater cruise speed against all those advantages.

'Cause it was the only available replacement that's cheap and ensured commonality and can be thrown off a carrier. The USN didn't have a choice since they couldn't get funding for a more dedicated aircraft.

With new engines I think it could. Our requirements are not that high anyways as we are supposed to take growlers let us say to Bejeing for a strike mission.

Anyway, I am not talking about Growler for IN, I am talking about Growler for IAF. If IN goes for SH, then the Growler becomes an indispensible part of the strike force, else the SH is useless. But if IN goes for Rafale, then Growlers are not necessary. The point is no matter what engine you put on the Growler, it can't beat a business jet in either speed, payload or endurance, hence becomes an unnecessary option for the IAF.
 

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,506
4,614
It doesn't, but not using jammers is the point. The F-22 uses stealth. It doesn't carry even an SPJ in fact.

“Our role is to kick down the door,” 1st Fighter Wing commander, Col. Pete Fesler—a veteran F-22 Raptor pilot—told me during a visit to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. “We are, without a doubt, on the leading edge of whatever force you’re going to send because we have an airplane that has a capability that no one else has.”

Kicking the door down is the point of the Growler, but it does it with jamming, not stealth, or even quietly.



There are two types of ARMs, once is light enough to be carried inside SAM rings without affecting performance of the aircraft, the other is standoff and is fired from outside the range of SAM rings. The lighter one gives more results hence why fighter jets typically carry such missiles, whereas the bigger and heavier ones are launched like cruise missiles.

Regardless of which missile is carried though, any fighter jet will abandon its payload to escape. The same is difficult with the Growler because its payload is too important, hence why it only performs standoff missions. Almost everything that makes the Growler the Growler is carried in pods. The USAF uses F-16CJ for SEAD/DEAD that involves penetrating SAM rings.



Have you ever seen a Growler carrying its payload? The answer will become evident the moment you see a picture.

It all begins with the Russian SAP-518 jammer pod that Moscow supplied with the Su-30MKI. After grappling for years with the pod, the Indian Air Force finally in 2015 realised it simply couldn’t use them for two reasons. One, they were heavy — and when slung onto wingtip hardpoints, they cut into flying envelope like a butcher’s knife.

‘With the Russian pods, the Sukhoi is basically a transport aircraft,’ one of the scientists says.


And that's just with one wing-tip jammer.



'Cause it was the only available replacement that's cheap and ensured commonality and can be thrown off a carrier. The USN didn't have a choice since they couldn't get funding for a more dedicated aircraft.



Anyway, I am not talking about Growler for IN, I am talking about Growler for IAF. If IN goes for SH, then the Growler becomes an indispensible part of the strike force, else the SH is useless. But if IN goes for Rafale, then Growlers are not necessary. The point is no matter what engine you put on the Growler, it can't beat a business jet in either speed, payload or endurance, hence becomes an unnecessary option for the IAF.

In the Indian Context , Do we really need Planes for SEAD / DEAD missions

I mean if we know their location , why not use a Brahmos SALVO to destroy them
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,960
10,948
India
In the Indian Context , Do we really need Planes for SEAD / DEAD missions

I mean if we know their location , why not use a Brahmos SALVO to destroy them

Of course. SEAD/DEAD is absolutely indespensible, without which an air war cannot be conducted.

Brahmos is useful only against fixed land targets, whereas radars can move away. Brahmos can be used against fixed radar installations. If SEAD/DEAD was as easy as simply firing a Brahmos at it, then nobody would have bothered with SAMs.

Also, Brahmos is far too expensive to be used like that. The Gulf War alone saw the employment of over 2000 HARMs. There was even one instance where more than 250 HARMs were in the air at the same time. So you can imagine how many will be needed against China. Most missiles fired missed because the defenders turn off their radars and move away.

But this is also why a fighter jet that can actually get the job done is much more important, like the Rafale. It can actually go to the radar and kill it with regular bombs. The same with the F-22 or F-35. Which is why the Growler is considered outdated by the US, also why the French rejected USN's Growler assistance in Libya.

The future of SEAD/DEAD is stealth and loitering drones/munitions that can say up in the air for several hours waiting for a radar to turn on, so an aircraft like Growler that can stay in the air for only a few hours, all the while alerting the enemy, becomes useless.
 

Hydra

Senior member
May 19, 2020
2,895
1,378
Mumbai

In the Indian Context , Do we really need Planes for SEAD / DEAD missions

I mean if we know their location , why not use a Brahmos SALVO to destroy them
Definitely we required. Brahmos is not a weapon created by lordshiva or lord brahma. It cannot be used every where, it can be jammed. And in certain scenario we cannot use brahmos even though it is suitable for such mission, balakote strike mission is an example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STEPHEN COHEN

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,528
4,138
74
France
An other approach:
Rafale4.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gautam and Killbot

AbRaj

Senior member
Dec 6, 2017
2,490
1,827
Republic of Wadiya
Area used by an F-18SH: 18.31 * 9;3 = 170.3 m2
One Rafale : 15.3 * 10.9 = 166.8 m2
An open nose Rafale: 14 * 10.9 = 152.6 m2 and the Rafale can be put head to toe.

No it was a joke! Could be an improvment of Rafale done by DRAL for Carrier.
I’ve heard that French navy went for nonfolding wings is to maximise commonality with Airforce and for being less maintainance intensive even at the cost of requiring more space and thus lesser number on board the carrier.
Does folding wings limits weapon load and weapon choice too ?
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
5,296
8,761
Bangalore

At 32:25

The Navy chief indicates that the case for MRCBF is over. The new indigenous development called TEDBF will replace Mig-29k from 2030's.

Closing this thread continue over here:

 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,528
4,138
74
France
I’ve heard that French navy went for nonfolding wings is to maximise commonality with Airforce and for being less maintainance intensive even at the cost of requiring more space and thus lesser number on board the carrier.
Does folding wings limits weapon load and weapon choice too ?
No, but with folding wings you can't go up to 11.5 G (just an exemple)
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,350
1,061
France
Does folding wings limits weapon load and weapon choice too ?
Folding wings add weight and complexity.
Folding wings reduce the strenght of the wings because the composite skin is uncontinuous.
It's why SH18 is not a 9G bird (and even less a 11G one)
nonfolding wings is to maximise commonality with Airforce
It's true.
The search of commonality imposed that the single seater air force "C" model use the forward frame of the "M". If not the "C" would have been lighter than today one, but the C and M more costlier.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,960
10,948
India
On the Vikrant, the lifts are lateral (like those of the Charles-de-Gaulle) and measure 14 x 10 m, it is a little small but planes can overtake on the sea. The nose of the Rafale can overhang the sea by almost 5 m, which makes it possible to put the wings almost in the length of the lift and to keep the wingtips. In addition, one of the two wings can also overtake.

I find it utterly foolish that the IN approved 2 14x10m lifts when the actual dimensions should have been 14x12m and 14x24m for two lifts. They became unbelievably greedy for deck space, and ended up with a carrier that can't even manage something as small as the Rafale.

Also, I think you should worry about the Rafale operating from both carriers instead of just one. If Boeing redesigns the wing of the SH to fit both carriers, then Rafale's going to be in trouble.
 

Hydra

Senior member
May 19, 2020
2,895
1,378
Mumbai
Because they are professionnal, The french decided not to installed folded wings on Rafale. It is on explanation of the superior agility of Rafale versus SH18.
Yeah, a country with immense experience with AC is stupid and designed f18SH with folding wings. And dont talk about french professionalism when comes to AC operations, french people are so professional that their first nuclear Aircraft carrier experienced unparalleled downtimes.
The primary requirements of a naval fighter is its ability to manage space inside an aircraft without compromising its performance. F18 is very good in achieving that, rafale may be an outstanding fighter than f18SH, but as a naval fighter f18SH is one of the best.
 

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
2,662
1,582
India
Btw Rafale & F18,


+ IAF has it, Rafale M even be transfered to IAF once TEDBF is ready.
+ DRAL is already established
+ Ammunition s commonality with Mirages & IAF Rafales.
+ Spares common
+ Training common
+ Freedom to use, probably even wired for nuke use.
+ we already had paid for ISE for IAF version, probably, IN will take advantage of that.
+ Assured usage by France for a long time.

- Expensive
- MLU might cost a bomb
- Expensive bombs & missiles.


With regards to F18

+ Common F414 engine
+ bomb truck
+ Advanced radar
+ Possibility to access massive US inventory in case of emergency
+ Weapons are relatively cheaper
+ Easier integration wrt P8I ASW, Romeo, Drones.
+ Cheaper compared to Rafale M
+ If have to start buying USA fighters, better it's with Navy. Presence of US fighters may make it easier for future Next generation fighter purchase.
+ Geo political support + Quad inter Operability.

- Generation behind Rafale
- US restrictions
- No nuke adoptable
- All new base + training + spares + ammunition making it expensive overall.
 

Chain Smoker

Well-Known member
Mar 2, 2020
725
576
india
Btw Rafale & F18,


+ IAF has it, Rafale M even be transfered to IAF once TEDBF is ready.
+ DRAL is already established
+ Ammunition s commonality with Mirages & IAF Rafales.
+ Spares common
+ Training common
+ Freedom to use, probably even wired for nuke use.
+ we already had paid for ISE for IAF version, probably, IN will take advantage of that.
+ Assured usage by France for a long time.

- Expensive
- MLU might cost a bomb
- Expensive bombs & missiles.


With regards to F18

+ Common F414 engine
+ bomb truck
+ Advanced radar
+ Possibility to access massive US inventory in case of emergency
+ Weapons are relatively cheaper
+ Easier integration wrt P8I ASW, Romeo, Drones.
+ Cheaper compared to Rafale M
+ If have to start buying USA fighters, better it's with Navy. Presence of US fighters may make it easier for future Next generation fighter purchase.
+ Geo political support + Quad inter Operability.

- Generation behind Rafale
- US restrictions
- No nuke adoptable
- All new base + training + spares + ammunition making it expensive overall.
Sorry but US weapons comes with lot of X, Y, Z conditions we don't want such restrictions.
I find it utterly foolish that the IN approved 2 14x10m lifts when the actual dimensions should have been 14x12m and 14x24m for two lifts. They became unbelievably greedy for deck space, and ended up with a carrier that can't even manage something as small as the Rafale.

Also, I think you should worry about the Rafale operating from both carriers instead of just one. If Boeing redesigns the wing of the SH to fit both carriers, then Rafale's going to be in trouble.
Harami Russians most probably bribed the Navy officials.
 

Hydra

Senior member
May 19, 2020
2,895
1,378
Mumbai
Sorry but US weapons comes with lot of X, Y, Z conditions we don't want such restrictions.

Harami Russians most probably bribed the Navy officials.
So, you believe armed forces goes for new purchase whenever they get some bribe? You seriously beleivin that no requirement of new purchases?
Btw Rafale & F18,


+ IAF has it, Rafale M even be transfered to IAF once TEDBF is ready.
+ DRAL is already established
+ Ammunition s commonality with Mirages & IAF Rafales.
+ Spares common
+ Training common
+ Freedom to use, probably even wired for nuke use.
+ we already had paid for ISE for IAF version, probably, IN will take advantage of that.
+ Assured usage by France for a long time.

- Expensive
- MLU might cost a bomb
- Expensive bombs & missiles.


With regards to F18

+ Common F414 engine
+ bomb truck
+ Advanced radar
+ Possibility to access massive US inventory in case of emergency
+ Weapons are relatively cheaper
+ Easier integration wrt P8I ASW, Romeo, Drones.
+ Cheaper compared to Rafale M
+ If have to start buying USA fighters, better it's with Navy. Presence of US fighters may make it easier for future Next generation fighter purchase.
+ Geo political support + Quad inter Operability.

- Generation behind Rafale
- US restrictions
- No nuke adoptable
- All new base + training + spares + ammunition making it expensive overall.
There is a slight possibility of F35 too, mostly B version.