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

What should we select?


  • Total voters
    49

Amarante

Well-Known member
Jun 22, 2021
422
372
La Défense, France
I am curious to know with what logistical means they came.
And why 2 planes (France sent only one, i think)?
edit: …and, on board, how many hours to change an engine :devilish: ?
 

Hydra

Senior member
May 19, 2020
3,048
1,448
Mumbai
I am curious to know with what logistical means they came.
And why 2 planes (France sent only one, i think)?
IN shoul go with FA18 SH. The immediate benefit will be ultra long range antiship missiles, AIM260 AAM & ling term benefit will be the probability of IN getting F35 in future also ensured.
 

Amarante

Well-Known member
Jun 22, 2021
422
372
La Défense, France
IN shoul go with FA18 SH. The immediate benefit will be ultra long range antiship missiles, AIM260 AAM & ling term benefit will be the probability of IN getting F35 in future also ensured.
…and if they don’t want your planes to take off, they won’t (ask egyptians, uae).
And no ToT.
 

Hydra

Senior member
May 19, 2020
3,048
1,448
Mumbai

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
I am curious to know with what logistical means they came.
And why 2 planes (France sent only one, i think)?
edit: …and, on board, how many hours to change an engine :devilish: ?

The same as the Rafale even with the old engine.

Engine change is done in under 30 minutes, interchangeable left and right engine installation. No need for a functional check flight after engine change.

I'd actually say, being a new engine, the new F414's logistics and maintenance are far superior to the M88.

Also, no ToT is expected from this deal. ToT is only expected from production deals like MRFA, P-75I etc. But we are expecting F414 ToT for LCA, TEDBF and AMCA, so there's engine commonality here.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,596
4,213
74
France
The same as the Rafale even with the old engine.

Engine change is done in under 30 minutes, interchangeable left and right engine installation. No need for a functional check flight after engine change.

I'd actually say, being a new engine, the new F414's logistics and maintenance are far superior to the M88.

Also, no ToT is expected from this deal. ToT is only expected from production deals like MRFA, P-75I etc. But we are expecting F414 ToT for LCA, TEDBF and AMCA, so there's engine commonality here.
October 29, 2009 .... MMRCA .... And after
1. Mission systems flight evaluation 2. AESA 3. FLIR 4. EW 5. Weapon delivery 6. Maintenance evaluation 7. Technical evaluation.
It has been eliminated. :)
 

Lolwa

Senior member
Feb 6, 2020
1,672
1,048
Delhi
October 29, 2009 .... MMRCA .... And after
1. Mission systems flight evaluation 2. AESA 3. FLIR 4. EW 5. Weapon delivery 6. Maintenance evaluation 7. Technical evaluation.
It has been eliminated. :)
This case is different. The parameters are different. IAF wanted a hotrod. The Navy doesn't seem to be interested in a hotrod the requirements are different. Also the tedbf changes the preferences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,596
4,213
74
France
This case is different. The parameters are different. IAF wanted a hotrod. The Navy doesn't seem to be interested in a hotrod the requirements are different. Also the tedbf changes the preferences.
I can't think of a single operational requirement that the Rafale can't meet, unlike the Super Hornet, even for the two-seat specification where the Rafale N can be offered.
 

Lolwa

Senior member
Feb 6, 2020
1,672
1,048
Delhi
I can't think of a single operational requirement that the Rafale can't meet, unlike the Super Hornet, even for the two-seat specification where the Rafale N can be offered.
It's not that it can't meet the requirement. It's more about which will be the more practical option for the carrier and naval operations. Rafale made sense for the IAF because they wanted a fighters that can take the nuclear role(which wouldn't happen with american fighters) sanction-proof and that provides superior a2a capability (meteor) with low RCS. The Rafale fits those requirements better than any considering neither the Gripen and typhoon were mature fighters at that time and the f-16 was outdated and compromised while the f-18 was a fat pig which was overall an inferior deal for the IAF.
In case of Navy they want a fighter that fits the lift(literally). From whatever reports the Super-hornet seems to fit easier in the lifts. The Navy already uses american platforms like the p-8i, mh 60 r and predator so fa/18 will be a natural fit here. They are not looking for a supercruising stealthy aircraft. But a reliable proven system that can fit in their carriers and integrate with the rest of the american hardware. The Rafale can do that too but there seems to be too much complications with its non-foldable design.
Who knows we will know the results soon. The superhornet seems stronger in this case. In the mmrca 2 though the Rafale, f15 and Gripen seems to be the strongest contendors. FA/18 won't just fit there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
October 29, 2009 .... MMRCA .... And after
1. Mission systems flight evaluation 2. AESA 3. FLIR 4. EW 5. Weapon delivery 6. Maintenance evaluation 7. Technical evaluation.
It has been eliminated. :)

I can't think of a single operational requirement that the Rafale can't meet, unlike the Super Hornet, even for the two-seat specification where the Rafale N can be offered.

Being shortlisted is the most important factor, not how good the shortlisted jet is compared to its other shortlisted competitors, because it's irrelevant at that point.

But for this deal there are a whole lot of other factors that come into play, it's not merely a jet vs jet competition like MMRCA was. This deal is connected to a lot of secondary benefits, like assistance with the carrier, indigenous UAVs and fighters, ToT for the F414, and so on. The US is more important when it comes to the carrier because they have to supply the EMALS and the main propulsion system.

Unlike with the IAF, all the SH has to do is qualify in the trials, and the deal will go to the US. Boeing also claims the SH is cheaper, so even that works in their favour.

Rafale N is not operational. The initial lease will need to see the supply of M and N right from the get-go, so the IN can't wait for Dassault to take its time when the final decision is expected to be made this year.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,596
4,213
74
France
It's not that it can't meet the requirement. It's more about which will be the more practical option for the carrier and naval operations. Rafale made sense for the IAF because they wanted a fighters that can take the nuclear role(which wouldn't happen with american fighters) sanction-proof and that provides superior a2a capability (meteor) with low RCS. The Rafale fits those requirements better than any considering neither the Gripen and typhoon were mature fighters at that time and the f-16 was outdated and compromised while the f-18 was a fat pig which was overall an inferior deal for the IAF.
In case of Navy they want a fighter that fits the lift(literally). From whatever reports the Super-hornet seems to fit easier in the lifts. The Navy already uses american platforms like the p-8i, mh 60 r and predator so fa/18 will be a natural fit here. They are not looking for a supercruising stealthy aircraft. But a reliable proven system that can fit in their carriers and integrate with the rest of the american hardware. The Rafale can do that too but there seems to be too much complications with its non-foldable design.
Who knows we will know the results soon. The superhornet seems stronger in this case. In the mmrca 2 though the Rafale, f15 and Gripen seems to be the strongest contendors. FA/18 won't just fit there.
The F-18 SH with its wings folded has a wingspan of 9.32m and the Rafale with its missile launchers removed has a wingspan of 9.6m. This is not very different and both aircraft fit in the lift.
But the F-18 SH has a length of 18.31m compared to 15.27m for the Rafale, so you can carry less overall and put less on the deck.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
The F-18 SH with its wings folded has a wingspan of 9.32m and the Rafale with its missile launchers removed has a wingspan of 9.6m. This is not very different and both aircraft fit in the lift.
But the F-18 SH has a length of 18.31m compared to 15.27m for the Rafale, so you can carry less overall and put less on the deck.

The length shouldn't matter on the deck though, since the jets are parked side to side, there's enough clearance. Gotta see how they deal with the hangar, but I don't think a full complement of these jets will be carried on the current carriers. So a mix of Mig-29s and Rafales/SHs for now, and TEDBF later on, with Rafale/SH moving to IAC-2. TEDBF is 1m longer and wider than the Rafale, but folding wings reduce wingspan to 7.6m.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
What is the effective combat range for the Rafale and SH? I am assuming both are better than the Mig-29K?

Yeah, both are hands down better than the Mig-29K. But the real question is payload. Both jets can be fuelled to the brim and can provide their max ranges. Another advantage we have is the ability to be supported from Australia with mid-air refuelling. But there's a possibility that the Rafale may end up carrying less weapons than the SH. And in sea battles, a quantitative weapons advantage is very important. Rafale can carry 1 Exocet, while the SH can carry 2 Harpoons or 4 LRASMs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra