Boeing continuing dialogue with Indian Navy for Super Hornet

[hassamun]

The Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet fits with the needs of the Indian Navy and the U.S. Defence major is keen to go through the route of ``Make in India’’ for building a world-class industrial facility which can produce aircraft like Super Hornet.

Addressing media persons at the Aero India 2017 here, Thom Breckenridge, Vice President, Global Sales – India, Boeing Defence, Space & Security, said that Super Hornet, being offered to Indian Navy, was introduced in 2007 and has a long life span. ""We have given 700 deliveries and to countries other than the U.S. as well. In terms of maintainability and cost it is the lowest and very affordable,"" he added.

The twin-engined plane is capable of meeting all needs of the Indian Navy and the Boeing Company is uniquely placed through its presence in India and Make in India initiative to go ahead with the plan to produce Super Hornet, the Boeing official said without going into specifics about ongoing negotiations with the Indian Navy. Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet is the world’s pre-eminent carrier-capable multirole aircraft. It is a combat proven, supersonic fighter jet with a defined U.S. Navy flight plan to outpace threats into the 2040’s.

The Indian Navy last month issued a request for information (RFI) to global makers seeking a 57 'Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters' (MRCBFs) to augment its operational capability. Navy has already ordered 45 of the twin-engined MiG 29-K from Russia, some of which have arrived and inducted. The need for additional 57 aircraft came at a time when the naval variant of the Light Combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas could have met the requirement of the Navy.

""Boeing is prepared to bring its global scale and supply chain, its best-in-industry precision manufacturing processes, as well as the company’s experience designing and optimizing aerospace production facilities to bear in expanding India’s aerospace ecosystem and helping to realize the Make in India vision,"" Breckenridge said.

Super Hornet is the most advanced aircraft of its kind in operation today with designed-in stealth, an AESA radar and more highly integrated mission systems than any other aircraft. It is a modern fighter that can match and tackle tomorrow's threats. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is a supersonic, all weather multirole fighter jet that is capable of landing and taking off from an aircraft carrier. Mr. Breckenridge said that Boeing would continue its dialogue with the Indian Navy and the advanced versions of Super Hornet with enhanced engine performance could prove to be the aircraft which the Navy asked for.

http://theindiasaga.com/saga-corner/boeing-continuing-dialogue-with-indian-navy-for-super-hornet

 

[YeBeWarned]

i think India will push forward with Tejas and if not than Rafale for Navy ..

 

[El Sidd]

i think India will push forward with Tejas and if not than Rafale for Navy ..

That should be obvious and logically considering India boast a well thought out plan for an indigenous sixth generation aircraft.

But recently they decided for F16 manufacturing and now this.

You know what they say about milking cows.

 

[YeBeWarned]

That should be obvious and logically considering India boast a well thought out plan for an indigenous sixth generation aircraft.

But recently they decided for F16 manufacturing and now this.

You know what they say about milking cows.

but India does not have history of putting their leverage into Uncle sam basket , if they are buy F-16 Assembly Line , i wonder why would they buy another US product which later can put them into trouble .. US does this with all his allies ..

 

[StraightShooter]

but India does not have history of putting their leverage into Uncle sam basket , if they are buy F-16 Assembly Line , i wonder why would they buy another US product which later can put them into trouble .. US does this with all his allies ..

India may opt for F-18s if US shares EMALS tech else RAFALEs would be favorites.

 

[El Sidd]

but India does not have history of putting their leverage into Uncle sam basket , if they are buy F-16 Assembly Line , i wonder why would they buy another US product which later can put them into trouble .. US does this with all his allies ..

I don't know.
Maybe a messy Russian divorce.
Maybe now Indian economy allows them to buy finished products.
Maybe it feels threatened and want to move to mass production.

Or maybe just its the case of all in or all out.

 

[YeBeWarned]

India may opt for F-18s if US shares EMALS tech else RAFALEs would be favorites.

US is always sassy about Transferring Tech's , even to their closest Allies .. but i think i'd be best if India will wait and see how F-16 assembly goes on, and what tech they got from there. than opt for F-18's, but i will say go For Rafale for Navy as well , with both Air force and navy going for same Fighter , it will be less logistical nightmare . and spare parts will be easier to get

 

[Rollno21]

That should be obvious and logically considering India boast a well thought out plan for an indigenous sixth generation aircraft.

But recently they decided for F16 manufacturing and now this.

You know what they say about milking cows.

When did India decide for F-16.
We will never go for things which has strings attached.

 

[El Sidd]

When did India decide for F-16.
We will never go for things which has strings attached.

Saw the news about the assembly line.

Every foreign deal comes with strings attached fyi

 

[Rollno21]

Saw the news about the assembly line.

Every foreign deal comes with strings attached fyi

They can have agreements with private entities ,what matters is it's not with IAF or govt ,who matter and decide

 

[YeBeWarned]

I don't know.
Maybe a messy Russian divorce.
Maybe now Indian economy allows them to buy finished products.
Maybe it feels threatened and want to move to mass production.

Or maybe just its the case of all in or all out.

I don't see Russian divorce anytime soon, India will get nothing from buying of the shelf actually if they did than i would call them stupid unless there is something i don't know about..
India has much larger fleet to be replaced soon, buying assembly of fighter sound sensible but , the timeline is a bit late as what i think, if this deal would have done 5 years ago, it would have far better .. first Indian F-16 wont roll out post 2025 + .. and after 5 years of fully integrating a fighter jet, learning and making strategies and training pilots, the Air frame will go obsolete .. after 2025, i think even PAF will start looking for a option to replace oldest F-16's ..
those F-18's if is some part of Modi trump Bargain than its another story

 

[StraightShooter]

i think India will push forward with Tejas and if not than Rafale for Navy ..

Indian Navy has already rejected Tejas. They are only interested in RAFALEs or F-18s.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Indian Navy has already rejected Tejas. They are only interested in RAFALEs or F-18s.

really ? but why ?
than i would say go for Rafale .. best bang for the buck , and also i love that plane

 

[StraightShooter]

really ? but why ?
than i would say go for Rafale .. best bang for the buck , and also i love that plane

View: Navy's rejection of Tejas is a lesson, failure of DRDO
IANS|
Updated: Feb 08, 2017, 08.08 PM IST

The navy had initiated a study for examining the feasibility of adapting the LCA to shipborne use. While confirming feasibility, the study had revealed some major problem areas, which included lack of engine thrust, requirement of an arrester hook and stronger undercarriage, and need for cockpit/fuselage re-design before the LCA could attempt carrier operations.
By Admiral Arun Prakash (retd.)

The peremptory rejection of the shipborne variant of the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) by the Indian Navy seems to have surprised most navy-watching analysts. Their confusion has been compounded by the near-simultaneous issuance of a global request for information (RFI) for procurement of "57 multirole fighters for its aircraft carriers" by Naval HQ.

One can deduce two compelling reasons for this, seemingly, radical volte face by the only service which has shown unswerving commitment to indigenisation (lately labelled 'Make in India') for the past six decades.

Firstly, by exercising a foreclosure option, the navy has administered a well-deserved and stinging rebuke to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for its lethargic and inept performance that has again disappointed our military. The second reason arises from the navy's desperate hurry to freeze the specifications of its second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-2). The choice of configuration, size and propulsion of a carrier has a direct linkage with the type of aircraft that will operate from it. This constitutes a "chicken and egg" conundrum -- should one freeze the carrier design first or choose the aircraft first? The Indian Navy has obviously decided the latter.

The IAC-2 will enter service in the next decade, at a juncture where a balance-of-power struggle is likely to be underway in this part of the world -- with China and India as the main players. It is only a matter of time before China's carrier task-forces, led by the ex-Russian carrier Liaoning and her successors, follow its nuclear submarines into the Indian Ocean. Since the Indian response to such intimidation will need to be equally robust, the decisions relating to the design and capabilities of IAC-2 (and sisters) assume strategic dimensions. Essentially, there are three options for selection of aircraft for the IAC-2.

* Conventional take-off and landing types like the US F/A-18 Super Hornet and French Rafale-M that would require a steam catapult for launch and arrester-wires for recovery. The relatively large ship would need either a steam or nuclear plant for propulsion.

* Types like the Russian Sukhoi-33 and MiG-29K would require only a ski-jump for take-off and arrester-wires for landing. This would mean a smaller ship, driven either by gas turbines or diesel engines. The LCA (Navy) could have been a contender in this category.

* The F-35B Lightning II version of the US Joint Strike Fighter, capable of vectored-thrust, would require only a ski-jump for take-off, but no arrester wires since it can land vertically. This would result in the simplest and cheapest ship; a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) carrier.

Once the navy has selected an aircraft, the ship and its operating and maintenance facilities can be designed around it, avoiding some of the pitfalls encountered on IAC-1.

Reverting to the LCA saga -- as far back as the early 1990s, the navy had initiated a study for examining the feasibility of adapting the LCA to shipborne use. While confirming feasibility, the study had revealed some major problem areas, which included lack of engine thrust, requirement of an arrester hook and stronger undercarriage, and need for cockpit/fuselage re-design before the LCA could attempt carrier operations. Undaunted, the navy re-affirmed its faith in the programme by contributing over Rs 400 crore as well as engineers and test pilots to the project.

The IAF accepted the Tejas into service, in July 2016, with considerable reservations because it had not been cleared for full operational exploitation and fell short of many qualitative requirements. The prototype LCA (Navy) had rolled out six years earlier, in July 2010, raising great hopes. However, it is obvious that the DRDO failed to address the problems listed above with any urgency, leading to ultimate rejection of this ambitious project.

By its failure to deliver on the LCA (Navy), the DRDO has let down its most steadfast supporter amongst the armed forces -- the Indian Navy. A little introspection by those at the helm of this organisation would reveal to them three reasons for its abysmal performance despite a wealth of talent and a network of sophisticated laboratories -- an exaggerated opinion of their capabilities; a lack of intellectual honesty in denying obvious failures and an unwillingness to seek external help when required.

Today, India has the ignominious distinction of being the world's biggest importer of military hardware, whereas China counts amongst the world's leading arms exporters and its aeronautical establishment has delivered aircraft ranging from UAVs to 5th generation fighters, helicopters and transports to the PLA.

While one would be justified in blaming the scientists and bureaucrats responsible for defence research and production, the root cause of this colossal failure lies in political indifference and the inability to provide vision and firm guidance to our massive but under-performing military-industrial complex.

(Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd) is a former chief of the Indian Navy. The article is in special arrangement with South Asia Monitor/www.southasiamonitor.org)

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...sson-failure-of-drdo/articleshow/57034043.cms

 

[YeBeWarned]

View: Navy's rejection of Tejas is a lesson, failure of DRDO
IANS|
Updated: Feb 08, 2017, 08.08 PM IST

The navy had initiated a study for examining the feasibility of adapting the LCA to shipborne use. While confirming feasibility, the study had revealed some major problem areas, which included lack of engine thrust, requirement of an arrester hook and stronger undercarriage, and need for cockpit/fuselage re-design before the LCA could attempt carrier operations.
By Admiral Arun Prakash (retd.)

The peremptory rejection of the shipborne variant of the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) by the Indian Navy seems to have surprised most navy-watching analysts. Their confusion has been compounded by the near-simultaneous issuance of a global request for information (RFI) for procurement of "57 multirole fighters for its aircraft carriers" by Naval HQ.

One can deduce two compelling reasons for this, seemingly, radical volte face by the only service which has shown unswerving commitment to indigenisation (lately labelled 'Make in India') for the past six decades.

Firstly, by exercising a foreclosure option, the navy has administered a well-deserved and stinging rebuke to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for its lethargic and inept performance that has again disappointed our military. The second reason arises from the navy's desperate hurry to freeze the specifications of its second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-2). The choice of configuration, size and propulsion of a carrier has a direct linkage with the type of aircraft that will operate from it. This constitutes a "chicken and egg" conundrum -- should one freeze the carrier design first or choose the aircraft first? The Indian Navy has obviously decided the latter.

The IAC-2 will enter service in the next decade, at a juncture where a balance-of-power struggle is likely to be underway in this part of the world -- with China and India as the main players. It is only a matter of time before China's carrier task-forces, led by the ex-Russian carrier Liaoning and her successors, follow its nuclear submarines into the Indian Ocean. Since the Indian response to such intimidation will need to be equally robust, the decisions relating to the design and capabilities of IAC-2 (and sisters) assume strategic dimensions. Essentially, there are three options for selection of aircraft for the IAC-2.

* Conventional take-off and landing types like the US F/A-18 Super Hornet and French Rafale-M that would require a steam catapult for launch and arrester-wires for recovery. The relatively large ship would need either a steam or nuclear plant for propulsion.

* Types like the Russian Sukhoi-33 and MiG-29K would require only a ski-jump for take-off and arrester-wires for landing. This would mean a smaller ship, driven either by gas turbines or diesel engines. The LCA (Navy) could have been a contender in this category.

* The F-35B Lightning II version of the US Joint Strike Fighter, capable of vectored-thrust, would require only a ski-jump for take-off, but no arrester wires since it can land vertically. This would result in the simplest and cheapest ship; a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) carrier.

Once the navy has selected an aircraft, the ship and its operating and maintenance facilities can be designed around it, avoiding some of the pitfalls encountered on IAC-1.

Reverting to the LCA saga -- as far back as the early 1990s, the navy had initiated a study for examining the feasibility of adapting the LCA to shipborne use. While confirming feasibility, the study had revealed some major problem areas, which included lack of engine thrust, requirement of an arrester hook and stronger undercarriage, and need for cockpit/fuselage re-design before the LCA could attempt carrier operations. Undaunted, the navy re-affirmed its faith in the programme by contributing over Rs 400 crore as well as engineers and test pilots to the project.

The IAF accepted the Tejas into service, in July 2016, with considerable reservations because it had not been cleared for full operational exploitation and fell short of many qualitative requirements. The prototype LCA (Navy) had rolled out six years earlier, in July 2010, raising great hopes. However, it is obvious that the DRDO failed to address the problems listed above with any urgency, leading to ultimate rejection of this ambitious project.

By its failure to deliver on the LCA (Navy), the DRDO has let down its most steadfast supporter amongst the armed forces -- the Indian Navy. A little introspection by those at the helm of this organisation would reveal to them three reasons for its abysmal performance despite a wealth of talent and a network of sophisticated laboratories -- an exaggerated opinion of their capabilities; a lack of intellectual honesty in denying obvious failures and an unwillingness to seek external help when required.

Today, India has the ignominious distinction of being the world's biggest importer of military hardware, whereas China counts amongst the world's leading arms exporters and its aeronautical establishment has delivered aircraft ranging from UAVs to 5th generation fighters, helicopters and transports to the PLA.

While one would be justified in blaming the scientists and bureaucrats responsible for defence research and production, the root cause of this colossal failure lies in political indifference and the inability to provide vision and firm guidance to our massive but under-performing military-industrial complex.

(Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd) is a former chief of the Indian Navy. The article is in special arrangement with South Asia Monitor/www.southasiamonitor.org)

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...sson-failure-of-drdo/articleshow/57034043.cms

What you think will most likely be selected ? Rafale or F-18 ?