Indian Navy Submitted an RFI to Dassault about the Rafale M Carrier Capable Variant

[Skull and Bones]

F-18 NG FTW.

 

[kaykay]

F-18 NG FTW.

I am all for it if they sell few E-2D advance hawkeye along with it and allow to integrate Brahmos-NG(mini).

 

[kurup]

I understand why he is proposing it- the N-FGFA is surely a far better carrier fighter option than a 4.5++ Gen Rafale-M or F-18SH or a 5th gen F-35C (the only options the IN has for CATOBAR carriers as it stands). With a N-FGFA the IN would have the undisputed king of carrier fighters in their possesion which is worth pondering...

But at the same time Russians does not have the catapult technology .

If the carrier was designed from day one as a STOBAR or CATOBAR or hybrid carrier then it would be relatively hassle free, the problem arises when you try to retrospecticvely modify a carrier to perform a certain capabilty it wasn't orginally designed for

OOps my mistake ..... I meant ,

Converting a conventional fighter to STOBAR fighter would also require modifications .

For all the reasons I have stated- it is expensive, troublesome, challenging and time consuming to do so.

All these are problems because of converting the fighter to CATOBAR right ??

PS : Do you have a BR account ??

 

[sancho]

U skipped my last two line sir

Because I agree to it, but heavier simply does not mean heavier fighters and that's what I tried to point out. For AEW and strike aircrafts catapults will be helpful, for A2A fighters ski-jump is more than enough.

What advantages does a STOBAR fighter will have over a CATOBAR fighter ??

Only that it's somewhat easier to navalise it, from a land based fighter design. Mig 29K from Mig 29SMT, NLCA from LCA, Su33 from Su 27..., while CATOBAR fighters are specifically designed and developed for the catapult launch in first place. That's however would effect us only if we would develop AMCA as a catapult capable fighter, which we sadly don't do.
The point however is, that we shouldn't limit ourselfs to basically US aircrafts only, by going for a dedicated CATOBAR carrier design, or by focusing too much on catapults, when we could get more advantages by combining the best that we alrady have developed on our own, with what we have on offer from east and west.

IAC 2 CATOBAR design: E-2, F18SH, F35C, Rafale M, N-UCAV
IAC 2 Hybrid design: E-2, F18SH, F35C, Rafale M, N-UCAV, N-LCA, Mig 29K, N-FGFA, N-AMCA

 

[Abingdonboy]

But at the same time Russians does not have the catapult technology .

They are said to eb workign on it..

Converting a conventional fighter to STOBAR fighter would also require modifications .

Indeed to deal with the greater loads incurred in an arrested landing. However a CATOBAR fighter would have to have increased strengthening along its airframe to deal with the loads faced in a catapult launch otherwise the catapult could literally rip the plane apart. It is simpler and easier to convert a conventional fighter into a STOBAR fighter (see MiG-29K, N-EFT and N-LCA) than a CATOBAR fighter (for which the Russians have zero expereience).

All these are problems because of converting the fighter to CATOBAR right ??

Similar problems but devloping a CATOBAR fighter is inherently more challenging and the fact Russia hasn't prodcued any is testament to this.

PS : Do you have a BR account ??

No bro I don't.

 

[sancho]

.Addtionally, carrier fighters these days are medium class fighters (MiG-29K, F-18, F-35) for ease of operation and maximization of internal and deck storage space. The Su-33 was overlooked by the IN for, largely, this reason (among many) and the F-14 Tomcat was replaced by the smaller (but more all-rounder) F-18- the N-FGFA would be HUGE, about the same size as the Su-33. So the IN needs to weigh the pros and cons and make the decision.

Well it had more to do with the fact, that multi role fighters on the medium class like the F18 and Mig 29K were available, while USN was interested in a new naval heavy class fighter too and the Russias as well as the Chinese go on with heavy class types. Also the deckspace is not much of a problem either, if the fighter has folding wings.

Wingspan:

Rafale M - 10.8m
F18SH (folded) - 9.9m
F35C - 9.1m
N-LCA MK2 - more than 8.2m
Mig 29K - 7.8m
Su33 (folded) - 7.4m
N-T50 (speculated) - 6.4 to 8m


Even the length in the hangar is not that much of a difference to F18SH for example:

Length:
Su33 - 21.1m
N-T50 - 19.8m
F18SH - 18.4m
Mig 29K - 17.3m
F35C - 15.5m
Rafale M - 15.2m
N-LCA MK2 - 14.5m

 

[PARIKRAMA]

@sancho @Abingdonboy

It may be speculation but if EMALS is through for IAC2, few distinct question comes in mind
1. Will US be comfortable with only EMALS or will like to package F35C/F18SH NG and may be E2D? If they offer F35C and E2D, it would clearly mean US having massive confidence on India and India's requirement as pivot of its foreign polcy.(F18 line is getting closed in 2017 so F35C chances are brighter that way.)

2. In case IAC2 turns out to be nuke powered, we are sure to get Russian assistance as was in ATV project for reactor tech. In such a case will US still be comfortable with EMALS package for IACS 2? As such both EMALS and package of F35C/E2D will be accessed by Russians easily (off the radar off course). Such instances may in turn accelerate the FGFA program capabilities also... or u see GE Westinghouse coming as consultant for Nuke reactor for IAC2 project?

3. If IAC2 turns out conventional, with supposedly 65k tonnes, 45-60 F35C birds or may be few more at shore based facility may be procured. In such a case off the shelf all purchased or you feel kit based assembly is possible. For kit based assembly, the F35 program participants may not agree also

4. For IAC3 Will the EMALS and packaged deal still be offered? if true meaning IAC2 and IAC3 both have EMALS and both are say 65k tonnes for easier assumptions, then we will end with almost 90-120 F35C. Then does it not make sense for India to participate in F35 program or off the shelf such a big number is ok?

5. What are the chances for Rafale M for IAC2 and 3? especially bcz if MMRCA is signed then Rafale in India (IAF and IN) would be massive in numbers - 126+63+45~60 -- almost reaching 250 (considering just IAC2). The commonality would help India a lot for sure and may be HAL may produce Rafale M too.. or you see at least 1 carrier with Rafale M (may be IAC 3)

6. For such a packaged deal, along with AMCA, LCA MK2, FGFA and perhaps the super sukhoi MKI (whole fleet) will finance become an issue over time?

7. Will any packaged deal with US involve some dove tailing in terms of India's independent foreign policy?

 

[The_Sidewinder]

Is it possible to create an aircraft carrier like the one in avengers?...if so then how many years we will have to wait?

yeah it is possible. All you need is a good animation software. lol

On a serious note: 50 years maybe. But with technological breakthroughs can happen quite earlier.

 

[sancho]

First of all, IN plans 3 carriers:

INS Vikramaditya
INS Vikrant (IAC1)
INS Vishal (IAC2)

So that limits the requirement for IAC 2, not to mention that the ammount of fighters will be just around 40 + helicopters and AEW or other aircrafts. So including reserve / training fighters, it might be a total of 60 fighters and that not necessarily of a single type. So surely no license production or assembly possible, unless we already have a production line of course (Rafale, FGFA, AMCA).

1. Will US be comfortable with only EMALS or will like to package F35C/F18SH NG and may be E2D?

IMO yes, currently the US is the only one that can offer us EMALS and proper AEW aircrafts, so they will exploit that chance, to fix a minumum sale of US fighters too, the same way as the Russians did, when they gave us the carrier for free, but only in combination with Migs. The question is only if they insist on the F35C or if we can compromise on the Silent Hornet, which helps Boeing to keep their prodction line open for some time and might even offer the chance to fund or implement upgrades, that are interesting for the USN. E-2D is on offer, but surely with the US radar system, which is bad for us, once because it makes us dependent on them in operational terms, but also since we already developed own radar systems, which makes a DRDO AWACS the better solution for us.

2. In case IAC2 turns out to be nuke powered, we are sure to get Russian assistance as was in ATV project for reactor tech. In such a case will US still be comfortable with EMALS package for IACS 2?

We don't have to go to the Russians, but can go to the French too if needed and given the problems the French had with their nuclear propulsion, we should get any infos from them and think twice if we make our most capable carrier, dependent on an experimental propulsion.
Besides that, it's no issue to mix things from different origins. IAC1 will also have US engines and Russian aircrafts or weapons and since they have no direct relation to each other, that's not an issue.

5. What are the chances for Rafale M for IAC2

As I said at the begining, the chances are low, once because of the possible catapult + fighters link, secondly, because we might add an own stealth fighter, be it N-FGFA or N-AMCA, but also because of the problems the Rafale M itself offers (fixed wings, only single seater available, too expensive to be used in secondary roles like the F18SH will be in the USN).