Rafale will not be split with Navy

[Abingdonboy]

IAC 2 will float somewhere around 2018, we'll need those foreign birds by then. I'm personally in favor for F-18SHs as Mig-29Ks will be on the little outdated side.

Guys, guys we you really need ot stop doing this. You are joining dots together and comparing machines that can't be compared. Your commet that you'd like to see the SH OR the Mig-29K is nonsense as these two machines would never go against each other head-head to be on an IN ACC as the SH is incapable of operating off STOBAR configured ACCs similarly the Mig-29K is incapable of operating off CATOBAR configured ACCs so the decision is significantly down to what configuration the IN goes for on IAC-2. As it is almost certain the IAC-2 will be CATOBAR configured (most likely with EMALS) there is just no way the Mig-29K will see any orders over and above the current 45 the IN has ordered. As such we are looking at F-35C, F-18SH-I, Rafale-M and possibly SeaGripen (SAAB state the SeaGripen can fly off either configuration but as of yet the plane remains in design stages only and it is yet to bee seen if the bird can live up too these tall claims) THAT IS IT.

 

[ARCHON]

F-18 ...is good.

 

[rai_kamal]

I m with Nlca tejas mk-3 and f-35, ofcourse I have no idea of whether mk3 will be ready or not ..!!!????
If it is then its a good idea to use it on iac-2,becaause mig-29K will be very much outdated by 2017 and also we have to operated those iac for 30+ years and f-35 r the best choice...And instead of going for 40 fighters navy can reduce it to 25-30 and nlca mk3 will assist them in any mission...

 

[Tshering22]

I m with Nlca tejas mk-3 and f-35, ofcourse I have no idea of whether mk3 will be ready or not ..!!!????
If it is then its a good idea to use it on iac-2,becaause mig-29K will be very much outdated by 2017 and also we have to operated those iac for 30+ years and f-35 r the best choice...And instead of going for 40 fighters navy can reduce it to 25-30 and nlca mk3 will assist them in any mission...

Are you kidding me?! MiG-29K is a brand new fighter jet. It has state of the art electronics with the option to move to MiG-35 standards; something on which MRCA was conducted. MiG-29K would go easily for another 20 years.

Come on mate, stay upto date with the models will ya?

 

[Ajaxpaul]

Whats with the F-18's ?? It is serving the USN very well. Let it be there.

 

[rai_kamal]

Are you kidding me?! MiG-29K is a brand new fighter jet. It has state of the art electronics with the option to move to MiG-35 standards; something on which MRCA was conducted. MiG-29K would go easily for another 20 years.

Come on mate, stay upto date with the models will ya?

Sure mate..!! And that mig-35 was rejected by iaf.. Also mig-29k r modified version of mig-29..Tell me whether they r capable to handle the chinese j-15 ???

 

[Tshering22]

Sure mate..!! And that mig-35 was rejected by iaf.. Also mig-29k r modified version of mig-29..Tell me whether they r capable to handle the chinese j-15 ???

And do you know the reasons why MiG-35 was rejected? Public domain says all eggs-in-one-basket theory. MiG-29K was custom built for us and is brand new. Even the Russians have dumped the Su-33 (what chinese call J-15). Why do you think they did that?

Why is it that Hornets were chosen for their medium category rather than continue the heavy Tomcats?

See that's the whole reason why K was chosen for Navy. And it is here to stay for another 20 years. Buying weapons isn't buying onions and potatoes that you can buy 10 from this country, 40 from that country, 20 from another nation... no. It is about operational costs, commonality, ease to use and maintain and political constraints.

 

[rai_kamal]

And do you know the reasons why MiG-35 was rejected? Public domain says all eggs-in-one-basket theory. MiG-29K was custom built for us and is brand new. Even the Russians have dumped the Su-33 (what chinese call J-15). Why do you think they did that?

Why is it that Hornets were chosen for their medium category rather than continue the heavy Tomcats?

See that's the whole reason why K was chosen for Navy. And it is here to stay for another 20 years. Buying weapons isn't buying onions and potatoes that you can buy 10 from this country, 40 from that country, 20 from another nation... no. It is about operational costs, commonality, ease to use and maintain and political constraints.

For the above bold, i agree that US gov will come in our way but about the operational and maintainence cost i think the f-35 is a good bet..Also russia's supply chain is very much questionable compare to US...Yes when commonality is the concern then mig-29k will have an edge compare 2 US fighters..But if the order is placed by 2017 then mig-29k needs to be upgraded beyond or at the level of mig-35..otherwise it will be waste of money for navy...

 

[saurabh]

Sure mate..!! And that mig-35 was rejected by iaf.. Also mig-29k r modified version of mig-29..Tell me whether they r capable to handle the chinese j-15 ???

IAF also rejected F-18/16. Doesn't makes them any less potent! IAF has its own requirement, which would not completely overlap with IN's. For example, IN surely would not require any AC to take off from peaks of Kashmir! Whether or not a fighter can handle other is debatable. But Mig 29 is an excellent platform.

 

[rai_kamal]

And do you know the reasons why MiG-35 was rejected? Public domain says all eggs-in-one-basket theory. MiG-29K was custom built for us and is brand new. Even the Russians have dumped the Su-33 (what chinese call J-15). Why do you think they did that?

.

As far as i have heard that, iaf was not happy with the maintenance cost of their migs and we all know that mig r already having problem with their engines...So with the theory and the above point the rejection of migs looks more logical than only the single basket one...

 

[rai_kamal]

IAF also rejected F-18/16. Doesn't makes them any less potent! IAF has its own requirement, which would not completely overlap with IN's. For example, IN surely would not require any AC to take off from peaks of Kashmir! Whether or not a fighter can handle other is debatable. But Mig 29 is an excellent platform.

But mate, f-18 was used by US navy and they had the problems regarding the TOT thats y they were rejected...whereas with migs their operational and maintenance costs r very high, and we all know our probs with our russian mate about the spare parts..

 

[saurabh]

But mate, f-18 was used by US navy and they had the problems regarding the TOT thats y they were rejected...whereas with migs their operational and maintenance costs r very high, and we all know our probs with our russian mate about the spare parts..

How do you know that they were rejected for TOT and not for some other technical point? It was clear in the competition that IAF will evaluate on technical basis only and rest would be handled by MOD. In fact, presence of F teens after technicals would have given us some leverage over euro canards, at least price wise.

 

[rai_kamal]

How do you know that they were rejected for TOT and not for some other technical point? It was clear in the competition that IAF will evaluate on technical basis only and rest would be handled by MOD. In fact, presence of F teens after technicals would have given us some leverage over euro canards, at least price wise.

No doubt that, iaf was evaluating them on tecnical perameters but I have just mentioned the hurdles which would have been there by selecting them...
No doubt f-18 r one of the option available for our navy but considering a complete new generation and tech f-35 will be best choice..

 

[sancho]

As ToT is not an issue here, based on which F-18SH got rejected. And admit it, RBE-2 is inferior to AN/APG-79.

ToT wasn't the only reason, flight performance, less capable EW, no integrated IRST, less range, higher RCS, restriction...and all this could be an issue for IN as well. The radar offers more range, but is inferior in other fields, but that alone won't make it better. If the Silent Hornet upgrades will be developed by the time IN needs these fighters, I do see a chance for it, otherwise it will not be good enough and the F35C might be chosen as a US fighter.

And no, running cost of F-35 won't be staggeringly high

USN estimates the cost of F35C 1.5 times higher than of the current twin engine F18 Hornets it will replace! Single engine in this regard doesn't help much, since maintaing the stealth coatings and advanced systems is very expensive.

 

[saurabh]

No doubt that, iaf was evaluating them on tecnical perameters but I have just mentioned the hurdles which would have been there by selecting them...
No doubt f-18 r one of the option available for our navy but considering a complete new generation and tech f-35 will be best choice..

I was just correcting you for the following:

But mate, f-18 was used by US navy and they had the problems regarding the TOT thats y they were rejected...

Whether or not we would have got the required ToT is irrelevant. They were rejected cause they didn't sit well with IAF's criteria, or at least that is what officially is told.

whereas with migs their operational and maintenance costs r very high, and we all know our probs with our russian mate about the spare parts..

Again, it cannot be determined if the total life cycle cost of migs would exceed that of F35s, or any other possible contender, at least for now. The spare problem existed after the soviet collapse, but it may not be so now. Also, seeing the competition, the Russians should be smart enough to provide better service!

---------- Post added at 12:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 AM ----------

ToT wasn't the only reason, flight performance, less capable EW, no integrated IRST, less range, higher RCS, restriction...

Off topic, you really have a thing against fteens!