Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

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

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by Agent_47, Jan 28, 2017.

  1. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,307
    That's surprisingly long.
     
  2. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,446
    Country Flag:
    India
    yes, even I did not believe it initially. But it seems to be true as this capability was added much later and was not part of initial design.
     
  3. BON PLAN

    BON PLAN Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,960
    Likes Received:
    1,459
    Country Flag:
    France
    Actually 4 or 6 french Rafale M are operating against ISIS from ground base. So it's relevant.

    Your actuel carriers don't have catapult. Not all tomorrow's one. :coffee:
     
  4. BON PLAN

    BON PLAN Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,960
    Likes Received:
    1,459
    Country Flag:
    France
    Is Mig 29 able to buddy refueling? if Yes in what condition (how many fuel on board) ?
     
  5. BON PLAN

    BON PLAN Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,960
    Likes Received:
    1,459
    Country Flag:
    France
    OK then.
     
  6. BON PLAN

    BON PLAN Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,960
    Likes Received:
    1,459
    Country Flag:
    France
    Where have you found that ?
    Why 4 hours? I think it's no more than 20 ou 30 minutes. Just add ventral buddy pod, and 2 or 4 external tanks and it's over.
     
  7. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,307
    If Dassault fails to reduce time, then the Mig-29's refueling capability will compensate for it I suppose. Once IAF gets some dedicated refuelers, IN should get some as well.

    The more I read up on the drawbacks of the Rafale-M, the less inclined I feel we should go for it. Instead IAF can place 1 squadron of Rafale-B/C in INS Baz to make up for the capability gap until such time the IN gets better aircraft.
     
  8. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,307
    We are not buying 57 carrier aircraft for the sake of using 4 or 6 from a land base. So it's completely irrelevant.

    Rafale M will be purchased solely based on its carrier capability.

    Our catobar carrier plan has been pushed back. It is expected in 2040 now. We will most definitely not buy Rafale for a carrier in 2040.

    Until such time, we will probably be stuck with a third Stobar carrier or only assault ships. That's also a reason why the F-35B is more important. We will be able to use it from carriers as well as assault ships.

    F-35B
    Internal (fuel + weapons) = 7.5T
    Internal + external = 12.5T

    Rafale M
    Total payload (fuel + weapons) = 10.5T
     
  9. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,307
    Yeah.

    [​IMG]

    Mig-29K can carry 4600L extra in tanks. That's apart from 5700L internally.
     
    BON PLAN likes this.
  10. Gessler

    Gessler Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,745
    Likes Received:
    9,635
    Country Flag:
    India
    @vstol jockey @randomradio @PARIKRAMA @ranadd @anyone else

    What do you think about the possible requirement of a jet fighter-based electronic warfare/electronic attack aircraft? For either IN or IAF? Like the Growler.

    I would think having high end dedicated EW equipment on a fast, survivable platform has gotta have some advantages?
     
  11. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,307
    A Growler equivalent most definitely has an advantage right now. It is necessary for escorting strike packages, but that's only if we are still using 4th gen jets with little to no stealth. But if the IN decides to go for a full stealth fleet, then we have no use for the Growler.

    Some MKIs will be modified for EA. It won't be a dedicated capability, just an add-on mission specific feature.
    [​IMG]

    Rafale also has little use for such support. The FGFA definitely won't need it.
     
    Gessler likes this.
  12. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,446
    Country Flag:
    India
    On this very thread I posted what I recently wrote to IN. Reproducing it.

    Twin seat MSA-N trainer can be configured with an increase in length of 0.5m ahead of intakes to be a tandem three seat escort AWAC/Jammer with two TCO positions with UHF-Band AESA radar and multiple jammers in its main bay extended downwards and side bays converted to fuel tanks while retaining full sensor package of the fighter design. This is a unique capability being offered by MSA-N as it will be the only aircraft capable of escorting strikes as an AWAC. MSA-AWAC will fly at over 50k height and cover eight times larger swept area per unit time in look down mode with belly mounted UHF-Band AESA radar compared to present generation Deck based AWACs like E2D. The fighters/ships being controlled by this MSA-AWAC can remain completely passive while the MSA-AWAC will transfer the data of targets using data link, SATCOM and Rukmini satellite and provide collaborative targeting. MSA-AWAC will solve the problem of lack of deck based AWACs for Indian Navy and also add unprecedented, unimaginable capabilities which will be unique to Indian Navy. MSA-AWAC will have an unrefuelled endurance of over six hours with CFTs at 200Nm from the formation centre at 50K feet altitude which can be increased to ten hours with one inflight refuelling using buddy refuelling even very close to enemy territory stealthily. Most AWACs suffer reduction in depth of coverage as they need to be kept away at safe distance and out of reach of snap attacks by enemy fighters or land based long range SAMs like S-400/500. They also need dedicated fighter escorts for their own safety which ties down the assets available to strike enemy targets complicating situations for a CBG which has limited air element. MSA-AWAC will not need such escorts and will be able to support missions deep inside enemy territory on its own. MSA-AWAC will be able to easily scoot in & out at Mach-2 speeds flying at over 50K feet altitude. The ability to penetrate deep inside enemy territory without the need of escort fighters will allow MSA-AWAC to be a true force multiplier, unimagined till date by any nation. MSA-N brings us closer to the reality of pocket sized Multi-purpose aircraft carriers combining the capabilities of LPDs with outstanding offensive power, at fraction of the cost of having two separate ships with separate individual capabilities.
     
    Shekhar Singh and Gessler like this.
  13. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,446
    Country Flag:
    India
    Mig-29K had this capability from very first day and it takes just 30mins to attach the D/Ts and Pod.
     
    BON PLAN likes this.
  14. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,667
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    That's a conclusion based on paperspecs MTOW and payload.

    Mig 29K maximum A2A config...
    3 x fuel tanks
    4 x BVR missiles
    2 x WVR missiles

    =>

    Rafale M maximum A2A config...
    3 x supersonic fuel tanks
    6 x BVR missiles
    2 x WVR missiles
    Payload ~ 4.2t
    Result more AAMs


    Mig 29K maximum anti ship config...
    2 x fuel tanks
    2 x anti ship missiles
    2 x BVR missiles
    2 x WVR missiles

    =>

    Rafale M maximum anti ship config...
    2 x subsonic fuel tanks
    3 x anti ship missiles
    4 x BVR missiles
    2 x WVR missiles
    Payload ~ 6.1t
    Result more AAMs and anti ship missiles


    Mig 29K maximum LGB/PGM strike config...
    1 x LPD
    2 x fuel tanks
    2 x KAB 500
    2 x BVR missiles
    2 x WVR missiles

    =>

    Rafale M maximum anti ship config...
    1 x LPD
    3 x subsonic fuel tanks
    6 x AASM 250 or 2 x GBU24
    4 x BVR missiles
    2 x WVR missiles
    Payload ~ 7.4t or 7.7t
    Result more AAMs, more and heavier bombs, longer range


    MTOW and payload, doesn't mean anything for weapon loads, unless you include the number of available weapon stations, their weight limits and the variety of integrated weapons into the comparison!
    And as shown, even if we take a similar payload on paper to account, in reality Rafale can load more weapons and fuel than the Mig. The only problem is the size on the carrier.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2017
    BON PLAN likes this.
  15. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,446
    Country Flag:
    India
    And how about the problem of asymmetry? Can you please include that in your comparison and reply.
     

Share This Page