Discussion in 'Strategic Forces' started by Kunal Biswas, Feb 3, 2011.
Old by good stuff..
rafael is a medium combat aircraft and has its own limitations in terms of range,operational envelope etc.i seiously think if 40 fighters are urgently required then india should go for fighter bombers like su-34 or su-35 which is technologically and performance wise vastly superior than rafael.
I think anything with super cruise should be chosen, even if the F/A-18 comes with strings attached it still has the largest pay load and ability to super cruise. Although the Su-35 can carry a lot of load it cant Super Cruise which means it cant get there quick enough without expending itself!
The better option would be a supersonic bomber like Tu-160 which has a huge range and excellent carrying capability!
i think su-35 can supercruise as per sukhoi.also tu-160 is a good option but it is not a fighter as required by sfc.also i am not sure its production line is open or not.
An aircraft with 1000 pounders and fuel tanks will not supercruise. The writer makes sense. Rafale has always had the best chance at MRCA and perhaps for SFC too.
I think for a SFC we definitely need an aircraft with low RCS, long range and excellent strike capability. I am not sure which of the mmrca fighters match this best. My money will be between the Rafael and the Eurofighter.
The F-35 strike fighter will probably be best suited for this role. But as observed, Pentagon will never allow a Nuke bombing mission. What I am surprised about is, why not buy a superfast strategic bomber, why look for a fighter at all? Any aircraft on a strategic bombing mission will be carrying mostly A2G hardpoints. Even if it carries A2A hardpoints, it will be too heavily loaded to survive a real dogfight. A stealthy approach to the target site and a fast and stealthy return is the best bet.
I would rather stick with the SU 34. It is new and a bigger aircraft..and more combat load along with more commonality of parts to the largest fleet of aircraft we are going to have.
SU 34 fits the bill perfectly..and the 40 SU 30s already on deputation to the SFC will be freed. And we already have a huge training programme running with the SFC in Sukhoi..so SU 34 will be a wise choice.
x2 the cockpit offers greater comfort to crew for long range strike mission coupled with greater payload,range as you mentioned. Plus "The Su-34 can also fly in TERCOM (Terrain Contour Matching) mode, bypassing unexpected obstacles and streaking through ground air-defense zones"
Su-34 is a great fighter-bomber, but the Rafale has stealth features, has an payload of 9500 kgs on external hardpoints, ability to supercruise, and the French will be using it as their next generation standoff nuke launch platform, it will be carrying ASMP nuclear missile, currently carried by the Mirage 2000Ns and the Super Eterndards, which weighs around 900 kgs.
The 40 MKIs for SFC is still a speculation.
I would like it if SFC uses the same aircraft that has been purchased through the MRCA competition or continue using MKIs if we pick Gripen.
If SFC gets an aircraft that's not in IAF inventory, then the enemy will know for sure what the Su-34 is about to do. It would become a highly vital target for the enemy. So, it's not worth the risk. If we get Su-34s for SFC, then I would like to see some Su-34s in IAF as well.
Also, the SFC will most likely use only 1 nuke per plane. So, the commonality of parts and large payload will make little difference for a nuke carrier.
Get a Growler version of MKI and we won't even need Su-34.
Yes I always wanted a growler version of the SU 30 MKI...but IAF does not want something like that...we need dedicated ECM aircraft...and we also have some and our IAF is tight-lipped about it.
And coming back to Rafale vs Su 34...the SU 34 has a larger payload and is going to be Russia's short range bomber. Its side-by-side seat gives it a good advantage for a better vie...or else the Su 34 will make an awesome ECM platform.
Hmm. Stand off jamming is a great asset. What have you based it on though? Is Israel involved or will it be part of Russia's EW package with SAP 14?
No arguments there. I would still prefer SFC going for a proven platform over an unproven platform. So, only Rafale or SH fit the bill. Perhaps MKI for force commonality. I am expecting SFC will wait till IAF is sure what aircraft they want in the MRCA.
What about US B-1,B-2 or Russian Tu-160,Tu-95? the Su-34 gives you if i'm not mistaken not another logistic nightmare given we have Su-30Mki plus its cheap and more rugged compared to Rafale,the SU-34 can also be used to patrol the Indian Ocean i would say a radius up to Mauritius and up to Malacca Straits
This maybe a dumb question. But given the history of Russian aircrafts and the propensity to crash a lot. why do you guys have so much confidence in purchasing them?
also what do you envision a war being in today's times- for India , where it would need long range capabilities? i.e. I see war's being short and decisive and then all parties pulling back after one has got say 200 miles of the others land tops.
The world will jump in and exert pressure for all parties to disengage. I don't see an Indian flag over Islamabad and vice versa ( including China). I don't see India, Pakistan nor China having that appetite to rule the others country.
If the Rafale is the SFC's choice then I think it is also better to make the MRCA choice as Rafale to make government expenditure easy. I do like Rafale but SFC's choice should be something that is uniform with IAF's choice since it is ill-advised to have a zoo of aerial platforms like how Saudi has.
Well Russian aircrafts crash...and so do American if they are old. anything that flies has to come down and you need to blame it on gravity...be it American, Russian or India...even Alien.
And no one wants to be in more mess...we have enough right now...we just dont want our neighbors to dump garbage into our mess....we already have enough trouble cleaning it.
Is the Rafael not an aircraft that nobody other than France maintains? and that too the company is bankrupt and can't be propped up by French govt anymore? if so, if they don't win this- they are doomed, yeah?
Why risk a one shot pony when you have F 18 out there and you don't really need to spend a lot on a 4th gen aircraft- save the purse for 5th gen purchases? and get that AESA that I keep reading you die hards love a lot
from SFC perspective below things will be widely considered,
2. High Range
3. Super Cruise
Maneuverability is optional.. Rafale, eurofighter are more of fighter birds which serves better in ground support and safeguarding skies...
Su-34 seems to be a better option but am not positive over its stealth design... Any stealth bomber is there comparable to B2 spirit?? What about Pak-DA???
If IAF chooses Rafale, then who are we to argue. Anyway, Rafale isn't what you could call a one shot pony considering it's only been in competitions as an underdog.
It's real test is in the middle east, Brazil and India. Even one of them supporting the platform will give Dassault the much required boost.
The F-18 is the cheapest bet. If US provides decent ToT and a future upgrade path, the SH has great chances of winning this. The AESA is a clincher too. However, if US is not committed to delivering what WE want then there is no point for IAF to go for the deal. A deal with US has a more political inclination than technological. It will merely be a buyer-seller relationship. Same with Russia.
As for your question regarding war. Yes, it will be short and decisive. IAF mainly wants to handle air interdiction and get into chest thumping shooting games with enemy aircraft. They don't want to do CAS or have any interest in assets that can drill holes in the planet(B-52 anyone).
^^^The past few weeks I have read many accounts and articles where US seems to be adding more carrots to the offer.
I agree- at this point it seems- the deal is for the US to lose... thanks for reply.
Separate names with a comma.