Why are you discussing aircrafts for INS Vishal which has just begun construction? It is a new system and is being designed in a modular manner. It will take some time to complete - 2025. Why would anyone order for planes before 2021-2 for it? We don't even know what problems will be encountered while construction etc.
Theoretically yes, but practically you need to operate those fighters in rotation to keep them in service and maintained for the full service life. Not to mention that parts of the 45 will be used at INS Hans for shore based training. So there is no going around more new fighters and Migs doesn't seem to fit INs needs, nor are they catapult capable, which seems to be a "desired" / not officially required capability.
What is your suggestion for the requirements of the current Vikrant & Vikramaditya carrier of India by 2020? Which aircraft should India buy?
It's not about ordering aircrafts for that carrier, but getting access to catapult technology, which the US denied us for IAC1. And with China getting their on their own, it must be the highest priority for IN, to get the US government to approve EMALS to us, if that takes F18SH, that's a necessary step, if there is another way, also good. But we need catapults for the future!
Why do you think we can't make steam catapult on our own if USA is deliberately trying to overcharge India by forcing to buy arbitrary weapons? If possible, research on EMALs in India and make it available for IAC-2 and if not, use steam catapult.
They are mutually exclusive with each other not with SH.
Irrelevant from Indian perspective. Neither can operate from INS Vikrant or INS Vikramaditya. INS Vishal will be designed from the scratch to operate either.
Not exactly a deal maker.
The ones on Rafales exists, have for a long time unlike SH.
No evidence that supports this claim.
Commonality with IAF and local assembly with TOT trumps negligible if any advantages offered by SH. Rafales can customised to carry Indian or third party systems unlike SH. Nuclear role is another such factor.
That depends on the US and if they link EMALS with F18, just as F35 with F16, or how the Russians linked the carrier with Mig 29K and Ka31.
Lol sure, it doesn't matter if the fighter fit on the lift, or if the increased width reduce the number of aircrafts that can be parked at the deck.
Not really, Rafale flight tested CFT prototypes, that wasn't fully integrated and since their capacity was low, they only are useful to add fuel alongside external tanks or in A2A roles. The F18 CFTs offer enough fuel to replace external tanks and therfore free hardpoints and are funded as part of the block 3 upgrade.
=>
Do you have a source that backs up this claim of yours?
Dude don't be a jackass and quote whatever you have replied to in its entirety. It doesn't matter because the AC (INS Vishal) on which these things go will be designed to accommodate them. Do you have a source that says otherwise?
:bs: SH CFTs carry just 3500 pounds or nearly 1500 litres of fuel. No sane navy will shoot them off a carrier without external fuel. Rafale CFTs can/may carry 2300 litres of fuel. Both will have to carry external fuel in order to do anything meaningful. Difference is that Rafale will carry more fuel and has more hard points.
You even get the basics wrong in your denial, because these fighters are meant for Vikramaditya and Vikrant, because the initial plan to develop NLCA was scrapped. Both carriers are suppose to carry a mix of Mig 29K and the new fighter.
No they don't, because that cost includes Growers that are more costly that the standard version, so instead of making speculations, you simply could take the figures Boeing itself gives.
I need 2 source:
For once in your life stop making asinine claims. If you want I can make a list of the aforementioned asinine claims you made in the past few posts but I prefer to spare you the humiliation.
Who the fu*k cares what Boeing says. I am going to listen to buyer which is US Navy. Link I gave you had the detailed road map about SH procurement, number of units to be procured each year and costs.
See, once again you are being a jackass. Passing your own clumsy half assed opinions as facts and crying denial denial when backed into a corner.
F 18 has unparallel reliability. May be it is light weigh to suite the the Indian aircraft carrier.Why not the SU-35?
Fuel Cost Winner: Sukhoi
Range Winner: Sukhoi
Altitude Winner: Sukhoi
Rate of Climb Winner: Sukhoi
Max. Speed Winner: Sukhoi
Takeoff Field Length Winner: Boeing
Landing Field Length Winner: Sukhoi
Thrust per Engine Winner: Boeing
Payload Winner: Sukhoi
F-18 - $55 million. SU-35 $40-$60 million.
The SH have built-in folding wings for carrier operations. Also, Being VP said that the SH can operate from both catapult system to ski-jump system.
Relax. We're having a good academic discussion here. No need for colorful language. Let's just say we agree to disagree.
SH is too big for INS Vikramaditya despite the folding wings, so is Rafale. Wingspan with folded wings is 9.94 meters.
As for the ski jump capability we are yet to see these claims turning into something concrete. Defence industry has a habit of boasting about stuff which doesn't exists. No exceptions.
I welcome academic discussion but not pig headedness. If you loose an argument, don't be a toddler, move on. It happens. This is just an internet forum, nothing more nothing less. Don't waste my time by obnoxiously flinging feces.
=>
https://thediplomat.com/2016/12/indian-navy-rules-out-tejas-fighter-jet-on-new-aircraft-carrier/
https://m.economictimes.com/news/de...2018-indian-navy/amp_articleshow/61884897.cms
The F18SH has folding wings and therfore can reduce it's wingspan slightly below 10m and Boeing reportedly aims on fitting the fighter in an angled way to fit on the lifts.
Anybody that wants official figures without making false calculations, but you don't listen and prefer to make conclusions instead. As I already explained, your "calculation" includes 2 types of costs and that's why you get to a higher price. If you want US government confirmation, you can also Google for MoD budgets, that shows the flyaway costs for standard F18s and Growlers too, but you will see the same result.
India is buying only for IAC-1 and not for IAC-2 as of now. IAC 2 has to be first laid down, then released before planes are ordered and equipments fitted. That will be 2021-22.
The F18 Block 3 is clearly cheaper, and should come between 73 and 78 million USD according to the report I posted before. So when you take the flyaway cost for IAFs Rafales for comparison and add a bit for the costlier naval version, you are at least 20 millions more expensive, most likely more.
