F-18 Advanced Super Hornet

[Maniac@666]

SH was seen as slow moving and less agile than legacy F18.
The agility and climb rate will be big issues in the Swiss contest, because there's a lot of montains, and few time to react.
But you're right, logistically speaking SH is the natural choice after F18. Cheaper? marginally. Specially if disponibility is in the balance.
The choice will be between SH and Rafale I think. EF is out since 2011, F35 is useless in the Swiss context. Not to speak of the agility, climb rate and speed limitations of F35. A communication node (F35) is of no interest in such a country.

Except for the common set of weapons they use and as @Immanuel rightly said that there is already a great relationship and logistics network for decades with Boeing and political backing by US but nothing else is common even though the actual commonality rating is under 30% as we know SH is entirely new plane based on f18, everything other thing would've to be worked ground up.cheaper or not but the last known deal for SH was 1.5 b$ for 28 aircrafts for Kuwait.according to the last leaked swiss evaluation report Rafale won the top spot yet they went with the Gripen 3.2 b$ deal which was later cancelled which it lost by 51% in referendum, Boeing didn't even bid in this tender with there SH blk2.Note: I don't want to sound biased or have anything against Gripen.its an exceptional plane, Gripen E/F more so.SH is good plane too but it was built ground up with keeping Navy in mind unlike Rafale which has different versions for airforce & Navy even though the difference may be minute.numerous times Rafale performed best in tenders but was never selected except in the case of india.politics play's very big part,these tenders are influenced by big companies & countries of these manufacturers, it's never fair and square.

 

[Immanuel]

Except for the common set of weapons they use and as @Immanuel rightly said that there is already a great relationship and logistics network for decades with Boeing and political backing by US but nothing else is common even though the actual commonality rating is under 30% as we know SH is entirely new plane based on f18, everything other thing would've to be worked ground up.cheaper or not but the last known deal for SH was 1.5 b$ for 28 aircrafts for Kuwait.according to the last leaked swiss evaluation report Rafale won the top spot yet they went with the Gripen 3.2 b$ deal which was later cancelled which it lost by 51% in referendum, Boeing didn't even bid in this tender with there SH blk2.Note: I don't want to sound biased or have anything against Gripen.its an exceptional plane, Gripen E/F more so.SH is good plane too but it was built ground up with keeping Navy in mind unlike Rafale which has different versions for airforce & Navy even though the difference may be minute.numerous times Rafale performed best in tenders but was never selected except in the case of india.politics play's very big part,these tenders are influenced by big companies & countries of these manufacturers, it's never fair and square.

SH Block-3 chances for Swiss went up with the German AF now on the verge of ordering 45 brand new block-3s. Swiss pilots were happy with their F-18s, so it's a natural progression going for the F-18 Block-3 for them since it can already deploy all weapons in their arsenal, comes with updated cockpits, datalinks, processors, 9000 hr airframe. SH is proven reliable workhorse, should be a easy choice for them.

 

[Maniac@666]

SH Block-3 chances for Swiss went up with the German AF now on the verge of ordering 45 brand new block-3s. Swiss pilots were happy with their F-18s, so it's a natural progression going for the F-18 Block-3 for them since it can already deploy all weapons in their arsenal, comes with updated cockpits, datalinks, processors, 9000 hr airframe. SH is proven reliable workhorse, should be a easy choice for them.

as you rightly said,there is no doubt that Swiss were extremely happy with their F-18s infact Swiss officials were extremely upset when Boeing opted not to participate in tender.The Swiss Department of Defence (DDPS) regretted the decision of Boeing,since the 33 F/A-18 C/D of the same manufacture have proven to be excellent value in Switzerland were the exact words from the Armasuisse release back in 2008.I've already pointed out the use of existing weapons in previous post.whether it's a easy choice for them is little doubtful because most of the countries who operate older F-18 H have bought it directly through FMS route without any tender or bidding except in couple of cases where Boeing F-18 H participated and won it.many a times Boeing with it's F-18SH has simply refused to participate in tenders citing disparity between the requirements or lack of level playing field.just like other US weapon manufacturers it also tries to influence the tender and sway the decision in it's favor through US Government.it happened with India also but it didn't succumb. if it was so easy,all the other countries who operate older F-18H would have directly upgraded to F-18 SH just like Australia and Kuwait instead of issuing tenders.regarding Germany ordering SH it's all political and technical.it possess B 61 nuclear bombs and Tornado is the only non US aircraft which is integrated to carry it,with it's replacement near,F-18SH was logical choice specially at the time when US with all gun blazing,is having trade wars with each and every other country and with this pandemic happening it will get much worse due to economic recession,so US would happily integrate B 61 bombs on SH rather than non US platforms.it's not impossible but would be hard for Germany to persuade US to integrate on other platforms.Germany which manufactures Typhoon ordering SH Blk-3 itself cast doubts on the performance and claimed multirole capability of Typhoon.why on earth it would order a multlirole aircraft from a competitor when it makes it's own multirole aircraft to replace Tornado, which is a capable ground attack aircraft unless there is capability deficiency and as it turned out Typhoon was not what it was advertised to be.

 

[Immanuel]

as you rightly said,there is no doubt that Swiss were extremely happy with their F-18s infact Swiss officials were extremely upset when Boeing opted not to participate in tender.The Swiss Department of Defence (DDPS) regretted the decision of Boeing,since the 33 F/A-18 C/D of the same manufacture have proven to be excellent value in Switzerland were the exact words from the Armasuisse release back in 2008.I've already pointed out the use of existing weapons in previous post.whether it's a easy choice for them is little doubtful because most of the countries who operate older F-18 H have bought it directly through FMS route without any tender or bidding except in couple of cases where Boeing F-18 H participated and won it.many a times Boeing with it's F-18SH has simply refused to participate in tenders citing disparity between the requirements or lack of level playing field.just like other US weapon manufacturers it also tries to influence the tender and sway the decision in it's favor through US Government.it happened with India also but it didn't succumb. if it was so easy,all the other countries who operate older F-18H would have directly upgraded to F-18 SH just like Australia and Kuwait instead of issuing tenders.regarding Germany ordering SH it's all political and technical.it possess B 61 nuclear bombs and Tornado is the only non US aircraft which is integrated to carry it,with it's replacement near,F-18SH was logical choice specially at the time when US with all gun blazing,is having trade wars with each and every other country and with this pandemic happening it will get much worse due to economic recession,so US would happily integrate B 61 bombs on SH rather than non US platforms.it's not impossible but would be hard for Germany to persuade US to integrate on other platforms.Germany which manufactures Typhoon ordering SH Blk-3 itself cast doubts on the performance and claimed multirole capability of Typhoon.why on earth it would order a multlirole aircraft from a competitor when it makes it's own multirole aircraft to replace Tornado, which is a capable ground attack aircraft unless there is capability deficiency and as it turned out Typhoon was not what it was advertised to be.

Typhoon and Rafale in general have very high running costs, hence majority of the those fleets in EU have availability of around 50% since there is no money to splurge. Sure they can manage 90% availability on a few aircraft during combat or air policing rotations but in regular time, they are mostly sitting sealed up in hangers. Storage Typhoons are often cannibalized for parts.

F-Teens in the EU usually have the higher availability rates and cheaper to operate.

 

[Maniac@666]

Typhoon and Rafale in general have very high running costs, hence majority of the those fleets in EU have availability of around 50% since there is no money to splurge. Sure they can manage 90% availability on a few aircraft during combat or air policing rotations but in regular time, they are mostly sitting sealed up in hangers. Storage Typhoons are often cannibalized for parts.

F-Teens in the EU usually have the higher availability rates and cheaper to operate.

while comparing with F-18SH, Typhoon & Rafale have higher running costs. running costs and aircraft availability rate are completely two different things.aircraft availability rate depends how well you manage your logistics,spare parts stocks and servicing.The problem of aircraft availability within EU is only with those who are operating Typhoon's.other EU members using F-16,F-18H,Gripen and Rafale(France) are having no issues with availability rate. as you said older Typhoon's are being cannibalized for parts but same is not the case for Arab Typhoon users because spare stocks are being redirected to them with priority.this itself shows how much serious they are with Typhoon program.despite being produced in almost same numbers as F-18SH,look at the status of both .how well F-18SH program have been managed and Typhoon's mismanagement.Thank god,India didn't fell for the trap with their revised bid during Rafale negotiation deadlock.as regarding availability rate of Rafale,despite being produced in much lesser numbers than it's competitors it has done a commendable job with acceptable running costs though still higher than F-18SH,never heard Rafale being cannibalized for parts.in Indian Rafale contract Dassault had to sign guarantee for the availability rate of 90%, i am not sure because i can't recall correctly because during Rafale scam nonsense,if you have followed,the airforce had come forward supporting the deal openly had done some press briefings.the then ACM BS Dhanoa sir,AM Raghunath Nambiar sir and AM SPB Sinha sir had given couple of interviews to different news channels.in those interviews one or two of them had said about the availability rate guarantee by Dassault.french member @BON PLAN can help with some statistics.The sheer number of F-Teens itself guarantees availability of spare parts and with US manufacturing there's no comparison.

 

[Maniac@666]

Made mistakes in previous post as rightly pointed by member @Tactical Frog . Dassault hadn't sign the guarantee for 90% availability rate but there was an agreement for 5 year performance based logistics package for €353 million ensuring availability rate of 75% by the manufacturer at all the times.this was the thing the ACM or AM said in the news channel.

 

[Immanuel]

90% availability during peacetime is expensive for any platform.

 

[Maniac@666]

90% availability during peacetime is expensive for any platform.

Absolutely spot on.this type performance based logistics package makes perfect sense especially in the case of our Airforce which has always been plagued with availability rates of various platforms.in my opinion this type of package deal should be made mandatory and even more with HAL making them accountable for ensuring availability rate & quality assurance.

 

[likitadisa]

The Americans aren't offering ANY meaningful ToT/industrial benefits. The French offer is FAR more attractive and the Rafale is the better plane with long road map ahead- the F-18 is dead.

 

[Immanuel]

The Americans aren't offering ANY meaningful ToT/industrial benefits. The French offer is FAR more attractive and the Rafale is the better plane with long road map ahead- the F-18 is dead.

That depends to be seen, the RFP is not out yet.

 

[likitadisa]

The Americans aren't offering ANY meaningful ToT/industrial benefits. The French offer is FAR more attractive and the Rafale is the better plane with long road map ahead- the F-18 is dead.

The Americans aren't offering ANY meaningful ToT/industrial benefits. The French offer is FAR more attractive and the Rafale is the better plane with long road map ahead- the F-18 is de Tutuapp 9Apps ShowBox ad.

 

[Immanuel]

F/A-18 Super Hornet Is Now Undergoing Ski Jump Launch Trials For The Indian Navy

The Boeing fighter jet is vying for an Indian Navy contract and that service only has aircraft carriers with ski jumps at present.

www.thedrive.com

 

[WolfPack86]

F/A-18 Super Hornet Is Now Undergoing Ski Jump Launch Trials For The Indian Navy

Boeing has been flying an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet off a ground-based ski jump at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. This is part of a demonstration effort for the Indian Navy to show that the aircraft can operate from short take-off but arrested recovery configured (STOBAR) aircraft carriers, such as the INS Vikramaditya and the future INS Vikrant. Indian defense analyst Saurabh Joshi was among the first to reveal the flight testing in a series of tweets on Aug. 19, 2020. The Chicago-headquartered plane maker subsequently confirmed that this ski jump demonstration program is presently taking place at Patuxent River, though it is not clear when exactly it began. The naval air station has a ground-based ski jump that it used during testing of the short and vertical takeoff and landing capable F-35B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. “Boeing and the U.S. Navy are in the beginning phases of operating an F/A-18 Super Hornet from a ski jump at Naval Air Station Patuxent River to demonstrate it is STOBAR compliant for the Indian Navy,” Justin Gibson, a Boeing spokesperson, told The War Zone. “Boeing completed extensive analysis and more than 150 flight simulations on F/A-18 compatibility with Indian aircraft carriers, and while our assessment has shown the Block III Super Hornet is very capable of launching off a ski jump, this is the next step in demonstrating that capability. More details will be released upon the conclusion of the test demonstration.” The company had previously announced plans to begin this ski jump flight test program in February. It had first disclosed that it was doing simulation work on the Super Hornet’s ability to operate from a STOBAR carrier in 2017. “We’ve done a lot of simulation work with the Indian Navy to better understand their requirements and we fill comfortable that the Super Hornet can operate from all their carriers, both the ones fielded today and the ones in the future,” Dan Gillian, Vice President of the Super Hornet program, said in an interview with Indian defense news and analysis site LiveFist in 2017. “We think we can move around the deck, be very mission capable with a relevant weapons load-out and fuel load-out to give the Navy what they need… The Super Hornet as built today can operate from Indian carriers.” McDonnell Douglas, which developed the original F/A-18 Hornet and was subsequently acquired by Boeing, had also previously conducted ski jump tests with that aircraft at the tail end of the Cold War. That testing showed that with as little as a nine-degree incline, the total required takeoff roll for the Hornet could be cut in half, though it’s unclear what the jet’s gross weight had to be to achieve this performance. Ski jumps generally increase the takeoff performance of combat jets in the absence of catapults and also provide an added margin of safety. Since at least 2016, the Indian Navy has been working to acquire a fleet of at least 57 new fighter jets to complement its existing MiG-29K Fulcrums under the Multi-Role Carrier-Borne Fighter (MRCBF) program. There have been numerous reports over the years that the Indians have been disappointed in the performance of their navalized Fulcrums. The Super Hornet is now competing against the MiG-29K, as well as the naval version of the French-made Dassault Rafale and a variant of the Swedish Gripen. The Indian Air Force notably took delivery of the first of its land-based Rafale variants last month. The Indian Navy had also previously rejected plans for a carrier-based version of the domestically designed Tejas, with complaints that the design was overweight, though the development of that aircraft has continued, since then. In January, the prototype landed on and took off from the INS Vikramaditya for the first time. Being able to operate from a STOBAR carrier is a key requirement for the Indian Navy, which presently only has the one carrier, the INS Vikramaditya, which is in the configuration. A second STOBAR-configured flattop, the future INS Vikrant, and indigenous design, is also under construction. The Indian government has expressed interest in acquiring a catapult assisted takeoff but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) carrier in the past. Last year it emerged that BAE Systems had proposed a design based on the U.K. Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth class. The HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship the HMS Prince of Wales are both short-take off and vertical landing (STOVL) types with ski jumps, but no arresting system. It’s not clear whether the ship that BAE pitched to the Indians is STOBAR or CATOBAR derivative. There were CATOBAR variants of the Queen Elizabeth design among the initial proposals to the Royal Navy. What is clear is that the Indians have plans to expand their carrier fleets, which would also require additional carrier-based aircraft. Proving that the Super Hornet, which is already CATOBAR capable, is also able to fly from STOBAR carriers could give it an advantage in the competition as India would not necessarily need to acquire multiple types to operate from different types of carriers in the future. The MiG-29K, for instance, cannot fly from CATOBAR carriers, for instance. The Super Hornet, in its latest advanced Block III configuration, which you can read more about in detail in this past War Zone piece, is also in the running for a separate Indian Air Force fighter jet mega-contract, which is looking to acquire 126 new fighters for that service. A deal with the Indian Navy could further tip the scales toward the F/A-18E/F due to the cost benefits that India could realize from logistics, infrastructure, and supply chain commonality. Whatever happens, it will very exciting to learn more about how the Super Hornet has been faring in these ski jump tests at Patuxent River.

F/A-18 Super Hornet Is Now Undergoing Ski Jump Launch Trials For The Indian Navy – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

 

[WolfPack86]

Boeing pushes hard for jet contracts; looks to Super Hornet for Navy, IAF
US aerospace major, Boeing, which accounts for most of the $18-billion worth of weaponry that Washington has sold India since 2005, is pressing hard to win a $7-8 billion Indian Navy contract for 57 aircraft carrier-borne fighters. Boeing has begun testing its flagship naval fighter, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which it intends to offer the Indian Navy,to prove it can operate from any of the Indian Navy’s three carriers: the in-service INS Vikramaditya; Vikrant, which is to be commissioned by 2022; and INS Vishal, which is still on the drawing board. “Boeing and the US Navy are in the beginning phases of operating an F/A-18 Super Hornet from a ski jump at Naval Air Station Patuxent River to demonstrate it is STOBAR compliant for the Indian Navy,” states Boeing. In STOBAR (short take off but arrested recovery) aircraft carrier operations, fighters get airborne by flying off a “ski-jump” like slope at the end of the flight deck. The aircraft land back by snagging their tail hooks on arrestor wires spread across the deck, which drag them to a halt. Both INS Vikramditya and Vikrant are STOBAR carriers. US Navy aircraft carriers and their aircraft such as the Super Hornet are, however, built for “catapult assisted take off but arrested recovery” (CATOBAR). In this, on-board aircraft are accelerated to take-off speed by a steam or electro-magnetic catapult, doing away with the need for a ski-jump. INS Vishal is being built as a CATOBAR carrier. Proving that the Super Hornet can operate off both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers would enhance India’s fleet commonality and economy. Before commencing ski-jump tests, Boeing says the Super Hornet has completed more than 150 computer simulations. “While our assessment has shown the Block III Super Hornet is very capable of launching off a ski jump, this is the next step in demonstrating that capability,” said Boeing. The shore-based ski-jump at Patuxent River was built to test the F-35B Lightning II – the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter. India, too, has built a similar shore-based facility in Goa for testing the naval version of the Tejas fighter. The Indian Navy began the acquisition of 57 multi-role carrier borne fighters (MRCBF) in 2017 by issuing a Request for Information (RFI) about “day and night capable, all weather, multi-role, deck based combat aircraft, which can be used for air defence, air-to-surface operations, buddy refuelling, reconnaissance [and] electronic warfare missions from Indian Navy aircraft carriers.” The 2017 RFI specifically asks vendors whether the fighter they are offering is capable of STOBAR as well as CATOBAR operations. The quest for a MRCBF is rooted in the navy’s disappointment over the unreliable performance of 45 MiG-29K/KUB fighters that it procured from Russia along with INS Vikramaditya. The need for a MRCBF was made even more urgent by delays in developing a naval version of the indigenous Tejas light fighter. The navy assessed that the single-engine fighter could not carry enough weaponry, or fuel payload, to allow it to operate effectively off a carrier. Naval planners, therefore, have rejected the Tejas Mark 1 and stated they want a heavier, more powerful, twin-engine fighter that India can develop only by 2025. The formal MRCBF tender is still awaited but industry analysts believe the contenders will be: The Super Hornet, the MiG-29K/KUB and navalised versions of the Rafale and Gripen E, called the Rafale Marine and Sea Gripen, respectively. Ironically, Boeing’s thrust in the MRCBF procurement comes at a time when a stressed defence budget has placed a question mark over the acquisition of a third carrier. The Indian Air Force (IAF) argues that shore-based air power is more effective than carrier-based fighters, and costs less. The tri-service chief, General Bipin Rawat, who prioritises expenditure between the three services, has expressed reservations over spending heavily on an aircraft carrier and its air wing. Boeing could also offer the Super Hornet in the ongoing IAF procurement of 114 medium fighters, achieving economy of scale by taking the numbers up to 171 aircraft. Saab will seek similar benefits, while Dassault – which has already sold India 36 Rafales and would also compete in both these tenders – would garner even greater benefits of scale. Meanwhile, Boeing is also weighing restricting the Super Hornet offer to the Indian Navy, while offering the IAF its upgraded F-15EX fighter. Pratyush Kumar, who oversees the F-15 programme, confirmed last month that Boeing had requested the US government for a marketing licence to commence discussions with New Delhi about the F-15EX. However, Boeing will only decide whether to offer the Super Hornet or the F-15EX once the IAF defines the specifications of the fighter it wants.

Boeing pushes hard for jet contracts; looks to Super Hornet for Navy, IAF – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

 

[Flying Dagger]

Boeing pushes hard for jet contracts; looks to Super Hornet for Navy, IAF
US aerospace major, Boeing, which accounts for most of the $18-billion worth of weaponry that Washington has sold India since 2005, is pressing hard to win a $7-8 billion Indian Navy contract for 57 aircraft carrier-borne fighters. Boeing has begun testing its flagship naval fighter, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which it intends to offer the Indian Navy,to prove it can operate from any of the Indian Navy’s three carriers: the in-service INS Vikramaditya; Vikrant, which is to be commissioned by 2022; and INS Vishal, which is still on the drawing board. “Boeing and the US Navy are in the beginning phases of operating an F/A-18 Super Hornet from a ski jump at Naval Air Station Patuxent River to demonstrate it is STOBAR compliant for the Indian Navy,” states Boeing. In STOBAR (short take off but arrested recovery) aircraft carrier operations, fighters get airborne by flying off a “ski-jump” like slope at the end of the flight deck. The aircraft land back by snagging their tail hooks on arrestor wires spread across the deck, which drag them to a halt. Both INS Vikramditya and Vikrant are STOBAR carriers. US Navy aircraft carriers and their aircraft such as the Super Hornet are, however, built for “catapult assisted take off but arrested recovery” (CATOBAR). In this, on-board aircraft are accelerated to take-off speed by a steam or electro-magnetic catapult, doing away with the need for a ski-jump. INS Vishal is being built as a CATOBAR carrier. Proving that the Super Hornet can operate off both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers would enhance India’s fleet commonality and economy. Before commencing ski-jump tests, Boeing says the Super Hornet has completed more than 150 computer simulations. “While our assessment has shown the Block III Super Hornet is very capable of launching off a ski jump, this is the next step in demonstrating that capability,” said Boeing. The shore-based ski-jump at Patuxent River was built to test the F-35B Lightning II – the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter. India, too, has built a similar shore-based facility in Goa for testing the naval version of the Tejas fighter. The Indian Navy began the acquisition of 57 multi-role carrier borne fighters (MRCBF) in 2017 by issuing a Request for Information (RFI) about “day and night capable, all weather, multi-role, deck based combat aircraft, which can be used for air defence, air-to-surface operations, buddy refuelling, reconnaissance [and] electronic warfare missions from Indian Navy aircraft carriers.” The 2017 RFI specifically asks vendors whether the fighter they are offering is capable of STOBAR as well as CATOBAR operations. The quest for a MRCBF is rooted in the navy’s disappointment over the unreliable performance of 45 MiG-29K/KUB fighters that it procured from Russia along with INS Vikramaditya. The need for a MRCBF was made even more urgent by delays in developing a naval version of the indigenous Tejas light fighter. The navy assessed that the single-engine fighter could not carry enough weaponry, or fuel payload, to allow it to operate effectively off a carrier. Naval planners, therefore, have rejected the Tejas Mark 1 and stated they want a heavier, more powerful, twin-engine fighter that India can develop only by 2025. The formal MRCBF tender is still awaited but industry analysts believe the contenders will be: The Super Hornet, the MiG-29K/KUB and navalised versions of the Rafale and Gripen E, called the Rafale Marine and Sea Gripen, respectively. Ironically, Boeing’s thrust in the MRCBF procurement comes at a time when a stressed defence budget has placed a question mark over the acquisition of a third carrier. The Indian Air Force (IAF) argues that shore-based air power is more effective than carrier-based fighters, and costs less. The tri-service chief, General Bipin Rawat, who prioritises expenditure between the three services, has expressed reservations over spending heavily on an aircraft carrier and its air wing. Boeing could also offer the Super Hornet in the ongoing IAF procurement of 114 medium fighters, achieving economy of scale by taking the numbers up to 171 aircraft. Saab will seek similar benefits, while Dassault – which has already sold India 36 Rafales and would also compete in both these tenders – would garner even greater benefits of scale. Meanwhile, Boeing is also weighing restricting the Super Hornet offer to the Indian Navy, while offering the IAF its upgraded F-15EX fighter. Pratyush Kumar, who oversees the F-15 programme, confirmed last month that Boeing had requested the US government for a marketing licence to commence discussions with New Delhi about the F-15EX. However, Boeing will only decide whether to offer the Super Hornet or the F-15EX once the IAF defines the specifications of the fighter it wants.

Boeing pushes hard for jet contracts; looks to Super Hornet for Navy, IAF – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

Why are they wasting theirs and others time.

No To USA for IAF unless it's F-35. After going for Rafale I doubt IAF will go for another type khichdi mess.

 

[Immanuel]

Why are they wasting theirs and others time.

No To USA for IAF unless it's F-35. After going for Rafale I doubt IAF will go for another type khichdi mess.

Why is IAF wasting time with this tender instead of buying more Rafale at this point. IN is fair game.

 

[Manticore]

Why is IAF wasting time with this tender instead of buying more Rafale at this point. IN is fair game.

I'm not a Rafale fan, but even I know it's a good enough fit for India capabilities wise and if the naval varient can work off Indian carriers they should go for it. They have no more time to delay.

 

[cannonfodder]

Why is IAF wasting time with this tender instead of buying more Rafale at this point. IN is fair game.

Even I am not sure how many types of AC India is going to sport. We are getting like 2-3 squad of different AC types. Wonder how that is going to scale.

Now we have bought 36 Rafaels and now testing for F18 for AC carrier

 

[Hari Sud]

I'm not a Rafale fan, but even I know it's a good enough fit for India capabilities wise and if the naval varient can work off Indian carriers they should go for it. They have no more time to delay.

Rafale has not charted up enough naval experience.

 

[omaebakabaka]

I'm not a Rafale fan, but even I know it's a good enough fit for India capabilities wise and if the naval varient can work off Indian carriers they should go for it. They have no more time to delay.

France is one of the very few countries that actually make pretty solid equipment with an independant supply chain. India should buy targeted technologies from them and build on it. Naval Rafale would be awesome but if they can navalize Tejas, that would be even better. India should have thought about this when they conceptualized the indigenous AC vikrant to get the HAL on board.