- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Messages
- 7,301
- Likes
- 27,601
Too old a platform that too russianSeems to me like there is an issues with maintenance standard of the Navy
Too old a platform that too russianSeems to me like there is an issues with maintenance standard of the Navy
I dont see tedbf going anywhere....even if successful some 50 or so airframe dont justify production and iAF is hell bent on getting more rafalesIf HAL & ADA think they can develop 3 vastly different fighter programs simultaneously (Tejas Mk-2, TEDBF & AMCA), I can only sympathize, go to a corner & cry.
Lockheed & Boeing wouldn't dream of doing this.
But then again, half of the disaster that was early LCA development was due to agencies not knowing their limits, and in tying up the program in knots of undeliverable promises (like indigenous engine). Sadly, the mistakes are being repeated.
How the limited budgets (make no mistake, the amounts we allocate for R&D and development are still p!ss-poor) and limited skilled engineers & manpower will be spread across 3 programs (one of which involves a next-gen fighter) is something I'm scared to even think about.
The biggest issue I have is that we've tied up IAF's next-gen acquisition entirely into the AMCA program. We literally have zero alternative plans. If the program fails to deliver in the given timelines, we're royally screwed. The adversaries will have an uncontested capability of penetrating protected airspace with LO aircraft which we'd be unable to counter.
Lot of people think Rafale (or the MRFA) would be the last foreign fighter type we will buy? I call BS on that. We are almost certain to place a knee-jerk order for 24-36 Su-57s when the AMCA fails to deliver on time (which it most certainly will) and when we begin to feel the heat of LO airframes (I hesitate to call them VLO) on both eastern & western fronts into the 2030s.
What about more airframe for our islands and Mauritius baseI dont see tedbf going anywhere....even if successful some 50 or so airframe dont justify production and iAF is hell bent on getting more rafales
TEDBF order will be easily more than 100 aircrafts, they knew just 50 aircrafts wouldn't be economically viable.I dont see tedbf going anywhere....even if successful some 50 or so airframe dont justify production and iAF is hell bent on getting more rafales
I seriously doubt that ..anyway we will know soon enough I guessTEDBF order will be easily more than 100 aircrafts, they knew just 50 aircrafts wouldn't be economically viable.
INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant require atleast 57 aircrafts combined , and the INS Vishal itself will require 40 aircrafts making the total of 97 aircraftsI seriously doubt that ..anyway we will know soon enough I guess
also NAVY keep few jets on shore. If we have our own jet we could keep few sqads on shore for air patrols. The numbers could easily go beyond 100.INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant require atleast 57 aircrafts combined , and the INS Vishal itself will require 40 aircrafts making the total of 97 aircrafts
Thats only if navy drops mrcbf plans.I think navy is hedging bets here if they cant secure enough funding and numbers for tedbf or if ada/hal fails to maintain timeline..they will go ahead with mrcbfINS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant require atleast 57 aircrafts combined , and the INS Vishal itself will require 40 aircrafts making the total of 97 aircrafts
Well as far as the Vikky and IAC-1 are concerned, any plane will be sub-optimal.There are many reasons why AMCA-N is shunned.
1. AMCA-N derived from AMCA-AF will be sub-optimal, they realised it is better to develop a 4.5 gen fighter instead of directly going to 5th gen.
That's no good logic. Maritime interdiction isn't the only role for carrier-based aircraft.2. AMCA-N cannot carry Anti-Ship missiles like Brahmos-NG or any other future air launched hypersonic missiles internally, they must be carried externally, then what's the point of having a stealth bird.
That is likely to be very true.3. High Availability rate. TEDBF can have more availability rate than AMCA-N.
No, these force mixes will change drastically as the Maritime Theatre Command takes shape. There will be no more need for shore-based IN strike aircraft - as all IAF aircraft in peninsular bases will be under operational command of the same 3-star officer that commands all Navy assets.also NAVY keep few jets on shore. If we have our own jet we could keep few sqads on shore for air patrols. The numbers could easily go beyond 100.
They realize that already. If you are insinuating "Why don't they just design one", I say paisa de. This is the same as asking ISRO if they realize that the Saturn V is much more superior to what they are coming up with.How long before Naval Design Bureau realises that Kitty Hawk (CV-63) from 1961 or JFK (CV-67) from 1968 are still far superior to what they are coming up with?
If they can propose a CVN for IAC2, then we can definitely afford a Kitty Hawk class equivalent. Considering a CVN costs about 8 times that of a conventional carrier of similar specifications.They realize that already. If you are insinuating "Why don't they just design one", I say paisa de. This is the same as asking ISRO if they realize that the Saturn V is much more superior to what they are coming up with.
Who offered CVN. In fact CVN was not possible due to no suitable reactor option being available, if I remember right. And even non-nuclear heavy carrier is not affordable right now, haven't you heard the dilema of submarines or carrier that the Navy is being pushed into by the budget?If they can propose a CVN for IAC2, then we can definitely afford a Kitty Hawk class equivalent. Considering a CVN costs about 8 times that of a conventional carrier of similar specifications.
When IAC2 was being discussed, and proposals sought, IN Initially wanted a CVN with EMALS. A 60k ton displacement CVN.Who offered CVN. In fact CVN was not possible due to no suitable reactor option being available, if I remember right. And even non-nuclear heavy carrier is not affordable right now, haven't you heard the dilema of submarines or carrier that the Navy is being pushed into by the budget?
Actually with the current pods and ordinance developed by DRDO, TEDBF should be able to take on EW, ASW, ASuW roles, apart from the basic air superiority roles.When IAC2 was being discussed, and proposals sought, IN Initially wanted a CVN with EMALS. A 60k ton displacement CVN.
Conventionally powered JFK had an empty displacement of 60k tons, with 80k tons fully loaded, with ~80 unit airwing consisting of Tomcats, Greyhounds, Hawkeyes, Vikings, Intruders, Prowlers, etc. It also was ⅛ the cost of the planned but cancelled CVN of the same specifications.
Another thing, TEDBF is awesome, but what about a multirole support airframe? Are we working on that? Are we going to rely only on TEDBF and Helos/osprey for AEW, EW, COD, ASW, ASuW, ELINT, Tanking, etc?
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Indian navy railgun development | Indian Navy | 75 | ||
Very concerned with development of Indian navy: Pakistan naval chief | Indian Navy | 10 | ||
W | Adani PLR system deliver 500 Masada made in India pistol to Indian navy | Indian Navy | 0 | |
W | Rafale and F 18 super hornet shortlisted by Indian navy | Indian Navy | 21 |