INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[NutCracker]

Correction : F-18's folded wingspan is actually 9.32 m and not 9.8m.

32.6 ft turns into 9.8/9 ,
But same website says 9.32 folded.

F/A-18 Hornet - Military Aircraft

man.fas.org

Same for NATO STO document.

 

[IndianHawk]

It’s over. F-18 isn’t happening despite all the Boeing talking points thrown out there

This interim arrangement things is pure hyperbole. If they truly want only an interim jet why buy it ?? Lease it for just 15 years by the time you have tedbf ready.

But no they are going to buy it for full life that is 40+ years. So they will serve full life.

 

[NutCracker]

It’s over. F-18 isn’t happening despite all the Boeing talking points thrown out there

Nah f-18E is WAY superior to Rafale M.
We will be repairing/making lots of GE-404/414 Engines , that makes huge chunk of maintanence cost. It will be economical.

 

[Super Flanker]

It’s over. F-18 isn’t happening despite all the Boeing talking points thrown out there

What "India Specific Enhancements" would the F-18 need if India selects F-18 under MRCBF?

Besides the F-18 Super Hornet uses GE-414 engine as it's power plant and our upcoming TEDBF too will use GE-414 engine. So here we have a logistical advantage, not as prevalent as Rafale but still we will have some logistics commonality between the F-18 and upcoming TEDBF. Not just TEDBF though, many of our other future aircrafts will use American GE-404/414 and therefore we will be having a large number of these engines in our inventory which will make it more economical in the long run.

The F-18 is better than the Rafale hands down and can fit into the lift more comfortably as well, in my opinion, the F-18 will win this tender.

 

[Marliii]

What "India Specific Enhancements" would the F-18 need if India selects F-18 under MRCBF?

Besides the F-18 Super Hornet uses GE-414 engine as it's power plant and our upcoming TEDBF too will use GE-414 engine. So here we have a logistical advantage, not as prevalent as Rafale but still we will have some logistics commonality between the F-18 and upcoming TEDBF. Not just TEDBF though, many of our other future aircrafts will use American GE-404/414 and therefore we will be having a large number of these engines in our inventory which will make it more economical in the long run.

The F-18 is better than the Rafale hands down and can fit into the lift more comfortably as well, in my opinion, the F-18 will win this tender.

People just want the Rafale to win because it's in the airforce that's it lol.

 

[Super Flanker]

People just want the Rafale to win because it's in the airforce that's it lol.

The only advantages that Rafale-M probably has is its commonality with IAF Rafales which indeed give the Rafale an advantage from a logistical POV. Other than that the F-18 is just better than the Rafale-M in pretty much every aspect you can think of.

 

[Super Flanker]

View attachment 169060

32.6 ft turns into 9.8/9 ,
But same website says 9.32 folded.

F/A-18 Hornet - Military Aircraft

man.fas.org

Same for NATO STO document.
View attachment 169062

F-18 C/D is an older model. The one that we are looking at procuring is the newer and more modern F-18 E/F Super Hornet. E/F and C/D are very different aircrafts.

 

[NutCracker]

F-18 C/D is an older model. The one that we are looking at procuring is the newer and more modern F-18 E/F Super Hornet. E/F and C/D are very different aircrafts.

Bruh check image. It has both info .

E/F has 32.6ft as per that source.

C/D had 27.x ft

 

[Super Flanker]

Bruh check image. It has both info .

E/F has 32.6ft as per that source.

C/D had 27.x ft

I already checked the image, but what I was saying was that the F-18 C/D and F-18 E/F are very different aircrafts.

 

[NutCracker]

I already checked the image, but what I was saying was that the F-18 C/D and F-18 E/F are very different aircrafts.

Yes i know, i just posted that because it says F-18E/F has folded wingspan of 32.6ft which turns into 9.8x meter , not 9.32.

 

[Super Flanker]

Yes i know, i just posted that because it says F-18E/F has folded wingspan of 32.6ft which turns into 9.8x meter , not 9.32.

Even if the wingspan of F-18 E/F according to this source of yours is 9.8 meters, it will still be able to fit through the hangar doors of IAC-1 in my opinion even though it is a tight fit, the F-18 with its folded wings will fit in IAC-1's lift and Hangar doors more comfortably in comparison to Rafale-M.

 

[NutCracker]

Even if the wingspan of F-18 E/F according to this source of yours is 9.8 meters, it will still be able to fit through the hangar doors of IAC-1 in my opinion even though it is a tight fit, the F-18 with its folded wings will fit in IAC-1's lift and Hangar doors more comfortably in comparison to Rafale-M.

Yup and it won't have headache of removing wingtips like RafaleM. Although they might have to develop some mechanism/draw guiding lines on decks to be able to fasten the loading and unloading process of F-18

 

[abingdonboy]

This interim arrangement things is pure hyperbole. If they truly want only an interim jet why buy it ?? Lease it for just 15 years by the time you have tedbf ready.

But no they are going to buy it for full life that is 40+ years. So they will serve full life.

Interim doesn’t refer to life but role aka 26 will serve the Vikrant and the 29Ks the Vikky

I’ve literally been saying from the very start that MRCBF is now only for Vikrant so it’s pointless to even bring Vikky into this.

26= 1 squadron + crash reserves+ shore based trainers



+ leasing fighter jets is horrifically expensive and there’s a reason almost no nation on the planet (even the ones with tiny part time airforces) don’t engage in such agreements and it’s even more risky/expensive for naval fighters were airframe losses are unavoidable. Do you want IN/GoI liable for 100s of millions in penalties in that situation? And you want your frontline offensive assets at the whim of a foreign entityLeasing frontline jets was always BS.

 

[abingdonboy]

Nah f-18E is WAY superior to Rafale M.
We will be repairing/making lots of GE-404/414 Engines , that makes huge chunk of maintanence cost. It will be economical.

How is the F18 superior to the Rafale F4++? It’ll be out of production in the next 5 years, Rafale has a decade plus of production at least left.

and any marginal cost savings that occur because of MRO created for LCA MK.2/AMCA MK.1 engine commonality won’t even scratch the surface of the horrific costs that will be incurred to get another new type and in such few numbers. DRAL is already being created to act as the MRO hub for Rafale in the region, who will do the same for the F-18 in india? Or you want to ship them to the US every time? Then add on the costs of creating parallel infrastructure for weapons, avionics etc all of which the US will insist is siloed away from foreign/Indian entities. You want to pay $2-4 bn for ISE for just 26 jets?

 

[Gessler]

Interim doesn’t refer to life but role aka 26 will serve the Vikrant and the 29Ks the Vikky

I’ve literally been saying from the very start that MRCBF is now only for Vikrant so it’s pointless to even bring Vikky into this.

26= 1 squadron + crash reserves+ shore based trainers



+ leasing fighter jets is horrifically expensive and there’s a reason almost no nation on the planet (even the ones with tiny part time airforces) don’t engage in such agreements and it’s even more risky/expensive for naval fighters were airframe losses are unavoidable. Do you want IN/GoI liable for 100s of millions in penalties in that situation? And you want your frontline offensive assets at the whim of a foreign entityLeasing frontline jets was always BS.

Having spent the full cost of buying new-build aircraft there's no way we'll retire MRCBF early. Not to mention TEDBF doesn't bring any revolutionary technological advantage over either Rafale/SH, its only a marginally better platform in capability terms. It's certainly not like what F35 is to SH.

If ordered this year, we can expect first MRCBFs to come by 2025, and operational by 2027. With a minimum 30 to 40-year lifespan for the airframe (together with improvements being implemented throughout life like Rafale F5, SH Block-4 etc.) the aircraft will serve on Vikrant till mid-2050s minimum.

Does it make any sense to replace a 4.5 gen with another 4.5 gen (with no weapon bays or anything) in 2050/2060s?

If we were talking about N-AMCA it would've made sense but TEDBF isn't that.

 

[abingdonboy]

Having spent the full cost of buying new-build aircraft there's no way we'll retire MRCBF early. Not to mention TEDBF doesn't bring any revolutionary technological advantage over either Rafale/SH, its only a marginally better platform in capability terms. It's certainly not like what F35 is to SH.

If ordered this year, we can expect first MRCBFs to come by 2025, and operational by 2027. With a minimum 30 to 40-year lifespan for the airframe (together with improvements being implemented throughout life like Rafale F5, SH Block-4 etc.) the aircraft will serve on Vikrant till mid-2050s minimum.

Does it make any sense to replace a 4.5 gen with another 4.5 gen (with no weapon bays or anything) in 2050/2060s?

If we were talking about N-AMCA it would've made sense but TEDBF isn't that.

I never said MRCBF will be retired early.

the first MRCBF won’t be in service before 2027 best case IMO because contract talks will take at least 2 years.

TEBDF will supplement the 26 MRCBF for Vikrant and serve on Vikky and IAC-2 (and any other carrier in service before the mid 2040s when a N-AMCA is ready if it’s ordered)

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Having spent the full cost of buying new-build aircraft there's no way we'll retire MRCBF early. Not to mention TEDBF doesn't bring any revolutionary technological advantage over either Rafale/SH, its only a marginally better platform in capability terms. It's certainly not like what F35 is to SH.

If ordered this year, we can expect first MRCBFs to come by 2025, and operational by 2027. With a minimum 30 to 40-year lifespan for the airframe (together with improvements being implemented throughout life like Rafale F5, SH Block-4 etc.) the aircraft will serve on Vikrant till mid-2050s minimum.

Does it make any sense to replace a 4.5 gen with another 4.5 gen (with no weapon bays or anything) in 2050/2060s?

If we were talking about N-AMCA it would've made sense but TEDBF isn't that.

What is the bring back load capacity of Rafale-M, SH and what is expected to be the bring back capacity on TEDBF?
Since Navy is the one who proposed the TEDBF project and are involved deeply in it, I'd say they are aiming for better specs than Rafale-M and SH in that regard. Its quite possible that SH will be parked on Naval Air Stations in Andaman and Nicobar islands while TEDBF flies from the carriers. And even if that doesn't happen, TEDBF will still populate carrier air wings of Viky and IAC-2, which would mean that at least six squadrons of 12 TEDBF each will be produced. That is a total of 72 TEDBF.
If its fielded from Vikrant as well, it will add up to eight squadrons or 96 TEDBF.

 

[Gessler]

I never said MRCBF will be retired early.

the first MRCBF won’t be in service before 2027 best case IMO because contract talks will take at least 2 years.

TEBDF will supplement the 26 MRCBF for Vikrant and serve on Vikky and IAC-2 (and any other carrier in service before the mid 2040s when a N-AMCA is ready if it’s ordered)

I'm willing to bet cash money that Vikky is going to be laid up sometime next decade. Either way, the pitifully small amount of time that ship is capable of spending out at sea every year (even now when its still relatively new) doesn't really justify the incorporation of a brand new aviation complex IMO.

The 29Ks and the Vikky will both be retired within the next 15 years if you ask me.

As of IAC-2 that program is still a toss up...the only way it makes sense to pursue TEDBF for that is if we go for SH in MRCBF, cuz the Rafale production line will remain open for much longer so if we go for that, it's no-brainer to order additional Rafales (F5, F6 by that time) for IAC-2.

The Rafale of that time will most probably include a new variable cycle engine option (derived from FCAS engine) so most of the performance advantages of TEDBF are also gone.

Long story short...I don't see any merit in pursuing TEDBF, I think Navy will spend a decade wrestling with it, ultimately to arrive at a similar conclusion.

What is the bring back load capacity of Rafale-M, SH and what is expected to be the bring back capacity on TEDBF?

Dunno.

Since Navy is the one who proposed the TEDBF project and are involved deeply in it, I'd say they are aiming for better specs than Rafale-M and SH in that regard.

Yea but like I said the advantages are marginal.

Its quite possible that SH will be parked on Naval Air Stations in Andaman and Nicobar islands while TEDBF flies from the carriers. And even if that doesn't happen, TEDBF will still populate carrier air wings

I'm pretty sure the Navy having possession of dedicated shore-based aircraft will be a thing of the past if and when Maritime Theatre Command becomes a reality (more than likely by that time).

From A&N, longer-legged aircraft like Su-30MKIs will be a better bet for shore-based ops. They will report to the same 3-star IN theatre commander so operationally there won't be any merit to the Navy having its own, shorter-legged shore-based a/c.

of Viky and IAC-2, which would mean that at least six squadrons of 12 TEDBF each will be produced. That is a total of 72 TEDBF.
If its fielded from Vikrant as well, it will add up to eight squadrons or 96 TEDBF.

There is no plausible future where IAC-2 and Vikky are operated at the same time. Even if IAC-2 design is frozen & sanctioned today, by the time it will be operational we'll be thinking about Vikky's retirement. Read reply to Abingdonboy above.

The current planned requirement for TEDBF is only 45 airframes...intended for Vikrant & Vikky. From where I stand, that's a very naive view the Navy is taking. Probably because they know either way these programs won't be sanctioned anytime soon, so let's play along with MoD/GOI.

 

[Adm Kenobi]

Does it make any sense to replace a 4.5 gen with another 4.5 gen (with no weapon bays or anything) in 2050/2060s?

If we were talking about N-AMCA it would've made sense but TEDBF isn't that.

It won't be phasing out SH/Rafale M, but just taking it's place on the deck, SH/Rafale M can be operated from naval air stations.

This also depends on if Navy is able to take the shore based anti shipping role from IAF like it took the role of maritime reconnaissance in 1976. There's only upsides to this, IAF need not dedicate squadrons for anti shipping in future & minimal number of IAF sq in south. => IN can use SH/Rafale M & additional TEDBF for shore based anti shipping.

And TEDBF does bring an exceptional capability for a carrier like IAC-1, it can take off with full fuel (5.5T, 0.3235 fuel fraction) and greater payload of 8 or so tonne from the long take off position under favorable conditions, 8T would allow it to carry this load -

Vikky will soon be phased out after there are sufficient number of TEDBF for IAC-1 in mid 30s, idk if it will get dedicated squadrons for a time period of <<decade, & TEDBF can be operated in tandem with whatever comes next in the 40s, from the deck IAC-2 and beyond. Just 26 jets won't be enough for shore based anti shipping role => more TEDBF.
The number of TEDBF produced will definitely cross 45 & will be feasible even in the 50s, working in tandem with a new generation naval combat aircraft (not N AMCA).

N AMCA does not make sense anymore, N AMCA won't fulfil the basic requirements of Navy without carrying weapons/fuel tanks externally.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

I'm willing to bet cash money that Vikky is going to be laid up sometime next decade. Either way, the pitifully small amount of time that ship is capable of spending out at sea every year (even now when its still relatively new) doesn't really justify the incorporation of a brand new aviation complex IMO.

The 29Ks and the Vikky will both be retired within the next 15 years if you ask me.

As of IAC-2 that program is still a toss up...the only way it makes sense to pursue TEDBF for that is if we go for SH in MRCBF, cuz the Rafale production line will remain open for much longer so if we go for that, it's no-brainer to order additional Rafales (F5, F6 by that time) for IAC-2.

The Rafale of that time will most probably include a new variable cycle engine option (derived from FCAS engine) so most of the performance advantages of TEDBF are also gone.

Long story short...I don't see any merit in pursuing TEDBF, I think Navy will spend a decade wrestling with it, ultimately to arrive at a similar conclusion.



Dunno.



Yea but like I said the advantages are marginal.



I'm pretty sure the Navy having possession of dedicated shore-based aircraft will be a thing of the past if and when Maritime Theatre Command becomes a reality (more than likely by that time).

From A&N, longer-legged aircraft like Su-30MKIs will be a better bet for shore-based ops. They will report to the same 3-star IN theatre commander so operationally there won't be any merit to the Navy having its own, shorter-legged shore-based a/c.



There is no plausible future where IAC-2 and Vikky are operated at the same time. Even if IAC-2 design is frozen & sanctioned today, by the time it will be operational we'll be thinking about Vikky's retirement. Read reply to Abingdonboy above.

The current planned requirement for TEDBF is only 45 airframes...intended for Vikrant & Vikky. From where I stand, that's a very naive view the Navy is taking. Probably because they know either way these programs won't be sanctioned anytime soon, so let's play along with MoD/GOI.

Fair points. Lets see if Viky really ends up like that and if Navy still stays stuck with just two carriers (IAC 1 and 2) throughout the 2030-2040 period when their annual CAPEX will be around $15+ Billion.
But do tell if there has been any indication from the French that their variable cycle engine will be ready by 2040 and if it will be a drop fit into Rafale. Seriously, I'd doubt the timeline on that even if France claims a date before 2040. Even 2040 is tough. TEDBF is a bigger bird than Rafale. I think if it arrives by early 2030s, it will be a good buy for the Navy.