Indian Navy issues RFI for new aircraft

[sancho]

Well, any Frigate with heli pad must be able to Handle F-35 VTOL... I too have doubt, could anyone clarify? A good Question Indeed

I would say it could land and take off vertically again, but to operate it from an LDP is a totally different point and not useful at all. These vessels don't carry fuel, ammo, or spares for those aircraft and more important, have no space to park them. So you might park 2 of them on the landing deck, but what should be the gain?

i dnt understand why IN need new a/c IN already has 16+29 order of Mig-29k + lca naval version come IN want around 50 of those plane and at the time when IAC-2 at 2020 we have Pak-fa naval version ready. and if IN want why not before ready of IAC-2 search start from 2-3 yr before at the time f-35B/C available. I dnt think at that our IN need any new plane.

Hi Sudhir, they only requested informations, it's not like they will buy them anytime soon. But it is important to know now, because the decision about the layout of IAC2 will be taken now. Are catapults on offer, if yes which one? Which are the most useful fighters that suits us and can be used from such layouts. How much internal space do we need to park the fighters, weapons, spares and so on.
All these things are important now and can be answered only if we know what layout and fighters.

 

[Crypto]

i heard few months back that IN was going to order LCA naval version for its fleet? What are the implications of this tender on LCA?

 

[Chanakyaa]

i heard few months back that IN was going to order LCA naval version for its fleet? What are the implications of this tender on LCA?

LCA will defiately find its place on IAC I and Vikramaditya while This RFI is for IAC II and Above.

 

[sudhir007]

Hi Sudhir, they only requested informations, it's not like they will buy them anytime soon. But it is important to know now, because the decision about the layout of IAC2 will be taken now. Are catapults on offer, if yes which one? Which are the most useful fighters that suits us and can be used from such layouts. How much internal space do we need to park the fighters, weapons, spares and so on.
All these things are important now and can be answered only if we know what layout and fighters.

Got it your point thanx sancho
But i have one Question to you as we know Russian will operate a/c too so they also want a new carrier base f/a as they dnt want more su-33 for future all hope come to pak-fa so if they want to develop we can get more easily it will more cost effective and more beneficial for us as we already have infrastructure for fgfa.

 

[sancho]

Got it your point thanx sancho
But i have one Question to you as we know Russian will operate a/c too so they also want a new carrier base f/a as they dnt want more su-33 for future all hope come to pak-fa so if they want to develop we can get more easily it will more cost effective and more beneficial for us as we already have infrastructure for fgfa.

Yes! I said that in the F35 for IN thread too, that Pak Fa is expected around 2016 and they will redesigned it till the end of the decade for sure too. So if FGFA is as we expect similar and the only airframe difference is the twin seat config, it will help us a lot. The only problem I see here is, that IN tends to catapult layout even with EMALS and it is not clear what the Russians have in mind. In general, even if they go for STOBAR and we for CATOBAR, both fighters will be pretty much the same, but we might redesign the front gear on our own, or with a partner.

To be honest, no matter what, we must go for this bird on our carriers:

 

[sudhir007]

Yes! I said that in the F35 for IN thread too, that Pak Fa is expected around 2016 and they will redesigned it till the end of the decade for sure too. So if FGFA is as we expect similar and the only airframe difference is the twin seat config, it will help us a lot. The only problem I see here is, that IN tends to catapult layout even with EMALS and it is not clear what the Russians have in mind. In general, even if they go for STOBAR and we for CATOBAR, both fighters will be pretty much the same, but we might redesign the front gear on our own, or with a partner.

To be honest, no matter what, we must go for this bird on our carriers:

thank sancho

 

[zagahaga]

f 35 sucks do some thing like MCA or LCA no need to waste your money

 

[illuminatidinesh]

f 35 sucks do some thing like MCA or LCA no need to waste your money

And who is saying..... When we want to buy some thing it sucks a?????
Ha Ha ha...

 

[Ammyy]

Imagine if IN and GOI select f35 for navy


So for IAF Pak FA, FGFA
and for IN F35

Dude no one can mess with us

 

[Dash]

Yes! I said that in the F35 for IN thread too, that Pak Fa is expected around 2016 and they will redesigned it till the end of the decade for sure too. So if FGFA is as we expect similar and the only airframe difference is the twin seat config, it will help us a lot. The only problem I see here is, that IN tends to catapult layout even with EMALS and it is not clear what the Russians have in mind. In general, even if they go for STOBAR and we for CATOBAR, both fighters will be pretty much the same, but we might redesign the front gear on our own, or with a partner.

To be honest, no matter what, we must go for this bird on our carriers:

Sancho -

Are you saying we need to go for F-35?

 

[archangel]

Got it your point thanx sancho
But i have one Question to you as we know Russian will operate a/c too so they also want a new carrier base f/a as they dnt want more su-33 for future all hope come to pak-fa so if they want to develop we can get more easily it will more cost effective and more beneficial for us as we already have infrastructure for fgfa.

You seriously have a good point, here. It is true that the Sukhoi HAL Pak-Fa/FGFA well be available more easily and much sooner. Also, it has less costumers as of now and if we bid in earlier, we will get it at the earliest. And the fact of a new carrier-based fighter for Russia is also a very powerful point.

There have also been performance issues with F-35 and Australia has already hailed the FGFA over F-35 and the European Consortium have shown that the Eurofighter Typhoon exceeds F-35 in all aspects except for radar and infra-red signature.

We should here understand the fact that F-22 Raptor is a superb plane. F-35 is just a cheap and cost-saving alternative to it, being designed and produced so that by selling them to countries interested in F-22like plane, they can get some good profits as they(F-35s) have been priced really high. Rest all is just show-off.

Even the US navy has made statements of it sticking to its existing F/A-18s rather than the F-35s.

So, F-35, just because it looks cool and modern, and boasts of "alien" technology, isn't necessarily the plane we need.

BTW where are our carriers??????????

 

[archangel]

Also, I want to put forth a question that-

Is there in a provision for a situation where:-
1. The Carrier with its planes on-board reaches its designated position in sea and planes on-board take-off.
2. At the same time, some planes(Naval versions that can land and take-off from carriers) from coastal bases also take-off and move towards the carriers.
3. When they reach the carrier, they land and mount their weapons, refill their tanks and again take-off.
4. They accompany the the fighters that had took-off(in 1.) and execute their mission.
5.Then the fighters of (1.) land on the deck. They refill and take-off from the deck and continue with their objectives.
6. If needed, the planes that had taken-off in 2. land on the deck to refill or directly head back to the coastal base.

Please answer even if any future provisions are also there. Attack a file or link that justifies it, if possible.

If managed properly, then in this way, we can operate twice as much as planes as we can take on the Carrier.
We can also deploy as many fighters as we want, only and only if we manage them well enough.

To understand it better, think of a juggler(as we see in circus) to be the carrier and the 3-4 balls that go around his palms as the groups of the planes.

Please comment.

 

[CONNAN]

Also, I want to put forth a question that-

Is there in a provision for a situation where:-
1. The Carrier with its planes on-board reaches its designated position in sea and planes on-board take-off.
2. At the same time, some planes(Naval versions that can land and take-off from carriers) from coastal bases also take-off and move towards the carriers.
3. When they reach the carrier, they land and mount their weapons, refill their tanks and again take-off.
4. They accompany the the fighters that had took-off(in 1.) and execute their mission.
5.Then the fighters of (1.) land on the deck. They refill and take-off from the deck and continue with their objectives.
6. If needed, the planes that had taken-off in 2. land on the deck to refill or directly head back to the coastal base.

Please answer even if any future provisions are also there. Attack a file or link that justifies it, if possible.

If managed properly, then in this way, we can operate twice as much as planes as we can take on the Carrier.
We can also deploy as many fighters as we want, only and only if we manage them well enough.

To understand it better, think of a juggler(as we see in circus) to be the carrier and the 3-4 balls that go around his palms as the groups of the planes.

Please comment.

to meet the above senarios our navy needs tankers in the air to execute the mission effectively as you mention above

 

[owcc]

to meet the above senarios our navy needs tankers in the air to execute the mission effectively as you mention above

F 35 will come with its price though.Most of its technology transfer will require US congree approval and the end user agreement which we have signed will become a hindrance for a "far reach" deployment force like our navy

 

[CONNAN]

F 35 will come with its price though.Most of its technology transfer will require US congree approval and the end user agreement which we have signed will become a hindrance for a "far reach" deployment force like our navy

what F 35 has to do with my comment F35 OR MIG 29K we need air to air refullers to carry out the missions proposed by archangel in his post