Read the forum code of contact
By: - 21st December 2001 at 22:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE:Rafale?
Definitely Rafale,it's the newest with most modern electronics.It's not a remake like other two!
By: - 21st December 2001 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE:Rafale?
Maybe money is problem?
By: - 21st December 2001 at 23:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale - up against it.
Money is a problem for smaller air arms. Programme delays as well creating doubts about it, other more attractive existing and proven options available in Mirage 2000-5/-9 upgrades. Politics as well, the French trying to break into an advanced fighter market against strong competitors often with their own products already established or very much proven.
The French have their work cut out for them with Rafale.
Regards, Glenn.
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 00:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Rafale - up against it.
Depends on your needs, budget, political situation...
The SH is all wrong for the USN, it might be all right for some other navies who may wish to deploy it on a cat-carrier (hmm...aren't many of THOSE around huh? ;)).
The MiG-29K is pretty much the only thing the Indians were gonna get for that sort of money. It's a compromised design, flying from a compromised carrier, but it is better than nothing (and certainly better than anything the PLAN or Pakistan Navy have at the moment).
The Rafale is a real beauty, and it is the only totally new design of the 3, with advantages in stealth, aircraft performance and avionics integration over the other 2. It would definitely be my pick (and comes without those annoying American political gripes!). Expensive, but then again, so is the Super Hornet, and the MiG-29K is not really going to cut it if you want a "real" carrier borne aviation capability.
MinMiester
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 00:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Rafale
I'd have to say Rafale. I like the Super Hornet, and the MiG-29K is a good compromise for the Indians, but the Rafale is clearly the best one of the three. Good performance, good electronics, single/two-seat combat versions, good weaponry options, stealthy, etc. The Rafale M is slated to be the best carrierborne fighter until the arrival of the F-35. Then again, the Rafale might even compare well to the F-35.
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 01:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Rafale
rafel til lthe f-35
rabie :9
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 02:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Rafale - up against it.
Rafale has a clear lead here. I'm sorry Adonis but the naval Fulcrum is going to be the least capable of the three by some margin. This is for a number of reasons which I do not have time to list but one of the premier amongst them having to be the MiG's lack of catapult assistance on takeoff.
The Mig-29K will be a STOBAR design utilising a ski-jump for unassisted takeoff. No assistance means a weight limit on takeoff which, in turn, restricts the amount of fuel, weapons or both which can be carried.
The Indians arent stupid, but theyre not the sharpest tools in the box either. The Gorshkov offers them nothing they need, save for an ability to parade a flat deck around the IO. They should save the money from that deal and invest the resources on a CATOBAR version of theyre ADS ship modeled on an improved, conventional propulsion, DCN Charles de Gaulle design displacing 40k tons and operating Rafale. MiG-29K is a halfway house to a decent naval air component and if theyre not careful the Indians will get bogged down with it.
Steve
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 03:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Carrier choices
The USN is going to use the F-18E/F so it is the automatic winner in this debate. If the French eventually get the Rafale into service on the CDG, fine, but I believe the Super Hornet in the hands of the USN, will be a more effective weapon than the Rafale will ever be in the hands of the French navy and that's what really counts when the shooting starts. One thing for sure, the F-18E/F is here now. We are not sure about the Rafale. They will both undergo further development and I believe the Hornet will outpace the Rafale in that regard simply because there is more at stake.
There are no other possible naval sales out there for either jet that I can see unless the F-35 dies and the RN comes into the picture, but I stand to be corrected. If the F-35 does die and the RN needs a CTOL jet would the RN go for the SH or the Rafale? What about a navalised Typhoon?
India will no doubt pour resourses down it's Mig(?) rat hole, but
it will never be close to the SH or the Rafale. (What is the status of the Indian carrier by the way?)
As far as land based sales are concerned, I agree that both the Hornet and the Rafale are expensive and politics are a big issue.
Speaking of politics, Minmiester, living in the the land of OZ, and looking at what's north of you, you would do well to remember who your frends were in the past and who is most likely to be on your side if things get dicey. I suspect that those folks are more likely to be siting in F-18E/F's than Rafales. No disrespect to any one intended, but, as they said in the movie, 'who are you going to call'? Anyway, hang on to your F-111's.
Regards
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 09:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Carrier choices
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-12-01 AT 10:05 AM (GMT)]Sauron, to our north, do you mean the unflyable-F-16 equipped TNI-AU or further afield like PLAAF? ;). Australia has no real threats (at the moment), America would do well to remember how lucky they are to have a big, unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific :).
Sorry, I just don't take well to Americans thinking Australia would not survive without their "support" (thanks for all that logistics help for East Timor btw).
As far as interoperability with our allies goes, I don't think it is an overbearing concern (unlike for NATO nations). We have bought "foreign" before (Mirage IIIOs the most notable example), we wouldn't be afraid to do it again (although the Rafale will have to pick up some sales in South Korea, Singapore or Brazil to alleviate concerns about becoming another SOP orphan like the F-111).
MinMiester
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 11:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Indian perspective.
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-12-01 AT 11:25 AM (GMT)]By the way, the Indians should be getting the Mig-29SMTK, not the Mig-29K. The SMTK is the navalised verison of the current SMT upgrade, offering among other things far more internal fuel than the standard K model.
I agree with Jonesy and the others regarding the Rafale in this selection, but the Indian Gorshkov deal, if it ever goes through, is intended as a stop gap measure to operate along side the recently re-fitted Viraat until the 1st ADS (Air-Defence Ship) comes online around 2010. While the Mig-29SMTK/K does have limitations due it been STOBAR operated, it offers the Indian Navy (IN), or will offer them considerably more capability at sea to their current fleet of Harrier FRS.1s. This is a move in the right direction in the short term in my opinion, as Indian defence plans seem to be more pressing of late, and recent budget increases would support this.
The IN stated a year or so ago a new doctrine plan to centre the navy around 2 active carrier groups in future, but this plan may be delayed severely if the Gorshkov deal does not happen. If that eventuates, they may have to either go with the just the 1st ADS until the 2nd is ready, or, and this is somewhat unlikely, upgrade the Viraat again to fill another gap.
The interesting question is, if the Mig-29SMTK does happen for the IN operating from the Gorshkov, what will happen to them when the Gorshkov is no longer useful or needed, in other words when the second ADS becomes operational (2015-20?). If the Indians configure the ADS class for either navalised LCA, or another type, possibly a CATOBAR platform (Indian MCA?) I would not be surprised to see the Mig-29SMTKs transferred completely to shore based Ops, and thus start replacing their existing fleet of Mig-29As or complement whatever has replaced the Fulcrum-As by then (Russian LFI?).
Regards, Glenn.
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 15:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-12-01 AT 03:20 PM (GMT)]I think most of you guys tend to underestimate both the Mig-29K and the Gorshkov too easily.
What India has ordered is the Mig-29SMTK(II) which incorporates the features of the Mig-29M/K's lighter,composite,rebuilt and more efficient airframe with the superb avionics,radar and range of the SMT-II upgrade.The Mig-29SMTK is the best Mig-29 yet and if the Mig-29M was widely considered the best multirole a/c in the world,the Mig-29SMTK is far ahead.With a powerful radar - Zhuk-M(or Zhuk-27)
,superb armament(From the R-73 and R-77 to the Kh-35 and Kh-31M),range,FBW,enhanced EW and ECM systems and the advantage of agility and manouverability,the Mig-29SMTK is quite deadly for any
adversary.It's systems may not be as advanced as those on the Rafael or F/A-18E but they are sufficient are more than enough to handle most threats.Given it's price and capabilities,IMHO it's easily on par with the Rafael and can screw the super-horror.The disadvantage of the both the Mig-29K and the F/A-18 is that they can sustain only
lower Gs due to their folding wing structure.The Mig-29K itself is widely regarded as superior to the Su-33.Even 24-30 of these incredible machines represent a threat of very high levels.
As for the Gorshkov,it's no CdG,but is still a threat of extreme magnitude.The Gorshkov will be a very capable system and a quantum leap over the Viraat,the invincible class,the ex-Foch or any other conventional carrier.Excluding the USN super carriers and the CdG,nothing else has it's capability.With the Mig-29SMTK,Ka-31 AEW,Naval ALH,Ka-21 and superb armament including the Yakhonkt(maybe Brahmos),CADS-N-1 and perhaps the SA-N-17,it should'nt be discounted.The Indian navy is one of the oldest,most experienced and skilled operators of carriers and they know what they're doing.With a blue water navy and a minimum requirement of 2 carriers for the
western and eastern fleet respectively,the Gorshkov is a powerful option given that the next carrier,the ADS will arrive not anytime before 2010.The Gorshkov can take on any naval threat posed by pakistan,China or Indonesia(if they ever start dreaming about the Andaman islands again).It's also possible that an additional airarm of a small no. of naval LCAs may be added to the Gorshkov,given the small size of the naval LCA.
Attachments:
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 16:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
Harry, your optomistic views about the prospects for the Russian carrier and the Mig-29 in the Indian Navy are interesting, well writen and the drawing is fine, but no matter how many letters they add on to the Mig-29, in this role, it will never be in the same class as the others.
Regards
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 17:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-12-01 AT 05:20 PM (GMT)]but for india you need to look at what they have had and what thier option are /were
post ww2 sometime they get a CVE and fly sea hawks
late 80's get hermes (vikrant ?) and start using sea harriers
now in the noughties (you know what i mean) they are getting a russian ship in with mig 29 (mk whatever).
there are planes for naval LCA and a homebuilt air defence ship
now IMHO this is preety good carrier devlopment isn't it?
the indians are not going to be competing with the USN (rumors of alliance though???) and IMHO won't sail round to china. that leaves the indians being able to sail round the indian ocean and show the flag, etc and pressue pakistans coast. also this new method keeps them in weapons terms secure. ie after the nuke tests they had to wait for the hawk deal, and couldn't upgrade their sea harriers and couldn't get spares for their westland sea kings (copare with the effect on pakistan though).
so the mig and gorshkov is better for india IMHO than what they have now and they have their indigenous carrier and naval LCA coming up - al lthe more intresting.
rabie :9
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 19:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
In the 71 war,a small bunch of Seahawks and Alizes operating off the Vikrant did some massive damage to facilities,shipping and shore targets in East pakistan and the war in the eastern theatre was often described as Vikrant's war.
Sauron,
What you said is purely a reflection of your personal opinion and you should elaborate more before simply casting the aircraft away.Yes,it may seem that the Mig-29SMTK is not in the Rafael's class but the aircraft does have it's own advantages and very good capabilities that would give any adversary(on ground or in the air) a very very hard time.And if I were optimistic,I could have said a lot more.
There's a big differance between "adding letters" and giving aircraft serious upgrades and enhancements in capability.;):D
By: - 22nd December 2001 at 22:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
Harry.
The Mig-29 may do very well in the IO for the Indian Navy sometime down the road but all things are relative, and relative to the Rafale and especially the F-18E/F (any F-18), I believe the odds are that the Mig-29 is going to finish last. You can quote all the stats you want but until we see them actually operating on the carrier, its all speculation. Thats not just my idea, its the reality. In a few years, it will be very interesting to revisit this debate. We will actualy have operational records to look at and results. I hope we are all alive and well at that time.
Meanwhile back in the real world, the Super Bug is almost ready for deployment. A few Rafales are apparently at sea in the CDG. As far as the Mig-29 is concerned, I assume a prototype or a pre-engineering model of some sort exists.
Regards
By: - 23rd December 2001 at 00:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 23-12-01 AT 00:24 AM (GMT)]The MiG is in the same class,but with its combat effectiveness slightly below them(again,IMHO the issue is avionics, not so much on flight performance and manuverbility).
And less capable in the ground attack role thanks to the STOBAR arrangement
Can't lift real heavy loads off the carrier.
Though we have to wait and see all three are in service to compare,though we can of course compare the features promised by each of the developers :)
Besides the time frame is not far different,to warrant a different generation ,Its not like a difference of a decade or more.
Anyway i am relived that the people here have Finally realized that the Rafale M is best of the three :)
(Besides it has taken account of naval operations right from the begining of the program,so it should stand well to naval envrioments,so I am rather surprised of some people talking as if the Rafale was converted from a land jet to naval use)
By: - 23rd December 2001 at 01:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
I appreciate what Glenn, and several others have said and am fully aware that Gorshkov is an interim solution only.
However, as Glenn has said it is the operational life and future of the Gorshkov that taints my view of its aquisition. If the Indians wish to keep STOBAR naval aviation then, sure, it makes a lot of sense. The service that they are seeking to maintain advantage over is the PLAN however, as the Pakistani Navy offer no threat that requires the level of current IN capabilities let alone anything more. The PLAN are aiming, last I heard, to deploy a carrier capability by around 2015. This could conceivably see deployed several Su-33K equipped fleet carriers. The Su-33 is very much a superior naval fighter to the Mig-29K on range and avionics alone. What the SMTK variant will bring to the party in that regard remains to be seen as I've not seen confirmed specs on the aircraft yet.
Suffice it to say the IN will need an advantage to carry through into this time. That advantage will be found in conventional catapult equipped carriers embarking fighters on the order of Rafale with support from theyre LCA's not the MiG-29anything launched off a ramp.
With STOBAR experience and a ready fleet of these Fulcrums, operating doubtlessly very successfully, the pressure will be on the IN to build the ADS without the need for these complicated catapult fandangles and keep with the proven, and much cheaper, STOBAR technology. Exactly like the problems the RN facing trying to rid ourselves of this bloody STOVL mess and the problems the USN is facing with the Hornet-mafia.
This is what I mean by them getting bogged down. Having a mixed airgroup with STOBAR planes for a STOBAR carrier and CATOBAR planes for a conventional carrier is also rather stupid as it would entail squadrons sitting relatively useless whilst that one carrier was in for refit. Ground deploying them to replace early mark Fulcrums makes sense but I thought that this was what the LCA and MCA were slated to do. Why buy the naval Fulcrums at all?
Currently, the Indian Navy faces no opponent that requires anything more than the Viraat with its SHAR Mk51's to deal with. Perhaps a modest upgrade of the Harriers with Israeli multimode radar and BVRAAM's similar to UK FA.2 spec to allow for more secure operations in the face of land based airpower but, other than that, who is able to challenge them in blue-water in theyre theatre for the next 8-10 years?
This being the situation, as I've said before, the Indian Navy must surely look at its force structure before aquiring a prestigious, but largely unnecessary fleet unit. If its stated aims are for the deployment of two self-contained CVBG's then it needs the escort vessels in place to construct them and the current the Indian fleet is not optimised for this. It has a glaring deficiency in fleet AAW that even a powerful PDMS like the SA-N-12 will not redress. It also lacks SSN's which are a vital component of naval battlegroups.
To realise the aims stated on this forum they need:
1, 3 preferably 4 CATOBAR carriers allowing for 2 deploying with 1 or 2 in refit/transit.
2, At least 6 AAW destroyers with a modern area-defence SAM system and command facilities to allow for 4 deploying with 2 in refit at any one time.
3, Acceleration of the ATV SSN project and deployment of at least 4 units.
4, Earliest completion of the Bangalore class and, if not outright retirement, upgrading of the Kashin's with Uran's and Barak SAM's to bring them into line with the rest of the fleet. The Delhi's and Bangalores also need outfitting to act as ASW command ships.
5, 3 or 4 more Aditya class auxilliaries.
Once all these things are achieved an IN battlegroup will be the equal of anything in theatre and would be a force that, with sufficient training and proficency, would give pause to any navy current and projected. Without it they will be a powerful force in the IO who are going to have to be careful when the PLAN gets up to speed.
Gorshkov, IMHO, is a very dangerous distraction from the above.
Comments expected and welcome,
Steve
By: Anonymous (not verified) - 21st December 2001 at 21:29
Between the Super Hornet, Rafale,and Mig-29K. Which, is the best new naval fighter? (i.e. proformance, systems, stealth, etc.)