What to read next

13 Comments

  1. 1

    Raj Sing

    Great another competition, which will go on for years, in the meantime nothing is done to develop India’s own capabilities of designing and producing sophisticated military platforms! When it comes to defence and security procurement the mantra of “Made in India” is increasingly sounding hollow. If India is serious about matching China’s naval capabilities, the F-35 is the only serious plane. Though the Super Hornet is a great and proven fighter, it is based on a design that is 40 plus years. The government should still force the navy and air force to buy Tejas MKII or MKIII. If India is going to be a true super power its leaders need to develop a proper strategy between science and research, the armed forces and industry on making and producing arms. This means politicians standing up to the armed forces. India cannot afford to carry on buying old weapons off the shelf while its global rivals are technologically speeding ahead.

    Reply
    1. 1.1

      Abhiman

      An extremely unfortunate action by the Indian Navy. Of the trio of the Army, Air Force ad the Navy, it was the Navy that had the reputation of being the most enthusiastic promoter of indigenous weapons.

      The Tejas Navy is a very good development. Its the first time since independence we’re attempting something so complex, that only a handful of nations have even attempted earlier. It only needs an impetus, a push. And that push has to come from the Institutions like the Navy and Defence Ministry. The DRDO cannot be expected to be plough a lonely forrough, if it sees that the Navy is scouting for planes elsewhere, and the Def Ministry is simply uninterested.

      It’s very easy to act like a bride, and invite suitors from across the world to show off their wares. Its far more difficult to get hands dirty with the DRDO, and lend hand and shoulder till the N-Tejas flies off the decks of the Vikrant. I hope that better sense prevails in the Navy, and the N-Tejas is given the impetus its seeking, and its inducted with flying colours in the Indian Navy.

      Reply
    2. 1.2

      Rajan

      We should buy F-35 for what ? We have enough flawed jets already that keep dropping like apples. You know how much F35 cost compared to F18 ? How much money is required to repair the Stealth Body of F35 just after its one hour flight ?

      Reply
  2. 2

    harish

    any updates on IAC ?? pehle ise to bana lo, if navy lca was no good then why they inveted money to develop it.

    Reply
  3. 3

    Murali

    Ok, it is clear we love foreign toys!!! so simply pick Rafale or Gripen for both and call it a day… saves more money that way than putting any other stuff.

    Reply
  4. 4

    kapil

    another 8-10 billion out of country ?? could build 2 vikrant, why not ask hal to build su-33 just like chinese did??

    Reply
    1. 4.1

      Jojo

      Because the Su 33 without catapult launch lacks offensive capacity. It’s fuel or weapons. It’s just useful to show off…

      Of the 4 contenders the only 2 war fighting machines are Rafale M and Super Hornet.
      But the Super Hornet is a huge beast, you need big aircraft carrier to use it.

      Rafale M can use the same weapons and equipment as Air Force Rafale. So it means saving.

      Reply
    2. 4.2

      Jojo

      Because with the Su 33 you need to choose between fuel and weapons. It’s only good to show off the flag.

      On the other hand the Rafale M is a proven and reliable naval fighter, it can share weapons, targeting & reconnaissance pod, engine and every spare parts (other than landing gear) or training with Air Force Rafale B/ C. So it means saving compared to initial order.
      It comes ready to use.
      You can benefit of French Navy assistance to put Rafale into Indian Navy service (same for Super Hornet and US Navy off course). Who will teach you the Gripen Maritime if the paper plane is finally built. Sweden never had an aircraft carrier.

      Super Hornet is good too, but it’s a big plane. You need a carrier as big as US one to use it properly.

      Reply
      1. 4.2.1

        Sukh

        There is nothing new in catapult launch its just a hook which is inserted onto catapult

        If f18 has capability to launch from ski jump there is nothing wrong with su33 or mig 29k to launch from catapult

        So u think sukhoi makes fighters to show off,

        Reply
  5. 5

    puneet shukla

    f18 will again create maintenance problem as it will be a new platform , trump will not permit local production. Rafale is only and useful hope, if IAF joins navy hand and cost is managed

    Reply
  6. 6

    Venkat

    IAF wanted to consider F-16. Trump put paid to it. Unreliable Americans.
    So F-18 ruled out.
    MiG-29, plane not realiable.
    Grippen paper plane, not too different from LCA.

    However our MOD babudom will take 15 years to even open this file.After that order 8 Rafales, saying no money.

    All the best to IN aviation wing.

    IN should simply add LCA, begin using it, let india learn . The hasten Mk-2version.

    Reply
  7. 7

    Shiva

    A regressive step by a normally progressive Navy. The LCA was the best bet. If there are issues regarding range, time on task innovative tactical methods could have been employed to mitigate the limitation. The power issues of the engine was being solved with the upgraded engine. Indian armed forces need to learn to support local DRDO efforts for some time until they catch up with all the QRs. The Services are also many times guilty of shifting the goal posts in design specs down the road.

    Reply
  8. 8

    santosh

    Why don’t we make a naval version of the su-30 mk1
    It would be carrying bramos missile too

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.