Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

Corvus Splendens said:
With F-35 on the table, MRFA is dead. And Dassault is probably lying down right now. They might even lose the Rafale-M deal. The F-35C is 9.1 meters wide (wings folded), Vikrant's lift is 10.8 meters wide.
View attachment 25308
Click to expand...
Do we have official confirmation from Indian Govt sources about F35 procurement or we are just speculating gormint babus might fumble n buy this over priced bird....
 
ArjunMK1A said:
28 Lakhs per hour for an F-35 looks a steal.

Rafale based on chatgpt, giving 18 lakhs per hour.

Flaws in F-35 were known from its initial entry. LM is working on fixing them as reputed company. Compared to this we bought SU-30MKI with shit tier avionics and we forced to install French, Israel avionics.
Click to expand...
Based on real numbers, in France, last cost per hour known was 17 000 US dollars, and F35 40 000 is dollars. More than twice the price.
But on fact the F35 is less expensive because... It cannot sustain or match the Rafale availability rate
 
ArjunMK1A said:
I also not interested in having F-35, another aircraft in our Zero. But overall numbers will be supporting F-35.

Per Unit cost F35A -82 MIL USD, Even F35C is 102 MIL USD.
Click to expand...

you are confusing two different things. Production cost and acquisition cost.
In France, production cost of Rafale is around 70 millions of euro per plane. But when you sell a plane you don't just sell an airframe and engines, but a lot of stuff to get it to the air.
With all the package of spare part, documentation, training, ammunition and so on, you are at approximately 200 millions of euros per plane. For India it was 170 millions, and includes the development of a brand news standard.

For the F35, while excluding the weird sell system of FMS, you can check prices offers on the website dsca.mil. you ll also find a price around 200 million us dollar. Sometimes more, sometimes less, it depends of there is ammunition package or not, if there was a contest or not, and euro/dollar quite the same here.

ArjunMK1A said:
Rafale we purchased is 100MIL USD. May be we can get discount now. But at slightly higher price we are getting advance plane.
Click to expand...
Discount ? You are not buying a car here bro. There are years of discussion. I truly believe that, so far, India already got this plane for the lowest price compared to other countries.
ArjunMK1A said:
Running cost looks good, spare support will be there since huge countries were using it.
Click to expand...
You guess.... Wrong. The logistical support of F35 and spare availability is a nightmare. There are even comparison with the was In Israel. The us support onto this war allowed Israel to flight these aircraft more, but it automatically reduced the availability rate of other aircraft on the world. Everything is centralised.
Another thing. When US is at war, the priority of the spare parts production goes to ... The US. It is the way it's done. During years, availability of F16 around the wold were impacted by this situation.

ArjunMK1A said:
Only issue is IAF, IN does not like when things were getting poked. IN clearly done with US ships after Jalashwa. They are ok with Transport, ASW, drones from USA. Not capital ships. IAF historically shown displeasure with US aircrafts.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware about that.
 
F35 for now is a huge prototype production. Only the block 4 will provide good and complete capacity, but it still in development, software is not available yet with the tr3.
Within The rest of the fleet, the full mission capable availability rate is around 30% !...
 
Corvus Splendens said:
With F-35 on the table, MRFA is dead. And Dassault is probably lying down right now. They might even lose the Rafale-M deal. The F-35C is 9.1 meters wide (wings folded), Vikrant's lift is 10.8 meters wide.
View attachment 25308
Click to expand...
To estimate the takeoff distance of the F-35C without a catapult at 60% fuel and no weapons, we need to consider several aerodynamic and performance factors:

Step 1: Define Aircraft Parameters

Weight (W): 21,176 kg (from previous calculation)

Takeoff Speed (V_TO): Estimated 150 knots (77 m/s) for this configuration

Thrust (T): 191 kN (afterburner)

Wing Area (S): 62.1 m²

Lift Coefficient at Takeoff (C_L_TO): Estimated ~1.0 with flaps deployed

Drag Coefficient (C_D): Estimated ~0.03 in takeoff configuration

Air Density (ρ): 1.225 kg/m³ (at sea level)


Step 2: Calculate Lift (L) at Takeoff Speed

Lift equation:

L = \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2 S C_L

L = \frac{1}{2} (1.225) (77)^2 (62.1) (1.0) ]

L ≈ 226.5 \text{ kN}

Since weight (21,176 kg × 9.81 m/s² = 207.7 kN) is lower than lift (226.5 kN), the aircraft can take off at this speed.

Step 3: Calculate Acceleration (a)

Net force equation:

F_{\text{net}} = T - D - R

Drag (D) =

Rolling resistance (R) ≈ 0.02 W (estimated for carrier decks)


D = \frac{1}{2} (1.225) (77)^2 (62.1) (0.03) \approx 6.8 \text{ kN}

R = 0.02 \times 207.7 \approx 4.2 \text{ kN} ]

F_{\text{net}} = 191 - 6.8 - 4.2 = 180 \text{ kN}

a = \frac{F_{\text{net}}}{m} = \frac{180,000}{21,176} \approx 8.5 \text{ m/s}^2 ]

Step 4: Estimate Takeoff Distance

Using kinematic equation:

V^2 = 2 a d

d = \frac{V^2}{2a} = \frac{(77)^2}{2(8.5)} ]

d ≈ 350 \text{ m}

Conclusion: Estimated Takeoff Distance

Takeoff run ≈ 350 meters (1150 feet) on a flat surface.


Now for, F-35C Takeoff from INS Vikrant's 14° Ski Jump (200m Runway)

Given:

Ski-jump angle: 14°

Ski-jump length: ~30m

Total available takeoff run: ~200m

Weight (60% fuel, no weapons): 21,176 kg

Thrust (afterburner): 191 kN

Lift coefficient (C_L_TO): ~1.0

Drag coefficient (C_D): ~0.03

Takeoff speed (V_TO, estimated): ~77 m/s (150 knots)

Acceleration (flat deck, calculated earlier): 8.5 m/s²



---

Step 1: Check Acceleration Over 200m

Using the kinematic equation:

V^2 = 2 a d

V = \sqrt{2 (8.5) (200)} ]

V \approx 58 m/s

At 200m, the F-35C reaches ~58 m/s (112 knots), which is below the estimated takeoff speed of ~77 m/s. This means it would not take off purely based on runway acceleration—it relies on the ski jump.


---

Step 2: Effect of the 14° Ski Jump

The ski jump provides a vertical velocity component (V_y) upon exit:


V_y = V \sin(14^\circ)

V_y \approx 58 \times 0.241 ]

V_y \approx 14 m/s

The horizontal velocity (V_x) remains:


V_x = V \cos(14^\circ)

V_x \approx 58 \times 0.97 ]

V_x \approx 56 m/s

Total velocity after ski-jump:


V_{\text{total}} = \sqrt{V_x^2 + V_y^2}

V_{\text{total}} = \sqrt{56^2 + 14^2} \approx 58.7 \text{ m/s} ]


---

Step 3: Check If F-35C Can Stay Airborne

The aircraft will stay airborne if lift force (L) is at least equal to weight (W).

L = \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2 S C_L

L = \frac{1}{2} (1.225) (58.7)^2 (62.1) (1.0) ]

L \approx 161 \text{ kN}

Required lift (weight force):

W = 21,176 \times 9.81 = 207.7 \text{ kN}

Since 161 kN < 207.7 kN, the F-35C does not generate enough lift immediately after leaving the ski jump and would start descending.


---

Step 4: Can the F-35C Recover in Flight?

The aircraft still has significant thrust (191 kN) vs. drag (~6.8 kN at 58 m/s), meaning it can accelerate further after launch.

The F-35C's high angle of attack (AoA) capability allows it to pitch up aggressively, increasing C_L to ~1.5-1.7, generating more lift.

If the pilot manages a smooth AoA transition, the aircraft may sustain flight after a brief altitude loss.



---

Final Verdict: Can the F-35C Take Off from INS Vikrant?

Barely possible, but extremely risky.

Will experience altitude drop after the ski jump before regaining lift.

Would require perfect AoA control and afterburner thrust.

Would severely limit takeoff payload (no weapons, possibly less fuel).


Practical Answer: No, the F-35C is not suited for Vikrant's STOBAR setup. A STOVL aircraft like the F-35B or MiG-29K/Rafale-M with better low-speed handling is required.


We ain't getting f35 "C"
There's a reason UK went with F 35B for its carriers not the C varient
 
Did you took into account the wind generated at least by the aircraft carrier ?
 
Ayan Barat said:
He took nothing into account, it looks like a ChatGPT regurgitation
Click to expand...
Exposed

But highly confident it's not "wrong".
Even with added wind f35C ain't taking off

Plus uk not going for f35C but F35B adds another layer of support to this.
 
Corvus Splendens said:
With F-35 on the table, MRFA is dead. And Dassault is probably lying down right now. They might even lose the Rafale-M deal. The F-35C is 9.1 meters wide (wings folded), Vikrant's lift is 10.8 meters wide.
View attachment 25308
Click to expand...
Buying 36 Rafale was the worst decision we ever made. Again this makes IAF a lab for all aero manufacturers. We should have either gone for 126+ 54 for AF and Navy or zero. Going 36 made no sense at all. It would have been better if we bought ~90 SU 30 MKI and upgraded all 20 sq of them to Super Sukhoi standards. Don't know why we are not buying more Super Sukhois to fill the gap for MMRCA. No country has 3 weight classes of fighters, only the IAF dreams of one. Once the "Raptor" of Asia is now not even considered for high upgrades. While I am aware of the opex and maintenance issues with Su30MKI, getting so many types of fighters doesn't make any sense.

The way forward should be to make up the numbers with Super Sukhoi, and Tejas MK1A, retire your older fighter jets, and make way for MK2 and AMCA eventually. If you really want the 5th gen, then buy it for both the Navy and Airforce, no need to buy Rafale M when the F35 is on the table. Particularly the F35B can even be used from our LPD and it doesn't pose a threat to AMCA too.
If you want to make compromises, then go all in. Don't make half-hearted decisions like Rafale.
 
Migflug said:
Buying 36 Rafale was the worst decision we ever made. Again this makes IAF a lab for all aero manufacturers. We should have either gone for 126+ 54 for AF and Navy or zero. Going 36 made no sense at all. It would have been better if we bought ~90 SU 30 MKI and upgraded all 20 sq of them to Super Sukhoi standards. Don't know why we are not buying more Super Sukhois to fill the gap for MMRCA. No country has 3 weight classes of fighters, only the IAF dreams of one. Once the "Raptor" of Asia is now not even considered for high upgrades. While I am aware of the opex and maintenance issues with Su30MKI, getting so many types of fighters doesn't make any sense.

The way forward should be to make up the numbers with Super Sukhoi, and Tejas MK1A, retire your older fighter jets, and make way for MK2 and AMCA eventually. If you really want the 5th gen, then buy it for both the Navy and Airforce, no need to buy Rafale M when the F35 is on the table. Particularly the F35B can even be used from our LPD and it doesn't pose a threat to AMCA too.
If you want to make compromises, then go all in. Don't make half-hearted decisions like Rafale.
Click to expand...
Buying 36 Rafale wasn’t a mistake but not placing a follow on order in time for 54-72 is the mistake. If we had placed these orders by now IAF would be in better outlook to look for 5th gen fighters (indigenous AMCA or F35- Su57). Now we are stuck with only 36 and trump is dangling the F35 carrot.
 
Gandaberunda said:
Buying 36 Rafale wasn’t a mistake but not placing a follow on order in time for 54-72 is the mistake. If we had placed these orders by now IAF would be in better outlook to look for 5th gen fighters (indigenous AMCA or F35- Su57). Now we are stuck with only 36 and trump is dangling the F35 carrot.
Click to expand...
Agreed, that's why I said buying only 36 Rafale was a mistake, we should have gone for at least 126 for AF and 54 for Navy making around 10 sq in India under the private-public partnership. It would have improved our squadron strength as well as given enough leverage again France to get a good engine deal. But now we are in 2025 and buying Rafales makes no sense anymore.
If we have to make up for our falling squadron, we should go with MK1A and Super Sukhoi, planes which are already in production.
If we going to buy off the self, buy a 5th gen, buying 4.5th gen makes no sense anymore.
 
randombully said:
To estimate the takeoff distance of the F-35C without a catapult at 60% fuel and no weapons, we need to consider several aerodynamic and performance factors:

Step 1: Define Aircraft Parameters

Weight (W): 21,176 kg (from previous calculation)

Takeoff Speed (V_TO): Estimated 150 knots (77 m/s) for this configuration

Thrust (T): 191 kN (afterburner)

Wing Area (S): 62.1 m²

Lift Coefficient at Takeoff (C_L_TO): Estimated ~1.0 with flaps deployed

Drag Coefficient (C_D): Estimated ~0.03 in takeoff configuration

Air Density (ρ): 1.225 kg/m³ (at sea level)


Step 2: Calculate Lift (L) at Takeoff Speed

Lift equation:

L = \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2 S C_L

L = \frac{1}{2} (1.225) (77)^2 (62.1) (1.0) ]

L ≈ 226.5 \text{ kN}

Since weight (21,176 kg × 9.81 m/s² = 207.7 kN) is lower than lift (226.5 kN), the aircraft can take off at this speed.

Step 3: Calculate Acceleration (a)

Net force equation:

F_{\text{net}} = T - D - R

Drag (D) =

Rolling resistance (R) ≈ 0.02 W (estimated for carrier decks)


D = \frac{1}{2} (1.225) (77)^2 (62.1) (0.03) \approx 6.8 \text{ kN}

R = 0.02 \times 207.7 \approx 4.2 \text{ kN} ]

F_{\text{net}} = 191 - 6.8 - 4.2 = 180 \text{ kN}

a = \frac{F_{\text{net}}}{m} = \frac{180,000}{21,176} \approx 8.5 \text{ m/s}^2 ]

Step 4: Estimate Takeoff Distance

Using kinematic equation:

V^2 = 2 a d

d = \frac{V^2}{2a} = \frac{(77)^2}{2(8.5)} ]

d ≈ 350 \text{ m}

Conclusion: Estimated Takeoff Distance

Takeoff run ≈ 350 meters (1150 feet) on a flat surface.


Now for, F-35C Takeoff from INS Vikrant's 14° Ski Jump (200m Runway)

Given:

Ski-jump angle: 14°

Ski-jump length: ~30m

Total available takeoff run: ~200m

Weight (60% fuel, no weapons): 21,176 kg

Thrust (afterburner): 191 kN

Lift coefficient (C_L_TO): ~1.0

Drag coefficient (C_D): ~0.03

Takeoff speed (V_TO, estimated): ~77 m/s (150 knots)

Acceleration (flat deck, calculated earlier): 8.5 m/s²



---

Step 1: Check Acceleration Over 200m

Using the kinematic equation:

V^2 = 2 a d

V = \sqrt{2 (8.5) (200)} ]

V \approx 58 m/s

At 200m, the F-35C reaches ~58 m/s (112 knots), which is below the estimated takeoff speed of ~77 m/s. This means it would not take off purely based on runway acceleration—it relies on the ski jump.


---

Step 2: Effect of the 14° Ski Jump

The ski jump provides a vertical velocity component (V_y) upon exit:


V_y = V \sin(14^\circ)

V_y \approx 58 \times 0.241 ]

V_y \approx 14 m/s

The horizontal velocity (V_x) remains:


V_x = V \cos(14^\circ)

V_x \approx 58 \times 0.97 ]

V_x \approx 56 m/s

Total velocity after ski-jump:


V_{\text{total}} = \sqrt{V_x^2 + V_y^2}

V_{\text{total}} = \sqrt{56^2 + 14^2} \approx 58.7 \text{ m/s} ]


---

Step 3: Check If F-35C Can Stay Airborne

The aircraft will stay airborne if lift force (L) is at least equal to weight (W).

L = \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2 S C_L

L = \frac{1}{2} (1.225) (58.7)^2 (62.1) (1.0) ]

L \approx 161 \text{ kN}

Required lift (weight force):

W = 21,176 \times 9.81 = 207.7 \text{ kN}

Since 161 kN < 207.7 kN, the F-35C does not generate enough lift immediately after leaving the ski jump and would start descending.


---

Step 4: Can the F-35C Recover in Flight?

The aircraft still has significant thrust (191 kN) vs. drag (~6.8 kN at 58 m/s), meaning it can accelerate further after launch.

The F-35C's high angle of attack (AoA) capability allows it to pitch up aggressively, increasing C_L to ~1.5-1.7, generating more lift.

If the pilot manages a smooth AoA transition, the aircraft may sustain flight after a brief altitude loss.



---

Final Verdict: Can the F-35C Take Off from INS Vikrant?

Barely possible, but extremely risky.

Will experience altitude drop after the ski jump before regaining lift.

Would require perfect AoA control and afterburner thrust.

Would severely limit takeoff payload (no weapons, possibly less fuel).


Practical Answer: No, the F-35C is not suited for Vikrant's STOBAR setup. A STOVL aircraft like the F-35B or MiG-29K/Rafale-M with better low-speed handling is required.


We ain't getting f35 "C"
There's a reason UK went with F 35B for its carriers not the C varient
Click to expand...
:faint::faint2:
 
Migflug said:
Agreed, that's why I said buying only 36 Rafale was a mistake, we should have gone for at least 126 for AF and 54 for Navy making around 10 sq in India under the private-public partnership. It would have improved our squadron strength as well as given enough leverage again France to get a good engine deal. But now we are in 2025 and buying Rafales makes no sense anymore.
If we have to make up for our falling squadron, we should go with MK1A and Super Sukhoi, planes which are already in production.
If we going to buy off the self, buy a 5th gen, buying 4.5th gen makes no sense anymore.
Click to expand...
Still we can add 36 more Rafales to the existing fleet to make the presence of Rafale meaningful and then buy 114 MRFA 5th Gen F35. MK1A we’re going for additional 99 and minimum 5 squadrons of MK2. Upgrade su 30 MKi and hope for AMCA to come by 2040.
 
Gandaberunda said:
Still we can add 36 more Rafales to the existing fleet to make the presence of Rafale meaningful and then buy 114 MRFA 5th Gen F35. MK1A we’re going for additional 99 and minimum 5 squadrons of MK2. Upgrade su 30 MKi and hope for AMCA to come by 2040.
Click to expand...
We don't have the budget to buy 36 rafales and 114 MRFA (Su57 or F35) at the same time.
Going by the staggered purchase we have done in the last few acquisitions, it will either be ~54 F35 or similar numbers of Su57.
I personally would prefer Su57 and use its technology to develop Super Sukhoi and AMCA. While the F35 is a much superior aircraft, we won't be getting any ToT and even integration with the existing setup will be a headache. I am not even talking about so many baggaes it will come with.
While Su57 would be a more seamless integration into IAF and Russians would be much more amiable in providing core ToT. We can leverage their weak economic situation to get a better deal, unlike in the F35 deal, wherein we might weaken IAF's sovereignty.
 
Nutcracker said:
Did our squadron deplete to 30 because current LCA order's delivery is delayed by 1 year ?
ACM is barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...

ACM is barking up one of the trees responsible. Others are GoI, MoD, and IAF themselves.

iNorthernerOn9 said:
Today Pakis have signed deal with Turkiya to acquire this... numbers unknown

View attachment 25082

& our generals/marshals/admirals are wondering & commenting about state of Paki economy instead of doing their...
Click to expand...

And people will appreciate this decision while blaming Armed Forces for trying to acquire similar platform which is not made promised to be made by HAL.

Ayan Barat said:
Tell me the best possible alternative to HAL that we currently have and I'll go personally drop a 2000lbs on HAL's headquarters.
Click to expand...

Nothing, privatise the PSUs with upper management poached from L&T / Aditya Birla / Tata and engineers poached from IITs & FAANGs.

Then see them churning out AMCA within 2030.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Unknowncommando
Indian Air Force's MiG-29UPG
Replies
5
Views
766
NerVik
N
Unknowncommando
Indian Air Force Helicopters
Replies
19
Views
1K
ArjunMK1A
ArjunMK1A
Unknowncommando
Indian Air Force Attack Helicopters
Replies
12
Views
866
Unknowncommando
Unknowncommando
Unknowncommando
Indian Air Force Akashganga & Air Devils
Replies
0
Views
110
Unknowncommando
Unknowncommando
johny_baba
  • Sticky
Dassault Rafale in Indian Air Force
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
BON PLAN
BON PLAN

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Back
Top