With Rafale M Selected, Indian Navy May Face Challenges Similar to MiG-29K Regarding Non-Foldable Wings and Training Limitations on Decks

With Rafale M Selected, Indian Navy May Face Challenges Similar to MiG-29K Regarding Non-Foldable Wings and Training Limitations on Decks


Concerns have been raised over the Indian Navy's selection of the Rafale M fighter jet, with a serving naval official pointing out potential operational limitations similar to those experienced with the MiG-29K.

A key issue lies in the Rafale M's non-foldable wings, which pose challenges for storage and maneuverability on the relatively confined decks of India's aircraft carriers, INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant. This design constraint could limit the number of aircraft deployable on a carrier at any given time, impacting operational flexibility.

Furthermore, the Rafale M's twin-seater trainer variant is not carrier-compatible. This necessitates land-based training for pilots, hindering the development of crucial skills required for carrier take-offs and landings. While simulations and touch-and-go training can partially compensate, they cannot fully replicate the real-world conditions of carrier operations.

This contrasts with the MiG-29KUB, the twin-seater trainer variant of the MiG-29K, which is carrier-capable and provides a more realistic training environment. However, due to a series of crashes and subsequent scarcity, the Indian Navy's use of the MiG-29KUB has been limited, increasing reliance on simulators.

The official, who remained anonymous, suggested that the decision to procure the Rafale M was influenced by logistical and financial considerations, echoing the rationale behind the earlier MiG-29K acquisition. This raises concerns that operational efficiency may have been compromised in favor of commonality with the Indian Air Force's Rafale fleet and potential cost savings.

These limitations could impact the Indian Navy's operational readiness, particularly in terms of aircraft handling and pilot proficiency on carrier decks. The lack of a carrier-borne trainer aircraft may necessitate increased investment in simulation technologies or alternative training solutions to ensure pilots are adequately prepared for carrier operations.

While the Rafale M undoubtedly brings advanced combat capabilities to the Indian Navy, these concerns highlight the complexities of integrating foreign technology into the unique operational environment of aircraft carrier operations. The Navy may need to explore further modifications to the Rafale M or invest in enhanced training programs to mitigate these challenges and ensure optimal operational effectiveness.

The decision to acquire the Rafale M, despite its limitations, may have long-term implications for the Navy's carrier operations and future fleet composition.
 
LCA Naval version would be better to induct for take-off and landing on deck for trainer purposes. Order one squadron of LCA Naval version.
 
Um, nope. We got the MiG-29K in the late 2000s because that was the only viable option. The other option was the Su-33, and that would be even more useless for us. Aircraft like the Rafale M and F-18 weren't exactly available for us back then.

As for the Rafale M, well, if the trainers cannot be used on carries, that leaves us 22 Rafale Ms and, say, 24-30 MiG-29Ks (assuming a serviceability of 60-75% over a fleet of 40), plus 4 Rafale M trainers and 5 MiG-29K trainers which we ideally shouldn't be putting on carriers. That comes to 46-52 jets, which is just about enough for two minimalistic carrier air wings of 24-26 jets each.

TEDBF needs to be fast-tracked asap. We cannot wait until the MiG-29K becomes another MiG-21 saga. In the meantime, if it is absolutely necessary, the Navy might have to borrow a few of the IAF's Rafale trainers.
 
When any military deal is going to happen, we have many desperate unknown sources and their agents who come out with such useless articles.
 
Is it possible to modify Vikrant lift to accomodate large aircraft?
Yes, but that modification would essentially entail breaking off a part of the flight deck and fitting in a new lift. It is something that could be done during the carrier's first major refit.
 
Land based trainers are not exactly a bad thing (safer atleast). But I can understand real life landing on carriers is quite difficult. Navy can share 60 percent of training with the airforce to reduce costs.

Also just ask the French what do they do and how do they train.

Besides that this article seems like petty hit piece in Rafale. Someone is not happy that we don't buy Russian anymore.
 
Rafale M is a very very very expensive deal. $ 7 billion for just 26 Rafale M's.

Limitations of wings is very severe.

Limitations of Trainers is also very severe.
 
66,000 crores for 26 Rafale-M's as per TOI. That means INR 2,538 crores per plane. Buying planes with this cost figures with limitations is suicide as this purchase will literally suck out the entire capex budget for the IN.
 
If not Rafale M, then which other aircraft had foldable wings? We had no other choice! So let us wait for our own TBDF Tejas to join Indian Navy and in the meanwhile, do with MiG 29Ks and Rafale Ms.
 
The Indian navy knew the jet didn’t have foldable wings but they calculated the capability, range and payload to be sufficient enough to outperform a Mig 29K type of jet or similar variants.

Training can still be achieved properly on land by using a mockup carrier deck with the same features, technology and ski angles etc. Once they become experts on land then they can use their skills and experience to properly qualify in carrier air operations.

As for the lift size and space the Rafale M does just about fit and it can carry the full weight of the armed jet. If it didn’t fit on a lift then we wouldn’t have bought the jet at all. Obviously next time we will install a much larger lift but the current lift is sufficient enough.
 
We should not go away from Russian jets just because for sake of western interests and their jets. Russian jets are war proven and far cheaper. Buy in bulks...
 
Rafale M is a very very very expensive deal. $ 7 billion for just 26 Rafale M's.

Limitations of wings is very severe.

Limitations of Trainers is also very severe.
Well France also operates the same planes from carriers. And they have no other plane for carriers. So clearly lack of trainers is not severe at all and isn't required.

As for wings, Navy chief clearly said that Rafale - M meets all the operational requirements, so folding wings is not required either.

Finally, regarding price. It is the cheapest plane on offer, it was the L1. So it is not very very very expensive but very very very budget friendly.
 
66,000 crores for 26 Rafale-M's as per TOI. That means INR 2,538 crores per plane. Buying planes with this cost figures with limitations is suicide as this purchase will literally suck out the entire capex budget for the IN.
Well firstly, there are no limitations whatsoever. Navy chief has stated on record that the plane meets each and every operational requirement of the navy. Secondly, as for the price, Rafale is L1, so it is the cheapest possible option.
 
Which other aircraft is available buddy.
All because of watch lovers, F/A-18 has foldable wings or why not go for more MIG-29KUB’s, such a dumb decision by the Navy to select a jet with non folding wings for a tiny carrier.
 
All because of watch lovers, F/A-18 has foldable wings or why not go for more MIG-29KUB’s, such a dumb decision by the Navy to select a jet with non folding wings for a tiny carrier.
Why not go for more MiG-29Ks? Here's a hint: Production of the MiG-29K stopped back in 2016, and even production of the MiG-29M ended in 2021.

As for the folding wing part, I agree with you that it was quite possibly a misstep. The F-18 might have been better in that aspect, but both types would be considerably better than obsolescent MiG-29Ks.
 
We should not go away from Russian jets just because for sake of western interests and their jets. Russian jets are war proven and far cheaper. Buy in bulks...
Russian jets are also objectively worse in multiple aspects. Not to mention the fact that production of the MiG-29 has well and truly ended, and there is absolutely no sense in buying more of these obsolescent jets.

Oh, and you really think Western jets are not war proven?
 
Well firstly, there are no limitations whatsoever. Navy chief has stated on record that the plane meets each and every operational requirement of the navy. Secondly, as for the price, Rafale is L1, so it is the cheapest possible option.
LCA navy was cheapest and its trainer could operate from deck. So for what reason there is need for four rafale naval trainers that cannot operate from deck as to how do you justify the cost for trainers? Personally I think that one was bad and other badder as both were catobar aircraft, but none were designed for stobar, but then why they rejected for. One thingh the navy should feel good that the airforse might be better utiilize the aircraft having 9 ton payload capacity..
 
As for the folding wing part, I agree with you that it was quite possibly a misstep. The F-18 might have been better in that aspect, but both types would be considerably better than obsolescent MiG-29Ks.
No way India is going in for fighter jets from US, no matter how compelling the case may be !
 
LCA navy was cheapest and its trainer could operate from deck. So for what reason there is need for four rafale naval trainers that cannot operate from deck as to how do you justify the cost for trainers? Personally I think that one was bad and other badder as both were catobar aircraft, but none were designed for stobar, but then why they rejected for. One thingh the navy should feel good that the airforse might be better utiilize the aircraft having 9 ton payload capacity..
Well NLCA's configuration itself isn't finalized yet. So they simply can't be inducted as DRDO can't even finalize the design. And Navy can't keep waiting for the next 30 years for DRDO to finish it and deliver them. So Navy had to induct Rafale which met each and every operational requirement they had and is ready to be inducted.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,863
Messages
40,224
Members
2,554
Latest member
yogeshwaram
Back
Top