Indian Naval Aviation

[nam]

When LM is ready to set up a local factory to produce F16V in India, gives us P8, talks on EMAL, why would they refuse F35?

It's not on offer, because we haven't asked for it. We had our finger in the Su-57 pie. Now that it is out of the way, I don't see why should it be a problem.

If there is limitations on the lift size, IN has to come up with a solution, if they want a bird which is not Mig-29 & LCA. If they figure out a way, it is better to get F35 instead of Rafale.

[ramana]

JayS, TSarkar
1) How was the number 57 arrived At? How many Carriers is that?
2) Is EMALS necessary ? What alternates?
Thanks, Ramana
P.S. any one jump in.

When asked this question I hoped someone would say lets look at area of operations to determine how many carriers needed?
Look at IN area of operations; West Indian Ocean/ East Africa, Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal , East Indian Ocean.
Two of these require an a/c carrier at all times.
Takes 1.5 to 2 years for carrier refit. So add one more carrier.
So we need three carriers battle groups.
So three squadrons at 18 a/c each is 54 planes add three for attrition spares. I would add three more for round number of 60.
As you will be charged for the even lot even if you order odd lot.
Now might deploy only 2 flight at sea and rotate one in each squadron.

Right now the options that IN has are ski jump carriers and catapult launch carriers.
Ski jump are more expedient but catapult will mean less wear and tear on your planes and pilots and more strike ordnance on target.

Both current carriers are ski jump types.
The lifts can accommodate the Mig-29s i.e. ~ 11.0 meter span.

So that means if you want same planes for both types of carriers then the choice is Mig-29, N -LCA and Rafale-M.
All fit the carrier lifts.
Mig-29 is already very shaky with bad availability. look at report of Adm. Lanba in Moscow to discuss spares.
N-LCA is slowly being developed. Will have common engine with IAF Tejas Mk2.
Rafale M is available. Has common engine with the IAF version.
So its a choice between N-LCA and Rafale-M.

Now what are prospects for future aircraft carriers?

Ski jump technology is with in grasp but catapult type is the way of the future.

Can some one do research on power requirements of EMALS?

And can it be driven by a separate gas-turbine generator as its needed only for launch and not needed all the time?
And will this fit a 65K tonne carrier which already has three G/T engines. Add one more G/T for power generation.

[Rakesh]

When LM is ready to set up a local factory to produce F16V in India, gives us P8, talks on EMAL, why would they refuse F35?

It's not on offer, because we haven't asked for it. We had our finger in the Su-57 pie. Now that it is out of the way, I don't see why should it be a problem.

F-35 will only come if F-16 comes....which the IAF is not keen on. And yes, that that is the Air Force and not the Navy. But see below (after the quote) for the Navy. LM is insisting on the F-16 production line as a precursor to the F-35. But even in that, they are not guaranteeing a sale to India. But LM states that the needle points in that direction if F-16 is bought.

Saar, talking about EMALS means nothing if there is no vessel to put it on. The MoD has not even cleared the funding for the Vishaal. The Indian naval design bureau has now gone back to the drawing board, as the MoD basically gave the middle finger to the Indian Navy in 2017 on the Vishaal being nuclear powered. The babus balked at the price of the nuclear powered vessel and neither the Indian Navy or the BARC wants to fund the development of a nuclear reactor. The design bureau is now doing studies on how EMALS will work with a conventionally powered aircraft carrier, with General Atomics saying that the EMALS should work as effectively on a conventionally powered vessel as it would on a nuclear powered vessel.

More importantly, the situation is a bit dicey now with the MMRCA deal up in the air. If Boeing or LM lose that deal (which can definitely happen), one can kiss the F-35 goodbye. The S-400 purchase, the Russian frigate purchase and now the Igla purchase has not gone down too well in the US political circles. The S-400 has complicated the F-35 purchase, despite whatever assurances India can or will provide in the future. Also, India is circumventing CAATSA by paying in rupees for the S-400 purchase. That is not to suggest that the relationship is in a spiral, but there is a serious gap in what India and the US are looking for in each other. And despite all assurances, the US has yet to formally give us a waiver for CAATSA. And even if one comes, what is the guarantee that future military purchases from Russia (like the upcoming lease of the second Akula) will be insulated as well?

But the most important point to note - as you have said - is that Air Chief Marshal B S Dhanoa has stated that the IAF is not looking at the F-35. The IAF is just not interested. And this was after they dumped PAK-FA. And that is as definitive as it gets.

If there is limitations on the lift size, IN has to come up with a solution, if they want a bird which is not Mig-29 & LCA. If they figure out a way, it is better to get F35 instead of Rafale.

A stretched Vikrant - with wider lifts - is the logical solution with the F-35B or F-35C. Just a caveat though - the 57 carrier borne fighter contest is insisting on the aircraft being a twin engine bird. Saab is still pushing ahead with the single-engine, Sea Gripen

Cutting open either the Vikrant or the Vikramaditya is no easy task. There are structural issues to take into account, which could affect the sea going capabilities of the vessel. I am sure studies have been conducted on this and the advice given was NO.

Only Boeing to date has made the claim that the F-18 can operate from the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant. Based on that capability alone (which I have no doubt in Boeing's ability to prove), the F-18 should win the naval fighter contest.

[Rakesh]

Can some one do research on power requirements of EMALS?

And can it be driven by a separate gas-turbine generator as its needed only for launch and not needed all the time?
And will this fit a 65K tonne carrier which already has three G/T engines. Add one more G/T for power generation.

Ramana-ji, noob pooch....can a G/T generate 60 megajoules of electricity and 60 megawatts?

EMALS/ AAG: Electro-Magnetic Launch & Recovery for Carriers
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/em ... ers-05220/

The challenge is scaling a relatively new technology to handle the required weights and power. EMALS motor generator weighs over 80,000 pounds, and is 13.5 feet long, almost 11 feet wide and almost 7 feet tall. It’s designed to deliver up to 60 megajoules of electricity, and 60 megawatts at its peak. In the 3 seconds it takes to launch a Navy aircraft, that amount of power could handle 12,000 homes. This motor generator is part of a suite of equipment called the Energy Storage Subsystem, which includes the motor generator, the generator control tower and the stored energy exciter power supply. The new Gerald R. Ford Class carriers will require 12 of each.

[Rakesh]

One of the lifts of the Vikrant....and compare (eyeball them!) to pictures below.....



Charles De Gaulle (French aircraft carrier)....



HMS Queen Elizabeth (British aircraft carrier)....



USS Ronald Reagan (American aircraft carrier)....

[ramana]

So which ships in IN will carry the new anti-submarine helicopters that were ordered during Modi's Singapore visit?

Also guys IAF has said no to F16 and F-35.
IN wont get F35 because of this.
So why are we still discussing as an option?

Be realistic and stop being a MoD babu!!!
What this means is N-LCA or Rafale M.

No one will pay for modifying existing carriers as its too costly and will put the ship in dock for ever.



Rakesh
Don't know if 60 MW can be generated by G/T but we can research it.
The 60 mega joules looks like a capacitor bank being charged.

[Rakesh]

So which ships in IN will carry the new anti-submarine helicopters that were ordered during Modi's Singapore visit?

All the three classes of destroyers - Delhi (P15), Kolkata (P15A) and the upcoming Visakhapatnam (P15B). The Shivalik Class and the upcoming Project 17A will also feature them. Basically, any capital ship that comes under one of three carrier battle groups.

The Talwar Class (Krivak III) of vessels will likely only use Russian helos.

[Bala Vignesh]

Yes, there are GT that can produce in excess of the requested 60 MW. And for that kind of controlled release, it would be a capacitor bank(s) that would be charged and discharged repeatedly.

PS: Unable to post links currently since I am on my mobile.

[Rakesh]

Thank you for confirming Bala-ji. Greatly appreciated.

PS: Unable to post links currently since I am on my mobile.

I know that feeling

[Cain Marko]

IAF giving up on pakfa is only temporary imho, once the bird enters the vvs in numbers expect an mki type deal...

[Prasad]

EMALS will negate a major issue with the NLCA viz mtow. I remember Cmde Balaji saying strengthening required for cat-shots is doable.

[Singha]

IAF giving up on pakfa is only temporary imho, once the bird enters the vvs in numbers expect an mki type deal...

I too feel the same. the 5th gen engine item30 has entered trials a year ago. the airframe itself is a sleek performer. baki weapons and avionics of our choices can be cobbled together as usual.

they will need another year or two to make the engine ready for mass production

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... khoi-su-57

[Singha]

the talwar class has special eqpt and control rooms to manage the KA31AEW platforms. I dont think our other ships take the KA31 around.

[mody]

Rafael-M cannot fit on the Vikrant and Vikramaditya lifts. From the dimensions given in Wiki, it seems doable, just about, but in reality it seems, it is not possible without modifications in either the plane or the ships.

The F-18 has a better chance as with folding wings, it can be fitted on the lifts, but there will be an issue of some part of the plane being out of the lift. Another important question is which plane can operate from a ski jump.
If we fund the development of the GE F-414 EPE/EDE upgrade, the thrust of the F-414 engine will be around 105-110KN. This will enable the F-18 to operate from a ski-jump with a reasonable payload. The engine reliability is not in question and the planes will also be cheaper then the Rafael, though not as good.
The upgraded engine can also be used on the LCA MK-2, which will also help. Also with Unkil not getting anything from the MMRCA pie, they will want the F-18 deal. With our tendency to spreads the money around, it seems more likely that we will go with the Shornet.

[Viv S]

Just a caveat though - the 57 carrier borne fighter contest is insisting on the aircraft being a twin engine bird. Saab is still pushing ahead with the single-engine, Sea Gripen

Actually, the RFI merely asks how many engines the aircraft has. Any limitations on the configuration will only be spelled out in the RFP, which is yet to be issued.

RFI Document

10. Power Plant and Intake

(a) How many engines does the aircraft have?
(b) What is the type and rated (un-installed) sea level, static Max Dry and Max Reheat thrust of engine/s fitted on aircraft?
(c) What is the time taken to achieve full power for take-off from ashore and deck?

[Viv S]

IAF giving up on pakfa is only temporary imho, once the bird enters the vvs in numbers expect an mki type deal...

Well, large scale production of the Su-57 will likely begin in the next planning program i.e. after 2028, which would mean an MKI-type deliveries to India would only happen in the 2030s, with early 6th gen types already on the horizon.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3315844.html

[Singha]

our threat perception will be based on the best that PLAAF can put up + whatever they give the PAF.

so fielding 5th gen as a top of line, with 6th gen LRSB et al ruling the roost may still be acceptable unless cheen is secretly making dramatic advances which they unveil and introduce quickly in late 2020s....it looks like next decade will be on making the J20 a potent platform and I feel the pakfa can handle that.

one wild card is their B2 type ELO bomber being teased....but I suppose best defence against such platforms is airborne and ground based long wave radars and then shooting them down if trackable can be done by anyone.

even if we sign up for JSF, such is the demand & booked slots that we are unlikely to get any substantial number before the late 2020s.

imo we need to get going on a solid upgrade for the MKI whose mk3 models avionics are now 15 years old

[brar_w]

even if we sign up for JSF, such is the demand & booked slots that we are unlikely to get any substantial number before the late 2020s.

This is not the case as there is a lot of production capacity beyond where they are projected to be for additional orders. Belgium, the most recent customer will be getting its aircraft starting 2023. Germany too could get the F-35 by 2024 for its Tornado replacement with the 2024 date only limited by the completion of the nuclear delivery capability integration and testing on the F-35 and not production slots. I believe Belgium's delivery date is also influenced by block-4 hardware upgrades so had they gone in for the current baseline configuration they too could likely have had earlier deliveries. Also, under Canada's MRCA competition terms first aircraft deliveries are projected to begin in 2025 with a 2022 contract award. Lockheed is participating there and will be able to deliver block-4 F-35 in that timeframe.

That said, I do not think the F-35 will be offered for the 57 aircraft acquisition program as this will mostly be a three way decision between the MiG-29K, Rafale and the SHornet. Any 5th generation Naval fighter will likely be looked at only when a new carrier is defined and an acquisition strategy laid out if that even happens in the short-medium term. Same for the IAF. IAF will not consider a 5th gen aircraft for the MRCA as that would be a major scope creep with both the F-35 and the PAKFA throwing their hat in the ring. That could potentially happen much later down the road once the MRCA acquisition is complete depending upon how the AMCA progresses through development.

[ramana]

Amazing how F-35 gets dragged in every time.
Guys its not happening.
Stop unconstrained optimization.

If you cant acquire Rafale M due to carrier lift width, how will you fit the F-35 which is not on the table anyway?
Do you know one of the Clinton demands in 1993 to PVNR for backing off Kashmir hound dogs (Robin Rapahel was his POC) was not to develop a submarine based ballistic missile force?
Yes same guy who was dancing in Rajasthan villages and buying Kashmir carpets after the 1998 tests.

[Rakesh]

Since Rafale M is also out, that only leaves the F-18, N-LCA and MiG-29K. Any guess who the winner will be?

Affordability is a whole other issue and the IAF requirement will take precedence over the naval requirement. The Navy knows that fully well.

The IAF will benchmark the F-18 Block III against everything that is on the Rafale F3R and then make a technical decision.

[Cain Marko]

saar why is rafale out?

[Cain Marko]

IAF giving up on pakfa is only temporary imho, once the bird enters the vvs in numbers expect an mki type deal...

I too feel the same. the 5th gen engine item30 has entered trials a year ago. the airframe itself is a sleek performer. baki weapons and avionics of our choices can be cobbled together as usual.

they will need another year or two to make the engine ready for mass production

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... khoi-su-57

indeed. ultimately the old sanctions constraints still remain with the jsf and the GOI will hardly tolerate these shenanigans as india grows. just look at the response to the caatsa drama..everything from s400 to igla are being purchased. otoh the russian bird will only get better with time.

[Manish_P]

One of the lifts of the Vikrant....and compare (eyeball them!) to pictures below.....

Rakesh ji. In addition to the size of the lifts, the size of the ship (and thereby it's hangars) itself and the relative position of the lifts is also important.

Check out the tight fit of the Rafales on the CDG

(image courtesy of @UKDefJournal on twitter)



PS: I am a mumbaikar and take the local trains, pratically everyday, during super dense crush load times.. so it looks pretty ok to me

[Viv S]

saar why is rafale out?

Failure to Launch

The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.

Both Boeing and Dassault are apparently working on solutions to allow their aircraft to fit the lifts. Sources close to the programme said that Boeing is considering a system that would allow the Super Horner to sit canted on the lift, the tilt of the (folded) wings thereby resulting in a slightly shorter overall span measured parallel to the deck. With its fixed wings, the Rafale cannot offer such a solution, and Dassault is understood to be exploring a detachable wingtip, although this involves greater engineering and certification challenges.

Basically, the Vikrant's lifts are 10 m wide while the Rafale's wingspan is nearly 11 m.

Wingspan:
Rafale - 10.8 m
Super Hornet - 9.4 m (folded)
Gripen E - 8.3 m
MiG-29K - 7.8 m (folded)
F-35B - 10.7 m
F-35C - 9.1 m (folded)
N-LCA - 8.2 m

[Kakkaji]

Looks like we are stuck with the Mig-29K for the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant.

Is the Mig-29K a totally hopeless case, or can we work with Russia in a concerted way, like we did for the SU-30MKI, to fix its issues?

Just a thought.

[John]

^ There is still F-18E and even Gripen so there is still other options.

[Kashi]

^ There is still F-18E and even Gripen so there is still other options.

Gripen naval version does not exist. If IN cannot go with NLCA how would it make sense to go for the so-called Sea Gripen?

[Singha]

tight on nimitz class too. but they have 4 elevators to manage the rush

[Singha]

only about 40 max of the overall 90 a/c airwing can be kept in hanger.

so half must be parked on deck if she is carrying her max complement.

[Philip]

EMALS still has reliability problems, Trump is dead against it, it costs over $1B and requires an N-plant for the additional power.Only the US can afford such CVs.Even the PLAN's planned future CVs will be conventionally powered according to latest reports.

The Japand Ozumi class light carriets/ amphibs ard to get F-35s.Latest news- to counter the PLAN.May get added ski- jumps. Repeatinf ad nauseum that our planned 3-4 30K t amphibs, much larger than the Osumis should be similarly multi-role with NLCAs or JSFs if they ever are offered.It just requires deck redesign and we can do so using the Vikrant-2s template to begin with.

There are reports that the visit of the CNS is to effect better availability for the 29Ks, from 50% to 80% amongst other matters.Let's see how it develops.

[brar_w]

What does Trump being pro or against a particular launch capability has anything to do with its performance or capability? Especially when you only listen to his words and not look into the budgets he signs into law which are 100% committed to EMALS?

EMALS and the AAG have completed nearly 1000 launch and recoveries at sea on an aircraft carrier with thousands additional launches and recoveries on land over the course of its development. It is moving along nicely on its maturity curve which exists for all new technologies and it is doing so at quite a significant pace. In the next 18-24 months all of the US Navy's aircraft carrier capable aircraft would have completed their envelope testing with EMALS/AAG at sea on board the first in class carrier. They have already done a lot of that work on land and doing it on a production class system installed on an actual carrier would compete the process. It takes time for new technology to mature you don't avoid going down that path because you require time, and investment to do so..especially when the benefits are significant especially for a Navy which will eventually deploy 11 Aircraft carriers with this technology.

France is already in talks to lock EMALS in for its next carrier which it will field in the 2030+ time-frame. By that time, there would be as many EMALS equipped US Navy carriers as there would be Steam ones. Given how much the USN utilizes its aircraft carriers, one can do a quick back of the envelope analysis to determine how many aircraft EMALS would have launched over a decade once they bring the first 2-3 carriers operational. No one besides the USN is buying or looking at EMALS for 2020 or even 2025, both France and India are potentially looking at it for the 2030s and by then EMALS would have been operational for more than a decade with 4-7 EMALS equipped carriers on patrol depending upon when in the 2030s you are looking to install the system.

The issue whether EMALS can be supported by non CVNs is less clear but a assessment of that has been done involving the Royal Navy, the US Navy and General Atomics. This body of work was funded by the UK and I am sure will be made available to potential customers looking at this solution on a non CVN.

From her delivery to the Navy on May 31, 2017, through May 2018, CVN 78 operated at sea for 81 days through eight independent steaming events and successfully completed fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft integration and compatibility testing; air traffic control center certification; JP-5 fuel system certification; day and night underway replenishment capability demonstration; ship's defensive system demonstration; Dual Band Radar testing; and propulsion plant operations. During this period, the ship completed nearly 750 aircraft launches and recoveries against a plan of approximately 400.
https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/ ... ilability/

[Rakesh]

Looks like we are stuck with the Mig-29K for the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant.

Is the Mig-29K a totally hopeless case, or can we work with Russia in a concerted way, like we did for the SU-30MKI, to fix its issues?

Just a thought.

The MiG-29K was never designed to be operated as a carrier based fighter. Best to station them at Goa and Vizag for base air defense. The carrier landings are seriously stressing the air frame, which was never designed for sustained carrier ops.

[ramana]

I am glad the Gnat was not the plane of choice for the lifts design.

[darshhan]

Looks like we are stuck with the Mig-29K for the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant.

Is the Mig-29K a totally hopeless case, or can we work with Russia in a concerted way, like we did for the SU-30MKI, to fix its issues?

Just a thought.

The MiG-29K was never designed to be operated as a carrier based fighter. Best to station them at Goa and Vizag for base air defense. The carrier landings are seriously stressing the air frame, which was never designed for sustained carrier ops.

Can't they be transferred to IAF? Just asking. Maybe they can be operated alongside existing Baaz squadrons.

[Rakesh]

Can't they be transferred to IAF? Just asking. Maybe they can be operated alongside existing Baaz squadrons.

Yes absolutely. That is also another option. However the Navy will not hand over their only fighter to the IAF in the absence of the fruition of the 57 carrier borne fighter. The Navy loves carriers and the Air Force hates the concept - the world over, not a situation unique to India only. So, the Navy will soldier on with the MiG-29K and learn to live with the reduced capability and lackluster availability, till the 57 becomes reality. And that is not going to happen anytime soon, despite Admiral Lanba's assurances at Navy Day 2017 that there is money in the budget for such a purchase. The IAF has a far greater need for fighters and the IAF will get its way. However, the entire MRCA fracas will take another five years - at minimum - to achieve completion (if it ever sees that!). The Navy is going to be waiting for quite a while.

Till then it is going to be the MiG-29K and the Vikramaditya. In a few years, add the new Vikrant to the mix as well.

The silver lining that I see out of all this, is the Naval Tejas Mk 2. I still believe the Navy will have a turn around - just like the IAF did - on the Tejas program.

[Rakesh]

I am glad the Gnat was not the plane of choice for the lifts design.

[chola]

I am glad the Gnat was not the plane of choice for the lifts design.

LOL. Still amazing that this can happen to a brand new ship, Admiral.

In fact, I don’t think it could have happened if Indian designers were truly in control. I believe this “feature” is because we bought the “aviation complex” from Russia and depended on the russkie Nevoske design bureau.

[Manish_P]

tight on nimitz class too. but they have 4 elevators to manage the rush

Absolutely correct Sir. And it's not just the size of the elevators, but the size of the hangar space also which should be able support the larger size aircraft. Of course the ship could carry lesser number of larger sized aircraft.

[Rakesh]

LOL. Still amazing that this can happen to a brand new ship, Admiral.

In fact, I don’t think it could have happened if Indian designers were truly in control. I believe this “feature” is because we bought the “aviation complex” from Russia and depended on the russkie Nevoske design bureau.

Still, we should have designed wider lifts. Oh well. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Old video and posted before on BRF. But watch Commander KHV Singh, Indian Navy (MiG-29K pilot) do a walk around of the MiG-29K. Take special note when he talking about the nose landing gear on the MiG-29K. See the subsequent video as well of the Rafale M.

MiG-29K walkaround



Rafale M walkaround

[Rakesh]

tight on nimitz class too. but they have 4 elevators to manage the rush

Absolutely correct Sir. And it's not just the size of the elevators, but the size of the hangar space also which should be able support the larger size aircraft. Of course the ship could carry lesser number of larger sized aircraft.

I am doing guesswork here, but if we can fit 8 - 10 carrier borne fighters in the hangar and station another 6 - 8 on the deck, one is looking at 14 - 18 aircraft in total. That is a fairly decent sized force, combined with AEW assets like the Ka-31 and ASW helos. The issue is not necessarily the hangar, but the lifts.