Indian Naval Discussion

Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

MiG-29K carrier trials for India completed

Postby Avinandan » 01 Nov 2012 20:03

MiG-29K carrier trials for India completed
RAC MiG has completed sea trials of its MiG-29K/KUB combat aircraft involving the Indian navy's future aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, with deliveries under New Delhi's 2010 contract on track to start late this year.

"All tests on the ship have been completed successfully, and the customer signed the respective protocol. We no longer need a carrier [for trials]," says RAC MiG general director Sergei Korotkov. The Indian navy has already received 16 K-model fighters and KUB-variant trainers from a previous order, and "these aircraft are being successfully operated", he adds.


FlightGlobal Link: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mig-29k-carrier-trials-for-india-completed-378416/

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Katare » 02 Nov 2012 03:14

I don't think there is any precedent for buying or selling strategic bombers? What chance of survival a lumbering strategic bomber would have against a 4th gen fighter aircraft backed by AWACs? For that size if it ain't super stealth, it's largely useless in modern battle field. MKI and rafale can lift 9tons of bombs which is more than enough for PGM in use these days.

Also Philip don't you think Russians have become treacherous mean capitalists? It's about time we stopeed trusting them?

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 02 Nov 2012 03:40

Katare wrote:I don't think there is any precedent for buying or selling strategic bombers? What chance of survival a lumbering strategic bomber would have against a 4th gen fighter aircraft backed by AWACs? For that size if it ain't super stealth, it's largely useless in modern battle field. MKI and rafale can lift 9tons of bombs which is more than enough for PGM in use these days.


Agreed.

And as I said earlier, the threat level for the IAF does not really change whether the Chinese have Backfires or not. The main role the Backfire can play in the land-war context as as a stand-off missile launcher over Tibet. And really, for that role it does not matter whether it was the H-6 or the Backfire that's launching the missiles. The IAF has to deal with the missiles anyway. And if somehow the IAF does get within range of taking down the stand-off launch aircraft, the only advantage the Backfire will have against the H-6 is that it will be faster in escaping and therefore more difficult to destroy. So expect the Backfires to shoot and scoot rather than play any games with IAF fighters up close. Also, Backfires will NOT be used for penetration strikes by the Chinese Air Force unless they are able to contest the skies above Tibet. One on one, the Backfire is not to be compared with IAF aircraft. But its definitely far more difficult to catch if an AWACS is not available.

The main issue here is for the Indian Navy. Their air defense capabilities will be seriously tested with this threat. But not in the Indian Ocean region unless the Chinese use tankers to support small strikes all the way from the mainland into the Bay of Bengal. Those small strikes can easily be dispatched, but only with adequate airborne radar coverage. Ka-31 AEW will not suffice. We need a naval airborne radar system that can fly to high altitudes and detect any such threats with suitable response time for the Mig-29Ks.

I think the main reason China is going for the Backfires is to use them in any potential war with the United States. Then the Backfire becomes deadly in the Pacific theater when launched from mainland china. Also a big use for SEAD strikes against Taiwan.

Not to mention the large potential for the reverse-engineering aerospace industry in China to get into action for a definite future high-speed replacement for the H-6.

I really do think we need to look past the immediate effects of this acquisition and towards the future implications.

-Vivek

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 02 Nov 2012 03:42

Surya wrote:no I am ok

we cannot buy every expensive toy just because others might buy them

Its a white elephant and if they want to buy and spend billions maintaining them - good luck

We have been burnt by 1 white elephant already

There is no point in having these and showcasing their flt once a blue moon

the threat existed in other forms and we have to think of other ways to counter it


Nobody is suggesting we go for a tit-for-tat purchase of bombers. What do we need them for anyway?

But we still need to figure out an adequate response to counter the new threat, don't we?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Surya » 02 Nov 2012 03:59

thats what I said in the last line

the threat existed in other forms and we have to think of other ways to counter it




it was more for philip than you - generally agreeing with you with the minor disagreement on how hard it may be to shoot down the backfire.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 02 Nov 2012 08:43

I think the news of backfire is not true since its been a decade that such news of similar deal has been floating around.

If the news had half truth in it we would have heard from many sources by now

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 02 Nov 2012 09:04

would take a herculean effort to restart manufacture. I suspect the PLANAF plans to import around 10 from russian stock and then look to collaborate with the makers on a domestic version using chinese parts , russian engine, which the russians will deny was licensed and china will claim it was cloned and the merry dance will continue with both sides retaining their h&d.

end result - we still need a plan to deal with it. not that the J20 by 2025 will not be the same threat.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4006
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kit » 02 Nov 2012 09:09

Dont think the news of Russian bombers for china is true. It will be stupidity on part of the russians in the long term.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 02 Nov 2012 09:12

long term is the keyword. with PAKDA project approved and ~15 Tu160 on the payroll in engels afb , plus unknown number of Bears they dont really need to keep the backfire around , they would be ok in selling their legacy techs lock and stock to raise funds. they have already sold kilo tech for yuan class, klub missiles, a ton of radars, SA-n-6, help for the J11 "clone" of su27 and numerous other deals which are passed off as "cloning" and "pindigenous" to keep the noise level low - serves both sides to keep it quiet.
I am sure they are also consulting on all aspects of engines, power plants and other stuff where china is pouring money to close the gaps.

the quid-pro-quo may be that cheen will not offer for export such products.

in the case of ukraine, that may not be the case because ukraine is no more a big exporter of defence products. so look for the AN70 and ivchenko type stuff to be fully assimilated into cheen service.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 02 Nov 2012 10:01

Russia is keeping US on check via china as it can't go for direct conflict with them

in turn getting funds for there old projects that they no longer require.....

no other reason why they would be keen to help china.

also is tu22m is a big aircraft & maybe useful for china for its load carrying capacity but we are not in business of heavy bombers all out needs are taken care of by su30 only.

in future we maybe interested in pak-da project to keep our offshore interests on check (if we develop some in future)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Nov 2012 22:18

World Naval Developments - Back(fire) to the Future?

Proceedings Magazine - August 2012 Vol. 138/8/1,314
By Norman Friedman

In June the Russians and Chinese announced a deal under which China would license-produce Backfire (Tu-22M3) bombers for its navy, replacing the current unlicensed version of the old Soviet-era Badger (Tu-16). The Russians will provide two pattern aircraft, and the Chinese will build another 34, the reported Chinese designation being H-10. The Russians will supply the engines as the Chinese have found it difficult to produce reliable modern jet engines for other Russian or Russian-like aircraft.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby karan_mc » 02 Nov 2012 22:44

India to take up Gorshkov issue with Putin in ‘big way’

And Putin will say "Я буду разобраться в этом вопросе " :rotfl:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 03 Nov 2012 06:28

Philip wrote:World Naval Developments - Back(fire) to the Future?

Proceedings Magazine - August 2012 Vol. 138/8/1,314
By Norman Friedman

In June the Russians and Chinese announced a deal under which China would license-produce Backfire (Tu-22M3) bombers for its navy, replacing the current unlicensed version of the old Soviet-era Badger (Tu-16). The Russians will provide two pattern aircraft, and the Chinese will build another 34, the reported Chinese designation being H-10. The Russians will supply the engines as the Chinese have found it difficult to produce reliable modern jet engines for other Russian or Russian-like aircraft.


When did they announce this deal unless Normal Friedman knows something that the other dont then such a deal would have made into headlines of many arms magazine by now. We need more sources to confirm the news.

Russia have about 120 Tu-22M3 only 30 are going through a deep modernisation program to Tu-22M3M standards the rest are under reserve status , they could ofcourse refurbish and sell those to India or China or any one.

Building only 34 aircraft is not financially viable to build an entire production base in China for backfire with the necessary tooling and engineering stuff , its better to purchase outright for such small numbers.

Backfire are also controlled by SALT agreement which made them remove their Refuelling Probe to avoid giving it strategic reach , so will china get it minus the probe or local manufacturing by china is a way to skip those restrictions and give it back its refuelling probe which would significantly enhance its range giving it near strategic bombing capability.

Considering USN is moving 60 % of fleet to Pacific the backfire would significantly enhance PLAN anti-ship capability and give it semi-strategic bombing capability.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Nov 2012 04:56

If the report is true,it will be a very significant step for the PRC.Believe me,they will not stop at 34 aircraft,but will build a huge strategic bomber fleet and use the aircraft in many variations for ELINT/SIGINT,LRMP strike,etc. Look at the manner in which they have reverse engineered the Flanker,building more than contracted.This will replace their obsolete bombers in service.

However,the Russians too may be playing a game here,as in the article,these bombers will be of little value as strategic bombers against Russia,which is well within the range of Chinese BMs.,but will fundamentally give the PLAN enhancing the PRC's strike capability against USN carrier task forces in the Pacific ,enhancing its capability to seize Taiwan.It also gives the PLAN significant reach into the IOR threatening the IN's capability to cut off the PRC's oil and mineral supplies transiting the IOR.The most significant part of the report is the engine tech to be handed over,which can be used by the PRC for any future strat. bomber designs of their own.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Nov 2012 07:06

An article from 2007!!!!!!!

Tupolev Tu-22M3 Backfire C Bomber - Missile Carrier

From our very old friend: Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng

With the recent public exposure of the PLA's Xian H-6K turbofan powered Badger cruise missile carrier it is clear that the PLA is moving ahead with its planning for a strategic bomber fleet with more reach than the legacy H-6 Badger variants, under the auspices of the "Second Island Chain Strategy". Off the shelf candidates for this fleet include upgraded surplus Russian Air Force Tu-22M3 Backfire C and Tu-95MS Bear H aircraft, and new build Tu-160 Blackjacks, as well as the indigenous and smaller H-6K. In 2005 the Chief of Air Staff of the Russian Air Force observed, in relation to the Backfire and Bear, that surplus aircraft should be exported to China.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2382
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 04 Nov 2012 07:25

Two Indian warships dock in Mozambique
Maputo, Nov 4 (IANS) Two Indian warships have docked in the Mozambican capital as part of a goodwill visit.

The vessels arrived in Maputo Friday night from South Africa. “They will be in our port for two days,” Defence Minister Filipe Nyusi told Xinhua Saturday.

Nyusi said the defence cooperation between the two countries will further strengthen from this visit.

Military officers of the two sides were expected to hold talks on anti-piracy missions, and the Indian soldiers were to train the Mozambican defence personnel to fight piracy.

The warships arrived here after participating in a joint military exercise involving South Africa, India and Brazil. The Indian mission will return home Sunday.

“Piracy (in Indian Ocean) has reduced at the moment, but we are still concerned about it,” the minister said.

The Mozambican government has also signed an agreement with South Africa and Tanzania to fight piracy along their territorial waters.

keshavchandra
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby keshavchandra » 05 Nov 2012 13:48

I yet not clear and satisfied for the use for asbestors in vik just b'cos of delay and time constrant. As DRDO is developin a substitute in place, but it still in initial stage. I don't think russia don't have any other solution in place, so we need to first evaluate all the possible alternative and then plan the further actions. B'cos use of asbestors would surely create health issues further.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3124
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 06 Nov 2012 10:18

Philip wrote:In June the Russians and Chinese announced a deal under which China would license-produce Backfire (Tu-22M3) bombers for its navy, replacing the current unlicensed version of the old Soviet-era Badger (Tu-16). The Russians will provide two pattern aircraft, and the Chinese will build another 34, the reported Chinese designation being H-10. The Russians will supply the engines as the Chinese have found it difficult to produce reliable modern jet engines for other Russian or Russian-like aircraft.


Good target for MRSAM (~ 120 km) for IAF, LRSAM (~ 80 km) for IN http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lebourge ... er_jpg.jpg

Not to forget the good old Shtil in service since 1997, whose last combat kill was a Tu-22M via its land based sibling in Georgia http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/ ... av_091608/

The MiG29 CAP with AEW support can surely see these politician cutout sized targets. Fighter escorts, if any, will lose freedom of maneuver keeping position with these garbage trucks.

Good luck with the maintenance too, with its one off single application NK-25 engine. Dhanush, Brahmos & Shourya can take out the hanger queens with a conventional strike.

The older generation Hawk missiles made mincemeat of Libyan & Iraqi Tu-22 (not M) in Chad & Iran.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Nov 2012 10:29

the IN KA31 AEW would be operating at an alt of around 15,000-20,000ft max. would this underslung radar be able to see above that altitude? all sorts of fighters and bombers can sneak in above that height incl the backfire if this is a blind spot.
is it optimized for detecting sea skimmers and low level sneak attacks only while the ship's search radars also need to be active to detect high flyers?

in comparison, a more conventional fixed wing AEW could fly at 35,000ft and perhaps pickup everything while ship can shut their radar.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 06 Nov 2012 12:00

E-2 Brute !!!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Viv S » 06 Nov 2012 14:07

Singha wrote:the IN KA31 AEW would be operating at an alt of around 15,000-20,000ft max. would this underslung radar be able to see above that altitude? all sorts of fighters and bombers can sneak in above that height incl the backfire if this is a blind spot.
is it optimized for detecting sea skimmers and low level sneak attacks only while the ship's search radars also need to be active to detect high flyers?


Depends on its range. You haven't taken the earth's curvature into account. Even something flying at 60,000ft will emerge only from the horizon. In fact, the higher its flies the earlier it'll be detected, as long as the radar's resolution at that range is adequate.


in comparison, a more conventional fixed wing AEW could fly at 35,000ft and perhaps pickup everything while ship can shut their radar.


No doubt about it. A fixed wing aircraft will be far far superior be it in terms of its endurance, its operational range, its sensor fit/envelope, speed, flight ceiling or capability to operate autonomously. Not to mention the 'C' in AEW&C. One of the reasons why the IAC-2 needs to be CATOBAR capable. I hope they don't take make any compromises like the Brits did with the QE class.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3124
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 06 Nov 2012 19:04

Singha wrote:the IN KA31 AEW would be operating at an alt of around 15,000-20,000ft max. would this underslung radar be able to see above that altitude? all sorts of fighters and bombers can sneak in above that height incl the backfire if this is a blind spot.
Radar beams spread & fan out out, both elevating & depressing. If the Ka31 cannot see above, then the E-2 shouldn't be able to see below because of its empennage!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ubwing.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... vic204.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... h0271m.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jfr ... e-2b-n.jpg

sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sharma.abhinav » 06 Nov 2012 19:34

Viv S wrote:
Singha wrote:the IN KA31 AEW would be operating at an alt of around 15,000-20,000ft max. would this underslung radar be able to see above that altitude? all sorts of fighters and bombers can sneak in above that height incl the backfire if this is a blind spot.
is it optimized for detecting sea skimmers and low level sneak attacks only while the ship's search radars also need to be active to detect high flyers?


Depends on its range. You haven't taken the earth's curvature into account. Even something flying at 60,000ft will emerge only from the horizon. In fact, the higher its flies the earlier it'll be detected, as long as the radar's resolution at that range is adequate.


in comparison, a more conventional fixed wing AEW could fly at 35,000ft and perhaps pickup everything while ship can shut their radar.


No doubt about it. A fixed wing aircraft will be far far superior be it in terms of its endurance, its operational range, its sensor fit/envelope, speed, flight ceiling or capability to operate autonomously. Not to mention the 'C' in AEW&C. One of the reasons why the IAC-2 needs to be CATOBAR capable. I hope they don't take make any compromises like the Brits did with the QE class.


Hmm how about a DRDO AWACS radar mounted on a V-22 Osprey sort of platform. I guess V-22 Osprey can operate out of STOBAR Carriers. And if it can then can they be accommodated on Vikramaditya and Vikrant. :-?

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Eric Leiderman » 06 Nov 2012 19:57

The asbestos motar in the boilers should not be a show stopper.
Even if the IN were to go with it , it would have a shelf life of 6-10 yrs depending on at what rating and for how long the boilers ran.
Removal of asbestos is where the issues arise. however since a furnace is an enclosed space it can be penned pretty easily and the costing will be negilagibly higher for repair replacement.
Remember the freon (which caused harm to the inosphere,) the substitutes we use today work but have markedly inferior refregitration qualities, ditto with asbestos and non asbestos insulation.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23085
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 06 Nov 2012 19:58

tsarkar wrote:
Singha wrote:the IN KA31 AEW would be operating at an alt of around 15,000-20,000ft max. would this underslung radar be able to see above that altitude? all sorts of fighters and bombers can sneak in above that height incl the backfire if this is a blind spot.
Radar beams spread & fan out out, both elevating & depressing. If the Ka31 cannot see above, then the E-2 shouldn't be able to see below because of its empennage!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ubwing.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... vic204.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... h0271m.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jfr ... e-2b-n.jpg



Sirjee,

Any airborne radar can see above and below, intervening empennage not withstanding.

The empennage affects only sectors whose visibility is immediately or
directly or even sharply above or below. The radar will not transmit in these sectors anyway due self protection features controlled by limit switches or some other form of protection for the receiver. The antenna cannot usually elevate or depress in an unlimited fashion. Even at medium ranges, all round cover defined by a vertical arc of +/- 30-40 degrees is usually the norm. The longer the range, the higher the beam can usually look, limited of course by its range. Specific functionality is defined by the mode in which the radar is operated. E.g. A maritime radar may have an air to air mode or even a MTI mode but this is a compromise because the system is optimized for surface search. The performance is usually reduced in modes other than the primary operation mode of the radar.

You have to remember that the radar is usually looking at targets far away. If your opponent is immediately above or below you, you are dead meat anyway. :)

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vic » 06 Nov 2012 22:55

What about Rustom-2?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23085
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 06 Nov 2012 23:06

sharma.abhinav wrote:
Viv S wrote:{quote="Singha"}the IN KA31 AEW would be operating at an alt of around 15,000-20,000ft max. would this underslung radar be able to see above that altitude? all sorts of fighters and bombers can sneak in above that height incl the backfire if this is a blind spot.
is it optimized for detecting sea skimmers and low level sneak attacks only while the ship's search radars also need to be active to detect high flyers?


Depends on its range. You haven't taken the earth's curvature into account. Even something flying at 60,000ft will emerge only from the horizon. In fact, the higher its flies the earlier it'll be detected, as long as the radar's resolution at that range is adequate.


in comparison, a more conventional fixed wing AEW could fly at 35,000ft and perhaps pickup everything while ship can shut their radar.


No doubt about it. A fixed wing aircraft will be far far superior be it in terms of its endurance, its operational range, its sensor fit/envelope, speed, flight ceiling or capability to operate autonomously. Not to mention the 'C' in AEW&C. One of the reasons why the IAC-2 needs to be CATOBAR capable. I hope they don't take make any compromises like the Brits did with the QE class.{/quote}

Hmm how about a DRDO AWACS radar mounted on a V-22 Osprey sort of platform. I guess V-22 Osprey can operate out of STOBAR Carriers. And if it can then can they be accommodated on Vikramaditya and Vikrant. :-?



Vikramaditya is limited by the size of the aircraft lifts. :x

That's why the compromise aircraft was the MiG 29K.

Much better aircraft were available around the time that the purchase was made.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 06 Nov 2012 23:30

Much better aircraft were available around the time that the purchase was made.

Like ?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Indranil » 07 Nov 2012 00:41

chetak wrote:Vikramaditya is limited by the size of the aircraft lifts. :x

That's why the compromise aircraft was the MiG 29K.

Much better aircraft were available around the time that the purchase was made.


The only other STOBAR capable available aircraft was the Rafale M. If the lift works for a Mig-29K, it would work for Rafale.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 07 Nov 2012 07:21

the Rafale-M due to its heavier weight and less powerful engines than Mig29K (not sure of engine part) might not have the payload of the 29K in STO mode?
but overall a far more polished and survivable a/c. maybe in A2A role it would not matter.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8194
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Indranil » 07 Nov 2012 09:01

Singha wrote:the Rafale-M due to its heavier weight and less powerful engines than Mig29K (not sure of engine part) might not have the payload of the 29K in STO mode?
but overall a far more polished and survivable a/c. maybe in A2A role it would not matter.

I was not comparing the aircrafts. I was just negating the point that the dimension and capacity of the lifts decided the aircraft of choice.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23085
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 07 Nov 2012 11:17

indranilroy wrote:
Singha wrote:the Rafale-M due to its heavier weight and less powerful engines than Mig29K (not sure of engine part) might not have the payload of the 29K in STO mode?
but overall a far more polished and survivable a/c. maybe in A2A role it would not matter.

I was not comparing the aircrafts. I was just negating the point that the dimension and capacity of the lifts decided the aircraft of choice.




The Sukhoi was what really interested the planners at that stage.

The russians would never have let in a rafale.

For the russians, the deal was to maximize sales of their hardware only.

Sorry that I did not make it clear.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby merlin » 07 Nov 2012 11:21

chetak wrote:
indranilroy wrote:I was not comparing the aircrafts. I was just negating the point that the dimension and capacity of the lifts decided the aircraft of choice.




The Sukhoi was what really interested the planners at that stage.

The russians would never have let in a rafale.

For the russians, the deal was to maximize sales of their hardware only.

Sorry that I did not make it clear.


But lesser numbers if the embarked aircraft were Su-33 derivatives, correct? MiG-29K and variants were much better developed than Su-33, that would have also been a factor. Rafales, as you say, were a no go on a Russian AC.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Viv S » 07 Nov 2012 11:55

merlin wrote:But lesser numbers if the embarked aircraft were Su-33 derivatives, correct? MiG-29K and variants were much better developed than Su-33, that would have also been a factor.


They weren't actually. Both the MiG-29K and the Su-33 were 80s vintage designs that were more or less shelved as far as modernization was concerned. The MiG-29K was only revived by the Indian Navy's order. Its the investment from India that is being capitalized by Russia with the decision to replace the Su-33 with the MiG-29K after the former retires. Point being, had the Su-33 been ordered in lieu of the MiG-29K in 2004, the Indian Navy would have received a Su-33MKI variant of the Su-33K, rather than the obsolescent models currently in service with the Russian Navy.

Which of course in no way changes the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya's limitations vis-a-vis its aircraft lift.


Rafales, as you say, were a no go on a Russian AC.


Well, the aircraft carrier was being offered for 'free' in return for a MiG-29K order (that bit always makes me chuckle). Had the MoD/Navy known what they were getting into they wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole. The Rafale M based on a Fincantieri built carrier would have been a far better choice with follow-on orders for the carrier being serviced by domestic shipyards.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Nov 2012 12:42

Vikramaditya deal was also linked to Akula-2 lease and possibily even ATV assistance , so it was take it or leave it deal ...it was good and bad in that aspect

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 07 Nov 2012 13:11

so we are getting more fuels for our nuke subs

India and Canada finalise terms for their nuclear deal, paving the way for
Canadian firms to export uranium to India.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-2023 ... icRSS20-sa

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 07 Nov 2012 13:19

only indirectly. imports of uranium for power projects will free up limited local deposits for military use - not just subs but n-weapons.

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 07 Nov 2012 13:52

tushar_m wrote:so we are getting more fuels for our nuke subs

India and Canada finalise terms for their nuclear deal, paving the way for
Canadian firms to export uranium to India.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-2023 ... icRSS20-sa


Such fuel would be under full time supervision of IAEA. As Singha ji said, these would free up the un-safeguarded fuel for our weapons use.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 07 Nov 2012 18:44

Yogi_G wrote:
tushar_m wrote:so we are getting more fuels for our nuke subs

India and Canada finalise terms for their nuclear deal, paving the way for
Canadian firms to export uranium to India.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-2023 ... icRSS20-sa


Such fuel would be under full time supervision of IAEA. As Singha ji said, these would free up the un-safeguarded fuel for our weapons use.



you didn't get the point ..........if i may

if we get fuel for our nuke reactors that are currently running on fuel produced/mined in India then

our home made fuel will be enough for our subs & other military activities..........correct me if m wrong

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8273
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 08 Nov 2012 10:24

^^^ The Vikramaditya deal was a gift from the Russians but was contingent upon the following factors.

1) India pays for the refurbishment of the ship in a Russian yard.
2) India picks a Russian Air group.

A better aircraft was not available for the ship back in the day. Nor is one available today, for that specific ship.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest