Dmurphy wrote:Naah, i don't think so. Its probably the same aircraft as in this pic taken in Russia earlier this year.Venu wrote:Why is the aircraft looking so old and wared. Aren't we getting the new ones?
I'll blame it on the shadows and bad picture quality.
Add later: Check it out. This one looks even better. Though its a Mig 29K.
rest assured, those are brand new ones that the IN is using to get its first batch of pilots trained on. But then, the aircraft get dirty for various reasons..oil, smoke, dirt and grime are prevalent on the decks and people crawling on them to service them, so its common to see Naval aircraft dirty as hell after a tour of duty. One desi was complaining about the paint-job on MiG-29K and another American poster said that F/A-18s, get even dirtier after completing their tour of duty.Venu wrote:Why is the aircraft looking so old and wared. Aren't we getting the new ones?Dmurphy wrote:Livefist: MiG-29 KUB aerial refuelling pics
Experts have begun the installation of two torpedo tubes on the ship which was launched on November 27, Devices produced in Russia form the basis of an anti-missile weapons frigates of Project 11356, which also includes two jet bombometnyh installation RBU-6000 and anti-helicopter,
AnkitBRAHMOS" supersonic anti-ship missiles is placed in the frigate as its sea test are still uncomplete, the report said.
A comment posted thereSaab is responding to an Indian Navy (IN) request for information (RfI) regarding future carrier-capable fighters with a new development of the Gripen NG, dubbed the Sea Gripen.....
....Jane's understands the RfI has been issued to Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin, Sukhoi and Saab. While India is notionally developing a naval version of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, the RfI is a recognition that this troubled programme might not be able to deliver an operational combat aircraft in the necessary timescale. India hopes to commission IAC 2 and 3 in the second half of the next decade.....
....designs for a navalised Gripen date back to the 1980s in Sweden.....The Sea Gripen would be part of the long-term industrial development package for India and Brazil, should either country select the Gripen NG. The Indian RfI also makes a specific request that India's chosen aircraft should be exportable. {?? Does it mean India should be allowed to export the licensed-produced aircrafts to any country of its choice [no such arrangements for Jags & Flankers??] - prospects of NLCA doesn't sound very bright I think OR Does it mean that if IN feels it no longer requires the imported aircrafts it should be free to sell it to a 3rd party country w/o issues - then it could mean nice things for the NLCA}
....Gripen has a built-in carrier capability that was part of the original design consideration. It is made for precision landings on a short strip. The aerodynamics, handling and landing qualities are all there.....
.....The Sea Gripen is made possible by the inherent performance characteristics of the Gripen and the structural changes introduced with the Gripen NG. It has been designed to operate from 'full-spec' carriers at a maximum take-off weight of 16,500 kg and a landing weight (with weapons and fuel) of 3,500 kg. The same basic design parameters make it well suited to STOBAR operations.....
The result will be an aircraft with an empty weight of under 8,000 kg with a total fuel and weapon load of around 8,500 kg. Combat radius is estimated at around 1,250 km in a maritime strike profile or 1,400 km in an offensive counter-air profile. For carrier operations the aircraft will have a service life of 8,000 flight hours with an even distribution between shipborne and land-based operations.
....So we need a new nose gear and undercarriage and we'll have to change some of the internal structure, but it's been analysed and it's possible. We built an arrestor hook into the Gripen NG proposal for Norway. That will have to be strengthened for carrier ops, with a new attachment point, but the work is there.....
"The Gripen already has a salt water protection requirement. It does need more study but we already have an aircraft designed to operate in -50°C and +50°C, from the Arctic to hot-and-high with severe humidity. We don't build fighters for nice sunny days." Saab expects to make initial presentations to the IN in January 2010 and submit an RfI response the following month.
Is it true? Had read of the Singaporeans wanting to come aboard the LCA programme though.That being said, I’ve heard that the Swedes had approached India for industrial collaboration when they started the Gripen project, but the all knowing wise Indian bureaucrats sat on the proposal.
its INS 'Teg' , innit ?Ankit Desai wrote:Weapon installation of frigate "Tag" has begun
Experts have begun the installation of two torpedo tubes on the ship which was launched on November 27, Devices produced in Russia form the basis of an anti-missile weapons frigates of Project 11356, which also includes two jet bombometnyh installation RBU-6000 and anti-helicopter,AnkitBRAHMOS" supersonic anti-ship missiles is placed in the frigate as its sea test are still uncomplete, the report said.
Rahul M wrote:thanks maz and kaps.
it's a magic alright.
here's the hi-res.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gall ... 9.jpg.html
Kaps has amputated the port wing of the Harrier so the 2 mijjiles are not seen in full.IF the RFI didn't go to mig that is! IIRC, it did. Still, this could be a chankian move. Hate to speculate on this thread but I'd wager that the IN is looking for something more capable than the fulcrum in the A2G arena, something of a bomb truck with the LCA for air defence. This only really leaves two options - Shornet or Rafale.Katare wrote:Since the RFI didn't go to Mig, I suspect it could be a planned replacement of Mig29K on IAC2 &3!?!
May be they have plans for operating small LCA and new fifth gen aircraft from future aircrafts. I suspect IN is lusting after F35 from LM for its future IACs. The threat perception may have changed and the admirals might think they need something better than migs to deter China in next decade or so.
That would make 3 different type of fighter aircrafts in its relatively small inventory of fighter planes
Wasn't it only for the MMR? Not for the whole fighter right, in case that's what you meant.Hiten wrote:Is it true? Had read of the Singaporeans wanting to come aboard the LCA programme though.
Excellent Kaps and Maz.maz wrote:Kapil's photo feature on the President's Day at Sea is up and running. Be patient.... we are adding more pics and a report.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gall ... ay+at+Sea/
The aircraft firms included: the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) for their Eurofighter Typhoon, the Boeing Integrated Defence System (for the F/A-18 Super Hornet), Sweden’s SAAB (who are offering the Gripen JAS 39) and France’s Dassault (for the Rafale).
While the Rafale and the F/A-18 are natural choices for naval operations as they were built specifically for carrier-based multi-role operations, the manufacturers of the Typhoon and the Gripen have indicated that their aircraft could be suitably modified for naval carrier-based flying.
Jane's understands the RfI has been issued to Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin, Sukhoi and Saab.
They might be regular sailors imparting training for VBSS ops?Aditya G wrote:http://www.stratpost.com/coastal-securi ... eport-card
http://www.stratpost.com/maritime-secur ... y-captains
Looks like CISF got some training from MARCOS:
This, I think, is more like a proposal for joint development rather than an 'off the shelf' acquisition. The below quote suggests that.vishnu.nv wrote:The New's of IN acquiring new MRCA doesn't makes sense at all. Why don't they procure more Mig-29 K's?
So did the navy shelved plan's for additional Mig-29K's? I think mig-29K is a superb aircraft and with some more customization it could be better than F-18. Would it be better to acquire Mig 29K and later replace them with Pak-Fa naval version?
the manufacturers of the Typhoon and the Gripen have indicated that their aircraft could be suitably modified for naval carrier-based flying.
PAK-FA is gonna have a Naval version? We've just heard such rumours so far, so lets not count on it.vishnu.nv wrote:Would it be better to acquire Mig 29K and later replace them with Pak-Fa naval version?
It would require design changes to reduce approach speed since it was not designed for carrier operations, also IN/Russian navy would have to switch CTOL to take full advantage of its payload capability. If weight estimates are correct 26 ton loaded weight would be too big for Gorshkov and IAC?Rahul M wrote:DM, I think a naval PAK-FA is a given. unless russia ceases to exist or decides one fine morning that it doesn't need carriers any longer. none is very likely. naval PAK-FA is a question of when, not if, if you ask me.
I think what the IN is trying to do is fish in troubled waters which is IAF MMRCA deal.KrishG wrote:Navy plans to acquire multi-role fighter aircraft
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/27/stories ... 541600.htm
While the Rafale and the F/A-18 are natural choices for naval operations as they were built specifically for carrier-based multi-role operations, the manufacturers of the Typhoon and the Gripen have indicated that their aircraft could be suitably modified for naval carrier-based flying.
Yes it would need design changes but it is doable like LCA -> NLCA and Rafale shows it , it may perhaps be big ( in terms of numbers it can carry in IAC and in hangers that can fit it ) , but IN has an ambition of large IAC ~ 60KJohn wrote:It would require design changes to reduce approach speed since it was not designed for carrier operations, also IN/Russian navy would have to switch CTOL to take full advantage of its payload capability. If weight estimates are correct 26 ton loaded weight would be too big for Gorshkov and IAC?Rahul M wrote:DM, I think a naval PAK-FA is a given. unless russia ceases to exist or decides one fine morning that it doesn't need carriers any longer. none is very likely. naval PAK-FA is a question of when, not if, if you ask me.
Kuzzi will get a fleet of new aircraft with is 24 Mig-29K , the Flanker will either be upgraded to another role or will die a natural death.IMO i doubt the Russians would build a carrier to replace Kuznetsov which has been quite ineffective for them, their current priorities seemed to be in deployment of LPD and better suited for their regional conflicts.
nice catch. its part of the low-visibility colour scheme. the IAF really needs to take a leaf from the IN on this aspect..its Jaguars carry inordinately large roundels and fin-flashes that would stand out from a distance. I mean the only reason they went to low-viz gray camo on almost all IAF aircraft was to make them less visible in the air, so makes more sense to do something about those roundels and fin flash too.Lalmohan wrote:nice to see the white in the roundel removed - tends to catch the eye very prominently otherwise
hope iaf are doing the same
yawn..your tape starts again..remind me which carrier to park the MiG-29K on ? and the N-LCA if available tomorrow, (i.e years ahead of schedule, since you're cribbing about "inordinate delay") which carrier do we park those on ?Philip wrote:I can't understand the logic in a third naval strike-fighter,as the MIG-29K is an excellent bird,.There could be two reasons for this RFP.The first is the inordinate delay in the naval LCA arriving,as even Mk-1 LCA has yet to enters service.
Dabolim air field carrier is it ? rate of production will increase if the orders are placed for the fighter..you cannot get an order for 20 and expect that in 2 years all the fighters will be delivered. its a waste to spend so much on a production line when there is no surety of a large volume of production..you'd need to amortise the cost of all the jigs, fixtures, equipment, etc. over a much smaller batch if the orders don't come in. if you want faster delivery, spend on it. give orders. don't keep barking "8 aircraft per year, 8 aircraft per year". it won't increase till the IAF orders more and the GoI releases more funds. the GoI has started on that path with its recent release of Rs 5000 crores, so the urgency is now beginning to show as the Tejas Mk1 approaches IOC.The Mk-1 LCA is underpowered especially at low alt.,which is critical for any naval fighter.Even if LCA MK-2 arrives with a new engine by about 2013 or the middle of the next decade,when will its naval variant enter service and at what rate of production? 8 aircraft per year at current estimates?
which is more than adequate considering when the IAC-1 will enter service. your tirades against the LCA are really getting boring now. rehashing the same stuff over and over again and however much others try to explain, it won't change your prejudice, so its useless to even bother I guess..This would mean that the naval LCA will arrive only in the latter half of the enxt decade,far too late.
what "our" MiG-35s ? a wet dream that you're talking of as if its already reality or have you simply stopped referring to the K's ? I hate saying this about a fighter I like (the -K), but you drive me to it by your constant tirade against the LCA- if the MiG-29K is so great, why even bother with a third type ? and even if the N-LCA sucks as much as you want it to, why couldn't the IN simply buy more MiG-29Ks instead of floating a global tender, one of which is an aircraft you revile so much in your posts (the USN's mainstay carrier fighter).To have therefore PLAN fighters in the IOR with a superior aircraft to our MIG-35s,with our very own LCA also in doubt,is like placing all our eggs ino one basket.The Sea Harrier can only last out as long as the Viraat and as much concern is therefore the date of the naval LCA arriving,so is there doubt about the availability of a second aircraft for the 3rd carrier which should possess qualities that will kick the butt of the PLAN forces.
The text says .... India would receive its first new generation Nerpa Akula-II class nuclear attack submarine by March next year on a 10-year lease...Dmurphy wrote:India to receive Nerpa submarine in May 2010
As of 2008, Russia had an agreement pending with India worth US$2 billion for the lease of Nerpa and another Project 971 Shchuka-B class submarine. Of this, K-152 Nerpa will be leased for 10 years to India at an estimated cost of US$650 million. After being handed over to the Indian Navy, it would be commissioned as INS Chakra. Nerpa is the Russian word for the Baikal seal, and chakra is a Sanskrit word meaning disk, wheel, or in traditional Indian medicine, an energy vortex associated with the body.
Indian naval crews earlier trained to operate the submarine near St. Petersburg and another group of sailors was expected to arrive in Vladivostok in late 2008 for joining sea trials. The training of the crew was viewed as crucial to India's own nuclear submarine programme, known as the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV).
Yes 26th Jan was suppose to be the date , but it got delayed as the sub faced issue and trial got delayed further.parshuram wrote:The text says .... India would receive its first new generation Nerpa Akula-II class nuclear attack submarine by March next year on a 10-year lease...Dmurphy wrote:India to receive Nerpa submarine in May 2010
IIRC Was n't Nerpa suppose to join IN in jan 2010 precisely on Jan 26 ??? if it has been inducted in RuN then why is there delay of 3/5 months
"Yes, there is a real possibility of leasing for ten years several of our nuclear powered multi-role submarines of Project 971 of 'Shchuka-B'class," the Director of Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSVTS) Mikhail Dmitriyev was quoted as saying by ITAR-TASS.
