Indian Naval Discussion

[Rahul M]

question is will running it through a steam generator plant be enough...and if it will mean any operational compromise or limit in launch rate...

If they were going to put cats in, it would certainly make sense to go with EMALS at this point.

However, steam cats are certainly possible on non-nuclear ships. For instance the French variant of the CVF (PA2) has steam cats but is conventionally powered.

not to forget our very own vikrant.

[chiru]

Will it be CATOBAR capable?

saar even the current mig-29Ks are CATOBAR capable with a small modification to the front landing gear so the FGFA should be too

[John]

there isn't much to elaborate other than the fact that sukhoi honchos have confirmed the existence of a naval PAKFA project which is expected to appear in the later part of this decade.

Again, a naval PAK-FA will just be for STOBAR operations, not CATOBAR.

India would have to fund the development for cat launches separately.

I hate to be the bringer of bad news but Naval PAK-FA will have empty weight of close to 20 tons you are talking about an aircraft bigger than F-14 unlike the latter not even designed for carrier operations.

Its performance will be heavily hampered operating from STOBAR (even Su-33 could only carry limited payload launching from Kuz.) i honestly don't see the Russian navy procuring this when Mig-29k can carry launch from Kuznetsov with much larger payload and fuel.

As for IN i doubt the lifts in IAC or Gorshkov could handle something that big so that rules two of our carriers.

[tushar_m]

i guess the weight factor will always be a major problem when it comes to aircraft carriers launched fighters since only 24+ of su33 where built (via wiki) also the news that Russians are thinking of putting mig29k for there aircraft carriers

and again if weight is the problem then N-LCA will be a perfect solution also +1 its a home grown product so easy to make any modifications & platform for various anti-ship & a2a missiles

[chackojoseph]

Yep! A naval FGFA is in works.

Will it be CATOBAR capable?

That detail is not available. We may see that info in a period of time. AFIK, the FGFA Naval is in works. IIRC The NFGFA was announced.

[Rahul M]

I hate to be the bringer of bad news but Naval PAK-FA will have empty weight of close to 20 tons you are talking about an aircraft bigger than F-14 unlike the latter not even designed for carrier operations.

what exactly is so uber about the F-14's carrier characteristics that the PAKFA or any other fighter with a decent TWR can't match ? sorry, I do not see the point.

Its performance will be heavily hampered operating from STOBAR (even Su-33 could only carry limited payload launching from Kuz.) i honestly don't see the Russian navy procuring this when Mig-29k can carry launch from Kuznetsov with much larger payload and fuel.

mig29k will fly with a larger payload than PAKFA ? really ?

what people forget is that a su-33 with a limited payload was still carrying more stores than the {older version} mig-29k with full load. do I have to remind people of the PAKFA's TWR ? a mere 150% of the F14 ?
edit : of course, the superbug is heavier than the F14 and at 30 tons would be close to PAKFA's MTOW. with a TWR @ 50% of that expected for the PAKFA, it performs quite well on carriers last I heard.

[SaiK]

also note there was this new requirements for IN needing 60K Ton carriers.

[John]

I hate to be the bringer of bad news but Naval PAK-FA will have empty weight of close to 20 tons you are talking about an aircraft bigger than F-14 unlike the latter not even designed for carrier operations.

what exactly is so uber about the F-14's carrier characteristics that the PAKFA or any other fighter with a decent TWR can't match ? sorry, I do not see the point.

Its performance will be heavily hampered operating from STOBAR (even Su-33 could only carry limited payload launching from Kuz.) i honestly don't see the Russian navy procuring this when Mig-29k can carry launch from Kuznetsov with much larger payload and fuel.

mig29k will fly with a larger payload than PAKFA ? really ?

what people forget is that a su-33 with a limited payload was still carrying more stores than the {older version} mig-29k with full load. do I have to remind people of the PAKFA's TWR ? a mere 150% of the F14 ?
edit : of course, the superbug is heavier than the F14 and at 30 tons would be close to PAKFA's MTOW. with a TWR @ 50% of that expected for the PAKFA, it performs quite well on carriers last I heard.

Well for F-14 the under carriage and landing gear was strengthened for carrier landing such changes for PAK-FA would be needed and won't be easy. Other thing to note is whether PAK-FA can achieve low landing airspeeds (F-14 with its wings) for carrier operations?

Yes PAK-FA has higher thrust so it would not hampered like Su-33 when it comes to launch from a ski jump. But Kuznetsov would require even structural modifications to launch PAK-FA i doubt the lifts can handle anything more than 30 tons (i.e for Vilkramaditya the lifts are limited to 25-30 tons). IMO Russians are better off sticking with Mig-29k unless of course they plan on procuring a new aircraft carrier designed to carry PAK-FA.

As for SU-33 from what i recall it limited to about 25 tons when operating from Kuz. where as Mig-29k is quoted as being able to takeoff at 20 tons which gives it way more payload than the Flanker.

[GeorgeWelch]

edit : of course, the superbug is heavier than the F14

No, the SH is lighter empty and has a lower MTOW.

it performs quite well on carriers last I heard.

With a catapult to launch it . . .

Boeing did a study that said the SH could fly off the Gorky, but there was some payload penalty. Of course they didn't say exactly how big of a penalty . . .

[Katare]

Russians don't have carriers neither are they building any so no question of a future Russian CATOBAR for anyone. Kuznetsove doesn't qualify for CATOBAR or justifies a development of a Navel PAK_FA.

I think it is not difficult technology to build CATs, the issue is no one else has done it and who ever wants it will have to reinvent the wheel which will take decades and will cost ton of money. It would be a safety nightmare too for other countries to build new carriers with new cats to launch new planes. So it is an advantage US has which is simply there because they have been doing it for decades fon dozens of carriers for several fighter types. This is not a technology that money can buy. It’ll take real sweat, blood and time to get it if you start from scratch.

[Cain Marko]

Why is catobar so important for IAC II? Why won't stobar do? Modern fighters no longer have the thrust issues of older ones. I don't see why a Rafale M can do a job better than the 29k in terms of payload. It might not be able to do the designed 9tons, but 7-8 tons should not be an issue imho. WIth uprated M88s, it could probly do 8-9 tons. More than enough for IN purposes.

So could a shornet with the EPE 414s. These birds ought to carry enough payload for IN purposes off the IAC II without the issues of payload limitations.

The only problem I see is the AEW platform - can't see E2s takeoff without CATs. Is there no alternative here? I remember seeing flankerand UAV based AEW a/c concepts, are they being pursued? Perhapes even the the flanker, which has such a large frame, endurance, ceiling; it would do if it could carry either a erieye type or chapati or even podded radar along centerline (ala Ka-31) with robust datalinks to command centers in mothership.

CM

[Singha]

pakfa has very thick looking undercarriage vs f15 style thin legs. but ofcourse its size and weight are bigger issues.

I dont think any flanker-ereyie combo will match the E2. the flanker also may not have enough internal power to run the ereyie radar.

[Baldev]

The Portuguese government awarded in 2005 a contract to Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH (HDW) for two type 214 submarines, which have been delivered in 2010.

we signed contract in 2005 too and subs will be delivered from 2015 onlee. so its better to buy ready made subs and thats the quickest way and leave shipyard to concentrate on other ships

ready made subs can be delivered in 5 years.

[John]

Why is catobar so important for IAC II? Why won't stobar do? Modern fighters no longer have the thrust issues of older ones. I don't see why a Rafale M can do a job better than the 29k in terms of payload. It might not be able to do the designed 9tons, but 7-8 tons should not be an issue imho. WIth uprated M88s, it could probly do 8-9 tons. More than enough for IN purposes.

So could a shornet with the EPE 414s. These birds ought to carry enough payload for IN purposes off the IAC II without the issues of payload limitations.

The only problem I see is the AEW platform - can't see E2s takeoff without CATs. Is there no alternative here? I remember seeing flankerand UAV based AEW a/c concepts, are they being pursued? Perhapes even the the flanker, which has such a large frame, endurance, ceiling; it would do if it could carry either a erieye type or chapati or even podded radar along centerline (ala Ka-31) with robust datalinks to command centers in mothership.

CM

There are multiple problems with STOBAR design

1. The ramp is very vulnerable and stick out like a sore thumb so if there is minor damage to the ramp (like splash damage from missile strike or an accident) no aircraft's can takeoff.
2. You wasting a ton of deck space with a ski jump for example Gorshkov can carry only half the aircraft on the deck a similar sized CATOBAR aircraft can carry.
3. Ski jump places limitations on type of munitions the aircraft can carry due to ground clearance,

[Baldev]

navy better make a similar prototype of vikramaditya's landing and ski jump ramp of similar dimensions to be used for mig29k at higher elevation than the ground level

[Indranil]

The Portuguese government awarded in 2005 a contract to Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH (HDW) for two type 214 submarines, which have been delivered in 2010.

we signed contract in 2005 too and subs will be delivered from 2015 onlee. so its better to buy ready made subs and thats the quickest way and leave shipyard to concentrate on other ships

ready made subs can be delivered in 5 years.

Yes but the Portuguese government will need to import again when the next need comes. after 2015, we probably won't.

navy better make a similar prototype of vikramaditya's landing and ski jump ramp of similar dimensions to be used for mig29k at higher elevation than the ground level

Did you mean sea level?
Why?!! The Aircraft carriers will never leave sea level!

[Singha]

the IN is doing so in goa - a mockup of carrier deck with ski jump , for training naval aviators.

[akimalik]

Dear Sirs,

I have a question in response to CM's reservations regarding the AEW deployment from IACs.

The only problem I see is the AEW platform - can't see E2s takeoff without CATs. Is there no alternative here? I remember seeing flankerand UAV based AEW a/c concepts, are they being pursued? Perhapes even the the flanker, which has such a large frame, endurance, ceiling; it would do if it could carry either a erieye type or chapati or even podded radar along centerline (ala Ka-31) with robust datalinks to command centers in mothership.

Why is it that we are still sticking to old paradigms? i.e. when we are taking the time to develop our own weapon systems, then why are we still trying to go down the path that other (older generation) forces have taken?

Do we really need an aircraft of the size of Hawkeyes to achieve what then do currently? Could we not make do with more advanced UAVs which behave like network end-points of our C3I/C4I networks? In such a scenario, the UAVs may just carry the sensor packages, the information collected by the sensors can be pushed back to the CBG via (secure) data-link for processing and co-ordination.

Again, it might not be a trivial task to land UAVs, but there again once we put our minds to it, I am quite sure we can arrive at solutions.

I request the thoughts of the members upon this subject.

p.s. :- Wish everyone a Happy Republic Day.

[GeorgeWelch]

Modern fighters no longer have the thrust issues of older ones.

It might be 'better', but no fighter, modern or not, can take-off with a full load from a carrier without a cat.

I don't see why a Rafale M can do a job better than the 29k in terms of payload.

It couldn't . . . except it can be boosted by a cat.

It might not be able to do the designed 9tons, but 7-8 tons should not be an issue imho. WIth uprated M88s, it could probly do 8-9 tons.

At MTOW, a Rafale is carrying 15 tonnes of fuel and weapons. At 7.5 tonnes you're talking half the fuel and half the weapons.

The only problem I see is the AEW platform - can't see E2s takeoff without CATs. Is there no alternative here?

UK was investigating helicopter and V-22 based options, but the fact is they are toys compared to the E-2.

Perhapes even the the flanker

Russia is no longer offering the Su-33.

[GeorgeWelch]

Do we really need an aircraft of the size of Hawkeyes to achieve what then do currently?

Pretty much.

Could we not make do with more advanced UAVs which behave like network end-points of our C3I/C4I networks? In such a scenario, the UAVs may just carry the sensor packages, the information collected by the sensors can be pushed back to the CBG via (secure) data-link for processing and co-ordination.

The problem is that the E-2s carry very big, very powerful radars. To be comparable, the UAV would have to be as big and powerful, which means you're right back to the same problem the E-2 has: It can't takeoff from a carrier without a cat.

[Singha]

the helicopter radar soln which UK is trying out on Merlin is nowhere in the class of the E-2. Osprey is way more trouble than its worth....

you want to be a big boy, you need the big stick.

I suppose if the conventional powered French CVF will use steam cats for Rafale and E2, so can our IAC-II.... the size of the IAC-II has not been officially announced..whether a clone of IAC-1 or CVF/Kuz sized... the CDG which is in size range of IAC-1 is launching Rafale/E2 with cats...so anything bigger than IAC1 should work.

[akimalik]

Do we really need an aircraft of the size of Hawkeyes to achieve what then do currently?

Pretty much.

Could we not make do with more advanced UAVs which behave like network end-points of our C3I/C4I networks? In such a scenario, the UAVs may just carry the sensor packages, the information collected by the sensors can be pushed back to the CBG via (secure) data-link for processing and co-ordination.

The problem is that the E-2s carry very big, very powerful radars. To be comparable, the UAV would have to be as big and powerful, which means you're right back to the same problem the E-2 has: It can't takeoff from a carrier without a cat.

Does this assessment not come from the fact that we make the assumption that a single platform would provide the entire coverage. Instead of a 1:1 replacement of the E-2, what if we deploy multiple lighter UAVs, thus covering the same area but using a sectored approach?

If you could point me to places where I could get an estimate of the coverage of the E-2s I would spend some more time researching this.

[vasu_ray]

How does the Hawkeye compare to the Erieye radar in terms of range? if a smaller RAT will be enough to power either radar

[GeorgeWelch]

Instead of a 1:1 replacement of the E-2, what if we deploy multiple lighter UAVs, thus covering the same area but using a sectored approach?

Carriers are severely space limited, all the extra UAVs would mean fewer strike assets.

If you could point me to places where I could get an estimate of the coverage of the E-2s I would spend some more time researching this.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/asse ... 9-1209.pdf

>300 nmi maximum range

300nmi = 555 km

[vishnu.nv]

IMHO The catobar also helps in speedy launching of fighters!!

The DRDO can start a project for studying a naval reactor and have cats in the mokup they are constructing in GOA. The french also offered the CDG Based reactor for the future IAC's.

[shukla]

India will have two aircraft carrier strike forces by around 2015
Times of India

Navy is confident India will have two full-fledged aircraft carrier battle groups (CBGs) by 2015 or so despite slippages in ongoing refit of the 44,570-tonne Admiral Gorshkov in Russia and construction of the 40,000-tonne indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) at Cochin Shipyard. "We are definitely looking at deploying two aircraft carriers by the middle of this decade,'' said assistant chief of naval staff (foreign cooperation and intelligence) Rear Admiral Anil Chawla on Wednesday. Navy, in fact, can stretch the operational life of India's solitary aircraft carrier, the 28,000-tonne INS Viraat, for another 10 years if the need arises, said Rear Admiral Chawla, who himself has commanded the 50-year-old warhorse.

The first CBG will be centred around Gorshkov, rechristened INS Vikramaditya, which India will now get in early-2013 under the fresh $2.33 billion deal inked last year. The second CBG, in turn, will be around the IAC, whose keel was laid in February 2009. "We hope the launch of IAC can take place by end-2011,'' said Rear Admiral Chawla. But if there is a further delay in the IAC, which is slated for delivery by 2015, INS Viraat will fill the gap. Having recently undergone an extensive modernisation refit with new weapons and sensors, INS Viraat will remain battle-worthy for some years to come.

[sumshyam]

Livefist reports that Indian Navy is considering a fleet of Amphibious air Crafts. Details are yet to be reported.

[vina]

I suppose a ship needs to be sailing above a certain speed to launch a/c from cats? and nobody can launch cat a/c sailing at a sedate 12 knots?

Well, theoretically, you can compensate by making the cat throw you at the extra speed and the ship even be stationary. But it will be nice if the ship can work up around 20 knots and your effective wind is always going to be +20 Knots extra and that gives you capability to launch with larger take off weights and more safety margins.

in that be the case a gas turbine powerplant will be running at near full steam when the ship needs to launch a/c so hot exhaust gas will be there in plenty...question is will running it through a steam generator plant be enough...and if it will mean any operational compromise or limit in launch rate...

Well, if you design it that way, the gas turbine have to be running at full tilt and maybe the ship be moving to launch with the cat and you lose the ability to launch from standstill.

Traditionally, those kind of large ships were steam turbines and what can be done is to size the boilers such that enough extra steam is always generated to operate the cats in addition to driving the ship at a fair clip.

It is doable, for eg, Kitty Hawk as a 80,000 ton super carrier and it was conventionally powered. Though, if you use a nuke reactor, it is quite easy to keep generating that steam (for propulsion and cats) without too much hassle like bunkering every now and then or replenishing at sea while underway from fleet tankers.

[jai]

Operating Catobars without nuclear propulsion - as planned for QE Class Air craft carriers.

http://www.converteam.com/majic/pageSer ... IFEP-.html

[Cain Marko]

It might be 'better', but no fighter, modern or not, can take-off with a full load from a carrier without a cat.

My point is that does the IN see the need for this - I don't see the point of the IN emulating something like the USN. I see the a/c being mainly used as providing air cover to a group of destroyers, which then can easily strike at standoff ranges with cruise missiles. Perhaps maintain a sort of no fly zone over a small area - thats the most of the IN CBG's role imho. So the ability to carry a couple of tonnes more is moot if it can already carry about 7 tons via Rafale.

It couldn't . . . except it can be boosted by a cat.

Oh but it could! The IN's first preference was the Rafale or Su-33MKI iirc. A landbased MIG-29K can take off with 6500kg, it is restricted to 5500k via STOBAR. AT that rate, I assume that a Rafale M which can supposedly take off with 9500kg (CATOBAR) could probly do so with 7500kg via STOBAR.

At MTOW, a Rafale is carrying 15 tonnes of fuel and weapons. At 7.5 tonnes you're talking half the fuel and half the weapons.

Uhh no, how is 7.5 half of 9.5 tons? At MTOW the rafale carries 9.5 tons of external payload, which can be a mix of fuel and munitions. Perhaps a French poster can clarify here.

UK was investigating helicopter and V-22 based options, but the fact is they are toys compared to the E-2.

Yes, but the Osprey seems like a dead end. THe UAV/flanker based solution should be equally good.

Russia is no longer offering the Su-33.

They will, if there is a need.

CM

[GeorgeWelch]

At MTOW, a Rafale is carrying 15 tonnes of fuel and weapons. At 7.5 tonnes you're talking half the fuel and half the weapons.

Uhh no, how is 7.5 half of 9.5 tons? At MTOW the rafale carries 9.5 tons of external payload, which can be a mix of fuel and munitions.

Do internal stores not weigh anything? Are they free?

You're assuming that the plane can take off with a full internal fuel load PLUS 7.5 tons of external weight?

Sorry, doesn't work like that chap.

[Singha]

in WW2, carriers used to 'turn into the wind' before launching deckloads .... not sure if any particular orientation was used to recover a/c - due to straight decks they could not launch and recover at same time...so vulnerable periods existed when a entire deckload of planes was on deck being armed and refueled and when squadrons of ac were landing after a mission. even a hit by single bomb could start uncontrollable fires while crewmen worked to push the burning planes overboard.

the inclined landing area and more deck lifts probably solved that issue.

I am all for a beastly catamaran hulled thing with the a/c hanger suspended over the water right below the deck between the two hulls

[vina]

in WW2, carriers used to 'turn into the wind' before launching deckloads .... not sure if any particular orientation was used to recover a/c - due to straight decks they could not launch and recover at same time...

Exactly, "boosters" including the folks at Vayu Magazine projected as if the Russians had a stroke of genius and invented STOBAR (why is that Indian Defense forces ,esp the ex service types seem so awed by supposedly magical Russian prowess is something I could never understand,and that extended to areas where Russians were absolute duds, like medicine for instance!)

Your post punctures that hollow. All carriers before the jet age WERE stobar! WWII carriers did not have Cats and turning into the wind and working up speed during take off AND landing was absolutely required (to increase the relative wind across the deck and hence aircraft lift). It is only when aircraft sizes started increasing very quickly after jet engines, the introduction of highly swept , low aspect ratio wings in Navy Fighters (needed for supersonic. WWII planes had straight high aspect ratio wings, great for subsonic and short take off and landing and high lift), and thrust to weight limitations of early jet engines and indeed the rather limited thrust vs rpm (compared to piston) of jet engines, all necessarily meant invention of the Cat!

Now when jet engines improved and T:W ratios started getting better, it became feasible if you accepted performance limitations (like restricted payload etc) you could go back to the old STOBAR concept and that is what the Russians did (this time in addition, taking the brit idea of Ski jump to make it more possible with sufficient margins).

[Singha]

a british guy named Barnes wallis who invented the tallboy and grandslam bombs for lancaster bombers played around with a concept called "Swallow" in 1950s well into his late middle age. I think it was the precursor of the Concorde and avro Vulcan. the de-havilland Mosquito and Comet remain to this day two of the most beautiful aircraft ever produced.
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/Barnes ... uePage.htm

post-war I think UK lost her scientific elite to retirement, migration to the well fed american mil-ind complex/universities and budget cuts, yet they still have giants like vickers, RR and BaE who play at world level. overall one has to give them good marks for creative ideas, albeit lack of unlimited funding holds them back...Sher khan can try 5 things in parallel, pick the 1 that works and proclaim himself a real genius! and they have a long and productive history in automobile and motorcycle design (as does Italy).

it all flows from Governments over decades respecting the armed forces and ensuring research programs continue in key areas through good times and bad.

[Philip]

//

[kit]

a british guy named Barnes wallis who invented the tallboy and grandslam bombs for lancaster bombers played around with a concept called "Swallow" in 1950s well into his late middle age. I think it was the precursor of the Concorde and avro Vulcan. the de-havilland Mosquito and Comet remain to this day two of the most beautiful aircraft ever produced.
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/Barnes ... uePage.htm

post-war I think UK lost her scientific elite to retirement, migration to the well fed american mil-ind complex/universities and budget cuts, yet they still have giants like vickers, RR and BaE who play at world level. overall one has to give them good marks for creative ideas, albeit lack of unlimited funding holds them back...Sher khan can try 5 things in parallel, pick the 1 that works and proclaim himself a real genius! and they have a long and productive history in automobile and motorcycle design (as does Italy).

it all flows from Governments over decades respecting the armed forces and ensuring research programs continue in key areas through good times and bad.

Amen to that.Cant agree more !

[Philip]

STOBAR is the best system for medium sized Indian carriersmbarring he advent of a new STOVL fghter.Cats are expensive,heavy,require large power,exra maintenance,etc.For now,the MIG-29Ks will suffice for the Gorky/Vik and IAC-1,to be augmented later on with the FGFA's naval version.As for AEW assets,in the future,there wil be several UAV options to choose from-several are being developed includign a JV between India and srael for a helo version of the Alouette, and aircraft like the E-2C wih rotating radomes will be passe.
Even the US is now examning smaller 60,000t sized carriers for the future instead of the large supercarriers rom both cost and extra number factors.Stealthy UAVs will have greater endurance,operae at higher alts. and have far longer loiter times than a manned AEW aircraft.Helo syleUAVs will be able to take off from smaller warships of DDG/FFG size.

Acquiring a few doz. ex-RN Harriers in v.good shape too,wil allow us to operate the Viraat upto 2020 and also arm any new amphibious warships that migh arrve.Upgraded Harriers with AESA radars,LR BVR AAMs and air-launched ASMs like Exocet,will give the fleet a good proven air defence asset that is the deadliest in dogfighting ability too.The Harriers will be excellent complements to the lager MIG-29Ks and FGFAs.With the doubts being expressed about the ability of even the 414 engine delivering the goods for the naval variant,it is qeustionable as to how many naval LAs will be ultimately be built.In any case with the emerging threats,larger twin-engined naval carrier aircraft will be preferred over any shorter-legged smaller payload carrying single-engined LCA.However,what is efiniely required by the IN are naval trainers and it is here where a fully capable armed two-seat trainer variant can be built in qty.Such a variant might also have good export potential,as it would be vastly superior to the Hawks,being supersonic and possesing full multi-role strike capabiities as well.

[aniket]

Check out this . Just found it . I know it is in russian but enjoy the visuals
[youtube]eUxJGeLUa3Q&feature=related[/youtube]

[GeorgeWelch]

STOBAR is the best system for medium sized Indian carriersmbarring he advent of a new STOVL fghter.

What is 'medium sized'? Are we talking Gorky sized? Or the rumored 60,000 ton IAC-2?

Cats are expensive,heavy,require large power,exra maintenance,etc.

And they also provide tremendous advantages in range, endurance and payload.

For now,the MIG-29Ks will suffice for the Gorky/Vik and IAC-1

Any system will suffice in peacetime, but the real question is not about Gorky and IAC-1, but IAC-2 and beyond.

Should all future Indian carriers be crippled by lack of cats or should Indian carrier philosophy start to migrate toward a bigger vision?

As for AEW assets,in the future,there wil be several UAV options to choose from-several are being developed includign a JV between India and srael for a helo version of the Alouette, and aircraft like the E-2C wih rotating radomes will be passe.

Sorry, a helicopter will never make the E-2 'passé'.

Even the US is now examning smaller 60,000t sized carriers for the future instead of the large supercarriers rom both cost and extra number factors.

Not true.

The marine corp is working on their 45,000 ton amphibious assault ships, but no one is contemplating replacing full sized carriers with them.

Stealthy UAVs will have greater endurance,operae at higher alts. and have far longer loiter times than a manned AEW aircraft.

(Stealth and AEW go together like oil and water, but anyways . . .)

But to be strong enough to both lift and power an adequate radar, you're looking at a good size craft, a craft that will need a cat to launch. If you want a UAV to replace an E-2, you're not talking about a toy-sized UAV like a Raven, you're talking something more like a Global Hawk.

Watch this Global Hawk takeoff and tell me what you think.

Yes cats are more expensive, but they're not THAT much more expensive and is that really an issue for India any more? Are you saying India can't afford to operate cats? Instead, you would rather save money on cheaper skijumps, but then spend a ton more money to develop unique assets to try to cover the gap with CATOBAR but still end up with less capability.

That sounds penny wise and pound foolish to me.

[Cain Marko]

Do internal stores not weigh anything? Are they free?

You're assuming that the plane can take off with a full internal fuel load PLUS 7.5 tons of external weight?

Sorry, doesn't work like that chap.

Then how does it work? I distinctly recall reading that the MiG-29K (original 1988 version) was able to take off from the Kuznetsov at MTOW of 22000kg. That equals full internal fuel + max external stores. Perhaps it did so from the CTOL strip, and not STOBAR. In any case, if even with CATS the Rafale's MTOW is reduced so dramatically, then it makes them all the less attractive.

The only disadvantages then are possible issues with deckspace (which can be alleviated as seen from the specs on the CDG vis a vis the IAC), and the inability to push off an E2.

I doubt that the E2 is the only way forward for the IN, increasingly other solutions will come to fore. LIke I said, I doubt that even with a 60 ton a/c carrier, the IN will look to emulate the role played by its USN counterparts, at best the fighters will be tasked with - Air cover for group, ASW duites and lastly, some strike roles. There are cruise missiles et al that can be carried by destroyers that can effectively do the strike work. Unless of course, the IN is tasked to impose a NFZ GW style (which is not happening).

IOWs, if the CATS come with issues, there really is not much need for them imho.

CM.