INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 Jan 2019 20:48

^^^ Filipov we need to play this geostrategic game intelligently. If Cheen is putting the vast of its forces in contesting the waters around its own coastline then we have to the leeway to build things like the 65K ton CATOBAR.

If we were under pressure like Japan then maybe not. But how many encounters had we with the Cheen air force or navy? I can’t think of even one. The USN/and JSFD have them by the hundreds.

We are cheek to jowl on them at land but nothing at sea or in the air. We don’t have an unlimited budget to build out half-solutions for a handful of PLAN ships.

That day may or may not come but we can build what the IN wants without worries for now. And we know they want a 65K ton CATOBAR.

nam · Post by **nam** » 20 Jan 2019 00:46

Regarding the lifts on IAC-1. looking at the photo, if the lift cannot be wider, can they not be longer? Extending further out.

You could technically remove the nose cone while on the lift and put it back on the deck?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jan 2019 01:03

Aiyoo! No way nam! Opening up the nose cone could likely expose the radar to the salty sea environment. I do not think that idea - of opening the nose cone - will work.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jan 2019 01:15

Rakesh wrote:Aiyoo! No way nam! Opening up the nose cone could likely expose the radar to the salty sea environment. I do not think that idea - of opening the nose cone - will work.

It will also be bad for sortie generation when you have to do that much work to move an aircraft (ability to move aircraft around the flight deck and below deck in addition to the ability to move ammo around from storage and up to the deck and on the aircraft has a major influence on your ability to generate sorties).

nam · Post by **nam** » 20 Jan 2019 02:10

Rakesh wrote:Aiyoo! No way nam! Opening up the nose cone could likely expose the radar to the salty sea environment. I do not think that idea - of opening the nose cone - will work.

How would it be different from jets in the hangar with the lift door open most of the time while transporting jets? compare to 5 minutes of transporting on the lift?

I believe nose cones on today's jets are like windows with hinges, which allows you to open and close it quite easily, like this:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/eNF4r.jpg

There could be effect on sortie generation, however I am no convinced that even during peak times, a jet transported from lifts would be send to flying within minutes of arriving on the deck.

Not saying it is a perfect idea, however better than modifying a entire plane.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jan 2019 02:26

Obviously this could work as a desperate measure but there is good reason why you don't really want to be opening up nose cones or otherwise exposing sensitive electronic equipment to the elements like that as a routine procedure just in order to make something work. The effect on the ability to generate sorties is real. In sustained deployment and ops tempo you will need to cycle your aircraft back and forth for a whole host of repairs and you need to be able to do this quickly and efficiently. In carrier designs how effectively you can move the aircraft and weapons back and forth is considered quite important as this has a huge impact on your ability to sustain high tempo ops.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jan 2019 10:54

i believe the Essex class which was the std usn carrier in later stages of the WW2 pioneered the use of deck edge lifts as that permitted more hanger room and bigger a/c. inside lifts are compromises due to size (invincible class) or baggage of history(vikky). length ceased to be an issue as a/c could hang out beyond the lift. widths were sized to fit whatever was needed.

how we managed to muff that up even for IAC-1 will go down as two tankers colliding in a empty sea in broad daylight. none must have seriously reviewed whatever design drawings the russis made for the "aviation complex"

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jan 2019 10:58

this pic shows clearly the diff between a through deck "ASW cruiser" of the invincible/vikky mould and a proper ground up design like QE2.

and even the QE2 has a flaw imo in only 2 huge deck edge lifts on the starboard side. if that area takes a damage in war, the ship will have to retreat.
"proper" warfighters like the khan carriers have no less than 4 deck edge lifts - 3 on startboard, 1 on port...... and 4 catapults....damage and mechanical issues at crucial times (like Karnas chariot wheel getting stuck in the mud as he trading arrows with Arjun) are sure to occur .... he who handles such mishaps best and keeps on fighting is the survivor..... for peacetime flag waving all are heroes.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2019 22:11

Ideally there should be a min. of 3 lifts., two on the starboard side before and aft of the island.If there are two islands, one between them.Some CVs have lifts that can accommodate two aircraft at a time.This enables almost any size of large naval aircraft to be carried.
An angled deck plus ski-jump , allowing both cats and ski-jump launches are appearing in new conceptual CV designs.How many of theee will be built is a moot point given the massive cost oc a large CV.Will large CVs meet the same fate as the BB?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jan 2019 22:24

nothing has appeared to match the onsite airpower of a carrier yet or render that redundant.
BBs had a long run of a few 100 years if you start counting from middle ages , decks lined with guns at multi levels.

coral sea battle in ww2 was perhaps first naval fight where both sides ships did not visually see each other...followed by midway.
the successful work of CVs in these two led to cancellation of the 5 montata class BBs that were 12x16" and 65000t to outmatch the yamato class.

QE2 lifts are sized for 2 JSF coming up side by side. (as are the american cvns)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jan 2019 22:29

QE2 can be excused as its 50% larger than IAC-1.
but charles de gaulle is the same size

here it comfortably fits a rafale

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Jan 2019 23:49

IMHO Designing the Lift will not be an after thought , The design would have been frozen around the time IAC design was frozen by NDB

The team would not have the data on how say Rafale or other type would perform with different payload from IAC much less any intent to buy by IN .....I mean we dont know even today if we will buy a Rafale or F-18 or JSF for our next carrier much less for IAC whose design would have been frozen.

CDG designer would have well in know about the AC they would have and they would have all the data for Rafale when designing CDG much like we have for Tejas so every one designs around what they know and have and its not an after thought based on unknown parameters.

IAC designers would have data for 29K and Tejas so they built the Lift and other supportting system around these two types

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Jan 2019 03:12

nam wrote:How would it be different from jets in the hangar with the lift door open most of the time while transporting jets? compare to 5 minutes of transporting on the lift?

See this picture (from your own post) and consider what will occur to the radar, when the vessel in this sea state (below this picture). Think what could happen to the sensitive radar - exposed to the salty sea environment - in five minutes of transporting on the lift because the nose cone was open? That radar will be FUBAR.

nam wrote:There could be effect on sortie generation, however I am no convinced that even during peak times, a jet transported from lifts would be send to flying within minutes of arriving on the deck.

Not saying it is a perfect idea, however better than modifying a entire plane.

Once on deck, an aircraft needs to be launched into the air. No time for closing nose cones or attaching wings ---> Dassault's idea for the Rafale M to operate off the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant. Once on deck, you go into the air. That's it. An aircraft carrier's greatest offensive weapon is her aircraft. You need a high sortie rate to get the maximum utility value.

Check this out Nam ----> https://riveer.com/anti-corrosion/

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 Jan 2019 03:25

Austin wrote:
IAC designers would have data for 29K and Tejas so they built the Lift and other supportting system around these two types

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to build only for MiG-29K sized planes and below for a ship intended to serve up to five decades.

The Western philosophy had been for oversized lifts on modern carriers. The IN comes from a Western tradition to be perfectly honest. I find it almost impossible we woukdn’t have gone for the same oversized lifts on de Gualle and QE2 if it had been our own designers controlling that aspect of the carrier. I suspect we gave that up to the Russians when we brought them in to design and build the “aviation complex.”

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jan 2019 08:27

probably the hangar deck, flight deck, nav aids, island was under russian design and rest of decks and machinery spaces under fincantieri the overall consultant who upsized the cavour knowledge.

the cunning russis took their chance well.

the CDG planned for and sized itself to accomodate the E2.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jan 2019 08:55

chola wrote:
Austin wrote:
IAC designers would have data for 29K and Tejas so they built the Lift and other supportting system around these two types
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to build only for MiG-29K sized planes and below for a ship intended to serve up to five decades.

The Western philosophy had been for oversized lifts on modern carriers. The IN comes from a Western tradition to be perfectly honest. I find it almost impossible we woukdn’t have gone for the same oversized lifts on de Gualle and QE2 if it had been our own designers controlling that aspect of the carrier. I suspect we gave that up to the Russians when we brought them in to design and build the “aviation complex.”

No one stopped the Indian navy to take consulting from US or French counterpart to design the iac for a larger fighter like Rafale , it was their decision to build iac around for mig and Tejas atleast for now , who knows after a decade from now they if they get Rafale or other types they may redesign to accommodate them

IN used AC for fleet AD and ASW role for its CBG since the days of vikrant

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 21 Jan 2019 09:33

if an aviation cruiser can be sliced and diced into a full fledged CV, then wider sidelifts can be retrofitted to the Vikrant.

IIRC Russians were not in charge of anything below decks. The design seem local (maybe Navantia/Barzan or someone might have provided inputs based on Juan Carlos). Fincantieri are the ones who did the consultancy for propulsion.

So, the lifts are kind of our own doing. The key question is if adding a wider lift later will cause structural issues. If not, we have time in 2035 or so when Vishaal is (hopefully) foaming at the bows

titash · Post by **titash** » 21 Jan 2019 09:39

We should not blame the russians here.

Back in the mid-90s and early 2000s:

Sea Harriers - approaching end of service life with no projected replacements; plus high attrition rates
Yak-38 - even worse performance than the Sea Harrier
Yak-141 - not in production
Rafale - needs Catapult which no one would sell us
Super Etendard - needs Catapult, and very mediocre performance
Skyhawk - needs Catapult (I think) but not available for sale in any case
F-18 - needs Catapult and not available for sale
F-35 - not on offer to us even today

Back in the day when the VikAd purchase was conceived, there was no other available carrier and/or aircraft that could have been purchased and sustained over 30 years. The decision was made to lock in VikAd + MiG-29 and Tejas (if at all), and consequently the SBTF and IAC/INS Vikrant in its current form was conceived. If we hadn't gone that route there would be no INS Vikrant today approaching commissioning.

This is a 30 year decision made based on our radar horizon back then. Hindsight is always 20-20

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jan 2019 10:59

the deck edge elevator has a hydraulic & chain mechanism and not much internal parts, unlike the ones that are inside. they do not have hidden machinery under the hangar floor which is needed in internal elevators. so much easier to throw away that pile of iron maybe 150tons, cut a bit more and install a bigger machinery conformal to the hull side.

seems to me this UK based co is the world monopoly on elevators - the old vikrant, IAC-1, hermes probably all use their systems
http://www.mactag.com/57_AboutMacTaggartScott.html
they build and test the lifts separately.

we can maybe ask them to build bigger lifts and fit them during the first refit of vikrant which may be in 3-5 years after induction.

massa learnt her deck edge lessons building 24 (!!!) essex class carriers early on. brilliant innovation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-cla ... ier#Design

One innovation in Essex was a portside deck-edge elevator in addition to two inboard elevators. The deck-edge elevator was adopted in the design after it proved successful on Wasp.[6] Experiments had also been made with hauling aircraft by crane up a ramp between the hangar and flight decks, but this method proved too slow. The Navy's Bureau of Ships and the Chief Engineer of A.B.C. Elevator Co. designed the engine for the side elevator. It was a standard elevator, 60 by 34 ft (18 by 10 m) in platform surface, which traveled vertically on the port side of the ship. There would be no large hole in the flight deck when the elevator was in the "down" position, a critical factor if the elevator ever became inoperable during combat operations. Its new position made it easier to continue normal operations on deck, irrespective of the position of the elevator. The elevator also increased the effective deck space when it was in the "up" position by providing additional parking room outside the normal contours of the flight deck, and increased the effective area on the hangar deck by the absence of elevator pits. In addition, its machinery was less complex than the two inboard elevators, requiring about 20% fewer man-hours of maintenance.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jan 2019 11:02

some will ask why I am so obsessed with what is a engineering change that can be done in MLU.
thats because I would like to see two naval tejas armed to the wingtips, come up side by side in the pre dawn light!

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 Jan 2019 20:33

^^^ Bollywood needs to make a good carrier flick.

In the meantime:

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Jan 2019 22:08

People can whine and moan all they want but I'm quite content with the vikad and the fulcrums. I recall learned folks in number of fora saying all sorts of things about both.... She'll be a rust bucket and unworthy at Sea, the fighters have unresolvable defects, that's why they are looking for 57 new fighters etcetc... But mashallah, it has been okay so far... Touch wood. No doubt there have been problems but the Navy seems okay with it, and it is to their credit for sure.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jan 2019 00:17

I think our carrier lift shortsightedness stems from the entire history of IAC-1.If you remember well, way back in time, a few decades ago, the CV was called only an " air defence ship", ADS initially. It was meant to be a replacement for the Vikrant/ Viraat Harrier carriers. A fudge to get a larger flat top approved because of IAF opposition to the IN's carrier ambitions.A modest ADS of around 30K t+ replacing the Viraat was expected to have arrived at least a decade ago. It was also being asked for during a lean period defence budget wise.The ADS was initially to have carried the SHs and NLCAs only, later the 29Ks.

As time went by, the design stretched and expanded into its present size, esp. after the Gorshkov conversion into the VikA was contracted which was around 45K t and 29Ks as principal naval strikd birds. A slightly smaller CV would not have been objected too operating the same aircraft. The lifts were found adequately sized to operate the planned 29Ks as well as NLCAs.
One must understand how difficult it is to get the MOD to pass anything and the difficulty in major modifications of major weapon systems after initial approval with corresponding budget increases.
Had the IAC/ ADS come with larger lifts and the requirement of operating frontline western carrier aircraft or even Ru naval Flankers, it may have looked too ambitious and the nod may never have been given.

Looking at IAC-1, the design appears easily stretchable both fore and aft with two modular sections which would increase the hangar and deck capacity for extra aircraft and helos.Such a stretched sister ship appears easily doable.A few years ago CSL had offered a sister ship in around 5+ years. If the IN does not insist on a new larger CV 65K design but stretches IAC-1 in similar fashion as how it turned the ADS into the IAC-1, it would be more acceptable to the MOD/ GOI being a "sister ship". An immediate decision of approval may be achieved in ghe light of the Chin CV ambitions and the IN can thus get its 3rd. CV faster.Two 65K t CVs could be planned for arrival post 2030 to "keep up with the Chins".

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 10 Mar 2019 09:58

Apologies if posted already.

Snehashis · Post by **Snehashis** » 30 Mar 2019 04:57

Livefist - Combat Management System (CMS) for India’s 1st indigenous aircraft carrier (New Vikrant-class) handed over to the @IndianNavy.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1111614416943022080

navneeet · Post by **navneeet** » 20 Apr 2019 16:12

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1119501269289394176

Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba: Indigenous Aircraft Carrier, INS Vikrant is undergoing outfitting at Kochi shipyard Ltd. Its harbour acceptance trials are in progress & sea acceptance trial will commence in the later half of this year; It will be delivered to Navy by 2021.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 20 Apr 2019 16:46

Great news!

mmasand · Post by **mmasand** » 20 Apr 2019 16:50

That's a year earlier than expected.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 20 Apr 2019 23:57

Will they but more fulcrums now? Or are the current 45 enough for both vikad and Vikrant?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 24 Jul 2019 17:58

chola wrote:Posting here because the Vikrant thread had been idle so long that I couldn't even find it any more.

It looks like we won't see the Vikrant in sea trials before 2021.

https://www.themachinemaker.com/news/in ... er-vikrant

Indian Navy expected to commission Made in India Aircraft Carrier Vikrant by 2023

09-Jul-2019

Designed by Directorate of Naval Design and getting build at Cochin Shipyard, the first indigenous Aircraft Carrier Vikrant is in its advanced stage of production and is expected to be delivered to Indian Navy by 2021, informed Vice Admiral A K Saxena, Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition, Indian Navy.

FICCI and Indian Navy are jointly organizing a two-day seminar on “Nation Building through Ship Building” from 25th July 2019, and Mr. Saxena was talking during a curtain raiser program in connection with the seminar.

Once with Navy, aviation trails are expected to start in 2021, and within next two years the carrier can be commissioned. Similar to the present aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, Vikrant is being built on Shot Take-off but Arrested Recovery mechanism with an angular ski-jump, and will weigh around 40,000 tons. The production of Vikrant witnessed participation of several private and public companies, and will be a big boost to Make in India initiatives.

India possess great potentiality to develop capability to build world class warships and merchant vessels, which will further strengthen its position in the global manufacturing maps for very advanced technologies. The expansion in this sector can generate huge employment opportunities. Ship building is identified as a key strategic sector under Government’s Make in India. The keel for Vikrant was laid by then Defence Minister A K Antony at the Cochin Shipyard on 28th of February 2009.

It wasn't difficult for me to find it because it was only on the second page and also there is search option available on the main page

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 Jul 2019 19:22

Cain Marko wrote:Will they but more fulcrums now? Or are the current 45 enough for both vikad and Vikrant?

CM - any updates available on how the 29k is performing? There were some serious issues with it up to 2017. In 2018 some reports stated serviceability was up to 70%. Is that still true?

chola · Post by **chola** » 25 Jul 2019 08:30

Kakarat wrote:
chola wrote:Posting here because the Vikrant thread had been idle so long that I couldn't even find it any more.

It looks like we won't see the Vikrant in sea trials before 2021.

https://www.themachinemaker.com/news/in ... er-vikrant

It wasn't difficult for me to find it because it was only on the second page and also there is search option available on the main page

Kakarat ji, you are a much smarter and less lazier bhai than I. (I looked and realized that my list of active threads is set to 7 days as default.)

BTW, aviation trials are expected in 2021. I could be wrong on sea trials (I hope) and they might occur earlier -- maybe next year.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 25 Jul 2019 19:17

For future aircraft carrier, Navy homes in to electric propulsion, could use hybrid system.

NEW DELHI: The Navy is homing in on electric propulsion for a planned future aircraft carrier, with a hybrid system likely to be considered for development, most likely in partnership with a US based partner. Navy Chief Admiral Karambir Singh confirmed on Thursday that that electric propulsion is being considered but did not give any timelines for the project.

“Our plan is to build a 65,000 tonner, possibly with electric propulsion and CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take off but Arrested Recovery) so that if we have three aircraft carrier, at least two will be operational at any given time,” the Navy chief said at the side-lines of a seminar on warship building by FICCI.

India currently has the INS Vikramaditya (bought from Russia) operational while the second carrier, to be named INS Vikrant is under construction at the Cochin Shipyard Limited. Both these carrier are based on the STOBAR concept – Short Take Off but Arrested Recovery.

Sources have told ET that the Navy is considering hybrid electric propulsion for the third aircraft carrier being planned for the future. While the carrier – still in the concept stage – will be conventionally powered, the Navy foresees a huge requirement for electric power that will necessitate a hybrid propulsion system.

Sources said that the Virginia, US based Huntington Ingalls – the sole designer and builder producer of American aircraft carriers - could be roped in for a consultant for the future Indian warship plan. India and the US have an official Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology Cooperation that has been meeting to work on the project.

The Indian project however has not yet been given financial clearances by the government even though the Navy has been pushing ahead, bringing out the increasing challenges in the Indian Ocean Region as well as the steady build up of the Chinese Navy.

Huge electric power is also required as the Indian Navy is considering Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for the future carrier – a new technology that can launch much heavier aircraft from the deck.

While in the US, the EMALS system is powered by nuclear energy, the Indian Navy is desisting from going nuclear, perhaps as indigenous technology is still not available.

Then Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba told ET in December 2018 that the 65000 ton, CATOBAR carrier will be conventionally powered and is `central to the Navy’s philosophy to have three aircraft carrier battle groups’.

The defence ministry is however going slow on what some consider a prohibitively expensive naval program, with officials suggesting optimal utilization of resources for other critical purchases – like submarines and advanced frigates. By conservative estimates, the cost of construction of the carrier itself, without the aircraft, would exceed Rs 70,000 crore.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 25 Jul 2019 20:09

Conventionaly Powered Emals, and by Electric propulsion does Navy mean Diesel, Gas Turbine or Furnace oil generated electric power to drive the 65000 ton carrier?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jul 2019 20:40

I think this was in reference to a choice to go with IEP instead of nuclear propulsion. There was a trade study sanctioned by the US Navy to support the UK's carrier trade and conducted by General Atomics which IIRC pointed to IEP being a viable path towards EMALS in support of a smaller (than the Ford) carrier (QE class). The exact paper is not available but this was discussed at a US Naval Academy seminar I attended a few years ago where the topic came up. IEP technology would also be a value add as an insert into other destroyer or even smaller vessels as next generation sensors, electronic warfare, and directed energy weapons drive up electrical power needs on these ships..

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Jul 2019 20:45

Vivek K wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Will they but more fulcrums now? Or are the current 45 enough for both vikad and Vikrant?
CM - any updates available on how the 29k is performing? There were some serious issues with it up to 2017. In 2018 some reports stated serviceability was up to 70%. Is that still true?

Last I saw, the issues related to the Mig29 K seemed to have been sorted out based on what CNS said. It was discussed on BRF.

"There is no issue on supplies of spare parts from Russia at the moment… The MiG-29K fleet has been performing well now," Admiral Sunil Lanba said on Monday while addressing the press on the eve of Navy Day.

So the big question is how will the IN equip the Vikrant? Will the existing number of 45 birds be enough for both carriers? Will more be purchased? Will it go the shornet route?

I'm guessing that they'll likely limp along with 20 birds on each carrier until the next gen fighter is sorted out. Or get an additional small number.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jul 2019 21:05

Cain Marko wrote:
So the big question is how will the IN equip the Vikrant? Will the existing number of 45 birds be enough for both carriers? Will more be purchased? Will it go the shornet route?

I'm guessing that they'll likely limp along with 20 birds on each carrier until the next gen fighter is sorted out. Or get an additional small number.

Long term they'll need more aircraft. Even the UK with its shrinking force structure will probably end up with between 70-100 F-35B's to support its two QE carriers. That is probably a low end of where anyone wants to be given training needs, and factoring in aircraft non-availability due to depot maintenance and upgrades etc. etc. In fact, 45 MiG-29K's plus the 57 aircraft the IN is interested in buying should be indicative of where they want to be with the two carriers. Now it remains to be seen whether that contract for 57 fighters goes anywhere, whether they just buy more MiG-29K's or whether they go in for an MWF/MK2 based Naval fighter down the road.

On the MiG-29K, I seem to remember that the IN had identified structural fatigue issues on hard carrier landings. How does spare availability solve that (besides brute forcing and just replacing parts faster)?

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 25 Jul 2019 22:56

Cannot IN (with Indian industry help), redesign the whole landing gear. Do an out of box thinking and reengineering and build perhaps the best landing gear that would address 90% of the shock and not let it transmit to the plane. Use exotic high strength material like titanium, shock absorbers that will do the job etc etc?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Jul 2019 23:52

brar_w wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:
So the big question is how will the IN equip the Vikrant? Will the existing number of 45 birds be enough for both carriers? Will more be purchased? Will it go the shornet route?

I'm guessing that they'll likely limp along with 20 birds on each carrier until the next gen fighter is sorted out. Or get an additional small number.
Long term they'll need more aircraft. Even the UK with its shrinking force structure will probably end up with between 70-100 F-35B's to support its two QE carriers. That is probably a low end of where anyone wants to be given training needs, and factoring in aircraft non-availability due to depot maintenance and upgrades etc. etc. In fact, 45 MiG-29K's plus the 57 aircraft the IN is interested in buying should be indicative of where they want to be with the two carriers. Now it remains to be seen whether that contract for 57 fighters goes anywhere, whether they just buy more MiG-29K's or whether they go in for an MWF/MK2 based Naval fighter down the road.

On the MiG-29K, I seem to remember that the IN had identified structural fatigue issues on hard carrier landings. How does spare availability solve that (besides brute forcing and just replacing parts faster)?

Actually now I remember.... The then CNS had clearly mentioned that they were looking for the 57 fighters as replacements for the NLCA and not the fulcrum. So maybe we will see more fulcrums than the 45.

IIRC, in terms of the fulcrumK issue, it was always related to parts, which were not easily available from Russia. Both CNS Prakash and Lanbas statements clarify this.

However, I think this is also related to the third carrier, which is likely to be 65k tons+. My guess is that we are looking at large no's of shornets joining the Navy

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Jul 2019 23:55

fanne wrote:Cannot IN (with Indian industry help), redesign the whole landing gear. Do an out of box thinking and reengineering and build perhaps the best landing gear that would address 90% of the shock and not let it transmit to the plane. Use exotic high strength material like titanium, shock absorbers that will do the job etc etc?

I don't think the issue needed anything that extensive, it was a known quantity iirc. As the CNS put it, the fleet has been performing well, which would not have been the case otherwise.