INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by YashG »

If horses could fly....

Buy Rafale for IN & Transfer Mig29K to IAF
TEDBF arrives, Transfer Rafale M to IAF.

Navy goes full single type fleet. Better logistics.
IAF doesnt add to its zoo of aircrafts, but still increases the numbers.
-----------------------

Gurus, can you please educate me if Mig29K & Rafale M were to go to IAF will they logistically count as existing Rafale, Mig29 types only ? Because if logistically count as a new aircraft - then the whole transfer hypothesis is kaboom.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by John »

Ideally Rafale would be great, I highly doubt Navy has budget for even squadron of Rafale and then be forced to operate it along with Mig-29K.

I hate to sound pessimistic but TEDBF is highly unlikely to be inducted by 2035 so navy would have to make due with 29K till then.

Which raises the question what is point of buying Rafale in first place if you still gonna operate mostly Mig-29K. For better or worse F-18E might be the only option.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

John wrote:For better or worse F-18E might be the only option.
I think so. Esp. because there might be a possibility of leasing some too, perhaps Brar can speak to this. The rafales are probably out of IN's budget and I doubt there is sufficient Ms in quantity to create a lease opportunity.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

YashG wrote:If horses could fly....

Buy Rafale for IN & Transfer Mig29K to IAF
TEDBF arrives, Transfer Rafale M to IAF.

Navy goes full single type fleet. Better logistics.
IAF doesnt add to its zoo of aircrafts, but still increases the numbers.
-----------------------
MOdifying the fantasy a bit further - IN can lease/buy Shornets instead of Rafale, and transfer the 29s to the IAF. Plus IAF gets additional 36 Rafales.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by YashG »

If Shornets can be leased good. Shornets are cheaper vis-a-vis Rafale due to greater production numbers + obv capability gap.

But buying Shornets is a bad option as adding more species to IAF/IN zoo is a bad option. Indeed 90 or (4 Sqd + 1 Reserve/WWR) should be the minimum for any type.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by LakshmanPST »

IMO, we need not transfer any jets to IAF...
-
>Rafale or FA18 can be bought now and used on Vikrant...
>MIG29Ks can be retired starting 2035-40 and be replaced by TEDBF progressively...
>By 2040, Vikramaditya is speculated to be retired and IAC-2 with Catapults is expected to begin trails...
>The current design of TEDBF is not suitable for CATOBAR operations... That would require TEDBF Mk2 with strengthened Air Frame, modified software and more testing for CATOBAR operations which will take a few years after Mk1 enters production...
>TEDBF Mk1 can be shifted to Vikrant after VikAd retirement...
>Rafale or FA18 may then be shifted to IAC-2 initially until TEDBF Mk2 comes in numbers...

We have 25 years of use with these jets... Even after that, Navy may continue to use them alongside TEDBF variants... However, given their low numbers if operating them is not feasible, they may either be shifted to shorebased operations or transferred to IAF or retired...
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by YashG »

Navy should be using only one type. The logistics hassle of operating different types creates overheads and reduces mission planning flexibility. IN a war you can easily transfer jets from one carrier to another. Using just one type will be a lot of savings in spares, ammunition, maintenance personnel as well.

IN can operate two types. Doesn't mean IN should also do that.

--------------

If we buy Shornets, then TEDBF isn't required at all. Not good for the program. We will need higher numbers for TEDBF, than just two carriers. Navy can operate them from our permanent carriers + India is building a runway in Maldives. We could possibly have more bases in Indian Ocean & Navy should handle them as a theatre. So many possibilities. IN can be a 80-100 TEDBF force by 2040 with two carriers & two Indian Ocean bases + 1 South China Sea Base (?!!).
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

YashG wrote:Navy should be using only one type. The logistics hassle of operating different types creates overheads and reduces mission planning flexibility. IN a war you can easily transfer jets from one carrier to another. Using just one type will be a lot of savings in spares, ammunition, maintenance personnel as well.

IN can operate two types. Doesn't mean IN should also do that.

--------------

If we buy Shornets, then TEDBF isn't required at all. Not good for the program. We will need higher numbers for TEDBF, than just two carriers. Navy can operate them from our permanent carriers + India is building a runway in Maldives. We could possibly have more bases in Indian Ocean & Navy should handle them as a theatre. So many possibilities. IN can be a 80-100 TEDBF force by 2040 with two carriers & two Indian Ocean bases + 1 South China Sea Base (?!!).
This is getting too confusing for a land lubber like me. Do away with aircraft carriers I say and convert the Navy into Infantry!!!!
konaseema
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 16 Nov 2020 09:54

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by konaseema »

IN is only looking for aircrafts that can operate from INS Vikrant and not INS Vicky. If the 2 contenders can't fit in the lift of INS Vikrant, then they won't fit the lift of INS Vikramaditya. That said, transferring Mig 29K's to IAF will be a non-starter. The country can't afford to replace the Mig-29K's with either of the 2 contenders. And more Mig-29Ks can be ruled out due to the current issues with the aircraft and that the 21 Mig-29's UPG are also likely to be cancelled. With the above facts, IN may just be looking at 26 newer jets and they may be just hoping that either of the contenders can fulfill their needs. Till that time, INS Vikrant will be commissioned with a limited number of Mig-29K's (from the 44 we have), provided there is no need for structural changes to the lifts. If there is a need to modify the lifts, then INS Vikrant will be back to the docks for 2-3 years. This is as clear as mud and a fiasco in the making. It might be easier if the Russians can improve the Mig-29K's to the extent that the Indian upgrade can also be done and these jets can provide us service for the next 10-15 years. Can someone list the various issues that are known with the Mig-29K other than availability? All the jets that have crashed are the twin seater version. Isn't it? Can we convert the Naval Tejas as the LIFT version (order 10-12 jets) and use them for carrier based training and shift the KUB's to Goa's shore based test facility for pilot training?
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by YashG »

For the same level of spare stocks and same fleet numbers > A fleet of single type will always have higher availability than a fleet divided between two types.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by John »

konaseema wrote:IN is only looking for aircrafts that can operate from INS Vikrant and not INS Vicky. If the 2 contenders can't fit in the lift of INS Vikrant, then they won't fit the lift of INS Vikramaditya. That said, transferring Mig 29K's to IAF will be a non-starter. The country can't afford to replace the Mig-29K's with either of the 2 contenders.
Yes for Rafale-M replacing ~46 Mig-29k with Rafale-M will cost over 15 bill which is not possible, where as 50 F-18E will cost less than 4 bill or lower. Latter is affordable if you can mix in some leases or used ones price could be even more lower and Mig-29k could be transferred to IAF to get a credit. Considering IAF was negotiating to pay 30 mill each for rusting mig29s from Russia for upg even 1 bill credit should help IN greatly.

TEBDF isn’t coming before 2035 during which time if next AC is ready whatever option we go with we would need additional ACs. Which is where it will fit in.
Last edited by John on 17 Jan 2022 20:28, edited 1 time in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

46 Rafale M or F-18s are not coming. There is no ONE-TO-ONE replacement of the MiG-29K happening. The MiG-29K will continue to operate off the Vikramditya. This new contest is only for the Vikrant air arm, which will also operate the MiG-29K till either the F-18 or Rafale M arrives.

The original deal was for 57. It got reduced to 36, then 35 and now sits at 26. It will likely go down even further. I believe it will be around 18+. France is well aware that the Rafale M is prohibitively more expensive than the F-18. In a number of technical aspects - longer airframe life, more powerful AESA, wider array of weaponry, etc - the F-18 is also a clear leader. But the French will package a deal, along with some other goodies that India might be hard pressed to turn down.
asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 373
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by asbchakri »

IN unlike IAF is currently operating only 1 type, the Mig29. I do not think it will be an issue for them to operate one more new type given the options. Based on all the comments about Pros and cons of operating a Rafale or F-18, I may be wrong on some or all points but my 20 rupees...

1. Vic is getting commissioned in August, so we need a Air wing by August Period
2. We cannot get new Fighter by then even if we order today.
3. TEDBF will not come, and I agree with you, until 2035
5. So we need a fighter (Rafale or F-18 as I hear MIG-29 is not an option) to operate on vic for nearly 18 (?) years
4. I''m not sure if we can lease 20 or so Fighters for 18 years, costs will be not justified for operating an aircraft to only be returned back after 18 years.
5. So order new aircraft and Lease for a few years until we get the new ones.
6. Cost wise F-18 is cheaper but logistics of a new type in IN are a different issue, but I guess can be still managed, as it will have less problem to operate on Vic like the lift issues.
7. Some are saying if we get F-18, it will kill TEDBF, I do not agree to that.
8. Rafale is a good option on every area but too costly to buy (IAF may loose the option for another batch if IN gets it) and also not many for lease in the short time.
Rakesh wrote:But the French will package a deal, along with some other goodies that India might be hard pressed to turn down.
Rakesh-ji, can we not negotiate those offsets or goodies for a new batch for IAF rather than for IN?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

asbchakri wrote:IN unlike IAF is currently operating only 1 type, the Mig29. I do not think it will be an issue for them to operate one more new type given the options.
Apart from the one time CAPEX investment (assuming it is purchase and not lease), there is also the annual OPEX investment.

With Rafale M, that OPEX will be higher, as there is no twin seater Rafale M for new pilots to convert on. So another fighter (like Naval Tejas Mk1) will have to be purchased. See this post on how the French Navy trains her Rafale M crews ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6308&p=2529665&hili ... n#p2529665

With the F-18, that OPEX cost will be lower as there will be no need for the Naval Tejas Mk1 for pilots to do conversion training. The twin seater F-18F will fill that role. The unit cost of the F-18 is also cheaper compared to the Rafale M.

One of the many questions to examine is should investments be made in a purchase of Naval Tejas Mk1s or just buy the F-18E/F? Again, the same argument will hold - apart from the one time CAPEX investment of the Naval Tejas Mk1, there is also the annual OPEX investment of that aircraft.

With the F-18E/F, the Indian Navy will have to purchase not just the aircraft, but invest in the OPEX for that aircraft + invest in the OPEX for the MiG-29K/KUB fleet. With the Rafale M, the Indian Navy will have to purchase not just the aircraft, but invest in the OPEX for that aircraft + invest in the OPEX for the MiG-29K/KUB fleet + invest in the OPEX for the N-Tejas Mk1 fleet.

Obviously whatever investment is made the N-Tejas Mk1 will flow within the country. But look at it from the Navy's perspective as well. OPEX of two fleets (F-18E/F + MiG-29K/KUB) versus OPEX of three fleets (Rafale M + MiG-29K/KUB + Naval Tejas Mk1).
asbchakri wrote:4. I''m not sure if we can lease 20 or so Fighters for 18 years, costs will be not justified for operating an aircraft to only be returned back after 18 years.
This is where the fleet commonality argument of the Rafale comes into play. This is what Dassault is pushing. The Navy also has indicated that they will hop on to whatever plane the IAF chooses in the MRFA contest and that leaves only the Rafale and the F-18. A stand alone purchase will be expensive for the Navy, considering their meagre CAPEX budget they have. They get the least of the pie from the annual defence budget.

Unlike the MiG-29K/KUB, the Rafale M is identical to the Rafale C. The M variant is obviously heavier because of the strengthened undercarriage, but in all other respects the M is an Navalized C. The aircraft can carry the same weaponry that the IAF has for their Rafales (Meteor, SCALP, Mica, Hammer). India will ask (and Dassault will provide) for IN Rafale Ms to have the same F3R(I) upgrade, that the IAF Rafales have.

Whether these aircraft are leased or purchased, one option that could be considered is to transfer them to the IAF whenever the TEDBF arrives. The IAF would be glad to take them, obviously assuming they are airworthy and usable.

Despite the commonality advantage that the Rafale has, I would not discount the F-18. The TEDBF will likely feature the GE F414 turbofan, unless India has her own turbofan at that point in time. I see no indication of that. The Tejas Mk2 will also have the GE F414 turbofan as well. The first two AMCA units will also have the GE F414 turbofan. All the other advantages that the F-18 has - over the Rafale M - would be icing on the cake, compared to one turbofan, multiple platforms.
asbchakri wrote:Rakesh-ji, can we not negotiate those offsets or goodies for a new batch for IAF rather than for IN?
No -ji please :)

I am sure France will be working what those goodies should be. I have no idea, but I would assume some A330 tankers for the IAF, 36(+36) additional Rafales, MRO facility for the M88 turbofan, Suffren SSN technology and systems, etc. It all depends on how interested and eager France is, in having a permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific theatre. The now-cancelled French-Australian Shortfin Barracuda deal was their gateway to that theatre. That door is now closed to them. India is the next best option for them. If they want that presence, France will have to be really competitive and do some creative out-of-the-box thinking. The French will have to make decisions that they never really entertained before. What does France want from the Indo-Pacific theatre and can France provide what India wants?
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by John »

Rakesh wrote:46 Rafale M or F-18s are not coming. There is no ONE-TO-ONE replacement of the MiG-29K happening. The MiG-29K will continue to operate off the Vikramditya. This new contest is only for the Vikrant air arm, which will also operate the MiG-29K till either the F-18 or Rafale M arrives.

The original deal was for 57. It got reduced to 36, then 35 and now sits at 26. It will likely go down even further. I believe it will be around 18+. France is well aware that the Rafale M is prohibitively more expensive than the F-18. In a number of technical aspects - longer airframe life, more powerful AESA, wider array of weaponry, etc - the F-18 is also a clear leader. But the French will package a deal, along with some other goodies that India might be hard pressed to turn down.
Since beginning we been very non transparent with what is happening with Mig-29k, while deal is for Vikrant I believe depending on AC chosen it will replace Air arm for Vikramaditya as well. If enough ACs are procured it make sense to gradually transfer 29k to IAF that’s the option that makes most sense, especially given the cost of operating two different platforms and potentially three when TEDBF is ready.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/IndianDefenceRA/sta ... 63489?s=20 ---> The Vikrant returned after completing third sea trials wherein large number of equipment were tried & tested with training on various systems fitted onboard.

https://twitter.com/shivanipost/status/ ... 16705?s=20 ---> The Vikrant completes third sea trials. IAC returned from sea sortie on 16 Jan 2022. Large number of equipment were tested with training on various equipment fitted onboard. The trial data to be analysed with mandatory inspections & balance work on the ship.

https://twitter.com/realkaypius/status/ ... 82848?s=20 ---> Turning trials of IAC Vikrant. Such trials yield crucial info for ship handling: tactical diameter, advance, transfer, time to change heading, loss of steady speed, etc. Ship initially heels inwards at start of turn then outward, due interplay of physical forces above/below water level.

https://twitter.com/realkaypius/status/ ... 28774?s=20 ---> IIRC, data from turning trials go into maneuvering tables in the ship's navigation data book. The commissioning crew write this book, updated by successive commissions. It has a plethora of info from trials & voyages OOWs (Officers On Watch) must know. Read more: https://www.marineinsight.com/naval-arc ... -a-vessel/

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 98852?s=20 ---> The picture was taken during the Turning Circle Maneuver. First, it is ensured that the vessel is heading forwards in a straight line with a steady approach speed.

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 07266?s=20 ---> Then rudder is turned in a specific direction, i.e. for starboard turn rudder is turned towards starboard side. Then it makes a complete U-turn with a 180-deg change in heading direction, followed by the trajectory of a circle with a steady turning radius.

Image

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

John wrote:Since beginning we been very non transparent with what is happening with Mig-29k, while deal is for Vikrant I believe depending on AC chosen it will replace Air arm for Vikramaditya as well. If enough ACs are procured it make sense to gradually transfer 29k to IAF that’s the option that makes most sense, especially given the cost of operating two different platforms and potentially three when TEDBF is ready.
The initial deal was for 57 aircraft, to be divided into three squadrons (18 aircraft each) + 3 spare airframes. The three units were to be allocated for each of the three aircraft carriers. That is *NOT* happening, as IAC-2 is now scheduled to arrive only by 2040 when INS Vikramaditya retires.

The new deal is reportedly for 26 aircraft. That is not even enough to fill two units (or ONE-TO-ONE replacement for the 40+ odd MiG-29K/KUBs) and that is assuming, they even get to that magic number.

With regards to transferring the MiG-29Ks to the IAF, the IN's MiG-29s are not identical to their IAF counterpart. Supporting the fleet will not be easy to do, as we move into the next decade. I believe that is the reason why even the 21 MiG-29s on offer to the IAF were cancelled. The IN is planning to phase out the fleet sometime in the 2030s, which might be around 25+ years of service life (inducted in Feb 2010). The Sea Harrier had a longer service life of 33 years (1983 - 2016).
konaseema
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 16 Nov 2020 09:54

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by konaseema »

Both the carriers can accommodate 26 fixed wing aircrafts. With 70% availability each carrier will have a squadron worth of airframes. I think, IN should plan for 22 Single seat + 4 Twin seat fighters for each of the carriers.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by YashG »

Rakesh wrote: With regards to transferring the MiG-29Ks to the IAF, the IN's MiG-29s are not identical to their IAF counterpart. Supporting the fleet will not be easy to do, as we move into the next decade.
Well finally, I have been asking that question since sometime - if Mig29K are logistically same type as Mig29 of IAF or not. Ofcourse there cant be 1:1 commonality but what %age would it be. Anything above 80-85% parts commonality is good enough ( I assume?) .

--------

The logistics nightmare of supporting extra type is under-rated. Can IN manage 2 types, yes. Should it ? No.

Reducing types for better logistics is a function of *planning*. Supporting two types is a function of *organizational ops capability*. You cannot be bad at first and compensate through second. We should at the planning stage itself focus on inducting one type only.

Yes we made bad planning decisions in past (not buying more Mirage 2K) but we cant repeat it. Our options are bleak but if we can buy some ops simplicity by paying more we should.

Also the delta that we pay for maintaining one type will be more than offset by using all that surplus ops bandwidth in other project with higher RoI like indigenzation programs.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

YashG wrote:Well finally, I have been asking that question since sometime - if Mig29K are logistically same type as Mig29 of IAF or not. Ofcourse there cant be 1:1 commonality but what %age would it be. Anything above 80-85% parts commonality is good enough ( I assume?).
Yash Saar, watch this video below, the entire thing. From 2013, so dated. He refers to the MiG-29B in the IAF, which was the designation pre-upgradation. The aircraft is now called MiG-29UPG in the IAF. However the aircraft is dimensionally larger the the MiG-29K in the Navy. The MiG-29UPG and the MiG-29K use a similar radar (Zhuk-ME), but they operate a different turbofan (RD-33 Series 3 in the IAF and RD-33MK in the Navy). There will be other differences as well. I do not believe it is possible to remove parts from a MiG-29UPG and put it on a MiG-29K or vice-versa.

I am not sure what parameters the IAF uses to ascertain commonality, but here is something to think about. The Mirage 2000s in the IAF are being/have been upgraded to the Mirage 2000-9 standard. The UAE also uses the Mirage 2000-9. If today, the IAF acquires those UAE M2K-9s, they will have to be brought up to the IAF standard. It is prohibitively expensive to operate the same aircraft, but at different standards. Is it doable? Yes. Is it desirable/affordable? No. Does the Indian Air Force have money to splurge like the Qatari Air Force and purchase every modern fourth generation fighter aircraft out there? No.

asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 373
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by asbchakri »

Rakesh wrote: Apart from the one time CAPEX investment (assuming it is purchase and not lease), there is also the annual OPEX investment

Obviously whatever investment is made the N-Tejas Mk1 will flow within the country. But look at it from the Navy's perspective as well. OPEX of two fleets (F-18E/F + MiG-29K/KUB) versus OPEX of three fleets (Rafale M + MiG-29K/KUB + Naval Tejas Mk1).
I agree with that, So from what you are saying is, it is better for getting F-18 from a OPEX point of view for the IN?.
Rakesh wrote:
This is where the fleet commonality argument of the Rafale comes into play. This is what Dassault is pushing. The Navy also has indicated that they will hop on to whatever plane the IAF chooses in the MRFA contest and that leaves only the Rafale and the F-18. A stand alone purchase will be expensive for the Navy, considering their meagre CAPEX budget they have. They get the least of the pie from the annual defence budget.
I'm guessing this will be con of getting F-18 just for IN.
Rakesh wrote: Whether these aircraft are leased or purchased, one option that could be considered is to transfer them to the IAF whenever the TEDBF arrives. The IAF would be glad to take them, obviously assuming they are airworthy and usable.

Well this is the only advantage I see for Rafale, but again it works only for a buy not lease.
Rakesh wrote: Despite the commonality advantage that the Rafale has, I would not discount the F-18. The TEDBF will likely feature the GE F414 turbofan, unless India has her own turbofan at that point in time. I see no indication of that. The Tejas Mk2 will also have the GE F414 turbofan as well. The first two AMCA units will also have the GE F414 turbofan. All the other advantages that the F-18 has - over the Rafale M - would be icing on the cake, compared to one turbofan, multiple platforms.
Ok now I'm really torn about choosing one above the other :) . But seriously I guess its all comes about maintenance of the fighters in the long term, how big of a difference would be to having a IN & IAF common fighter (Rafale) vs new fighter (F-18).

But coming back to my first point of getting an air wing for Vic this August when it is commissioned. I think only a Lease is the only choice for now. Which Fighter meets that criteria will help I guess. We cannot have an AC without an Air wing or are we going to split the Mig-29 between the 2 carriers.

I know we all armchair generals are having a ball discussing this, but I think the IN would have thought all about this and have a plan to deal with it, it's just we do not have all the info that they have, like the Lift issue. Else why would they ask the 2 teams to come to test.

Also just curious if the F-18 can be based on the Vikramaditya also, like mix match Migs and F-18, just thinking about Russian and American fighters operating together. :D
Roop
BRFite
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Roop »

YashG wrote:... Shornets are cheaper vis-a-vis Rafale due to greater production numbers + obv capability gap. ...
Just curious --- what "obvious capability gap" ?

As I see it, maybe Rafale is slightly superior in dog-fighting parameters like ITR and/or STR. I don't know if it is, but I'm granting that possibility for the sake of argument. But as far as all the warfighting capabilities that really matter are concerned -- avionics (sensors/radars), weapons, reliability, availability etc., I see both aircraft as being roughly at par, for all practical purposes.

Assuming both aircraft successfully complete their SBTF trials, the selection will be made on other grounds than purely technical ones.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

asbchakri wrote:I agree with that, So from what you are saying is, it is better for getting F-18 from a OPEX point of view for the IN.
From an OPEX point of view, yes. Also the CAPEX will be cheaper as well. That is the unit cost of the aircraft. Weapons will also be cheaper. The Khan has mastered that down to an art form. I would be surprised if that part of the offer turned out to be more expensive than the Rafale M.

Base infrastructure (at Goa or where ever else the Navy stations them) plus any India-specific upgrades will be unique to the F-18 and the Rafale M. India has already paid for the ISE upgrades via the IAF deal for 36 Rafales.

The Rafale's biggest two handicaps - in the Indian context - are 1) lack of a twin seater Rafale M and 2) Unit cost of the aircraft.
asbchakri wrote:I'm guessing this will be con of getting F-18 just for IN.
From the perspective of a small fleet, yes. The argument that Dassault will push forth is commonality versus just a stand alone fleet of 26 (if not lesser) aircraft. Why deal with two OEMs, when one OEM can fulfill both?
asbchakri wrote:Ok now I'm really torn about choosing one above the other :) . But seriously I guess its all comes about maintenance of the fighters in the long term, how big of a difference would be to having a IN & IAF common fighter (Rafale) vs new fighter (F-18).
Whatever the navy wants, the navy will get - barring the financial cost. Any political interference in that process will result in the deal being cancelled. Is the PMO or the MoD technically qualified to advise the Navy on the Rafale or the F-18SH? At that stage, even Dassault or Boeing cannot do anything.

Despite all the political pressure that Amreeka and Russia put on the Indian Govt, the IAF stuck to its guns and technically selected the Rafale and the Typhoon on 27 April 2011 for the 126 MMRCA deal. What did the other OEMs really do? The decision is made public. If the government backtracks on that, they will have to answer for that in Parliament. No govt wants a repeat of Bofors. That is a political nightmare.
asbchakri wrote:Also just curious if the F-18 can be based on the Vikramaditya also, like mix match Migs and F-18, just thinking about Russian and American fighters operating together. :D
Boeing says that the F-18 can operate from both the Vikrant and the Vikramaditya. Dassault will not say anything to the contrary.

It is a whole other matter if the Navy chooses to keep the two carriers and their respective air wings seperate.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by LakshmanPST »

FA-18 E/F
Capex:-
> New jets (26 Nos. currently)
> New weapons
> Price to modify them to India Specific Standards

Opex:-
> MIG29K
> FA-18

Engine:-
GE F414...
Tejas Mk2, AMCA Mk1 and Prototypes of TEDBF will have same engines. But all of them are a decade away. Currently, it is entirely new engine. Maintenace may be costly in near future...

Arnament:-
Completely new weapons...
Any new weapon integration will have to be done separately...

After 20 years:-
> IAF won't accept these jets as they're entirely new type.
> Only engine will be common with IAF jets... Dependent on USA for all other spares which may be costly...
> Only option is to operate them from shore with huge expenses or retire them...

Other issues:-
> May cost more per unit as it will be a separate purchsse...
> Will be probably easier to lease as jets are available in huge numbers worldwide...
> May give us first hand experience of some American missiles which are used by Pak...
----
Rafale M
Capex:-
> New Rafale jets (22 probably)
> New Naval LCA Trainers (8 atleast)
> New weapons
> Few India specific enhancements as most of them already covered in IAF Tender.

Opex:-
> MIG29K
> Rafale M
> Naval LCA

Engine:-
M88...
IAF Rafales have the same engine. So, maintenance may not be costly in near future...

Arnament:-
Except for Navy-specific weapons, all other weapons are common with IAF...
Any new weapon integrated with IAF jets can be automatically integrated with IN jets...

After 20 years:-
> IAF may accept these jets as they share same radar, engine, weapons and tactics...
> Spares may be less costly as most of them are same as spares of IAF jets...
> Operating from Shore may prove less costly...

Other issues:-
> May cost less per unit as it can be clubbed with IAF's procurement of additional Rafales...
> Difficult to lease as very few numbers available worldwide...
> Getting 8 Naval LCAs, though costly, may become a blessing in disguise as it will provide valuable operational data, which will directly help TEDBF program...
> And I'm not sure if this is a real advantage or my noob speculation, but Rafale being Delta-Canard design same as TEDBF may have some advantages from training point of view and operational feedback may help TEDBF program...
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Rakesh wrote:..
https://twitter.com/realkaypius/status/ ... 82848?s=20 ---> Turning trials of IAC Vikrant. Such trials yield crucial info for ship handling: tactical diameter, advance, transfer, time to change heading, loss of steady speed, etc. Ship initially heels inwards at start of turn then outward, due interplay of physical forces above/below water level.
...
Lovely photos.. nice tight turns port and starboard.. beautiful
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by V_Raman »

IMO they should grab the only available option on the table for the new carrier - build NLCA - while possible till Mk1A ramps up...
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by YashG »

Rakesh wrote:
YashG wrote:Well finally, I have been asking that question since sometime - if Mig29K are logistically same type as Mig29 of IAF or not. Ofcourse there cant be 1:1 commonality but what %age would it be. Anything above 80-85% parts commonality is good enough ( I assume?).
Yash Saar, watch this video below, the entire thing. From 2013, so dated. He refers to the MiG-29B in the IAF, which was the designation pre-upgradation. The aircraft is now called MiG-29UPG in the IAF. However the aircraft is dimensionally larger the the MiG-29K in the Navy. The MiG-29UPG and the MiG-29K use a similar radar (Zhuk-ME), but they operate a different turbofan (RD-33 Series 3 in the IAF and RD-33MK in the Navy). There will be other differences as well. I do not believe it is possible to remove parts from a MiG-29UPG and put it on a MiG-29K or vice-versa.

I am not sure what parameters the IAF uses to ascertain commonality, but here is something to think about. The Mirage 2000s in the IAF are being/have been upgraded to the Mirage 2000-9 standard. The UAE also uses the Mirage 2000-9. If today, the IAF acquires those UAE M2K-9s, they will have to be brought up to the IAF standard. It is prohibitively expensive to operate the same aircraft, but at different standards. Is it doable? Yes. Is it desirable/affordable? No. Does the Indian Air Force have money to splurge like the Qatari Air Force and purchase every modern fourth generation fighter aircraft out there? No.
Admiral thanks. Idea of using the same type obviously has to be on common logistics chain. If you cant use the same logistics chain - doesnt matter what you call it - K or UPG. So Mig29K Transfer aint as roy an idea as it seems.

Then its simple - we will have to operate 2 types within IN.

The this is the Δ

Δ1 we will pay for each extra IN rafale (26 here, = $50 Mn x 26 = $1.3 Bn USD, assuming delta at $50M )

Δ1 have to be offsetted by gains Δ2 we get from [Being very conservative here]
a. commonality by using same type between IAF & IN ( what common infra here will be reused b/w IN & IAF, cost of ISE) $ 500 M. $1.3 USD was ISE but Assuming F18 will not need all ISE
b. Discounts we get if we place +26 numbers over and above the IAF order. Even a 2-3% discount on extra 36 will equal $ 150 M
c. Things french could do for us - say help on Jet Engine, FMBT which saves us from future imports in next 5 years. What will be that valued at ? Their true technology consultancy across any program (FMBT, Engine, Submarine) alone can save $250 M (in next 5) + $250 M ( in next 10, lowered for time discounting)
d. Rafale is slightly better jet than Shornet, not a lot just a slight. Lets pay $10 for each aircraft = $250 M

Lets say each Δ2 = a + b + c + d = $1.4 Billion
Extra paid Δ(1-2) ~0.

The extra cost of having LCA Navy will easily be offset by actually accelerating TEDBF.

So in the end what is left as bonus:
1. Transfer of rafale later to IN and move to single type TEDBF
2. French are more dependable than US for defence eqpt
3. Anything we learn from using delta naval experience
4. Any threats to TEDBF program. Dont underestimate the lobby power of US vendors
Last edited by YashG on 18 Jan 2022 13:18, edited 3 times in total.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by YashG »

Roop wrote:
YashG wrote:... Shornets are cheaper vis-a-vis Rafale due to greater production numbers + obv capability gap. ...
Just curious --- what "obvious capability gap" ?

As I see it, maybe Rafale is slightly superior in dog-fighting parameters like ITR and/or STR.
I meant capabilities gap for F18, F18 is more A2G. Rafale is more well rounded.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

I would be a bit miffed if the IN goes for Rafale-M where its wingtips have to be removed to fit into the lifts. For the record, am not a fan of buying any American fighter planes either.

Reason for the miff would be that the IN made such a hue & cry about ALH/NUH blade-folding for fitting into its ships. While the requirement is quite reasonable, their step-motherly treatment of NUH wasn't (especially after HAL committed to demonstrating segmented folded blades).

Now, if they are willing to remove Rafale-M's wingtips because, "Oops, we screwed up the planning/design", then it makes me :evil:
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

^ +1

But then the navy guys have also shown good amounts of can-do and will-do attitude with regards to desi stuff, at least more than the fly boys and the army guys.

So i think there is a very good chance of the desi Naval twin engine fighter getting made and ordered for our future carriers. And then the naval 5th Gen fighter/attack aircraft, and so on

So let's not grudge them a few fancies for the present..
(saying this in a light-hearted manner)
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Prem Kumar wrote:I would be a bit miffed if the IN goes for Rafale-M where its wingtips have to be removed to fit into the lifts. For the record, am not a fan of buying any American fighter planes either.

Reason for the miff would be that the IN made such a hue & cry about ALH/NUH blade-folding for fitting into its ships. While the requirement is quite reasonable, their step-motherly treatment of NUH wasn't (especially after HAL committed to demonstrating segmented folded blades).

Now, if they are willing to remove Rafale-M's wingtips because, "Oops, we screwed up the planning/design", then it makes me :evil:
In the corridors of the MoD offices - in the 70s and 80s - there used to be a running joke ---> The services would wait for an imported kit to be released for export and then they would write a GSQR/ASQR/NSQR identical to the specifications of that kit :mrgreen:

All sorts of exceptions are made for import maal. The first batch of Mirage 2000s and Jaguars came in with underpowered engines. No one complained. Not a soul. Neither do we capitalize on the investments made when developing local maal. We will do piecemeal orders of local maal and then attempt to leap frog to the next generation.

The follow on vessel to the Vikrant will not be an improved & larger Vikrant, but a 65K ton vessel with nuclear power + EMALS. The complexity that this vessel will bring during her build process, has now finally been realized. The Navy is now saying that IAC-2 will arrive only by 2040 when the Vikramaditya retires. 18 years from now. This is the same Navy that keeps talking about having a three aircraft carrier strategy.

FWIW, Cochin SY has said they can do a follow on Vikrant Class vessel in 7 years. That might be overambitious on part of Cochin SY to make that claim, but even if you stretch it to 10 years, the Navy can have three aircraft carriers by 2032. The Vikrant from the laying of her keel (2009) to commissioning (2022) took 13 years. So, 10 years is definitely doable.

But the Navy will now wait till 2040 for their super carrier to arrive. Heaven only knows how many carrier battle groups the PLAN will have sailing through the Indian Ocean at that point in time. Even Amreeka did not go from USS Nimitz straight to USS Gerald R Ford! There were nine other aircraft carriers in between, each batch being improved upon. We will never learn.

Unless the IN figures out a way to continue with the MiG-29K/KUB for the next 10 - 15 years, either the Rafale M or the F-18 will come.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ramana »

How are they planning for the 65k vessel with reactors and EMALS from the US when they get FONOPed?
Going to Naval War College is nice but don't make IN a Gungadin fleet.
It will be Mig 29 on lease.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

ramana wrote:How are they planning for the 65k vessel with reactors and EMALS from the US when they get FONOPed?
Going to Naval War College is nice but don't make IN a Gungadin fleet.
It will be Mig 29 on lease.
Sir what is FONOPed?
bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by bharathp »

ks_sachin wrote:
ramana wrote:How are they planning for the 65k vessel with reactors and EMALS from the US when they get FONOPed?
Going to Naval War College is nice but don't make IN a Gungadin fleet.
It will be Mig 29 on lease.
Sir what is FONOPed?
sometime in early 2021 (when the quad discussions were going on), this happened:
Last week, the US Navy conducted a Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) in India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). As per the US 7th Fleet’s press release, USS John Paul Jones “asserted navigational rights and freedoms approximately 130 nautical miles west of the Lakshadweep Islands, inside India’s exclusive economic zone, without requesting India’s prior consent, consistent with international law.”
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Freedom of navigation
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by arvin »

Freedom Of Navigation OPerations.
He is referring to USS John Paul transgressing in Indian EEZ.
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by rajsunder »

Rakesh wrote:....
Just work with French and use their design of their new carrier PANG. They have experience in working with nuke carriers, unlike uncle who will not share that information, French will for a price. We will have a good nuke carrier of 75K ton displacement.

We can have an assembly line of this or improved 100K carrier and make one every 5-8 years after 2040. At which time, our economy will be $10 Trillion USD.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Bird in Hand vs 2 in Bush. As Rakesh said, I don't understand the reluctance in having a 2nd Vikrant of similar specs but better tech. Its the same mistake being made with P75-I. Buy piecemeal of one type and never realize the advantages of assembly-line-production/design-consistency.

Though to be fair to the IN, if they are going to struggle for *any* budget for a carrier, they want to perhaps make each one count - which leads them to a bigger carrier. Or maybe its posturing: ask for a bigger carrier & if it gets shot-down, ask for a smaller carrier without EMALS etc.

But overall, we are under-investing in the Navy (which means under-investing in Capex). Its not like they need SSNs *or* Carriers. They need both and we need to find a way to fund both (provided both are indigenous)
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

This is something that even I have had issues understanding.

No just a repeat of Vikrant. But an improvement over it as well with a relatively minor efforts.

It would have been possible for our designers to add a 10 k tons hull plug in front of the island. With a length of 30 meters and the beam of ship. Adding additional aircraft and hanger facilities to the ship. The improvement in length to beam ratio should have helped maintain the top speed of the ship.

If not, then give it MT30 while increasing the shaft capacity accordingly.

This would have been a 55 k ton ship with 3 aircraft hanger and potentially a 60 aircraft air wing.

No need for super duper design efforts.

It would have easily equalled the PRC type 002 design.

The larger ships come when they do.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Yagnasri »

Same design with bigger lifts so that we can use all kinds of aircrafts and UCAVs etc. Little time lost in any design efforts and we can start making second in the class. Better electronics, etc will of course happen. We can use the same facilities and once the second one floted then start for third based on our experience in operating the Vikrant. I think we can push 2 new carriers in the next 15 years or so.

Vikaramadithya will be ready to retire by that time.
Post Reply