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
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Barath »

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 09858?s=20 ---> Northrop Grumman has delivered the 51st U.S. Navy E-2D Advanced Hawkeye production aircraft, AA-52. This aircraft is equipped with the Delta System/Software Configuration (DSSC) Build 3, .
https://www.quora.com/Can-the-E-2D-Hawk ... -if-needed
The E-2 has been tested from a ramp launch to simulate an unassisted ski jump style take off. Apparently this was successful but at a maximum takeoff weight that meant a significantly reduced fuel load.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

If the quora post is accurate. Then the real issue is hanger and lift dimensions.

The reduced fuel load just means reduced time on station.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Good find Barath. Assuming that quora has accurately reported that, it will still not be a good solution.

If she is taking off with a significantly reduced fuel load - as quora states - she will have to do a mid-air refueling, to stay up in the air for any meaningful length of time. So each time an E-2D takes off from a STOBAR carrier, she will have to link up with a mid-air refueler. How feasible is this option, if an Indian Navy CBG is somewhere deep out in the Indian Ocean?

For now, the Ka-31 AEW helicopter appears to be the only solution available. Perhaps in the future, we *MAY* see an IMRH doing the same.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Prasad »

If an E2 is an utmost necessity, we might as well ask the Americans for a drone refueler.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Prasad wrote:If an E2 is an utmost necessity, we might as well ask the Americans for a drone refueler.
An AEW platform is an utmost necessity for effective airspace management and protection of the CBG.

The only fixed-wing, carrier-compatible, AEW platform *AT PRESENT* is the E-2. That is the only one I know of.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by hnair »

Rakesh, both US and Soviets were actively pursuing Blimp based AEW programs for their fleet defense roles. The post-WW2 N-class was purposed for AEW as well as ASW. It gives far greater persistence for AEW cover over a fleet. IIRC, the 80s tethered-blimp proposals talked of 80hours to a week on station, before crew changes as the blimp keeps up with the naval task forces. But it won’t be good against a capable adversary in an AWACS type offensive mission. So was never popular among admiral jocks :D

USN probably has passed on that AEW mission to satellites and the HALE ones like Triton, since the MZ-3 programwas canned five years ago.

Since Indian Ocean is vast and we don’t yet have lots of naval surveillance SAR microsats, maybe a blimp program might cover the AEW requirement for fleet and island defense? A speculative option could be to churn out SAR microsats and like khan so you get a more survivable distributed system of sensors against China, that can keep tab across multiple theaters, use lots of MALE drones during conflicts and pack the carriers with cheaper AEW helos etc for surge time AEW.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by k prasad »

Rakesh wrote: US clears Hawkeye E-2D aircraft for India
https://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories380.htm
Indian Naval officials say that the technology onboard the Hawkeye E-2D is “very tempting” and that although neither the Gorshkov aircraft carrier which India is buying from Russia nor India’s first aircraft carrier indigenously being built would be able to accommodate this aircraft, India’s future aircraft carriers could be a little bigger. “By the time this aircraft comes, and by the time the Indian Navy gets used to it from initial shore-based operations, plans for two more aircraft carriers could be amended to house this system.”
From the standpoint of familiarity with the platform, this makes a fair amount of sense. I'd be really curious to see if they can do some tests from the SBTF. A carrier-based fixed-wing AEW as opposed to the helo-based AEW can turn the Vikrant into a true offensive strike platform as opposed to the quasi-offensive platform with a significant amount of flying assets required just to maintain the protective air bubble around the ship, and an helo-based AEW that cannot really stray far from the ship.
Pratyush wrote:If the quora post is accurate. Then the real issue is hanger and lift dimensions.

The reduced fuel load just means reduced time on station.
If that is the case, then the Rafale wouldn't fit in the hanger either. In fact, at least one version of the E2C could retract its radome by 2 ft to fit the hanger dimensions. https://i.redd.it/gskwdqg6fsw71.jpg has an image of the CDG hangar, where you can see the E2D JUST fitting into it at the rear of the hangar.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by nam »

Wonder why nobody considered having a 2 floor hangar.. I suppose WW2 might have had such a design.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

In the heart of the iron beast, INS Vikrant
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 440534.ece
13 May 2017
The hangar, capable of accommodating an assortment of 20 fighter aircraft and helicopters
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Might as well look into an osprey based solution for all the CVs, at this point.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by k prasad »

nam wrote:Wonder why nobody considered having a 2 floor hangar.. I suppose WW2 might have had such a design.
Makes the lifts far more complex, requires doubling of overhaul and maintenance infrastructure that'd be required between two levels, and takes up waaay more space in the ship, especially since it is easier to have one single open space than two smaller spaces with the same total are (less usable space). It's probably more efficient to have a single deck hangar unless the space is maxed out and there's no other way except to create a second level hangar.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by nam »

But it will still be cheaper than having another carrier. You get half of the fighter numbers from an additional carrier.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

nam wrote:But it will still be cheaper than having another carrier. You get half of the fighter numbers from an additional carrier.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-an ... e-aircraft
Several Japanese aircraft carriers in WWII had stacked hangar decks. It was a bad idea.

This dual hangar design had several very serious flaws:

The aircraft elevators had to traverse three decks instead of two. This was far slower. This complicated striking down aircraft for rearming and refueling. A problem on one deck affected both.

Japanese hangars were enclosed and were much smaller than the single American hangar that spanned the width and length of the ship. They carried a smaller air group as a result. There was not a lot of room to maneuver and park aircraft.

The enclosed hangars had insufficient ventilation. The exhaust fans barely could keep up with fumes from any gasoline spill. In US carriers the hangar deck was open to the air in several locations and required no exhaust fans. Rolling metal doors would only close the openings for rough seas.

The poor design of the double decked carrier was a major contributor to the difficulties the Japanese had in both keeping a combat air patrol in the air and for recovering, refueling, rearming, and relaunching a strike group at Midway. The main elevators could not move aircraft fast enough.

Damaged aircraft were constantly in the way of operational aircraft with little room to maneuver them. Much wasted effort was spent moving planes from deck to deck to get to other planes.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by srin »

The second hangar must come in place of *something else*. And that's the first compromise. And by increasing the number of planes, you also need to increase the ancillaries - munitions for the air wing, fuel for the air wing, spares for the air wing etc. And to have adequate amount of these, you need more space ...
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

hnair wrote:Rakesh, both US and Soviets were actively pursuing Blimp based AEW programs for their fleet defense roles. The post-WW2 N-class was purposed for AEW as well as ASW. It gives far greater persistence for AEW cover over a fleet. IIRC, the 80s tethered-blimp proposals talked of 80hours to a week on station, before crew changes as the blimp keeps up with the naval task forces. But it won’t be good against a capable adversary in an AWACS type offensive mission. So was never popular among admiral jocks :D

USN probably has passed on that AEW mission to satellites and the HALE ones like Triton, since the MZ-3 programwas canned five years ago.

Since Indian Ocean is vast and we don’t yet have lots of naval surveillance SAR microsats, maybe a blimp program might cover the AEW requirement for fleet and island defense? A speculative option could be to churn out SAR microsats and like khan so you get a more survivable distributed system of sensors against China, that can keep tab across multiple theaters, use lots of MALE drones during conflicts and pack the carriers with cheaper AEW helos etc for surge time AEW.
Agreed on cheaper AEW helos as the way forward for Indian Carriers.

IMRH will probably have a 20K ft ceiling. DRDO needs to start working on AEW radar like KA-31 and make that standard across the board. Since Heli based platforms have lower ceilings, It may miss out seeing as much as a platform like E2D at 33K ft, but if it is refueled/hosted at the edge of the battle group off another ship, it can make up the difference by being 100 kms farther away from the carrier and by seeing further.

Radar horizon for IMRH - 321 Kms @20K ft
Radar horizon for E2D - 413 Kms @ 33K ft

Ka-31 has a much lower ceiling at 11.5 k ft giving 243 Kms range.

By pushing it out by 100-150 kms, it can make up the difference. The Delhi/Bangalore class destroyers can refuel and host them during ops. They can always come back to carrier for stowage.

One thing that perhaps Hari Nair sir can explain is the hoover capabilities of IMRH like bird. So the real horizon range will be between 243Kms and 321 Kms. It will take some time to iron out the radar on AEW modes from Heli based platform and best to start when IMRH is on the drawing board.

Land based C295 AEWs should be also looked at seriously. Andaman/Lakhsadweep/Mauritius all allow us to extend and provide cover for our fleets. When we can't have C295, a larger compliment of IMRH based AEW should help.

for ASuW work we should fully utilize 15-20 odd 300 kg multi spectral sats with very high resolution. Cloud cover will be a problem, but all forces can see their area of interest with extremely high revisits leading to a 24/7 like scenario. Enough to task drones / P8I / C295 to areas of interest. Will be a much cheaper option than manned craft. Dunno when this infinity stuff posted above will happen. At least we have a lot more experience with sats of this class today and we can carry 7-10 sats every launch.

Many ways to solve this problem even if we cannot launch a E2D off the carrier.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by John »

If a mission is simply to station a platform few km from the ship and detect low flying target (beam the information to ship for processing) an unmanned rotary platform would be ideal. I would much rather have DRDO working on that while Ka-31 can fill the needs in short term.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by nachiket »

The difference between a helicopter AEW solution like Ka-31 and a fixed wing E-2 is not just in the max range of the radar. It is the operators and computing power, ESM and comm equipment carried onboard the E-2 that allow it to manage the entire airspace by itself. Ka-31 cannot do that.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

nachiket wrote:The difference between a helicopter AEW solution like Ka-31 and a fixed wing E-2 is not just in the max range of the radar. It is the operators and computing power, ESM and comm equipment carried onboard the E-2 that allow it to manage the entire airspace by itself. Ka-31 cannot do that.

Agreed, that is how things are done today. But there is no reason for any post processing elements to be present on such a platform. All can be beamed back to a host ship for processing like John suggested. All operators can be there. Multiple assets can beam back to the same location. Perhaps the Carrier itself. Laser based comms can enable radio silence as to transmit and receive bits, although the radar will continue to scan an area of interest.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

John wrote:If a mission is simply to station a platform few km from the ship and detect low flying target (beam the information to ship for processing) an unmanned rotary platform would be ideal. I would much rather have DRDO working on that while Ka-31 can fill the needs in short term.
Sure, the radar needs development work and eventually it can be on a remotely piloted platform if it is enough juice. Perhaps a Remotely piloted Dhruv class asset that can carry 500-1000 kgs of surveillance payload.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by AkshaySG »

If Indian Naval Carrier Doctrine doesn't mandate going a massive amount of distance away from the shores say into the SCS or something could we not have land based assets like E2D/P8 and other drone platforms launching from Andaman , Nicobar , Seychelles , Lakshwadeep or any other bases with France/Indonesia/US/Aus etc where we have agreements

To provide air cover to the CBG It isn't necessary to launch from the carrier itself, Plus a land takeoff allows for more fuel ,armament and saves precious space in the carrier . Yes there will be gaps but for that Ka-31/ other Helo AEWs can be launched from the carrier or its support ships

This way you get the cost & space saving ability of helo AEW assets while also getting the longer legs and more power of land launched assets .
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

^ IMVHO while it might be a useful option to consider, it has issues with not being fully independent and in our control, especially during times of war. I refer to the ones which are not on our territory.

We cannot depend on the likes of Khan, its cousins, its poodles, fellow whites to not come up with some excuses ('acting in the interests of de-escalation between nuclear armed opponents' etc etc) to deny the use of facilities to us.

Therefore constraining the designs (and thereby limiting the capabilities) of our assets, especially offensive ones like carriers, will be fraught with risks.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by k prasad »

The danger of land-based AEW assets providing protective cover to a CBG is the risk to the AEW asset as it gets to the station, especially if the protective combat aircraft cover don't have as much range to get to the handoff point to the carrier fighter assets (and back). And then you need protective air assets on the way back too. It eats up a significant number of fighter assets even as it puts the AEW at extra risk, or limits the deployment range of the CBG.

A carrier-based AEW will not tie up additional protective assets beyond what it'd normally have from the carrier air wing, and it will also have the anti-air protective bubble from the surface combatants in the CBG. Plus, in case of any incoming threat, the carrier wing can be quickly surged to protect all assets . A short-based AEW in the middle of the route to the carrier is sitting duck in such a situation.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

k prasad wrote:The danger of land-based AEW assets providing protective cover to a CBG is the risk to the AEW asset as it gets to the station, especially if the protective combat aircraft cover don't have as much range to get to the handoff point to the carrier fighter assets (and back). And then you need protective air assets on the way back too. It eats up a significant number of fighter assets even as it puts the AEW at extra risk, or limits the deployment range of the CBG.

A carrier-based AEW will not tie up additional protective assets beyond what it'd normally have from the carrier air wing, and it will also have the anti-air protective bubble from the surface combatants in the CBG. Plus, in case of any incoming threat, the carrier wing can be quickly surged to protect all assets . A short-based AEW in the middle of the route to the carrier is sitting duck in such a situation.

Yes , quite right. But India does not need to tie up its carrier forces in both coasts., if the A&N command and lakshdweep islands and provide and project significant air and missile power in sufficient ranges., the same projected from the mainland can cover the littoral IOR making it Indias own sea. Advances in tech mean targeting, surveillance and monitoring capabilities across the littoral IOR would be much easier, freeing up battle carrier groups for expeditionary roles and power projection beyond.

Station S400 or similar missile groups in both right and left flanks., you would have the entire IOR covered.

Build a SOSUS system all around Indian islands and coastal territories with nodes along naval bases in Mauritius etc and that would take care of prowling subs

This was the reasoning behind the 2 carrier with more emphasis on subs. but does not negate the requirement for the third carrier group.

India needs to make the whole IOR its own backyard. Surveillance, interdiction., with the ability to project overwhelming firepower wherever required., at short notice
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by John »

There is lot of talk of AEW but one also has to keep in mind our vessel with MF STAR provides unprecedented capability and P-17a with MF-STAR and Lanza will easy rank as one of best vessels out there in terms of detection capability.

The network centric capabilities should allow targets to be detected by one vessel and engaged by another vessel. Land based AEW (don’t forget P-8 ) coupled with Ka-31 (and in future Unmanned platforms) should be able to provide the necessary beyond horizon detection capability.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by LakshmanPST »

k prasad wrote:
Based on this, I created an approximate comparison between the Rafale-M and the F-18E on the Vikrant's aircraft lifts. The black and red scale bars are 12 m x 20 m total

The Rafale M JUST about fits, with 20 cm clearance on either side, after removing any armaments from the wingtip pylons. Length is not an issue at all.
If I'm not wrong, Rafale has total 11 hard points...
So rather than removing arnaments everytime before taking it to the lifts, I feel it would make more sense to remove the wing tip pylons altogether during carrier operations...
Rafale with 9 hard points will still be a pretty good option...
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by k prasad »

kit wrote:Yes , quite right. But India does not need to tie up its carrier forces in both coasts., if the A&N command and lakshdweep islands and provide and project significant air and missile power in sufficient ranges., the same projected from the mainland can cover the littoral IOR making it Indias own sea. Advances in tech mean targeting, surveillance and monitoring capabilities across the littoral IOR would be much easier, freeing up battle carrier groups for expeditionary roles and power projection beyond.

Station S400 or similar missile groups in both right and left flanks., you would have the entire IOR covered.

Build a SOSUS system all around Indian islands and coastal territories with nodes along naval bases in Mauritius etc and that would take care of prowling subs

This was the reasoning behind the 2 carrier with more emphasis on subs. but does not negate the requirement for the third carrier group.

India needs to make the whole IOR its own backyard. Surveillance, interdiction., with the ability to project overwhelming firepower wherever required., at short notice
2 CBGs with large Naval presence in ANC will help us cover a reasonable amount of ocean territory, but true power projection, say past the Malaccas, or deep in the IOR requires a third carrier group with a truly offensive air complement. And that's beyond the necessary improvements in Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar islands, along with significant ramp-ups to our bases in Mauritius, Seychelles, and Madagascar. And yes, SOSUS nets around the islands with a strong submarine complement for deterrence.
LakshmanPST wrote:If I'm not wrong, Rafale has total 11 hard points...
So rather than removing arnaments everytime before taking it to the lifts, I feel it would make more sense to remove the wing tip pylons altogether during carrier operations... Rafale with 9 hard points will still be a pretty good option...
That might be a lot more work if removing the pylons changes the aerodynamics of the platform... it'll require significant testing and changes to the control laws, etc. It COULD work, but needs to be seen. My suspicion is if there's just enough clearance to make the fit work, IN will choose to do that even if it means a lower sortie rate, rather than increase the program risk.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

Surveillance capability will enhance once the OTH radar becomes operational sometime this year

https://www.iaru-r1.org/2021/is-india-b ... adar-othr/
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

brar_w wrote:
Rakesh wrote:
The Indian Navy's P-8I fleet uses a Harpoon variant (AGM-84L) which has a range of 124 km. I am not sure which variant of the Harpoon is on offer to the IN for the F-18SH. Brar, any inputs you can provide?
There are three current anti-ship/surface attack weapons operational on the SH, and another that will be available from 2024. The Block 2 and 2+ Harpoon should have a 200+ km range when launched from a fast jet. The 2+ variant is fully networked which I don't think is currently offered in the Exocet family (though I could be wrong). Then there is the unpowered JSOW-C which has surface attack capability using a passive IIR seeker. This is also fully networked via LOS data-link. Finally there's the LRASM which is an autonomous networked (including beyond LOS networking) weapon with 500-900 km range. The Kongsberg/Raytheon Joint Strike Missile (also LOS networked) will also be available for F/A-18 E/F starting 2024. The US Navy has also added an anti-ship mode to its SEAD weapon (AARGM) and has demonstrated that in live testing. One would assume that its successor the Extended Range version will retain this capability since it uses the same guidance.
Forgot to add that later this year, the US Navy and Boeing will flight test another potential Super Hornet bound Anti-Ship weapon -

Boeing, U.S. Navy to Demo Future Ramjet Missile Technology

Boeing has been awarded a $30 million contract from the Navy to co-develop the Supersonic Propulsion Enabled Advanced Ramjet (SPEAR) flight demonstrator with the Navy’s Air Warfare Center Weapons Division. The contract award comes after the Department of Defense requested information from the defense industry to help the Navy determine technical requirements of future carrier-based land and sea strike weapons systems. Boeing and the Navy Air Warfare Center Weapons Division plan to fly the SPEAR demonstrator in late 2022.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ldev »

Race heats up for naval fighter deal, US says it meets all tech criteria

In this article Boeing says that the FA-18/E/F meets all the tech criteria specified by the IN including the ability to launch from a ski ramp. Says that the aircraft fits in the Vikrant elevator. Says that the Rafale also fits in the elevator but a part of the wing has to be removed for that!!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:Says that the Rafale also fits in the elevator but a part of the wing has to be removed for that!!
If this was properly sourced (Dassault and/or IN) then pretty much a confirmation that the Rafale cannot, as is fit the elevators as was being discussed a bit earlier. So very much a case of the IN demonstrating and trying out the various options on how to move the SH and Rafale up and down the AC.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ldev »

The article says:
The French side has also solved the problem, with a solution that requires removing a part of the wing of the Rafale before it can fit the carrier elevator
You are correct, it looks likely that the source for this information is either IN or Dassault.

The other interesting part is that the way the article reads is that at least the IN would like a follow up order to whichever fighter is initially chosen:
The competition to initially supply 26 jets ( 18 single seaters and 8 twin seaters)......
So who ever gets their foot in the door will have additional business down the road.
Roop
BRFite
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Roop »

ldev wrote:So who ever gets their foot in the door will have additional business down the road.
Not just that, I think (my opinion only) that whoever gets their foot in the door will get a initial lease order for a few aircraft (fewer than ten IMO) that the IN can use operationally for 3 years after signing of order, to make the carrier operational. The leased aircraft can be returned in stages, as the IN's own aircraft get delivered.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ramana »

Rakesh or anyone, How many aircraft does IN have now?
Are they enough to operate off both the carriers?

As for foreign aircraft, what timelines are they talking about?
asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 373
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by asbchakri »

ramana wrote:Rakesh or anyone, How many aircraft does IN have now?
Are they enough to operate off both the carriers?

As for foreign aircraft, what timelines are they talking about?
India currently have 45 MiG-29K single-seat and 8 MiG-29KUB two-seat fighters.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

ramana wrote:Rakesh or anyone, How many aircraft does IN have now?
Are they enough to operate off both the carriers?

As for foreign aircraft, what timelines are they talking about?
asbchakri has provided the numbers. They are enough to operate aboard both carriers. The issue lies in the fleet availability due to the less than desirable performance of the MiG-29K/KUB. Thus the reason for the contest between the Rafale M and F-18SH. When the Vikrant will be commissioned this August, she will come with a MiG-29 air fleet.

Every measure - barring the aircraft length - is in favour of the F-18SH. Longer airframe life, more powerful turbofans, more mature AESA, larger variety of weaponry, easier to fit on the lift, heavier payload capability, etc, etc, etc.

Standard timelines of delivery should be three years from date of contract signature. That can be speeded up provided the customer pays for the increased delivery schedule. Even quicker than outright purchase will be a lease, which will tilt the scales even further in favour of the F-18SH.

The Navy was first interested in the Rafale M around 20 years ago. Will have to look up the exact date. There is a photo of former CNS, Admiral Arun Prakash after a Rafale M flight. And he was naval chief in the mid-2000s. The IN has been eying that bird for quite a while now, so this current contest is very interesting to watch.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by LakshmanPST »

asbchakri wrote:
ramana wrote:Rakesh or anyone, How many aircraft does IN have now?
Are they enough to operate off both the carriers?

As for foreign aircraft, what timelines are they talking about?
India currently have 45 MiG-29K single-seat and 8 MiG-29KUB two-seat fighters.
Correction:-
India bought TOTAL 37 MIG 29Ks and 8 MIG29 KUBs in two orders:-
1st Contract signed in 2004 for 12 Ks and 4 KUBs... All jets delivered by 2012...
2nd Contract signed in 2009 for 25 Ks and 4 KUBs... All jets delivered by 2017...

Out of these jets 3 MIG 29 KUBs crashed till date...
-----
India currently has 37 MIG29Ks and 5 MIG29 KUBs...
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sankum »

1 Mig 29 k has also crashed. We hve total 41 nos.
At 70 percent availability we will have 28 fighters available at any point while both carrier standard load is 20 each for a total 40 fighters.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by LakshmanPST »

sankum wrote:1 Mig 29 k has also crashed. We hve total 41 nos.
At 70 percent availability we will have 28 fighters available at any point while both carrier standard load is 20 each for a total 40 fighters.
AFAIK, it only veered off the runway while taking off... Not sure if they repaired it or retired it...
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

So ., was there an option to make the lifts bigger when the Vikramaditya was rebuilt into a carrier., did the Russians purpose build the lift to suit the Migs ? I think this is indeed the case since the Vikky was bought along with the complement of Mig 29s.

But for the Vikrant it is a different story altogether !!
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sankum »

There were reports the Mig 29 veered of the runway was written off.
Post Reply