Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

[Singha]

full marks to the tug though..a real arctic beast to operate in 30 feet seas.

[Philip]

Yet,despite leaky loos,etc.the Kuz clobbered ISIS and the American supported "rebels",doing in just one operation more than anything the greatest navy in the world could do over years! Who needs super carriers with EMALS,etc.,etc.when you can't even piss on ISIS .A Sov. era flat top with all its foibles will suffice,esp. when led by real fighting men not "mineral water" grunts!

[Karthik S]

That seems to have hurt Philip saar. Sir, how do you think any such vessel would fare against a someone of the same size?

[sum]

^^ I really admire the kind of staunch and blinding love for a 3rd country which i doubt their own countrymen would have in such a high degree!

Anyways, its OT for this thread since issue in Q is the pi$$ poor performance of our only carrier operated maritime strike fighter

[Philip]

Hasn't hurt me at all! The b*ggers who got hurt by the Kuz and Russians were ISIS wallahs and US rent-boys in Syria! Unfortunately."fine dining fighters" like western wallahs can't eat with their hands ,require silver service and toilet paper to clean their backsides.Not poss. when fighting in the desert. They should've read one TE Lawrence's "7 Pillars of Wisdom".

Now here's a LIveFist report on the IAF to get a "3-BMos" config for its MKIs and single/twin config for MIG-29UGs,etc. There's more news though about BMos for the IN.

Xcpts:

It’s Official: IAF To Get ‘3 x BrahMos’ Load-Out Option By 2021
Shiv AroorJun 30 2017 9 20 am

The effort to shrink the BrahMos, first revealed here on Livefist in 2012, also aims to extend the capability to the IAF’s upgraded MiG-29s, incoming Rafale jets and Indian Navy’s MiG-29Ks, none of which can currently deploy a BrahMos-A. The smaller BrahMos is likely to be designated the BrahMos NG (the BrahMos-2 is the in-development hypersonic version of the missile).

While the Su-30 will be able to weild the BrahMos NG in a three-missile load-out, other platforms will get the weapon system in a single or twin missile load-out configuration depending on simulations that will be completed this year.

Following six sets of carriage and separation trials, one of two modified IAF Su-30 MKIs will test-fire a BrahMos-A from its belly hardpoint for the first time next month against a ship target in the Bay of Bengal.

Given the stand-off posture an air-launched BrahMos will have with its 300 km range (to be extended progressively to over 900 km), a three-weapon loadout option is an sharp leg up for mission flexibility and planning.

Like the existing BrahMos base weapon, the BrahMos-3 is being developed for submarine launch. While the original BrahMos will be deployable from a vertical silo stack, the miniaturised BrahMos is being developed for firing from torpedo tubes. Livefist can confirm that BrahMos Corp. has held discussions with the likely contenders in India’s looming mega conventional submarine build programme, the Project 75I, and locked down assurances that their bids will include confirmation that the BrahMos can be deployed for vertical launch from their platforms with necessary modifications. Russia’s Rubin Design Bureau and Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems have made formal confirmations to this effect on their Amur 1650 and Class 214 boats respectively.

In an interesting related development at the International Maritime Defence Show 2017 currently on in St Petersburg, Russian officials have revealed the Rubin Design Bureau and India’s DRDO may sign a cooperation agreement on their respective air independent propulsion (AIP) efforts. DRDO chief S. Christopher, who visited Russia in March, is understood to have been keen to forge a partnership so that India’s work so far on an indigenous AIP doesn’t lose out to delivery timeframes to the Indian Navy.

To be executed under India’s new strategic partnership policy, the P75I programme RFP is expected early 2018, with India’s L&T and Reliance Defence likely to face off in the multi-billion contest to build six winning submarine types in country.

PS:Doing some research into TU-142 acquisitions. The IN originally wanted 3 more IL-38s that the Sovs were retiring,but these were not available,so the 8 Bears were acquired.There was no chance of getting RN Nimrods either,sadly junked earlier than reqd. budget cuts,literally sliced into pieces,and now the RN is desperate for LRMP aircraft wanting P-8s1 It also asked the French to help out to counter Russian TU-95/142 Bear patrols testing UK defences.

[Singha]

RN could look at the japanese P1 LRMP. new and heavily armed.

[Philip]

They'ld ,in my opinion,prefer Boeing's P-8s as interoperability with the USN/NATO would be a key factor.
Some historical notes found reg. why the Gorky was acquired. Some members may not be aware of the completely diff. sityu at that time,when western eqpt. was not available to us.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ion/page21

The Options Available

Apart from the dimensions of the hangar, the size of the propulsion plant and capacity of fuel tanks and magazines, the most important determinant of carrier design is the flight deck, whose size and configuration depend on the type of aircraft operations intended.
John F. Lehman (former US SECNAV) in his book Aircraft Carriers: the Real Choices, written in 1978, provides some very useful empirical data. Studies have shown that to operate all conventional high-performance aircraft, a deck length of 912ft is required, and this would correspond to a displacement of about 60,000 tons. If heavier aircraft like the F-14 were excluded, the deck length could be reduced to 813ft with the ship displacing about 35,000–40,000 tons. Lower down the scale, a 650–700ft deck would suffice for purely STOVL operations and the ship would displace about 20,000 tons.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the choices of aircraft available to India were severely circumscribed on account of political considerations. Carrier-borne aircraft of US origin, by far the most capable in the market, were then just not available to us. The Soviets, our main purveyors of military hardware at that time, had only one shipboard fighter – the three-engined VTOL fighter Yak-36 (Forger) – to offer, but experience showed that the Sea Harrier, already in our inventory, was superior in most aspects. And then there were two more options, both at different stages of development: the French Rafale-M shipboard fighter and the Indian-designed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

However, at the end of all our studies, one factor emerged clearly: aircraft catapults were manufactured only in the USA, and since this piece of machinery was unlikely to be available to India, we could discard ship designs which were based on conventional aircraft requiring a catapult launch. This eliminated all US-origin deck aircraft as well as the Rafale as viable options.

Since we had already decided that the Yak-36 did not have much merit, our ship designers were placed in limbo once again. This is when the ingenuity of the Russians came to our rescue.

Enter STOBAR

Towards the end of the 1980s, word started trickling out of the USSR of an unusual experiment being undertaken by the Morskaya Aviatsia, the air arm of the Red Navy. Having shed their dogmatic animus of many years to flat-tops, the Soviets were planning to make a dramatic entry into the arcane field of carrier aviation. They planned to shun the trodden path and do this through the medium of ski-jump equipped carriers.

But what about the flying machines?

Having realised the limitations of their VTOL endeavours, they chose three (conventional) shore-based combat aircraft and undertook extensive modifications to enable ramp take-offs and hook-assisted ‘arrests’ on board. The aircraft chosen were the Sukhoi-25 (trainer and strike aircraft), the Sukhoi-27 and the MiG-29. The modified versions of the aircraft were given the suffix “K” (for Korabelnyy, or ship) and this mode of operation added a new term to the lexicon of naval aviation: STOBAR which stood for ‘short take-off but arrested landing’.

The Air Defence Ship

With this development, our carrier design options began to acquire some clarity, and the Staff Requirements having been reviewed, the designers returned to the drawing board.

However, the continuing uncertainty about aircraft availability made their job difficult, and the first tentative design that emerged was for a 20,000-ton carrier named euphemistically the ‘air defence ship’ or ADS. The ADS would operate the Sea Harrier (already in our inventory) and hopefully the indigenous LCA, whose ship-borne version was being explored.

However, a detailed feasibility study of a STOBAR version of the LCA by its design bureau revealed that a safe ski-jump launch and arrested recovery, though feasible, would make extra demands on this radical little strike-fighter. Although equipped with a digital flight control system, the delta wing configuration of the LCA (Navy) would require higher take-off and landing speeds. Consequently, the deck length had to be increased by about 15m, and the redesigned ship now displaced 24,000 tons, with a corresponding increase in cost.

By now the Indian Navy was seriously examining the Russians’ offer of their 1980s’ vintage helicopter/VTOL carrier Admiral Gorshkov, and a choice had to be made of a suitable aircraft. The obvious options were the Su-33 (a derivative of the Su-27K selected for operation from the 67,500-ton carrier, Kuznetsov), and the Mig-29K. An evaluation revealed that both aircraft would meet our operational requirements. The Su-33, though more capable, being dimensionally larger would not only not fit in the smaller hangar of the 44,500-ton Gorshkov, but would have marginal wing-tip clearances from the island structure during deck launch. It was therefore decided that the Mig-29K would equip the Gorshkov, to be renamed INS Vikramaditya in Indian service.

The downstream impact of this decision was instantly felt by the ADS programme, and a fresh design exercise was initiated to assess the implications of MiG-29K STOBAR operations on the ADS design. According to the planners, the ship’s basic complement would be a squadron each of MiG-29s and assorted helicopters. The option of operating the upgraded Sea Harriers was also catered for, until the LCA (Navy) received its full operational clearance. The workshops, magazines, deck and lift configurations as well as crew spaces had to be reworked.

The staff requirements having been finalized in 1999, the ADS emerged, in its definitive form, as a 37,000-ton vessel, to be powered by four LM-2500 gas turbines in COGAG arrangement, which would give it a top speed of 28 knots. The 830ft long angled flight deck would have a set of three arrester wires aft rated to handle aircraft of up to 22-ton all-up weight. A set of jet blast deflectors and hydraulic chocks would be installed to provide a 600ft deck run for launch of the Mig-29K and LCA (Navy), from the 14º ski-jump launch using afterburner. The ship would carry an air group of 30 aircraft and helicopters and would be crewed by about 1400 personnel.

The Indigenous Aircraft Carrier

The project received financial approval of the Government of India in January 2003, and first steel was ceremonially cut in Cochin Shipyard Ltd on 11 April 2005, when the ADS was re-designated as the ‘IAC’ or indigenous aircraft carrier.

Consultancy for propulsion system integration will come from M/S Fincantieri of Italy (now in the final stages of completing the Italian carrier Count Cavour) and, for the aviation complex, from M/S Nevskoie Design Bureau of Russia.

Some early problems relating to shipbuilding steel and selection of equipment have been resolved and the yard is optimistic about meeting the delivery schedule of 2012–13. There are no illusions about the complexity of the undertaking and, on account of certain residual imponderables, the shipyard plans to execute the contract in two phases. It is expected that the uncertainties, especially those relating to equipment that needs to be imported will have been resolved by the time work starts on Phase II. The financial estimates for the IAC have therefore remained somewhat flexible so far.

As a practising adherent of ship-borne aviation for the past 45 years, the Indian Navy aims to fulfil its long-term operational commitments in the IOR by deploying two carrier task forces at sea, while a third ship is under maintenance or refit. This would be the embodiment of a concept mooted in our plans as far back as 1948.

The arrival of the Vikramaditya and her squadron of Mig-29K fighters in 2008 would certainly add considerable combat power to the Indian Navy, and the Service looks forward to the IAC joining the fleet in the next decade. However, while we take up a case for construction of a second IAC, we need to assess the residual life of the sturdy old Viraat.

Building an aircraft carrier for the first time is no doubt going to be a challenging task for India’s warship designers and builders. The commissioning of this ship in the next decade will not only be a defining event for our industry, but also a concrete manifestation of the determination and resolve with which we have pursued the vision of becoming a ‘builders’ navy’.

[brar_w]

RN could look at the japanese P1 LRMP. new and heavily armed.

RN is fully committed to the P-8 and the initial requests involves 9 aircraft all to be operational by 2023. Their choice was known from the start and it was only a matter of funding coming through. The P-8 has NAVAIRs backing with over 110 aircraft part of the program of record. All of RNs partners will be operating it so from interoperability, capability and upgradability stand point it is a no brainer. Plus sustainment can be done locally and much easier since its based on a commercial airliner, plenty of which exist in britain. The Japanese had marketed the aircraft extensively to the RN but it really didn't make sense for them to go into essentially a 2 operator program and be left with a significantly higher funding burden over the life cycle when it came to upgrading the aircraft and its sub-systems.

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/un ... ed-support

They have full up crews flying on US P-8s for some time now and are working along with Norway and Australia to sign MOUs with the USN on P-8. Australia and norway are JPO members for the P-8 and UK will likely also be one.

Pentagon seeks increased P-8 ties with Norway, UK

[Katare]

i think the russians themselves are at a loss wrt to the Mig29K given the deployment of the kuznetsov off syria last autumn.
it failed to generate a single combat sortie and 2 ac had to ditch in sea before it turned tail for its lair in the barents sea.

The Mig-29K and Su-27 flew 400 combat sorties and hit about 1000 targets in Syria during Medetarian Ops by MOD

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/18397/ ... VswhlFLeHs

The only reason they had to ditch is because the arrestor hook broke off in one case and second case they did not sent it back to land think it would be fixed and it ran out of fuel

The article does not say anywhere that Mig29K even flew once. It talks about total sorties from Kutz during it's deployment. I would suspect most of these to be helicopters and Su27/33 and may be, just may be, the Migs flew a few sorties too. After all is said and done, we have multibillion dollar lemon on our hands. IN would spend a decade, another billion or two and risk life of it's pilots to get this thing working to half decent levels.

Making a reliable and contemporary 4++ generation combat aircraft is beyond Russia's capacity (small size of its economy) and current capabilities (little investment in R&D over last 3 decades). The Federal budget is $230 Billion, size of it's economy is $1.5 T and it is mostly depends on exporting natural resources like crude oil, natural gas, timber, animal furs, mineral ores and metals. The good old USSR is gone, the skeleton of it survives feeding on it's on carcass but that is also coming to an end.

[brar_w]

There are images of MiG-29Ks over Syria, but I haven't come across the exact breakdown of the number of sorties by type.

[Katare]

Ohh don't get me wrong, it does fly at least 8 to 15% of the times

[Cain Marko]

The article does not say anywhere that Mig29K even flew once. It talks about total sorties from Kutz during it's deployment. I would suspect most of these to be helicopters and Su27/33 and may be, just may be, the Migs flew a few sorties too. After all is said and done, we have multibillion dollar lemon on our hands. IN would spend a decade, another billion or two and risk life of it's pilots to get this thing working to half decent levels.

Making a reliable and contemporary 4++ generation combat aircraft is beyond Russia's capacity (small size of its economy) and current capabilities (little investment in R&D over last 3 decades). The Federal budget is $230 Billion, size of it's economy is $1.5 T and it is mostly depends on exporting natural resources like crude oil, natural gas, timber, animal furs, mineral ores and metals. The good old USSR is gone, the skeleton of it survives feeding on it's on carcass but that is also coming to an end.

Riiight! Thats exactly why the Indian Navy continues to deploy it throughout the IOR - I suppose the fulcrums just sit on it for show. And russia can't make a reliable 4++ gen combat aircraft - No wonder everyone is buying the Su-30 variants left, right and center - including the vaunted Chinese!

Btw, Austin is correct - the failed landings were attributed to the failure of arrestor cables more than anything else - an issue that has little to do with the aircraft, but more with the condition of the ship. The state of the ship is bad, they are looking at at least a $ 750 million refit, not small change

https://www.rbth.com/defence/2017/04/25 ... ion_750066

At the end of 2016, the Admiral Kuznetsov lost two fighter planes that crashed on landing following combat flights over Syria. On both occasions the accidents were caused by broken arresting cables that deck-based fighter planes hook onto when making a carrier landing....
"God only knows what ship repair crews will find during the diagnostic process. The question is what to do with the engine - refurbish it so that it has a few extra years of life before it dies completely; or replace it with a completely new one, something that will require the entire ship to undergo major repairs," said Viktor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of the magazine, Arsenal Otechestva.

Sounds similar to the Gorshkov issue - initial estimate is far from the actually required repair. Not unlike an old car - take it in for a small job, and the shop opens it up and finds a true can of worms.

[Katare]

From numerous media reports we heard that Mig35 was a miserable failure in Indian MRCA contest. Flankers are a USSR leftover bit and to make them contemporary, India had to MKIzed them. People even buy Bandar-17 but that does not make it a contemporary fighter.

We will soon hear of a Mig40 and Su40 but rest assured it would be same old USSR vodka in a new bottle. Russia can't make a Rafael or Eurofighter leave aside an F35 or F22. They have scientific brains but just not enough financial, management and industrial muscles needed for modern combat aircrafts.

I really wish they could, we had a good predictable partnership with them for ladt 50 years. But one can not ignore the writing on the wall.

[Cain Marko]

From numerous media reports we heard that Mig35 was a miserable failure in Indian MRCA contest. Flankers are a USSR leftover bit and to make them contemporary, India had to MKIzed them. People even buy Bandar-17 but that does not make it a contemporary fighter.

So mki is ussr cold warrelic, then what is f15se, f1670, f18e? In fact what are your vaunted euro canards, which all started during the time of the ussr?

We will soon hear of a Mig40 and Su40 but rest assured it would be same old USSR vodka in a new bottle. Russia can't make a Rafael or Eurofighter leave aside an F35 or F22. They have scientific brains but just not enough financial, management and industrial muscles needed for modern combat aircrafts.

What is pakfa then? Its a clear generation ahead of the euro canards, which Btw, are easily challenged by the ussr vintage vodka brand flanker. Production is not an issue for them while there is demand, which is in spades for pakfa. But a 5g project is very challenging ... Enough to keep the euros out of it entirely.

I really wish they could, we had a good predictable partnership with them for ladt 50 years. But one can not ignore the writing on the wall.

A number of thinking folks would disagree including Sjha. The defense cooperation between the two countries continues to be at the highest levels as witnessed by recent modi visit.

[Katare]

Comeon man, don't put words in my mouth and than argue against them. I said flankers are from USSR era u can't change that to MKI, a very specific flanker version, which is a hybrid 4Th gen aircraft.

U ask what is pakfa - its a prototype, with limited future if any.

Thinking folks always differ!

[Austin]

The article does not say anywhere that Mig29K even flew once. It talks about total sorties from Kutz during it's deployment. I would suspect most of these to be helicopters and Su27/33 and may be, just may be, the Migs flew a few sorties too. After all is said and done, we have multibillion dollar lemon on our hands.

No one would give you the exact break up on the type , Do we know how many sorties SHAR flew during Sorties or IAF fighters flew based on type during op safed sagar ? Suffice to say they flow more than 2000 sorties.

All said and done IN is build a maintenance & repair facility for Mig-29K http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 363512.cms

That would boost up the uptimes much like MKI had for most part of its decade an uptime of ~ 45 % till parrikar came build up the spares and repair facility and within 3 years he could achieve an uptime of more than 65 % for MKI.

Uptime is a function of how much one wants to spend on spares and maintenance , Else IAF wouldnt have been paying a hefty sum to Dassult to maintain a uptime of 70 % for just 5 years , that cost is almost 40 % of the total cost of the purchase. Even Boeing has multiple year year to maintain uptimes of P-8I

[Philip]

The ever-incresing threat from the PLAN in our backyard.China preaches one thing but does just the opposite.Yell-liver stinking liars who must be similarly challenged in their own backyard by the IN from now on.We too should establish a "ring of fire" around China using the naval facilities of friendly nations also threatened by China.

"China's policy of patient, stealthy but steady consolidation of power in disputed regions have paid up for Beijing in the past. "

http://www.firstpost.com/india/amid-sik ... 74785.html

Amid Sikkim standoff China's submarine prowls Indian Ocean: Is it part of larger strategy on border dispute?
IndiaFP StaffJul, 04 2017
#Beijing#China#China in indian ocean#China submarine#Connectthedots#East china sea#India#India china border dispute#India-china relations#Indian ocean#Pakistan occupied kashmir#Siachen#Sikkim border row#Sikkim sector#Sikkim standoff#South china sea#String of pearls#Tibet

At a time when New Delhi is vigilant of Beijing's slightest of moves amid the two neighbours' longest border standoff, China has again reacted aggressively, this time in the Indian Ocean.

According to a report in India Today, China has deployed an advanced Yuan class — conventional diesel electric — submarine in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). The presence of the stealth submarine was detected recently by the Indian Navy.

In an interesting aside, Beijing also launched what it calls "the most advanced and largest warship in Asia," just days after the standoff was reported.

Representational image. Reuters
Representational image. Reuters
Although in an IANS report, sources have suggested that the moves have nothing to do with standoff between the Indian and Chinese troops along the Sikkim border, Beijing's increased interference in the backyard of India is hardly news, yet a reason enough to be concerned about.

Beijing has increasingly been assertive in the Indian Ocean, docking its warships at the ports of other countries in the region, bypassing Indian influence on it's neighbours.

Another Yuan class submarine was only recently "picked up" by Indian Navy's Poseidon-8I long-range maritime patrol aircraft as soon as it crossed the Malacca Strait on 19-20 April. The India Today report too states that this would be China's seventh submarine to be deployed in the area. Many more Chinese warships are prowling in the Indian waters. According to latest reports, at least 13 Chinese naval units were detected in the Indian Ocean over the last two months, The Times of Indiasaid — ostensibly in the name of anti-piracy operations.

What does it mean?

An article published in Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, points out that the South and East China Seas are important arteries of trade in the entire Asia-Pacific region. The waterways are also a vital link between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The article states that nearly 55 percent of India's trade passes through the crucial route while Japan and South Korea’s energy and commerce are also heavily dependent on sea routes.

While China already commands control on East and South China Seas — despite unsettled disputes in the region — of late it is striking a more and more assertive posture in the IOR.

Besides this, past experience in South China Sea shows that China's policy of patient, stealthy but steady consolidation of power in disputed regions have paid up for Beijing in the past. Today, China has built "seven man-made islets in the hotly contested Spratlys, with the three boasting military-grade airfields. Beijing has also reportedly added anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems despite a 2015 pledge by Chinese President Xi Jinping not to further “militarise” the islands" in South China Sea, according to a report in The Japan Times. The newspaper report further claims it to be a “part of a steady pattern of Chinese militarisation,” irrespective of the stage at which its diplomatic relations were with its neighbours in dispute.

Therefore, a similar authoritarian attitude in the Indian Ocean should ring a bell for New Delhi, irrespective of the current shape of bilateral ties.

The String of Pearls theory

A popular theory, decoding the Dragon's foreign police, was mooted in 2005 by Booz Allen Hamilton, a US-based think-tank, called the String of Pearls.

The theory presumes that China seems to be buttressing it's naval strengths in Asia-Pacific waters by means of a number of civilian and military projects in Strait of Malacca, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Maldives, the Strait of Hormuz, Somalia, Bangladesh and Myanmar and which may, in the near future, allow China a foothold in the Indian Ocean region and some day become a Blue Water Navy. The purpose of such a move? To strategically control key trade routes, and thereby influence on most of it's rival countries, and encircle and isolate India.

However, an article in The Wire recently argues that Beijing may not even need a String of Pearls. The article states that China has openly stated that it would undertake a more proactive protection of its interests in ‘open waters’, apparently meaning the IRO. It is more interested in putting up peacetime replenishment with sea-bases for supplementing its naval capabilities than establishing military bases in Indian Ocean.

The threat to India

The IPCC articles quotes former Indian Air Force Chief Arup Raha's views who believes that China is the single major security challenge to India’s growing interest in the Asia-Pacific region. The article further quote another defence and experts views stating that China's rise should worry India because it not only seeks the status of the world power globally, but plans to do so by thwarting India.

It is also said that China is wary, rather displeased, of the yearly tri-party Malabar maritime exercise. This year, Maritime forces from India, Japan and the US would participate in the joint mid-summer exercise aimed at addressing shared threats to maritime security in the Indo-Asia Pacific region. And Beijing is known to have deployed spy ships in the region to monitor the naval exercise, as reported in this The Indian Express report from last year.

China has a long-standing border dispute that continues to simmer and talks have been largely inconsequential, despite several bouts of amicable relations. It is often argued that China patiently waits to settle its border disputes until such time that the power differential between the disputed parties overwhelmingly favours China, and the weaker state is forced to make significant concessions to Beijing to settle the disputes.

Writing for the South Asia Monitor, Delhi-based strategic analyst Jai Kumar Verma argued in late 2016: "China has lot of surplus funds which it spends on poor countries to gain their support. China is much ahead of India in military power; it has bigger armed forces, more and better nuclear warheads and is modernising its armed forces at a much faster pace than India, especially in cyber and space."

China's assertiveness is on a rise from all corners: PoK, Tibet, North East Indian border, and IOR. Unless India catches up fast, Beijing will always be at a strategic advantage to armtwist New Delhi on the border and try to impose a solution on its terms. Whether it chooses to do so, and when, only time will tell.

[Manish_P]

i think the russians themselves are at a loss wrt to the Mig29K given the deployment of the kuznetsov off syria last autumn.
it failed to generate a single combat sortie and 2 ac had to ditch in sea before it turned tail for its lair in the barents sea.

<OT>
Don't know if official, but the cause given by some russian publications for the Mig29K crash is that it was part of a 3 plane sortie. While returning the 1st plane landed cleanly, the 2nd plane however had a bad landing snapping the arrestor cable and got snagged in the reserve arresting cable. The 3rd plane was then asked to enter a holding pattern till the foul up on the deck could be fixed. While in the holding pattern, the engines of the 3rd plane suffered a catastrophic engines failure due to no fuel reaching them, possibly due to the plane having simply run out of fuel. The pilot had no option other than to eject.

There are some objections to the above, primarily from Western observers, as to why the 3rd plane was not diverted to a russian-syrian airbase in Kheimim (Latakia) which was around 4-5 minutes flying time away.

Some others have mentioned if the Mig29K couldn't have been buddy refueled by the other aircraft on the carrier. But this has been pointed out as not likely since fully loaded fighters can only take off from the 3rd starting position (one of the Kuznetsov's limitations, having no catapults). Now this 3rd starting position is located right in front of the last catch cable on the landing strip (90 meters or so behind the 1-2 positions). And since they were busy fixing the snapped cable (both 2nd and 3rd cables had to be fixed), they wouldn't be able to make any launches from that 3rd position. But another question which arises is why buddy tankers could not have been launched from the Kheimim airbase to assist the distressed plane.

And there are some wags who have pointed out that the likely cause was not running out of fuel but due to engines flameout due to the poor MiG29K running into the huge fumes belching out of the Kuz, while flying it's holding pattern.
</OT>

The non OT part - what happens if a similar situation is faced by the IN ?

[JTull]

i think the russians themselves are at a loss wrt to the Mig29K given the deployment of the kuznetsov off syria last autumn.
it failed to generate a single combat sortie and 2 ac had to ditch in sea before it turned tail for its lair in the barents sea.

<OT>
Don't know if official, but the cause given by some russian publications for the Mig29K crash is that it was part of a 3 plane sortie. While returning the 1st plane landed cleanly, the 2nd plane however had a bad landing snapping the arrestor cable and got snagged in the reserve arresting cable. The 3rd plane was then asked to enter a holding pattern till the foul up on the deck could be fixed. While in the holding pattern, the engines of the 3rd plane suffered a catastrophic engines failure due to no fuel reaching them, possibly due to the plane having simply run out of fuel. The pilot had no option other than to eject.

There are some objections to the above, primarily from Western observers, as to why the 3rd plane was not diverted to a russian-syrian airbase in Kheimim (Latakia) which was around 4-5 minutes flying time away.

Some others have mentioned if the Mig29K couldn't have been buddy refueled by the other aircraft on the carrier. But this has been pointed out as not likely since fully loaded fighters can only take off from the 3rd starting position (one of the Kuznetsov's limitations, having no catapults). Now this 3rd starting position is located right in front of the last catch cable on the landing strip (90 meters or so behind the 1-2 positions). And since they were busy fixing the snapped cable (both 2nd and 3rd cables had to be fixed), they wouldn't be able to make any launches from that 3rd position. But another question which arises is why buddy tankers could not have been launched from the Kheimim airbase to assist the distressed plane.

And there are some wags who have pointed out that the likely cause was not running out of fuel but due to engines flameout due to the poor MiG29K running into the huge fumes belching out of the Kuz, while flying it's holding pattern.
</OT>

The non OT part - what happens if a similar situation is faced by the IN ?

If any of this is even partly true then it shows lack of institutional knowledge and experience among the commanding officers. That's the biggest difference with IN, when someone compares to PLAN carriers. IN will definitely extract more out of it's fleet of Mig-29Ks than RuN will.

[chola]

there are some wags who have pointed out that the likely cause was not running out of fuel but due to engines flameout due to the poor MiG29K running into the huge fumes belching out of the Kuz,

Sounds funny as hell except we bought and operate a Russian carrier of an even worse design.

[Philip]

Just for the record:

Several nations in South America have expressed interest in purchasing Russian fighter jets currently active in Moscow's military campaign in Syria.
Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay and Argentina were among the nations interested in buying Russian military aircraft including the Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jet which has seen extensive use in Russia's campaign against the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS, and other armed insurgents in Syria. Sergei Ladygin, who was the CEO of Russia's state arms seller Rosoboronexport and was heading the company's delegation to the international LAAD Defense & Security exhibition in Brazil, said the aircraft's service in Syria made it all the more attractive to its potential Latin American buyers.
"To a considerable extent, the interest has increased after the Russian air task force’s successful operation in Syria," Ladygin told Russia's official TASS News Agency Tuesday.That same day, Deputy Director of Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Anatoliy Punchuk said proposals to deliver Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter jets to Argentina had already been submitted.

Secondly,even the US and its allies suffered losses of over 70 aircraft and helos in Op Desert Storm.One F-18 was shot down by an Iraqi MIG-25.One B-52 from DG suffered total elec failure and crashed. Most brought down by anti-air /MANPADS fire.Details are easily available at sev. sites. So highlighting a loss or two of Russia proves nothing,except that when you go to war expect casualties!

The cost of a VikA carrier today will be double than what we paid for.So let's not crib.We've got a far better carrier than the Viraat,with a far more capable aircraft than the SH,superb bird though it was,still being used by the USMC.So let's leave it to the IN to exploit the vessel to its max. capability.It's now 3 years flying IN colours and with recently installed Barak SAMs has a decent anti-M capability,though a second layer of BPDMS gun/missile Pantsir type system should also be installed giving another layer of air defence.B-1s must also be replaced by B-8s at the next opportunity.Surface warships priority,as carrier air defence is also perfomed by 29K CAPs and AEW KA-31s,giving at least a 300km detection range.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 8L7gM.html
From submarines to warships: How Chinese navy is expanding its footprint in Indian Ocean
India has sighted more than a dozen Chinese warships in the Indian Ocean in the last two months. China says the ships are involved in anti-piracy patrols and are moving in international waters.

[chola]

Just for the record:

Several nations in South America have expressed interest in purchasing Russian fighter jets currently active in Moscow's military campaign in Syria.
Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay and Argentina were among the nations interested in buying Russian military aircraft including the Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jet which has seen extensive use in Russia's campaign against the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS, and other armed insurgents in Syria. Sergei Ladygin, who was the CEO of Russia's state arms seller Rosoboronexport and was heading the company's delegation to the international LAAD Defense & Security exhibition in Brazil, said the aircraft's service in Syria made it all the more attractive to its potential Latin American buyers.
"To a considerable extent, the interest has increased after the Russian air task force’s successful operation in Syria," Ladygin told Russia's official TASS News Agency Tuesday.That same day, Deputy Director of Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Anatoliy Punchuk said proposals to deliver Mikoyan MiG-29 fighter jets to Argentina had already been submitted.

Secondly,even the US and its allies suffered losses of over 70 aircraft and helos in Op Desert Storm.One F-18 was shot down by an Iraqi MIG-25.One B-52 from DG suffered total elec failure and crashed. Most brought down by anti-air /MANPADS fire.Details are easily available at sev. sites. So highlighting a loss or two of Russia proves nothing,except that when you go to war expect casualties!

The cost of a VikA carrier today will be double than what we paid for.So let's not crib.We've got a far better carrier than the Viraat,with a far more capable aircraft than the SH,superb bird though it was,still being used by the USMC.So let's leave it to the IN to exploit the vessel to its max. capability.It's now 3 years flying IN colours and with recently installed Barak SAMs has a decent anti-M capability,though a second layer of BPDMS gun/missile Pantsir type system should also be installed giving another layer of air defence.B-1s must also be replaced by B-8s at the next opportunity.Surface warships priority,as carrier air defence is also perfomed by 29K CAPs and AEW KA-31s,giving at least a 300km detection range.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 8L7gM.html
From submarines to warships: How Chinese navy is expanding its footprint in Indian Ocean
India has sighted more than a dozen Chinese warships in the Indian Ocean in the last two months. China says the ships are involved in anti-piracy patrols and are moving in international waters.

Still advertizing for Natasha I see, Phillip. Is she blonde down in her nether regions as well?

The PoS Gorshkov is a better carrier than the Viraat? At least the Viraat didn't have a goddam lift in the middle of its flight deck. It has a dangerous pinched stern and cramped space with a giant island eating into realestate of the deck. I truly fear for our crew running this thing under tempo.

[Kakarat]

Just for the record:


Secondly,even the US and its allies suffered losses of over 70 aircraft and helos in Op Desert Storm.One F-18 was shot down by an Iraqi MIG-25.One B-52 from DG suffered total elec failure and crashed. Most brought down by anti-air /MANPADS fire.Details are easily available at sev. sites. So highlighting a loss or two of Russia proves nothing,except that when you go to war expect casualties!

The cost of a VikA carrier today will be double than what we paid for.So let's not crib.We've got a far better carrier than the Viraat,with a far more capable aircraft than the SH,superb bird though it was,still being used by the USMC.So let's leave it to the IN to exploit the vessel to its max. capability.It's now 3 years flying IN colours and with recently installed Barak SAMs has a decent anti-M capability,though a second layer of BPDMS gun/missile Pantsir type system should also be installed giving another layer of air defence.B-1s must also be replaced by B-8s at the next opportunity.Surface warships priority,as carrier air defence is also perfomed by 29K CAPs and AEW KA-31s,giving at least a 300km detection range.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 8L7gM.html
From submarines to warships: How Chinese navy is expanding its footprint in Indian Ocean
India has sighted more than a dozen Chinese warships in the Indian Ocean in the last two months. China says the ships are involved in anti-piracy patrols and are moving in international waters.

Still advertizing for Natasha I see, Phillip. Is she blonde down in her nether regions as well?

The PoS Gorshkov is a better carrier than the Viraat? At least the Viraat didn't have a goddam lift in the middle of its flight deck. It has a dangerous pinched stern and cramped space with a giant island eating into realestate of the deck. I truly fear for our crew running this thing under tempo.

Phillip is fond of Russians as much as you are with the American and whats wrong in it?

You both are two sides of the same coin

http://asianetindia.com/wp-content/uplo ... tedeck.jpg
This is a picture of INS Viraat and hope you can spot the lift. If you spotted the lift please tell me where it is positioned

[brar_w]

Secondly,even the US and its allies suffered losses of over 70 aircraft and helos in Op Desert Storm.

LOL. This little deployment of the small air-wing on the Kuz. was in no way shape or form comparable to the campaign during Desert Storm. Not in size, scale, threat, or the sheer logistics of it. As a reference, more strike sorties were launched on the first night of the gulf war air campaign (600) than the entire Kuz. (provided Asutin's numbers are accurate). Overall, just NAVAIRs asset's were responsible for more than 20,000 sorties (>20% of all sorties flown) And the Gulf War was 26 or so years ago. Granted that long range ALCMs, and TLAMs were fired then, and stealth aircraft conducted penetrating attacks over defended targets, but besides that there is really nothing that compares to the current campaigns over Iraq or Syria.

This is what pilots had to contend with then - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA

[chola]

Still advertizing for Natasha I see, Phillip. Is she blonde down in her nether regions as well?

The PoS Gorshkov is a better carrier than the Viraat? At least the Viraat didn't have a goddam lift in the middle of its flight deck. It has a dangerous pinched stern and cramped space with a giant island eating into realestate of the deck. I truly fear for our crew running this thing under tempo.

Phillip is fond of Russians as much as you are with the American and whats wrong in it?

You both are two sides of the same coin

http://asianetindia.com/wp-content/uplo ... tedeck.jpg
This is a picture of INS Viraat and hope you can spot the lift. If you spotted the lift please tell me where it is positioned

One on the side off the angled deck and the second one in the stern that astrides the runway -- but behind the launch points. I acknowlege your point though. But it is still a far better layout than the Gorshkov even though it was designed in the 1930s.

The Viraat:


Look at the lifts of the PoS compared to the other modern carriers:

[Philip]

I mentioned this before.Though the island is closer to the flight deck's centre,and makes the space less,the VikA has valuable space behind the island which allows movement of personnel,some support eqpt.etc.which does not interfere with flight ops.If you study pics of the carrier,you
ll see a lot of eqpt. parked there,allowing unimpeded movement from bow to stern. The new Vikrant could've had a lengthened deck forward of the island on the stbd. side,to where the ski-jump starts.This would give more deck space for aircraft/helos/eqpt. SAM system in a VLS module.

"Bring back the Bears!" Let them maul the PLAN. Report on bears launching the latest Ru KH series ASM which our erstwhile Bears and IL-38 Mays can do.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/2017 ... misisiles/

Why Striking Daesh With New Kh-101 Missiles Was Both 'Right and Justified'Russian Defence Ministry
MIDDLE EAST
10:08 06.07.2017
Commenting on the recent Russian Aerospace Forces strike on Daesh militants in Syria with brand-new Kh-101 cruise missiles, military expert Vladimir Kozin explained to Sputnik Radio why the decision to use this military hardware was both right and justified.

On Wednesday, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that Russia's Tu-95MS long-range bombers had struck Daesh targets in Syria with brand-new Kh-101 cruise missiles, destroying three large terrorist arms and ammunition depots, as well as a terrorist command center near the city of Uqayribat on the border between Hama and Homs provinces.

The strikes were made from a range of about 1,000 kilometers and marked the sixth time that Russia has used the Kh-101 in combat, the Ministry said.
The Tu-95 strategic bombers took off from an airfield in Russia.

"Russian Su-30 fighters based at the Hmeymim airfield [in Syria's Latakia province] provided air cover. After successfully accomplishing the task of the combat mission, all Russian aircraft returned to their airfields," the Ministry said.

The Kh-101 (in Russian: X-101) is a strategic, air-launched Russian cruise missile, manufactured using modern technology to reduce radar visibility. It can destroy a target up to 4,500 kilometers away. This type of missile can be equipped with a nuclear warhead. The Kh-101 uses GLONASS, the Russian satellite navigation system, for trajectory correction and is reported to have an accuracy of five to six meters.

Up to 12 Kh-101s can be loaded onto a Tupolev Tu-160 (NATO reporting name: Blackjack), while the Tupolev Tu-95 (Bear) is capable of carrying a maximum of eight of these missile

[Manish_P]

If you study pics of the carrier, youll see a lot of eqpt. parked there,allowing unimpeded movement from bow to stern.

Yes, unimpeded movement of men and material is more important than the unimpeded movement of aircraft, on the deck of a carrier.

Please do have a look at the other aircraft carriers in the pic, Sir. Can you not see how their design have made it possible for the movement of both aircraft, men/equipement without significantly impeding each other ?

[Philip]

Look,the debate about the Gorky/VIKA is long over.The carrier is 3 yrs old flying the Indian flag.Unfortunately some gents can't stop beating a dead horse. If today we were given the option of another Gorky class carrier,I would be against it,it would make little sense since other better designs are available unlike two decades ago when it was all we could get to retain our naval carrier aviation capability. Thanks also to the magnificent job of nursing the Hermes/Viraat,we kept it going for much longer than originally planned,and it could've soldiered on for sev. years more but lacked enough airworthy Sea Harriers. Had we picked up a couple of doz. of the 72 early retd. (asininely by the RN?Brit govt.)Harriers,all picked up lock,stock and barrel by the USMC(!)stil to serve until 2025,the Viraat could've soldiered on until that time too.But yet again,that issue is another dead horse...

Nevertheless,as I've said ad nauseum ,we should asap build a (stretched) sister ship of the new Vikrant,using our ingenuity of design the same way we stretched a Leander into a Godavari using the same powerplant.Maybe we will need a more powerful plant whatever,but it is eminently doable,since we've launched the first of the class,and should build the sister ship money available much faster.
Secondly,the aircraft on board could be more perfected/upgraded 29Ks,35Ks,Rafale-Ms (V.expensive),even F-18s,if they can operate from a STOBAR platform and are compatible with the first 2 carriers.Let the IN decide. 3 ski-jump carriers with e interoperable aircraft ,would be very cost-effective ,plus have at least 2 carriers always available in a crisis.For the 3rd carrier to have aircraft that cannot serve aboard the first two could be problematic when aircraft and crews have to switch ships and one of the first two is in the dockyard.A sistership on these lines would be available if started next year by 2025,when work could then begin on whatever the design has been approved for the larger CV,expected post 2030. As just posted in another td.,analysts have argued that the huge cost of a carrier,plus aviation assets,plus escort group -surface ships and subs,would be sev. times more than the unit cost of it.

Only the US can afford such large fleet carriers and even they,posted again days ago,are considering light carriers of 65K t + to complement their super Cvs.We have no expeditionary ground wars planned,no nations to invade requiring huge naval air support for the ground offensive. The principal raison d'etre of our CVs is domination of the adjacent oceans/seas of the subcontinent ,essential for our free trade and protecti our merchant fleet,safeguarding the Indian landmass and our island territories from attack/invasion from the sea and destroying the enemy's naval assets on the high seas in waters beyond the IOR,including strikes against his coastal/naval establishments and key targets inland using PGMs launched from naval assets.
Russia has just demonstrated again in Syria how its naval air assets in conjunction with legacy strat. bombers have taken out key ISIS targets by PPGMs launched from its aircraft,ships and subs....and a Sov era ski-jump carrier.

[brar_w]

The CdG is a much more capable carrier in terms of the AW capability and the French will likely create a follow up. The Chinese too are fast developing the ability to CAT launch their future air wing and will be looking to most likely field 4-6 carriers by the mid 2030s, possibly half of these could be CAT capable. The Brits will operate carriers with 5th generation fighters on board. So yeah there is plenty of activity happening besides the USN in sustaining or developing advanced carrier capability, but the notion that the IN is looking to create a Nimitz is laughable..and a vessel will not be a Ford in expense.

The best description based on other vessels could be that the IN is looking at a QEC sized vessel with some features of the CdG or precisely what the French may also end up doing in the future. The IN is clearly right sizing its future carrier capability and picking and choosing the technologies it needs. It isn't looking to or thinking about building a Nimitz or Ford.

[chola]

The CdG is a much more capable carrier in terms of the AW capability and the French will likely create a follow up. The Chinese too are fast developing the ability to CAT launch their future air wing and will be looking to most likely field 4-6 carriers by the mid 2030s, possibly half of these could be CAT capable. The Brits will operate carriers with 5th generation fighters on board. So yeah there is plenty of activity happening besides the USN in sustaining or developing advanced carrier capability, but the notion that the IN is looking to create a Nimitz is laughable..and a vessel will not be a Ford in expense. The best description based on other vessels could be that the IN is looking at a QEC sized vessel with some features of the CdG or precisely what the French may also end up doing in the future.

The IN have made perfectly clear what they want by tendering for 57 new carrier planes while the MiG-29Ks are all but brand new and having admirals and vice-admirals publicly stating they will go to the MoD repeatedly for the 65K-ton CATOBAR until they get it.

You don't have to read between the lines to figure out what the IN's view of the future is. Their actions are brutally honest: CATOBAR is the future, not STOBAR and definitely not the MiG-29.

Their first CATOBAR will be 65K tons, the same as the Kuznetsov and the two chini STOBAR carriers. Not Nimitz, not Ford. Those who try to equate it with Unkil Supercarriers are trying to equate this solid vision with some flight of fancy. No, it is not. It is a reasonable plan and one that will move us away from the Gorshkov and its STOBAR system.

In grand scheme of things, the PoS is an one-time cost they'll have to eat but they won't throw money after it. They have a clear vision on something far greater.

[Philip]

The yellow-livered Chins now say that we'll be "kicked out" of the area that they want to steal! Let's see whose backside will be "kicked out"!

Meanwhile,the anti-Chin naval alliance is beginning to coalesce thanks to the bombast from the Beijing bullies.This round of Malabar exercises may be a portend of things to some.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... e-4736590/

Malabar war games: India, Japan, US to deploy largest warships, to focus on anti-submarine warfare
Malabar war games: The tri-lateral exercise will witness around 15 warships, two submarines, numerous fighter planes, helicopters and surveillance aircraft participating in this much-awaited exercise.

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Updated: July 5, 2017 3:03 pm

China’s state media warns India of ‘bullying’ Bhutan, says Beijing may support Sikkim’s independence
*(If China does so,then we must say Tibet is an occupied country,kick out all Chinkos from India,including their diplomutts and send immediately a dpl. delegation to Taipei to negotiate establishing dpl. relations with it)

Sikkim standoff: Chinese media says India will suffer ‘greater losses’ than 1962 if it ‘incites’ border tensionsSikkim standoff: Chinese media says India will suffer ‘greater losses’ than 1962 if it ‘incites’ border tensions
Amid heightened border tensions between Beijing and New Delhi near the Sikkim-Bhutan tri-junction, India, Japan and the US will showcase their naval might with their largest warships in the Malabar war games scheduled for July 10 in the Indian Ocean. The Malabar war games are strategically significant for India as Beijing very recently deployed one of their submarines in the Indian Ocean region, with the Indian Navy picking up information of an ‘unusual surge’ in the number of Chinese vessels entering the region. The Indian Navy is being assisted by Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) very own GSAT-7 satellite, which is also called Rukmini. Launched in September 29, 2013, Rukmini is Indian Navy’s military communication satellite that aids in providing information in the high seas and strengthens India’s maritime security.
The Malabar tri-lateral exercise will witness around 15 warships, two submarines, numerous fighter planes, helicopters and surveillance aircraft participating in this much-awaited exercise. The Malabar war games stands in consonance with New Delhi’s ‘Act East Policy’ and aims to foster deeper relations with US and Japan. Aside from INS Vikramaditya, India’s largest warship and the third aircraft carrier inducted into the Navy, USS Nimitz, Japan’s largest helicopter carrier JS Izumo, and many other warships, submarines would take part in the games. Also Read: How the Navy names its ships, subs
Besides at-sea training off India’s eastern coast in the Bay of Bengal, the Malabar war games will also feature the three countries sharing their military expertise on land as well, with special focus on Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). Also Read: Chinese media says India will suffer ‘greater losses’ than 1962 if it ‘incites’ border tensions

The Malabar war games come in the backdrop of the recent standoff between Indian and Chinese troops in Doklam area in Sikkim, with the Chinese media stepping up its attack on New Delhi through its editorials asking Indian troops to move out of the area ‘with dignity or be kicked out".

PS:Excellent primer for sub warfare,history ,current and future trends here.
Rising tide: Submarines and the future of undersea warfare
David Szondy David Szondy July 5, 2017

[arshyam]

The PoS Gorshkov is a better carrier than the Viraat?

One request: it is not the Gorshkov anymore, but the INS Vikramaditya and flies our flag. At least give her that much respect. TIA.

[Manish_Sharma]

We didnt have money to buy 126 Rafale jets for Vayusena.

Buying a 65000 ton carrier and fighters for it will be A CRIMINAL WASTAGE of national resources.

Reading various links threads, it's obvious that naval aircraft have lesser availability, they rot much faster due to humidity salinity and shocks of landing on carrier and catapulted etc.

Mig 29k with their 15 to 37 % availability. Even a link was posted to show that more than half of f18 are rotting unavailable I m sure same would be true for Rafale too.

Now as a nation Bharat has to make a choice, whether to use _______(amount), on naval fighters that will be less available, forced to retire early due to above mentioned reasons.

Or spend that money on Vayusena fighters much needed over Himalayan - Rajasthan - Punjab - Gujarat.

First priority of every nation as far as navy is concerned is, has been submarines, ships first later if they have money left they go for carriers.

We are too far behind this. We can't even buy for our airforce.

One report emerging of EMALS and American version of Philip-s go crazy that IN can't survive without 65000 ton carrier and f 35s.

[brar_w]

Manish, you need to understand how tiered readiness, O&S and depot capacity impacts availability and then seperate it from availability metrics on account of reliability. The two are no where connected and this applies to both Russian and US aircraft. It is not the aircraft or its designers fault that one particular service does not address its depot capacity to meet a surge in demand and fleet_hour_consumption however if this is an export deal, and the OEM is found lacking in providing timely support that is a different matter. One cannot directly attribute low readiness to poor reliability in fact most of the times it is not the case. It is a Logistical issue which in many (though not always) is a budgetary/financial issue.

As I have tried to explain umpteen times here the USN's low Classic Hornet readiness is on account of them not expanding their depot capacity commensurate to the surge in their combat mission demand and total fleet aircraft consumption. If you fly your aircraft more than anticipated, and not create additional capacity to overhaul and SLEP them they will be stuck outside depots waiting for their turn to go through the system. Now if you have an inherently unreliable aircraft like say the older F-14's that required many times the manhours of the classic hornet to keep in the air then that is a reliability metric induced low availability in that you have the parts, you have the aircrfat, you have the capacity but the aircraft is simply down for longer after XXX hours and requires a very large number of man hours per hour of flying. That is a reliability issue but most of the classic hornet woes are depot capacity, age, and flight_demands related and plenty of reports have been posted on this matter.

In case of the MiG-29Ks with the IN it appears that there were technical issues with virtually new aircraft, and a list of those have been provided by Karan a couple of days ago. It could very well be that a combination of technical reliability and logistics related issues could be contributing to low availability. This is something that one needs a deeper look at but as a technical matter its availability much like any aircraft is impacted by reliability, capacity to turn aircraft around which then in this case (since it was made in Russia) depends upon OEM logistical support and supply of adequate and timely spares and any related services. One can go deeper still in that OEM's, and even services that operate a large fleet of a particular aircraft (or any other military hardware) track and measure reliability and then turn around and bake that into their inventory for maintaining consumables required as per their availability requirements. You can either do it yourself or let an OEM data operation run the numbers for you and have them ensure adequate supply of parts and services for XX availability. One example of this is the Wing On Time requirement for the GEF414 where the USN contracts out the logistics with GE and GE is expected to ensure enough supply of spares to provide assured operations for the USN's engines. You can do this with increasing levels of accuracy if you have lot of systems on the field providing you data allowing you to optimize your models. Simply put, an OEM needs to know how fast the system's consumables will be used up under various operational and peacetime conditions so that they adjust their supply chain accordingly.

[Manish_P]

If today we were given the option of another Gorky class carrier,I would be against it,it would make little sense since other better designs are available unlike two decades ago when it was all we could get to retain our naval carrier aviation capability.

Exactly that, Sir!

Hence please refrain from using specious arguments to make a shortcoming seem like a virtue.

And yes, i could go along with the 'two decades ago when it was all we could get to retain our naval carrier aviation capability' part.

It is however another discussion/debate whether it would have been better to use that money to buy the navy more Subs and LRMP Aircraft... especially since, as you have so often been fond of pointing out, we have an unsinkable Aircraft Carrier - INS India

PS: @Chola - Yes, the Gorshkov has shortcomings, especially compared to the TFTA Khan metal, but he is 'Our' Vikramaditya now. Our flagship no less. And our sailors and other naval personnel will take do their best to coax out the best from him. So a humble request. Accord him due courtesy.

[Karthik S]

Keel laying ceremony of the third P-15B.

http://www.freepressjournal.in/fpjgalle ... .php?/8173

We can expect mid next year launch based on their speed with first two ships. P-15Bs look imposing.

[Cain Marko]

Comeon man, don't put words in my mouth and than argue against them. I said flankers are from USSR era u can't change that to MKI, a very specific flanker version, which is a hybrid 4Th gen aircraft.

Eh? Arrey saar, nobody is flying ussr era flanker so why bring up the strawman?

U ask what is pakfa - its a prototype, with limited future if any.

I suppose you expect the ruaf to just continue with pre 1980s stock forever? The very fact that they could churn such a program after the disaster of the 90s shows the priority accorded to that program. 9 pvs in 7 years for a 5g fighter is pretty good pace

[chola]

The PoS Gorshkov is a better carrier than the Viraat?

One request: it is not the Gorshkov anymore, but the INS Vikramaditya and flies our flag. At least give her that much respect. TIA.

When I'm calling it the PoS that it is, I REFUSE to follow that with the Indian name.

When I'm refering to it in a thread where we are NOT discussing its merits (or lack of) or where we are referring to men and women who serve on it then I will use its proper Bharati name.

[Aditya G]

chola, you need to calm down. Please assess the capabilities INS Vikramaditya brings to you and how it can be employed. Criticizing the ship is pointless beyond a point as every ship has its merits and demerits.

I'll quote a couple of my own posts on the subject.

A lot of people simply assume that a carrier has no utility in the Indo-Pak naval theatre. Further, we are simply no match for the chinese fleet and hence no point in having a carrier at all.

Pakistan Navy's strategy will be to create a safe zone close to their coastline to provide for security to their ports and ships. IN's objective will be to penetrate it by killing PN's ships and destroying their defences. This will be done by the surface navy sailing for the Paki coastline at different points. Both PN and PAF can challenge them as they will have 'home advantage'.

The Vikramaditya's captain claimed that he can provide a 250Km radius protective bubble around himself. I have juxtaposed the same against PN's cordon. Once can clearly see that Gwadar, Pasni, Ormara, Karachi will all be 'bottled up' by the carrier task force place in the northern Arabian Sea. When this happens prior to start of hostilities, it will have to weigh in on their planner's mind - hence power projection value of the carrier.

The carrier can also in this position counter any offensive moves by PN P-3s and PAF Mirages who will be looking to break out and attack Bombay High and Trombay.



Caveat: this is an amateur's analysis. Both IN and PN have better qualified people to decide what they have to do in war!

^ the requirements on a fighter carrier should be much higher than a plain helicopter carrier.

Fighters will be heavier and bigger to begin with, hence the lifts have to be powerful. With choppers you can afford a smaller fleet as well thanks to longer sortie times.

Vikramaditya is a good case study, as it was practically a helicopter cruiser. Converting it for fighters required a lot more changes

[Cain Marko]

No, No, the Vikad stinks, the migs can't fly.. That's why they plan to use them in the most extensive Malabar exercise ever.... Wonder what they are thinking...

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/with-eye ... ?site=full