Indian Naval Aviation

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.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7488
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 12 Aug 2019 20:01

Brar, there is a disconnect between what the Navy Chief (and senior Navy leadership) says and what the MoD is willing to fund. Your analysis is spot on, but the MoD does not see it that way.

So yes, multiple navy chiefs have said that a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier is the next carrier vessel. Those navy chiefs also wanted nuclear power. That proposal went to the MoD and got promptly shot down in 2017. The irony is neither the Navy (who wanted the nuclear reactor) nor the design authority (BARC) wanted to fund the development of a reactor. Most folks understand the value of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Obviously the MoD did not.

So now the design has shifted to a conventional design. It is still in the design phase at the Indian Naval Design Bureau. If the MoD approves, consider ourselves lucky. It not, good luck!

The present Vikrant costs $2.8 billion to date and the cost will only rise till commissioning. For arguments sake, lets say IAC-2 will be budgeted at $5 billion (nearly double that of IAC-1) and the cost eventually balloons to $10 billion upon commissioning. Highly possible, considering the inefficiency of Indian shipyards. Even if the cost does not rise, I can bet my life that the vessel will be seriously delayed. Very few vessels ever complete on time and on budget.

Now the navy has estimated that 57 carrier borne fighters will cost US $15 billion to acquire, which is obviously more than the cost of IAC-2 at either price point - $5 billion or $10 billion. Now most folks see the value of a carrier. Both F-18 and Rafale M are proven carrier borne platforms. The question is does the MoD see that? The first question the MoD Babu - who will have to approve the purchase - will ask is this;

* How can the plane be more expensive than the aircraft carrier?

At that stage, either the OEM lowers the cost (highly unlikely!) or the Navy reduces the number of aircraft it wants to acquire (highly possible). When the latter happens, the IN will have a vessel that will not achieve full potential, because the number of airframes available will be reduced.

The theories you have stated are all correct for a nation that sees the value of such a capability. In the case of India, that is not true. Of all the three services, the Navy gets a pittance in the annual defence budget.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby sankum » 12 Aug 2019 20:15

UK is buying 138 nos F 35B for two carriers with max airwing of 72 fighters.
If 45 Mig 29k are for INS Vikramaditya minimum new 36 fighters for INS Vikrant will be required.
Better we go for 46 NLCAmk2 by 2025 or be ready to shell out 5-6 billion dollar.
Last edited by sankum on 12 Aug 2019 20:24, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7488
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 12 Aug 2019 20:22

The best path, IMHO, is build a follow-on Vikrant Class vessel with larger lifts to accommodate F-18 Block III or Rafale M. Lay the keel now and she will be ready by the end of the 2020s.

By the mid 2020s, lay the keel of the first of two 65,000 ton (or higher) vessel with nuclear power (if such a reactor is ready) or conventional power. By 2030, when she is midway through construction and if budget permits, lay the keel of the second 65,000 ton vessel. By the mid 2030s, the first one should be ready. Retire the Vikramaditya at the point. By the early 2040s, the second 65,000 vessel should also be complete.

Why build one 40,000 ton vessel and then throw the design out the window? Why jump directly to 65,000 ton and cause un-necessary delays in Indian Naval air power? Why do we shoot ourselves in the foot like this every time?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 12 Aug 2019 20:23

Rakesh wrote:Brar, there is a disconnect between what the Navy Chief (and senior Navy leadership) says and what the MoD is willing to fund. Your analysis is spot on, but the MoD does not see it that way.

I don't think there is a disconnect as far as the IN request having been rejected and the IN sent back to the drawing board and asked to set requirements for smaller, less capable or cheaper Aircraft Carrier. As far as I can tell the IN is still pursuing the matter with the MOD just like it is still doing the same for the MRCBF program. No decision has, as far as I can tell, been made to accept or reject it so it is still pending.

Rakesh wrote:Now the navy has estimated that 57 carrier borne fighters will cost US $15 billion to acquire, which is obviously more than the cost of IAC-2 at either price point - $5 billion or $10 billion. Now most folks see the value of a carrier. Both F-18 and Rafale M are proven carrier borne platforms. The question is does the MoD see that? The first question the MoD Babu - who will have to approve the purchase - will ask is this;

Let's see how this plays out between the IN and the MOD. Certainly plenty to go before it is sealed and finalized (rejected or re-designed etc. etc.).

One would have imagined that a 65K carrier would have overcome/survived the "let's build another 45K ton" scrub during the Analysis of Alternatives before the request was developed further and matured [The USN did this very step as CVN-X/21 was one or two notches below the highest-performing design initially down-selected for the Ford program and through their analysis it was determined that the incremental capability offered by the two other designs could be part of the trade-space and traded for things like cost, schedule, complexity and alternate investments]. Usually there is an operational reason to seek a particular capability enhancement over the alternative. Most requirements analysis focuses on incremental requirements and measures that against the status quo to see if there is value add and if that value add is mission critical or can be included in the trade space. The Nuclear vs Non-Nuclear debate was not as significant as you can achieve nearly the same performance with non-nuclear propulsion considerations (the UK already did that analysis for EMALS working with the US Navy when it was considering the trade-offs). The upper bounds of the capability (size of carrier, size of air-wing, launch mechanism etc. etc.) is probably more crucial to how it deals with the threat in an offensive and defensive orientation.

Jumping form a 45K carrier to a 65K ton carrier makes total sense if it is an operationally based decision and if the 45K ton was a springboard for a higher capability. The IN may turn around and choose to invest the money elsewhere if it feels another 45K ton is not as significant a value add in the post 2030 world as other alternatives (like surface vessels, subs etc. etc.) so it is all relative and I'm sure it will work with the MOD to see if it can get what it needs and if not find a suitable alternative strategy or investment track.

sankum wrote:UK is buying 138 nos F 35B for two carriers with max airwing of 72 fighters.
If 45 Mig 29k are for INS Vikramaditya minimum new 36 fighters for INS Vikrant will be required.
Better we go for 46 NLCAmk2 by 2025 or be ready to shell out 5-6 billion dollar.


UK's F-35B's aren't all meant to be for the carriers. They are mixed used assets that are to be used by the RAF/RN combo from the carriers and land. I also doubt they'll buy 138 B's. I think their B purchase will be closer to around 80 with any incremental purchase beyond that being for the more capable (and cheaper) F-35A for land based use. Their last Typhoon delivery is happening quite soon and the Tempest will come with its own sticker shock as they attempt to leap frog from 4.5 generation territory to 5.5 generation territory without having a full fledged 5th gen. fighter program to keep the designers/developers/industry busy. The inteirm gaps will be filled by block 4+ F-35A's IMHO.

While they haven't come out and outright said it, most believe that their 2-carrier force will only be funded so that one carrier is deployable organically and a two-carrier deployment (concurrent) being with a mixed RN-USMC crew and aircraft. They've had to cut quite a bit in order to protect that second carrier.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7488
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 13 Aug 2019 00:16

brar_w wrote:I don't think there is a disconnect as far as the IN request having been rejected and the IN sent back to the drawing board and asked to set requirements for smaller, less capable or cheaper Aircraft Carrier.

Successive navy chiefs have been talking about the Vishal being nuclear powered for quite a while now. One would imagine that such a decision would have passed muster at the MoD before such a discussion - even informally - was occurring in public.

Navy drops cherished dream of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2017/10/ ... clear.html
27 Oct 2017

The navy, which was eager to incorporate nuclear propulsion for INS Vishal, has been told by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) that it would take 15-20 years to develop a nuclear reactor powerful enough for an aircraft carrier, incorporating features to protect it from the corrosive and dynamic marine environment.

BARC has successfully developed a 190 Megawatt (MW) reactor for India’s fleet of four-to-six nuclear propelled, nuclear missile carrying submarines, of which the first – INS Arihant – has already been commissioned. However, INS Vishal would require a reactor capable of generating at least 500-550 MW. That means developing a brand new, miniaturised reactor, ruggedized against a marine environment.

Nor is such a 550 MW reactor in the development pipeline, because of a dispute over who will pay the bill. Says an indignant navy admiral: “BARC wants us to place a ‘developmental contract’ to fund the reactor’s development. Why should we do that?”

========================================================================

brar_w wrote:As far as I can tell the IN is still pursuing the matter with the MOD just like it is still doing the same for the MRCBF program. No decision has, as far as I can tell, been made to accept or reject it so it is still pending.

Pursuing the matter - in the hallowed halls of the MoD - will take a long time.

And a decision has been made on the budget - or the lack thereof - for the IAC-2 vessel by the MoD.

Please see links below.

========================================================================

brar_w wrote:Let's see how this plays out between the IN and the MOD. Certainly plenty to go before it is sealed and finalized (rejected or re-designed etc. etc.).

One would have imagined that a 65K carrier would have overcome/survived the "let's build another 45K ton" scrub during the Analysis of Alternatives before the request was developed further and matured

65,000 tonne has been torpedoed to the bottom of the ocean, for now. Here is a good example of what the Navy Chief says and how the MoD goes in the opposite direction.

'India will continue to have edge over China in aircraft carriers'
https://www.theweek.in/theweek/current/ ... india.html
22 Dec 2018

Q. And the next aircraft carrier?

A. Capability assessment for building IAC-2, a CATOBAR carrier of 65,000 tonnes, has been undertaken. India can design and build it. The matter is under deliberation at the ministry for accord of acceptance of necessity (AoN).

Less than six months later, this is the story...

Budgetary woes put India’s super-carrier “INS Vishal” on hold
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/05/ ... rrier.html
06 May 2019

INS Vishal was conceived as a 65,000 tonne aircraft carrier, embarking 55 aircraft and costing Rs 60,000 crore. After the MoD objected to the cost, the navy downsized the proposal to a 50,000-tonne carrier costing about Rs 50,000 crore. But the MoD remains unwilling to accord funding or sanction.

Forget nuclear power and 65,000 tonne, the MoD is not even willing to fund a 50,000 tonne, conventionally-powered, aircraft carrier. And if this is the MoD's attitude, where is the money going to come from for 57 carrier borne fighters which will cost $15 billion?

And as per the new Naval Chief - Admiral Karambir Singh - this is what he has to say on IAC-2.

Need long-term fiscal support to build Navy: Admiral Karambir Singh
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 707953.ece
25 July 2019

On the proposed second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-II), which has been on the drawing board for sometime but has not been approved by the government yet, Adm. Singh said he could not give any timeline.

The reason why the good Admiral cannot provide any timeline, because that file is sitting on some desk in the MoD and will continue to sit there for a long while. What can he honestly say, other than repeat what his predecessors have been saying?

Need to watch China’s global ambitions & respond within existing budget, says Navy chief
https://theprint.in/defence/need-to-wat ... ef/267899/
25 July 2019

“Our plan is to build a 65,000 tonne with possibly electric propulsion and catapult assisted take off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) so that if we have three aircraft carriers, we can have two operational at any given time,” he said.

To be fair to your line of argument, a 65K tonne vessel is still very much on the cards as of last month. And this is from the new Naval Chief. However, the title of the article makes one wonder if the MoD sees the value of this project. In the same article, Admiral Singh states that shipbuilding is perceived as a drain on the economy. And it is easily guessed where he got feedback that from.

========================================================================

brar_w wrote:[The USN did this very step as CVN-X/21 was one or two notches below the highest-performing design initially down-selected for the Ford program and through their analysis it was determined that the incremental capability offered by the two other designs could be part of the trade-space and traded for things like cost, schedule, complexity and alternate investments]. Usually there is an operational reason to seek a particular capability enhancement over the alternative. Most requirements analysis focuses on incremental requirements and measures that against the status quo to see if there is value add and if that value add is mission critical or can be included in the trade space. The Nuclear vs Non-Nuclear debate was not as significant as you can achieve nearly the same performance with non-nuclear propulsion considerations (the UK already did that analysis for EMALS working with the US Navy when it was considering the trade-offs). The upper bounds of the capability (size of carrier, size of air-wing, launch mechanism etc. etc.) is probably more crucial to how it deals with the threat in an offensive and defensive orientation.

A very good example which works in a nation that sees the value of aircraft carriers and the diplomacy that can be wielded from them. The USN proposes something and by & large the project goes ahead. Is that the same story in our MoD?

Budgetary woes put India’s super-carrier “INS Vishal” on hold
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/05/ ... rrier.html
06 May 2019

“The outgoing government has put this on the back burner. But this will be one of the most pressing procurement decisions on the incoming government’s plate,” says a recently retired admiral.

This article was written in early May 2019 and the new govt has got its hands full on six Project 75I boats, 114 MRFA, 111 NUH, etc. With the exception of P75I, the govt wants to show quicker results. They will likely punt this decision on IAC-2 till those projects are completed. It is not just the senior leadership of the Navy that has the Govt's ear. The bureaucrats in the MoD also have a strong voice, if not greater. The Govt listens to them as well.

brar_w wrote:Jumping form a 45K carrier to a 65K ton carrier makes total sense if it is an operationally based decision and if the 45K ton was a springboard for a higher capability. The IN may turn around and choose to invest the money elsewhere if it feels another 45K ton is not as significant a value add in the post 2030 world as other alternatives (like surface vessels, subs etc. etc.) so it is all relative and I'm sure it will work with the MOD to see if it can get what it needs and if not find a suitable alternative strategy or investment track.

From an operational perspective, you are correct. But the MoD has to fund it no?

One possible (& likely) scenario will be this. Like Project 75I, this file will move at a snail's pace. Nothing of significance will happen other than bureaucratic language being fed to the media every now and then. When PLAN carriers start operating - likes fleas - in the Indian Ocean, then the fire will be lit under the MoD and that is when the file will move. Same scenario as is happening with Project 75I. As per Admiral Lanba himself, construction will start in three years and the vessel will take 7 - 10 years to complete. See link below...

Sea trials of IAC Vikrant likely to begin in 2020: Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 653678.ece
03 Dec 2018

Making a strong pitch for a second IAC, he said, “Case for a second IAC has received necessary impetus, though it is still a decade away. Construction would be spread over 7-10 years. We will see the start of construction in three years.” Adm. Lanba said addressing the annual press conference on Monday, on the eve of the Navy Day.

Assuming the project gets the MoD sanction in 2020, construction will start in 2023. And there is no way that vessel will be ready in 7 years by 2030. More like the mid 2030s is more like it. And that is if the project gets MoD sanction in 2020. It will be delayed, like every other naval project in India.

But I hope your scenario turns out to be true though. I truly hope so.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2627
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby JTull » 13 Aug 2019 00:26

Hmm! Sad day that The Hindu, Ajai Shukla, NDTV, etc are now effectively controlling the narrative

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7488
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 13 Aug 2019 00:29

JTull, I hope the links I provided are incorrect. But knowing the MoD's penchant for not sanctioning large scale projects, this is not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Whatever their agendas may be (and they do indeed have agendas), the proof is in the pudding.

Both Navy chiefs - one former and the present one - have made some bold statements or said some alarming things about this project to date. If those statements (that I provided) are untrue, then obviously everything is hunky dory. But the Navy has not provided any rebuttal on those news articles/interviews to date. Therefore those statements are valid then.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7488
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 13 Aug 2019 02:50

I think Saurav Jha Sir is following this thread, because he just tweeted this two hours ago! What are the odds of that!

=================================================================

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1160988033434284033 ---> Wrote this last year, as to why the Indian Navy won't be getting a 65k carrier anytime soon, and what it could do instead.

Navy’s eagerness to buy $20 billion aircraft carrier cuts into funds for Army & Air Force
https://theprint.in/opinion/navys-eager ... ce/108323/
30 Aug 2018

Why has the Indian Navy been so eager to acquire a new 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier, putatively called INS Vishal, for north of $20 billion? Many would perhaps find the Indian Navy’s enthusiasm a little strange at a time when the service is desperately short of submarines and ship-borne helicopters. The answer to the above question lies in the fact that large aircraft carriers with an on-board launch system, especially of the kind the Indian Navy wants to build, offer unmatched utility for a variety of tasks ­including anti-submarine warfare (ASW), despite the aforementioned vulnerabilities. However, the price tag for INS Vishal has made the ministry of defence (MoD) chary of giving it the go ahead. It has been almost a year since the proposal began circulating in the MoD’s decision chain, but is yet to secure even an ‘in principle’ approval.

Indications are that this proposal is unlikely to see serious bureaucratic movement before 2022. This would mean that INS Vishal will be ready for commissioning only by around 2040, given the standard building time in India. The Indian Navy’s cherished dream of operating a three-carrier naval force by the 2030s, with one carrier each being available for either seaboard at all times, appears unlikely to be realised.

Unsurprisingly, quality comes at a price. Although the Indian Navy has dropped its earlier plans of making INS Vishal nuclear-propelled, the projected cost of the ship alone is easily in the $10-billion range and that is as of today.

Double my low-end estimate of a meagre $5 billion for the Vishal.

Judging by the IAF’s Rafale deal, the proposed air group consisting of either Rafales or F-18s will cost another $12 billion or so. Simply put, with its current price tag, INS Vishal project is unlikely to see light of the day anytime soon when both the Army and the Air Force are equipping themselves for possibly fighting an ‘intense’ 10-15 day limited war with either of India’s neighbours.

The Navy had budgeted the deal for 57 carrier borne fighters for Rs 95,000 crore (which is close to US $13.33 billion as of today's exchange rates).

Indeed, a case could be made for building a more modest INS Vishal, which would basically be an enlarged INS Vikrant and would host a group of indigenous LCA-Navy Mark 2 fighters that are currently under development. To be sure, this option might not easily find favour with the Navy, which obviously does not want the Vishal to be just a modest step-up from its current carriers. Nonetheless, a more limited INS Vishal can be built relatively quickly and economically by CSL, which is currently setting up a new dry dock suitable for building super-carriers.

For now, the Navy can consider setting up a ‘joint project body’ with the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on the lines of ‘Project Akanksha’, which oversees India’s nuclear submarine projects, to commence construction on a large nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the late 2020s. By that time, New Delhi will likely be able to afford it.

What many are arguing that the Navy should do.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6895
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby nachiket » 13 Aug 2019 03:28

Rakesh wrote:Brar, there is a disconnect between what the Navy Chief (and senior Navy leadership) says and what the MoD is willing to fund. Your analysis is spot on, but the MoD does not see it that way.

I sometimes wonder if the disconnect is more widespread. There are a lot of decisions taken by the IN and/or MoD which flummox me, with the caveat that I am only a layman (and perhaps too ignorant to question them). Here are a few -

1. The insistence on Brahmos VLS for the P-75I which delayed even the start of the program for years. It is incredibly difficult to achieve on a small SSK, and no ready-solution existed anywhere (beyond the pie-in-the-sky Amur model that Philip saar loves). Now it seems (and I hope) they have dropped that requirement.

2. The decision to cap the Shivalik procurement at 3. And then eventually having to run to the Russians for the Grigorovich class.

3. The rather low number of VLS cells (for SAMs not Brahmos) on the P-15A and B compared to their overall size.

4. The elevator size decision on the IAC-1. And now the attempts to somehow integrate a larger fighter on it instead of buying more Mig-29Ks (here of course I am taking all the assurances given to me by various posters that everything is hunky-dory with the 29K's now, at face-value :mrgreen: ).

5. The plans for the EMALS equipped nuclear powered carrier that had even usually gung-ho BRF jingos questioning its financial viability.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4108
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Aug 2019 08:23

If we look holistically Bharat as one entity buying arms, then buying Twin Engine Medium weight fighters for Navy seems like a criminal waste of money and resources.

IAF needed 126 + 63 Rafale for fighting 2 front war against China and Porkstan. But instead GOI found they didn't have even money for 126 Rafale. We had to be contend buying 18 + 18 = 36 Rafale for two airbases 1 airbase for porkis and 1 airbase for chinees.

Most of War against these 2 enemies will be fought over Himalays, plains of Punjab, deserts of Rajasthan and Gujarat. This is where enemy will try to do as much damage and land grab as possible, we will have to try to do the same. Every bit of money and resources will be needed in these places.

Buying 57 foriegn jets for navy will be wastage of money:
1.) Naval Fighters are more money intensive as they age fast due to salty sea wind and humidity. Controlled crash landing them again and again also eats into airframe life. Their landing gear etc. needs to be heavier and strengthened thus they are not able to lift as much ordinance as IAF fighters. Many times they might have to jettison weaponery and fuel to land on Aircraft carrier, serious profligacy.

2.) Not much chance of chinese carriers crossing malacca straits and coming to fight here, even if they manage they'll be ambushed by Kilos and Kalaveris. Plus Sulur based Tejas or MKIs topped by Il 78 tankers can go and swat down inferior Su 33s.

3.) In future USA might put tremendous pressure upon GOI and commandeer this aircraft career for its own wars, specially incase we have a IMF deputed Prime Minister like Manmohan Singh OR Raghu Ram Rajan (you never know).

Navy seems to hate being in ocean, but want to be in skies, they shouldn't forget they are Navy not Airforce. God knows how many of Boeing employees mainting P8i aircrafts might be from US naval intelligence OR Culinery Institute of America.

IMAGINE THESE 57 Rafale, WILL BE HAVING MORE AVAILABILITY LESS MAINTENCE HUNGRY, HAVE MORE CAPABILITY TO LIFT MORE ORDINANCE, AND WILL BE USED ACTUALLY IN REAL BATTLEFIELD by the Air Force not navy.

In his first term Modi had gone to INS Vikramaditya to see Mig 29 operations, guess what no Mig 29 landed OR took off. Disappointed PMO asked navy in written why Mig 29s didn't display any activity? Navy reported "weather didn't permit operations", The truth is Aircraft carrier fighters won't have much availability due to weather/parts junked due to salty sea env.

It'll be total waste of money.

Only IAF deserves MMRCA, Navy must make do with Naval Tejas and later with N-AMCA.
Last edited by Manish_Sharma on 13 Aug 2019 09:29, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16284
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby NRao » 13 Aug 2019 08:37

* POOF *
Last edited by Rakesh on 13 Aug 2019 19:28, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Nonsensical post that adds no value to the discussion

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19935
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Philip » 13 Aug 2019 10:36

The large grand Vishal and her 57 birds aren't going to materialise soon.It will beggar not only the IN's budget but also the sister services. A modified sister ship to the new Vikrant is doable and passable, but even that CV will by our building and budgetary rate arrive around 2030.Equipped with larger lifts its aircraft aboard could be decided around 2025.As said many a time, we have unsinkable INS India and INS A&N from where land based aircraft with tanker support can sanitise both seaboards and choke points.A small sqd. of Backfires alone would be quite devastating armed with dozens of BMos variants in the future, able to sink any CBG ingressing into the IOR. For amphib. support , a revised deck design, similar to the IAC-1 and NLCAs could do the business.

A few years ago a well-known defence expert and I were discussing the P-75I specs and were sceptical of the planned conv. boat armed to the gills like an SSN, trying to duplicate its role.
If the demand for VLS BMos has been dumped, a sigh of relief!
Smaller BMos- NG is planned for the future and Klub/ Kalibir/Nirbhay ( to be A new longer- range anti- sub missile has supposedly been developed by Ru., than the existing RPK-7/ Stallion, which is quite lethal itself.The Q is the AIP system chosen- one always has a Q mark over a DRDO system ( timeframe) especially one that has never been tested aboard a sub, quite different from doing it ashore in a test tank whatever. With AIP an endurance of 60 days should be fine for the SSK with at least 8 to 12 subs planned not just 6.We need numbers, at least 24 conv. boats in addition to our N-subs, at least 12 SSBNs and SSGN/SSNs.

What is also needed are several UUVs which will greatly assist the fleet in UW detection.The USN has also developed a surface unmanned vessel that can loiter for months in surveillance ops. This is an area where we have much to acquire in technology.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7488
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 19 Aug 2019 20:57

X-Post from the MMRCA thread....

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

Committed To Create An Aerospace Ecosystem In India: Leanne Caret, President & CEO, Boeing Defence Space & Security
http://www.businessworld.in/article/Com ... 19-174586/

Q. Tell us about Boeing’s offer of Super Hornet for the MMRCA 2.0 and how do you intend to make the proposal to the Indian government. Can you highlight the new elements in your proposal that set you apart from the competitors?

A. Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III is the newest capability that we are offering to the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy, and how we approach ‘Make in India’ underscores our proven track record of keeping our promises and our commitment to a long-term partnership. The Super Hornet is the frontline multi-role fighter of navies and air forces around the world and is the most modern and the stealthiest aircraft in the competition. The US Navy recently awarded Boeing a three-year contract for 78 F/A-18 new Block III Super Hornets. Its technology insertions keep outpacing future threats for decades. The Super Hornet offers affordable stealth because it is designed to be more reliable and therefore costs far less to operate than other fighters. The Block III adds extensive capability upgrades that include enhanced network capacity, longer range, even better stealth performance, an advanced cockpit system and new sensors, with the life of the aircraft extended from 6,000 hours to 10,000 hours.

With the Super Hornet, the Indian Navy would not just get the most advanced platform but also tremendously benefit from US Navy’s know-how, technology and tactics. These would be transformative for India and further the defence partnership between India and the United States. Besides, we are excited about the public-private partnership that will bring together Boeing, Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) and Mahindra’s global scale, manufacturing and supply chain expertise as we build an entirely new advanced manufacturing facility in India. This facility, when completed, will be a state-of-the-art fighter production facility addressing the infrastructure, personnel training, and operational tools and techniques required to produce a next-gen fighter aircraft in India.

Q. The government is also working on the indigenous AMCA programme and expects the winner of MMRCA to contribute. How does that work for Boeing?

A. The key to a successful ‘Make in India’ programme is building a globally competitive fighter manufacturing base. But doing this takes time and investment. Boeing has already started working with Indian industry and customers over the last few decades to do this. Boeing’s approach to building a 21st-century ecosystem for the F/A-18 Super Hornet in India is based on over a decade of our industrial commitment in India. We have been sourcing structural and electrical sub-systems from the Indian supply chain for our F/A-18 Super Hornets for years. Manufacturing fighter aircraft requires a modern production process including precision manufacturing, and if the F/A-18 is selected by India, there will be an additional investments that we will make to build the aerospace ecosystem. For this reason, the F/A-18 co-produced in India in a factory-of-the-future would be the most suited for AMCA programme.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Karthik S, LakshmanPST, prasannasimha, pravula, Shakthi and 68 guests