Indian Naval Aviation

[chetak]

watch stabilization in nature.

Humans didn't invent or discover it.

stabilization has existed since time immemorial. We simply adapted it

It takes a lot of very expensive electronics, gyros, hydraulics and/or electric motors to do this.

The Hawk's head is rock steady.



twitter

Hawk's head stabilization


https://twitter.com/WhoaInteresting/sta ... 8765039616

[Kartik]

What a gorgeous shot! IN P-8I Neptune.

Twitter link

[Indranil]

Absolutely gorgeous. That is going straight to my desktop!

[brar_w]

This is the best P-8 image I've ever seen. Now only if someone photo-shopped 4 LRASM's for those 4 Harpoons

[Manish_P]

Oh. What a graceful plane. Absolutely lovely shot. Any idea what was the shooting platform?

[vcsekhar]

What a gorgeous shot! IN P-8I Neptune.

Twitter link

What an awesome shot of the P8I, will have to make it my wallpaper

Did anyone notice the cable streaming out of the vertical stabilizer top? is that a towed decoy or a ELF antenna to communicate with undersea subs? If you observe carefully, you will see it come out of the bump on top of the fin.

cheers

[tandav]

Forgot to put the IN roundel on the F/A-18E single seater peeling away.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/122 ... 90117?s=20 ---> So, Boeing's Def Expo 2020 art features a pair of Super Hornets with 'नौसेना' (Indian Navy) on the tail. The F/A-18 goes up against the Dassault Rafale M for a prospective 57 carrier-borne fighter deal; vendor discussions began 2 years ago ---> https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/01 ... sault.html

Only advantage I see is the GE 414 which powers both LCA and F-18. But given that the Rafale is already in the IAF I would prefer the M88 powered Rafale for the naval arm. The Rafale seems to beat the F-18 in all parameters it appears.

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... it=COMPARE

[brar_w]

The Rafale seems to beat the F-18 in all parameters it appears.

No not all parameters. Perhaps those that matter more to the IAF. The F-18 Block III will in many ways be more potent than the Rafale. One area is going to be the diversity of weapons across different mission sets ranging from Anti-ship missiles, to SEAD/DEAD and deploying and coordinating with loyal wingman. Boeing/USN/USMC are already demonstrating the latter (demo's have been going on for a number of years) while the French and the Germans are trying to put ink on agreements that will tie them up in R&D over the next decade or two. Another area will be range/payload with the CFT's. It frees up drop tanks and provides a more optimized way to carry additional fuel (you use more of that "external" fuel because of less drag) though again its utility to the IAF may vary given combat scenarios. The SH also has a larger AESA radar and a more advanced cockpit.

In other areas the Rafale is going to be ahead and in some cases possibly much ahead (like supersonic envelope). The Rafale in MMRCA 1.0 could tout a more optimized long-range BVR weapon in the Meteor. That is no longer the case now. The problem is the cost. That will essentially make a "fair" comparison impossible unless requirements are drastically altered by the IAF to allow for it. The India Specific Equipment and upgrades, and the bed-down of the aircraft in India represents fixed cost investment that essentially guarantees that the Rafale will be the cheapest overall aircraft to acquire and bed-down even though it may end up being towards the top end in terms of unit acquisition cost.

[Rakesh]

In addition to what brar said, unless the Rafale can fit in the widths of the lift of the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant....Rafale being superior versus any other platform is moot.

[JTull]

Is that some kind of tethered sensor from top of the vertical stabiliser?

[Shameek]

^^ That part on top of the tail is the INMARSAT antenna system.

This link has some details. Link

[brar_w]

Whether the IN gets funds sanctioned for these imports or not, Boeing seems to be taking this seriously -

Boeing All Set To Prove F/A-18 Off Ski-Jump For Indian Navy

Boeing has signaled it will be conducting first test-launches of the F/A-18 Super Hornet from a shore-based ski jump in the United States as the culmination of a long-standing message to the Indian Navy that the American aircraft would be compatible with Indian aircraft carriers.

The Super Hornet currently operates using a steam catapult system on U.S. aircraft carriers, and has never operated from ski jumps that are standard fit on the Indian Navy’s current aircraft carriers INS Vikramaditya and it’s next aircraft carrier the indigenous Vikrant.

At the ongoing Def Expo show in Lucknow, India, Boeing executives indicated that a Super Hornet could undertake ski-jump launch tests soon — likely at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. In the past, it is understood that a legacy F-18 Hornet and F-14 Tomcat have both completed ski-jmp tests at the Maryland facility. More recently, a Lockheed-Martin F-35B used the ski-jump for launch trials.Boeing’s F/A-18 is being pitched both as a carrier based fighter to the Indian Navy for a prospective requirement of 57 jets, as well as to the Indian Air Force in an upcoming contest to build 114 of a chosen fighter type in India with a strategic private partner. Boeing has centred its offer around a ‘Factory of the Future’ message, detailed in an earlier report here.

The Indian Navy’s requirement, widely expected to be a face-off between the F/A-18 and Rafale-M, is theoretically for a planned ‘flat top’ aircraft carrier that will be built after the new Vikrant. However, Boeing’s move to prove the Super Hornet on a ski jump carrier is clearly an effort to establish the aircraft’s so far theoretical compatibility with at least the launch configuration of India’s currently and next carrier. Underscoring its pitch to the Indian Navy, Boeing customised concept art for the Def Expo show that depicted a pair of Super Hornets with नौसेना on their fins.

[sajaym]

Rafale is already in the IAF I would prefer the M88 powered Rafale for the naval arm.

The India Specific Equipment and upgrades, and the bed-down of the aircraft in India represents fixed cost investment that essentially guarantees that the Rafale will be the cheapest overall aircraft to acquire and bed-down even though it may end up being towards the top end in terms of unit acquisition cost.

It is for these reasons I feel that IN's 57 jet requirement should be a combined defence services call. CDS needs to weigh in here and combine the IAF 114 + IN 57 = 171 birds order. 171 divided by 18 is roughly 9.5 squadrons. If we can buy the Rafale and use them with combined control (IAF & IN) like the Apaches (IAF & IA), we can may be settle for a lesser combined total of 108 birds (6 squadrons -- 3 squadrons Rafale and 3 squadrons Rafale M). Since we are already used to the concept of Maritime strike Jaguars, SU-30MKI with Brahmos, there is nothing different with land based Rafales helping out in IN's Area of Responsibility. Only thing is that the Rafales will have to be based in South India.

[brar_w]

It isn't as straight forward as that. First the IN has to determine that both those 2 proposals can actually operate from IN's carriers. If both can, the IN must determine which one meets or exceeds its requirements for operating off of them etc. If you combine the requirements, what happens if both the aircraft only marginally meet the IN's needs? Does the IAF then go for a combined MiG-35 purchase?

[Rakesh]

Below is now a moot point. Read the posts above.

It is for these reasons I feel that IN's 57 jet requirement should be a combined defence services call. CDS needs to weigh in here and combine the IAF 114 + IN 57 = 171 birds order. 171 divided by 18 is roughly 9.5 squadrons. If we can buy the Rafale and use them with combined control (IAF & IN) like the Apaches (IAF & IA), we can may be settle for a lesser combined total of 108 birds (6 squadrons -- 3 squadrons Rafale and 3 squadrons Rafale M). Since we are already used to the concept of Maritime strike Jaguars, SU-30MKI with Brahmos, there is nothing different with land based Rafales helping out in IN's Area of Responsibility. Only thing is that the Rafales will have to be based in South India.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12243 ... 46112?s=20 ----> The Navy has said, it prefers twin engine. IAF is ok with single engine. Both SHQs have somewhat similar requirements. A common baseline platform may be beneficial. (Rafale, for ex).The tender is yet to be floated. Looking at the tender, one may be able to make some guesses.

[Ankit Desai]

India readying $2.6 billion US naval helicopter deal ahead of Donald Trump's trip

NEW DELHI: India is set to give final approval to a $2.6 billion deal for military helicopters from US defence firm Lockheed Martin ahead of a proposed visit by US President Donald Trump this month, defence and industry sources said.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is trying to pull out all the stops for Trump’s trip in a bid to reaffirm strategic ties between the two countries, which have been buffeted by sharp differences over trade, to counter China.

India’s defence purchases from the United States have reached $17 billion since 2007 as it has pivoted away from traditional supplier Russia, looking to modernise its military and narrow the gap with China.

Modi’s cabinet committee on security is expected to clear the purchase of 24 MH-60R Seahawk helicopters for the Indian navy in the next two weeks, a defence official and an industry source briefed on the matter separately told Reuters.

“It’s a government-to-government deal, it is close,” said the industry source.

To cut short lengthy negotiations between Lockheed and the Indian government, the helicopters that will be deployed on India’s warships will be bought through the US foreign military sales route, under which the two governments will agree details of the deal.

Trump is expected in India around Feb 24 on his first official visit to the country, although no formal announcement has yet been made.

Both countries are separately working on a limited trade agreement ahead of the trip, after earlier imposing tit-for-tat tariffs on each other’s imports.

Trump has called India the “tariff king of the world” but the Modi government has been trying to address some of his concerns.

Trade officials have pointed to large-scale US arms purchases, from surveillance planes to Apache and Chinook helicopters, as proof of India’s willingness to tighten strategic ties.

The multirole helicopters will be equipped with Hellfire missiles and are meant to help the Indian navy track submarines in the Indian Ocean, where China is expanding its presence.

Many of India’s warships are without any helicopters because of years of underfunding, and the navy had sought their acquisition as a top priority.

The government outlined only a modest rise in its 2020/21 defence spending to $73.65 billion in the budget on Feb. 1, of which a part will go towards making a down payment on the helicopter purchase, a defence official said.

“We expect a positive announcement soon on the helicopters,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of service rules. “There are limited resources, but there is an allocation.”

The US State Department approved the sale of the choppers to India last year along with radars, torpedoes and 10 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles.

The clearance came after the Trump administration rolled out a new “Buy American” plan in 2018 that had relaxed restrictions on sales, saying it would bolster the American defence industry and create jobs at home.

The United States has also offered India the armed version of Guardian drones that were originally authorized for sale as unarmed for surveillance purposes, the first such approval for a country outside the NATO alliance.

India plans to buy 30 of these unmanned aircraft for surveillance of the Indian Ocean, at a cost estimated to be about $2.5 billion, from General Atomics. However, the defence official said the deal is unlikely immediately because of lack of funds.

[Rakesh]

Very happy to read this. The MH-60R will serve the IN ably for many decades to come. We need new ASW choppers like yesterday!

[Cain Marko]

Very happy to read this. The MH-60R will serve the IN ably for many decades to come. We need new ASW choppers like yesterday!

Those armed sea guardians and p8s sound good too

[Philip]

I thought the MH-60R deal was long sealed! How slowly the MOD moves. Dreadful. ASW helos for the IN are long overdue.We must first conclude decisions on the two remaining helo reqs. for the IN,the ASW multi-role helo, plus the naval LUH for our existing fleet before thinking about 50+ more navdl fighters.

Coming back to the CV debate, even the UK can't afford to operate both its new QE2 CVs. Lack of funds as well as escort numbers. Leveraging our land mass and islands as "unsinkable" carriers is an absolute MUST for the IN.Historically little islands proved their worth in gold in the past.Malta for example in WW2, where allied aircraft sank huge tonnage of merchantmen supplying Rommel.Island hopping in the Pacific saw the US advance towards Japan.Pearl Harbour and Guam, etc, allows the US to dominate the Pacific. The lack of enough material support was primarily why the Afrika Korps were pushed right back from El Alamein and were defeated in N.Africa.

Yes, static land bases for aircraft do not have the mobility of CVs, we are all agreed upon that.However in the IN's case, we do NOT have an expeditionary warfare agenda as of now and very unlikely to have one even a decade hence. Sanitizing the IOR and keeping the chokepoints as tight as a flea's bunghole is the primary task of the IN.Said ad nauseam ,supersonic LRM strike birds will complement our two CVs v.well and from the islands and/or with refuelling ,be able to conduct strikes even in the ICS and beyond. The need for a supersonic LR strat/maritime strike bomber is long overdue and the IN must acquire the same. A strong sub fleet equipped with both AIP subs and SSGNs/ SSNs will be required to desl with the large numbers of PLAN and PN sub forces too.

Options therefore with small budgets are limited to leveraging the design of the planned amphibs to operate the NLCA ,building a smaller stretched variant of IAC-1 or offering to buy/ lease the PoW if Britain is so inclined.The cost would be around $5 B for the ship with some mods for STOBAR or CATOBAR ops as we are most unlikely to operate the JSF for a variety of reasons. Add to that the aircraft and helo complement (60) and you get another $5B added. The minimum for acquiring such a vessel would be in the region of $10 to $12 billion. The entire fleet of 6 SSNs (a higher priority) could be acquired for the same cost! Why the third carrier is unlikely to get the green light anytime soon, or even if the programme is flagged off, the vessel won't arrive in this decade. A long time for new carrier aircraft both manned and unmanned to make their debut.

[Manish_Sharma]

^ You never want us to build anything ourselves.

We must buy from either one of your beloved nations brishit or russia.

Why we should buy brishit aircraft carrier and feed their treasury? Importing importing importing...

[kit]

^ You never want us to build anything ourselves.

We must buy from either one of your beloved nations brishit or russia.

Why we should buy brishit aircraft carrier and feed their treasury? Importing importing importing...

the brits have really smelt blood here ..witness them going like a hound after the AC deal

[Rakesh]

Very happy to read this. The MH-60R will serve the IN ably for many decades to come. We need new ASW choppers like yesterday!

Those armed sea guardians and p8s sound good too

I know of 4 additional P-8Is that have been ordered + another 6 more being planned. 18 P-8Is will give the IN a formidable surveillance capability in the Indian Ocean. Those Sea Guardians are nice, but not being ordered this year due to lack of funds. Hopefully next year. Keep the "Donald" happy

[srin]

So if Navy is unlikely to get its 57 fighters, will the existing 45 Mig 29Ks be enough once INS Vikrant also gets commissioned?

How many aircraft can be accommodated on Vikramaditya and Vikrant together ? Wiki uncle says 26 fixed wing aircraft each, but I'm not sure if that is for peace time or wartime surge.

[Vivek K]

^ You never want us to build anything ourselves.

We must buy from either one of your beloved nations brishit or russia.

Why we should buy brishit aircraft carrier and feed their treasury? Importing importing importing...

Manish - commissions from such large sales must be good. In 1857 the soldiers that put the revolt down - were they British or Indian? That should help answer your question.

[brar_w]

So if Navy is unlikely to get its 57 fighters, will the existing 45 Mig 29Ks be enough once INS Vikrant also gets commissioned?

How many aircraft can be accommodated on Vikramaditya and Vikrant together ? Wiki uncle says 26 fixed wing aircraft each, but I'm not sure if that is for peace time or wartime surge.

Are 44 MiG-29K's sufficient for two carriers? It depends on what the deployment schedules looks like, what other duties are tasked to those aircraft and whether any residual land based round the clock needs those fighters provide. A fleet of 44 aircraft that has 20% of the aircraft down at any given time can generate about 35 deployable aircraft. Assuming that a few two seat trainers don't deploy that is enough for one carrier with some reserves provided they can be cycled back and forth without impacting readiness or training. But it is a rather small fleet for a two carrier force.

[Deans]

Whatever happened with the Naval version of the Tejas ? Getting a Naval Rafale will take far longer.

[Rakesh]

^^^ Where have you been since Jan 2020?

Go Here ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7790

Check out the videos in the first post of the above thread and read all the posts from Page 1 to 9 in the thread as well.

[Philip]

Manish,IF we want another CV so desperately,and fast,there is no other option but to buy/lease a firang carrier. The RN have built 2 QE2s but can barely operate even one of them given the downsizing of the fleet.
Pease read all my posts before posting.I've always preferred a stretched sister ship to IAC-1 with larger lifts to accommodate future-gen. naval fighters.

However, a future desi CV will take at least 10 years to build conduct sea trials, integrating its carrier air arm,etc. therefore postponing the future carrier bird decision would be prudent in the circumstances.

[brar_w]

NO RN is not selling the second carrier. Hopefully this suggestion will stop from recurring every few days.

They built two but do not plan to deploy both at once unless during surge but are still buying capability to do so (F-35B's, Crowsnest and weapons). Any hyopthetical gaps in their deployments will be easily filled by USMC as is being done with their first deployment.

[srin]

So if Navy is unlikely to get its 57 fighters, will the existing 45 Mig 29Ks be enough once INS Vikrant also gets commissioned?

How many aircraft can be accommodated on Vikramaditya and Vikrant together ? Wiki uncle says 26 fixed wing aircraft each, but I'm not sure if that is for peace time or wartime surge.

Are 44 MiG-29K's sufficient for two carriers? It depends on what the deployment schedules looks like, what other duties are tasked to those aircraft and whether any residual land based round the clock needs those fighters provide. A fleet of 44 aircraft that has 20% of the aircraft down at any given time can generate about 35 deployable aircraft. Assuming that a few two seat trainers don't deploy that is enough for one carrier with some reserves provided they can be cycled back and forth without impacting readiness or training. But it is a rather small fleet for a two carrier force.

Precisely my thought. For a single carrier Navy, 45 Mig 29Ks are enough. But in the next two or three years, with Vikrant also coming in, we will need quick augmentation of carrier airwing.

There are three options that I can foresee.
New aircraft type: This is the 57 aircraft procurement. Both Shornet and Rafale are favourites. But looks quite unlikely given the finances.
More Mig 29K: If the Navy was happy with Mig 29K, the subject of new aircraft type wouldn't have arisen, so I presume they don't want it. With Kuznetsov all but scrapped, we may end up being the only operator. But this may be the most likely option.
Naval LCA: Depends upon how firm Navy is on only twin engine aircraft rule, and the performance of LCA Navy in the carrier based trials. My favourite, but I am not too optimistic.

[chola]

^^^ I don't believe the VikA ever carried more than a dozen fighters at any one time. Of course, wartime deployment would be different.

Short of war, the 44 29Ks would be enough. Also, the Russians have 20-odd MiGs that might become available if the Kutznetsov is scrapped. They IN might not want them for the long haul but it might tie them over until the TEDBF is ready? It seems like the IN have made up their mind on the NLCA. They want twin engines.

[Cain Marko]

Those armed sea guardians and p8s sound good too

I know of 4 additional P-8Is that have been ordered + another 6 more being planned. 18 P-8Is will give the IN a formidable surveillance capability in the Indian Ocean. Those Sea Guardians are nice, but not being ordered this year due to lack of funds. Hopefully next year. Keep the "Donald" happy

Yeah drip feed ..... In the billions. Plus massive public turnout should do it.

I don't understand the NASAMS deal though....

[Aditya_V]

Well the US navy is stopping the orders for the Super hornet. No wonder Boeing is trying Skijump launches and F15ex has made to IAF MRCA
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/bye-bye ... -aircraft/

[brar_w]

Well the US navy is stopping the orders for the Super hornet. No wonder Boeing is trying Skijump launches and F15ex has made to IAF MRCA
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/bye-bye ... -aircraft/

No they are not technically "stopping anything". The US Navy shouldn't technically be buying Super Hornet's right now. Their original need and program of record should have ended in 2018/2019 with enough produced based on original demand. So the program has already exceeded the # with which it started. There is also the Block II Growler to consider for them. I can very much see them buy around 50-60 of those and build up a 200+ Growler fleet.

The developed a Block III and placed a 70+ aircraft order to recapitalize the initial few units that they didn't want to put through SLEP (much higher utilization due to higher intensity deployments). What they are saying is that they aren't going to go beyond that which is bold but also probably not very reasonable. Navy admirals are addicted to the Super Hornet and risk-averse when it comes to funding a new aircraft (they need money for ships). Having said that, the US Navy needs the FA-XX to come in and begin replacing Super Hornets around the early 2030's so whatever they have in the classified world has to be basically developed in the next decade. This was expected..though they extended SH production with the introduction of 72 Block III new builds (which was originally supposed to be just an upgrade to block II aircraft) at some point eventually they would have to break away from buying 24 Super Hornets a year and put that money down on developing a replacement.

[Philip]

There's a new Brit. FM.Rishi Sunak.NM's SIL. Javid history.Watch this space on the military sales front...

PS:Russia had a severe setback with the Kuz.A double-whamy.
The floating dock went kaput ,the only one capable of handling the CV and thf on- board fire. This will set the RuN's carrier ops back by 2 to 3 years. The 29Ks are on course though and unlikely to be off- loaded to us as Russia does intend to get the Kuz back into service. The Q for the RuN is what for the future? As posted recently eeven the USN's CNO has little idea as to what the future naval air dominance fighter's look is going to be and what combo of manned and unmanned aircraft aboard will happen.

These same concerns will definitely be carefully studied by the RuN and one hopes the IN too, whose brain seems in cryogenic suspension when it comes to carrier warfare, planning to fight a future war with carrier concepts of the previous wars! The unique factor of a carrier is its deck.A flat top along with a large hangar and lifts that can accommodate new aircraft as they arrive each decade. A carrier can operate with regular refits for 50 years! We've shown the same. It is why I've said ad nuseum that any warship above 12,000t should be flat- topped for operating an air wing however humble of fixed and rotary wing aircraft. A flat top with greater depth could also pack in on the beam edged VLS cells for SAMs/ SSMs. Prosecuting a sub with such a flat top that carries upto 8 ASW Romeos/ SKs whatever would be far deadlier than a conventional large DDG/CG. The experience of the USN's littoral ships of tri- maram design should be studied if data is available as to such a pocket carrier design. These PCs will hugely augment rrlegular CV operations,plus give added capability to the conventional surface fleet.

However I digress. The IN therefore is a decade away from any new- built desi carrier.Its best bet if it is only wants a 65K t beast is to design the beast with lifts large enough to operate SU-33s, plus Hawkeye type AEW birds,which will give it the flexibility to buy/ build, if the NAMCA arrives, the naval fighter of its choice. That decision can wait for another 6+ years, that is unless its impatience demands a buy-out of a firang design and the GOI forks out the billions. Fat chance that my mind with the new CDS land- lubber who has already hinted at leveraging our " unsinkable islands".

[srin]

^^^Wait ... Su-33 ?

[chola]

^^^Wait ... Su-33 ?

LoL. Of course, Filipov doesn't want us to forget about the possibility of buying the remaining 40-year-old birds -- since Russia doesn't even build the damn thing any more!

Good ole Filipov, we love him.

[Vips]

^^^Wait ... Su-33 ?

Yes why not, when it is not in maintenance you will know its on flying duty by the plumes of smoke it will be emitting.

[Philip]

I mentioned the SU-33 only for the lift size.Should any future reopened manufacture of an Ru heavy naval fighter,SU33/35/57 arrive a decade hence, the lifts should be large enough also keeping in mind that CVs are supposed to last for 50 years and during their lifetime would've operated at least two generations of naval combat aircraft.See how the US is operating F-35s after F-18SHs and some older CVs even F-14 Tomcats on their existing carriers.

[Manish_P]

..See how the US is operating F-35s after F-18SHs and some older CVs even F-14 Tomcats on their existing carriers.

huh?