Indian Naval Aviation

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 26 Nov 2020 03:18

sankum wrote:...
The remaining 10 Dhruv for Coastal security will go on NOPV
....

shore based duty only.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 26 Nov 2020 20:24

I will be surprised if it is only for shore based purpose as CG chief has clearly said the Dhruv helicopter has new rotor blade folding mechanism and is capable and will operate from CG ships.

It beat naval Panther in competitive tender on all aspect and the total order of 25=[16 + likely 9] will definitely serve on 20 + OPVs.

The author in his article says that HAL is confident it is capable of operating from ships.

A canard is being spread in media that it is shore based so that naval Panther is bought in 111 NUH tender.

The fact is in CG tender Dhruv squarely beat Naval Panther in all aspects and was selected.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 27 Nov 2020 12:17

The mig 29 has serious issues in reliability, time on station and overall sortie rates. It completely beats me why we are looking to order more of these for our Air force

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 27 Nov 2020 13:19

Nihat wrote:The mig 29 has serious issues in reliability, time on station and overall sortie rates.

IN needs to stop using up the mig-29 airframes and try to train using simulators/Hawks/NLCA. If IN has problems with NLCA, then HAL can perhaps modify the Hawks with landing hooks like the Goshawks.

All prayers for the missing pilot. I understand that the Mig-29 parachute has a life raft which deploys automatically, but I wonder whether there is a life jacket which is activated automatically also? If not, an unconscious pilot hitting the water has zero chance of survival.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 27 Nov 2020 14:49

sajaym wrote:
Nihat wrote:The mig 29 has serious issues in reliability, time on station and overall sortie rates.
IN needs to stop using up the mig-29 airframes and try to train using simulators/Hawks/NLCA. If IN has problems with NLCA, then HAL can perhaps modify the Hawks with landing hooks like the Goshawks.

All prayers for the missing pilot. I understand that the Mig-29 parachute has a life raft which deploys automatically, but I wonder whether there is a life jacket which is activated automatically also? If not, an unconscious pilot hitting the water has zero chance of survival.

So you are saying that a newbie posted to the squadron should be put into a single seat 29 and that a simulator is enough for any conversion training.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 27 Nov 2020 17:02

tandav wrote:Mig 29K trainer ditched at sea. One pilot recovered and search for other on going. 26 Nov 2020
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/mig-29k ... er-2330816

‘Ditched’ implies this was pilot initiated not a ‘crash’. The biggest culprit will likely be engine issues (again)

Sadly 20+ hours without finding the pilot is not a good sign at all, that they found the QFI leads me to believe the pilot never made it out of the plane or was gravely injured in the ejection

4 29K losses in 4 years, it’s going to be a VERY painful decade for the navy.

TEDBF is the only hope they have, I hope they move heaven and earth to get it ASAP

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 27 Nov 2020 17:08

sajaym wrote:
Nihat wrote:The mig 29 has serious issues in reliability, time on station and overall sortie rates.
IN needs to stop using up the mig-29 airframes and try to train using simulators/Hawks/NLCA. If IN has problems with NLCA, then HAL can perhaps modify the Hawks with landing hooks like the Goshawks.

All prayers for the missing pilot. I understand that the Mig-29 parachute has a life raft which deploys automatically, but I wonder whether there is a life jacket which is activated automatically also? If not, an unconscious pilot hitting the water has zero chance of survival.

Are you saying this was pilot error? It was a ditching hence looks like yet another engine issue from the 29K fleet

The navy has bought a complete lemon with the 29K and they are now losing their best and brightest as a result

The next decade is going to produce another Russian flying coffin within the Indian military

mody · Post by **mody** » 27 Nov 2020 17:35

That's the second Mig-29KUB two seat version lost. The Mig-29Ks are making sure that additional carrier based aircrafts have to be procured

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 27 Nov 2020 20:49

IN should really be serious about shifting some carrier borne training to N-LCA.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 28 Nov 2020 11:39

This is a disaster and the procurement of additional mig 29 will be even more of a disaster. Young, well trained and highly capable pilots are being lost to the engine issues. Even the CO had to punch out of this junk yard dog not too long ago.

At least the mig 21 was a reliable jet and it's attrition only came about because we were flogging it beyond its natural life. The mig 29 /35 has no such issue

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 28 Nov 2020 23:36

JTull wrote:IN should really be serious about shifting some carrier borne training to N-LCA.

That's what I too suggested on the military safety thread, but folks removed my chaddi for saying that. The point is the Mig-29 airframes need to be saved till 2030 till the TEDBF comes in. It's doable... IN just has to fly the MIGs sparingly like they did with the harriers. And anyway the SUs with the brahmos have got our entire sea airspace locked down, P8Is and seaguardians are keeping watch...Mig29k can afford to relax!. So...Mothball one squadron of the 29k, depute the pilots to the Su30 brahmos squadrons for sea duty. Remaining pilots train on the NLCA. Fly the 29k occasionally during multinational exercises. In case of crashes, replace with airframes from the mothballed stock.

OR... Handover the 29ks to the air force and use part of the air force funds to lease two squadrons of Naval Rafales till 2030. Already huge pool of logistics exists for both the Mig29 and the Rafale, so that'll be huge savings in itself.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Nov 2020 23:41

You still need to fly the type as you introduce the pilot to the aircraft he/she is going to fly off of a carrier. That's what those two seaters are for. If the IN transfers these aircraft to the IAF what will it fly from the INS Vikramaditya? The Naval LCA has just created a subset of testing that is required to fully qualify it for carrier operations. It was only the beginning of a long process. So even if one disregards mission suitability, and design and production timelines it isn't a fully qualified product that can just seamlessly slot into the current training need. It needs time even if the rest of the things fall in place. And the Rafale-M? How will it operate from the Vikramaditya and Vikrant? There is literally nothing that can reduce the burden over the next decade. A new naval fast jet platfrom takes a significant time to fully qualify and validate (which is understandable given the harsh environment and a wide range of operational conditions) and integrating new aircraft into a carrier is also a fairly lengthy process. So more MiG-29K's (two seaters) will likely need to be purchased/leased as the ops tempo on the current fleet is only going to grow with the second carrier coming in.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 28 Nov 2020 23:48

The mig 29 with the IAF had a crash rate of 0.8 per 10000hr. The mig 29 k have airframe life of 4000 hr. If used for 150 hr /year per aircraft one crash every two years can be expected.
The course of action is each crash is investigated and corrective action taken.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Nov 2020 23:51

sankum wrote:The mig 29 with the IAF had a crash rate of 0.8 per 10000hr.

The naval environment is harsher and the operating conditions more challenging. Sure you can design more safety into naval fighters and claw back some of that risk but you can't completely eliminate the higher risk you are taking when operating aircraft from carriers in different flight conditions and sea states. It is something that naval aviators accept and have to live with. So a better metric would be the overall safety record of the type as a naval fighter (the K variant more specifically) with the IN and the Russian Navy.

John · Post by **John** » 29 Nov 2020 02:27

Also keep in mind launches from ski jump requires large of amount thrust which places large of amount of stress on engines and airframe. Especially when dealing with not so reliable Russian engines & parts it is no surprise we are running into issues (China and Russia have had far worse issues with their flankers).

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 01 Dec 2020 23:34

sajaym wrote:
JTull wrote:IN should really be serious about shifting some carrier borne training to N-LCA.
OR... Handover the 29ks to the air force and use part of the air force funds to lease two squadrons of Naval Rafales till 2030. Already huge pool of logistics exists for both the Mig29 and the Rafale, so that'll be huge savings in itself.

the IN and IAF versions of the 29's are as different as chalk and cheese. Very little commonality, if at all.

effectively, the IAF would be inducting a new type into its smorgasbord of aircraft inventory.

and about leasing two squadrons of Naval Rafales, who has that many to lease to you.

BTW the process is a lot different from calling up pappu's bumchum rahul bajaj and asking him to send over 50 odd autorikshas. No offence intended.

Even if it were possible, the deal would take years and years to fructify.

and then, what happens if a few rafales also crash............

or, for that matter, a few N-LCAs do during training.........

given the harsh operating environment and the inherent risks involved in deck flying, at some point, sadly and inevitably, the actual possibility of some mishap is always there, albeit riding unbidden in every cockpit.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Dec 2020 10:00

https://twitter.com/lmindianews/status/ ... 70816?s=21 —>

Knock Knock.
Who's there?
Romeo.
Romeo who?
#RomeoForIndia

Stay tuned for its first reveal! #MH60R

#NavyDay2020

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 02 Dec 2020 19:42

Rakesh wrote: Stay tuned for its first reveal! #MH60R

Awesome. A really good buy!

I wonder whether we can lease some more till the IMRH-N is operationalized. BTW if I'm not mistaken, IN is the only service which takes stuff on lease -- Akulas and now MQ9B Sea Guardian drones. Don't think the IAF's initial SU-30Ks count as leased.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Dec 2020 19:58

The first batch of Jaguars were leased from the RAF.

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Dec 2020 20:47

sankum wrote:I will be surprised if it is only for shore based purpose as CG chief has clearly said the Dhruv helicopter has new rotor blade folding mechanism and is capable and will operate from CG ships.

It beat naval Panther in competitive tender on all aspect and the total order of 25=[16 + likely 9] will definitely serve on 20 + OPVs.

The author in his article says that HAL is confident it is capable of operating from ships.

A canard is being spread in media that it is shore based so that naval Panther is bought in 111 NUH tender.

The fact is in CG tender Dhruv squarely beat Naval Panther in all aspects and was selected.

Great post and great point. I hope the Navy is questioned on this during the huge NUH order. Orders of that magnitude should be invested in house if possible. If the CG Dhruv beats the Panther then it should be a no-brainer. The Dauphin/Panther is pretty much the standard naval and CG helo in Yurop and many other countries (including Cheen and the US CG.) And here we have a local product that outcompetes it? Why should there even be a tender?

The only unknown is the weapons fit on the Dhruv vs the Panther but I can't see that being an issue with HAL's experience in Rudra and LCH being weaponized derivatives of the Dhruv.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 02 Dec 2020 23:44

The 111 nos NUH started at 56 nos with 28 options before it went upto 111nos .

It will be reduced to the original number of 56 nos just as LHD requirement.reduced to 2 from 4 and additional Kamov 31 order reduced to 6 nos from 10 nos.

The NUH will be used in limited number on ships as SAR as it has very limited ASW role.

The Naval Panther push as make in India is uneconomical .

The wait till mid 2022 for segmented 4 rotor folding of Naval Dhruv is worth the wait.

Even the NMRH 123 nos make in India proposal can be split in 24 nos additional MH60R/S and 99 nos IMRH naval version to add to 300nos IMRH for IA and IAF post 2030.

IN which is still not on board should opt for N-IMRH and immediate need can be fulfilled by additional MH60 and naval Dhruvs.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Dec 2020 06:52

Recent crash brings inherent technical problems with MiG-29KUB to the fore
https://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=1022955
02 Dec 2020

The tender for the MRCBFs was scheduled to have been dispatched by end 2019, deferred from the earlier mid-2018 deadline. But like many other Indian materiel procurements there is a corollary that is linked to the IAF and similar to the one that led to the MiG-29K purchase some 16 years ago.

In April 2018, the IAF had issued an RFI for 110 fighters: 17 of which will be procured from imports, with the remaining 93 to be license built by a joint venture between the shortlisted original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and an Indian private sector manufacturer. Of the six vendors that responded to the IAF’s RFI, four had earlier offered their maritime variants to the IN: Boeing (US), Rafale (France), Russian Aircraft Corporation, and Saab (Sweden).

“It makes eminent financial and logistical sense for the IN to link its MRCBF buy to the IAF’s,” said a retired three-star IN aviator. Simply acquiring 57 naval fighters off the shelf, he warned, would be prohibitively expensive, impractical, and time consuming.

In short, the more things change the more they remain the same.

basant · Post by **basant** » 03 Dec 2020 07:33

“It makes eminent financial and logistical sense for the IN to link its MRCBF buy to the IAF’s,” said a retired three-star IN aviator. Simply acquiring 57 naval fighters off the shelf, he warned, would be prohibitively expensive, impractical, and time consuming.

The same logic should be used for NUH too. Commonality with ALH would be very useful.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Dec 2020 10:19

The moot point being that the current lift size on the 2 CVs we currently have cannot accommodate current larger carrier fighters like Rafale- Ms,F-18SHs,etc. Boeing were trying to design a spfcial cradle for the SH,tilting it at an angle on the lift,which would however prove quite problematic handling the same especially during bad weather.

With no larger CV on the anvil,highly unlikely to arrive until 2035 even if a decision is taken within the next few years, the 4th.-gen aircraft under IAF scrutiny will be quite obsolete 15 years hence! By then ,even 5th.-gen aircraft like F-35s,F-22s,SU-57s will be giving way to 6th.- gen. birds and UCAVs.

Our carriers though can soldier on for 3 more decades,the Vikrant-2 ,4 decades. Therefore,what we should aim for is a new desi stealth fighter plus upgraded ,modified 29Ks, as well as a UCAV design,which can fit onto the current lifts ,or larger lifts installed at mid-life refit if possible and feasible.

The money for the 2 35K t amphibs could be utilised to redesign them as multi-role light carriers with a Vikrant-2 style flight deck that could operate our current aircraft,NLCAs too. An alternative is to build a stretched sister ship to the V-2, with larger lifts so she could operate a new AC type and larger aircraft,UCAVs, in the future too.

There will be a difference in reqs. for the CG NUHs and IN NUHs.CG helos for SAR, while IN NUHs will require a contemporary helo sensor and weapons ASW package and ease of hangar stowage ,auto-folding rotors,etc. Whether the Dhruv- N satisfied the IN in this respect is debatable. It has ordered the bird for shore-based coastal ops only.

mody · Post by **mody** » 03 Dec 2020 15:46

The best option to come out of the Mig-29K fiasco, is to either transfer the planes with suitable modifications to the IAF and go for Rafael or F-18s for the Navy or re-engine the Mig-29Ks with GE-F404-INS6 or F-414 engines. The GE engines are amongst the most reliable in the world, along with being fairly maintenance friendly and have a much longer life. Also, they have been used for carrier operations since a long time and are the most proven engines for the job.

Besides this, the F-414 will also offer a higher thrust, enabling the planes to take off with full load fuel and meaningful payload, from our STOBAR carriers.
Most probably the Russian's would not play ball for this type of change and doing it on our own might be difficult.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 03 Dec 2020 19:44

Will not happen anytime soon. MiG-29K will take over the sobriquet of flying coffins and we will lose many bravehearts. Damn the Russians

chola · Post by **chola** » 03 Dec 2020 20:25

mody wrote:The best option to come out of the Mig-29K fiasco, is to either transfer the planes with suitable modifications to the IAF and go for Rafael or F-18s for the Navy or re-engine the Mig-29Ks with GE-F404-INS6 or F-414 engines. The GE engines are amongst the most reliable in the world, along with being fairly maintenance friendly and have a much longer life. Also, they have been used for carrier operations since a long time and are the most proven engines for the job.

Besides this, the F-414 will also offer a higher thrust, enabling the planes to take off with full load fuel and meaningful payload, from our STOBAR carriers.
Most probably the Russian's would not play ball for this type of change and doing it on our own might be difficult.

There is no practical way to re-engine the MiG-29K. Plumbing between Russian and Western engines are entirely different. Even if doable, it will take countless years and expense to rebuild, test and certify.

We'll have to make do as is. The fact is with Vikrant coming aboard, we'll need to buy even more. The 42 surviving planes cannot staff both carriers adequately, especially when a third of the fleet is not available at any given time. Unless we are happy with running only 1 carrier at all times or having just a dozen fighters per carrier should we run two then we need more.

Might have to grind our teeth and bear it.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 03 Dec 2020 21:40

Copy the Chinese - press the NLCA into operation. Make more LCA/NLCA assembly lines. Think bigger than 8 aircraft per year lines. Putting a GA engine into the 29k without complete design details of the aircraft may provide a solution that takes longer than the TEDBF. Press NLCA into service and work hard to get the TEDBF ready.

Till such time, do everything possible to avoid losses - pilot's lives are more precious. May have to reduce sea time for the aircraft till a solution emerges.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 03 Dec 2020 21:49

Vips wrote:Will not happen anytime soon. MiG-29K will take over the sobriquet of flying coffins and we will lose many bravehearts. Damn the Russians

No point blaming others when we cannot put our faith in ourselves. The Russians provided us what we wanted.

The IN is paying the price for decisions related to NLCA Mk1. Others would have put that into service and expanded its envelope.

chola · Post by **chola** » 03 Dec 2020 21:50

^^^ Yes, with a single reliable F404/414, the NLCA might actually be safer than the 29K with two highly suspect RD-33s.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Dec 2020 21:51

Vivek K wrote:Copy the Chinese - press the NLCA into operation.

The Chinese essentially "licensed" the Su-33 which they determined to be a decent fit for highly diverse carrier force they are likely to field in the medium term (given they are transitioning to catapult launches and will most likely be operating both types of carriers in the med-long term). They've still managed to screw thing up given that it hasn't totally gone smooth for them so far.

The IN has to determine whether the N-LCA, as it currently exists, can be a legitimate solution to take over MiG-29K's mission if it were to green light it as a supplement or replacement for the naval fulcrum. For that to happen the NLCA needs to be fully qualified and then evaluated in an operational capacity. I think, short of the F/A-18E/F working on the existing carriers (which Boeing still has to demonstrate though they've conducted ski ramp tests), there is really no viable path to buying new MiG-29K's. The SH path may well be a non-starter from a budgetary stand-point and thus may leave more MiG-29K's as the only medium term option.

If the IN wants to transition the air wing from one carrier to another and keep one operationally available at all times, then such a strategy would demand fairly high reliability and availability from the MiG-29K fleet to account for any surge and spikes in utilization where you don't have the benefit of time between the end of one deployment and the start of another. I think the IN will probably want to still order more aircraft even to make that concept work in the long term when IAC-1 goes fully operational and begins conducting patrols.

chola · Post by **chola** » 03 Dec 2020 22:33

^^^ Putting the NLCA into use, even on a limited basis say a single squadron of half-dozen or even as a trainer should be a no-brainer. We have already landed the aircraft safely on the VikA. Wringing out the NLCA even if we do not go with it in numbers would provide a lot of experience for India -- I'm talking about the Navy, HAL and the entire Indian industrial complex that went into building this beautiful machine.

I cannot understand the reluctance. Cheen, not only persevered with the J-15 flopping fish but also landed a revamped MiG-21 (JL-9) as a trainer on their carrier. The NLCA has a pristine record compared to the crash-prone J-15 and is light years ahead of the 1960s' origin JL-9 and yet we are the ones hesitant.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Dec 2020 22:38

The IN is in a different place compared to the PLAN. The latter is gearing up to be a very large carrier force (the writing is on the wall) and is thus funding this aspect of its Navy to reflect that. The IN has to often juggle between nice to haves and must haves. So I'm afraid, that any decision to carry on testing, qualification and development of the existing N-LCA will have to compete with investments into the current MiG-29K fleet and with any decision to order additional aircraft to replace those lost or to grow the fleet to support a different ops tempo now that the second carrier is about to come online. If you need 2 seater MiG-29K's and are down to a handful then the logical course of action is to order more. There is very little one can do besides that. At least the IN is behind the TEDBF which is a good sign and points to it thinking of and approving of a home grown aircraft as the backbone of its future carrier air wing.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Dec 2020 06:11

Vivek K wrote:
Vips wrote:Will not happen anytime soon. MiG-29K will take over the sobriquet of flying coffins and we will lose many bravehearts. Damn the Russians
No point blaming others when we cannot put our faith in ourselves. The Russians provided us what we wanted.

The IN is paying the price for decisions related to NLCA Mk1. Others would have put that into service and expanded its envelope.

there are many things that cannot be put on an open forum.

suffice it to say, much to the contrary of the many opinions expressed here, the russians are not entirely to blame for the 29K situation.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Dec 2020 06:55

brar_w wrote:The IN is in a different place compared to the PLAN. The latter is gearing up to be a very large carrier force (the writing is on the wall) and is thus funding this aspect of its Navy to reflect that. The IN has to often juggle between nice to haves and must haves. So I'm afraid, that any decision to carry on testing, qualification and development of the existing N-LCA will have to compete with investments into the current MiG-29K fleet and with any decision to order additional aircraft to replace those lost or to grow the fleet to support a different ops tempo now that the second carrier is about to come online. If you need 2 seater MiG-29K's and are down to a handful then the logical course of action is to order more. There is very little one can do besides that. At least the IN is behind the TEDBF which is a good sign and points to it thinking of and approving of a home grown aircraft as the backbone of its future carrier air wing.

not to mention the unmentionable: inter-service rivalry.

this has always been the bane, and it is slyly and very cleverly instigated, played up and oftentimes exploited by the babooze, to the detriment of both antagonists.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Dec 2020 12:01

chetak wrote:
Vivek K wrote: No point blaming others when we cannot put our faith in ourselves. The Russians provided us what we wanted.

The IN is paying the price for decisions related to NLCA Mk1. Others would have put that into service and expanded its envelope.
there are many things that cannot be put on an open forum.

suffice it to say, much to the contrary of the many opinions expressed here, the russians are not entirely to blame for the 29K situation.

Oh but it does feel good to blame those ***** Russkis!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Dec 2020 12:03

So a MiG29K crashes during training, and all of a sudden it is the worst fighter in the world? The Shar didn't have a particularly stellar record IIRC. Naval air ops are inherently dangerous and everything from Shar to Shornets have been lost.

chola · Post by **chola** » 04 Dec 2020 12:46

Cain Marko wrote:So a MiG29K crashes during training, and all of a sudden it is the worst fighter in the world? The Shar didn't have a particularly stellar record IIRC. Naval air ops are inherently dangerous and everything from Shar to Shornets have been lost.

No, Marko ji. The biggest concern has always been this:

https://techgenez.com/indian-navy-wants ... uggedized/

According to the MoD official, the government would prefer an agreement involving the Navy, Russia and HAL to undertake structural improvements for the MiG-29K fighters. The call for improved ruggedness originates from an issue after deck landings. The MiG-29K fighter’s settings reportedly require a reset after landing on the deck of the carrier.

“After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said.

A report last year by India’s autonomous auditing agency, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, said the MiG-29K was to be technically accepted despite discrepancies and anomalies.“Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engine MiG-29K fighters have been withdrawn from service due to design-related defects,” according to the report.

Early last year, the Indian Navy entered the global market to procure 57 multirole fighters to be used on future aircraft carriers, essentially rejecting the MiG-29K fighters.

A carrier plane that can't really handle landings and needs to be re-calibrated after every recovery is not a reliable carrier plane full stop. And that is on top of the engine issues which is well known even for the land-based versions of the Fulcrum.

The crashes are just further straws on the camel's back.

But anyhoo, as explained in previous posts above we'll have to sailor on with them.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 04 Dec 2020 13:01

Building a squadron of NLCA Mk1 to cover for the next decade would be THE choice for a Navy struggling to fill holes in their fleet - MCMV, second line of subs, upcoming nuke subs etc will demand much of the naval budget. Buying 57 shornets or rafales will cost $5bn easily. Where is the money for that? Build 2 squadrons of the NLCA instead even if capability wise they are nowhere near the twin engined birds. A stretch-version of the IAC-1 fixing all the shortcomings like lift size and build instead of waiting for 5trillion economy and 80,000 ton emals AC.

chola · Post by **chola** » 04 Dec 2020 13:20

Prasad wrote:Building a squadron of NLCA Mk1 to cover for the next decade would be THE choice for a Navy struggling to fill holes in their fleet - MCMV, second line of subs, upcoming nuke subs etc will demand much of the naval budget. Buying 57 shornets or rafales will cost $5bn easily. Where is the money for that? Build 2 squadrons of the NLCA instead even if capability wise they are nowhere near the twin engined birds. A stretch-version of the IAC-1 fixing all the shortcomings like lift size and build instead of waiting for 5trillion economy and 80,000 ton emals AC.

No saar, the Navy has never asked for an 80K-ton AC. It is and has always asked for a 65K-ton CATOBAR AC onlee. EMALS and nuke were preferred but not required. The Navy is not asking for some behemoth like an Amreeki supercarrier. 65K-ton is decidedly mid-range. Cheen has two 65K-ton carriers.

The truth is even building a stretch version of the IAC-1 will take a decade under the best circumstances. And another STOBAR is not going to match up to the CATOBARs coming online in the coming years from Cheen. A capital ship takes up too much time and treasure for it to be anything less than what the Navy feels it needs.