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.
Post Reply
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by ramana »

Dont worry about Rafales. Most likely will get quite a few more.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Philip »

Shortage of funds,why the 2 amphibs,cut down from 4,should be redesigned and redesignated as multi-role CVLs which can operate current 29Ks too. Funds have been allocated for them.Adding 40 odd naval aircraft and ASW helos to the cost,some NLCAs as well will expand our maritime air capability,even more if Backfire/ Blackjack supersonic maritime strike bombers with heavy LRCM payload capability of BMos, Nirbhay and other hyper- missiles to come ,are also acquired. Even a sister ship of the V-2 will take 7 to 10 years at the earliest to arrive and post 2030 there is little relevance in acquiring legacy 4.5 aircraft like SHs when 6th- gen aircraft,even F-35/ F-22 replacements will arrive a decade + hence.The US's NGAD 6th.-gen. fighter has already according to reports, secretly been flown.

In a recent TV chat show, coinciding with Navy Day, the panellists,retd. naval officers seem to have mindsets stuck in grooves planning to fight the next war with weaponry of the last.
Talk of the need for carrier 3 dominated the chat,forgetting about the increasing vulnerability of CVs and surface ships to hypersonic missiles, the advent of drones bring used not only by surface warships and CVs,but also by subs,the most survivable of military maritime species! The phenomenal range of missiles like Kalibir,now 2500km,being extended to 4000km,existing Tomahawks,now being increased in v.large numbers aboard US nuclear subs,former SSBNs and new SSGNs, Russia's nuclear powered,nuclear tipped torpedo,and the continuing saga of legacy bombers in the maritime arena,Bears and B-52s, PLAAF Tu-16/ H-6, not to mention supersonic bombers of both Ru and the US .All
carrying LR stand-off ASMs.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Philip wrote:Shortage of funds,why the 2 amphibs,cut down from 4,should be redesigned and redesignated as multi-role CVLs which can operate current 29Ks too.
Demanding fighter aircraft operations from the ambiphs is a sure shot way to get the 2 cut to 1 or maybe zero. The costs associated with the design of above and below deck support of medium sized fighter aircraft including the ability to sustain even a modest capability in actual wartime ops tempo is not trivial. It permeates to virtually every aspect of the design of the vessel including adding a ski ramp and arresting systems, below deck maintained and support, magazine space, and weapon assembly and repair facilities. It would be lucky if you get it within 60-65% of the cost of the IAC (but way less capable). While we are at it, might as well also ask for supersonic maritime strike bomber launch capable amphibs with the bombers themselves capable of launching 2,500 km (extendable to 4000 km) missiles.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Philip »

All these infra reqs. are there on the JCarlos and the similar amphibs being built for Oz.They use STOVL birds though,JSFs,as will much smaller Japanese and SoKo CVLs. We have developed the NLCA,much cheaper than an F-35 and for our IOR needs the exg.carrier aircraft will do for another decade+. UCAVs will come along in the future,post 2030.

But a late post on the IN td. says that the reduced 2 from 4 amphibs has also been cancelled. Tragic.The Trenton/Jalashwa will have to soldier on until 2030 at least,no firang amphibs available.Egypt snapped up both the Mistrals France was building for Russia a few years ago with their complement of KA-52 attack helos too. Unless the US is retiring one of its old amphibs soon along with its usable Harriers,or offers JSFs,we are up the creek without a paddle heading for the ocean!

Why this decision ,if true,has been taken defeats me. To keep out L& T ( who were on the brink of being awarded all 4 amphibs earlier) from getting the contract and building the amphibs in record time,as they're doing with other smaller craft, showing up the DPSUs,example- our V-2 CV more than 5 years late?
Or is it to scuttle the amphibs and demand that the money saved be given to CV-3? That worthy at the rate of our DPSU building time will take not less than a decade,more like 15 years to arrive.
The supersonic maritime strike bombers are already available ,we can lease the first few.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32290
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by chetak »

srin wrote:The real question is: why is the Navy looking for new fighter types, if all is good with Mig-29K ? I don't know. The video I posted above with V. Adm Sinha is very categorical on Mig-29K.

But there is a bigger problem. Essentially, the Navy is making it very difficult for the 3rd carrier to be approved. First, they talked about larger displacement, then EMALS. Now, they are talking about gold plated Rafale or Shornets for the aviation wing just the current carriers, which means additional bill for more aircraft when the new carrier is commissioned. And then, we turn to the helicopters, where they are insistent that NUH be an import.
In an era of budgetary tightness, it is politically naive and pretty much futile. By asking for more budget, they make it easier for the IAF to present *its* case to handle the maritime air security and cap the naval aviation wing (which I think doesn't make much sense).

As an ardent supporter of Vikrant follow-ons, I'm quite dismayed.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

most of what has been quoted is mostly talk and an overdose of some thinktanki's fanciful exertions and explorations pending the arrival of tandoori tikkas, hopefully accompanied by the much desired attendance of some choice single malts.

Like it or not, the Mig-29Ks are here to stay and the russkis are already hard at work on them. we simply cannot afford another type because some dislike the Mig-29K.

We are a maritime power and the IN needs to be strengthened much more than the govt seems to be willing to do at present. whether this takes the form of more naval platforms with a punch and whether it includes a carrier or not is a moot point.

India is not in the QUAD because of the IAF or the IA. The primary contribution of India to the QUAD is the IN, of course with integrated and specialized air assets also operated by the IN.

If no decision is taken now, the skilled manpower of the builders will melt away and we will take many more years to ramp up production capabilities to desired levels as ship building assets/infrastructure get diverted to other uses.

The third carrier is a necessity given the enormous coastline and the vast IOR that the IN is charged with protecting, policing and dominating, especially given the fast increasing maritime asset base of the hans.

practically all of our oil/gas flows via the SLOC as do our exports.

IAF and maritime security is an issue that was settled a long time ago and all those ghosts have decisively been laid to rest.

dead and buried, done and dusted.

Come what may, it will never ever be reopened again.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Philip wrote:All these infra reqs. are there on the JCarlos and the similar amphibs being built for Oz.They use STOVL birds though,JSFs,as will much smaller Japanese and SoKo CVLs. We have developed the NLCA,much cheaper than an F-35 and for our IOR needs the exg.carrier aircraft will do for another decade+. UCAVs will come along in the future,post 2030.
There is a reason that those vessels and navies are planning on using the F-35B and not a navalized Gripen, or F/A-50 etc. Even then the cost implications of such a pivot (moving from small-medium rotary winged footprint to a combined fast jet and rotary winged footprint) is going to be substantial. If you don't go drive requirements up in terms of mission system and support performance then you can get an ambhib (in and around that 20K ton or below class) for around $750 Million - $1.2 Billion range. Now if you want to add fast jet aviation, and not only that, the ability for conventionally landing fast jets to TO and land then you are probably looking closer to that $2.5-3+ Billion cost that is going to be typical of the large amphibs that do house fast jets.

All those designs (Izumo, J Carlos etc) that are looking to add F-35B capability are probably looking at a re-design and upgrade bill of closer to $1 Billion +/- 15% depending upon how much work was done upfront ( in anticipation) and how much is a retrofit. From structural upgrades, to the ability for things like elevators, weapons magazines, fuel delivery etc etc being able to support fast jet ops and the ability of the deck to take the higher stress. Not to mention the ability of the combat system and sensor suite to be interoperable. Since you now present a higher value target (with fast jet ops) you probably also need to upgrade the combat system and organic ship defenses. It is a lot of work and if being factored in as a new design its a lot of additional requirements that impact ovrall cost. A sub 20,000 ton STOBAR ops compatible amphib with the ability sustain fixed and rotary winged aircraft combat operations for a sustained period of time will not be cheap. In the real world the program to buy 4 vessels just got truncated to 2. Perhaps cost was one (not the only) factor. How do you turn around and then add more requirements? Making the individual vessel more complex and expensive will not only risk program start but also ensure that it takes a long time to field it if they are ever funded in the first place.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Barath »

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 264017.ece

Navy is looking to reduce numbers of carrier planes to be procured and combine with IAF tender

Also fairly clear they are looking to replace mig29K on the 2 carriers
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Barath »

chetak wrote:
India is not in the QUAD because of the IAF or the IA. The primary contribution of India to the QUAD is the IN, of course with integrated and specialized air assets also operated by the IN.

If no decision is taken now, the skilled manpower of the builders will melt away and we will take many more years to ramp up production capabilities to desired levels as ship building assets/infrastructure get diverted to other uses.

The third carrier is a necessity given the enormous coastline and the vast IOR that the IN is charged with protecting, policing and dominating, especially given the fast increasing maritime asset base of the hans.

.
1. Contribution to the Quad is primarily diplomatic and intelligence and secondarily Indian navy assets at this point.

Just because the latter has hardware, doesn't mean the former is irrelevant. The navy is the most tangible extension of the former, in a von Clausewitz-ian sense

2. The skilled manpower of the builder is already decided - it's lost. The interval between bending metal and bending metal again is years. Only civilian work and other navy orders can save some of them in the yard. You need the design or technology to be already ready to get into building, which it manifestly isn't


3. The Indian coast guard is charged with the policing. The navy has it's own responsibility and has to think of force multipliers and asymmetric options instead of hurr-durr copy paste. It's not clear that the threat matrix has jumped so hugely that a navy which for most of its existence hovered between 0 and 1 carrier in action, now suddenly has no other option but to need 3. It's also clear that these are very long lead plans and effects. Building up technology and systems expertise can help bridge the gap.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by chola »

Barath wrote:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 264017.ece

Navy is looking to reduce numbers of carrier planes to be procured and combine with IAF tender

Also fairly clear they are looking to replace mig29K on the 2 carriers
It is hard to think otherwise when the 29K is all but brand new. The truth is India bankrolled the development of this plane. It would have been much better for us to get a return on investment by using and procuring them until the TEDBF comes online. But here we have proposal after proposal to replace an aircraft we had put into service barely 6 years ago upon comissioning the VikA.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Barath wrote:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 264017.ece

Navy is looking to reduce numbers of carrier planes to be procured and combine with IAF tender

Also fairly clear they are looking to replace mig29K on the 2 carriers
From the article:
“We have the MiG-29K operating from the Vikramaditya and will operate from the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC)-I. To replace them, we have taken up a case for the Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters (MRCBF) which we are trying to do along with the IAF,” Navy Chief Admiral Karambir Singh said
....The Navy has 45 Russian MiG-29K and it had said earlier there will not be enough aircraft to operate from both carriers.
And here were were discussing how the 41 is not only sufficient for 2 carriers, but maybe also 3 carriers. So at a minimum, if the deal to acquire the MRCBF does not go through a half a dozen to a dozen additional MiG-29K's are probably going to be needed. Only the IN knows how its ops tempo and utilization is likely to be impacted over time (with the 10-15 year horizon being important). If it sees it needing to deploy more often, and for longer, than additional resources would be needed to both sustain that and to meet other shore based duties and training demands.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Dec 2020 21:25, edited 2 times in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18277
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

I have swapped a whole bunch of posts between the Military Flight Safety thread and the Indian Naval Aviation thread.

Going forward, I humbly request that you follow this guideline ---->

1) Any discussion related to this particular MiG-29KUB crash or Lt Cdr Nishant Singh, please post in the Military Flight Safety thread.

2) Any discussion related to the MiG-29K/KUB fleet and future carrier borne fighter acquisitions, please post in the Indian Naval Aviation thread.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18277
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

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

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.
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 77955?s=20 ---> Indian Navy wants to merge it's plan to acquire new carrier based fighters with IAF's 114 MRFA contest. Under the merged tender, 150 multi role fighter jets would be acquired including 36 for the Indian Navy to replace MiG-29K. Rafale and F-18SH are the frontrunners.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

^^ This leads to some interesting questions. Will the MRFA contract/requirement now be modified to reflect an in service naval variant? And will a collective set of requirements be used to assess the submissions? I guess the Navy is persistent in its wish to field a new carrier aircraft even as it sanctions funding for the TEDBF. I guess it really feels that it needs something to either cover fighter capability in the interm or as a hedge against any delays in TEDBF.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18277
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

This is going to be interesting, because the IAF loves the Rafale and the Navy reportedly likes what they see in the F-18SH Block III. The MoD is not going to entertain the idea of dealing with two OEMs, when they can deal with one.

From a compatibility perspective, both OEMs have stated that their fighters can take off from a ski jump with a significant payload. Boeing has even tested the F-18 on a ski jump. Boeing has also stated that the Super Hornet can fit in the lifts of the Vikrant. Dassault has not proven that and is suggesting detachable wingtips instead.

From the Navy's perspective, the F-18 checks a number of boxes. She has got a top notch AESA radar, a buffet of weaponry and is a proven platform. From a sheer industrial scale, it is hard pressed to beat. The fact that the Super Hornet is powered by the exact same engine as the Tejas Mk2 is also a huge plus point. I doubt the TEDBF would be powered by anything else, other than the GE F414. Highly unlikely, but a Growler offer could tip the scales to Boeing.

From the IAF's perspective however, the CAPEX invested in the Rafale is sunk. The best (and *ONLY* way) to recover that investment is additional Rafales, assuming the MRFA contest moves ahead. And money is all the more scarce now, due to the fragile economy thanks to COVID. There is however *NO* money for 150 gold plated, phoren combat aircraft (114 for IAF and 36 for Navy). They will have to reduce the number of airframes in the IAF contest. There is no way around that, unless the GoI figures how to grow money on trees.

So an additional 36 (low estimate) to 54 (high estimate) fighters for the IAF and 36 for the Navy. The reduced numbers for the IAF may not necessarily dampen the IAF's force planning, as the the 36 fighters for the Navy can be seconded to the IAF when required. Just as the Navy did with its MiG-29Ks during the present Indo-China standoff. The new jointmanship mantra (with the CDS and other related appointments) will also encourage this.

If it is going to be the Rafale, Dassault will have to figure out a way on how to squeeze her on the Vikrant's tiny lifts or the Vikrant will have to undergo a surgery. As per the Navy, INS Vishal (IAC-2) will take 15 years to commission from keel laying. The MiG-29 is due for retirement only in the early 2030s. By that time, perhaps the TEDBF will be ready to operate aboard the Vikrant.

36 Rafales + another 36 MRFAs + 36 Navy MRFAs = 108 air frames. Add another 18 more and you get the magic number of 126 aircraft, the exact same number of airframes in MMRCA 1.0 or seven squadrons. The only question that remains is will it be an all Rafale fleet or a Rafale/F-18 combination? Will this be a repeat of the Mirage 2000/MiG-29 acquisition of the 1980s?

One undeniable advantage is the IAF will have a very strong voice in the decision, because of the present 36 Rafales that are being inducted. And that voice will be hard pressed to drown out. It also the IAF that is suffering the squadron shortage and not the Indian Naval Air Arm. Dassault is keenly aware of this, as are all the other OEMs in the MRFA contest.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Very interesting analysis Rakesh. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. The Navy seems to have made up its mind on it needing new fighter type (even sandwiched in b/w the MiG-29K and the TEDBF) and is willing to, at the highest levels, push that to the fullest extent possible. The IAF, which is likely to be the big brother here is unlikely to want to "pay" for any modifications to any submission that will drive the cost up for them (If any aircraft needs mods to meet IN suitability requirements then that will drive up the whole deal). The possibility exists that it could, at a later date, split yet again.

Meanwhile, interesting changes are happening the world over, owing, in large parts, to the Chinese naval build up. The UK has committed itself to a substantial increase in defense spending, with the RN being the winner for most of that topline increase. The US CJCS (an Army guy) basically said that everything has to move aside to pay the bill for a larger Navy (and space force). Other European powers are also investing in their navies and japan is adding some in that department as well. So it will be interesting to see how the MOD takes IN's request for more aircraft, more ships, more subs, AC, etc etc.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Vivek K »

Sad for India's sovereignty! For all intents and purposes - India will remain a slave to imports for the foreseeable future and indirectly to the foreign policy of the seller. And at the same time it will put the squeeze on the domestic economy to pay for these ridiculously expensive and mortgage the future of generations to come.

Sad that India does not still have visionary leadership to bet on Indian innovation.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by SSridhar »

Rakesh, great post.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by chola »

Vivek K wrote:Sad for India's sovereignty! For all intents and purposes - India will remain a slave to imports for the foreseeable future and indirectly to the foreign policy of the seller. And at the same time it will put the squeeze on the domestic economy to pay for these ridiculously expensive and mortgage the future of generations to come.

Sad that India does not still have visionary leadership to bet on Indian innovation.
Vivek ji, the Vishal and the TEDBF are India's future in naval aviation. We only need to commit to them and fund accordingly.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Cain Marko »

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 264017.ece

Navy is looking to reduce numbers of carrier planes to be procured and combine with IAF tender

Also fairly clear they are looking to replace mig29K on the 2 carriers
This article is strange to say the least. It puts forth 2-3 basic premises:
1. Navy reduced its MRCBF requirement number to 36
2. Navy wants to replace Mig29K with MRCBF
3. 29K starts being replaced in 2035 with TEDBF


#2 contradicts #1 because 36 birds can't replace 45. # 3 contradicts #2 because TEDBF is to replace Mig 29K. My guess is that the whole thing is to get better prices. I simply CANNOT see a space for the MRCBF when the TEDBF is expected around 2030. Seems like Navy is trying to squeeze in its wishlist by making it seem like a good deal for everybody (I trust the IAF will not want to be saddled, and will shoot it down). Either that or the MOD is pushing this to extract a better deal from the players involved by dangling the carrot of big numbers. OR God forbid, the 29k is actually falling out of the sky and needs immediate replacement (which doesn't seem to be the case considering the recent statements of Admirals Lanba and Sinha).
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Cain Marko wrote:#2 contradicts #1 because 36 birds can't replace 45
Sure they can. First, its not 45, but 41. Second, you don't need 36 to come and 41 to phase out. It could be a gradual transition with hedges in place with options to buy more or of course the TEDBF.
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by rajsunder »

Cain Marko wrote:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 264017.ece

Navy is looking to reduce numbers of carrier planes to be procured and combine with IAF tender

Also fairly clear they are looking to replace mig29K on the 2 carriers
This article is strange to say the least. It puts forth 2-3 basic premises:
1. Navy reduced its MRCBF requirement number to 36
2. Navy wants to replace Mig29K with MRCBF
3. 29K starts being replaced in 2035 with TEDBF


#2 contradicts #1 because 36 birds can't replace 45. # 3 contradicts #2 because TEDBF is to replace Mig 29K. My guess is that the whole thing is to get better prices. I simply CANNOT see a space for the MRCBF when the TEDBF is expected around 2030. Seems like Navy is trying to squeeze in its wishlist by making it seem like a good deal for everybody (I trust the IAF will not want to be saddled, and will shoot it down). Either that or the MOD is pushing this to extract a better deal from the players involved by dangling the carrot of big numbers. OR God forbid, the 29k is actually falling out of the sky and needs immediate replacement (which doesn't seem to be the case considering the recent statements of Admirals Lanba and Sinha).
Mig-29's will still be flying with INS Vikramaditya, the MRCBF will be flying from IAC-1 and when IAC-2 starts sailing, they want to fly TEDBF from both IAC-2 and INS Vikramaditya.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by AkshaySG »

I don't know why there is that much discussion about IAC-2's airwing when we're at least 15 years away from seeing it... By which time the TEDBF should be ready. So unless the IN has very low confidence in HAL coming up with a good enough jet this all seems weird.

The important point is Mig - 29k and what the Navy thinks of it right now, If they feel its good enough to use till 2030+ then order a few attrition replacements and get on with it... Does the IN really want to copy the IAF and have a mish-mash of Mig29's, Rafales plus a home fighter in development while not fully committing to either in good numbers??

I was told that Navy were finding it difficult to find the budget for P-75I, Ka-31 and more SSBNs and suddenly they have enough for 36 Phoren fighters?


Frankly I had expected better commitment to Indigenous products from the Navy considering their track record but that doesn't seem to translate to their airwings

First not considering Naval LUH(or other derivatives) and now this
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by sankum »

https://mobile.twitter.com/ReviewVayu/s ... 33/photo/3

Coast guard Dhruv helicopter with new 2 rotor blade fold mechanism on coast guard ship and crew working on it standing on engine cowl.This shows helicopter is capable of operating from coast guard ships and will not be shore based. Both crew working on rotors secured by harness.


All old 12 nos CG and IN Dhruv helicopters should have been now refitted with new main rotor folding mechanism.
Image
Last edited by sankum on 08 Dec 2020 23:50, edited 1 time in total.
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by sankum »

Last edited by sankum on 08 Dec 2020 23:48, edited 1 time in total.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Kanson »

Dhruv news is heartening!

Beyond SH blk iii & Rafale, there is a wild card entry in the form of F-35.
Navy is also getting stealth at same time.
While picking Rafale is practical, makes more economic sense, F-35 appears futuristic.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Kanson wrote:Dhruv news is heartening!

Beyond SH blk iii & Rafale, there is a wild card entry in the form of F-35.
Navy is also getting stealth at same time.
While picking Rafale is practical, makes more economic sense, F-35 appears futuristic.
F-35 won't be able to operate from existing carriers. And the S-400 deal would make its offer for land based use very difficult if not outright impossible in the short-medium term.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by basant »

AUW is 5T! :D
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Prasad »

brar_w wrote:
Kanson wrote:Dhruv news is heartening!

Beyond SH blk iii & Rafale, there is a wild card entry in the form of F-35.
Navy is also getting stealth at same time.
While picking Rafale is practical, makes more economic sense, F-35 appears futuristic.
F-35 won't be able to operate from existing carriers. And the S-400 deal would make its offer for land based use very difficult if not outright impossible in the short-medium term.
Due to lift-size restrictions?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Prasad wrote:
brar_w wrote:
F-35 won't be able to operate from existing carriers. And the S-400 deal would make its offer for land based use very difficult if not outright impossible in the short-medium term.
Due to lift-size restrictions?
Yes. The F-35B which would be the most likely candidate does not have folding wings and is too wide to fit on the lifts on either of the existing carriers. It also can't recover using the AG so will require a re-configuration of deck operations. So in a way the carrier would have to change to accomodate it vs what I believe the IN really wants - an aircraft that can fit into its existing carriers and operations with minimal disruptions. The F-35C will fit on the lifts but then you are looking at a much heavier fighter with an IWB a lots of internal fuel etc that will not be optimal for STOBAR ops (the F-35C is nearly 1,500 kg heavier (empty) than the F-18E). There are higher thrust variants of the F-135 in the works but one would imagine there would still be range and payload limitations when operating without a Catapult.

Also, though this hasn't been discussed much, but I'm sure whatever the IN chooses or prefers, needs to be capable of operating a variant that can act as a buddy refueling system. There is no recovery tanker variant (or modification) on either F-35 variant while the Rafale, SH and the MiG-29K can be configured to provide recovery tanker needs. Since the USMC has the V-22, and the USN has the Super Hornet and is getting the MQ-25 they aren't going to need a recovery tanker capability on the F-35 so its not going to be funded. And since the F-35 can only accommodate a max of 2 external tanks ( which themselves aren’t developed or fielded yet) it will most likely not be able to offload as much fuel as a SH kitted as a recovery tanker.
krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 917
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by krishna_krishna »

Look at the deck based aircraft on the future French CVN, now that is interesting thought especially those drinking SH, JSF and Rafale-N coolaid :

I believe future of IN should be TEDBF followed by something like this.

https://twitter.com/IndoPac_Info/status ... 48/photo/1

https://twitter.com/IndoPac_Info/status ... 18/photo/1
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

krishna_krishna wrote:Look at the deck based aircraft on the future French CVN, now that is interesting thought especially those drinking SH, JSF and Rafale-N coolaid :

I believe future of IN should be TEDBF followed by something like this.

https://twitter.com/IndoPac_Info/status ... 48/photo/1

https://twitter.com/IndoPac_Info/status ... 18/photo/1
SH/Rafale/MiG-29 and even F-35C are operational right now. The FCAS/SCAF isn't expected to be operational till 2040. We are talking about the SH, Rafale now because those are the two MiG-29K alternatives under the MRCBF program which is a Navy program. PANG will be operational in the late 2030s with mostly Rafales and likely no UAVs though it is possible that the French navy buys the MQ-25 as a missionized tanker and ISR asset just like it does with the E-2. So this is why we aren't talking about the USN NGAD/FA-XX (Super Hornet replacement) or the FCAS as the former is a early to mid 2030s capability (IOC) while the latter is a late 2030's/2040 IOC and thus no bearing to any currently stated IN requirement.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18277
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

@ krishna_krishna: FCAS will not be ready for active service by 2035, which is the planned entry date. That is not going to happen. This is a sixth generation program and will see considerable delays. I see an in-service date only sometime in the 2040s. The Rafale will soldier on well into the 2040s and 2050s with various updates, both with the French Air Force and the French Naval Air Arm. The F4 variant is in the works by Dassault and a F5 variant is planned. India has contracted for the F3R variant with ISEs. Don't go by the art work. That is for marketing purposes onlee.

The second French aircraft carrier will operate the Rafale M at her commissioning. I will guarantee that.
krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 917
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by krishna_krishna »

brar_w wrote:
SH/Rafale/MiG-29 and even F-35C are operational right now. The FCAS/SCAF isn't expected to be operational till 2040. We are talking about the SH, Rafale now because those are the two MiG-29K alternatives under the MRCBF program which is a Navy program. .
Lets not talk about F-35C since it is not an option for IN right now. Only Rafale and F-18 are available apart from Mig-29Ks, understand that they need to operate out of current In carriers Vikrant/vikramaditya. IN had to commit that non Russky aircraft would not be allowed to operate off the deck of Vikramaditya as part of gorshkov saga, even that is possible the lifts on either carriers cannot accommodate anything bigger than Mig's.

Be it American massa ware or franchise for "jignesh business is business" it should be our TEDBF and that is what IN chief wrote on twitter that our full might is on TEDBF by 2030 so that is from horse's mouth as it gets. Rafale -
Rakesh wrote:@ krishna_krishna: FCAS will not be ready for active service by 2035, which is the planned entry date.
The second French aircraft carrier will operate the Rafale M at her commissioning. I will guarantee that.
Agreed it would be Rafale M but I was referring to similarities of AMCA - Naval earlier versions if you had seen that (tail less config).
Last edited by krishna_krishna on 09 Dec 2020 08:12, edited 2 times in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18277
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

I have been meaning to write this post - ever since I saw the interview of Shiv Aroor with Vice Admiral Shekar Sinha (retd) - but never got the time till now.

Disclaimer: I am not a naval aviator, certainly not an Admiral 8) and I will defer to the retired Vice Admiral on naval matters.

But that having being said, I found the 100% serviceability claim to be surprising. But when the Vice Admiral mentioned the time length (15 - 20 days), it made a lot more sense. It provided a lot more context. That is there at 53:15 in the video. Perhaps the past 15 - 20 days in 2018, the squadron was undergoing a major naval exercise and they needed all aircraft on deck (figuratively speaking of course). I believe it was in Malabar 2018 (but I could be wrong), where the MiG-29K/KUB aboard the Vikramaditya had all aircraft available. Perhaps this is the same event that the Vice Admiral is referring to.

However 100% serviceability of any fleet - especially a naval one - is not constantly sustainable. The amount of money that has to be invested to achieve that level would be astronomical. 15 - 20 days is one thing, always having that level of serviceability is a whole other story. Even the F-18 and Rafale M fleets do not have that level of serviceability in their respective service. And Boeing and Dassault are far ahead of the MiG Bureau in naval aviation. The same is true of carrier operations of the US and French Navies vis-à-vis the Russian Navy. Even in the Rafale deal for the IAF, the contract stipulates that Dassault is required to guarantee only 75% of the fleet is serviceable at any given time.

I am not discounting the MiG-29K/KUB. And to achieve 100% serviceability for 15 - 20 days is no small feat and what makes it all the more amazing, is that this serviceability was achieved on a platform not actually developed for combat naval operations. I give full marks to the Indian Navy maintenance crew aboard INS Vikramaditya that made that possible. Kudos to them! All things considered, the MiG-29K is the best India could get at that time (circa 2004). And Vice Admiral Shekar Sinha (retd) even alluded to that in the interview.

Of the 45 MiG-29K/KUBs acquired in two batches, I believe four have crashed to date. We know the first batch consisted of 12 single seater MiG-29Ks and 4 dual seater MiG-29KUBs. I am not sure of the breakdown of the variants (K vs KUB) in the second batch. If someone knows, please fill in the blanks. I would also like to know how many Ks and how many KUBs have crashed. I know two KUBs have crashed this year and 2 Ks have crashed prior. Not sure of any other crashes, beyond the four.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18277
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

krishna_krishna wrote:Agreed it would be Rafale M but I was referring to similarities of AMCA - Naval earlier versions if you had seen that (tail less config).
There is no plan for a Naval AMCA.

There are only two fighters in the pipeline for the Naval Air Arm - the TEDBF and the 36 carrier borne fighter acquisition. And as per the Navy Chief, it could end up being only the TEDBF.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by AkshaySG »

Rakesh wrote:
krishna_krishna wrote:Agreed it would be Rafale M but I was referring to similarities of AMCA - Naval earlier versions if you had seen that (tail less config).
There is no plan for a Naval AMCA.

There are only two fighters in the pipeline for the Naval Air Arm - the TEDBF and the 36 carrier borne fighter acquisition. And as per the Navy Chief, it could end up being only the TEDBF.
Not sure if this is the right thread for it but I wanted to know how much similarities the Airforce and M version of Rafale share ....Especially when compared to Mig29 and F-35 (and their Naval versions) .

I know budget constraints have lowered the numbers and we have already seen Mig29-k's go to serve in border areas if needed so it might be the case that IN/IAF has to compromise or share any future fighters wherever they may be required , So something like a 54 Rafale Deal could be flexible (36 IAF , 18 IN ) and utilize the investment already made for that platform (missiles,bombs,simulators)

So basically how much time/effort/complexity would it take to say take Rafale M's from IAC-1 or Hansa and deploy them to Hasimara/Ambala
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Philip »

The future naval fighter req. should be postponed to 2025 when sev. new developmfnts have taken place.
1.Hypersonic anti-ship/ carrier missiles.
2.Carrier UCAVs, in concert with manned carrier fighters, reducing the need for manned birds.
3.New attack/ cruise subs heavily armed with LRCMs,hyper- Ms and attack drones.

The survivability of the carrier in the future is coming into sharper
focus with the above developments and gives us enough extra time to assess our reqs.All That is required is designing and providing for larger lifts to accommodate new types of aircraft.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Philip »

The future naval fighter req. should be postponed to 2025 when sev. new developmfnts have taken place.
1.Hypersonic anti-ship/ carrier missiles.
2.Carrier UCAVs, in concert with manned carrier fighters, reducing the need for manned birds.
3.New attack/ cruise subs heavily armed with LRCMs,hyper- Ms and attack drones.

The survivability of the carrier in the future is coming into sharper
focus with the above developments and gives us enough extra time to assess our reqs.All That is required is designing and providing for larger lifts to accommodate new types of aircraft.

=== <mod edit> russian ware peddling removed </mod edit> ===

Reg.Brar's view on multi-role amphibs,some facts.Initially the req. some years ago was for 4 amphibs,with the Mistral ( 20K t) and JC (30K t)the rivals being touted by respective yards,one of which was L&T, the final lone ranger.That was the excuse at the 11th. hour,59th. minute,59th second when the signing was immediate awarding L&T the order,to scuttle it on the grounds of it being a single vendor. This tactic has been successfully used by losers to scuttle or delay deals in the past.Look how many times MOD reqs. have been " wrecked", pun intended. Then the req. was cut down for only 2, but there was one report saying that it was being done so that the vessels could
have improved capabilities, understandable since so many years have passed by. Plus the fact that OZ is acquiring modified JC designs and our worthies want a JC+ design for bragging rights,the new challenge from Chinland,QUAD,whatever.

+
Therefore,the 20K t sized amphib for the IN is passe,so building a small-sized amphib and a dedicated 3rd. CV is now not poss. unless the reports that the 2 amphibs too have been sunk are true! In which case the moolah earmarked for the amphibs will be swept into the 3rd. CV kitty,and as the good admiral said,no problem about the cost,a mere $10+ B,which will be spread out over a decade!

The better solution is a stretched sister ship of the V-2 with larger lifts to accommodate 2 Rafale-Ms, naval AMCA or TEDBF, whichever arrives in style first,which could also operate the exg.29Ks. This smaller CV, instead of an EMALS 65K t behemoth, will be much cheaper, have much comminality with the V-2,and easier to operate for crews and support/ maintenance teams being a sister ship and operating similar aircraft. Cochin shipyard has had much learning experience in building V-2 and could with some focussed effort and steady funding ,build it in half the time of V-2.

Finally,the Dhruv with folding wings isn't that the IN want, that req. is for auto- folding wings, as it will be v.difficult in bad weather for manual assistance,plus the req. for the folded blades to fit inside existing hangars aboard IN warships.CG hangars look a little larger aboard their vessels.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Philip wrote:The future naval fighter req. should be postponed to 2025 when sev. new developmfnts have taken place.
1.Hypersonic anti-ship/ carrier missiles.
2.Carrier UCAVs, in concert with manned carrier fighters, reducing the need for manned birds.
3.New attack/ cruise subs heavily armed with LRCMs,hyper- Ms and attack drones.

The survivability of the carrier in the future is coming into sharper
focus with the above developments and gives us enough extra time to assess our reqs.All That is required is designing and providing for larger lifts to accommodate new types of aircraft.
1. It is happening now and hasn't slowed down any naval force, in any sort of way, as far as deciding upon carrier composition, carrier air-wing composition or its qualitative characteristics. The Chinese, who are one of the leaders in hypersonic investments, are chugging along and will be fielding a fleet of super carriers starting later this decade. The USN has 4 Ford class carriers commissioned (CVN-78), currently being constructed/fitted (CVN-79), or on order (CVN-80 & 81). The French just committed to a 75,000 ton CVN that will replace the CdG (in the mid-late 2030s) and by 2025 will also have the option of exercising a second such ship and becoming a 2-carrier navy. The Brits and the Americans are going to be deploying their next generation carriers with their next generation air-wings in 2021 and 2022.

In fact, the idea of more capable anti-ship missiles, if anything, should actually accelerate carrier air-wing transformation given that it puts a higher premium on shooting down the shooters, stand off attack, and the ability to network over vast distances and different assets (like the USN's fire-control connectivity between ships, fighters, support aircraft, and missiles).

2. Unless China has something it is working in in secret (which it probably is but that doesn't really matter to the IN) there is just ONE unmanned deck borne aircraft program in the world. That is the MQ-25. It is a missionized tanker with some residual ISR capability. Nothing else is in the works as of yet. Meanwhile, the US Navy has a "manned" FA-XX/NGAD which is expected to come online in the early to mid 2030s', and the French Navy has naval SCAF which will IOC around 2040. Both will be 5+ generation fighters. Britain, the USN and others have fielded a naval 5GFA manned fighter. So despite great access to technology around unmanned, and manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T), all these naval powers continue to invest heavily in manned platform (because unmanned is extra and not a replacement).

3. Attack subs have always been a threat to surface ships. The answers to those is ASW not re-evaluating the carrier borne fighter mix or fighter characteristics.

There is a lot of new and existing technology being evolved around naval warfare etc. But the answer to that is almost never to just sit around and take a 5 year holiday and then decide what to do. In fact that is the exact opposite of what should be done. If anything, this should accelerate attempts to validate prior assumptions, and chart a course for the future where the IN has to prepared to operate in these higher threat environments and still meet its objectives.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by kit »

With China factor in play, Modi govt now open to Navy’s third aircraft carrier demand
https://www.defenceaviationpost.com/202 ... er-demand/

With China flexing its muscles, the Narendra Modi government is now looking favourably at the Navy’s need for a third aircraft carrier as the “situation of peace” has changed, ThePrint has learnt.

Top government sources told ThePrint that while the current focus is on submarines, for which the government will soon set the ball rolling for six more conventional submarines under Project 75I, there is a change in the government’s position regarding a third aircraft carrier.

Post Reply