Indian Naval Aviation

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 May 2017 23:22

chola wrote:Mr. Marko, the SU-33 comes out ahead of the 29K when load is added?

This is just straightline projection correct? Did you account for whether the SU-33 at that load can even take off a ramp?

With cats there is little doubt the Flanker is far better than the MiG due to its base (land) platform. I have a nagging suspicion that when the Russian Navy originally chose the 33 over the 29K for the Kuznetsov in 1995 that the performance numbers were there. Then went with 29K only after they had convinced us to take the Adm Gorshkov and provide welfare to MiG a decade and a half later.

Good stuff, Marko ji.

Cholaji,

At NTOW, the flanker has about 5600kg of fuel - it was cleared to carry its full payload of 6600kg from the Kuze. Not sure if it can do this with full internal fuel though since it has such a massive internal fuel capacity (10000kg).

Great potential, but both the IN and consequently, the RuN moved to the 29k for easier maintenance and such.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 03 May 2017 02:42

Vikrant - Dec'16

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 03 May 2017 03:37

@Cain Marko^^^. Please forgive me but it was just too tempting to pass up.

"Great potential, but both the IN and consequently, the RuN moved to the 29k for easier maintenance and such."

Some people might say (churlishly, but I couldn't possibly comment) that the Russians now have more to maintain. But as some other jaded observers have pointed out in counterpoint, the MiG29K comes with a redundant engine. It is actually a hybrid single engined fighter with a second engine as a backup. Brilliant in that it admits failure upfront and plans for it.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 03 May 2017 03:47

@Chola ^^^"That has to be better that the straightjacket we're in now with licensed building."

We like our straitjackets. Indian defense procurement is based on patronage not on needs or capability. It's for employing unemployables who are good with screwdrivers and hammers.

Heck, we can't even build AK47s

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/over-29- ... ces-483682

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 03 May 2017 06:25

Cosmo_R wrote:...

Heck, we can't even build AK47s

And there you have it - our very own (perhaps Made in India) Roosi Rakshak!!

Mr. Cosmo_R - we cannot also build a lot of terrible Roosi products. If it weren't for traitors, India would have a large MIC and not be so dependent on Roos.

Have you heard what pilots say about twin engines - the second engine only helps get you to the crash quicker!

Enjoying our lack of ability with such glee!! You should be ashamed, Sir!

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 03 May 2017 10:04

Cosmo_R wrote: Indian defense procurement is based on patronage not on needs or capability. It's for employing unemployables who are good with screwdrivers and hammers.

I think the alternative is a quest for unobtanium. MMRCA saga had frequent gripe to get political leverage at the least.

The reality is somewhere in between.

In the years BRF has been around, our technological capabilities have widened dramatically. Perhaps you don't see it. In another 5 years you'll see a fleet of nuclear subs, own aircraft carrier, couple of squadrons of LCA and LCH each, operational A-5, Nirbhay, Brahmos-A and M, deployed ABM shield, etc.

Cheer up dude!

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 05 May 2017 16:47

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FOR PROCUREMENT OF MULTIROLE
CARRIER BORNE FIGHTER FOR THE INDIAN NAVY

https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/def ... 0Final.pdf

( i dont remember seeing this, may be deleted if re-post)

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 05 May 2017 16:50

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FOR PROCUREMENT OF NAVAL SHIPBORNE
AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE – BROADCAST (ADS-B)
RECEIVERS FOR THE INDIAN NAVY

https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/def ... download=1

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 May 2017 18:15

Iran is buying alarge no. of these unique Russian amphibs,which are based upon the Ekranoplan concept. These 12 seater amphibs would be very economical to acquire,ideal for the CG and IN.The US-2 Japanese amphibs cost an absolue bomb.In the interim,the need for amphibs grows by the day.These would also be v.useful for tourism.Ck the link for the pic which shows two turboprops on either side of the nose and a "V" shaped tail supporting a horizontal tailplane at the rear.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/19101/ ... RG30dKGOM8

Iran Likely To Buy Russian Orion-20 Amphibious Vehicles
Our Bureau03:31 PM, April 24, 2017570 viewsRussian Orion-20 amphibious plane Russian Orion-20 amphibious plane - A +
Iran is keen to buy Russia's upgraded Orion-20 amphibious vehicles that can land and take off on water and ice, using the lift generated by the ground effect of its large wings when close to the surface of the water.
The Orion-20 has maximum speed of 180 km/h and can haul one ton of cargo, plus 12 passengers.
"In 2011 we signed a contract with Iran’s Bonyan Danesh Shargh Соmpany for the delivery of a number of Orion-12 ekranoplanes," Yuri Varakosov, Russia’s chief designer of ekranoplans, was quoted as saying by Sputnik Sunday.
Three such aircraft have already been supplied and we are now in talks for the supply of our experimental Orion-20s, Varakosov added.
The international sanctions which were imposed on Iran have also been a factor in the delayed supply of the initial batch of Orion-12 amphibious planes to Iran.
With most of the sanctions now lifted, Russia can resume delivering the planes and may also think about producing them jointly with Russia's Iranian partners.
“We also had to adapt our planes to Iran’s hot and humid climate and also to its rocky coastal areas, which necessitated certain changes to the planes’ original construction,” he said.
“We are ready to discuss it as part of a joint venture we are going to establish with our Iranian partners,” Yuri Varakosov said.
Ground effect planes, or ekranoplans, were developed by the Soviet Union in the 1960s as high-speed military transport vehicles.
more... 1 2
Related News

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Jun 2017 15:26

Four Fighters Throw Hat Into Big Indian Navy Ring

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jun 2017 17:16

Since the large CV is way into the future,if a decision on the IN's next fighter is taken say within a year from now,then 5 years down the line the aircraft should be available.If either the SH or Rafale-M is chosen,then it could even be faster with deliveries from existing stocks ,returnable when new aircraft are built. If Lockheed is tighfisted with the JSF,then bad luck for it in the future too.I would think that the Rafale-M would get the IN's nod over the SH (a new type and too many intrusive clauses) on performance and commonality with the IAF for logistic support,etc.

As for the 29K,unless the Russians come up with a significant improvement in reliability and performance,say MIG-35 std.,only a severe funds crisis will see the IN buy more. If whatever the current problems are satisfactorily sorted out,more of the same might be in order.Ideally,the IN would like whatever fighter is chosen be able to operate from all carriers in service.The Sea Gripen has some chance esp. if the amphibs are designed to also operate SE fighters.

The interesting part is watching these aircraft operate from the Vik-A and new Vikrant in the trials!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Jun 2017 17:28

I doubt that either Dassault or Boeing need to make a deal with their primary customer to deliver aircraft from primary stock, and nor would that be easily accomplished given the changes that IN will required vis-a-vis avionics and communications are likely the biggest influence on delivery schedule. For Boeing, they have a good 50% flex space available in their current production plan and its quite likely that Dassault has some wiggle room as well since it was earlier lining up for a much larger IAF order.

Not sure why the Gripen is even in on this since it is the only non Navalized aircraft to compete since it is promoting a paper version that has not received a single investment $ till date and requires SAAB to do something (development, test and certification of a carrier borne naval fighter) that they have never done before. The MiG-29K is in but does it have a strong chance? I doubt it since if the IN was looking for more of those aircraft the easiest path would have been to simply place a follow on order.

Would have liked to see HAL jump into this promising a hybrid deal to lease a foreign aircraft for example until they can swap those out with the MK2 based N-LCA.

The interesting part is watching these aircraft operate from the Vik-A and new Vikrant in the trials!

I doubt that is an explicit requirement for one it would have virtually disqualified the Gripen since SAAB isn't going to begin investing big on the Naval-Gripen/Sea-Gripen until they have a firm and committed customer willing to bank roll the endeavor. While Boeing and Dassault are likely to provide the IN with simulation, and perhaps some ramp test data on their proposals, I doubt those two will invest to actually certify their aircraft for the Vik-A or Vikrant just to showcase it during the trials given that they would need to develop and validate STOBAR operations.

Ther is a shore based facility in the US, and in India that can be used to supply data for the purpose of evaluation.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jun 2017 19:29

Indian Navy is expected to issue the tender soon following the go-ahead signal from the government. "Hopefully, we will select and shall have deck-based carrier airborne fighter in next 4-5 years," Admiral Lanba added.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201705 ... l-fighter/

Indian Navy Gets Quotes From 4 Jet Makers for $15 Billion Naval Fighter Deal © Boeing
MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
16:04 31.05.2017=
The Indian Navy will soon begin examining quotes it received from four global manufacturers for 57 multirole combat aircraft. Dassault Aviation, Boeing, SAAB and Rosoboronexport have responded to the global request for information (RFI) issued in January this year.

TIme to go to sleep for 4-5 years what?! If the IN wants the birds in that timeframe,then the decision will have to be taken by 2018 latest. Going by the MMRCA experience,we may see another repeat of that tortuous route and final decision.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Jun 2017 19:37

4-5 is an aspirational time-frame for the Navy and that is probably right. From purely a delivery perspective it is doable but given the acquisition track record not likely. This timeline basically eliminates the Gripen from serious contention. You aren't going to take a paper design and deliver it within that time-frame. The three other competitors would probably not have trouble in providing the IN with an aircraft of course depending upon how many changes the IN demands from the mission systems.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jun 2017 19:53

SE Gripen clearly in the "also-ran" category.The funny thing is that the IN wants these birds hopefully in 5 years time,but to be used aboard which carriers? Akin to developing sub-launched BMos without any type of sub in service to carry it!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Jun 2017 20:05

There is nothing stopping the IN from using either of these aircraft on the existing two designs while it develops the 65,000 ton class carrier. One would assume that dual operations i.e. CATOBAR for the new carrier and STOBAR for existing carriers would be a capability requirement specified in the RFP, and something that will feed into the IN's technical decision process. If for one second we assume that the aspirational time-frame cited comes to fruition you are looking at 2022-2023 for first aircraft delivery, and likely the 2025-2030 time-frame before deliveries are complete. It is very possible that all of those move to the right by 5 years which basically gets you to a time-frame that lines up favourably with the a notional new larger aircraft carrier, equipped with a CAT as per the IN's own internally defined need.

They really need to define a future air-wing before they can solidify the design of a new carrier since matters pertaining to technology access, and control or cost may adversely affect the new carrier capability and these things really need to be defined, and solidified before design freeze or green light for a new carrier can be pursued. You don't wan't to end up with a MiG-29K, and be at the mercy of UAC and US Navy working together to certify the MiG-29K for EMALS and AAG operations so you ideally want to sure up an air-wing before you transition and commit to higher capability. If one does end up with a MiG-29K you would ideally want to work closely with UAC, to gain enough control of the design to allow an intermediary to work on type certification with the USN as a hedge against a potential pitfall. Ideally you would want to hammer out all of these things prior to deciding on the next course of action.

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 01 Jun 2017 20:46

This naval MRCA competition is, for all practical purposes, a flyoff between Shornet and the Rafale. The 'Sea Gripen' is non existent as brar and Philip have pointed out, and the MiG is only included to tell the Russians that the aircraft was also included in the competition.

The IAF Rafales already have IAF specific modifications in the contract. I presume the contract includes testing and integration for those software/hardware suites on the Rafale. It shouldn't be too difficult to port those mods onto the IN Rafales right (Assuming Rafale is selected)? Dassault can claim commonality as well as no extra charge for IN specific suites, as a point in its favour. Or are naval requirements very different from IAF ones?

This is where Boeing has problems. The logistical headaches for the Shornet, in terms of weaponry, HMD will probably swing it in Dassault's favour.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Jun 2017 21:32

Philip wrote:
Indian Navy is expected to issue the tender soon following the go-ahead signal from the government. "Hopefully, we will select and shall have deck-based carrier airborne fighter in next 4-5 years," Admiral Lanba added.

...

Very comical indeed

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Jun 2017 21:34

Chinmay wrote:This naval MRCA competition is, for all practical purposes, a flyoff between Shornet and the Rafale. The 'Sea Gripen' is non existent as brar and Philip have pointed out, and the MiG is only included to tell the Russians that the aircraft was also included in the competition.

The IAF Rafales already have IAF specific modifications in the contract. I presume the contract includes testing and integration for those software/hardware suites on the Rafale. It shouldn't be too difficult to port those mods onto the IN Rafales right (Assuming Rafale is selected)? Dassault can claim commonality as well as no extra charge for IN specific suites, as a point in its favour. Or are naval requirements very different from IAF ones?

This is where Boeing has problems. The logistical headaches for the Shornet, in terms of weaponry, HMD will probably swing it in Dassault's favour.

The only time consuming process for Boeing would be to make the avionics and communication suite compatible with IN's needs and requirements. HMD's now days are platform agnostic and much easier to integrate, plus Boeing has a color JHMCS II (Elbit USA product) on offer as well that the IN can evaluate.

Weapons wise things look good for them since they have virtually all of USN's weapons to offer, and then some that are non US, such as the ASRAAM (which they integrated for the Hornet), and JSM which is now being managed by Raytheon in the US. There are potentially 3 different Anti Ship weapons that the USN would have invested in, two of those would have been cleared on the SH with the third designed with open architectures for easy of integration. The SH also has a proper ARM, and an Extended Range version in the works with a range requirement in excess of 225 km. It most likely has a wider field of networked weapons to choose from than the Rafale. Israeili weapons can also be explored since Boeing has experience of working with suppliers there on various projects. The only advantage the Rafale has is the Meteor (minus the two-way data link capability available on the Eurofighter or Gripen iirc) while Boeing has the Aim-120D, and a future weapon the USAF just started on at a later date.

What Rafale has going for it is technology access, which has been granted to the MOD's satisfaction under the modified MRCA deal. They would need to work out those aspects with the SH from scratch which is no easy thing (as the MRCA saga clearly documents). Conversely, the Rhino would be EMALS/AAG cleared , while the Rafale would have to take a trip to Lakehurst and spend time there to get certified. The Rafale seems like a logical choice but it may come down to cost. Unlike the Super Hornet, the Rafale hasn't had its production and development amortized over 700+ unit production run which is a disadvantage down the road, since the USN is much better funded to introduce upgrades at regular intervals as they are doing with Block III which covers sensors, range and engine performance aspects and because those upgrades are likely to be spread over many times the number of aircraft as would be in case of the Rafale. Either way these are two good choices to have in the competition.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jun 2017 21:42

Just as a FYI, IN had approached Boeing for the F/A-18, for the Vicky (yes) around 2008-9. And, I have posted that Boeing, as we type, is conducting STO tests for that plane.

This is where Boeing has problems. The logistical headaches for the Shornet, in terms of weaponry, HMD will probably swing it in Dassault's favour.

Nope.

Along with the now famous single-engine, India ALSO has a dual-engine rec - two separate recs, for the IAF!!!!!

So, there should be the famous level-playing-field for both Boeing and Dassault.

I think it all depends on Mr. Confefe (just added that word to my dictionary, since it was complaining - how rude). If India can invite Him and arrange for him to stay in a gold plated palace in Saudi Arabia, it is a done deal for the F-18.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 10 Jun 2017 07:10

Boeing, Dassault racing for Rs 50,000-cr Navy deal for 57 fighter jets

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jun 2017 07:35

Kakkaji wrote:Boeing, Dassault racing for Rs 50,000-cr Navy deal for 57 fighter jets

To be expected.

What I find rather interesting is that (from what I can find in open source) is that Dassault seems to have conducted simulations to claim the Rafale can use a ski jump. While Boeing is actually testing it as we type. IF that is true, then it seems to be a huge risk that Dassault is carrying.

Need to wait.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jun 2017 11:27

The aircraft selected will have to operate from our two ski-jump carriers,as they would be unable to operate from sea while the large CV is in refit or under maintenance if they are merely CATOBAR/EMALS.During that time they would have to be land/island based,why I want the IN to take a greater role in maritime air defence relieving the IAF of some of its maritime op duties,so that it can beef up its presence on the Sino-Paki front.

Similarly,the existing IN MIG-29s must also be trialled/modifed if need be for cat ops,so they too could operate from the large CV when required. In any case one ski-jump carrier will always be available (hopefully) which could carry extra MIGs on deck in a crisis.

My money is on the Rafale,as the IAF are also lobbying v.hard fro more of them.Perhaps the IAF and IN are teaming up to present the GOI/MOD with a joint request which may bring the price down.In any case having already chosen the bird,less money would need to be spent on setting up the req. infrastructure,at least for the IAF.Ideally,a joint Rafale centre for both IN and IAF would suffice. serving around 120 +.

The naval FGFA will arrive too late for consideration as the IN from the request,want to choose the aircraft first before finalising the carrier design.Asking whether the aircraft could operate both from a ski-jump and cat. echoes my thoughts.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jun 2017 12:09

NRao wrote:What I find rather interesting is that (from what I can find in open source) is that Dassault seems to have conducted simulations to claim the Rafale can use a ski jump. While Boeing is actually testing it as we type. IF that is true, then it seems to be a huge risk that Dassault is carrying.

Need to wait.

They can all use ski-jumps, the differential is the payload.

The more critical question is - can the Rafale fit on the Vikrant's lifts?

After pondering on it a while, I realised I could go ahead and just measure it. So I did and apparently the answer to that question is a firm NO.

That's the aft lift of the carrier at CSL. The width of the lift shaft is ~11 m. The lift itself will be no more than 10.5 m wide with another 1 m clearance required on both sides of the aircraft.

Rafale Wingspan: 11 m.

Chinmay · Post by **Chinmay** » 10 Jun 2017 13:17

^^ Assuming you are right, the IN is left with the Shornet as the only realistic option. So why go through this entire MRCA mess if you know the specs of your ship? Just ask for the aircraft in a G2G deal!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jun 2017 14:50

Chinmay wrote:^^ Assuming you are right, the IN is left with the Shornet as the only realistic option. So why go through this entire MRCA mess if you know the specs of your ship? Just ask for the aircraft in a G2G deal!

Don't count out the MiG-29K yet. Keep in mind that the development & production of ship's aviation complex was contracted out to the Russians (and based on the VikAd) for MiG compatibility.

And while an order for 57 fighters might have been a little excessive for the Vikrant (the French Navy ordered 45 Rafale Ms to equip one similar sized carrier), given the MiG-29K's lackluster serviceability a larger 'bench-strength' would be required.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jun 2017 18:02

Here is thf following information I had come across.

From this it would seem the MiG-29K is out

While Russian MiG-29Ks have been procured for the current Indian aircraft carrier Vikramaditya (formerly the Russian carrier Admiral Gorshkov) and for the first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-1) under construction, there have been serviceability issues, a senior naval official told AIN. “At any point in time, there are at least eight aircraft on ground [AOG],” he added. He also mentioned concerns that the type is underpowered.

Based on this the Sea Gripen seems to be out.

The RFI states the chosen aircraft must be flying from carriers in the country of origin. That seems to limit the choice to the twin-engine Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Dassault Rafale M. However, unlike the Super Hornet, the Rafale M does not have folding wings, except at the tip—an essential for India, said the official. “Also, the cost of the Boeing aircraft is likely to be cheaper,” he added.

Finally, found this interesting.

In the case of two-seat aircraft, the RFI inquires if the aircraft has the capability to operate from both STOBAR (Short Take-off But Arrested Recovery) and CATOBAR (Catapult Take-off But Arrested Recovery) aircraft carriers without any modifications.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jun 2017 18:05

Both the Rafale and SH can do STOBAR without modifications. They just require physical testing and envelope expansion to cover the new regime. The only changes one can anticipate would be a Flight Control System update rolled in to account for the increased envelope, but no physical change.

Not sure what the French have ongoing vis-a-vis uprated engines, but the USN has decided to fund the F414 Enhanced Engine changes as part of the block III F-18E/F so the thrust to weight ratio of a post 2020 (delivery) F-18E/F should be better than a Block I or II Rhino currently flying, which should positively impact its STOBAR envelope.

http://www.janes.com/article/70504/boei ... -platforms

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Jun 2017 18:44

NRao wrote:Here is thf following information I had come across.

From this it would seem the MiG-29K is out

While Russian MiG-29Ks have been procured for the current Indian aircraft carrier Vikramaditya (formerly the Russian carrier Admiral Gorshkov) and for the first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-1) under construction, there have been serviceability issues, a senior naval official told AIN. “At any point in time, there are at least eight aircraft on ground [AOG],” he added. He also mentioned concerns that the type is underpowered.

And the super hornet is high powered? Rubbish. Shameless pitch for the shornet in that article. Rafale has the highest twr followed by the fulcrum Iirc. But if they can uprate those 414s on the rhino, it should be very interesting. Shornet vs. Rafale is how I see it. The shornet has a good chance being less pricey. Frankly though, the jsf would be best.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jun 2017 18:55

Not sure if there is significant difference in F-18E/F and Rafale-M T2W ratio but as posted above, the block III Rhino program is pursuing the Enhanced Engine which should provide between 15-20% improvement in wet thrust compared to the engines currently flying. This will have an impact on flight performance and energy but also on STOBAR operations. Since going forward the Block III will form the production standard, engine thrust growth will likely factor into the IN's evaluation of the Boeing proposal.

Included in Block 3 are upgrades to the Raytheon AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar; an Elbit Systems large area display (LAD) 'glass' cockpit and next-generation avionics; an infrared search and track (IRST); 'shoulder-mounted' conformal fuel tanks (CFTs); Integrated Defensive Electronic Counter Measures (IDECM); and new General Electric F-414-400 enhanced engines.

Burt said that Boeing expects to see USN budgeting to be allocated shortly to enable the company to begin the work needed for Block 3, though development of some aspects such as advanced datalinks has already commenced. "Production of Block 3 should begin in fiscal year [FY] 2019, with deliveries in FY 2020," he said. The plan is that all future Super Hornets will be built to this standard, while those aircraft already fielded by the USN will be retrofitted.

Further to the Super Hornet Block 3 enhancement, Burt noted that the company's Growler is also set for a major enhancement package dubbed Advanced EA-18G. Following the same timeline as the Block 3, Advanced EA-18G will comprise AESA upgrades; open architecture advanced computing; advanced cockpit; CFTs; Next-Generation Jammer; AN/ALQ-218 electronic support measures upgrades; Advanced Tactical Datalink; and the enhanced engines. Boeing is currently under contract to begin work on a service life extension programme (SLEP) for the US Navy to increase the airframe hours of the Super Hornet from the current 6,000 to 9,000.

The earliest aircraft to have been delivered to the USN are now reaching the end of their current service lives, which is two years ahead of the planned declaration of initial operating capability for the carrier variant Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft.

As well as the SLEP, the Pentagon's FY 2017 budget proposal will request up to 28 additional Super Hornets to try to offset any shortfall in the number of strike fighters available on the navy's aircraft carriers, and more are expected in the FY 2018 budget.

A quick and dirty calculation -

F-18E/F Block II ; Empty Weight (32,081 lb) + 50% Fuel(7200 lb) + 5000 lb of Weapons = T2W 0.99
Rafale-M ; Empty Weight (23,400 lb) + 50% Fuel (5,200 lb) + 5000 lb of Weapons = T2W 1.00

Block III Guesstimate based on known and available data and some assumptions:

Empty Weight (33,685 [32,081 +5% growth (assumption)]) + 50% Fuel (7200 lb) + 5000 lb of Weapons and 18% Increase in Wet Thrust (GE Data on Enhanced F414) = T2W 1.13

If you load up those Block III's with additional 3000 lb of fuel (10,200 lb of fuel) in the CFTs you still get a T2W ratio of 1.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jun 2017 19:42

I have not seen/read the RFI.

But, if the rec that the nation of origin needs to be flying their proposed planes, then that too eliminates the MiG.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jun 2017 19:48

Russia does fly the MiG-29k and moreover the IN does too.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jun 2017 20:34

Last I heard was that the IN had written the book on the 29K. (Is that right?)

Last I read about Russian Navy using a 29K was late last year when they included 4 of them in their complement, along with 33s and one of them crashed in the Sea.

Cannot say. But I would think IN has more experience with them birds than anyone out there. And if they were indeed that happy with them would have ordered more. ????

Having said all that IMHO the teenS are coming (I related them to the AMCA engine and no other good reason). Provided a cartoon takes this topic seriously. June end we should get to know, I would imagine.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jun 2017 21:20

That would make sense. If the IN is satisfied with the MiG-29K it makes little sense to seek a new fighter so it will be interesting to see whether the MiG-29K option is taken seriously or not. If indeed that is the case then expect the Rafale and the SH to be included only to negotiate more aggressively with Russia. Somehow I doubt this but it should play out as this moves ahead.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2017 07:00

Only as a FYI ......................

Wiki states that the selection o the MiG-29K was because they did not want to restart the Su-33 line again. Finance!!!!! And since India had funded the MiG, they "piggy backed" their needs on the Indian effort!!!!

Got me thinking. So ................... IF the In ditches the MiG-29, what will the RuN do? I mean, would not teh funding source *totally* dry up?

On the F-18: came across a project called Active Aero-Elastic Wing (AAW), where the wing behaves like twisting a towel. The plane used to test: the F-18. Do not think it will make any diff, but just saying.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 11 Jun 2017 22:56

Have a feeling that Rafale/reliance is likely to get order for another 90 birds depending upon how well they deliver on promises associated with first order such as the kaveri jv. 57 of said 90 will probly go to navy.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Jun 2017 10:40

Cain Marko wrote:Have a feeling that Rafale/reliance is likely to get order for another 90 birds depending upon how well they deliver on promises associated with first order such as the kaveri jv. 57 of said 90 will probly go to navy.

I wish. The problem is that it can't operate from the Vikramaditya or the Vikrant without modifying the vessels. And we know the IAF will scream bloody murder if the Navy attempts to acquire it for a shore-based role.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Jun 2017 12:03

Cain Marko wrote:Have a feeling that Rafale/reliance is likely to get order for another 90 birds depending upon how well they deliver on promises associated with first order such as the kaveri jv. 57 of said 90 will probly go to navy.

My bet is on MOD/MOF rejecting IN request for 57 fighter once they see the price , Even IAF with all the muscle pulling managed to get 38 fighter that was the bare necessity needed for it and SFC.

57 fighter would cost the IN more that the cost of AC along with its other compliment like Chopper.AEW and others. 57 fighter is easily more than $10 billion worth on money if you consider the logistics , weapons training and every other thing that needs to set up the fighter , that kind of money IN does not have , it can barely fund its frigate program , the Chopper program is no where to be seen and MineSweeper program is in some MOD Cupboard gathering dust all these are more critical for the navy than any new fighter it wants to procure.

The best case scenario for IN would then be either get one squadron of these fighter and opt for more naval Tejas Mk2 even that is best case one and then it would be still close to a decade to materalise.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2017 12:22

what is the use case of SFC on manned fighters delivering n-payloads.

i would imagine a enemy who can wipe out our distributed arsenal of missiles could more easily disable the airbases needed for these planes to even take off.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jun 2017 13:19

There seems to be a covert "push" fort eh large CV/EMALS,etc.etc., by vested interests which would benefit the US.It wants a spare CV in the IOR ready to do duty against the PLAN.Such ahuge expenditure would severely surtail India's sub programme as large numbers of subs are needed to monitor events in the IOR and the Asia-Pacific region too.

As Austin says,unless the MOD/GOI cough up around $6-&B for the navy birds alone,when the equiv number of upgraded 29Ks would be available at just $2B for the same number,wiht the huge helo requirement also pending,the IN's wait for the aircraft will be a v.long one.