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.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 13:31

The Indian Navy is truly evolving as the principal arm of India's power projection away from Indian shores, both in the Indian Ocean region and beyond it.

Presently, we are looking at a 02 Air Craft Carrier fleet before 2020 and a third by 2030 time frame. This is not just an expansion in fleet capacity but also an expansion in the Indian Navy's aviation capabilities. The combat aircraft arm of the Indian Navy will evolve into a Multi Role force and have capabilities beyond Air Superiority including EW roles.

The Naval Air Arm includes fighters, EW, transports and helicopters. Indian Navy is training its own pilots and fields a fleet which has grown significantly both in numbers and potency.

Additional fleet capacity is planned including the latest RFI for 57 "Multi Role Carrier Borne Fighters (MRCBF)" http://www.stratpost.com/navy-issues-rfi-57-carrier-fighters

A brief look at Indian Navy Air arm is as below:

Fixed Wing
Hawk AJTs
Mig 29 K and KUB
Tu 142
IL 38
Boeing P8Is
Do 228s

Rotary Wing
Chetaks
Sea Kings
Ka 28
Ka 31
Dhruv

UAVs
Heron
Searcher

A particularly informative compilation is available at Team BHP - http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/163578-indian-naval-aviation-air-arm-its-carriers.html

Alternatively one may check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Naval_Air_Arm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_naval_aircraft

A good take on the Indian Naval Air Arm from a few years ago http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/AirArm/60+years+of+Naval+Aviation
Last edited by deejay on 29 Jan 2017 13:58, edited 1 time in total.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 13:58

Presently, the Indian Navy is involved in multiple upgrade programs for its air arm including upgrades to Tu142 and Il 38s.

Multiple acquisition programs are in various stages. Specifically, Dhruvs, NMRH and NUH in helicopters. In maritime patrol there has been news of planned acquisition of 12 US2 ShnMaywa amphibious aircraft for long range search and rescue from Japan. There is a possible purchase of 06 medium range maritime reconnaissance aircraft in the pipeline.

This is apart from the RFP for 57 MRCBF requirement which may or may not be a twin engine platform.

The recent RFP news was however not the first indication of this plan to purchase additional combat aircraft. Broad plans on this is available on this piece from 2008
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/naval-air-intro.htm

Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta said in August 2008 that "By 2022, we plan to have 160-plus ship navy, including three aircraft carriers, 60 major combatants, including submarines and close to 400 aircraft of different types. This will be a formidable three dimensional force with satellite surveillance and networking to provide force multiplication." By one estimate by 2020 the Indian Navy aircraft inventory could be about 400 aircraft, including:

30 ASW aircraft (Including long range, medium range, short range)
50 ASW helicopters - (Sea King and Kamov)
35 Transport aircraft
120 Carrier-Based Aircraft - 3 Aircraft Carriers @ 40 A/C each [includes 1/2 of ASW helos]
85 other aircraft [35 fixed wing trainers, 35 utility helicopters, and 15 other helicopters], and
120 other aircraft not otherwise accounted for, possibly coastal defense fighters


A more specific reference to additional combat aircraft was made in this report from 2011:
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories1304_Indian_Navy_to_have_100_jets.htm

Indian Navy to have 100 combat jets, 500 aircraft
by Gulshan Luthra Published: December 2011

New Delhi. The Indian Navy is set to have 100-plus combat jets, as part of an assortment of its own mostly ship-board capable air force of some 500 aircraft and helicopters.

Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Verma told India Strategic that air power is an integral component of the Indian Navy’s modernization programme with at least three aircraft carriers in the future.
The Naval Chief declined to mention the exact timelines but observed that each platform of the Navy would be equipped with progressively better technologies and newer GENERATION systems as they evolve. The effort is on acquiring capabilities, and eventually indigenizing them with special emphasis on operational capabilities in the Electronic Warfare (EW) environment.
The Indian Navy has already ordered 45 Mig 29K combat jets from Russia, 16 of them in the first lot in 2004, and the remaining now. Incidentally, this is the first time that the Russians are supplying training simulators with their aircraft; the Indian Air Force never got any in the good old days from the Soviet Union or Russia.
These Mig 29K aircraft are specifically meant for INS Vikramaditya aka Admiral Gorshkov being acquired from Russia end-2012 before the Navy Day on Dec 4.
The 60 other combat jets being planned for acquisition may be different. Adm Verma did not elaborate.
All he said was that the Navy has planned for about 500 aircraft, helicopters, LRMR and MRMR included.
It may be noted however that various aircraft manufacturers, US Boeing (F/A 18 Super Hornet) and Lockheed Martin (F 35 JSF), French Dassault (Rafale) and Swedish Saab (Sea Gripen) have made presentations to the Navy.
At present, only the Boeing F/A 18 and Rafale operate from aircraft carriers while the JSF, the futuristic 5th Generation aircraft under development has demonstrated the capability to land and take off from ships in flight trials. There is also the naval version of the India’s LIGHT Combat Aircraft (LCA) being developed by HAL.
The choice should be known after a few years.
The Navy has already ordered 12 Boeing P8-I long Range Maritime Reconnaissance aircraft (LRMR) and another 12 LRMR and half a dozen Medium Range Maritime Reconnaissance (MRMR) aircraft are under consideration.
Besides these, the Navy is looking for an assortment of aircraft to operate in the contemporary and futuristic ELECTRONIC Warfare (EW) environment with cutting edge technologies.
The US has offered Northrop Grumman's advance E-2D Hawkey shipboard aircraft for battle management but that is where it stands. There is no "Yes" or "No" from the Indian Navy.
Adm Verma said that what the Navy was looking at were just not numbers of aircraft, ships, submarines and other assets but their capabilities. Any equipment and system has to operate and last for years. New and newer technologies are emerging rapidly and whatever the Navy buys, has to be value for money and security for years to come.
As for ships and submarines, he said that by 2027, the Navy should have mostly new 150 ships and submarines to enable operations in both the western and eastern seaboards of India to protect the country’s maritime interests.
The Navy has also acquired two refueling vessels to enable its ships to stay far from the shores and for longer durations.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 14:43

Cross posting some recent discussion from Indian Navy thread which are relevant to this thread:

Rakesh wrote:Navy issues RFI for 57 carrier fighters
http://www.stratpost.com/navy-issues-rf ... r-fighters

From Rajit Ohja: Conventional logic, you buy/design carrier around a/c you want to operate.
Desi logic, you buy a/c around aircraft carrier you buy/develop
https://twitter.com/y2krajit/status/824254966252453889

In response to the above tweet, Angad Singh states....

My favourite part of all this is we did a navair seminar in Delhi two years ago where IN flag officers were saying exactly the same thing.
https://twitter.com/zone5aviation/statu ... 4103074816


GeorgeWelch wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Navy issues RFI for 57 carrier fighters
http://www.stratpost.com/navy-issues-rf ... r-fighters


deliveries of the aircraft to ‘commence within three years post conclusion of contract, and be completed within further period of three years’


57 deliveries within 3 (possibly 6) years? Rafale would be challenged to meet such a timeline with their current backlog


Rakesh wrote:Indian Navy pitches for three more multirole fighter squadrons
https://sputniknews.com/asia/2017012710 ... squadrons/


Rakesh wrote:Indian Navy kicks off global search for a carrier-borne fighter
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.ca/2017/01/i ... h-for.html

The navy’s “request for information” (RFI), posted on the web on January 25, does not specify whether it wants a single-engine or a twin-engine fighter. However, the expansive role capability spelt out biases the selection towards a medium-to-heavy, twin-engine fighter.

However, Saab officials, speaking off the record, confirm emphatically that they will offer the Sea Gripen. “We have done detailed feasibility studies that encounter no problem in evolving the Gripen E into a carrier-borne fighter”.

With regards to the second quote...it is beyond me as to how Saab believes they can win this competition for 57 naval fighters. They have not one, repeat NOT ONE, plane in active service of the Gripen E and they have temerity to offer a 'navalized' Gripen E to the IN. WOW! :roll:

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 14:48

X Posting ...

Rakesh wrote:Veteran fighter pilot & ex-Indian Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash thinks India should go the CATOBAR carrier way
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/824888443020775425

reading the tea leaves tells me F-18 Super Hornet....


brar_w wrote:Could (Should) be the Rafale - M since it makes sense since it will already have a logisitical footprint in the country.

Rakesh wrote:With regards to the second quote...it is beyond me as to how Saab believes they can win this competition for 57 naval fighters. They have not one, repeat NOT ONE, plane in active service of the Gripen E and they have temerity to offer a 'navalized' Gripen E to the IN. WOW! :roll:


There are very few pure 4th generation competitions left for high end fighters so expect SAAB to try to compete fiercely in all of them. Even if that means offering a paper version of an un-tested variant of an aircraft for a challenging requirement where they are essentially saying "Pay us the money and we'll convert it from CTOL to CV". :D I wouldn't be surprised if Eurofighter didnt enter and offer to do convert the Typhoon...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dY8O2tinLyU/T ... n%2BIN.JPG


brar_w wrote:I think one needs to look at the big picture here. Is it quite likely that a few years down the road the IAF could buy more Rafale's? I think that this is quite likely. Would the IAF look seriously at yet another medium sized twin engine fighter? I think this is very unlikely. Could the single engine fighter competition result in an F-16 purchase?

That could happen given what we have heard but I'd rather wait to see more movement on that front to assume that it likely to happen. Taking all this it's much smarter to bring economies of scale on the Rafale enterprise and pay more upfront to share resources across the IAF and IN. You'll have access to the same high end weapons like the Storm Shadow, Meteor that the IAF will end up buying anyways while you could then justify spending more cash a decade or so down the road to upgrade the aircraft more extensively given that the cost and benefits will be shared over a much larger fleet.

The only way the F-18 makes sense to me is if the F-16 is purchased in the amount the current SEMRF program suggests, the MK2 is pursued and procured in quantity, and the GE-F414 EPE is chosen for the AMCA. Then at least you'll get an advanced engine for both the F-18, AMCA and Tejas, and have a chance to bulk buy weapon types to support the IAF and IN fleets of F-16 and F-18.



Singha wrote:We are talking of f18 for 65000t ins vishal or throwing away the mig29k on vikramaditya and vikrant?

Either way the best future proof and vfm option is.

Vstol model of jsf for the two current carriers
Ctol model for vishal with cats

Why would we want the hornet or rafale when a superior future ready platform is available with same weapons for a similar price

Jsf all the way..we need something to deal with planaf and plaaf flankers not thundars

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 14:53

X Posting

NRao wrote:Looking around the net. China *already* has some 10 J-20s and more to arrive within a year. I would assume a rate of 10 a year - at the very least. By 2030 I would think they would have at the very least a 100-150 J-20s.

J-31. I bet they will make them for their naval assets. By 2030 I would expect 40-50 of them.

All that in addition to Flankers, etc and a huge fleet of truly good UAVs, many armed to their teeth (http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/1 ... lities.pdf).

This slow process of tendering, waiting (potentially cancelling), just will not cut it. IF LM/SAAB cannot complete delivery of a 100 planes by 2022, it really is not worth it. The reboot will start the day the delivery of a 4th gen is completed. IAF/IN will claim being deficient in all respects and start issuing RFIs.

Somewhere in the early-mid 2020s, China will invest in the next gen, if they have not started already. Russia has kicked that ball - so they claim. And, to think India would be still fiddling with a 4th gen - no matter which one - is sad.


vina wrote:Well, today's Al Hundi has a write up about the Navy sending an RFP for 57 MRCB (multi role carrier borne) fighter. To summarize it basically says.

1. The Navy is not going to use the Naval Tejas in it's current config, but is backing the development of the Mk2 / carrier version (which is quite well known)
2. The Navy is NOT going to buy anymore Mig 29Ks, given the very "troubled" experience with that plan
3. The RFP doesnt specify single engine or double engine.

So basically it is this.

1 . The VikAd / Baku/Adm Gorshkov, burned out hull /refurbished stuff and the acquisition of the Mig 29K is an acquisition disaster par excellence The VikAd is going to be a "unique" specimen with maintenance like a "Bakasur" and nothing to show for it. We over paid to aquire the "free" hull, the Mig29Ks are absolute Kakkoose, ( so unreliable that I doubt it will deploy beyond single engine recover distance of a land base) . The Navy would have been FAR better off by trusting their own capabilities and built TWO of the Vikrant types for the VikAd aqcuisiton.

2. The Mig29K (Kakkoose) now seriously dents the operational capabilities of the VikAd AND Vikrant. The Navy bet that the Mig29K was a "proven" aircraft . Turns out the Mig29 engines are as bad as ever and is the ONLY available STOBAR aircraft in the world . The the Navy put all eggs into the Mig29K went with the STOBAR config and is now SERIOUSLY stuck with the Mig29K proving simply un-useable the two STOBAR hulls are seriously compromised.

3. The next hull HAS to have Cats (steam or emals doesnt matter. We might as well get the steam catapult if Emals is too expensive), the aircraft options are F18, Rafale M and F-35C.

4. VikAd will see it getting scrapped / being relegated to training /support roles within a decade of it's induction. The Vikrant is probably going to see Cats fitted on it (if steam cats, the ski jump might need to be removed.. I am not sure if the steam cats tubes can follow the contours of the ski jump).

5. The ONLY way VikAd can see of any meaningful use is IFF (ie if and only if) the LCA Mk2 Navy replaces the Mig 29K . There too, VikAd will be able serve a pure fleet air defense role, with the strike roles falling on the other two hulls. In any case, the VikAd is handicapped.

6. OH, I absolutely wont dhoti shiver at ALL about the Chinese Carrier capability. If given the IN's carrier experience and this is the situation of OUR Russian origin VikAd , I can just imagine the Chinese with similar hulls and even MORE unsuitable for carrier aircraft (the SU27 carrier variant). It will at best serve as a fleet air defense role ..


Singha wrote:the Mig29K fleet around 50 should be shifted to pune, andamans and gujrat bases for a seaward/rann of kutch defence role to supplement the 12 or so naval strike jaguars we have....this will relieve the pune based flankers and permit them to move along to other bases in other sectors.

with russis not confident enough to prove 1 engine recovery on their own LARGER carrier, I can see its going nowhere out of 16km territorial waters lol ... in a world first we have a seaward defence coastal CV class :(( to escort dvora and CG patrol boats to interdict smugglers and fish stealers.

we actually need something better for the ADS and Vikky if possible .... right now ..... the best option is get some VSTOL JSF because the USMC is leading the JSF FOC among the 3 types .... and we might be able to get some here and there off their production run if we ask nicely :) with only RN and USMC as buyers the list of hungry mouths to be fed on that type is short , compared to the production run of CTOL and USAF versions


shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:the Mig29K fleet around 50 should be shifted to pune, andamans and gujrat bases for a seaward/rann of kutch defence role to supplement the 12 or so naval strike jaguars we have....this will relieve the pune based flankers and permit them to move along to other bases in other sectors.

Would they need to use Air Force assets for this? If that is the case, then it also begs the question "Why have a naval air arm?".

I do know that there have been serviceability issues with MiG 29s - but writing them off as useless "Let them become landlubbers" may well be an overreaction to media reports of serviceability and the navy's request for more aircraft.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 14:55

X- Posting

Philip wrote:The 57 new aircraft will take several years to evaluate,award and then deliver.This is not a "quick-fix" for the 29Ks,as some fondly imagine. If there are problems with the 29Ks,then the OEM has to deliver according to whatever was signed in the contract,penalties/guarantees,etc.The next carrier expected 10 years from now will require a superior aircraft to the 29K. If you look at the MMRCA acquisition/drama,which ultimately ended up with only 36 aircraft bought ,In my opinion,only two of current aircraft fit the bill,the naval Rafale and JSF.The problem with both is that the Rafale is hugely expensive and the JSF,plagued with development problems,isn't the Donald's favourite bird either. If the IAF seal the deal on the FGFA,then 10 years from now,a naval version will definitely be available as it is being planned for the RUN and its future carriers. That would be the best option,but the IN need to wait for both the carrier and the aircraft.

Another problem is what will be operated from the two 45Kt cvs ,The Vik-A and IAC-1? Their dimensions of lifts,etc.,cannot be altered. The JSF's engine has a deck heat problem too,given the enormous heat produced by its massive engines. The Vik-A and IAC-1 may not be able to handle the "heat",pardon the pun! An "also ran" may be the Sea Gripen,touted by SAAB some years ago for the Viraat as well! But looking into the future and future ops,capabilities like advanced weaponry,radar, endurance,etc. ,a single-engined SG would be inadequate. This acquisition has many years to play out before a final conclusion is made.

PS:Good NDTV feature of an IN Kilo sub.
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/exclusiv ... on-1652951

http://www.ndtv.com/video/news/news/exc ... _prevvideo


Austin wrote:Best bet for IN if the 57 aircraft is to be procured within 5 years would be Rafale , IAF would be operating 36 Rafale and another 57 would make total rafale fleet strength to more than 90 aircraft , It would nicely compliment on the Logistics and Armament between IN & IAF , plus they additional 30 % offset as IN RFI has asked for beyond 50 % we got with IAF deal that can be used to indiginse the Rafale or opt for some technology that can help with AMCA or other programs of DRDO. They can also bargain on the price. Rafale would nicely complement the 29K.

Logistically/Training/Weapons/MRO/Life Cycle Support Rafale is the best bang for the buck


shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:Russi hv to prove 1 engine recovery which they have not done years after induction. That begs the point of having a carrier if it has to roam within a short range of divert airports and high engine issue rates

Neithet it can escort groups to aden or bandar abbas as air defence or strike gwader from deep sea and disappear.

Mig29k needs a one engine etops rating similar to b777 to make our carrier effective.but ge90 vs rd33mk3 cough cough


Several issues here

ETOPS is a civil airliner rating that allows two engined aircraft to fly on routes that are more than 60 minutes flying time away from the nearest airport. MiG 29 issues have zero connection with ETOPS and the two should not be mixed up. ETOPS is from an era when only 4 engined passenger jets were allowed to fly transatlantic routes

Yes Navy MiG 29s have done single engined landings:

I would ignore the sensational headline to attract eyeballs and make advertising money
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/10000-cr ... 29-1437329
The CAG report says that since the MiG-29K plane was inducted in 2010, more than half of its engines have been diagnosed with design-related defects. "The issue had serious flight safety implications, since in-flight engine defects had led to ten cases of single engine landings," the report says.

Nor has the MiG-29 been able to fare acceptably during the violent process of landing on the tiny deck of an aircraft carrier. Restrained upon touchdown by an arrestor hook which snags a wire on the deck of the Vikramaditya, the MiG-29K has encountered several component failures.


Austin wrote:As a matter of certification I think every double engine fighter aircraft and even double engine civil aircraft undergo single engine landing certification .

In war or even in peace time if you loose one engine due to hit or even bird hit , you are trained to land the aircraft on single engine after flying many minutes, same goes for civil they have etops standard

All you need is small piece of metal to enter into your fighter engine be it bullet or shrapnel and high chances are you will have a engine flame out, there were cases of Fighter aircraft gun left over shell having caused engine flame out.

IAF study i think it was there on brf that said two engine aircraft offer 3x more safety over single engine one


vina wrote:
The CAG report says that since the MiG-29K plane was inducted in 2010, more than half of its engines have been diagnosed with design-related defects. "The issue had serious flight safety implications, since in-flight engine defects had led to ten cases of single engine landings," the report says.


Hmm.., very "Yudhistir" like this CAG.. "Ashwattama hathaha Kunjaraha" ..sort of like "had led to ten cases of single engine landings in divert airfields" .

And why would it be Yudhishtir like and not landing on carrier with single engine like? Why, it is like this. The woman who sits in the cabin next to mine , her husband is in the Navy's air arm (a carrier pilot). Now if one his pal's engines go kaput in the air and he reports it to the air boss, I would ABSOLUTELY hope that the air boss directs to pilot to follow the SOP and divert to the nearest airport if within flying range and attempt a single engine carrier landing as the absolute last resort. As it is , a carrier landing is dangerous and with an engine out, even more dangerous. Far safer to divert to an airfield and do a conventional flared landing , rather than a slam down carrier landing and the risk of a bolter and the need to go around on a single engine with reduced safety margins. It is simply not worth risking the man and the machine unless it is absolutely unavoidable. The heroics are simply not worth it.

Carrier planes have higher fuel reserve requirements than the land ones, because of the need to cater to a go around in case of a missed trap. They will tend to have around 25 mins of reserve fuel. If the engine fails early enough (say 45 mins fuel left), it is far safer to divert if a landing field is within range.

ETOPS ... MiG 29 issues have zero connection with ETOPS and the two should not be mixed up. ETOPS is from an era when only 4 engined passenger jets were allowed to fly transatlantic routes

ETOPS is the reason why 4 engine (and 3 engine) planes went the way of the Dodo (the only one of consequence left is the A380, which too has uncertain future). With engine reliability increasing, ETOPS went 180 then 240, now it is close to a whopping 370 per wiki. Basically means nearly NO route is outside the range of a twin jet. Twin jet far cheaper to operate and more efficient than a 3 or 4 engine.

IAF study i think it was there on brf that said two engine aircraft offer 3x more safety over single engine one

Yes. But modern WESTERN engines are SO reliable that even the USN , which vehemently was against single engine types, signed up for the F-35C (remember, in a cat launched plane, the cat launch is at a sufficient margin so that the plane does take off, even if one engine is lost during /at launch.. in a one engine out approach, you probably have to approach a few knots faster than in the normal case, coz, you cant pick up enough speed in case of a bolter.. you are already trading off approach speed margins in this case.. hair raising just to think of it).. The USN was willing to over look ALL this and sign up for a single engine type with the F35. This talks volumes about their confidence in engine reliability.

Sorry. This Mig 29 (Kakkoose) with the RD-33 rubbish simply just does not cut it in this day and age with the kind of reported engine failures reported. The carrier & flight ops better stay within range of a divert airfield .

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 15:02

brar_w wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:

Sorry for not being clear, I was of course referring to Mk 2 with 414


Right so far the deal for which has been stuck after for a long time now. After the flurry of announcements that 100 would be ordered, none have been so far.

GeorgeWelch wrote: True, but the Mk 2 isn't ready yet. As far as Mk 2 being speculative, IAF better hope not or that means the Tejas is a dead end


Granted but there is plenty of work to do to get from producing dozens of MK1/A's and then developing and producing similar number of MK2's. Meanwhile, they also want to acquire another single engine western fighter. It it tough to put a time-frame or a degree of certainty around an MK2 number count.



That's the advantage of the SH, the USN will be funding the development of upgrade packages so India won't have to do that.


The french will be doing the same for the Rafale. They are already working on the next sub variant with internal mission system changes. They have no other fighter. Besides, having someone develop these things is not the only cost. You have to invest in customizing them, procuring them, and making sure there are labs in place so that as you buy more and more control over these changes you have proper investment to maintain that. New types come with a fair bit of back end infrastructure requirement to keep them flying. It's not a trivial amount.

If the F-16 doesn't win, then it's the Gripen NG, and the Gripen NG supports US weapons and comes with the 414 too.


The IAF will be much smarter to procure the Meteor and other weapons that are common between the Gripen and the Rafale. That would be a smart thing to do. The Gripen's sole advantage is that some critical systems and weapons are not US controlled. It won't be cheaper to build in house than the F-16 and is a direct competitor to the MK2 LCA so I would put its odds below those of the F-16 but I am not yet certain that either of these aircraft will be acquired.

But I don't think it's actually that big of a deal, most navy logistics are going to be separate anyways and the US weapons are cheaper, so you're still likely to come out ahead, especially as any infrastructure is a one-time cost while weapons are expendable so any savings there will keep accumulating


Weapons being cheaper does not negate the need to maintain two entirely different supply chains, and logistical infrastructure to support, overhaul and maintain them. Commonality, where possible is a smart thing to aim. There is a reason nations do this.

__

If the IAF gets it's Rafale count to between 50-75 in the medium-long term, it will be quite foolish to induct another type in fairly smallish numbers (57) and having two seperate supply chains and logistics for them. It makes much more sense to buy a couple of more squadrons of Rafale's for the IAF and 57 of them for the IN getting the deal back to the 126 that had been planned earlier. Of course if the F-16 is selected and if the F414 EPE is pursued and is offered to the benefit of both the LCA and the AMCA then it becomes a different matter altogether.


Singha wrote:Brar saheb what is the unit price of vstol jsf and what would be lead time after a confirmed order? Could a few like 12 be got out of turn from production line?


brar_w wrote:The last Fly-Away cost for LRIP-9 was at $132 Million for the STOVL but it depends on how many are ordered by the JPO and which batch a new order is inserted in. I expect LRIP-10 Fly-away cost to be around $128-130 Million range. If there are more Bees ordered the price comes down. Same for the A and the C. There is a fair bit of capacity in the production line to increase rates but a 3 year lead time is still a requirement. The goal for FRP should be in the $110 Million range for the B although they only state the A variant goal since it's the largest variant from an acquisition program perspective.

In the US Thread I've posted the John McCain (Chairman SASC) proposal on F-35 production rate. He adds something like 92 aircraft to the Five year production plan. There is a lot of room to add production volume compared to where they plan to be in the 2018-2022 time-frame but of course the JPO needs to commit to these increases so that the suppliers build that capacity increase into their plans.


Viv S wrote:
srin wrote:I'm trying to figure out the single-engine landing problem. The only concept that I could come up was the single engine take-off in case of a missed approach or aborted landing (eg: tail hook fails to latch on to arresting cable). And too would be a factor of aerodynamics, TWR and carrier speed into the wind.

That's precisely it. If the pilot is coming in on a single engine, if he doesn't successfully trap the first time he may not have enough thrust to recover altitude.

But following the logic, I'm unable to answer what if a single-engined LCA Mk2 (or F35 !) suffers engine failure ?

If its an engine problem they'll still attempt a landing. In the F-35C's case, the pilot employs something called a "Delta Flight Path" which allows for partially automated glideslopes resulting in near perfect carrier landings. (The Super Hornet's 'Magic Carpet' employs the same tech.) ADA had/has something similar planned for the N-Tejas as well IIRC.

Now if its catastrophic engine failure, you're pretty much screwed. But... GE and P&W have achieved levels of reliability allowing the operators to be comfortable with a single engine type. RR & Safran too (the Mirage's 30 yr old engines are still going strong... mostly). Klimov/Saturn not so much. And while we've been fortunate enough to operate mostly twin engined types - the J-10 has suffered a spate of accidents with the Chinese are fingering the engine as the culprit. The two JF-17 crashes too are believed to be a result of engine failures.

So is this a technical problem (eg: control issues while landing on single engine) or a certification problem ?

Certification. That is to say, the IN wants UAC/RAC-MiG to demonstrate and certify single engine recovery/touch-and-go before it written into the IN operating manual.


Rakesh wrote:
shiv wrote:Would they need to use Air Force assets for this? If that is the case, then it also begs the question "Why have a naval air arm?".

I do know that there have been serviceability issues with MiG 29s - but writing them off as useless "Let them become landlubbers" may well be an overreaction to media reports of serviceability and the navy's request for more aircraft.

Singha - as always - is bang on. However till the 57 new navy fighters come (the earliest the first squadron being raised/converted to the new type is approx 2022) into service, the MiG-29Ks will have to be stationed at the Shore Test Based Facility in Goa and on the Vikramaditya. Continuing/Maintaining the pool of qualified carrier pilots is very important to transition to the new type that is being sought. Then the birds can be transferred to Jamnagar AFS in Gujarat - as singha stated - for the seaward/rann of kutch defence. In fact, they can complement and eventually replace the Jaguar IM in the anti-shipping role. The IMs should be 25+ years now.

No naval air arm = no aircraft carrier = no force projection. An aircraft carrier is unique in that role. The fact that the MiG-29K has serious reliability issues should not be a reason to not have a naval air arm. A wrong purchase, but seeing the options available at that time (2004), I don't see how anything else other than the MiG-29K could have operated from the Vikramaditya.

Partnering with the IAF in the maintenance of MiG-29K, would be a good idea as they have been operating the type since the mid-80s. In fact, someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought a few SHAR pilots went to the IAF for familiarity training for the MiG-29.


shiv wrote:http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php/t-132609-p-2.html
VishnuSom
18th December 2015, 12:44
Thanks Vishnu. Vikramaditya, her crews and her air complement seem to have reached a full ops status.

Did you see the Barak-1 installation?

How are the MiGs getting along, especially with regards to single engine landing?

Hi .. at the moment, there are ten pilots who are fully operational with 10 more who are in training in various advanced stages. The aircraft is fully operational in all configurations - single engine landings, I am told, has been tested.


Katare wrote:So one of our retired air chief (the one that got arrested) told of a conversation, he had with the visiting air chief of Germany. The German chief told ACF Tyagi that you guys must be rich, we Germans just could't afford those Mig29s(guesding they got them east Germany), we had to get rid of them before we got broke. Not exact words but you get the gist.

Migs and specially 29s have always been a very expensive maintenance nightmare for its user. Although in a low cost country like India its a bit easier to make it work, so we have managed but with a lot of blood, sweat and guts.

Shiv sasr,

Yo are right, there is no such thing as 100% uptime ever. 70 to 80% is considered as good as perfect because reminder is for scheduled maintenance and unavoidable circumstances or unknown unknowns. In The civilian manufacturing world, the term used is called OEE (over all equipment effectivness) and a well run newer plant can achieve OEE, for many lines, approaching 70 to 80%. 70% is considered A+ performance, its hard to buy a machine/line where vendor would guarantee more than 70% OEE.

For airplane the serviceability calculation, as far as my understanding goes, is done by maintaining a time log of who had the ownership of the equipment. It is unserviceable for the time the aircraft was with maintenance/repair department regardless of how major or small the breakdown was. So if a war breaks down the initial serviceability would be higher but it wont be sustained. A fused bulb or even a non working RWR would not make the aircraft unserviceable immediately but when the things piled up and the aircraft is taken in for repair, including to replace lightbulb, it'll be considered unserviceable.


So a slow understaffed repair depot or unavailability of spare parsts in time can have a material impact on the serviceability number. On the other hand a hard to maintain aircraft almost always makes the repair depot understaffed and low on spare. The depot capability/capacity is designed by the maintenance data generated by airforce during procurement evaluation and what the vendor gave them as guarantee for performance. An aircraft that underperfoms would quickly overwhelm the repair depo and spare supply pipeline which in extreme cases can result even in dingle digit serviceability.

So agreed that the aircraft and infrastructure setup created to support it are both responsible for serviceability performance. So you can definitely invest more in the support infrastructure and hire more manpower to improve turnaround times which would improve the serviceability. But it'll cost a ton of money, not so much in creating the infrastructure but in actually performing all those repairs and increased spare part consumption. These expenses are beyond what was promised to you by OEM. So your chooce is to live with a lower serviceability or pay a ton extra to create a large repair empire

The rightway to achieve a good serviceability is to buy an equipment that is well designed and tested for low/in-frequent maintenance. It'll allow you to have small footprint or higher teeth to tail ratio

This murdrous lifecycle cost is the reason that Russians have lost pretty much every open indian tender on cost to western equipment.

Also a big foot print and constant turn around sucks in not only the money but also significant time of management/brass bandwidth.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 15:10

That was the last of the X-Posts. I have selectively cross posted the recent discussion though many posts held attention. Brar W and GeorgeWelch have had a good go at things but I skipped most of it to keep the cross postings limited.

My own view on the 57 Multi Role Carrier Borne Fighters (MRCBF - yes that is the term) is that these are not replacements of Mig 29Ks. The need for additional aircraft had been identified with clear mentions in open source as far back as 2011, before the Mig 29s were properly assessed.

Based on commonality and only on commonality of the platform,.I think the Rafale is a better choice though it will cost us nothing less than the JSF. Purchase of JSF along with Open Source Codes for further Indian fits makes JSF iffy as the US would certainly want us to join those multi lettered treaties before selling the JSF to us.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5264
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Viv S » 29 Jan 2017 16:00

deejay wrote:Based on commonality and only on commonality of the platform,.I think the Rafale is a better choice though it will cost us nothing less than the JSF. Purchase of JSF along with Open Source Codes for further Indian fits makes JSF iffy as the US would certainly want us to join those multi lettered treaties before selling the JSF to us.

The two remaining 'foundational agreements' are already on the to-do list. Long list of acquisitions in the balance - P-8 upgrade, S-70i, Predator-B, Avenger, JSTARS, E-2D etc. in addition to the mooted single-engined fighter jet acquisition.

Upside is that instead of the boiler-plate agreements (ACSA/CISMOA) usually offered by the US, these will be drafted by both parties to reflect a balanced relationship keeping sovereign concerns in mind (LEMOA/COMCASA).

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21920
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Austin » 29 Jan 2017 16:15

Navy rejects Tejas, begins global search

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/N ... 105331.ece

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 16:31

Austin wrote:Navy rejects Tejas, begins global search

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/N ... 105331.ece


I think this news and its headline is deliberately designed to instigate reaction. From what I know, the Navy was always working towards the Naval LCA which IAF calls as LCA Mk2. Present aircraft is the naval version of LCA Mk1.

IMO, the Navy has not rejected the LCA. The requirement of the newer aircraft is not connected to Navy rejecting or accepting the LCA or the Mig 29.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3342
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Aditya G » 29 Jan 2017 16:39

One hoped to at least see a LIFT role for LCA-N. Carrier traps and takeoffs are stressful for air frames. LCA-N in LIFT role based on SBTF would have taken a part of the curriculum before graduating to MiG-29K. In bargain you would have also developed a STOBAR fighter (albeit with minimal combat capabilities) as backup to MiGs.

While it made it a lot of good sense to have KUB to be a full fledged fighter like the K, from training expense perspective I imagine it to be an expensive choice.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 16:50

Aditya G wrote:One hoped to at least see a LIFT role for LCA-N. Carrier traps and takeoffs are stressful for air frames. LCA-N in LIFT role based on SBTF would have taken a part of the curriculum before graduating to MiG-29K. In bargain you would have also developed a STOBAR fighter (albeit with minimal combat capabilities) as backup to MiGs.

While it made it a lot of good sense to have KUB to be a full fledged fighter like the K, from training expense perspective I imagine it to be an expensive choice.


I think all fighters which came into IAF post Gnats had trainers built into their procurement plans. I am not sure how essential there are but I have heard that training schedules on types were affected by lack of trainers.

That does not mean IN cannot use the LCA Mk1 Naval version but even if the IN were to place an order today for say 20 aircraft LIFT Sqn how long would it take the Navy to get these aircraft delivered. Instead, is the Navy better off pushing for development of Mk2?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6876
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Indranil » 29 Jan 2017 18:27

Deejay,

Thanks a lot for this thread. It was long past due and you found the time to create a great first few posts.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 19:33

On the Mig 29 K, here is an old video, probably posted on BRF, published by StratPost. In the video Cdr KHB Singh (a senior of mine from NDA) takes the viewer around the Mig 29 K in a slow and easy manner.

Good video to understand the aircraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhN7_L3R6uU





StratPost has some more videos on Naval Aircraft

Sea Harriers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3oSBpfK5is

IL 38 Sea Dragons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTAseWQBoK0

Sea Kings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfe6f8c6CO8

Ka 31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-cxkeBl-RE

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21920
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Austin » 30 Jan 2017 10:10

deejay wrote:IMO, the Navy has not rejected the LCA. The requirement of the newer aircraft is not connected to Navy rejecting or accepting the LCA or the Mig 29.


Rejected or not but I agree the 57 aircraft is a long term plan and I would say would take 8-10 years if that reaches even the procurement state. There are many critical deal like the ASW chopper deal pending for almost 5 years now with nothing signed so far , also the Medium MRP aircraft again pending for a long time.

Regarding Naval Tejas this is what CNS mentioned without adding or subtracting any thing

http://www.spsnavalforces.com/story.asp?mid=52&id=1

SP’s: What has been the reason behind LCA Navy not meeting the QR of Indian Navy?


CNS: LCA with its present engine is too heavy, hence not suitable for operating from a carrier. It does not meet the thrust and weight ratio requirement to be able to take off with the full weapon load.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 30 Jan 2017 10:42

Austin wrote:...

Rejected or not but I agree the 57 aircraft is a long term plan and I would say would take 8-10 years if that reaches even the procurement state. There are many critical deal like the ASW chopper deal pending for almost 5 years now with nothing signed so far , also the Medium MRP aircraft again pending for a long time.

Regarding Naval Tejas this is what CNS mentioned without adding or subtracting any thing

http://www.spsnavalforces.com/story.asp?mid=52&id=1

SP’s: What has been the reason behind LCA Navy not meeting the QR of Indian Navy?


CNS: LCA with its present engine is too heavy, hence not suitable for operating from a carrier. It does not meet the thrust and weight ratio requirement to be able to take off with the full weapon load.


Which was known from before hence the Naval requirement of a 414 engine powered aircraft. Naval LCA has not been made yet.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21920
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Austin » 30 Jan 2017 11:05

Some points of discussion here that comes to my mind

I really dont know adding new engine more thrust of ~ 10-12 kN would in any way radically change the argument in favour of Naval LCA , New Engine means changes into intake and more thrust also means they would drink more fuel , new engine also means more flight test program to certify engine which means atleast that would take 2 years possibly more. We do not really know if this can possible add to more weight increase or can they shave off more weight would be known only when they complete their flight test program

CNS did not specific how much heavy Naval Tejas is currently and how it is impacting its range performance and what is the desired weight to be achieved or range objective to be met for Naval Environment.

Single engine on CBG would also mean a single point of failure due to external factors or internal , if there is any issue with the engine during landing take off or even in flight the only opition is to ditch the aircraft , ofcourse there is this eternal single versus double engine argument but there is no option for single engine landing or safe back home unlike twin engine one and in Carrier environment it becomes more critical.

Irrespective if Naval Tejas makes it with New Engine or Not they should still fly one squadron with Naval Tejas in Experimental Operational Role a lot of day to day nuances/bugs/fixes/Maintenance/MRO with New Fighter called Childhood Disease will only be eliminated once it enters squadron service and this would pave the way in terms of experience and confidence for AMCA Naval Program.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 30 Jan 2017 11:18

GE engines are already certified,no?

There are design changes and they will need testing and certification. That is why the Naval LCA will evolve from here. These are the first steps.

I believe the western engines have shown sufficient reliability to be tried as single engine aircraft from ships.

Naval LCA has some parameters bench marked by the IN. If those parameters are met then the IN must procure the fighter. Purely experimental sqn maybe operated by ADA too but IMO, IN needs to operationalise the LCA and get operational history behind this.

Fundamentally, India is behind the curve in aircraft development and related technologies. LCA is a good opportunity to do some catch up and at lower costs. Going forward the gaps will be larger and the costs will be higher.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21920
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Austin » 30 Jan 2017 11:54

deejay wrote:GE engines are already certified,no?


414 is not certified for Tejas its only 404 variant
I believe the western engines have shown sufficient reliability to be tried as single engine aircraft from ships.


It not about reliability its the inherent advantage and safety twin engine offers also performance. Its not that M88 engines of Rafale or US engines or Russian ones are not reliable yet they have twin engine aircraft
Naval LCA has some parameters bench marked by the IN. If those parameters are met then the IN must procure the fighter. Purely experimental sqn maybe operated by ADA too but IMO, IN needs to operationalise the LCA and get operational history behind this.


I would say even if they fall short on some parameter they should go for naval tejas that even goes for IAF tejas , because unless you deploy an aircraft in squadron service and dont fly daily you wont fix many issues that come with operational deployment.

We can never develop or develop an aircraft that meets all the requirement from day 1 or even with years of service , even advanced countries that have tons of design experience and many decades of operational experience cant do that , So this talk of ASR being sacrosanct and one dot or word from it cant be deviated or Naval Tejas being Heavy wont really cut if we want to develop an aerospace industry in the next 20-30 years that is as good as any one out there. Air and Navy chief must realise that that ADA/DRDO are no Dassault , Saab or Sukhoi or Lockheed that have decades of experience to start with and even then their programs flounder or have shortcomings that gets fixed after many year or even decades of operational service.

ADA/DRDO are very nascent when it comes to aerospace world they deserve nurturing and not sticking to ASR like some hardcoded robo program wont really do alteast not at this stage of development cycle.

Fundamentally, India is behind the curve in aircraft development and related technologies. LCA is a good opportunity to do some catch up and at lower costs. Going forward the gaps will be larger and the costs will be higher.


Oh We are far behind the curve when it comes to aerospace industry not just fighter program and Tejas is a god given opportunity and a small one that it if we have to develop and aerspace industry

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby deejay » 30 Jan 2017 12:16

Not asking for them to stick to ASR as sacrosanct but instead I am arguing that IN is committed to LCA Navy programme.

There will be certain requirements which will be adhered to whether we like it or not. Which is why present navaised LCA does not make the cut.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5714
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 30 Jan 2017 23:24

The Indian Navy Looks for a New Carrier-Based Fighter
http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-indi ... d-fighter/

U.S. manufacturers like Boeing may see an edge for themselves given last year’s elevation of India to the status of the “Major Defense Partner” in the eyes of the U.S. government. The designation is expected to “facilitat[e] technology sharing with India to a level commensurate with that of its [the United States’] closest allies and partners,” the White House noted last year. In particular, Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet may emerge as a strong contender.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5714
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 30 Jan 2017 23:41

INS Vikramaditya model put on display in Mumbai by Navy had F-16s on the flight deck instead of MiG-29K :D
https://twitter.com/manaman_chhina/stat ... 0651927552

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6635
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 30 Jan 2017 23:44

Rakesh wrote:INS Vikramaditya model put on display in Mumbai by Navy had F-16s on the flight deck instead of MiG-29K :D
https://twitter.com/manaman_chhina/stat ... 0651927552


Damn the import mafia :rotfl:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5714
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 30 Jan 2017 23:46

I could not stop laughing myself brar. too funny....import, import, import! :D

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6635
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 01 Feb 2017 22:10

Indian Navy Releases RFI for New Carrier-borne Fighter

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.

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.

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. “This will enable the navy to use the aircraft on both the catapult and ski-jump aircraft carriers,” said the navy official. While the Super Hornet has been tested for operation from a ski-jump ramp, it is not clear if the Rafale M has done the same.

Meanwhile the Indian Navy has been in discussions with the U.S. on a buy of four Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye Advanced Early Warning (AEW) aircraft for the 65,000-metric-ton planned IAC-2., which will be named INS Vishal. A shore-based version of the E-2D is being considered by the India-U.S. Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology of the Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI). With the USS Ford being inducted in March, the DTTI meeting scheduled for March may be shifted to May,

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5714
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 02 Feb 2017 06:06

Indian Navy gets air enclave in Mumbai
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/56919591.cms

The NAE will enable the navy to stage through all types of fixed-wing aircraft owned by it, including highly-potent and versatile Boeing P8I Long-Range Maritime Reconnaissance (LRMR) planes. Presently, the P8I LRMR aircraft are operated from their base at Arakkonam near Chennai, but with the operationalisation of the NAE, they will be operated from Mumbai. This will enable longer sorties in the Arabian Sea and covering of vast areas.

Indian Naval Air Enclave at Santa Cruz Inaugurated
http://www.business-standard.com/article/government-press-release/indian-naval-air-enclave-at-santa-cruz-inaugurated-117020101083_1.html

Pictures - New Indian Navy air enclave inaugurated at Santa Cruz, Mumbai
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/826751427871637509

Pictures - Naval Air Enclave inaugurated at Santa Cruz Mumbai
https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/8 ... 3815958528

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5714
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 02 Feb 2017 06:07

Thank you deejay for starting this thread...way overdue!

Wary of Homemade Fighter Jet, Indian Navy Looks Abroad
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/wary-of-homemade-fighter-jet-indian-navy-looks-abroad

Notably, the request for information does not specify if the navy wants single- or twin-engine fighters for its aircraft carriers. The bidding companies are asked to respond to the RFI by May 24.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Philip » 03 Feb 2017 11:19

The multi-role /ASW helo requirement is over 200 ,the urgent priority should be for acquiring these to equip our surface fleet,which is manfully making do with legacy Sea Kings,KA-27/28/31s and Chetaks. The worthwhile Kamovs are being upgraded,but Chetaks have to be replaced and since a naval version of the KA-226 has been developed, the IN should take a look at the bird which has been selected for the IAF/IA,to be built in India.

Other pending issues are more P-8s,upgrades to legacy Bears,and acquisition of more med. MP aircraft and amphibs. The US-2 deal with japan is still in an "ebb-tide"!

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1930
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Bala Vignesh » 06 Feb 2017 21:32

Why use the Ka226 when the LUH would be available in nearly same time frame??

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 551
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby sankum » 06 Feb 2017 22:59

Just because IN RFP calls for twin engine NLUH.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Philip » 08 Feb 2017 19:05

Though this news has been reported earlier,the compelling reasons have been gvien for the decision to dump the NLCA,finalisation of the contours of the proposed 65k t carrier.In my pinion,the In should keep all its options open,with provision in the design for both a ski-jump and cats/EMALS included in the design,something akin to the Shtorm concept of the RuN,but a smaller design.100K is too much. The choice of aircraft is crucial,as this CV will appear not earlier than a decade from now.Therefore,even 4++ birds are questionable as they would have to serve for 3 decades until 2050! There are to my mind just two options if we want stealth. The JSF and a future naval variant of the FGFA. In the discussions that the MOD/IAF are to have with Sukhoi on the FGFA,the IN should also be included to see what is being proposed for the naval variant.The carrier's lifts should be large enough to take such an aircraft if available,similarly,a heat-hardened flight deck to accommodate the JSF too. 13 years from now,even the naval Rafale will be looking dated.Another definite arrival by 2020 will be UCAVs from USN carriers.This will be a huge game-changer in carrier warfare and as the USN is also looking at another fighter type,we must be cautious and wait to see what happens by 2020. The carrier design should be able to accommodate any option.

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/in ... 71111.html

Indian Navy Can't Wait For Naval LCA Anymore, Looking For 57 New Fighters For Aircraft Carriers
INDIATIMES FEBRUARY 08, 2017
The LCA Tejas program has taken a long time to develop an indigenous fighter for India's armed forces. Though the Indian Air Force has inducted the plane, it's still to clear FOC (Final Operational Clearance) stage. The naval variant being developed alongside to operate from Indian Navy aircraft carriers was taking even longer. Too long for the Navy to wait.
The peremptory rejection of the shipborne variant of the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) by the Indian Navy seems to have surprised most navy-watching analysts. Their confusion has been compounded by the near-simultaneous issuance of a global request for information (RFI) for procurement of "57 multirole fighters for its aircraft carriers" by Naval HQ.

One can deduce two compelling reasons for this, seemingly, radical volte face by the only service which has shown unswerving commitment to indigenisation (lately labelled 'Make in India') for the past six decades.

Firstly, by exercising a foreclosure option, the navy has administered a well-deserved and stinging rebuke to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for its lethargic and inept performance that has again disappointed our military. The second reason arises from the navy's desperate hurry to freeze the specifications of its second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-2).

The choice of configuration, size and propulsion of a carrier has a direct linkage with the type of aircraft that will operate from it. This constitutes a "chicken and egg" conundrum -- should one freeze the carrier design first or choose the aircraft first? The Indian Navy has obviously decided the latter.
Also Read: Indian Navy Rejects Indigenously Built Lightweight Tejas Fighter Aircraft, Calls It Overweight
The IAC-2 will enter service in the next decade, at a juncture where a balance-of-power struggle is likely to be underway in this part of the world -- with China and India as the main players. It is only a matter of time before China's carrier task-forces, led by the ex-Russian carrier Liaoning and her successors, follow its nuclear submarines into the Indian Ocean.
Since the Indian response to such intimidation will need to be equally robust, the decisions relating to the design and capabilities of IAC-2 (and sisters) assume strategic dimensions. Essentially, there are three options for selection of aircraft for the IAC-2.

* Conventional take-off and landing types like the US F/A-18 Super Hornet and French Rafale-M that would require a steam catapult for launch and arrester-wires for recovery. The relatively large ship would need either a steam or nuclear plant for propulsion.
DON'T MISS
Previous
India Injects Rs 20,000 Crore Into Urgent Arms Deals, Wants To Keep Forces Ready For War

* Types like the Russian Sukhoi-33 and MiG-29K would require only a ski-jump for take-off and arrester-wires for landing. This would mean a smaller ship, driven either by gas turbines or diesel engines. The LCA (Navy) could have been a contender in this category.
* The F-35B Lightning II version of the US Joint Strike Fighter, capable of vectored-thrust, would require only a ski-jump for take-off, but no arrester wires since it can land vertically. This would result in the simplest and cheapest ship; a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) carrier.
Once the navy has selected an aircraft, the ship and its operating and maintenance facilities can be designed around it, avoiding some of the pitfalls encountered on IAC-1.
Reverting to the LCA saga -- as far back as the early 1990s, the navy had initiated a study for examining the feasibility of adapting the LCA to shipborne use. While confirming feasibility, the study had revealed some major problem areas, which included lack of engine thrust, requirement of an arrester hook and stronger undercarriage, and need for cockpit/fuselage re-design before the LCA could attempt carrier operations.
Tejas
TEJAS.GOV.IN
Undaunted, the navy re-affirmed its faith in the programme by contributing over Rs 400 crore as well as engineers and test pilots to the project.

Also Read: 10 Things To Know About India’s Home-Grown Tejas Fighter
The IAF accepted the Tejas into service, in July 2016, with considerable reservations because it had not been cleared for full operational exploitation and fell short of many qualitative requirements. The prototype LCA (Navy) had rolled out six years earlier, in July 2010, raising great hopes. However, it is obvious that the DRDO failed to address the problems listed above with any urgency, leading to ultimate rejection of this ambitious project.
By its failure to deliver on the LCA (Navy), the DRDO has let down its most steadfast supporter amongst the armed forces -- the Indian Navy. A little introspection by those at the helm of this organisation would reveal to them three reasons for its abysmal performance despite a wealth of talent and a network of sophisticated laboratories -- an exaggerated opinion of their capabilities; a lack of intellectual honesty in denying obvious failures and an unwillingness to seek external help when required.

Today, India has the ignominious distinction of being the world's biggest importer of military hardware, whereas China counts amongst the world's leading arms exporters and its aeronautical establishment has delivered aircraft ranging from UAVs to 5th generation fighters, helicopters and transports to the PLA.
While one would be justified in blaming the scientists and bureaucrats responsible for defence research and production, the root cause of this colossal failure lies in political indifference and the inability to provide vision and firm guidance to our massive but under-performing military-industrial complex.
Inputs From IANS

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Philip » 08 Feb 2017 19:33

For those cribbing about the 29Ks,take a dekko at this report.carrier fighters even in the USN face major operational/support problems.
Most of the problems relate to money woes,falling budgets where even the ships are suffering and sailors' backpay another burden.In our quest for a large CV,the issue of acquisition cost including aircraft and weaponry,spares,etc.,etc., and annual operational/support costs will be a major factor. Just one large carrier could usurp a major portion of the IN's budget.

As I've said many a time,the IN's sub fleet must be the top priority.The huge Indian landmass jutting into the IOR is an unsinkable "continental" class -carrier from which hundreds of LRMP and other strike aircraft can be based from. If we only design the 3-4 amphibs required to incorporate ski-jumps like the Spanish Juan Carlos class,we could operate Sea Gripen and even perhaps 29Ks,plus KA-52 type attack helos for the amphib role.These ships used in a "swing" role,could provide the extra air support for fleet ops when required. We could then have at least two flat tops on either seaboard at any given time. At around 35K t each,they would be easy to build in Indian yards,plus economy in numbers of ships and air assets too.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/gro ... s-cant-fly
Grounded: Nearly two-thirds of US Navy’s strike fighters can’t fly
By: Christopher P. Cavas, February 6, 2017

http://breakingdefense.com/category/air/
62 % Of F-18 Hornets Unfit To Fly, Up To 74% In Marines; DoD, Hill Focus On Readiness

Xcpts:
Issues with insufficient flight hours for pilot training, insufficient spare parts to keep planes flying, and so on are at the top of the readiness priorities,
“It’s important that we build ships but it’s also equally as important that we maintain the ships that we have,”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6635
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 08 Feb 2017 19:50

The USN aviation wing woes are do to CR's and not receiving money in time. They are also due to the fact that the A-D hornet fleet is in it's SLEP/SLAP phase where everything takes longer to turn around. These are 6000 hr air frames that are in the 8000+ hr life and therefore require extra attention every time they go to a depot.

These problems are also exacerbated by the fact that the Navy has been heightened deployment for well over a decade and has had to rotate at higher frequencies, for longer duration and move a lot of O&S to the right. They've literally been supporting COCOM's with active combat operations for the last 15 years. These things take a toll much like they did in the 70's where the F-16 and F/A-18 production lines ended up saving the day, but not before nearly a decade of similar low availability numbers (dubbed a hollow force back then).

The IN should look at O&S and sustainment costs but in a proper operational concept and threat scenario of course. If sea control or force projection in the Indo-Pacific is strategically important they must make the case for higher capability to do so. The USN's aviation recapitalization requirement however is a poor case to present when warning against this. These woes are due to combat_support deployments for over a decade and political gridlock forcing what 8-9 consecutive Continuing resolution (CRs). Both of those situations are unique to the US and not relevant to the IN.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Philip » 09 Feb 2017 12:40

The IN,Indian armed forces haven't fought a war since Kargil. The most likely spat in the future will be one with Pak over continued terror strikes and a graduated Indian response,ranging from large-scale arty/rocket bombardment of Pak positions across the border and limited air strikes. The last "surgical strike" op cannot deter a sustained terror campaign. But neither India or Pak desire or can afford a full-scale war which would be devastating for both nations even if only conventional.

The second possibility is a spat with China in the Himalayas,where the IA is being beefed up with urgent reqs. of ammo,eqpt.,etc. The IN's budget has fallen this year,despite many analysts advocating that it should get a major share of the pie,to deal with the looming prospect of a maritime war with China. I do not see the GOI sending the IN into "harm's way",the ICS (Indo-China Sea) ,but rather making every attempt to counter any Chinese mil activity in the IOR.If there is a major spat with the PLA in the mountains,the temptation to interdict Chinese maritime assets in the IOR will be very tempting,where it has the advantage. The weakness in the In is in the sub fleet,which requires a rapid infusion of subs,best achieved by outright buys from abroad from both west and east. Ideally, the IN should have a permanent UW presence in the ICS using Vietnam as a logistic hub and ramp up the capability if the PLAN do so at Gwadar.

What the IN also needs to do is to position some of its sqds.with increased numbers of aircraft,both strike and LRMP in its island bases.This will then relieve the IAF from much of its maritime responsibility where it can use these high value MKI sqds. against the PRC and Pak. These island-based assets
should be tasked with intercepting and destroying PLAN forces attempting to enter the IOR.

Until the large CV arrives,10-15 yrs hence,the IN will possess only 2 CVs with around 50-60 strike fighters. If the amphibs being planned also possess an air capability it will help the IN in any emergency with more flat tops available for air defence,ASW, and limited strike.
Our amphib ops for the moment are capable of primarily defending the A&N islands,Lakshadweep and poss. emergency support to SL,the Maldives,Mauritius,etc. If the amphib design supports such a swing role,then it may require a smaller aircraft than the 29K,and the Sea Gripen is an obvious choice since the NLCA has been dumped.

The third possibility is for the IN to assist a multi-national maritime force should the Chinese go berserk in the Asia-Pacific,which affects the littoral states of the ICS and the Far East. Even in such a case, I doubt that IN carriers will sail into ICS waters to conduct strikes against the PRC mainland,USN CVs with hundreds of aircraft available should be able to do the business,but if at all be used ,a better proposition would be to counter their maritime task forces. IN subs and LRMP/strike aircraft will most likely be the preferred offensive assets of choice.

The continued arrogance of the PRC and its despot emperor,"XI GIns", makes such a scenario of a war in the Asia-Pacific with China more than a possibility,a probability. Nehru was one asked decades ago which side he would choose if another world war broke out.His answer went somewhat like this: "the side that would keep the oceans open so that India would be able to obtain food supplies (we imported food then) and trade." That answer is still true today.

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Nick_S » 09 Feb 2017 16:03

Navy deal to procure multi-role helicopters (S-70B) from the US on deathbed

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/navy ... 77491.html

Summary - Stalled on price negotiation.

MaverickV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 23 Aug 2016 18:45

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby MaverickV » 09 Feb 2017 16:13

Nick_S wrote:Navy deal to procure multi-role helicopters (S-70B) from the US on deathbed

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/navy ... 77491.html

Summary - Stalled on price negotiation.

I believe this low increase in defence budget is a boon in disguise.
If only for the lack of money, our babus and military top brass would be forced to look at indian alternatives coz we cannot buy the uber-expensive imports.
China was forced to do this 30 yrs back due to sanctions, we might be forced to do for lack of money.
Would definitely mean short term pain but could have long term gains :)

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Cybaru » 09 Feb 2017 21:21

I thought the naval helicopter requirement was for 12 ton helo. S-70B 9-10 ton helo. How does it meet the IN requirement in that case?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5714
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Rakesh » 10 Feb 2017 03:01

Nick_S wrote:Navy deal to procure multi-role helicopters (S-70B) from the US on deathbed

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/navy ... 77491.html

Summary - Stalled on price negotiation.

quote from the above article...

The deal will move forward only if Sikorsky, which has now been acquired by American defence giant Lockheed Martin, agrees to extend the validity of its commercial bid.

If LM loses the single engine fighter bid, good luck with them extending the validity of the commercial bid.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby NRao » 10 Feb 2017 04:13

Rakesh wrote:
Nick_S wrote:Navy deal to procure multi-role helicopters (S-70B) from the US on deathbed

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/navy ... 77491.html

Summary - Stalled on price negotiation.

quote from the above article...

The deal will move forward only if Sikorsky, which has now been acquired by American defence giant Lockheed Martin, agrees to extend the validity of its commercial bid.

If LM loses the single engine fighter bid, good luck with them extending the validity of the commercial bid.


A key Navy deal to procure 16 multirole helicopters from the US is virtually on deathbed as it has been stuck for over two years over the issue of price.

"The contractual validity of the bid submitted by the American firm Sikorsky for its S-70 Seahawk choppers has already expired but the deal is stuck at the contract-negotiations stage for the last two years, including the price," Navy sources told Mail Today.

Now, the deal will move forward only if Sikorsky, which has now been acquired by American defence giant Lockheed Martin, agrees to extend the validity of its commercial bid and also agrees to reduce the price of its choppers, they said.


IF it has been stuck due to cost, there is very little chance them reducing the price. So, extending anything will have no meaning.

IF at all, IF the F-16 deal goes through, LM then MAY agree to a lower cost on these machines? And, hopefully agree to extend the bid?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests