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.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby srai » 25 Apr 2017 04:50

SriJoy wrote:
srai wrote:^^^

Google ... current naval fighters (and future planned/studies) and STOBAR vs CATOBAR; do side-by-side performance/cost analysis. Then tell us which one you think would be a good replacement and why.


I wish it was that easy. I cannot find the take-off distance for various planes just through google. Without that, i cannot calculate which planes are even capable of takeoff from the Vikramaditya.

What do you think Vina has been posting for the last few days on? Just scroll back a few pages on NLCA thread and you will find your answers. Search BR threads as well.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby shiv » 25 Apr 2017 05:59

Cain Marko wrote: Nlca is nowhere in sight....

:D Go back 10 years and we were hearing "LCA is nowhere in sight".

Why do we do this?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19321
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Philip » 25 Apr 2017 11:41

Remember the (in) famous statement by APJK in 2003? "200 LCAs will be in service by 2013!" Sadly he believed the bullcrap of the GTRE,etc. and not the IAF.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby jamwal » 25 Apr 2017 12:03

What is that paining of Napoleon (?) Doing in 2nd picture ?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2381
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby chola » 25 Apr 2017 13:12

shiv wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Nlca is nowhere in sight....

:D Go back 10 years and we were hearing "LCA is nowhere in sight".

Why do we do this?



So we just need to wait 10 years, saar?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3105
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Cain Marko » 27 Apr 2017 02:35

Indranil wrote:CM,
Would greatly help if you could provide the T:W for a few configs of F-18/Mig-29K/Rafale/NLCA/Su-33. Please try to maintain the same fuel fraction, because they roughly use engines of similar SFC. We can go from there.


Here is a quick take (only for some of the above birds):

TWR @ clean take off weight (internal fuel, fluids)

NLCA Mk1: 8000kg + 2500kg + 250kg = 10750kg / 8500 kgf thrust = 0.79
NLCA Mk2: 9000kg + 3500kg + 250kg = 12750kg / 10000 kgf thrust = 0.78
MiG 29K: 12500kg + 4500kg + 500kg = 17500kg / 18000 kgf thrust = 1.02
Rafale: 10000kg + 4500kg + 500kg = 15000kg / 15000 kgf thrust = 1.00
Su-33: 18500kg + 5500kg* + 1000kg = 24500kg / 25000 kgf thrust = 1.02

* The Flanker is rated at NTOW (not full internal fuel) because that gives it equivalent or more range than the rest.

Note that all the birds except for the NLCAs are above the coveted 1.0 TWR mark. The difference is quite clear - and it only gets worse as you keep adding more payload. Now let us take the same fighters at MTOW

NLCA Mk1: 8000kg + 2500kg + 250kg + 2500kg = 13250kg / 8500 kgf thrust = 0.64
NLCA Mk2: 9000kg + 3500kg + 250kg + 3500kg = 16250kg / 10000 kgf thrust = 0.61
MiG 29K: 12500kg + 4500kg + 500kg + 5500kg = 23000kg / 18000 kgf thrust = 0.78
Rafale: 10000kg + 4500kg + 500kg + 9000kg = 24000kg / 15000 kgf thrust = 0.62*
Su-33: 18500kg + 5500kg* + 1000kg + 6000kg = 30500kg / 25000 kgf thrust = 0.81

* The Rafale is unlikely to carry 9 tons without CATs.

Note again the difference in TWR between the NLCA and the others. Essentially the other birds have a TWR of a clean LCA but with max payload.

The important point here is that the Indian Navy doesn't consider the NLCA mk1 as suitable due to excess weight. My fear is that this problem will persist and possibly get worse with the mk2 as well (as is borne out by the figures above). Of course, my figures might be off by a few 100kgs here and there, but by and large, the difference in TWR between the mk1 and mk2 doesn't seem much at all, if any.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3105
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Cain Marko » 27 Apr 2017 02:44

shiv wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Nlca is nowhere in sight....

:D Go back 10 years and we were hearing "LCA is nowhere in sight".

Why do we do this?


The LCA would have landed nowhere had the engine rating not been increased to almost 9 tons. Even so, a weight shedding effort is assumed for the Mk1A. I don't think the NLCA will go anywhere if the engine power is not somehow similarly increased.
It will be hard to convince the Navy to buy a fighter that is distinctly at a disadvantage vs their current fighter. In case of the IAF, the Mk1 is better than the Bison, and the Mk1A is better than the M2K making the Tejas a much easier sell imho to them.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3339
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Aditya G » 30 Apr 2017 14:28

brar_w wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:There is and its NLCA. Thankfully I don't see F-18, Rafale or F-35 ever serving in IN.


As things stand there is an RFI/RFP with the MiG-29, Rafale, Shornet as the three most likely bidders along with perhaps the Sea Gripen (directly comparable to LCA-MK2) and who knows the Typhoon as well. All but the MiG-29K will require certification for the STOBAR carriers. Going through the list of items required to succesfully certify and establish envelop while launching from a STOBAR carrier on a multi-role aircraft is not straight forward. It requires a good bit of time and a fair bit of money.


IMHO, the acquisition floated by IN for more naval fighters is doomed from get go, in light of the MMRCA acquisition. IAF with all the clout and business case could not get more than 36 fighters! How would IN manage more that too over and above the aircraft carrier itself?

The best bet for IN would be another STOBAR carrier from Vikrant class. At the minimum, given the air wing commonality you will at least achieve high carrier availability assuming 1 of the 3 is in maintenance at any given moment. The same squadrons could operate from the 2 carriers available.

For all its problems, MiG-29K remains the world's best fighter for STOBAR operations unless PLAN has somehow magically resolved issues with Su-33K. Our own NLCA would eventually see at least limited service to complement MiG-29K numbers. At least shoulder the training load with the MiGs

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2381
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby chola » 30 Apr 2017 16:23

Cain Marko wrote:
Indranil wrote:CM,
Would greatly help if you could provide the T:W for a few configs of F-18/Mig-29K/Rafale/NLCA/Su-33. Please try to maintain the same fuel fraction, because they roughly use engines of similar SFC. We can go from there.


Here is a quick take (only for some of the above birds):

TWR @ clean take off weight (internal fuel, fluids)

NLCA Mk1: 8000kg + 2500kg + 250kg = 10750kg / 8500 kgf thrust = 0.79
NLCA Mk2: 9000kg + 3500kg + 250kg = 12750kg / 10000 kgf thrust = 0.78
MiG 29K: 12500kg + 4500kg + 500kg = 17500kg / 18000 kgf thrust = 1.02
Rafale: 10000kg + 4500kg + 500kg = 15000kg / 15000 kgf thrust = 1.00
Su-33: 18500kg + 5500kg* + 1000kg = 24500kg / 25000 kgf thrust = 1.02

* The Flanker is rated at NTOW (not full internal fuel) because that gives it equivalent or more range than the rest.

Note that all the birds except for the NLCAs are above the coveted 1.0 TWR mark. The difference is quite clear - and it only gets worse as you keep adding more payload. Now let us take the same fighters at MTOW

NLCA Mk1: 8000kg + 2500kg + 250kg + 2500kg = 13250kg / 8500 kgf thrust = 0.64
NLCA Mk2: 9000kg + 3500kg + 250kg + 3500kg = 16250kg / 10000 kgf thrust = 0.61
MiG 29K: 12500kg + 4500kg + 500kg + 5500kg = 23000kg / 18000 kgf thrust = 0.78
Rafale: 10000kg + 4500kg + 500kg + 9000kg = 24000kg / 15000 kgf thrust = 0.62*
Su-33: 18500kg + 5500kg* + 1000kg + 6000kg = 30500kg / 25000 kgf thrust = 0.81

* The Rafale is unlikely to carry 9 tons without CATs.

Note again the difference in TWR between the NLCA and the others. Essentially the other birds have a TWR of a clean LCA but with max payload.

The important point here is that the Indian Navy doesn't consider the NLCA mk1 as suitable due to excess weight. My fear is that this problem will persist and possibly get worse with the mk2 as well (as is borne out by the figures above). Of course, my figures might be off by a few 100kgs here and there, but by and large, the difference in TWR between the mk1 and mk2 doesn't seem much at all, if any.


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.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62455
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Singha » 30 Apr 2017 17:59

Cheen will look to reengine the naval su27 with the 117s engine to gain thrust. Its proven on su35 and used for now in pakfa

Its also on offer for our su30 mlu

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby shiv » 30 Apr 2017 18:32

Cain Marko wrote:The LCA would have landed nowhere had the engine rating not been increased to almost 9 tons. Even so, a weight shedding effort is assumed for the Mk1A. I don't think the NLCA will go anywhere if the engine power is not somehow similarly increased.
It will be hard to convince the Navy to buy a fighter that is distinctly at a disadvantage vs their current fighter. In case of the IAF, the Mk1 is better than the Bison, and the Mk1A is better than the M2K making the Tejas a much easier sell imho to them.

Let us wait and see,,

I see so many predictions on BRF and all are wrong - "there will be a terrorist attack" "There will be a coup" - it's a free forum and once the prediction is made it is forgotten because the timeline is so long. I predict that India will have world's best stealth hypersonic UCAV with space capability by 2060. Catch me out then...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 30 Apr 2017 18:33

China is looking long term by choosing the heavier platform in the J-11 as they are likely to continue to develop their carrier program and incorporate CATs. Wouldn't be surprised if the smaller FC-31 makes an appearance as a Naval fighter sometime in the next decade once they have their own propulsion figured out.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3339
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Aditya G » 30 Apr 2017 18:33

Regarding the debate on bombers. our favorite topic 8)

At the moment, P-8I and Su-30MKI are our most viable options for long range strike. Both will be adept for maritime strike and Su-30s will certainly be tasked to attack targets in Tibet in any case. 400Km range Brahmos is unmatched capability across the world.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 30 Apr 2017 18:41

The IN should look into acquiring either the Harpoon-ER or the JSM for future growth. Since it procured the P-8Is outside of the JPO getting indigenous weapons integrated would be quite expensive (particularly in the weight class that is significantly beyond the Harpoon/JSM or JASSM category) but they could increase capability with the existing weapons integrated or planned for integration (JSM, and JASSM) by program partners.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby shiv » 30 Apr 2017 18:59

Compared to the US China is a fledgeling in carriers. The US has such a huge carrier elint/AWACS capability that no one can compare.

In fact The US has a history of large aircraft on large carriers, not just fighters. It is the AWACS that will be patrolling around a fleet on the lookout for threats not fighters. Having a "heavy fighter" with great t/w ratio does not replace the AEW. Aircraft like the Grumman E/A 6 Prowler and now the E-2.

The E-2 weighs in at over 20 tons - heavier than "heavy" fighters. For the US it's not a choice of "Oh should we have STOBAR or not." CATOBAR is the only way. For a nation that has landed a C-130 on a carrier deck the sky is the limit

STOBAR was very much an innovation to give some naval carrier capability to nations without the resources and history of the US.

Meanwhile the Osprey gives yet more capability that is impossible for most world navies. We tend to rotate our view around 'Fighter, heavier fighter, etc" but a carrier needs much more than that . The more you can provide - the more versatile your carrier group is going to be.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby shiv » 30 Apr 2017 19:06

Strike is important. But strike what? Who will tell you what to strike?

Let me digress for a moment and talk about what I read today as I approach the end of Kunal Verma's book on 1962.

The book is full of very sad stories about how Indian posts were simply attacked from all sides and all men killed. There are stories that say "The attack started at 3-30 AM with intense mortar fire from the North and suddenly Chinese soldiers appeared from both flanks.

Meanwhile the Air Force was saying "We are overflying China every day, taking photos. There is zero Chinese air force opposition. There was a huge column of troops on the road approaching X area. We could simply have shot them up. But no the air force was not used. So the army was getting surprise after surprise "Shit the Chinese are there" "Shit the Chinese are here also" "heck the Chinese are coming from above also"

The point is that you can have any damn carrier fighter ripple firing anything with tons and tons of load but if you have no frigging clue what to fire at your fighters will be totally useless. The ocean is a big place. Remember MH 370

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62455
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Singha » 30 Apr 2017 20:23

Our p8 hv been cg with two tandem inline harpoon
Pylons underneath.
The bomb bay looks to have space for 5 harpoons side by side

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby negi » 30 Apr 2017 20:52

We should seek to junk the Harpoons before their shelf life comes to an end ; it is just a dal-chawal type ASM nothing cutting edge about it which we cannot replace.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62455
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Singha » 30 Apr 2017 21:37

What we need is the torpedo kit for high alt launch

We hardly have enough p8 to be considering land strike so no need for jassm or slam

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3339
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Aditya G » 01 May 2017 00:21

Another article on Aircraft Carrier debate;

https://swarajyamag.com/defence/india-n ... e-elements

....

The case for more carriers

...

Carriers are an essential element of sea control. According to India’s maritime doctrine, “Sea control is the central concept around which the Indian Navy is structured, and aircraft carriers are decidedly the most substantial contributors to it. This is because they possess ordnance delivery capability of a very high order, often greater than the balance fleet units in the Task Force. This is by means of their substantial integral air power, which provides integral, ubiquitous and enhanced combat power, with extended reach and rapid response capability.”

At a bare minimum, India should have three carriers – one for each seaboard, with a third on standby. India was without a carrier task force for six months in 2016 as its lone flattop INS Vikramaditya was undergoing maintenance.

Having three carriers on call is an ideal situation but is possible only if funds allow. If the Navy is prepared to sacrifice other platforms to divert funds to the second carrier, where does it propose to get money for the support vessels?

For, an aircraft carrier doesn’t travel alone. It usually operates with, and is at the centre of, a composite task force, including multi-purpose destroyers, frigates, submarines and logistics ships. The carrier task force is a self-contained and balanced force, capable of undertaking the entire range of operational tasks.

We do not want a situation like that in 1971 when a limping Vikrant was sent into battle along with only four light frigates (one of which lacked sonar) and a lone submarine to provide anti-submarine protection. In his book No Way But Surrender, Vice Admiral N Krishnan writes, “Even assuming that no operational defects developed, it would still be necessary to withdraw ships from the area of operations for fuelling. The basic problem was that if reasonable anti submarine protection had to be provided to Vikrant and the escort ships had to be in close company for this purpose, then how were 18,000 square miles to be kept under surveillance?”

The Navy had deployed the entire complement of the Vikrant’s aircraft in offensive operations against East Pakistan, leaving none for the carrier’s defence. It was a calculated risk that paid off. Had Pakistan been in possession of another long-range submarine, the story may have been different.

Don’t cannibalise the Navy

While aircraft carriers are symbols of prestige, the bits and parts needed to win wars must not be neglected. Sadly, this has happened. For instance, India’s submarine strength currently stands at 15 vessels and is behind Pakistan’s fleet of 17. :roll: Even North Korea, which can barely feed its population, has a fleet of 70 subs, which is why the United States carriers keep a safe distance from the Korean peninsula.

Submarines are the true predators of the deep and will allow India to wreak havoc on its adversaries during a war. A fleet of 24 subs (the sanctioned strength), but ideally 50 undersea vessels, can target every task force in the Indian Ocean. During the 1999 Kargil War, it was a submarine, and not a carrier, that was poised to deliver the first blow had India decided to escalate the conflict. INS Sindhurakshak was deployed very close to Karachi and had its torpedoes trained on the harbour installations.

As well as subs, India needs to spend on other less glamorous but critical weapons platforms such as missile boats, frigates, stealth ships, minesweepers, land and ship attack missiles, torpedoes, shore-based radar, close-in warfare weapons, electronic warfare suites and maritime satellites.

....

The Navy as a force multiplier

India cannot – and should not – match China carrier for carrier, but it should emulate the Chinese strategy of shipbuilding to boost the economy. Admiral Bhagwat points out that the Chinese military and political leadership had declared as a matter of state policy that shipbuilding would be the springboard for China’s industrial development. For India, this is especially advantageous because it is hemmed in to the north and the northeast, and the only strategic space the country has to manoeuvre is in the oceans.


India’s submarine strength currently stands at 15 vessels and is behind Pakistan’s fleet of 17.

Informed authors and publications need to get their stats right. PN has a grand total of 8 submarines, with just 3 of the much vaunted Agosta 90Bs:

Submarine Agosta Hashmat Class S135 PNS Hashmat
Submarine Agosta Hashmat Class S136 PNS Hurmat
Submarine Agosta 90B Khalid Class S137 PNS Khalid
Submarine Agosta 90B Khalid Class S138 PNS Saad
Submarine Agosta 90B Khalid Class S139 PNS Hamza
Submarine (Midget) SX-756S / MG-110LR 01
Submarine (Midget) SX-756S / MG-110LR 02
Submarine (Midget) SX-756S / MG-110LR 03

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 01 May 2017 01:23

negi wrote:We should seek to junk the Harpoons before their shelf life comes to an end ; it is just a dal-chawal type ASM nothing cutting edge about it which we cannot replace.


Unless there is another missile in the same weight class as it or the IN is willing to share India AshM codes with Boeing/USN the Harpoon, Harpoon-ER and the JSM will be the only three weapons cleared on the P-8s. The fleet is too small to design a nee weapon.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby vasu raya » 01 May 2017 01:51

With the in principle approval of EMALS, can they have a land based installation first and not wait for the Carrier?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 01 May 2017 04:21

vasu raya wrote:With the in principle approval of EMALS, can they have a land based installation first and not wait for the Carrier?


Sure but to what end? If the IN decides to commit to an EMALS carrier they can begin that process and rent out time at Lakehurst while formulating an Indian facility but unless you commit to actually buying it for carriers going forward it will be a gigantic waste of money to build a ground facility.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 01 May 2017 04:30

Singha wrote:What we need is the torpedo kit for high alt launch

We hardly have enough p8 to be considering land strike so no need for jassm or slam


JASSM will enter OMS by the early 2020s so you can develop payloads around that since it is a UAI weapon and is under future integration plan of the P-8 JPO. Harpoon-ER is a double ranged Harpoon anti-ship missile that is essentially a Harpoon (as far as the platform is concerned) and is currently in flight testing.

Same with JSM which offers 2-2.5 x the range of the Harpoon and is also a missile that the JPO will integrate on the P-8 in the future. Since the IN is buying specific weapons for the Neptune it makes sense to look to get improved capability if local weapons or integration is not possible or economically feasible.

The Brahmos is too heavy for the aircraft, and the Brahmos-M will require sharing data with Boeing not to mention it will be quite an expensive effort if pursued through a commercial program with Boeing (the way the P-8 was acquired).

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby vasu raya » 01 May 2017 04:42

brar, IN currently has a land based take off ramp in Goa and they are testing indigenous aircraft on it, maybe UAVs too, if EMALS is going to be the future, a similar facility would help. Not sure any India developed test aircraft would travel to Lakehurst

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 01 May 2017 04:56

vasu raya wrote:brar, IN currently has a land based take off ramp in Goa and they are testing indigenous aircraft on it, maybe UAVs too, if EMALS is going to be the future, a similar facility would help. Not sure any India developed test aircraft would travel to Lakehurst


That is why I said, if EMALS is in the IN's future then yes. However a land based EMALS facility is not going to be cheap and you are not going to fund something like that unless you have committed to the capability for the future carrier.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2381
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby chola » 01 May 2017 05:03

Singha wrote:Cheen will look to reengine the naval su27 with the 117s engine to gain thrust. Its proven on su35 and used for now in pakfa

Its also on offer for our su30 mlu


This is the one that sticks in my f.cking craw every time.

So the Russians are offering the PRC the s117 from the SU-35, just like they offered the RD-33 for the JF-17 and the AL-31 for the J-20. Even as they are cloning myriad versions of the Flanker from J-11A to the J-16.

No punishment at all for supposedly stealing the Flanker design. Or were they fully involved in ToT (I doubt even Cheen could copy a Flanker and make the thing fly)? A ToT for Cheen that allow all sorts of domestic copies.

But no such freedom for India in the MKI ToT?

So why the hell is HAL just making the MKI?

brar_w wrote:China is looking long term by choosing the heavier platform in the J-11 as they are likely to continue to develop their carrier program and incorporate CATs. Wouldn't be surprised if the smaller FC-31 makes an appearance as a Naval fighter sometime in the next decade once they have their own propulsion figured out.


What is the punishment if HAL started our SU-33 with MKI parts?

And why should we even care of they tried to punish us? Tell the Russians to punish the f-ing chinis first and ground their J-20 project without an engine.

Time for Indians to stop playing the damn patsies for Ivana.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Cosmo_R » 01 May 2017 05:49

chola wrote:
Singha wrote:Cheen will look to reengine the naval su27 with the 117s engine to gain thrust. Its proven on su35 and used for now in pakfa

Its also on offer for our su30 mlu


This is the one that sticks in my f.cking craw every time.

So the Russians are offering the PRC the s117 from the SU-35, just like they offered the RD-33 for the JF-17 and the AL-31 for the J-20. Even as they are cloning myriad versions of the Flanker from J-11A to the J-16.

No punishment at all for supposedly stealing the Flanker design. Or were they fully involved in ToT (I doubt even Cheen could copy a Flanker and make the thing fly)? A ToT for Cheen that allow all sorts of domestic copies.

But no such freedom for India in the MKI ToT?

So why the hell is HAL just making the MKI?

brar_w wrote:China is looking long term by choosing the heavier platform in the J-11 as they are likely to continue to develop their carrier program and incorporate CATs. Wouldn't be surprised if the smaller FC-31 makes an appearance as a Naval fighter sometime in the next decade once they have their own propulsion figured out.


What is the punishment if HAL started our SU-33 with MKI parts?

And why should we even care of they tried to punish us? Tell the Russians to punish the f-ing chinis first and ground their J-20 project without an engine.

Time for Indians to stop playing the damn patsies for Ivana.


Shush, It's Mother Russia, time tested friend and to whom we owe everything including the Viky gift. Mod needs its Modka :)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62455
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Singha » 01 May 2017 07:04

What is the diff between a su30 and su33? With a arrester hook can the su30 operate from liaoning?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2381
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby chola » 01 May 2017 07:36

Singha wrote:What is the diff between a su30 and su33? With a arrester hook can the su30 operate from liaoning?



A Flanker is a flanker is a flanker. Obviously some strengthening for the arrestor gear but if the ToT was worth its name then HAL should have the ability build any variant. Especially since the MKI already has canards like SU-33 which is the only really major physical difference among SU-27 derivatives anyways.

Even if not successful, we should try. What the hell's good is ToT when you can't use it anywhere outside the confines of a single build run?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby srai » 01 May 2017 16:59

chola wrote:
Singha wrote:What is the diff between a su30 and su33? With a arrester hook can the su30 operate from liaoning?



A Flanker is a flanker is a flanker. Obviously some strengthening for the arrestor gear but if the ToT was worth its name then HAL should have the ability build any variant. Especially since the MKI already has canards like SU-33 which is the only really major physical difference among SU-27 derivatives anyways.

Even if not successful, we should try. What the hell's good is ToT when you can't use it anywhere outside the confines of a single build run?

ToT is good for maintaining that platform locally, and not much more. OEM would be required for any major upgrades. There will also be other restrictions to its use beyond the original mandate.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2381
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby chola » 01 May 2017 18:56

srai wrote:
chola wrote:

A Flanker is a flanker is a flanker. Obviously some strengthening for the arrestor gear but if the ToT was worth its name then HAL should have the ability build any variant. Especially since the MKI already has canards like SU-33 which is the only really major physical difference among SU-27 derivatives anyways.

Even if not successful, we should try. What the hell's good is ToT when you can't use it anywhere outside the confines of a single build run?

ToT is good for maintaining that platform locally, and not much more. OEM would be required for any major upgrades. There will also be other restrictions to its use beyond the original mandate.



If that is the case then it is nothing more than licensed production not Transfer of Technology.

Whatever the case, if is anything more than screwdrivergiri then I like to see us build something of our own through both the expertise and the local manufacturing HAL said we built up up during the MKI run.

Licensing be damned. Time for us to be a little rogue like our pharma industry. Being a nice guy and following the rules don't get you chit except a reputation as soft patsies.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby srai » 01 May 2017 20:07

"Transfer of Technology" is a marketing term. It does the opposite of its said intent; it creates dependency.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2276
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby JTull » 01 May 2017 20:21

Singha wrote:What we need is the torpedo kit for high alt launch

We hardly have enough p8 to be considering land strike so no need for jassm or slam


P-8I internal bay can take Mark-54 light torpedos.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby shiv » 01 May 2017 20:41

negi wrote:We should seek to junk the Harpoons before their shelf life comes to an end ; it is just a dal-chawal type ASM nothing cutting edge about it which we cannot replace.

What I saw on Googal was that India received 22 "Lot 89" Harpoons

Here is info about earlier lots

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... en_eng.pdf
They are all the "Next Generation" harpoon with extended range with orders commencing 2011

Lot numbers 86,87 & 88 are mentioned. India got Lot 89

Since there is not much cutting edge about Paki navy we can use it for them no?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10945
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Gagan » 01 May 2017 20:56

WRT China making copies of Su-33 and Su-30s

Let me guess,
India did not pay enough to Russia, china did.

India has a CAG, which will not allow any such wasteful business, besides HAL has no funding to innovate.

China needed the su-33 for the carriers, the planes were out of production, so they paid and brought the TOT

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby brar_w » 01 May 2017 20:59

The Harpoon block II is a good weapon for the P-8 which is a part of a broader offensive maritime mission and not a primary AshM launch platform. As I had mentioned the Block II gets a component bump under II+ which should now be the production standard and the Harpoon-ER is currently in flight testing by Boeing and doubles the Block II+'s range to bring it closer to those offered by the JSM/NSM for example.

No one is looking to build a supersonic weapon for the P-8 MMA fleet and even if one were to it would be tough to get the size and weight down to Harpoon/JSM level while also retaining the range and networking. Heavier weapons will be delivered by other strike aircraft or would require a much broader developmental testing and integration effort with Boeing and the USN P-8 JPO.

Harpoon-ER Upgrade Is Boeing’s Go-To For U.S. Navy Competition

The Harpoon-ER is based on the networked AGM-84 “Block 2+” variant, slated to become operational this year. Boeing hopes to double the missile’s range from 67 to 134 nm by introducing a more efficient turbojet engine as well as a lighter-weight warhead with the same explosive punch to free up space for additional fuel.

Harpoon-ER retains the same radar-homing seeker, data link and electronics as the Block 2+, and the physical size and shape remain the same as well, thereby limiting integration and recertification costs.

Troy Rutherford, Boeing’s director of cruise missile systems, says captive-carry flight trials are underway and the first shot could take place sometime this financial quarter.

“We’ve been doing captive-carry at Point Mugu for an -ER shot and look forward to doing the launch early this year,” Rutherford tells Aviation Week. “We’re working with the Navy on securing open range time, but we’re all anxious to do it as soon as possible. We’re definitely shooting for [the first quarter].”


Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2381
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby chola » 01 May 2017 21:33

Gagan wrote:WRT China making copies of Su-33 and Su-30s

Let me guess,
India did not pay enough to Russia, china did.

India has a CAG, which will not allow any such wasteful business, besides HAL has no funding to innovate.

China needed the su-33 for the carriers, the planes were out of production, so they paid and brought the TOT


If that is the case, it is FAR more wasteful to buy a license and then spend treasure re-creating much of the production line in Bharat only to have the equipment and processes built up be only for that one build run.

Imagine, to have HAL building all sorts of indigenous variations of the MKI: the current for air superiority, another for carrier ops, another for strike and yet another for EW.

Why can't we do this? In this case, I would mind paying the Russians a little more. Full ToT. We have almost everything we need except for the engine. We'll pay for the engine if we get to build our variants of ths plane. Until we get an engine of our own.

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

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3105
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Cain Marko » 01 May 2017 23:16

Singha wrote:What is the diff between a su30 and su33? With a arrester hook can the su30 operate from liaoning?


Doable but will need undercarriage strengthening. IIRC, the IN had sent some folks over to Pune to assess the MKI for the Viky - didnt pan out I guess, it seems the flanker is too big for the elevators on the Vik. This is doubtful though - once folded the wingspan is pretty small on the Su-33.

Yes, a flanker variant as IN's fighter would have been rather good - considering its exceptional range, TWR, payload etc. Most importantly, the upgrade path with newer engines and radars is pretty clear.

The MiG-29K otoh doesn't really have such a clear path. The IN will have to chart and fund its own, which brings me to the point that India should just buy out the entire fulcrum facility as a MII venture - produce a number of variants - IAF MRCA and for the IN. Swap out the engines for Kaveri/GE-414s/EJ200s, get an EL-2052/Uttam in there with variants of Derby/Astra and Python V. Cheaper than MII Gripen NG or F-16 I'd wager.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3105
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Postby Cain Marko » 01 May 2017 23:17

shiv wrote:Let us wait and see,,

I see so many predictions on BRF and all are wrong - "there will be a terrorist attack" "There will be a coup" - it's a free forum and once the prediction is made it is forgotten because the timeline is so long. I predict that India will have world's best stealth hypersonic UCAV with space capability by 2060. Catch me out then...


Frankly, I just hope you are correct.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, Thakur_B and 30 guests