Indian Naval Aviation
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 866
- Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
The first tranche of #MH 60R helos were received by #IndianNavy at @KochiAirport with the traditional welcome ceremony.
Delivered by @usairforce Special Air Assignment Mission Flight, these add to the 3 delivered earlier in Jun 21 in #UnitedStates.
https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/1 ... kl8tA&s=19
Delivered by @usairforce Special Air Assignment Mission Flight, these add to the 3 delivered earlier in Jun 21 in #UnitedStates.
https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/1 ... kl8tA&s=19
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Long overdue. Will be an excellent value addition to the IN's helo ASW/AShW capability (which is basically non-existent right now).ashishvikas wrote:The first tranche of #MH 60R helos were received by #IndianNavy at @KochiAirport with the traditional welcome ceremony.
Delivered by @usairforce Special Air Assignment Mission Flight, these add to the 3 delivered earlier in Jun 21 in #UnitedStates.
https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/1 ... kl8tA&s=19
I really hope the IN orders another 18 - 24. The 24 is not enough for all the surface combatants the IN has.
And this is value for money....any day better spent than acquiring shiny MRCBFs.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
I agree with everything HVT’s said- the 3 options he lays out are the ONLY aircraft in existence or planned that are 100% compatible with both aircraft carriers fully (not just able to squeeze themselves into their lifts)Rakesh wrote:The lift design was copied from the Vikramaditya. And the lifts of that vessel are designed to accommodate the MiG-29K and the Naval Tejas. The argument is that it serves the Navy's needs. See below...KSingh wrote:The absolute myopia (or something more sinister/insidious?) of the IN to design their entire aviation complex including the lifts around the 29K (with one of the smallest folded wing cross sections of any carrier fighter)
The CDG which has almost identical dimensions to the IAC-1 in terms of length and displacement has 2X lifts that the Rafales (with wingtips attached) can use with easily 1-1.5m of clearance EITHER SIDE of the wings.
The QE Class can lift a CH-47 with none of its blades detached/folded.
What is the IN thinking building carriers with the smallest aircraft lifts they possibly could? This is criminal negligence and has lead to this entire debacle.
As I must keep reminding everyone the Rafale’s wing issues are not unique to it, even with the SH’s wings folded it can’t use the Vikrant’s lifts without a specially designed jig tilting the airframe
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/14232 ... dF1uECKNZw ---> Lifts seem to be perfect. We don't exactly need to design for some imported aircraft. Our present and future aircraft fit well, and perhaps we should not eat into storage space by making extras large lifts. It's a tight fit, which is in some ways, most optimized.
So present and future aircraft fit well
The suboptimal fit is the Rafale M and F-18SH
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/14236 ... dF1uECKNZw ---> No constraints from where an Indian Navy person sees it. There are three aircraft IAC fits, i.e.
* MiG-29K; which IN operates,
* LCA-Navy; which is undergoing tests by IN,
* TEDBF; which is being designed on IN's specs.
Lifts are designed by IN. No constraints as far as IN knows.
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/14236 ... dF1uECKNZw ---> I don't think imported aircraft fit into Indian scheme of things. They don't fit.
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/14238 ... dF1uECKNZw ---> I love Rafale. But they've not exactly designed it for our Navy. So....
That said, to pretend like there hasn’t been extreme shortsightedness on the IN’s part is being far too kind. They bought and paid for the development of the 29K without any testing or verification , just Russian promises. Their operational experience has led to a situation where they neither want more nor do they have any other options.
Like I said above-TEDBF wouldn’t exist if either the 29K lived up to expectations of the Rafale/SH were optimal solutions.
That the IN has to design an entirely new fighter to fit its carriers points to their myopia
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
IN tells us they need 123 NMRH in Sea King/MH-60R class then go and order just 24. With DBMRH/IMRH not even sanctioned by the GoI yet it’s surely inevitable they order more because their Sea King fleet is already hilariously outdatedRakesh wrote:Long overdue. Will be an excellent value addition to the IN's helo ASW/AShW capability (which is basically non-existent right now).ashishvikas wrote:The first tranche of #MH 60R helos were received by #IndianNavy at @KochiAirport with the traditional welcome ceremony.
Delivered by @usairforce Special Air Assignment Mission Flight, these add to the 3 delivered earlier in Jun 21 in #UnitedStates.
https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/1 ... kl8tA&s=19
I really hope the IN orders another 18 - 24. The 24 is not enough for all the surface combatants the IN has.
And this is value for money....any day better spent than acquiring shiny MRCBFs.
Yet another master stoke in planning
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
It is now becoming really personal for Boeing. Watch them pull out all the stops now.YashG wrote:I think it will come down to wire. Both France & US will fight very hard to get this contract.
But who needs it more?
US
Who has natural cost advantages ?
Rafale due to existing maintenance infra and weapons commonality, but F/A-18 is cheaper inherently due to its long production run.
Who will be ready to cut the costs to the hilt?
While the answer may seem like US but should be France - Because if it wins here, it will make it even easier to get part or whole of 114 MRFAs. Because PBL contracts will become less costly to offer; If like IAF Rafale deal, there is a PBL based contract here, Rafale will come cheaper as you will be stocking long tail consumables or LRUs via a common stock for IN & IAF. Those spares and personnel cost will make PBL cheaper for Rafale; Additionally making India an MRO hub for Safran engines.
They will likely lobby the US Congress to release the F-18 Growler for the Indian Navy.
That could prove to be a hard pill for the Congress to follow through on. Damn that S-400
Supply chain, inflation woes drag down Boeing’s defense profit
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/20 ... se-profit/
27 July 2022
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
I do hope this happens. With the Naval version of the HAL LUH filling the Navy's requirement of 111 Naval utility helosKSingh wrote:
IN tells us they need 123 NMRH in Sea King/MH-60R class then go and order just 24. With DBMRH/IMRH not even sanctioned by the GoI yet it’s surely inevitable they order more because their Sea King fleet is already hilariously outdated
Yet another master stoke in planning
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
They say they need 2 engines for NUH so it will have to be ALH-NUH for that role. Although there was talk of splitting 111 NUH between ALH and LUH, I presume the latter would be purely for shore duties for ab-intio training of new pilotsChinmay wrote:I do hope this happens. With the Naval version of the HAL LUH filling the Navy's requirement of 111 Naval utility helosKSingh wrote:
IN tells us they need 123 NMRH in Sea King/MH-60R class then go and order just 24. With DBMRH/IMRH not even sanctioned by the GoI yet it’s surely inevitable they order more because their Sea King fleet is already hilariously outdated
Yet another master stoke in planning
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Im happy as long as either ALH or LUH gets selected
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
C-17 Redux?
Indian Navy's Multi-Billion Programme To Buy 6 More Boeing P8I Reconnaissance Aircraft Stalls
https://www.businessworld.in/article/In ... 22-439930/
01 Aug 2022
Indian Navy's Multi-Billion Programme To Buy 6 More Boeing P8I Reconnaissance Aircraft Stalls
https://www.businessworld.in/article/In ... 22-439930/
01 Aug 2022
US declines to extend price offer beyond July 31 for Government-to-Government deal, programme pushed back to Square One.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
A combat tested Rafale M pilot from the French Naval Air Arm. Check out the references to the F-18SH and the legacy F-18H.
Flying & fighting in the Dassault Rafale: Interview with a Rafale combat veteran
https://hushkit.net/2019/11/11/flying-f ... t-veteran/
11 Nov 2019
Flying & fighting in the Dassault Rafale: Interview with a Rafale combat veteran
https://hushkit.net/2019/11/11/flying-f ... t-veteran/
11 Nov 2019
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Good. That will teach the US to interfere with India on CAASTA.Rakesh wrote:C-17 Redux?
Indian Navy's Multi-Billion Programme To Buy 6 More Boeing P8I Reconnaissance Aircraft Stalls
https://www.businessworld.in/article/In ... 22-439930/
01 Aug 2022
US declines to extend price offer beyond July 31 for Government-to-Government deal, programme pushed back to Square One.
While India buys 11 AH64 from the USA.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 874
- Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
French aviators views on the MRCBF program. The translation was not great by YT but you can understand most points. Looks like the bet is on the Super Hornet
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
So Shukla is back to peddling for the Amreekis again A number of twitter users fired back, but it was Mao Sir that countered many of his arguments quite effectively. I will be posting that in the next post. For now, enjoy this gem.
https://twitter.com/ajaishukla/status/1 ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> Crucial questions about Indian Navy capabilities! Do we need a 2nd indigenous aircraft carrier? What should be its size and capabilities? What aircraft should it embark? Is it sensible to want a 65,000-tonne carrier, with Super Hornets flying off it?
Building a blue-water navy: India needs another aircraft carrier and Super Hornets to fly off it
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2022/08/buil ... needs.html
04 Aug 2022
https://twitter.com/ajaishukla/status/1 ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> Crucial questions about Indian Navy capabilities! Do we need a 2nd indigenous aircraft carrier? What should be its size and capabilities? What aircraft should it embark? Is it sensible to want a 65,000-tonne carrier, with Super Hornets flying off it?
Building a blue-water navy: India needs another aircraft carrier and Super Hornets to fly off it
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2022/08/buil ... needs.html
04 Aug 2022
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Commodore Jaideep Maolankar (retd) countered the above article in a series of hard hitting, reality tweets below
If the Rafale does end up on top, Shukla will be livid....Tauba...Tauba!!!
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> Critical questions indeed sir. But I beg to differ with the overall thrust of the article. #1 We have been unable to settle the issue of “need” of an aircraft carrier. Not my opinion - its openly contested in official statements. Till that is settled, all purchases will be ineffective.
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #2 The article suggests adoption of the US carrier employment doctrines hence implication of 65,000 tons + EMALS or else! Predictably leads to “affordability” debates. Frankly the French concepts might be closer to the “Indian” way - rather than strive to become a USN surrogate.
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #3 Limited affordability leads to limited purchases + notions of “cannot afford to lose or risk it”. If you can lose it, you can’t use it. Hence only build weapons you can afford to use, including lose if necessary. Our rhetoric “65,000 ton or else…” needs to change.
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #4 Unfortunately Tech Perspective & Cap Roadmap (TPCR18) sheds little light on this. Simply Aircraft Carrier Qty 01. (Same level of indenting as Flotsam Recovery Boat !!!).
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #5 You rightly highlight aircraft carrier potential (01 aircraft per 1000 ton) - but we seem to be happy with half that. Personally find that insulting, given our carrier aviation heritage. How can a larger ship be the only solution when so many chips are being left on the table?
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #6 Canard of ski jump inefficiency needs to be backed up with math. I respectfully disagree that CATOBAR is the only answer. We must always talk of a complete system. For an affordable ship + aircraft + role/mission combination, you would be surprised with the efficiency of a ski-jump.
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #7 Two seater aspect is overblown in absence of clear operational role definitions requiring a two seat config. Even TEDBF is planned as a single seater only. The future is MUMT with UAS, not merely two seaters. Also one can do the math regarding crew affordability for two seat aircraft!
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #8 French Navy doing basic carrier training with USN does not validate anything regarding F-18 vs Rafale. In fact maybe despite doing their training with USN, they saw it fit to build their own. Frankly not convinced about either unless we are willing to remodel both Vikramaditya and Vikrant.
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #9 Lastly sir - you say “strategic closeness” - I say “strategic vulnerability”. Well above my pay grade maybe, but hasn’t the Pak army always justified its 1965/71 failures to its own public on the hook of “US sanctions”?
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #10 Studiously avoiding the DF21 v/s Carrier v/s Island aircraft carriers v/s Submarines debate completely. @arunp2810 - Probably need your heft on this one Sir!
If the Rafale does end up on top, Shukla will be livid....Tauba...Tauba!!!
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> Critical questions indeed sir. But I beg to differ with the overall thrust of the article. #1 We have been unable to settle the issue of “need” of an aircraft carrier. Not my opinion - its openly contested in official statements. Till that is settled, all purchases will be ineffective.
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #2 The article suggests adoption of the US carrier employment doctrines hence implication of 65,000 tons + EMALS or else! Predictably leads to “affordability” debates. Frankly the French concepts might be closer to the “Indian” way - rather than strive to become a USN surrogate.
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #3 Limited affordability leads to limited purchases + notions of “cannot afford to lose or risk it”. If you can lose it, you can’t use it. Hence only build weapons you can afford to use, including lose if necessary. Our rhetoric “65,000 ton or else…” needs to change.
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #4 Unfortunately Tech Perspective & Cap Roadmap (TPCR18) sheds little light on this. Simply Aircraft Carrier Qty 01. (Same level of indenting as Flotsam Recovery Boat !!!).
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #5 You rightly highlight aircraft carrier potential (01 aircraft per 1000 ton) - but we seem to be happy with half that. Personally find that insulting, given our carrier aviation heritage. How can a larger ship be the only solution when so many chips are being left on the table?
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #6 Canard of ski jump inefficiency needs to be backed up with math. I respectfully disagree that CATOBAR is the only answer. We must always talk of a complete system. For an affordable ship + aircraft + role/mission combination, you would be surprised with the efficiency of a ski-jump.
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #7 Two seater aspect is overblown in absence of clear operational role definitions requiring a two seat config. Even TEDBF is planned as a single seater only. The future is MUMT with UAS, not merely two seaters. Also one can do the math regarding crew affordability for two seat aircraft!
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #8 French Navy doing basic carrier training with USN does not validate anything regarding F-18 vs Rafale. In fact maybe despite doing their training with USN, they saw it fit to build their own. Frankly not convinced about either unless we are willing to remodel both Vikramaditya and Vikrant.
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #9 Lastly sir - you say “strategic closeness” - I say “strategic vulnerability”. Well above my pay grade maybe, but hasn’t the Pak army always justified its 1965/71 failures to its own public on the hook of “US sanctions”?
https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #10 Studiously avoiding the DF21 v/s Carrier v/s Island aircraft carriers v/s Submarines debate completely. @arunp2810 - Probably need your heft on this one Sir!
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
https://twitter.com/arunp2810/status/15 ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> Not much heft left after your clinical commentary. But here are views on some vexed issues. Bearing in mind that politics - eventually - trumps all: viewtopic.php?f=3&p=2561057#p2561057Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/JA_Maolankar/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> #10 Studiously avoiding the DF21 v/s Carrier v/s Island aircraft carriers v/s Submarines debate completely. @arunp2810 - Probably need your heft on this one Sir!
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
The reason for the debate is : The failure to properly justify IAC-2 carrier in overall defense and naval priorities, the failure to justify Area denial, land bases and ship vs carrier utility instead of carrier vs carrier. the failure to decide the airpower mix desired, improper or insufficient fleet structure planning, lack of guidance on budget and sustainability of a naval fleet
There's also public confusion related to whether MRCBF is meant for IAC-1 or for IAC-2 with an "interim" tag, [26 numbers suggest IAC-1, with 45 TEDBF meant for IAC-2. The timeline to develop IAC-2 vs timeline to develop TEDBF, with overlap of IAC-1 and Mig29K in initial phases at least.]
Larger carriers offer ability to carry more fuel and planes. RAND studies suggest that larger carriers offer non-linear scale in power projection (you need to maintain certain fixed number of CAP patrol), but capital costs/are high and a carrier cannot be in 2 places. UAVs offer some possibility to bend this curve, but India has no programme for naval carrier borne UAVs. Catapult also offers possibilities for force multipliers like AEW&C planes. Twin seat TEDBF offer notional ability to accomodate CATS kind of upgrades.
Without laying the foundation properly by the relevant stakeholders, these debates will be perennial and shed more heat than light, and worse may be inconclusive.
There's also public confusion related to whether MRCBF is meant for IAC-1 or for IAC-2 with an "interim" tag, [26 numbers suggest IAC-1, with 45 TEDBF meant for IAC-2. The timeline to develop IAC-2 vs timeline to develop TEDBF, with overlap of IAC-1 and Mig29K in initial phases at least.]
Larger carriers offer ability to carry more fuel and planes. RAND studies suggest that larger carriers offer non-linear scale in power projection (you need to maintain certain fixed number of CAP patrol), but capital costs/are high and a carrier cannot be in 2 places. UAVs offer some possibility to bend this curve, but India has no programme for naval carrier borne UAVs. Catapult also offers possibilities for force multipliers like AEW&C planes. Twin seat TEDBF offer notional ability to accomodate CATS kind of upgrades.
Without laying the foundation properly by the relevant stakeholders, these debates will be perennial and shed more heat than light, and worse may be inconclusive.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Read below - from Page 14 of the above link. If the IAF and IN set aside their differences over aircraft carriers, they can replicate this on the IN's aircraft carriers. That is assuming the Rafale M is chosen in the MRCBF contest.Rakesh wrote:The Aircraft Carrier Connundrum and India's Dilemma
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gL2 ... sW0hk/edit
By Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd) - Former Chief of Naval Staff, Indian Navy
In the context of carriers, of even greater interest is the sterling example of ‘jointness’ demonstrated by the British services on board HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2021. The F-35B fighters embarked on board this ship belong to a Royal Air Force unit, No. 617 Squadron. The squadron is manned by a joint crew (including pilots) of RAF and RN personnel and, uniquely, the Commanding Officer of this RAF squadron is a Royal Navy officer.
Given its growing reach and strategic capabilities, that include long-range strike, aerial-refuelling and AWACS, the IAF can be a powerful ally whose cooperation the IN must actively seek. This may be a good time for the two Services to get together and, instead of bickering over the ‘budgetary cake’ and hardware, evolve an Air-Sea Battle Doctrine which would create an effective air-power synergy between IN aircraft-carriers and IAF shore-based units.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
The joint helicopter command as mentioned in the article is also a great example of interoperability and something which could have resolved the IA vs IAF helo tussles. Wonder if our Theatre commands could ever do something similar in the future.Rakesh wrote:The Aircraft Carrier Connundrum and India's Dilemma
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gL2 ... sW0hk/edit
By Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd) - Former Chief of Naval Staff, Indian Navy
But each service is forever concerned about losing some of its mandate to others which is why even theatresization (if it ever happens) will be at snails pace.
The Aircraft carrier connundrum and potential mitigations have been discussed in this thread multiple times but if the Government/RM/CDS can't make the Navy budge then there isn't much hope.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
https://twitter.com/TheLegateIN/status/ ... LcXoRYFbiA ---> Just In: The deal for 30 Predator (MQ-9B) UAVs with the US is expected to be finalised soon. The Indian Navy has been pushing for the deal and it will be done soon. Total cost almost $3 billion.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Only 10 nos of sea gaurdians (approx $1 billion) for Navy can be justified since it will save air frame life of other assets and they have a wide area under surveillance.
The $2 billion saved can be invested in making our own UAVs.
https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted ... eaguardian
The $2 billion saved can be invested in making our own UAVs.
https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted ... eaguardian
Anti-Submarine Warfare
Leveraging MQ-9B’s open architecture system, SeaGuardian operators have the option to integrate our ground-breaking sonobuoy management and control system (SMCS) and sonobuoy dispenser system (SDS). Together, these systems allow SeaGuardian operators to deploy, monitor and control sonobuoys from a single RPAS. Also, SeaGuardian has four wing stations available to carry up to 4 SDS pods, enabling it to hold and dispense up to 40 ‘A’ size or 80 ‘G’ size sonobuoys and remotely perform ASW anywhere in the world. In its standard maritime ISR and ASW configuration, SeaGuardian’s range encompasses a mission radius of 1200 nautical miles with significant on-station time for submarine prosecution, providing a low-cost, stand-alone capability or a complement to human-crewed aircraft for manned-unmanned teaming operations.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Thought this deal was dead based on the reports coming out early this year... Maybe a Caatsa sweetener?Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/TheLegateIN/status/ ... LcXoRYFbiA ---> Just In: The deal for 30 Predator (MQ-9B) UAVs with the US is expected to be finalised soon. The Indian Navy has been pushing for the deal and it will be done soon. Total cost almost $3 billion.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Probably that is what it is. Or perhaps setting up the foundation for the F-18SH.
One of Boeing's marketing push to the IN was the combo of the P-8I + M-60R + MQ9B working alongside the F-18SH.
One of Boeing's marketing push to the IN was the combo of the P-8I + M-60R + MQ9B working alongside the F-18SH.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Brush up on your MQ-9B platform ---> https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/mq-9b
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
I wish there was a slick know your LCA, Arjun, Atags, Tapas etc pages.Rakesh wrote:Brush up on your MQ-9B platform ---> https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/mq-9b
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
We are peace loving onlee. It is all about loving your lovingsks_sachin wrote:I wish there was a slick know your LCA, Arjun, Atags, Tapas etc pages.
Official documentation on the above would be hara-kiri to our ahimsa values.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
No CAATSA... That is more like like a Cassata! Does Boeing have any strategic bombers that they can throw into the mix?Rakesh wrote:Probably that is what it is. Or perhaps setting up the foundation for the F-18SH.
One of Boeing's marketing push to the IN was the combo of the P-8I + M-60R + MQ9B working alongside the F-18SH.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5353
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
I think this will have to be done. Not just as some type of Hafta to keep US MIC in favor, but also because the Navy needs the platforms, badly. This could be the balm used to soothe the pain of the white swans and not just the s400Rakesh wrote:Probably that is what it is. Or perhaps setting up the foundation for the F-18SH.
One of Boeing's marketing push to the IN was the combo of the P-8I + M-60R + MQ9B working alongside the F-18SH.
It is time too loosen the purse strings... Carrots like mrca rafale, the above mrfa package, white swans ityadi will have to be dangled to buy peace and to allow for an economy growing at the current rate. Once the the country becomes a 5-10 trillion monster, others will pay India Hafta too. Just the nature of the game
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Maybe for navy 10-15 UAVs cud mk sense but for IA, IAF why?Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/TheLegateIN/status/ ... LcXoRYFbiA ---> Just In: The deal for 30 Predator (MQ-9B) UAVs with the US is expected to be finalised soon. The Indian Navy has been pushing for the deal and it will be done soon. Total cost almost $3 billion.
If we order these useless pieces before ordering LCH, LUH and sanctioning all busgets required on Mk2 rollout- it is conspiracy against nation.
Last edited by YashG on 11 Aug 2022 19:50, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
I also cant understand that why indian military planners forget logistics 101. Indian navy should limit the types it operates. Mig29, F18 and then TEDBF - So u will have indian, russian and american supply chains running a 2 carrier navy. I mean is there even a limit to our follies in planning.Rakesh wrote:Probably that is what it is. Or perhaps setting up the foundation for the F-18SH.
One of Boeing's marketing push to the IN was the combo of the P-8I + M-60R + MQ9B working alongside the F-18SH.
I'd wish IN could go all in on TEDBF, induct rafale and later siphonoff the Mig29 & Rafales to IAF. That will help both IN (all in on domestic single type) and IAF, increase numbers of existing types. MIg29 should be better off sortie-ing over land than marine environment where carrier landing and increased humidity goes rough on all aircraft parts.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Pay hafta, increase numbers of P8-i, MH60 & Chinooks.Cain Marko wrote:I think this will have to be done. Not just as some type of Hafta to keep US MIC in favor, but also because the Navy needs the platforms, badly. This could be the balm used to soothe the pain of the white swans and not just the s400Rakesh wrote:Probably that is what it is. Or perhaps setting up the foundation for the F-18SH.
One of Boeing's marketing push to the IN was the combo of the P-8I + M-60R + MQ9B working alongside the F-18SH.
It is time too loosen the purse strings... Carrots like mrca rafale, the above mrfa package, white swans ityadi will have to be dangled to buy peace and to allow for an economy growing at the current rate. Once the the country becomes a 5-10 trillion monster, others will pay India Hafta too. Just the nature of the game
These are platforms that -
1. Top tier, one orbit above our adversaries
2. India will not be indigenising these
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
US offers ToT to build HALE Drones in India
https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... a/2625411/
11 Aug 2022
https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... a/2625411/
11 Aug 2022
Sources indicate that Indian Navy has been pushing for High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) drones and negotiations are underway.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... Rw4UWODShg ---> Boeing can deliver 2 aircraft a month, if F/A-18 Super Hornet is selected by Indian Navy.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
https://twitter.com/TheLegateIN/status/ ... 6cSw3DFs3w ---> Boeing: Super Hornet passed all the test for India; in fact exceeded the capabilities. We could manufacture more than 100 parts of Super Hornet in India if chosen for Indian Aircraft Carrier.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
If there was any doubt over which aircraft will win the MRCBF contest, I believe this picture should seal the debate.
Remember, while the F-18SH's wings fold, the Rafale M does not have that feature. So the wingtips of the Rafale M have to be removed, for the aircraft to go down the lift. But after crossing that hurdle, the Rafale M will have to enter the cavity of the aircraft hangar. Now see the picture below. The width entrance to the aircraft carrier's hanger is distinctly smaller than the lift itself. And the lift can clearly be seen in the picture. So unless the width of the Rafale M - minus the wingtips - can fit through that cavity, it is doubtful that the Rafale M will win the contest.
Another takeaway from the picture below is that widening the lift size is easier said than done.
https://twitter.com/AdithyaKM_/status/1 ... 6cSw3DFs3w --->
Remember, while the F-18SH's wings fold, the Rafale M does not have that feature. So the wingtips of the Rafale M have to be removed, for the aircraft to go down the lift. But after crossing that hurdle, the Rafale M will have to enter the cavity of the aircraft hangar. Now see the picture below. The width entrance to the aircraft carrier's hanger is distinctly smaller than the lift itself. And the lift can clearly be seen in the picture. So unless the width of the Rafale M - minus the wingtips - can fit through that cavity, it is doubtful that the Rafale M will win the contest.
Another takeaway from the picture below is that widening the lift size is easier said than done.
https://twitter.com/AdithyaKM_/status/1 ... 6cSw3DFs3w --->
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Good spot.
But this would have been known from Day 1 to both IN and Dassault, If it didn't fit then why would they even bother with the whole charade.
I'm assuming it's a tight fit and requires a much longer time to enter and exit the hangar but Dassault is hoping that the commonality with IAF is enough to overcome that.
But this would have been known from Day 1 to both IN and Dassault, If it didn't fit then why would they even bother with the whole charade.
I'm assuming it's a tight fit and requires a much longer time to enter and exit the hangar but Dassault is hoping that the commonality with IAF is enough to overcome that.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
I am not a naval engineer (or any type of structural engineer), but if for some reason the Rafale M does win, they might cut out that cavity for the aircraft to pass through. I am not sure what other challenges that will bring.AkshaySG wrote:Good spot.
But this would have been known from Day 1 to both IN and Dassault, If it didn't fit then why would they even bother with the whole charade.
I'm assuming it's a tight fit and requires a much longer time to enter and exit the hangar but Dassault is hoping that the commonality with IAF is enough to overcome that.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
The NLCA would fit so nicely.. sigh
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Even with its wings folded the F-18's wingspan is nearly 10m. About 1m less than the Rafale M. I doubt the F-18 can fit through that opening easily either. The designers made damn sure nothing except the Mig-29K would fit in there. But I remember Boeing had proposed some solution of tilting the aircraft on its landing gear like a Bajaj scooter to overcome that at one point.Rakesh wrote: Remember, while the F-18SH's wings fold, the Rafale M does not have that feature. So the wingtips of the Rafale M have to be removed, for the aircraft to go down the lift. But after crossing that hurdle, the Rafale M will have to enter the cavity of the aircraft hangar. Now see the picture below. The width entrance to the aircraft carrier's hanger is distinctly smaller than the lift itself. And the lift can clearly be seen in the picture. So unless the width of the Rafale M - minus the wingtips - can fit through that cavity, it is doubtful that the Rafale M will win the contest.
The question needs to be asked whether the Mig-29K is so beyond redemption that we need to resort to these desperate attempts at buying uber expensive systems that will eventually be payload constrained anyway taking off from a ski jump. Spending all this money on F-18's or Rafales will no doubt substantially impact the budget of other IN programs. I'm sure the IN doesn't want to be in a situation where they have a carrier full of shiny new jets while their entire submarine force is reduced to 6 Scorpenes with no new boats in sight and all the old ones decommissioned.
Re: Indian Naval Aviation
Aren't they already there.nachiket wrote: I'm sure the IN doesn't want to be in a situation where they have a carrier full of shiny new jets while their entire submarine force is reduced to 6 Scorpenes with no new boats in sight and all the old ones decommissioned.
P 75I is not going anywhere.
P76 won't happen unless the P 75I happens.
Nuclear attack boats. Don't know.