Indian Naval Aviation

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by kit »

Hopefully the new carrier would be a 70k plus category capable of full-fledged blue ops
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

AkshaySG wrote:Not sure if this is the right thread for it but I wanted to know how much similarities the Airforce and M version of Rafale share ....Especially when compared to Mig29 and F-35 (and their Naval versions) .

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

So basically how much time/effort/complexity would it take to say take Rafale M's from IAC-1 or Hansa and deploy them to Hasimara/Ambala
From the manufacturer's own website ---> https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... roduction/

"The Air Force single-seat Rafale C, the Air Force two-seat Rafale B, and the Navy single-seat Rafale M feature maximum airframe and equipment commonality, and very similar mission capabilities."

And this from Flight Global --->

"The air force's B/C fighters have 80% commonality with the navy's Rafale M model, the main differences being the latter's navalised landing gear, arrestor hook and some fuselage longitudinal strengthening. Overall, the M is about 300kg (661lb) heavier than the B, and has 13 hardpoints, against the 14 found on air force examples."

Moral of the Story is that the Rafale M will easily slot into the IAF's force structure. No issues. They will fly right alongside the Rafale C and other combat aircraft of the IAF.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by kit »

Rakesh wrote:[ right alongside the Rafale C and other combat aircraft of the IAF.
Admiral ji..has the IN asked for the Rafale or F18 as such. Judging by the support they are putting into the TEDBF , my guess is a new carrier would be optimised for the TEDBF. As to addressing the shortfall in numbers for the new vikrant, it will depend on how a new batch of Rafael will be priced at and also whether the IAF is looking for another batch and in what time frame.

F18 is the backup plan.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Philip »

The wait until 2025 proposed is not to ignore drvelopments,but precisely the opposite,carefully watch the RMA taking place in maritime warfare especially considering the massive cost of carrier,air wing,plus escorts which will also require at least one SSN in tow! The configuration of CV 3 its features,integral weaponry,etc. need to be factored in.The USN is fast-forwarding in lasers for anti- missile on its CVs and other warships esp. for countering hypersonic missiles. Building a carrier in the last war mould to fight a war of the future at enormous expense would be a disaster.

France have several overseas territories in the Atlantic,Pacific and ties with former African colonies.Reunion island in the IOR too.Therefore its req. for a 75K t CVN is very understandable to replace the CDG. The same reasons why the UK is to operate 2 CVs,QE-2 class. It still has what are called BIOT possessions,one infamous one,Diego Garcia!,leased out to the US Our responsibilities are primarily sanitising the IOR from enemy forces and protection of our island territories and coastlines. Out of IOR ops such as in the ICS are best performed by SSN/ SSGNs.

Had we the money, we could move further, but we don't have the same and with an 80+ plust 12+ Sino- Pak undersea threat,our current inventory of only around 6 new SSKs pluse around 4 Kilos delivered last, with the rest of the conv. sub fleet of legacy Kilos and U-boats bound for their pensions by the end of this decade
shows where the weakness lies.As said ad nauseum,even a handful of LR maritime strike bombers equippesd with BMos,Nirbhay and hypersonic missiles to come
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

AkshaySG wrote: Not sure if this is the right thread for it but I wanted to know how much similarities the Airforce and M version of Rafale share ....Especially when compared to Mig29 and F-35 (and their Naval versions) .
Fighter aircraft designs are based on requirements, and the influence those requirements play across variants ultimately dictates how closely related, or how apart multiple variants can be from one another. So comparing it across multiple types is rather difficult because in each case the influence that each stakeholder has had on the design is different. The French Navy doesn't have the scale of the US Navy for example so their influence on what they may want, and what may actually end up into the formal requirements of the Rafale-M will be different. The US Department of Navy had considerably more influence over the F-35 program (they split program leadership 50/50 with the USAF) and as such extracted a lot more for their unique carrier specific variant (CV). Everything from a larger wing, more internal fuel, 2,000 lb bomb internal capacity (which ultimately also ended up being adopted by the USAF) and other navy specific changes, some of which didn't have to necessarily occur for it to be a naval fighter but survived a request because the Navy had a sizable economic quantity of between 250 and 300 (or more than the size of the entire Rafale program as a reference) aircraft for the CV variant. The US Navy has even gone as far as demanding a separate (and exclusive) production line for the F-35C which they've also got.

So its not necessarily a function of how much or how little commonality you end up with but rather how much influence does each stakeholder have which is usually a function of its political might (internal program and inter-service politics) and the size of the budget it is contributing to the program. So how closely can a land based and naval variant of a particular design can be is almost purely an academic exercise. In the real world, where you end up is often the result of the constant churning of requirements that occurs as each stakeholder influences the ultimate design and steers it towards a direction that it feels meets its need the best.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

kit wrote:Admiral ji..has the IN asked for the Rafale or F18 as such. Judging by the support they are putting into the TEDBF , my guess is a new carrier would be optimised for the TEDBF. As to addressing the shortfall in numbers for the new vikrant, it will depend on how a new batch of Rafael will be priced at and also whether the IAF is looking for another batch and in what time frame.

F18 is the backup plan.
The carrier borne fighter contest includes both the F-18 and the Rafale. The other two contestants are the MiG-29K and Gripen E. The MiG-29K is already in service and the Sea Gripen does not exist. That leaves only the F-18 and the Rafale M. So these are the only two serious players and the IN will choose between these two.

As I mentioned earlier, the Rafale has a distinct advantage in already being in service with the IAF and with the CAPEX invested. A newer batch of 36 - 54 Rafales will be cheaper unit cost wise, due to the investments made in the first batch. F-18 for the IAF will result in re-investments for everything (tools, spares, weapons, infrastructure, etc) again. That investment could be justified if the platform offered was a game changer (i.e. F-35), but there is nothing that the F-18E/F does that the Rafale M does not do.

That however does not mean the F-18 bid is a losing one. The Super Hornet has a unique advantage that the Rafale just does not have and that is the turbofan. The Tejas Mk2, the TEDBF/ORCA and even the first two AMCA squadrons are all planned to be powered by the GE F414 turbofan. And that advantage is huge. And Boeing's industrial package is also excellent. They have planned this well, especially the tie up with Mahindra and HAL. The fact that the SH can fit on the lifts of the Vikrant - without modifications to the plane or the vessel herself - is another plus. A Growler package (but unlikely) could convince the IAF to jump in for the SH.

I know brar will disagree with me when I say this, but IMVHO the Growler is F-35 lite. Both are different, but both ultimately do one job really well - blind the enemy's ability to see the incoming strike package. Take out the enemy's radars and missile batteries and you now have a theatre in which your strike aircraft (supported by an effective escort) can operate with free reign. This in turn relates to lesser attrition losses. But Growler seems unlikely at this point in time.

Unlike Qatar which purchased F-15QAs, Typhoons and Rafales....India does not have the luxury of throwing money around on similar 4th generation platforms. Rafale has a clear and distinct advantage on the cost issue, due to the first batch of Rafales. With the Indian Navy jumping in the IAF's MRFA contest, they will likely be a "participating spectator" in the contest. They will not have much of a voice, because the IAF's need is far more urgent i.e. squadron shortage. And the IAF will be the main decision maker here. Not that the Navy would mind, as both the Rafale M and F-18SH are proven combat naval platforms. This decision is ultimately going to come down to what the IAF wants.

One thing is definitely certain - the IAF does indeed want another batch of Rafales.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:I know brar will disagree with me when I say this, but IMVHO the Growler is F-35 lite.
Or more appropriately :), the F-35 is a Growler-Lite given that it has some overlap in what the Growler can do and, as of current budgets, generally comes in at a lower cost than what a full Growler solution would cost. Where the F-35 sets itself apart from the Growler is in its ability to bring a massive diversity of fire-power to execute on a SEAD/DEAD mission on account of its ability to silently penetrate closer to IADS. The Growler is relegated to stand-off-jammers, stand-in-jammers launched from its wings, and stand-off weapons. The F-35 on the other can get a lot closer and launch a whole host of short to medium ranged weapons which greatly increases the number of targets it can kill in a SEAD mission and also means that it can target pop up threats and low intensity and duration emitters more effectively. So if you have a daisy chained IADS where you have to find and fix a large chunk of air-defense systems (radars, TEL, and other components) left of when they emit then you would prefer the F-35 with its signature, ability to hang around at medium altitude even inside the SAM engagement ranges of many systems, and its Big-SAR and 360 EODAS capability.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Dec 2020 20:22, edited 3 times in total.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by kit »

Philip wrote:The wait until 2025 proposed is not to ignore drvelopments,but precisely the opposite,carefully watch the RMA taking place in maritime warfare especially considering the massive cost of carrier,air wing,plus escorts which will also require at least one SSN in tow! The configuration of CV 3 its features,integral weaponry,etc. need to be factored in.The USN is fast-forwarding in lasers for anti- missile on its CVs and other warships esp. for countering hypersonic missiles. Building a carrier in the last war mould to fight a war of the future at enormous expense would be a disaster.

France have several overseas territories in the Atlantic,Pacific and ties with former African colonies.Reunion island in the IOR too.Therefore its req. for a 75K t CVN is very understandable to replace the CDG. The same reasons why the UK is to operate 2 CVs,QE-2 class. It still has what are called BIOT possessions,one infamous one,Diego Garcia!,leased out to the US Our responsibilities are primarily sanitising the IOR from enemy forces and protection of our island territories and coastlines. Out of IOR ops such as in the ICS are best performed by SSN/ SSGNs.

Had we the money, we could move further, but we don't have the same and with an 80+ plust 12+ Sino- Pak undersea threat,our current inventory of only around 6 new SSKs pluse around 4 Kilos delivered last, with the rest of the conv. sub fleet of legacy Kilos and U-boats bound for their pensions by the end of this decade
shows where the weakness lies.As said ad nauseum,even a handful of LR maritime strike bombers equippesd with BMos,Nirbhay and hypersonic missiles to come
Marshal Philipov ., please dont make "massive cost of carrier,air wing,plus escorts which will also require at least one SSN" sound like a liability., if you do that having an offensive military also does not make sense !!
That said the enormous firepower and expeditionary capability that CBG fleet is going to bear down on any point in IOR and out *cannot* be matched by *any* bomber or submarine or missile.

India needs one plus all three like yesterday.

India lost its independence when it did not have a strong maritime presence.

The best way to protect a sea faring country is to take the fight away from its shores , and not confining itself to land based solutions.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by sudeepj »

Rakesh wrote:The fact that the SH can fit on the lifts of the Vikrant - without modifications to the plane or the vessel herself - is another plus. A Growler package (but unlikely) could convince the IAF to jump in for the SH.
I thought the consensus was that SH did not fit on the lifts of Vikramaditya or Vikrant.. Is that not correct?

One thing is for sure, after the wings folded, Mig29K has a tiny footprint compared to other planes!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

As per Boeing, the SH can. I don't see any reason Boeing would make that up. So if Boeing claims it, that is what we go with. The Rafale M cannot fit on the lifts of the Vikrant or the Vikramaditya.

Boeing All Set To Prove F/A-18 Off Ski-Jump For Indian Navy
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/02 ... -navy.html
06 Feb 2020
More recently in 2017, Boeing executives told Livefist, “We’ve done a lot of simulation work with the Indian Navy to better understand their requirements and we fill comfortable that the Super Hornet can operate from all their carriers, both the ones fielded today and the ones in the future… We think we can move around the deck, be very mission capable with a relevant weapons load-out and fuel load-out to give the Navy what they need. The Super Hornet as built today can operate from Indian carriers.”
And this piece 12 years ago (2008 era). The lifts of the Vikrant mirror that of the Vikramaditya I believe.

Super Hornet Operable On Indian Navy’s Gorshkov Carrier? Boeing Says Yes
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2008/05 ... query.html
20 May 2008
Once the query was received, Boeing procured general parameters of the Gorshkov from the Indian Navy — including length, ski-jump angle, angled deck characteristics — in short everything required for a simulation. Fed into a system, the simulation suggested, supposedly in no uncertain terms, that the Super Hornet — which so far was dogmatically associated with a steam-catapult launcher — could indeed take off from a conventional carrier deck like that of the Gorshkov, Virat or the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (which, in all likelihood, is set to be the second INS Vikrant). Boeing added as an adjunct in its response to the Navy, that the Super Hornet could not only take-off and land reliably on such carriers, but that it could do so with a respectable weapons load, which is the whole point. The simulated aircraft took off with a six-pylon config with close-combat, intermediate air-to-air and anti-ship munitions.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Boeing is apparently talking to the IN on demonstrating that they can meet the requirement in the RFI to be compatible with the current aircraft carriers. They've recently done demonstrations supporting ski-jump operations. I believe IN team was to be witness but couldn't travel due to COVID. Given Ski-Jump demos would be the most costly and detailed to do one would assume that they are also discussing or demonstrating other areas of compatibility like showing how the aircraft can be lowered and raised using the lifts, and how it can be supported and maintained when underway. Dassault hasn't mentioned much but they probably too are working on something.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

I know Dassault was talking about detachable wing tips, but that sounds not workable. A folding wing is one thing, a detachable wing has a myriad of issues that could go wrong on deck.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

I'm sure Dassault has a few more things it is working on. But yeah, unless their explanation of the "detachable wing tips" was extremely vague on purpose, it does not sound like a very viable path.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Cain Marko »

brar_w wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:#2 contradicts #1 because 36 birds can't replace 45
Sure they can. First, its not 45, but 41. Second, you don't need 36 to come and 41 to phase out. It could be a gradual transition with hedges in place with options to buy more or of course the TEDBF.
Sure they can - so long as they have a budget to afford it. So a gradual phase out is the way ....starting when? 2030? 2035? Surely the 29ks are good enough to soldier on until then? But TEDBF will just about be available around that time. So what's the point?

And what about the shortage in trainers and fighters for the 2 CVs vikad and vikrant? That is here and now. Buy 36 MRCBF as replacement? But replacements are not of the same number, no? Or are they hoping to have a fleet of 36 MRCBF + 40 29K?

Again this is wishful thinking - unless 45 fighters are not enough for 2 CVs.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Cain Marko »

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

I was told that Navy were finding it difficult to find the budget for P-75I, Ka-31 and more SSBNs and suddenly they have enough for 36 Phoren fighters?
Exactly the point. No money for dal roti but we want Delhi Darbaar Murgh-Masala. UNLESS, 45 Mig 29ks are only enough for optimum use from single CV, and second CV needs more airwing. Then additional 36 could make sense. But then the question begs to be asked - why so late in the offer? Its not like the Navy didn't know that the Vikrant was about to come in by 2020.

IIRC the initial reason for 57 MRCBF was Tejas replacement and then the idea that they would work from the Vishaal. Now the reasoning is - MiG-29k replacement, and thats after giving the fulcrum a clean chit. WTF - Navy procurement process is so lucid (NOT!)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Cain Marko wrote:Sure they can - so long as they have a budget to afford it. So a gradual phase out is the way ....starting when? 2030? 2035? Surely the 29ks are good enough to soldier on until then?
Yes it is quite clear that all this would be contingent upon the MOD signing off on the IN's request, the IN selecting a fighter that it think needs its needs, the said fighter being able to operate from both or at least one of the two existing carriers, a number agreed upon based on the budget and schedule, and those aircraft physically arriving in Navy's hands. I don't think anything Admiral Karambir Singh has said is inconsistent with that.
Cain Marko wrote:starting when? 2030? 2035?
This is the part we do not know. At least not with enough precision to see what the IN is clearly thinking and what they are discussing with the MOD. The IN must have gamed out a range of scenarios for near, mid and long term and we don't have access to that analysis.
Cain Marko wrote:Surely the 29ks are good enough to soldier on until then?
This is for someone (journalist etc) need to ask the IN, and specifically, the very top of the IN's leadership that has been publicly talking of the MRCBF. It may also shed some light on the timelines the IN is thinking about.
Cain Marko wrote:But TEDBF will just about be available around that time.
There is clearly a high element of risk with the TEDBF timelines. Once they start flying and we are within that 3-5 year window then a large chunk of that risk will be mitigated. But it is too early to put definitive timelines around TEDBF induction and operations until we have hardware flying.
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3113
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by JTull »

Jokes aside, Goshawk replacement is an opportunity for Boeing to think long-term after it missed out on the two series production 5th Gen aircrafts. It has a lot to gain in US market too, from a triple partnership for LCA-LIFT, TEDBF, SH/Growlers.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

JTull wrote:Jokes aside, Goshawk replacement is an opportunity for Boeing to think long-term after it missed out on the two series production 5th Gen aircrafts. It has a lot to gain in US market too, from a triple partnership for LCA-LIFT, TEDBF, SH/Growlers.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2474053#p2474053
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by nachiket »

In the short term, more KUB's as attrition replacements are essential. Whatever may be the issues with the aircraft, not having enough twin-seaters will adversely impact training and be more dangerous.

Of course, if the Mig-29K has 100% fleet serviceability as Adm. Sinha says (would be the first fighter jet anywhere in the world - ship or land based - to achieve this extraordinary feat by my reckoning), then the Navy should be told in no uncertain terms that they need to put their plans of buying more fighters on hold. Money is tight and IAF needs are more acute (especially considering the poor sods have no fighters which provide 100% serviceability). The IN itself has several other shortfalls in everything from submarines to minesweepers which need to be taken care of. Besides, the plans for the 3rd carrier are up in the air at this point and even if we do decide to build a new one, it will be a decade plus before the ship is commissioned. So buying more fighters can wait. If the IN needs more aircraft for the current carriers, a few more Mig-29k's should be good enough.

Meanwhile the IN should provide details on why the crash rate seems high on an aircraft which is so easy to maintain.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by kit »

Wonder if you can lease French AF or Navy Rafales for say 10 years !!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

kit wrote:Wonder if you can lease French AF or Navy Rafales for say 10 years !!
The French AF and the Navy are already struggling to get the Rafale's they need with the French government and Dassault offloading much of the last few years production to export customers while also taking away a few French aircraft and selling them to Greece. At this rate they may not get to that 180 aircraft fleet (that has been ordered) till mid 2020s or even later since Dassault has both ongoing export discussions/competitions and an unwillingness for large increases in production rate fearing that they'll run out of orders and not be able to keep production alive till 2035-2036 or so. While no doubt the French MOD and armed services care about the overall program and the health of Dassault (and it is in the French State's interest to keep exports high) they probably too have limits in terms of how much capacity they can offload without significant impact to their capability to meet its operational need.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Dec 2020 10:53, edited 1 time in total.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Philip »

C-3 is going to be either shot down or " dripfed" by the MOD. A 15 yr. programme with a design finalised by 2025,decision year for steel cutting to begin. The enormous costs of the CBG will consume the entire naval budget leaving gaping holes in many areas such as subs,mine- countermeasures,LR maritime strike,etc.

The US is supposedly near to revealing its new strat. bomber.Russia has its PAK-DA in the pipeline and the PLAAF is working on its own stealth bomber with an estimated 5K km range with stand- off ASMs . Our old Bears,which are still going strong in Ru, have an incredible 12,000km range,could fly all the way to S.Africa and back without refuelling. We should've at least retained/ upgraded some of them for hhis purpose,leaving the P-8s for dedicated ASW. Their Harpoons are long in the tooth,no match for Brahmos.

For the rest of this decade,29Ks are the most cost-effective solution.They carry lethal supersonic KH series of ASMs and have plenty of upgrade scope,AESA radars, TVC engines too if reqd. One or two sqds. of ruggedised,upgraded 29Ks could be ordered to replace older 29Ks mid-decade.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Manish_P »

Rakesh wrote:I know Dassault was talking about detachable wing tips, but that sounds not workable. A folding wing is one thing, a detachable wing has a myriad of issues that could go wrong on deck.
+1

Any other Naval aircraft with such 'detachable wingtips'? If not then why must the IN be the scapegoat to test out such 'innovations'? Remember the IN-HAL issues about the manual vs auto-assisted folding blades for the naval helicopter.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by chola »

^^^ No. I can pretty safely say, that there is no other fighter with detachable wing tips. The whole idea is a bit ludicrous to me.

You know, this whole jumping through hoops for two STOBAR carriers that is unable to launch fully-loaded or AEW fixed-wings anyways is making me think that we are better off with an "alligator" carrier designed from the ground up.

Without the AEW, your STOBAR is just a glorified LHD, with an expensive cable recovery system. We will be launching AEW helos from the VikA or Vikrant like another helo carrier.

So unless we do a CATOBAR (I hope the latest news are correct) then a design like the Korean LPX might be a better deal. It weighs 30K tons and carries about 15 F-35Bs which about as many 29Ks the VikA normally deploys at 45K tons.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... rrier-f35/

Image

It would a lot less expensive and we could build more. Leave the 29Ks to the VikA and Vikrant and go about getting the F-35s. We'll need a stealth naval jet at some point anyways.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

^^ Vessel displacement, air-wing composition and the overall size and capability of the dimensions is best looked across a myriad of design decisions made along the way as it is approved by a particular operator. What has by far the biggest influence on how large or small an amphib or an aircraft carrier is - is the ability to sustain a set number of force structure for a set amount of time. So if you are expected to be conducting operations for X number of days or weeks then you need to figure out how many replenishments can you do underway, what is the cost of those disruptions and how large you want your magazines to be, how much fuel do you want to carry with you, how large do you want your weapons elevators to be (and how many) and how the other of the vessels sub-systems need to be made adequate and robust enough to support that final end point of sustaining a particular defined intensity of fight (usually defined in terms of SGR, targets struck, CAPs conducted etc) for a particular amount of time, at a particular distance from the source of replenishment. A Carrier is a floating air-base and much the same needs all the support that an air-base would require. You either take loads of that with you (or at least enough to fight for 10-12 days or whatever that may be for a given desired need) and build a larger ship or you build a smaller ship and have a great ability to re-supply with weapons and fuel without any ops tempo disruption (easier said than done).

An illustration of this is the vast difference in capability between say an LHA-6/7 (USS Americas that can probably house 20 F-35B's under its "Lightning Carrier" deployment concept) and the Ford class CVN and the LHA-8 and beyond that adds other amphib requirements back into the America class that were not present in the aviation focused 6/7 ships. LHA-6, being exclusively an aviation focused LHA, has a 16,000 cubic feet weapons magazine. It that good or bad? I suppose it depends on the intensity of operations. The Ford on the other hand has a 375,000 cubic feet magazine. This is more than 20x difference between the two. The Ford clearly doesn't support a 20X larger air-wing. This is also the case with aviation fuel (JP-5). The LHA-6 and 7 which are aviation focused (and thus don't have a well-deck) have about 1.2 Million gallons of fuel storage. The Ford has close to 2.5 that amount. Now want to add a well-deck to the same LHA6/7 design? Sure, we have an example of that in the LHA-8 and later ships. Superficially they look the same as LHA-6 and 7 (which don't have a well-deck). And on the surface, they can probably accommodate a similar number of F-35B's. HOWEVER, the need to support those marines and the well-deck halves their JP-5 storage to around 600K gallons. So everything else being equal, you have a ship that looks very similar to the first two in class vessels, but can only sustain the same number of aircraft for half as long unless it is replenished more often.

So while this example is a bit extreme (A 40+K ton LHA vs a 90+K ton CVN) these differences also do influence whether you end up with a 30K flat top or a 40 or 45 K flat top. So best to dig deeper, under the 2-3 superficial metrics and try to understand what's driving the requirements. Someone's 40K ton vessel may look different, in terms of operational capability, from someone else's 30K ton vessel even though they may be very similar in outward appearance. That 5-10K ton displacement might be having no impact on adding additional aircraft on deck but the difference in what those aircraft can do might be way more significant and easily underestimated/misunderstood unless one gets into the details. This should serve as a caution to those who claim that a $700 Million flat-top in the 20-25K ton displacement can be bought and we could sprinkle some fairy dust and plop a dozen or so N-LCA's on it and we have a Mini-Carrier. A serious discussion on this needs more analytical thought and a deeper understanding of the possibilities and limitations (and the design and financial costs in overcoming those limitations) because it is ultimately the carrier's job to execute operational sorties in support of a particular mission which is defined by the primary operator in ways that influence requirements and vessel design.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

nachiket wrote:Of course, if the Mig-29K has 100% fleet serviceability as Adm. Sinha says (would be the first fighter jet anywhere in the world - ship or land based - to achieve this extraordinary feat by my reckoning), then the Navy should be told in no uncertain terms that they need to put their plans of buying more fighters on hold.
Admiral Sinha (retd) provided the context of the 100% fleet serviceability

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7308&p=2473622#p2473622
nachiket wrote:Money is tight and IAF needs are more acute (especially considering the poor sods have no fighters which provide 100% serviceability). The IN itself has several other shortfalls in everything from submarines to minesweepers which need to be taken care of.
Finally minesweepers are coming ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7652&p=2473697#p2473697
nachiket wrote:Besides, the plans for the 3rd carrier are up in the air at this point and even if we do decide to build a new one, it will be a decade plus before the ship is commissioned. So buying more fighters can wait. If the IN needs more aircraft for the current carriers, a few more Mig-29k's should be good enough.
15 years from keel laying to commissioning of the new aircraft carrier and that timeframe is from the Navy itself. I will add another five years to this date. And forget keel laying, sanction for funds has yet to take place. That is why Admiral Karambir Singh is stating that TEDBF should be ready by the early 2030s. TEDBF will be ready even before the third carrier is commissioned.
nachiket wrote:Meanwhile the IN should provide details on why the crash rate seems high on an aircraft which is so easy to maintain.
Good point.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Cain Marko »

Latest news doing the rounds is that the Navy is in advanced stages of negotiating a lease for some super hornets. Interesting times indeed.

This is what I had suggested a few months back in the border security dhaga
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

Cain Marko wrote:Exactly the point. No money for dal roti but we want Delhi Darbaar Murgh-Masala. UNLESS, 45 Mig 29ks are only enough for optimum use from single CV, and second CV needs more airwing. Then additional 36 could make sense. But then the question begs to be asked - why so late in the offer? Its not like the Navy didn't know that the Vikrant was about to come in by 2020.

IIRC the initial reason for 57 MRCBF was Tejas replacement and then the idea that they would work from the Vishaal. Now the reasoning is - MiG-29k replacement, and thats after giving the fulcrum a clean chit. WTF - Navy procurement process is so lucid (NOT!)
Sir-ji, the Naval Chief will say many things on Navy Day. His predecessor - Admiral Lanba (retd) - said that there are no budgetary shortfalls in the 57 carrier borne fighter acquisition. And he said that on Navy Day, a few years back. When the proposal goes to MoD, it gets shot down due to cost. Service Chiefs will always paint a picture of future capabilities, but it is the MoD that makes the final call. Also click on link below.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7652&p=2474273#p2474273

When the defence budget for 2021 comes out, let us examine the Navy's share of the budget and especially the CAPEX part. That will settle once in for all (for that year), whether it is going to be dal roti or Delhi Darbaar Murgh-Masala. Just seeing the trends and the Navy's voice, I am going to stick my neck out and say dal roti onlee.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

Cain Marko wrote:Latest news doing the rounds is that the Navy is in advanced stages of negotiating a lease for some super hornets. Interesting times indeed.

This is what I had suggested a few months back in the border security dhaga
Leasing will work out cheaper than outright purchase.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

Where are these reports of the IN being interested in leasing Super Hornets? If there is any credible source, can we post it here?
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by nam »

Rumors on twitter. We will have to wait until there is some formal news. No one was expecting Predetors/Sea Guardians to be inducted so soon. So anything is possible.

It would be fascinating to see if F18 are coming, will they fly on Ins Vicky as well. F18 on an Russian ship would be an incredible sight. I guess it might be for Vikrant. With the LCA flown on Vicky, I guess IN is confident of integrating a non-Russian platform on it's carrier.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

The problem with applying that logic is that a naval fighter deal, even one that is being leased, cannot be fully executed via a commercial sale/negotiations with the OEM(s). It will have a fairly substantial weapons and mission system package that will require congressional approval. Therefore, I'd be extremely skeptical of any such rumor at this time unless it is being backed up by someone who isn't a random twitter account but is a reporter or other commentator that has some level of access into decision making.
bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by bharathp »

there maybe some value in creating an "uber" or "ola" for fighter jets - most fighter jets arent used to their full potential during peace anyways. not a bad idea if you think of it.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by brar_w »

bharathp wrote:there maybe some value in creating an "uber" or "ola" for fighter jets - most fighter jets arent used to their full potential during peace anyways. not a bad idea if you think of it.
It isn't as easy as it may seem on paper. Most nations install, test, and control unique user specific equipment (hardware and software) and require a certain level of sovereign control on how the product is sustained. Even when operating similar systems one system for one user may be completely incompatible with the same system being used by another user. This is by design. Link-16 is ubiquotous across all NATO aircraft but that doesn't mean all NATO users can use it to talk to each other via L-16. There is huge variations between who can exchange what with who based on sovereign enhancements/customization, cryto ket exchange protocols and other considerations. We already have an enterprise model that exists on the F-35 (and it existed to some extent on the F-16 as well) but that model works because a significant portion of the user-base is part of a treaty bound alliance and thus has high degree of certainty when it comes to depot level O&S and common weapons and other things that they can pool if required. In the end for combat aircraft the whole point of that capability (why you buy them) is to have assured combat fire-power and have control on how you use it. Training and some adversary air is easier to outsource on to a "utilization" model. Similar to transportation and tanking up to a certain point. But when it comes to hard combat capability this will be a very heavy lift.
ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 441
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by ManuJ »

Rakesh wrote:When the defence budget for 2021 comes out, let us examine the Navy's share of the budget and especially the CAPEX part. That will settle once in for all (for that year), whether it is going to be dal roti or Delhi Darbaar Murgh-Masala. Just seeing the trends and the Navy's voice, I am going to stick my neck out and say dal roti onlee.
The strategic environment of India has changed dramatically in 2020, and the govt. finally seems to have woken up to the fact that you can't build a capable deterrent on 'daal-roti'. There also seems to be a better appreciation of the role Navy will play in counter-balancing China's influence in the Indian Ocean region and how Navy's assets (air assets at least) can be dual-tasked if required. Of course, whether all that will translate into any meaningful budgetary increase this year is not certain; things don't always happen logically or linearly in India.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/ThingsNavy/status/1 ... 84898?s=20 ---> Inside a Boeing P-8I Neptune.

Image

Image

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

brar_w wrote:Where are these reports of the IN being interested in leasing Super Hornets? If there is any credible source, can we post it here?
No credible reports, just media hearsay. Here is one that I found...

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 82880?s=20 ---> According to reports, the Indian Navy is in advanced stages of negotiation to lease around 15-18 units of F/A-18 Block IIl from the US defence giant Boeing for the Indian Navy's indigenously built Aircraft Carrier IAC-1.

Perhaps someone let their imagination run wild with the two Sea Guardian drone leases and the upcoming lease agreement for the A-330 MRTT aircraft and put this out. Or perhaps someone in the know leaked out about such a discussion, perhaps being held in the preliminary stage between Boeing/US Govt and the Indian Navy/MoD. From a time and cost standpoint, a lease agreement for a decade, could work as a stop gap till the TEDBF comes on board. The political viewpoint is a whole other story.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

ManuJ wrote:The strategic environment of India has changed dramatically in 2020, and the govt. finally seems to have woken up to the fact that you can't build a capable deterrent on 'daal-roti'. There also seems to be a better appreciation of the role Navy will play in counter-balancing China's influence in the Indian Ocean region and how Navy's assets (air assets at least) can be dual-tasked if required. Of course, whether all that will translate into any meaningful budgetary increase this year is not certain; things don't always happen logically or linearly in India.
The Navy will have to convince the MoD that funds are required for all their big ticket projects in the next couple of years;

1) Project 76 SSN
2) Project 75I SSK
3) IAC-2 @ 65K ton + EMALS
4) 36 - 57 carrier borne fighters

And the other two services have their own requirements (114 MRFA, Super Sukhoi upgrade, 83 Tejas Mk1A, etc). While the Govt has woken up to the reality, it remains to be seen how much of the above the navy will see turn into reality. All will come, but will largely be truncated in size. Otherwise the other two services will have to put their modernization on hold and that will not happen.
Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 309
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Vidur »

Intent, statements and action very rarely align in Indian Defence. The Naval budget is not enough even to pay for contracts signed before the MH-60 Romeo contract. How it will cater for the above requirements is a deep mystery. The situation is the same for the Air Force and Army.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Aviation

Post by Rakesh »

Vidur-ji, thank you very much. As always, you give us all a much needed dose of reality.
Post Reply