Indian Naval Aviation

wig · Post by **wig** » 07 Mar 2017 21:48

Tupolev 142 is to be retired later this month, only three of these machines are operating now

The Soviet-origin Tupolev-142M aircraft, which helped the force keep a hawk-eye on enemy warships and submarines in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) for almost 30 years, will be decommissioned later this month.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 519906.cms

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 07 Mar 2017 22:36

Philip wrote:There was another DO-228 amphib option from Oz I think,where the flotation device is under the fuselage.This way the engines remain in the same position as the existing ones. Thisis a very innovative idea,i don't think floats are necessary in this version. It would be very interesting to see of an AEW version could be developed,but where would the third engine go? It would have to be a concealed APU as seen on many civvy jets. Remember how our erstwhile Packets had a jet pack added atop the fuselage? Here on a DO,it wouldn't be poss. since the slab radar would sit atop it,but could be hidden in a tailcone with the intake an aperture below the cone/rear fuselage. The length of a DO is only approx 16.5M when compared with a naval SU,22+M. Therefore,on our larger carrier,the lifts would easily be able to accomodate an AEW DO-228.The IL_114 being offered to us for a JV,is also ideal for a cost-effective platform for turboprop AEW aircraft apart from other transport/civvy variants.

Here is the link to the LIvefist exclusive on the DO amphib options.Drawings included.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/02/ ... faces.html

The Seastar managed to put two engines at the overhead position of the cabin where a slab would go in a AEW, if the third engine is to be placed it can be in the pusher position aligned to the slab. The other two engines remain in their original positions on the Dornier. Another notable thing with Seastar is the cabin has a clear view with a high mounted wing and no sponsons on the wing edges, a radar panel would need such clearance and a slab style can be done away with, the Dornier actually has flat sides and much larger than the Seastar. Between the Oz concept, the Seastar and the US-2, the fuselage design which gives more stability in turbulent sea states is what is useful, why go halfway if you are putting the effort? US-2 claims to be capable of facing 4m waves. OTOH last year, two Dorniers were lost while flying over sea at night and bad weather was stated as the possible cause.

Anyways the ship borne choppers also have limitations in the seastate and weather they operate, this AEWC option should at the minimum match that and endurance will be better than a chopper.

once that is addressed, then maybe they can consider stowage options using aircraft lifts onboard ships which can land and stow a Seaking which is 16.7m in length. The Jalashwa has a cavern for LCUs but don't know what kind of seastate it can operate.

Manish_P wrote: In carrier landings the planes spool to max power immediately on touch down so that if they miss the arrestor cables they can take off and come round for another attempt

I get that, the statement was just a favor being returned.

A tidbit, the German design Seastar they expect a production of 50-60 aircraft/year in some Chinese facility.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 08 Mar 2017 02:14

The alize could take off from vikrant w/o catapult. Can't we design a small prop aircraft for our aew needs?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Mar 2017 02:19

Not enough Juice for the electronics on a small prop platform. Heli based AEW is kinda similar to a small platform. Easier to purpose, launch and recover.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 08 Mar 2017 02:38

For Choppers, we have seen the radar in two instances,

1) The Apache Longbow, and it was made possible because of better vibration control, and that could be an option on the LCH, with a tiny AESA maybe, if the vibration levels are brought down, not sure where this stands

2) The Naval Kamov with its contra rotors and under fuselage rotating radar panel, again no indigenous equivalent to speak of and its not the vibration levels that is an issue, maybe IMRH opens the way and its a long way to go. The Dhruv was claimed to not have enough endurance even when they finally got the blades folded.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Mar 2017 02:50

There are other Heli based options where Radars have been used.

3.Crowsnest AEW. Evolution of AEW from sea king.

4. EC725 had a ground battle monitoring system with a flat panel radar circa 2007-2008.

5. XV-2000

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 08 Mar 2017 02:55

The future Naval variant IMRH is last in the line for HAL, any other local option? except buying

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Mar 2017 02:59

vasu raya wrote:The future Naval variant IMRH is last in the line for HAL, any other local option? except buying

Last in the line? They are making 1200 KW engines. Depending on specs, its possible they make a 8-9 ton helo as well when the engine comes online. Once the IMRH is done 7-8 years down the road, they may set sights on Heavy class as well. We are just getting started only saar.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 08 Mar 2017 03:04

With last in line I meant after the army, IAF variants are done. we are just getting started and someone is making a killing in the name of alliances. Its only when they ask 'how much you have?' we start to explore other options.

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Mar 2017 03:38

Cybaru wrote:
vasu raya wrote:The future Naval variant IMRH is last in the line for HAL, any other local option? except buying
Last in the line? They are making 1200 KW engines. Depending on specs, its possible they make a 8-9 ton helo as well when the engine comes online. Once the IMRH is done 7-8 years down the road, they may set sights on Heavy class as well. We are just getting started only saar.

Twin-engined LUH could be a possibility since there is a IN requirement for it.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Mar 2017 06:05

JTull wrote:
Indranil wrote:What are you guys talking about?
Just being sarcastic.

Then, you are making sense.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 08 Mar 2017 08:36

They claim the Seastar can operate in 1.2 meter waves or maybe more which corresponds to sea state 3, the US-2 claims 4 meters which is sea state 5 and the amphibious Dornier which is slightly larger than the Seastar may come in between, if it is upto 2.5 meters which is sea state 4 then it comes close to naval choppers which can also operate upto sea state 4 from ship decks.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 08 Mar 2017 09:09

Vasu: Perhaps you should take this discussion to Design Your Own Fighter thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5711&start=480

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Mar 2017 16:52

Cybaru wrote:
Last in the line? They are making 1200 KW engines. Depending on specs, its possible they make a 8-9 ton helo as well when the engine comes online. Once the IMRH is done 7-8 years down the road, they may set sights on Heavy class as well. We are just getting started only saar.

There is plenty to keep HAL busy for years to come. In the next 20-years, India will become self-sufficient in its helicopter needs.

All categories -> LUH, ALH, IMRH, LCH
ALH -> IA/IAF, IN/CG; Rudra; Civilian, Air ambulance
LCH
LUH -> IA/IAF, IN twin-engined variant; combat-variant; special ops; Surveillance
IMRH future -> IA/IAF transport; naval ASW variant; Combat SAR; Special Ops; Battlefield Surveillance; Fire Fighting, Air ambulance
Civilian variants - LUH, ALH, IMRH
Continuous Upgrades along with new Mk.X models

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Mar 2017 19:21

The best option for new blue-water amphibs (apart from smaller DO amphibs to make up numbers) are the BE-200s,said many a time before and their fire-fighting role is so good that they are used even in the west.Every year in the height of summer we have massive forest fires that simly burn themselves out.A helo was supposedly used recently to fight a fire in Kerala,but these water-bucket methods are puny when compared with a scoop capability of a gen. amphib.The Beriev displayed its talents at a prev. air show.It is also far cheaper than a US-2.

Some details:

The Beriev Be-200 Altair (Russian: Бериев Бе-200) is a multipurpose amphibious aircraft designed by the Beriev Aircraft Company and manufactured by Irkut. Marketed as being designed for fire fighting, search and rescue, maritime patrol, cargo, and passenger transportation, it has a capacity of 12 tonnes (12,000 litres, 3,170 US gallons) of water, or up to 72 passengers.

It can also be configured for the ASW role.
Its range is also comparable with that of a P-8I,being 2000km.A BE-200 at between $40-50M/unit ,also costs less than half of a US-2 whose cost is over $100M/aircraft.6-8 BE-200s ,with ASW capabilities built in,would be an excellent asset for the IN at a very reasonable cost. The smaller DO-228 amphibs
could also serve with the IN ,but mainly with the CG who already operate a large number of the type.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2017 19:49

Philip wrote:
Though they're being replaced by the Poseidon P-8Is,which also have a range of only 2000km+,one-third that of the Bear,these cost a whopping $250M+ per unit!

Philip wrote: Its range is also comparable with that of a P-8I,being 2000km.

P-8 has a Combat Radius of 2200+ km with 4 hours TOS. This means that they can fly out, maintain orbit and fly back. Radius and Patrol orbit duration can also be increased/extended through IFR which should be possible with either the KC-30, or KC46 which appear to be strong contenders for the IAF's future tanker requirement.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... 8fbfb31b86

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Mar 2017 22:02

Philip radius of P8 I is closer to 4000 kms. Its 2/3rd of the Tu-142 not 1/3rd. Plus it has way higher uptimes and far better sensors to make up for the loss of that 1/3rd region. For all practical purposes for Indian Navy, it does its job quite adequately. We are not actively monitoring south Africa or New zealand.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2017 22:05

Cybaru wrote:Philip radius of P8 I is closer to 4000 kms. Its 2/3rd of the Tu-142 not 1/3rd. Plus it has way higher uptimes and far better sensors to make up for the loss of that 1/3rd region. For all practical purposes for Indian Navy, it does its job quite adequately. We are not actively monitoring south Africa or New zealand.

Range not Radius. Mission Radius is 1200 nautical miles / 2200 km (optimal profile is assumed in the absence of specified profile) with a 4 hour orbit.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 08 Mar 2017 22:16

Rakesh wrote:Vasu: Perhaps you should take this discussion to Design Your Own Fighter thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5711&start=480

Thank you, will do.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Mar 2017 22:58

brar_w wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Philip radius of P8 I is closer to 4000 kms. Its 2/3rd of the Tu-142 not 1/3rd. Plus it has way higher uptimes and far better sensors to make up for the loss of that 1/3rd region. For all practical purposes for Indian Navy, it does its job quite adequately. We are not actively monitoring south Africa or New zealand.

Range not Radius. Mission Radius is 1200 nautical miles / 2200 km (optimal profile is assumed in the absence of specified profile) with a 4 hour orbit.

I was giving radius information so philip can compare apples to apples...I was scanning the range chart for 737-800 and with 8 internal fuel tanks and 20000 pounds of payload, it has a pretty good range close to 6500-7500 miles. Also the Bingo fuel rate will be higher in combat mission when they 2000 km and 4 hour radius.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2017 23:02

So range would be tougher to calculate for an apples to apples comparison since the combat radius for the P-8 includes a 4 hour orbit. I would say well in excess of 4000 km. Neither of these are particularly good metrics if you ask me. For such a maritime aircraft what would be interesting to look at is how quickly it gets into its orbit, and how much area can its sensor surveil unless one routinely requires hours of time on station literally thousands of kms from base..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Mar 2017 00:08

F-18, Rafale or Gripen: Indian Navy looks for its next fighter jet

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 09 Mar 2017 01:07

Perhaps an AEW module can be developed for ka-226. Ships could carry just one chopper but different modules and swap it out at sea as per need.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Mar 2017 07:14

Now that India seems has developed a core competence with airborne sensor integration (Netra, Dorniers et al), how hard would it be to buy some non-sanctionable airframe ala 737/727 or something similar and fix it up for MPAA duty? If needed get some help from the Israelis. IIRC Israel had a pretty good sensor suite which IN was trying to squeeze on the Tu-142 but the Russkis scuppered that.

This can be a good second tier option produced in large quantities and complement a fleet of 16-18 P8Is. Plenty of endurance, decent sensors and total compatibility with IN network but at very cheap prices.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Mar 2017 12:51

CB, P-8I range is given at:" Combat radius: 1,200 nmi (2,222 km) ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)".
TU-142:6,500 km (3,454 nmi, 3,977 mi).It is approx. 1/3rd that of a Bear. The Bears would be great assets to operate in the ICS,equipped with 600+KM or even longer ranged Kalibir missiles to attack PLAN task forces/CBGs from safe distances. P-8Is can carry far inferior sub-sonic Harpoon missiles. While the P-8Is ASW capabilities may be much improved over a TU-142s,in the LR strike role it is outclassed. Its why Russia is still using it as a frontline bomber testing the UK's defences regularly. We have no strat. bomber capability at all,a v.glaring deficiency of the IAF,which seems to have a sub-continental land-locked mentality,whilst the Chinese describe themselves as an "Ocean Power".Why even in the current Mosul battle,the US is using its B-52s! The myopia of the IAF and MOD is simply beyond comprehension.

The CNS in an interview said that the second naval fighter would be required around 7 years from now. If the reports about IAC-1 being commissioned only around 2023,then these aircraft coming to us by that timeline may be correct.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Mar 2017 12:52

Philip wrote:CB,P-8I range is given at:" Combat radius: 1,200 nmi (2,222 km) ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)".

Whats the Combat radius and on station time for Tu-142? Not max range.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Mar 2017 13:03

Given,taken from Wik for both.

Specifications (Tu-142MZ)[edit]
Data from Donald and Lake[46]
General characteristics

TU-142:
Crew: 11–13
Length: 53.08 m (162 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 50.00 m (167 ft 8 in)
Height: 12.12 m (39 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 311.10 m² (3,348.76 ft²)
Empty weight: 90,000 kg (198,000 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 185,000 kg (407,848 lb)
Powerplant: 4 × Kuznetsov NK-12MP turboprops, 11,033 kW (14,795 shp) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 925 km/h (500 kt, 575 mph)
Cruise speed: 711 km/h (384 kt, 442 mph)
Combat radius: 6,500 km (3,454 nmi, 3,977 mi)
Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,000 ft)

Armament :
19,800lbs of various armament including sonobuoys,anti-ship ASMs,torpedoes,etc.23mm tail cannon.

P-8A (I should be the same):
Specifications (P-8A)[edit]

A P-8A of VP-16 dropping a torpedo
Data from U.S. Navy,[157][158] Boeing,[159] and others[48]
General characteristics

Crew: Flight: two; Mission: seven
Length: 129 ft 5 in (39.47 m)
Wingspan: 123 ft 6 in (37.64 m)
Height: 42 ft 1 in (12.83 m)
Empty weight: 138,300 lb (62,730 kg)
Useful load: 19,800+ lb (9,000+ kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 189,200 lb (85,820 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × CFM56-7B turbofan, 27,000 lbf (120 kN) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 490 knots (907 km/h, 564 mph)
Cruise speed: 440 kn (815 km/h, 509 mph)
Combat radius: 1,200 nmi (2,222 km) ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)[160]
Ferry range: 4,500 nautical miles (8,300 km)[161] ()
Service ceiling: 41,000 ft (12,496 m)

Armament:
5 internal and 6 external stations for AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER, AGM-84 Harpoon, Mark 54 torpedo, missiles, mines, torpedoes, bombs, and a High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon system[162]

Addl. info from an olfd BRF report:
Armament: The Tu-142M can carry 12 torpedoes, FAB 250 freefall bombs and depth charges. It has a DK-12 rear gun system with two 23mm AM-23 cannons.

Negotiations were supposedly on to acquire new Bears and equip the Bears with Klub and BMos,but after the tragic collision of two IL-38s,this was shelved with acquisition of IL-38s and their upgrade the priority.The cost of upgrading all 8/10 Bears was around $500M.

Anyway,this is all academic as the birds are to be retired.great pity.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 09 Mar 2017 14:05

Any comparative info on the uptime/downtimes, availability and costs of spares, quality of sensors ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2017 14:10

dont even ask. also dont ask about crew comfort on such long missions.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Mar 2017 14:13

Philip wrote:CB, P-8I range is given at:" Combat radius: 1,200 nmi (2,222 km) ; 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)".
TU-142:6,500 km (3,454 nmi, 3,977 mi).It is approx. 1/3rd that of a Bear. The Bears would be great assets to operate in the ICS,equipped with 600+KM or even longer ranged Kalibir missiles to attack PLAN task forces/CBGs from safe distances. P-8Is can carry far inferior sub-sonic Harpoon missiles. While the P-8Is ASW capabilities may be much improved over a TU-142s,in the LR strike role it is outclassed. Its why Russia is still using it as a frontline bomber testing the UK's defences regularly. We have no strat. bomber capability at all,a v.glaring deficiency of the IAF,which seems to have a sub-continental land-locked mentality,whilst the Chinese describe themselves as an "Ocean Power".Why even in the current Mosul battle,the US is using its B-52s! The myopia of the IAF and MOD is simply beyond comprehension.

The CNS in an interview said that the second naval fighter would be required around 7 years from now. If the reports about IAC-1 being commissioned only around 2023,then these aircraft coming to us by that timeline may be correct.

Combat radius is not the same thing as combat radius with on station time. My rough calculations by looking at 737-800 charts were close to 6000-7000 miles range with about 20000 pound payload and max fuel. Which is roughly 75% of what Tu-142 could carry. Granted it could carry better Ashms, the ability to have round the clock surveillance by having commercial type uptime is uber phenomenal.

If I use the 737 Max 9s fuel burn rate of 3.35 kg/km and a load of 34000 kgs of fuel, you get a range of 10,149 kms. This calculation verifies the range-chart method above. Which may not be as impressive as 13000 kms for Tu-142, but with better sensors phenomenal uptimes and more crew comfort, you are going to very effective at ASW/ASuW/ISR platform at 0.78 range of the earlier platform.

If I use 3.07 kg/km from 737 MAX 8 then it comes to 11074 kms. Since P8 is a mix of 737-8 max and 737-9, choose either, you get good numbers.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Mar 2017 14:14

Philip wrote: Anyway,this is all academic as the birds are to be retired.great pity.

Refurbish to hold Kaveri. Give to GTRE!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2017 14:18

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Mar 2017 14:22

Bah all humbug singha, You don't need Bose noise cancellation headphones in Tu-142s. They designed it with that in mind, they put contra rotating propellers to cancel each others noise out!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2017 14:23

only thing behind in P8 is lacking the genuine leather of the Bears seats

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Mar 2017 14:25

Nah the Curtains from Tu142 which provide privacy are also missing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2017 14:27

talk about sleeping at the wheel... only a powerful snore from behind the curtain would alert the captain that flight engineer was fast asleep

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Mar 2017 14:29

Those fans and decor remind me of sleeper berth in a train.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Mar 2017 14:35

Excellent read: I have heard this before "The P-3C that is honestly trying to break, catch on fire, or generally kill you during any given flight..."

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confes ... 1598415741

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2017 14:39

Cybaru wrote:Those fans and decor remind me of sleeper berth in a train.

from the 1960s

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 09 Mar 2017 14:43

Singha wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Those fans and decor remind me of sleeper berth in a train.
from the 1960s

wait what? Have they recently changed?