Indian Naval Aviation

[Rakesh]

Indian Navy Il-38SD MPA successfully fires Kh-35 anti-ship missile
http://www.janes.com/article/67650/indi ... ip-missile

Boeing eager to offer F/A-18 for Indian Navy
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/boe ... ndian-navy

[JayS]

x-posting from other IN thread which is supposed to be ships-centric now.

I always thought the Naval Variant of Tejas was not a good idea to start with , Single Engine , Over Weight , lacking in Weapons and Persistance due to less fuel carried. They can be carried as experimental program to support further development to gain experience but not an operational fighter

Considering we dont operate dozen of CBG and the best hope we have till 2030 would be 2 Air Craft Carrier fleet which would not carry more than 50-60 aircraft to its full capacity and perhaps at any point in time only one will be operational so make that 30-35 and the other will be in maintenance, We cant afford to have suboptimum solution. The current CBG needs atleast twin engine Rafale class fighter in weight and category considering the threat environment we are in.

NLCA could never have been primary strike fighter for Navy. I don't think it was intended as such. To me it was always intended as a stepping stone to N-AMCA. We needed to learn how to make Naval fighter. LCA was at hand and it was prudent to use it to hone our skills of building naval jet. I always saw NLCA as complementary to MiG-29K. What is needed is to design as decent naval jet and deploy it on an AC. This would iron out many of the issues that we would face in N-AMCA. IN is clear in saying they will support MK2 development. But I hope they will go an extra step and deploy at least a handful of those on AC. And perhaps 1-2 Sq on on-shore bases. Its important not only to design a naval fighter but also to manufacture the product on industrial scale (and not just prototype phase) and to validate the design in real life scenario. Then only the product life-cycle can be considered to be completed. I hope IN will go through entire cycle, else this whole exercise is half-done.

I hope we do things in a better way for NAMCA. IN seems to have raised interest in NAMCA.

On side note, What I don't understand is, where does this new twin-jet that Navy wants fits. Surely its not a replacement for NLCA MK2. Does Navy want to junk all MiG-29 as soon as possible (perhaps keep them on-shore bases only) and switch entirely to this new platform..?? Because we do not have enough space for MiG-29 and this new jet together on our ACs in foreseeable future.

[Kashi]

On side note, What I don't understand is, where does this new twin-jet that Navy wants fits. Surely its not a replacement for NLCA MK2. Does Navy want to junk all MiG-29 as soon as possible (perhaps keep them on-shore bases only) and switch entirely to this new platform..?? Because we do not have enough space for MiG-29 and this new jet together on our ACs in foreseeable future.

That could be an option, retain most Mig 29Ks as off shore assets that can complement both the IAF and the IN aviation arm.

Do US or French or other navies which operate air craft carriers and fighter jets in their aviation wing, operate some of their fighter assets exclusively from shore based facilities?

[Austin]

Twin jet offers safety of getting back home in single engine ,where loosing single engine during sorties either due to mechanical failure or bird hit does not mean ditching your aircraft specially when you operate a small fleet of fighter as IN does in a Sea Envrionment where corrosion hits your aircraft more faster over period of time with unforseen consequences

IN had purchased close to 30 aircraft of SHAR but after end of its tenure it was left with not more than 6-7 of the type a lot of them were lost due to engine failure

[Austin]

On side note, What I don't understand is, where does this new twin-jet that Navy wants fits. Surely its not a replacement for NLCA MK2. Does Navy want to junk all MiG-29 as soon as possible (perhaps keep them on-shore bases only) and switch entirely to this new platform..?? Because we do not have enough space for MiG-29 and this new jet together on our ACs in foreseeable future.

That could be an option, retain most Mig 29Ks as off shore assets that can complement both the IAF and the IN aviation arm.

Do US or French or other navies which operate air craft carriers and fighter jets in their aviation wing, operate some of their fighter assets exclusively from shore based facilities?

IN will be operating the Mig-29K from CBG for a long time to come , The current servicibility issue will be fixed eventually like they did for MKI and with Mig opening service center in India , The Aircraft per say is very capable and is liked by IN as said by Chief and others in many interviews.

The new 57 aircraft would be entering service any time soon

[Neshant]

NLCA could never have been primary strike fighter for Navy. I don't think it was intended as such. To me it was always intended as a stepping stone to N-AMCA. We needed to learn how to make Naval fighter. LCA was at hand and it was prudent to use it to hone our skills of building naval jet.

Change its naval role from fighter to recon. Its disadvantage of having just 1 engine can then be an advantage in that the plane guzzles a lot less fuel when on patrol. Its delta wings give it good lift, just don't load it up with a ton of weapons for a recon patrol. With the right recon package onboard for hunting surface vessels, subs and incoming threats, it would be a valuable addition to the carrier force. Carve out a niche for it where its weaknesses become its strengths.

I don't know how practical the above is but its the only way we are ever going to see a NLCA in its current form.

[Austin]

Navy’s rejection of Tejas lesson for DRDO - Admiral Arun Prakash

http://www.sentinelassam.com/editorial/ ... KFoZvJcuNo

The peremptory rejection of the shipborne variant of the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) by the Indian Navy seems to have surprised most navy-watching analysts. Their confusion has been compounded by the near-simultaneous issuance of a global request for information (RFI) for procurement of “57 multirole fighters for its aircraft carriers” by Naval HQ.

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

Firstly, by exercising a foreclosure option, the navy has administered a well-deserved and stinging rebuke to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for its lethargic and inept performance that has again disappointed our military. The second reason arises from the navy’s desperate hurry to freeze the specifications of its second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-2). The choice of configuration, size and propulsion of a carrier has a direct linkage with the type of aircraft that will operate from it. This constitutes a “chicken and egg” conundrum — should one freeze the carrier design first or choose the aircraft first? The Indian Navy has obviously decided the latter.

The IAC-2 will enter service in the next decade, at a juncture where a balance-of-power struggle is likely to be underway in this part of the world — with China and India as the main players. It is only a matter of time before China’s carrier task-forces, led by the ex-Russian carrier Liaoning and her successors, follow its nuclear submarines into the Indian Ocean. Since the Indian response to such intimidation will need to be equally robust, the decisions relating to the design and capabilities of IAC-2 (and sisters) assume strategic dimensions. Essentially, there are three options for selection of aircraft for the IAC-2.

* Conventional take-off and landing types like the US F/A-18 Super Hornet and French Rafale-M that would require a steam catapult for launch and arrester-wires for recovery. The relatively large ship would need either a steam or nuclear plant for propulsion.

* Types like the Russian Sukhoi-33 and MiG-29K would require only a ski-jump for take-off and arrester-wires for landing. This would mean a smaller ship, driven either by gas turbines or diesel engines. The LCA (Navy) could have been a contender in this category.

* The F-35B Lightning II version of the US Joint Strike Fighter, capable of vectored-thrust, would require only a ski-jump for take-off, but no arrester wires since it can land vertically. This would result in the simplest and cheapest ship; a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) carrier.

Once the navy has selected an aircraft, the ship and its operating and maintenance facilities can be designed around it, avoiding some of the pitfalls encountered on IAC-1.

Reverting to the LCA saga — as far back as the early 1990s, the navy had initiated a study for examining the feasibility of adapting the LCA to shipborne use. While confirming feasibility, the study had revealed some major problem areas, which included lack of engine thrust, requirement of an arrester hook and stronger undercarriage, and need for cockpit/fuselage re-design before the LCA could attempt carrier operations. Undaunted, the navy re-affirmed its faith in the programme by contributing over Rs 400 crore as well as engineers and test pilots to the project.

The IAF accepted the Tejas into service, in July 2016, with considerable reservations because it had not been cleared for full operational exploitation and fell short of many qualitative requirements. The prototype LCA (Navy) had rolled out six years earlier, in July 2010, raising great hopes. However, it is obvious that the DRDO failed to address the problems listed above with any urgency, leading to ultimate rejection of this ambitious project.

By its failure to deliver on the LCA (Navy), the DRDO has let down its most steadfast supporter amongst the armed forces — the Indian Navy. A little introspection by those at the helm of this organisation would reveal to them three reasons for its abysmal performance despite a wealth of talent and a network of sophisticated laboratories — an exaggerated opinion of their capabilities; a lack of intellectual honesty in denying obvious failures and an unwillingness to seek external help when required.

Today, India has the ignominious distinction of being the world’s biggest importer of military hardware, whereas China counts amongst the world’s leading arms exporters and its aeronautical establishment has delivered aircraft ranging from UAVs to 5th generation fighters, helicopters and transports to the PLA.

While one would be justified in blaming the scientists and bureaucrats responsible for defence research and production, the root cause of this colossal failure lies in political indifference and the inability to provide vision and firm guidance to our massive but under-performing military-industrial complex. (IANS)

(Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd) is a former chief of the Indian Navy. The article is in special arrangement with South Asia Monitor/www.southasiamonitor.org)

[JayS]

The new 57 aircraft would be entering service any time soon

Can't be sooner than 3yrs even if they sign the deal today.

But what would it do even if its inducted say in next 5yrs..?? If and only if IN goes ahead with STOBAR for IAC-2, then they can buy aircraft which can operate from IAC-1/Vikramaditya as well. But if they go for CATOBAR, either steam or EMALS, they would prefer buying bigger and heavier jet with more capabilities. In that case that jet cannot operate from existing AC, without being severely restricted.

To me we are moving towards an IAC-2 with EMALS CATOBAR. And we will be buying F/A-18 as quid pro quo. I would love to be absolutely wrong on this one though.

It can't be F35, since its single engine only. Too bad for Navy.

[Austin]

The new 57 aircraft would be entering service any time soon

Can't be sooner than 3yrs even if they sign the deal today.

3 years would be to get the RFP stage , trials , bidding etc nothing less than 6 yrs if this does not get interrupted at any stage , Although its also possible the RFP could get cancelled for any number of reasons or get infinitely delayed where it becomes immaterial ,

57 Aircraft is not a small number how will they get the money to buy these is another question when they havent bought ASW chopper deal pending for many years now and so many other project Minesweeper I can think off which a critical one too.

[JayS]

Livefist ‏@livefist · 12m12 minutes ago

As expected, @IndianNavy's new carrier fighter needs to be a twin engine jet, confirms @ManoharParrikar. So a clear F/A-18 vs Rafale war.

So what would we get? Rafale-M + N-plant from French or F/A-18 + EMALS from US..?? If US offering N-plant I guess, US would win hands-down.

My money is on F/A-18 for now, as I said earlier.

[Chinmay]

Is the EMALS tech tied to the F-18 buy? Otherwise we could buy the EMALS and qualify the Rafale on it. It should not be too difficult considering that the Rafale-M can operate off US carriers.

[Austin]

Livefist ‏@livefist · 12m12 minutes ago

As expected, @IndianNavy's new carrier fighter needs to be a twin engine jet, confirms @ManoharParrikar. So a clear F/A-18 vs Rafale war.

Thanks , Just confirms what I mentioned yesterday on this thread for a small fleet of 2 carrier in near and medium future they cannot afford to have a single engine fighter.

[JTull]

IMO, this may be about IN's experience with Mig-29K rather than N-LCA.

Perhaps they don't see even MK2 having sufficient thrust, payload and range to fulfil any role that Mig-29K can do.

Secondly, engine reliability issues with Mig-29K mean that they anyway prefer a twin engine going forward to avoid risking pilots' lives or aircraft recovery.

[Austin]

Twin Engine are always good on Aircraft Carrier , Longer Persistence , Larger Range , larger payload , larger payload bring back capability (no need to ditch payload at sea ) , twin engines are 3x more safer then single engine aircraft even if they are equally reliable.

[brar_w]

Twin Engine are always good on Aircraft Carrier , Longer Persistence , Larger Range , larger payload , larger payload bring back capability (no need to ditch payload at sea ) , twin engines are 3x more safer then single engine aircraft even if they are equally reliable.

While I get the bottom line there but range has absolutely nothing to do with the number of engines but everything to do with he SFC of the engines, drag and the amount of fuel you carry. Or in a nut shell, range is a function of the design requirements for an aircraft. Case in point, an F-35C outranges an F/A-18C it is replacing even when the latter has 2 EFT's. Same with the F-35B, it too outranges a twin engined Hornet. Even the A-7 would outrange the Hornet on internal fuel for most flight profiles with a decent payload..

[Austin]

You are right but that might be true in reference to F-18 versus JSF but range itself might be a factor of many things , The payload you carry , the flight profile you take ( low altitude , medium ,high , subsonic , supersonic ) the internal fuel plus drop tank plus perhaps even CFT

[brar_w]

Combat radius is a function of design. It does not matter how you achieve that. If I wan't a 650 nm combat radius, I have to provide a design that can do that, internal fuel that can do that and then see if I can meet all other performance requirements with a single engine. The F-35C will outrange a Hornet in every flight profile because it was designed to do so in the same way the Super Hornet outranges a Hornet in every profile. The F-35C has been designed to carry twice the internal fuel they provided on the Hornet.

I naturally use clean configuration, if one starts going with payload then the Hornet starts falling way behind the F-35. For example the F-35C's combat radius requirement requires a 4000 lb payload and full internal fuel. Put 2x2000 bombs on the Hornet and it won't reach its clean radius without EFT's. Basically the Hornet's KPP required it to reach a sub 400 nautical mile combat radius with a smaller payload than the F-35C's KPP. Despite the payload difference the latter outperforms it (Range) by around 40% on internal fuel only. Even the shortest ranged F-35 variant (B) outranges the Hornet by a fair distance. I had posted the exact video testimony of the Marine aviation boss where he compared the Bee to the Harrier and Hornet, calling it a harrier replacement that can execute STOVL with a much higher payload all the while outranging his Hornet's on strike missions. Again, this is not a function of 1 engine or 2, but that of the design requirements. F-35 outranges it because a higher combat radius was demanded from it and the designers planned for it when they made trades on size, internal fuel capacity and drag etc. Even the F-35A and F-22A subsonic combat radius is not going to be very different althoguh the difference is huge when you factor in supersonic radius of the raptor.

[Austin]

If what you say is True then Rafale would be a better aircraft for twin engine role for IN over SH

[brar_w]

If what you say is True then Rafale would be a better aircraft for twin engine role for IN over SH

That the IN has to decided based on which versions and configurations of each is offered. But combat range is a function of demand and not 1 vs 2 engines. The Rafale is clearly a much higher end aircraft than the current block Rhino but that's because the USN is practical with what it puts on its birds since it had to acquire over 600 of them. I would choose the Rafale M based on commonality alone.

[Austin]

If what you say is True then Rafale would be a better aircraft for twin engine role for IN over SH

That the IN has to decided based on which versions and configurations of each is offered. But combat range is a function of demand and not 1 vs 2 engines. The Rafale is clearly a much higher end aircraft than the current block Rhino but that's because the USN is practical with what it puts on its birds since it had to acquire over 600 of them. I would choose the Rafale M based on commonality alone.

I would agree on that , Logistics it would be a great boon to have a common aircraft other aspects like Training , Weapons , overhaul,upgrade etc would add to that.

[brar_w]

But naturally the IN and the MOD will look at this through the aspect of the carrier design and the planned air wing and what actually comes out of the joint carrier work group that will meet again in April-May. If you are going EMALS route, and are also looking at other force multipliers for AEW and COD there may be a push to acquire the Rhino, but naturally a 2020's decision won't include the Rhino as the USN uses it now, it will look a lot different and so will probably the Rafale.

But naturally the IN and the MOD will look at this through the aspect of the carrier design and the planned air wing and what actually comes out of the joint carrier work group that will meet again in April-May. If you are going EMALS route, and are also looking at other force multipliers for AEW and COD there may be a push to acquire the Rhino, but naturally a 2020's decision won't include the Rhino as the USN uses it now, it will look a lot different and so will probably the Rafale.

On side note, What I don't understand is, where does this new twin-jet that Navy wants fits. Surely its not a replacement for NLCA MK2. Does Navy want to junk all MiG-29 as soon as possible (perhaps keep them on-shore bases only) and switch entirely to this new platform..?? Because we do not have enough space for MiG-29 and this new jet together on our ACs in foreseeable future.

Do US or French or other navies which operate air craft carriers and fighter jets in their aviation wing, operate some of their fighter assets exclusively from shore based facilities?

The USN has concrete Growler squadrons and plans to add more. But only because that's their contribution to the joint capability vis-a-vis the Electronic Attack mission. But they aren't really doing shore defense of the homeland because of a non existent threat so what the IN does is and will be a function of its own threat and challenges.

[negi]

Adm A Prakash is a decorated aviator however there are two aspects where collective responsibility of a product not meeting it's objectives should include IN.

Reverting to the LCA saga — as far back as the early 1990s, the navy had initiated a study for examining the feasibility of adapting the LCA to shipborne use. While confirming feasibility, the study had revealed some major problem areas, which included lack of engine thrust, requirement of an arrester hook and stronger undercarriage, and need for cockpit/fuselage re-design before the LCA could attempt carrier operations. Undaunted, the navy re-affirmed its faith in the programme by contributing over Rs 400 crore as well as engineers and test pilots to the project.

It appears to me that decision to use Tejas as a platform for naval carrier borne fighter was not done based on rigorous engineering evaluation but instead based on some rough back of hand calculation because modifying a fighter(which by the way itself has not met FOC) to a carrier based fighter has never been done before (Rafale M is an exception there but remember it is a large platform with powerplants with enough buffer to compensate for additional weight) . Given my personal knowledge of how these things work in beurocracy and large oganizations be it a PSU or private someone is given a "goal" under the category "support indeginisation efforts" so despite knowing that thing is not going to make the muster you allocate some men and money to the project and be done with the "goal" in letter , product gaya bhaad mein.

A fighter aircraft has a service life of at least 20 years if not more , an aircraft carrier even longer (remember Viraat was already old when we got it) so when Admiral says to procure a fighter and then make a ship around it I sort of disagree with him . The fact of the matter is if you make a large carrier you can operate any aircraft from it , question is does IN need a big carrier ? Now when IAC-II design was done it was obviously driven by the IN so if the carier is now 40k odd tonnes and most probably is gonna be a STOBAR type so now what is IN going to do buy F-35 for it because Mig-29K is not good enough , Tejas is not ready and the rest cannot operate from such a small carrier ?

[JTull]

Livefist: The Indian LCA Navy’s Big Fight Back

‘Saab has a Sea Gripen concept. They are in the same stage we were at in 2003 when we decided to create a carrier-capable derivative of the LCA Tejas.'

[brar_w]

Boeing Considers Civil Offsets In Indian Naval Fighter Offer

BENGALURU, India—Boeing’s civil businesses could contribute to the industrial package accompanying an offer of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for the Indian navy, the company says.
Another possible part of the offer is the General Electric F414 EPE engine, which would offer 18% greater thrust than the F414 currently used by U.S. Navy and Royal Australian Air Force Super Hornets.

Rival Dassault, meanwhile, has chosen the conglomerate Reliance as an Indian industrial partner for civil and military aircraft programs. Dassault proposes its Rafale M for the carrier-borne fighter requirement.

India has issued a request for information for a proposed order for 57 naval fighters and options on more. Other contenders are Saab, which proposes a carrier-based version of the JAS 39E Gripen, and United Aircraft Corp. (UAC), which will offer the MiG-29K.

A key issue is likely to be satisfying requirements for local manufacturing. “We have lots of options, both commercial and defense,” says Thomas Breckenridge, head of Indian sales for Boeing’s defense business.

His remarks imply that the company could increase its orders for commercial aircraft parts from India, a traditional offset arrangement, as part of an order for the Super Hornet. The government’s “Make in India” policy also puts priority on local manufacturing of some of the equipment bought under each deal with a foreign supplier.

Boeing also has mentioned the possibility of a new manufacturing facility in India for the Super Hornet—though it would presumably not be intended to make all parts of the aircraft.

A further possibility in Boeing’s bid is Indian participation in improving the Super Hornet, Breckenridge said at the Aero India exhibition here. The type is likely to serve into the 2040s.

Greater thrust could be particularly valuable, because the Indian navy’s two aircraft carriers, one still under construction, are designed to launch aircraft with ski jumps, not catapults.

With more thrust, an aircraft at a higher weight can achieve flying speed after accelerating along the deck and in the air for a few seconds after hurtling off the ski jump.

The government requires deliveries of its new carrier fighters to begin three years after an order is signed and to be concluded in the following three years. With a warm Super Hornet production line running well below capacity, Boeing should be able to meet that requirement easily—subject to the complications of setting up manufacturing in India.

After a tortuous selection program, India has finally contracted Dassault to deliver 36 land-based Rafales for the air force. The navy appears to be taking seriously the possibility of operating Rafale Ms from its carriers.

Chief of the Naval Staff Adm. Sunil Lanba visited the Dassault booth at Aero India on Feb. 15 for a lengthy discussion. Last year, a Dassault team briefed the navy on the Rafale M as India was finalizing the design of its second indigenous aircraft carrier. One carrier, built and modernized in Russia, is in service and the first indigenous one is under construction.

A Dassault Aviation spokesperson confirms that the Rafale M will be offered for the fighter requirement. The company emphasizes the value of commonality between the Rafale M and the air force’s Rafale C and B.

The Rafale M could be operated from India’s future ski-jump-equipped domestic aircraft carriers, the official adds.

The Indian navy already has MiG-29Ks, so UAC sees an obvious opportunity in proposing more units of the same type, an industry source says. But the Russian state company believes the MiG-29K will have to be updated to suit the Indian navy.

[negi]

Can someone tell me where else in the world the military goes on a fighter shopping spree every 4-5 years ? I mean on one hand we have IAF talking about buying single engined fighter even as it waits for recently concluded MRCA deal (Rafales will only arrive by 2019 ?) ; and here we have the IN who have only started using the Mig-29K already talking about another carrier based fighter ; I mean logically speaking if they need more there should simply be a follow on order of the Mig-29K but as I have said years ago on this forum the Mig-29K is a lemon and this new requirement is just a confirmation of the same. I mean look at the circus being played out here Rafale-M and SH operating from a 40k tonne STOBAR carrier ; with what kind of payload numbers ? I mean might as well have NLCA with it's 1-2 tonne payload on IAC-II I am sure once you account for number of aircraft * payload per AC on IAC-II ; NLCA even in it's current form will start looking a much logical option.

[Rakesh]

Gripen Maritime concept variant at Aero India 2017.
Will be pitched for Indian Navy's carrier fighter contest.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/832945389099679744

[Philip]

This 50+ order won't arrive before 2025 by my reckoning! The usual time taken to evaluate the various offers,will take us to 2020+ at the very least. Give or take another yr. to decide which aircraft has won,then the byzantine bargaining on price,etc. and like the Raffy,we will be advancing calendar wise to 2030.

The 40 odd 29Ks will suffice for the two carriers ,Vik-A and IAC-1 .IF we need a few more for war reserves,etc.,no problem as the bird is in production for the RuN too. The 50+ extras needed once IAC-2 arrives ,sometime by 2030. By then,we would have new naval FGFAs,upgraded MIG-29/35s,SU-33s too available apart from Rafales. A twin-engined bird is a must,why the SG is most unlikely even if it wins the IAF's tender. Outside option,the JSF,but that would be a far better bet for our 3/4 amphibs planned.

[JayS]

T
The 40 odd 29Ks will suffice for the two carriers ,Vik-A and IAC-1

Going by current availability rate, we would need 100 MiG-29k per AC.

[NRao]

Livefist ‏@livefist · 12m12 minutes ago

As expected, @IndianNavy's new carrier fighter needs to be a twin engine jet, confirms @ManoharParrikar. So a clear F/A-18 vs Rafale war.

So what would we get? Rafale-M + N-plant from French or F/A-18 + EMALS from US..?? If US offering N-plant Iloguess, US would win hands-down.

My money is on F/A-18 for now, as I said earlier.

EMALS has always been independent of anything else. It is coming. 90 mts of it.

my money on the F-18 too. MII nonetheless.

Add the Hawkeyes.

N-plant from the US is too much to expect. But surprise me.

[ragupta]

F-18 only, if eventually local built and made in the factory of future twin engine aircraft, that Boeing offered to setup, that can be used to build AMCA also.

Rafale-M doubtful, unless built and assembled by Reliance Aerospace. But France is looking for order by 200, that is too much to ask, at the current acquisition price.

If both of the above does not happen, it will be in perpetual acquisition phase,
In the meantime M-29K will carry on the responsibility. Essentially the acquisition is to built local capacity rather than urgent requirement. considering the long gestation period for anything to happen in aero industry, this is a good move to check what is being offered and does it meets the need or not.

[Bala Vignesh]

A wild thought here, why not work on a concept of twin engined NLCA, making things common with the MK2 wherever possible and working in parallel to the latter??
What are the pitfalls in considering such an option??

[Philip]

China's secret carrier plans revealed in the media . China plans to have at least 6 carriers in the future.2 of Liaoning class,2 "like USN carriers",meaning cats/EMALS. It plans to have to large carriers and CBGs for the Pacific,2 for ... the IOR(!),one for the Indo-China Sea (SCS) ,the last probably for Taiwan/Straits/Japan.

The newer carriers may be around 50,000t,smaller than the Liaoning (Varyag,Kuznetsovv class).That it intends to station two CBGs in the IOR must set off alarm bells at the NHQ/MOD and a reassessment of the challenge to the IN from the Sino-Pak JV and our response.We have sev. options,LR strikes against PLAN CBGs using BMos missiles and large numbers of subs. A Midway type battle is less likely unless PLAN CBGs enter the IOR where we will have to use all our naval assets to exterminate them.

With the hyper BMos under dev. and BMos-M,BMos-ER in the pipeline,The IN's large LRMP aircraft must be tasked with carrying these missiles,along with the FGFA internally and other strike aircraft externally. Prof. Das also proposed turning the AMCA into a stealth bomber. "INS India" is our unsinkable carrier in the middle of the IOR and we should exploit its geographical advantage to the hilt by acquiring dedicated strat. type bombers like Backfires.The re-usable hyper BMos missiles could be launched from our aircraft in the ICS and return/land in the A&N islands,for out-of-IOR ops against the PLAN.

Our plans at the moment are to have 3 carriers,the existing two,Vik-A and IAC-1,plus the larger IAC-2. We cannot hope to match the Chinese for numbers ,ut must think of INS India as a 4th..This places an additional role for our amphibs,which should be abale to carry a small number of strike aircraft which can assist amphib ops,fleet air defence and maritime strike using BMos-Ms. They will not be large enough to carry the hyper-BMos.

Allies to the size of our air assets,the IN's sub fleet must be augmented as the top priority.Knowing that they're vulnerable UW,the arrogant sh*tworms have demanded that all foreign subs in the ICS must show themselves on the surface!

https://qz.com/915110/china-wants-forei ... it-claims/
China wants foreign submarines to stop traveling below the surface in the vast waters it claims

Submarines are designed with one primary aim: to travel underwater. But when it comes to foreign vessels operating in the vast waters it claims, China doesn’t much like that idea.
According to state media reports posted last week, Beijing is drafting a revision to the nation’s maritime “traffic safety” law. While in Chinese waters, according to the changes, any foreign submarine would be required to stay surfaced and display its national flag. It would also need to get approval before entering Chinese waters, and report to maritime management authorities. China would reserve the right to bar or expel foreign ships deemed to threaten “traffic safety and order.” Ships entering Chinese waters without approval could be fined more than $70,000.
Map of China's nine-dash line showing the Spratly and Paracel islands and Scarborough Shoal
A contested sea.

One big problem: China claims nearly all of the contested South China Sea—with its strategic shipping lanes, rich fishing grounds, and oil and gas deposits—as its own territory, based on its nine-dash line. That claim was shot down last July by an international tribunal ruling under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But Beijing is sticking with it.
Another problem is that what most countries consider international waters, China views more as territorial waters.

UNCLOS territorial jurisdictions. (historicair/Wikipedia, CC-BY-3.0)
Under prevailing international norms laid out by UNCLOS, a country’s territorial sea extends out 12 nautical miles (22 km, 14 miles) from the coast. Here a country is free to set laws and regulate use, though a foreign military vessel can still make “innocent passage” whereby it does nothing threatening and carries on its way.

After that is a contiguous zone (another 12 nautical miles) where a nation can continue setting some laws. Beyond that is the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Extending out 200 nautical miles (370 km, 230 miles), the EEZ is considered to be international waters under UNCLOS, though within it a nation has sole rights to extract natural resources from the waters (for example, fish) and below the seabed (including oil and natural gas).
China is among a small group of nations that interprets UNCLOS to mean (pdf, p. 16) it can regulate foreign military vessels within its EEZ. Under the proposed rules revisions, foreign submarines would be prohibited from serving their purpose well beyond China’s coastal waters and throughout most of the South China Sea.

“China’s waters are open to foreign ships as long as they do not damage the waters’ safety, order, or China’s sovereignty,” Yang Cuibai, a law professor at Sichuan University, told the Global Times. China, he added, should take the lead in establishing legal order in the Yellow Sea, the East China Sea, and the South China Sea. According to the hawkish tabloid, the revisions will take effect in 2020.
Beijing would likely ignore any international rulings or statements against the new regulations, just as it dismissed the tribunal’s decision last July.
China wouldn’t necessarily enforce its new rules immediately. In 2013, Beijing declared an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea, requiring foreign aircraft—even if in international airspace—to identify themselves to Chinese authorities. The country has done little to enforce the ADIZ, but establishing it was an important first step that will make enforcement—when it comes—somewhat easier for Beijing to justify.
Likewise, the proposed submarine rules might go unenforced for years, until they are eventually used as justification for interfering with foreign vessels.

[sohamn]

HAL is planning a Do-228 amphibian and it almost managed to keep it a secret.

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/02/ ... faces.html

[JTull]

Guys, just a thought. How difficult will it be to mount a pair of Honeywell F125IN (56KN) engines on N-LCA Mk2? These are the same ones chosen for Jaguar re-engining. It will definitely solve many of the problems. And, since this is a Tech Demo anyway, why not make this leap?

F125 family
F125IN
F414

[sohamn]

It increases the weight of the aircraft and consumes more space, requires extensive redesign.

I really think LCA mk2 is the answer. IN has operated many single engine carrier based fighters in the past and they shouldn't complain of NLCA. a GE F414 would have enough thrust for a STROBAR takeoff with full weapons load.

[Rakesh]

The Indian Navy's Asst Controller (Carrier Project) Rear Admiral Surendra Ahuja
flew a Dassault Rafale B & Saab Gripen D at Aero India 2017 in Bangalore.
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/833934713936973824

[Rakesh]

MoD Defence Acquisition Council Meeting: Acceptance of Necessity complete
for intermediate level engine repair facility for MiG-29K at Goa.
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/833979164050980864

[ranjan.rao]

hopefully, this increases the availability of Mig29.

[Indranil]

Guys, just a thought. How difficult will it be to mount a pair of Honeywell F125IN (56KN) engines on N-LCA Mk2? These are the same ones chosen for Jaguar re-engining. It will definitely solve many of the problems. And, since this is a Tech Demo anyway, why not make this leap?

F125 family
F125IN
F414

It is not a bad idea. But it is not easy either. We have to completely change the back and the intakes. It is also very likely that the wings have to be pushed out.

It is not impossible. I think the F-16 and the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo have a similar relationship. The T-5 went the opposite direction to evolve to T-20.

[shiv]

Guys, just a thought. How difficult will it be to mount a pair of Honeywell F125IN (56KN) engines on N-LCA Mk2? These are the same ones chosen for Jaguar re-engining. It will definitely solve many of the problems. And, since this is a Tech Demo anyway, why not make this leap?

F125 family
F125IN
F414

It would be a new aircraft