Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5353
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Maybe. If push comes to shove, India will expedite and commission the vikrant a little earlier. Buying or leasing a wasp class might be another option now that the Americas are otw...
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
The F-35B will give a lot of nations the ability to operate carriers.Cain Marko wrote:This is an absolutely brilliant idea. With f35s especially.Philip wrote:
SoKo is abandoning its amphib plans and is to build a ski-jump 30,000t light CV instead operating F-35Bs. This is what I've been saying for ages,to turn the 4 amphib req. of similar tonnage into vessels with flight decks similar to the VikA and Vikrant. The NLCAs can then operate from them and switch from air defence/ strike to amphib support as well when required.
Unless we get onboard this train (or build that 65K ton CATOBAR) it will create risks for the IN's status. Gone are the days when we were the sole carrier power in all of Asia.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
The F-35B and a sh!tload of money will give a lot of nations the ability to operate carriers.... there, corrected it for youchola wrote:The F-35B will give a lot of nations the ability to operate carriers.
That is already the case. Even before the Chinese, there was the Chakri Naruebet. And the fact that Unkil's carriers were regularly criss-crossing Asian oceans.chola wrote:Gone are the days when we were the sole carrier power in all of Asia.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
It doesn't have to be a "sh!tload of money". Some hybrid designs that re-purpose LHD's don't need to cost north of what a prior gen AC used to cost. They will be limited in scope, but if you only want the ability to operate 12-20 F-35B's for short duration and then use the vessel as a LHD then these are quite cost effective. Its even less if you are just upgrading existing, and in use, LHD's. Again, unfair to call them "Aircraft Carriers" (same for US L class vessels) but for a fraction of what you'd pay to acquire an AC, you can upgrade your LHD designs to accomodate the F-35B and get limited capability for specific roles and needs. Again, not an AC and not as flexible as an AC but it allows you more defensive capability and some limited force projection capability at a decent range for a limited amount of time. South Korea, Japan, and perhaps even Singapore are doing this. Italy and Spain too. None are as costly as a dedicated F-35B Aircraft Carrier like the QE for example. They also won't be as capable but the point is flexibility and meeting the need within a fixed, generally smaller, budget. Alternatives like meeting the same capability via shore based assets have a cost and capability element to them as well.yensoy wrote:The F-35B and a sh!tload of money will give a lot of nations the ability to operate carriers.... there, corrected it for youchola wrote:The F-35B will give a lot of nations the ability to operate carriers.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
The USN is calling these CVs " Lightning" CVs,and pointing to the role of the Essex escort CVs in WW2 which played a v.important role in the Pacific theatre. A large CV costs $15B.The US thinktanks say that a 30K t light CV would cost only $1.5 B, be built rapidly and as assets are spread out,would have greater reach and survival capability. Now let me be clear on one point,that these light CVs are NOT replacemfnts for the USN's supercarriers,used in expeditionary warfare around the globe. However,the escort/ light CVs give us valuable numbers of flat tops that could simultaneously operate in different theatres.
I am quite chuffed to see other navies arriving at hhe same conclusions that I did a decade ago.Infact any warship of 10K t should have a flat top,flush VLS silos for AD SAMs and BMos hyper to come.
I am quite chuffed to see other navies arriving at hhe same conclusions that I did a decade ago.Infact any warship of 10K t should have a flat top,flush VLS silos for AD SAMs and BMos hyper to come.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
This is nothing new. The ambhibs used to be called "Harrier Carriers" in the past (when they had their max harrier load out) and now they have a nickname "Lightning Carrier", again used when they have a 18-20 complement of F-35B's onboard.Philip wrote:The USN is calling these CVs " Lightning" CVs,and pointing to the role of the Essex escort CVs..
Think tanks don't design and build ships.A large CV costs $15B.The US thinktanks say that a 30K t light CV would cost only $1.5 B
How in the world will you build and outfit a 30K ton "light CV" and get it to cost a good couple of hundred million $ less than a sub 10K ton Burke? Let's get real. Even in the best case scenario, you are looking at close to $5 Billion in TY$ for an "upgunned" LHA-6 derivitive. A lot of the cost lives in giving it a standard, fleet wide combat system, targeting and the ability to be survivable. Only way to shave a lot in price means sacrificing in these areas and watering down requirements. Just look at the weight the Italians had to add to the FREMM to meet USN survivability standards. Do you think they would have bothered (weight = cost) if they thought they could pass USN shock trials without any modifications to their parent FREMM design?
It costs a fraction of the cost of a CVN, but also has fraction of its capability.
What fraction? Consider this - LHA-6 has a 6,000 cubic feet magazine. CVN-78 has a 375,000 cubic feet magazine. That is more than 20 times larger magazine. It doesn't have an airwing that is 20 times larger so that means it can sustain ops longer, and you don't have to kit it for a particular misison. You can take the entire mission set with you (and they do). That is just one aspect. We can also talk about number of onboard sailors, airmen, and the endurance and the ability of the ship to defend itself and its survivability measures. All those things factor into the $$$ you spend. Ford costs what it costs (barring the higher upfront first in class ship costs which are due to pre-learning curve efficiencies and high technical/integration risk of new-tech ) because of these very requirements.
A US CVN is a tool that essentially puts the equivalent of a "Small Air Force" at any point of the globe as long as there is water it can sail through. It carries multi-role fighters, its own electronic warfare and electronic attack, its own air-air refuellers, its own AEW platforms, and even its own ASW (which was a fixed winged ASW capability at peak cold-war) and SAR capability. It can escort destroyers and frigates and basically create very large air-defense zones around them. It can project power and from different vectors as the nuclear propulsion means that it can move around hundreds of miles within hours. These L-class derived carriers, or similar concept ships elsewhere, are great if you have a limited scope and mission set and have a tight budget. They won't in any way perform the complete gamut of mission-set tasked to a CVN and even if you were to have 3-4 of them operate together they still won't be able to do that efficiently. They have their place and do things they do well. But there will always be certain threats, and certain missions that they will just not be able to accomplish. These are there limitations and if one is ok with them then they are great. At the end it isn't about a $5 Billion ship vs a $10 billion ship. It is almost always about, what purpose does that vessel solve in your national security capability. If that $5 billion dollar ship needs additional multi billion dollar ships, shore based support and massive coordination of assets to deliver similar effects then the cost of all those have to be factored in.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
The IN doesn';t need to imitate the USN Brar,please understand that.Our goals are quite different. We can sanitise the IOR without large CVs using supersonic LRMPs armed with LR stand-off super and in the future,hypersonic ASMs. The ANC and Lakshadweep are going to be vastly improved in mil. infra. as forward bases from where a variety of land-based aircraft will operate from.In addition,a goodly number of subs,both conv. and nuclear will be able to operate beyond the IOR into the ICS and beyond.Several medium and light carriers give us the flexibility and numbers to operate more diversely as China and Pak are our only two mortal enemies.Take a dekko at the aticle from the USNI.
Distributed Maritime Operations Will Demand ‘Lightning Carriers’ | Proceedings - June 2020 Vol. 146/6/1,408
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... 234c8f82d4
Xcpt.
In a recent interview with Defense News, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday emphasized the Navy’s need to get away from wrapping “$2 billion ships around 96 missile tubes” to “fight a potential adversary that is producing capability and platforms at a very high rate of speed.”3 This high rate of adversary production is exemplified by the 100 modern submarines the Chinese People’s Liberation Army–Navy is projected to field by 2030—compared to the U.S. Navy’s estimated 53.4
Commandant of the Marine Corps General David Berger’s 2019 Commandant’s Planning Guidance identifies a similar need to “seek the affordable and plentiful at the expense of the exquisite and few.”5 Essentially, the Navy must improve its weapon-to-target cost ratio against peer adversaries by denying them the opportunity to take out $15 billion platforms, such as Gerald R. Ford–class carriers, with $1 million missiles.6
Naval aviation must embrace distributed maritime operations by finding the optimal balance between distributing airframes over multiple platforms and maintaining the capability to refuel, rearm, and service aircraft in a cost-effective manner. In the third edition of his much celebrated work, Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations, renowned naval strategist Captain Wayne Hughes, U.S. Navy (Retired), claimed that a commander is “better off with twice as many units of force than units with twice the rate of effective fire power.”7 Deploying dispersed, smaller combatants in place of traditional strike groups forces an adversary to solve the complex, resource-heavy problems of finding, tracking, and targeting each individual combatant, as opposed to a large ship or formation. While smaller combatants cannot pack as much capability and capacity as traditional escort platforms, dispersing a greater number of them across a larger operating area would increase their staying power relative to single large formations—a significant advantage inside the first island chain in the western Pacific or in the Persian Gulf. When a fleet is able to coordinate multi-node fire, distributing capacity across multiple platforms has the added benefit of increasing combat power. Figure 1 illustrates this concept through three hypothetical engagements.
PS:
As I've said before,converting the amphib req. which envisaged 4X 25 to 30K t vessels,into light CVs,retaining the ''swing''
capability I've often mentioned,will serve us better than putting our eggs into one large basket ,inviting the enemy to concentrate his forces and assets at eliminating it.
PPS:CDS and IN, kindly take notice of the above.
Distributed Maritime Operations Will Demand ‘Lightning Carriers’ | Proceedings - June 2020 Vol. 146/6/1,408
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... 234c8f82d4
Xcpt.
In a recent interview with Defense News, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday emphasized the Navy’s need to get away from wrapping “$2 billion ships around 96 missile tubes” to “fight a potential adversary that is producing capability and platforms at a very high rate of speed.”3 This high rate of adversary production is exemplified by the 100 modern submarines the Chinese People’s Liberation Army–Navy is projected to field by 2030—compared to the U.S. Navy’s estimated 53.4
Commandant of the Marine Corps General David Berger’s 2019 Commandant’s Planning Guidance identifies a similar need to “seek the affordable and plentiful at the expense of the exquisite and few.”5 Essentially, the Navy must improve its weapon-to-target cost ratio against peer adversaries by denying them the opportunity to take out $15 billion platforms, such as Gerald R. Ford–class carriers, with $1 million missiles.6
Naval aviation must embrace distributed maritime operations by finding the optimal balance between distributing airframes over multiple platforms and maintaining the capability to refuel, rearm, and service aircraft in a cost-effective manner. In the third edition of his much celebrated work, Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations, renowned naval strategist Captain Wayne Hughes, U.S. Navy (Retired), claimed that a commander is “better off with twice as many units of force than units with twice the rate of effective fire power.”7 Deploying dispersed, smaller combatants in place of traditional strike groups forces an adversary to solve the complex, resource-heavy problems of finding, tracking, and targeting each individual combatant, as opposed to a large ship or formation. While smaller combatants cannot pack as much capability and capacity as traditional escort platforms, dispersing a greater number of them across a larger operating area would increase their staying power relative to single large formations—a significant advantage inside the first island chain in the western Pacific or in the Persian Gulf. When a fleet is able to coordinate multi-node fire, distributing capacity across multiple platforms has the added benefit of increasing combat power. Figure 1 illustrates this concept through three hypothetical engagements.
PS:
As I've said before,converting the amphib req. which envisaged 4X 25 to 30K t vessels,into light CVs,retaining the ''swing''
capability I've often mentioned,will serve us better than putting our eggs into one large basket ,inviting the enemy to concentrate his forces and assets at eliminating it.
PPS:CDS and IN, kindly take notice of the above.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
brar and philip: please continue this discussion in another thread. This is the Naval Tejas Mk1 thread. Thank You.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Then why bring that up and cite a dubious (if true at all) report as some sort of evidence?Philip wrote:The IN doesn';t need to imitate the USN Brar,please understand that.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
General pooch - can a ship like Chakri Naruebet be modified to launch nlca?
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
V_Raman, there is a separate thread for questions which are pet peeves this, before the Predators notice is my suggestion not to ask why 414 in LCA Mk1 in the common threads but put these type of questions
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7235&start=160
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7235&start=160
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
HVT Sir tweet
Conversation
Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
TEDBF
Navy doesn't want imports. Committed to Atmanirbhar. Old RFI study closed a long time back.
It is likely delta with tail.
Read the whole thread. Lot of information.
TEDBF is likely evolution of NLCA mk2 in twin engine form not MWF.
Conversation
Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
TEDBF
Navy doesn't want imports. Committed to Atmanirbhar. Old RFI study closed a long time back.
It is likely delta with tail.
Read the whole thread. Lot of information.
TEDBF is likely evolution of NLCA mk2 in twin engine form not MWF.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
IN has gone way ahead of this sort of thinking. Fight the naval war from the air and from undersea. With a rec//surv/interdiction air wing next only to to USN and a much smaller area - IN is too hot for any surface tonnage navy.Philip wrote:The USN is calling these CVs " Lightning" CVs,and pointing to the role of the Essex escort CVs in WW2 which played a v.important role in the Pacific theatre. A large CV costs $15B.The US thinktanks say that a 30K t light CV would cost only $1.5 B, be built rapidly and as assets are spread out,would have greater reach and survival capability. Now let me be clear on one point,that these light CVs are NOT replacemfnts for the USN's supercarriers,used in expeditionary warfare around the globe. However,the escort/ light CVs give us valuable numbers of flat tops that could simultaneously operate in different theatres.
I am quite chuffed to see other navies arriving at hhe same conclusions that I did a decade ago.Infact any warship of 10K t should have a flat top,flush VLS silos for AD SAMs and BMos hyper to come.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
idrw is reporting that NP5 Trainer will take flight by April. Seems to be quoting from Anantha Krishnan's video series of interview with Dr Girish Deodhare.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
As usual those guys won't give credit to the source that they got the info from, which is Anantha Krishnan's interview with Dr Deodhare.JTull wrote:idrw is reporting that NP5 Trainer will take flight by April. Seems to be quoting from Anantha Krishnan's video series of interview with Dr Girish Deodhare.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5128
- Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Beauty and awesomeness overload:
https://twitter.com/singhshwetabh71/sta ... 99140?s=09 ---> A very cool pic of NLCA at SBTF, Goa by Deb Rana.
https://twitter.com/singhshwetabh71/sta ... 99140?s=09 ---> A very cool pic of NLCA at SBTF, Goa by Deb Rana.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Beautiful photo. WOW!
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
How did he manage to click one from that angle? Fantastic!
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Love this shot! LCA Navy NP2
Image credit - Gaur.Aviation
Image credit - Gaur.Aviation
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
I have seen a Rambha in person. She is HUGE!
https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 25826?s=20 ---> Size Comparison ---> Su-30MKI v Naval LCA.
https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 25826?s=20 ---> Size Comparison ---> Su-30MKI v Naval LCA.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Plus in size comparison remember Ramba is much taller than Tejas, I think the cockpit height will be a few feet higher
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Are the carrier trials of Naval Tejas all completed?
What more trials are needed to call the development complete?
What more trials are needed to call the development complete?
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
from the top of a trucknachiket wrote:How did he manage to click one from that angle? Fantastic!
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
https://twitter.com/JaidevJamwal/status ... 36067?s=20 ---> Indian military photography has improved tremendously in last 3-4 years.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Indranil, here is your chance to buy him that watch gift
https://twitter.com/CaptDKS/status/1410 ... 79523?s=20
https://twitter.com/CaptDKS/status/1410 ... 79523?s=20
Captain DK Sharma
@CaptDKS
Commodore Jaydeep Maolankar
@JA_Maolankar
retires today after over 35 yrs of service.
A thorough professional & a passionate aviator he leaves behind a legacy for all young aviators to aspire for. 1/n
Having commanded
@indiannavy
's White Tiger Squadron ( INAS 300) he ensured the highest standards in Carrier borne fighter flying.
As an ETP he has contributed immensely to the LCA program and gets full honours for driving the LCA Navy towards achieving carrier qualification. 2/n
Mao to his friends, has truly left his mark. We salute him for his simplicity and never ending hunger to learn new skills and master them completely. Thank you Mao Sir. You did your bit towards building a #self-reliant nation
Happy landings. 3/3
Last edited by srai on 01 Jul 2021 20:08, edited 1 time in total.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4056
- Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
rakesh ji/jamwal jiRakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/JaidevJamwal/status ... 36067?s=20 ---> Indian military photography has improved tremendously in last 3-4 years.
is it the photography or is it the finish which my untrained eyes find at par or even better than rafale? is tejas the chota rafale?
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Arjun - we Indians typically aren't great at embellishing photos. I would therefore say it is the finish. But how can it be better than the Rafale? Hain ji? Imports are the truth! Everything else is Maya.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Hari Nair can you extend our invite to hvtiaf and Mao to the forum?
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
That Naval Tejas photo has not been modified a lot like most of Chinese propaganda pictures. Picture is sharp and the machine is smooth too.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Should consider two squadrons of Naval Tejas as a backup
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Commodore Mao will go down as the founder of indigenous Naval Aviation
He has achieved a lot and will hopefully contribute to the future of IN.
He has achieved a lot and will hopefully contribute to the future of IN.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Are the pilot suits desi made???
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
It would be sad tp lose him to retirement (unless that is his choice). He has solid 10-15 years of top contribution left (even if it is guiding - thought leadership and not flying). ADA/DRDO/HAL or other agencies can benefit. Maybe IN can hire him as a consultant for TEDBF.ramana wrote:Commodore Mao will go down as the founder of indigenous Naval Aviation
He has achieved a lot and will hopefully contribute to the future of IN.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
In military, retirement usually means they have reached the max age/years allowed for the position held and no further promotion to extend the contract. Bit different to civilian use of the term “retirement”.…
It would be sad tp lose him to retirement (unless that is his choice)
…
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Going in for NLCA over Mig-29k makes far more sense. Buying an aircraft that needs to go into the shop after every flight in war time would hamper strike capability and risk aircrew safety. A lower capability that is reliable would allow planning around their capabilities. In time, as TEDBF matures, the experience gained through the NLCA would make it a better, more optimized aircraft.
Engineering logic would dictate the purchase of NLCA and cap of 29 k purchases - even for attrition replacement.
Engineering logic would dictate the purchase of NLCA and cap of 29 k purchases - even for attrition replacement.
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
how much time do u think NLCA can do carrying a meaningful load of missiles and fuel tanks?Vivek K wrote:Going in for NLCA over Mig-29k makes far more sense. Buying an aircraft that needs to go into the shop after every flight in war time would hamper strike capability and risk aircrew safety. A lower capability that is reliable would allow planning around their capabilities. In time, as TEDBF matures, the experience gained through the NLCA would make it a better, more optimized aircraft.
Engineering logic would dictate the purchase of NLCA and cap of 29 k purchases - even for attrition replacement.
from DDR site, specs for NLCA
Empty Weight [T] 8.8* + Add Fuel of 2.5 or so Gross Weight would be 11.3
MTOW [T] 13.2* (I think this does not take in to consideration the weight penalty for using a STOBAR Carrier, which i remember reading is in the order of about 15% of MTOW)
The calculations as per the above figures show that at best NLCA can only take off and land without any missiles or extra fuel tanks.
So what is Indian Navy going to use NLCA for?
Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020
Does this account for GE-F414 that was slated for the operational version?