Indian Naval Aviation

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Mar 2017 15:27

The Tupolevs simply could not fly slow enough..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bPlblPE-qM

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2017 15:29

which means they are not so great at low and slow P3 orion type ops. another stick that P sir uses to beat the P8 with periodically

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Mar 2017 15:48

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.

How is the 4000+ km range of the P-8I not sufficient for the IN mission? Do they routinely need to go and patrol for hours on in thousands of km away form base? Is this normal deployment pattern? As explained, long term there is IFR option which would be doable with either the KC30 or KC46. You'd need robust and consistent tanker support anyways because you aren't going to send out a lone P-8I say 6000 km from base without other assets so being ability to provide gas will come if such a CONOPS is developed or needed.

Your armament argument is moot since the Harpoon or Harpoon ER is a weapon of choice for the US Navy. The Aussies baked in their JASSM integration when they joined the JPO (future P-8 capability) and the Norwegians are considering doing the same when they sign up vis-a-vis the JSM. The P-8 is not a bomber so best to modify something else or create new requirements for such a system obtained either through modifications, upgrades or acquisition.

While the P-8Is ASW capabilities may be much improved over a TU-142s,in the LR strike role it is outclassed.

Long range Strike role is not something that is important in the Maritime Patrol Mission for which this weapons system was acquired. You can certainly add longer ranged anti ship or surface capability to operate over the littorals as Australia and Norway seem to be wanting to do, but again, the P-8 is still first and foremost an MPA.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 09 Mar 2017 16:30

shiv, that video alone is inconclusive in supporting the hypothesis that the Bears cannot fly slower (or at same speed) as those IAF planes. It could simply be that the flypast was planned in such a way to have all aircraft pass over the dignitaries at the same time.

Moreover, we do not know exactly what mission profiles IN has in mind to suggest they're not 'slow enough'. This seems to be a simple case of obsolescence and IN being satisfied that it's fleet of P-8Is are sufficient for the job.

Let's celebrate the service given by the Bears. (And, move on quickly).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Mar 2017 17:45

^^No that was meant to be a joke but it was taken seriously. I need to be careful. I did not even have Philip in mind when I posted that. I think that was a genuine flypast timing error which is unusual. That aside Bears were meant to be turboprops with jet speeds. They were great aircraft but are long in tooth now.

Google tells me that the cruise speed of the P-8 is higher than that of the Bear.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2017 18:27

the modernized Tu95 bear is not to be sniffed at. 8 nirbhay sized ALCM externally and some more internally. these are the ones that P sir always calls for. Cheen is still making the Tu16 badger clone known as H6 for ALCM and ASM

here it is the pride of the PLANAF, 6 x CJ10 longswords, always ready to punish India

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Mar 2017 18:35

6 ALCM configured long range strike, essentially creates a totally new class of aircraft compared to the P-3/P-8 or similar Maritime Patrol Aircraft. It no longer is an MPA mission at that point.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2017 18:48

yes definitely - people are looking around for a long range subsonic/supersonic bomber to unleash brahmos-A/nirbhay/garuda-amma and various shticks we are fashioning to "punish China" . in a swing role it will also work with lot of PGM/iron bombs in sanitized skies in bush wars.

thats where the periodic talks of Backfires come in.

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 09 Mar 2017 19:54

Can't they just be mothballed if their operating cost is too high? Also after retirement given their size will they be just scrapped?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Mar 2017 20:02

Onlee 3 are operational. Not worth it.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Mar 2017 21:45

Decision soon on 16 Sikorsky S-70B multirole helicopters for
the Indian Navy, Indian MoD tells Parliament Committee.
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/839838112394129408

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Mar 2017 21:52

The Indian Navy wants new carrier-borne fighters within six years of signing a contract
https://twitter.com/rahulsinghx/status/ ... 9772291072

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 09 Mar 2017 21:54

As per this Aeromag Asia, on pg 53, 3 more prototypes of N-LCA have been suggested (one Trainer and Two Fighters). Then later on the same page, two planned NLCA Mk2 prototypes have been designated NP3 and NP4.

It seems, they're straight away jumping to Mk2. It may that NLCA Mk2 will appear well before IAF Mk2 and perhaps at the same time as IAF Mk1A.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Mar 2017 02:59

brar_w wrote:How is the 4000+ km range of the P-8I not sufficient for the IN mission? Do they routinely need to go and patrol for hours on in thousands of km away form base? Is this normal deployment pattern? As explained, long term there is IFR option which would be doable with either the KC30 or KC46. You'd need robust and consistent tanker support anyways because you aren't going to send out a lone P-8I say 6000 km from base without other assets so being ability to provide gas will come if such a CONOPS is developed or needed.

Amen! We need way more refuellers than the three legged IL-78s we have now. I hope Boeing wins the IAF tanker competition (actually they will!). The Airbus was too bloody expensive anyway. Nobody can do power projection like the Amreekis. Boeing is Bhagwan when it comes to tankers and transports! They really know how to move and FAST!

GhalibKabir · Post by **GhalibKabir** » 10 Mar 2017 08:09

A quick question on the P-8 APY-10 radar. If the ISAR mode, high end SAR modes are not available to us, how can P-8 find subs and signatures of diff ships? does the APS-143 telephonics aft radar on our P-8s still have the ISAR and SAR mode? and does it compensate reasonably for the absence of the same in the main radar?

if not, is the P-8 not a degraded aircraft with lower than expected utility?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2017 10:44

One of my fondest memories is that of seeing these majestic birds, Tu-142, in person at Arakkonam. Oh! what a sight these massive birds are. The first impression you get is that its not an airplane with engines but engines with an airplane in between.

I was about to describe the interiors but the pics speak for themselves. The fuselage is pretty narrow as the pics show - the bird was designed for speed from ground-up as a bomber and later ended up in ASW role. Where the positives of high speed turbo-prop bomber turned out be negatives in terms of lack of space for crew.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Mar 2017 10:51

>> if not, is the P-8 not a degraded aircraft with lower than expected utility?

yes it lacks the radar of the P8A and definitely the khans own ESM, ECM and threat matching libraries which are not shared with its close allies also.. the sonobuoys too might not be the exact same ones the P8A gets.

it does have MAD though which india got fitted from a canadian co. and I think the front radar has additional weather radar doppler modes for flying in deep monsoon. the back radar is I think a short range self defence set to not get surprised by enemy fighters since we lack a constant E2 surveillance on operating areas.

but "degraded" as it is, its still better than anything else on the table for us. thats the beauty of khan kit, their trailing edge often matches or exceeds the "best of the rest"

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Mar 2017 10:53

>> high end SAR modes are not available to us, how can P-8 find subs and signatures of diff ships

how did PBY catalinas and B24 liberators detect U boat scopes and snorkels from 20km away in WW2 when SAR was not invented? I think regular sea search radars can do it, but SAR might be some uber technique developed lately an offshoot from land based JSTARs ?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 10 Mar 2017 16:06

Singha wrote:>> if not, is the P-8 not a degraded aircraft with lower than expected utility?

yes it lacks the radar of the P8A and definitely the khans own ESM, ECM and threat matching libraries which are not shared with its close allies also.. the sonobuoys too might not be the exact same ones the P8A gets.

it does have MAD though which india got fitted from a canadian co. and I think the front radar has additional weather radar doppler modes for flying in deep monsoon. the back radar is I think a short range self defence set to not get surprised by enemy fighters since we lack a constant E2 surveillance on operating areas.

but "degraded" as it is, its still better than anything else on the table for us. thats the beauty of khan kit, their trailing edge often matches or exceeds the "best of the rest"

This has been recognised and is being addressed. Nov, 2016 Link

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Mar 2017 16:10

@GhalibKabir While certain capability would be controlled as is even for other allies like Australia, Great Britain and Norway, the IN would have gotten the capability it was specified/promised and/or evaluated which would have met or exceeded its requirements in this domain given the systems it had to choose from. Is there any indication that the IN feels the sensors are left wanting in this regard?

@Singha, the USN P-8's (some not all) will also fly with the Advanced Airborne Sensor from Raytheon which is so similar to the JSTARS mission that raytheon has offered a GaN version of this sensor for companies to choose on their JSTARS replacement proposal where bids were submitted last week.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/exclus ... 1562912667

JTull wrote:
Singha wrote:>> if not, is the P-8 not a degraded aircraft with lower than expected utility?

yes it lacks the radar of the P8A and definitely the khans own ESM, ECM and threat matching libraries which are not shared with its close allies also.. the sonobuoys too might not be the exact same ones the P8A gets.

it does have MAD though which india got fitted from a canadian co. and I think the front radar has additional weather radar doppler modes for flying in deep monsoon. the back radar is I think a short range self defence set to not get surprised by enemy fighters since we lack a constant E2 surveillance on operating areas.

but "degraded" as it is, its still better than anything else on the table for us. thats the beauty of khan kit, their trailing edge often matches or exceeds the "best of the rest"
This has been recognised and is being addressed. Nov, 2016 Link

We discussed a while back (either here or the IN thread). India did not enter/partner on the program through the JPO (Joint Program Office) as Australia did (or Britain will do) so will not be automatically getting spirals inserted as and when they ready. Program partners get a say in which capability is developed (prioritize), insert unique capability requirements into the spiral and get first dibs at those once they are ready and released post operational test and evaluation.

Australia for example has a bunch of avionics changes in development to support their plan Jericho and have future JASSM integration as well. The P-8 program is a long term spiral development effort where the USN and JPO defined a baseline capability and a medium term spiral development goal based on which FOC will be issued. They are still working on the spiral blocks and some have been released already. The final configurations won't be fleet released till the middle of next decade. The next major configuration which is expected to be released to the fleet is the Increment 3, which should be available around 2020.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 10 Mar 2017 16:30

[Rant]
This is a classic example of short-term planning. There's no lifetime planning for assets. Without budgeting for future upgrades, every asset is drifting towards obsolescence from the day it is bought. No wonder our armed forces have a fascination with getting unobtanium because they don't know if and when they'll get even teething issues fixed. With desi projects, atleast all the stakeholders are local, but with the history of imports they still do not have roadmaps for future development but want unobtanium today (read, LCA, Arjun, et al).
[/Rant]

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Mar 2017 18:09

The role I've advocated for the Bears is primarily LR maritime strike and also as a strat. bomber in a crisis. It is being used in both roles by the Ru even today. The Bears have a range of ASW eqpt.,sonobuoys,MAD,etc.,even some eqpt. to detect nuke boats. 12 torpedoes,etc. weapon load. As a strike weapon,it could carry both internally and externally Nirbhays,BMos,plus the usual Ru KH series of missiles.With the Chinese callingthemselves an "Ocean Power",one can clearly see how useful these long-legged birds would be in conducting lR strike,hunting them not only in the IOR but also the Asia+Pacific waters. The P-8I's primary role is ASW. Is seriously doubt that Harpoon ASMs will be able to penetrate the newer advanced shipboard SAMs that are entering service like B-8,etc. Why BMos-M is also urgently required.

IL-38s slower and tasked for the "low and slow role". We could do with a few more,as all 5 are to be further upgraded with new ASW suites. They have an endurance of 13 hrs. Russia has a large number mothballed. That's how the two that collided were swiftly replaced.We could acquire another 3-7 at v.reasonable prices. These new aircraft could even be fitted with some suitable indigenous. firang avionics,etc.The SD variant cost us $30M.One P-8I costs aprox. $125M+ Even at an inflated cost of $40M,we would be able to get 3 IL_s8s for the price of just one P-8I. When numbers are critical to be able to service the expanded maritime operational area of the IN,we will need a few dozen ASW/LRMP aircraft. 4 more P-8Is would cost us $500M,for which we could get 12+ IL-38s! This is just to show one how a high-low mix is required for the IN to have both numbers and capability.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Mar 2017 05:45

JTull wrote:[Rant]
This is a classic example of short-term planning. There's no lifetime planning for assets. Without budgeting for future upgrades, every asset is drifting towards obsolescence from the day it is bought. No wonder our armed forces have a fascination with getting unobtanium because they don't know if and when they'll get even teething issues fixed. With desi projects, atleast all the stakeholders are local, but with the history of imports they still do not have roadmaps for future development but want unobtanium today (read, LCA, Arjun, et al).
[/Rant]

Well said.

Continuos and iterative approach hasn't yet become the mainstream thinking in the IAF and IA. Lot harder to do that when the OEMs are abroad (with their own product roadmap) and every request requires Babu clearance. With more indigenous products entering the forces, I think that will change.

GhalibKabir · Post by **GhalibKabir** » 14 Mar 2017 08:23

[quote="brar_w"]@GhalibKabir While certain capability would be controlled as is even for other allies like Australia, Great Britain and Norway, the IN would have gotten the capability it was specified/promised and/or evaluated which would have met or exceeded its requirements in this domain given the systems it had to choose from. Is there any indication that the IN feels the sensors are left wanting in this regard?

@brar_w, I remember reading an article a few months ago about ex IN folks saying an UHR ISAR would have helped long range detection of Chinese assets and also better stand off approach on TSP. (I accept that IN would have probably assessed what was on offer and taken it)

Yesterday i read up a bit more reg. the P-8I Aft telephonics radar abilities and found it has both ISAR and SAR modes (of limited range though).

that said, being a relative tyro, i could be wrong too.

btw, does signing CISMOA change anything in terms of access to better sonobuoys or better capability radar?

negi · Post by **negi** » 14 Apr 2017 21:33

http://www.planespotters.in/2017/04/fin ... -142m.html

The Albatross made it final flight on April 4th . To be converted into a museum by AP government . Pitashri was getting senti today as his friends had sent him a video of it's last flight.

vina · Post by **vina** » 24 Apr 2017 17:03

SriJoy wrote:As of now, what is a viable alternative for the Mig-29K ? Are there any that would work with Vikramaditya ? Ie, if the MoD decieded to axe the Mig-29K and procure a fighter compliment for the Vikramaditya, what would be the most feasible plane ?

Thanks.

Shhh. Buzz off and do your own research /ask your questions to yourself before posting.

This board and forum is not your "Agony Aunt".

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Apr 2017 19:30

^^^

Google ... current naval fighters (and future planned/studies) and STOBAR vs CATOBAR; do side-by-side performance/cost analysis. Then tell us which one you think would be a good replacement and why.

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Apr 2017 19:50

vina wrote:
SriJoy wrote:As of now, what is a viable alternative for the Mig-29K ? Are there any that would work with Vikramaditya ? Ie, if the MoD decieded to axe the Mig-29K and procure a fighter compliment for the Vikramaditya, what would be the most feasible plane ?

Thanks.
Shhh. Buzz off and do your own research /ask your questions to yourself before posting.

This board and forum is not your "Agony Aunt".

Intent on separating the joy from our newbie's namesake, are we? lol

As in any forum, there are crusty old SOBs here as well, SriJoy. You'll need to earn their respect with some well-thoughtout analysis to go along with the questions.

The MiG-29 issue and the IN's subsequent ordering of new carrier aircraft had been discussed for many, many pages. We had been going through the possible carrier capable aircraft (of which there really just a handful) over and over again. Rafale and F-18 are both rated for cat-launches not STOBAR, Sea Gripen is just paper and SU-33 is out of production. That really only leaves the F-35B if we want something other than the 29K.

Possible that Dassault and Boeing can respond with re-certification and reworking of the base Rafale M and Shortnet for STOBAR for the IN's tender. But sounds like a very long process. Again better by just going after the F-35.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Apr 2017 20:01

Ski jump is much less shock than cat launch. Other than figuring out max payload and extra fuel burned there is nothing really needed to make shornet or rafale ready for the ramp

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Apr 2017 20:06

Singha wrote:Ski jump is much less shock than cat launch. Other than figuring out max payload and extra fuel burned there is nothing really needed to make shornet or rafale ready for the ramp

The certification process will be near identical to the one being currently performed by the N-LCA team (Or the British at PAX River for that matter).

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Apr 2017 20:39

Singha wrote:Ski jump is much less shock than cat launch. Other than figuring out max payload and extra fuel burned there is nothing really needed to make shornet or rafale ready for the ramp

Not just the jump but landing speed, stall angle, etc. from what I recall reading of the Britshits deciding not to keep their carrier legacy continuous with the Hornet. But I could be entirely wrong.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2017 21:38

China is our only problem. We must match China. China China China. Our biggest threat.
https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 0440253440

NEWS: Snowden's leak confirms that the USN EP-3E involved in the 2001 Hainan island incident had collected Signals Intelligence on India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Apr 2017 21:51

JTull wrote:[Rant]
This is a classic example of short-term planning. There's no lifetime planning for assets. Without budgeting for future upgrades, every asset is drifting towards obsolescence from the day it is bought. No wonder our armed forces have a fascination with getting unobtanium because they don't know if and when they'll get even teething issues fixed. With desi projects, atleast all the stakeholders are local, but with the history of imports they still do not have roadmaps for future development but want unobtanium today (read, LCA, Arjun, et al).
[/Rant]

In 2010 US passed a law requiring four year(quadrennial) strategic planning by all the departments of their govt.

India has five year plans which are mainly paper exercises.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Apr 2017 21:54

SriJoy wrote:As of now, what is a viable alternative for the Mig-29K ? Are there any that would work with Vikramaditya ? Ie, if the MoD decieded to axe the Mig-29K and procure a fighter compliment for the Vikramaditya, what would be the most feasible plane ?

Thanks.

Short answer is no other alternative for IN use.

Some people think the 55 plane requirement is a carrot for Trump to get the F-35.

Some think its to torpedo the Naval LCA.

One useful thing would be to get hold of the new Naval Aircraft requirements and compare to available planes.
In a matrix or table format.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Apr 2017 00:00

SriJoy wrote:
ramana wrote:

Short answer is no other alternative for IN use.

Some people think the 55 plane requirement is a carrot for Trump to get the F-35.

Some think its to torpedo the Naval LCA.

One useful thing would be to get hold of the new Naval Aircraft requirements and compare to available planes.
In a matrix or table format.
Is F-35 even a realistic option for India ? The reason i ask, is because of what i read in the past about F-35 production schedule- aren't their production lines busy for the intermediate future filling pre-existing orders ? So even if we wanted and the carrot was dangled in front of us, wouldn't it take 5-7 years for our 'order' to hit the production lines ?

Thats rather depressing that we have no alternative to the Mig-29.

There are likely to be significant strategic, G2G, TOT, and IP control issues associated with a potential IN F-35 purchase but inability to deliver on routine/industry-standard deadlines (2-3 years from first order w/o extensive modifications and changes) is not going to be one of them. There is excess capacity sitting there through the end of this decade and into early next decade. Only once both the USAF and the Department of navy (USN and USMC) begin procurement at there maximum rates will there be a production constraint on the line.

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 25 Apr 2017 00:26

There is and its NLCA. Thankfully I don't see F-18, Rafale or F-35 ever serving in IN.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Apr 2017 01:26

Bheeshma wrote:There is and its NLCA. Thankfully I don't see F-18, Rafale or F-35 ever serving in IN.

As things stand there is an RFI/RFP with the MiG-29, Rafale, Shornet as the three most likely bidders along with perhaps the Sea Gripen (directly comparable to LCA-MK2) and who knows the Typhoon as well. All but the MiG-29K will require certification for the STOBAR carriers. Going through the list of items required to succesfully certify and establish envelop while launching from a STOBAR carrier on a multi-role aircraft is not straight forward. It requires a good bit of time and a fair bit of money.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Apr 2017 01:54

Bheeshma wrote:There is and its NLCA. Thankfully I don't see F-18, Rafale or F-35 ever serving in IN.

It could very well be the opposite. Nlca is nowhere in sight... And if it comes with a puny 10 ton engine, it is unlikely to go anywhere either.

Better to buy the entire production modification rights to mig29k/m as IAF mrca as well, and produce 200 of these. Cheap and common to all services. And then again maybe not.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 25 Apr 2017 02:01

The good thing with this RFP for 57 jets and our MOD is that it will ensure nothing comes before NLCA

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Apr 2017 04:15

Cain Marko wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:There is and its NLCA. Thankfully I don't see F-18, Rafale or F-35 ever serving in IN.
It could very well be the opposite. Nlca is nowhere in sight... And if it comes with a puny 10 ton engine, it is unlikely to go anywhere either.

Better to buy the entire production modification rights to mig29k/m as IAF mrca as well, and produce 200 of these. Cheap and common to all services. And then again maybe not.

CM,

Would greatly help if you could provide the T:W for a few configs of F-18/Mig-29K/Rafale/NLCA/Su-33. Please try to maintain the same fuel fraction, because they roughly use engines of similar SFC. We can go from there.