Indian Naval Discussion

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Jan 2011 11:58

May be we should have a common design adaptable to both SSK and SSN, say like Barracuda class sub. Maybe this way we can get a 4000+t SSK to form a second tier.

Barracuda is supposed to weigh around 5000+t fully submerged. Heaviest component of SSN is nuclear reactor. Replacing the reactor with diesel engine in all probability get us around 4000+t SSK, suitable to IN doctrine.

kit · Post by **kit** » 24 Jan 2011 12:11

Whatever class the submarine is decided upon should come in at least 6 numbers, that should provide economy of scale and maintanence.Or for that matter any capital ship as well.The 3 numbers currently in vogue for a class of vessel with the IN should be abandoned.

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 24 Jan 2011 12:19

Actually the options for large submarines are there. These being all the shipyards that had responded to the original Collins class RFP, other than the Kockums design.

They were:
1) DCNS' proposal for a conventional version of the Rubis class
2) HDW + Thyssen Nordseewerk' proposal for TR 1700
3) Dutch Walrus class

We could also consider going to Kockums for a modified Gotland class. But, by far, the best solution would be similar to that suggested by Kanson

May be we should have a common design adaptable to both SSK and SSN, say like Barracuda class sub.

Since DCNS' is already deeply involved with Mazagaon and IN for the Scorpenes, we should initiate this now. Infact the recent deal for the 3 Scorpenes should have been used to hook into the Barracuda convetional version option.

'feelers' could be sent to japan if they are open to selling part of their new 4200t Soryu SSK design to form the chassis of our P75.

Am not too sure about the Japanese, what with their bellyaching and superciliousness....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Jan 2011 12:48

Since the PLAN is going to have between 80-100 subs by 2025 and Pak to benefit from several Yuan SSKs and possibly even an N-sub,the IN must have a minimum of 36+ conventional and N-subs by 2020-2025.This figure cannot be achieved with the curent local sub-buildng programme.The key weapon systems that hese subs must carry ae in order of priority,IRBM/ICBMs for our SBNs,LR cruise missiles (1000km+) and Brahmos super/hypersonic ant-ship and land attack missiles,plus multi-role Klub missiles ,which can be fired from ubes of smaller convenional subs.

As far as ICBMs/BMs are concerned,these will all be home-made and fitted to our home built ATV series of SSBNs.W may need more SSGNs (Akulas) from Russia,giving priority to buildign our SSBNs first.Numbers rerquired are 6+6.We were operating three types of conventional subs.Kilos,U-209s an Foxtros-which have now been pensioned off.In the future,we will aso be operating three types.Scorpenes,U-boats and upgraded Kilos.Of these,the Kilos and U-boats will be due for replacing later in the decade.None of the western boats can carry Brahmos an therefore,a Russian design that has AIP + B'Mos is required,probably a variant of the Amur/Lada whatever.This sub should be large enough for true blue-water ops given that it will/should carry 8 B'Mos in silos,plus an assortment of 18 other weapons,wire-guided and heavyweight wake-homing torps,Klubs,Shkvals too and LR cruise-missiles.The cruise missies could be lanched from either the larger sized tubes (as in Israeli Dolphins) or even the silos.These subs will progressivley replace the Kilos.8-10 are required.

The German U-boats modernised,should also be augmented an eventually replaced by a new German U-boat deisgn,preferably the U-214 AIP type,based upon the earlier U-209s.Greece which has ordered several is finding it difficult to pay for (Germany has a deal to rescue the Greek economy) and a deal could be worked out to buy/lease some of these subs.These subs are in construction/delivery status and would be the fastest way in which the IN can augment its dwindling fleet.A total of 8 would be required.Adding another 2-4 AIP Scorpenes to he orginal 6 would then give the IN 24+ conventional subs,of which two-thrds would have AIP.The Scorpenes and U-boats would be best suited for the SSK littoral warfare role,primarily anti-sub/anti-shipping of dea with the Paki and PLAN subs "sniffing" around our coastline and island territories.POst 2020,a new class of Indian design that amalgamates "the best of the best",should be worked out to replace the oldest type still in servicel.If one observes the various tsks that IN subs are required to perform,t is clear that at least two types of conventional subs are required.One primarily as an SSK "hunter-killer" for blue-brown water ops and another as an SSG,larger with longer range/endurance for blue-water ops.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jan 2011 12:55

the TR1700 and Walrus class in service seem to be much smaller than even the Kilo. I agree that HDW might be able to dust off some mothballed larger design study and hence scale up their basic U214 but being there through two programs Soryu and Collins counts heavily in favour of Kockums all things like political risk and cost if we ignore for a moment.

the piddly scorpene types we seem intent on building will hardly take a serious bite out of the lizard. all focus seems to be on replacing retiring older kilos than on planning big for a offensive posture. there is no prospect of VL brahmos/nirbhay for sure due to hull diameter issues .... even integrating Klub is not possible for western subs...it has to be a sub whose design and integration we own, buying services and blocks from abroad as needed....only then we can integrate our choice of weapons rather than "take it or leave it" and pushing sales by western/rus vendors.

perhaps lack of funds are the culprit. I am sure IN realizes who it is up against in the next round ( it aint the PN )

kit · Post by **kit** » 24 Jan 2011 13:57

I dont know if it is lack of funds, the 50000 Crore 'mother/father of all defence deals planned for acquisition of submarines is case in point.
.If we cant build them in sufficient number by, say a time when it is required ( God forbid., the lizard has a habit of choosing its own time, but heck its our fault anyway)., buy them .Give 6 orders to sweden and another 6 to Germany.Hopefully another 12 will be'made in india' in hopefully another decade or so.At least the foreign maal would be there when it is required.Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 24 Jan 2011 20:05

Indian Navy plans base in Lakshadweep
http://www.zeenews.com/news682631.html

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Jan 2011 20:15

^^^

This is a rant.

I find it extremely amusing that the members think that India should get weapons from all the major weapon provides in the world. Some one is speaking of subs from both the Swedes and the Germans. Why the Russians are left behind. We already have french origin boats ready to enter service with the IN.

So I propose that we should create a musueme of diffrent sub classes as designed by the host nations.

6 sweeds
6 germans
6 russians
and
6 each from any other nation (Excluding the French) that I have let out feel free to name them.

So you can see that the IN fleet will have 24 boats by my numbers. That number will be sufficient to meet any need of the IN.

Rant off.............

nits · Post by **nits** » 24 Jan 2011 23:45

DRDO Next - NAVAL UNDERWATER WEAPON SYSTEMS

"Light Weight Torpedo TAL (Torpedo Advanced Light): Light Weight Torpedo TAL (Torpedo Advanced Light) which is useful in anti-submarine warfare operations. Capable of being launched from both ships and aircraft, this torpedo is presently under induction into service.

Heavy Weight Torpedo VARUNASTRA: The Heavyweight Torpedo VARUNASTRA, which is in the final phases of technology development, is a weapon that incorporates advanced technology for greater power, reach and lethality. Upon induction, VARUNASTRA would be a world-class underwater weapon with the country.

Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV): Also displayed is the AUTONOMOUS UNDERWATER VEHICLE (AUV), a multi-mission unmanned underwater vehicle that is highly effective for surveillance, reconnaissance, counter-intelligence and attack modes of operation.

Maareech Decoy System: Also featured is the MAAREECH decoy system, which seduces the incoming torpedo and prevents it from homing to our platforms by its advanced countermeasure capabilities."

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 25 Jan 2011 00:14

Raghavendra wrote:Indian Navy plans base in Lakshadweep
http://www.zeenews.com/news682631.html

I never thought there was enough space @ Lakshwadeep to operate fixed wing aircraft and warships + radars. This is news to me.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 00:52

Singha wrote:the JMSDF purchased tech for Soryu from kockums of sweden (is that a subsidiary of HDW now?). Kockums was also the vendor designer for the 4000t collins class. if you want a 4000t high endurance SSK design they have the experience and hard lessons learnt.

if we want a 1500t design then HDW U214, Spain Navantia S1000, French DCN "Marlin" , Amur are all there....problem is these might not be suitable for the long range strike missions in south china sea....a reason why australia chose a uniquely large collins design was to patrol their vast northern seas. to fight the fight you have to get there and get back which is where I think these uber-large SSKs do better.

to my knowledge other than Aus and Japan nobody has a design or plans for 4000t SSK. even the old Kilo is quite large compared to the smallish SSKs being sold these days.

so we might talk to both Japan (for sub fabrication and other aspects) and to Kockums (for all aspects). one adv is these designs carry 30 weapons in torpedo room vs 14 in kilo/scorpene types. in an era where less has to do more, a surviving large sub can keep up the fight for much longer using its better endurance and higher weapons count....not a SSN by any means...10-15 knots slower submerged for fast breaking transits, lesser weapons (SSNs like seawolf have room for 60-80 ) , more austere sensor pkg (no cost-no-object spherical bow sonar)...but bigger legs and teeth than then ambush SSKs generally available.

Well, the Collin-class were not exactly an success in the beginning. To much labor-union and politics in Australia involved, it turned out OK but it was a hard road to get there.
As for Japan, it is interesting. They have all the money in the world but still have chosen the Swedish way, all from Stirling AIPs, to ELMA/EMMA anti-sub mortars and swedish sonars down to SAAB 340 coastal guard air planes. And the Stirling etc. are also the cheapest option compared to German fuel cells.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s It´s a good thing we are all friends.

Somebody mentioned something about hunting submarines in a littoral area. Now we are in mine neighborhood

You were right when you said it is more difficult then in open waters. But you were wrong about MAD. Simply because MAD does not work at all in shallow waters. The sea bed consists of mountain matter, it is very much magnetic. That confuses the MAD. Besides that there are dozens of other factors that makes hunting subs in littoral areas a bitch, just ask me and I´ll tell you, I have first hand experience.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Jan 2011 07:13

Wickberg wrote:
Well, the Collin-class were not exactly an success in the beginning. To much labor-union and politics in Australia involved, it turned out OK but it was a hard road to get there.
As for Japan, it is interesting. They have all the money in the world but still have chosen the Swedish way, all from Stirling AIPs, to ELMA/EMMA anti-sub mortars and swedish sonars down to SAAB 340 coastal guard air planes. And the Stirling etc. are also the cheapest option compared to German fuel cells.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s It´s a good thing we are all friends.

At the end of the youtube clip, a next gen sub which can withstand torpedo attack was mentioned. Are they referring to A26 ? Are they referring to double hull ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine

The new submarine project is intended to be an improved version of the Gotland class submarine, which will be considered obsolete around 2015–2017 according to Per Skantz, development co-ordinator at the Marine headquarters in Stockholm.[3] The submarine will displace 1 900 tonnes[1] and have a crew complement of between 17 and 31 men.[4] The 2008–2010 military budget memorandum to the Minister for Defence by the Supreme Commander Håkan Syrén would require the type to cost no more than the current Gotland class

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2011 08:54

DCN had unveiled a proposal for a SMX21 sub that looked like two hulls side by side pasted together .... dont know what became of it.
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Und ... rance.html

quite a futureistic concept and needs major funding from home country to ever become a reality...but the french are busy funding the barracuda SSNs and lot of FREMM ships so dont think it will be anytime soon.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2011 09:02

the gotland sub commander looks like robin soderling's brother

and both hit hard.

Selousie · Post by **Selousie** » 25 Jan 2011 10:24

Does these squadrons have 4 units only vs 15-20 aircraft ?[/quote]

Currently 4 units. it could be expanded.

Porbandar and Kochi bases are good enough to cover the west coast line.[/quote]

Hi Chackojoseph,

I'm new to this board, I've searched a few places for further info on the UAV Squadron at Porbanar. Seems I have a lot to learn with who's who and where. I'm wanting to get to talk to someone in Porbandar or really any UAV Squadron, Air Force, Navy or Army. I work for a company that have a unique MTI plug and play software solution for analysing aerial surveillance imagery in real time. It detects and tracks moving targets on the ground below a UAV or aerial vehicle equiped with EO/IR sensors.

As we all know ISR using EO/IR sensors has traditionally suffered three major drawbacks.
1) Operators tend to fixate on objects they can easily see, potentially missing others not as obvious
2) To ensure human operators can easily see moving objects, the camera needs to be zoomed in to a degree that it is like looking at the ground through a straw
3) It is very hard for human operators to detect the very small things on screen

Our solution overcomes each of these limitations and can reliably detect objects down to 2 pixels, therefore the area of coverage is significantly greater than can be handled with an operator relying on his eyesight.

I hope you or anyone on this board can help me. Thanks!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Jan 2011 11:41

Hi Selouse,

Please mail me [email protected]

Beoeing send me the specs of P-8I

Apologies if folks already know about it.

Selousie · Post by **Selousie** » 25 Jan 2011 12:20

chackojoseph wrote:Hi Selouse,

Please mail me [email protected]

Beoeing send me the specs of P-8I

Apologies if folks already know about it.

Thanks, I've emailed you

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 25 Jan 2011 12:41

There were rumors a couple years ago that the IAC-II would have cats, has there been any further confirmation of this?

I ask, because while the MiG-29K and N-LCA are 'Naval' aircraft, they aren't capable of cat launches, just the arrested recovery.

And cats and ski-jumps don't work together, so if IAC-II did have cats, it wouldn't have ski-jumps and none of India's current or planned naval fighters could fly from it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2011 13:01

all depends if IN wants JSF or Rafale for IAC-II and beyond, has to be a long term decision...there is no point in doing it just for one carrier. the N-LCA even with improvements is too small to do what the Rafale can do (not sure of JSF..but cats anyday are better than skijump for heavy payload launches)....
someone was also saying about N-Pakfa....which is tied to whether Rus wants to run with Mig35-2 or Pakfa for its planned carriers, funding, timeframes, threat perceptions...Rus has nobody to really beat up on the periphery and for dealing with rebels like Georgia perhaps Mistrals and land base are enough...

I'd say nothing is finalized. one would find strong support atleast on BRF for IN to have a strong land based strike wing of MKI/Rafale too like PLANAF

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 25 Jan 2011 13:05

Which is the reason why the IN has issued a RFI for advanced naval fighters.

There was an article perviously mentioning some companies have given a presentation on installing cats on IAC-2 provided they have the permission. IMHO this will get through and we will see IAC-2 with 30-40 JSF and US based AEW aircraft .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2011 13:12

yes I suppose the US will extract its pound for flesh for supplying cats - atleast 4-6 E2D and a strong push for JSF - we can carefully look at if JSF offers better things than Rafale (probably yes, given the french dont have much money to continue developing a rafale2 for 2020). JSF will have a better radar, a better a2a missile (amraam-D + joint air dominance missile), more glassy iphone cockpit, a more modern engine, more stealthy menacing "looks" and match the AASM a2g family with its own J-series micro-munitions......

inshallah we can put up a psyops show == CDG task group with IAC-1 (yeah yeah no cats I know)...and surpass that once IAC-II is done...we better do it asap.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 25 Jan 2011 14:12

The only 5th generation aircraft capable of operating from aircraft carriers is F-35. All the other ship-borne fighters are 4/4.5+ generation. Even the PAK-FA/T-50 is meant for land based operations and not ship borne operations. Since we do not know whether a naval version of J-20 is planned or not, it is fair to assume that in the coming decade F-35 will remain the only 5th generation ship-borne fighter. For IN getting hold of this aircraft would be good provided we have a plan to deal with the restrictions which will come with F-35, like the unwillingness of uncle to share the computer source code, etc. Coupled with Mig-29K, the F-35 will provide a deadly combination.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 25 Jan 2011 15:40

IN will not insist on source code but may insist on having some indegenious weapons integrated to F-35 like Astra BVRAAM or sudershan LGB kits. The combination of cats + AEW + F-35 will be the best in market and french cannot offer anything better.

I seriously doubt wether the Unkil will agree to Install cats on IAC-2 for rafale.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Jan 2011 15:52

>> Even the PAK-FA/T-50 is meant for land based operations and not ship borne operations.

a very strange comment. there are no fighters that are meant for both land based and ship based operations, certainly not the F35. the land based F35 and carrier based version are significantly different from each other. as for the PAKFA, much like the F35, it will have a naval version as well.

singha ji, unkil will move on to EM cats and will try to offload yesterday's tech of steam powered cats to us AND extract a pound of flesh (or two) for it. IN will likely select naval bariant of FGFA or AMCA or both.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 25 Jan 2011 15:57

Rahulji can you please elaborate on the Naval version of PAK-FA/T-50 ??

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Jan 2011 16:28

there isn't much to elaborate other than the fact that sukhoi honchos have confirmed the existence of a naval PAKFA project which is expected to appear in the later part of this decade. google will give you the details.
from a different POV, even without that bit of news, naval PAKFA is a given unless the R falls off BRIC tomorrow. russia has sacrificed its current force levels to barebones standard in order to fund R&D of newer gen arms. russi MOD is holding out for the next gen toys which is why they have inducted only token amounts of the modernised 4gen fighters so as not to waste resources on legacy craft. RuN is certainly not going to surrender carrier ops and neither can they continue with su-33's or mig-29k's into 2030's. modifying an already fleshed out PAKFA for carrier ops is just the logical nest step.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Jan 2011 17:17

Can somebody clarify something for me - were any of the Navy's Do-228 fleet fitted with sonobuoys and the necessary processing gear ?

I recall reading this in what might be termed the Navy's semi-official history - Transition to Emminence and Transition to Guardianship - and recall reading a CAG report that indicated that 5 sets of such gear were procured for the navy's Do-228.

Yet, we also have a later CAG report that casts doubt on the above.

Also, does anyone know how widespread the FLIR/AMSOP installations are on the Dornier fleet ?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Jan 2011 17:29

Indian Navy sailing ship INS Sudarshini hits water

I'll post the hull pic in sometime.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Jan 2011 17:38

INS Sudarshini Hull

kit · Post by **kit** » 25 Jan 2011 18:08

Pratyush wrote:^^^

This is a rant.

I find it extremely amusing that the members think that India should get weapons from all the major weapon provides in the world. Some one is speaking of subs from both the Swedes and the Germans. Why the Russians are left behind. We already have french origin boats ready to enter service with the IN.

So I propose that we should create a musueme of diffrent sub classes as designed by the host nations.

6 sweeds
6 germans
6 russians
and
6 each from any other nation (Excluding the French) that I have let out feel free to name them.

So you can see that the IN fleet will have 24 boats by my numbers. That number will be sufficient to meet any need of the IN.

Rant off.............

How else do you think IN will get its submarines some numbers of two digits ? It is already a circus with kilos,hdws and scorpenes.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 25 Jan 2011 18:18

Rahul M wrote:there isn't much to elaborate other than the fact that sukhoi honchos have confirmed the existence of a naval PAKFA project which is expected to appear in the later part of this decade. google will give you the details.
from a different POV, even without that bit of news, naval PAKFA is a given unless the R falls off BRIC tomorrow. russia has sacrificed its current force levels to barebones standard in order to fund R&D of newer gen arms. russi MOD is holding out for the next gen toys which is why they have inducted only token amounts of the modernised 4gen fighters so as not to waste resources on legacy craft. RuN is certainly not going to surrender carrier ops and neither can they continue with su-33's or mig-29k's into 2030's. modifying an already fleshed out PAKFA for carrier ops is just the logical nest step.

Rahul ji the so called naval version of T-50/PAK-FA is just a prospect. If one is to believe, the former head of the air forces and air defense forces of the Russian Navy, then the naval version of 5th generation fighter will be decided after a competition between the design bureau of Mig, Sukhio and Yakovlev. That will be done only post 2020 or when Russia has the money or when India/China request Russia for a 5th generation aircraft carrier capable fighter. From all indications, even the Indian agreement with Russia, does not envisage a naval version of T-50/PAK-FA.
This is unlike other fighter development like our proposed AMCA or F-35 and French Rafael. All of these fighters were designed from day one with naval operations in mind.

So we can safely say that PAK-FA/T-50 is meant to be a land based fighter and F-35C will remain in the interim the only 5th generation fighter capable of operating from ships.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2011 18:56

Unkil did sell the french steam cats for Rafale in exchange for cash and 4 E2.

so its not true that cats have not been supplied by Unkil for non-US planes.

Cats are complex eqpt but not a unattainable level of engineering for India too. the bigger problem is how does a gas turbine/diesel ship produce enough steam for high tempo of launch ops...unkil does it with reactor driver steam turbines and does CDG. ulyanovsk was going to be nuclear powered. CVF ships will buy cats from unkil surely.

I think we need to devote resources to this area we did operate cats on INS Vikrant in wartime 1971. should IAC2 be a modern steam turbine ship (godavari & brahmaputra class is steam powered too and so was the leander class).

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Jan 2011 19:24

^^^ When it comes to a GT producing steam it may be a function of utilizing the Hot exhaust gases of the GT.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 19:24

Kanson wrote:
Wickberg wrote:
Well, the Collin-class were not exactly an success in the beginning. To much labor-union and politics in Australia involved, it turned out OK but it was a hard road to get there.
As for Japan, it is interesting. They have all the money in the world but still have chosen the Swedish way, all from Stirling AIPs, to ELMA/EMMA anti-sub mortars and swedish sonars down to SAAB 340 coastal guard air planes. And the Stirling etc. are also the cheapest option compared to German fuel cells.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s It´s a good thing we are all friends.
At the end of the youtube clip, a next gen sub which can withstand torpedo attack was mentioned. Are they referring to A26 ? Are they referring to double hull ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine

The new submarine project is intended to be an improved version of the Gotland class submarine, which will be considered obsolete around 2015–2017 according to Per Skantz, development co-ordinator at the Marine headquarters in Stockholm.[3] The submarine will displace 1 900 tonnes[1] and have a crew complement of between 17 and 31 men.[4] The 2008–2010 military budget memorandum to the Minister for Defence by the Supreme Commander Håkan Syrén would require the type to cost no more than the current Gotland class

I don´t think the A26 will feature a double hull. It´s emphasis will be more on stealth, sensors and situational awareness. It is even talk it could feature a "periscope-type gun" (kind of the guns of subs a´la WW2) to fight pirates outside Africa. This clearly shows how the Swedish armed forces have shifted their ambitions. From defending Sweden in a WW3 kind of scenario to an small force intended for international missions.
This video shows how the Swedish navy is intended to work;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs_Zz4CC7go

And this shows the difference between a US recruitment add vs a Swedish. The American one emphases on strength, courage and fighting for you home country. The Swedish one on helping your fellow man when crises hits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWqT8Rlj ... re=related

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 25 Jan 2011 19:32

Rahul M wrote:there isn't much to elaborate other than the fact that sukhoi honchos have confirmed the existence of a naval PAKFA project which is expected to appear in the later part of this decade.

Again, a naval PAK-FA will just be for STOBAR operations, not CATOBAR.

India would have to fund the development for cat launches separately.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Jan 2011 20:03

russian admirals speak through their hat, which is well known to anyone who follows the russki military. they have their own inter-dept rivalry, disagreements with production bureaus and sundry other political games to play. believe them at your own risk.

as I said sukhoi bureau's chief pogosyan has confirmed that the naval PAKFA is in the works and at the risk of repeating myself, a naval PAKFA makes sense for russia's own sake and is not subject to Indian or chinese funding (AFAIK not selling to the chinese was one of the pre-requisites of Indian participation). that's not to say they will not be interested in Indian support for the program.
sukhoi itself has enough funds to see through such a project without russian govt funding.

if you want to believe US will be the only country with a 5gen carrier-borne fighter for the next 50 years, even if all trends point otherwise, it's your choice. we will know for sure in another 5-6 years anyway.

Again, a naval PAK-FA will just be for STOBAR operations, not CATOBAR.

India would have to fund the development for cat launches separately.

true, but I the carrier would be designed around the aircraft chosen, not the other way around. I suspect the whole thing is still quite fluid right now.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2011 20:18

I suppose a ship needs to be sailing above a certain speed to launch a/c from cats? and nobody can launch cat a/c sailing at a sedate 12 knots?
in that be the case a gas turbine powerplant will be running at near full steam when the ship needs to launch a/c so hot exhaust gas will be there in plenty...question is will running it through a steam generator plant be enough...and if it will mean any operational compromise or limit in launch rate...

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 25 Jan 2011 20:35

Singha wrote:question is will running it through a steam generator plant be enough...and if it will mean any operational compromise or limit in launch rate...

If they were going to put cats in, it would certainly make sense to go with EMALS at this point.

However, steam cats are certainly possible on non-nuclear ships. For instance the French variant of the CVF (PA2) has steam cats but is conventionally powered.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Jan 2011 20:36

Yep! A naval FGFA is in works.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 25 Jan 2011 20:50

chackojoseph wrote:Yep! A naval FGFA is in works.

Will it be CATOBAR capable?