Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jan 2017 09:15

Short staffed Indian Navy refuses to accept resignations from the commanders on 'flimsy grounds'

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2017 09:25

by 2030 we will see far more than 50 J31 - its going to be their mainstream f-solah/JSF type play so expect high production rates once FOC.

3 x 65000t carriers will surely be completed or under work by 2030 = perhaps 2 done and 1 fitting out.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 28 Jan 2017 09:28

NRao wrote:Short staffed Indian Navy refuses to accept resignations from the commanders on 'flimsy grounds'

We have problem in navy too? Heard this problem in the army few years back.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2017 09:29

Cybaru wrote:Can the JSF use the Vik lifts?

should be able to if the LPD USMC ships will take JSF-B - similar deck edge lifts for 1 ac at a time. the CVN lifts can take 2 hornets with folded wings.

I think its in general a slightly smaller wingspan plane than Mig29K but not hugely so

vina · Post by **vina** » 28 Jan 2017 09:39

Well, today's Al Hundi has a write up about the Navy sending an RFP for 57 MRCB (multi role carrier borne) fighter. To summarize it basically says.

1. The Navy is not going to use the Naval Tejas in it's current config, but is backing the development of the Mk2 / carrier version (which is quite well known)
2. The Navy is NOT going to buy anymore Mig 29Ks, given the very "troubled" experience with that plan
3. The RFP doesnt specify single engine or double engine.

So basically it is this.

1 . The VikAd / Baku/Adm Gorshkov, burned out hull /refurbished stuff and the acquisition of the Mig 29K is an acquisition disaster par excellence The VikAd is going to be a "unique" specimen with maintenance like a "Bakasur" and nothing to show for it. We over paid to aquire the "free" hull, the Mig29Ks are absolute Kakkoose, ( so unreliable that I doubt it will deploy beyond single engine recover distance of a land base) . The Navy would have been FAR better off by trusting their own capabilities and built TWO of the Vikrant types for the VikAd aqcuisiton.

2. The Mig29K (Kakkoose) now seriously dents the operational capabilities of the VikAd AND Vikrant. The Navy bet that the Mig29K was a "proven" aircraft . Turns out the Mig29 engines are as bad as ever and is the ONLY available STOBAR aircraft in the world . The the Navy put all eggs into the Mig29K went with the STOBAR config and is now SERIOUSLY stuck with the Mig29K proving simply un-useable the two STOBAR hulls are seriously compromised.

3. The next hull HAS to have Cats (steam or emals doesnt matter. We might as well get the steam catapult if Emals is too expensive), the aircraft options are F18, Rafale M and F-35C.

4. VikAd will see it getting scrapped / being relegated to training /support roles within a decade of it's induction. The Vikrant is probably going to see Cats fitted on it (if steam cats, the ski jump might need to be removed.. I am not sure if the steam cats tubes can follow the contours of the ski jump).

5. The ONLY way VikAd can see of any meaningful use is IFF (ie if and only if) the LCA Mk2 Navy replaces the Mig 29K . There too, VikAd will be able serve a pure fleet air defense role, with the strike roles falling on the other two hulls. In any case, the VikAd is handicapped.

6. OH, I absolutely wont dhoti shiver at ALL about the Chinese Carrier capability. If given the IN's carrier experience and this is the situation of OUR Russian origin VikAd , I can just imagine the Chinese with similar hulls and even MORE unsuitable for carrier aircraft (the SU27 carrier variant). It will at best serve as a fleet air defense role ..

chola · Post by **chola** » 28 Jan 2017 09:51

Singha wrote:by 2030 we will see far more than 50 J31 - its going to be their mainstream f-solah/JSF type play so expect high production rates once FOC.

3 x 65000t carriers will surely be completed or under work by 2030 = perhaps 2 done and 1 fitting out.

I don't think so. The FC-31 is an afterthought created for the Pakis. It is a piece of crap that the PLAF/PLAN have not ordered.

In the end, it is not the J-20 or J-31 that should worry us. The "5th gen" PLAF aircraft will always be used out East against the USN. The J-20 is far more fighter/bomber than pure air superiority anyways and looked like it was designed for US carriers and AWACs.

The weight of numbers in their J-10 variants and Flanker clones are more important in any India/Cheen scenario than the "stealth" planes.

I believe they have one copy of the Varyag nearly complete and supposedly a CATOBAR in the works. But they will be in the same situation as the IN with two STOBAR carriers launching highly flawed aircraft -- the 29K for us and the Su-33 ripoff for them.

If and when their CATOBAR carrier is ready would the J-15 become formidable. But by then I hope the Vishal would be ready for F-18s or/and F-35s.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2017 09:53

the Mig29K fleet around 50 should be shifted to pune, andamans and gujrat bases for a seaward/rann of kutch defence role to supplement the 12 or so naval strike jaguars we have....this will relieve the pune based flankers and permit them to move along to other bases in other sectors.

with russis not confident enough to prove 1 engine recovery on their own LARGER carrier, I can see its going nowhere out of 16km territorial waters lol ... in a world first we have a seaward defence coastal CV class

to escort dvora and CG patrol boats to interdict smugglers and fish stealers.

we actually need something better for the ADS and Vikky if possible .... right now ..... the best option is get some VSTOL JSF because the USMC is leading the JSF FOC among the 3 types .... and we might be able to get some here and there off their production run if we ask nicely

with only RN and USMC as buyers the list of hungry mouths to be fed on that type is short , compared to the production run of CTOL and USAF versions

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jan 2017 10:56

Singha wrote:the Mig29K fleet around 50 should be shifted to pune, andamans and gujrat bases for a seaward/rann of kutch defence role to supplement the 12 or so naval strike jaguars we have....this will relieve the pune based flankers and permit them to move along to other bases in other sectors.

Would they need to use Air Force assets for this? If that is the case, then it also begs the question "Why have a naval air arm?".

I do know that there have been serviceability issues with MiG 29s - but writing them off as useless "Let them become landlubbers" may well be an overreaction to media reports of serviceability and the navy's request for more aircraft.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2017 12:35

Russi hv to prove 1 engine recovery which they have not done years after induction. That begs the point of having a carrier if it has to roam within a short range of divert airports and high engine issue rates

Neithet it can escort groups to aden or bandar abbas as air defence or strike gwader from deep sea and disappear.

Mig29k needs a one engine etops rating similar to b777 to make our carrier effective.but ge90 vs rd33mk3 cough cough

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jan 2017 12:47

I thought Russia did confirm the one engine landing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2017 12:58

Link please

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jan 2017 13:13

The 57 new aircraft will take several years to evaluate,award and then deliver.This is not a "quick-fix" for the 29Ks,as some fondly imagine. If there are problems with the 29Ks,then the OEM has to deliver according to whatever was signed in the contract,penalties/guarantees,etc.The next carrier expected 10 years from now will require a superior aircraft to the 29K. If you look at the MMRCA acquisition/drama,which ultimately ended up with only 36 aircraft bought ,In my opinion,only two of current aircraft fit the bill,the naval Rafale and JSF.The problem with both is that the Rafale is hugely expensive and the JSF,plagued with development problems,isn't the Donald's favourite bird either. If the IAF seal the deal on the FGFA,then 10 years from now,a naval version will definitely be available as it is being planned for the RUN and its future carriers. That would be the best option,but the IN need to wait for both the carrier and the aircraft.

Another problem is what will be operated from the two 45Kt cvs ,The Vik-A and IAC-1? Their dimensions of lifts,etc.,cannot be altered. The JSF's engine has a deck heat problem too,given the enormous heat produced by its massive engines. The Vik-A and IAC-1 may not be able to handle the "heat",pardon the pun! An "also ran" may be the Sea Gripen,touted by SAAB some years ago for the Viraat as well! But looking into the future and future ops,capabilities like advanced weaponry,radar, endurance,etc. ,a single-engined SG would be inadequate. This acquisition has many years to play out before a final conclusion is made.

PS:Good NDTV feature of an IN Kilo sub.
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/exclusiv ... on-1652951

http://www.ndtv.com/video/news/news/exc ... _prevvideo

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Jan 2017 13:19

Singha wrote:Link please

It was confirmed IIRC by Vishnu Som on one of a discussion couple of months back

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2017 13:29

Heat can be handled by addl coatings if needed. Carriers anyway have grippy coating on deck. We will get jars of coating for free if we take jsf

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Jan 2017 13:46

Best bet for IN if the 57 aircraft is to be procured within 5 years would be Rafale , IAF would be operating 36 Rafale and another 57 would make total rafale fleet strength to more than 90 aircraft , It would nicely compliment on the Logistics and Armament between IN & IAF , plus they additional 30 % offset as IN RFI has asked for beyond 50 % we got with IAF deal that can be used to indiginse the Rafale or opt for some technology that can help with AMCA or other programs of DRDO. They can also bargain on the price. Rafale would nicely complement the 29K.

Logistically/Training/Weapons/MRO/Life Cycle Support Rafale is the best bang for the buck

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Jan 2017 13:47

lets discuss something more ship .. what the heck is this ??

http://idrw.org/work-on-drdo-vessel-begins/#more-123004

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Jan 2017 14:30

http://defencenews.in/article/Construct ... ard-250151

The mega block assembly of the hull blocks of Ship No. 20, the Technology Demonstration Vessel (TDV) being built for the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), has begun at the Cochin Shipyard, marking a major milestone in the construction of the ship.

S. Christopher, Chairman of DRDO, launched the assembly. The vessel, with a length of 118.4 metres, width of 20 metres, draft of 7.1 metres, and having a steel weight of approximately 3,900 tonnes, was contracted in August 2015.

The vessel will have a rare capability to track the full flight of future long-range naval missile systems. The contract for the construction of the vessel worth Rs.365 crore was signed between the yard and the end-user in August 2015.

The ship would have an array of secret sensors and radars with undisclosed capability to track flight of long-range missiles during test-firing and probably more.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2017 14:41

I thought the ship already launched in vizag would do this

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jan 2017 14:46

Singha wrote:Russi hv to prove 1 engine recovery which they have not done years after induction. That begs the point of having a carrier if it has to roam within a short range of divert airports and high engine issue rates

Neithet it can escort groups to aden or bandar abbas as air defence or strike gwader from deep sea and disappear.

Mig29k needs a one engine etops rating similar to b777 to make our carrier effective.but ge90 vs rd33mk3 cough cough

Several issues here

ETOPS is a civil airliner rating that allows two engined aircraft to fly on routes that are more than 60 minutes flying time away from the nearest airport. MiG 29 issues have zero connection with ETOPS and the two should not be mixed up. ETOPS is from an era when only 4 engined passenger jets were allowed to fly transatlantic routes

Yes Navy MiG 29s have done single engined landings:

I would ignore the sensational headline to attract eyeballs and make advertising money
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/10000-cr ... 29-1437329

The CAG report says that since the MiG-29K plane was inducted in 2010, more than half of its engines have been diagnosed with design-related defects. "The issue had serious flight safety implications, since in-flight engine defects had led to ten cases of single engine landings," the report says.

Nor has the MiG-29 been able to fare acceptably during the violent process of landing on the tiny deck of an aircraft carrier. Restrained upon touchdown by an arrestor hook which snags a wire on the deck of the Vikramaditya, the MiG-29K has encountered several component failures.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jan 2017 14:52

Yes Navy MiG 29s have done single engined landings:

We're they certified to do so during those single engine landings?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jan 2017 15:04

NRao wrote:
Yes Navy MiG 29s have done single engined landings:
We're they certified to do so during those single engine landings?

The question tempts me to ask "What would they have done if they were not certified?"

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 28 Jan 2017 15:05

Singha wrote:I thought the ship already launched in vizag would do this

There are two programs afaik:

1. Floatjng test range: for tracking missiles tests. Bring built at cochin. We already have a fleet in service;

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... ure.76534/

2. Ballistic missile tracking ship, potentially for missile defence. Built at vizag.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jan 2017 15:09

If someone asks my serious opinion (why would anyone want my opinion on this?) as to whether IN MiG 29s were "certified by the Russians" to do one engine landings - I would guess that they would have said "Yes t is possible" without actually testing, or testing it on land. There us a precedent - the Russians assured the IAF that the IL 76 was cerified to carry a T 72. But the Russians never said how. Ultimately the Vayusena did it on its own with some nifty help from tank drivers

srin · Post by **srin** » 28 Jan 2017 16:27

I'm trying to figure out the single-engine landing problem. The only concept that I could come up was the single engine take-off in case of a missed approach or aborted landing (eg: tail hook fails to latch on to arresting cable). And too would be a factor of aerodynamics, TWR and carrier speed into the wind. But following the logic, I'm unable to answer what if a single-engined LCA Mk2 (or F35 !) suffers engine failure ?

So is this a technical problem (eg: control issues while landing on single engine) or a certification problem ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Jan 2017 17:09

As a matter of certification I think every double engine fighter aircraft and even double engine civil aircraft undergo single engine landing certification .

In war or even in peace time if you loose one engine due to hit or even bird hit , you are trained to land the aircraft on single engine after flying many minutes, same goes for civil they have etops standard

All you need is small piece of metal to enter into your fighter engine be it bullet or shrapnel and high chances are you will have a engine flame out, there were cases of Fighter aircraft gun left over shell having caused engine flame out.

IAF study i think it was there on brf that said two engine aircraft offer 3x more safety over single engine one

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Jan 2017 17:30

Aditya G wrote:
Singha wrote:I thought the ship already launched in vizag would do this
There are two programs AFAIK:

1. Floating test range: for tracking missiles tests. Bring built at Cochin. We already have a fleet in service;

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... ure.76534/

2. Ballistic missile tracking ship, potentially for missile defense. Built at vizag.

Those ships are hydro graphic / cartographic ships designed to map out sea beds and for deep ocean research .

This one is a new breed. Advanced sensors and radars to track and assess missile launches out to extended ranges. ( read other countries as well ! ).. a dual spy ship ., could be the harbinger a new series of high tech vessels

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 28 Jan 2017 17:33

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/449 ... ts-rs.html

I think this is the link for the first one.

Under construction at the Hindustan Shipyard Ltd (HSL), Visakhapatnam, the Ocean Surveillance Ship (P-11184) is a classified project, monitored directly by the Prime Minister’s Office. The ship’s keel was laid on June 30, 2014 and the shipyard has been given a timeline of December, 2015 to finish the project.

vina · Post by **vina** » 28 Jan 2017 17:50

The CAG report says that since the MiG-29K plane was inducted in 2010, more than half of its engines have been diagnosed with design-related defects. "The issue had serious flight safety implications, since in-flight engine defects had led to ten cases of single engine landings," the report says.

Hmm.., very "Yudhistir" like this CAG.. "Ashwattama hathaha Kunjaraha" ..sort of like "had led to ten cases of single engine landings in divert airfields" .

And why would it be Yudhishtir like and not landing on carrier with single engine like? Why, it is like this. The woman who sits in the cabin next to mine , her husband is in the Navy's air arm (a carrier pilot). Now if one his pal's engines go kaput in the air and he reports it to the air boss, I would ABSOLUTELY hope that the air boss directs to pilot to follow the SOP and divert to the nearest airport if within flying range and attempt a single engine carrier landing as the absolute last resort. As it is , a carrier landing is dangerous and with an engine out, even more dangerous. Far safer to divert to an airfield and do a conventional flared landing , rather than a slam down carrier landing and the risk of a bolter and the need to go around on a single engine with reduced safety margins. It is simply not worth risking the man and the machine unless it is absolutely unavoidable. The heroics are simply not worth it.

Carrier planes have higher fuel reserve requirements than the land ones, because of the need to cater to a go around in case of a missed trap. They will tend to have around 25 mins of reserve fuel. If the engine fails early enough (say 45 mins fuel left), it is far safer to divert if a landing field is within range.

ETOPS ... MiG 29 issues have zero connection with ETOPS and the two should not be mixed up. ETOPS is from an era when only 4 engined passenger jets were allowed to fly transatlantic routes

ETOPS is the reason why 4 engine (and 3 engine) planes went the way of the Dodo (the only one of consequence left is the A380, which too has uncertain future). With engine reliability increasing, ETOPS went 180 then 240, now it is close to a whopping 370 per wiki. Basically means nearly NO route is outside the range of a twin jet. Twin jet far cheaper to operate and more efficient than a 3 or 4 engine.

IAF study i think it was there on brf that said two engine aircraft offer 3x more safety over single engine one

Yes. But modern WESTERN engines are SO reliable that even the USN , which vehemently was against single engine types, signed up for the F-35C (remember, in a cat launched plane, the cat launch is at a sufficient margin so that the plane does take off, even if one engine is lost during /at launch.. in a one engine out approach, you probably have to approach a few knots faster than in the normal case, coz, you cant pick up enough speed in case of a bolter.. you are already trading off approach speed margins in this case.. hair raising just to think of it).. The USN was willing to over look ALL this and sign up for a single engine type with the F35. This talks volumes about their confidence in engine reliability.

Sorry. This Mig 29 (Kakkoose) with the RD-33 rubbish simply just does not cut it in this day and age with the kind of reported engine failures reported. The carrier & flight ops better stay within range of a divert airfield .

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 28 Jan 2017 17:56

jayasimha wrote:http://www.deccanherald.com/content/449 ... ts-rs.html

I think this is the link for the first one.

Under construction at the Hindustan Shipyard Ltd (HSL), Visakhapatnam, the Ocean Surveillance Ship (P-11184) is a classified project, monitored directly by the Prime Minister’s Office. The ship’s keel was laid on June 30, 2014 and the shipyard has been given a timeline of December, 2015 to finish the project.

Visakhapatnam - ATV - Advanced Technology Vessel for Indian Navy
Cochin - TDV - Technology Demonstration Vehicle for DRDO

Name, place, maker and buyer - all are different.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Jan 2017 18:50

shiv wrote:Yes Navy MiG 29s have done single engined landings:

Question is, did they do so on deck or they recover to shore?

Edit: Seems Vinaji has already pointed that out.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jan 2017 18:53

GeorgeWelch wrote:

Sorry for not being clear, I was of course referring to Mk 2 with 414

Right so far the deal for which has been stuck after for a long time now. After the flurry of announcements that 100 would be ordered, none have been so far.

GeorgeWelch wrote: True, but the Mk 2 isn't ready yet. As far as Mk 2 being speculative, IAF better hope not or that means the Tejas is a dead end

Granted but there is plenty of work to do to get from producing dozens of MK1/A's and then developing and producing similar number of MK2's. Meanwhile, they also want to acquire another single engine western fighter. It it tough to put a time-frame or a degree of certainty around an MK2 number count.

That's the advantage of the SH, the USN will be funding the development of upgrade packages so India won't have to do that.

The french will be doing the same for the Rafale. They are already working on the next sub variant with internal mission system changes. They have no other fighter. Besides, having someone develop these things is not the only cost. You have to invest in customizing them, procuring them, and making sure there are labs in place so that as you buy more and more control over these changes you have proper investment to maintain that. New types come with a fair bit of back end infrastructure requirement to keep them flying. It's not a trivial amount.

If the F-16 doesn't win, then it's the Gripen NG, and the Gripen NG supports US weapons and comes with the 414 too.

The IAF will be much smarter to procure the Meteor and other weapons that are common between the Gripen and the Rafale. That would be a smart thing to do. The Gripen's sole advantage is that some critical systems and weapons are not US controlled. It won't be cheaper to build in house than the F-16 and is a direct competitor to the MK2 LCA so I would put its odds below those of the F-16 but I am not yet certain that either of these aircraft will be acquired.

But I don't think it's actually that big of a deal, most navy logistics are going to be separate anyways and the US weapons are cheaper, so you're still likely to come out ahead, especially as any infrastructure is a one-time cost while weapons are expendable so any savings there will keep accumulating

Weapons being cheaper does not negate the need to maintain two entirely different supply chains, and logistical infrastructure to support, overhaul and maintain them. Commonality, where possible is a smart thing to aim. There is a reason nations do this.

__

If the IAF gets it's Rafale count to between 50-75 in the medium-long term, it will be quite foolish to induct another type in fairly smallish numbers (57) and having two seperate supply chains and logistics for them. It makes much more sense to buy a couple of more squadrons of Rafale's for the IAF and 57 of them for the IN getting the deal back to the 126 that had been planned earlier. Of course if the F-16 is selected and if the F414 EPE is pursued and is offered to the benefit of both the LCA and the AMCA then it becomes a different matter altogether.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2017 19:02

Brar saheb what is the unit price of vstol jsf and what would be lead time after a confirmed order? Could a few like 12 be got out of turn from production line?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jan 2017 19:06

The last Fly-Away cost for LRIP-9 was at $132 Million for the STOVL but it depends on how many are ordered by the JPO and which batch a new order is inserted in. I expect LRIP-10 Fly-away cost to be around $128-130 Million range. If there are more Bees ordered the price comes down. Same for the A and the C. There is a fair bit of capacity in the production line to increase rates but a 3 year lead time is still a requirement. The goal for FRP should be in the $110 Million range for the B although they only state the A variant goal since it's the largest variant from an acquisition program perspective.

In the US Thread I've posted the John McCain (Chairman SASC) proposal on F-35 production rate. He adds something like 92 aircraft to the Five year production plan. There is a lot of room to add production volume compared to where they plan to be in the 2018-2022 time-frame but of course the JPO needs to commit to these increases so that the suppliers build that capacity increase into their plans.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Jan 2017 19:12

They have classified the electronics from all images of the TDV for now.

AESA radars in different bands, satcom, electro-optical sensors, advanced computing on board.
This will probably be the MOST advanced ship in the world for the time being.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Jan 2017 19:14

srin wrote:I'm trying to figure out the single-engine landing problem. The only concept that I could come up was the single engine take-off in case of a missed approach or aborted landing (eg: tail hook fails to latch on to arresting cable). And too would be a factor of aerodynamics, TWR and carrier speed into the wind.

That's precisely it. If the pilot is coming in on a single engine, if he doesn't successfully trap the first time he may not have enough thrust to recover altitude.

But following the logic, I'm unable to answer what if a single-engined LCA Mk2 (or F35 !) suffers engine failure ?

If its an engine problem they'll still attempt a landing. In the F-35C's case, the pilot employs something called a "Delta Flight Path" which allows for partially automated glideslopes resulting in near perfect carrier landings. (The Super Hornet's 'Magic Carpet' employs the same tech.) ADA had/has something similar planned for the N-Tejas as well IIRC.

Now if its catastrophic engine failure, you're pretty much screwed. But... GE and P&W have achieved levels of reliability allowing the operators to be comfortable with a single engine type. RR & Safran too (the Mirage's 30 yr old engines are still going strong... mostly). Klimov/Saturn not so much. And while we've been fortunate enough to operate mostly twin engined types - the J-10 has suffered a spate of accidents with the Chinese are fingering the engine as the culprit. The two JF-17 crashes too are believed to be a result of engine failures.

So is this a technical problem (eg: control issues while landing on single engine) or a certification problem ?

Certification. That is to say, the IN wants UAC/RAC-MiG to demonstrate and certify single engine recovery/touch-and-go before it written into the IN operating manual.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Jan 2017 19:42

shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:the Mig29K fleet around 50 should be shifted to pune, andamans and gujrat bases for a seaward/rann of kutch defence role to supplement the 12 or so naval strike jaguars we have....this will relieve the pune based flankers and permit them to move along to other bases in other sectors.
Would they need to use Air Force assets for this? If that is the case, then it also begs the question "Why have a naval air arm?".

I do know that there have been serviceability issues with MiG 29s - but writing them off as useless "Let them become landlubbers" may well be an overreaction to media reports of serviceability and the navy's request for more aircraft.

Singha - as always - is bang on. However till the 57 new navy fighters come (the earliest the first squadron being raised/converted to the new type is approx 2022) into service, the MiG-29Ks will have to be stationed at the Shore Test Based Facility in Goa and on the Vikramaditya. Continuing/Maintaining the pool of qualified carrier pilots is very important to transition to the new type that is being sought. Then the birds can be transferred to Jamnagar AFS in Gujarat - as singha stated - for the seaward/rann of kutch defence. In fact, they can complement and eventually replace the Jaguar IM in the anti-shipping role. The IMs should be 25+ years now.

No naval air arm = no aircraft carrier = no force projection. An aircraft carrier is unique in that role. The fact that the MiG-29K has serious reliability issues should not be a reason to not have a naval air arm. A wrong purchase, but seeing the options available at that time (2004), I don't see how anything else other than the MiG-29K could have operated from the Vikramaditya.

Partnering with the IAF in the maintenance of MiG-29K, would be a good idea as they have been operating the type since the mid-80s. In fact, someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought a few SHAR pilots went to the IAF for familiarity training for the MiG-29.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jan 2017 19:47

http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/ ... 9-p-2.html

VishnuSom
18th December 2015, 12:44
Thanks Vishnu. Vikramaditya, her crews and her air complement seem to have reached a full ops status.

Did you see the Barak-1 installation?

How are the MiGs getting along, especially with regards to single engine landing?

Hi .. at the moment, there are ten pilots who are fully operational with 10 more who are in training in various advanced stages. The aircraft is fully operational in all configurations - single engine landings, I am told, has been tested.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Jan 2017 19:48

The IAF Jaguar IMs operated the Sea Eagle (since retired) and now have the Harpoon as their primary anti-ship missile.

Indian Air Force Test Fired A Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile from its Jaguar IM Aircraft for the First Time
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -time.html

In September 2010, India’s Economic Times reported that India signed a deal with Boeing for 24 Harpoon Block II missiles in late July 2010 for its Jaguar aircraft. Boeing describes the Harpoon Block II as "capable of executing both land-strike and anti-ship missions," and its "500-pound blast warhead delivers lethal firepower against a wide variety of targets," according to Boeing website.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jan 2017 19:56

these also replaced the old agave radar with the el2032 I believe.
advantage of using Mig29K for seaward air defence and ASM is the blind nav systems and life rescue eqpt needed for operating over the sea , corrosion resistant coating etc would already be in place.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Jan 2017 19:59

yes they did actually. I forgot about the radar upgrade! Dude, you are singing music to my ears. Jamnagar AFS and Lohegaon AFS are ideal locations for the Indian Navy to operate the MiG-29K in a land based, but anti-shipping and air defence role.