Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

[kit]

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.

can you please post the link that has detailed info ??

[Katare]

Those MiG-29K have 8% serviceability, the most cost effective way would be to find a way get rid of them or mothball them until design / certification issues are resolved by russians.

I would much rather pay 3x in capital cost and enjoy 80% serviceability than pay peanuts and fiddle with monkeys.

[brar_w]

Just read Ajai Shukla's blog post and this passage baffles me -

Meanwhile, development delays could rule out the two F-35 variants --- the vertical take off and landing (VTOL) F-35B and the catapult launched F-35C. However, Saab officials, speaking off the record, confirm emphatically that they will offer the Sea Gripen. “We have done detailed feasibility studies that encounter no problem in evolving the Gripen E into a carrier-borne fighter”.

The STOVL F-35B is operational with Block 2B/3I configuration. The IN can go in and evaluate that right now. The full SDD capability i.e. Block 3B will port over to the fleet around Q1-Q2 of 2018 i.e. about a year from now. They could go out and evaluate it then. Subsequently, as was the case with 2b/3I it would probably take a few more months beyond that to fully debug and sort out the final glitches.

Regardless, there is no SDD schedule issue that could prohibit the IN from at the very least evaluating a STOVL F-35B or CV F-35C, early to mid next year. The F-35C will likely complete all of its engineering changes, rectify discovers etc by early 2019 but that too is hardly something that will either hold back an evaluation or conflict with any schedule. These things won't really be acquired until possibly well into next decade. There are geopolitical and licensing and TOT concerns here and I've voiced them many times but that shouldn't really prevent them from at least having a look at it especially if the Super Hornet is being looked at.

The Gripen-E on the other hand has not even flown yet. All the IN can evaluate at the moment is the Gripen-C and by the time the Gripen-E declares IOC with Brazil, the F-35 is scheduled to field block 4.1 capability if not block 4.2 that would bring both hardware, and software upgrades in addition to new weapons (SDBII, Possibly Meteor, and possibly AARGM-ER ARM). There is a time-element to the design of a CV variant of the Gripen and it's really no small task. If it were Lockheed would be all over proposing an F-16 Sea Viper to complement their single engine fighter pitch to the IAF. It's costly and time-consuming to create a CV variant of a land based fighter and then go test-point by test-point and clear it for such a role.

If there is no twin engine requirement and the Sea Gripen is competing then one would be foolish to not at least go in and test out the F-35B or C both of which can support STOBAR and CV operations. Operating from a STOBAR, the F-35B will still get you a pretty good combat range (>1600 km) compared to others in the same space, particularly the Gripen and Shornet.

Interestingly there are influential voices even within the US advocating for a two-tier carrier force with the Ford class/Nimitz at the top tier and a sea-control carrier (most likely a scaled up AMERICAS with a larger aviation component comprising of F-35B's and V-22's) for the sea control mission.

[Austin]

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.

That was the Vishnu post I was referring to Shiv on single engine landing , Good Find

[Austin]

Those MiG-29K have 8% serviceability, the most cost effective way would be to find a way get rid of them or mothball them until design / certification issues are resolved by russians.

I would much rather pay 3x in capital cost and enjoy 80% serviceability than pay peanuts and fiddle with monkeys.

Hardly 8 % check the cag report.

Serviceability is question of spares as they improve so will be the uptimes, mki serviceability was brought up from 45% to 63% in one and half year

With mig opening service centre in India this year expect in 2 years iaf and in 29 having better uptimes

[Rakesh]

Those MiG-29K have 8% serviceability, the most cost effective way would be to find a way get rid of them or mothball them until design / certification issues are resolved by russians.

I would much rather pay 3x in capital cost and enjoy 80% serviceability than pay peanuts and fiddle with monkeys.

This is more of a serviceability issue than a design issue. The Fulcrum airframe is a old & proven one and granted there are design changes in the naval variant vis-a-vis the air force variant, this is more of a quality issue. You will have to throw 3x (or more) in capital costs to get them to IN desired service levels. Considering how new these airframes are, it is a cost the naval air arm will have to swallow.

[NRao]

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?"

Well. It was the IN , about a year or so ago, that had requested the certification.

Apparently, for whatever reason/s, the plane was not officially certified. My recollection is that the Russians did certify it AFTER the IN request. Till then, IIRC, the 29Ks, of the Indian navy, were either shore based or the ship stayed within the range of the shore for possible diversion.



Vishnu Som reporting is not certification. With all due respect.

[shiv]

Incidentally, let me ask a question that is as difficult to answer as "What percentage of this product is Indian made"?

The question is "What does 100% serviceability mean?"

From what I have read here and there 100% serviceability means 100% of the aircraft have 100% of the systems working. However - as far as my knowledge goes - if an aircraft has something that is not working - then that aircraft is not 100% fit in all its potential capability. For example - if the RWR is not working, or if some bulbs have fused and not replaced - the aircraft may be flyable and may even be able to perform missions - but it cannot be included as 100% serviceable. Mind you this is what I think and believe - and I am not stating this as a person who actually knows the truth in this regard.

So I am guessing that if you have 33% fleet serviceability - it does not mean that only 1 in 3 aircraft is fit to fly. It mean that 2 in 3 aircraft have problems ranging from critical to not so critical which need attention. Some of them may be flyable and some not flyable. In this regard I recall reading an article recently where it was stated that (some) civil airliners have rule books that state that partial malfunction of some control surfaces (can't recall which) still do not rule out the aircraft from flying because that malfunction can be compensated for by other systems, but the aircraft is marked for attention and may be ruled unfit for flying if something else goes wrong. But that aircraft is "serviceable" but not 100% fault free

JMT. If anyone has better information or can pull up something from Google, experience or musharraf I would be grateful

[deejay]

Incidentally, let me ask a question that is as difficult to answer as "What percentage of this product is Indian made"?

The question is "What does 100% serviceability mean?"

...

JMT. If anyone has better information or can pull up something from Google, experience or musharraf I would be grateful

Each aircraft has a Log Book on Technical / Maintenance records. It's called the Form 700 in the IAF. If a snag is entered on the Form 700 then the aircraft is not serviceable or if the aircraft is due for a scheduled inspection, even then it is not serviceable. The sum total of such aircraft determine the % of serviceable or not serviceable aircraft.

[chola]

Check out Raj's tracking of the Peeple's Navy catapult program. He called a J-15 accident a month before the PRC made it public (probably because of him!)

Raj tweets followed the progression of their program from the building of two test cats to accidents and now what looks like completion of the cats.

https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/Huan ... wsrc%5Etfw

[Manish_P]

Dang. That pic of the F35 makes it look so... 4th Gen

[shiv]

Each aircraft has a Log Book on Technical / Maintenance records. It's called the Form 700 in the IAF. If a snag is entered on the Form 700 then the aircraft is not serviceable or if the aircraft is due for a scheduled inspection, even then it is not serviceable. The sum total of such aircraft determine the % of serviceable or not serviceable aircraft.

Lovely thanks.

As per my reading of tales during wartime - aircraft that were technically "not serviceable" were used. I will have to scour through all the stuff I have read for examples - I think there are a couple in Jagans books

[GeorgeWelch]

Weapons being cheaper does not negate the need to maintain two entirely different supply chains, and logistical infrastructure to support, overhaul and maintain them.

But it can negate the cost difference. There is a crossing point where the price per weapon does indeed make it cheaper to maintain 2 different supply chains. The price difference between AMRAAM and Meteor is something like $700k. If your logistics is costing you more than $700k per missile, you're doing it wrong.

Commonality, where possible is a smart thing to aim. There is a reason nations do this.

So you're saying the IAF should have pursued an all MKI fleet.

The reason to pursue commonality is to reduce costs. If 50 A + 50 B is cheaper than 100 A, then saying you should pursue commonality for commonality's sake is foolishness.

As another data point, airlines have found that once fleets reach a certain size, the cost impact of maintaining 2 different fleets is minimal. The reason for this is obvious, you can setup a maintenance facility for one type, but after a certain number, you're going to need a second maintenance facility. So if you need a second facility, whether it's for type A or type B is irrelevant. The magic number for airlines was something like 60-90 aircraft. And not just facilities, everywhere along the logistics line there are scaling issues. Granted that usage patterns for airlines and militaries are quite different, but many of the logistics lessons remain the same.

[ShauryaT]

Could the v-22 be a potential AEW/ASW solution for India's carriers? I am not sure if the US Navy uses them in any such roles, but this a type of craft that can provide to us the range needed for our carrier ops. With modifications, it could could carry extra fuel and provide for some significant loiter time.

[Katare]

So one of our retired air chief (the one that got arrested) told of a conversation, he had with the visiting air chief of Germany. The German chief told ACF Tyagi that you guys must be rich, we Germans just could't afford those Mig29s(guesding they got them east Germany), we had to get rid of them before we got broke. Not exact words but you get the gist.

Migs and specially 29s have always been a very expensive maintenance nightmare for its user. Although in a low cost country like India its a bit easier to make it work, so we have managed but with a lot of blood, sweat and guts.

Shiv sasr,

Yo are right, there is no such thing as 100% uptime ever. 70 to 80% is considered as good as perfect because reminder is for scheduled maintenance and unavoidable circumstances or unknown unknowns. In The civilian manufacturing world, the term used is called OEE (over all equipment effectivness) and a well run newer plant can achieve OEE, for many lines, approaching 70 to 80%. 70% is considered A+ performance, its hard to buy a machine/line where vendor would guarantee more than 70% OEE.

For airplane the serviceability calculation, as far as my understanding goes, is done by maintaining a time log of who had the ownership of the equipment. It is unserviceable for the time the aircraft was with maintenance/repair department regardless of how major or small the breakdown was. So if a war breaks down the initial serviceability would be higher but it wont be sustained. A fused bulb or even a non working RWR would not make the aircraft unserviceable immediately but when the things piled up and the aircraft is taken in for repair, including to replace lightbulb, it'll be considered unserviceable.


So a slow understaffed repair depot or unavailability of spare parsts in time can have a material impact on the serviceability number. On the other hand a hard to maintain aircraft almost always makes the repair depot understaffed and low on spare. The depot capability/capacity is designed by the maintenance data generated by airforce during procurement evaluation and what the vendor gave them as guarantee for performance. An aircraft that underperfoms would quickly overwhelm the repair depo and spare supply pipeline which in extreme cases can result even in dingle digit serviceability.

So agreed that the aircraft and infrastructure setup created to support it are both responsible for serviceability performance. So you can definitely invest more in the support infrastructure and hire more manpower to improve turnaround times which would improve the serviceability. But it'll cost a ton of money, not so much in creating the infrastructure but in actually performing all those repairs and increased spare part consumption. These expenses are beyond what was promised to you by OEM. So your chooce is to live with a lower serviceability or pay a ton extra to create a large repair empire

The rightway to achieve a good serviceability is to buy an equipment that is well designed and tested for low/in-frequent maintenance. It'll allow you to have small footprint or higher teeth to tail ratio

This murdrous lifecycle cost is the reason that Russians have lost pretty much every open indian tender on cost to western equipment.

Also a big foot print and constant turn around sucks in not only the money but also significant time of management/brass bandwidth.

[NRao]

Dang. That pic of the F35 makes it look so... 4th Gen

After knocking down the door, that is their role, they shed their cloak. By design they become a "4th gen" as portrayed by that picture. But, they still do retain their sensor package, networking capabilities, etc.

So, if in a real war situation, that picture would be an excellent sign. The "5th gen" component has worked and they have entered the next phase.

And, to think of it, that is a F-35B!!!!!! The Marines are doing pretty good. Some 100-150 miles behind enemy lines.

[brar_w]

Dang. That pic of the F35 makes it look so... 4th Gen

Correct. One advantages of all internal sensors, a weapons bay and large internal fuel capacity is that you can kit the aircraft out to resemble 4th generation aircraft with external stores or additional pods. In fact in that capacity the F-35B out carries both the Hornet and the Harrier (aircraft it is meant to replace). Of course neither of those can dial in an internal weapons bay and other LO features .

Could the v-22 be a potential AEW/ASW solution for India's carriers? I am not sure if the US Navy uses them in any such roles, but this a type of craft that can provide to us the range needed for our carrier ops. With modifications, it could could carry extra fuel and provide for some significant loiter time.

The USMC has looked at converting the V-22 into an AEW aircraft and it is definitely something they'll look at again for the MAGTF as they push their L-Class flat tops to do greater sea control missions. The USN not so much since they only intend on using the V-22 for COD since they have a dedicated unmanned recovery tanker under development. The Marines also plan to use the V-22 for refueling including for their F-35B's.

[brar_w]

But it can negate the cost difference. There is a crossing point where the price per weapon does indeed make it cheaper to maintain 2 different supply chains. The price difference between AMRAAM and Meteor is something like $700k. If your logistics is costing you more than $700k per missile, you're doing it wrong.

What is that point? You are taking about taking two totally different systems here. Different mission systems, different weapons, all requiring different logistical set ups to both sustain, and modernize and maintain as you hopefully acquire more control over the weapons system over time.

The AMRAAM and Meteor comparison is rather moot here. The AMRAAM-D is a stepping stone for a future missile, while the Meteor is Europe's future missile. Secondly, when you go and train and then look to modernize you will have two procure seperate programs for the same. Same applies to interoperability. You can't simply take your meteor stock and mount it on US fighters, just as you can't take an AMRAAM and son-of AMRAAM and mount it on the Rafale.

So you're saying the IAF should have pursued an all MKI fleet.

No but that is something that has to do with right sizing your fleet. Both the Rafale and the Super Hornet are medium role twin engine fighters and therefore in the same class. Both happen to be capable of being operated from land and sea. Both pretty much serve the same mission set with the French and the US armed forces. We aren't comparing the Rafale to an F-15E, or to a Gripen-C/LCA here.

The reason to pursue commonality is to reduce costs. If 50 A + 50 B is cheaper than 100 A, then saying you should pursue commonality for commonality's sake is foolishness.

It's not always just about cost (but even then you don't know that a diverse fleet or splitting essentially 120 aircraft into two types that have nothing in common isn't more expensive) but also about synergy that you derive from having commonality in the way you train and the modernization strategies that each enterprise pursues.

As another data point, airlines have found that once fleets reach a certain size, the cost impact of maintaining 2 different fleets is minimal. The reason for this is obvious, you can setup a maintenance facility for one type, but after a certain number, you're going to need a second maintenance facility. So if you need a second facility, whether it's for type A or type B is irrelevant. The magic number for airlines was something like 60-90 aircraft. And not just facilities, everywhere along the logistics line there are scaling issues. Granted that usage patterns for airlines and militaries are quite different, but many of the logistics lessons remain the same.

Apples to Oranges. No one that I know of would claim that a small fleet of 57 jets has reached a critical mass where commonality and benefits derived from it are greatly diminished or negated. In fact even if we up this to 120 it still does not make sense (i.e 120 : 57 ratio). Even the USAF with 180+ F-22A's had to consolidate O&S and logistics to bring cost down..the volume was not there to affordably base and operate it like the F-15C's of the past.

Then there are strategic reasons where you can buy into the program in terms of control if you have enough volume to justify this investment. Think 2030 and you negotiate acquiring control or license to allow deeper modernization and inclusion of indigenous capability. It's going to be cost prohibitive to negotiate something like that for 36 aircraft or 57 for that matter. But 100+ and it may look more attractive since it benefits a far larger fleet.

[GeorgeWelch]

Both happen to be capable of being operated from land and sea.

No, Rafale cannot be operated from a carrier, only the Rafale-M can.

Think 2030 and you negotiate acquiring control or license to allow deeper modernization and inclusion of indigenous capability. It's going to be cost prohibitive to negotiate something like that for 36 aircraft or 57 for that matter. But 100+ and it may look more attractive since it benefits a far larger fleet.

Think that with aircraft and munitions costs so high, you can never afford 100 in the first place.

I fear you are falling into the sunk cost fallacy.

[brar_w]

No, Rafale cannot be operated from a carrier, only the Rafale-M can.

I meant the type not the fighter. The Rafale and Rafale-M share the same mission systems, share the same software, share the same weapons, engines etc etc etc.

Think that with aircraft and munitions costs so high, you can never afford 100 in the first place.

Depends upon the cost. Yes the Rafale is expensive, but I don't think anyone here will dispute the fact that more are going to come for the IAF. At least a couple of squadrons worth. It is a highly capable fighter that was declared by the IAF as technically able to meet its requirements.

I fear you are falling into the sunk cost fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. If you're going to invest in a weapons system, make sure you do so strategically and get the best bang for the buck going forward. You don't buy 36 of one, 57 of another when both serve essentially the same mission need. Then sustain two totally unrelated logistical chains while constantly procuring unrelated weapons, and upgrade packages for decades to come. One can understand in the case of the IAF's demand for a single engine MRF where they are aiming for triple digit procurement. The Rafale will not cost-effectively fill that role but in this case you are talking about very small amounts and two small fleets with ZERO commonality is quite stupid if you ask me. .

[GeorgeWelch]

Yes the Rafale is expensive, but I don't think anyone here will dispute the fact that more are going to come for the IAF.

You seemed to consider LCA Mk II as theoretical, yet there's more reason to believe it will happen than any additional Rafale orders. Strange how your standard of proof seems to shift

It's not a fallacy. If you're going to invest in a weapons system, make sure you do so strategically and get the best bang for the buck going forward. You don't buy 36 of one, 57 of another when both serve essentially the same mission need.

If the overall cost is cheaper, you most certainly do. You keep hand waving about commonality but you have zero proof that the saving will even come close to negating the difference in purchase price. Are there some savings due to commonality? Yes. Are they enough to offset the tremendously price differentials? Doubtful.

The Rafale will not cost-effectively fill that role but in this case you are talking about very small amounts and two small fleets with ZERO commonality is quite stupid if you ask me..

If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

Neither of us are in a position to know the full costs of either route, so to flat out declare that one path is 'stupid' in itself shows a lack of judgment.

[brar_w]

You seemed to consider LCA Mk II as theoretical, yet there's more reason to believe it will happen than any additional Rafale orders. Strange how your standard of proof seems to shift

I do not think (and did not say) the LCA MKII is theoretical, only uncertain in terms of when, and in what quantity. I don't think there is a certain and solid timeline for a production quantity delivery.

As I said earlier, if there is movement on the MK2 front, strong commitment to acquiring it in quantity, and movement on the AMCA F414-EPE that comes out of DTTI or whatever it is re-branded as than yes, it will make more sense to commit to all this since it has strategic benefits. Same with IN's look at F-35/PAKFA which have a capability element that sets them apart from Rafale/F-18.

Same if the F-16 is selected but I'm skeptical of that entire RFI as well since it has taken so long to get the MRCA and the acquisition cycle at the MOD is extremely slow, so much so that I think it will make these platform acquisition irrelevant from the IAF's perspective.

Are there some savings due to commonality? Yes. Are they enough to offset the tremendously price differentials? Doubtful.

This is what the MOD will look into. But to suggest that 57 fighter aircraft procurement is somehow indicative of a critical mass is quite absurd. By any standard that is a fairly small fleet.

If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

36 Rafale is a tiny fleet. 57 F-18's is likewise. Buying such small amounts of different types that share nothing with each other is not only inefficient but a sustainment nightmare. If there is a way to bring one type up to triple digits it's worth exploring and imho makes sense.

[GeorgeWelch]

This is what the MOD will look into. But to suggest that 57 fighter aircraft procurement is somehow indicative of a critical mass is quite absurd. By any standard that is a fairly small fleet.

I'm sorry for confusing the issue with that point.

Even without critical mass, price differentials alone can be enough to drive it well past the crossing point where getting a different type is more affordable.

36 Rafale is a tiny fleet. 57 F-18's is likewise. Buying such small amounts of different types that share nothing with each other is not only inefficient but a sustainment nightmare.

True, but it could still very easily be cheaper to do it that way.

[Viv S]

The AMRAAM and Meteor comparison is rather moot here. The AMRAAM-D is a stepping stone for a future missile, while the Meteor is Europe's future missile. Secondly, when you go and train and then look to modernize you will have two procure seperate programs for the same. Same applies to interoperability. You can't simply take your meteor stock and mount it on US fighters, just as you can't take an AMRAAM and son-of AMRAAM and mount it on the Rafale.

This is what I like about the F-35 (among other things).

Aim-120 + Aim-9X + Paveway/JDAM + SDB I/II? Check.
Meteor + ASRAAM + Brimstone/Spear? Check.
Derby + Python-5 + Spice-250/1000? Check.

All your Bomb are belong to us.

At a price point competitive with the Super Hornet & Rafale (at FRP-2019).

[John]

Any newly introduced career AC will have low serviceability till spare, proper operation procedures and crew/pilot are fully trained to handle it. IMO this is just a tactic to get Russians to budge on the pricing, exact same thing happened before where IN looked at procuring Rafsle or F18s which brought $$ costs down on 29k.

[Neshant]

[NRao]

^^^^^

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5092&p=2107857#p2107857

[vina]

Any newly introduced career AC will have low serviceability till spare, proper operation procedures and crew/pilot are fully trained to handle it. IMO this is just a tactic to get Russians to budge on the pricing, exact same thing happened before where IN looked at procuring Rafsle or F18s which brought $$ costs down on 29k.

Trouble is the Mig 29Ks got delivered far earlier than the carrier , which got delivered much later after long delays. You would expect the Mig29K fleet to have everything ironed out and nailed down given that long possession history with the IN.

[shiv]

You would expect the Mig29K fleet to have everything ironed out and nailed down given that long possession history with the IN.

Except the parts that are actually causing problems now - single engine carrier landings and arrestor cable issues.

[Philip]

Media reports:Bean-counting maritime battle between our MOD (mob of duffers)and
Russia over the 4 extra Talwars.Ru want $900+M for two built in Ru.For the two to be built in India,they want $800M for supplied material,etc.,etc.,+ 50M for docs,drgs.
,etc.

The desi yard has not been chosen as yet by us,we supposedly want to know desi-built FFG costs first.This is typical byzantine bargaining with the OEM wanting max juice.Same affliction with Rafales,Barak,Scorpenes and other acquisitions.Homebuilt warships gen. have about % 40+ firang eqpt.Our P-17s and P-28s were
delayed,had high cost overruns and cost more than if it was built abroad.Hobson's choice for us.

If we are NOT intending building more Talwars at home, what's the point in building just 2?

[Philip]

Best option,simply get the 2/4 from Ru since they are readily available,stop the series with that, and get a new desi design for a follow-on series.

[vina]

Per todays' Al-Hundi, another Naval acquisition fiasco in the making. Remember the 4 in build Krivak class frigates that Russia cant launch and use because of the Ukranie war (Ukraine has the engines and wont supply for those frigates) and the only alternative is to sell it , and how it was "welcomed" at BRF?

Well it turns out that it is a disaster in the making.

1. The Russians want $900 m for the first two to be fully built in Russia
2. For the remaining 2, they want $800m for "materials" they will supply and $51 for "documentation" that will allow us to build the ship
3. The Russians say, no, you can take all 4 or you take zero.

Now, that raises the following questions.

1. Why would you want a boat with the legacy Soviet ecosystem of Zorya turbines and diesels from an unstable Ukraine and a no alternative from Russia.
2. Why would you pay $900 m for a pair of useless hulls, that cannot be completed and will rust away, unless it is sold. So why will India pay $900 m for those ?
3. Why pay $800 m to import steel and stuff from Russia to build two more boats here. Adding labour and overhead, you are looking at close to $1.5b for the last two.
4. The total acqusition coast of those 4 boats "which are offered as "cheap" are looking like close to $3B.

Why bother with this Krivak rubbish at all ? What is this farce of them supplying steel and stuff at inflating prices and weld them together here under a farcical "Make in India " . Far better to farm out 4 boats of our own frigate design to well qualified but idle yards like L&T and others . But no. We would rather import at ridiculous prices than actually give orders to the local competitors of our own "Prodigal Children" the DPSUs.

[Bheeshma]

Why do we need a crappy frigate like Krivak?? P-17a is the way to go with Barak-II and 6000+ tonne displacement.

[deejay]

Hawaai Jahaj has a tendency to steal the show but I also love the boats and the men in them. My favourite story remains "Old man and the sea". So a request ...

... this is the IN thread and news on Ships and Navy are welcome. In fact, a few Naval Aviation news is also welcome. But a complete aviation discussion (even if for the IN) could be done in the Indian Military Aviation thread. Humbly...

[vina]

So collectively, I see the following.

1. The IN carrier force is a mess because all eggs were put in the Mig 29 basket. The VikAd and Vikrant are seriously compromised as a result. The VikAd + Mig 29K is a close to $3b acquisition fiasco.

2. The 4 Krivaks on offer from Russia seem to be another acquisition fiasco in the making. This can STILL be avoided.

[Philip]

If we want to build more than just 2 at home,say another 4-6 upgraded ones,it would be then worthwhile bargaining for TOT.The design packs a lot of firepower in a relatively small hull,B-8s.BMos,etc.,why its attractive.But if the costs escalate dramatically........

P-17A config hasn't been finalised.It will also cost a bomb fsr more than a Talwar and take twice the time to build at our desi speed..Talwars aren't crappy.BMos and B-8,plus a good ASW package come with it.V.cost effective.

Please understand that the IN is happy with the Talwars and want these extras becos of slow pace of shipbuilding and high cost-overruns in Indian yards.

[Viv S]

If we want to build more than just 2 at home,say another 4-6 upgraded ones,it would be then worthwhile bargaining for TOT.The design packs a lot of firepower in a relatively small hull,B-8s.BMos,etc.,why its attractive.But if the costs escalate dramatically........

It doesn't matter what the ToT costs are. If the Russians offer a reasonable price for the two existing ones, well and good. If not, too bad. But proposing the type be 'built' locally is total BS.

We have a local design and its more than good enough. If the P-17A is still in the design stage, the P-17 already exists.

[Indranil]

Deejay, please start an "Indian naval aviation" thread.

[vina]

There IS a way out of the Carrier mess. It is like this.

1. The Navy HAS to make a clear choice of CATOBAR.
a. This opens out the following options.. 1) F-35C 2)F 18 E/F 3) Rafale M 4)Mig 29K 5) LCA Mk1&2 . The modifications of the Mig29K and LCA Mk1 for a Cat launch are minor and the qualification is far easier.
b. You immediately are in play for a very potent AEW and refuelling options ( The Hawkeye and whatever the USN gets, S3 whatever)
c. New build carriers will have cats

2. What do you do with VikAd ?
a. VikAd --> Nothing much can be done. Already a very compromised ship , not a ground up carrier design, a very unique maintenance intensive unicorn, that will see premature retirement / second line - training duties

3. Between steam and EMals, I think we should go for steam. It is proven, will be cheaper and is available right now.

4. The config that IN carriers have is Gas Turbines (LM2500) driving shafts via reduction gearing. LM2500 maintenance and supply chain is common with our frigates and other hulls globally and is well supported, easy to maintain and has unparalleled reliability . This is a far cry from the main machinery of the VikAd with steam turbines (accident prone , given the earlier explosions in the Minsk class) the VikAd is hence a maintenance and sustenance nightmare with very unique machinery and supply chains going back to Ukraine /Other parts of Soviet union.

5. Steam cats can be installed on the Vikrant. There are proven COGAS (combined gas and steam) sets in commercial operations with the LM2500 . With the carriers, IN does not need the waste heat steam boiler to drive propulsion machinery, but rather just use the waste heat boiler driven by the flue gases from the LM2500 for the CATs.

6. From what I see, the USN cats are basically wet-steam in an accumulator at around 400 psi that drive the Cats. This kind of thing is very easily achievable with addition of the waste heat recovery boiler to the Vikrant for Catapults and the followup ships. IN should really start a detailed study on this. What I see in open sources and commercial Millennium lines (where the waste heat boiler steam is used for propulsion) and studies for container ships, this is eminently doable, practical and uses proven components (LM2500, waste heat boilers, steam cats)

7. IN will need a 2 ship follow on to the Vikrant. With the VikAd relegated to the rear , we will have 3 front line catobar carriers and will be true sea control force.

[NRao]

Vina ji,

Nice post.



But.

make a clear choice

Always throw a date in please.

Indians coined the word "muharath", but never implement it. Time is endless.