Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

John · Post by **John** » 26 Jul 2018 23:55

nachiket wrote:Other problem with Kamorta is that despite the expense it is a one trick pony - ASW only. Of course, that is the way it was designed but it means that its main offensive weapon is its ASW helicopter which as of now is the aging Sea King. The ship won't reach its full potential till we get the Seahawk/NH-90 or equivalent.

A Kamorta sized multi-role design with 4/8 Brahmos + 16/32 Barak - 8 is sorely needed. Won't have the endurance of P-17 or P-17A but should be possible if the get rid of the RBU-6000 and perhaps the helo hanger if needed. Or reduce size of the hanger to accommodate only a light SAR bird instead of a Sea King sized helo.

A Kamorta already costs around 300 million adding Barak-8 ( each system is about 150 million) and Brahmos will increase the cost to 1/2 billion.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 28 Jul 2018 18:43

Admiral Sunil Lanba CNS delivers inaugural address on Military Modernisation Conference at IHC, ND

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0OexF3QMk4

chola · Post by **chola** » 30 Jul 2018 14:13

The F-18 can operate off the Vikrant with an good load!

https://defenceaviationpost.com/boeing- ... -contract/

U.S. aircraft maker Boeing has finished detailed capability studies that conclude that the company’s F/A-18E Block III Super Hornet, a supersonic twin-engine carrier-capable multirole fighter jet based on the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, will be able to operate heavily armed from the flight deck of India’s first domestically built aircraft carrier, the future INS Vikrant, designated Indigenous Aircraft Carrier 1 (IAC-1), according to local media reports.

“We have answered queries from the Indian Navy and the simulation analysis is done,” Dan Gillian, Program Manager F/A-18 at Boeing was quoted as saying by The Economic Times earlier this week

. “At some point we will also take off from a U.S. Navy ski jump. We feel very comfortable that we will pass the requirements with a meaningful and significant payload.”

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Jul 2018 23:42

^^More important question is if it can fit on the Vikrant's deck lifts.

chola · Post by **chola** » 31 Jul 2018 00:06

nachiket wrote:^^More important question is if it can fit on the Vikrant's deck lifts.

No not at the moment but Boeing had outlined a plan that allow the F-18 undercarriage to dip to one side and allow the F-18 to fit the Vikrant’s lifts without any structure change to the airframe. I’ll try to find the article.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 31 Jul 2018 00:50

It would be a very bad design if vikant's lift doesn't have room for f18 which is only slightly bigger than mig 29. Any design should allow room for growth. Weay field AW&CS in future and if F18 can't fit then surely a carrier borne awac won't fit as well.

chola · Post by **chola** » 31 Jul 2018 05:48

sohamn wrote:It would be a very bad design if vikant's lift doesn't have room for f18 which is only slightly bigger than mig 29. Any design should allow room for growth. Weay field AW&CS in future and if F18 can't fit then surely a carrier borne awac won't fit as well.

The “aviation complex” of the Vikrant was designed ny the Russians. The lifts might have been part of the complex or were influenced by it. But what is certain is that the lifts were built with the MiG-29 in mind.

Here is the article I was looking for:
https://www.stratpost.com/failure-to-launch/

The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.

Both Boeing and Dassault are apparently working on solutions to allow their aircraft to fit the lifts. Sources close to the programme said that Boeing is considering a system that would allow the Super Horner to sit canted on the lift, the tilt of the (folded) wings thereby resulting in a slightly shorter overall span measured parallel to the deck. With its fixed wings, the Rafale cannot offer such a solution, and Dassault is understood to be exploring a detachable wingtip, although this involves greater engineering and certification challenges.

Whatever the final form of the eventual MRCBF RFP, and whatever the proposals that arrive in response, it is clear now that the process for procuring the Navy’s next carrier fighter will be far from straightforward.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2018 10:13

our designers were fast asleep when this came to pass.
umpteen reviews must have missed it.

and fincantieri was supposed to be the design consultant who also built the cavour which will field JSF-B vstol.

the italians and russians together messed it up and we pay the price now.

even if it delays by 1 year we need to replace and put in bigger lifts.

with wafer thin rooms accidents are sure to happen.

shows we have a long way to go in naval design. our overly russofied low profile designs in DDGs are going totally against the modern design of big tall superstructures like Atago class. "good seakeeping" is the fig leaf - dont the ticos and atagos work? they have built far more large hulls than us and in case of americans have operated from the arctic to the tropics for decades.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jul 2018 10:58

Singha wrote:our designers were fast asleep when this came to pass.
umpteen reviews must have missed it.

You cannot design for something that you dont know , The DND did not knew beyond 29K and Tejas and IAC was designed around these two types. Not just the lift but also the run way needed for take off land , berthing space above and below deck etc.

Even today we dont have any specs of any new types beyond what the OEM would say and that needs to be actually proven either on land based mockups of AC like we did for Tejas or on real one.

You need to account for other assets like ASW/ASuW choppers , Rescue Helicopters , Heli based AEW like Ka-31 that would make more than 60 % of IN Carrier asset

You dont design a ship by waking up one fine day and working on some CAD adding 2 exta meters for Lift and 50 extra meters of length and width add another 5 m so that a F-18 or Rafale can take off , These things are designed from scratch and other components needed are also taken into account , ship modelling is done and extensively tested and it can take many months and years to finalise one design , plus there are hazaar other cheez taken into account.

The IAC core design would have been frozen like 5-6 years back with all the vendors identified and agreement signed with them for the equipment ,powerplant etc , Then the design is passed to SY who while building do the other minor changes in design as required.

Its a complex and mamoth task and they cannot just change the design just because some new aircraft is on the horizon.

The only option is to make Naval Tejas and 29K fly of IAC and Vikramaditya and make it work both are quite potent and any future aircraft on new AC will only come 12-15 years later.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 31 Jul 2018 13:01

Question regarding part of the Aircraft hanging outside the lift? how does this work in rough seas ? won't these aircraft be in danger of falling into the sea when the lift is operational?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 31 Jul 2018 18:00

The aircraft are usually lashed to the lift and secured before it's moved up or down. Theyll never just drive it on to the lift and move em around. Also there are guard rails kind of structures on the edge of the lift too.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 31 Jul 2018 18:18

Singha wrote:our designers were fast asleep when this came to pass.
umpteen reviews must have missed it.

and fincantieri was supposed to be the design consultant who also built the cavour which will field JSF-B vstol.

the italians and russians together messed it up and we pay the price now.

even if it delays by 1 year we need to replace and put in bigger lifts.

with wafer thin rooms accidents are sure to happen.

shows we have a long way to go in naval design. our overly russofied low profile designs in DDGs are going totally against the modern design of big tall superstructures like Atago class. "good seakeeping" is the fig leaf - dont the ticos and atagos work? they have built far more large hulls than us and in case of americans have operated from the arctic to the tropics for decades.

The lifts are russki made, if I am not wrong.

The designers went ahead with the inputs that were given to them at the time. Had someone thought a bit ahead or could see into the future, a different lift would have emerged.

At the time, I don't think that anyone envisaged US made Naval fighters as possible contenders for any IN carrier program.

All this recent bonhomie came too late.

Maybe a major refit, sometime in the future, could fix the lift issue and make it more versatile in accommodating additional types of carrier borne assets.

chola · Post by **chola** » 31 Jul 2018 18:45

chetak wrote:
Singha wrote:our designers were fast asleep when this came to pass.
umpteen reviews must have missed it.

and fincantieri was supposed to be the design consultant who also built the cavour which will field JSF-B vstol.

the italians and russians together messed it up and we pay the price now.

even if it delays by 1 year we need to replace and put in bigger lifts.

with wafer thin rooms accidents are sure to happen.

shows we have a long way to go in naval design. our overly russofied low profile designs in DDGs are going totally against the modern design of big tall superstructures like Atago class. "good seakeeping" is the fig leaf - dont the ticos and atagos work? they have built far more large hulls than us and in case of americans have operated from the arctic to the tropics for decades.
The lifts are russki made, if I am not wrong.

The designers went ahead with the inputs that were given to them at the time. Had someone thought a bit ahead or could see into the future, a different lift would have emerged.

At the time, I don't think that anyone envisaged US made Naval fighters as possible contenders for any IN carrier program.

All this recent bonhomie came too late.

Maybe a major refit, sometime in the future, could fix the lift issue and make it more versatile in accommodating additional types of carrier borne assets.

The Roos definitely make bigger ones. Their Kuznetsov class follows the Western practice of oversizing the lift for largest available aircraft.

See the J-15, while its arse overhangs the edge of the lift there are ample space to the left and right of it (googling kuznetsov + elevators gets you chini pictures onlee which tells me the state of Russian carrier aviation that we are taking our advice from.)

The SU-33/J-15 are the largest carrier-borne fighters around too.

So how hard is it to design a carrier with oversized lifts? All western carriers have them. Even this old ex-Soviet class.

We had no choice with the Gorshkov/Vikky because its deck and lifts were designed for a helicopter carrier.

But the brand new Vikrant? With our history of Western-based carrier operations? Really?

We either went penny-wise, pound-foolish (again) and decided to pay for smaller less expensive lifts or we decided our own vast carrier experience is worth less than the Russians’ and listened to them on optimizing for the MiG-29K onlee.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 31 Jul 2018 19:00

As long as the undercarriage is firmly on deck, it matters very little what else is overhanging. The aircraft weight and the CG are both positioned where they can easily be managed.

Regarding the lift dimensions, personally, I feel that the russkis may have played a dirty game and so gave us the smaller lifts to possibly constrain us from becoming too adventurous in the selection of a future Naval fighter. At that time, IIRC, only the Naval LCA and the MiG 29K were on the horizon.

Also, such lifts may not be so easily available from other sources, meaning the UK, USA and france. Aren't we still struggling with the EMALS??

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2018 21:13

chola wrote:
sohamn wrote:It would be a very bad design if vikant's lift doesn't have room for f18 which is only slightly bigger than mig 29. Any design should allow room for growth. Weay field AW&CS in future and if F18 can't fit then surely a carrier borne awac won't fit as well.
The “aviation complex” of the Vikrant was designed ny the Russians. The lifts might have been part of the complex or were influenced by it. But what is certain is that the lifts were built with the MiG-29 in mind.

Here is the article I was looking for:
https://www.stratpost.com/failure-to-launch/
The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.

.

Hmm, if the problem is width of the aircraft I.e. wingspan and not the length, since much of it can hang off the deck, there should be no problem in fitting the flanker on the Vikrant, let alone puny birds like the Rafale or shornet. Iirc, the folded wingspan of the flanker is less than that of the fulcrum. And yes, even the nose pitot and tail boom of the flanker can be folded if needs be.

Fwiw, this is from Ken, "flankerman" on keypubs, who I believe got it from yefim Gordon's book on the flanker....

. With its folding wings and tailplanes, plus the folding tailcone and nose pitot, the 'footprint' of the Su-33 on Kuznetsov's deck and hangars is actually LESS than the MiG-29K.

Su-33

Wing Span = 14.7m (48 ft 2 in)
Folded Span = 7.4m (24 ft 3 in)

MiG-29K

Wing Span = 11.4 m (37 ft 3 in)
Folded Span = 7.8m (25 ft 7 in)

So, I'm not entirely sure why we should blame the iac designers. Perhaps blame should go to shornet designers who made such a fat ass plane that flies like a brick and has outward canted pylons? Blame the ada and the russkis, who probably armtwisted India into buying and reviving mig? Blame the negotiating team which should have stuck to it's guns and insisted on the flanker, which was a much better platform?

In any case, it is now water under the bridge. Either boeing or dassault do some jugaad to make their horses fit the vik stable or India buys into mig in a big way and sorts out all the problems. Latter will probably still be cheaper, albeit more painful.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2018 21:36

Unfortunately the shornet has a folded wingspan of 9+ meters according to this website...
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

That's going to be tough to get on lifts that can accommodate the fulcrum and flanker at <8 mts. The difference is not marginal at all as one poster was suggesting.

What could possibly be done is the iaf and Navy orders of 167 units combined and divided. Order 36 additional Rafale and make the remaining fulcrums. Buy the entire line with full rights, and blueprints to mod the bird. Stuff it with a mix of Indian, russki and Israeli sensors, weapons packages. Possibly different engines too.

I'm willing to bet this will be cheaper than anything on offer by Western counterparts other than maybe the gripen. Problem is that it will take forever.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 31 Jul 2018 23:23

Austin wrote:
Singha wrote:our designers were fast asleep when this came to pass.
umpteen reviews must have missed it.
You cannot design for something that you dont know , The DND did not knew beyond 29K and Tejas and IAC was designed around these two types. Not just the lift but also the run way needed for take off land , berthing space above and below deck etc.

Even today we dont have any specs of any new types beyond what the OEM would say and that needs to be actually proven either on land based mockups of AC like we did for Tejas or on real one.

You need to account for other assets like ASW/ASuW choppers , Rescue Helicopters , Heli based AEW like Ka-31 that would make more than 60 % of IN Carrier asset

You dont design a ship by waking up one fine day and working on some CAD adding 2 exta meters for Lift and 50 extra meters of length and width add another 5 m so that a F-18 or Rafale can take off , These things are designed from scratch and other components needed are also taken into account , ship modelling is done and extensively tested and it can take many months and years to finalise one design , plus there are hazaar other cheez taken into account.

The IAC core design would have been frozen like 5-6 years back with all the vendors identified and agreement signed with them for the equipment ,powerplant etc , Then the design is passed to SY who while building do the other minor changes in design as required.

Its a complex and mamoth task and they cannot just change the design just because some new aircraft is on the horizon.

The only option is to make Naval Tejas and 29K fly of IAC and Vikramaditya and make it work both are quite potent and any future aircraft on new AC will only come 12-15 years later.

You should always design keeping in mind there is so much you don't know. My entire career is in product design and always we start with a lot of unknowns, and we design keeping in mind we should leave room for growth and accommodating future changes. In this case, naval designers should have looked at various naval aircraft around the world like F-18, Rafale, LCA, Mig 29, Su 29k and even carrier-borne awacs and designed a lift keeping in mind that we could potentially own any of the above aircraft in future. This wasn't difficult and I think even 5 years back it was known that we didn't want more Mig29ks. Someone dropped the ball big time on this.

chola · Post by **chola** » 31 Jul 2018 23:50

^^^ The massive investment in a capital ship like a carrier makes four or five decades of service a necessity. Designing it around the smallest modern carrier fighter today in the MiG-29K makes little sense considering the long life of the vessel.

A point of reference: the Amreeki lifts are so big that they carry TWO planes (with fat-arses.)

The USN doesn’t know what is coming down the pike either but the more you don’t know the greater the need to design in some flexibility.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2018 23:55

^ the design works for three fighters...nlca, fulcrum and flanker. Small, medium and heavy. Perhaps the thought of using Western fighters was never a part of the equation those days, early 2000s?

John · Post by **John** » 01 Aug 2018 00:05

Blame the negotiating team which should have stuck to it's guns and insisted on the flanker, which was a much better platform?

Flanker operating from STOBAR is inferior to Mig-29k even Chinese admiral when on to complaint about that, it simply cannot carry much payload and fuel and launch safely. Also Flanker is lot more maintenance heavy as IAF found out combine that wonder effects of sea water and IN will deplete its resources trying to keep this thing up and running we already struggling as it is with 29Ks. Even If your end game is Catapults IMO Flanker is not a good choice.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Aug 2018 00:23

John wrote:
Blame the negotiating team which should have stuck to it's guns and insisted on the flanker, which was a much better platform?
Flanker operating from STOBAR is inferior to Mig-29k even Chinese admiral when on to complaint about that, it simply cannot carry much payload and fuel and launch safely. Also Flanker is lot more maintenance heavy as IAF found out combine that wonder effects of sea water and IN will deplete its resources trying to keep this thing up and running we already struggling as it is with 29Ks. Even If your end game is Catapults IMO Flanker is not a good choice.

The original flanker variant is no doubt inferior to current mig 29k. But it was always superior to original mig 29k, which is why the RuN chose it over the fulcrum to begin with.

If Indian Navy money would have gone to upgrade the flanker, a platform work much more potential, instead of the original fulcrum, they could've had much better fighter. Basically a navalized mki or su35.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Aug 2018 00:25

VIDEO: https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 2156313600 --> Combat free fall from Indian Navy HAL Dhruv.

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Aug 2018 00:38

John wrote:
Blame the negotiating team which should have stuck to it's guns and insisted on the flanker, which was a much better platform?
Flanker operating from STOBAR is inferior to Mig-29k even Chinese admiral when on to complaint about that, it simply cannot carry much payload and fuel and launch safely. Also Flanker is lot more maintenance heavy as IAF found out combine that wonder effects of sea water and IN will deplete its resources trying to keep this thing up and running we already struggling as it is with 29Ks. Even If your end game is Catapults IMO Flanker is not a good choice.

They complain but they are developing new variants of the SU-33 copies — a Growler and the cat version with tow bar. So it seems to me they are complaining of their inferior equipment to the Amreeki carrier fleet off their shore not that the SU-33 is any worse than the Fulcrum. If it were they would be buying and flying 29Ks right now. Instead, they spent that money on even more Russki Flankers, the SU-35.

With the multiple chini carriers coming in the next few years, the chinis would have great incentive to grab the 29K if it were any good, no? And I think Russians would be happy to sell, just like SU-35.

If the PLAN stick with the SU-33 — and they’ll need lots of aircraft for all those carriers — then it’s a safe bet that they feel the flanker is the better platform.

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Aug 2018 00:50

Cain Marko wrote: The original flanker variant is no doubt inferior to current mig 29k. But it was always superior to original mig 29k, which is why the RuN chose it over the fulcrum to begin with.

If Indian Navy money would have gone to upgrade the flanker, a platform work much more potential, instead of the original fulcrum, they could've had much better fighter. Basically a navalized mki or su35.

We still can make the a navalized MKI. When the MKI contract ends in a few years what are we making HAL do with the SU-30 line? Meekly fold everything up? Be good patsies and follow their contract to a T?

Guess how the chinis got their J-15? It came from the same damn line as their SU-27SK. Not only the J-15 but the J-11A/B/D/S and J-16 too.

Build the navalized MKI. Buy the AL-31 powerplants to keep the Russians happy. Tired of being the “good” citizen of international contracts.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Aug 2018 00:56

Chola, navalized Su-30MKIs are not going to happen. It is going to come down to the F-18 Super Hornet and the Rafale M, in which the F-18 will win.

Whether they have the money, is a different story. These 57 naval fighters are expected to cost the exchequer $15 billion USD. And that is the starting price.

John · Post by **John** » 01 Aug 2018 01:23

China bet heavily on Flankers too late to switch to Mig-29k which they don't even operate and their end game is move to catapults which negates the poor payload capacity of Flankers operating from Stobar but doesn't solve maintenance challenges ( not a big deal for China).

Naval Su-30mki is a bad idea, payload capacity from Vikramaditya won't be any better than Mig-29k. Now throw in the low MTBO for engines and you have a recipe for disaster. Would take Rafale-M or F-18s any day over them...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Aug 2018 01:27

I do not know about the Flanker, but the MiG-29K was never designed to be a naval fighter.

See this link ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7181&p=2286104#p2286104

I doubt testing this extensive was done on the MiG-29K. And if it was, we got sold a lemon!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Aug 2018 01:31

chola wrote:
John wrote:
Flanker operating from STOBAR is inferior to Mig-29k even Chinese admiral when on to complaint about that, it simply cannot carry much payload and fuel and launch safely. Also Flanker is lot more maintenance heavy as IAF found out combine that wonder effects of sea water and IN will deplete its resources trying to keep this thing up and running we already struggling as it is with 29Ks. Even If your end game is Catapults IMO Flanker is not a good choice.
They complain but they are developing new variants of the SU-33 copies — a Growler and the cat version with tow bar. So it seems to me they are complaining of their inferior equipment to the Amreeki carrier fleet off their shore not that the SU-33 is any worse than the Fulcrum. If it were they would be buying and flying 29Ks right now. Instead, they spent that money on even more Russki Flankers, the SU-35.

With the multiple chini carriers coming in the next few years, the chinis would have great incentive to grab the 29K if it were any good, no? And I think Russians would be happy to sell, just like SU-35.

If the PLAN stick with the SU-33 — and they’ll need lots of aircraft for all those carriers — then it’s a safe bet that they feel the flanker is the better platform.

Even the original flanker was supposed to be able to take off with 6.5 ton payload and full fuel load from the smaller105mtr runway on the kuznetsiv without any issues. Mtow - 33000kg. My guess is that the internal fuel was capped at about 8 tons.

But one can imagine this bird with higher thrust tvc engines, a bars radar and associated mki goodies.
Iirc the Gordon book noted that it was capable of using the moskit anti ship missile, so I can imagine that the brahmos should not have been an issue. not bad really. Don't forget the advantage of 12 hps and a better low speed capability.

My guess is that the bird was simply too big to operate on the narrow runway space afforded by the vikad.

John · Post by **John** » 01 Aug 2018 01:33

Rakesh wrote:I do not know about the Flanker, but the MiG-29K was never designed to be a naval fighter.

See this link ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7181&p=2286104#p2286104

I doubt testing this extensive was done on the MiG-29K. And if it was, we got sold a lemon!

Su-33 and Mig-29k competed heavily in 80s for that role, Fulcrum did seem to have better handling characteristics and lower maintenance costs but Flanker won due to politics and Russian navy's plan to build a carrier with catapults.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Aug 2018 01:39

Rakesh wrote:I do not know about the Flanker, but the MiG-29K was never designed to be a naval fighter.

See this link ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7181&p=2286104#p2286104

I doubt testing this extensive was done on the MiG-29K. And if it was, we got sold a lemon!

Saar, I'm not sure what you mean. Yes the Russian fighters were originally landbased designs, nevertheless both the flanker and fulcrum were tested extensively on a naval facility and on board the kuznetsiv aka Tbilisi. But the latest fulcrum variant on our vikad was considerably modded over the original one. I think the fulcrums problems will be sorted out one way or the other. Operationalizing a totally new bird will have some issues but it will come through.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Aug 2018 01:39

John, did they test the MiG-29 for carrier ops in the 80s? Did they determine that the stress on the airframe was too much for the MiG-29 to deal with? If so, was that info shared with the Indian Navy? If not, we got sold a lemon no? If we did, why on earth did we buy them in the first place?

Cain-ji, please see above.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Aug 2018 01:43

Rakesh wrote:Chola, navalized Su-30MKIs are not going to happen. It is going to come down to the F-18 Super Hornet and the Rafale M, in which the F-18 will win.

Whether they have the money, is a different story. These 57 naval fighters are expected to cost the exchequer $15 billion USD. And that is the starting price.

I wonder how they will get those fat assed shornets on those narrow elevators. It'll take some Yankee ingenuity to manage this one.

The Rafale might not be easier if they have to introduce a folding mechanism, which could mean reduction of fuel and shorter range due to an already smallish fuel volume.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Aug 2018 01:48

Boeing has claimed that the F-18 can operate from the lifts of the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant. They have also claimed that the F-18 can take off from a ski-jump, with a significant payload.

I am unsure of Dassault's stand on this. The last I read somewhere is that Dassault is looking at detachable wings. I honestly do not know how that is going to work in a war tempo setting. Carriers need to launch fighters successively and quickly, no time to fix wings on a flight deck. I am sorry, but that is just not going to work.

If the deal does go through, Boeing should win based on their claims, which undoubtedly have to be tested. But I have no reason to suspect Boeing's claims. For a naval platform, the F-18 Super Hornet is a superb bird with decades of proven experience. That APG-79 AESA radar is par excellence!

See this --> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7634&p=2286147#p2286147

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Aug 2018 01:51

Rakesh wrote:John, did they test the MiG-29 for carrier ops in the 80s? Did they determine that the stress on the airframe was too much for the MiG-29 to deal with? If so, was that info shared with the Indian Navy? If not, we got sold a lemon no? If we did, why on earth did we buy them in the first place?

They did landing tests. But I don't think they got as far enough to check effects of stress etc. since the Russians chose the flanker back then right before the SU collapsed. Our version is also considerably different from that one.

CM, if the landing gear or airframe can't take the stress of repeated carrier landings, then the problem is far worse than simple issues in operationalizing the aircraft. It basically means that the Russians either didn't know what they were doing when they made a naval version of the Fulcrum or they didn't care. And we got sold a lemon.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Aug 2018 01:54

Thank you for clarifying that Nachiket Saar.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Aug 2018 01:59

Rakesh wrote: If the deal does go through, Boeing should win based on their claims, which undoubtedly have to be tested. But I have no reason to suspect Boeing's claims.

Saar, after looking the Mig-29k experience and looking at Saab's unbelievable claims regarding the Gripen during MRCA and SEF, we should suspect all claims from everyone.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Aug 2018 02:02

That is so true. I read that Shiv Aroor piece on the Boeing F-18 Super Hornet Block III. Boeing claims that the Block III is the most stealthy platform of all the six competitors. I had to chuckle at that one.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Aug 2018 02:04

nachiket wrote:
Rakesh wrote:John, did they test the MiG-29 for carrier ops in the 80s? Did they determine that the stress on the airframe was too much for the MiG-29 to deal with? If so, was that info shared with the Indian Navy? If not, we got sold a lemon no? If we did, why on earth did we buy them in the first place?
They did landing tests. But I don't think they got as far enough to check effects of stress etc. since the Russians chose the flanker back then right before the SU collapsed. Our version is also considerably different from that one.

CM, if the landing gear or airframe can't take the stress of repeated carrier landings, then the problem is far worse than simple issues in operationalizing the aircraft. It basically means that the Russians either didn't know what they were doing when they made a naval version of the Fulcrum or they didn't care. And we got sold a lemon.

In hindsight, it is possible but I'm not convinced. IIRC this is based on the statement made by former CNS, Admiral Arun Prakash.

After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said.

But his statement doesn't indicate anything that can't be fixed or that it is a major structural issue. Seems more like a maintenance and parts availability issue. Should be sorted out once proper logistics agreements are signed.

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Aug 2018 02:11

nachiket wrote:
Rakesh wrote:John, did they test the MiG-29 for carrier ops in the 80s? Did they determine that the stress on the airframe was too much for the MiG-29 to deal with? If so, was that info shared with the Indian Navy? If not, we got sold a lemon no? If we did, why on earth did we buy them in the first place?
They did landing tests. But I don't think they got as far enough to check effects of stress etc. since the Russians chose the flanker back then right before the SU collapsed. Our version is also considerably different from that one.

CM, if the landing gear or airframe can't take the stress of repeated carrier landings, then the problem is far worse than simple issues in operationalizing the aircraft. It basically means that the Russians either didn't know what they were doing when they made a naval version of the Fulcrum or they didn't care. And we got sold a lemon.

Yes, I think they have less carrier experience than we do. You are right on point when you say they might not have known what they were doing.

Unfortunately, a “lemon” was exactly what the Navy saw when they posed the 57 RFI with our MiG-29K all but brand new. What thoroughly tested naval fighter needs to be “ruggedized” or “recalibrated” after landing? The whole idea is dangerous to the extreme.

The 57 RFI will be expensive — probably even crippling to the Navy’s budget even when accepted. But I think the Navy sees itself with no choice.

I do not believe we will use anything outside the 29K or maybe the NLCA on the Vikramaditya. The cramped space of the deck with the superstructure occuppying a chunk of the landing runway makes it two dangerous. These are for the Vikrant and Vishal onlee.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Aug 2018 02:26

Cain Marko wrote:
After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said.
But his statement doesn't indicate anything that can't be fixed or that it is a major structural issue. Seems more like a maintenance and parts availability issue. Should be sorted out once proper logistics agreements are signed.

CM why provide excuses for the Russians? Landing on a carrier is the very basic job of a carrier based fighter. Everything else comes after that. If you need to go around checking and replacing components which crack and break after every landing, it only means that the Russians did an extremely shoddy job of strengthening the airframe and/or the landing gear to absorb regular carrier landing shocks. Can you imagine how much of a maintenance hog the aircraft is going to be?

This is what we paid the Russians for and they gobbled up our money without doing the job or perhaps without even knowing how to do the job properly.