Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

[chola]

@John
Yes, the chinis are invested in the Flanker but whatever faults it has on the carrier, it is not great enough for them to drop it. And as I said, they developing new variants for it. They have a brand new STOBAR that’ll be flying SU-33 clones for a long time.

Aside from size and handling on a cramped deck, we know the Flanker is superior to the Fulcrum in every way on land once in the air. With CATOBAR the disadvantages with weight goes away.

That brings me back to our Flanker. For years, we hear from HAL that we have gotten increasing percentages of the build localized. It was over 70% the last time I read. We even produce a majority of the parts to the AL-31 engine. So to what end was all that work of indigenizing the line and its suppliers for if we just fold everything up once the last contract MKI is done?

[John]

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.

It was never tested for extended carrier ops see Su-33 it was also plagued with operational issues and high attrition rates (J-15 is giving that run for the money when it comes to highest attrition rate per sortie). Russia found 29k to be better which speaks volumes about flanker in naval role. Issues with Flanker and fulcrum from carriers doesn’t surprise me. This is end result of adapting land based fighter for a naval purpose.

[nachiket]

Aside from size and handling on a cramped deck, we know the Flanker is superior to the Fulcrum in every way on land once in the air. With CATOBAR the disadvantages with weight goes away.

Debatable. The Fulcrum has similar maneuverability to the Flanker and a higher T:W ratio. Both have HMS+R-73 combo. So a dogfight could go either way. Flanker has a payload advantage, more powerful radar and better endurance. Payload and endurance advantages could be reduced or negated while operating from a STOBAR carrier.

[Cain Marko]

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.

Not making any excuses, why should I? It's not like I built the damn bird. but I don't see that there was any malice out incompetence in the sale. And that it was done without extensive testing. At least not until we have more to go by. Why would the Navy accept it otherwise, an untested article? Just take the Russians word for it and have our boys fly the bird in what is perhaps the most dangerous flying environment there is?

it's not like the Russians didn't test the aircraft for fatigue and stress related airframes cracks. In fact there was an incident in the 90s where such a crack did occur and the bird was relegated to continue flight testing with lighter loads. So they are probly aware of the issue and it is not something unexpected. Again there is nothing in what the admiral says that indicates that the Russians did a shoddy job or the bird is a lemon. Yes there is a complaint about support and parts supply but not in design or airworthiness of the aircraft itself.

To me, This seems to be a wear and tear issue that should be taken care of soon enough. My guess is that the media is making an issue out of it by injecting phases like the Navy rejects the fulcrum and that the new search is a result of this.

[Rakesh]

Cain-ji, if such a crack did occur on the airframe in the 90s, what steps did the Russians take to resolve it? Assuming they cared, I doubt Mikoyan even had the money to resolve it back then in the 1990s. At the end of the day, they dropped the ball BIG TIME and the Indian Navy has had to suffer for it. The entire Vikramaditya purchase is a fiasco.

Wear & Tear is NOT the same as Structural Damage, which is what the MiG-29K is experiencing. There is not much that can be said on an open forum, but the issue is *VERY* serious. The Indian Navy is putting up a brave face, to save itself and the nation much embarrassment.

Resolving the parts and supply chain issue is *NOT* going to solve the problem.

[Cain Marko]

^ well if you are saying this based on more than that which is available in open sources, I'll defer to your pov. Can't believe that all parties allowed such an eff up!

About the incident from 90, the bird rejoined training after a part was replaced. BTW, if you notice, this is exactly what the CNS said, the part is replaced and the bird flies again. No indication of it being a structural issue.

[John]

Aside from size and handling on a cramped deck, we know the Flanker is superior to the Fulcrum in every way on land once in the air. With CATOBAR the disadvantages with weight goes away.

Debatable. The Fulcrum has similar maneuverability to the Flanker and a higher T:W ratio. Both have HMS+R-73 combo. So a dogfight could go either way. Flanker has a payload advantage, more powerful radar and better endurance. Payload and endurance advantages could be reduced or negated while operating from a STOBAR carrier.

Good points and to add it for Fleet Air defense, powerful radar is not important due to presence of naval search radars in friendly vessels including Vikramaditya which has the monster Podberezovik radar.

[Rakesh]

^ well if you are saying this based on more than that which is available in open sources, I'll defer to your pov. Can't believe that all parties allowed such an eff up!

Very easy for me to criticize the Navy, sitting in an a/c room and on a comfortable chair. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20. I embody the term Armchair Admiral

But that having being said, we got sold a lemon called the Vikramaditya. And yes that does put the Indian Naval planners - who pushed for this purchase back in the early 2000s - in a bad light. However, given the situation back then...I am not sure what else could have been done. I am assuming, we did not have the choice to say NO to the Russians back then....like we told them recently on the PAK-FA program. And PAK-FA would have been another monumental disaster in the making. No use crying over spilt milk though. This is money gone down the drain and will never come back.

The only reality that stares us in the face is the path ahead and thus the path moving forward is this, IMHO --->

1) Lay the keel NOW for a stretched - at 55,000 to 60,000 tons - Vikrant design (lets call her Viraat) with a ski jump. If you lay the keel now, she will be ready for carrier ops by 2030. Forget dreams of EMALS and nuclear power.

2) For the love of Jupiter, make sure they have wider and bigger lifts to accommodate aircraft like the Rafale M or F-18 Block III. And if they need to increase the tonnage of the vessel for that, then do it!

3) Station the MiG-29Ks at Dabolim and Vizag and use them as base air defence or transfer them to the air force. They are unworthy to be stationed on aircraft carriers. No amount of fixing is going to resolve the issue.

4) Retire the Vikramaditya in 2030 (when the Viraat comes onboard). Get rid of her, as soon as possible.

5) I would STILL like to see the Navy take the N-Tejas Mk2. But since the Navy is insisting on a twin-engine bird, the Tejas is out. I still believe - perhaps naively - that the Navy will have a turn around when the Mk2 becomes available. In the absence of the Tejas Mk2, if Dassault can make the Rafale M work, on the Vikrant and Vikramaditya, good and fine. Otherwise go for the F-18 Block III onlee.

[nachiket]

CM if it was just a maintenance and spare parts issue, the 57 aircraft RFI would never have happened. Especially considering the size restrictions on the deck-lifts. Why would the Navy go any other route except a follow-on order for Mig-29ks? Why look for jugaad solutions like tilting F-18's and detachable Rafale wingtips? Only possible (and unsaid) reason is that the Mig-29k is not suitable for long term carrier ops.

Of course when the RFI first came out the whole thing was blamed on "inadequate" NLCA.

[Singha]

Both cavour and juan carlos will operate the f35b
So looks like their lifts are sized for it
F35b wingspan is identical to rafale

Mctaggart scott of uk has given very large lifts to uk qe2 carrier

2001 era wad bush india bonhomie period

We should realize careiets serve 50 years
We dropped the ball

[Cain Marko]

CM if it was just a maintenance and spare parts issue, the 57 aircraft RFI would never have happened. Especially considering the size restrictions on the deck-lifts. Why would the Navy go any other route except a follow-on order for Mig-29ks? Why look for jugaad solutions like tilting F-18's and detachable Rafale wingtips? Only possible (and unsaid) reason is that the Mig-29k is not suitable for long term carrier ops.

Of course when the RFI first came out the whole thing was blamed on "inadequate" NLCA.

here's the answer from the horses mouth. ..

Speaking about the procurement program, Admiral Sunil Lanba had said “The MiG-29K will operate from the INS Vikrant. But we also need an alternate aircraft now. We are looking for it (foreign fighter), as the LCA is not up to the mark yet. In the present form, the LCA cannot take off with its full weapon load (from an aircraft carrier).”

https://www.lifeofsoldiers.com/index.ph ... ve-offers/

Note that the Admiral is quite unambiguous here - the fulcrums are to continue to operate on the vikrant. And the RFI is to get an alternative for the NLCA. His words, not mine. Make of them what you will

Now if you, Admiral Rakman and BRfites are saying, based on confidential info that the CNS's categorical statement is actually a cover up for the russkis, then I will look the other way in deference to such insider knowledge. And this vodka laced lemonade we are getting raises more questions that are rather uncomfortable. However, open source releases aand direct statements from named sources clearly indicate that the problem of the fulcrum is not somethinig unsolvable (and can be managed by maintenance and proper parts supply). This is uttlerly in line with the issue mentioned by Gordon as well.

In any case, there could be other reasons for the RFI as well...
IN doesnt want to depend only on Russian hardware and would like to get a better mix on its carriers
Politically, the GOI wants to dangle this carrot before increasing western pressure
It could be a roundabout way to get birds for the Vishal

Who knows. But this RFI doesnt have to be a rejection of the fulcrum. As far as the NLCA is concerned, it is quite clear that the bird in its current state is inadequate for carrier ops. Again the CNS's statements leave no ambiguity here. As gut wrenching as this is, we have to accept it.

[Prasad]

This discussion about navalising the MKI - it won't work. it needs too much money and too much time for it to ever get approval. For the decision makers, its a safer and easier bet to just buy a foreign fighter and let the navy figure out how to use 2-3 different fighter types on as many carriers.

[chola]

This discussion about navalising the MKI - it won't work. it needs too much money and too much time for it to ever get approval. For the decision makers, its a safer and easier bet to just buy a foreign fighter and let the navy figure out how to use 2-3 different fighter types on as many carriers.

I don’t see it as something in our immediate future. I see it as a national project like the Kaveri to enhance our industrial base and also to protect accumulated institutional experience and knowledge.

That said, we are testing our navalized LCA as we speak. HAL’s SU-30 line is 70% indigenized with a network of local suppliers built up painfully over the years. There is no reason why we cannot use these national assets in a carrier aircraft project when our next flat top — if the MoD gave the go ahead this afternoon — would be delivered after 2030 earliest.

I do not want to see the MKI line end up like our MiG-21, MiG-27 and Jaguar lines that when the contract ended we had nothing to show for it. My god, our industry cannot build even spares for the Jaguars and we need to scour the globe for jets we can cannibalize. I want that Flanker line at HAL to be like the one at SAC where the chinis are still building types long after their contract for the SU-27SK ended.

[John]

This discussion about navalising the MKI - it won't work. it needs too much money and too much time for it to ever get approval. For the decision makers, its a safer and easier bet to just buy a foreign fighter and let the navy figure out how to use 2-3 different fighter types on as many carriers.

Not sure why current fascination with navalizing Su-30mki considering the high maintenance costs and also extensive testing required to certify it ( in other words won't be ready till 2030). Let's not forget Su-33 suffers from far worse structural and mechanical problems ( it ran very few sorties from Kuz for a good reason) than Mig-29k and let's not forget the attrition rate for J-15 is one of highest among 4th Gen fighters. Now we want to get Flankers that seems brilliant...

[Singha]

we can make more jaguars and deploy them off vikky and vikrant
armed with its EL2052 radar, derby, astra, python and 2 engined safety , can be useful asset
its already qualified with various ASM like AM39 exocet and harpoon

its as versatile as the F-18 family
https://quwa.org/2017/08/14/hal-test-fl ... esa-radar/

wingspan is well below rafale/f18

here it is flying easily off the clemenceau

[Singha]

for unknown reasons the french stuck with the venerable F-8 crusader and the fairly weak super Etendard.

jag will wipe them anyday. esp with the F125 honeywell engine.

its least cost option to get out of the mess.

[ramana]

Shape of things to come in IN

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 55617?s=19

[Cain Marko]

This discussion about navalising the MKI - it won't work. it needs too much money and too much time for it to ever get approval. For the decision makers, its a safer and easier bet to just buy a foreign fighter and let the navy figure out how to use 2-3 different fighter types on as many carriers.

I don’t see it as something in our immediate future. I see it as a national project like the Kaveri to enhance our industrial base and also to protect accumulated institutional experience and knowledge.

That said, we are testing our navalized LCA as we speak. HAL’s SU-30 line is 70% indigenized with a network of local suppliers built up painfully over the years. There is no reason why we cannot use these national assets in a carrier aircraft project when our next flat top — if the MoD gave the go ahead this afternoon — would be delivered after 2030 earliest.

I do not want to see the MKI line end up like our MiG-21, MiG-27 and Jaguar lines that when the contract ended we had nothing to show for it. My god, our industry cannot build even spares for the Jaguars and we need to scour the globe for jets we can cannibalize. I want that Flanker line at HAL to be like the one at SAC where the chinis are still building types long after their contract for the SU-27SK ended.

Agree here. The heavy investment made in the mki cannot be allowed to just wither away. If not a naval variant, which seems too ambitious for the retarded decision makers of the country, at the very least a super mki variant with some stealth should be considered or a growler analogue.

My guess is that Hal will stay busy in the suoer 30 upgrade.

[Rakesh]

Cain-ji, the Super 30 upgrade will be a Super MKI variant onlee. Any major redesign of the Su-30MKI - such as a naval variant - requires going back to the OEM. And the OEM will charge India a pretty penny. I doubt the IN would be interested in making such an investment in light of the 57 carrier borne fighter contest. We are not the Chinese. We play a gentleman's game of cricket. We follow all the rules, while nobody else does.

[chola]

We follow all the rules, while nobody else does.

Admiral Saar, if I hadn’t just gotten a warning for language you’d hear my true feelings about that!

[Cain Marko]

^ yes gentlemanly with outside forces and rowdy with own people. I knew some people like that... Mice outside and tigers at home, never fail to give the poor wife and kids a resounding beating to show em who's boss.

[ramana]

Cain Marko, India should acquire those Kaliber missiles if the Nirbhay doesn't show up soon.

[Rakesh]

Admiral Saar, if I hadn’t just gotten a warning for language you’d hear my true feelings about that!

There can be no China Military thread on BRF, if it is not for your contributions. Keep up the good work, just go easy with the language.

^ yes gentlemanly with outside forces and rowdy with own people. I knew some people like that... Mice outside and tigers at home, never fail to give the poor wife and kids a resounding beating to show em who's boss.

The true Indian male, or at least that is what they like to think. We digress!

I am all in favour of giving the IN a squadron or two of Su-30MKIs as naval assets. Not on carriers, but from land based air stations like Dabolim, Vizag or Andamans with Brahmos-A cruise missiles slung underneath. If the IAF does not want 40 more Su-30MKIs, then give the 40 birds to the Indian Naval Air Arm.

Our inability to navalize the MKI just goes to show how little we have learnt from screwdrivergiri of the Su-30MKI. It is for this reason, that we should not encourage screwdrivergiri of any new fighter in India. Just buy what we need directly from the OEM in fly away condition and ask for offsets in components.

We will only learn from Tejas ---> Naval Tejas and down the road from AMCA ----> Naval AMCA.

[Cain Marko]

^ +1 saar. The idea of naval MKIs or even Su34s, if not backfires is a cheap way to keep some control in the ior.

[chetak]

^ +1 saar. The idea of naval MKIs or even Su34s, if not backfires is a cheap way to keep some control in the ior.

It is still an expensive proposition because this lot of 40 would have to be navalized first. That means parts interchangeability is low and also the standard of preparation will be different.

It is also one good way forward.

[chola]

It might be hard but I don’t think navalizing our MKI will be any harder than what we’ve done with the NLCA especially since the Tejas is a smaller single-engine aircraft with even higher restrictions on weight and smaller margins for error.

And the naval SU-30 can be no worse than the MiG-29K problems we are having now. I think there can be nothing more dangerous than a carrier plane that cannot do its basic job — taking off and landing on a carrier — without jarring loose parts or even cracking this thing or another. You need to place that kind of stress on the maintenance crew after every sortie? Find out every loose parts and recalibrate any affected instruments or your pilot could die! How is this even doable in any kind of realistic war tempo?

The Russian Navy had 24 MiG-29Ks at the time of the Syrian deployment. They embarked only 4 Fulcrums as opposed to 8 of the ancient SU-33s. That tells you anything? In Syria, a MiG-29K promptly lost both its engines circling the Kuznetsov. (A SU-33 went in the drink too but that was because its pilot missed the cable during landing and had too low of speed.)

And just because the chinis messed it up with the J-15, it doesn’t mean we will with a carrier MKI. I found three J-15 accidents. Two were FBW-related and the third a bird strike. It has crappy chini programming not the SU-33 structure and design.

Even with all the complaints, the chinis embark with their Varyag full of J-15s. And they will have many more on their new carrier. Ain’t no J-20 or J-31 is gonna ski-jump. So IMHO, between the chinis, the roos in Syria AND our Navy’s own comment and actions (ruggedize, recalibrate, 57 RFI) the Flanker is at the very least no more dangerous than the Fulcrum and is better basic design to begin with.

I trust us with our experience in carrier ops to navalize the MKI (and NLCA) far more than the Russians and their Fulcrum. And we need a twin-engine indigenous option for our CATOBAR carrier in 10 or 15 years time.

Damn gentleman’s cricket. Build the naval MKI.

[Bala Vignesh]

Damn gentleman’s cricket. Build the naval MKI.

Amen to that!! This should be started at full steam..

We need to leverage our knowledge, however limited it may be, of the MKI and use it for our other purposes.

The navy is looking at a full fledged CVN with a brand new twin engined aircraft. The MKI fits the bill, its twin engined, can carry sufficient fuel and weapons load and has good handling. To top it off, the thrust vectoring will help it climb off the ski jump better. Fortunately there have not been any reported dual engine flameouts so the engine reliability is also decent. This would not only drastically cut down coats as the components are off the shelf and we can manufacture most of the plane. The maintenance infrastructure also already exists. This can be our stop gap till the NAMCA makes it in numbers.

IAF can actually order HAL to develop a dedicated wild weasel version for SEAD/DEAD operations and EW, too.

[John]

Chola, Su-33 suffered from countless structural and mechanical issues thru it's lifetime even from land they didn't fly many sorties and considered to be maintenance nightmare. I get it you want Su30mki naval edition but move on its not going to happen and let's focus on current candidates.

[mody]

Of course when the RFI first came out the whole thing was blamed on "inadequate" NLCA.

here's the answer from the horses mouth. ..

Speaking about the procurement program, Admiral Sunil Lanba had said “The MiG-29K will operate from the INS Vikrant. But we also need an alternate aircraft now. We are looking for it (foreign fighter), as the LCA is not up to the mark yet. In the present form, the LCA cannot take off with its full weapon load (from an aircraft carrier).”

https://www.lifeofsoldiers.com/index.ph ... ve-offers/

Note that the Admiral is quite unambiguous here - the fulcrums are to continue to operate on the vikrant. And the RFI is to get an alternative for the NLCA. His words, not mine. Make of them what you will

Now if you, Admiral Rakman and BRfites are saying, based on confidential info that the CNS's categorical statement is actually a cover up for the russkis, then I will look the other way in deference to such insider knowledge. And this vodka laced lemonade we are getting raises more questions that are rather uncomfortable. However, open source releases aand direct statements from named sources clearly indicate that the problem of the fulcrum is not somethinig unsolvable (and can be managed by maintenance and proper parts supply). This is uttlerly in line with the issue mentioned by Gordon as well.

In any case, there could be other reasons for the RFI as well...
IN doesnt want to depend only on Russian hardware and would like to get a better mix on its carriers
Politically, the GOI wants to dangle this carrot before increasing western pressure
It could be a roundabout way to get birds for the Vishal

Who knows. But this RFI doesnt have to be a rejection of the fulcrum. As far as the NLCA is concerned, it is quite clear that the bird in its current state is inadequate for carrier ops. Again the CNS's statements leave no ambiguity here. As gut wrenching as this is, we have to accept it.

CM saheb, we have acquired 45 Mig29K, thats enough for 2 carriers. All 45 cannot be for Vikramaditya alone. It cannot have more 20-22 Mig29Ks and infact regular deployment maybe with even less then that.
So to say that 57 aircrafts are needed to cover for NLCA not showing up is not correct.

Where we can fault the navy is that we received 16 Mig29K's in the first batch. We used the same for 3 years and then placed an additional order for 29 more. If the plane was having problems they should have figured that out with the first batch of 16 itself.
Will have to check when the SBTF at Goa got ready. Maybe the Navy didnot have enough time to test the bird from the SBTF, before they decided to order another 29.
Although testing the plane from a short take, would have certainly given them some idea about the load carrying ability of the plane for carrier operations. Also, the range and on-station time would have also been known.

[Rakesh]

^ +1 saar. The idea of naval MKIs or even Su34s, if not backfires is a cheap way to keep some control in the ior.

It is still an expensive proposition because this lot of 40 would have to be navalized first. That means parts interchangeability is low and also the standard of preparation will be different.

It is also one good way forward.

No Sir. When operating from land air bases, you do not need to do anything other than giving them an IN serial number. That is all you need. Take a look at the Jaguar IMs, operated by the Indian Air Force but in the anti-shipping role.

[chetak]

It is still an expensive proposition because this lot of 40 would have to be navalized first. That means parts interchangeability is low and also the standard of preparation will be different.

It is also one good way forward.

No Sir. When operating from land air bases, you do not need to do anything other than giving them an IN serial number. That is all you need. Take a look at the Jaguar IMs, operated by the Indian Air Force but in the anti-shipping role.

If the base is by the sea you need the aircraft to be navalized to some extent. Corrosion can lead to far faster structural damage than most other causes.

These are expensive assets so we need to take much more care.

The only things that could be omitted are the strengthening of the fuselage and undercarriage and the extensive shock and vibration testing of the LRUs.

Sorry to say, but the "maritime" jaguars are a joke, no more and no less. Moreover, they are based far away from the sea.

[Khalsa]

Our inability to navalize the MKI just goes to show how little we have learnt from screwdrivergiri of the Su-30MKI.
We will only learn from Tejas ---> Naval Tejas and down the road from AMCA ----> Naval AMCA.

Admiral I am using your quote and slightly altering it.


Our inability to navalize the MKI just goes to show how little we have learnt from screwdrivergiri of the Su-30MKI.




Our ability to navalize the Tejas shows how much we have learn from desigining and building of the Light Combat Aircraft Industry

[Cain Marko]

No Sir. When operating from land air bases, you do not need to do anything other than giving them an IN serial number. That is all you need. Take a look at the Jaguar IMs, operated by the Indian Air Force but in the anti-shipping role.

If the base is by the sea you need the aircraft to be navalized to some extent. Corrosion can lead to far faster structural damage than most other causes.

These are expensive assets so we need to take much more care.

The only things that could be omitted are the strengthening of the fuselage and undercarriage and the extensive shock and vibration testing of the LRUs.

Sorry to say, but the "maritime" jaguars are a joke, no more and no less. Moreover, they are based far away from the sea.

Would this saltification and anti corrosive treatment be applicable to helos also? If so, both Hal and the russkis should have experience in this area?

[Cain Marko]

[

CM saheb, we have acquired 45 Mig29K, thats enough for 2 carriers. All 45 cannot be for Vikramaditya alone. It cannot have more 20-22 Mig29Ks and infact regular deployment maybe with even less then that.
So to say that 57 aircrafts are needed to cover for NLCA not showing up is not correct.

Where we can fault the navy is that we received 16 Mig29K's in the first batch. We used the same for 3 years and then placed an additional order for 29 more. If the plane was having problems they should have figured that out with the first batch of 16 itself.
Will have to check when the SBTF at Goa got ready. Maybe the Navy didnot have enough time to test the bird from the SBTF, before they decided to order another 29.
Although testing the plane from a short take, would have certainly given them some idea about the load carrying ability of the plane for carrier operations. Also, the range and on-station time would have also been known.

Modiji, the vikad can carry at least 24 fulcrums and the Vikrant supposedly 36, this apart from reserves, trainers etc I assume. So the 45 number is not enough for two CVs imho

The second point you make is a very good observation, if the damned bird is so bad, why the second order?

As far as russki testing facilities, they started testing the mig 29 on a shore based facility, Nitka in 1982. Yes that's when the first stbf tests took place. So, I'll be mighty surprised if the Russians completely missed serious issues. They were exposing the bird to hard landings off and on throughout the 80s and early 90s. In fact the bird was not accepted for ship trials unless at least 400 landings were done just prior to see trials. Iirc, cracks occurred in the landing gear oleo and these did not ground the aircraft. It required replacement of certain parts just as CNS Arun Prakash said. of course, I'm not saying that this is exactly what's happening currently, but From the reports so far, no named source points to any structural damage from routine ops. Again, it seems at least on the face of it, a maintenance issue.

Again, I'm not the one who said that the new rfi is for nlca replacement, the chief did. Perhaps there is more to it. But my point was that nobody other than unnamed sources have pointed to it as a result of the failure of the naval.fulcrum.

[Rakesh]

The second point you make is a very good observation, if the damned bird is so bad, why the second order?

That is an easy one Cain-ji

The first 16 were ordered in 2004 and deliveries began in 2009. The second batch of 29 birds were ordered in January 2010.

Guess when the Vikramaditya entered service with the Indian Navy? Commissioned in 2013 and entered service in 2014. The Navy was never the wiser and had no clue, until it was too late. Once regular carrier duties commenced, buyers remorse set in. But by then, too late. We got suckered into it.

[chetak]

If the base is by the sea you need the aircraft to be navalized to some extent. Corrosion can lead to far faster structural damage than most other causes.

These are expensive assets so we need to take much more care.

The only things that could be omitted are the strengthening of the fuselage and undercarriage and the extensive shock and vibration testing of the LRUs.

Sorry to say, but the "maritime" jaguars are a joke, no more and no less. Moreover, they are based far away from the sea.

Would this saltification and anti corrosive treatment be applicable to helos also? If so, both Hal and the russkis should have experience in this area?

It would.

[Cain Marko]

The second point you make is a very good observation, if the damned bird is so bad, why the second order?

That is an easy one Cain-ji

The first 16 were ordered in 2004 and deliveries began in 2009. The second batch of 29 birds were ordered in January 2010.

Guess when the Vikramaditya entered service with the Indian Navy? Commissioned in 2013 and entered service in 2014. The Navy was never the wiser and had no clue, until it was too late. Once regular carrier duties commenced, buyers remorse set in. But by then, too late. We got suckered into it.

Hmm Admiralji, you have a point. But now I'm confused as it raises some serious questions.. Wasn't the Indian Navy part and parcel of the testing phase of both the carrier and the fighter? If so, were they not satisfied with the tests that were being carried out? Weren't hard landings done then, and didn't the airframe go all wobbly and out of whack during the test phase? Didn't hear a whimper in those days from so called official sources. How could they have possibly been suckered into it? Also was the fleet grounded for what seems like a very serious issue?

[Cain Marko]

Debatable. The Fulcrum has similar maneuverability to the Flanker and a higher T:W ratio. Both have HMS+R-73 combo. So a dogfight could go either way. Flanker has a payload advantage, more powerful radar and better endurance. Payload and endurance advantages could be reduced or negated while operating from a STOBAR carrier.

Good points and to add it for Fleet Air defense, powerful radar is not important due to presence of naval search radars in friendly vessels including Vikramaditya which has the monster Podberezovik radar.

No matter how big or powerful the radar, it will suffer from LOS issues. Low flying fighters at long distances are going to be picked up much better by the Bars, not to mention any other types of targets. A flanker like the one Chola is talking about would enjoy some advantages over the fulcrum. Endurance for eg., is crucial even in a WVR fight allowing a pilot to disengage and engage on his own terms. Then there is the added advantage of tvc on the flanker. Overall, I would rate it as having better potential than the fulcrum just as the SN did originally.

Having said this, I don't see this naval flanker fantasy going anywhere despite how much burnol poor Cholaji has to use while viewing tfta looking PLAN fighters doing their thing. these are the heartbreaks that all jingos have to suffer thanks to an utterly callous political class and civil service. I can only imagine the pain the folks in uniform suffer.

[Austin]

The first 16 were ordered in 2004 and deliveries began in 2009. The second batch of 29 birds were ordered in January 2010.

Guess when the Vikramaditya entered service with the Indian Navy? Commissioned in 2013 and entered service in 2014. The Navy was never the wiser and had no clue, until it was too late. Once regular carrier duties commenced, buyers remorse set in. But by then, too late. We got suckered into it.

The IN has built a Land Based Facility for carrier ops much before Vikramaditya entered service and IN was extensive involved in flight testing operation and a huge crew/officers was station out there on the ship to test it and the aircraft , its only when the navy certified all OK then we took the commision.

The problem with 29K is two fold one is the Childhood disease that new aircraft goes through inspite of all the test and best effort from every body its only some problem can come during squadron service of aircraft when things fly day in and day out and maintenance is carried by regular crew , This is common to all the aircraft even Tejas will reach that stage when it enter squadron service be that be IAF or IN , This things can take years to get fixed its not a critical issue that would make it stop flying day in and day out but nagging issue that can turn out of blue , Some times it may not turn out immediately but after years of squadron service. Like a simple case of not having the FBW in the right place and lead to accidental switch off by pilot lead to fall of MKI , now they changed the location of FBW on MKI but such things happend only after decades of MKI service , Same goes for Jags derating of engine that still exist and Avionic issue that is fixed via Indian designed DARIN, something not seen during extensive trials but after squadron service in IAF , There are many such stories in IAF. At one point our SHAR fleet had been grounded due to spares issue. Then SHAR did not have a proper radar or good WVR missile , the same was fixed via Israel using Radar and BVR/WVR missile , For most part INS Virrat used to be on refit during 26/11 and Praliament Attack both occasion it was in port and SHAR could not be used.

Even civilan aircraft new ones goes thorugh the same issue inspite of best effort and passing through all certification by FAA etc its only when they fly day in and out in regular airservice that face the same issue.

The other thing is lack of PBL type of arrangement for RUssian procured aircraft , We just go for PBL for French and US systems but so far have not opted for the same. CAG has pointed the same to MOD in IL-76 , THe cost of maintaining a fleet of 50 or 200 plus Russian aircraft with high uptimes with bankrups IAF opeex while doing the same for 1 or 2 dozen aircraft is not much taxing.

[Cain Marko]

^you raise some good points there Austin, the Shars availability was a disaster not too long ago.