Indian Naval Aviation

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 May 2019 03:41

Private players cry foul as HAL submits 2 bids for mega Navy chopper deal
https://theprint.in/defence/private-pla ... al/229335/

State-owned HAL has filed one bid on its own and one with Russian Helicopters for the Naval Utility Helicopter. The Indian Navy wants to purchase 111 NUHs.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 May 2019 03:42

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1119846418242506752 ----> Sweet shot of an Indian Navy Sea King Mk 42B at AUSINDEX!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2019 07:01

Rakesh wrote:Private players cry foul as HAL submits 2 bids for mega Navy chopper deal
https://theprint.in/defence/private-pla ... al/229335/

State-owned HAL has filed one bid on its own and one with Russian Helicopters for the Naval Utility Helicopter. The Indian Navy wants to purchase 111 NUHs.

Looks like the protest too much as they want to do screwdriver giri with

Of the international OEMs, Leonardo is currently blacklisted. The Russians are also in the race, but the Navy doesn’t seem too keen on the Kamov choppers. Bell Helicopter’s Bell 429 and Sikorsky’s S-76 have certain non-compliance issues with respect to the Navy’s specific requirements. The companies could carry out changes, but this would involve expenditure.

The front-runner seems to be Airbus, which is trying to push AS565, a platform that’s more than 30 years old.

So at-least navy has choice of two helicopters both HAL associated.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 02 May 2019 08:11

Hal two bids are Ka226 and nluh version of naval Dhruv with automatic folding of rotors and tail and MTOW restricted to 5T.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 02 May 2019 08:15

If IN preference is for Naval Panther then nluh version of naval Dhruv will beat it on price.
In the lighter class naval Ka226 will beat others on price.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 02 May 2019 09:54

Why should designed and manufactured in India Dhruv have to compete against screwdriver-giri solutions? Beyond being a corporate welfare program + another avenue for paying protection money.

chola · Post by **chola** » 05 May 2019 15:02

The Charles de Gaulle in Goa for carrier exercise with Vikramaditya!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 06 May 2019 04:22

abhik wrote:Why should designed and manufactured in India Dhruv have to compete against screwdriver-giri solutions? Beyond being a corporate welfare program + another avenue for paying protection money.

Totally agree. Throwing money at others only makes India weaker and not stronger.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 May 2019 03:04

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1125380356591575045 ---> Superb little story today by Sandeep Unnithan on what happened to the eyes & claws of the Indian Navy's iconic Sea Harrier jump-jets after they were retired a few years ago.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 May 2019 03:05

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1124355069283987456 ----> Indian Navy cleared by MoD to procure 10 additional Kamov-31 AEW helicopters from Russia at a cost of ₹3,600 crore.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 May 2019 03:36

I missed this from last September.....but very important point highlighted in bold. Until now, I was only aware of Boeing having made the claim. This is a BIG plus for the Rafale M. The only other sticking factor - apart from cost - is the width of the Rafale and the width of the elevators on the Vikramaditya and the upcoming Vikrant. If they can successfully do that, the Rafale M is a clear winner based on commonality with the Indian Air Force. Great cost savings galore between the two services!

Unfazed by Rafale fire, France offers fighter for Navy
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 958113.cms
26 Sept 2018

SUPER HORNET VS RAFALE MARINE

Beyond the 36 jets that the air force has ordered, the French side is confident about its prospects for a deal with the Indian Navy, which is trying to find new jets for the indigenous aircraft carrier under construction in Kochi. While the navy has used Russian MiG 29 K jets till now, it wants to progress to a new aircraft due to several technical problems with the fleet. The tenders for the contract are expected to be issued shortly but it is likely to be a straight contest between the Boeing-made F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Rafale Marine. The French Navy believes that it has demonstrated its ability to operate from foreign carriers. “The Rafale went to the US and was deployed on American aircraft carriers,” said Boidevezi. “The Rafale was perfectly integrated with the US and has shown its capability to work with non-French platforms.”

Both the F/A 18 and Rafale Marine fighter jets have been operating from aircraft carriers but are rigged for catapult launches. This may pose problems for India as the navy uses the ski jump system, which involves a runway that curves upward. Sources said that extensive tests and software analysis have been conducted by the French side on the Rafale to show that it can operate with a meaningful load from ski jump carriers. This data has also been shared with the Indian Navy that is currently drafting technical requirements for the new fighter competition. Boeing, which makes the Super Hornet, has also shared this data with the Indian Navy. Once the requirements are firmed up and permissions obtained from the ministry of defence, tenders will be issued.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 May 2019 08:30

Wonder what do the Dornier 228 use the EL 2032's for?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 May 2019 09:20

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1124355069283987456 ----> Indian Navy cleared by MoD to procure 10 additional Kamov-31 AEW helicopters from Russia at a cost of ₹3,600 crore.

Great news. Any news about the AAR capability they planned on giving it?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 May 2019 09:30

Aditya_V wrote:Wonder what do the Dornier 228 use the EL 2032's for?

Supposed to have excellent A2S resolution... Perhaps it will enable the but to strike surface threats?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 May 2019 11:29

Hmm, but shows there were enough differences that it was not considered worthwhile to use these 11 radars on LCA Tejas

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 May 2019 11:48

^ I think lca nose cone is too big, 650mm? and not optimal for shar based 2032. Theyd be a better for for jags or I guess the dorniers.

VikramA · Post by **VikramA** » 07 May 2019 11:56

Aditya_V wrote:Hmm, but shows there were enough differences that it was not considered worthwhile to use these 11 radars on LCA Tejas

I think it might be due to service requirements. Derby was transferred because with harrier retirement there was no platform in navy left that could use the missiles. Where as 2032 could be retrofitted to the donier and the IN might have been hesitant to transfer useable assets to another service(IAF) especially with financial constraints

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 May 2019 20:54

Now here is something you do not get to see every day.

P-8I (Serial # IN 320) with four AGM-84 Harpoon AShMs under the wing.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 May 2019 21:00

Aditya_V wrote:Hmm, but shows there were enough differences that it was not considered worthwhile to use these 11 radars on LCA Tejas

LCA has Hybrid MMR not EL/M-2032. Indian antenna, gimbal and Elta backend.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 May 2019 21:00

Another interesting picture. This photo is courtesy of Admiral Arun Prakash (retd), former Chief of Naval Staff. This was the paint scheme until it shifted to an all grey colour scheme.

https://twitter.com/arunp2810/status/11 ... 5618609153 ---> A sight to gladden one's heart! Newly painted Sea Harrier FRS Mk 51 (Serial # IN 609) displaying White Tiger on tail & AAR probe on shoulder. This veteran, after 34 yrs of colour service, has been assigned 'gate-guardian' duty of the erstwhile 'Home of the Sea Harrier'; NAS Dabolim.

Below is IN 609 during her flying days. Notice no AAR probe! This photo is courtesy of Angad Singh.

Go Here for Photo Details ----> https://www.airliners.net/photo/India-N ... XW9QsV/zHO

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 13 Jun 2019 08:08

3 carriers
1 squadron (16) per carrier
2 trainers per squadron
1 spare per squadron
16+2+1 = 19
19 x 3 = 57

uskumar · Post by **uskumar** » 13 Jun 2019 08:20

Sir,
how many carriers does Navy actually have and why are we not considering MIG 29N in this calculation.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 13 Jun 2019 08:41

Each carrier will have about 2 squadrons of fighter aircraft (plus some ELINT, helos, UAVs). Presumably second squadron will be Naval Tejas/Mig-29K.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Jun 2019 08:55

yensoy wrote:3 carriers
1 squadron (16) per carrier
2 trainers per squadron
1 spare per squadron
16+2+1 = 19
19 x 3 = 57

There are only 2 squadrons for 45 MiG-29K/KU in the IN. Some twin-seaters may get allocated to the training squadrons as well. Fleet-wide reserves may be assigned more airframes too.

Article below gives an idea of how many airframes will be in fleetwide “reserves” undergoing overhaul (or waiting for one). (b) &(c) below would be in that bucket while (a) would be at squadron level. A typical squadron has 2 combat flights (each with 6 aircraft) and 1 technical support flight (will be in possession of 4 extra airframes undergoing first-line/second-line inspection/maintenance).

...
According to figures presented in those meeting (a) 20 per cent of the fleet, i.e. some 39 Su-30MKIs, are undergoing “first line” and “second line” maintenance or inspections at any time, which is the IAF’s responsibility; (b) Another 11-12 per cent of the fleet is undergoing major repair and overhaul by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL); and (c) 13-14 per cent of the fleet is grounded, awaiting major systems or repairs --- the technical terms is: “aircraft on ground”.
...

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2014/10/ ... r.html?m=1

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 15 Jun 2019 20:04

ramana wrote:[
Technology
F-18 is a 1970s plane with lipstick on it.
its the loser of the F-16 light weight fighter and was called F-17.
The USN decided they will take it and navalize it. And became the F-18.

Ramana, some corrections to factual inaccuracies.

The current 'F18' aka superhornet is a 2001 plane. Growler is a later variant.

The US Navy pushed not to have a NATF (navalized ATF = F22), and managed to initiate a Stealth A12, "Flying Doritos". It was a disaster of a program, and was cancelled

Since they needed a plane urgently and the US Congress to pay for it, they pushed through a new, low risk, larger superhornet design and pretended it was just an upgrade/evolution of the Hornet, to the point of giving it the same F18 moniker.

The planes even have different names on a carrier. : Rhino vs Bug.

Btw, The F18 was a bit more than a relabeled YF17, though it was definitively a derivative. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pl ... 145a.shtml

As a newish multi-role it was good enough to replace the F14 of Top Gun fame and a couple of others.

Besides, it's not always the airframe that matters most; it is the avionics, missile etc that drive up the cost and capability,

The F18 SH may not be the fastest/snazziest plane out there , but it is still good , mature technology and effective, with a good radar and missiles, etc.

Re : cost and logic of 57, some similar sentiments to yours

But why not apply that logic also to the number of carriers itself, by extension ?

Surely, if you spend umpteen billions on extra carriers, you want to have it armed commensurately with offensive and defensive arms (aka planes). Disagree or agree, wouldnt that be part of the logic ..

In my experience, there isn't really much justification publicly as to extra carriers or the number and type of new planes on them.

Objecting to one kind of plane misses these larger arguments..

But there's certainly an argument to have a big segment invested in long term growth and evolution of indian fighter aircraft..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Jun 2019 10:03

Barath wrote:As a newish multi-role it was good enough to replace the F14 of Top Gun fame and a couple of others.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2361750#p2361750

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 24 Jul 2019 21:55

Barath wrote:
ramana wrote:[
Technology
F-18 is a 1970s plane with lipstick on it.
its the loser of the F-16 light weight fighter and was called F-17.
The USN decided they will take it and navalize it. And became the F-18.

Ramana, some corrections to factual inaccuracies. ........... ..

Saar you are carrying coal to castlefield. No one else knows more, FWIIW.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 30 Jul 2019 13:18

@Haridas. Quite Possible. Still, the point should be stated by *someone* that the F18E/F Superhornet is not the F18 Hornet. And it is the former, newer plane that is on offer and not the older one,or the YF17.. with reasonable speculation on getting a Growler offer, too.

An possible analogy would be someone in 2040 calling out a Tejas MWF block and pointing to 1980s heritage, (but possibly more drastic). Unkind and possibly not completely fair to the plane in discussion.

In any case, Brar W has more than sufficiently filled in information/tech to the point, (even if he is not a fan of the plane), and I kept getting caught in F18 hornet vs F18 Superhornet confusion even in that discussion.. He had a legit point rebutting the statement here F18 replacing F14.

But this is unnecessary discussion/digression. This is definitely not an advocacy pitch for F18 SH, and not even the right forum/thread.

In meantime, the news on war reserve AA missile purchases always makes the imagination wander about hypothetical BVR missiles that may get integrated to Tejas 1 in future

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Jul 2019 13:40

"F18E/F Superhornet is not the F18 Hornet"

Arguably worse aerodynamics (infamous wing fences) though a much larger aircraft with all its attendant advantages/disadvantages.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 30 Jul 2019 13:53

Karan M wrote:"F18E/F Superhornet is not the F18 Hornet"

Arguably worse aerodynamics (infamous wing fences) though a much larger aircraft with all its attendant advantages/disadvantages.

True. Wing drop problem in development, and canted pylons are reminders that design isn't straightforward.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lem-24896/

An interesting perspective (old) :
https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fight ... er-hornet/

You could probably add a Block III Article including airframe hours to above and comments about end of life in US Navy/Australia.

To being it back on point, even adding range and platform (missile/radar) improvements would have had potential for an airplane like Tejas,let alone the bunch of improvements targeted forTejas MWF and future block/capability upgrades yet unplanned. But there might be scope for more amount of testing for tejas MWF than originally planned

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 30 Jul 2019 19:15

..
But there's certainly an argument to have a big segment invested in long term growth and evolution of indian fighter aircraft..

What govt could possibly do is put
* aerospace defence division (or prolly the department that has anti satellite missiles capability) as primary owner of the fighter jet - for the above part
* Navy as post-primary (main) owner of the naval LCA, followed (not closely) by IAF/IA as required
This in order to
* Evolve doctrine for aerospace defence - centred around local jets/platforms;
* Close coastal defence during wartime to reduce risks/wear&tear near enemy locations for fuel is primary concern of fighter jets
* Reduce wear&tear during peace times.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jul 2019 22:15

Barath wrote: with reasonable speculation on getting a Growler offer, too.

To become a Growler/NGJ operator would require the same level of interoperability, technology and data sharing and security partnership as the F-35 would which would likely include a joint team at best or a one way sharing of EW, ELINT and SIGINT data for the threat libraries at worst. Without the MDFs the NGJ is going to be quite useless and without constantly building and refreshing those MDFs it will not be as potent as desired. To do this requires a joint lift no smaller than what the F-35 partners are doing by embedding their EW teams with USAF EW teams working on its F-35s. I don’t see this happening with a Non NATO or other close security partner to be honest.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jul 2019 22:53

Guys, superb aerodynamics is one thing, but avionics, weapons, range and endurance will be bigger factors in deciding the outcome of any engagement especially given that the likelihood of enemy fighters being spotted at BVR ranges is very high. Recent events proved that to a great degree.

Granted that the F/A-18 E/F isn't the best in the drag department, but it has very good nose pointing ability which when combined with JHMCS and AIM-9X will make for a dangerous WVR opponent. And as long as it comes with the kind of avionics and weapons that the Block III is supposed to have and has the support of the US Navy for a guaranteed development path, it is a very viable option.

My preferred option is the Rafale for commonality, capability and being free of the threat of sanctions. But all this discussion on the Super Hornet belongs to the MRCA thread.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jul 2019 22:55

The block III SH makes zero sense for the MMRCA. It is a naval carrier fighter and such works best for the IN requirement.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Jul 2019 00:32

So what is it that it cannot do as an Air Force fighter? It carries dead weight, we all know that. Nothing can be done about that. But I can't see anything that precludes it's use as land based fighter, like so many Hornet operators have used theirs as.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Jul 2019 01:28

I never said it precludes it . All I said was that it is more suitable for the INs requirement than IAFs MMRCA and makes sense there vs trying to pick it from fighters that don’t have to carry naval requirements or are already in IAF service (or will be) like Rafale

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2019 02:04

The Shornet has the best chance to get into the Indian CBG setup -
1. Boeing seems to have found a work around the small elevator size .
2. The Navy, among all three services, is the most proactive when it comes to US hardware, from the Trenton and P8s to now the Guardians. It also conducts the most exercises with the US AFAIK.

As a naval fighter, it is an excellent bird but will not work for the AF, which wants/needs a true aerodynamic champion

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Jul 2019 02:16

Yes. Multiple advantages in the Naval MR Fighter side of things. It has multiple Anti Ship Missile Options ranging from Harpoon, JSM, to the LRASM. It has a multiple ARM options ranging from HARM with guidance upgrades to AARGM and the future AARGM-ER (though USN uses it only with the Growler) with the latest also being a high speed land attack weapon against targets requiring advanced discrimination (like TEL’s from command posts etc). It will also have the JAGM-F integrated allowing more shots at cheaper and less armed surface platforms (like FAC’s etc) and land based targets. It is compatible with AIM-120D, ASRAAM and AIM-9X now and is the threshold AIM-260 platform (2022 IOC). It is also the threshold platform for the JSOW-ER, and will have the SDB-II incorporated pretty much ahead of any other non US aircraft type. Both Block II and Block III SH are UAI compliant which means integrating weapons like UK’s SPEAR III would be fairly straight forward further expanding its possible Air to Surface weapons portfolio. The two biggest advantages IMHO would be its linking with any carrier-work on either propulsion trades, or EMALS-Steam based catapult systems for IAC-2 and its propulsion commonality with the MWF allowing for engine enhancements to be part of the offer.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2019 02:29

What news regarding its operability off the IN's STOBAR carriers? The last I remember, they had some kind of workaround planned. This is what I got from a LiveFist interview of Boeing' Chief:
Gillian stated:

"We've done a lot of simulation work with the Indian Navy to better understand their requirements and we fill comfortable that the Super Hornet can operate from all their carriers, both the ones fielded today and the ones in the future... We think we can move around the deck, be very mission capable with a relevant weapons load-out and fuel load-out to give the Navy what they need... The Super Hornet as built today can operate from Indian carriers."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-440676/

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Jul 2019 04:13

brar_w wrote:I never said it precludes it . All I said was that it is more suitable for the INs requirement than IAFs MMRCA and makes sense there vs trying to pick it from fighters that don’t have to carry naval requirements or are already in IAF service (or will be) like Rafale

Oh, I agree. I believe the Rafale is the natural fit for the IAF's MRCA requirement. Especially so after the 36 unit order. Considering the amount spent on setting up all the infrastructure to support the Rafale fleet in India, on India Specific Requirements and all the attendant commonality benefits, it is the most obvious choice.

However, given geopolitics and the possibility of extreme political pressure, if a US choice is foisted upon the IAF, the Super Hornet is a better choice for the IAF than the F-21. It is a very capable fighter even though it was designed for naval requirements. I would also choose a Super Hornet over the Typhoon or MiG-35 for sure. Simply more capable and with a better roadmap for additional capabilities. Although as you did point out in an earlier post, the Growler may not be a possibility without the kind of close cooperation that Australia has with the US.