There was an accident reported recently hence I said 44. Either way, it isn't 60-62.MeshaVishwas wrote:45.brar_w wrote: I thought the IN operated around 44 MiG-29K's (45-1).
No losses.
https://www.ndtv.com/goa-news/mig-29k-f ... ly-1795225
There was an accident reported recently hence I said 44. Either way, it isn't 60-62.MeshaVishwas wrote:45.brar_w wrote: I thought the IN operated around 44 MiG-29K's (45-1).
No losses.
Yes, the specific language in the RFI inquiring of compatibility with STOBAR operations from ski jumps, and steam/EM catapults would point to the IN requiring compatibility with current carrier, and future proofing it based on the direction it envisions for the IAC-2. Of course they could alter these things in the RFP but the RFI and reporting around it is all we have to go by.Rakesh wrote:Brar, when you say IAC-2....are you referring to the upcoming Vishal?
The IN was clearly scoping for something that could operate and/or integrate with both the IAC-1 and a future carrier [IAC-2] if it is larger, and has a catapult. I bet the last thing they want to end up with is a situation they currently find themselves in vis-a-vis the IAC-1's lifts and the air-wing selection. It is better to understand the abilities or integration costs of the fighter they chose so that they can create the requirements appropriately so as to avoid costs, delays, and integration challenges down the road if they do indeed embark on a catapult equipped carrier [which seems quite likely IMHO, with only the size and timing TBD].It [RFI] goes further, to ask:
Is the Main Landing Gear capable of withstanding loads of holding on Restraining Gear System fitted on IN STOBAR aircraft carriers at maximum afterburner rating?
Is the Nose Landing Gear designed and capable of undertaking Catapult Launch from contemporary Steam and Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launch (EMAL) systems?
Is the aircraft capable of being launched from 13o and 14° Ski-Jumps having a parabolic profile (would be provided on request) using afterburner?
Is the aircraft capable of being launched from conventional steam catapult and EMALS?
What is the certified max Launch Weight for CATOBAR? Provide CATOBAR specifications.
https://www.stratpost.com/navy-issues-r ... -fighters/
Are you saying that IAC-2 will be ready by the mid-2020s?Effectively, you are looking at a early-mid 2020's deployment of the IAC-2 with an air-wing that is fully trained and equipped to operate off of it.
Sir yes sir. But the number I quoted is the highest number based on space, manpower, fuel carrying capacity etc. On requirement the number may be curtailed but it shouldn't be higher than that. Also depending upon the rotary wing complement and in future UAVs.brar_w wrote: There is never a hard and fast rule of how the AC is going to operate. There is doctrine and then there is a needs based assessment with the flexibility to dial in or dial down a carrier air wing to optimize it for the situation being the hallmark of a good AC.
Mea culpa. I thought for some reason the trainers were separate.I thought the IN operated around 44 MiG-29K's (45-1).
Sir we all know the RFI can be revoked at any second and a new one issued. Based on history of Indian Mil Equipment purchase, that has a better probability than the RFI going to RFP. My entire point is the carrier compatibility trials should have began already if not have ended should IN is looking to operate them from IAC1 earliest from 2025. After Trials, RFP will be issued, price haggling, then contract signing before the winner starts modification on the platform and then starts production. easily a 6-7 year timeframe without implementing the MII component of RFI.The IN issued an RFI for the MRCBF program a couple of years ago. An RFP will follow next. Your guess is as good as mine when it comes to predicting the timelines. - - snip--
Certainly not if MoD has not even approved a plan for IAC2 yet. Vikrant, if its timeline does not slip again, is expecting sea trials in 2021. Keel was laid in 2009. So a dozen years at the very least.Rakesh wrote:Thank you Brar. My next question is this a typo then?
Are you saying that IAC-2 will be ready by the mid-2020s?Effectively, you are looking at a early-mid 2020's deployment of the IAC-2 with an air-wing that is fully trained and equipped to operate off of it.
Indian shipyards will not get a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier ready even by the end of the 2020s, forget the mid 2020s.
RFI's aren't revoked. They are one way communications aimed at scoping out an RFP. You get your questions and data, analyze it and use it to formulate a comprehensive RFP. Of course there could be no follow on RFP and there could be no 57 MRCBF program. But we do not know all that yet. What we know, and what we have as a best gauge of what the IN is currently thinking about is the RFI they posted. That is the best we can do to gain visibility into what it may be interested in doing.souravB wrote: Sir we all know the RFI can be revoked at any second and a new one issued. Based on history of Indian Mil Equipment purchase, that has a better probability than the RFI going to RFP. My entire point is the carrier compatibility trials should have began already if not have ended should IN is looking to operate them from IAC1 earliest from 2025.
This is in contradiction to what the previous chief is claimed to have said on record regarding needing a carrier capable aircraft to support IAC-1.Philip wrote:I said I would check on this issue- the exyra 50+ aircraft and just did, with two distinguished former chiefs. The requirement was mainly for a future CV, as the carrier lifts on both existing CVs are too small
Exactly. Why would a smart and pragmatic organisation such as IN issue a new RFP skirting the simplest solution?Philip wrote:Why would one buy 50+ aircraft of an entirely different type for reserves, etc. when the simplest solution would be a small number of "more of the same" for both?
Good question. I don't speak for the IN, and won't pretend to do so either.Philip wrote:Why would one buy 50+ aircraft of an entirely different type for reserves, etc. when the simplest solution would be a small number of "more of the same" for both?
Aircraft aren't solely for XYZ. Naval Aviation requires aircraft to be deployable before they fly out and land on a carrier for deployment. This means that not only should they be mission capable, they should not be requiring prolonged land or depot based repair, mods or upgrades for the duration of the intended cruise/deployment. On top of this there are attrition reserves and aircraft required for training needs, to test various upgrades, integration activities that are usually ongoing etc. etc. As I said in my previous post the current MiG-29K fleet size is around 44 aircraft out of which at least 3 are KUB which are operational trainers. Assuming that 10 aircraft are non-deployable during a random deployment cycle (or over multiple cycles on average) this leaves the IN with a pool of 34 aircraft to put on a carrier and send off to deployment, train pilots, test and validate any improvements or upgrade work and provide the pilots not currently deploying properly trained and ready. Now lets say that number is around 5-8 aircraft. This leaves less than 30 aircraft on hand so this would mean that readiness has to be absolutely spot on over the next decade+ just to ensure that deployments are fully met with very little margin for error. Of course if ops tempo and peacetime deployment needs increase over the next decade, then it acts as another stress point to the deployment model.47 29Ks solely for the VikA and 57 new birds for the IAC-1 seems quite extravagant by Indian standards ! The IN has traditionally been served by the MOD with just the bare minimum from Sea Harrier days.Look at how the poor IAF are starving!
Quoted by whom?I repeat the quote by the two former chiefs recently that the 29Ks performed in the recent Indo-French exercises "VERY WELL". " We have enough for both (CVs)"
If the IN is destined to be left with a "bare minimum" of combat aircraft capability, and would not be allowed by its sister service to acquire modern strike figthers, how on earth would the "almost ready" Mythical Su-57 Naval fighter fly in IN colors..I wonder. . Or is the IN's luck in convincing the relevant stakeholders and its sister service in letting it acquire modern aircraft somehow highly correlated to the maturity and design/development timeline of the Su-57 N?Philip wrote:The IN has traditionally been served by the MOD with just the bare minimum from Sea Harrier days.Look at how the poor IAF are starving! They would riot to see such largesse for the IN for just two CVs.Also remember that until now, the IN's aim was to have just one CV available in a crisis.
Oh so they weren't really quoted as saying it. You are claiming that you called them up and they told you X Y Z. Hope you realize that this isn't a "quote" as we are left with the only option of "taking your word " for it (unless you are a journalist from a reliable publication with an editor who vetted your claim). What you've mentioned in the thread about Boeing and Dassault's solutoin has been known here and elsewhere for nearly two years.Nothing new. Multiple stories have been published about it.Philip wrote:You'ld be surprised.Discretion prevents me from naming them.
This is 100% consistent with what the previous Chief said [of the IAC-2] a few months ago. I think what the IN wants vis-a-vis the MRCBA (Competitively sourced 57 fighter aircraft) and IAC-2 (65,000 ton CATOBAR) is quite clear. Yes they need MOD buy-in for this to go ahead so expect delays, revisions, and yada yada yada but I don't think there is any confusion (or shouldn't be) in terms of what the IN wants which it has (as common sense would dictate) derived via a thorough operationally focused analysis as most professional armed forces tend to do. Because the IN went through a whole process of floating out an RFI and doing a long term plan we also know what they do not seem to want - A sole source award for more MiG-29Ks.“Our plan is to build a 65,000 tonner, possibly with electric propulsion and CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take off but Arrested Recovery) so that if we have three aircraft carrier, at least two will be operational at any given time,” the Navy chief said at the side-lines of a seminar on warship building by FICCI. LINK
Philip wrote:I repeat the quote by the two former chiefs recently that the 29Ks performed in the recent Indo-French exercises "VERY WELL". " We have enough for both (CVs)"
And yet you mentioned two former chiefs. The number of former chiefs alive is a very small club. Out of that small club, two are from the Fleet Air Arm. It does not take a genius to figure out who they are. To be very honest, the opinions of those two former naval chiefs (from the Fleet Air Arm) would weigh greater over even the other former naval chiefs. If discretion prevents you from naming names, perhaps you should have not stated this in the first place! Come on Philip Saar, you should know better than to do this.Philip wrote:You'ld be surprised. Discretion prevents me from naming them.
We had long discussions over this.LakshmanPST wrote:Why did the designers of IAC-1 provide lifts just enough for a MIG 29K...?
Didn't they consider possibility of other jets during design stage itself...?
I am not sure they can but I think when the IN performs its analysis it will likely look at it as a cost benefit analysis between modifying the carrier, vs accepting the modifications to the aircraft etc. etc. This is what the RFI does, it tells them what each aircraft is capable of and what each OEM plans to do to make things work on the carriers using the data provided by the IN as reference. The final RFP will factor that.JTull wrote:Why can't the lifts be extended outboard?
You sure write a lot for someone trying to avoid what if/” fantasy" scenarios.brar_w wrote:So you advocate creating a bespoke variant of the F/A-18C that is no longer in production, has had no work done to bring it up to 4.5 generation standards (or even a feasibility study to determine what it would take or if that would even be possible given future threats and mission-system demands), mount an engine on it which is not integrated into it, and re-start its production decades after it seized just to save < 1 meter from the wingspan?Cain Marko wrote: Very simple answer to this: the need for a smaller albeit older hornet is because it would have a better chance to fit the narrow elevators of the Indian carriers.
Honestly, this is solution is not even worth debating as it is so unrealistic and a non-starter that Boeing wouldn't even propose it (unless they want to have a sure shot chance of losing the competition) so the question of the IN picking it becomes moot.
Boeing believes it can present a solution on the IAC-1 and that along with the ability to operate from an EMALS or Steam equipped IAC-2 is probably all they are going to propose. Dassault likewise will probably also propose something that will work on the IAC-1. I don't think the Vik will see anything operate off her besides the MiG-29K's and perhaps Naval LCA.
I tend to avoid "what if" fantasy scenarios (hence my earlier comments on this thread about fantasy MiG-29K variants and a navalized Su-57 competing in this space) and stick to what is either happening or at least somewhat likely to happen. Boeing is not going to bring back a decades old Classic-Hornet because it makes little to no sense and the IN/MOD is unlikely to accept if Boeing did indeed try to pull something like that off. I think Boeing has made it quite clear that they intend on offering the Super Hornet Block III. This is their proposal and this is what the IN will evaluate when it comes down to selecting and evaluating the proposals once it gets to RFP stage. Even Lockheed offering the F-35C seems more feasible than Boeing dusting off the classic hornet.Additional advantages could be:
1. the edge over the Mig 29k in terms of ease of maintenance and technology.
2,A full assembly line transfer of the product to India in a MII deal, something LM is trying forever the push through for the f16. An order for larger number of fighters would only reduce costs. And there is always the possibility of making $s via support for other operators of the bird, smallish though this might be. Not that this is necessary since the Indian order could easily exceed 200 birds so long as rights to do in-house upgrades are also purchased.
3.Then there is the commonality between the LCA and hornet engines.
What if fantasies? Boeing is on record of claiming that it will offer the Super Hornet (not the Classic Hornet, not the YF-17 or anything else that one's imagination may come up with) and that is what I have been discussing (if you don't like it, don't read my posts (there is an ignore feature here which is very handy)). I sure as hell don't feel like discussing a fantasy variant that no one is even remotely interested in offering or evaluating. If it made sense then sure let us discuss. But as I said, a decades old design that lacks the modern systems (or even a feasibility study that shows that they can be incorporated), has exactly ZERO backers or funders is so far out there that it is just a waste of time (because it makes no sense). The MRCFB is a known interest of the IN. It is also known what the main competitors will offer. It is fairly well known by now (Dassault offers the Rafale, Boeing the SH, MiG the -29K+ etc).Cain Marko wrote:
You sure write a lot for someone trying to avoid what if/” fantasy" scenarios.
Boeing is responding with a Block III SH or a similarly modern derivative. They've said as much. They've probably used it as part of their response to the RFI. It is even mentioned on their .co.in website. That is what will be evaluated when it comes down to the RFP stage. Boeing is capable of making a fair few boneheaded decisions on their own, but offering a design that has been out of production for years, is being retired rather fast (or as fast as possible) by most of its operators, and is inferior in all respects to the SH for the application concerned (MRCBF), is even beyond their abilities.Cain Marko wrote:In any case my objective was to explore what possible options the Indian forces might have. Some of these might be fantastic, but then it's not like the naval rfi for 57 next gen (whatever that's supposed to mean) fighters is something that's happening anytime soon. I don't see any reason why the Indian Navy will have problems with Boeing offering an updated hornet especially if it fits on their carriers and means a better deal financially and better MII parameters.
The plan for Rafale on IAC is detachable wing tips. For F-18, it would be having the landing gear lower on one side only. Both sounds ludicrous. All necessitated because our brand new carrier is designed around the MiG-29K.sankum wrote:From google earth the IAC hanger estimate is 120m by 21m. the only fighters freely carried in two rows will be Mig 29k,NLCAmk1/mk2 and Superhornet but in no way Rafale.
There are easy fixes and then there are not so easy fixes. I am sure both Dassault and Boeing would have contemplated, and perhaps even mentioned a range of options ranging from low cost/low risk to higher cost / higher schedule risk. I'm sure both could make their aircraft work on IAC-1 (not sure on Vik) but it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis for the IN and how much they are willing to invest relative to a straight buy of more MiG-29K's. As I opined earlier if the IN continous to persist on a new MRCBA instead of a MiG-29 re-purchase that will be a good proxy for where it sees the Naval fulcrum in its future down the road as it grows from a 1 carrier navy to a 3 carrier Navy in the decades to come.chola wrote:The plan for Rafale on IAC is detachable wing tips. For F-18, it would be having the landing gear lower on one side only. Both sounds ludicrous. All necessitated because our brand new carrier is designed around the MiG-29K.sankum wrote:From google earth the IAC hanger estimate is 120m by 21m. the only fighters freely carried in two rows will be Mig 29k,NLCAmk1/mk2 and Superhornet but in no way Rafale.
If it can fit Superhornet, it should be able to fit Rafale, Rafale is much smaller than Superhornet in all dimensions.sankum wrote:From google earth the IAC hanger estimate is 120m by 21m. the only fighters freely carried in two rows will be Mig 29k,NLCAmk1/mk2 and Superhornet but in no way Rafale.
It is not just about "western aircraft" having been contemplated or not. Designing larger elevators that can accommodate more than 1 aircraft at a time is a design feature that is important in and of itself and is found in most, if not all, modern carrier designs. That and not leaving so little margin in the elevator design that it limits choices for future indigenous aircraft designs as well (like MWF and AMCA, UAV's etc.). I am willing to bet that IAC-2 will have larger elevators no matter what design and features the IN chooses to eventually go with or which aircraft it contemplates to operate off of it.Philip wrote:To be fair to the IN, etc., way back when IAC was designed, a couple of decades ago, no western naval fighters were ever contemplated given the international scenario at the time...
No that is not the case. Please do some research (look into how the aircraft are operated on the deck and on elevators).bhavani wrote: If it can fit Superhornet, it should be able to fit Rafale, Rafale is much smaller than Superhornet in all dimensions.
The isue is not about "contemplating large aircraft" like the Su-33 (who even brought it up?). It is about having flexibility that larger elevators bring to the table even with "smaller" aircraft or aircraft that can fold their wings to fit in but can also be accommodated without the folding mechanism in case something goes wrong and they have to be rushed below deck (image 2) to clear the flight deck where non folded aircraft take too much space.Philip wrote:At that time when the IN was operating only Sea Harriers,
and a light/ med. carrier was all it could get approved, no large carrier aircraft like the SU-33 was ever contemplated.
Do you have a list of which countries, OEM's were "officially" involved in consulting on the project? There is a picture posted by Chola above showing how the French designed their only AC. It is strange that they would advise going for a different, and less utilitarian design than the one they themselves picked for their own carrier (proper elevator sizing to accommodate 2 Rafale's side by side and may in the future accommodate a Rafale and an UAV/UCAV)I recollect, there was extensive Italian and some French design input, as we had no experience of carrier design.
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee of better results with the lifts in Vishal if we are going with the Russians again. We are re-enforcing lessons learned in the Russian way of doing things with experience from VikA.brar_w wrote:It is not just about "western aircraft" having been contemplated or not. Designing larger elevators that can accommodate more than 1 aircraft at a time is a design feature that is important in and of itself and is found in most, if not all, modern carrier designs. That and not leaving so little margin in the elevator design that it limits choices for future indigenous aircraft designs as well (like MWF and AMCA, UAV's etc.). I am willing to bet that IAC-2 will have larger elevators no matter what design and features the IN chooses to eventually go with or which aircraft it contemplates to operate off of it.Philip wrote:To be fair to the IN, etc., way back when IAC was designed, a couple of decades ago, no western naval fighters were ever contemplated given the international scenario at the time...
The IAC-2 carrier, already named Vishal, should have come after the Vikrant at Cochin Shipyard Limited, expected to be finished by 2032. Both IACs are scheduled to be equipped with an Aviation Facility Complex (AFC) designed by Nevskoye Design Bureau (NDB), enabling them to accommodate 40 fighter jets and helicopters, all to counter Chinese naval ambitions (particularly in the Indian Ocean region).
The hangar, capable of accommodating an assortment of 20 fighter aircraft and helicopters, is a hive of activity, with work progressing on the support lines along the stowage points, a four-tonne overhead maintenance crane and a fire curtain that will partition the space. The aviation facility, designed by Russia’s Nevskoye Design Bureau, is gradually coming in place, with the supply of equipment under way. “In view of the aviation facility being laid out soon, the Navy has already drafted in aviation technical crew from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya to be of support,” says Captain P.A. Padmanabhan, in charge of the Navy’s Warship Overseeing Team (WOT).
There is a lot happening to explore the possibilities on IAC-2 which so far has not been sanctioned. The last two Navy Chiefs have been quoted on record of saying that they are looking at a 65,000 ton CATOBAR with either steam or electromagnetic systems. Those will come from the US (same place France got its steam catapults and same place France will get its Electromagnetic catapults for its next carrier). Unless one is able to live with extreme delay, a lengthy and costly learning curve, and industrial ramp up and develop these systems in-house..no one else is going to be able to supply drop in systems. Not the Russians, not the French and not the Brits.chola wrote:Unfortunately, there is no guarantee of better results with the lifts in Vishal if we are going with the Russians again. We are re-enforcing lessons learned in the Russian way of doing things with experience from VikA.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 707953.ece“Our plan is to build a 65,000-tonne [aircraft carrier] with possibly electric propulsion and a Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) so that if we have three aircraft carriers we can have two operational at any given time,” he said, adding the plan to build an IAC-II was part of the Maritime Capability Perspective Plan 2012-27.
I think the IN would know that too and would want something that is technically and financially viable. But at a minimum it must be able to accomplish the missions the IN designates it to do and those will be based on perceived operational needs in the time-frame it is expected to be operational in, the type of carrier-air-wing envisioned for it, and what sort of room for growth (CAW, sensors, weapons etc. etc.) exists in the inherent design. All these things would have factored into what the IN has in terms of a proposal that is seeking approval for. Getting to the sweet spot would be critical because that is why you need an AC for in the first place (to meet mission gaps in the future).Aditya_V wrote:Yup its for IN to deceide what they want, but I hope our economy and Politcos fund it appropriately so that atleast 2-3 CBG's are available in times of war, they will be very useful even in an Indo -Pak situation in cutting any supplies to Pakis from the Persian gulf, Quetta, Gwadar etc. where our land based aircraft will take time to reach.