Indian Naval Aviation

[Rakesh]

A BIG THANK YOU TO CHINA!

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/125 ... 37413?s=20 ---> JUST IN: Delivery of new P-8I to the Indian Navy scheduled for this month will only happen in July thanks to Covid 19 lock down. Boeing India had aimed for an early delivery in April, well ahead of July as contracted.



https://twitter.com/livefist/status/125 ... 82273?s=20 ---> JUST IN: Indian Navy P-8Is cleared for a weapon top-up, US State Dept approves sale of 10 AGM-84L Harpoon ($92 million) and 16 Raytheon Mk 54 torpedoes ($63 million).

[brar_w]

Can we hypothetically integrate our missiles and torpedoes on P8I (as and when we have suitable air launched versions available) ?

Yes, FMS customers can request (via a formal process) that user-specific upgrades or weapons be integrated. India is a FMS customer and not a JPO member. Program members get first dibs and have a say in defining future baselines and upgrade paths. Residual development, integration, and test facilities are made available for any FMS customers who may wish to add specific capability. Users can use their own fleet and accelerate the process but that is quite expensive and often only done on rare occasions (like UAE sending their F-16's for UAE specific upgrades).

[nachiket]

What is the rationale behind ordering such a tiny quantity for the primary anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons of our primary ASW aircraft? I'm sure we would have paid less per missile if we had ordered decent numbers. More penny-wise pound foolish behavior by the bean counters I suppose.

[Rakesh]

What is the rationale behind ordering such a tiny quantity for the primary anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons of our primary ASW aircraft? I'm sure we would have paid less per missile if we had ordered decent numbers. More penny-wise pound foolish behavior by the bean counters I suppose.

Appears to be replenishing stock expended earlier. From Shiv Aroor below....

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/125 ... 82273?s=20 ---> JUST IN: Indian Navy P-8Is cleared for a weapon top-up, US State Dept approves sale of 10 AGM-84L Harpoon ($92 million) and 16 Raytheon Mk 54 torpedoes ($63 million).

[brar_w]

Didn't the IN order 20 or so missiles with the original P-8I contract? The follow up P-8 order is for 4 aircraft so 10 additional missiles would be consistent with that. More missiles will probably be bought in keeping with deliveries beyond the 4. Maybe by then additional weapons would be cleared on the P-8 which could give the IN additional options (and could explain why they are buying them in batches).

US Navy to Integrate LRASM for P-8 Aircraft

On January 28, the U.S. Navy issued a solicitation to integrate the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) on its P-8A maritime patrol aircraft. In a February 2 addition, the Navy states that the contract could also include integration efforts for several Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), Mk62/63/65 mines, Small Diameter Bombs (SDB-II), Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD), and other supporting systems. Based on the 737-800 passenger aircraft, the P-8A is optimized for antisubmarine warfare and can carry AGM-84D Harpoon antiship missiles, Mark 54 lightweight torpedoes, and several types of mines, depth charges, and bombs.

[Kartik]

More details on the Harpoon and Mk-54 LWTs being bought for the P-8Is

article link

The US Department of State has approved potential Foreign Military Sales (FMSs) of air-launched AGM-84L Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles and Mk 54 All-Up-Round lightweight torpedoes (LWTs) – along with related equipment and services – to arm the Indian Navy’s (IN’s) Boeing P-8I Neptune long-range maritime multi-mission aircraft.

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on 13 April that the Indian government had requested the procurement of 10 of the anti-ship missiles along with containers, spares, support and test equipment.

Also included in the proposed AGM-84L deal, which is estimated to be worth USD92 million, are technical publications and related documentation, personnel training equipment, ‘specialised assignment airlift missions (SAAMs)’engineering systems and logistics support services.

The DSCA said that the proposed sale would “improve India's capability to meet current and future threats from enemy weapon systems”. Moreover, it pointed out that the missile system will be integrated onto the aircraft for anti-surface warfare missions “in defence of critical sea lanes, while enhancing interoperability with the US and other allied forces”.

The principal contractor would be Boeing in St Louis, Missouri.

In a separate statement issued that same day the DSCA said New Delhi had also requested to buy 16 Mk 54 lightweight and three Mk 54 exercise torpedoes.

Also included in this potential sale, which is estimated to be worth USD63 million, are MK 54 spare parts, torpedo containers, two recoverable exercise torpedoes with containers, a fleet exercise section and fuel tanks built into Mk 54 LWT kits. Also included in the intended package are air launched accessories for fixed-wing aircraft, spare parts, training, publications and engineering, technical, and logistics support services.

[John]

What is the rationale behind ordering such a tiny quantity for the primary anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons of our primary ASW aircraft? I'm sure we would have paid less per missile if we had ordered decent numbers. More penny-wise pound foolish behavior by the bean counters I suppose.

Due to high cost I don't think we will order many ideally NASM will arm them in the future.

[brar_w]

The Harpoon II costs around $1.4 Million per round (less than 1/2 the cost of the LRASM). Add a 5% FMS surcharge and you'll get a very good indication of what the IN will pay per round. DSCA notifications do not include definitized contract amounts (they are pre-award estimates). As I have shown multiple times now, at times they have been off by as much as 50% when one compares the FMS estimate (a reporting requirement and upper limit) and actual contract award. I'd be surprised if the IN pays anything more than $2 million per round. But then sustainment and upgrades are probably rolled into these as well but it would be quite surprising if the final definitized contract award is anything more than $50 or so million. Better would be to search through MOD documents or Boeing awards for the actual contract amount which usually follows 6-8 months later (after notification) if the activity is pursued.

[John]

Yes but even at 50% it will be quite more than mil per missile anyway we won’t know. We paid quite a lot for MM40 as well which were supposed to be cheaper than harpoon.

[brar_w]

The 50% data is just from a small sampling I did a while back. Also FMS deals often add sustainment to their estimates as well so you could well have other costs like the EC enhancements over time added to the estimate (which may or may not be included in the final negotiated contract). Individual missile unit cost is unlikely to be more than 10-15% of what the USN pays for something brand new (though the USN does not buy new Harpoon II's). DSCA loves to add a whole host of contractor and USG services that may or may not be a part of any eventual deal.

[Cain Marko]

Just wondering though.... What kind of stocks are required for p8 types whose primary mission is surveillance that too vs surface combatants? How often will you have the need for p8s to launch even in a hot war scenario in the Indian context. This is not like some cold war possibility of 2 humongous navies facing off.

Maybe the paltry numbers we are seeing are enough?

[brar_w]

This is not like some cold war possibility of 2 humongous navies facing off.

Maybe the paltry numbers we are seeing are enough?

I think you have it the opposite. Against large navies, or at least against more capable ones like the Chinese, these assets will primarily be tasked with the most vital ASW mission. However, in lower intensity conflicts, or against something like what the PN is capable of, they can be very useful given their sensor and networking, and their ability to go out long distance, and hold an orbit for an extended period. That's probably the type of scenario (limited ASW threat (quality/quantity) and organic AMD capability of opponent surface force) where you could see them armed with 4 Harpoon II's. This will be organic IN capability which is currently not possible with any of its other assets short of having an Aircraft Carrier deployed to support those ops. But even then 30-50 missiles are probably enough for that role and the IN probably has that many in stock given that the missile was also acquired for the Jaguar IIRC and that the next batch of aircraft will probably also see a next batch of missiles ordered.

Back in 2012, IN's P-8's were some of the first to be pictured with 4 x Harpoon (CATM) load outs. The capability to carry up to 4 weapons on a long endurance, sensor/networking rich platform is a useful thing to have. In fact, the USN itself is upgrading to LRASM because it sees this capability useful (given the trivial upgrade cost).

[Austin]

Good to see @Austin back on the forum!

Thanks Manish , Hope you and your family are fine and safe in Mumbai , I dont stay much far from where you do, Stay Safe.
Due to personal commitment dont have much time now to post on board often but would do it as an when possible.

Dr Pathak confirm that Brahmos-NG both Mig-29 and Tejas can carry 2 each and NG speed will be M 3.5

Yes I agree but it doesn't discuss this configuration for takeoff from ski jump (especially with plans for 3rd carrier with cats look unlikely). I doubt Navy would drop $$ for Air launched NG if it cannot support that.

Plus let's not get a head of ourselves let's wait for this thing to move into testing It is still well over decade away from induction. Previous claims about Flankers being able to carry 3 Brahmos-A and also Mig-29 being capable to carry of them turned out to be false.

Brahmos Corp did not make any official claim that Mig-29 could ever carry Brahmos-A if you know of any interview with brahmos chief stating that share the same as I have not seen them ever doing that.

As far as 3 versus 1 configuration for MKI with Brahmos-A , They figured out that though 3 Brahmos-A would be possible for MKI but in that configuration it would stress the airframe and reduce its life so they opted for 1 configuration in centerline

Take Off from Ski Jump is not an issue for either the 29K or Tejas with Brahmos-NG and it is easy to see why Dr Pathak says that.

Brahmos-NG has a diameter of 0.5 m while Kh-35 has a diameter of 0.42 m , You can see the space available for when Kh-35 is attached to the HP of 29K the much bigger Drop Tank in the side still has enough space from the ground while the centerline drop tank which is much bigger and quite low still has enough space to take off from the carrier.

The same should go for Tejas , Dr Pathak wont make comment on things he is not aware off

[Prithwiraj]

Why do you need 3 Brahmos on a multi-role fighter... how frequently you are going to fire 3 of them in a single mission? A single Brahmos strike is a big escalation anyway....

[Manish_P]

Good to see @Austin back on the forum!

Thanks Manish , Hope you and your family are fine and safe in Mumbai , I dont stay much far from where you do, Stay Safe.
Due to personal commitment dont have much time now to post on board often but would do it as an when possible.

Wooah, didn't know you were pretty close to Mumbai sir I am by myself (as usual), nicely cooped up, thanks.
Been missing your updates, specifically about Ru systems. Hope you will find time soon, to bring balance to the force Take care.

BTW Nice photo to come back with.. pun intended

[John]

Brahmos Corp did not make any official claim that Mig-29 could ever carry Brahmos-A if you know of any interview with brahmos chief stating that share the same as I have not seen them ever doing that

WB Austin I am not sure of an interview stating that but there was multiple brochure displaying Mig-29 carrying one Brahmos-A and flankers carrying 3.Also I believe interview or statement that stated they found in testing that existing Su-30 needs modifications to carry even one. Hence I am reluctant to believe anything till this goes into testing,

[Philip]

Brahmos-A has been testfired from MKIs. The smaller NG will be half its size and half its weight,no problemo. As Austin has shown ,its smaller size will pose no issue for carriage by even the LCA/ NLCAs to why a bird should carry 3 (29Ks) or even 5 ( SU-30s)
NGs, the answer is saturated attacks against naval flotillas,CBGs,even solitary warships.

Naval air defences have gotten more sophisticated over the last decade.Better EW,decoys and more capable SAMs. Just one missile even though it has shortened reaction time by a factor of 3 ,giving just 10 to 15+ seconds of warning,depending upon angle of attack,warship's sensors capability , and anti-air weaponry minimum reaction time,could be brought down as a result. Two or three incoming NGs programmed to strike the target simultaneously using different approaches and angles of attack; one sea- skimming to hit the waterline,another in a vertical terminal dive and a third attacking the stern to immobilise the steering gear or amidships aimed at the combat centre will see at least one succeed. It has been estimated that just one BMos hit will suffice to disable a major warship (DDG/FFG) while more will be required for a large carrier.

Cold War studies by the USN estimated 3 missiles required to sink
a Sov. Kashin class DDG. But those were Harpoon subsonic missiles,Exocet perhaps the same.In the Falklands the RN suffered heavy losses to Exocets and bombs primarily due to fires breaking out after being hit.Unused fuel in the missile for one.Small hatch openings between bulkheads obstructed crew carrying bulky fire- fighting eqpt. Moreover,some warships had superstructures made of aluminium which melted away v.quickly unlike steel. These lessons were well learnt by the RN and their subsequent surface combatants rectified many of the earlier design flaws.

The USN has proposed that a row of VLS cells for SR SAMs
are located on the bows on either beam at the edges of the hull to act in similar fashion as ERA on MBTs.These silos will protect the missile batteries located along the centreline.If struck by an incoming missile,the ship's SAMs will explode outwards,thus destroying and preventing the incoming round from penetrating deeper into the hull and doing maximum damage. There is a suspicion that while SAMs may not be used along the deck edge in Ru warships,most generally smaller than their USN counterparts and have less space to play with ,some kind of
" ERA" exists aboard the latest RuN warships and perhaps incorporated in new USN designs.

[Indranil]

If you want to saturate with Brahmos like missiles, use more aircrafts. A scenario where a Su-30 will need to carry 5 Brahmos NGs is beyond my imagination.

[John]

If you want to saturate with Brahmos like missiles, use more aircrafts. A scenario where a Su-30 will need to carry 5 Brahmos NGs is beyond my imagination.

Yes exactly carrying 5 Brahmos NG (which I highly doubt will come to fruition but whatever) will greatly reduce maneuverability and range. Given the number of flankers I bet you we won’t even purchase 500 let alone 1000s for saturation attacks where arming 5 of them make sense. Anyway once again we are getting ahead of ourself let’s wait for this to come out of drawing board before wasting time discussing on this.

[chola]

The 50% data is just from a small sampling I did a while back. Also FMS deals often add sustainment to their estimates as well so you could well have other costs like the EC enhancements over time added to the estimate (which may or may not be included in the final negotiated contract). Individual missile unit cost is unlikely to be more than 10-15% of what the USN pays for something brand new (though the USN does not buy new Harpoon II's). DSCA loves to add a whole host of contractor and USG services that may or may not be a part of any eventual deal.

Brar ji, the 9.2M per Harpoon is outrageously expensive IMHO. Unless the DDM is wrong, I can't see how maintenance and enhancements can make up $7M over and above the base price of the mijjile.

That said, Harpoon being mainly anti-ship is just one of many weapons the IN has in that realm and the P-8Is are not primary AShM platforms. The MK54 torps are the important weapons and they are cheaper at $4M a pop. But 16 seems low. The Harpoons might be a luxury, the torpedos are not.

Can the P8Is carry non-Amreeki weapons? With 8 planes, we are parceling out 10 Harpoons and 16 MK54s? The numbers don't seem right unless they are only there as gold plated systems held in reserve while other more affordable weapons are used on routine operations.

[JTull]

Kh-35 comparison to Brahmos-NG is not a like for like. NG will be 3 times the weight and more than a metre longer.

https://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-mi ... se-missile

[tsarkar]

What is the rationale behind ordering such a tiny quantity for the primary anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons of our primary ASW aircraft? I'm sure we would have paid less per missile if we had ordered decent numbers. More penny-wise pound foolish behavior by the bean counters I suppose.

Avoiding block obsolescence.

We faced that challenge with Russian weapons with entire inventory becoming obsolete overnight.

Ordering small quantities over time builds up inventory with greater shelf life than a single large scale initial purchase. Also brings the benefit of minor enhancements to newer weapons due to Moore's law.

[chetak]

The 50% data is just from a small sampling I did a while back. Also FMS deals often add sustainment to their estimates as well so you could well have other costs like the EC enhancements over time added to the estimate (which may or may not be included in the final negotiated contract). Individual missile unit cost is unlikely to be more than 10-15% of what the USN pays for something brand new (though the USN does not buy new Harpoon II's). DSCA loves to add a whole host of contractor and USG services that may or may not be a part of any eventual deal.

Brar ji, the 9.2M per Harpoon is outrageously expensive IMHO. Unless the DDM is wrong, I can't see how maintenance and enhancements can make up $7M over and above the base price of the mijjile.

That said, Harpoon being mainly anti-ship is just one of many weapons the IN has in that realm and the P-8Is are not primary AShM platforms. The MK54 torps are the important weapons and they are cheaper at $4M a pop. But 16 seems low. The Harpoons might be a luxury, the torpedos are not.

Can the P8Is carry non-Amreeki weapons? With 8 planes, we are parceling out 10 Harpoons and 16 MK54s? The numbers don't seem right unless they are only there as gold plated systems held in reserve while other more affordable weapons are used on routine operations.

The quantities ordered may be for top up and to augment reserves.

missiles and torpedos are a real biatch to maintain and store. There are many aspects to this with recurring expenses being a large but mandatory part of the complex mix

i will not go further down this rabbit hole because it is an open forum and frankly not information to be bandied about.

BTW, the numbers don't need to add up for anyone but the IN.

The IN is not being run by some dumbos, despite what many guys second guessing here seem to think.

weapons always have a political price and that is why they are sometimes less expensive and at other times prohibitively so.

A lot of the intangible actuals/deliverables in the give and take is not spelled out in some standard boilerplate contract with the MoD but negotiated separately and quietly with other govt departments and ministries.

[brar_w]

Brar ji, the 9.2M per Harpoon is outrageously expensive IMHO. Unless the DDM is wrong, I can't see how maintenance and enhancements can make up $7M over and above the base price of the mijjile.

As I have mentioned multiple times, DSCA is not a contracting agency. It is a reporting agency. Its bureaucrats are known to tack along all sorts of direct service costs and indirect costs( overall program support surcharges) when they provide their estimates to Congress. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, in my only limited sampling of their estimates, they,at times, have been off on the actual contracted value by more than 50%. When they deal with systems the USN does not buy (like new Harpoon IIs) they are even more off. Contract negotiations haven't even started on these missiles. When they conclude, it would be best to look at what the US Navy's acquisition team actually awards to Boeing for these missiles. I suspect it is not going to be anything more than the $1.4-$1.5 MM cost of the missile plus a 5-10% surcharge. You can add a 5% FMS fee on top of that to get the overall cost of the deal.

Can the P8Is carry non-Amreeki weapons? With 8 planes, we are parceling out 10 Harpoons and 16 MK54s? The numbers don't seem right unless they are only there as gold plated systems held in reserve while other more affordable weapons are used on routine operations.

Only the Harpoon II is currently cleared on the P-8. The Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile, and the Lockheed Martin LRASM will be integrated. The former by around the mid-2020's, and the latter probably ahead of that.

The IN has bought these 10 missiles for the 4 aircraft it is going to get starting soon. It ordered 20 missiles to support the aircraft ordered earlier. I suspect, follow on aircraft deliveries will be tied to follow on missile orders. That seems like an adequate number of missiles given that ASuW is only a small role given other missions that the aircraft is expected to do. H-II should have pretty good mission availability and captive carry time so the IN probably does not need to maintain very large reserve stocks to get a usable pool of missiles.

[Philip]

True,the prime mission of the P-8I is ASW.The Harpoons are being acquired as the P-8Is are the birds with max reach after the retirement of the Bears. For the moment MKIs can sanitise the Malacca Straits with BMos-A ( from mainland air bases), but would require several aircraft in a strike mission as they can carry only one BMos-A on the centreline.A saturation strike with more missiles,say those of the KH series which MKIs can carry in larger number ,could be used in combination with BMos to overwhelm defences. However,this would require MKIs stationed in the ANC, Car Nic preferably ,plus mid- air refuelling also,capable from ANC air bases to extend the MKIs reach to prevent ingress into the IOR.

However ,the increasing no. of PLAN assets operating in the IN ,now 8+, will continue to rise demanding more capable LR platforms carrying multiple missiles, able to strike targets in the ICS itself.

[Cain Marko]

Good to see @Austin back on the forum!

Thanks Manish , Hope you and your family are fine and safe in Mumbai , I dont stay much far from where you do, Stay Safe.
Due to personal commitment dont have much time now to post on board often but would do it as an when possible.

Good to have you back Austin. Was wondering and wanted to post on brf about your situation. Glad to know that all is well.

[Rakesh]

I hope the bold part below (last tweet!) comes true

https://twitter.com/somnath1978/status/ ... 94753?s=20 ---> LCA 1A, TEBCBF, ORCA, MWF - where's the money for so many programs?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12515 ... 47810?s=20 ---> You forgot AMCA! The industry has put its offers on the table. Fighters in all categories. Time will tell where were headed as an aerospace power.

https://twitter.com/Rashmir23696747/sta ... 07202?s=20 ---> I think in all likelihood, ORCA,TEDBF will be junked to expedite also twin engined but stealthy AMCA both for IAF, IN! Given that the development timeline for proposed ORCA/TEDBF and the AMCA is coinciding and amidst shrinking defense budgets, pursuing ORCA seems overkill.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12515 ... 66689?s=20 ---> OK!

1. MWF cannot be used by Navy. Operationally, not feasible.
2. AMCA cannot be used by Navy (no plan). Feasibility doubtful. Timeline long.
3. TEDBF will be too expensive unless larger orders from air force also exist.
4. So, ORCA...

https://twitter.com/SBanbotra/status/12 ... 29640?s=20 ---> @hvtiaf sir, if Indian Navy plans for 57 fighter jets then what is the point to build TEDBF?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12515 ... 82464?s=20 ----> 57 TEDBF maybe. Imports are unlikely.

[MeshaVishwas]

Not everyday that you see this. Credit to NauSena Twitter page.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/ThingNavy/status/12 ... 12641?s=20 ----> Rajnath Singh on board Indian Navy P-8I.

[Rakesh]

Read the quote below and then read the tweets below.

The last two tweets are from Admiral Arun Prakash (retd), former Chief of Naval Staff - Indian Navy.

Hover and out: UK Royal Navy retires the Sea Harrier
https://www.flightglobal.com/hover-and- ... 27.article
28 March 2006

India is negotiating the possible purchase of eight ex-RN FA2s, having voiced interest in the type around six months ago.
...
The potential sale will not include the FA2’s Blue Vixen radar, AMRAAM air-to-air missiles or radar-warning receiver equipment, while some US-sourced software will also have to be removed from the 10-year-old aircraft.

====================================

https://twitter.com/RowlandWhite/status ... 22720?s=20 ----> Thirty-eight years ago BAe and MoD was asking the Indian High Commission if they’d mind terribly if we used the Blue Fox radars built for the Indian Navy’s Sea Harrier FRS.51s in RN SHARs going to war. Boscombe Down had already donated the radar from their Sea Harrier.

https://twitter.com/arunp2810/status/12 ... 49152?s=20 ----> So, did the Indian HC agree? Or were they borrowed anyway? Because by end-1982, BAe had missed their delivery schedule & the Indians were hopping mad in Yeovilton!

https://twitter.com/arunp2810/status/12 ... 41250?s=20 ---> Hmmm.....interesting. As it happened, delivery of our a/c did suffer a three month delay, but Blue Fox was never mentioned by BAe.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/ThingNavy/status/12 ... 69408?s=20 ---> IL-38 carrying Kh-35 anti-ship missile.

[Rakesh]

Of all the upgrades I have seen of any aircraft (fighter, transport or rotary)....this has to be the best!

https://twitter.com/ThingNavy/status/12 ... 56225?s=20 ----> Old and new cockpit of HAL Do-228

BEFORE



AFTER

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/ThingNavy/status/12 ... 29410?s=20 ----> Indian Navy MiG-29K with full load of weapons.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/ThingNavy/status/12 ... 13505?s=20 ---> Indian Navy MiG-29K and Sea Harrier with Ilyushin Il-78 tanker.

[Philip]

Sigh! I truly wish we were still operating SHs like the wise USMC! The type still has 20+ years of relevance esp. when used on smaller flat-top platforms like amphibs.The F-35 is a hugely expensive replacement. The USMC gobbled up the entire 70+ early retd. Harriers sold for a song.We were really myopic when they were on offer.At least two of our planned amphibs could've had 12+ of them aboard for both ground attack supporting landings and air defence.

I often wonder why the F-35B couldn't have been made simpler. It has an overdose of software which runs everything making it more difficult to support when glitches happen. Let's see what happens with time.

[sajaym]

Sigh! I truly wish we were still operating SHs...

To draw a parallel with the only other British aircraft we're operating -- The Jaguar. The only reason we're able to flog the Jaguars for many more years is because we were license manufacturing/upgrading them for years. So essentially we have the industrial infrastructure for supporting the Jaguars. Not so with the SHs because
1) We were never license manufacturing them.
2) They involved a complicated technology
DO NOT STEREOTYPE ANY COMMUNITY
3) Uncle Sam bought over the parent company of SH, meaning they would have us by our b***s for any spare parts or support and/or they would give preferential treatment towards their USMC fleet over ours naturally.
4) We'd already signed up for the MIGs (for which we again have industrial infrastructure support due to the 100s of MIGs which we'd built).
5) The IN must've felt that the NLCA could make up for the role of the SHs in CAS role at least.

[Khalsa]

Self edited

[nachiket]

We'd already signed up for the MIGs (for which we again have industrial infrastructure support due to the 100s of MIGs which we'd built).

One Mig is not like the other. The hundreds of Mig-21's and 27's we built has no bearing on our ability to support IN's Mig-29K's. Might be different if we were building Mig-29's for the IAF but we weren't.

[chetak]

We'd already signed up for the MIGs (for which we again have industrial infrastructure support due to the 100s of MIGs which we'd built).

One Mig is not like the other. The hundreds of Mig-21's and 27's we built has no bearing on our ability to support IN's Mig-29K's. Might be different if we were building Mig-29's for the IAF but we weren't.

the IAF MiG 29s are conventional aircraft with a conventional engine quite unlike the IN MiG 29Ks which are four channel fly by wire beasts with a modular engine.


One has no commonality with the other

[chetak]

In retirement: wishing him Blue skies, fair winds, and following seas

Captain DK Sharma@CaptDKS·Apr 30

Captain P Rajkumar, SC, NM(G), Asian of the year 2019 hangs his boots & bids adieu to @indiannavy today.

He wore the uniform with highest commitment, diginty & pride & has been an outstanding shipmate & friend. Can't forget his dare devilry during Cyclone Ockhi & Kerala floods

Kerala floods: Navy chopper lands on narrow rooftop in daring rescue of 26 people

An Indian Navy rescue team achieved an almost-impossible feat after it maneuvered a helicopter and landed on a roof, to rescue an 80-year-old lady who was bed ridden in Chalakudy in flood-hit Kerala

The chopper was being flown by Captain P Rajkumar, a Shaurya Chakra awardee. Coincidentally, Rajkumar was bestowed with the third highest peacetime decoration of India on August 15 this year, for his work during severe cyclonic storm Ockhi in Kerala, especially for saving the life of a stranded fisherman.