Indian Naval Aviation

nam · Post by **nam** » 04 Dec 2020 15:04

First and foremost, GoI has given no mandate to prepare for a fight outside of IOR, in to places like SCS. So IN's immediate need for carriers makes no sense.

Even if we have to make another one, we should not be building anything, until we sort out shipyard. Just like the chinese learn to churn our ships in shorter time and once you are 5 or 10T, make one carrier rapidly.

Creating a job lot for 10 years to our PSU shipyards is not the way to go.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 04 Dec 2020 20:04

https://twitter.com/LMIndiaNews/status/ ... 7245654016

This #NavyDay, we are proud to share the first look of the #IndianNavy’s #MH60R in all its glory. #RomeoForIndia

srin · Post by **srin** » 04 Dec 2020 20:09

While I'd love to see LCA-N in service, the HAL chief himself has said that due to increased weight, it's payload was quite curtailed (or something to that effect, it's there in previous pages). So, non-starter.

srin · Post by **srin** » 04 Dec 2020 20:18

Rakesh wrote:Recent crash brings inherent technical problems with MiG-29KUB to the fore
https://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=1022955
02 Dec 2020

“It makes eminent financial and logistical sense for the IN to link its MRCBF buy to the IAF’s,” said a retired three-star IN aviator. Simply acquiring 57 naval fighters off the shelf, he warned, would be prohibitively expensive, impractical, and time consuming.

In short, the more things change the more they remain the same.

The idea of commonality has been quite seductive and it's quite dangerous for two reasons - technological and political.
We should learn from the experiences of LCA-N (where it was felt that designing the navy version first would have been better) and Mig-29K (with all the attendent issues discussed above) and finally, whatever I've read about F35. Rafale-M seems quite different - not sure why the claimed commonality is 80% (googled for it).
Also, tying up the NMRCA to the MMRCA is going to be nightmarish. It is quite likely that MMRCA is going to be cancelled and more Rafales are procured off-the-shelf.

OTOH, it is quite right that having a different aircraft for naval aviation is going to not scale. That is why I'm apprehensive of TEDBF - unless IAF suddenly procures a few, it's going to be in trouble.

chola · Post by **chola** » 04 Dec 2020 21:10

Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/LMIndiaNews/status/ ... 7245654016
This #NavyDay, we are proud to share the first look of the #IndianNavy’s #MH60R in all its glory. #RomeoForIndia

What a beautiful BEAST of an aircraft!

Most of the time I would rather spend a billion on domestic products from HAL's successful rotary division but we simply have nothing in the league of the Romeo.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Dec 2020 21:11

It seems the Russian Navy is looking to get back into the carrier game in the 2022-2023 time-frame which would perhaps make getting a few off the shelf 2-seat MiG-29K's from their inventory more difficult.

Russia’s aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is set for sea-trials in 2022, says source

Cain Marko wrote:So a MiG29K crashes during training, and all of a sudden it is the worst fighter in the world? The Shar didn't have a particularly stellar record IIRC. Naval air ops are inherently dangerous and everything from Shar to Shornets have been lost.

The operational point is that the IN would have had some aircraft reliability and availability, and even component reliability and availability in mind (or promised) when it went in for the fleet that it acquired. Unfortunately the MiG-29K would not have had any great long term real world utilization data to offer very precise numbers either way but regardless you do base your demand and supply based on some assumptions. If those are being met or exceeded then fine. If not, then the IN has decisions to make and orders to place to adjust its fleet accordingly (either in terms of utilization or buy more capacity). In case of the 2-seater MiG-29K, how many now remain in the fleet? What is going to make the deficit? If a large gap remains then the remaining aircraft will be driven hard and that will bring their own stresses to them. This at a time when the second carrier is just a few years of becoming operational. So the demand increasing, or likely to increase, while supply decreasing doesn't bode very well for the remaining fleet.

So yes, all naval aircraft (and all aircraft) suffer accidents. But you track that to your utilization models (which you develop, update and keep and based on which you derive how much capacity you are likely to need well in advance of that need) and if you are off you have to order more if that is what the data are telling you. Its the same for all fleets regardless of the country of origin of the hardware.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Dec 2020 00:22

srin wrote:While I'd love to see LCA-N in service, the HAL chief himself has said that due to increased weight, it's payload was quite curtailed (or something to that effect, it's there in previous pages). So, non-starter.

Let's look at the options

a) Better logistics for 29k - perhaps may not bring it up to expected trouble free status. If things break with every landing, it will go to the shop for repairs.
b) F-18, Rafale-N, Gripen - N - take your pick - the negotiations alone will take 5 years. Look at the order process for the Mk1As (delayed by a year nearly - and is still in a expect to sign in Dec status, then probably will be by March 31st 2021....). And on top of that the carriers will need modifications to the lifts

So for 5 years, IN is in trouble. What is the best way out? Buy a foreign fighter and always have to worry about spares or buy TEDBF? It is definitely worth it to order a squadron of MK1s to get familiar with the aircraft, evolve tactics with it and keep the carriers in some sort of operation. Or else,
c) Withdraw carriers from service - sell to Russia, or anyone else that wants them.
BTW - NLCA test pilots had a different view IIRC - per them there was more ability to carry payload in the aircraft as it was performing better than expected.

Doing nothing is not an option.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Dec 2020 00:25

Vivek K wrote:Buy a foreign fighter and always have to worry about spares or buy TEDBF? It is definitely worth it to order a squadron of MK1s to get familiar with the aircraft, evolve tactics with it and keep the carriers in some sort of operation. Or else,

In order for it to get to the acquisition phase it first has to compete development testing, full carrier integration and then be operationally evaluated against the current and projected need of the IN from its fast jet fleet. You can't just bypass all that and place orders and field a system. Multiple deployments to the carrier and extensive shore based testing utilizing multiple airframes will be required to get it to a deployable operational state. You can't skip that. So no, if there is short term capacity requirement then the current operational type is the best course of action.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Dec 2020 01:14

Correct. And who's holding that up? Seems like they were doing multiple take offs and landings from the Vik-A. I'm not aware what was remaining but seems to me that remaining items were not extremely painful.

Or we can use the 29ks.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Dec 2020 01:19

Vivek K wrote:Correct. And who's holding that up?

The Navy of course which has decided that the aircraft is not the best route forward for it and have committed themselves to a more appropriate indigenous MiG-29K replacement. So if the service has determined that it may not be the most adequate for its requirements then investing in it becomes a luxury for it and a nice to have as opposed to a must have.

Seems like they were doing multiple take offs and landings from the Vik-A.

Integrating a design into carrier operations is a long drawn out process that tests and validates both the ability of the aircraft to perform and then the operational suitability to do the same across a myriad of operational conditions and against mission need. You will need a significant ramp up in number of aircraft and number of deployments to support fully qualifying the design for it to begin replacing MiG-29Ks or perform operational deployments. And then place orders and induct aircraft. It isn't a short-term fix. Which is what will be needed by the IN given that its chewed through most of the 2-seat MiG-29K fleet.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Dec 2020 01:24

My point Brar sahab is - IN is is trouble now. Similar to the IAF's with Mig-21s (due to collapse of the SU). There is no quick solution on the horizon. But they have pilots, test planes are available and more can be produced to do what you're saying. Or we can sit and pray and hope that a solution magically drops in our laps.

Or else sell the carriers and invest in LACMs, AD systems, nuke subs etc.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Dec 2020 01:28

No these aren't the only options. The best course could be, depending upon the INs best assessment of the MiG-29K, to continue to operate the current pair of carriers and the MiG-29K while funding development of of the TEDBF, one that is able to replace the MiG-29K and meet that mission need. You just have to replace the lost aircraft and carry on. If carrier ops tempo is expected to increase, and if budget and technical parameters allow, then they can look to buy a small fleet of Rafale or SH which will be more capable and better supported and offer better carrier suitability. If not then carrier ops would have to happen with the MiG-29K's and then TEDBF. The way you start this analysis (as an operator) is to look at your current and projected mission needs. And then see how much of that a new type can meet or exceed. What it can't is your risk. If you have determined that the risk is too significant to pivot away from that option (N-LCA) and towards a larger, twin engine aircraft, then to make then we just have to read between the lines and back into what the INs logic may have been.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 05 Dec 2020 01:42

IN could look at buying some LCA-N Mk.1s, even with limited load they could at least serve as a STOBAR training platform and air defence duty. Will save hours on MiGs.

We should also look at aircraft carriers as platforms for helicopter based ASW. Not every operation will require you to blow shit up from fighter jets!

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 05 Dec 2020 02:57

Cain Marko wrote:So a MiG29K crashes during training, and all of a sudden it is the worst fighter in the world? The Shar didn't have a particularly stellar record IIRC. Naval air ops are inherently dangerous and everything from Shar to Shornets have been lost.

Good attempt in trying to do an equal-equal. Did the western manufacturers try to install just a heavier landing gear(without comparable structural modifications) and pass of their air interceptor as a carrier based fighter? Such type of hoodwinking is only done (and quite successfully) by the Natasha lobby backed Russians.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Dec 2020 03:08

brar_w wrote:No these aren't the only options. The best course could be, depending upon the INs best assessment of the MiG-29K, to continue to operate the current pair of carriers and the MiG-29K while funding development of of the TEDBF, one that is able to replace the MiG-29K and meet that mission need. You just have to replace the lost aircraft and carry on.

That would be true if we don't lose pilots with the aircraft. This is what happened with the Mig21s though their (Bisons) record is much better now.

If carrier ops tempo is expected to increase, and if budget and technical parameters allow, then they can look to buy a small fleet of Rafale

Tauba! Tauba! Do we have the money for such a large investment?

titash · Post by **titash** » 05 Dec 2020 03:30

Vips wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:So a MiG29K crashes during training, and all of a sudden it is the worst fighter in the world? The Shar didn't have a particularly stellar record IIRC. Naval air ops are inherently dangerous and everything from Shar to Shornets have been lost.
Good attempt in trying to do an equal-equal. Did the western manufacturers try to install just a heavier landing gear(without comparable structural modifications) and pass of their air interceptor as a carrier based fighter? Such type of hoodwinking is only done (and quite successfully) by the Natasha lobby backed Russians.

It is a very legitimate point made by Cain Marko-ji. No reason to label it as an "equal-equal" attempt.

We lost at least 16 of 31 SHARs in crashes over 15-20 years. That's a 55% airframe loss record. The MiG-29Ks are not doing worse.

There is no hoodwinking by the Natasha gang. We willingly chose the VikAd and we willingly chose the MiG-29K knowing fully well that it wasn't a fully baked naval fighter with a decade of reliable deck operation in the Soviet/Russian Navy. We bought it because it was the only game in town. No need to piss on the Russians for our choices.

Brar-ji is being very dispassionate. We don't want the LCA-N, the TEDBF is not ready, the Rafales & F-18s are too expensive and may not fit our existing carriers. The MiG-29K remains the only game in town. If the IN wants an effective carrier fleet, it will have to spend time and money to fix the reliability issues, or need to buy more MiG-29Ks to maintain availability, or run low on airframe availability / pilot training. As simple as that.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 05 Dec 2020 03:38

titash wrote:
We lost at least 16 of 31 SHARs in crashes over 15-20 years. That's a 55% airframe loss record. The MiG-29Ks are not doing worse.

Check the facts we inducted Sear Harriers in 1983 and they flew in service for more then 3 decades. so 16 losses over more then 30 years. Check the Mig 29K's how many years have they been in and how many have we lost? The record of Mig 29K is much much worse.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Dec 2020 05:18

Vivek K wrote: Tauba! Tauba! Do we have the money for such a large investment?

I think what may not have come across was the part about budget allowing. There are operational, performance, and budget induced risks that the IN can take through this transition as it decides what to do. It (or the MOD) could well determine that the Rafale/SH purchase is not affordable and/or technically feasible, and thus continue to utilize the MiG-29K and invest in the TEDBF. It could likewise consider that path to be too risky and scale back on carrier expansion and/or utilization, or it could do a complete U turn and all of a sudden determine that the N-LCA is sufficient for all or sufficient of its mission needs (for a carrier borne fast jet platforms) and bring that acquisition program back. It would be quite strange to now all of a sudden move back towards the N-LCA unless the original decision to pursue the TEDBF instead of bringing the N-LCA to fruition and buying it in quantity.

Vips wrote:
titash wrote:
We lost at least 16 of 31 SHARs in crashes over 15-20 years. That's a 55% airframe loss record. The MiG-29Ks are not doing worse.
Check the facts we inducted Sear Harriers in 1983 and they flew in service for more then 3 decades. so 16 losses over more then 30 years. Check the Mig 29K's how many years have they been in and how many have we lost? The record of Mig 29K is much much worse.

The Sea Harrier was also a more complex platform given its technology of the time and the way it operated. The MiG-29K doesn't have to land vertically, or do rolling landings etc. So better compared to similar types to it instead of the Sea harrier. But ultimately, it is best compared to what the IN expected it would do when it acquired the type. Those MTBF and O&S data are going to be privy only to the IN so we don't have (or need) visibility into it but rest assured the IN is going to look at them and attempt to add more carrier borne aircraft if it feels that its future tempo can get impacted because of this (both loss of aircraft and other changes to initial assumptions).

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Dec 2020 07:46

Vips wrote:
titash wrote:
We lost at least 16 of 31 SHARs in crashes over 15-20 years. That's a 55% airframe loss record. The MiG-29Ks are not doing worse.
Check the facts we inducted Sear Harriers in 1983 and they flew in service for more then 3 decades. so 16 losses over more then 30 years. Check the Mig 29K's how many years have they been in and how many have we lost? The record of Mig 29K is much much worse.

I checked, 2-3 crashes in 12 years of service. Nothing to be scandalized about. In any case, the formerr CNS is on record saying the servicebilty issues have been sorted out. 70% uptimes are very decent.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Dec 2020 08:09

Cain Marko wrote: I checked, 2-3 crashes in 12 years of service.

This is the 3rd MiG-29K or KUB crash in the last 12 months. I think the overall tally is 4 or 5 crashes in INs service with most of them taking place in the last two years. More importantly, it seems (though I could be wrong) that just one or 2 of the two-seat variants remain.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Dec 2020 08:10

brar_w wrote:The Sea Harrier was also a more complex platform given its technology of the time and the way it operated. The MiG-29K doesn't have to land vertically, or do rolling landings etc. So better compared to similar types to it instead of the Sea harrier. But ultimately, it is best compared to what the IN expected it would do when it acquired the type. Those MTBF and O&S data are going to be privy only to the IN so we don't have (or need) visibility into it but rest assured the IN is going to look at them and attempt to add more carrier borne aircraft if it feels that its future tempo can get impacted because of this (both loss of aircraft and other changes to initial assumptions).

I'm not sure the shar is not a good comparison considering that it's the only plane to serve with the Indian Navy in recent times. In the meanwhile I checked on the super hornet although I'm not sure even this will be a clear apples to apples comparison, considering one operates with cats, and found that there is a crash almost every year. Im sure there are more numbers flying and that probly makes a difference, but still.
Another comparison is with the f18 that served the raaf. 4 crashes in the first 5-10 years.

From 2009-12, 4 rafale M were written off due to issues.

All in all. The 29k compares well ok it seems like. At least at face value. More importantly, the Navy send pleased enough with it at present with uptimes of 70%.

In any case my point was that there is hardly any need to get all twisted about this 29k crash. Sh't happens.
Recently a raaf growler was lost due to engine going up in flames. Didn't hear any whines about it being a crappy plane and replacing the fleet.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Dec 2020 08:19

Cain Marko wrote:I'm not sure the shar is not a good comparison considering that it's the only plane to serve with the Indian Navy in recent times.

The SHAR has an inherent concept of operation that made it more prone to mishaps compared to conventionally landing aircraft and it required exceptional piloting to avoid human factor errors not to mention other things that could go wrong with a early 60s/70s STOVL design. It being a significantly older aircraft and technology to the MiG-29K would also naturally work against it. Of course it could be that the MiG-29K incorporates no safety, reliability and features that make it inherently safer to take off, fly and land compared to the Harrier but that would require one to be extremely disingenuous to the type and its designers. We are talking about a vertically landing aircraft designed in the 60's/70's vs a modernized 4+ generation naval fighter declared operational in 2010s.

In the meanwhile I checked on the super hornet although I'm not sure even this will be a clear apples to apples comparison, considering one operates with cats, and found that there is a crash almost every year.

Right. And the US Navy has double digit carriers, has a very different deployment ops tempo, has been performing combat rotations for more than a decade, and has more than 600 Super Hornet and Growlers and adds to that tally almost every year. It too sees spikes in mishaps and has taken a number of operational pauses to investigate and pursue remedial measures. But then you need data to do an apples to apples comparison.

Cain Marko wrote:In any case my point was that there is hardly any need to get all twisted about this 29k crash. Sh't happens.

No one needs to get twisted about anything. But if the IN is down to sub 50% KUB strength and has lost around 8-10% of the overall fleet then something has to be done about at a time when the second aircraft-carrier is getting closer to service and is likely to lead to greater demands from a shrinking fighter fleet. I mean if your carrier count is doubling, and your fighter inventory is shrinking (down 3 in the last year) then it doesn't take a very large leap of faith to assume that this requires some sort of eventual intervention. Looked through that prism, one can understand why the IN may be interested in acquiring additional naval fighters, budgets permitting. I am sure if the MiG-29K is exactly what the IN is looking for (short of the TEDBF) then it will be a shoo in for that requirement if it ever advances to the level of procurement.

The rest of your examples you cite are also quite ambiguous and not a very good way to look at this. What you ought to look into is crashes per 100,000 operational hours (or Class-A which is basically a proxy for that (though not quite) in US reporting), and other reliability and sustainment metrics (like component MTBF for example). That is a proper way to look at this. The MiG-29K may be the safest, and most reliable naval fighter ever designed. Or it may not. But we just don't have the level of data to show that and just randomly picking Air-Force X having lost 2 aircraft, and navy Y having lost 4 aircraft isn't a very smart way to analyze this. But most importantly, this ought to be about how naval aviation tempo is increased (which will be required even if on carrier is used at a time) while the fleet shrinks. Something has to be done to either generate more sorties from the existing fleet, or increase the fleet. That's just math.

AkshaySG · Post by **AkshaySG** » 05 Dec 2020 09:56

Imo there simply isn't the budget for Rafale-M or SH's , We're lagging further behind in subs , destroyers, helos , missiles ,armaments and a ton of other things for the navy . To plunk a few Billion $ on another variety of fighter in the post corona defence budgets would be insane .

So what can we do ? , Well first and foremost , Make full use of A&N chains and station a squadron of fighters (Tejas possibly ) ,a few P-8I's there and other aircrafts there , Get them some good anti-ship ,anti sub weapons and it would be far cheaper yet still efficient way of watching over Malacca than the constant deployment/refit cycle of a Carrier Battle Group .

Secondly embrace the helos , Yes the Mig29-k's will be short in number if we add IAC-1 while not ordering replacements so in the meantime we need to make maximum use of Romeos , Naval LUH/LCH or any other version HAL can modify and increase the helo component of the AC's and other ships , I think IAC-1 with its clean sheet design would be easier for carrier ops so better to let them have more Mig's while Viky takes more helos .

Third and most importantly keep working on TEDBF while utilizing N-LCA as a testbed or if possible for some training activities , Once the LCA production line is fully up and running we may see a change of heart by the Navy and a small order .

Fourth , Take the money saved (or left ? ) in the budget and use it on increasing SSN,SSBN numbers

Fifth , Increase cooperation/partenrship with Australian/Japanese/Amreeki in IOR , In a budget & fighter crunch we may not be able to deploy the carrier assets that often and it will help to have allied assets keeping track of China while play we catch up ...Its not ideal but there really aren't many alternatives .

Sixth , The MQ-9 Sea Guardians were a great lease and will do a ton to bring the navy up to speed on drone ops and we would do well to try to come up with some of our own and decrease the workload on flight operations .

Frankly I don't think the navy has the money to do all of these things together , But they should at least try to embrace a few of them .... if not then we can have N-MMRCA 2.0 from which we'll probably get 8 Super Hornets in 2045

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Dec 2020 11:17

brar_w wrote:No one needs to get twisted about anything.

That's all I'm saying. Articles and posters raising questions on the usefulness and reliability of the entire fleet of 29Ks are of little use (other than having an agenda).

But if the IN is down to sub 50% KUB strength and has lost around 8-10% of the overall fleet then something has to be done about at a time when the second aircraft-carrier is getting closer to service and is likely to lead to greater demands from a shrinking fighter fleet. I mean if your carrier count is doubling, and your fighter inventory is shrinking (down 3 in the last year) then it doesn't take a very large leap of faith to assume that this requires some sort of eventual intervention. Looked through that prism, one can understand why the IN may be interested in acquiring additional naval fighters, budgets permitting. I am sure if the MiG-29K is exactly what the IN is looking for (short of the TEDBF) then it will be a shoo in for that requirement if it ever advances to the level of procurement.

Not sure if the Navy is looking for extra fighters from the prism you point out. The MRCBF tender was with the Vishaal in mind. For that purpose, I doubt the 29k is a good bet. However, from the perspective that you suggest (need to have more twin seat trainers), a few additional 29ks (as replacements or even to bump up the numbers a bit), could very well be the shoo in.

The rest of your examples you cite are also quite ambiguous and not a very good way to look at this. What you ought to look into is crashes per 100,000 operational hours (or Class-A which is basically a proxy for that (though not quite) in US reporting), and other reliability and sustainment metrics (like component MTBF for example). That is a proper way to look at this. The MiG-29K may be the safest, and most reliable naval fighter ever designed. Or it may not. But we just don't have the level of data to show that and just randomly picking Air-Force X having lost 2 aircraft, and navy Y having lost 4 aircraft isn't a very smart way to analyze this. But most importantly, this ought to be about how naval aviation tempo is increased (which will be required even if on carrier is used at a time) while the fleet shrinks. Something has to be done to either generate more sorties from the existing fleet, or increase the fleet. That's just math

.
Admittedly I didn't go that deep (as I pointed out in the post itself). having said that I gave examples of 4 different services with varying data points. The IN and the Shar, the Aeronavale and the Rafale, the RAAF and the F-18, and the aforementioned USN + Shornet. None of them might be a perfect apples v apples, if that is even possible (considering the lack of data available), but they do give useful datapoints, which belie the argument that the 29k is a dud.
If the crashes of the 29k in recent times is a reason to question the usefulness of the 29k, then the crashes of 4 Rafale in 3 years, 5 hornets in 4 years could also mean that these fighter are/were duds. Point is - we just don't have the data to suggest either way so what's the point in blaming the aircraft?

srin · Post by **srin** » 05 Dec 2020 13:35

Conversation with Vice Adm Shekhar Sinha (Retd), who has flown Sea Harriers and MiG-29K

For Mig-29K, jump to around 45:00

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 05 Dec 2020 16:15

If the Navy wants to persist with demand for a 3rd carrier, then it will have to be innovative on budget front. For example, transfer MiG-29K squadrons to IAF thus focussing on the cost of the ship component while IAF takes on the air component on its books. Something similar was done in UK with Sea Harriers.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Dec 2020 17:10

srin wrote:Conversation with Vice Adm Shekhar Sinha (Retd), who has flown Sea Harriers and MiG-29K

For Mig-29K, jump to around 45:00

Wow! Thank you Srin for this great post. Pretty much sums up what the situation is with the 29k (and coincidentally confirms what I have said for years):
1. Developmental aircraft issues (teething issues). I recall having arguments with posters who insisted that these problems were "structural" and therefore, were not resolvable.

2. The bird is very potent.

3. 100% serviceability! Yes, that was the number the good Admiral pointed to based on the CO's statement. Touch wood.

4. He puts the mishaps down to the dangers of naval aviation - exactly as surmised. Categorically denies that it is due to "troublesome or risky" aircraft.

Hopefully this puts paid to all the "russki aircraft raw deal" crap coming from media sources as well as some brfites.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Dec 2020 17:20

chola wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:So a MiG29K crashes during training, and all of a sudden it is the worst fighter in the world? The Shar didn't have a particularly stellar record IIRC. Naval air ops are inherently dangerous and everything from Shar to Shornets have been lost.
No, Marko ji. The biggest concern has always been this:

https://techgenez.com/indian-navy-wants ... uggedized/
According to the MoD official, the government would prefer an agreement involving the Navy, Russia and HAL to undertake structural improvements for the MiG-29K fighters. The call for improved ruggedness originates from an issue after deck landings. The MiG-29K fighter’s settings reportedly require a reset after landing on the deck of the carrier.

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

A report last year by India’s autonomous auditing agency, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, said the MiG-29K was to be technically accepted despite discrepancies and anomalies.“Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engine MiG-29K fighters have been withdrawn from service due to design-related defects,” according to the report.

Early last year, the Indian Navy entered the global market to procure 57 multirole fighters to be used on future aircraft carriers, essentially rejecting the MiG-29K fighters.
A carrier plane that can't really handle landings and needs to be re-calibrated after every recovery is not a reliable carrier plane full stop. And that is on top of the engine issues which is well known even for the land-based versions of the Fulcrum.

The crashes are just further straws on the camel's back.

But anyhoo, as explained in previous posts above we'll have to sailor on with them.

Chola garu, all these problems were teething/developmental issues - watch the interview with V.Adm Sinha please. Painful, but fixable, and fixed. 100% serviceability. The previous CNS (Lanba?) also had given the bird a clean chit. This is the latest information we have - coming from 2 top level Admirals who were around when these problems occured.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 05 Dec 2020 19:01

Vikramditya deal had the carrier at cost of only the upgrades/repairs if Mig-29ks were bought. It was the only option we had at the time. How it came to be so bad is a topic for another discussion.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 05 Dec 2020 19:09

If 100 % serviceability can be maintained than 40 mig 29k are enough for both carriers as both have standard complement of 20 mig 29k each and both will be available for only 3.5 years of the 10 years till TEDBF is available.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Dec 2020 21:03

Cain Marko wrote: Not sure if the Navy is looking for extra fighters from the prism you point out.

I go by what is written and/or attributed to the IN's leaders since I don't have insight into the inner workings. Perhaps someone like Bala VIgnesh can elaborate with some insight into how the internal process works. But from what has been written or said recently, it seems that the MRCBF is aimed at replacing the MiG-29's and in the future enhancing the overall fighter force to sustain carrier operational growth (you can have ops tempo increases even with 2 carriers, without needing a third one).

This gels well with the fact that both Dassault and Boeing have been trying to determine or demonstrate whether their aircraft are capable of operating off of the existing two carriers and not just a potential, yet to be sanctioned, third carrier. I realize that the budgets and the MOD has the ultimate say in this, but despite that, what the IN says does provide insight of some importance into what it is thinking and what it wants its carriers (and carrier strike fighter) to look like. Assuming requirements aren't developed in a vacuum then this does also reflect on where the IN wants its carrier fighters to be in terms of technologies and capabilities and how it may be planning to employ its two carriers half a decade to a decade out into the future.

Of course as I mentioned earlier, it could just all be a program to just buy additional MiG-29K's. In any naval fighter integration or acquisition the incumbent/status-quo always has a huge advantage given the challenges of absorbing a new type into carrier operations. So if the IN's is happy with the MiG-29K, then they will likely ditch asking for the MRCBF or just convert that request into a straight request for more MiG-29Ks to cover both attrition and growth. But if this doesn't happen (which it clearly hadn't until last week), and the IN continues to see if it can get or incorporate a new 4.5 generation naval fighter into its fighter portfolio, despite having 2 carriers and despite operating a smallish number of fighter aircraft than that would point to something that we perhaps need to account for in terms of A) how satisfied the service is with its MiG-29's, and B ) What role it sees them play in the INs future carrier operations. I mean if the service continues to float the intentions/desire to procure MRCBF as a supplement and/or replacement for MiGs while also funding yet another MiG replacement in the TEDBF then something has to off here as I believe the majority of the MiG-29Ks are about a decade old now and have what 2 replacement efforts underway/being-explored? Is there precedent for this anywhere else in the IN or IAF? Has the IAF ever launched a program to replace a young fleet without a generational advancement in capability (like retiring 3rd generation aircraft with 4+ generation aircraft)? What about launched two tracks to do the same?

https://twitter.com/SaurabhJoshi/status ... 4624399360

chola · Post by **chola** » 05 Dec 2020 23:00

Cain Marko wrote: Chola garu, all these problems were teething/developmental issues - watch the interview with V.Adm Sinha please. Painful, but fixable, and fixed. 100% serviceability. The previous CNS (Lanba?) also had given the bird a clean chit. This is the latest information we have - coming from 2 top level Admirals who were around when these problems occured.

If this is true and the 29K can achieve 100% availability then the carrier force's aircraft picture is clear and straight forward. Neither the Rafale M nor F-18 are as sure in French or American service.

MiG-29K it is! The truth is we really don't have a realistic chance at anything else so if the incumbent aircraft is working then all the better until the TEDBF comes online.

srin · Post by **srin** » 05 Dec 2020 23:17

The real question is: why is the Navy looking for new fighter types, if all is good with Mig-29K ? I don't know. The video I posted above with V. Adm Sinha is very categorical on Mig-29K.

But there is a bigger problem. Essentially, the Navy is making it very difficult for the 3rd carrier to be approved. First, they talked about larger displacement, then EMALS. Now, they are talking about gold plated Rafale or Shornets for the aviation wing just the current carriers, which means additional bill for more aircraft when the new carrier is commissioned. And then, we turn to the helicopters, where they are insistent that NUH be an import.
In an era of budgetary tightness, it is politically naive and pretty much futile. By asking for more budget, they make it easier for the IAF to present *its* case to handle the maritime air security and cap the naval aviation wing (which I think doesn't make much sense).

As an ardent supporter of Vikrant follow-ons, I'm quite dismayed.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Dec 2020 23:24

chola wrote:Neither the Rafale M nor F-18 are as sure in French or American service.

Very correct. While we have to wait for an official metric definition, there isn't another naval strike fighter in the world, with any service, that has achieved 100% mission capable (that I'm aware of). In fact, one can extend that to land based fighters. No air-force / aircraft combination, that I am aware of is able to, given force structure, logistical, aircraft technical abilities, and financial considerations/limitations, able to maintain 100% capability rates during peacetime. For any sustainable time-frame that would need to be demonstrated for such a metric to make sense (like a rolling 10 or 30 day average) . In fact the expectation is that 100% won't be sustainable even during wartime beyond a few days/weeks of conflict which is why you build reserves, and maintain larger than required inventory.

srin wrote:The real question is: why is the Navy looking for new fighter types, if all is good with Mig-29K ?

This is exactly the question I'm asking. By my count, at least 2 dozen MiG-29K's (like more) are just a decade old. Yet the IN has continued to sustain a requirement of going in for yet another 4+ generation type in quantitates matching or exceeding the current MiG-29 fleet. The IN even went so far as to ask the OEM's whether their aircraft can operate from existing IN carriers (this debunks any claims that those aircraft are only for a notional 3rd carrier) and the two western OEM's are actively talking (and demonstrating) how they could meet that requirement. Not only that, the IN is also fully backing the TEDBF which it counts as its long term 4+ generation aircraft that it expects to come into usage sometime in the 2030s. So a decade into service, the IN is not looking at 1 but two new carrier borne fighters to replace the MiG-29s.

So this leaves a few options. One scenario is that the MiG has exceeded all of INs expectations of performance, reliability and sustainability but just as an academic exercise, the IN just decided to explore alternatives (which won't deliver it the 100% mission capable rates no matter what the OEM's do or offer) and that eventually those efforts will be dialed back and more MiG-29s ordered. So we could expect a few dozen additional aircraft for the fleet. That will hold off and account for attrition and growth till such time that the TEDBF is available later next decade. The other scenario is that the IN genuinely wants other options even out of mature, in service aircraft types and despite MODs insistence that this may be unaffordable keeps cultivating that as an unfunded requirement for now. And this requirement apparently keeps persisting so that is the strange bit.

Now we can debate all day as to why the IN may want to do this. I don't know of any other naval (or air) force that has a fairly young fleet of strike fighters, and wants to acquire equal or more number of its contemporaries while developing yet another clean sheet type that will also be in the similar weight/performance class. This ins't an aim to create a high low mix of fleet. Or a 4th or 5th generation fleet mix. This is about acquiring very similar aircraft than the ones the IN currently operates.

AkshaySG · Post by **AkshaySG** » 06 Dec 2020 00:49

Aditya G wrote:If the Navy wants to persist with demand for a 3rd carrier, then it will have to be innovative on budget front. For example, transfer MiG-29K squadrons to IAF thus focussing on the cost of the ship component while IAF takes on the air component on its books. Something similar was done in UK with Sea Harriers.

It would be ridiculous for the Navy to press for a relative luxury of a 3rd carrier while we are short of airwing for the first two and other necessities like subs are far far higher in need for increasing capability.

Anyway they haven't even agreed on a design yet so to actually finish that and build we probably won't be seeing it before early 2030's at the least (keeping in mind IAC-1 timeline)... By which time TEDBF should be up and running.

Imo if they should have just made IAC 1,2 with the same design and keep costs and complications down by commonalities like UK's QE or China's carriers rather than hoping to build another complex variety of carrier.

Its a moot point right now because the Navy simply doesn't have the budget for it so any "3rd carrier discussion" should be shelved for some time.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Dec 2020 01:15

jamwal wrote:Vikramditya deal had the carrier at cost of only the upgrades/repairs if Mig-29ks were bought. It was the only option we had at the time. How it came to be so bad is a topic for another discussion.

So Bad? I wouldn't call it that. It has some pain associated with it. But it is all our pocket book could afford, and has served well... To the surprise of many experts. May the vikad continue in glory.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Dec 2020 01:27

Why does the Navy explore 57 birds other than the 29k? Keeping aside the cost factor for a moment, Why not? Look at the options... Rafale or super hornet. Both designs that are technologically ahead of the mig as it currently serves. Probably less maintenance intensive too. However, these issues in themselves can be overcome. A decent upgrade to the K for example.

The biggest clue/reason is given in their ambition for the next CV. vishaal is a catobar setup. Both the rafale, and the super hornet are well established here. The 29k? Obviously not.

So I don't think there is much need to speculate on this regard.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Dec 2020 02:54

Cain Marko wrote:Why does the Navy explore 57 birds other than the 29k? Keeping aside the cost factor for a moment, Why not? Look at the options... Rafale or super hornet. Both designs that are technologically ahead of the mig as it currently serves. Probably less maintenance intensive too. However, these issues in themselves can be overcome. A decent upgrade to the K for example.

The biggest clue/reason is given in their ambition for the next CV. vishaal is a catobar setup. Both the rafale, and the super hornet are well established here. The 29k? Obviously not.

So I don't think there is much need to speculate on this regard.

The point is that the IN wants a MiG-29K contemporary in the same class, both forward compatible with a potential future carrier, and backwards compatible with its current STOBAR carriers. And in the 15 year horizon, it may end up accepting yet another type which is also an 4.5 generation aircraft of similar size and performance. So it wants both a near term and a far term replacement/suplement. And the MiG-29K fleet is quite young. In fact the majority of the fleet would be around 10 years old.

However, these issues in themselves can be overcome. A decent upgrade to the K for example.

The biggest problem with the MiG-29K is (and its the same with the MiG-35) in that it really has no large installed base of interested parties that have a vested interest in pumping money into the platform when that money has to compete with investment into other platforms that offer a better ROI. The IN is the largest operator. the Russian navy doesn't deploy its carrier much and there is something like a 3-4 year gap between its last and next carrier deployment. So that no doubt limits options and creates a gap between what might be aspirational and what might be realistically achievable.

With the Rafale, and the Shornet this problem doesn't really exist. These aircraft are used, to a point where the early types have eaten into their airframe lives and are getting a SLEP, much ahead of when this was initially expected. So in addition to platforms actually getting used (which feeds into enhancements that make their way up into future blocks) and a need to recapitalize or upgrade the fleet because of higher (than anticipated) utilization this has led to continuous upgrades in capability that a smallish user like the IN doesn't have to fund.

The same is the case with the Rafale-M where the French Air Force has continued to modernize the platform, buy those upgrades allowing the navy to capitalize and absorb the same. No doubt that is also playing a role. But the fact still remains that as of just a couple of days ago, the highest levels of the IN were on record of wanting the MRCBF to replace MiG-29K's. Whether this remains a wish that doesn't get funded or transitions into a successful acquisition doesn't really change the fact that the IN is looking to do this. It most likely doesn't see the MiG as a big player in its carrier aviation of the future.

He also revealed that the MiG-29K/KUB fighters, which operate from the navy’s lone aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, and which will also fly from INS Vikrant — the second carrier that will commence sea trials next year — would be replaced thereafter by the new Multi-Role Carrier Based Fighter (MRCBF)..

“We have the MiG-29 presently operating from INS Vikramaditya, and they will also operate from the Vikrant and the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier. Meanwhile, to replace the MiG-29, we have taken up a case for the MRCBF, which we are trying to procure along with the air force.”

That means the MRCBF acquisition is being added to the IAF’s separate procurement of 114 medium fighters.

In an indication that the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) is putting up an indigenous rival to the MRCBF, Singh said: “A new development has been the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF), which the DRDO has offered us. If that happens, we will have an indigenous deck-based fighter for the navy.”

Arguing that the DRDO fighter would come too late to be an alternative to the MRCBF, the chief said: “My hope is that the TEDBF would be able to enter service in the early 2030s.”

LINK

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 06 Dec 2020 03:06

CATOBAR or not, and consequent fighter choice, will likely be seen as Navy's technical choice by MoD.

Budgets and politics around it will prevent Navy from acquiring a 3rd carrier. When even the Air Force has to be contend with barely 36 Rafales, there is no way Navy is getting any. The prospect of concluding the Project-75I, NUH and NMRH contracts are going to be onerous, let alone 200 million dollar a piece fighter jets!

I keep harping on a 2nd Vikrant carrier simply because it allows you to separate the air wing acquisition from the platform itself. If Navy can maintain 2 MiG-29K squadrons for next 2 decades, it should be good enough for 3 STOBAR carriers as one will be in refit in any case.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Dec 2020 04:53

Aditya G wrote:IN could look at buying some LCA-N Mk.1s, even with limited load they could at least serve as a STOBAR training platform and air defence duty. Will save hours on MiGs.

We should also look at aircraft carriers as platforms for helicopter based ASW. Not every operation will require you to blow shit up from fighter jets!

I agree. Need to temper desires with funds.