Indian Naval Discussion

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 19 Nov 2009 23:44

Vikram, end of September 2009
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/ ... m_0909.jpg

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Nov 2009 20:09

The RN is facing huge budget cuts and a war has broken out in Britain between the three srevice chiefs,with each trying desperatrely to protect their assetsand future programmes.The armn my chief was most scathing about the RN's two new carriers and if the IN has expressed interest in one,it is a superb move.The IN so far has the experience of using two British carriers.The IAC being built at Cochin at 35,000t+ is just too small for the IN's future challenges,especially as China plans to build at least two nuclear powered large 65,000t carriers and equip them with reverse engineered SU-30s.RN design studies found that the minimum size of a carrier to be cost-effective was at least 50,000t+.The Gorshkov is about 45,000t,but the size of its flight deck is inadequate for larger aircraft than the MIG-29Ks ro be carried aboard.Furthermore,the lack of deck space makes it able to carry a smaller amount of aircraft on deck and helos than a conventional carrier of similar tonnage.Instead of building another medium sized carrier at Cochin,the yard can instead build a new class of amphibious flat tops like the Spanish Juan Carlos (30,000t+),or the 25,000t French Mistral,which the Russians are lusting after and might buy the design.It will save precious time if we acquire one of the two British carriers,which are excellently designed,which could carry even the heavier naval Flankers and the naval version of the 5th-gen fighter,while simultaneously we could build at home the sorely needed amphibious vessels/LHPDs.Time saved,capability increased by a quantum leap.

suraj p · Post by **suraj p** » 20 Nov 2009 21:34

@Philip:
Excellent! China is very eager to walk the roads that west traveled 25 years back. Acquiring nuclear carriers and patrolling the Indian ocean and maintaining its superiority is one of the motives. If you recollect that some 6 months back Chinese naval vice chief said to american counterpart - you take Pacific and Atlantic, we take Indian ocean.

How many carriers do you think IN should acquire to have a 'noose' around 'string of pearls'

Does India need Nuclear carriers.
yes, they are expensive, difficult to maintain and manage waste. However they are fast and can carry more fuel for fighters.

It might be too much but I think IN should have more carriers say 7 (2 in Port blair and nicobar , 1 in madagascar, 1 oman, 2 in WNC, 1 in ENCvizag).

venkyt · Post by **venkyt** » 20 Nov 2009 22:20

I think we need at least 5 AC between 2015-2020. If I were to decide, I will surely opt for 2# of CVF class [65K tonnes], 2# of IAC [35K tonnes], and hopefully can expect AG/Vik by 2015. We can further build 2# Improved version of IAC between 2020-2025. Also we need at least 4 flat tops like Mistral / Juan Carlos.

Am I fantasizing?......

I am pretty sure we can offered the big wish list financially and from other perspectives. But with our political impotency...???....

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 20 Nov 2009 22:22

China's ability to operate in IOR is very limited and it would remain so in the foreseeable future , since this topic has been done to death , I won't pursue it any more.

As for a carrier fleet , if we get the planned 3 carrier fleet by 2020 , add to that the destroyers and frigates at different stages of construction, we'll have a very formidable fleet. Lakshawadeep and Nicobar are precious Naval assets and our planned procurements would be enough to be the dominating force in the IOR in the future.

6 , 7 or 8 carrier force is mostly dreamy opinions of fanboys , fact being that our Carrier force would be no more than 3 till 2020

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Nov 2009 23:18

Juggi G wrote:The British Warship that India wants: Quantum Leap on the high seas

The warships will be equipped with ski ramp-assisted takeoff at the front, which will suit the Sukhoi strike aircraft that India is buying from Russia

Read more: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci ... z0XQL53CU4

Su-33-MKI!!???

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 20 Nov 2009 23:24

SaiK wrote:Su-33-MKI!!???

Probably meant the MiG 29 K.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 Nov 2009 02:54

A historic first for women

Kochi: History was created at the Southern Naval Command here on Friday when the first two women combatants of the Navy were awarded with the ‘wings’ at an impressive passing-out ceremony.

Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai, Flag Officer Naval Aviation striped the ‘wings’ on six officers of the 70th observer course and four officers, including Sub-Lieutenants Ambica Hooda and Seema Rani Sharma, at INS Garuda at the Naval Base.

Hari Gopal Sharma, Sub Lt. Seema’s father, who retired from the Navy as an honorary Sub-Lieutenant, watched with pride as his ward marked a historic first at the ceremony held the Aeronautical Engineering Department (AED) hangar, where he worked before retirement in 2002. Sub Lt. Ambica, who was adjudged the ‘best trainee in flying’ of the first short service commission observer course, however, had no family members present on the occasion “as there was a wedding taking place back home in Haryana.”
...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Nov 2009 12:17

tThe big Q is how many can we afford,as I wouldgive top priority to building up a large fleet of nuclear powered subs,which are the only true naval stealth weapons and can thanks to their reactors venture into any ocean for combat ops.We need a minimum of 6 SSBNs and 6 SSGNs like the Akula.3 carriers and 3 large LHPDs with flat tops like the Spanich Juan Carlos design of around 30,000t-which can carry a STOVL aircraft like the JSF and can switch roles in a crisis as additonal flat tops for any role,air defence,strike,ASW,etc.,should be sufficient.However,If China is planning on building 6 large nuclear powered carriers for the future,then the IN will have to meet that challenge too with its own second line of N-powered carriers.From the IOR viewpoint though,we have the huge advantage of the unsinkable carrier,the Indian landmass (and our island territories),that juts into the IO like a dagger.We must make full use of this and a large number of long range land based strike/LRMP aircraft-which could be a mix of supersonic (Backfire/Blackjack/SU-34),jet (P-8/Beriev amphibs) and turboprop aircraft (TU-142/IL-38/ATR/Beriev amphibs/DO-228).Carriers will require a large number of escorts,air defence CGs/DDGs, etc.,and the cost of such task forces will be astronomical.A single nuclear powered sub does not need such an escort and its cost-effectiveness is greater.Carriers are required for power projection and for any major amphib ops,apart from its conventional roles .

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 22 Nov 2009 15:32

Philip wrote:RN design studies found that the minimum size of a carrier to be cost-effective was at least 50,000t+.The Gorshkov is about 45,000t,but the size of its flight deck is inadequate for larger aircraft than the MIG-29Ks ro be carried aboard.

If i'm not wrong, the flight deck clearance is around 6.1m for CVF QE. You cannot carry Su-30 type aircraft there. You have to deal with Mig-29k type or LCA.
a/c type will not be a problem, if in any case we procure CVF.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 22 Nov 2009 22:52

Indian Navy keen to buy newer generation aircraft

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/bus ... 78386.html

This may be another twist in the story of MMRCA

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 22 Nov 2009 23:49

Isn`t this a clue that the 6 contenders scaled down to 3?
Of the 6 only MIG,SH,Rafael have naval versions .

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Nov 2009 00:10

SanjibGhosh wrote:Indian Navy keen to buy newer generation aircraft

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/bus ... 78386.html

It's hard to take an article seriously when it says stuff like this:

Thrust vectoring capability allows an aircraft to stand still in the air, and takeoff and land even in vertical mode like a helicopter.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Nov 2009 09:03

Rahul M wrote: I'm not sure the IN criticism is valid. IN orders in batches of 3 after it was decided in consultation with the shipyards that 3 was minimum number required to ensure sufficient ROI so that the shipyards don't suffer losses.

ACtually, successive MDL heads have bemoaned the ordering of ships in anaemic quantities of 3. The shipyards would be able to prospective plannign much better if they have larger sized orders - not just in terms of shipbuilding, but also in terms of ordering of compenents. We tend to do that for imports as well (40 M2ks, 60 Mig29s, 3 Krivaks..the list is long..)..

Ordering in scale quantities is a sine qua non for attracting pvt investments in a domestic MIC (beisides getting a good rpice as well!), especially given the uncertain nature of our ordering process itself..

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Nov 2009 09:10

3 is NOT anaemic, other than US few navies order in larger batches. there is no limit to how big a non-anaemic batch is, five, ten, fifteen ? the more the merrier but there's a limit to what IN can afford and given the build time, how much will stay relevant without updates.

in fact I'll be very interested to see what exactly MDL heads said about 3 ship orders since it was they as the principal shipyard who decided the optimum order size.
do you have a link for that ?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Nov 2009 10:23

Rahul M wrote:3 is NOT anaemic, other than US few navies order in larger batches. there is no limit to how big a non-anaemic batch is, five, ten, fifteen ? the more the merrier but there's a limit to what IN can afford and given the build time, how much will stay relevant without updates.

in fact I'll be very interested to see what exactly MDL heads said about 3 ship orders since it was they as the principal shipyard who decided the optimum order size.
do you have a link for that ?

Some info here..

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/03/ ... oject.html

This is the Catch-22 situation facing Indian warship-building. The shipyards want larger orders of warships with standardised designs. But the Indian Navy has tended to place smaller orders of 3-4 ships; the navy says construction delays by the shipyards mean that designs get outdated by the time the ships are rolled out.

CMD MDL is "hoping" that 15B will be a true follow-on to 15A. In actual experience, IN is notorious for procrastinating on and changing specs on indivudal components even for "finalised" projects. The inference to the propeller shaft from Ukraine mentioned in the article above is something that has been pending for more than 2 years.

As for other ship-building orders - for frigates and destroyers, the "order runs" are typically much more than 3. Even a small Singapore Navy ordered 7 units of the Lafayete class.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 Nov 2009 11:39

^^^

IMO, the ideal number for orders of a new type is around 6 ships (or half the number planned for of that new type). For example, if IN is planning for 12 of a new type, then it must order at least 6 in the first batch because there will be design limitations (based on know hows of today) on how much it can be improved when compared to building from scratch 10-15 years down the line. So a design is good for about 2 iterations (i.e. P17, P17"A") before needing a completely new design to match future threats/knowledge. IN can't just order 3 at a time if it is planning to acquire 12 ships of that new type. When you add in-between time (after the first batch of 3 delivered, the redesign phase and subsequent second/third/fourth orders each taking 7+ years), it just takes too long to get those 12 ships of that type into IN within less than 20 years time frame, by which time the design will obviously be obsolete!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Nov 2009 13:30

The ideal type of carrier aircraft is a STOVL one-JSF,or the VSTOL Harrier on carrioers with ski-jumps.The ease with which aircraft recovery is made is a major factor,apart from avoiding the neccessity of launching aircraft into the wind.A conventional STOBAR aircraft with TVC (MIG-29K or naval S-30MKI) assisted with a ski jump is the next best thing.The ski-jump has also proven an asset in sea keeping during bad weather.The avoidance of costly,energy consuming catapults,which also weigh a lot,is avoided with a ski-jump.

Unfortunately for the JSF,the aircraft in various expert analyses,will be inferior to a Flanker,especially the upgraded Flankers due soon.It's stealth will also be compromised by the underwing weaponry carried.The aircraft also comes in at a very high cost.The IN should combine forces with the IAF and
join the 5th-gen programme to develop a naval version of the aircraft,which will be a smaller twin-engined aircratf than the SU-30MKI,yet with greater capability.Such an aircraft,with either STOVL or TVC capabilities,would be a fantastic asset for the IN,giving it a quantum advantage over the PLAN and even superior to any US aircraft other than the land based Raptor.It would also come in at greatly reduced costs which would benefit both the IAF and the IN if acquired in larger numbers.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 23 Nov 2009 14:19

GeorgeWelch wrote:
SanjibGhosh wrote:Indian Navy keen to buy newer generation aircraft

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/bus ... 78386.html
It's hard to take an article seriously when it says stuff like this:

Thrust vectoring capability allows an aircraft to stand still in the air, and takeoff and land even in vertical mode like a helicopter.

thrust vectoring as in a Harrier/ JSF case.

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 23 Nov 2009 18:30

[quote][/quote]

IANS is reporting that Indian Navy has settled for Super Shornet F18/C in addition to 46 Mig 29K for its Carrier Fleet to Check mate the Chinese. This would imply, subtly, That IAF may have also settled for F/18 Shornet for MRCA competition.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 23 Nov 2009 19:51

One reason why the US Navy orders in large numbers apart from its large size of course is that they make a quantum leap in technology in each next class, which remains state of the art for quite some time with its competition being able to match it only towards the end of its production run.Take for example the Arleigh Burke class destroyers that have been in service for close to two decades(and still in production) and we are beginning to see its Chinese equivalents(if you can call it that) now.The Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer will do the same.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Nov 2009 19:55

somnath sahab, ordering a tested mature design isn't the same as ordering a completely new design from a not so experienced shipyard is it ?
and considering the time desi shipyards took, 3 seems to be the max number. in fact ajai shukla's article quite resonates with my earlier post.

-----------------
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 526773.htm

India deploys another warship off Seychelles to fight pirates
www.chinaview.cn 2009-11-23 20:34:39 Print

NEW DELHI, Nov. 23 (Xinhua) -- The Indian Navy is deploying another warship with marine commandos on board to combat pirates off the island nations of Seychelles and Mauritius in the Indian Ocean, reported the Indo-Asian News Service Monday.

INS Savitri, an offshore patrol vessel, with a Chetak helicopter and marine commandos on board, "will conduct surveillance of the exclusive economic zones of Seychelles and Mauritius from November-end till early January 2010," the report quoted Indian Navy spokesperson Commander P.V.S. Satish as saying.

John · Post by **John** » 24 Nov 2009 00:00

somnath wrote:As for other ship-building orders - for frigates and destroyers, the "order runs" are typically much more than 3. Even a small Singapore Navy ordered 7 units of the Lafayete class.

Well unlike RSN whose SYs where able to deliver the ships in just 3 year, if we ordered 7 P-17s in 2001, MDL would be building these well into 2020.

Philip wrote:join the 5th-gen programme to develop a naval version of the aircraft,which will be a smaller twin-engined aircratf than the SU-30MKI,yet with greater capability.Such an aircraft,with either STOVL or TVC capabilities,would be a fantastic asset for the IN,giving it a quantum advantage over the PLAN and even superior to any US aircraft other than the land based Raptor.It would also come in at greatly reduced costs which would benefit both the IAF and the IN if acquired in larger numbers.

PAK-FA?, Russia has no plans for naval version. IIRC it is not being designed for takeoff and landing for short runways like the mig-29k and Su-27 so modifying it for STOBAR would be unlikely.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 24 Nov 2009 04:39

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnVM99INuHI

MF STAR radar looks quite small and compact.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 24 Nov 2009 07:23

Sorry if this is slightly OT, the picture is cool and the capabilities are impressive:

France shows off cutting-edge navy ship in Russia
By IRINA TITOVA, Associated Press Writer Irina Titova, Associated Press Writer Mon Nov 23, 9:50 am ET

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia – A cutting-edge French warship sailed into St. Petersburg Monday to show off its capabilities to potential buyers in the Russian navy, whose pursuit of an amphibious assault capacity is frightening some neighboring countries.
...
Russian officials announced this year that they were planning to make their first arms deal with a NATO country by buying a French vessel like the Mistral, a 23,700-ton (21,500-metric ton), 980-foot (299-meter) vessel able carry more than a dozen helicopters able to haul hundreds of troops directly onto enemy territory.

... a Mistral-class vessel could put as many troops in Georgia in 40 minutes as the Russian Black Sea Fleet took 26 hours to land during the nations' August 2008 war.

The Mistral docked Monday on the Neva River, about half a mile (1 kilometer) from the Hermitage museum. Russian media reported that the French and Russian navies are planning joint exercises with the ship this week.

Russian media reports have said a Mistral-class ship would cost Russia up to euro500 million ($750 million). Officials in Moscow have expressed interest in buying licenses to build several more in Russia.

"We strongly oppose the sale of such ship to Russia," Nika Laliashvili, a member of the Georgian parliament's defense affairs committee, told The Associated Press. "It poses a serious danger to Georgia."

The Mistral, which was launched in 2006 and first saw service in a Lebanon refugee operation, is one of the two ships of that class in the French navy.

Bruno Daffix, a spokesman for the French Defense Ministry's export and sales agency, described the ship as a "Swiss army knife" of military ships — able to carry helicopters, land forces, hospitals or refugees, among other things.

NATO officials in Brussels would not comment Monday on the possible French navy sale.

The Kremlin has increasingly sought in recent years to reaffirm Russia's global reach and prestige in world affairs. It has sent its warships to patrol pirate-infested waters off Somalia and dispatched a navy squadron to the Caribbean where it took part in joint maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy and made several port calls in 2008.

The Caribbean mission, aimed at flexing military muscles near the U.S. in the tense months after the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008, was the most visible Russian navy deployment since Soviet times.

....
Russia has only one Soviet-built aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is much smaller than the U.S. aircraft carriers and has been plagued by mechanical problems and accidents.

Russian shipbuilders have opposed the Mistral deal, saying the government should invest in domestic production instead. Navy officials have argued that license production of Mistral-class ships would help modernize Russia's aging industries.

The French Defense Ministry's arms acquisition and sales agency has reported that French exports rose 15 percent in 2008 to euro6.4 billion, thanks in part to sales of the French-Italian built FREMM multipurpose frigate to Morocco and the EC725 Cougar tactical transport helicopter to Brazil.

French military exports are expected to rise to euro6.7 billion this year.

Among France's recent big-ticket sales deals, Brazil has agreed to buy five French Scorpene submarines, one of them with nuclear propulsion, and 50 Cougar helicopters for about $12 billion. All would be assembled in Brazil.

___

Associated Press writers Jamey Keaten in Paris and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report.

Wonder if, being French-built and all, they have L'Instant Fleur de Lis d'Surrender ready to pop out..

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Nov 2009 07:49

^^^ Without defending MDL's project management skills as examplary, the fact is that IN's (and even more IA/IAF's) prospective planning and procurement happens in tortuous dribs and drabs.

Time taken is a consequence of a lot of things - component procurement is one, shipyard plannign is yet another. without clear visibility on the numbers, all commercial organisations (even PSUs) would make conservative assumptions on capacity planning and procurements. further, IN is notorious for changing specs along the way, never "freezing" on the design and functional specs. For each 3 ship order, the ship yard has to nearly restart the entire cycle of tendering, procurement, planning etc etc..EVen suppliers have their own production schedules, and the subsequent orders would invariably be bringing up the rear of their orderbooks..Add to that things like the IN fetish with the Ukrainian propeller and shaft for the 15A, when the company there is bankrupt (so the IN wants MDL to fund them!), non-finalised weapons and sensor suite even now and so on..the other big joker in the pack is of course DRDO (all weapons and sensor packages now need to have a DRDO "JV", which takes up its own sweet time)..Overseas ship yards do not tolerate all this, they insist on a design document finalised and then deliver as per that - hence they deliver on better timelines. Of course even there, IN's insistence on disparate systems pose integration challenges, a la the first Krivaks..

All of this lends itself to better management if scale sized orders are given. The first ship will happen at the usual elephantine pace, but the subsequent ones will be much faster as the shipyard would have put in the plans and orders and work schedules and the repeat "works" are mostly mechanical....

thats why the 17A order can be a break from the past -with a production run of (at least) 7 ships, the second and third and subsequent ships will be built (hipefully) much faster...

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 24 Nov 2009 08:37

Can we please take the discussion of PSUs and their production methodologies to the defence PSU thread? We have gone through the discussion with the same actor last time too and all it did was fill up page after page with inane arguments.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Nov 2009 15:54

John,Russia has big plans for upto 6 carriers and it is very likely that a naval variant of the 5th-gen fighter will be available like the JSF.

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 24 Nov 2009 18:29

Their is a joint Venture for Brahmos and even for Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA). So, Why is their no Joint Venture between India & Russia, regarding the design & constuction of (Non Nuclear Propulsion) Naval Supercarriers???

John · Post by **John** » 24 Nov 2009 20:11

Philip wrote:John,Russia has big plans for upto 6 carriers and it is very likely that a naval variant of the 5th-gen fighter will be available like the JSF.

It is an Admiral's pipe dream, currently Russians are focusing mainly on building LPDs while procuring a sqaudron of Mig-29k to replace the Su-33. Unless they start planning soon i doubt they will even have a carrier to replace Kuznetsov by 2025?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Nov 2009 20:16

John wrote: PAK-FA?, Russia has no plans for naval version. IIRC it is not being designed for takeoff and landing for short runways like the mig-29k and Su-27 so modifying it for STOBAR would be unlikely.

they do have a tentative plan for a naval PAKFA. was announced sometime back, more than once IIRC.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 25 Nov 2009 15:16

Hunt on for fighters for aircraft carriers

With the development of the naval version of the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) floundering, the Navy has launched a hunt for a new fighter to operate from its aircraft carriers in the pipeline.

Although the article starts off like a typical hatchet-job, is the IN hedging its bets?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 25 Nov 2009 15:44

tsriram wrote:Although the article starts off like a typical hatchet-job, is the IN hedging its bets?

It could also be :
1) Opening new doors for the procurement of SH/Rafale if they're slip up in the MMRCA contest.

2) An attempt to reduce the price of the next batch of 29 MiG-29Ks

3) The IN is really serious about HMS Prince of Wales and hence requires a suitable aircraft.

4) Imporbable, but may be the IN is not so happy with the MiG-29Ks. Like a rerun of the new AJT RFP.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Nov 2009 15:58

With the clear evidence of China's massive N-carrier plans,a small naval fighter of the LCA class is absolutely inadequate to patrol the high seas,an act that requires long endurance,heavy payload and a considerable range that allows the carrier to attack land targets while outside normal range of enemy land based aircraft.This job requires a twin-engined fighter and while the MIG-29K can perform this role admirably,it remains a 4th-gen capable aircraft.Had the Gorshkov been a larger carrier,the IN would unhesitatingly have acquired the naval Flanker.Even if the IN do acquire an RN QE class carrier of around 60,000t+,the Sukhoi is a twin-seat aircraft and the IN it apperas would prefer a single-seat aircraft.Any aircraft acquired would also have to be relevant for about 40 yrs.,the lifespan of the carrier too and a contemporary aircraft like the Rafale would be ideal.

kit · Post by **kit** » 25 Nov 2009 16:03

Philip wrote:With the clear evidence of China's massive N-carrier plans,a small naval fighter of the LCA class is absolutely inadequate to patrol the high seas,an act that requires long endurance,heavy payload and a considerable range that allows the carrier to attack land targets while outside normal range of enemy land based aircraft.This job requires a twin-engined fighter and while the MIG-29K can perform this role admirably,it remains a 4th-gen capable aircraft.Had the Gorshkov been a larger carrier,the IN would unhesitatingly have acquired the naval Flanker.Even if the IN do acquire an RN QE class carrier of around 60,000t+,the Sukhoi is a twin-seat aircraft and the IN it apperas would prefer a single-seat aircraft.Any aircraft acquired would also have to be relevant for about 40 yrs.,the lifespan of the carrier too and a contemporary aircraft like the Rafale would be ideal.

F 18 ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Nov 2009 19:09

The F-18 belongs to an earlier vintage and is the last avatar of the design,which is now not being bought even by the US's closest allies.Frankly,it has no future.From the available info on the Rafale,the aircraft will be upgraded (software) every two years,with a clear timetable for future upgrades of other eqpt.According to the French,the aircraft is expected to be in service with the French air force until 2040.There is no naval variant of the Typhoon and the only two other naval aircraft that could be considered are the MIG-29K and SU-33 (twin-seat,too large).The JSF has inherent weaknesses and is frightfully expensive,apart from the US unwilling even to give its closest ally Braitain the fully loaded version! Since the Rafale is readily available,other than the MIG-29K,which is already being obtained for the Gorshkov and IAC,for a larger carrier like the RN's ones,the aircraft would be ideal as later on the 5th-gen variant should be available by around before the end of the next decade.What the IN's new requirements now show is that the two carriers being acquired and built,the Gorshkov and IAC are just too small (especially their deck space) for 21st century carrier requirements,.Though smaller UCAVs are on the horizon and some UAVs might be available by the time the two carriers are commissioned,given the speed and complexity of current and future warfare,require the carriers to be able to operate their aircraft in a multitude of roles,simultaneously,which requires a larger number of aircraft carried and a flight deck large enough for such ops.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 25 Nov 2009 22:12

JSF wold be best choice for IN as next gen fighter.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 26 Nov 2009 00:20

India Bolsters Coastal Security After 2008 Attack

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Nov 2009 01:36

Don't be surprised if the Shornet springs a surprise. Indications are that it'll get some kind of order. If not the MRCA then the IN. Remember the IN is v.gungho about US hardware, more so than the other services one feels. Trenton, P8, interest in hawkeye, shornet, JSF are examples.

Also Boeing offering the EPE 12 ton engines is a good indicator. This should more than resolve the STOBAR thrust requirement. It'll put the Shornet in EF-2000 class when it comes to thrust. A slight wing redesign (greater sweep) and broader intakes would make the shornet suddenly a v. attractive a/c a2a.

CM.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Nov 2009 16:16

I think the RFI is just time pass , ultimately the IN will standardise on Mig-29K and N-Tejas in the next decade and half and then move towards a naval FGFA.