Indian Naval Discussion

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 21 Feb 2010 05:34

Is the Mig 29K more advanced than the Su-33? I had thought the Su-33 was the newer plane...

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 21 Feb 2010 08:51

How is Su-33 newer than Mig-29K?

arun · Post by **arun** » 21 Feb 2010 09:00

X Posted. PTI via Zee News reports that while the short take off component of the Shore-based Test Facility (SBTF) at INS Hansa at Dabolim for the MiG 29K of the Indian Navy will be “ready soon as the Goa Shipyard Limited will complete it” the arrested landing component is “delayed”:

MiG 29K pilots should wait till 2012 for arrested landing training

TOI has a bit more on the SBTF:

Navy to begin expansion at Dabolim

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Feb 2010 09:30

Tu142 it is alleged needs massive service time to be flightworthy. and Russia isnt producing them anymore and probably doesnt have a dry desert boneyard full of mint fresh Munna-ready Tu142.

so with a low number of airframes, I think we will soon hit/have hit point of diminishing return wrt to them
continuing on for long.

the new P8I can atleast serve for 25 yrs on delivery and uptime of the basic airframe and engine should be
good - being 737. mission eqpt uptime depends on sher khan's good graces

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 21 Feb 2010 09:40

Singha wrote: being 737. mission eqpt uptime depends on sher khan's good graces

If Iran can fly F14s even after nearly 3 decades of total American sanctions. India should do pretty okay.

Unless India is overthrown by some fanatical nutjobs who raid the American embassy in Delhi and chant "Death to America" while holding Americans hostage, India shouldn't have a problem with its P-8Is!

This "sanctions boogeyman" is seriously overplayed!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Feb 2010 13:24

first good quality pics of the LUSH Sea Harriers !! How long I've waited to get a good look at these ! the sole pic that was shown earlier of the SHar on INS Viraat did not show it so clearly..new look for these with the radome also being painted light gray instead of the dark gray on the earlier non-upgraded ones.

pics courtesy of Shiv Aroor

IN's LUSH Sea Harrier

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 21 Feb 2010 13:54

Carl_T wrote:Is the Mig 29K more advanced than the Su-33? I had thought the Su-33 was the newer plane...

The development and trails of both the aircrafts began pretty much at the same time in the Mid 80s. However the MiG-29 din't make the cut and sat idle for 10-12 years until IN "decided"(

) to purchase it. Since the first model was quite old to satisfy the IN's demand the Russians improved it in this decade.

The range and wing loading of the Su-33 is better than that of the MiG-29 and it can obviously carry more. However the TWR, rate of climb,etc of the MiG is better. The MiG has FBW, better avionics, better radar,etc. As there are no plans to improve the Su-33 and the fighter has largely remained unchanged since its induction it could be very accurately guessed that the MiG is the better one or more advance as you say.

The Russian Navy is the only one who is operating the Su-33 and it will replace them by 2015 with the MiG-29 so that again shows that they prefer the MiG-29. Comparing these birds is of no use since the MiG is here to stay and Su-33 is not.

If you wanted to compare these bird in sense of comparing the PLAN and the IN than you must know that the Russians are not selling the Su to them but the Chinis seem to have successfully copied most of the Su-33 prototype which they brought from Ukraine. However its unclear what features it shall offer the PLAN.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Feb 2010 13:59

Brando wrote:
Singha wrote: being 737. mission eqpt uptime depends on sher khan's good graces
If Iran can fly F14s even after nearly 3 decades of total American sanctions. India should do pretty okay.

Unless India is overthrown by some fanatical nutjobs who raid the American embassy in Delhi and chant "Death to America" while holding Americans hostage, India shouldn't have a problem with its P-8Is!

This "sanctions boogeyman" is seriously overplayed!

didn't seem like that when our entire fleet of ASW sea king helos were grounded for 3 years.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Feb 2010 14:49

or when the LCA time frame got screwed.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 21 Feb 2010 18:04

Or when some tender or the other gets canceled because US companies didnt make the cut

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 21 Feb 2010 22:38

smpratik wrote:
Carl_T wrote:Is the Mig 29K more advanced than the Su-33? I had thought the Su-33 was the newer plane...
The development and trails of both the aircrafts began pretty much at the same time in the Mid 80s. However the MiG-29 din't make the cut and sat idle for 10-12 years until IN "decided"( ) to purchase it. Since the first model was quite old to satisfy the IN's demand the Russians improved it in this decade.

The range and wing loading of the Su-33 is better than that of the MiG-29 and it can obviously carry more. However the TWR, rate of climb,etc of the MiG is better. The MiG has FBW, better avionics, better radar,etc. As there are no plans to improve the Su-33 and the fighter has largely remained unchanged since its induction it could be very accurately guessed that the MiG is the better one or more advance as you say.

The Russian Navy is the only one who is operating the Su-33 and it will replace them by 2015 with the MiG-29 so that again shows that they prefer the MiG-29. Comparing these birds is of no use since the MiG is here to stay and Su-33 is not.

If you wanted to compare these bird in sense of comparing the PLAN and the IN than you must know that the Russians are not selling the Su to them but the Chinis seem to have successfully copied most of the Su-33 prototype which they brought from Ukraine. However its unclear what features it shall offer the PLAN.

I see, thanks for the info.

ankit-s · Post by **ankit-s** » 21 Feb 2010 22:48

Still, have a look...You will realise it doesn't have any rubber tiles....

Foxtrot is a obsolete - If it did not have tiles ok.......then it is not a stealth submarine, which gave off its signature, like Aa bail mujhe maar....why not give example of modern vessel?

Other modern subs do have stealth skin, Arihant included (indian manufactured tiles)

But the question n the one that begs reasoning is the following:

Is it possible to have anechoic tiles on a rough surface?

If yes - why is RAN inspecting its tiles disbond-delamination for just 0.1 mm tolerance?

I have said b4 - u cant stick a 4 inch thick tile on raised-rough welded surface without air pockets of 1 mm being generated. And thats what RAN was fighting - a delamination below 1 mm.

And I am not getting any answer so far.......

I am surprised that someone gave the example of obsolete foxtrot, and retreated, without talking about MOST of the modern submarine in use now with such a protective skin in vogue........It requires a special epoxy to bond such a tile to a metal hull with so much hydrodynamic pressure.

Because anything which touches the water is subject to hydrodynamic drag which is 10 times, yes 10 times more significant than aerodynamic drag.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 21 Feb 2010 22:50

[youtube]Y7IF4-D4MhQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Feb 2010 22:55

Carl_T wrote: I see, thanks for the info.

the old m29K lost out in the race to the bigger su-33 in the 80's but russia hasn't upgraded the su-33 since then. when we chose the mig-29k over the su-33 (please understand that whichever one we chose would have been a much modified and modernised version. the new 'K' is nothing like the old 'K' that lost to the su-33) for reasons of deck space and weight ratings on the lift of the vik, we also funded and oversaw a modernisation program. since the RuN su-33 is now old and almost obsolete they haven't bothered to modernise it again and instead went with the ready mig-29k version they had developed for India. I expect a naval PAKFA is in the lines too.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 21 Feb 2010 22:59

Yes...I was thinking that this Mig-29K was the same Mig 29K from earlier, hence my curiosity!

John · Post by **John** » 21 Feb 2010 23:35

Austin wrote:
John wrote: IL-142M you mean Tu-142M or Il-38s? Anyway i doubt either platform can carry Brahmos i think Brahmos corp was little optimistic in showing that Mig-29, Mig-27, vanilla Su-27 and Tu-142 all can carry them. Only platform that has been confirmed officially for it is Su-30mki and Su-34.
Yes I mean Tu-142M , I think both the Tu-142M and IL-38SD should be Brahmos capable (atleast internal if not wings as they may need to be strengthened ) though the numbers it can carry may vary .

Most of the Su-30 4+ Gen fighter should be Brahmos capable which includes MKI/MKM/MKK/34

Tu-142 perhaps since the Tu-95 did carry the massive Kh-20 but for i do not think the IL-38's weapon bay behind the wing can is large enough to carry a Brahmos.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 22 Feb 2010 02:26

John wrote: Tu-142 perhaps since the Tu-95 did carry the massive Kh-20 but for i do not think the IL-38's weapon bay behind the wing can is large enough to carry a Brahmos.

Definitely not, it's only 6m long.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Feb 2010 05:45

SNaik wrote:
vavinash wrote:I can see 16 Brahmos and 24 Barak-II in front. Then 2 RBU-6000's and the LWT launchers and HWT Launchers mid section. There are 2 Ak-630 guns on the sides but are there Barak-2 launchers between them? Also Are there 12 Barak-1 launchers besides the Hangar?
16 Brahmos, 16 Barak-8 in front of bridge, 8 Barak-1 between AK-630s on each side, 16 Barak-8 aft, just forward of the hangar. The white spots on the side of hangar are banks of rescue rafts, IMHO. The model is very limited in depicting associated electronic systems and I sincerely hope that 324mm TTs have doors and 533 TTs will be accomodated below deck. The RBUs will give a lot of RCS from certain angles.

Model picture: Project 15 INS Chennai model (Kolkata class)

Here's another CGI picture of P-15A class, which more clearly shows the armaments:

When the model and the CGI are combined, it looks to be the following armament layout (from front to aft):

1 x 100mm A-190(E) gun
2 x 8 Brahmos VL cells
2 x 12 Barak NG VL cells
2 x RBU-6000 ASW launchers
2 x 2 Medium/Light Weight Torpedoes (M/LWT) launchers (below deck each side)
2 x 2 Heavy Weight Torpedoes (HWT) 533mm launchers (mid-ship aligned perpendicular each set facing opposite direction)
4 x 30mm AK-630 Gatling guns
4 X 8 Barak I VL cells (each side 2 x 8 cells)
2 x 12 Barak NG VL cells (on-top before the helo hanger)
1 x Helo Hanger/Deck

Total Missiles/Torpedoes/Guns
16 x Brahmos SSM
32 x Barak I SAM
48 x Barak NG SAM
192 x RGB-60 depth charge rockets (RBU-6000)
4 x HWT torpedoes
4 x M/LWT torpedoes/decoys
4 x 30mm AK-630
1 x 100mm A-190(E) gun
2 x Sea King sized ASW helicopters

Plus, there seems to be plenty of space in the front between Brahmos VL cells and the Barak NG cells for additional VL cells of either type (or for a future missile type). That free space could easily accommodate additional 8-VL Brahmos cells and 24-VL Barak NG/LR cells.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Feb 2010 06:27

IN Teg series model shows to have 36 Shitl SAM VL cells upfront!

1 x 100mm A-190(E) gun
3 x 12 Shitl SAM VL cells
1 x 8 Brahmos VL cells
1 x RBU-6000 12 barrel launcher
2 x 2 HWT 33mm DTA-53-11356 torpedo tube launchers
2 x Kashtan Air Defence Gun/Missile Systems
1 x Ka-28 Helix-A/B Helicopter

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 22 Feb 2010 07:08

Rahul M wrote: didn't seem like that when our entire fleet of ASW sea king helos were grounded for 3 years.

Entire ?? It was 60% of the Sea King fleet that was affected due to a lack of spares. And this was after an event that changed the course of history for India!

ravi_ku wrote:or when the LCA time frame got screwed.

Didn't that work out well into India's advantage down the road ? OR would you have been more confident of a Lockheed Martin inspired design when you are afraid of sanctions ?

John · Post by **John** » 22 Feb 2010 07:38

srai wrote: IN Teg series model shows to have 36 Shitl SAM VL cells upfront!

1 x 100mm A-190(E) gun
3 x 12 Shitl SAM VL cells
1 x 8 Brahmos VL cells
1 x RBU-6000 12 barrel launcher
2 x 2 HWT 33mm DTA-53-11356 torpedo tube launchers
2 x Kashtan Air Defence Gun/Missile Systems
1 x Ka-28 Helix-A/B Helicopter

It was speculated but that should confirm it, Russians have been trying to see VL-Shtil even for Vikramaditya. The Kashtan are most likely Kashtan-M, I do wish they were some changes done to the mast regardless Teg will definitely be quite formidable for their price.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Feb 2010 07:58

OT but there are times one has to admire the Iranians for being able to maintain all that equipment

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Feb 2010 08:30

Did any one managed to ID the SSR/Air Search Radar on the P-17 during Defexpo ?

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 22 Feb 2010 09:47

srai wrote:

IN Teg series model shows to have 36 Shitl SAM VL cells upfront!

1 x 100mm A-190(E) gun
3 x 12 Shitl SAM VL cells
1 x 8 Brahmos VL cells
1 x RBU-6000 12 barrel launcher
2 x 2 HWT 33mm DTA-53-11356 torpedo tube launchers
2 x Kashtan Air Defence Gun/Missile Systems
1 x Ka-28 Helix-A/B Helicopter

It just says Project 11356. Where does it say INS Teg?

Boudhayan · Post by **Boudhayan** » 22 Feb 2010 09:52

ankit-s wrote:...

...... which gave off its signature, like Aa bail mujhe maar....

Nice comparison

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 22 Feb 2010 10:49

Arihant is likely to have smooth hull like hema malini's cheeks even without anechoic tiles. She is double hulled. Her external hull will be easier to weld with bigger segments, it is not the pressure hull.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 22 Feb 2010 12:10

Anujan wrote:Arihant is likely to have smooth hull like hema malini's cheeks even without anechoic tiles. She is double hulled. Her external hull will be easier to weld with bigger segments, it is not the pressure hull.

Sounds dirty.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Feb 2010 13:02

The TU-142 Bear was designed as the world's fastest turbo-prop bomber and is still used by Russia as such.One must recollect the last IOR exercise by the Russians over a year ago,when for the first time in decades,both Blackjacks and Bears flew all the way from Russia to conduct live firing of LR missiles in the Arabian Sea.There have been earlier reports that the IL-38s too will carry B'Mos.Both
aircraft are certainly capable of underwing installation and the Bear in its internal weapons bay.Russia is reported to still have several both IL-38s and Bears mothballed in virtually new condition.There are a few squadrons of Backfires too-large numbers,but the aircraft afer the Georgian spat,where one was shot down by a Georgian Russian built missile,showed up the bomber's shortcomings.Plans to upgrade the aircraft to contemporary std. seem to have been put on hold.

Here is a superb private venture,costing a 10th of regular manufacturers' designs,for an "S-301" mini-sub for SEAL operations.Ideal for carrying in a deck shelter on the hull of a mother sub,something that the IN requires for its special ops/MARCOS teams.Excellent pics.The USN is now evaluating it.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/artic ... isub+a+try

Naval analyst and author Norman Polmar said he thinks the Navy eventually has to again go the minisub route for SEAL insertion.

"I would say yes, because you really want a system that you can put on a submarine, take 2,000 miles, and have it clandestinely launch from the submarine and take four or six guys into a harbor or somewhere," Polmar said.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 22 Feb 2010 20:26

srai wrote:
1 x 100mm A-190(E) gun
2 x 8 Brahmos VL cells
2 x 12 Barak NG VL cells
2 x RBU-6000 ASW launchers
2 x 2 Medium/Light Weight Torpedoes (M/LWT) launchers (below deck each side)
2 x 2 Heavy Weight Torpedoes (HWT) 533mm launchers (mid-ship aligned perpendicular each set facing opposite direction)
4 x 30mm AK-630 Gatling guns
4 X 8 Barak I VL cells (each side 2 x 8 cells)
2 x 12 Barak NG VL cells (on-top before the helo hanger)
1 x Helo Hanger/Deck

Plus there seems to be plenty of space in the front between Brahmos VL cells and the Barak NG cells for additional VL cells of either type (or for a future missile type). That free space could easily accommodate additional 8-VL Brahmos cells and 24-VL Barak NG/LR cells.

The model certainly gives better resolution than the CGI. I see 2x4 cells of Barak-8 with a divider between, the same layout than in Barak-1 just enlarged. The model doesn't allow to say are there two 2x4 Barak-1 modules per side or just one. One seems more reasonable, as P-15s have just two modules, not 4. Barak-1 is a command missile anyway and 4 AK-630 supplementing them should be enough to counter skimmers.

I fully agree that there is significant volume for growth and the space used by 2 RBUs should be better utilized. Install Paket instead of 2 lightweight TTs, for instance.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 22 Feb 2010 23:41

srai wrote:
vavinash wrote:I can see 16 Brahmos and 24 Barak-II in front. Then 2 RBU-6000's and the LWT launchers and HWT Launchers mid section. There are 2 Ak-630 guns on the sides but are there Barak-2 launchers between them? Also Are there 12 Barak-1 launchers besides the Hangar?

16 Brahmos, 16 Barak-8 in front of bridge, 8 Barak-1 between AK-630s on each side, 16 Barak-8 aft, just forward of the hangar. The white spots on the side of hangar are banks of rescue rafts, IMHO. The model is very limited in depicting associated electronic systems and I sincerely hope that 324mm TTs have doors and 533 TTs will be accomodated below deck. The RBUs will give a lot of RCS from certain angles.
Model picture: Project 15 INS Chennai model (Kolkata class)

Here's another CGI picture of P-15A class, which more clearly shows the armaments:

When the model and the CGI are combined, it looks to be the following armament layout (from front to aft):

1 x 100mm A-190(E) gun
2 x 8 Brahmos VL cells
2 x 12 Barak NG VL cells
2 x RBU-6000 ASW launchers
2 x 2 Medium/Light Weight Torpedoes (M/LWT) launchers (below deck each side)
2 x 2 Heavy Weight Torpedoes (HWT) 533mm launchers (mid-ship aligned perpendicular each set facing opposite direction)
4 x 30mm AK-630 Gatling guns
4 X 8 Barak I VL cells (each side 2 x 8 cells)
2 x 12 Barak NG VL cells (on-top before the helo hanger)
1 x Helo Hanger/Deck

Total Missiles/Torpedoes/Guns
16 x Brahmos SSM
32 x Barak I SAM
48 x Barak NG SAM
192 x RGB-60 depth charge rockets (RBU-6000)
4 x HWT torpedoes
4 x M/LWT torpedoes/decoys
4 x 30mm AK-630
1 x 100mm A-190(E) gun
2 x Sea King sized ASW helicopters

Plus, there seems to be plenty of space in the front between Brahmos VL cells and the Barak NG cells for additional VL cells of either type (or for a future missile type). That free space could easily accommodate additional 8-VL Brahmos cells and 24-VL Barak NG/LR cells.

I always thought P 17 had a 100 mm Oto Melra gun. Our pundits please check. I am too lazy.

K

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 22 Feb 2010 23:52

A small question.

I thought the MiG 29 K / KUB had TV engines?

Livefist shows a presentation where the engines are mentioned as RD33MK here, AFAIK Kilmov's TV engines were designated RD33OVT

So my question is - does the Mig29K/KUB have TV? If yes were the engines redesignated as RD33MK?

Or is there no TV for the IN MiG29's?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Feb 2010 00:04

no TV. the sea wasp has better thrust (7% off the top of my head), FADEC and better MTBO. that's it. the biggest difference IMO is the FBW which older fulcrums didn't have.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Feb 2010 00:11

Shalav wrote:A small question.

I thought the MiG 29 K / KUB had TV engines?

Livefist shows a presentation where the engines are mentioned as RD33MK here, AFAIK Kilmov's TV engines were designated RD33OVT

So my question is - does the Mig29K/KUB have TV? If yes were the engines redesignated as RD33MK?

Or is there no TV in the IN MiG29's?

No TVs for the MiG-29K. The MiG-29M airframe with the KLIVT nozzles on the RD-33 engines was called the MiG-29OVT. IOWs, OVT is a description of the aircraft with TVC nozzles, does not designate the engines. The TVC (KLIVT) nozelled engines were little more than regular RD-33s with TVC nozzles and were initially called RD-133s. Meanwhile, the RD-33 itself was being upgraded including increased thrust, lowered SFC etc and was called the RD-33K (for naval), these had the option of increasing thrust to 9400kgf in emergency reheat. The latest variant of this development being todays RD 33MK on the IN MiG-29s, dunno if they have retained the emergency reheat option. So far AFAIK, no RD-33MK has been fitted with the KLIVT nozzle although this does not seem to be a big deal.

CM.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 23 Feb 2010 00:16

Thanks.

I think OVT was also a RD33 designation. Not sure though, its been a long time.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Feb 2010 00:47

Shalav wrote:Thanks.

I think OVT was also a RD33 designation. Not sure though, its been a long time.

Yes, it seems they showed the same setup (RD-33) under various designations - crazy b*****ds! THus you have the RD-333, RD-133, VKS-10M, VK-10 etc, however, the letters OVT, were always associated with the MiG-29 as a whole signifying a seperate supermanouverability program just as the MIG-29M or MIG-29K or MiG-29SMT variations designated seperate programs. HOwever, Klimov never had an engine program called RD-33OVT AFAIK.

CM.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 23 Feb 2010 02:29

ok, thanks.

John · Post by **John** » 23 Feb 2010 03:40

Kersi D wrote:I always thought P 17 had a 100 mm Oto Melra gun. Our pundits please check. I am too lazy.

P-17 has Oto SR 76 mm gun and oto melara does not sell 100 mm gun unless you meant the 127mm.

Austin wrote:Did any one managed to ID the SSR/Air Search Radar on the P-17 during Defexpo ?

Have not seen it you have the image?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Feb 2010 04:27

shalav,

You are wanted on the LCA thread. Do you still have your spreadsheet ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Feb 2010 04:37

Philip, Were you looking for this graphic from India Today?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 23 Feb 2010 04:58

If unable to see the video click here
Boeing updates on delivery of the P-8i maritime aircraft to the Indian Navy

22 Feb 2010 8ak: Richard Buck, Program Manager, International Operations, Boeing spoke to 8ak editor, Manu Sood to give us an update on the delivery of the P-8I aircraft to the Indian Navy. Mr Buck told 8ak that the P-8i program was well on track and 2010 will be a critical year for the program as the lab testing of aircraft is scheduled this year, before adding that the delivery of the first aircraft can commence as early as 2013, and the rest being delivered by 2015. In August 2009, the government of India and the U.S. government signed a technical assistance agreement that allowed the program to move forward with the necessary technical discussions required to execute the program. In October 2009, the program completed a successful Preliminary Design Review.

The P-8i has integrated Raytheon's advanced AN/APY-10 synthetic aperture radar for tracking ships, submarines and small coastal vessels; Northrop Grumman's electronic warfare self-protection suite and electronic surveillance measures systems; BAE Systems' countermeasures dispenser system; GE Aerospace's flight and stores/weapons management system, and GE-SAFRAN's powerful CFM 56-7 engines. The company also confirmed that weapons and stores, such as the Boeing-built Harpoon Block II missile, are part of the agreement, to be acquired through the U.S. government under its Foreign Military Sales program.

The program is significant for India, not only because it is the first foreign customer for the P-8i, thereby signifying the new US- India military ties, but also because the size of the offsets program is a whopping US$600 million, which will surely benefit the Indian defence industry.

Many people wrongly believe that this was a government-to-government deal through the Foreign Military Sales route (FMS) but Mr Buck confirmed that the deal was signed after a global tender which requires an offset commitment. Boeing recently signed contracts with three Indian public-sector companies and one private-sector firm to source avionics and electronic equipment. Purchase contracts have been released to the Electronics Corp. of India Ltd. (ECIL), HAL Avionics Division, Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) and Avantel Softech Ltd. Additionally, Boeing has made source selections on three additional aircraft systems. Contracts for those systems will be solidified in the near future. Equipment and software from the Indian suppliers will be delivered to Seattle for incorporation into the P-8I.

The P-8I’s has a range of 1,920km Factor. Boeing has offered the Indian navy a Universal Air Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation, which can accommodate an air refueling boom similar to those used on the KC-135 and KC-10.

Asked what the difference between the American P8-A and India's P8-I was, Mr Buck replied that the Indian version is customised to India's needs and meets 100% of the requirements as required by the Indian Navy.