Indian Naval Discussion

[negi]

^ Did you climb up the gunner's nest ? or had a dekho from ground ?.
The navigator (I think they call him the Observer) though has the entire nose cone for himself .

The most pleasing thing for a Jingo to look at as far as the Bear is concerned is its propeller hub (only one of its kind in the whole world in terms of complexity and sheer size)

[rohitvats]

^ Did you climb up the gunner's nest ? or had a dekho from ground ?.
The navigator (I think they call him the Observer) though has the entire nose cone for himself .

The most pleasing thing for a Jingo to look at as far as the Bear is concerned is its propeller hub (only one of its kind in the whole world in terms of complexity and sheer size)

No access to the gunner's cabin. Saw it from ground. They were preparing the a/c for sortie; the ground crew was really occupied. Saw the cockpit though.....I had thought that there would be a passage through the main body of the a/c...but lo and behold!!! there is none...that plane is thin like a pencil....It's a case of wings+engine with fuselage than other way around....considering the duration of the sorties these fellows fly..the poor sod in the Gunner's Cabin must be having a really tough time.....

As for the engines, moi only a arts graduate saar (though with pure science till +2).....the fact that I know what is "reversible pitch contra-rotating propellors" more than enough to massage my ego....

And after getting the touch and feel of the cockpit and observer/weapon system officer crew area..I really don't fault at Navy Flyboys preferring the P-8I...they are infact very eagerly looking forward to it.....

[Kartik]

Kartik,I'v always advocated for a strong indigenous defence industry.Unfortunately,the LCA has been delayed fro so long that it is in serious dange of ebcoming obsolete when perfected in a MK-2 version,which has yet to se the light of day with the new engine not yet selected.Therefore,how can a MK-1 version which has an underpowered engine especially at sea level dramatically morph into a Naval LCA that will suffice for the IN?

Let me get this straight- you say you support indigenisation, but then you show absolutely no patience in what is essentially a very high technology domain? This is not something where you start pouring in money and overnight results are there for you to see, unless you do it the Pakistani way where overnight you acquire a capability by purchasing it from someone else and painting it yourself and calling it some indigenous name..Countries that have established themselves as global arms developers are those that have very sound, strong scientific and industrial bases and have had strong government support for decades. You will see results as more experience is gained, and a larger research, scientific and engineering base is built up. I'm not saying that they're not delayed at times, but anyone who would try to compare the timelines for some European and American fighter projects and compare them to the ACTUAL Tejas timelines would find that the difference is not great.
If you support indigenisation, you won't keep harping on delays like its an affliction only native to Indians. Where is the same perspective on the Gorshkov ? What about the fact that the IN is getting a second-hand carrier, one that never did well in Russian service, one that is delayed by well over 5 years, one whose price is more than TWICE what it was originally supposed to be (a classic bait and switch trick, since there is no way on earth that the GoI would've gone for a second-hand Gorshkov if the price was originally said to be $2.3 billion), around the same time that our own IAC-1 will enter service ? Why have we not seen a single post of yours cribbing about that ? Your silence on that while repeatedly posting on the Tejas, always dwelling on the negative aspects does not indicate that you want to support indigenisation.
the MiG-21Bison upgrade was delayed by the Russians as well (and they promptly blamed Indian DRDO agencies who had to develop some components for the upgrade), the MKI program suffered some delays, the MiG-29K program suffered a 1 year delay, when the MiG-29K isn't even a brand-new aircraft and most elements that went into it were in existence in some form or other.
Where was your crib on the Sea Dragon upgrade that ended up performing so far below par that the IN refused to take delivery of its Il-38SDs rather preferring to leave them in Russia till the issues were sorted out ? All this while the IN's MPA assets were precariously low in number. Its only now that we're hearing that all issues are sorted out and they are ready to be taken into service.
And pray, tell me what makes the LCA Mk1 obsolete? Fine, its not yet met some Air Staff Requirements as some journos claim. But do you know what those performance requirements are to claim it will be obsolete ? How can you say that a fighter whose airframe is more advanced than that of the MiG-29K that we're inducting, whose avionics are derived from the Su-30MKI, Jaguar DARIN-II and MiG-27 upgrades and whose internal EW system is going to be the most advanced of all current IAF fighters, will be obsolete by 2014-15 ? It will enter service with an Elbit DASH HMDS. How many IAF fighters actually have a HMDS ? The answer is zero. The only thing they have are Helmet Mounted Sights that belong to 1-2 generations ago.
Regarding the N-LCA and the Tejas Mk2, well lets be clear on one thing- the IN doesn't require carrier borne fighters right now. Any delay, while embarrassing, isn't critical to the IN's well being. By the time that the IAC-1 is ready, clears trials, and enters service, the N-LCA Mk2 will be in advanced flight testing unless something untoward happens. To cater to that, the IN has already ordered a second batch of MiG-29Ks. So why the pessimism and cribbing against the N-LCA when carrier-borne fighters are the last of the IN's worry ?? Wait for more details to emerge after the N-LCA is revealed and then see how things go instead of predicting its failure from so early on on such specious grounds.
Actually, I want you to find one feature that will be standard on the top-of-the-line IAF fighters of 2014-15, the MiG-29 UPG, Mirage-2000-5 and Su-30MKI (non-MLU, since we won't have any by then) that won't be there on the Tejas Mk1 and thereby make it vulnerable to becoming obsolete by the time the Mk2 enters service. I won't even include the MiG-27UPG and Jag DARIN-II-III since they don't fit in the same league and aren't multi-role anyway. Keep in mind that we'll see the MiG-29UPG, Mirage-2000-5 last till 2020-25 so if the LCA Mk1 can compare well with these, then your argument about the LCA Mk1 becoming obsolete basically flies out the window. I'll be waiting to see your answer on that.
You have in the past actually suggested that the Jaguar line be re-opened after the 37 units the IAF ordered to replace some of the MiG-23s that were retiring. What could be more illustrative of your prejudiced view against indigenous products ? That you would rather see a fighter that belongs to an earlier generation enter service even today, just to fill numbers, ignoring the fact that it is not close to being multi-role due to its low-level strike optimised design, one that is known for also being UNDER-POWERED in certain flight regimes.
This isn't meant to be a knock on the Jag, which is a fine aircraft for its role of lo-lo penetration, and has served the IAF well, but the double standards become apparent. Here we have you recommending buying new Jaguars when the IAF and Omani AF are the only two operators left in the world, while consistently cursing certain MRCA candidates claiming that they're being retired by their parent air forces, calling them 1970s designs, and what not (we know you do that only because of their American pedigree). Where is the post cribbing about one under-powered aircraft whose re-engineing program was so hyped (the Honeywell vs Rolls competition), and yet is nowhere near being decided?
The fact that there are high stakes at play here for foreign companies and arms dealers become obvious when one takes into account that these negative press reports mostly concern indigenous projects. Where is the IAF's "anonymous source" leaking statements to the press saying that the Jag is under-powered and fails to meet certain requirements for certain mission profiles ? IAF pilots will state this to Western magazines, knowing it won't become a sensational media story making the fighter out to be some leper, but not to desi journos because after all it’s imported maal that have been in service for years now. The IAF has been making do with far less flexible and capable aircraft like the Jag and MiG-27 and intends to continue doing so for another decade and your crib is about the LCA Mk1 becoming obsolete !? Please, give me a break. Even with its F-404 IN20 engine, the LCA will fly loops around these 2 jets. Even the MiG-21 Bison is outclassed by the Tejas but the Bison won't be around much longer when the Tejas enters service, so the point is moot.

Moreover,in the naval context,a twin-engined aircraft is far preferable because of the safety factor (twin engines),which is why most naval strike fighters today have twin engines (F-18,Rafale,SU-33,MIG-29K,F-14 now retired).Land based aircraft if they have engine problems do have the possibility of returning to base,another airstrip if possible,which is impossible for naval aircraft where the pilots have to eject.The increasing range and lethality of modern anti-ship missiles have dramatically increased the radius of action and endurance time of naval air defence fighters.It is only navies that operate small carriers who have limitations of space on deck and hangars who are considering using smaller light fighters.However,studies by major carrier navies have determined that to be relevant,the minimum size of carriers should be around 55-60,000t ,which size enables them to carry a decent number of aircraft,UAVs and helos and conduct simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft.

Maybe you should make these points to the USN and RN, which are planning on inducting single engined F-35s. They figure that the smaller F-35 makes a better candidate for a naval fighter than the uber-fighter F-22. And while your points on the debate between single and twin-engined fighters are relevant, the fact is that it’s not as clear cut a choice today as it was in earlier decades. Fighters with single engines as reliable as the F-404 are not as prone to crashes due to engine trouble as the MiG-23 was. Just compare the attrition rate of the MiG-23 at its retirement (total hours in IAF service exceeding 1,00,000 hours) with that of the worldwide Gripen fleet (total fleet hours exceeding 1,30,000 hours) to see the reliability of the F-404. Every acquisition decision is a trade-off, every fighter design is a trade-off and a compromise in some ways.
If you have decided on a certain weight for your carrier for various reasons (neither of the IN's first 2 carriers are 55,000 or 60,000 tonnes displacement), then you cannot carry a large number of medium-sized twin-engined fighters. A mix of the two (like the French do now) allows more to be carried on-board and the cost of operations, maintenance and support are lower for a single-engined fighter anywhere in service. The N-LCA was originally concieved by the IN, it wasn't the result of a sales effort by the ADA. The IN approached them for a Sea Harrier replacement and the N-LCA was born. Besides, if the N-LCA being single-engined was its biggest vice then what on earth is the Sea Gripen being sent an RFI for?

I've stated if you read my posts carefully,that ther appears to be vesed interests who do not want the LCA to succeed by deliberately delaying vital decisions such as the engine choice for MK-2.There is a red line beyond which no service,IAF or IN will want an aircraft as they have to have in their inventory the rquired numbers and capability for conducting their respective responsibilituies.If you hear of how thr project has been treated like "the second wife's child" by the entire establishment,from hard sources on the inside, it is most depressing.A knowledgable soul in private industry,which produces a number of defence items,said that they (private industry) were unwilling to invest large sums of money into defence R&D primarily because of the uncertainity in getting a large order from the MOD.They oftenn hoped for orders only to see at the last moment orders placed abroad.Some time ago a JV with BAE and an Indian major was shopt down by the GOI.At that level he said,"decisions are taken on a PM to PM basis",where the "national interest" prevails over the "service interest",and he "nationa interest" is known only to the PM and ruling tribe of the day!

I don't crib about politics and politicians in India if I can help it because its useless as nothing will change. But I do agree with your points here that there are vested interests at work in India and abroad who would dearly like to see indigenous programs fail because of the size of the market that they will stand to lose if they don't. All the more reason to support such programs despite the birth pangs because public perception is so badly tainted by planted news stories, and genuine reports of issues, howsoever minor are so blown out of proportion, its sad. Like the news-stories on the excess weight on the N-LCA and the requirement to seek outside help to resolve it. They don't require consultants to sit and work on the weight issues and resolve it for them as well- they simply need them to get insights based on experience on some key points, which will influence what path will be taken to reduce weight. the hope is that the external consultant will point them in the right direction and in that way, help reduce the effort that would otherwise be put in to resolve the issue.
My biggest crib is that there is such a lack of awareness of the sheer magnitude of the project and the primary reason is our media. Most are not technically educated and cannot appreciate the technical details. The difference in the quality of articles written by our media and those that appear in Western and Russian aerospace magazines is stark, to say the least, but these jokers are the first to claim that Indian defence products and technology is not on par with the West or Russia. If only they even put a mirror to themselves. Even a guy like Ajai Shukla, while being earnest, lacks the kind of technical understanding that would make him a writer on par with them. Shiv Aroor posts great pictures and brings the latest news, but when he actually covers something, his limitations become clear. I would simply compare the Flight International article on the flight test of the Gripen with the video report that he presented. The Flight International article (while being written by a former Test Pilot) was low on rhetoric and high on details. Shiv Aroor's report was like a 10th standard boy being given a joy-ride. And the coverage at Vayu-Shakti 2010 with his non-stop "unabashed" macho talk, etc. That lady, Suman Sharma, she exposes her knowledge when she puts a caption on a Surya Kiran image saying they're using afterburners. Then she talks about how the MiG-29K is a 7G fighter so that "it is safe"..she doesn't bother to ask why its so, what does the person mean by "safe". The finer details, when disclosed to these people, slip by these guys and consequently people fail to grasp the research, the tedium, the hard work, the effort that goes into these high-tech gadgets.

Meanwhile,the Greeks and Germans have come to an agreement about the supply of German U-boats.The first will now be sold to a foreign operator.The IN has a strong chance here to evaluate the sub and consider it for the IN as a type that can replace the older U-209s in service.Pak was earllier trying v.hard to acquire German U-214 AIP subs but the Germans refused for fear of antagonising India and Pak's terrorist credentials.We should seriously evaluate replacing our existing U-boats with newer AIP U-214s ,so that the German line of contemporary sub tech remains with the IN and is not lost forever.These subs can then be evaluated against the Scopenes and even Amurs with Brahmos,which logically should replace the Kilo class.From these thre strains of forign sub-tech.,one or two indigenous conventional AIP sub designs can be drawn up with the IN's special requirements foeremost (we will need subs both for littoral hunter-killer ops and long range blue-water ops) apartf rom SSBNs and SSGNs for global oceanic opeations.

the U-209s themselves are very quiet. I had once written about my colleague who served on a US Nuclear submarine who was part of an exercise conducted with the Argentine Navy, where their U-209 came well within torpedo range of a US aircraft carrier before it surfaced and announced its presence. Goes to show that even with the top-notch submarine detection equipment, aircraft carriers are very vulnerable to a silent diesel electric submarine. This is the one area where the IN is sorely lacking and it should concentrate more on that rather than a third line of fighters for IAC-2 which is still far away.

[Kartik]

By 2020 the 5th-gen fighters in both east and west will be dominating the skies in large numbers.Tejas, by HAL's own production figures will have reached 120 max.in 10 years.The aircraft will at its very best be nothing more than a 4th gen fighter,perhaps 4+,while the supposedly 4++ MMRCA contenders are already superior to it,let alone the SU-3-MKI.How many more LCAs do you think that the IAF or IN will really want by then? Even the MIG-21 Bison is a stop-gap arrangement because of the late arrival of the Tejas.In fact,the Tejas has yet to arrive in operational status! Unless Tejas' fruther and final development is hugely accelerated,poduction rate doubled,by the time the aircraft is "perfected",it will be obsolete,clearly outclassed by the latest arrivals from both east and west.I cannot see the IAF wanting the inferior Tejas to even the MMRCA whatever aircraft is ultimately chosen.Sadly,and I sincerely hope I will be proven wrong,Tejas will serve the IAF well but in limited numbers only,just as the HF-24 did.To my mind,history is repeating itself.

The 5th gen fighters won't be "dominating the skies". They'll be barely entering service. No PAK-FA, FGFA or Chini J-XX will enter service in numbers before that. If they do, they'll be doing so in graded capability tranches, like the Typhoon or Rafale, where the Tranche 1 and F1 were not as capable as the machines today.
Besides, when the PAF is going to use the JF-17, a modest fighter by any stretch of the imagination, as its back-bone, what's wrong with the Tejas Mk1 or Mk2 ? Either one could tackle the JF-17 just as well as the Su-30MKI can. After all, even if the Tejas' radar range is smaller than that of the MKI, its RCS is much smaller too. It'll be cheaper to acquire, cheaper to operate, cheaper to maintain and the IAF won't ever face spares shortage or be faced with the threat of being hostage to sanctions for this fleet.
talk about production rate being doubled and what not cannot happen unless the IAF puts its money where its mouth is. Place the orders, give HAL the funds, let them secure that then see how production ramps up. I mean what is so hard to understand about this fundamental concept ? the IN ordered 16 MiG-29Ks, so please tell me how many years will it take for MiG to finish deliveries? Two years at around 8 per year. Is that slow- well the IN only ordered 16, so why would they build any more per year ?
the PAF has shown a lot of faith in its JF-17 program because in some ways they're like the IN. short on funds, so they cannot draw a wishlist of imported fighters and buy 150-250 of them without driving Pakistan bankrupt. So they take what they get, give it their whole-hearted support and then go in for Western upgrades to make up for deficiencies in areas where the Chinese lack. Even with a corrupt military elite, they know that there is no fighter in the world that they can acquire in such numbers unless its Chinese- viz. cheap and available for soft credits. So, nobody in the PAF or Pakistani political classes attempts to scuttle this JF-17 program and instead, even with minimal involvement in the design and development, they crow about it like they were 50-50 partners in all aspects. They have a fleet of A-5, F-6, F-7 and Mirages to replace so they realise the best way to do it is to build a two-tier structure with the JF-17 sitting at the bottom, doing the role of the work-horse, which doesn't require a 4th or 5th generation fighter, while the F-16 Block 50/52s, FC-20s, which are costlier to acquire and operate, do the more high-end missions.
and yes the Bison is a stop-gap arrangement for the Tejas, but it does the job, doesn't it ? Its still operational even as 4th generation fighters are the norm now. Its defending our borders even today. Does someone get sleepless nights thinking that it’s a Bison and not a Typhoon or Rafale instead ?

[Kartik]

Which 5th gen aircraft will be there over the seas? And given the fact that the date of IOC has been announced as march next year, how do you think that is going to be obsolete when its inducted? Naval prototype is already under construction and some of the data points for the NLCA are being validated using the PV5.
Pleased to see that he now says serve in limited numbers atleast!

Did I miss something here ? I thought the IOC was to be achieved by Dec 2010, not March 2011..did the date slip ?

[Suresh S]

hello kartik,

Agree with most of what you say. obviously you have been or are working with our defense industry. it is good to know that some very knowledgeable people are working for these organization and I do feel your pain. But kartik you have to agree that for a intelligent race like ours and we have been independant for over 60 yrs now the goverment funded and run defense industry have not achieved a lot to put it nicely. And we live in a very nasty neighbourhood and can not take forever to get our defense industry going well. It is common knowledge that most of our high grade scientists and engineers are either working in usa or working in India for private companies. I do understand that some very bright people are working for the government for one reason or another and I commend their efforts. But you have to agree that for these bright engineers to succeed in a corrupt govt run organization is almost impossible.

[Juggi G]

Big Bucks, Many Irritants
Business Standard

Secondly, like Washington, Moscow too has deep concerns about the rise of China; India and Russia compare and discuss their perspectives on China. Finally, Moscow would Like a Powerful Indian Navy Patrolling the Indian Ocean, leaving lesser space for the US and Chinese navies.

Russia’s readiness to supply India Strategic Platforms and Technology that No other Country will Part With — such as a Nuclear Submarine on Lease and Assistance in Designing an Indian Nuclear Submarine and UnderWater-Launched Missiles — maintains for that country a niche in a Lucrative Strategic Sphere.

India also signed a US $1.6 billion deal to buy 29 MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB fighters, over and above the 16 already purchased for operating from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya. The additional Fighters ( MiG-29K ), India’s Most Technologically Advanced, will operate from the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) that is being built in Cochin Shipyard.

Why is the MiG-29K touted as India’s Most Technologically Advanced Fighter Instead of the Su-30 MKI in many recent newsreports
What makes it better than Su-30 MKI

[nachiket]

This abdul managed to sneak-a-peak into INS Rajali.... ........managed to have a 'dekko' at the venerable TU-142 from INS 312 "Albatross" Squadron. Man O! Man...am I happy or what....finally got to see and feel these birds...these gentle giants....these legends of aviation history........muaaahhhhh!!!!!!

PS: I thought the Russians designed only their tanks with cramped space and with nary a thought for 'ergonomics'....but guess their a/c also suffer from the same draw back........the crew compartment is one heck of a small place...and as for the tail gunner..my sympathies are with him....

Is there a reason for the tail-gunner's position to be manned these days? It was useful when a-to-a missiles weren't available or weren't reliable. Why would any aerial adversary today come in close for a gun kill on the huge Bear when any half decent missile can take out the target from miles away. In a modern combat scenario the bear would have to rely on fighter escorts for protection.

[K Mehta]

Did I miss something here ? I thought the IOC was to be achieved by Dec 2010, not March 2011..did the date slip ?

Oops you are right, the date of Induction in IAF of first squadron is march 2011
Induction of LCA Tejas into IAF

These LCA are likely to be inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF) by March 2011.

[Philip]

Kartik has his viewpoint and I have mine and I am confident that history will bear me out,so let's wait for 2020! I base my views upon the indecision of the GOI/MOD despite all our protestations about indigenisation being our goal.The LCA is the prime example.I say again that the seriousness shown by the GOI/MOD have for the project depends upon the speed with which they take a decision about the MK-2 's engine.It is meant to be the final version that will serve us in large numbers and unless it is in full production,MK-1 will be merely of tech. demonstrator quality.We are now a full year since Aero-India 2009 and still the decision for the engine has not been taken.The EJ is supposed to need no redesign for the fuselage and comes with a TVC option unlike the GE.It appears that the MMRCA deal is casting a shadow over the LCA engine decision.The US in addition seem to have an unhealthy influnce over Indian defence decision making.We have the case of the indecent haste with which the C-17 is being acquired (to allow Boeing to continue production),while the LCA's engine can take all the time in the world!

Here I would also like to compare the equally delayed Arjun project with the LCA.The Arjun is in production in MK-1 form,and while not perfect ,so is the T-90 (thermal sights).The COAS said though that the "we need a tank for the future",implying that Arjun was a tank for the present.Will a future air chief say the same around 2015 about the LCA if it is delayed even more? We cannot underestimate the pressure from foreign suppliers who will do their utmost to delay indigenisation,at the same time the impossible targets set by the DRDO do not hlp the services,Trishul being one example of failure that delayed naval warship indcution.A detailed report on DRDO restructuring has been given to the govt.It should act on it asap.

Yes,we might've learnt a lot from the decades of development,but if used for the MCA project,that project must be up and running very soon as the PAK-FA is already flying!Ask yourself the Q,which aircraft will the IAF want around 2020,more LCAs or more PAK-FAs and MMRCAs ? By 2015,both the MMRCA and LCA should be in simultaneous production along with the many other projects (SU-30s,MIG-29 engines,Hawks,IJTs,basic trainers,Jaguar upgrades,MTA,etc.).With Nasik fully loaded with Russian projects,where will HAL find space for production for all the rest and which of the two will the IAF prfer,LCA MK-1/2 or the MMRCA? As for China and Pak,they're already producing their new fighters albeit of slightly lesser capability but they have large production capabilities and are trying to acquire western tech (French for Pak) to improve capability.By 2015,both Pak and China will have large numbers of these fighters ins ervice and we will be perhaps seeing the first of the Chinese 5h-gen prototypes flying.

Regarding naval preferences,ask IN aviators,they prefer a twin-engind aircraft for obvious reasons stated earlier.The JSF is being built in very large numbers and the US have inputs for large-scale attrition in its budgets.However,even the JSF is coming under more scrutiny for a variety of reasons,cost and performance both.The reson why the IN wanted a naval LCA is that earlier,it opted for smaller carriers (even the IAC-1 has been made larger than earlier dsigns to carry the superior MIG-29K) which in the light of the PLAN's carrier ambitions-no one expected the PLAN to restore the Varyag into an operational carrier or plan for large sized carriers with even N-propulsion,therefore the IN want for the future even more capable aircraft.A small LCA limited in payload and range will not suffice.

Its like the play,"Waiting for Godot".One might say the same,"Waiting for the LCA".


PS:Yes,limited numbers like the 100 orso HF-24s.

[Sanku]

I base my views upon the indecision of the GOI/MOD despite all our protestations about indigenisation being our goal.

Philip wins the debate just with that above point I think; I just cant figure out how, with indigenisation being so critical to the nation, can important decisions be deferred ad infitum, yes, MoD does it with external purchases too, such as AJT and the burnt borne by the IAF is all to see in the numbers of fine Airmen we have lost, yet that waffling becomes even more critical in terms of Indian push towards R&D for a simple reason ----

The time lag between the push (in terms of money, resources, decisions) to a final product is HIGHER by definition in case of R&D compared to off the shelf purchase and induction.

Considering the issues that India has faced of not having prior experience the delay is even more killing -- so yes, MoD by repeatedly dragging its feet on critical issues, leaves the forces in a situation where a panic purchase is the only possible thing under the circumstances.

With all the support of IAF for the LCA now (even which the detractors of forces on this issue agree with) -- IAF will be hamstrung in its task of inducting LCA even if it wants if MoD continues its silly games the way it is doing.

[Philip]

In continuation of the above,K.Sub.,the doyen of our strategic analysts is quoted by in the latest Sunday-Indian mag,on defence budgets and delays,that "it takes 10-12 years to decide upon an aircraft" and that the Chief of combined staff is unlike in other countries left out of the planning procedure left to do "day-to-day" jobs.

Now going by KS's yardstick,he has his facts wrong,for surely a revolution has set in in the MOD, for how long has it taken for the GOI to decide to buy Hercules C-130Js-18 months? P-8Is-12 months? Overturn Eurocopter's win for the light helo contest allowing a US manufacturer's protest,about three moinths.A similar decision that saw US manufacturers return to the attack helo contest,another three-six months,decision on the C-17 (no) contest-why it hardly took any time at all! A decision was just announced with no rival participation! Wait for the Chinook decision in the future.I ask you again,which is the more important decision pending for the IAF,the LCA's engine or the C-17 transport? How long did it take for the GOI to buy the Gorshkov?Almost a decade! How long for the Hawks?18 years! How long for the Scorpenes? A delay in signing for about two years.How long has the yet to be taken decision on the second line of (Brahmos equipped) subs taken?....about 6 years at least,sorry,I'm wrong.It dates back from Adm.Bhagwat's plan for production of 24 conventional subs! The Brahmos equipped Amur model has been seen at the last three Aero-India shows.

So what gives with the apparent indecent haste with which US aircraft and deals are being made?Oops! I almost forgot the light artillery deal almost signed.Methinks from the above hard facts that a Pentagon General resides somewhere in South Block along with a State Dept. Under-Secretary who take quick decisions to buy US arms and follow US diktats on India's foreign policy!

[nrshah]

^^^^ Very well said.. Fully agree with you. Cannot be said in better words...

[rohitvats]

Kartik has his viewpoint and I have mine and I am confident that history will bear me out,so let's wait for 2020! I base my views upon the indecision of the GOI/MOD despite all our protestations about indigenisation being our goal.The LCA is the prime example.I say again that the seriousness shown by the GOI/MOD have for the project depends upon the speed with which they take a decision about the MK-2 's engine....................<SNIP>

Your post actually reminds me of the debate on the Arjun Project in Armored Thread. So, now when asked to expand your earlier assertion about the obsolescence of LCA in the Indian context, you've started the whine about the Indian Mil-Ind complex? How is that related to inherent potential of the aircraft itself? And it seems you've already modified your statement about 5th Gen fighters swarming the sub-continent skies.....

And as for these:

Regarding naval preferences,ask IN aviators,they prefer a twin-engind aircraft for obvious reasons stated earlier.The JSF is being built in very large numbers and the US have inputs for large-scale attrition in its budgets.However,even the JSF is coming under more scrutiny for a variety of reasons,cost and performance both.

How is the bolded part related to the single engine versus twin engine debate? and can you provide the link or data points where it says that USN forsees greater percentage of loses due to single engined nature of JSF and hence, needs to factor in X aircraft rather than Y (Where X is greater than Y)?

And as for your comments on the T-90 and ARJUN, well, all I can say is...

[rohitvats]

............<SNIP> So what gives with the apparent indecent haste with which US aircraft and deals are being made?Oops! I almost forgot the light artillery deal almost signed.Methinks from the above hard facts that a Pentagon General resides somewhere in South Block along with a State Dept. Under-Secretary who take quick decisions to buy US arms and follow US diktats on India's foreign policy!

Care to elaborate on the "indecent haste" aspect of the Defence Deals with US? And what was wrong with these purchases?

[nrshah]

Care to elaborate on the "indecent haste" aspect of the Defence Deals with US? And what was wrong with these purchases?

I think we are deviating from the main issue. The issue is not indecent haste... it is quick decision taken in case of US equipments when they are not as urgent as others, the issue is times lines of RPF altered to fit US giants, the issue is contract awarded canceled just because of US competitor (who lost) is not able to digest his defeat, the issue is lack of competition when there are alternatives available at cheaper price, the issue is whereas other (EU) tender is rejected for price reason, we are ok with US cargo carriers which are at least twice as costly as the alternative...

On a side note, wish US had conventional subs... project 75 would have been sanctioned long ago..

And indecent or not, will only be proved if we are able/unable to use them in crisis...

[Kersi D]

In continuation of the above,K.Sub.,the doyen of our strategic analysts ....................

.............Methinks from the above hard facts that a Pentagon General resides somewhere in South Block along with a State Dept. Under-Secretary who take quick decisions to buy US arms and follow US diktats on India's foreign policy!

Yes Philip I agree with all the above cases. But what about T 90 ? It did not take several years or even several months for IA/MOD to decide on T 90 and that too without any competitive bids or even any comparisons.

So I accept that there may be soem vested interests that ensure that some deal are pushed very fast or very slow.

K

[Philip]

Yes Kersi,T-90 was a follow development on to the T-72 and was in knee-jerk fashion acquired when Pak bought the T-80UDs from Ukraine.W had no other alternative ready.Similar to when the MIG-23 was bought and later on the MIG-29,to counter the F-16.No other nation has been willing to share tank tech with us and the IA appears to be happy with the three-man crew concept of the T-72 and T-90,peferring it to a largr 4-man crew design.

For a good review of the JSF/F-22 and their capabilities and weaknesses,check this llink.http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html
It gives a good understanding of the JSF's limitations mainly because of its bias towards battlefield strike as aaginst air combat wher the twin-engined F-22 scores decisivly over it and even doubts about its effectiveness against Flankers is voiced.So imagine the peformanc of a little single-engined naval LCA!

It would be very interesting to see a future Oz study of the JSF/MIG-35/29K and what it reevals.

Some quotes:

"Were the JSF defined and sized today, the CTOL/CV variants would be larger twin engine fighters" .

"Its effectiveness in the air combat role, against the ever evolving capabilities of the Sukhoi fighters and newer Russian missiles, is very much open to debate and clearly problematic. "

"The big question for Australia is whether the JSF is suitable as a single type replacement for the F/A-18A and F-111. Aside from the fractional battlefield interdiction and close air support roles, the JSF falls well short in the prime air control and deep strike roles, compared to the alternative F-22A and likely future FB-22A. The JSF is clearly no match for the F-111 as a basic 'bomb truck'."

""The JSF is thus a radically different aircraft to the F-22A, in its primary design aims, capabilities and performance. Against its mid 1990s role definitions, the JSF is a very good fit, but with the evolution since 2001 toward persistent battlefield strike tactics, the JSF falls short in both fuel capacity and weapon payload. Were the JSF defined and sized today, the CTOL/CV variants would be larger twin engine fighters closer in size to the F-111 - the only viable commonality with the VSTOL roles would be in avionics and engine cores."

[rohitvats]

Care to elaborate on the "indecent haste" aspect of the Defence Deals with US? And what was wrong with these purchases?

I think we are deviating from the main issue. The issue is not indecent haste... it is quick decision taken in case of US equipments when they are not as urgent as others, the issue is times lines of RPF altered to fit US giants, the issue is contract awarded canceled just because of US competitor (who lost) is not able to digest his defeat, the issue is lack of competition when there are alternatives available at cheaper price, the issue is whereas other (EU) tender is rejected for price reason, we are ok with US cargo carriers which are at least twice as costly as the alternative...

On a side note, wish US had conventional subs... project 75 would have been sanctioned long ago..

And indecent or not, will only be proved if we are able/unable to use them in crisis...

My dear sir, it would be great if you could elaborate on the what is wrong with taking a quick decision? Don't we do the same with single-vendor purhase from Russia? How long did India take to put in place the order for additional MiG-29K or even the purchase of the 1st lot? Same is the case with T-90 purchase and additional SU-30MKI. So, how come the 'haste' becomes suspicious only in case of USA? And how is the AJT procurement from yesteryears applicable in today's environment?

And as for the purchases from USA, lets see the merit/de-merit of the systems:

1. C-130J - optimized for Special Forces. Is there an alernate to this system?
2. P-8I - Is there comparable weapon system in the world market in production?
3. M777 ULWH - Is there an alternate? And before you mention the Pegasus LWH, please look up the weight of that gun and compare the same with M777. You'll need a C-47 Chinook to lift that gun while M777 can lifted by Mi-17 in IAF Service
4. C-17 - The jury is out on this one. I've myself opposed this system based on certain scenario analysis. But, I guess, we'll need to wait for induction and subsequent usage to give the final verdict on sagacity of the decision.

the issue is times lines of RPF altered to fit US giants, the issue is contract awarded canceled just because of US competitor (who lost) is not able to digest his defeat

Please give specific example with details. And as for A-330MRTT and C-17, the issues are not related.

[rohitvats]

Yes Kersi,T-90 was a follow development on to the T-72 and was in knee-jerk fashion acquired when Pak bought the T-80UDs from Ukraine.W had no other alternative ready.Similar to when the MIG-23 was bought and later on the MIG-29,to counter the F-16.No other nation has been willing to share tank tech with us and the IA appears to be happy with the three-man crew concept of the T-72 and T-90,peferring it to a largr 4-man crew design.

I'll let this section pass....

For a good review of the JSF/F-22 and their capabilities and weaknesses,check this llink.http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html. It gives a good understanding of the JSF's limitations mainly because of its bias towards battlefield strike as aaginst air combat wher the twin-engined F-22 scores decisivly over it and even doubts about its effectiveness against Flankers is voiced.So imagine the peformanc of a little single-engined naval LCA!

Philip, you're quoting from a website who's sole aim is to push for the F-22 over F-35 for the Australian Air force? And as for the SU-30MXX debate versus the JSF and superiority of SU-30MXX, please tell me, how will the same apply for the MiG-29K in IN inventory? If I use the arguments as in above URL, I'll need nothing short of F-22 to acheive air dominance with my Carriers? Or the second best option - Su-30MXX. But do we see anything of the size of USN Super Carriers planned for IN which can accomodate the SU-30MXX?

And as for the effectiveness of the N-LCA, please tell me the likely adversary for the aircraft?

[shukla]

Northrop Grumman to Supply Integrated Bridge Systems for New Indian Navy Fleet Tankers

Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has been selected to supply integrated bridge systems (IBS) for two new fleet tankers being built in Italy for the Indian Navy.
The IBS orders were placed with Northrop Grumman's Sperry Marine unit by the Italian shipbuilding company Fincantieri, which is under contract to build the two tankers at its shipyards in Liguria and Palermo. Terms of the contract for the IBS were not disclosed.

Each of the ships will be fitted with a complete Sperry Marine VisionMaster FT™ IBS, including radars, electronic chart display and information systems, adaptive self-tuning autopilots, gyrocompasses and repeaters, speed sensors, echosounders, differential GPS and other navigation subsystems and sensors. All critical systems have been duplicated for built-in redundancy and survivability. Sperry Marine will also supply the ship's inertial navigation system and data distribution system, which will be interfaced with the combat management system.

"This important contract win builds on our longstanding relationship as a key supplier to the Indian Navy," said J. Nolasco DaCunha, vice president of International Naval Systems at Northrop Grumman's Naval and Marine Systems Division. "We are especially pleased to have this opportunity to work with Fincantieri on this major naval shipbuilding program."

The 175-meter tankers are being built with double hulls to meet the International Maritime Organization's requirements for marine pollution control. They are scheduled for delivery to the Indian Navy in 2010-2011.

[ankit-s]

Antony to commission indigenously built OPV on Wednesday


http://www.zeenews.com/news611706.html

[nrshah]

My dear sir

Sir not required please, i am amateur without technical background trying to learn from enlightened and experienced members

it would be great if you could elaborate on the what is wrong with taking a quick decision

Nothing wrong if it is across the board

How long did India take to put in place the order for additional MiG-29K

Did not ordered before they were inducted (of course only 4 inducted, but they would have revealed their capabilities.

even the purchase of the 1st lot

It took hell lot of time for the reason being part of carrier deal which was in negotiation since 90s. Also, as i said, they were part of carrier deal and mind you only 4 (currently only 3) countries manufacture carrier based aircraft to this day. We all know how many country were willing to sell us carrier (even burnt second hand) in 1990 when the economic saga of this country was not thought of in the wildest dream, which was on verge of collapse, where foreign reserve sinked to the extent that it was not enough to fund 15 days purchase.

Same is the case with T-90 purchase

we were using t 72 since long. Since t 90 are essentially based on t 72 and again no other country then (US had sanctioned us for pok 2 in era when the deal was negotiated) were ready to sell us MBT (EU under pressure of US for nuke test) and Arjun not ready at that point of time, it was a sort of forced decision.

However, with Arjun now developed to the requirement, i am against any further induction of t 90 which i also expressed in related thread

additional SU-30MKI.

Please not dont tell this... We ordered this after we have over 100 aircrafts which are acclaimed and proved to be one of the best air dominance fighter barring f 22 currently. I was just referring to Indian in Red flag thread in key pub which contains detailed report on performance of MKI at red flag by Vishnu Som (NDTV).. please refer the same and you wont question the decision

how come the 'haste' becomes suspicious only in case of USA?

It is because of their own track of dealing with us and our rivals and even their close ally

1. C-130J - optimized for Special Forces. Is there an alernate to this system?
2. P-8I - Is there comparable weapon system in the world market in production?

Agreed, hopefully they are delivered as they are promised to be and not some dumb sub standard equipment (reference radar of F 18)

3. M777 ULWH - Is there an alternate? And before you mention the Pegasus LWH, please look up the weight of that gun and compare the same with M777. You'll need a C-47 Chinook to lift that gun while M777 can lifted by Mi-17 in IAF Service

pegasus can cover some distance on its own, a crucial requirement to avoid counter fire. The difference in weight is most attributable to this feature which is absent in M777

Please give specific example with details

refer the following links:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ntest.html
http://indiadefenceonline.com/990/lockh ... mrca-deal/
Also, the canceled LUH contract awarded to EADS...
Bell copter asked for extra time to be able to respond to Rfp which was issued and later pulled out of it saying it was not feasible...

And as for A-330MRTT and C-17, the issues are not related.

Which is more important currently? C 17 or A 330 MRTT? We have required air lift capability as of now. IL 76 have a life of another 15 years and they are upgraded currently. What we need is refueler as we dont have adequate numbers? 6 refuelers in 1 bn was canceled saying costly but we dont mind going for 10 C 17 for 2.2 bn usd without even looking for cheaper options... Also the as some one quoted in the Military aviation forum, refuelers Rfp will be reissued to include boeing..

[nrshah]

Antony to commission indigenously built OPV on Wednesday


http://www.zeenews.com/news611706.html

Northrop Grumman to Supply Integrated Bridge Systems for New Indian Navy Fleet Tankers

the indigenous OPV news says it has integrated bridge system and is built by GOA shipyard ltd

The second news is integrated bridge systems for fleet tanker to be supplied by northrop...

Can any one tell was the integrated bridge system in OPV was imported and if yes from where? If no, why did we not supplied it for fleet tanker?

[John]

we were using t 72 since long. Since t 90 are essentially based on t 72 and again no other country then (US had sanctioned us for pok 2 in era when the deal was negotiated) were ready to sell us MBT (EU under pressure of US for nuke test) and Arjun not ready at that point of time, it was a sort of forced decision.

However, with Arjun now developed to the requirement, i am against any further induction of t 90 which i also expressed in related thread

If that is the case why not an issue RFP for western tanks why does the argument have to be either Arjun or T-90?

[Suresh S]

philip wins this round but I feel Kartik,s pain . He is a very knowledgeable person.

[Sanku]

philip wins this round but I feel Kartik,s pain . He is a very knowledgeable person.

Actually, I think there is no debate between them, they may have crossed points, but they are both trying to highlight in their own ways, what is needed for the success of the Indian programs. I think the pain is common and we all feel it too.

I agree with them both and really do not see a conflict between them.

I do however agree that Philip has managed to highlight the very critical point, the neglect by MoD of the Mil-Ind complex in many ways, not the least by not providing need leadership in terms of decision making even when the right decision is served to them on a plate.

[Rahul M]

no more tank discussion on this thread.

[Ashish J]

In a freak accident, the Navy guns down one of its own
http://www.ndtv.com/news/cities/in-a-fr ... -17789.php

It was a misfire that killed Anil Kumar Pradhan, a young sailor with the Western Naval Command. Official versions put it as a rarest of rare incident, but sources indicate a big operational faux pas on one of India's finest warships.

On March 12, Pradhan, onboard the INS Delhi in Visakhapatnam, came under fire from an anti-aircraft gun on another warship. The 12.5 mm bullet killed him on the spot.

More alarmingly, the mishap occurred on one of the Indian Navy's finest warships, INS Mumbai. "It's unbelievable that the incident took place on INS Mumbai. It is the finest warship with a battle hardened crew which simply can not commit any mistake," said a naval officer on the condition of anonymity.

"But the vital question is about the round which should not have been there in the anti-aircraft gun during the system check. It indicates towards gross negligence on part of the crew of the INS Mumbai. Thankfully, it was a single bullet, otherwise the gun, which is used to shoot down aircraft, would have caused massive damage to the crew and other systems of INS Delhi," said another officer .

The incident occured soon after the culmination of the joint exercise, Tropex 10, by all the three armed forces, off the Visakhapatnam coast-the headquarters of the Eastern Naval Command. "After the exercise was over, some of the ships had anchored at Vizag port and were scheduled to sail for their return passage to the base port, Mumbai," said a naval officer.

INS Mumbai and INS Delhi were anchored side by side and were scheduled to undergo final systems check before sailing. But apparently during the procedure, the anti-aircraft gun mounted on the deck of INS Mumbai fired accidentally. The bullet directly hit chief radio electrical artificer (equivalent to the rank of chief petty officer) Anil Kumar Pradhan, posted on INS Delhi, and killed him. "There is a procedure to check every single system on the warship before it sails for the high seas. During that exercise the anti-aircraft gun fired, which was loaded with one single round," the officer added.

Pradhan (31) was unmarried and is survived by his parents. He was a native of Sarangpur district in Orissa. Indian Navy spokesperson, Commander PVS Satish said: "A Court of Inquiry (CoI) has been ordered to investigate the incident, but it's an extremely rare incident."

Navy officials also ruled out any doubts regarding the AK-360 anti-aircraft gun. "It's one of the most dependable guns with the Navy and this is the first such unfortunate incident related to it. The actual cause would be known only after the CoI. But it surely indicates towards a very serious blunder on the part of the crew and command of the INS Mumbai," said an officer.

Losing Good Men
It's not just the Indian Navy which has been robbed of good sailors by freak mishaps. On Sunday night, four Indian Army jawans lost their lives when an 81 mm mortar cell exploded at a firing range in Pokhran. A Court of Inquiry (CoI) has been ordered into the incident. The Navy lost two of its pilots earlier this month, when an aerobatic display plane crashed into a building in Hyderabad.

Sad News RIP

[Rahul M]

By 2020 the 5th-gen fighters in both east and west will be dominating the skies in large numbers.

indeed ?! that is news to me ! and which 5-gen fighters are these that PLAAF and PAF will supposedly fly in 'large numbers' by 2020 ? even RuAF would be 'very' lucky to have one full regiment in service by then and the PAK-FA is already flying.

Tejas, by HAL's own production figures will have reached 120 max.in 10 years.

sir, you are misleading people with the production figure. 12/year is only for the Mk1 order of 40, the Mk2 production numbers can be and should be much higher.

The aircraft will at its very best be nothing more than a 4th gen fighter,perhaps 4+,while the supposedly 4++ MMRCA contenders are already superior to it,let alone the SU-3-MKI.

err, at its current modest levels, generation wise it is no more or no less obsolete than any of the MRCA contenders, (most certainly not the mig-35) ! considering that the MKI itself uses a number of subsystems developed for the LCA, I don't quite see how it is any superior technologically/generation wise as well.

all those 4+/- catch phrases aside, could you please enumerate on which counts is the LCA Mk2 technologically obsolete as compared to its peers ?

general comments without specifics that is just that.

of course capability wise, you are correct that the MRCA contenders (sans the gripen) and the MKI are superior (they also cost a LOT more) and yet that does not make the LCA any less useful than those.
the F-16 is clearly inferior to the F-15 in terms of specifications but guess which is the most used fighter in the USAF's arsenal ?

the argument you are putting is akin to saying IAF should buy only Mi-26 and nothing else, no Mi-17s, no light helos, no ALH etc, since clearly the mi-26 has the best specs on paper.
and we all know how many mi-26's IAF actually uses right ?

How many more LCAs do you think that the IAF or IN will really want by then?

the time argument has already been negated, IAF has enough vacancies to accommodate at least 200 LCA fighters, probably much more. at a time when air forces around the world are still ordering and taking deliveries of similar gen aircraft and intend to use them for the next 25-30 years at least, I don't quite see how these obsolescence argument applies to LCA alone.

and the inferiority argument is a non-starter frankly, inferior for which role as compared to what ? yes, it's payload is lower but if someone thinks that is a killer-argument, I would request them to just add up the typical payloads and then come and tell us which profiles the LCA can't do due to payload problems.
what people forget is that the max payload is a brochure figure that is rarely used in real life.

[Nirmal]

Rahul:
At long last you have put your foot down and exersized the Perogative and the authority of a true Moderator.
Unfortunately it is not only this thread that is derailed but all other threads are also derailed systematically by all and sundry.

[Carl_T]

Regarding naval preferences,ask IN aviators,they prefer a twin-engind aircraft for obvious reasons stated earlier.The JSF is being built in very large numbers and the US have inputs for large-scale attrition in its budgets.However,even the JSF is coming under more scrutiny for a variety of reasons,cost and performance both.The reson why the IN wanted a naval LCA is that earlier,it opted for smaller carriers (even the IAC-1 has been made larger than earlier dsigns to carry the superior MIG-29K) which in the light of the PLAN's carrier ambitions-no one expected the PLAN to restore the Varyag into an operational carrier or plan for large sized carriers with even N-propulsion,therefore the IN want for the future even more capable aircraft.A small LCA limited in payload and range will not suffice.

I believe the same is true for the USN. They wanted a twin engine plane as well, but from the articles a few years back they were forced to compromise to the JSF.

[nrshah]

Deleted as asked by Rahul and shifted to Mil acquisition thread

[Rahul M]

self-edit.

thanks nitin.

[Gerard]

India gets Russian N-sub for 10 years

[Philip]

Thw winner is neither myself or Kartik,but the losers are certainly the three services and the nation.Reg. Rahul's points.I beg to differ,"Time" is definitely a vital factor.Unless weapon systems are delivered on time and perform as planned/designed they become obsolete and are of reduced relevance.I quoted HAL's own words that under pesent conditions,"only 8 LCAs can be built per year" and that a "max of 12 is possible".That makes just 120+ if full production starts right now in 2010.Let's see how fast the MK-1s are produced,it will give us a good idea as the date of commissioning of the first LCA sqd, is 2011.

Let me furthere explain if need be.I'm not advocating that we buy only from one supplier,say Russia,but let the process of acquisition be within a reasonable timeframe,a range of options and give the indigenous lobby a hearing.For this a special procruement team/centre requires to be established,drawn from all key stakeholders,that advises the GOI,whether an indigenous solution is feasible or whether we should acquire a foreign system or use the JV route.As KS has just been quoted,the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff is left out of this vital exercise.No one has yet successfully countered my many detailed observations on how US weapon systems get "speed priority" as against other indigenous alternatives and other foreign manufacturers.

Now reg. the LCA,if MK-2 pototypes were flying and on the verge of production,I would immediately order several sqds.MK-1 is merely a tech-demo squadron as it is acknowledged that the engine is underpowered and the aircraft cannot carry out all designed missions/performance parameters.I again reiterate-please listen,that several countries will be flying 5th-gen aircraft (JSF and F-22) in large numbers by 2020.The Raptor is already in service and pressure is being brought upon the US to sell it to Israel and Japan.Can anyone firmly rule out the possibility that a pro-Pak US regime will not sell a version of the JSF to Pak?
In 10 year's time,we will definitely see a Chinese version flying (AWST featured a photo of a design) and in service.The track record of the Chinese has been always underestimated and the level of advanced weaponry indigenously developed has surprised the west particularly during last year and the anniversary parade of the PRC.

As mentioned in several posts above,even a MK-2 naval LCA will not suffice for the future of the IN's carriers,pl. read in detail the OZ study.We need a heavy multi-role fighter like the SU-33/naval PAK-FA,that can dominate the ocean's skies and deliver any kind of weaponload at a range of at least 1000km from the carrier,given the increasing range of anti-ship missiles.

[nachiket]

I quoted HAL's own words that under pesent conditions,"only 8 LCAs can be built per year" and that a "max of 12 is possible".That makes just 120+ if full production starts right now in 2010.Let's see how fast the MK-1s are produced,it will give us a good idea as the date of commissioning of the first LCA sqd, is 2011.

Exactly. Under present conditions as in "IAF has ordered only 20 LCA's. Unless they order a large amount the production rate cannot be increased." That's what people are trying to say here.

[Carl_T]

The IAF does not want to order more LCAs because? Sorry if this has been asked.

They want to order 126 aircraft from abroad, but not more LCAs? And part of the reason for the mmrca tender is that the LCA has been delayed right? So it is a cycle?

[ASPuar]

Ok, now at least, with the Akula deal becoming reality, old timers must recall comrade Koshys promise of mithai! If nothing else, I will distribute some.

[chetak]

As mentioned in several posts above,even a MK-2 naval LCA will not suffice for the future of the IN's carriers,pl. read in detail the OZ study.We need a heavy multi-role fighter like the SU-33/naval PAK-FA,that can dominate the ocean's skies and deliver any kind of weaponload at a range of at least 1000km from the carrier,given the increasing range of anti-ship missiles.

The MiG 29K was a compromise.

The IN would have very much liked the Naval SU. But unfortunately neither the gorshkov nor the Indian carrier under construction can accommodate the Naval SU