IAC-2 Future Aircraft Carrier Project - News & Discussions

lcafanboy

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
1,075
Location
Bangalore
Reactions
903 682 0
I have a prediction, In ten years 'Royal' Navy will not be able to afford operating two carriers. One QE class will be up for sale! :geek:

By then we could retire Vikky with its ~20 years of service.

Thus, I would like to see IN choosing the UK for consultancy.

@BMD @Milspec @vstol Jockey @Parthu @Gautam
Apparently they found that they won't be able to afford 2 carriers in 2012 itself while the first one queen elizabeth was being made. They wanted to cancel it but found penalties for not making the second one prince of Wales too High negating any gain and wanted to sell it to India then itself but GOI not interested they decided to keep it but they are now finding it they can't buy enough F35 fighters even for one. By 2030 they won't be able to afford even one carrier. With already f*ked up economy, Brexit and jihadi mirpuris taking over the country the economy will further go down the drains. By 2030 Britain will be an insignificant nation and won't be able to operate any aircraft carrier.....
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
933
Location
Vizag, India
Reactions
1,707 101 0
Both HMS Queen Elizabeth II and HMS Prince of Wales incorporate “short take off but arrested landing” (STOBAR) systems to operate their aircraft. Their on-board F-35C fighters take off from a ski-jump and land back by snagging their tail hooks on arrester wires laid across the deck, which then unspool, dragging the fighter to a halt on the 200-metre-long deck.
This is so wrong. QEC does not have any arrestor gear at all, it's not a STOBAR but a STOVL carrier.

They don't use F-35C but F-35B which is short take-off & vertical landing (AFAIK, they use a 'Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing' technique which lands the jet down on a very short horizontal distance, instead of hovering & then landing vertically like a helo).

Ajai Shukla can be such a nincompoop sometimes.

 

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
1,319
Location
France
Reactions
487 136 0
STOVL planes have a higher sortie rate and offer safer operating conditions in rough seas. IFR solves range issues.
A 75000 Tons carrier, with a good dynamic stabilization system, don't worry rough sea ! See USN carrier. Even the smaller 45000T french carrier can operate in very bad weather, so a 75000 one....
Higher sortie rate? why? They are mecanicaly more complexe, so need more maintenance.
Maybe instantaneously more sortie rate, but in the longer term, sure not.
 

randomradio

Senior member
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
6,651
Location
India
Reactions
4,321 843 0
A 75000 Tons carrier, with a good dynamic stabilization system, don't worry rough sea ! See USN carrier. Even the smaller 45000T french carrier can operate in very bad weather, so a 75000 one....
Higher sortie rate? why? They are mecanicaly more complexe, so need more maintenance.
Maybe instantaneously more sortie rate, but in the longer term, sure not.
The biggest advantage of STOVL is during beach landing operations. You can create a short landing strip near the beach and provide CAS to troops. The sortie rate for STOVL at such short ranges will be insanely high.
 

BMD

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
5,795
Reactions
1,102 951 0
A 75000 Tons carrier, with a good dynamic stabilization system, don't worry rough sea ! See USN carrier. Even the smaller 45000T french carrier can operate in very bad weather, so a 75000 one....
Higher sortie rate? why? They are mecanicaly more complexe, so need more maintenance.
Maybe instantaneously more sortie rate, but in the longer term, sure not.
Higher sortie rate because you don't need to setup cats and arrestors or maintain them. You can't counter a sea that's rising and falling 50ft, which damages landing gear over time even in less rough conditions. Flinging a plane down a runway by its balls at 5g and near crash landing it ever sortie takes a toll. All these facts have been borne out in combat in the Falklands where earlier RN F-4s would have been unable to perform. You also don't need reheat every launch.
 

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
1,319
Location
France
Reactions
487 136 0
Higher sortie rate because you don't need to setup cats and arrestors or maintain them. You can't counter a sea that's rising and falling 50ft, which damages landing gear over time even in less rough conditions. Flinging a plane down a runway by its balls at 5g and near crash landing it ever sortie takes a toll. All these facts have been borne out in combat in the Falklands where earlier RN F-4s would have been unable to perform. You also don't need reheat every launch.
I don't know what about new electric catapult, but steam ones are VERY reliable.
A plane studied for carrier operations is not 500kg heavier without reasons. The Rafale M on the french carrier are the most reliables of the french forces... (due to a very high logistic labour).

So at the end it's mainly a financial versus operationnal decision. No one is better than the other, it just depends of a choice and a vision of the next battlefield (that may be different from a country to another).

A STOVL need reheat too.
 

BMD

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
5,795
Reactions
1,102 951 0
I don't know what about new electric catapult, but steam ones are VERY reliable.
A plane studied for carrier operations is not 500kg heavier without reasons. The Rafale M on the french carrier are the most reliables of the french forces... (due to a very high logistic labour).

So at the end it's mainly a financial versus operationnal decision. No one is better than the other, it just depends of a choice and a vision of the next battlefield (that may be different from a country to another).

A STOVL need reheat too.
Nothing with moving parts is very reliable in the broad scheme of things.

Yeah and even when beefed up the stress is still massive and if the deck is 50ft higher than you expected due to rough seas at the moment of landing, beefed up landing gear won't cover it. If it's 50ft lower, then you have to abort and try again.

A STOVL doesn't need reheat to take-off.
 

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
1,319
Location
France
Reactions
487 136 0
A STOVL doesn't need reheat to take-off.
???? I think you are wrong.

Rafale was tested on the Charles de Gaulle to take off in air to air config without reheat : it was possible. But marine top brass decided that for safety reason (break down of one engine during take off) it was more secure to use full AB. But it is with the assistance of a catapult....
 

BMD

Well-Known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
5,795
Reactions
1,102 951 0
???? I think you are wrong.

Rafale was tested on the Charles de Gaulle to take off in air to air config without reheat : it was possible. But marine top brass decided that for safety reason (break down of one engine during take off) it was more secure to use full AB. But it is with the assistance of a catapult....
With no load it might.
 

Gautam

Senior member
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
10,041
Location
Tripura, NE, India
Reactions
5,424 1,448 0
Britain pitches strongly for role in building India’s next aircraft carrier; navy says it's "a dilemma"

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 5th Dec 19
1576382088832.png

Navy chief says choosing between US and UK is currently “a dilemma” (Above: HMS Queen Elizabeth)

Battles are raging around the Indian Navy’s proposed third aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, even though it is still on the drawing board. There is a bitter inter-services debate over whether India can afford another carrier. And the navy is also weighing competing claims from the US and the UK over who should provide design expertise.

Since 2015, the US Navy has guided the design of INS Vishal. But now, UK’s Royal Navy is offering its partnership on the grounds that INS Vishal is more similar to a British aircraft carrier than an American one.

In January 2015, the Indian and US navies established a joint working group (JWG) on aircraft carrier cooperation, with New Delhi reasoning that the US Navy has long been the world’s pre-eminent builder and operator of aircraft carriers. America operates 11 of the world’s 21 carriers and, by far, the most potent ones.

However, on November 28, in an India-UK meeting in New Delhi chaired by the two defence secretaries, London proposed British design consultancy for INS Vishal, given the recent induction of two new state-of-the-art aircraft carriers – Her Majesty’s Ship (HMS) Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales – into the Royal Navy.

Encouraged by the US, the Indian Navy has designed INS Vishal as a large, 65,000 tonne carrier, featuring a state-of-the-art American “electromagnetic aircraft launch system” (EMALS), and the ability to launch not just fighter aircraft, but also the game-changing E2D Hawkeye airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft.

The US Navy’s continuing influencing could lead India to buy Northrop Grumman’s E2D Hawkeyes, but also Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in an ongoing purchase of 57 naval fighters.

However, the UK has pointed out that the Indian decision to have full-electric propulsion, rather than nuclear propulsion for INS Vishal, makes it similar to the two Royal Navy carriers, which feature electric propulsion. All US aircraft carriers are nuclear powered.

Furthermore, the British have pointed out that INS Vishal will be exactly the same size – 65,000 tonnes – as the two Royal Navy carriers. US Navy carriers are far larger, at about 100,000 tonnes.

However, a standard US feature that is designed into INS Vishal will differentiate it from British carriers. Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales incorporate “short take off but arrested landing” (STOBAR) systems to operate their aircraft. Their on-board F-35C fighters take off from a ski-jump and land back by snagging their tail hooks on arrester wires laid across the deck, which then unspool, dragging the fighter to a halt on the 200-metre-long deck.

INS Vishal, however, like all US carriers, incorporates a “catapult take off but arrested landing” (CATOBAR) system. In its latest EMALS version, the aircraft is accelerated to take-off speed with the help of an electromagnetic catapult (older US carriers use a steam catapult), while it lands the same way as on STOBAR vessels, using arrestor wires.

INS Vishal, which the navy terms “Indigenous Aircraft Carrier – 2” (IAC-2), will therefore be a hybrid vessel, combining American and British features.

“The broad contours of IAC-2, to be constructed in India, will be a 65,000-tonne CATOBAR carrier with electric propulsion,” stated navy chief, Admiral Karambir Singh, on Tuesday.

Queried by Business Standard about whether the US or the UK would provide design consultancy for INS Vishal, Singh admitted it was “a dilemma.”

“The issue about nuclear propulsion versus full electric propulsion [is one factor]. There are also other issues like EMALS and AAG (aircraft arrester gear), which only the Americans have. So this is going to be one of our dilemmas on how to handle this consultancy – who all to approach. So we will have to work on this more carefully,” said Singh.

Asked whether consultancy was possible with both UK, and US, Singh admitted: “I’m not sure of the answer; how you go about it? But we will have to think through this.”

For London, this is a mouth-watering opportunity not just to enter a lucrative, multi-billion dollar construction programme, but also to restore flagging defence relations. The Royal Navy shaped the Indian Navy in its formative years, with British admirals heading the Indian Navy until 1958. India’s first two aircraft carriers – INS Vikrant and INS Viraat – were both purchased from the Royal Navy.

Last week, in the India-UK Defence Consultative Group, UK officials pressed for reviving the strategic relationship. They promised deeper technology transfer, unlike the straight-up US defence sales that have provided India with little high technology.

“Partnering the UK in no way jeopardises the Indo-US relationship, or damages interoperability in the Indo-Pacific. Britain is America’s closest ally,” said a senior UK official, contrasting this with buying weaponry from Russia.

The British side is also learned to have pitched strongly to participate in building India’s next six submarines under Project 75-I. “We have not bid in that project, because the Royal Navy only operates nuclear subs. However, we can offer systems and niche technologies that greatly enhance a submarine’s capabilities. And we will be willing to transfer real technology,” said the official.

Broadsword: Britain pitches strongly for role in building India’s next aircraft carrier; navy says it's "a dilemma"
 

jetray

Active member
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
429
Location
India
Reactions
301 89 0
Britain pitches strongly for role in building India’s next aircraft carrier; navy says it's "a dilemma"

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 5th Dec 19
View attachment 11977
Navy chief says choosing between US and UK is currently “a dilemma” (Above: HMS Queen Elizabeth)

Battles are raging around the Indian Navy’s proposed third aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, even though it is still on the drawing board. There is a bitter inter-services debate over whether India can afford another carrier. And the navy is also weighing competing claims from the US and the UK over who should provide design expertise.

Since 2015, the US Navy has guided the design of INS Vishal. But now, UK’s Royal Navy is offering its partnership on the grounds that INS Vishal is more similar to a British aircraft carrier than an American one.

In January 2015, the Indian and US navies established a joint working group (JWG) on aircraft carrier cooperation, with New Delhi reasoning that the US Navy has long been the world’s pre-eminent builder and operator of aircraft carriers. America operates 11 of the world’s 21 carriers and, by far, the most potent ones.

However, on November 28, in an India-UK meeting in New Delhi chaired by the two defence secretaries, London proposed British design consultancy for INS Vishal, given the recent induction of two new state-of-the-art aircraft carriers – Her Majesty’s Ship (HMS) Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales – into the Royal Navy.

Encouraged by the US, the Indian Navy has designed INS Vishal as a large, 65,000 tonne carrier, featuring a state-of-the-art American “electromagnetic aircraft launch system” (EMALS), and the ability to launch not just fighter aircraft, but also the game-changing E2D Hawkeye airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft.

The US Navy’s continuing influencing could lead India to buy Northrop Grumman’s E2D Hawkeyes, but also Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in an ongoing purchase of 57 naval fighters.

However, the UK has pointed out that the Indian decision to have full-electric propulsion, rather than nuclear propulsion for INS Vishal, makes it similar to the two Royal Navy carriers, which feature electric propulsion. All US aircraft carriers are nuclear powered.

Furthermore, the British have pointed out that INS Vishal will be exactly the same size – 65,000 tonnes – as the two Royal Navy carriers. US Navy carriers are far larger, at about 100,000 tonnes.

However, a standard US feature that is designed into INS Vishal will differentiate it from British carriers. Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales incorporate “short take off but arrested landing” (STOBAR) systems to operate their aircraft. Their on-board F-35C fighters take off from a ski-jump and land back by snagging their tail hooks on arrester wires laid across the deck, which then unspool, dragging the fighter to a halt on the 200-metre-long deck.

INS Vishal, however, like all US carriers, incorporates a “catapult take off but arrested landing” (CATOBAR) system. In its latest EMALS version, the aircraft is accelerated to take-off speed with the help of an electromagnetic catapult (older US carriers use a steam catapult), while it lands the same way as on STOBAR vessels, using arrestor wires.

INS Vishal, which the navy terms “Indigenous Aircraft Carrier – 2” (IAC-2), will therefore be a hybrid vessel, combining American and British features.

“The broad contours of IAC-2, to be constructed in India, will be a 65,000-tonne CATOBAR carrier with electric propulsion,” stated navy chief, Admiral Karambir Singh, on Tuesday.

Queried by Business Standard about whether the US or the UK would provide design consultancy for INS Vishal, Singh admitted it was “a dilemma.”

“The issue about nuclear propulsion versus full electric propulsion [is one factor]. There are also other issues like EMALS and AAG (aircraft arrester gear), which only the Americans have. So this is going to be one of our dilemmas on how to handle this consultancy – who all to approach. So we will have to work on this more carefully,” said Singh.

Asked whether consultancy was possible with both UK, and US, Singh admitted: “I’m not sure of the answer; how you go about it? But we will have to think through this.”

For London, this is a mouth-watering opportunity not just to enter a lucrative, multi-billion dollar construction programme, but also to restore flagging defence relations. The Royal Navy shaped the Indian Navy in its formative years, with British admirals heading the Indian Navy until 1958. India’s first two aircraft carriers – INS Vikrant and INS Viraat – were both purchased from the Royal Navy.

Last week, in the India-UK Defence Consultative Group, UK officials pressed for reviving the strategic relationship. They promised deeper technology transfer, unlike the straight-up US defence sales that have provided India with little high technology.

“Partnering the UK in no way jeopardises the Indo-US relationship, or damages interoperability in the Indo-Pacific. Britain is America’s closest ally,” said a senior UK official, contrasting this with buying weaponry from Russia.

The British side is also learned to have pitched strongly to participate in building India’s next six submarines under Project 75-I. “We have not bid in that project, because the Royal Navy only operates nuclear subs. However, we can offer systems and niche technologies that greatly enhance a submarine’s capabilities. And we will be willing to transfer real technology,” said the official.

Broadsword: Britain pitches strongly for role in building India’s next aircraft carrier; navy says it's "a dilemma"
Yeah, I suppose Brits need some money to fund their R&D and they also must have promised state of theeee art technology.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
9,785
Location
Mumbai
Reactions
6,083 4,921 0
Aviator Anil Chopra (@Chopsyturvey) Tweeted:
With hypersonic long range missiles becoming a serious threat to aircraft carriers and world acknowledging it. Is it worth investing 6 billion dollars and needs 25% Navy to defend it? Better to have frigates that can launch a drone swarm VatsRohit on Twitter ( )
 

Gautam

Senior member
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
10,041
Location
Tripura, NE, India
Reactions
5,424 1,448 0
UK-India defence cooperation has a new possiblity : Jointly designing India’s aircraft carrier

By Ajai Shukla
Lucknow
Business Standard, 7th Feb 20

1581139869533.png


The British Minister for Defence Procurement, James Heappey, has confirmed the UK’s eagerness to assist the Indian Navy with designing and building its second indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vishal.

Asked whether the UK had offered carrier design cooperation at the political level, Heappey affirmed: “Very much so! At the very highest level.”

Cooperation on aircraft carrier design was also discussed on November 28, in an India-UK meeting in New Delhi chaired by the two defence secretaries.

Terming aircraft carrier design “the most totemic” of UK-India cooperation opportunities, Heappey told Business Standard: “The Royal Navy has world-beating electrical propulsion and operational experience of managing electrical propulsion. That is a real opportunity to develop capability and understanding together.”

The Indian Navy wants INS Vishal to be a 65,000 tonne carrier with an all-electric propulsion system – both features that are common with the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers: Her Majesty’s Ship (HMS) Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

For several years, New Delhi has sought to design INS Vishal in partnership with the US Navy, the world’s pre-eminent builder and operator of aircraft carriers. America operates 11 of the world’s 21 carriers and, by far, the most potent ones.

Towards this end, the Indian and US navies established a joint working group (JWG) on aircraft carrier cooperation in January 2015. India was considering a nuclear powered carrier, like the US vessels. It is also planning a state-of-the-art American “electromagnetic aircraft launch system” (EMALS) that can launch not just fighter aircraft, but also the game-changing E2D Hawkeye airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft.

However, with nuclear propulsion ruled out because India does not have a suitable nuclear reactor, and severe budget constraints casting a shadow over the EMALS, INS Vishal is increasingly looking more like the British carriers.

One feature that is being considered for INS Vishal would differentiate it from British carriers. Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales incorporate “short take off but vertical landing” (STOVL) systems to operate their aircraft. Their on-board F-35B fighters take off from a ski-jump and land back by hovering like a helicopter and lowering itself onto the deck.

In contrast, fighters on INS Vishal would take off with the help of a catapult and land by snagging their tail hooks on arrester wires laid across the deck, which then unspool, dragging the fighter to a halt. This is called “catapult assisted takeoff but arrested landing” (CATOBAR).

Heappey argues that India does not need to incur the expense of catapult launch systems. Meanwhile, the British carriers are being fitted with arrestor wires.

Revealing that “We are already looking at how we could retrofit an arrester wire onto the Queen Elizabeth carrier deck,” Heappey said: “The crucial thing is that [with] a 65,000 tonne carrier with its existing length of runway and with a ramp on the front, we are confident that an [Indian Navy] fighter jet like the Rafale or the F/A-18 could actually take off from the deck of the Queen Elizabeth without a catapult, just off the ramp. And so that sort of “ramp and trap” solution would suit your existing capability without needing to retrofit a catapult… and we’re looking at developing the arrestor wire anyway, so I think that makes it quite an interesting proposition.”

This system, called “short take off but arrested landing” (STOBAR) is already being used in India’s two existing carriers – INS Vikramaditya and the under-construction INS Vikrant.

Heappey is looking for design cooperation to lead to operational cooperation between the two navies. “How amazing would that be to see the Royal Navy and the Indian Navy steaming in the Indian Ocean with two carrier groups side by side, operating together. At the grand strategic level, what higher ambition could there be?” he said.

The UK is also pushing cooperation with India in the British programme to develop a 6th-generation fighter called the Tempest.

Asked what conversations have taken place between the two governments, Heappey said: “Very meaningful ones. It came up in my meeting with the defence minister yesterday… the Indian government, I know is very interested by our future Tempest programme and has seen the opportunity within it.”

Broadsword: UK-India defence cooperation has a new possiblity: jointly designing India’s aircraft carrier
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
3,154
Location
Bangalore
Reactions
4,952 546 0
General Rawat said, “One aircraft carrier will be on the seas next year. You look at when do you really need a third one. If you get a third one, how many years will it take for it to develop? Even if you place the order for 2022 or 2023, it is not coming before 2033. Also, aircraft carrier is not just a carrier, along with it will have to come the aircraft. Where are the aircraft coming from? Along with that we will need the armada protection for that aircraft carrier. It does not happen overnight. It will be bought if it is required. But you cannot predict what the situation will be 10 years from now. We don’t know what will happen.”
Indian Navy’s ‘Vishal’ Aircraft Carrier Officially Off The Table?

I cannot agree with Rawats arguments. He is talking like another army general. IAC production should continue in any form. That skillset should not go waste. And the money goes almost entirely to the Indian industry unlike IA procurements of costly russian equipment.

Navy is not asking to do it overnight. The amount you invest is for the next 10 years. Per year it's a manageable sum. If you are aspiring to be the third biggest economy why not invest in such equipment along with SSN.

The report is also factually wrong. DAC approved Rs 30 cr in 2015 for preliminary work. So saying no approval from MoD is not correct. Only last year IN decided on specifics like propulsion and catapult. So it's reasonable to assume its now only reaching to MoD for in-principle approval. (Why is shiv still peddling the EMALS? IN clarified it won't be)
 

randomradio

Senior member
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
6,651
Location
India
Reactions
4,321 843 0
Indian Navy’s ‘Vishal’ Aircraft Carrier Officially Off The Table?

I cannot agree with Rawats arguments. He is talking like another army general. IAC production should continue in any form. That skillset should not go waste. And the money goes almost entirely to the Indian industry unlike IA procurements of costly russian equipment.

Navy is not asking to do it overnight. The amount you invest is for the next 10 years. Per year it's a manageable sum. If you are aspiring to be the third biggest economy why not invest in such equipment along with SSN.

The report is also factually wrong. DAC approved Rs 30 cr in 2015 for preliminary work. So saying no approval from MoD is not correct. Only last year IN decided on specifics like propulsion and catapult. So it's reasonable to assume its now only reaching to MoD for in-principle approval. (Why is shiv still peddling the EMALS? IN clarified it won't be)
The carrier is a joke. Without nuclear power, you are better of just making another Vikrant. You need a reactor to power the EMALS or steam efficiently and consistently. Apart from that there will be too many power constraints for next generation weapons. They will literally have to turn off some systems in order to use other systems without a reactor. Even with IEPS, there will be massive power constraints. IEPS is fine for destroyers, tankers, LHDs etc, but not for a CATOBAR carrier. If even one of the 4 engines fail, the carrier becomes a massive liability.

And to top all that off, 65kT is too less anyway. You need a ship with 60 fighter jets capable of very high sortie rates just to be effective, whereas Vishal will be able to carry less than 40 with questionable sortie rates. In fact I won't be surprised if the Vishal ends up barely matching the Vikrant during long term operations.

If Vishal is to be built, there should be a proper plan to scale up and build bigger carriers with nuclear propulsion in a continuous process. Something like the Chinese carrier plan. Ours is just too half-baked to succeed.

What the IN needs is an 80kT carrier with IEPS and STOBAR. Transport and AEW needs can come in through V-22 Osprey. And a combination of 1 squadron of naval PAK FA and 2 squadrons of TEDBF should take care of our actual carrier needs. Anything less is pointless. This should be followed up by a plan to build larger nuclear-powered carriers.

Btw, shipbuilding isn't like army and air force procurement programs. Most of the cost of a ship is the materials. So when a program starts, a huge chunk of the money goes into buying raw materials, and the amount that's spread over many years is actually minuscule and mainly involves labour cost and consumables. So when you go out to buy a carrier and its screens, most of the payment goes out in just the first 1-2 years, which should easily be 70% of the contract at least. We have to pay for the aircraft early as well so that you can train the crew on land before hitting the carrier, which is the idea behind MRCBF.