Indian Naval Aviation : Updates and Discussions

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
3,129
2,016
India
You think the only way to put an aircraft (or remove it) is to fly and land it?

24 MiG-29k is the max for both, as for TEDBF, Vikrant could carry maybe 1 more than 24, nothing significant.

Accha? 300 & 303 were to be shared between Vikky & Vikrant but now it's a problem as per you? You know what the problem would be? Operating more than 1 type of fixed wing fighter from the small cope slopes. MRCBF & MiG-29k will embark on separate carriers (Vikky & Vikrant), operating both from 1 for long duration is retarded.

Can you share the source for the 72 MRCBF, 100 make in India (don't share it for 29k) & 200?
60 TEDBF are more than enough for both the carriers.

TEDBF will be capable of being launched by a catapult period. It's already being thought about early in the design phase.

ok and?

TEDBF won't be replacing MRCBF jets altogether. It will be replacing them on our carriers, IAC-2 included. MRCBF jets can be used for coastal defence at a naval air station.
The argument of "replacement must always be far superior" seems v poor when when you realise it's more feasible to get a standard jet for our carriers.

Let's not go beyond 2040 for now.

Do you think the govt will sanction a fleet of 4 carriers for you to build "IAC-3" & keep using Vikky? No.
Vikky will be retired around 2040 as it should be. Old hulls are a pain in the *censored*, let's not repeat Viraat.

For a short while yes.

Which aircraft will be better for IN, Rafale Or F18?
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,262
13,992
India
You think the only way to put an aircraft (or remove it) is to fly and land it?

Carriers only carry 100% available jets when they depart. At best a jet that will become available in a very short span of time. The unavailable jets stay on the ground. Only when the carrier comes back is when unavailable jets are lifted off the deck. It's useless to send carriers off with unavailable jets.

24 MiG-29k is the max for both, as for TEDBF, Vikrant could carry maybe 1 more than 24, nothing significant.

Only in terms of physical space. Otherwise carriers can carry 30% more if necessary. Even more when airfields are available for diversion during emergencies. The logic is many jets will be shot down in combat, so the excess jets act as reserves. 24 is a peacetime number.

The Nimitz's peacetime number is 70. Wartime number is up to 130.

Accha? 300 & 303 were to be shared between Vikky & Vikrant but now it's a problem as per you? You know what the problem would be? Operating more than 1 type of fixed wing fighter from the small cope slopes. MRCBF & MiG-29k will embark on separate carriers (Vikky & Vikrant), operating both from 1 for long duration is retarded.

Originally, we were supposed to buy 45 more Mig-29Ks, when the original plan was to build IAC-1 and IAC-2 one after the other. In fact 4 ships were planned when it was called ADS, with 2 ships in the first phase. IAC-2 was also supposed to be Vikrant's sister, until the Americans offered catapults.

Can you share the source for the 72 MRCBF, 100 make in India (don't share it for 29k) & 200?
60 TEDBF are more than enough for both the carriers.

If you can find it, great. But it's lost in the internet.

For now, you can rely on this RFI for 57 jets.
GoI is desirous of license production of the aircraft after acquiring ToT in the case.

There's also this, written by Admiral Prakash himself--
The grandiose scheme provided for four fleet carriers and 280 ship-borne strike and fighter aircraft in the next few years.

TEDBF will be capable of being launched by a catapult period. It's already being thought about early in the design phase.

Thought about and actually doing it are not the same. A lot of technologies on fighters are FFBNW.

The current version meant for the first two carriers are STOBAR. CATOBAR comes with a weight penalty, why will the IN go for it?


So that means CATOBAR version won't be necessary.

The argument of "replacement must always be far superior" seems v poor when when you realise it's more feasible to get a standard jet for our carriers.

Not necessarily. The USN will have a single air wing with 3 types of fighters on one carrier by 2040. They plan to have 1 F-35C, 1 NGAD and 1/2 SH squadrons in 1 air wing, before eventually replacing all the SHs by 2055.

It's not sensible to replace a jet early when it still has utility. MRCBF will transition to IAC-2 and stay that way until it becomes useless or is replaced by a TEDBF successor. You don't replace something until it makes sense to replace it.

Let's not go beyond 2040 for now.

The IN seems to have planned until 2050 actually.

Do you think the govt will sanction a fleet of 4 carriers for you to build "IAC-3" & keep using Vikky? No.
Vikky will be retired around 2040 as it should be. Old hulls are a pain in the *censored*, let's not repeat Viraat.

The IN wants 6 carriers.

IAC-2 is only for the first round of getting to 3 carriers. The next modernisation period will see us climbing to 6. We may go even beyond that depending on the political circumstances beyond 2050.

IAC-2 is not Vikky's replacement, IAC-3 is. The IN is not foolish enough to say IAC-2 will give them a 3-carrier navy only to replace the first one with the third one. Once IAC-2 becomes available, Vikky can cut down on voyage time and get an extension, in time for IAC-3 to replace it by 2045 or so. Post that we should be able to build a carrier at least every 7 years, and keep that going until carriers become obsolete.

ADA has plans to create a TEDBF successor after TEDBF is completed. So IAC-2 MLU, IAC-3/4/5 etc can all use the TEDBF successor after 2050, roughly the time when MRCBF will become obsolete. TEDBF can retire with Vikrant.

For a short while yes.

If it's doable now, it will be doable later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vstol Jockey

Adm_Kenobi

Member
Feb 1, 2022
37
24
India
Which aircraft will be better for IN, Rafale Or F18?
The answer depends on how much payload the SH can take off with from the long take-off position. & other variables such as the cost of the deal & how much is the OEM willing to cooperate with the IN.
 

Adm_Kenobi

Member
Feb 1, 2022
37
24
India
Carriers only carry 100% available jets when they depart. At best a jet that will become available in a very short span of time. The unavailable jets stay on the ground. Only when the carrier comes back is when unavailable jets are lifted off the deck. It's useless to send carriers off with unavailable jets.
So, let me confirm. You are saying the only way to put an aircraft (or remove one) on the carrier is to fly and land it? Answer in yes or no.
Only in terms of physical space. Otherwise carriers can carry 30% more if necessary.
They can't,
Even more when airfields are available for diversion during emergencies. The logic is many jets will be shot down in combat, so the excess jets act as reserves.
yeah...no, the military doesn't plan like that.
The Nimitz's peacetime number is 70. Wartime number is up to 130.
I'll leave this one to you & figure out where you are wrong.
Hint- the numbers.

Originally, we were supposed to buy 45 more Mig-29Ks, when the original plan was to build IAC-1 and IAC-2 one after the other. In fact 4 ships were planned when it was called ADS, with 2 ships in the first phase. IAC-2 was also supposed to be Vikrant's sister, until the Americans offered catapults.
Ok, can you please tell me "when" was this original plan laid out? (For the +45 MiG-29k, the rest were just IN fantasies & never got the AoN)
If you can find it, great. But it's lost in the internet.

For now, you can rely on this RFI for 57 jets.
GoI is desirous of license production of the aircraft after acquiring ToT in the case.
I am aware of the 57 one, I specifically asked for the one "you" mentioned, which you can't provide rn.
There's also this, written by Admiral Prakash himself--
The grandiose scheme provided for four fleet carriers and 280 ship-borne strike and fighter aircraft in the next few years.
Just IN fantasies, 4 fleet carriers.
Thought about and actually doing it are not the same. A lot of technologies on fighters are FFBNW.

The current version meant for the first two carriers are STOBAR. CATOBAR comes with a weight penalty,
nothing unfeasible, the stobar one is ~11.5T empty, the additional weight won't make it like some 13-14 tonne or anything to be unfeasible.
why will the IN go for it?
Yes. Yes it will.
Not necessarily. The USN will have a single air wing with 3 types of fighters on one carrier by 2040. They plan to have 1 F-35C, 1 NGAD and 1/2 SH squadrons in 1 air wing, before eventually replacing all the SHs by 2055.
R Ford' flight deck is around twice as large as IAC-1/Vikky (the small cope slopes i was referring to). The hangar is less than 40% when compared to R Ford/Nimitz.

US can afford to use 2-3 fixed wing fighters, it's simply not sustainable for us on the IAC-1 & Vikky.
It's not sensible to replace a jet early when it still has utility.
TEDBF will only be replacing in on the carriers, MRCBF jets can find a better utility at naval air stations.
MRCBF will transition to IAC-2 and stay that way until it becomes useless or is replaced by a TEDBF successor. You don't replace something until it makes sense to replace it.
Not with CATOBAR TEDBF no, the role of for carrier borne fighter will be taken by TEDBF & MRCBF jets operate from naval air stations.
The IN seems to have planned until 2050 actually.
They are the one making it happen, we here are talking about the development. They have to plan ahead of which we know little about. Have they revealed the plans for 2040+? No. It's useless to just speculate an uncertain thing.
The IN wants 6 carriers.
Yeah, since late 50s. Ik, but the govt doesn't find it feasible as of now.
IAC-2 is only for the first round of getting to 3 carriers. The next modernisation period will see us climbing to 6. We may go even beyond that depending on the political circumstances beyond 2050.
I agree,
IAC-2 is not Vikky's replacement, IAC-3 is. The IN is not foolish enough to say IAC-2 will give them a 3-carrier navy only to replace the first one with the third one. Once IAC-2 becomes available, Vikky can cut down on voyage time and get an extension, in time for IAC-3 to replace it by 2045 or so. Post that we should be able to build a carrier at least every 7 years, and keep that going until carriers become obsolete.
IAC-2 is not a replacement for Vikky ik, but it has to act like one till IAC-3 arrives, which would be in either late 30s or early 40s depending on if govt agrees to build 2 or more vessels per class.
It's similar to the case of Vizag & Rajput. Vizga wasn't a replacement for Rajput but it has to take the role because Rajput' replacement is delayed. Poor planning can lead to such things, nothing we haven't done before. & you'll need to change the whole propulsion system of Vikky to extend its' operational life for which you need to remove the island first & cut open several things, is it feasible to do so just to extend the life by some 5 yrs? No.
We know what happened with Viraat, how often it was "deployed", no point in operating Vikky post 2040.
ADA has plans to create a TEDBF successor after TEDBF is completed. So IAC-2 MLU, IAC-3/4/5 etc can all use the TEDBF successor after 2050, roughly the time when MRCBF will become obsolete. TEDBF can retire with Vikrant.
Where do you think TEDBF will go after 2050?
It will remain on the carrier, with its' successor. You can operate two fixed wing fighters on such large carriers (IAC-2 & following).
If it's doable now, it will be doable later.
It's not just about if you can do it, but about sustainability & feasibility.
We can even spend 3% of our GDP for a couple of years, but is it sustainable? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shekhar Singh

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,262
13,992
India
So, let me confirm. You are saying the only way to put an aircraft (or remove one) on the carrier is to fly and land it? Answer in yes or no.

I thought my previous post already has the answer.

I am aware of the 57 one, I specifically asked for the one "you" mentioned, which you can't provide rn.

Google is not a good enough substitute for memory.

Just IN fantasies, 4 fleet carriers.

What you call fantasy is what the IN officially calls "requirement".

nothing unfeasible, the stobar one is ~11.5T empty, the additional weight won't make it like some 13-14 tonne or anything to be unfeasible.

Even 100Kg extra is undesirable weight. Even 50Kg. Never mind 500Kg. CATOBAR makes things complex and unnecessary. All ADA has said is they will make TEDBF CATOBAR capable if the IN asks for it. Right now the plan is STOBAR only.

US can afford to use 2-3 fixed wing fighters, it's simply not sustainable for us on the IAC-1 & Vikky.

We wouldn't be buying it if we couldn't afford it. It's better to say we don't have a choice but to afford it, because that's the "requirement".

TEDBF will only be replacing in on the carriers, MRCBF jets can find a better utility at naval air stations.

That's not what the IN is buying MRCBF for. In fact, that would make it one of the most stupid decisions ever made in military procurement history, buying a fighter jet only to discard it within 10 years.

If the requirement was to fly MRCBF temporarily, then they would have just leased it for 10 years. Which is also a very stupid decision because of the loss of training value. You will be spending crores of rupees to train each pilot and then throw them out in no time. I can't even begin to imagine how much this goes against common sense.

If you don't buy a fighter type for minimum 25-30 years service life, then you are wasting time and money. So MRCBF will see use at least until 2050-55 on IAC-2.

Where do you think TEDBF will go after 2050?
It will remain on the carrier, with its' successor. You can operate two fixed wing fighters on such large carriers (IAC-2 & following).

TEDBF will stay on the Vikrant until phase out. Any future fighter can tag along. Even the SH/Rafale can be used.

It's not just about if you can do it, but about sustainability & feasibility.
We can even spend 3% of our GDP for a couple of years, but is it sustainable? No.

It doesn't matter. The IN is making both carriers capable of operating Mig-29K, TEDBF and SH/Rafale. All three types will be operated eventually. This has nothing to do with sustainability.

Instead of 24 of one type, you can carry 16+8 or 12+12. It doesn't have to be 100% single type. Carrier air complexes can easily be made to sustain multiple aircraft, it's been designed for it. One day, the same ship will have to carry fixed wing drones alongside fighters.
 

Amal

GSLV Mk III
Nov 30, 2017
728
1,009
Kerala
This is huge.

Actually it's 2870 crore rupees.


From an older RFI.

Fullscreen capture 10-06-2020 020200.bmp.jpg
 

Adm_Kenobi

Member
Feb 1, 2022
37
24
India
I thought my previous post already has the answer.
Ok, that means the answer is 'yes', you're wrong.
Google is not a good enough substitute for memory.
A memory can't be shared
What you call fantasy is what the IN officially calls "requirement".
Yeah, they put up a requirement of 6 carriers (4 fleet carriers + 2 light fleet carriers) + 6 cruisers + 21 destroyers + 16 submarines + 6 frigates + 6 minesweepers in late 50s. It was a fantasy, similar to the "four fleet carriers and 280 ship-borne strike and fighter aircraft in the next few years."
Even 100Kg extra is undesirable weight. Even 50Kg. Never mind 500Kg. CATOBAR makes things complex and unnecessary. All ADA has said is they will make TEDBF CATOBAR capable if the IN asks for it. Right now the plan is STOBAR only.
right now, there is no plan to use MRCBF jets as the main strike/fighter platform from IAC-2.
That's not what the IN is buying MRCBF for. In fact, that would make it one of the most stupid decisions ever made in military procurement history, buying a fighter jet only to discard it within 10 years.

If the requirement was to fly MRCBF temporarily, then they would have just leased it for 10 years. Which is also a very stupid decision because of the loss of training value. You will be spending crores of rupees to train each pilot and then throw them out in no time. I can't even begin to imagine how much this goes against common sense.

If you don't buy a fighter type for minimum 25-30 years service life, then you are wasting time and money. So MRCBF will see use at least until 2050-55 on IAC-2.
transferring it to a naval air station isn't even remotely the same as "discarding" it. It won't be sitting and rotting there but will be used.
Instead of 24 of one type, you can carry 16+8 or 12+12. It doesn't have to be 100% single type. Carrier air complexes can easily be made to sustain multiple aircraft, it's been designed for it. One day, the same ship will have to carry fixed wing drones alongside fighters.
Ok, what's better? Carrying one type of aircraft (either 29k, SH, M, TEDBF) and only have to carry supporting equipments and crew for that particular fighter or a mix of these fighters ?
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,262
13,992
India
Ok, that means the answer is 'yes', you're wrong.

A memory can't be shared

Yeah, they put up a requirement of 6 carriers (4 fleet carriers + 2 light fleet carriers) + 6 cruisers + 21 destroyers + 16 submarines + 6 frigates + 6 minesweepers in late 50s. It was a fantasy, similar to the "four fleet carriers and 280 ship-borne strike and fighter aircraft in the next few years."

right now, there is no plan to use MRCBF jets as the main strike/fighter platform from IAC-2.

transferring it to a naval air station isn't even remotely the same as "discarding" it. It won't be sitting and rotting there but will be used.

Ok, what's better? Carrying one type of aircraft (either 29k, SH, M, TEDBF) and only have to carry supporting equipments and crew for that particular fighter or a mix of these fighters ?

Look, this discussion is going nowhere. You don't like what the IN is doing, then tough. You're gonna have to live with their decisions. I don't want to deal with topics that simply go against what I think is common sense.
 

Adm_Kenobi

Member
Feb 1, 2022
37
24
India
Look, this discussion is going nowhere. You don't like what the IN is doing, then tough. You're gonna have to live with their decisions. I don't want to deal with topics that simply go against what I think is common sense.
Just to make it clear, IN isn't the one who has decided to use the MRCBF jets on IAC-2 or strech Vikramaditya to 2050.