Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by jayadev, Feb 18, 2009.
Seems really slow in the pace of project fulfillment. Any one knows the reason?
I guess no instrumentation is done yet. Cant see radar and stuff. Pathetic pace of project. How this is going to ready by 2019 god knows. Bhagwan bharose sab ho raha hai.
Indian govt must keep time line for govt defence companies so that this PSU will complete all projects on time.
I think the Navy's not putting pressure on Cochin shipyard due to the whole fiasco with carrier borne fighters. MiG29Ks have massive issues and the future replacement fighter for the next 3 decades is yet to be chosen...
IN can just stick with Mig-29Ks. The problems will be grdaually eliminated. Range will not be a problem with dorsal CFTs.
In fact we need to do a Indian magic on these Mig-29K's... Add Uttam & Kaveri and it will take us through till we get AMCA's
This is a new plane in service for both Russia and India. Of course, there will be minor problems.
Adding another type complicates inventory management, training and adds unnecessary cost overheads. F-18 or Rafale needs to be tested for STOBAR operations.
The problem with availability of Mig -29K is being dealt with. Regarding ruggedization, adding more shock absorbers should not be difficult. CFTs will give the plane good enough range (though not like Rafale and F-18) - but de we really need it?
I never understood the logic for the number 57. The capacity is for 36 aircrafts in INS Vikrant. I hope additional planes won't harm LCA prospect for IAC-2. If there is extra planes, it may be spilled over into the next carrier and hence to maintain uniformity, continue with the same plane by additional orders. Do you have any idea why 57 is being considered?
In this case, the best bet is MiG29K due to interoperability between INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant aircrafts and easier spares and maintenance. Also, there is no Rafale -M yet.
The 57 are only for the IAC-2. There are enough MiG-29Ks for both Vikramaditya and the Vikrant. Of the 57, expect around 50 to be single seat fighters and the remaining to be dual seat trainers.
Then, what is needed by 2020? Since IAC2 will not even be floated by 2020,the demand for planes must be for something. If MiG29 already exists in sufficient quantities, what is the concern?
That concern is the really bad quality of the MiG-29Ks. The MiG has no future in the carrier air arm of the Navy. If we start inducting the new carrier borne multi role fighters, things will become streamlined for Vishal.
Plus, we could operate the new fighters from Vikrant, relegating the MiG-29Ks to Vikramaditya and shore based interdiction.
presently, we have 45 MiG-29K/MiG-29KUB , 41 & 4 respectively..
INS vikramaditya can carry 26 on-board while ~0.6 times i.e. 15 on ground ready for anytime on-board deployment because in war time, time consuming overhauls can't be possible on carrier hence those jets will be replaced from buffer. and rest 4 are for training.
same is the case with 57... and same is with french charles de gaulle (28 onboard Rafales) where as they have 44 Rafales
This is the case with almost all ACC.
anyone can correct me if I'm wrong
Discussions about Mig-29 is not appropriate for this thread. Since you have quoted my reply about plans for fitting bhramos mini on Tejas I have provided you with the source.
Credibility of any news article can be questioned but the thing is Bhramos was all about making one missile which can be suited to multiple platforms.As such the present platforms is only Su-30 mki. Future platforms include LCA Tejas and AMCA. I have provided with the source for everyone, but it's your prerogative whether you want to believe in that news source or not.
Also FGFA itself is uncertain and Indian navy is very clear not to induct any more Mig-29k.
Also kindly quote the specific article which says Bhramos mini will not be fitted on LCA Tejas. All the news article which I have come across since the recent Bhramos test says Bhramos will be fitted on x platform or y platform etc like Su-30 mki and other aircrafts. But you are saying that there is no plan to fit it on future Tejas variants then is it your inference or have you come across some source?
We always find many interesting news in open media but we can't believe on them blindly. we always analyze the data shared in articles before our belief, isn't it?
Here, we are on defense forum specially on LCA's thread as topic than it should have to be analyzed. If you want to believe on those baked articles than go ahead..
LCA is already discussed and for AMCA we need AMCA's detailed specifications (about hard-point numbers and strength).
I can believe on anything which is technically and operationally possible...
By the way, Mig-29Ks will be in IN by 2040s and already have 45 in numbers..
Navy seriously doesn't want the INS VIKRANT to come early as MIGs are facing problems. Navy feels that the new fighters would start arriving by 2023 or later (MRCBF) and if Vikrant is delivered by 2020 then navy can carry out extensive trials of the ship, including carrier certification for the said fighter using the available fighters from the manufacturers, so that if any necessary stuff needs to be changed internally it can be arranged. By the time the bulk of MRCBF fighters arrive the carrier with her full battle group would be ready for action.
If the carrier would have been delivered in time it would be a tough task to make the carrier aviation viable for combat considering the amount of MIGs available Ina given time aren't enough and navy doesn't have enough ASW equipped ships or helis to send 2 carriers under different fleet at the same time, making early induction useless and waste of money that could have been spend for much needed ships and aircrafts making the carriers expense being spread over a much larger period.
I think this is the reason that navy is comfortable in getting late delivery. It doesn't take 5+ years to fit ships equipment after she has been floated.
Separate names with a comma.