Indian Naval Aviation

[nandu]

Indian aerobatics teams enjoy good safety record

Much of the blame for the recent crash of the Indian Navy's Kiran MK-II aircraft during an aerobatics display at the Hyderabad Air Show is being attributed to the plane's age, but the reality on the ground lies elsewhere.

The fact remains that Indian aerobatics teams, Surya Kiran and Sagar Pawan of the air force and the navy respectively, have had no more than three crashes combined during the past five years -- a record better than that of many other teams in the world.

Besides the crash in Hyderabad in which Commander S. K. Maurya and Lt. Commander Rahul Nair were killed, a Kiran MK-II aircraft of the Surya Kiran team had met with an accident Jan 21 last year, killing the pilot. Prior to this, another Surya Kiran aircraft had crashed March 18, 2006, during a training flight near Bidar in Karnataka, killing also the pilot and co-pilot.

Needless to say the Surya Kiran and Sagar Pawan aerobatics teams have had a much lower accident rate when compared with other aircraft in service with the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy.

In comparison, the Russian Knights aerobatics team has had four crashes, while the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels had had two during the same period, according to statistics collated from several order of battle websites.

In 2009, there were five crashes around the world during aerobatics displays. All the aircraft involved were over 10 years old.

In one case, at the Overberg Air show in South Africa, an English Electric Lightning fighter of 1964 vintage crashed after the pilot radioed complete hydraulic failure.

The Su-27 aircraft, a forerunner to the SU-30 fighter, had two crashes in that year, one flown by the Russian Knights aerobatics team at the Moscow Air Show and the other in service with the Belarus Air Force that crashed due to a bird hit in Poland.

The most unfortunate year for aerobatic plane crashes during the past 10 years was 2007 when there were as many as seven crashes, four of them in the U.S.

The famous Blue Angels team of the US Navy suffered a crash of the F/A-18 hornet that year when its pilot lost control and crashed the plane at the Marine Corps Air Station at Beaufort in South Carolina.

Questions have been raised as to why the Indian aerobatics team use nearly 30-year-old aircraft.

This is because aerobatics teams around the world use old and experienced aircraft -- usually trainers as they are known to be forgiving in flight manoeuvres and easier to maintain than front-line fighter aircraft.

The Red Arrows of the Royal Air force flies the Hawk trainer planes made in the late 1970s. The Russian Knights team of the Russian Air Force flies Su-27 aircraft that are over 15 years old.

France's Patrouille Acrobatique de France (French Acrobatic Patrol) flies the Apha Jet trainers made in the 1970s. Only the Roulettes of the Royal Australian Air Force fly a relative modern aircraft, the Pilatus PC-9 trainers acquired in 1989.

The U.S. Navy's Blue Angels aerobatics team flies the F/A-18 multi-role aircraft inducted in 1986 and it is one of the few services in the world that uses combat aircraft for aerobatics.

Given the facts, it is only befitting to keep the morale of Indian aerobatics teams sky high rather than make some stray comments and take ill-informed decisions to bring it crashing down.

Source:South Asia Mail

 

[mayfair]

What you fail to understand is the difference in roles.....su-33 is mainly an area defence fighter , it was meant to provide the kuzya credible defence against air launched attacks and that is just about it because for attack purposes kuzya contains the deadliest antiship missiles ever made the p700 granit (range 625 km , speed mach 4.5 , 500 kt yield nuclear warhead)

now on the other hand if you look at gorshkov, it doesn't have any attack capability(all missile silos are being removed) , this signifies a change in tactics , what is needed is a true multirole fighter which can do all missions , area defence , anti ship , anti surface .. and that is where the mig 29k fits perfectly , its a tru ultirole fighter.avionics are better tha the su-33 , RCS is reduced , range is debatable for both as it wil be limited by the angle of the ski jump and length of the flight deck(mind you the length of the flight deck on gorshkov will be smaller than that on the kuzya so the mig 29 will obviously make a better choice) , deck footprint is small anyways.

Forgive me for being naive and inexperienced in these matters, but from all reports that I have been able to sift through, Su-33 is described as a multi-role fighter. I am not sure under what mandate was it deployed on Kuznetsov, but to me it seems a waste of machinery to restrict the plane to an air-defense role when clearly it was designed to be much more versatile. As far as my understanding of the air-craft carrier doctrine goes, it is intended to provide the host nation with depth and range to mount effective attacks against both land and sea based (and of course air based) targets far away from its shores. So sending an aircraft carrier equipped with multi-role fighters just to attack other ships would be like using a fire hose to fill up a glass of water. Yes one of the functions may be to provide cover to the fleet from air and sea borne assaults but surely the primary mandate would be to mount an airborne attack on distant targets wouldn't it?

Gorshkov, our very own "well on it's way to being a white elephant" is ill equipped for most potent carrier functions. I hope we do not face the same problem with MiG29K spares as we do with their land based cousins.

 

[SATISH]

Forgive me for being naive and inexperienced in these matters, but from all reports that I have been able to sift through, Su-33 is described as a multi-role fighter. I am not sure under what mandate was it deployed on Kuznetsov, but to me it seems a waste of machinery to restrict the plane to an air-defense role when clearly it was designed to be much more versatile. As far as my understanding of the air-craft carrier doctrine goes, it is intended to provide the host nation with depth and range to mount effective attacks against both land and sea based (and of course air based) targets far away from its shores. So sending an aircraft carrier equipped with multi-role fighters just to attack other ships would be like using a fire hose to fill up a glass of water. Yes one of the functions may be to provide cover to the fleet from air and sea borne assaults but surely the primary mandate would be to mount an airborne attack on distant targets wouldn't it?

Gorshkov, our very own "well on it's way to being a white elephant" is ill equipped for most potent carrier functions. I hope we do not face the same problem with MiG29K spares as we do with their land based cousins.

So you mean to say that you can accommodate Su 33 a heavy class fighter into a 40k tonne carrier then dream on mate. The capacity of aircraft carrying capability of the Baku is only 30 of which there will be 12+2 Mig 29s as the size of MiG 29 is smaller and hence leading to much more availability of the aircraft at sea. That is what I meant of availability. The MiG 29 is a very potent aircraft. Even the USN has moved away from the F 14 type of heavy aircraft to the F 18 kind of medium aircraft. This leads to deployment of more aircraft at any given time. The Su 33 is limited by its heavy weight and a smaller Ski jump. Thus not helping it much. The Gorky was designed to carry the Yak 38 Forger(widowmaker) and was the lighter AC carrier for the Soviet navy. If we had gone for the Varyag then I would have preferred it. And moreover the production lines of SU 33 is closed for the time being and there is no use getting a TOT for the SU 33. The Russians have also moved away from the SU 33 and have adopted the MiG 29k for the carriers. And the UAPO is indebted to India as we have influence a change in their AC operations and have injected some funds into the MiG design bureau.

You tend to talk more about the functions of a Super carrier. Which FYKI is not our doctrine. Our doctrine surrouds our destroyers and the AC offers you and excellent fleet defence platform for which the Gorky has been modified and the IAC is being built. The 65k tonne IAC2 might be used for that purpose. Our ACs always have their primary objective as fleet defence and secondary objective as shore attack.

The SU 33 is an overkill for an AC like the Gorshkov which have to be even further modified to carry a decent load of SU 33 which is freaking huge and heavy. and all the spare parts must be stored inside the AC. The MiG is easier to maintain than the Heavy Su 33.

 

[notinlove]

Forgive me for being naive and inexperienced in these matters, but from all reports that I have been able to sift through, Su-33 is described as a multi-role fighter. I am not sure under what mandate was it deployed on Kuznetsov, but to me it seems a waste of machinery to restrict the plane to an air-defense role when clearly it was designed to be much more versatile. As far as my understanding of the air-craft carrier doctrine goes, it is intended to provide the host nation with depth and range to mount effective attacks against both land and sea based (and of course air based) targets far away from its shores. So sending an aircraft carrier equipped with multi-role fighters just to attack other ships would be like using a fire hose to fill up a glass of water. Yes one of the functions may be to provide cover to the fleet from air and sea borne assaults but surely the primary mandate would be to mount an airborne attack on distant targets wouldn't it?

Gorshkov, our very own "well on it's way to being a white elephant" is ill equipped for most potent carrier functions. I hope we do not face the same problem with MiG29K spares as we do with their land based cousins.

look here is the most detailed comparison of aircraft carriers and carrier born jets that you will ever find i am just giving an excerpt , you can read the whole article if you wish to do so ... i suggest you do , because it is an excellent piece of work and will clear all your doubts.

Obviously the lack of strike-capable aircraft on the Admiral Kuznetsov is out of choice not capability, reflecting a completely different naval doctrine than the Americans. It is well within Russia’s means to upgrade the Su-33s to a similar standard to the Su-27SM, able to carry anti-ship, anti-radar and precision strike weapons and also enhance the air-air capability. A more likely event is for new-build Su-33s to enter service with a true multi-role capability
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?144822-Large-aircraft-carriers-compared

PS. i couldnt find the link to the original planemans blog , i hope planeman can himself provide the link.

 

[mayfair]

^^ Thanks mate. This is most insightful.

 

[anon1995]

beautiful piece of art.
hope india buys them in number

 

[mayfair]

Are the Mig29Ks and the proposed naval variant of LCA-Tejas capable of vertical landingsn a la Sea Harrier? Because that would be a very potent weapon to have in our navy and airforce not only for sea based by land based operations too.

 

[nrj]

Are the Mig29Ks and the proposed naval variant of LCA-Tejas capable of vertical landingsn a la Sea Harrier? Because that would be a very potent weapon to have in our navy and airforce not only for sea based by land based operations too.

No, both the fighters will play in the Short Take-Off But Assisted Recovery (STOBAR) configuration as they will be onboard INS Vikramaditya, IAC-1 for sure...
During the trials of MIG29K on Admiral Kuznetsov AC of Russia, the aircraft had a springboard-assisted takeoff from strips 195 m and 95 m long.

 

[mayfair]

Looking at Mig29K configuration, there seems to be a lot of similarity with Mig-35: use of composites for weight and radar signature, Zhuk radar (albeit customised for different objectives-sea and land based scanning), RD-33 MK engine, fly by wire system etc. So I wonder if IAF does plan to induct Mig 35 independently of MRCA, based on how Mig29Ks perform with the navy? I mean it should not be very difficult to Mikhoyan bureau to adapt the assembly lines to churn out either aircraft, seeing that both are mature version of the original fulcrum airframe and have deep commonalities.

 

[nandu]

Flightglobal's Amazing P-8 Poseidon Cutaway

http://livefist.blogspot.com/

 

[nitesh]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...I-delivered-to-Boeing/articleshow/5921211.cms

NEW DELHI: US defence major Boeing on Wednesday announced receiving in April the first Indian-made technology enabling exchange of tactical data and messages between aircraft, ships and shore-based assets for Indian Navy's P-8I surveillance aircraft from Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL).

The Indian-designed Data Link II, delivered by BEL one month ahead of schedule, is the first Indian-manufactured item delivered to Boeing as part of the P-8I program, Boeing officials said in New Delhi.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...I-delivered-to-Boeing/articleshow/5921211.cms

Indian-designed Data Link II delivered to Boeing

NEW DELHI: US defence major Boeing on Wednesday announced receiving in April the first Indian-made technology enabling exchange of tactical data and messages between aircraft, ships and shore-based assets for Indian Navy's P-8I surveillance aircraft from Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL).

The Indian-designed Data Link II, delivered by BEL one month ahead of schedule, is the first Indian-manufactured item delivered to Boeing as part of the P-8I program, Boeing officials said in New Delhi.

India had signed a deal worth $2.1 billion in 2009 with Boeing for procuring eight P-8I maritime surveillance aircraft to augment and replace its Russian-origin fleet.

The Data Link-II will be installed on the P-8I during its final assembly at the Boeing facility in Renton, Seattle.

"Our deepening partnership with Bharat Electronics Limited endorses our ongoing initiative to build and strengthen the aerospace supply chain," Boeing India President Dinesh Keskar said.

Noting that Data Link II represented the first P-8I industrial participation project by the company in the area of avionics systems, Boeing Defence, Space and Security, India head Vivek Lall said, "Boeing contracted BEL in August 2009 to build this critical communications technology, and they have done an outstanding job by delivering on their commitment."

Speaking on the occasion, BEL Chairman Ashwani Kumar Datt said the milestone was a demonstration of BEL's capability to deliver cutting-edge work in avionics, software and structural components.

BEL will deliver the last of the Data Link components in late 2011.

Boeing is expected to deliver the first of the eight P-8I aircraft to the Navy by 2013. India is the first international customer for the P-8 programme of the US.

 

[AJSINGH]

I see no reason why IN has invested in N-LCA,i mean even IAF is not happy with LCA,and publically Air Cheif Marshal has said that he is not at all happy with LCA for the last 20 years , what In should do is buy more Mig29K and buy the navalised fighter of MMRCA winner

 

[Patriot]

http://idrw.org/?p=1769

Work on maritime patrol aircraft to start this year
BY: THE HINDU

Work on the Indian Navy's latest acquisition, the long-range maritime patrol aircraft that will add strength to its ability in domain awareness and deal with threats below the surface, will get underway later this year.

For the present, the United States Navy is gearing up to put the second plane (T2) to test its primary mission system next month, having conducted preliminary trials for airworthiness during April on test plane one (T1) at its facility.

The Boeing Company is developing the long-range patrol aircraft for the U.S. Navy, called P8A, and the Indian Navy is getting the P8I to specifications as provided by it.

The contract was signed in January 2009, with the first delivery scheduled 48 months from the date.

"The Indian Navy is the first foreign customer that Boeing is developing for the U.S. Navy," P8I Programme Manager Leland Wight told a group of journalists from India after a tour of the Renton facility here, where the737 platform, on which the P8 is being developed, is finally assembled.

The group was later taken around the T2, at the Puget Sound facility, where the aircraft is being prepared before being handed over to the U.S. Navy.

The aircraft has multiple weapon stations armed with anti-submarine Harpoon missiles, torpedoes in weapons bay that can be launched into water up to 1,000 feet and advanced radar and sensors. The plane can travel 1,200 nautical miles. It can stay on for four hours before heading to its base and with mid-air refuelling, it can undertake a mission for longer hours.

It has five identical mission operator consoles, with each having the ability to select which sensor they want to study with two observer stations. The aircraft is designed for user to expand and configure 21 crew seats.

The Indian Navy conducted a preliminary design review in October last and held a conference here in February this year. Equipment provided by the Electronics Corporation of India Limited and Bharat Electronics Limited to go on board is being checked. Fabrication of the first aircraft will begin during the last quarter of 2010, he said.

Technically, the Indian Navy has to arrange for acceptance trials for each aircraft it ordered, but it has decided to take delivery after initial ones, since the basic airframe and other equipment are being subjected to tests by the U.S. Navy. The Indian Navy has reserved the option to place order for additional four aircraft.

 

[Crusader53]

I see no reason why IN has invested in N-LCA,i mean even IAF is not happy with LCA,and publically Air Cheif Marshal has said that he is not at all happy with LCA for the last 20 years , what In should do is buy more Mig29K and buy the navalised fighter of MMRCA winner

I think it would be wise to scrap the (N)LCA. As it will have little effect on the LCA Program. Further, its just not needed on the IAC's. As the Indian Navy already will have a respectable number of Mig-29K's.

Let's also not forget that neither the M-29K's nor (N)LCA are a long-term solution.

 

[A.V.]

the inidan navy is looking beyond the IACs only they want to build up an air wing independent of the IAF unofficial reports confirm the need for 140 odd aircraft that they are looking to ccquire in the next 10 years might be the multiple platforms are because of that......lets wait and watch how it shapes up as of now mig 29 k is confirmed

 

[Crusader53]

India doesn't have long as China is coming on strong. So, it will need counter to future Chinese 4.5 and 5th Generation Types. Which, the (N)LCA and Mik-29K's won't match.

 

[SATISH]

The navy like every other powerful Navy wants to have its own airforce and army. There is a demand of almost 300 -400 aircrafts for the IN alone. The Amphibious ships will also make the navy to move towards heavy APCs and tanks. The Navy is also planning to acquire more Hovercrafts and threatened by this the army has also gone forward. The N-LCA is one of the basic learning steps for the design of an undercarriage worth of landing in an AC. In case we suddenly come up with an CA and the navy wants to deploy it on its AC this will be very helpful. We already know how the navy thinks. So let them do what they want right now.

Remember...navy has the lowest budget allocation when it comes to the defence budget share. And they know how to use it perfectly. The DND is also thinking of opening up a naval air design component and engine design component.

 

[SATISH]

India doesn't have long as China is coming on strong. So, it will need counter to future Chinese 4.5 and 5th Generation Types. Which, the (N)LCA and Mik-29K's won't match.

Yes I accept that. But let the Chinese first have a floating aircraft carrier then we can talk about it.

 

[Crusader53]

I hate to tell you but China already has a Large Aircraft Carrier (ex-Varyag) and Fighters to fly off it. (acquired illegally of course)