Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
24,800
Likes
88,670
Country flag
Fire, flooding reported onboard Indian Navy vessel 'INS Ranvijay', 4 sailors injured

The incident took place on Saturday night when INS Ranvijay was at the Visakhapatnam coast after returning from an exercise of the Indian Navy in the sea.

A Rajput-class destroyer, INS Ranvijay has been active in service with the Indian Navy. It was commissioned in January 1988 and since then has been working actively. Apart from that, it has also participated in several important exercises including the Malabar Naval Exercise, Indra War Games, Simbex War Games, and so on.

 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
24,800
Likes
88,670
Country flag
IAC Vikrant heads out for second sea trials from Kochi
Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) Vikrant sailed out from Kochi for the second sea trials on Sunday. The aircraft sailed shift after the first maiden sea trials that were conducted in August this year. During the maiden sailing, the ship's performance, including hull, main propulsion, Power Generation and Distribution (PGD) and auxiliary equipment were tested. The trials were reviewed by Vice Admiral AK Chawla, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief Southern Naval Command.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
5,464
Likes
7,374
Country flag
EXCLUSIVE | 'Money Spent on Indigenous Aircraft Carrier No Waste; Need Airpower Now': Navy Chief
But the Navy asking for a separate TEDBF is a sheer waste of limited resources. Instead of creating a completely new jet, they should be choosing to get an AMCA-Naval (AMCA-N) and streamline as much of their supply as possible. This IAF, IN and IA's collective problem of "we want our own" is creating a lot of redundancies.
 

Gessler

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,142
Likes
9,754
Country flag
But the Navy asking for a separate TEDBF is a sheer waste of limited resources. Instead of creating a completely new jet, they should be choosing to get an AMCA-Naval (AMCA-N) and streamline as much of their supply as possible. This IAF, IN and IA's collective problem of "we want our own" is creating a lot of redundancies.
If HAL & ADA think they can develop 3 vastly different fighter programs simultaneously (Tejas Mk-2, TEDBF & AMCA), I can only sympathize, go to a corner & cry.

Lockheed & Boeing wouldn't dream of doing this.

But then again, half of the disaster that was early LCA development was due to agencies not knowing their limits, and in tying up the program in knots of undeliverable promises (like indigenous engine). Sadly, the mistakes are being repeated.

How the limited budgets (make no mistake, the amounts we allocate for R&D and development are still p!ss-poor) and limited skilled engineers & manpower will be spread across 3 programs (one of which involves a next-gen fighter) is something I'm scared to even think about.

The biggest issue I have is that we've tied up IAF's next-gen acquisition entirely into the AMCA program. We literally have zero alternative plans. If the program fails to deliver in the given timelines, we're royally screwed. The adversaries will have an uncontested capability of penetrating protected airspace with LO aircraft which we'd be unable to counter.

Lot of people think Rafale (or the MRFA) would be the last foreign fighter type we will buy? I call BS on that. We are almost certain to place a knee-jerk order for 24-36 Su-57s when the AMCA fails to deliver on time (which it most certainly will) and when we begin to feel the heat of LO airframes (I hesitate to call them VLO) on both eastern & western fronts into the 2030s.
 

Covfefe

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2021
Messages
1,466
Likes
8,322
Country flag
But the Navy asking for a separate TEDBF is a sheer waste of limited resources. Instead of creating a completely new jet, they should be choosing to get an AMCA-Naval (AMCA-N) and streamline as much of their supply as possible. This IAF, IN and IA's collective problem of "we want our own" is creating a lot of redundancies.
Better option would have been to import FA18s/ Rafales.
We don't have an industry that can roll out 3 fighter jet platforms within a decade- Tejas Mk2, TEDBF and AMCA, and sailing these white elephants with Mig29K is just crazy. Let ADA and HAL deliver Tejas Mk2 and AMCA first.
The ships remain in maintenance half the time, and the jets onboard will remain in maintenance if they are Migs.
 

not so dravidian

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
629
Likes
2,901
Country flag
If HAL & ADA think they can develop 3 vastly different fighter programs simultaneously (Tejas Mk-2, TEDBF & AMCA), I can only sympathize, go to a corner & cry.

Lockheed & Boeing wouldn't dream of doing this.

But then again, half of the disaster that was early LCA development was due to agencies not knowing their limits, and in tying up the program in knots of undeliverable promises (like indigenous engine). Sadly, the mistakes are being repeated.

How the limited budgets (make no mistake, the amounts we allocate for R&D and development are still p!ss-poor) and limited skilled engineers & manpower will be spread across 3 programs (one of which involves a next-gen fighter) is something I'm scared to even think about.

The biggest issue I have is that we've tied up IAF's next-gen acquisition entirely into the AMCA program. We literally have zero alternative plans. If the program fails to deliver in the given timelines, we're royally screwed. The adversaries will have an uncontested capability of penetrating protected airspace with LO aircraft which we'd be unable to counter.

Lot of people think Rafale (or the MRFA) would be the last foreign fighter type we will buy? I call BS on that. We are almost certain to place a knee-jerk order for 24-36 Su-57s when the AMCA fails to deliver on time (which it most certainly will) and when we begin to feel the heat of LO airframes (I hesitate to call them VLO) on both eastern & western fronts into the 2030s.
1. Either we let go of TEBDF for AMCA-N

2.or join MIG Bureau co-develop naval fighter since their naval fighter is almost identical to TEBDF.

3. Most probable- buy new mig 29k/mig 35 naval varient

:sad::sad:
 

Gessler

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,142
Likes
9,754
Country flag
1. Either we let go of TEBDF for AMCA-N
I've no idea why AMCA-N is being shunned by IN.

2.or join MIG Bureau co-develop naval fighter since their naval fighter is almost identical to TEBDF.
MiG is dead. Burning any money on them is probably 10x worse than burning it on HAL/ADA.

3. Most probable- buy new mig 29k/mig 35 naval varient :sad::sad:
As much as I'd love to say you're wrong, you're probably right.

Both F/A-18 and Rafale are very expensive aircraft, not to mention, they would still be operating very sub-optimally if put on STOBAR carriers. So it's probably a waste anyway.

So not hard to imagine IN might think - if we're gonna waste money anyway, let's waste it on the cheaper option - and go for additional MiG-29Ks.
 

THESIS THORON

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
1,740
Likes
7,862
Country flag
But then again, half of the disaster that was early LCA development was due to agencies not knowing their limits, and in tying up the program in knots of undeliverable promises (like indigenous engine). Sadly, the mistakes are being repeated.
why there is so much over confidence in these agencies ??

even after failing in tejas (promised)
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
4,861
Likes
15,321
Country flag
I've no idea why AMCA-N is being shunned by IN.



MiG is dead. Burning any money on them is probably 10x worse than burning it on HAL/ADA.



As much as I'd love to say you're wrong, you're probably right.

Both F/A-18 and Rafale are very expensive aircraft, not to mention, they would still be operating very sub-optimally if put on STOBAR carriers. So it's probably a waste anyway.

So not hard to imagine IN might think - if we're gonna waste money anyway, let's waste it on the cheaper option - and go for additional MiG-29Ks.
Amca N is equal to making a new jet totally , slightest change in structure means lot of work , if done on a existing refined aircraft , so you have money for two five gen plane but not one fifth gen and one 4.5 gen bird with lot of similarity with a tested aircraft .


Kudos
 

Vamsi

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
627
Likes
3,123
Country flag
I've no idea why AMCA-N is being shunned by IN.



MiG is dead. Burning any money on them is probably 10x worse than burning it on HAL/ADA.



As much as I'd love to say you're wrong, you're probably right.

Both F/A-18 and Rafale are very expensive aircraft, not to mention, they would still be operating very sub-optimally if put on STOBAR carriers. So it's probably a waste anyway.

So not hard to imagine IN might think - if we're gonna waste money anyway, let's waste it on the cheaper option - and go for additional MiG-29Ks.
There are many reasons why AMCA-N is shunned.
1. AMCA-N derived from AMCA-AF will be sub-optimal, they realised it is better to develop a 4.5 gen fighter instead of directly going to 5th gen.
2. AMCA-N cannot carry Anti-Ship missiles like Brahmos-NG or any other future air launched hypersonic missiles internally, they must be carried externally, then what's the point of having a stealth bird.
3. High Availability rate. TEDBF can have more availability rate than AMCA-N.
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
4,861
Likes
15,321
Country flag
why there is so much over confidence in these agencies ??

even after failing in tejas (promised)
What overconfidence , Tejas mk2 is in prototype phase , not a huge work left on it , amca too in advanced phase , tedbf is a new thing on aerodynamic front , everything else is just copy paste
 

Vamsi

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
627
Likes
3,123
Country flag
What overconfidence , Tejas mk2 is in prototype phase , not a huge work left on it , amca too in advanced phase , tedbf is a new thing on aerodynamic front , everything else is just copy paste
Yeap ,only Aerodynamics and Flight control systems are different, Radar, EW suite, EOTS, DAS, cockpit, Weapon package, avoinics and most of other subsystes are same.
 

Covfefe

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2021
Messages
1,466
Likes
8,322
Country flag
why there is so much over confidence in these agencies ??

even after failing in tejas (promised)
They are government agencies. The only point of evaluation is your agreeable nature, not performance delivery. Say, 2025 timelines for AMCA fail what will happen to anyone involved with the program? Nothing.
Most of the present senior executive would've retired by then, and the IAS Babus moved all around. And that's not the only problem- government's unwillingness to release funds for RnD(Remember the Ramjet arty shell to be developed by IIT Madras; they asked for 10 crore rupees got 97 lakh at first), Services' lack of clarity on the requirements and the platform's lifecycle management(the same IAF made AESA as a mandatory requirement for Tejas in early 2000s while they went ahead with procurement of Mirages with pulse Doppler radar) , Stupid govt regulations and audit requirements in hiring workforce (PSU rules) and engaging with vendors and consultants.

In govt, you don't get reward for doing good. You just don't break the rules and keep the bosses happy, any work related success can be just a by-product.
 

Emperor Kalki

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2019
Messages
245
Likes
449
Country flag
If HAL & ADA think they can develop 3 vastly different fighter programs simultaneously (Tejas Mk-2, TEDBF & AMCA), I can only sympathize, go to a corner & cry.

Lockheed & Boeing wouldn't dream of doing this.

But then again, half of the disaster that was early LCA development was due to agencies not knowing their limits, and in tying up the program in knots of undeliverable promises (like indigenous engine). Sadly, the mistakes are being repeated.

How the limited budgets (make no mistake, the amounts we allocate for R&D and development are still p!ss-poor) and limited skilled engineers & manpower will be spread across 3 programs (one of which involves a next-gen fighter) is something I'm scared to even think about.

The biggest issue I have is that we've tied up IAF's next-gen acquisition entirely into the AMCA program. We literally have zero alternative plans. If the program fails to deliver in the given timelines, we're royally screwed. The adversaries will have an uncontested capability of penetrating protected airspace with LO aircraft which we'd be unable to counter.

Lot of people think Rafale (or the MRFA) would be the last foreign fighter type we will buy? I call BS on that. We are almost certain to place a knee-jerk order for 24-36 Su-57s when the AMCA fails to deliver on time (which it most certainly will) and when we begin to feel the heat of LO airframes (I hesitate to call them VLO) on both eastern & western fronts into the 2030s.
Well, production/assembly is the only issue l can see in this scenario. With respect to design and development, so far ADA seems to be able to handle all these different programs simultaneously.

Relying only on HAL is the only forseeable bottleneck in my view. Or are there any others?
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top