Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

flanker99

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
474
Likes
2,451
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.
I dont see tedbf going anywhere....even if successful some 50 or so airframe dont justify production and iAF is hell bent on getting more rafales
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
4,864
Likes
15,340
Country flag
I dont see tedbf going anywhere....even if successful some 50 or so airframe dont justify production and iAF is hell bent on getting more rafales
What about more airframe for our islands and Mauritius base
 

Alfalfa

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2017
Messages
178
Likes
400
Country flag
Im a a bit confused, I know its been discussed to death here..but digging through posts here is cumbersome... the Tejas MK2 comes with the GEF414 engine which provides about 98kn... would it be enough given the additional weight, larger payload etc.
 

flanker99

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
474
Likes
2,451
Country flag
INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant require atleast 57 aircrafts combined , and the INS Vishal itself will require 40 aircrafts making the total of 97 aircrafts
Thats only if navy drops mrcbf plans.I think navy is hedging bets here if they cant secure enough funding and numbers for tedbf or if ada/hal fails to maintain timeline..they will go ahead with mrcbf
 

Gessler

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,142
Likes
9,755
Country flag
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.
Well as far as the Vikky and IAC-1 are concerned, any plane will be sub-optimal.

If talking about potential IAC-2 with CATOBAR (which likely won't see service before 2040 if construction starts toward end of this decade), I certainly don't see the logic of going with a new-build 4.5 gen jet at that point.

And all for what, 50-60 airframes of the type? And when a off-the-shelf product is available in the same category with all the same capabilities + no strings attached (Rafale M)?

Geez, the TEDBF is probably the most pointless program in ADA/HAL history.

Yes, any land-based aircraft converted for carrier ops will be inherently sub-optimal (reason why Rafale B/C was developed from Rafale M and not other way round), and it just goes to show how Forces are still unable to work in conjunction to come up with a common plan for common good.

Unfortunately, it's just going to spell disaster for both IAF & IN. Knee-jerk orders for Su-57 for IAF and Rafale-Ms for IN is all but a certainty.

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.
That's no good logic. Maritime interdiction isn't the only role for carrier-based aircraft.

There's a reason why F-35 has both 'beast mode' and 'stealth mode'.



The ONLY real reason why they went with a design without IWBs is probably cost - nothing else makes sense.

3. High Availability rate. TEDBF can have more availability rate than AMCA-N.
That is likely to be very true.

But the one undeniable fact is that purchase of 50-60 Rafale-Ms is the most logical decision. Development of a whole new aircraft that delivers similar capabilities is a bonkers plan.
 

Gessler

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,142
Likes
9,755
Country flag
also NAVY keep few jets on shore. If we have our own jet we could keep few sqads on shore for air patrols. The numbers could easily go beyond 100.
No, these force mixes will change drastically as the Maritime Theatre Command takes shape. There will be no more need for shore-based IN strike aircraft - as all IAF aircraft in peninsular bases will be under operational command of the same 3-star officer that commands all Navy assets.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,536
Likes
7,258
Country flag
How long before Naval Design Bureau realises that Kitty Hawk (CV-63) from 1961 or JFK (CV-67) from 1968 are still far superior to what they are coming up with?
They realize that already. If you are insinuating "Why don't they just design one", I say paisa de. This is the same as asking ISRO if they realize that the Saturn V is much more superior to what they are coming up with.
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,013
Likes
6,412
Country flag
They realize that already. If you are insinuating "Why don't they just design one", I say paisa de. This is the same as asking ISRO if they realize that the Saturn V is much more superior to what they are coming up with.
If they can propose a CVN for IAC2, then we can definitely afford a Kitty Hawk class equivalent. Considering a CVN costs about 8 times that of a conventional carrier of similar specifications.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,536
Likes
7,258
Country flag
If they can propose a CVN for IAC2, then we can definitely afford a Kitty Hawk class equivalent. Considering a CVN costs about 8 times that of a conventional carrier of similar specifications.
Who offered CVN. In fact CVN was not possible due to no suitable reactor option being available, if I remember right. And even non-nuclear heavy carrier is not affordable right now, haven't you heard the dilema of submarines or carrier that the Navy is being pushed into by the budget?
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,013
Likes
6,412
Country flag
Who offered CVN. In fact CVN was not possible due to no suitable reactor option being available, if I remember right. And even non-nuclear heavy carrier is not affordable right now, haven't you heard the dilema of submarines or carrier that the Navy is being pushed into by the budget?
When IAC2 was being discussed, and proposals sought, IN Initially wanted a CVN with EMALS. A 60k ton displacement CVN.

Conventionally powered JFK had an empty displacement of 60k tons, with 80k tons fully loaded, with ~80 unit airwing consisting of Tomcats, Greyhounds, Hawkeyes, Vikings, Intruders, Prowlers, etc. It also was ⅛ the cost of the planned but cancelled CVN of the same specifications.

Another thing, TEDBF is awesome, but what about a multirole support airframe? Are we working on that? Are we going to rely only on TEDBF and Helos/osprey for AEW, EW, COD, ASW, ASuW, ELINT, Tanking, etc?
 
Last edited:

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,013
Likes
6,412
Country flag
When IAC2 was being discussed, and proposals sought, IN Initially wanted a CVN with EMALS. A 60k ton displacement CVN.

Conventionally powered JFK had an empty displacement of 60k tons, with 80k tons fully loaded, with ~80 unit airwing consisting of Tomcats, Greyhounds, Hawkeyes, Vikings, Intruders, Prowlers, etc. It also was ⅛ the cost of the planned but cancelled CVN of the same specifications.

Another thing, TEDBF is awesome, but what about a multirole support airframe? Are we working on that? Are we going to rely only on TEDBF and Helos/osprey for AEW, EW, COD, ASW, ASuW, ELINT, Tanking, etc?
Actually with the current pods and ordinance developed by DRDO, TEDBF should be able to take on EW, ASW, ASuW roles, apart from the basic air superiority roles.

That leaves AEW, COD, ELINT, Tanking. V-22 already does 3 out of the 4. Once the AEW version of V-22 is available, it should be able to perform all 4 roles.

cv22.jpeg


EV22.jpg

kv22.jpeg

ev22.jpeg
 

Cheran

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
4,275
Likes
32,770
Country flag
From OpIndia (extremely longish read) by Chiranjeevi Bhat, Please visit Opindia to read in full, cant screen shot the entire article


What should be the submarine procurement policy of India to deter growing threats from China and Pakistan: A detailed analysis

India needs to choose one country’s design for a large SSK submarine and go for it the whole hog, instead of ordering modifications and additions and adding nonsensical conditions


1635426272717.png


1635426305706.png


1635426337553.png


1635426378536.png


1635426398374.png


1635426811949.png


1635426983980.png


1635427016770.png


1635427068388.png
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top