INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[A chauhan]

First of all we have to look, can both planes F-18SH and Rafale will be able to fit inside the hangar and elevator.

If I am not wrong, Rafale-M lacks folding wing. If so then most probably F/A18 due to space constraints in Indian carriers.

 

[Bhurki]

If I am not wrong, Rafale-M lacks folding wing. If so then most probably F/A18 due to space constraints in Indian carriers.

Rafale wingspan - 35ft
F-18SH folded wingspan - 33ft
Mig-29K folded wingspan - 24ft

Looking at the width of the hangar at 75 ft, its evident, that whereas you can fit 3 Mig 29 widthwise, you'll only fit 2 of rafale or F18SH greatly reducing number of aircraft carried.

 

[Longewala]

A little comparison -

T/W with full internal fuel and no stores -
Aircraft - Max Thrust /(Empty wt+ Int Fuel)

Rafale M - 15,000 / 10,600 + 4400 = 1.0
F-18SH - 20,000 / 14,500 + 6500 = 0.95
Mig29K - 17,600 / 11,000 + 4500 = 1.13

If a minimum T/W of 0.9 is required to take off with safe limits from a Stobar, then max combat load (extra fuel, armaments) allowed -
Rafale - (1.0- 0.9) x 15,000 = 1.5 tons
SH - (0.95 -0.9) x 20,000 = 1 tons
Mig 29K - (1.13- 0.9) x 17,600 = 4 tons

Pretty evident based on specs mig-29 is the best choice as a standardised aircraft for India's Stobar carriers.
The question is how poor availability rates are currently, it's a pity the Russians involved in the whole Gorshkov package were such a bunch of idiots really.

 

[Bhurki]

Hey Bro....

Are you saying Rafale-M is bigger than mig29 in size.??????

Yes they are.. Because the wings dont fold.

 

[Bhurki]

Mig29K with its 24ft wingspan in Vikramaditya's Lift -

Fitting either rafale (35ft) /Superhornet (33ft) into similar sized lifts is out of question.

 

[abingdonboy]

Pretty evident based on specs mig-29 is the best choice as a standardised aircraft for India's Stobar carriers.
The question is how poor availability rates are currently, it's a pity the Russians involved in the whole Gorshkov package were such a bunch of idiots really.

For the 2 carriers ( Vikky and Vikrant) the navy needs 5-6 fighter squadrons, they have 2 (Plus crash reserves) currently


The Navy had the option of ordering another 45 MIG-29Ks to take the total strength to 90 (5 squadrons plus reserves) but rejected this idea and launched the MRCBF contest.

MRCBF never really went anywhere once the costs became apparent as well as the technical issues (lifts and hangers), again the Rafale-M is the most logical option but I’m genuinly curious how Dassualt proposed to fit on the lifts of IAC-1, I know Boeing offered an unusual solution (a unique jig structure to lean the jet so it could take up less of a footprint on the lifts).

Anyway, with the 29K not desired ( there are still VERY serious issues with that fleet and it is more than just low availability but fundamental flaws) and MRCBF not going anywhere it’s not surprising that TEDBF has become an imperative. Of course there are risks to this approach but at least it offers the navy the ability to begin with a clean sheet design and to spec that the TEDBF fits inside the footprint of the 29K

Mig29K with its 24ft wingspan in Vikramaditya's Lift -

View attachment 57063

Fitting either rafale (35ft) /Superhornet (33ft) into similar sized lifts is out of question.

Nailed it. After the IN selected the 29K


ironically it may have been better to have picked the SU33K (despite the inherent issues that would bring), at least that would’ve given the navy options now. Having their carriers designed around the HRCA would’ve made accommodating a western MMRCA simple.


the navy is now entirely dependent on the TEDBF to dig them out of the hole they have dug for themselves, the news of Boeing conducting a ski jump test for the SH are utterly utterly meaningless. Unless the navy wants to undertake *major* re-designing of their flagships involving 100s of millions and potentially years in a dry dock They have little choice but to make do with hallf the fighter strength they require spli across 2 carriers until TEDBF is ready

 

[Bhurki]

For the 2 carriers ( Vikky and Vikrant) the navy needs 5-6 fighter squadrons, they have 2 (Plus crash reserves) currently


The Navy had the option of ordering another 45 MIG-29Ks to take the total strength to 90 (5 squadrons plus reserves) but rejected this idea and launched the MRCBF contest.

MRCBF never really went anywhere once the costs became apparent as well as the technical issues (lifts and hangers), again the Rafale-M is the most logical option but I’m genuinly curious how Dassualt proposed to fit on the lifts of IAC-1, I know Boeing offered an unusual solution (a unique jig structure to lean the jet so it could take up less of a footprint on the lifts).

Anyway, with the 29K not desired ( there are still VERY serious issues with that fleet and it is more than just low availability but fundamental flaws) and MRCBF not going anywhere it’s not surprising that TEDBF has become an imperative. Of course there are risks to this approach but at least it offers the navy the ability to begin with a clean sheet design and to spec that the TEDBF fits inside the footprint of the 29K


Nailed it. After the IN selected the 29K


ironically it may have been better to have picked the SU33K (despite the inherent issues that would bring), at least that would’ve given the navy options now. Having their carriers designed around the HRCA would’ve made accommodating a western MMRCA simple.


the navy is now entirely dependent on the TEDBF to dig them out of the hole they have dug for themselves, the news of Boeing conducting a ski jump test for the SH are utterly utterly meaningless. Unless the navy wants to undertake *major* re-designing of their flagships involving 100s of millions and potentially years in a dry dock They have little choice but to make do with hallf the fighter strength they require spli across 2 carriers until TEDBF is ready

How big are IAC lifts?

Su-33 is so large, you could probably might no more than a dozen of them in the hangar. It was always supposed to be operated from Kuz class.

Tedbf is atleast a decade away.

 

[Tridev123]

For the 2 carriers ( Vikky and Vikrant) the navy needs 5-6 fighter squadrons, they have 2 (Plus crash reserves) currently


The Navy had the option of ordering another 45 MIG-29Ks to take the total strength to 90 (5 squadrons plus reserves) but rejected this idea and launched the MRCBF contest.

MRCBF never really went anywhere once the costs became apparent as well as the technical issues (lifts and hangers), again the Rafale-M is the most logical option but I’m genuinly curious how Dassualt proposed to fit on the lifts of IAC-1, I know Boeing offered an unusual solution (a unique jig structure to lean the jet so it could take up less of a footprint on the lifts).

Anyway, with the 29K not desired ( there are still VERY serious issues with that fleet and it is more than just low availability but fundamental flaws) and MRCBF not going anywhere it’s not surprising that TEDBF has become an imperative. Of course there are risks to this approach but at least it offers the navy the ability to begin with a clean sheet design and to spec that the TEDBF fits inside the footprint of the 29K


Nailed it. After the IN selected the 29K


ironically it may have been better to have picked the SU33K (despite the inherent issues that would bring), at least that would’ve given the navy options now. Having their carriers designed around the HRCA would’ve made accommodating a western MMRCA simple.


the navy is now entirely dependent on the TEDBF to dig them out of the hole they have dug for themselves, the news of Boeing conducting a ski jump test for the SH are utterly utterly meaningless. Unless the navy wants to undertake *major* re-designing of their flagships involving 100s of millions and potentially years in a dry dock They have little choice but to make do with hallf the fighter strength they require spli across 2 carriers until TEDBF is ready

Can the LCA Navy fit into the lifts on the Vikramaditya and the incoming Vikrant?.
I know the Navy does not prefer single engine carrier jets but in an emergency can the Tejas-N be used to fulfil the carrier jet role.
What will be the maximum ordinance stores that the LCA - Navy be able to carry safely.
To its credit the LCA has a highly reliable GE404 engine. The Navy has operated single engine carrier aircraft in the past.
The use of the LCA - Navy is contemplated only in a war time emergency.

 

[Bhurki]

Can the LCA Navy fit into the lifts on the Vikramaditya and the incoming Vikrant?.
I know the Navy does not prefer single engine carrier jets but in an emergency can the Tejas-N be used to fulfil the carrier jet role.
What will be the maximum ordinance stores that the LCA - Navy be able to carry safely.
To its credit the LCA has a highly reliable GE404 engine. The Navy has operated single engine carrier aircraft in the past.
The use of the LCA - Navy is contemplated only in a war time emergency.

Yes, tejas can fit on the lift.
It has max thrust of 9 tons and weight with internal fuel is 9 tons ( 6.5t ew + 2.5t ), so it can safely carry about 1 ton of payload, so basically just Combat air patrols.

 

[Tridev123]

Yes, tejas can fit on the lift.
It has max thrust of 9 tons and weight with internal fuel is 9 tons ( 6.5t ew + 2.5t ), so it can safely carry about 1 ton of payload, so basically just Combat air patrols.

In other words not an effective offensive platform. A carrier aircraft should be able to carry air to surface weapons and also anti ship missiles.
A question. Will the change to a GE414 engine do any good. I know it requires some redesigning to fit the stubbier GE414 into the engine bay, air intake changes etc. But theoretically can it improve the performance of the LCA - Navy.

 

[Tridev123]

I don't foresee the TEDBF coming into existence in less than a decade. The MWF or LCA mk2 is at a preliminary stage without even an hope of at least one prototype being ready in a couple of years.

 

[Haldilal]

F/A-18A Hornet and F-14A Tomcat taking off from a ramp, raised nine degrees, during “ski-jump” feasibility tests in the 1980s.

 

[Tridev123]

F/A-18A Hornet and F-14A Tomcat taking off from a ramp, raised nine degrees, during “ski-jump” feasibility tests in the 1980s.
View attachment 57079
View attachment 57080

I have nothing against the SH18 and the Rafale M but where is the money. Both platforms are better than a theoretical LCA Navy with GE414 engine but can we afford them especially after the Corona Virus induced economic slowdown. Should we look at cheaper indigenous alternatives.

 

[A chauhan]

@Bhurki can you compare salient features of MiG-29 and F/A-18 SH proposed for IN so that we can compare and see the options ? Can't we buy them in mix ?

 

[abingdonboy]

Can the LCA Navy fit into the lifts on the Vikramaditya and the incoming Vikrant?.
I know the Navy does not prefer single engine carrier jets but in an emergency can the Tejas-N be used to fulfil the carrier jet role.
What will be the maximum ordinance stores that the LCA - Navy be able to carry safely.
To its credit the LCA has a highly reliable GE404 engine. The Navy has operated single engine carrier aircraft in the past.
The use of the LCA - Navy is contemplated only in a war time emergency.

Indeed it can AND its landing gear has been designed to conform to the same dimensions as the current RGS (restraining fear system) on the 2 carriers, this is another question mark for me. Will either the SH or Rafale-M be able to use the current RGS with no modification needed?

this is the benefit of having your own industry- TEDBF will be designed from day 1 to integrate with the navy’s requirements

I don't foresee the TEDBF coming into existence in less than a decade. The MWF or LCA mk2 is at a preliminary stage without even an hope of at least one prototype being ready in a couple of years.

No one is saying it’s less than a decade away, ADA said they are planning to get it ready for service around 2032.

frankly the navy should’ve started the project 5 years ago when it was clear the 29K wasn’t going to be the solution. Instead they launched MRCBF and pushed for IAC-2, I don’t know where they expected the $20-25bn ( for the 100+ fighters that IAC-1+2 would need, the IAC-2’s cost etc) to come from considering they get such a small allocation of the defence budget ( their CAPEX is around $5bn)


so now they’ll have 2 carriers with 1 carrier’s worth of fighters. They’ll be pushing a fleet (29K) that has already under strain and facing serious issues. This is going to be a painful decade for Indian naval aviation, let’s hope the 2030s are better.

 

[Sarjen]

Yes they are.. Because the wings dont fold.

I don't think so dassault would give the jets without folding if that's a major concern.

 

[A chauhan]

Mig29K with its 24ft wingspan in Vikramaditya's Lift -

View attachment 57063

Fitting either rafale (35ft) /Superhornet (33ft) into similar sized lifts is out of question.

Seems like maximum 27ft wide wings will fit in there, not more than that.

 

[Bhurki]

@Bhurki can you compare salient features of MiG-29 and F/A-18 SH proposed for IN so that we can compare and see the options ? Can't we buy them in mix ?

There's no need for comparison..

F-18SH is better in every aspect other than probably dogfight ( which it overcomes using better missiles like high off boresight targeting aim 9x )

Engines are better( reliability and thrust if EPE variant of 414 is operationalised)

Sensor suites outmatch everything India has ever seen ( even better than rafale)

Processing capability right now is even better than F35 !! ( Block 3 vs Block 3)

But the fact that it can (probably only fit on upcoming IAC meaning only limited numbers could be bought, which will make logistics even worse.( One fighter type for one aircraft carrier))

 

[Bhurki]

I don't think so dassault would give the jets without folding if that's a major concern.

There's just no option for wing folding on rafale because of the way the airframe has been built.
The delta wings require single piece construction, you can't incorporate wingfolding in such a structure.

 

[Sarjen]

There's just no option for wing folding on rafale because of the way the airframe has been built.
The delta wings require single piece construction, you can't incorporate wingfolding in such a structure.

Knowing the issue in the hand why were they allowed to participate and why did they participate when its not going to fit