INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[Crusader53]

Don't cry too much for 'OFFICIAL' and reliable(second hand source like media is never reliable you can depend only to some extent depending upon the reputation of the source ).

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of news about defense we get today comes through media who quotes unnamed source, serving officers, head of development agency etc. You don't get informations or detail reports or news on step to step development directly from MOD or naval officers. They are too busy to go live every hour to update knowledge of common guy like you and me

Well, I am not saying every thing has to come directly from a Government Source. Yet, I see way to many general statements and ones not supported with a once fact. Russia is good for making promises that don't hold up! The ex-Gorshkov fiasco comes to mind........and what about several Russian sources taht claimed "Russia" was going to build a "fleet" of Carrier in the coming decade? Really!

Why you think there will be no naval PAK-FA? May be you are in state of mind that Russian navy will continue using 4+ gen fighter on their new CATOBAR carriers, even when having 5 gen fighter technology available, even when knowing that Mig-29K will be no comparison to F-35C, just to give respect to 5th gen fighter equipped USN.

Russian navy is surely going for naval PAK-FA for retrofitted Admiral Kuznetsov let alone nuclear powered new CATOBAR carriers. Its just a matter of time when one reporter(reliable as per you) asks about naval PAK-FA and you start seeing news regarding.

May be you should read it again.

Of I have little doubt that Russia plans on building a Naval PAK-FA. Yet, I content it way off and hardly a priority and will it be practical.......

PAK-FA's Dimensions (m):
- length 22m
- wingspan 14,2; S=78,8 m2
- height 6,05


SU-33's dimensions:
- length 21.19m
- wingspan 14.7 (7.4*) m
- height 6,05 m

Where is the much difference that make you think that PAK-FA is too big? Oops! almost forgot to tell you the reason behind comparing their dimensions. In beginning Navy's first choice for retrofitted Admiral Gorshokov was Su-33 but they discovered that during take-off from angled take-off strip SU-33's starboard wing come uncomfortably close to the island. For this very and only technical reason Navy agreed to finance the development of Mig-29K for equipping retrofitted Admiral Gorshokov. Now if you go and compare size of IAC-1 and Admiral Gorshokov as well as check location of islands on both you are sure to find out that both carriers are having almost similar fight deck with one difference that island on IAC-1 is situated significantly backwards than Admiral Gorshokov. Now why i can't say that SU-33 can operate from IAC-1? And since there is no significant difference between dimension of SU-33 and PAK-FA, why can't PAK-FA operate from it too?

Sorry, the PAK-FA is only a little smaller than the Su-33. Which, is way toooooo big. In Russia Service only a small number could be carried. Now Russia has decided to change to the smaller Mig-29K.

As of today navy plans for IAC-1 requires only Mig-29K and N-LCA and for IAC-2 calls for new N-MRCA plus N-LCA. Its only when IAC-3 will be available then navy will look to FGFA and in all likelihood IAC-3 will have a mix fleet of naval PAK-FA and N-NGFA or only N-NGFA.

Its clear the Indian Navy is not very interested in the Mig-29K and isn't even to sure about the N-LCA. Which, explains why it is already floating tenders for a replacement. I personally doubt the Indian Navy wants one type or types for the IAC-1 and another for the IAC-2. In short you can bet the winner of the new tender (N-MMRCA if you like) will replace both and will operate from the IAC-1 and IAC-2.

BTW who said to you that naval PAK-FA is been looked upon be for IAC-1?

So, the Indian Navy is going to field and brand new Carrier. Yet, its primary Strike Fighter won't be able to operate from it!

 

[Rahul Singh]

Well, I am not saying every thing has to come directly from a Government Source. Yet, I see way to many general statements and ones not supported with a once fact.

There is nothing like fact to support a plan or vision. You can best have views, ideas and logic. And when these views and ideas are spoken by officers or related people to media it becomes news.

Russia is good for making promises that don't hold up! The ex-Gorshkov fiasco comes to mind........and what about several Russian sources taht claimed "Russia" was going to build a "fleet" of Carrier in the coming decade? Really!

Gorshkov whatever have much to do with poor economic health of Russia as well as weired turn the world economy took sometime ago and less with Russian promises. BTW you may like to look at F-35.... missing deadlines, escalating price....may be you should look in your own backyards before blaming others...

The decade still has as much as 10 years at disposal. Lot in the world can still happen, no? BTW some time ago people were making laugh of PAK-FA's first flight date and when it flew all of a sudden percentage of red faced people increased..

Of I have little doubt that Russia plans on building a Naval PAK-FA. Yet, I content it way off and hardly a priority and will it be practical.......

It is a priority yet not top most. Russia knows Mig-29K is no match against immediate competitor as well as they know that our navy is interested in FGFA. They also know that future carriers of both navy will be big enough to accommodate this bird. All these reasons are enough to initiate development of naval PAK-FA. So development of naval PAK-FA is practical, logical and everything...

Sorry, the PAK-FA is only a little smaller than the Su-33. Which, is way toooooo big. In Russia Service only a small number could be carried. Now Russia has decided to change to the smaller Mig-29K.

But it can still operate from IAC so can naval PAK-FA. BTW our carriers too don't carry number of fighters anything more than 18-20. .....

Reason behind decision to buy Mig-29Ks for Russian navy is less tactical more financial. Russian navy can't operate almost obsolete and very old Su-33s for long time. For that they were left with only two options one was to go for development of new version of Su-33s another was to buy newly developed Mig-29K. In spite of former option being relatively tactically better, Russian navy chosen later. And logic behind is not that hard to understand. It is world known about health of Russian economy as well as every one knows that Mig-29K(new) have been developed and its production line was built solely on Indian money. Enough reasons!

Its clear the Indian Navy is not very interested in the Mig-29K and isn't even to sure about the N-LCA. Which, explains why it is already floating tenders for a replacement. I personally doubt the Indian Navy wants one type or types for the IAC-1 and another for the IAC-2. In short you can bet the winner of the new tender (N-MMRCA if you like) will replace both and will operate from the IAC-1 and IAC-2.

Yes Indian navy was not interested in Mig-29K because she wanted a fighter with relatively heavier payload and longer range and that is why they were initially interested in Su-33. But when the option was ruled out they ordered and re-orderd Mig-29K, which shows something, doesn't it?

N-LCA is entirely navy's own baby. She was the one who insisted for starting this program, financed it initially, posted their experts to designers house etc. And now when they have ordered 6 jets of MK-2 version it can only be ignorant to say they are not interested.

As of now no fighter except sea gripen among other contenders of N-MRCA seems to be or at least claiming to be STOBAR capable and yet sea gripen is still a hypothetical fighter. So, what options left? I believe only option is either F/A-18E/F or Rafale-C, but they will need cataputs for take-off. Meaning, they can't take-off from IAC-1 so they are surely not being bought for IAC-1. BTW even if they can and you are true that these new N-MRCAs are to replace Mig-29Ks, then one question arises, what will navy do to already ordered Mig-29K? They are surely not retiring them 30 years before their service life ends. Considering all indications i can reclaim that N-MRCAs are for larger CATOBAR IAC-2 while Mig-29K and N-LCA will serve on Gorshkov and IAC-1.

So, the Indian Navy is going to field and brand new Carrier. Yet, its primary Strike Fighter won't be able to operate from it!

Again, who said this to you that it can't operate? All i had said that PAK-FA is similar to Mig-33 and should be able to operate from IAC-1 but presently navy plans doesn't calls for it.

 

[Crusader53]

[

QUOTE=Rahul Singh;153897]There is nothing like fact to support a plan or vision. You can best have views, ideas and logic. And when these views and ideas are spoken by officers or related people to media it becomes news.

Gorshkov whatever have much to do with poor economic health of Russia as well as weired turn the world economy took sometime ago and less with Russian promises. BTW you may like to look at F-35.... missing deadlines, escalating price....may be you should look in your own backyards before blaming others...

Comparing the Ex-Gorshkov to the F-35 WOW that's a stretch! Your comparing cutting steel and laying cable to the most advance fighter ever built. Which, did not include just one model but three! Including STOVL, Land Based and Carrier Based. All combined in a Stealthy Package.

The decade still has as much as 10 years at disposal. Lot in the world can still happen, no? BTW some time ago people were making laugh of PAK-FA's first flight date and when it flew all of a sudden percentage of red faced people increased..

It is a priority yet not top most. Russia knows Mig-29K is no match against immediate competitor as well as they know that our navy is interested in FGFA. They also know that future carriers of both navy will be big enough to accommodate this bird. All these reasons are enough to initiate development of naval PAK-FA. So development of naval PAK-FA is practical, logical and everything...

The Problem Aircraft Carriers are not a high Priority for Russian. (can't afford them) So, unless India is will to fund a large portion of any Naval PAK-FA Program. Don't expect to see it for a very very long time!


But it can still operate from IAC so can naval PAK-FA. BTW our carriers too don't carry number of fighters anything more than 18-20. .....

Sorry, the PAK-FA can't operate from the IAC-1 and would be a tight fit on the IAC-2. Which, in turn would greatly limit the number of aircraft the Carrier could embark.

BTW To develop a Carrier as large as the IAC-2 and only equip it with 18-20 is laughable. As such a small force could generate the storie rates to project a reasonable strike force.....

You can bet that India will have at least 40 Strike Fighters on the IAC-2.

Reason behind decision to buy Mig-29Ks for Russian navy is less tactical more financial. Russian navy can't operate almost obsolete and very old Su-33s for long time. For that they were left with only two options one was to go for development of new version of Su-33s another was to buy newly developed Mig-29K. In spite of former option being relatively tactically better, Russian navy chosen later. And logic behind is not that hard to understand. It is world known about health of Russian economy as well as every one knows that Mig-29K(new) have been developed and its production line was built solely on Indian money. Enough reasons!

Sounds reasonable but I see a couple problems. First, the Su-33's have a lot of life left in them. As the Russian Navy hardly flew them. Second, upgrading the Su-33 would be far cheaper than buying new Mig-29K's. Third, if the Naval PAK-FA is around the corner like many say here. Why would you buy new Mig-29K's only to retire them in a few short years!

Really, this just reaffirms my point that any Naval PAK-FA is a long ways off. It also explains why India is already looking for a New Naval Fighter. Just as it accepts its first Mig-29K.....

Yes Indian navy was not interested in Mig-29K because she wanted a fighter with relatively heavier payload and longer range and that is why they were initially interested in Su-33. But when the option was ruled out they ordered and re-orderd Mig-29K, which shows something, doesn't it?

The Mig-29K was ordered to get the ex.Gorshkov and as a Stop Gap until something better was available......

N-LCA is entirely navy's own baby. She was the one who insisted for starting this program, financed it initially, posted their experts to designers house etc. And now when they have ordered 6 jets of MK-2 version it can only be ignorant to say they are not interested.

Personally, I don't think the IN was ever interested in the N-LCA. It should be cancelled in my opinion and use the funds for more pressing weapons systems. Its useless for Carrier Operations.......

As of now no fighter except sea gripen among other contenders of N-MRCA seems to be or at least claiming to be STOBAR capable and yet sea gripen is still a hypothetical fighter. So, what options left? I believe only option is either F/A-18E/F or Rafale-C, but they will need cataputs for take-off. Meaning, they can't take-off from IAC-1 so they are surely not being bought for IAC-1. BTW even if they can and you are true that these new N-MRCAs are to replace Mig-29Ks, then one question arises, what will navy do to already ordered Mig-29K? They are surely not retiring them 30 years before their service life ends. Considering all indications i can reclaim that N-MRCAs are for larger CATOBAR IAC-2 while Mig-29K and N-LCA will serve on Gorshkov and IAC-1.

My guess is the Navy would be happy to take a small number of Super Hornet in the short-term. Which, would be followed by F-35C's. Thereby operating a Carrier Air Wing very similar to the projected USN Model. Thought a purely F-35 Wing would be far more capable...........

Again, who said this to you that it can't operate? All i had said that PAK-FA is similar to Mig-33 and should be able to operate from IAC-1 but presently navy plans doesn't calls for it.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry, the USN had Carriers as small as the IAC-1 thru til the 1970's. It never even operate F-4's from such ships. Let alone something the size of the F-14, Su-33, or PAK-FA. Just not practical and the Air Wing would be so limited in size to make it useless........

Respectfully, even the IAC-2 is to small............Personally, I doubt the Indain Navy is going to build a Large almost Super Carrier. Only to equip them with 16-18 Fighters.

BTW The rule of thumb for the number of planes carried by a Aircraft Carrier is one plane per thousand tons. With new larger aircraft that's a little on the high side. Yet, its come out pretty close most of the time. So, in short the IAC-2 Air Wing should be around 50-60 Aircraft.

 

[p2prada]

Sorry, the USN had Carriers as small as the IAC-1 thru til the 1970's. It never even operate F-4's from such ships. Let alone something the size of the F-14, Su-33, or PAK-FA. Just not practical and the Air Wing would be so limited in size to make it useless........

IAC 1 is meant to operate only Mig-29s and LCA. No other fighter, including F-35 will operate on the carrier.

Respectfully, even the IAC-2 is to small............Personally, I doubt the Indain Navy is going to build a Large almost Super Carrier. Only to equip them with 16-18 Fighters.

Our main focus is to project power within the Indian Ocean. A bigger carrier is unaffordable as of now.

IAC-1 will have a complement of 12-18 fighters and 10 Helis. IAC -2 if bigger will only have a slightly bigger complement. We are not planning to operate more than 65000 tons in the near term.

So, in short the IAC-2 Air Wing should be around 50-60 Aircraft.

IAC-2's size is not official. Only internet rumours. But we know for sure, it will be a bit bigger than IAC-1. At first, IAC-1 was supposed to be 37500 tons and was uprated to 40000 tons. Expect something like 50000 tons this time for IAC-2.

 

[hit&run]

Our main focus is to project power within the Indian Ocean. A bigger carrier is unaffordable as of now.

IAC-1 will have a complement of 12-18 fighters and 10 Helis. IAC -2 if bigger will only have a slightly bigger complement. We are not planning to operate more than 65000 tons in the near term.

IAC-2's size is not official. Only internet rumours. But we know for sure, it will be a bit bigger than IAC-1. At first, IAC-1 was supposed to be 37500 tons and was uprated to 40000 tons. Expect something like 50000 tons this time for IAC-2.

Also I think operating a <60K ton ACC in Indian ocean/BoB/AS or afloting it in yellow sea via straits of malacca is logistical and tactically difficult and vulnerable to attacks.
Bigger ACC has to manuver and scout in farmore bigger high seas, in that case our CSG (at present & in distant future ~10 years) do not have such range if operating far distant and even we do not have International network with nations (treaties specially in war) to assist us as a assertive true blue water navy.

Regards

 

[vikramrana_1812]

[


Comparing the Ex-Gorshkov to the F-35 WOW that's a stretch! Your comparing cutting steel and laying cable to the most advance fighter ever built. Which, did not include just one model but three! Including STOVL, Land Based and Carrier Based. All combined in a Stealthy Package.





The Problem Aircraft Carriers are not a high Priority for Russian. (can't afford them) So, unless India is will to fund a large portion of any Naval PAK-FA Program. Don't expect to see it for a very very long time!


But it can still operate from IAC so can naval PAK-FA. BTW our carriers too don't carry number of fighters anything more than 18-20. .....

Sorry, the PAK-FA can't operate from the IAC-1 and would be a tight fit on the IAC-2. Which, in turn would greatly limit the number of aircraft the Carrier could embark.

BTW To develop a Carrier as large as the IAC-2 and only equip it with 18-20 is laughable. As such a small force could generate the storie rates to project a reasonable strike force.....

You can bet that India will have at least 40 Strike Fighters on the IAC-2.



Sounds reasonable but I see a couple problems. First, the Su-33's have a lot of life left in them. As the Russian Navy hardly flew them. Second, upgrading the Su-33 would be far cheaper than buying new Mig-29K's. Third, if the Naval PAK-FA is around the corner like many say here. Why would you buy new Mig-29K's only to retire them in a few short years!

Really, this just reaffirms my point that any Naval PAK-FA is a long ways off. It also explains why India is already looking for a New Naval Fighter. Just as it accepts its first Mig-29K.....



The Mig-29K was ordered to get the ex.Gorshkov and as a Stop Gap until something better was available......



Personally, I don't think the IN was ever interested in the N-LCA. It should be cancelled in my opinion and use the funds for more pressing weapons systems. Its useless for Carrier Operations.......



My guess is the Navy would be happy to take a small number of Super Hornet in the short-term. Which, would be followed by F-35C's. Thereby operating a Carrier Air Wing very similar to the projected USN Model. Thought a purely F-35 Wing would be far more capable...........

Sorry, the USN had Carriers as small as the IAC-1 thru til the 1970's. It never even operate F-4's from such ships. Let alone something the size of the F-14, Su-33, or PAK-FA. Just not practical and the Air Wing would be so limited in size to make it useless........

Respectfully, even the IAC-2 is to small............Personally, I doubt the Indain Navy is going to build a Large almost Super Carrier. Only to equip them with 16-18 Fighters.

BTW The rule of thumb for the number of planes carried by a Aircraft Carrier is one plane per thousand tons. With new larger aircraft that's a little on the high side. Yet, its come out pretty close most of the time. So, in short the IAC-2 Air Wing should be around 50-60 Aircraft.
[/QUOTE]

I dont think so Mig29k as a stopgap aircraft....It is purely designed to fit Indian needs.
It is very close to Mig35 if we dont consider AESA radar.........and we all know Mig-35 is very very lethal.....
Black Panther unit is created for Mig-29k's only.....and in future it can be developed further..........
Mig-29K's will stay for 25 years which proved that it is not a stopgap aircraft.....

F-35's will b awesome for navy...but I doubt India will go for this aircraft as due to cost factor and also If India selects this one and USA approves but still there are many other countries involved in F-35 project which will definately oppose this....As they would not like India to get this aircraft without them getting better aircraft than F-35.....So my friends F-35 is a dream......
Naval PakFA will be the only option left If INDIA wants 5gen fighter for Navy..(but this project will takr lot of time .....at least 5-7 years).....So it is also a dream at this moment....
Mig-29K's are the only option........

 

[GRIM SS]

what is the name i like (INS.tiger claw)=xy

 

[Rahul Singh]

Comparing the Ex-Gorshkov to the F-35 WOW that's a stretch! Your comparing cutting steel and laying cable to the most advance fighter ever built. Which, did not include just one model but three! Including STOVL, Land Based and Carrier Based. All combined in a Stealthy Package.

Good lord! Man, my comparison was not technical but something which was to show that slipping deadlines, cost overruns and unfulfilled promises are not exclusive to Russia rather it is applicable universality even to west including USA.

BTW are you saying that F-35 is not missing deadlines? Aren't there any cost overrun? Isn't F-35 behind schedule? If these are true then how USA is so good with fulfilling promises?

The Problem Aircraft Carriers are not a high Priority for Russian. (can't afford them) So, unless India is will to fund a large portion of any Naval PAK-FA Program. Don't expect to see it for a very very long time![/B]

Priority, can't say, but they are going to have carriers and since there is no contradicting story out in public, i'll say they are sticking with their plans to have five carriers..

India is already financing 50% of the PAK-FA program and naval program is not isolated. I am seeing reports regarding naval PAK-FA in time as back as 8 years from now i.e since 2002(the year when V Putin visited India). So, don't be too jubilant, you are going see naval PAK-FA in 10 years from now.

Sorry, the PAK-FA can't operate from the IAC-1 and would be a tight fit on the IAC-2. Which, in turn would greatly limit the number of aircraft the Carrier could embark.

Again, if Su-33 can, then PAK-FA(with similar dimension plus better aerodynamics) can surely too, no doubts! A squadron of PAK-FA can surely be accommodated(if her hangers and elevators are modified) on IAC-1, also these fighters can easily take-off and recover using IAC-1's fight deck(unmodified).

Navy as of now is not aiming for more numbers abroad her carriers as role of these jets are restricted to support and protect(by sea offence/defense) surface fleet deployed on sea-denial missions. However to guarantee fleet air-defence more jets are better this is the reason why Navy is going for N-LCA, a small, agile, decent combat load carrying fighter ideally suited for fleet air defence. N-LCA will increase numbers without eating any extra space as well as will allow Mig-29K and new MRCA to concentrate on long range missions.

BTW To develop a Carrier as large as the IAC-2 and only equip it with 18-20 is laughable. As such a small force could generate the storie rates to project a reasonable strike force.....You can bet that India will have at least 40 Strike Fighters on the IAC-2.

Laughable? Hell no man, a squadron of 18-20 jets of SU-33s and PAK-FA's stature is a force to reckon with. BTW what is more important is that IAC-2 can surely accommodate more fighters and most certainly the extra space created will be used to accommodate more N-LCA as to strengthen the air cover of fleet and most importantly relive heavy jets from this duty so that they can concentrate on long range missions..

BTW you may like to know that India have no plans to strike somalia or Iraq and Afganistan where large number of jets will be required aboard carriers to go over land and provide air cover to invading ground forces.

Sounds reasonable but I see a couple problems. First, the Su-33's have a lot of life left in them. As the Russian Navy hardly flew them. Second, upgrading the Su-33 would be far cheaper than buying new Mig-29K's. Third, if the Naval PAK-FA is around the corner like many say here. Why would you buy new Mig-29K's only to retire them in a few short years!

Giving face-lift to a old lady make a little difference. Even if SU-33s have not been extensively flown(which i doubt) there is something called self-life which can't be extended unless you are putting money little less than cost of new jet.

Reason to buy Mig-29Ks and retiring SU-33s is/are very simple and could be either of two or both together.

1. You retire a H-MRCA to make room for another H-MRCA and you add a M-MRCA so that role can be distributed and numbers abroad can be increased..

2. A small number of Mig-29K is being bought as a stop-gap fighter only for retrofitted Admiral Kuznetsov where it will compliment naval PAK-FA once it arrives.

The Mig-29K was ordered to get the ex.Gorshkov and as a Stop Gap until something better was available......

Yes, Mig-29K was bought on compulsion but in past some years navy seems to have discovered love in it that is why they have put a follow-on order for AESA/PESA radar equipped upgraded Mig-29K.

This N-MRCA contest which is riding many into misbelief is essentially an action by navy to get a long range, 8 ton combat load capable fighter. This type of fighter was always on navy's wishlist ever since they decided to transform themselves into no-VTOL carrier navy.

Personally, I don't think the IN was ever interested in the N-LCA. It should be cancelled in my opinion and use the funds for more pressing weapons systems. Its useless for Carrier Operations.......

It is like standing in front of sun with closed eyes and saying its still night as there is no sun shine. May be you pull out some time and check new articles posted in LCA thread.

You may like to check this out.

My guess is the Navy would be happy to take a small number of Super Hornet in the short-term. Which, would be followed by F-35C's. Thereby operating a Carrier Air Wing very similar to the projected USN Model. Thought a purely F-35 Wing would be far more capable...........

Sorry, our navy is not interested in USN model like she never was. N-MRCA is not being bought as a stop gap to fill in time till F-35C arrives rather as one to wait for naval PAK-FA and/or naval NGFA.

Sorry to say you that if India forces would have been so interested(to your belief) in the F-35 program then they would have simply joined like Turkey instead of going for Indo-Russian FGFA.... It is quite logical to buy similar fighters for air force and navy, no?

Sorry, the USN had Carriers as small as the IAC-1 thru til the 1970's. It never even operate F-4's from such ships. Let alone something the size of the F-14, Su-33, or PAK-FA. Just not practical and the Air Wing would be so limited in size to make it useless........Respectfully, even the IAC-2 is to small............

Respectfully, may be you should research yourself to find out difference between doctrine related to carriers of USN and our navy.

Personally, I doubt the Indain Navy is going to build a Large almost Super Carrier. Only to equip them with 16-18 Fighters.BTW The rule of thumb for the number of planes carried by a Aircraft Carrier is one plane per thousand tons. With new larger aircraft that's a little on the high side. Yet, its come out pretty close most of the time. So, in short the IAC-2 Air Wing should be around 50-60 Aircraft.

Yes IAC-2 will accommodate more fighter. Numbers like 18-20 fighter is for carriers like IAC-1 and seems sufficient for the purpose the carrier was build. On IAC-2 number of fighters are sure to rise and may even go up to 40, but this doesn't mean that all forty will be of Su-33 or PAK-FA size. Sizable part of that fleet will comprise of L-MRCA like N-LCA.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

Lockheed to offer F-35 fighters to Navy

New Delhi, Jun 28 (PTI) US defence major Lockheed Martin today said it will offer its latest fifth generation F-35 fighters to meet Indian Navy's requirements for carrier-based combat aircraft.

"We have received the Request for Information (RFI) from the Navy seeking information about the F-35 aircraft, which are capable of taking off from aircraft carriers. We are going to offer our aircraft to them," Lockheed Martin Vice President Orville Prins said here.

He said presentations had been given to the Indian Navy about both the 'B'and 'C' versions of the aircraft in the recent past.

The B version the F-35 is a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft and the C version is an aircraft carrier-based version.

The Navy, which will acquire the under-construction Indigenous Aircraft Carrier around 2015, is likely to build another larger-size carrier and is looking to procure fighter aircraft for it.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/748950_Lockheed-to-offer-F-35-fighters-to-Navy

 

[Crusader53]

Lockheed to offer F-35 fighters to Navy

New Delhi, Jun 28 (PTI) US defence major Lockheed Martin today said it will offer its latest fifth generation F-35 fighters to meet Indian Navy's requirements for carrier-based combat aircraft.

"We have received the Request for Information (RFI) from the Navy seeking information about the F-35 aircraft, which are capable of taking off from aircraft carriers. We are going to offer our aircraft to them," Lockheed Martin Vice President Orville Prins said here.

He said presentations had been given to the Indian Navy about both the 'B'and 'C' versions of the aircraft in the recent past.

The B version the F-35 is a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft and the C version is an aircraft carrier-based version.

The Navy, which will acquire the under-construction Indigenous Aircraft Carrier around 2015, is likely to build another larger-size carrier and is looking to procure fighter aircraft for it.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/748950_Lockheed-to-offer-F-35-fighters-to-Navy

Clearly, India is interested in the F-35. To say otherwise is boarding on absurd..........

 

[Crusader53]

After looking at the complexities of Designing and Building a Large Aircraft. Plus, reading recent statements by such Naval Leaders as Adm. Nirmal Kumar Verma. To me it appears the IAC-2 is many years off in reality.


In short the IAC-2 is not going to start construction in the latter part of this decade. Let alone enter service before the year 2020. To be honest its more likely the ship will finally enter service sometime around 2025. (maybe later)

 

[nrj]

After looking at the complexities of Designing and Building a Large Aircraft. Plus, reading recent statements by such Naval Leaders as Adm. Nirmal Kumar Verma. To me it appears the IAC-2 is many years off in reality.


In short the IAC-2 is not going to start construction in the latter part of this decade. Let alone enter service before the year 2020. To be honest its more likely the ship will finally enter service sometime around 2025. (maybe later)

IAC-2 will start on hull before IAC-1 commissions, it might find some delay due to IN's insistence for EMALs but primary work will begin around 2014.

 

[plugwater]

IAC-2 will start on hull before IAC-1 commissions, it might find some delay due to IN's insistence for EMALs but primary work will begin around 2014.

I think they will start building IAC-2 after the IAC-1 launch which is this year end or next year beginning.

 

[nrj]

I think they will start building IAC-2 after the IAC-1 launch which is this year end or next year beginning.

Yes some last 10-15Kton work remaining so in OCT 2010 IAC-1 will enter water for further weapon fitting & trials. Deep sea trails will last till 2014. They completely changed design plans for IAC-2 with new IN requirement. But i feel regardless of IN config issues, work should start as soon as possible. And since SAIL has already started providing high-grade steel to shipyard, delay on primary work is unexpected...

 

[plugwater]

some reports says that they going to upgrade(modular shipbuilding) the cochin shipyard after the launch of IAC-1 so only after the upgrade they will start building IAC-2. no idea which one is true!

 

[nrj]

some reports says that they going to upgrade(modular shipbuilding) the cochin shipyard after the launch of IAC-1 so only after the upgrade they will start building IAC-2. no idea which one is true!

That should be cleared when IN officially places order for IAC-2. As of now IAC-2 just on paper. Once IN confirms the order, CSL should start work. Its complicated actually, our Italian builder friends will also be involved in design so maybe picture will clear when these guys complete mutual meetings & presentations. Lot of chai-pani sessions before IAC-2 comes out of paper.

 

[Crusader53]

IAC-2 will start on hull before IAC-1 commissions, it might find some delay due to IN's insistence for EMALs but primary work will begin around 2014.

I personally doubt that is the case. As aircraft carriers are very complex designs and take decades to design and build. Further, its obvious that the IAC-2 is still in the conceptual stage.

It's likely the Indian Navy won't see the IAC-2 is service before the 2023-25.

 

[JHA]

Its high time modular techniques are used in shipbuilding industry. It will dramatically decrease the time taken to complete a project.

 

[nrj]

I personally doubt that is the case. As aircraft carriers are very complex designs and take decades to design and build. Further, its obvious that the IAC-2 is still in the conceptual stage.

It's likely the Indian Navy won't see the IAC-2 is service before the 2023-25.

I am happy for your skepticism & I'll leave it to you.

BTW IAC-1 was started in 2008 & will be launched by year end. (Though it was delayed due to Russia's inability to provide AB/A grade steel but now SAIL has perfected & acquired that ability. ) Its a impressive timeline for aircraft carrier construction IMO. I won't doubt on construction time once config is made final. CSL is adopting modular construction techniques & might even cater AC export in next decade.

 

[Crusader53]

I am happy for your skepticism & I'll leave it to you.

BTW IAC-1 was started in 2008 & will be launched by year end. (Though it was delayed due to Russia's inability to provide AB/A grade steel but now SAIL has perfected & acquired that ability. ) Its a impressive timeline for aircraft carrier construction IMO. I won't doubt on construction time once config is made final. CSL is adopting modular construction techniques & might even cater AC export in next decade.

Sure the IAC-1 was laid down in "08" and will be launched shortly. Yet, how many years did it take from concept to design to the beginning of construction! Plus, the IAC-2 is a totally new design. That will be far larger and more complex. Being equipped with Catapults and Arresting Gear for Conventional Naval Aircraft. At this stage India hasn't even decided to use "Steam" or the new "EMALS" System. Then it has to decide if its going to purchase a foreign design or build its own??? Sorry, this talk about the IAC-2 starting construction right after the first IAC is far from fact. When India planned on building 2-3 IAC of the same class. That was indeed the plan. Yet, when the Indian Navy changed the direction of the second IAC. All that went out the window........so to speak!


Plus, recent comments by the Indian Chief of the Naval Staff (Adm. Nirmal Kumar Verma) clearly point to the IAC-2 being sometime off and not a current focus of the Indian Navy.