INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[Blademaster]

India defensive country vroo....India doesn't need Aircraft carriers vro ..

What a retard!

 

[omaebakabaka]

This interim arrangement things is pure hyperbole. If they truly want only an interim jet why buy it ?? Lease it for just 15 years by the time you have tedbf ready.

But no they are going to buy it for full life that is 40+ years. So they will serve full life.

Lease is for suckers in general. In our case its not fatal to buy these jets, they will be more than useful considering the risks of not hedging and just relying on tedbf which will for sure half a decade delay if not longer, difficult times ahead in the world and if we can't arm ourselves in time and with some safety now then we will be a bitch again in many ways without a teeth to our foreign policy. Just make sure any US shit can be integrated with our home grown missiles.

 

[abingdonboy]

I'm willing to bet cash money that Vikky is going to be laid up sometime next decade. Either way, the pitifully small amount of time that ship is capable of spending out at sea every year (even now when its still relatively new) doesn't really justify the incorporation of a brand new aviation complex IMO.

The 29Ks and the Vikky will both be retired within the next 15 years if you ask me.

As of IAC-2 that program is still a toss up...the only way it makes sense to pursue TEDBF for that is if we go for SH in MRCBF, cuz the Rafale production line will remain open for much longer so if we go for that, it's no-brainer to order additional Rafales (F5, F6 by that time) for IAC-2.

The Rafale of that time will most probably include a new variable cycle engine option (derived from FCAS engine) so most of the performance advantages of TEDBF are also gone.

Long story short...I don't see any merit in pursuing TEDBF, I think Navy will spend a decade wrestling with it, ultimately to arrive at a similar conclusion.



Dunno.



Yea but like I said the advantages are marginal.



I'm pretty sure the Navy having possession of dedicated shore-based aircraft will be a thing of the past if and when Maritime Theatre Command becomes a reality (more than likely by that time).

From A&N, longer-legged aircraft like Su-30MKIs will be a better bet for shore-based ops. They will report to the same 3-star IN theatre commander so operationally there won't be any merit to the Navy having its own, shorter-legged shore-based a/c.



There is no plausible future where IAC-2 and Vikky are operated at the same time. Even if IAC-2 design is frozen & sanctioned today, by the time it will be operational we'll be thinking about Vikky's retirement. Read reply to Abingdonboy above.

The current planned requirement for TEDBF is only 45 airframes...intended for Vikrant & Vikky. From where I stand, that's a very naive view the Navy is taking. Probably because they know either way these programs won't be sanctioned anytime soon, so let's play along with MoD/GOI.

TEDBF is the IN’s cheap option- to make the 2 carriers fully compatible with the SH or Rafale will mean a huge refit for both and they clearly don’t want to send their brand new carrier back into a multi-year dock visit.

TEDBF will be designed from the ground up to be fully compatible with the 2 STOBAR carriers just like NLCA is the only fighter in existence other than the 29K that is currently compatible with the aviation complex of the 2 IN carriers.

Vikky will be around until the 2040s- it has to be because IAC-2 isn’t coming before then and IN can’t afford to go back to being a part time carrier navy with just 1. The 29Ks will be lucky to see 2030s hence a replacement is needed (TEDBF). 26 if the bare minimum needed for 1 carrier (Vikrant) but with airframe losses and general fatigue that fleet will need supplementing within a decade hence TEDBF

N-AMCA isn’t even on the drawing boards and is thoroughly a post 2040 pipe dream, hence TEDBF.

All things considered I can see how they came to the conclusion that TEDBF was their main option and hence why the downsizing of MRCBF is referred to as an interim solution now.

And for 26 jets only it doesn’t make sense to get anything other than an in-service type aka Rafale

Any other conclusion is pure Boeing spin

 

[Blademaster]

Can we buy used SHs from USN with some life in them? That would lower the acquisition cost and allow us to pursue the TEDBF program.

 

[abingdonboy]

+ the biggest risk to my points above and TEDBF in general is the CATOBAR issue. By all accounts IAC-2 is guaranteed to be CATOBAR so ADA will have to design TEDBF to be compatible with it, this will require a lot of expertise they don’t have and india also doesn’t have a SBTF type facility for CATOBAR although conceivably could make one like they did for SBTF to begin with. But it’ll need ADA and IN to be much more forward looking than they are used to being and GoI too

 

[abingdonboy]

Can we buy used SHs from USN with some life in them? That would lower the acquisition cost and allow us to pursue the TEDBF program.

France has already proposed giving IN some in-service Rafales as a stopgap solution to bring down costs and also reduce lead times

 

[Adm Kenobi]

Let's establish some understandings -

Only 26 MRCBF are to be bought.

MiG-29K/KUB will be phased out completely with the arrival of TEDBF in numbers (i.e. - mid to late 30s).

Vikky will be decommissioned in the late 30s. (Hull will be too old, it will only be a liability given the poor readiness it will have in the years going forward).

IAC-2 is to come around the mid to late 30s and will need an air wing.

IAC-2 (& if there are sister ships) will not be designed with optimisation for a foreign jet in mind, they could operate, but the design of IAC-2 (& anything that follows) will be optimised for an indigenous jet.

N AMCA is not an option anymore, it will be at least a tonne heavier than the AF variant (12 vs 13), fuel fraction on internal fuel will be in line with 0.333.. (6.5/19.5T), which is simply not enough for a deck based fighter that has to avoid carrying external fuel tanks! 6.5T fuel and a fuel fraction of <0.333 will only limit AMCA, range is a critical point for deck based fighters. We need an aircraft like F-35C ('like' is the key word here) that has excellent fuel fraction and 9T (or over) internal fuel capacity, has foldable wings. A new generation naval combat aircraft will be needed, and it's not going to come before 2040s.
+ greater internal payload capacity so it can carry the 6 AAM that is required by the Navy. AMCA is a good fighter for AF & is certainly not designed keeping in mind IN's need.

Can navy do with just 26 fighter jets in mid-late 2030s?
The answer is 'No.'

TEDBF is the solution, which can work in tandem with anything that comes next, TEDBF is needed but can't be the only aircraft operating from the carrier's flight deck in the 40s.

"I am willing to bet cash money" that IN will have higher modernisation budget than IAF in the 40s, procurement funds won't be the main issue.

 

[NutCracker]

How is the F18 superior to the Rafale F4++? It’ll be out of production in the next 5 years, Rafale has a decade plus of production at least left.

and any marginal cost savings that occur because of MRO created for LCA MK.2/AMCA MK.1 engine commonality won’t even scratch the surface of the horrific costs that will be incurred to get another new type and in such few numbers. DRAL is already being created to act as the MRO hub for Rafale in the region, who will do the same for the F-18 in india? Or you want to ship them to the US every time? Then add on the costs of creating parallel infrastructure for weapons, avionics etc all of which the US will insist is siloed away from foreign/Indian entities. You want to pay $2-4 bn for ISE for just 26 jets?

RafaleM is under powered. On a STOBAR, F18 SH will beat Rafale whatever variant French launch.

Going out of production has nothing to do with it ,they have built serious number of F-18 SH already.

It's not going anywhere.. you are delusional if you think they will operate single engine F35B with its shitty range..

US Navy loved F14 , and in F-18 SH they found solace , it's not going anywhere.

Also SH will be cheaper than RAFALE in any situation , be it ISE or stripped down version.

We are talking about NAVY and they are accustomed with US equipments.

 

[Blademaster]

No IAC-2 will not come around mid 30s if IN is going for a new design. The only way IAC-2 is coming online if the design remains the same but with increased tonnage.

 

[abingdonboy]

RafaleM is under powered. On a STOBAR, F18 SH will beat Rafale whatever variant French launch.

Going out of production has nothing to do with it ,they have built serious number of F-18 SH already.

It's not going anywhere.. you are delusional if you think they will operate single engine F35B with its shitty range..

US Navy loved F14 , and in F-18 SH they found solace , it's not going anywhere.

Also SH will be cheaper than RAFALE in any situation , be it ISE or stripped down version.

We are talking about NAVY and they are accustomed with US equipments.

1) TWR is only part of the equation. The Rafale actually has a shorter take off roll than the F18 thanks to its canard and L/D ratio (and a slower approach speed)
2) cost- it’s a total myth SH is cheaper FOR INDIA. Look up how much RAAF paid for their latest SH and they are an existing operator of the type- it was over $200m/jet fully loaded. About how much IAF paid for Rafale fully loaded BUT most of the fixed costs for Rafale have been amortised by IAF so they come down for any subsequent Rafales in india whilst they’ll still have to be incurred for SH sales to india. Then factor in the need to maintain an entire parallel support system for a tiny fleet of fighters. IN and IAF are already going for joint purchases of fighter weapons like Astra and SAAW, they can do the same with MICA and Meteor, not so with AIM-120.
3) what does IN’s love for US weapons have to do with anything? They are now unable to operate anything else?

 

[IndianHawk]

Again many speculations .
Neither vikramaditya nor mig29k are going anywhere. Both will serve their full time.

We are not a Uber rich country to throw away a working carrier mid life. It's been certified for 30+ years of life and it will serve that.

Similarly for mig29k when we are still operating 50 year old migs. Who in the right mind would retire very capable and only a decade old mig29k .

So folks stop repeating these points .

 

[NutCracker]

1) TWR is only part of the equation. The Rafale actually has a shorter take off roll than the F18 thanks to its canard and L/D ratio (and a slower approach speed.

Agreed on that. But bring back weight of Rafale M is also probably quite low as compared to F18.
F18 is built to be heavy carrier fighter and quite weight increment is there due to capable and heavy landing gears. But that increases its bring back payload 4.5- 4.8T vs Rafales's sub 3-4T

2) cost- it’s a total myth SH is cheaper FOR INDIA. Look up how much RAAF paid for their latest SH and they are an existing operator of the type- it was over $200m/jet fully loaded. About how much IAF paid for Rafale fully loaded BUT most of the fixed costs for Rafale have been amortised by IAF so they come down for any subsequent Rafales in india whilst they’ll still have to be incurred for SH sales to india. Then factor in the need to maintain an entire parallel support system for a tiny fleet of fighters. IN and IAF are already going for joint purchases of fighter weapons like Astra and SAAW, they can do the same with MICA and Meteor, not so with AIM-120.

Depends what weapon package and backend deals happened. There are many factors hidden.
Also F18 maintanence will be cheaper since AMCA/MK2 will have GE414 engines only.

3) what does IN’s love for US weapons have to do with anything? They are now unable to operate anything else?

You were repeating about separate "eco system" point against SuperHornet, but it's not AF it's Navy ,

super hornet will form better cohesion with AWACS and future navy drones which will be from US only.

 

[Adm Kenobi]

No IAC-2 will not come around mid 30s if IN is going for a new design. The only way IAC-2 is coming online if the design remains the same but with increased tonnage.

1. I said 'mid - late' i.e. - between 2035 and 40.
2. Did you know how many years it took from 'sanctioning of funding for the demonstration phase – the detailed design was approved.' and 'commissioning' HMS QE? Just 12 years. & it was a brand new design for which the detailed design phase began in December 2005.
3. IAC-2 detailed design phase being sanctioned in 2023-25, and some 12 - 13 years for design & construction activities gives you the mid-late 2030s timeline. IAC-2 is to be designed with an experienced partner (JWG with US was there for a carrier too), it might take us a 1-2 years more than what UK took (they too had several delays while constructing in that timeframe). IAC-2 can be commissioned in the mid to late 30s.

Again many speculations .
Neither vikramaditya nor mig29k are going anywhere. Both will serve their full time.

We are not a Uber rich country to throw away a working carrier mid life. It's been certified for 30+ years of life and it will serve that.

Similarly for mig29k when we are still operating 50 year old migs. Who in the right mind would retire very capable and only a decade old mig29k .

So folks stop repeating these points .

CAG has already noted in it's report that MiG--29K won't be able to serve for the intended 25 years life because of the stress incurred on the airframe. & CCS won't just sanction construction of 45 TEDBF without the retirement of MiG-29K, the fleet won't go beyond 100 before 2040 (42+26+45+N LCA frames is not happening).
INS Vikramaditya when commissioned was said to have it's retirement planed in 2040, not '30+ years', it will be around 53 years old in 2040, we know how 'working' INS Viraat was when it was 53 years. And we can already see how much 'work' Vikramaditya is doing 'now'. It will be retired around 2040 as intended. BTW, that hull was already rotting when it entered the refurbishment phase, no amount of refurbishment, refit or overhaul is going to extend the life for 60 years.

 

[omaebakabaka]

1) TWR is only part of the equation. The Rafale actually has a shorter take off roll than the F18 thanks to its canard and L/D ratio (and a slower approach speed)
2) cost- it’s a total myth SH is cheaper FOR INDIA. Look up how much RAAF paid for their latest SH and they are an existing operator of the type- it was over $200m/jet fully loaded. About how much IAF paid for Rafale fully loaded BUT most of the fixed costs for Rafale have been amortised by IAF so they come down for any subsequent Rafales in india whilst they’ll still have to be incurred for SH sales to india. Then factor in the need to maintain an entire parallel support system for a tiny fleet of fighters. IN and IAF are already going for joint purchases of fighter weapons like Astra and SAAW, they can do the same with MICA and Meteor, not so with AIM-120.
3) what does IN’s love for US weapons have to do with anything? They are now unable to operate anything else?

Rafale M makes sense but France can barely afford blue water navy anymore, so it may carry certain risks in terms of evolution as far as carriers are concerned but if its interim till tedbf then going for rafale makes total sense considering its already present in IAF and the typical US traps as far as India is concerned.

 

[omaebakabaka]

1. I said 'mid - late' i.e. - between 2035 and 40.
2. Did you know how many years it took from 'sanctioning of funding for the demonstration phase – the detailed design was approved.' and 'commissioning' HMS QE? Just 12 years. & it was a brand new design for which the detailed design phase began in December 2005.
3. IAC-2 detailed design phase being sanctioned in 2023-25, and some 12 - 13 years for design & construction activities gives you the mid-late 2030s timeline. IAC-2 is to be designed with an experienced partner (JWG with US was there for a carrier too), it might take us a 1-2 years more than what UK took (they too had several delays while constructing in that timeframe). IAC-2 can be commissioned in the mid to late 30s.


CAG has already noted in it's report that MiG--29K won't be able to serve for the intended 25 years life because of the stress incurred on the airframe. & CCS won't just sanction construction of 45 TEDBF without the retirement of MiG-29K, the fleet won't go beyond 100 before 2040 (42+26+45+N LCA frames is not happening).
INS Vikramaditya when commissioned was said to have it's retirement planed in 2040, not '30+ years', it will be around 53 years old in 2040, we know how 'working' INS Viraat was when it was 53 years. And we can already see how much 'work' Vikramaditya is doing 'now'. It will be retired around 2040 as intended. BTW, that hull was already rotting when it entered the refurbishment phase, no amount of refurbishment, refit or overhaul is going to extend the life for 60 years.

This is why its a sabotage to not have IAC-1 followup with some poor design choice corrections, so Vikram is sent to graveyard and IAC-1 becomes a loner and IAC-2 is a long dream, what the fuck are we doing?

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

This is why its a sabotage to not have IAC-1 followup with some poor design choice corrections, so Vikram is sent to graveyard and IAC-1 becomes a loner and IAC-2 is a long dream, what the fuck are we doing?

Its really simple: Get two IAC-1 class and keep on designing IAC-2 in parallel. Then start building two IAC-2 one after the other 2030 onwards. Navy has got enough CAPEX for this stuff (assuming India will keep on growing, which it will).
Original requirement of Navy was for five aircraft carriers, not three. Three is a downgrade, an interim goal. Final goal was five carriers so that three can remain operational at all times. So I don't see how bureaucrats will question two IAC-2 class. We can field four carriers, all Indian, by 2040. And then continue to build a third IAC-2 and we'll have five carriers by 100th Independence Day. All fielding TEDBF except Vikrant that will have MRCBF.

 

[omaebakabaka]

Its really simple: Get two IAC-1 class and keep on designing IAC-2 in parallel. Then start building two IAC-2 one after the other 2030 onwards. Navy has got enough CAPEX for this stuff (assuming India will keep on growing, which it will).
Original requirement of Navy was for five aircraft carriers, not three. Three is a downgrade, an interim goal. Final goal was five carriers so that three can remain operational at all times. So I don't see how bureaucrats will question two IAC-2 class. We can field four carriers, all Indian, by 2040. And then continue to build a third IAC-2 and we'll have five carriers by 100th Independence Day. All fielding TEDBF except Vikrant that will have MRCBF.

Exactly and I have many years in manufacturing plants, no one gets rid of anything without a replacement in a viable business. Navy seems to act like headless chicken in tandem with GOI.....if you don't want carriers then build destroyers with shit tons of missiles to deter the threats....no action there either....they seem to want every class of ship with no numbers putting any focus in achieving a decent goal against a capable enemy.

 

[NutCracker]

(and a slower approach speed)

It's in the range of 120-135 knots for both Super hornet and Rafale, not big difference considering SH gears are built like tank. But SH's bring back payload is at least 1T more than RafaleM.

 

[IndianHawk]

CAG has already noted in it's report that MiG--29K won't be able to serve for the intended 25 years life because of the stress incurred on the airframe. & CCS won't just sanction construction of 45 TEDBF without the retirement of MiG-29K, the fleet won't go beyond 100 before 2040 (42+26+45+N LCA frames is not happening).

Mig29 has not even gone for mid life upgrade untill now. Which iirc is scheduled for 2026 which shall see life extension for another 15 years at the very least.

Besides cag reports are found to lacking when it comes to military technical matters .

And if navy is indeed looking at 3 carriers then fleet will have to cross 100+.

INS Vikramaditya when commissioned was said to have it's retirement planed in 2040, not '30+ years', it will be around 53 years old in 2040, we know how 'working' INS Viraat was when it was 53 years. And we can already see how much 'work' Vikramaditya is doing 'now'. It will be retired around 2040 as intended. BTW, that hull was already rotting when it entered the refurbishment phase, no amount of refurbishment, refit or overhaul is going to extend the life for 60 years.

The official expected life span of the ship is 40 years, and is unlikely to require any major repair work for at least a decade.[61][71] Over 70% of the ship and her equipment is new and the remainder has been refurbished.[59] Sevmash Shipyard, which upgraded the carrier, will provide warranty servicing including maintenance for the next 20 years.[72]

70% of vikramaditya is brand new and certified life is 40 years. So it will serve till 2052.

 

[IndianHawk]

Also to note we recieved 29 mig29k after 2010 . The last mig29k was delivered in 2017.