INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[abingdonboy]

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 .

The Vikky isn’t going anywhere until the early 2040s (when IAC-2 is ready to enter service) but the MiG-29Ks are unlikely to last more than another 10 years. From what I hear they are already struggling and it’s not a right to compare them to keeping the Bisons flying as the 29Ks are quite literally falling apart with the rigors of carrier flying. A written off airframe is a written off airframe

 

[abingdonboy]

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
View attachment 169090




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.



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.

1) the bring back part is a bit of a red herring, have you seen many (or any) images/videos of the IN’s MiG-29Ks launching and recovering with munitions? The IN isn’t the USN that is launching real world combat Ops on a high tempo basis. They either launch clean, with training munitions or if they carry live it’ll be for training where they intend to dispense of all of the load. The only time they’ll have to worry about bring back capability is during war/combat and at that point the last thing you’ll be worried about is a few million lost to the sea.
2) so you say the engine commonality makes F18 cheaper, what about weapons commonality with IAF? Weapons need to be maintained as well. Having a tiny number of AIM-120s or whatever will be cost prohibitive vs commonalities with IAF. Also Safran is setting up MRO and investing heavily in India (they might also be part of the JV for the AMCA MK.2’s engine) so I doubt there’ll be anything between the cost of MRO for G414 vs M88 long term for IN.
3) wait what? What AWACS is the IN buying from the US? and don’t say E-2D because that plane won’t even be produced by the time that IAC-2 is ready. We cannot tell the future but for now IN’s AEW is KA31. It’s more likely their future AEW will be based on the IMRH. Even IF E-2NG comes for IAC-2 why won’t Rafale be able to integrate as seamlessly with it? Firstly France and the US operate NATO spec datalinks (Link 16) so have to be perfectly compatible with one another (Rafale is already integrated with the E-2 by the way as it’s what the French use for their own carriers). Secondly india puts its own IFF and data links on its foreign fighters anyway so they all talk to each other. How do you think PHALCON can talk to SU-30MKI? Same goes for drones.

 

[binayak95]

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 .

The MiG29K is indeed very capable, but they won't last 10 years. They are falling apart from arrested landings, with their undercarriage repeatedly developing cracks.

It's a shitty situation, made worse by Russian invasion of Ukraine.

It's F18s that are the immediate future

 

[Gessler]

It won't be phasing out SH/Rafale M, but just taking it's place on the deck, SH/Rafale M can be operated from naval air stations.

This also depends on if Navy is able to take the shore based anti shipping role from IAF like it took the role of maritime reconnaissance in 1976. There's only upsides to this, IAF need not dedicate squadrons for anti shipping in future & minimal number of IAF sq in south. => IN can use SH/Rafale M & additional TEDBF for shore based anti shipping.

And TEDBF does bring an exceptional capability for a carrier like IAC-1, it can take off with full fuel (5.5T, 0.3235 fuel fraction) and greater payload of 8 or so tonne from the long take off position under favorable conditions, 8T would allow it to carry this load - View attachment 169084

Vikky will soon be phased out after there are sufficient number of TEDBF for IAC-1 in mid 30s, idk if it will get dedicated squadrons for a time period of <<decade, & TEDBF can be operated in tandem with whatever comes next in the 40s, from the deck IAC-2 and beyond. Just 26 jets won't be enough for shore based anti shipping role => more TEDBF.
The number of TEDBF produced will definitely cross 45 & will be feasible even in the 50s, working in tandem with a new generation naval combat aircraft (not N AMCA).

N AMCA does not make sense anymore, N AMCA won't fulfil the basic requirements of Navy without carrying weapons/fuel tanks externally.

All I can say is that we don't have the kind of CAPEX to throw around on acquiring a new fighter every decade for the Navy, especially when the existing fighters are still capable and have life left. The expenditure during that period (2030s-40s) will be perhaps even tighter than it is now due to several big-ticket programs coming online (SSNs, IAC-2) simultaneously.

Once we buy MRCBF, it will remain on Vikrant till the end of their service lives (2055-2065). And their replacement at that time cannot realistically be another 4.5 gen.

Fair points. Lets see if Viky really ends up like that and if Navy still stays stuck with just two carriers (IAC 1 and 2) throughout the 2030-2040 period when their annual CAPEX will be around $15+ Billion.

The type & layout of propulsion that Vikky has is the same that Kuznetsov has. They will share the same fate.

Only realistic way to have a 3-carrier Navy in the 2040s is to order not 1 but 2 x IAC-2s just like the QEC program.

Think about it - even IF the Vikky serves till 2040 (its currently planned retirement time), we will have a 3-carrier Navy for only about ~5 years, after that we'll be back to 2 carriers till whenever IAC-3 comes (build time of atleast 8-10 years likely anyhow).

IN's plans were drawn keeping a certain timeline in mind...but over the decades that timeline has been twisted & turned so badly (due to delays, things not going to plan etc) that it no longer makes sense. However no updated timeline has been released so they're forced to parrot the same lines regardless of the fact that circumstances have changed.

But do tell if there has been any indication from the French that their variable cycle engine will be ready by 2040 and if it will be a drop fit into Rafale. Seriously, I'd doubt the timeline on that even if France claims a date before 2040. Even 2040 is tough. TEDBF is a bigger bird than Rafale. I think if it arrives by early 2030s, it will be a good buy for the Navy.

FCAS is supposedly to be operational by that time so the variable cycle tech will be mature either way. A re-engining will be necessary for all existing Rafales cuz the airframes far outlive the engines so its just putting 2 and 2 together on my part.

The engine we're planning to JV with SAFRAN seems to be pretty much a smaller cousin of the FCAS engine btw.

 

[Blademaster]

The MiG29K is indeed very capable, but they won't last 10 years. They are falling apart from arrested landings, with their undercarriage repeatedly developing cracks.

It's a shitty situation, made worse by Russian invasion of Ukraine.

It's F18s that are the immediate future

It is the immediate band aid solution. TEDBF and N-AMCA (or a stealth version of TEDBF) are the future of IN.

 

[binayak95]

It is the immediate band aid solution. TEDBF and N-AMCA (or a stealth version of TEDBF) are the future of IN.

That's why I said immediate future. TEDBF will come when she does.

N-AMCA - I'll bet by then unmanned birds will take over most combat roles.

 

[Gessler]

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.

SH will not require any refit at all. Minor alterations like re-mapping the route to & from the elevator to hangar is likely, but then again you have to do that for any new aircraft. The rest of the stuff it interfaces with (like arresting gear) won't need to be replaced (SBTF tests certified from same arresting gear as on the carriers, works fine).

Rafale will, but only if you deem the extra time & complications added due to removal of wingtip rails & nosecone to fit in the lifts as too much to enable rapid launches. But then if that's the case, we won't buy Rafale to begin with so there's no issue.

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.

That said, typically you design a carrier around the aircraft its supposed to carry...if you're doing it the other way round, you already messed up (which we did by placing faith in 29K)....anything you do from here on is a patchwork solution. So an expensive solution (like building a whole new fighter) IMO doesn't really make sense.

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

They effectively will be a part-time carrier Navy anyway. The Vikky even today is little more than an expensive paperweight.

Can it ever hope to do a long-range deployment like this?

U.K. Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth Wraps 7-Month Maiden Deployment - USNI News

HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) and escorts of the Royal Navy Carrier Strike Group 21 (CSG 21) returned to their home ports in HMNB Devonport and HMNB Portsmouth marking the end of its seven-month maiden deployment. CSG 21 sailed 49,000 nautical miles to the Indo-Pacific and back. CSG 21 ships...

news.usni.org

At most it can stay at sea for 2-3 months before requiring a refit. And that is now, when everything is still relatively new. Into the next decade, its gonna be a Kuznetsov-ish disaster of a ship to maintain.

We used to hang on to old carriers because we didn't want to lose the tag of not being a carrier Navy, but with Vikrant operational, that compulsion will no longer be present. It'll be down to a simple cost-benefit analysis.

We're already doing the same wrt the aircraft, and correctly determined that 29Ks need to go. The same will happen with Vikky.

As of making up for attrition, purchase of 2nd hand SHs/additional Rafales (both of which have long long airframe lives) makes more sense than a whole new fighter. Agreed that if TEDBF were to be determined as the planned air wing for IAC-2, it would make sense to induct them but we haven't made that call and keeping the probable IAC-2 timeline in mind, we probably won't given the requirements of the day.

A non-LO plane with no weapon bays for a carrier supposed to enter service in 2040? Really?

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

The way I look at it, the drop from 57 to 26 was because they had determined, quite rightly, that it wasn't worth equipping the Vikky with a new air wing. So MRCBF would only be equipping 1 carrier instead of 2 (which was originally the plan).

 

[binayak95]

SH will not require any refit at all. Minor alterations like re-mapping the route to & from the elevator to hangar is likely, but then again you have to do that for any new aircraft. The rest of the stuff it interfaces with (like arresting gear) won't need to be replaced (SBTF tests certified from same arresting gear as on the carriers, works fine).

Rafale will, but only if you deem the extra time & complications added due to removal of wingtip rails & nosecone to fit in the lifts as too much to enable rapid launches. But then if that's the case, we won't buy Rafale to begin with so there's no issue.



That said, typically you design a carrier around the aircraft its supposed to carry...if you're doing it the other way round, you already messed up (which we did by placing faith in 29K)....anything you do from here on is a patchwork solution. So an expensive solution (like building a whole new fighter) IMO doesn't really make sense.



They effectively will be a part-time carrier Navy anyway. The Vikky even today is little more than an expensive paperweight.

Can it ever hope to do a long-range deployment like this?

U.K. Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth Wraps 7-Month Maiden Deployment - USNI News

HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) and escorts of the Royal Navy Carrier Strike Group 21 (CSG 21) returned to their home ports in HMNB Devonport and HMNB Portsmouth marking the end of its seven-month maiden deployment. CSG 21 sailed 49,000 nautical miles to the Indo-Pacific and back. CSG 21 ships...

news.usni.org

At most it can stay at sea for 2-3 months before requiring a refit. And that is now, when everything is still relatively new. Into the next decade, its gonna be a Kuznetsov-ish disaster of a ship to maintain.

We used to hang on to old carriers because we didn't want to lose the tag of not being a carrier Navy, but with Vikrant operational, that compulsion will no longer be present. It'll be down to a simple cost-benefit analysis.

We're already doing the same wrt the aircraft, and correctly determined that 29Ks need to go. The same will happen with Vikky.

As of making up for attrition, purchase of 2nd hand SHs/additional Rafales (both of which have long long airframe lives) makes more sense than a whole new fighter. Agreed that if TEDBF were to be determined as the planned air wing for IAC-2, it would make sense to induct them but we haven't made that call and keeping the probable IAC-2 timeline in mind, we probably won't given the requirements of the day.

A non-LO plane with no weapon bays for a carrier supposed to enter service in 2040? Really?



The way I look at it, the drop from 57 to 26 was because they had determined, quite rightly, that it wasn't worth equipping the Vikky with a new air wing. So MRCBF would only be equipping 1 carrier instead of 2 (which was originally the plan).

My personal idea: take the Vkd, strip her down. Use her as a helo carrier. But even then those boilers are gonna be a headache.

 

[Gessler]

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

Then why are we buying MRCBF?

We already bought enough 29Ks for 2 carriers no?

We are not a Uber rich country to throw away a working carrier mid life.

We are not uber rich that's precisely why we can't afford to keep throwing money at a ship that will cost more to maintain vs the capability it delivers.

It's only been 30 years since Kuznetsov was inducted. Guess how many times it had to be refitted and how much grief its causing to Rus Navy?

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 .

Ground-based ops vs carrier ops totally different setting.

Fulcrum airframe never intended for carrier ops. It's being subjected to undue amounts of stress, compounded by the engines already-weak service lives being worked to death due to STOBAR ops (entire burden of takeoff is on engine).

It's the whole we started MRCBF - the 29Ks just aren't gonna cut it. It was a bad investment.

 

[Gessler]

My personal idea: take the Vkd, strip her down. Use her as a helo carrier. But even then those boilers are gonna be a headache.

Yea - the problem is mainly the propulsion so any time the ship is out at sea its a liability, regardless of what aircraft its carrying.

Much better to buy new LHDs like Juan Carlos or Mistral. Yes upfront cost will be more but they will deliver actual capability and the upkeep won't be a nightmare.

 

[NutCracker]

1) the bring back part is a bit of a red herring, have you seen many (or any) images/videos of the IN’s MiG-29Ks launching and recovering with munitions? The IN isn’t the USN that is launching real world combat Ops on a high tempo basis. They either launch clean, with training munitions or if they carry live it’ll be for training where they intend to dispense of all of the load. The only time they’ll have to worry about bring back capability is during war/combat and at that point the last thing you’ll be worried about is a few million lost to the sea.
2) so you say the engine commonality makes F18 cheaper, what about weapons commonality with IAF? Weapons need to be maintained as well. Having a tiny number of AIM-120s or whatever will be cost prohibitive vs commonalities with IAF. Also Safran is setting up MRO and investing heavily in India (they might also be part of the JV for the AMCA MK.2’s engine) so I doubt there’ll be anything between the cost of MRO for G414 vs M88 long term for IN.
3) wait what? What AWACS is the IN buying from the US? and don’t say E-2D because that plane won’t even be produced by the time that IAC-2 is ready. We cannot tell the future but for now IN’s AEW is KA31. It’s more likely their future AEW will be based on the IMRH. Even IF E-2NG comes for IAC-2 why won’t Rafale be able to integrate as seamlessly with it? Firstly France and the US operate NATO spec datalinks (Link 16) so have to be perfectly compatible with one another (Rafale is already integrated with the E-2 by the way as it’s what the French use for their own carriers). Secondly india puts its own IFF and data links on its foreign fighters anyway so they all talk to each other. How do you think PHALCON can talk to SU-30MKI? Same goes for drones.

1) What kind of weak logic you are giving.
Why should NAVY compromise ??
It's not red herring. It's the decaying frame body of Mig29k that limits the NAVY.
Shouldn't they be training for war/combat like scenarios ?

2) Navy doesn't fly everyday with live ammunition.
Engine is maintained after every flight and minor/major haul after 500-2000hrs.

US Navy operation is equivalent to the next all combined. There comes the economy of scale unlike Puny French Navy.

We are already planning to integrate AIM-120 on LCA so that we can increase the prospective countries , so it's better if we actually operate those hence US will have no problem with us integrating their missile with Naval LCA.

France have already looted us 36 RAFALE at 250M per unit. They better bring good deal if they want to grab the deal for their slowing economy.

3) No I'm taking about Multirole AWS Poseidon And
Our MQ9B with upcoming STOL kit that can help it operating from our Carriers.(no CATOBAR needed).

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

The type & layout of propulsion that Vikky has is the same that Kuznetsov has. They will share the same fate.

Only realistic way to have a 3-carrier Navy in the 2040s is to order not 1 but 2 x IAC-2s just like the QEC program.

Think about it - even IF the Vikky serves till 2040 (its currently planned retirement time), we will have a 3-carrier Navy for only about ~5 years, after that we'll be back to 2 carriers till whenever IAC-3 comes (build time of atleast 8-10 years likely anyhow).

IN's plans were drawn keeping a certain timeline in mind...but over the decades that timeline has been twisted & turned so badly (due to delays, things not going to plan etc) that it no longer makes sense. However no updated timeline has been released so they're forced to parrot the same lines regardless of the fact that circumstances have changed.

Alright, lets take into consideration the fact that Vikramaditya is retired in 2035. What is stopping the Navy from ordering two IAC-2 class in the 2030s? Even if one of such carrier costs $7 Billion, two would cost $14 Billion. Spread over a build period of 8 years if built simultaneously (we got two drydocks capable of building that size in India), that amounts to $1.75 Billion per annum average. Average annual Naval Capex will be $15 Billion in the 2030s. Even if Naval capex is hard pressed, can't they earmark 11% of their capex for two IAC-2 class for 8 years in the 2030s particularly when degree of indigenization for IAC-2 will be higher than IAC-1 (due to LR-MFR, etc)?

And instead of chasing after an IAC-2 right now (average capex for 2020s is $8 Billion/annum), if Navy spends its funds earmarked for IAC-2 in this decade on ordering another IAC-1, which will likely be ready by 2031 (around the time TEDBF comes online) if they place order ASAP, then we can have three carrier Navy by 2031 and four carrier Navy by late 2030s even if we say goodbye to Viky a little early.

IAC-3, whatever that will be, will only take shape once we get Nuclear propulsion sorted, probably by 2040s. That is too far into the future to even consider right now.

FCAS is supposedly to be operational by that time so the variable cycle tech will be mature either way. A re-engining will be necessary for all existing Rafales cuz the airframes far outlive the engines so its just putting 2 and 2 together on my part.

The engine we're planning to JV with SAFRAN seems to be pretty much a smaller cousin of the FCAS engine btw.

FCAS would be much heavier than Rafale, no? Don't think they'll have the engines made to drop fit into Rafale. And French can't maintain a large air force. They'll likely start retiring Rafale in 2040 when FCAS comes online.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Flight trials on IAC Vikrant to begin from November, says Navy Vice Chief

• Flight trials aboard the indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) Vikrant will begin in November
• The flight trials, according to Admiral Ghormade, will involve Russian-origin MiG-29K fighter jets
• The warship and its air wing expected to be fully operational by June 2023
• According to the navy's vice chief, 12 MiG-29Ks are likely to be deployed on Vikrant, along with a new deck-based fighter that the navy is looking to buy as a stopgap measure until the indigenous twin-engine deck-based fighter (TEDBF) is ready.
• Second carrier can be built faster using the ship-building expertise gained during the Vikrant's construction Says Navy official
• Madhu S Nair, chairman of Cochin Shipyard, stated that the second carrier can be built faster. "We are prepared. The shipyard will have a new large dry dock for building large platforms ready by early 2024."

https://www.news9live.com/india/flight-trials-on-iac-vikrant-to-begin-from-november-says-navy-vice-chief-191884

@abingdonboy flight trials finally.

@Gessler wonder why they are saying 12 MiG-29K will be operated from Vikrant along with MRCBF.

 

[Vamsi]

A non-LO plane with no weapon bays for a carrier supposed to enter service in 2040? Really?

A non-LO plane without IWB can carry Anti-Ship missiles, while a stealth plane can't , hence 4.5+ gen birds won't go anywhere even post 2040

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

A non-LO plane without IWB can carry Anti-Ship missiles, while a stealth plane can't , hence 4.5+ gen birds won't go anywhere even post 2040

Well, the muricans are fitting NSM AShM into F-35 IWB. A deadly capability.
Our Navy going for non-LO is likely due to them wanting to rely on proven technologies instead of taking risk. Right now, with Tejas experience, a 4++ gen fighter tailored exactly to Navy's performance specifications is a much better fit for Navy's requirements than a 5th gen fighter that will take twice the time to come into service and will likely have some performance compromises while being heavier in maintenance and costlier to acquire and operate. Only VLO capability is not enough for these tradeoffs especially considering unmanned wingmen that can be made stealthy and fit to fly from a carrier, thus somewhat mitigating the need for VLO from carrier. All this seems to be informed by Navy's larger operational tactics and overall strategy.

 

[Vamsi]

Well, the muricans are fitting NSM AShM into F-35 IWB. A deadly capability.
Our Navy going for non-LO is likely due to them wanting to rely on proven technologies instead of taking risk. Right now, with Tejas experience, a 4++ gen fighter tailored exactly to Navy's performance specifications is a much better fit for Navy's requirements than a 5th gen fighter that will take twice the time to come into service and will likely have some performance compromises while being heavier in maintenance and costlier to acquire and operate. Only VLO capability is not enough for these tradeoffs especially considering unmanned wingmen that can be made stealthy and fit to fly from a carrier, thus somewhat mitigating the need for VLO from carrier. All this seems to be informed by Navy's larger operational tactics and overall strategy.

F-35 can't carry Hypersonic missiles in future, can it ?

 

[Vamsi]

N-LCA too?

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

N-LCA too?

The article I posted only names MiG-29K

F-35 can't carry Hypersonic missiles in future, can it ?

True. Not yet. And even in future, it would require a major leap in technology.
But a subsonic launched from stealth platforms is still a deadly enough capability. And its not just Muricans but even Japanese and British that will field that capability from their carriers. We can too, if we design a Navalized Ghatak UCAV and miniaturize the missile enough and get our STFE act together.

 

[Adm Kenobi]

@Gessler wonder why they are saying 12 MiG-29K will be operated from Vikrant along with MRCBF.

Because that was the original plan, and the jets were bought accordingly, 26 MiG-29K & 7 MiG-29KUB for Vikramaditya & 12 MiG-29K and 1 KUB for IAC-1.
IAC-1 was to get the N LCA at that time (planned in 2004), which wasn't fruitful. IAC-1 was never designed to have "oNlY mIg-²9k", original plan even mentioned sea harriers & ALH, the sea harrier part was later dumped as the design work moved forward.

Navy still has all the MiGs that were supposed to go on IAC-1, so it makes complete sense to operationalize the carrier the carrier with the 12 MiG-29K, joined by MRCBF jets later on, and then completely replacement by MRCBF between 2025-30.

 

[Vamsi]

Because that was the original plan, and the jets were bought accordingly, 26 MiG-29K & 7 MiG-29KUB for Vikramaditya & 12 MiG-29K and 1 KUB for IAC-1.
IAC-1 was to get the N LCA at that time (planned in 2004), which wasn't fruitful. IAC-1 was never designed to have "oNlY mIg-²9k", original plan even mentioned sea harriers & ALH, the sea harrier part was later dumped as the design work moved forward.

Navy still has all the MiGs that were supposed to go on IAC-1, so it makes complete sense to operationalize the carrier the carrier with the 12 MiG-29K, joined by MRCBF jets later on, and then completely replacement by MRCBF between 2025-30.

Last year one journalist reported that there would 8 N-LCAs too...what happened to that plan?