Thanks for the answer.
I think having a discussion on this issue in this thread will be more informative and constructive. How it will slow down or compromise (degree of) operational capabilities should be discussed and we should consider other options (Jet) able to perform better in this regard. Isn't it ?
Maybe this article about the changes of Sea Gripen to Gripen NG and between possible versions for STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers:
Saab offers naval Gripen to India
The company is pitching a little-known naval variant of its Gripen NG fighter, called the Sea Gripen, which is intended to be capable of both CATOBAR as well as STOBAR carrier operations...
...According to Peter Nilsson, Gripens Vice President of Operational Capabilities, the Sea Gripen is intended for both CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) as well as STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery) operations. There will obviously be differences in the MTOW (Maximum Take-Off Weight). In a CATOBAR concept, the Sea Gripen will have a MTOW of 16,500 kilograms and a maximum landing weight of 11,500 kilograms. In a STOBAR concept it depends on the physics of the carrier. Roughly, the payload of fuel and weapons in STOBAR operations will be one-third less than the payload in CATOBAR operations. There will be no differences in bring-back capability, he says...
Saab offers naval Gripen to India | StratPost
A Gripen NG operated from land bases, will have a payload of 6t - 1/3 = 4t payload for the Sea Gripen for STOBAR carriers like the once IN now gets.
As I said, one solution would be to take of with empty fuel tanks and minimum internal fuel, which leaves more payload for weapons. After take of it would be refuelled by another fighter and then could do it's initial mission.
Howere, this obviously complicates the operational capability of the carrier and that's why IN want CATOBAR carriers as the long term solution.
If we have 90+ Mig29k Rafale is not going to come thats for sure even for IAC2 .
Again, that doesn't make sense! Even if we would procure these Migs, they couldn't be used from a CATOBAR carrier and that's why they wouldn't have any relation to Rafale and IAC2.
There is no chance to kill LCA program as they are intended to be shore based fighters and point defence fighters which are must for ACC .
Wrong, IN don't operate shore based squadrons so all these fighters are meant for carrier operations, or training (N-LCA MK1 are just tech demonstrators). But if 90 x Migs would be procured for 2 x carriers that operates around 20 and 30 fighters, around 40 would remain for reserve and training reasons, leaving no space for N-LCA anymore. That's why I doubt this news is true, although I would prefer this solution!
First you were saying we went for Mig29ks because we were not having option and carrier was Russian . Now you were saying commonality . If commonality was the thing , IAF would have gone for additional Mig29 and Mirages .
Don't twist my words buddy! I said, the first 16 x Migs were a combined order with Gorshkov which is a fact and that lead IN with no other option although they were interested in Rafale and F18SH.
The follow order of 29 to be operated on IAC1, was nothing but logical choice, because N-LCA still needs time and the Migs offer commonality for both carriers, be it in terms of weapons, spares or even training.
Btw, IAF wanted more Mirage 2000 for commonality reasons and not new Migs, but MoD scrapped MRCA and started MMRCA.
