Indian Navy to have 100 combat jets, 500 aircraft

[Bl[i]tZ]

F-18 is ugly. Plus both F-18 and F-16 have bloated since their original airframes and that is why they failed to pass the sustained turn rate tests of IAF. F-18 is bad idea. I am in favor of

N LCA + N Rafale/PAK FA (depending on the tech IN wants corresponding to the threat perception and BUDGET )

We should go for F-35 if N PAK FA isn't suitable for our carriers but F-35 will come with the Ameriki agenda since they'll put monitoring and other requirements.

 

[Black Widow]

I won't be surprised if F-18 SH future variant is selected, its a good bird and have excellent prospects.

I hope they'll provide us an upgraded engine with better TWR.

does F18 comes with ski-jump configuration. AFAIK IAC 1 is not catobar. IAC can be catobar.

 

[Skull and Bones]

does F18 comes with ski-jump configuration. AFAIK IAC 1 is not catobar. IAC can be catobar.

As of now, they have been used with only STOBAR config ACs, but with higher thrust engine and a little larger wing area might do wonders.

But i'm not a aerospace engineer, so commenting on this part doesn't seems right.

 

[SQ8]

Its confusing, why in the world would the Indian armed forces want to increase the number of types they operate when the worldwide trend is to reduce and procure common aircraft?

IAC1 will be STOBAR so the best aircraft to continue with the trend is the Mig-29K.(or perhaps challenge the Ruskies with a Mig-35K??). do the migs lack a capability that the others offer?
Moreover.. adapting the SH or Rafale M to a STOBAR carrier seems pointless.. and the other competitors have not yet tested any carrier capable designs.

Coming to IAC 2 which is supposedly CATOBAR.. the IN can simply purchase the Rafale M outright.. allowing another bonus in commonality in both logistics and training with the IAF.. perhaps with exchange pilots.

The N-LCA will play the role of the light interceptor and attack on these ships.. how many?To accommodate the N-LCA means crossing the 100 aircraft mark(will the IAF's ego be ready to accept this?).

 

[Tshering22]

I'm not big supporter of Naval PAK-FA, operating an heavy aircraft off an aircraft carrier is a big pain, remember why USN retired F-14s so early and pursued inferior F-18s as a naval carrier? Russia favored Mig-29Ks over much superior Sukhoi-33. So we can't say the same story will be repeated in T-50 or not.

And let first prototype AMCA hit the sky before 2018, i'm not betting a penny on N-AMCA before 2025, given the reluctancy shown by Mods of both IAF and IN for its development.

No doubt at all. Totally agree. But AMCA has got interest from Navy. Ex-Admiral Mehta had announced IN's interest in AMCA before handing over to Admiral Verma.

AMCA is supposed to be in the class of MRCA in terms of weight and range. So it will be worth the investment and wait. The design looks good and with Tejas' composite experience, ADA can do it if there's a good government in the centre with a strong defense minister.

INS Vishal will also be coming around 2022 and nothing less than that. So AMCA will be an ideal candidate for the new carrier. Till then, we can let some MiG-29Ks and Tejas jets fly off the new carrier in the even that it comes before the AMCAs.

 

[Tshering22]

Its confusing, why in the world would the Indian armed forces want to increase the number of types they operate when the worldwide trend is to reduce and procure common aircraft?

IAC1 will be STOBAR so the best aircraft to continue with the trend is the Mig-29K.(or perhaps challenge the Ruskies with a Mig-35K??). do the migs lack a capability that the others offer?
Moreover.. adapting the SH or Rafale M to a STOBAR carrier seems pointless.. and the other competitors have not yet tested any carrier capable designs.

Coming to IAC 2 which is supposedly CATOBAR.. the IN can simply purchase the Rafale M outright... allowing another bonus in commonality in both logistics and training with the IAF.. perhaps with exchange pilots.

The N-LCA will play the role of the light interceptor and attack on these ships.. how many?To accommodate the N-LCA means crossing the 100 aircraft mark(will the IAF's ego be ready to accept this?).

NAK Browne isn't ex-ACM PV Naik. . Navy needs a strong aerial arm and they will go for it regardless. This has a lot of benefits. It will free the IAF from having the need to keep any aerial infrastructure down south at all and concentrate full force of our fighter fleet in eastern border, activating all former air bases there. Simply because with a strong air arm alongside a plethora of warships, Navy would be capable enough to tackle any threat to southern India.

The same concept is with Army. They went for 114 LCH-Dhruv gunships confirmed orders, despite IAF's order for 65 of the same. With IA having enough aerial firepower to provide CAS for any ground combat operations (presumably against Maoists and small-time bandit-wannabe-terrorist groups here in NE in the foreseeable future), IAF will be able to concentrate on its expansion plans vis a vis eastern command.

Our western flank is strong enough but our eastern flank is relatively weak both in terms of anti-aircraft firepower (AAF) and air cover by fighter fleet. IAF will have to boost our cover in eastern region badly. As of 2007, only 25% of airspace is monitored. We can't risk that with an aggressive Red military bordering us.

 

[SQ8]

NAK Browne isn't ex-ACM PV Naik. . Navy needs a strong aerial arm and they will go for it regardless. This has a lot of benefits. It will free the IAF from having the need to keep any aerial infrastructure down south at all and concentrate full force of our fighter fleet in eastern border, activating all former air bases there. Simply because with a strong air arm alongside a plethora of warships, Navy would be capable enough to tackle any threat to southern India.

The same concept is with Army. They went for 114 LCH-Dhruv gunships confirmed orders, despite IAF's order for 65 of the same. With IA having enough aerial firepower to provide CAR for any ground combat operations (presumably against Maoists and small-time bandit-wannabe-terrorist groups here in NE).

The question is not of "purchasing power" or "independance". Its of extraneous overlapping capability and commonality.
The Dhruv purchase by both the IA and IAF is still fine as the it brings with it massive traning,logistics and footprint compatibility.
But buying 20 rafales, 45 mig-29K, 60 Tejas, 20 Sh and 12 F-35 does not bring anything other than logistical chaos.

 

[Tshering22]

But buying 20 rafales, 45 mig-29K, 60 Tejas, 20 Sh and 12 F-35 does not bring anything other than logistical chaos.

Oh! Who told you we'd go for that nightmare? It is only stupid writing from over-excited news reporters. Come on mate, 5 different fighters from 5 different countries is totally out of question. We are not oil sheikhdoms. Any foreign fighter (heavens forbid) if needed at all, would be purchased keeping IAF's selection of commonality. Our Navy isn't as stupid and egoistic as air force and Army is. Firstly they don't like foreign stuff too much (budgetary constraints plus indigenization doctrine). Secondly, the IAC2 or INS Vishal is quite far away. It will start with keel laying in 2017-18. Then work will continue for 2-3 years. Then testing phase would start for another 1 year. So by the time it is in IN, it will be 2022-23. In the mean time, both our domestic stealth projects will be in full flow; one with Russia and another, independently.

 

[SEAL]

What kind of kiddish news is this almost every week they make such stupid headline India to have 100 Combat ships, Indian army to have their own airforce now 100 Aircrafts mentally bharati sena and bharatiz are still living in cold war era.

 

[Jason bourne]

What kind of kiddish news is this almost every week they make such stupid headline India to have 100 Combat ships, Indian army to have their own airforce now 100 Aircrafts mentally bharati sena and bharatiz are still living in cold war era.

afghan army attecked pakistan village

bhai tuje abhi bhi sarm nai aati yaha aake trolling karte hua ? ...

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

What kind of kiddish news is this almost every week they make such stupid headline India to have 100 Combat ships, Indian army to have their own airforce now 100 Aircrafts mentally bharati sena and bharatiz are still living in cold war era.

Take this.....It will surely help

----------------------------

@topic...

Awesome

For 3 ACC we need more then this in our inventory.

 

[Tshering22]

What kind of kiddish news is this almost every week they make such stupid headline India to have 100 Combat ships, Indian army to have their own airforce now 100 Aircrafts mentally bharati sena and bharatiz are still living in cold war era.

But it was the admiral who conveyed this in a release. What's childish about this? The idea is to announce a plan. That's what he just did.

 

[sancho]

I'm not big supporter of Naval PAK-FA, operating an heavy aircraft off an aircraft carrier is a big pain, remember why USN retired F-14s so early and pursued inferior F-18s as a naval carrier? Russia favored Mig-29Ks over much superior Sukhoi-33. So we can't say the same story will be repeated in T-50 or not.

That's not correct mate, neither the F14 nor the Su 33 was / will be replaced because of their size, but mainly because of their age and the fact that newer fighters were fully multi role capale fighters. USN had up to 4 different fighters for different roles in the time of the F14 and the Hornets and Super Hornets gave them the advantage of a single type that can replace all of them. Su 33s were also operated next to other fighter types, but the main reason to replace them with Mig 29Ks, is that the Su 33 production ended and instead of funding new upgrades alone, the Russians switched to the cheaper fighter, that IN now also will use.
Also, USN initally wanted a naval version of the F22 as well, but that idea was scrapped for cost reasons afaik, while RN will go for naval Pak Fa for sure and will use Mig 29Ks only as a stopgap fighter. So if possible, navies still prefere heavy class carrier fighter, especially for the A2A roles.

I would love to see a naval FGFA version on IAC 2 and we know that IN wanted Flanker size fighters for carriers before too, but it depends on the size and design of that new carrier, to see if that would be a suitable choice. A medium size carrier fighter might be used in higher numbers, which should be an important point, if the carrier is aimed to project power to eastern Asia.

 

[sancho]

The question is not of "purchasing power" or "independance". Its of extraneous overlapping capability and commonality.
The Dhruv purchase by both the IA and IAF is still fine as the it brings with it massive traning,logistics and footprint compatibility.
But buying 20 rafales, 45 mig-29K, 60 Tejas, 20 Sh and 12 F-35 does not bring anything other than logistical chaos.

Logistically it might be chaos, operationally it is a necessity, because N-LCA / Mig 29K will be used only on STOBAR carriers, while Rafale (although I still think it could be used on STOBAR as well), F18SH or F35 will be used on CATOBAR carriers only. If there is no change in carrier design and IN remains with STOBAR carriers, it is even very likely that N-LCAs / Mig 29Ks will be used as stopgap fighters for IAC 2 until a naval Pak Fa or AMCA will be available. But if catapults will be available, N-LCAs and Migs are no option anymore, unless they get certain changes, which again means developing, testing...
Adapting Rafale would be the easiest choice, but there are more things behind it, that one has to consider. Size issues, political issues wrt catapults, who knows, maybe the US will be so desperate to sell F35 by then, that they offer very low costs and at least some reduced restrictions. Not to forget that, as soon as the F35 is officially offered by the US government, they will use Israeli to influence our decision. Our F35s might get the same avionic or weapon changes that Israel air force gets, which will be taken as a big point by our forces for sure.

As you can see, there are several reasons why INs fighter fleet might end up with different types of fighters, but it's too early to see which way IN finally will go.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Its confusing, why in the world would the Indian armed forces want to increase the number of types they operate when the worldwide trend is to reduce and procure common aircraft?

IAC1 will be STOBAR so the best aircraft to continue with the trend is the Mig-29K.(or perhaps challenge the Ruskies with a Mig-35K??). do the migs lack a capability that the others offer?
Moreover.. adapting the SH or Rafale M to a STOBAR carrier seems pointless.. and the other competitors have not yet tested any carrier capable designs.

Coming to IAC 2 which is supposedly CATOBAR.. the IN can simply purchase the Rafale M outright.. allowing another bonus in commonality in both logistics and training with the IAF.. perhaps with exchange pilots.

The N-LCA will play the role of the light interceptor and attack on these ships.. how many?To accommodate the N-LCA means crossing the 100 aircraft mark(will the IAF's ego be ready to accept this?).

As of now, the MiG-29 is the decided factor in the Indian Navy's aviation plans, the rest are only plans or conceptual ideas; including N-LCA.

Within the planned future, IN will operate STOBAR Carriers. Intensive discussions (internal and external) have taken place regarding CATOBAR Carriers but it does not seem to be firmed up yet. IN is distinctly looking for E-MALS tech for CATOBAR operations, while its only Steam CAT tech is presently forthcoming from the US. This E-MALS/ Steam CAT debate is relevant to the fact that IN has decided to use GT propulsion for the projected Carriers. IN seems to have 2 choices available for CATOBAR operated Carriers:
a. E-MALS if made available by the USA.
b. develop E-MALS indigenously or in co-operation with the Russians.
Both options are being worked on. The third option is to again use Steam CAT on a N-propelled Carrier for CATOBAR. This is a distinct possibility in light of the INS ARIHANT experience.

However, all that depends on how IN views Carriers in its long-term Strategic Vision. As I see it, India is not looking towards a very large Carrier fleet and is not looking at Mega-Carriers either. The Indian thinking is not towards world-wide force projection, but at area domination. So mid-sized Carriers are sufficient to the purpose, to act as nucleii of Task Forces.

Therefore the Rafale-M enters the picture if (and only if) a CATOBAR Carrier is decided upon. Obviously, it will be very easy to induct and operate given that the Rafale will already in operation with the IAF. According to me, this (projected) factor was also ticked off in a check-box while arriving at the Rafale choice for the MMRCA competition. And to consider any other aircraft viz. Super Hornet, Sea Gripen or even F-35 (IMO)etc. is just inconceivable. The IN/MoD seems to have worked out all the contingency plans for the projected Carrier fleet of max. 4 Carriers.

Now about the last (esp underlined) part. IAF has ceased to control IN Aviation plans. That process was nearly done when LRMR air assets passed in to control of the IN. Now its absolutely complete.