Abingdonboy
ELITE MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/airchiefmarshal.jpg)
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 29,597
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
You are saying I am being silly but your own figures don't add up. 45 MiG-29K/KUB equates to 3 SQNs (plus war reserves) as said by your own source:Stop being silly, any carrier wing carries enough spares including replacement engines to be able to maintain and service the aircraft on board. The Mig-29K is relatiavely new and doesn't need any major overhauls. These overhauls if needed are planned for when the ship is ashore. Else, the Viky does carry between 20-24 aircraft and has enough capacity to maintain 75-80% availability during deployments thats between 15-18 aircraft at any time. The rest of the aircraft at the moment are based at INS HANSA and INS DEGA. Waiting for the IAC which will have the same sqd size. Its quite clear in the IN for quite some time that they will operate 2 sqds of the Mig-29K, 1 for Viky and 1 for IAC.
Also you are being futhermore ridiculous by claiming IN is not clear about what it wants on the IAC while the carrier is just over a year away from sea trials.
The IN operates smaller SQNs than the IAF (12-15 instead of 18-21). Thus 3 SQNs of MiG-29K/KUB are NOT enough to support 2 ACs and 1 SQN for shore based training. The IAC-1 and Vky combined can carry 40-45 MiG-29K between them.Of course, much of the that weight will be comprised of two fixed wing squadrons (12 x fighters each)
You are (foolishly) assuming 100% deployability for the entire 45 MiG-29K/KUB which is BEYOND absurd to say the least. I've spoken to very knowledgable people on this matter and 45 is the number to support a single carrier (2 SQNs embarked with 1 SQN on shore for training/OCU and some war reserves built in).
When 45 were procured from the Russians did the IN say that was to cover future carriers or did they say that was part of the deal for the VIKRAMDITYA?
If the IN was actually serious about the MiG-29K for the IAC-1 then they would have ordered more of them by now. They haven't placed any orders for fighrers that will take 3-4 years to enter service for a carrier that is 2 years away from sea trails. Now there is only one logical reason for this (weighing up the Rafale offer), if they were happy with the MiG-29 to go on board the could have placed follow-on orders a long time ago.
You highly reliable source doesn't even know that KA-31s are AEW helos and the Ka-28 is the ASW helo.
11 years to build an IAC-1 class ship? Are you insane? It would take 6-7 years at most.As for IAC-1 sister ship, no clear cut confirmation, let alone authorization for construction. Even if authorized today, such a ship won't be ready before 2027
Nope, nope and nope. The N-LCA is not suitable for the IN's ambitions, they have adopted it for industrial benefits it will bring but they will never feild it as the sole/lead carrier fighter on their flat tops. A light weight single engined aircraft has no business with the IN truth be told but as a technology demonstration project it is understandable.will carry the LCA MK-2
1) Naval AMCA is at least 2 decades awayBy then 5th gen options include Naval AMCA, F-35C, Naval PAKFA. Rafale is highly questionable.
2) F-35C has no chance with the IN
3) The Naval PAK-FA does not exist, the IN has no interest in it and the PAK-FA project itself is massively behind schedule.
The Rafale-M is BY FAR the most sensible option on the table.
Instead some are pushing for the MiG-29K:
1) Cost- LCCs will be almost negligable between the Rafale-M and MiG-29K AND the Rafale-M is a FAR more natural carrier fighter than the MiG-29K and will be far easier to support at sea than the notoriously maintainence intensive Russian fighters
2) Industrial benefits- NIL, let me say that again; NIL, as far as the MiG-29K is concerned. The Rafale will be built in India so there is massive scope for industrial benefits (throughout the Rafale's life) with the Rafale-M order.
3) Interoperability- not just within the IN itself (as the CATOBAR fighter fleet will also likely be Rafale-Ms) but with the IAF also (the Rafale will serve in the IAF for the next 35-40 years, the MiG-29UPGs will be out of service within 20 years).
Points 2 and 3 alone make any case for the MiG-29K over the Rafale-M completely ludacrious.
@PARIKRAMA @Taygibay