Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[FORBIN]

For Vikramaditya TG i have for escort Trikand ( last Lalwar FFG ) and Deepak. Seems reach karwar the 14/01.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FORBIN]

The aircraft carrier set sail in Murmansk on December 7. He has already left the Russian territorial waters and along the Norwegian coast with Trikand and Deepak.

 

[plawolf]

No, it is not obsolete. It will have a full service life ahead of it.

It is not a bad 4th gen attack fighter. And it is something the Indians can deploy on their carrier that they can build themselves.

It is better than the Harrier, but certainly not as good as the Mig-29K. it is also not as expensive, and as I said, is something they can build themselves.

With a Mach 1.8 top speed, a decent thrust to weight ratio (1.07), a couple of hundred mile unrefueled combat radius, 8 hard point to carry all sort of air to air, air to ground, and anti-shipping weaponry, it will be a good addition to their air wing.

Clearly, the new 5th gen aircraft, and more advanced 4.5 gen aircraft have better characteristics. But the Tejas is not bad, and it is a good start for the Indians in terms of their own indigenous industry.

The LCA is too short legged to be a decent carrier fighter, and being a single engined bird also makes it more risky. Although operating primarily in the warmer Indian Ocean might mean that having to ditch isn't an almost automatic death sentence for the pilot as it might be for Russian, American or British pilots operating in the far colder Northern Atlantic, Northern Pacific or North Sea theatres.

Saying the LCA is better than the Harrier is kinda like winning the Special Olympics since the Harrier's primary selling point isn't its flight characteristics but rather its unparalleled (pre F35B) VTOL capabilities. That VTOL capability in turn is really only a real necessity for navies or ships without true flap tops and have to rely on pocket carriers or who want to give their LHDs some added kick in a fight.

Having spent all that time and money on a fleet of true flat top carriers (assuming the Indians actually finish building them), it just seem like a waste to use naval LCAs when they could have chosen a far more capable fighter. And that was before the Rafale deal.

Having seemingly committed to buying one of, if not the best carrier capable fighter on the market, it just seem positively bonkers to not only not actually use the bloody thing for your carrier, but instead use that only as a land based fighter while at the same time wasting even more time and money further developing an already epically delayed and monumentally over budget land based fighter into a carrier fighter that will be inferior to the Mig29, never mind the Rafale, in every conceivable measurement possible save for maybe price and actually physical size.

This is real, banging your head against a brick wall, stupid stuff.

Yes, the Indians need to start somewhere with their indigenous fighters, and the LCA is a positive step. So deploy the thing already, as is, to Air Force units. Get some much needed manufacturing and operational troubleshooting experience under their belts, and start fresh with a clean slate on their next gen indigenous fighter already instead of wasting more time and money trying to whip this dead horse into something its clearly not suited for at even a basic conceptual level.

 

[cn_habs]

The LCA is too short legged to be a decent carrier fighter, and being a single engined bird also makes it more risky. Although operating primarily in the warmer Indian Ocean might mean that having to ditch isn't an almost automatic death sentence for the pilot as it might be for Russian, American or British pilots operating in the far colder Northern Atlantic, Northern Pacific or North Sea theatres.

Saying the LCA is better than the Harrier is kinda like winning the Special Olympics since the Harrier's primary selling point isn't its flight characteristics but rather its unparalleled (pre F35B) VTOL capabilities. That VTOL capability in turn is really only a real necessity for navies or ships without true flap tops and have to rely on pocket carriers or who want to give their LHDs some added kick in a fight.

Having spent all that time and money on a fleet of true flat top carriers (assuming the Indians actually finish building them), it just seem like a waste to use naval LCAs when they could have chosen a far more capable fighter. And that was before the Rafale deal.

Having seemingly committed to buying one of, if not the best carrier capable fighter on the market, it just seem positively bonkers to not only not actually use the bloody thing for your carrier, but instead use that only as a land based fighter while at the same time wasting even more time and money further developing an already epically delayed and monumentally over budget land based fighter into a carrier fighter that will be inferior to the Mig29, never mind the Rafale, in every conceivable measurement possible save for maybe price and actually physical size.

This is real, banging your head against a brick wall, stupid stuff.

Yes, the Indians need to start somewhere with their indigenous fighters, and the LCA is a positive step. So deploy the thing already, as is, to Air Force units. Get some much needed manufacturing and operational troubleshooting experience under their belts, and start fresh with a clean slate on their next gen indigenous fighter already instead of wasting more time and money trying to whip this dead horse into something its clearly not suited for at even a basic conceptual level.

+1

I feel as if the Indian government or military is trying to justify decades of delays and problems by making this light trainer or borderline fighter more relevant than it actually is.

 

[Blitzo]

Saying the LCA is better than the Harrier is kinda like winning the Special Olympics since the Harrier's primary selling point isn't its flight characteristics but rather its unparalleled (pre F35B) VTOL capabilities.

ROFL.

That VTOL capability in turn is really only a real necessity for navies or ships without true flap tops and have to rely on pocket carriers or who want to give their LHDs some added kick in a fight.

Having spent all that time and money on a fleet of true flat top carriers (assuming the Indians actually finish building them), it just seem like a waste to use naval LCAs when they could have chosen a far more capable fighter. And that was before the Rafale deal.

Having seemingly committed to buying one of, if not the best carrier capable fighter on the market, it just seem positively bonkers to not only not actually use the bloody thing for your carrier, but instead use that only as a land based fighter while at the same time wasting even more time and money further developing an already epically delayed and monumentally over budget land based fighter into a carrier fighter that will be inferior to the Mig29, never mind the Rafale, in every conceivable measurement possible save for maybe price and actually physical size.

This is real, banging your head against a brick wall, stupid stuff.

Yes, the Indians need to start somewhere with their indigenous fighters, and the LCA is a positive step. So deploy the thing already, as is, to Air Force units. Get some much needed manufacturing and operational troubleshooting experience under their belts, and start fresh with a clean slate on their next gen indigenous fighter already instead of wasting more time and money trying to whip this dead horse into something its clearly not suited for at even a basic conceptual level.

I think having experience with a full project completion of Tejas from being a paper plane to entering full service with the associated support systems, will be beneficial for future next generation projects.


But it is rather confusing why they need Tejas with Mig-29... Not to mention Rafale, although Naval LCA was in development before MMRCA completed, and at this point I'm not sure if the IAF's Rafales will be naval capable.
It really is a mess of procurement projects across the services.

 

[kwaigonegin]

The way I see it the biggest advantage of the Tejas is not the plane itself but rather the entirety of the project and the experience and lessons learned from India's first true venture into developing an indigenous jet fighter. As we all know the project itself has been delayed plenty of times due to a multitude of issues so hopefully for they next indigenous plane they can apply those lessons and make the next project better streamline and more efficient.

That to me is the biggest gain for the Indians. The project management side of things from design to manufacturing to supply chain and everything that has to do with mass producing a jet fighter. The dirty politics involved in this project is also something hopefully India can learned from as in not to repeat them!

The capabilities of the aircraft itself is not that important from a standpoint of national defense etc since the Tejas is not their primary mainline fighter nor was it even intended to be. One can argue the ROI of the entire project but that is irrelevant because in the grand scheme of things it's not gargantuan nor did the project tanked the Indian economy or anything major like that.

Would it be nice if the Tejas has the capabilities of a J-10B or even the JF-17 blk I or II? sure it is however since this is their first true foray into the world of jet aircraft manufacturing it's decent start for them even with all the issues.

 

[Jeff Head]

The LCA is too short legged to be a decent carrier fighter

Ever hear of aerial refueling and buddy stores. The HAL Tejas has air to air refueling capabilities.

being a single engined bird also makes it more risky.

As we have discussed before, many single engine aircraft have worked very well off of the decks of carriers. This is not an issue.

Saying the LCA is better than the Harrier is kinda like winning the Special Olympics since the Harrier's primary selling point isn't its flight characteristics but rather its unparalleled (pre F35B) VTOL capabilities.

Nice strawman Wolf, but the fact remains that the Indians currently have had the Harrier. The Tejas will be a better attack aircraft than the Harrier. Irrespective of your use of the Speical Olympics in such a way to make your point. Actually using the Speical Olympics in such a way, IMHO, is disrespectful to anyone who has either been disabled, or anyone who has kids or relatives who are, and uses that event to better themselves.

Having spent all that time and money on a fleet of true flat top carriers (assuming the Indians actually finish building them), it just seem like a waste to use naval LCAs when they could have chosen a far more capable fighter. And that was before the Rafale deal.

The Indians built the LCA themselves. It is not a waste. It gives the Indians a lot of flexibility. The US used the A-4 Skyhawk effectively for many, many years...and the Brazilians still use it today off of their carrier. As a multi-role aircraft the Tejas is superior.

This is real, banging your head against a brick wall, stupid stuff.

No, it is very practical. This is an aircraft that can perform the attack role and a CAP role for the Indian carriers that they have built themselves, while sacrificing little room for their Mig-29Ks. They could easily have 16-18 Mig-29Ks and 6-8 Tejas and still operate their AEW and SAR helos.

Yes, the Indians need to start somewhere with their indigenous fighters, and the LCA is a positive step. So deploy the thing already, as is, to Air Force units. Get some much needed manufacturing and operational troubleshooting experience under their belts.

I agree...and they will

...start fresh with a clean slate on their next gen indigenous fighter already instead of wasting more time and money trying to whip this dead horse into something its clearly not suited for at even a basic conceptual level.

The Tejas will work fine as an attack aircraft off of the carrier...and it will be able to perform CAP missions with BVR missiles if needed. That will be a good thing, freeing up the Mig-29Ks for other, more demanding roles.

 

[Jeff Head]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

​

Trude Pettersen
December 09, 2013

Nearly two weeks after leaving port in Severodvinsk outside Arkhangelsk, the Indian carrier “Vikramaditya” has left Russian waters and is heading southwards along the coast of Norway.

The vessel, which originally carried the name “Baku” and later “Admiral Gorshkov”, crossed the border to Russia on the evening of December 7 and is heading towards India, shipyard Sevmash’ web site reads.

There are some 180 Russian specialists on board the warship who are tasked with monitoring the vessel’s overall performance and the on-site training of the Indian crew, as well as providing assistance in fixing any possible glitches in the operation of the ship’s systems

On the way from Severodvinsk the ship has been loaded with fuel twice – once in the White Sea and once in Murmansk, while waiting for a storm in the Barents Sea to calm. The carrier is followed by two other Indian vessels – the frigate “Trikand” and the tanker “Deepak”.

“Vikramaditya” is planned to reach its permanent base in the Karwar naval base near Goa in southwestern India in two months, Defense-update writes.

After a complete overhaul, the ship got a new flight deck and a ski-jump ramp for MiG-29K jet fighters, navigation, radar, communication and flight control systems, other equipment and units. Russia also trained an Indian crew of about 1,500 personnel and will build infrastructure for the aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean. The ship is expected to operate for 25-30 years.

Its full water displacement is 45,000 tonnes, maximum length is 283.5 metres and maximum width is 59.8 metres (increased by 8.8 metres from the original ship). The ship can carry 30 aircraft and has a crew of about 2,000 members, Voice of Russia writes.

 

[thunderchief]

Having spent all that time and money on a fleet of true flat top carriers (assuming the Indians actually finish building them), it just seem like a waste to use naval LCAs when they could have chosen a far more capable fighter. And that was before the Rafale deal.

Having seemingly committed to buying one of, if not the best carrier capable fighter on the market, it just seem positively bonkers to not only not actually use the bloody thing for your carrier, but instead use that only as a land based fighter while at the same time wasting even more time and money further developing an already epically delayed and monumentally over budget land based fighter into a carrier fighter that will be inferior to the Mig29, never mind the Rafale, in every conceivable measurement possible save for maybe price and actually physical size.

Well , actually ... Indians were toying with idea to use Rafale-M on INS Vikramaditya or INS Vkirant .But ...

Rafale-M has no folding wings so probably could not fit in elevator of INS Vikramaditya (don't know about Vikrant) . It could operate from STOBAR carriers but with reduced weight (more then Mig-29K because of higher stall speed and weaker engines) . And when you include huge price of Rafale-M compared to Mig-29K , choice is obvious ...
On the other hand , if India really starts to build CATOBAR carrier as they plan , Rafale-M would be serious contender .

As for naval Tejas , we will see about that later . Primary aim for India should be to start replacing numerous Mig-21s still in service .

 

[tphuang]

just reading through all of the Indian military blog entries surrounding LCA, I can't arrive to any conclusion other than that LCA is just a subpar fighter jet. Whether or not the naval variant actually ever makes to service is a big question. If it does, it would certainly not be a decision based on its performance. Indian navy would be better served to see if they can get naval variant of Rafale flying off its future carriers.