Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Pataliputra said:

Additionally, Tejas is less susceptible to American sanctions compared to the F-16 or F/A-18.

Click to expand...

To be less susceptible to US sanctions it has to be literally cleansed of US details, down to a bolt.
See how UK checked any Western fighters to Argentina for decades using same MB ejection seat monopoly.

And also it's the same reason why Gripen is a commercial failure - for an independent non-aligned option for countries just wanting to be left alone, it is still full of American details. And if you have to deal with the downsides of US export lash - may as well get its benefits, too.

Pataliputra said:

The USS Gerald Ford can carry at least 90 fighter jets, and potentially more depending on the aircraft type.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Here's what the article actually says:

The carrier’s size allows it to support up to 90 aircraft, including the fifth gen F-35, F/A-18 Super Hornet, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, MH-60R/S helicopters, as well as a number of UAVs.

Click to expand...

So, again, your claim of "at least 90 fighter jets" is pure bollocks. Like, can you even read?

Also, an 80000-ton aircraft carrier will always be an 80000-ton aircraft carrier. It will never be able to perform like a 100000-ton aircraft carrier, because everyone and everything on the planet Earth are ruled by physics.

Pataliputra said:

When the Indian Navy expresses interest in acquiring a nuclear-powered supercarrier, they are not referring to the Fujian class but rather seek a vessel comparable in size to the USS Gerald Ford. Furthermore, for India to intervene militarily in regions like the Middle East, Australia, or the South China Sea, possessing a supercarrier of this scale is essential.

Click to expand...

So much for being a "voice of the Global South" (and even a self-appointed one at that).

Pataliputra said:

India may not require an economy as large as China's to maintain a military of comparable size if all military hardware is produced domestically. This is because there would be no need to pay for weapons using foreign exchange reserves. For example, the Indian Air Force placed a $15 billion order for 180 Tejas MK1A fighter jets, they are made in India so, No price negotiations, No hefty payment to be made from foreign exchange reserves since 65% of the payment is in Indian rupees —a figure that is expected to increase over time. Additionally, Tejas is less susceptible to American sanctions compared to the F-16 or F/A-18.

Click to expand...

Until India has actually managed to reach that stage, all those talks are just empty boasting.

In the meantime, I hope you aren't blind to the fact where 15 billion USD for 180 Tejas MK1As still means an extremely hefty price tag of 83 million USD per what is supposed to be an indigenous, light-weight fighter.

Pataliputra said:

India may not require an economy as large as China's to maintain a military of comparable size if all military hardware is produced domestically. This is because there would be no need to pay for weapons using foreign exchange reserves. For example, the Indian Air Force placed a $15 billion order for 180 Tejas MK1A fighter jets, they are made in India so, No price negotiations, No hefty payment to be made from foreign exchange reserves since 65% of the payment is in Indian rupees —a figure that is expected to increase over time. Additionally, Tejas is less susceptible to American sanctions compared to the F-16 or F/A-18.

Click to expand...

So according to your logic, since China procures pretty much everything domestically using RMB, therefore it can achieve even more than what India can since India’s is like 65% only?

And you’re using Ford’s 100k tons with 90 aircrafts to demonstrate that 75k tons for 100 aircrafts is doable?

And… I don’t think the question is whether having an Indian super carrier is essential, we are saying it doesn’t look achievable in the near future for India to do so.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Those numbers are bollocks. Not even the USN with their 100 thousand-ton supercarriers are able to fit that many fighter jets onboard.

Besides, where are you going to park all the other types of aircrafts and helicopters onboard? And how are you going to conduct and handle flight deck and hangar deck operations with that many aircrafts packed onboard?

Have you ever given any thoughts about those?

Click to expand...

If they carry small Tejas fighters... they can carry a lot. Usability of that setup is probably futile. It's pipe dream anyway.

Pataliputra said:

The USS Gerald Ford can carry at least 90 fighter jets, and potentially more depending on the aircraft type.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When the Indian Navy expresses interest in acquiring a nuclear-powered supercarrier, they are not referring to the Fujian class but rather seek a vessel comparable in size to the USS Gerald Ford. Furthermore, for India to intervene militarily in regions like the Middle East, Australia, or the South China Sea, possessing a supercarrier of this scale is essential.

Click to expand...

I think in all your enthusiasm you forgot to read separately and sort by reply!

My point is that you claimed,...

Pataliputra said:

The under-development nuclear-propelled third aircraft carrier of the Indian Navy, known as INS Vishal, will have a displacement of 75,000 tonnes and can accommodate 80-100 fighter jets onboard.

Click to expand...

... while on the other side, India hopes, France would sell technology and let India be participate in its own new aircraft carrier and finally "work-on-third-aircraft-carrier-to-start-soon" ...


.... NOTHING is decided yet and while neither the lay-out nor size of the new carrier is fixed, it is not even clear if with or without France, alone or based on whatever's technology, you and others are already "day-dreaming" about 5-6 carriers, almost 250-300 naval fighters ... and so on!

Again, in Germany it is called a "Milchmädchenrechnung" () aka in short,

• a calculation based on fallacies or illusions.
• if someone does not include important parameters in his justification and thus comes to a plausible-sounding, but nevertheless wrong result

You and others are calculating how the economy might boom and in whatever years how many carriers could easily be built and maintained!

The problem is however, it is not only a dry dock large and wide enough to hold an aircraft carrier or a yard capable to built a "huge" vessel, it is a whole ecosystem of institutes, facilities, and so on. When did China start planning for its carrier project, when did they start making plans how the yards in Shanghai may look like? Remember in 2008 we already saw a model of the current yard holding an aircraft carrier in a not-then built dry dock and barely anyone imagined that today in 2024 it is reality almost exactly like the model 16 years ago!

So, where are India's yards, land based facilities for reactors, catapults, material, EM, ... what was the largest vessel ever built in India and not only warships ... and not to speak of the number of aircraft??

India needs to makes a foundation and not only plans and fancy sheets, loud claims and then always being offended, feel annoyed or insulted when critical questions are raised!

Sorry my friend, it's all only hot air in India ... nothing more at least since years.

@Bellum_Romanum