For my Indian friends: Taking Off In A MiG-29K From A Carrier At Night Is A Fiery Thrill

[Mike_Brando]

I don't think 45 (around 2 SQDs worth) MiG-29K/KUBs being procured purely for shore-based roles at A&N islands is necessary nor the best use of resources. Yes the IN/IAF/IA need to shore up their presence in the A&N islands looking to the future but 45 fighters is just too much especially considering that the primary purpose of the IN's fighters is not shore based defence at all but carrier aviation.

If you wanted 2 SQDs of fighters in the A&N islands then you would give that role to the IAF but, again, there is simply no need. The IAF and IN are both expanding the aviation facilities on the islands considerably that will allow them to operate any a/c India has- C17s, C-130Js, P-8Is, UAVs, MKIs, MiG-29K/KUBs etc etc. If the need an appropriate amount of MKIs can be flying over the A&N islands within hours.

I think there is a need to look at permanently basing (or rotating through) assets like the P-8I and Heron UAV. And perhaps in the future the A&N islands could play host to some IAF LCAs as point-defence interceptors.

But in case of a future full fledged two front war the IAF will be over stretching itself if it deploys it's premium aircraft at the A&N Naval command and thus it will hamper its operational capabilities to some extent.OTOH,if the I.N. Aviation gets an additional 45 of these birds then it can successfully impose a naval blockade both in the Arabian sea and in the BoB region at the same time.Asquadron of Mig-29K is more than enough to deter any Chinese naval action in the BoB region and simply nullify the Chinese naval threat.The second squadron then can effectively blockade the Arabian sea from the shore based I.N. bases at Gujarat and Maharashtra.

 

[jha]

But we have only got enough Su-30 to counter both China and Pakistan and hence in case of a future war it will definitely put stress on the IAF if it has to deploy addtional Su-30s to the A&N Naval command.Plus the Mig-29Ks can also impose a sea blockade against Pakistan from the land based based in Gujarat and Maharashtra.If the I.N. operates 90 of these machines then it can effectively maintain the fleet air defense on its own and at the same time impose a naval blockade against Pak and China without getting the IAF involved in this matter.Plus a senior retd. Naval officer told me that the I.N.Aviation is seriously thinking on ordering an additional 45 Mig-29Ks to strengthen the Fleet Air-Defense capability.

Thats a news to me.

Although I still believe what Mig-29K ca do, Super-30 MKI can do better. IN can always order 45 such planes from HAL. Armed with Brahmos-M, these fighters will make any Navy soil their pants.

 

[Abingdonboy]

But in case of a future full fledged two front war the IAF will be over stretching itself if it deploys it's premium aircraft at the A&N Naval command and thus it will hamper its operational capabilities to some extent.OTOH,if the I.N. Aviation gets an additional 45 of these birds then it can successfully impose a naval blockade both in the Arabian sea and in the BoB region at the same time.Asquadron of Mig-29K is more than enough to deter any Chinese naval action in the BoB region and simply nullify the Chinese naval threat.The second squadron then can effectively blockade the Arabian sea from the shore based I.N. bases at Gujarat and Maharashtra.

Although I still believe what Mig-29K ca do, Super-30 MKI can do better. IN can always order 45 such planes from HAL. Armed with Brahmos-M, these fighters will make any Navy soil their pants.

Guys, the simple fact of the matter is that the IN doesn't buy fighters to operate from the shore, it buys them to operate off their carriers (as do all carrier navies)the coverage you are talking about in the BoB would be done through the IN's carriers.

 

[Shinigami]

Thats a news to me.

Although I still believe what Mig-29K ca do, Super-30 MKI can do better. IN can always order 45 such planes from HAL. Armed with Brahmos-M, these fighters will make any Navy soil their pants.

using this logic, why doesnt the US navy buy F22 raptors?

 

[Archie]

using this logic, why doesnt the US navy buy F22 raptors?

USN operates 570+ F/A18 super hornets, 380 Legacy F/A18 Hornets and 120+ Harrier jump jets

I dont think they need support from USAF
unlike Indian Navy , PN or PLAN

 

[SrNair]

Of course, from a strategic point of view it would be a huge win for the US to get Indian as an ally because of our military and the strategic location in the IOR. Even if they want to weaken the BRICS, India is the most promissing option as a democratic country, which doesn't pose a threat to the US or NATO. Not to mention that they want a pice of the large economic potential India offers, so there are plenty of reason for them to get us on their side, but India is simply not the UK, Canada, or similar partner countries, that are dependent on the US in political or defence related sense. India is independent, has plenty of options and is politically strong even to oppose the US. So it's not that easy as they thought it would be even with MMS and the UPA government and now it will be interesting to see what happens with the relations under Modi and NDA, although after the recent midterm elections in the US, they might have more problems at home to deal with.

India is following an.independent foreign policy .But you know two lions in a jungle is not applicable.When we become a more than 8trillion$ economy an d still follow independant policy I am absolutely sure US target crosshair will also fall in India.

 

[jha]

using this logic, why doesnt the US navy buy F22 raptors?

Because USN is not looking to fly a plane from a place like A&N Islands. I was advocating Super-30 MKI for Andamans not for Carrier Groups.

 

[Manindra]

Can you please provide the link? I will also try to find this information.

MiG-29K Carrier-Based Multirole Fighter Aircraft - Naval Technology

 

[sancho]

i don't know how much that really comes into it, the bigger point is that the N-FGFA is almost certain to be unable to use catapults/EMALS so it's not even in contention.

Let me ask you this buddy, 2 countries are in war and both are sending their carriers to fight each other. The one country has a CATOBAR carrier with Sea Gripens:

The other a similar sized STOBAR carrier with naval Su 35s:

Which carrier / air wing will be better and why?

 

[Shinigami]

Let me ask you this buddy, 2 countries are in war and both are sending their carriers to fight each other. The one country has a CATOBAR carrier with Sea Gripens:

The other a similar sized STOBAR carrier with naval Su 35s:

Which carrier / air wing will be better and why?

thats like comparing a half full 2 litre bottle to a full 1 litre bottle

 

[Abingdonboy]

Although I still believe what Mig-29K ca do, Super-30 MKI can do better. IN can always order 45 such planes from HAL. Armed with Brahmos-M, these fighters will make any Navy soil their pants.

Let me ask you this buddy, 2 countries are in war and both are sending their carriers to fight each other. The one country has a CATOBAR carrier with Sea Gripens:

The other a similar sized STOBAR carrier with naval Su 35s:

Which carrier / air wing will be better and why?

Well this is an interesting It's not as clear cut as it may appear. Yes the Su-35 is, in paper, the superior machine in almost every regard BUT, with STOBAR there is a trade off- either heavy fuel or heavy weapons (can be negated to an extent by buddy-buddy refuelling meaning the fighters can take off with heavy weapons loads and low fuel and be topped up in the air).

And sir, you and I know that the effectiveness of these fighters is about a lot more than just the fighters themselves. One has to factor in situational awareness- a CATOBAR carrier would be able to launch a fixed wing AEW/AWACS that would give the Sea Gripens a distinct advantage.


Given the IN (for understandable reasons) is aggressively pursing a CATOBAR carrier design I'd say the die has been cast in this regard. What perplexes me is why the Russians are so headset against catapults, the combination of the N-PAK FA and catapults is a sure winner.

 

[RISING SUN]

Because USN is not looking to fly a plane from a place like A&N Islands. I was advocating Super-30 MKI for Andamans not for Carrier Groups.

Indian defence forces have categorically stated that we are not going to permanent squadrons in A&N chain because of natural calamity danger. It is much more dangerous than a strong adversarial country. Thank you.

 

[RISING SUN]

Well this is an interesting It's not as clear cut as it may appear. Yes the Su-35 is, in paper, the superior machine in almost every regard BUT, with STOBAR there is a trade off- either heavy fuel or heavy weapons (can be negated to an extent by buddy-buddy refuelling meaning the fighters can take off with heavy weapons loads and low fuel and be topped up in the air).

And sir, you and I know that the effectiveness of these fighters is about a lot more than just the fighters themselves. One has to factor in situational awareness- a CATOBAR carrier would be able to launch a fixed wing AEW/AWACS that would give the Sea Gripens a distinct advantage.


Given the IN (for understandable reasons) is aggressively pursing a CATOBAR carrier design I'd say the die has been cast in this regard. What perplexes me is why the Russians are so headset against catapults, the combination of the N-PAK FA and catapults is a sure winner.

Stobar is good but only upto a limit. It can't provide maximum thrust for takeoff. Tanker, logistic support supply plans, arial survilance planes can't take off from it. So yes future lies in CATOBAR system. I would like to avoid steam ones.

 

[sancho]

Well this is an interesting It's not as clear cut as it may appear. Yes the Su-35 is, in paper, the superior machine in almost every regard BUT, with STOBAR there is a trade off- either heavy fuel or heavy weapons (can be negated to an extent by buddy-buddy refuelling meaning the fighters can take off with heavy weapons loads and low fuel and be topped up in the air).

And sir, you and I know that the effectiveness of these fighters is about a lot more than just the fighters themselves. One has to factor in situational awareness- a CATOBAR carrier would be able to launch a fixed wing AEW/AWACS that would give the Sea Gripens a distinct advantage.

Let me sum up your points once more:

1) Su 35 is superior to the medium class single engine Gripen
2) Ski-jump take off for long range or heavy payload missions, must be countered by mid air refuelling
3) Catapult take off gives the capability to operate more capable AWACS aircrafts and therefore better situational awareness

I agree with all these points and as you said, the mid air refuelling after take off gives you still the capability to carry good payloads, which basically leaves the use of propper AWACS aircrafts as the only real advantage and here comes the really interesting part!

Take the same scenario again, but replace the Sea Gripen with F35C and the naval Su 35 with a naval Pak Fa, what is the result now?

1) Pak Fa is superior to the medium class single engine F35C
2) Ski-jump take off for long range or heavy missions, must be countered by mid air refuelling
3) Catapult take off gives the capability to operate more capable AWACS, which however have limited effect against stealth fighters

So when you can counter the payload issue by refuelling after take off and you have stealth fighters that are harder to detect and could work well in mini AWACS roles (long range AESA radar, with side arrays, long range ESM/ECM capability), a lot of the problems gets ruled out.
Catapult take off is surely a nice feature to have, but the most important point to decide the capability of a carrier is the capability of of it's fighters! A CATOBAR carrier with less capable fighters, will remain to be weak, even with the catapult capability, while a STOBAR carrier with high capable fighters can still have the advantage.

I told you before that I am not convinced that we really need CATOBAR carriers for the future, because a combination of a 65.000t STOBAR carrier with naval FGFA would be an excellent one. And now think once more about the Russian plans for future carriers and the offer to jointly develop them and the fighters for it, it gives us the prospect to have:

- a nuclear carrier in the 65 to 70.000t class
- a naval FGFA with the highest flight performance of all possibly available naval fighters, with Indian weapons and systems
- ski-jump for fighters like naval FGFA, Mig 29K, N-LCA
- most likely catapults (possibly even EMALS, Russia has started such developments) for larger AWACS aircrafts and UCAVs like AURA / Mig Scat

Not only could we get nuclrear propulsions that many people wants for IAC2, but also a capable stealth fighter, while using the already available 4.5th gen fighters that are in the fleet to complement in buddy refuelling or basic air defence roles next to FGFA too. Larger AWACS aircrafts or heavier loaded UCAVs could be used via catapults, which further increases the capability of the carrier. So do we really need to restrict ourselfs to US approval on catapults + US carrier fighters and AWACS aircrafts with operational limitations and is the Russian way really so bad?

 

[Mike_Brando]

USN operates 570+ F/A18 super hornets, 380 Legacy F/A18 Hornets and 120+ Harrier jump jets

I dont think they need support from USAF
unlike Indian Navy , PN or PLAN

Mate,i think that you have made a slight mistake here.The U.S.N. doesn't operate Harrier AV-8B aircraft.They are part of the Marina Aviation.The U.S.N. inventory includes 570 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets,114 EA 18G Growler and around 380 F/A-18 C/D Hornets.The Marine aviation includes around 125 Harrier II AV-8B and aorund 225 F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornets.