Indian Navy LCA to soon begin test flights

[ANPP]

Lets put aside if that is true or not, but just out of logic, an IN Mig 29K that is operated from a carrier much farther away than the IAF Migs, can logically do less sorties right? When you also add that IAF has a full squad of fighters avalilable, while IN could only use a fraction of their fighters on the carrier for offensive operations, because most of their fighters will be limited to defence of the CBG, it also shows that sortie rates will be limited for IN. So your point is actually proving the disadvantages of using a carrier and it's fighters to attack targets in our neighboring countries, when IAF fighters are available anyway.

????
You took it wrong. Carrier can go much near to the target rather than stationary airbases.

IAF also put some fighters on defensive role indeed, but you are taking assumption of that some older fighter would be used for that purpose. While in IN migs have to fill to gap of twice of those rolls......right. So indeed IAF have to use its resources in defensive role, especially financial one.

In these cases as I already said earlier mig-k always have greater sorties per aircraft, not total number of sorties of all plane.L

 

[Sergi]

That's the usual misconception about me, but only when you not properly read what I actually say.

I was kidding

I don't want "just" more Mig 29Ks, but with a much higher Indian content! I want the things we develop or wanted to develop for LCA, being integrated in Mig 29K airframes to bring the so called "MKIzing" to a whole new level or to a similar project as Brahmos, that also integrate indigenous system on a Russian platform.
For IAF LCA and all the indigenous techs are useful and make sense, for IN the same techs and weapons would make more sense in a better platform and even if we look forward, it would make more sense to develop a naval AMCA based on the indigenous techs and capabilities for LCA, but airframe wise from the Mig 29K platform onwards, as both would be at least medium class twin engine fighters.

Yes, that's exactly why I say the carriers are pointless in a war against Pakistan, since we wouldn't need or risk the fighters from them to attack targets that could be attacked simpler by sub launched cruise missiles, or shore based IAF fighters.
But, India's threat perception has changed and control of IOR would include defence against Chinese carriers in the long run and do you honestly belive N-LCA can stand a change (offensive or defensive) against J15s, or even better fighters? Of course not, that's why N-LCA is a pointless development today, when we need customized Mig 29Ks now and naval AMCAs for the future!


I would like if that would be the case, but so far I don't see any indication for that. IN still gets only carrier fighters, none of the MKI squads that will be raised at the costal areas will be diverted to them, not even the maritime attack Jags, so that's (as sad as it is), no point for N-LCA either. And even if they would take over the role, they


That A) would reduce N-LCA to a bare trainer only, B) is wrong since IN want single seat N-LCAs too and C) doesn't make sense by the fact that IN is ordering own Mig 29K twin seaters for the training too

I forgot the term Navy guy told me so I used training
There is mandatory that certain number of flying hours are required to be completed by the pilots from flat top to keep in shape with carrier operations.
He was saying that it will be cost effective with combination of NLCA & Mig saving Mig's valuable lifespan. He said. I dont know heck of anything.

Not sure what you mean with 10/20

the may be final N-LCA number with IN

Come on mate that doesn't make any sense! You develop a fighter for millions of tax payers money and then don't want to use it in war, which is it's prime use? More over, if IN would only want to develop an N-LCA capable of operating on a carrier, they only would need some more upgraded N-LCA MK1s and not fully developed MK2s with all the requirements the IN set up. You don't need higher thrust, if you want N-LCA MK1 to take off without useful loads, you don't need additional internal fuel tanks, if you don't intend to use it in long endurance roles, you don't need AESA radar, if you don't intend to detect enemy targets...

May be the same reason we use simulators. To practice ; to hon the skills. BTW Thats what I think dont know for sure. M just messenger

 

[sancho]

Carrier can go much near to the target rather than stationary airbases.

Only when the enemy targets that pose a threat are already destroyed, because you don't put the CBG at risk! That's why it operates in safe distance, beyond the reach of the anti ship and cruise missiles of the enemy. If you take recent NATO wars as an example, the first attacks are always cruise missile attacks from subs, destroyer or frigates and the same would be the case in our scenario today, which is why IN is so focused on land attack capability of their subs and vessels for years.

IAF also put some fighters on defensive role indeed

Of course, but a usual IAF airbase have at least 2 x squads / up to 36 x fighters, roughly twice the number of fighters IN 's carriers can carry. Not to mention that IAF has not only a single airbase in the area, which increases the number of fighters for offensive and defensive roles, just like the number of possible sorties.

You have to understand that the use of carriers is to project air power, to areas where you don't have land based air power or only in limited numbers, but that is not the case around the Arabian Sea or the Bay of Bengal. That's why the carrier fighters makes only sense in offensive roles against a Chinese enemy fleet, or if power is projected beyond the IOR!

but you are taking assumption of that some older fighter would be used for that purpose. While in IN migs have to fill to gap of twice of those rolls......right.

What older fighter? I took the same Mig 29s for the comparison, be it the upgraded once of IAF, or the Ks of IN and both offer the same tech and weapon capabilities, so no difference there, other than IAF can simply use more fighters, in more sorties, with less logsitical problems, that the use of Mig 29Ks from a carrier would bring (when you take IAF's MKIs or even MMRCA's into comparison, it gets worse for IN 's Migs, because they will not only be numerically but also capability wise outclassed, which makes carriers even less needed).

 

[sancho]

He was saying that it will be cost effective with combination of NLCA & Mig saving Mig's valuable lifespan.

Of course it's more cost-effective to operate an LCA, over a twin engined medium class fighter. But that is only his point of view, which doesn't comply with what IN want. As said, if cost-effective training of pilots for carrier operations would be the aim of N-LCA, IN only would need to add a hook to the current N-LCA MK1 twin seater and could start training right away. But that is not what IN wants! They want a fully fledged MK2 version with several changes, just as they want single seat varients and all that for operational missions and not for training.

 

[ANPP]

Example 1:
- IN Mig 29K takes off (with KAB 500 PGMs and limited fuel because of ski-jump take off) from INS Vikramaditya, which operates in a safe distance somewhere in the Arabian Sea
- refuels in air, either by buddy refuelling or IAF tankers
- operates with AEW support of either KA 31, but most likely with IAF AWACS
- attacks shore based targets

Example 2:
- IN Mig 29K takes off (with KAB 500 PGMs and full fuel) from IN's airbase in Goa
- refuels in air, either by buddy refuelling or IAF tankers
- operates with AEW support of either KA 31, but most likely with IAF AWACS
- attacks shore based targets

Example 3:
- IAF Mig 29UPG takes off (with KAB 500 PGMs and limited fuel) from IAFs airbase in Jamnagar
- doesn't need air refuelling because of the close distance
- operates with AEW support of IAF AWACS
- attacks shore based targets


In all 3 examples, the same targets could be attacked from the same sea side, with pretty much the same fighters, weapons and technical capabilities (not included MKIs or MMRCAs that might be used in such attacks as well). Which shows that we don't need carriers to attack coastal targets in neighboring countries, to create a "2nd front" .
The carriers are needed to retain control of the sea areas around India and the IOR, but by the lack of credible naval forces in the region, IN's fleet would easily be able to retain control even without carriers. The only possible enemy that could pose a real threat to IN is China and their naval fleet, so our carriers must be aimed on countering them and not the limited capabilities of our neighboring navies.



Lets put aside if that is true or not, but just out of logic, an IN Mig 29K that is operated from a carrier much farther away than the IAF Migs, can logically do less sorties right? When you also add that IAF has a full squad of fighters avalilable, while IN could only use a fraction of their fighters on the carrier for offensive operations, because most of their fighters will be limited to defence of the CBG, it also shows that sortie rates will be limited for IN. So your point is actually proving the disadvantages of using a carrier and it's fighters to attack targets in our neighboring countries, when IAF fighters are available anyway.

Only when the enemy targets that pose a threat are already destroyed, because you don't put the CBG at risk! That's why it operates in safe distance, beyond the reach of the anti ship and cruise missiles of the enemy. If you take recent NATO wars as an example, the first attacks are always cruise missile attacks from subs, destroyer or frigates and the same would be the case in our scenario today, which is why IN is so focused on land attack capability of their subs and vessels for years.


Of course, but a usual IAF airbase have at least 2 x squads / up to 36 x fighters, roughly twice the number of fighters IN 's carriers can carry. Not to mention that IAF has not only a single airbase in the area, which increases the number of fighters for offensive and defensive roles, just like the number of possible sorties.

You have to understand that the use of carriers is to project air power, to areas where you don't have land based air power or only in limited numbers, but that is not the case around the Arabian Sea or the Bay of Bengal. That's why the carrier fighters makes only sense in offensive roles against a Chinese enemy fleet, or if power is projected beyond the IOR!


What older fighter? I took the same Mig 29s for the comparison, be it the upgraded once of IAF, or the Ks of IN and both offer the same tech and weapon capabilities, so no difference there, other than IAF can simply use more fighters, in more sorties, with less logsitical problems, that the use of Mig 29Ks from a carrier would bring (when you take IAF's MKIs or even MMRCA's into comparison, it gets worse for IN 's Migs, because they will not only be numerically but also capability wise outclassed, which makes carriers even less needed).

Ofcourse in initialphase of war, ot is very risky for carrier to go near the enemy harbour. So initially high priority would be dealt by cruise missiles and perhaps by IAFs help but later IN fighter will replace them in operations. I mean why we should use many millions dollar missles and IAF fighters who are sitting long way back in home who can not response any immediate situation.


And close bases situation is not viable except in Punjab region. And even in this scenario bases would not relay on other bases for their defence.


There could be another situation for induction of lca by IN. If you see the geography of south-west India..........very sound and credential facilities are in Gujrat region, Mumbai(Barc) is there and most important Alenkleswar situated in that region........means the area which we must protect in any situation. That's why IN is interested in inducting more fighters, that is quantitative edge. While migs are providing qualitative edge.
That same situation is also true for Kochi like naval station where IAF cannt provide sufficient air cover neither conduct deep patrolling in seas.

 

[Sankpal]

what the fish??????

Scarp Navy LCA plssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Mig 29 k $32 million and HAL Tejas 31.09 Million (will take 8-10 years)


Focus on fifth generation fighter plane with US or Russia...............that's it

 

[Jayanta]

Any updates on LCH??

 

[Sergi]

Of course it's more cost-effective to operate an LCA, over a twin engined medium class fighter. But that is only his point of view, which doesn't comply with what IN want. As said, if cost-effective training of pilots for carrier operations would be the aim of N-LCA, IN only would need to add a hook to the current N-LCA MK1 twin seater and could start training right away. But that is not what IN wants! They want a fully fledged MK2 version with several changes, just as they want single seat varients and all that for operational missions and not for training.

Sancho that has nothing to do with what IN want. Thats what our dear DRDO said they can deliver. Look at the numbers on order ... Just 8 !!!! What that tell you.
If DRDO say they can sell you 8 mini Rafales with less range and payload at the cost 2/3 Rafales IN will always buy them

PS: I would personally want MOD to buy 26 Rafale-M off-shelf in MMRCA deal but no one is going to listen to me

 

[Donatello]

Stupid people want to ruin IN Navy air wing with tejas. Tejas is no match for mig29k yet Navy want to deploy tejas on ACC.

Ssh, you fellow Indians might not like this.......they want to project a rosy picture on PDF.

 

[Koovie]

Stupid people want to ruin IN Navy air wing with tejas. Tejas is no match for mig29k yet Navy want to deploy tejas on ACC.

Who cares what they want?

The IN is not run by online fanboys !

 

[sancho]

Ofcourse in initialphase of war, ot is very risky for carrier to go near the enemy harbour. So initially high priority would be dealt by cruise missiles and perhaps by IAFs help but later IN fighter will replace them in operations.

That's what I said, but then all the carrier and the fighters will do, is keep Sea control and providing air defence for the CBG, since offensive actions are already done. There is no denying that the carriers can be useful for Sea control, since IN can cover a greater area that otherwise would require more vessels, the point however was, that the carriers are not necessarily needed for a war and offensive actions against our neighbors.

There could be another situation for induction of lca by IN. If you see the geography of south-west India..........very sound and credential facilities are in Gujrat region, Mumbai(Barc) is there and most important Alenkleswar situated in that region........means the area which we must protect in any situation. That's why IN is interested in inducting more fighters, that is quantitative edge. While migs are providing qualitative edge.
That same situation is also true for Kochi like naval station where IAF cannt provide sufficient air cover neither conduct deep patrolling in seas.

You do know that IAF has 2 x MKI squads in Pune, raises one each at Kalaikunda and Thanjavur right? These are mainly meant for long range / endurance operations in the coastal areas and they also will get Brahmos strike capability. So N-LCA won't play a role in coastal defence either, but even if we say IN should take over that role (which I fully support), IN would not need N-LCA to operate from their shore bases, but the same LCA that IAF uses as well!

Look at the numbers on order ... Just 8 !!!! What that tell you.

That's only the initial number and most likely for tech demo MK1s and MK2 prototypes. HAL is officially stating 188 x LCAs and N-LCAs, we know IAF has only orders for 120 x fighters, the rest are prototypes and possible IN orders.

PS: I would personally want MOD to buy 26 Rafale-M off-shelf in MMRCA deal but no one is going to listen to me

It's not about them listening to us, but it's about them using their brains and tax payers money in a more reasonable way! They can't pay millions for the development and procurement of the fighter, when they know it has no operational importance. And when they say that China is the biggest threat, they need to make the carriers capable enough to counter that threat and who honestly believes that N-LCA will be able to do that?

 

[he-man]

It would not be a good idea to develop n-lca beyond a tech demonstrator.
Looking at the specs it falls short on everything vs mig-29k and the difference is too big to ignore.

 

[Sergi]

That's only the initial number and most likely for tech demo MK1s and MK2 prototypes. HAL is officially stating 188 x LCAs and N-LCAs, we know IAF has only orders for 120 x fighters, the rest are prototypes and possible IN orders.

And you buy HAL's claim ???
They were saying 250 birds teo years ago.
40 MK-1 + 120 MK-2 + 12-20 NLCA sounds more real

 

[ANPP]

do know that IAF has 2 x MKI squads in Pune, raises one each at Kalaikunda and Thanjavur right? These are mainly meant for long range / endurance operations in the coastal areas and they also will get Brahmos strike capability. So N-LCA won't play a role in coastal defence either, but even if we say IN should take over that role (which I fully support), IN would not need N-LCA to operate from their shore bases, but the same LCA that IAF uses as well!
?

Will it be the same in war scenario....? War time formations are too much different from peace time.There will be hardly any MKI in south India in war.........and same I think for Pune base. Although Jamnagar would get more fighters but not enough to cover whole area ...........You know whT I mean?

 

[sancho]

And you buy HAL's claim ???

IN official also stated around 40 x N-LCA at some point, so I do think that that number is the currently potential of LCA orders for both forces.

Will it be the same in war scenario....? War time formations are too much different from peace time.

Of course, you don't raise complete new squads, logistics or even set up a complete new air base, if you don't intend to operate fighters there. These squads are meant to protect the southern areas at all times, be it the airspace over major cities in the area, or the Sea areas around them. The upgrade of the airstrips at A&N is even meant to operate additional fighters from these forwarded air strips if needed in a war.