What's new

Indian Navy News & Discussions

IN had the luxury of not having a real opponent so far, but that is changing rapidly, with PLAN reaching into the IOR. But to fight that threat, Migs, NLCAs won't help. To remain in control, we had to ramp up capability and not only numbers!
long range ASW capability must have the highest priority, followed by an IAC 2 with capable fighters to counter PLAN carriers if necessary.
But sir, don't you agree that the current I.N.A.W. fighter strength is quite low with only 45 Mig-29k and 11 Sea Harriers.I mean if we really want to control both the opening to the I.O.R. then the I.N.A.W. should have an air wing of at least 200 capable carrier borne fighters and hence should go ahead and order another tranche of 45 Mig-29Ks from Russia which can then effectively placed at the newly built air stations in A&N islands and perhaps a squadron can be placed in the Lakshadweep islands too in order to control the Strait of Hormuz.After the induction of the INS Vikrant in the early 2018 nearly all of the current Mig-29Ks will be deployed on board both the A/Cs.So raising three more squadrons of Mig-29Ks along with 3 squadrons of N-LCA will definitely help us in the long run until INS Vishal is inducted in the I.N. by 2025.
 
.
But sir, don't you agree that the current I.N.A.W. fighter strength is quite low with only 45 Mig-29k and 11 Sea Harriers.I mean if we really want to control both the opening to the I.O.R. then the I.N.A.W. should have an air wing of at least 200 capable carrier borne fighters and hence should go ahead and order another tranche of 45 Mig-29Ks from Russia which can then effectively placed at the newly built air stations in A&N islands and perhaps a squadron can be placed in the Lakshadweep islands too in order to control the Strait of Hormuz.

You are missing 2 important points!

1) IAF not IN is responsible for shore based maritime patrol, that's why Mig 29UPG, Jaguar IM and MKI squads will cover the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal area and not IN's Mig 29Ks.

2) You can only operate a specific number of fighters on a carrier, INS Vikramaditya for example might carry around 22 fighters + additional helicopters, which leaves 23 Migs as reserves at shore bases.

So even if we had 200 fighters, we couldn't use them because of the lack of carriers and operational policies. That doesn't change with IAC1 either, since then the same number of NLCAs are planned to be procured too, which means IN will have around 90 fighters, but can operate only half of them at the same time on their carriers.
The Viraat and the Sea Harriers have no meaning anymore and are mainly remained in service for the sake of having another carrier. The operational costs overweighs the operational benefits today.
 
.
IN will have around 90 fighters, but can operate only half of them at the same time on their carriers.
Which is about right, this is how the USN operates. You can't have 100% of your fighters embarked 100% of the time.
 
.
Which is about right, this is how the USN operates. You can't have 100% of your fighters embarked 100% of the time.

Of course, the logic behind the numbers is correct, the problem is only, that USN carriers operates far more fighters at once and also more capable once, which can take on PLAN carriers too. We need Vikramaditya and IAC1 together to equal the Lianoing and still are in disadvantage, because of the less capable fighters.

When you think about it, the US plan is to divert the naval responsibility of the IOR to Australia and India, while operating the bulk of their carriers around China and the Pacific. Both countries will have P8 MPAs and both practically will have 2 carriers, but while we will be limited to Mig 29Ks and NLCAs, the Australians might have F35Bs and possibly even in similar numbers on their carriers. Which leaves our advantage mainly at the surface and submarine fleet, to be the main naval power in the region.
 
.
because of the less capable fighters.
The PLA(N)'s Su-33s cannot be considered superior to the IN's MIG-29Ks IMHO.

When you think about it, the US plan is to divert the naval responsibility of the IOR to Australia and India, while operating the bulk of their carriers around China and the Pacific. Both countries will have P8 MPAs and both practically will have 2 carriers, but while we will be limited to Mig 29Ks and NLCAs, the Australians might have F35Bs and possibly even in similar numbers on their carriers. Which leaves our advantage mainly at the surface and submarine fleet, to be the main naval power in the region.

This situation will only exist from a very limited period of time i.e. 2018-2025/6 when IAC-II will come online with a new type of more capable fighters, S-70Bs and (likely) EMALS and E-2Ds.

The PLA(N) won't be able to mount a presence in the IOR for another 15 years at least and this is without factoring the possibility of them getting tied down to the SCS by the US and its allies who they are doing a good job of getting on the wrong side of.
 
.
The PLA(N)'s Su-33s cannot be considered superior to the IN's MIG-29Ks IMHO.

They are not Su 33s, but navalised J11Bs, big difference! And we all know that IN prefered naval MKIs too, they just had no option.

This situation will only exist from a very limited period of time i.e. 2018-2025/6 when IAC-II will come online with a new type of more capable fighters, S-70Bs and (likely) EMALS and E-2Ds.

So more than a decade and even after that PLAN is not standing at the level they are today. Naval stealth fighters, EMALS and fixedwing AEW already under development.

The PLA(N) won't be able to mount a presence in the IOR for another 15 years at least and this is without factoring the possibility of them getting tied down to the SCS by the US and its allies who they are doing a good job of getting on the wrong side of.

That's the tactical side of course and the hope that the US will intervene in the worst case, but do you really want to put your hope in war times on the US or do you want an IN that can keep it's backyard clean on it's on?
 
.
They are not Su 33s, but navalised J11Bs, big difference! And we all know that IN prefered naval MKIs too, they just had no option.
From what I have read the IN eventually settled on the MiG-29K as a decent compromise between overall performance and size. The Su-33 clones the Chinese are flying are HUGE and flying a heavyweight fighter from a medium class ACC and that too with STOBAR is not only incredibly dangerous (for a nation with zero carrier aviation experience) but also limiting (space constraints, take off weight constraints etc ).


That's the tactical side of course and the hope that the US will intervene in the worst case, but do you really want to put your hope in war times on the US or do you want an IN that can keep it's backyard clean on it's on?
Of course the latter and this is clearly what the IN is working towards but it can't happen overnight....
 
.
IN had the luxury of not having a real opponent so far, but that is changing rapidly, with PLAN reaching into the IOR. But to fight that threat, Migs, NLCAs won't help. To remain in control, we had to ramp up capability and not only numbers!
long range ASW capability must have the highest priority, followed by an IAC 2 with capable fighters to counter PLAN carriers if necessary.
The only area where PLAN will challenge is nuclear subs. Assume that IN places 3 ACs in IOR, to match the same China would need to have at least 6 ACs spread over the area and that looks unlikely. So India would need to increase not only offensive capabilities in forms of own subs but also more P8i and similar counter against PLAN Subs.
Perhaps developing a large base in Andaman and nicobar could be an option.
 
.
From what I have read the IN eventually settled on the MiG-29K as a decent compromise between overall performance and size. .

Which again suggests that we had a choice, which we didn't because the Su 33 was out of production and not suitable for a medium class carrier like the Vikramaditya. But also because the Russians wanted us to fund the Mig 29K production, since they wanted that fighter to, as a low end for their future carriers. So from the Russian side, there was only 1 option available and while the IN asked western vendors for compatibility as well, the Russians closed that door by insisting on their fighters / aircrafts + the carrier.

The Su-33 clones the Chinese are flying are HUGE and flying a heavyweight fighter from a medium class ACC .

That's not correct, they have the sister ship of the Russian carrier, which both are large size carriers similar to what we aim IAC 2 on. And the only limitation they might have is, to refuel after take off for long range or heavy loaded missions, but that's the same penalty IN has to deal with as well, since it's a result of the ski-jump take off and not of the size or weight of the fighter. That's why Mig 29Ks with heavier loads can take off only from the rear take off point with maximum take off distance, but also burn a lot of fuel which then needs to be refuelled after take off again.

Of course the latter and this is clearly what the IN is working towards but it can't happen overnight....

That's the problem, IN is not working towards it! There is no fighter program or even a fighter concept for IAC2 available so far and IN is wasting time and money with NLCA instead. So even if IAC 2 would come with catapults and by 2025, IN will have no option than to import fighters again, because they haven't started any naval stealth fighter developments and will be dependent on DRDO / ADA converting the IAF AMCA again and that would come not before 2030. Freaking 15 years from now and in the meantime PLAN not only catches up, but easily surpass our carrier capabilities by far.

The only area where PLAN will challenge is nuclear subs. Assume that IN places 3 ACs in IOR, to match the same China would need to have at least 6 ACs spread over the area and that looks unlikely. So India would need to increase not only offensive capabilities in forms of own subs but also more P8i and similar counter against PLAN Subs.
Perhaps developing a large base in Andaman and nicobar could be an option.

PLAN's sub fleet, nuclear or conventional is the biggest threat to India anyway, because it's hard to detect them in such a vast area. A surface fleet on the other hand, would be detected days before they reach the area, which leaves enough time to prepare, for example moving fighter squads from shore bases towards the forwarded airbases at A&N.
But you are mistaken about the carriers, since even the current Chinese carrier is bigger than Vikramaditya and IAC1, which is why it carries roughly the same number of fighters as both of them. So all PLAN needs is the current and 1 more similar carrier, to counter all 3 Indian carriers that we will have and if they will come with navalised J20s, while we still bet on 4th gen fighters, then good night for IN.
 
. .
@Abingdonboy

We need One squadron Su 30 MKI with Brahmos for the Navy
A dedicated squadron

Mig 29 K is only for fleet defence ; With Su 30 we can disable enemy enemy air bases
 
.
@Abingdonboy

We need One squadron Su 30 MKI with Brahmos for the Navy
A dedicated squadron

Mig 29 K is only for fleet defence ; With Su 30 we can disable enemy enemy air bases
Shore based fighters are the IAF's domain, the IN has little need or interest in such assets. As it stands the AIF already has a lot of their MKI Sqns geared up for a maritime strike role and when the Brahmos-A capability is added this will be extended to the maritime domain.
 
. . .
.
Indian Navy INS Vishal nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier Promo video




.
Looking good.

Your work?

I think Vishal will have two islands. Just like French PA2.
Both will be very similar in many aspects.


I agree. This render looks like a cross between the IAC-1 and INS Vikramditya island designs but I think there will be two islands.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom