Yes re certification can happen surely but in case additional strengthening is suggested, then its cost intensive..
Dry dock wise very limited choice - only CSL and Pipavav.
As per my data,
View attachment 334087
If i understand clearly the N carrier construction as to be near to Vishakapatnam for reasons you already should know. So i guess Rambili will be chosen provided Reliance can set up a location with minimum 14-15 meter draft.
++
About Rafale M its about
- Future upgrades for a fleet for minimum 30 years by comparision Mig29K may be obsolete in next 15 years
- Technological advancement that new product brings in
- Mig29 K used only for A2A and AShM roles - primary defensive roles within 300 nautical miles or 550 km max
- Proposed Rafale M or any other catobar aircraft for A2G aspect and using it for actual strike roles opening a new corridor for package delivery along with the above mentioned roles.
- Rafale M radius of operations are more like 600 Nm or 1000 Km and above types giving it the true bluwater capability
- A doctrine need for triad first step of aerial assets being over different places to get ambiguity.
- Commonality of the supply and spares from operational POV
+++
Excellent post Sir. I wish you could post more regularly.
Just to add a little,
TBH there design revolves around using the heavy fighter PAKFA - M version from catapults and Mig29Ks from Stobar config. Owing to restricted small distance for takeoff, the actual payload capacity fo fuel will be lower in order to sustain basic combat load under stressed conditions and will require a AAR refuel up in air to proceed towards area of operations. Supposing the time is not there for AAR refueling then time on air will severely limit them.
The stress levels of sustaining PAKFA-M and Mig29K say in a emergency sortie will be too high.
In queen Elizabeth class, its estimated that 24 F35-Bs are launched in 15 Mins and recovery rate is 24 mins for all 24 birds. (STOBAR)
Now assuming this 85000 Tonnes mammoth carrier has considerable LACM and S500 elements + ASW and AEW crafts, consider the actual jets to be say 60 jets with 40 PAKFA -M and 20 Mig29Ks
- The Stobaroperations will mean at least a Mig29k sortie every 40 -50 sec meaning 14-17minutes to be airborne for 300Nm radii
- Catobar parallel launch will mean 2 PAKFA-M sortie together but mean time before next sortie is approx 1 minute to best case 40 secs (Nimitz class can launch 4 birds in 10 secs from different catapults but then next lot takes over a minute to launch even though they prefer to make it in 40 secs and practice for 30 secs with 2 catapult launch)
- So 14-20 mins approx for all PAKFA-M to be on air for say 600-800 Nm combat radii.
- Now consider all these take offs in a continuously busy deck and planes getting ready and carried to deck from elevator and waiting aspect too. .
- Thus flight deck arrangement will be a living hell in case of a emergency sortie.
- Recovery rates should see all these aircraft back in deck anywhere between 30-60 minutes bcz i dont have any data to substantiate and prove, other than comparing the F35B data but PAKFA -M will be much different.
- Daily sortie rates in such a condition wont be sustainable in very high rates
- Yet to prove the turnaround time between sorties /consecutive sorties for a 5th gen PAKFA from deck operations.and number it can sustain per day.
On top, The 23000E is basically the way of getting India agree on PAKFA-M or Indian FGFA M. This is a big issue bcz IN as part of the doctrine dont like to operate heavy fighters and are more happy with medium category jets.
As I said, its a fortress and in essence its a whole lot bigger than a airbase going there. The firepower of offensive LACM, the ABM/BMD of S500 Triumfator-M and a contingent of 40 heavy and 20 medium birds makes it a incredibly offensive powerhouse.
The question to ask is
- Can we have such a doctrine shift?
- Will we as a country ready to shell out a good amount in order to build a much bigger ACC of nuclear powered and take our ship building capabilities much ahead?
- Are we ready to consider the limitation of such systems as well and understand that a ACC like 23000E if binded with Russian air wing will also limit us of actually having an optimized mission efficiencies?
+++
- Coming back to the same aspect of fighter fleet consider all 60 to be Rafale-M.
- Here lies the difference. Rafale M can also take off from short runways and also land in short runways.
- This commonality aspect of the entire air wing may help smoothen out the cross management between heavy going to catobar and medium going to stobar aspect.
- On top the payload package can be configured differently based on mission aim but thats far more convenient.
- Again recovery rates should be far more smoother as compared to mixed bag fleet.