MIG-29k numbers and naval rafale

[Abingdonboy]

Stop being silly, any carrier wing carries enough spares including replacement engines to be able to maintain and service the aircraft on board. The Mig-29K is relatiavely new and doesn't need any major overhauls. These overhauls if needed are planned for when the ship is ashore. Else, the Viky does carry between 20-24 aircraft and has enough capacity to maintain 75-80% availability during deployments thats between 15-18 aircraft at any time. The rest of the aircraft at the moment are based at INS HANSA and INS DEGA. Waiting for the IAC which will have the same sqd size. Its quite clear in the IN for quite some time that they will operate 2 sqds of the Mig-29K, 1 for Viky and 1 for IAC.

Also you are being futhermore ridiculous by claiming IN is not clear about what it wants on the IAC while the carrier is just over a year away from sea trials.

You are saying I am being silly but your own figures don't add up. 45 MiG-29K/KUB equates to 3 SQNs (plus war reserves) as said by your own source:

Of course, much of the that weight will be comprised of two fixed wing squadrons (12 x fighters each)

The IN operates smaller SQNs than the IAF (12-15 instead of 18-21). Thus 3 SQNs of MiG-29K/KUB are NOT enough to support 2 ACs and 1 SQN for shore based training. The IAC-1 and Vky combined can carry 40-45 MiG-29K between them.

You are (foolishly) assuming 100% deployability for the entire 45 MiG-29K/KUB which is BEYOND absurd to say the least. I've spoken to very knowledgable people on this matter and 45 is the number to support a single carrier (2 SQNs embarked with 1 SQN on shore for training/OCU and some war reserves built in).

When 45 were procured from the Russians did the IN say that was to cover future carriers or did they say that was part of the deal for the VIKRAMDITYA?

If the IN was actually serious about the MiG-29K for the IAC-1 then they would have ordered more of them by now. They haven't placed any orders for fighrers that will take 3-4 years to enter service for a carrier that is 2 years away from sea trails. Now there is only one logical reason for this (weighing up the Rafale offer), if they were happy with the MiG-29 to go on board the could have placed follow-on orders a long time ago.

, 10 x Ka-31 ASW helicopters

You highly reliable source doesn't even know that KA-31s are AEW helos and the Ka-28 is the ASW helo.

As for IAC-1 sister ship, no clear cut confirmation, let alone authorization for construction. Even if authorized today, such a ship won't be ready before 2027

11 years to build an IAC-1 class ship? Are you insane? It would take 6-7 years at most.

will carry the LCA MK-2

Nope, nope and nope. The N-LCA is not suitable for the IN's ambitions, they have adopted it for industrial benefits it will bring but they will never feild it as the sole/lead carrier fighter on their flat tops. A light weight single engined aircraft has no business with the IN truth be told but as a technology demonstration project it is understandable.

By then 5th gen options include Naval AMCA, F-35C, Naval PAKFA. Rafale is highly questionable.

1) Naval AMCA is at least 2 decades away
2) F-35C has no chance with the IN
3) The Naval PAK-FA does not exist, the IN has no interest in it and the PAK-FA project itself is massively behind schedule.

The Rafale-M is BY FAR the most sensible option on the table.


Instead some are pushing for the MiG-29K:

1) Cost- LCCs will be almost negligable between the Rafale-M and MiG-29K AND the Rafale-M is a FAR more natural carrier fighter than the MiG-29K and will be far easier to support at sea than the notoriously maintainence intensive Russian fighters
2) Industrial benefits- NIL, let me say that again; NIL, as far as the MiG-29K is concerned. The Rafale will be built in India so there is massive scope for industrial benefits (throughout the Rafale's life) with the Rafale-M order.
3) Interoperability- not just within the IN itself (as the CATOBAR fighter fleet will also likely be Rafale-Ms) but with the IAF also (the Rafale will serve in the IAF for the next 35-40 years, the MiG-29UPGs will be out of service within 20 years).

Points 2 and 3 alone make any case for the MiG-29K over the Rafale-M completely ludacrious.

@PARIKRAMA @Taygibay

 

[Taygibay]

Mostly agreed to your above points although present MiG-29s stay.

So that when you say :

Thus 3 SQNs of MiG-29K/KUB are NOT enough to support 2 ACs and 1 SQN for shore based training.

it's only true if both carriers go out at once; you answered yourself.

Until at least 2018, when Vikrant will be tip top shape and roaring, it should not
be a concern to have but 3 12-15 planes squadrons and spares. The Vikra and
it won't need more ( something like 60+_ ) until they sail together & independently.

And by then the Rafale to be delivered in the interim will be a known quantity to Indian forces.

Once that happens, I'm confident. Tay.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Mostly agreed to your above points although present MiG-29s stay.

So that when you say :

​

which is only true if both carriers go out at once, you answer yourself.

Until at least 2018, when Vikrant will be tip top shape and roaring, it should not
be a concern to have but 3 12-15 planes squadrons and spares. The Vikra and
it won't need more ( something like 60+_ ) until they sail together & independently.

And by then the Rafale to be delivered in the interim will be a known quantity to Indian forces.

Once that happens, I'm confident. Tay.

Of course, the present MiG-29K/KUB are here to stay no matter what but the question is which ships will they form the airwing for? It is my contention that whilst, at some point in time, the IN may have intended to place MiG-29Ks on the IAC-1 their resolve has weakened in this regard and they are now seriosuly weighing up another option for the IAC-1's airwing.

The most sensible (this is the IN we are talking about so its fair to assume some sense is being applied) projection would be:

Vikramditya (STOBAR)- MiG-29K
IAC-1 (Vikrant) (STOBAR)- Rafale-M
IAC-1 sister ship (projected) (STOBAR)-Rafale-M
IAC-2 (CATOBAR)-Rafale-M*
IAC-2 sister ships (CATOBAR)-Rafale-M*

*to be joined by the N-AMCA at some point after 2035.

 

[Taygibay]

LOL So all Rafale Ms after the Vikra retires?

Tay.

 

[Abingdonboy]

LOL So all Rafale Ms after the Vikra retires?

Tay.

From a commonality, efficency and sheer capability perspective it is the optimal solution IMO.*



*with the N-AMCA joining them at some point

 

[MilSpec]

There is not going to be any ramp on CATOBAR carriers for the N-LCA to use nor will it be able to launch with a catapult.

Why would NLCA or Mig29K be unable to launch from catapault?

 

[Taygibay]

Why would NLCA or Mig29K be unable to launch from catapault?

That's easy! 250 000 lbf per launch more or less depending on AC.
So standing start, instant 3 to 4 G input corresponding to aircraft TOW.
All through the front landing gear sometimes the main one and of course
through the fuselage itself.

It's very easy to land a plane on a carrier relatively speaking. That is also
why when makers push Sea versions of their fighters without experience
of it, knowledgeable and practical people chuckle in derision and in unison.

We're talking structural refit for the 29s here.

All the best, Tay.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Calculate at 66% availability and you get for 2 squads of 15 jets or 30 jets, need of 3 sqds of total 45 jets.

If and when iac1 jets will be ordered even if it's Mig29k we will order a similar number plus half a sqd for pure training or OCUs..

IN operates 30 mig29k from Baku/Vicky with 6 helos of ka31/ka28 mix for ASW and AEW ops..

 

[#hydra#]

You are saying I am being silly but your own figures don't add up. 45 MiG-29K/KUB equates to 3 SQNs (plus war reserves) as said by your own source:
My doubt is rafale m doesn't have foldable wings,weather iac1's lifting bay is large enoug to handle rafale?as far as i know this is the main hurdle for rafale M to operate from russian built vikramaditya.

The IN operates smaller SQNs than the IAF (12-15 instead of 18-21). Thus 3 SQNs of MiG-29K/KUB are NOT enough to support 2 ACs and 1 SQN for shore based training. The IAC-1 and Vky combined can carry 40-45 MiG-29K between them.

You are (foolishly) assuming 100% deployability for the entire 45 MiG-29K/KUB which is BEYOND absurd to say the least. I've spoken to very knowledgable people on this matter and 45 is the number to support a single carrier (2 SQNs embarked with 1 SQN on shore for training/OCU and some war reserves built in).

When 45 were procured from the Russians did the IN say that was to cover future carriers or did they say that was part of the deal for the VIKRAMDITYA?

If the IN was actually serious about the MiG-29K for the IAC-1 then they would have ordered more of them by now. They haven't placed any orders for fighrers that will take 3-4 years to enter service for a carrier that is 2 years away from sea trails. Now there is only one logical reason for this (weighing up the Rafale offer), if they were happy with the MiG-29 to go on board the could have placed follow-on orders a long time ago.


You highly reliable source doesn't even know that KA-31s are AEW helos and the Ka-28 is the ASW helo.


11 years to build an IAC-1 class ship? Are you insane? It would take 6-7 years at most.


Nope, nope and nope. The N-LCA is not suitable for the IN's ambitions, they have adopted it for industrial benefits it will bring but they will never feild it as the sole/lead carrier fighter on their flat tops. A light weight single engined aircraft has no business with the IN truth be told but as a technology demonstration project it is understandable.


1) Naval AMCA is at least 2 decades away
2) F-35C has no chance with the IN
3) The Naval PAK-FA does not exist, the IN has no interest in it and the PAK-FA project itself is massively behind schedule.

The Rafale-M is BY FAR the most sensible option on the table.


Instead some are pushing for the MiG-29K:

1) Cost- LCCs will be almost negligable between the Rafale-M and MiG-29K AND the Rafale-M is a FAR more natural carrier fighter than the MiG-29K and will be far easier to support at sea than the notoriously maintainence intensive Russian fighters
2) Industrial benefits- NIL, let me say that again; NIL, as far as the MiG-29K is concerned. The Rafale will be built in India so there is massive scope for industrial benefits (throughout the Rafale's life) with the Rafale-M order.
3) Interoperability- not just within the IN itself (as the CATOBAR fighter fleet will also likely be Rafale-Ms) but with the IAF also (the Rafale will serve in the IAF for the next 35-40 years, the MiG-29UPGs will be out of service within 20 years).

Points 2 and 3 alone make any case for the MiG-29K over the Rafale-M completely ludacrious.

@PARIKRAMA @Taygibay

Is it possible for rafale M with its non foldable wing to operate from iac1,it is the main hurdle for rafale to operate from russian built vikramaditya.

@PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @Taygibay

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Operating any aircraft in a catapult assisted take off will require a lot more than mere certification and strengthening. The present Mig29K and NLCA if they are certified for STOBAR ops, may not be able to survive the amount of force and Gs that are put on the aircraft at the start of takeoff initiation when catapult starts the assist.. In some cases there will be severe structural damage in case the amount of force push is beyond the ability of the landing gears/ whole under section..

 

[Abingdonboy]

Is it possible for rafale M with its non foldable wing to operate from iac1,it is the main hurdle for rafale to operate from russian built vikramaditya.

@PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @Taygibay

It is possible fort the IAC-1 but it will mean (slightly) less Rafale-Ms can be carried vis a vis MiG-29Ks (an almost negiligable number really- maybe 1-2 fewer a/c). The Rafale-M could probably not operate from the Viky because the elevator on the Viky is quite narrow but there will be no such issues for the IAC-1 that has a more intelligent elevator design:

Is it possible for rafale M with its non foldable wing to operate from iac1,it is the main hurdle for rafale to operate from russian built vikramaditya.

@PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @Taygibay

A different angle to give an idea of the elevator size on the IAC-1

https://defence.pk/members/hydra.167510/

 

[Immanuel]

You are saying I am being silly but your own figures don't add up. 45 MiG-29K/KUB equates to 3 SQNs (plus war reserves) as said by your own source:


The IN operates smaller SQNs than the IAF (12-15 instead of 18-21). Thus 3 SQNs of MiG-29K/KUB are NOT enough to support 2 ACs and 1 SQN for shore based training. The IAC-1 and Vky combined can carry 40-45 MiG-29K between them.

You are (foolishly) assuming 100% deployability for the entire 45 MiG-29K/KUB which is BEYOND absurd to say the least. I've spoken to very knowledgable people on this matter and 45 is the number to support a single carrier (2 SQNs embarked with 1 SQN on shore for training/OCU and some war reserves built in).

When 45 were procured from the Russians did the IN say that was to cover future carriers or did they say that was part of the deal for the VIKRAMDITYA?

If the IN was actually serious about the MiG-29K for the IAC-1 then they would have ordered more of them by now. They haven't placed any orders for fighrers that will take 3-4 years to enter service for a carrier that is 2 years away from sea trails. Now there is only one logical reason for this (weighing up the Rafale offer), if they were happy with the MiG-29 to go on board the could have placed follow-on orders a long time ago.


You highly reliable source doesn't even know that KA-31s are AEW helos and the Ka-28 is the ASW helo.


11 years to build an IAC-1 class ship? Are you insane? It would take 6-7 years at most.


Nope, nope and nope. The N-LCA is not suitable for the IN's ambitions, they have adopted it for industrial benefits it will bring but they will never feild it as the sole/lead carrier fighter on their flat tops. A light weight single engined aircraft has no business with the IN truth be told but as a technology demonstration project it is understandable.


1) Naval AMCA is at least 2 decades away
2) F-35C has no chance with the IN
3) The Naval PAK-FA does not exist, the IN has no interest in it and the PAK-FA project itself is massively behind schedule.

The Rafale-M is BY FAR the most sensible option on the table.


Instead some are pushing for the MiG-29K:

1) Cost- LCCs will be almost negligable between the Rafale-M and MiG-29K AND the Rafale-M is a FAR more natural carrier fighter than the MiG-29K and will be far easier to support at sea than the notoriously maintainence intensive Russian fighters
2) Industrial benefits- NIL, let me say that again; NIL, as far as the MiG-29K is concerned. The Rafale will be built in India so there is massive scope for industrial benefits (throughout the Rafale's life) with the Rafale-M order.
3) Interoperability- not just within the IN itself (as the CATOBAR fighter fleet will also likely be Rafale-Ms) but with the IAF also (the Rafale will serve in the IAF for the next 35-40 years, the MiG-29UPGs will be out of service within 20 years).

Points 2 and 3 alone make any case for the MiG-29K over the Rafale-M completely ludacrious.

@PARIKRAMA @Taygibay

Look you're being silly to say the least, IN (Navy Chiefs) have confirmed on many occasions that the Mig-29K will be on the IAC-1, unless you have a source who claims otherwise, rest of your post is hogwash and far from fact. You're a dumbass to think IN can't operate and maintain its birds on the carrier, what kind of numb nuts believes half the fleet is sitting on shore waiting to be repaired.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-MiG-29Ks/articleshow/5460879.cms?referral=PM

MiG-29Ks will operate from the 44,570-tonne Gorshkov as well as the 40,000-tonne indigenous aircraft carrier being built at Cochin Shipyard, which should roll out by 2014-2015.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...e+launched+next+year:+Navy+chief/1/73256.html


For another IAC class ship, it would takle another 3 years for it to be approved (if at all) and another 7 years for construction, so 11 is not a far fetched figure.

As far as I am concerned, the next carrier after the IAC-1 will be the INS Vishal around 2028. Now if Rafale is acquired for the INS Vishal is another story for another timeline.

As for what has a chance in the IN is hardly something you should be talking about considering you have a nack for spewing hot air here even after I have posted several links to what the IN clearly wants.

As for N-LCA, you're post is laughable to say the least, with the LCA MK-2 moving forward and more N-LCA tests happening as we speak, you still claim, Navy won't use the N-LCA. This after over 99 GE F414 engines for the Mk-2 are on order and the 1st engines are already being delivered.

Nuff said, please don't bother replying to me. Let's not dig into your sillyness.

Calculate at 66% availability and you get for 2 squads of 15 jets or 30 jets, need of 3 sqds of total 45 jets.

If and when iac1 jets will be ordered even if it's Mig29k we will order a similar number plus half a sqd for pure training or OCUs..

IN operates 30 mig29k from Baku/Vicky with 6 helos of ka31/ka28 mix for ASW and AEW ops..

IN operates around 20-22 Mig-29Ks on the Vikky and once the IAC-1 gets ready, another 20-22 Mig-29Ks will be on the IAC. During deployments at sea, IN is fully capable of maintaining over 75-80% availability during peace time and can achieve 90% for short bursts i.e around 17-18 aircraft are always available for ops.

Who actually goes around believing IN needs a shore to maintain its aircraft? Overhauls can be done on shore in between deployments.

Rafale for IN won't happen for the IAC-1.

The 45 Mig-29K are a good enough number to maintain both the INS Vikky and IAC. The carriers in the IN deploy around 8-12 times a year and the overhaul schedules are simple enough to be worked around these deployments. Unlike US's nuke carriers that deploy for 3-6 months at a time, ours make shorter trips out.

20 aircraft each can be allocated to carriers and 5 can be based at Goa for OCU for trainings. Besides Naval aviators also train on the Sea-Hawk before moving to the Mig-29K.