Naval T-50 PAK-FA For Russian Navy's Future Aircraft Carrier

[Abingdonboy]

They can't since they haven't developed such fighters or such a system yet, nor do they have interest in developing one only for India. In fact, they have more interest in India joining their STOBAR concepts to share the costs, which is why they offer HAL to design the naval version, or assistance in developing a nuclear propulsion and new carrier.

And this is my point sir- the IN looks like it is certain about getting CATOBAR ACCs - and rightfully so. So this Russian resistance to such tech/capabilty being fitted onto their 5 th gen fighters is a real issue for India/the IN as they NEED a next-gen CATOBAR fighter in the next decade and looking beyond that.

 

[sancho]

And this is my point sir- the IN looks like it is certain about getting CATOBAR ACCs - and rightfully so. So this Russian resistance to such tech/capabilty being fitted onto their 5 th gen fighters is a real issue for India/the IN as they NEED a next-gen CATOBAR fighter in the next decade and looking beyond that.

It's not a resistance, but would mean to completely re-design the fighter, which obviously would costs very much. The STOBAR operations of the other side are proven since decades for them and with the Flankers, or in future N-PAK FA, they have some of the most capable carrier fighters too.
When you think about it, the main limitations of carrier fighters, that takes off without catapults, are the payload limitations, that will be countered by refuelling after take off. Today that is still difficult, since the refuelling will be done by other fighters. Apart of that, the limitation to AEW helicopters is the biggest problem, since they offer much less performance than an E-2!
Their Ulyanovsk carrier design however, offer the advantage to catapult start fixed wing aircrafts for AEW or tanker roles, which means the fighters gets credible AWACS support and could be much easier to refuel in air. So such a mixed design might offer some advantages too, but the question is, can the Russians develop catapults on their own?

 

[surya kiran]

but the question is, can the Russians develop catapults on their own?

 

[sancho]

I know that they had some developments in that regard during the Soviet times and even started to build the Ulyanovsk carrier, but that stopped and is a long time ago. And by judging the "Russian" capabilities in carrier or even LHD productions (Gorshkov re-fit, Mistral class), I would put more hope on getting catapults from the US today, than the Russian developing them for some joint carrier developments. The risks of delays and cost increases is simply too high in this case!

 

[Abingdonboy]

@sancho- this is surely worrying for the IN- they NEED catapult-launched next-gen fighters and if the N-FGFA won't deliver on this front then what solutions are they left with? N-AMCA ? The F-35C ?

 

[MilSpec]

It's not a resistance, but would mean to completely re-design the fighter, which obviously would costs very much. The STOBAR operations of the other side are proven since decades for them and with the Flankers, or in future N-PAK FA, they have some of the most capable carrier fighters too.
When you think about it, the main limitations of carrier fighters, that takes off without catapults, are the payload limitations, that will be countered by refuelling after take off. Today that is still difficult, since the refuelling will be done by other fighters. Apart of that, the limitation to AEW helicopters is the biggest problem, since they offer much less performance than an E-2!
Their Ulyanovsk carrier design however, offer the advantage to catapult start fixed wing aircrafts for AEW or tanker roles, which means the fighters gets credible AWACS support and could be much easier to refuel in air. So such a mixed design might offer some advantages too, but the question is, can the Russians develop catapults on their own?

rocket assisted take off, Maybe?

 

[Abingdonboy]

rocket assisted take off, Maybe?

JATO- I don't think so sir!

 

[MilSpec]

JATO- I don't think so sir!

Conceptually i have always liked the jettison-able RATO bottles, too bad it never became a modern concept... There is some emals concept research being done in drdo, lets see how it shapes up...

 

[surya kiran]

I know that they had some developments in that regard during the Soviet times and even started to build the Ulyanovsk carrier, but that stopped and is a long time ago. And by judging the "Russian" capabilities in carrier or even LHD productions (Gorshkov re-fit, Mistral class), I would put more hope on getting catapults from the US today, than the Russian developing them for some joint carrier developments. The risks of delays and cost increases is simply too high in this case!

The only people who will share naval technology know how are the Russians for e.g the Arihant. This sub would have been practically impossible within time constraints to build had it not been for the Russian inputs in a variety of matters. The Americans will sell things. No technology transfers, till we sign their absurd clauses.

The better thing to do would be to tie up with them, like we have for the FGFA/PakFA for catapult systems. And then look for a joint creation of a next generation carrier warship class.

The point you make of them not not having made super carriers is less to do with capabilities and more to do with doctrine. With them learning modern techniques from the french this will only improve.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Conceptually i have always liked the jettison-able RATO bottles, too bad it never became a modern concept... There is some emals concept research being done in drdo, lets see how it shapes up...

The most impressive application I've seen to date was RATO on a C-130:

 

[sancho]

@sancho- this is surely worrying for the IN- they NEED catapult-launched next-gen fighters and if the N-FGFA won't deliver on this front then what solutions are they left with? N-AMCA ? The F-35C ?

That's why I always say that I can't understand why IN is insiting on a low capable N-LCA development, instead of already focusing in a naval AMCA. Or why DRDO has learned nothing out of the difficulties of N-LCA so far, to understand that it's more important to develop a naval NG fighter first and not another one for IAF.
Also that IN don't plan for the worst case, that we don't get catapults, by funding AEW versions of the V22, which could be operated by all their carriers.

rocket assisted take off, Maybe?

You mean a completelly new system developed by the Russians? Who knows, the Brits were developing a catapult system too, but never finished it if I'm not wrong.

The only people who will share naval technology know how are the Russians for e.g the Arihant.

Depending on what naval vessel, the Europeans or some Asian countries provide ToT too and it is very likely that we got some benefits for Arihant through the Scorpene deal too, the French also assist the Brazilians in developing a nuclear propulsion.

The better thing to do would be to tie up with them, like we have for the FGFA/PakFA for catapult systems. And then look for a joint creation of a next generation carrier warship class.

A joint development as said would be very risky and by the fact that the numbers of such systems would be very low, it would be qestionable if that would be useful. The best way imo would be getting catapults from the US and jointly develop a CATOBAR carrier with DCNS for us, Brazil and possibly even French navy in future. That could be even combined with a joint N-AMCA development, that benefits all 3 naval aviation fleets.
If we don't get catapults there is no need to join with the Russians to develop a carrier, since IAC2 would just be a bigger IAC1, which would reduce development and production time by far. Only joint naval Pak Fa / FGFA development would then be interesting, but that's actually a minor issue.

The point you make of them not not having made super carriers is less to do with capabilities and more to do with doctrine. With them learning modern techniques from the french this will only improve.

I didn't said that it's an issue that they haven't made a super carrier, but the expertice they had in the Soviet area is not available anymore, which is obvious by the problems they had with the Gorshkov, or even with the Mistral class. They still might be good for smaller vessels and subs, but for a carrier development, I don't see them as a useful partner at the moment and by the preference of IN for western partners in their carrier developments, that is very unlikely anyway. After the Gorshkov disaster, IN can't afford to get into another disaster with the Russians again.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Also that IN don't plan for the worst case, that we don't get catapults, by funding AEW versions of the V22, which could be operated by all their carriers.

But IN seems pretty insistent on this CATOBAR ACC design for IAC-2 and beyond so we are looking at a timeline of 2024-6 for the IAC-2 to be ready and really you'd want the air group on Indian hands, in IN colours, around 1-2 years before the ACC is ready for sea trails. Given this timeline the IN has around 1 decade to induct a next-gen fighter so only around 5-6 years to make a decision.


Through the process of elimination I am now of the opinion that we'll see F-35Cs on the IAC-2 .The only upside is that maybe a deal will be done wherein the IN also gets the EMALS tech they desire.

 

[sancho]

But IN seems pretty insistent on this CATOBAR ACC design for IAC-2 and beyond so we are looking at a timeline of 2024-6 for the IAC-2 to be ready and really you'd want the air group on Indian hands, in IN colours, around 1-2 years before the ACC is ready for sea trails. Given this timeline the IN has around 1 decade to induct a next-gen fighter so only around 5-6 years to make a decision.

They can't insist in something that is not in their hand! They wanted to go back to catapults and even wanted it in IAC1, but that didn't worked and even for IAC2, it's no sure deal. The US are still worried about their techs could be diverted to the Russians and catapults tech is pretty important.
Also deciding for a CATOBAR carrier doesn't mean they have to take a 5th gen fighter right away, they still could take a proven 4.5gen fighter as a stop gap, or workhorse, while the NG fighter (no matter which one) could be added later. The same happens with Mig 29K and N-LCA, or even with J15/J31, F18SH/F35 and that also would give us a chance to partner with a foreign company for N-AMCA.
Let's say we take 40 x F18 Silent Hornets including the funding of certain techs and would combine it with Boeing teaming up as a partner for the N-AMCA. That would be a win win situation for both!

- GE 414 EPE engines for the F18SH, produced on the existing production line in India, funded by India as a base for the Kaveri K10
- HALBIT touchscreen displays for the F18SH upgrades and for N-AMCA
- Indian / Israeli EW sensors for both

So it offers a good chance not only to get catapults, but also industrial benefits, but the key would be a policy change of the US wrt JVs and ToT.

Through the process of elimination I am now of the opinion that we'll see F-35Cs on the IAC-2 .The only upside is that maybe a deal will be done wherein the IN also gets the EMALS tech they desire.

IN surely follows the news about that fighter too, with more and more delays, cost increases and the possible operational limitations, I don't see that coming.

 

[surya kiran]

@sancho

Couple of things. The French are not assisting Brazil with an SSBN, its an SSN.

As for the French interest in building an aircraft carrier, they are in no financial state to be able to do so. The only European country which, today has the money and the requirement, with an ambition to be a naval power is Russia. The French aircraft carrier was cancelled this year. In fact, they are talking of sharing a carrier with the British.

In fact, what we should do is work with the Russians, acquire the designs from the French (since this is a catobar design) and then build ourselves 2 aircraft carriers and how many ever the Russians want. If this happens, then a navalised FGFA is a very serious possibility.

I will not even comment on an N-AMCA. Its a pipe dream for now.

Also a bit on the Silent hornet. Interesting article...http://xbradtc.com/2013/05/22/silent-hornet/

 

[Abingdonboy]

They can't insist in something that is not in their hand! They wanted to go back to catapults and even wanted it in IAC1, but that didn't worked and even for IAC2, it's no sure deal. The US are still worried about their techs could be diverted to the Russians and catapults tech is pretty important.
Also deciding for a CATOBAR carrier doesn't mean they have to take a 5th gen fighter right away, they still could take a proven 4.5gen fighter as a stop gap, or workhorse, while the NG fighter (no matter which one) could be added later. The same happens with Mig 29K and N-LCA, or even with J15/J31, F18SH/F35 and that also would give us a chance to partner with a foreign company for N-AMCA.
Let's say we take 40 x F18 Silent Hornets including the funding of certain techs and would combine it with Boeing teaming up as a partner for the N-AMCA. That would be a win win situation for both!

- GE 414 EPE engines for the F18SH, produced on the existing production line in India, funded by India as a base for the Kaveri K10
- HALBIT touchscreen displays for the F18SH upgrades and for N-AMCA
- Indian / Israeli EW sensors for both

Sir, a bloody nice idea but it's too practical and ingenious for India! Something would crop up that would mean this didn't happen.


And also I'm not too sure whether it is smart to add yet ANOTHER fighter type to the IN's FAA. They will be going from 1 type (Sea Harrier) to 3-4 in the span of 15-20 years (MIG-29K, N-LCA, F-18SH/RAFALE-M, NEXT-GEN FIGHTER) if what you say comes to fruition. This is a HUGE step up for the IN and one they need to seriously manage otherwise things could go very bad very fast.


Also I doubt the Yanks would be so accommodating to such requests of modifying their fighters for Indian needs- India hasn't signed 1/20th of the deals the USG is ramming down the throats of the GoI. India isn't that close to the US-yet.
But you have touched upon this.


Also is it worth investing in the F-18 "Silent Hornet" to such a high degree if it is only a "stop-gap" system?

IN surely follows the news about that fighter too, with more and more delays, cost increases and the possible operational limitations, I don't see that coming.

I'm sure but the F-35C is only going to improve- it is literally to large a project to fail. The cost issues shouldn't be a huge issue to the IN once the F-35 production lines are pumping these birds out at a high rate and they base design is stabilised. By the middle of the next decade (IAC-2's projected induction date) the F-35 will be a tried and tester machine also.


It's an imperfect solution but, I feel, it is really the only viable solution that seems to be on the table going forward. Once the PLAN is operating J-31s off their ACCs in the SCS things are going to take a very ugly turn if the IN doesn't have a VLO next-gen carrier fighter. Even a F-35C with its limitations is more than a match for the J-31s and the like, any day.