Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[randombully]

I think other than the internal weapon bay and design, it will be similar to AMCA in most aspects!!

But now, if you want a "stealthy" jet for future you will need to develop an entirely new airframe or heavily modify amca.
With the approach I'm talking it would have been like kf21, and stealthy varient can easily be developed, heck it won't even be development just some modifications.

 

[Migflug]

But now, if you want a "stealthy" jet for future you will need to develop an entirely new airframe or heavily modify amca.
With the approach I'm talking it would have been like kf21, and stealthy varient can easily be developed, heck it won't even be development just some modifications.

Yes, that would have been better, a nonstealthy version of AMCA. But don't know why the Navy is adamant on TEDBF, most likely due to space constraints and more optimized naval design. Tedbf will have the folding mechanism, but non-stealthy AMCA most probably won't be able to have it.

 

[randombully]

Yes, that would have been better, a nonstealthy version of AMCA. But don't know why the Navy is adamant on TEDBF, most likely due to space constraints and more optimized naval design. Tedbf will have the folding mechanism, but non-stealthy AMCA most probably won't be able to have it.

Wahi to, agar ground up se ek Naya airframe develop karnataka tha, tho ek navalised amca Jaisa air frame hi develop Kar lete, future me kab stealthy jets chahiye hote nonstealthy version ko compliment karne ke liye to usme internal weapons way add kardete aur stealthy coating, basically kf21 route.

 

[Bleh]

Are you thinking of it travelling like a boat with a carrier group and then taking off to act as awacs?
In that case let me tell you, its range if it travels like a boat will easily decrease by 30-50%., it won't match range of ships.
And it won't have endurance that ships have.
In this case, it just makes more sense to bring a land based awacs with the help of aerial refuling.

Dude it's a 5000km ranged plane. It'll be island/shore-based. Take off from land & meet the fleet. Land on water & refuel. Takeoff- to serve as AWACS or refueling tanker to fully weapon-loaded fighter taking off sky-jumps with minimum fuel.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Adding to the formula.

Why would you do such things
KISS my Guy, KISS

But ya, there are way more parameters involved in take-off than what I used for basic understanding. Those slide are nice if anyone here really wanna get a deep insight

J-15 also suffer from the same issue, as our Mig-29s as despite having 65 K10 carrier they do not have longer runways.

Isn't that significant; their first CATOBAR is already there with plans for atleast two more.

With BrahMos & AShBM on warships those puny A2G missiles aren't gonna do much.

Where is AShBM on our warships Prabhu? And what's the range of BrahMos Vs the AShBM on PLAN ships?

This is something that I've said repeatedly. We need ASh weapons that can target PLAN vessels without coming in their fire zone and we need something to counter their AShBMs. But as of now I don't see any signs of these two in the near foreseeable future.

In that case let me tell you, its range if it travels like a boat will easily decrease by 30-50%., it won't match range of ships.

Rassi lo aur bandh do apne naav se...

Why will it be extra expensive?

I don't think cost would be a bigger issue. What would be is simply the fact that's it's too big of a step.

You get U-2s, modify some as AWACS and some as refueler, they travel as boats with the CBG. Apart from all the technical challenges, it would involve modifications in doctrine. Definitely it'd be a force multiplier if it's implemented in the way you're proposing but the question is, are they going to take such a radical step for a niché requirement when the fighters of the CBG itself are in such dire state?

@Ayan Barat, now I believe navy must have smarter people than me so like any reason they Didn't went this way.

Even if I leave all the technicalities of RAM, stealth, non-stealth...the biggest question money. We're not in a position like China or USA to produce a 5th gen fighter in considerable numbers, even if we "downgrade" it to kind of non-stealthy level you're saying.

Having I don't know, may be 40% of lastest gen fighter and 60% of previous gen fighter would be the way to go for all forces. For rich forces like USA and China this would be 6th and 5th gen. And for poor like us it would be 5th and 4th gen.

 

[randombully]

Dude it's a 5000km ranged plane. It'll be island/shore-based. Take off from land & meet the fleet. Land on water & refuel. Takeoff- to serve as AWACS or refueling tanker to fully weapon-loaded fighter taking off sky-jumps with minimum fuel.

Then why don't we just use larger land based awacs, tankers?

 

[Gandaberunda]

Navy should go ahead with Vikrant clone ( with some improvements) and get it done by 2030 with parallel developing 65k ton nuclear career. With this we will get time and economic growth also vikky can be relieved of his duties whenever we wish to be ones both Vikrant class are commissioned. RafaleM+Tedbf on both careers would be sufficient till 2040 or beyond until we get that 65k ton 3rd career. Meanwhile we can build up our submarine force as well.

 

[shade2]

Then why don't we just use larger land based awacs, tankers?

This is what we will do if bullying in the neighborhood
We aren't doing true blue water ops

 

[Bleh]

Where is AShBM on our warships Prabhu? And what's the range of BrahMos Vs the AShBM on PLAN ships?

This is something that I've said repeatedly. We need ASh weapons that can target PLAN vessels without coming in their fire zone and we need something to counter their AShBMs. But as of now I don't see any signs of these two in the near foreseeable future.

Rassi lo aur bandh do apne naav se...

I don't think cost would be a bigger issue. What would be is simply the fact that's it's too big of a step.

You get U-2s, modify some as AWACS and some as refueler, they travel as boats with the CBG. Apart from all the technical challenges, it would involve modifications in doctrine. Definitely it'd be a force multiplier if it's implemented in the way you're proposing but the question is, are they going to take such a radical step for a niché requirement when the fighters of the CBG itself are in such dire state?

Even if I leave all the technicalities of RAM, stealth, non-stealth...the biggest question money. We're not in a position like China or USA to produce a 5th gen fighter in considerable numbers, even if we "downgrade" it to kind of non-stealthy level you're saying.

Having I don't know, may be 40% of lastest gen fighter and 60% of previous gen fighter would be the way to go for all forces. For rich forces like USA and China this would be 6th and 5th gen. And for poor like us it would be 5th and 4th gen.

A jayega... Eventually.

Pakistan’s Turkey Designed Jinnah-Class Frigate will get Chinese Missile SMASH - RESONANT NEWS

China, Pakistan and Turkey collaborate again! Pakistan is preparing to launch its first "domestically built" Jinnah-class frigate, marking a step in its naval modernization efforts. Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Naveed Ashraf has confirmed the impending launch, which aims to enhance the Pakistan...

resonantnews.com

Point is one that happens, low-end AShM on non-stealthy naval fighter won't do much. Might as well concentrate on air-dominance.

 

[randombully]

Why would you do such things
KISS my Guy, KISS

But ya, there are way more parameters involved in take-off than what I used for basic understanding. Those slide are nice if anyone here really wanna get a deep insight

Isn't that significant; their first CATOBAR is already there with plans for atleast two more.

Where is AShBM on our warships Prabhu? And what's the range of BrahMos Vs the AShBM on PLAN ships?

This is something that I've said repeatedly. We need ASh weapons that can target PLAN vessels without coming in their fire zone and we need something to counter their AShBMs. But as of now I don't see any signs of these two in the near foreseeable future.

Rassi lo aur bandh do apne naav se...

I don't think cost would be a bigger issue. What would be is simply the fact that's it's too big of a step.

You get U-2s, modify some as AWACS and some as refueler, they travel as boats with the CBG. Apart from all the technical challenges, it would involve modifications in doctrine. Definitely it'd be a force multiplier if it's implemented in the way you're proposing but the question is, are they going to take such a radical step for a niché requirement when the fighters of the CBG itself are in such dire state?

Even if I leave all the technicalities of RAM, stealth, non-stealth...the biggest question money. We're not in a position like China or USA to produce a 5th gen fighter in considerable numbers, even if we "downgrade" it to kind of non-stealthy level you're saying.

Having I don't know, may be 40% of lastest gen fighter and 60% of previous gen fighter would be the way to go for all forces. For rich forces like USA and China this would be 6th and 5th gen. And for poor like us it would be 5th and 4th gen.

We're not in a position like China or USA to produce a 5th gen fighter in considerable numbers, even if we "downgrade" it to kind of non-stealthy level you're saying.

The only difference between tedbf the capabilities it will have and the more amca/j35c looking fighter I'm talking about would be "airframe" shape.
I Don't think it would be "much more expensive", the only extra cost I can think of would designing it with knowing that IWB will be added in future.

Then in future if Navy wants it can just modify it then boom a "stealthy" fighter for high end.

Like operating and maintenance of kf21 will be similar to 4th gen than 5th gen airframes

 

[Aaj Ka Hero]

View attachment 24061
If we're have a kuznetsov sized AC while retaining our Vikky-styles runway structures then our Naval jets will be about to take-off at near full-load.

There where comment I know maybe from Defence Decode site where it was mentioned from INS Vikrant significant load can be taken from take-off by migs.

 

[Bleh]

Then why don't we just use larger land based awacs, tankers?

Range. They can't land on water & refill

 

[randombully]

There where comment I know maybe from Defence Decode site where it was mentioned from INS Vikrant significant load can be taken from take-off by migs.

From what I know mig29k, using longer runways on carrier, with full afterburner, with 60% fuel( about 400-500km combat radius with weapons, without refeuling) can take off with approx 2.5 ton payload.
Like it can carry 2kh31a(anti ship), 2 R73(WVR), 2 R27R(BVR) missiles and have some more carrying ability left( possibly filled with more fuel)
Though It would need buddy refueling if target ships are at 500-700km away.

So it's not completely useless in antiship, and only for air to air role that some people believe.

 

[Bleh]

There where comment I know maybe from Defence Decode site where it was mentioned from INS Vikrant significant load can be taken from take-off by migs.

Defence decode website is fucked. Alternative:

How capable is the Indian Navy’s MiG-29K during wartime?

Mig-29K is the frontline Carrier-Based Mutirole Fighter Aircraft designed and deployed pertaining to Indian Navy needs for a Carrier-Borne Multirole Aircraft which can be based upon the lone Aircra…

defenceupdate.in

Claim:

The tests showed that MiG-29Ks could take off from INS Vikramaditya with full load of 5.5 tonnes, it could be any combination of AShMs, fuel tanks, precision guided munitions and air to air missiles.

MiG-29K being a light fighter, can easily takeoff with full payload and fuel from an aircraft carrier

If that's true then, fuck it we're fine.


If not, we'll need sea-plane refuelers to be effective.

 

[randombully]

Range. They can't land on water & refill

Defence decode website is fucked. Alternative:

How capable is the Indian Navy’s MiG-29K during wartime?

Mig-29K is the frontline Carrier-Based Mutirole Fighter Aircraft designed and deployed pertaining to Indian Navy needs for a Carrier-Borne Multirole Aircraft which can be based upon the lone Aircra…

defenceupdate.in

Claim:


If that's true then, fuck it we're fine.


If not, we'll need sea-plane refuelers to be effective.

It's not possible for it take off with max fuel and 5.5 ton payload with only 200meter(longer runways on our carriers) of runway even with 14° ski jump.
Do you wanna know why? Beacuse "max payload" of mig29k is 5.5 ton, it can't carry anymore.
These fuckers, just quoted it's max payload.
It ain't gonna take off from a stobar carrier with thar load.

 

[randombully]

Defence decode website is fucked. Alternative:

How capable is the Indian Navy’s MiG-29K during wartime?

Mig-29K is the frontline Carrier-Based Mutirole Fighter Aircraft designed and deployed pertaining to Indian Navy needs for a Carrier-Borne Multirole Aircraft which can be based upon the lone Aircra…

defenceupdate.in

Claim:


If that's true then, fuck it we're fine.


If not, we'll need sea-plane refuelers to be effective.

From what I know mig29k, using longer runways on carrier, with full afterburner, with 60% fuel( about 400-500km combat radius with weapons, without refeuling) can take off with approx 2.5 ton payload.
Like it can carry 2kh31a(anti ship), 2 R73(WVR), 2 R27R(BVR) missiles and have some more carrying ability left( possibly filled with more fuel)
Though It would need buddy refueling if target ships are at 500-700km away.

So it's not completely useless in antiship, and only for air to air role that some people believe.

 

[Azaad]

From what I know mig29k, using longer runways on carrier, with full afterburner, with 60% fuel( about 400-500km combat radius with weapons, without refeuling) can take off with approx 2.5 ton payload.
Like it can carry 2kh31a(anti ship), 2 R73(WVR), 2 R27R(BVR) missiles and have some more carrying ability left( possibly filled with more fuel)
Though It would need buddy refueling if target ships are at 500-700km away.

So it's not completely useless in antiship, and only for air to air role that some people believe.

You guys are putting the cart before the horse. A light to medium AC which is what both - the INS Vikrant & INS Vikramaditya are & what the IAC-2 will be now that < 30,000 Ton AC has effectively become LPD Or LHD or Drone Carriers with V/STOL capabilities in some of them, are by their very definition tools of defensive offence. Naval based FAs like the MiG-29K are tools which fit into this doctrine, their pathetic availability rate notwithstanding.

In other words they're tools of limited capabilities & capacities. Look around the IOR which is where these ACs are expected to project power & show me a single country's Navy which can go up against this kind of power including our favourite Paxtan.

The only exceptions are the USN & in the future PLN. While we can't go against the former & nor is our foreign policy geared that way, the latter is emerging into a clear & future danger if there's such a phrase.

So what should our doctrine be? Sea control / domination or sea denial. The latter is what poorer economies dictate yet we seem to be transitioning into limited offensive power or defensive offence as I've characterized it earlier, from being a purely defensive Navy, a couple of decades ago before transitioning into a Blue Water Navy / Offensive Projection Doctrine .

This trend will continue for the near to mid term future . Our plans of developing a true blue water Navy would involve a 2-3 nos 65,000 Ton AC fleet with amphibious landing abilities & at least a 10,000 strong Marine expeditionary force to project power into the Western Pacific for now which means 3-4 LPD at the very minimum & a fleet of at least 6 SSNs apart from Destroyers , Frigates, MCMVs, FSS, Corvettes & all the other paraphernalia which goes into making up such an Armada .

While the IN is planning for it next decade there's no certainity we'd have all the elements in place by the centenary of our Independence which is what the plan is . Till such time we'd continue with limited offensive capabilities viz offensive defence.

 

[randombully]

You guys are putting the cart before the horse. A light to medium AC which is what both - the INS Vikrant & INS Vikramaditya are & what the IAC-2 will be now that < 30,000 Ton AC has effectively become LPD Or LHD or Drone Carriers with V/STOL capabilities in some of them, are by their very definition tools of defensive offence. Naval based FAs like the MiG-29K are tools which fit into this doctrine, their pathetic availability rate notwithstanding.

In other words they're tools of limited capabilities & capacities. Look around the IOR which is where these ACs are expected to project power & show me a single country's Navy which can go up against this kind of power including our favourite Paxtan.

The only exceptions are the USN & in the future PLN. While we can't go against the former & nor is our foreign policy geared that way, the latter is emerging into a clear & future danger if there's such a phrase.

So what should our doctrine be? Sea control / domination or sea denial. The latter is what poorer economies dictate yet we seem to be transitioning into limited offensive power or defensive offence as I've characterized it earlier, from being a purely defensive Navy, a couple of decades ago before transitioning into a Blue Water Navy / Offensive Projection Doctrine .

This trend will continue for the near to mid term future . Our plans of developing a true blue water Navy would involve a 2-3 nos 65,000 Ton AC fleet with amphibious landing abilities & at least a 10,000 strong Marine expeditionary force to project power into the Western Pacific for now which means 3-4 LPD at the very minimum & a fleet of at least 6 SSNs apart from Destroyers , Frigates, MCMVs, FSS, Corvettes & all the other paraphernalia which goes into making up such an Armada .

While the IN is planning for it next decade there's no certainity we'd have all the elements in place by the centenary of our Independence which is what the plan is . Till such time we'd continue with limited offensive capabilities viz offensive defence.

It was more about them whining that mig 29's can't takeoff with "decent payload" which is false.

 

[Azaad]

It was more about them whining that mig 29's can't takeoff with "decent payload" which is false.

Yup I get that but my answer was to everyone & in the larger context even if I quoted only your post .

 

[randombully]

View: https://x.com/ang3lkenny/status/1887099571245109499

Progress in EW against missiles.