Indian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter dragonfire
- Start date
yeah youre right. the problem was solved this week, but the media hasn't picked up on the story yet.
The Mig-29K and Su-33 are the only options as India has decided to go the STOBAR route. This puts India in the same club as Russia and China. Two other STOBAR users with limited aircraft carrier experience. Actually, only Russia has operated STOBAR aircraft.
I do no see where geopolitics have anything to do with this.
I find it interesting that India, experienced in V/STOL operations, did not choose to advance their proven system. The V/STOL carrier system has matured in the UK, Italy, and Spain with newer generations of aircraft carriers and the F-35B coming online in the near future. India was part of that group.
A better question would be did India make the right decision to move away from V/STOL to STOBAR?
IMHO India should have moved over to CATOBAR, a very proven system.
Yeah youre right I forget India basically has a free hand to buy any naval jet it wants aside from the F-35 as long as it has the cash for it. Its still a new concept to me
Well, do you think that America would sell the catapult system to India? the IAC was conceived and designed before the India-US relations thawed. I'm sure the idea for a CATOBAR carrier system came up, but was not possible due to the political as well as financial situation during time of design and development.
I think that India made the right decision in moving away from V/STOL. F-35B would not have been available to India by the time the first carrier was commissioned and even though she could buy used harriers from the british how long would they last? We've seen the problems with the upgrade efforts of the current harriers. The F-35b is not an option that is available to India in the near future as has been discussed on this forum.
The Indians are still concerned about the reliability of American material support during times of war and during times of peace. The Americans have been known to use such deals as instruments of political pressure. I think there would have been a lot of political pressure to prevent India from purchasing catapult equipment (unless America provided full TOT, which i doubt) because of vulnerability it would be subject to if America imposed an embargo on support equipment/spares for the catapult system.
I'm guessing you know a lot more about the catapult maintenance issues, so you tell me that if there were an embargo placed on spares to India would India be able to carry on and for how long? I know that Brazil has a CATOBAR carrier, how is that coming along? Is it just a problem of funding that is preventing normal operations or does it have to do with embargo's on critical equipment needed to maintain the catapult or a combination of both?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The Brazilian Carrier uses a british catapult rather then a US catapult. The problem is that those catapults have been out of production since the 1960's. Sao Paulo is an old ship (about the same age as the USS Enterprise) and Brazil only has a limited budget to operate the ship.Yeah youre right I forget India basically has a free hand to buy any naval jet it wants aside from the F-35 as long as it has the cash for it. Its still a new concept to me
Well, do you think that America would sell the catapult system to India? the IAC was conceived and designed before the India-US relations thawed. I'm sure the idea for a CATOBAR carrier system came up, but was not possible due to the political as well as financial situation during time of design and development.
I think that India made the right decision in moving away from V/STOL. F-35B would not have been available to India by the time the first carrier was commissioned and even though she could buy used harriers from the british how long would they last? We've seen the problems with the upgrade efforts of the current harriers. The F-35b is not an option that is available to India in the near future as has been discussed on this forum.
The Indians are still concerned about the reliability of American material support during times of war and during times of peace. The Americans have been known to use such deals as instruments of political pressure. I think there would have been a lot of political pressure to prevent India from purchasing catapult equipment (unless America provided full TOT, which i doubt) because of vulnerability it would be subject to if America imposed an embargo on support equipment/spares for the catapult system.
I'm guessing you know a lot more about the catapult maintenance issues, so you tell me that if there were an embargo placed on spares to India would India be able to carry on and for how long? I know that Brazil has a CATOBAR carrier, how is that coming along? Is it just a problem of funding that is preventing normal operations or does it have to do with embargo's on critical equipment needed to maintain the catapult or a combination of both?
Of the currently available options (Su-33, F-18 super hornet, Rafale, Mig-29K) i think all of these planes can operate in STOBAR (they seem to have the required takeoff thrust and distance), the fuel and weapons they can carry in STOBAR would probably be different.
Does CATOBAR require more strengthening of the airframe than STOBAR? (seem to remember something like this from the concept studies for typhoon naval)
Does CATOBAR require more strengthening of the airframe than STOBAR? (seem to remember something like this from the concept studies for typhoon naval)
All contemp catobat solutions are US - and the US does sell versions of the tech under license. (eg Charles de Gaulle uses a licensed US catapult system)
see prev. I don't see any reason why the US would not release and license the same generation catapult technology provided to France. They'd be happy to sell that tech to India.
what they won't sell to France or India is the new EM catapult technology
I wouldn't be so sure about that. India is on the export target list for the F-35 and FMS buys of F-35s of any variety (including F-35B) could be available as soon as the LRIPs. I'm quite sure if the Indian Navy wants F-35B it could have the first squadron in service by the mid 2010s.
Well it depends on who you are fighting. If any nation wants to buy weapons with no strings attached the way to do that is the gun runners and a handful of less than law abiding suppliers. The issue for India is are they going to want to fight someone the USA is not going to be happy they are fighting...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding in this matter is that a STOBAR configuration is the "cheapest" solution here; a catapult is adding a (probably expensive) system that needs room and maintenance, STOVL carriers require STOVL planes that too are (if available) more expensive to buy, prob. more expensive to operate.
So if I were to design a carrier on my own for the first time, I'd probably go down the same route.
So if I were to design a carrier on my own for the first time, I'd probably go down the same route.
STOBAR is a technologically "easier" solution - but the impact is more than just the build costs. It effects doctrine as well. Load out issues, fuel burn, the need to bring in mission tankers at different points depending on time on target issues, volley rates, form up rates etc.... all are impacted upon.
Then there are bunkerage design issues, even elevator placement, armoury placement etc....
They have done, several times, & are prepared to do so again.
There is the problem with India and Pakistan's relations dealing with Kashmir. The UN passed a resolution requiring Pakistan to leave along with India holding an election in Kashmir. Since Pakistan has never left, India has never held the election. Neither side wishes to back down either.
dragonfire
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #174
In the west the ADS would in all probability be based out of Vishakapatanam which is the command HQ and the Abdaman command is a tri services command and not a Naval command in itself so its doubtful that the Flag ship of the command will be deployed there
dragonfire
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #175
Am not sure what exactly you are referring to - but if its regarding elections on the indian side of the border, then Kashmir has seen regular elections as well internationaly observed Referendum, if its about POK then i think that its governed by an elected body as well with some autonomy
dragonfire
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #176
News Update !
-
Well atleast this controversy has come to rest - as some members of the forum stated looks like the delay was due to some technicalities rather than a political one as that would have looked like a major cool down in Indo-US relations, hope Obama would take it to the next level than bring it down a notch ot two, fingers crossed here
From Traditional mistrust to increased cooperation - some stigma of the infamouss IN submarine vs. Chinese warships incident will go beacuse of this positive steps
With the addition of the 7 Kolkata class destroyers the IN will almost double its count of modern destroyers and the total no of ships would go to 140. Which is good news for the future carrier groups as destroyers would definetely be accompanying the ACs
-
-
Well atleast this controversy has come to rest - as some members of the forum stated looks like the delay was due to some technicalities rather than a political one as that would have looked like a major cool down in Indo-US relations, hope Obama would take it to the next level than bring it down a notch ot two, fingers crossed here
-
From Traditional mistrust to increased cooperation - some stigma of the infamouss IN submarine vs. Chinese warships incident will go beacuse of this positive steps
I was recalling a UN resolution passed back in 1947. Its been sixty years, Pakistan hasn't left Kashmir, while India has never held an election of the people of Kashmir to be a part of either India or Pakistan. But its a moot point, after 60 years...... What is sad, is that neither side has honored this UN resolution.
dragonfire
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #178
Am not privy to the exact details of the UN resolution - however am 100% sure that on the Indian side of the border free and fair elections have been conducted time and again and the state of Jammu and Kashmir is governed by a elected body from the people and its been governed mostly by regional parties, The elections have been witnessed by International observers. Basicaly the indian govt prmotes democracy
- however i feel we shouldnt take the more of the entire forum's time here and incase u have reverts on the same, i request you to PM me
Tnks
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Basing this soley off what you have written here, and i apologise if i am missing something here, but how can India hold elections in Kashmir if it is occupied by Pakistan?
The resolution he is referring to called for Pakistan to pull back its' troops out of Kashmir. After the removal of Pakistani troops the UN would hold a referendum that would decide which country Kashmir would accede to. Its all on wikipedia its called resolution 47.