Considering the IAC-2 is going to be a larger design than the current IAC-1. Equipped with both Catapults and Arresting Gear. Should India consider purchasing the CVF Design directly from the UK???
If, it wanted to could purchase one directly from the British and build a second ship in Indian Yard.
Really, what option does India have??? Clearly, building a totally new enlarged Carrier on her own would take another 10-15 years.
By: Arabella-Cox - 4th December 2010 at 10:52
I have never read anything to suggest that either the MiG-29K or the Su-33 was designed to use steam catapults. The catapults on the Ulyanosk were intended for its Yak-44 AEW aircraft. Its fighters were meant to use a ski jump, as is evident from the model itself.
More like it’s been dicussed as a possibility. Regardless, both are getting to old. India is looking to the future. (i.e. 5th Gen)
By: Witcha - 4th December 2010 at 10:35
That remains to be seen. The MiG-29K prototype was designed with catapult attachment points for use on Ulyanovsk, but when the soviet union fell and the big carriers were scrapped they were never tested.
I have never read anything to suggest that either the MiG-29K or the Su-33 was designed to use steam catapults. The catapults on the Ulyanosk were intended for its Yak-44 AEW aircraft. Its fighters were meant to use a ski jump, as is evident from the model itself.
By: Arabella-Cox - 4th December 2010 at 09:56
Well Scooter..India seems to have run into bit of trouble with IAC-1.But still no news on getting outside help for IAC-2.
The IAC-1 is a big undertaking for India no doubt. Yet, many seem to forget that India has never designed or constructed an Aircraft Carrier before. So, we shouldn’t be surprised by any delays. As for the IAC-2 its interesting that we haven’t heard anything about any partnerships??? Clearly, India will need a great deal of outside help in the design and constructions of the IAC-2. Especially, if it is going to be equipped with Catapults, Arresting Gear, and possibly Nuclear Power.
By: insomnia.delhi - 3rd December 2010 at 18:33
Well Scooter..India seems to have run into bit of trouble with IAC-1.But still no news on getting outside help for IAC-2.
First time designing and constructing the type, i think there will be many challenges, and many have been faced in the process with their solutions implemented.
As they move into making the carrier operational a new type with new planes will take more time, and if we make the transition to CATOBAR planes the IN will face new challenges.
No one should expect the program to be completed without its share of challenges and possibly delays.
By: Boom - 3rd December 2010 at 17:55
Well Scooter..India seems to have run into bit of trouble with IAC-1.But still no news on getting outside help for IAC-2.
this delay is already accounted for in the latest reports. it’s the CNS’ annual press conf and he will pick up from where the CNS left off last year.
By: EELightning - 3rd December 2010 at 16:12
I hope you feel better………BTW I was talking about Naval Aircraft Design. Not Aircraft Carrier Design per se. Clearly, the UK was the leader in many Carrier innovations.
Hope you do too, bless your little cotton socks…
I know you were talking about Naval Aircraft Design, I was just saying, and giving a bit of a metaphor, that it’s a bit unfair to say that the Russians are amateurs. Not the most experienced, but not amateurs, which is why I mentioned Aircraft Carrier Designs.
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd December 2010 at 07:33
Sorry, but, no, yes, no, yes…I mean no, well, yes, but no but, but, well no in a way; it’s a bit unfair to call them “amateurs” I think.
Besides, perhaps the US and France aren’t the the most experienced when it comes to aircraft carrier innovations, but I wouldn’t say that they’re amateurs because of it. Ski jump, angled flight deck, steam catapults, mirror landing sites, conning/control tower, “flexible deck”, electro-magnetic catapult or EMCAT, optical landing system and a whole lot more etc etc etc oh and the aircraft carrier itself, just off the top of my head, so when the US and France are quite good at Naval aircraft, Britain are rather ruddy good at the carrier itself, bit. 😀
Just felt like saying that. 😀
I hope you feel better………BTW I was talking about Naval Aircraft Design. Not Aircraft Carrier Design per se. Clearly, the UK was the leader in many Carrier innovations.
By: quadbike - 3rd December 2010 at 03:49
India is already getting design help from Fincantieri for the current IAC.
By: Samsara - 3rd December 2010 at 02:46
Well Scooter..India seems to have run into bit of trouble with IAC-1.But still no news on getting outside help for IAC-2.
http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=13897
The IAC was to be launched this year and because of some indigenous equipment that could not be supplied on time the launch has been delayed. We are expecting it (launch) by the middle of next year, as things stand,” he said at the annual press conference ahead of Navy Day on December 4.
“But at the same time, efforts are on to compress the time frames by ensuring that the amount of outfitting on the warship is much more than earlier envisaged, so we cut down on time. We expect to put it out at sea by 2014,” he said.
The Navy Chief said since India was building an aircraft carrier for the first time, a lot of trial and error took place during construction.”We should graduate to sea trial stage where one can say …the target is 2014,” he added.
By: EELightning - 3rd December 2010 at 00:37
Sorry, the US and France are experts in Naval Aircraft Designs. The Russians are Amateurs.
Sorry, but, no, yes, no, yes…I mean no, well, yes, but no but, but, well no in a way; it’s a bit unfair to call them “amateurs” I think.
Besides, perhaps the US and France aren’t the the most experienced when it comes to aircraft carrier innovations, but I wouldn’t say that they’re amateurs because of it. Ski jump, angled flight deck, steam catapults, mirror landing sites, conning/control tower, “flexible deck”, electro-magnetic catapult or EMCAT, optical landing system and a whole lot more etc etc etc oh and the aircraft carrier itself, just off the top of my head, so when the US and France are quite good at Naval aircraft, Britain are rather ruddy good at the carrier itself, bit. 😀
Just felt like saying that. 😀
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st December 2010 at 06:59
The Indian Navy just ordered another significant batch of MiG-29Ks. So yeah, I very much agree with them. 🙂
Maybe for a stop gap.;)
By: TR1 - 1st December 2010 at 06:28
The Indian Navy just ordered another significant batch of MiG-29Ks. So yeah, I very much agree with them. 🙂
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st December 2010 at 06:27
Yeah, they placed that for a non ski jump equipped carrier. Once again, your claims about MiG-29K and contemporary performance on a ski jump carrier are un-substantiated.
While that alone makes this argument with you irrelevant, your comments regarding weaponry are dubious. If India requires, Zhuk-AE can be retrofitted making the radar disadvantage non-existent. Further, MiG-29K has performance superiority over the SH in quite a few flight regimes and areas.
The difference between you and I is I don’t claim MiG-29K superiority over all other naval fighters, but simply point out that your sweeping remarks about MiG-29K performance when compared to your beloved SH are wrong. When looked at a cost-effectiveness stand point, well, that certainly does not favor the SH.
Cheaper is not better especially when your life is on the line. Nonetheless, I never said the Super Hornet, Rafale, or even Lightning were superior to the Mig-29K in every regime. Just that they’re superior overall. Which, I stand behind.
Clearly, the Indian Navy agrees or it wouldn’t placed a RFI for a New Naval Fighter.
In short I agree with the Indian Navy. Doesn’t sound like you do???
By: TR1 - 1st December 2010 at 06:13
Yeah, they placed that for a non ski jump equipped carrier. Once again, your claims about MiG-29K and contemporary performance on a ski jump carrier are un-substantiated.
While that alone makes this argument with you irrelevant, your comments regarding weaponry are dubious. If India requires, Zhuk-AE can be retrofitted making the radar disadvantage non-existent. Further, MiG-29K has performance superiority over the SH in quite a few flight regimes and areas.
The difference between you and I is I don’t claim MiG-29K superiority over all other naval fighters, but simply point out that your sweeping remarks about MiG-29K performance when compared to your beloved SH are wrong. When looked at a cost-effectiveness stand point, well, that certainly does not favor the SH.
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st December 2010 at 05:46
Once again no concrete proof to back up your sweeping statements about the MiG-29K. Good job. Still waiting for those figures regarding all those aircraft on ski-jump and catapult carriers.
What do you want??? The Super Hornet, Rafale, and Lightning II all have better Radars & Avonics (i.e. APG-79 AESA for example), Weapons (Better Quality & Larger Selections), and Airframes Designed for Carrier Operations from the start.
Also, wouldn’t you say that the Indian Navy is very familar with the Capabilities of the Mig-29K. Especially, considering they currently operate the type. Yet, Indian Navy has already place a RFI from Boeing, Dassault, and Lockheed Martin for a New Naval Fighter. Why because they think the current Mig-29K is better!:rolleyes:
By: TR1 - 1st December 2010 at 05:32
Once again no concrete proof to back up your sweeping statements about the MiG-29K. Good job. Still waiting for those figures regarding all those aircraft on ski-jump and catapult carriers.
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st December 2010 at 05:03
How about you provide me with proof (you are the one making the claims here, the burden is on you) about the relative performances of the SH, Rafale, MiG-29K, whatever, on both ski jump and catapult carriers.
Well, the US, UK, and France have been Designing and Building Conventional Naval Aircraft for nearly a Century. While Russia has build a very small number over the last decade or two. Which, I would add are converted “Land Based Types” (i.e. Su-33 & Mig-29K) that date back to the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.
Plus, let’s not forget that Russia hasn’t even had the resources since the break up of the former USSR. To keep pace let alone surpass either the US, and/or France in such Designs.
Now if you want specific I would be happy to discuss such things as Naval Wing Design, Carrier Compatibly, AESA Radars, Advance BVR Missiles, and Avionics. (to name a few)
Sorry, the US and France are experts in Naval Aircraft Designs. The Russians are Amateurs.
By: TR1 - 1st December 2010 at 04:21
How about you provide me with proof (you are the one making the claims here, the burden is on you) about the relative performances of the SH, Rafale, MiG-29K, whatever, on both ski jump and catapult carriers.
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st December 2010 at 04:15
Not in everything they wouldn’t.
How about the majority!:D
By: TR1 - 1st December 2010 at 03:47
The Super Hornet, Rafale, and Lightning would all have limitation in payload while operating from a Ski Jump Carrier no doubt. Yet, they would all exceed the performance of the Mig-29K nonetheless. That being said I only see small gains by all of the contenders except the F-35C. Which, is why I believe India is really interested in the latter.
Not in everything they wouldn’t.
Sign In
November 7, 2010 at 3:57 am