bronchoReally, the waste here is some take the criticism of the LCA as somehow Anti-Indian???(i.e. personal) You know how many American Fighter Projects were total failures over the last 50 years! Maybe India should take what it has learned from the LCA and move on? That said, I am not saying the LCA is necessarily a total failure. Clearly, we all learn from our mistakes just as learn from our success! Sometimes much more! At the current rate we will more than likely see something like 20-40 LCA in service by time the program turns 30 years old! Personally, after the Billions invested and all of the time I don’t see the up side??? Respectfully
Nobody cares if you do see the upside or not. As long as IAF does that is sufficient.
bronchoI agree with you Scooter, Not only the above but the IAF has yet to show any real commitment to it. Only 20 have been ordered with the option of a further 20, a measly number for any fighter programme but it is even worse when we consider that it now looks like over 200 Su-30MKI and 126 MMRCA will be ordered. Unless LCA procurement rises above at least 100 then the project as a whole is a faliure. All we have heard about further LCA orders is vague comments about further orders and people insisting that it will replace all the Mig-21’s.
The argument that the LCA has been worth it becouse of the spin-offs now in service is flawed. These ‘spin-offs’ could have been developed without the LCA.
If we see firm orders for a large number of LCA’s in excess of 100, then I will consider it a success but for the moment it is not looking good.
Since IAf seems to show no commitment to even letting out a RFP for MMRCA, I guess no MMRCA will be procured either.
The LCA is supposed to obtain FOC in 2012 only and by then there won’t be more than 3-4 squardons in service. The MMRCA deal is to replace completely different set of aircrafts.
But you needn’t worry for IAF. Worry about your troops dying in eye-rak.
bronchoSo, LPD/LSDs are “ancient designs”, are they?
Someone ought to tell the USN (San Antonio class), China (071 class), RN (Albion class), Netherlands… many others… who are building (or have just built) these types of ships for their navies!
Mistral is a LHD, which is built to a different conceptual and operational philosophy than a LPD or LSD.
Mistral is focused primarily toward helicopter-based operations, with landing craft deployed from the dock as secondary. This places personnel lift as the first priority, as they carry fewer landing craft than any of the LPD/LSD types do.
LPD/LSDs are primarily landing craft/hovercraft oriented… with the higher weight lift of the landing craft as the main focus… tanks, cargo trucks, etc…. with personnel lift as secondary.
While a LPD carries more troops and less cargo/vehicle lift than a LSD, it still is intended for sustained heavy movement operations, where a LHD is intended for quick-strike scenarios.
That is why the USN has all 3, to “mix & match” as needed for the specific mission profile.
If India determines that they need more surface-based heavy lift rather than air-delivered troop/light cargo lift, then that is what they feel they need.
The LPD/LSD brings a different capability than does the LST type… the smaller landing craft of a Trenton-type can reach islands and beaches that are unreachable for LSTs (coral reefs, long shallow approaches, etc.), as well as enter rivers & the like.
Yes, the LSTs carry these as well, but fewer, and require calmer seas to load/unload them, and have to refill/empty them with cranes, where a dock-type ship can do that much quicker and more easily (vehicles can drive into/out of the landing craft, and overhead rail-mounted cranes handle other cargo much more quickly).
Try reading a bit before typing out a novel in response. IN is looking at Mistrals from france and not a trenton based design which by any strech of imagination is old.
The LST’s are required but I am just saying that hopefully they would be a little bigger and not 5-6k ton roundtable designs.
bronchoNavy wants more Barak missiles
Saturday, January 6, 2007 (City):
When Pakistan bought the Harpoon anti-ship missile in the mid-nineties that could target Indian ships from 150 km away, the Indian navy chose the Israeli Barak air defence missile.
But the Barak missile deal is at the centre of a controversy after the CBI chargesheeted former defence minister George Fernandes. The CBI accused Fernandes of buying the Barak instead of the indigenously produced Trishul.
In the middle is the navy, which is desperate that its air defence requirements do not become hostage to the controversy.
A K Antony was shown a live fire exercise of the Barak missile. The defence minister seemed happy with the display.
“It was the most thrilling day of my life. It was amazing,” said Antony.
bronchoArguing for the sake of it is just getting very irritating..
Canada has probably been in more OVERSEAS deployments then India where its airforce and Aircraft have conducted military action on a pariah state.
Yes all as unkils poodle right? Its easy when you are behind someone or being led by others. Oh and I think we all remember their treatment of somalian children.:rolleyes: . I guess Iraq, bosnia because of their status as being under sanctions for nearly a decade must have been the next global superpower threatening US and not a pariah state that was supported to the hilt by USA.
bronchoDon’t expect Mistrals, etc. anytime soon, India has other plans:
http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratcomments/gskhurana030406.htm“Although Trenton is 35 years old and would have only about 15 years of residual life, the vessel would provide the Indian Navy with invaluable expertise to operate a vastly different platform and enable refinement of its operational concepts for amphibious missions. (Of course, it would also entail acquisition of hovercraft/landing-craft and more transport helicopters to be used in conjunction). Besides, the LPD design could also be studied by Indian shipyards for indigenous construction in the future. Reports indicate that plans are on the anvil to build similar vessels at Kolkata. Although relatively expensive, such versatile vessels are particularly suited for the presently unthinkable out-of-area (OOA) contingencies.”
There are actually to be 5 LST-Ls… 2 already in service, and the 3 new ones.
Class Landing Ship Tank — Large (LST-L)
L 20 Magar; commissioned 15 Jul 1987
L 23 Gharial; commissioned 14 Feb 1997Based on the Sir Lancelot design, these Landing Ship Tank — Large (LST-L) are built at Hindustan SY but fitted at the Garden Reach DY. In fact, GRSE is the only shipyard in India which specialises in designing and building amphibian LST(L) ships for the Indian Navy.
INS Shardul; ordered December 2001; launched 04 April 2004
INS Kesari; ordered December 2001; launched 08 June 2005
INS ?; ordered December 2001; status unknownIn December 2001, a letter of intent for construction of three landing ship tanks (large) was placed on the Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd (GRSE) shipyard. GRSE would deliver the landing ship tank by June 2007. The three large landing ship tanks would cost around Rs 350 crore each. The LST designs is an updated versions of two earlier vessels, INS Magar and INS Gharial, built by GRSE for the Indian Navy.
Since the first group was to have 3 ships, and the third was cancelled in favor of the improved type, has the planned third of the improved class been cancelled in favor of larger ships, or is it building?
The trenton based design is pure speculation. Well maybe if they find it better than Mistral (which I seriously doubt), they might opt for a design based on it. The 3 shardul classes are already built and launched. The INS kesari and INS airawat will be commissioned sometime late this year. So IN is pretty much done with roundtable designs.
I doubt IN will go for an ancient trenton based design when a newer and more modern mistral is available.
bronchohttp://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/15031.asp
I am not sure aboutthe items validity or what fillings are?:D
bronchoNick other than USN no body uses the F-18 E/F.
bronchoWell I guess the british MOD has decided it won’t have to fight another war alone and will always have big brother (USA) for support.
If this happens lets all take a minute to remember the sad demise of a once glorious global navy now being relegated to a bloody coastal navy.
bronchoWhy simpler? If you’re looking for a short-term capacity boost until a new design can be sorted out, a secondhand ship of the same basic type as you already operate is ideal. New ships cost more, tie up slipways which could be used for something else, & then you’re stuck with an old-fashioned ship for decades. In fact, I’m a little surprised the IN bought Shardul at al (basically, modernised Round Tables, aren’t they?), because I agree with you about them being rather small. I’d have thought something along the lines of Rotterdam would be more useful.
Because it is old and would be a waste of money while gaining nothing new unlike the trenton. The basic design might be same but the machinery, weapons and other small details are all different between the british ships and IN ships.
I hope the 3 sharduls are the last of that batch. They should shift to Mistrals (20 ktonne, 3 atleast) and a smaller design around 12-16k tonne (4-5).
bronchoWell Australia, Canada and Kuwait have all fought successful wars in the relatively recent past with the Hornet, as I recall the Indian Air Force hasn’t fought a war for almost a quarter of a century.
Oh yeah they stayed behind US and let USAF, USN, RAF and ADA lead the war, greeat experience:D . Give it a rest. None of these have the ability to fight a war on their own. They can all be led by USAf, RAF or any other decent force.
As for casting aspersions on the capabilities of these air forces, they have successfully managed to intoroduce modern capabilities into their air forces, how long has India been trying to decide on a Lead In Fighter Trainer? Is India still losing pilots in fatal accidents by trying to use the Mig 21 as a LIFT?
How much ‘time and effort’ does the IAF need to formulate and accept into service a reasonably easy capability
What capababilities? That they are a good adjunct to USAF? Of course these nations are happy to be that. Pardon IAF if it is not interested. The Hawk should have been bought 15 years ago but you can thank indian politicians for the fiasco. Why do I see most of them considering buying a few over priced C-17s (a handful) and struggling to pay for it? Surely canada, australia can afford them?
Yes Bronco, the forum is a democracy, that means we have the right to comment without your abuse, and you have the right to respoid, hopefully with something constructive.
I am not an American bootlicker, I speak from operational experience, having served for more than dozen years in an Air Force that operates the F/A-18 Hornet, and having flown in the aircraft on numerous occaisions.
That’s a damn sight more than you can claim, your operational experience in this matter is basically nothing, so your comments should be seen as what they are, the ravings of an Indian chauvanist.
Unicorn
What abuses? All I can see is that you country got stuck with a plane like F-18 and now you want company. Well misery does love company doesn’t it. All you have is experience with F-18’s and are basically in no position to claim that rafale or Su-30 are in anyway inferior to it. Most likely they are far better than that F-18. So you just an F-18 chauvinist who knows nothing about the competeing planes but insist on praising your own precious little fighter.
If you want to discuss what IAF should buy seriously, then F-18 or F-16 cannot be seriously considered. They are good for adjunct airforces that will never have to face a war alone. India cannot bank on that option.
Oh and sealord back up your claims about India being offered all the gizmos before pointing fingers? Has the nuke deal been passed yet? No, but the weapons sales to pakistan have been okayed at incredible speed haven’t they?
bronchohey the forum is a democracy. I am sure free sppech is guaranteed. But taking facts into account once in a while might help….like US has not cleared 80 % of the bells and whistles people claim to be hornets selling points.
bronchoHmm well maybe in future when bedivere retires they can pick up one of the ships in reserve.
Sir galahad:
http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/mar2003/essays/pi032903a1.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/hampshire/content/images/2006/07/26/galahad_470x300.jpg
Anyway since someone raised the point about india having a variant of roundtable class. The latest and modified LST-L INS shardul that joined IN on jan 4th.
http://www.sahilonline.org/news/jan07/ins_shardul_karwar.jpg
bronchoRead up a little before spouting garbage:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
A fully loaded F-18 c/d weighs23-25 tonn.
A fully loaded F-18 E/F is 29 tonn.
F-18 with AESA radar all the bells and whistles that make this mediocre plane look good might be available of USA and her poodles,but who ever said they are available to India? Without these the F-18 id just a badly designed aircraft. India would be better served with rafale or mig-35. The poodles who love the F-18 so much should simply buy them and stop advising india on what to buy.
bronchoHmm Broncho, your prejudices are showing again.
The F/A-18 is a crappy fighter.
Really, tell that to the air forces of Finland, Australia, Canada, Switzerland and Kuwait amongst others. They had the option to buy pretty much anything they wanted, as all were paying cash, and all chose the Hornet.
The Royal Australian Air Force is currently investigating a purchase of up to 24 Super Hornets as an interim aircraft leading into the delivery of the JSF. That suggests that a modern first world nation is pleased with the service their Hornets have provided and finds the Super Hornet a viable aircraft.
Strike is its forte and IAF finds it too heavy and cumbersome.
Interesting, seeing the IAF has never operated the Hornet how exactly can they ‘find’ it too heavy and cimbersome.
It seems to have done rather well, particularly in combat operations, something that the IAF has had very little experience of in the last several decades. When it comes down to it, combat is the only true test of a combat aircraft, and the F/A-18 has perfomed well enough to remain in service with the major operators, the USN and USMC, wheras other aircraft have been phased out of service.
But then people here seem to know more about what IN, IAF or even Brazilian Navy needs more than the services themselves
And you speak with too much assurance for someone who by your own acknowledgement has no experience in military operations, no experience in procurement of defence equipment or evaluations and no experience in any of the services.
People here suggest that a piece of equipment ‘might’ be a ‘possible’ contender for an Indian requirement and you respond that it will ‘never’ be considered, that it is ‘completely’ unsuited for the requirement and that these people are ‘stupid’ for even entertaining the possibility.
In short you come across as an ill-informed, loud mouthed, opinionated and rude anti-Western (particularly anti-American) chauvinist. An instant expert on any subject because you claim to be, with no real experience to back it up.
Regrettably all too many of your kind infest the Internet.
Please stop wasting our time with your prejudices, instead try contributing to the discussion with reasoned dialogue, with sources to back them up.
Unfortunately, I don’t expect that to happen.
Unicorn
yes finland, canada, australia and kuwait none of them are airforces that really expect to fight a real war without hiding behind USA’s skirt. Any hangar queen would fit these airforces. Really canada and kuwait are your idea of modern well equipped airforces??
How much brains does one need to figure out that F-18 is a mediocre fighter in the class of F-15 and Su-30 and not a 20 ton fighter? Do you think indians can’t see through your cheap tricks of trying to pry India away from russia and france. When the airforce formulates its requirement for an a/c they spend time and effort discussing its role and specifications. IAf wanted Mirage2k5 and F-18 certainly does not fit into IAF’s stated requirement. Heck IAF or GOI were not even interested in f-18’s or F-16’s. it was boeing that unilaterally came up with the offer of F-18’s. Same way US offered partership in JSF when India was not even remotely interested.
Unfortunately american bootlickers like you are plenty in this forum. Leave India’s decisions to GOI, IAf and IN. I would consider the opinion of officers and officials serving in these more valuable than silly testimonials from forum members here.
Sign In
