BlackArcherMMRCA. The IN chief made his comments about STOBAR after STOBAR had been locked in. He was hardly going to say ‘this is a dead end technology and we’ll have to scrap it as soon as we wish to develop a full sea control capability’. I think any reading of the Admirals piece without keeping that context in mind is a touch naieve perhaps.
And there were reasons why the STOBAR was selected..name one big deal that went through between India and America in the 1990s. The IN hadn’t purchased ANYTHING from the US in the ’90s, and the service wasn’t going to hinge its future carrier capability on a hunch that relations would improve so much over the next decade. The 1998 sanctions only went on to confirm that belief. the IN needed a carrier capability and the STOBAR was a far superior option to the limited capability brought by STOVL fighters and the IN rightly decided to go with it.
The simple fact is that this ‘nasty unreliable Americans and their embargos’ was not an obstruction officially to anything India had in long term planning. Hence MMRCA RFI’s, hence negotiation for a 15000ton full load Austin Class LPD a few years later, hence later purchase of P-8, Harpoon etc, etc. Its just an excuse and the Admirals piece is a fob off to justify the modest state IN naval air is in now when many billions have been spent, effectively, to arrive back at square one…the need to grow in to CATOBAR and proper sea control Fleet Carrier deployment. Something that its well known the IN knew 20yrs ago.
You’ve got your facts mixed up.
The original MRCA RFI didn’t feature the F/A-18 C/D nor the Super Hornet and it was specifically for the IAF, not the IN. Even that happened in the 2000s, not in the 1990s, when no US aircraft was even considered by the IAF, let alone the IN. The first RFI for the IAF’s MRCA contest was between the Mirage-2000, F-16 Block 50/52, MiG-29M2 and the Gripen C/D.
In fact, IAF ACM Fali Homi Major in an article that appeared in Boeing Frontiers magazine had even mentioned that even HE was surprised when Boeing approached the IAF HQ and requested that the Super Hornet be also evaluated as part of the MMRCA..i.e. the second installment of the MRCA competition after the first one featured the Mirage-2000, F-16 Block 50 and the Gripen C/D.
BlackArcherAnother successful test firing of the Astra BVR AAM against a Lakshya pilotless target drone..
India’s Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air-to-air missile ASTRA was once again successfully test fired today by the Indian Air Force off the coast of Odisha near the Integrated Test Range, Balasore. The missile has been indigenously designed and developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). In today’s test flight an ASTRA missile carrying telemetry equipment in place of the warhead was fired from a Sukhoi-30 aircraft against a Lakshya (Pilotless Target Aircraft) target. The target was successfully engaged and it was captured by Telemetry and Electro-optical tracking stations.
A successful trial of ASTRA, conducted yesterday, was also launched from a Sukhoi 30 aircraft, which was aimed at confirming missile’s capability to undergo manoeuvre involving very high gravitational forces upto the order of 30 ‘g’. These fourth and fifth launch campaign were coordinated by Air Headquarters including the flight of Lakshya target.
The Defence Research & Development Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad of the Missile Complex is the primary development agency for the missile. Dr. K. Jayaraman, Director, DRDL was present at the mission centre overseeing the trials along with Dr. Subhash Chandran, the Programme Director. Dr. VG Sekaran, Director General (Missiles & Strategic Systems) has congratulated the team of designers, technologists, production and quality agencies, and Air Force for developing and testing such a complex system which is comparable with the best in the world.
The Project Director Dr. S Venugopal said that “the fourth and fifth Air Launch of ASTRA was once again perfect in all respect and engaged the target with precision. More tests will follow to prove its repeatability.” He said Astra has proved its capability as a formidable weapon.
BlackArcheras said, one rafale take off with good ordnance load and little fuel and another with fuel only… the buddy-refuel the armed one and you’re ready to go..
besides, something seems wrong with your saying it’s good for 15t only.. the E-2 hawkeye used by the french weighs 18 tons empty. add fuel and crew and you’re around 20t minimum and it still took off from french carriers
you’re not seriously suggesting that this buddy refueling be the standard operating procedure for all ops ? It’s absurd that you’d think that such a massively payload constrained fighter operating off an antique carrier would be a far superior choice to a STOBAR MiG-29K operating off a heavily modified Russian carrier. Face it, the better option was the modified Gorshkov/MiG-29K rather than the Clemenceau/Rafale M that had almost no payload capability worth talking about..
BlackArcherThe Hornet was in an Indian RFI in 2001. The USS Trenton was bought a few short years later. The P-8 purchase a few years later still. The sanctions argument does not bear scrutiny if you look at real world actions that followed. A real procurement process takes into account issues such as that and this is very clearly displayed by India with regard to the US.
What RFI? The IN’s Chief never mentioned anything about any interest in the Hornet and in fact clearly mentioned that the fact that the US was the only supplier for cats meant that the IN didn’t consider it a viable option. US India relations matured much later, and big ticket items purchased from the US didn’t include offensive items till much later.
BlackArcherIf they bought the package (the French were practically giving the carrier anyway), buying a bunch of Rafales would’ve been quite bearable as a whole.
Anyway, no need to rewrite history, they learn as they go, and are obviously interested in taking a “next step forward” from what they have now
What would be the payload capability of the Rafale M taking off from the Clemenceau?
Another point was that the Rafale M F1 was not the most mature fighter when it was evaluated by the IN. When it is so damn costly and the capability on offer doesn’t blow the customer away, it doesn’t seem that attractive an option. the IN would’ve now had to pay for a costly upgrade to bring those Rafale M F1 fighters to the F3 level as the French Navy is doing now.
When considering all the options, the INS Vik/MiG-29K combo hasn’t worked out bad for the IN.
BlackArcherer, the Sao Paulo operates a squadron of A-4s, so, obviously, a squadron of anything flying after 1980 should bring a better capability. Had India bought the Clemenceau, armed it with Hornets or Rafales (buying it in 1997 would mean it probably would enter service around year 2000, with the time to clean it up, restore and put in all the equipment needed)
Why do you keep harping on the same thing? the Clemenceau brought very limited capability with its catapults. And Hornets WERE NOT AN OPTION. Not in 1997, not even in 2004. The IN just didn’t bother to evaluate them. Please see the article I posted written by Admiral Arun Prakash on what options India had and how they went about their carrier decision.
BlackArcherHornets could operate from the Foch & Clem at the cost of small modifications (on the deflectors & catapults). It was estimated at the time the cost of the modifications would equal the cost of about 1 hornet.
Nic
And where would India get F/A-18 Hornets from? You’re forgetting that India’s relations with the US were frosty at best all through the 1990s and reached a low point after the nuke sanctions of 1998. US fighters for the IN were not even considered as an option.
BlackArcherThat’s possible, but if so, why not say so? Why invite ridicule with the silly “the AMRAAMs were not included” excuse? They’d have looked much better if they’d just blamed delays & changing circumstances, or a review of requirements leading to a decision that the SHARs were no longer needed.
Ridicule from whom? Someone posting on the internet? Do you really think that it matters to the IN or the MoD? Or that the UK wouldn’t offer any more equipment because such a reason was given?
I’m also curious that you won’t call out the absurd decision not to let the Blue Vixen be transferred, all when the UK was more than interested in selling a far more capable radar on the Typhoon..pray, let us know what the great logic in that was? If it didn’t make any logical sense to the Indians, they were well within their rights to just dump the deal for such an illogical refusal.
The customer (the IN) doesn’t need to please anyone or save face the way you’re putting it. The deal didn’t go through, as simple as that, whatever be the reasons..Blue Vixen not being included, AMRAAM not being supplied, those are just excuses and hardly make any difference now and would’ve barely made much of a difference then either since those SHars were purely a stop-gap arrangement. Supplied directly, they might have served for a bit, but strip them of it and then have all the complications of a new set of negotiations with the US for AMRAAMs and Israel to upgrade them to LUSH standard, and the entire deal just wasn’t worth the money or effort. There are umpteen cases of international arms deals going south when some illogical offers are made. Just ask the French about it.
Besides, its not like an IN Admiral said anything about the deal not being clinched because of non supply of AMRAAMs..is there? Show me a quote by an IN Admiral stating that this was the reason that the deal was ditched. Most likely this was something mentioned in some news report without any direct source and that’s enough for you to repeatedly keep harping on the same issue.
BlackArcherAstra active guided missile test fired against target successfully
A critical high-g (27 g) manoeuvring capability of the indigenously developed Beyond Visual Range air-to-air missile, Astra, was proved on Wednesday after it was launched from Sukhoi-30 MkI fighter aircraft against a moving simulated target from Chandipur, Odisha on Sunday.The anti-aircraft missile’s high-g manoeuvrability from a lower altitude of one km was one of the critical performance criteria and it was proved in the flight test, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientists told The Hindu .
After a smooth separation from the aircraft, the missile went up and dived down to intercept the moving simulated target at an altitude of about two km. The missile’s structures, guidance, control and aerodynamics were proved for high-g manoeuvre, the scientists said.
The DRDO scientists have planned to launch Astra against an actual target — Pilotless Target Aircraft (Lakshya) on Thursday.
..
BlackArcherIt’s interesting, that India have so many problems with Su-30MKI engines, while Malaysia and Algeria have no problems with the same engines. They they say, that in half cases it was bad quality of fuel, than they have problems with low pressure of lubricant oil, vibrations. India will have to use proper quality of fuel and lubricants and proper quality of maintenance. There is for sure also a question of quality of HAL production. I’m sure there is a reason, why Dassault doesn’t want to give any guaranty on HAL build Rafales but only to those build in France.
India has close to 200 Su-30MKIs in service, whereas Malaysia has 18 and Algeria has ~30 in service (I may be corrected if I’m wrong here)..the fleet utilization of the IAF’s Su-30MKI fleet is also very high..but there are some other issues, as have been pointed out, so it may not be a design issue alone. However, do note that the OEM did make some design changes to the AL-31F engine after problems were pointed out, and since then the number of engine problems have been reported to have reduced.
Nevertheless, being the backbone of the IAF’s fighter fleet, it is a matter of concern and the IAF will have to take a very close look at these issues.
BlackArcherI agree! This is exactly what I’ve been saying! What baffles me is that there’s still someone here (not you) who’ll argue about it.
But apart from that, I’m afraid you’ve rather missed the point here.
Good decision-making is, we’re told –
(1) Signing a contract to upgrade every aircraft of type X with new radars & missiles, with no provision for aircraft losses before completion of the contract.
(2) Try to buy additional newer (so much for ‘second-hand’) aircraft of the same basic type, then reject them after months of negotiations, citing one condition which was not within the power of the seller to fulfil (a fact which was known beforehand), & another which was also known from the start, but fortuitously cancelled out the mistake made in (1).
(3) Later, buy some of them anyway, for spares.Ah well. ;(
Indian MoD’s procurement processes are byzantine..and bureaucrats would much rather push the file and not get blamed for any deviations from a set process, which in many cases leads to a lot of back and forth within MoD’s and MoF’s corridors..
The IN probably realized that with just a few years to go before the MiG-29Ks arrived, it would be a futile exercise trying to get the MoD to finalise on a complicated tripartite deal and then go to Israel and get those FAs upgraded to LUSH standard. By the time things would get finalized, the MiG-29Ks would’ve started arriving, and the IN would be left with trying to integrate those SHars into its fleet without them being even a stop-gap measure. So they just dropped it and decided to go with the few LUSH airframes they still had..now with INS Viraat having just 1 more year of service left, those 7 LUSH SHars will suffice and then be retired along with the carrier.
BlackArcherThe UK MoD didn’t refuse the AMRAAM transfer. How many times must this be repeated? You can’t ‘refuse’ something you can’t do! If India wanted AMRAAM, it had to get permission from the USA, not the UK. It would have been simpler to approach the USA directly, rather than enter into three-way negotiations for part of the UK’s stock. This has been said more times than I can count. Why don’t you get it? Operators of AMRAAM & other first-line US weapons can’t just hand them over. They need permission from the USA, & the recipient also has to get US authority to receive them. India had to negotiate with the USA in any case – & this was explained at the time – so why try to add a needless complication & additional cost by involving the UK? Simpler all round for us to keep the AMRAAMs & India to buy missiles separately. For India to cite it as a reason for not buying SHAR FA2s was insane.
Not insane. It was probably a prudent decision to just not invest any more time or money on the SHar when the IN was going to get MiG-29Ks in a few years’ time..going to the US, negotiating with them for a few AMRAAMs to equip the FA2s while the rest of the LUSH SHars flew with Derbys didn’t make much sense any way..What really was insane and beyond stupid was the decision by the RN to retire FA2s and have Harrier GR9s take up fleet defence responsibility without any BVR weapon. For all practical purposes, the Royal Navy fleet was without fleet air defence capability and will be till the F-35s arrive.
as things panned out, the MiG-29Ks did arrive, a little late, but the INS Vik didn’t. The few SHars that were upgraded to LUSH standard just about managed the fleet defence role since refits kept INS Viraat out of service for long enough periods. And now that INS Vikramaditya has been inducted and pilots trained on the MiG-29K, INS Viraat can be retired along with its small fleet of SHars.
The reason for the Blue Vixen refusal has never been clear. There was something said, IIRC, about the cost of modification to make export permissible being too much, but any more details were withheld. I do recall them being put forward as suitable for fitting into the Elta upgrade programme for the existing Indian SHARs. Again, it would have been easier, & cheaper, given that it committed to upgrading more Harriers than it actually had flying by the time they were due for upgrade, to have simply extended the upgrades. There was no need to upgrade them all, if they were’t all needed, nor train lots more pilots.
You don’t know the reason for why the Blue Vixen was refused (when a more modern radar, that on the Typhoon was on offer!! duh!! how idiotic does it get?!) and yet you blame India for rejecting this deal? You don’t know the facts on the ground, you haven’t got all the info required to make a judgment on whether such a purchase actually would make sense or not from the Indian pov and yet you time and again blame India for not going for second-hand aircraft with very limited utility at best?
BlackArcherThe USA was trying hard to sell an upgraded F-16 & the F-18E to India ten years ago, & has also tried to sell E-2D – to India.
If India had chosen to go for a cat & trap carrier 15 years ago (or 11 years ago, when Gorshkov was bought), it would have had no difficulty buying aircraft for it from the USA if it wanted to. The nuclear programme related obstacles were all removed before they’d have been problems.
Do keep up.
the IN was not of that opinion. Back in 2000, there was hardly any military sales from the US to India and the IN wasn’t going to take such a huge risk as to choose a CATOBAR fighter and then find that the US would block sales of a catapult system. All through the ’90s, when the replacement carrier was being looked at, CATOBAR was considered out of reach thanks to relations with the US being strained.
Sign In
