That's the American methods, when the French want to hurt it's more subtle than that, but it hurts a lot.
If you
read my very early posts, you will see that I had stated that the original deal was for 90 Mig-29K. later on IN got fooled by IAF to try and make a joint case for Rafale for IAF and IN. Then came the fiasco of TEDBF and now we are back to square one. Additional Mig-29K and our own TEDBF.
Whoo! This is what I had been hoping for and supporting since many years now.
The cancellation of MRCBF in exchange for more Mig-29Ks. My only hope now is these Mig-29Ks are upgraded with an AESA radar, and that will complete my wishlist. We are still missing 45 more Mig-29Ks and hopefully they come in with the UPG upgrade with either the Uttam or FGA-35. But this deal's happening so late in the game that it doesn't appear there's time left for an extensive Indianised upgrade, although a Mig-35 upgrade path is visible, and hope that's applied to the current fleet as well.
I had even argued that this is what will eventually happen. It's not the best option, but the fact is it's absolutely the only option. I still remember my conversation with CNL-PN-AA regarding this, although I agree with him when he says the Mig-29K is not a carrier jet. But by ensuring both carriers use Russian aircraft complexes, and weight restrictions in the use of arrestor wires, they ensured the Mig-29K is the only option left amongst existing aircraft.
Now we have to see what's in store for the fleet. Keeping fingers crossed for an AESA upgrade.
@vstol Jockey @Picdelamirand-oil @Bon Plan @A Person @BMD @halloweene
What's disappointing is the IN took a decade to figure this out.
Whatever data you had provided about the lifts and wires it's obvious the IN knew it as well, so I have no idea what they were expecting. The same with N-LCA, it was always supposed to be a TD. I have no idea who gave them the idea that it was realistic, especially with even the F414 being underpowered.
Now they are making the exact same mistake with the choice of jets for the third carrier. TEDBF remedies the problem for the first two carriers, but Rafale and SH will end up being downgrades after the IN begins operating the TEDBF.
@vstol Jockey @Picdelamirand-oil
This image was posted by @hellbent in 2019.
What do you think of this as the second design of TEDBF?
Do note that it could be an AMCA variant as well.
This image was posted by @hellbent in 2019.
What do you think of this as the second design of TEDBF?
Do note that it could be an AMCA variant as well.
IN wants to have a fleet of over 200 fighters and wants to take over the coastal defense and offshore defense role from IAF. But IAF are a bunch of idiots, they want more squadrons for themselves by stating that they have to help other services. If you may recall, IAF even though down to 32 squadrons is actually not depleted in strength as we did not have attack hepters in 1969 when this squadron strength was asked for by IAF planners, nor did we have attack hepters with Army and IAF was responsible for security of entire airspace of India. You may recall the case of transfer of Super conneis to IN as recce platforms? How badly IAF opposed it and finally IN agreed to pay for the maritime strike squadron of Jaguars to be operated by IAF for IN to broker a peacedeal. Later IAF created same issues when IN went in for Mig-29K. IAF wanted these jets citing commanality with its pilots. But, All Aviators of IN are well aware of these tactics of IAF and now that we have an Aviator as our CNS, he has turned the tables on IAF.
The basic Mig-29 in IAF service defeated M2K way back in 1987 with 8300kgf engines and the new MIG-29K has 9500Kgf engines with larger wing area and much higher fuel volume. Its 5.5 tons compared to 4.7 tons of Rafale with better SFC of engines.
AND russians extracted their price like the Merchant of Venice. They helped India design a carrier which could operate only their jets.
I am very strongly against anykind of canard design for deck based fighters. The combination of tailplane and the larger flap settings which we can get to lower the approach speed and better forward angle of view remain two most important issues for deck based fighters. Canards can not help mitigate that. There will always be a compromise. However, I have suggestion for both DA and ADA, if they want to go for canards, go for twin tail which should act as V-tail to enhance the canard design. In a CCC design, while coming in to land, the canard can be tuned to provide lift like the way a tailplane does for an unstable design but the limit is very low as the downward flow of air from positive angle of canards interferes with upper wing airflow and creates a negative effect of disturbing and destroying lift over the wings. The V-tal will allow more and larger throw of flaperons to reduce speed.
Every modern aircraft now has FBW and therefore we can have split rudders as well in the design to take care of specific needs instead of having a differential V-tail. If you loose an engine, you are not going to need full rudder authority for high alpha games. You will be restricted to very low alpha regime in which the V-Tail split rudder will continue to provide you full control in yaw and pitch.
It seems once again ADA is doing the same mistake which they did in 1983. IAF had formed a committee when they had HAL under them to decide what should be the configuration of LCA. After umpteen rounds of chai, samosa and sutta, the IAF decided that it should be like M2K as their brains were hooked on M2K. ADA was formed later and they were forced to go for M2K like design. Now once again, ADA is doing the same mistake, instead of using their brains, they are again copying DA/ Rafale. I am going to write to CNS as I have served with him in Goa and he knows me very well as a brain on aerodynamics. I will ask him to shoot down this shitty canard design.
The IAF will lose that game so I'm not worried that much about it. The IA is going to get attack and medium choppers along with fixed wing UAVs/UCAVs. IN already has carrier jets and they will eventually transition to coastal fighters once TEDBF comes in, as the Mig-29Ks will end up on land and will need a direct replacement at a later date considering a 40-year service life.
Now the problem is the IN may not make the right decision for their next fighter jet considering their recent track record. Right now they are interested in 1 squadron of SHs, which is fine. But the real problem is they will end up going for Rafale or SH all the way in 2035 when they should instead be looking at next gen aircraft like the N-NGAD or F-35C Mk2 or something else, which they will have to operate until 2070-80. Rafale and SH will be like F-16 and M2K by then. Not to mention, the Chinese would be testing their NGAD-competitor by then.
The CAD image is that of a LERX+trap+tail though. So it's either a variant of AMCA or a non-canard version of TEDBF.
Russians are far ahead in aerodynamics compared to europeans and Americans. They created Su-30MKI and as an evolution of it they created SU-35 which got rid of canards and has an LERX-Wing-Tail design with unstable configuration and better TVC. Whole world has accepted that Su-35 is superior in aerodynamics comapared to SU-30MKI. Does this not prove my theory that canards are bullshit and over hyped?
Both Britain and France have abandoned canards for their next gen designs as well. With the exception of the J-20, I don't think any next gen design will see canards. I suppose Boeing experimented with a canard design for F/A-XX, but that may also change. The Koreans also abandoned their canard design for KFX.
So, if we go for the Rafale-inspired TEDBF design, then only India and China will have canards on new fighter jets. With India having the dubious distinction of being the only country to release a canard design for operation after 2030.
Dear Vstol Jockey sir, good day. Could you kindly share with us your thoughts on 1. How good is the Mig 29K in its current configuration for the role it is envisaged in by the IN. 2. How would you rate it as compared with the SH block 3. 3. What potential upgrade is the IN planning for it? 4. How many new M29K is the IN planning to buy now? thank you.
I will answer you in the same sequence as your questions.
- Mig-29K of the IN is a highly evolved aircraft and is even superior to Su-30MKI in certain aspects as it carries full spectrum ASPJ including MAWS. It has a very good radar and the new ones might come with AESA radars. IN is happy with it as the issues of maintenance have been resolved to a large extent. However it remains a shore based fighter which was converted to deck role. So the issues with its service life remain to be resolved. It meets all the requirements of the IN and also meets all the operational requirements.
- I will rate it much below SH blk3 due to various other reasons. Most of it is about the various roles which SH blk3 can do and Mig-29K can't do. SH blk3 is way superior in every aspect.
- We do not envisage a battle with USN ever and based on threat perpection in IOR and Indo-Pacific, Mig-29K is going to be very difficult to defeat and handle in combat by our likely adversaries. Infect in BFM, it got better of even SH blk2. I will prefer a new AESA radar and integration of Israeli and Indian missiles on it.
- IN works on 75% availability at the start of war. So for two carriers we will need atleast a total of 90 aircraft to be able to have adequate fighter strength on both carriers. 30 for Vikky and 36 for Vikrant.
Dear sir,
Good morning, you certainly did, and so impeccably indeed, Thank you!, and honestly its so reassuring to hear from you that M29K has been a sound choice for the IN.
Sir if you allow me one more query, could you possibly share, what could be one or even two operational tasks that the SHBLK3 could perform that the MIG 29 cannot or in other words a particular capability you wished the M29 had? Could IN possibly get this capability in its M29s by incremental upgrades in future?
Concise update. Are you aware if single engine arrested landing risks have been solved?
Evolution of UAV Squadrons of Indian Navy to a Combat Ready Force in the Indo-Pacific
Indian Navy recognized the potential of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) at the beginning of the 21st century when two variants of fixed wing UAVs, Searcher and Heron were inducted from Israel in 2002. The primary role of these UAVs was unmanned ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) maritime missions in a multi-mission/multi-payload configuration.
By Milind Kulshreshtha
To search and track a hostile target over water, in the air or undersea is the very foundation of any maritime warfare. Indian Navy recognized the potential of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) at the beginning of the 21st century when two variants of fixed wing UAVs, Searcher and Heron were inducted from Israel in 2002. The primary role of these UAVs was unmanned ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) maritime missions in a multi-mission/multi-payload configuration. The UAVs were capable of carrying various payloads onboard, like electro-optics (Day/Night operations), marine radars, ELINT (Electronics Intelligence) systems etc. The UAVs used onboard SATCOM (Satellite Communication) for Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) ranges and were capable of providing OTHT (Over- The-Horizon Target) data. The Heron MALE (Medium Altitude Long Endurance) was capable of more than 24 hours of flight time and could reach altitudes up to 45,000 feet.
UAVs Control by Warship
At any given time, Indian Navy designates a sea going trial platform for testing of indigenous systems like sonars, torpedo tubes etc. in the actual environment. One such indigenous Leander class warship was also fitted with UAV Advance Ship Control System in a Port and Starboard configuration, with a communication data-link to UAVs and an interface with the ship’s external V/UHF communication equipment. The key factors like an uninterrupted UAV control data-link with the ship, despite the ship’s continuous roll and pitch, was specifically designed. In this scheme, it was planned that once launched from the shore Naval Air Station, the control of the UAV shall be passed over to the warship at sea for the ship’s ISR mission and UAV control passed back to the shore unit for further recovery on land after completing the mission. However, the need for such a specialized arrangement has been overcome mostly by the advancements in the digital communication systems, which provide a much higher bandwidth for shipborne operations, even without direct control of the UAV by the ship.
Presently, Indian Navy is exploring the induction of Naval Shipborne Aerial System (NSUS). The deck launched tactical UAVs (fixed wing or rotary wing) would be always a desirable feature for the naval warships to achieve local ISR ability and for a closer air cover against enemy attack. Once organised over the sea, the NSUS UAVs can provide the air cover to the fleet’s warships and actively participate in the Combat Air Patrol duties.
Beginning of Combat Drones Era for Indian Navy
After two decades of successful exploitation of the surveillance UAVs, Indian Navy is at the juncture of upgrading its Squadrons to the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs). It is the much required way ahead in the rapidly evolving geopolitical situation in the region. The UCAVs have the ability to search out targets on the high seas and destroy the selected hostile targets. The UCAVs can also stealthily penetrate the enemy air space with an explosive payload (like missiles, guided bombs etc.).
The UAVs presently in operations with the Navy have navigation/control features combined with specialised sensors, mainly aimed at achieving precise surveillance over the enemy territories. However, UCAVs go a step further than only surveillance, and bring in a new dimension with their weaponised capability to engage Air to Surface (land/water) and even Air to Air targets. UCAVs with their onboard missiles and laser guided bombs. UCAVs like SeaGuardian have multi-mission configurations capabilities for maritime ISR, Anti-submarine Warfare, Surface Warfare and SAR (Search and Rescue) operations. The Anti-submarine operations are carried out through two to four sonobuoys which can be launched from air. Once in the sea water, these sonobuoys start to function in active/passive mode and all the underwater noise picked up is transmitted back to the UCAVs onboard receiver for processing and extracting the intelligence (like submarine signature). It is reported that the OEM is considering equipping the drone for anti-mine capabilities in the future upgrade and this shall make the navigation of ships in waters infested with surface mines safer.
Today, even though the military UAVs are not specifically expected to comply with civil airworthiness regulations as detailed by the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization),however, the Sea Guardian UAVs comply to a comparable minimum level of airworthiness for fixed-wing aircrafts for flight in nonsegregated airspace with minimal or no restrictions. Such large UAVs are fitted with an automatic Obstacle Collision Avoidance system and SeaGuardian further comply with the STANAG-4671 (NATO’s airworthiness standard for Unmanned Aerial Systems). The UAVs also have been considered safe for civil operations (Disaster Management activities) with their onboard collision avoidance radar and control systems.For India, this shall make the UCAVs safe to operate over land and in the congested commercial air routes closer to the shore (like for Mumbai harbour defence etc.).
UCAV Interoperability
The legacy UAVs were developed more as payload carrying aerial machines with Ground Control Stations controlling the UAVs through V/UHF or Satellite links. Each type of UAVs used their own proprietary encrypted telemetry and communication (including video) links. Thus, UAVs from different sources of supply are not interoperable (for features like use of one single Ground Controller to control varied UAVs in airetc.). However, SeaGuardian UAVs have been developed to comply with the STANAG 4586 NATO Standard Agreement for interoperability. STANAG 4586 defines the Interface Protocol, data elements and message format for inter-system communication. India shall do well in future by requesting this feature in the negotiations. UCAVs being procured from General Atomics could be a good start point for India to start such an initiative for better jointness with NATO standard equipment being procured from US or even French Rafale Fighter jets. It is a matter of time when IAF shall be exploiting the UCAVs as part of the fighter jet support units in the strike formations and the interoperability can become the missing link for this ability. This too shall ensure that existing UCAVs always remain upward-compatible with the next generation UCAVs. Further, as is experienced during the UAV flying, multiple Ground Stations operating close by can cause Electro-magnetic Interference and Compatibility (EMI/EMC) issues and can be a cause of safety concern. The UCAVs may still have to be tested in India for its future operations in a war zone or a contested airspace (due to jamming equipment operating).
The SeaGuardian’s designed capability to communicate with manned aircrafts is a feature India can further explore for future joint operations with Naval Maritime Patrol aircrafts and IAF fighter jets. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the flying drone units and its Ground Control Station (GCS) shall be critical for the Target Identification/Designation, Target Tracking and efficient autonomous Attack manoeuvres to engage the target(s). It is also expected that the operations of UCAVs by India shall spur the development of a robust anti-drone technology by the Industry.
Conclusion
For the Indian Navy, High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UCAVs operating from Andaman and Nicobar Naval base to keep an eye on the Western Pacific with a battle-hardened SeaGuardian UAVs shall be one of the pivotal equipment for India’s preparedness. The UCAVs shall play an important role to shape the next skirmish with any hostile nation which India may face either on land, air or at sea. A ‘Ladakh’ surprise at sea is something India cannot afford and needs to be ever vigilant in the Indo-Pacific.With the induction of UCAVs like SeaGaurdians, Indian Navy’s UAV Squadrons have a critical role to play in the peace time itself to keep the India’s interest and security safe on high seas, before any threat reaches closer to the Indian shores.
Evolution of UAV Squadrons of Indian Navy to a Combat Ready Force in the Indo-Pacific
Indian Navy recognized the potential of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) at the beginning of the 21st century when two variants of fixed wing UAVs, Searcher and Heron were inducted from Israel in 2002. The primary role of these UAVs was unmanned ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and...
www.financialexpress.com
