Can you elaborate on why you have considered > 4 squadrons of 19 each for 2 STOBAR carriers (Vikky/Vikrant)
?
65-70% availability rates in Naval Aviation (Super Hornet Fleet of USN). So its just enough to fill the swell capacity in both carriers together.
Plus some units on ground for training.
1. Availability is 75% for SH in USN.
2. How many TEDBF do you think Vikky & Vikrant can take?
3. So, in a hypothetical scenario...if you have around 20 aircraft & the availability is around...say 60%, in that case, can you only put the 12 aircraft on the carrier? You can't put all 20 on the carrier? Is that what you meant by the "availability rate is xx"?
4. Dual seat TEDBF aren't planned, will there be a trainer variant of TEDBF to begin with (given no official statement about it)?, isn't N LCA supposed to take up the role of advanced lead-in trainer for navy?
5. You won't be needing 76 TEDBF for operating Vikky/Vikrant (even if we include some TEDBF as trainers), ~60 would be the correct figure.
We have 3 carriers planned, so that implies we will have a carrier at sea, one docked and one in refit.
And when IAC-2 is in refits, we will have both Vikram and Vikrant available, and they will need a fleet of 4 squadrons, 2 each, to man them simultaneously.
During war, it's actually possible to make all 3 carriers available, hence will require 3 air wings. So thats 2 air wings composed of 2 TEDBF squadrons each, and 1 air wing with whatever final numbers of SH/Rafale we decide to operate. Even the SH/Rafale numbers could easily climb to 38-45. The additional numbers works as attrition replacements too.
Am pretty sure that 75% is the target set by USN. Over several years since 2011, the availability of SH fleet has varied between 63% to 70%.
Considering even 70%, it means around 26 aircrafts will be available our of 38. These 26 will be able to be deployed at ACs at their full capacity.
Both R33 and IAC1 should be able to handle 24 fighter jets at their maximum number.
Further on the availability rate, USN Navy carriers have a bigger hanger and repair facilities onboard their ships. This means on a start of deployment, if say 75-80% of the aircrafts are ready, they can take them all. And over the course of months, they will be in position to maintain and test onboard as well. In our case say we have overall readiness rate of 70%, we put them all on the carrier, as the weeks go on, obviously availability will go down. Because of space constraints. Even if the shore based systems are ready, you cannot fly them in, you have no place to put them on the ships, unlike the Americans.
The FADEC of Mig29 K was disastrous. Let's see how good TEDBF is. If it has better servicing capabilities ofcourse the number of jets required will go down. If it's moderate then 70+ , if it's comparable to Russian systems, then 90+.
Two squadrons with 38 jets with 80% availability will give us 30 operational jets. 24 can be used on one carrier. The modernised F414 can deliver 80% quite easily.
1. Yes, it was a target set by USN (73% readiness), which it achieved for a short while in 2019, dunno what it is now. Probably between 65-70% as you have pointed out,
2. Ok, The theory of "If you have 38 aircraft and the availability rate is around 60-70%, then you can only put around 23-26 of those aircrafts on the carrier" is complete BS. The number of aircrafts required for Vikky & Vikrant will be more in like with 60 rather than "70+, 76 or 90+" no matter the availability on ground. The availability part comes after, like 16-18 are in high readiness for launch (from the carrier) out of some 24. That's where you apply the availability rate.
Why do you want to put the jets acquired under MRCBF on IAC-2? @randomradio ? TEDBF will have a CATOBAR version FYI, & Navy is unlikely to aquire more than 26.
I hear you on that. But in my opinion, if we are looking at even say 100-120 days at sea operations of CBG, we need to accept that we will see 3-4 accidents each year. So even if we attain say 75% availability (newer fleet can be pushed upto 80% if large stocks of spares and facilities already exists, I agree , but that's costly) , we will still need around 40 Aircrafts each for the two cbgs.
TEDBF is STOBAR.
The SH/Rafale will be used on Vikram and Vikrant alongside upgraded Mig-29Ks until TEDBF becomes available in numbers. Then the SH/Rafale should transition over to IAC-2 once it's ready.
As per Deodhare Sir, It can operate from both type of carriers. Look from 2:27
+ they are already looking at what changes they need to make for the CATOBAR variant, from the design phase.
CATOBAR variant of TEDBF is under consideration.
It's a poor choice to operate two type of fixed wing aircraft on that small cope slope. SH/Rafale are more likely to be stationed at naval air stations than IAC-2.
You have got a serious problem at hand if you are crashing 3-4 fighter jets out of some "60,70+,76,90+".
Carriers on normal deployment only carry about 60-70% of their max capacity, i.e. IAC-1/Vikky will only carry some 16-20 TEDBF each. If you are crashing 3-4 out of those, then it's good to dump your carriers & your pilots.
48 out of the 60 TEDBF can be deployed on Vikky/IAC-1 if need be (regardless of the availability rate being 60% or 80% or whatever).
TEDBF is unlikely to be used as a dedicated trainer, a sq of N LCA is to be procured for that purpose. Training.
The rest of the 12 airframe can act as the replacement for the airframes that crashed + some of those would be under overhaul, you don't need to order all the aircraft you need in batch 1.
The 60 figure is the closest to accurate, the original MRCBF had 57 fighter jets which were to replace all the MiG-29k & act as the main & only fixed wing fighter for Vikky/IAC-1. The number needed for both the carrier **+** training was 57. 60 is more than enough in this regard.
The total number of TEDBF can be >100 given the requirement of 3 air wing in future + naval air stations. It is best to order it in batches.
Numbers of mishaps is less about number of airframes, more about intensity of operations. And with Vikrant I am expecting they will want to achieve what QE class can. Launching all fighters and reciving back all within an hour and able to replicate the same atleast 3-4 times in a day.
A USN CBG has 6-7 mishaps on one mission deployment on average. And mishaps not directly means writing off the airframes. Half of the times the airframes are repaired.
So 3-4 mishaps for us will be impressive numbers, actually showing good capacity.
My bad, I misinterpretation the "accidents" as the loss of airframe.
I doubt Vikky or Vikrant can match the sortie rate of QE.
& even QE can't do the <Launching all fighters and reciving back all within an hour and able to replicate the same atleast 3-4 times in a day.>
They plan on modifying the jet later on, as long as the IN wants it. The current version cannot.
Only available jets will be placed on carriers. Jets that are not available won't even fly and land on the carrier.
So when the ship leaves port, all the jets will be available at 100%.
Vikram can carry 24 Mig-29Ks normally. It can carry more if necessary. TEDBF numbers could be slightly better.
Crew management will be difficult if squadrons are shared between carriers.
Originally the IN wanted 80, then they came down to 72, then 57, then 36 and now 26. But the IN actually wanted to license produce 100 more.
The overall IN requirement for fighter jets is 200.
It will be a future modification if the IN wants it. I doubt the IN will want it.
Replacing the Mig-29K with TEDBF/SH/Rafale makes sense, but replacing the SH/Rafale with TEDBF is meaningless. A replacement must always be far superior to the jet it's replacing, because the training value is of greater importance.
New jets are needed by 2050 for IAC-3, the IN will most likely focus on a next gen jet for that time. IAC-2 will be fine with SH/Rafale.
So TEDBF will continue on until 2050 for Vikram and 2070 for Vikrant. IAC-2 will keep using SH/Rafale until 2050-55, and both IAC-2 and 3 will then transition to the new jet.
It's temporary. We will be operating the Mig-29K, SH/Rafale and TEDBF on both carriers until enough numbers are in for TEDBF.
You think the only way to put an aircraft (or remove it) is to fly and land it?Only available jets will be placed on carriers. Jets that are not available won't even fly and land on the carrier.
So when the ship leaves port, all the jets will be available at 100%.
24 MiG-29k is the max for both, as for TEDBF, Vikrant could carry maybe 1 more than 24, nothing significant.
Accha? 300 & 303 were to be shared between Vikky & Vikrant but now it's a problem as per you? You know what the problem would be? Operating more than 1 type of fixed wing fighter from the small cope slopes. MRCBF & MiG-29k will embark on separate carriers (Vikky & Vikrant), operating both from 1 for long duration is retarded.
Can you share the source for the 72 MRCBF, 100 make in India (don't share it for 29k) & 200?
60 TEDBF are more than enough for both the carriers.
TEDBF will be capable of being launched by a catapult period. It's already being thought about early in the design phase.
ok and?
TEDBF won't be replacing MRCBF jets altogether. It will be replacing them on our carriers, IAC-2 included. MRCBF jets can be used for coastal defence at a naval air station.
The argument of "replacement must always be far superior" seems v poor when when you realise it's more feasible to get a standard jet for our carriers.
Let's not go beyond 2040 for now.
Do you think the govt will sanction a fleet of 4 carriers for you to build "IAC-3" & keep using Vikky? No.
Vikky will be retired around 2040 as it should be. Old hulls are a pain in the *censored*, let's not repeat Viraat.
For a short while yes.