Carriers only carry 100% available jets when they depart. At best a jet that will become available in a very short span of time. The unavailable jets stay on the ground. Only when the carrier comes back is when unavailable jets are lifted off the deck. It's useless to send carriers off with unavailable jets.
Only in terms of physical space. Otherwise carriers can carry 30% more if necessary. Even more when airfields are available for diversion during emergencies. The logic is many jets will be shot down in combat, so the excess jets act as reserves. 24 is a peacetime number.
The Nimitz's peacetime number is 70. Wartime number is up to 130.
Originally, we were supposed to buy 45 more Mig-29Ks, when the original plan was to build IAC-1 and IAC-2 one after the other. In fact 4 ships were planned when it was called ADS, with 2 ships in the first phase. IAC-2 was also supposed to be Vikrant's sister, until the Americans offered catapults.
If you can find it, great. But it's lost in the internet.
For now, you can rely on this RFI for 57 jets.
GoI is desirous of license production of the aircraft after acquiring ToT in the case.
There's also this, written by Admiral Prakash himself--
India's Quest for an Indigenous Aircraft Carrier - Indian Defence Review
It was indeed fortuitous for our navy that at the moment of India’s independence, those charged with planning for the nation’s embryonic maritime force incl
Thought about and actually doing it are not the same. A lot of technologies on fighters are FFBNW.
The current version meant for the first two carriers are STOBAR. CATOBAR comes with a weight penalty, why will the IN go for it?
So that means CATOBAR version won't be necessary.
Not necessarily. The USN will have a single air wing with 3 types of fighters on one carrier by 2040. They plan to have 1 F-35C, 1 NGAD and 1/2 SH squadrons in 1 air wing, before eventually replacing all the SHs by 2055.
It's not sensible to replace a jet early when it still has utility. MRCBF will transition to IAC-2 and stay that way until it becomes useless or is replaced by a TEDBF successor. You don't replace something until it makes sense to replace it.
The IN seems to have planned until 2050 actually.
By 2050, India will have a world-class navy: Naval chief
Navy chief Adm. Sunil Lanba said that by 2050, India will have 200 ships, 500 aircraft.
The IN wants 6 carriers.
IAC-2 is only for the first round of getting to 3 carriers. The next modernisation period will see us climbing to 6. We may go even beyond that depending on the political circumstances beyond 2050.
IAC-2 is not Vikky's replacement, IAC-3 is. The IN is not foolish enough to say IAC-2 will give them a 3-carrier navy only to replace the first one with the third one. Once IAC-2 becomes available, Vikky can cut down on voyage time and get an extension, in time for IAC-3 to replace it by 2045 or so. Post that we should be able to build a carrier at least every 7 years, and keep that going until carriers become obsolete.
ADA has plans to create a TEDBF successor after TEDBF is completed. So IAC-2 MLU, IAC-3/4/5 etc can all use the TEDBF successor after 2050, roughly the time when MRCBF will become obsolete. TEDBF can retire with Vikrant.
If it's doable now, it will be doable later.
The answer depends on how much payload the SH can take off with from the long take-off position. & other variables such as the cost of the deal & how much is the OEM willing to cooperate with the IN.
So, let me confirm. You are saying the only way to put an aircraft (or remove one) on the carrier is to fly and land it? Answer in yes or no.
They can't,
yeah...no, the military doesn't plan like that.
I'll leave this one to you & figure out where you are wrong.
Hint- the numbers.
Ok, can you please tell me "when" was this original plan laid out? (For the +45 MiG-29k, the rest were just IN fantasies & never got the AoN)
I am aware of the 57 one, I specifically asked for the one "you" mentioned, which you can't provide rn.
Just IN fantasies, 4 fleet carriers.There's also this, written by Admiral Prakash himself--
The grandiose scheme provided for four fleet carriers and 280 ship-borne strike and fighter aircraft in the next few years.India's Quest for an Indigenous Aircraft Carrier - Indian Defence Review
It was indeed fortuitous for our navy that at the moment of India’s independence, those charged with planning for the nation’s embryonic maritime force inclwww.indiandefencereview.com
nothing unfeasible, the stobar one is ~11.5T empty, the additional weight won't make it like some 13-14 tonne or anything to be unfeasible.
Yes. Yes it will.
R Ford' flight deck is around twice as large as IAC-1/Vikky (the small cope slopes i was referring to). The hangar is less than 40% when compared to R Ford/Nimitz.
US can afford to use 2-3 fixed wing fighters, it's simply not sustainable for us on the IAC-1 & Vikky.
TEDBF will only be replacing in on the carriers, MRCBF jets can find a better utility at naval air stations.
Not with CATOBAR TEDBF no, the role of for carrier borne fighter will be taken by TEDBF & MRCBF jets operate from naval air stations.
They are the one making it happen, we here are talking about the development. They have to plan ahead of which we know little about. Have they revealed the plans for 2040+? No. It's useless to just speculate an uncertain thing.The IN seems to have planned until 2050 actually.
By 2050, India will have a world-class navy: Naval chief
Navy chief Adm. Sunil Lanba said that by 2050, India will have 200 ships, 500 aircraft.www.rediff.com
Yeah, since late 50s. Ik, but the govt doesn't find it feasible as of now.
I agree,
IAC-2 is not a replacement for Vikky ik, but it has to act like one till IAC-3 arrives, which would be in either late 30s or early 40s depending on if govt agrees to build 2 or more vessels per class.
It's similar to the case of Vizag & Rajput. Vizga wasn't a replacement for Rajput but it has to take the role because Rajput' replacement is delayed. Poor planning can lead to such things, nothing we haven't done before. & you'll need to change the whole propulsion system of Vikky to extend its' operational life for which you need to remove the island first & cut open several things, is it feasible to do so just to extend the life by some 5 yrs? No.
We know what happened with Viraat, how often it was "deployed", no point in operating Vikky post 2040.
Where do you think TEDBF will go after 2050?
It will remain on the carrier, with its' successor. You can operate two fixed wing fighters on such large carriers (IAC-2 & following).
It's not just about if you can do it, but about sustainability & feasibility.
We can even spend 3% of our GDP for a couple of years, but is it sustainable? No.
I thought my previous post already has the answer.
Google is not a good enough substitute for memory.
What you call fantasy is what the IN officially calls "requirement".
Even 100Kg extra is undesirable weight. Even 50Kg. Never mind 500Kg. CATOBAR makes things complex and unnecessary. All ADA has said is they will make TEDBF CATOBAR capable if the IN asks for it. Right now the plan is STOBAR only.
We wouldn't be buying it if we couldn't afford it. It's better to say we don't have a choice but to afford it, because that's the "requirement".
That's not what the IN is buying MRCBF for. In fact, that would make it one of the most stupid decisions ever made in military procurement history, buying a fighter jet only to discard it within 10 years.
If the requirement was to fly MRCBF temporarily, then they would have just leased it for 10 years. Which is also a very stupid decision because of the loss of training value. You will be spending crores of rupees to train each pilot and then throw them out in no time. I can't even begin to imagine how much this goes against common sense.
If you don't buy a fighter type for minimum 25-30 years service life, then you are wasting time and money. So MRCBF will see use at least until 2050-55 on IAC-2.
TEDBF will stay on the Vikrant until phase out. Any future fighter can tag along. Even the SH/Rafale can be used.
It doesn't matter. The IN is making both carriers capable of operating Mig-29K, TEDBF and SH/Rafale. All three types will be operated eventually. This has nothing to do with sustainability.
Instead of 24 of one type, you can carry 16+8 or 12+12. It doesn't have to be 100% single type. Carrier air complexes can easily be made to sustain multiple aircraft, it's been designed for it. One day, the same ship will have to carry fixed wing drones alongside fighters.
This is huge.
Actually it's 2870 crore rupees.
From an older RFI.
Actually it's 2870 crore rupees.
From an older RFI.
Good enough for P8I operations. Future expansion is always possible to upto 10,000 feet.
Ok, that means the answer is 'yes', you're wrong.
A memory can't be shared
Yeah, they put up a requirement of 6 carriers (4 fleet carriers + 2 light fleet carriers) + 6 cruisers + 21 destroyers + 16 submarines + 6 frigates + 6 minesweepers in late 50s. It was a fantasy, similar to the "four fleet carriers and 280 ship-borne strike and fighter aircraft in the next few years."
right now, there is no plan to use MRCBF jets as the main strike/fighter platform from IAC-2.
transferring it to a naval air station isn't even remotely the same as "discarding" it. It won't be sitting and rotting there but will be used.
Ok, what's better? Carrying one type of aircraft (either 29k, SH, M, TEDBF) and only have to carry supporting equipments and crew for that particular fighter or a mix of these fighters ?
Look, this discussion is going nowhere. You don't like what the IN is doing, then tough. You're gonna have to live with their decisions. I don't want to deal with topics that simply go against what I think is common sense.
Just to make it clear, IN isn't the one who has decided to use the MRCBF jets on IAC-2 or strech Vikramaditya to 2050.
