INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions

randomradio said:
Strategic autonomy.
Click to expand...
It's an EU concept.
randomradio said:
He's basically saying we should follow the French concept of autonomy when it comes to carriers
Click to expand...
like making your own cats and trap?
randomradio said:
rather than become the US's junior partner by inducting and operating whatever they have.
Click to expand...
"Whatever they have"
MQ-25 (what Shukla suggested in his article) is a good platform, better to have a dedicated refueler than SH/Rafale doing buddy refueling.

USN has vast experience related to carrier ops, several MN and RN sailors train with US (& vice versa), we "should" look to do the same with our "partners", will you call MN & RN a junior partner to USN? Not to mention the fact that some key equipments for PA-Ng will be imported from US as well, same for IAC-2. Strategic autonomy much?
It's better for IN to take the path of "observe-learn-improvise" observing and learning the best practices from the best (≠MN) and improvising according to our needs.
As for designing IAC-2, naval group isn't even considered to be the lead contender, it's US & UK. Interoperability and interchangeablity are two major checkpoints that IN wants to ✅️.
It's funny that you think MN/France has more to offer compared to USN/US, especially in the carrier sector & operations.
randomradio said:
In simple terms, he's supporting the induction of the Rafale M.
Click to expand...
"Strategic autonomy" "buy foreign jet" ✅️
He is part of the project known as "TEDBF"
but buying Rafale gives strategic autonomy and buying the CATO variant of TEDBF doesn't ✅️

CATO variant of TEDBF will be available b4 IAC-2 & there's nothing that suggests IN' unwillingness to go with a CATO variant of TEDBF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volcano and Amal
Adm_Kenobi said:
like making your own cats and trap?
Click to expand...

No. Interoperability. The SH taps easily into the American network, but the French jet doesn't do it that easily. Different computer after all.

But using the SH with an American computer and comm system makes you their junior partner.

It's a political call.

The French use American cats and trap.

Adm_Kenobi said:
"Whatever they have"
MQ-25 (what Shukla suggested in his article) is a good platform, better to have a dedicated refueler than SH/Rafale doing buddy refueling.

USN has vast experience related to carrier ops, several MN and RN sailors train with US (& vice versa), we "should" look to do the same with our "partners", will you call MN & RN a junior partner to USN? Not to mention the fact that some key equipments for PA-Ng will be imported from US as well, same for IAC-2. Strategic autonomy much?
It's better for IN to take the path of "observe-learn-improvise" observing and learning the best practices from the best (≠MN) and improvising according to our needs.
As for designing IAC-2, naval group isn't even considered to be the lead contender, it's US & UK. Interoperability and interchangeablity are two major checkpoints that IN wants to ✅️.
It's funny that you think MN/France has more to offer compared to USN/US, especially in the carrier sector & operations.

"Strategic autonomy" "buy foreign jet" ✅️
He is part of the project known as "TEDBF"
but buying Rafale gives strategic autonomy and buying the CATO variant of TEDBF doesn't ✅️

CATO variant of TEDBF will be available b4 IAC-2 & there's nothing that suggests IN' unwillingness to go with a CATO variant of TEDBF.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with what you've mentioned. All of that is still available even if we choose the Rafale. It's a political call.

And there's no CATO version of TEDBF yet.
 
randomradio said:
No. Interoperability. The SH taps easily into the American network, but the French jet doesn't do it that easily. Different computer after all.
Click to expand...
Can you differentiate between a sarcastic and a serious ques?
randomradio said:
But using the SH with an American computer and comm system makes you their junior partner.
Click to expand...
Oh, is that so? Whose computer and comm system will we use in Rafale M (if it is purchased)
randomradio said:
The French use American cats and trap.
Click to expand...
But using key American system makes you their junior partner, no?
randomradio said:
It has nothing to do with what you've mentioned. All of that is still available even if we choose the Rafale. It's a political call.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with what Shukla was talking about, whose tweet/article maolankar sir quoted. Kindly re-read the whole conversation. It's not just about MRCBF, he only talked about the dual seater argument, which he refuted. He did not talk in favor of either.
randomradio said:
And there's no CATO version of TEDBF yet.
Click to expand...
There is no STOBAR version of TEDBF either, yet. There's no IAC-2 either, yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volcano and Amal
Adm_Kenobi said:
Can you differentiate between a sarcastic and a serious ques?

Oh, is that so? Whose computer and comm system will we use in Rafale M (if it is purchased)

But using key American system makes you their junior partner, no?

It has everything to do with what Shukla was talking about, whose tweet/article maolankar sir quoted. Kindly re-read the whole conversation. It's not just about MRCBF, he only talked about the dual seater argument, which he refuted. He did not talk in favor of either.

There is no STOBAR version of TEDBF either, yet. There's no IAC-2 either, yet.
Click to expand...

You're a confused fella, so lemme explain it in simpler terms. The Americans don't like to cooperate with others on comm systems. So if you're part of NATO or any other alliance, you use American comm systems. Even the French use American comm systems like the Link 16. The thing about American comm systems is you can't change anything, nor can you tamper with it, doing so would bring in sanctions, and the Americans won't cooperate in any way, including JVs. All you get is the right to use it, and any change necessary requires American personnel present on your ship, on your base etc, and only they can make the change you want. So, in exchange for tapping into the American network, you give up on some sovereignty.

The alternative is to remove the American comm system and use something else.

Almost the same story with the mission computer. You either use what they got or make one for you specifically, but without a lot of the networking options. Basically the choice is between using our SH to fire an AEGIS missile on an American destroyer or give up on that kind of capability by doing your own thing independent of American forces, at best tap into their network indirectly, through drones and MPAs, or even a command ship.

STOBAR TEDBF and IAC-2 are official programs. CATOBAR TEDBF is in someone's wishlist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimeDestroyer and Tatvamasi
randomradio said:
You're a confused fella, so lemme explain it in simpler terms.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one changing the topic from american cats/trap/tactics and sidelining it to just merican comms & computer
randomradio said:
The Americans don't like to cooperate with others on comm systems. So if you're part of NATO or any other alliance, you use American comm systems. Even the French use American comm systems like the Link 16.
Click to expand...
So much for the French concept of strategic autonomy
randomradio said:
The thing about American comm systems is you can't change anything, nor can you tamper with it, doing so would bring in sanctions, and the Americans won't cooperate in any way, including JVs. All you get is the right to use it, and any change necessary requires American personnel present on your ship, on your base etc, and only they can make the change you want. So, in exchange for tapping into the American network,
Click to expand...
wonder if we have "tapped into the American network" by buying P-8I & MH-60R 🤔
"But...but getting other key platforms such as MPA is different, it's indirect, somehow"
randomradio said:
you give up on some sovereignty.
Click to expand...
you are a confused fella, let me clear it for you. Sovereignty and autonomy are synonymous but they aren't the same (shocking, ik), autonomy is the right word to be used here.
randomradio said:
The alternative is to remove the American comm system and use something else.
Click to expand...
wonder who did that
randomradio said:
Basically the choice is between using our SH to fire an AEGIS missile on an American destroyer
Click to expand...
Why would you want to "fire an *AEGIS missile* on an American destroyer" ?
randomradio said:
or give up on that kind of capability by doing your own thing independent of American forces
Click to expand...
you aren't even making sense at this point.
randomradio said:
or even a command ship.
Click to expand...
Get some more of that much needed sleep. And don't say "it's indirect, somehow"
randomradio said:
STOBAR TEDBF and IAC-2 are official programs. CATOBAR TEDBF is in someone's wishlist.
Click to expand...
Don't remember IAC-2 being cleared by CCS.

The thought of IAC-2 being designed with an air wing centered around a foreign fighter not your own, "it can be made to accommodate both, but the design will be centred around a foreign jet" ✅️
so much for that "strategic autonomy".

BTW, French LOVE to cooperate when it comes to comms & computers, they get turned on when you change something and tamper with their systems. And the best thing about French systems? You can make the change yourself! You don't even need their employees/personnel to make the change, you can do it yourself! And French would never use arms as a bargaining chip if you go against their interests, the incident about Pakistani subs? That was a one off. They lob to partner with other like minded countries, just look at FCAS, going smoothly, no bitching from Dassault's side, none! Muh France 🫀
 
Adm_Kenobi said:
I'm not the one changing the topic from american cats/trap/tactics and sidelining it to just merican comms & computer

So much for the French concept of strategic autonomy

wonder if we have "tapped into the American network" by buying P-8I & MH-60R 🤔
"But...but getting other key platforms such as MPA is different, it's indirect, somehow"

you are a confused fella, let me clear it for you. Sovereignty and autonomy are synonymous but they aren't the same (shocking, ik), autonomy is the right word to be used here.

wonder who did that

Why would you want to "fire an *AEGIS missile* on an American destroyer" ?

you aren't even making sense at this point.

Get some more of that much needed sleep. And don't say "it's indirect, somehow"

Don't remember IAC-2 being cleared by CCS.

The thought of IAC-2 being designed with an air wing centered around a foreign fighter not your own, "it can be made to accommodate both, but the design will be centred around a foreign jet" ✅️
so much for that "strategic autonomy".

BTW, French LOVE to cooperate when it comes to comms & computers, they get turned on when you change something and tamper with their systems. And the best thing about French systems? You can make the change yourself! You don't even need their employees/personnel to make the change, you can do it yourself! And French would never use arms as a bargaining chip if you go against their interests, the incident about Pakistani subs? That was a one off. They lob to partner with other like minded countries, just look at FCAS, going smoothly, no bitching from Dassault's side, none! Muh France 🫀
Click to expand...

Yeesh...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Adm_Kenobi
Ashwin said:
They have two squadrons INAS 300 and 303. They will split one each for now.
Click to expand...
Given that Vicky doesn't exactly goes out too often, I am sure that we are not very likely to see both active at the same time, maybe for fleet reviews etc, but not in general.

So both the squadrons will likely operate from the AC that would be operational at that time.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: RISING SUN and Sathya
Ankit Kumar said:
Given that Vicky doesn't exactly goes out too often, I am sure that we are not very likely to see both active at the same time, maybe for fleet reviews etc, but not in general.

So both the squadrons will likely operate from the AC that would be operational at that time.
Click to expand...

It's only for a few years, until MRCBF comes in.
 
Many reports say it will be on 2nd September. But, finally ...
Now to sort out the MMRCA 27 F-18 SH. Surely the MQ-9 predator drones deal can take a backseat and the carrier planes need order first (if there is budget crunch)?
 
marich01 said:
Many reports say it will be on 2nd September. But, finally ...
Now to sort out the MMRCA 27 F-18 SH. Surely the MQ-9 predator drones deal can take a backseat and the carrier planes need order first (if there is budget crunch)?
Click to expand...
Let the carrier get completed first. This commisioning is PR activity. On the very top MF STAR is still missing.

So no Fighter Jets for it is not exactly an emergency requirement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marich01
Ankit Kumar said:
Let the carrier get completed first. This commisioning is PR activity. On the very top MF STAR is still missing.

So no Fighter Jets for it is not exactly an emergency requirement.
Click to expand...

Fighter trial from November so that tells it really. It will be at least 3-4 years before we see any new inducted jets operating. I was more interested in what project they will give priority first, the survey drones take considerable chunk of budget, possibly almost as much as the 26 fighters itself without armament.
A little disappointing to see IAC1 got 32 mrsam, many said there will be 64.
Lift operation of IAC1, mig29k just fits, no way rafale M get inducted, will not fit.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1562911387138985985
 
marich01 said:
Fighter trial from November so that tells it really. It will be at least 3-4 years before we see any new inducted jets operating. I was more interested in what project they will give priority first, the survey drones take considerable chunk of budget, possibly almost as much as the 26 fighters itself without armament.
A little disappointing to see IAC1 got 32 mrsam, many said there will be 64.
Lift operation of IAC1, mig29k just fits, no way rafale M get inducted, will not fit.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1562911387138985985
Click to expand...
Rafale is in the competition to have a fallback and have some negotiate power when we talk with Boeing.

Americans are promising " the sky is pink" right now. There are so many things to figure out.

The things we take granted in a Rafale or Su30MKI purchase, we will have to talk about in Boeing deal. That's why we are keeping Dassault in loop. To have leverage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RISING SUN and marich01
Ankit Kumar said:
Rafale is in the competition to have a fallback and have some negotiate power when we talk with Boeing.

Americans are promising " the sky is pink" right now. There are so many things to figure out.

The things we take granted in a Rafale or Su30MKI purchase, we will have to talk about in Boeing deal. That's why we are keeping Dassault in loop. To have leverage.
Click to expand...
Oh that is sure, if it were single vendor the project would have been cancelled already. There needs to be 2 involved vendors. Eurofighter group also pushing hard with IAF. I expect a Gov-to-Gov deal for buying the limited numbers which will happen rather suddenly after price negotiation done.
Was tech transfer a prerequisite for this tender, ie the navy one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom