No Russians will use those from the land. IN is reducing the numbers because of clarity and momentum with TEDBF program. And MRCBF will become realistic and affordable.
While keeping the current conditions in mind, whats the point of this anymore? Why not procure these jets under tedbf program. This would have made sense 5 years ago, now, not so much. Buying more jets under tedbf program will result in much larger programme which could spawn different variations of the same fighter. Might result in lower per unit costs too. Its not like navy procurement is prioritized right now. Anyways, this won't move forward until another batch of rafale comes for IAF, which itself won't come before 2025 atleast.
The MRCBF jets will go on the third carrier, while TEDBF will replace Mig-29 on the first two carriers.
It's a tender separate from the IAF's process, so both MRFA and MRCBF should end up being released about the same time.
I was under the impression that these planes would either augment or replace the existing IN squadrons. Wait, if these are exclusively for the 3rd carrier, then why do people keep discussing whether SH or Rafale will fit in the lifts of INS Vikrant? Further, this doesn't make sense even more now. Consider this, even if the 3rd mythical carrier were to start construction tomorrow, it won't be ready for another decade. Then some years for trials. So you can safely rule out commissioning of another carrier for atleast 15 to 20 years. Why would you buy planes for that now? decade and a half earlier? Deep down everyone here knows that for now, a 65000 ton catobar nuclear carrier is "India ki aukat ke bahar". Most probably it would be another 40k - 45k stobar carrier. TEDBF would work fine on that.
Sure, but the money comes from the same govt. 5 billion or so for another batch of rafale will suck GOI dry. The tender might be released at the same time, but it won't move forward with same speed. Everyone realises that naval aircraft acquisition isn't a priority even for the navy itself, forget the govt. Submarines, Minesweepers, and other vessels are navy's priorities right now.
Before TEDBF entered open source, the only available details were the IN will buy 57 MRCBF and that will follow a 100-jet production program. Which means all existing jets will be replaced by MRCBF. Hence the discussions on whether the two carriers will handle MRCBF. But now we have TEDBF taking care of that part.
No, IN is not interested in a sister ship to the Vikrant. The carrier is too small and will be a waste of money.
The carrier is a top priority for the navy's spending after 5 years. But they hope to get everything else they need done before the 3rd carrier begins construction so that funds are available as the carrier is constructed. So that's after the LHD, P-75I, NGD, NGF, NGMV and NGC are funded within the next 5 years. But the MRCBF will have to be funded along with the other ships I named in order to allow the design team to build the carrier around the MRCBF. So they need to know which jet's going to be their primary jet before the ship design is frozen.
Incorrect, MRCBF is required with or out without TEDBF. Multiple times Navy chief has said that it is for IAC-1.
Last edited:
I recall PKS posting multiple times in his blog that the elevators & arrestor systems for the IAC -1 were designed according to the MiG -29K & sourced from Russia accordingly. How does one expect to execute an order for supply of MRCBF for IAC -1 well after such a carrier is commissioned ? It goes against the whole logic of carrier based operations .
I don't even see it as a replacement for the MiGs w/o extensive refitting of the IAC -1 if such a thing has been attempted before & is possible.
I think he's referring to a secondary role where they plan to operate a few MRCBF from the first 2 carriers and not completely replace the Mig-29 right away.
IN now claims the MRCBF is for IAC-2. And the current Mig-29 fleet is enough for the first two ships since only 1 is operational at any given time.
Yes, we will go with the words of PKS instead of CNS.
We already have two sqd of Mig-29K. It will be operating from IAC1. But, Numbers are not adequate. It was suppose to be augmented by NLCA which got scrapped this the need for new tender.
No one said it will replacing practically new Mig-29Ks.
That logic only works when there are 3 carriers. IN requirement is one each on west and east. When both are available they are not going say one is ok
IN planned to operate LCA Navy alongside the Mig-29K. No idea why. But they later changed LCA Navy to MRCBF, since LCA Navy failed.
But now they are claiming MRCBF is primarily meant for IAC-2 and not for the first two carriers. It's their own words. But they do want to operate the MRCBF from the first two carriers in small numbers, like they planned with LCA Navy, no matter how unrealistic that is.
Now, with the reduction of MRCBF numbers from 57, I'm sure the goal has switched completely to IAC-2 only, with TEDBF being the Mig-29K replacement. Currently their most realistic plan.
There have been ample instances out here of fake news & misrepresentation.
Even if we consider redundancies, why would you need 40+ MiGs dedicated to only one carrier. The NLCA ought to be seen for what it is. An experiment. Even if the NLCA were successful are you suggesting it would be the main aircraft of choice of the IN?
Ok, This is how you present an assumption. By explaining how you reached there so others can argue. Not by making a full stop statement.
The only thing that changed now is the reduction in numbers. Does that preclude MRCBF from operating from IAC-1? Why are they pushing MRCBF now if it is a requirement post-2030? Why are they asking for STOBAR when IAC-2 is clearly not one? Only if they exclude the STOBAR requirement in the new tender we will have an answer.
MRCBF for 57 came out of the hopelessness of indigenous carrier-based fighter development. Now they have clarity and roadmap on it. Thus they are cutting the numbers.
From what I see, Navy wants TEDBF to operate from Vikky/Vikrant/Vishal from 2032. MRCBF from Vikrant (STOBAR) and Vishal (CATOBAR).
IAC 2 is not going to get operational before 2035, but we are going to receive these MRCBF in 4-5 years. If we accept your assumption then what are they suppose to do in the interim???
They need MRCBF before the carrier design is frozen, so the aviation complex can be designed for it.
No, MRCBF has nothing to do with the failure of LCA-N. The navy is just presenting it that way so the gullible buy it, the actual requirement is for IAC-2. They are cutting numbers simply because we can't afford all 57. It's obvvious they will ask for more after the initial batch is inducted.
Apart from the need for designing the aviation complex, you also need 5-10 years to train and operationalise the aircraft before it can be operated from a carrier. You can't put rookie pilots on a carrier.
So you have increased the required training time to ridiculous amount just for proving your point??
Not at all. That's how long it takes to get something new out in the water.
Anyway, we need to know which aircraft is going to be chosen in order to design the aviation complex. After that, the complex will take 10+ years to design, build and incorporate on a carrier. So it should be ready after a carrier has been launched.
The current aviation complex on the Vikrant has taken the Russians 7 years alone just to design it, even after their experience doing the same for Vikramaditya. And this time we have to do it ourselves.
I always use to think since the second Akula deal that why cant we just have LHD with 190MW reactor.....will LHD of 200 meter sufficient to have a squadron be underpowered with 190 MW?
All those fighters in the race are already being operated from a carrier, that means they already have an aviation complex. And whichever fighter we choose the parent company will help us to set up the complex and westerners are more efficient than Russians.
Btw where our pilots are suppose to train on those aircrafts given they won't operate on Vikrant or Vikramaditya and IAC2 is no where to be seen?