Did they decide on a fighter before deciding on the carrier? That too for post-2030.
Your post #331
Thats bending too much to fit your argument.
RFP for 57 multi-role combat fighter jets likely by mid-2018: Indian Navy - The Economic Times
No, an aviation complex is designed around the ship. Anyway, an aircraft has to be chosen before the ship design is finalised and the aviation complex design can begin. Then the construction starts. So the L1 decision has to be made in the next 2-3 years before the navy can begin carrier construction before 2025.
They will get their training done on an American or French carrier, depending on the jet that wins. We will also have to create a shore-based training system, like the one we already have for STOBAR.
Did they decide on a fighter before deciding on the carrier? That too for post-2030.
Your post #331
Thats bending too much to fit your argument.
RFP for 57 multi-role combat fighter jets likely by mid-2018: Indian Navy - The Economic Times
This is common sense. How will they operate either MRCBF contenders from IAC-1?
Do you remember many years ago I said that the IN plays their procurement game very well? They supported LCA-N knowing, very, very common knowledge, that the LCA-N is doomed to fail even before it started. And that the navy will then use that as an excuse to push for a more advanced imported jet? Do you remember?
All this talk of MRCBF for IAC-1 is just eyewash for the real requirement, which the other two forces are doing their best to stop, the third large carrier. Once the MRCBF gets the go-ahead for IAC-1, the IN will say they have enough jets now for IAC-2 also.
Dude, I pointed these things out years ago. Don't tell me you don't remember it.
They will at best earmark 6-8 MRCBF jets for Vikramaditya and IAC-1, which was also their initial plan with LCA-N, and leave the rest for the IAC-2, and such a small number of jets won't really require the use of the lift either, especially so if Rafale-M is chosen. That way they can show that the jets are meant to be a complement to the Mig-29K and also get jets for IAC-2, while also increasing the basic capabilities of the first two carriers.
As for the carrier, yes, you either design the jet for an existing carrier, which is impossible for the MRCBF, or you choose a jet and then design the carrier. Anything else is unrealistically expensive. The Chinese chose the second method for their new carriers. And naturally, we have to do the same. For TEDBF, it's going to be the first method.
So you mean to say that all those jets will be kept in storage for a decade till we get the IAC2???? Only you could believe that.
Navy has insisted for CATOBAR capability.
Why will they be kept in storage? The jets will be used as usual from a coastal base.
Okay, so navy will buy carrier borne jets for billions of dollars only to use it from coastal bases for a decade. You are getting funnier in your arguments.
And you still don't answered that why navy is insisting for CATOBAR capability if it doesn't want to use them from present carriers.
Am I really? Let's see if common sense can be applied.
First start tender, then sign a contract after 5 years, then take deliver from the 3rd year, and then train instructor level pilots and test pilots for 3 years minimum. That's 11 years. And if we start the tender this year, which is impossible, we will have trained pilots only in 2031. We will need 6 years to take full delivery of all jets, so that's 2034.
By 2034, we will have the full fleet ready and trained to be used operationally on a carrier that's expected to become operational in 2035, considering carrier starts construction in 2025.
Reasonable now?
Do you see why your posts suddenly look stupid now?
Whatchu talking about? I have no clue what you're trying to imply.
[/URL]
Here is the answer of all your questions. Please give emphasis on project timeline.
Btw I made a mistake, navy has requested for STOBAR capability not CATOBAR.
Now we all know that Vikrant and Vikramaditya are STOBAR capable ACs whereas IAC 2 is going to be a CATOBAR same like Nimitz and Ford class carriers so answer me that why does navy is still insisting on STOBAR capable aircrafts if it doesn't want to operate it from present carriers.
And yes the training time you mentioned is ridiculous because according to you our pilots will get training from French or US carrier, and that will take 3 years. Do you think French or Americans will give their carrier for so much time to us for training?? More so the French who operates a lone carrier.
Its certainly not. Its just another of your loose assumption presented as evident and obvious.
- STOBAR requirement before even finalizing IAC-2 is there because it is intended to use from IAC-1 also.
- The big timeline difference between IAC-2 and MRCBF inductions points to the same.
- Scrapping NLC/Mk2 was not a conspiracy to import MRCBF.
I stopped keeping track of what you have said. (Because you keep coming up with amusing excuses and never admits wrong even in retrospect)
They will use the STOBAR capability to operate those from Shore Based Test Facility, Goa.
#Joke
Your link's broken.
IN is insisting on STOBAR so that a few jets can be used from the Vikramaditya and IAC-1. But they plan to use pretty much all of them from IAC-2.
The training time is only a bare minimum. It's only about 750 operational hours. You can't put rookie pilots on your brand-new, never-operated-before carrier. It takes quite a bit of time to get a proper carrier pilot even after the jet becomes operational. Right now our pilots have zero experience when it comes to CATOBAR.
And no, we don't need French and American carriers, we have to build a shore-based facility.
Like this:
What the Chinese use:
Its certainly not. Its just another of your loose assumption presented as evident and obvious.
What is common sense is guessing the answer to 'why is the navy impatient to import billions worth of fighters for a nonexistent/nonapproved aircraft carrier today?'
- STOBAR requirement before even finalizing IAC-2 is there because it is intended to use from IAC-1 also.
- The big timeline difference between IAC-2 and MRCBF inductions points to the same.
- Scrapping NLC/Mk2 was not a conspiracy to import MRCBF.
I stopped keeping track of what you have said. (Because you keep coming up with amusing excuses and never admits wrong even in retrospect)
They will use the STOBAR capability to operate those from Shore Based Test Facility, Goa.
The reason is as simple as you don't know what you're talking about. So let's end the conversation, there's no benefit.
My only damn point
. So much energy wasted.(Although I don't think any western aircraft world operate from Vikky)
So you do agree that navy would operate it from Vikrant and Vikramaditya. Hence no point in arguing.
And no, we don't need French and American carriers, we have to build a shore-based facility.
Like this:
What the Chinese use:
Eating your words, eh??
Exactly, mine tooMy only damn point
You didn't use your patented line - you don't know much about aircrafts, I noticed.
My only damn point
(Although I don't think any western aircraft world operate from Vikky)
Sure, I pointed that out long ago.
The navy's plan was always to buy LCAs, MRCBF, and operate some of those from the first two carriers. But the main thrust behind MRCBF is IAC-2, not IAC-1, contrary to your belief. Along with MRCBF, IN is also interested in procuring the E-2 and C-2, both meant for the IAC-2.
So you do agree that navy would operate it from Vikrant and Vikramaditya. Hence no point in arguing.
Eating your words, eh??
Exactly, mine too
How dumb can you and Ashwin get?
Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighter For The Indian Navy - Updates & Discussions
I don't think we will order more fighters for Navy just yet. The Ka31s for INS Vikrant was cleared but nothing on fighters yet. If the Russians fail to get Kuznetsov back into service, we might just get their Mig29K squadron though. No Russians will use those from the land. IN is reducing the...
It's already implied.
Nothing like a firm declaration considering that Eshwin & the other guy are completely at sea as compared to you as far knowledge in aircrafts go.
It seems clear from this that the IN intended to operate 4-5 squadrons of MiG-29K not only from the two AC but also apart from catering to redundancies , build up capabilities (surreptitiously, perhaps?) for off shore coastal patrol & in all probability include ANC within it's ambit.
The intention was to have two squadrons or around 35 fighters each in East and West so as to allow both ACs to operate at full capacity of required taking into consideration around 70% availability rates for the aircrafts.
The 2nd batch of 29 aircrafts was actually a truncated order as the IAC 1 was behind its timelines.
My post following those links I attached was specifically catered to questions related to why was the IN contemplating induction of the NLCA Tejas whether in Mk1 or Mk2 configuration. I think the latter had to do with the IN being dissatisfied with the MiG-29K's sub par performance whether in terms of its endurance or it's maintenance or other factors or a combination of all the above.
Since both options couldn't fructify, the IN seems to be pushing for induction of the MRCBF for reasons given in the previous post. The latter has little to do with the IAC -2 if procurement of the MRCBF happens in the next 3-4 years.
Be ready to see a small batch buy if 28-32 SH or Rafale M for IAC1, that's all I will say. Somewhere by 2022.
While the aviation complex of Vicky was designed especially with Mig29K, Su33, Ka28 and Ka31 in mind, the one in IAC 1 has potential to operate more types.