[dragracer567]

As is the standard procedure for foreign military sales, the US has formally notified the US Congress about the possible sale of 6 additional Boeing P8i Neptunes for the Indian Navy. This is on top of the 8 aircraft in service and 4 on order. The Navy had a wishlist of 10 more aircraft but budgetary constraints mean that they get only 6 for now. According to The Hindu newspaper, the 6 aircraft will come with American encrypted systems which India can access now after the COMCASA agreement. Earlier aircraft had commercial off-the-shelf systems (perhaps these can be retrofitted?).

On a sidenote, I thought the Indo-US relations will see rockier waters after the initial lukewarm American response to Indian requests for aid with the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic but I believe they have provided by far the biggest aid till now (along with the EU and UK). I guess this puts India solidly on the western bloc despite assurances to Russia.

The U.S. State Department on Friday approved the proposed sale of six P-8I patrol aircraft and related equipment, a deal estimated to cost $2.42 billion.

In November 2019, the Defence Acquisition Council, chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, approved the procurement of the long-range maritime surveillance aircraft manufactured by Boeing.

The original proposal was for 10 more aircraft but was cut down to six due to budgetary constraints as well as because the Navy had adopted some fleet rationalisation measures and was considering long-endurance unmanned platforms.

The possible sale comes through the Foreign Military Sale route and requires that the U.S. Congress be notified, a process that was completed on Friday. Lawmakers have a statutory 30 days to raise any objections.

“The Government of India has requested to buy six (6) P-8I Patrol aircraft; eight (8) Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio Systems 5 (MIDS-JTRS 5) (6 installed, 2 spares); forty-two (42) AN/AAR-54 Missile Warning Sensors (36 installed, 6 spares); and fourteen (14) LN-251 with Embedded Global Positioning Systems (GPS)/Inertial Navigations Systems (EGIs) (12 installed, 2 spares). Also included are CFM56-7 commercial engines; Tactical Open Mission Software (ITOMS) variant for P-8I; Electro-Optical (EO) and Infrared (IR) MX-20HD; AN/AAQ-2(V)l Acoustic System; ARES-1000 commercial variant Electronic Support Measures; AN/APR-39D Radar Warning Receiver; AN/ALE-47 Counter Measures Dispensing System; support equipment and spares; publications; repair and return; transportation; aircraft ferry; training; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, software, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support,” the State Department said in a statement on Friday.

The Indian Navy is currently in the process of inducting the four P-8Is contracted under the offset clause in 2016. The Navy had procured eight P-8Is in a $2.2-billion deal in 2009 with the optional clause for four more. The aircraft are part of the 312A Naval Air Squadron based at Arakkonam in Tamil Nadu.

With India having signed the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) foundational agreement with the U.S., the six aircraft will come fitted with encrypted systems, as reported by The Hindu earlier. These systems were replaced with commercial off-the-shelf systems in the earlier deals.

The P-8I is based on the Boeing 737 commercial aircraft and India was its first international customer.

Source

[ads11]

On the topic of this additional Neptune order there's more good news in the form of the LRASM (Long Range Anti Ship Missile) programme.

See below:

Lockheed's stealthy and wickedly smart anti-ship missile is now officially heading for land launch and the P-8 Poseidon. Both announcements are big news. LRASM is the most capable known anti-ship missile in America's arsenal. Being able to push them forward on the P-8, which we knew was on the Navy's wish list, brings another level of relevancy to the multi-mission jets, especially during a high-end conflict. Being able to deploy it in a coast defense role would make approaching within hundreds of miles of allied shores where it could be deployed a very risky proposition for the enemy. For instance, operating forward from islands in the Pacific, this system could be a critical defensive capability.

Both announcements also open the door to new LRASM orders to America's closest allies, especially P-8 operators in higher-risk areas of the globe.

Source

Essentially once the USN gets the LRASM on their P-8s, it's only a matter of time before other operators get their hands on one of the most exciting stand off weapons currently being developed. Essentially if India Neptunes were equipped with it, it would bring the same benefits the USN is after and provide a very welcome long range strike capability to the IN. You can see the synergies in the prospective use scenarios from an Indian perspective as well.

You only have to look at the rapid growth of P-8 operators to know this is a home run programme as far as the US is concerned. 3 members of the Quad (with the exception of Japan which relies on their domestic offering) all use the P-8, meaning not just ample opportunity to joint exercises and sharing of knowledge but more pointedly sharing specific knowhow with regards to the hunting of PLAN assets that are the primary objectives for most of the aforementioned operators. With South Korea joining the programme and the RAF also operating it, that's only more partners for Indian P-8 fleet staff to explore shared learning opportunities with.

The only problem the P-8 programme faces actually is internecine jealousy from sister arms (usually the air arms) of defence forces, not liking the Navy aviators and their big jet encroaching on their turf and the sort of missions they'd hope to keep to themselves. Seems ridiculous but it's playing out between the USAF and the USN and I wonder if the IAF might kick a fuss too seeing as IN Neptunes were used for ISR missions overland.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

Essentially once the USN gets the LRASM on their P-8s, it's only a matter of time before other operators get their hands on one of the most exciting stand off weapons currently being developed. Essentially if India Neptunes were equipped with it, it would bring the same benefits the USN is after and provide a very welcome long range strike capability to the IN. You can see the synergies in the prospective use scenarios from an Indian perspective as well.

LRASM is a very interesting piece of tech. The Americans were really lacking in anti-ship missile tech unlike the Russians and the Chinese but given how the Chinese fleet is expanding, the fight probably won't be disproportional anymore and even the Americans might have to adapt to using asymmetric A2/AD warfare to defend their strategic islands and allies in the Pacific. Moreover, the LRASM will effectively turn the P8 into a bomber as I think the LRASM could be used on land targets as well. This will give Indian three different air-launched effective cruise missiles - Brahmos, SCALP and the LRASM (if they choose to purchase and integrate it offcourse).

I believe I have shared this video before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkgEmY_85x4&t=465s

The only problem the P-8 programme faces actually is internecine jealousy from sister arms (usually the air arms) of defence forces, not liking the Navy aviators and their big jet encroaching on their turf and the sort of missions they'd hope to keep to themselves. Seems ridiculous but it's playing out between the USAF and the USN and I wonder if the IAF might kick a fuss too seeing as IN Neptunes were used for ISR missions overland.

I guess this is slowly being addressed in India with the CDS and Joint commands. With the Chinese rudely knocking on our doors and shrinking budgets (by % GDP) due to economic woes, it seems South Block has finally realized that the Indian military doesn't have the luxury of working in silos. A good working model is the modern-day British military which is so well-integrated thanks to their constant budget cuts while we are still stuck with the colonial British model.

[ads11]

IAC-1 OSINT updates & new details on the PLAN Type 3 carrier

Been seeing a lot of movement on Twitter with posts related to IAC-1, all precipitated by a surprising glut of the PLANs Type 3 carrier ending up on Tiktok of all places.


The original overhead photo of Vikrant that precipitated the twitter discussion between Andreas Rupprecht & HI Sutton. Dated from roughly April this year, the big change from the last overhead photo seems to be a third flight line drawn port side of the main island (imo I wonder if it might be a bit too close to the island superstructure for safe launches). Another thing that I found curious is how heavily angled towards port the two take off positions & flight lines are, it's almost as if they're angled at an offset to the ski ramp. To whit I can't immediately recall any instance for STOBAR flat tops having flight lines this heavily canted.


Following on from this recent photo of the IAC-1, a comparison between it and the PLANs Type 2 carrier, the Shandong.
Source

• First off from the image above we have a nifty mock up of what the planned Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) might end up looking like - that though is a good while away if we're being realistic (HAL involved after all). This was the replacement programme given naval brass were dissatisfied with the performance of the Naval Tejas.
• One of the interesting comparisons made between the Shandong and Vikrant is that despite the size advantage of the former, the choice of smaller Mig-29K on the IN vessel means that ultimately it has a comparably sized airwing to the portly J-15s on the PLAN ship.
• Another interesting fact from the article that I hadn't directly considered is the fact that besides the Americans & the French, India has actually had the longest continuous history of operating carrier aviation. This is really a credit to the IN in not giving up on this capability regardless of budgetary constraints (as the Royal Navy unfortunately had to do for over a decade, rather damning considering their pioneering history in this regard).
• Next up, open source intel (OSINT) from May seems to show that Vikrant might be moving about on its own power now. The gas turbines of the Vikrant are clearly a more modern and reliable solution when compared to the iffy steam turbine design that not only Lioaning, Shandong use but Vikramaditya as well.

Movement on the IAC-1 news front is seemingly quite literal if satellite OSINT is anything to go by


Closing with a nice little port side profile of Vikrant, looking much more fleshed out than when we last saw her being towed out of dry dock. COVID clearly hampered the timeline but I imagine proper sea trials must be soon.

All in all lots of new detail about two carrier programmes in the Asian region that are undoubtedly of interest. There's glimpses of the progress of IAC-1 and a surprising level of new imagery relating to the first truly supercarrier sized effort from the PLAN. The latter really is coming along at the breakneck speed that seems to characterise Chinese shipyards of late. It's impressive given the scale of what are big new projects, and somewhat worrying too no doubt (though quality remains to be seen).

Disclaimer: Just going to point out that everything here is entirely open source, be it online literature or from members of the OSINT twitter community. In essence this is all from fellow enthusiasts, experts & keen observers. Nothing nefarious I promise

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

[*]One of the interesting comparisons made between the Shandong and Vikrant is that despite the size advantage of the former, the choice of smaller Mig-29K on the IN vessel means that ultimately it has a comparably sized airwing to the portly J-15s on the PLAN ship.

This really does put the size difference in perspective. I am surprised that the Chinese hasn't made a naval version of one of their smaller jets like the J-10. The PLANAF does operate J-10s, J-11s and Su-30s but these are offcourse, not carrier capable. I know the J-31 is slated for carrier duty but there is still a gap before they are inducted.

For India, if media reports are anything to go by, the future fleet would probably be a mix of TEDBF and Super hornets/Rafales. But despite the optimistic timelines, we can't expect either to be operational before the 2030s (by the time of which we'll have clarity on if we can afford a third carrier), so we can expect the Mig-29ks to be the staple for atleast a decade more which also means there probably won't be sufficient aircraft for two carriers, somewhat like the British situation now.

[*]Another interesting fact from the article that I hadn't directly considered is the fact that besides the Americans & the French, India has actually had the longest continuous history of operating carrier aviation. This is really a credit to the IN in not giving up on this capability regardless of budgetary constraints (as the Royal Navy unfortunately had to do for over a decade, rather damning considering their pioneering history in this regard).

A very interesting observation which I hadn't considered as well. It was unfortunate for the Brits that they lost a whole decade's worth of Naval aviation experience though they were probably bolstered by exchange pilot programs with the US. Kudos for the timely decisions made to acquire the INS Viraat after the Vikrant without which our naval aviation would've gone extinct.

[*]Next up, open source intel (OSINT) from May seems to show that Vikrant might be moving about on its own power now. The gas turbines of the Vikrant are clearly a more modern and reliable solution when compared to the iffy steam turbine design that not only Lioaning, Shandong use but Vikramaditya as well.

I did a quick search on gas and steam turbines to understand what they are but perhaps in simple words, could you please explain why one is better than the other?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

A very interesting observation which I hadn't considered as well. It was unfortunate for the Brits that they lost a whole decade's worth of Naval aviation experience though they were probably bolstered by exchange pilot programs with the US. Kudos for the timely decisions made to acquire the INS Viraat after the Vikrant without which our naval aviation would've gone extinct.

Yes the Naval Air Arm clung on tenaciously with its finger nails in both the 1970s and then later in the 2000s to maintain the basic fixed wing fast jet operations going and retain the skills and the training regime. In the late 1970s c.1977-78 we were down to 7 ageing Seahawks operational but we kept them flying. I recall an American article of those times writing that our Naval carrier capability was a marginal force only in name etc etc. We knew that. But we also knew that if we were to keep our 75-year hat on we had to keep the old Seahawks and old faithful INS Vikrant going till alternatives came up and by 1976 we were already talking to BAe for the Sea Harrier while it was still being developed. I've mentioned this earlier that the lane markings for the Harrier deck operations were finalized on Vikrant when BAe (then Hawker Siddeley) came visiting in 1972 with 2 Harriers for trials. The British wanted to check out the movements on a small deck more akin to the through deck cruisers (aka Harrier Carriers) they were building then and we were game.

I did a quick search on gas and steam turbines to understand what they are but perhaps in simple words, could you please explain why one is better than the other?

Pistons versus jet turbine engines for aircraft. In terms of smoothness of operations, fewer things to go wrong, less plumbing, acceleration, switch-on switch-off and sheer size the gas turbines are so far ahead of the steam turbines with boilers, condensers, piping that there is no comparison. The only con of a gas turbine is the massive uptake and down takes. Also GTs are perfect for repair by replacement. Only thing with a GT is that the salt laden air corrodes the blades and the whole turbine is removed at periodic intervals through the downtake and replaced with a new/refurbished one.

A ST needs a 4 to 6 hour notice to raise steam before the engine can get the ship moving from alongside. If the warship is on alert it has to keep burning fuel to keep the steam pressure up to enable it to sail away immediately. A GT switches on literally with the press of a button and similarly can be shut down instantaneously. Hope this helps.

[dhanushmenon]

Indian Navy commissions its first MK III ALH unit at Goa on 19 Apr 21

Indian Naval Air Squadron (INAS) 323, the first unit of the indigenously built ALH Mk III aircraft, was commissioned into the Indian Navy by Hon’ble Raksha Rajya Mantri Shri Shripad Naik in the presence of Vice Admiral R Hari Kumar, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Western Naval Command, at INS Hansa, Goa on 19 Apr 21. Addressing the gathering, Hon’ble Raksha Rajya Mantri said that the commissioning of INAS 323 marked yet another milestone in the efforts towards enhancing maritime security and safeguarding maritime interests of the nation, as also embodying the spirit of Atma Nirbhar Bharat.

The squadron will operate state-of-the-art ALH Mk III, a multirole helicopter with Shakti engine manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The Mk III version of the ALH has an all glass cockpit and will be used for Search and Rescue, Special Operations and Coastal Surveillance. 16 aircraft are under procurement and the aircraft are being delivered in a phased manner to the Indian Navy.

Few links below:-
INAS 323 Commissioned

Defence PRO Tweet

1. The Indian Navy already operates eight ALH MK I (at Kochi and Goa) and one ALH MK III (at Maldives)
2. This new squadron (INAS 323) will operate the new Naval variant (Maritime Reconnaissance variant) of MK IIIs.
3. This new variant is much different from existing Mk IIIs for sensor fit and naval specific customisations.
4. Helicopters with indigenous Low Frequency Dunking Sonar (LFDS) is also (supposedly) under production with a time line of delivery by Mar 2023. However, the recent second wave would have derailed it a bit.
5. The helicopters can also be modified into an airborne Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). Some info here and here

Attaching few photos of the MICU

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by dhanushmenon

Indian Navy commissions its first MK III ALH unit at Goa on 19 Apr 21

Hearty congratulations to the Indian Navy.

I'm glad the ALH is finding its place with the Navy with shore based squadrons if not with onboard units. I am familiar with earlier Marks, the Dhruv CS. We operated one for years over several hundreds of hours and she never gave us much trouble. And all of this was demanding low altitude nape of the earth flying over hill and dale. I wonder if we can develop a land based ASW version.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Pistons versus jet turbine engines for aircraft. In terms of smoothness of operations, fewer things to go wrong, less plumbing, acceleration, switch-on switch-off and sheer size the gas turbines are so far ahead of the steam turbines with boilers, condensers, piping that there is no comparison. The only con of a gas turbine is the massive uptake and down takes. Also GTs are perfect for repair by replacement. Only thing with a GT is that the salt laden air corrodes the blades and the whole turbine is removed at periodic intervals through the downtake and replaced with a new/refurbished one.

A ST needs a 4 to 6 hour notice to raise steam before the engine can get the ship moving from alongside. If the warship is on alert it has to keep burning fuel to keep the steam pressure up to enable it to sail away immediately. A GT switches on literally with the press of a button and similarly can be shut down instantaneously. Hope this helps.

I love how I learn something new everyday on this forum

This really brings into perspective the boiler problems the INS Vikramaditya faced in its early days. It also makes sense now that the Chinese haven’t fitted gas turbines in their carriers given how they have lagged behind in jet engine technology (though their destroyers seem to have Gas Turbines). The Indian navy has the luxury of buying what they lack!

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I am surprised that the Chinese hasn't made a naval version of one of their smaller jets like the J-10. The PLANAF does operate J-10s, J-11s and Su-30s but these are offcourse, not carrier capable. I know the J-31 is slated for carrier duty but there is still a gap before they are inducted.

Yeah, the J-15 is enormous and frankly long in the tooth. That being said it's what the Chinese had to hand and they did well to reverse engineer it. In fact there's rumours of a J-15 B spec soon to be fielded. Prototypes have been pictured in the factory primer with a number of under the skin upgrades like AESA radar but outwardly the front landing gear has borne the tell tale strut for attaching to a catapult. Until the J-31 is operationally fielded in it's PLAAF avatar let alone the PLAN variant, I think this upgraded J-15 will be continue to be the primary fixed wing element of Chinese naval aviation.

For India, if media reports are anything to go by, the future fleet would probably be a mix of TEDBF and Super hornets/Rafales. But despite the optimistic timelines, we can't expect either to be operational before the 2030s (by the time of which we'll have clarity on if we can afford a third carrier), so we can expect the Mig-29ks to be the staple for atleast a decade more which also means there probably won't be sufficient aircraft for two carriers, somewhat like the British situation now.

Realistically it very much appears that the Mig-29K will continue to be the backbone of Indian naval aviation, however much we might hope for a more capable and modern platform like a Rafale or Super Hornet. I just don't have much faith in that deal panning out, especially when there's a third option in the TEDBF. What we essentially have is a perfect storm for the babu's in South Block to keep switching between depending on the prevailing political and budgetary winds, thereby satisfying their most important credo, to keep them busy.

It was unfortunate for the Brits that they lost a whole decade's worth of Naval aviation experience though they were probably bolstered by exchange pilot programs with the US.

Really good point. That ability to cross deck was absolutely vital for the RN. I mean it still is if we consider the fact that HMS QE's air wing is significantly bolstered by the presence of a USMC squadron. That's one area where putting pride to one side, pragmatism really is winning the day given the budgetary constraints. If anything the USMC love anything that allows them to not have to rely on the USN, and their naval aviators finally get to fly off a modern big deck flat top (discounting the USMC F-18 pilots on USN carriers of course.. especially seeing as the Marines are set to cut the Super Hornet).

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The only con of a gas turbine is the massive uptake and down takes. Also GTs are perfect for repair by replacement. Only thing with a GT is that the salt laden air corrodes the blades and the whole turbine is removed at periodic intervals through the downtake and replaced with a new/refurbished one.

One of the corollary benefits of the twin island approach that's adopted by the QE class is that it allows them to split the uptake and downtake chimneys between the two super structures. Instead of having one enormous block for both fit into a solitary superstructure they're able to split it between two and add in a degree of redundancy to the mix as well.

A ST needs a 4 to 6 hour notice to raise steam before the engine can get the ship moving from alongside. If the warship is on alert it has to keep burning fuel to keep the steam pressure up to enable it to sail away immediately. A GT switches on literally with the press of a button and similarly can be shut down instantaneously.

That lethargy of the steam turbine is half the reason the Russians Kuznetsov is such a running joke. Beyond the fact that it can't reliably get to sea on it's own power (it's always accompanied by a heavy duty ocean going tug or two), it belches out acrid black smoke like some Dickensian factory.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

This really brings into perspective the boiler problems the INS Vikramaditya faced in its early days. It also makes sense now that the Chinese haven’t fitted gas turbines in their carriers given how they have lagged behind in jet engine technology (though their destroyers seem to have Gas Turbines). The Indian navy has the luxury of buying what they lack!

Yep, those Russian (or more like Ukranian or Soviet era to be really pedantic) boiler designs are a right pain. It's those damned boilers that were one of the main reasons for the delays and cost overruns in the conversion from the Gorkhov (I seem to remember stories such as having to rid the engine room facilities of asbestos for eg). Sure enough with the Liaoning the Chinese had their own boiler issues as well, though I suppose less made it out to the press. I suppose the thinking with the Shandong was to very much give their domestic shipyards experience reverse engineering and rebuilding a Liaoning clone from scratch, rather than opt to make a B-spec of that Soviet era design. With the Type 3 on the other hand, I don't think we can say conclusively if the steam turbines will be used, especially given the fact that satellite based size estimates are already pointing towards a displacement well north of 80,000 tons. All we do know on the powerplant front is that the Type 3 is definitely not a nuclear powered carrier. It could very well be that they utilise the gas turbines like they do in their massive destroyers.

[dhanushmenon]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I am familiar with earlier Marks, the Dhruv CS. We operated one for years over several hundreds of hours and she never gave us much trouble. And all of this was demanding low altitude nape of the earth flying over hill and dale.

Where and where did you use these airframe sir?
Pretty reliable airframe it is. The more you keep it in the air, the more trouble free the aircraft remains. You keep it down for a week and it starts throwing tantrums
ALH was designed for use over land (specifically for the IA and IAF on the valleys). Navy and CG just took a piggy back ride to secure few airframes when the project started out. However, HAL did a tremendous job to dovetail the specific and demanding requirements typical of naval operations. The AFCS software for Naval and Army/IAF versions are different and so are many other features. The new airframes (naval MK IIIs) have taken this to the next level.

That said, the fact remains that this helicopter was designed as a shore based platform and those few limitations remain for naval operations.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I wonder if we can develop a land based ASW version.

Land based ASW version do not make sense to me. The submarine (the intended target for an ASW helicopter), lurks in the dark deep sea. To hunt a submarine, it needs to be a ship borne helicopter. A land based version can at best sanitise the entry/ exit channels near the harbour. Submarines hardly operate in shallow waters as it is dangerous in numerous counts and the risk may not outweigh the probability of positive result.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ads11

That lethargy of the steam turbine is half the reason the Russians Kuznetsov is such a running joke. Beyond the fact that it can't reliably get to sea on it's own power (it's always accompanied by a heavy duty ocean going tug or two), it belches out acrid black smoke like some Dickensian factory.

Yep, those Russian (or more like Ukranian or Soviet era to be really pedantic) boiler designs are a right pain. It's those damned boilers that were one of the main reasons for the delays and cost overruns in the conversion from the Gorkhov (I seem to remember stories such as having to rid the engine room facilities of asbestos for eg).

Steam turbines, the normal three drum types, are actually very reliable and hardy relative to machines of the 1920 to 1980 era. The Soviets designed high pressure boilers that could accelerate fast as a back up alternative to gas turbines when GT technology and experience was in its infancy. So the Kashin class came with GT c.1962 and the Kresta class with the new ST in c.1967. These new STs needed more maintenance and care. That was fine while the USSR was around but became a problem after 1991. The same fast acceleration boilers & ST powerplant was fitted to the 4 Kiev class VTOL carrier-cruisers of which Gorshkov was the last built. Same went into the Kuznetsov. Interestingly the Kresta-II class ASW cruisers fitted with the SAN-3 Goblet long range SAM and SS-N-14 Silex missile-torpedo were offered to India c.1981.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I know the J-31 is slated for carrier duty but there is still a gap before they are inducted.

Seems like there's a glut of new posts on the J-31 as well, all linked to a grainy image of the land based Type 3 carrier mock up and the static models on it's "deck".


X doesn't quite mark the spot, had to ask the author, but instead it just shows the relative position for the grainy image where you Can see the tell tale signs of the FC-31 with its twin engines, chined lines and high mounted cockpit. There are of course other mock ups in place, including of the J-15 that's already operational, a heavy lift helicopter and of course the PLANs indigenous AEW aircraft variantSource

There's also been a corresponding write up on the War Zone for those interested.

I'd like to highlight a paragraph from the above that I found quite telling, if only for the challenges that say HAL faces with navalising the Tejas for example. Though the FC-31 has until now been a private corporation led programme, lacking the full impetus of the PLA military industrial complex, you can imagine that this might change should Chinese leadership recognise that the FC-31 is their carrier borne fighter of today, not just tomorrow. And even then, with the weight of the not inconsiderable industrial complex behind it, it's facing these many issues. Small wonder then what an uphill task HAL faces not just with a naval Tejas but making a clean sheet TEDBF, a programme where I think they (HAL) might've bitten off more than they can chew.

Adapting a modern fighter jet like the FC-31 for carrier operations is a considerable undertaking. Typically, it may involve aerodynamic changes, optimizing the aircraft for the different angles of attack encountered on takeoff and landing, perhaps including additional high-lift devices on the wing. The flight-control system will need adaptation too, and then there are potential structural changes to reinforce the airframe for the stresses of launch and recovery. Invariably, the undercarriage will need to be beefed up and a catapult launch bar and arrester hook are requirements, too. More extensive use of composite materials may be required to prevent corrosion. Finally, for stowage on board ship, the wing panels would require folding mechanisms.

As for the FC-31 itself, there's been some interesting upgrades in the second prototype.

this featuring a number of improvements over the original, including aerodynamic refinements, among them smaller “clipped” and swept vertical tails, a less angular overall appearance, and cleaner surfaces. The powerplant exchanged the Russian-supplied RD-93 engines for a pair of indigenous WS-13E turbofan engines. This second example made its first flight in December 2016.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

Small wonder then what an uphill task HAL faces not just with a naval Tejas but making a clean sheet TEDBF, a programme where I think they (HAL) might've bitten off more than they can chew.

Well, there is no coherent plan on aircraft acquisition when it comes to the Indian air force and Navy. I believe the whole concept of TEDBF came up only because South Block realized they can't afford the 57 foreign fighters originally envisioned (especially when the air force itself is down on jets). HAL offcourse, reverted back to their instinct of over-promising with a serious risk of under-delivering and I'm saying this with all due respect to the scientists and engineers working at HAL and DRDO.

To add, any future acquisition (domestic or foreign) is dependent on a well-performing economy for which there is no guarantee either as we have painfully learnt since 2017 while there is no appetite in South Block to turn the Indian armed forces into a leaner fighting force for now.

[skanchan95]

First two MH-60Rs to be delivered next month to the Indian Navy.