Jump to content

I guess Japan is chopped liver in the brave new world of India making aircraft carriers.


Fog
 Share

Recommended Posts

Years ago, I read an article comparing India's military buildup to China's.  The big take away was that India swallowed their pride and subcontracted out items that it could not competently build themselves.  While the Chinese constantly saddled themselves with inferior designs by insisting that they do everything themselves.

Key among those items where this difference in design and manufacture existed was the aircraft carrier.  I guess India is now ready to roll their own. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Batesmotel said:

Building a boat is one thing. Flight ops in any conditions is another. That’s a steep learning curve. 

The first prerequisite for flight operations from an aircraft carrier are aircraft with hooks or VSTOLS like the Harrier or F-35A.

The Harrier (and AV-8B) are obsolete, but then so is much of India's air force.  They still have wings of MiG-21s, though their most modern aircraft include MiG-29s and Su-30s and their latest acquisition is the Dassualt Rafale.  All land-based.  All belonging to the air force.

They do not have any carrier-based aircraft in inventory and as they mainly buy Russian products, getting aircraft to populate carrier wings is dubious.

I doubt that India wants or can afford F/A-18Es or F-35Cs.

Also, India is not exactly up to date or the best at mid-air refueling.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, tous said:

The first prerequisite for flight operations from an aircraft carrier are aircraft with hooks or VSTOLS like the Harrier of F-35A.

The Harrier (and AV-8B) are obsolete, but then so is much of India's air force.  They still have wings of MiG-21s, though their most modern aircraft include MiG-29s and Su-30s and their latest acquisition is the Dassualt Rafale.  All land-based.  All belonging to the air force.

They do not have any carrier-based aircraft in inventory and as they mainly buy Russian products, getting aircraft to populate carrier wings is dubious.

I doubt that India wants or can afford F/A-18Es or F-35Cs.

Also, India is not exactly up to date or the best at mid-air refueling.

 

They have a long way to go, but BRANDON is making it easier for everyone to "catch up"   Hmmm   can we train their pilots ....10% surcharge  Ya know ...for the BIG GUY

  • Like 3
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tous said:

The first prerequisite for flight operations from an aircraft carrier are aircraft with hooks or VSTOLS like the Harrier of F-35A.

The Harrier (and AV-8B) are obsolete, but then so is much of India's air force.  They still have wings of MiG-21s, though their most modern aircraft include MiG-29s and Su-30s and their latest acquisition is the Dassualt Rafale.  All land-based.  All belonging to the air force.

They do not have any carrier-based aircraft in inventory and as they mainly buy Russian products, getting aircraft to populate carrier wings is dubious.

I doubt that India wants or can afford F/A-18Es or F-35Cs.

Also, India is not exactly up to date or the best at mid-air refueling.

 

The MiG 29-K is the carrier variant. India's naval arm has had them since 2009 or 2010 depending on the source.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed they do have some, MiG-29Ks and further research and communications with other sources indicate that India wants to purchase F/A-18 Es and Fs.

Keep in mind, however, that the MiG-29 series and even the F/A-18 Super Hornets are 1980s technology -- fourth-generation aircraft in the era of the fifth-generation  F-22, F-35, J-20 and Su-57.

India does have the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) under development, but I don't believe that that aircraft is dual-role enough to be  carrier-based.

Also, 'in development' might well mean that the aircraft is 8-10 years away from production -- barring delays.

 

Another big question is, does their navy have the fleet strength and variety to support carrier-based fleets.

Aircraft carriers do not sail alone.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, tous said:

Indeed they do have some, MiG-29Ks and further research and communications with other sources indicate that India wants to purchase F/A-18 Es and Fs.

Keep in mind, however, that the MiG-29 series and even the F/A-18 Super Hornets are 1980s technology -- fourth-generation aircraft in the era of the fifth-generation  F-22, F-35, J-20 and Su-57.

India does have the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) under development, but I don't believe that that aircraft is dual-role enough to be  carrier-based.

Also, 'in development' might well mean that the aircraft is 8-10 years away from production -- barring delays.

I knew a fellow that was a throttle jockey in the superbug test program.  While it has been 10 years since we have spoken about his time in the bug test program, he maintained that the bug will be a potent adversary to any peer nation's frontline fighters for at least 20 years.  I'm not qualified to make any judgments, but that is what he believed.   He also scoffed at our adversary carrier operations abilities.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps they did, but India has a very lengthy common border with Pakistan and Pakistan is not very wide.

Why one would use carrier-based aircraft with all of the inherent logistical problems when land-based aircraft would have no problem getting to every inch of Pakistan.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Al Czervik said:

I knew a fellow that was a throttle jockey in the superbug test program.  While it has been 10 years since we have spoken about his time in the bug test program, he maintained that the bug will be a potent adversary to any peer nation's frontline fighters for at least 20 years.  I'm not qualified to make any judgments, but that is what he believed.   He also scoffed at our adversary carrier operations abilities.

The Super Hornet is not the superbug, it's the Rhino.  :biggrin:

Yes, indeed, the F/A-18E and -F  are formidable aircraft and are not due to be retired for another 20-25 years.

Its main weakness is lack of stealth.

Everything else can be upgraded and made better  to keep the F/A-18 Super Hornets potent in both fleet defense and attack roles.

<--- worked on the F/A-18 Super Hornet project for McDonnell Douglas

<--- hates Boeing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, tous said:

The Super Hornet is not the superbug, it's the Rhino.  :biggrin:

Yes, indeed, the F/A-18E and -F  are formidable aircraft and are not due to be retired for another 20-25 years.

Its main weakness is lack of stealth.

Everything else can be upgraded and made better  to keep the F/A-18 Super Hornets potent in both fleet defense and attack roles.

<--- worked on the F/A-18 Super Hornet project for McDonnell Douglas

<--- hates Boeing

I'm confused about bug v rhino.  Please explain in terms in which you will not later have to kill us. :xD:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F/A-18 A. B. C and D models, Hornets,  had the nickname 'Plastic Bug.'

The F/A-18 E and F, Super Hornets,  accepted to the fleet in 1995, have the nickname 'Rhino' because of a bulging section on top of the nose just aft of the radome.

:599c64bfb50b0_wavey1:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, tous said:

The F/A-18 A. B. C and D models, Hornets,  had the nickname 'Plastic Bug.'

The F/A-18 E and F, Super Hornets,  accepted to the fleet in 1995, have the nickname 'Rhino' because of a bulging section on top of the nose just aft of the radome.

:599c64bfb50b0_wavey1:

So, is this a McDD v Boeing sort of thing? :biggrin:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the Super Hornet was developed and produced by McDonnell Douglas.

McDonnell Douglas merged, was taken over, by Boeing in 1997.

The US military put out an RFP (Request for proposal) for what they called the Joint Strike Fighter  around 1993 -- the military wanted one aircraft to fill all of the roles: air force, marines, navy like the F-4 Phantom II had from the 1950s to the 1980s;  the JSF had to feature stealth technology and capability.

The  process was for the aerospace companies to produce a design and perhaps a prototype and at some point, the Pentagon would declare a winner and award contracts, spend a few hundred billion dollars and to make a bunch of them.

In the past, in order to keep the major aerospace companies in business, whichever company won the contract would sub-contract the other companies with enough work to keep them afloat until the next big project was bid.  That did not happen with the JSF project.  Lockheed Martin (affectionately know as LockMart) won and didn't share the wealth,  Thus, the F-35 variants.

As a result, McDonnell Douglas and Northrup, losing bidders, were effectively bankrupt.

McDonnell Douglas had to merge with Boeing, Northrup with Grumman.

Boeing is a remarkable company and they make excellent products, but they had never manufactured fighter aircraft, UAVs or anti-ship missiles.

They waltzed in to McDonnell Douglas and basically said, There's a right way, a wrong way and the Boeing way.  By the way, about 60% of you MacAir people are RIFed.  The rest of you will do it the Boeing way or the highway.  Keep in mind that Boeing still had to deliver F./A 18s and various other product like Harpoon missiles from existing contracts, so they couldn't fire everybody.

I lasted until 2000.

Not a Boeing guy, never will be.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tous said:

No, the Super Hornet was developed and produced by McDonnell Douglas.

McDonnell Douglas merged, was taken over, by Boeing in 1997.

The US military put out an RFP (Request for proposal) for what they called the Joint Strike Fighter  around 1993 -- the military wanted one aircraft to fill all of the roles: air force, marines, navy like the F-4 Phantom II had from the 1950s to the 1980s;  the JSF had to feature stealth technology and capability.

The  process was for the aerospace companies to produce a design and perhaps a prototype and at some point, the Pentagon would declare a winner and award contracts, spend a few hundred billion dollars and to make a bunch of them.

In the past, in order to keep the major aerospace companies in business, whichever company won the contract would sub-contract the other companies with enough work to keep them afloat until the next big project was bid.  That did not happen with the JSF project.  Lockheed Martin (affectionately know as LockMart) won and didn't share the wealth,  Thus, the F-35 variants.

As a result, McDonnell Douglas and Northrup, losing bidders, were effectively bankrupt.

McDonnell Douglas had to merge with Boeing, Northrup with Grumman.

Boeing is a remarkable company and they make excellent products, but they had never manufactured fighter aircraft, UAVs or anti-ship missiles.

They waltzed in to McDonnell Douglas and basically said, There's a right way, a wrong way and the Boeing way.  By the way, about 60% of you MacAir people are RIFed.  The rest of you will do it the Boeing way or the highway.  Keep in mind that Boeing still had to deliver F./A 18s and various other product like Harpoon missiles from existing contracts, so they couldn't fire everybody.

I lasted until 2000.

Not a Boeing guy, never will be.

 

Understood.  

But, I am still confused by the nomenclature of superbug v rhino.  Is it a difference in the 1 v 2 place versions or a difference in what Boeing called them v what McDD called them?

I have no dog in the fight, other than Mrs C. was invited to the Renton facility (IRRC) to give a speech years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

F/A-18 A, B, C, D models:  Plastic Bug or just Bug; F/A-18E and F, Rhino or rarely, Super Bug.

Plastic Bug because the F/A-18 was one of the first aircraft to make extensive use of carbon fiber materials.

Contracts for single-seat aircraft nearly always feature a request for a two-seat version, mainly used as a trainer.

Thus, the F/A-18 A and C models were single-seat, the B and D models two-seats.

The F-16 A, C and E are single seat aircraft, the F-16 B, D and F two-seat aircraft,  The F-16 Fighting Falcon is nick-named the Viper.

The F/A-18E is the single seat version of the Super Hornet, the F/A-18F, the two-seat version.

The F model is not really a trainer.  Like the F-14, the GIB (Guy in Back) operates RADAR, sensors and for the F/A-18F, some of the weapons.

The same with the F-15 Strike Eagle, a two-seat version of the F-15.  The GIB, known is the Weapons System Operator or 'wizzo.'

A variant of the F/A-18F is the E/A-18G (Growler) an electronics warfare variant.  It is called the Growler because it replaced the Grumman EA-6B, called the Prowler.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tous said:

No, the Super Hornet was developed and produced by McDonnell Douglas.

McDonnell Douglas merged, was taken over, by Boeing in 1997.

The US military put out an RFP (Request for proposal) for what they called the Joint Strike Fighter  around 1993 -- the military wanted one aircraft to fill all of the roles: air force, marines, navy like the F-4 Phantom II had from the 1950s to the 1980s;  the JSF had to feature stealth technology and capability.

The  process was for the aerospace companies to produce a design and perhaps a prototype and at some point, the Pentagon would declare a winner and award contracts, spend a few hundred billion dollars and to make a bunch of them.

In the past, in order to keep the major aerospace companies in business, whichever company won the contract would sub-contract the other companies with enough work to keep them afloat until the next big project was bid.  That did not happen with the JSF project.  Lockheed Martin (affectionately know as LockMart) won and didn't share the wealth,  Thus, the F-35 variants.

As a result, McDonnell Douglas and Northrup, losing bidders, were effectively bankrupt.

McDonnell Douglas had to merge with Boeing, Northrup with Grumman.

Boeing is a remarkable company and they make excellent products, but they had never manufactured fighter aircraft, UAVs or anti-ship missiles.

They waltzed in to McDonnell Douglas and basically said, There's a right way, a wrong way and the Boeing way.  By the way, about 60% of you MacAir people are RIFed.  The rest of you will do it the Boeing way or the highway.  Keep in mind that Boeing still had to deliver F./A 18s and various other product like Harpoon missiles from existing contracts, so they couldn't fire everybody.

I lasted until 2000.

Not a Boeing guy, never will be.

 

Everyone I talked with in the Military said that  McDonnell Douglas was the only expert source of Carrier landing gear.  Everyone else was a has been. They were the epitome of this niche.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChuteTheMall said:

UNICEF is trying to get India to use toilets.

6s4ieb.jpg..6s4ipo.jpg

 

They do have a doo issue in some places.

Butt so doo wee, visit any major left coast city and you will see it, smell it, and feel it. (BLECH!!!)

That says more about leftists than it does about India, they are moving away from it, we are moving towards it. Makes me angry just to think about it.

FJB and all his commie friends. This is not happening by accident.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, janice6 said:

Everyone I talked with in the Military said that  McDonnell Douglas was the only expert source of Carrier landing gear.  Everyone else was a has been. They were the epitome of this niche.  

Grumman was no slouch at building great, carrier-based aircraft.

And, yes, we were the go-to company for naval aircraft.

And we made a pretty mean air-superiority fighter, too.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tous said:

Grumman was no slouch at building great, carrier-based aircraft.

And, yes, we were the go-to company for naval aircraft.

And we made a pretty mean air-superiority fighter, too.

 

I gave the pitch for my team of companies to the Military at McDonnell Douglas, for the proposed Fiber Optic Avionics on the YF23 ATF.  That was the deciding moment for me when I realized that I liked talking in front of groups about my, and my group's area of expertise.  Ahhhh.  All those Admirals in one place.. Amazing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...