Based on the Gorshkov experience why deal with the Russians ?
Which country would hand you (India) over nuclear submarines?
There is only one answer here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Based on the Gorshkov experience why deal with the Russians ?
Rafale is the best platform available in 4.5 gen category, plus if IAF inducts 6-7 squadrons of Rafey then I think instead of going with some new 5th gen fighter, Rafale will be the better choice, it will be useful for IN & IAF to work on a network centric warfare .Also trying to understand the role of the Rafale in the IN ? why have it?

Also trying to understand the role of the Rafale in the IN ? why have it?
It will be a long journeyWhich country would hand you (India) over nuclear submarines?
There is only one answer here.
Rafale makes sense in the IN. It i
It will be a long journey
Russian Navy does not operate aircraft carriers
For argument sake - which Indian Shipyard is capable builting this .i.e having the drydock space? Also don't u think the Mig29K can be CATOBAR certified too?
Excellent post Sir. I wish you could post more regularly.The Russian proposal is essentially a reworked ulyanovsk Aircraft Carrier concept and thus suffers from some of its fundamental limitations. There is also the element of Russian strategic doctrine having a negative implication on the efficiency of the proposed carrier.
Most people assume that the size of the air wing determines the capability of the carrier. The reality is that sortie generation rates are a far more important parameter for carriers (and land bases alike). And this is where the Russian hybrid concept bears a significant negative impact. The hybrid concept places undue stress on flight deck management operations, something most people disregard.
Deck operators would be forced to shuttle between completely different aircraft and disparate launch regimen for the CATOBAR and STOBAR launches.
Aircraft carriers already bear a steep penalty in sortie generation rates compared to land bases. A typical airbase can generate excess of 60-75 sorties a day with as few as 20 aircraft. A fully loaded Nimitz is able to do somewhere between 78-92 (sustained) with its 85 strong airwing . And that is with a homogeneous launch system and 4 catapults.
Our hybrid carrier wouldn't be able to match those sortie rates unless there is a revolution in deck management operations.
I will try to post a detailed write-up later if I can manage enough time.
Russian Navy does not a history of operating these ships
Yes, 16 years of operating this aircraft carrier, is not operating experience!Russian Navy does not a history of operating these ships
Without operational experience it is hard to get it right

Yes, 16 years of operating this aircraft carrier, is not operating experience!![]()
Pal, The Russian Navy has a different doctrine to the rest of the world. Heck!. this ship has 12 supersonic AShM below deckHow often was this aircraft carrier functional in 16 years ??
The Russian navy is a sea denial navy based on SSBNs and long range maritime attack aircraft. Their operational experience with aircraft carriers is not too much higher than the Indian navy.
Right now the Indian navy is trying to be growing version of the US Navy than the Russian navy.
Pal, The Russian Navy has a different doctrine to the rest of the world. Heck!. this ship has 12 supersonic AShM below deck
Just because they don't operate the same way doesn't mean they don't have the experience.
Yes re certification can happen surely but in case additional strengthening is suggested, then its cost intensive..
Dry dock wise very limited choice - only CSL and Pipavav.
As per my data,
View attachment 334087
If i understand clearly the N carrier construction as to be near to Vishakapatnam for reasons you already should know. So i guess Rambili will be chosen provided Reliance can set up a location with minimum 14-15 meter draft.
++
About Rafale M its about
+++
- Future upgrades for a fleet for minimum 30 years by comparision Mig29K may be obsolete in next 15 years
- Technological advancement that new product brings in
- Mig29 K used only for A2A and AShM roles - primary defensive roles within 300 nautical miles or 550 km max
- Proposed Rafale M or any other catobar aircraft for A2G aspect and using it for actual strike roles opening a new corridor for package delivery along with the above mentioned roles.
- Rafale M radius of operations are more like 600 Nm or 1000 Km and above types giving it the true bluwater capability
- A doctrine need for triad first step of aerial assets being over different places to get ambiguity.
- Commonality of the supply and spares from operational POV
Excellent post Sir. I wish you could post more regularly.
Just to add a little,
TBH there design revolves around using the heavy fighter PAKFA - M version from catapults and Mig29Ks from Stobar config. Owing to restricted small distance for takeoff, the actual payload capacity fo fuel will be lower in order to sustain basic combat load under stressed conditions and will require a AAR refuel up in air to proceed towards area of operations. Supposing the time is not there for AAR refueling then time on air will severely limit them.
The stress levels of sustaining PAKFA-M and Mig29K say in a emergency sortie will be too high.
In queen Elizabeth class, its estimated that 24 F35-Bs are launched in 15 Mins and recovery rate is 24 mins for all 24 birds. (STOBAR)
Now assuming this 85000 Tonnes mammoth carrier has considerable LACM and S500 elements + ASW and AEW crafts, consider the actual jets to be say 60 jets with 40 PAKFA -M and 20 Mig29Ks
- The Stobaroperations will mean at least a Mig29k sortie every 40 -50 sec meaning 14-17minutes to be airborne for 300Nm radii
- Catobar parallel launch will mean 2 PAKFA-M sortie together but mean time before next sortie is approx 1 minute to best case 40 secs (Nimitz class can launch 4 birds in 10 secs from different catapults but then next lot takes over a minute to launch even though they prefer to make it in 40 secs and practice for 30 secs with 2 catapult launch)
- So 14-20 mins approx for all PAKFA-M to be on air for say 600-800 Nm combat radii.
- Now consider all these take offs in a continuously busy deck and planes getting ready and carried to deck from elevator and waiting aspect too. .
- Thus flight deck arrangement will be a living hell in case of a emergency sortie.
- Recovery rates should see all these aircraft back in deck anywhere between 30-60 minutes bcz i dont have any data to substantiate and prove, other than comparing the F35B data but PAKFA -M will be much different.
- Daily sortie rates in such a condition wont be sustainable in very high rates
- Yet to prove the turnaround time between sorties /consecutive sorties for a 5th gen PAKFA from deck operations.and number it can sustain per day.
On top, The 23000E is basically the way of getting India agree on PAKFA-M or Indian FGFA M. This is a big issue bcz IN as part of the doctrine dont like to operate heavy fighters and are more happy with medium category jets.
As I said, its a fortress and in essence its a whole lot bigger than a airbase going there. The firepower of offensive LACM, the ABM/BMD of S500 Triumfator-M and a contingent of 40 heavy and 20 medium birds makes it a incredibly offensive powerhouse.
The question to ask is
+++
- Can we have such a doctrine shift?
- Will we as a country ready to shell out a good amount in order to build a much bigger ACC of nuclear powered and take our ship building capabilities much ahead?
- Are we ready to consider the limitation of such systems as well and understand that a ACC like 23000E if binded with Russian air wing will also limit us of actually having an optimized mission efficiencies?
- Coming back to the same aspect of fighter fleet consider all 60 to be Rafale-M.
- Here lies the difference. Rafale M can also take off from short runways and also land in short runways.
- This commonality aspect of the entire air wing may help smoothen out the cross management between heavy going to catobar and medium going to stobar aspect.
- On top the payload package can be configured differently based on mission aim but thats far more convenient.
- Again recovery rates should be far more smoother as compared to mixed bag fleet.

