Team-BHP > Commercial Vehicles


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10th December 2020, 17:48   #316
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Chester
Posts: 498
Thanked: 1,157 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by V.Narayan View Post
US Navy to appoint first woman captain to command a nuclear powered carrier..
Great news this. Fact she already served as the XO on board a supercarrier should silence any potential naysayers. This is a good move. Are women allowed to serve on board surface vessels in the IN? Imagine undersea is still a no for practical purposes. I know India has quite a few female naval aviators. One day one of them could become the flag officer of a capital ship.

Interesting news coming out of France.

France announces plans for new supercarrier PANG



Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers-messageeditor_1607465227143pang.jpg

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...d-supercarrier

Quote:
French President Emmanuel Macron has officially announced that a program is underway to develop a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to replace the country's existing flattop, Charles de Gaulle. French shipbuilder Naval Group, which is partially state-owned, subsequently released new concept art of what is presently known as the Porte Avion Nouvelle Generation, or PANG, which translates to New Generation Aircraft Carrier.
Some stats based on Florence Parly's tweet

75000 ton displacement (vs 42500 ton for CdG)
300 m length (vs 262 m for CdG)
80 m beam
~27 knots (c. 50 km/h)
Twin K22 nuclear powerplants
EMALS
Airwing ~30 (mix of the future European 5th gen programme and unmanned platforms with the Rafale-M likely to also still be serving in the beginning)
2000 personnel (no specifics on if this mix includes the air wing component but it's very similar to the usual complement for the CdG on a Much bigger ship, suggesting a lot of tasks must be automated to account for the relatively lower headcount)

All aimed for 2038 when CdG gets decommissioned.

So it's no surprise the French are laying the groundwork already but what intrigued me is that they've clearly not pursued their own QE class derivative any further. They had designs for it from it's early stages when the QE was initially a CATOBAR flat top and the French saw an opportunity for synergy but that obviously ended when the Brits were forced to go STOVL for the QE due to budget cuts. So now the PANG looks to be a Much bigger ship than the CdG with a silhouette strikingly similar to the Ford class supercarriers of the USN, particularly the relatively petite island mounted as far back as possible. Also interesting to see the French go with the General Atomics electromagnetic catapults:
Quote:
This will include electromagnetic catapults from General Atomics, the same company that designed and built the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for the U.S. Navy's Ford class carriers. It's not clear whether the PANG will also have an electronically-controlled arresting system, such as the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) found on the Fords, another General Atomics product.
Seems steam cats and traps are no longer going to be newly built moving forward especially as navies embrace UAVs for carrier air wings. Steam cats with their less granular approach to modulating their force are envisioned to rattle the small UAVs to pieces over time from sustained operations. That modulation of the kick from the cat is what to me is the real attraction for navies beyond their claims of enhanced operational tempo (the USN can fling off jets at incredible frequency already with steam, I think it's the wear and tear aspect that's more important here, especially for those fiddly little UAVs and 5th gen future jets).

With the Chinese even braving going with EMALS for their solo effort off the bat, and not even bothering with steam cat designs (ably acquired by their formidable state sanctioned industrial espionage apparatus), steams day is done, including for the future Indian CATOBAR if that's the approach the IN takes.
ads11 is offline   (5) Thanks
Old 10th December 2020, 20:21   #317
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Delhi-NCR
Posts: 3,024
Thanked: 35,818 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by ads11 View Post

France announces plans for new supercarrier PANG

For all the theoretical talk about carriers being big and vulnerable clearly there is a serious need felt for organic air cover out at sea! Today and in the preceding few years we have 23 carriers {including helicopter carriers & dual purpose amphibious carriers} in commission outside the USN. This is the highest number since {hold your breath} 1967 when there were 22 carriers outside the USN. I have added a chart below of the comparative figures between 1967-68 and 2020. In the 2020 numbers I have excluded carriers afloat but not sailing like the Thai one. The low tide was the early 1990s to early 2000s when non-USN carrier strength fell to 11 to 12 varying with the year. Egypt is the surprise entry for 2020 with the 2 ex-Russian Mistrals which we ought to have been nimble about given our proximity to France. The only countries to have retained their fast jet capability 1967 through to 2020 are the UK, France , India and interestingly Spain. Of the 4 India is the only one that managed to retain this capability without USN support {here I am ignoring the recent limited training support on catapults}

In my armchair admiral opinion we should lay the keep for one more Vikrant II aircraft carrier and get it into service by 2028. Vishal sounds like an ambitious 25 year project given Indian bureaucracy and the complexity of a 65,000 tonne vessel.
Attached Thumbnails
Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers-screenshot-101.png  

V.Narayan is offline   (3) Thanks
Old 10th December 2020, 22:23   #318
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Chester
Posts: 498
Thanked: 1,157 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by V.Narayan View Post
For all the theoretical talk about carriers being big and vulnerable clearly there is a serious need felt for organic air cover out at sea! Today and in the preceding few years we have 23 carriers {including helicopter carriers & dual purpose amphibious carriers} in commission outside the USN. This is the highest number since {hold your breath} 1967 when there were 22 carriers outside the USN. I have added a chart below of the comparative figures between 1967-68 and 2020. In the 2020 numbers I have excluded carriers afloat but not sailing like the Thai one. The low tide was the early 1990s to early 2000s when non-USN carrier strength fell to 11 to 12 varying with the year. Egypt is the surprise entry for 2020 with the 2 ex-Russian Mistrals which we ought to have been nimble about given our proximity to France. The only countries to have retained their fast jet capability 1967 through to 2020 are the UK, France , India and interestingly Spain. Of the 4 India is the only one that managed to retain this capability without USN support {here I am ignoring the recent limited training support on catapults}
Funny you posted this table because I too was literally looking at Wikipedia at their summary table for aircraft carriers currently and those planned and it sure gives an idea of how big stick flat tops (and for the pedants that includes ski ramp equipped ones too) are back in vogue. I feel a lot of it is a reactionary response and the main driver being the PLAN. If we look at the proliferation in the Asia Pacific, it's almost entirely a response to PLAN expansion in this regard.

Right now they have the Liaoning (Type 001) and Shandong (Type 002), both STOBAR. Type 003, their CATOBAR variant is already a fair bit through construction of the hull at least, with Type 004 plans (for a US supercarrier equivalent) floating around the internet indicating that here too they're further along than others would like (and even if they truly aren't, it's better to err on the side of caution). I think their plan is to have at least 4 but up to 6. Considering Liaoning is a training carrier, let's be honest, it'll never face the heat of battle or be sent out for anything other than posturing. The Type 003 & 004's are what pose a real threat. The PLAN are accelerating through their carrier ops development curve at alarming pace. Given how tight lipped their media is, it's unlikely armchair pundits like us would know just what cost this breakneck speed will have on their naval aviators and personnel.

Coming back to the topic, we now have the JMSDF finally call their wolves in sheeps clothing, the Izumo's what they are - carriers and not the laughable "helicopter carrying destroyer". Tensions with their neighbours, both in the Korean peninsula and across the China Sea, means that now even the ROKN finds itself announcing plans for a carrier expanding from their existing Dokdo class LHD's. So it went from this neck of the woods only having the forward stationed USN 7th fleet carrier being the only flat top, to now having between four new sub types with 3 different ensigns to the USN ones operating in these waters. Anyway, the expanding blue water capability of the PLAN now gives it force projection capability that means it can venture much further out to strike airfields on the Japanese archipelago. Hence you can see the easy sell for the JMSDF for them to have their own mobile airfields. And if the JMSDF have it, then the ROKN admirals weren't far behind going to the Blue House (interchangeably having the PLAN or DPRK as their bogeyman in this case) asking for mobile airfields of their own.

This brings me on to another factor that's enabled this drive, and that's the availability of the F-35B. As US allies, Japan and South Korea benefit from relatively unhindered access to the F-35B, which paves the way for STOVL carrier ops and as the RN has shown (reluctantly since the defence cuts of the 70s) that "little" carriers with VTOL fast jets (and unlike the Harriers, the F-35B's are fast jets), you can do quite a lot with STOVL carriers at a fraction of the cost of CATOBAR capability (granted there's a lot you still won't be able to do). But the idea is so attractive that the USMC has basically pivoted itself, with each new Commandant essentially changing their role from one where they spent the last two decades playing in the dust bowl settings of the ME, to now being an expeditionary force designed to fit across the Pacific, armed with their own carriers, the America's class. The latter in fact is the usual retort from the USN and Pentagon hierarchy to any proposal about having smaller USN carriers instead of an all supercarrier fleet (as mandated by Congress). With the Brits pioneering SRVL and working out how not to have the F-35B burn a hole in your deck, you're starting to mitigate some of the drawbacks of STOVL operations and getting more of an upside. Small wonder then you have admirals in the US sphere perking up at the thought of parking a small handful of these jets on a flat top of their own to give them a 'pocket' carrier capability. I wouldn't put it past the RAN to consider it given their relations with China are prickly and only going to get pricklier moving forward. With a lot of the shipbuilding for these chunky LHD's modified to light carriers being done using existing Spanish or Italian designs, you could see those two countries too fielding F-35B's as part of their naval aviation. In fact I found out the Turks planned on doing just that for their LHD TCG Anadolu (based on the Spanish Juan Carlos class) before they were booted out the JSF programme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by V.Narayan View Post
In my armchair admiral opinion we should lay the keep for one more Vikrant II aircraft carrier and get it into service by 2028. Vishal sounds like an ambitious 25 year project given Indian bureaucracy and the complexity of a 65,000 tonne vessel.
I agree with you here, I think the prudent thing would be for India to go with a second Vikrant-type (a B spec if you will) that builds upon knowhow from the A-spec. It's certainly the pathway that has fewer massive developmental potholes, so in principle should be eminently achievable. I'd liked to have seen something like the Vishal be further along but 25 years sounds like another realistic timescale for it, if in that time, instead of getting caught up in the race to the top, the IN instead looks to strengthen it's hand in the more literal race to the bottom (I mean our subsea capability in case that metaphor didn't land).
ads11 is offline   (3) Thanks
Old 15th December 2020, 11:05   #319
Team-BHP Support
 
SmartCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 5,430
Thanked: 30,548 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

I like this line of thinking - such islands are called unsinkable aircraft carrier

Quote:
General Rawat indicated a probable alternative to an aircraft carrier.

"I think you also need to look at our Island territories that we have in large numbers. If we can leverage our Island territories to our advantage, then we can balance out... this can be used as territories to launch naval strike aircraft or do we need an aircraft carrier. Once we have studied all that in detail we will take a call," he said.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/stat...n-navy-2338616
SmartCat is online now   (1) Thanks
Old 15th December 2020, 17:13   #320
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Chester
Posts: 498
Thanked: 1,157 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartCat View Post
I like this line of thinking - such islands are called unsinkable aircraft carrier
You can see where Gen Rawat is coming from. It's basically what the Chinese have done in the SCS. They realised quickly that the best way to advance their objectives wrt the laughable 9 Dash Line before they could have enough credible PLAN carrier groups was to build a bunch of artificial islands and installations on reefs. Then simply weaponise the lot of those, either with airstrips and forward deployed air groups, or fixed weapons installations. Boom, you have a much simpler way of having a stationary carrier. In one fell swoop they've exponentially increased the cost of operation for adversary groups in the area, thus cementing their hold on the SCS. I mean war today essentially is less about decisive victory and almost based on who can raise the cost of war beyond what the opponent is willing to pay, both in men and materiel. So to that end, you can't fault Gen Rawat for thinking it's a cost effective way for India to create the same A2/AD bubble the PLA has in the SCS, except this time in key parts of the IOR.

All that being said, it's worth remembering what Old Blood and Guts, Gen Patton used to say, that "the Maginot Line (ie, fixed fortifications [sic]) is a first class case of man's monument to stupidity". At the end of the day any such unsinkable carrier is still a static target. All it would take is a volley of cruise missiles, enough to spam the area air defence on said islands, to neutralise them. And to that end, it brings me back to why the planned PLAAF long range strategic bomber programme scares me. Anyway, it's a move in the right direction - the budget as always is limited and they need to maximise what they can do with it. All India has to do is make the prospect of coercive direct military action in the IOR prohibitively costly for the CCP. That's all our primarily defensive posture really requires.
ads11 is offline   (2) Thanks
Old 15th December 2020, 19:00   #321
Team-BHP Support
 
SmartCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 5,430
Thanked: 30,548 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by ads11 View Post
At the end of the day any such unsinkable carrier is still a static target. All it would take is a volley of cruise missiles, enough to spam the area air defence on said islands, to neutralise them. .
Actually, it is quite a task to take out an airbase with missiles:

- Runway can be repaired pretty quickly after a missile/bomb attack. Eg:
Syrian jets take off from Shayrat airbase hours after it was pummeled by US bombs
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7673511.html

- Fighter aircraft is stored in hardened shelters. Accurate sub-sonic cruise missiles will not be able to penetrate the shelters and damage the aircraft. Ballistic missiles are not accurate enough to hit specific targets.

- Cruise/ballistic missiles are expensive ($500,000 to $1 million). Longer range missiles would be even more expensive.

- An airbase is huge with multiple targets. 10 Iranian ballistic missiles could do only this damage to the Iraqi airbase during Jan 2020 attack:

Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers-ain_alassad_air_base_8_jan_2020.png

Last edited by SmartCat : 15th December 2020 at 19:09.
SmartCat is online now   (1) Thanks
Old 15th December 2020, 20:55   #322
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Chester
Posts: 498
Thanked: 1,157 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartCat View Post
Actually, it is quite a task to take out an airbase with missiles:

- Runway can be repaired pretty quickly after a missile/bomb attack. Eg:
Syrian jets take off from Shayrat airbase hours after it was pummeled by US bombs
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7673511.html

- Fighter aircraft is stored in hardened shelters. Accurate sub-sonic cruise missiles will not be able to penetrate the shelters and damage the aircraft. Ballistic missiles are not accurate enough to hit specific targets.

- Cruise/ballistic missiles are expensive ($500,000 to $1 million). Longer range missiles would be even more expensive.

- An airbase is huge with multiple targets. 10 Iranian ballistic missiles could do only this damage to the Iraqi airbase during Jan 2020 attack:

Attachment 2093552
True, I'm not disputing that an air base is at all a soft target. Thing is, those are your run of the mill mainland air bases, pretty large installations. I guess in my mind, and from the language of Gen Rawat's statement, expecting forward air bases like the kind the Chinese have at Fiery Cross Reef, or the Spratlys amongst others. Those iirc don't have hardened shelters and I suppose their remoteness makes quick runway repair a more difficult proposition. I would've expected that's the distributed model Rawat is after. As far as these island fortresses go I suppose two of the best known would be Diego Garcia and Guam, the latter being a key pillar of PLA action plans to push out beyond the second island chain. Andersen AFB in Guam then would be closest to the robust static carrier concept I guess.

Missiles are expensive yes but I'm only going by what we've seen from US/NATO or even Russian forces in recent years. Be it submarine launched, air launched or surface ship launched, a lot of key strikes against air base targets have often involved salvos of missiles lobbed at it. It's the safety cushion of stand off weaponry I suppose - a quiver of those missiles, even if spent to little real impact, is much more palatable than the odds of risking an aerial or marine platform, crucially with its human payload so to speak, getting lost. And on the point of the long ranges Chinese missiles would be operating at, therein lies my worry again about any penetrative LO bomber platform. They're primarily building the thing to get close enough to Guam to hit that, so I would imagine the distances to any Indian installations in the IOR would be similar, and let's be honest, with likely a less formidable array of countermeasures in place than at Andersen. Mercifully for the time being this scenario is still hypothetical but the rate of progress of the PLAAF is cause for immediate concern, because once they meet that Guam checklist requirement, you could just as easily see them flexing further afield in the SCS and perhaps up to our neck of the woods.
ads11 is offline   (2) Thanks
Old 21st December 2020, 21:07   #323
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Chester
Posts: 498
Thanked: 1,157 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Video clip of an F-18E doing a ski jump take off at NAS Patuxent

Seems Boeing India have tweeted a short clip of a Super Hornet indeed flying off the static ramp at Patuxent (iirc this is where the ground tests for the F-35B were conducted before they made their way onto the HMS QE).

Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers-f18staticramptest.png

Can't tell much else really from this - doesn't look like a meaningful loadout if at all. I imagine the next tests would be to do just that, have a Super Hornet in a mock up of what you'd expect in terms of a regular load out take off.
ads11 is offline   (3) Thanks
Old 21st December 2020, 22:32   #324
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Delhi
Posts: 6,467
Thanked: 29,897 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Going a little bit of topic, still carriers, but not Indian. I was just reading the table comparing carriers in 1967 tot 2020.

The Netherlands in 1967 still had one (1) carrier, the Karel Doorman. She was a bit of a hand me down from the British navy. We kept her till 1968 when she was handed down to the Argentines.

I looked her up on Wikipedia, as it is really a bit before my time. It has been quite a while since I read up on her.

I came across this little gem:

Quote:
In 1960, during the Dutch decolonization and planned independence of Western New Guinea, a territory which was also claimed by Indonesia, Karel Doorman set sail along with two destroyers and a modified oil tanker to "show the flag". In order to avoid possible problems with Indonesia's ally Egypt at the Suez Canal, she instead sailed around the Horn of Africa. She arrived in Fremantle, Australia, where the local seamen's union went on strike in sympathy with Indonesia; the crew used the propeller thrust of aircraft chained down on deck to nudge the carrier into dock without tugs.
Can you imagine using propeller thrust of aircraft to manoeuvre?

At the time she had an air wing of Grumman S2 Trackers. Twin radials, can you imagine that sound of a whole air wing Trackers, tied down, at full throttle??

The Dutch might have been horrible colonist, but we had our inventive moments too!

I don’t think it would be allowed these days. Safety and all of that. All for the best, of course, but old school approach makes for much better (and taller) story telling!

Jeroen

Last edited by Jeroen : 21st December 2020 at 22:33.
Jeroen is offline   (4) Thanks
Old 21st December 2020, 22:52   #325
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Chester
Posts: 498
Thanked: 1,157 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by ads11 View Post
Video clip of an F-18E doing a ski jump take off at NAS Patuxent
Some more details on this:

Quote:
The brief video published today on Twitter reportedly dates from the series of trials that were run last August. It shows a single-seat F/A-18E from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 (VX-23), the “Salty Dogs,” launching from the ground-based ramp, with the jet carrying some type of external stores — apparently inert bombs — under the wings.
Boeing India is talking up the usual points it seems -
  • Commonality for both IN & IAF if selected as part of the MRFA too
  • Proven record of the Super Hornet
  • Availability of both single and twin seater
  • Ability to interface better with the P-8I's
  • Some form of localised servicing it seems
On the services note, here's what the article quotes:
Quote:
Servicing the jets, should India choose to buy them, will be conducted by the company “in partnership with the Indian Navy as well as India and U.S. based partners throughout the lifecycle of the aircraft.” This is part of a proposed “By India, for India” sustainment program, apparently designed to satisfy Indian requirements for local industrial engagement. Once the formal request for proposals for the MRCBF is presented, that could see a requirement added to build the jets in India, something that Boeing has offered with its Super Hornet in the past.
Not seen or heard much from the Dassault camp, though they have recently been getting some export interest, especially with the Indonesians on top of the Qatari orders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen View Post
I came across this little gem:
Pretty wild story this no doubt. Military history abounds with wacky solutions, just a question of how many make the light of day for the rest of us.
ads11 is offline   (2) Thanks
Old 22nd December 2020, 08:48   #326
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Delhi-NCR
Posts: 3,024
Thanked: 35,818 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by ads11 View Post
Video clip of an F-18E doing a ski jump take off at NAS Patuxent
The F-18E is without doubt a proven and very capable machine. With the IAF buying the Rafale it would be better IMHO that the IN go for the Rafale too. I do not know about its ski jump capabilities but its power to weight ratios seem to indicate it should not be too different from a MiG-29K.

Chart below shows the power loadings of the three aircraft at clean and MTOW along with wing loading clean. As we see the power loadings of the Rafale are better than the Hornet at clean TOW and but 5% worse at MTOW. I do not know if the MTOW power loadings are adequate for a ski jump take off at full weight with say a 25 knot wind over deck (being conservative). But if the Hornet can do it so can the Rafale. In fact the much superior (i.e. lower) wing loadings of the Rafale weigh in its favour for lift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen View Post
I came across this little gem:
Can you imagine using propeller thrust of aircraft to manoeuvre?
I believe it completely. The 20,000 tonne Colossus class light carriers needed, hold onto your chair, 5 horsepower, yes 5 to move at 1 knot or 1.85 kmph. That must have been some manoeuvering!!!! My father once took me to see the old cruiser INS Mysore (~12,000 tonnes) being slid into dry dock at Mumbai by men pulling ropes. Men pulling ropes (quite gentle actually) was, and still is, a very effective way to place a big ship in dry dock exactly over the keel blocks which you cannot see and then hold the vessel in place as she lowers down gently as the water is drained out. Quite a sight.

The old HNLMS Karel Doorman was a great ship. Actually the most modernized of the Colossus class in the 1960s era. She had just been modernized and refitted when a boiler fire laid her up in 1968 and was used as an excuse by politicians to sell the old lady to Argentina. I wish India had bought her then but we didn't have the money and the Americans would have scowled very hard.
Attached Thumbnails
Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers-screenshot-112.png  


Last edited by V.Narayan : 22nd December 2020 at 08:53.
V.Narayan is offline   (3) Thanks
Old 22nd December 2020, 09:30   #327
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Reinhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pune
Posts: 4,188
Thanked: 13,671 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by V.Narayan View Post
The F-18E is without doubt a proven and very capable machine. With the IAF buying the Rafale it would be better IMHO that the IN go for the Rafale too. I do not know about its ski jump capabilities but its power to weight ratios seem to indicate it should not be too different from a MiG-29K.
I'm no expert of course but personally I'd rather the Rafale too for a lot of aspects, over an American frontline fighter. Technology aside, the licensing approach of the Americans seems rather complicated for what would be the primary fighting machine.

Also - I think the Rafale M doesn't have foldable wings - a key aspect for compact carriers with limited flight deck & hangar real estate. Storage would be tricky. The 29K and F18 both have this "feature". Of course the Super Hornet is a relatively larger plane in the first place. So that's that.
Reinhard is offline   (2) Thanks
Old 4th January 2021, 17:20   #328
Senior - BHPian
 
StarScream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Noida/Delhi
Posts: 1,260
Thanked: 652 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by V.Narayan View Post
Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm and its Carriers

In the beginning……

In the beginning there was YN Singh. Period.
Thank you for this. Y.N. Singh was my wife's maternal grandfather.

I got a write up on him in a family WhatsApp group that breaks down his career in greater detail. I assume the source is the same as yours, since some of the wording is identical:

Beginning of Indian Naval Fleet Air Arm

Rarely in the history of an Armed Force can you pinpoint a person or a date or an aircraft that marks the beginning? In the case of Indian Naval Aviation all three are possible.

YN Singh was the only Indian Naval officer to train with the Royal Navy‘s Fleet Air Arm in the middle of World War II. And for 4 years he trained and flew with the Royal Navy from their carriers fighting the Germans and the Japanese shoulder to shoulder with his white British colleagues. He was the first Indian Naval aviator, the first Indian to land on a carrier, the first Indian (ever) to pilot a helicopter, the first Indian to qualify flying amphibious seaplanes and the first to command an Indian Naval Air Squadron.

And for all this our beloved Indian bureaucracy wanted him to pay for his training as a pilot because it was undertaken, in the fog of war, without their approval and actually harassed him for some years!! YN Singh later rose to be a Commodore and after retirement became the Bihar chief of the Communist Party of India! Sadly he is no longer with us.

Commodore YN Singh, the pioneer aviator of the Indian Navy, who retired from service in 1969 as Commodore, was in his twenty first year when he was commissioned in the Royal Indian Navy on 01 May 1943 as an Acting Sub- Lieutenant. He had already completed his training as a direct entry cadet and Midshipman at Dartmouth and had served on board a Royal Navy Cruiser, the Enterprise.

Even before he was commissioned, he had applied for becoming an aviator but his application was turned down as the RIN authorities did not at that time contemplating setting up an aviation wing. His knowledge of naval aviation was thus restricted to the short air course undertaken as a part of the Sub-Lieutenants courses conducted at Lee-on-Solent.

The opportunity to become a naval aviator presented itself to YN Singh under interesting circumstances. He was serving in a Royal Navy destroyer which was sunk by German bombers off the coast of North Africa, an action in which he played an effective part for which he was promptly awarded the oak leaf. On repatriation to the UK in October 1943, Singh was Mentioned in Despatches and selected by British Admiralty for flying training at St.Eugene In Quebec, Canada, because England was chock-a-block with operational commitments, along with a batch of Royal Navy and South African Navy, and later shifted to Kingston on Lake Ontario, where he flew Harvards. He then returned to Yeovilton in Somerset, England where qualified in flying Wildcats and Hellcats as an operational pilot. On January 16, 1944 he became a Lieutenant and was posted to the British Western Fleet based at Trincomalee for operational flying.

The air station from where flying training sorties were launched was Patlam (later named Ratnamala) near Colombo and the aircraft Singh flew from the air station and the Royal Navy Aircraft Carrier Ameer were Hellcats. The Ameer was escort carrier with a squadron of Hellcats operating off Trincomalee where Sing had his baptism of fire and thus the first Indian to have become a naval aviator and to have taken off from and landed on an aircraft carrier, that too in actual battle conditions.

In 1945 an armada of ships of the Eastern Fleet set off from Trincomalee for an invasion of occupied Burma and Singh was about to be bloodied in war when, while the ships of the Fleet were sailing across the waters east of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the bomb fell on Nagasaki in Japan. The fleet stopped its onward move and began circling around off the Andaman’s when there were several Kamikaze attacks on British Ships by Japanese aircraft and one of the cruisers escorting the strike force was severely damaged. Singh was involved in a dogfight with one of these aircraft while flying Hellcats and came out unscathed.

Singh had been sent by the Admiralty for flying training not with the intention of initiating the creation of a Fleet Requirement Unit for the Indian Navy or for the acquisition of an aircraft carrier. His flying conversion was considered to be the first step towards developing an inter service Organisation for conducting combined operations against the Japanese in the Bay of Bengal for it was considered that a qualified naval pilot from the Royal Indian Navy would be ideally suited in an advisory capacity at the Combined Headquarters in this theater. But the time his services were available for this purpose, peace had descended on South East Asia.

Unfortunately for Singh, the Naval Headquarters in India came to know of his flying training only after he had returned to India, when the authorities realised the full administrative implication of this specialization without their approval. The officer was thereafter pressured for a considerable period even after the war was over, for contributing towards the cost of his flying training, which had been duly debited to the Royal Indian Navy account by the admiralty.

After Independence Singh worked at Naval Headquarters and assisted in compiling the requirements of the aviation wing for the first plans papers for independent India’s Navy under Commodore Martin St.L.Nott, Commander (later Admiral) AK Chatterjee , Lieutenant Commander (later Vice Admiral) N. Krishnan with Wing Commander (later Air Chief Marshal) P.C. Lal as the technical advisor. As mentioned earlier, at this time, the Government had accepted in principle the acquisition of as many as six aircraft carriers for the Indian Navy for which a Fleet Requirement had been sanctioned.

During this period, Singh continued to fly at Palam and Amritsar but the aircraft he flew were Spitfires, MKS 8, 9 and 14 of the Indian Air Force. He was soon sent back to Yeovilton in England for a refresher course in flying followed by an instrument flying course. He then underwent a helicopter conversion course at Gosport and became the first Indian to qualify as a helicopter pilot, years before Indian Air Force deputed its first batch of pilots for helicopter training. He soon added another first to his credit by becoming the first Indian to qualify in flying an amphibious aircraft when he flew Sea Otter at Lee-on-Solent.

Another important assignment for Singh was his appointment to the newly commissioned naval air station, Garuda as its first Commander (Air) and the Commanding officer of the Fleet Requirement Unit. He led the formation of Sealand Aircraft which flew past Bombay Harbour on October 10, 1953 when President Rajendra Prasad reviewed the fleet, the first such review after independence. He then landed his aircraft on water between rows of ships formed up for the Review, taxied his Sealand to the flagship Delhi, and was presented to the president and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Lal Nehru. While taking off Singh had some anxious moment caused by a Harbour craft crossing his path but managed to take off after taking suitable action.

Singh later served as the Commanding Officer of Garuda and supervised the construction of the air traffic control tower and setting up the school for Naval Airmen, the Naval Air Repair Organisation the Photographic unit and the Safety Equipment Section.

Before the Commissioning of the Vikrant, Singh who was senior most officer in the Navy’s aviation branch, was designated Commander (Air). He was sent to England for six weeks to study the functioning of carrier, where he joined the work up team and also supervised the completion of ship.

Commodore Y.N.Singh’s name will find a pride of place in the annals of the Navy for having been the Service’s first aviator, the first carrier pilot, the first carrier pilot to undergo the baptism of fire in actual conditions and the first Indian Helicopter Pilot.

Commodore Y.N.Singh’s later settled in Patna wrote on Naval Mutiny
I am an Old Mutineer----
I was then in the ship Kistna at Port Blair, which was the base for 37th Minesweeping Flotilla, Captain J.T.S. Hall, RIN (Later Commander In Chief of the RIN after India’s Independence) was the MS 37. I was a Lieutenant, RIN. The Flotilla consisted of about 10 ships. I recollect vaguely.

“The day the revolt broke out at Port Blair, I was supposed to take over as OOD. The national flag was already at the mast head. I refused to take over my duty at 0800 and placed under cabin arrest with sentries outside my cabin. So began the glorious Day of life –a day which proved to be full of revolutionary ardor. It was my plan to take command of the 37th M.S.Flotilla in Kistna and proceed to Bombay to join my patriotic brethren and make a common cause with them.
(Further to it is not available on net)

(His Son Cdr Bharat Singh, 50th Course NDA, Gold medalist, Sword holder at Midshipman time, is presently a Merchant Navy Master. His Grand Daughter is Enakshi Singh)
StarScream is offline   (8) Thanks
Old 21st March 2021, 09:29   #329
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Delhi-NCR
Posts: 3,024
Thanked: 35,818 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Indian Naval Air Squadron (INAS) 310, The Cobras, is celebrating its Diamond Jubilee on 21 Mar 21.

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1706270

Indian Naval Air Squadron (INAS) 310, The Cobras, a maritime reconnaissance squadron of the Indian Navy based at Goa is celebrating its Diamond Jubilee on 21 Mar 21. Commissioned at Hyéres, France on 21 Mar 61, the squadron holds the distinction of being the most decorated unit of the Indian Navy. INAS 310 was commissioned by Nawab Ali Yavar Jung on 21 Mar 1961 in Heyres, France. The squardon was headed by Lieutenant Commander Mihir K Roy (later Vice Admiral). Vice Admiral M K Roy and Commodore RAJ Anderson, interestingly the pilots who carried out the first landing of the Alize on INS Vikrant, 60 years ago {see photo below} are among the 100 odd veterans attending the ceremony.

INAS 310 has rendered yeoman service to the nation in numerous operations since 1961 and continues to carry out daily surveillance operations over the coastline. The squadron operated the carrier borne Alize aircraft until 1991 and subsequently migrated to the shore based Dornier-228 aircraft. The Do-228 are maritime recce and electronic warfare aircraft. The Breguet Alize was a carrier borne maritime reconnaissance and ASW aircraft. In 1999, Kargil war the Do-228s served in Kashmir as electronic warfare assets.

In the last one year, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, flying across the length and breadth of the nation, the aircraft of the squadron have delivered critical medical supplies, COVID test kits and transported medical teams and samples, clocking close to 1000 sorties.

Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers-a11.jpg
First ever landing of an Alize, at sea, on INS Vikrant

Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers-a2.jpg
Breguet Alize

Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers-a3.jpg
Dornier Do 228, today's ride
V.Narayan is offline   (6) Thanks
Old 15th April 2021, 21:06   #330
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Chester
Posts: 498
Thanked: 1,157 Times
Default Re: Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers

Chinese Type-003 begins to take shape

Some regional carrier news. Looks like H I Sutton's managed to work out the rough scale from OSINT images, placing the lower hull nearly in the ball park of the Ford class.

Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers-chinesenavytype003aircraftcarrier.jpg
Note this is clearly only based on the lower hull as that's all we can see completed so far, but still an interesting metric. No clues as yet on the flight deck dimensions for the same reasons

Quote:
The above satellite image allows us to estimate its waterline length at about 300 meters (985 feet). This is slightly less than the Ford Class’ 317 meters (1,040 feet) but longer than the previous carriers. China’s Type-001 Liaoning and Type-002 Shandong carriers are about 270 meters (885 feet) long at the waterline.
Quite a few unknowns still about this new carrier type for the PLAN.
No word on the exact nature of the propulsion (whether it'll be an integrated electric system or the reworked steam turbines seen on the existing PLAN carriers). Similarly no confirmation yet if the Type-003 will have EMALS, though most of the chatter agrees this will be a true flat top, especially with that much projected deck real estate.

If you wish to read more: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...s/#prettyPhoto

Personally I'm curious how quickly they'll get this one out to sea, given the much greater complexity compared to earlier surface vessels. That being said, Chinese shipyards have been pumping out giant destroyers and LHDs at a scarcely believable pace in recent years. The pessimistic take is that this massive naval shipbuilding spree is all part of the very real ambition to firmly hold on to gains made in the SCS and perhaps even some sort of action to take Taiwan in time with important anniversary milestones for the CCP.

Anyway, any news on the Indian carrier front? Not seen much of the Vikrant since that tweet of her setting off for sea trials. And that's quite a few months ago. Come to think of it, staffing for civilian contractors, will it have been impacted by COVID? If so I can picture timelines being pushed back (unless those civilian contractors got special dispensation).
ads11 is offline   (2) Thanks
Reply

Most Viewed
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks