INS Vikramaditya: News and Discussion

[Philip]

Which is why the RN has developed its own version of the KA-31 EW helo using Merlins,earlier Sea Kings.Though not as versatile as a US cat launched EW aircraft like E-2s,the advent of UAVs and even unmanned helos,is considerably enhancing the EW reach of warships and carriers.A combination of EW helos and long endurance UAVs would give a STOBAR carrier a decent EW capability.

[member_23455]

Nobody has really answered my question about MiG's MTOW without a catapult assist on Vikramaditya. On other forums, people are saying that the MiG fighters will only offer minimal value as fleet defence fighters since they can only take off with 4000 kgs

Really? What kind of answer would you expect other than which has already been provided to you a few days back?

What is the combat weapons load-out of the MIg-29s when taking off from a ski-ramp on INS Vikramaditya? How much weaponry can she carry while taking off from the ship?

You have to take in consideration of the fuel requirements as well.

Good question. Advertised combat load is 5500 kgs. What that does to the operational range of the Mig-29k however will mean that typical loads might be lower.

The other thing to keep in mind in carrier ops is "bringback". In order to be able to land back on the ship, ordnance and stores have to be jettisoned into the sea frequently by the aircraft (one major negative with the Harrier family). So taking off with a combat load that you can bringback is what normal missions do.

Oh, it gets worse. The take-off and landing paths intersect, so aircraft can't take off and land simultaneously.

...beg your pardon? Is there an expectation that a carrier does simultaneous launch and recoveries??!! Do not pass GO, Do not collect $2 million, Go straight to carrier school.

[titash]

Nobody has really answered my question about MiG's MTOW without a catapult assist on Vikramaditya. On other forums, people are saying that the MiG fighters will only offer minimal value as fleet defence fighters since they can only take off with 4000 kgs instead of 9000 kgs and because of this, this ship will not be effective anywhere else but the IOR and only against non-NATO forces. And based on this, this is overkill and waste of money because to achieve what this ship does can be done with cheaper alternatives.

Will adding a catapult make a big difference and how much does it cost to do so?

Hitesh - An R-77 weighs approx 200 kg; an R-73 weighs approx 100 kg. A typical fleet air defence loadout will be 4x BVR + 2x WVR on 6 hardpoints, with fuel on 1 or 2 hardpoints. So, 1000 kg + rest fuel.

The strike package is where the MTOW comes into play. VTOL sucks, the ski jump helps, but the catapult is what really makes the difference. About 60 years ago, Amir Khan decided that naval fighters shouldn't have to compromise on performance just because they take off from a carrier...hence the uninterrupted train of catapult equipped supercarriers.

As of today, the only people with catapults are Amir Khan and the French (that too a US made catapult on a solitary flat top). So, no reason to feel so inferior - we aren't going to fight either of them. In any case, catapults were not being offered to us when were evaluating Vicky in 1997-2000

And what exactly were the "cheaper alternatives" ???

Rafale/F-18...too expensive and need catapult
Harrier FA2/AV-8B...less capable than the MiG-29K
Su-33...less mission-capable than the MiG-29K and we'd need to buy the Kuz
Yak-38...even less capable than the Sea Harrier FRS.51
F-35...not in Indian colors for at least a decade from today
LCA...smaller, less capable, and not yet in service

[NRao]

So, no reason to feel so inferior - we aren't going to fight either of them

Well, only China would be sea based, the rest I would imagine would be land based. ????? So, what is carried should matter.

Will adding a catapult make a big difference

Short answer: yes it should. However, I am not too sure what the mid term future for India would look like. India does nto seem to be moving too fast towards absorbing any of the newer technologies too fast. So, we can talk of UAVs, etc, but who knows. India could get another zombie in the PM and he may de-fang the IN ( as seems to be the case with the IA to some extent).

The take-off and landing paths intersect, so aircraft can't take off and land simultaneously

On the Vicky it was never possible - heck we need to be thankful for what they made out of it. On the Vikrant, perhaps too late. May be possible on the next one, but they have to go the Cat route and I would suspect they need to be in the Nimitz class range - in which case they should be able to fit two cats to launch and one to recover.

[member_23455]

The take-off and landing paths intersect, so aircraft can't take off and land simultaneously


On the Vicky it was never possible - heck we need to be thankful for what they made out of it. On the Vikrant, perhaps too late. May be possible on the next one, but they have to go the Cat route and I would suspect they need to be in the Nimitz class range - in which case they should be able to fit two cats to launch and one to recover.

What is this, April 1?

Now we need a cat for a recovery? Simultaneous launch and recoveries?

I am sorry but to see the stuff defence journalists get called on this forum and then to read such posts is positively embarrassing.

[Cosmo_R]

@RajitO ^^^:

"The flight deck is angled at nine degrees, which allows for aircraft to be launched and recovered simultaneously. This angle of the flight deck was reduced slightly in relation to previous carriers, as the current design improves the air flow around the carrier.[10] Four steam catapults are used to launch fixed-wing aircraft, and four arrestor wires are used for recovery. The two newest carriers, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, only have three arrestor wires each, as the fourth was used infrequently on earlier ships and was therefore deemed unnecessary. This CATOBAR arrangement allows for faster launching and recovery as well as a much wider range of aircraft that can be used on board compared with smaller aircraft carriers, most of which use a simpler STOVL arrangement without catapults or arrestor wires. The ship's aircraft operations are controlled by the air boss from Primary Flight Control or Pri-Fly. Four large elevators transport aircraft between the flight deck and the hangars below. These hangars are divided into three bays by thick steel doors that are designed to restrict the spread of fire.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-cla ... ft_carrier

You might want to go on Wikipedia and correct this. Millions are being misled.

[titash]

@RajitO ^^^:

"The flight deck is angled at nine degrees, which allows for aircraft to be launched and recovered simultaneously. This angle of the flight deck was reduced slightly in relation to previous carriers, as the current design improves the air flow around the carrier.[10] Four steam catapults are used to launch fixed-wing aircraft, and four arrestor wires are used for recovery. The two newest carriers, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, only have three arrestor wires each, as the fourth was used infrequently on earlier ships and was therefore deemed unnecessary. This CATOBAR arrangement allows for faster launching and recovery as well as a much wider range of aircraft that can be used on board compared with smaller aircraft carriers, most of which use a simpler STOVL arrangement without catapults or arrestor wires. The ship's aircraft operations are controlled by the air boss from Primary Flight Control or Pri-Fly. Four large elevators transport aircraft between the flight deck and the hangars below. These hangars are divided into three bays by thick steel doors that are designed to restrict the spread of fire.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-cla ... ft_carrier

You might want to go on Wikipedia and correct this. Millions are being misled.

Cosmo_R, I think what he means is that CATOBAR greatly reduces the take-off run necessary to get airborne with MTOW. Under these circumstances, the rest of the flight deck can be used for parking and simultaneous recovery of the aircraft. The supercarriers have 4 catapults including #1 and #2 in the bow area that can be used to launch even while recovering aircraft on the angled deck (where incidentally #3 and #4 lie)

Vicky has a smaller flight deck and medium to long take offs are needed with the ski-jump. In that sense yes, the CATOBAR arrangement does allow for simultaneous (faster) launching and recovery.

[titash]

Well, only China would be sea based, the rest I would imagine would be land based. ????? So, what is carried should matter.

But who are the rest NRao-ji? The pakis onlee; and we share a land border with them.

Vicky can only be used against land based air power when the opposing forces are small, less capable, and/or with the element of surprise. Each supercarrier has enough 4+ generation fighters, AWACS, Tanker, and EW support to fight a full scale war against the air forces of most nations and win. That is not the case with Vicky.

The Vicky will be used for fleet air defence where it should perform credibly. With Ka-31 support, the mach 2+ MiG-29K should be able to credibly defend against MPA and a 4-5 strong strike package of mirages/thandaars/J-15 that the pakis or chinese carriers can put together.

Vicky can probably put together a 8-10 strong strike package for surprise raids on Karachi/Gwadar or the chinese surface fleet. But that's about it. We aren't going to indulge in squadron level battles. No one can...other than Amir Khan

[Viv S]

Yes,it's not ideal,a wider flight deck would've been better,but there is no shop on the globe where you would get a virtually brand new carrier such as this for such a paltry sum.

Oh yes you could. The Italian carrier Cavour built by Fincantieri was about $2 billion. At 30,000 tons its got a smaller aircraft complement, but not as much as their disparity in tonnage would suggest. And for the record, unlike the Gorshkov refurbishment, this amount includes the ship's armament, battle management systems etc.

The real kicker is that it was laid down in July 2001 and commissioned in March 2008. About six and a half years. Compare that to the nearly ten years taken to handover the Vikramaditya to the Indian Navy after signing of the deal in Jan 2004..

The QE class is upwards of 6.5B pounds without her aircraft and helo complement too.

The cost of the aviation complement is never included in the cost of an aircraft carrier. And the £6.2 billion is for two carriers not one.

In addition,there is very useful space behind the island and movement of personnel and utility vehicles could use this space.

Its not a floating garage. There's little doubt that the layout of the carrier is inefficient and reflects its cruiser heritage.

Russia did say that if we weren't interested in the carrier they would gladly pick it up!

It was India that provided the capital for the carrier's refurbishment just like it was India that foot the bill for the development of the MiG-29K. Today the Russian Navy is acquiring the MiG-29K and retiring its Su-33s (just like the Russian Air Force is comfortably buying the Su-30SM from MKI line). Of course they'd have been happy to step in and 'relieve' us of the carrier as well.

[Lalmohan]

the russian mil-eng complex has used us for emergency working capital whilst russia sorts its economy out
but that is not a problem in it self, as long as we've learnt something for the benefit of our own mil-eng complex

[aditya_d]

INS Vikramaditya leaves Sevmash for Indian journey

Less than a fortnight after it was formally commissioned in the Russian town of Severodvinsk, India's newest and largest ever warship – the INS Vikramaditya – has started on its long journey home. The aircraft carrier left the Sevmash shipyard on Tuesday – after a nine year refit and refurbish programme – and will make its way to Murmansk in Northern Russia.

The carrier, which is currently in the White Sea, will refuel in Murmansk for a few days and will be joined with a Talwar class frigate as well as refuler ship INS Deepak that will accompany it on its way to Karwar in India.

"The ship will go through three oceans and several seas to the port of Karwar in India. It is planned that the aircraft carrier will reach India in the end of January. While crossing the distance at sea the crew will check the (air) conditioning system which should be tested at full load in conditions of tropical climate in the Indian ocean," a Sevmash spokesperson said.

Besides an Indian crew that is bringing it home, the shop also has a team of shipyard specialists - 177 persons who participated in the tests of the aircraft carrier. Part of specialists team will remain in India for a year as part of the guarantee contract. A detailed service support contract for the life time of the ship – 20 to 40 years – will also be negotiated within the next year.

[member_23694]

Apologies if i went too out of Topic in this post

Viv I liked your argument.
Very objective and makes sense though Vikramaditya now under the current situation is the best we have .
For the Navy the best would be to take this learning for IAC 2 and P 75 I.
I am not sure of the kind of TOT received for Scorpene and now again huge amount of money being set aside in the
name of TOT for P 75 I. Best would be to go off the shelf purchase for 6 conventional submarine for
around $ 5 Billion (wiki suggest S-80 cost $ ~700 million or any other which may be better ). Some additional amount is budgeted for
the supplier to take care of some of the Indian navy specific requirements (Brahmos / K series etc).
The supplier could build them at their facility or in India with public/pvt industry with the target to make them available to Navy in 5-10 years timeline.
Point is if we are getting TOT for Scorpene then how are we leveraging it for other subs and now why the new TOT
requirement for P 75 I . Is the new TOT requirement only for AIP. When will this TOT thing for conventional subs stop.

With ATV now out of secrecy, and launch of Nuke subs not being much of classified info worldwide (though deployment probably is),
involve at least Indian industries for an assembly line of at least 5+5 such nuke subs.

For IAC 2 may be a collaboration with constructor of QE class in terms of design and construction could help in quicker turnaround time

[member_23455]

You might want to go on Wikipedia and correct this. Millions are being misled.

Sorry boss. Next you'll be asking me to write to Webster to redefine what "simultaneous" stands for. Do read the latest MIT Technology Review article on Wikipedia though if that is your thing.

If BR can keep to the standards that it demands from DDM I'm a happy camper.

[Cosmo_R]

You might want to go on Wikipedia and correct this. Millions are being misled.

Sorry boss. Next you'll be asking me to write to Webster to redefine what "simultaneous" stands for. Do read the latest MIT Technology Review article on Wikipedia though if that is your thing.

If BR can keep to the standards that it demands from DDM I'm a happy camper.

Not interested in MIT stuff. Seriously, though, you sound like someone who knows--you should make the edit effort else, we'll be quoting wikipedia and lowering BR standards and making you an unhappy camper.

[Philip]

The MIG-29K naval variant was planned long ago before the IN acquired the Gorshkov.It was developed in the late '80s while the Gorshkov deal was signed much later in Jan 2004.Secondly,even if we paid for development,almost the same cost per unit has been charged for both the IN and RuN. (

India paid $730 million for the development and delivery of 16 units, while 24 for the Russian Navy would cost approximately $1 billion.[43]

).the cost per aircraft to us was a measly $35+M ! In simple language,two MIG-29Ks can be acquired for the price of just one Rafale.The initial package deal was $1.5B (about $950M for the carrier and about $550M for 16 aircraft) for the carrier plus 16 MIG-29Ks.The second option of further 29 aircraft is also at the same price. Thirdly,the Cavour cannot operate aircraft other than STOVL carriers and in the future JSFs whose costs of ownership are still an unknown qty,and price per unit at a min. of $100M,where the Italian Col. of the fighter wing which is to operate it says that it has limited air-to-air capability and that they need the Typhoon as well! Fourthly,the aircraft is 15,000t smaller than the Vikram/Gorky and has no angled deck,cannot operate twin-engined strike 4th-gen aircraft like Rafales,F-18s or MIG-29Ks.

Facts about the origin of the MIG-29K:

The MiG-29K project was initiated in the late 1970s when the Soviet Navy developed a requirement for a supersonic carrier-based fighter. As a first step to meet this requirement, the Mikoyan design bureau designed a "proof of concept" version of the MiG-29 fitted with a stronger undercarriage and a reinforced tail section with an arrestor hook, the MiG-29KVP (Korotkii Vzlet i Posadka, or "short take off and landing").[4] The KVP first flew on 21 August 1982, and was subject to extensive trials which demonstrated it could safely operate from a ski-jump, but ideally a production aircraft needed more power and greater wing area.[5][6] It was decided to base the definitive naval version on the advanced MiG-29M (Product 9.15) that was already under development, further modified with new undercarriage and folding wings of greater area, with the new model designated the MiG-29K (Korabelniy – "ship based") or Project 9–31.[3][7] The MiG-29K differed considerably from the MiG-29 production model, featuring a new multi-function radar, dubbed Zhuk; a cockpit with monochrome display and use of the HOTAS (hands-on-throttle-and-stick) principle; the RVV-AE air-to-air active homing missiles; antiship and antiradar missiles; as well as air-to-ground precision-guided weapons. To protect the engine from FOD, the engine inlets were fitted with retractable grills instead of the LERX louvres used by land-based MiG-29s.[8][9]
A MiG-29M on display. The MiG-29M was developed into a naval version, the MiG-29K.

The MiG-29Ks first flight was performed on 23 July 1988 at Saky by test pilot Toktar Aubakirov.[10] On 1 November 1989, on the same day as the Sukhoi Su-27K,[N 1] Aubakirov executed the first carrier landing of MiG-29K on the aircraft-carrying cruiser Tbilisi (now known as Admiral Kuznetsov), the first take-off from the carrier's deck was successfully performed the same day.[12] During 1989–1991, the MiG-29K underwent further tests aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov. The project was put on hold with the collapse of the Soviet Union, while the Russian Navy only pursued the rival Su-33.[13][N 2] Mikoyan continued work on the MiG-29K despite the lack of funding.[17][18]

During its tests aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser, the aircraft had a springboard-assisted takeoff from strips 195 m and 95 m long. According to the results of the tests, the landing accuracy proved to be very high, which made it possible at a later stage to switch over to a three-cable arrester system on the Admiral Gorshkov. The landing accuracy is additionally enhanced through the employment of an auto throttle system. The takeoff characteristics allow for most flights to be possible under tropical conditions at a ship speed of 10 knots.[17][18]

Some facts about the Cavour (Wik):

Cavour has a displacement of 27,900 tons but can reach more than 30,000 tons at full military capacity, after improvements done in 2008.[6]
The Italian Navy will replace its 16 Harriers with 15 (originally 22) F-35B within the next few years.[7] The F-35 schedule is uncertain at the moment, but it is planned to modify the Cavour to support the F-35 by 2016.[8] The Cavour will have room for ten F-35s in the hangar, and six more parked on deck.[7]

I did some research into how we came about the design for the IAC.The R.Adm. in charge of the naval design bureau in an old def. issue said that initially the IN wanted a carrier about 20,000t which would operate only Sea Harriers.Later on with the changing threat scenario a larger carrier,whose design was finally enlarged to just under 40,000t and able to carry a more modern and capable twin-engined supersonic fighter in greater number than a light carrier,with greater range,endurance,payload,weaponry,etc., was envisioned.The MIG-29s naval version fitted the bill all round.A decision was also made to acquire a naval variant of the LCA when available and the IN put hard money down for the same.Once the NLCA is perfected and commissioned,it will complement the MIG-29Ks on both the Vikram and IAC-1/Vikrant.The fundamental and significant diff. is that if we had plumped for a Cavour class carrier a decade+ ago,we would not be able to operate more sophisticated aircraft than the subsonic Harriers and held ransom to the only available STOVL aircraft being developed the JSF ,which was not on offer to us way back in 2004,plus is only appearing in service in strength from 2020 onwards for US allies.Our MIG-29Ks are already operational from land and will be integrated with the carrier once it arrives .
The IN's requirements were improvement over the basic MIG-29K naval variant for primarily a new radar and engines and general improvements overall.

Now the SU-33 is no longer in production,while the MIG-29K is.One reason why the SU-33 line is not being reopened is perhaps the high cost per unit of a small batch ,the immediate availability of the MIG-29K ,but what is more likely and has been hinted at,is that a naval version of the T-50/FGFA is being developed which will be the mainstay of future Russian carriers which are on the drawing board.In fact the first 4 MIG-29Ks for the first batch of 24 for the Russian navy have just been delivered on Monday! This also indicates the confidence that the Russians have with this design which has so many all round improvements over the earlier MIg-29 design including large use of composites.

[member_23455]

Not interested in MIT stuff. Seriously, though, you sound like someone who knows--you should make the edit effort else, we'll be quoting wikipedia and lowering BR standards and making you an unhappy camper.

I didn't see Wikipedia talk about catapults being used for recovery but that was introduced in the thread as well. The larger point is folks need to make confident assertions based on at least some sampling of different sources and understanding the context, otherwise we will have someone look at a Blue Angels video and tell us that G-suits are not required to fly hi-performance jet fighters.

There are posters like Pranay on here who have served on a US CVN, that's the kind of potential goldmine BR is sitting on.

[member_23364]

@Viv S

- When you compare ships with 50% tonnage difference and say their "aircraft complement do not differ much", please provide numbers. The Cavour carries 20 Harriers at max or 15 F-35's, while the Vik carries 34 Mig 29K's (if carrying only fighters). India would need 2 Cavours to carry the same air complement. That really erases the cost difference. If the Cavour was carrying 35 fighter jets, cost $2 Bill and was ready in 5 years new, I would say India got cheated royally. That's not the case.

You remind me of a used car salesman in Richmond, VA i met 3 years back. I went there to buy a 2-3 yr old Civic and i told him i had a budget of $11,000. He said for that money i could get a new Civic. I followed him dumbstruck round the lot and he showed me a 5 year old Accord and said-"better than a new Civic, ain't it".

- The Russians did scr@* up the refurbishment job. We know that. A 4-5 year job took 9 years. We got a second hand AC for $2.33 Bill. Yep. Can you show us a better deal? A similar AC sold for less? If yes, you have a point. If no, well, bury the hatchet.

- Why not compare the Cavour with a helicopter carrier, which is what it should be compared with actually because of similarities in tonnage and platform characteristics? A typical USN Wasp class carrier, larger than the Cavour costs less than $1 Billion. Why does the Cavour cost double?

-The Mig 29K development was over long before India bought the Mig 29K. The Indian order revived the production of the program. And at 16 aircraft for 750 Mill, pray tell me where is the development cost hidden? Forget the cost, there must have been a development time period, right, if we paid for the design? The contract was signed in 2004-05. The first Mig 29K took to the skies in early 2008 and was delivered to India in 2009 (the delay was because India had stipulated a number of tests to take place before taking delivery). And we all know that Russia is not known for punctuality. So did they develop/design the Mig 29K in 6 months?

What is the comparable cost of a F-18 Hornet, leave the SH? $60 Mill a pop. Or do you think that any non US aircraft should cost the equivalent of its weight in metal?

[member_28041]

INS Vikramaditya
-----------------

Intial Commissioned date : 1987
Present hull age : 26 years(Virtually New...huh?)
Cost : $2.35 billion(14,570 crores@62/$)
Self defence weapons: currently none. So Add its price to $2.35 billion

INS Vikrant
------------

Hull age on commission : Brand New
Cost : much less than $2.35 billion
Deck area : Greater than INS Vikramaditya

Cant belive we payed such a massive amount of money for a 26 year old junk.
Compare this with the new INS Vikrant which will cost lesser, is brand new and has a greater deck area.
Cant believe we went for this deal !!!

Yet some guys in this form has the balls to claim we got a bargain in this deal.

[Indranil]

^^^ Boss, please add the cost of development of infrastructure to build IAC to your cost estimation and you might realize that 2.35B is not that bad.

I am not saying that it is steal. But looking around, I don't think you would get much more for 2.35B.

[NRao]

* The question should not be if there was a comparable carrier sold for less, but would the money India paid got her a better carrier (by now). I cannot say for sure, but I am inclined to believe that India could have. One indicator would be the Vikrant. IF Vikrant is better designed and comes in under or around the cost of the Vicky then we should be able to say that India would have been better served if she had opted out of the Vicky

* On the topic of MiG-29K. Some time back I had posted an article in which the CNS stated that the MiG-29K had a lot of Indian improvements and that the Russians had decided to buy the plane (I am para phrasing some). I was told - by a poster on BR - to go check out Janes and wise up. Which I did (could not find anything of substance in Janes - so looked at other open source). From memory: The MiG-29K did compete - in the earlier years - with the Su, which (Su) won out, so the -29K was shelved (early part of 1990). Late 1990s MiG pulled it out again and redesigned the guts (not the frame) - for a variety of reasons. Along came the the Vicky deal and the Russians bundled the MiG-29K - at which point in time India asked for modifications. The point being the K was qualified for carrier in the early 90s, then had to be re-qualified in the late 90/early 00, but had no buyer what-so-ever. So, India did pay to pull it out of the fire - IF it were not for India there would have been no sale for this plane. And, IF India dropped the Vicky, the MiG-29K would have sunk - no two ways about that. For what it is worth, it is neither the 90's based MiG-29K nor the late 90's MiG-29K that is on the table now (for anyone). Both the In and RuN are purchasing the Indian modified MiG-29K, which (to me at least) is very different than the earlier two. And, in each mod, they had to re-qualify the plane.

Also, there is a MiG-29K walk-around (or whatever it is called) video by an IN man. In which he very clearly states that IN wrote the book on the MiG-29K, which is being used by others (where ever applicable).

So, granted that the development cost of the original MiG-29K was borne by MiG (or Russia perhaps), the next gen MiG-29K's cost was partially borne by MiG corp, followed by the IN version borne by India and this final version is benefiting the RuN. IF it were not for the IN there would be no MiG-29K as we know it.

Cannot speak on the cost of the plane - the plane has an unusual development history and cannot say what impact what.

[Indranil]

NRao sahab,

My assessment was in the same lines as your question. I asked myself could we get another Vikrant for 2.35B by 2014 from anywhere (including India). Please bear in mind that time is also of the essence with respect maintain our AC-skills especially in the context of the recent steps taken by the Chinese Navy of fielding Liaoning and building 2 more concurrently. To me the answer was no. May be you can prove my assessment wrong. (Let us leave the possibility of getting the Varyag in 1988. We all know the saga of that).

[Viv S]

The MIG-29K naval variant was planned long ago before the IN acquired the Gorshkov.It was developed in the late '80s while the Gorshkov deal was signed much later in Jan 2004.

Its common knowledge that the MiG-29K was built in 80s. 'Development' here referred to the program and not the navalization of the MiG-29 airframe. The engine, avionics and airframe were of course upgraded but more importantly the production infrastructure was driven by Indian investment.

In simple language,two MIG-29Ks can be acquired for the price of just one Rafale.The initial package deal was $1.5B (about $950M for the carrier and about $550M for 16 aircraft) for the carrier plus 16 MIG-29Ks.The second option of further 29 aircraft is also at the same price.

The questions raised were with regard to the Gorshkov purchase, not the MiG-29K.

Thirdly,the Cavour cannot operate aircraft other than STOVL carriers and in the future JSFs whose costs of ownership are still an unknown qty,and price per unit at a min. of $100M,

A. The Cavour isn't for sale. The reference was the illustrate the cost of contracting a foreign shipyard to build a new carrier.
B. The MiG-29K was a STOVL aircraft when last I checked.

where the Italian Col. of the fighter wing which is to operate it says that it has limited air-to-air capability and that they need the Typhoon as well!

That should come as a surprise to the dozen air forces that of ordered the F-35, including the Aeronautica Militare. Its blatantly obvious what the point of that statement was. The point behind your quoting of it is less obvious. Maybe not.

Fourthly,the aircraft is 15,000t smaller than the Vikram/Gorky and has no angled deck,cannot operate twin-engined strike 4th-gen aircraft like Rafales,F-18s or MIG-29Ks.

Again, the Cavour isn't for sale. Finmeccanica however was available for hire.

Now the SU-33 is no longer in production,while the MIG-29K is.

The MiG-29K was very much available when the Su-33 was originally ordered for the Kuznetsov back in the 80s. They're opting for it today for the same reason that the Russian air force has 60 Su-30SMs on order today. Both programs have been spurred by orders from India. Point is the willingness of the Russians to take the carrier 'off-our-hands' is quite the stamp of approval that you're making it out to be.

[NRao]

Royji,

I started writing that way before - even before the poster prior to you, but pressed the submit button after you did.

However, two things:
* Like I mentioned the Vikrant will provide some insight - I feel - if it was feasible or not. Some direction
* I need to do a little more research. Hope to get back - some time

[Indranil]

I stand to learn from your research. But please no "ji" for me.

[NRao]

Ayse kaise ho sakta hai? You use "sahab" and then turn around and say no to "ji"?

On research - we need to do it together (I think). Reduces the errors that a way.

[Viv S]

NRao sahab,

My assessment was in the same lines as your question. I asked myself could we get another Vikrant for 2.35B by 2014 from anywhere (including India). To me to the answer has been no. May be you can prove my assessment wrong. (Let us leave the possibility of getting the Varyag in 1988. We all know the saga of that).

Why not? New STOVL carrier built by a foreign shipyard to the IN's specs. I've mentioned the Cavour to illustrate the costs involved (though somehow some folks have interpreted that as a suggestion to buy a Cavour class AC). Given that a 30,000 ton carrier was acquired for about $1.5 billion (plus another $500 million or so for the kit), its not a stretch to assume that a 45,000 ton carrier could be acquired for under $2.5 billion and delivered in a similar if not shorter timeline.

To add to which, it would have had a far far superior design and could have shared component and design commonalities with the INS Vikrant. Fincantieri is a consultant on the IAC program and the Cavour for example already shares its LM2500 turbines and Oto Melara gun with the Vikrant.

The IN/MoD accepted the Gorshkov proposal because it was being offered at just $800 million. Had they known what they were getting into they'd most likely have passed on it (IIRC at one point the Russians were demanding $3.2 billion for the vessel).

[Indranil]

I don't think your extrapolation for costs is valid.

1) I don't think Fincantieri has experience building defense ships of that tonnage. The Italian Navy even has problems with dry docking the Cavours.
2) They have no experience with arrested recovery either.

[Philip]

Indranil has made the important point about maintaining our carrier cpabilities at a time when it could've very easily gone to sleep...permanently,during the "lost decade".The Viraat was even a decade ago being nursed along and it is a miracle that the IN has been able to keep it in fighting shape 50 years after it was built.It was imperative that the IN acquire a carrier in the late '90s and the IN did look around for the same and finally decided upon the Gorshkov as being the best option.The Varyag-even if we able to refit it ,repair the hull,etc.,would've cost us a lot more,required a larger air fleet and the clinching factor against it ,if I remember right,was that no Indian dockyard at that time was capable of handling it.It is a good 15-20,000t more than the Vikram.

Now back to the Cavour Q.The Cavour is not,was not meant to be a genuine flat top.In fact it is a multi-role light carrier that also has an amphib op role where its hangar is configured to house armoured vehicles,etc. In some respects it resembles the Spanish JCarlos class and should really be compared with that warship rather than the Vikram/Gorshkov.The MIG-29K was never ever a STOVL fighter.It has no vert. landing capability at all.

The ship is designed to combine fixed wing V/STOL and helicopter air operations, command and control operations and the transport of military or civil personnel and heavy vehicles. The 134 m (440 ft), 2,800 m2 (30,000 sq ft) hangar space can double as a vehicle hold capable of holding up to 24 main battle tanks (typically Ariete) or many more lighter vehicles (50 Dardo IFV, 100+ Iveco LMV), and is fitted aft with access ramps rated to 70 tons, as well as two elevators rated up to 30 tons for aircraft. Cavour can also operate as Landing Platform Helicopter, accommodating heavy transport helicopters (EH 101 ASH) and 325 marines.

Juan Carlos,27,000t,cost $600M finally,Oz is building 2 similar ships as LHDs,chosen over the Mistral,but Russia chose the Mistral ,4 to be built,perhaps because they operate the Kuznetsov and do no require the STOVL aircraft role,plus a the Mistral being a smaller and cheaper vessel.:

The vessel has a flight deck of 202 m (663 ft), with a "ski-jump" ramp. The ship's flight deck has eight landing spots for Harrier, F-35 Lightning II or medium-sized helicopters, four spots for heavy helicopters of the CH-47 Chinook type, and one spot large enough for aircraft of V-22 Osprey size.[7] The ship can carry up to 30 aircraft in aircraft carrier mode, using the light vehicles bay as an additional storage zone.[7]

For the first time in the Spanish Navy, the ship uses diesel-electric propulsion, simultaneously connecting both diesels and the new technology gas turbine powerplant to a pair of azimuthal pods.

The complement of the ship is around 900 naval personnel, with equipment and support elements for 1,200 soldiers. Multi-functional garage and hangar space on two levels covers 6,000 m2 (65,000 sq ft), with capacity for 6,000 tonnes load on each level. A stern well deck measuring 69.3 by 16.8 m (227 by 55 ft) can accommodate four LCM-1E landing craft which can beach-deliver non-swimming ground vehicles like tanks and four RHIBs, or one Landing Craft Air Cushion plus Assault Amphibious Vehicles.[8]

In retrospect today we talk about the IAC,since the carrier has been launched earlier in the year,but it was nowhere on the horizon a decade ago,with even the design not yet finalised.Secondly by acquiring the virtually new Gorshkov/Vikram (read the full details of the refit and refurbishment),we will within 3 years time fulfill our long cherished dream of operating two modern carriers which will serve us for 30-40 years-and also have the Viraat until 2020,plus from 2020+ onwards see the third new carrier,a larger IAC-2 also inducted.When you consider the Chinese plan to build 5-6 carriers of Varyag dimensions asap,one will understand the significance of the IN acquiring the Gorshkov/Vikram and the qualitative and quantitative lead we now have now against the PLAN ,even now with the Vikram and Viraat.The PLAN will send in large numbers of their subs into the IOR and ASW warfare will be on of the prime roles for the IN's carriers apart from LR strike anywhere in the IOR and ops in the Indo-China Sea.

[NRao]

I don't think your extrapolation for costs is valid.

1) I don't think Fincantieri has experience building defense ships of that tonnage. The Italian Navy even has problems with dry docking the Cavours.
2) They have no experience with arrested recovery either.

A) From experience PoV: What experience did India have to take on the Vikrant?

If India is able to get Vikrant done, I have to assume that an experience shipbuilders would be able to complete the project too.

B ) Russia. She has boat loads of experience. She was able to take a rust bucket, gut her and rebuild the entire ship - inside out. Russia claims this is a brand new ship - and I would not doubt it. So ...

From a time PoV: If Russia could do all that (the Vicky), why would they not be able to build a brand new ship in the same time period?

From a cost PoV: Russia thinks India got a steal. OK. So, let us say the fair price of a brand new carrier is $3 billion. Do we really think Russia could nto build a brand new ship for that price?

IN will make do with the Vicky, but, my point is that India could have got more bang for her buck. And, I really have not come across an argument out there to say other wise.

??????

[member_28131]

^ Hey NRao,

We got into a cycle of cost escalations. The original price of the ship was supposed to be a lot lower. Having spent the initial cost, it was either invest more or lose the money invested which is why India decided to stay. A wise decision IMO. I am happy that both our men and MoD toughed it out.

Pulling out of the deal would have also caused a major setback in the Indo-Russian military ties.

[NRao]

I think the question that is being attempted to be resolved is whether India could have got a brand new carrier in the 10 years ending 2014 and within the cost of $2.2 billion. Serious time-pass.

_______________________________________

However, to roll along with you, are you trying to tell me that Indo-Russian defense ties are good right now? Time will tell about the Vicky (one of the IN guys was outright nasty). The FGFA is struggling. Only some T-72 barrels for the T-90 (or something like that) and more Tin-90 (BTW, the "in" stands for India - do not read too much into that) seem to be on the up and about. MTA seems to be simmering.

[member_20067]

I don't think your extrapolation for costs is valid.

1) I don't think Fincantieri has experience building defense ships of that tonnage. The Italian Navy even has problems with dry docking the Cavours.
2) They have no experience with arrested recovery either.

A) From experience PoV: What experience did India have to take on the Vikrant?

If India is able to get Vikrant done, I have to assume that an experience shipbuilders would be able to complete the project too.

B ) Russia. She has boat loads of experience. She was able to take a rust bucket, gut her and rebuild the entire ship - inside out. Russia claims this is a brand new ship - and I would not doubt it. So ...

From a time PoV: If Russia could do all that (the Vicky), why would they not be able to build a brand new ship in the same time period?

From a cost PoV: Russia thinks India got a steal. OK. So, let us say the fair price of a brand new carrier is $3 billion. Do we really think Russia could nto build a brand new ship for that price?

IN will make do with the Vicky, but, my point is that India could have got more bang for her buck. And, I really have not come across an argument out there to say other wise.

??????

On the hindsight the whole deal looks bad---no one really did a good job of estimating the task involved-- the blame should be shared by both Russians and Indians..--The ship still needs to include the armament which will easily cost 1 billion or so --- to the overall price tag will be closed to 4 billion and few change but hey we got a fairly decent platform-- hope it can withstand tropical weather..

[member_23455]

A. The Cavour isn't for sale. The reference was the illustrate the cost of contracting a foreign shipyard to build a new carrier.
B. The MiG-29K was a STOVL aircraft when last I checked.

Check again. The VL stands for Vertical Landing.

Since the IN will never give a detailed and transparent account of what made them decide to soldier on with the Vikramaditya despite the litany of problems with the basic ship design and Russian capriciousness, here's a hypothesis:

1. Like their USMC and RAF/RN counterparts, every Harrier guy in IN speaks with great affection about the aircraft, but in more candid moments will admit that the aircraft has great limitations, especially as a strike platform.

2. Once the IN aviation chaps start looking around for "capable" aircraft, the Mig29's carrier borne version - still in infancy -becomes part of a very short, shortlist. The aircraft on the shortlist eliminate 90% of the carriers which can be purchased off the shelf.

3. The IN passes on the opportunity to acquire more carriers and more Harriers from the RN. The latter make their way to the USMC. This is also probably the biggest signal to the Russkies that they have us hooked, literally.

4. Despite major problems with the refit, the Mig29K tail has now started wagging the dog.

Which sort of ironically underlines the "bird farm" characterization of a carrier. Its sole reason for existence is the aircraft.

[Singha]

per Shiv aroor video, some of the bottom compartments of Gorshy was flooded when it was lying derelict. divers had to go in and make hull repairs and then the whole rusty bottom part of the ship was cleaned bare...miles of salt water exposed wiring was seen in the video lying in piles dockside.

[member_28041]

Philip says : Varyag would have "required a larger air fleet".
Another way of saying this would be : Varyag could have carried a larger air fleet which would have provided greater fleet defence.
The argument of "Virtually New" reminds me of Doordarshan which used to show recorded world cup matches as "Deferred Live" instead of just "Recorded".

A 26 year old ship would have been fine for $800 million
Even a brand new ship for $2.3B would have been fine.(IAC will cost less than that)
But a 26 year old ship for $2.3B(Without any self defence weapons). This is what is a classic example of day light robbery.

By mid 30's this ship would be around 50 years old. Will it be a drydock queen like the viraat? Only time will tell.

[Eric Leiderman]

Hi Nitinraj

Where is this figure for the cost of the IAC coming from? link please?

There was a figure of 4-5 billion $ being estimated if I am not mistaken in a Toilet article a few months back, when she was launched

Also quote " But a 26 year old ship for $2.3B(Without any self defence weapons)." unquote

There are quite a few self defence systems on board , the Air defence equipment is lacking due to our requirements of a Barak system.

8-10 years ago we did not have a whole lot of options to choose from, This was the best option available, As they say "hindsight is a tool that should not be flogged."


The same argument will be used for the Katrina purchase 10 years down the line,
However at the time the tender was put out and with the procurement system that was in place at that time. Katrina was the chosen one.

[rohanldsouza]

Check out this article on a comparison between INS Vikramaditya vs PLAN Liaoning.
Although the article is tilted towards the PLAN Liaoning it is interesting to see the differences & similarities between the 2 aircraft carriers.

http://www.theworldreporter.com/2013/08 ... krant.html

[chetak]

Check out this article on a comparison between INS Vikramaditya vs PLAN Liaoning.
Although the article is tilted towards the PLAN Liaoning it is interesting to see the differences & similarities between the 2 aircraft carriers.

http://www.theworldreporter.com/2013/08 ... krant.html

Good catch, Sirjee. Well done

The russians are helping the hans out in their carrier operations and exploitation. The russians themselves are also relative novices in the carrier game.

The IN has decades of operational expertise and the hans will have some catching up to do.

[Philip]

Nitin,pl. understand the chronology of the Gorshkov deal.It was at a time of crisis for the IN.The "lost decade" saw the IN survive without a single new ship inducted.Adm.Ramdas was ridiculed for his "less is more" statement at the time.Just before he took over as chief,when he was FOC-in-C of E.Co,mand,INS Andamans sank during an exercise.The IN and MOD were desperate to preserve the IN's fleet air arm and carrier capabilities.The experience of '71 and the superb performance of the Vikrant with obsolete Sea Hawk and Alize aircraft gave maritime dominance of the IOR as a goal for Indian defence planners.This would be impossible if the IN did not have carriers.The Varyag,true would've had more aircraft aboard,but would've beggared the IN whose share of the defence budget was miniscule and is still not large enough for the tasks that the IN has to perform.

I said before that I was personally told by a former CNS that the Varyag's hull condition was not in good enough condition ,would've required extensive hull work and at that time no Indian /IN dockyard would've been able to accommodate the large ship.We now have the new base at Karwar and at Pipapav reportedly with the second largest dry dock in the world.Such facilities did not exist in the '90s.

About Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Company

Pipavav Defence (PDOC) is promoted by SKIL Infrastructure Ltd. (SKIL), the flagship company of SKIL Group, which has pioneered path-breaking infrastructure projects both in India and abroad since 1990. PDOC is the largest shipyard in India and one of the largest in the world. Spread over 841 acres, it is conceptualized with a vision to be one of the best defence companies in the world for building strategic defence assets, offshore assets and heavy engineering. With its state-of-the-art, advanced infrastructure is the only modular shipbuilding private sector defence shipyard in India, with a capacity to build fully fabricated and outfitted blocks. The modern fabrication facility is spread over 3 million sq. ft., inclusive of a dedicated offshore fabrication yard. The shipyard has the second largest dry dock in the world, measuring 662 meters in length & 65 meters in width. The second dry dock measuring 750 meters in length and 105 meters in width is currently under development and will be the largest dry dock in the world upon completion of the project. The shipyard has unique capability of pre-erection berth of 980 meters long and 40 meters wide and two Goliath cranes with combined lifting capacity of 1,200 tonnes.

If you take a holistic look at the entire refurbishment of the Gorshkov/Vikram,the capabilities of the aircraft embarked,fully modernised and upgraded versions of the MIG-29,with further upgrade potential in the future,and the quantum leap in performance and sea control capabilities over our Harrier carrier the Viraat,we would see what a great asset we have got.That too at a very reasonable cost.The only fly in the ointment was the delay in the carrier arriving due to the well known problems experienced during its refurbishment,but given the lifespan of the carrier,at least 30-40 years,will prove to be one of the key assets in the nation's defence inventory.When in about 3-4 years time hopefully,it will be accompanied by our very first IAC-1,the new Vikrant,the synergy of the two "new" carriers with their air arm of MIG-29Ks and also in the future NLCAs,plus the Viraat also soldiering on until 2020,waiting for IAC-2 to arrive and then gracefully sail into the sunset,the role of the IN in naval diplomacy across the IOR and the Indo-China Sea/Asia-Pacific regions will take on a new dimension.Operating the Gorshkov/Vikram will give the IN valuable experience with which to finalise the contours of the design of IAC-2.

Events are rapidly unfolding,with China and its new "air defence" zone over disputed uninhabited islands in the Indo-China Sea.Japan has refuted China's assertion along with the US,which flew 2 B-52 bombers over the zone without informing China.The Gorshkov/Vikram couldn't have arrived at a more opportune time.

[member_28041]

Philip, i do understand your cost argument against Varyag. It may be well possible that an "underestimation of the work" in case of Varyag would have put the final cost of the ship to say $4B.
But even at that cost would we have cancelled the deal? I guess not. Because we are such a good hearted people that loves imported goods that even the thought of cancelling a deal after such a massive hike in the price would be impossible to think.

I was not able to understand your point below.
"Events are rapidly unfolding,with China and its new "air defence" zone over disputed uninhabited islands in the Indo-China Sea.Japan has refuted China's assertion along with the US,which flew 2 B-52 bombers over the zone without informing China.The Gorshkov/Vikram couldn't have arrived at a more opportune time."

How would be this an opportunity for Gorshkov?