Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 01:55

It may have started then, but impetus was so so state of Su-30 fleet due to russkie greed and intransigence.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 13 May 2016 01:57

That was a pretty dumb move by MoD. They could have gotten IAF fighter strength up by 150. France was ready to sell the entire line of Mirage 2000s to India. It was good enough for India's future needs at that time. Today, it would be past the midpoint of a lifecycle of those Mirage planes. Now by the time MMRCA would be decided, the lifecycle of those planes would be nearly the end. No money wasted and would be well spent.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 02:04

tsarkar wrote:No. On the contrary, plethora of types ensured IAF stayed operationally ready and numerically sufficient

Operationally Ready -

Soviet aircraft came at lower unit cost of acquisition. However, Soviet did not build airframe life as high as western fighters because in the cold war, the high rate of technology progression made aircraft quickly obsolete. However, the meltdown of Soviet industries lead to spares issues.

Which meant IAF fighter serviceability was in the pits for specific types (some even before FSU meltdown), eg MiG-29s, till BRD/HAL stepped in.

Similarly for Su-30MKI, the AL-31FP engine and specifically the nozzles were one off designs for India in the days of the demise of Soviet Union. Their higher than expected wear & tear was not anticipated but is being rectified now.

These are the design specs http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html#11
The Mean Time Between Overhaul (MTBO) for the AL-31FP is given at 1,000 hours with a full-life span of 3,000 hours. The titanium nozzle has a MTBO of 500 Hrs.
The much lower MTBO, especially for nozzles, was known at the time of acquisition as a cost for TVC capabilities.

FBW failures, engine bearing issues, display blanking etc were what had to be fixed . Other issues. Some fixed, some remain or in process. TVC is not the issue.

However, the reliable Jaguar and Mirage 2000 shouldered A2G and A2A responsibilities.

Jaguars were grounded too in the 80s...

Numerically Sufficient -

At the same time, the lower cost of acquisition of MiG-29 and Su-30MKI ensured we built up sufficient numbers to prevent relatively smaller numbers of Mirage 2000 & Jaguars being overtasked and overwhelmed.

MiG-29s were hanger queens for a long time. 270 Su30s@50% availability = fewer planes@better availability.

In the 80's, we could've financially never ordered the quantity of Jaguars needed and low cost MiG-23BN and MiG-27 quite effectively filled the gap.

Like Pakistan acquired A-5 and F-7 the same time as F-16. The A-5 and F-7 had even more poorer serviceability than MiG-21/23/27 but provided the numbers. A small airforce like Pakistan with 300-400 fighters had 4 types - F-16, Mirage 3/5, F-7 PG, F-7 and A-5. A mix of quality & quantity.

Higher numbers are notional with lower serviceability.

Seasoned Planning and Operations Staff Officers plan force structures. Each acquisition was for a purpose, as explained above.

some acquisitions did occur with a heavy dollop of politics (and I've met a fair share of seasoned folks who mentioned this aspect), plus the west vs east divide that scuppered serious acquisition or focus on select types.

maz · Post by **maz** » 13 May 2016 03:07

guys, please stick to naval matters on this thread. the interesting IAF discussion can be moved to the proper thread. thank you!

maz · Post by **maz** » 13 May 2016 03:11

IN has ordered 28 or 29 Lynx U2 FCS for installation aboard ships.
Abhay, it seems is getting the Lynx as well as Sanket S EW system. This ship has morphed very considerably from its original guise as a 1241 PE! Anyone have recent pix of her?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 03:35

Do you have specs on Sanket S EW?

maz · Post by **maz** » 13 May 2016 04:44

No specs but from I gather, Sanket S is for small ships like missile boats.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 05:17

I see.
It may be this one.
http://www.bel-india.com/Light-Weight-E ... mall-Ships
Looks like a derivative of the DRDO program which was installed on a couple of naval ships which won the best EW program in an internal naval competition.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 13 May 2016 06:08

Nah..thisis the one for tarantuls..

http://www.bel-india.com/Light-Weight-E ... inor-Ships
.The Abhay is almost the same size.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 May 2016 09:55

Indian diesel-electric submarine Sindhukesari goes to Zvyozdochka Shipyard for repair

The Indian Navy’s Sindhukesari diesel-electric submarine has been sent for repair onboard a Dutch float-on/float-off ship to a Russian defense shipyard, Zvyozdochka, in the city of Severodvinsk, Zvyozdochka’s spokesman Yevgeny Gladyshev told TASS on Tuesday.

"The Rolldock Star multipurpose semi-submersible heavy lift transport vessel carrying the Sindhukesari submarine left Mumbai for Severodvinsk on May 6," he said. According to the shipping company, the vessel is due to its destination on June 12.

As was reported in the press, the Severodvinsk-based shipyard in 2015 landed a contract for the medium repair and overhaul of the Sindhukesari within 27 months.

The Sindhukesari will be the sixth Russian-built Project 877EKM (NATO reporting name: Kilo-class) submarine to be upgraded by Zvyozdochka. Until now, the shipyard, a specialist in nuclear submarine repair and disposal, has modernized five Indian Navy boats since 1997 - the Sindhuvir, Sindhuratna, Sindhugosh, Sindhuvijay and Sindhurakshak. The company also has repaired and upgraded the INS Sindhukirti at her home station, Vizakhapatnam. The Sindhukesari build by the Leningrad Admiralty Association (now Admiralty Wharfs) in 1988 will undergo her second medium repair. Her first upgrade was in St. Petersburg in 1999-2001.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 May 2016 15:12

GAURAV C SAWANT Retweeted
India Today ‏@IndiaToday 54m54 minutes ago
Indian Navy Warships Hit 'Scam' Iceberg. UPA Govt 'favours' to Italian firm putting Indian lives in danger? @GauravCSawant's Newsbreak @ 4PM

GAURAV C SAWANT Retweeted
India Today ‏@IndiaToday 3h3 hours ago
A Bigger Defence Scam Than Agusta?
A Bigger 'Italy' Connection?
Modi Govt's Next Defence Scam Hunt.
@GauravCSawant's Big Newsbreak @ 4PM

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 13 May 2016 18:11

LIVE

Vice Admiral Shekhar Sinha, former flag officer commanding in chief of the Western Naval Command, was in service when the murky deal was signed.

"When she (INS Deepak) was in passage and crossed the Atlantic, the sea had turned very rough and the vessel was keeping difficulty in sea keeping. We know that the tankers can keep to bad sea. I have commanded a tanker myself. The captain reported that he has seen some crack developing along the expansion joint on the hull. We told him to keep a watch," Vice Admiral Sinha told India Today.

"It (cracks) alarmed me and the entire operations team. When the captain told us that the cracks are developing, we got in touch with the naval headquarters and requested them to take the ship to Lisbon, Portugal, which was not a scheduled halt," he added.

Admiral Raja Menon told India Today," I have never come across warships made of commercial grade steel. I don't know whether conditions were deliberately relaxed because it happened to be a tanker."

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 May 2016 23:33

This has the potential to be another radioactive scam. Firstly,it appears that steel specs were deliberately reduced to favour the Italians.The Russians immediately pulled out when non-mil grade steel was approved well knowing that a scam was on the cards. Now non-mil grade steel,or merchant std. specs have been used before I think on the RN's Ocean class amhpib support flat top. However,a heavily laden fleet tanker,accompanying a task force/CBG,will be a prime target for any enemy of the IN.Such auxiliaries should have the highest mil std. build quality,preferably with double-hulls if costs permit.

Secondly,that one of the tankers suffered some structural damage serious enough for it to make an emergency detour to Lisbon for repairs while escorting the Vik-A on her delivery run is very surprising.
In recent times,FFGs have suffered engine problems,etc,but structural damage is a more serious affair. Even merchant ships are supposed to be able to weather Force 6/7 storms. Fleet tankers in wartime will come under fire and have to be battle worthy,receive and survive hits.

Thirdly,the fact that the future fleet tankers to be built in India must be made of mil-grade steel and that all earlier ones were too,indicates that standards were definitely lowered in the case in Q,and that costs were not a factor. With mil-grade steel costing twice as much,one can only imagine the scale of any kickbacks as is being alleged. More seriously,it calls into Q the integrity of the IN's top brass at the time of ordering the vessels and those in command at the top when the flaws were spotted as despite the complaint of WNC's admiral in command,and the CAG's report saying that "undue favours" were given to the Italians,no apparent investigation was made.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 14 May 2016 09:03

Philip wrote:This has the potential to be another radioactive scam. Firstly,it appears that steel specs were deliberately reduced to favour the Italians.The Russians immediately pulled out when non-mil grade steel was approved well knowing that a scam was on the cards. Now non-mil grade steel,or merchant std. specs have been used before I think on the RN's Ocean class amhpib support flat top. However,a heavily laden fleet tanker,accompanying a task force/CBG,will be a prime target for any enemy of the IN.Such auxiliaries should have the highest mil std. build quality,preferably with double-hulls if costs permit.

Secondly,that one of the tankers suffered some structural damage serious enough for it to make an emergency detour to Lisbon for repairs while escorting the Vik-A on her delivery run is very surprising.
In recent times,FFGs have suffered engine problems,etc,but structural damage is a more serious affair. Even merchant ships are supposed to be able to weather Force 6/7 storms. Fleet tankers in wartime will come under fire and have to be battle worthy,receive and survive hits.

Thirdly,the fact that the future fleet tankers to be built in India must be made of mil-grade steel and that all earlier ones were too,indicates that standards were definitely lowered in the case in Q,and that costs were not a factor. With mil-grade steel costing twice as much,one can only imagine the scale of any kickbacks as is being alleged. More seriously,it calls into Q the integrity of the IN's top brass at the time of ordering the vessels and those in command at the top when the flaws were spotted as despite the complaint of WNC's admiral in command,and the CAG's report saying that "undue favours" were given to the Italians,no apparent investigation was made.

A lot of armed forces all over the world are opting for COTS, Commerical Off the Shelf products, primarily to reduce costs.
There are thousands of ship sailing all over the world, made of "commercial grade steel". They do sail in Sea State 5/6.

The question is

Did the IN specify MIL grade steel or commercial grade steel ?

If IN specified commercial grade steel there must be some reason. Cost reduction is a fairly valid reason. Then IN woudl have weighed the pros and cons before finalisation.

Did the IN specify MIL grade steel and the shipyard hoodwinked all by giving commercial grade steel ?
This is VERY serious. This is not possible without the connivance of a lot of people including IN, MOD etc. This is a SCAM. If MIL grade steel is double the price of COTS steel a lot of persons must have been paid off handsomely !!!

I do not think any Navy has or can think of having "Fleet tankers ... ..to be battle worthy,receive and survive hits."

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 14 May 2016 09:06

Philip wrote:This has the potential to be another radioactive scam. Firstly,it appears that steel specs were deliberately reduced to favour the Italians.The Russians immediately pulled out when non-mil grade steel was approved well knowing that a scam was on the cards. Now non-mil grade steel,or merchant std. specs have been used before I think on the RN's Ocean class amhpib support flat top. However,a heavily laden fleet tanker,accompanying a task force/CBG,will be a prime target for any enemy of the IN.Such auxiliaries should have the highest mil std. build quality,preferably with double-hulls if costs permit.

Secondly,that one of the tankers suffered some structural damage serious enough for it to make an emergency detour to Lisbon for repairs while escorting the Vik-A on her delivery run is very surprising.
In recent times,FFGs have suffered engine problems,etc,but structural damage is a more serious affair. Even merchant ships are supposed to be able to weather Force 6/7 storms. Fleet tankers in wartime will come under fire and have to be battle worthy,receive and survive hits.

Thirdly,the fact that the future fleet tankers to be built in India must be made of mil-grade steel and that all earlier ones were too,indicates that standards were definitely lowered in the case in Q,and that costs were not a factor. With mil-grade steel costing twice as much,one can only imagine the scale of any kickbacks as is being alleged. More seriously,it calls into Q the integrity of the IN's top brass at the time of ordering the vessels and those in command at the top when the flaws were spotted as despite the complaint of WNC's admiral in command,and the CAG's report saying that "undue favours" were given to the Italians,no apparent investigation was made.

A long time ago we lost INS Andaman in a storm. INS Andaman was made of (Russian) MIL grade steel. Are the Petyas not supposed to be used in the storms of Arctic, which may be the worst ever in the world ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 May 2016 09:08

The allegation seems to be that RFP mentioned Mil Grade Steel and 2 of the 3 yards accepted it but the Italian one said they would use commercial grade steel and it was accepted , so the accusation is RFP was flouted to favour Italian company.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 May 2016 09:11

Kersi D wrote:A long time ago we lost INS Andaman in a storm. INS Andaman was made of (Russian) MIL grade steel. Are the Petyas not supposed to be used in the storms of Arctic, which may be the worst ever in the world ?

Kersi , There are many reasons why INS Andaman was lost or rather chain of events which is mentioned in report

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/loss ... 15626.html

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 14 May 2016 09:19

Austin wrote:
Kersi D wrote:A long time ago we lost INS Andaman in a storm. INS Andaman was made of (Russian) MIL grade steel. Are the Petyas not supposed to be used in the storms of Arctic, which may be the worst ever in the world ?
Kersi , There are many reasons why INS Andaman was lost or rather chain of events which is mentioned in report

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/loss ... 15626.html

The main (only) reason was poor maintainence. Its repairs / modificcations were delayed by YEARS !!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 May 2016 10:49

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/13/polit ... index.html

once china is done with the SCS island squatting plan, packing it to gunwales with SAMs, ASW ships and A2AD missiles nothing can move without its consent there. it is forcing back the US navy from the western pacific step by relentless step.

the only way I see a successful response is
- nuclear taiwan
- USN returns to subic bay on a cold war scale - slinking around from guam , pearl harbour or japan is not going to hack it. boots on the ground in this case is subic bay fwd deploy

right now nobody is able to physically confront the PLAN and start their own island building ops....sure people can slink around conduct passage exercises or undersea snooping all they want, but the name plate on the door and the daroga inside still reads "PLAN property, trespassers will be thrashed"

people can debate all day about gee whiz anti A2AD systems, long range fighters and UCAVs etc etc all sweet and good for WW3 whose P(event)=very tiny. rest of the time PLAN is ruling the roost there.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 May 2016 11:07

US wont be confronting China beyond Posturing and Rhetoric , Any conflict with a Global Nuclear Power like China and Economic reliance that both have with each other is at the least very suicidal.

Its like two male king cobras Battle for the thrown as King each snake has the ability to kill each other with just one bite! the two cobras dont fight they dance till oneshead Bows

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 May 2016 12:19

And here I thought cobras hated being thrown on the head because it usually kills them.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 May 2016 05:19

Tres soupcon cos all previous anf future tankers will have milgrade steel.Why lower stds just for these 2?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 May 2016 06:32

Singha wrote: people can debate all day about gee whiz anti A2AD systems, long range fighters and UCAVs etc etc all sweet and good for WW3 whose P(event)=very tiny. rest of the time PLAN is ruling the roost there.

And so we should remember where the real threat to India comes from, it is not the PLAN, it is the PLA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 May 2016 08:10

ShauryaT wrote:
Singha wrote: people can debate all day about gee whiz anti A2AD systems, long range fighters and UCAVs etc etc all sweet and good for WW3 whose P(event)=very tiny. rest of the time PLAN is ruling the roost there.
And so we should remember where the real threat to India comes from, it is not the PLAN yet, it is the PLA.

Corrected for accuracy. : )

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 May 2016 12:17

Deutschland,Deutschland..."?
http://www.steeltimesint.com/news/view/ ... arine-deal

Germans to strike big submarine deal
Published May 13, 2016 by Matthew Moggridge

Angela Merkel’s government seems about ready to strike a big deal with India on the supply of submarines in an effort to ‘head off at the pass’ the French and Russians who are also trying to boost defence ties with India.

Should a deal go ahead, which seems highly likely, it looks as if Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems – the company behind the development of the HDW 214 submarine – will be in line for a big pay day. The deal is being described as a ‘no-holds barred’ transfer of technology.

The HDW 214 submarine is claimed to offer ‘exceptional underwater endurance’.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/bro ... 84838.html

Brought to its knees by Agusta storm; Congress now braces for meaner Naval scam, Parrikar orders probe
Last Updated: Saturday, May 14, 2016

Brought to its knees by Agusta storm; Congress now braces for meaner Naval scam, Parrikar orders probe

New Delhi: A media report has claimed to have unearthed yet another bigger and meaner scam involving the previous Congress-led UPA government – this time it is accused of supplying inferior steel for building naval ship.

According to an India Today report, the naval scam could be even bigger than the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scandal.

It said that the government has ordered an inquiry into the alleged “favours given by the previous UPA government to an Italian shipbuilding firm which provided two naval tankers to India”.

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has reportedly ordered a "discreet inquiry" into the alleged naval tanker scam, the report added.

It is being alleged that the UPA government had favoured the Italian firm Fincantieri for building two naval tankers in 2009. It is also accused of approving inferior quality steel to build the tankers.

According to the report, the government is presently scrutinising the details of the contract awarded to the Italian firm.

A former naval officer has reportedly blown the lid off and has now demanded a probe into the 2009 purchase of two fleet tankers, crucial for the Navy's deep water capabilities.

These tankers had to be bought as Indian Navy's biggest aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya was on its way from Russia.

“Defence Minister AK Antony had hailed this as one of the fastest procurements of a fleet tanker manufactured with Indian specifications,” the report said.

It is being alleged that instead of using weapons grade steel for the manufacture of the tankers, the firm used commercial grade steel.

PS:I wonder what grade/count of cotton "St" Anthony's dhoti is made of? Mil-grade or commercial grade!

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 15 May 2016 13:27

Acquisition of Inferior Quality Fleet Tanker
07 Sept 2011
In order to maintain its approved force levels, Indian Navy's Ship-building plan envisaged addition of two fleet tankers (tanker) by 2008 and 2011 respectively and accordingly, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued in 2005.

Indian Navy has not awarded a contract for acquisition of a fleet tanker to Italian company even though the steel to be issued by the shipyard in construction did not meet Indian Navy technical specifications.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Prof. Anil Kumar Sahani in Rajya Sabha today.
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=75718

Report No. 16 of 2010 -11 (Air Force and Navy)
Undue favour to a foreign vendor in procurement of fleet tankers
http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/fil ... _chap2.pdf

New RFP (mentions Mil Grade Steel and Sea state 9) not getting the old RFP of 2005, but CAG report above does mention it)
http://www.tenders.gov.in/viewtenddoc.a ... no=1&td=TD
2013 The Indian Navy has announced interest in acquiring five new fleet support ships under the 'global buy'' category.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 15 May 2016 15:05

Germans and submarines. I trust everyone is familiar with this one,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ailed.html

Greece sues for 7 billion euros over German submarines that have never sailed
Military deal which became symbolic of financial crisis now at centre of international legal case over Greece’s geo-political reputation

Greece has launched a multi-billion euro claim against one of Germany’s biggest defence firms who sold the financially-beleaguered country four submarines in a complicated deal which has become symbolic of the country’s economic woes.The controversial deal has threatened Greece’s position in Nato, according to well-placed sources, led to the criminal prosecution of the country’s defence minister and the resignation of a senior Naval figure. The Telegraph today publishes photographs of the four submarines, which are still unfinished in a Greek shipyard almost 15 years after they were first ordered.

......................

Following years of delay, the Greek Government has recently insisted that the submarines are finally due to start full sea trials imminently, although no date has been set. When one of the Greek submarines first went to sea, it was found to list heavily in certain sea conditions.

Also

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gre ... der-05801/

Once the Papanikolis’ sea trials began in 2006, however, the Hellenic Navy found a host of issues with the new submarine. Poor performance from the AIP system that supplements its diesel engines for long underwater operations, problems with the ISUS combat system, poor surface seakeeping in high seas, and hydraulic system issues were among the major flaws reported. The Navy refused acceptance, leaving HDW to fix the boat.

HDW set to work on Papanikolis, but the submarine has been docked in Kiel since 2006 waiting for Greek acceptance. HDW says acceptance is now justified, as the defects have been fixed, but the Greek government refuses to accept the boat. It has raised other issues, such as the ad-hoc nature of several required modifications to avoid disassembling the boat, the number of sea trials that have consumed some of the onboard equipment’s operational life – and one rather more traditional reservation, which is not expressed but plays a role. Sailors are famously superstitious, and Papanikolis’ tribulations have given it a reputation as an unlucky boat.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 May 2016 15:38

Greece was bankrupt and couldn't pay for the subs,hence the controversy.However the subs SoKo are building in large number have not experienced any problems.If we do go in for more U- boats they would probably be of improved design,maybe with two sets of tubes like the Israeli Dolphins and BMos capability,certainly BMos-M.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 15 May 2016 23:24

Both RFPs mention that DMR 249A or equivalent steel should be used.

Problem is DMR 249A is a very unique steel developed by Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL, hence the name DMR). I doubt it's chemical composition would be shared by DRDO. It's a very proprietary Indian standard and not international.

Secondly, it's manufactured at PSU SAIL Bhillai & Rourkella plants as well as at Essar Steel in batches depending on shipyard orders. Quality of steel also depends on the ore and where it's manufactured, so any foreign shipyard has to source the steel from either of these plants.

Working on a new steel type is difficult. Welding & riveting techniques need to be developed.

"Equivalent" steel is a very relative term. Such loopholes are the doors to corruption. DMR being an Indian proprietary standard, nothing manufactured elsewhere can be "equivalent" to it. Terms like "equivalent" are put in by crooked procurers (Servicemen/Bureaucrats/Politicians) to ensure they can demand a bribe to certify A or B or X or Y or Z is more "equivalent" than the other "equivalent".

All tankers are built to commercial standards. Reason being no one takes a tanker with tonnes of fuel close to enemy shores and expose them in the harm's way. They stay some distance away from enemy fleet and shores.

Tankers need to maximize payload, and using mil spec steel increases empty weight. Which is why all naval tankers are built to commercial standards. All Air Refuellers are based on civil airliners like Boeing 707, 767, A330 for the same reason. (Before someone cites, Russian Il-78 carries fuel bladders that are workaround/jugaad and is not a tanker by design).

Asking for a tanker to be built using DMR steel is like asking Stallion trucks to be built using Kanchan armour.

Philip - INS Jyoti is a Russian tanker built to commercial standards with sister ships serving with China.

The RFP should have gone to Indian MoD shipyards if they wanted DMR grade steel.

Sending an RFP asking for DMR grade steel to foreign shipyards who have no suppliers manufacturing the steel or ever built anything using it is an open demand for bribery by arbitrating which "equivalent" steel is more "equivalent" than other "equivalent".

If sending the RFP to international shipyards, then industry standard steel should have been specified.

I'm also curious why HSL offer was not taken up, especially since the yard was idle. Sure, it would've taken time for DND to come up with a design. But could've been done in 10 years. And all other programs like P15 & P17 have taken similar timeframes.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 16 May 2016 01:33

Perhaps mil grade steel fares better in Indian/tropical conditions?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 May 2016 09:45

Fleet tankets are specialised designs.Both earlier tankrrs were slso firang acquisitions if I remember correctly. Perrhaps we did not have a design ready-which would take years to perfect and ee opted to save time with a foreign design.Nothing wrong with that but the fudging of the steel specs . Certainly the Eyties were favourites.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 16 May 2016 19:23

What do the Gurus think of this? Hot air balloon?

Posting in full:

Plan for nuclear-driven carrier with US help

Goa, May 15: India's navy has all but finalised plans for a nuclear-powered super-carrier, which is scheduled to be built in Kochi with US help.

In preparation for the long-gestation project, estimated for the year 2028, the navy is setting up the building blocks that will identify the aircraft to be based on the carrier, called the Vishal (to be pre-fixed with "INS" on commissioning).

Nuclear energy enables a carrier to sail for months without needing to dock for refuelling. The navy wants a nuclear-powered carrier for "longer sea legs", to enhance its reach beyond territorial waters.

It has determined that the carrier will need a nuclear reactor generating 180MW for propulsion, and may go for two reactors of 90MW each. Talks with the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (Barc) are at an advanced stage.

The Vishal is being designed to be between 60,000 and 70,000 tonnes. (India's first carrier, the INS Vikrant, displaced 18,000 tonnes. The second, soon-to-be decommissioned INS Viraat, 24,000 tonnes. Both were of British origin. The operational INS Vikramaditya displaces 45,000 tonnes. It is of Russian origin.)

The navy has bolstered its case for a nuclear-powered carrier by citing the nuclear deals India has signed not only with the US but also with Japan and Germany, albeit for peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

The navy chief said in Goa earlier this week that the government was yet to freeze the design and specifications for the Vishal.

In official papers, the Vishal is described as the IAC (indigenous aircraft carrier) II. The IAC I, called the Vikrant after India's now-decommissioned first carrier, is due in 2018. It was launched in 2014.

"We are setting up the naval test flying team in INS Hansa to evaluate potential and future aircraft: to evaluate everything from aircraft to weapons," said Commodore Raghunath Nair, commanding officer of naval air station Hansa.

"The navy now has 240 aircraft but not enough infrastructure. We are finding an energetic response from the government to the plans."

The navy had invited preliminary inquiries from foreign entities for the design and development of the Vishal: DCNS of France, Rosoboronexport of Russia, Lockheed Martin of the US. Within the top brass, however, there is now a congealing of opinion that the US option may be the one to go after.

This is as much because of the technology regime that India promises to enter following the nuclear deals as because the US is actually operating carriers and building them, the latest being the Gerald R Ford class.

"We've practically written the carrier operations manual for the Russians," said one officer. He pointed to the Russian navy ordering the MiG29K fighter aircraft after India bought the planes from them.

The MiG29K are now operational with the INS Vikramaditya (the Admiral Gorshkov, which too was bought from Russia).

The Chinese, who also reconverted a Russian vessel to get their carrier, the Liaoning, are yet to commission the vessel.

"We have an institutionalised memory of carrier operations since 1961. Of this much we are sure - we are far ahead of the Russians and Chinese in carrier operations. But now it is time we go for the new carriers. And the US is practically the only one building them," the officer said.

India and the US have a joint working group on sharing, and possibly co-producing, the electromagnetic aircraft launch system that is going into the USS Gerald R Ford.

"In the Arihant (the Indian nuclear submarine now in sea trials) we have gained, with some Russian help, the ability to develop a reactor for our purpose. Barc is confident that it can build for the carrier too," the officer said.

In February, the US chief of naval operations, John Richardson, had said about talks with India that "we are making very good progress".

"I am very pleased with the progress to date and optimistic we can do more in the future. That's on a very solid track," Richardson had added.

The Indian navy is fairly certain that it does not want the indigenously built light combat aircraft (navy) for the Vishal. The IAC II has been planned as a catobar (catapult-assisted take-off and arrested recovery) that would launch aircraft with a catapult powered electromagnetically.

The only operational carrier now is the Vikramaditya. At 45,000 tonnes it has a flight deck that is still too small for the new dimensions of carrier operations the navy is envisaging from the Vishal, the officer said.

The light combat aircraft (navy) that has been in the making with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for 25 years has only done ramp take-offs in trials so far and "no traps" (or arrested recovery) yet.

A possible fighter aircraft to be based on the Vishal would be in the category of an advanced medium combat aircraft that is being designed by the Aeronautical Development Establishment under the Defence Research and Development Organisation.

But the navy believes the advanced medium combat aircraft too would need a foreign (western) partner to make the jump from the design to the series-production stage.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 16 May 2016 23:45

As long as all the things required like CAT's and reactors are built in India, why not?

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 17 May 2016 02:08

We already have a navalized reactor in the 90MwTh in Arihant. Why can't two of these be reused for Vishal, I dont know.. In fact, it should be 'proven technology'. As for cats, yes sir. No point in defensive carriers, we need one with a whip that can reach inland.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 May 2016 03:47

While designing this nuclear super carrier with US assistance, I would still recommend the IN ordering one more Vikrant class--a sure thing from delivery within timelines i.e. by 2025. This other super crarrier is a two decades project. Too much dependence on US for critical technologies such as nuclear propulsion and EMALS.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 May 2016 03:55

srai wrote:While designing this nuclear super carrier with US assistance, I would still recommend the IN ordering one more Vikrant class--a sure thing from delivery within timelines i.e. by 2025. This other super crarrier is a two decades project. Too much dependence on US for critical technologies such as nuclear propulsion and EMALS.

Nuclear prop is Indian, not US (which I very much doubt will part with it).

US looks like will give: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p2019187

If that is true, the Vishal just may come in on time. 2028.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 18 May 2016 09:32

srai wrote:While designing this nuclear super carrier with US assistance, I would still recommend the IN ordering one more Vikrant class--a sure thing from delivery within timelines i.e. by 2025. This other super crarrier is a two decades project. Too much dependence on US for critical technologies such as nuclear propulsion and EMALS.

+100.

And while we are at it, can the iaf order more tejas and drdo aew. The army might do the same with some prahaar and more arjuns.

Big capital intensive purchases should be kept at home as far as possible.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 May 2016 10:12

We already have an Indian "supercarrier",INS India-our huge landmass jutting into the IOR and is unsinkable! From here in the future,LRMP aircraft,long-enndurance UAVs and combat aircraft with refuelling can sanitise a huge area of the IOR. For out of IOT ops,surface task forces are vulnerable to detection and attack. The USN possesses approx. 12 such CVs for its global ops. at any given time.The cost of each is astronomical.and unaffordable by the IN.In addition,we would be putting all our eggs into one basket. A third carrier of improved Vikrant class will suffice for us.

More importantly and a far better bet to ward off or counter the PLAN is our sub fleet. Our N-subs and AIP subs will be hard to detect and can when operating in the chokepoints of the IOR play havoc with enemy naval or merchant shipping. We would be able to buy 8-12 AIP subs o at least 6 SSNs for the price of one supercarrier and its complement. With the latest news of US subs to operate drones as well, the revolution in maritime warfare is well on its way. The IN should look forwards instead of backwards .The US simply wants a chokehold on the IN's naval capability while raking in billions for the same.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 May 2016 10:30

totally agree with Philip. a lone supercarrier which eats our budget like a bakasur will be the laughing stock of the region, with US exercising tight control on its parts. we should get to a 10 trillion economy before investing so much in 'sea control' as opposed to a high quality submarine fleet. all this is to waste our funds away from the things that really matter - submarines, SLBMs, numerous patrol ships and land based A5.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 18 May 2016 11:27

Agreed. It really wont do us any favours if we end up getting one mega carrier only.