Indian Naval Aviation

[Rakesh]

Brar, there is a disconnect between what the Navy Chief (and senior Navy leadership) says and what the MoD is willing to fund. Your analysis is spot on, but the MoD does not see it that way.

So yes, multiple navy chiefs have said that a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier is the next carrier vessel. Those navy chiefs also wanted nuclear power. That proposal went to the MoD and got promptly shot down in 2017. The irony is neither the Navy (who wanted the nuclear reactor) nor the design authority (BARC) wanted to fund the development of a reactor. Most folks understand the value of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Obviously the MoD did not.

So now the design has shifted to a conventional design. It is still in the design phase at the Indian Naval Design Bureau. If the MoD approves, consider ourselves lucky. It not, good luck!

The present Vikrant costs $2.8 billion to date and the cost will only rise till commissioning. For arguments sake, lets say IAC-2 will be budgeted at $5 billion (nearly double that of IAC-1) and the cost eventually balloons to $10 billion upon commissioning. Highly possible, considering the inefficiency of Indian shipyards. Even if the cost does not rise, I can bet my life that the vessel will be seriously delayed. Very few vessels ever complete on time and on budget.

Now the navy has estimated that 57 carrier borne fighters will cost US $15 billion to acquire, which is obviously more than the cost of IAC-2 at either price point - $5 billion or $10 billion. Now most folks see the value of a carrier. Both F-18 and Rafale M are proven carrier borne platforms. The question is does the MoD see that? The first question the MoD Babu - who will have to approve the purchase - will ask is this;

* How can the plane be more expensive than the aircraft carrier?

At that stage, either the OEM lowers the cost (highly unlikely!) or the Navy reduces the number of aircraft it wants to acquire (highly possible). When the latter happens, the IN will have a vessel that will not achieve full potential, because the number of airframes available will be reduced.

The theories you have stated are all correct for a nation that sees the value of such a capability. In the case of India, that is not true. Of all the three services, the Navy gets a pittance in the annual defence budget.

[sankum]

UK is buying 138 nos F 35B for two carriers with max airwing of 72 fighters.
If 45 Mig 29k are for INS Vikramaditya minimum new 36 fighters for INS Vikrant will be required.
Better we go for 46 NLCAmk2 by 2025 or be ready to shell out 5-6 billion dollar.

[Rakesh]

The best path, IMHO, is build a follow-on Vikrant Class vessel with larger lifts to accommodate F-18 Block III or Rafale M. Lay the keel now and she will be ready by the end of the 2020s.

By the mid 2020s, lay the keel of the first of two 65,000 ton (or higher) vessel with nuclear power (if such a reactor is ready) or conventional power. By 2030, when she is midway through construction and if budget permits, lay the keel of the second 65,000 ton vessel. By the mid 2030s, the first one should be ready. Retire the Vikramaditya at the point. By the early 2040s, the second 65,000 vessel should also be complete.

Why build one 40,000 ton vessel and then throw the design out the window? Why jump directly to 65,000 ton and cause un-necessary delays in Indian Naval air power? Why do we shoot ourselves in the foot like this every time?

[brar_w]

Brar, there is a disconnect between what the Navy Chief (and senior Navy leadership) says and what the MoD is willing to fund. Your analysis is spot on, but the MoD does not see it that way.

I don't think there is a disconnect as far as the IN request having been rejected and the IN sent back to the drawing board and asked to set requirements for smaller, less capable or cheaper Aircraft Carrier. As far as I can tell the IN is still pursuing the matter with the MOD just like it is still doing the same for the MRCBF program. No decision has, as far as I can tell, been made to accept or reject it so it is still pending.

Now the navy has estimated that 57 carrier borne fighters will cost US $15 billion to acquire, which is obviously more than the cost of IAC-2 at either price point - $5 billion or $10 billion. Now most folks see the value of a carrier. Both F-18 and Rafale M are proven carrier borne platforms. The question is does the MoD see that? The first question the MoD Babu - who will have to approve the purchase - will ask is this;

Let's see how this plays out between the IN and the MOD. Certainly plenty to go before it is sealed and finalized (rejected or re-designed etc. etc.).

One would have imagined that a 65K carrier would have overcome/survived the "let's build another 45K ton" scrub during the Analysis of Alternatives before the request was developed further and matured [The USN did this very step as CVN-X/21 was one or two notches below the highest-performing design initially down-selected for the Ford program and through their analysis it was determined that the incremental capability offered by the two other designs could be part of the trade-space and traded for things like cost, schedule, complexity and alternate investments]. Usually there is an operational reason to seek a particular capability enhancement over the alternative. Most requirements analysis focuses on incremental requirements and measures that against the status quo to see if there is value add and if that value add is mission critical or can be included in the trade space. The Nuclear vs Non-Nuclear debate was not as significant as you can achieve nearly the same performance with non-nuclear propulsion considerations (the UK already did that analysis for EMALS working with the US Navy when it was considering the trade-offs). The upper bounds of the capability (size of carrier, size of air-wing, launch mechanism etc. etc.) is probably more crucial to how it deals with the threat in an offensive and defensive orientation.

Jumping form a 45K carrier to a 65K ton carrier makes total sense if it is an operationally based decision and if the 45K ton was a springboard for a higher capability. The IN may turn around and choose to invest the money elsewhere if it feels another 45K ton is not as significant a value add in the post 2030 world as other alternatives (like surface vessels, subs etc. etc.) so it is all relative and I'm sure it will work with the MOD to see if it can get what it needs and if not find a suitable alternative strategy or investment track.

UK is buying 138 nos F 35B for two carriers with max airwing of 72 fighters.
If 45 Mig 29k are for INS Vikramaditya minimum new 36 fighters for INS Vikrant will be required.
Better we go for 46 NLCAmk2 by 2025 or be ready to shell out 5-6 billion dollar.

UK's F-35B's aren't all meant to be for the carriers. They are mixed used assets that are to be used by the RAF/RN combo from the carriers and land. I also doubt they'll buy 138 B's. I think their B purchase will be closer to around 80 with any incremental purchase beyond that being for the more capable (and cheaper) F-35A for land based use. Their last Typhoon delivery is happening quite soon and the Tempest will come with its own sticker shock as they attempt to leap frog from 4.5 generation territory to 5.5 generation territory without having a full fledged 5th gen. fighter program to keep the designers/developers/industry busy. The inteirm gaps will be filled by block 4+ F-35A's IMHO.

While they haven't come out and outright said it, most believe that their 2-carrier force will only be funded so that one carrier is deployable organically and a two-carrier deployment (concurrent) being with a mixed RN-USMC crew and aircraft. They've had to cut quite a bit in order to protect that second carrier.

[Rakesh]

I don't think there is a disconnect as far as the IN request having been rejected and the IN sent back to the drawing board and asked to set requirements for smaller, less capable or cheaper Aircraft Carrier.

Successive navy chiefs have been talking about the Vishal being nuclear powered for quite a while now. One would imagine that such a decision would have passed muster at the MoD before such a discussion - even informally - was occurring in public.

Navy drops cherished dream of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2017/10/ ... clear.html
27 Oct 2017

The navy, which was eager to incorporate nuclear propulsion for INS Vishal, has been told by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) that it would take 15-20 years to develop a nuclear reactor powerful enough for an aircraft carrier, incorporating features to protect it from the corrosive and dynamic marine environment.

BARC has successfully developed a 190 Megawatt (MW) reactor for India’s fleet of four-to-six nuclear propelled, nuclear missile carrying submarines, of which the first – INS Arihant – has already been commissioned. However, INS Vishal would require a reactor capable of generating at least 500-550 MW. That means developing a brand new, miniaturised reactor, ruggedized against a marine environment.

Nor is such a 550 MW reactor in the development pipeline, because of a dispute over who will pay the bill. Says an indignant navy admiral: “BARC wants us to place a ‘developmental contract’ to fund the reactor’s development. Why should we do that?”

========================================================================

As far as I can tell the IN is still pursuing the matter with the MOD just like it is still doing the same for the MRCBF program. No decision has, as far as I can tell, been made to accept or reject it so it is still pending.

Pursuing the matter - in the hallowed halls of the MoD - will take a long time.

And a decision has been made on the budget - or the lack thereof - for the IAC-2 vessel by the MoD.

Please see links below.

========================================================================

Let's see how this plays out between the IN and the MOD. Certainly plenty to go before it is sealed and finalized (rejected or re-designed etc. etc.).

One would have imagined that a 65K carrier would have overcome/survived the "let's build another 45K ton" scrub during the Analysis of Alternatives before the request was developed further and matured

65,000 tonne has been torpedoed to the bottom of the ocean, for now. Here is a good example of what the Navy Chief says and how the MoD goes in the opposite direction.

'India will continue to have edge over China in aircraft carriers'
https://www.theweek.in/theweek/current/ ... india.html
22 Dec 2018

Q. And the next aircraft carrier?

A. Capability assessment for building IAC-2, a CATOBAR carrier of 65,000 tonnes, has been undertaken. India can design and build it. The matter is under deliberation at the ministry for accord of acceptance of necessity (AoN).

Less than six months later, this is the story...

Budgetary woes put India’s super-carrier “INS Vishal” on hold
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/05/ ... rrier.html
06 May 2019

INS Vishal was conceived as a 65,000 tonne aircraft carrier, embarking 55 aircraft and costing Rs 60,000 crore. After the MoD objected to the cost, the navy downsized the proposal to a 50,000-tonne carrier costing about Rs 50,000 crore. But the MoD remains unwilling to accord funding or sanction.

Forget nuclear power and 65,000 tonne, the MoD is not even willing to fund a 50,000 tonne, conventionally-powered, aircraft carrier. And if this is the MoD's attitude, where is the money going to come from for 57 carrier borne fighters which will cost $15 billion?

And as per the new Naval Chief - Admiral Karambir Singh - this is what he has to say on IAC-2.

Need long-term fiscal support to build Navy: Admiral Karambir Singh
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 707953.ece
25 July 2019

On the proposed second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-II), which has been on the drawing board for sometime but has not been approved by the government yet, Adm. Singh said he could not give any timeline.

The reason why the good Admiral cannot provide any timeline, because that file is sitting on some desk in the MoD and will continue to sit there for a long while. What can he honestly say, other than repeat what his predecessors have been saying?

Need to watch China’s global ambitions & respond within existing budget, says Navy chief
https://theprint.in/defence/need-to-wat ... ef/267899/
25 July 2019

“Our plan is to build a 65,000 tonne with possibly electric propulsion and catapult assisted take off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) so that if we have three aircraft carriers, we can have two operational at any given time,” he said.

To be fair to your line of argument, a 65K tonne vessel is still very much on the cards as of last month. And this is from the new Naval Chief. However, the title of the article makes one wonder if the MoD sees the value of this project. In the same article, Admiral Singh states that shipbuilding is perceived as a drain on the economy. And it is easily guessed where he got feedback that from.

========================================================================

[The USN did this very step as CVN-X/21 was one or two notches below the highest-performing design initially down-selected for the Ford program and through their analysis it was determined that the incremental capability offered by the two other designs could be part of the trade-space and traded for things like cost, schedule, complexity and alternate investments]. Usually there is an operational reason to seek a particular capability enhancement over the alternative. Most requirements analysis focuses on incremental requirements and measures that against the status quo to see if there is value add and if that value add is mission critical or can be included in the trade space. The Nuclear vs Non-Nuclear debate was not as significant as you can achieve nearly the same performance with non-nuclear propulsion considerations (the UK already did that analysis for EMALS working with the US Navy when it was considering the trade-offs). The upper bounds of the capability (size of carrier, size of air-wing, launch mechanism etc. etc.) is probably more crucial to how it deals with the threat in an offensive and defensive orientation.

A very good example which works in a nation that sees the value of aircraft carriers and the diplomacy that can be wielded from them. The USN proposes something and by & large the project goes ahead. Is that the same story in our MoD?

Budgetary woes put India’s super-carrier “INS Vishal” on hold
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/05/ ... rrier.html
06 May 2019

“The outgoing government has put this on the back burner. But this will be one of the most pressing procurement decisions on the incoming government’s plate,” says a recently retired admiral.

This article was written in early May 2019 and the new govt has got its hands full on six Project 75I boats, 114 MRFA, 111 NUH, etc. With the exception of P75I, the govt wants to show quicker results. They will likely punt this decision on IAC-2 till those projects are completed. It is not just the senior leadership of the Navy that has the Govt's ear. The bureaucrats in the MoD also have a strong voice, if not greater. The Govt listens to them as well.

Jumping form a 45K carrier to a 65K ton carrier makes total sense if it is an operationally based decision and if the 45K ton was a springboard for a higher capability. The IN may turn around and choose to invest the money elsewhere if it feels another 45K ton is not as significant a value add in the post 2030 world as other alternatives (like surface vessels, subs etc. etc.) so it is all relative and I'm sure it will work with the MOD to see if it can get what it needs and if not find a suitable alternative strategy or investment track.

From an operational perspective, you are correct. But the MoD has to fund it no?

One possible (& likely) scenario will be this. Like Project 75I, this file will move at a snail's pace. Nothing of significance will happen other than bureaucratic language being fed to the media every now and then. When PLAN carriers start operating - likes fleas - in the Indian Ocean, then the fire will be lit under the MoD and that is when the file will move. Same scenario as is happening with Project 75I. As per Admiral Lanba himself, construction will start in three years and the vessel will take 7 - 10 years to complete. See link below...

Sea trials of IAC Vikrant likely to begin in 2020: Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 653678.ece
03 Dec 2018

Making a strong pitch for a second IAC, he said, “Case for a second IAC has received necessary impetus, though it is still a decade away. Construction would be spread over 7-10 years. We will see the start of construction in three years.” Adm. Lanba said addressing the annual press conference on Monday, on the eve of the Navy Day.

Assuming the project gets the MoD sanction in 2020, construction will start in 2023. And there is no way that vessel will be ready in 7 years by 2030. More like the mid 2030s is more like it. And that is if the project gets MoD sanction in 2020. It will be delayed, like every other naval project in India.

But I hope your scenario turns out to be true though. I truly hope so.

[JTull]

Hmm! Sad day that The Hindu, Ajai Shukla, NDTV, etc are now effectively controlling the narrative

[Rakesh]

JTull, I hope the links I provided are incorrect. But knowing the MoD's penchant for not sanctioning large scale projects, this is not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Whatever their agendas may be (and they do indeed have agendas), the proof is in the pudding.

Both Navy chiefs - one former and the present one - have made some bold statements or said some alarming things about this project to date. If those statements (that I provided) are untrue, then obviously everything is hunky dory. But the Navy has not provided any rebuttal on those news articles/interviews to date. Therefore those statements are valid then.

[Rakesh]

I think Saurav Jha Sir is following this thread, because he just tweeted this two hours ago! What are the odds of that!

=================================================================

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1160988033434284033 ---> Wrote this last year, as to why the Indian Navy won't be getting a 65k carrier anytime soon, and what it could do instead.

Navy’s eagerness to buy $20 billion aircraft carrier cuts into funds for Army & Air Force
https://theprint.in/opinion/navys-eager ... ce/108323/
30 Aug 2018

Why has the Indian Navy been so eager to acquire a new 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier, putatively called INS Vishal, for north of $20 billion? Many would perhaps find the Indian Navy’s enthusiasm a little strange at a time when the service is desperately short of submarines and ship-borne helicopters. The answer to the above question lies in the fact that large aircraft carriers with an on-board launch system, especially of the kind the Indian Navy wants to build, offer unmatched utility for a variety of tasks ­including anti-submarine warfare (ASW), despite the aforementioned vulnerabilities. However, the price tag for INS Vishal has made the ministry of defence (MoD) chary of giving it the go ahead. It has been almost a year since the proposal began circulating in the MoD’s decision chain, but is yet to secure even an ‘in principle’ approval.

Indications are that this proposal is unlikely to see serious bureaucratic movement before 2022. This would mean that INS Vishal will be ready for commissioning only by around 2040, given the standard building time in India. The Indian Navy’s cherished dream of operating a three-carrier naval force by the 2030s, with one carrier each being available for either seaboard at all times, appears unlikely to be realised.

Unsurprisingly, quality comes at a price. Although the Indian Navy has dropped its earlier plans of making INS Vishal nuclear-propelled, the projected cost of the ship alone is easily in the $10-billion range and that is as of today.

Double my low-end estimate of a meagre $5 billion for the Vishal.

Judging by the IAF’s Rafale deal, the proposed air group consisting of either Rafales or F-18s will cost another $12 billion or so. Simply put, with its current price tag, INS Vishal project is unlikely to see light of the day anytime soon when both the Army and the Air Force are equipping themselves for possibly fighting an ‘intense’ 10-15 day limited war with either of India’s neighbours.

The Navy had budgeted the deal for 57 carrier borne fighters for Rs 95,000 crore (which is close to US $13.33 billion as of today's exchange rates).

Indeed, a case could be made for building a more modest INS Vishal, which would basically be an enlarged INS Vikrant and would host a group of indigenous LCA-Navy Mark 2 fighters that are currently under development. To be sure, this option might not easily find favour with the Navy, which obviously does not want the Vishal to be just a modest step-up from its current carriers. Nonetheless, a more limited INS Vishal can be built relatively quickly and economically by CSL, which is currently setting up a new dry dock suitable for building super-carriers.

For now, the Navy can consider setting up a ‘joint project body’ with the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on the lines of ‘Project Akanksha’, which oversees India’s nuclear submarine projects, to commence construction on a large nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the late 2020s. By that time, New Delhi will likely be able to afford it.

What many are arguing that the Navy should do.

[nachiket]

Brar, there is a disconnect between what the Navy Chief (and senior Navy leadership) says and what the MoD is willing to fund. Your analysis is spot on, but the MoD does not see it that way.

I sometimes wonder if the disconnect is more widespread. There are a lot of decisions taken by the IN and/or MoD which flummox me, with the caveat that I am only a layman (and perhaps too ignorant to question them). Here are a few -

1. The insistence on Brahmos VLS for the P-75I which delayed even the start of the program for years. It is incredibly difficult to achieve on a small SSK, and no ready-solution existed anywhere (beyond the pie-in-the-sky Amur model that Philip saar loves). Now it seems (and I hope) they have dropped that requirement.

2. The decision to cap the Shivalik procurement at 3. And then eventually having to run to the Russians for the Grigorovich class.

3. The rather low number of VLS cells (for SAMs not Brahmos) on the P-15A and B compared to their overall size.

4. The elevator size decision on the IAC-1. And now the attempts to somehow integrate a larger fighter on it instead of buying more Mig-29Ks (here of course I am taking all the assurances given to me by various posters that everything is hunky-dory with the 29K's now, at face-value ).

5. The plans for the EMALS equipped nuclear powered carrier that had even usually gung-ho BRF jingos questioning its financial viability.

[Manish_Sharma]

If we look holistically Bharat as one entity buying arms, then buying Twin Engine Medium weight fighters for Navy seems like a criminal waste of money and resources.

IAF needed 126 + 63 Rafale for fighting 2 front war against China and Porkstan. But instead GOI found they didn't have even money for 126 Rafale. We had to be contend buying 18 + 18 = 36 Rafale for two airbases 1 airbase for porkis and 1 airbase for chinees.

Most of War against these 2 enemies will be fought over Himalays, plains of Punjab, deserts of Rajasthan and Gujarat. This is where enemy will try to do as much damage and land grab as possible, we will have to try to do the same. Every bit of money and resources will be needed in these places.

Buying 57 foriegn jets for navy will be wastage of money:
1.) Naval Fighters are more money intensive as they age fast due to salty sea wind and humidity. Controlled crash landing them again and again also eats into airframe life. Their landing gear etc. needs to be heavier and strengthened thus they are not able to lift as much ordinance as IAF fighters. Many times they might have to jettison weaponery and fuel to land on Aircraft carrier, serious profligacy.

2.) Not much chance of chinese carriers crossing malacca straits and coming to fight here, even if they manage they'll be ambushed by Kilos and Kalaveris. Plus Sulur based Tejas or MKIs topped by Il 78 tankers can go and swat down inferior Su 33s.

3.) In future USA might put tremendous pressure upon GOI and commandeer this aircraft career for its own wars, specially incase we have a IMF deputed Prime Minister like Manmohan Singh OR Raghu Ram Rajan (you never know).

Navy seems to hate being in ocean, but want to be in skies, they shouldn't forget they are Navy not Airforce. God knows how many of Boeing employees mainting P8i aircrafts might be from US naval intelligence OR Culinery Institute of America.

IMAGINE THESE 57 Rafale, WILL BE HAVING MORE AVAILABILITY LESS MAINTENCE HUNGRY, HAVE MORE CAPABILITY TO LIFT MORE ORDINANCE, AND WILL BE USED ACTUALLY IN REAL BATTLEFIELD by the Air Force not navy.

In his first term Modi had gone to INS Vikramaditya to see Mig 29 operations, guess what no Mig 29 landed OR took off. Disappointed PMO asked navy in written why Mig 29s didn't display any activity? Navy reported "weather didn't permit operations", The truth is Aircraft carrier fighters won't have much availability due to weather/parts junked due to salty sea env.

It'll be total waste of money.

Only IAF deserves MMRCA, Navy must make do with Naval Tejas and later with N-AMCA.

[NRao]

* POOF *

[Philip]

The large grand Vishal and her 57 birds aren't going to materialise soon.It will beggar not only the IN's budget but also the sister services. A modified sister ship to the new Vikrant is doable and passable, but even that CV will by our building and budgetary rate arrive around 2030.Equipped with larger lifts its aircraft aboard could be decided around 2025.As said many a time, we have unsinkable INS India and INS A&N from where land based aircraft with tanker support can sanitise both seaboards and choke points.A small sqd. of Backfires alone would be quite devastating armed with dozens of BMos variants in the future, able to sink any CBG ingressing into the IOR. For amphib. support , a revised deck design, similar to the IAC-1 and NLCAs could do the business.

A few years ago a well-known defence expert and I were discussing the P-75I specs and were sceptical of the planned conv. boat armed to the gills like an SSN, trying to duplicate its role.
If the demand for VLS BMos has been dumped, a sigh of relief!
Smaller BMos- NG is planned for the future and Klub/ Kalibir/Nirbhay ( to be A new longer- range anti- sub missile has supposedly been developed by Ru., than the existing RPK-7/ Stallion, which is quite lethal itself.The Q is the AIP system chosen- one always has a Q mark over a DRDO system ( timeframe) especially one that has never been tested aboard a sub, quite different from doing it ashore in a test tank whatever. With AIP an endurance of 60 days should be fine for the SSK with at least 8 to 12 subs planned not just 6.We need numbers, at least 24 conv. boats in addition to our N-subs, at least 12 SSBNs and SSGN/SSNs.

What is also needed are several UUVs which will greatly assist the fleet in UW detection.The USN has also developed a surface unmanned vessel that can loiter for months in surveillance ops. This is an area where we have much to acquire in technology.

[Rakesh]

X-Post from the MMRCA thread....

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Committed To Create An Aerospace Ecosystem In India: Leanne Caret, President & CEO, Boeing Defence Space & Security
http://www.businessworld.in/article/Com ... 19-174586/

Q. Tell us about Boeing’s offer of Super Hornet for the MMRCA 2.0 and how do you intend to make the proposal to the Indian government. Can you highlight the new elements in your proposal that set you apart from the competitors?

A. Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III is the newest capability that we are offering to the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy, and how we approach ‘Make in India’ underscores our proven track record of keeping our promises and our commitment to a long-term partnership. The Super Hornet is the frontline multi-role fighter of navies and air forces around the world and is the most modern and the stealthiest aircraft in the competition. The US Navy recently awarded Boeing a three-year contract for 78 F/A-18 new Block III Super Hornets. Its technology insertions keep outpacing future threats for decades. The Super Hornet offers affordable stealth because it is designed to be more reliable and therefore costs far less to operate than other fighters. The Block III adds extensive capability upgrades that include enhanced network capacity, longer range, even better stealth performance, an advanced cockpit system and new sensors, with the life of the aircraft extended from 6,000 hours to 10,000 hours.

With the Super Hornet, the Indian Navy would not just get the most advanced platform but also tremendously benefit from US Navy’s know-how, technology and tactics. These would be transformative for India and further the defence partnership between India and the United States. Besides, we are excited about the public-private partnership that will bring together Boeing, Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) and Mahindra’s global scale, manufacturing and supply chain expertise as we build an entirely new advanced manufacturing facility in India. This facility, when completed, will be a state-of-the-art fighter production facility addressing the infrastructure, personnel training, and operational tools and techniques required to produce a next-gen fighter aircraft in India.

Q. The government is also working on the indigenous AMCA programme and expects the winner of MMRCA to contribute. How does that work for Boeing?

A. The key to a successful ‘Make in India’ programme is building a globally competitive fighter manufacturing base. But doing this takes time and investment. Boeing has already started working with Indian industry and customers over the last few decades to do this. Boeing’s approach to building a 21st-century ecosystem for the F/A-18 Super Hornet in India is based on over a decade of our industrial commitment in India. We have been sourcing structural and electrical sub-systems from the Indian supply chain for our F/A-18 Super Hornets for years. Manufacturing fighter aircraft requires a modern production process including precision manufacturing, and if the F/A-18 is selected by India, there will be an additional investments that we will make to build the aerospace ecosystem. For this reason, the F/A-18 co-produced in India in a factory-of-the-future would be the most suited for AMCA programme.

[Rakesh]

Here we go again....round and round the merry-go-round, will the carrier acquisition file move in the MoD!

China planning 10 aircraft carriers, we need at least 3: Navy Chief
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr
28 August 2019

The Indian Navy chief referred to an increasing Chinese Navy presence in the Indian Ocean Region as well as its plans to expand forces to drive home the point that a third aircraft carrier is of urgent need. “It is pertinent to mention that the PLA (N) (Peoples Liberation Army Navy) is projected to have a force level of five to six aircraft carriers within the next decade and up to 10 carriers by 2049,” he said.

The navy chief’s comments come as a formal proposal to start work on the third aircraft carrier—planned to be the largest ever warship to be made in India—have not found favour with the defence ministry that has reservations on the funds required for the project.

The defence ministry has been going slow on what some consider a prohibitively expensive naval programme, with officials suggesting optimal utilisation of resources for other critical purchases, like submarines and advanced frigates. By conservative estimates, the cost of construction of the carrier itself, without the aircraft, would exceed Rs 70,000 crore.

[Cain Marko]

Why do I see an inclination towards the shornet from the Indian Navy over the rafale?

It MMRCA 2.0 goes to rafale, I think the Navy 57 will go to the shornet.

[Rakesh]

Cain-ji, put some numbers into perspective.

Rs 70,000 crore = US $9.75+ billion for *ONE* carrier. The Navy has estimated that 57 carrier borne fighters will cost Rs 95,000 crore. So, Rs 95,000 crore = US $13.2+ billion and therefore the 57 fighters will cost more than the vessel itself

By the way, that is close to US $23 billion for the vessel and the 57 fighters. And these are just estimates. That cost will only balloon when the acquisition of the 57 fighters and the construction of the carrier begins.

Project 75I (for *SIX* submarines) is estimated to be anywhere between Rs 45,000 to Rs 50,000 crore (US $6.2 billion to US $6.9 billion). You want to venture a guess what the Babus (who do not have a Hail Mary clue on warships) is going to say?

Then there is MMRCA for the IAF for 114 fighters. FICV for the Indian Army. 111 NUH for the Indian Navy. Where is the money going to come from for this white elephant project? Good luck with this passing muster in the MoD!

Take advantage of the design of the Vikrant presently under construction. Enlarge the design, put wider lifts and focus on the Naval Tejas Mk2. The IN can get all that for under US $10 billion.

[brar_w]

Why do I see an inclination towards the shornet from the Indian Navy over the rafale?

It MMRCA 2.0 goes to rafale, I think the Navy 57 will go to the shornet.

Any radical shift in carrier operations and design would likely mean that the decision to pick a strike fighter would be part of a larger decision around propulsion, launch and recovery mechanism choice, and other components of the air wing so looking at just fighters in isolation is unlikely to be indicative of the IN's thinking process and trade analysis. The biggest barrier is going to be cost, but if that is overcome then I think the IN will look at the big picture and how everything fits together.

[Cain Marko]

Rakesh saar, all that is true and the calculation of 60 billion USD for such programs is reasonable.but the RFIs are out and there is often talk of spending about 100 billion USD in the next 10 years for such acquisitions/modernization. The costs will be spread over 10 + years. They will also include all kinds of offset deals and local employment as well. Currently the defence budget already allocates about 100k crore for capex per year

If the plan is to make India a $5 trillion economy by 2022, don't see why 50-60 billion should be an issue..

Having said this, I'm actually not a fan of fighting fire with fire. I'd much prefer water. China has xyz so India needs xyz..I don't buy that and honestly I don't think the Chief does either but it's a great media line to get the babus thinking perhaps.

It Navy wants another carrier, I don't see why an additional Vikrant class won't do. The fighter complement will cost though since there is a desire to move away from the russkis.

Instead of trying the soopah carrier approach, a better counter might be through a combination of blue water ssks+ssns, a fleet of fast bombers, more MPA, guardians etc.

[Cain Marko]

Why do I see an inclination towards the shornet from the Indian Navy over the rafale?

It MMRCA 2.0 goes to rafale, I think the Navy 57 will go to the shornet.

Any radical shift in carrier operations and design would likely mean that the decision to pick a strike fighter would be part of a larger decision around propulsion, launch and recovery mechanism choice, and other components of the air wing so looking at just fighters in isolation is unlikely to be indicative of the IN's thinking process and trade analysis. The biggest barrier is going to be cost, but if that is overcome then I think the IN will look at the big picture and how everything fits together.

True that but there is more to the picture than just what the Navy wants and it's needs. There is a strategic element to such massive purchases and my guesstimate was based on this angle as much as anything else.

[Rakesh]

Rakesh saar, all that is true and the calculation of 60 billion USD for such programs is reasonable.but the RFIs are out and there is often talk of spending about 100 billion USD in the next 10 years for such acquisitions/modernization. The costs will be spread over 10 + years. They will also include all kinds of offset deals and local employment as well. Currently the defence budget already allocates about 100k crore for capex per year

If the plan is to make India a $5 trillion economy by 2022, don't see why 50-60 billion should be an issue..

Service Chiefs make a lot of bold statements. Admiral Sunil Lanba, who reportedly said to the media at the 2018 Navy Day press conference that money is available for 57 carrier borne fighters. The rest is history.

If the MoD does not bite, then no matter what the Service Chiefs say....projects will never come to fruition or it will be half-baked. From the budget flows everything - EMALS, displacement, carrier borne fighter, helicopters, weapons, etc, etc, etc. No budget? Then nothing will come, other than sound bytes.

Having said this, I'm actually not a fan of fighting fire with fire. I'd much prefer water. China has xyz so India needs xyz..I don't buy that and honestly I don't think the Chief does either but it's a great media line to get the babus thinking perhaps.

It Navy wants another carrier, I don't see why an additional Vikrant class won't do. The fighter complement will cost though since there is a desire to move away from the russkis.

Instead of trying the soopah carrier approach, a better counter might be through a combination of blue water ssks+ssns, a fleet of fast bombers, more MPA, guardians etc.

With regards to the fighter complement, I doubt either the Super Hornet or the Rafale M will fly in IN colours. The carrier itself is not getting sanctioned, then how will the carrier borne fighters get sanctioned?

Fully agree on the bolded part. I hope the IN takes up Naval Group's offer of three additional Scorpenes and ends the SSK program. Rather than waste Rs 50,000 crore on Project 75I, switch to a SSN fleet...with a 24 to 30 BrahMos VLS load out. The Russians are designing a follow on to the Yasen Class, called the Husky Class. Do a 6 (instead of six P75I SSKs) + 6 (the present SSN program of six boats) build. A small fleet of Tu-160M2s (armed with Brahmos-A) would be a welcome addition. Six to eight of these birds would be awesome. Along with more Boeing P-8Is and Guardian UAVs. See the next post (after this one) about the UAV.

Sometimes I feel the services are like the common man who dreams to buy a Ferrari F8 Tributo but can only realistically afford an Maruti Alto (because that is all the MoD is willing to fund). To the Babu, the Alto has four wheels just like the Ferrari F8 and can go from Point A to Point B just like the Ferrari F8. So why spend more? But the common man will announce to the world, that Ferrari is what I am buying. Then reality hits and India is saddled with a vessel called the Vikramaditya and the myriad of issues that came with it.

Budget Analysis - INS Vishal

[Rakesh]

India may go for only naval UAVs from US
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 882886.cms
28 August 2019

[Philip]

More sensible.The puny offensive hardware that they can carry too makes it unattractive. Long- endurance UAVs for surveillance networked to allow warships, subs and aircraft to launch missile attacks is a better option.It may also mean that our own stealth UCAV and other more modest UAVprogrammes are making good progress.

Adm.Raks, ck.out SoKo's latest 3000t super- sub based upon the U-214 platforn but with 8 TTs and 6 VLS cells.A future avatar will have 10 cells.The Scorpene in non- AIP avatar with the IN is over $600M! Almost twice the cost of a Klub/ Kalibir armed Kilo.It's a " no contesto" comparison. Moreover, the Scorpene leak has diminshed its value considerably.Add AIP to it and it will cost even more.

The IN frankly should build two lines of conv. AIP subs.One an AIP SSK dedicated to anti-sub warfare ( preferably western/ German) for the IOR and its littorals and the other a multi- purpose BMos/ Kalibir equipped Ru platform based upon the Amur or other design ,tweaked to incorporate our uinque requirements.This sub would gradually replace the Kilos undergoing their second refit and which should start getting phased out from the end of the next decade.A minimum of 24 conv. boats plust 12+ N-boats should give us a fair number with which to repel both China and Pak.

[Eric Leiderman]

why not a charles de gaul sized carrier 40-50ktonnes with cat launch and stobr as an interim measure with amca navalized as the air wing
the timelines for both are not far out the budget also will be in between what we desire and what we can afford.

[Manish_P]

'Likely'.. how much likely?

India to go ahead with $3.1 bn US deal for maritime patrol aircraft

The procurement of 10 Boeing P8I maritime patrol aircraft is likely to be cleared at a key acquisition meeting next week, with the contract
to be processed under the foreign military sales (FMS) route.

Sources said that the Navy is keen to build up a fleet of 22 of these aircraft at the earliest and the contract will ensure continuous supply over the next four years as older maritime reconnaissance assets (Russian origin) retire

[Nikhil T]

'Likely'.. how much likely?

India to go ahead with $3.1 bn US deal for maritime patrol aircraft

The procurement of 10 Boeing P8I maritime patrol aircraft is likely to be cleared at a key acquisition meeting next week, with the contract
to be processed under the foreign military sales (FMS) route.

Sources said that the Navy is keen to build up a fleet of 22 of these aircraft at the earliest and the contract will ensure continuous supply over the next four years as older maritime reconnaissance assets (Russian origin) retire

Surprised because we have very low inventory of Harpoon missiles - the primary weapon system for P-8Is. Based on FMS data, we bought ~30 Harpoons post the original P-8 purchase (i.e. for 12 aircrafts each of which can carry atleast 4 missiles each). Hope we replenish the Harpoon stocks as well.

[Rakesh]

I really hope the CCS clears this deal. 22 of these beauties along with some American UAVs would give the IN some serious snooping capability.

[Cain Marko]

High time...

[Rakesh]

Now there is a wise investment Cain-ji. Super wise investment. Rather than waste money on a used carrier, spend them on some swanky new P-8Is and UAVs. I know this will never happen, but that Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton is sweet!

[Cybaru]

22 is good and wise! IN will have one area completely covered before the production stops. They can always add Triton to the fleet as well. Hope they bundle in 10 Tritons in this purchase or soon as a follow on for 24x7 on demand ISR.

The naval reconnaissance sats for the navy with french is also an interesting move.

[yensoy]

Hope the new built P8Is aren't based on the 737MAX! At least not until the bugs are fixed on the MAX.

[Cybaru]

No it is a separate platform.

[Cybaru]

From old news, but just sharing how IN is going about bringing eyes to everything they own. Adding a few Drones to follow objects of interest would be nice or to put them in a orbit for interest for 24 hours is also interesting. Once it finishes these and the 24 ASW sea king helicopter replacement program, they will pretty much own the whole Indian Ocean, above and below.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 828365.cms

India and France have planned 8-10 satellites as part of a “constellation” for maritime surveillance, French space agency CNES chief Jean-Yves Le Gall has said.

[Philip]

.

[Philip]

The extra P-8Is are a good decision, increasing the number available on both seaboards. The IN must redefine its goals for the future upto 2050 for a start.We do NOT have any expeditionary warfare ambitions unlike China, whose primary ambition is to capture Taiwan by any means.For this it has to take into account the USN and its CBGs,challenge it beyond the first island chain, why it plans a host of CVs while also quietly building several 30K t amphibs, with larger ones also planned for the actual invasion.

The IN's fundamental goal is to sanitise the IOR from enemy ingress and hostile ops, protection of our island territories and smaller friendly nations like Mauritius, the Maldives, etc., plus the destruction of the Paki navy. In addition protecting our merchant and tanker fleet transiting the IOR and to an extent beyond. Further afield in the ICS would also be protecting our joint oil installations in Vietnam's EEZ being challenged by the PLAN.That challenge will be jointly met by Viet forces and whatever we choose to send, more likely subs while arming the Viets to the teeth with Brahmos, etc. Sending a CBG into the ICS is as risky as the PLAN sending one of theirs into the IOR .

We too plan for 4 30K t amphibs, which as I've often repeated should be redesigned as multi-purpose light carriers able to operate the NLCA ( preferably), plus 29K from its decks .These vessels could swing in role including ASW using a large complement of ASW helos when required. A modified sister ship of the Vikrant with larger lifts plus the aforementioned amphibs should suffice quite well for our primary objectives.We've entered into agreements to use foreign bases/ outposts with Oman, The Seychelles, Mauritius, The Maldives, Reunion with France, Indonesia and are to build a naval port for Burma too.More may be in the offing.

Therefore our position as of now and if we plan cost-effectively is quite sound.Where we are deficient is in subs.Both in numbers and types.the planned fleet of only 24 is inadequate when China will posses around 80 plus Pak around 12.Why hasn't the good chief mentioned anything about this Chinese threat at all? Why only the carriers? PLAN subs pose a far greater threat to us operating permanently in the IOR from bases in Pak and rlsewhere. Unfortunately there appears to be an unhealthy attitude in the corridors of NHQ to ape the USN, or hoping to ride piggy-back on it, in cooperative engagement scenarios.Mortgaging the IN's independence to the USN obsessed with dealing with China in part at our expense is a dangerous and disastrous policy. What if the US and China get into a serious spat over Taiwan,? Very possible.If we are dragged into such a conflict in support of the USN by default, what will be the repercussions against us in our disputed northern and eastern borders and at sea as well? What if Russia comes to the aid of the PRC against the US too? These Qs must be thoroughly studied to chart out the structure of the IN assetwise taking into account present and future maritime challenges in the IOR and beyond.

[Philip]

PS: The advent of ER Brahmos, BMos-H and possibly acquisition of Kalibir SSMs and Nirbhay, both with ranges in excess of 1500km in the next decade would be another challenge to large CBGs, being detected by a cocktail of surveillance assets including marsats. The CBGs operating in the IOR with limited air cover of only their air assets aboard would be overwhelmed with saturation missile attacks from various platforms using NCW and superior numbers of land-based aircraft too.

[Cain Marko]

Now there is a wise investment Cain-ji. Super wise investment. Rather than waste money on a used carrier, spend them on some swanky new P-8Is and UAVs. I know this will never happen, but that Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton is sweet!

Ahem. I will now conveniently ignore the obverse of that statement Saar. But yes, this is bread and butter stuff as are the naval helos and minesweepers. I would even put additional subs, preferably stretched scorpion class or smx ocean French design, in tier 2. The whole super carrier hoopla is much lower on my totem pole, I'd prefer to see fast bombers before that.

But if it must be done and the Navy in its infinite wisdom, demands more carriers (afterall the CNSs statement has to count for something), I'm not averse to a US lend lease at all. Possibly even more than a follow on Vikrant class.

Why? Because the latter simply won't do to bring any pressure on the Chinese. A US size carrier will carry more than twice the firepower and will outmatch anything the Chinese have planned. The shornet also if most likely to for on the current carriers.

[Cain Marko]

PS: The advent of ER Brahmos, BMos-H and possibly acquisition of Kalibir SSMs and Nirbhay, both with ranges in excess of 1500km in the next decade would be another challenge to large CBGs, being detected by a cocktail of surveillance assets including marsats. The CBGs operating in the IOR with limited air cover of only their air assets aboard would be overwhelmed with saturation missile attacks from various platforms using NCW and superior numbers of land-based aircraft too.

I can understand hypersonics and even supersonics presenting a danger to CBGs at longer distances, I'm not sure sub sonics like kalibr or nirbhay would work. How will they be able to maintain track continuously for such a long period of time?

[vivek_ahuja]

I admire how the posters on this thread are discussing the navy's needs in defeating the upcoming Chinese carriers using P-8I, UAVs, anti-ship missiles etc. In other words: countermeasures. And to pay for these countermeasures, we are willing to give up our own carriers.

However, remember that the Indian Navy will never encounter these Chinese carriers in wartime. Ever. Why? Because the Chinese will not risk losing them to enemy attack during wartime. They will never be deployed. They are too valuable for national prestige to lose in the IOR to a few Brahmos missiles. These ships are power projection tools for the Chinese during peacetime. They will be sending them to places in the same way that the US Navy does with its carriers on a global scale. If necessary, they will put out some third-world military engagement or drop a few bombs over some AK-47 wielding jihadis or pirates. Generally, they will do fly-overs with their carrier aviation and make for pretty pictures.

But all of this has real-world value and currency in shaping geopolitics in favor of Beijing. Small countries and islands will respond to the big navy ships and carriers operating in their backyards. It will allow a lot of arm-twisting from Beijing and flying a few P-8s (which looks like an airline 737 from below) will not impress anyone when Chinese Su-33 knockoffs are thundering around with afterburners and shiny missiles.

Images matter during peacetime far more than wartime capabilities in today's world. There will be no war with China, because China will win during peacetime.

The Indian Navy chiefs understand this, and this is why they are pushing for desi carriers as the countermeasure to the real intentions of Beijing. They are not naive enough to think that one needs a carrier to combat another carrier. They are also not worried about real war against these carriers. Instead, they are worried about what the Chinese will reap in the Indian Ocean during the years of peace when theirs are the only carriers around.

[Cain Marko]

If it is all imagery and photo ops, then a US carrier in Indian colors makes all the more sense. Nothing like a 100K ton behemoth anchored off the beach to make the natives go all shocknawe. I mean the IN has been doing this for decades now. Even when it was a lot poorer than it is today.

[tsarkar]

The counter to aircraft carriers is submarines, which is why Australia ordered a massive 12 silent submarines outnumbering its surface fleet.

Present Navy Chief is from aviation and is making an emotional pitch for his service.

Aircraft carriers require supporting infrastructure of submarines to sweep area of operations, escorting cruisers, destroyers, frigates & minesweepers and are horrendously expensive capex and opex wise. A better option would be investing in more silent DE submarines and conventional missile carrying nuclear submarines.

Nothing like a 100K ton behemoth anchored off the beach to make the natives go all shocknawe.

Very bad idea given navigational challenges in shallow waters and threats of mines and lightweight missiles as the Israeli Hanit missile attack demonstrated.