INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

[brar_w]

Yes you are right, Austin saar had written same thing sometime back:

How many F-22's with their duct design have had engines flame out at high AOA? They've been flying (serial production) since nearly 25 years. Will the AMCA use a blocker or a duct that physically hides the engine components from direct view?

[titash]

Reading some of the discussion about the need for larger aircraft carriers and the types of ships.

I am taken back to the original 10 year plan for the Indian Navy. Which stated that the navy would have 2 light carriers and 4 full size aircraft carriers with a total of 280 deployed aircrafts.

Haven't read that document for several years. In order to present the strategic rationale on the forum.

But going forward, I think that an accomplishment of this plan would be a good start. In order to create a strong deterrence capacity against PLAN which is likely to exist by 2050.

Such a force when coupled with land based air assets and anti ship missiles and a capable submarine force. Makes any PLAN expedition in IOR against India a sucidal proposition during war time.

The original 1950s plan did not take into account the growth in carrier borne aircraft size. 4 fleet carriers were essentially 30,000 ton ships and the largest aircraft at that time was the Hawker Sea Fury…the ultimate piston engines fighter with air wings of about 60+ fighters

[Pratyush]

The size of the ship and the aircraft of the time is immaterial today.

I was making a point regarding the strategic rationale for that fleet. If that would become relevant against an aggressive PRC by 2040 to 2050. Give the likely fleet size they are going to end with.

During that time, will the Indian Navy be served by 4 to 6 smaller carriers, coupled with land based airpower.

Or an equal number large carrier, independent of land based airpower.

Or a mixed fleet of light and large carrier and some portion of land based airpower.

Because remember, if the a substantial portion of land based airpower is diverted to assist the Indian Navy in dealing with any potential PRC task force in IOR. Then the portion of that Air Power will not be available against PRC in the eastern sector or the northern sector.

From a national security stand point there will be trade offs.

These decisions have to be made in the next few years if we are to have any chance by 2050.

[AkshaySG]

Because remember, if the a substantial portion of land based airpower is diverted to assist the Indian Navy in dealing with any potential PRC task force in IOR. Then the portion of that Air Power will not be available against PRC in the eastern sector or the northern sector.

From a national security stand point there will be trade offs.

These decisions have to be made in the next few years if we are to have any chance by 2050.

Why does there need to be a diversion?.. We just need to be smarter about where we are basing the air power.

We already have a squadron in Thanjavur, Over time as operational squadrons increase we can also have active squadrons in Andaman, In Nicobar and Forward bases on other small islands. Not to mention other supporting aircraft like Helos, P-8s and whatnot.

Plus a multitude of air defense systems which would pick up their heavy Su-33s with not much difficulty

This will give us enough of an air wing to rival 2 Viky sized aircraft carriers.

It will obviously cost a good chunk money to raise these squadrons but its still going to be a drop in the bucket compared having 5-6 active carriers groups.

I don't understand this obsession with trying to match China 1v1 on everything,

When dealing with a foe that (currently) has 5-6x larger economy and military budget we need to smarter about where we're putting our cash.

You talk of trade offs.. What about the trade offs that we would have to make to sustain such a large carrier fleet, I'm certain we'd have to cut back on subs, destroyers and Helos.. Probably divert money from AF and Army acquisitions to Navy for getting those 200 odd fighters.

[vivek_ahuja]

Can anyone explain to me what is the purpose of the Indian Aircraft Carrier (IAC) fleet?

This might sound like a dumb question, so allow me to expand:

1. If the purpose of the IAC is to combat other carriers (Chinese), then why not focus more on carrier-killer capabilities like Anti-ship ballistic missiles (something we are well set up to do, and are doing by some clear indications). Focus also on increasing the ability of the Su-30s to carry Brahmos missiles: get more aerial tankers, AEW and heavy electronic jamming aircraft. Increase the range of the Brahmos etc. The list of options goes on. The IAC will never match the heavy requirements of an anti-carrier mission in their current configuration: too few airplanes, limited payload when using ski jumps and limited range. Limited on-board AEW.

2. If the purpose of the IAC is to perform anti-sub warfare, then what is needed is more helicopter carrier than an aircraft carrier. More Seahawks, Kamovs and ASW Dhruvs. Again, no need for ski-jump capabilities because none of the fixed-wing airplanes on board are planned for ASW. Long range P-8s from ground-bases also highly valued in this role.

3. Perhaps the purpose of the IAC is to fight against the Pakis in a sea-denial mode. In other words, focus more on sinking smaller groups (or individual) warships of the Paki Navy, as well as deny the merchant shipping traffic. Also carry out strikes against PN installations. The issue here is that the PN is focused more on sub warfare, and so the requirement is similar to point 2 above. Their surface warfare fleet can be attacked and sunk by shore-based Su-30s, P-8s and IN large surface warfare fleets. Merchant shipping sinking is overkill with carriers in the limited space of the Arabian sea. What strike capabilities will the IAC fixed wing aircraft possess that the surface warfare fleet combined with AEW helicopters cannot already do? Range, perhaps? The IAC fixed-wing aircraft cannot carry the Brahmos, so right there their range advantage compared to the P-15A type large surface vessels becomes limited. The latter can also carry the same AEW helicopters that the IAC would carry.

4. Perhaps the purpose of the IAC is to protect the surface warfare fleet (point 2-3 above) from air attack. So now we are considering an anti-air protection bubble around the IAC. Does the limited number of fixed-wing airplanes on a given IAC, plus the limited ski-jump payload/fuel allow long loiter times to perform round-the-clock BARCAP missions? With just 16-20 aircraft in total available, you can do the math for maintaining even the bare minimal two-aircraft patrol on a 24 hour clock. It is not sufficient. Perhaps we need 2 IAC then? What is the bare number of carriers needed?

5. Power projection. Will the IAC be used in the same way that the Chinese intend to use their carriers: to wave the flag and enforce their diplomacy by projecting that power visually? This is not the strong suite of the GOI and is a waste of funds, IMO. India just does not have the mentality for the carrot-and-stick type diplomacy that the Americans and Chinese strive for. The funds should then be used elsewhere for point-1 above.

6. Amphibious operations / disaster response: Better to have dedicated helicopter carriers for this role. The fixed-wing contingent on an IAC has no capability to offer for this type of mission, other than as strike aircraft in the initial softening of the island targets. Besides, we have no plans (or long-term military capability) to go around launching amphibious operations in far-away oceans and seas. If the Indian Ocean islands are of interest, then again helicopter carriers under the cover of ground-based AShBMs, Su-30s and AWACS are a better investment.

7. All of the above. Which is a mess, given all the limitations discussed.

Maybe the combined cover of the land-based assets and the fixed-wing contingent of the IAC would be sufficient to provide air-cover for the IN. But that is about it. We need to focus on CATOBAR carriers to increase the potency of the fixed-wing airplanes on board, allowing them to range outside the cover of land assets. Else the resulting capabilities are high cost and yet marginal.

[Cain Marko]

Can anyone explain to me what is the purpose of the Indian Aircraft Carrier (IAC) fleet?

Imho it's a combination of points 3, 4 and 5. Dominance vs PN, and anything else in the IOR short of perhaps the USN. this includes sea denial and control from East Africa to East of Malacca. Possibly from the horn to South of the Sunda straits.

3 CBGs with destroyers, asw frigates, an SSN (or even SMX type) and an airwing of 24 fighters plus AEW choppers should allow for such a capability. Note that IN fighters can act as effective buddy refuelers to increase the endurance of CAPs.

Frankly, more can't be done with an additional CV, even if it is catobar and weighs 65k tons. Although it will certainly official more options. The IN should press for a stretched Vikrant thereby making good on the infrastructure and effort already put in place.

A fleet of LRMP birds that can carry the Brahmos or even a small fleet of backfires in addition to the above would be perfect. With a combat radius of 2200km loaded with 2-3 brahmos, these will provide tremendous reach to the navy in far flung corners.

[vivek_ahuja]

Can anyone explain to me what is the purpose of the Indian Aircraft Carrier (IAC) fleet?

Imho it's a combination of points 3, 4 and 5. Dominance vs PN, and anything else in the IOR short of perhaps the USN. this includes sea denial and control from East Africa to East of Malacca. Possibly from the horn to South of the Sunda straits.

3 CBGs with destroyers, asw frigates, an SSN (or even SMX type) and an airwing of 24 fighters plus AEW choppers (each) should allow for such a capability. Note that IN fighters can act as effective buddy refuelers to increase the endurance of CAPs.

Right. So you are arriving at the number of carriers = 3 (in the Vikrant category) to perform roles 3,4 and 5 in the list above.

Now, clearly the IN is not going to get 3 carriers to do this job. If I forced you to make do with just 1 Vikrant + 1 Vikramaditya class (which is even worse that the Vikrant), what roles would you give up? Clearly you would agree that roles 3,4 and 5 cannot all be satisfied with these 1.5 carriers instead of the 3 you asked for?

And if you agree with me on this point, by extension, are we not in a situation where there is a minimum carrier count + capability below which it is probably a waste of time having carriers for namesake purposes?

[Pratyush]

Akshay,

I am thinking in terms of what is required to fight a PLAN that has the experience of multiple decades with multiple carrier operations. A force that is capable of facing the USN by 2050 with full spectrum capacities.

What strategy will be followed by the Indian state about n terms of keeping Indian Ocean open for trade and commerce.

One of the approaches could be to mirror the PLAN force structure. Not necessarily on a 1:1 basis.

Or it could be asymmetrical with land based anti ship cruise and ballistic missiles coupled with land based recci capacity.

Or it could be mix of the force mirroring with land based Anti Ship weapons.

That is where one of the trade offs is.

Another area where tradeoff is would be the utilisation of land based airpower in dealing with the PLAN. If the PRC is able to build a large surface fleet and has been able to maintain the size of its airforce. Then it's ability to perform multiple tasks over a short period of time increases.

If the Indian fleet along with the IAF doesn't grow. Then it's ability to conduct multiple operations spread accross 1000s of kms in space cannot be managed in a highly compressed timeframe. Which is what we will be faced with.

Especially, if we are in a two front war fighting scenario.

The scenario I am outlining is not true right now. But it has th potential of being true in f we are unable to grow our capabilities in the not so near future.

[Barath]

Can anyone explain to me what is the purpose of the Indian Aircraft Carrier (IAC) fleet?

1. Don't forget that India imports a lot of oil from the middle east, and does not have sizeable oil storage (Unlike china). Protecting indian trade lines may not be sexy, but it is important.

This is one of the points from the below treatise.

Ho, Ben Wan Beng (2018) "The Aircraft Carrier in Indian Naval Doctrine," Naval War College Review: Vol. 71 : No. 1 , Article 6.
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-r ... l71/iss1/6

The treatise does have problems (eg focuses only on Indo pak). But it also points out the risk-reward challenges faced, and that a sizeable strike package would take away from CAP. Something which many here underestimate.

I still think it goes overboard in underestimating the willingness to go for strike, or the value of creating complex challenges for the opponent. But it also points out need for long range conventional strike (eg P75I vls, conventional prahaar etc) for a first day of war scenario

This article is 3 decades old but still a useful general reference
Prakash, Arun (1990) "A Carrier Force for the Indian Navy," Naval War College Review: Vol. 43 : No. 4 , Article 5.
Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-r ... l43/iss4/5

2. Related to your point 5 - A rationale for carriers is that unlike submarines, they are useful even in peacetime. This is something the Indian navy has referenced. Sea denial or power projection in the malacca strait etc must take into consideration the local powers and the USA. Countries like Singapore have an explicit policy of trying to balance US and China (for eg due to economic benefits, sizeable internal chinese population and the local threat from China). A carrier is a visible manifestation and reminder to all these parties that India is a significant and relevant power, worth wooing and considering in balance of power/tilt considerations. Clausewitz said that war is a continuation of politics by other means; viz military might as part of political/diplomatic intercourse. Exercises, training, humanitarian missions etc along with diplomacy and other actions may be useful. A carrier or two may be the part of the cost of being at the table, of perishing any thought that India is a paper tiger amidst a build up of several Chinese carriers and subs, US deployment etc.

Ie In addition to war, quasi war and quasi peace must also be considered.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-inter ... dia-s-navy is worth discussing.

The other elements you mentioned also are relevant. The trick is to find the priority, as one cannot do the all the items listed at the same time. And that carriers are but one peice of the puzzle for each of the same purposes

ie There are other actions one could take (eg building up SOSUS, building network for net centric warfare, satellites and AI/ML for maritime ISR, drones for ISR/ASW and so on) for specific areas. And that naval shipbuilding is a very long range effects - of order of decades to build and operate.

At the moment I would suggest a balanced option, with more sea denial, submarines, long range missiles, building of ISR/network/ASW capabilities (short of the big NMRH RFP) , build up of maritime bases and forward basing capability and make full use of the 2nd carrier that is about to enter the fleet.


Your point 1 - on killing Chinese carriers could be done by other means as well (better ISR and network capabilities, DF21 like missiles, Brahmos and newer ship killing missiles on other platforms, subs )

Your point 2 - ASW - could be buttressed by drones for ASW, subs, SOSUS, some choppers, better sonar and networking. And alliances.

Your point 3 - aircraft carriers for sea control, denial etc for Pakistan - An overkill IMHO that needs lower priority. But hey, we already have the aircraft carrier. Not to mention that the Indian Navy is in a struggle for funds, priority and to show relevance. And a case or actions against Pakistan might to help in the South Block in Delhi.

Otherwise, long range missiles, whether P75I VLS, or land based or elsewhere would help.

Your point 4: You always need an anti-air bubble around the IAC. A CAG in theory ought to help, by adding more AA capabilities. Elements of the surface fleet may be left to fend for themselves. And the flexibility of combining 2 carriers into one task force, or keeping them separate likely has some value. But bases and oilers matter for carrier and CAF. The CAP taking away from available fighters is significant and is one of the reasons why a larger carrier or one which has unmanned capabilities for early warning might help (see the new reporton navy re-working INS Vishal)

Your point 5 - I think you underestimate it. Though it might not demand a 3rd carrier yet. I would argue that some versions of this (along with my point 2) already being done, with the current version of the Quad, exercises etc, even with a single carrier; a 3rd carrier may not be a priority for some time.

Your point 6 - Amphibious Assault will be useful not just on offense against Chinese islands, but also to take back Indian islands which are vulnerable, and potentially to aid as part of allied force/diplomacy contributions. The MSRV contract may be cancelled but the 4 LPD RFI shows the navy is exploring/thinking of this, though perhaps not at a high priority. Note also the heavy VLS array (which will also help 1,3)

[Cain Marko]

Imho it's a combination of points 3, 4 and 5. Dominance vs PN, and anything else in the IOR short of perhaps the USN. this includes sea denial and control from East Africa to East of Malacca. Possibly from the horn to South of the Sunda straits.

3 CBGs with destroyers, asw frigates, an SSN (or even SMX type) and an airwing of 24 fighters plus AEW choppers (each) should allow for such a capability. Note that IN fighters can act as effective buddy refuelers to increase the endurance of CAPs.

Right. So you are arriving at the number of carriers = 3 (in the Vikrant category) to perform roles 3,4 and 5 in the list above.

Now, clearly the IN is not going to get 3 carriers to do this job. If I forced you to make do with just 1 Vikrant + 1 Vikramaditya class (which is even worse that the Vikrant), what roles would you give up? Clearly you would agree that roles 3,4 and 5 cannot all be satisfied with these 1.5 carriers instead of the 3 you asked for?

And if you agree with me on this point, by extension, are we not in a situation where there is a minimum carrier count + capability below which it is probably a waste of time having carriers for namesake purposes?

I don't think I would have to "give up" any of the three roles with the Vik/Vikad combo. They can still be performed albeit at a less effective level. OTOH, roles such as sea control and denial further out (e.g. SCS) or surface attacks will not be possible vs Chinese assets past the Malacca straits. The latter wouldn't be possible even if the 3rd CV turned out to be a 65k ton catobar. In effect the pursuit of such an elephant is pointless. However, a 3rd Vikrant class would allow 3, 4 and 5 to be performed to great effect while consolidating/augmenting the infrastructure created for the Vikrant project

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/146 ... 09410?s=20 ---> On this Navy Day happy to present you - The Rise of Asian Carriers.

[Rakesh]

It appears there may be no EMALS on IAC-II.

If it is a steam launched system, it could be a locally developed one.

Three aircraft carriers an ‘unavoidable requirement’, says House panel
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 986147.ece
18 Dec 2021

The Navy envisages the IAC-II to be displacing 65,000 tonnes and conventionally powered and a steam launched catapult for launching and recovering aircraft and operate both manned and unmanned platforms.

[ManuJ]

It appears there may be no EMALS on IAC-II.

If it is a steam launched system, it could be a locally developed one.

Three aircraft carriers an ‘unavoidable requirement’, says House panel
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 986147.ece
18 Dec 2021

The Navy envisages the IAC-II to be displacing 65,000 tonnes and conventionally powered and a steam launched catapult for launching and recovering aircraft and operate both manned and unmanned platforms.

Good, better sense prevailing in not trying to reach for the moon.
An incremental approach is what we need, with one major enhancement per iteration.
By the time we start building IAC-III (and we will), India would have mastered the art of miniaturizing the nuclear reactor through the SSN program. That would be time to graduate to nuclear-powered EMALS.

[Cybaru]

It appears there may be no EMALS on IAC-II.

If it is a steam launched system, it could be a locally developed one.

Three aircraft carriers an ‘unavoidable requirement’, says House panel
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 986147.ece
18 Dec 2021

The Navy envisages the IAC-II to be displacing 65,000 tonnes and conventionally powered and a steam launched catapult for launching and recovering aircraft and operate both manned and unmanned platforms.

That makes economic sense!! Far lesser cost for both propulsion and CATS. Plenty good for us!

[Rakesh]

That makes economic sense!! Far lesser cost for both propulsion and CATS. Plenty good for us!

CY-ji, Plenty Good For Us = Best is the Enemy of Good Enough

Good, better sense prevailing in not trying to reach for the moon.
An incremental approach is what we need, with one major enhancement per iteration.
By the time we start building IAC-III (and we will), India would have mastered the art of miniaturizing the nuclear reactor through the SSN program. That would be time to graduate to nuclear-powered EMALS.

Fully agree Manu Saar. You hit the nail on the head - incremental approach.

BTW, these tweets below - dated 03 Dec 2018 and 01 Dec 2017 - did not age well.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/106 ... 15009?s=20 ---> Indian Navy’s second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-2) to begin construction in three years, Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba says, with a 10 year build schedule. Will be a 65,000 ton conventionally powered flat-top with General Atomics EMALS.

https://twitter.com/SaurabhJoshi/status ... 69760?s=20 ---> Don't foresee budget problems with 57 carrier borne fighters. We have fixed form and fit of IAC-2, conventionally powered, CATOBAR, through deck carrier. - Admiral Sunil Lanba.

[Rakesh]

Data Point on EMALS ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&p=2527818#p2527818

[Cain Marko]

If India plans to get the IAC 3, which is not a stretched vikrant, I'd rather see them go full soopa carrier, 100k tons.

[Prem Kumar]

It appears there may be no EMALS on IAC-II.

If it is a steam launched system, it could be a locally developed one.

Three aircraft carriers an ‘unavoidable requirement’, says House panel
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 986147.ece
18 Dec 2021

The Navy envisages the IAC-II to be displacing 65,000 tonnes and conventionally powered and a steam launched catapult for launching and recovering aircraft and operate both manned and unmanned platforms.

Are there any aircraft in our inventory that are carrier certified but can be launched only by catapult but not by Stobar? In order to take off and land on both IAC-1 and IAC-2, all our carrier aircraft need to be certified on both.

In which case, is there any benefit to go for a non-Stobar design? (Yes, I understand that we need to master the new tech etc, but are there good operational reasons?)

[Rakesh]

The only fixed-wing aircraft in the Navy right now that can be launched from an aircraft carrier, is the MiG-29K/KUB. I doubt she is catapult qualified. In STOBAR operations, she faced severe structural issues. One can only imagine what a catapult launch would do to the airframe.

The F-18SH and the Rafale M will be able to launch from both INS Vikrant and IAC-2. The F-18 successfully demonstrated ski jump trials recently and the Rafale M is arriving in India soon for the same.

The main advantage of a CATOBAR (versus STOBAR) is that it can launch significantly heavier aircraft (i.e. AEW) and aircraft like the F-18SH and Rafale M can carry much heavier payloads. Neither of this can be done from a STOBAR vessel.

AEW is a key component of an effective Carrier Battle Group and thus the Navy’s insistence on IAC-2 being a CATOBAR vessel. Right now the Ka-31 is serving the role of AEW from INS Vikramaditya and will do the same on INS Vikrant, but a fixed wing AEW aircraft will have longer endurance than a rotary wing AEW based system like the Ka-31. With EMALS appearing to be on the back burner, the Navy has resorted to the only other catapult launch system i.e. steam.

There are significant operational advantages with a CATOBAR vessel, but that comes with a significant cost increase as well. It boils down to what role the Navy envisages its carrier to serve. CATOBAR is what the Navy wants and they are willing to wait it out for as long as it takes to get approval.

[Cain Marko]

Maybe the navy should consider the Russian shtorm design. .Takes cover before sh*t storm begins

[Manish_Sharma]

^gorshkov is a 2.2 billion dollar museum already, let's buy another 20 billion dollar(this time) gorshkov 2.0 museum!

[RajaRudra]

The F-18SH and the Rafale M will be able to launch from both INS Vikrant and IAC-2. The F-18 successfully demonstrated ski jump trials recently and the Rafale M is arriving in India soon for the same.

The main advantage of a CATOBAR (versus STOBAR) is that it can launch significantly heavier aircraft (i.e. AEW) and aircraft like the F-18SH and Rafale M can carry much heavier payloads. Neither of this can be done from a STOBAR vessel.

With the CATOBAR issue of launching may be solved. I am not sure about the issue of recovery. The length may not be enough for the AEWs and any F18s or Fafale M may have to jettison the payload significantly.

[Rakesh]

The Vikrant will not be able to launch a fixed wing AEW aircraft, due to her STOBAR configuration. She will however be able to launch and recover both the F-18 and Rafale M.

Vikramaditya has recovered a Kh-35 armed MiG-29K, thus to replicate such a feat on the Vikrant should not be impossible. But that having being said, I don’t expect even IAC-2 to mirror USN style 24-7 carrier operations. That is not the goal of the IN’s carrier force.

IN’s carrier based fighter fleet will be tasked with anti shipping, sanitizing the airspace around their carrier battle group and keeping the Indian Ocean shipping lanes free for India’s maritime trade. But that is as far as it will go. Venturing into the South China Sea to strike into the Han heartland is not going to happen.

To quote Admiral Sunil Lanba, in the South China Sea…the dice is loaded in China’s favour.

[AkshaySG]

Whatever design we do come up with and finalize can we please keep a clause for a follow on IAC-3 with the same specs say 5 years after IAC-2 starts getting built

No need to budget for it already but at least we can fix on the design so that we don't have one off carriers with vastly different designs and having to cater to their requirements individually.

Its all well and good talking about the "3rd carrier necessity" when the fact of the matter is that Vikramaditya will be close to retirement by the time IAC-2 comes along.

[Rakesh]

At the pace they are going, the Navy will not operate three aircraft carriers. By the time IAC-2 comes on board, the Vikramaditya will be due for retirement. Forget laying the keel, the IN has yet to secure the funds!

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... 28615?s=20 ---> "Infra-red Signature Suppression System” for Diesel Alternator onboard IAC-Vikrant, developed by NSTL, DRDO was handed over to Vice Admiral Sandeep Naithani, Chief of Materiel, IHQ MoD (Navy) by Dr Samir V Kamat, DG (NS&M) at Vizag today.

[ramana]

If India plans to get the IAC 3, which is not a stretched vikrant, I'd rather see them go full soopa carrier, 100k tons.

Would you like sliced bread with the soup!
Way back in the 1990s, Adm Ramdas wrote that three of a kind is Economic Order Quantity for Indian shipyards.
Looks like IN forgot that rule.
Adding steam catapult will be within the 5k tonnes.

[Barath]

Way back in the 1990s, Adm Ramdas wrote that three of a kind is Economic Order Quantity for Indian shipyards.
Looks like IN forgot that rule.
.

In the 1990s the biggest warship built was INS Delhi. The tonnager of the entire class and the cost (in 2020 $ of about 1 billion) of the entire class was a fraction of a single IAC-1

EOQ which is about improving cost efficiencies must trade off to sheer capital cost and need/military AoN at some point

And building 3*10,000 t IAC don't really help, either

You can also see IAC1 > delhi class as a Sign of how far one has come..

But you still see EOQ with the SSN / SSBN, P75, nilgiri class, vishakapatnam class etc to a degree.

Arihant stretches are two (out of 4) and new Talwar are 2 (in goa out of 4). So these kind of blur it

[rajsunder]

It appears there may be no EMALS on IAC-II.

If it is a steam launched system, it could be a locally developed one.

Three aircraft carriers an ‘unavoidable requirement’, says House panel
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 986147.ece
18 Dec 2021

The Navy envisages the IAC-II to be displacing 65,000 tones and conventionally powered and a steam launched catapult for launching and recovering aircraft and operate both manned and unmanned platforms.

Steam Launch catapult might be cheap but it will cost more over the lifetime of the carrier to operate due to the extra stress it adds on the air frames. IIRC there is only one weight setting on these steam catapults and that is always set to the maximum weight of the heaviest plane that takes off from the carrier. So any lighter plane is to be built to bear that heavy load. This extra force does not help the fighter jets with their life time.

Also it would need more space inside the carrier to be implemented on the carrier compared to EMALS.

[m_saini]

Steam Launch catapult might be cheap but it will cost more over the lifetime of the carrier to operate due to the extra stress it adds on the air frames. IIRC there is only one weight setting on these steam catapults and that is always set to the maximum weight of the heaviest plane that takes off from the carrier. So any lighter plane is to be built to bear that heavy load. This extra force does not help the fighter jets with their life time.

FLIGHT TRAINING INSTRUCTION- CV PROCEDURES (Details exactly how pilots, deck crews, launch & departure, arrival & recovery work on a CVN)

Following the briefing, aircrew will proceed to maintenance control to review the Aircraft Discrepancy Book (ADB). Aircrew should pay particular attention to the A-sheet’s basic weight, fuel and store loads to ensure the gross weight calculation is correct. This is particularly important when launching from the boat because the catapult needs to be set correctly. Once the ADB is reviewed and the weight is verified, the crew will deliver the weight sheet (weight chit) to flight deck control prior to aircraft preflight. Some squadrons use an automated computer program by which the squadron SDO can send each jet’s weight chit down to flight deck control for each launch. The weight annotated on the weight chit must match the weight you see on the weight board as you taxi up to the catapult.

Steams cats are adjusted for each individual aircraft, let alone aircraft type.

This article explains the advantages of EMALS over steam.
How Things Work: Electromagnetic Catapults

The amount of steam needed to launch an airplane depends on the craft’s weight, and once a launch has begun, adjustments cannot be made: If too much steam is used, the nosewheel landing gear, which attaches to the catapult, can be ripped off the aircraft. If too little steam is used, the aircraft won’t reach takeoff speed and will tumble into the water. The launch control system for electromagnetic catapults, on the other hand, will know what speed an aircraft should have at any point during the launch sequence, and can make adjustments during the process to ensure that an aircraft will be within 3 mph of the desired takeoff speed.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... 28615?s=20 ---> "Infra-red Signature Suppression System” for Diesel Alternator onboard IAC-Vikrant, developed by NSTL, DRDO was handed over to Vice Admiral Sandeep Naithani, Chief of Materiel, IHQ MoD (Navy) by Dr Samir V Kamat, DG (NS&M) at Vizag today.

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 30178?s=20 ---> The NSTL developed Mist Based "Infra-red Signature Suppression System” was handed over today to the #Indiannavy for Diesel Alternator onboard IAC-Vikrant, at Vizag.

[brar_w]

Steams cats are adjusted for each individual aircraft, let alone aircraft type.

This article explains the advantages of EMALS over steam.

EMALS development is cost prohibitive unless you are looking at half a dozen or more carriers. For one or two it will push the cost and make the entire project risky and may jeopardize the carrier program. So if they decide to design and build as opposed to buy I suspect a hybrid approach of using some foreign steam catapult tech and some local tech is probably going to be the best approach.Not the best launch tech for the future but about what you can afford given balance of cost, schedule and performance. The French are smart to align themselves with US EMALS and AAG for their CVN as it means that the sustainment and modernization of their system will be lock step with 10-11 US CVNs that will eventually use the exact same system. The fifty year sustainment, upgrade and modernization cost of this system can easily be 2-3x their initial CAPEX at acquiring it so economies of scale with the US Carriers will given them huge savings as opposed to having a bespoke system that no one besides their 1-2 carriers uses.

[m_saini]

The fifty year sustainment, upgrade and modernization cost of this system can easily be 2-3x their initial CAPEX at acquiring it so economies of scale with the US Carriers will given them huge savings as opposed to having a bespoke system that no one besides their 1-2 carriers uses.

It's probably okay for France to use the hybrid approach and tie their carrier program with US for 50 years(being part of NATO, 5-eyes and whatnot) but not IN, unless India wants to have an independent foreign policy. If we can spend extra billion/millions for Rafales for strategic autonomy then it makes much more sense to spend extra for carrier catapults as well.

The Chinese type-003 is reported to have a steam cat at the very least and there are no known reports for a further >6 carriers. So it definitely makes sense to invest and develop your own cats even if it's cost prohibitive and especially since the only known operator has a history of being a dodgy partner at best.

[brar_w]

^^ Read what I wrote again more carefully. I said that pursuing EMALS for a one off or even a 1-2 carrier force is cost prohibitive and may end up risking the entire project. I never said that a domestic steam CAT cannot or should not be pursued. It is far easier to acquire some of that tech, or develop it in house and design integration is much easier as well. China appears to be pursuing an EMALS CAT for its carrier, and they are likely looking at producing at least half a dozen copies of their large carrier given the trajectory of their naval growth. EMALS and AAG offer a great technological leap over steam but at some point you need to balance that with the cost of development (where it gets amortized over just 1-2 examples) and the actual schedule of when you want a fielded third or fourth carrier. The USN would not even have considered EMALS/AAG had the Ford class been a 2 ship program for example. China likewise is probably pursuing it because they are looking at fielding a sizable carrier force of that size/class (type 3 and beyond). France has not chosen a hybrid approach vis-a-vis their launch technology. They have gone in for the wholesale adoption of General Atomics EMALS/AAG solution into its carrier with GA even partnering with them on integration. They took a similar approach with their CdG launch tech. A hybrid approach would have been to get tech for certain aspects but develop it mostly in house. A hybrid approach is what they do on the air-wing where they operate the Rafale along with the E-2C, and are upgrading the latter by buying the latest E-2D. They also share some other logistical equipment, and will most probably also buy the MQ-25 for air-air refueling and ISR on the pANG.

[Cain Marko]

^gorshkov is a 2.2 billion dollar museum already, let's buy another 20 billion dollar(this time) gorshkov 2.0 museum!

Why is the vikad a museum? Haven't heard anything from navy sources.

Not advocating buying russki carrier but codeveloped or design consultation might not be so bad. Note that the shtorm design allows for both stobar and cats.

[John]

^gorshkov is a 2.2 billion dollar museum already, let's buy another 20 billion dollar(this time) gorshkov 2.0 museum!

Why is the vikad a museum? Haven't heard anything from navy sources.

Not advocating buying russki carrier but codeveloped or design consultation might not be so bad. Note that the shtorm design allows for both stobar and cats.

Gorshkov though space constrained has remained operational though it would seem that it hasn’t deployed as much. I can’t say much on reason why till we get some more information on that.

As for Shtorm, no one is gonna fund a design that Russian itself won’t be buying, the Russian navy is in complete disarray.

[Manish_Sharma]

Why is the vikad a museum? Haven't heard anything from navy sources.

Not advocating buying russki carrier but codeveloped or design consultation might not be so bad. Note that the shtorm design allows for both stobar and cats.

Gorshkov though space constrained has remained operational though it would seem that it hasn’t deployed as much. I can’t say much on reason why till we get some more information on that.

TWITTER:

@daeroplate_v2: https://twitter.com/daeroplate_v2/statu ... AiV5A&s=19

we spent $1b on refurbishing Vikky, another $1b on Mig29K air wing, 1 honeytrap scandal, what did our tax payer money get? a 'training carrier' that is barely able to sail 2 weeks in last 2 yrs, a 29K unable to take sustained shocks of carrier landings and zero accountability.

is parliament sleeping ? as it stands it seems unable to help at-sea training for aviators, who are stuck using STBF in goa. it is unable to join carrier exercises that happen even in our backyard. no visibility on whether its power plant is broke? too costly to sail the cvbg?

rather than throwing good money after bad running it in dockside hotel mode, maybe they should consider making a proper hotel of it, park it in goa as hotel and casino? shift the staff to vikrant enmasse?

how many takeoff-landing cycles are our mig29k pilots getting on the vikky per month over last 2 yrs needs to be tabled in parliament and debated - in-camera if need be but debated.

this seems like another aspect of our dole/freebie culture where precious billions are thrown around casually as if political class owns that coin sheared like wool off backs of sheeple tax payers.

the defence media also seems sold out and a loud silence prevails whenever any friendly carrier comes for exercises...

Izumo, mutliple nimitz's and QE2 came and went and mighty vikky was nowhere to be seen.

[Cain Marko]

Why is the vikad a museum? Haven't heard anything from navy sources.

Not advocating buying russki carrier but codeveloped or design consultation might not be so bad. Note that the shtorm design allows for both stobar and cats.

Gorshkov though space constrained has remained operational though it would seem that it hasn’t deployed as much. I can’t say much on reason why till we get some more information on that.

TWITTER:

@daeroplate_v2: https://twitter.com/daeroplate_v2/statu ... AiV5A&s=19

we spent $1b on refurbishing Vikky, another $1b on Mig29K air wing, 1 honeytrap scandal, what did our tax payer money get? a 'training carrier' that is barely able to sail 2 weeks in last 2 yrs, a 29K unable to take sustained shocks of carrier landings and zero accountability.

Who is this Twitter handle? Can anyone verify this? The thing about 29k not taking sustained stocks (old news) despite the CNS himself coming out and giving the birds a clean chit makes me wonder...

[John]

Please don’t use Twitter especially unconfirmed Twitter handles as source for anything.

[brar_w]

Please don’t use Twitter especially unconfirmed Twitter handles as source for anything.

Literally every thread here is littered with tweets from unverified twitter handles (with no known credentials or expertise) so it's a lost cause.