Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

dnivas · Post by **dnivas** » 05 May 2015 22:34

Josh wrote:A very senior naval officer recently told me, " I wish the Indian public and Indian media got out of this Russian love, Russians have such an enviable position in Indian psyche that they get away with anything, and they really do. All the deals with Russians have kickbacks, every single one of them, and all of them marked atleast 300% of their real price, worse none of them work as advertised" especially in spares and maintenance. I cant believe people like Philip or MKB, because of their blind hatred for a certain people are ready to sell India this way

Not sure about the Philip hate . he obviously prefers Russian maal, but this is my take on it. better to have a 300% overcharged weapon with crappy spares that works instead of a TFTA US mall that can be remote turned off at time of need

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 May 2015 22:43

xave wrote:^^ I beg to differ with that last statement. While i appreciate and commend the efforts by the Navy to push for indigenous shipbuilding, we are still importing far too many critical systems. Powerplant, transmission ,sensors, weapon systems , stealth composites and much more.

While i am not the biggest fan of HAL or DPSUs in general, how is this any different than say, the LCA? The design and airframe are ours, but we are importing the sensors, power plant and ...

We really need something to shake up the whole rotten edifice and bring back innovation instead of screw driver work.

you are very mistaken about the LCA. the radar apart, most of the avionics are indian. in fact, even the remaining LRUs which go into avionics, hydraulics etc are being indigenized.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 May 2015 22:45

Prem Kumar wrote:
Singha wrote:thats even more worrisome if brahmos were cheaper. we need a torpedo tube launch version of brahmos yesterday.
Is IN/DRDO lukewarm on subsonic AShM because they feel its era is over? Otherwise, with Nirbhay (high subsonic cruise) & Brahmos (seeker, sea skimmer) they have the requisite technology to build a desi, stealthy Harpoon!

There is a lightweight AShM on the roadmap - if funds are available.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 May 2015 23:25

We really need something to shake up the whole rotten edifice and bring back innovation instead of screw driver work

There is something to be said about system integration too.

durvasa · Post by **durvasa** » 05 May 2015 23:28

dnivas wrote:
Not sure about the Philip hate . he obviously prefers Russian maal, but this is my take on it. better to have a 300% overcharged weapon with crappy spares that works instead of a TFTA US mall that can be remote turned off at time of need

That's assuming that the only two options for us are 1) 300% overcharged weapons with crappy spares or a 2) TFTA US mall that can be turned off! Good old desi option should not be even in the running!

It's interesting how Natasha-lovers peddle stuff so blatantly!

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 05 May 2015 23:33

Have we not Khan lovers doing the same on BR? Try criticizing the JSF on the JSF Turkey or Talisman Thread.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 05 May 2015 23:54

NRao wrote:
why not ask CSL to start working on a INS Vikrant follow on in the meantime
IMHO, reading in-between the lines, I feel that discussion has already started.

Good to know NRao sir, let's see how it turns out. Given our needs, CSL can be kept busy on the carrier front for the foreseeable future without needing to look for regular warship orders, while private yards go abegging.

durvasa · Post by **durvasa** » 06 May 2015 01:26

VibhavS wrote: Have we not Khan lovers doing the same on BR? Try criticizing the JSF on the JSF Turkey or Talisman Thread.

I meant all alien nation arm-peddlers - Natasha AND Kardiashian lovers!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 May 2015 04:44

There was a Parrikar reply in Lok Sabha about Sindhurakahak explosion was due to torpedoes loading fire. Cant seem to find it.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 May 2015 04:55

Ramana: I believe Admiral Dhowan also said something similar. Standard Operating Procedures were not followed, short cuts were made and thus the reason for the explosion. A lesson to be learned, but costly in terms of the boat lost and irreplaceable in terms of the men lost.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 06 May 2015 05:12

ramana wrote:There was a Parrikar reply in Lok Sabha about Sindhurakahak explosion was due to torpedoes loading fire. Cant seem to find it.

Ramana it is on the main page of web site.

Sindhurakshak accident cannot be blamed on anyone: Govt

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, in a written reply to a question, told Rajya Sabha that the accident cannot be blamed on anyone since none of the officers or sailors present inside the submarines survived.

Board of Inquiry (BoI) has concluded that the incident onboard INS Sindhurakshak in the night of 13/14 August 2013 was an accident probably induced during the process of arming of the torpedoes.

"Since none of the officers and sailors present inside the submarine survived, it has not been possible to attribute any blame to any individual for failure or negligence, if any ,he said.

-Ankit

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 06 May 2015 08:58

http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/sea-tria ... very-well/

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 May 2015 10:34

Blind hatred?

I go by one's track record,and that's why our govt. and the Indian Pres.is attending the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow despite the hypocritical boycott by the Western nations who "won" the war over the bodies and blood of over 20M Russians in WW2! India knows which nation has stood by it and will stand by it in a time of crisis and is sending the upturned finger to the US/West standing by Russia. If one has read my posts clearly,I've spread our requirements wide and far,depending upon which nation's ware,"nag" is best for the course,capability,costs,etc.

Yes,CSL should start work asap on another IAC-1 sized flat-top amphib as I've suggested.It will be able to deliver much faster this time ,say in 5 years time. the time frame for building the larger 65K t carrier has been estimated as 10 years,a long time. We can build at least 2 multi-role amphibs within 7 year,say by 2022 all 3 launched by 2020,so that work on the larger N-carrier can start around 2020 to arrive/be commissioned by 2030 .2 amphibs can be built at CSL and the remainder at a pvt. yard so that all arrive on time.

Approx 5 -6 of these flat tops ,carriers/amphibs will be sufficient for us along with LRMP aircraft and a sqd. of Backfires,the ability to dominate the IOR .With further land based aircraft at naval and air force bases/stations in the islands and along our coastline,we will be able to take care of any external surface threat attempting to enter the IOR ,meaning any PLAN CBG. For stopping the PLAN in their tracks in the Indo-China Sea, we need a significant number of N-subs and conventional AIP subs to support the N-subs,acting in unison with the Vietnamese Navy's Kilos,which will give us the advantage of stealth. The use by the RN of its N-subs in the Falklands War sent the Argie fleet scuttling back to base. Just one successful attack by an IN wolf pack against a PLAN surface group will have a profound effect upon the PLAN top brass,as they cannot afford to lose face repeatedly. Sending in a lone CBG into the ICS where the Chinese have huge land based air assets apart from whatever carrier aircraft are available,would be very risky,unless it was supported by other friendly assets-and that means the USN! The ASEAN nations cannot even come to an agreement as to how to halt the Chinese expansion even as they increase their mil capabilities,esp those of their navies with new subs. They would cooperate only if the USN was also involved.

China's first objective is the recovery of Taiwan and China's enemies/nations threatened by China,should do the max. to keep Taiwan safe from Chinese aggro.China recently said that Taiwan should not be considered as an independent state.This makes it even more necessary that other nations keep treating Taiwan as if it were an independent state and support it overtly nd covertly with mil tech and capability to defend itself and give the PRC a v.bloody nose ,a pyrrhic victory at the worst in the evnt of a Chinese mil attempt to take Taiwan by force.India should give the Taiwanese the old plans for our U-209s,as there are many German U-boats which are being built by countries friendly to Taiwan like SoKo,etc.,who will be able to quietly support them with spares,eqpt. later on.

PS:One of the initial reports on the SR tragedy said that while loading a "missile" struck the side of the dock.One assumes that this missile-which could've even been a torpedo,was loaded.It might have been the rogue was one. This report disappeared from the media shortly afterwards. It does look that shirt cuts took place as the sub was being loaded in haste to embark upon a mission in the early hours of the morning.

wig · Post by **wig** » 07 May 2015 08:51

Navy’s wish list: 6 nuke subs, N-powered carrier
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 77422.html

The Navy has asked the government to allow a fleet of six nuclear-powered submarines and is also looking at nuclear power as an option for the next sea-borne aircraft carrier, which will be the follow-on to the INS Vikrant currently being built in Kochi.
“We have proposed to the government that in lieu of the conventional submarines we would like to have more nuclear-powered submarines,” Navy Chief Admiral Robin Dhowan told The Tribune today. The decision is pending at the level of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), the Admiral said, adding that the number of nuclear-powered submarines sought was six.
The Admiral was referring to the existing submarine plan announced in 1999 which had spoken of having 24 conventional submarines by 2030. It is out of these 24 subs that the Navy wants six to be nuclear powered. At present, India operates 13 conventional vessels and a nuclear submarine, INS Chakra, leased from Russia, while the indigenous nuclear-powered INS Arihant is undergoing sea trials.
The Indian fleet is grossly inadequate to match China. The annual report to the Congress in the US, titled “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2014”, says: “PLA Navy (PLAN) has more than 60 submarines (and) places a high priority on modernisation of its submarine force.”
On the submarine fleet, Admiral Dhowan listed out a multi-pronged plan. First is to ensure timelines are met in the ongoing construction of the six scorpene subs with the first one planned for commissioning next year; second is according “top priority” to the second lot of six such vessels and third is to carry out a refit to extend the life of existing vessels.
About the next sea-borne aircraft carrier, Admiral Dhowan said: “All options are open for the second indigenous aircraft carrier. Nothing has been ruled out. It could be nuclear powered or conventionally powered.”
The Navy, he said, was looking to having three sea-borne carriers in its fleet. “The first indigenous carrier, INS Vikrant, will be inducted by 2018 and now we can plan easily as we can now build such ships on our own,” he said

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 May 2015 16:15

Tx Wig for that of info. Now if the IN wants more N-subs instead of conventional subs,what was the meaning of the report about the P-76 (to follow the P-75I) being built in India/indigenous? Is this class going to be N-subs or another conventional AIP design? With the latest report above,priority is being given to design and manufacture of N-subs which will give us a far greater capability vs China.However,24 subs of which 6 new SSNs plus at least 2-4 Akulas will be needed apart from the 5-6 SSBNs which being part of the strat deterrent will be extra to the 24+ mentioned.

2 reports on the latest news about China's subs,to put the issue in perspective.

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/06- ... ote]Pravda ru.
China completes development of fourth-generation low-noise submarine
06.05.2015 | Source: Pravda.Ru

China completes development of fourth-generation low-noise submarine. China's 4th generation sub ready

Tan Zuojun, vice governor of China's Liaoning Province and former general manager of China State Shipbuilding Corporation, said that China had completed the development of its fourth-generation nuclear submarine and other high-tech weapons, Pravda.Ru reports.

According to Chinese military experts, the Type 098 fourth-generation nuclear sub features high performance and low noise - a key indicator for measuring a modern nuclear submarine's underwater survival capacity, as well as its ability to remain hidden during maneuvers, or undetected while launching an attack.

Also read: Russia's new 4th generation Lada submarine to nullify USA's naval power

China's new submarine boasts effective noise damping features, such as a quieter nuclear power plant with less vibration, and a more advanced hull muffler system, so that it will be hard to detect even if within range of enemy sonar.

The Chinese Navy is commissioning three new, Type-093G, nuclear-powered attack submarines outfitted with a vertical launching system. The submarines will be able to fire supersonic anti-ship missiles, China Daily said.

"The Type-093G is reported to be an upgraded version of Type-093, China's second-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine, which entered active service several years ago. With a teardrop hull, the submarine is longer than its predecessor and has a vertical launching system," according to the China Daily report.
[/quote]

This is what Pak's Chinese SSKs will come with.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0&cid=1101
Details of China's new AIP submarine technology revealed
Staff Reporter 2015-05-07

A Song-class submarine docks in Qingdao for celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of the PLA Navy, April 20, 2009. (Photo/CFP)

In recent years several different air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarines have entered service in China and are said to be leading the world in standards, according to Duowei News, a media outlet run by overseas Chinese.

Due to the highly classified nature of submarine technology, however, the parameters of China's AIP systems have not been fully revealed to the public, the website stated. A May 1 report in Communist Party mouthpiece People's Daily, however, mentioned that China's "new Stirling engine" was 117% more efficient than its international rivals. The first hints of the details of the engine technology have gradually emerged recently. The engine will likely be adopted by the PLA Navy's new AIP submarine.

In the April 26 edition of People's Daily, in the run-up to Labor Day, a piece entitled "The 'Prettiest Worker' Reveals Why Workers are Beautiful" included the sentence: "In the field of special propulsion systems, the Stirling engine department of the 711 research institute of the China Ship Scientific Research Center has been around for 10 years and has independently developed a completely new engine, which is 117% more efficient than similar products overseas, which puts it in the lead worldwide. It is set to be installed in China's next generation of warships."

The 711 research institute is the main research unit that develops propulsion systems for conventional submarines. One of the most advanced systems it created was the AIP system for the Type 039B Song-class diesel-electric submarine, powered with Stirling engines based on engines imported into China from Sweden during the 1980s.

According to the People's Daily report, there are several models of the Swedish 4-275 propulsion system that the country is currently exporting to overseas buyers, including a 75 kilowatt and a 110 kW model. Only the 75 kW version is being sold on the international market, however. China imported the 75 kW version from Sweden then replicated the engine and used it to power the Type 039B submarine.

As the Stirling engine is not very efficient, it is normally used for slow cruising underwater. A new electricity generating technology developed in China allows the submarine to cruise underwater and charge its battery at the same time, the website stated. So although the four Stirling engines are identical in efficiency to those used in Japan's Soryu-class diesel-electric attack submarines, the Chinese submarines are afforded more tactical flexibility. Before the liquid oxygen on board the submarine is exhausted, the submarine does not need to navigate with its snorkel extended to the surface, which puts it at the same level of performance as a small nuclear submarine.

This leaves the problem of the low efficiency of the Stirling engine. The engines of the Type 039B submarine charge quite slowly. After travelling at a speed of 20 knots for several hours underwater, it needs to slow to a speed of 2 knots for several days to recharge its battery, which makes increasing the efficiency of the engine key.

This is what the 711 research institute has been working to address. According to a 2004 report by state news agency Xinhua, the engine developed by the 711 research institute has made a breakthrough in the technology. The new engine is said to have a 20 kW and a 100 kW model, said the website. The advantage of the engine is that it can be used together with other propulsion systems such as natural gas, diesel, solar energy or other solid fuels to generate electricity. This also reduces emissions compared to other engines on the market. This meant that back in 2004, China had almost equaled the power of the Swedish 110 kW 4-275 Stirling engine.

The website then speculated that the power of China's new generation of Stirling engine has likely reached the 160 kW or 217 kW mark. If new submarines were to use four Sterling engines, as the Type 039B submarine does, then this would mean power of 640 kW to 868 kW (868-1,180 horsepower). The engine would also drive the submarine at the same time as charging the battery. The Russian Kilo-class submarine has one 150 horsepower cruise generator and two emergency-use 102 horsepower generators.

This means that China's new Stirling engine can charge its main battery at the speed of a conventionally-powered submarine in snorkel mode, while travelling at a low speed of 2-3 knots. This is a unique breakthrough. Even the lithium battery powered submarine, which is under development, is unable to compete with diesel-electric submarines in terms of energy density and it still needs to charge its battery with its snorkel extended.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 May 2015 16:23

P76 will be SSK. it will be what the P75 ought to have been - largely indigenous design and gear

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 May 2015 18:38

Regarding the next aircraft carrier. Navy has stated that "all options are on table", and that they have floated whitepaper(s) on the same.

INs problem viz aircraft carrier is not of capability but that of capacity i.e. the more important requirement is to ensure numbers. Why stop at 65,000 tons conventional? Go for nuclear powered, EMALS at 90,000 ton with E-2s and stuff. Question is whether we need that level of capability within the Indian Ocean.

In my view, India should save funds by avoiding a supercarrier, and instead invest it in shore based LRMP, AEW and ASuW fighter aviation. Build more naval stations with long runways and infra.

INS Vikrant being a custom designed effort by IN, I assume that it fulfills our requirements to a reasonable degree. Constructing Vishal on same pattern will allow to use same concept of operations and logistics tail. If we must, the carrier can be a bit bigger (like Godavaris are to Giris) but essentially house same aircraft types but in larger numbers. She can be complemented by Juan Carlos type mini carriers.

In future we may acquire V-22s and JSFs to operate from carriers as well as LHDs.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 07 May 2015 18:50

In the long term, we will need a mix of SSKs and SSNs, given the shallow waters over the continental shelf in the Arabian sea, and the need to cover our long coastline. So it does not make sense to divert P-76 to build nukes. In fact, I am all for starting to build a follow on to the Scorpene in the MDL before P-76 itself starts, while the nuke subs manufacturing keeps churning out at Vizag. We will need every sub we can build.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 07 May 2015 18:52

Admiral is stating the basic truth, why go for Diesel cows err subs when we can have nuke hunter killer tigers. Western def mags over hype benefits of diesels subs while trying to under play benefits of nuke subs. It is very difficult to get a firing solution on a nuke sub and then more difficult to execute it, as it can outrun & outdive torps & depth charges.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 May 2015 19:08

Question is whether we need that level of capability within the Indian Ocean

Question is if IOR is the only playing ground.

I suspect it is not. The ground has expended. Thus the need for a bigger floating city.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 May 2015 19:21

Its not about whether you wish to go X nm outside the IOR. It should be about what sort of carrier support is required in say 2040 or 2050. What sort of capability can the Chinese combined Air Force and Navy may be able to project by 2040. Can they operationalize and mass produce 1 or both of their stealth fighters by 2040? Will they have a stealth or semi stealth Bomber by 2040? Will they have long range anti ship weapons, anti ship ballistic missile cover for their ships probing in the region etc etc. If the answer to some of these questions is yes, then you need your carriers (even in a defensive role - to support the rest of the Navy) to go deeper and do more stuff..EA/EW missions, Long range AEW (to prepare for the stealth fleet) and possibly interceptors to fend off bombers that amy wish to attack either the carrier or other ships the carrier is protecting. All this will most likely be factored in and war-gamed before deciding on what sort of capabilities a future carrier possesses in the 2030's because the implications are going to be felt well into the 2060's and beyond given how long carriers usually last.

My personal opinion is that EMALS or Steam cats are almost necessary to both defended vast ares of the ocean or project force in the 2030-2060 time period, and this is where the IN will go. The Brits can do away with all this because they will always fight under an umbrella, the IN is not going to take that risk imho.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2015 00:15

May 7, 2015 :: India Outlines New Carrier Ambitions

The Indian Navy will present a report on the configuration options for the second indigenous Indian Aircraft Carrier (IAC-2) to the Ministry of Defense next month. At a recent seminar on the country’s naval aviation, it became clear that the vessel will likely be in the 65,000 ton class. It could be equipped with American aircraft – or a combination that might include the naval version of the French Rafale fighter. “The fighters must be transformational. We must decide on the aircraft first, and this choice must determine the design of the carrier and its deck,” said an official.

“We must plan for the future blue water navy that will be dependent on air power,” said former Chief of Naval Staff Arun Prakash. “A focus is required…new hardware is important (or) it will be a double jeopardy…we cannot remain hostage to an unreliable source of supply.” India’s navy now has two ski-jump carriers – the INS Vikramaditya which is a former Russian ship, and the INS Vikrant, which is the first indigenous carrier (IAC-1) and now in an advanced stage of construction. Both are equipped with Russian aircraft: Mig-29K combat jets and Kamov Ka-31 AEW helicopters.

The IAC-2 report will describe type, tonnage, propulsion and aircraft options, Chief of Navy Robin K Dhowan said. The options will include the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), that recently was recently offered by the US to India, as an alternative to a steam catapult system. Made by General Atomics, EMALS was specified as one of six ‘Pathfinder Projects’ for coproduction and co-development, in the recent U.S.-India Defense Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI).

Depending on the cost, India could consider acquiring F-18s or the F-35B for IAC-2, Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said recently. With Indian having recently confirmed that the air force will acquire at least 36 Dassault Rafales, the carrier version of the French jet may come into consideration. The French Navy's flagship aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle has just completed an exercise with the Indian navy off the coast of Goa. Last month, Indian navy officials also went aboard the USS Charles Vinson off the coast of Cochin, to “ask questions about the carrier,” US Ambassador to India Richard Verma who accompanied them, told AIN.

Meanwhile, the stage may finally be set for the Indian Navy to acquire a squadron of four Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye AEW&C aircraft. The navy uses Kamov KA-31 for its AEW missions, but requires aircraft with a longer range and endurance. An RFI was issued as long ago as 2010, and Northrop Grumman has submitted a proposal for a shore-based version of the E-2D. Once the IAC-2 comes into operation, the aircraft could be modified for carrier operations in just one week, a US official told AIN. But retired Vice Admiral A.K. Singh suggested that an AEW version of the V-22 Osprey might be the answer. “The tried and tested Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route could be considered for an early realization of the Navy’s requirements,” said Ankur Gupta, Manager, Ernst &Young India to AIN.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2015 00:18

May 2, 2015 :: US hard-sells nuclear powered carrier to India

The US is offering to help build a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with fifth generation fighters for India, which would transform its military profile in the Indian Ocean Region. This is the biggest and most audacious offer of military cooperation by the US to India so far, and the clearest indication that Washington DC wants defence technology and trade as the principal driver of the relationship with New Delhi.

The contours of the seemingly modest American offer to provide for India's new aircraft carrier a futuristic Electro Magnetic (aircraft) Launch System (EMALS), made during the visit of President Barack Obama to India in January, is now beginning to unfold in its entirety: the "eco-system" for the power guzzling EMALS catapult involves nuclear propulsion, the futuristic F-35 carrier-borne fighters and weapons, and airborne early warning aircraft like the Hawk Eye, together worth tens of billions of dollars.

The two sides have set up a joint working group to discuss the offer, which has EMALS on its calling card. They will actually explore the joint development of India's next-generation aircraft carrier. Leading the two sides in the group will be Rear Admirals Surendra Ahuja and Thomas Moore, respectively.

An EMALS Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) enables the launch at sea of heavier and more powerful, longer-range aircraft from the deck of a larger carrier with less wear and tear to the aircraft than in a steam catapult system. It's also able to launch lighter Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs), which earlier systems often cannot. India has so far operated smaller carriers with a ski-jump-assisted take-off, which can launch only smaller fighters with a limited reach. An EMALS-equipped carrier would mark a quantum capability leap for India.

The strategic justification of the offer is that this collaboration "would resonate throughout the Asian continent to India's strategic advantage" in the light of rapid Chinese inroads into the Indian Ocean Region.

"Helping India's military build-up in the Indian Ocean Region is in US interest," leading Indian-origin American strategist Ashley Tellis told The Sunday Guardian. Tellis, who has served in several key positions in the US administration, including that of adviser to the US President, believes that the Chinese threat in the Indian Ocean is real, that Indian and US interests overlap in the context of this "threat", and that the two should thus help each other.

"The prospect of a major Chinese naval presence in the Indian Ocean transforms India's hitherto secure rear into a springboard from which coercive power can be brought to bear against the Indian landmass," notes Tellis in his paper, "Making Waves: Aiding India's Next Generation Aircraft Carrier", calling for closer defence ties between DC and New Delhi.

In this recently published paper by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Tellis argues that the "principal objective underlying bilateral cooperation should be to ensure that India's next-generation aircraft carrier — to include its air wing and its capacity for combat operations — will be superior to its Chinese counterparts".

The US is pulling out all the stops to push carrier cooperation as the next big thing. On 1 May, the commander of the US Naval Air Force in the Pacific Fleet and Super Hornet fighter pilot, Vice-Admiral Mike Shoemaker spoke at an Indian Navy seminar in New Delhi, underlining the centrality of carriers in naval warfare in the foreseeable future. At the same seminar, Scott Forney of US' General Atomics, which has developed EMALS, explained how this technology will give an edge to future carriers.

"The US can make a huge statement by helping build India's aircraft carrier. This will have a major demonstration effect," Tellis told The Sunday Guardian, indicating that this could become the most visible symbol of India-US military cooperation. "Chinese carriers will have 4+ generation fighters. It's in India's interest to have fifth generation fighters, and the best is the F-35," he hard-sells.

India's next-generation carrier, tentatively named Vishal, is yet in the conceptual stage. Top-level sources in the Indian Navy indicate that the concept is likely to be frozen around a 65,000-ton carrier capable of launching heavier fighter aircraft, airborne early warning planes and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) with CATOBAR launch and recovery.

"We want the carrier designed around the air wing. The fighters must be transformational. We must decide on the aircraft first, and this choice must determine the design of the carrier and its deck. So far, our choice of aircraft has been dictated by which carrier has been available to us. For instance, the Russians reconfigured the MiG-29 for deck landing after India committed to buying the Gorshkov (now INS Vikramaditya)," explained a senior officer. There's no unanimity yet on the propulsion system — nuclear or conventional.

The choice of the "transformational" fighter aircraft may be a difficult one: India has already invested in Russia's Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), but it doesn't have a naval version yet, principally because Russia does not operate a catapult carrier (needed to launch heavier fighters). The only fifth generation carrier-borne fighter, now nearing completion, is the American F-35.

In order to make the EMALS offer viable, the US will have to make an exception for India to allow transfer of nuclear propulsion technology. EMALS is a power hungry system, the first of which is being installed on the American carrier Gerald Ford.

So far, the US has not provided nuclear propulsion technology to any country other than the UK, its closest ally. Some experts are sceptical on whether the US will walk the talk on an issue involving military nuclear cooperation with India. But others like Tellis are hopeful that the US will do so in its own interest, particularly when there are no proliferation issues involved with a carrier reactor.

A nuclear powered aircraft carrier would be a huge leapfrog for the Indian Navy, which at the moment operates far more modest, conventionally-powered carriers of 45,000 ton and 29,000-ton displacement respectively. The first indigenously made carrier, Vikrant, will displace less than 40,000 tons when it's ready for service in 2018.

But experts reckon that a nuclear-powered super carrier for India is not a pipe dream. "Even India's nuclear submarine project goes back over 30 years. It's finally close to reality today. Such projects typically have a long lead time," says well-known strategic affairs commentator Commodore Uday Bhaskar, who strongly supports a powerful naval profile for India.

"If the Americans can enable the process, it should be accepted in India's larger national interest," he infers. "If India does not take urgent steps to augment its navy, its influence in the Indian Ocean Region will shrink," reasons Bhaskar.

Should this audacious offer gather steam, there could be an inevitable geopolitical fallout: China could infer hostility, step up arming of Pakistan and start trade wars. Traditional defence supplier Russia too could cool off. While there's no defined common security vision or alignment of interests with the US, India may end up being acknowledged as the "lynchpin of the US pivot to Asia". That would pose a new challenge to India's foreign and military establishments.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 08 May 2015 01:50

Is the author being serious? US will never sell us Nuclear Propulsion Technology especially reactors and associated technologies. Not even in my wildest dreams. EMALS is a game changer, but only in terms of launching aircraft with more weapons and fuel on it. We would have to figure out what aircraft to base on the carrier but I don't think we will ever buy fighters from the US either. especially with the sword of Damocles (sanctions) that these will come with.

Secondly why does our Mr Thapar bring in our relationship with Russia. It is not really going anywhere. We may buy less equipment from them but we still are their biggest customers. China wants to start a trade war with India? In what, they are a production, industrial economy, we are a services focused economy. They will promote Pakistan, err.. what are they doing right now?

A little tired of being told we should be afraid of China and worry Russia will desert us.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2015 03:03

Nuclear propulsion is not a must__have for EMALS. The British, would have opted for EMALS and rejected nuclear propulsion if they had the funds to develop and acquire a more capable carrier.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 08 May 2015 03:08

NRao wrote:May 7, 2015 :: India Outlines New Carrier Ambitions

Depending on the cost, India could consider acquiring F-18s or the F-35B for IAC-2

Why would they get F-35B? With EMALS might as well go F-35C.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2015 03:12

The F-35B isn't even CAT compatible and it would be a completely useless aircraft if you have a CAT in the first place...The article is rather mediocre. First and foremost you define your threat, air-wings come and go..If you have a 45K carrier, you'll be limited to the number of choices for your air-wing, but if you have a 65+ K carrier with a CAT you can start off with a smaller fighter, and can change your air-wing over the life of the carrier. Carriers last much longer than their air-wings.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 08 May 2015 03:33

Oh c'mon, that's just Karan Thapar indulging in some biriyani journalism.

I think I stopped reading once the nuclear powered aircraft carrier and that too from the US was mentioned.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 May 2015 04:45

GW,

At this point in time, one has to look at these things from a 60K level.

I do not recall how long back, but, the Hawkeye was perhaps one of the first "offers". Then IIRC, the cat was talked about - no one knew if it was "offered". Then came the request for info presentation on the F-35. More recently the EMAL. Then the exploratory team - to include "design". And now a mention for nuclear propulsion.

Forget a done deal, none are even in the design phase.

BUT, a decade ago there was nothing and today there is discussions on some of the most advanced techs/thoughts out there. They have a team headed by two Rear Adms to lead discussion - which are in the most preliminary stages.

All that wrapped around a IN carrier that is slowly crystallizing and could be influenced by these techs.

No idea what will happen, but we have data points that were not even there a decade ago.

??????

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 May 2015 08:39

Navy for ‘made in India’ tech, gives DRDO list of 100 wishes

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 May 2015 08:49

India Outlines New Carrier Ambitions

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 May 2015 09:34

What the IN requires is a balanced fleet,not keeping up with the "Chins". Our primary goal is to dominate the IOR,be the strongest mil/naval force in the region.Our secondary goal to maintain a permanent/transiting naval presence in contiguous oceans/seas which affect our interests and where our existing and potential enemies are the dominant force,or are using in a manner prejudicial to our maritime interests. In my opinion,we should not be seduced into acquiring/building a massively expensive asset,which eats up a considerable part of the defence/naval budget,and also one that will require the company of a large CBG with it to protect it. We have no expeditionary warfare ambitions other than the defence of our island territories and the security of those smaller littoral nations in the IOR like Mauritius,etc,with whom we have security agreements with.

N-powered carriers and their aircraft,both manned and UCAVs,are for the future. As said ad nauseum,"INS India is unsinkable". Study the lessons of WW2 whre the German U-boats almost won the war for Germany.The (ULTRA) breaking of the German code by the Brits and Hitler's limited support for the U-boat campaign were crucial,as Allied aircraft were given U-boat locations to sink them and they received little support from other assets.Despite this,they sank millions of tons of merchantmen,esp mil convoys to Russia carrying mil eqpt./supplies for Stalin to hold off the Germans.Before we build N-powered carriers,LRMP/supersonic Backfires would be adequate for dominating the IOR (the IN is also beefing up its A&N and island infrastructure,more naval jetties,longer runways,etc.),with swiftly increasing the number and capability of our sub fleet both conventional and nuclear. We should lease/acquire more Akulas in the interim,at least operate 4 before 2020,as China has just developed its new SSN class with better quieting,etc. ,details posted elsewhere.The 3-4 amphibs should also be built before we start work on our N-powered carriers.

Ambitions of the PLAN.The Meditt and Black Sea are now seeing PLAN warships for the first time,"showing the flag",a signal to the USN and NATO.

http://sputniknews.com/military/2015050 ... 31430.html
Crew members of Chinese Navy stand guard on the deck of Chinese navy ship Wei FangTwo Chinese Naval Ships Enter Black Sea Heading to Novorossiysk

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 May 2015 09:37

(Contd.)
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... -exercises

Calls to Punish China Grow
5, 2015 11:50 AM EDT
By Josh Rogin
Following a year of China’s flagrant and aggressive activities in contested waters, some in Washington are calling for President Obama to cancel China’s invitation to the largest maritime military exercise in the world.

Some leaders in Congress and the military want to exclude China, warning about its military buildup in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, which includes a rapid plan to build military-friendly infrastructure on new islands in waters where at least six Asian nations have competing claims. Satellite photos released last month show that in the past year China has built what Admiral Harry Harris, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, called a “Great Wall of Sand”: China has created new islands in the South China Sea and begun construction of helipads and anti-aircraft towers.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain told me that China’s actions over the last year call into question the Obama administration’s plan to invite China to the next Rim of the Pacific exercise, scheduled for summer 2016 near Honolulu.

“I would not have invited them this time because of their bad behavior,” said McCain. “In the last number of years they had filled in 60 acres of land around these islands; in the last year they have filled in 600 acres and they are putting in a runway. I don’t think there is any doubt about their territorial ambitions.”

China was officially invited to the RIMPAC exercises in 2014 for the first time, along with 21 other nations including several countries with whom Beijing has maritime territorial disputes, such as Vietnam and the Philippines. China brought a surprise to the last RIMPAC exercise: a surveillance spy ship that was neither expected nor welcomed.

McCain said China’s buildup in the South China Sea could lead to China establishing a new air defense identification zone in the South China Sea -- a de facto declaration of official Chinese airspace, similar to the zone China unilaterally announced in the East China Sea in 2013.

The U.S. opposed that move in 2013, but McCain said the administration needs to do more to deter China from creating a second air defense identification zone.

“That would a de facto assertion that it is Chinese airspace. I don’t think there’s any doubt the Chinese are acting in an aggressive manner,” said McCain. “Our Pacific Fleet commander has issued warning after warning, which have apparently been ignored.”

Inside the U.S. government, there is tension over whether the U.S. should increase cooperation with China to maintain ties, or put more distance between the two militaries. On the side of more robust engagement is the U.S. chief of naval operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, who has worked closely with China’s naval chief, Admiral Wu Shengli.

Last year, Greenert proposed to grant a Chinese request to have a U.S. aircraft carrier visit China and open up access for Chinese military officials. In February, McCain wrote to the secretary of Defense, then Chuck Hagel, in opposition to the idea. One month later, Hagel's replacement, Ash Carter, responded to tell McCain the carrier visit would not happen.

“The current regional environment and military balance considerations inform DOD’s engagement calculus, and as you suggest, a U.S. aircraft carrier visit would not support our stated objectives at this time,” Carter wrote.

Since taking up his post, Carter has taken a prominent role in security issues involving Asia. One Congressional aide briefed on the issue said that the Office of the Secretary of Defense told the Navy that it did not want China to be invited to RIMPAC 2016 given recent behavior but that the Navy is insisting on inviting China again. The Navy’s position is supported by the head of U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, who is pushing more military to military engagement with China.

The White House is said to be open to the idea of disinviting China from RIMPAC and taking a tougher stance toward China’s aggression in the South China Sea, but so far hasn’t been assertive in weighing in on the debate, said one administration official who works on Asia-Pacific issues.

National Security Council Spokesman Patrick Ventrell declined to comment on RIMPAC specifically but said the administration is “working to deepen practical military cooperation on issues such as disaster response and counter-piracy, while at the same time developing and implementing confidence building measures that reduce the risk of accidents or miscalculation.”

Patrick Cronin, the head of the Asia-Pacific Security program at the Center for a New American Security, said the U.S. should be exacting a diplomatic and reputational price for China's bad behavior while increasing cooperation with other countries in the region.

“We are trying to avoid being outmaneuvered by a very active and assertive China,” said Cronin. “When they do things to violate the norms, we have to make sure they don’t benefit.”

But the cost to China should not necessarily include being excluded from RIMPAC, he said: The exercises can advance common goals involving things like maritime law and safety, search and rescue, and humanitarian relief.

“It all depends on what you think RIMPAC should be,” said Cronin. “For us to have China there is important, but that doesn’t mean that China is coming there with good intentions.”

Other experts argue that even if there is no national security risk to inviting China to RIMPAC, China simply does not deserve the privilege of participating.

“They don’t get any secrets at RIMPAC. The bigger issue is their attitude and behavior,” said Michael Auslin, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “You uphold certain standards and if China doesn’t meet those standards, they haven’t earned another invite back.”

The U.S.-China relationship is delicate, and the decision to punish China should be made with great care. But the Navy’s single-minded focus on engagement and the administration’s overall resistance to calling out China for bad behavior are shortsighted.

Rethinking the quantity and quality of the engagement with China actually might be better for the relationship over the long term. What’s clear is that so far, China is paying no price for its aggression. Until the Obama administration changes that, Beijing will continue to change facts on the ground -- and in the water -- in their own favor.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 08 May 2015 22:13

brar_w wrote:Nuclear propulsion is not a must__have for EMALS. The British, would have opted for EMALS and rejected nuclear propulsion if they had the funds to develop and acquire a more capable carrier.

Catapults are must if you are serious and want to indeed have a super carrier. Now weather you want to go for EMALS or Steam as the technology its unto you. But EMALS is futuristic as it eliminates the need of high maintenance boilers. With EMALS a navy can operate a non nuclear super carrier with ease as well. Also note that a COGOG based CV is cheaper to maintain than a CVN, and can also have a respectable range ( > 10,000 kms )

The british government indeed wanted EMALS to be installed and choose F-35 C instead of the Short-Legged F-35 B. IF you remember that the shipyard has sold CVN Queen Eliz as a modular and configurable carrier. But in 2011 the government in UK found that the cost of installing and configuring EMALS and modifying the ship would cost like a Billion Pounds ( Modularization works well in construction, not modification - also read the case of LCS ).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 May 2015 22:48

Thats exactly what I wrote down as well. EMALS and nuclear propulsion are not something that are tied to each other. The Brits could have chosen EMALS without having nuclear propulsion as an option. They chose to reduce operational cost and maintain 2 carriers rather than trade cost for capability. Given the sort of turns their defense spending is taking and their general lack of fund availability for things like a MPA, they are much better off because they can do without an E-2D, and the longer legged charlie because they'll mostly be under the NATO or at least the USN umbrella. The IN does not have that luxury so I feel that a larger carrier with cats is pretty much a certainty for a carrier that is likely going to be in service well beyond 2050.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 09 May 2015 05:39

EMALS equipped carriers are nice, nuclear or not but not necessary for the Indian Navy currently. We are not going down to South China Sea to kick butt. Our strategy revolves around choking choke points. We do not have a global policing role either. We need submarines, SSNs. That will allow us to control the Indian Ocean. Once we get a SSN program on its feet and going, I would be very glad if we start discussing Carriers.

If money permits pursuing all these parallelly by all means. But please a nuclear carrier.. pretty please?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 09 May 2015 06:16

^Let me ask some layman questions. Wouldn't a nuke-powered carrier have more space for fuel, spares and ammo for the aircraft because it doesn't need large stores of diesel or whatever for itself? Or is the size of a nuke reactor and its associated infrastructure going to make that space saving minimal? Also, how long do nuke-powered carriers go on patrol as compared to regular ones? What really is the advantage of a nuke-powered carrier?

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 09 May 2015 06:33

Arun Sir, just look at the difference between Vikramaditya, Vikrant (new) and French Charles De Gaulle the French Carrier. The French Aircraft carrier carries more aircraft 4 more than Vikramaditya, 10 more than Vikrant. Now I am quoting Wiki for the numbers but even given the inaccuracies involved Vik and Vik carry a little less than Charles De Gaulle. Now Vik is about 3000-4000 tons heavier. While the Vikrant (new) is slightly lighter by about 2500 tons. But see the difference in the number of aircraft and type of aircraft. Which is caused by the launch mechanism.

I believe nukes have a 1 ton for each aircraft load equivalence so American Carriers in war can go from 72 to 90 aircraft for the Nimitz.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 May 2015 06:46

First and foremost:

Offered:

Hawkeye (?)
EMAL
Design of carrier
Exploratory team

IN asked for:

Presentation for the F-35

Talks/suggestions about:

CAT
Nuclear propulsion

We are not going down to South China Sea to kick butt. Our strategy revolves around choking choke points.

For that the US is not going to offer the techs they are and IN does not need EMAL, Hawkeye, etc. IN can depend on Indian land mass to achieve that strategy.

Besides that the next IN carrier should go from say 2025 to at least 2060ish. "choke points" better not be the goal across that time frame (which is why I had felt that even the Russian carrier was inadequate).

My feel is that the Vishal needs to be a full-fledged carrier: it should be able to accommodate crafts such as the Greyhound (it can deliver spare engines for the air crafts). IN needs, besides hosting a ton of aircrafts, be able to service them, including things like testing + changing engines, etc.

IN does not need to be "global", but IMHO will be part of a team/group that will be "global".

I find it very hard to believe that IN/India would accept EMAL and not go the distance. SCS will be part of it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2015 07:54

even the Osprey should be able to deliver spare engines. a fighter engine is max 1.2tons + protective case

http://www.aeropresse.com/photo-aviatio ... Osprey.jpg

even the NH90 http://www.milavia.net/airshows/rnzaf-o ... 2012_7.jpg

but range will be limited vs the C2 and the NH90 cannot do air to air refueling.