INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/manupubby/status/15 ... LnRrTP2VOg ---> Important: Right now have put a hold on IAC II. Contemplating whether we should look at a repeat order for the IAC I, given the expertise we have developed. Haven't taken it to government yet: Navy Chief
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by VinodTK »



The Defenders : NavIC
SidSoma
BRFite
Posts: 241
Joined: 16 Feb 2018 15:09

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by SidSoma »

Rsatchi wrote:And above news of repeat Vikrant this is just sheer stupidity
Repeat should have been 2/3 years ago with an aircraft picked (maybe Rafale for commonality) and wider lifts
What ever unobtanium could have been delayed for a decade
Honestly at this point of time, this seems to be the most sensible decision. They have no plans for the newer ship, No idea of either the catapult or EMALS. No idea what would be the interim aircraft that would operate. Under these conditions repeat is the best way fwd (with of course wider lifts)
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

Chetakji and Rakesh
Please can I ask :
This constant quest for ‘Unobtanium’ what is the reason
I would like to put forth a tenuous hypothesis: in my opinion it is all due to multi county ‘Yudd Abhyas’!
Since the time these exercises have started the Army Navy and the Airforce demand for phoren maal has increased many fold
The ICG experience you look kind of gives credence to my hypothesis
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by KSingh »

Rsatchi wrote:And above news of repeat Vikrant this is just sheer stupidity
Repeat should have been 2/3 years ago with an aircraft picked (maybe Rafale for commonality) and wider lifts
What ever unobtanium could have been delayed for a decade
Exactly. They waited for IAC-1 to be fully finished just to consider this proposal and that too no one is saying they are going ahead only ‘considering it’ hence at least another 2-3 years of ‘maybes’ and then 1-2 years of negotiations with CSL. So if CSL is somehow able to keep their IAC-1 ecosystem alive for ~5 years and can make the IAC-1B in 7-8 years like they said last year the sister ship to IAC-1 won’t be ready until the mid-2030s by which time PLAN will have >6 CBG

Genuinely is getting harder and harder to wonder if there is intentional sabotage at work

The delays would be justified if the all singing all dancing IAC-2 was to come in the 2030s but now they are saying an interim solution will come after IAC-2 was originally meant to be ready. Who benefits other than CCP?
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by bala »

More details follow...

Indian Navy puts on hold plans for bigger aircraft carrier; mulls repeat of Vikrant-sized carrier: Navy Chief

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 218381.ece
December 03, 2022
The Indian Navy, has for now, “put on hold” the plan for a bigger Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-2) and is examining the possibility of a repeat order for a Vikrant-sized carrier built indigenously as part of its requirement for a third carrier, Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) Admiral R. Hari Kumar said while stating that the Navy has made a commitment to the top leadership to be fully AatmaNirbhar by 2047. To a question on the eight Indian Navy veterans under solitary confinement in Qatar, he said continuous efforts are on to resolve this.

“This has been taken up with all agencies involved and at the highest leadership in the country. There is continuous effort and we are hopeful that it will be resolved,” he said speaking at the annual press conference ahead of Navy Day.

Chief of Naval Staff Admiral R. Hari Kumar. | Photo Credit: Twitter/@indiannavy

The Indian Navy, has for now, “put on hold” the plan for a bigger Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-2) and is examining the possibility of a repeat order for a Vikrant-sized carrier built indigenously as part of its requirement for a third carrier, Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) Admiral R. Hari Kumar said while stating that the Navy has made a commitment to the top leadership to be fully AatmaNirbhar by 2047. To a question on the eight Indian Navy veterans under solitary confinement in Qatar, he said continuous efforts are on to resolve this.

“This has been taken up with all agencies involved and at the highest leadership in the country. There is continuous effort and we are hopeful that it will be resolved,” he said speaking at the annual press conference ahead of Navy Day.

On IAC-2, Adm. Kumar said they are still working on what size it should be and what are the capabilities desired etc. “Right now we have put a hold on it because we have just commissioned Vikrant. We are very happy with the ship, the way the ship performed in the trials. Lot of expertise has been gained in building IAC-1 in Cochin shipyard. Lot of ancillary industries have come up which is AatmaNirbhar in full bloom. We are also examining if we should repeat order an IAC-1 instead of going for an IAC-2 to capitalise on the expertise available in the country and how we can plough back into the economy,” he said. This is all in the discussion stage right now and we have not firmed up our mind nor have we taken it to the government, he stated.

The Navy has been pushing for a second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-II) based on its force structure centered around three carriers. The country’s first IAC Vikrant was commissioned in October and is gearing up for aviation trials. Earlier the Navy had envisaged an IAC-2 with a displacement of 65,000 tonne with Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) for launching aircraft and full electric propulsion.

Speaking of the Agnipath scheme for recruitment of sailors, the Navy Chief said 3,000 Agniveers have joined the training facility at INS Chilka of which 341 are women. “This is a landmark event for us as we are inducting women sailors for the first time,” he said also announcing that from next year they are looking at inducting women officers across all branches. Elaborating on this, Commodore Shantanu Jha said the 341 women sailors would be inducted into 29 trades in the Navy.

Adm. Kumar says Navy keeping track of Chinese ships in the region to ensure that “they do not undertake any inimical activities”. On continued presence of Chinese ships and research vessels in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), Adm. Kumar said there are lot of Chinese ships which operate in the region. “There are about four to six Navy ships, then some research vessels and also fishing vessels as also around 60-odd ships of extra-regional forces,” he said stating that as a resident power they keep track and ensure that “they do not undertake any inimical activities.”

To a question on the Quad grouping comprising of India, Australia, Japan and the US, the CNS said it is just the coming together of likeminded countries, democracies which have similar values. “It’s not an alliance, not a military treaty or anything like that. Just coming together of likeminded countries,” he stressed.

On the deal for 30 Predator High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles from the US, which has been delayed, Adm. Kumar said the case is under progress. “We are at a stage where we are discussing if numbers need to be rationalised or kept as it is,” he stated. For the last one and a half years, the Navy has been operating two Predator UAVs taken on lease from General Atomics which the Navy has found great value, Adm. Kumar said and provides much reach in terms of surveillance in the IOR.

Referring to the change of the Naval insignia which was done to do away with colonial vestiges, the CNS said the direction from top leadership was very clear and referred to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s talk on Panch Pran from the Red Fort and said they strongly support the view that we have to get away from this ‘ Gulami ki Mansikta Se Mukti’. “In pursuance of that end, the Navy will continue to proactively identify redundant or archaic practices, process or symbols that could, either be discontinued, or modified in consonance with modern day realities,” he added.

On budgetary allocation, the Navy Chief said this year it was 17.8% which is quite adequate and in terms of spending they have been able to manage it “quite well” and have achieved a Revenue to Capital expenditure ratio of 32%-68%, which he said accords “flexibility in pursuing their capability developments plan.”
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

That this kind of muddled thinking exists in the most indigenous-friendly of all services is truly sad

And to be fair to the services, this is where the psychology of not having enough funds messes up their thinking. If the GOI/MoD were to tell them: "there is money to fund initial tranches and you will iteratively get more money for follow-ons", people will think a lot differently.

Instead, if they think that money is always going to be short & each fund-raise is a massively painful exercise, then planners go into analysis-paralysis and want the best that money can buy which can also future-proof them for 2 decades. In the fast-moving tech world, this simply cannot happen. They need constant funds to keep inducting, innovating and iterating. The way to fund it both internal (create a massive domestic MIC) and via exports. Cycle times need to shorten for smarter decision-making and funds need to be made available, even if some % of the funds go into experiments that don't end up becoming viable. The net outcome will still be 10X better than the bloated process we follow now
Last edited by Prem Kumar on 04 Dec 2022 10:47, edited 2 times in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I think that the navy should explore, if the vikrant design can be stretched by 30 meters forward of the island.

That should provide hanger space for additional 10 to 12 air crafts.

With 3 lifts for 2 jets each. it should be quite a capable design.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

The original Vikrant had a steam catapult, is it not?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

Pratyush wrote:I think that the navy should explore, if the vikrant design can be stretched by 30 meters forward of the island.

That should provide hanger space for additional 10 to 12 air crafts.

With 3 lifts for 2 jets each. it should be quite a capable design.
The V-I is about 262 m long (wiki).

30 M (I initially miss-read it is 30 feet) longer makes it 292.

The HMS QE is 284 m long and 65,000 tons. So you are actually asking for an IAC-II without saying so.
hgupta
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 14:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by hgupta »

I do not think we should go for any more carriers until IN specify the type of aircraft that it wants and can get that will work on the IAC-I. Otherwise it is just a waste of money and time and resources.

First specify the aircraft that IN wants whether it be the F-18 SH, N-Rafale, or TEDBF and therefore make sure that the carrier can effectively operate the chosen aircraft to IN's desired needs and capabilities.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

I think a propulsion system that needs to be at the center.

The aircarfts come and go, the propulsion system is there for 30/40 years. And actually dictates lauch/recovery, etc
Roop
BRFite
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Roop »

ks_sachin wrote:The original Vikrant had a steam catapult, is it not?
Yes it did.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ramana »

Some facts;
Vikramaditya is mostly in the dock.
Vikrant lift will accommodate only Mig29s
Going for a bigger IAC-II will basically keep IN carrier aviation even further downstream and shipyard experience is lost.
The way ahead is another IAC-IA class with a bigger lift while the design for IAC-II proceeds.

When refit time comes fix the Vikrant.

It's possible the new IAC-IA might have a slightly higher displacement due to lessons learned.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

NRao wrote:
The V-I is about 262 m long (wiki).

30 M (I initially miss-read it is 30 feet) longer makes it 292.

The HMS QE is 284 m long and 65,000 tons. So you are actually asking for an IAC-II without saying so.
You are correct about the revised length of the ship with the 30 meter plug forward of the island.

However, I hadn't thought through the additional power requirements for such an increase in displacement and crew required. Something that might not be possible to do with a repeat of LM2500.

So it's not really as simple as I had thought of.
hgupta
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 14:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by hgupta »

ramana wrote:Some facts;
Vikramaditya is mostly in the dock.
Vikrant lift will accommodate only Mig29s
Going for a bigger IAC-II will basically keep IN carrier aviation even further downstream and shipyard experience is lost.
The way ahead is another IAC-IA class with a bigger lift while the design for IAC-II proceeds.

When refit time comes fix the Vikrant.

It's possible the new IAC-IA might have a slightly higher displacement due to lessons learned.
A carrier with no fighters is useless and takes precious money away from other needed programs. It is manpower extensive and sucks enormous amount of fuel. It would be very hard to justify the costs of a carrier to the beancounters if no fighter are forthcoming. Let IN decide which fighter jet it wants and then make sure that the carrier it is building is capable of operating that plane.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by AkshaySG »

And it will.

The talk of a repeat Vikrant order is just starting, Nothing will be actually happening until a few more years at least.. So there's plenty of time for IN to decide bw the Raffy or SH and also see how the TEDBF is progressing.

Besides the only real issue right now for Vikrant is lift size, As long as that is handled then even a repeat design should be able to handle anything that strikes IN's fancy, Be it Raffy, SH, TEDBF or NLCA.

Its also easier to push for and justify more fighters when you have a carrier that needs it so don't be surprised if the carrier decision comes before a firm order for planes
Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Kersi »

Roop wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:The original Vikrant had a steam catapult, is it not?
Yes it did.
It had steam catapult till she got a inclined ramp (for Sea Harriers)
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

So if we dont get EMALS etc is going back to steam catapult an option?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

You are thinking about combined cycle gas turbine?

https://www.ge.com/gas-power/resources/ ... wer-plants

If that can be managed efficiently on a ship. Then yes, it's definitely possible.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush,

I do not know enough but if we had a steam catapult once then can that tech be resurrected for use today?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

If the desire is there. Then it's doable.

But this decision has to be made today or should have been made sometime ago for it to result in a product in a useful timeframe.

Don't know if the navy is thinking about it as an interim solution for its requirement.

They have just taken a logical decision today. When CSL has been asking for a repeat order for at least 5 years.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

They still have to take a decision on IAC-2, but the super carrier idea (for now) is dead. The project never had sanction from the Govt. IAC-2 is a prestige program for the Admirals and the Navy. This program came as a result of the annual Malabar exercises that the Indian Navy did with the US Navy. Since the 123 Nuclear Agreement and even prior with President Clinton's visit in 2000, there was much hope that India would get over its non alignment stand and walk in step with the US. The ever growing threat from the dragon only accelerated that fantasy. But that has not worked out as hoped and caused a lot of dismay with US geopolitical analysts i.e. Ashley Tellis.

Whither the much hyped JWGACTC (Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology Cooperation)?

There is simply no money for the program, when the services have far more pressing requirements. The best path forward is a repeat of IAC-1 (modified and upscaled) and then followed by the bells-and-whistles aircraft carrier. Saurav Jha has been arguing this for eons now. The Indian Navy finally may have seen the light.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/159 ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> And there it is folks! Navy Chief discloses that they are now considering a repeat of the Vikrant Class to sustain and consolidate indigenous production capability instead of jumping directly to a supercarrier. I made this very argument in 2018:

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

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/159 ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> Even as another Vikrant is built, the Navy should set up a ‘joint project body’ with DAE and @DRDO_India on the lines of ‘Project Akanksha’, which oversees India’s nuke submarine projects, to develop a large nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that can be built in the 2030s.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> Fleet tanker INS Deepak performing UNREP ops with IAC, INS Vikrant.

Image

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

A robust and interesting debate is occurring between a former Naval Chief (Admiral Arun Prakash) and Sandeep Unnithan (son of a retired Indian Navy Admiral) over the recent announcement about IAC-2 by Admiral Hair Kumar, current Navy Chief.

Posting Sandeep's tweets below then followed by the back-and-forth between Sandeep and Admiral Prakash (retd) in the next post.

VIDEO: https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> When I look at the map, India IS an aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier is one hull, very vulnerable and has limited number of combat aircraft. On Navy Day, please listen to this excerpt of ⁦@ELuttwak talk from Feb 2022. Prescient, as just two months later, Russia's CG, ‘Moskva’, was sunk.

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> Are aircraft carriers the real British colonial hangover we need to shed? This brilliant paper by Yogesh Joshi traces the ‘Indian Navy’s organisational obsessions, and Jawaharlal Nehru’s pride, as responsible for India’s tryst with aircraft carriers' ---> https://www.orfonline.org/research/nehr ... -carriers/

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> What the carrier obsession caused - then and now. In 2022, a severely depleted SSK fleet, an ASW program called P-75I, the only major world navy with *ZERO* nuclear powered attack submarines (SSNs). Dickie would be delighted…”the Indians are rid of the infernal Russian influence.”

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/arunp2810/status/15 ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> For all his wisdom, Mr Luttwak is a theoretician. Unrealistic to compare static island or peninsular airfields to a carrier which can move its airpower 600-800 km in a day. If Shandong or Liaoning threaten our shipping in the Persian Gulf, no aircraft from Thanjavur can help.

https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> Sir, why would they bother deploying such ponderous, easily targetable white elephants when they can do the same with a force of 6 SSNs (barrier patrols - 2 on our W coast, 2 on E coast, 2 in transit from Sanya) and also threaten safe egress of our sea-based deterrent.

https://twitter.com/arunp2810/status/15 ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> Apples & Oranges, I’m afraid. In peacetime (hopefully 99% of the time) it is “presence” that tilts the maritime balance. Compare the psychological impact of a giant carrier looming over the horizon with that of an SSN which will not even want/dare to show its periscope?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

My personal view is that we are SO late in this game with regards to aircraft carriers, that catching up to the PLAN is quite frankly near impossible and unaffordable. The only logical path, IMVHO, is a follow on Vikrant Class vessel with wider lifts and increased tonnage.

Our submarine fleet is the real cause of concern and requires some out of the box thinking. Need both SSNs and SSKs.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by hnair »

I think a fleet of four (1 + 3 XL vikrants) would do great good from Sunda straits to Eilat and Shatt-al-Arab estuary as Admiral Prakash is saying. Going for nukes, catobar etc is where things go off kilter

Also a biggish fleet of SSNs is a must to keep both the landmass and the carriers safe. 6 seem a good start

Rakesh, catching up to the cheenis in any sector is like catching up to a KSRTC bus in an auto rickshaw. What is the point? :lol:
konaseema
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 16 Nov 2020 09:54

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by konaseema »

The only logical question that I can think off is as follows. Can I defend the Chinese carriers and its fighters with my existing Naval surface fleet and Submarines (SSK / SSN) or Do I need my own Carrier fleet (not like for like or same numbers) and aircrafts? We can muddle the water more if we ask these additional questions. Why didn't USSR / Russia match USA's fleet of Nuclear powered Aircraft carriers? Why did China find the need to go for a fleet of Aircraft carriers against the same USA? To me, it never should be why we need or do we really need but what is the right number of Aircraft carriers and SSK / SSN. It was never either / or as we need both. How much and by when we need them would be appropriate.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by AkshaySG »

We need to really take a look at our Operational needs, current situation and plan accordingly. We aren't making enough use of the the natural and geopolitical advantages that we possess and neither are we paying enough attention to the glaring holes in our Naval situation

We need to take full use of advantages we have and plan for the disadvantages.


1. The Andaman and Nicobar islands offer a fantastic base from which to survey, identify, track and attack enemy aircraft and ships. Our naval presence there both offensive and defensive should be much greater than it is today. It should be to IN what Hawaii is to USN

If utilized well it has the potential to provide as much support as a full US Supercarrier Battle Group at about 1/10th the cost...
Yes the area under coverage will be limited but it still covers all our critical zones be it Malacca, Andaman Sea, Gulf of Thailand.

2.Submarine Strength, In the face of dwindling submarine strength and lagging technolgies (Even Pak has AIP now), How can the Navy afford to prioritize anything else. How do you spend billions on a nice to have over a must-have

Pak, SL and Bangladesh will all have their waters full of Chinese origin subs, How exactly do we plan to defend and attack against them if our own fleet is stretched to its limits


3. Carrier vs Supercarrier

Has the Navy asked itself as to what offensive and defensive doctrinea does it plan to use Aircraft Carriers for?
Besides the whole power projection shctik, In an actual war scenario it seems we will most likely use a carrier group for blockades and opening up another front. In either of these scenarios a standard Vikrant/CDG class carrier if well designed is just as useful as a 70,000 ton + Supercarrier

If unlike US or China we don't plan to send our carriers out of the Indian Ocean then what exactly are we getting out of that extra 30,000 tons, hundreds of additional crew and 5Billion$.

Is there a cost to benefit analysis of what a 10 billion CBG offers vs what 10 SSKs for the same money offer or a mix of more destroyers, tankers, frigates do.

At least with the other items you can refit one while the others are prowling.. With an AC its sayonara for 6-8 months every few years.

It seems the roof of the house is leaking, The plumbing has almost stopped working and we're debating whether to buy a Mercedes or a BMW
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

Indians need to first decide how far they want to throw their weight.

Only IOR (define it any way you want) then the current set of carriers suffice. One of them is the land mass projecting into the IO.

If it includes Indo-Pacific then India certainly needs two 65,000 carriers.

Somewhere around 2010-13 IN published a "vision" doc, some 150 pages long. In that IN had stated their area of interest goes all the way to Alaska, US (and the West coast of Africa)!!

________________________

IF Indians say only IOR, India will not be considered a pole in a multi-polar world. Not happening. India wants to be a pole, build the Navy out without too much consideration for funds.

For "pole"s funds are never an issue.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

NRao: Vision docs are only as good as the sanction of funds that are received to fulfill those visions. In absence of funds, those vision docs have no value. What is the Indian Navy planning to do in Alaska?

Whatever the country's aspirations are, they have to be met with the required funding. In India, the services wish for something...but the Govt has no desire to fulfill those wishes. Valuable time was wasted in the previous decade for the Navy to finally wake up to the realization that a 65,000 ton nuclear powered, EMALS equipped, aircraft carrier was never going to pass muster at the Ministries of Defence and Finance.

Beyond the IOR, the Indian Navy is not venturing anywhere else. The IOR it is and as defined by the Indian Navy in subsequent vision statements since 2016. Admiral Sunil Lanba (retd) - even stated as CNS - that in the South China Sea, the dice is loaded in the PLAN's favour. The Indian Navy will not be sending her CBGs anywhere close to there. The IOR it is.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

hnair wrote:I think a fleet of four (1 + 3 XL vikrants) would do great good from Sunda straits to Eilat and Shatt-al-Arab estuary as Admiral Prakash is saying. Going for nukes, catobar etc is where things go off kilter.
It took them how many years again, for them to realize the bolded part?

The obtuse behaviour of our Admirals is disappointing. When they knew at the first instance of the bells-and-whistles IAC-2 not getting sanction, they should have proposed a back up plan right away. But they persisted on unobtanium and now the country lacks a proper aircraft carrier fleet.

This saga is similar to the MMRCA/MRFA saga in the air force. Soon the light bulb will turn on at Air HQ and they will realize that the contest will never see the light of day. Once again, the country suffers in this delay.

While long overdue and fashionably late, if they lay the keel of a follow on Vikrant today....it will be ready for commission in the early 2030s. Just widen those lifts and increase the tonnage.
hnair wrote:Also a biggish fleet of SSNs is a must to keep both the landmass and the carriers safe. 6 seem a good start
This appears to be the Modus Operandi of the Indian Navy i.e. purchase capital ships without the required support vessels to keep her safe in her theatre of operations. We don't have the fundamental basics down (zero minesweepers, ASW helos are just arriving, no air-worthy naval fighters, just six modern submarines, etc), but will invest in capital ships for prestige.
hnair wrote:Rakesh, catching up to the cheenis in any sector is like catching up to a KSRTC bus in an auto rickshaw. What is the point? :lol:
:lol:
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

^^Rakesh
Totally agree
Three Vikrant class
They should have picked RafaleM and stopped all tamasha
Second and third with wider lifts and when first vessel comes in for refit check if there’s a chance of widening the lift
Plus Agalega and Andaman should have been built for both Posiedon and SSN base
On a lighter note if wanted so much of steam catapult experience I am sure the Khans would have accommodated some RafaleM joint sorties :lol:
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The aircraft carrier or even submarines cannot be looked at in isolation.

1) We need to have a correct understanding of the strength the PRC+TSP are capable of bringing against India, 5, 10, 15,20 years down the line.

2) Anticipate the technical breakthroughs possible in both offensive and defensive capacity of the PRC.

3) then look at our own economic prospects over the said period and start executing accordingly.

For example, if the IAF is faced with 2250 PLAF combat aircraft+ 20000 conventional cruise missiles, coupled with 350 TSPAF combat aircraft. To which PRC is further able to add 4 to 6 carrier battle group's. Along with 2 nuclear submarines per group.

The conception of peninsular India being an unsinkable aircraft carrier can be seriously put to the test even if the IAF is built up to full currently sanctioned strength.

Note: - during peace time the movement of PRC fleet cannot be stopped in international water's.

Note 2:- Nor can India prevent the PRC from using the Ports in TSP as resupply bases.

What I am trying to say is that we have to be able to stand up to a massively powerful PRC+TSP combination and the support from uncle might be as reliable as members are thinking it to be. The start has to be now, the false debate between Air craft carrier and submarines is not really healthy for India.

The US inspite of a carrier navy had a goal of having a fleet of 100 nuclear submarines along with 15 Carrie battle group's. During the cold war.

The Indian imperative is not really that different. We need global reach and global force projection capacity . If we are to maintain our energy and trade independence.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by srin »

Unfortunately, the Navy has dropped the ball regarding IAC-2 and P75I. We've been lost a lot of time chasing unobtanium and things are going in the same fashion as predicted on these BRF threads for a long time.

This is the case of doing the right thing (2nd Vikrant class and not with EMALS/CATOBAR etc) after exhausting all alternatives.

I used to lookup at Navy for keeping a level head during the resource-constrained past decades while the army and airforce were showing brochuritis and nothing was getting procured (guns, tanks, fighters). But IN has now gone down the same path - as Parrikar said once, the file is having a lot of speed but no velocity, because it is going in circles.
When are they going to realize the totally indigenous SSKs (and maybe a few more Scorpenes - with higher localization - in the interim) is the way to go for P75I ?
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Small question and I think the Navy might be thinking on these lines, since Vikrant lift and lift entry are outward, when the ship is in Port, how difficult will it be cut the Metal of the Hull, expand it by a few feet and and add a new Lift, I think it will be doable in a month.

I have a feeling once the Naval aircraft between Rafale and F-18 is done, the Vikrant will come to port and have these changes before the Aircraft arrive. The supplier for the new lift will be chosen based on the Aircraft selected.

These changes are far easier what was done on Gorshkov into INS Vikramaditya

INS Vikramaditya will slog it out with MIG 29K's and LCA Navy
SidSoma
BRFite
Posts: 241
Joined: 16 Feb 2018 15:09

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by SidSoma »

Aditya_V wrote:Small question and I think the Navy might be thinking on these lines, since Vikrant lift and lift entry are outward, when the ship is in Port, how difficult will it be cut the Metal of the Hull, expand it by a few feet and and add a new Lift, I think it will be doable in a month.

I have a feeling once the Naval aircraft between Rafale and F-18 is done, the Vikrant will come to port and have these changes before the Aircraft arrive. The supplier for the new lift will be chosen based on the Aircraft selected.

These changes are far easier what was done on Gorshkov into INS Vikramaditya

INS Vikramaditya will slog it out with MIG 29K's and LCA Navy
This is definitely not a trivial task and may have cascading effect on related structures. I feel that Both Viks will share the MIG 29K and LCA N. With the next ACs the aircraft could be changed. Any ways, with the new Vik order the lifts have to be resized to fit the selected aircraft.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/elmihiro/status/159 ... aYyvQNx_2A ---> Illuminating look at the history of India’s pursuit of carrier-based air power. The “need” was driven mostly by prestige, and then sustained by the fallacy of sunk costs. That’s always a recipe for dysfunction.

https://twitter.com/elmihiro/status/159 ... aYyvQNx_2A ---> The current rationale seems to be: "We need a carrier because if we don't have a carrier, then we won't have a carrier, and then who will not operate the carrier that we don't have?" :rotfl:

A Twitter thread on carrier debate by Mihir Shah ---> https://twitter.com/elmihiro/status/133 ... aYyvQNx_2A
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Post Reply