INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jun 2015 02:21

tsarkar, I thought IN had decided three of a class for economy of scale in the early 90s.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 11 Jun 2015 03:37

Wonderful pictures of the Vikrant @ Tarmak

http://tarmak007.blogspot.ca/2015/06/in ... ocked.html

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Jun 2015 04:06

Agree. More follow-ons should be planned/ordered. IMO, a modified version for LHD role (similar to LHD Juan Carlos) should be done. Gives a lot more flexibility during wartime and more bang for the buck.

2 x Carrier version (slightly enlarged version with more hanger deck space and better flight ops facilities (accommodate two fighter squadrons standard and extra space for a third squadron for short duration))
4 x LHD version (most of the hull deck reconfigured for troops, vehicles and landing crafts but maintaining flight deck length to provide limited fighter carrier ops capability (accommodate up to one fighter squadron for short duration))

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2015 05:11

Building at least or two more will also keep unkil under control.
Else they will modulate talks over visual and drag it on to suit their pro tsp policy

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2015 05:11

Do not let unkil use use vishal as a choke point to punish us

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 11 Jun 2015 05:26

Those pics are stunning...never before seen vantage point...Nos 16 in Tarmak list is the best shot of the city itself that I have seen and makes it special with the Vikrant. Who are the photographers ? Navy helo shots most likely being in a sensitive area with others having no access.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2015 06:22

Photos Courtesy: E George, MoD, Indian Navy (SNC)

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Jun 2015 06:52

Stunning pictures !

Can't wait for the finished product with the Migs, LCAs and Helos deployed !!!

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 11 Jun 2015 07:08

As a kid, I remember traveling on the bus along MG Road past those big red gantry cranes more times than I can count. Vikrant makes them look tiny!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jun 2015 08:49

Before, I had my doubts about getting 2 of these. But after seeing those pictures, get them PLEASE. They are beautiful! Totally worth it, just for aesthetic value. Look at the island, and the usable deck space on that thing. Vikramaditya looks so much inferior in perspective!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2015 09:09

the front view shows just how wide the deck is vs the island. from the side looks are deceiving and it looks narrow.

vikky just got owned.

with some help from fincantieri it might be feasible to add small sections ahead and behind the island to increase tonnage by 10,000t, retain the same power plant and top speed and improve the parking areas on deck and below. the beam would remain the same as thats a major redesign. add more LRSAM outboard if possible.

I see the Mig29K as a passing aberration over the 50 yr life of this beauty. Naval Tejas for air defence and Rafale for strike would be a better combo later on.

Abhay_S · Post by **Abhay_S** » 11 Jun 2015 09:32

What a Beauty!!! cant wait to see the N-LCA take off from it.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 Jun 2015 09:34

This ship so not SDRE.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 11 Jun 2015 09:45

Is there any figure for the deck area of the new Vikrant ? It looks positively sprawling, seemingly more space even than the CDG, which has comparable dimensions to it, but has a more tapered deck, while Vikrant look distinctly more rectangular, like the QE class.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 11 Jun 2015 10:12

That puppy has a HUGE deck space.

May be optical illusion in the absence of markings but at this point looks way more wide than anything other than Nimitz class.

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Jun 2015 10:29

Wow what a ship. Can't take my eyes off it!

Last time not-being-to-take-eyes-away happened was in my younger days when I couldn't take my eyes away from PYTs.

I have a newbie question for the gurus. I suppose the engines have been installed already since all underwater works have been completed.

The ship now weighs 22,000 tons but when completed it would be 40,000 (with full complement of fighters) or 37,000 tons empty. We hear most of the work that is now left would be putting in the cabling, pipes and equipment etc.

What I can't understand is, what's going to be put in that weighs as much as another 15,000 tons?

Much obliged if someone can explain.

TIA!

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Jun 2015 10:42

Amit, Island electronics data screens, Various Radars, Antennae, Galleys, interiors, CIWS, Barak Sams. Can easily lots of work andd weight to be added.

I think we need to order 1 more in this class before going for 65000T class.

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Jun 2015 10:46

Singha wrote:with some help from fincantieri it might be feasible to add small sections ahead and behind the island to increase tonnage by 10,000t, retain the same power plant and top speed and improve the parking areas on deck and below. the beam would remain the same as thats a major redesign. add more LRSAM outboard if possible.

This can be done as a MLU as well. Jumboisation is usually done in the parallel middle body, where a 10 meter plug might sort of fit. So that will mean just about under the island area is where the 10m plug goes in.

Power plant can remain the same , but top speed will probably fall a bit. See, there are two components to resistance, the wave making one (non dimensionalised by Froude Number, google it up) and the skin friction (reflected in Reynolds number). When you increase length, Froude number will drop , while reynolds number will increase. Probably if Froude number drops MORE than the Reynolds number increase, then you probably will have the top speed remaining where it is for the same power plant , despite increase in overall displacement and wetted surface area. Not a given, but can be worked out.

But anyways, the Navy SHOULD go for the power station concept. A lot of energy in the Vikrant goes out as waste heat via the exhaust. What they need to go is combined cycle way like land based gas fired power stations and recovery the energy in the flue gases via a waste heat boiler. Well within our means to do it. Even an off the shelf 15 to 20 MW waste heat boiler with a steam turbine & genset will do the job. Increases overall efficiency as well. Land based power stations in combined cycle hit something close to 60% efficiency.

Basically the Navy needs to go COGAS (Combined Gas and Steam) . Going electric will be far easier to do this , rather than try to couple one more power plant mechanically. Without that, the fuel consumption will increase , along with the logistical foot print.

Added later.. Wiki on COGAS further defines what I wrote as COGES , and says that that the cruise liner Celebrity Millennium use two GE LM2500+ and a steam turbine. The Vikrant has 4 LM2500+. So adding two steam turbines and going the power station concept way and getting rid of mechanical gears seems to be the way to go. The tech is proven and in use today.

And Oh, if you put in a waste heat boiler, you probably have enough steam for conventional cats as well!

Singha wrote:I see the Mig29K as a passing aberration over the 50 yr life of this beauty. Naval Tejas for air defence and Rafale for strike would be a better combo later on

The VikAd is a dead end. Unique (okay shares machinery with the Chinese carrier and the Russian ones), the power plant is from a war zone and not accessible to Russia itself, the ship itself is a highly sub optimal design, and the Mig 29s are probably Kakkoose, engine wise.
We should have never gone for the VikAd, but rather funded two Vikrants with that money and got in Mig 29Ks for the deck until the LCA MK2 Navy comes on board. We will be lucky if we manage to runt he VikAd for even 15 years.

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Jun 2015 10:48

Aditya_V wrote:Amit, Island electronics data screens, Various Radars, Antennae, Galleys, interiors, CIWS, Barak Sams. Can easily lots of work andd weight to be added.

I think we need to order 1 more in this class before going for 65000T class.

Aha I see. Thanks Aditya.

Yes I also think we should go for another one before going for the Vishal. Time estimates suggest it's not going to be ready before 2030 or later. Why not have a follow on of Vikrant since the second one should be built much faster. Moreover it will enhance skills like welding and building the ship by blocks so that when Vishal is given a go-ahead there should be less delays.

If I'm not mistaken the shipyard is talks to enter into partnership with Hyundai shipbuilding. Can get their help/expertise to build a follow on even faster.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2015 11:01

Suraj wrote:Is there any figure for the deck area of the new Vikrant ? It looks positively sprawling, seemingly more space even than the CDG, which has comparable dimensions to it, but has a more tapered deck, while Vikrant look distinctly more rectangular, like the QE class.

it has definitely followed the rectangular QE2 style , the back deck is very wide..its not just one small extention for the angled landing strip. the island design matches the tftaness angled structures.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/~/media/roy ... =980&thn=0

I only hope the lifts which look a bit small can take the JSF as-is. someone was saying its too small to take the rafale.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2015 11:06

probably around 12 fighters can be parked aft of the island along the edges, leaving the landing strip clear. and another 4 fwd of the island.

this extra deck space is good for parking addl a/c in wartime ... unless weather is very hostile... US CVNs can never park all their 100 a/c in the hangar...most are parked topside..if weather is really bad, they are lashed down...the deck of a 330m long carrier allegedly flexes up and down around 2 feet as powerful waves surge lengthwise under the ship

lets NOT fall into the khan trap of for (;;) { NOP } on the vishal. it has lots of unanswered questions. we need atleast 1 and preferably 1 carrier + 2 LHD(packed to the gunwales with scary ASW copters and ASW missiles) on this hard won design.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2015 11:09

Can't understand why some still question the MIG-29K's engines when the very paper that reported the problems later said it was due to grit ingestion from the poor state of the Dab runway,which is controversial having to be repaired every year. Demonising anything Russian like the current US administration! If the IN,IAF are happy with their MIG-29s,who cares?

Prasad has an excellent idea.Just as the Russians got the Mistrals built in France,the IN/India should offer Russia amphib designs based upon the Vikrant,as well as a stretched carrier of 65t,N-powered. A similar large CV design with an N-plant could be worked out for both navies to operate the naval FGFA.
The Chinese recently sent two frigates to the Black Sea to try and induce the Russians into buying Chinese built warships at low cost.Some sources say that the Russian yards are full of orders of warships and could do with acquiring some from abroad.Given the long history of Indo-Russian defence cooperation,we should try and offer our designs for the Russian navy in a reverse flow,either built at our pvt. yards like L&L,Pipavav,or built in Russia. Russia and Italy have av.close relationship,they were to have collaborated on a special sub for the IN earlier,shelved,so any "Cavour" design content will not be a factor for any sale of Vikrant class CVs/amphibs to Russia .It is for the IN/GOI to make the offer and scuttle any Chinese moves.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2015 11:13

with 20/20 hindsight we could have got italy to build a deliver another instance of this design by 2010 if we placed order in 2004 for same or maybe a little less than what we bled for the "free" vikky

there is NO space on vikky port side to park anything....its all gotta be starboard in a limited triangular area behind the island and some area in front....

it looks like the kind of carrier a naval expert committee led by RaGa and staffed with his loyalists would design

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 11 Jun 2015 12:37

I was looking for just the pic for VikAd. Our puppy leaves ruskie stuff behind by a huge margin from a deck space POV. This is what happens when we build our stuff ourselves

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2015 13:38

the Liaoning being a carrier hull has similar deck layout to the QE2 albeit not its cool looking separate towers http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/redsea ... ly2008.jpg

but fear not it has the similar steam turbine plant as our troublesome local birader...albeit they have been wiser than Rus and removed the granit silos on foredeck to free more hangar space and perhaps got rid of the outsize ciws and sam suite

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Jun 2015 13:43

GD-> Vikky was not designed and built as an Aircraft carrier in the 80's. It was a missile carrier which could carry a few STVOl aircraft. There was major structural work to convert it to Aircraft carrier from 2004-14. It is a clear misfit it was the best of the bad choices we had. the only plus point is Navy gets 45 Mig 29K which frees some of the duties of the IAF.

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 11 Jun 2015 13:49

The Vik looks ugly in comparison

Believe it is necessary to build up our logistics and train pilots till we got our own home cooked carriers

The Island's positioning looks horrendous for a ship operating Fixed wing a/c.. Thats what you get when we take a chopper carrier and try to send it to charm school. The aircraft being launched the closest to the Island will have mere meters of separation between wing and island

<RaGa Hat On>
Deck space is a state of the mind. For better aesthetics and for the dalits, I recommend the island be moved to the middle of the ship

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2015 13:55

the french PA2 layout looks the coolest to me. pity they gave up due to lack of funds.
note despite being 40% lighter in tonnage it still has around 80% of the deck space of the big daddy

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2015 14:28

Don't underestimate the Vik-A.It may not be the ideal carrier design ,we all know its history,but even at the extra cost incurred,it would cost a lot more if bought/built new today. It's the striking power of the carrier that counts. It is the most important asset that the IN has at the moment,along with the Akula-2.The SSBN belongs to the strat forces.

What has been achieved with the Vikrant though is something special. One cannot laud the IN enough for its massive achievements in desi design,development and shipbuilding skills. Yes,it may have collaborated with many shipyards both west and east in achieving the same,weapon systems,some sensors,etc. may be firang,but the "flavor" is definitely "spicy"! I only wish that the IAF and IA emulate in the future the wonderful work by the IN and the DPSU shipyards,who though they may have also delivered a tad late,have delivered.

Good work requires a reward.The GOI could do no better than to reward the IN,CSL and others involved by ordering another Vikrant class CV until the Vishal design and the futuristic technology matures and builds our amphibs based upon the success/design/tech of the Vikrant.Time to uncork the bubbly!

vina · Post by **vina** » 11 Jun 2015 14:47

Don't underestimate the Vik-A.It may not be the ideal carrier design ,we all know its history,but even at the extra cost incurred,it would cost a lot more if bought/built new today

Rubbish. We should have bought the Varyag hull and finished it like the Chinese did , rather than buy out a burnt out hulk based Russian Kool Aid about it being "free" .

We would have got a real carrier , rather than this accident prone apology of the one we got. We should have done the smart thing and let Chinese take the Minsk, while we took the Varyag!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2015 16:17

Rubbish yourself!

I had a first person answer to the same Q,"why didn't we buy the Varyag instead?",from a former CNS himself a decade ago.

The IN made a detailed inspection of both the Gorky and the Varyag.
There were two major considerations. Firstly,the hull condition of the Varyag was in an awful state.It was also only structurally complete,with no electronics,etc. installed. A major part of the hull would have had to have been rebuilt. The Gorky (hull) was in much better condition.Secondly,the Varyag was much larger,by 50%,and would've cost far more than that of the renovating/modifying the Gorky,which would've just had its forward weaponry removed topside and some eqpt./spaces modified below.
Another major problem that the Varyag faced was that no naval dockyard (at that time) could berth the vessel/repair the ship.Karwar was nowhere near completion at that time. As they say," a gleam in the parent's eyes". Its draught was another problem.

(

Well, $20 mil pretty much covered the costs of the Varyag's hull without any systems. The Varyag at the time of the sale was literally a floating piece of scrap metal. The other reason for the low price tag also has to do with the fact that the Varyag is considered to be a medium-weight carrier (roughly ~60,000 tons of displacement as opposed to the US Nimitz-class carriers of ~100,000 tons displacement). The tons of displacement refer to full-operational displacement. Fully outfitting the Varyag with propulsions and a full electronic and defensive suite would see an exponential increase on the price tag. )

The negotiations for the Gorky went on and on. Remember that at that time we never had the kind of money we had now and the IN was desperate for a new carrier and had little choice.Various other options had been looked at ,second hand carriers like the Clemenceau,etc. ,including the RN's small Illustrious "Harrier carriers" ,found too small and inadequate,plus limitations on the Sea Harrier's upgrade capability. As we now well know,the estimate of renovation was grossly underestimated by both sides,drawings were not given to us from the UKTR,etc. As for the Varyag's renovation,there has been no official word on how much it cost the Chinese to rehabilitate it. For them,it has been one big learning experience and acquire "copycat' rights!

John · Post by **John** » 11 Jun 2015 16:19

Varyag has been sitting and collecting rust for over 2 decades if chinese even manage to squeeze 20 more years out of it that will be highly impressive.

That said to refit varyag you still russian help for the propulsion especially for the boilers. Also the chinese have thrown ton of money at it over 10 billion dollars according to some speculation.Throwing that much money on antiquated cold war era design with boilers thst are prone cause problems constantly is foolhardy.

All said that still doesn't solve the fact that not even cochin can handle something the size of Gorshkov let alone Varyag. One needs to build up our shipyards before attempting in that scale

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 11 Jun 2015 16:32

The only other option would have been, as singhaji said, getting the eyetalians to build us one. At the end of the day we would have spent pretty much the same amount of money plus extra for the air wing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2015 16:37

Rubbish. We should have

I had suggested that the vikram be sold before it reached India.

Please check out the estimates for the proposed Russian super carrier. I can bet some of the proposed numbers will make the IN think of converting the vikram into a reef barrier.

Sickening.

BTW, I thought that the IN was way down the road for Vishal. Does not seem to be. That pup could take a while it seems.

I would suggest order two more Vikrants, sell the vikram (cannot see anyone buying it or the Russian supporting it) and build out 2 if not 3 Vishals.

John · Post by **John** » 11 Jun 2015 16:51

Prasad wrote:The only other option would have been, as singhaji said, getting the eyetalians to build us one. At the end of the day we would have spent pretty much the same amount of money plus extra for the air wing.

Even if you get the Italians to agree to it, Italian media would have field day on such a story regardless of the jobs. Fincantieri would need huge pot of cash to take on project with such a high risk and all that said you still need the blessing of EU which decade ago had a hard time approving any arms exports to India only recently has that attitude changed.

It has slim chance of happening today but snowballs chance in hell of happening a decade ago.

IMO we should look to build some Heli carriers perhaps as Joint venture perhaps with Japan, they are not too expensive Izumo cost about 1 billion.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Jun 2015 17:43

As a little kid in the sixties, I lived right in the middle of where the Cochin Shipyard is today.

as kids, we used to walk underneath the thevara bridge to the naval base almost every evening.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2015 17:48

why would the italian media have a field day? india was ruled la italia from 2004 to 2010...all highly kosher onlee.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2015 18:26

srin · Post by **srin** » 11 Jun 2015 19:17

Guys, can we please keep discussions on Mig-29K engines and bad runways off this thread ? Let's just ogle at our new TFTA carrier in peace

John · Post by **John** » 11 Jun 2015 20:12

Singha wrote:why would the italian media have a field day? india was ruled la italia from 2004 to 2010...all highly kosher onlee.

I doubt even 1% italians know or care who she was

. Generally from my limited experience there public is not too thrilled about selling arms there especially to South asia. There was lot of anti sentiment after the nuclear tests. Especially a big ticket item like a carrier is highly unlikely.

If we really wanted a Foreign built carrier, the best and highly probable (even that is pretty slim) option was to work with BAE/Thales on a 3rd QE class.