INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2015 22:03

We have 18 or so potential ports in the IOR that PRC has access to and we worry about SCS games and a nuke powered ship which has a reach to the western pacific. We need to get our priorities right first and find the monies second.

Multiple problems with this:

1) That is exactly what China wanted when she had proposed to the US that the globe be split between the US + China and China be assigned the IOR
2) IF India becomes IOR centric FIRST, it then becomes very, very easy for China to bottle India for good. All china has to do is built up the locals and more than half of IN would be struggling with local navies (proxy0. China needs very low investment after that
3) IF India, after investing in IOR centricity, does actually get to go Indo-Pacific, India will have exhausted a lot of her fund to local efforts and will need a ton of funds to go beyind IOR. Her assets will not be appropriate for the larger region and will need to invest in a totally different set of assets by then - more funds

Graduated emphasis would be a disaster IMHO. IOR would take 15-20 years and then Indo-Pacific? Yikes.

I think Indo-Pacific is a given for the IN. ??????? Say in 30-40 years.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2015 22:08

What do we have in there when the enemy is right in the IOR itself.

Oh, yes, India does have something to protect.

IF China has a need to be the IOR, so does India in the Indo-Pacific. Same reasons.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jun 2015 22:11

we need a strong strike fleet of submarines to target chinese coast, ports, shipping at a distance where its clear they are heading in/out of cheen, as well as hunt and tail their subs from near sanya (south sea fleet) and other east sea fleet bases further north

you really cannot identify and stop vessels in the high seas like the 100s that pass south of sri lanka daily and make out which is heading for china and which for other places. the jaguar vein is too big at that point, it only narrows to a biteable diameter east of malacca.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 15 Jun 2015 22:16

If we can block SCS access from Andamans what more do we gain with prowling the SCS with carriers ? I am all for subs in SCS. But that is a different game. So we should have continuous presence underwater with nuclear subs (both kind). After choking off Malacca what else do we gain going with surface carriers to SCS.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 15 Jun 2015 22:20

Also in the event Vishal class has duties in SCS why does it have be nuclear powered ? Fuel supplies can be sourced from local friendly ports too...

US needs to prowl the whole pacific and plays in IOR and the need for a nuclear powered carriers...what is India's case other than a wish list for same from the US

to support its operations. Will they give us HEU reactors and fuel for this largesse.

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Jun 2015 04:05

NRao wrote:
We have 18 or so potential ports in the IOR that PRC has access to and we worry about SCS games and a nuke powered ship which has a reach to the western pacific. We need to get our priorities right first and find the monies second.
Multiple problems with this:

1) That is exactly what China wanted when she had proposed to the US that the globe be split between the US + China and China be assigned the IOR
2) IF India becomes IOR centric FIRST, it then becomes very, very easy for China to bottle India for good. All china has to do is built up the locals and more than half of IN would be struggling with local navies (proxy0. China needs very low investment after that
3) IF India, after investing in IOR centricity, does actually get to go Indo-Pacific, India will have exhausted a lot of her fund to local efforts and will need a ton of funds to go beyind IOR. Her assets will not be appropriate for the larger region and will need to invest in a totally different set of assets by then - more funds

Graduated emphasis would be a disaster IMHO. IOR would take 15-20 years and then Indo-Pacific? Yikes.

I think Indo-Pacific is a given for the IN. ??????? Say in 30-40 years.

For the IN to operate effectively (and more permanently) in the South China Seas region, it would need a string of friendly ports in Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan and Korea. Diplomacy to get all those berthing rights will itself take 20-40 years.

On a side note, US is already boxing-in PLAN to SCS with its shift to Asia where they are enhancing regional nations' naval/air power. It will take the PLAN quite a while before they will be able to project power elsewhere. India too can join the effort.

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Jun 2015 06:53

Bade wrote:Also in the event Vishal class has duties in SCS why does it have be nuclear powered ? Fuel supplies can be sourced from local friendly ports too...

US needs to prowl the whole pacific and plays in IOR and the need for a nuclear powered carriers...what is India's case other than a wish list for same from the US to support its operations. Will they give us HEU reactors and fuel for this largesse.

Bade ji,

An aircraft carrier has a 50 year or more shelf life. For Vishal we are looking at a completion date of around 2030 (optimistic scenario). This means that she will be around for at least till 2070 or so. As a result we can't use the paradigm of our security calculus circa 2015-2020 to envisage what the ship may or may not have to do.

I think if India exist as a viable country in 2070 it will either be the world's biggest or second biggest economy by then. Our security calculus will be vastly different from what it is now. Hence we need to think in terms of what we need then rather than on what we need now IMO. The ability to go anywhere in the globe to establish Indian hard power is a pre-requisite and the only way to do that is nuclear.

I was seeing one of the short YouTube clips on the building of the USS Gerald Ford. One comment made by the presenter stuck with me. Talking about aircraft launch facilities on the ship he said that it was designed to launch aircraft which are not yet on the drawing boards of designers.

I think we also need to think in this way when designing the Vishay. It is meant to solve the security problems that we will face in the futur, not the ones we face today. Much as I admire the Virkam with its TFTA appearance, it's an evolutionary dead end as far as our security needs goes far into this century. It will be around to keep the Munna in check but that's about it. For the big boys Vishal and its follow ons will be the ones.

JMT

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 16 Jun 2015 07:26

Amit, I am not disagreeing with what you have said, nor do I see no roles for Vishal class in the future. The question is about near term needs, 2020-2050. Pakistan will remain the useful proxy for China to engage us, the submarine sales in the news indicates that. Should we put all our limited eggs in one big basket, or keep options open with redundancy built in. Vikrant class gives us that flexibility, in the end what counts is how many birds one can fly/sail to a place of choice or multiple places at the same time as the needs arise in the course of war. There are two flanks to protect in the IOR for us. In my calculus (however naive it may seem

) there is place for 2-3 Vikrant class ships. Vishal will be built, no question about it after we find the money to either buy F-35 type crafts to fill it or build our own AMCA as LCA follow ons. We can afford to wait a decade more to make that call. Meantime we can fill the gaps as they exist now as needed till the 2030s at least.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 16 Jun 2015 07:34

The other question is how does one know that Uncle is not stringing us along with this pie in the sky offer. Then all the eggs in one big basket will be nice to tie us down.

The counter to this is to have a local product (X% indigenous, even if X < 100) class in enough numbers already to force Uncle to let us free to choose what we want on offer. More options in hand the better the power to bargain with.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jun 2015 07:43

+216 sir. I had expressed this thought before.

Unkil is comfortable with us spending all budget on carriers than ssbn and SSN.

amit · Post by **amit** » 16 Jun 2015 10:51

I'm not too sure why it should be a either/or situation vis a vis a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the 65-75 ton class and our need for nuclear subs both SSNs as well as SSBNs. Arihant is/has undergone sea trials, her siblings are at an advanced stage of fabrication. INS Chakra is, as we speak, lurking somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Apart from this the government has sanctioned the construction of six more nuclear subs and the deal to get another Akula from Russia is in an advanced stage of negotiations. [That makes it around 11-12 nuclear subs lurking in the Indian Ocean and, hopefully, the South China Sea, by 2030 or so when the Vishal is supposed to be finished.]

And at the same, quite a lot of money has been sanctioned for the initial project report for Vishal (the project has been fast tracked) and the government has shown considerable enthusiasm for the US offer. Neither the Defence Minister nor the Prime Minister are fools nor are the type to wet their pants when the Gora sahib smiles at them. So I reckon they must have got some indication of intent from Unkil.

Will they open up all their treasure trove of technology riches? Nope they aren't going to. Will they try to string us along? Yes they probably will to some extent. But why just blame Unkil? That's the way nations deal with each other.

Hasn't Russia done just that with the Vikram? With the T-90? Didn't the French try to do that with Katrina? I think the Indian side will go in with their eyes open and take what they can and develop the rest.

Also from the geopolitical perspective I don't think it's in Unkil's interest to hobble India vis a vis China. The Dragon's muscle flexing has rattled a whole swath of US allies in the Indo Pacific region and Unkil will fast lose friends in the region if it is seen to be playing favourites to China vis a vis India. After all who would gain from doing that? China obviously and mind you the actions being taken today will impact security and geopolitics in the region in the 2020s when China will potentially overtake the US in raw GDP numbers.

Another scenario which I think the US wouldn't like and can occur if it plays favourites is Japan and India getting together in a deep military relationship without Unkil's involvement. That can well happen if the US is viewed as an unreliable partner vis a vis dealing with China.

No I think the US is serious about this aircraft carrier deal for purely selfish reasons. It knows that it can't depend on its NATO buddies to take on China - and take on it will have to because China is a revisionist power and the country that will be most hit will be the US which would want to keep the status quo.

As I mentioned before IMO that will not translate to full access to reactor technology but it may bring some knowhow on how to channel the power to various systems. It may bring access to EMALs if for nothing else it opens the way for heavy US aircraft sales like the Hawkeye.

And money? I don't think money will be a limitation for Indian defence spending. IMO it hasn't been for the past 10 years. The only limitation is political will or the lack of it. I don't think this government has any lack in that regard.

In summary both N submarines and N aircraft carriers will be built and the reactors technology is something that India will have to figure out with little help from outside. In the meantime if money can be found for a second Vikrant then we should go for it especially with the Shipyard promising to deliver in 4 years (a bit optimistic IMO but choro, six years is also good). Two of these can ensure Munna remains neutered for the next 20-25 years.

JMT

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jun 2015 12:00

Option:" Use the Vikrant basic design as said earlier for a 45K t amphib with a flat top that can accommodate the same .type of aircraft on the Vikrant,Vik-A,29Ks and NLCAs . This way we have the "3rd flat top",apart from "INS India",which has amphib capabilities as well. CSL could then build a few more until the Vishal design emerges and the decision is taken as to where to build it.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 16 Jun 2015 12:38

Philip wrote:Option:" Use the Vikrant basic design as said earlier for a 45K t amphib with a flat top that can accommodate the same .type of aircraft on the Vikrant,Vik-A,29Ks and NLCAs . This way we have the "3rd flat top",apart from "INS India",which has amphib capabilities as well. CSL could then build a few more until the Vishal design emerges and the decision is taken as to where to build it.

Why don't you use VikA as amphib support flat-top? She will have much less operational restrictions if she will carry only helicopters. Further possible missions for VikA - Fleet Command Ship and/or Training CV.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jun 2015 16:52

Unkil is comfortable with us spending all budget on carriers than ssbn and SSN.

ALL concerns are legit.

However, neither is the IN expecting the moon, nor has the US offered to provide the moon.

It is rather simple: the US has offered a very small amount of niche technologies for the IN to select from. The offer will also depend on what the IN wants from Vishal - so, if the Vishal is CAT, which one, number and types of planes, etc, etc, etc. Actually I was under the impression that the IN had a pretty good idea of what the Vishal would be like, but, do not know if the IN is rebooting.

A couple of points on "US":

* Each nation acts on her own behalf. So, one can never compare the relationships among nations - they are always fluid (take Indo-A'stan as an example, not the same today). Each nation - at a given point in time - will act in her own interests.

* And, more importantly, the Indo-US relationship has miles and miles to go. What has happened is nothing short of a miracle. BUT, what I am saying is that what the US is doing is in the self interest of the US, as much as what Russia (has) is doing is the self interest of Russia. It is pure distilled BS to think that a nation loves another. Will never happen.

More l8r

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Jun 2015 19:30

I still don't like the fact that the lifts on the Vikrant are so small - can't even accomodate a Rafale !!!
IN still doesn't have blast deflectors !

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jun 2015 22:58

Both Vik-A and Vikrant can be useful in an amphib role,as was the Hermes (Viraat) during ther Falklands War,but both carriers have no well deck and facilities /decks for vehicles/eqpt. I don't know what the Viraat's real condition is,but if nursed along a little longer,it could serve as an amphib vessel,used sparingly,based at Vizag,with the few Sea harriers in cloe support mode and attack/heavy helos for airborne assault. There's always the Mistrals built for Russia available,edicated amphibs. "Opportunity knocks but once".IN,"carpe diem""!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jun 2015 08:55

viraat could be a good base to test armed and unarmed drones for naval use too. JEM has been demanding that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jun 2015 11:12

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 18 Jun 2015 18:12

Has this been posted before?

USN EMAL test

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 18 Jun 2015 21:39

From the above image looks like the new Vik, like Vikad, does not allow simultaneous launch and recovery. Pity. I was hoping the wide real estate would allow the same

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2015 21:55

Neither does Vishal, even with cats.

You will need much longer ships to be able to do that. Do not know if EMALS will have a say in this matter.

srin · Post by **srin** » 18 Jun 2015 22:06

NRao wrote:Neither does Vishal, even with cats.

You will need much longer ships to be able to do that. Do not know if EMALS will have a say in this matter.

In general, catapults should. Because the take off distance is much lower (you don't rely solely on the aircraft's engines - much of the power is from the catapult).

EMALS is better than steam catapult because the acceleration is much more controlled and can be increased to the max extent without exceeding pilots' abilities to handle the g-load.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 18 Jun 2015 22:19

I was hoping the ski jump would help in absence of cats but no, it looks like.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2015 22:49

In general, catapults should. Because the take off distance is much lower (you don't rely solely on the aircraft's engines - much of the power is from the catapult).

Nothing to do with the mechanism used to launch the plane.

Let us say the jump needs 100 yds. We then have the option of designing a ship where a) the take-off run overlaps the landing or b) starting the run from say 10 yds from the landing strip. The prior you will have a shorter ship than the latter. A CAT will allow a shorter ship than a ski jump.

In fact on the USN carriers, two CATs are free from the landing area, while two CATs share the landing strip.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jun 2015 00:25

A FYI post:

CVN 78: A True Leap Ahead for the Navy and Naval Aviation

Our biggest event this year will be the introduction to the Navy and the Nation of our newest aircraft carrier, Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), with the christening and launch of on Nov. 9, 2013. This will mark the beginning of a new class of aircraft carriers that will be in service for the next 94 years. With exception of the hull, virtually everything has been redesigned to make the Ford class more capable and more powerful than in the Nimitz class. This new class of carrier will build on the legendary performance of the Nimitz class carriers and will provide 25 percent more combat capability, increased service life margins throughout the ship to handle the aircraft and weapon systems of the future including unmanned aircraft and futuristic directed energy weapons, as well as driving down the total ownership cost of the ship by $4 billion over its 50 year service

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jun 2015 19:39

seems to have a tiny island even vs the QE2 class.

I wonder if the island can be almost done away with , except a mast to house the radar and comms gear and 360 cameras to steer the ship from within a armoured VR room deep inside the ship. likewise ATC can also have its own VR room giving it a perfect view over the deck, with long range staring and zoom cameras and IR pods topside as well...again in well protected area inside.

there is nothing else that needs to be inside the island.

the earliest carriers had no island and the bridge was over the bow.

HMS furious
https://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/ ... ous-15.jpg

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Jun 2015 22:09

It might be possible to do simultaneous launch and recovery on stobar types too. Here is an image of the kuznetsov that is suggestive of this.....

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=kuz ... ORM=IDFRIR

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 19 Jun 2015 22:27

As you correctly pointed out, the original aircraft carriers skipped the bridge. The bridge is more for air traffic control. Nothing beats the situational awareness of visual sight.

Which is why even military airports have ATC towers even though they stick out like a sore thumb.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 20 Jun 2015 06:53

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 Jun 2015 13:03

srin wrote:EMALS is better than steam catapult because the acceleration is much more controlled and can be increased to the max extent without exceeding pilots' abilities to handle the g-load.

The main advantage of EMALS is lesser maintenance vis a vis steam catapult. The efficiency increase is around 20-25 per cent for EMALS which IMO does not justify the upfront cost.

However, the equation changes with life time cost. For the steam catapult there are two/one cylinder(s) below the runway which store super heated steam which is then released to push the catapult. The force is pretty staggering. I've read that it can throw a full sized SUV - like say the Range Rover - a full one KM.

Since super heated steam is corrosive, the pipes that carry the steam need regular maintenance and hence an aircraft carrier like the Nimitz carries quite a complement of crew who are just there to maintain the system. The actual maintenance is also pretty hazardous work as the pipes can be very hot when they need to be change/cleared.

EMALs doesn't require all this since it's a full electric system. However it does require more power and hence bigger nuclear reactor.

Another point: USS Gerald Ford is the launch customer for the EMALs. Obviously there will be a lot of teething problems initially. I suspect the British did not go for EMALs not only due cost but also due the fact that the two carriers would also have been ''launch'' customers with its full complement of teething problems. However, if we do go for EMALs for the Vishal, by then we can expect it to be fully mature system. We would need a pretty big nuclear reactor on the ship, or maybe perhaps two. I guess it will be easier to design such a reactor than it was for the Arihant. After all when you have more than two acres of space (65,0000+ ton), then that's a quantum jump from what you would get in a 6,000 ton sub.

JMT

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Jun 2015 16:06

^^^. The other EMALS cost saving is that you can dial in the force to the weight of the a/c. Steam is a one size fits all from E2Ds to SHornets to UCAVs. This results in stresses on the airframe for that EMALS will minimize.

Hidden costs and savings and with hundreds of a/c gaining x number of extra ariframe life, it adds up.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jun 2015 17:09

Design goals for the program are: 30% reduction in manning, 20% reduction in life cycle cost, 20% improvement in operational availability, and up to a 50% reduction in installed size and weight when compared to the current steam catapults. The performance goals for the EMALS are:90,000,000 ft-lbs. of energy capability, an end speed range between 55 and 200 knots, a peak to mean acceleration of 1.05 for all aircraft launches (including light weight aircraft such as Unmanned Air Vehicles and Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles), and a cycle time of 45 seconds.

The Navy defines the EMALS as consisting of four major subsystems: an energy storage subsystem, power conditioning subsystem, a launch engine, and a control system.

To add to Cosmo's point, consider that the new class (FORD) will pretty much be the design for at least 6-8 decades if not more (its designed for a lot of growth) the savings add up over time. One also doesn't know how the CAW will grow over the next decades and what will be expected from it so a new system that is more efficient is more desirable for a carrier that itself is going to be in service for a long long time.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jun 2015 20:37

There was an innovative design with two flight decks separated by the island/s which were in the middle along with deck lifts. I can' remember if it was a cat type.This would solve the problem v.easily,but then,one has to think outside the box,like the Brit who designed the ski-jump!

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 20 Jun 2015 22:58

I'm dreaming of the day we see an EMALS on a ski jump. Theoretically it should be possible to use EMALS in a curved form factor. This is not possible with traditional steam launchers.

NRao,

Practically speaking while possible to do a simultaneous launch and recovery, IRL it almost never happens. I have not seen it happen - doesn't mean it hasn't, just that it is very rare. Even during GW I and GW II during surge operations, they never did pure simultaneous launch and recovery operations. Launch and recovery was always alternated for IRL ops. The larger deck area means more room to plan and move around your airframes so that you can launch quickly after recovery or recover quickly after launch.

The USS GRF with 2 bow and two waist cats with 4 airframes on cats would only launch 1 from bow and 1 from waist simultaneously. Then the other two would launch once the 30s to 60s time was cleared. It would mean faster launches and a higher surge rates. However they would never launch from two simultaneously from bow or two simultaneously from the waist cats.

PS: I had written a detailed post about GW II USN surge operations in a naval thread 4-5 years ago - don't have those notes with me, but if you are interested you could probably look it up in BRF, if the thread has not been thrashed. It had numbers, carriers and sustain rates before replenishment was required. It was all from public data with references.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 20 Jun 2015 22:59

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^. The other EMALS cost saving is that you can dial in the force to the weight of the a/c. Steam is a one size fits all from E2Ds to SHornets to UCAVs. This results in stresses on the airframe for that EMALS will minimize.

Hidden costs and savings and with hundreds of a/c gaining x number of extra ariframe life, it adds up.

Steam cats are also "dialable"

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jun 2015 23:26

The foremost deficiency is that the catapult operates without feedback control. With no feedback, there often occurs large transients in tow force that can damage or reduce the life of the airframe. Also, extra force is always added due to the unpredictability of the steam system. This tends to unnecessarily overstress the airframe. Even if a closed loop control system was added to the steam catapult, it would have to be highly complex to significantly reduce the thrust transients to a reasonable level.

http://carcamal.ele.cie.uva.es/CEM/arti ... tapult.pdf [Naval Air Warfare Cent, Lakehurst, United States]

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

Additionally the digital system factors in the exact amount of force required even given multiple parameters..You could be running the thing with an airbrake applied and it will automatically adjust itself to give you the desired end speed and acceleration at launch. If an engine on the Rhino fails for example during the process of launch the power will be adjusted to compensate for that in order to get the aircraft up and away.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 20 Jun 2015 23:54

In the Indian context, with catapult (steam ?) as part of the initial design for the Vishal, who or where is the local development happening ? Is it all under wraps and not in public domain ? This is a 50 year old tech, and if the Navy had such plans for the next carrier one would have thought they have started work on this part on land based test facilities, even before designing the carrier itself.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 Jun 2015 00:03

I'm dreaming of the day we see an EMALS on a ski jump. Theoretically it should be possible to use EMALS in a curved form factor. This is not possible with traditional steam launchers.

Why not have a ski jump and EMALS/SteamCATS for the Vishal. It lends to the possibility of using a mix of aircrafts over time. LCA as designed for ski-liftoff can be used without additional work to convert for CAT based liftoff. Larger aircraft can use the CAT/EMALS.

This is doable if simultaneous lift-off and recovery is not as frequent as talked about generally.

I still like the idea of a two 40k+ sized Vikrants in tandem within a carrier group to allow for larger carrying capacity than a single large carrier with same air capacity. Have carriers operated in this fashion during active war situations before ?

Maybe, as mentioned before by others, Vikrant-stretched to 50k+ would be the optimal size perhaps with around 50 aircrafts on board.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Jun 2015 01:23

there are weight restrictions on ops using skijumps plus the min speed reqmt. depending on these restrictions, tactical mission profiles and sortie types can be impacted.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jun 2015 01:26

Steam cats are also "dialable"

Is that right? To the extent of EMALS? ??????? Dunno. How is it possible?

Will respond on sym-ops later.

In the Indian context, with catapult (steam ?) as part of the initial design for the Vishal, who or where is the local development happening ?

USA. One stop shop.

hy not have a ski jump and EMALS/SteamCATS for the Vishal. It lends to the possibility of using a mix of aircrafts over time

Just EMALS offers better options. Like the Admiral stated, one can now design planes with less restrictions. Even with MLU the 29k will last only till 2040, when the Vishal will be around 10 years young and some 40 years to go.

Need to move on and drop old thinking. Else the old thinking will be like handcuffs.