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
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

>> 40 meters wide

that is nimitz class hull width at the waterline probably. their deck with , including the overhangs is nearly twice - 76m.

problem is such a vessel will suck up our small capex budget for a decade, aside from harbour tugs.

we are better off with a more reasonable gas turbine powered 65,000t design that will do 65% of what a nimitz class can - still plenty. add our own twists like 32 barak8 and 32 nirbhay silos if you want.
prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by prashanth »

+1 sir.
Capex is a major limiting factor. Apart from construction costs, we may have to spend more money for technology transfer and licensing. Would it not be better if IN opted for one more Vikrant class carrier while designing larger (70000T) ships with nuclear propulsion for sometime in 2025-30?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Such a behemoth will gobble up funds like nothing else in the def. list and beggar the IN.The CV wil cost between $15-20B. For that price we could get a doz. N-subs,far more effective. The right way to go should be to build a sister ship of the new Vikrant,perhaps a little larger,which cana rrive in around 6 years time.by then the contours of the super-CV could be determined and all relevant details,tech,propulsion,aircraft,launch system,weaponry,costs ,could be available for a decision. Otherwise,the amphibs being planned should have a flight deck similar to that of the Vikrant,to allow the vessels to be capable of multi-role use,with both aircraft and helos for close air support,heliborne assault,ASW,and fleet air defence ops.
SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1163
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by SagarAg »

Here is an xclusive pic of the beauty :twisted: . This is scaled down quality version. I have HQ version of it with me, if anyone wants it lemme know. :)

Removed Image Sry Anurag and Khalsa saar. Will post it again.
Last edited by SagarAg on 15 Mar 2016 19:29, edited 1 time in total.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Khalsa »

Ummm Sagar you have to ask ?

Yes Please Sir
Anurag
BRFite
Posts: 402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Anurag »

Sagar same here please
Anurag
BRFite
Posts: 402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Anurag »

Sagar can you post the lower quality picture again, it's not appearing.
Anurag
BRFite
Posts: 402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Anurag »

SagarAg wrote:Here is an xclusive pic of the beauty :twisted: . This is scaled down quality version. I have HQ version of it with me, if anyone wants it lemme know. :)

Removed Image Sry Anurag and Khalsa saar. Will post it again.
Are you going to post again :)
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

For those concerned about the larger carrier here is a good account, that I bet the IN got to listen to among other things.

I imagine it is too late, but a 100K boat would be nice.
Last edited by Suraj on 18 Apr 2016 20:41, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed URL
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

NRao wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
In my opinion it will end up regular steam cats for now. EMALS stuff is not done yet and the cost seems to be unknown or will know once done types. Once they get second EMALS, they will be able to give a better accurate number towards its cost.
Supposedly the IN does not need the rate at which EMALS launches planes. So, the RoI I suspect is to low - not worth the cost.

There was also a mention of "F-18". Not too sure if it meant that EMALS meant F-18 for the IN, but that is a distinct possibility - the expectation.

With the supposed Rafale news, will need to wait and see how things settle. I just do not think Modi is treating the situation as a zero sum game.
The rate advantage is immaterial here. If the IN values (enough to justify a cost) a 500 km ranged AEW sensor then they have to go to a dedicated AEW and for that they need CAT's (unless you want to be forever throttled by platform requirements such as a V-22) and if you do decide to invest in acquiring or developing CAT's, then you may as well go with something that will be supported for the next century given that I doubt the USN would go back to Steam CAT's, and the French, that will at some point develop a new carrier will also unlikely acquire older generation technology. If its a design trade decision in propulsion then that is separate, but from a capabilities perpective its a no brainer both in a defensive role, and an offensive role. Additionally, if they pursue the E-2D and/or its future iteration, then there are considerable advantages when it comes to actually leveraging that as a node to advance ship defenses leveraging the Barak 8-ER in the future, much the same way the USN has currently done with the E-2D, AEGIS, and SM6. Its just not an air-air force multiplier, the design trades have been driven by a mixed requirement of very long range AEW, ability to operate in ground clutter since dual use and littoral capability requirement, and for it to go out and hunt low-Observable cruise missiles, while all the acting as a node for the fleet at the same time (hence the two-SATCOM terminals).
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

CATS won't be supported in the next century? There isn't one commissioned working product yet and we are talking about dropping support to the 20 odd US flat tops already? :)

Fear Mongering Brar jee? :)

So what's the cost difference between a conventional four 100m cats vs emals?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

CATS won't be supported in the next century? There isn't one commissioned working product yet and we are talking about dropping support to the 20 odd US flat tops already?
The problem isn't as much with the fact they won't be supported, but with them being improved to incorporate some of the advantages that EMALS will bring to the table particularly as the launch weights go higher. Steam CAT equipped carriers are definitely going to be around for many many decades, but EMALS and AAG will continue to consume development in this as was the plan all along. They'll commission three ships with EMALS and AAG within the next decade.
There isn't one commissioned working product yet and...we are talking about dropping support to the 20 odd US flat tops already
CVN-78 will be commissioned later this year and -79 in 2020. There would still be 8 Steam CAT equipped US Carriers in service when the Third Ford (Enterprise) is commissioned around 2025.
So what's the cost difference between a conventional four 100m cats vs emals?
That would have to wait a while, but with EMALS on a new ship there are considerable design and LCC savings given the switch. If you were to somehow look to replacing existing steam-cat equipped carriers, some of those would obviously not translate.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

Forget the associated benefits for a moment. I understand there are benefits, but it also depends on usage. Our usuage may not be similar. The bean counter in me would like to understand what does a CATS cost and EMALS cost? 4 100 meter cats/emals? We will add other points as we go along for sure, but lets start here..
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

The bean counter in me would like to understand what does a CATS cost and EMALS cost? 4 100 meter cats/emals? We will add other points as we go along for sure, but lets start here..
The bean counters within the MOD would most likely get that information however there is no such cost-estimate available in the open source. There are LCC benefits through both better component reliability, lower manpower footprint, and higher ship availability. To get the sort of data you are looking for, you would either have to be privy to the ongoing AOA that the MOD/IN must be doing, or have looked at the one the USN did many many years ago before freezing EMALS requirement. However EMALS as an AOA decision point won't be significant, Nuclear propulsion would. If the latter is invested in, the former becomes a much more likely adoption since it would be shortsighted to choose nuclear propulsion and not go for something that has become the standard by the time the ship-design is frozen. If the option of nuclear propulsion is not exercised, then EMALS would become quite less logical since, although the British study showed it is possible on conventional carriers, the margins must have been quite thin.
I understand there are benefits, but it also depends on usage. Our usuage may not be similar.
Carriers last forever and air combat changes, being defined by both the threat and the internal capability. Look at the air-wing that the Nimitz started with. They'll be supporting unmanned aircraft for decades before the last one is retired. Design decisions made in the 2020's, will have cost-implications well into the 2070's and 80's so there is that financial component. This is something the Brits would have liked to reverse had the choice not been 1 v 2 carriers for them, since they would now have to PAY a significant premium for future capability growth, both in their primary carrier borne strike fighter and associated UAV/UCAV's they plan on acquiring.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

brar_w wrote: if you do decide to invest in acquiring or developing CAT's, then you may as well go with something that will be supported for the next century....
The intent is to develop as much as we can on our own and acquire ONLY those items, that are absolutely needed for defense that cannot be built or the risks of not having them is not acceptable. EMALS does not fit that bill. All the heavy aircraft you mentioned have an alternative by way of the unsinkable carrier called India along with island and littoral assets that can be had. EMALS can wait. India at this time or in the near future does not have the capacity or affordability to secure regions beyond the IOR except for short missions. It needs to invest into its own MIC, instead of investing into other's MIC, as has been done extensively in the past. Moreover the strategic interest of the US and India are in conflict in many areas and its assurances and promises are not worth the paper they are written on. All things remaining equal it is far better to procure from a source that does not have such conflicting global ambitions and one that actively funds and protects our enemies. I will cite the promises of the nuclear agreement as the latest example for this lack of trust. For our next carrier, we can live without the Cats. No immediate threat necessitates walking into the arms of the USA.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sudeepj »

A carrier without a CAT means a carrier with limited strike capabilities and no fixed wing AEW.

If carriers are to duke it out, if one carrier can send planes with a full fuel load, staying out of reach of the other carrier, by default the carrier with the longer reach wins!

No fixed wing AEW means helicopter borne AEW, which means limited endurance, and limited warning of low level cruise missile attacks. In the coming age of hypersonic missiles, how wise is this? Even today, assuming a helicopter AEW at say, 3000 meters altitude, a Mach 3 missile will give you 200 seconds of warning before it reaches you. Is that sufficient time to launch an aircraft to intercept?

Yes, we dont need CATs today, but twenty years from now, when India is the third largest economy in the world?
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

I agree with ShauryaT. We do have lots of staging points, where long runways are available for us to fuel and run missions and carry full load. Our carriers also are also smaller and don't need the sustained rates seen by the US. They also serve a different purpose and I suppose they will be used in defensive capability augmenting and supporting weak areas of operations in a sustained push against china.

Sudeepj,

Yes you are factually correct, but it's not mano a mano when it comes to carrier ops. Do we fight carrier against carrier? So what is the right comparison for our need?

Yes, you are right for sure. AEW would be limited, but we have Laks and Andamans which can serve as staging points for long range AEW cover till the cows come home. We don't need to base our AEW assets on a carrier during war. Those E2D are limited in power and range any which ways. They are surely better than Heli based top cover but it doesn't compare to our EMB-145 based assets we have. IN should just order 737/A321 based AEW for its need and base them off the two islands and east/west coast bases.

The C295W would/could also make a good AEW for IN as well. 4 comfortable operating stations, 8-10 hour operation. 30 million price tag + AEW cost. if IN orders 10-12 of these birds, they can get 24/7 coverage during war in three theaters with 75% uptime without breaking their bank. (Yes, I know there are only 45 mig-29k :) )
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cosmo_R »

@ShauryaT ^^^: "For our next carrier, we can live without the Cats."

Respectfully disagree. Opting for an outdated concept like a ski jump for a carrier that will see service for 40 years is like like plumping for vacuum tubes. The Brits rue their QE class carriers not having CATs. The French oh so independent, still had to use US tech on the CD-G.

There is never any immediate threat until the canary croaks in the mine. For me, I have heard similar positions since the late 1950s until 1962 happened.

Navigating the road ahead cannot be done (safely) by looking at the rear view mirror at the road behind.

India faces a severe threat: from within and without. We need to wake up and smell the cordite.

Added later: look at all the things we did not have in 1999 because there was no immediate threat: coffins, winter boots, winter clothing, LGBs, 155MM rounds etc.

Immediate threats are those we usually don't recognize because our adversaries hide them.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

If someone can predict what sort of missions an IN carrier would be required to perform 50 years from now, then they really need recognition here :). If someone can also tell me what sort of stand-off distanced a carrier would be pushed to given the advances in surface and sub-surface warfare, then they also need to start publishing ;)
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

brar_w wrote:If someone can predict what sort of missions an IN carrier would be required to perform 50 years from now, then they really need recognition here :). If someone can also tell me what sort of stand-off distanced a carrier would be pushed to given the advances in surface and sub-surface warfare, then they also need to start publishing ;)
Let us stick to the actual argument of likely risk, by whom and in meaningful timelines and then talk about what are the multiple ways in meeting that particular risk. In 50 years, we may export carrier technology to the US :).

India's most likely threat is China and unless and until we intend to challenge them in the SCS by ourselves, we do not need these portable fixed wing AEW/ASW assets or refuelers to be launched from a carrier in the near term. The IOR is not like the expanse of the pacific, we have very meaningful options available in the South Indian Ocean to use land strips in lieu of a carrier. Our major investment to meet the sub threat from PLAN is to invest in land based ASW assets and our own SSN's and maybe even supplement with an Indian SOSUS. So we have choices to make and investing into a US MIC should be the last preference.

BTW: China's next carrier is to be a ski jump based platform.
member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by member_23370 »

Vikrant-2 must go ahead irrespective of EMALs or what ever crap US is promising.
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by KrishnaK »

ShauryaT wrote: In 50 years, we may export carrier technology to the US :).
....
India's most likely threat is China and unless and until we intend to challenge them in the SCS by ourselves, we do not need these portable fixed wing AEW/ASW assets or refuelers to be launched from a carrier in the near term.
Those two statements contradict each other. If the Indian economy becomes capable of developing technology at a level far surpassing the US, it will end up developing economic/financial/trade interests that are global, supplanting those of the US. So if we are in a position to export carrier technology to the US, we'll also be in a position the US is today with its attendant security requirements.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

sudeepj wrote:A carrier without a CAT means a carrier with limited strike capabilities and no fixed wing AEW.

If carriers are to duke it out, if one carrier can send planes with a full fuel load, staying out of reach of the other carrier, by default the carrier with the longer reach wins!

No fixed wing AEW means helicopter borne AEW, which means limited endurance, and limited warning of low level cruise missile attacks. In the coming age of hypersonic missiles, how wise is this? Even today, assuming a helicopter AEW at say, 3000 meters altitude, a Mach 3 missile will give you 200 seconds of warning before it reaches you. Is that sufficient time to launch an aircraft to intercept?

Yes, we dont need CATs today, but twenty years from now, when India is the third largest economy in the world?
A Barak 8 could probably intercept a YJ-18 before it goes supersonic. This assumes the worst case, where all our ASW assets have failed to detect this launch vehicle and other land based AEW assets are not available. We need to invest and strengthen our ASW capabilities. No question about it. Providing for such heavy assets to a carrier (an offensive platform) envisages an out of IOR deployment. I do not envision that in the near term. Similar, do not think PLAN would would be in a position for offensive warfare out of the SCS in the near term, at least not against India's capabilities to defend in the IOR.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Let us stick to the actual argument of likely risk, by whom and in meaningful timelines and then talk about what are the multiple ways in meeting that particular risk. In 50 years, we may export carrier technology to the US
Unfortunately one cannot take that approach with a system that is still to be designed, and whose usage (at least as a design, if not for the first ship) will extend for many decades. Carrier designs, particularly new, clean sheet ones have to have a ton of growth inbuilt for both the changing mission, and the changing nature of technology they have to support. Its extremely costly, time consuming, and a design headache to make massive changes to the ship mid life.
In 50 years, we may export carrier technology to the US
Given lead times, that is unlikely however, if that is the case, which technology would that be? You are trying to justify a carrier, that the US has no need for or could't have put together a few decades ago if it needed.
India's most likely threat is China and unless and until we intend to challenge them in the SCS by ourselves, we do not need these portable fixed wing AEW/ASW assets or refuelers to be launched from a carrier in the near term.
Again, it isn't as straight forward as you have to war-game scenarios. A carrier is survivable, and organic support is available and can be made available every time a single sortie departs. Outside support, is subject to availability, orbits subject to distance,time and supporting infrastructure, and of course subject to those being defended at all times, irrespective of what the circumstances. What if China, realizing that AEW assets taking off from Andaman, can create massive force multiplier effects to the IN carriers, develop a strategy of a massive conventional ballistic missile salvos coupled with strikes to deny this very thing? Their entire Pacific strategy vis-a-vis the US, Japan, Australia, SOKO and others is to deny them access to a theater (A2AD), and there is no reason to believe that they won't adopt a similar approach elsewhere. Your carrier is still going to be more survivable and as I mention, if future weapons (like the current ones) push the carrier more stand-offish like is happening now, and is being predicted, then you need long range assets from carriers and this means larger, heavier fighters, larger, more capable AEW and support assets to make sure they can accomplish their missions.

Before we get too serious into what path the IN is taking, lets pause to remember that they are currently evaluating a host of technologies, and capabilities and will likely conduct the AOA and cost v capability keeping the known threat, and the unknown future requirements in mind (growth). From what we know currently, they are about 5 years from a design freeze of the IAC-II, and only upon design freeze would we get a better idea of the trades ( nuclear vs conventional, CAT's vs ski-jump, Steam vs EMALS etc). What we can however positively assume is that a future carrier would most likely operate the AMCA-N, possibly the FGFA-N, and could even operate a RAFALE-M. We also know that the IN is exploring options of organic AEW for which CAT's would be the only logical choice going forward. They should have a design freeze around the turn of the decade and the path they take would become clearer only then.
India's deepening strategic and military ties with the United States were recently boosted during three days of technical discussions between their respective naval establishments on jointly developing an aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy (IN).

The US embassy in New Delhi said that the US Navy (USN) had hosted an IN delegation at the inaugural Joint Working Group (JWG) on Aircraft Carrier Co-operation in Washington, DC, between 12-14 August.

Led by Vice Admiral S P S Cheema, head of India's Western Naval Command in Mumbai, the IN delegation also visited Gerald Ford : the 100,000-tonne US aircraft carrier under construction at Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) in Virginia.

The IN is evaluating Gerald Ford 's Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), developed by General Atomics, for the 65,000-tonne Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-II (IAC-II) it plans to build locally.

On 13 May India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) sanctioned INR300 million (USD4.83 million) for the IAC-II programme to begin concept work on the platform, likely to be named INS Vishal .

IN architects involved with the project told IHS Jane's that it would take at least five years for the basic IAC-II design to evolve and that discussions with the USN, among other foreign navies, had been initiated recently. These deliberations covered options on the proposed carrier's propulsion system (including nuclear power), its air arm of 50-55 fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft (likely to include airborne early warning and control platforms), and aircraft launch systems such as EMALS.

The carrier JWG is part of the India-US Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) that was announced in 2012 but conclusively firmed up during President Barrack Obama's visit to Delhi in January.

"India's MoD identified aircraft carrier technology as one of the topics of interest to pursue under the DTTI," a US government statement said. It added that the two naval delegations discussed the proposed design, integration, management, and oversight of the Indian carrier project.

Meanwhile, on 31 July India's Services Capital Acquisition Plan Categorisation Committee (SCAPCC) approved the procurement of three additional Boeing C-17 airlifters for the Indian Air Force (IAF) for INR81 billion (USD1.2 billion) via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route.

However, this clearance by the SCAPCC, the first stage in India's complex Defence Procurement Procedure, has seemingly come too late, as Boeing now has just one C-17 available for sale, having stopped production of the aircraft in February.

In April, when the IAF first presented its proposal to the MoD for the three C-17s, Boeing had five aircraft left, but bureaucratic delays in endorsing the Indian acquisition led to four of these being pledged to Qatar.

The IAF, according to official sources, is now considering the possibility of acquiring two refurbished US Air Force C-17s as well as the new one still available. These would supplement the 10 C-17s it acquired in 2011 for around USD4.1 billion under the FMS programme.

In a related development, the US and Indian armies will conduct the 11th edition of their 'Yudh Abhyas' (War Games) exercises from 9-23 September at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state to enhance interoperability between them.

"The exercise will provide an ideal platform for the [army] personnel of the two countries to share their experience on military operations in urban terrain under the UN mandate," an official press statement said on 14 August.

Over the past decade India and the United States have conducted over 60 rounds of advanced exercises involving all three service arms.
BTW: China's next carrier is to be a ski jump based platform
China has a different doctrine, and no access to technology from all over. While this is a good thing for them in the long term, it also provides India with an advantage to build up a gap. While I agree with you when it comes to indigenisation and not-relying on the US, the IN and the MOD clearly is interested in pursuing negotiations on carrier technology development with the US, and other western nations. They must have made the trades. And as I said to a response earlier, if they go nuclear, then EMALS is a no-brainer, if they stay conventional, then steam CAT's come into play, but if you are looking to operate the rafale-M, or perhaps the PAKFA-N along with the AMCA-N you will need CAT's to make full use when it comes to range and payload and to fully exploit the flexibility these carriers offer. China will continue to be hamstrung by a large fighter operating from a ski ramp (and the range/payload sacrifice) until it figures out CAT's, and there are reports that they have an EMALS program currently ongoing. Also, given their choice of a very heavy fighter, and their pursual of two more medium - heavy fighters that they could naval-ise in the future, the direction they are ultimately going to take almost has to be CAT's.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/china- ... -with.html
A Barak 8 could probably intercept a YJ-18 before it goes supersonic.
YJ18 has a supersonic cruise mode as well and can be launched from the air as well. Also, it is not the only threat that a carrier, who's design hasn't even been finalized yet, will have to confront for the decades it will be operational. By the early to mid 2030's, hypersonics would be a reality and hypersonic anti-ship missiles are just about as good as any other applications for these. Also, there would be a mix of supersonic to hypersonic medium ranged missiles, coupled with subsonic, low-RCS, long range missiles collectively challenging the air-defenses of a carrier .Regardless, there would be no meaningful OTH or LOR targeting based on the Barak-8 or 8ER until you have the sensor capability to achieve that routinely.
Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5380
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Karthik S »

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/busine ... 11281.html
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) said it has successfully developed and delivered the Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) for indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant. Developed by the company's Electronics System Division, it includes state-of-the-art Automatic Power Management System, BHEL said in a press release. It said various directorates of Indian Navy and Cochin Shipyard participated in the final Integrated Factory Acceptance Test (IFAT) protocol. INS Vikrant was built by Cochin Shipyard Limited for the Indian Navy. Designed, manufactured and tested at BHEL Bengaluru jointly with GE-Avio (Italy), IPMS is unique, technology intensive and sophisticated. BHEL said apart from executing this prestigious order received against stiff competition, it had in the recent past supplied Auxiliary Control System for P15A Destroyers INS Kolkata and INS Kochi, which are already in service and to INS Chennai, scheduled to be commissioned in 2016. It said the company has demonstrated capability for warship controls and also geared-up to take up other assignments in marine and defence applications, including defence simulators. An integrated platform management system (IPMS) is a system used on board ships and submarines for real-time monitoring and control of the vessel's hull, mechanical, electrical and damage control machinery and systems.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Viv S »

ShauryaT wrote:BTW: China's next carrier is to be a ski jump based platform.
Only until they complete development on their version of the EMALS (which will probably equip the third PLAN carrier).

Image
GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1403
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by GeorgeWelch »

brar_w wrote:And as I said to a response earlier, if they go nuclear, then EMALS is a no-brainer, if they stay conventional, then steam CAT's come into play
Steam cats make more sense on nuclear where it already generates steam. A conventional plant would have to add a separate boiler just to run the cats.

Really, steam cats don't make sense anywhere if you can get EMALS.
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by rajsunder »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
brar_w wrote:And as I said to a response earlier, if they go nuclear, then EMALS is a no-brainer, if they stay conventional, then steam CAT's come into play
Steam cats make more sense on nuclear where it already generates steam. A conventional plant would have to add a separate boiler just to run the cats.

Really, steam cats don't make sense anywhere if you can get EMALS.
No one with a right sense of mind would use the stream generated by nuke reactors heat exchange to power steam CAT.

I believe it was in russian navy(or in one of those cold war films) that a submarine chef wanting to clean his burnt out cooking pot used steam from the reactor and contaminated more than half of the submarine.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

Once you go nuclear, then both are an option. Which one should be determined by the projected rate.

However, if China is developing her own EMALS, I doubt India has a choice. Either on going nuclear or the rate. Rafael was worth the price.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

NRao wrote:Once you go nuclear, then both are an option. Which one should be determined by the projected rate.

However, if China is developing her own EMALS, I doubt India has a choice. Either on going nuclear or the rate. Rafael was worth the price.
Can you explain? what is the objective we are trying to achieve with this "no" choice that you portray? As in, IN will not be able to defend in the IOR without similar assets?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

GeorgeWelch wrote:
brar_w wrote:And as I said to a response earlier, if they go nuclear, then EMALS is a no-brainer, if they stay conventional, then steam CAT's come into play
Steam cats make more sense on nuclear where it already generates steam. A conventional plant would have to add a separate boiler just to run the cats.

Really, steam cats don't make sense anywhere if you can get EMALS.
Perhaps I should have phrased it better, but what I meant was that the case for EMALS (vs Steam cats) becomes quite a bit better if you go nuclear. Without Nuclear, you will encounter margin issues (EMALS) even though the GA/US DOD study for the brits showed that it can be done.
Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Eric Leiderman »

Dear Rajsunder

""As far as No one with a right sense of mind would use the stream generated by nuke reactors heat exchange to power steam CAT.

I believe it was in russian navy(or in one of those cold war films) that a submarine chef wanting to clean his burnt out cooking pot used steam from the reactor and contaminated more than half of the submarine.""

In many large complex plants (a nuke one would fall under that catogery.

There will be a few mediums of heat exchange.

Eg a diesel engine generating 24 mWatts the engine is cooled by High temp water say @ 85 deg c (under pressure)
This liquid is cooled by another system called low temp water which can be mantained fm 25 to 40 deg c
A third system maintains the low temp water within its set points this is usually sea water.

hence the chance of sea water reaching the High temp system or visa versa is remote. same can be monitored by sensors.

The temps are controlled by thermostatic valves somewhat like on an automobile. and electric/motor valves for fine tuning.

This is a rudimentary explanation. For the sake of safety if there is an appreciable difference in pressure between sytems you can ensure if a leak occurs it will be a one way flow (like a diode)
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Lalmohan »

the nuclear reactor makes heat that generates steam OUTSIDE of the radioactive loop
this clean steam is used to drive turbines
or CATS
the radioactive steam (or other coolant) stays in a closed circuit
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

NRao wrote:Once you go nuclear, then both are an option. Which one should be determined by the projected rate.

However, if China is developing her own EMALS, I doubt India has a choice. Either on going nuclear or the rate. Rafael was worth the price.
I am not sure I understand the comparison. They both launch planes at the same speed and same payload. I think the result of launch is same with either tech: Plane with same payload. So why does it matter what China does? Isn't the launched assets payload the most important thing?

Anyways, the only thing we may lose by not having catobar is about 100 odd km radius and no ability to launch AEWs. Easily rectifiable by land based assets. I wonder if JATO pods would be useful to launch a plane with full payload. I wonder if any NAVY tried JATO pods to launch. I have heard of the Swiss Mirage IIIs with JATO..
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

Cybaru wrote:
NRao wrote:Once you go nuclear, then both are an option. Which one should be determined by the projected rate.

However, if China is developing her own EMALS, I doubt India has a choice. Either on going nuclear or the rate. Rafael was worth the price.
I am not sure I understand the comparison. They both launch planes at the same speed and same payload. I think the result of launch is same with either tech: Plane with same payload. So why does it matter what China does? Isn't the launched assets payload the most important thing?

Anyways, the only thing we may lose by not having catobar is about 100 odd km radius and no ability to launch AEWs. Easily rectifiable by land based assets. I wonder if JATO pods would be useful to launch a plane with full payload. I wonder if any NAVY tried JATO pods to launch. I have heard of the Swiss Mirage IIIs with JATO..
Steam has one power, thus one speed. The payload depends on the air craft.

EMALS is capable of throttling the power, thus varying the speed - wear and tear is very much lower. It can also cat much heavier payloads, for the same air craft, as compared to the steam. And the "rate" is much higher (since it can reload much faster). Rate being the number of launches in a given span of time.

The report I read stated that the IN does not see a need for the higher rate that the EMALS supports, thus cannot justify the cost.

For a number of reasons I think EMALS is a must.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

Nothing of too much importance, outside of:

US very close to sharing Super Carrier Technology with India

MP estimates two more meeting within a month to come to an agreement for Super Carrier Tech.

"Super"? Where did that come from? India going for a 100K ton boat?
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cosmo_R »

^^^
Apparently ~70KT = supercarrier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

NRao wrote: Steam has one power, thus one speed. The payload depends on the air craft.

EMALS is capable of throttling the power, thus varying the speed - wear and tear is very much lower. It can also cat much heavier payloads, for the same air craft, as compared to the steam. And the "rate" is much higher (since it can reload much faster). Rate being the number of launches in a given span of time.

The report I read stated that the IN does not see a need for the higher rate that the EMALS supports, thus cannot justify the cost.

For a number of reasons I think EMALS is a must.
Wear and Tear:: How often is the cats overhauled? After how many launches? Do you think our carrier will require it at the same cycle as USN?

Heavy Aircraft:: What heavier aircraft do you think we need to launch that catobar cannot at the moment, assuming we went with CATOBAR vs EMALS? What size carrier do we need for this heavy aircraft and how many of it do you think this boat will carry? What purpose is this heavy aircraft serving? Do we have one we would like to launch and cannot at the moment?

Variable throttle:: How purpose does throttling power serve in our case? What we if can't throttle? How will affect the launch rate/payload?

What if we don't go for any assisted launch type, how does it affect the air arm? What can vik not do today that we need a boat of tomorrow be capable of?

Other reasons:: What other reasons in your opinion do you think we need EMALS vs CATS?

With the end of cold war? What is the normal loading of a USN carrier (50/60/70/80/90/100)? http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... 036-000036

Is CATS/EMALS the only way to extend the range of a ship launched aircraft? Can we not develop/buy longer ranged weapons? Will that serve any shortfall of having CATOBAR? What do you get with CATOBAR? 50/100/200/300 extra miles?

Sorry for all these questions, but I hope it will enhance the discussions.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Most of these things are searchable but to the point of :
With the end of cold war? What is the normal loading of a USN carrier (50/60/70/80/90/100)? http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... 036-000036
I'll add that such discussion is rather ludicrous. You don't downsize a carrier because your current air wing requirements are less. Carrier designs last forever. Quite literally. And while you can always downsize a wing during low threat scenarios, you can't upsize it if you end up with a non-optimized carrier. The USN is running into a wall here and they hope that Unmanned aviation can plug the gap. If not, they will have to fall back on more expensive replacement cycles for not only recapitalizing existing CAW, but also developing new systems to replace the capability lost. The organic vs outside support argument has also been largely settled inside the USN..When the $hit hits the fans and those fixed bases come under conventional, supersonic, hypersonic, and ballistic missile attacks your carrier with its air-wing and associated support kit will be far more survivable at least in the context of supporting itself than an E-2D launching from 1000 km away or a P-8 for that matter. As far as getting more stand-offish without a larger CAW, why not you list your suggestions?

The politico piece also does not clarify that the initial FORD cost is for a first-in-class vessel that traditionally comes in at a much higher cost for very obvious reasons. In shipbuilding you don't design tech demonstrators, prototypes or test articles - Your first in class ship is ALL THAT. The author also includes R&D cost. The next carrier comes in at around 8% lower, with a similar curve associated with the next one until the cost stabilizes.

[youtube]q8Bn2GZuQCc#t=477[/youtube]

https://news.usni.org/2015/06/16/navy-e ... r-aircraft
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Apr 2016 20:28, edited 1 time in total.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Indranil »

I don't agree with you Brar ji. What I can build today is greatly determined by my economics today. I can stretch a bit, but not by much. "Kitna deti hai" is still very relevant. Indian Navy is certainly evaluating ROI from its perspective. I would not be surprised if the outcome is different, given that the IN is not envisioned be a expeditionary navy for a few decades to come.
Post Reply