INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

[brar_w]

No I agree, the IN should do its own AOA and see what it can get under what it projects its fund availability however that does not really change the fact that carrier design decisions have long term consequences unless one wants to field a fleet of carriers, all having a different design. If you go nuclear, you are talking about many many decades of operations so they will most certiantly want to squeeze in as much as they can as far as room to grow is concerned. However, fundamental advantages and disadvantages still apply and compromises also come with a long term cost. Some decisions to be made of course by the IN, it would be interesting to see how the process evolves and what they ultimately settle on. My response was more to the politico article and the conclusions being drawn here, such as I'll have constant AEW orbits from land etc etc.

[sudeepj]

Ashley Tellis and Arun Prakash discussing Carrier size etc. in the context of the Indian Navy requirements. Must watch in its entirety.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0U29ZTfCBo

Bottom line is, a carrier will last 50 to 60 years. The capex and opex of a carrier does not scale linearly with carrier size, so a 100,000 tonne carrier will not cost 2.5 times a 40,000 tonne carrier and neither will the opex scale linearly.

Without an organic AEW capability, a carrier is extremely vulnerable to upcoming hypersonic and ballistic threats. There is no organic AEW capability worth the name without a cat. Ergo a cat is necessary, therefore a minimum size of 40K tonnes like the weight of the CDG.

Then there is the question of how many aircraft? A Pakistan can be dealt with using a CDG sized carrier, but how about a more capable foe such as the Chinese, who are building 60-70 or even 100K tonne carriers? A CDG type carrier will not pose much threat to the Chinese even today or in the near future. It will not deter a Chinese task force centered around 100K tonne carriers, SSNs and aegis type destroyers/frigates in the open seas. And if your carrier can not go into the open seas, you are better off buying SSNs and shore based aircraft for maritime defense.

IMHO, If the Indian navy wants to be a first class true blue water navy, carriers with cats are the only option.

[NRao]

CY,

Please watch the video (posted by sudeepj) and I will catch up. It has much of what I had in mind. I would like to add some other dimensions.

Bottom line, this is really not rocket science. It just needs proper time projections and associated event projections (based on open source).

[member_23370]

I would still hope for a Vikrant-2 based on IAC while the design for the super carrier is being done.

[SagarAg]

Vik-1 update:
The team is looking for tentative date for sea trials in later half of 2019. Cabling work is in full swing. Bottleneck is getting the delivery of Russian equipment/weaponry/radars on schedule.

[brar_w]

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).

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YFkc1XoNo8U/T ... emals1.jpg

The image is from EMALS testing in the US

http://www.defensetech.org/2014/05/13/n ... n-carrier/

Sorry for all these questions, but I hope it will enhance the discussions.

We'll of course steam will work as well, and only the IN and the USN is armed with the data required to perform a legit AOA. However for the sake of discussion, I'm putting excerpts from a NAVAIR paper discussing the Steam Cats, limitations and the EMALS:

The existing steam catapults currently installed on U.S. carriers consist of two parallel rows of slotted cylinders in a trough 1.07 m deep, 1.42 m wide, and 101.68 m long, located directly below the flight deck. Pistons within these cylinders connect to the shuttle which tows the aircraft. The steam pressure forces the pistons forward, towing the shuttle
and aircraft at ever increasing speed until takeoff is achieved. While the catapult has many years of operation in the
fleet, there are many drawbacks inherent in the steam system. 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.

Other drawbacks to the steam catapult include a high volume of 1133 m3, and a weight of 486 metric tons. Most of this is top-side weight that adversely impacts the ship's stability and righting moment. The large volume allocated to the steam catapult occupies "prime" real estate on the carrier. The steam catapults are also highly maintenance intensive, inefficient and their availability is low.

Another major disadvantage is the present operational energy limit of the steam catapult, approximately 95 MJ.
The need for higher payload energies will push the steam catapult to be a bigger, bulkier, and more complex system.

EM AIRCRAFT LAUNCH SYSTEM- EMALS

The requirements of the EMALS are driven by the aircraft, the carrier, and the operational requirements of the carrier's air wing. These requirements are:



SHIP IMPACT

The introduction of EMALS would have an overall positive impact on the ship. The launch engine is capable of a high thrust density, as shown by the half scale model that demonstrated. 1322 psi over its cross section. This is compared to the relatively low 450 psi of the steam catapult. The same is true with energy storage devices, which would be analogous to the steam catapult's steam accumulator.

The low energy density of the steam accumulator would be replaced by high energy density flywheels. These flywheels
provide energy densities of 28 KJ/KG. The increased densities would reduce the system's volume and would allow for more room for vital support equipment on the host platform.

Another advantage of E M U is that it would reduce manning requirements by inspecting and troubleshooting itself. This would be a significant improvement over the present system, which requires substantial manual inspection and maintenance. The EMALS, however, will require a transition of expertise from mechanical to electrical/electronic. EMALS eliminates the complexity of the present system's conglomeration of different subsystems. The steam catapult uses about 614 kg of steam for a launch, it uses hydraulics extensively, water for braking, and electromechanics. These subsystems, along with their associated pumps, motors, and control systems tend to complicate the launch system as a whole. With

EMALS, launching, braking, and retraction would be achieved by the launch motor, thereby reducing all the auxiliary components and simplifying the overall system. The hydraulic oils, compressed air, etc. would be eliminated as well as the cylinder lubricating oil that is expelled into the environment with each shot. The EMALS would be a stand alone system, completely independent of the ship's main plant. This will allow greater flexibility in the design of the ship and more efficient ship propulsion schemes.

One of the major advantages of electromagnetic launch is the ability to integrate into the all electric ship. The Navy has directed substantial research into its Advanced Surface Machinery program that is developing electric derived propulsion schemes for the next generation of surface combatants. There has also been a good deal of work in high power electric weapon systems [1]-[3]. As such, more and more of a ship's systems will evolve into the electrical counterparts of old mechanical systems. This is true of the launch, and eventually, the arresting gear. The average power required by EMALS is only 6.35 MVA. Taking these power levels off the grid should not be a problem in an all electric ship, considering multi-megawatt pumps already exist on carriers for various applications.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of electromagnetic launch is the flexibility it offers in the way of future aircraft and ship designs. An electromagnetic launcher could easily be sized down to perform as a launch-assist system, augmenting the short takeoff of a STOVL aircraft. It can also be easily incorporated into the contour of a ramp, which provides a more efficient fly-away angle for the aircraft being launched. This reduces the required endspeed, the commensurate energy supplied, as well as the stresses on the airframe. Overall, an EM launcher offers a great deal of flexibility to future naval requirements and ship designs.

On the other hand, there are drawbacks to the EMALS .One of these is that high power electromagnetic motors create electromagnetic interference (EMI) with electronic equipment. As in the case of an electromagnetic launcher, there would be sensitive aircraft equipment sitting directly above the launch motor. Along with the aircraft equipment is the ship's own equipment, which may be affected by the electromagnetic emissions. Through proper EMC design and a "magnetically closed" motor design, EM1 will be minimized. Another drawback of an electromagnetic launcher is the high speed rotating machinery associated with pulsed power applications. The disk alternator rotors are spinning at 6400 rpm, each storing 121 MJ, for a total of 484 MJ. In a laboratory, this is not a problem, but put these rotors on a heaving, jarring platform and it becomes more complicated. In order to ensure safe operation, the flywheel and bearings are to be a stiffer design than conventional.

OPERATIONAL IMPACT

Due to the inherent high level of elegant control of electronic equipment, it is possible to reduce the stresses imparted to the aircraft. The present steam catapult has relatively high peak-to-mean acceleration profiles (nominally 1.25, with excursions up to 2.0). This results in high stresses in the airframe and generally poor performance. With an electromagnetic system it would be possible to correct for deviations in the acceleration profile in typically hundreds of milliseconds, which would result in low peak-to-means. A simulation was conducted that analyzed the level of controllability of the proposed design.

As shown in the simulation results in Fig. 4, the acceleration profile is smooth and flat, compared with a typical steam catapult profile shown in Fig. 5. The simulation shows that for various load conditions, the EMALS is capable of operating within the 1.05 max peak to-mean acceleration requirement. The result of this reduced peak-to-mean is reduced stress on the airframe. To quantify the effects of a reduced peak-to-mean, a Fracture Mechanics analysis was conducted on the airframe [4] with both the steam catapult and EMALS peak-to-means. The results from this analysis show a peak airframe life extension of 31% due to the reduced stresses on the airframe. This is becoming
more important as tight budgets are forcing the Navy to procure fewer aircraft. This also has the benefit of a safer operational environment, since when the EMALS experiences any unforeseen problems during a launch, it has the capability to quickly adjust and correct for them, even if a component fails during the launch

The EMALS offers the increased energy capability necessary to launch the next generation of carrier based aircraft. The steam catapult is presently operating near its design limit of approximately 95 MJ. The EMALS has a delivered energy capability of 122 MJ, a 29% increase (see Fig. 6). This will provide a means of launching all present naval carrier based aircraft and those in the foreseeable future.

[member_23370]

2019??? Thats too late for something that was meant to join IN in 2018. What russian equipment? The Radar is selex and Israeli. Missiles are Barak-8 and we make Ak-630 CISW.

[ShauryaT]

SudeepJ: This organic support is "needed" only out of IOR. In IOR there are ways to compensate. This is assuming PLAN will have such future capabilities and within the time difference from where we have such capabilities, our risk from not having such an organic capability is so high that we need to spend $10+ billion TODAY. Please do tell me our plans to be in such situations outside the IOR, that serves Indian interests.

[SagarAg]

2019??? Thats too late for something that was meant to join IN in 2018. What russian equipment? The Radar is selex and Israeli. Missiles are Barak-8 and we make Ak-630 CISW.

An air craft carrier has many more equipment other than the ones you have mentioned. It does not have only one radar system.

[member_23370]

Sure it does but let us know what else is needed when these two are planned

Selex RAN-40L long-range early warning and surveillance AESA radar.
Elta EL/M-2248 MF-STAR AESA multifunction radar.

What russian weapons are being used other than AK-630?

[SagarAg]

Sure it does but let us know what else is needed when these two are planned

Selex RAN-40L long-range early warning and surveillance AESA radar.
Elta EL/M-2248 MF-STAR AESA multifunction radar.

What russian weapons are being used other than AK-630?

Saar I will let you know when I get more details. For now they are busy with just cabling for the next two years. Hopefully if all goes well it will be inducted into Navy by early 2021.

[Cybaru]

On the other hand, there are drawbacks to the EMALS .One of these is that high power electromagnetic motors create electromagnetic interference (EMI) with electronic equipment. As in the case of an electromagnetic launcher, there would be sensitive aircraft equipment sitting directly above the launch motor. Along with the aircraft equipment is the ship's own equipment, which may be affected by the electromagnetic emissions. Through proper EMC design and a "magnetically closed" motor design, EM1 will be minimized. Another drawback of an electromagnetic launcher is the high speed rotating machinery associated with pulsed power applications. The disk alternator rotors are spinning at 6400 rpm, each storing 121 MJ, for a total of 484 MJ. In a laboratory, this is not a problem, but put these rotors on a heaving, jarring platform and it becomes more complicated. In order to ensure safe operation, the flywheel and bearings are to be a stiffer design than conventional.

Flywheels are usually used to provide lots of power quickly and this seems to be the case, but they are being replaced by super capacitors in the energy industry. Super Capacitors also don't suffer from the issues mentioned above for flywheels. How old is this paper? What new changes have taken place?

[sudeepj]

SudeepJ: This organic support is "needed" only out of IOR. In IOR there are ways to compensate. This is assuming PLAN will have such future capabilities and within the time difference from where we have such capabilities, our risk from not having such an organic capability is so high that we need to spend $10+ billion TODAY. Please do tell me our plans to be in such situations outside the IOR, that serves Indian interests.

1. The $10 billion needs to be amortized over the life of the carrier.
2. The plate cutting for IAC II is going to be post 2020 and it will sail till 2060.
3. The $10 billion figure is not correct, the IAC 1 only cost us around $3 billion, given that cost does not scale linearly with displacement, a 60,000 tonne vessel could cost... Your guess is as good as mine, but likely not $10 billion.
4. The 25 year long era of Pax Americana over the high seas is coming to an end. Every navy is building/plans to build cat equipped carriers. The chinese have a head start, mag lev tech. is closely related to an electric drive cat. Do you want the definitive Indian carrier class (Vikad and even the Vikrant are stop gap, imHo) to be handicapped?

The advantage of an AEW plane is the size of the see-kill bubble it provides.. If in the see-kill sensor chain, your kill range is, say 500kms, but see range is only 150 kms (helicopter borne AEW), that kinda defeats the purpose of the weapon system. Without an organic AEW, a carrier is simply a defensive platform, an Air Defense Ship.

@ShauryaT Shaurya Ji, please watch the talk by Dr. Tellis and the subsequent discussion. He makes the case far far better than I ever can. My response to your questions is essentially going to be, What Dr. Tellis said.

[NRao]

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?

Wear and tear on the planes being launched too. Since the steam has only one power setting, the force exerted on the planes are always more than needed - to ensure they are launched, they err on that side, by providing more power than needed. So, the structure of the planes take a disproportionate beating.

On IN vs. USN. I cannot say, but what I can speculate is that it will depend on how well trained does IN want their pilots and ground staff to be. Certainly better than the Chinese I would think. So, yes there is a little leeway, but, the Chinese will catch up down stream. So, I would expect IN to practice a lot more than what they have been. As much as USN? Cannot say.

There is a LOT more to the story of steam vs. EMALS. L8r if need be.

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?

Problem: "at the moment". What was supposed to have happened "at the moment" should have been dealt with 10-15 years AGO.

Solution: Design and build TODAY what you need for the next 50 years starting 15-20 years from NOW. THAT is what you are thinking of for INS Vishal. Think about it, by Vishal's mid life some of the designers will be dead and gone. I may not be there when it first sails!!!!!!! Seriously.

With THAT in mind, which planes do you foresee? That will decide much of this discussion, which is getting too late anyways. To that end Ashley's commentary is a very good fit here.

More l8r if needed.

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

Throttling provides all around efficiency. On the CAT itself and the planes. And, perhaps on the staff too.


Bottom-line:

1) You are asking for a ship from about 2030-2080.
2) This is what I would liek to add to what Ashley stats: China (from open source material) is planning to have a dedicated Fleet fo rthe IOR (IIRC, it called the "4th Fleet"). PLA is moving from a Soviet structure model to a US model and the IOR Fleet is expected to be a virtual Fleet - will have a HQ in China, but ships will be assigned as and when needed, nothing is permanent. IMHO, this is perhaps the most difficult situation to handle, one that has no timelines either. You have to react, cannot really act.
2) By then China will have a CAT - the question is a steam or electric
4) You are designing for that scenario



A few other observations:
5) The US offered the EMALS a few years. So, no brownie points for what the US thought the IN's need WILL BE in 2030ish.
6) As stated by Ashley, the US's thinking is across party line - that blows the theory of a lame duck president (as it is also supported by the Prez and DefSecs over time). However, IMHO, this is a niche "strategic" interest - IN in specific and perhaps some other odds and ends. "Strategic" does NOT encompass all aspects of this relationship, the US will continue to harangue India on nukes, etc, etc, etc.
7) There is a fairly recent move within the US to part with nuclear techs for carriers. I do not have much hope, but then I never dreamt - although I said in 1997 that the two nations would get close - it would be a matter of material too. Come this far, can certainly a little further
BUT, all this means "operability", that is the key. As I have stated, mostly (90-95%) in peace time, rest as a deterrence - to maintain that peace. My feel on this is what I have been saying since 1997: India will be forced by situations into this relationship
9) Finally, because of Indian interests, I do not think what Russia or China think will matter

Last 3 points need to go into the Indo-US relations and FP threads. More l8r

BTW, Ashley has dealt with the small vs. large carriers, latter is a better investment. His (and Adm Prakash seems to support it too) says the smaller carriers cost about 75% of the larger, but provide about 33% of the power. The projections are not linear. So, essentially between a Vikrant and Vishal, more Vishals are better - just size wise. Then the ramp, etc further contribute to a Vishal with a CAT.

[shiv]

There may be two different issues with EMALS. One is the US security issue, and the other is one of sales and profit making for the company that does it and staying ahead of competitors who may well develop the technology and offer it to others. Right now the US with a handful of carriers and maybe a couple more here and there are the only customers. When you sell a total of 10 pieces, two more ordered by India is a 20% jump in sales. Makes eminent financial sense when combined with a 30 year maintenance and spares contract.

[NRao]

A different story, but as a FYI, the USN is - clearly - moving to an all electric ship. Rail guns and all.

And guess who is mimicking them?

________________________________________________________________________________________


Grub list. On offer to IN:

1) Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye. This was way back, about 10 years ago
2) EMALS. We know that story
3) F-18, Advanced Super Hornets. Many recent accounts on this story
4) Assistance in design of carrier. Under DTTI
5) IN may be asking for help, from US companies, for constructing the carrier. RF* expected some time this year. As an extension of DTTI
6) The controversial "Foundational agreements": one down, two to go



7) Rumors about F-35B/C. Persisted since about 2011
8 ) Analyst's suggestion for transfer of nuclear propulsion tech for carrier. Recent. ??????

Those from open source, known to me. There could be a few others, who knows.

BUT, the point is, that is a very serious list. And, one could look at it this or that way. I think it is up to India. Having said that the ground reality will force India's hand. IMVVHO of course.

[brar_w]

On the other hand, there are drawbacks to the EMALS .One of these is that high power electromagnetic motors create electromagnetic interference (EMI) with electronic equipment. As in the case of an electromagnetic launcher, there would be sensitive aircraft equipment sitting directly above the launch motor. Along with the aircraft equipment is the ship's own equipment, which may be affected by the electromagnetic emissions. Through proper EMC design and a "magnetically closed" motor design, EM1 will be minimized. Another drawback of an electromagnetic launcher is the high speed rotating machinery associated with pulsed power applications. The disk alternator rotors are spinning at 6400 rpm, each storing 121 MJ, for a total of 484 MJ. In a laboratory, this is not a problem, but put these rotors on a heaving, jarring platform and it becomes more complicated. In order to ensure safe operation, the flywheel and bearings are to be a stiffer design than conventional.

Flywheels are usually used to provide lots of power quickly and this seems to be the case, but they are being replaced by super capacitors in the energy industry. Super Capacitors also don't suffer from the issues mentioned above for flywheels. How old is this paper? What new changes have taken place?

The paper is more than 20 years old..for the other stuff please dig up and let us all know if you find anything on any design changes.

[Cosmo_R]

^^^NRao "BUT, the point is, that is a very serious list. And, one could look at it this or that way. I think it is up to India. Having said that the ground reality will force India's hand. IMVVHO of course."

By ground reality, do you mean money?

[Cosmo_R]

...When you sell a total of 10 pieces, two more ordered by India is a 20% jump in sales. Makes eminent financial sense when combined with a 30 year maintenance and spares contract.

The parts business is far more profitable than the plane business for example:

"Boeing Co. is ramping up its push into the parts business, as part of a broad effort to cut costs and secure a new source of revenue even more lucrative than making aircraft."

"http://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-ramp ... 1461539460"

This is an extension of give away the razor and charge for the blades sales strategy. Another example is the auto industry. A Mercedes/Lexus/BMW interior door handle part might cost $1.50 for the manufacturer at scale but if you break it and have to replace it, it will cost you $50.

This is why I was going on about 'consumables' in the debate about setting up 'lines' in India for F-16/F-18/JSF whatever.

The fantasy fighter selection game could have this outcome (if I were King):

1. Negotiate a deal with to buy 126 or whatever F-16s off the shelf from LM at steeply discounted prices.

2. Exclusive contract to manufacture and supply OEM certified parts for the 4500+ F-16s.

3. Make as many of the parts in India as possible and for those parts where it does not makes sense to make them locally, obtain an exclusive on the sourcing system and delivery logistics (no matter who makes them, OEM can only be ordered/sold through the system). Even pakis (+ an additional 50% markup)

The money that will be made will not only fund the original purchase but also slash the opex for the IAF not to mention get a parts supply chain going that will lay the foundation for the AMCA.

It's an interesting inflection point: LM desperately wants to recoup the fully depreciated cost of the Dallas F-16 factory. They will likely propose a sale of the line for local manufacture in India while retaining the parts business which is where the money is.

JMT.

[NRao]

^^^NRao "BUT, the point is, that is a very serious list. And, one could look at it this or that way. I think it is up to India. Having said that the ground reality will force India's hand. IMVVHO of course."

By ground reality, do you mean money?

Nope.

China and the expectations of ASEAN and other countries

Recall about 10 years ago we/I referred to the PLAN as a tin can navy? Well, times have changed already and will change even faster. Which is why old analysis needs to be tossed out ASAP.

So, China (unofficially) seems to have a Fleet dedicated for the IOR - that is peculation right now (as far as I am concerned).

But what is a reality is China has commenced building a dedicated naval base in Djibouti, I mean right across from Cochin and Karwar!!!! Not to talk about that China is actually competing for that choke point with the US, France, etc .............. forget India.

Then of course, Gwadar and that chock point.

Sri Lanka has downgraded the Chinese port there to a "business" center (and to sooth Indian fears is actually advertising that Indian businesses are moving in - how ridiculous is that. China HAS actually managed to finesse India with Indians). Pure BS, it will be converted to a military base once the previous two are fully operational (and India, by then can do nothing) (nor can SL).

Good 'ol Bangladesh. In the arm pits of Indian geography, but with a bite. China, again, playing the business card. But will turn into a military one in 2040 or earlier.

Myanmar. Cannot say what will happen there, but plan for the worst.

And, no need to get into what China is doing to India (even with the backing of powerful nations) in the UN, visas for certain people, nuclear groups, etc.

China has bottled India on all fronts. And made the Indian peninsula - projecting out into the IOR - irrelevant.

That much for "China".

Flip side of the coin: India

It is not just the US that expects India to join a "camp".

'Nam has always expected, offered more than a Namaste.

Singapore has expected leadership from India in that region, India has not even paid attention to it, pretending that India did not hear Singapore.

Philippines has expectation from India.

Whatever that tiny nation is has just signed some agreement with India - another expectation.

Malaysia and Indonesia have expectation, I expect them to mature within 15 years.

Indian Prez just completed a chai biscut trip to some tiny islands and gave a rousing speech about this and that. Ignoring any security aspects.

What is left? Japan? and Australia?

That in short is teh ground reality.




Indian Navy recently stated that they will increase number of ships to 200. Not for fun. I hope.


For sure India cannot face China alone. And, China will *never* go to war, why should she? She is clearly planning on getting whatever she wants without firing a shot. And, China is getting it in some areas already (political front). She is planning on getting Arunachal Pradesh. Granting PoK to Pakistan. And dominating the IOR. And making India insignificant (as related to China).

And, Indians with their "our area is only IOR" are clearly playing into Chinese hands. As I said in one of post - myopic and old thinking.



IN, IMHO, is the *only* service that can get India out of this straitjacket.

[KrishnaK]

There may be two different issues with EMALS. One is the US security issue, and the other is one of sales and profit making for the company that does it and staying ahead of competitors who may well develop the technology and offer it to others. Right now the US with a handful of carriers and maybe a couple more here and there are the only customers. When you sell a total of 10 pieces, two more ordered by India is a 20% jump in sales. Makes eminent financial sense when combined with a 30 year maintenance and spares contract.

Why is that an issue ? I'd like my suppliers to be financially viable.

[KrishnaK]

And made the Indian peninsula - projecting out into the IOR - irrelevant.

The unsinkable carrier was garbage to begin with. Only Phillip used to trot it out regularly. If a carrier is operating in the IOR, it is mobile itself. Aircrafts taking off the unsinkable carriers will have to locate the sinkable carrier and fix it.

[brar_w]

The problem is that a carrier is highly well defended regardless of what it carries. If its large, and has the ability to launch larger aircraft, the defense can be much stronger (in addition to offensive capability). A big advantage is that it is floating, with a convey and is a moving target. An air-base is fixed, and will be attacked very heavily if it is determined that the survivability and offensive punch of the carrier is being augmented heavily by that particular base. If you rely on AEW's making 500 km tracks and providing constant orbits (not that it is possible if one actually does the analysis for even 15 hour orbits) you bring a lot more resources from your enemy to attack those bases and for a China that would mean BM's, Hypersonics, coordinated Long range SO strikes etc etc. A carrier can stand off and deny that.

[Cosmo_R]

@NRao ^^^. OK so you've outlined what you mean by ground reality but that's always been a known. In the UPA, the Secretary of Defense in MOD absolutely forbade any IN involvement in SCS or even cosying up to Vietnam as inviting PRC retaliation.

The actual ground reality that India must confront is that vast swathes of its bureaucracy, intelligentsia (I use the term loosely) and media are so shall we say 'enamored' of the PRC and/or are its 'vassals', that they hinder any coherent strategy to combat it. Our political system itself is being exploited by PRC with the connivance of a certain section of Indian society.

We can't deal with PRC by ourselves, yet any engagement with the big dog on the block whose interests converge and align with ours is shredded by those who view this as a betrayal of Mother Russia and/or a negation of NAM. That is the ground reality. That along with a natural tendency to play defense: we prefer to field rather than bat.

Anyway, I'm hoping that NaMo's June visit delivers more than just a bunch of stale deals and that there is real strategic collaboration that is agreed to.

IMHO, whatever the deal, it needs to be nailed down before November. A Hillary administration will not be as sympathetic. If it is nailed down before, it gets institutionalized and the Pentagon runs with it. Else we are left to the mercies of a Albright influenced DoS.

[NRao]

@Cosmo,

but that's always been a known

Eh?

When did UPA have to deal with a Djibouti?

When did UPA have to deal with a Gwadar PLUS a $47 billion investment for a corridor which requires Pakistan to incorporate PoK into Pakistan?

When did the UPA have to deal with a IOR Feet?

Do you *really* think/feel that the threat level in 2030 has not increased from UPA days? (BTW, we are NOT Talking of today.)




My point being, that China wants posts like yours. Go back to sleep, nothing really has changed, while China adds to her capabilities. Remember China is confronting the US. India is a piddly poodle pup to them. And India is being treated as such.

May be you should try and explain why IN has increased her numbers to 200. Only to putter in IOR?





Synthesized, the problem as I see it: Indians/BRiets are looking at the problem as if it is occurring today. China and the US are seeing it as it would occur in 2030 onward.

[shiv]

There may be two different issues with EMALS. One is the US security issue, and the other is one of sales and profit making for the company that does it and staying ahead of competitors who may well develop the technology and offer it to others. Right now the US with a handful of carriers and maybe a couple more here and there are the only customers. When you sell a total of 10 pieces, two more ordered by India is a 20% jump in sales. Makes eminent financial sense when combined with a 30 year maintenance and spares contract.

Why is that an issue ? I'd like my suppliers to be financially viable.

Glad to hear about your views on this. More power to you for whatever it is that you are selling. But the US government ultimately decides if a particular military related tech can or cannot be given to a foreign buyer.

[Cain Marko]

This entire idea that without cats, adequate aew cannot be done needs to be rethought imho esp. In light of present and future unmanned platforms with high bandwidth data links and aesa powered 360 deg radar coverage.

Can't see why the Hawkeye is being considered as the only option going forward.

[Cybaru]

7) There is a fairly recent move within the US to part with nuclear techs for carriers. I do not have much hope, but then I never dreamt - although I said in 1997 that the two nations would get close - it would be a matter of material too. Come this far, can certainly a little further
BUT, all this means "operability", that is the key. As I have stated, mostly (90-95%) in peace time, rest as a deterrence - to maintain that peace. My feel on this is what I have been saying since 1997: India will be forced by situations into this relationship

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to watch the interview you suggested, but let me address this.

I don't think anything will happen other than chai pani biscoot sesssions about nuke tech transfer for carriers.

If CATS or EMALS is installed, I don't think IN will share what their reactor looks like either. At least I hope they don't. They will provide whatever steam/electricity is required assuming the reactor is capable of making electricity or they will figure out another way of making energy on board to run the EMALS if they go down that path.

The amount of energy required isn't that massive for EMALS. A very small Combined Cycle GT engine will do the trick and it won't take much space either ( 11m by 3 m by 4 m). You can install CATS/EMALS on conventional boat (remember Foch/Sao Paulo?)

If IN does go down the path of Nuclear power plant, it will most likely be on its own.

[Cybaru]

Flywheels are usually used to provide lots of power quickly and this seems to be the case, but they are being replaced by super capacitors in the energy industry. Super Capacitors also don't suffer from the issues mentioned above for flywheels. How old is this paper? What new changes have taken place?

The paper is more than 20 years old..for the other stuff please dig up and let us all know if you find anything on any design changes.

20 year old paper!? Yeah, ok, kinda figured. Flywheels were kinda cool back then, but for most critical ops like this, I would imagine they would install a bank of ultra capacitors. 121MJ bank costs roughly less than 100K and if you stack 10/20 of those together, it should provide enough power for whatever is needed.

[Cybaru]

The advantage of an AEW plane is the size of the see-kill bubble it provides.. If in the see-kill sensor chain, your kill range is, say 500kms, but see range is only 150 kms (helicopter borne AEW), that kinda defeats the purpose of the weapon system. Without an organic AEW, a carrier is simply a defensive platform, an Air Defense Ship.

@ShauryaT Shaurya Ji, please watch the talk by Dr. Tellis and the subsequent discussion. He makes the case far far better than I ever can. My response to your questions is essentially going to be, What Dr. Tellis said.

E2D is probably the last order for the Hawkeye. Although USN punted the UCLASS drones for now, which were supposed to do both AEW and Refueling, they will eventually go down this path and that is going to be the path of the future.

The Triton/MQ-4C which can stay in air for more than 24-48 hours will end up becoming the real workhorse and it will end up taking both ASuW and AEW roles. Not only does it add an extra 20K feet over the E2D's (35Kft) ceiling, but also has 5-10 times the airtime than those silly cramped planes. They may not take off from ship, but they surely can be tasked to the ship and be controlled from the ship. (for USN: Launch from DiegoGarcia, handover to Carrier (20 hour loiter, twidle dee twidle dum), return to DG).

Networks are becoming real effective, they don't need people in the air anymore. It will be as effective if the AEW crew is in their war room on the carrier. No one is arguing that the ship doesn't need organic AEW, I am just contending that moving forward the E2D with the 3-4 hour airtime and the amount of shenanigans required to design the boat just to accommodate it may not be required or worth the effort (They are yesterdays planes and yesterdays design). They are better alternatives available for us given our geographic design and needs.

[NRao]

The E-2 is more than 50 years old. Operated by the USN and the French navy, both are very happy with it. So much so that the French got a 4th and of course the USN upgraded to the E-2D.

Why fix it if it ain't broke.

V-22 folks have proposed an alternative. Not heard of a UAV based one. Googled but did not find any either.

[NRao]

7) There is a fairly recent move within the US to part with nuclear techs for carriers. I do not have much hope, but then I never dreamt - although I said in 1997 that the two nations would get close - it would be a matter of material too. Come this far, can certainly a little further
BUT, all this means "operability", that is the key. As I have stated, mostly (90-95%) in peace time, rest as a deterrence - to maintain that peace. My feel on this is what I have been saying since 1997: India will be forced by situations into this relationship

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to watch the interview you suggested, but let me address this.

........

If IN does go down the path of Nuclear power plant, it will most likely be on its own.

Watch it first please.

[brar_w]

E2D is probably the last order for the Hawkeye.

In a way yes, since its modular in many ways and has open mission systems allowing for rapid, and frequent upgrades without needing to compete every single upgrade. The upgrade roadmap for the E-2D's is till perhaps 2030 after which they'll be looking at a more major overhaul of the sensor, and avionics in general. You can't put all that on an UAV and then give it the autonomy for processing and then build the secure relay for realtime handoffs. The CBARS of shoots goes to the fleet by the mid to late 2020's, an actual penetrating strike UCAV with higher autonomy comes along lets say with the FA-XX by 2035..

What the CBARS/ofshoot does for the E-2D is enhance its capabilities since they can put passive RF arrays and provide extension to the already very impressive capability of the E-2D's main sensor in all modes. They'll probably look at a platform overhaul sometimes in the mid 2030's for the E-2D..but then again, any growth areas may we'll be covered through distributed SA allowing them to stick with the current platform.

Although USN punted the UCLASS drones for now, which were supposed to do both AEW and Refueling, they will eventually go down this path and that is going to be the path of the future.

The UCLASS offshoot (Its no longer called the UCLASS or CBARS for now) does Refueling and ISR, and not AEW in the E2 / AEW sense.

The Triton/MQ-4C which can stay in air for more than 24-48 hours will end up becoming the real workhorse and it will end up taking both ASuW and AEW roles.

No. It would be wise to look at what the E-2D does for the fleet, and what the Triton is projected to do. The E-2D is the single most critical/important piece of flying hardware in support of the USN's 2030 plan for both offense and defense.

Not only does it add an extra 20K feet over the E2D's (35Kft) ceiling, but also has 5-10 times the airtime than those silly cramped planes.

That doesn't do anything for the mission.

They may not take off from ship, but they surely can be tasked to the ship and be controlled from the ship. (for USN: Launch from DiegoGarcia, handover to Carrier (20 hour loiter, twidle dee twidle dum), return to DG)

They perform a different mission

Networks are becoming real effective, they don't need people in the air anymore.

The USN would disagree, and so would the USAF. They haven't even begun contemplating unmanned AEW, or an unmanned E-2 or AWACS, let along designing one. The next JSTARS, AWACS replacement are all manned and nothing is being piped out for analysis. They are acting as nodes to analyze outside information but those folks are still the best battle managers. The E-2D is an invaluable 'quarterback' for the fleet and the sensor on top is an extremely complicated piece of equipment that isn't EVER going to find its way on top of a Triton which has maritime awareness duties. However, good luck putting a highly complicated UHF airborne radar with its gazzilion processing challenges on top of a Triton with its SwAP considerations and then build robust LOS and NLOS pipelines to constantly support the data exchange with obviously real-time processing and 3/4 relay. And here we think getting EMALS is challenging !

I am just contending that moving forward the E2D with the 3-4 hour airtime and the amount of shenanigans required to design the boat just to accommodate it may not be required or worth the effort (They are yesterdays planes and yesterdays design).

If 'yesterday's planes and yesterday's designs' actually mattered to Navies around the world, the USN and the IN wouldnt have a carrier or a plane to go off of it. Your CAT'less carrier would be flying Mig-29's off it it which aren't exactly forward looking, brand new clean sheet designs. First, go design your E-2D alternative, then we'll see whether the trade off is worth it. At the moment, there isn't an alternative off of a carrier and no unmanned program has what you are suggesting in its sight...Not NOW, not in 2020, and not in 2030 either. Unfortunately from a requirements conception phase to an operational phase is generally a multi-decade process..simply look at the UCAS program, when it started and when the CBARS will be operational, and then project when a full J-UCAS like UCAV will be operational and then think about your drone that hasn't even be conceived at the requirements phase yet.

This entire idea that without cats, adequate aew cannot be done needs to be rethought imho esp. In light of present and future unmanned platforms with high bandwidth data links and aesa powered 360 deg radar coverage.

Can't see why the Hawkeye is being considered as the only option going forward.

I guess a list of alternatives is a good starting point? Lets eliminate those types that are similar to the E-2, and go straight to unmanned platforms. Lets list those in the pipeline or currently existing that can sub for the E-2 with its 350 mile surveillance sensor, Space for a ton of waveforms and enough data to pipe-out that requires not 1 but 2 dedicated SATCOM antennas (with a crew no less).

[NRao]

CY,

Foremost project to *at least* 2030, if not beyond. And, seriously, forget individual assets (F-18/F-35/Rafale/E-2D/etc). Project in terms of 5th Gen, etc. And, finally, make it a India vs, China - no help from anyone *at all* in any way, shape or form.

Then fill in the blanks. Take help, for both sides, from anywhere you please. For this exercise assume cost to be not an issue.

Lets go.

[sudeepj]

The E2 wingspan is 26 meters. The MQ2/Triton wingspan is 40 meters. More importantly, it has a weight of 14 tonnes and a thrust of 4.x tonnes. There is no way this is going to take off from a carrier without a Cat.

When you look at AEW requirements, super efficient (which means low thrust) engines to ensure long time on station, unswept/low swept wings for efficient slow speed flight, there is no way that plane can take off from a carrier without a Catapult.

[brar_w]

I don't think he was suggesting launching Triton's from carriers, but rather somehow substituting E-2's with Triton's (BAMS) operating out of land that could take over a mission they weren't even designed for to begin with.

[sudeepj]

I don't think he was suggesting launching Triton's from carriers, but rather somehow substituting E-2's with Triton's (BAMS) operating out of land that could take over a mission they weren't even designed for to begin with.

If shore based AEW was any use, why would there be any need for E2s? Simply making the platform unmanned doesnt really transform its limitations.

[Cybaru]

BAMS is already taking over the AsuW job. I thought you guys were suggesting that USN will need to launch a whole lot of drones and thats why EMALS. Well CBARS/UCLASS is going to take over the ISR role from E2D and eventually the AEW role as well. It has 7-8 hour loiter time and same or similar payload capacity for sensors and higher ceiling. So that's where the organic AEW is headed.

Again IMO the E2D is the best the USN can field off the carriers, its certainly better than the heli based approach, but it has too many drawbacks, range and ceiling being the top two. I am not disputing that for the carrier this is isn't the single most important asset. IN has Ka-31 and that is required, but seriously the E2D is better than Heli based but really terrible when you see dedicated landbased platforms that do it all. We can't fit AEW into P8I for lack of space. And here E2D does ISR, AEW, AsuW and more in that limited three man crew tub?? How good can all of it be?

Also I wasn't suggesting that the raw feed be autonomously processed and then handed off. I was suggesting the whole feed as is be handed off (encrypted and deduped) for any post processing on the ship. This saves half the space/payload required on these platforms. Do everything off the collecting platform. The platform remains just the collector. Which is what we are headed towards.

[Cybaru]

I don't think he was suggesting launching Triton's from carriers, but rather somehow substituting E-2's with Triton's (BAMS) operating out of land that could take over a mission they weren't even designed for to begin with.

If shore based AEW was any use, why would there be any need for E2s? Simply making the platform unmanned doesnt really transform its limitations.

IMO, E2s are there to help clear fog of war the best the CBG can during crisis when no other loanable assets are available. Clear out the unknown tracks on surface, Identify any incoming threats during crisis and be self sufficient. Agreed that is better than the heli base assets, but by only that much. It certainly does not mitigate the need for better platforms in the future.

[brar_w]

BAMS is already taking over the AsuW job. I thought you guys were suggesting that USN will need to launch a whole lot of drones and thats why EMALS. Well CBARS/UCLASS is going to take over the ISR role from E2D. It has 7-8 hour loiter time and same or similar payload capacity for sensors and higher ceiling. So that's where the organic AEW is headed.

Again, Please look at what the E-2D does for the fleet and the carrier air wing. Its not the main BAMS ISR asset. Was never intended to be one. To simplify matters for you, assume the E-2D is the E-3 AWACS, and the Triton is a Predator or Global Hawk Drone. Do their missions overlap? Possibly! Can the latter substitute or even remotely replace the formers mission. Nope.

The main job of the E-2D is to protect the fleet in the defensive orbit by providing long range (350 miles) surveillance, relying on its high power, complex UHF ESA, and to carry the nodes necessary to enable EOR modes of the various interceptors carried by the fleet. In the offensive role, or in the counter-air defensive role, it enhances the LOS Situational Awareness by providing long range surveillance against incoming fighters and bombers, and acts as a battle manager for the various fighters in the air-wing. In a mixed offensive/defensive mode, it acts as a NIFC-CA node, connecting the entire carrier air-wing, AEGIS and the battlespace with one another. Outside of its fleet duties, it can and is expected to go into the littorals and over land if need be in support of air to air and air to ground offensive/defensive missions.

The Triton is a BAMS who's main task is persistent long range, maritime Situational awareness.

Well CBARS/UCLASS is going to take over the ISR role from E2D

Maritime surveillance, and it will help extend the Passive EW capability of the E-2D which was always the plan (Btw The F-35, and Growlers do that too using NIFC-CA.). It doesn't even remotely begin to scratch the surface of the missions the E-2D is critical for, and isn't planned to either.

Again IMO the E2D is the best the USN can field off the carriers, its certainly better than the heli based approach, but it has too many drawbacks, range and ceiling being the top two.

Drawbacks compared to what exactly?

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 435756924/

As far as ceiling is concerned, keep in mind that the fleet is equipped some very very capable Horizon surveillance and acquisition radars including the new GaN AESA AEGIS replacement (S and X band) - AMDR. The problem for these radars is below the horizon approaches for aircraft, UAV's, and cruise missiles not something that is flying at 40,000 feet where the radar horizon itself extends to well beyond 700km.