INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 31 May 2016 14:07

So would we then have a rethink on the follow-on carriers to the IAC1 ? A slightly larger carrier that can carry more aircraft to keep that line running and then the 1+1 scorpene lines plus the 75I line whenever that happens (hopefully an Arihant class derivative SSN to save time and effort).

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 May 2016 16:49

That I think would be the idea unless they are really sold on the super carrier...Also, even if carrier is out, super hornet might still be looked at as iafs extra line and navy's new gen carrier bird

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 31 May 2016 19:45

Admiral Arun Prakash is on the record stating that a small carrier costs 2/3rd as much as a large carrier providing at best 1/2 or 1/3rd the capability. How a vikad or vikrant without organic fixed wing AEW is 'as good as a larger carrier operating E2s' is beyond me. As for airborne refueling, guess what, an F18 launched at MTOW is not in as desperate a need of a topup as a mig29 launched with a ski jump. Without a Cat, a carrier is simply a glorified Air Defense Ship.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 31 May 2016 23:26

Even if take the 2/3rd cost ballpark to be true, we cannot ignore time value of the cost. 65k ton carrier is not going to be inducted before 2040 going by our (abysmal) track records. If we order a Vikrant now, we can get it into service by 2025. 2 carriers in hand is worth 1 in the bush!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Jun 2016 03:09

For all the virtues of a super carrier, it
1. Cannot Be in two places at once like a vik class
2. Cannot really make any offensive ingress in ecs.
3. Cannot offer any meaningful advantage over the vik class when dealing with small fry enemies.Rather overkill.
4. Cannot be remotely cheaper than a vik class upfront.. neither in terms of ship cost not air wing.

India hardly has the worldwide footprint that the U.S. does. Nor is it likely to do so anytime soon. It is in a curious position...in case of one threat, one super carrier will make no difference, and in case of all others, a small er CV more than does the trick.

More importantly, it has a host of other issues that need urgent attention.

This is not to say that cooperation between india and the states shouldn't, can't increase. There are many areas of mutual interest other than emals and carriers.cnn

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 01 Jun 2016 03:59

sudeepj wrote:Admiral Arun Prakash is on the record stating that a small carrier costs 2/3rd as much as a large carrier providing at best 1/2 or 1/3rd the capability. How a vikad or vikrant without organic fixed wing AEW is 'as good as a larger carrier operating E2s' is beyond me. As for airborne refueling, guess what, an F18 launched at MTOW is not in as desperate a need of a topup as a mig29 launched with a ski jump. Without a Cat, a carrier is simply a glorified Air Defense Ship.

Not sure about that. But a 70K tonne super carrier will emal cat is not a mere 30% but 300% costlier than the Vikrant class. It will not come less than 10 billion per ship even without the aircrafts. Also it cannot be in 2 places so I hope IN goes for 3 45-50K tonne AC's before making a leap to 65-70K tonne ones with CAT.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jun 2016 04:34

Bheeshma wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Admiral Arun Prakash is on the record stating that a small carrier costs 2/3rd as much as a large carrier providing at best 1/2 or 1/3rd the capability. How a vikad or vikrant without organic fixed wing AEW is 'as good as a larger carrier operating E2s' is beyond me. As for airborne refueling, guess what, an F18 launched at MTOW is not in as desperate a need of a topup as a mig29 launched with a ski jump. Without a Cat, a carrier is simply a glorified Air Defense Ship.

Not sure about that. But a 70K tonne super carrier will emal cat is not a mere 30% but 300% costlier than the Vikrant class. It will not come less than 10 billion per ship even without the aircrafts. Also it cannot be in 2 places so I hope IN goes for 3 45-50K tonne AC's before making a leap to 65-70K tonne ones with CAT.

{No one said that.}

What Ashley + Arun Prakash stated was rather simple:

1) Operational costs (of multiple small carriers vs. a single large carrier) are about the same (man power, planes, etc) (ref #4 below)
2) The cost of a small carrier was about 66% of the larger one
3) The smaller carrier carried about 33% of the punch of a larger carrier, and
4) It was how much load one puts in the air that matters. That is number of plane times what each is able to carry to the max. A larger CAT based wins on this count be far (the smaller can place a large number of plane, but each plane can carry much smaller loads, so the product is not equal to that of the larger carrier)

It is a combination of ALL that that makes up the equation.

So, the Chinese have plans to assign a carrier to the IoR, for sure. They speculate it will be a CAT based *super* carrier. So, India will need at least two Vikrants - at the very least - to counter a single Chinese carrier. All else being equal.

India had already envisioned a CAT based 65,000 ton Vishal (still a "Vikrant Class"). So, the funds should be there for a steam CATed 65,000 ton boat. From what I gather from the article is that a nuke + EMALS is too expensive. ???????

The US group, in the Indian requested Carrier Working Group, had stated that everything depends (EMALS or not, etc) on which *planes* IN foresees using on the Vishal. Seems to me that the IN let the US team know which planes they would like on the Vishal and only after that did the US team propose options and offer other services.

I have no idea what the cost differential is between a conventional 65,000 carrier and a nuclear one with EMALS, but if that difference buys all those subs and other boats, absolutely go with the subs, etc. No two ways about that. But, if the cost of a 65,000 boat is the difference by itself, then someone computed something wrong about 5-7 years ago. The funds should be there for a steam CAT based 65,000 carrier.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Jun 2016 04:51

So EMALS must cost a whole lot for the price tag to hit 70,000 crores.

If it only added 200-300 million over and above what it would cost for a stobar boat perhaps it makes sense, but at this rate, the value add of getting an extra two carriers is way beyond what emals can offer on one boat.

More SSN's in our future!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Jun 2016 06:48

NRao wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Admiral Arun Prakash is on the record stating that a small carrier costs 2/3rd as much as a large carrier providing at best 1/2 or 1/3rd the capability. How a vikad or vikrant without organic fixed wing AEW is 'as good as a larger carrier operating E2s' is beyond me. As for airborne refueling, guess what, an F18 launched at MTOW is not in as desperate a need of a topup as a mig29 launched with a ski jump. Without a Cat, a carrier is simply a glorified Air Defense Ship.

{No one said that.}

What Ashley + Arun Prakash stated was rather simple:

1) Operational costs (of multiple small carriers vs. a single large carrier (are they referring to CV or CVN - the latter is more expensive, are they considering EMALS as well? All this makes a huge difference) are about the same (man power, planes, etc) (ref #4 below) An old estimate on FAS points out the entire cost for a Nimitz class @ $ 22 billion LTC - much higher than a conventional carrier @ $ 14 billion. The data is from 1997 and the Nimitz acquisition cost is assumed at a measly $ 4 billion. A CV was assumed at half the cost @ $ 2 billion. The operations costs out of this LTC number was about 60% for the CVN (15 bill) and similar for the CV @ about $ 11 billion. IOWs, the operations cost was about 3.5 X more for the CVN and about 5 times more for the CV compared to the acquisition cost! AFAIK, the article does not include aircraft acquisition costs at all.

Considering inflation, this number would be a lot higher for the Ford Class, where acquisition is supposedly ~ $ 13 billion - today's prices. I would assume no less for acquiring an EMALS equipped Vishaal with appropriate levels of TOT. Then you have all sorts of operating costs including the once in a lifetime cost of refuelling the beast and disposing it off! HOw much would operations cost? If we go by above 3.5 X figure - we are looking @ $50 billion for a CVN - LTC! By the same logic, for a CV, I would assume the cost to be around $ 35 - 40 billion totally - cost of acquisition, operations/personnel, training, fuel, support etc..
A second Vikrant will cost about $ 2.5 billion. If operating costs are 5 X acquisition as above, then we get ~ $ 12.5 billion over lifetime. This is similar to the 65% of larger CV figure given by the CNS and Tellis. TOTAL COST LTC ~ $ 15 billion, add airwing with weapons etc., you might get $ 17-20 billion! = less than HALF of supersized CV and less than third of super sized CVN - without theilr massive airwing at that!
Based on this admittedly rudimentary analysis, we are looking at three Vikrants for one super carrier...
source, fwiw: http://fas.org/man/gao/nsiad98001/c3.htm

2) The cost of a small carrier was about 66% of the larger one see above
3) The smaller carrier carried about 33% of the punch of a larger carrier, and
true, but you could easily get 2 Vikrants for the cost of one Nimitz type VIshaal - greater operational flexibility and airwing too.
4) It was how much load one puts in the air that matters. That is number of plane times what each is able to carry to the max. A larger CAT based wins on this count be far (the smaller can place a large number of plane, but each plane can carry much smaller loads, so the product is not equal to that of the larger carrier)
big question here is what is the mission of the carrier? Load matters more if you plan to use it for strike ops where you have already imposed a NFZ - I simply don't see this happening with a single carrier group in an offensive mode in the ECS/SCS - very difficult proposition with the magnitude of assets the Chinese can bring into play - you have everything from DF21s, to Bombers, to Flankers to SSKs, SSNs, CBGs to counter the attacking CBG - it is a losing, unsustainable proposition, and probably why the US is seeking Indian participation - they simply cant do it themselves, not even with their huge support base and allied help. OTOH, if the carrier is mainly there to provide bubble for DDGs/Cruisers with long ranged weapons ~ 1500-2000km, can 't see why there will be such a disadvantage with A2A loadouts. A Rafale/Mig-29K is no Sea Harrier. It will take off a ski jump with full internal fuel and 8-10 AAMs + centerline without issues. And yes, it will also provide some decent strike capabilities too although not to the level of a CAT equipped CV/N

JMTP....

It is a combination of ALL that that makes up the equation.

So, the Chinese have plans to assign a carrier to the IoR, for sure. They speculate it will be a CAT based *super* carrier. So, India will need at least two Vikrants - at the very least - to counter a single Chinese carrier. All else being equal.

YOu are assuming that this is the only way to counter a carrier threat. With the NAVIC setup a Shourya type might be just as effective. Then there are subs, mpaas, MKIs with long ranged missiles, and if needed even supersonic bombers with fast missiles. In the context of the IOR, there are many ways to tackle the Chinese CBG, especially if assets such as A&N and other island chains are cultivated.

India had already envisioned a CAT based 65,000 ton Vishal (still a "Vikrant Class"). So, the funds should be there for a steam CATed 65,000 ton boat. From what I gather from the article is that a nuke + EMALS is too expensive. ???????

The US group, in the Indian requested Carrier Working Group, had stated that everything depends (EMALS or not, etc) on which *planes* IN foresees using on the Vishal. Seems to me that the IN let the US team know which planes they would like on the Vishal and only after that did the US team propose options and offer other services.

I have no idea what the cost differential is between a conventional 65,000 carrier and a nuclear one with EMALS, but if that difference buys all those subs and other boats, absolutely go with the subs, etc. No two ways about that. But, if the cost of a 65,000 boat is the difference by itself, then someone computed something wrong about 5-7 years ago. The funds should be there for a steam CAT based 65,000 carrier.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jun 2016 16:00

CM would help if you used quote for each point.

* The Vikrant is expected to cost around $2.9 billion
* The Vishal was expected to cost $5 billion. I assume with conventional propulsion and steam CAT
* The article claims the nuclear powered + EMALS Vishal is around $10.5 billion
* EMALS, for USN, by itself, is around $0.75 billion

All that via google

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Jun 2016 00:07

ShauryaT wrote:>>By conservative estimates, the cost of construction of the carrier itself, without the aircraft, would exceed Rs 70,000 crore.

My estimate was $10 billion!! and I was wrong. I was including the aircraft cost in my estimate. All those who thought this was not as expensive, please take note!!

That is a very very steep figure. Its also complete BS, or more likely does include the cost of the aviation complement.

The Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth class carriers are budgeted at roughly $10 bn for two ships, each over 70K tons.

However, $2.5 bn of that was the result of a contract modification around 2010 when the UK MoD was facing a £37bn "black hole" in its budget and needed stretch out the production schedule of the ships (which had been contracted on a fixed-price-fixed schedule basis). Another $150-200 mil was due to two U-turns on the configuration (STOVL -> CATOBAR -> STOVL). And of course UK base costs are significantly higher than India's.

Remove that from the equation and the procurement cost of the QE class comes out to be about $3.75 bn each.

Cost of the EMALS: ~$600 mil for a set of four catapults (for the Ford Class). For a set of two catapults plus integration costs... maybe around $500 mil. Cost of the nuclear reactor is harder to pin down. Based on my reading, it'll be somewhere in the range of $300-400 mil (extrapolating from the cost of the Virginia's reactor ~ $170 mil). The cost of an indigenous product might be lower.

All in all, we're looking at a figure of about $5 billion for the IAC-2. Plus inflation.

Alternatively, we could stick to conventional propulsion (4 x LM2500+ ~ 135 MW). With 20-25 MW consumed by the EMALS at peak load, the balance would still quite sufficient for ship operation (QE class; 112 MW CODAG).

________________________________________________________________________

The key issue here is the time-frame; 2027 is a very optimistic schedule for what will be a pioneering project fraught with technical risks (as the CdG development is evidence to).

Ideally, we ought to be looking at a practical induction date post-2030, and for it to enter as a Vikramaditya replacement. In meantime, the IN's chief objective within the IOR is still sea control and in wartime it will inevitably be tasked with blocking the SLOCs running to Gwadar, Karachi and/or through the Malacca Straits. That's not a job an SSN is capable of performing.

Which if we're being cautious leads to the obvious decision - ordering a sister ship to the Vikrant. In the meantime, we'll have to make do with an rotorcraft based AEW solution and a combination of N-Tejas and probably F-35Bs (since the N-FGFA & AMCA are highly unlikely to materialize before 2030).

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Jun 2016 05:19

NRao wrote:CM would help if you used quote for each point

* The Vikrant is expected to cost around $2.9 billion
* The Vishal was expected to cost $5 billion. I assume with conventional propulsion and steam CAT
* The article claims the nuclear powered + EMALS Vishal is around $10.5 billion
* EMALS, for USN, by itself, is around $0.75 billion

All that via google

You could be right, and I hope you are. My guess is that a 65 ton stobar CV will be more than 5 billion, but assuming that number, and assuming 5 X operational cost will bump up life time cost to about $25 billion without air wing. if 60 aircraft are added, add in $15 billion.

Price with Cats will bump it up even more considering India also wants the know-how to go with the hardware....very expensive, nobody parts with tech cheaply, and investment costs will also be additional. CVN with EMALS will be even more.

Compare this with 35k ton vikrant @ 3billion, and cost of ops is 15b, although it should be much cheaper considering smaller size, for total of 18 billion. Add airwing of 30 for $ 7.5 billion.

Conservatively, 25 billion vs. 40 billion when you look at base model 65k ton stobar CV. With cats, that will change drastically considering power requirements...the UK deployed the Stovl config because catobar doubled the cost.

My reading is that a 65k ton stobar might be in realm of possibility, catobar is very difficult, and emals based cvn is fantasy.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 02 Jun 2016 09:02

From multiple sources cost of our IAC 1 is < $3 bn. If we have to double it to make a 70k ton carrier, do we have the funds or political will to finance a run of 3/4 carriers at that cost. Compared to an equal number of carriers at half the cost but IAC1 size.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Jun 2016 09:06

^ that sir, is the question...Not just political will but also the wisdom of it

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jun 2016 09:23

CM,

How come you did not mention that you were a stand up?

IOR is a big pond with only one big player and no one cares for it too. So, why even have carriers?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 02 Jun 2016 09:42

The best option now is to place an order for a follow on carrier similar to the Vikrant. And then get the time it takes to build capability to start the construction of next generation nuclear carriers. Also this time will help to build the capability with the construction of P17As, and more subs. India may need around 5+ aircraft carriers by 2040 and 3+ of them can be nuclear powered ones.

or if going for nuclear ones, go for bigger better ships with orders of 3 spread across the next 20 years from planning to commissioning.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jun 2016 10:18

Again. Why does India need any carrier?

Not Pakistan. Not Sri Lanka. Not Bangladesh. Not Myanmar. Somalia, Yemen no.

????? Why even one?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jun 2016 14:32

'71 saw us bottle up Pak on both the eastern and western seaboards with a vintage Vikrant and a handful of little Osas.With the PRC expanding its footprint all over the IOR (post in the IN td),we will need ideally 3 carriers to safeguard our IOR and territorial interests,assuming that one carrier is in the docks for repairs/refit. During Kargil the Viraat was unavailable.With our security arrangements/agreements with several nations in the IOR,our responsibility has increased.We need both power projection primarily within the IOR along with the sea denial capability to stop extraneous intrusions esp from the PLAN. Another sister ship to the IAC-1 (Vikrant) with suitable modifications,but based upon the same design,would be both affordable and essential,as Gwadar under PLAN control would have to be dealt with multi-dimensionally.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 02 Jun 2016 18:00

NRao wrote:Again. Why does India need any carrier?

Not Pakistan. Not Sri Lanka. Not Bangladesh. Not Myanmar. Somalia, Yemen no.

????? Why even one?

NRao ji, agree that this idea of scaling down requirements does not justify the very reason we are building a capable fleet. While I am no expert, and despite China having 65K ton AC, I believe we have the edge in terms of carrier force. Our scaling of ships is directed towards emerging as the dominant player in the IOR if not beyond.

PLAAN has an insurmountable dominance in submarines and we need to build more just to sustain a capable underwater force. In the AC domain, the Vishal concept is both expensive and time taking but the IOR of 2030 would have us wish that we had planned for a Vishal in 2016.

IMO, the need in terms of (sustainable) security to the point where our armament is enough to deter misadventures or attacks by the enemy at the enemy's time and place of choosing, we need both the Vishal and Vikrant II.

Are these expensive? Yes. Can we maintain such a fleet? Not today but in 2030 - sure.

A lot of weapons we have today were procured and ordered/ built / planned in times of dispensations which had India on high priority. If the plans and those procurement then had not been in place, a dispensation like we saw from 2004 -2014 would have done nothing in those departments. Since, next election results are not a guaranteed outcome, the decisions in these 05 years have an impact for Indian interests over the long term.

Downgrade of Vishal will be a regressive step in terms of future Indian strategic area of dominance and defence. Will Vikrant II create new capabilities or will it provide the more of same?

In terms of costs a combined order of Vishal and Vikrant II will probably be around US$ 10 Billion (+/- 15%) spread over 14-15 years from the date of decision plus inflation. This will also cover the air component. My figures are based on Viv's estimates above.

I am in the "both" camp for the ACs. I also know I am in the minority here.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 02 Jun 2016 20:33

65000 tonnes / 50000 tonnes / 45000 tonnes are all options that should be on the table. What should not be negotiable is a Catapult equipped carrier. Without a Catapult, the 'bubble' of area that a carrier can dominate is reduced from 400-500 kms to merely 150-200 kms. In area terms, a cat-less carrier can dominate an area that is 4-6 times less than the area controlled by a cat-equipped carrier. It is the Catapult that is the key.

Further, a 65K tonne ship is not going to cost twice a 30K tonne ship. The increase in the cost of the ship is going to be at most 30% (going by Admiral Arun Prakash and Ashley Tellis's discussion). It is the increase in the size of the air wing that will add significant expense, and that can be delayed if needed. But once the ship is built, its going to last for 50 years (which is how long the Virat lasted) and therefore must be able to accommodate a larger air wing if needed in the future.

A Cat also makes it possible to launch heavier aircraft in the future, if need be. If we wanted to replace the Mig29 on the Vikad with a larger airframe, it would be very difficult to do. Alternatively, we would have to design the replacement to be within the footprint of the Mig29. With a Cat, we will have greater room and flexibility.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Jun 2016 22:17

NRao wrote:CM,

How come you did not mention that you were a stand up?

IOR is a big pond with only one big player and no one cares for it too. So, why even have carriers?

So anything less than a 65k ton carrier is useless...brilliant. I might be a stand up, but your logic is, 'if it's not US made super carrier, it is like no carrier at all - super carrier or bust"...upstanding, I suppose.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Jun 2016 22:19

sudeepj wrote:Without a Catapult, the 'bubble' of area that a carrier can dominate is reduced from 400-500 kms to merely 150-200 kms. In area terms, a cat-less carrier can dominate an area that is 4-6 times less than the area controlled by a cat-equipped carrier. It is the Catapult that is the key.

Sudeep, can you explain what you mean by dominance and how you got those figures? Thx

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 02 Jun 2016 22:48

He just pulled it out of his ass. 500 Km bubble

The only way to ensure that is with big SM-3/6 combos and not air crafts alone. Anyway the biggest threat to CV's is underwater subs not air crafts unless you venture too close to the enemy. Unless India makes the catapults, the CVN is a bad idea and waste of money.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 02 Jun 2016 23:07

Cain Marko wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Without a Catapult, the 'bubble' of area that a carrier can dominate is reduced from 400-500 kms to merely 150-200 kms. In area terms, a cat-less carrier can dominate an area that is 4-6 times less than the area controlled by a cat-equipped carrier. It is the Catapult that is the key.
Sudeep, can you explain what you mean by dominance and how you got those figures? Thx

Dominance can simply be understood as asserting sea control. An enemy can not operate in such an area without being detected and coming into direct conflict with (presumably) your own superior forces.

Whether you can assert Control is directly related to
(1) Whether you have adequate scout/surveillance resources.
(2) If you detect an enemy, can you launch a weapon at it while the enemy is still out of range/can not launch its weapons.

Without a Cat, a carrier is restricted to helicopter borne AEW, with a surveillance bubble of 150-200 kms. With a Cat, your carrier can launch fixed wing AEW with a surveillance bubble of 400+ kms.

Without a Cat, once a carrier detects an incoming threat, it can not launch planes with an adequate fuel/weapons load to engage the threat in an optimal manner. With a Cat, you can launch planes at MTOW, increasing the punch and the range of your strike packages.

Without a Cat, because your carrier can not launch a plane at max take off weight, you have to position the carrier closer to the enemy, thereby exposing it to threats for which there are no easy solutions.

Therefore a Cat less carrier can only be realistically employed in a defensive role to protect ones own fleet of missile firing frigates/corvettes etc. from an air attack. In other words, a Cat less carrier is simply an Air Defense Ship, or a glorified Kolkata.

Bheeshma wrote:He just pulled it out of his ass. 500 Km bubble

Perhaps your rear end is large enough to pull out a 500km bubble, I couldnt do anything like that if I tried!!

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 02 Jun 2016 23:32

No, but the BS and hot air you spew sure is voluminous.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 02 Jun 2016 23:38

Bheeshma wrote:No, but the BS and hot air you spew sure is voluminous.

Sir, pull out your anterior from your posterior to get some fresh air.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jun 2016 23:44

PLAAN

IMHO, "China", although a huge part of the narrative, is a much smaller component.

1) The driver in determining the next "carrier" will be Indian economic interests. IN said so in its recent yearly document (Ref IN thread) and so do some recent other publications: Diplomatic Dimension of Maritime Challenges for India in the 21st Century

2) In this model India will also have to take on the responsibility to "protect" nations that she deals with economically - at the very least provide some cover (as China is doing for her group of nations) (although not along the same lines as China), build confidence. Part of this *will be* preventing China grabbing the "SCS". Note that 30% of India's trade passing through the "SCS", not small change. ASEAN nations have already complained (in MMS era) about Indian reluctance to play her part - I do not think they will have similar complains with Modi.

Looking at the IN - in specific - via the China or Pakistan lens is a big mistake.

A word on "Vikrant-II".

A) Granted they can be at more places at the same time
i) They will have a very short range (especially for modern warfare)
ii) Their "punch" will be restricted: smaller air wing, smaller load out, coupled with smaller range
B ) Ski jumps will be out dated in 20 years
C) Due to the ski jumps, India will be forced to use outdated air wings for the entire span of their lives - 50 years. Not worth it
i) F-35Bs are an option, but that could mean "Marines" - which has been mooted
D) I would seriously suggest that India move ahead with a 65,000, CAT based boat. And, consider selling the Vikrant to a friendly nation in about 15-20 years. With the help of the US the Vishal should come in around 2030ish and India can then embark upon (perhaps 2025ish) starting a second Vishal. Vikrant (and Vicky) would have served their purpose by then and India can move on to better things

More of this type and you are condemning (sorry for that word) the air wing perpetually to antiquity. IMHO of course. Yes, I agree they can all be at different places at different time. But they will outdated in about 20 years. Cannot imagine IN with multiple ski jump boats to deal with contingencies - China will ensure that IN will be outdated in the IOR (by equipping her allies in the IOR, of which she has many).

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 03 Jun 2016 00:11

sudeepj wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:No, but the BS and hot air you spew sure is voluminous.
Sir, pull out your anterior from your posterior to get some fresh air.

Please follow your advise and stop licking american rear.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 03 Jun 2016 00:17

How are ski jumps going obsolete in 20 years ?? Will RN suddenly scrap both their carriers and build new ones? Are both RuN and PLAAN going to build CAT's when they have no experience at all? Even if they do it will be steam based not EMAL. Who else operates CV's? France will remain stuck with 1 and brazilian navy is struggling to keep foch going.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 Jun 2016 00:22

Bheeshma wrote:How are ski jumps going obsolete in 20 years ?? Will RN suddenly scrap both their carriers and build new ones? Are both RuN and PLAAN going to build CAT's when they have no experience at all? Even if they do it will be steam based not EMAL. Who else operates CV's? France will remain stuck with 1 and brazilian navy is struggling to keep foch going.

RN is stuck with a chopper based AEW.. 'crowsnest'

which will place them at a disadvantage when facing any opponent more competent than Libya. Clearly, the twin RN carriers are highly compromised solutions without their Cats.

The IN is going to take on the new PLAAN centered around large carriers, not some shitty rust bucket force. Lastly, what do you think the GDP of the GB going to be in 2030? How about India?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Jun 2016 00:26

Except China most of those are either resource constraint or declining powers trying to align their future capability with their reduced stature and economic might (UK is the perfect example of this). Whether you like it or not, going forward (next 20-30 years) major carrier operators around the world will be the US, China, France and India. Out of these, China is in a unique place in that it has ZERO access to high end technology from the west, but is continuing to invest heavily in its carrier program (second carrier in production) and will no doubt eventually move to much larger carriers that include catapults. Even though the goal from ski to EMALS is rather unrealistic, they still apparently maintain a program even though a short (1-2 career) Steam CAT system would probably be more realistic. France currently operates a Nuclear carrier with a steam cat but their future is rather uncertain in terms of what amount of resources they'll invest in a new class (no money atm). This leaves essentially the US, China and India with the latter two destined for massive economic growth over the next 3 decades and both having pressing national security challenges to overcome.

Despite of that, Ski Jumps or Steam Cat's are obviously not obsolete or going anywhere so that point is rather moot.

RN is stuck with a chopper based AEW.. 'crowsnest' which will place them at a disadvantage when facing any opponent more competent than Libya. Clearly, the twin RN carriers are highly compromised solutions without their Cats.

Its plenty for them because they would always operate under either a joint ops with the USN, or under NATO. Its really tough to envision a confrontation for them that is unilateral where the QE class will be insufficient. A higher capability would naturally have been better but their economic condition and defense spending projections meant that it was probably one really capable CAT equipped carrier or two conventional ski jump carriers and the F-35B, which will naturally allow them to tap into the USMC that brings economies of scale.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 03 Jun 2016 01:26

sudeepj wrote:

RN is stuck with a chopper based AEW.. 'crowsnest' which will place them at a disadvantage when facing any opponent more competent than Libya. Clearly, the twin RN carriers are highly compromised solutions without their Cats.

The IN is going to take on the new PLAAN centered around large carriers, not some shitty rust bucket force. Lastly, what do you think the GDP of the GB going to be in 2030? How about India?

How big will chinese AC be? They cannot even manage the 65K tonne ship they managed to piece together. China has no E-2D equivalent and will not have EMAL access. I am not against CAT. but they must be Indian made. Why waste money on EMAL if we can make steam based CAT? On the AEW, other than E-2D whats the option for India?

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 03 Jun 2016 01:26

sudeepj wrote:

RN is stuck with a chopper based AEW.. 'crowsnest' which will place them at a disadvantage when facing any opponent more competent than Libya. Clearly, the twin RN carriers are highly compromised solutions without their Cats.

The IN is going to take on the new PLAAN centered around large carriers, not some shitty rust bucket force. Lastly, what do you think the GDP of the GB going to be in 2030? How about India?

How big will chinese AC be? They cannot even manage the 65K tonne ship they managed to piece together. China has no E-2D equivalent and will not have EMAL access. I am not against CAT. but they must be Indian made. Why waste money on EMAL if we can make steam based CAT? On the AEW, other than E-2D whats the option for India?

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 03 Jun 2016 01:43

Bheeshma wrote: How big will chinese AC be? They cannot even manage the 65K tonne ship they managed to piece together. China has no E-2D equivalent and will not have EMAL access. I am not against CAT. but they must be Indian made. Why waste money on EMAL if we can make steam based CAT? On the AEW, other than E-2D whats the option for India?

Steam CATS have so many unresolved issues that EMALS will pay for it self multiple times by the end of the life of the aircraft carrier.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 03 Jun 2016 01:49

Bheeshma wrote:
sudeepj wrote:

RN is stuck with a chopper based AEW.. 'crowsnest' which will place them at a disadvantage when facing any opponent more competent than Libya. Clearly, the twin RN carriers are highly compromised solutions without their Cats.

The IN is going to take on the new PLAAN centered around large carriers, not some shitty rust bucket force. Lastly, what do you think the GDP of the GB going to be in 2030? How about India?
How big will chinese AC be? They cannot even manage the 65K tonne ship they managed to piece together. China has no E-2D equivalent and will not have EMAL access. I am not against CAT. but they must be Indian made. Why waste money on EMAL if we can make steam based CAT? On the AEW, other than E-2D whats the option for India?

Russia as a part of releasing the new design for a 100000 ton Aircraft carrier released a model for the probable design of a ship based awacs similar to E2C.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Jun 2016 02:28

This should actually be in the Indian Naval thread, but it does provide a good picture of what the IN is thinking in terms of Made in India WRT "carrier"s.

Indian Naval Indigenisation Plan(INIP) (2015-2030)

99 pages long.

IN *needs* a lot of help.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Jun 2016 02:43

Re/cross posting (I have posted a few figures from this doc in the Indian Naval thread:

Jan 2016 :: Ensuring Secure Seas:
Indian Maritime Security Strategy

(Please search for "China" in that document written/produced by the Indian Navy!! Or for that matter "Pakistan")

Power Projection and Sea Control
India’s growing maritime interests, across wide geographical spaces, underscores the
central importance of adequate power projection in and from the seas, and for sea
control capability in ‘blue waters’, to safeguard interests and counter threats before
they can bear upon India. The primary means for this will be potent, balanced naval
fleets supported by strong, integral and shore-based, maritime air power. The Indian
Navy presently has two fleets, each with multi-dimensional power projection and force
protection capabilities. Development of the future naval fleets will be focused on the
following force capabilities:-
•
Carrier Battle Groups
. Development of three CBGs, each centered on an aircraft
carrier with multi-mission escort and support ships, with integral anti-air, anti-
surface and anti-submarine warfare capabilities.
•
Carrier Task Force
. Develop an operational capability of two CTFs, each comprising
one or more CBGs and other specialist forces, to meet the growing requirements of
protecting India’s maritime interests.
•
Surface Action Groups
. Induction of requisite multi-mission ships, which can
function with the CBG for its protection or be detached as SAGs from the CTF, for
maritime strike operations.
•
Anti-Submarine Warfare
. Stronger ASW capability in both, coastal and oceanic
waters by all-round development of capabilities. This would include shore-based
ASW aircraft and helicopters, ASW ships with integral ASW helicopters, submarines,
and advanced sub-surface surveillance systems.
•
Naval Air Power
. Enhancing and progressively indigenising naval aviation
capability, covering integral and shore-based aviation assets, including UAVs, for
surveillance and strike missions in all dimensions.
•
Submarine Capability
. A mixed force of conventional and nuclear powered
submarines, for operations in both near and far areas, with thrust on developing
indigenous capability.
•
Sea Lift and Amphibious Capability
. Enhancing sealift capability, which would
be essential for Amphibious Operations, HADR and NEO. The induction of
Landing Platform Docks (LPDs), with associated combat and support forces, and
development of a Marine force will be progressed in coordination with the Indian
Army and Air Force.
•
Long Range and Precision Strike Weapons
. Longer range and precision strike
weapons, for use by surface, air and underwater platforms for conduct of maritime
strikes into and from the seas, so as to effectively engage targets at sea and on land.

The major thrust areas under this strategy are as follows:-
• Indigenisation for Self-Reliance and Self-Sufficiency.
• Standardisation and Modularity.
• Maritime Domain Awareness.
• Network Centric Operations.
• Enhanced Reach and Sustainability.
• Power Projection and Sea Control.
• Force Protection.
• Joint Operations.
• Special Forces Operations.
• Force Maintenance.
• Infrastructure and Logistics.
• New and Evolving Technologies

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 03 Jun 2016 02:44

NRao wrote: B ) Ski jumps will be out dated in 20 years
C) Due to the ski jumps, India will be forced to use outdated air wings for the entire span of their lives - 50 years. Not worth it

Just curious... I am trying to wrap my mind around these two statements.

What extra stuff does an aircraft need when taking off from a ski-jump, when compared to a cat? Reason I ask is, let's say the IN does build a Vikrant follow-on (I think they should, while they figure out building a CATOBAR with N-propulsion, hopefully all sourced within the country), and they initially operate the MiG-29K and N-LCA Mk-2. And 20 years later, we have an n-powered A/C with CATOBAR and flying say, N-AMCA. Soon after, the airwing of Vikrant-II calls it a day, but the ship has another 20 years left, so what next? Can that N-AMCA built for the CATOBAR carrier not take off from a STOBAR ship? Not necessarily the same aircraft, but can the type be customised for both carrier types without too many deep changes? (I assume landing is not a problem since both types use arrested recovery, so presumably the same landing gear and hook will work). I hope folks get my drift...

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Jun 2016 02:47

NRao wrote:A word on "Vikrant-II".

A) Granted they can be at more places at the same time
i) They will have a very short range (especially for modern warfare)
ii) Their "punch" will be restricted: smaller air wing, smaller load out, coupled with smaller range
B ) Ski jumps will be out dated in 20 years
C) Due to the ski jumps, India will be forced to use outdated air wings for the entire span of their lives - 50 years. Not worth it
i) F-35Bs are an option, but that could mean "Marines" - which has been mooted
D) I would seriously suggest that India move ahead with a 65,000, CAT based boat. And, consider selling the Vikrant to a friendly nation in about 15-20 years. With the help of the US the Vishal should come in around 2030ish and India can then embark upon (perhaps 2025ish) starting a second Vishal. Vikrant (and Vicky) would have served their purpose by then and India can move on to better things.

In principle, I agree with you. A carrier is crucial to the Indian Navy's sea control objectives and catapults in turn are essential to maximize its strike/surveillance radius. And if we can spend a ridiculous $9bn to buy a measly two squadrons of Rafales in relatively strained economic conditions, spending $5-7 bn over 15 years on a carrier isn't something one can rationally object to. (The complaints seen to be driven more by aversion to the US collaboration than by any real doctrinal/technical issues.)

But the time-line is still a very major problem. Anything beyond 2030 (and the delivery schedule of the Vishal will almost certainly be delayed past 2030), means forcing the IN to subsist with two carriers for the next decade and half. And if, god forbid, tensions break out when the Vikrant is 'in the shop', the task of providing air cover to the IN fleet will fall to the Vikramaditya which (if mechanically reliable... <fingers crossed>) will have to cover both approaches to the IOR - eastern via Malacca/Sunda + western via Karachi/Gwadar-Karakorum. Not doable.

Also, I think you're being too pessimistic vis a vis a ski-jump carrier. Its true it'll never be anywhere as capable as a E-2D/UCAV/tanker equipped Vishal, but with equipped with something like the F-35B it'll still be able to do respectably well against modern threats.

The USN's new America-class LHAs are an apt example. For the most part they're there to ferry the USMC's expeditionary group into battle. But where amphibious ops aren't necessarily they'll switch to operations as 'mini-carriers' (if you can describe a 45 kton flat-top that way) reinforcing a USN fleet with additional fighters & helos.

The way I see it, the IN's carrier fleet ought to evolve in much the same way. Vikrant enters service in 2019. Sister ship (Viraat II) enters service 2025. Parallel program for the Vishal is also sanctioned (all-electric ship, improved reactor design). Laid down around 2023. Followed by a sister ship (Vijyant/Vidip?) within the next five years. Vikramaditya retires between 2030 & 2035 (maintenance contract with Sevmash runs upto 2034). Leaving the IN with a four carrier fleet.

The STOBAR carriers will still be able to operate in a detached role under land-based AWACS cover, or alongside its larger siblings (providing E-2D & tanker support), either with a regular i.e mixed complement or even as helicopter carriers, allowing the larger ships to embark with a bigger complement of fighter jets.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 Jun 2016 02:53

brar_w wrote:Except China most of those are either resource constraint or declining powers trying to align their future capability with their reduced stature and economic might (UK is the perfect example of this). Whether you like it or not, going forward (next 20-30 years) major carrier operators around the world will be the US, China, France and India. Out of these, China is in a unique place in that it has ZERO access to high end technology from the west, but is continuing to invest heavily in its carrier program (second carrier in production) and will no doubt eventually move to much larger carriers that include catapults. Even though the goal from ski to EMALS is rather unrealistic, they still apparently maintain a program even though a short (1-2 career) Steam CAT system would probably be more realistic. France currently operates a Nuclear carrier with a steam cat but their future is rather uncertain in terms of what amount of resources they'll invest in a new class (no money atm). This leaves essentially the US, China and India with the latter two destined for massive economic growth over the next 3 decades and both having pressing national security challenges to overcome.

Despite of that, Ski Jumps or Steam Cat's are obviously not obsolete or going anywhere so that point is rather moot.

RN is stuck with a chopper based AEW.. 'crowsnest' which will place them at a disadvantage when facing any opponent more competent than Libya. Clearly, the twin RN carriers are highly compromised solutions without their Cats.
Its plenty for them because they would always operate under either a joint ops with the USN, or under NATO. Its really tough to envision a confrontation for them that is unilateral where the QE class will be insufficient. A higher capability would naturally have been better but their economic condition and defense spending projections meant that it was probably one really capable CAT equipped carrier or two conventional ski jump carriers and the F-35B, which will naturally allow them to tap into the USMC that brings economies of scale.

Can not agree more. Bottomline is, a helicopter based AEW is a highly suboptimal solution. Its likely the right solution for RN but I just cant see a Cat-less Indian carrier given our economic base (~$5 Tr. by 2030), our opponents (China) and where IN would like to fight (Beyond the Andamans).

Further, if one takes the cost of a larger 50-65K tonne ship as 33% more than the Vikrant, we reach a number around $4 Billions for the ship, and one more for the Catapult. So a measely $2 Billion more, spread over a 10+ year construction timeline, out of an annual budget size of $50 Billion.

Its a no brainer.