INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jun 2016 22:36

Phillip, Vice Admiral M.N. Roy called India as a giant aircraft carrier jutting out from the Asian landmass and dominating the Indian Ocean. Add to that the Himalayan mountain heights give very large observation capability.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Jun 2016 23:03

Carriers are defined by their capacity, manpower to support that capacity, the ability to sustain prolonged offensive and defensive missions and an ops tempo that ensures both adequate offense and defensive capability. Putting 4-6 STOVL fighters (or even 10) on an LHD does not magically transform it into a mini-carrier. The USMC’s (or Japan’s) systems have a place in the distributed lethality concept but even the operators don’t confuse them as mini-carriers the way some on the internet tend to.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 11 Jun 2016 00:08

brar_w wrote:Carriers are defined by their capacity, manpower to support that capacity, the ability to sustain prolonged offensive and defensive missions and an ops tempo that ensures both adequate offense and defensive capability. Putting 4-6 STOVL fighters (or even 10) on an LHD does not magically transform it into a mini-carrier. The USMC’s (or Japan’s) systems have a place in the distributed lethality concept but even the operators don’t confuse them as mini-carriers the way some on the internet tend to.

So what capability will a single notional 65K ton, EMALS carrier with F-35s E-2Ds bring to the table?

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 11 Jun 2016 00:13

If IN has to order 60 odd N-LCA then we need another Vikrant class before we focus on 65-70K tonne AC with CAT.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2016 01:26

Aditya G wrote:
brar_w wrote:Carriers are defined by their capacity, manpower to support that capacity, the ability to sustain prolonged offensive and defensive missions and an ops tempo that ensures both adequate offense and defensive capability. Putting 4-6 STOVL fighters (or even 10) on an LHD does not magically transform it into a mini-carrier. The USMC’s (or Japan’s) systems have a place in the distributed lethality concept but even the operators don’t confuse them as mini-carriers the way some on the internet tend to.
So what capability will a single notional 65K ton, EMALS carrier with F-35s E-2Ds bring to the table?

You asked me a question that has absolutely no relation to what I said previously. All I said was that the Americas or the Izumo class vessels have a place, and bring a lot of capability to the table. They are however not to be confused with an aircraft-carrier or even a mini-aircraft carrier even though they displace 20,000 and 45,000 tons respectively (this was in response to an earlier point about the Japanese vessel)

. IN operates “carriers”, medium sized ones no doubt but carriers none the less. These two classes of ships aren’t ‘mini-carriers’ because they can’t really take over even the majority of the missions of an aircraft carrier. A mini aircraft carrier in my opinion would be one that performs all the carrier mission sets and does (a scaled down super carrier if you can call it that). The Izumo, or the Americas won’t ever be able to do that. They are not designed for such missions, trading off capability in support of other missions that a carrier doesn’t do as well.

As far as your point, about what capability would a single 65,000 ton, F-35 laden, EMALS equipped carrier bring to the table: You assume first that I am advocating for such a carrier, such a displacement, and such an aircraft acquisition. You are then assuming that I am advocating just one 65,000 ton carrier, or ONE carrier (any displacement) in general. As far as capability, a notional carrier, naturally brings in a notional capability. If one to construct the argument, whereby the IN acquires a 65,000 ton carrier, equips it with EMALS, then adds an all stealth fighter fleet, and orders an AEW and then assume that it only has money for one – that argument would be a false argument. The French operate a CAT equipped, nuclear powered aircraft carrier and operates an E-2. They don’t operate a 70,000 ton, or a 100,000 ton ‘super-carrier’ that comes in at Billions because of cutting edge technology (Radar, EMALS and AAG among others). As I have previously shown, even a 100,000 ton Nimitz comes in at a significantly lower amount than the $12 Billion First in class Ford, (that itself will be below 9-10 Billion by the time they reach the third or fourth vessel). I have earlier stated the cost of the last two Nimitz Class vessels. Plus, I don’t advocate a 100K ton displacement. I would trade between 45,000 and 65,000 depending on the mission, cost and flexibility. I wouldn’t at this stage go in for EMALS unless there is institutional support that buys in to a greater capability (For growth, and strategic reasons). Strategic reasons aside, I would also look to trade nuclear propulsion depending upon the cost and alternatives. All of these choices are feasible.

I don’t however claim to have done a master AOA, or automatically look to bracket everything that looks at a nuclear propulsion option, CAT’s and larger crafts (E-2’s for example) as a ‘super-carriers’ as has been done here – That’s a false choice since we know that you can go nuclear, and not go big (CDG). Go conventional Power and go Steam CAT ( Ford AOA), perhaps even go Conventional and go EMALS (QE AOA, study performed for the RN by the USN and General Atomics) and go very very big and still come in at a fraction of the Ford’s cost ( Reagan cost).

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 11 Jun 2016 01:49

Going by economic size and heft at the moment we are ahead of the Chinese wrt naval aviation.
The big carrier is a step in the right direction.
Economics allows IN to budget for 1 at the moment.

By the time our economy reaches China's current levels we would be in a position to field 3 bigger carriers.

Considering the fact that ac carrier construction has a long lead time and a *very* long in service time, INs push for a 65,000 T carrier is a step in the right direction.

Its 2016 and the Vikrant has yet to come online. With an expected life of a min 20 years we are talking about the 2030-2040 timeframe.

In that timeframe carriers of the Vishal class would not only be affordable but also relevant obsolescence wise whereas Vikrant class would be facing obsolescence..

I'm for the 65k carrier. Only gripe is, we should be planning for 3 such eventually and not just the 1.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2016 02:52

@dhananjay's post.

I think the cheapest solution for India is to absolutely contain SL and BD. A tight leash, but with benevolence. Maldives next on list. TSP can remain in Chinese camp.

China needs to vacate PoK. No two ways about that.

Request US to open a consulate in AP. Perhaps Japan too.

On the routes to SCS, if India were to lead ASEAN, then worries will reduce - enough eye and ears (ENE).

I think by 2030 things will get sorted out either way. Really up to China.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2016 03:04

Aditya G wrote:
brar_w wrote:Carriers are defined by their capacity, manpower to support that capacity, the ability to sustain prolonged offensive and defensive missions and an ops tempo that ensures both adequate offense and defensive capability. Putting 4-6 STOVL fighters (or even 10) on an LHD does not magically transform it into a mini-carrier. The USMC’s (or Japan’s) systems have a place in the distributed lethality concept but even the operators don’t confuse them as mini-carriers the way some on the internet tend to.
So what capability will a single notional 65K ton, EMALS carrier with F-35s E-2Ds bring to the table?

Reading around, need to split this question into "carrier" and "air wing". The former is designed for 50 years, while the latter is more fluid but needs the support of the carrier (design)(more on that some time later).

So, the best I can provide is the Ford, no one out there is designing new carriers and certainly not at this level and scale:

Gerald R. Ford class
The Gerald R. Ford class is the future aircraft carrier replacement class for Enterprise and Nimitz class aircraft carriers. Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) was ordered from Newport News Shipbuilding Sept. 10, 2008, and is scheduled to be delivered in 2016. The Gerald R. Ford class will be the premier forward asset for crisis response and early decisive striking power in a major combat operation. Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers and carrier strike groups will provide the core capabilities of forward presence, deterrence, sea control, power projection, maritime security and humanitarian assistance. The class brings improved warfighting capability, quality of life improvements for our Sailors and reduced total ownership costs.

* Each ship in the new class will save more than $4 billion in total ownership costs during its 50-year service life, compared to the Nimitz-class.
* The CVN 78 is designed to operate effectively with nearly 700 fewer crew members than a CVN 68-class ship.
* Improvements in the ship design will allow the embarked air wing to operate with approximately 400 fewer personnel.
* New technologies and ship design features are expected to reduce watch standing and maintenance workload for the crew.
* Gerald R. Ford is the first aircraft carrier designed with all electric utilities, eliminating steam service lines from the ship, reducing maintenance requirements and improving corrosion control. The new A1B reactor, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), advanced arresting gear (AAG) and dual band radar (DBR) all offer enhanced capability with reduced manning.
* The Gerald R. Ford class is designed to maximize the striking power of the embarked carrier air wing. The ship's systems and configuration are optimized to maximize the sortie generation rate (SGR) of attached strike aircraft, resulting in a 33 percent increase in SGR over the Nimitz class.
* The ship's configuration and electrical generating plant are designed to accommodate new systems, including direct energy weapons, during its 50- year service life.

Need to wait and see what the IN thinks. As we can see going nuclear, for Visual, could have more implications than just EMALS.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 11 Jun 2016 04:41

ramana wrote:Phillip, Vice Admiral M.N. Roy called India as a giant aircraft carrier jutting out from the Asian landmass and dominating the Indian Ocean. Add to that the Himalayan mountain heights give very large observation capability.

A carrier is mobile, the asian landmass is not.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 11 Jun 2016 10:00

KrishnaK wrote: A carrier is mobile, the asian landmass is not.

Technically it is. The indian landmass for instance is moving at the rate of 5cm/year.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 11 Jun 2016 10:18

^What are we doing fighting tortoises ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2016 10:55

if you read my posts,its exactly what I'm advocating,levraging the Indian landmass.Tx Ramanna.It indeed is and unsinkable too!

The flat tops I've been advocating are firstly designing the 3-4 amphibs with a flight deck similar to the Vikrant/IAC-1,multi-purpose flat tops like the Spanish Juan Carlos,smaller versions of it being built by Oz.
These vessels will be able to carry a mix of 30+aircraft and helos.

Secondly,the 12K t flat tops. If you look at the Thai Chakri light carrier ,it is just under 11500t and carries 20+ aircraft/helos,more at a pinch! This is not the meagre 6 mentioned by Brar.The Chakri's air complement.

9 AV-8S Matadors (retired 2006)
6 Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk helicopters
2(+4) MH-60S Knighthawk
Up to 14 additional helicopters when required

PS:The most vulnerable asset,the "Achiilies heel" of a CBG is the fleet support tanker/auxiliary,which carries all manner of fuel,munitions,etc for warships and aircraft.Sink it and the carrier has to return to base or a replacement rushed to take its place.

Almost 45 years ago,the USNI Proceedings had an excellent feature (I saved the copy),"little ships with long arms".How small European frigates equipped with ASW helos expanded their combat capability.The IN took this insight to heart and further developed the Leander class it was building into carrying a large Sea King ASW helo for the last two.It them further developed out of the Leanders the vastly improved Godavari class based upon the same propulsion with a new hull ,which could carry two Sea Kings.They were the smallest surface combatants in the world able to do this! Since then,the IN's surface combatants have always featured maximizing the number of helos aboard them,and equipping them with a variety of anti-ship and anti-sub weaponry/missiles.

Instead of building large 10000t+ DDGs,these "mini-carriers/pocket carriers"-for want of a better description proposed ,would have 'X' times the combat capability of a DDG as its aircraft and helos would extend the range of lethal missiles (DDG) by several hundred Kms,plus also possess flush deck silos for AAMs,LRCMs,whatever. The force multiplying effect of the flat top deck over a conventional design speaks for itself.Furthermore,the flat-top will continue to be operational for at least a decade longer than a conventional combatant because she can always induct newer aircraft when developed. Look at how the lifespan of the old Vikrant and Viraat/Hermes was extended way beyond their original planned lifespan by inducting Sea Harriers,Kings,Kamovs,etc.,replacing old Sea Hawks and Alizes.

More bang for the buck. Let's assume that the super-C costs $10+B upwards. She can only be in one place at any given time,with a radius of influence between 500-1000km depending upon aircraft carried and refueling capability. Imagine how many subs one can acquire for that cost.An advanced 636.3 Kilo costs just $300 -$350M,$500M perhaps for a German U-214 AIP U-boat,$600+M for an AIP Scorpene.
That gives us a mix of approx. 20-30 diesel boats from both east and west. If you factor in the cost of a desi-built SSN at $1,5B,we would get at least 6.An Akula-2 SSGN lease for 10 years? Just $!B! With a combination of both N-boats and diesel/AIP boats,we would be able to send our subs far into the Asia-Pacific waters to checkmate the Chinese in their own backyard,plus sanitise the IOR chokepoints on the eastern,western and southern approaches. It really is a "no-brainer" as Americans like to call it.Which would you want? The solitary supercarrier or the vast fleet of nuclear and AIP subs?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2016 11:24

Leveraging the Indian landmass means restricting a fight around India. What next, use 4" cannons that perhaps Tippu Sultan used?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2016 11:44

Not sure why IN has ever felt a need for a carrier, including the Vicky. Not researched that topic.

Not sure why the IN went from 40K to 65K either. But I am assuming it was meant for some heavy duty, serious purpose. 65K places it in the super carrier category.

The question, I think, the IN is attempting to resolve is what to do in the future: go electric - like the USN or remain conventional.

I would go electric and skimp on the air wing up front. Take longer to complete the air wing.

No matter what build a carrier that can travel distances. Please do not design one just for the IOR.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2016 12:11

Leveraging the Indian landmass as posted earlier with LRMP aircraft and LR strat bombers,Backfires/Blackjacks or SU-34s.Island territories to be forward bases for naval aviation (apart from expanding naval base facilities for warships and subs) equipped with frontline fighters which will lessen the burden on the IAF who could transfer a goodly part of their assets to the Chinese and Paki fronts. This will also help in seamless ops unlike the current scenario where tri-service commands and ops are few and far between.

Vintage cannons from our forts and museums and decommissioned warships could as NR posted ,also be used for waterfront defence ,for instance against another 26/11 attempt by Paki scumbags in their bumboats!

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 11 Jun 2016 12:17

Moving the landmass to area of conflict is the problem.

kit · Post by **kit** » 11 Jun 2016 12:23

fight any war far from your shores..that should be the motto of the Navy .. though India does look like a colossal aircraft carrier .it happens to a place called home .. and no ..you dont want to bring a war ...any war to home place

kit · Post by **kit** » 11 Jun 2016 12:25

the south china sea looks like a interesting place for the Navy

..even if china has the advantage ..so has *many* other countries *very* near it

kit · Post by **kit** » 11 Jun 2016 12:26

and as for Pakistan IN will make very sure the PN is almost fully annihilated the first day of war itself

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 11 Jun 2016 13:05

Brar,

What solution, or options are you proposing?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 11 Jun 2016 13:14

Air power by its nature is highly mobile and can operate from long distances from the shore. The shore being not just peninsular India but Lakshwadeep, A&N (which by itself has a wide spread), Seychelles, Mauritius, Agaléga, Muscat and like - and potentially Vietnam and Phillipines as well.

We have to build up a fleet of LRMP in any case for ASW duty. Equipping them with ASMs and bolstering them with A-330 base AEW and IFR aircraft will allow us to dominatre IOR as well as approaches to Indo-China Sea.

The fight in SCS need not be with air power alone. You will still have the powerful surface fleet, Vikrant, Vikramaditya, and most importantly SSNs lurking in the depths.

kit wrote:fight any war far from your shores..that should be the motto of the Navy .. though India does look like a colossal aircraft carrier .it happens to a place called home .. and no ..you dont want to bring a war ...any war to home place

uddu wrote:Moving the landmass to area of conflict is the problem.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 11 Jun 2016 14:15

On what case, are we concluding that Vietnam or Philippines will allow us to use their airbase? And why is it that the U.S still maintaining aircraft carriers and that also large numbers of them even after basing their fighters in Japan and Korea? Also what's the limitations in range of Su-30 MKI's operating from A&N? 1000km around A&N can be protected. What about beyond that region? Also how much Su-30's will be available during a war with China to go to the Indo-Pacific? How our Navy will be protected from aerial assualts by the PLAAF? Also if there is a threat tomorrow from any other country let's say North Korea, how are we going to deal with that range issue? So lets not debate the need to have carriers. Agree that nothing can be neglected. Be it shore based Su-30's in the defense of A&N or any other assets. Its not either that or this, rather maintaining a fine balance of all along with the capability to really use them and win the war. An Aircraft carrier can even help prevent the long range bombers and their escorts that will be coming towards India long before they reach A&N and helping the Su-30's deployed their to take out the remaining or anything that has escaped the first line of defense. Also think about the large opportunities that it will provide to the Indian nation to help friendly countries anywhere in the world, far off and beyond the range limit of Su-30's.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 11 Jun 2016 14:31

Also i think there is something different from the way we think, we always think of giving something to get something. or lose some gain some kind of thought. To have submarines, give up some carriers etc. As India keeps growing economically there is no need to cut down on such investments. It will bear fruit and give double in return in the future either by protecting from loss to the land mass or gains from its use worldwide and the influence that it brings.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2016 15:42

Brar,

What solution, or options are you proposing?

I don't have any since I don't have the information on it to try to do any meaningful assessment . As I have said, multiple times during the course of this debate, I can't and won't do any AOA since it would be completely pointless given that practically nothing is known to even do a credible back of the envelope calculation. Some here have already done it and presented multiple FALSE CHOICES. A recurring theme is :

1- CAT's = Super Carrier
2- E-2D = Super Carrier
3- Nuclear propulsion = Super Carrier
4- Super Carrier = 70-10,000K Ton
5- Super Carrier = $12 Billion Because Ford
6- Super Carrier = Bankrupt IN, So just one Carrier Because 1-5

If someone so much as mentions a CAT, or an E-2D, the discussion automatically goes towards the Ford, $12 Billion, 100,000K Super Carrier etc. Same with EMALS. That as I have also repeatedly said, is not a given. As I have said, You can stick in the 40K Ton class, and still go nuclear, and still go CAT. (with E-2's etc). You can stay in the 60K class, and can go conventional with CAT's (Ford AOA Graphic and accompanying video) and of course you can go 100K and be below $7 Billion a full 40% below the Ford's first in class vessel cost. Therefore as I have repeatedly said, a trade space opens up for virtually every capability here. 45-65K ton, Nuclear or Conventional, CAT's, or Stobar, or Steam Cat's or EMALS or indeed EMALS and no AAG.

Case In point of someone else exercising these trades and picking and choosing and not ending up with a 'super carrier' :

vs another that went large, but chose conventional propulsion and no CAT's

http://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/ ... rrier2.jpg

This leads us back to the 'choices'. Everyone looks at choices, the USN looked at dozens of them. I have posted the AOA graphic but here's it again. There's also an accompanying video in the Int. Thread. There I have also posted my own pictures of some of the other more unconventional designs studied but not pursued.

brar_w wrote:Also, since we are/were talking about carrier designs, options and trade space, this image seems appropriate (x post form SpF) given that even in the Nimitz to Ford transition they had many (75 different versions or 70 different designs) design options and a fairly well established trade space dictated by operational requirements, growth capability and of course cost. As I have mentioned earlier, and as one of the program manages attests to in the video posted in the Int. Navy thread, the Ford is neither the most expensive nor the most capable of the designs that were once considered. My point is that the IAC-2, and the IN design that eventually gets frozen won't be looking at 1 or 2 choices but many permutations of cost, capability and capacity to grow in terms of the quality of the air wing etc. Given they could now have access to CAT's both steam and EM, that trade space would be larger than what existed for the IAC-1.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2016 16:30

Here's more on the French Trades :

Some Info from SpF:

DEAC (Euronaval 2012, LAAD 2013, DEFEXPO 2014*)
"52,000 tons class", 272 meters, 27 knots.
Export version. Efforts to reduce size and cost, name changed from "PA2" to "Evolved Aircraft Carrier".
Hull shortened by ~12 (?) meters at the stern (loss of 1 aircraft parking spot), no more transom skirt, longer bulbous bow.
Cheaper, more compact propulsion: 2-shafts, hybrid electric (CODLAG) or COGAG. May indicate that EMALS is less of a priority.
Further radar cross section reduction detail work (Herakles radar installed on a stealthier mast with inclined faces)
Landing area and wires shifted forward due to shorter hull.

There trade covered three iterations : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... ic=3974.75

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 11 Jun 2016 16:48

As much as it may be heresy to some people, the political tea leaves with the "Modi doctrine", US-India collaboration on aircraft carrier technology all point to a future that if the worst case scenario against China were to happen, the Indian and US navies will work together. That means that a single 65,000 ton Indian aircraft carrier (with bells and whistles like EMAL and nuclear propulsion maybe) will not work alone, but with other US Navy carriers. Interoperability is all about that future. Effective wars on a large scale have become prohibitively expensive and beyond the capacity of single nations, unless we are talking about a little "shoving and pushing across the border" with Pakistan.. But a confrontation with China will be multi theatre and multi spatial and will involve allies who can fill this widespread battlespace. Any India China confrontation which is not confined to the land border will quickly get other actors involved.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2016 16:52

I wonder where folks are getting the 'single' carrier from. Will the IN stop asking for more carriers if the IAC-2 were to be 65,000 Ton category? Also can anyone give me a definite total price on the Vikramaditya and Vikrant (minus the air wing)? Does someone here have access to the IN's long term (30-50) plans regarding size, weight, air-wing, and expected missions for its future carrier fleet?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 11 Jun 2016 17:05

Historically the Indian Navy has always wanted 2 carriers, one for the East and one for the West. Even more ideally they would want 3 carriers with 1 being laid up for maintenance. So whatever size of carriers they finally settle on, they will want at least 2 of them, preferably 3. A larger carrier in the 65,000 ton range with nuclear propulsion and EMALs will enlarge it's area of operation and expand the bubble around it (carrier AEWs) GOI has already approved the building of 6 SSNs AFAIK and the SLBM carrying Arihant and additional boats in that fleet are already well under way. So I don't think any carrier build-out is going to be at the cost of the submarine fleet.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 11 Jun 2016 19:54

Idevji
Sure if the opponent is china (in the S Pacific/s china sea etc) then you can perhaps think about interoperating with USN. But if its anywhere else and if the opponent is the nextdoor pigsty, then we'll have to go it alone. Then, we'll have one tied down to deal with the pigs but keep the rest ready for any other foe.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2016 20:30

This is getting too granular. But, IN and USN are loosely tied at the hips. Preference is to reduce impact of coercion - preferred method of China. But if it does escalate, then be prepared to overload. In the Pakistan region expect France and the UK to pitch in. In the rest of Indo-Pacific expect the Aussies and Japan to join the party.

Like I stated, very important for India to impress upon both BD and SL to dial down. China uses shark loans to get countries to toe her line. Moving forward India and others should help this situation.

Best is to tackle China on economic grounds. At least one of two chinas understands that. The other can kick and scream.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 11 Jun 2016 20:39

USA gears come with such constraints that if certain (western?) boundaries are crossed, the intrusive inspection books will be opened to see what hit an alphabet here and another alphabet soup there; and that can cripple much more than logistic chain of a few machine parts. It will most definitely hit outsourced logistics such as engines of LCA.

Before aiming at terror munna Pakistan, IAF may have to remember sanctions on LCA during the last Clinton's rule. Did they not seize LCA prototype for 4 years that was taken to USA for wind tunnel testing.

Last time there was joint exercise with Iran, some Pentagon report came out with no objection certificate.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2016 20:54

What is to stop the IN from storing spares for a Steam or EM launch system? Same for the Engines on the LCA MKI, II and the AMCA (Assuming its the F414). What is to stop the IAF/IN/MOD from developing a healthy inventory of the Modules for the F404/414 that themselves last for thousands of hours? There are ways to hedge of course and then there is a forward looking relationship where the US cannot simply drop a hammer and impose similar sanctions on India. The Economic consequences of doing that have and will continue to 'substantial' to the US economy, and its economic strategic interests.

Before aiming at terror munna Pakistan, IAF may have to remember sanctions on LCA during the last Clinton's rule. Did they not seize LCA prototype for 4 years that was taken to USA for wind tunnel testing.

Where did the AMCA tunnel models get tested?

Here

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 11 Jun 2016 21:00

What is to stop the IN from storing spares

That doesn't justify sanctions-happy behavior of USA while Indian forces go after terror munna Pakistan. These are two separate issues, and nothing can justify USA behavior, after hard cash is paid upfront in accordance with contractual obligations.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2016 21:03

That doesn't justify sanctions-happy behavior of USA while Indian forces go after terror munna Pakistan.

That assumes that the GOI, and Modi/Parrikar do not factor that in to their calculus, or still continue to think this as a legitimate issue. It also does not guarantee that there would be sanctions if India decides to pursue anti-terror activities in the future. Its something Modi would have to factor in as the GOI advances its strategic relationship i.e gauge the direction where it is heading, develop a hedge, and of course seek assurances and build roadblocks that impose consequences for such acts.

This is just one thing they have to factor in. Another, is the fact that as India exercises its strategic independence, and reaches out to the US, Russia may feel like imposing pressure to prevent that and that could be through less involvement in and military related joint programs etc. That would also threaten India's strategic independence since it establishes consequences for pursuing an independent policy - which also has a restrictive effect. At the end, its a strategic decision and a balancing act that involves closer ties with the US and assurance to Russia that the strategic relationship with it will stand and perhaps even grow.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 11 Jun 2016 21:14

Its something Modi would have to factor in as the GOI advances its strategic relationship i.e gauge the direction where it is heading, develop a hedge, and of course seek assurances and build roadblocks that impose consequences for such acts.

This is a lot of work in addition to paying monies upfront. Nothing wrong with keeping monies in foreign accounts for upfront payment per clear obligations, but over and above that, it seems everyone top down ie Modi, DM, rest of GoI to logistics and men and machines on ground have to have additional hedge anyway.

Obviously first it has to be guaged that no one is sailing against the wind while taking anti terror actions and also seek assurances in addition to buying weapons.

It is very important to read into this again and again. At least Americans are honest about it.

If we sell some stuff to USA, will it entertain any concerns about hyooman rights issue and wait for UN vote/discussions? Even in case of anti terror actions?

Russia may feel like imposing pressure to prevent that

That is speculation just to make it appear that USA intrusive inspection is somehow justified! There is no such thing, but alphabet soup treaties are already pushed by USA diplomats.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2016 21:19

This is a lot of work in addition to paying monies upfront

Don't you think that India already hedges against one supplier? You can't rely on one geopolitical relationship and therefore must hedge against it. That is the reality of relying on strategic relationships for Military hardware. The M2K, and Rafale hedge against an all Sukhoi/MiG Fleet, and the GE engines hedge against over reliance on Russia for fighter jets. Similarly, among western nations France, being a somewhat strategically independent nation, and Israel is a hedge for US strategic relationships and so is a strong strategic relationship with Russia. The Ultimate hedge is to develop indigenous capability, in ways that is already happening in missiles, munitions and even sensors and with the LCA, hopefully a large chunk of the components and IAF / IN fleet can go in-house. Earlier it was Harrier and the Fulcrums as the Navy's fighter force. Now it will be Fulcrum and LCA. A few decades from now it could be AMCA and LCA MKII.

They are already looking to have a diverse supplier base, and hopefully with this government that is rapidly transformed to having MII, as the ultimate hedge against all. Look at the US marketshare in India's Military market..That hedges against a Russian over-reliance. I suspect that will stabilize and hopefully everyone's share of the market will come down, replaced by Designed and Built in India stuff. One thing you have to note is that in 2016, India negotiates with the world as a top 5 economy that is expected to be firmly in the top 3 over the next decades. If someone wants to let its relationship with India deteriorate based on India's anti-terror actions, then that will have strategic, geopolitical and most importantly economic consequences. This isn't the 1990's anymore and it will never become that. This is true for Russia as much as the US, France, Great Britain, or any other country that is looking to engage india strategically.

That is speculation just to make it appear that USA intrusive inspection is somehow justified!

I don't have to justify anything. The GOI will weigh everything and decide where to take this relationship, specifically in the Military and strategic acquisition and partnership domain. This isn't something that is unknown to the GOI and given the current regime has been proactive and is largely trusted to do what it thinks is the best for the nation going forward. I think the reaction and relationship would be more measured. We aren't going to see a floodgate open and american wares coming in and dominating the market. The GoI's actions will most likely be measured, and system specific. I don't think we'll see the IAF operate a US fighter over the next 10-15 years (and it may not need a foreign fighter beyond that). I don't think there would be a US based Nuclear propulsion option exercised. I see a possibility of the MOD going in for EMALS or Steam CAT's and choosing french fighters to go off those carriers. I see India having a transactional relationship with GE on engines, with modest Licensed production. I definitly don't see a Co-Development of engine but more of a Purchase of one.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 11 Jun 2016 21:34

Don't you think that India already hedges against one supplier?

Well the other suppliers don't indulge themselves in intensive inspections and alphabet soup treaties. A lot of people have to do a lot of things just to be in good books of USA and for hedging practices; and surely terror munna Pakistan is making the most of one hand tied at the back, one ear listening at not hitting alphabet air ways and alphabet waterways, one leg not trying to be tripped over by logistic supply chain and so on.

The Ultimate hedge is to develop indigenous capability

On the positive note, my last.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jun 2016 21:40

Well the other suppliers don't indulge themselves in intensive inspections and alphabet soup treaties.

And yet, the GOI is willing to work within that framework, address its concerns, find common ground and move on where it makes sense. Strategic and Geopolitical relationships come with a framework that both parties adhere to. The US will engage India on its terms, and India the US on its. If there is a mutual common ground they'll pursue that path. If not, they won't. If the regime is too restrictive, those paths would not be pursued. Same applies to Russia, France or anyone else. France isn't exactly immune to its relationship with US and other Nato allies imposing a cost on its independent strategic policy, as the Mistral deal has shown. Same with Russia..It will continue to engage with both China (S400, and Su-35) and India and wouldnt want to be held to the standard of not supplying wares to China that could be used to deter India's offensive capability, or act in an offensive capacity against it.

If the BJP-Government feels the US strategic relationship comes with too many alphabet soup treaties and is restrictive, they will disengage and look elsewhere. I see that happening on some systems, and not on others.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jun 2016 02:49

The IN has for decades wanted 3 carriers.In fact I may be right in that at a v.early time in its history it wss looking at 5.For cost effectiveness and ease of operations,commonality of weapon systems,sensorscompletion as there have been raft,helos,etc.a second IAC-1 carrier would be best. It could have some improvements over IAC-1 and the VIK-A,which could classify it as an IAC-1A,but fundamentally be of approx similar size and tonnage.CSL can build this carrier in much faster time than the Vikrant so that when it is complete the decision reg the design and contours of a larger carrier,supercarrier,N-propulsion,EMALS,whatever plus its accompanying air complement can be taken.

PS: The cost of the Gorshkov/Vik-A plus the 45 MIG-29Ks are easily available,half of the aircraft acquired will be aboard the new Vikrant along with LCAs when available.The Vikrant's cost will be known after completion as there has been cost escalation during the project.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 12 Jun 2016 03:03

The thing working against IAC 1A would be its cost and operational efficiency vs the proposed 65k carrier which in all likelihood will be N powered and EMALs based.

It's not explicitly stated anywhere but from the looks of it, it seems that IN has been given a go ahead for 1 A/c post Vikrant.

The 65k carrier will be a significant leap over the Vikrant and given tight budgets for now, it makes sense to go for a ship with higher capability as it is this ship which will be in service 10 years from now and will see operational life extending into the 2050 timeframe..

Hope to see a 5 carrier navy based on the 65k design..