INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 30 Jul 2019 11:58

Cain Marko wrote:There is no denying that the rafale or shornet are more advanced than the K so who can blame the Navy for wanting a better product? Perhaps it has something to do with getting better prices via a competition? IIRC the DPP requires acquisitions of large amounts to be via tenders. Further, those 57 might be for the Vishal or perhaps it has something to do with naval tactics and diversification? But to assume that it is solely because of problems with the fulcrum is reaching IMHO.... Especially in light of the rather direct statement of the Chief. BTW the RFI was also sent to Mig, who knows, it might just be more fulcrums.

But to completely disregard that the new RFP is driven as much by the host of problems with the K as with the unavailability of NLCA is "reaching" as you put it.

As Nachiket and Brar_w pointed out, IAF has been topping up on MKI numbers, despite other alternatives being available- Rafale, Eurofighter etc. (even if not in the same class). One can reasonably assume that IAF is pretty content with MKI despite the reported availability issues that were later overcome to an extent during Swargiya Manohar Parrikar ji's tenure. IAF established a SEPARATE RFP for combat jets in the class of Rafale, Eurofighter etc and Rafales were eventually procured under this category. They did not replace the MKIs. IAF is inducting both MKIs and Rafales.

However, IN has shown no indication whatsoever to pursue additional Ks AND and the same time procure Rafales or SH under a different programme. No, the RFP is to acquire 57 jets in the SAME category as the K. I do not think it needs a great leap to reason to assume that IN has some very serious concerns with the K, which has had them deciding against expanding their existing K fleet. As you said, there should be accountability at all levels, as to why this situation came to a pass. But to absolve the Russians and MiG corporation of any fault in this matter is highly disingenuous.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2019 02:26

Hmm, please read my response to Nachiket, the Navy AFAIK had planned for a fleet mix of MiG 29K and NLCA. My guess is that for 2 carriers, the requirement would be about 90+ fighters, 45 fulcrums and the remaining (57?) NLCA. Unfortunately, the NLCA didn't work for them, what options do they have?
They cannot simply buy extra fulcrums from the Russkis. The size of the order demands a new competition and a bidding process as per DPP rules IIRC. The follow on clause was already exercised. Of course, the possibilty of the Shornet and Rafale working off Indian carriers despite the LIFT issue must sorely tempt the Navy to go the tender route - there is no denying that the latter two birds are in many ways superior to the K. Hence the Chief's statement "in lieu of the NLCA".
Bottomline - this is what the CNS has said verbatim, you can translate it as per your convenience. To me, the two CNS statements that I have referred to are good enough to go by and I will stick to these until more information comes out on either side of the argument
In any case, my question was - what options will the Navy exercise to maintain full squadron strength on both its carriers? The decision will have to be made soon. One wildcard/black horse possibility is that it somehow finds a way to make the NLCA work and that is probably why they are again showing interest in it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jul 2019 07:23

The Ru CV model shows approx. 30 aircraft on deck.At least another 30 in the hangar gives a huge no. carried.V.interesting design.

As to why no extra 29Ks have been bought, perhaps two reasons.Firstly, we have only one carrier operational.IAC-1 still hasn't arrived and we have enough birds for both.
The NLCA was hoped to make the grade and provide additional numbers, with some reports having it that either it does perform by the end of the year or it will be kaput! The 50+ whatever new birds were for the 65K t CV, which the IN lusts after but which will beggar the IN's budget, result in a lopsided fleet, short on subs, MCMs, etc.,as well as affecting the fortunes of the other two services.

It is very unlikely that the large CV will be approved at this juncture of eco. difficulties.Therefore, provided 29K issues have been resolved, I forsee a small qty. of extra 29Ks, perhaps upgraded, acquired post 2020 when IAC-1 joins the fleet and the first work-ups of the 29Ks have been completed.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jul 2019 07:43

Philip wrote:The Ru CV model shows approx. 30 aircraft on deck.At least another 30 in the hangar gives a huge no. carried.V.interesting design.

As to why no extra 29Ks have been bought, perhaps two reasons.Firstly, we have only one carrier operational.IAC-1 still hasn't arrived and we have enough birds for both.
The NLCA was hoped to make the grade and provide additional numbers, with some reports having it that either it does perform by the end of the year or it will be kaput! The 50+ whatever new birds were for the 65K t CV, which the IN lusts after but which will beggar the IN's budget, result in a lopsided fleet, short on subs, MCMs, etc.,as well as affecting the fortunes of the other two services.

It is very unlikely that the large CV will be approved at this juncture of eco. difficulties.Therefore, provided 29K issues have been resolved, I forsee a small qty. of extra 29Ks, perhaps upgraded, acquired post 2020 when IAC-1 joins the fleet and the first work-ups of the 29Ks have been completed.

Interesting take Philip, I had forgotten the do or die timeline of the NLCA. Yes, getting an additional sqd or two of Ks is very possible.

However I don't think the 57 bird rfi has anything to do with the bigger CV. I believe it has everything to do with getting the existing carriers to work at capacity. IIRC both the Vs can carry up to 30 fixed wing a/cs and with just 45 current numbers, they'll be well short of that.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 18 Sep 2019 10:21

https://twitter.com/journalistHari/stat ... 6478601216

A. Harikumar
‏

@journalistHari
2h2 hours ago
More
4 hrad disks containing vital details of #India's #aircraftcarrier #INSVIKRANT found stolen from #Cochin #Ship Yard, says report. Serious security breach. Spying likely

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 18 Sep 2019 18:08

Only in India

Sonugn · Post by **Sonugn** » 18 Sep 2019 18:23

Looks Like Internal Sabotage, Say CISF Insiders After Theft Onboard Under-Construction INS Vikrant

The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) guards the deck of the under-construction ship to ward off any external attack from sea or land. The internal security is managed by a private company called DRS.

Electrical components and computer parts like four hard disks and processors were found missing after the theft at the Cochin Shipyard’s high-security zone.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 19 Sep 2019 01:26

Incredible that CISF won't protect our premier defence shipyard, though it protects our critical economic infrastructure like oil refineries and even some IT parks.

That said, its not hard to conceal such small items like hard disks and so, the responsibility here is more on the shipyard management that failed to secure the equipment (e.g. access control, chaining to desks).

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 Sep 2019 03:53

Sonugn wrote:Looks Like Internal Sabotage, Say CISF Insiders After Theft Onboard Under-Construction INS Vikrant

The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) guards the deck of the under-construction ship to ward off any external attack from sea or land. The internal security is managed by a private company called DRS.

Electrical components and computer parts like four hard disks and processors were found missing after the theft at the Cochin Shipyard’s high-security zone.

WTH? Was this stuff stolen from the ship or a building in the yard? Either is very bad but if from the ship then it is inconceivable to be perfectly honest. The bugler could easily have sabotaged other things on the ship.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 19 Sep 2019 09:47

Philip wrote:As to why no extra 29Ks have been bought, perhaps two reasons.Firstly, we have only one carrier operational.IAC-1 still hasn't arrived and we have enough birds for both.

But then what equipment will be used on the islands and in Gulf airbases? Is the Navy limited to using only planes that can land on ships?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Sep 2019 00:09

^^WTF is going in Kerala?

unacceptable! doing this on defence projects and secured places? we have to pull our pants and start looking at things at face value. Either be able to stop or move facilities away from KL

/rant.. couldn't help on this. something must be done. The first real burn was on Nambi Narayanan saar

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 02 Nov 2019 03:12

Updates about INS Vikrant incident
INS VIkrant: Forensic experts to do fingerprint analysis

Forensic experts in Kerala police are scanning finger and palm prints of around 1,200 people, including Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officials, engineers and non-technical staff, to find the thief or thieves who stole hard disks, RAMs and processors from INS Vikrant, the country’s first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC). The vessel is being built by the Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL) in Kerala.

Designed by the Directorate of Naval Design of the Indian Navy, INS Vikrant is the first warship being constructed by the CSL. Many private and public firms are involved in the construction of aircraft carriers.

Crucial stage

The CSL’s 2018-19 annual report, released in the first quarter of this year, says that the IAC project has progressed well and it is in a very critical phase of the project with equipment being energised and commissioned and the setting to work (STW) of various systems underway.

“During the latter part of this year (2019) and early next year, we are targeting to achieve significant milestones on the project. Major efforts have been put in and I am happy to report that discussions are at advanced stages to conclude the contract for the final phase of the IAC project,” Madhu S. Nair, the chairman and managing director of the CSL, says.

Also read: In a First, Defence Minister Flies in Indigenously Built Light Combat Tejas Fighter

Once the IAC becomes operational, probably by 2021, India will join an elite group of countries including the US, Russia, China, England and France which have built their own fight carriers.

The CSL report reveals that the project is undergoing a critical stage and hence, the theft is a matter of serious concern.

Four computers that were installed in INS Vikrant were dismantled and four hard disks, RAMs and processors were reportedly stolen.

Till now, the date and time of the theft are unknown. However, according to reports, the theft was noticed on September 13, when the vessel’s integrated platform management system (IPMS) was operated. The IPMS is a computerised system used to monitor a vessel’s course.

“It was faulty. And the processor, RAM and a hard disk installed in the computer system were found to be stolen. Six RAMs of three computers were also missing. So were three processors of as many computers and three hard disks. The stolen devises are worth [Rs] 2.10 lakh,” the report adds.

Following the discovery, the CSL lodged a complaint at the South Kochi police station and the Kerala police formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case.

The carrier being undocked. Photo: Twitter/Spokesperson MoD

‘Could sink the vessel’

“We have got 12 finger and palm prints from the crime scene. The thief or thieves have used screwdrivers to unlock the computer’s central processing unit. While we are scanning 1,200 finger and palm prints to find the suspects, we have been told by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to scan some 2,000 more finger and palm prints,” an official said, requesting anonymity.

According to the official, the stolen hard disks reportedly have sensitive data about the IPMS.

“It [the IPMS] is a computerised system used onboard ships to monitor the working and course of the vessel and to warn against safety risks. If the culprits can crack the system, then they can even sink the vessel,” the official added.

According to the CSL annual report, trials of the IPMS have commenced.

A week after the Kerala police investigation, the NIA had taken over the case.

Waging and abetting war

Meanwhile, reports said that considering the gravity of the case, the NIA had re-registered the case by including sections of waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the nation.

The report added that the NIA has included IPC Sections 121 (waging or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war against the nation), 121A (conspiracy to commit offences under IPC section 121), besides Sections 457 (trespassing to commit offence), 461 (dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property) and 380 (theft) that was earlier charged by the Kerala police.

The agency has also included cyber terrorism charges under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act in the case. The theft has happened even when special security attention was accorded to the IAC.

According to the CSL report, all security systems and measures introduced and installed in the company were of international standards. “Periodic joint survey was conducted by the CSL and CISF. Twenty-four hours waterfront patrolling in a dedicated speed boat with armed personnel and wireless surveillance (CCTV) system covering all critical locations and installations are in place,” the CSL report adds.

Till March 31, the CSL has got Rs 175,676.28 lakhs from the operations of the IAC project.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 02 Dec 2019 11:26

Engines fired up on INS Vikrant
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 324320.cms

NEW DELHI: The engines on board the first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) being constructed at Kochi have been fired up and the Navy is starting on the next step of basin trials, with expectations that the warship would be ready for operations by 2022.

“We have started the engine and hope to get the ship by 2021. It will take a year after that to get it operational.

chola · Post by **chola** » 03 Dec 2019 17:19

^^^ Great news! Looking forward to sea trials in the coming year.

chola · Post by **chola** » 26 Dec 2019 14:34

Sea trials should happen in early 2020. The long journey is nearing completion!

https://mobile.twitter.com/detresfa_/st ... 8862100485

d-atis
@detresfa_
Recent satellite image capture from #Kochi shipyard #India shows the INS VIKRANT is back at its berthing station after a short visit to the dry docks, with its engine testing complete it seems the carrier has entered its final construction phase

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Jan 2020 20:18

New pictures of the Vikrant!

https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDei ... 2739421184

@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
I finally found a recent image of the INS Vikrant ... spotted on 29. December 2019 and posted by Selva Selvandran at FB:

https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=100014554056564

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 29 Jan 2020 13:37

Celebration upcoming! Finally some dates on sea-trials and that seem close!

(source: tweet from a BRF favorite

)

Ten years after I first visited the construction site at Cochin Shipyard where we had begun building the first indigenous aircraft carrier, I came back yesterday to step into INS Vikrant, just four months away from its trials at sea. Inspiring tour& briefing from a great team!

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 29 Jan 2020 15:08

Quick someone put a pic of nimboo-mirch

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 30 Jan 2020 08:20

Lovely. Cannot wait for the first MiG-29K landing. I wonder if NLCA team is planning a landing as well?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Feb 2020 22:48

https://twitter.com/hukum2082/status/12 ... 70880?s=20 ---> A 65,000 tonne IAC-II with the current increase in naval budget is not happening. Approve a 45,000 tonne IAC-II and weaponize the Naval LCA with its limitations. The Mig-29K isn't topping charts anyways. Moving to the TEDBF in a decade is the logical path.

https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 42080?s=20 ---> An elongated IAC-1, as IAC-2, for longer TO roll with a TEDBF fleet is a realistic & viable solution within next 15yrs. With a longer TO roll, we could explore a modified RTA70 based AWACS, if IN wants one. A dedicated EW platform based on TEDBF is possible. But need decision ASAP.

https://twitter.com/hukum2082/status/12 ... 86532?s=20 ---> The MH-60s in my view are coming in a G2G deal pretty soon. They are critical to bridge the yawning ASW capability gap. The submarines not so much. P75I ought to follow the ATAGS consortium model and run as a parallel project while follow on Scorpenes + AIP are sanctioned.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Feb 2020 23:03

I am laughing, because this is tragic

I still remember Admiral Sunil Lanba - at Navy Day 2018 - confidently saying that funds for the 57 carrier borne fleet will have no budgetary shortfalls. What is the point of 57 fighters, if the third carrier is not coming. Why does the MoD do this?

Buy within the budget: the New Prioritization Mantra
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2020-02-07

Another of General Rawat's key responsibilities is to 'assign inter-services prioritisation to capital acquisition proposals based on the anticipated budget'. In other words, prune armed forces' requirements according to the budget. This means every major single-service buy will be closely scrutinised. High-profile projects, like the navy's requirement for a third aircraft carrier, are likely to go under the axe. The IAF's plan to locally build 110 fighter aircraft might also run into approval issues. Feathers, quite clearly, are going to be ruffled in the air and naval headquarters.

The key decision-maker is nonplussed. For General Rawat, the navy's Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-2 (IAC-2) project, a 65,000-tonne, conventionally-powered aircraft carrier, with approximately 55 fixed and rotary wing aircraft, doesn't make sense. He feels it will divert scarce budgetary resources away from the two other services.

"You have to look at priorities," he says. "It's a major investment. What is it that the navy themselves will not be able to get (if they push for IAC-2) and what will be the effect on the army? You cannot just have one service moving ahead."

"It's not just an aircraft carrier, it is 2,500 crewmen, their salaries, the air element and their screens (destroyer escorts) and logistics," he added.

As General Rawat hinted, the navy already knows what it will not get if it pushes for a third carrier-a fleet of six nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). The navy's case for building six indigenously built SSNs, at a total project cost of Rs 96,000 crore, is pending for approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security. This is also roughly what the IAC-3 with its air wing will cost. And herein lies the navy's dilemma. The government independently funds the fleet of four Arihant class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Funds for the SSNs, however, will come out of the naval budget over the project's 15 -year build time. Top navy officials admit they will not be able to fund both the SSN and the IAC-3 without a budget hike. This isn't happening because the navy's share of the defence budget is actually falling, from 18 per cent in 2014 to just 15 per cent this year.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 07 Feb 2020 23:36

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/122 ... 38850?s=20 ---> I had explained a while ago why the Indian Navy was unlikely to get a super carrier sanctioned anytime soon. Do Read.

Navy’s eagerness to buy $20 billion aircraft carrier cuts into funds for Army & Air Force
https://theprint.in/opinion/navys-eager ... ce/108323/
30 Aug 2018

Indeed, a case could be made for building a more modest INS Vishal, which would basically be an enlarged INS Vikrant and would host a group of indigenous LCA-Navy Mark 2 fighters that are currently under development. To be sure, this option might not easily find favour with the Navy, which obviously does not want the Vishal to be just a modest step-up from its current carriers.

Therein lies the crux. It is a year-and-a-half since the article has been written. I am sure the Navy is still holding on to the dream of a 65,000 tonne aircraft carrier. Either the MoD coughs up the cash or the Navy drops the idea. Someone has to blink. Pragmatism would be to go in for an enlarged Vikrant design. Adopt the Vishaal design, when more funds are available.

However the strategy of I-want-a-65,000-tonne-aircraft-carrier-and-I-am-going-to-hold-my-breath-till-I-turn-BLUE is not going to work.

More delays, means more time wasted in getting a third carrier in service. This is now solely in the Navy's lap.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Feb 2020 08:50

The 6 SSNs are the priority,so the IN's vainglorious ambitions of being an expeditionary force should be kept under wraps until that programme is kicked off. Our prime objective is sanitising the IOR firrst not like some Don Quixote heading an Indian armada to conquer Cathay!

N-boats are far superior in survivability and essential for the IN to be able to operate beyond the IOR, in the ICS and Pacifica especially.The news of lasers to equip all future USN boats is intriguing. The role of these lasers is being speculated upon, a mystery as of now,but likely to have some anti- air/ missile capability. Lasers require a high energy source which only an N-sub can deliver.

Coming back to the 3rd. CV req.,as Adm.Koshy has put it, a stretched Vikrant is the best interim solution for this new decade,that too without affecting the sub fleet acquisition programme of SSNs plus a dozen+ new AIP boats at cost-effective proces. Land-based long range supersonic aircraft like Backfires and Blackjacks,both being upgraded would be more effective than MKIs in the maritime sphere,greater range and payload,,leaving more MKIs to be used against Pak and China in the
Himalayan and western sectors. There seems to be little news about the 4 amphibs.If the design was revised to having an IAC-1 type deck,we could use NLCAs also operating from it too adding to carrier aircraft and available flat tops,aux. "light CVs ".

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Feb 2020 09:19

All the practical wisdom about having a big ass CV I can after with, however, I won't put it past the GOI to do something triumphant for the trump-elephant. A refurbed ex USN carrier with 60 odd shornets might still see itself in the IN roster.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Feb 2020 01:11

CDS Gen Bipin Rawat Looks at Staggered Procurement, Monetising Defence Land to Tide over Cash Crunch
https://www.news18.com/news/india/cds-g ... 93507.html

The Navy is also looking for a third aircraft carrier, while the Army is desperate for more equipment. Will the capital outlay of Rs 1.13 lakh crore be enough for even some purchases after paying off committed liabilities (paying EMIs for equipment that have already been bought)?

General Rawat said, “We need to see what our priorities are. We cannot have lopsided modernisation where one service is going ahead and the other two are left behind. But what I would like to highlight is whenever you are procuring equipment, it must always be staggered."

General Rawat also ruled out the immediate purchase of a third aircraft carrier that the Navy is keen on. “It will be purchased when needed. You cannot predict what the situation would be after 10 years. Also, we need to develop capabilities of island territories to extend our reach in the Indian Ocean Region while we look at aircraft carriers,” he said.

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 10 Feb 2020 10:43

Rakesh wrote:CDS Gen Bipin Rawat Looks at Staggered Procurement, Monetising Defence Land to Tide over Cash Crunch
https://www.news18.com/news/india/cds-g ... 93507.html

"...Also, we need to develop capabilities of island territories to extend our reach in the Indian Ocean Region while we look at aircraft carriers,” he said.

Aha! So they've borrowed the 'unsinkable carrier' idea from BRF threads and about time too!

At a time when the Khans and Chinks are toying with the idea of deploying 'Arsenal Ships', we should be thinking about deploying 'Arsenal Islands'. Cram an Island with ABM / S-400 systems, Long range Detection & ECM radars, MPAs in the near term and with UCAVs, Hypersonic SA & SS batteries in the long run and you can get more bang for buck compared to an aircraft carrier. And where you don't have an island...CREATE ONE! Either create artificial islands like the Chinese or set up weaponized oil rigs at crucial locations within our EEZ. Once, in a Call of Duty game, I came across an oil rig where terrorists had set up SAM systems -- it was a brilliant concept! An oil rig with LRTR & ABM systems (not SAM) to cover the Top hemisphere and SOSUS & torpedo systems to cover the Lower hemisphere can be a very cost effective solution to aircraft carriers.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Feb 2020 13:55

I don't know how it works in Call of Duty but the idea that a relatively small area can be defended against a competent adversary by concentrating tremendous amounts of fire-power and defensive systems is not really going to suffice and even if it could, it is not going to be as survivable as an AC floating around which can exercise stand-off range to better defend itself and use deception and surprise to generate effects. Even the US (USAF and USMC) is giving up on such an idea and looking to disaggregate its forces and to have them constantly on the move in order to counter the threat of Chinese Ballistic and Hypersonic missiles on its air-bases in the region under threat. Unless rapid breakthroughs in High Energy Lasers etc are made the exchange ratio between enemy long range fires and Air Defenses favors the attacker and not just marginally. The IN will be a multi-carrier force much like the Chinese, and the US. That is certain. Budgets will dictate how and when that force grows.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Feb 2020 19:32

That is the crux brar - budgets.

The IN will continue to operate carriers, that is certain. But a third carrier - even with the most optimistic projections - will be ready only by the end of the decade (2030). And that will be a scaled down version. A 65,000 ton version will take even longer. It is just the reality of the state of Indian shipyards. No way around that issue.

Now the Navy is still insisting on a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier and the MoD/CDS is unwilling to fund such a massive project. Even the Navy is now admitting that they cannot afford both - six SSNs and a third carrier. It is either one or the other. And with the air force having the greater need for aircraft, the funding will naturally go that way. All this talk from the CDS points to that.

This 65,000 ton, EMALS equipped and nuclear powered super carrier was never going to pass muster in the MoD. Neither was the 57 carrier borne fighters. This proposal was a result of Malabar exercises, in which the Indian Navy saw the valuable power projection that a CBG offers. Mimicking that is easier said than done in India. You know far better than me on the topic of US Navy CBGs. It involves vision, planning and funding - before any proposal moves to actual construction - none of which are present in any meaningful measure in Indian politicians or MoD Babus. With the IN, it is a classic case of my eyes are bigger than my stomach.

With regards to the development of island territories, that is a good and needed development. They will serve the six SSNs (and the armed forces) well.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Feb 2020 19:39

Very good answer by the CDS.

Retirement Age of Jawans, Defence Budget & Politics: CDS Bipin Rawat Tackles Key Issues in Exclusive Interview
https://www.news18.com/news/india/retir ... 91951.html

Q. What about the Indian Navy’s requirement for a third aircraft carrier?

A. One aircraft carrier will be on the seas next year. You look at when do you really need a third one. If you get a third one, how many years will it take for it to develop? Even if you place the order for 2022 or 2023, it is not coming before 2033. Also, aircraft carrier is not just a carrier, along with it will have to come the aircraft. Where are the aircrafts coming from? Along with that we will need the armada protection for that aircraft carrier. It does not happen overnight. It will be bought if it is required… but you cannot predict what the situation will be 10 years from now. We don’t know what will happen.

Secondly, I would say, please also develop the capacities of your island territories. We have got island territories on our east coast and west coast. We need to develop these territories for extending our reach to the Indian Ocean region while we look at the aircraft carriers.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Feb 2020 19:44

Rakesh wrote:The IN will continue to operate carriers, that is certain. But a third carrier - even with the most optimistic projections - will be ready only by the end of the decade (2030). And that will be a scaled down version. A 65,000 ton version will take even longer. It is just the reality of the state of Indian shipyards. No way around that issue.

Yes that is reasonable. A 65K ton carrier would have been a 12-15 year project anyways but an IAC-2 (upgraded IAC-1 design) by 2030 is probably more likely and very doable.

The 57 Carrier Borne fighter remains to be seen. I think whether that happens or not, depends upon how well, if at all, those aircraft can be back-fitted on the two existing carriers and how well the TEDBF development goes. Again the timeline is the entire 2021-2030 time-frame to see how that goes as the IN is probably short on MiG-29K even for two carriers and if a third IAC-1+ is sanctioned it would too require the procurement of additional aircraft so 50 odd new aircraft acquired over the next 10 years or so does not seem too out of wack with what a 2 carrier Navy that is planning to field a third carrier down the road may need.

Yes carriers take time to develop, build, test, and field. That applies to most naval shipbuilding. A new destroyer, or higher end Frigate takes a decade to go through that cycle as well and be inducted as a fully integrated part of the fleet. This applies to everyone and unfortunately no one has yet cracked the code of funding and fielding a large naval vessel or AC just a couple of years after beginning to put money down for it unless one buys off the shelf and someone just happens to have a carrier available. Even the Vikramaditya took a decade to be inducted one a deal was signed in the early 2000's.

kit · Post by **kit** » 10 Feb 2020 19:47

brar_w wrote:I don't know how it works in Call of Duty but the idea that a relatively small area can be defended against a competent adversary by concentrating tremendous amounts of fire-power and defensive systems is not really going to suffice and even if it could, it is not going to be as survivable as an AC floating around which can exercise stand-off range to better defend itself and use deception and surprise to generate effects. Even the US (USAF and USMC) is giving up on such an idea and looking to disaggregate its forces and to have them constantly on the move in order to counter the threat of Chinese Ballistic and Hypersonic missiles on its air-bases in the region under threat. Unless rapid breakthroughs in High Energy Lasers etc are made the exchange ratio between enemy long range fires and Air Defenses favors the attacker and not just marginally. The IN will be a multi-carrier force much like the Chinese, and the US. That is certain. Budgets will dictate how and when that force grows.

Totally agree with this, land based assets are not equal to deployed aircraft carriers and a huge risk against a well prepared adversary. They would be the first to go in a full blown war or as an "opening act" of war !!... juicy targets even if well defended., especially in island territories far off from mainland with less qualms about "collateral damage" . Bad idea. Not that the island territories can not be good bases but they *do not* in any way replace carriers., forget "unsinkable" , not sinking does not equal survival .

kit · Post by **kit** » 10 Feb 2020 19:50

Rakesh wrote:Very good answer by the CDS.

Retirement Age of Jawans, Defence Budget & Politics: CDS Bipin Rawat Tackles Key Issues in Exclusive Interview
https://www.news18.com/news/india/retir ... 91951.html

Q. What about the Indian Navy’s requirement for a third aircraft carrier?

A. One aircraft carrier will be on the seas next year. You look at when do you really need a third one. If you get a third one, how many years will it take for it to develop? Even if you place the order for 2022 or 2023, it is not coming before 2033. Also, aircraft carrier is not just a carrier, along with it will have to come the aircraft. Where are the aircrafts coming from? Along with that we will need the armada protection for that aircraft carrier. It does not happen overnight. It will be bought if it is required… but you cannot predict what the situation will be 10 years from now. We don’t know what will happen.

Secondly, I would say, please also develop the capacities of your island territories. We have got island territories on our east coast and west coast. We need to develop these territories for extending our reach to the Indian Ocean region while we look at the aircraft carriers.

yes please ! ( its not for nothing the chinese are targetting for 4 to 5 AC ( ?5 to 7) groups taking the fight away from their mainland).. Rawat just took my words !

kit · Post by **kit** » 10 Feb 2020 19:53

sajaym wrote:
Rakesh wrote:CDS Gen Bipin Rawat Looks at Staggered Procurement, Monetising Defence Land to Tide over Cash Crunch
https://www.news18.com/news/india/cds-g ... 93507.html

"...Also, we need to develop capabilities of island territories to extend our reach in the Indian Ocean Region while we look at aircraft carriers,” he said.
Aha! So they've borrowed the 'unsinkable carrier' idea from BRF threads and about time too!

At a time when the Khans and Chinks are toying with the idea of deploying 'Arsenal Ships', we should be thinking about deploying 'Arsenal Islands'. Cram an Island with ABM / S-400 systems, Long range Detection & ECM radars, MPAs in the near term and with UCAVs, Hypersonic SA & SS batteries in the long run and you can get more bang for buck compared to an aircraft carrier. And where you don't have an island...CREATE ONE! Either create artificial islands like the Chinese or set up weaponized oil rigs at crucial locations within our EEZ. Once, in a Call of Duty game, I came across an oil rig where terrorists had set up SAM systems -- it was a brilliant concept! An oil rig with LRTR & ABM systems (not SAM) to cover the Top hemisphere and SOSUS & torpedo systems to cover the Lower hemisphere can be a very cost effective solution to aircraft carriers.

i think oil rigs in some places do deploy SAMs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Feb 2020 20:00

kit wrote: Totally agree with this, land based assets are not equal to deployed aircraft carriers and a huge risk against a well prepared adversary. They would be the first to go in a full blown war or as an "opening act" of war !!... juicy targets even if well defended., especially in island territories far off from mainland with less qualms about "collateral damage" . Bad idea. Not that the island territories can not be good bases but they *do not* in any way replace carriers., forget "unsinkable" , not sinking does not equal survival .

You prepare and create a force for two stages of the strategic challenge with a powerful adversary like a China. One is the strategic competition phase and the other a conflict stage. Those islands, the ability to launch and recover ISR assets from them, and the ability to place offensive fires there is going to act as a great conventional deterrent as it will complicate how the Chinese navy maneuvers in the region which will impact other Chinese forces down the road. Building those up is not a mutually exclusive path (this or an AC). That is what the US is doing via Guam and DG for example. But they aren't stupid enough to think that Guam will survive a salvo exchange so they place only enough AD capacity there that provides a minimal deterrent. AC's too are great tools when used effectively during the competition phase because you can constantly re-deploy and train with other like minded navies to build up your conventional deterrent.

The way these assets are used in conflict is going to be different. Distributed islands and otherwise small footprint assets cannot be defended in absolute terms given the volumes of fires your adversary can muster (it simply isn't smart to do so). Without strategic depth, it would be dumb to enter into a salvo competition in defense of those assets. Keep in mind that against the top 3-4 powers (India and China are included in this) the ability to use Space based capabilities is only available to the extent that the enemy allows you to use it, unless you invest the Billions required to defend space so you need to constantly make the job of targeting difficult for your enemy. Those need to be leveraged differently..like putting decoys, and manuever forces across them and confusing the enemies ISR and targeting capability by exponentially increasing the target sets it needs to prosecute. This is done with minimally viable defense and then having a lot of agility to manuever forces across all such types of assets. A constantly moving force is extremely difficult to pin down and target. An Aircraft Carrier is able to do this very very well. It can stand-off and act in a defensive capacity while your initial naval fires are engaged to open access for it and once that initial salvo exchange has occured, an AC can then get closer and provide fleet defense and offensive operations and bring the sort of volume that only it can.

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 10 Feb 2020 23:59

IAC 2 will happen at a given point of time. With current budgetary constraints India simply can't afford to operationalize 3 AC simultaneously. So ideally IAC 2 will be a Vik A replacement which probably is 30 years down the lane.untill then it's better to accept this fact and plan accordingly.

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 11 Feb 2020 00:02

I suggest we open a thread suggesting India's future aircraft carrier a replacement for Vikramaditya and discuss emerging technologies and threats.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 11 Feb 2020 06:50

Ganesh_S wrote:I suggest we open a thread suggesting India's future aircraft carrier a replacement for Vikramaditya and discuss emerging technologies and threats.

Moved all the recent discussions out of the Indian Naval Aviation thread, into this one.

If the IN lays the keel for a stretched Vikrant design in 2020/2021, she can have it ready by 2030 for trials. A 50,000 to 55,000 tonne vessel would be ideal and ski jump onlee. Less complications and lower cost. The new Vikrant is at 40,000 tonnes.

Please design the vessel with wider lifts to accommodate every naval fighter under the sun (Naval LCA Mk1A, TEDBF, Rafale M, F-35B/C, F-18E/F, MiG-29K/KUB, etc). Keep all options open please. It is anyone's guess what the geopolitical scenario will be in 2030. Boeing is already pulling out all the stops for a ski jump test with the F-18 SH and Dassault will not be far behind with the Rafale M.

Soldier on with the Vikramaditya till 2030 and then retire the old lady when the "stretched" Vikrant (call it Viraat) comes on board. The Vikrant and the Viraat can serve as two carriers for the IN in the next decade. If the economy improves by 2024....perhaps the IN can lay the keel for a super carrier (CATOBAR, EMALS, nuclear power, etc) to be ready for trials towards the end of the next decade (late 2030s).

This, IMVHO, is achievable for the GOI and the IN. Since no funds are available in the 2020 budget, even if keel laying is pushed to 2023 it is okay. Just not beyond that please.

2020 - 2030: Vikramaditya and Vikrant
2030 - 2040: Vikrant and Viraat
2040 - beyond: Vikrant, Viraat and Vishal

P.S. I read somewhere that the IN is planning a MLU for the MiG-29K/KUB. If that MLU works as the way the IN hopes it will, I will be overjoyed. Then perhaps the IN will not even need to acquire 57 carrier borne fighters till post mid-2030s if & when a super carrier comes on the scene. Save that money now and invest in the Naval LCA Mk1A and TEDBF programs.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 11 Feb 2020 23:06

Rakesh wrote: This, IMVHO, is achievable for the GOI and the IN. Since no funds are available in the 2020 budget, even if keel laying is pushed to 2023 it is okay. Just not beyond that please.

You are totally on the point. A near bankrupt $1 TN economy of the early nineties could afford two aircraft carriers but a near $5 TN economy (and $75 BN budget at anaemic 1.5% of GDP as defense expenditure) with decent growth rate won't be able to afford three aircraft carriers? Even if we throw in the SSBNs and SSKs we should be able to.

IAC - 2, of 60,000-65,000 Ton class should be given the go ahead Today and hopefully keel laying in 2023-2024 for it to float out by 2030 or so. And then follow up with another by 2035.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 12 Feb 2020 04:08

This one is for the gurus here.

I see that Vikrant has a 80MW (110 000 HP) engine. Would not be possible to fit it with the Nuclear reactor of the Arianth Nuke sub? It has a 83 MW reactor

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Feb 2020 05:08

Rishi,we operated 2 carriers in the ' 90s because the Hermes came very cheap.I remember a R.Adm. who ckd. it out before the purchase telling his former chief how good its condition was and how well the RN had maintained it. It was the Sea Harrier which was the costlier end of the deal and we bought around 20+.The whole deal was still very affordable in those days.Later on when the RN asininely retd. all their Harriers (around 70), we failed to pick up a few dozen for scrap value. Instead the USMC picked up the whole lot ! They are still operating them and will do so well into this decade. Had we picked up some we too could've used them for our 2 CVs or even the planned amphibs.

The cost today of a 65,000t CV plus its embarked air element of around 60 aircraft and helos is upward of $10+B.A sister ship of the new Vikrant should not cost us more than $3 to $4B, and another batch of around 40 to 50 upgraded 29Ks,KA-31s,MH-60Rs, only another $1.5 to $2.0 B. Thus IAC-2 if kept to the same specs of IAC-1 ,stretched a little though, would arrive at around $5to $6B.That's half the cost of the 65,000t CV,which if it is going to have EMALS will cost another $1B extra and may have to be nuclear powered,costing even more because of the extra power reqd. for EMALS!

Still $5 to $6 B is the cost of 8 to10,yes 8 to 10 AIP subs of western origin or 12 to 15 subs of Ru origin! Alternatively we would be able to build 3 SSNs for $6B, or a combo of 1 SSN/SSGN plus 8 AIP subs. That's a cracking alternative that I would plump for. There's another super-combo which adds Backfires to the menu even more mouth- watering!

PS: The VikA's lifespan will be at least 30 to 40 years and should be nearing retirement only around 2040 ( she was commissioned in 2013) Given the way we've nursed our CVs of earlier days, the same timeframe should hold good especially if we operate 3 CVs with lesser stress on the 3 operationally. The aircraft's lifespan will also be the same.