INS Vikrant News and Discussion

[brar_w]

Vishal to receive EMALS and AAG. Done deal.

General Atomics receives export approval for EMALS+AAG to the Indian Navy

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7293&start=1200#p2139182

[chola]

Vishal to receive EMALS and AAG. Done deal.

General Atomics receives export approval for EMALS+AAG to the Indian Navy

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7293&start=1200#p2139182

Does this mean the Vishal is back on track?

[brar_w]

It only means that General Atomics has received export authority for India on their EMALS and AAG systems, one roadblock that had to be cleared on the US side for this to advance.

[NRao]

Data point:

CHINESE MILITARY STRATEGIST LIU KUI SAYS INDIA’S AIRCRAFT CARRIER STRATEGY ‘A FAILURE’

[ranjan.rao]

Data point:

CHINESE MILITARY STRATEGIST LIU KUI SAYS INDIA’S AIRCRAFT CARRIER STRATEGY ‘A FAILURE’

Any chance it is the same liu that is the life of chinese forums on BRF?

[Vivek K]

If Liu has to comment on it, then it must be a success.

[NRao]

A good time pass and semi serious simulator, by some guy out there. He provides some science behind his software - which I think you can download too.

http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/

He simulates a STOBAR for a F-18, with (you can enter your own params and have fun)

Default Carrier Settings
* Aircraft Carrier: INS Vikramaditya
* Long takeoff strip: 180m[1]
* Ramp exit angle: 14°[1]
* 20 knots ship speed, 10 knots wind
Approximate ramp length from drawings


Default Aircraft Settings
* Aircraft: F-18E/F
* Takeoff Weight: 66,000lb - maximal
* Thrust: Max A/B 2x22,000lbf
* Stabilized flight at 165 knots 12° at 66,000lb half flaps and gear down[2]. However for maximal thrust the actual speed should be lower. According to [3] flight test data 145 knots and 10 degrees at max thrust should be enough as well
* Lift to Drag: 3.43, based on single engine climbout chart field configuration with drag index of 209. See^
* 14° - AoA tone limit, 12 deg/s - based on flight data testing[3]

[sankum]

The above is a very simplified simulation. As the graph in below link shows the maximum AoA is maintained by NLCA for approx. 5 sec to maximize performance while in the above simulation its start decreasing at half the pitch rate as soon as the max. AoA is reached.


Automated Take-Off From Aircraft Carriers For India's Naval Light Combat Aircraft [LCA-Navy]

The max AoA is limited to 18 degree as in above link for safety while in first flight 21.6 degree was achieved and is simulated to max 23 degree AoA as per livefist article.

[Rishi_Tri]

Vishal to receive EMALS and AAG. Done deal.

General Atomics receives export approval for EMALS+AAG to the Indian Navy

Now, only if we have ambition to plan for staggered - by two to three years - production of three to four (in time for Vikramaditya to retire) of these types.

[Lisa]

Is all lost?

http://www.timesnow.tv/international/ar ... sing/59092

(Check image!)

[chola]

Vishal to receive EMALS and AAG. Done deal.

General Atomics receives export approval for EMALS+AAG to the Indian Navy

Now, only if we have ambition to plan for staggered - by two to three years - production of three to four (in time for Vikramaditya to retire) of these types.

Ambition or the lack of it is what I fear. With EMALS and AAG there for taking, MaPar/MoD is looking askance at the Navy's plans for the Vishal.

[chola]

Is all lost?

http://www.timesnow.tv/international/ar ... sing/59092

(Check image!)

Sad news just a day after the IN saved a Filipino crew.

[sankum]

In the heart of the iron beast, INS Vikrant

[arshyam]

In the heart of the iron beast, INS Vikrant

Worth posting in full, probably the most detailed write-up of late.

In the heart of the iron beast, INS Vikrant - S. Anandan and Dinaker Peri, The Hindu

As India’s first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, is in its final stage of construction at the Cochin Shipyard, a walk through its massive innards and an examination of what its induction would mean for the Navy’s presence in the Indian Ocean.



A cool breeze blows over you, belying the sultry May weather, as you perch atop a 70-m, 300-tonne gantry crane at Cochin Shipyard. From this vantage position, everything appears dwarfed down below. Hundreds of workmen nudging the ferrous giant, India’s maiden indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, to life in the last leg of a protracted and intricate process of warship construction of unprecedented scale in the country, resemble Lilliputians with a sense of steely purpose. Vikrant’s flight deck, more than twice the size of a football field at 2.5 acres, is strewn with concrete blocks and a maze of wires criss-crossing and disappearing into makeshift worksites.

It is tempting to picture MiG-29K combat jets flying off the deck, streaking into the deep blue ocean sky in a matter of a few years! The flyco (flight control) stationed in the superstructure located on the starboard side would be on the toes, the radars atop the island carrying out flight control and guiding the missiles the carrier will be equipped with to engage aerial targets.
Readying to set sail

The beast that is the INS Vikrant towers over you with a hint of intimidation as you enter the gangway, which leads further to the expansive aircraft hangar that straddles a few levels. “The carrier is 262 m long, 62 m at the widest part and has a depth of 30 m minus the superstructure. There are 14 decks in all, including five in the superstructure,” says a yard supervisor.

Outfitting had been apace on Vikrant, named after India’s first aircraft carrier that was acquired from the U.K. in 1961, ever since its ceremonial launch in August 2013, and work is almost nearing completion on all decks below the fourth from the top which houses the hangar.

The carrier’s hull structure is in good shape and a few openings made on the flight deck to lower equipment into the hangar and to fix the restraining gears for takeoff will be capped once the work is over. Two turntables on either half of the hangar resemble those in discotheques. Aircraft ferried from the flight deck through the elevators located on either side of the superstructure will be positioned on the tables for easing them into their designated slots.

The hangar, capable of accommodating an assortment of 20 fighter aircraft and helicopters, is a hive of activity, with work progressing on the support lines along the stowage points, a four-tonne overhead maintenance crane and a fire curtain that will partition the space. The aviation facility, designed by Russia’s Nevskoye Design Bureau, is gradually coming in place, with the supply of equipment under way. “In view of the aviation facility being laid out soon, the Navy has already drafted in aviation technical crew from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya to be of support,” says Captain P.A. Padmanabhan, in charge of the Navy’s Warship Overseeing Team (WOT).

As you take the ladder to the flight deck, three markings across the aft deck, indicative of the position of arrester wires that latch on to the landing gear of approaching fighter aircraft to bring them to a halt, come to view. A 40-tonne aircraft salvage crane sits snugly next to the superstructure to haul up aircraft in case one falls overboard. “God forbid it never gets used,” a worker remarks.


All on board: “Some 200 big and small Indian industries rose to the occasion to harness the required technology and deliver the goods.” The twin-propellers that will drive the carrier. | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

Most fascinating right now is the work on sailor living spaces on the sixth deck from the top, where an impressive state-of-the-art sanitation space, with modern showers and vacuum toilets, has come up.

“We have 92 such sanitation spaces along the ship, of which 25 are ready,” informs a manager in charge of accommodation. The yard has drawn on the experience of creating living spaces on the platform vessels it had built for a Norwegian firm to design the crew living spaces on Vikrant.

“Aspects of human-machine interaction have been factored in while designing the spaces,” says Bejoy Bhaskar, Cochin Shipyard’s chief general manager (design and defence projects) and project director for Vikrant. Further up, on the fifth deck is the vessel’s largest alleyway, which with a length of nearly 240 m, links the forward compartments of the carrier to the aft.

“A similar corridor on INS Viraat used to be playfully called the Rajpath,” chuckles Capt. Padmanabhan.

Quest for aircraft carriers

India, with a two-decade legacy of operating carriers, started looking for a home-grown carrier way back in the 1980s when the idea of an air defence ship (ADS) was mooted. It lingered, even after the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) sanctioned the project in 2002. An ‘ADS Bay’ commissioned by then Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Madhavendra Singh at the Cochin Shipyard a year later stands testimony to it.

The project went through a design spiral, with the Department of Naval Design (DND) heeding to the aspirations of the Navy, coming up with the functional design of an indigenous carrier that was at least “five times bigger than any warship it had designed before”. Already into indigenisation in a big way, the first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) as it came to be known, cemented the Navy’s credentials as a builder’s navy.

As India embarked on the effort to build its first carrier in the form of Vikrant, it is going through a learning curve. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in its report in July last year pointed to serious delays in the construction. “It is evident from the PERT chart (September 2014) of Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL) that while the delivery of the carrier with completion of all activities is likely to be achieved only by 2023, the Ministry and the Indian Navy continue to hold the timelines of final delivery of the ship as December 2018,” the CAG said in the report.

However, Navy officials say that at that time there were delays in procuring some equipment, which have now been sorted out. “Issues with procurement of some Russian equipment have been resolved,” says an officer, adding that the final induction will be earlier than initially estimated. The Navy wants the carrier to be fully ready to begin aviation trials by the time it takes delivery of the ship. Aviation trials are the most challenging aspect in the whole chain. As former Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash says, “It will be a huge challenge to Navy test pilots. Then we will know the defects in the design.”

Mega nuts and bolts

The public sector Cochin Shipyard, with an impressive track record as a commercial shipbuilder and of carrying out all the refits and upgrades of INS Viraat, became a natural choice for the execution of the ambitious project, critical to the Navy’s philosophy of having three carriers in its fleet at any given point in time. The CCS sanctioned a sum of ₹3,200 crore which was subsequently revised to ₹19,341 crore for the new carrier, which set the ball rolling on a slew of innovations, technological advancements and capability-building within the country and operational synergy among a host of agencies.

“Vikrant, the ‘mother’ of all platforms, has 2,300 compartments designed to user specifications for crew, systems, piping, fluids, ventilations, cabling… Nearly 1,500 km of cabling, almost the distance from Kochi to Mumbai, criss-cross its innards,” informs Capt. Padmanabhan, pointing to the trunking in the compartments. The yard carried out detailed designing, developing 3D models and creating mock-ups on the old-school ‘mould loft floor’ for critical parts like anchor pocket and hosepipe arrangement besides using virtual reality to simulate extremely critical parts. Italian firm Fincantieri was roped in to provide consultancy for the propulsion package while Russian support was sought for the aviation complex given that the carrier would have an integral fleet of Russian MiG-29K fighters and Kamov helicopters, a la INS Vikramaditya, which would also ensure interoperability between the carriers.

“It was a quantum leap from about 7,000 tonnes to 40,000 tonnes. We are no more deterred by the size of a warship,” says Capt. Padmanabhan, hinting at the larger domestic carrier that’s on the drawing table.

Some 200 big and small Indian industries rose to the occasion to harness the required technology and deliver the goods, from the large gear boxes to the access implements, for Vikrant. When sourcing of steel clouded over the project, Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) lab, joined hands with the Navy to develop warship-grade steel which was manufactured by the Steel Authority of India in its plants at Rourkela, Bhilai and Bokaro. The supply remained steady since 2006. The first block was lowered to the building bay in 2009, officially laying the keel of the Navy’s dream project.

“The new construction demanded new welding consumables and processes, which we developed in collaboration with the Naval Materials Research Laboratory, a DRDO facility. We also trained about 500 welders and assigned them to the vessel,” says Bhaskar of Cochin Shipyard. Building the ship literally block by block and integrating them in what was termed as ‘grand assembly’, the yard fabricated and welded about 23,000 tonnes of steel, measuring the vessel’s weight and stability all along. “Its tonnage is roughly about 30,000 right now,” says Capt. Padmanabhan. Vikrant was given a pontoon-assisted launch, in a first in India, when limited dock space prevented further construction. The yard made a special jig to move the 104-tonne ‘A bracket’ that buttresses the propeller shafts — as long as 99 m and 69 m —on the carrier’s hull.

“Look here, one of the eight diesel alternators, each generating 3 MW power, has already been set to work,” says a Navy officer part of WOT, signalling to a large machine room on the carrier. “Together, that’s about 24 MW power, enough to light up an entire city, but the idea is to have adequate redundancy. The power system is fully automated, thanks to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., which has put together an Integrated Platform Management System for Vikrant. The schedule for testing, trials, calibration and qualification of individual equipment — including the gas turbines that will power the carrier — is getting ready. Shafting, piping and integration of most auxiliary systems are over on Vikrant. “The outfitting is 62% complete,” says Bhaskar. Trials of all auxiliary systems are set to get under way by the year end, parallel to the construction of modern living spaces on the upper decks.”

Once operational, Vikrant is going to sport a gender-sensitive living environment and infrastructure, with provision to accommodate eight women officers. The ship will then accommodate 1,645 personnel in all, including 196 officers.

An aircraft carrier is a command platform epitomising ‘dominance’ over a large area, ‘control’ over vast expanses of the ocean and all aspects of maritime strength, says Capt. Padmanabhan, as he signals a sailor with the Falcons crest on his service overall to stop by. “Look, he’s one of the air technical sailors who have worked on board Vikramaditya and would know how best to deploy and exploit the aviation support facility on Vikrant. It’s just a matter of time before the aviation facility comes up.” True to its purpose, Vikrant, meaning victorious and gallant, has its crest depicting arrows resembling the delta wing of combat jets going in all four directions. It is capable of blunting attacks from any direction, says Capt. Padmanabhan.

Safety boards stare at you from every corner on the vessel, cautioning against letting the guard down. Workers, nearly 1,200 of them, toil day in, day out on Vikrant in two shifts to realise the ambitious dream of operationalising a potent home-grown carrier.

Force multiplier at sea

Even as debate continues over the relevance of aircraft carriers with the proliferation of ballistic missiles and cost-benefit analysis with respect to submarines, there is an undeclared carrier race unfolding in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) between India, China and Japan. India has its force structure planned around three aircraft Carrier Battle Groups (CBG). While one would be deployed on each coast in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal, the third would be in maintenance and repairs — ensuring the availability of two ships at any point of time.

For now the Navy has only one carrier, INS Vikramaditya, contracted from Russia under a $2.3-billion deal and inducted into service in November 2013. INS Viraat was recently retired from service after cumulatively serving the British and Indian Navies for over 50 years. In that line, when the new INS Vikrant joins the Navy sometime after 2020, it would be the fourth aircraft carrier to defend India’s shores. Each of these carriers has grown in size, capability and sophistication adding more teeth to Navy’s power projection.

The first Vikrant displaced 20,000 tonnes and operated a mix of Westland Sea Kings, HAL Chetak and Sea Harrier jets. Viraat displaced 28,500 tonnes and Vikramaditya displaces 45,400 tonnes. The new Vikrant will displace 40,000 tonnes.

While the first two carriers operated the Harriers which are capable of short take-off and vertical landing, the Vikramaditya’s angular fight deck enables hosting of Mig-29K fighters; the modern Russian fighters will fly from Vikrant as well. In addition, the U.S. is expected to help India with the aviation trials of Vikrant.

Back at the gangway, as the sun beats down on the workers on a harsh tropical evening, some people are busy offering fresh lime juice to all. Capt. Padmanabhan bumps into Sunil Kumar, deputy general manager in charge of construction, introducing him as his “man Friday”.

“Friday?” asks Kumar quizzically.

“It means a man for all seasons.”

“Is that good or bad?” asks Kumar, as everyone around laughs off their work fatigue.

(With additional inputs from Dinakar Peri)

[Philip]

With the latest revelations about EMALS,it is certainly not a "done deal" as some might fondly think! Worth reposting here the views of our former C-in-C of ENC,V.Adm. Arun Kumar Singh.

To put it simply, India could build two STOVL or two STOBAR non-nuclear carriers for the cost of one nuclear CATOBAR carrier. The money saved could be gainfully used for indigenous production of critically needed nuclear and conventional submarines.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150602/c ... -vs-n-subs

N-carriers vs N-subs
Published Jun 2, 2015, 12:37 pm ISTUpdated Jan 10, 2016, 8:38 am IST

Photo above is of a French Nuclear capable submarine, Image used for representational purpose (Photo: AP)
Photo above is of a French Nuclear capable submarine, Image used for representational purpose (Photo: AP)
The US defence secretary Ashton Carter is expected to visit Visakhapatnam on June 3 and then New Delhi on June 4-5 to sign the 10-year Indo-US Enhanced Defence Framework Agreement, and convince India to accept an American design for the recently announced indigenous 65,000-ton aircraft carrier, along with the latest American EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) and AAWS (Advanced Arrester Wire System), and operate the latest American carrier-borne F-35C jet fighters.

In April 2015, the media reported that the defence ministry had cleared various pending projects, including funding of an initial Rs 30 crore as “seed money” to commence project work on India’s next indigenous 65,000-ton aircraft carrier, to be named INS Vishal.

The Indian Navy currently operates non-nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, i.e. the 56-year-old, 28,0000-ton, steam-driven INS Viraat and the 43,000-ton, steam-driven INS Vikramaditya. At the same time, the gas-turbine-powered 37,000-ton INS Vikrant is under construction and is expected to join the Navy in 2018. The reasons stated for the new INS Vishal are valid, i.e. for an aircraft carrier to be viable, it needs to embark at least 36 fighter aircraft and another 12 helicopters, and this is possible only on carriers larger than 65,000 tons (INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant can each embark only 18 fighters and 12 helicopters).
A debate has now started about the need or otherwise of nuclear propulsion for the proposed INS Vishal. Nuclear power is expensive to acquire, maintain and needs highly trained personnel to operate.

While nuclear power provides natural stealth to submarines by enabling them to remain totally submerged in the ocean depths for months, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is visible and detectable by electronic and satellite surveillance as it sails on the ocean surface. Additionally, while nuclear power provides long periods of propulsion without refuelling, American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers still need weekly replenishment at sea (from a non-nuclear replenishment ship) of aviation fuel, lubricants, air armaments etc, and the same replenishment ship, needs to refuel another eight more conventionally powered warships every three days (these warships protect the aircraft carrier against various enemy threats).

In 1954, the world’s first nuclear submarine, the American USS Nautilus, was commissioned. It operated on LEU (low enriched uranium, i.e. below 19 per cent enrichment), and this reactor fuel enabled the single reactor submarine to operate for two years before uranium refuelling, and provided a total of 200 days sailing at economic speed.

Reactor uranium fuelling is expensive and time consuming. To overcome this shortcoming, the Americans gradually increased the uranium enrichment to HEU (highly enriched uranium, i.e. 93 per cent enrichment) to enable present-day American nuclear submarines and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to operate for 25 years, without reactor fuel change. India does not have this HEU propulsion technology yet.

Apart from nuclear or conventional propulsion, aircraft carriers are further subdivided into three categories. The first is the CATOBAR (catapult assisted takeoff but arrested recovery). It is the most expensive and most capable (rapid aircraft launch rate of one aircraft every 20 seconds, while the other two carrier types can launch at one minute per aircraft). It uses one or more catapults to launch aircraft within a 150-metre deck length and arrester wires to recover the aircraft which land within a 100-metre deck length by using an aircraft tail hook to attach themselves to one of the three or four arrester wires.

Earlier, American aircraft carriers used steam catapults and hydraulic arrester wires, but now the latest 2015 American Ford class carrier will operate the new EMALS and AAWS. These two new systems, which are now on offer to the Indian Navy, require the aircraft carrier to produce three times more electric power than earlier CATOBAR designs. Ideally it would need two powerful nuclear reactors of the American A1B BECHTEL type, which power the new USS Gerald R. Ford, and each of which can produce 180 MWe. Unfortunately, the Americans are not willing to transfer nuclear reactor propulsion technology. As a result India will have a non-nuclear, gas-turbine -powered, but still very expensive INS Vishal.

The second type of carrier is the STOVL (short take-off and vertical landing) type that is the simplest and cheapest. INS Viraat is an example of STOVL, where the sub-sonic Sea Harrier jets take off (without catapult) in about 200 metres deck length from a ski jump ramp, and land vertically. The American supersonic F-35B is the latest stealth jet fighter capable of such short take-off and vertical landing operations.

The third type of carrier is the STOBAR (short take-off but arrested recovery), which is used on INS Vikramaditya (and also for the INS Vikrant under construction). Here the Russian MiG-29K or the Indian light combat aircraft takes off from 200 metres deck length (without catapult) from a ski jump ramp and lands in 100 metres deck length using its tail hook to catch one of three hydraulic arrester wires.

The UK has got nuclear reactor technology for its nuclear submarines, but has wisely decided that its next two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers (due for commissioning in 2018 and 2020) will be non-nuclear, STOVL type and conventionally powered by gas turbines. The aircraft selected are the American F-35B jets. These British carriers are estimated to cost about $4 billion each (the new American nuclear Ford class 100,000-ton carrier with EMALS and AAWS costs $13 billion).

Before India embarks on a new 65,000-ton aircraft carrier and its aircraft, it needs to look closely at funding availability (for aircraft, ship, spares, training etc), state of indigenous marine nuclear powered reactor technology, availability of indigenous uranium supplies (and whether our limited uranium stocks are better used for indigenous nuclear powered submarines), and, finally, vulnerability of the aircraft carrier to Chinese nuclear submarines and the new-shore-based 1,500-km-range DF-21D, anti-aircraft carrier ballistic missile system which may be based on Pakistan’s coast. The aircraft would need to be a fifth-generation stealth fighter like the American F-35B (STOVL) or a modified version of the Russian FGFA (STOBAR) planned for the Indian Air Force. To put it simply, India could build two STOVL or two STOBAR non-nuclear carriers for the cost of one nuclear CATOBAR carrier. The money saved could be gainfully used for indigenous production of critically needed nuclear and conventional submarines.

The writer retired as Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam

[chola]

Nice write up on Vikrant! Just reading it swells my desi heart with pride. The writing by Anandan and Peri is majestic!

I hope we make the 2018 hand over to the Navy.

But this I love best because it provides so much hope for the future:

“It was a quantum leap from about 7,000 tonnes to 40,000 tonnes. We are no more deterred by the size of a warship,” says Capt. Padmanabhan, hinting at the larger domestic carrier that’s on the drawing table.

A quantum leap in size, congrats to Cochin, that kicks open the door to greatness.

Sixty-five thousand tons CVN, here we come!

[Philip]

Subs first.P{l read the latest posts in the In td where China will have almost 80 subs by 2020.

[srai]

Based on the former C-in-C of ENC,V.Adm. Arun Kumar Singh's article, CATOBAR EMALS doesn't make financial sense for the Indian Navy. Another STOBAR carrier (Vikrant-2) with F-35B would suffice and the saving could go towards purchasing more nuclear submarines. In any case, CATOBAR EMALS is a ways off. There are other priorities that need to be addressed first.

[chola]

We went through this many times. The current Adms in charge said they want the 65K ton CATOBAR and are willing to sacrifice for it. They said they will go to MoD repeatedly until they get the okay. This is not just one admiral saying this but several (Adm. Lanba, V.Adm Deshpande.)

Like I said before, these are people in charge of a service that was never prone to extravagant spending. That's good enough for me.

Sixty-five thousand ton CATOBAR, here we come!

[Cybaru]

Then you will need CATOBAR certified planes. There are only 2 options (FA-18 may not be in production then) Rafale & F-35C. It will trigger a new purchase and remove interoperability function.

[Gagan]

Why stop at 65 k? Make it slightly bigger and it will be 80-85k, and be a much more capable ship
This ship is atleast 10 years away
AMCA will probably be flying by that time

ADA really needed to do a twin engined plane for the navy's carrier needs. But they want to add full spectrum stealth to it, so be it. It will delay things, but might well be the first 5th gen carrier borne plane after the F-35, unless the chinese decide to field one of theirs from a carrier

[Aditya G]

Then you will need CATOBAR certified planes. There are only 2 options (FA-18 may not be in production then) Rafale & F-35C. It will trigger a new purchase and remove interoperability function.

I hope its not lost on the Navy that the air force could buy only 36 aircraft despite years of efforts.

Ordering a 2nd Vikrant class ship is the right thing to do at this point.

The CATOBAR carrier should be a Vikramaditya replacement.

[Khalsa]

We went through this many times. The current Adms in charge said they want the 65K ton CATOBAR and are willing to sacrifice for it. They said they will go to MoD repeatedly until they get the okay. This is not just one admiral saying this but several (Adm. Lanba, V.Adm Deshpande.)
Like I said before, these are people in charge of a service that was never prone to extravagant spending. That's good enough for me.
Sixty-five thousand ton CATOBAR, here we come!

With the above article in context , the one posted by Phillip on merits of various types of aircraft carrier.
and your comment of CATOBAR

are you saying conventional CATOBAR or Nuclear CATOBAR.

[NRao]

Data:

*) IN *always* has had 2 or more boats in the Vikrant Class. The first one was (always) a 40,000 ton and then onward in the 65,000 range
*) The reason for the increase in size (they had the option of sticking to the 40K) was to accommodate more types of crafts - especially the likes of the Hawkeye and more of them. Essentially to extend reach or project power
*) IN had rejected a ski jump based Hawkeye, pretty much forced the case for a CAT. They also wanted *more* air crafts on a boat - so bigger in size (what is the thumb rule? A 1000 tons per air craft?)
*) The choice, for the CAT, was between steam vs. electric. I read recently the EMALS won because the steam could not support the ops the IN had in mind - how far that is true I do not know



Just an observation or two. The IN going "electric" is not too far out. No idea what that would *really* mean to the IN, but I would think it is about 5-10 years out. By ordering another 40,000 boat, IMHO, it would hobble the future IN (just like - again, sorry, IMHO - the Vicky is doing). I have no idea of the finances involved, but F-35Bs for the Vicky and Vikrant and F-35Cs for Vishal (onward).

The NAMCA will come - matter of time, but will not compete with the Charlie (again, IMHO).

All that for what it is worth .................

[brar_w]

Ski jump hawkeye?

[NRao]

Yeah, I know. But .................... here goes.

In the previous life .......

2007 :: The Tale of the Indian Navy and the E-2 Hawkeye 2000

In early 2004, the Navy sent out a request for information (RFI) on carrier-based AEW&C systems to Northrop Grumman Corp., with an outline for a total of six aircraft to operate off the INS Vikramaaditya and Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC). Naval Headquarters received Northrop’s reply, with information on the aircraft, capabilities and programme, in October 2004. But, as was abundantly clear, the Hawkeye was configured for launch off a steam-catapult and not a ski-jump of the kinds that exist on India’s two future carriers. This posed the biggest problem yet, and the Navy pretty much dropped plans of looking at the Hawkeye.

But four months later, Northrop Grumman sent senior executives to Delhi to meet Vice Admiral JS Bedi, then Controller, Warship Production & Acquisition, to convince him otherwise.

The team that finally met Bedi, told me on February 11, 2005, three days before their meeting, “We did an assessment with the US Navy, and now believe that it is possible to launch the Hawkeye, with appropriate modifications, from the Gorshkov’s angle deck in the absence of a catapult jump. We will present our findings to the Navy next week, constituting a second order level of detail of the assessment we have made.”

It was a radical suggestion at the time. But how would they work out configuring a Hawkeye for a ski-jump when all American carriers were steam-cat equipped? “For now, we will use existing US Navy performance charts, engineering models, open source information on Gorshkov’s dimensions and meteorological conditions in the Indian Ocean — since we know the dimensions and statistics of MiG-29 fighters used off the Gorshkov, we will use that data as well in our study,” they told me.

[NRao]

See if this adds to your knowledge base.

India rejects proposal for ship-based Hawkeye

[brar_w]

I doubt as it exists today the Delta Hawkeye can launch with the sensor suite but a custom variant could have been proposed as the article mentions that a payload limited variant may have been STOBAR capable although probably not worth the effort.

[srai]

...

Just an observation or two. The IN going "electric" is not too far out. No idea what that would *really* mean to the IN, but I would think it is about 5-10 years out. By ordering another 40,000 boat, IMHO, it would hobble the future IN (just like - again, sorry, IMHO - the Vicky is doing). I have no idea of the finances involved, but F-35Bs for the Vicky and Vikrant and F-35Cs for Vishal (onward).

...

5-10 years is pretty optimistic. With no experience building CATOBAR w/EMALS, that's not possible. Look at how long things took for STOBAR carrier (also the first for India). Time and again India tends to underestimate project deliverables.

Design, when initiated, itself would take 5 years. Getting a shipyard infrastructure ready would take another few years. Then building in a Indian shipyard would take at least a decade (if not more) given that this would be the largest vessel being made in India. The other aspect is the technology for CATOBAR and EMALS heavily relies on the US. Things could easily get delayed (or derailed) there.

IMO, we are not going to see this 65,000t CATOBAR w/ EMALS until after 2035.

[NRao]

^^^^^

I should have been more clear. 5-10 years IN would start asking for such techs. It would probably take another 20-40 years to implement. IMHO.

[Eric Leiderman]

As I have said before the diesel /steam to electric tech is available off the shelf. If we get Korea/japan into modular tech building (which seems to be happening) you will see the outfitting period shrinking to 1/3rd of what it is now. the major time lag with our mode of building is the outfitting. Also the Navy has to give a spec and then stick to it. You cant keep changing in the modular building process. If we start today and fund and oversee time, like reliance does. frames 2025-27 is doable. If it happens is a long shot. I am pretty sure the Russians will help us with the Nuke propulsion,if they get their pound of flesh. However we should stay away from their steam plant. We have enough in house knowledge in boilers and their ancilary systems
To get a reasonable per unit price on a 65 k vessel we need to build a series of 3 vessels. If we build one it is going to cost as much if not more than a US 100k vessel. However this is a defence project and not a commercial project so I better shut up.

[chola]

We went through this many times. The current Adms in charge said they want the 65K ton CATOBAR and are willing to sacrifice for it. They said they will go to MoD repeatedly until they get the okay. This is not just one admiral saying this but several (Adm. Lanba, V.Adm Deshpande.)
Like I said before, these are people in charge of a service that was never prone to extravagant spending. That's good enough for me.
Sixty-five thousand ton CATOBAR, here we come!

With the above article in context , the one posted by Phillip on merits of various types of aircraft carrier.
and your comment of CATOBAR

are you saying conventional CATOBAR or Nuclear CATOBAR.

Either. I believe the IN prefers the while nine yards in CVN-EMALS since US partnership had been raised. But as stated before, Vishal had always (and confusingly) been slated as a "Vikrant class" vessel though 65K tons and CATOBAR. Something that much bigger and employing a different launch system should be its own class for all intents and purposes but anyhoo . . .

This makes me think it is a political accounting to get a CATOBAR project through MoD. "Look we are not making an one-off class but multiple ships in the class. Only the second one is much bigger. And it has catapults."

So there, it is officially another Vikrant people say we should build to leverage the first.

It won't be 5-10 years. It's more like 10-15. The long planning/fabricating/assembly/fitting out cycle of these things means you have to kick things off now to have any realistic chance of getting it operational a decade later.

[Philip]

Since we've developed the AEW system aboard an EMB platform,we should go with such an AEW system for our carriers.What is needed is to select a suitable aircraft that can take-off and land using a ski-jump as well as cat launches. Given the long lead time until the next IN CV appears,2030 or thereabouts,esp. if it is a larger carrier,then enough time is there to select the platform. A slab radar will be preferable to a rotating disc.Apart from an AEW aircraft,the next-gen AEW helos would also appear,giving better performance. Long endurance UAVs are already here with us and the use of them aboard a carrier will be regular from around 2020 onwards. So there are lots of options.I would prefer a desi Shtorm style carrier,where both a ski-jump and cats are used for launches.

Unfortunately,EMALS is beset with major problems at the moment,and costs a real bomb,at l;east $!B from earlier posted reports.It will only increase in a decade's time.as everything does.It would be exceptionally risky for us to take a leap into the dark with EMALS when even the US pres. has doubts about it! We should instead take the good advice from our former C-in-C ENC,Adm.AK Singh,2 carriers could be acquired for the cost of just one N-powered,EMALS one,with money to spare for subs,etc. N-power is essential for an EMALS carrier as the power req is so great.The USN Ford,the latest,with EMALS,has some sort of power problem at the moment.

A sister ship to the Vikrant-2 could be stretched considerably,say upto 50K t without too much of trouble.It would then be in the same league/cat as the new Chinese flat top. Another sister ship of IAC-2 could be planned,with both due for commissioning by 2030. This would then give the IN 4 med. sized carriers,the larger ones capable of carrying 40-50+ aircraft and helos. The larger carriers (both conventionally powered) could have their flight deck and lifts so designed to accommodate any naval version of the FGFA which will definitely be in service by 2030.There would also be a choice of the US's JSF/F-35,both cat launched as well as the STOVL version which the USMC and RN have plumped for.By 2030,the merits of both the Russian 5th-gen bird and JSF would've been available for the IN to choose.Both preferable to the perhaps even more expensive Rafale-M. In a decade's time,even the LCA MK-2 should be in service,which is supposed to be the definitive platform for the NLCA.But in a decade's time,will the SE LCA be able to do the biz when more capable stealth birds are with our principal enemy China? The mention about a "stealth" LCA recently on the anvil gives hope that in a decade's time at least,such a bird should be with us.

These 4 carriers with most aircraft (like 29Ks) interoperable from similar flight decks ,would also have much commonality in propulsion systems,machinery,sensors,aviation complexes,making it easier for crew rotation too. Let the IN not rush into hasty decision,but carefully consider all options before deciding.The cost factor too of not just the carrier + aviation assets,but also the accompanying members of the CBG,need to be taken into consideration.N-subs do not need "escorts" to defend themselves unlike carriers,which usually require an escort of at at least 4-5 vessels ( surface combatants for air defence,LR surface strike and ASW,a fleet tanker,plus one accompanying sub if poss).An SSGN/SSN from Russia or built at home would cost us just $1.5B. SPOre's 2 German 218 SG subs on order are supposedly to cost $1B apiece! For that price they could've got 6 improved 636.3 Kilos like Vietnam did ($2.1B).

[amit]

Actually the difference between Catobar and short takeoff and arrested landing should have been obvious to everybody here save for the venerable Philip.

Consider this: Charles de Gaulle is a 40,000 ton aircraft carrier (forget for the moment it's N-powered). It carries 40 aircraft: Rafale M (range 3,340km), Super Etendard (range 1,682km) and three E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft.

Now compare this with the air arm our very own 45,000 Vicky and even the soon to be commissioned 40,000 ton Vikrant.

The Hawkeye and Super Etendard are game changers in force projection and that's why the Indian Navy is set on a Catobar. Even the 65K Queen Elizabeth is to have a 40 aircraft carrier wing which can be expanded to 50 on full load that too because they are using the F35B (again compare with the French AC which is 25K ton lighter). The rest of the complement are helis including the Merlin Crowsnest for AEW. The Brits can get away with that because in any deployment the Queen Elizabeth will work as a complementary ship to the US aircraft carriers. India does not have that option.

In 2030 timeframe we need Catobar aircraft carriers, preferably electric and nuclear but if push come to shove then steam and non-nuclear. IMO Catobar is non-negotiable.

[amit]

I would prefer a desi Shtorm style carrier,where both a ski-jump and cats are used for launches.

Come on Philip ji fess up!

What you would actually prefer is that India bank rolls the building of what is now a paper ship called Shtorm by the Russians with all the IP staying with them and India getting a MKI'z version of the ship, after the Russians builds one for themselves. Of course no objections when the Russians sell the design to their new OBOR-strategic friends sitting on their south eastern border. We can always give away $10 billion or so to our everlasting friends.

On a more serious note: Can you explain to a layman like me what a ski-jump brings to the table that cats can't do which is why you apparently need both on one ship? Oh yes I get it MiG29Ks are not hardened enough to be launched with cats, so we need a ski-jump. So we should design a AC to fit a pre-selected aircraft and not the otherway round!

[Philip]

Shtorm is too big at 100K t.No need for an even larger vessel! Please,don't insinuate bias where objectivity is being displayed.

Read the good admiral's take on the issue. 2 almost similar sister ships to the Vikrant-2 will suffice for now,cost as much as just one N-powered EMALS vessel.We also do not have the tech for an N-reactor for a carrier and the US has point-blank refused to give us the reactor tech! So where will we get N-reactor tech from,Russia? Mating Russian N-power with a Yanqui EMALS system is going to be great fun what?!Why I would prefer a Shtorm type concept but not such a large vessel. The CDG is only slightly larger than the IAC-1. I have also been consistent with wanting a slightly larger sister ship of iAC-1 for a v.long time. Affordable ,can be built fast and will not pose too many new-fangled tech problems as EMALS is showing.
The Shtorm concept with a ski-jump plus cat,will allow existing MIG-29Ks plus whatever is chosen for the "59 aircraft" to operate from the carriers.It will allow a lot of flexibility for the carrier air groups being able to operate from all carriers if the size of aircraft can be accommodated by the lifts of the IAC-1 and VikA as well.[/b

A ski-jump is far cheaper than installing a Cat system.Steam Cats require huge power,cost more than a ski-jump CV but far less than an N-powered EMALS carrier. [b]EMALS alone $1B!. In STOBAR launch,the aircraft uses its own power to take-off.
No idea what the size of the Kuznetsov/Varyag (now Liaoning) N-plant is,or that on the CDG,costs for both too. However,steam cats are proven tech used for decades,on our erstwhile Vikrant too.

[NRao]

Philip ji,

I think the Russians have been consultants on the Vikrant. And, yet, the USN (via DTTI) offered to certify the ship/ops and the IN has not rejected the offer so far.

I think the Shtorm looks great and has every feature that one would love to have. It will float for sure. BUT, will it be an optimal boat for naval air ops? Dunno. One thing for sure, the Russians are not the experts in this area. I think they can design and build a great boat, but are not in a position to go any further - chakravyu - of course that is my opinion. (The thing is until now they have not found a place for serious naval air operations in their plans. So it appears neglected.)

Rest,

On the topic of Vishal Onward (VO), IMVVVHO, there are three things that are at the center of such boats:

* A E-2D type of an asset. I think the IN has this asset at the very core. (Three per boat, one flying all the time)
* A tanker, and
* Deck operations. This, in my view, is THE most complex part of the SELECTION of a design


A CAT has been the default, so not mentioning it separately. And steam vs. electric is immaterial at this point in time.


Thumb rules (that I have come across - other please find/add):

* 1000 ton per air craft hosted by the boat
* 80% availability of air crafts
* Sortie generation rate (SGR). A very involved/complex topic. Worth investigating



Now select a boat.

[amit]

^^^^
NRao ji

To add to your point, and this is something I've written so many times yet around the merry go round we go, the Vishal is a boat we are looking for in the 2030s timeframe. Going by how long we used our two previous carriers and taking the US benchmark of 50 years, we are looking at Vishal being in active service from 2030-2070.

Now think about the size of the Indian economy, by 2030 we'd be the third largest economy in the world behind China and the US. By 2050 if things go right for us we may even be No1, certainly No2. Thats why the Indian Navy, a hat tip to them, is thinking big. India will then have a global footprint and would need to be able to project power at corners of the globe and be willing to do so, if it doesn't want to become another post-war Japan.

And yet our venerable Philip ji, and others, are thinking about Indian requirements for Vishal from a prism which mirrors today's abilities and requirements. I'm not sure why there's a mental block of thinking big on a forum like this. Fortunately, the Indian Navy is not afflicted by this disease.

Cat is non negotiable, Hawkeye or its equivalent is non negotiable and a full kitted fighter like the F18 or Rafale or F35 are non negotiable for Vishal which will enter service in 2030. N-power is good but if push come to shove it can be steam. To design the Vishal so that it can fly Mig 29K lemons would be travesty.

JMT

[Philip]

What do we do between now and 2030? The Chinese will have 3-4 carriers within 4-5 years.We will still be languishing with just two. We can very easily build by 2025 another sister ship to the Vikrant-2.Vishal built afterwards given the shape of carrier maritime/warfare that appears between 2020-2025.
By 2025,we will know how successful EMALS,the JSF,naval FGFA and LR UAV/UCAVs operating from carriers are. An N-powered larger carrier could then be given the green light. The window of opportunity for China and Pak is within the next decade,to "teach India a lesson".Under the NDA-2,we are just starting to remedy the crisis with decisions,which will only fructify after 3 years (Rafale,etc.).New arty has just started dribbling in,but the rate of sub building and warships have their own min. time schedule. For subs,leasing more Ru N-subs is the best interim option,until our desi SSSN/SSGNs arrive,at least 5-6 years before the first one is launched.WE must have 3 carriers by around 2025.It isn't poss at all to get a larger flat top by then.

[chola]

What do we do between now and 2030? The Chinese will have 3-4 carriers within 4-5 years.We will still be languishing with just two. We can very easily build by 2025 another sister ship to the Vikrant-2.Vishal built afterwards given the shape of carrier maritime/warfare that appears between 2020-2025.
By 2025,we will know how successful EMALS,the JSF,naval FGFA and LR UAV/UCAVs operating from carriers are. An N-powered larger carrier could then be given the green light. The window of opportunity for China and Pak is within the next decade,to "teach India a lesson".Under the NDA-2,we are just starting to remedy the crisis with decisions,which will only fructify after 3 years (Rafale,etc.).New arty has just started dribbling in,but the rate of sub building and warships have their own min. time schedule. For subs,leasing more Ru N-subs is the best interim option,until our desi SSSN/SSGNs arrive,at least 5-6 years before the first one is launched.WE must have 3 carriers by around 2025.It isn't poss at all to get a larger flat top by then.

Oh stop it, Filipov. Chinis will NOT have "3-4 carriers within 4-5 years." They'll probably get their third in five or more years. And we'll have two then. So what's the big pressing gap where we need to push STOBARs?

And no, we cannot easily build another Vikrant. The main issues with the first -- lack of large drydocks in industry constraining to one builder, CSL, and the well-known Indian malady of waiting for and integrating phoren systems and parts -- will remain. It will take great effort and budget regardless and the IN would rather direct those to a CATOBAR.

In the near term, we cannot outbuild the chinis simply because of resources anyways (check what happened to your beloved USSR when racing with an economy 5 times larger, comrade.) So pushing another STOBAR in a race with them is pointless. The PRC will not be building a third STOBAR.

There will be no "teaching of lessons" in the foreseeable future when the chinis are engaged in building out a trillion USD in infrastructure. The last thing they would want is war to burn all that moolah to a crisp. And stop talking about the PRC like it is a military power. If there are anyone less martial than us SDREs it would be SYREs. Please. The main "confrontation" in the IOR would be flag showing.

The Indian Navy knows what it is doing. In 10 years, the PRC might have their 3rd and 4th carriers -- Type 002 conventional CATOBAR with steam cats.

In 10 years, if the IN gets its ducks in order, our third could be a EMALS/AAG CVN. Far better to put that up against the Type 002s than another STOBAR.

Just trust the Navy, man!