INS Vikrant News and Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 20 May 2017 14:26

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

The Shtorm is about 6 feet long, 2 feet wide and 1 foot high.

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?!

Unless you're claiming that the INS Arihant is running on diesel, the "we also do not have tech for N-reactor" claim is nonsense.

And ordering a sister ship to the Vikrant in no way precludes the MoD from proceeding with the INS Vishal which should be replacing the VikAd in IN service in the mid 2030s.

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.

The MiG-29 is a dead-end platform and designing a new class of supercarrier to accommodate the MiG-29 before its retired, is a asinine idea. And if you could look past your biases, you'd be able to see what everyone else can - an EMALS delivered in 2030 carries negligible technical risk. Less than a steam cat system (which BTW neither we nor the Russians have any experience designing).

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.

Turboprop propulsion is also proven tech but the IAF is still not going send its pilots into combat in Spitfires. EMALS is the next generation of catapult technology, will be operational by the end of this year and should be an obvious preference for a ship entering service 15 years from now.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 140
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Chinmay » 20 May 2017 16:03

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

The Shtorm is about 6 feet long, 2 feet wide and 1 foot high.

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 20 May 2017 17:50

" The Shtorm is about 6 feet long, 2 feet wide and 1 foot high."

Don't laugh it's an essential stealth feature. The nano sized naval PAK/FA are invisible to enemies.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 May 2017 18:00

That may be the model of the Shtorm, the digital design has sailed and is operational. Remember the narrative is that technology on a vessel that is nearly 100% complete (not to mention a design that has 3 carriers paid for and under construction, sharing the same technology) , has been floated out to sea, and set for commissioning in the next few weeks/months, and that has had its core system under considerations (EMALS) being tested on land for the last 7+ years is immature and therefore not suited for a carrier that is not expected to be commissioned till a decade+ from now, BUT a plastic model of a notional carrier that incorporates a significant leap over the Admiral Kuznetsov and that exists purely in the digital realm is a better bet.

Some serious objectivity at display!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 May 2017 04:58

XPosting

Evolve F/A-18E/F Rather Than Build New Fighter, Boeing Urges U.S. Navy

Potential Foreign Military Sales prospects for the Super Hornet include Kuwait, Canada, India and Finland. Kuwait is close to signing a deal for 24 aircraft with an option for 12 more. Canada is negotiating with Boeing via the U.S. government for an interim fleet of F/A-18E/Fs to meet its defense obligations to the North American Aerospace Defense Command and NATO.

India, meanwhile, needs a new aircraft for its carriers. Boeing is working to validate the Super Hornet’s ski jump capability to ensure it can meet India’s needs, since U.S. jets are typically launched by catapult.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6147
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 25 May 2017 01:38

To me it seems both options a Vikrant sister ship and the 65k ton EMALS equipped dream carrier have their own problems.

The EMALs carrier cannot be built before 2030-2035 if we are going to be realistic, even assuming that a deal with the Americans for obtaining EMALS technology goes through with the orange gorilla calling the shots in the US. It will be quite an expensive undertaking as well and will definitely impact funding for other programs.

On the other hand, if we manage to build a another Vikrant class ship fairly quickly, which aircraft do we put on it? Mig-29s have their problems and the IN does not seem to think the LCA will cut it. And even if we find a fighter, there is no fixed-wing AEW aircraft capable of flying from it.

Might as well use our limited resources to plug huge capability gaps in other areas like SSKs, SSNs Sea-King replacements, more MPA's, MCMVs, more ASW corvettes, missile corvettes, frigates, etc. The list is long and keeps getting longer while we are fixated on yet another carrier.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 25 May 2017 02:59

Yes, the cost of such investments is of concern.

Someone else had said the same in diff words:

I just took a quick peek at what they are saying about Indian economy in 2030. Today $2 trillion (rounding it to closet whole number). In 2030 it is expected to be $19 trillion (and growing). Even if the same %age is maintained, that would be 8x of the current def spending. Granted there would be other factors that would influence this equation. The point being can one extrapolate the concern by an equal amount?

?????

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5179
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 25 May 2017 03:43

nachiket wrote:To me it seems both options a Vikrant sister ship and the 65k ton EMALS equipped dream carrier have their own problems.

The EMALs carrier cannot be built before 2030-2035 if we are going to be realistic, even assuming that a deal with the Americans for obtaining EMALS technology goes through with the orange gorilla calling the shots in the US. It will be quite an expensive undertaking as well and will definitely impact funding for other programs.

We're not seeking the technology for EMALS just the actual system delivered off-the-shelf by General Atomics. Three catapults and the AAG.

Approval for export has already been awarded. Truth is its a relatively minor acquisition and I doubt anybody in Washington has paid any attention to it especially with DTTI and all that.

On the other hand, if we manage to build a another Vikrant class ship fairly quickly, which aircraft do we put on it? Mig-29s have their problems and the IN does not seem to think the LCA will cut it. And even if we find a fighter, there is no fixed-wing AEW aircraft capable of flying from it.

The F-35 & N-Tejas would be obvious solutions for the Viraat II. While the F-35B might not be compatible with the Vikrant (the ship's lifts are potentially too small), it would be capable of operating from Juan Carlos-class LHD (L&T is currently pitching the design for the IN's 4 ship MRSV contract). The F-35C would allow interoperability with the Vikrant & Vishal but not the LHDs.

Might as well use our limited resources to plug huge capability gaps in other areas like SSKs, SSNs Sea-King replacements, more MPA's, MCMVs, more ASW corvettes, missile corvettes, frigates, etc. The list is long and keeps getting longer while we are fixated on yet another carrier.

What is the job of a carrier? Unfortunately, years of watching US force projection have created this misconception that the carrier is designed to be used for attack while being protected by its 'escorts'.

The PRIMARY task of any carrier is to protect its escorts, everything else is secondary. The carrier is the FIRST line of defence for the naval battlegroup. Carrier-based aircraft are expected to detect, engage & destroy enemy warships & aircraft at range ie.e before they can threaten the fleet. (The carrier also retains the largest part of the group's ASW helos.)

Submarines have a role to play but being slow moving stealth predators they can NOT substitute the functions of a surface fleet. They are too slow to patrol large stretches of the sea and cannot be used to enforce a naval blockade (unless you're willing to sink civilian shipping - a warcrime under the Geneva Convention). And enforcing a naval blockade will the first offensive priority for the IN in wartime.

Point is, if you want to interdict the SLOCs of a hostile nation - you need a surface fleet. If you want to operate a surface fleet in an area where there is a persistent threat from enemy aircraft - you need an aircraft carrier.

We are not 'fixated on another carrier', we NEED one. Its a deficiency that needs to be addressed much like the deficiences in other spheres. We have two carriers currently contracted for. Which means when the Vikrant is in refit, the IN's carrier component is predicated on the reliability of the VikAd, which like it or not, is a 30-year old refurbished/rebuilt Soviet carrier. A sister ship to the Vikrant is needed to ensure that the IN can put at least one carrier out to sea at all times to ensure basic air cover for the battle group.

The IAC-2 is a long-term project that needs to be treated as a replacement for the Vikramaditya (which was commissioned in 2013 with a formal service life of 20 years).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 25 May 2017 12:24

Realisation is finally dawning upon some.For the next 15 years,we will possess just 2 carriers in comparison with China's 4-5 planned,until the large Vishal/whatever arrives post 2030. Therefor it makes sense to build asap,a sister ship to the Vikrant-2 which will not tax the design bureau,shipyard,component manufacturers,etc,since the vessel will be as far as poss. similar in most respects.The design can be stretched to around 50K t,but would require a more powerful plant. As far as aircraft is concerned,any MIG-29 issues should be resolved by the OEM within a year's time at least. There may be upgrades to the current aircraft too available within the period of construction of the carrier,upto MIG-35 std,TVC,whatever. Alternatively,if the IN is still dissatisfied with the 29Ks,Rafale-M ,Sea Gripen and F-35Bs are other options. These aircraft should be able to operate from the two existing carriers too.A mix of approx 50 29Ks and 50 new aircraft will provide enough aircraft for 3 med-sized carriers.
A sister ship to the V-2 could arrive within 7 years if the decision is taken this year,so by 2025,we would have 3 carriers,two being almost similar allowing much commonality,ease of operations,maintenance,crewing,etc.

When the large CV arrives 15 yrs. fronm now,there will be sev. alternatives other than the ones mentioned. By then NLCA MK-2 should be in the air,FGFA naval variant and the F-35 variants would've had a decade of service behind them ,another stealth option.In addition,UCAVs operating from carriers would by then be widespread aboard US/UK carriers at least. Our desi UCAV would be in the air,and we would also be somewhere in the dev. of the AMCA,providing that LCA dev. has accelerated and production stabilised.Little point in acquiring AMCAs at the rate of 6/yr!

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby amit » 25 May 2017 14:48

Philip wrote:Realisation is finally dawning upon some.For the next 15 years,we will possess just 2 carriers in comparison with China's 4-5 planned,until the large Vishal/whatever arrives post 2030. Therefor it makes sense to build asap,a sister ship to the Vikrant-2


Philip,

I think you are being too conservative with the Chinese aircraft carrier numbers. I think by 2030 or 13 years from now they should be having 8-9 aircraft carriers.

But more to the point, Vikrant is due for delivery in 2018 according to the Navy, CAG and others reckon the date to be nearer to 2022. However, taking the Navy's date on face value, after delivery by late 2018 it would take around one, may be two years to validate all tech and make changes that are bound to happen in a new design build. Heck the Charles De Gaulle lost its damn propellers during sea trials and had to be towed back to the dock.

All this means we are looking at around early 2021 by which time the carrier enters active service and the final design (with whatever modifications are required) is ready. So it's only then the yards can start on building Vikrant 2 and god knows how long they will take to do so.

I would say the best course of action, with the fastest results would be just to plonk some billions to the Russians and get them to build the Shstorm for us. At 100,000 tons it can accommodate a gazillion MiG29s which by then would have transformed themselves (like the Mike Bey movies) into a super dooper carrier fighter. Who knows maybe the Russians would be able to build us two ACs by 2030. Then we can face the Chinese AC armada of 8-9 ships with confidence, vodka in hand and all that...

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby amit » 25 May 2017 15:05

nachiket wrote:The EMALs carrier cannot be built before 2030-2035 if we are going to be realistic, even assuming that a deal with the Americans for obtaining EMALS technology goes through with the orange gorilla calling the shots in the US. It will be quite an expensive undertaking as well and will definitely impact funding for other programs.


As far as I know, the preliminary design work on the new 65t (or thereabouts) AC has already been started by the Navy. It will be nuclear and I'm sure the experience with Arihant would help and since space is less of a constraint on a 65k ton carrier as opposed to a 6t submarine, it should not be too difficult to put in two reactors like the Charles de Gaulle, along with normal turbines. When we think of nuclear AC, we tend to think in terms of TFTA US specs where they have a mega reactor in the region of 250MW on board which needs refuelling in around 20-30 years. We'll get there eventually but we don't need to in our first effort.

As far as Emals is concerned, as Viv mentioned, its essentially a plug and play system and shouldn't pose a problem.

The Navy itself is looking at this new carrier to be operational around 2030 and later, so they seem to be fine with the fact that over the next decade and half India would be a two carrier Navy. I'm sure they know what they are thinking about.

Now why not a quicky in terms of a Vikrant 2? I don't claim to know how the Navy thinks on this but it's quite clear that the force is not interested mainly because of limited choice of aircraft to fly from it. Another point that needs to be remembered is that an AC usually stays in service for at least 50 years. Taking 2030 as a benchmark (remember even if we decide today to build a second Vikrant, it would enter service not earlier than 2027-28) we are talking about being in service till 2070 at least. India's security requirements would be dramatically different as it would be the world's largest economy and would have interests spanning the globe much like the US today - which is why it is written into the statutes that it must have 11 ACs operational at given point of time.

I think the Navy knows what it wants and is following a plan. No need to hyperventilate because the Chinese are building ACs so fast, their ACs are totally unknown quantities in terms of fighting ability, even to them. And in our sphere of influence, that is the Indian Ocean region, we have peninsular India and the Andamans to act as two additional carriers. Let's not lose site of this fact.

JMT

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby chola » 25 May 2017 15:41

Amit! Why did you go rational in the last post? I was enjoying your previous rant at Comrade Filipov. lol

amit wrote:I would say the best course of action, with the fastest results would be just to plonk some billions to the Russians and get them to build the Shstorm for us. At 100,000 tons it can accommodate a gazillion MiG29s which by then would have transformed themselves (like the Mike Bey movies) into a super dooper carrier fighter. Who knows maybe the Russians would be able to build us two ACs by 2030. Then we can face the Chinese AC armada of 8-9 ships with confidence, vodka in hand and all that...

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5037
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Surya » 25 May 2017 16:09

chola wrote:Amit! Why did you go rational in the last post? I was enjoying your previous rant at Comrade Filipov. lol

amit wrote:I would say the best course of action, with the fastest results would be just to plonk some billions to the Russians and get them to build the Shstorm for us. At 100,000 tons it can accommodate a gazillion MiG29s which by then would have transformed themselves (like the Mike Bey movies) into a super dooper carrier fighter. Who knows maybe the Russians would be able to build us two ACs by 2030. Then we can face the Chinese AC armada of 8-9 ships with confidence, vodka in hand and all that...



Also lets not forget the Chinese are improving exponentially -their 4 th \5th carrier mightbe 200000 tons -

really should have the Russians looking at super shtorm :roll:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15298
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 25 May 2017 17:18

amit wrote:
Philip wrote:Realisation is finally dawning upon some.For the next 15 years,we will possess just 2 carriers in comparison with China's 4-5 planned,until the large Vishal/whatever arrives post 2030. Therefor it makes sense to build asap,a sister ship to the Vikrant-2


I would say the best course of action, with the fastest results would be just to plonk some billions to the Russians and get them to build the Shstorm for us. At 100,000 tons it can accommodate a gazillion MiG29s which by then would have transformed themselves (like the Mike Bey movies) into a super dooper carrier fighter. Who knows maybe the Russians would be able to build us two ACs by 2030. Then we can face the Chinese AC armada of 8-9 ships with confidence, vodka in hand and all that...


When dealing with russian rakshaks, I guess the best response is indeed sarcasm. :lol:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 25 May 2017 18:04

Sarcasm useless.Objectivity and commonsense appears lost when die-hard Yanqui-lovers want India to play puppy-dog to the USN and copy-cat their fleet.They want the IN to emulate the USN's mega-carriers before we've even got used to operating two med. sized ones. Anyway,it's not going to happen in my lifetime,15 yrs+ at the earliest if it ever comes. Funny how feku logic tries to worm itself into posts.No one has touted for the Shtorm,it's too large for us at 100K t,but the concept of using both a ski-jump and cats is novel and should be pursued to see if it can fit aboard a future 65K t vessel,or even a smaller sized carrier.

Instead of ludicrous ,obtuse posts like the highlighted one,more objective and analytical posts would be welcome. One has mentioned the huge cost of such a carrier for the IN,which would beggar its budget.Right now,only a blind man cannot see the real no ! priority for the IN,subs,N-subs and sub-hunting helos,The stats about the Chinese going to have almost 80 subs by 2020 ,apart from Pak's planned 12+,should be more than a wake-up call top the MOD and IN,rather a torpedo up their backsides! The neglect of the sub fleet,and the numerous accidents to our subs in recent times,has reflected very badly upon the reputation of the IN today.It caused one CNS to resign,when in fact the Def. Min,AKA should've fallen on his sword/tripped on his dhoti.kilos undergoing their second lifetime refit is unheard of anywhere.U-boats almost equally old are also getting some sort of transfusion to linger on a little longer.Barely half the sub fleet is battleworthy,with the Chakra/Akula-2 our only force multiplier.

Drastic decision-making is required immediately to resolve the crisis in the shortest time.The 3rd. carrier requirement while needed,pales in comparison with the situ of our subs. What is needed here is a faster completion of IAC-1 so that it can be put through its paces and compared with the Vi-A so that the combined experience of operating both becomes input for carrier no.3.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 May 2017 18:37

It has been shown time in time again, that you do not need a 100K class super carrier to field Catapults. The French do so with a 42,000 ton class design. As far as dual use Ski jump + Catapult configuration, the only thing that will benefit from that is the MiG-29K which I doubt will be a major design driver when considering a 2030s carrier design especially if you are going to introduce design complexity of such a concept, or limit your catapult launch capable aircraft to smaller number of catapults. The IN has around 50 MiG-29Ks for two carriers (factor availability and how many may be at a depot at any given time and the number available for carrier duties may be smaller than that), so it makes not much sense to have the inability of these aircrafts to launch from a catapult to influence design for a 2030s vessel that may be the third or fourth carrier for the IN.

The N-LCA, or the N-AMCA are Indian designs which can be converted to be Cat compatible as has been done with virtually all the eminent Naval fighters in the west. As far as buying new aircraft, there too exists plenty of options to choose from. The only option that will require some unique coordination to clear for Cat use is the MiG-29K, which may explain why some are pushing for a dual launch mechanism for a carrier. The rest of the 4th, 4.5th and 5th generation Carrier compatible options either already are Catapult compatible, or can be easily cleared and this includes the designs wholly owned by India (LCA and AMCA).

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby chola » 25 May 2017 18:58

Retro-fitting a catapult into the angled deck of a STOBAR might make sense. But designing a CATO-STOBAR like Shitstorm is silly and destroys the efficiency of concurrent launch and recover. No one else has designed this kind of set up for a reason.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7767
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 25 May 2017 19:03

The yanks converted a whole lot of Essex class ship's from straight decks to angled decks and catapults so did the poodle.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15298
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 25 May 2017 20:59

Philip wrote:Sarcasm useless.Objectivity and commonsense appears lost when die-hard Yanqui-lovers want India to play puppy-dog to the USN and copy-cat their fleet.


lol, indian rakshaks support indian programs. perhaps best to lock the russian rakshaks in a room with yanqui rakshaks and have them bloviate at each other.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby amit » 26 May 2017 12:07

Philip wrote:Sarcasm useless.Objectivity and commonsense appears lost when die-hard Yanqui-lovers want India to play puppy-dog to the USN and copy-cat their fleet.They want the IN to emulate the USN's mega-carriers before we've even got used to operating two med. sized ones. Anyway,it's not going to happen in my lifetime,15 yrs+ at the earliest if it ever comes. Funny how feku logic tries to worm itself into posts.No one has touted for the Shtorm,it's too large for us at 100K t,but the concept of using both a ski-jump and cats is novel and should be pursued to see if it can fit aboard a future 65K t vessel,or even a smaller sized carrier.


Feku logic heh Philip?

So Catobar is all about Yanqui-lovers heh? Let me help you out with your selective amnesia with this picture:

Image

Recognise the ship? And horror of horrors the chaps are actually using a Catobar! :oops: :oops:

Yes the original Vikrant which did such a yeoman's service during the 1971 war, used planes launched by Catobar to bomb Chittagong port. So wanting to go back to Catobar is equal to becoming a puppy-dog to the USN? Only a stronger than vodka and fairer than Natasha friend of the Bear would say something like that. But then I'm not adding any value to the discussion by pointing out this pout. :lol:

Whether you like it or not the Indian navy's first AC experience was with a Catobar AC. Due to stupid reasons (I would reckon) nobody tried to copy the design of Vikrant and make an indigenous Catobar AC and instead we went for the Hermes which the British had available for sale. It wasn't so bad because then the Harriers were state of the art AC borne fighters which had the benefit of vertical landing.

After that we went with the Vikramaditya, I won't dwell on what a stupid decision that was, plenty has been discussed about this. And the MiG29s come into the picture. Again there is no need to discuss the failures of this plane, the most prominent being, IMO is not its single engine landing issue but the fact that it simply can't fly with full weapon and fuel load from a carrier deck.

The Navy seems to have realised this and also the fact that a ski ramp AC will never be able to fly a Hawkeye type of plane which is why they have decided to dig down on a flat top design. And for Catobar, whether steam or EMALs, the US is the only game in town and even the French have used a US Catobar on the De Gaulle. I wonder what kind of puppy dog worship it is to profess support for the Navy and yet insist that they should stay away from Yanqui stuff and go with an inferior Russian maal which has amply proved its inadequacy.

[Note: I'm not against Russian help where it has proved useful, for example in submarines, the Su-30 and other areas. It's just that there are no permanent friends or enemies in this game, only permanent interests. And IMO in this case it is in India's interest to go with US tech for the new AC. Also a trick question for you Philip, let's see if you choose to answer or whether you feign another bout of amnesia: India is getting its aviation complex for IAC-1 from the Russians. The VickD also has a Russian made aviation complex. Now curious minds want to know, where did the Chinese get their aviation complex for Liaoning and for the new one they are launching? Any idea? In effect the Chinese will know the exact capability of India's newest AC when it comes to its ability to put fighters in the air.]

Final point, the AC design will be Indian. The Indian Navy design bureau has already got the budget to conceptualise how the AC will shape up. Catobar, whether it's EMALs or steam will just be an off the shelf purchase.

Instead of ludicrous ,obtuse posts like the highlighted one,more objective and analytical posts would be welcome. One has mentioned the huge cost of such a carrier for the IN,which would beggar its budget.Right now,only a blind man cannot see the real no ! priority for the IN,subs,N-subs and sub-hunting helos,The stats about the Chinese going to have almost 80 subs by 2020 ,apart from Pak's planned 12+,should be more than a wake-up call top the MOD and IN,rather a torpedo up their backsides! The neglect of the sub fleet,and the numerous accidents to our subs in recent times,has reflected very badly upon the reputation of the IN today.It caused one CNS to resign,when in fact the Def. Min,AKA should've fallen on his sword/tripped on his dhoti.kilos undergoing their second lifetime refit is unheard of anywhere.U-boats almost equally old are also getting some sort of transfusion to linger on a little longer.Barely half the sub fleet is battleworthy,with the Chakra/Akula-2 our only force multiplier.


Now, now how convenient Filipkosy! You change the goalposts! :-) In your previous post you were talking about the need to counter 4-6 Chinese AC and for that reason we need to build another Vikrant 2 quickly (with of course MiG29 planes duh!). Now the Navy needs to move away from ACs and counter Chinese subs by building more subs with Russian help (why do I even to write that?). Can you prove that the third AC is going to be built by taking budget from our sub programme? Any factual evidence about this, instead of "I think..." kind of post?

Confabulating data about the need for investment in our submarine arm to dish our AC programme because it wouldn't help provide some billions to the Russians is par for course I suppose.

Drastic decision-making is required immediately to resolve the crisis in the shortest time.The 3rd. carrier requirement while needed,pales in comparison with the situ of our subs. What is needed here is a faster completion of IAC-1 so that it can be put through its paces and compared with the Vi-A so that the combined experience of operating both becomes input for carrier no.3.


Make up your mind. Does India or does it not need a third AC. And an answer, that it needs a third (and fourth, and fifth) AC only if it comes with a Stobar and MiG29 aircraft is not an option.

Incidentally, in case you didn't notice, the Navy has taken a firm decision to build a third AC around 65k tons with Catobar and most probably N-propulsion. Learn to live with that.
Last edited by amit on 26 May 2017 12:15, edited 1 time in total.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby amit » 26 May 2017 12:12

chola wrote:Retro-fitting a catapult into the angled deck of a STOBAR might make sense. But designing a CATO-STOBAR like Shitstorm is silly and destroys the efficiency of concurrent launch and recover. No one else has designed this kind of set up for a reason.


+100

One big disadvantage of Stobar is the fact that it eats up deck space. In a flat top, the plane launch area can be allocated for parking planes when it's not being used. An angled deck eats valuable and significant amount of real estate on top side where space is always at a premium and is useless save for plane launches.

A good example of deck utilisation on a flat top.
Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby chola » 26 May 2017 17:07

Fantastic write up, Amit. The CATOBAR is our heritage!

Though to be perfectly honest, as a kid I recall the original Vikrant as having a ski jump for the Harriers. Didn't learn until later that it was originally a CATOBAR as HMS Hercules.

Missed chance at reverse engineering the catapult after removal in 1989.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3107
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 26 May 2017 20:00

amit wrote: it simply can't fly with full weapon and fuel load from a carrier deck.


Source?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 27 May 2017 14:59

We're talking about EMALS and a cats only carrier.In fact the pic of the Vikrant precisely supports my point how med-sized carriers can operate both cats and a ski-jump.A 50K t carrier will be twice the size of the Vikrant which was later modified with a ski-jump to operate Sea Harriers. A larger vessel would be able to accommodate both. A 3rd carrier similar in size to the two we have,the new Vikrant expected around 2020,would then be able to use existing aircraft on any ship.Otherwise,we would be in the difficult situ of having some aircraft being able to operate from only one carrier.
Since the large CV is only going to come around 2030+,a sister ship to the Vikrant-2 is the logical answer.Adding a cat would give it more options for aircratft in the future.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 27 May 2017 23:15

I have not come across any material on this topic from any IN source/s.

But, typical, among the various roles a carrier could take on, the two most common ones are "fleet carrier" and an "escort carrier".

The prior carries a lot more planes and has an offensive bend and the latter carries a lot lesser number of planes and is defensively inclined. i *suspect* that the Vikrant is more of an escort carrier and that the Vishal is designed to be a fleet carrier. I would expect the Vishal to cover the entire area of interest of the IN (due East all the way to Alaska and due west around Africa + Med). I would expect the Vikrant to live in the IOR - not venture beyond the IOR. Again, the emphasis is on the major role, does not mean that they could stick solely to these roles.

Amit ji,

A good example of deck utilisation on a flat top.


I would be very cautious about making USN assets as some sort of a standard. Especially their carriers. Here is a picture that shows the relative sizes:

Image

USS John C. Stennis, Charles de Gaulle, USS John F. Kennedy, helicopter carrier HMS Ocean.


Furthermore, The Ford class is actually expected to be 30% more "efficient", with not much change in "size". They have designed this boat based on their ops - deck and air. One thing I found very interesting is the importance of an air craft to be able to make U-turn - they claim it makes a huge impact on the design, both deck and hanger - it determines which lifts can be used and which cannot be, which impact the speed at which a deck can be "cleared", thus the rate at which planes can be trapped.

Note that (at least in the USN) planes that head for the hanger need to be de-fueled and re-fueled when they come up to the deck. US carriers also have the means to swap engines, make small fixes and test them on the carrier. USN operates on 80% availability. They also have many tankers in the air - it is common that *some* returning planes, during night ops, to visit a tanker more than once.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 27 May 2017 23:50

vasu raya wrote:
brar_w wrote:I think they rev to maximum power setting in order to maintain flight after cat release, and in order to make sure they are at max power in case cat fails. I could be wrong though.


Thanks brarji, so for example the naval LCA with the 404 can take off with the same payload as the one equipped with a 414 because EMALS gives additional thrust to the underpowered plane giving the correct ramp exit velocity that can be sustained by the flight engine on its own, ofcourse at full throttle. no backup here if cat fails.

I guess the Naval LCA, HTT-40 and Mig-29 all are short on engine power required for AC takeoff in their operational roles, and EMALS can address that shortcoming?

Its a different matter that the aircraft will be going through design iterations improving their engine power for Carrier takeoff which is again could be as prolonged as the adoption of first EMALS cat itself either as a retrofit or on a new AC



1) IF a CAT fails, especially in the first 70-80% of the ride, the pilots eject and the plane goes under. Anything beyond that depends - most go under, some come out of the mess, but at peril to the life of the pilot. The pilot is in-charge once he is given the go to launch - his decision what to do and not do

2) Full power is to ensure that *after* leaving the boat that the plane is able to overcome the sudden lack of ground support. Most YT CATs show the pilot engaging the burner when the plane is about half way down the ride (clearly seen in night launches)

Have not come across anything on this topic (that I can remember), but a CAT cannot be used to overcome a design shortcoming. So, I would not expect a LCA MK1 to behave like a MK2 just because of a EMALS/steam CAT. Once the plane leaves the boat, the design of that plane comes into play

3) A more common "failure" is one of a jet failing, rather than a CAT failing. The plane is invariably lost

4) The most common "failure"s are when the trapping wires snap. YT has one vid where an E-2C has to power up because the wire snaps, the plane dips, low enough to be lost on the vid, only to reappear and fly back


5) Filed under dangerous deck: a deck hand comes too close to a jet waiting to be engaged onto a CAT, during a night sortie, gets sucked into the intake and is extricated with minor injuries because he got caught in something before his head reached the jet's fan!!! There on YT

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 28 May 2017 00:29

NRaoji, the focus is only on the deck handling part where the EMALS is in the picture, in the rest of the flight phases, the plane would be what it is designed for either Mk1 or Mk2.

lets say the EMALS is more reliable than a steam CAT and does a better job of curve fitting the required thrust profile during carrier takeoff and maybe can be treated as a "second engine on afterburner" with 80-90% confidence

the corner case of a engine failure or CAT failure exists and one can lose a plane, IN is already living with a single engine plane. There is a YT video where an F-16 pilot does a glide landing after loss of engine power but has his hydraulics and computer working due to an auxiliary system, some sort of fuel based, giving enough window for last ditch. Perhaps they could have a U-turn performed in such a small window though there is no altitude advantage with a deck takeoff.

and yes AAG would take higher loads as the return takeoff speed has to be maintained, if it is automated the miss chance is reduced, the Chinese with their Su-33, every landing looks like a close call, don't have any reference on their landings and crashes statistics. Tejas being a local jet, as long as the pilot is kept safe, maybe any remnant attrition risk is acceptable to IN.

Losing a E-2 or a C-2 kind of plane is a more serous issue, if engine thrust required can be lowered in the specs due to EMALS assisted takeoff maybe we could build one locally or they can be imported as they are designed today due to low nos required and not rely on the EMALS to compensate for thrust.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 28 May 2017 00:45

Sorry to muddy the waters.

Let us stick with "EMALS".

Why would you want "second engine on afterburner" (If EMALS "does a better job of curve fitting the required thrust profile")? I would need to understand that.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 28 May 2017 00:55

Tejas Mk1 moved from the airforce version to the Naval one and there are shortcomings identified one of which is thrust required for carrier takeoff, so if say EMALS is used which is capable of handling C2/E2 loads, maybe we can use it to compensate for the Mk1's thrust shortfall as well, just another approach while they keep toiling at Mk2

same issue with HTT-40

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 28 May 2017 01:13

Let us stick with "EMALS" and LCA MK1


Ah, I see.

Not familiar with the LCA related issues (guess that shortcoming was related to the ski jump), but assuming the LCA Mk1 can fly after it achieves the required acceleration, then I do not see an issue with that plan.

It also assumes that the LCA Mk1 will have a front strut that is strong enough to be used by the EMALS. I suspect that mod would take about a year. Then they can send the LCA Mk1 to the US and test it on the land based EMALS.



BTW, while on the LCA Mk1 topic. Can they be used as buddy tankers? And, if not would it be reasonable to expect them to make them one?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 28 May 2017 01:42

There is this JASSM-ER, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM, an air launched glide bomb which uses a 220n engine and flies some 600nm, the MALD-J is derived from that and uses an expendable Jammer as the payload, maybe drop tanks can be designed the same except their payload is fuel, the Mk1 fully loaded can take them to altitude or preposition them in an orbit or send them on a recovery path rendezvous

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby amit » 28 May 2017 17:33

Philip wrote:We're talking about EMALS and a cats only carrier.In fact the pic of the Vikrant precisely supports my point how med-sized carriers can operate both cats and a ski-jump.A 50K t carrier will be twice the size of the Vikrant which was later modified with a ski-jump to operate Sea Harriers. A larger vessel would be able to accommodate both. A 3rd carrier similar in size to the two we have,the new Vikrant expected around 2020,would then be able to use existing aircraft on any ship.Otherwise,we would be in the difficult situ of having some aircraft being able to operate from only one carrier.
Since the large CV is only going to come around 2030+,a sister ship to the Vikrant-2 is the logical answer.Adding a cat would give it more options for aircratft in the future.


Philip,
I fail to understand your fixation with a ski-jump. The original Vikrant's Cat was taken out and a ski-jump installed (a retrograde step) because at that time the Indian Navy did not have access to good cat-launched fighters that would be able to operate from Vikrant's small deck and fit in its hanger. Also that was the time of the non-alignment stuff and the only cat-launched planes available were US. Cost was also a major factor.

In 2017, and more so in the next decade, the Indian Navy faces no such constraints. Several state-of-the-art Cat launched planes are available to it. It doesn't even have to buy American. IAF is inducting the Rafale and its Navy version is an excellent plane with a proven track record, far outstriping the MiG29K and whatever China would be able throw up. A Navy buy will give economies of scale and commonality of servicing with the IAF. As to future aircraft both the AMCA and LCA MK2 can be configured for cat launch because they are our own products.

As to existing inventory, if I'm not mistaken the Navy has around 50-odd MiG29Ks and it has made it amply clear that it's not interested in buying more. These planes will be flying off the decks of the VickD and the new Vikrant and so it's not as if they would become hanger queens because of a lack of a use case. Of course they could still become hanger queens on reliability issues but let's not go there in this post.

On a 65K ton carrier, having both Cat and Stobar is probably the stupidest decision that the Navy can take as a ski-deck makes around 40 per cent of topside useless for anything other than plane take off. Remember the topside serves three main purposes: plane take off, landing and parking. The last bit becomes very compromised with a ski-deck.

I've written this in a previous post so I'm not going to re-write. However, I would urge you to have a look at the number of planes carried by the 40K French carrier and the number of planes that UK's newest carrier will carry. Mind you the UK carrier is 25K ton bigger than the De Gaulle and it carries the F35 with it vertical landing capability. That's the difference between a ski-jump and cat.

India is designing the carrier ab initio so why should it deliberately build in deficiencies into the design just so that the MiG29K line in Russia is kept functional? Please take off your blinkers and answer this question.

NRao wrote: I would be very cautious about making USN assets as some sort of a standard. Especially their carriers. Here is a picture that shows the relative sizes:


NRao ji, you misunderstood my point. I'm not putting the USN assets as the standard or on a pedestal. I used that picture as a representative image of how much better utilisation of deck space is possible on a flat top. The majority of planes in that picture were parked on the take-off zone. In a ski-deck carrier that would not have been possible. And this is true irrespective of the size of the AC - it's a function between sk-jump and cat and remains whether the ship is 30k ton, 40k ton, 65k ton or 100k ton.

JMT.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3107
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 28 May 2017 23:26

I just hope that this new 57 aircraft need is plugged by the jsf as a top end option, and not the Rafale.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Will » 29 May 2017 01:08

Cain Marko wrote:I just hope that this new 57 aircraft need is plugged by the jsf as a top end option, and not the Rafale.


Read somewhere that Lockheed Martin did not respond to the RFI for the Navy's 57 nos fighter requirement. Guess there's n way that the US is going to locally build or transfer tech for the F-35 to India.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 29 May 2017 03:00

amit wrote:
Philip wrote:We're talking about EMALS and a cats only carrier.In fact the pic of the Vikrant precisely supports my point how med-sized carriers can operate both cats and a ski-jump.A 50K t carrier will be twice the size of the Vikrant which was later modified with a ski-jump to operate Sea Harriers. A larger vessel would be able to accommodate both. A 3rd carrier similar in size to the two we have,the new Vikrant expected around 2020,would then be able to use existing aircraft on any ship.Otherwise,we would be in the difficult situ of having some aircraft being able to operate from only one carrier.
Since the large CV is only going to come around 2030+,a sister ship to the Vikrant-2 is the logical answer.Adding a cat would give it more options for aircratft in the future.


Philip,
I fail to understand your fixation with a ski-jump.
.



I don't fail to understand his fixation with ski-jump.
The Russians don't have anything else on the horizon (EMALS or SteamCAT), the best they can do is ski jump.

The more I read his posts , the more I realise his goal posts are moving every day.
He has been completely silent on the PAK-FA 7 Billion Extortion Money since that came out and has switched focus to the Naval threads in a more intense manner.

I am convinced that you are either compensated very favourably or are an employee of an organisation(read nation) that is interested in peddling it wares instead of the ones that fit our strategy.

Honestly , you will find most members taking the best options, Russian, Israeli, American, French etc.
Phillip is the only one who will push for Russian products only.

yes yes he does the occasional lip service to the desi mal like LCA augmented with Mig-trainers.

Ignore his recommendations.
The best way to defeat him is to ignore him.

He feels like a 'plant'.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3107
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 29 May 2017 22:26

Will wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I just hope that this new 57 aircraft need is plugged by the jsf as a top end option, and not the Rafale.


Read somewhere that Lockheed Martin did not respond to the RFI for the Navy's 57 nos fighter requirement. Guess there's n way that the US is going to locally build or transfer tech for the F-35 to India.


Interesting, the Rafale it will likely be I guess.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 May 2017 14:55

Ski-jump ideal for STOVL fighters like the erstwhile harriers and JSF-B.The RN is using them on their 2 new QE carriers. The main virtue is that landing is exceptionally safe with less stress on the aircraft. A former RN adm. mentioned this point some years ago about the stress free landings. It also reduces the cost of the carrier considerably eliminating cats/EMALS. The only drawback is that of finding a suitable AEW platform.The RN uses its Sea Kings with AEW radars.,but in the future with the advent of LR UAVs/UCAVs, and the options may increase. With the advent of LR supersonic missiles and BMs too,carrier vulnerability is still a big Q. Being larger,carriers can take a lot more punishment as shown in WW2 than surface combatants,

However,only the US and now the Chinese have the wherewithal to acquire large numbers of carriers and operate them,as they also require a large no. of supporting warships and logistic vessels,subs too. A CBG still can only be in one location/theatre.The US has therefore sev. fleets with their attached carriers and subs,etc.for diff. theatres.Atlantic,Pacific,IOR/Gulf,Meditt,etc.Now China's carrier ambitions seem excessive,alarming many Asia-Pacific nations.It does not have a global expeditionary agenda unlike the US.Its main theatres of action will be the Pacific and IOR/Gulf.It plans to have around 5-6 carriers for just these two theatres which it wants to dominate. wqhen it already has large land-based naval air assets.

One might ask why Russia,the only other nuclear superpower,does not possess carriers in large nos. Russia/Soviets had an inherent dislike for carriers.For Russia it was always the army that was preferred as it suffered numerous invasions by land over centuries.The massive defeat of the Czar's navy at the Battle of Tsushima ,saw the Russian navy humiliated with disastrous consequences for it on land,with the Central Powers of Europe rattling their sabres resulting in WW1. I think that it was Marshal Malenkov who once described them as the "5th hind leg of a dog"! Nevertheless,Adm.Gorshkov,the father of the modern Russian navy,rightly placed the top priority as missiles,aboard warships,subs,and aircraft.With a huge landmass and geographic features,Russia deployed hundreds of maritime aircraft ,LRMP,strike,etc.,from its land bases.Russia's primary objective has been the DEFENCE of the motherland,not expeditionary global warfare. The Syrian conflict has seen the very first use of the Russian navy in offensive operations involving air strikes from its lone carrier,the Kuz. It also plans a few more,but CVs aren't its top priority,subs are.

With India's huge landmass and islands in the IOR,we too can save a lot of money by increasing the number and quality of land-based maritime strike.LRMP aircraft using what I call "unsinkable" INS India. From our southern bases,a huge swathe of the IOR can be monitored and sanitised. The erstwhile Bears could fly to S.Africa and back without refuelling! A comparison must be made of a CBG and its op.wise cost vs. large numbers of land based aircraft dedicated for maritime ops. I have an interesting thought,expressed before,that of giving the IN a greater role to play in air control of the IOR ,taking over some of the load of the IAF.Our MIG-29Ks could very easily be used from forward island naval air stations relieving the IAF of some of its MKIs which could be sent northwards to deal with China. If 29Ks are found problematic still from carrier op duties,transfer them to our land/island bases .In fact,since the IAF operate similar 29-UG birds,and are contemplating buying used Malaysian 29s,the IN could transfer the lot to the IAF! THat is most unlikely,but you get the picture. The IN can then add.acquire more newer aircraft for its carriers ,apart from still operating the 29Ks from both CVs and land,giving greater flexibility to the Fleet Air Arm.

Despite "INS India",the more air capable flat tops the IN has the better.as crises could occur at various locations almost simultaneously,ship may be in refit,etc.,the ever-increasing sub threat from China especially,which is why we should leverage the design of our planned amphibs so that their decks can be so designed to provide a measure of air capability.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby amit » 30 May 2017 15:50

Philip wrote:The only drawback is that of finding a suitable AEW platform.The RN uses its Sea Kings with AEW radars.,but in the future with the advent of LR UAVs/UCAVs, and the options may increase.


With due respect Philip, please don't spin a yarn. You aren't talking to forum newbies.

The lack of fixed wing AEWs like the Hawkeye is the deal breaker for ski-jump as far as the Indian Navy goes. The RN can afford to use helis because the Brits know that their new carriers are not going in campaign against a formidable adversary alone, they will alway be trailing the US carriers who will provide the air bubble which the Hawkeye type of planes can do. UAVs/UCAVs? Are you kidding? For effective AEW you need dedicated and highly trained folks manning consoles. Do you even know how a Hawkeye type of plane operates? UAVs/UCAVs may be good for a bombing run on a basic reconnaissance but the big deal is still pilots and technicians in the air.

US has the capability of sending drones over Pakistan, which take off from the Arabian Sea to kill a terrorist and are "flown" by an operator sitting in Texas or some such place. Why do you think despite having such a an existing capability they don't use UAVs for AEW? Please don't sell a lemon, it's becoming tiring.

However,only the US and now the Chinese have the wherewithal to acquire large numbers of carriers and operate them,as they also require a large no. of supporting warships and logistic vessels,subs too.


Says who? Do you have any idea of how big the Indian economy will be by 2030? Do you even follow the numbers? I'll give you a hint in 2030 Indian economy will be at least three, more probably four times large as your beloved Mother Russia would be in 2030. And by the way India is expected to overtake the the US and become the second largest economy by 2040. So please don't play your favourite strawman, "Oh we can't do that, we are so poor onlee; look even the great Mother Russia can't afford to."

One might ask why Russia,the only other nuclear superpower,does not possess carriers in large nos.


No one may not ask why Russia does not possess carriers since it's of no interest to us, so please don't bring in another strawman. What is of interest is what the Indian Navy wants and they have made it amply clear they want a carrier driven force.

Russia's primary objective has been the DEFENCE of the motherland,not expeditionary global warfare.


Oh choo sweet! Now we have a Gandhian Russia! I'm sure this sentiment is shared extensively in Eastern Europe! But again who cares?

With India's huge landmass and islands in the IOR,we too can save a lot of money by increasing the number and quality of land-based maritime strike.LRMP aircraft using what I call "unsinkable" INS India.


Ok now you have bought out your back up spiel. The first was China is getting sooo many ACs in a few years so we need more ski-jump ACs filled to the brim with the sooper dooper MiG-29ks and MiG-35 (which the Russians will productionise and then make seaworthy in about a month!). When that didn't fly now it's Oh we don't need ACs at all because we've got INS India! And we could buy, yet more Russian aircraft like erm, the Bears. :rotfl: :rotfl:

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3107
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 31 May 2017 17:34

Since a very valid criticism of STOBAR carriers is their inability to support large AEW assets, what options does the Indian Navy have to overcome this issue.......

1. Helo based: osprey? Ka31 with a2a refueling
2. A platform like a modded dornier with Rato?
3. Flanker based aew, saw some drawings once

Have any of the above or anything else been explored?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 May 2017 17:50

1. Helo based: osprey? Ka31 with a2a refueling
2. A platform like a modded dornier with Rato?
3. Flanker based aew, saw some drawings once


Besides a basic Helicopter based Low-Medium power sensor, there are no non-developmental options here. Basically, it comes down to funding something from scratch and meeting future AEW requirements for carrier aviation. The British are likely to piggy back on USMC requirements down the road since the latter are on their way when it comes to creating a capable flat deck STOVL force with their L class vessels, and the F-35B but in the absence of some sort of joint program they too are likely left to themselves with no one else really sharing similar needs and requirements.

If the French pursue another carrier, they are likely to stick with CATOBAR, and if so probably the EMALS/AAG combination.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Katare, PratikDas and 27 guests