INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

[Rakesh]

Model Walkabout of soon to join the Indian Navy, IAC-1 Vikrant P71 at Def Expo 2020

[Rakesh]

Drag & Drop these images into a new window for full size.

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 24962?s=20 ---> IAC-1 Indian aircraft carrier in the final stages of being built by Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL).

[chola]

^^^ Beautiful!!!

[John]

Yeap as I noted in other thread we have switched away from Oto-76mm (earlier model had that) to Ak-630 and there is two Barak-8 modules. Also it has Lw-08 rather than RAN-40l hopefully it is replaced by Indra’s LTR25 radar.

[Rakesh]

VIDEO in the link below....

https://twitter.com/indiatubedesk/statu ... 50145?s=20 ---> Major structural and outfitting work of Indigenous IAC aka P-71 has been completed. Major milestone activities including starting of main propulsion machinery and trials of power generation machinery have been completed. Trials of other ship's equipment and systems are presently in progress.

https://twitter.com/indiatubedesk/statu ... 78689?s=20 ---> Ship's targeted delivery was affected due to a delay in the supply of aviation equipment from Russia. IN acquires various ships/weapons/equipment including the carrier-based aircraft in accordance with the Maritime Capability Perspective Plan and Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan.

[srin]

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

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

What is so wrong with Vikrant that we need a stretched carrier immediately after the first ship in the class? If it was so necessary, why didn't we go for it in the first place?

[chola]

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

What is so wrong with Vikrant that we need a stretched carrier immediately after the first ship in the class? If it was so necessary, why didn't we go for it in the first place?

To start off with, we didn't have a drydock 10 years ago that can handle anything bigger.

The drydock at CSL can barely hold IAC1 as it is:





Vikrant was built at the largest defense capable dock at the time which can hold a 260m long keel. CSL is working on a 310m dock (this one can build a 65K ton carrier like the Kutznetsov class.) That is why a stretched version is feasible now. There were a lot of design compromises that came from the size limitation I imagine. Though the lift size might or might not have anything to do with the Vikrant being only 45K tons.

[Rakesh]

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

What is so wrong with Vikrant that we need a stretched carrier immediately after the first ship in the class? If it was so necessary, why didn't we go for it in the first place?

I never said there was anything wrong with the Vikrant. When did I say that?

I am talking about stretching the Vikrant design for IAC-2

[srin]

^^^
A stretched Vikrant with higher tonnage will require new engines, adjusting of CoG etc - something that's bound to be a high lead time activity, which is going to cause delays later on.
Unless something is badly wrong with Vikrant class design, we should get one more of same design, no ?

[Rakesh]

Adding more powerful engines and adjusting CoG is more harder than starting from scratch on a new design?

From Leander Class they transitioned to Godavari Class and then to Delhi Class (Brahmaputra Class is an offshoot from the Godavari design) and then to Kolkata Class and now to Visakhapatnam Class. Each follow on vessel took all the design cues of the preceding vessel, but was larger in tonnage than the latter. Taking a design and up-scaling it, is not insurmountable for the Indian Naval Design Bureau. The Delhi Class also borrows design cues from the Rajput Class.

There is nothing wrong with the Vikrant design. The navy is insisting for a 65,000 ton IAC-2, but there are no funds. The better option, IMVHO, is a larger Vikrant vessel. No learning curve involved versus a brand new design. So the vessel will be built that much quicker.

[Nikhil T]

I think srin's point is that it is *quickest* to stick with existing Vikrant design as opposed to a new, 55K tons "stretched" design that will only consume more time in both design, production, and trials. Its not insurmountable for NDB - but its not trivial or quick either. e.g. We involved Fincateri and Russian Navy to provide consultancy for Vikrant. They will likely have to do that all over again.

[chola]

^^^ Why do we need Russian consultancy? We have a far longer history and experience with carrier aviation than they do. The reason we have undersized lifts on the new Vikrant mostly came from the fact we used a Russian agency to design the aviation complex.

[Vivek K]

great question - IAC-1 is a way better ship than the Vikramditya. The Russians need Indian consultants to help them build better aircraft carriers.

[John]

^^^ Why do we need Russian consultancy? We have a far longer history and experience with carrier aviation than they do. The reason we have undersized lifts on the new Vikrant mostly came from the fact we used a Russian agency to design the aviation complex.

Russia was actually the reason for delay.

https://www.cnbctv18.com/politics/govt- ... 264301.htm

Delay in getting certain aviation equipment from Russia pushed back the deadline for construction of India's first indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, according to the government.

[fanne]

Can we be little more humble? If we needed equipment from Russians, that means we cannot make them ourselves, and maybe they were the only one willing to give or were at the best price and tech combination. Yes Russian equipment one thing is common - delay. Btw check on m2k mordernization - how fast it was and is.

[A Deshmukh]

the funding issue is not funding for constructing the AC itself,
but all that accompanies the fleet - the destroyers, frigates, submarines, etc, their armaments, and the personnel and their pensions.

[kit]

^^^ Why do we need Russian consultancy? We have a far longer history and experience with carrier aviation than they do. The reason we have undersized lifts on the new Vikrant mostly came from the fact we used a Russian agency to design the aviation complex.

Russia was actually the reason for delay.

https://www.cnbctv18.com/politics/govt- ... 264301.htm

Delay in getting certain aviation equipment from Russia pushed back the deadline for construction of India's first indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, according to the government.

keep in mind that the aviation equipment and the migs were part of the "package" deal !!.. as usual with russian stuff, there is almost always some sour stuff with the sweets !

[chola]

Can we be little more humble? If we needed equipment from Russians, that means we cannot make them ourselves, and maybe they were the only one willing to give or were at the best price and tech combination. Yes Russian equipment one thing is common - delay. Btw check on m2k mordernization - how fast it was and is.

Understood. But I wonder if we actually couldn't make or design those things or were our people never given the chance.

It is like looking into buying a Russian light helo when we have the LUH ready.

[LakshmanPST]

the funding issue is not funding for constructing the AC itself,
but all that accompanies the fleet - the destroyers, frigates, submarines, etc, their armaments, and the personnel and their pensions.

I have seen this arguement before...
But this doesn't sound right...
Navy's requirement of 3 carriers is to have two carrier battle groups operational on East & West coasts, while the 3rd carrier is undergoing refit...
So, we won't really be needing accompanying Destroyers, Frigates, Subs etc. and personnel either...
The fund shortage is for the carrier and additional jets only...

Am I right or am I missing something here...???

[srin]

^^
That's a good point.
But by the same logic, we don't need additional jets too (for the 3rd carrier that is). We only need enough for two carriers (with war-time allotment) + buffers (to account for aircraft undergoing repairs/maintenance).

[Nikhil T]

^^
That's a good point.
But by the same logic, we don't need additional jets too (for the 3rd carrier that is). We only need enough for two carriers (with war-time allotment) + buffers (to account for aircraft undergoing repairs/maintenance).

Which means that its better to have two identical ships, so that pilots/crew/equipment/spares/repairs can be identical. As soon as we have a new type -even a stretched 55K variant of Vikrant - we will need to build a whole ecosystem for it, defeating this argument.

[sudeepj]

^^
That's a good point.
But by the same logic, we don't need additional jets too (for the 3rd carrier that is). We only need enough for two carriers (with war-time allotment) + buffers (to account for aircraft undergoing repairs/maintenance).

Which means that its better to have two identical ships, so that pilots/crew/equipment/spares/repairs can be identical. As soon as we have a new type -even a stretched 55K variant of Vikrant - we will need to build a whole ecosystem for it, defeating this argument.

Standardization makes sense for mass produced items, like frigates, corvettes, minesweeps, destroyers ...

For one ship every 10-15 years, it makes sense to do iterative design with subsystem commonality at most. If an IAC-3 is about to start, it makes sense to build the largest possible ship even if we dont have the full aviation complement. These assets last 50 years and the additional work in the design phase will pay off many times over later in the carriers life.

Since we are now doing modular construction, we should also explore that to shorten and cheapen build times.

I think the IAC 3 will start in a few years at most because the Vikad is not going to soldier on much longer past 2035. The Migs are going to be thoroughly outdated by then.. And it will take us that long to build.

[srin]

^^^
IAC-2 or IAC-3 ?

[Yagnasri]

The main issues as far as a mango me see, the size of the lifts etc which can not accommodate larger aircrafts seems to be only problem with Vikarant Class. Address that and we have a good design available even now. So why go far a large one?

[ArjunPandit]

Standardization makes sense for mass produced items, like frigates, corvettes, minesweeps, destroyers ...

+1, USN's ACs have double the currently required power

[JayS]

the funding issue is not funding for constructing the AC itself,
but all that accompanies the fleet - the destroyers, frigates, submarines, etc, their armaments, and the personnel and their pensions.

I have seen this arguement before...
But this doesn't sound right...
Navy's requirement of 3 carriers is to have two carrier battle groups operational on East & West coasts, while the 3rd carrier is undergoing refit...
So, we won't really be needing accompanying Destroyers, Frigates, Subs etc. and personnel either...
The fund shortage is for the carrier and additional jets only...

Am I right or am I missing something here...???

What if all three are operation at a given point of time..? Will we keep 1 parked..? Does the contingency plan of at least 2 out of 3 available means one will always be in the docks out of the three? At least 2 out of 3 operational can also mean that all three could be operational too, no??

[Rakesh]

Indian Navy’s ‘Vishal’ Aircraft Carrier Officially Off The Table?
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/02 ... table.html
15 Feb 2020

For starters, India’s first Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat provided an unmissable indicator in his first detailed interview since taking strength in the newly created tri-service chief appointment that involves long-term acquisitions and planning within the confines of highly squeezed budgets. In response to a specific question on aircraft carriers by News18 journalist Shreya Dhoundial, General Rawat said, “One aircraft carrier will be on the seas next year. You look at when do you really need a third one. If you get a third one, how many years will it take for it to develop? Even if you place the order for 2022 or 2023, it is not coming before 2033. Also, aircraft carrier is not just a carrier, along with it will have to come the aircraft. Where are the aircraft coming from? Along with that we will need the armada protection for that aircraft carrier. It does not happen overnight. It will be bought if it is required. But you cannot predict what the situation will be 10 years from now. We don’t know what will happen.”

While it has generally been believed that the Indian Navy’s forecast requirement for 57 multirole carrier based fighters (MCRBF) were intended, at least in part, with the catapult-configured deck of the Vishal in view, the reality is actually significantly different. After conversations with the Indian Navy, Livefist can now confirm that the 57 jets being sought are fully and officially to meet the the combined requirement of INS Vikramaditya and the upcoming Vikrant/IAC1, in addition to a full shore-based training squadron. This position has been conveyed in discussions that the Indian Navy has held with both Boeing and Dassault. Senior Indian Navy sources told Livefist, “The 57 deck based fighters (DBF) has is to meet the combined additional requirement of the current and next carrier, in addition to a training squadron we will be raising. Any conversation about aircraft for the proposed IAC2/Vishal will necessarily be only in the future.” The jets will be ‘additional’ to the MiG-29K jets that currently form the carrier wing on INS Vikramaditya — and will, according Indian Navy chief Admiral Karambir Singh two months ago — operate off the IAC1 as well.

Boeing’s move to prove the Super Hornet from a ski-jump has very much to do with the Vikrant/IAC1’s nearing date of entry into service. The company has, for years now, said it has conducted simulations to prove the compatibility of the Super Hornet with India’s current and next carrier. Significant questions have continued to swirl, however, over whether the Super Hornet and Rafale are truly 100% compatible with the size, space and mechanical system configuration on the INS Vikramaditya and IAC1. This would pertain, among other things, to their hydraulic deck chocks and the busy deck conditions typical of Russian-influenced deck design, unlike the larger and very different configurations of the Nimitz-class and Charles de Gaulle that house the U.S. and French carrier jets respectively. It remains to be seen how the Indian Navy plans to navigate and address these incompatibilities as it moves forward on this acquisition program.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/KSingh84856557/stat ... 39456?s=20 ---> Never? Impossible to be this categorical. It certainly isn’t a priority for now but in 10 years when India is the 3rd largest economy in the world? For now a sensible re-prioritisation is taking place under the CDS. Immediate needs will be taken care of first but future is future.
^^^ tweet in response to the article above

https://twitter.com/KSingh84856557/stat ... 31136?s=20 ---> If IAC-2 is off the table then so is MRCBF. This actually gives ADA/HAL time to work on TEDBF for the Vikramaditya and Vikrant and maybe even IAC-2 (until NAMCA is ready).

https://twitter.com/KSingh84856557/stat ... 94144?s=20 ---> When you have Chinese making inroads into IOR and most frontline IN vessels going to sea with empty hangers because of the almost non-existent ASW helicopter fleet listing after something like the IAC-2 and LHD were always a case of misplaced priorities

[Rakesh]

An aircraft carrier is an expensive, capital ship and takes over a decade to build. So any Navy - that has carrier aspirations - will always induct the largest vessel that the country can afford. If a follow on vessel (or vessels) are planned, it is better to improve on the design of the first vessel because of the length of time involved in construction. So a more capable vessel (in design, in tonnage or both) is usually adopted. Super Carriers - like the examples in the US Navy - are exceptions to the above, because they are already massive ships to begin with. So with super carriers, each vessel (or sub class of vessel), improves upon the design of its predecessor. However the increase/decrease in tonnage is negligible.

In addition, the amount of resources invested to protect an aircraft carrier is the same, whether it is a 40,000 tonne vessel like the Vikrant or a 65,000 tonne vessel like the planned Vishal. The main effectiveness of a CBG lies in the aircraft carrier itself and not in the support ships (destroyers, frigates, fleet replenishment vessels and submarines). So a larger aircraft carrier can carry a greater number of aircraft and can therefore launch a greater number of sorties. More available airframes = more rotation of airframes.

Here are examples of how carrier designs - in a single vessel class or succeeding classes - can undergo tonnage changes.

==================================================

United States Navy
Nimitz Class (10 vessels in total).

01) USS Nimitz - 100,020 tons
02) USS Dwight D. Eisenhower - 101,600 tons
03) USS Carl Vinson - 101,300 tons
04) USS Theodore Roosevelt - 104,600 tons
05) USS Abraham Lincoln - 104,112 tons
06) USS George Washington - 104,200 tons
07) USS John C. Stennis - 103,300 tons
08) USS Harry S. Truman - 103,900 tons
09) USS Ronald Reagan - 101,400 tons
10) USS George H.W. Bush - 102,000 tons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H.W._Bush)

Click on the above link and read how USS George H.W. Bush is quite different in design/capability from her sister ships. In a build program involving multiple aircraft carriers, you never build the exact same spec vessel over and over again. Succeeding the Nimitz Class is the Gerald R Ford Class. Displacement is 100,000 tons full load, similar to the Nimitz Class but a far more capable vessel.

==================================================

Russian Navy
Kiev Class (3+1 vessels in total)

01) Kiev - 41,370 tons loaded
02) Minsk - 41,380 tons loaded
03) Novorossiysk - 43,220 tons loaded
04) Admiral Gorshkov (modified Kiev design) - 44,490 tons loaded

#4 in the list is now INS Vikramaditya and is at 45,400 tons loaded.

Succeeding the Kiev Class was the Kuznetsov Class, a two vessel build program, consisting of the following;

01) Admiral Kuznetsov - 57,700 tons full load.
02) Her sister ship was the Varyag and was designed at 67,500 tons full load (the build was cancelled and the hull was sold to China and the vessel is now known as the Liaoning). Notice the difference in full load (9,800 tons) in two vessels of the same class. One can call it stretched design, enlarged design or whatever other term.

Succeeding the Kuznetsov Class was the Ulyanovsk Class, a two vessel build program, in which the first vessel was designed at 75,000 tons full load. Construction of the first vessel was stopped, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now succeeding the cancelled Ulyanovsk Class is the proposed Shtorm Class vessel. Displacement is listed at 90,000 tons – 100,000 tons.

==================================================

People's Liberation Army Navy

1) Liaoning (Type 001) --> 67,500 tons full load.

2) Shandong (Type 002) ---> Xerox copy of the Liaoning, with full load estimated from 66,000 tons to 70,000 tons.

3) Type 003 ---> 85,000 tonnes planned displacement. Type 003 will be a new CATOBAR class aircraft carrier with EMALS. Some design elements and lessons learnt from Type 002 will be adopted.

4) Type 004 ---> 110,000 tonnes planned displacement. Design will be lessons learnt from the Type 003. Note increase in tonnage.

==================================================

Marine Nationale

1) Charles De Gaulle - 42,500 tonnes (full load)

2) PA2 (to be decided post 2025) - 75,000 tonnes

==================================================

Royal Navy

Queen Elizabeth Class - 2 vessels. The only aberration to the above. Both vessels have a displacement of 65,000 tonnes. The reason for that is primarily because of the F-35. Both vessels are identical because the RN knew the air component in the planning stages itself. That is the not the case with the Indian Navy.

==================================================

Indian Navy

The Navy wants a 65,000 tonne vessel, but the MoD is refusing to fund the project due to the high cost. Apart from the increase in tonnage over the Vikrant, the Navy also wants the carrier to be a CATOBAR vessel, with EMALS and with nuclear power. None of that is now likely going to happen as per General Bipin Rawat, CDS.

However the economy is not going to be in a permanent downward spiral. When more funds are available, a middle ground should be reached ---> a larger Vikrant vessel with a ski jump, wider lifts and can carry a greater complement of aircraft. The only equation that cannot be changed is the length of time involved. Adopting a 65,000 ton build program will involve a minimum of 15 years. The keel of the Vikrant was laid in 2009 and she is expected to be commissioned in 2022. That is 13 years for a 40,000 ton vessel. Imagine how long a brand new design and 65,000 tons will take in an Indian shipyard. And I am being conservative with the 15 year time frame. Does the IN have 15 years to spare?

Almost all of the examples listed above, in other navies that operate multiple aircraft carriers, nations have always improved upon the design of succeeding vessels to accommodate newer technologies and newer aircraft. But they do not jump from USS Nimitz straight to USS Gerald R Ford. They do not jump from Liaoning to Type 004. They do not jump from Kiev to Shtorm Class. That does not work. An improved Vikrant design will be built much quicker than a brand new Vishal design. And the Indian Navy will not have to wait a minimum of 15 years for a second vessel.

Now with regards to the air component ---> INS Vikramaditya operates MiG-29Ks and the Vikrant will also operate MiG-29Ks when commissioned. Hopefully both vessels will operate the TEDBF as well in the future. But adopting wider aircraft lifts on IAC-2 will open the doors for other aircraft. What is TEDBF does not work out or is not ready by the time IAC-2 is rolled out? And having a larger vessel, will allow IAC-2 to carry more combat aircraft. As I said earlier, a larger aircraft carrier can carry a greater number of aircraft and can therefore launch a greater number of sorties. More available airframes = more rotation of airframes.

Installing more powerful engines and re-adjusting CoG is far less a riskier proposition than going in for a brand new design. Less build time = less time for induction. Lay the keel now and she will be ready by the early 2030. Lay the keel for a 65,000 ton vessel by the middle of this decade and she will be ready for service only in the early 2040s.

The ball now lies in the IN's court --->

1) Does the IN want to soldier on with the INS Vikramaditya till the 2040s (who knows in what material state she will be in then) and the Vikrant (a 40,000 tonne vessel) and then induct a 65,000 tonne vessel called the Vishal?

2) Or would the IN prefer to have a 40,000 tonne Vikrant and perhaps a 50,000 tonne Viraat by the early 2030s? And perhaps by that timeframe, the economy will have grown significantly for a 65,000 tonne vessel to be under construction.

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

[Rakesh]

And by the way, when I say stretch the design or enlarge the design in the Vikrant, I am not referring to stretching every room size in the Vikrant. Rather enlarging the two most valuable pieces of real estate aboard an aircraft carrier - the flight deck and the hangar. That's it. There will obviously be room for improvement in other areas of the Vikrant, which can be adopted as well.

But please do not jump from Vikrant ---> Vishal, rather go from Vikrant ---> Viraat ----> Vishal.

And there is time for redesign of the Vikrant. No money in the budget this year anyway. As per General Rawat, even laying the keel in the next couple of years she will be ready by the early 2030s.

[nam]

Where exactly would we need to use 2 or 3 carriers?

For Pak, IN can fly off from land bases. Why do we need carrier?

Carriers are required for expeditionary power projection. The area of interest would be Africa or Middle East. Wouldn't it be wise to invest money in improving availability of existing carriers? or in SSN to deny access to adversary ships?

There is no point having carriers for defending India. For that you can land airbases.

[Prithwiraj]

totally agree..... This blue water capability is bit over-rated. Major economies like Germany, Japan does not have such aspirations and we have so many gaps in our basic defense capabilities right from infantry rifles, short fall of ammunition, rations, soldiers comforts and their psychological care (Suicide level at its highest last year) and we dream of having a 3 carrier navy. The cost of operation even if one of them is in dry dock is humongous. Cant we spend the money more wisely to fix the basic first?

[Rakesh]

Guys, IAC-2 is coming. The only questions are when and in which form. Just because there is no funding in this financial year, that does not mean it will never happen. The Navy is not about to drop a 60+ year experience of operating carriers just because there is no money. The navy’s blue water doctrine rests on aircraft carriers.

[Prem]

No funding for construction means Brit AC will be bought ?

[Nikhil T]

Guys, IAC-2 is coming. The only questions are when and in which form. Just because there is no funding in this financial year, that does not mean it will never happen. The Navy is not about to drop a 60+ year experience of operating carriers just because there is no money. The navy’s blue water doctrine rests on aircraft carriers.

There’s no money for the foreseeable future. IN has to pay for P75I, minesweepers, SSNs and SSBNs, replacing Rajput class destroyers, new P8Is, MH-60R helis, MQ-9 sea guardians, in addition to inducting one or two frigate/corvettes each year.

If this was a budget problem just for this year, we wouldn’t be seeing all these media articles around INS Vishal.

[srin]

And by the way, when I say stretch the design or enlarge the design in the Vikrant, I am not referring to stretching every room size in the Vikrant. Rather enlarging the two most valuable pieces of real estate aboard an aircraft carrier - the flight deck and the hangar. That's it. There will obviously be room for improvement in other areas of the Vikrant, which can be adopted as well.

But please do not jump from Vikrant ---> Vishal, rather go from Vikrant ---> Viraat ----> Vishal.

And there is time for redesign of the Vikrant. No money in the budget this year anyway. As per General Rawat, even laying the keel in the next couple of years she will be ready by the early 2030s.

I don't know anything about shipbuilding but let me speculate here. I'm also going to be making a whole lot of WAGs (wild assed guesses).

Say, you want to stretch the Vikrant a "little". It isn't just the hangar and the deck - everything from the keel onwards needs to be stretched. So you have more keel, more cabins above and so on.

This means increased tonnage. Based on how much the "little" we stretched, the tonnage increases (may or may not be linear, but proportionate in some way). This *may* mean loss of top speed, which reduces the wind on deck speed, which is crucial for take-off weights and so on. So, you may have to go for new / updated engines. This also results in additional wiring, plumbing & other changes that need to be made in the new empty spaces.
There is also a factor of Center of Gravity - the island of Vikrant, for instance, isn't at the center of either horizontal axes - so that needs to be taken care off too.

Because all of these changed, you'll probably need new documentation for all this and also more comprehensive sea trials. I presume that the first in any ship class will have more thorough sea trials and the follow on ones are going to be about validating the test points already set.

I'm sure all of this is won't take as long as designing a new carrier with EMALS, nuclear propulsion and what not, but this will still be significant design work which is going to take a few years in our setup.
If you want to get the IAC-2 quickest, you try to copy-paste IAC-1 as much as possible and make changes where you really really must, based on the learnings.

[Philip]

Srin,the history of IAC-1 must be understood.The IAF were lobbying v.v.hard to scuttle a new carrier for the IN.The IN then asked for an ADS,air defence ship of modest size,around 30-35Kt.
Italian consultancy came in as the Italians were good light carrier
designers .Gradually the ship expanded especially when it was realised that the superb Sea Harriers were few in number,production ended, and had limitations being subsonic with limited range and payload.At that time the RN's early dumping of all its 70+ Harriers wasn't on the table,all snapped up by the USMC. When the IN was in deep sh*t,oops! deep waters with the imminent loss of its carrier capability ,only the Russians were willing to sell us either the 65Kt Varyag or a Kiev class hybrid flat top of around 40Kt size. After inspection,the Varyag's hull was found not good as the Kievs,plus there was no dockyard in the country capable of handling her. The admiral heading the team and a former CNS told me so.In retrospect it was a good decision not to have bought the Varyag,even though the Chinese resurrected her,which must've cost billions,the Gorshkov modification was excruciating because the UKR had few drawings and the wiring ,expected to be in some shape was totally kaput.
The conversion into the VikA story is too well told to be repeated here,nevertheless,we finally got a virtually brand new 45Kt carrier
which has some design limitations no doubt,but is a v.lethal force with its 29Ks.They've had their problems which seem to have now been sorted out too.

The IN finally got the nod fof IAC-1 , now enlarged to 40Kt+ ,and in the bargain similar 29Ks as well,all 49 or so for only $900M, around $28M a pop. Achieving this level of carrier ops and aircraft was a monumental task for the IN. It has been a huge struggle against our own anti- carrier lobby.
From inception,and here thanks must be given to Adm.Mountbatten's vision, the IN was conceived of as a multi-carrier navy .Of course he envisaged the IN as batting for Britain too,just as the Yanquis envisage the IN doing the same for them today,why the carrier lobby has ants in their pants!
As we've debated and shown,a 65Kt CV alone without escorts et al would beggar the defence bank. V.strong resistance is there from several fronts.The IAF and IA,babudom- who want the cake shared amongst many so they may feast on the crumbs, plus the submarine lobby in the IN itself who are faced with a grave crisis at the moment of block obsolescence- both U-boats and Kilos,manfully sailoring along with repeated upgrades,etc. Their replacements a miserly 6 Scorpenes are 5+ years late and only 2 have been delivered.Add to that the data leaks of the subs performance has compromised their combat capability to the enemy. 6 Scorpenes cannot replace the 18 Kilos,Foxtrots and U-boats we once possessed .We need in fact 2 new lines of AIP subs,not just the P-75I.

Faced with this situ, the IN have only 2 options.A sister ship to the Vikrant,with larger lifts for any future NAMCA whatever,but not discarded designs like the F-18,final production being shortened by 50+ from this year. The cost should be reasonable since similar eqpt. will be used,making the support for both CVs easier with a well-established desi industry for spares,etc. For aircraft another tranche of upgraded 29Ks,upto 35 std.,would again be the most cost-effective allowing for cross-decking of aircraft as a carrier in turn goes into the docks for repair and refit. The v.high costs of the Rafale-M,even more than an IAF Rafale would make it unaffordable and a huge infra investment of just one CV. Alternatively,the SE NLCA Mk-1 could be acquired to complement the 29Ks if the price is competitive.A TE NLCA is a future option,but an NAMCA even better for the future.

Increasing the size of IAC-2 by 5-10Kt+ shouldn't pose too many problems.It may require more powerful engines but that's no major deterrent. The other option is to plead with a cash-strapped Boris for the sale or long lease of the second QE CV,the PoW. That's the fastest method of acquiring a CV today.

PS: Costs of increasing a 40Kt CV to 50Kt is only 10% for the vessel," air comes free,steel is cheap",former RN admiral and UK carrier design studies. However,the flight component,extra aircraft can go upto 50%,aircraft not overall carrier costs. Thus increasing the size of the vessel isn't expensive ,but adding aircraft at say $50M a pop,another 20 birds max would cost $1B plus eqpt.,weaponry,manpower,etc. What we should do is to build the stretched Vikrant,equip it with the same air complement of IAC-1 for starters and as we go along increase the number of aifcraft and helos.The RN is doing just that with its two new CVs. There are only a handfull of F-35Bs aboard,the number slowly increasing as its orders get completed. Spreading the acquisition cost of an expanded air complement by a few years would not break the bank.

By 2030 new CV designs,aircraft,UCAVs,laser weaponry,etc.will be making their debut. Only one thing is certain that naval manned and unmanned fighters must be stealthy,even if anti-stealth tech. has developed a lot, to survive a decade hence. Thereforre, a desi NAMCA is what we should plan for,not a TE NLCA,a waste of money as even the TE NLCA would be a new design.With a lot of AMCA work already done for the IAF variant so we're told, it's what would be faster and cheaper to develop,etc.

[John]

Indian Navy to lease private berth for Vikrant-class aircraft carrier

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... lass-airc/

[Philip]

What I referred to in another td. It underscores the pitiable planning of the MOD.The IAC-1 is already late by several years,the aircraft are available,but the berth/ base is incomplete! We know how long it took to get Seabird completed.Adm.Dawson told us years ago at a BRF meet at the BLR Club,how he conceived of the idea years before when he was a jr. officer.When the need to find a new base to decongest Bombay came up,he was ready with his masterplan.That beautiful base has taken us nearly 3 decades now to flex its muscles suitably, with expansion being done in stages.Sadly babudom not providing enough funds for apparently modest infra work on land,fail to understand the logistic neccessity,berths,docks and heavy repair facilities to keep warships and subs afloat and fighting fit. One thing we can be sure of though,L&T would do a splendid job of maintaining the new Vikrant.In fact from this future experience we could see more yards in the pvt. sector handle naval assets. In the US most yards are private and do a fine job.

[Rakesh]

Recent photos of Vikrant...

https://twitter.com/Isvikasnautiyal/sta ... 54784?s=20 --->