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.
Post Reply
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

These articles are from 2019. Almost two years old.

@brar_w: would you happen know if all, or how many, of these issues have been resolved?

Navy's Newest Carrier Needs Critical Updates To Launch And Recover Aircraft With Certain Loadouts
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... n-loadouts
14 Feb 2019

Navy's New Carrier Still Can't Reliably Get Planes In The Air Or Safely Back On The Deck
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... n-the-deck
30 Jan 2019

Folks: Just something to think about. If the only global superpower had challenges (which they will overcome, if not already done so) in development of EMALS, are we honestly expecting China to have smooth sailing in their EMALS development? One has to be delusional to believe everything the Chinese claim to have mastered.

Please remember, that only after 10 steam-powered catapults on the Nimitz Class (and a few preceding classes of aircraft carrier prior to them), did America transition to EMALS. China has two STOBAR carriers in service now and their third is reportedly going to be an EMALS. They have a grand total of two aircraft carriers. From STOBAR directly to EMALS. Wow! What next coming from Chinese shipyards? Flying aircraft carriers?
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

They seem to have solved the critical issues.

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress (updated Dec 22, 2020)
Through the first 747 shipboard launches, EMALS suffered 10 critical failures. This is well below the requirement for Mean Cycles Between Critical Failures, where a cycle represents the launch of one aircraft. The Navy identified 9 unique Incident Reports (IRs) that resulted in the 10 critical failures for EMALS. Of the nine IRs, one fix was installed during PSA and is in place to support flight operations during CVN 78’s Post Delivery Test and Trials (PDT&T). Four IRs will be corrected commencing in late FY20. The four remaining IRs occurred only once during pre-PSA operations, are deemed low priority, and will be monitored during future flight operations.
However, more structural issues remain
The reliability concerns are exacerbated by the fact that the crew cannot readily electrically isolate EMALS components during flight operations due to the shared nature of the Energy Storage Groups and Power Conversion Subsystem inverters on board CVN 78. The process for electrically isolating equipment is time-consuming; spinning down the EMALS motor/generators takes 1.5 hours by itself. The inability to readily electrically isolate equipment precludes EMALS maintenance during flight operations.
Brar sir would definitely have more detailed info.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

This is great info. Thank you m_saini saar.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

m_saini wrote:They seem to have solved the critical issues.

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress (updated Dec 22, 2020)

Through the first 747 shipboard launches, EMALS suffered 10 critical failures...

Brar sir would definitely have more detailed info..
The 747 number mentioned there was from the initial underways in 2019 or earlier and very early on into its at-sea test (it was probably exclusively being operated by a test crew). Overall, as of Mid December 2020, CVN-78 has put 6,400 at-sea launch and recovery cycles on EMALS and AAG with more to come before it even does its formal operational evaluation. That's 4500+ cycles just in 2020. That's a lot of cycles and thousands more to come between now and OTE. The purpose of this is to do exactly what the CSR describes. That is to find things, push them, break things and find gaps that need to be plugged in equipment, training and how the system is sustained. So by the time it goes on its first deployment it will be a very well tested (and all that follows test--discovery--correction--test loop) system with 20+k launch and recovery cycles put by frontline pilots (and a lot more by test pilots). This does not include shore based testing facility and performance.

It was the only East Coast CQ asset for a major part of 2020 so you can see that they are throwing it into high ops tempo environments as they cycle the ship through her development testing. This is why it was able to accumulate so many launches/recoveries in 2020 (it is now being used to actually qualify frontline pilots and prepare them for carrier deployment on other carriers). The Ford nearly doubled its total at sea launch and recoveries in Q3 and Q4 2020 compared to its entire past at sea history. That is as clear an indication as any that they are spooling it up and putting it into some fairly serious ops tempo in 10-15 day underway events to test, train and qualify crew and pilots.

For reference (use this to contrast with the first 1,000 launch and recovery cycles) during the last underway that lasted 10-days (which happened earlier this month) the EMALS/AAG was put through 850 cycles or roughly 85 cycles a day on average. This is important because CQ windows are narrow, and there is no backup East Coast carrier so this is a good proxy for where EMALS/AAG stands in terms of reliability and the ability to sustain an ops tempo and meet schedules. And they are a good 2-2.5 years from deployment and first cruise.

You should also keep in mind that the Ford was in availability this summer so a lot of the things they learned in 2019 were corrected. That's how this works. They cycle and find things to change, and then in availability periods they go in and update software, replace hardware etc etc. First in class ships are put through a lot because you don't prototype vessels - the first in class is both a test set and an operational. So when it deploys on her first 4-6 month cruise they will have it as dialed in as they do any other system on any of the Nimitz class carriers. Between the 2021 shock trials, and combat system testing which also happens in 2021 and into 2022, the rest of the time will be dedicated to making sure that everything they've discovered on EMALS in the 2-3 year of at sea testing is incorporated into the vessel prior to her first deployment which is going to be sometime in 2023 depending upon how much damage she incurs in shock trials and how much availability duration that puts it into (which can slow everything else down).
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

Many thanks for the info saar

One line that really stands out
That is to find things, push them, break things and find gaps that need to be plugged in equipment, training and how the system is sustained.
We can buy the EMALS and play the "x indian catobars vs y chini catobars" battleship games but we'll miss out on things like the above if we want to play ego games with other navies.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

I don't think EMALS is on the cards for the IN. It forces quite a few constraints on propulsion and overall electrical loads so it will be quite tricky and risky to integrate into a non CVN though it may well be possible (and I believe this was what the USN concluded when they did the study for the RN's requirements). France selected the General Atomics EMALS for its next CVN and it is not clear whether the Chinese EMALS is slated for a new class of CVN or whether they will attempt to integrate it into a non CVN and if so what the performance and other constraints on such an implementation would be. But it could also be that General Atomics comes up with a new generation of EMALS that is more suited/optimized for non CVNs. They have an expertise in this and since they are private it is difficult to gauge what they are working on internally.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

For RN, if I'm remembering right, they were looking at using steam catapults at some point but ruled it out as it would've required a 3rd dedicated Trent turbine so they dropped it. Very likely that similar(or greater) constraints would be there too for EMALS. As for the Chinese, I believe their Type-003 would be definitely be conventionally powered. There was an article about it but I can't seem to find it anymore. So the tech definitely exists though how it will compare to the nuke-powered ones remains to be seen.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

The tech has existed for a long time. Even GA and USN concluded that it would have worked on the QE class of ships. The questions remain on optimization. No one has actually successfully integrated an EMALS unit on a non CVN or for that matter designed an EMALS unit optimized for one. So it is a fairly significant risk. We are talking about a half a billion dollar capability here and adapting it for something which has a ton load of risk associated with it in the last mile implementation and integration. But as as I wrote earlier, it is possible that General Atomics has a variant that they've internally worked upon that is more optimized for a non CVN application. But given this is such a niche area, that too is likely to only exist on paper with perhaps some limited component demonstrations.

We don't know how capable or how far along China is on its EMALS and how good the first generation catapults are going to be. But they have the benefit of having hot production line of carriers where they can keep develop one or two off cycle EMAL units and produce STOBAR carriers if EMALS takes much longer (which it will). EMALS, railguns, lasers et al are some very hard to develop and operationalize technologies and in fact have a development --> refinement --> implementation cycle best measured in decades and not years.

As an aside, here is a nugget of data on my prior post on the Congressional Research Service and EMALS report (which covers 2018 and 2019 testing) - The first 8 underway periods in support of CVN-78 testing in total conducted 747 launch and recovery cycles (About 90 cycles per steaming event). These were done in 2018 prior to the carrier getting into a longish post shakedown availability phase where it received some major hardware and software upgrades (some planned and others unplanned based on test discoveries). The latest steaming event which was over a 10 day period starting December 5th 2020, alone had 840 launch and recovery cycles. That is a very good indication on where they've come in 18-24 months of rigorous testing and incremental upgrades to the ship installed EMALS unit based on testing they've done on land (since the version went into the ship). In fact the earlier cycles were in support of SDD testing. The latest cycles are in support of operational carrier-qualification and EMALS certifications (getting aircraft types certified to launch and recover from EMALS and AAG). So you begin to see a more realistic ops tempo which they'll continue to sustain and grow in subsequent steaming events.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

I think the Chinese only recently (in late 2017) announced that they can power their EM catapults with conventional power, wouldn't say it's been a long time since then exactly.

Anyway, Chinese EMALS would be world-class and likely best the performance of CVN-78 from the get go. It is known.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

m_saini wrote: ...It's still highly suspect whether the "cheeni hawkeye" or the flanker clones can match the amreeki level of operations on a catobar instantly. It'll probably take them years after the commissioning...
Not instantly of course, but they will likely get there. That's what they do... go at it for years and decades (in iterations) doing whatever it takes (buying, stealing)
m_saini wrote:...Chinis have been studying steam catapults since 1985s, in comparison I don't think we have invested in such techs even now. ...


That, is the reason for the concern now. And it is what will turn into panic in the future. if it remains that way.
m_saini wrote:.. Chinis didn't panic when Viraat sailed unmatched for decades, so why are we?
Why would they? Were we going to take the Viraat into the SCS? What extensive support (CBG, friendly Ports for replenishment, maintenance etc) did we have with China's neighbors, for such operation? They were (and are still) scared of Big Khan though. which is when and why they started copying/stealing from the yanks, especially when they realized that the russians were falling back.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

m_saini wrote: Chinis have been studying steam catapults since 1985s, in comparison I don't think we have invested in such techs even now. If we panic buy the shornets, EMALS etc then sure we can "show" the chinis, but we'll never catch up. Isn't the latter the whole point? Chinis didn't panic when Viraat sailed unmatched for decades, so why are we?
Whatever they put on the Type 003 will be new capability they never had before and even if it doesn't work initially, it is there in the coming years and they will improve on it.

If it's not there then it's not there and it simply does not exist as a capability to learn from, improve and make use of. It is that simple.

So it's not a matter of showing them. It's more about keeping abreast in capability. In the coming years, they will be learning and tinkering with their catapults, fixed-wing AEW and all aspects of CATOBAR operations. If we don't have a CATOBAR then we won't.

I don't know if chinis panicked or not when we had the Viraat. But they were aquiring aircraft carriers since the 1980s -- HMAS Melbourne (sister of the original Vikrant) and the Kiev and Minsk (sisters of the Vikramaditya.) They finally bought the Varyag in 1998 and took a decade taling it apart and rebuilding it. Those certainly don't look like actions from a nation unbothered by the Viraat.

Now, if we can build multiple Vikrant class ships to pave our way before Vishal then of course. Who would argue against that? Why wouldn't the IN want that?

But it is time and money again. The $10B and 10 years to build a second Vikrant would be taken from the budget and timeline for the Vishal. The Navy is like a family with two subcompact cars but would like to get to a SUV. They want to put their down payment on a SUV but the bank is telling them no and they'd be better putting that fund into getting yet another subcompact.
m_saini wrote: Very likely that similar(or greater) constraints would be there too for EMALS. As for the Chinese, I believe their Type-003 would be definitely be conventionally powered.
If it is around 70-80K tons then probably conventional since it a somewhat realistic upgrade of the powerplants they have on their 65K tons STOBARs.

If the projections of the pictures from Shanghai are correct and the ship is around 100K tons then a conventional power system (presumably IEP) would be more groundbreaking than nuclear power because it would need to generate huge amounts for the EMALS too. Whether IEP or nuclear power, it would be another capability they would get from building a CATOBAR.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

chola wrote: So it's not a matter of showing them. It's more about keeping abreast in capability. In the coming years, they will be learning and tinkering with their catapults, fixed-wing AEW and all aspects of CATOBAR operations. If we don't have a CATOBAR then we won't.
There hasn't been any investment so it's not about keeping abreast in capability at all. For example, we're keeping abreast in hypersonic tech by investing in it and letting DRDO work on it. If we have a CATOBAR even then we won't (tinker). You really think uncle would let us "tinker" with their steam catapult, their E2Cs etc? Besides what would we even tinker about? we don't know the first thing about them (remember no investments).

We've been manufacturing Su-30 engines from raw materials for years now. How much tinkering have we done with them? how much have we learned?
Those certainly don't look like actions from a nation unbothered by the Viraat.
Manish_P saar answered this for you:
Why would they? Were we going to take the Viraat into the SCS? What extensive support (CBG, friendly Ports for replenishment, maintenance etc) did we have with China's neighbors, for such operation?

But it is time and money again. The $10B and 10 years to build a second Vikrant would be taken from the budget and timeline for the Vishal. The Navy is like a family with two subcompact cars but would like to get to a SUV. They want to put their down payment on a SUV but the bank is telling them no and they'd be better putting that fund into getting yet another subcompact.


The bank is telling the family not to use the kid's college fund and go buy a SUV just because the neighbor designed and built their own.

I don't buy that the plan all along was to go beg the americans for a catobar. The fact that we never sought to develop a catapult of our own essentially means a third STOBAR was always the plan. If it wasn't, then it's pretty shameful that our first instinct is to import.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

Yes! The flight deck looks closer to ready!

Finally, actual news about the Vikrant in the Vikrant thread :lol:


https://mobile.twitter.com/Amitraaz/sta ... 8961041411


Amiet R. Kashyap
@Amitraaz
·
2h
IAC-1(Vikrant) with anti-skid military-grade chemsol epoxy coating on the deck.


Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

chola wrote:Whatever they put on the Type 003 will be new capability they never had before and even if it doesn't work initially, it is there in the coming years and they will improve on it.
Please provide me with a timeframe as to when the following will be ready (similar or exceeding the capability on an Amreeki CBG). Please provide numbers or concrete data to back up the claim that "when" they will improve upon it, in the coming years.

1) KJ-600 AEW. This is their fixed wing AEW to be fielded on Type 003. When do you expect the KJ-600 to reach the capability of the E2-D Advanced Hawkeye?

2) EMALS. They have two STOBAR vessels prior to this. And they have zero experience operating steam-powered catapult launch systems. So from STOBAR they are jumping directly to EMALS. When do you expect a Chinese EMALS system to be similar in capability to the EMALS system on the Gerald R Ford Class?

3) J-15. Their first and currently only naval fighter. Others (J-31 and J-20) are in the works as per the Chinese. When do you expect this aircraft (J-15) to match the proven F-18E/F Super Hornet? I am not going to bring the F-35B/C into the mix, because that will be unfair.

4) Harbin Z-9. When do you think it will be able to match the MH-60R in capability? When do you think her sensors will be as effective as the ones on the MH-60R from Sikorsky?

These four - among others - constitute the capability of a CBG. Take out even one of them and the CBG loses her effectiveness. And please do not give me vague answers like I have a Damocles sword hanging over my head, so I am afraid to reply. Show me the data. Show me the capability. But do not show me Chinese propaganda or pictures from Chinese watchers. I can ask brar_w a question or even question what he is saying and he will counter that with pages upon pages of open source data or pictures or graphs or charts or whatever else to back up what he is saying.

You (and others) are doing a simple cut-and-paste strategy. What the Americans have, the Chinese will also have. What the Americans have with decades (I believe it is 70 - 80 years now) of carrier operations, the Chinese will compress that timeframe into 1 - 2 decades for themselves and then state that they are on par. What the Americans have invested in decades and in money with technology, the Chinese will steal it and have it.
chola wrote:If it's not there then it's not there and it simply does not exist as a capability to learn from, improve and make use of. It is that simple.

So it's not a matter of showing them. It's more about keeping abreast in capability. In the coming years, they will be learning and tinkering with their catapults, fixed-wing AEW and all aspects of CATOBAR operations. If we don't have a CATOBAR then we won't.
But we are buying a CATOBAR system lock-stock-and-barrel from General Atomics. What is there to learn and tinker?
chola wrote:If it is around 70-80K tons then probably conventional since it a somewhat realistic upgrade of the powerplants they have on their 65K tons STOBARs.

If the projections of the pictures from Shanghai are correct and the ship is around 100K tons then a conventional power system (presumably IEP) would be more groundbreaking than nuclear power because it would need to generate huge amounts for the EMALS too. Whether IEP or nuclear power, it would be another capability they would get from building a CATOBAR.
Why did you stop at 100K? You should have gone straight to 150K. After all the theme is China is trying to better America no?
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

^^^ Admiral, I can assure you that their equipment will suck compared to the Amreekis' in every aspect. And I can predict that with near absolute certainty.

But they will have a CATOBAR, a fixed-wing AEW and a J-15 that will now be able to launch with full load. And, unless they will stupidly and suicidally stop all development after induction, those said equipment will get better as time goes on.

And where will that leave India when we have no CATOBAR at all? What you are suggesting is that as long at Cheen is behind some other phoren nation then we are can forgo the same capability.

Saar, I do not say 150K tons because that not the GE photos indicated. But you are correct, the wiki says only 80K tons.

If it is only 80K tons and the chinis cannot be expected to match Amreeki equipment wouldn't that argue for us to get that 65K-tons CATOBAR?

Even if we have that one CATOBAR, it would still be better than what the chinis have since we will get the proven E2C and American catapults.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Saar, I am asking you a very simple question. Give me the timeline. And along with it, show me that the capability can match what the Amreekis have. Do not give me vague answers and please do not give theories.

Allow me to illustrate on a totally different example. F-18 Super Hornet Block II vs Rafale M F3R. A simple online google search will show me what anyone needs to know.

I am asking you to provide data on what the KJ-600 can do versus what an E-2D Hawkeye can do. Provide the data on the range, the various sensors, etc. Show it. Same with the Harbin Z9, the J-15 and their EMALS.

Brar just explained to m_saini (in detail) on the rigorous testing the EMALS is going through aboard the USS Gerald R Ford. Can you provide any data?

I will get to the rest of your post, after you have explained the above.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

^^^ No Saar, I have no timeline for any of that stuff. Which you obviously know I wouldn't have. Why would I or anyone else outside the Great Wall?

All we have is the CATOBAR being built, the KJ-600 is a project and the J-15 is still being produced.

And I did not give "vague" answers on their capability versus American equipment. I said with clear certainty that they will SUCK compared to American equivalents.

If having no timeline for chini projects somehow means that the CATOBAR (that the Indian Navy WANTS) is invalid then okay you've already won. I have no timeline.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

Rakesh wrote:The picture below is of the second French aircraft carrier that just got the approval from the Govt of France. The reason why I am posting this in this thread is because of the statement from Rear Admiral Rahul Shrawat (retd), Naval Group of France's head honcho in India.

That picture however, in the tweet, is an old one. The picture came with the tweet, so posted it. The design has been updated. Click on links below to see the approved design.

France's next-generation aircraft carrier will be nuclear-powered, says Macron
https://www.reuters.com/article/france- ... SKBN28I2FV
08 Dec 2020

Here’s France’s Plan For Its New Nuclear Powered Supercarrier
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... percarrier
08 Dec 2020

75,000 tons + EMALS + nuclear power. The fixed wing AEW component will be the E-2 Hawkeye from Amreeka. I believe three new E-2Ds are being procured to replace the two E-2Cs in service now with the French Navy. brar_w can provide more info if he chooses.
Pretty sure Indian naval designers can come up with similar designs., but the issue is a naval nuclear reactor (ship) is not certified yet. It needs to be redesigned and upgraded, not even sure who is going to foot that bill !. EMALS is a good prospect if that issue is addressed. If not we are looking a conventionally powered non EMALS, CATOBAR carrier , an upgraded variant of the Vikrant. India might go in for a consultancy with RN/BAE ., this has already been discussed at the highest levels.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

chola wrote:^^^ No Saar, I have no timeline for any of that stuff. Which you obviously know I wouldn't have. Why would I or anyone else outside the Great Wall?

All we have is the CATOBAR being built, the KJ-600 is a project and the J-15 is still being produced.

And I did not give "vague" answers on their capability versus American equipment. I said with clear certainty that they will SUCK compared to American equivalents.

If having no timeline for chini projects somehow means that the CATOBAR (that the Indian Navy WANTS) is invalid then okay you've already won. I have no timeline.
Chola, it is not about winning or losing. And yes the question is rhetorical. No one knows. Apart from the Chinese themselves and foreign Military Intelligence will have a vague idea.

But one can make an educated guess and state that the Chinese are not close to what the US Navy has. Would you agree with that assessment?

But allow me to humour the Chinese and claim that within 10 years, all these above systems will be perfected. At that point, a PLAN Admiral could send his CBGs into the Indian Ocean. Now the theory goes like this --> CATOBAR-equipped CBGs are invincible. No surface, no sub-surface, no aerial and no missile threat can neutralize a CBG. And I will believe that theory, if we are talking about a US Navy Carrier Strike Group. No contest there.

But since I claimed that the Chinese will have mastered the systems that the US Navy also has, in 10 years, where would that leave the Indian Navy in 2031? What will happen to the Indian Navy when a PLAN CATOBAR-equipped CBG (or multiple CBGs) enter the Indian Ocean. In 10 years, we will have no CATOBAR-equipped CBG. How does the Indian Navy expect to counter it? Or will the Indian Navy lose?
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by rajsunder »

chola wrote:Yes! The flight deck looks closer to ready!

Finally, actual news about the Vikrant in the Vikrant thread :lol:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Amitraaz/sta ... 8961041411

Amiet R. Kashyap
@Amitraaz
·
2h
IAC-1(Vikrant) with anti-skid military-grade chemsol epoxy coating on the deck.
Green top? I do not think that any navy ship wants to stand out in a vast ocean.
I have been on American Heli carrier and saw that the epoxy coating was dark grey.
May be this is yet to get its final coat.
gpurewal
BRFite
Posts: 106
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by gpurewal »

rajsunder wrote:
chola wrote:Yes! The flight deck looks closer to ready!

Finally, actual news about the Vikrant in the Vikrant thread :lol:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Amitraaz/sta ... 8961041411
Green top? I do not think that any navy ship wants to stand out in a vast ocean.
I have been on American Heli carrier and saw that the epoxy coating was dark grey.
May be this is yet to get its final coat.
I think in this day and age, if the ship is identified due to its green top being seen, then it's already too late, since the drones, strike aircraft, or whatever would have already penetrated the layered defense rings around the carrier.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

rajsunder wrote:
Green top? I do not think that any navy ship wants to stand out in a vast ocean.
It is probably not the final coating but if it were, it wouldn't be anywhere near the bright orange "Please Bomb Me" color of the old USSR Navy!

Image
ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 441
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ManuJ »

Vidur wrote:Carriers are very important to the nation. They have a very big role to play in diplomacy. Diplomacy, narrative building, giving confidence to partners in littorals are very important national functions of carriers. War fighting is only part of their function. An important part, but only part. The nation cannot afford to lag loose its edge in terms of training and experience in carriers. This was understood decades ago by us. It will be foolhardy to loose that edge.

So a 3rd carrier is imperative in my personal view. Its configuration is open to debate.
Thanks Vidur, it gladdens the heart to know that there are people in MoD who understand the importance of continuing with IN's carrier program.
I do feel that there is broad-based support in Indian strategic community for the 3rd carrier, CDS' comments notwithstanding. It's the configuration and cost that's being debated, which is a healthy discussion to have.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25085
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by SSridhar »

The discussion here is more on Cheeni stuff. This is 'Vikrant' thread, please remember.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

^^^ The Admiral asked me for that! Please don't ban me permanently.
sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sajaym »

chola wrote:Yes! The flight deck looks closer to ready!

Finally, actual news about the Vikrant in the Vikrant thread :lol:
The shot from above makes an aircraft carrier look so simple to make.

Makes we wonder, is it technically feasible to have 7 flat-top drone ships which can join together at sea to form an aircraft carrier and then again break away when not in use or under attack?
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sankum »

6 Helicopter landing spots on INS Vikrant.

Standard complement 20 Mig 29k+ 6 ASW Helos+ 4 AEW Ka31= 30 Aircraft

On deck 12 Mig 29k + 5 helos = 17 Aircraft

In Hanger 8 Mig 29k +5 helos = 13 Aircraft

Overload is 24 Mig29k +12 helos= 36 Aircraft
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by AkshaySG »

Even calling it a “3rd carrier " seems foolhardy...

With a clean sheet design, integration of Catapults or EMALS, construction, testing, trials etc etc will take by Navy's own estimate around 15 years from when the work starts .. And more likely longer going by Indian Shipyard standards... Assuming this gets ordered in the next few years that means a commissioning around 2040

So instead of a complement to current carriers you end up with a replacement for Vikramaditya (which would be ~60 years old by then, similar ages to when we retired Vikrant and Viraat)

"The two carriers on deployment, one in refit" plan of the Navy can't be realized until they order multiple of the same class.

I think it would be wiser to wait till ~ 2025 let the economy stabilize and bounce back to growing at speed then order 2 carriers of whatever type the Navy wishes similar to Britain's QE program.... They can use the 3/4 years till then to finalize the design, give HAL the requirements for a future TEDBF, Try out different versions of Catapults /EMALS, Create another birth at shipyard, Bring in private players etc etc

This way the Navy still gets its wish of supercarriers, CDS gets his wish of spending the immediate budget on more necessary acquisitions and the PMO get their wish of not angering the Public by spending 10+ Billions on a carrier in a post Covid economy.

Besides hardly makes much difference if the carrier(s) comes in 2043-45 as opposed to 2040
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

SSridhar wrote:The discussion here is more on Cheeni stuff. This is 'Vikrant' thread, please remember.
chola wrote:^^^ The Admiral asked me for that! Please don't ban me permanently.
SSridhar-ji, I have moved the post to the China military watch thread. I had asked him the questions.

Chola, will respond in that thread. Thank You.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

Apparently, that new photo of the Vikrant came from a chini commercial satellite:

https://mobile.twitter.com/detresfa_/st ... 5263609867 ---> One of China's commercial satellite imagery providers recently published images of #Kochi, #India where one of the tiles photographed the #IndianNavy aircraft carrier #INSVikrant showing progress on its deck, this after its successful basin trials a month ago.

Image

This is the original video that shows the zooming into Kochi.
https://mobile.twitter.com/_Ameer_Deen_ ... 4454762499

It is already on Twitter but if anyone feel it is inappropriate, I'll remove the post.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

The phrase " preparing to fight the next war with weapons of the last war" often comes to mind when studying warfare.There are many instances in the last century when that phrase is all too accurate. WW2 saw the end of the battleship and the dominance of the carrier.However subs played an equal and vital part too. The USN sank 10 Japanese carriers,plus a seaplane carrier to boot in that war. In the Battle of the Atlantic,German U-boats sank 3000 Allied warships and merchantmen! It was the breaking of the German code,the Enigma machine at Bletchley Park by Alan Turing and co. that turned the tide. Locations of U-boats became known and Allied aircraft and warships hunted them down far more easily.
Astonishingly,Germany still had 150 + U-boats when it surrendered in 1945.

The carrier dominated naval warfare throughout the 20th. century. US,UK,Vietnam,Falklands, and even our own Vikrant in '71 played a stellar role in winning the war for B' desh,bottling up E.Pak ports and its aircraft sinking large nos. of Paki watercraft. The large N-powered supercarriers of the USN then took CVs into its ultimate evolution with the expeditionary wars at turn of century with the Gulf wars, Afg. too,Libya,etc. " The war on terror " was a great excuse to bomb the sh* t out of the villains of the day,anywhere,anyplace. The Soviet antidote to these supercarriers was the super-sub.One for every super CV, each carrying 20 supersonic LRCMs with a huge conventional or N- warhead . These super-subs are now getting their missiles changed with smaller Kalibir LRCMs increasing the numbers carried threefold.

Nevertheless,with the arrival of the 21st. century came new developments.Carrier-based drones or UCAVs on the anvil. Other land-based, HALE,MALE types, anti- carrier BMs from China,a range of multi-role supersonic cruise missiles, plus hypersonic missiles about to enter Ru service. More startling has been the development of the Ru Kanyon nuclear-powered ,N-tipped UW high-speed torpedo with a 2000+ km range.A supposedly indestructible weapon. Such a weapon could also be modified for use against SSBNs,CVs,etc. Shorter ranged Shkval already exists. Supersonic bombers of the Sov. era which will still be in service for at least another two decades, will all be equipped with hypersonic missiles in the new decade and the Chins are in the hyper rat race too.

The increasing vulnerability and cost of the super CV has led the USN to examine building light CVs for lesser crises and spreading the risk of attrition. With greater capability of warship detection by sats,aircraft,drones,ELINT,etc., the survivability factor is decreasing. Coordinated salvoes of the new missiles from diverse platforms can overwhelm a CVs defences,not to mention the threat from UW,where in numerous exercises,the USN has foubd its CVs sunk by mere conv. subs.The key weapon system with the greatest survival capability is still the sub,esp. the N-sub. Equipping them with the new missiles mentioned above,sub-launched attack drones being tested ,and the RuN's Belgorod SSGN which carries the Kanyon N-torpedo are dramatically increasing the lethality of subs proportionate to the increasing vulnerability of the carrier and surface combatants.

Therefore,the next major war will see the sub still the most difficult target of all in the maritime sphere and the CV might well find itself in battleship-style distress. As I mentioned at the start, 10 Japanese CVs were sunk by USN subs in WW2. One can surely see more sunk by subs in the next major global naval conflict .We need to hit the pause button on the design, size and scope of our future flat tops to enable them to weather the coming storms.

PS: The Q might be asked,why then are the Chins building large carriers? Well from a recent post of mine,not only are they building 6 CVs,but also dozens of subs,4 N-subs at a time,dozens of their latest DDGs,FFGs, with a new 12,000t DDG type on the anvil as well. Corvettes are being churned out 4 at a time,numbers to exceed 70. Thus a PLAN CBG will consist of the CV,at least 4 large escorts with a few hundred SAMs for air defence,plus numerous BPDMS, a large air wing plus one to two subs in tow to defeat the UW challenge. In addition,land-based aircraft will also support their ops in the ICS,Taiwan Straits and Pacific theatre. In the IOR unless air bases are added to their bases contracted for, air cover will have to be provided by their own carrier fighters.
With a seemingly unlimited budget especially for the PLAN , which has been given top priority, the Chins can afford the huge cost that this armada bills. A meal that our Cinderella,the IN cannot afford.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

Whats the DRDO TDV being built at the Cochin shipyard ? I thought the TDVs (aphorism for radar ranging, tracking ships) were built elsewhere ?
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

kit wrote:Whats the DRDO TDV being built at the Cochin shipyard ? I thought the TDVs (aphorism for radar ranging, tracking ships) were built elsewhere ?
There are 2 ships being built - one in CSL and the other at HSL.

The one from HSL is called Ocean Surveilance Ship and Missile Range Instrumentation Ship - indicating its mission.

The TDV has an a-frame which points to a more varied mission set.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Philip wrote:Coordinated salvoes of the new missiles from diverse platforms can overwhelm a CVs defences,not to mention the threat from UW,where in numerous exercises,the USN has foubd its CVs sunk by mere conv. subs
In exercises and training T-38 talons have gotten the better of F-22A's in the USAF. Does that mean that F-22's should be retired and T-38 production should be re-started by the USAF?

If one relied on social media, all one would know is that someone somewhere has posted or some news leak has told one that a submarine in exercise was able to get into firing range of a US CVN. Has there ever been a single leak, or incident where the Carrier and its supporting fleet destroyed a submarine trying to defeat it in exercise? If that leak has occurred, could you provide a story behind it? If it hasn't occurred does this mean that the US CVN and supporting structure has had 0 submarine kills in simulated exercises in the last 30+ years or so? Is that believable? We see the same in terms of leaks and non-official data on bi-lateral and multi-lateral exercises. Its better to put exercises (which are not war) in proper context and view them as for they really are - A training opportunity, and not a weapon system evaluation test. If they were the latter, you'd set them up for such (which many nations do. Like the USAF flying MiG-21's, MiG-29's, and SU-27's or using kit from S-300 air defense system that they've acquired. Other nations no doubt do the same).

On the naval side, each and every deploying CVN, at least once a year, gets to participate in live-fire exercises where their group is confronted with various types of threats like live fire supersonic sea skimming missiles, subsonic missiles, a large adversary air-bases threat and other threats that challenge their acoustic detection abilities. Those evaluations are where you are purposefully trying to stress the crew and the vessels in overcoming what they may potentially encounter when they deploy. Bi-lateral training is about tactics refinement and you use that dissimilar training opportunity to try various things out and become better at integration. It is not set up as a formal weapons system evaluation. Plus these leaks are highly selective and never provide background for context. They are also usually one sided. One can google foreign fighter X having the F-22 in its HUD. How many foreign fighter F-22 HUD shots do we get? Does this mean that the F-22 has never defeated a foreign fighter in exercises? Or rarely does so and these things are just set up so that foreign pilots can come in and essentially club F-22's at will and then go home? It's the same with naval exercises. I get it that having one of your submarine being pictured with a CVN in its periscope may be a pretty big deal compared to a similar shot with a merchant vessel or a small corvette. But in reality, there are many things that a CVN can do to essentially negate this threat. It has speed, air-wing flexibility, and the ability to stand-off. Non of these things work favorably for non SSNs which are usually the ones (crews of them) talking about these things the loudest.
The increasing vulnerability and cost of the super CV has led the USN to examine building light CVs for lesser crises and spreading the risk of attrition.
The US DON has always had this capability via its "Harrier Carriers". They now become significantly more capable because of the F-35B and V-22 Osprey which allows them to move F-35 engine modules and even act as refueling aircraft beyond anything that a buddy loadout can do. But they are a carrier only when it comes to the presence mission. In war, they are at best single mission low ops tempo assets.

The US has also almost always looked at smaller carriers periodically. John McCain used to be the champion of inserting language in various legislations to get these studied. Almost always the results of these analysis was to to come back and reinforce the current air-wing flexibility, and payload of a currently sized carrier. The reason is simple - If survivability is leading you towards a different carrier, then a smaller, less capable, carrier will be even less survivable on account of it having a smaller air-wing, having a shorter ranged airwing (no E-2, no long range aviation, no long range/loiter ASW etc). So in order to do the same missions, it would be forced to get closer to the threat and thus become more vulnerable (but with less ability to defend itself).

The second argument of building smaller/cheaper carriers and having more of them is valid. This is in top of the current CVN fleet not as a replacement to it. This is valid because as China's Navy grows by leaps and bound the global demand on the CVN force will significantly increase (even now the USS Nimitz just returned this week after a 10-month continuous deployment). But that's incremental demand and not taking away from the current force structure.

I've posted this earlier, but since we all seem to be talking about the balance of aircraft carrier design, and technical abilities, this is worth spending a little time to watch again. Lots of great nuggets of information and data. n



The CVX study looked at 75 distinct designs and configurations for Nimitz replacement. Many of these design models are at the US Naval academy (museum). I've posted pics of them in the past as well. There is even a stealthy AC in there that they studied.

Image

The AOA that the CVX and CVN-21 programs did was very extensive and thorough. It isn't a coincidence that the Chinese themselves are looking to move from STOBAR to CATOBAR as soon as their technical abilities allow them to. The same goes for the French CdG recapitalization which is a larger EMALS carrier. Survivability enhancement first and foremost starts with the right air-wing composition that can allow long range targeting, early warning, and allow you to stand off. You can't really do either of those within the STOBAR configuration effectively.
Last edited by brar_w on 01 Jan 2021 23:59, edited 4 times in total.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

Aditya G wrote:
kit wrote:Whats the DRDO TDV being built at the Cochin shipyard ? I thought the TDVs (aphorism for radar ranging, tracking ships) were built elsewhere ?
There are 2 ships being built - one in CSL and the other at HSL.

The one from HSL is called Ocean Surveilance Ship and Missile Range Instrumentation Ship - indicating its mission.

The TDV has an a-frame which points to a more varied mission set.
Thank you., here is more detailed info .,
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Rakesh wrote:For the sake of the Navy, I hope that the CDS in 2022 will be someone from the Navy onlee. If it is from the Air Force, the Indian Navy will continue to keep that project dormant. No IAF officer, holding the office of CDS, will approve an aircraft carrier program.
Read the tweet below from Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar (retd), the former AOC of Western Air Command. This is why no IAF officer - if holding the office of CDS - will release scarce CAPEX for a bells-and-whistles carrier anytime soon. And the length of time this project takes to get sanctioned is related to the arrival of the vessel. 15 years, as per the Navy's own admission.

The Navy can counter the logic below, but can they override the CDS?

https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 66465?s=20 ---> The speed of response of air power is about 24 times faster than anything which floats. Where a Su-30 can reach in 1 hour, a ship will take 24 hours.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

Rakesh wrote:Read the tweet below from Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar (retd), the former AOC of Western Air Command. This is why no IAF officer - if holding the office of CDS - will release scarce CAPEX for a bells-and-whistles carrier anytime soon. And the length of time this project takes to get sanctioned is related to the arrival of the vessel. 15 years, as per the Navy's own admission.

The Navy can counter the logic below, but can they override the CDS?

https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 66465?s=20 ---> The speed of response of air power is about 24 times faster than anything which floats. Where a Su-30 can reach in 1 hour, a ship will take 24 hours.
Oh well, time to get rid of the Navy and double the size of the Air Force. Basically every ship in the IN is slower than the slowest IAF fixed-wing.

Maybe the IAF will finish what the USAF couldn't do in the 1950s during "The Revolt of the Admirals" and remove naval air once and for all.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

The emergence of UCAVs,armed drones in popular parlance is revolutionising warfare.The Azeris use of Ottoman drones stunned the Armenians.We too talk of heavy transports unleashing swarms of drones ,kamikaze killers,loitering attack drones,etc. Drones aboard all types of warships,including sub-launched ones are with us now! Surface combatants are going to find avoiding detection v.difficult given the array of sensor assets from sats,aircraft,drones,etc. and the array of new weaponry BMs,super and hyper missiles,etc. against them.

In the 1950s,Kruschev era,the Sovs. had fielded a revolutionary missile boat,one which could also submerge to avoid detection. If youlook at the Zumwalt DDG,it does have some similarities with a sub lookswise. Therefore the design of surface stealth combatants will morph further,but can the carrier be capable of survival from the latest missiles being fielded and the UW threat?

Coming to the V-2, at least the VikA and Vikrant have much commonality in the air wing,infra for the same types of aircraft and helos. The CV-3 will 15 years from now be a different species. Our current 2 CVs will serve for at least 30 years more,new aircraft types replacing the 29Ks from 2030 onwards.

If we leverage our amphib designs into light carriers," flat-top" all designs of surface combatants above 12K t, we will have several more air-capable assets increasing the no. of aircraft and helos available to the IN. I still advocate acquisition of supersonic maritime strike bombers like Backfire/ Blackjack to complement the other arms of the IN,as each can carry from 10+ supersonic LRCMs,hyper Ms in the future too.An MKI can carry only one ASM BMos class.Just 2 Backfires can do the job of an entire sqd. of MKIs,carring as much or more ASMs. Leveraging our island bases- and we can do in L'dweep what the Chins have done with atolls in the ICS, operate and support with tankers all manner of strike aircraft and bombers,complementing the med. and light CVs in balanced fashion. Not forgetting priority given to the most survivable sub fleet!

The IN should "cut its coat according to its cloth" and ask for a stretched " sister ship of the V-2. That may pass muster, with larger lifts to accommodate a wide variety of options both desi and firang.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by srai »

Rakesh wrote:Read the tweet below from Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar (retd), the former AOC of Western Air Command. This is why no IAF officer - if holding the office of CDS - will release scarce CAPEX for a bells-and-whistles carrier anytime soon. And the length of time this project takes to get sanctioned is related to the arrival of the vessel. 15 years, as per the Navy's own admission.

The Navy can counter the logic below, but can they override the CDS?

https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 66465?s=20 ---> The speed of response of air power is about 24 times faster than anything which floats. Where a Su-30 can reach in 1 hour, a ship will take 24 hours.
CDS also said this regarding MMRCA-2 :wink:

IAF to buy 83 more Tejas fighters from HAL instead of foreign jets, CDS Rawat says
...

“The Indian Air Force is switching that to the LCA,” Rawat said, when asked about the global tender for jets. “The IAF is saying, I would rather take the indigenous fighter, it is good.”

...
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

Rakesh wrote:Read the tweet below from Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar (retd), the former AOC of Western Air Command. This is why no IAF officer - if holding the office of CDS - will release scarce CAPEX for a bells-and-whistles carrier anytime soon. And the length of time this project takes to get sanctioned is related to the arrival of the vessel. 15 years, as per the Navy's own admission.

The Navy can counter the logic below, but can they override the CDS?

https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 66465?s=20 ---> The speed of response of air power is about 24 times faster than anything which floats. Where a Su-30 can reach in 1 hour, a ship will take 24 hours.
Well what will a Su do after it gets there., you are not going to bomb all the time :mrgreen:

A ship has staying power, put in place expeditionary forces, recover assets, project power and change the status quo if needed.
Post Reply