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
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

brar_w wrote:
Pratyush wrote:

We have now to start thinking about the role the ship is expected to meet. Then arrive at the size of the ship.
Is there any concrete evidence that the Naval analysis, and requirements process was not doing this all along? It would be extremely strange, and unprofessional, for them to start with a solution and work backwards. I have never come across anything that suggests this to be the case be it in surface combatants, submarines, or Carriers.
This comment was based on the reporting about the 65000 ton IAC2. I always found it strange that the role was not very well defined. Yet the size was. Like let's get a carrier.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Pratyush wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Is there any concrete evidence that the Naval analysis, and requirements process was not doing this all along? It would be extremely strange, and unprofessional, for them to start with a solution and work backwards. I have never come across anything that suggests this to be the case be it in surface combatants, submarines, or Carriers.
This comment was based on the reporting about the 65000 ton IAC2. I always found it strange that the role was not very well defined. Yet the size was. Like let's get a carrier.
Why do you think the role was not very well defined? Based on reporting? I would find it puzzling if the IN came up with 65K ton by throwing a dart and going with where it landed. If 65K design trade is/was true, then it would have been derived from an analysis that would have factored in the entire gamut of what's relevant for carrier operations. Details of that analysis would probably not be available to the media. Can't really say that they just wanted something as large as the PLAN because if 65K won't be so it must have stemmed from some sort of analysis the IN would have done to see what type of AC would be of use post IAC-1. Of course that solution runs up against other things equally or more important but that doesn't take away from the fact that in professional forces these things are derived after considerable analytical rigor, wargaming and red teaming.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

The reporting had always taken the opposing side on the narrative from the MoD who repeatedly rejected the IN's proposal.

I saw terms like "wanting a super carrier" attached to the 65K ton proposal to insinuate that the Navy is overreaching. The reality is that size is decidedly modest for a CATOBAR and is the same tonnage as the Kutnetsov and the current chini STOBARS and no one sees those as super carriers.

It seems to me that size was immediately seized upon as a negative without looking at how the Navy came to that conclusion.

If we look at the current and upcoming CATOBARs in the world, they are all much larger save for the Charles de Gaulle -- and the French are going 75K tons for their next carrier -- we can pretty clearly see that the IN's proposal is rather modest and probably attuned to the reality of India's situation. Yes, it is big compared to what we have now but there needs to be some capacity built in for the future. This thing will last a half century or more.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Barath »

Pratyush wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Is there any concrete evidence that the Naval analysis, and requirements process was not doing this all along? It would be extremely strange, and unprofessional, for them to start with a solution and work backwards. I have never come across anything that suggests this to be the case be it in surface combatants, submarines, or Carriers.
This comment was based on the reporting about the 65000 ton IAC2. I always found it strange that the role was not very well defined. Yet the size was. Like let's get a carrier.
There was never any detailed case put forward for this carrier. Nor for the kind of role, or for the air power to be exerted. It was "oh China is getting carrier" and so on..

One mention was the size. None for the kind of planes or numbers to be launched off it. Or the carrier group needed to support it. And then there was the navy asking for nuclear but unwilling to step up to the plate for it.

https://www.ajaishukla.com/2017/10/navy ... clear.html

All told , it leaves the impression more of empire building than a reasoned business case.
Last edited by Barath on 11 Jul 2021 20:41, edited 1 time in total.
Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Nikhil_Naya »

Do we need a 65K ton CATOBAR? Or shall we make two 40K ton STOBAR's with a complement of AC designed specifically for my needs (availability of additional lift surfaces, ability to carry a good weapon load with decent range) at almost the same cost that of a 65K ton CATOBAR supercarrier.
What if I make a 'dual use' ship that can support as a LAC - carrying one squadron of FW a/c, one squadron of Rotaries and a few hundred troops when required. Imagine an INS Vikrant, Vikrami, Vikramjeet along with the Vikramaditya instead of INS Vikrant, Vishal and Vikramaditya.

An AC is not just one ship but typically a battle group. Two battle groups (1/2 destroyer, 2/3 frigates, 1/2 submarines Plus each) - will any day be more to deal with than one supercarrier with the same battle group config. Mine bigger than yours will typically not work - a smaller carrier with a good air capacity (2-3 squadron worth) - will be easier for the country to make, deploy and maintain.

Historically, the naval battles were won by medium-size ships that could be made in higher number than a superlarge ship that could just have one made (Hood, Yamato, Tirpitz)...

This also allows for IN's long term vision of being a 3 carrier navy even after the VikAD retires by the time these come online.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by arvin »

Nikhil_Naya wrote:Do we need a 65K ton CATOBAR? Or shall we make two 40K ton STOBAR's with a complement of AC designed specifically for my needs (availability of additional lift surfaces, ability to carry a good weapon load with decent range) at almost the same cost that of a 65K ton CATOBAR supercarrier.
Yes fully agree with you on this.
A clean slate 65K ton carrier has too many unknowns and will come with a fat bill.
In the same price we could easily afford two 40K IAC-1 class carriers. Maybe only change would be re-design the lift for other types of aircraft.
Money saved should be re-invested in electric \ hybrid propulsion with emphasis on speed.
China's carrier needs are entirely different than ours and I suspect it is linked to enforcing their debt trap diplomacy.
There is absolutely no need to match them in size. Instead what we need is nimble and swift moving force.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

There is no indication that MoD would give the IN two 40K tons STOBARs in place of the 65K CATOBAR. Whether STOBAR or CATOBAR, it would be huge capital investment that would take a decade to build and commission and last decades into the future.

If the Raksha Mantri gave the IN a choice of two more of the Vikrant class, they would have taken up the offer. But the truth is that the third carrier would likely be the last chance for the IN to get a carrier until the Vikramaditya retires between two and three decades from now. So if it is that one last carrier that would last decades then the admirals would want it to be a CATOBAR than yet another STOBAR that places great handicap on load and range for every aircraft launched from it and on top of that has a much inferior AEW solution in rotary instead of fixed wing aircraft.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Nikhil_Naya wrote:Do we need a 65K ton CATOBAR? Or shall we make two 40K ton STOBAR's with a complement of AC designed specifically for my needs (availability of additional lift surfaces, ability to carry a good weapon load with decent range) at almost the same cost that of a 65K ton CATOBAR supercarrier.
What if I make a 'dual use' ship that can support as a LAC - carrying one squadron of FW a/c, one squadron of Rotaries and a few hundred troops when required. Imagine an INS Vikrant, Vikrami, Vikramjeet along with the Vikramaditya instead of INS Vikrant, Vishal and Vikramaditya.

An AC is not just one ship but typically a battle group. Two battle groups (1/2 destroyer, 2/3 frigates, 1/2 submarines Plus each) - will any day be more to deal with than one supercarrier with the same battle group config. Mine bigger than yours will typically not work - a smaller carrier with a good air capacity (2-3 squadron worth) - will be easier for the country to make, deploy and maintain.

Historically, the naval battles were won by medium-size ships that could be made in higher number than a superlarge ship that could just have one made (Hood, Yamato, Tirpitz)...

This also allows for IN's long term vision of being a 3 carrier navy even after the VikAD retires by the time these come online.
Great post. The navy feels it requires a CATOBAR. The issue lies with the budget and timeframe, both of which the CDS is highlighting.

By the time the 65K vessel arrives, the Vikramaditya will be time to retire. They navy will be back down to two aircraft carriers. They will share the same quagmire that they are in right now.

By the way, here are some interesting quotes from the navy admiral, from that Hindustan Times article....
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 66663.html
"Carriers are being looked at purely from a force on force perspective. Questions are being asked why should we not build submarines to counter the Chinese carrier groups. That is true, but then our own carrier can threaten something else and balance the operational equation. Why do we assume that one carrier needs to go into battle with only another carrier? CBGs are flexible and have a range of operations - other than addressing the enemy carrier. That must settle the Carrier or Submarine debate as both are required for protecting the IOR,” an admiral said.
1) You have a navy admiral clearing stating that a submarine can be used to counter Chinese carrier groups as indicated in red. That destroys the premise that a submarine is NOT an effective platform. Against a USN carrier battle group, it will be near impossible...but this is the PLAN we are talking about.

2) You have a navy admiral stating that to counter an aircraft carrier (CATOBAR or STOBAR), it is not an absolute must that you require your own aircraft carrier. Rather the flexible nature of that vessel, gives the option to engage the enemy in another sphere and in another theatre.

Something for the CDS and the PMO to think about, before funds are sanctioned. This same navy admiral is also stating that what stops the PLAN - with their carrier groups - from conducting a freedom of navigation operations in Andaman Seas. Very good point raised by him. Now based on the theories from the CATOBAR fanbois on BRF, the Indian Navy would be caught with their pants down if they don't have their own CATOBAR. Obviously now disproven by the navy admiral above.

But let us assume the navy admiral is wrong and these fanbois are correct. If the IN lays the keel for their vessel now and arrives in the year 2036, as per the navy's own calculation of 15 years for the build time of a CATOBAR. So what is stopping the PLAN from conducting a a freedom of navigation operations in Andaman Seas before then? Absolutely nothing. And based on the fanbois predictions, the IN is in for a huge loss of face and possibly destruction of the entire Navy. Not my predictions, but theirs onlee.

The same navy that is insisting on their third vessel to be a CATOBAR, is also stating that they will be an effective three aircraft carrier with one CATOBAR and two STOBAR vessels (Vikramaditya and Vikrant). So how "do or die" important is it for the Indian Navy that the third vessel must be a CATOBAR? Can it not be a STOBAR - as you have indicated above? Then follow up with a CATOBAR, when the funds are more readily available. Or is this I-must-have-a-CATOBAR-and-I-will-hold-my-breath-till-I-turn-blue similar to the IAF's There-Is-No-Plan-B statement?

The navy themselves are gladly willing to wait - for as long as it takes - for the CATOBAR to be sanctioned. They are willing to put their three aircraft carrier plan on hold for this vessel.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by arvin »

chola wrote:
and on top of that has a much inferior AEW solution in rotary instead of fixed wing aircraft.
Indian peninsula (IAC-0) offers sufficient runway length for operating all types of aircrafts needed for keeping sea lanes safe.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Barath »

Nikhil_Naya wrote:Do we need a 65K ton CATOBAR? Or shall we make two 40K ton STOBAR's with a complement of AC designed specifically for my needs .... at almost the same cost that of a 65K ton CATOBAR supercarrier.
What if I make a 'dual use' ship that can support as a LAC - carrying one squadron of FW a/c, one squadron of Rotaries and a few hundred troops when required. Imagine an INS Vikrant, Vikrami, Vikramjeet along with the Vikramaditya instead of INS Vikrant, Vishal and Vikramaditya.

An AC is not just one ship but typically a battle group. Two battle groups (1/2 destroyer, 2/3 frigates, 1/2 submarines Plus each) - will any day be more to deal with than one supercarrier with the same battle group config. Mine bigger than yours will typically not work - a smaller carrier with a good air capacity (2-3 squadron worth) - will be easier for the country to make, deploy and maintain.

This also allows for IN's long term vision of being a 3 carrier navy even after the VikAD retires by the time these come online.
Smaller carrier vs larger carrier is a presence vs power argument. Even more so for a 2 smaller STOBAR carriers vs one larger CATOBAR carrier.

Because a certain minimum number of planes has to be dedicated to CAP/self defense, having a larger catobar carrier allows you to generate far more sorties, and sustain those sorties. This works in a non linear way. Catobar also could allow for force multipliers like awacs planes, tankers etc off a carrier. (Sortie generation is actually a little more complex, not purely based on tonnage/size, but parking, lifts etc, but you ) Now, having access to more capable planes (eg F35) or drones could tilt it this way or that, but for a given technology, the arguments hold true.

I take issue with your statement that 2 40K stobar carrier groups will be almost the same cost as one 65K one. For one, the cost of the carrier is just a small portion of the actual cost to the navy, including people, planes, carrier group ships or even accompanying submarines. Thus 2x40K stobar carrier groups will cost far more than one 65K carrier group (close to double). The power projection will be not anywhere close to double. But they can be present at different places at the same time.

Incidentally, for showing the flag and for peacetime support (but not for power projection), mistral class and similar can also be considered (20,000 t helicipoter carriers) in the mix, though not for the same wartime role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Na ... _programme

Also, the navy might need to build its case in public for an investment of these amounts - just saying "China carrier" won't do. You can counter carriers asymmetrically (space and other surveillance, sosus, nuclear subs, network, AI, long range missiles from land and sea, alliances etc). What you do need to do is make the case where air power is needed away from the Indian mainland, how much/what kind and why
Last edited by Barath on 11 Jul 2021 21:05, edited 2 times in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

It's a fallacy that the peninsula gives India any tactical edge in controlling the SALCOS. It doesn't. Atleast not in absence of an AC.

The range required for a land based platform to do the needful rules out anything other than something with su30 or the backfire range.

These assets are too expensive to buy and operate. Keeping in view the fact that in times of conflict such assets will be busy in Tibetan theatre of operations. Given the vast distances involved. Not to mention the time on station required for the platform.


An AC OTOH is perfectly capable of being in a position to threaten an enemy task force and give him a more than one target to worry about. With AC on one threat axis and land-based airpower on the other. Add missiles shooting submarines in the mix and the force required for the PLAN to operate in the IOR becomes very expensive proposition.

What I am saying is that we need full spectrum of capacity in sufficient numbers.

That too keeping in view the Indian budget realities.
Last edited by Pratyush on 11 Jul 2021 21:09, edited 1 time in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush Saar, your last line in the only reality that is constant. Rest everything in this thread is theory.
Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Nikhil_Naya »

I am from the school of thought that says you dont need a tank to counter a tank, but an anti-tank weapon. Same for ships, a carrier (Sino or Ameerkan) is vulnerable to something like a supersonic cruise missile that can be launched at long ranges (300 kms+). Of course it might not 'kill' the carrier but a mobility kill is enough to take this out of the equation.
Its like a discussion on the Iron Dome - while the ID did defend the cities - it was the disproportionate cost (compared to el-cheapo rockets) that is amazing.
the Rear Admiral is right - you don't need a carrier to counter a carrier. A submarine group (2/3) with a SLCM at range can threaten the entire CBG. Esp. with the longer endurance submerged of the newer Kalvari and future 75i's (AIP).
While a CATOBAR can launch aircraft that can have longer range radars with good endurance (E2C Hawkeye/ equivalent) - that can be countered by helicopter-mounted AESA radars (ala KA28+?) or maybe our own version on the IMRH/ NMRH.
The challenge as Pratyush correctly said - is the reality of budgets - which in this year of the pandemic, will be even more strained.
Our 'permanent' carrier at the AN - while great for launching long range Su-30's with Brahmos/ A2A, will be challenged if the Sino CBG is already at Sri Lanka/ Pakistan. A reality that we need to wake up to!
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

See how the newer gen carriers are a different beast

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

The idea of a carrier being needed to defeat a carrier is a bit of a strawman. No one, in any serious position or with even basic knowledge on naval warfare, entertains such a thing (as in this being the sole need) so it is a bit of stating the obvious. You buy a carrier because you need a carrier not because the other guy has a carrier. It, if needed, is the most flexible surface ship you can field - can be configured for each and every combatant mission and has higher volumes and longer range fires than any other vessel and is more survivable and flexible compared to fixed air-bases. The type of carrier you buy depends on requirements around its air component, your ops tempo, your deployment structure, the quality and quantity of your threats and your budgets and technical abilities. All these are valid design constraints used during requirements framing and the overall decision process. Whatever you end up with is a compromise (including that of cost for the larger types) and that applies to a 100 K ton AC or a 50k Ton AC. Limitations of each decisions are real and cannot be denied (like that of a helo based AEW being in a totally different capability compared to an E-2 or similar, or launching fighters at full payload etc or the cost and complexities of nuclear propulsion and other launch technologies).
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Jul 2021 08:12, edited 1 time in total.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by LakshmanPST »

The next carrier of IN should be a CATOBAR purely from the perspective of being up to date with latest technologies...
Carriers once built can be operated for atleast 50 years... So, building another STOBAR now would mean the Carrier will be commissioned early next decade and will be in operation until 2080... IN will be stuck with 2 STOBARs for next 50 years if that happens...
-
Even if its delayed a bit, it makes most sense to build and operate a CATOBAR...
Whenever budget permits, IN should order 2 CATOBAR ACs to be built over a period of 25 years, one as 3rd AC and another as VikAd replacement...
A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 515
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by A Deshmukh »

LakshmanPST wrote:... IN will be stuck with 2 STOBARs for next 50 years if that happens...
when we are ready to build a larger carrier, we can sell off our older smaller carriers?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Guys a few unpleasant observations regarding some of the beliefs of members of BRF.

1) This belief system that it will take us 13 years to build a carrier appears to be taking a form of self fulfilling prophecy.

2)The build times are a result of poor project management. We have to solve that and not accept it as a part of ship building program.

3) The assumption that India will forever remain defensive and reactive needs to be tested time and again. Because changes are coming. BRF needs to be ahead of the curve. :rotfl: not react to the changes when they are upon us.

4) The belief that the budget will not increase will have to be abandoned. Because the reality of PRC power in 2035 -40 when contrasted with linear projection of Indian power with current budget and procurement programs shows a power imbalance that cannot be overcome by India either alone. Or in combination with Quad, it it even existed that time. Unless we take in to account the forces required for getting the job done along with the resources required for building such forces.

5) The solution to the problems is internal to India not in importing at a knee jerk fashion.

6) The armed forces are a tool of state craft and in order for the tool to be maintained in working condition. The state has to have a clear vision of the future. After a long time, we are seeing a government with both the vision and the drive to accomplish it. Understand this and respond accordingly. Not be too reactive.

That just about wraps it up.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush wrote:1) This belief system that it will take us 13 years to build a carrier appears to be taking a form of self fulfilling prophecy.
It is actually 15 years. Please see below.

Indian Navy will push ahead with plan for 3rd aircraft carrier despite CDS’ reservations
https://theprint.in/defence/indian-navy ... ns/368930/
21 Feb 2020
“The third aircraft carrier is an operational necessity,” a source in the Navy said. “It is not that an aircraft carrier can be bought off the shelf. Even if all permissions are given today, it will take 15 years for the carrier to be inducted.”
Even the Khan takes around 4 - 6 years (on average) for one of their super carriers to go from keel laying to commissioning. The first Nimitz Class vessel took around 7 years, but the later vessels had a reduced build time. The first Gerald R Ford Class took eight years, but subsequent vessels will be quicker. There is nothing revolutionary in Indian shipbuilding that will take anything less than a decade and a half for a vessel of this complexity and magnitude to commission. That is the simple reality what the Navy is stating above. And to ignore that time frame would be short sighted for BRF who believes that it is ahead of the curve :)

This protracted time frame and the annual CAPEX investment is what the CDS is having his reservations about. He has to be convinced. Not BRF. If he is on board, then it is game on. At that stage, what anyone on BRF thinks is irrelevant.
Pratyush wrote:2)The build times are a result of poor project management. We have to solve that and not accept it as a part of ship building program.
Most naval projects to date have been delayed and that too by years. Solving that requires infusion of capital in infrastructure and in human resources. This works in Communist countries like China. That is why their build times are rapid and in quick succession. In India, that is easier said than done. In the words of Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar (retd) - in relation to the 114 MRFA deal - "In India, everyone has an opinion and everyone speaks."

* The upcoming Visakhapatnam Class will hopefully have a quicker build time than her sister ships (Delhi and Kolkata Class) which took years to arrive. But anything can cause delays - suppliers, funding, employee unions, etc.

* The Kalvari Class are seriously delayed due to supplier and build time issues. Signed in 2005 and all six were expected to be in service by 2012. The reality is not even close.

* The first P-75I boat is expected - by the Navy's own admission - to be inducted in around 10 years from the date of contract signature. Just like the Kalvari Class, that is not going to happen.

* The first Shivalik Class vessel took 9 years, but the P17A (Nilgiri Class) is expected to take only five years. P17A is the only project - in recent memory - that is using the modular build concept.

A simple whisper of the C word can halt everything in India. C = Corruption. This is the end result of Bofors. Utter the C word in China and nothing will change. The ChiComs censor everything anyway. And if the senior ChiCom leadership is affected by the C word, heads will roll...but the build will still continue. That will not stop. In India, we blacklist the vendor. We are commissioning new Kalvari Class boats without torpedoes, because the torpedo vendor is blacklisted. But we are starting an entirely build new program of submarines (Project 75I) or as the navy likes to call the program ----> next generation, state of the art, submarines. Only in India, this will happen.

IAC-2 is not a fishing trawler that is being planned. Depending on the final design, the shipyard is looking at minimum of a 65,000 ton, EMALS equipped, possible nuclear propulsion aircraft carrier. This is a complex build and never before done in India. Not impossible to do, but to think that this vessel will arrive in under a decade is not living in reality. And if it is indeed nuclear propulsion, there is no reactor design available. If it is conventional propulsion, General Atomics believes that it is technically possible to have EMALS on board. Although that has never been tested. What is good on paper, is not necessarily going to pan out in reality. So if EMALS is axed, then it will have to be steam powered catapults.

China's Type 003 will reportedly have EMALS, although not confirmed. I hope it is true though, because the Chinese are going to have a field day trying to operationalize it. But for some on BRF and in the media, these issues will be glossed over. From two ski jump vessels, they are reportedly moving straight to EMALS. Good luck! That is akin to me stating that from the Marut design, India will now be starting her own sixth generation NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) program. And it will work!

If the upcoming Vikrant (STOBAR) is expected to take 13 years from keel laying (2009) to commissioning (2022), are we honestly expecting a vessel like IAC-2 (CATOBAR) to take less? Who are we kidding?
Pratyush wrote:3) The assumption that India will forever remain defensive and reactive needs to be tested time and again. Because changes are coming. BRF needs to be ahead of the curve. :rotfl: not react to the changes when they are upon us.
Already disproven by the Modi Govt on multiple occasions. That is not the issue here at all.
Pratyush wrote:4) The belief that the budget will not increase will have to be abandoned. Because the reality of PRC power in 2035 -40 when contrasted with linear projection of Indian power with current budget and procurement programs shows a power imbalance that cannot be overcome by India either alone. Or in combination with Quad, it it even existed that time. Unless we take in to account the forces required for getting the job done along with the resources required for building such forces.
You do not counter a PLAN CBG with your own CBG. No navy - worth their salt - thinks like that. Even the PLAN does not believe this. There are other assets that you can put into play. And the navy admiral - from that Hindustan Times article - is stating the same thing. But you use your own CBG to engage the enemy elsewhere. One cannot apply the theory of nuclear deterrence to aircraft carriers.

The budget will increase when the Govt, in consultation with the CDS, feels it is necessary to do so. An aircraft carrier is not the only requirement to counter China. Many other requirements are in the pipeline and they all need funding. What needs to be funded, will get the funding.

China's rise must be countered by India and alliances - Quad or others - will be a key part of that. However, India's rise must be facilitated and not managed.
Pratyush wrote:5) The solution to the problems is internal to India not in importing at a knee jerk fashion.
If the vessel being built will have EMALS and conventional propulsion, it will be imported. If the vessel will have steam catapults, that too will also be imported onlee. Just saying. Knee jerk importing is bad, but importing vital components - in the absence of a local product - is absolutely necessary. Otherwise without a catapult, what is the point of having a flat top?

To develop your own system (steam catapult or EMALS) will now add even more complexity and time to the build. Who wants that?
Pratyush wrote:6) The armed forces are a tool of state craft and in order for the tool to be maintained in working condition. The state has to have a clear vision of the future. After a long time, we are seeing a government with both the vision and the drive to accomplish it. Understand this and respond accordingly. Not be too reactive.
Correct. This govt will achieve her vision and indeed has the drive to accomplish it. That is what the CDS is doing. The present military leadership is capable of ironing out their issues. It is the media and vested interests in and outside of India that is pushing a different narrative, as can be seen in the current CDS brouhaha.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh, the article that you have listed from print is exactly the reason why I used the phrase self fulfilling prophecy.

Because the permission should be given only after the navy has a ship design ready and the concept of operations clear. The country NCA has understood it and has agreed.

I understand that it takes a lot of back and forth between the service and the NCA before a go head is given.

So if we are thinking that it will take 15 after the go ahead. Then in reality we are taking nearly 20 years to build an AC. Assuming 5 years of discussion and finalising the design. Before the go ahead.

This is even worst.

Having said that. The post approval 15 years has to be condensed to 7 to 8 year.

I hope that you are seeing my problem with the current way of doing things.

Secondly, you are saying pretty much the same thing that I have said about the other topics so am not really going to comment on them.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Standard terms of interest in combat ship construction, fitting, and trials is the time it takes from construction start to A) Launch, B ) Christening and C ) Delivery and D) Commissioning. The jump from B to C involves the completion of builder and operator preliminary trials, ship and sub-system inspections and a tabulation of ECO's. The systems aboard the vessel are activated during this process. The jump from C to D is marked by completing the ECO's, and final step prior to allowing the ship and crew to train and deploy as needed. Definitions and timelines vary but carriers aren't easy to churn out. The USN has a Construction Start to Delivery (C) cadence of 109 months or just about 9 years for the Ford Class ship 3 to final ship (first 2 would have taken longer up to 170 months in case of first in class ship) though some of the annual funding and pace is also in sync with the replacement cycles of outgoing CVNs and not necessarily an urgency to pump these out most efficiently. China, with its significantly higher commercial shipbuilding volumes (which is its strong point compared to the USA) and human resources, will likely aim for a shorter cycle than the Ford class. But mainly because they are building capacity as opposed to timing contracts, and construction milestones with ship retirements.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

Pratyush wrote:Rakesh, the article that you have listed from print is exactly the reason why I used the phrase self fulfilling prophecy.

Because the permission should be given only after the navy has a ship design ready and the concept of operations clear. The country NCA has understood it and has agreed.

I understand that it takes a lot of back and forth between the service and the NCA before a go head is given.

So if we are thinking that it will take 15 after the go ahead. Then in reality we are taking nearly 20 years to build an AC. Assuming 5 years of discussion and finalising the design. Before the go ahead.

This is even worst.

Having said that. The post approval 15 years has to be condensed to 7 to 8 year.

I hope that you are seeing my problem with the current way of doing things.

Secondly, you are saying pretty much the same thing that I have said about the other topics so am not really going to comment on them.
and hence the IN says, lets start "building" now to get it in 2030 !!., its just that the lead time is going to be that. There is no option to buy a POW off the shelf !
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32224
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chetak »

In KER's toxic labor environment, even basic background checks may have been given the go by because of the rampant culture of appeasement and entitlement bred into them by the commies.

first, the beedis and now the afghans who have moved into India and dispersed into the hinterland, undocumented, uncontrolled and a drag on the Indian economy via automatic access to the PDS and other govt schemes that hinges on the aadhar.

even after the "unsolved" theft of critical computer hard disks from the under construction vikrant, these guys haven't learned any lessons it seems.

Kerala: Ernakulam South Police arrested an Afghan national working at Cochin Shipyard Limited for 3 years using forged documents.

The accused was arrested in Kolkata & later brought to Kochi.
via@ANI·23m
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

IAC to Undertake Sea Trials Soon, Says Navy Vice Chief

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

What's the expected commissioning timeframe? I'd reckon that the trials would be longer for an AC because it has to demonstrate flight handling etc
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

2022 is the expected commissioning date. But expect a fully operational vessel only by 2023/2024.
sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sajaym »

Supposed SeaKing landing on Vikrant - 0.35 to 0.51.

RishiChatterjee
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by RishiChatterjee »

sajaym wrote:Supposed SeaKing landing on Vikrant - 0.35 to 0.51.
And they won't even operate 8 NLCA from it :| (despite Mig-29 too being capable of taking off sky-jump with only A2A load, as per Russian doctrine).
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by John »

RishiChatterjee wrote:
sajaym wrote:Supposed SeaKing landing on Vikrant - 0.35 to 0.51.
And they won't even operate 8 NLCA from it :| (despite Mig-29 too being capable of taking off sky-jump with only A2A load, as per Russian doctrine).
What are you talking about? Russian and IN Mig-29k have been spotted taking off from ski jump with Kh-31 and Kh-35.
RishiChatterjee
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by RishiChatterjee »

John wrote:What are you talking about? Russian and IN Mig-29k have been spotted taking off from ski jump with Kh-31 and Kh-35.
Show me one (not parked photo-op, but taking off).

The J-10 & Su-33 I've not seen taking off Kuznetsov/Liaoning with anything more then 4AAMs outside DCS.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

John is correct....below is a Russian MiG-29K coming into land on the Vikramaditya armed with a pair of Kh-35s in 2013. And if she is landing on the aircraft carrier with that weapon load, she took off from the aircraft carrier with that exact same weapon load. Also, read this article below...

Russian Carrier Awaits MiG-29s for Syrian Airstrikes
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... airstrikes
04 August 2016

Image
RishiChatterjee
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by RishiChatterjee »

Rakesh wrote:John is correct....below is a Russian MiG-29K coming into land on the Vikramaditya armed with a pair of Kh-35s in 2013. And if she is landing on the aircraft carrier with that weapon load, she took off from the aircraft carrier with that exact same weapon load. Also, read this article below...

Russian Carrier Awaits MiG-29s for Syrian Airstrikes
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... airstrikes
04 August 2016
Hmm, that looks like a touch & go, not landing. So could've been from land (I think this is from before delivery to India, I've seen video of a t&g ceremony with Russia).

Oddly I haven't found any single example of such ski-jump takeoff... And I went into an obsessive searching spree the first time I learnt that Russian carrier-ops doctrine is based on providing fleet air cover only, to try & get the heavily laden NATO strike package to ditch their payload to prematurely. The strike element is supposedly based on S2S missiles only.

And this was further confirmed by Twitter reply by @hvtiaf (looking for it) where he said basically the same thing.

Anyone here who knows anyone in the Navy that can confirm?
Last edited by Rakesh on 29 Jul 2021 08:49, edited 1 time in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

The Indian Navy wanted a multirole naval fighter from the MiG-29K. So air defence is just one of the roles she plays. IN MiG-29Ks do anti-shipping roles as well. See this video of then Commander KHV Singh talking about Indian Navy MiG-29Ks.



Do you have the tweet from @HVTIAF where he said that? Something seems amiss with that.
RishiChatterjee
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by RishiChatterjee »

Rakesh wrote:Do you have the tweet from @HVTIAF where he said that? Something seems amiss with that.
Lookinh for it, hold on... The payload issue from ski jumps is a thing. I've seen Murican navy vets making fun of Rusky carriers.

Possibly one of the reasons for not getting serpentine intakes, as they said it was to extract as much thrust as possible.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

And this article confirms the MiG-29K's multirole capabilities, whilst operating from INS Vikramaditya. But like in true DDM fashion, they have labelled the Kh-35 as an air-to-air missile :lol:

INS Vikramaditya, the aircraft carrier of India
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/ ... tml/page/4
The MiG-29KUB two-seat naval fighter jet will be positioned on the Vikramaditya. It will be equipped with Russian-made KH-35 air to air missiles.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

RishiChatterjee wrote:Hmm, that looks like a touch & go, not landing. So could've been from land (I think this is from before delivery to India, I've seen video of a t&g ceremony with Russia).
It is NOT touch & go, but an actual landing. See this video below from 0:13 onwards. You can clearly see a pair of Kh-35s on the MiG-29K.

What point would it serve if the MiG-29K can land with Kh-35s, but cannot take off with them? If they are unable to do that, then why even bother landing with them in the first place? Some sailor doing a collection of Kh-35 AShMs aboard INS Vikramaditya? :)

sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sajaym »

Cant believe we're having this conversation... The Mig-29K flying around with A2A load only is still like a first generation F-14 Tomcat! Even with that minimum, in the event of a war with Pakistan the Mig-29Ks can be tasked for air superiority role to guard against any Fizzleya attacks on our ports/off-shore rigs via the sea. This way the Navy can make up any shortage of IAF fighters for CAP/CAS role elsewhere. If two aircraft carriers decide to anchor off Lahore and send fighters for CAP over South Pakistan, that itself will be a big Takleef in their Musharaf. So i think we're good till the TEDBFs come online.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by John »

RishiChatterjee wrote:
John wrote:What are you talking about? Russian and IN Mig-29k have been spotted taking off from ski jump with Kh-31 and Kh-35.
Show me one (not parked photo-op, but taking off).

The J-10 & Su-33 I've not seen taking off Kuznetsov/Liaoning with anything more then 4AAMs outside DCS.
Plenty of photos of Russian Mig-29k performing sorties in Syria with KAB-500. Mig-29k has its share of problem but it’s main advantage over su-33 is that it can take off with decent amount of payload. That said unless we move away from ski jumps you aren’t going to be able to launch even Rafale-m or SH with anything more than a limited payload.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Question is then can Python V like R-73 have the capability to intercept incoming Cruise Missiles, then there can be case of limited LCA navy for INS Vikram Aditya, INS Vikrant and Shore based based defence of Ports in Peninsula India and, A& N islands. From shored based role then take over some of the IAF anti shipping roles also and possibly quickly drop light Torpedoss in areas where enemy Submarines have been detected.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

RishiChatterjee wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Do you have the tweet from @HVTIAF where he said that? Something seems amiss with that.
Lookinh for it, hold on... The payload issue from ski jumps is a thing. I've seen Murican navy vets making fun of Rusky carriers.

Possibly one of the reasons for not getting serpentine intakes, as they said it was to extract as much thrust as possible.
Even the original mig29k bort 41? being tested from the kuz in the 80s were able to take off with a full 4500kg payload, that too from the smaller runway.
Post Reply