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
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by KSingh »

Rakesh wrote:At 45,000 tons....the Vikrant is 3,000 tons heavier than the CDG, but still the latter is more capable than the Vikrant.

The advantages of CATOBAR vs STOBAR.

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/142 ... 88588?s=20 ---> Charles de Gaulle has a displacement of just 42,000T still can carry 30+ Rafale along with 2/3 E-2C for AEW and multiple helicopters for ASW and utility. Would it be impossible for India financially to go with oil fired version of it instead of Kiev Class and then a Vikrant based on it?
This is what’s technically possible so it’s a shame the Vikrant has been so poorly optimised, but it’s a first go so some allowance can be made.

Navy is adamant the next carrier it gets will be larger (60-65k tons) so moot argument
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

If the Navy adopts the yet-to-be-confirmed news about CSL offering to build a second aircraft carrier (with similar dimensions) as Vikrant, then the first of the CATOBAR vessels can go to a larger size.
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by KSingh »

Rakesh wrote:If the Navy adopts the yet-to-be-confirmed news about CSL offering to build a second aircraft carrier (with similar dimensions) as Vikrant, then the first of the CATOBAR vessels can go to a larger size.
Skeptical. If they were going to go down this route they’d have worked it out long before IAC-1 entered sea trails.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ldev »

The Charles de Gaulle will be replaced with France's new carrier by 2038. That new carrier will be ~75,000 tons have EMALS via an agreement with General Atomics but carry only ~30 FCAS since they are going to be bigger than the Rafale. At that stage India will take over the CDG alongwith it's complement of Rafale M fighters!! Supplemented by TEDBF

That is the only way India will get a CATOBAR carrier. Unlikely to be any new build steam powered CATOBARS outside China. All new builds will be EMALS and EMALS without nuclear propulsion is very uncertain notwithstanding studies done. But building a nuclear plant for an indigenous aircraft carrier is a huge undertaking, time and money. And as the French discovered when they launched CDG, power provided by submarine reactors was simply not enough for the CDG so it had to be retrofitted at cost subsequently with a larger power plant.
Last edited by ldev on 11 Aug 2021 21:27, edited 1 time in total.
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by KSingh »

ldev wrote:The Charles de Gaulle will be replaced with France's new carrier by 2038. That new carrier will be ~75,000 tons have EMALS via an agreement with General Atomics but carry only ~30 FCAS since they are going to be bigger than the Rafale. At that stage India will take over the CDG alongwith it's complement of Rafale M fighters!! Supplemented by TEDBF
Absolutely isn’t going to happen.

would be nice if IN could tie up with DCNS to design a carrier similar in spec.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ldev »

KSingh wrote:
ldev wrote:The Charles de Gaulle will be replaced with France's new carrier by 2038. That new carrier will be ~75,000 tons have EMALS via an agreement with General Atomics but carry only ~30 FCAS since they are going to be bigger than the Rafale. At that stage India will take over the CDG alongwith it's complement of Rafale M fighters!! Supplemented by TEDBF
Absolutely isn’t going to happen


would be nice if IN could tie up with DCNS to design a carrier similar in spec
See my added response above. India cannot simply take the Arihant reactor or 2 Arihant reactors and shoe horn them into an aircraft carrier. Didnt the French try that early on?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

@ ldev:

1) PANG will not arrive by 2038. It will be delayed. Construction begins only in 2025 and delays are 100% certain. Expect the vessel to join the French Navy only by the early 2040s. CDG was commissioned five years after the original planned date.

2) Their sixth generation aircraft program - FCAS - will also be delayed. Their planned date of 2036 is not going to happen. FCAS will only arrive by the early 2040s and that too the air force version. The PANG will initially operate the Rafale, till a naval variant of FCAS comes on board.

3) The French Navy requires two aircraft carriers as per their naval doctrine. Budgetary shortfalls forced them to delay the construction of the second vessel. They will not part with the CDG.

4) My philanthropic friends from La France will not allow India anywhere near the nuclear reactor of the CDG. That is proprietary French technology, which the French will not share or even allow India to operate. I would be shocked if they did otherwise.

If the Indian Navy is serious about operating a CATOBAR vessel, an improved CDG design with conventional power + steam catapults is the only way forward for now. EMALS and S-400 do not mix.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

ldev wrote:India cannot simply take the Arihant reactor or 2 Arihant reactors and shoe horn them into an aircraft carrier. Didnt the French try that early on?
Correct. A new reactor design is required. For that the DAE (Department of Atomic Energy) and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) will have to partner with the Indian Navy to design one. Funds have to be released by the Govt for this. AFAIK, no movement has been made in that direction.

When the original CATOBAR idea was formed up, the Indian Navy wanted BARC to fund the development of the reactor and BARC scoffed at that idea. BARC reportedly told the Indian Navy ---> if you want the reactor...you fund it. Navy Admirals were aghast at that response. So there is an impasse, which has to be resolved.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

KSingh wrote:
Rakesh wrote:At 45,000 tons....the Vikrant is 3,000 tons heavier than the CDG, but still the latter is more capable than the Vikrant.

The advantages of CATOBAR vs STOBAR.

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/142 ... 88588?s=20 ---> Charles de Gaulle has a displacement of just 42,000T still can carry 30+ Rafale along with 2/3 E-2C for AEW and multiple helicopters for ASW and utility. Would it be impossible for India financially to go with oil fired version of it instead of Kiev Class and then a Vikrant based on it?
This is what’s technically possible so it’s a shame the Vikrant has been so poorly optimised, but it’s a first go so some allowance can be made.

Navy is adamant the next carrier it gets will be larger (60-65k tons) so moot argument
One disadvantage of stobar that may be overcome is the aew. Perhaps a deal can be made with the US for a aew osprey. The advantage of a stobar is price and availability.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Cain-ji, see my earlier post on the AEW issue....
Rakesh wrote:The Ka-31 AEW is the solution that the Indian Navy plans to adopt aboard the Vikrant.

The Navy is quite pleased with the Ka-31. They have reportedly been to track fighter aircraft taking from Masroor AFB near Karachi, Pakistan using the Ka-31. No one knows (and neither should they) the exact parameters, but that is what was reported earlier.

For a CATOBAR vessel, there is only one ---> E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. Unless a locally developed AEW system (i.e. Netra) is put on a platform. The Chinese are developing a xerox copy version of the E-2, but it remains to be seen how much of the hyperbole translates into fact.
Secondly, will a proposed AEW Osprey fit on the lift? :mrgreen:
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Indian Navy Ka-31 AEW

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by hnair »

Rakesh wrote: Secondly, will a proposed AEW Osprey fit on the lift? :mrgreen:
Ospreys seem to have pretty narrow foot print. But don’t know if you can do all that neat stacking with a balance beam or chapathi

Link
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

hnair saar, you sold me on Osprey! :)

Wow...what a beautiful picture in that link. Thanks.

Google Chacha came up with this. I believe that is an altered photo. Any one have any info on the EV-22 Osprey AEW&C?

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

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

There is no AEW variant of the Osprey and will likely never be. The USMC doesn't like the leaders in its sister service trying to turn their amphibs into mini-carriers (takes away from the amphib mission) and will probably never pay to develop and integrate a radar on it like Boeing has been proposing for quite some time now.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Thank you brar
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Indranil »

CDG has more parking space, but that is at the cost of a runway and taxi-space. So can it maintain the same tempo of operations as Vikrant? For example, a jet can't take off while a heli is preparing for take off. Two successive jet launches have to wait for the CATOBAR to reset. On Vikrant you line up against the chalks and rev up your engines. Chalks release and off you go!

CATOBARs are awesome, but if it breaks there are no more launches possible.
RishiChatterjee
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by RishiChatterjee »

Not proper fanart, but more like a doodle of a dream Vikrant 2 sister ship. Slightly longer runways, with no tonnage increase...

Image

Image
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sankum »

Indranil wrote:CDG has more parking space, but that is at the cost of a runway and taxi-space. So can it maintain the same tempo of operations as Vikrant? For example, a jet can't take off while a heli is preparing for take off. Two successive jet launches have to wait for the CATOBAR to reset. On Vikrant you line up against the chalks and rev up your engines. Chalks release and off you go!

CATOBARs are awesome, but if it breaks there are no more launches possible.
CDG hanger is 138 m by 28.5m for total area of 4070 sq m and carry 23 Rafales and 2 helos. While on deck 17 Rafales and 3 E2D Hawkeye can be parked for a totai of 45 Aircraft.
While INS Vikrant has standard complement of 30 aircrafts with 17 on deck and 13 in hanger.
My hanger estimate from Google Earth during construction was only 120m by 21m so as to allow 8 mig 29k plus 5 helos for 13 aircraft .
CDG even with same tonnage of INS Vikrant has far larger hanger to carry 25 aircraft.
Both Indian carriers are designed around a combat group of only 12 fighters and a maximum load of 24 fighters. Its the design philosophy according to projected requirement.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ldev »

sankum wrote: CDG hanger is 138 m by 28.5m for total area of 4070 sq m and carry 23 Rafales and 2 helos. While on deck 17 Rafales and 3 E2D Hawkeye can be parked for a totai of 45 Aircraft.
While in INS Vikrant has standard complement of 30 aircrafts with 17 on deck and 13 in hanger.
My hanger estimate from Google Earth during construction was only 120m by 21m so as to allow 8 mig 29k plus 5 helos for 13 aircraft .
CDG even with same tonnage of INS Vikrant has far larger hanger to carry 25 aircraft.
And that despite the CDG steam catapult equipment taking up substantial space below deck
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Indranil »

sankum wrote:
Indranil wrote:CDG has more parking space, but that is at the cost of a runway and taxi-space. So can it maintain the same tempo of operations as Vikrant? For example, a jet can't take off while a heli is preparing for take off. Two successive jet launches have to wait for the CATOBAR to reset. On Vikrant you line up against the chalks and rev up your engines. Chalks release and off you go!

CATOBARs are awesome, but if it breaks there are no more launches possible.
CDG hanger is 138 m by 28.5m for total area of 4070 sq m and carry 23 Rafales and 2 helos. While on deck 17 Rafales and 3 E2D Hawkeye can be parked for a totai of 45 Aircraft.
While INS Vikrant has standard complement of 30 aircrafts with 17 on deck and 13 in hanger.
My hanger estimate from Google Earth during construction was only 120m by 21m so as to allow 8 mig 29k plus 5 helos for 13 aircraft .
CDG even with same tonnage of INS Vikrant has far larger hanger to carry 25 aircraft.
Both Indian carriers are designed around a combat group of only 12 fighters and a maximum load of 24 fighters. Its the design philosophy according to projected requirement.
Thank you. I am out of my depth here. Why IN chose a hull design with less cross sectional area is something I have no clue of.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Indranil wrote:Thank you. I am out of my depth here. Why IN chose a hull design with less cross sectional area is something I have no clue of.
IR, when the Vikrant was planned it was supposed to be a 28K ton ADS (Air Defence Ship). And I believe, if memory serves me correct, it was supposed to be a pair of them. So just a basic, ski jump vessel...nothing hi-tech like CATOBAR. This was in the 1990s and the economy was not the greatest to splurge on anything more. As the design progressed, it went from 28K to 45K before the keel was laid. But there was no desire to transform the vessel into a CATOBAR.

However with the Malabar Exercises (vis-à-vis the US) becoming more frequent, the Indian Navy saw the capability leap that a CATOBAR brings to a theatre of conflict. So the Indian Navy decided to go in for a CATOBAR vessel, under the premise that the country could afford it. Unfortunately the MoD has undercut the Indian Navy at every stage of the game and the prime issue has been the budget. The Navy gets the least of the three services and was asking for a vessel that would tie down not just her resources, but the resources of her sister services as well.

Your post does have merit, however do take note that the catapults on CATOBAR vessels have been tested to failure. They know - with near certainty - when the system could likely fail. So there are set schedules in where these catapult systems go in for their regular maintenance. It does not mean that the system cannot fail while out at sea, but the probability of that event occurring is quite minimal. And if it does fail, there are spare equipment on board to bring that system back on line. There is no comparison to a CATOBAR and the capability that she brings. STOBAR does not even come close.

But like I said, your post does have merit. I especially love this line ---> "On Vikrant you line up against the chalks and rev up your engines. Chalks release and off you go!"

There is a certain, inherent beauty to a less complicated system and you illustrated that quite well. Only someone who works with and understands design, can make that statement. Kudos to you!
Rupak
Webmaster BR
Posts: 325
Joined: 14 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rupak »

sankum wrote:
Indranil wrote:CDG has more parking space, but that is at the cost of a runway and taxi-space. So can it maintain the same tempo of operations as Vikrant? For example, a jet can't take off while a heli is preparing for take off. Two successive jet launches have to wait for the CATOBAR to reset. On Vikrant you line up against the chalks and rev up your engines. Chalks release and off you go!

CATOBARs are awesome, but if it breaks there are no more launches possible.
CDG hanger is 138 m by 28.5m for total area of 4070 sq m and carry 23 Rafales and 2 helos. While on deck 17 Rafales and 3 E2D Hawkeye can be parked for a totai of 45 Aircraft.
While INS Vikrant has standard complement of 30 aircrafts with 17 on deck and 13 in hanger.
My hanger estimate from Google Earth during construction was only 120m by 21m so as to allow 8 mig 29k plus 5 helos for 13 aircraft .
CDG even with same tonnage of INS Vikrant has far larger hanger to carry 25 aircraft.
Both Indian carriers are designed around a combat group of only 12 fighters and a maximum load of 24 fighters. Its the design philosophy according to projected requirement.
The parking distribution is incorrect. The correct planned numbers to be embarked are:
On deck: 14 Mig-29
Hanger: 8 MiG-29 and 9 Helicopters (2 Ka-31, 7 ALH)
The ship can handle an additional 4 helicopters on deck if no fixed wing operations are underway.
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sankum »

Thanks, my only source was a news report. There are several each saying different things. Can you please say about the hanger dimensions. Based on cavour carrier which is 134 m by 21m. As INS Vikrant is 18m longer hanger can be 150m in length. Is there a maintenance bay in addition to hanger of 120 m were aircraft can be parked.

Maximum is 22 mig 29k + 13 Helos= 35 Aircraft.
Rupak
Webmaster BR
Posts: 325
Joined: 14 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rupak »

sankum wrote:Thanks, my only source was a news report. There are several each saying different things.

Maximum is 22 mig 29k + 13 Helos= 35 Aircraft.


I will have to check the dimensions. But I would say in terms of numbers, embarked operational force is likely to be 16 MiG-29 + 2 Ka31 + 2 ALH ASW + 2 ALH SAR.
sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sajaym »

Rakesh wrote: If the Indian Navy is serious about operating a CATOBAR vessel, an improved CDG design with conventional power + steam catapults is the only way
I would suggest to the Navy that if they are interested in a CATOBAR vessel, then they should currently settle for a smaller 28k-30k baby Vikrant 2. Which will come in the next 7 years and after that...
Rakesh wrote: 4) My philanthropic friends from La France will not allow India anywhere near the nuclear reactor of the CDG.
No the French won't, but our back stabbing / cut-throat Russian friends will. So once baby Vikrant 2 is fully operational, then we should turn the Vik into a test hack for nuclear reactor & catobar operations. Look, in 7 years the Vik is anyway going to be a leaking tub so why not squeeze it for testing new technologies? On the other hand, if you are expecting the CSL mallus to build you a CATOBAR + Nyooclear Vikrant & stick to a reasonable timeline...then all the best!
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Rakesh wrote:But like I said, your post does have merit. I especially love this line ---> "On Vikrant you line up against the chalks and rev up your engines. Chalks release and off you go!"

There is a certain, inherent beauty to a less complicated system and you illustrated that quite well. Only someone who works with and understands design, can make that statement. Kudos to you!
What I really don't get is the Navy's ambition with a cat? The USN uses such equipment to shekinah small time countries across the globe. Who exactly will the IN shekinah? And that too with a single 65k ton CV?

My guess is that the INs need for cbg is sea control/denial and support.For this do you really need bomb trucks and consequently, cats? If operational tempo can be maintained as indranil suggests, what eej need for 65k ton catobar CV. And even the 29k can easily takeoff with a full a2a load out and locational AShns. An additional stretched Vikrant class would serve really well.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12198
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

sajaym wrote: Snip

. So once baby Vikrant 2 is fully operational, then we should turn the Vik into a test hack for nuclear reactor & catobar operations. Look, in 7 years the Vik is anyway going to be a leaking tub so why not squeeze it for testing new technologies? On the other hand, if you are expecting the CSL mallus to build you a CATOBAR + Nyooclear Vikrant & stick to a reasonable timeline...then all the best!
The beauty of this approach is that the Indian Navy has detailed design drawings of the ship from her rebuild in the early 2000s. If the navy wanted to then it will be quite possible for them to convert the ship to a steam catapult testbed or a fully operational steam catapult ship for the last half of her life. Sort of what the Americans did with the Essex class post WW2.

Provided steam catapult and budget are available for such an excercise.

Or even use the blueprints and enlarge the design by 50 to 100%. That will easily give us a midway sized ship at 50% scale up. Or a forrestal sized ship at 100% scaling of the ship.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/AdvaityaC/status/14 ... 43235?s=20 ---> The new dry dock at Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL) set to be completed by 2023, can accommodate aircraft carriers of 70,000 tons docking displacement and tankers & merchant vessels of 55,000 tons docking displacement.

https://twitter.com/AdvaityaC/status/14 ... 43235?s=20 ---> Taiyaari poori hain. I won't be too surprised if on the next independence day @narendramodi ji announces construction of a third Aircraft Carrier from the ramparts of Red Fort. Construction can begin from 2023 & be completed by 2030-31. To be commissioned after sea trials by 2033.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

What a fantastic shot of the aircraft carrier island of INS Vikrant. The only out of place thing in this picture is Vishnu Som :mrgreen: But kudos to Vishnu Som for having this picture taken. You really need to drag & drag this picture into a new window. Save this picture for your own collection.

See that large metal space right above the personnel doors on the aircraft carrier island? That is where all the squadron insignias will go, of all the units that will serve aboard INS Vikrant. Get ready for the White Tigers, Black Panthers, Harpoons, etc...

And see that large glass enclosure that juts out of the main island? That is likely where the Air Boss and his team will sit. They will have a full 180 degree (it not greater) view of the entire flight deck. From that wonderful office, flight operations will be conducted. MiG-29Ks, Naval Tejas Mk1, TEDBF, MH-60Rs, HAL Dhruvs will all get their instructions from here. I believe - but cannot confirm - that the air operations centre wraps around the entire top floor of the island.

The bridge of the ship - where the captain and his team will be - is to the left & below of the flight operations centre.

https://twitter.com/VishnuNDTV/status/1 ... 89056?s=20 ---> Onboard this prized piece of real estate - Vikrant - India's first home-grown aircraft carrier, a truly remarkable feat of indigenous engineering. Our special reports and documentary across all @ndtv platforms coming up over the next few days.

Image
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by KSingh »

Keep an eye out for Saturday (14/8), there's an embargo on all the defence journos that visited IAC-1 until then, at least 3-4 different reports will go live then.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ramana »

Rakesh or anyone, Now that INS Vikrant is out, can we look at its proposed and actual schedule?
And someone else check the projected cost at inception and final cost and indigenization?
Reasons are any follow on has to be based on the reality that shipyard can achieve and learning curve effects of the workforce.
Specifically what is needed schedule-wise: Timespan to first sea trials from keel laying. What was planned and actual date.
Cost Initial projected cost vs the actual cost
Indigenization What was projected and what was actual?

These three parameters will give planning numbers.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ramana »

Answering my own questions from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)

Schedule and Cost
Work on the ship's design began in 1999, and the keel was laid in February 2009. The carrier was floated out of its dry dock on 29 December 2011[16] and was launched on 12 August 2013.[17] The basin trials were completed in December 2020,[18] and the ship has started the sea trials on 4th August 2021[19] and will be commissioned into the service of Indian Navy by August 2022.[20][21] The total cost of the project was approximately ₹23,000 crore (US$3.2 billion) at the time of first sea trials.[22]
So from 2013 to 2020 was 7 years for fitting/ or readying it for trials.
Looks like the keel to launch was four years i.e. fitting is 2x the launch time.
The biggest time span is for fitting out the vessel.
But then it is now a 45000-tonne ship from the puny under 32000 tonne initial ADS.
And there were two types of delays. Subsystems like gearbox due to technical reasons and usual Russian delay in aircraft.
I think India has solved the mfg delays and now has to cut the Russian component of delays out.

I thank A.K. Anthony for ensuring the keel laying and the launch well within the four years.

I think without further delay the next ship should be laid down to the same designs to ensure commonality.
I recall Admiral Ramdas once saying three ships of a class is the minimum order quantity for Indian shipyards.
This allows the supply chain to be viable.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ramana »

And kudos to Cochin Shipyard for keeping to the program despite delays.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Barath »

ramana wrote:Answering my own questions from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)

Schedule and Cost

I think without further delay the next ship should be laid down to the same designs to ensure commonality.
I recall Admiral Ramdas once saying three ships of a class is the minimum order quantity for Indian shipyards.
This allows the supply chain to be viable.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian- ... yed-505119

In 2003, Phase 1 (14K-18k tonnes of Hull) budget was to be INR 3200 crore, wound up at least 2000 crore or more over budget and delayed.

Special steel from Russia was not available and SAIL had to make it. - Delay.

Faulty gearboxes had to be redone - delay

There was also an issue with diesel generators - delay.

Cost was then expected to be INR 12000-14000 crore overall or 7000-9000 crore for Phase 2 (hah!)

Phase 2 approval wound up taking 19000 crore.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 034399.cms

What you will not see is delays in getting funding approval, re-estimating etc - but they were surely there IMHO. Especially between Phase 1 & Phase 2, IIRC.
he CCS note for “approving INS Vikrant’s cost and timeframe” was ready last year itself
but did not get approval

https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... r-project/

There were administrative and procedural delays (approvals etc) in getting aircraft carrier equipment from Russia (not in getting aircraft from Russia - the Mig29K buy was made long before, but things like arresting gear, possibly lift or other equipment etc). The GoI placed this blame squarely on Russia, but someone who knows their foreign supplier, paperwork, escalations etc might have been able to reduce some of it.

And then there was very clear delay in trials, exacerbated by covid, impacting work and travel/availability of foreign OEM representatives.

And all along lack of experience and skills in doing a first of kind massive initiative like this would have told.

-----------

As far as buying multiple of a class is concerned, efficiency has to be traded off against (cost) effectiveness and justification of need. Can't claim buying 3 identical carriers as cost effective when there is no AoN. There will be even further cost efficiencies in buying more, and in how they are bought (eg block buys, timing etc).

I suspect/believe that the time for talking of buying multiple carriers of Vikrant's design is already past.

The keel/hull laying gentlemen and generator folks have not been churning out these in the last 10 years. Similarly for design/design tweaks. (If design team was sitting on Vikrant's hull design in the last year, things were surely wrong). There is a lead time to every equipment and skill in building a carrier and that efficient lead time was likely years ago, not now.

Further, dockyards at Cochin and Mumbai aren't big enough for Vishal, though Cochin might get a new one soon that might.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Ko ... 692548.ece

Cochin Shipyard dry dock length 255m, 270 m. Good for Vikrant (262m) but not Vikramaditya, QE/Vishal etc. Approval for 300, dry dock for LNG tankers, future carriers etc.

Naval Shipyard dry dock, Mumbai - 281m . (Vikramaditya 284 m but probably at different height like prow instead of sea level). Good for Vikramaditya but not Vishal.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... n-6014999/

For reference QE, at ~65000 t is 280 m long, Kuznetsov & liaoning are 305m long and Shangdong is 315m long

The best that you might do is hope to identify a few critical skills, retain them (preferably on other work, civil or military) and try to preserve and pass on the knowledge before they retire. And identify critical systems and technology that are needed and work to mature them, which is a long lead time. (eg emals, drones, digital power architecture, integrated electric power and propulsion, power storage, linear motor hanger lifts /advanced lift) And finally, do a force structure review, that takes into account some likely budget impact.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18292
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

basant, great post. thank you for summarizing.
titash
BRFite
Posts: 609
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by titash »

Question for all gurus:

Will the VikAd and Vikrant carry ASW Sea Kings or Ka-28s or Dhruvs or MH-60 SeaHawks moving forward?

The navy is taking delivery of 16 ALH Dhruvs but of these only 6 are supposedly ASW variants carrying the dipping sonar - not sure why this is the case, unless this was an initial evaluation batch with more to come. Are these 6 supposed to operate from the carriers only or shore only?
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by KSingh »

titash wrote:Question for all gurus:

Will the VikAd and Vikrant carry ASW Sea Kings or Ka-28s or Dhruvs or MH-60 SeaHawks moving forward?

The navy is taking delivery of 16 ALH Dhruvs but of these only 6 are supposedly ASW variants carrying the dipping sonar - not sure why this is the case, unless this was an initial evaluation batch with more to come. Are these 6 supposed to operate from the carriers only or shore only?
Doubtful they will use the ALH-ASW onboard. ALH might be embarked for plane guard/SAR duties
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ramana »

Barath Thanks for the response. In just a decade Vikramaditya will need replacing. So cost effective option is same of class. It's quite sizable at 45000 tonnes
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sankum »

INS Vikramaditya will serve minimum upto 2043.
ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 441
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ManuJ »

Indian Navy has twin objectives: to have a 3-carrier navy and to ultimately have a 65K-70K, CATOBAR, nuclear-powered carrier.
Another national objective is to not lose the carrier-building expertise gained painfully over the last 2 decades.

Therefore the next carrier will be built fairly soon, regardless of what the current CDS says.
And even though building an exact replica of INS Vikramaditya is the most expedient option, it doesn't take us forward in terms of the ultimate goal. Therefore expect some modifications in the next carrier.
Post Reply