INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

[sudeepj]

Way to miss the point Philip. That strike range is only against static targets. A barge with Kaliber missiles will have the same range. Unless you have a sensor in the loop, how does the sub know where to shoot? Such a capability can be used to attack land based targets at long range but are useless in a moving, blue water Naval battle.

When you are fighting a conventional naval battle, the ORGANIC strike range of a sub, where the detection of the target is being done by its own sensors is 40 nautical miles at best. How else can a sub target a moving target such as a frigate or a destroyer? Once submerged, it cant get any targeting data from drones, satellites, aew etc. without surfacing and compromising its own stealth. Whatever low rate data it can get, it gets from land based fixed installations that are themselves vulnerable to first strikes. And once a subs location is fixed, it is a matter of time before its hunted down. It has no self defense weapons! Its hunters have greater suvivability, faster speeds, longer endurance, longer range sensors, longer range shooters and they can hunt it while remaining well outside the range of its weapons.

PS: I saw the wet dream jibe later, because I was so taken aback by the patently absurd 2500-4000km range claim. Perhaps you should allow for the fact that IN people are thorough professionals who know what they are doing and you being the amateur 'enthusiast', have some room for correction in your understanding. But that would be too much. My mistake for engaging with a clown like you. Wont repeat it again.

[Rakesh]

brar, can you confirm if this is true?

At what range can the Virginia Class actually engage a large ship, if detection is 3,000 miles away?

BTW, large ship = aircraft carrier?

U.S. attack submarine fleet expands and gets sonar, COTS upgrades
https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/s ... s-upgrades

The subs are equipped with a spherical sonar array that scans a full 360 degrees. With sonar detectors in the bow, fin, and flank, as well as one towed behind it, the Navy says these subs can detect large ships as far as 3,000 miles away.

[Rakesh]

My mistake for engaging with a clown like you. Wont repeat it again.

Kindly desist from name calling. You have been warned. Next time, it will be a ban. I hope you follow your advice above.

[brar_w]

brar, can you confirm if this is true?

At what range can the Virginia Class actually engage a large ship, if detection is 3,000 miles away?

BTW, large ship = aircraft carrier?

U.S. attack submarine fleet expands and gets sonar, COTS upgrades
https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/s ... s-upgrades

The subs are equipped with a spherical sonar array that scans a full 360 degrees. With sonar detectors in the bow, fin, and flank, as well as one towed behind it, the Navy says these subs can detect large ships as far as 3,000 miles away.

Engagement is going to be limited by Torpedo range obviously. Could it pass some EW information to other USN aviation assets that could then use other targeting? Possibly but you are looking a fraction of those ranges for that to be meaningful. Perhaps hundreds of kms instead of thousands. In the last decade or so, there have been quite a few programs aimed at allowing a submerged SSN to communicate with P-8 and other USN aviation assets. It is not possible to tell where that capability is in terms of the currently fielded Virginia class capability set.

[andy B]

It is entirely possible that I am simply too thick to understand this conversation. Many here seem to be quite adamant about the need for a 65k tonne flat top. However, i cannot fathom as to where we are going to get the funding for a this. This when we can barely meet current requirements and payments for already committed projects.

Will we also not need additional hulls in the water in form of ddg/ffg and subs for escort? Unless there is a tremendous increase in defense funding (again complicated given current economic situation) i dare say we should focus on beefing up our mpa/uav/sub fleet and bring more hulls into commision for the surface fleet.

[sudeepj]

No no, a fire control solution will be devised using SONAR from 3000km away!

[sudeepj]

My mistake for engaging with a clown like you. Wont repeat it again.

Kindly desist from name calling. You have been warned. Next time, it will be a ban. I hope you follow your advice above.

Yes, but a professional proposal from serving naval brass is perfectly fit to be called a wet dream.

I dont need to call such a person any names. They do it to themselves.

[Rakesh]

Engagement is going to be limited by Torpedo range obviously. Could it pass some EW information to other USN aviation assets that could then use other targeting? Possibly but you are looking a fraction of those ranges for that to be meaningful. Perhaps hundreds of kms instead of thousands. In the last decade or so, there have been quite a few programs aimed at allowing a submerged SSN to communicate with P-8 and other USN aviation assets. It is not possible to tell where that capability is in terms of the currently fielded Virginia class capability set.

Thank you brar!

The Mark 48 torpedo has a max range of 50 km only, correct?

Do these boats carry the UGM-84 Harpoon? The Tomahawks on-board are only used for land-attack?

[Rakesh]

Yes, but a professional proposal from serving naval brass is perfectly fit to be called a wet dream.

I dont need to call such a person any names. They do it to themselves.

I am referring to your interaction with him on this forum. Desist from that, otherwise I will issue a ban.

[Rakesh]

No no, a fire control solution will be devised using SONAR from 3000km away!

I just wanted to know if any submarine that human kind has developed can detect a large ship 3,000 miles away. Obviously, successful engagement is another story and that is why I asked brar.

[Rakesh]

It is entirely possible that I am simply too thick to understand this conversation. Many here seem to be quite adamant about the need for a 65k tonne flat top. However, i cannot fathom as to where we are going to get the funding for a this. This when we can barely meet current requirements and payments for already committed projects.

Will we also not need additional hulls in the water in form of ddg/ffg and subs for escort? Unless there is a tremendous increase in defense funding (again complicated given current economic situation) i dare say we should focus on beefing up our mpa/uav/sub fleet and bring more hulls into commision for the surface fleet.

No Saar, you are not being thick headed. The irony among all this naval theory on the superiority of aircraft carriers being displayed in this thread, belies the fact that there is no money with the MoD to fund this program.

And the carrier protects the the escorts or so we are led to believe. The carrier protects everything. The escorts are there simply for show onlee and also moral support.

Sir it is best you don't muddy yourself in these waters by asking such logical questions. You will be forced to read long professorial lectures on aircraft carriers. No money, but will give theory and gyan.

[andy B]

Rakesh saar noted will cease and desist further discussions on this particular topic.

[sudeepj]

It is entirely possible that I am simply too thick to understand this conversation. Many here seem to be quite adamant about the need for a 65k tonne flat top. However, i cannot fathom as to where we are going to get the funding for a this. This when we can barely meet current requirements and payments for already committed projects.

Will we also not need additional hulls in the water in form of ddg/ffg and subs for escort? Unless there is a tremendous increase in defense funding (again complicated given current economic situation) i dare say we should focus on beefing up our mpa/uav/sub fleet and bring more hulls into commision for the surface fleet.

No Saar, you are not being thick headed. The irony among all this naval theory on the superiority of aircraft carriers being displayed in this thread, belies the fact that there is no money with the MoD to fund this program.

And the carrier protects the the escorts or so we are led to believe. The carrier protects everything. The escorts are there simply for show onlee and also moral support.

Sir it is best you don't muddy yourself in these waters by asking such logical questions. You will be forced to read long professorial lectures on aircraft carriers. No money, but will give theory and gyan.

This is like arguing about whether tanks protect the infantry and are therefore better, or infantry protecting the tanks and therefore better, or whether its the sniper who is the best because he can shoot a general and end the battle. The escorts and the carrier work together to achieve concentration of force and an all round capability.

With the growth in the economy, and the long lead time for the carrier, money 'should' be there. The air-wing can be swing role and shift between land base deployment at critical times, just as the migs were stationed in Ladakh recently.

[ManuJ]

No problems with carriers, CATOBAR or STOBAR, 45K or 65K or whatever other size. The issue is funding and time. It is that plain and simple Manu. Everything else is secondary.

Sorry, but you're wrong. It is all about the long term vision and planning. Funding is variable and a diminishing constraint given India's economic trajectory. You cannot give up on your long term plan if you're temporarily in a difficult financial situation. What you can do is make small alternations to the plan, delay the plan by a few years, etc. But to completely pivot on your long term plan and start following a different plan because of temporary financial constraints is irrational.

If the long-term plan of Indian Navy is to be a carrier-led naval force, then it makes sense to incrementally increase the carriers' capabilities and force projection. Any carrier being planned today will become operational in 10-15 years time and will serve for at least 30 years, a timeframe of 2035-2065. You have to project India's strategic and operational needs during that timeframe when planning for something like a carrier.

BTW, I still haven't gotten an unequivocal answer to the simple question I asked. Do you believe in Indian Navy's long-term plan or not?

[kit]

No no, a fire control solution will be devised using SONAR from 3000km away!

I just wanted to know if any submarine that human kind has developed can detect a large ship 3,000 miles away. Obviously, successful engagement is another story and that is why I asked brar.

Straight from the horse's mouth Sonar 2076 system has a range of 3,000 nautical miles (5,500km).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uks- ... %2C500km).

[m_saini]

Don't think there are any long term plans. We seem like a highschool girl shopping for prom dress in a mall.

IAC-2 was supposed to be nuclear powered until Bhabha Atomic Research Center said the nuke reactor would take 15-20 years, after that IN dropped that idea. Then IN were interested in EMALS, got the demo from general atomics but i think they've given up on EMALS for now and settled for steam catapult. Then they went to BAE to see if we can copy the QE class one but that also got nowhere. Now when there were reports of chinese getting a catobar, everyone is busy arguing for a catobar for IN too.

Where is the long term planning? Shouldn't we have invested in nuclear propulsion 15-20 years ago? Where was our investment in catapults? Or in aircraft that could launch from those catapults? The American nuke catobar carriers were known to everyone since 1975 so what's the excuse?

To a layman, it just seems like they see the shiny new toys chinks are inducting and they just have to have those things too. Do not get the sudden insatiable desire for a catobar whatsoever.

[sudeepj]

Straight from the horse's mouth Sonar 2076 system has a range of 3,000 nautical miles (5,500km).
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uks- ... 5%2C500km).

Straight from the salesman's mouth is more like it.

It may be able to 'detect' something 5500km away, but can it discriminate between target types? Can it achieve good enough range resolution? At that distance, itll take sound one hour to reach from the source to the sensor. The range, cross currents, temperature differences, etc. etc. etc. means this can only be an early warning kind of sonar. It cant provide any kind of targeting information. Even if one reduces the distance to 500kms, it will take 5.5 minutes to reach the sensor. Plausibly, some kind of smart weapon may be fired off at this target, taking another 5-10 minutes to get to target, but how do you discriminate between an enemy ship and neutral at that range? You will need very specific sound signatures for each enemy ship. And all the enemy has to do is to make recordings of his own ships and play them randomly to confuse the hell out of your sensors.

[kit]

Straight from the horse's mouth Sonar 2076 system has a range of 3,000 nautical miles (5,500km).
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uks- ... 5%2C500km).

Straight from the salesman's mouth is more like it.

It may be able to 'detect' something 5500km away, but can it discriminate between target types? Can it achieve good enough range resolution? At that distance, itll take sound one hour to reach from the source to the sensor. The range, cross currents, temperature differences, etc. etc. etc. means this can only be an early warning kind of sonar. It cant provide any kind of targeting information. Even if one reduces the distance to 500kms, it will take 5.5 minutes to reach the sensor. Plausibly, some kind of smart weapon may be fired off at this target, taking another 5-10 minutes to get to target, but how do you discriminate between an enemy ship and neutral at that range? You will need very specific sound signatures for each enemy ship. And all the enemy has to do is to make recordings of his own ships and play them randomly to confuse the hell out of your sensors.

Its not just a sonar upfront https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/ ... sonar-2076
but rather a system of arrays all built around the sub.,flank, hull, finmounts etc but OT here..

[Rakesh]

BTW, I still haven't gotten an unequivocal answer to the simple question I asked. Do you believe in Indian Navy's long-term plan or not?

Let me start off with this. My unequivocal answer is, yes I believe in the Indian Navy's long term plan. But does the MoD believe it? Because that is question we should be asking. And that question has been answered right here and I do not believe it will get any more authoritative than this. This quote below is from the Indian Naval Aviation thread, page 42, the second post from the bottom. I have provided the link below, but am reproducing the quote.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7308&p=2474392#p2474392

Intent, statements and action very rarely align in Indian Defence. The Naval budget is not enough even to pay for contracts signed before the MH-60 Romeo contract. How it will cater for the above requirements is a deep mystery. The situation is the same for the Air Force and Army.

I will leave it up to Vidur-ji to elaborate (or perhaps he may not want to). And Manu you are a smart man, so I am confident you can understand when I say this ---> he does not visit and post in BRF for time pass. If you require any clarification on that quote above, click on the link.

Sorry, but you're wrong. It is all about the long term vision and planning. Funding is variable and a diminishing constraint given India's economic trajectory. You cannot give up on your long term plan if you're temporarily in a difficult financial situation. What you can do is make small alternations to the plan, delay the plan by a few years, etc. But to completely pivot on your long term plan and start following a different plan because of temporary financial constraints is irrational.

Intent, long term planning, desire, vision, capability, etc all comes down to "willingness to fund". If there are no funds or no willingness to fund, how are you expecting anything to come into reality? And folks here get takleef, when others here are laughing at Naval HQ for grandoise plans.

This 65,000 ton aircraft carrier is not something that Naval HQ just came up with this year or last year. This plan has been there for a number of years. It once even went to the MoD for funds sanction (pre-COVID) in 2017 or 2016. Do you know what the MoD said? No way are we going to fund this. And the Chief at that time - on the previous Navy Day - stated that India will be building a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier with nuclear power and EMALS. Where is the long term plan?

This idea of a nuclear powered reactor was also in the plans. Here is the irony to that story. Naval HQ wanted BARC to fund the R&D of the reactor. You know what BARC did, when they heard that? They laughed at Naval HQ and then they told them, if you want a nuclear reactor for an aircraft carrier you have to provide the funding. Why should we? Navy Admirals were aghast at the idea that they had to fund this. They were expecting BARC to fund this. True Story. Where is the long term plan?

These 57 carrier borne fighters that the Navy is hoping to get, is expected to cost anywhere from 90,000 to 95,000 crore (that is around US $12+ billion). I clearly remember Admiral Sunil Lanba Sir stating that there is NO BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS in acquiring 57 phoren carrier borne fighters. He said that at a Navy Day press meet. Today, that number is down to 36. And the earlier plan of holding a contest has gone out the window. Now the Navy will hop on to the IAF's MRFA contest and whatever aircraft the IAF choses, the navy will order the same. Where is the long term plan?

The latest rumours on INS Vishal is that nuclear power has been dropped, overall tonnage has been reduced from 65K to a number somewhere in the 50s, EMALS is iffy and Naval HQ may go in for a steam catapult instead. And these are not small alterations by any stretch of the imagination. Where is the long term plan?

What m_saini said above in his post is 1,000% true ---> This is like a high school girl shopping for a prom dress in a mall. The long term plan & vision that you are referring to is akin to a man with a long beard, where the wind goes...that is where the beard flows. And delaying the plan is only detrimental to the navy's future force planning. There is a better option, which has been mentioned before and I will do again in my reply to your quote below.

If the long-term plan of Indian Navy is to be a carrier-led naval force, then it makes sense to incrementally increase the carriers' capabilities and force projection. Any carrier being planned today will become operational in 10-15 years time and will serve for at least 30 years, a timeframe of 2035-2065. You have to project India's strategic and operational needs during that timeframe when planning for something like a carrier.

Manu, you hit the nail on the head - incremental.

Take a look at all 10 Nimitz Class aircraft carriers in the US Navy and this is consistent across all 10 vessels;

1) Nuclear Power
2) CATOBAR with Steam Catapult
3) 100,000 tons (the latter vessels are incrementally higher)

However there are incremental updates (or sub-classes) between these 10 boats. The USS George HW Bush (the tenth vessel) is more capable than the USS Nimitz (the first vessel). Each succeeding vessel builds on the experience of the previous one. Or as you yourself put it ---> "...it makes sense to incrementally increase the carriers' capabilities and force projection."

Take a look at the first four Gerald R Ford Class aircraft carriers and this will be consistent across all 4 vessels;

1) CATOBAR with EMALS
2) Nuclear Power
3) 100,000 tons

Now examine the Indian aircraft carrier program. Look at INS Vikrant and this stands out:

1) STOBAR with Ski Jump
2) COGAG propulsion (gas turbine)
3) 40,000 tons

Look at INS Vishal and this is the wish list:

1) CATOBAR with EMALS
2) Nuclear Power
3) 65,000 tons

This is not an incremental update. This is a serious upgrade, with a significantly higher cost. Why do you think the MoD did not sanction this? And a Navy Admiral reportedly had the gall to say that to deny it just for financial crunch, is misplaced understanding? A vessel of this magnitude is going to cost around $8 - $10 billion. And yes, India does not have to pay for that cost upfront because that cost is broken down over the length of construction. The Vikrant is expected to cost around $4+ billion and in 2019, $420 million was released for Phase III construction. But India will spend around close to a billion each year for a decade, if not more, to see INS Vishal become a reality.

Surely India can afford this if everything else was picture perfect in the Indian Armed Forces. But is it? No is the plain and simple answer. The Air Force has a laundry list of modernization programs with the MRFA contest - doomed to fail - right on top. The Army has a list too long to type. The Navy has her own list of acquisition and modernization programs. Who has the squadron shortage - Air Force or Navy and therefore which of these two services do you think the MoD will be more empathetic to?

The plain and simple truth of the matter is this ---> the navy did not consult the primary stakeholder (MoD) in this grandiose plan. The MoD controls the purse strings. The navy designed this vessel with little (if any) consultation from the MoD, went to town with it (i.e. the media) and then got torpedoed in the hallowed halls of the MoD. Today the Navy is now left with a plan that has even less of a chance of success, with a CDS facing a spiralling downward economy and with three services desperate for modernization.

What is the Navy's next option? Because a third aircraft carrier is a necessity. Perhaps take a cue from the USN and do an incremental update on a follow-on Vikrant Class vessel. So something like this;

1) STOBAR with Ski Jump
2) COGAG propulsion (gas turbine)
3) 50,000 tons or max 55,000 tons
4) Wider lifts to accommodate any naval fighter out there.

Lay that keel now and you will have an aircraft carrier ready to sail by 2031. The Indian Navy will have three aircraft carriers in a little over 10 years. And when the Indian economy hits overdrive and gets over the slump it is in now, lay the keel for the first Indian super carrier complete with all the bells and whistles. CATOBAR, EMALS, 65K (or even higher) tons, etc. Perhaps that can happen in the middle of this decade and she will be ready for service by the early 2040s. She could replace the Vikramaditya, which will likely be on her last legs by then.

Or continue with the same strategy now ---> insist on funds for everything, but the end reality will result in funds only for a few and definitely not for a third aircraft carrier. The ball clearly lies in the Navy's court.

[Rakesh]

This is like arguing about whether tanks protect the infantry and are therefore better, or infantry protecting the tanks and therefore better, or whether its the sniper who is the best because he can shoot a general and end the battle. The escorts and the carrier work together to achieve concentration of force and an all round capability.

With the growth in the economy, and the long lead time for the carrier, money 'should' be there. The air-wing can be swing role and shift between land base deployment at critical times, just as the migs were stationed in Ladakh recently.

Money 'should' be there? There is no money. See the quote from Vidur, right at the top of my post above.

[sudeepj]

This is like arguing about whether tanks protect the infantry and are therefore better, or infantry protecting the tanks and therefore better, or whether its the sniper who is the best because he can shoot a general and end the battle. The escorts and the carrier work together to achieve concentration of force and an all round capability.

With the growth in the economy, and the long lead time for the carrier, money 'should' be there. The air-wing can be swing role and shift between land base deployment at critical times, just as the migs were stationed in Ladakh recently.

Money 'should' be there? There is no money. See the quote from Vidur, right at the top of my post above.

That budget is the result of a decades long process where mil budgets have been declining the world over. Great power competition is here again and mil budgets have increased in every country. I dont see how India, not a part of any formal alliance system, can stay untouched by this trend. This will change.

The reason 65K vs 50K is important is, the cost increment in going from a 'bare' 50K-65K carrier may not be much, but fully equipping that carrier with its full complement of AEW/Jets/Tankers will bump up the cost significantly. But once made, that carrier will serve you for 40 years. If you need to increase the fighter wing, you can increase it at a later date. The catapult and the larger size are essential because that allows you to launch fixed wing AEW. Perhaps the smallest size you can do it with is the CDG.

[prashanth]

Not to take sides here, but I think one has to look at the availability uranium if India wants to standardize on nuclear powered carriers. Long time back, when Singha sir was still posting here, we had discussed that the number of SSN/BNs India can maintain is limited not by funds, but by availability of the natural resource, and India does not have much of it. This was in reference to an argument comparing SSKs vs SSNs. Same holds for carriers too. Even if funds were available, which I believe is the topic of discussion here, India better use the scarce element for our SSN/BNs, which form a part of our triad. Carriers can operate with diesel.

[kit]

Not to take sides here, but I think one has to look at the availability uranium if India wants to standardize on nuclear powered carriers. Long time back, when Singha sir was still posting here, we had discussed that the number of SSN/BNs India can maintain is limited not by funds, but by availability of the natural resource, and India does not have much of it. This was in reference to an argument comparing SSKs vs SSNs. Same holds for carriers too. Even if funds were available, which I believe is the topic of discussion here, India better use the scarce element for our SSN/BNs, which form a part of our triad. Carriers can operate with diesel.

I do not think "no uranium" is an issue., enough is mined in India and adequate processing capability is in place to power an entire fleet of nuclear subs..and carriers . Enough said !., some news reports were there sometime back but has disappeared for good reason

[JTull]

So something like this;

1) STOBAR with Ski Jump
2) COGAG propulsion (gas turbine)
3) 50,000 tons or max 55,000 tons
4) Wider lifts to accommodate any naval fighter out there.

Powerplant and displacement are dependent on mission requirements. IN wants carrier based fixed-wing AEW. They require CATOBAR (impact: power and displacement), wider deck (impact: displacement).

It is as simple as that!

That's why IN is publicly talking about the need for third carrier and privately talking about mission profiles. IA dominated CDS office and MOD haven't shown a great appreciation of the mission requirements. IMHO, Gen Rawat isn't qualified to show that appreciation. This conversation needs to be moved upstairs. A short skirmish over the seas can quickly change that

For the sake of balance, IN has also been a bit short-sighted. Carrier-borne UAVs are nowhere on horizon. Adding MPA and AEW capabilities to carrier-borne UAVs will solve many issues. I believe a strategic partnership with Boeing on these could be win-win (with two dozen SH). Then IN can have a Vishal horizon.

[A Deshmukh]

[quote="Rakesh"][/quote]
Admiralji, we also need to add the cost of Operating a large aircraft carrier.
with a flotilla of ships and submarines to protect it along with the personnel and weaponry
- the operating costs estimation itself (cannot recall source) is $~1B per year.

IMHO, time for Indian Navy to think in reverse.
Build smaller aircraft carriers, that will be primarily UCAV, UAV and missiles carrier.
Cheaper, smaller wakes and better in avoiding detection, more agile and equally, if not more, lethal.

[Kakarat]

Powerplant and displacement are dependent on mission requirements. IN wants carrier based fixed-wing AEW. They require CATOBAR (impact: power and displacement), wider deck (impact: displacement).

It is as simple as that!

That's why IN is publicly talking about the need for third carrier and privately talking about mission profiles. IA dominated CDS office and MOD haven't shown a great appreciation of the mission requirements. IMHO, Gen Rawat isn't qualified to show that appreciation. This conversation needs to be moved upstairs. A short skirmish over the seas can quickly change that

For the sake of balance, IN has also been a bit short-sighted. Carrier-borne UAVs are nowhere on horizon. Adding MPA and AEW capabilities to carrier-borne UAVs will solve many issues. I believe a strategic partnership with Boeing on these could be win-win (with two dozen SH). Then IN can have a Vishal horizon.

IN should consider INS Viraat, a French Charles de Gaulle style CATOBAR, based on the IAC-I.

INS Vikrant as both ships are similar in dimensions before a INS Vishal.

[prashanth]

I do not think "no uranium" is an issue., enough is mined in India and adequate processing capability is in place to power an entire fleet of nuclear subs..and carriers . Enough said !., some news reports were there sometime back but has disappeared for good reason

Nice to know that. My assumption was based on a dated news report that about 80 % of uranimu used in India is imported. May be things have changed of late.

[Rakesh]

Powerplant and displacement are dependent on mission requirements. IN wants carrier based fixed-wing AEW. They require CATOBAR (impact: power and displacement), wider deck (impact: displacement).

It is as simple as that!

That's why IN is publicly talking about the need for third carrier and privately talking about mission profiles. IA dominated CDS office and MOD haven't shown a great appreciation of the mission requirements. IMHO, Gen Rawat isn't qualified to show that appreciation. This conversation needs to be moved upstairs. A short skirmish over the seas can quickly change that

For the sake of balance, IN has also been a bit short-sighted. Carrier-borne UAVs are nowhere on horizon. Adding MPA and AEW capabilities to carrier-borne UAVs will solve many issues. I believe a strategic partnership with Boeing on these could be win-win (with two dozen SH). Then IN can have a Vishal horizon.

I wish Saar it was as simple as that. I truly do.

If the IN takes this issue public, the Army and Air Force will not sit there idly. They will pull a similar strategy and there will be no happy ending to that story. They can do similar short skirmishes General Rawat Sir has put the lid on that quite diplomatically by stating that the chiefs are all working together.

And if you find the CDS office discomforting and unqualified today, just wait Saar till an Air Force officer takes over as CDS. Then the navy will wish for General Rawat Sir to come back. Air Force officers do not speak highly of aircraft carriers. They feel it is a waste of money and especially with the squadron shortage affecting the IAF, investing in a $10 billion flat top over acquiring fighters for the air force, is not going to pass muster with a CDS led by an IAF officer.

The whole point of CDS is for the conversation to start from that office directly to his political masters. This current government will not permit going over the CDS' head. They are the authors of this new set up. Naval HQ will be curtly told to discuss the issue with the CDS and let him come back with a recommendation. So the Chief can publicly say - as he did on Navy Day 2020 - that they want funding. Whether they actually get that funding is a different story. So the Navy can publicly make the case about the value and theory of aircraft carriers, but if the funding does not come, the Navy will still be talking about value and theory onlee.

And while the recent rumoured lease of F-18SHs sounds promising and financially attractive, it will depend on the terms of the lease agreement. The Navy has said that they will order fighters based on what fighter the IAF chooses for its MRFA contest. They understand that an independent purchase will be too prohibitively expensive for them. And while the Boeing-Mahindra partnership is great, the IAF will have to decide whether acquiring more of the same (Rafales) vs investing its precious CAPEX is setting up infrastructure for yet another 4th generation fighter makes sense. In fact, that is what Air HQ is looking at right now.

The Navy wants carrier based fixed-wing AEW, the navy wants a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier, the navy wants EMALS, the navy wants nuclear power, the navy wants 57 carrier based fighters. But the Air Force wants 114 MRFA, the air force wants refullers, the air force wants AWACS. The army wants FICVs, the army wants howitzers, the army wants new helicopters. Every service states that its needs are the most urgent.

The CDS is looking at what platforms can be acquired quickly and what platforms will take an inordinate length of time. If this vessel could arrive within five years, it has a far greater chance of success of getting sanction. Because the CDS is looking at what platforms can be acquired in the shortest time possible. A 15 year project - as per the navy's own admission - has very little chance of success. However additional P-8Is will get sanctioned. Sea Guardian UAVs have arrived. MH-60R was ordered. Additional Ka-31 AEWs are being ordered. The first two are being exploited to great use. The P-8I has already flown more sorties than the entire hours that the Tu-142s ever flew with the Indian Naval Air Arm.

[sudeepj]

Conflict is looming in the next 2-4 years is my gut feel. In that scenario, every short term dollar needs to spent wisely so we are able to win with the minimal amount of time and damage to own assets. [However, there will be a day after the conflict and there will be a conflict after that. Even if its a planning exercise, one must plan for that day too! And seeding absurd theories like submarines being replacements for carriers will backfire in the long run]

Within the next 2-4 years, what can be done to get the two aircraft carriers to their maximal potential? Astra MK ii + iii, larger loadouts of Barak8 to at least some platforms come to mind immediately. Another interesting idea could be using RATOs or V22 Osprey based aew to enable a longer range aew sensor on Vikrant if not the Vikramaditya.

[brar_w]

There is no V-22 based AEW and creating one is probably a decade worth of R&D and testing. On a two year horizon the best one can do is to significantly boost the readiness of whatever you have and plug the gaps and vastly increase the money committed to training.

[rajsunder]

A vessel of this magnitude is going to cost around $8 - $10 billion. And yes, India does not have to pay for that cost upfront because that cost is broken down over the length of construction. The Vikrant is expected to cost around $4+ billion and in 2019, $420 million was released for Phase III construction. But India will spend around close to a billion each year for a decade, if not more, to see INS Vishal become a reality.,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Wiki tells me that the cost of two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, each about 65K Ton displacement is only $9.74 Billion combined for both the carriers.
Why does it cost us $10.00 billion for each? When the manpower costs in India are very cheap compared to Europe. At best we might import its Engines and some other high end stuff that we might not make. Even importing about 20% of its content should not inflate the bill by 100%

[m_saini]

^ Because QE isn't a catobar.

Cats, traps and claptrap. Why the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers operate VSTOL aircraft

In an ideal world where defence spending was north of 3% of GDP and manpower was abundant the RN would be commissioning two CATOBAR carriers that would routinely carry 36 F-35Cs. We cannot indulge champagne tastes on a beer budget – the VSTOL Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers are still enormously powerful while more in keeping with the limited resources available. Whether we may come to regret their slightly lesser capabilities in a future conflict should be discussed in the wider context of how Britain prioritises its defence spending.

They literally had to drop plans for a catobar conversion because it was too costly.

[brar_w]

A large part of that cost assessment was on account of conversion once the decision had been made to go STOBAR.

[m_saini]

From the outset the design was specified as ‘adaptable’, should it be decided to reconfigure the ship as a conventional carrier in future. Work on STVOL carriers proceeded until 2010 when the coalition government made the announcement that the QEC would instead be configured for Catapult Assisted Take-Off and Barrier Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR colloquially known as ‘cats and traps’).

[brar_w]

“Adaptable” means two very different things when you are building in hooks for future capability and when you actually get into the minutia of seeing what it would take to actually execute one possible design change. I remember the USN sanctioned general atomics study on feasibility and cost of an EMALS solution for the QE. While the results weren’t published one can imagine they it would have required a fairly significant cost to upgrade and make compliant. Not to mention test and validate. And then there is the LCC of higher CQ spend. So once they had committed while technically they could have switched directions it was never going to be cheap. Quite different than design a clean sheet with that in mind. While that too may entail higher cost, at least we are talking about an apples to apples comparison vs paying for engineering changes and going towards a completely different direction on carrier aviation.

[Rakesh]

Wiki tells me that the cost of two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, each about 65K Ton displacement is only $9.74 Billion combined for both the carriers.

Why does it cost us $10.00 billion for each? When the manpower costs in India are very cheap compared to Europe. At best we might import its Engines and some other high end stuff that we might not make. Even importing about 20% of its content should not inflate the bill by 100%

In addition to what m_saini said, the QE Class does not have a nuclear reactor. That brings down the cost significantly. No EMALS either and thus another big drop in cost. A simple ski jump onlee. They RN played this out well. A large aircraft carrier (65K), but none of the other fancy stuff.

The cost saved on EMALS and nuclear reactor, they invested in the air wing. The F-35B, the variant the RN operates, will maintain air dominance over any naval combat aircraft currently out there —> Rafale M, F-18, J-15, Su-33, MiG-29K, etc. And please do not get any ideas of F-35.

@ m_saini: thank you for posting that article. That line you highlighted in red is so true with the Indian aircraft carrier program.

[m_saini]

Yup the conversion wasn't cheap, there was a £2 Billion price difference. A clean sheet design would almost certainly be more costly. However, all this is extremely tangential and not the point I was trying to make.

As evident from the paragraph I quoted in my original post, the argument was "if you cannot afford a Brioni, wear a generic suit instead". Like the RN did. No use dreaming of a catobar or 36-57 SHs when you know what little money we have can be better spent elsewhere. Like Rakesh sir hinted at, if wishes were horses.

[brar_w]

In addition to what m_saini said, the QE Class does not have a nuclear reactor. That brings down the cost significantly. No EMALS either and thus another big drop in cost. A simple ski jump onlee. They RN played this out well. A large aircraft carrier (65K), but none of the other fancy stuff.

The cost saved on EMALS and nuclear reactor, they invested in the air wing. The F-35B, the variant the RN operates, will maintain air dominance over any naval combat aircraft currently out there —> Rafale M, F-18, J-15, Su-33, MiG-29K, etc. And please do not get any ideas of F-35.

@ m_saini: thank you for posting that article. That line you highlighted in red is so true with the Indian aircraft carrier program.

The cost-benefit for Britain when it comes to maintaining a "proper" single carrier or 2 x of the QE class is rather marginal to be honest. Yes they have a large carrier that will have a substantial magazine and they'll two of them. But they now operate no credible long range AEW capability, have the least capable, and shortest range JSF variant (not to mention the most expensive) and have no COD that can actually move some of the most vital F-35 components onboard (like engine modules). They also do not have any clear and affordable path to acquiring a next generation unmanned fixed wing capability for these carriers (can't piggy back on USN or French Navy's investments).

They'll make it work well because they are part of the larger NATO naval force and also because they'll do a fair bit of deployments with USMC on board. But I am certain there are forces in their navy that genuinely believe a single carrier CATOBAR that could operate the F-35C and Tempest (FCAS naval etc etc) would have been better. More future proof and more easily adaptable to chances in carrier aviation like next generation aircraft, and UCAV's. But they never really took that option seriously until late stages of their work. Fixation between their industrial partners (RR and BAE) was very much on regaining that STOVL capability and bringing it back into their navy. Whether that was pre JSF partnership with the US on concept development or prototyping to most of the work done on their next gen carrier plans. All focused on STOVL operations.

[Yagnasri]

IN does not have helicopters for many of its capital ships. It does not have a good number of subs as per its requirement. It does not have sufficient SAMs and our subs do not have suitable torpedos. Except for the torpedos, the rest are not there as IN does not have a capital budget. Yet IN is talking about Vikas with all the capabilities.

I think there is no broad opposition to the Second Carrier. The opposition mainly coming with the concept of Vikas which IN wants. Had IN proposed a second Vikrant class i.e bigger lifts and some improvements, I am sure IN would have found many who are now opposing Vikas idea supporting that. The second modified Vikrant will be much easier to make and may cost much less. True it may not be as ideal as Vikas but it will be good.

IN like IAF is not really looking at the funding they are expected to get and the real nature of the things as they stand today. GoI, rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly) not doing to allot more capital expenditure for Defence Forces as a whole in near future. Even any high growth economic condition also not going to change that. Whatever is allotted will largely go to IA. That future is not going to change. I wish and we all with that both the funding and the distribution share to IAF and IN change. But that is the nature of things today and unless both IN and IAF make serious efforts that are not going to change.

It would be better IN relook what it can do and it can get within the pie it has and is likely to get in future.

[sudeepj]

The chopper situation has been fixed to some extent with the romeo order. The subs do have older torpedos, just not the latest ones. They also have missiles (exocets) and klubs. The Barak 8 loadout seems small to us, but IN seems ok with it for now.

The IN capex budget is $4 billion an year. What are they going to buy with this? If we see a full Chinese CBG sail into the Arabian sea, are our capital ships such as Kolkata class, Vishakapatnam class, .. capable of taking it on? They will be blown out of water before the battle group enters their sensor shooter chain.

Can a fleet of submarines stop this battle group? Once they make it past the choke points, the DE subs will be hard pressed. SSNs have a chance to catch up with the carrier but they are as expensive as the carrier and they too suffer the lack of sensor fusion, and no defensive weapons.

Chinese have made their intentions clear with a program to build 5 catobar carriers.

What if they get lucky and there is a separate peace between them and the US? them and Australia? them and Indonesia? Lose any one of these countries and they get a clean passage to the Indian ocean.

So far, our carriers have been fleet 'Air Defense Ships'. And when the Chinese had only the Varyag, they were sufficient to deal with them. They are going to be hard pressed when the Chinese operationalize their supercarriers.