INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2012 07:59

if we are stepping up to 65000t empty and 80,000t full load class, my spider feel is we should rope in DCNS or US as a consultant from day1. it might avoid some problems later. the french PA2 and US carriers are the only catobar carriers in forthcoming ships to be in that weight category. things that work well @ 40,000t might not at double the size. only past experience is a good guide here.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 17 Jul 2012 08:33

At 80,000 tons plus Unkil is the only game in town. To date the largest carrier Frenchies have built is Charles De Gaulle at 42,000 tons full load (37,000 tons std.) And even there they effed up in terms of length of the ship needed for E2 Hawkeye take off. Problem is Unkil is not generous with consulting help.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 08 Aug 2012 12:50

X-post

INS Vikrant not to be ready until 2017: CNS Verma

New Delhi, Aug 8, 2012, DHNS:
The Navy’s first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) will not be ready before 2017, overshooting the delivery schedule by more than three years, Navy Chief Admiral Nirmal Verma has admitted.

“There were problems in manufacturing the gear box, which involves complex technology. The truck bringing generators overturned near Pune last year, further delaying the schedule,” Verma said.

The keel of the 40,000 tonne-carrier was launched on February 28, 2009 by defence minister A K Antony when the Navy and Cochin Shipyard aimed at launching the ship in water by 2010 and equipping it with arms and fighter aircraft in another four years.

To be named ‘INS Vikrant’, the carrier was to be inducted in the service by 2014.
With almost three years‘ delay now, IAC’s launch in water may happen only sometime in 2013 or early 2014.

Its design was initially approved by the government in 2003. The modular construction began in 2005.

Explaining the problem encountered with the gear box, a navy officer said the Indian company picked for the job could not meet the laid down specifications.

After some time lapse, a German firm, was roped in and the manufacture expedited. The first gear box has already been shipped and the second is on its way.

IAC-2 with improved features and bigger was on anvil but its final configuration was yet to be finalised, the Navy chief said.

Though he would not specify if IAC-2 would have advanced features like catapult-assisted take off from deck, barrier-assisted recovery and nuclear-powered engine, the Navy chief added that version 2 would almost sure to be heavier than IAC-1.

The Navy, however, has 46 ships under construction and acceptance of necessity for 49 more ships and submarines have been obtained.

The 95 ships in the pipeline includes not only indigenous versions but also warships in foreign yards.

For instance, the Navy plans to make two mine hunters at a South Korean yard after which six more such ships will be made at Goa Shipyard under technology transfer.
The same strategy may be adopted in P-75I to construct six additional diesel-electric submarine with air-independent propulsion technology.

A couple of submarines may be constructed at a foreign yard and the remaining four in India under technology transfer.

Admiral Verma, who retires on August 31, said the Navy’s ambitious acquisition was more to carry out mandated tasks in the Indian Ocean rather than changing security dynamics in the Asia-Pacific after USA declared its intent of shifting more naval assets in the Pacific.
Verma will be replaced by Admiral D K Joshi, who is currently commanding the western naval command in Mumbai.

Only 1 ship of the Vikrant class will be constructed and that too in ~14 years (if 2018 date sticks). Why not just churn out a second one in say 6-7 years time, even if its medium capability?

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 21 Nov 2012 09:55

IAC is delayed, overbudget by 2000 crore

Cochin: The Defence Ministry will soon move the Union Cabinet for an additional Rs. 2000 crore to meet the cost overrun for completing the first phase of Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) being constructed at the Cochin Shipyard - on India's western seaboard.

The IAC, which is likely to be named INS Vikrant - after India's first and now decommissioned aircraft carrier - is delayed by at least five years and is expected to be with the Indian Navy only after 2018 as against the scheduled date of delivery of 2014, Defence Minister AK Antony had earlier told Parliament. For the Indian Navy the delay and the cost overrun of the indigenously made aircraft carrier is almost a double whammy as the Russian built Aircraft Carrier Admiral Gorshkov, renamed as INS Vikramaditya, is also delayed.

Sources told NDTV that the first phase of the construction of the aircraft carrier, which in 2003 was budget to cost about Rs. 3200 crore, has escalated because of delays. In the first stage of the project the shipyard was expected to piece together some 18,000 tonnes of the hull, however, only 14,000 tonnes have been constructed. The ship is likely to be about 40,000 tonnes and is biggest ship that India has ever built. Till now only USA, Russia, the UK and France have produced such warships. China has re-fitted an old aircraft carrier purchased from Ukraine after the USSR broke up. The construction of the ship has been delayed due several reasons primarily because India was unable to procure special steel from Russia and also because gear boxes produced by a Gujarat-based firm in collaboration with the German partner had been found to be faulty.

Public sector giant, Steel Authority of India (SAIL) has come to rescue of the Indian Navy by producing the special quality steel. The first of the two remade gear boxes have reached Kochi a few days ago.

The total cost of the aircraft carrier alone - without its aircraft component - is likely to be between Rs. 14000-to Rs. 18000 crore.

Mr Antony who reviewed the progress of the construction of the ship today directed Defence Secretary Shashikant Sharma to constantly monitor the progress of the construction and formed empowered apex committee. Defence Minister Antony has asked Cochin ship yard to come with a "firm date of delivery". Sources said that Mr Antony has also told the shipyard that "we cannot go on hearing excuses. Everybody has to be accountable for the warship which is a national project and responsibilities in case of further slippages will have to be fixed."

The aircraft carrier is critical to India's ambition to emerge as a dominant player in the Indian Ocean region. Although India needs at least two, if not three, aircraft carriers, however, to ensure that it has at least one carrier available at all times, at present it is still pushing the 50 year old British made war horse INS Viraat. The warship has served the Navy for 25 years and should have been decommissioned in 2002. Naval experts say rarely do any Navy use ships which are 50 years old.

With the USA likely to reduce its presence in the Persian Gulf, the Indian Navy desperately needs major assets like Aircraft Carriers to maintain its presence and also shape the developments in the volatile gulf region. "It is because we're uncertain about when we are likely to get the next carrier we have been keeping INS Viraat in the best shape possible," a senior Naval officer told NDTV. INS Viraat which has gone through over a dozen major and minor refits is currently undergoing another refit is likely to be in the docks and out of action till March 2013.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Nov 2012 10:12

you can get carriers every 5 yrs only if you have 3 in construction(various stages) at all times. thats how US is able to get 1 supercarrier like clockwork every 3-4 yrs. they have the infra, have the system and processes and are consistent about funding it. one can imagine the 10,000+ suppliers lined up supplying special order parts. and they have been building carriers for 90 yrs now and dont have unionized labour and sarkari style shipyards. even Soko and japan are far superior to our yards in build time.

right now I dont think we have built the infra to build even 2 in parallel.

as the saying goes - "you cannot have khan type muscle, without spending heavily"

kit · Post by **kit** » 21 Nov 2012 11:22

Singha wrote:you can get carriers every 5 yrs only if you have 3 in construction(various stages) at all times. thats how US is able to get 1 supercarrier like clockwork every 3-4 yrs. they have the infra, have the system and processes and are consistent about funding it. one can imagine the 10,000+ suppliers lined up supplying special order parts. and they have been building carriers for 90 yrs now and dont have unionized labour and sarkari style shipyards. even Soko and japan are far superior to our yards in build time.

right now I dont think we have built the infra to build even 2 in parallel.

as the saying goes - "you cannot have khan type muscle, without spending heavily"

If you can print the worlds currency, there is no limit to your spending ., right ? The khan has reached its limits and so too the worlds patience .I dont think there will be another khan after this one, based on spending power at least ! Anyways OT

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 21 Nov 2012 11:54

Singha wrote:you can get carriers every 5 yrs only if you have 3 in construction(various stages) at all times. thats how US is able to get 1 supercarrier like clockwork every 3-4 yrs. they have the infra, have the system and processes and are consistent about funding it. one can imagine the 10,000+ suppliers lined up supplying special order parts. and they have been building carriers for 90 yrs now and dont have unionized labour and sarkari style shipyards. even Soko and japan are far superior to our yards in build time.

right now I dont think we have built the infra to build even 2 in parallel.

as the saying goes - "you cannot have khan type muscle, without spending heavily"

Building carriers simultaneously definitely helps, but I think our problems run deeper with shipyards. Our regular ships (which are ordered 3 or more at a time) build in 8-9 years. Definitely need for better management at MoD, DPSUs and Navy's procurement teams.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 21 Nov 2012 19:38

The difference between Indian and Foreign yards is even though foreign yards are heavily subsidized and supported by the governments, their management is private and is interested in things like efficiency and delivering on time and on budget. Indian yards don't care, if not this deadline, they are comfortable knowing that they can always issue another deadline and another after that and their funding will never get cancelled no matter how long it takes.

Also, there isn't exactly any long term idea on what the Navy wants, they are too busy constantly trying to adjust their wants and needs based on missed deadlines of past projects to keep up operational capabilities. It's time the government privatize the government yards and put them under private management, the government could use the money and the nation could do with better yards.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Nov 2012 20:57

tejas wrote:At 80,000 tons plus Unkil is the only game in town. To date the largest carrier Frenchies have built is Charles De Gaulle at 42,000 tons full load (37,000 tons std.) And even there they effed up in terms of length of the ship needed for E2 Hawkeye take off. Problem is Unkil is not generous with consulting help.

Any US consultancy will mean EUMA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Nov 2012 21:03

One need not spend heavily to properly plan. It is okay to take x years extra, but it is not okay to continuously, repeatedly failing to keep delivery schedules. If they need to re-establish their formula on estimation, they better do so, but heck.. we have that much intelligence to understand delays.. aam admi is taken for ride. RTI should include rights to ask for process correction. Finally, EoD it is all common sense.

member_23364 · Post by **member_23364** » 21 Nov 2012 21:17

There is a significant learning from this news of the IAC-1 costing Rs 18,000 crores too.

Years ago, a Navy Chief (Sureesh Mehta?) offered a $2 Billion cheque for a Aircraft carrier when Gorshkov price was hiked to $2.3 Billion from the initial $700 Million, when journos questioned him on the wisdom of buying a 2nd hand AC for $2 Billion. Pundits on BR blasted the Chief left and right and were united on the view that we could build one for less than $1 Billion indigenously.

Today, the first indigenous AC is estimated to cost $3.5 Billion and we are nowhere close to being done yet. Yes, we can argue that the Gorshkov is refurbished but one thing is clear-there is no "cheap" Indian platform. The notion of India developing cheap indigenous platforms is done and dusted. Be it the Tejas (both development and platform costs) or the Kolkata class ships (estimated $700 Million apiece) or the Dhruv ($10 Million+ /copy) or the Arjun Tank (Mk2 version costs Rs 28 crores each as per Ajai Shukla's blog), Indian developed weapon platforms are nearly as costly as Western and certainly more costly than Russian. Given our labour costs are a tenth of the Western labour costs and indigenous material costs (steel) are much cheaper than Western material costs, the only culprit standing out is in-efficiency and in-competency.

I only hope that our platforms can hold their own against Western platforms given the comparable costs.

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 21 Nov 2012 21:24

@Guru_Tat, please show me the estimate that Tejas is costing more than a comparable aircraft program somewhere else. Please think about Arjun tank cost if 1600 (the T-90 order number). Please check QE2 carrier cost.

And after you find the cost, please add a multiplier (in terms of time and money) given the fact that these are pioneering programs in India. There is no existing knowledge base.

The last sentence in your post explains the expectation (at least of some) very well but is far from reality. Just hopes are useless, capability is the real thing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Nov 2012 21:33

france have design ready but no money to build their PA2 carriers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Fre ... ft_carrier

its a 283m long, 75000t variant of the QE2 class basic design. it should be capable of airwing of around 50 rafale/JSF, 3-4 hawkeyes and 10 helicopters for sure. definitely in the class of supercarrier.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Nov 2012 21:42

Prahar,in one of the latest issues of AWST there is a feature on Japan's "i3",future stealth fighter to be more sophisticated than the F-22 and JSF. What is the very first key component of the fighter that the Japanese have started work on?
The engine! They have already begun testing some parts and hope to have the aircraft in service by 2030.They well know that they cannot depend upon anyone for the engine,the key to the aircraft's performance.However,we in India grandly embarked upon the LCA without securing the engine first,as my friend,a former VCoAS always said to Kalam et al ,aeons ago,that the project would succeed only as fast as the engine's success.

The latest indigenous delayed programme,the IAC,is just another addition to the long list of Indian defence weapon systems that have either failed,or arrived late and heavily over budget.From reports,AKA is getting p*ssed off with the repeated delays in naval warship and sub production.A number of serving and retd. naval officers have pointed out the glaring situ in our PSU yards,but still MDL and the other PSU yards want to hog the whole naval construction pot.As above posts have pointed out,building a warship or sub in Indian yards is just as as expensive as a foreign yard or far more when you look at the inordinate delays,

Let's also remember that when we talk off indigenous ship and sub building,how much of the weapon systems and sensors are truly indigenous? Virtually all our sensors,radars in particular are foreign or local built foreign tech and almost every weapon system from main guns to missiles.All that is indigenous is the empty hull-with a lot of foreign steel in it as well,and a motley list of miscellaneous items.However,the silver lining is that we somehow-thanks to the corps op naval constructors,do finish the warships and manage to integrate a variety of firang weapons and systems from east,west and desi,and this is no mean achievement.If we could only build them faster and on schedule......

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 21 Nov 2012 22:09

Philip Sir, I am not disagreeing with whatever you have said. I am just saying it is being naive if we compare our capabilities in military industrial complex with nations like France/Japan/UK. And to create or acquire capability, you cannot expect to create a product at the same cost as someone who already has the capability.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Nov 2012 06:55

and even in these more advanced producers, the projects being late and heavily over the budget is the norm nowadays.
we have some control over the medium and low end of 3D search radars now (rear mast of ships). in due course we hope to pindigenize the MFSTAR for the fore mast and finally get rid of the "top plate" thing.
likewise we are gaining a foothold in LRSAM via the two Barak projects and SRSAM via Maitri.
Brahmos is now made locally. So will nirbhay. HWT and LWT are now local.
sonars are local now. EW and decoys also to some extent.

its the usual problem areas like exotic materials, heavy guns , engines and gearboxes where we need to depend 100% on imports.

BEL/DARE et al need to develop a common unified combat system for naval warships to replace the imported ones from CAE/Thales etc we use now.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Nov 2012 07:36

However,we in India grandly embarked upon the LCA without securing the engine first,as my friend,a former VCoAS always said to Kalam et al ,aeons ago,that the project would succeed only as fast as the engine's success.

Not sure what "securing first" means, but India did start work on the engine along with the LCA.

The second part of that statement is true, but very predictable in the case of India. Even in the very stages (80s-90s) it was predicted by people in the know.

Prahar,in one of the latest issues of AWST there is a feature on Japan's "i3",future stealth fighter to be more sophisticated than the F-22 and JSF. What is the very first key component of the fighter that the Japanese have started work on?
The engine! They have already begun testing some parts and hope to have the aircraft in service by 2030.

Nice. However, do they have a single engine so far? IF they do not (googled and found none - but I could be wrong) they will - even with the MilIndustries they have - find it very, very difficult.

Will circle back if I find anything. But starting work on an engine is OK, but nothing to write home about.

Just BTW the I3 is considered (by the Japs anyway) to be a 6th gen (NOT 5th gen) AC.

2010 :: Flightglobal :: Japan seeks foreign engines for stealth fighter prototypes

Japan is interested in engines in the 10,000-20,000lb thrust class (44-89kN), and has a long-list of candidates on which it is seeking information, the sources say.

These include the General Electric F404 used to power the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet, Snecma's M88-2 for the Dassault Rafale and Volvo Aero's RM12, integrated with the Saab Gripen. Its search even contains the Gas Turbine Research Establishment GTX-35VS Kaveri, still in development for India's Aeronautical Development Agency Tejas light combat aircraft.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Nov 2012 08:56

very nice and sikular of them to include us in the shortlist.

we should repay the compliment in kind by including the I3 in our list of 6th gen fighter contract.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Nov 2012 09:11

It is not that we do not have the human resource tech capability.Our boffins can be found worldwide doing fantastic work,but our system of management which has to kowtow to babudom and political bosses ad nauseum,adds to delay and cost overruns.Successful programmes like Brahmos and others are the way to go,which leapfrogged obsolete sub-sonic anti-ship missile technology and has now given us a lead over the rest of the world.We should adopt the same for developing engine tech for a variety of applications for all three services.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Nov 2012 10:53

It is not that we do not have the human resource tech capability.Our boffins can be found worldwide doing fantastic work,but our system of management which has to kowtow to babudom and political bosses ad nauseum,adds to delay and cost overruns.Successful programmes like Brahmos and others are the way to go,which leapfrogged obsolete sub-sonic anti-ship missile technology and has now given us a lead over the rest of the world.We should adopt the same for developing engine tech for a variety of applications for all three services.

Suggest we get these boffins to design us a great 1800 HP engine for the next gen Indian tank (or is Arjun the end of the line?).

Yar, wake me up if and when the Japanese built a viable engine for a 4th gen plane.

Are we still sh1t1ng bricks (SB) with the AL-55I? I mean, this one was a fresh design from Russia, right? Meant for a trainer. Tiny engine - one that could easily be fitted into a UAV or the like. Yada, yada, yada. By a mighty Russian engine house that too - NPO Saturn. .................................................. Plunk. Something is amiss.

And Japan that was seeking an alternative engine from abroad - for three prototype planes - to be replaced by their own product for the production plane ....................................

I have still not invested time to see where the Japanese are WRT a top notch military engine of any type, but my gut says they will not meet the 2030 date if they go alone. Not possible. Auto engines, yes. Engines for the Honda passenger jet - I think they did. An engine for a 6th Gen plane? BTW, some paintings of that 6th gen seem like the original idea for the AMCA - no fins.

What has Brahmos, babudom, boffins, etc got to do with a military engine I am not too sure, but such is life. Mithya.

BTW, what is hell is a boffin?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 May 2013 16:54

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20151

nice move.. sounds like turman and jsf is what IN is thinking.. way to go!.. but one could also think nimitz class using nuke power as our arihant is nearing maturity and will demonstrate capability.

jai vishal!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 May 2013 19:08

boffin == box full of puffins

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 03 Aug 2013 12:21

Navy Schematics Of 1st Indigenous Aircraft Carrier - LiveFist

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Aug 2013 20:49

I'm not sure why the PR chap making slides/graphics has a penchant for the F-15. I am sure drawing Tejas or MiG-29K would take as much or as less effort.

Barring this, the deck layout, sensors & weapons fit comes out clearly.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 05 Aug 2013 10:05

Images & Description of Vikrant

from livefist

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Aug 2013 02:28

Old INS Vikrant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(R11)

In June 1970, the INS Vikrant was at the Naval Dockyard for repairs due to a crack in a water drum of one of the boilers powering her steam catapult. Unable to procure a replacement drum from the United Kingdom due to an embargo{As usual Islamic Queendom of Briturdistan behaved like a Maa-Paki}, Admiral Sardarilal Mathradas Nanda ordered the routing of steam from her forward machinery to the steam catapult to bypass the damaged boiler. This repair enabled her to launch both the Sea Hawks as well as the Breguet Alizé, although she lost some cruising power. In March 1971, she was put through trials to test the fix.[7] These modifications turned out to be valuable, enabling the Vikrant to enter combat despite the cracked boiler against East Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.[4][8]

Stationed off the Andaman & Nicobar Islands along with frigates, INS Brahmaputra (1958) and INS Beas (1960), the Vikrant redeployed towards Chittagong at the outbreak of hostilities.[9] Based on Naval Intelligence reports that the Pakistan Navy intended to break through the Indian Naval blockade using camouflaged merchant ships, the Sea Hawks struck shipping in the Chittagong and Cox's Bazar harbors, sinking or incapacitating most ships in harbor. On the morning of 4 December 1971, the eight Sea Hawk aircraft on the Vikrant launched an air raid on Cox's Bazar from 60 nautical miles (110 km) offshore. On the evening of 4 December, the air group struck Chittagong Harbor. Later strikes targeted Khulna and Port of Mongla. A PTI report of 4 December read, "Chittagong harbour ablaze as ships and aircraft of the Eastern Naval Fleet bombed and rocketed. Not a single vessel can be put to sea from Chittagong." Air strikes continued until 10 December 1971 with not a single Sea Hawk lost.

The Pakistan Navy deployed the submarine PNS Ghazi to specifically target and sink the INS Vikrant. However, the Ghazi sank off Visakhapatnam harbor likely due to depth charges by INS Rajput (D141).[10] During the war, the crew of Vikrant earned two Mahavir Chakras and 12 Vir Chakras.

ajay_hk · Post by **ajay_hk** » 06 Aug 2013 03:09

X-post from Navy thread
Navy makes high-strength steel for warships

Indigenous manufacturing of India's largest warship — the 37,500-tonne aircraft carrier INS Vikrant — has ended the nation's decade-old reliability on import for military grade steel, needed for warship building.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 06 Aug 2013 11:43

Aside from 1971, where else were we able to deploy our aircraft carriers in actual operations? I know of Op Jupiter, which was never carried out. Aside from that is their any known instance of deployment in Sri Lanka? Where was our carrier during ex-fil of the Army from Somalia... ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Aug 2013 11:45

most of the time it was in harbour or sailing on short cruises near mumbai

to my knowledge it has never deployed for long distance exercises off aden, south africa or indonesia unlike our DDG/FFG and tankers.

astal · Post by **astal** » 06 Aug 2013 12:03

What about operation cactus in the Maldives?

Ajit.C · Post by **Ajit.C** » 06 Aug 2013 12:14

I remember she being part of the yearly Amphex exercises between 1984-87 at Andaman and Nicobar Islands that is way away from Mumbai

. Just mentioning to say that she was not always at Mumbai or on short cruises".

During the 70s, 80s and 90s our focus was Pakistan centric hence neither she nor Viraat may not be deployed from then main expected operations area.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Aug 2013 13:54

yes she has deployed on exercises in bay of bengal incl with american carrier. pix were posted on BRF.

nyet for op cactus imo. some IN and CG ship chased down the escaping hijacked merchant ship.

nyet again for ipkf as there was no ltte asw or air threat.

a bay of bengal exercises is a 2-3 week job. I am talking of 6-9 month away deployments like the CVBGs .... I dont think any of our units go for such long patrols...maybe 3 months but no more.

I think due to funds crunch in early 90s also op tempo came down ...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Aug 2013 15:18

Both the Vikrant and Viraat have made numerous voyages to foreign ports showing the flag.One region where the visits made a huge impact was the Gulf states were the locals were amazed that India too had carriers as they had only seen Yanqui and Brit ones before.

nits · Post by **nits** » 06 Aug 2013 16:20

I also read somewhere when there was a tiff in Indian Ocean between US and Indian Aircraft Carrier - where US Battle group asked Vikrant to identify itself and we responded saying we are near home base and they should not mess around...

Will try to find the relevant link and post it

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 06 Aug 2013 21:35

FWIW Viraat deployed to Gulf of Aden in 2009. But it was not a counter-piracy mission:

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1283177/r ... -aden-soon

Op Parakram:

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/05/i ... ndian.html

...INS Viraat was the flag ship of the western fleet during Op Parakram. With its full strength of Sea Harriers embarked, Viraat was central to the Western Fleet deployment for over six months. She was at sea with Capt (now VAdm) DK Joshi as the Commanding Officer and RAdm (later VAdm) JS Bedi as the Fleet Commander...

Cant locate anything on the Vikrant though. While Op Cactus was a small operation, it nevertheless had a special forces component which required landing on a remote island. In all the literature available I don't recall even a mention in a role even as a command post.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 08 Aug 2013 06:18

Tribune had this image not posted before.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130802/main6.htm

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 08 Aug 2013 06:46

Number of ships would depend upon starting date too. Meaning if 2 more are started now, there is a chance of 2 more made available as per schedule - even if one is built as a casino for Vietnam. How long would perhaps be independent of how many.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 09 Aug 2013 08:17

INS Vikrant was used to send initial Army supplies to Srilanka after India Srilanka accord. It was berthed in Trincomallee. It also particpated in the storming of Jaffna (including aircrafts from INS Vikrant) and other operations against LTTE

Remember seeing several photos of those operations in the past

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 09 Aug 2013 08:30

symontk wrote:INS Vikrant was used to send initial Army supplies to Srilanka after India Srilanka accord. It was berthed in Trincomallee. It also particpated in the storming of Jaffna (including aircrafts from INS Vikrant) and other operations against LTTE

Remember seeing several photos of those operations in the past

Link/Source?

Meanwhile the good colonel seems to have hitched his wagons to desi maal for now. A pretty decent article for what it' worth

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/08/i ... built.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Aug 2013 08:49

sea harriers should not be ignored till f35bish vtol is bought or made.