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
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Khalsa »

Good to see her ploughing into the rough seas. Sea trials needs to be mercilessly driven and finished.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/smrmoorhouse/status ... 14243?s=20 ---> All three Services from the Indian & UK Armed Forces are exercising simultaneously in the most ambitious exercise - Konkan Shakti 21 - conducted by the 2 countries to date. CSG21 aircraft & ships are participating side by side with our Indian counterparts developing interoperability.
https://twitter.com/arunp2810/status/14 ... 83108?s=20 ---> If the ‘Red Vs Blue’ exercise pitted shore-based IN/IAF air power against ship-borne F-35s, the results could have interesting lessons for the Great Indian Carrier Debate.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

An on-board look at India’s first-ever indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant

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

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/arunp2810/status/14 ... 83108?s=20 ---> If the ‘Red Vs Blue’ exercise pitted shore-based IN/IAF air power against ship-borne F-35s, the results could have interesting lessons for the Great Indian Carrier Debate.
Not possible to assess based on the "red" carrier force being equipped with stealth fighters that deploy to the exercise with luneburg lens and external stores to protect their signature (and this likely also extend to any tactics such as not practicing their EMCON tactics or using LPI data-links). Not to mention that unlike USS Carl Vinson *also equipped with F-35's at the moment), the British QE class and its group is optimizes for strike and close-air support as opposed to full spectrum carrier operations. IN's own carriers doing the same with MiG-29K vs IAF's and IN's shore based airpower is likely to provide a better assessment.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

Looks like the deck has not been surfaced yet. Also, looks like an elevator for weapons.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Navy to tweak its aircraft carrier plan to accommodate surveillance and attack drones
https://theprint.in/defence/navy-to-twe ... es/766877/
16 Nov 2021
Combination of manned & unmanned systems would mean overall displacement of proposed third aircraft carrier would reduce from 65,000 tonnes, while also decreasing cost.
SinghS
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Jul 2021 20:24

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by SinghS »

ADS saga redux!!! Navy is forced to present a less costlier picture to the powers who be.

I don't see the displacement of the carrier coming down anywhere in near future. EMALS + Manned + Unmanned + AWACS + Heli is never going to be a small ship. I think Navy wants continuity, which is being denied. So the carrier plan is being presented in a different form for continuity of the R&D and prelim design work.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

SinghS, please correct me if I am wrong. But if you are referring to continuity as from Vikrant to IAC-2, then it is anything but. IAC-2 is a radically new design (CATOBAR vs STOBAR) when compared to Vikrant. Her tonnage will also be significantly larger.

For a service that wanted a three aircraft carrier navy, they have now realized that budgetary constraints will only see IAC-2 replacing the Vikramaditya at her eventual retirement.

They could still have a three carrier navy, if they went ahead with a follow on Vikrant Class vessel and then gone in for IAC-2. But IAC-2 is what they want now.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Barath »

Rakesh wrote:Navy to tweak its aircraft carrier plan to accommodate surveillance and attack drones
https://theprint.in/defence/navy-to-twe ... es/766877/
16 Nov 2021
This is an encouraging sign. Prioritizing and planning capability in accord with the budget is important, especially over a multi yeartime scale. In that it helps define the requirements and priority for R&D, be it unmanned aeroplanes, carriers, fighters or other systems.
SinghS
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Jul 2021 20:24

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by SinghS »

Rakesh wrote:SinghS, please correct me if I am wrong. But if you are referring to continuity as from Vikrant to IAC-2, then it is anything but. IAC-2 is a radically new design (CATOBAR vs STOBAR) when compared to Vikrant. Her tonnage will also be significantly larger.
I did not mean continuity not from Vikrant to IAC-2.

I meant that if no AC design is ongoing, the team which designed Vikrant would be lost to other projects. Navy won't like it, but can't do anything if no active project is running. We need continuity in terms of a sanctioned carrier program always.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Thank you for that clarification SinghS. On that point, I fully agree.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Rakesh wrote:Navy to tweak its aircraft carrier plan to accommodate surveillance and attack drones
https://theprint.in/defence/navy-to-twe ... es/766877/
16 Nov 2021
Indian Navy confident of positive response for third aircraft carrier: Sources
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 741845.cms
16 Nov 2021
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Gagan »

The economy in 5 yrs is hopefully going to be vastly bigger, allowing for a defense budget that may be 1.5 x of today

But since the carrier is going to take 7+ yrs to build (If it is the same as INS Vikrant), or more, if the go in for a 60-70K ton, flat-top, they have to lay the foundation work now.

GoI is I believe focused on the immediate needs at the northern and western borders, so the huge capex for a flat-top takes lower priority for now.

But Cheen's EMALS flat-top once it sails once in the indian ocean, will give due incentive to the neta=babooze to release funds for IAC-2
Media can help out by showing images of construction of Cheena-flattop-3 on a monthly basis
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Sad that our defence planning is always retroactive and not proactive. Only after Cheen's flat top starts sailing in the Indian ocean, will our babooze release the funds for a third aircraft carrier? How about we release the funds now, so the carrier will be well on her way in construction. But that is too much to ask I guess.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by hnair »

Rakesh/Gagan, just some thoughts, that might not gel well here: There is no new requirement for a full capability carrier (sea control, air-war with a peer AF and massive land attack) for Indian objectives. Current missions of an Indian carrier seem to be fleet air defense, sea control with close air support for small amphibious landings. Basically relevant to amphibious island hopping around IOR, which has been the case since 1960s. The chinese seem to want to just follow US' global operational strategy they had since WW2, instead of sticking to SCS island assaults. That is ok, it is their money to waste. Engaging the new chinese carriers (just doing a mission kill or increasing their cost of operations) is better left to long range land based strike aircrafts, long range AShM missiles or even better, SSNs with heavy torpedoes or hyper/super missiles. All three of which have been budgeted for IN.

So what new mission would the Indian carrier above Vikrant's weight and having EMALs will accomplish in IOR? Sustaining air operations in SCS by an Indian carrier has never been considered seriously in any open literature and is not sustainable right now. Not without strong and committed regional military allies who can take a hit along with India, if an Indian CV needs to take to port in middle of hostilities.

Another Vikrant or a Vikrant ++ (50k) might be a good way to maintain the design and integration expertise.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by AkshaySG »

To follow up on Hnair ji's point I have long thought that we can do so much with the Andaman Nicobar Command than we currently do

It is perfectly placed to be our unsinkable AC and has potential to cover everything from BOB/Myanmar/Gulf of Thailand to Malacca straights and IOR.

A couple of maritime focused squadrons of Sukhois or LCA equipped with ASW/AshW and we will be able to project the same or better firepower at 10% the cost.

Similarly the new upcoming base in Seychelles can host P-8s and other such platforms.

From an Aircraft Carrier perspective, Two active Vikrant size CBG's operating in the Arabian Sea and Southern IOR should be more than enough. If we need to project power in further then take some lessons from our Russian friends and use subs,

The Indian Navy has been practicing a lot with USN and seems to have started to think like them too but with our situation the fact remains that Army and AF are always going to take the lions share of the budget even if economy improves
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Gagan »

INS Vikrant is a beautiful ship, but is far less capable than the ageing Charles De Gaulle

IN needs a flat top with either a steam catapult or an EMALS launch system. That should be the one non negotiable PSQR.
Size, propulsion there after is secondary to what is best suited and within the capabilities of Indian designers and availibility

Only a flat top can maintain the required tempo, launch a fixed winged AEW aircraft and do decent sea dominance.

China should have ideally stayed in the SCS pond, but wants to come into the Indian ocean to project power and use coercive military diplomacy if needed in the future. It is creating options that it may or may not exploit in the future. China wants to trade with Africa and South America in a much bigger way, and it wants to project power into the seas around these areas to protect its interests.

A CBG is an excellent way to do so.

India also wants to trade with Africa, and our trade is increasing with south america. We can't always rely on other nations goodwill and leasing of bases to project power. Having more CBGs is the next step up in overall power balance. I am linking this with trade and growth explicitly for this reason
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Gagan wrote:INS Vikrant is a beautiful ship, but is far less capable than the ageing Charles De Gaulle....
Gagan, please answer the following;

1) What is the timeline of such a vessel to arrive with the Indian Navy?

2) Till the absence of such a vessel, how will the Indian Navy counter a Chinese CBG prowling in India's backyard i.e. the Indian Ocean?

3) The Indian Navy has a three aircraft carrier philosophy. One for either seaboard and one in maintenance/reserve. The three aircraft carrier strategy RESTS upon three vessels ---> 1) Vikramaditya; 2) Vikrant and 3) IAC-2. The first two are STOBAR vessels. It is only IAC-3 that is the proposed CATOBAR vessel. When the CATOBAR vessel is in the dock for refit or maintenance how will the Indian Navy project power with two STOBAR vessels?

4) Both catapult systems in existence in the world right now - Steam and EMALS - come from the United States. France uses steam catapults - on the Charles De Gaulle - from the US. The PANG (France's next aircraft carrier) will use EMALS from the US. The only other country building such a system is China.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

hnair wrote:Another Vikrant or a Vikrant ++ (50k) might be a good way to maintain the design and integration expertise.
Great post, but this is the part I want to highlight on.

1) The construction of Vikrant is now over. Heaven only knows when our beloved babooze are going to sanction the funds for IAC-2. What is this trained workforce expected to do till then? Would it not make better sense to keep that workforce active and build another STOBAR vessel? Once that is underway, then move on to IAC-2?

2) It would make ample sense to build another Vikrant Class vessel (or an improved one as you have stated above). Once the construction for that is well underway, then the next vessel (the CATOBAR one) can commence construction. I keep hearing on this forum of $5 Trillion economy, so should money really be an impediment or is it the vision that is lacking?

3) The Indian Navy has now realised that the timeframe for the CATOBAR vessel to arrive will largely coincide with the Vikramaditya retiring. They will be back down to two aircraft carriers. So much for the three aircraft carrier strategy. It is the Indian Navy that has - at present - set aside the idea of a third aircraft carrier in favour of nuclear powered submarines. The Indian Navy feels that is the more urgent requirement.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Gagan »

Rakesh wrote: 1) What is the timeline of such a vessel to arrive with the Indian Navy?

2) Till the absence of such a vessel, how will the Indian Navy counter a Chinese CBG prowling in India's backyard i.e. the Indian Ocean?

3) The Indian Navy has a three aircraft carrier philosophy. One for either seaboard and one in maintenance/reserve. The three aircraft carrier strategy RESTS upon three vessels ---> 1) Vikramaditya; 2) Vikrant and 3) IAC-2. The first two are STOBAR vessels. It is only IAC-3 that is the proposed CATOBAR vessel. When the CATOBAR vessel is in the dock for refit or maintenance how will the Indian Navy project power with two STOBAR vessels?

4) Both catapult systems in existence in the world right now - Steam and EMALS - come from the United States. France uses steam catapults - on the Charles De Gaulle - from the US. The PANG (France's next aircraft carrier) will use EMALS from the US. The only other country building such a system is China.
Rakeshji, you know the answers to these questions very well.
My 2 paise are as follows

If the Navy says that they only need 3 carriers, I will call that vision a tad bit myopic. I believe, that the Navy only openly says things that can be easily digested by Media, Babooze, Netas and public. I am sure they think along the lines of what the US navy or the Chinese navy thinks, that is to be able to project force in all oceans one day.

To ask for an IAC-2 that is the same as the IAC-1, is again shooting below the mark.

IAC-1 is as I say again, a beautiful ship. But this ship is limited in its capabilities even as compared to the CDG.

Once the PLAN 003 is launched, it will have catapult launched Su-33 equivalents flying about. It will be the most dangerous strike force, much more capable than a US Navy carrier. An Su-33 copy, with its range, weapons carrying capacity, sheer size and endurance, IRST and huge radar, AND being able to be launched with a full load is the most dangerous carrier based aircraft around. China will master engine tech and be at par with the west in the future as well.

What will we have? a Ski jump launched Mig-29 / Rafale M / TEDBF on a medium sized carrier. Limited range, limited weapons carriage capacity, and inability to launch two aircraft in one go.

The deck design of the Vikrant allows for only one aircraft to be in the take off position at one time. There is no blast deflector behind the launch point, and the engine exhaust blows over the deck into the sea. If there is a hot aircraft in the short takeoff position, its engine blast hits the long take off position - so no aircraft with its sensitive electronics can be positioned there.

Ping Pong 003 can launch 3 or 2 in one go at full load.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Gagan-ji, thank you for the post. But is it possible you can take a stab at any of these questions? I ask again....

1) What is the timeline of such a vessel to arrive with the Indian Navy?

2) Till the absence of such a vessel, how will the Indian Navy counter a Chinese CBG prowling in India's backyard i.e. the Indian Ocean?

3) The Indian Navy has a three aircraft carrier philosophy. One for either seaboard and one in maintenance/reserve. The three aircraft carrier strategy RESTS upon three vessels ---> 1) Vikramaditya; 2) Vikrant and 3) IAC-2. The first two are STOBAR vessels. It is only IAC-3 that is the proposed CATOBAR vessel. When the CATOBAR vessel is in the dock for refit or maintenance how will the Indian Navy project power with two STOBAR vessels?
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Gagan »

Cochin shipyards has plans to dig up a 300m dry dock to accommodate a 65K carrier construction
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

:)
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The time line has to be seen as the capacity needed to protect the Indian SALCOS. In 10 years intervals, ie, 2030, 2040, 2050.

In the initial period you can hope that a relationship with an unreliable US can help deal with PLAN as it developed the ability to sustain multiple carrier deployment.

But the same might not hold by 2040 or 2050.

Assuming that by that time PLAN has 8 super carriers. The Indian Navy and Air force will have to grow substantially larger in order to deal with the mobile offensive power the PLAN can bring. Assuming that US has continued with it's current tragectory . It will no longer be able to do anything about PRC.

India will have to be able to stand up to PRC alone by this time.
Roop
BRFite
Posts: 670
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Roop »

AkshaySG wrote:... If we need to project power in further then take some lessons from our Russian friends and use subs...
I like what you said about the And./Nic. Command etc. but have to disagree with this. A submarine, by its very nature (stealth, concealment etc.) is not a power-projection / sea-control platform -- it is a sea-denial platform.

In times of war / impending war / high political tension, if you declare that your submarines are operating in a particular area, you will discourage your enemies from taking panga with you in that area. If you reputation / demonstrated record of the use of naval power is sufficient, your enemy will be denied the use of that area. Think back to the Falklands War and the behaviour of the Argentine navy (surface units) after the sinking of the Belgrano. They were a complete no-show, and the Brits achieved that using only one SSN and no surface units.

Force projection is a different thing. It is the overt display of naval power right out in the open (no concealment / stealth) in order to let everyone know (i.e. see for themselves) that you are the boss in this region and you're prepared to fight if necessary. The intention is not so much to influence your enemy as to reassure friends/neutrals in the region to stay on your side diplomatically, or at least not to side with your enemy. It is impossible to achieve this level of political / psychological power using only concealed platforms -- submarines or high-altitude bombers which nobody really can see and who the hell knows if they are even there. If a carrier strike group shows up and starts prowling around the waters a few hundred NM from your coast, everyone knows its there.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

Once the PLAN 003 is launched, it will have catapult launched Su-33 equivalents flying about. It will be the most dangerous strike force, much more capable than a US Navy carrier.
......China will master engine tech and be at par with the west in the future as well...

What will we have? a Ski jump launched Mig-29 / Rafale M / TEDBF on a medium sized carrier. Limited range, limited weapons carriage capacity, and inability to launch two aircraft in one go.....
Quite ironic that we're dhoti shivering over some mythical chini carrier which will somehow magically trump every amreeki CATOBAR the moment it touches water and in the same breath we're asking the same amreekis to spit out steam catapult/EMALS tech that we can then lick.

And to do what exactly? If Chini carriers are already "most dangerous strike force ever", even better than unkill's then what will our 1-2 CATOBAR do against them? oh no what to do onlee, let me just order some brown pants and a febreze from aliexpress.

If only Chinis had the same thoughts when they had ZERO carriers, we wouldn't be here to see this day. If only Chinis too had dhoti shivered and not invested in indigenous steam catapults/EMALS or their shitty flanker clones, we could have saved money on brown pants too.

The doom and gloom and the natural instinct to run crying to papa unkill or mommy Russkis is f*cking insane.
RishiChatterjee
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by RishiChatterjee »

Am Indian CATOBAR is very unlikely. Teddy is being fully designed to cater to taking off from ski-jumps. Doesn't even have serpentine intake as they'd cost it a few kN of wet thrust.

Comparable to Rafale's MTOW, but 100-115kN each instead of 75kN.

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

RishiChatterjee wrote:Am Indian CATOBAR is very unlikely. Teddy is being fully designed to cater to taking off from ski-jumps. Doesn't even have serpentine intake as they'd cost it a few kN of wet thrust.

Comparable to Rafale's MTOW, but 100-115kN each instead of 75kN.
There are reportedly two variants coming. Confirmed at Aero India 2021.

One STOBAR variant and the other will be CATOBAR.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by AkshaySG »

Roop wrote:

Force projection is a different thing. It is the overt display of naval power right out in the open (no concealment / stealth) in order to let everyone know (i.e. see for themselves) that you are the boss in this region and you're prepared to fight if necessary. The intention is not so much to influence your enemy as to reassure friends/neutrals in the region to stay on your side diplomatically, or at least not to side with your enemy. It is impossible to achieve this level of political / psychological power using only concealed platforms -- submarines or high-altitude bombers which nobody really can see and who the hell knows if they are even there. If a carrier strike group shows up and starts prowling around the waters a few hundred NM from your coast, everyone knows its there.

Power is Power.. Whether it be in an overt Americana style of a CBG or a covert Nuclear Sub, Let's not forget it was a similar sub group that stopped the Enterprise CBG in its tracks when it was sent to "project power" in the 1971 war


Even more important to consider is India's own situation in this regard... Even if all of Navy's wet dreams come true and we have 3 concurrently operating CBG's we will never send them too far away from our shores, It will most likely be two active carriers in Arabian and BOB with one in refit

So any idea that we will "project power" or "reassure friends" by sending CBG's all the way to the South China Sea or into the Atlantic seems fantastical at best, We don't have United States's doctrine and as such and we won't act like them either.

So it goes to say that the only real force that we can actually take near our enemies shores like SCS/Pacific etc are subs.or destroyers.

I would love for us to have multiple 65-70,000 ton supercarriers launching fully loaded jets but we have to be realistic and try to ascertain best value from money.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by hnair »

There is no new requirement for a full capability carrier (sea control, air-war with a peer AF and massive land attack) for Indian objectives. Current missions of an Indian carrier seem to be fleet air defense, sea control with close air support for small amphibious landings. Basically relevant to amphibious island hopping around IOR, which has been the case since 1960s.
The above is what I posted earlier as my understanding of what the Indian Govt over the decades felt an Indian carrier's missions are.

Gagan wrote: IN needs a flat top with either a steam catapult or an EMALS launch system. That should be the one non negotiable PSQR.
Size, propulsion there after is secondary to what is best suited and within the capabilities of Indian designers and availibility

Only a flat top can maintain the required tempo, launch a fixed winged AEW aircraft and do decent sea dominance.
Gagan, dont know where to start, but you have not clarified on what exactly would an Indian CATOBAR carrier with a big tonnage's specific missions be. Saying "IN needs this...." is just an opinion that simplifies everything ranging from a nation's broader objectives to second guessing a professional service's professional needs to achieve its more limited objectives

What can an Indian carrier group currently do?

- An Indian carrier group has a number of long range sensors including MFSTARs in its AAW destroyer escorts, that can see aerial attackers like a Su33 or maritime strike aircraft a long way off.
- The helicopter AEW can produce a decent bubble against standoff attacks by regular AShM launched from maritime attack aircrafts, by identifying the tracks of such missiles and the escorts being able to shoot down with Barak/MRsAM.
- Its aircraft undertaking CAP carrying decent AAM loads can take out an aircraft from even greater distances or at least cause them to abort their AShM missions.

What an Indian carrier group currently cannot do?
- Full on air-to-air war against a competent AF/N with 4+ gen aircraft in numbers
- Fully loaded land attack missions
- Defend against long range hypersonic warheads shot off from land or sea

Except for the last one(something that is a work in progress for all navies), the first two are hardly relevant to Indian scenarios - land attack on pakis is a breeze for IAF and land attack on chinese's numerous infra is pointless except during a WW3 and best done using nukes.

Now, about launching an AWACs using CAT. An AWACS is different from AEW mission, in that it is an offensive system that is used for battle-management of a strike or air-dominance package (A2A battle to degrade the interceptor forces) or SEAD over hostile airspace and far away from surface-based radars that it helps the friendly aircraft get excellent situational awareness. So why do we need a long endurance AWACS launched using a CAT with current mission sets based on India's national objectives? Where exactly will we be employing such an AWACS? The only place I can think of is against Pearl River Delta region for juicy land-attack targets defended by PLAAF or further up towards Beijing. Such missions are hardly worth sending a carrier group into harm's way, because the targets are too numerous for the CBG to make a difference.

If pakis were geographically separated from us and had zero borders with us, yes we need a full-on carrier to take them on. But then they will cease being a threat because the price for them to attack India would also have increased exponentially gone up.
A CBG is an excellent way to do so.

India also wants to trade with Africa, and our trade is increasing with south america. We can't always rely on other nations goodwill and leasing of bases to project power. Having more CBGs is the next step up in overall power balance. I am linking this with trade and growth explicitly for this reason
Bases are key to re-arming all sorts of escort ships that a CBG needs. Yes, a CV's aircraft can be reloaded with ordinance and fuel, but an escort will need a port to load weaponry into VLS. We all like counting VLS in this forum and yeah, they are great for simultaneous launching across 360degrees, but their key weakness is reload of VLS right now. It was a system that made sense to USN in a post-cold war setting. But somehow everyone latched on to it. There have been talks by USN recently about reload-at-sea, but it will need a big redesign to take care of that. That article talks about issues like stress on even wooden-round weapons, due to fragility of sensors in a weapon, safety etc. So if you are prosecuting anything other than a short duration amphibious assault, you should have the AAW escorts flitting back and forth for reloads. The more foreign bases or friendly ports you have, the better chances you have of sustaining operations.

Thus you need a bigger than needed number of AAW escorts to rotate and that is where I have mentioned you need military allies who can help out with escorts or well-defended ports that can help reload. China has not solved the problem of military allies - their only half competent military ally, the pakis have shown no inclination to lift a finger for china by putting any of their assets on the line to protect a PLAN CBG. Similarly, Indian govt will have to work overtime to get such nittygritties as reliable military allies who will throw assets and service folks into harms way when India asks, to be sorted out first.

The above is based on open source observation of USN's operations over past few decades. China will throw a lot of new challenges for USN in the matter of reloading etc. But we havent seen any change in USN's current plans of a pre-packed VLS going to operations.
Gagan wrote: If the Navy says that they only need 3 carriers, I will call that vision a tad bit myopic. I believe, that the Navy only openly says things that can be easily digested by Media, Babooze, Netas and public. I am sure they think along the lines of what the US navy or the Chinese navy thinks, that is to be able to project force in all oceans one day.

To ask for an IAC-2 that is the same as the IAC-1, is again shooting below the mark.
Maybe IN are myopic or..... maybe it is the other way and IN is given "national objectives" by Delhi and they come back with minimum viable equipment and staffing requirement to achieve that objective for budgetary approvals?

So in that situation, how is IAC2 having same missions as IAC1 shooting below the mark?
IAC-1 is as I say again, a beautiful ship. But this ship is limited in its capabilities even as compared to the CDG.
It had a specific sets of missions around which it was designed. No one in India or around the world has yet said Vikrant's design fall short of those, except for one cryptic comment about the forward starboard sponsons for Barak8 is not optimal by that chinese analyst. So instead of doing a comparison with Ford class (which has a totally different set of missions as defined by American govt), what exactly is the limited capability other than "it doesnt have EMALs" or "smaller than the chinese carriers"?
Once the PLAN 003 is launched, it will have catapult launched Su-33 equivalents flying about. It will be the most dangerous strike force, much more capable than a US Navy carrier. An Su-33 copy, with its range, weapons carrying capacity, sheer size and endurance, IRST and huge radar, AND being able to be launched with a full load is the most dangerous carrier based aircraft around. China will master engine tech and be at par with the west in the future as well.

What will we have? a Ski jump launched Mig-29 / Rafale M / TEDBF on a medium sized carrier. Limited range, limited weapons carriage capacity, and inability to launch two aircraft in one go.
The Su33 is a huge aircraft that can be picked at 1000+km range by surface-based search radars and beyond by AEW. If 10 Su33 streaking towards an Indian CBG fires 200 (I am sure they can carry more, but I tend to underestimate chinese :D ) PL-15s at 5 Mig29s on CAP firing back 20 Astra (four AAM can be easily carried), why is that a huge disadvantage to ski-jump carriers? Fleet air defense using BVR can be competently done by past Harriers, current Mig29k or future acquisitions.

And if the said Su33s come laden with bombs to attack our ports, how do they put our land based Su30MKIs at a disadvantage?

To summarize my thoughts:
- There is a spectrum of capabilities past, present and future that a CV can bring to table. USN has a clear idea about what it wants to do with carriers and implements that with heavy budgets. China has a clear idea of what the USN carriers look like and implements regatta-parity using heavy budgets. India has clear idea about budgets and what it does not want to do with carriers, much to our anguish.
- CVs are offensive weapons, not defensive. It is not optimal to use it to engage as defense against a surface fleet alone, even if the said surface fleet is a hostile CBG. It is best used for an offensive action against a complex combination of land, sea and air targets, which means it ranges from attack on ports defended by airpower to amphibious assault support to full-on land attack.
- Indian Navy has a good plan with the current fleet of SSKs for littoral defense against a Chinese CBG, the long range Brahmos on land based Su30s and the upcoming six SSNs for future longer range mission-kill threats to chinese CBGs
- Another two Vikrant class or evolved Vikrant class would help in reducing refit outage risks during bad times
Last edited by hnair on 19 Nov 2021 02:19, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edited: added smileys to convey sarcasm
RishiChatterjee
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by RishiChatterjee »

Rakesh wrote:
RishiChatterjee wrote:Am Indian CATOBAR is very unlikely. Teddy is being fully designed to cater to taking off from ski-jumps. Doesn't even have serpentine intake as they'd cost it a few kN of wet thrust.

Comparable to Rafale's MTOW, but 100-115kN each instead of 75kN.
There are reportedly two variants coming. Confirmed at Aero India 2021.

One STOBAR variant and the other will be CATOBAR.
No, they said we can do it, if a CATOBAR-version is needed. On the present variant they said smthing like "it can't be fully stealthy as we can't have basic serpentine intakes to not compromise with the wet-thrust needed to takeoff from sky-jump with payload".

Before that i didn't even know that intakes' shape have such effect. And if Mig-29k can take off with 5 ton payload, then Teddy should comfortably do with with more. Then they'll have no incentive towards a costly, complex CATOBAR.
Last edited by RishiChatterjee on 19 Nov 2021 10:33, edited 6 times in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

My bad Sirjee. You are correct. They can do a CATOBAR if required.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

^Agree with everything HNairji said except this part:
If 10 Su33 streaking towards an Indian CBG fires 200 (I am sure they can carry more, but I tend to underestimate chinese) PL-15s at 5 Mig29s on CAP firing back 20 Astra (four AAM can be easily carried), why is that a huge disadvantage to ski-jump carriers?
No flanker variant can carry 20 AAMs, not ten the mighty Su34. Their payload capacity is only marginally higher than the mig29k. Hence the russkis preferred it over the Su as the latest acquisition for the kuznetsov.

The Chinese 33 might get decent sensor upgrades but the current 29k has an edge until then. Once the tedbf comes along of the navy gets additional interim birds, this advantage will again turn sides.

All in all, it will be a shame if the Navy didn't pursue another vikrant class CV, perhaps a slightly stretched one.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

RishiChatterjee wrote:Am Indian CATOBAR is very unlikely. Teddy is being fully designed to cater to taking off from ski-jumps. Doesn't even have serpentine intake as they'd cost it a few kN of wet thrust.

Comparable to Rafale's MTOW, but 100-115kN each instead of 75kN.
Wouldn't lack of SERPENTINE intake make it less stealthy compared to Tejas which has SERPENTINE INTAKES?

I thought we will stick to S or Y shaped INTAKES in all indigenous platforms be it Tejas, AMCA or TEDBF.
RishiChatterjee
BRFite
Posts: 125
Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by RishiChatterjee »

Manish_Sharma wrote:
RishiChatterjee wrote:Am Indian CATOBAR is very unlikely. Teddy is being fully designed to cater to taking off from ski-jumps. Doesn't even have serpentine intake as they'd cost it a few kN of wet thrust.

Comparable to Rafale's MTOW, but 100-115kN each instead of 75kN.
Wouldn't lack of SERPENTINE intake make it less stealthy compared to Tejas which has SERPENTINE INTAKES?

I thought we will stick to S or Y shaped INTAKES in all indigenous platforms be it Tejas, AMCA or TEDBF.
There are more factors to observability than just serpentine-intakes, there Teddy should be ahead. Maybe they'll use a screen like in Su-57
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Reading some of the discussion about the need for larger aircraft carriers and the types of ships.

I am taken back to the original 10 year plan for the Indian Navy. Which stated that the navy would have 2 light carriers and 4 full size aircraft carriers with a total of 280 deployed aircrafts.

Haven't read that document for several years. In order to present the strategic rationale on the forum.

But going forward, I think that an accomplishment of this plan would be a good start. In order to create a strong deterrence capacity against PLAN which is likely to exist by 2050.

Such a force when coupled with land based air assets and anti ship missiles and a capable submarine force. Makes any PLAN expedition in IOR against India a sucidal proposition during war time.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

RishiChatterjee wrote:
There are more factors to observability than just serpentine-intakes, there Teddy should be ahead. Maybe they'll use a screen like in Su-57
Yes you are right, Austin saar had written same thing sometime back:
Austin wrote:
Sumeet wrote:Su 57 is not a proper Stealth design due to these and other reasons (Gaps between panels, rivets, rear side stealth compromised by engines, engine blades visible via duct, not stealthy if someone is looking at it from below [not flat/smooth like F-22], it has spherical ball shape IRST above and below). Comparatively AMCA the way it is planned is much much better.
Who ever told you that Flat Surface is good for Stealth ? Try to bring a Flat Surface near a RF source at 90 degree and try to measure the RF returns and then try to move the Flat Surface in different direction , The least RF returns comes when your Flat Surface is pointing at the RF source at the edge of the diagional at 90*

But you cannot design a fighter aircraft without flat surface due to aerodynamic reason hence using RAS and RAM is the only option.

Flat under surface for aircraft is also bad for another reason because of its large Wet Surface area which is draggy.

The Y Duct is an old design approach , Y Duct takes too much internal space and during High Angle of Attack they would starve the engine of air which can lead to flame out, The Only reason Y Duct was adopted because its simpler to design.

A better approach is to design a Blocker which does not compromises the Air Intake at any angle of Attack and Hides the Engine Blade but that is a more sophisticated approach which PAK-FA has adopted.


The only western LO aircraft using Blocker Approach was Boeing X-32, Again its one thing to Design a Blocker and another thing to Design a Sophisticated one that does not Starve the Engine of Air at Any Angle of Attack, PAK-FA Blocker is a Dynamic one that adapts itself to AOA and there is a patent information available on the net if you search

The Rear Engine thing is taken care by Serated Nozzle , I have posted the picture above and another option is 2 D Nozzle , Both option are presented to RuAF and its upto them to decide which one they want , 3D Nozzle has the advantage that it will alllow the Nozzle Movement in any direction and give aircraft manouveribility while a 2 D engine can have just pitch and yaw movement and better for LO but compromised manouveribility.


Indranil had already dealt on Stealth Aspect of PAK-FA many times and even he came to conclusion LO of PAK-FA is no better or worse than F-35 or F-22.

With 11.5 Tons of Internal Fuel , 1500 km of Super Cruise Range ( Supersonic without AB ) and more than 3500 in subsonic range , With Supermanouverbility out classing even Su-35 , PAK-FA will be more than competitive to any flying aircraft.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Cain Marko wrote:^Agree with everything HNairji said except this part:
If 10 Su33 streaking towards an Indian CBG fires 200 (I am sure they can carry more, but I tend to underestimate chinese) PL-15s at 5 Mig29s on CAP firing back 20 Astra (four AAM can be easily carried), why is that a huge disadvantage to ski-jump carriers?
No flanker variant can carry 20 AAMs, not ten the mighty Su34. Their payload capacity is only marginally higher than the mig29k. Hence the russkis preferred it over the Su as the latest acquisition for the kuznetsov.
....
More reason to invest in radars and AWACS. If the Migs see the larger 33s first, they can fire their missiles perhaps using course correction through the AWACS and turn away from the engagement radius of the 33s. And as the 33s come nearer, they will be captured by the carrier or its battle groups radars and all kinds of missiles will be let loose.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Vivek K wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^Agree with everything HNairji said except this part:

No flanker variant can carry 20 AAMs, not ten the mighty Su34. Their payload capacity is only marginally higher than the mig29k. Hence the russkis preferred it over the Su as the latest acquisition for the kuznetsov.
....
More reason to invest in radars and AWACS. If the Migs see the larger 33s first, they can fire their missiles perhaps using course correction through the AWACS and turn away from the engagement radius of the 33s. And as the 33s come nearer, they will be captured by the carrier or its battle groups radars and all kinds of missiles will be let loose.
Don't think aew can give mid course updates to missiles that have been fired. That will be the job of fighters fcr.
Post Reply