Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 12 Jun 2016 04:28

NRao wrote:@dhananjay's post.

I think the cheapest solution for India is to absolutely contain.......


The answer gives a meaning to my post, I didn't intend at all... No idea is not SAVING MONEY !

But using it in a Not-all-eggs-in-one-basket way

The FEAR being created by US & co. is that yellows are making a big carrier and they will come with it and crush you Bharatvaasis !!!

THE ONLY & ONLY SOLUTION IS EMALS.... and remember we superior TFTA US command you Bharatiyas "you dare not go for Vikrant II otherwise our great offer will be taken off the table..."

My post was suggesting the principle of 'AESA' Radar..... where "in the AESA each module generates and radiates its own independent signal" instead of single block!

In case a big-bad armada of heavyduty chineez carrier starts for us, on the choke points our super-silent scorpenes will be lying in wait blowing them up. The long range Su-35s with tanker support can take off from Bharat bhumi and unleash air launched anti ship missiles, Instead of 12 tankers heavy A/c carrier; our vikrant 1 & 2 plus SMX ocean type 18 Arihant Diesel-Ion battery super silent subs can go for yellow reds independently.

Like Svinayak had posted couple of years back how Karl Inderfurth said in case of Bharat - Pak Yudh, america will support pak, and unfortunately Bharat isn't using much weapons from US otherwise we'd sanction cripple them.

Well thats changing very fast.

So nope no saving money, instead 18 Arihant Diesels, 90 Su-35s, 6 tankers, 9 Samudragupt class missile cruisers can be had.

Anyway in case its gonna be over by 2030 why waste so much on a white elephant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suits US - UK fine to suck all our funds into one big juicy target, that'd be dependent on their dayaa !!!

Plus its degrading for US to put conditions to Bharat that if you go for Vikrant-II, we will take back our offer of EMALS.

When putin put such condition on only selling us latest fcv if we promise not to develop our own, we told him to eff off.... so should we do with control freak US.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 12 Jun 2016 06:40

brar_w wrote:
That is speculation just to make it appear that USA intrusive inspection is somehow justified!

...


Basically the thing is about dignity. Which is violated by having to line up purchased platforms for inspection....

The US specially has an expression "the customer is always right...." such is the status of The Customer in US culture

If you go for govt. job a medical test is done, you are stripped naked by doctor in line ....

But if the same person who has gone through this test goes to buy a whirlpool washing machine and the dealer says every year we'll come to your home to inpect that you aren't letting godrej co. etc. stealing our tech.... that same person will say eff off and go buy Godrej. Now still there may be small masochistic percentage who'll be ready for this deal, but we shouldn't thats all.

All the talk and accusation is again Bharat, even by those shubhchintaks... that Bharat should shed the "Fear" and move. Hah !
Great labling this "Fear", also people say its not 90s or 80s anymore, but I never see US changing a single of its law of soup inspections, the question I asked is why US has "Fear" that its equipment will be misused or opened up by allowing russkies? why not let these soup treaties die in 21st century, US should give up its "Fear"

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4970
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Jun 2016 08:39

Philip wrote:The IN has for decades wanted 3 carriers.In fact I may be right in that at a v.early time in its history it wss looking at 5.
Philip: I think the IN will firmly react to the numbers and capabilities PLAN plans to have, subject to budgets. An aggressive defense posture is to be presumed by the IN for the foreseeable future. The IN should firmly focus on fortress IOR with forays into the Indo-China seas with the help of relationships with its littoral states. We need some strong bi-lateral arrangements with the navies of the littoral states of the ICS and this is where I expect action by the GoI. If the strategic alignment with the US does not allow for these type of independent arrangements then it will be clear that the US is an obstructionist to India's strategic rise and any such alignment with the US has to be questioned.

The IN ought to push for a nuclear propelled carrier in its own right, a project that can be realized with Russian assistance. The idea is to have a common propulsion with the SSN project. An Akula sized reactor will do the job and also bring in economies of scale. BARC is the lynchpin in this decision. Of course two of them on the carrier version.

Catapults et al can be added or put on subsequent carriers. The envisioned fighters can be a N-FGFA, N-LCA and in due course N-AMCA. 65k tons sized would be ideal. We have some time to play with two carriers in hand. In addition need to work on an IOR SOSUS project to deter PLAN and others' forays. All of this to be managed within a $2 billion annual capital acquisition budget for ALL of the naval fleet!!

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4970
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Jun 2016 10:03

uddu wrote:On what case, are we concluding that Vietnam or Philippines will allow us to use their airbase?
Vietnam has been known to have offered us basing facilities in Nha Trang and docking facilities in Cam Ranh Bay in 2011 and 2014.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 12 Jun 2016 14:30

Dhananjay wrote:


So nope no saving money, instead 18 Arihant Diesels, 90 Su-35s, 6 tankers, 9 Samudragupt class missile cruisers can be had.

Anyway in case its gonna be over by 2030 why waste so much on a white elephant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Plus its degrading for US to put conditions to Bharat that if you go for Vikrant-II, we will take back our offer of EMALS.

When putin put such condition on only selling us latest fcv if we promise not to develop our own, we told him to eff off.... so should we do with control freak US.


Where are you getting these numbers from ?!
Also what's your source of US refusing EMALs if we go in for Vik Ii ?

The decision for a 65k T carrier is a strategic one which will impact INs carrier aviation capability for the next 50 years. In that timeframe China is looking to field 5-6 Liaoning type carriers.

One must look at the larger picture before shooting down procurement plans as white elephant and what not.

About 20 years back I bet no one in their wild dreams would have thought of IN inducting destroyers which cost almost a billion.. yet we are on track to induct about 6 of them @ P15 and follow on class.

Also IF the EMALs carrier is ordered tomorrow, IN will NOT be needed to shell out 6-8 billion then and there itself.

This middle class accounting needs to stop.
The carrier decision is NOT at the cost of subs or other platforms..

@Su35s, why even go for them when you operate a flankerf fleet of 300 ! Our MKIs have reportedly conducted 15 + hour missions .. even if one takes avg speed at 600kph, it pretty much let's them be at OZ and anywhere on the south China sea.. it can and will be done if need be, but to suggest such patrols is ludicrous..

India based long range fighters can never replace forward deployed carrier based ones. Sorties however can be planned to complement them.

The Viraat in 2016 was still relevant wrt to Pakis, not so much wrt to Chinese.

Considering our limited budget for now, it makes sense to spend that money wisely and gain a technological edge wrt PLAN.by the 2030s their varyag clones will start coming out in numbers. The middle class planners would lambast the then GoI, why didn't you go in for more carriers, zero foresight!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jun 2016 16:54

A few pages ago, we had been discussing the Cost of the EMALS and trying to nail down current cost data. The USN, currently expects to pay approximately $200 Million per EMALS in TY$ (Then year $), $115 Million in 2000 $'s. or between $700-800 Million per ship. Thats for the first 3 ships but of course the cost will be on a curve, with the second and third ship systems coming in at a lower cost than the first system.

PS: The cost of the Gorshkov/Vik-A plus the 45 MIG-29Ks are easily available,half of the aircraft acquired will be aboard the new Vikrant along with LCAs when available.The Vikrant's cost will be known after completion as there has been cost escalation during the project.


The final negotiated price for the VikA (ordered in 2004) refurbish was $2.3 Billion. For the IAC-1, I am getting a cost figure of $561 Million for Phase I and $3.1 Billion for completion, for a combined cost of $3.6 Billion?. If these data are correct, thats a 50% increase in carrier procurement cost from the VikA to IAC-1, not adjusted for inflation. If this trend holds, IAC-2 could have a threshold cost of around $5 Billion with an objective closer to $ 4 Billion given that there's likely to be a decade between IAC-1 induction, and IAC-2 induction if they go in for a higher capability as is being contemplated. 40K Ton displacement, or 65K Ton displacement, Nuclear propulsion or conventional, CAT' or STOBAR that's a fairly substantial trade space that at least I would justify given India's economic growth over the period (VikA Order circa 2004, to IAC-2 Commissioning).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 12 Jun 2016 17:32

^^^^^

Cannot say about Vickram, but the the Vishal was pegged at $5 billion - your projection is on that number.

Emphasis for people who are really interested, these numbers are only for the boat. Air wing and weapons are additional. Just to keep the discussion headed in the right direction.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jun 2016 17:39

Air-Wing costs will be tougher to nail down since a lot will change with the N-LCA, MKII and how the operational concepts are developed around that. A lot will also matter on how well the AMCA is executed and whether it can be navalaized rapidly. Besides these, the only real options going into the 2030's would be the N-FGFA, or the F-35C unless the Rafale production is brought to India under MII. The N-PAKFA/FGFA would need to be developed, as there is no indication that the Ru Navy plans for a new aircraft carrier are firm, and align with IAC-2. Not sure the Mig-29, or the F/A-18 would still be in production in the mid-late 2020 time-period but it looks rather difficult. If the CAT option is exercised one would have to (I assume) launch a completely in house certification program to get the Mig-29K CAT certified, since sending it to Lakehurst may not be feasible.

These costs however are a function of the threat and how the IN intends to utilize its carrier in the future. You can tone down the carrier air-wing footprint and gradually build it back up as the USN has done over the last decade. For example, deploy with less number of aircraft, or say just 2 E-2's instead of 3 etc. The air-wing is fluid, the size and largely the capability of the carrier to support the air-wing is rather fixed over its design life.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Jun 2016 18:54, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 12 Jun 2016 18:34

A few comments:

1) There is no alignment with the US. It is an interdependent model in certain areas of common interest in some specific geographical areas. But the bark + bite is real

2) Nations around the SCS have no bite, so they are expecting India to provide that security, that leadership. Agreements with them are good and there are some in place, but they themselves expect India to provide the bark and in worst cases the bite

3) IOR as a strong fortress. Well, the whole point as we type is that fortress has been broken into, with the presence of Chinese subs around A&N. Which is what has triggered all these mega noises along with the US (Shangri-La) and Modi's visit.

This whole thing, with the US, started in 1992 under PVNR. And had continued ever since. It has ripened under this gov. But every political party, specially the ones in power, has been a part of this discussion, since 1992. Heckler it looks like MMS was willing to sign off on the LSA as is

4) On using the entire Indian land mass and the "bases" from other nations as opposed to building supercarriers, will not work. It is for some reason that IN has had carriers all these decades, despite having these options. And carriers have a much larger reach and as they remain in international waters require no permission of other nations to act.

In addition, an Indian supercarrier can go anywhere and one such area that has officially been identified (and ignored on BR, much like SCS was a year or two ago) is the Atlantic. No use burying head in the sand.

The IN, if one looks carefully, has faced a fast changing environment. When ordering the Vik the situation was one . When the Vik arrived the situation had already changed (but not recognized on BR). By the time the Vikrant was floated the situation had yet again changed. Today the Vik for sure and to a lesser extent the Vikrant are not well designed for the situation. The situation bring the larger area: Atlantic, IOR, western Pacific.

5) BR is behind the curve on most strategy matters. Which is why IOR is still the focus here. IN , by itself, cannot manage any of the situations within IOR. Which is why she needs help. Not just against China but against a coalition lead by China in the IOR.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Suresh S » 12 Jun 2016 19:30

build both chota and plan for the barra simultaneously. India can afford it.Building one of anything makes no sense whether chota or barra.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 12 Jun 2016 20:10

A "carrier" - the boat/ship, is designed for 50 years. Small or super.

Indian naval plans call for an area from all around Africa, IOR and Western Pacific.

That in a nutshell.

The most cost effective way, IMHO, would be to push China out if the IOR. That should reduce risks and costs within IOR. 3 supercarriers. Sell the Vicky + Vikrant (as boats). Maximize use of Indian territories (not build everywhere). Follow interdependencies. And follow independent policies. There needs to be a bark. And the bite has to be real, supported by all Indians.

Culturally and politically India is not interested in land grabbing (PoK is Indian) it political arms twisting. Everyone in the region's know that.

That very broadly.
Last edited by NRao on 12 Jun 2016 20:11, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 12 Jun 2016 20:11

The Brits with their Illustrious VSTOL Harrier carriers of 20+ K t only and the French with the CDG (40+K t only) ,Clemenconsideredoch of yesteryear have for decades successfully operated in every ocean.With the advent of naval UCAVs with the USNdifferentding the pack,the need for giant super-Cs in the future for a non-superpower India will be redundant.There are other ways of skinning the Dragon,subs.

PS:Both the RN and French broadly settled upon 65K for the QE carriers which at one time sharing one with the French was considered. We could stretch the IAC design but unless there is considerable commonality in systems,sensors,etc.,operating 3 different CVs with diff aircraft and helo types will be a nightmare for the IN.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 12 Jun 2016 20:21

My, my.

India vs. Britain and/or France? Certainly making progress in the right direction.


As far as "carriers" are concerned, at least to me, the eq seems to be India > Brits + France (+ a few others). Just to reiterate, all this is about managing and securing global Indian interests in the future. So, no problem comparing India to a Britain when Britain was at her peak.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jun 2016 20:27

The Brits with their Illustrious VSTOL Harrier carriers of 20+ K t only and the French with the CDG (40+K t only) ,Clemenconsideredoch of yesteryear have for decades successfully operated in every ocean.


Yet the Brits themselves chose 60+K Ton for their NG Carrier, and had they had enough funds so as there weren't a trade (2 vs 1) they would have gone in for the CAT+CTOL option that is undoubtably more capable (at an expense of course). But then Again the UK is a declining power, with the 20 year defense spending unlikely to grow significantly therefore making the cheaper O&S cost - driving the design somehow justified.

French with the CDG (40+K t only)


France can operate larger aircraft including unmanned aircraft (Like the USN UCLASS) because they chose a design that could accommodate it thanks to CAT's. They planned to do the same with the three iterations of the NG carrier design they had shortlisted a while back, posted above.

With the advent of naval UCAVs with the USNdifferentding the pack,the need for giant super-Cs in the future for a non-superpower India will be redundant.There are other ways of skinning the Dragon,subs.


The USN's main push into UCAV's is thanks to the Steam CAT, and in the future EMALS opening up the envelop for them to design vehicles that can augment, and eventually take over many of the carrier strike fighter missions. It starts with Fleet Recovery and ISR with some light strike with the Current CBARS and it extends to a Super Hornet type Strike mission going into the 2030's with the FA-XX being a 'family of systems'. The precursor to that is the ability to launch payloads allowing the design teams to design vehicles optimized for long loiter, long range strike and incorporate true multi-role mission systems.

The X-47 was a technical experiment, with the vehicle size, range and payload coming out of an earlier program. You can practically scale up the design (hence the cranked kite configuration was preferred even though it has inferior RCS to the Flying wing) to accommodate more fuel, more sensors, a larger weapons bay etc. The design lends itself nicely to scalability. It would be a nightmare of having to do all that, with a STOVL requirement.



PS:Both the RN and French broadly settled upon 65K for the QE carriers which at one time sharing one with the French was considered. We could stretch the IAC design but unless there is considerable commonality in systems,sensors,etc.,operating 3 different CVs with diff aircraft and helo types will be a nightmare for the IN


Sensors, and mission systems including weaponry doesn't need to change just because you have a larger more capable carrier.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 12 Jun 2016 20:50

Interdependencies for you, one where a "carrier" will have far more meaning than in the past:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3744&start=1800#p2018453

I am telling you, hitch on to this Modi guy.





BTW, for what it is worth, the US just parked 4 CBGs in the SCS.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3256
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 12 Jun 2016 22:15

Future SLNS Sayural launched by GSL.

Looks similar to Saryu class OPV, but will probably come with a platform in the foxle for mounting a cannon.

Image

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 12 Jun 2016 22:26

NRao wrote:



BTW, for what it is worth, the US just parked 4 CBGs in the SCS.


You see US doesn't have an "unsinkable aircraft carrier".
Come to think of it, China has one such, just like India.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jun 2016 23:31

You see US doesn't have an "unsinkable aircraft carrier"


The US has plenty of 'land' footprint in the western pacific, both with nations where it is treaty bound (Okinawa for eg.) and independent (Guam) where it can rotate many assets that would enable sea-control in the SCS (B-1's armed with LRASMs from Guam for example is doable in the next couple of years). The Distributed Lethality is looking to expand this both on the land (more smaller presence) and in the sea (USMC's Flat Tops already have access to 5th generation aircraft and can pivot forces using higher speed V-22's). The problem with using land to eliminate floating presence is the ballistic missile threat. China can flood multiple air-bases and supporting infrastructure with massive ballistic missile barrages even using conventional payloads. This gets even more complicated when they establish conventional gliders. Defending against that is financially a loosing battle (Until EMRG can be leveraged) hence the distribution of combat forces to eliminate single points of failures. No matter what you look at it, targeting a carrier isn't as easy as just putting dozens of BM's on a fixed target that cannot move, and that is KNOWN from the start.

Image

One can project China's Economic Growth over the next 10 years and see where they'd like to be when it comes to the weapons count by the 2030's. A2AD is often associated with Air Defense Systems, but Offensive ability to deny capability is much more important

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 13 Jun 2016 00:02

My comment was tongue in cheek onlee Saar ;)

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 02:26

nirav wrote:My comment was tongue in cheek onlee Saar ;)

yup you and you gang are very good at that make tongue in cheek remarks, but you're not seriously studying this thread.

I've read each and every post + link on this thread for last 4 years.

If you had read this thread you'd have known that in last 1 and half year and specially in last few pages the comment has been made on lines of "If IN goes for second Vikrant; then US will not be parting with EMALS..."

But just parachuting in threads without continuously reading them; I won't spoonfeed you.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 02:59

The thing is US has 75 Arleigh Burke Destroyers 10000 tons, 56 submarines that too nuclear ones at that. Then on top they go for 10 nimitz / ford class 1 lakh ton carriers.

Russians are no fools they haven't gone for Carriers due to budget but they have 62 subs and 15 destroyers + cruisers. On top of that they may go for 1 lakh ton carrier that also doubtful, but going for 18 thousand ton Lider Class destroyer-cruiser.

Chinese have 66 subs and going for 72 now.

I wonder why some posters are saying "BRF behind the curve, chinese r making huge carrier there is FEAR on them defeating Bharat, unless Bharat goes for EMALS carrier.....,"

Why not point to those huge number of subs, destroyers, frigates? Why shouldn't Bharat match those?

The reason is that US has in its own self-interest made the offer... so become a big deal.

In our case its going to be an inverted pyramid, easily tumbled. I saw shree NRao's video on last page regarding development of US carriers from 1916 and why nimitz became 1 lakh ton. That is the best possible use this concept.

Now 1 such carrier if it is in dock for repairs etc. would be for a long time. What will happen if war were to happen then? Are we going to be like Karna "Wait Arjun my chariot wheel is stuck in mud..." ? Requesting enemies change of time and venue? Such a big Carrier would need big fleet of tankers too, more money sucked in.

As Admiral Gorshkov had said looking a Hind Mahasagar map that this is the best place for submarines to be.

As Shri NRao pointed out that forays for cheeni subs in Hind Mahasagar have increased, how does EMALS carrier detect and stop, cheeni subs? On the contrary EMALS carrier and its tankers will suck in much money that should go into more P28 anti submarine Kamortas.

Into more Submarines of ours. Yes in 90s no one thought having 1 billion Destroyer, then why don't we think today of having 45 submarines, 18 Destroyers, 18 P17a, Missile Cruisers first?

Apologies advance for taking a non-naval example. Once it was explained the difference between Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. The difference was RSS is force of pygmys while Hindu Mahasabha in creating Big Heroes. But if one big hero gets arrow in his eye like Hemraj Vikramaditya then whole thing goes down. But many smaller stealthier platforms with reasonably big carriers like Vikrant will be the correct approach for us.

And this is what Karl Inderfurth had said in last decade "If there is a war between Bharat and Pak then we fight by side of Pak or support them, and in future we'll sell more arms to Bharat so we can control/sanction them to prevent attack on pak..."
This not verbatim but I'm searching for that link, will post as soon as find it.

I am all for a big carrier with EMALS but for many other projects govt. seems to have no money... for MSC, MMRCA and under MParrikar spending has gone down to 1.5 percent of GDP.

So having spent so much money on huge carrier, but not matching chineez number of subs and destroyers will be zero foresight, in fact blindness!

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 13 Jun 2016 03:25

Dhananjay wrote:
nirav wrote:My comment was tongue in cheek onlee Saar ;)

yup you and you gang are very good at that make tongue in cheek remarks, but you're not seriously studying this thread.

I've read each and every post + link on this thread for last 4 years.

If you had read this thread you'd have known that in last 1 and half year and specially in last few pages the comment has been made on lines of "If IN goes for second Vikrant; then US will not be parting with EMALS..."

But just parachuting in threads without continuously reading them; I won't spoonfeed you.


Dhananjay ji,

Sheer speculation/Dhoti shivering lasting 4 years does not make it a FACT. 4 years old or not, if theres something ODD, it needs to be called out.

If IN goes for second Vikrant; then US will not be parting with EMALS...

This is very bakiesque piskologywise.
I just dont get the massive dhoti shivering for such wild theories.

India is an unsinkable aircraft carrier to Sukhoi long range patrols to south china sea thus not warranting the need for a bigger a/c carrier are just wild theories.

IN has certain operational plans in mind for the bigger carrier which will last for the next 50 years !
IF Govt is willing, IN is willing whats with this 'dont buy big carrier-buy chota carrier' non sense ?

Id remarked in my post earlier on this thread, this "middle class accounting" needs to stop. That its being done for past 4 years doesnt make it right.

Buy more subs,India unsinkable,Su35, other wild stuff - its just comedy.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 03:34

nirav wrote:Dhananjay ji,

Sheer speculation/Dhoti shivering lasting 4 years does not make it a FACT. 4 years old or not, if theres something ODD, it needs to be called out.
IN has certain operational plans in mind for the bigger carrier which will last for the next 50 years !
IF Govt is willing, IN is willing whats with this 'dont buy big carrier-buy chota carrier' non sense ?

Id remarked in my post earlier on this thread, this "middle class accounting" needs to stop. That its being done for past 4 years doesnt make it right.

Buy more subs,India unsinkable,Su35, other wild stuff - its just comedy.

Its jeans-shivering of you americaphiles that cheen is making a big carriers so let Bharatvasis go in sharan of US get EMALs...

How many anti-sub Kamortas? How many tankers? You have learned well from your masters accusing others of what you yourself are doing. Scaremongering "Big bad china carrier is in making... they'll come with it and destroy us... woooo US sharanam gachhammi"

Your choice you want to jeans-shiver USphile without reading the thread, I won't spoonfeed you.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 13 Jun 2016 03:52

You amuse me sir.
IN capital budgeting is based primarily on budget,operational need and threat perception.

EMALs is a future proof technology which allows IN to make the leap from STOBAR to CATOBAR and get a decisive edge over its prime adversary the PLAN.

The pitch for more subs,kamortas makes sense if IN has been told by the govt that it faces an either/or situation.
But that's NOT the case.

Considering our limited budget we are doing well to not just focus one one aspect of capital ships at the expense of others.

With a 2 trillion economy, a young demographic and a gdp growth rate of 7+% which can very well start hitting 10% in the coming decade it does give GoI options to lay a solid foundation for capital expenditure.

The suggestions to cut back on tonnage,emals,n power are primarily geared towards cost reduction for *now*.

There is a failure to grasp economic wherewithal of desh in 2-3 decades from now and also the strategic impact of penny pinching *now*.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 04:13

Chalo mazay karo, amusement karo, tongue in cheek karo, entertainment ka mazaa lo!
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6308&start=1240#p2028271

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Suresh S » 13 Jun 2016 04:14

Just thinking aloud. There are 196 countries in the world. Indians are present in many of these countries, in some in large numbers. Tomorrow who is to say if there is a crisis in say guyana or fiji or in the caribbean a carrier with long legs will come in handy both in power projection and who knows actual fighting.With India,s growing economy and it,s interest ( for me personally protecting the Indian diaspora is as important if not more important than the economic reasons )spread all over the globe u almost can not have too many carriers considering that we only have a grand total of one operational at the moment.

Ps- pardon me it is in refit. :D

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2016 04:25

US Marines were born because some Yahoo's from north African country decided to harass and then loot American ships, in the 1800s.

Today we have Chinese boats plying around Yemen to protect their interests.

It is the job of the MEA and IN, in that order, to protect Indian interests anywhere in the world. If and when Indian interests grow, India will establish a "Marines" unit. It is there in another form, but a formal one will arise.

So, yes, if something nasty takes place IN will be responsible. Just part of their job description.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Suresh S » 13 Jun 2016 04:35

If and when Indian interests grow

Indian interest as far as the diaspora is concerned were always there, we just did not have the leadership and money to protect them. They are apna, close to my heart.This includes especially indians who left or were forced to leave by circumstances there homes generation ago in the carribean, guyana and the like

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 04:40

Exactly 1 Sukhoi is in 1 place at one time, but 6 Tejas can be in 6 different places at one time. Plus a refit-repair of big carrier would also be around 2 to 3 years at a time. The world better have no trouble for Bharat at that time.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2016 05:00

You are right in most ways. Missing is the impact of that diaspora on the GDP. Meddling that does not impact the GDP will be handled by the MEA. IN will step in when the meddling impacts the GDP and MEA cannot stop it.

It is more about economics than about war.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3326
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 13 Jun 2016 05:17

nirav wrote:

....There is a failure to grasp economic wherewithal of desh in 2-3 decades from now and also the strategic impact of penny pinching *now*.


+1

Exactly. We have always been penny wise/pound foolish. We have thought small when just thinking a little bigger (LCA size vs just a little bigger ~M2K) would have won the day. We have felt safe punching under our weight, we have always elected to field in all innings.

The INS Vishal should be designed to be as big as it needs to be to future proof it. It will come 15-20 years from now and its capital funding will be done over a decade or so.

We can paddle around in the shallows or sail the seas. We've chosen/had to the former. It's now time to do the latter.

JMT

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 05:22

:roll: So having 45 submarines, 18 Destroyers, 9 cruisers, 18 Kamortas, and smaller a/c carriers in larger numbers is penny-pinching :roll:

Having one big carrier which would be often in dock for repair/refit is wisdom.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3326
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 13 Jun 2016 06:14

Dhananjay wrote::roll: So having 45 submarines, 18 Destroyers, 9 cruisers, 18 Kamortas, and smaller a/c carriers in larger numbers is penny-pinching :roll:

Having one big carrier which would be often in dock for repair/refit is wisdom.


Not penny pinching. Pound foolish. There is a huge difference. You have to start now taking into account a threat scenario(s) 15-20 years out. Not by looking in the rear view mirror.

Size matters else one could spend it all on 500 OPVs and claim that they can be in 499 more places than one large CVN can.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2016 06:20

Nobody seemed to bat an eyelid even when EMALS came into the picture. It was nuclear propulsion that attracted real attention to a "carrier" vs. other assets.

Fact of the matter is everything for a 65,000 ton carrier, with a steam catapult *had* been factored in - at least at a high level. Everything includes subs, destroyers, oilers, what have you. When and how often each would spend on a dock and then in a dry dock - pretty much everything.

So, what exactly is the point? It has even been published by the IN to boot!!!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Jun 2016 10:07

In case NR missed the point,Britain and France have a well-balanced navy each with large numbers of surface warships and more importantly,SSBNs and SSNs,which patrol the world's oceans. Look how just a single N-attack sub sent the entire Argie fleet banaval FGFA which are ck into port after the Gen.Belrgano was sunk! That never stopped the plucky Argie air force from repeated attacks against the task force ,sinking many warships and the MV Atlantic Conveyor which was a dummy for the two carriers.

Both 65K t QE carriers are STOVL vessels with ski jumps and will operate the F-35B.They abandoned cats because of the high cost,extra power/propulsion required,adding a couple of billions of pounds. The IN could similarly stretch the IAC-1 design (if need be) with a similar ski-jump config. The carrier could operate JSFs if available and found worthy or naval FGFAs once they've been developed certainly before 2025,which is the earliest date that a large Indian carrier can be commissioned.

Unsinkable carriers. The wars of the 20th century showed how vital these "carriers" were.Take malta for instance.Allied air power there repeatedly sank Axis shipping affecting Rommel's operations in N.Africa.The US's "island hopping" in the Pacific,using air bases on the islands captured kept pushing the Japanese back to the mainland and evicting them from their conquests.Why does the US still hold onto Guam,Okinawa,etc. if mere carriers are enough? What about DG in our very own backyard!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/ ... eignpolicy
US plea for British base to bomb Iraq The United States has made a formal request to launch 'offensive actions' from the British-owned island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean as America continues its build-up for the campaign against Saddam Hussein.
The base is a crucial staging post for the B-2 stealth bombers, which are being moved from their home at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. They can be refuelled on Diego Garcia before travelling on to Iraq to undertake bombing missions.
The last time stealth bombers were used for offensive strikes was during the conflict in Afghanistan, when they flew more than 7,000 miles from their US base to bomb Taliban targets


This shows the reach and strike capability of land based aviation,esp. bombers. The IN's TU_142 Bears are navalised versions of the Russian TU-95 Bear bomber,still being used today to test NATO/UK defences and conducting strikes in Syria from their bases in Russia.They can fly to S.Africa and back without refueling.The IN must be equipped with more LRMP aircraft like P-8s for ASW,maintain the Bear capability for LR strike and acquire more advanced supersonic bombers like Backfires or even Blackjacks if available.SU-34s too will be a potent acquisition with their ability to carry BMos,etc.

An IN with a holistic balanced fleet is the need of the hour.At present it is unbalanced right now with a great weakness in submarines,both in capability and numbers. It needs BMos capable diesel boats and greater numbers of SSNs/SSGNs. The IN should look to acquire more than just another Akula,at least 3 boats,which will enable us to have at least 2 operational at any given time.Building our 6 SSNs will take 10-15 years given the speed with which our SSBNs are being delivered. Austin in another td remarked upon the advanced capability of the Chakra compared with earlier Akulas.Yes,being newly completed,more improvements in machinery,sonars,combat system,etc. are there,including the escape chamber.However,the extra tubes at the bow for advanced decoys have been plated on the Chakra,and it does not have the sensors forward and on the sail as Ru Akulas have. Perhaps they may arrive at a later refit or on future boats.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 10:36

NRao wrote:Nobody seemed to bat an eyelid even when EMALS came into the picture. It was nuclear propulsion that attracted real attention to a "carrier" vs. other assets.

Fact of the matter is everything for a 65,000 ton carrier, with a steam catapult *had* been factored in - at least at a high level. Everything includes subs, destroyers, oilers, what have you. When and how often each would spend on a dock and then in a dry dock - pretty much everything.



You posted the answer yourself on page 29:

[url]economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/defence-ministry-eyeing-optimal-resource-utilisation-for-more-submarines-advanced-frigates/articleshow/52512208.cms[/url]

A reason for the rethink is the massive cost involved in the new-age aircraft carrier. By conservative estimates, the cost of construction of the carrier itself, without the aircraft, would exceed Rs 70,000 crore. The high cost is primarily due to the integration of the nuclear plant as well as the American electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) being planned.

As of now, the defence ministry has allocated Rs30 crore to the project after an approval by the highpowered defence acquisition committee last year. Officials have told ET that out of this, only Rs 2 crore has been released in this financial year for the project.

With other critical naval projects requiring attention — including two lines of indigenous nuclear powered submarines — a line of thinking within the defence ministry is that allocating huge resources to a single platform would not be prudent.

"The aircraft carrier itself is expensive and also requires a number of warships and platforms around it to operate at sea. We also have other pressing needs of the Navy to consider," a defence ministry official said.


So, what exactly is the point? It has even been published by the IN to boot!!!


Just like MMRCA was decided by Vayu Sena, 126 + 63;
Entered Parrikar ji and we've even the reduced order of 36 on the verge of cancellation.

The MoD is thinking on same lines as they see it doesn't leave enough money for 2 lines of nuke subs, Destroyers etc.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2016 11:58

No use partial info that is biased towards your arg.

That is an article I posted for completeness (not my thinking).

Part of *my post* (or comment on that article):

MoD officials. Need to hear from political wing. And service.


Vic S and others refuted the price quoted in that article. I also posted that I think that the US will help reduce that cost with help in design and construction. I posted another article quoting Carter on this matter. I have also stated that it will be an economic decision and if India were to have the growth they expect that addition cost for EMALS should not matter. Vaguely recall MP saying need to wait (??????).

And that MoD person has not stated anything about a steam CAT.

The original cost estimates for Vishal was $5 billion - for the boat (ref brar above).

I also stated we need to wait till Jul.

All that is lost? :)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17607
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Jun 2016 12:20

A plea from a former sr. IN officer for a large sueprcarrier,he dares to dream,and says we must...in Vayu. However,also quoted in his piece is why the RN cut cats and cat aircraft from their conventionally powered QE 65K t carriers,because of the astronomical cost! If the 5th largest economy in the world feels prudent to do so,why must India and the IN put all its eggs into just one ultra-expensive basket?

Secondly,where is the global "power projection" role that the GOI intends being the cornerstone of our foreign policy? Remember Clausewitz,"war is politics by other means". Is obtaining an NSG and UNSC seat going to be obtained by possessing a single supercarrier,or is the carrier meant for deterring the PRC? Either way a large fleet of second strike SSBNs armed with ICBMs and SSGNs with LRCMs will make more of an impression if mil might is the requisite!

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 12:24

Ji nahin! Nothing is lost.

You saw a free gorshkov with refit of 700 million became around 3 billion.

You remember and pointed out many times at beginning mmrca was 6 billion only. And now if go with original number would be plus of 50 billions.

If today cost is estimated at 5 billions it would stay that way 9 years later 2025?

Ok for nation like US with 75 destroyers of 10000 tons each and 56 subs.

If MoD releases that kind of money for 4 dozen subs and other platforms fine. But to have 8 billion dollar platform and separate for jets and tankers....

It will be putting a huge percentage in one basket.

I was reading a Mk-48 torpedo article sometime back, the US navy guy said if a submarine doesn't want to be found it won't be. Just for FEAR of big chineez carrier, we shouldn't suck the money which should go to subs and destroyers.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5052
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 13 Jun 2016 12:57

Philip wrote:A plea from a former sr. IN officer for a large sueprcarrier,he dares to dream,and says we must...in Vayu. However,also quoted in his piece is why the RN cut cats and cat aircraft from their conventionally powered QE 65K t carriers,because of the astronomical cost!

The RN picked a STOVL configuration to enable the RAF to reinforce the Fleet Air Arm as and when required (a la Joint Force Harrier). And the CATOBAR conversion was deemed to be too expensive because the construction on the ships in the STOVL configuration had already commenced before the Tory govt came to power.

Ordinarily I'd say you're wrong and merely point the facts out. But since I've already corrected you on this issue several times before, it seems you're determined to engage in some good old Soviet style propaganda. Repeat a falsehood long enough and people will eventually take it for a fact.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, ashthor, prahaar and 33 guests