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: 3334
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: 4758
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.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Jun 2016 13:55

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


Cost doesn't grow linearly from system to system. The $2.3 Billion for VikA was a retrofit and refurbishment cost. Had the IN ordered a completely new VikA based on the Gorky, it would have naturally been more expensive, perhaps closer to or more than the cost of the IAC-1. As I had pointed out earlier, the 100,000 Ton, Steam CAT equipped, Nimitz Class Carrier came in at just over $6 Billion, including changes that made it different from the standard nimitz. No one however is advocating that for the IN but if we assume the IN pursues one of the higher capability ships as in 65,000K ton displacement, conventional or nuclear propulsion with Steam CAT's, then $5 Billion does seem a rather reasonable cost figure. Again, there may be cost overruns since it would only be the second carrier India builds on her own but that does also enhances india's capacity to build these ships. I think paying $2.3 Billion for a refurbished vessel (excellent for IN's need no doubt) acquired in the early 2000's, compares quite favorably to building your own vessel for $5 Billion starting 2020-2024 given how the Indian Economy has grown or would have grown in the 20 years in between the two events.

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.


That assumes that the MOD, IN, Modi and Parrikar would take a look at a new larger carrier, and trade away subs and destroyers for it as in not seek it as an 'over and above' capability. What is more likely to happen is that, the IN would develop a long term (30-40 year) modernization plan and factor in higher capability vessels, acquisition strategy and fit everything into it and then make the case for a larger vessel.

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!


Viv corrected the actual history of how it went down for the RN, however I am surprised that for a person who posts so regularly on Naval matters, both domestic and international you wouldn't have known this ..

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 13 Jun 2016 19:07

Dhananjay wrote: Just for FEAR of big chineez carrier, we shouldn't suck the money which should go to subs and destroyers.



if one were to use such mathemagic then one could also argue, why even go in for a billion dollar a pop destroyers ? After all they carry only 16 Brahmos as primary weapon.

Unit cost of brahmos is pegged at 2.73 million on wiki.
Means instead of that one billion dollar destroyer which carries only 16 Brahmos one can get approx 300 Brahmos mijjiles for deployment on that "unsinkable carrier" :roll:

Should we not do that then ?
So instead of an 8 billion carrier we can get 2400 Brahmos mijjiles.
Enough to lay to waste any navy that dareth cometh in Indian waters. upto 290 KMs, but still ..

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 19:13

^ Again without reading properly parachuting in, these questions have been answered if you put entertainment thingy aside and do serious reading!

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 13 Jun 2016 19:27

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.



45 Subs = 45-13-6 = order of 25 subs @ 1.8 Billion each = 45 BILLION $ (diesel subs btw)
18 Destroyers = 18-6 = order of 12 @ 1 Billion each = 12 Billion $
9 cruisers ? Its vaporware for now, but the P17s cost almost a billion each = 9 Billion $
18 kamortas ~ 9 Billion $

Smaller a/c carriers in "numbers" = how many Billions ??

On one hand people are posting about how IN has a Capital budget of only 2 Billion hence cant afford 65k T carrier.
The wishlist above adds up to a minimum 75 Billion + N number of Billions for smaller a/c carrier in "numbers".

Its so ludicrous.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 13 Jun 2016 19:43

India as the unsinkable CV/N

5,000 Brahmos could obliterate Colombo from Kanyakumari :)

http://distancebetween2.com/kanyakumari/colombo

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 867
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby symontk » 13 Jun 2016 19:48

If you have $2B for capital expenses per year, you will get the above Navy for a total worth of $80B after 40 years

It is not ludicrous. That is how long range planning is done. Whenever govt increases the capital expenses, the plan will respond and change accordingly

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 13 Jun 2016 19:57

No, the argument was instead of one bada carrier we can get ALL of this. And a cpl chota carriers !

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 20:03

nirav wrote:On one hand people are posting about how IN has a Capital budget of only 2 Billion hence cant afford 65k T carrier.


Good to see you getting out of tongue and cheek remarks and jokes and coming to serious street.

Exactly the above point. EMALS / Steam ctplt carriers are for nation like US

It has 75 Destroyers of Arleigh Burke Class = Each 10000 tons compared to our 7500 tons.

56 Nuclear Submarines

There amphibious assault American class are = 45 Thousand tons

On top of such a heavy-duty navy they have catapult jets.

Vayu Sena has been denied the winner of MMRCA in 126+63 numbers, any day now even 36 deal is also going to fall, C-130 that crashed isn't still replaced why - NO MONEY !

Where you get money for 60 advanced jets for heavyduty carrier. First priority is himalayan and western borders where the territory will be at stake. There even MSC is on hold - NO MONEY

And having 5 billion dollar which I am assured won't increase like gorky or scorpene or every other estimated platform all over the world eg. F-35 which was done exactly in budget. :)

Now add 60 jets on it, though for Vayu Sena jets there is no money but money will be there for naval wing.

THE PYRAMID IS INVERTED. It will topple.

First put all the funds in 4 dozen subs, Vikrant II with NLCA. INSTEAD OF PUTTING ALL THE FUNDS/EGGS IN ONE HUGE SHIP/BASKET.

Hope you'll read this time 3rd time I'm writing such big carrier takes 2-3 years in refittment repairs, what if enemies cheat and have war at that time? Spanish lost due to heavy armada ships while light agile platforms won the day!

Karl Inderfurth wrote circa 2003-04 "In case of war between them we will fight by pak side or at least help them, in future we will try selling Bharat arms so we can control sanction prevent them..."
this is not verbatim, but i can't find it now in my archives though trying.

Locking our funds in big platform US achieves that.

you are horrified at Submarines numbers and price while you write:

Hope to see a 5 carrier navy based on the 65k design..


So money is there for 5 carriers and 300 jets?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 20:11

Cosmo_R wrote:India as the unsinkable CV/N

5,000 Brahmos could obliterate Colombo from Kanyakumari :)

http://distancebetween2.com/kanyakumari/colombo


Yeah your big daddy amrika has offered EMALS, now anybody putting contrarian view should be ridiculed by you americaphile gang buddies. Then report my posts for breaking the decorum. Fine.

Now this is how you and your buddy nirav's tag team is working.

I took an idea of saying in case smaller vikrants see chineez big carrier moving in our direction and report, we can saving the money have refuellers and 90 Su-35s with brahmos and asm missile which can take off from here and help vikrants unleasing there missiles plus help in air to air fight. I also presented my idea that Su-35 will have one pilot so more fuel more range.

Now this idea is made fun of by nirav that why not unleash brahmos from Bharat Bhumi. And you make fun of it as if it is the idea of THOSE CRIMINALS WHO DARE TO OPPOSE THE OFFER OF YOUR GOD AMRIKA.

THESE CRIMINALS WHO OPPOSE YOUR MASTER AMRIKA'S OFFER NEED TO BE MADE FUN OF PUT THEM DOWN. Hmm continue with your talwa chaatugiri.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 13 Jun 2016 20:21

Dhananjay ji,

either there is money for a 65k carrier or NOT.

If NOT, then there is no way there is money for 4 dozen subs !!

On the topic of Vikrant II + NLCA and the 65K Carrier the differential in pricing isnt going to be more than 5 Billion dollars approx .. The difference will only be in the cost of capital ship + air wing. Rest of the carrier battle group will stay the same.

What tilts the scale in favour of the bigger carrier is that the timeframe for induction for both will almost be the same, a couple of years delay maybe ..

Now the Vikrant II and the 65 K emals carrier both will operate in the 2040s to 2050s. while having Vikramaditya and Vikrant as back up ..

Its never going to be just the 1 BIG carrier in isolation.

The navy in its operational expertise values the added capability that an EMALs based N powered carrier affords it compared to a Vikrant II. If the opportunity cost of the switch from Vikrant II to Vishal is within Navys budget, why shouldnt it go in for it ?

We must also not forget that the Vikrant started as an "Air defence ship" which later grew in tonnage and had delays. It still will not be operational with LCA N air wing anytime soon.

The threats facing the IN arent remaining static in the meantime.
Destroyers/frigates/subs/N subs/Kamortas are getting built in the meantime .. and construction wont stop if the bada carrier is ordered.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1104
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 13 Jun 2016 20:29

If IN needs 3 operational CV's by 2022-24 they should order another Vikrant class soon. If they are ok waiting till 2030 for 3 CV's then go with 65K new design with EMAL by all means.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 20:45

You wrote this, on previous page:

Hope to see a 5 carrier navy based on the 65k design..


25 billion for 5 carriers... according to brar_w with guarentee on no price escalation!

I say first 3 will be 8 billion and last 2 will be 10 billion = 44 billion

Now as NRao ji and other supporters on this project will agree that this should be carrying bigger jets like F-35B OR F-35C, around 2040 they may have AMCA. Now these 300 jets will cost a sweet 100 billion dollars. Plus the carrier-based-awacs i don't know their price.

36 Rafale are 8 billion today price, 300 jsf or AMCA will easily go more than 100 billion with inflation.

-------------------------------------

Now it is my right to write an alternative that can be argued against but not made fun of by likes of u and other guy.

I say this is cool 142 billion dollar investment plus carrier based awacs for extra.

My alternative is 3 Vikrants with NLCA plus 90 land based sukhois armed with astra air to air and brahmos plus other asm with 3 tankers. This way Sukhois can be used both sides based on east coast they can go towards NE Himalaya if needed, or help Vikrants and NLCAs around malacca straits. In case Vikramaditya is not in refittment/repair then probably Sukhois won't be needed.

Rest Jaal bichha do 18 Arihant Diesel Electrics, 12 SSNs, 12 Kalvari class.

Add more P15Bs, P28s etc. Let chineez sweat and buy more anti sub platforms search for our 45+ subs

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8658
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Jun 2016 20:59

And people forget the escort ships a carrier battle group requires, we need budget for those destroyers frigate s submarines supply ships which a carrier needs

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 13 Jun 2016 21:00

@ Dhananjay ji,
You certainly are entitled to your POV.
I apologize for my posts which didn't have the right tenor and which are not in the spirit of discussion. My bad.
Got a little carried away.

That said,

Vikrant class with its STOBAR and LCA N will never be able to match sortie generation and punch of a larger N powered CATOBAR carrier which will certainly have almost a generational leap over the STOBAR carrrier.

Btw my hopes for a 5 carrier 65k class navy are just those. Hopes. Im not saying IN should pursue it rightaway. IF economy allows in the next 30 years, why NOT ?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 21:05

Aditya_V wrote:And people forget the escort ships a carrier battle group requires, we need budget for those destroyers frigate s submarines supply ships which a carrier needs


Exactly this is what i tried to write in my opening post:

Dhananjay wrote:Image

https://goo.gl/ubt5NY

So the scenario for INS Vishal EMALS is 3 routes:
ROUTE: 1.) Vishal Battle Group=
a.) 2 Kamorta P28s clearing up path for submarines
b.) 1 Vishakhapatnam + 1 Shivalik for AAW?
c.) Submarines = 1 Chakra + 1 Kilo (if it has range and speed)
d.) 9 Tankers for Vishal + 2 Tankers for P15B + 2 Tankers for Shivalik + 1 Tanker for P28 Kamorta

ROUTE : 2.) About the same as route 1?

ROUTE: 3.) = Double the number of tankers for whole Battle Group?

Hmmm while as Bharat's various armed forces chiefs has predicted future "short and sharp wars" which will be raging in Himalayas and punjab rajasthan gujarat planes.

A significant budget of armed forces will have been locked in this battle group which will go to Indo China Pacific (wrongly called south china sea).

Not to mention if a single sub manages to harm Vishal it will be big morale blow and talk of the town amongst war enthusiasts for next 2 centuries.

The other options could be what Shankarosky had once suggested though greatly opposed by philip. From Bharatiya Land Long range Sukhois with anti ship missiles accompanied by a refueller half way to reach around Chinese battle group release brahmos and nirbhays and turn back. Since Su-35S has one pilot and extra space for fuel it has longer range too then MKIs. Halfway they gulp more from Il-78s and while refueller turns back; off they go to unleash their missiles upon chineez......

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Jun 2016 21:07

Nirav ji, we also both forgot to add Tanker ships, supply ships in our cost lists.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2016 21:45

Man, this thread is moving faster than a California fire and causing as much destruction.

I am also disappointed in the level of technical knowledge. IF someone like me, who is not that technical (about number of assets, role of assets, etc) knows so much, I woudl expect people who are proposing actua; number know more than me!!

With that point #1:

Dhananjay wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:And people forget the escort ships a carrier battle group requires, we need budget for those destroyers frigate s submarines supply ships which a carrier needs



Exactly this is what i tried to write in my opening post:
Please read

Exactly why this thread of thought?

Please read the 2016 report by the IN. They are very clear about CBG and task force requirements. Nothing is amiss and yet people are adding ghost costs?

Carriers were planned about 15 years ago. They were always part of a "CBG" from day 1. And CBG were funded for. From day 1.

Now due to some mucked up MoD/political person costs in other places have gone up (Scorpion) - granted. BUT, that does not mean that the Naval Planners have not thought and allocated resources for three CBGs.



Which bring me to my point 2:

The cost of a EMALS +/- nuclear carrier will not buy much. It cannot.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 13 Jun 2016 21:47

Aditya_V wrote:And people forget the escort ships a carrier battle group requires, we need budget for those destroyers frigate s submarines supply ships which a carrier needs


Navy needs to do it, the budgeting.
Think that they would take care of it no ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2016 22:09

Now as NRao ji and other supporters on this project will agree that this should be carrying bigger jets like F-35B OR F-35C, around 2040 they may have AMCA.



1) "Carrier" and "Air wing" are two separate accounts. Please do not mix them. Oil and water. There is an overlap in roles, granted. But not in funds - they are independent of each other

2) Clarification:

a) I am not a "supporter" in the sense of rooting for a super carrier, that it must/should happen.

b) I am saying that India will produce a super carrier because circumstances will demand it. It is a prediction (which is why I often post "I am betting")


Out. Till Jul.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2016 03:22

A few comments:

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.....,"


1) The IN requested most, if not all, the techs for the carrier, not anyone on BR
2) The Chinese angle is a data point for consideration and therefore could contribute to an argument (either way, for or against, as seen fit by a poster). Also, the issue is not about China investing in super carriers, it is the shortened curve to deploy them that is critical. IN had made some assumptions and because of the Chinese speed of deployment it has caused the IN's plan to go haywire. On the carrier side of the equation is where IN had requested assistance (when Obama visited India last) in design first and then somewhere along the way help in construction came into the picture.

Just for FEAR of big chineez carrier, we shouldn't suck the money which should go to subs and destroyers.


It is called planning, for one.

Secondly, a "plan" for carriers have been in place since mid 1980s. It *all* started with a smaller boat (20-25K IIRC - I have a post in the IN thread on this) called the ADS. There is a very clear progression from then on. The 65K Vishal is not an accident or a figment of someone's imagination.

Will/could the Vishal "suck" funds? I am sure that is a distinct possibility. However, on the flip side, I would bet that there are other procedural items that "suck" even more.

Finally, a super carrier is a well thought out product. The US offerS make it that much more interesting. IN has every option laid in front of it and IN has to decide along with the political and financial components within the GoI. You can bet that the US would like to sway the decision in a certain direction, that is to be expected as much as India has expectations of swaying decisions on subjects like the NSG. Part of the game being played.

So, to recap: IN has shown interests in all the US techs being offered. And, funds are an open topic - point being a Vishal with a steam CAT was already in the pipeline, the EMALS certainly adds to that cost, but there are savings too from moving away from steam. Going nuclear will add further to the cost, but again there are saving for this area too.


Look how just a single N-attack sub (and the French cheated) sent the entire Argie fleet banaval FGFA which are ck into port after the Gen.Belrgano was sunk!


Added for correctness.





BTW, that noise you hear between the IN and USN submarine groups is to reduce the risks from the Chinese naval assets below the water. The noise could very well be that of the Chinese subs too. Possible.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16020
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Jun 2016 13:35

What the IN ,and any worthwhile navy requires is a balanced fleet. In WW2 thanks to some superb code-breaking,both the British and Americans were able to predict the German and Japanese war plans,especially those in the maritime sphere which enabled them to win battles n both the Atlantic and Pacific theatres. The Germans had no carriers, a decided disadvantage,which they countered by building a huge fleet of submarines which almost won the battle of the Atlantic.lack of LRMP support for the wolf packs and code-breaking by the RN,saw them lsoe the battle.However,even at the end of the war they were still able to produce an astonishing 30+ subs every month! The loss of experienced crews cost them severely.

The IN will possess a 3-carrier navy at some point in the next decade,that's on the cards v.much. We need 3 to have one operational on each seaboard. The conntours and size of this carrier are debatable,but at the present moment,the highest priority must be given to the nuclear and diesel/AIP sub fleet ,both for the strat deterrent and blue-water maritime ops. Allied to this are the requirements of amphib support vessels,which must have a flight deck to operate diff. types of fixed and rotary aircraft.
A case for study is the Spanish Juan Carlos multi-purpose amphibs,a slightly smaller version is being built in series in Oz. Plus the number of surface combatants of various classes is required given the expanded role of the IN in the IOR and ICS and the Sino-Pak challenge within the IOR itself.

Therefore,given the current financial constraints,a large supercarrier,air complement -which will be considerably larger than the IAC-1 or Vik-A,plus the accompanying "goods and chattels",the protective screen and accompanying logistic support vessels (at least 5 surface warships and a fleet tanker,plus an N-sub) will cost us anywhere upwards of $15B,closer to $20B. A very considerable sum. This is superpower class and expenditure,something that even the Brits and French can't afford. Therefore,only after the other elements of the balanced fleet are in place should we consider what the design for a large carrier for the IN should be needed post 2025. Until then alternatives must do and one has spelt then out earlier.

shyamoo
BRFite
Posts: 483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby shyamoo » 14 Jun 2016 22:08

Philip wrote:Therefore,only after the other elements of the balanced fleet are in place should we consider what the design for a large carrier for the IN should be needed post 2025. Until then alternatives must do and one has spelt then out earlier.

But saar, if we need a large carrier post 2025/30, shouldn't we plan for it now?

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 15 Jun 2016 00:01

Philip ji,
Even the Vikramaditya weighing in at 45k T will have its support ships tankers and subs as part of its CBG.

Why does a n powered design with EMALs @ 65 k T necessitate more destroyers as part of its CBG ?

One could say that the N powered carrier with 20k extra Ts would actually ligten the refuelling load on the tanker.. And that higher number of a/c with higher sortie generation + more range is a significant upgrade of its lethality.

The 15/20 billions extra just doesn't add up. Also a 65k T carrier is NO super carrier !

And yes,. a FORD class is not on INs agenda, at least for the foreseeable future..

I'd also like to say that INs carrier plans shouldn't be discussed wrt to carrier choices of briturd navy or the French.. they don't have a rapidly modernising and expanding PLAN to deal with in European waters..

IN doesn't have that luxury.
IMHO we need to grab hold of and sustain any edge we can get on PLAN.

N powered CATOBAR is our navy's choice for the next half of this century.

I'm afraid amphibs with limited no of a/c and capability just won't cut it..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 17 Jun 2016 01:45

A major data point.

Actually not for this thread, but does add value to the carrier vs. submarines debate.

Jun 14, 2016 :: India’s “Undersea Wall” in the Eastern Indian Ocean

Abhijit Singh

Is India planning to install undersea surveillance sensors in the Bay of Bengal?

It is a question that has animated discussions in maritime circles recently. A recent report in the Indian media suggests New Delhi is planning to undertake joint projects with Japan and the United States for the defense of its littoral spaces, including one for the installation of a sound surveillance sensors (SOSUS) chain in India’s near seas. In an article for a Indian defense magazine in April this year, Prasun Sengupta, a well-known analyst and commentator, surmises that New Delhi is considering Japanese assistance in the construction of an undersea network of seabed-based sensors stretching from the tip of Sumatra right up to Indira Point in the Bay of Bengal to prevent Chinese submarines from approaching Indian exclusive economic zone. According to Sengupta, besides providing funds for the upgrading of naval air bases and construction of new electronic/signals intelligence stations along the Andaman and Nicobar chain of islands, Tokyo plans to finance an undersea optical fiber cable from Chennai to Port Blair. Once completed, this network is likely to be integrated with the existing U.S.-Japan “Fish Hook” SOSUS network meant specifically to monitor People’s Liberation Army-Navy(PLAN) submarine activity in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean Rim.

The starting point for this collaboration is supposed to have been Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington last year, when India and the United States agreed to intensify cooperation in maritime security. New Delhi is said to have decided to move forward with its plans to strengthen its near-seas defenses after ASEAN defense ministers at the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting-Plus gathering in Lankawi, Malaysia, in March collectively stated their desire for India to play a security role beyond the Indian Ocean,

There is no official confirmation of these developments. However, it is entirely possible China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) plans in Southeast Asia may have served as a trigger for an Indian response in the Bay of Bengal. In an article last month, Lyle Goldstein, a well known China specialist, claimed Beijing was in the process of creating an undersea “Great Wall” in the South China Sea by establishing an array of ocean-floor acoustic sensors to detect U.S. submarines. China’s hydrophone system is reportedly modeled on the U.S. Navy’s SOSUS, meant originally to track Soviet submarines in the mid-1950s. Reports that the PLAN is on the verge of operationalizing its sensor chain may have prompted New Delhi to pursue an undersea sensor project in the South Asian littoral.

The more interesting venture, from an Indian perspective, is between Japan and the United States in the wider Pacific. Since the early 2000s, when PLAN submarine patrols are supposed to have turned aggressive, the U.S. Navy and the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) began setting up a chain of fixed arrays to monitor the movement of Chinese submarines in the East China Sea and South China Sea. This resulted in the establishment of the “Fish Hook Undersea Defense Line” in early 2005, stretching from Japan to Southeast Asia with key nodes at Okinawa, Guam, and Taiwan. The system reportedly consists of two separate networks of hydrophones, one stretching from Okinawa to southern Kyushu, and the other from Okinawa to Taiwan.

In July 2013, Beijing claimed that the United States and Japan had established “very large underwater monitoring systems” at the northern and southern ends of Taiwan. One supposedly stretched from Yonaguni to the Senkaku Islands, while the other covered the Bashi Channel down to the Philippines. In addition, Chinese analysts contended, large numbers of hydrophones had been installed “in Chinese waters” close to China’s submarine bases in Qingdao, Xiaopingdao, and Yulin on Hainan Island, even though it wasn’t fully clear if these sensors were all operational.

Fewer doubts remain about the efficacy of an older version of the SOSUS in the northeastern Pacific (off the Tsugaru Strait) and the southwestern Pacific (the Tsushima Strait) that Japan and the United States have jointly managed since the days of the Cold War. Analysts aver that Japan’s experience with working the system for over six decades has provided Japanese engineers and technicians with the proficiency and professionalism to install sea-based sensors in distant littoral spaces, including in the Indian Ocean.

New Delhi, however, would need to consider the implications of operating sensitive equipment with a foreign partner– especially the sharing of critical sensor data. In the case of the joint Japan-U.S.SOSUS, for instance, while the JMSDF and U.S. Navy personnel jointly manage the JMSDF Oceanographic Observation Centre in Okinawa, all the information is available to the U.S. Pacific Command,as the facility is under the operational control of the U.S. Navy. Needless to say, there are concerns that India may be required to provide its foreign collaborators with a level of informational access with which the Indian navy may not be too comfortable.

Some observers worry that placing undersea sensors around the Andaman and Nicobar islands may ultimately result in deployment of other A2/AD tools that China might find provocative. Japan’s activation of a coastal surveillance unit on Yonaguni Island, only 67 miles from the east coast of Taiwan, has been widely perceived to be an A2/AD measure. Reports suggest that Japan’s far-flung islands may soon see the placement of mobile anti-ship missile batteries and air-defense systems to bolster A2/AD capabilities.

Against the backdrop of a recent logistical agreement with the United States, and with other foundational pacts like the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum Agreement and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation in the pipeline, there are concerns that the establishment of an undersea sensor chainaround the Andaman and Nicobar islands might be a precursor to the placement of area-denial weapons – a move that Beijing would deem “escalatory.”

Inadequate return on investment constitutes another source of worry. The setting up of a listening array, experts aver, goes well beyond the placement of hydrophones on the seabed. A sound surveillance system requires steady economic and human investment, with the careful cultivation of an entire cadre of specialists able to interpret the array’s data output. The United States and Japan invested in their system for years before it began producing results. India could seek Japanese assistance in installing a SOSUS but could take years on training specialists and refining the related technologies.

Moreover, undersea sensors produce enormous quantities of raw data that require a dedicated system to sift and sort through. Over the years, the task of organizing the data collected has become increasingly unviable. The lack of resources to manage data-collection facilities has led navies to consider a proposal to treat the data as a marketable commodity, by sharing it with environmental scientists and civilian agencies for a price. In order to allow the access of data in real-time,however, the hydrophones have had to be connected online, there by raising concerns about the possible misuse of data.

Despite such worries, an Indian sound sensor array in the Indian Ocean could prove invaluable. For a country that has a major anti-submarine warfare handicap and a lack of operational submarines, an undersea sensor would be a godsend. India has so far not made any major investments in improving its sub-hunting capabilities. If it can install a deterrence system and operate it with a degree of competence, it could retain its strategic primacy in the Indian Ocean.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 17 Jun 2016 05:34

^^
Prasun Sengupta, a well-known analyst and commentator


:rotfl:

By the way its july already?

I guess only david axe and other f-35 pole kholars aren't to be quoted.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 17 Jun 2016 09:13

NRao wrote:A few comments:
IN has every option laid in front of it and IN has to decide along with the political and financial components within the GoI....


Wish of IN is being used here for personal viewpoint.

Example the Vayu Sena has decided that Rafale is perfect choice for them, you were dissing their choice as Rafale will be obsolete in 2036, OR IAF should just go for few leased Rafale and return them in 2036.

Though now when there is talk of f-16 and 18 you don't think they'll be obsolete by 2036.

Another angle:
India’s fleet of 14 submarines is too small to blockade Pakistani ports and interdicting its SLOCs at the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Aden; while also blocking China’s navy --- the People’s Liberation Army (Navy), or PLA(N) --- from crossing into the Indian Ocean through the narrow straits that provide access from the South China Sea. These include the Straits of Malacca, Sunda, Lombok and Ombei Wetar.

For all this, India can muster just 8-9 submarines, given the on-going need for maintenance and refit. Submarine availability was further damaged on Aug 14, 2013, when a Kilo-class vessel, INS Sindhurakshak, blew up in unexplained blast in Mumbai. Another, INS Sindhukirti, has been in refit since 2006 in Hindustan Shipyard, Visakhapatnam.

Meanwhile, even as India’s surface fleet grows, new submarines are not coming fast enough. Six Scorpene submarines that Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai (MDL) is building under Project 75 will only roll out in the second half of this decade. Another six submarines being acquired under Project 75I will join the fleet only in the next decade. By then, today’s ten Kilo-class and four HDW submarines would begin retiring, with many having exceeded 30 years of service. The fleet will plateau at about 20 submarines, if more are not quickly bought or built.

In contrast, the PLA(N) has 53 conventional submarines, the majority capable of firing anti-ship cruise missiles, according to the latest estimate from the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Furthermore, China is developing the new Type 095 submarine that can also strike land targets. Meanwhile, its fleet of five nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) is being expanded to 16-20 vessels.

Pakistan’s submarine fleet is growing too. China is selling Islamabad six Type-041 Yuan-class submarines to supplement its five existing submarines, which include three advanced Agosta 90B vessels, with air independent propulsion. AIP makes a submarine more dangerous than the diesel-electric variety, which must “snorkel” more often --- or come up to the surface to recharge its batteries. India will get its first AIP submarines only in 2018-19, when the Scorpenes start being built with this new-generation propulsion system.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/search?q=submarine

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16020
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 17 Jun 2016 11:08

The CBG escorts,support ships require other stores,ammo apart from oil.They aren't N-powered.Plus they will feature a much larger aviation package and human resources too.The fundamental issue is cost of the entire package of acquisition,maintenance and support over 3 decades,its affordability in a balanced fleet. Right now we require at least 3 carriers before 2025. The most affordable package would be a sister ship of the new Vikrant,perhaps with some modifications and "stretched" config.

The above posted sad picture of our sub fleet's woes and inferiority vs the PLAN/Pak combo has left us in a very dangerous situation and vulnerability.The UW threat is the Achilles heel of the IN. The report indicates where we should put our money first,into a rapid beefing up of the sub fleet through more leased N-subs,conventional,new-build AIP boats,and even at a pinch leasing/acquiring a few more Kilos for the sake of keeping numbers happy.

The Undersea sensors like SOSUS should've been installed at least in the A&N chokepoints a long time ago. We will now also need long endurance UUVs for the same purpose. This is where mini-subs and UUVs can be given to pvt, industry to develop while the major yards are busy with building N-subs and conventional boats.However,the cost is going to be huge and SOSUS,etc. are defensive measures.Nevertheless, "the best form of defence is offence!" More subs will give us the added offensive strike capability apart from the sub fleet's other role of sea denial .

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Jun 2016 13:55

The CBG escorts,support ships require other stores,ammo apart from oil.They aren't N-powered.Plus they will feature a much larger aviation package and human resources too.The fundamental issue is cost of the entire package of acquisition,maintenance and support over 3 decades,its affordability in a balanced fleet. Right now we require at least 3 carriers before 2025. The most affordable package would be a sister ship of the new Vikrant,perhaps with some modifications and "stretched" config.


How and why would a 'support ships' vary in cost, capability, manpower, and maintainance cost just because you put a catapult on your carrier? Lets assume for one second that they went in for nuclear propulsion and a 60,000K Ton carrier. Why would the 'support ship' aka battle group of supporting ships cost more compared to them going in for a 60,000K Ton conventionally powered carrier? Now lets assume they don't go in for a stretch. Lets assume that the IN has two hypothetical options. First is to by the French CDG, i.e. a 40,000K Ton class nuclear powered carrier with CAT's. The other is to buy a modified CDG without nuclear propulsion. What would be the 'battle group' impact of either choice?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8658
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 17 Jun 2016 14:15

Costlier the Aircraft carrier- lesser money for other ships and programmes. While I think a Big carrier is what we need from 2035 onwards, we would need to build anther redesigned Vikrant-II(should enter service by 2027) while we at the same time start building to have our own SSN fleets, Frigates, Air component, Destroyers etc.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Jun 2016 14:22

Costlier the Aircraft carrier- lesser money for other ships and programmes.


Not necessarily. The IAC-2 comes in at a higher cost than the VikA, has or will its support cost for the 'battle' group suffer? The point was that the supporting battle group cost is rather a function of what you want to accompany the carrier. If the carrier gets more capable, in particular the air wing it actually makes everyone better. Pipe in long range early warning to your horizon radars on supporting ships and there is an exponential improvement in battle group SA.

It all depends on how much capability one is looking to add to the next carrier. As I had mentioned earlier, the ViKA to IAC-1 cost is about 50% higher. Sticking to that, something that costs around $5 Billion in the 2020's is pretty much staying on that curve. I don't think its something that can't prepare for if higher capability is what they are looking to obtain through the next couple of carriers. As I had said all along, status quo, i.e. another IAC-1 is obviously an option and in the AOA that would naturally (process) be a baseline they will work up from.
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Jun 2016 14:35, edited 1 time in total.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1872
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby JTull » 17 Jun 2016 14:32

NRao wrote:A major data point.

Actually not for this thread, but does add value to the carrier vs. submarines debate.

Jun 14, 2016 :: India’s “Undersea Wall” in the Eastern Indian Ocean

Some observers worry that placing undersea sensors around the Andaman and Nicobar islands may ultimately result in deployment of other A2/AD tools that China might find provocative. :roll:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 17 Jun 2016 14:42

The larger question is IF the IN and the MoD have not computed ALL such costs and run them by FinMin and any other fin agency that may need to be in the loop. I am betting the time taken to design and build a carrier includes time to plan the rest of the support entities, their costs for construction and operations for their entire life and anything else.

When the IN proposed a 65,000 carrier they had to have recalculated every aspect of that "CBG". IF one were to read their own plan (of 2016) it clearly states about a "Task Force", potentially multiple CBGs. They would go through the same set of calculations if they considering a larger carrier than a 65,000 boat. And, I am very confident, that their estimators would be fairly accurate too, exception being construction.

As always, us civies included, we love the top-of-the-line. I doubt if IN is very different. However, I will agree that prohibitive costs and a balance between assets would be huge considerations. Having said that there would be biases for sure, that is to be expected.

Will they splurge? Perhaps they will. But will they neglect to consider everything - irresponsible? I think not.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 897
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 17 Jun 2016 19:37

Philip wrote:The CBG escorts,support ships require other stores,ammo apart from oil.They aren't N-powered.Plus they will feature a much larger aviation package and human resources too.The fundamental issue is cost of the entire package of acquisition,maintenance and support over 3 decades,its affordability in a balanced fleet. Right now we require at least 3 carriers before 2025. The most affordable package would be a sister ship of the new Vikrant,perhaps with some modifications and "stretched" config.


So what exactly makes a CBG? May I humbly submit that in the Indian context, a CBG will consist of:

1. Kolkata or Vishakhapatnam class with long range SAMs.
2. A second rung destroyer with surface attack capabilities such as the Rajput class equipped with Brahmos.
3. One or two Kamorta class Anti sub warfare corvettes.
4. A Fleet Tanker
5. One SSN.
6. The Carrier to tie it all together.

With the exception of the SSN, all of these combatants are already available with the IN, so to argue that buying a carrier will result in 'even more expenditure' to buy moar 'escorts' is nonsense. In fact, its not the other ships that are escorting the carrier, but its the other way round! The carrier enables the deployment of this combat group in hostile seas. By themselves, these ships would be destroyed systematically.

Further, if the carrier has a catapult, it can launch anti sub planes (the most effective way to hunt subs) and early warning planes (the most effective way to coordinate strike and to defend oneself from incoming threats).

The next thing to consider is, that we *are* going to get more carriers. INS Vikrant is not going to be the last carrier we build! So there is no fungibility between the money set aside for the next carrier and subs! The only fungibility that exists is between:

(1) money for a large carrier vs a small carrier. [For Indian shipyards, $2 billion]
(2) money for a catapult. [$750 million]
(3) money for the extra airwing. [20 extra fighters @80 million a pop, three AEW planes @200 million a pop = $2.2 Billion]
(4) money for nuclear propulsion. [?? Lets take this off the table, unless the Great Khan gifts us the propulsion. Though there may be lifetime savings with this option..]

Now, even a small carrier will cost around $5-7B overall, the money saved in the cost for 1 through 4 should be around $5Billion. Given that a Western DE AIP equipped sub costs around $1B a pop, the question that the sub wallahs needs to answer is, what will your combat group look like with these 5 extra submarines? and will your combat group now be able to go in hostile waters with these 5 extra subs?

Given that IN does not appear to be interested in buying more Kilo subs (perhaps because of sensors being 'not good enough'), that option appears to be a nonstarter.

Edit (Added later): Say, you are putting together a taskforce centered around a small carrier to face a Chinese task force in the Phillipine sea. Lets throw in our 5 DE AIP subs into this taskforce. Immediately, you run into a huge problem.. The subs cant keep up with the rest of your fleet! So you will need to 'pre-deploy' them, lets forget about the problem of sustaining their 'predeployment' with a fleet tanker.

Lets say, by a feat of coordination, all the combatants are able to rendezvous and face a Chinese CBG. With a Cat-less small carrier, our radar horizon will be certainly less than 200kms. So we wont be able to find the CBG till they (and we) are in range of each others task forces. Without a CAT, our weapons **will not** be able to outrange those on any Chinese CBG. Because we are infidels and dont have green djinns to help us, we will certainly take some damage from this confrontation. The Chinese carrier is also much larger than us (given that their design is going to be based on Varyag/Kuznetsov base) and carries many more aircraft, it follows that it will be able to absorb damage better than our smaller carrier.

Lets say, we locate the Chinese CBG, now word needs to go back to Vishakapatnam, and then to our subs through our VLF comm channel. Now the subs need to speed towards the Chinese CBG in order to fire their torps/missiles. At a helter-skelter (for a sub) speed of 18 knots, the subs will take several hours to get within firing range! And by the time it gets there, the batteries will be running super low.

Lets be realistic.. Subs are great.. but they are very specialized weapons.. somewhat like Special Forces in the Army. They can't be substitutes for bread-butter surface platforms.. Someone pushing subs in the place of carriers and CBGs is like someone saying, why do we need armored divisions? lets just have more SF regiments!
Last edited by sudeepj on 17 Jun 2016 22:29, edited 2 times in total.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 897
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 17 Jun 2016 19:47

Philip wrote:Nevertheless, "the best form of defence is offence!" More subs will give us the added offensive strike capability apart from the sub fleet's other role of sea denial .


The IN is Doctrinally a sea control Navy in the Indian ocean, not a sea denial force. Why do you want to put them on the backfoot without even the whiff of the Chinese jets in the Indian ocean?

If you deploy subs in an 'offensive' role and they go to an enemy port and launch their 300km range missiles, 10 km range torps at the enemy ships, what happens next? The enemy is going to launch sub hunting aircraft dropping Sonar buoys etc. Soon it will be joined by a fast anti sub corvette/frigate with a towed Sonar, pinging away at 150 decibels.

(Even this offensive role is only possible if your enemy fleet obliges and is caught in the harbor. If tensions ratchet up, because of the slow speed of the platform, they lose the element of surprise. Time is definitely not on your side in a submarine..)

Unless your sub had air cover at this time, it becomes a duck holding its breath under water. As soon as it comes up to take a breath...

Philip, our resident Kilo salesman needs to outline a scenario about how these subs will be employed and also answer the question, what happens next?

VibhavS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 16:56
Location: Classified

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby VibhavS » 17 Jun 2016 21:11

Gentlemen just throwing in my 2 cents on this very interesting thread. This has been one of the most interesting threads recently on the Navy. Please note the following is just my opinion of how the Navy's subs may be used.

The Navy knows that the DE subs they own though they have the ranges to travel to South China Sea, will be extremely vulnrable to destruction because it would spend time snorkelling and charging batteries. The inclusion of a AIP system does not change the facts as Sudeepj has already stated that they would still be painfully slow getting into place. In my view the DE subs are Sea Denial weapons at the finest, sit in one place tooling along at 3 knots and ambush any hostile ship/sub tripping their trap. Using these subs at long ranges without back up of Naval Air, Support and logistics results in the sort of battering the German's took in the battle of the Atlantic. Yes they sank a lot of ships till the Allies figured out how to exploit the weakness of DE subs. Namely:
1. Run on the surface for high speeds; or to recharge batteries.
2. Low speeds, once acquired avoiding pursuit and destruction becomes difficult.
And the AIP module just alleviates some of the shortcomings it does not eliminate them. I am not going to comment on the Aircraft carrier vs. Subs debate since I am no expert. But I guess you need a balanced fleet, you cannot tilt one way completely. Though I agree with the folks who state that our submarine force is short handed at the moment and needs significant rebuilding at a quick pace.

Coming to the matter at hand, a lot of folks have pointed out earlier in BRF naval discussions that Indian Navy subs would be used to block chokepoints - Straits of Malacca, Timor Sea, ensuring that the Chinese Surface Navy plays no role in the Indian Ocean or atleast are severly restricted in their options. This allows our surface units to go on the offensive against the Chinese Pearls in the Indian Ocean area, flatten their assets with Land Attack Missiles and Air Attacks. The subs can also be used as a sort of floating SOSUS line, the quietness along with persistence granted by AIP Modules allow them to classify and pass on targets to SSNs (which I hope we will have in the future).

A purely offensive role with out air cover running interference is inherent suicide for the navy's subs and espcially in the SCS area where the Chinese would have considerable superiority of number of assets.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12314
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Lalmohan » 17 Jun 2016 21:17

just as the himalaya creates an 'ugly stability' on land, the malacca straits and the indonesian archipelago create an 'ugly stability' on the oceans... neither side can easily dominate the other offensively. the defensive structure is too strong

this, plus nuclear deterrence will ensure that there is no indo-china war, but the cold war will remain

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3086
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 18 Jun 2016 01:50

Why are some trying to frame the Vishal question in terms of PLAN aloe or taking the offensive into indo china sea. IN must look at developing a comprehensive and broad set of capabilities that have to gel well together.

A nuclear Vishal will be constrained by the range of her conventionally powered escorts. Or, you will have to deploy 3X times escorts - one on station, one returning and another on the way. Thus, dramatically increasing the cost and effectively blocking off the fleet.

A numerically larger force of smaller Vikrant class carriers can be present at multiple locations and ensure sea control of IOR and approaches to the indo china sea. Even with a fleet of nuclear powered Vishaals we cannot achieve sea control there.

In any fight with China, it is they who need to enter IOR and not we needing to sail out to attack them as we can cutoff their shipping from closer home. We will have to rely on long legged SSNs armed with Brahmos and Nirbhay cruise missiles to prevent PLAN ingress into IOR effectively preventing them from PLAN to be a fleet in-being viz-a-viz a war with India. We need a numerically superior force to watch out for China's pet dog PN from catching us off guard.

It cannot be stressed enough, that land based air power is our trump card in IOR. A large force of LRMPs, AEWs, IFRs, Herons, Su-30s with Brahmos will give our fleet a protective umbrella that will be difficult to challenge for any adversary.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2016 02:15

A nuclear Vishal will be constrained by the range of her conventionally powered escorts. Or, you will have to deploy 3X times escorts - one on station, one returning and another on the way. Thus, dramatically increasing the cost and effectively blocking off the fleet.

A numerically larger force of smaller Vikrant class carriers can be present at multiple locations and ensure sea control of IOR and approaches to the indo china sea. Even with a fleet of nuclear powered Vishaals we cannot achieve sea control there.


- Nuclear Propulsion is not necessary for a larger carrier, or a more capable carrier for that matter.
- Nuclear propulsion does not necessarily mean a larger carrier

We have examples of both. QE is an example of 65,000 K Ton Class carrier that is conventionally powered and even lacks a catapult and arresting gear, and yet is quite capable for its mission and support. Similarly, the CDG is a 40,000K Ton class vessel, with Nuclear propulsion, a more diverse (or potential for a more diverse air-wing) air-wing. You can pick and choose capability on both those vessels. The British studied (and almost went in for) EMALS and AAG, while the french never really went bigger. Similarly, you can create a CDG with nuclear propulsion, heck the US even included multiple sizes of carriers as part of their AOA that were conventionally powered and had a CAT.

Additionally you develop a requirement and then see what satisfies that requirement. Requirements are made based on multiple inputs ranging from the threat index, to long term economic factors (for both you and your adversaries). You don't build something to a requirement and then look to reduce half the cost so you can buy twice as many of the less capable vessels. If they think they'll need a 40K Ton IAC-2, they'd build one, not look to buy two even smaller vessels. Same applies to a larger carrier if they think that is what meets the requirements.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests