INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

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

They'll make it work well because they are part of the larger NATO naval force and also because they'll do a fair bit of deployments with USMC on board. But I am certain there are forces in their navy that genuinely believe a single carrier CATOBAR that could operate the F-35C and Tempest (FCAS naval etc etc) would have been better. More future proof and more easily adaptable to chances in carrier aviation like next generation aircraft, and UCAV's. But they never really took that option seriously until late stages of their work. Fixation between their industrial partners (RR and BAE) was very much on regaining that STOVL capability and bringing it back into their navy. Whether that was pre JSF partnership with the US on concept development or prototyping to most of the work done on their next gen carrier plans. All focused on STOVL operations.
That was always the plan for the RN i.e. to be part of the larger NATO naval force. They cannot afford to go on their own, especially like the US. Most of their offensive equipment is largely American in origin anyway. So it made sense to do so.

I don't see what other platform option there was for them (in the absence of a CATOBAR), other than to go in for the F-35B. So while she has the shortest range and is expensive, that was the only one available.

And at this stage in the game, it will be hard pressed for them to cough up the funds to convert the QE Class into CATOBAR vessels.
ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 441
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ManuJ »

Rakesh wrote: Let me start off with this. My unequivocal answer is, yes I believe in the Indian Navy's long term plan.
Rakesh, thanks for humoring me and clarifying your stance. Good to know that your objections are essentially about EMALS and CATOBAR rather than about the carriers themselves or IN's overall plan. IN has been working on this plan for decades, with MoD and GoI support obviously, so for MoD or CDS to suddenly raise objections about the 3rd carrier is irresponsible. Of course, they have every right to ask questions about the price tag of the carrier w.r.t. the 2nd carrier.
Rakesh wrote: What is the Navy's next option? Because a third aircraft carrier is a necessity. Perhaps take a cue from the USN and do an incremental update on a follow-on Vikrant Class vessel. So something like this;
1) STOBAR with Ski Jump
2) COGAG propulsion (gas turbine)
3) 50,000 tons or max 55,000 tons
4) Wider lifts to accommodate any naval fighter out there.
IN's original plan wasn't far from these specs, before US came in like a Santa Clause offering bells and whistles. To be fair to IN, it must have been very hard for it to resist the offers because they represented a quantum jump in capabilities with a chance to skip a generation or two and to get their hands on technologies and capabilities not available to China. It's important to recognize that at the time of the offer, India's economy was going great guns and GoI was supportive of IN acquiring these technologies since it itself initiated and conducted the negotiations with USA.

With the change in economic outlook, the drop in defense outlay, and the change in MoD/GoI support, I believe IN has gone back to its original plan of a smaller carrier without EMALS. I think they're still trying to get a CATOBAR because that allows them to launch heavier aircrafts like AWACS and fully loaded fighters, and France has demonstrated its feasibility on a smaller carrier.

I am hopeful that in the end, better sense will prevail overall. IN will get to continue with its long term plan of a carrier-led navy with 3 carriers, and IN on its part will come up with realistic specs for the carrier that show incremental improvement in capabilities and one that can be built relatively quickly.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

sudeepj wrote:
What if they get lucky and there is a separate peace between them and the US? them and Australia? them and Indonesia? Lose any one of these countries and they get a clean passage to the Indian ocean.
What if the chinese get lucky and one shot all of our carriers(including the catobar) with a barrage of df-21?
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sudeepj »

m_saini wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
What if they get lucky and there is a separate peace between them and the US? them and Australia? them and Indonesia? Lose any one of these countries and they get a clean passage to the Indian ocean.
What if the chinese get lucky and one shot all of our carriers(including the catobar) with a barrage of df-21?
A cbg, at least in theory, can protect itself with anti ballistic missiles. No such luck with subs. Its the ocean equivalent of a heavy armored division. It can defend itself from the air, fight underwater attacks, and outrage/outshoot anything on the surface. Take the carrier out and you are left with a force that loses its air component, significant erosion in under water capability through organize anti sub choppers.. This significant loss of capability in one or more dimensions can leave your entire fleet vulnerable to piecemeal destruction.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

sudeepj wrote: A cbg, at least in theory, can protect itself with anti ballistic missiles. No such luck with subs. Its the ocean equivalent of a heavy armored division. It can defend itself from the air, fight underwater attacks, and outrage/outshoot anything on the surface. Take the carrier out and you are left with a force that loses its air component, significant erosion in under water capability through organize anti sub choppers.. This significant loss of capability in one or more dimensions can leave your entire fleet vulnerable to piecemeal destruction.
A world where the chinese can get lucky and sign a peace agreement with US, is also a world where a single chinese diesel submarine gets lucky and sinks all 3 of our carriers.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

ManuJ wrote:Rakesh, thanks for humoring me and clarifying your stance. Good to know that your objections are essentially about EMALS and CATOBAR rather than about the carriers themselves or IN's overall plan. IN has been working on this plan for decades, with MoD and GoI support obviously, so for MoD or CDS to suddenly raise objections about the 3rd carrier is irresponsible. Of course, they have every right to ask questions about the price tag of the carrier w.r.t. the 2nd carrier.
Right now, the reason to that opposition mainly boils down to the following;

1) There is a money shortage issue. To assume that money should be there versus money actually being there are two different things. That is like me walking into a Ferrari showroom, under the assumption that money should be present in my bank account to afford that Ferrari. But the reality is, my bank account shows that I can only afford a Vespa. But - as you pointed out - this is temporary. The economy will improve, but that will take time. The economy is not going to dramatically change overnight.

2) So when the economy improves (which is a certainty), funds will get sanctioned. But will that happen next year? This is the navy's response to that...

The navy runs into a budget boulder
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-f ... 2020-12-11
21 Dec 2020
If the service is unable to obtain an AoN for the IAC-2, their proposal will most likely lie dormant and be resurrected by the service when budgetary times are more favourable.
The problem for the Navy is when exactly are those budgetary times going to become favourable, because that has a direct correlation to the arrival of the vessel. The upcoming budget year (01 April 2021 - 31 March 2022) seems unlikely, but what about the following year? In 2022, the economy will be on the rebound, barring some catastrophe like COVID which wrecked the global economy.

So in 2022, the IAC-2 proposal will go for funds sanction to the CDS. For the sake of the Navy, I hope that the CDS in 2022 will be someone from the Navy onlee. If it is from the Air Force, the Indian Navy will continue to keep that project dormant. No IAF officer, holding the office of CDS, will approve an aircraft carrier program. But for argument sake, let us assume that the IAF-origin CDS officer approves the project (change of heart) and the AoN is given. Please note that the IAC-2 proposal will be one among the many proposals and wish lists that the services have in 2022. But for argument's sake, let's say it passes the AoN stage in 2022.

So now it has to go for CCS approval. Forgive me, if I have missed any step in between the two (AoN and CCS). By some miraculous event, the CCS also approves it in 2022. So now an agreement is signed and the steel cutting begins. By 2023, the keel is laid. From this point on - as per the navy's own admission - it will take 15 years for the vessel to arrive. So now we are looking at 2038 for this boat to enter service. And this is assuming at every stage of the process, it flows smoothly with zero hiccups.

But you are well aware, that is not how it is going to happen. Administrative, procedural and bureaucratic delays are guaranteed. Ship building delays are guaranteed. I can buy a lottery ticket on these guarantees and I am 100% confident that I will win.

So what is the Navy's counter till 2038, because nothing right now in the Navy's inventory will be able to defeat the invincibility of the CATOBAR. I am making that assessment based on some of the posts (definitely not yours), I am reading in this thread. Supposedly, the PLAN could have anywhere from 8 to 10 carrier battle groups in another 10 years. What will happen to the Indian Navy, if some PLAN Admiral decides to send in 1, 2, 3 or perhaps 4 carrier battle groups into the Indian Ocean, in lets say 2035. IAC-2 will still be another three years away from the horizon. Will the Indian Navy get decimated? Based on some of the posts I am reading in this thread, the Indian Navy is staring at a 100% defeat.

Will our one CATOBAR carrier be enough to take on the might of four PLAN carrier battle groups? Will 57 F-18SHs or Rafale Ms be enough to decimate four PLAN carrier battle groups? Apparently, the answer to that is a definite yes. And if it is F-18SH, instead of Rafale M, any aircraft lost in battle will be made up via borrowing from the USN. This is like that yarn that the NaPakis would spin in the late 90s about their F-7P aircraft, that I used to read on their fanboy forums. Supposedly, China had ready made F-7P aircraft waiting on tarmac in PAF colours. Whenever one F-7P crashed in Pakistan, another one would directly be flown to that air base, so the PAF always had a 100% fleet strength. But I digress and I apologise.

So what is the Navy's counter till 2038?
ManuJ wrote:IN's original plan wasn't far from these specs, before US came in like a Santa Clause offering bells and whistles. To be fair to IN, it must have been very hard for it to resist the offers because they represented a quantum jump in capabilities with a chance to skip a generation or two and to get their hands on technologies and capabilities not available to China.
Bingo! Correct. The Malabar exercises showed the awesome capability that a CATOBAR offers. It is no doubt effective. But that effectiveness comes with a cost and a pretty hefty one.

These capabilities were offered to the India via the JWGACTC (Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology Co-operation). A number of meetings have been held. The last I believe was in 2017 ---> https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/4 ... ised-india
ManuJ wrote:It's important to recognize that at the time of the offer, India's economy was going great guns and GoI was supportive of IN acquiring these technologies since it itself initiated and conducted the negotiations with USA.
Back in 2017 or 2018, when there was no COVID to ruin the global economy, this proposal for an Indian super carrier was shot down by the MoD on the account of it being too expensive. And the economy was doing quite well back then.

With the CDS setup now and the temporary economic situation, its odds of success are quite bleak.
ManuJ wrote:With the change in economic outlook, the drop in defense outlay, and the change in MoD/GoI support, I believe IN has gone back to its original plan of a smaller carrier without EMALS. I think they're still trying to get a CATOBAR because that allows them to launch heavier aircrafts like AWACS and fully loaded fighters, and France has demonstrated its feasibility on a smaller carrier.
As per this article, EMALS is still on the table and so is the tonnage. The navy has dropped the nuclear reactor requirement.

The navy runs into a budget boulder
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-f ... 2020-12-11
21 Dec 2020
The carrier will be conventionally powered, displace over 65,000 tonnes and be equipped with the US-built Electro Magnetic Launch System (EMALS), cleared for sale to India, which means it can launch heavier multirole aircraft like the F/A-18 or the Rafale and exercise ‘sea control’ over vast swathes of ocean with its 55 aircraft and helicopters.
ManuJ wrote:I am hopeful that in the end, better sense will prevail overall. IN will get to continue with its long term plan of a carrier-led navy with 3 carriers, and IN on its part will come up with realistic specs for the carrier that show incremental improvement in capabilities and one that can be built relatively quickly.
It would have been better that they cut the steel for two Vikrant Class vessels, instead of one. Or started the steel cutting on the second one, after the keel laying of the first one in 2009. The IN would not be in this situation right now.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by LakshmanPST »

I'm trying to understand things from Navy perspective...

Indian Navy want to have 2 operational Carriers (one each for Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal) at any given time...
So, they need 3 Carriers... And I believe, MOD won't sanction more than 3 Carriers for Indian Navy...
-
Let us look at the timelines--->
I'm guessing INS Vikramaditya will retire by around 2040-45...
INS Vikrant will be in service atleast until 2060-70, assuming 40-50 years service...
----
A STOBAR carrier based on Vikrant-II will take 10 years for commissioning...
A Nuke powered EMALS CATOBAR will definitely take atleast 20 years for commissioning...
----
So, if IN goes for a STOBAR now--->
INS Vikramaditya STOBAR ---> retires 2040-50
INS Vikrant-II STOBAR ---> 2022 to 2060-70
INS Vishal STOBAR ---> 2030 to 2070-80 (3rd operational carrier)
CATOBAR IAC3 ---> 2040 to 2080-90 (replaces Vikramaditya)
CATOBAR IAC4 ---> 2060 to 2100-2110 (replaces Vikrant -II)
CATOBAR IAC5 ---> 2070 to 2110-2120 (replaces Vishal)
In other words, IN will have 3 Carriers by 2030, but will be stuck with two STOBAR carriers until 2060... And will become full CATOBAR force only after 2070...
----
If IN goes for CATOBAR now--->
INS Vikramaditya STOBAR ---> retires 2040-50
INS Vikrant-II STOBAR ---> 2022 to 2060-70
INS Vishal CATOBAR ---> 2040 to 2080-90 (replaces Vikramaitya)
CATOBAR IAC3 ---> 2050 to 2090-2100 (3rd operational carrier)
CATOBAR IAC4 ---> 2060 to 2100-2110 (replaces Vikrant-II)
If IN goes for CATOBAR now, they will have 3 carriers only by 2050, but will have 2 CATOBAR carriers by 2050...
And by 2060, they can have 3 CATOBAR carriers...
----
This is probably the reason why IN is reluctant to go for a STOBAR for IAC2...
Coz. once they get a ship, MOD/Govt. won't sanction a replacement for it until it retires...

That is probably why IN is ready to play the waiting game and pushing for CATOBAR...
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by AkshaySG »

LakshmanPST wrote: CATOBAR IAC4 ---> 2060 to 2100-2110
Lol.. While I think highly about our Naval HQ's planning I can guarantee you that they're not making plans based on what they would have in 2070... Let alone in the 2100's


Right now they simply want the shiniest, biggest, baddest toy available in whole shop so that they can continue to lord it over their neighbours. The Navy and IAF (with their MRCA) seem to operate on the belief that if they keep asking, keep creating new competitions and keep pestering the govt then one day they'll get their way.


Ships are made in "classes" for a reason, Even the mighty USN didn't jump from one complex carrier type to another with the experience of building/operating just one ship of the previous class.

The whole 3 carriers (2 in service and one in refit) went out of the window when they refused to press on for IAC-2 with the same design as Vikrant, The moment it became "65k tons and EMALS/CATOBAR meant that it would need a long design phase followed by a long construction phase and be very expensive.

Even if ordered today i don't see it coming before late 2030's early 2040s by which time Viky would be 60+ years old and be on the way out.. So you end in the EXACT SAME SITUATION as today ( one new boat coming in, one old boat going out and one in its prime)

The obvious solution would be to order two AC's of whatever the next type would be but unless Bezos names Indian Navy in his will I don't see a chance of them ever having the money for it.


If IN remains hell bent about a CATOBAR carrier then tell them yes and keep delaying till we have money for it. (We're experts at that anyway)
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by srin »

Rakesh wrote: So now it has to go for CCS approval. Forgive me, if I have missed any step in between the two (AoN and CCS). By some miraculous event, the CCS also approves it in 2022. So now an agreement is signed and the steel cutting begins. By 2023, the keel is laid. From this point on - as per the navy's own admission - it will take 15 years for the vessel to arrive. So now we are looking at 2038 for this boat to enter service. And this is assuming at every stage of the process, it flows smoothly with zero hiccups.
I think you are being over optimistic here. I don't believe that the design for the 65K IAC-2 with EMALS is actually done. It will probably formally begin once the AON is given.

If we are ordering more Vikrant-class carriers, that's one thing. But if we are changing it in a major way, then it'll have to be redesigned.

It'll take 10 years for another Vikrant.

But we want to make it a 65K ton ship, so we need to redesign.

Then we get a bit greedy and want to put steam catapults. Because we can then operate gold-plated E2-Ds from there. More complexity, more procurement delays etc.

Then, we get into insanity and want to think of EMALS. Now we are deep trouble - timewise and costwise.

That's how we have ended up in this situation.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by srin »

One more thing. Piggybacking on IAF MMRCA (or whatever the heck it is called now) is going to result in hilarity.

Say Rafale wins again. How is the Navy going to operate Rafale-Ms with the wings that don't fit on the lifts ?
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sudeepj »

m_saini wrote:
sudeepj wrote: A cbg, at least in theory, can protect itself with anti ballistic missiles. No such luck with subs. Its the ocean equivalent of a heavy armored division. It can defend itself from the air, fight underwater attacks, and outrage/outshoot anything on the surface. Take the carrier out and you are left with a force that loses its air component, significant erosion in under water capability through organize anti sub choppers.. This significant loss of capability in one or more dimensions can leave your entire fleet vulnerable to piecemeal destruction.
A world where the chinese can get lucky and sign a peace agreement with US, is also a world where a single chinese diesel submarine gets lucky and sinks all 3 of our carriers.
It took a Donald Trump to upset the apple cart vis-a-vis China. Most in Biden admin are graduates of the Obama admin, which believed in 'managing the decline of the US', not in US exceptionalism. If the US does not have an exceptionalist self view, there is no reason for them to not cede at least part of the commons to the Chinese. Chinese are deeply embedded in the US. In many cases, Chinese elite are figuratively and literally sleeping with the US elite. A peace or a detente is not completely impossible here!

Its even more possible between the other two junior partners - Indonesia and Australia because they are comparatively smaller and Chinese have large sticks/carrots for both.

Lose any of these three partners, and you will have a hard time stopping the Chinese at choke points. If Chinese manage a significant base in some IOR countries, say they operationalize Djibouti fully and station a CBG there, you will have no option but to meet them in a blue water battle in a shooting war.

To ignore all of these possibilities and hook your entire strategy on a non-alliance is irresponsible.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sudeepj »

The navy wants a large carrier because the existing carriers cant hack it against the future Chinese fleet. Nothing works to take on a CBG sailing in blue waters, other than a CBG of your own. If the DF21 concept worked so well, why are the Chinese spending so much money to build up their super carriers? They dont have any plans for things like OIF etc.! Taiwan is well within range of land base airpower, so again there is no need.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

sudeepj wrote: In many cases, Chinese elite are figuratively and literally sleeping with the US elite. A peace or a detente is not completely impossible here!
Sudeep saar, imo whatever bromance is between the two is because of cheap chini labor. And chinese aren't going to slave for eternity just so americans can enjoy dollar store goods. Chinese are making tremendous progress in all areas; commercial airliners, semiconductors, automobiles etc. Considering all this, a rapprochement between the two is extremely unlikely. You just can't have a tacit understanding with regimes like the chinese, everyone knows how appeasement played out in the 1930s.

Anyway, all this is delving into a lot of hypotheticals and unfit for this thread. All I'm saying is it'd be really detrimental to our domestic MIC if we dhoti-shiver seeing the chinese carrier plans. What good is shipping billions of dollars to americans for steam catapult/EMALS, SHs etc going to do? You're never going to match chinese carrier for carrier. Best case would be to just get a STOBAR IAC-2 and invest whatever remains into domestic industry.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

srin wrote:One more thing. Piggybacking on IAF MMRCA (or whatever the heck it is called now) is going to result in hilarity.

Say Rafale wins again. How is the Navy going to operate Rafale-Ms with the wings that don't fit on the lifts ?
If the Navy follows through on the piggy backing, there are only two aircraft in the MRFA contest that will reach the end - Rafale M and F-18SH. Nothing else works. F-15EX, F-21, Eurofighter Typhoon, Su-35, MiG-35 and Gripen will all be eliminated. Why would the Govt deal with two OEMs, when they can deal with one? A separate fighter type for the navy will be very expensive and the navy knows that.

The F-18SH, as per Boeing, has proved that it can fit on the lifts. Dassault is suggesting detachable wing tips, but will have to provide another solution as that is not going to work. In whatever form IAC-2 ends up coming as, it will have wider lifts than Vikrant and Vikramaditya. So no issues operating from IAC-2. The lift issue lies with Vikrant and Vikramaditya. The Vikrant could undergo a surgery, if nothing else works. Doable, but time consuming.

The problem with the MRFA contest - just like the IAC-2 proposal - is there a temporary shortage of money. Time is also of the essence and nothing works in speed at the MoD. So the best bet would be more Rafales, but there is no money for 114 of them. Another 2 - 3 squadrons at most for the IAF. MRFA cost value is nothing short of $20 billion. And that is a conservative figure.

F-18SH for the IAF is not going to pass muster. There has to be something game changing on the F-18SH for the IAF to invest its precious CAPEX on setting up the infrastructure for yet another 4th generation fighter. And there is nothing that the F-18SH does, that the Rafale already does not do. The industrial partnership is in Boeing's court, but will be of value only at 114 birds. And nobody can arm twist like Uncle can. The Govt will have to convince the IAF of the F-18SH being a viable fighter for them. And that is going to be a hard sell for the Govt to do. The finesse of air power is not the purview of our elected officials.

I will say this though. If it does end up being the Rafale for both the services, you will read reams of diatribes from the pro-CATOBAR crowd on BRF. And that will be true, even if the Navy ends up with an EMALS equipped, 65K aircraft carrier. It is not even EMALS or the CATOBAR that is the main issue here. It is the F-18SH. The last pang of hope (which may very well happen) for an American fighter to join an Indian Air Arm. The fizzling of the SE fighter contest was a big disappointment for them, just as MMRCA 1.0 was. A lot of hope was pinned on India selecting (at that time) the F-16 Block 70 in the SE fighter contest. Lots of diplomatic and corporate hard sell was happening in New Delhi. It was the IAF that was not interested and neither are they interested in the F-21.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sudeepj »

m_saini wrote:
sudeepj wrote: In many cases, Chinese elite are figuratively and literally sleeping with the US elite. A peace or a detente is not completely impossible here!
Sudeep saar, imo whatever bromance is between the two is because of cheap chini labor. And chinese aren't going to slave for eternity just so americans can enjoy dollar store goods. Chinese are making tremendous progress in all areas; commercial airliners, semiconductors, automobiles etc. Considering all this, a rapprochement between the two is extremely unlikely. You just can't have a tacit understanding with regimes like the chinese, everyone knows how appeasement played out in the 1930s.

Anyway, all this is delving into a lot of hypotheticals and unfit for this thread. All I'm saying is it'd be really detrimental to our domestic MIC if we dhoti-shiver seeing the chinese carrier plans. What good is shipping billions of dollars to americans for steam catapult/EMALS, SHs etc going to do? You're never going to match chinese carrier for carrier. Best case would be to just get a STOBAR IAC-2 and invest whatever remains into domestic industry.
I dont see how planning to meet the Chinese carrier battle group with CBGs of our own is a dhoti shiver! May I humbly submit to you, that accepting Chinese hegemony as a fait-accompli is the real Dhoti shiver, not a plan to meet them to the best of our abilities.

Also, you may not have noticed, but the new American administration has already stepped away from the Indo-Pacific to the Asia-Pacific lingo, indicating a ratcheting down of the current tensions. They may *sell* us weapons, and we may buy from them for our own needs, but it looks like the eager flexing against the common enemy may be a thing of the past.

The three carrier requirement is probably tied to the geography of the passages between the Indian and Pacific oceans - Mallaca straits, Sunda straits and the Timor sea. Thats another way to look at it. But the Chinese do have bases at Djibouti and at Gwadar. What if in 10 years from now, we see a Chinese CBG permanently stationed in the Arabian sea, forward deploying to 'protect sea lanes and international commerce' whenever Pakistan does a Mumbai? Is a STOBAR carrier enough to take on a Chinese CATOBAR? To me, its plain that the first Chinese CATOBAR that is operational will be deployed in Arabian sea. Rest of the conflict areas are dominated by their land based aviation assets. We need something similar to deter it. It doesnt have to be a 100,000 tonne behemoth, but fixed wing AEW and cat launches to enable them are essential. Within that constraint, you can pick a CDG size or a QE size ship.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sudeepj »

LCA with an 8.5 meter wingspan fits in Vikramaditya and Vikrant lifts. Rafale has an unfolded wingspan of 11 meters. How about manually folding 1.5meter wingtips for Rafale? That may be possible.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

My apologies for suggesting we should invest in our own MIC instead of buying catapults and SHs/Rafale-M etc. That's indeed dhoti-shivering.

We should cancel the TEDBF etc and work with Boeing for all of our naval fighter needs because the chini carriers are on their way.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sudeepj »

m_saini wrote:My apologies for suggesting we should invest in our own MIC instead of buying catapults and SHs/Rafale-M etc. That's indeed dhoti-shivering.

We should cancel the TEDBF etc and work with Boeing for all of our naval fighter needs because the chini carriers are on their way.
I am all for supporting local efforts. But I do think a CATOBAR carrier is necessary. If its possible that we can have TEDBF on that CATOBAR, even better!
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

It’s the forces way - we really need foreign equipment because the Chinese or Pakis are arming themselves. Indian weapons are only good tech demonstrators
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

m_saini wrote:My apologies for suggesting we should invest in our own MIC instead of buying catapults and SHs/Rafale-M etc. That's indeed dhoti-shivering.

We should cancel the TEDBF, etc and work with Boeing for all of our naval fighter needs because the chini carriers are on their way.
Based on what we are reading, till an Indian CATOBAR carrier comes into service...the Indian Navy will lose any future battle. I hope we can stay in their good books till IAC-2 arrives.

Type 003 (the third Chinese aircraft carrier) will be commissioned by 2023 and she will be an EMALS equipped CATOBAR. This is as per wiki chacha. Construction of Type 003 started in 2015, so a build time of 8 years for a 85K vessel. Our own 65K CATOBAR is nowhere on the horizon and will take 15 years to materialize.

The Liaoning and the Shandong are both STOBAR carriers. But China's STOBAR carriers are better than the Vikramaditya. I see only defeat on the horizon. What do you see Sir?

BTW, see this below. FWIW....Rahul Bedi article.

Why Indian Navy's Proposal to Acquire a Third Aircraft Carrier May Not Materialise
https://thewire.in/security/navy-third- ... -submarine
05 Dec 2020
Be that as it may, one former naval chief has conceded to The Wire that a major debate is needed on whether or not to build another aircraft carrier, as any such programme had ‘massive’ financial implications.

“India needs to decisively convince itself that operationally and doctrinally the navy needs a third carrier. But it is also imperative that it should not come at the expense of other military projects and weapon system requirements,” he adds, declining to be identified.
According to Admiral Singh, the ongoing resource crunch had forced the navy to revise its goal of operating 200 warships by 2027 in keeping with its MCCP to just 175.

At his annual press conference in December 2019, the Indian Navy chief had stated that the navy’s share of the annual defence budget had dropped from 18% in the fiscal year 2012-13 to merely 13% in the fiscal year 2019-20 and that fielding even the reduced number of 175 platforms, was ‘optimistic’.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

Rakesh wrote: The Liaoning and the Shandong are both STOBAR carriers. But China's STOBAR carriers are better than the Vikramaditya. I see only defeat on the horizon. What do you see Sir?
Utter humiliating roflstomp sir :mrgreen: We should just pack everything up and start learning Mao chalisa in mandarin.

My god, it's like we're the inverted pakis. Our 10 are equal to 1 of the chinis :rotfl: I must apologize for arguing with you on this matter in the past, I didn't realize how overrated chinis are for some of our countrymen. Truly an insane world where a Rahul Bedi article starts making sense.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sudeepj »

You can keep rotfl-maoing, but any STOBAR carrier going up against a CATOBAR will likely lose simply because the catobar can see and shoot the stobar long before the stobar can. Against the Varyag and their other stobar, our current carriers have a decent fighting chance. Against their third emals equipped carrier, if it works, if their training is fixed, not so much.
Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 309
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Vidur »

Carriers are very important to the nation. They have a very big role to play in diplomacy. Diplomacy, narrative building, giving confidence to partners in littorals are very important national functions of carriers. War fighting is only part of their function. An important part, but only part. The nation cannot afford to lag loose its edge in terms of training and experience in carriers. This was understood decades ago by us. It will be foolhardy to loose that edge.

So a 3rd carrier is imperative in my personal view. Its configuration is open to debate.
Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 309
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Vidur »

IN must lobby MEA and PMO to support its case for a carrier. This issue is larger than just the defence ministry
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by AkshaySG »

sudeepj wrote:You can keep rotfl-maoing, but any STOBAR carrier going up against a CATOBAR will likely lose simply because the catobar can see and shoot the stobar long before the stobar can. Against the Varyag and their other stobar, our current carriers have a decent fighting chance. Against their third emals equipped carrier, if it works, if their training is fixed, not so much.
And how would 1 CATOBAR do against 3 or 4???


Its pretty clear that China is going for a 10+ carrier navy and if push comes to shove and India China get into a war circa 2040-50 they're not gonna play fair and only send 1... They'll send multiple CBG's

Then if you have a Stobar, CATOBAR or Emals or whatever won't make much difference when the enemy is bringing 3/4 groups .

Or what would happen if China simply waits for the CATOBAR carrier to be in the middle of repairs /refit and then attack... Then your 15 Billion $ outlay will do nothing apart from hide out the war in Karwar

IN can't outspend the Chinese.. Nor can it outnumber them... The alternative is to be smarter and exploit their weaknesses.

A 15 Billion $ addition to China's defense exp for a CBG is no big deal for them... While India spending the same would mean leaving glaring holes in subs, helos, destroyers numbers

If you try to match China $ for $ the outcome won't be pretty.
There are cheaper alternatives which offer almost the same if not better deterrence.

We could put a couple of squadrons of fighter Jets, Sea specific drones, surveillance planes, sub pens, Anti Ship, Anti Sub helos, missile batteries and replenishment facilities on Andaman and Nicobar Islands and create our own Diego Garcia/Pearl Harbour mix and it would still end up costing less than a full blown CATOBAR CBG.

With the added benefit of being protected from being sunk by whatever DongFeng and no need for lengthy "repairs" /refits
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

You can keep rotfl-maoing, but any STOBAR carrier going up against a CATOBAR will likely lose simply because the catobar can see and shoot the stobar long before the stobar can.
How is a CATOBAR going to "shoot" the STOBAR exactly? With ze pew pew guns?

Extremely ironic how people are sweating imagining the uber cheeni homegrown carriers and the flanker clones while simultaneously pleading the IN to buy the shiniest objects available. Mind numbing stuff.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

I think a 3rd Carrier would definitely be a "nice to have" at this point in time. As has been pointed out earlier - there are many other needs at hand. An ideal situation imhvo:

Do a Gorky deal with the USN for a Kitty Hawk/Nimitz class with AEW and 75 Shornet - to be paid on friendly terms over the next 30 years. Could be an answer to a number of difficulties related to this acquisition:
1. Price - spread out over 25 years, should be affordable
2. Gives the Navy a significant upgrade in capability - third CV that will truly be effective for peacetime (diplomacy/flag waving etc) and war time ops
4. Probably the quickest way to get such a capability
3. Makes the US much more pliant

Either this OR a 2nd Vikrant
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

m_saini wrote:
You can keep rotfl-maoing, but any STOBAR carrier going up against a CATOBAR will likely lose simply because the catobar can see and shoot the stobar long before the stobar can.
How is a CATOBAR going to "shoot" the STOBAR exactly? With ze pew pew guns?
...
I think Sudeepj is referring to the advantage of CATOBARs in being able to launch sophisticated AWACS planes like the E2 Hawkeye. And also being able to launch their aircrafts at a much higher rate (with the added advantage of larger fuel loads and munitions). Not exactly the First look-First shoot-First kill of the air war but something similar..
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by LakshmanPST »

If IN does not need a 3rd Carrier urgently (which I believe is the case) and can do with 2 Carriers for next 20 years, it makes sense to go for larger CATOBAR as a replacement to Vikramaditya at around 2040... The air component should be TEDBF...

Not that China will have 500 CATOBAR ACs in IOR by then, but 20 years from now is almost a generation ahead and it is important that IN is up to date with latest technologies and capabilities...
Steam catapults are around since the 1960s and we are talking about Carriers to be operated post 2040...
-
If IN really needs the 3rd carrier in the next decade, 2nd Vikrant Class carrier is the only way ahead...
We have more important things to buy in the next decade though and I don't think a carrier is more important than them...
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Vips »

Cain Marko wrote:I think a 3rd Carrier would definitely be a "nice to have" at this point in time. As has been pointed out earlier - there are many other needs at hand. An ideal situation imhvo:

Do a Gorky deal with the USN for a Kitty Hawk/Nimitz class with AEW and 75 Shornet - to be paid on friendly terms over the next 30 years. Could be an answer to a number of difficulties related to this acquisition:
1. Price - spread out over 25 years, should be affordable
2. Gives the Navy a significant upgrade in capability - third CV that will truly be effective for peacetime (diplomacy/flag waving etc) and war time ops
4. Probably the quickest way to get such a capability
3. Makes the US much more pliant

Either this OR a 2nd Vikrant
+108. Is there any used carrier available which is less then 30 years old?
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by m_saini »

Manish_P wrote: I think Sudeepj is referring to the advantage of CATOBARs in being able to launch sophisticated AWACS planes like the E2 Hawkeye. And also being able to launch their aircrafts at a much higher rate (with the added advantage of larger fuel loads and munitions). Not exactly the First look-First shoot-First kill of the air war but something similar..
Thank you saar, I had an inkling that's what they meant but you never know. It's still highly suspect whether the "cheeni hawkeye" or the flanker clones can match the amreeki level of operations on a catobar instantly. It'll probably take them years after the commissioning considering how much "carrier operations experience" is valued by the IN.

Chinis have been studying steam catapults since 1985s, in comparison I don't think we have invested in such techs even now. If we panic buy the shornets, EMALS etc then sure we can "show" the chinis, but we'll never catch up. Isn't the latter the whole point? Chinis didn't panic when Viraat sailed unmatched for decades, so why are we?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Vips wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I think a 3rd Carrier would definitely be a "nice to have" at this point in time. As has been pointed out earlier - there are many other needs at hand. An ideal situation imhvo:

Do a Gorky deal with the USN for a Kitty Hawk/Nimitz class with AEW and 75 Shornet - to be paid on friendly terms over the next 30 years. Could be an answer to a number of difficulties related to this acquisition:
1. Price - spread out over 25 years, should be affordable
2. Gives the Navy a significant upgrade in capability - third CV that will truly be effective for peacetime (diplomacy/flag waving etc) and war time ops
4. Probably the quickest way to get such a capability
3. Makes the US much more pliant

Either this OR a 2nd Vikrant
+108. Is there any used carrier available which is less then 30 years old?
We do not need used carriers. Build new in India. We have had three used carriers. No more.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Agree with Admiral sir!! With Vikrant, India has the ability to make its own aircraft carriers.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by AkshaySG »

BRF debates aside ... This decision and the AF's MRCA decision will make it clear where the real power lies in Indian Def establishment after the incorporation of a CDS .

The service chiefs have made it clear they want these big money purchases no matter what , The CDS has made it clear (though with subtler words) that they (IAC-2 and MRCA )are not the best value for money right now and in the immediate future

I for one am hoping that the Government and MOD stays firm and follows the CDS's lead but with politicians and babus you never know , Not to forget that in a few years we will have a Navy or AF man as CDS and he may have other thought processes .

...............

Now lets keep this thread for its actual use (Vikrant updates)
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

Vips wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I think a 3rd Carrier would definitely be a "nice to have" at this point in time. As has been pointed out earlier - there are many other needs at hand. An ideal situation imhvo:

Do a Gorky deal with the USN for a Kitty Hawk/Nimitz class with AEW and 75 Shornet - to be paid on friendly terms over the next 30 years. Could be an answer to a number of difficulties related to this acquisition:
1. Price - spread out over 25 years, should be affordable
2. Gives the Navy a significant upgrade in capability - third CV that will truly be effective for peacetime (diplomacy/flag waving etc) and war time ops
4. Probably the quickest way to get such a capability
3. Makes the US much more pliant

Either this OR a 2nd Vikrant
+108. Is there any used carrier available which is less then 30 years old?
UK would be very happy to part with one of its carriers, they have two just because it was too expensive to cancel the second order !
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

kit wrote:
UK would be very happy to part with one of its carriers, they have two just because it was too expensive to cancel the second order !
Not really. And even if they had to re-look at that they could just extend their current arrangement with the USMC to a formal long term lease instead of a partnership. It serves them much better.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

You don't need to take the carrier out,just sink the fleet tanker! It's the most valuable vessel in the CBG.Wiithout its fuel,etc. for the carrier,escorts,air wing, the CBG will be severely crippled in its operations.

A stretched sister ship of the V-2 and a couple of multi-role 35K+ amphibs with a similar flight deck able to carry NLCAs and heavy attack helos ,plus our " unsinkable" CVs,mega- CV INS India and the two other CVs,INS ANC and INS Lakshadweep ,all equipped with a variety of long-legged strike and maritime atrike aircraft,ASW P-8Is, IL-38s,etc., will be more than adequate to dominate the IOR and project power into the ICS and beyond.
Beeing up the infra of the island territories with longer airstrips, facilities to operate and support diverse larger aircraft,will give us a strong forward position to conduct offensive ops. against the enemy in his own backyard.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by AkshaySG »

Vidur wrote:IN must lobby MEA and PMO to support its case for a carrier. This issue is larger than just the defence ministry
Make sure to lobby Amazon or Reliance too ..since they're probably the only ones who can afford a 15 Bil$ splurge right now .


Absolutely nobody in this thread or in the establishment is against Navy having another carrier ..hell we want IN to have 10 carriers and a gazillion TEDBF's flying from them ....But there is simply not enough money and other more important needs have to take precedent

Go check out the other threads and see how far we're lagging behind both in quality and quantity of subs, missiles for subs , Anti Ship and Anti Sub weaponry, Air defence systems , minesweepers , replenishment ships , Helicopters, drones , LHD's etc etc , And that's just the Navy ...The Army and AirForce have even bigger more expensive needs which are more critical requirements in the immediate future .

You're asking for a 4K UHD TV when the roof's leaking and we can barely afford the current electricity bill .


Also MEA is Ministry of External Affairs ...They have no horse in this race , Having a Catobar carrier instead of a STOBAR carrier makes no impact on our diplomacy or soft power
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

AkshaySG, please not against Vidur-ji. He knows what he is talking about. If he says that is what needs to be done, then that is what must be done. Feel free to argue with me, but not with him. Humble request.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

The picture below is of the second French aircraft carrier that just got the approval from the Govt of France. The reason why I am posting this in this thread is because of the statement from Rear Admiral Rahul Shrawat (retd), Naval Group of France's head honcho in India.

That picture however, in the tweet, is an old one. The picture came with the tweet, so posted it. The design has been updated. Click on links below to see the approved design.

France's next-generation aircraft carrier will be nuclear-powered, says Macron
https://www.reuters.com/article/france- ... SKBN28I2FV
08 Dec 2020

Here’s France’s Plan For Its New Nuclear Powered Supercarrier
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... percarrier
08 Dec 2020

75,000 tons + EMALS + nuclear power. The fixed wing AEW component will be the E-2 Hawkeye from Amreeka. I believe three new E-2Ds are being procured to replace the two E-2Cs in service now with the French Navy. brar_w can provide more info if he chooses.

============================================================================

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/134 ... 93440?s=20 ---> Interesting statement from Rear Admiral Rahul Shrawat (Retd.), chairman and managing director of Naval Group India during an interview to Livefist ---> "Naval Group is interested in supporting the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-2), which is at the design stage with Indian Navy."

Image
Post Reply