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
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

only kochi shipyard can build ACs now., even they don't have capacity to build 2 simultaneously. also for the same reason i have been advocating a strategy of keep building ACs sequentially, it essentially takes a decade for one
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by srai »

^^^
One aircraft carrier per decade. Given 3-4 decades service, that will mean 3-4 carriers active.
Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Nikhil_Naya »

IAC1 was the first aircraft carrier - launching another one, while this is yet to complete was a larger risk - as changes were made even during construction. It was for the first time the gearbox was made in India. Propulsion is a 4 pack LM2500 - which is going to be fuel-guzzling, maybe the next could be a CODOG/ CODAG configuration (conventional power) or Nuclear (Arihant + ) plus GT? Maybe the next one will have EMALS or even a steam CAT? The possibilities are endless
There was a lot of small changes that were probably done during the final construction. This is why IAC3 is now going to be a reality in all probability. A larger more efficient design being a mix between a Troop carrier and aircraft carrier? - I think we can expect the announcement soon enough...as soon as Vikrant completes sea trials.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by John »

Most likely use integrated electric propulsion however we probably need to test it out in smaller vessel before making the switch unless we can get QE tech.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by fanne »

All lessons have not yet been learned from INS Vikrant to modify the design for IAC-2. It will be few years before we know what is good and what is bad. Taking that, perhaps we do IAC-2 (but after that point make it faster). It will have it's own new tech - CAT/EMALS, NUKE POWERED?, that will cause its own delay.
IAC-1 is capable as the Chinese A/C. It has 85% of deck area, even though it has almost half its weight. The aircraft carried is similar (though chinese planes are bigger, but rumored to be very inefficient). I think 1-1, IAC-1 has a distinct edge over all chinese A/C.
sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by sajaym »

Nikhil_Naya wrote: This is why IAC3 is now going to be a reality in all probability.
No doubt. But expect the finalisation and construction of this next carrier also to go at a leisurely pace. And that is because the next carrier is not exactly the third carrier...It is the second carrier.

Unlike the old days, the Navy now has a gun to its head called the CDS. Any dreams of a 3-carrier navy is now going to be weighed against the other services requirements and cheaper options.

Which is why the next carrier which is going to be built, is nothing but the replacement of Vik-Ad. And so on and so forth. Our navy has always been a 2-carrier navy and ain't nothing gonna change that. So Kochi Shipyard & INS VISHAL... "Take it easy, no pressure!"
titash
BRFite
Posts: 606
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by titash »

VikAd & Vikrant most likely will never operate together due to staggered maintenance schedule to ensure availability of at least 1 carrier. So we can essentially bring 16-18 MiG-29K to the fight in a given theatre of operations. Basically 1 squadron equivalent of Tier1 fighters

If we got another carrier built to the same design, construction would be much faster, maintenance would be de-risked, and significantly cheaper than separate facilities / equipment for a 65000 ton EMALS/Nuclear Power design. That would enable a 2 carrier task group with 2 squadrons of Tier1 fighters and a large AAW/ASW umbrella enabled by Ka-31, Barak8, MF-STAR, High mounted S-band surveillance radar…a very capable force that can be used for power projection from Djibouti / Gwadar / Malacca / South China Sea. There is no need to task them with countering the PLAN carrier force…that should be left to the SSNs and Su-30s based off Andamans

No more one-offs…start mass producing and reap the corresponding deterrent effects of scale as opposed to superior capabilities
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by fanne »

I think we are doing some shoddy analysis based on shoddy inputs (unpardonable in age of google search).

1. IN had 45 Mig 29 delivered (3 lost)
2.Vikramaditya carries 24 fighter. That leaves 18 fighters (accounting for 3 lost). These are mostly shore based, but can embark on a AC when required
3.IN has sent an intent to buy 24 more Mig 29 K
4.There is always a possibility of leased Rafale/F-18

IN has every intention to operate both carriers simultaneously. Due to maintenance etc. (mostly of older Vic), maybe for some part of the year only 1 AC is available, but a good part of the year will see both AC operating. If VIC goes for deep overhaul (typically 1 -3 years), then there would be only 1 AC available.
The current numbers of Mig 29K are inadequate but on an emergency basis can equip both AC, with one of them at sub par strength.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Assuming 80% of fleet is ready to deploy onboard an aircraft carrier at any given time, and that there is no portion of the fleet dedicated for CQ or shore based training (i.e. 100% of the force is available to operationally deploy on a carrier) then you are looking at 32 available aircraft at any given time. Putting two dozen on one carrier leaves a very small number for the other. And this assumes that all those availability metrics are met all the time, and does not account for attrition or other expanded needs (like testing upgrades/enhancements or shore based duties). Given this, difficult to see both carriers being able to deploy together in any meaningful way. The IN would need additional aircraft to sustain that. You have to balance the need between deploying, testing, training, upgrading, and other shore based roles/duties that are assigned. Having 24 available to deploy on one carrier at any given time is probably a more realistic target with the current MiG-29K fleet.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 Jun 2021 00:00, edited 1 time in total.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by fanne »

You are assuming that 20% of the 'not ready' fleet is somehow parked off ship (meaning that as soon as some plane becomes unserviceable, and it cannot fly, it is somehow carted off plane, shipped on shore and one on shore ready plane is flown-in in its plane). Most likely some 20-24 planes aboard Vik will have some 80% or 50% availability (war time may see more availability) - some 10-19 planes available.

The assumption is that we have non is deep overhaul - But in regular maintenance and can be made operational in short war time notice. Either way the numbers are suboptimal, hence the intent to buy additional 24. With Original 57 numbers (that was cut to 45 because of Mig29K issues), it would have been just sufficient for 2 carriers. Now that we know better, IN is aiming for 42+24 =66 fighters. 48 for Deck based and 18 for shore based training and maintenance. This may also show that there is realism that Rafale or F-18 may not be coming. Will these countries allow them on Vikramditya? Or only on Vikrant?

Leased Rafale on Vikrant will make it very formidable. Even 16-18 of them.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

fanne wrote:You are assuming that 20% of the 'not ready' fleet is somehow parked off ship (meaning that as soon as some plane becomes unserviceable, and it cannot fly, it is somehow carted off plane, shipped on shore and one on shore ready plane is flown-in in its plane). Most likely some 20-24 planes aboard Vik will have some 80% or 50% availability (war time may see more availability) - some 10-19 planes available.
No I am not assuming this at all. I am not referencing to the capability rates here (which use "deployable/usable" aircraft as the denominator). I am talking about 80% of the fleet being in the hands of the operator ready to do what they need it to do, with the remaining 20% (6-8 aircraft) being in some form of availability getting upgraded, overhauled, or involved in duties from which it cannot be pulled away for extended periods of time (someone has to integrate weapons, new data links, test enhancements and upgrades etc) to send to an extended deployment. That's a pretty reasonable number if one wants to consider doing this in a sustainable fashion (and not just a one off surge). For smaller fleets it could be high depending on what test and upgrades are ongoing. For example, at a minimum, if you are doing weapons integration you are instrumenting at least a couple of aircraft (even if you need 1 you will still have two instrumented so that you meet your schedule). So the 80% number is a reasonable number from a "potentially available to deploy" perspective given that it is a small fleet.

If you want to factor in availability then the number will be smaller because as you state, if you achieve 90% serviceability on a deployment you still have about a tenth of the fleet that is not available though it is physically on the carrier. I would count this as deployed and in some stage of being made ready to generate a sortie so if you have 24 on the carrier, that's 24 deployed aircraft even though a couple of those might not be immediately available to generate a sortie at any given time but that is par for the course on extended deployments. In fact as you state, on really long deployments this could dip to around 50-60%. But to make it out to the carrier, your aircraft has to have completed any sort of maintenance or overhaul that cannot be done on the AC itself.

With 57 aircraft the two carrier deployment model begins to look more credible. There's a difference in being "able to do it (during an emergency)" and being able to sustain it effectively so that you are training and exercising for dual carrier ops, and being able to employ two carriers concurrently for various contingencies. Unless the IN orders more aircraft to replace for attrition and growth, I see it preferring a one deployed while one in availability model as a sustainable CONOPS. That's a more sustainable model - very similar to what the UK is doing with its two carriers (where only one will be able to deploy with an air wing for sustained ops). That will allow them to phase in deployments and availability to that cadence. Credible and routinely available dual carrier deployment probably demands 60 or more fighter aircraft even if you are only putting 18-24 a/c on each and even if you are doing much shorter deployments.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 Jun 2021 05:02, edited 2 times in total.
VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 724
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by VKumar »

We should order 2, squadrons of Naval Tejas as a backup
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

It cannot be any worst as compared to the Mig 29. If you take the payload out of the equation.
Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Nikhil_Naya »

The Naval tejas won't be ordered - all the focus is on the TEDBF. Do we have enough aircraft to equip both the carriers at the same time - NO!. Do we have enought aircraft to 'break-in' the Vikrant while ensuring full potential of VikAd is maintained? Yes. As Vikrant goes to sea trials and then final trials (2 - 3 years total), the Mig29 fleet will be enough to break in the carrier and create the 'lessons learned' document. Meanwhile we should see the first flight of the TEDBF (2025?) and subsequent production (LSP) which will give 8-12 aircraft by 2028? - By which time the Vikrant will be at full potential (considering it is done with trials and becomes the flagship by 2026) Meanwhile, we can still order/ evaluate the Mig29/ Rafale Naval.

I think the Navy is very good at 'optimizing' its budget and available resources. Having a carrier on the western front, while great is not much of a priority considering our neighbours can easily be tackled by ground based air power (Su30 with A2A refeulling?) plus our exceptional superiority in surface and (soon) sub surface fleet - with good ASW assets. Heck some of our CG ships have better tonnage than their frontline naval ships and can easily carry the fight to them.
On the eastern front - the Vikrant supported by destroyers / Frigates/ 2+ SSBN's/ 4+ Newer generation SSK's/ASW aircraft (long range) plus our 'permanent aircraft carrier' with SU's and Maybe LCA's later is a formidable defence in the near term.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

titash wrote:VikAd & Vikrant most likely will never operate together due to staggered maintenance schedule to ensure availability of at least 1 carrier. So we can essentially bring 16-18 MiG-29K to the fight in a given theatre of operations. Basically 1 squadron equivalent of Tier1 fighters

If we got another carrier built to the same design, construction would be much faster, maintenance would be de-risked, and significantly cheaper than separate facilities / equipment for a 65000 ton EMALS/Nuclear Power design. That would enable a 2 carrier task group with 2 squadrons of Tier1 fighters and a large AAW/ASW umbrella enabled by Ka-31, Barak8, MF-STAR, High mounted S-band surveillance radar…a very capable force that can be used for power projection from Djibouti / Gwadar / Malacca / South China Sea. There is no need to task them with countering the PLAN carrier force…that should be left to the SSNs and Su-30s based off Andamans

No more one-offs…start mass producing and reap the corresponding deterrent effects of scale as opposed to superior capabilities
Titash, a couple of points to consider;

1) Navies, the world over, that operate aircraft carriers do so with one class or type of vessel. But the Indian Navy truly believes that it can operate three different types of aircraft carriers i.e. Vikramaditya, Vikrant and the proposed Vishal. But the CDS is throwing the spanner in the works. The navy is insisting on CATOBAR and the CDS is pushing back, considering the cost and length of time. As long as the current CDS is in office, the Vishal will likely not get approval. A future CDS - from the Navy - will give hope. If the next CDS is from the Air Force, the Navy can kiss the Vishal goodbye. Air Forces, the world over, abhor aircraft carriers and India is no different. And the longer the Vishal takes to sanction, that much longer it will take to commission. 15 years from keel laying to commissioning, as per the navy's own estimate.

2) There is a deep seated belief among the Alliance with Amreeka crowd on BRF, that a PLAN Carrier Battle Group can be countered by only having your own CATOBAR. It is a deeply flawed thinking, but prevails because it represents the last shred of hope for an American fighter to fly in Indian colours. An Amreeki fighter will - in some divine manner - *CEMENT* the strategic relationship between India and the US...that is the message that is being pushed. If the Rafale M indeed gets selected, it will be like a dagger in the heart or betrayal to the American people. It is perplexing as to what an American fighter represents to these people. The relationship is already quite robust, considering all the alphabet agreements India has signed and the annual military exercises that the two nations participate in.

3) I fully agree with your post, considering the enemy is China. Against an American CBG, the SSNs and Su-30s will find it challenging. Against the PLAN, the challenges will not be insurmountable. We will take losses, but the IN and the IAF are capable of stopping a PLAN Carrier Battle Group. The former CNS, Admiral Sunil Lanba, has stated that in the Indian Ocean...the Indian Navy holds the advantage against the PLAN.
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:With 57 aircraft the two carrier deployment model begins to look more credible.
The 57 carrier borne, multirole, fighter aircraft contest has been reduced to 36 and now to 35.

It all likelihood, the contest will be cancelled considering the lack of funds. The Navy had estimated around US $13 - 14 billion for these 57 aircraft, which is more than the estimated cost of the Vishal.

Not going to happen.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:
brar_w wrote:With 57 aircraft the two carrier deployment model begins to look more credible.
The 57 carrier borne, multirole, fighter aircraft contest has been reduced to 36 and now to 35.

It all likelihood, the contest will be cancelled considering the lack of funds. The Navy had estimated around US $13 - 14 billion for these 57 aircraft, which is more than the estimated cost of the Vishal.

Not going to happen.
I understand that but I was referring to just that number and not necessarily a program to induct a new type. At some point, the IN would have to order additional aircraft to account for the MiG-29K's that its lost and to account for now having two carriers. If it decides to add to the strength then that will give some insight into whether the two carriers can, in a meaningful way, deploy concurrently. At the current 40-45 levels, the best outcome is to have 18-24 of them be available to deploy on one carrier at any given time.
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 only way the Indian Naval Air Arm will operate 57 carrier borne fighters and not break the bank, is with a local fighter. No proven, foreign naval fighter - at 57 birds - will come under US $10 billion. The Navy just does not have the money for this.

The 4 - 5 MiG-29Ks lost will be supplanted by additional MiG-29Ks.

TEDBF and MiG-29K will be the future of the Indian Naval Air Arm.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

57 is merely a number used (by me) as a reference to try to get to a state where two carrier deployments can begin to look more realistic (though still not ideal). Hypothetically, the IN won't need 10 billion to get there. It would require 15 or so follow on MiG-29K's to get there which is about a dozen more aircraft than what the IN originally had acquired to support one carrier. That will cost a small fraction of that $10 Billion. Again, I'm not saying that it will happen but that is what needs to happen for the 2-carrier deployments to occur as standard (if the IN/MOD wants that capability to exist) . TEDBF is going to be the future but its not going to be operational till well into the 2030's (with risk) so as I stated earlier, if no additional aircraft are ordered then the best scenario is a one carrier at a time model until that arrives. The IN is on a similar numerical boat (pun intended) to the UK. The RN/RAF has 48 F-35B's on order (to be delivered by FY24/25) which will support 1 deployment out of a 2 carrier force. Even if they order another couple of dozen, I seriously doubt the RN will begin to explore a two deployment model though with 60'ish that begins to become a lot more viable, particularly for shorter deployments. At 48, they simply can't project any sort of 2-carrier deployment strategy so they are not even going to try (expecting 1 on and one off model allows for a set cadence of availability so is more economical than trying to have two carriers in readiness for potential concurrent deployment even though the air-wing strength cannot support it).
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Jun 2021 00:00, edited 1 time in total.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

You hit the nail on the head - one carrier at a time model. That is the reality that the Navy is looking at.

By the time the third aircraft carrier - in whatever form or shape she arrives in - it will be time for the Vikramaditya to retire.

The ball lies in the Navy's court. The Navy has to give in somewhere, otherwise they will have a less than optimal solution.

P.S. The 57 number is what the Indian Navy was looking at. And just like the Vishal, it went for sanction of funds....only to realize that there no funds available for the Navy to acquire them. And this after the then Naval Chief said - and that too on Navy Day - that there is no budgetary constraints towards the acquisition of 57 carrier borne, multi-role, fighter aircraft.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Rakesh wrote:The only way the Indian Naval Air Arm will operate 57 carrier borne fighters and not break the bank, is with a local fighter. No proven, foreign naval fighter - at 57 birds - will come under US $10 billion. The Navy just does not have the money for this.

The 4 - 5 MiG-29Ks lost will be supplanted by additional MiG-29Ks.

TEDBF and MiG-29K will be the future of the Indian Naval Air Arm.
That is if all 57 are new. If you count the existing 41 Mig-29K's, you need only 16 more of which 4 are attrition replacements. So essentially just 12 extra fighters. This should be doable even in the short term but it would depend on whether the IN is comfortable buying more Mig-29K's. I am skeptical of that. If they were they wouldn't have asked for 57 new fighters which I am sure they intended as Mig-29 replacements even though the blame was put on the NLCA being inadequate. Otherwise the number does not make sense. There was no need whatsoever for 57 additional fighters if they intended to keep flying the Mig-29's till the end of their airframe lives.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by srai »

^^^
Given the fatigue issues, high maintenance requirements and low serviceability rates of the MiG-29K fleet, the extra airframes would be just enough to support one ongoing active carrier deployment.

In a wartime but for short duration, two carriers will be deployed if both are available. Aircrafts will be shared accordingly.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

nachiket wrote:That is if all 57 are new. If you count the existing 41 Mig-29K's, you need only 16 more of which 4 are attrition replacements. So essentially just 12 extra fighters. This should be doable even in the short term but it would depend on whether the IN is comfortable buying more Mig-29K's. I am skeptical of that. If they were they wouldn't have asked for 57 new fighters which I am sure they intended as Mig-29 replacements even though the blame was put on the NLCA being inadequate. Otherwise the number does not make sense. There was no need whatsoever for 57 additional fighters if they intended to keep flying the Mig-29's till the end of their airframe lives.
Good points nachiket. This is the RFI from the Indian Navy website ---> https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/def ... 0Final.pdf

In the link, it states - on the first page - 57 carrier borne fighters. And since it is only a RFI, they can change it later on down the road.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

Rakesh wrote:You hit the nail on the head - one carrier at a time model. That is the reality that the Navy is looking at.
srai wrote:^In a wartime but for short duration, two carriers will be deployed if both are available. Aircrafts will be shared accordingly.
Srai, you make a good point. Admiral saar - The Navy HAS to be thinking of contingencies where both could/will be needed (*actually these are not contingency requirements - see last para). As such their only options are a) Buy additional 20-30 MiG29K and perhaps slide them to the IAF circa 2035, b) Lease Shornets/Rafales if they fit the Vikrant lift. It would be truly a suboptimal use of a $ 4 billion assets if they are to be used alternatively only.

They will need to carry around 20-24 a/c per CV for decent availability for a sqd of 12-16. Plus additional numbers for land based requirements. Total ~ 60 birds. Frankly I would think that this is a no-brainer and shouldn't cost too much.

*THe last "short refit" of the Vikad, which happens every 2.5 years, took only about 45 days iirc, which means that the ship should be available for a good portion of 2-3 years. The Vikrant numbers should be better. IOWs, the availability of these ships probably allows for two carriers being used simultaneously, and it would be a pity if they were not used accordingly.

JMTP.
ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 441
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ManuJ »

Why are all these calculations assuming that a carrier needs to have its full complement of the fixed-wing air arm for it to be deployed?
Agreed it's non-optimal, but still better to have both ships deployed with 2/3rd strength each than one ship at a time.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

ManuJ wrote:Why are all these calculations assuming that a carrier needs to have its full complement of the fixed-wing air arm for it to be deployed?
Agreed it's non-optimal, but still better to have both ships deployed with 2/3rd strength each than one ship at a time.
Even at 10 fighters availability per carrier, they still would need to carry around 16 birds per ship. Plus land based.
ChanakyaM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 22 Feb 2018 05:39

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by ChanakyaM »

rajsunder wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ What?! When the hell did this happen?
https://theaviationist.com/2012/12/29/b ... ObwpYnjlps
thats a steal by chinks if it did happen. We couldn't afford 1.5 billion USD?
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

The article is dated 2012- China should be churning out Backfire's and does any aircraft get produced in 1 factory- its a whole production Eco system.

The Chinese Communist Party is all smokes and mirrors- in many cases Licensed Production from Russia/Ukraine is passed off as Reverse engineering for H& D purposes. I can Russia gets some money and there is Russian input in every flanker aircraft and every T-Series produced.

Reverse Engineering will turn out like Tu-4 for the B-29.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

They are building a stealth bomber. The tu22m3 is not suitable for them anymore. As for penetrating of enemy airspace can be done using cruise missiles fired from land, air, sea based platforms. If a heavy punch is needed then the stealth bomber can do the job.

So even if tooling was purchased. We don't know if it has only one use.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

So this USD 1.5 Billion steal for producing Multiple T-22M goes out of the window. Cause 1970's era tooling probably needs to reworked heavily on, what the Chinese could be upto is to see what kind of Tolling is required.

So in no way is India is in the picture- so these miracle deals/ Bargains do not exist in real life. May be we should have our heavy Bomber project- but that will take an ecosystem. we are not going to get it from magical 1.5 Billion shifting of a factory.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The discussion in order to be productive has to focus on the individual factors which caused this delay in the completion of the ship.

Do we know at which point in construction a specific component was required and when actually it was supplied to the yard. Or even at which stage of construction was the order placed.

I mean the systems for the aircraft lift of the ship cannot be ordered today and recieved a day after tomorrow for installation.

Same with different items. Such as radar, propulsion units.

For the ship to be considered completed it requires all of the thousands of individual parts. Some have a lead time of years and some days.

Who was responsible for the order of which type of item and when were they ordered.

E.g radar cannot be ordered at the time of keel laying. With the expectation that it will be recieved the day after. The radar set has to be fitted at the very end of the completion phase of the ship.

So when was the radar scheduled to be ordered as per the original plans and when was it actually ordered. Followed by how long did the ship had to wait for radar.

Unless we learn to solve these issues we will forever be taking 12 to 13 years in building the ship. When most of competent power's take 5 to 7 years depending on the ship type.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

ChanakyaM wrote:
thats a steal by chinks if it did happen. We couldn't afford 1.5 billion USD?
I doubt it ever happened. We would see something from them if it did. Their current bombers are all subsonic variants of the H-6 and their new bomber in development is a ripoff of the B-2.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

Pratyush wrote:The discussion in order to be productive has to focus on the individual factors which caused this delay in the completion of the ship.

Do we know at which point in construction a specific component was required and when actually it was supplied to the yard. Or even at which stage of construction was the order placed.

I mean the systems for the aircraft lift of the ship cannot be ordered today and recieved a day after tomorrow for installation.

Same with different items. Such as radar, propulsion units.

For the ship to be considered completed it requires all of the thousands of individual parts. Some have a lead time of years and some days.

Who was responsible for the order of which type of item and when were they ordered.

E.g radar cannot be ordered at the time of keel laying. With the expectation that it will be recieved the day after. The radar set has to be fitted at the very end of the completion phase of the ship.

So when was the radar scheduled to be ordered as per the original plans and when was it actually ordered. Followed by how long did the ship had to wait for radar.

Unless we learn to solve these issues we will forever be taking 12 to 13 years in building the ship. When most of competent power's take 5 to 7 years depending on the ship type.
Vikrant is our first carrier and our first ship of 40K tons when we never built a manowar bigger than 7.5K tons before so some teething is expected since we are building this eco-system from scratch. Now if we ordered a second and that still takes 12 years then we should be rightly upset. But we have not ordered a second ..,

P-15B is actual more disappointing in that it is 1/6th the size of IAC I plus we have built 7K tons destroyers before in P-15A but we are still waiting to induct Visakhapatnam 8 years after keel was laid.

The modular process developed for the P-17A hopefully will alleviate all this. But delay because of foreign parts is partially out of our hands though timely procurement and forward planning should solve much of that.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 66663.html

Why India needs to plan for a 70k ton carrier! ., the noise has begun
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by chola »

kit wrote:https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... 66663.html

Why India needs to plan for a 70k ton carrier! ., the noise has begun
This is exactly how one should use news like this. Make it a driver for change and ambitions. Force MoD to take a fresh look at the 65K tons CATOBAR which is actually a measured and realistic goal especially when you see what the chinis are building in the Type 003.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

+1 to that.

For far too long we have thought about the size of the ship. Followed by the role we expect her to meet.

We have now to start thinking about the role the ship is expected to meet. Then arrive at the size of the ship.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Pratyush wrote:

We have now to start thinking about the role the ship is expected to meet. Then arrive at the size of the ship.
Is there any concrete evidence that the Naval analysis, and requirements process was not doing this all along? It would be extremely strange, and unprofessional, for them to start with a solution and work backwards. I have never come across anything that suggests this to be the case be it in surface combatants, submarines, or Carriers.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by kit »

brar_w wrote:
Pratyush wrote:

We have now to start thinking about the role the ship is expected to meet. Then arrive at the size of the ship.
Is there any concrete evidence that the Naval analysis, and requirements process was not doing this all along? It would be extremely strange, and unprofessional, for them to start with a solution and work backwards. I have never come across anything that suggests this to be the case be it in surface combatants, submarines, or Carriers.
I think the Naval directorate do have preliminary design on a QE class AC ., hence the IN interest in QE operations.,
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Having some design availability is an accelerant but that doesn't discount the need to do the analysis to arrive to that requirement. For example, the US Navy had the Nimitz in production. It was a local design. The Ford was not based on it because the requirements process demanded a sortie generation rate that an upgraded Nimitz could not support or sustain. The same would be true for the IN. If they've determined that they need an air-component and carrier aviation they would formulate a requirement with various mission needs in mind, use that to size the air-wing, and then look at the carrier design trade space that fits what it think it can afford to spend. To suggestion that they work backwards (start with a design/size/capability and then formulate the roles and missions) does not appear to be fact based.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

kit wrote:I think the Naval directorate do have preliminary design on a QE class AC ., hence the IN interest in QE operations.,
I believe that was a media created fantasy. A couple of years back there were a number of wild rumours;

1) The UK plans to sell one or both of the QE Class carriers to India.

2) The UK sold or is interested in selling the design of their QE Class carrier to India, either as is or modified to a CATOBAR design.

3) The Indian naval design bureau has on the drawing board, a 65,000 ton vessel.

4) The Kitty Hawk is coming to India with a F-18 fleet on board.

5) USS Harry Truman is being retired. India should buy it!!!

None of which turned out to be true, especially the third one. The only ones who got turned on by these fantasies were CATOBAR fanbois, some of whom who are on BRF.

Until the funding is given, only then can any serious design work commence. What the navy has at present is a “wish list” design, nothing concrete. It will take a year at least, for any wish list design to be translated into a formal and concrete proposal.

That proposal will the have to go the CDS for approval. The present CDS is reportedly not in favour…so the Navy will wait.

Nice article by the way kit. Cleared up an “agenda-driven-and-planted” misconception on BRF, about a CATOBAR vessel i.e. that it is invincible. That navy admiral’s words are so true. Also, while the article is nice - the reality is funding has to come. No funding = no CATOBAR. It is that simple.
Post Reply