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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 31 May 2017 17:52

What apathetic understanding of the points I'm making.No point talking to the ones who will not listen.Rant on.

Those drooling for an EMALS N-powered carrier for the IN will have to drool on for 15 years and watch their hair turn grey. The US,great strategic bum-chum to some,has point-blank refused us access to N-reactor tech,so were will we get it from then? Back to Mother Russia of course! A great masala of tech on that future wetd ream.

In the interim 12-15 years,the Chinese will have added a few more carriers to the two it already has.They will have enough as I pointed out to send one regularly into the IOR.Possessing just two will strain the IN's ability to counter the Chinese,as one may be in for reg. maintenance/refit in the dockyard.Since it is going to take so long for a larger carrier to arrive,2030 at the earliest,we need an interim solution and I've given them before and below .In addition,ramping up our naval air capability with more LRMP aircraft,Backfires,extra P-8Is,etc.,a pity the Bears have been retd.,the Russians are still using them to good use,operating from the unsinkable INS India (nothing to sneer at),will give extra support to our flat tops.

We are also acquiring 4 amphibs. L&T are working with Navantia of Spain who have the JUan Carlos ski-jump vessel as opposed to the R co. with DCNS and the much smaller Mistral. If the deck design can be modified suitably,then we should be able to operate fixed wing/STOVL JSFs from the vessel,giving us extra flat tops apart from the 2 carriers in hand and a proposed (slightly larger) sister ship for the Vikrant-2,which is the really low-hanging fruit easy to build and operate along with its sister ship,IAC-1. Thus the IN would have enough flat tops,plus land based aircraft to deal with the PLAN attempting to intrude with a CBG into the IOR in a crisis.The greater threat from it will be its vast numbver of subs,but even here,the extra flat tops could act as extremely useful ASW carriers in conjunction with other IN assets.

*(SAAB had earlier even given the IN a proposal to operate Sea Gripens from the Viraat,even smaller than the JC or Vikrant-2)

PS:If one disagrees,then pl. give other options to what I've been proposing in an objective manner.
PPS:The IN will have sev. choices for aircraft too.Apart from the almost 50 29Ks,if it doesn't want any more,there are Rafale-M<Sea Gripen and even the F-35 to choose from....and NLCA if it arrives .
Last edited by Philip on 31 May 2017 18:14, edited 5 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 31 May 2017 18:08

Philip ji,

There is a diff between "understanding" and "agreeing". I think most, if not everyone, "understands" what you are saying, but disagree with what you are saying.

JMT.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 31 May 2017 18:13

Cain Marko wrote:Since a very valid criticism of STOBAR carriers is their inability to support large AEW assets, what options does the Indian Navy have to overcome this issue.......

1. Helo based: osprey? Ka31 with a2a refueling
2. A platform like a modded dornier with Rato?
3. Flanker based aew, saw some drawings once

Have any of the above or anything else been explored?


Seriously, India (NOT IN) has buried every option outside CATOBAR.

Recently I read (unable to find the article as I type) that the EMALS was selected because the steam did not provide the SGR that the IN had in mind!!!! Surprising . But that is what *that* article stated.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6643
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 May 2017 18:23

Philip wrote:The US,great strategic bum-chum to some,has point-blank refused us access to N-reactor tech,so were will we get it from then?


Too bad there isn't another country out there that operates a nuclear propulsion equipped aircraft carrier, or currently working on a Next Generation nuclear propulsion for similar applications. :roll:

http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-1664 ... lsion.html

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 31 May 2017 19:23

Will wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I just hope that this new 57 aircraft need is plugged by the jsf as a top end option, and not the Rafale.


Read somewhere that Lockheed Martin did not respond to the RFI for the Navy's 57 nos fighter requirement. Guess there's n way that the US is going to locally build or transfer tech for the F-35 to India.


Depends on what the IN asked for. Single or twin engine. If they asked for twin, then Boeing would have responded. In any event asking for more tech sharing with India than the US is willing to provide Tier 1 development partners is a non-starter especially for 57 a/c

We've got get over this 'ToT stuff. It doesn't work because it's not just a set of blueprints that you can use to build the plane. Just look at the SU-30MKI saga: after umpteen years, we still 'assemble' the planes and the high value systems (radar, engines, IRSTs, HUDs) are imported.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... kis-05852/

All we can hope to do if we want the F-35s is to obtain the same terms as Turkey and Israel. If we want 100% indigenous next gen ac, we'd better start building the AMCA.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why for example, we could not take the LCA design and morph into an interim twin engine design like Dassault did with the M2K-M4K. OK, they decided to plump for the Rafale a clean sheet design but we can surely (as part of MII) create an interim platform no?

It beats waiting for unobtanium and buying stupid stuff piecemeal from abroad no?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 01 Jun 2017 01:41

Philip wrote:PS:If one disagrees,then pl. give other options to what I've been proposing in an objective manner.


"objective": "drooling", "great strategic bum-chum", etc. What next convfefe?


OK, on a serious note:

The option has always been Vishal. A fleet carrier.

You have proposed everything BUT a fleet carrier. And, sorry, two escort carriers can never make one fleet carrier. Nor can a Juan Carlos or whatever you have in mind.

Provide a solution that is able to embark a E-2D type + tanker (yes, a MiG-29K is an option)(the F-18 acts as one) + around 55+ crafts.

And, I think, it would help if one follows the sequence of events that transpired. I very much doubt the "Vishal" that the IN had in mind is the one that will be built. Discount the nuclear aspect of it, even then I bet it will be a boat that is totally diff. Totally. And, as I have posted earlier, do not be surprised if it arrives in great shape before 2030.

More l8r.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 01 Jun 2017 03:07

From wiki, the path of Vikrant:

In 1989 India announced a plan to replace its ageing British-built aircraft carriers, Vikrant and Viraat, with two new 28,000 ton Air Defence Ships (ADS) that would operate the BAe Sea Harrier aircraft. The first vessel was to replace Vikrant, which was set to decommission in early 1997. Construction of the ADS was to start at the Cochin Shipyard (CSL) in 1993 after the Indian Naval Design Organisation had translated this design study into a production model. Following the 1991 economic crisis, the plans for construction of the vessels were put on hold indefinitely.

In 1999, then Defence Minister George Fernandes revived the project and sanctioned the construction of the Project 71 ADS.[13] By that time, given the ageing Sea Harrier fleet, the letter of intent called for a carrier that would carry more modern jet fighters. In 2001, CSL released a graphic illustration showing the 32,000-ton STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) design with a pronounced ski jump.[14] The aircraft carrier project finally received formal government approval in January 2003. By then, design updates called for a 37,500 ton carrier to operate the MiG-29K. India opted for a three-carrier fleet consisting of one carrier battle group stationed on each seaboard, and a third carrier held in reserve, in order to continuously protect both its flanks, to protect economic interests and mercantile traffic, and to provide humanitarian platforms in times of disasters, since a carrier can provide a self-generating supply of fresh water, medical assistance or engineering expertise to populations in need for assistance.[15]

In August 2006, then Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Arun Prakash stated that the designation for the vessel had been changed from Air Defence Ship (ADS) to Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC). The euphemistic ADS had been adopted in planning stages to ward off concerns about a naval build-up. Final revisions to the design increased the displacement of the carriers from 37,500 tons to over 40,000 tons. The length of the ship also increased from 252 metres (827 ft) to over 260 metres (850 ft).[16]



So .........

* 1989 decide to replace Vikrant + Viraat
* Proposed to build 2 28,000 ton ADS hosting Harriers
* 1991 eco problems stops the expected 1993 start of construction

* 1999 revive, without Harriers
* 2001 ADS is now a 32,000 ton STOBAR
* GoI approves in 2003, but by now the ADS is 37,500 and operate the MiG-29K. With 3 battle groups <---------- From original 2 boats, now a 3 boat proposal

* 2006 ADS -> Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC)
* IAC now is a full 40,000 ton boat



So, from 1989 2 28,000 ton boats we go to 2006 3 40,000 ton boats.


Somewhere around 2010 pops "Vishal" at 65,000 tons. With commission around 2025. Expected to be a CATOBAR with a steam CAT at this point in time. Vikrant to host 30 fixed wings, Vishal 50-55 fixed wings.


The reason I bring this up is that they originally had three 40,000 ton boats for "carriers" and in 2010 (I thought it was earlier) that they moved to one 40,000 STOBAR and the next 65,000 ton CATOBAR.

In April 2011, Admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma stated that construction of the second carrier was some years away as there were a number of higher spending priorities for the navy.[9] The design stage of IAC-II began in 2012, and was undertaken by the navy’s Naval Design Bureau. The navy decided not to seek outside help in preparing the design concept and implementation plans, but might seek help from the Russian Design Bureau later to integrate Russian aircraft into Vishal. IAC-II is proposed to be a flat-top carrier with a displacement of 65,000 tonnes and might have a CATOBAR system, unlike the STOBAR system on IAC-I.[3][10][11][12] On 13 May 2015, Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) allotted Rs.30 crore for initial construction planning process of INS Vishal.[13][14]

Indian Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Dhowan said: “All options are open for the second indigenous aircraft carrier. Nothing has been ruled out. It could be nuclear powered.”[8] Indian Government signed an agreement with United States to form a Carrier Working group to identify areas of collaboration and they first met in August 2015.[15]

The Indian Navy has reached out to four international defence companies for suggestions with the design of Vishal. The letters of request (LoR) were sent to British firm BAE Systems, French firm DCNS, American firm Lockheed Martin and Russian firm Rosoboronexport on July 15, 2015 , according to a report in Jane’s Navy International.[16] The letter asks the companies to “provide technical and costing proposals” for the IAC-II program.[16]


* April 2011 CNS states IAC-II is years away
* Carter offers EMALS to India in Sept 2013
* A flurry of articles in 2015, including one by Tellis recommending providing India with nuclear techs for carriers (which is nowhere close to nuclear techs for subs). Another interesting take on the same subject matter


IMHO none of the above really matters. What did/will matter was/is the DTTI CWG (below). This will transform the Vishal ......................

* 2015 GoI signs agreement, via DTTI, to form the Carrier Working Group. THIS IMHO, is the key. This team, from the USN, is what - I feel - will transform the Vishal to a new Vishal.


I am not done.

More l8r.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 26 Sep 2017 20:13

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7293&start=2760#p2217909

In the above vid, at 9:50 he mentions IAC 2 waiting for clearance.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 27 Sep 2017 00:41

India needs a 2nd aircraft carrier quickly
http://www.thenorthlines.com/india-need ... r-quickly/

All of this year, the navy’s proposal for building a second indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, has gone back and forth between the defence secretary and the navy. The ministry lets it be known that a hurried decision would be unwise since an aircraft carrier is such a high-value platform that it would block badly needed procurements for the army and air force.

Meanwhile, on March 31, underlining how much concern it really has for equipment procurement, the ministry surrendered Rs 7,000 crore (Rs 70 billion) of unspent capital funds — more than what it would have paid out last year had a contract been signed for building the carrier. INS Vishal is set to be one of the military’s most long-drawn procurements, with the navy itself having taken years to identify its precise requirements.

Given the eight-year time overrun in building the Vikrant, CSL would surely take more than a decade to build INS Vishal, once the order is placed. And that seems nowhere in sight. In contrast, China — latecomers to aircraft carriers — is vaulting ahead.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3212
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 27 Sep 2017 01:59

Cometh Mattis, cometh the need for a carrier!

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2693
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby chola » 27 Sep 2017 08:48

Dammit! When I saw the Vikrant thread active, I thought we had recent news on its progress. Got me excited for nothing!

The article makes a good point though that carrier experience is a perishable commodity.

I wish the IN and MoD can agree on something. If not the 65K ton CVN then a 2nd Vikrant at least. Right now there is no plan for the future which is horrible for ships that take over a decade to construct.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 27 Sep 2017 12:05

I have been against a large CV/fleet carrier for a long time,as I've studied for years carrier ops from inception,esp. WW2,post WW2,designs,etc.Why you may ask?
The simple reason like the good admiral-who doers not know himself what he wants(!),is because of our deeply flawed national grand strategy,or a total lack of it.
Once you've determined your grand strategy,then you equip your armed forces,based upon your economic ability and determine the orientation and parameters of your diplomacy to achieve your GS goal.

For the better part since Independence,India's strategy-and there was nothing grand about it,was defence of our territory against Pakistan (enemy no.1) and China (enemy no.2).Enemy no.2 seldom bothered us apart from some border intrusions which were resolved without too much ado.Enemy no.1 was a permanent diabetic sore,refusing to wage peace with India,lusting perversely after Kashmir and even when dismembered by Mrs. G,FM Sam and co.,has refused to lie down and establsih a constructive relationship with India. China's economic boom was just beginning during the Deng years.Our strategy was therefore almost entirely land-based. We rarely looked to our maritime heritage and heeded the wisdom of Mahan,Panikkar,Nehru,etc."71 was a watershed though.For the first time the IN struck with deadly force.The naval chiefs of yore,with the limited resources at their disposal,the help of Adm. of the Fleet,Gorshkov,transformed the earlier RN ethos of the IN into a modern Indian ethos,melding both the RN traditions with Sov. ships,subs,weaponry and sensors and the tactics that came with them.

Unlike the US and NATO,India had/has NO expeditionary warfare agenda,where large carriers equipped with dozens of aircraft are reqd. to wage war against any nation on the planet,taking the battle to their shores.Take the USMC's famous anthem that underscores the reach of the points of its compasses. "From the halls of Montezuma,To the shores of Tripoli..." However,keeping the trade routes/SLOCS open,esp. in the IOR,was firmly established as the IN's primary duty along with defending the shores of the nation and its island territories from attack/invasion by an enemy. The 3 carrier navy was an old req.,that of Lord Louis Mountbatten,very prescient,who envisaged a greater maritime role for independent India.This number would ensure at least one carrier on each seaboard while one was in refit or repair.The IAF was firmly against this req. as it feared that the IN would draw upon air asset resources meant for it.They argued that from the Indian landmass,they could defend the nation better from any threat from the sea.They lost the argument,as air power at sea has been decisive at sev. key battles like Pearl Harbour,Midway,etc. Moreover,land-based MRP aircraft at that time did not have the massive strike capability range,reach and endurance that they possess today. We've seen it in ample evidence in the war in Syria.

Secondly,sub design and the advent of nuclear powered subs dramatically altered the picture.Even during WW2,numerous carriers were sunk by subs. Take the case of the world's largest carrier,the Shinano of 72,000t heavily armoured. She was to have been a 3rd.Yamato class BBG,but it was later decided after Japanese carrier losses,to convert her hull into a reg. carrier.She was sunk by a tiny US sub,the Archerfish,which launched a salvo of 6 torpedoes.Four struck and despite heavy armour plating,the ship listed,counterflooding wasn't able to save her and she sank within a couple of hours.This is just one example.The same vulnerability of carriers vs subs exists today.In repeated USN exercises,small diesel subs belonging to NATO allies have "sunk" USN carriers.A PLAN Kilo a few years ago successfully penetrated a CBG screen and surfaced a few hundred yards behind the carrier.Now equipped with LRCMs ,longer ranged wire-guided torpedoes,advanced sonars,etc. (The RN says that its latest attack subs can detect a merchantman exiting New York Harbour from the British Isles),subs are even deadlier.Sub quieting too has vastly improved . NO wonder why nuclear powers place their second strike strat. deterrent aboard SSBNs!
This isn't to say that carriers are passe,but their vulnerability has increased and a navy that is lopsided asset wise is in dire straits.Right now we're terribly short of subs and China is building them at phenomenal rate,already possessing 4 times as many as we have. The PLAN has also in recent times,sent its subs into the IOR on regular patrols and when its naval/air base at Gwadar is complete,will flood the IOR with its subs. Sending its carriers into the IOR would be extremely risky ,as their primary task is to counter US carrier forces in the Pacific.The vastness of the Pacific demands carriers in the inventory of a super-power/would-be superpower. Yet even Russia is building more multi-role SSGNs and SSNs for its Pacific Fleet and supporting their naval ops with land-based long-legged aircraft instead of carriers. During the Sov. era,they had one SSGN armed with 20 massive N-tipped long range supersonic missiles for each USN carrier! The massive land mass of Russia,spanning the planet from Europe to Asia.largest country in the world,is also the equiv. of sev. "unsinkable" carriers!

This has been the turning point in the IN's extra duties and today is turning into becoming its top priority,defeating the PLAN in the IOR and beyond.Fortunately we have the massive land mass of India ,thrusting itself into the middle of the IOR like a dagger from which any number of strike aircraft from MKIs,to Backfires,Bears,etc.,equipped with anti-ship supersonic missiles can reduce any surface fleet into flaming datum. The problem remains with ingressing subs and those already in the IOR operating from Paki and other naval bases.Even prosecuting the PLAN in the ICS and Pacific is best done by our sub fleet,conv. AIP subs and esp. our SSGNs and SSNs,capable of 100 day patrols. Even a larger 65K t CV will be overwhelmed with dozens of strike aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles operating out fo the PRC mainland apart from those aboard its carriers. It would be far more prudent for us with two carriers in the bag to first beef up substantially our sub fleet rather than invest in hugely expensive larger carriers ,accompanied by sev. other ships of the task force,which will turn out to be sitting ducks for the PLAN.Subs give stealth and are extremely difficult to detect,track,target and sink.The PLAN has also developed anti-carrier BMs,primarily to deal with the USN's carriers. This requires a carrier/accompanying escorts,to possess a reliable ABM SAM too,increasing the size,and cost of accompanying escorts.Once hyperrsonic missiles arrive,you can imagine the increased vulnerability of large surface vessels like carriers,amphibs,etc.

The truth is that it is the USN and US lobby in India,who want India to be Uncle Sam's bum-chum,that are pursuing the large N-powered EMALS CV,which will be part of a USN armada to fight against China.Having similar features,eqpt.,sensors,aircraft,etc.,cross-decking can be accomplished and the "remote control" of the carrier can be done by the USN through NCW.This carrier would be nothing more than a floating "INS Puerto Rico",an offshore asset of the USN. India does not require at this point in time a floating white elephant when 200+ SSW/multi-role helos and dozerns of subs and surface ships,MCM vessels,etc.,are reqd. post haste.

PS:As said many a time,a sister ship of the IAC-1 and/or modifying the flight deck of the planned 3/4 amphibs would be a more cost-effective solution,giving the IN greater more affordable air capability at sea,while still allowing ti to plug the gaps in vital areas like subs,ASW/MR helos,MCM/surface vessels,etc.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 28 Sep 2017 00:26

chola wrote:Dammit! When I saw the Vikrant thread active, I thought we had recent news on its progress. Got me excited for nothing!

The article makes a good point though that carrier experience is a perishable commodity.

I wish the IN and MoD can agree on something. If not the 65K ton CVN then a 2nd Vikrant at least. Right now there is no plan for the future which is horrible for ships that take over a decade to construct.

Well said. I wholly agree. We have just built our first carrier, EVER. It is to be expected that it will be delayed. The Vikrant will also be India's first carrier that is brand new. All our three carriers in the past have been hand-me-downs --> the Old Vikrant (ex-HMS Hercules), Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes) and Vikramaditya (ex Admiral Gorshkov). Building a carrier is no joke and building a nuclear powered one is a colossal feat of engineering. We have the brain power and manpower to do it, but the funds - as per the article I posted above - has yet to arrive.

Makes better sense to construct a second, but larger, Vikrant first. We are learning from the first vessel and thus the build time for the second vessel will be much quicker, even if it is a design that is scaled up. The ship will be identical to the first, it only needs wider lifts actually. That is it! If the Royal Navy can operate the F-35B from a 70,000 tonne (non-EMALS equipped, non-nuclear powered) Queen Elizabeth Class vessel, we can surely do the same. And if size is the issue, then build a vessel equal in tonnage to the RN carrier. You will have the size, you will have the capability and will influence just as effective as a nuclear powered vessel. If the RN and the USN can/will operate a single-engine F-35B and F-35C aircraft for the next four decades, what is the IN's justification for a twin engine fighter?

Building a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, will delay the second aircraft carrier well into 2040, if she is laid down in the early 2020s. Why soldier on with one carrier, when you can have two of them by 2030, if the keel is laid down now. What is this obsession with F-18 Rhino, EMALS and nuclear power at this very instant?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 28 Sep 2017 02:02

Chola, check this out....Freedom of the Seas being conducted by a non-EMALS equipped, non-nuclear powered aircraft carrier and with no Rhinos onboard just Lightning Bs. A vessel operated by one of the oldest navies in the world, with decades of carrier experience. And going up against none other, than the belligerent Chinese.

The Royal Navy and Freedom of Navigation Operations
http://cimsec.org/royal-navy-freedom-na ... ions/34232

In July, two major announcements were made renewing the Royal Navy’s commitment to the principle of freedom of navigation in the coming years. Firstly, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Right Honourable Michael Fallon, told Reuters that Britain was intending to send a warship to the South China Sea in 2018. The Defence Secretary explicitly stated that, “we have the right of freedom of navigation and we will exercise it.” In a direct reference to China, he added, “we won’t be constrained by China from sailing through the South China Sea.” Shortly afterward, the Foreign Secretary, the Right Honourable Boris Johnson, announced that the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers (the first of which is currently undergoing sea trials in UK waters) would deploy to the Pacific region to conduct freedom of navigation operations “to vindicate our belief in the rules-based international system and in the freedom of navigations through those waterways which are absolutely vital for world trade.” This statement develops remarks made by Sir Kim Darroch, the UK Ambassador in Washington DC, at the end of last year.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 947
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 28 Sep 2017 03:01

Rakesh wrote: Makes better sense to construct a second, but larger, Vikrant first. We are learning from the first vessel and thus the build time for the second vessel will be much quicker, even if it is a design that is scaled up. The ship will be identical to the first, it only needs wider lifts actually. That is it! If the Royal Navy can operate the F-35B from a 70,000 tonne (non-EMALS equipped, non-nuclear powered) Queen Elizabeth Class vessel, we can surely do the same. And if size is the issue, then build a vessel equal in tonnage to the RN carrier. You will have the size, you will have the capability and will influence just as effective as a nuclear powered vessel. If the RN and the USN can/will operate a single-engine F-35B and F-35C aircraft for the next four decades, what is the IN's justification for a twin engine fighter?

Building a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, will delay the second aircraft carrier well into 2040, if she is laid down in the early 2020s. Why soldier on with one carrier, when you can have two of them by 2030, if the keel is laid down now. What is this obsession with F-18 Rhino, EMALS and nuclear power at this very instant?
No catapult == no E2D. RN will be operating under the aegis of the USN. My layman understanding is that E-2D is not a nice to have khan gold plated accessory. It expands the protective bubble around the CBG manifold. I believe brar has mentioned EMALS does not require a nuclear power plant.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 28 Sep 2017 03:26

I was waiting for someone to mention the part about the RN operating under the aegis (both literally and figuratively) of the USN, so thank you. We would be entitled to the same benefits no? Or are we on our own against the Chinese after we buy all these amazing Khan gizmos?

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

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 Sep 2017 03:29

brar_w wrote:
Philip wrote:The US,great strategic bum-chum to some,has point-blank refused us access to N-reactor tech,so were will we get it from then?


Too bad there isn't another country out there that operates a nuclear propulsion equipped aircraft carrier, or currently working on a Next Generation nuclear propulsion for similar applications. :roll:

http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-1664 ... lsion.html


Brar warrior the point Philip is making is valid. Why should we be refused made in usa nuclear propulsion? After all aren't we strategic partners? As NRao ji likes to say joined at hip with USA. When brishit can be given trident slbm why not nuke propulsion for us?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 28 Sep 2017 03:32

Manish-ji: they don’t even want to part with F-16 tech, what makes you think they will part with the tech for nuke reactors? Forget the tech, they are not even willing to certify the made in India, but born in the USA product.

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

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 Sep 2017 03:46

Some things have happened too suddenly.

Suddenly IN says there's no place for NLCA or even mark2.

Suddenly this emals carrier cropped up with USA condition that if we went for another smaller Vikrant 2, then they'll drop the offer for Vishal+emals.

All these with govt announcing no money for more pressing projects like Mountain Strike Corps for Himalayan fronts.

No money for 189 Rafales as promised to IAF In fact no money even for 126 Rafale s. Just make do with piddly 36.

But sending naval rfi for 57 AFF (any foreign fighter)

This Vishal with emal and AFF will be most tughlaqi decision by any govt.

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

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 Sep 2017 03:52

Rakesh wrote:Manish-ji: they don’t even want to part with F-16 tech, what makes you think they will part with the tech for nuke reactors? Forget the tech, they are not even willing to certify the made in India, but born in the USA product.


Very true Admiral Saar. I remember reading circa 2010 here that LM had said that LCA won't fly the way it's designed. They were misleading. Later they refused to help with NLCA, so we took Eads as advisor.

Sorry for being broken record and keep saying that again and again, but that's the only way to break this myth of partnership

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 28 Sep 2017 04:36

Manish_Sharma wrote:Suddenly this emals carrier cropped up with USA condition that if we went for another smaller Vikrant 2, then they'll drop the offer for Vishal+emals.

Do you have a source for this? I have not read this anywhere.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 947
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 28 Sep 2017 08:07

Rakesh wrote:I was waiting for someone to mention the part about the RN operating under the aegis (both literally and figuratively) of the USN, so thank you. We would be entitled to the same benefits no? Or are we on our own against the Chinese after we buy all these amazing Khan gizmos?
Admiral saab, will India fight if Taiwan were to be invaded ? You're conflating sales of military wares with a military alliance.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 28 Sep 2017 09:33

Krishna Saar, what is a strategic defence partnership then for? :)

So if this is sales of military wares onlee, then this is a buyer-seller relationship no?

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

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 Sep 2017 11:52

Rakesh wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:Suddenly this emals carrier cropped up with USA condition that if we went for another smaller Vikrant 2, then they'll drop the offer for Vishal+emals.

Do you have a source for this? I have not read this anywhere.


NRao ji wrote it, around a year and half ago.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 947
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 28 Sep 2017 12:35

Krishna Saar, what is a strategic defence partnership then for? :)
To the best of my knowledge, it is India that has resisted closer military relations with the US. Access to top shelf hardware without alliance strings, is exactly what India wants. IMO an alliance is neither possible not desirable, at least at this stage.

Rakesh wrote:So if this is sales of military wares onlee, then this is a buyer-seller relationship no?
Selling weapons platforms that can help India gain parity or tilt it in her favour in certain situations, vis-a-vis China, isn't just a buyer-seller relationship. The money doesn't hold as much value as restricting China.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2693
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby chola » 28 Sep 2017 14:13

Rakesh wrote:Chola, check this out....Freedom of the Seas being conducted by a non-EMALS equipped, non-nuclear powered aircraft carrier and with no Rhinos onboard just Lightning Bs. A vessel operated by one of the oldest navies in the world, with decades of carrier experience. And going up against none other, than the belligerent Chinese.

The Royal Navy and Freedom of Navigation Operations
http://cimsec.org/royal-navy-freedom-na ... ions/34232




Yup, there are two 65K-ton conventional carriers going into service soon the above mentioned Royal Navy’s “Prince of Wales” and the Shandong of the PLAN.

I think we need to get (back) into CATOBAR operation. But the carrier doesn’t necessarily needs to be a CVN with EMALS.

All our three carriers in the past have been hand-me-downs --> the Old Vikrant (ex-HMS Hercules), Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes) and Vikramaditya (ex Admiral Gorshkov). Building a carrier is no joke and building a nuclear powered one is a colossal feat of engineering. We have the brain power and manpower to do it, but the funds - as per the article I posted above - has yet to arrive.


The lack of funds are a big part of it but I think the lack of a long term strategy is much worse.

I hate to compare with Cheen again but the way they attacked the carrier issue is planning ahead for years if not decades in advance.

We really should have began planning for an indigenous follow on of maybe 30K tons as a replacement to the old Vikrant in 1980s and have something built before old Vikrant’s retirement in 1997. It is massively disappointing that the IN with such a long history in operating carriers cannot formulate a strategy regarding the lifecycle of this most important equipment.

In the same 1980s period, the PLAN with no carrier experience began buying first the derelict CATOBAR Melbourne and then the STOBAR/VTOL Minsk and Kiev (Vikramaditya’s sisters.). They began training with the Brazilians on their Sao Paulo (nee French carrier Foch.). Then they targeted the Varyag and towed her back to Dalian and spent a decade studying and rebuilding it into a working carrier commissioned in 2012.

While they re-furbished the Varyag, we decided to have Russia re-build the Gorshkov. From there on, Cheen gained the upper hand in building carriers. They took a decade in re-building their carrier and learned the business. We gave Russia a decade to convert the Gorshkov and learned nothing.

That decade of studying the Varyag also give rise to their Type 001A that took an absolutely insane two years to assemble (keel first spotted in 2015, launched in 2017.) Obviously the planning and modular work had started way before then.

We are still struggling with the new Vikrant and because of a lack foresight had compromised even this new carrier with Russian design principles that now more or less restricts us to the MiG-29K. We SHOULD have started designs years earlier based on the Majestic and Hermes classes that we operated. WE were the ones with the greater carrier experience NOT Russia.

Where we should have studied the old Vikrant (and its original catapult) the chinis through Melbourne have settled on their followon CATOBAR Type 002 design. Then a CVN Type 003. Things are laid out in advance. We have no plans except for a design that MoD rejected repeatedly.
Last edited by chola on 28 Sep 2017 15:01, edited 2 times in total.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4172
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Karthik S » 28 Sep 2017 14:18

chola wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Chola, check this out....Freedom of the Seas being conducted by a non-EMALS equipped, non-nuclear powered aircraft carrier and with no Rhinos onboard just Lightning Bs. A vessel operated by one of the oldest navies in the world, with decades of carrier experience. And going up against none other, than the belligerent Chinese.

The Royal Navy and Freedom of Navigation Operations
http://cimsec.org/royal-navy-freedom-na ... ions/34232



Yup, there are two 65K-ton conventional carriers going into service soon the above mentioned Royal Navy’s “Prince of Wales” and the Shandong of the PLAN.

I think we need to get (back) into CATOBAR operation. But the carrier doesn’t necessarily needs to be a CVN with EMALS.


Little OT, but I wonder what UQ is going to do with 2 aircraft carriers. RN's 6 Type 45 DDGs keep breaking down for one reason or another, it has only 6 SSNs that needs to take care of their 4 SSBNs primarily, rest is frigates. May be their vanity to match up to khan has made them invest in carriers.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6643
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Sep 2017 15:20

The RN much like its sister services is now designed around combined and coalition operations so those carriers won't really be operating solo without coalition support in most scenarios. In fact, its very first deployment is to have Marines on board along with their F-35Bs. From that perspective, having 2 carriers helps even if you only deploy them together during rare and "surge" scenarios with other chipping in to help.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2693
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby chola » 28 Sep 2017 15:23

Well, they are the Royal Navy. If there is one Navy on earth that has a right to be vain, it is them.

That said, they gave up their fleet carrier and along with it their CATOBAR experience in 1970s. It must gall them to see that the French navy have retained CATOBAR operations.

The F-35 gave the RN reason to get back into the game of carrier operations. But the fact that you have such large carriers without catapults (the Brits claim that the QE class is designed for catapults just not built with them) is indicative of the fact they’ve lost the gold standard.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5264
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 28 Sep 2017 15:47

Karthik S wrote:Little OT, but I wonder what UQ is going to do with 2 aircraft carriers. RN's 6 Type 45 DDGs keep breaking down for one reason or another, it has only 6 SSNs that needs to take care of their 4 SSBNs primarily, rest is frigates. May be their vanity to match up to khan has made them invest in carriers.

Actually the unit cost of the QE class is comparable to that of the French CdG carrier. They've ordered two of them but will also use them as LHAs - the HMS Ocean is being retired without replacement while the French still have their Mistrals. No comparison with the USN though - the combined tonnage of the QEs is still only a tenth that of the USN CVNs + LHAs.

The Type 45's problems relate primarily to the reliability of the new propulsion system. Electric drive is much like fly-by-wire & AESA i.e. a pain to develop but it is the future, with very tangible advantages in terms of performance & flexibility, especially over the long-term.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6643
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Sep 2017 16:04

chola wrote:Well, they are the Royal Navy. If there is one Navy on earth that has a right to be vain, it is them.

That said, they gave up their fleet carrier and along with it their CATOBAR experience in 1970s. It must gall them to see that the French navy have retained CATOBAR operations.

The F-35 gave the RN reason to get back into the game of carrier operations. But the fact that you have such large carriers without catapults (the Brits claim that the QE class is designed for catapults just not built with them) is indicative of the fact they’ve lost the gold standard.


I think the added cost of modifications at the last minute would have likely meant that they would have had to sacrifice one carrier to be able to get catapults incorporated allowing them to transition to the F-35C. Then there are training costs as well when it comes to maintaining competencies to do CAT based ops. Looking at the bigger picture, the only thing they should not have skimped out on was some decent self protection. Their carriers have nothing in the form of ESSM/ASTER type protection. Over the next decade, even going into the Middle East would entail a risk of having 200-500 km (and possibly more) anti-ship ballistic missiles launched at you in addition to other supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles that have and will continue to proliferate. Then you are at the mercy of SM2 or SM6 coverage from a coalition partner vessel as the Aster is unlikely to provide umbrella coverage against the faster threats.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2693
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby chola » 29 Sep 2017 10:09

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote:Well, they are the Royal Navy. If there is one Navy on earth that has a right to be vain, it is them.

That said, they gave up their fleet carrier and along with it their CATOBAR experience in 1970s. It must gall them to see that the French navy have retained CATOBAR operations.

The F-35 gave the RN reason to get back into the game of carrier operations. But the fact that you have such large carriers without catapults (the Brits claim that the QE class is designed for catapults just not built with them) is indicative of the fact they’ve lost the gold standard.


I think the added cost of modifications at the last minute would have likely meant that they would have had to sacrifice one carrier to be able to get catapults incorporated allowing them to transition to the F-35C. Then there are training costs as well when it comes to maintaining competencies to do CAT based ops. Looking at the bigger picture, the only thing they should not have skimped out on was some decent self protection. Their carriers have nothing in the form of ESSM/ASTER type protection. Over the next decade, even going into the Middle East would entail a risk of having 200-500 km (and possibly more) anti-ship ballistic missiles launched at you in addition to other supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles that have and will continue to proliferate. Then you are at the mercy of SM2 or SM6 coverage from a coalition partner vessel as the Aster is unlikely to provide umbrella coverage against the faster threats.



The RN is facing a host of funding related issues:

1) not enough trained crew to staff QE, never mind the POW

2) recruitment is 10% under annual target to maintain current force level

3) poor pay means more leave the navy every year than are recruited

4) no money for Harpoon replacement, Harpoon was scheduled to be retired in 2018. Surface warfare ship could end up without any AShM for a period even if a successor were chosen today

5) only 19 main surface combatants in forms of DDGs and FFGs. IN has 25 and with four P15Bs coming and later up to 7 P17As. RN has no planned DDG follow-on for the six they have now onlee. Though they could have up to a dozen Type 23 and 31 FFGs planned but frigates over destroyers already indicates a major downsizing in ambition as well as tonnage.

Mentioning the above as a frame of reference when we look at the cost restrictions of our own projects. The RN look like they are in even worse shape.

Yet the RN decided on two new 65K ton carriers when paying for them which must have put a major crimp on the other things they needed. The question is why? The navy with the longest running experience must have a proper reason, right?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 29 Sep 2017 12:12

For those of us wishing that in the future a JSF could be flying in IN colours,some bad news. more in the Intl. Av. td. the JSF is far from being perfected,actual cost still unknown,off. spokesman says a "deep dive" is req. to determine what it will cost,ejector seats will likely kill 20+ pilots in the future,etc.,etc.Therefore,depending upon a STOVL config only for our flat tops/amphibs, needs to be looked at unless we operate exg. naval fighters (29/35Ks,Rafale-Ms,etc.)using a ski-jump and the carrier to have much larger lifts ,able to accommodate even naval FGFAs,whatever.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6643
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Sep 2017 14:53

Philip wrote:For those of us wishing that in the future a JSF could be flying in IN colours,some bad news. more in the Intl. Av. td. the JSF is far from being perfected,actual cost still unknown,off. spokesman says a "deep dive" is req. to determine what it will cost,ejector seats will likely kill 20+ pilots in the future,etc.,etc.Therefore,depending upon a STOVL config only for our flat tops/amphibs, needs to be looked at unless we operate exg. naval fighters (29/35Ks,Rafale-Ms,etc.)using a ski-jump and the carrier to have much larger lifts ,able to accommodate even naval FGFAs,whatever.


Replied to that nonsense (article not you). No, no one will die and the cost is known since contracts are fixed price. The cost they keep attributing "unknowns" to is the 60 year sustainment and procurement cost which is always going to be a moving target because procurement quantities (annual buy rates), and sustainment strategies are bound to change over time, and because models are updated as prior assumptions are confirmed or rejected. Try to be objective and understand issues rather than sensationalizing stuff as in :

seats will likely kill 20+ pilots in the future,etc.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Oct 2017 23:36


ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Oct 2017 00:15


“It was a quantum leap from about 7,000 tonnes to 40,000 tonnes. We are no more deterred by the size of a warship,” says Capt. Padmanabhan, hinting at the larger domestic carrier that’s on the drawing table.
I think if we have a marine light water reactor in the 150MW range, let us put two or three of them on the next carrier and build a larger one. All in favor of significant jumps as long as we make progress in indigenous systems.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 19 Oct 2017 08:14

US to release EMALS technology to India for aircraft carriers
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 129874.cms

Economic Times does not permit you to copy the entire text. It keeps cutting off. So weird!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6643
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 19 Oct 2017 15:03

Rakesh wrote:US to release EMALS technology to India for aircraft carriers
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 129874.cms

Economic Times does not permit you to copy the entire text. It keeps cutting off. So weird!


The systems obtained clearence to export, so India specific green light was expected. Anyhow, the portion below is often lost in the debate -

India had sent a letter of request to the US government during the Obama administration for the Electromagnetic Launch System (EMLAS) built by General Atomics for aircraft carrier planned by the Indian Navy.


Meanwhile, EMALS/AAG continue to be put through its paces - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VG0HkQDbDE

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6643
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 19 Oct 2017 22:52

US offers EMALS technology to India for IN's proposed second indigenous carrier ;Jane's Defence Weekly

The United States has approved the transfer of the technology behind the General Atomics Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to the Indian Navy (IN) for the latter’s proposed second indigenous aircraft carrier, said senior officials in Washington and New Delhi.

Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on 18 October, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the United States had approved “several” defence proposals for India that could be “potential game changers” for the commercial and military co-operation between the two countries.

“In keeping with India’s status as a major [US] defence partner and our mutual interest in expanding maritime co-operation, the Trump administration has offered a menu of defence options for India’s consideration, including the [General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc’s (GA-ASI’s)] Guardian unmanned aerial vehicle,” said the US official.

He indicated that other defence equipment earmarked for India included aircraft carrier technologies as well as F-16 and F/A-18 fighter aircraft, but declined to elaborate.

The Trump administration’s offer came just days ahead of Tillerson’s maiden visit to India, which is set to take place in late October. The state secretary will also be travelling to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Senior Indian military officials said the US offer of the EMALS technology followed a letter of request (LOR) issued in June by India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD), asking Washington to provide the technology for the IN’s second indigenous aircraft carrier, which is currently at planning stage.

Cursory talks on India acquiring EMALS and advanced arrestor technology for its carrier-based aircraft have taken place since 2015 at meetings of the IN-US Navy (USN) Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology Cooperation.

The EMALS is also believed to have featured in discussions during US Defence Secretary James Mattis’ visit to New Delhi in late September.



Last edited by brar_w on 19 Oct 2017 23:00, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5717
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 19 Oct 2017 22:59

brar: is that from Janes' subscription section? Just be careful.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shekhar Singh and 35 guests