INS Vikramaditya: News and Discussion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Nov 2013 08:36

Tx NR for that snippet on Karwar.This is another case of lethargy and neglect by the MOD and authorities.We've known for years that the carrier would be berthed at Karwar.In fact the delay in its arrival should've given the defence planners/babus more than enough time to build the required civic infrastructure for the base.Just acquiring major ticket items costing billions does not make a navy.It is the men and women who run the show who matter most.Their welfare is paramount.Fairly recently a serving senior IAF officer told me (in the context of the new airstrips being opened in the Himalayas) of the hardships they suffered when new bases and establishments were created.They were focussed upon getting the operational aspects created first before their personal comforts.The officer compared this with DPSUs by comparison,where superb infrastructure was first created and then the labs,workshops,etc.!The officer said that when they went on deputation to such establishments,they felt that they felt that were on holiday.I don't know how many are watching the re-run of that great comedy classic series MASH and the hardships and poor conditions that US troops endured in the Korean War,but surely there is adequate disaster relief pre-fab housing that can be used at Karwar.These days the media/mags are full of pre-fab engineering structures for industries,civil works that can be erected in a jiffy.I know of many industries where even containers are used as offices and have seen abroad them used even for housing of plant employees.These cannot replace permament structures,but when we have paid $2.5 for a carrier and will be spending millions each month to simply operate her,surely a few 100 crores can be set aside to complete the required infrastructure at the base?

titash · Post by **titash** » 28 Nov 2013 08:36

Shalav wrote: The Vicky was always a slapped together effort to get over the carrier gap for the IN. It's aircraft lifts are in the middle of the deck, which will hamper launch/recovery/turnaround at all times. Both the long and short T/O positions are within the BAR area. It would never have had simultaneous launch/recovery capabilities. There is no point criticizing it for a capability it could never have had in practicality. Anyone who had seen the initial artists impressions of it would have reconciled to that fact immediately. For its size it will carry an understrength squadron - 15 aircraft + 15 Helos.

Due to all of the above it will never ever have a high sortie rate or be a USN type super-carrier. But SO WHAT! The Viraat should have retired 3 years ago, the Vikrant is still under construction and the Vicky with a decent airwing is all we have in terms of a modern capable carrier now. Delayed or not, this carrier was necessary for the IN - both to maintain it's carrier operations expertise and re-convert from STOVL to STOBAR and thence (hopefully) to CATOBAR.

Now that she is with us I forgive all and will love her like I love all IN ships.

May she serve long and be victorious in all her battles.

+1 to Shalav's post above and what Philip has been saying in his last 2 posts.

We can agree that Vicky is a sub-optimal carrier, and will never be as good as the purpose designed and built INS Vikrant.

However for a multitude of reasons, it was the only game in town when the decision was taken. We chose to stick with it the last 5-10 years even though things didn't pan out as we'd have liked.

Irrespective, the ship is ours now with all its faults (and benefits) and will dominate the IOR for the next decade if utilized to its maximum capability. It's time to accept that and move on.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 28 Nov 2013 09:02

Avinandan wrote:Noob Pooch : If it is almost certain that IAC-2 would possess catapults, then shouldn't we look at the big picture and have some plans ready for a navalised CABS AEW ? How feasible it is for an Embraer ERJ 145 (with better landing gear) to do operations from IAC-2 ?

Do the above on a Dornier and convert it into a catapult launched aircraft?

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Nov 2013 09:06

SaiK wrote:

Talking about sortie rates, from the video it looks like it takes roughly 2 minutes for a fuelled & armed MiG-29K from the parking space aft of the island structure to get to its launch position and then another 30 seconds for take-off. Various Vikramaditya drawings show that around 6 MiG-29Ks can be parked in the aft section. This means that Vikramaditya would be able to put all its 6 fuelled/armed MiG-29Ks parked in the aft section in the air within 8 to 10 minutes.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Nov 2013 09:07

Eye on future, India mulls options for nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

I hope the IAC-II would be in the 90,000+ ton range, prefer 100,000 tons.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 28 Nov 2013 10:02

Homeward Bound (apologies to Simon&Garfunkel)

Just had to laugh out aloud when reading this...bureaucracy the great leveler.

Commanded by Captain Suraj Berry, Vikramaditya is at the outer anchorage at the time of filing this report, completing customs clearance formalities and

This is a really interesting part though

Indian Navy Chief Admiral D.K. Joshi indicated that Indian naval fighter pilots would be certified to carry out flying operations from the carrier deck within weeks of the carrier’s arrival in India.

While "within weeks" leaves wiggle room, it would be very impressive to have a whole squadron at least day CQ-ed by Feb/March. I do hope they invite the media to cover this phase, as really this is where the rubber literally meets the steel deck!

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 28 Nov 2013 11:37

Hitesh wrote:Nobody has really answered my question about MiG's MTOW without a catapult assist on Vikramaditya. On other forums, people are saying that the MiG fighters will only offer minimal value as fleet defence fighters since they can only take off with 4000 kgs instead of 9000 kgs and because of this, this ship will not be effective anywhere else but the IOR and only against non-NATO forces. And based on this, this is overkill and waste of money because to achieve what this ship does can be done with cheaper alternatives.

Will adding a catapult make a big difference and how much does it cost to do so?

take it FWIW.

as you would know naval aircrafts taking off from ACs come with added weight penalty as compared to their land based variants as a result of the undercarriage, airframe being strengthened to withstand high sink rates on recovery which also means - even takeoffs have a weight penalty. also the limited runway length dictates terms vis a vis engine thrust.

now in a STOBAR, the aircraft has to take off with it's own engine thrust and needs to be as light as can be, and considering the the point above, what it means is it boils downs to either lesser payload or lesser internal fuel at take off (IFR post take off). take the case of Rafale M which is just 500kg heavier than the Rafale C and has 95% commonality comes with MTOW of 22200kg as vs 24500kg for Rafale C. as you can see there is a app. 10% penalty even when it is CATOBAR propelled.

in a CATOBAR the aircraft's engine thrust is 'augmented' by the sling of the CAT so the weight penalty is a not a big issue. it has advantages -

1. allows the aircraft take off with max useful load.

2. fuel savings giving a better range.

3. limitation of runway length taken care of.

4. allows heavier aircrafts to take off.

CATOBAR has major benefits but obviously comes with added cost and must be maintainence intensive IMO. besides only USA has the tech.

however it is to be noted no aircraft flies at MTOW unless there is an emergency. considering even CATOBAR aircraft has a penalty of app 10%, IMO a STOBAR aircraft should have a penalty of 20-25%. however this is just my guess and somebody like Shalav can put a figure to it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Nov 2013 11:53

the french PA2 carrier design shares some common features with the QE2 design because it was a joint project before the french pulled out due to lack of funds. but eventually they have to build another carrier considering they have just 1 left. it will have catobar and hence do not think of the QE2 as the template for IAC2 but the PA2.

75000t full load
40 x Mig29K/N-Tejas/Rafale/JSF ** (I think this is understated. the USS kitty hawk of slightly bigger size has airwing of 70...)
5 x utility/ASW helis
3 x E2

thats a good strike oriented ship there. E2 would help defeat anything the cheen bring to the table in a deep ocean fight.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Nov 2013 12:47

NRao wrote:Eye on future, India mulls options for nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

I hope the IAC-II would be in the 90,000+ ton range, prefer 100,000 tons.

advanced materials can reduce weight by 30%... just we need to get up to speed on that. what is this with tonnage?

example: research stuff: http://www.dodsbir.net/sitis/archives_d ... mark=36068

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Nov 2013 12:58

advanced materials would be prohibitively expensive
also weight is not so much an issue here

Vinod Ji · Post by **Vinod Ji** » 28 Nov 2013 15:00

Lalmohan wrote:advanced materials would be prohibitively expensive
also weight is not so much an issue here

I think here weight referred is of aircraft.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Nov 2013 16:13

space available on a carrier for storing aircraft is much more of a bottleneck than weight.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Nov 2013 18:05

they say competition for space even in nimitz class is intense. crews sleep in 3 tier bunk beds. areas are needed to service a/c , store spares , munitions and aviation fuel, aisles needed to move heavy things around, engine service bays I think point over the side to allow smoke and flame to escape....a proper mid sized airbase infra is needed to be cramped into an area barely 300m long. it aint easy. and the price paid is lesser sorties and strike power than a regular land base with a similar airwing.

still, since ww2 the carrier strike group has found no parallel in deep ocean warfare in its ability to move 1000s of miles at high speed, strike and then disappear into the empty spaces.
in Falklands, a british SSN tasked to find and sink the lone argentine carrier De mayo was unable to ever find it while the carrier's S2 tracker a/c were apparently able to locate the approaching british task force, flush with fat merchant ships....unfortunately for Arg a lack of catapults and low wind meant its ac were unable to launch an attack...meantime the belgrano was sunk and HQ called it back to port.

and this was merely a vikrant style carrier. a pair of IAC1 type carriers working together with catobar can bring a significant weight on the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Veinti ... Mayo_(V-2)
During the Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas/Guerra del Atlántico Sur) the Veinticinco de Mayo was used in support of the initial Argentine landings on the Falklands[3] and then in defence of the occupation she was deployed in a task force north of the Falkland Islands, with the ARA General Belgrano to the south. The British had assigned HMS Spartan, a nuclear-powered submarine, to track down the Veinticinco de Mayo and sink her if necessary. Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward, commanding the British Task Force from HMS Hermes stated in his book "One Hundred Days", that had Spartan located the carrier, he would have "Recommended in the strongest possible terms to the Commander-in-Chief Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse that we take them both out this night".[4]
After hostilities broke out on 1 May 1982, the Argentine carrier attempted to launch a wave of A-4Q Skyhawk jets against the Royal Navy Task Force after her S-2 Trackers detected the British fleet. However, what would have been the first battle between aircraft carriers since World War II did not take place, as poor winds prevented the heavily-loaded jets from being launched. After the British nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano, the Veinticinco de Mayo returned to port for safety. Spartan never tracked down the carrier. Her A-4Q Skyhawks flew the rest of the war from the naval airbase in Río Grande, Tierra del Fuego, and had some success against the Royal Navy, sinking HMS Ardent, although three Skyhawks were shot down by Sea Harriers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Nov 2013 18:14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhcCnQt-Yh4

this video makes it clear there is atleast a 10feet gap between the flight deck and the roof of the hanger. so no reason why part of that space cannot be used to install blast deflectors. its not just a steel sheet there. there is one level of living spaces in that space probably and the 90m long catapult machinery also for 4 cats.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Nov 2013 18:38

watching old videos of the falklands attacks , most of the argentine pilots were really good .... operating at limits of their range , at low level ..even with obsolete ac like the A4 skyhawk were quite a handful.... speaks well of their training system. their side of the story is unknown in the international book publishing scene. while the sea harriers got praised to the skies.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 28 Nov 2013 19:47

Isn't the Dornier like a C-2 Greyhound? used to land on USN carriers

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 28 Nov 2013 19:53

for lols sake, can the catapult system driven directly by a commercial jet engine (or Ahem! Kaveri) traveling in a tunnel underneath the A/C runway impart enough launch velocity? its like a RATO but without the weight penalty or risk on the aircraft or the energy losses of a boiler driven electrical one

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 28 Nov 2013 20:04

Veinticinco de Mayo came to Alang, Gujarat for scrapping

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 28 Nov 2013 20:26

Singha wrote:watching old videos of the falklands attacks , most of the argentine pilots were really good .... operating at limits of their range , at low level ..even with obsolete ac like the A4 skyhawk were quite a handful.... speaks well of their training system. their side of the story is unknown in the international book publishing scene. while the sea harriers got praised to the skies.

To be fair to British SHAR pilots whose books on the Falkands War have become popular, including alleged megalomaniac Sharkey Ward, they have generally been very glowing of the performance of the Argentinians, including Boeing 707s who were flying near suicidal missions shadowing the British task force.

This is a very well regarded book that provides an Argentian perspective, where the author had access to their pilots who flew and fought in the South Atlantic.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wings-Malvinas- ... 1902109228

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Nov 2013 21:24

what is this with tonnage?

Times have changed since the 2000 or so. India is building up on the China front - with a strike corp no less and now the latest news is to strengthen the ANC arena. And, I am sure that will not be the end of the story - even with the economy tanking.

So, here is my thinking.

The IN, IMVVVHO, needs at least one, if not two/three CBGs to lead and win an effort vs. China ("China" to me will include *any* puppets she may have in the IOR) + be able to challenge China in the South China Region (SCR). At the very least a perceived threat needs to be established.

Vicky cannot do that.

Vikrant could assist.

But the IN needs at least a 50 fixed wing aircraft carrier (helos will be in addition). So, whatever that translates into tonnage.

IMVVHO, the Vicky was based on a set of data points that are no longer really valid. And, I just do not see any growth potential in her either (comments?). She was the best based on what was, not on what is. At the end of the day I would hate to see MKIs/FGFA/AMCA, in 2025, being sent to help her out.

????? Thoughts ?????

srin · Post by **srin** » 28 Nov 2013 21:35

Many years ago, while the Vik deal was doldrums because of the delays, there was a rumour that Kitty Hawk was on offer provided India bought the SHornets.

Now I don't know if it was calculated leak as a negotiation tactic against the russians or whether it was serious.

May be the calculation was that a bird in hand was worth two in bush, but ultimately the Navy stuck to getting the Vik when they could have walked away.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 28 Nov 2013 21:42

In the future, India (specifically the Naval Air Arm) will certainly be able to base aircraft from any of the ASEAN countries on the SCR littorals. And there is the potential for using long range supersonic bombers too...

2 CBG's should be able to effectively seal off the northern IOR from the Western Pacific at the Lombok and Malacca straits, however the PLAN with their carriers would still be able to enter the southern IOR.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Nov 2013 21:59

srin wrote:Many years ago, while the Vik deal was doldrums because of the delays, there was a rumour that Kitty Hawk was on offer provided India bought the SHornets.

Now I don't know if it was calculated leak as a negotiation tactic against the russians or whether it was serious.

May be the calculation was that a bird in hand was worth two in bush, but ultimately the Navy stuck to getting the Vik when they could have walked away.

well, there is a better (more technically advanced) offer on the table.

will certainly be able to base aircraft from any of the ASEAN countries on the SCR littorals

Will India accept that situation is the question. even now there are options but India has always been reluctant (confidence building I guess).

IF she does that would be a quantum leap - a very huge move. It tantamount to getting bases abroad.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 28 Nov 2013 22:05

Could use the v-22 osprey instead of the c-2 for resupply ac engines, etc.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Nov 2013 02:22

We can also consider multiple kaveri-gts for propulsion till such time atv reactor matures for carrier needs.

6+6 kaveri marines can deliver the horse power to drive QE class carrier. in addition, even if nuke propulsion matures, the kaveri marines can be fallback when nuke power gets shutdown.

some of the weight reduction measures (ops) for cvn-21 class needs a study
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 29 Nov 2013 04:33

vasu raya wrote:for lols sake, can the catapult system driven directly by a commercial jet engine (or Ahem! Kaveri) traveling in a tunnel underneath the A/C runway impart enough launch velocity? its like a RATO but without the weight penalty or risk on the aircraft or the energy losses of a boiler driven electrical one

You will still have to stop it, and bring it back to the battery position.

Present cats. use steam as the propulsive medium.

EMALS will use mag-lev technology - so you need a boiler or a nuclear power plant to generate that electricity. Will a gas turbine be able to generate that needed electrical power on-demand? I have no idea. It can still use a water-brake to stop the piston, just like current tech. So there will be no need to generate generate additional power to decelerate and stop the piston.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Nov 2013 06:35

Having on paper a great fleet of nuclear powered CBGs is a wet dream,but in the Indian context highly unaffordable and perhaps impractical.Operating 3 carrier task forces will demand a huge piece of the def. budget pie.The big Q is what is the opposition that we will face in the future? Let's take a look.

Firstly,I don't think that anyone expects us to face off with the USN,'71 notwithstanding.The USN is now downsizing its navy and carriers especially and will have not more than 3 CBGs operational ,details posted some months ago.Its carrier inventory might be much larger,but drastic cuts to training,reduction in the number of operational squadrons is taking its toll on the USN.The stark fact is that America's post CW wars has beggared it and given paltry results in return.India cannot replace the US as a global cop, we do not have the money,neither can the IN play the role of "deputy" to Marshal Sam.What is required is a regional security architecture that involves littoral nations and the major powers in particular.The IN's role will be primarily to defend our coastline,island territories and those littoral smaller nations with whom we have security agreements like Mauritius.

Our two main threats will continue to be Pak and China.The latter is a rapidly growing threat in the maritime sphere particularly,but requires a balanced response.China is developing an anti-carrier posture for the PLAN with its own carriers to extend the air dominance boundary from its coastline to the outer island chain.SU-35s are being acquired from Russia as these aircraft have a 20% longer range than SU-27/0s that it possesses,apart from other improvements.It has also invested heavily in anti-carrier BMs,which the USN consider a serious threat.Therefore,even Indian carriers will be targeted by the PRC's BMs. As of now,there is no sure guarantee that a sat guided BM attack will be countered with current naval SAMs.The critical deficiency in the IN's order of battle is its sub fleet.Apart from the 3 carrier goal,the sub fleet has to be drastically enhanced.China alone will have 60-80 mostly new N and conventional subs by 2020.Several Asian navies are all building up their sub inventories with new German,French and Russian types.The Saudis have announced their own sub ambitions,24 German U-boats if you please! There is one disturbing factor.The handing over of Gwadar to China by Pak. What is clearly planned and may have escaped our strategists is the stationing of SU-30/35s at Gwadar to escort Chinese tankers along with its large sub as they transit the IOR. Gwadar will become a Chinese equiv. of Cam Ranh Bay ,almost at the mouth of the Gulf,threatening Indian tankers and shipping as well as protecting Chinese ones.With other planned logistic spots like Hambantota,the PPRC is determined to fight its way in the IOR if need be,using Pak as its primary littoral land mass from which to operate from.The Paki PN threat should be seen as being part of the combined JV threat.In any future spat with Pak,neutralising Gwadar will be as important as neutering Karachi.

Therefore,ASW warfare is going to be a prime consideration for the IN in the immediate future.Apart from increasing our own sub fleet,both N-boats as well as conventional AIP ones,we need to augment the ASW capability of the surface fleet as well as ASW carrier capabilities.This is where multi-role amphib vessels which are being considered need to be acquired too.At l;east 100 med. sized multi-role helos to replace our Sea Kings are needed.Long range strike also requires more LRMP aircraft with the range of the Bears,or acquisition of upgraded Backfires is another need.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 29 Nov 2013 06:38

Shalav wrote:
vasu raya wrote:for lols sake, can the catapult system driven directly by a commercial jet engine (or Ahem! Kaveri) traveling in a tunnel underneath the A/C runway impart enough launch velocity? its like a RATO but without the weight penalty or risk on the aircraft or the energy losses of a boiler driven electrical one
You will still have to stop it, and bring it back to the battery position.

Present cats. use steam as the propulsive medium.

EMALS will use mag-lev technology - so you need a boiler or a nuclear power plant to generate that electricity. Will a gas turbine be able to generate that needed electrical power on-demand? I have no idea. It can still use a water-brake to stop the piston, just like current tech. So there will be no need to generate generate additional power to decelerate and stop the piston.

EMALS is nice, importing it isn't, just my opinion. if the catapult jet engine is at an offset from the nosewheel towbar i.e., behind the towbar position by a good plane length or more, that offset could be used for water braking too. Then there is the committed speed beyond which an aircraft can't be stopped, it has to be a go around, how that speed relates to the catapult jet engine with a significantly higher thrust since it has to 'abort' its run, not sure. FADEC could be an advantage for finer control between the planes engines and the catapult engine, while I would hesitate to put a jet engine alongside or sync with another type of engine, which tends to be more complex be it steam or maglev

At the sametime think that their might be good reasons for navies not to try it, willing to hear them. btw, thought gas turbines were good for quick acceleration power but fuel inefficient on cruise relatively speaking

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Nov 2013 07:02

FYI:

May, 2013 :: Indian Navy seeks EMALS system for second Vikrant-class aircraft carrier

Currently, the Indian Navy is evaluating the EMALS programme for its 65,000t INS Vishal, which is still only a concept, while General Atomics recently briefed on the EMALS to the navy admirals.

During the meeting, General Atomics stated that the EMALS ships can support launch operations even in still conditions, while STOBAR aircraft carriers should maintain a speed of 20k-30k to generate wind-over-deck to support the mission.

An admiral said that the CATOBAR offers more options such as supporting operations of heavier fighters, AEW aircraft and, crucially, unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs), when compared with STOBAR systems.
"We could greatly expand our mission envelope with UCAVs, using the pilotless aircraft for high-risk reconnaissance and suppression of enemy air defences."

A naval planner said: "We could greatly expand our mission envelope with UCAVs, using the pilotless aircraft for high-risk reconnaissance and SEAD (suppression of enemy air defences)."

Equipped with six major subsystems. including prime power interface, launch motor, power conversion electronics, launch control, energy storage and energy distribution system, EMALS is also a choice for the US Navy's new aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Nov 2013 07:10

INS Vishal - India started work on second Aircraft Carrier

Navy eyes high-tech options for future aircraft carriers

“We have completed 134 test launches across five classes of aircraft, including the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter; the F/A-18E Super Hornet; the C-2A Greyhound (delivery aircraft); the T-45 Goshawk trainer; and the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye,” Forney briefed the navy.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 29 Nov 2013 07:53

EMALS for a ship to see operational service in 2025-2030 is a no-brainer IMO - the advantages over existing tech is substantial.

EMALS being developed by DRDO might end in them seeking foreign ToT/consultancy like in many other projects we have seen.

If the objection to an American imported EMALS is based on a lack of "strategic trust", the next 5-10 years in all likelihood is going to see the two countries moving closer, including the carriers exercising jointly. Many perceptions will change in that time.

To do Increased tonnage + CATOBAR + EMALS + N-propulsion all in the lead ship of a class, might take us into the program management nightmares of the F-35 though.

EMALS for a non n-powered carrier is something the GA guys would have factored into their presentations made to the IN. They have enough time to adapt/modify the system from the USN version.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 29 Nov 2013 08:18

from the link

http://activedefence.blogspot.ca/2012/0 ... econd.html

Quote
The Vishal demands a mighty cost of about 1.5 billion USD , according to Defence Ministry sources, where as INS Vikrant II is being built at a cost of 750 million USD. Vikrant, which is delayed by two years, is now expected to be commissioned in Indian Navy by 2017.
Unquote

These figures do not seem to be accurate our new frigates cost a lot more than the above.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 29 Nov 2013 08:21

Philip wrote:start-snip
Firstly,I don't think that anyone expects us to face off with the USN,'71 notwithstanding.The USN is now downsizing its navy and carriers especially and will have not more than 3 CBGs operational ,details posted some months ago.
end-snip

By law, USN is required to have 11 operational CBG. As recent as Jan 2013, Sec Panetta has confirmed their intent to have 11 CBG in the future. Though, I agree that we won't face-off with USN.

US Navy: composition and functions:

b) The naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not less than 11 operational aircraft carriers.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 29 Nov 2013 08:43

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

To provide the complete picture they are currently operating with 10 carriers under a Congress waiver, to tide over the gap between Enterprise's exit and Gerald Ford's commissioning which is expected 2015/16.

rohanldsouza · Post by **rohanldsouza** » 29 Nov 2013 11:27

Looks like Porkistan is getting nervous with the upcoming induction of INS Vikramaditya into Indian Navy since they know from History what happened in 1971 when we chocked them in East Pakistan with INS Vikrant.

Now they start talking propaganda about costs , etc since they know they can't even get their all weather friends "the Chinese" to help them in this regard and also they are on drip medicine as far as finance goes.

http://newindianexpress.com/nation/Can- ... 897528.ece

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 29 Nov 2013 19:58

As a thought experiment, if a wind tunnel is placed underneath a short runway, the test article is coupled to the towbar on the surface, this test article on producing thrust can move say 100m within the wind tunnel, one can vary the test article to be jet engine, ramjet or scramjet, we produced 20sec burn time in lab for the last one and the foot print is small relatively.

check the chart below, the mach number corresponds to the wind speed in the tunnel in this case

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 090105.png

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Nov 2013 20:31

May be India can relax a wee bit? ??????

Russian Expert Terms Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning has Test Platform

Not the most reliable of sources, however:

He also went on to say that China’s first aircraft carrier “Liaoning” was still a test platform and only in calm weather conditions it was ideal for aircraft takeoff and landing only in certain weather conditions . ............................

.................................... and also raised doubts if Chinese carrier will ever be able to move out for High sea patrols beyond its Regional waters .

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Nov 2013 21:06

What was the enormous expenditure for,if it is going to be merely a training platform? The Russians may have sold the Chinese down the Yangtse though! The PLAN have to develop their own reverse-engineered versions of the SU-33-a bird secretly bought from Ukraine say some,or a naval version of the JF-17,but give the PLAN a year or so operating the carrier and they will definitely develop their carrier aviation skills the hard way.As the Chinese say,"hasten cautiously".That will be their course of action with the Liaoning.The Russian analysts may be right about one factor though.It is highly unlikely that the PLAN will for some time sail the carrier into "harm's way",blue water ops in other words,until it has a strong carrier task force that consists of escorts with LR SAMs,plus an SSN/SSGN to accompany the carrier task force.The new PLAN N-sub (Type 094?) being built with improved quieting is probably meant to primarily escort China's future CBGs. The carrier will be used initially in coastal waters and not venture too far out where it cannot be under the air umbrella of the PLAN and PLAAF's Flankers,etc. One is sure that every time the Liaoning sails in open waters,it will be trailed by a USN attack sub and possibly Japanese conventional subs too!

The cost of an N-powered EMALS super-carrier for the IN will be prohibitive.What is the key Q is what type of aircraft will operate from the carrier.Will we have a naval variant of the FGFA in a STOBAR configuration as is being planned by Russia,or another type? The IN one is sure would like to standardise the types of carrier aircraft aboard its carriers.Both IAC-1 and the Vikram have MIG-29Ks and perhaps the NLCA when it arrives.That much smaller aircraft cannot deliver the goods for the next decade's challenges. It would be best used in an air defence role.A balanced fleet is required with a large inventory of N-subs,both SSBNs and SSGNs.As we saw in the Falklands,just one RN N-sub that sank the Belgrano sent the Argie fleet scurrying home to safety.Ultimately,it is going to be acquisition costs,operating costs and also cost of aircraft and its operating costs too that will decide the final design.Land based LRMP air craft and N-subs will also be required .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Nov 2013 21:12

>> until it has a strong carrier task force that consists of escorts with LR SAMs,plus an SSN/SSGN to accompany the carrier task force

they already have plenty of AAW destroyers armed with both the regular SA-N-6 and some with a chinese naval SAM. the Shang class SSN is already in service.
they have plenty of oilers and replenishment ships as well.

the only thing missing is a working air wing on the liaoning and this will be there in 12 months time. they will bring in people from all corners like ukraine, france, brazil, italy, spain to teach whatever is lacking.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 29 Nov 2013 23:24

While one should never underestimate any adversary, especially one with the determination and resources to play the long game, the Chinese are a fair way from a credible CBG capability. A look at the time it has taken them to gain confidence to let their SSNs on blue-water patrols is a good benchmark.

What are the steps to "CBG Nirvana":

1. Carrier-only

First they have to get the carrier and the air wing working at a nuts and bolts level. One is talking a baseline proficiency, basic quals for the air wing etc., flight deck ops. Ironically a bigger ship with more aircraft moving around makes it more complex.

2. CBG

Next comes using the carrier as part of a CBG - this has two elements to it:
a) Developing a Doctrine - Do not assume that the Chinese will automatically adopt an expeditionary/first strike doctrine like the US, British, and the Indians. They may well go the conservative Soviet way which relied heavily on Kirovs and other powerful surface combatants to first absorb an attack and then riposte (or swoop in once the Backfires and Bears had depleted the OPFOR).
b) Organization - In a USN CBG (now called a CSG) there are at least 10-12 different "functional" warfare commanders and co-coordinators who must at one level focus on their individual piece of the battle and at another synergise their efforts. They are typically on different platforms. To understand the complexity of operating this "team", check out what happened just on the USS Vincennes itself, when it shot down the Iranian Airbus, while being harassed by some Iranian boghammers (the "technical" of the maritime world)

3. Practice

The French, British, USN, Japanese and Indians get to exercise with each other. Currently the Chinese get to exercise with the Russians and the Pakistanis IIRC. You only become a better player by playing with people stronger than you.

We too have a long way to go on the CBG front, but the IN fundamentally "gets" carrier warfare as Arun Prakash's article posted earlier eloquently states. The Chinese will find it a steep learning curve.