Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 Jan 2018 22:19

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Brar 100 pct correct. When you don’t have minesweepers and ASW Helis and subs and a 1.6 pct GDP defence budget it is silly to think of additional carriers.

We need atleast 3.5 pct of GDP defence budget first. Let’s talk about carriers later.

Not necessarily disagreeing with the need for prioritizing MCVs, ASW helos and requirements for the IA and IAF. But I am arguing for a plan to put the third carrier on the roadmap. The massive lead time means that if we 15 years for our budget to be big enough then it will be another 15 years on top of that for a carrier to be built and commissioned. You are talking about decades.

Far better to have a plan now, even if we need to supplement the budget, so that 15 years down the road when defense spending is up we will have a carrier that is ready.

When we bought our first carrier, the first Vikrant, in 1957 our budget situation as a new nation was FAR less favorable than what we have today — the FASTEST growing major economy in the world.

Yet, we perservered with a carrier force back then and created a tradition, a service that is the mark of a great power. The greatest carrier corps outside the West. The foresight and vision of those founding fathers of the IN were grand and ambitious.

Now here we are, on the edge of greatness with a booming economy and in competition with another great power, we are ready to abandon our lead in carrier aviation for want of mere cash.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jan 2018 22:23

But I am arguing for a plan to put the third carrier on the roadmap. The massive lead time means that if we 15 years for our budget to be big enough then it will be another 15 years on top of that for a carrier to be built and commissioned. You are talking about decades.

It is irresponsible to earmark future spending without first securing political consensus on securing a funding top-line increase to sustain that (the previous government left the current one with a double digit billion bill for the MMRCA without any likely clear cut path to fund it). So the argument should be framed politically as a need to grow India's maritime capability and what that entails in terms of a strategic commitment of resources. This can allow you to inject a few billion dollars more year for a sustained period of 10-15 years in order to arrive at that. At this moment, short term goals should have them focusing on acquiring emergent needs, and making sure that the current carriers and the aircraft associated with them work adequately or replacements or upgrades procured to make it so. You need to buy more ships, helo's and submarines while making sure that either the MiG-29Ks work (The PS variant) as required or something else procured to make sure adequate combat capability is fielded of the existing planned carrier fleet.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 19 Jan 2018 22:32

Agree with chola to an extent, given that our russian buy was essentially a dud, we have no choice but to ensure 3 carriers for the IN in the IOR region. Without building a follow-on to the IAC -1, we'll be staring down the barrel in a 1:1 carrier numbers game. Our SSN project seems to have gotten sanction, so we can expect that to roll out. SSKs are where we have a problem given the limited Scorpene numbers and P-75I nowhere on the anvil. ASWs and minesweepers take lesser time and money to build. We have to build all of them and find the budget to do it too. No point in raising a mountain strike corps alone. We are facing the chinese on many fronts and have to shore up all of them.

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 Jan 2018 22:35

So the argument should be framed politically as a need to grow India's maritime capability and what that entails in terms of a strategic commitment of resources. This can allow you to inject a few billion dollars more year for a sustained period of 10-15 years in order to arrive at that.

Yes, Brar ji! That is what I am asking. You have put it into better words than I can. So yes, we need to get it beyond MoD, the IN and have a political commitment to our vision of where we want to be in the future IOR so those few billion bucks per year can be added on.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Jan 2018 22:53

Brar, please have a look at Vidur’s posts on the defence planning process and why it doesn’t work. In short there is a mechanism called a five year defence plan where these long term requirements are enumerated. It is approved by CCS. But and here’s the catch - it’s menaingless. It doesn’t lead to a money bill to get parliamentary sanction for the finances needed. That comes form the annual budget and that currently is running at 1.6 pct of GDP. If the 5 year plans were to be funded then we would need atleast 3-3.5 pct of GDP and earmarked sanctioned funds. There is zero correlation between the budget and the 5 year defence plan.

I wish posters would do some reading before going on flights of fancy.

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 Jan 2018 22:55

Prasad wrote:Agree with chola to an extent, given that our russian buy was essentially a dud, we have no choice but to ensure 3 carriers for the IN in the IOR region. Without building a follow-on to the IAC -1, we'll be staring down the barrel in a 1:1 carrier numbers game. Our SSN project seems to have gotten sanction, so we can expect that to roll out. SSKs are where we have a problem given the limited Scorpene numbers and P-75I nowhere on the anvil. ASWs and minesweepers take lesser time and money to build. We have to build all of them and find the budget to do it too. No point in raising a mountain strike corps alone. We are facing the chinese on many fronts and have to shore up all of them.

Exactly. I disliked the way we handled the Gorshkov by allowing Rus to strong-armed us into using their shipyard and $3B to upgrade it. We should have expanded our own experience and capacity by doing it ourselves or building pur own with the money if Russia had refused. But the night landings by our crew on Vik’A showed me our men and women have the skill to make do with anything so not a complete dud!

Also, I don’t believe we need to go ship per ship, aircaft per aircraft with the PRC. But we do need to manage our resources wisely. We need money spent to be used in building our own MIC as much as possible.

Look, if building SSK in some phoren JV will cost us $700M per boat then why not just build SSNs in India? Or the $1B per frigate like the Grigorivich deal!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jan 2018 23:13

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Brar, please have a look at Vidur’s posts on the defence planning process and why it doesn’t work. In short there is a mechanism called a five year defence plan where these long term requirements are enumerated. It is approved by CCS. But and here’s the catch - it’s menaingless. It doesn’t lead to a money bill to get parliamentary sanction for the finances needed. That comes form the annual budget and that currently is running at 1.6 pct of GDP. If the 5 year plans were to be funded then we would need atleast 3-3.5 pct of GDP and earmarked sanctioned funds. There is zero correlation between the budget and the 5 year defence plan.

I wish posters would do some reading before going on flights of fancy.

Akshay, what I meant was to develop a national and political consensus to up National Security spending to a higher level as a percentage of GDP. Until and unless you do that the armed forces will have to best prioritize within their budgets and ideally should look at indigenous systems as a means of getting more for less and this way sparing expensive imports for only those capabilities that cannot be replicated at home within a specific schedule. The acquisition system and how defense spending works is secondary. Chinese military rise is as much about them rapidly develop and deploying capability as it is about a multi-decade effort to increase national security and defense spending which has put them where they are despite various hurdles.

chola · Post by **chola** » 20 Jan 2018 00:19

I wish posters would do some reading before going on flights of fancy.

Sorry Akshay, Saar! This is NOT a “flight of fancy.”

The 65K ton CATOBAR carrier has been the IN’s vision of the future for years now. The Admirals have gone to the MoD repeatedly for this.

And they have indicated they will continue to propose this plan until the day it is finally accepted. The IN had always been the most fiscally responsible service of the three with always the smallest budget and the greatest proportion of indigenous systems

This is not something dreamed up by some internet warrior.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2018 00:50

Reports say that lack of funds currently with the IN is affecting the warships under construction, the several surface ships. It's taking approx 10 years now for the IAC-1 to arrive, and we enjoyed b' ching about Gorky delays! The large carrier will at this rate, building time and funds, take 15 years to build at least ,but we still want to buy the aircraft for them in around 4-5 years time.They'll be obsolete by the time the carrier arrives!

The subs need is a far greater one.I can't understand the IN's misplaced priorities.Which country do they think we're planning to invade, the tiny sprats called the Maldives , or is it more of keeping up with the Jones',the Chins, and their new CVs ? With the galaxy of missiles being added to our inventory and the advent of BMos-air launched, ER version and Nirbhay, LR strikes both from land and from the air against enemy intruders in the IOR will be an enhanced capability.The greatest danger to the IN and mainland bases will be attacks from enemy subs.Pak's approx. 12 and another dozen that China can easily spare to send to the IOR given the huge number it will possess by 2020 and its rate of sub construction.
At least here with the requirement for 30 LRMP aircraft we are seeing some reality setting in.A mix of the aircraft mentioned earlier would do the biz.

Meanwhile China is testing its new carrier stealth fighter the FC-31 GryFalcon.Medium sized with 2 RD-93 engines and an 8 tonne payload.A neat looking design.Same engines on our 29Ks and Ru birds.It's supposedly playing it safer instead of fielding it J-15H which is experiencing some difficulties. Pak is supposed to want upto 80 of these.The IAF is still twiddling its thumbs over the FGFA and with AMCA still a paper plane, no prizes for guessing who might be the first
nation in S.Asia to operate a stealth fighter.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jan 2018 00:54

The large carrier will at this rate, building time and funds, take 15 years to build at least ,but we still want to buy the aircraft for them in around 4-5 years time.They'll be obsolete by the time the carrier arrives!

Why would that be? The current IN figther RFI requires the aircraft to operate from the existing two carriers. For a future 65K aircraft carrier you will need additional aircraft.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2018 00:56

Neither the Rafale nor the F-18 can operate from both allegedly due to their lift sizes.Someone ( not anyone on BRF) actually suggested in seriousness tilting the aircraft on the lift!
Sounded like a boffin who wanted a hole cut in the hangar of IN warships to accommodate the ALH!
In recent times during exercises as well when our DM visited the Vik-A, the 29Ks performed well.We have approx 50 of them, sufficient for two carriers, so what's the need for another 57? If the MOD/IN have taken up my suggestion of involving the IN's fleet air arm more than the IAF in maritime air defence and basing IN frontline aircraft in the ANC and coastal air bases one can understand the proposal, but it still is secondary to buying more subs and LRMP aircraft. If the govt. has that much money to blow, it would be better buying the balance 12-16 LRMP aircraft and have money to spare pocketwise.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jan 2018 00:59

Neither the Rafale or the F-18 can operate from both due to their lift sizes

Thay may or may not be true depending upon how the two OEMs plan on addressing this issue and how much the IN values the risk vs the reward. The SH will probably fit the Vik's larger lift while either the aircraft, the lift or the mechanism would need modfications to make it work on the IAC-1. The Rafale will likely need folded wings to be developed for this RFP. Regardless, both Boeing and Dassault are going to be offering solutions so the IN will have a good idea in terms of the risk and rewards as I mentioned earlier.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2018 01:09

And these mods will come at extra cost too! A modified Rafale would cost more than a JSF even , but why the need for the extra birds? It is a backdoor tactic to getting the carrier and will flop badly.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jan 2018 01:13

nd these mods will come at extra cost too!

Likely. But as I have said earlier, the fact that the IN is even looking for western aircraft and not simply at a follow on order for the existing type really speaks volumes.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Jan 2018 01:18

How difficult would it be to fix or expand the elevators rather than fix the aircraft?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2018 01:47

That would be a major job indeed.These are not deck-edge lifts either as in some previous US carrier designs but are within the deck dimensions.It would also have an effect on the number of aircraft carried as parking of aircraft and helos very tight in the hangar, plus affect other eqpt.

To me the entire exercise is a means to get carrier no.3 approved even if it takes until 2030 to arrive.The IN has probably looked with increasing worry at the massive speed of Chinese naval construction especially its large carriers of which it will have at least 5 by 2030.That will give it approx. 250-300 aircraft on board.A PLAN CV would carry approx. 50-60 aircraft and helos as much as both our exg. carriers combined.However, as long as the PLAN CVs remain outside the IOR , their threat diminishes.Our 2 CVs plus an assortment of land and island based aircraft would make a PLAN's flat top live in " interesting times", especially if backed up with a strong IN sub force of both SSNs and AIP subs.The IN has already started regular patrols of the choke points, " from Aden to Sunda" as described, which will get more intense as we increase our assets monitoring the same.

Given the enormous cost, $30B by one estimate, it is going to be exceptionally tough to pass through the MOD's bean counters.It must be realistic and at least have a plan B in hand, a modified sister ship of the IAC-1 with larger lifts to accommodate new types of carrier aircraft becoming available.

chola · Post by **chola** » 20 Jan 2018 02:22

Philip wrote:That would be a major job indeed.These are not deck-edge lifts either as in some previous US carrier designs but are within the deck dimensions.It would also have an effect on the number of aircraft carried as parking of aircraft and helos very tight in the hangar, plus affect other eqpt.

No, the old Gorshkov onlee because it was originally designed as a damn STOVL cruiser. The Vikrant has modern fleet carrier lifts on the deck edges.

The problem with Vikrant is for some damn reason (consultation by your sweet Natasha?) it too had been cursed with lifts seemingly designed for the MiG-29K instead of the oversized lifts that Western carriers are built with to accommodate future aircraft.

And the tilting option is an actual suggestion from Boeing for the F-18. As outrageous as it sounds. All this because we listen to your Russian friends on a brand new carrier WE built. This irritates me to no end.

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 20 Jan 2018 02:55

Why can't we play the role Pakistan is playing against us (Asymmetric but credible deterrence) against China. I am really an amateur but I wonder why do we need AC. Against Pakistan we don't need one as in a non-nuclear war it is a war of attrition and we don't need long legs to attack Pakistan. Against China we will never be able to match their financial might in terms of number and types of vessels. We have limited budget and we need to spend judiciously on numbers (ASW, ASW Helos, Subs,Torpedoes, Drones, MIRVs, Number of boots on the ground with proper gears to put enough doubts on enemies mind). This obsession around AC seems like a vanity issue where our strength does not fit. We should play on our strength.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Jan 2018 04:47

Akshay Kapoor wrote:B That comes form the annual budget and that currently is running at 1.6 pct of GDP. If the 5 year plans were to be funded then we would need atleast 3-3.5 pct of GDP and earmarked sanctioned funds. There is zero correlation between the budget and the 5 year defence plan.

Increasing the defence budget as a percentage of GDP is unlikely to happen for the forseeable future. The defence budget may be only 1.6% of the GDP but it is over 15% of our annual budget. I don't see how the government can increase that without either impacting other sectors or increasing our debt burden.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jan 2018 05:15

Er chola the vikrant consultant was fincanrieti who only built the small cavour and lhd ships

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jan 2018 05:16

If we failed to plan for replacing mig29 and bigger planes in 50 yr lufespan of vikrant its our own fault

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jan 2018 07:01

Chola, no need to get irritated about Natasha involvement, it was the Mafia who dun it! Some Froggie flavour too if I remember.

Deck edge lifts, see old US CVs and their amphibs.Lifts cantilevered beyond the flight deck not within its boundary.

Also remember that when the Gorky was purchased we , the IN chose the Gorky over the Varyag also offered ,as we thought it would be an easier job of modifying it .No one in the IN properly examined the enormity of the task, after the USSR's collapse with the UKR shipyard possessing no wiring drawings etc.The whole lot had to be redone. The cost of this exercise was grossly underestimated by both parties. We desperately needed a carrier and only these two were available. Given our ability to revitalise old UK carriers keeping them going beyond their lifespan, we could've also bought the Varyag as scrap-what the Chinese did, but at that time we never had a dockyard large enough to handle her.

Nevertheless, the VikA has now been in service for quite some time, operations are smooth and she is waiting to give the enemy another lesson from an IN carrier as we did in '71!

The frustration that everyone feels about defence acquisitions is our immensely flawed procurement policy which has been in existence for some time.Well meaning no doubt but the "make in India" mantra has brought with it new babu red- tapism.High tech weapon systems not available in the country have to run the gauntlet of the MOD.The number of times the MOD has cancelled tenders is not funny at all.Just a few affecting the services v.badly, the Minesweepers, LUHs,naval helos,etc.
The MMRCA choice for Rafales with TOT was dumped for a limited buy.We now want a second batch , almost 2/3rds of the original order totally,at exorbitant costs with no TOT benefit at all!

All this takes its toll on the services who have huge shortages in capital eqpt. steadily building up and adding massive pressure upon finances.If you add the costs of all major needs as of yesterday like aircraft, subs, naval helos,arty, missiles, etc.It will work out to almost $100B!
I can't see these gaps being filled wwithout substantial outright buys of eqpt. followed by the usual screwdriver tech local manufacture for some time to come .

chola · Post by **chola** » 20 Jan 2018 08:36

Singha wrote:Er chola the vikrant consultant was fincanrieti who only built the small cavour and lhd ships

Chola, no need to get irritated about Natasha involvement, it was the Mafia who dun it! Some Froggie flavour too if I remember.

No entirely true. We went over this early last year over the 57 RFI and the Navy complaints about the MiG-29K. We DID consult with and listen to the Russians on Vikrant, we designed it for Russian deck systems and aircraft. And the Russians flat-out said in no uncertain terms that both carriers are designed to operate “only” with MiG aircraft.

http://www.janes.com/article/73018/russ ... k-fighters

Russian Aircraft Corporation (RAC) said that claims made in a recent US article on acute maintenance problems being experienced by the Indian Navy (IN) with its 45 carrier-based MiG-29Ks are "simply not true".

"We would like to flatly refute all negative allegations in the article concerning the … MiG-29K aircraft, which are the sole fighters on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya . Neither we, nor our partners have received any official claims about operational problems with the Russian MiG aircraft," RAC said in its statement, adding: "
It should be mentioned that the [INS] Vikramaditya and [INS] Vikrant aircraft carriers are tailored for carrying Russian-designed aircrafts including MiG-29K/KUB. All technical systems of the ship, radars, and other deck-based systems were produced in Russia, and were designed to be operated only with MiG aircraft."

John · Post by **John** » 20 Jan 2018 08:46

chola wrote:
Singha wrote:Er chola the vikrant consultant was fincanrieti who only built the small cavour and lhd ships

Chola, no need to get irritated about Natasha involvement, it was the Mafia who dun it! Some Froggie flavour too if I remember.
No entirely true. We went over this early last year over the 57 RFI and the Navy complaints about the MiG-29K. We DID consult with and listen to the Russians on Vikrant, we designed it for Russian deck systems and aircraft. And the Russians flat-out said in no uncertain terms that both carriers are designed to operate “only” with MiG aircraft.

http://www.janes.com/article/73018/russ ... k-fighters

Russian Aircraft Corporation (RAC) said that claims made in a recent US article on acute maintenance problems being experienced by the Indian Navy (IN) with its 45 carrier-based MiG-29Ks are "simply not true".

"We would like to flatly refute all negative allegations in the article concerning the … MiG-29K aircraft, which are the sole fighters on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya . Neither we, nor our partners have received any official claims about operational problems with the Russian MiG aircraft," RAC said in its statement, adding: "
It should be mentioned that the [INS] Vikramaditya and [INS] Vikrant aircraft carriers are tailored for carrying Russian-designed aircrafts including MiG-29K/KUB. All technical systems of the ship, radars, and other deck-based systems were produced in Russia, and were designed to be operated only with MiG aircraft."

It is referring to navigation aids and the electronics on the ship not the lifts. In fact we never considered platforms larger than MiG-29k for Vikrant hence the lifts cannot handle larger platform.

chola · Post by **chola** » 20 Jan 2018 09:03

^^^ That is a direct statement from Russian Aircraft Corporation, Janes just reported it.

The fact that with five available carrier fighters we decided to limit our lift to just the MiG-29K for, as Singha pointed out, the 50-year lifespan of the Vikrant is sure sign we bought the Russian spiel hook, line and sinker.

John · Post by **John** » 20 Jan 2018 09:20

chola wrote:^^^ That is a direct statement from Russian Aircraft Corporation, Janes just reported it.

The fact that with five available carrier fighters we decided to limit our lift to just the MiG-29K for, as Singha pointed out, the 50-year lifespan of the Vikrant is sure sign we bought the Russian spiel hook, line and sinker.

That statement is incorrect or badly misquoted, radar and electronics in Vikrant are of western origin (Ran-40l, MF-STAR) not exactly designed for Mig.

It was Mig-29 and N-LCA that was planned for Vikrant not sure what Russia has to do with Vikrant design. In fact Russians even tried to get us buy into Navalized Pak-Fa for 2025 and later which would have meant much bigger Lifts for Vikrant but it was never considered.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Jan 2018 09:34

How do you design a ship radar to operate with only one kind of aircraft?

chola · Post by **chola** » 20 Jan 2018 09:38

John wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ That is a direct statement from Russian Aircraft Corporation, Janes just reported it.

The fact that with five available carrier fighters we decided to limit our lift to just the MiG-29K for, as Singha pointed out, the 50-year lifespan of the Vikrant is sure sign we bought the Russian spiel hook, line and sinker.
That statement is incorrect or badly misquoted, radar and electronics in Vikrant are of western origin (Ran-40l, MF-STAR) not exactly designed for Mig.

Those are systems for the vessel not the air complex (ramp, hangar, lifts and recovery.)

Fincantieri provided consultancy for the hull and propulsion package but Russia's Nevskoye Design Bureau designed the aviation complex.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/k ... 4.ece/amp/

The aviation facility, designed by Russia’s Nevskoye Design Bureau, is gradually coming in place, with the supply of equipment under way. “In view of the aviation facility being laid out soon, the Navy has already drafted in aviation technical crew from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya to be of support,” says Captain P.A. Padmanabhan, in charge of the Navy’s Warship Overseeing Team (WOT).

Italian designed hull for sailors but Russian systems for the air wing.

BTW, we lost two years in building the Vikrant because the Russians flubbed on their promise to deliver specialized steel on time. So even the hull had their fingerprints.

chola · Post by **chola** » 20 Jan 2018 09:48

In fact, Vikrant’s dependency on the Russians for the aviation piece is a leading cause of the carrier’s delay to this very day.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indias- ... ai-rum=off

"The major reasons for this delay, from 2018 to 2020, is the delay in the (supply of) aviation items from Russia. Because of that we had to adjust our schedule to a certain extent," Vice Admiral Kumar said.

The Navy has started receiving the aviation items, Commodore J Chowdhury, Principal Director (Naval Design) said.

"Hopefully, Russia will be sticking to the items committed to us," Commodore Chowdhury added.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jan 2018 20:00

First indigenous aircraft carrier to be ready by 2020

Vikrant, India's first home-made aircraft carrier, will be ready for induction by 2020, a Navy official said here on Friday.

Commodore J. Chaudhary, Principal Director Naval Design, said its harbour trials will start by the end of this year while rejecting an alternate deadline of 2023 that a CAG report had postulated.The Indigenous Aircraft Carrier has been named Vikrant after the first aircraft carrier that India had -- INS Vikrant, which was HMS Hercules for the British Royal Navy before India bought it after it was decommissioned by the UK.

This year, at the Republic Day Parade, the aircraft carrier will feature on the Navy's tableau, portraying the high level of indigenisation in the Indian Navy.

"The aircraft carrier, which is under construction, is expected to join us in 2020," Commodore Chaudhary told journalists.

Asked about a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report which said the ship would be ready for induction in 2023, the Navy official said: "That was CAG's version, as far as Navy is concerned, we are confident (of the 2020 deadline)."

A CAG report in July 2016 had pointed that the Cochin shipyard, where the ship is being built, has said it will be ready by 2023.

The CAG had asked the Navy to work out a "realistic date".

He said the harbour trials would start by the end of 2018, after which the sea trial and aviation trials will be carried out. The ship will initially operate Mig 29 fighter jets.

"All trial schedules have been worked out, because we are going to sign next phase of contract with Cochin shipyard."

He added that there was some delay in delivery of certain equipment from Russia.

Along with the carrier, the Navy tableau at the Republic Day parade will also have on display a model of INSV Tarini, the sailboat which is currently circumnavigating the globe.

It will also have Marine Commandos, representing the combat readiness of the force.

vivekmehta · Post by **vivekmehta** » 21 Jan 2018 11:49

Just landed in Goa. Whole of mig squadron looks grounded . All covered up and lined.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jan 2018 13:18

Aren't there 45+ aircraft in service, meant for both carriers?
It would be prudent to protect those not being used as CV 2 is not expected for another two years.Perhaps the entire lot is being rotated or those with glithces kept covered waiting for repair work.One can take your pick!

If we were offered larger lifts for a navalised FGFA for the IAC-1 , it is our fault for not doing so.Even in the lifts' design, as it is the most fundamental fact that carrier aircraft get replaced at least twice during their lifespan, larger lifts would've meant the ability to operate larger more capable aircraft in the future.

Reading recent articles on the Chinese naval build up, it is going to be inevitable that we will need larger CVs in the future around 203O certainly.We don't have the moolah for one right now but want 4 amphibs.I would strongly suggest a review of the amphib design/reqs. and as have often said build 2-3 larger flat top/ski jump vessels that could operate carrier aircraft too and with the money saved for the 4th, build a modified sister ship of the new Vikrant class. If moolah is still inadequate, reduce the number of amphibs to 2 and build the Vikrant's sister ship instead of the last 2 amphibs.

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 Jan 2018 15:50

vivekmehta wrote:Just landed in Goa. Whole of mig squadron looks grounded . All covered up and lined.

My god. The russkies are killing me.

I have less and less hope that the Vikrant will be anything other than a Russian tool that will trap us on the MiG-29K. The 57 RFI was an attempt by the IN to fix this. But the technical issues and expense imposed by the lifts will make things impossible to solve budgetwise.

In the meantime, our first indigenous carrier is being held hostage by the russkies. We are going from a Western carrier force by equipment, experience and training to a damn russian one.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/n ... 474986.ece

The IAC-I project has been delayed due to hold-ups in procurement especially of 18 major equipment related to aviation complex, including the arrestor and the withstanding gear, from Russia, Cdre. Chowdhary said. “There were licencing issues which have been resolved.”

I wouldn’t want another from the Vikrant class to be perfectly honest. Not unless we can get a western designer for the aviation complex to replace the Russian one.

But in the end, the IN’s vision is for a 65-K ton CATOBAR carrier with Western carrier aircraft. It is hoping to take advantage of collaboration offered by the Americans, who unlike the Russians, actually know how to design proper carriers and carrier aircraft.

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 Jan 2018 16:17

If moolah is still inadequate, reduce the number of amphibs to 2 and build the Vikrant's sister ship instead of the last 2 amphibs.

We need the MRSVs too. This is one ambitious program that I hope we get right. We have a complete lack of blue water amphibious capability other than the Jalashwa (our old Trenton class.) The ability to move and engage troops on strategic islands and reefs will be critical in the IOR just as it was in the SCS.

The PLAN had just launched their sixth 25K-ton Type 071 LPD this very weekend.

Each one of these vessels can land up to 800 marines from four large Z-8/18 helos and four LCACs from its well deck with up to 20 armored vehicles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_07 ... sport_dock

Without the MRSVs we have no counter. No amphibious assault capability (again save for the Jalashwa) to take or re-take any shore that is away from our mainland and that includes Nicobar and the Andamans.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 21 Jan 2018 16:31

^chola - it's a Sunday. Weekend off in a peace time. Jets are parked and picketed. Why does it mean they are grounded?

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 Jan 2018 16:56

deejay wrote:^chola - it's a Sunday. Weekend off in a peace time. Jets are parked and picketed. Why does it mean they are grounded?

It might not. I am just expecting the worst from that unrugged naval aircraft which is what the IN is doing with the 57 aircraft RFI.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 21 Jan 2018 18:20

chola wrote: I wouldn’t want another from the Vikrant class to be perfectly honest. Not unless we can get a western designer for the aviation complex to replace the Russian one.

But in the end, the IN’s vision is for a 65-K ton CATOBAR carrier with Western carrier aircraft. It is hoping to take advantage of collaboration offered by the Americans, who unlike the Russians, actually know how to design proper carriers and carrier aircraft.

What makes you think that down the line US/Western MIC won't hold us hostage over equipment, spares etc.? Remember in Geopolitics, there are no permanent friends. I dunno if US has given any assurances that there won't be another round of sanctions if Pokrhan-3 or similar testing happens. It would actually be a sort of welcome move since that would force our hands to buckle up on indigenous products.

If we are getting through MII, at least the capability to manf & fabricate the required spares & subsystems completely in India in case such sanctions are proposed.

Anyways, Ruskies/MiG have "promised" (which they could very well renege up on) a service centre in India to cater for MiG-29K spare parts. Not sure how far ahead the progress on that is...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jan 2018 18:53

A quick fix for amphib warfare would be to pick up on the cheap good condition Ro-Ro ferries from Europe.We will be able to transport any heavy AV in these. These would be very cheap and easy to acquire.Passr. accommodation used for troops.All we have to do is in peacetime operate them on both coasts.Using the UK STUFT concept, requisition them during wartime.I've used dev. ferries in Europe and even travelled on an old WW2 landing craft still being used as a ferry.

Yes there's no guarantee that the US /West will not squeeze us after we choose any of their birds.Far more expensive too.

kit · Post by **kit** » 21 Jan 2018 19:48

Philip wrote:Chola, no need to get irritated about Natasha involvement, it was the Mafia who dun it! Some Froggie flavour too if I remember.

Deck edge lifts, see old US CVs and their amphibs.Lifts cantilevered beyond the flight deck not within its boundary.
ll this takes its toll on the services who have huge shortages in capital eqpt. steadily building up and adding massive pressure upon finances.If you add the costs of all major needs as of yesterday like aircraft, subs, naval helos,arty, missiles, etc.It will work out to almost $100B!
I can't see these gaps being filled wwithout substantial outright buys of eqpt. followed by the usual screwdriver tech local manufacture for some time to come .

The GOI is committed to economic growth. That itself is prudent. China embarked on its military expansion only after it was reasonably sure of its economic growth. I don't think any major hike in military spending is going to happen except for increasing outlays on the support for pvt defence manufacturing. The carrier is a long shot but will be affordable in 5 years of sustained growth of the economy

SiddharthS · Post by **SiddharthS** » 21 Jan 2018 21:09

China was a military power way before anything interesting on the economic front was going on. The difference now is that it has become both military and economic superpower. And don't forget, MIC is a part of economic growth story.
You have to first secure the polity. It's not just the matter of more money(although that's important) but how money is spent, is it spent on R&D or is it spent on upkeeping the legacy systems & structures. Is the AC priority or should we build more indigenous nuclear attack submarines.
I'd wager we need more SSN's. With the invention of new technologies AC can only be used for peacetime domination, unless one has the money to spent on a carrier battle group and still it'd be vulnerable. Peacetime domination is important, but after needling the country in a peacetime one has to walk the talk and for that your need SSN's and SSBN's.
Just to give you an analogy, AC is like a jab to keep your opponent unsettled and SSN's and SSBN's is like a knock-out punch to keep him at bay and make him wary of responding to your peacetime domination.