Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

[sankum]

The standard complement of INS Vikramaditya is 20 Mig 29k+ 4 Ka28+ 4Ka31.
The standard complement of INS Vikrant is 20 Mig29k+ 6 Ka28+ 4Ka 31.
When both carriers are at sea we require 60 mig 29k so that 40 Mig 29k are available at 67% availability rate.
We will have to order minimum 16 Mig 29 k for the period 2022-2031 till TEDBF comes online or 30 SuperHornet / Rafales as airwing of INS VIKRANT.

[Cain Marko]

The standard complement of INS Vikramaditya is 20 Mig 29k+ 4 Ka28+ 4Ka31.
The standard complement of INS Vikrant is 20 Mig29k+ 6 Ka28+ 4Ka 31.
When both carriers are at sea we require 60 mig 29k so that 40 Mig 29k are available at 67% availability rate.
We will have to order minimum 16 Mig 29 k for the period 2022-2031 till TEDBF comes online or 30 SuperHornet / Rafales as airwing of INS VIKRANT.

Yes that's what I've been thinking for the longest time. 45 birds can't be enough to maintain fully armed V carriers. And I think they're full fighter capacity is actually 24, not 20.

One thing that might be done so as to provide extra teeth to the Navy carriers is that 20 additional shornets or Raffles could be bought just as a silver bullet force instead of the Ks. 6 per carrier + 18 Ks. Ideally Raffles because that will have commonality with the iaf birds. Yeah it's a mixed force and logistics will be more painful but I believe the Navy planned for this considering it wanted to have a mix of nlca and mig29k.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/ksingh84856557/stat ... 50848?s=21 —> No one is saying they won’t get a 3rd carrier but it isn’t going to be sanctioned in the next 5 years. That’s pretty clear at this point. Next 5 years have to be dedicated to fixing HUGE fundamental capability gaps the navy has allowed to emerge over the last few decades.

[Rakesh]

HSL refits INS Sindhuvir four days ahead of schedule
https://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=809191
06 Feb 2020

[ramana]

IN can do paper designs but EMALS carrier not needed for Indian waters.

[Prithwiraj]

Put both the carrier against China if need arises. PN can be handled without AC. Spend all the paltry fund on submarines, AIP, Ammos. No point stretching ourselves too thin and then ending up in a situation where subs are operational without torpedos !!

[mody]

Put both the carrier against China if need arises. PN can be handled without AC. Spend all the paltry fund on submarines, AIP, Ammos. No point stretching ourselves too thin and then ending up in a situation where subs are operational without torpedos !!

The lack of torpedoes on the scorpene subs is not due to any funds shortage. The reasons are different and we all know them.

Though I agree that other capabilities like Mine Counter Measure Vessels, submarines and anti-sub helos are a bigger priority than AC.
At the least 24 MCMV's are required and are requried like yesterday. Hopefully a Govt to govt deal with the russians can be signed for 12 ships, before the end of this calender year.

[Rakesh]

Indian Navy will push ahead with plan for 3rd aircraft carrier despite CDS’ reservations

Tweet below in response to above article...

https://twitter.com/HimalyanDoctor/stat ... 54625?s=20 ---> So until now CDS was speaking on Naval plans without actually taking navy's agreement. Very soon we will hear the same noise from IAF too.

Tweet below in response to above tweet...

https://twitter.com/KSingh84856557/stat ... 56738?s=20 ---> What CDS said doesn’t contradict what navy has said. CDS is telling services to prioritise immediate needs, navy is pretty much agreeing that this is a long term ambition.
=========
So how does a 15 year time span tie in with the Indian Navy's immediate requirement for a third aircraft carrier? As per Admiral Karambir Singh, it is an operational necessity. The IN has one now, INS Vikramaditya.

[chola]

^^^ Navy admirals had plans for the third carrier for years now. Every time they go hat in hand to MoD with those plans they were shot down. So this is pretty much non-news.

“The third aircraft carrier is an operational necessity,” a source in the Navy said. “It is not that an aircraft carrier can be bought off the shelf. Even if all permissions are given today, it will take 15 years for the carrier to be inducted.”

But permissions should have been given yesterday knowing that takes 15 years for a carrier!

This is like saying "eh, we'll take our time. It can't be done tomorrow anyways." Desi babudom mentality.

The proper reaction should be "let's get this thing started ASAP because it will take 15 goddam years."

[Rakesh]

Navy admirals should have learnt - after the first time they got shot down by the MoD - to revise the proposal. But till today, as per media reports, Admiral Karambir Singh has said that the Navy wants a 65,000 ton carrier equipped with EMALS. And then he also says that having a third carrier is an operational necessity, when the Navy has only one as of now.

Admirals and Air Marshals need to get their heads out of the clouds. This is the end result of Malabar Exercises. Get wowed when they see USN Carrier Battle Groups and then try to adopt a similar model in India. No minesweepers, no towed array sonars, no ASW helos, no submarines....nothing is there. But wants a 65,000 ton, EMALS equipped aircraft carrier and with 57 carrier borne fighters. Because that is going to make up for the lack of everything else. The CDS is right. Cancel the project for now.

And 15 years is a conservative figure. It will be more like 20+ years. If it will take 13 years for keel laying of INS Vikrant in 2009 (40,000 tonne and ski jump) to induction in 2022....just imagine how many years it will take a 65,000 ton, EMALS equipped carrier. Who is the Navy fooling?

[Rakesh]

Google has listed the article below under a SATIRE sub-heading in Google News.

Even Google Chacha knows that a third aircraft carrier is not happening

Indian Navy will push ahead with plan for 3rd aircraft carrier despite CDS’ reservations

[ManuJ]

Let's not badmouth the Navy admirals before looking at things from their point of view.
Navy is the one force in India that has done well in long-term planning and indigenous capacity building.

Cochin shipyard has done the hard work on IAC-1, created the infrastructure, installed machinery, trained workers.
If IAC-1 is not followed by IAC-2 immediately, what happens to these trained workers?
We already have made such mistakes in the past, no need to repeat.
Secondly, if we know that IAC-2 is going to take 10-15 years to build, shouldn't we start now, so that we have IAC-2 by 2030-2035, by which time India's economy should be around $7-$10 trillion, and should easily be able to afford 2 operational carrier task forces?
Would you rather wait for the economy to reach that size before you start building, and then create a large gap in capability?

It's not a case of carrier vs. other assets like minesweepers, towed array sonars, ASW helos, submarines, etc.
These are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary.
Yes, we need all these assets yesterday, but just because our acquisition process has been dysfunctional, why should navy's carrier plans suffer?
There are existing acquisition plans in place for other assets, e.g. TAS and ASW helos.

The only valid question that can be asked is about the size and capabilities of IAC-2.
A 45-50K ton regular propulsion carrier vs. 65-ton EMALS carrier is a debate worth having, and has been had for years.
As we know, carrier capabilities increase non-linearly with increase in size, beyond a certain size. A 65-ton carrier is not just 30% more capable than a 50-ton carrier. So navy's push for a large carrier is reasonable.
EMALS is another question, and there are lots of questions around whether the Americans will even part with it, and at what cost.

[brar_w]

Navies always think and plan in decades because of the lead time and based on the multi-decade path the threats are on as well. This is an important point to consider when looking at statements coming out of the IN leadership. The USN presents its plans on a 30-year shipbuilding and force architecture horizon..and updates it every year. This is just how things are done as far as naval planning is concerned.

[nam]

I am very curious to know, which region has "operational necessity" to have an carrier?

Pakistan? A&N? South China sea? Gulf Regions?

[Rakesh]

Let's not badmouth the Navy admirals before looking at things from their point of view.
Navy is the one force in India that has done well in long-term planning and indigenous capacity building.

The problem lies when the Navy goes to the MoD to sanction the project. Happened in 2017, answer was no. Went again in 2018, again answer was no. Now in 2020, with the CDS saying not now, the Navy is still insisting on a 65,000 ton, EMALS equipped carrier. How much longer is the Navy planning to wait? As per the Navy, it is an operational necessity to have three carriers.

Cochin shipyard has done the hard work on IAC-1, created the infrastructure, installed machinery, trained workers.
If IAC-1 is not followed by IAC-2 immediately, what happens to these trained workers?
We already have made such mistakes in the past, no need to repeat.

What happened to the trained workers after the last two Shishumar Class submarines? They were long gone by the time the Kalvari Class boats came on the scene. An entire new workforce had to be trained and that, among other reasons, caused long delays in the P75 program. If they do the same with the aircraft carrier, same scenario will happen.

Secondly, if we know that IAC-2 is going to take 10-15 years to build, shouldn't we start now, so that we have IAC-2 by 2030-2035, by which time India's economy should be around $7-$10 trillion, and should easily be able to afford 2 operational carrier task forces?
Would you rather wait for the economy to reach that size before you start building, and then create a large gap in capability?

15 years is the Navy's estimate. It will be more like 20 years in reality. Just the nature of Indian shipyards.

Should'nt we start now has to equal to releasing the funds for laying the keel. Will the CDS give the recommendation for sanctioning funds to the MoD for that, after his recent statements? As per him, submarines are a more important priority and examination of a third aircraft carrier will be looked at once the performance of the Vikrant is assessed. As per current plans, Vikrant commissioning is set for 2022. It will take at least a year of trials and performance at sea, to gauge whatever parameters that the CDS is looking at. So now it will be 2023. Assuming the plan is approved by the following year (2024), it will take 20 years from that date onwards. So we are looking at IAC-2 coming in around 2044. So much for operational necessity.

It's not a case of carrier vs. other assets like minesweepers, towed array sonars, ASW helos, submarines, etc.
These are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. Yes, we need all these assets yesterday, but just because our acquisition process has been dysfunctional, why should navy's carrier plans suffer? There are existing acquisition plans in place for other assets, e.g. TAS and ASW helos.

Other assets - submarines, ASW helos - can operate in isolation. An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, cannot. And it is because that the MoD's acquisition process has been dysfunctional, that the Navy's plan is suffering. TAS, helicopters, submarines, aircraft carriers, minesweepers, carrier borne fighters all need replacing right now. The CDS now has to prioritize what among those is most important. There is no money for all, but a select few. And the CDS is right in stating that the carrier plan is on hold for now while other projects get sanctioned.

The lack of ASW helicopters is not something knew to the Navy. Sea King helicopter availability has been abysmal for more than a decade now, if not more. What did the MoD do? Nothing. They sat on the file and did nothing.

Capital ships like destroyers and frigates were being commissioned without a functioning ASW helo or a towed array sonar. With the latter, these vessels were relying on bow mounted sonars which are less effective.

Kalvari Class boats are being commissioned without a modern torpedo. Rather torpedos from the Type 209 boats are being retrofitted till a new torpedo gets approved by the MoD. Where is the urgency from the MoD on that?

The only valid question that can be asked is about the size and capabilities of IAC-2.
A 45-50K ton regular propulsion carrier vs. 65-ton EMALS carrier is a debate worth having, and has been had for years.
As we know, carrier capabilities increase non-linearly with increase in size, beyond a certain size. A 65-ton carrier is not just 30% more capable than a 50-ton carrier. So navy's push for a large carrier is reasonable.
EMALS is another question, and there are lots of questions around whether the Americans will even part with it, and at what cost.

In 2017/18, the Navy I believe went with a smaller design of IAC-II. I believe around 55K. That idea was also shot down by the MoD, again on cost onlee.

[Rakesh]

Navies always think and plan in decades because of the lead time and based on the multi-decade path the threats are on as well. This is an important point to consider when looking at statements coming out of the IN leadership. The USN presents its plans on a 30-year shipbuilding and force architecture horizon..and updates it every year. This is just how things are done as far as naval planning is concerned.

When the USN presents its plans on a 30-year shipbuilding and force architecture, it has the civilian leadership to back it up. At the executive and legislative branch, there is broad support for the plan. That in turn is executed by the Federal Bureaucracy. While there are hiccups along the way, by and large it goes as per plan.

Is that the case in India? The Navy Chief will say one thing and the MoD Babu will then say the exact opposite. So while you are correct that is how naval planning is done, there is a serious disconnect between the Indian Navy wants and what the Indian Navy actually gets. Because unlike in the US, the civilian leadership and the bureaucracy don't see the same vision. This causes inordinate delays and any plans set in motion by the Indian Navy are derailed by its civilian partners.

[brar_w]

The internal force architecture studies are often unconstrained. This is because the Pentagon leadership, and even the Congress wants to know and make sure that they get the real sense of what the Navy delivers based on a combatant commander projection. In the US system the service leaders aren't in charge of war planning or execution (that power exclusively resides with the COCOM commanders)..Their responsibility is to satisfy current demand in force structure and training and develop a long term plan for the same based on their best future outlook. The USAF or USN chief are therefore quite a bit weaker than most of their counterparts including the IAF and IN top boss.

Regardless of these differences, it is important for the Navy (or any other services) to present their force structure plan based on a given strategy. It is for higher ups to put constraints on that plan and do the investment trade-offs. You want your services to present a well thought out, and honest analysis of what it will take to execute a particular strategy. Because no one has unlimited funds you want a very good understanding of what the "unconstrained" looks like before you begin identifying areas of risk you are OK to live with based on a given budget projection.

there is a serious disconnect between the Indian Navy wants and what the Indian Navy actually gets

This is exactly how the US system works too. Only truth about the 30-year ship building plan is that it will never pan out the way it is presented. Every US Navy CNO who puts it out there knows this. They do it regardless because the process is important and you need a very good baseline before you start performing the hard trades (which are often across service programs) and putting constraints. You can only take calculated risks via managing capability gaps, if you know what an appropriate unconstrained environment looks like i.e. what will it take to perform all missions that the IN may be called into in the 2030-2060 time-frame. Once you've established that, then you can put constraints on this and determine how much risk is acceptable given other priorities and trade offs. It is therefore important for this process to play out and for the IN to continue put across its point of view and analysis. And rest assured their projections would be based on a competently performed analysis based on both internal need and threats. If every service is asked to put artificial limiters on this then what you get is a process that doesn't allow for cross-service trades. Hence it is incumbent on the MOD and now the CDS to see everyone make their case and then determine where and how much risk to take.

[Philip]

In the interim if the IN wants extra flat tops,then leverage the amphib design instead to also operate NLCAs,29Ks,JSFs from the STOBAR ski jump deck layout and angled deck.2 amphibs designed as 35K to40K multi-purpose light flat tops can be built in this decade while planning for a larger CV for 2030+. These amphibs will be affordable and cheaper options than a full-fledged CV.Not every crisis requires a CBG to deal with,why even MP corvettes are fast becoming DDG and FFG replacements for lesser blue-water duties. The IN will then have 4 flat tops in any crisis with at least 3 available. Some time ago SAAB had a proposal for operating Sea Gripens from the Viraat! The NLCA and 29Ks could easily do the biz. Such a CVL could fill in a lot of gaps.The IN trying to ape the mighty USN and its expeditionary agenda will come a cropper.Do we plan to take Hainan island or Macau?

I am sure if it goes back to the MOD with this modest improved amphib design for the intrim,each vessel to be built in 5 to 6 years time max and slightly smaller than IAC-1, it may see the light of day. You just can't keep turning the IN down repeatedly.
Meanwhile paper designs for carriers for the future could certainly go on. By 2030 a whole new RMA may be on the cards with stealth drones increasing in service in navies.

[chola]

In the interim if the IN wants extra flat tops,then leverage the amphib design instead to also operate NLCAs,29Ks,JSFs from the STOBAR ski jump deck layout and angled deck.2 amphibs designed as 35K to40K multi-purpose light flat tops can be built in this decade while planning for a larger CV for 2030+. These amphibs will be affordable and cheaper options than a full-fledged CV.

This makes no sense. The only way for 29Ks and NLCA to operate from a ship is with an angled deck and arrester gear. Once you put in an angled deck and a recovery system, it becomes a full-fledged carrier. A 40k-ton one of those is a Vikrant.

There are no amphibs today that operates like STOBAR. All the amphibious craft designed by the West, Turkey, Japan and Korea are meant to use the VTOL F-35B.

[Philip]

I know that, but it's a clever design trick and nomenclature that the Japanese are also using operating JSFs from their flat tops. But there IS a difference.Below hangar deck the amphib requirements,well deck would remain.The vessel could alternatively carry KA-52 attack helos ( on the 2 Mistrals that Egypt bought from France), commando helos,etc. required for the amphib. assault. Why STOBAR? So that our existing carrier fighters plus the NLCA Mk-1 could also cross deck from. When any flat top is in the dockyard,its aircraft and personnel air complement could be available elsewhere.

Russian designers came up with a regular CV design that included CATOBAR and a ski-jump.No reason why such an amphib with the ability to carry fixed wing STOBAR aircraft can't be built. The JSF if wanted,would come with intense strings and intrusive security compliances,hence the ski jump. The mental idea of a "3rd. carrier" is anathema to the IAF and apparently the CDS, for good reasons though,as the sub fleet needs huge attention and MCMs non-existant ( How the IN has allowed this to happen beats me. No MCMs would only encourage our enemies to use this assymetric warfare device using its own subs to bottle up our ports laying minefields). A stretched sister ship of the Vikrant may also be sunk. But just as the IN got IAC-1 approved calling it an ADS originally, an "amphib" off which 4 are planned and almost got sanctioned,could be approved as the number too would be reduced.

[brar_w]

A flat top, or a full fledged Carrier, one thing is increasingly clear IMO - the IN is unlikely to make the MiG-29K the platform of choice to equip its aviation component. It will either be F-18E/F or Rafale, or they'll skip this and wait till an indigenous solution is ready.

[nam]

It is time IN kick off the TEDBF program. Mig29K MLU is planned for this year. Once an alternate solution is available, Mig29K should be relegated to land ops.

The entire Gorkshaw buy has been a nightmare.

[chetak]

A flat top, or a full fledged Carrier, one thing is increasingly clear IMO - the IN is unlikely to make the MiG-29K the platform of choice to equip its aviation component. It will either be F-18E/F or Rafale, or they'll skip this and wait till an indigenous solution is ready.

the MiG-29K is coming along quite well.

It was already cleared for non diversionary flying off the Vik's deck some time ago.

yes, some problems do remain but it does not look like something that cannot be sorted out.

As we speak, the russki guarantee specialists are in goa (and have been there for some time now) and are hard at work to overcome the limitations.

[brar_w]

A flat top, or a full fledged Carrier, one thing is increasingly clear IMO - the IN is unlikely to make the MiG-29K the platform of choice to equip its aviation component. It will either be F-18E/F or Rafale, or they'll skip this and wait till an indigenous solution is ready.

the MiG-29K is coming along quite well.

Thanks for that info. I'll stand by what I wrote. I don't think the IN will have it as the center piece of its next carrier, whatever shape or form that next carrier takes.

[chetak]

the MiG-29K is coming along quite well.

Thanks for that info. I'll stand by what I wrote. I don't think the IN will have it as the center piece of its next carrier, whatever shape or form that next carrier takes.

the only thing that will talk now for the IN is the available budget.

the push is now for a local product but even that has come with rigid conditions and the earlier lazy easy GRTE bum chum model of R&D has been thrown out of the window. Meet the date or perish is the mutually negotiated and signed ironclad agreement.

no mai ke lal giving excuses from either side, will be able to open his pie hole either way, whether the project is delivered or not. looks like there may be a continued dependency on ameriki engines though

wishlists have been all but vaporized in the constrained financial straits that the GoI find themselves in.

as a hedge, the tendering and evals of the prospective candidates may continue because these are long lead time activities

[VickyAvinash]

Thanks for the details Chetak Saar...it is quite a change. The future definitely belongs to indigenous fighter aircraft.

[kit]

I am very curious to know, which region has "operational necessity" to have an carrier?

Pakistan? A&N? South China sea? Gulf Regions?

operational necessities look at the big picture and are not theatre based

[kit]

A flat top, or a full fledged Carrier, one thing is increasingly clear IMO - the IN is unlikely to make the MiG-29K the platform of choice to equip its aviation component. It will either be F-18E/F or Rafale, or they'll skip this and wait till an indigenous solution is ready.

thats a very good observation.The Navy will get its carrier in good time maybe a bit later than ideal., but some funding will be there to keep things moving along.

[John]

It is time IN kick off the TEDBF program. Mig29K MLU is planned for this year. Once an alternate solution is available, Mig29K should be relegated to land ops.

The entire Gorkshaw buy has been a nightmare.

As much as I love to talk smack on Mig-29k that's outright no reason to throw them away for land operations. Mig-29k serviceability is actually not to bad (around 60% IIRC after all issues have been ironed out). But we should not confusing the limitation and challenges of operations from a Skijump as problems of Mig-29k.

[Mort Walker]

^^^So 60%, that means only 27 were originally available. Now 25 available, so in 18 months or so the IN will only have one squadron of Mig-29K. The naval LCA Tejas needs to come ASAP.

[John]

^^^So 60%, that means only 27 were originally available. Now 25 available, so in 18 months or so the IN will only have one squadron of Mig-29K. The naval LCA Tejas needs to come ASAP.

It’s actually projected to hit 70% not 60%, Even Su-30mki is only projected to hit 75% after all the parts supplies are moved locally after what 2 decades of operating them.

[ManuJ]

Rakesh, I agree that there is a disconnect between IN and CDS / MOD. But is that IN's fault?

IN's carrier program has been running for over 50 years now. They were operating 2 carriers in the eighties! Having an operational 2-carrier force, one on each coast, is a logical progression of a well thought-out plan that's been decades in the making. As is increasing the size and capabilities of carriers over time. The truth is that 40K carriers are sub-optimal. A real carrier needs to support simultaneous take-offs and landings and it needs to have a susbtantial air wing. If the country didn't have the stomach for carriers, why did it allow IN to start down this path? It's better not to spend any money on carriers than to have sub-optimal carriers for show purposes.

Let's think about the future. Do we really want IN to be operating a 40K carrier in 2040-2070? Do we want IN to have a single carrier in 2040 (because as we all know, Gorshkov is not going to be around for very long), when China is encroaching into the Indian Ocean at a breath-taking speed and increasing its carrier capabilities by leaps and bounds? Do we want IN's carriers and air-wings to be sub-optimal and not be able to sustain operations at the demanded rate? Again, we have to think 20, 30, 40 years ahead when answering these questions, and consider what the capabilities of other navies in Indian Ocean would be at that time.

If we want IN to be a carrier force, there's no other option than to start on IAC-2 now. Otherwise let's stop pretending.

[Philip]

Quite right.Post 2030,the 29K would be outdated to serve on a new CV ,if it comes. Nevertheless,the ideal candidate would be an indigenous naval version of the AMCA as stealth,even if in diminishing returns with anti-stealth developments, would be preferable.It would be a more formidable aircraft than even a twin-engined NLCA .
We must also remember that the USN's CVs carried out huge strike ops in support of the land war in the conflicts in the ME over the last 2 decades requiring supercarriers and dozens of aircraft.. India has no expeditionary warfare ambitions,barring support for our island allies like Mauritius,etc. and protection of our own island territories.

Naval carrier strikes at Paki targets on land however will be on the cards.Look at how vintage Sea Hawks and Alizes destroyed the E.Pak naval facilities ( esp. Chittagong) and much shipping during the '71 war. These targets can alternatively be attacked by LRCMs and other LR missiles delivered by land,sea or air. The strikes against ISIS by Syrian and Ru assets using Kalibirs,long range bombers like Blackjacks,Backfires, Bears, etc. are just one example.

Therefore,the principal task of the IN will be sanitising the IOR from PN and PLAN forces. If China attacks us in the Himalayas, we would certainly attack both its naval and merchant fleet in the IOR. Anti-ship and anti-sub carrier ops could predominate in the Bay of Bengal while in the Arabian Sea we could see ops against land targets too. Gwadar/ Jiwani and even Djibouti,where the PLAN has bases would be in harm's way.

PS: What size is the French CDG,nuclear powered to boot, which has had its share of technical problems too? It's around 42 to 45t full load! France has been using it all round the world including the IOR successfully. Therefore , insisting on only a
65K t CV for the IN in the future is debatable.

[kit]

Quite right.Post 2030,the 29K would be outdated to serve on a new CV ,if it comes. Nevertheless,the ideal candidate would be an indigenous naval version of the AMCA as stealth,even if in diminishing returns with anti-stealth developments, would be preferable.It would be a more formidable aircraft than even a twin-engined NLCA .
We must also remember that the USN's CVs carried out huge strike ops in support of the land war in the conflicts in the ME over the last 2 decades requiring supercarriers and dozens of aircraft.. India has no expeditionary warfare ambitions,barring support for our island allies like Mauritius,etc. and protection of our own island territories.

Naval carrier strikes at Paki targets on land however will be on the cards.Look at how vintage Sea Hawks and Alizes destroyed the E.Pak naval facilities ( esp. Chittagong) and much shipping during the '71 war. These targets can alternatively be attacked by LRCMs and other LR missiles delivered by land,sea or air. The strikes against ISIS by Syrian and Ru assets using Kalibirs,long range bombers like Blackjacks,Backfires, Bears, etc. are just one example.

Therefore,the principal task of the IN will be sanitising the IOR from PN and PLAN forces. If China attacks us in the Himalayas, we would certainly attack both its naval and merchant fleet in the IOR. Anti-ship and anti-sub carrier ops could predominate in the Bay of Bengal while in the Arabian Sea we could see ops against land targets too. Gwadar/ Jiwani and even Djibouti,where the PLAN has bases would be in harm's way.

PS: What size is the French CDG,nuclear powered to boot, which has had its share of technical problems too? It's around 42 to 45t full load! France has been using it all round the world including the IOR successfully. Therefore , insisting on only a
65K t CV for the IN in the future is debatable.

The French Navy uses it's ACs in a different scenario compared to IN. They are not fighting peers for eg RN ! , Look at their operational regions and uses , are they the same for IN ? .. every country uses weapons differently and any aspiring power would customize or make weapons for it's fights and probable rivals. Apples and oranges. No two carriers will be the same. Even the British ac design will be tweaked one suited for Indian expeditionary forces.

[Philip]

Well,the French have used the CDG in combat in Libya and have often sent it into the IOR.We've exercised with it last year too (?).
So there's no bar on any of our two med. CVs operating outside the IOR as well.

Now there is famous quote whic I've used, " air is free and steel is cheap", in the context of a larger sister ship of the Vikrant.However, the contents cost a bomb! One of my options was the described Vikrant+, with a staggered complement of aircraft and helos increased steadily whenthe money is there.

[brar_w]

The CdG is just a trade on quantity. The French wanted a USN quality force capable of operating for extending periods of time, and with the air-wing component that can provide the ability to deploy far away. They CdG does offer that minus the capacity and flexibility of what the USN carriers offer so it works for them. They can't transition their CAW as easily and have to trade one thing for another. The US CVN's don't they can add capacity without having to make the tough trades. Case in point - When the MQ-25's come into the fleet..nothing leaves the deck. Same with when they went from 3 Growlers per cruise to a 5+2 Growler configuration. No other aircraft quantity had to be reduced to make way for more additional capacity. This will be big when the second gen. UCAV/UAV's come online following MQ-25 deployment. They can easily operate 3-4 diverse fleet of UCAV/UAV (4-5 aircraft per type) without having to make drastic numerical changes with the rest of the footprint.

[Prithwiraj]

Indian Submarine Refit Complete, Handover To Myanmar Next Month
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/02 ... ortly.html

What is with this deal about ---? Is this an outright sale or lease? In a potential scenario can be bring it back to India? Cant believe with such low Sub strength we are disposing them off.... to prevent Chinese influence? I think this will not stop China from setting the foothold anyway in Burma... Let China play that trick with both BD and Myanmar and earn some bad press in BD -- as apparently BD and Myanmar don't see eye to eye these days

[nam]

Two things: Strategic relation and FC1...

[Rakesh]

What is with this deal about ---? Is this an outright sale or lease? In a potential scenario can be bring it back to India? Cant believe with such low sub strength we are disposing them off.... to prevent Chinese influence? I think this will not stop China from setting the foothold anyway in Burma... Let China play that trick with both BD and Myanmar and earn some bad press in BD -- as apparently BD and Myanmar don't see eye to eye these days

Please look at this map. Forgive the cartoonish nature of the map, I could not find anything better.

Do you see Visakhapatnam, Burma (Myanmar) and the Strait of Malacca on the map?

The IN is not disposing of the sub at all. Token Myanmar crew aboard INS Sindhuvir. Will be used to clandestinely monitor PLAN naval traffic coming out of the Malacca Strait. Unlike a SSN, a Kilo Class boat does not have the greatest endurance. Rather than make the journey all the way from Visakhapatnam, you station the boat in Burma. From Rangoon, the Strait of Malacca is directly south. Far shorter journey from Rangoon to the Malacca Strait than from Visakhapatnam.

After examining the map below, review the second map as well. Location of Myanmar naval bases.

[Prithwiraj]

Hmmm do we have submarine berthing facilities in Andaman? That will be perfect for quick refuel and restocking.