Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Sep 2020 15:42

Maybe. If push comes to shove, India will expedite and commission the vikrant a little earlier. Buying or leasing a wasp class might be another option now that the Americas are otw...

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby chola » 01 Sep 2020 15:52

Cain Marko wrote:
Philip wrote:
SoKo is abandoning its amphib plans and is to build a ski-jump 30,000t light CV instead operating F-35Bs. This is what I've been saying for ages,to turn the 4 amphib req. of similar tonnage into vessels with flight decks similar to the VikA and Vikrant. The NLCAs can then operate from them and switch from air defence/ strike to amphib support as well when required.

This is an absolutely brilliant idea. With f35s especially.


The F-35B will give a lot of nations the ability to operate carriers.

Unless we get onboard this train (or build that 65K ton CATOBAR) it will create risks for the IN's status. Gone are the days when we were the sole carrier power in all of Asia.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1835
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby yensoy » 01 Sep 2020 20:00

chola wrote:The F-35B will give a lot of nations the ability to operate carriers.

The F-35B and a sh!tload of money will give a lot of nations the ability to operate carriers.... there, corrected it for you
chola wrote:Gone are the days when we were the sole carrier power in all of Asia.

That is already the case. Even before the Chinese, there was the Chakri Naruebet. And the fact that Unkil's carriers were regularly criss-crossing Asian oceans.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9243
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby brar_w » 01 Sep 2020 20:18

yensoy wrote:
chola wrote:The F-35B will give a lot of nations the ability to operate carriers.

The F-35B and a sh!tload of money will give a lot of nations the ability to operate carriers.... there, corrected it for you


It doesn't have to be a "sh!tload of money". Some hybrid designs that re-purpose LHD's don't need to cost north of what a prior gen AC used to cost. They will be limited in scope, but if you only want the ability to operate 12-20 F-35B's for short duration and then use the vessel as a LHD then these are quite cost effective. Its even less if you are just upgrading existing, and in use, LHD's. Again, unfair to call them "Aircraft Carriers" (same for US L class vessels) but for a fraction of what you'd pay to acquire an AC, you can upgrade your LHD designs to accomodate the F-35B and get limited capability for specific roles and needs. Again, not an AC and not as flexible as an AC but it allows you more defensive capability and some limited force projection capability at a decent range for a limited amount of time. South Korea, Japan, and perhaps even Singapore are doing this. Italy and Spain too. None are as costly as a dedicated F-35B Aircraft Carrier like the QE for example. They also won't be as capable but the point is flexibility and meeting the need within a fixed, generally smaller, budget. Alternatives like meeting the same capability via shore based assets have a cost and capability element to them as well.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Philip » 01 Sep 2020 20:33

The USN is calling these CVs " Lightning" CVs,and pointing to the role of the Essex escort CVs in WW2 which played a v.important role in the Pacific theatre. A large CV costs $15B.The US thinktanks say that a 30K t light CV would cost only $1.5 B, be built rapidly and as assets are spread out,would have greater reach and survival capability. Now let me be clear on one point,that these light CVs are NOT replacemfnts for the USN's supercarriers,used in expeditionary warfare around the globe. However,the escort/ light CVs give us valuable numbers of flat tops that could simultaneously operate in different theatres.

I am quite chuffed to see other navies arriving at hhe same conclusions that I did a decade ago.Infact any warship of 10K t should have a flat top,flush VLS silos for AD SAMs and BMos hyper to come.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9243
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby brar_w » 01 Sep 2020 21:11

Philip wrote:The USN is calling these CVs " Lightning" CVs,and pointing to the role of the Essex escort CVs..


This is nothing new. The ambhibs used to be called "Harrier Carriers" in the past (when they had their max harrier load out) and now they have a nickname "Lightning Carrier", again used when they have a 18-20 complement of F-35B's onboard.


A large CV costs $15B.The US thinktanks say that a 30K t light CV would cost only $1.5 B


Think tanks don't design and build ships.

How in the world will you build and outfit a 30K ton "light CV" and get it to cost a good couple of hundred million $ less than a sub 10K ton Burke? Let's get real. Even in the best case scenario, you are looking at close to $5 Billion in TY$ for an "upgunned" LHA-6 derivitive. A lot of the cost lives in giving it a standard, fleet wide combat system, targeting and the ability to be survivable. Only way to shave a lot in price means sacrificing in these areas and watering down requirements. Just look at the weight the Italians had to add to the FREMM to meet USN survivability standards. Do you think they would have bothered (weight = cost) if they thought they could pass USN shock trials without any modifications to their parent FREMM design?

It costs a fraction of the cost of a CVN, but also has fraction of its capability.

What fraction? Consider this - LHA-6 has a 6,000 cubic feet magazine. CVN-78 has a 375,000 cubic feet magazine. That is more than 20 times larger magazine. It doesn't have an airwing that is 20 times larger so that means it can sustain ops longer, and you don't have to kit it for a particular misison. You can take the entire mission set with you (and they do). That is just one aspect. We can also talk about number of onboard sailors, airmen, and the endurance and the ability of the ship to defend itself and its survivability measures. All those things factor into the $$$ you spend. Ford costs what it costs (barring the higher upfront first in class ship costs which are due to pre-learning curve efficiencies and high technical/integration risk of new-tech ) because of these very requirements.

A US CVN is a tool that essentially puts the equivalent of a "Small Air Force" at any point of the globe as long as there is water it can sail through. It carries multi-role fighters, its own electronic warfare and electronic attack, its own air-air refuellers, its own AEW platforms, and even its own ASW (which was a fixed winged ASW capability at peak cold-war) and SAR capability. It can escort destroyers and frigates and basically create very large air-defense zones around them. It can project power and from different vectors as the nuclear propulsion means that it can move around hundreds of miles within hours. These L-class derived carriers, or similar concept ships elsewhere, are great if you have a limited scope and mission set and have a tight budget. They won't in any way perform the complete gamut of mission-set tasked to a CVN and even if you were to have 3-4 of them operate together they still won't be able to do that efficiently. They have their place and do things they do well. But there will always be certain threats, and certain missions that they will just not be able to accomplish. These are there limitations and if one is ok with them then they are great. At the end it isn't about a $5 Billion ship vs a $10 billion ship. It is almost always about, what purpose does that vessel solve in your national security capability. If that $5 billion dollar ship needs additional multi billion dollar ships, shore based support and massive coordination of assets to deliver similar effects then the cost of all those have to be factored in.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Philip » 01 Sep 2020 22:39

The IN doesn';t need to imitate the USN Brar,please understand that.Our goals are quite different. We can sanitise the IOR without large CVs using supersonic LRMPs armed with LR stand-off super and in the future,hypersonic ASMs. The ANC and Lakshadweep are going to be vastly improved in mil. infra. as forward bases from where a variety of land-based aircraft will operate from.In addition,a goodly number of subs,both conv. and nuclear will be able to operate beyond the IOR into the ICS and beyond.Several medium and light carriers give us the flexibility and numbers to operate more diversely as China and Pak are our only two mortal enemies.Take a dekko at the aticle from the USNI.

Distributed Maritime Operations Will Demand ‘Lightning Carriers’ | Proceedings - June 2020 Vol. 146/6/1,408

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... 234c8f82d4

Xcpt.
In a recent interview with Defense News, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday emphasized the Navy’s need to get away from wrapping “$2 billion ships around 96 missile tubes” to “fight a potential adversary that is producing capability and platforms at a very high rate of speed.”3 This high rate of adversary production is exemplified by the 100 modern submarines the Chinese People’s Liberation Army–Navy is projected to field by 2030—compared to the U.S. Navy’s estimated 53.4

Commandant of the Marine Corps General David Berger’s 2019 Commandant’s Planning Guidance identifies a similar need to “seek the affordable and plentiful at the expense of the exquisite and few.”5 Essentially, the Navy must improve its weapon-to-target cost ratio against peer adversaries by denying them the opportunity to take out $15 billion platforms, such as Gerald R. Ford–class carriers, with $1 million missiles.6

Naval aviation must embrace distributed maritime operations by finding the optimal balance between distributing airframes over multiple platforms and maintaining the capability to refuel, rearm, and service aircraft in a cost-effective manner. In the third edition of his much celebrated work, Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations, renowned naval strategist Captain Wayne Hughes, U.S. Navy (Retired), claimed that a commander is “better off with twice as many units of force than units with twice the rate of effective fire power.”7 Deploying dispersed, smaller combatants in place of traditional strike groups forces an adversary to solve the complex, resource-heavy problems of finding, tracking, and targeting each individual combatant, as opposed to a large ship or formation. While smaller combatants cannot pack as much capability and capacity as traditional escort platforms, dispersing a greater number of them across a larger operating area would increase their staying power relative to single large formations—a significant advantage inside the first island chain in the western Pacific or in the Persian Gulf. When a fleet is able to coordinate multi-node fire, distributing capacity across multiple platforms has the added benefit of increasing combat power. Figure 1 illustrates this concept through three hypothetical engagements.

PS:
As I've said before,converting the amphib req. which envisaged 4X 25 to 30K t vessels,into light CVs,retaining the ''swing''
capability I've often mentioned,will serve us better than putting our eggs into one large basket ,inviting the enemy to concentrate his forces and assets at eliminating it.

PPS:CDS and IN, kindly take notice of the above.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9773
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Rakesh » 01 Sep 2020 23:10

brar and philip: please continue this discussion in another thread. This is the Naval Tejas Mk1 thread. Thank You.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9243
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby brar_w » 01 Sep 2020 23:14

Philip wrote:The IN doesn';t need to imitate the USN Brar,please understand that.


Then why bring that up and cite a dubious (if true at all) report as some sort of evidence?

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 828
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby V_Raman » 01 Oct 2020 09:30

General pooch - can a ship like Chakri Naruebet be modified to launch nlca?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12406
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Aditya_V » 01 Oct 2020 12:32

V_Raman, there is a separate thread for questions which are pet peeves this, before the Predators notice is my suggestion not to ask why 414 in LCA Mk1 in the common threads but put these type of questions

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7235&start=160

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby sankum » 05 Oct 2020 00:32

HVT Sir tweet

Conversation
Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
TEDBF

Navy doesn't want imports. Committed to Atmanirbhar. Old RFI study closed a long time back.

It is likely delta with tail.

Read the whole thread. Lot of information.

TEDBF is likely evolution of NLCA mk2 in twin engine form not MWF.

D.Mahesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 02 Oct 2016 02:57

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby D.Mahesh » 05 Oct 2020 08:48

Philip wrote:The USN is calling these CVs " Lightning" CVs,and pointing to the role of the Essex escort CVs in WW2 which played a v.important role in the Pacific theatre. A large CV costs $15B.The US thinktanks say that a 30K t light CV would cost only $1.5 B, be built rapidly and as assets are spread out,would have greater reach and survival capability. Now let me be clear on one point,that these light CVs are NOT replacemfnts for the USN's supercarriers,used in expeditionary warfare around the globe. However,the escort/ light CVs give us valuable numbers of flat tops that could simultaneously operate in different theatres.

I am quite chuffed to see other navies arriving at hhe same conclusions that I did a decade ago.Infact any warship of 10K t should have a flat top,flush VLS silos for AD SAMs and BMos hyper to come.


IN has gone way ahead of this sort of thinking. Fight the naval war from the air and from undersea. With a rec//surv/interdiction air wing next only to to USN and a much smaller area - IN is too hot for any surface tonnage navy.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, evm, mmasand, Vamsee and 51 guests