INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

Aditya Watts · Post by **Aditya Watts** » 13 Aug 2013 19:05

Amitabh wrote:Hilarious - Mint's article has used the photo of a slightly different (and somewhat bedraggled) Vikrant!

So typical this. Probably went something like this: "old Vikrant, new Vikrant, ki farak penda"

Kakarat wrote:I think we should start an Online petition to save the IMS Vikrant addressed to all the chief ministers of the costal states of India. We can get it signed by 1000s of people and hope at least one will be interested in saving this Piece of History

I had the same thought recently, coincidentally also after reading this very wiki about R11. So much potential it has for PR-activities, revenue generation, and healthy interest in younger generations for public services.

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Aug 2013 19:33

Noob question. Why are khans fighters all in the decks of their carriers in almost all pics where as a cdg or our own desi carriers are mostly ahem naked ?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Aug 2013 19:39

releative photo-force projections onlee. khans have more than enough to show... sometime they have parking space problem too. remember, one excessive nation on the planet, the sole super power.

which desi carrier are you talking about that showed empty parking lot?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 13 Aug 2013 19:43

nits wrote:Between all this fun fare of operating two Carrier force... have we done calculations if we have all required support ships \ submarines to operate two full fledged carrier fleet.

Note that we will need dedicated ships \ aircraft \ submarines \ minesweeper with each AC when they go on patrols; and this valuable assets will not be available for other operations when dedicated to a carrier fleet...

do you seriously think our navy is so dumb ???

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Aug 2013 20:11

good question to get an answer.

for all you know, a new article somewhere in the DDM world may be preparing the answers. you guys are giving enough leads for their next stupdity.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 13 Aug 2013 20:12

Of course they would have all the support and protection with the carrier, Moreover India is a old player in this game. So they may have few more tricks based on the threat perceptions local sea conditions etc. But we do not hear much about them. May be they wish to keep them secret and generally do not advertise the same.

arun · Post by **arun** » 13 Aug 2013 21:28

Two Hi Res photographs of the Vikrant from an Australian publication, Business Insider.

Vikrant in dry dock prior to launch:

Vikrant Pic 1

Vikrant post launch being ministered to by Tugs with a Chetak hovering:

Vikrant Pic 2

nits · Post by **nits** » 14 Aug 2013 18:08

krishnan wrote:
nits wrote:Between all this fun fare of operating two Carrier force... have we done calculations if we have all required support ships \ submarines to operate two full fledged carrier fleet.

Note that we will need dedicated ships \ aircraft \ submarines \ minesweeper with each AC when they go on patrols; and this valuable assets will not be available for other operations when dedicated to a carrier fleet...
do you seriously think our navy is so dumb ???

No Sir; i can never think on those lines and consider Navy as one of the most professional and Potent Force... the reason i am asking is; not a single article mentioned about it + we all know we are low on submarines and other ship counts and a Battle group will need dedicated support which will reduce our counts further for other operational roles

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 14 Aug 2013 18:20

Navy should be able to handle it, i think CSL has shown that they can deliver , so navy can award some good contracts to it

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Aug 2013 19:26

nits - the point is that hardware alone does not make a fighting force, IN has been building up its managerial and doctrinal implementation capabilities for some time

titash · Post by **titash** » 14 Aug 2013 22:42

nits wrote:
nits wrote:Between all this fun fare of operating two Carrier force... have we done calculations if we have all required support ships \ submarines to operate two full fledged carrier fleet.

Note that we will need dedicated ships \ aircraft \ submarines \ minesweeper with each AC when they go on patrols; and this valuable assets will not be available for other operations when dedicated to a carrier fleet...
No Sir; i can never think on those lines and consider Navy as one of the most professional and Potent Force... the reason i am asking is; not a single article mentioned about it + we all know we are low on submarines and other ship counts and a Battle group will need dedicated support which will reduce our counts further for other operational roles

Nits,

The aircraft are already there. 20 Mig-29K are in squadron service, ready for Vikramaditya. 25 more will be available in the next 2 years or so, ready for when the Vikrant goes to sea trials in 2016/2017

The AAW/ASW escorts are there. Kolkata and her 2 sisters are nearing completion. By the time the Vikrant comes into service, the first of the new P-15B, P-17A should also be nearing completion

The Ka-31s are already available in strength. The NMRH competition will also provide enough helicopters to replace the older SeaKings by 2017/2018

The fleet train is ready - our tanker fleet has doubled in the last 3 years. There is also a RFP for 4 new 40,000 ton fleet support ships

I think they've done a fair job of planning.

From a logistics standpoint, I only wish the Vikramaditya had been shelved and we'd created a uniform class of IAC-1, IAC-2, IAC-3. These purpose built carriers are much more modern and aviation-capable than the converted Vikramaditya, and would have been much easier on maintenance, etc. On the other hand, if we hadn't purchased Vicky, we might not have had the Mig-29K, or STOBAR training, etc. The good news is that Vicky is our last major warship to be procured from abroad - If we can build a 40k ton IAC, we can sure build a 20k ton LPD

member_27444 · Post by **member_27444** » 14 Aug 2013 23:23

For the ramp segment do they consider as a inverted triangle series of simply supported beams. That is for stress analaysis
the aircraft rolling loads plus the sea water line loading plus the deadweight of the ramp slab plus the various Mazanine sections like operational space loading on the vertex of the inverted triangle section? ( frustrum of triangle, which would be a trapizoid)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Aug 2013 00:00

Bade wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:BTW since no one else mentioned it...

Congrats to the Kochi Ship yard for launching the Vikrant hull. Well done sirs/madams....
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Koc ... 019891.ece
A former employee of the shipyard and a former trade union leader Vijayanathan Pillai said the shipyard, first headed by N. Krishnan, vice-admiral, had its share of teething troubles. It was the arrival of E. Sreedharan, who now heads Kochi’s metro rail project, that helped the shipyard turn around.

Rani Padmini was launched under his leadership. But he had a bitter time at the shipyard as some vested interests wanted him out.

Mr. Pillai also recalled the role played by Defence Minister A.K. Antony, who was instrumental in the government deciding to turn the more than Rs.100 crore of the shipyard’s losses into preferential shares in the early 1990s.

The CSL has delivered 90 ships over the last 30 years and is now equipped to build ships of up to 1,10,000 DWT and repair ships up to 1,25,000 DWT.

The shipyard also boasts of having built two of India’s largest Aframax tankers of 95,000 DWT each
.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Aug 2013 01:17

The following article by VADM Premvir Das can be in the Naval disucssion thread also but it primarily relates to the INS Vikrant.

In the League of Extraordinary Navies

In the league of extraordinary navies

With the indigenously-designed and built Vikrant and Arihant, India enters an exclusive club

Premvir Das August 14, 2013 Last Updated at 21:44 IST

India had not been independent for even a decade when its last Viceroy and then First Sea Lord (Chief of the British Navy), Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, in one of his many exchanges with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, mentioned that his Navy was decommissioning, read putting out of service, its aircraft carrier HMS Hercules and that it was available to us. He had always seen India taking on responsibilities in the Indian Ocean that the Royal Navy had been discharging for two centuries, recognising that those years could be drawing to a close.

At this time, following demobilisation after World War II, the fledgling Indian Navy had just a dozen-odd ocean-going ships, and acquiring a vessel as large and complex as an aircraft carrier and then maintaining and operating it, along with its complement of aircraft, would be a humungous task. The senior-most Indian officer in the Navy had just been promoted to Rear Admiral and the entire officer cadre numbered just over 1,500. It is credit to Nehru's vision that none of this daunted him; he simply sent a note to his defence minister asking that the suggestion merited serious consideration.

In the event, the Navy's proposal to acquire the ship was approved by the government in 1957 and, after a comprehensive refit and training of officers and men, INS Vikrant entered what was then Bombay in 1961 - Prime Minister Nehru was at Ballard Pier to receive the ship as it berthed alongside. In that one action, the Indian Navy transformed itself from a purely surface fleet to one that could project air power far away from its shores and the term "blue water navy" entered its dictionary. Capability to operate in the air while at sea was truly a watershed event in the growth of India's maritime power. Another aircraft carrier, INS Viraat (earlier HMS Hermes), joined the Navy in 1987 adding to this unique prowess not possessed by any other regional nation till today. But the induction of the Vikrant was in a class of its own.

Many important landmarks were crossed in the next 50 years. Submarines were inducted starting 1967, first from the erstwhile Soviet Union and later from Germany (and a couple assembled in India). Helicopters became an essential arm in all seagoing ships along with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles even as guns turned into secondary armament. Continued indigenous construction of larger and more capable ships, all built to designs prepared by the Navy's designers, and constructed first at the Mazagon Docks in Mumbai and then at the Garden Reach Shipyard in Kolkata, became the norm even as Goa Shipyard looked at relatively lower profile warships.

Sadly, an even more complex project to build submarines in India, begun with great determination in the early 1990s, came to a halt due to political confrontation, costing us many years of inactivity and other penalties. But all things considered, the Navy's firm resolve to enhance its indigenous design and warship-building capabilities has continued apace, through hierarchies lasting more than five decades.

This brings me to INS Arihant, the name given to our first Indian-built nuclear submarine whose nuclear reactor went "critical" on August 10. The term implies operationalisation of the main propulsion plant, a very important phase in putting the vessel to sea. The desire to build its own nuclear-powered submarine did not take shape in the last 20 years or even 30. Its origins go back more than four decades when the Navy set up a two-man team in the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre under the innocuous name Project 932. This work saw many ups and downs, which do not merit recalling here, but in 1980 the project nearly ran aground.

When it was revived in the mid-1980s under the name Project ATV, its dimension had transformed. We were no longer in the business of designing a small nuclear reactor that could be put in hull as tiny and constrained as that of a submarine but to actually build the vessel itself and everything that went into it, weapons and sensors included. The project has involved a great deal of work both in our public and private sector industries and, of course, in the Department of Atomic Energy, along with assistance from Russian technicians, but all the sweat and tears have been worth the while. It will be a momentous days for all of them when Arihant first sails out of Visakhapatnam harbour to seek her legitimate habitat - the ocean. When fully operational, it will become the third, and most important, leg of our nuclear weapon capability

And back to INS Vikrant. The ship that sailed into Bombay in 1961 was decommissioned in 1997 and a replacement ordered to be built at the Cochin Shipyard in Kochi, which alone had the infrastructure to build a ship of this size. The initial design was again prepared by the Navy's designers based on its own qualitative requirements and refined and expanded over several years with assistance in areas where sufficient expertise was not available in the country. Let us not forget that this ship will displace nearly 40,000 tonne and have a length that makes even the Melbourne Cricket Ground - the largest cricket ground in the world - look small in comparison. The technical complexities of designing and putting in place its several main and auxiliary machineries and weapons and sensors, leave aside its complement of aircraft of several types, cannot even be imagined by a layman. It is this new Vikrant that has been launched on August 12. If the first Vikrant brought India into the world of truly blue water navies, the new Vikrant, designed and built by Indians in India, will put us in the league of just five countries - and China is not one of them - that alone, till now, can design, build and operate ships of this class.

These three watershed events in the life of a Navy, in just 66 years - two of them within two days - should be a matter of great pride for our countrymen. That this has come about in the face of innumerable constraints, many looking insurmountable at times, is even more satisfying. There is reason to believe that both projects, including those which must surely follow, will continue to move along and give to the nation, in times to come, the capabilities at sea that it will need. At this moment of deserved pride, we must also salute the work of those pioneers who thought such wild dreams and played their parts in making them come to fruition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The author retired as Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command. He has also served as member of the National Security Advisory Board

And let us offer a silent tribute to the 18 who were lost in INS Sindurakshak fire.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 15 Aug 2013 01:57

What is this league of 5 countries which can built an aircraft carrier?

US, UK, France, India....who is #5??

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 15 Aug 2013 02:08

Italy. The Vikrant shares some similarities to the Cavour. Which is not at all surprising; Fincantieri is being consulted in the design and construction of the Vikrant.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Aug 2013 02:36

we should also think about being a country that is only the one that builds. dream yeah.. but it is better to dream than not... at least something for our DDM.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Aug 2013 03:27

Raja Bose wrote:What is this league of 5 countries which can built an aircraft carrier? US, UK, France, India....who is #5??

Japan? The Izumo is a carrier in all but name.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Aug 2013 06:08

Raja Bose wrote:What is this league of 5 countries which can built an aircraft carrier? US, UK, France, India....who is #5??

Mother Russia!

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 15 Aug 2013 06:14

Resemblances apart, the Izumo is nowhere close to being a full-blown carrier. The design just doesn't seem to be capable of supporting sustained fixed-wing aircraft ops without heavy modifications. For one, it displaces only 20,000 tons or so, about half as much as the Vikrant/Vikram/CdG. There's no ski jump, no arresting wire system, and just one aircraft elevator. Hangar space is also bound to be limited.

Perhaps in an emergency, the Japanese could operate a handful of F-35s off it. But they would still be hamstrung by the lack of a working doctrine, standard operating procedures for fighters, training, and experience.

And there's always the fact that the Spanish cry foul when the Japanese are included in that list, but they aren't. The PdA is about the Izumo's size, but goes one better than the latter in that it actually carries a dozen Harriers.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 15 Aug 2013 06:19

Indranil saar, Russia hasn't built a single aircraft carrier till date, and doesn't look like it's about to either. Nikolayev, the yard that built the Kievs and Kuznetsov, is now in Ukraine

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Aug 2013 06:30

Mihir wrote:Indranil saar, Russia hasn't built a single aircraft carrier till date, and doesn't look like it's about to either. Nikolayev, the yard that built the Kievs and Kuznetsov, is now in Ukraine

I thought of this when writing this. But people (like me) don't think so rationally. Russia is often equated to the Soviet Union.

member_27444 · Post by **member_27444** » 15 Aug 2013 09:00

The senior-most Indian officer in the Navy had just been promoted to Rear Admiral and the entire officer cadre numbered just over 1,500

Guess what ? who was he?
None other than Ramdas Katari alumni of my college

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Aug 2013 13:48

imo rather than a couple of me-too dokdo or rotterdam class token excuses at LPHD ships we need to use the IAC1 scale and build desi Wasp-class sized 40000t ships.

good thing is they can carry 30+ chinook in a assault loadout or 20 JSF + 6 ASW helis in a attack config.
250m long flight deck. enough room for big LCAC or LST and tons of artillery and vehicles in parking decks probably.

go big or go home. these ships can fight a all-out war rather than UN sponsored "sea policing" "showing the flag" "anti piracy" and other low threat matrix roles that the euro bunnies look to contribute in. some of them are even built to merchant standards.

or atleast a upsized juan carlos class of 30,000t if you want to go smallish.

whatever we build has to be fit for all out combat not sea police coast guard role. sending 200 gendarmes in a police action to maldives or mauritius will get them in harms way...the next wave of jihadi assault teams are going to be well drilled, trained extensively by SSG and operate in large units like a conventional army for sure.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 15 Aug 2013 15:32

Mihir wrote:Indranil saar, Russia hasn't built a single aircraft carrier till date, and doesn't look like it's about to either. Nikolayev, the yard that built the Kievs and Kuznetsov, is now in Ukraine

True, that they haven't built one from the scratch, but at least they have managed an extensive modification of Gorshkov.

And, India hasn't finished her carrier yet as well

Don't rush things

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 15 Aug 2013 18:14

SNaik wrote:
Mihir wrote:Indranil saar, Russia hasn't built a single aircraft carrier till date, and doesn't look like it's about to either. Nikolayev, the yard that built the Kievs and Kuznetsov, is now in Ukraine
True, that they haven't built one from the scratch, but at least they have managed an extensive modification of Gorshkov.
And, India hasn't finished her carrier yet as well Don't rush things

that is only because they cant take a carrier through the turkey straits.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 15 Aug 2013 20:36

Actually I find it puzzling that IAC-1 to be named as Vikrant when the original is still around and in "commission" (of sorts) as a museum ship. Now the future of the old Vikrant is in doubt but it is very much around today. I think INS Vishal was appropriate for IAC-1 and Viraat for IAC-2.

Aditya Watts wrote:
Amitabh wrote:Hilarious - Mint's article has used the photo of a slightly different (and somewhat bedraggled) Vikrant!

So typical this. Probably went something like this: "old Vikrant, new Vikrant, ki farak penda"

....

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 16 Aug 2013 14:01

Raja Bose wrote:What is this league of 5 countries which can built an aircraft carrier? US, UK, France, India....who is #5??

Russia?

I believe we just bought one from them....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Aug 2013 14:39

Old INS Vikrant is not in commision it is IMS Vikrant now , so IAC-1 can be called INS Vikrant when it gets commissioned.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 16 Aug 2013 19:12

mahadevbhu wrote:
Raja Bose wrote:What is this league of 5 countries which can built an aircraft carrier? US, UK, France, India....who is #5??

Russia?

I believe we just bought one from them....

We did buy one from them - but they haven't built any...all those are from the USSR, the ship building yards are now in Ukraine

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 17 Aug 2013 09:16

Col. Shukla in his Dr. Jekyll avatar...a pretty good chronicle of how Vikrant evolved.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/08/t ... krant.html

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 17 Aug 2013 11:08

RajitO wrote:Col. Shukla in his Dr. Jekyll avatar...a pretty good chronicle of how Vikrant evolved.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/08/t ... krant.html

I guess the 17/19/24K ton designs were what were referred to as "Air Defence Ship"? The article suggests that DRDO's insistence on LCA was responsible to go back to medium sized design.

I believe France had offered us the "Foch" ... but eventually went to Brazil. Missed opportunity to buy a catobar carrier?

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 17 Aug 2013 13:38

Yes indeed those smaller designs were for the Air Defence Ship. That concept itself is an evolution of a USN concept called Sea Control Ship from the 1970s which envisaged small fast escort carriers. The ultimate expression of this concept is found in the Principe de Asturias, Garibali and Chakri N. The new F-35 capable Izumo, Juan Carlos, Dkodo and Canberra class ships more modern expressions of this concept.

The IN did indeed consider Foch, rejected the vessel because of its age and because the cost of a refit and upgrade apparently wasn't justified by the ships residual life. At the time,of course, no one realized that in purchasing the Gorshkov, they were essentially going to pay for its complete rebuild. The Gorshkov is also a newer vessel.

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 19 Aug 2013 18:33

This exclusive club/select league business is pretty lame IMO. The latest trick is to say "the select club of nations that can build carriers of greater than 40,000 tonne displacement." In a few years we will be claiming to be in the "league of nations that can build carriers of greater than 65,000 tonne displacement."

This satirical piece sums it up well: Exclusive Club of Nations rejects India’s membership application after launch of incomplete aircraft carrier Vikrant

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 19 Aug 2013 19:11

Good find, Amitabh

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2013 04:24

Foch as catobar would only make sense if we wanted to use breguet alize and super etendard (reopen prod lines). really doubt it could hurl the Mig29K.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 09 Jul 2014 08:26

Cabinet set to approve Rs 19,000 crore for INS Vikrant

NEW DELHI: After Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself witnessed the raw combat power exuded by an aircraft carrier sailing on the high seas last month, his government is now all set to approve the much-delayed infusion of funds to finish the ongoing construction of INS Vikrant at Cochin Shipyard.

Defence ministry sources say the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) is slated to meet this week, probably on Wednesday itself, to approve the allocation of around Rs 19,000 crore for the Phase-II and III building of the 40,000-tonne indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC).

Current estimates are that it will take around Rs 20,000 crore to construct the IAC, which is christened INS Vikrant after India's first carrier that was acquired from the UK in 1961 and later decommissioned in 1997.

The CCS will also approve the revised time-frame for commissioning of the 260-metre long INS Vikrant, whose keel was laid in 2009 after the project itself was approved way back in 2003. TOI was the first to report two years ago that the IAC would not be ready anytime before 2018, dashing the Navy's long-standing hopes of operating two powerful full-fledged "carrier battle groups" by 2014-2015.

Modi on June 14 had spent several hours on the 44,400-tonne INS Vikramaditya, the second-hand Russian carrier Admiral Gorshkov extensively refitted at a cost of $2.33 billion for India, in his first outstation visit after becoming the PM.

India is also acquiring 45 MiG-29K naval fighters worth over $2 billion from Russia, which are meant to operate both from INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant. India does also have the 28,000-tonne INS Viraat but it's over 55-years-old and is left with just 11 Sea Harrier jump-jets to operate from its deck.

INS Vikrant was a majestic-class aircraft carrier of the Indian Navy. (TOI file photo)

The CCS note for "approving INS Vikrant's cost and timeframe" was ready last year itself but the previous UPA regime failed to give it the formal go-ahead. Around 75% of the carrier's basic structure, including the hull and deck, has been completed till now at a cost of around Rs 3,500 crore.

"The underwater work is finished. The superstructure, the upper decks, the cabling, sensors, weapons etc have to be integrated now. Most of the equipment has already been ordered. It will be powered by four American LM2500 gas turbines," said a source.

India is among a select club of countries like the US, Russia, UK and France that are capable of building such large warships. There is also an over 60,000-tonne IAC-II in the planning stage, which may have nuclear propulsion like American carriers. The US has as many as 11 nuclear-powered Nimitz-class ``super-carriers'', each over 94,000-tonne and capable of carrying 80-90 fighters.

Total cost (not including air component) = Rs 23,500 crore (or $3.9BN)

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 09 Jul 2014 11:06

^^^ Single window funding clearances may become norm for key projects.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 12 Jul 2014 09:41

Singha wrote:Foch as catobar would only make sense if we wanted to use breguet alize and super etendard (reopen prod lines). really doubt it could hurl the Mig29K.

What about f35 or SU 33 or the naval variant of pak-fa?

Though 60k tonnes is small. We need 70k.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 12 Jul 2014 11:50

Christopher Sidor wrote:
Singha wrote:Foch as catobar would only make sense if we wanted to use breguet alize and super etendard (reopen prod lines). really doubt it could hurl the Mig29K.
What about f35 or SU 33 or the naval variant of pak-fa?

Though 60k tonnes is small. We need 70k.

We have decided to go ahead with the NLCA for now..