INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 Jun 2015 02:31

There is nothing like old thinking or new thinking.

There is only what you can afford now, even if it is for next 50 years. So you need to work with what you can have now with possibility to upgrade as we build more. A new carrier about every decade is a need going into the future. Why not just stick with existing design with minor changes as we progress and the economy allows for it.

We could go for the second Vikrant with a new mix of aircrafts, local N-LCAs and F-35B if not F-35C. For the Vishal it can be F-35C or the AMCA or equivalents we may have by then. If UK can operate the F-35Bs in STOBAR we can too. Bring the cost of the carriers down and purchase better planes with money saved...if you really want to throw the bone to Uncle for whatever strategic reasons.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Jun 2015 03:51

^^^There is nothing like old thinking or new thinking.

There is only what you can afford now, even if it is for next 50 years.

True. And, penny wise pound foolish is a timeless concept.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jun 2015 04:01

can afford now

"Afford", has multiple dimensions, not just funds. Political, strategic, MIC, population, middle class, age distribution, etc. Will post later, but, as we post India has a ton to consider. Outside of China I do not think there is another nation with so many options.

On a thread related note, wonder what the consensus may be on the Vikram + MiG29k purchases. Forget the engines and other potential nicky nacky things.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 21 Jun 2015 04:59

NRai

Not with the supposed granularity and feedback of an EMALS. BUT YES they are "dialed " for the launch weight.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Jun 2015 05:19

In a way the current steam cat system is 'dumb' and dependent on the input and does simply that to the best of its ability. Its an all or none approach. The green shirt confirms the weight at launch with the pilot and then with the control station and the person inside sets the launch for that weight and then they launch. There are margins built in as the Naval air warfare center paper shows..Once the launch weight is factored in there is no trimming down or boosting up (rarely required) of the available thrust. The digital system and the EMALS allows them to constantly adjust the thrust and they do this throughout the process and can tone down the margin to reduce the stress on the launch aircraft so that they are within the +/- 3 mph margin of the thrust required to launch. As mentioned earlier if for some reason there is more thrust required say in the reduced thrust from the launching aircraft (for whatever reason) they can adjust that by upping the power form the EMALS..This is not possible with the Steam CAT's and apparently the margins are much larger compared to what is desired from the EMALS.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 21 Jun 2015 05:29

No dispute EMALS are more dynamic or "dialable" than steam cats. So much the better. The originals observation was directed at the comment that steam cats. cannot be adjusted, and one size fits all.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Jun 2015 05:41

Shalav wrote:No dispute EMALS are more dynamic or "dialable" than steam cats. So much the better. The originals observation was directed at the comment that steam cats. cannot be adjusted, and one size fits all.

Agreed..There is a video on the JSF/Turkey thread where the pilot explains it and how during training many pilots in the past have forgotten to release the brake at cat launch, or have lost an engine or had a flameout which although not necessarily results in a dip but can if it happens early enough in the launch event. EMALS can adjust up considerably while the steam cat once released provides the thrust+margin and cannot dial down if the added thrust is not required, or kick it up if more thrust is required. Its that dialing down portion where they can really trim the margins and add more life back to the airframes..Its not going to make a 7000 hour airframe an 8000 hours airframe just through EMALS but given how many airframe hours the USN consumes annually (31 aircraft worth so something like 200K + fighter hours) it all adds up over the decades this thing is going to last for the fleet.

Additional to all that the water supply on the ship is not going to be interrupted

given how steam cat's can severely strain the water purification systems during high tempo ops. Overall the footprint is 50% smaller for EMALS compared to the steam cat's.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Jun 2015 06:32

The cheenis have the magnetic rail design from the germans.
Isn't the EMALS a derivative of this design?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jun 2015 07:09

in theory yes

just as a marine diesel is a derivative of a power plant diesel

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Jun 2015 12:48

Bade wrote:We could go for the second Vikrant with a new mix of aircrafts, local N-LCAs and F-35B if not F-35C. For the Vishal it can be F-35C or the AMCA or equivalents we may have by then. If UK can operate the F-35Bs in STOBAR we can too. Bring the cost of the carriers down and purchase better planes with money saved...if you really want to throw the bone to Uncle for whatever strategic reasons.

One vital data point. The two UK carriers despite being 65k tons can only operate helos as early warning aircraft while the Charles de Gaulle, despite being a 42k carrier operates the Hawkeye.

So a carrier which is 23000ton smaller can operate heavier aircraft because it has catapults. Frankly I think the two UK ship are a bit of a lemon. But that should be OK for the Brits because they would be operating under a US security umbrella. We won't have that luxury and the dragon is going to come with all its got.

We need the best and most bad assed carrier we can get. And yes in 2030 or there abouts we will have the money for bad assed toys.

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jun 2015 13:32

Bade wrote:Why not have a ski jump and EMALS/SteamCATS for the Vishal. It lends to the possibility of using a mix of aircrafts over time..

Cant. Look up what Shalav posted earlier

Theoretically it should be possible to use EMALS in a curved form factor. This is not possible with traditional steam launchers.

Now, on this point.

I'm dreaming of the day we see an EMALS on a ski jump.

It makes no sense. The cat has enough power to get any aircraft up to flight speed, and you dont need the ski jump. The ski jump takes up parking space. You cant park any aircraft on the curved surface of the deck at the bow. If you have a cat , you dont need a ski jump for any reason. Even if you do add one, it contributes nothing, but takes away space and the size of your air wing.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 Jun 2015 17:07

^^ The really large carriers have 4 CAT strips, two of them overlapping and parallel to the landing/recover areas. So in principle it is possible to have just two strips in the same config along with the additional ski-jump for takeoff for aircraft not yet modified for CAT launch (NLCA, Migs) for the Vishal, if it is the lighter class at 65k+ size as advertized. EMALS or steam for the CAT should not matter. In any case launch and recovery never happens simultaneously.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jun 2015 17:10

problem with 2 cat plan is if there is a breakdown one is in trouble. same problem exists in all carriers with < 4 like cdg.

carrier is anyway so constrained, you either go big or go home if you want a strike carrier. for air defence, smaller ones will be ok.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 Jun 2015 17:21

CDG had so many issues, it was non-functional for a decade. The drop-in reactor from their subs too had it own set of problems with radiation standards.

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jun 2015 17:25

Bade wrote:^^ The really large carriers have 4 CAT strips, two of them overlapping and parallel to the landing/recover areas. So in principle it is possible to have just two strips in the same config along with the additional ski-jump for takeoff for aircraft not yet modified for CAT launch (NLCA, Migs) for the Vishal, if it is the lighter class at 65k+ size as advertized

.

Bade Mian . There are 4 cats in US Carriers because (along with 3 elevators), because you can launch roughly 4 aircraft in a matter of seconds and in high tempo operations roughly an aircraft a minute (I think) , you can put something like 20 aircraft on the deck in the air in under 5 minutes or so. Basically an entire strike package with top cover / or a fleet of interceptors for defence against a saturation inbound attack that can be scrambled out.

Bade wrote:EMALS or steam for the CAT should not matter. In any case launch and recovery never happens simultaneously.

The US carriers CAN and DO launch and recover simultaneously. They can launch from the bow and recover via the angled flight deck simultaneously. They are designed to do that and do it in practice if needed. That is one of the plus points of the CAT + angled deck config.

You can do that with a thru deck + ski jump (like in the Vikrant) or the angled flight deck + ski jump (like Vikrant /VikAd/ Kuzentzov/LiaoNing). The parked aircraft in the take off position must be moved before you can recover launched aircraft. This can become critical if you need to recover an aircraft that just got launched has an emergency situation.

If you put in CATs, you increase the tactical flexibility of the carrier a great deal . Basically you can launch and recover at the same time and also remove the payload compromises that come when you have a ski jump and aircraft taking off on own power.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jun 2015 17:35

cats seem to have half the length of typical ski jump takeoff, plus better takeoff weight. instead of the ski jump and sea harrier thing, we should have done something with france which had cats on the clemenceau and foch and used the super etendard instead.

the 1971 working over the old vikrant gave to chittagong, cox bazar was with sea hawks and alizes launched from cats onlee. so we used to have a engineering corps who understood and operated cats all the time.

but the whole sea harrier vstol fetish came and that gen of old salts retired out.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jun 2015 17:38

A carrier is perhaps the most complex asset to design. It lives the longest, has a huge impact on affairs and needs the greatest amount of miniaturization in pretty much every aspect: including serving meals.

On the ski jump topic, it should be rather simple. IN has 45 planes split into 3 sqds: one each for the two carriers and one for land based training. I have come across just one article claiming that IN MAY order 24 more, but that was from 2 years ago, so I let it slide.

So where exactly are the planes for a ski jump for the Vishal coming from?

From what we know for sure, the USN team is sopposed to conduct a few meetings, over the next few weeks. I suggest we wait to see if any substantial news comes out of these meetings. The purpose of these meetings is to get some insight into how many planes, type, purpose of ship, etc.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jun 2015 17:40

here we are, as tfta in theory as the great satan, launching plane after plane from the vikrant..note the really short takeoff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrxnRx8TiXc

we had it in our hands and let it go. another cunning bartania false flag op.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Jun 2015 17:42

amit wrote:
Bade wrote:We could go for the second Vikrant with a new mix of aircrafts, local N-LCAs and F-35B if not F-35C. For the Vishal it can be F-35C or the AMCA or equivalents we may have by then. If UK can operate the F-35Bs in STOBAR we can too. Bring the cost of the carriers down and purchase better planes with money saved...if you really want to throw the bone to Uncle for whatever strategic reasons.
One vital data point. The two UK carriers despite being 65k tons can only operate helos as early warning aircraft while the Charles de Gaulle, despite being a 42k carrier operates the Hawkeye.

So a carrier which is 23000ton smaller can operate heavier aircraft because it has catapults. Frankly I think the two UK ship are a bit of a lemon. But that should be OK for the Brits because they would be operating under a US security umbrella. We won't have that luxury and the dragon is going to come with all its got.

We need the best and most bad assed carrier we can get. And yes in 2030 or there abouts we will have the money for bad assed toys.

The QE can still surge up to two dozen stealth fighters and up to a dozen helos. While their choice to go in for a ski jump instead of the EMALS was rather shortsighted (pay a bit less now and a lot more later) they still have a fairly comprehensive capability that will be tough to match by other carriers around the world given they will have that many stealth aircraft fully integrated with their allies. An absence of E-2D is a drawback, a major one at that but to their defense they do not have the high A2AD threat on their carrier since they aren't going to be enforcing with force much in the Pacific so they'll be operating in areas where their adversary has far less capability then they do. Additionally they have a relationship with DARPA and the USMC and they can do a V-22 AEW option that Boeing has been taking to the trade shows. Boeing has a low risk option where a radar is flung from the back, and its a Roll on roll off solution or they have a more costly proper fixed radome option as well that the brits can choose from. Even though the V-22 is unlikely to be in production around 2027-2030, the V280 option may be there around that timeframe. Although not an E-2D, that solution falls in between a proper helo and an E-2D, think of it as a 70% sollution,

Additionally and most importantly for the Brits and NATO, they get 2 carriers instead of one which they would have to settle with if they went for the more expensive option. This means one will always be available in cases of emergency. With CAT enabled carriers with the US and French this availability in my opinion would be more welcomed as the USN re-balances to the Pacific and the french decide on what to do post CDG. At the moment if a carrier is not committed to a theater the best option is to send an L-Class ship, the QE can pack the capability of multiple L-Class ship in that roll.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jun 2015 17:43

we should have done something with france

Where was the needs? There is a political component that drives, in fact triggers it. Was there one?

In fact, was there a political reason for France to help India? Granted they will sell anything.

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Jun 2015 17:44

Bade wrote:CDG had so many issues, it was non-functional for a decade. The drop-in reactor from their subs too had it own set of problems with radiation standards.

Bade Milan,

That's a separate issue. Irrespective of CDC's availability, N reactors etc, the fact remains that carrier the same size as Vikrant and smaller than Vikram can launch much heavier aircraft because of catapults.

You wouldn't be able to launch a Hawkeye type aircraft even from a 100K STOBAR aircraft carrier because you'd have a design restriction on how long you can make the boat.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jun 2015 17:47

the 100k ships are not that much longer than the 65k types...their beam is wider

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 Jun 2015 18:08

The point is we have a lot of similarity with UQ

at present. Funds and need based constraint. We are not a 10 carrier Navy yet, with 2-3 advertized only as of now, we need to play this game judiciously.

Amit, if one is going for 100k class no need to limit to STOBAR as it makes no sense with order of 100 crafts on board. But with just half that number, frequency of operations can be traded off a bit on a single carrier by spreading the risk over two. Not to mention that one could divert the carrier assets to two different theatres if needed, instead of being stuck in one theatre. Flexibilty to assign a 2-3 carrier force has its own benefits when we are playing with small number of carriers.

Once we cross the 5 carrier threshold we can go really big, IMO.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 Jun 2015 18:11

So where exactly are the planes for a ski jump for the Vishal coming from?

Naval LCA.

After all we need to graduate to AMCA too for the Indian Navy. We cannot be importing our way into the future for everything.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jun 2015 18:19

You expect naval LCA to last - even next 15 years?

NLCA, is the greatest project India has - IMHO, but that is for a totally diff reason.

On cell phone. But for a second project the leading techs out to 30 years and then tell me why would India not consider alternatives very seriously. Just what is happening with the US.

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Jun 2015 18:41

Bade wrote:The point is we have a lot of similarity with UQ at present. Funds and need based constraint. We are not a 10 carrier Navy yet, with 2-3 advertized only as of now, we need to play this game judiciously..

Boss,

I agree that today we have a lot of similarities with UK. But Vishal is not coming today. It's going to enter service in the 2030 decade. At that time we would have left UK far behind. That's why we need to think bigger IMO.

Also the QE or PW is not going to sail into the South China Sea to challenge the Dragon unless it's while hanging on to the petticoats of Amir Khan. But we may have to face the dragon on our own. That's why we need Vishal with catapults.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 Jun 2015 18:52

Amit, that is why you need to re-read what I wrote earlier on the compromise solution (2 CATS and ski) for the Vishal. It is not just about large aircrafts getting launched, but we may be operating the LCAs too well into the 2030s. Vishal is the stepping stone to super carriers beyond 2050 that we will need. We need to sit before we leap frog. China threat is more immediate on land not sea lanes and which can be managed without full scale escalation into sea lanes, imo. SCS is uncle's headache for now.

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Jun 2015 18:58

Bade Mian,

Don't you think the easier solution is to strengthen the front wheel of the Naval Tejas to make it fit for a ski jump than to resort to the design compromise of a STOBAR aircraft carrier? As Vina mentioned you lose valuable deck parking space due to a ski jump. Going back to the CDG example it can carry 40 aircraft (including heavy aircraft) as part of it normal fleet while a similar sized Vikrant will carry far less due to it being STOBAR.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jun 2015 19:30

Amit, that is why you need to re-read what I wrote earlier on the compromise solution (2 CATS and ski) for the Vishal. It is not just about large aircrafts getting launched, but we may be operating the LCAs too well into the 2030s. Vishal is the stepping stone to super carriers beyond 2050 that we will need. We need to sit before we leap frog. China threat is more immediate on land not sea lanes and which can be managed without full scale escalation into sea lanes, imo. SCS is uncle's headache for now.

With those requirements stick with a Vikram or Vikrant. No need even for a Vishal.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 Jun 2015 19:33

Amit, yes, it can be done I guess; me no expert on Aero structures either. But reading the LCA thread makes me dhoti shiver on the many loops it needs to jump already before full acceptance by users. All this needs to be done for the AMCA too at the onset. Clearly if we are going in for large capacity carriers we cannot be importing always to suit the needs and fill gaps in our abilities. We do not become a superpower of even a medium power with a lot of dependencies on others. Dragon will blow a lot of hot air, but will not be as irrational as our dear brothers to the west who will be their proxies forever.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 Jun 2015 19:42

With those requirements stick with a Vikram or Vikrant. No need even for a Vishal.

As many have been saying, we will need two of Vikrant for now with the Vikram, if Vishal is delayed for whatever reasons. I see Vishal in the 65k++ class when we have the right aircrafts locally made, without breaking the bank, hopefully already in service by the 2040s if not a decade earlier.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jun 2015 22:24

Whether they go with a large super carrier, cats etc., is not so much my concern currently. ...more important to order another Vikrant class right away. Also, I don't see Indian ACs playing a similar role to the USN - pulverizING enemy defenses and imposing nfz across the globe or controlling the skies in the Pacific. More like sea denial and fleet defense for which a modded AEW platform should do. What exactly is the need for super heavies taking off from the carriers? A 29K with all its payload of about 5500kg is more than enough for such roles...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jun 2015 03:51

Igzackly my point.Right now no point in buiting off more than we can chew or afford.Another quickly built Vikrant class CV,giving us " carriers -apart from "INS India", with approx 100 aircraft aboard,will suffice for another decade. The crying need now is beefing up the sub fleet by any means.Buying from abroad,building at home and leasing subs,both nuclear and AIP.The Scorpene replacements are a decade
late.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 Jun 2015 04:14

What is the Navy's view. As for EMALS and nuclear powered carrier there is no consensus among retired folks who have written articles and linked here before. But no one has specifically asked for a second Vikrant class carrier except for CSL. It would be nice if the articulation came from the user itself first.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jun 2015 04:44

This thread is getting to be funnier and funnier by the post. ROTFL.

However an observations.

They knew about the Vikrant. Its capabilities, costs, everything. IF they really wanted another it would have been in the pipeline some time back. Dunno. I think - for a variety of reasons - another Vikrant is not doable.

I just do not see another coming.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jun 2015 04:59

Another observation:

Vishal is post Vikrant.

In 10 years it will be post Vishal.

ROTFL.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jun 2015 05:03

Third observation:

IF IN orders another Vikrant, I am betting that the US will withdraw her offerS.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Jun 2015 05:08

Its not a withdraw or approve a project, its what two countries wish to work on as part of the DTTI. Not many even in the US expect EMALS to materialize for there are a lot of hurdles to be crossed for such a high level project and things have moved very slowly on both sides. Its something that both sides agreed to look into jointly, and that suggests that the IN felt a need and the US decided that it was ok to work on this particular technology. Its quite a leap in the bi-lateral relationship so there is plenty of skepticism.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jun 2015 05:21

Suggestion one:

Sell the Vikram to the RuN (without the air wing) (get the money) and then order another Vikrant (as a replacement for the Vikram).

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 Jun 2015 05:43

So if there is no money for a second Vikrant, how will there be any soon enough for the Vishal, whatever its final configuration. Yes, this constant push for leap forward in carrier size is amusing, with no blank cheques from GoI. All it assigned was 50 crores or so for studies...just like they have done for HSR lines too.

DTTI needs does not drive security needs.

I already posted in the shipping thread news on CSL exploring a new dry dock with extension to the back water to accommodate bigger carriers among other structures.