INS Vikramaditya: News and Discussion

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 15 Dec 2013 16:02

TSJones wrote:When I lived in Illinois my next door neighbor had a heated driveway, sidewalks and porch steps. He never had to shovel snow and ice. Russians can't heat a catapult?

What a waste of energy! And then Americans wonder why China and India are bent on causing global warming by their use of coal as primary source of power generation.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 16 Dec 2013 02:50

JTull wrote:
TSJones wrote:When I lived in Illinois my next door neighbor had a heated driveway, sidewalks and porch steps. He never had to shovel snow and ice. Russians can't heat a catapult?
What a waste of energy! And then Americans wonder why China and India are bent on causing global warming by their use of coal as primary source of power generation.

OK, I know I wasn't going to say anymore, but you guys need to think this through. The heating system was only on during a snow storm or icy conditions. Other than that it was shut off. It's heat tape with an insulating base under the concrete. It's not like a water system that has to be kept thawed all winter. There were only a few houses in my neighborhood that had this feature. Gee whiz already.

Here is one such system. there are many others.

http://snowmelt.pro/

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 16 Dec 2013 02:59

[OT]Yes. If the tape is heated through electricity, it might be - depending on the means of electricity production - greener than using gas propelled gas snow blower.[/OT]

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Dec 2013 05:04

[OT]
Cost of energy to radiant heat (RH) a driveway is nothing (in Illinois area), it is the cost of construction that is prohibitive. DIY is palatable. And RH, in some areas, is very desirable - like "lake effect" areas.
[/OT]

________________________

Prasad wrote:Ha. The AMCA is two decades away. Is the IAC2 that far off? How long would it take for us to build a carrier bigger than the IAC1 ? Mao has hinted many a time that the NLCA is just a stepping stone for the navy and their sight has always been set on a medium weight fighter for their carriers. So I'm sure they'll wait, assuming they can get the NLCA to work.

Well. A lot of thoughts:

* News to me about what Mao said. BUT, perhaps, the greatest piece of news as far as I am concerned (and for that I thank thee)
* The current naval doctrine is between Gulf and Malacca. It will need to be extended beyond the Straits. India will not have an option. This is crucial (IMHO)
* This move beyond the Straits will need a larger, modern and a reliable plane. The 29K is not in this category (for a variety of reasons)
* Certain impediments: Indian politicians (not politics) and an "Indian" engine (no matter which plane is fielded)
* The engine cannot wait (no matter what). The "partnership" mentioned in a recent article should be interpreted to mean a "Brahmos" type (it is getting to be the preferred method?)
* The AMCA should be ready in the next 10 years (the +ve in me says even earlier). The AMCA will be the reference Indian plane

* Oh, a lot of this discussion started when i proposed that the Vicky be sold on her way to India

. So............... I agree that the IN needs a much bigger carrier. Vishal @ 65K and 2 more around 90+K, I would suggest. I juts do not see either the Vicky nor the Vikrant will suffice

?????

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 16 Dec 2013 07:34

We are taking the right steps as far as our Maritime airwing is concerned.
For us to go to the 90K+ tonne aircraft carrier in the not so distant futute our forgien policy will have to change, Our economic footprint will have to change, our economic muscle will have to increase exponentially. As I have said a few times lets see how many days in a year our air craft carriers are at sea? Keeping in mind our operational budget or operational doctrine? Which has a specific range at this time.
The 29's are a huge improvement on anything our naval wing has used (including range) Once our refueller fleet gets a (hormone) boost that in itself will give our mid sized carries range.
Also with drones in the airwing size of the carrier will be impacted. Hopefully frendly alliances will help in the logistical chain of keeping a carrier at sea for an extended period of time. (at a distance from peninsular India) China or India for that matter will not be projecting air power in each others back yards for another decade at least. So lets learn to walk before trying to run.The Only way to go for a 95K+ carrier is an alliance with the US (in the next 10-15 years.) I might have to eat that but predicting the future is not a science.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Dec 2013 07:57

Dec 11, 2013 :: Should India-Japan Ties Worry China?

_________________________

FYI (two/three weeks ago?):

_________________________

From a Russian source:

PLA Navy would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier: report

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 16 Dec 2013 09:11

NRao wrote:
* News to me about what Mao said. BUT, perhaps, the greatest piece of news as far as I am concerned (and for that I thank thee)

This is what I remember from one of the aero india threads. Too lazy to dig up links, sorry.

* The AMCA should be ready in the next 10 years (the +ve in me says even earlier). The AMCA will be the reference Indian plane

* Oh, a lot of this discussion started when i proposed that the Vicky be sold on her way to India . So............... I agree that the IN needs a much bigger carrier. Vishal @ 65K and 2 more around 90+K, I would suggest. I juts do not see either the Vicky nor the Vikrant will suffice
?????

IAC1 keel laying was in Feb 2009 and is expected to be commissioned in 2018, after delays. Assuming IAC2 is bigger and probably lesser delays, it would take nearly a decade to get it inducted. And we haven't even finished IAC1. If we start around 2020, we'd get the IAC2 around 2030 (assuming all the stars are aligned politically). We should be able to get the AMCA ready by then, if we prioritise a naval version first, ahead of the AF version or concurrently. One should and can certainly dream big!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Dec 2013 18:17

Cost of aircraft given before approx.$35m per unit.As mentioned before half thr price of a Rafale.The carrier has cost us about 60% of a western built one, QE class 65K t
around £5-6B.Had it been built in the UK the cost would've been double.The US has never offered us any carrier tech, even for subsonic Skyhawks for the Vikrant when ee asked ,It tried v.hard to sabotage the IN's carrier capability esp. after 71..By any calculation a v.good deal even thugh we waited 3 yrs. extra.

Now that ee have it good luck to the IN and happy hunting!

PS:Single engined NLCA will be quite inferior to the 29K, esp. if we acquire AESA TVC versions later on or upgrade these in the future.The MK-2 LCA perhaps with the more powerful 414 will be a better naval bird.Naval AMCA? Keep dreaming.After my lifetime most probably.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Dec 2013 20:38

Philip wrote:Cost of aircraft given before approx.$35m per unit.As mentioned before half thr price of a Rafale.

As mentioned before the MiG-29K could have been operated off any STOBAR carrier.

The carrier has cost us about 60% of a western built one, QE class 65kt around £5-6B.

Again... QE class is £3 billion not £6 billion.

That's $4.5 billion for a (mismanaged) program delivering a vastly more capable ship, and including the cost of air defence systems.

The actual cost was $3 billion which rose because the construction was slowed down, as a result of budget cuts to cope with the financial crisis (Page 16 - MoD Report 2010).

By any calculation a v.good deal even thugh we waited 3 yrs. extra.

Very good deal for Russia perhaps.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 16 Dec 2013 20:47

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/374 ... arwar.html

Navy takes steps to augment Karwar base capacity
Kalyan Ray, New Delhi, Dec 15, 2013, DHNS:
The naval headquarters in September, 2013 issued Expression of Interest for design consultancy service for dockyard and fleet-base buildings. DH Photo
Almost a year after the Cabinet approval, the Navy has set into motion the process to augment the capacity at Karwar base in north Karnataka, which would house 30 warships and submarines when fully ready.

But the Karnataka government's plan to use a part of the naval air base for civilian flights is unlikely to be realised as the Navy has dropped the idea of opening a full fledged fighter base at Karwar.

“Only helicopters will fly from Karwar because of a small runway. We will not develop Karwar as a base for fighter and fixed wing aircraft, for which the nearby Hansa air station in Goa can be put to use,” said a source, making it clear that Karwar naval air station could not be used for civilian flights.

The air-station was among several infrastructure projects, which will come up in the Rs 13,000 crore Phase-IIA of Project Seabird that received the Cabinet Committee on Security's nod last December.

The naval headquarters in September, 2013 issued Expression of Interest for design consultancy service for dockyard and fleet-base buildings. The responses, received till October end, are being studied at the naval headquarters to identify the vendors, who would be asked to participate in the tender process.

The expansion of Karwar naval base is one of the projects, hit by the budget cut. The finance ministry had sanctioned just about Rs 10 crore in this fiscal to carry out the consultancy activity, sources told Deccan Herald. But more funds are promised in the next financial year.

“Its the beginning of a long 10 year journey. The Navy has about 11000 acres of land, out of which only 20 per cent was used in the first phase. Most of the facilities would come up in the second phase,” said a Navy officer.

India's most modern and biggest aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, which is on its way from Russia, will be berthed at Karwar.

Inaugurated by then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in October 1986, work on the phase-I of Karwar project was completed after two decades at a cost of Rs 2,628.82 crore. In phase-I, berthing facilities for 11 ships and 10 yard crafts were created, along with an airstrip and a residential township. The initial cost estimate was Rs 350 crore.

In the second phase, 10-12 berths and 6-8 dry berths would be created along with ship-lift capability along with oil dump and weapons depot.

Looks like there has been no capacity expansion since phase 1 (11 ships )which completed in 2006. Phase II yet to begin!

Thanks to MMS again.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Dec 2013 22:13

Multiple thoughts:

* Cost of the Vicky: At $2.25 billion IN should have got a far better designed ship. The fact that IN will have to deal with an elevator bang in the middle of a take-off run scares me the most. And, I am sure there are plenty of other aspects that the IN will have to live with for the next 30 years. IN deserves better than that
* I do not want to point fingers at the Russians, but please do not tell me that they did not know that at $2.25 billion they themselves could have provided a better solution. I am dead sure they are better than that
* At $2.25 billion you can design a decent carrier ground up - why is the need to convert a cruiser into a carrier? Better to convert a cargo ship into a carrier
* On "the only ship available" at that cost and time-to-deliver: yes, at $990 million, she was worth it. At $2.25 billion AND 10 years or so there was no urgency. IN could have and in fact should have waited a little while longer to get a better ship that would have provided better comforts for 30 years. (I am not sure what difference it makes to the IN if they are without a proper carrier for a year or two - does it?)
* On having the Russians build for IN: They are treating this as pure business, which is fine, nothing wrong with that. BUT, so should India. What has Talwars got to with Vicky or future acquisitions? none. IF the Russians can provide a service per the price agreed to then by all means, but I for one do not see that trend. They are in a bait-n-switch business model and for that reason alone India should keep away from the Russians

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 17 Dec 2013 04:22

Russians have managed to upgrade/modernise 3 shipyards with the 6 Talwars and the Vik. Why not spend the same amount of money on modernising Indian shipyards? 4 LPDs and other orders are what we need.

John · Post by **John** » 17 Dec 2013 05:35

NRao wrote:* Cost of the Vicky: At $2.25 billion IN should have got a far better designed ship. The fact that IN will have to deal with an elevator bang in the middle of a take-off run scares me the most. And, I am sure there are plenty of other aspects that the IN will have to live with for the next 30 years. IN deserves better than that

Any 40k Ton carrier would cost much more than 3 billion (heck even Cavour cost 2 billion if it was built export now it would easily be 3 billion+). Gorshkov was supposed to be the low risk option, putting all chips and counting on just ADS has risks (see Scorpene).

That said the big mistake was that we could have procured Invincible along with couple Squadron of harriers for less than billion (in return we agree to consider F-35 for future which would get Unkil's blessing/lobbying support as well in UK Parliament). Use rest of money to build pair of Mistral size ship locally to build up our indigenous shipbuilding.

That's $4.5 billion for a (mismanaged) program delivering a vastly more capable ship, and including the cost of air defence systems.

Rule of thumb any platform built for export will at least be 50% (profit, kickbacks, overruns, currency etc)more than locally built program. So you are looking at least 6 billion+ for QE if its built for India...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Dec 2013 07:37

^^^^^

That could explain the creep from $900 million to a cool $2.25 billion.

Hmmmm..... FMS............... Either power this one using conventional means or tow it to V'patnam and install two reactors. : )

srin · Post by **srin** » 17 Dec 2013 08:59

NRao wrote:Multiple thoughts:

* Cost of the Vicky: At $2.25 billion IN should have got a far better designed ship. The fact that IN will have to deal with an elevator bang in the middle of a take-off run scares me the most. And, I am sure there are plenty of other aspects that the IN will have to live with for the next 30 years. IN deserves better than that
* I do not want to point fingers at the Russians, but please do not tell me that they did not know that at $2.25 billion they themselves could have provided a better solution. I am dead sure they are better than that
* At $2.25 billion you can design a decent carrier ground up - why is the need to convert a cruiser into a carrier? Better to convert a cargo ship into a carrier
* On "the only ship available" at that cost and time-to-deliver: yes, at $990 million, she was worth it. At $2.25 billion AND 10 years or so there was no urgency. IN could have and in fact should have waited a little while longer to get a better ship that would have provided better comforts for 30 years. (I am not sure what difference it makes to the IN if they are without a proper carrier for a year or two - does it?)
* On having the Russians build for IN: They are treating this as pure business, which is fine, nothing wrong with that. BUT, so should India. What has Talwars got to with Vicky or future acquisitions? none. IF the Russians can provide a service per the price agreed to then by all means, but I for one do not see that trend. They are in a bait-n-switch business model and for that reason alone India should keep away from the Russians

Some counter-points:
You are being unfair looking at this in hind-sight. You should rewind 10-12 years back and evaluate the decisions that the IN took.

At the time of signing, we only had to pay for Mig-29K and the carrier would come with it. This is after Op Parakram, and Navy was losing its Harrier wing steadily and Viraat was getting old. And ADS (Air defense ship) project was still on the drawing board, and given our ship-building rate wouldn't be realistically available for another 10 years atleast. Our destroyers didn't have proper air-defense - with Trishul project being in trouble and you had TSP flying Orions with Harpoon missiles. Our own Brahmos was just about taking off. And IN always got the smallest chunk of the budget - this was a well-publicised grouse in those days.
So - if I were the IN, I'd have figured out that in case of a conflict in say, 2010'ish time, Viraat wouldn't be effective, and our destroyers didn't have much air-cover and our own offensive anti-ship strike was very limited.

In such a situation, a free carrier makes a lot of sense. Add to that, a Mig-29K with Mach2 capability, and an ability to get the aircraft tailored to the IN requirements. The IN has always had long had ships built in Soviet/Russian shipyards, so they didn't anticipate the trouble. Plus, there was an Akula lease also connected to this. So - they jumped at it.

Fast forward to 2007'ish. That was the time everyone knew Gorshkov deal was in trouble and this wasn't as good as they thought. There were rumors that Russians had told IN that if they couldn't pay up the extra, they were free to leave and that the RN would use it. There were also rumors that Kitty Hawk was on offer.
If ever there was a time to backout, that was it. However, IN decided that a bird in hand was worth more than two in bush. No firm offer for KH, and Vikrant was getting late. I suspect that Govt also pushed back - not wanting jeopardize the bigger relationship with Russia. I also suspect that there was some sweetener attached (FGFA ?) that the Govt couldn't refuse, and so they didn't back out.

If IN was offered the deal right now, they probably wouldn't take it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Dec 2013 09:48

"Vikramaditya" in Lisbon and waiting for refueling

Navy India "Vikramaditya" is now in Lisbon and waiting for refueling in the morning on December 18 ship should head towards the Strait of Gibraltar, told RIA Novosti on Monday, a source in the military-industrial complex.

"The carrier is now waiting for a tanker in Lisbon, 18 in the morning leave their current parking lot and will go through the Strait of Gibraltar. His next stop is hard to call," - said the agency interlocutor.

He noted that "Vikramaditya" has gone through several storms on the way across the Atlantic, from the aircraft carrier was already one of the refueling tanker en route to Lisbon. In addition, from the deck of an aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings made helicopters, the source said.

"While the voyage carrier is carried out in accordance with the plan, everything is going well," - said the source.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Dec 2013 20:31

Very slow day, so ........................

srin wrote: Some counter-points:
You are being unfair looking at this in hind-sight. You should rewind 10-12 years back and evaluate the decisions that the IN took.

Unfair? I think I am being very generous. Never really followed this drama until now.

Am finding that the whole thing exploded around 2007:

Feb 8, 2008 wrote: “Moscow feels that the agreement for supply of the 45,000 tonne warship was signed at a time when the Russian ship-building company was in bad shape and India “used” the situation to sign the contract at lower price. The ship-building company was facing closure and was ready to sign any kind of contract when the contract was signed.”

early 2008 wrote: “But Russia is willing to “compensate” for the cost of Gorshkov if it gets more military orders, which Moscow insists is not linked to 126 fighter planes that India is planning to buy but other defence purchases.”

Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, was financially in the pits. They tried the very same trick (bait-and-switch) with a Norwegian company, when in 2004 they signed to build 12 tankers (at what was considered a very low price), and:

First, recall that the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, Archangel Oblast is responsible for the Gorshkov refit. Until recently, they also had a $544 million contract to build up to 12 tankers for the Norwegian shipping form Odfjell. When it was signed in 2004, it was promoted as “a historic deal in Norwegian-Russian industrial relations.”

Now it has been canceled, and Odfjell CEO Terje Storeng has used terms like “no will to try to understand that this is a commercial project,” “deliberately sabotaged and delayed the project” et. al.

{Imagine if that was an Indian saying it!!!!!}

Unfair? I have a lot more to post, but what purpose would it serve?

____________________

The point being is simple. In 2000 the cost of a brand new medium carrier was around $2 billion (I would say $2.5-3 billion is a better range).

Now, when Russia said India has to pay $2.25 billion, guess what? The Vicky was already late, so time was not an issue - after all Russia (actually a very dilapidated Sevmash) took the same time to refurbish the Vicky as it would have taken to build a brand new ship, is it not?

So, my argument is very simple: it cost nearly as much as a brand new ship and it took as much time as a brand new ship, so why not build a brand new ship?

I am very slowly gravitating to the answer that *ALL* this was politics. It had to do with rebuilding Sevmash - they needed the funds and I am nearly willing to bet my bottom dollar that the Russians arm twisted the Saint's arm. I have no proof so far - just a hunch, but I do nto think the IN would have bought into this "we need a carrier right now" drama. That they needed one is a given - I will grant that. BUT, I bet, IN wanted a proper ship, not something that was slapped on together - which is what the Vicky is (as compared to even Vikrant) (I do not mean to be critical of the Vicky, but if I am then it is only in relation to other carriers -and even the Vikrant is just fine).

Anyways, there is actually more on this subject matter, but need to move on.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 17 Dec 2013 20:37

dont forget that the progamme was also quite adventerous in terms of new technology and capabilities - thats usually a guarantee of price escalation
the russians have also been unhappy with the deal - but they have probably come out better

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 17 Dec 2013 21:03

If IN was offered the deal right now, they probably wouldn't take it.

Can't offer exactly the same deal but 'if' Indians are offered better deal, Indians won't be willing to negotiate since we will build IAC in India.

member_23061 · Post by **member_23061** » 17 Dec 2013 21:21

IMO and this is just me, the Russkies went into the deal thinking they could turf off some repainted junk and the IN wanted nothing but excellent standard stuff coming in. I remember the time this was signed, it was a celebration for the Russians as the deal was one of their biggest and we in India thought we had a bargain basement deal. Obviously the reality was different.

There was no way a half burnt rotting hulk of a ship was going to meet the high standard we required at a paltry 900 million. No one was gulped down 1.4 billion dollars. <2.3 billion-900million> Even accounting for corruption/grease/etc ; they had to replace half a ship which costs money.

Indeed for the Russians, this was a much better deal. Their shipyards got to learn at our expense, were kept afloat with our money, could try out new ideas, etc. In our case, our ADS now has time to mature and the IAC-II has even greater time to develop incremental technology like EMALS, etc. We are not facing off America and for hamstrung China ; the Vikramaditya will prove to be a handful considering our better operational doctrine of carriers.

If China went through all those hoops and chicanery to get the Varyag and chose to develop it into their first carrier ; should we in India be cribbing about the cost of the Vikramaditya? Forget all that, would America let you rent an Los Angeles class? If memory serves right, the Akula 2 deal was signed along with this. So you know, perspective guys

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Dec 2013 22:14

Nothing would have changed if India had abandoned the refurbishment and started a new ship - one Russia could have built - with the exception of the fact that India would have got a brand new ship. No, India would not have got a Los Angeles class sub - although I am not sure where that came from. India would have still got the Akula and the 45 MiG-29K and the T-90 guns and anything else you want thrown into the argument/discussion.

Why is it so difficult to understand that around 2007-8 there was no carrier nor a proper timeline. Once India agreed to the revised cost only then did they start proper work to change a cruiser to a carrier. It still took $2.25 billion (the Russians seem to claim they went into a loss - so let us say the ship actually cost $3 billion) and it tool 5-6 years - the very same cost and time it would take for a brand new, properly designed carrier. Why would this argument change anything else?

John · Post by **John** » 17 Dec 2013 23:43

NRao wrote:Why is it so difficult to understand that around 2007-8 there was no carrier nor a proper timeline. Once India agreed to the revised cost only then did they start proper work to change a cruiser to a carrier. It still took $2.25 billion (the Russians seem to claim they went into a loss - so let us say the ship actually cost $3 billion) and it tool 5-6 years - the very same cost and time it would take for a brand new, properly designed carrier. Why would this argument change anything else?

NRao but what brand new ship are you referring to for 3 billion dollars??

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 18 Dec 2013 00:07

NRao

1) Before the price escalation work had commenced. It was then that the extent of the upgrade became apparent.
2) It takes forever for the MOD to make a commitment , Maybe we would have got IAC1 or even 2 before the V-aditya
3) Hindsight was not a tool available. In the timeframe being discussed ,decisions that were made a decade back, are being dissected with information that is available now. That is a bit unfair.
4) The capabilities that this vessel brings are comparable to any Asian naval airwing (if not better) and that is what it will be up against.
5) Your estimate of $3 billion for a brand new ship, are debatable some of our frigates are costing 0.8-1 billion
6) At this stage this argument is not serving any practical purpose as the asset is ours I doubt we will be asking Russia for another one

So maybe we should drop the "what if" situations for this particular vessel and look ahead to the capabilities she brings to our western command.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Dec 2013 00:11

John wrote:NRao but what brand new ship are you referring to for 3 billion dollars??

Had the QE's delivery schedule and contract not been revised (because of the 2008 crunch), it would have been delivered for under $3.5 billion (assuming the cost escalated by $500mil anyway). Subtract the cost of battle management systems, radars, missiles, CIWS, ECM/ESM etc and you get a figure closer to $3 billion. For a 70,000 ton carrier built to a very modern design.

Also for the record, BAE isn't the most efficient of shipbuilders. Fincantieri could arguably have done a better job still.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Dec 2013 00:17

Eric Leiderman wrote:6) At this stage this argument is not serving any practical purpose as the asset is ours I doubt we will be asking Russia for another one

So maybe we should drop the "what if" situations for this particular vessel and look ahead to the capabilities she brings to our western command.

True. But accepting the 'great bargain' position that is still being trotted out from some quarters will serve us poorly when it comes to future defence purchases from Russia, particularly with regard to the so-called 'joint ventures'.

John · Post by **John** » 18 Dec 2013 00:17

Viv S wrote:Had the QE's delivery schedule and contract not been revised (because of the 2008 crunch), it would have been delivered for under $3.5 billion (assuming the cost escalated by $500mil anyway). Subtract the cost of battle management systems, radars, missiles, CIWS, ECM/ESM etc and you get a figure closer to $3 billion. For a 70,000 ton carrier built to a very modern design.

Yes built you are comparing with platforms built domestically which we can never acquire. QE built for UK at next to nothing profit margins for glory of Royal Navy not for Export. For starters It is highly unlikely any European shipyard would built a carrier for India (even the idea of purchasing invincible got heavy opposition).

Even if we somehow manage to convince them why would BAE/Thales built a vessel for break even for India if you factor in profit margins, tariffs etc you will end up atleast 50% more cost than British sticker price. There is slim to zero chance for us to acquire new carrier for 3 billion.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Dec 2013 00:25

John wrote:Once again it QE built for UK at next to nothing profit margins for glory of Royal Navy not for Export. For starters It is highly unlikely any European shipyard would built a carrier for India (even the idea of purchasing invincible got heavy oppoisition).

'Next to nothing' profit margins. How so? Any European shipyard would have built a carrier for India (they were all hemorrhaging business to South Korea and China).

And AFAIK the opposition to the sale of the Invincible was primarily from elements that wanted it retained for the RN (with the Tornado fleet cut instead).

Even if we somehow manage to convince them why would BAE/Thales built a vessel for break even for India if you factor in profit margins, tariffs etc you will end up atleast 50% more cost than British sticker price...

This is for a 70,000 ton carrier. For a 40-45 kt ship, $2.5 billion was doable even with profit margins factored in. Plus by carrying over the design and components to the IAC program, substantial savings could have been made on the Vikrant.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 18 Dec 2013 00:33

Re: QE, how about keeping thousands employed and keeping know-how alive (even improve it). Why not invest it ourselves domestically?

I think IN understood the scale of effort and project management required from the INS Vikramaditya example that they've put to good use in IAC-1. There's no substitute to this "tech".

John · Post by **John** » 18 Dec 2013 00:40

Viv S wrote:This is for a 70,000 ton carrier. For a 40-45 kt ship, $2.5 billion was doable even with profit margins factored in. Plus by carrying over the design and components to the IAC program, substantial savings could have been made on the Vikrant.

Considering they are tooled to build QE you are now talking about entirely new design this would not save $$ in any way.

Viv S wrote:And AFAIK the opposition to the sale of the Invincible was primarily from elements that wanted it retained for the RN (with the Tornado fleet cut instead).

Opposition also came from other members in EU (Germany) and if it is new carrier even US would raise concerns.

We can play all different scenario what if Koreans built it etc but the only way to build a carrier is locally or get a rusting vessel from an another nation.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Dec 2013 00:43

JTull wrote:Re: QE, how about keeping thousands employed and keeping know-how alive (even improve it). Why not invest it ourselves domestically?

Good idea as a principle. However given that we had to approach a foreign shipyard for the Deepak-class, a domestically built aircraft carrier may not have been feasible at the time.

I think IN understood the scale of effort and project management required from the INS Vikramaditya example that they've put to good use in IAC-1. There's no substitute to this "tech".

I happened to have a chat with a naval officer (Cmdr) who was on his way to Russia. According to him, the support from the Russian side, even post-handover with shared crewing, has been dreadful (the Shiv Aroor article said the same thing). Expecting significant absorption of managerial lessons from the Gorshkov refurbishment is optimistic to say the least.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Dec 2013 00:50

John wrote:Considering they are tooled to build QE you are now talking about entirely new design this would not save $$ in any way.

I did not suggest that buying the QE was an option. As a matter of fact, Fincantieri not BAE/VTG would likely have been the best bet. And all costs quoted, whether for the QE or the Cavour have been inclusive of the design phase.

Opposition also came from other members in EU (Germany) and if it is new carrier even US would raise concerns.

AFAIK there wasn't any opposition from the EU or the US whatsoever. If you have references saying otherwise, do share please.

We can play all different scenario what if Koreans built it etc but the only way to build a carrier is locally or get a rusting vessel from an another nation.

That's not true.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Dec 2013 02:32

1) Before the price escalation work had commenced. It was then that the extent of the upgrade became apparent.

true.

However:
a) The Russians claimed they would take it over, or
b) Else India could either provide another buyer OR (without directly referring to the MMRCA deal) could purchase some other product

(This is actually better than Othello or Hamlet)

2) It takes forever for the MOD to make a commitment , Maybe we would have got IAC1 or even 2 before the V-aditya

It was not the MoD, it was the FinMin that initially rejected the revised costs that took a lot of time. The haggling that occurred was actually the MoD trying to find a way between the demands of the Russians and what the FinMin could provide for

There is NO direct evidence for this, but I *suspect* that the IN did not want this ship at that price, but the MoD thought the better of it. Now, I am of the opinion that the MoD is not quite capable of such thinking (sorry) and was either hoodwinked into it or perhaps arm twisted - I subscribe to the latter.

Added later:

Found this from a ToI article dated Nov 17, 2013:

Antony captured the intense concerns about the protracted delay and huge cost escalation in the project, which at one point forced many within even the Navy to call for cancellation of the project, when he said that there was a time "when we thought that we will never get her".

3) Hindsight was not a tool available. In the timeframe being discussed ,decisions that were made a decade back, are being dissected with information that is available now. That is a bit unfair.

Hmmmm......

In fact I would say it is a matter of planning - why does one need a "hind sight"?

The (proposed) plan:
* IF the cost escalates to Rs. XXXXX crores,
THEN ask for a new ship and do something about the cost that has been incurred so far (buy more Su-30MKI?)

the point being that the G had to be gutted and as teh Russians themselves have stated they had to rebuild *everything* (with the exception of the hull)

So, what hind sight did one need at that point in time? (I had stated then without knowing all this to dump the idea.)

5) Your estimate of $3 billion for a brand new ship, are debatable some of our frigates are costing 0.8-1 billion

The $3 billion or so, is a direct Russian quote (they were trying to tell the world that at $2.25 billion India is getting a brand new carrier around 65% what a carrier would cost). Not mine.

6) At this stage this argument is not serving any practical purpose as the asset is ours I doubt we will be asking Russia for another one

True. And I hope not. Not even the FGFA I would say. Or the MTA.

4) The capabilities that this vessel brings are comparable to any Asian naval airwing (if not better) and that is what it will be up against.

So maybe we should drop the "what if" situations for this particular vessel and look ahead to the capabilities she brings to our western command.

Hmmmm......

I think I have some news for you. I have been saying I would like to post something more and away from this cost-of-Vicky topic.

My little research has found the Indian Naval doctrine to be rather weak - dictated by the Indian political group. It seems to reflect the zombie PM India has.

India is expanding its strategic footprint in the Indian Ocean. A trilateral security group of India, Maldives and Sri Lanka will be expanded to include Mauritius and Seychelles.

The doctrine talks of controlling the "arc" from the Gulf to the Straits. The ability to bottle up the Straits with two subs and a carrier. All hinting at China ......... but, China has already started moving much of her energy dependencies to Central Asia and Russia, she is not going to rely as much on the IOR.

I have not come across any GoI artifacts that talk about other nations, although there are papers from other nations on IN and say Japan and Australia.

Now, if the IN is expected to deal with these small island nations and the Indian territories + assets, then the current carrier groups should suffice.

But, if she has to deal with China in any fashion, certainly alone - as a nation - with these carrier would be a challenge (considering everything).

However, more some other time.

John · Post by **John** » 18 Dec 2013 03:14

Viv S wrote:I did not suggest that buying the QE was an option. As a matter of fact, Fincantieri not BAE/VTG would likely have been the best bet. And all costs quoted, whether for the QE or the Cavour have been inclusive of the design phase.

Regarding Fincantieri which was busy building Cavour till 06-07, where is the proof they would even be interested or approached IN back when were are procuring Gorshkov. Heck since we are speculating why not just work with Newport and build us some baby nimitz for 3 billion.

We can pointlessly speculate all we want everyone knew that IN was looking for a carrier there was no other SYs approaching us offering to build it (In other hand we had DCN approach us with Mistral and NG for SA class transport docks even before we sent out tenders. ) The only option we had were: Invincible or Gorshkov or perhaps Kitty Hawk.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Dec 2013 03:25

IF Russia could refurbish an old, dilapidated vessel, they themselves could have build a new one ground up.

The only question would and should have been is design. The design phase would be the only added major time and cost. The build time would have been about the same.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Dec 2013 11:00

Frigate Monmouth grazes Vikramaditya

British frigate F 235 Monmouth (type 23) and the Indian aircraft carrier Vikramaditya R 33 in the English Channel. 12/12/2013 (c) Dean Nixon / UK Ministry of Defence

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 18 Dec 2013 11:04

Nice pics but where are you getting that provocative headline from?

Beware of spin, including the RN version here.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/co ... uth-indian

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Dec 2013 11:21

In hindsight,many changes could've been made regarding a carrier for the IN,yes we could've ordered a new one,but everyone forgets the chronology and situ at that time.

First,the carriers,both Varyag and Gorshkov were built in the Ukraine.Both were evaluated by the IN,the Varyag was in poor hull condition when compared with the Gorshkov,far more expensive to acquire,furnish with its air wing and if I recollect right,there was no port with a deep enough draught to berth the ship (told to me personally by a former CNS).

Secondly,we had far less moolah at that time for defence,esp. the IN with itss pathetic budget .We could not afford to buy a new carrier from abroad which would've cost us upwards for $3+ B at that time.Babudom delayed the acquisition for several years in byzantine bargaining,with the IAF allegedly also wanting to scuttle the deal.This is why the IAC-1 was initially called the ADS (air defence ship),of far lesser tonnage,and stealthily increased in size.The ship was offered for a song,with the cost estimated for repair and modernisation/modification grossly underestimated.

Thirdly,after the fall of the USSR,Ukraiine's defence yards and industry were in chaos.The ship was being refurbished in Russia.There were no complete drawings of the vessel available,esp. with regard to the wiring.Due to delay in deciding to acquire the carrier,the existing wiring became useless.One problem compounded another.It was by now too late to cancel the deal as work was apace and MIG-29K aircraft were being manufactured too.The IN reportedly also wanted some changes-inevitable and so the cost escalated.At one point,Russia said that if we did not pay extra,it would be happy to acquire the vessel for its own navy. With our situ desperate,the Viraat still gallantly sailing on after umpteen refits,and the Sea Harrier fleet reduced to less than half of its original strength,the IN/MOD found that it was still a bargain paying the extra and acquiring the carrier.The boiler affair was of our own making.What is also not known is the quid-pro-quo for the package for the carrier,MIGs and Akula,etc.

Even now when you add up the actual costs,one finds that we've got the vessel at a very good price and very capable aircraft too,which can perform almost all the tasks and carry the same weaponry that the larger Sukhoi is capable of.In fact the Russians are acquiring the MIG-29K for their carrier too instead of the naval Flanker,more expensive to operate.Cost just over 2
$2B for 45+ aircraft.

The IN must now carefully examine the design and size of ICA-2,so that it has a larger degree of commonality with the Vikram and Vik-2,making for easier carrier ops and carrier crews which can operate with ease from any flat top.However,if cost is going to be the criteria for the amphib flat top acquisition,to be built by pvt. yards,the Mistral will have an edge over the JC,which is much larger,plus the fact that Russia is also acquiring 4,making it easier for the French to sell the design to us at an attractive price.Jt. planning for an amphib Brigade by the IA and IN is very welcome,which hopefully in the fullness of time will develop into a full fledged Marine Corps.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Dec 2013 13:11

John wrote:Regarding Fincantieri which was busy building Cavour till 06-07, where is the proof they would even be interested or approached IN back when were are procuring Gorshkov. Heck since we are speculating why not just work with Newport and build us some baby nimitz for 3 billion.

Where does it say that Fincantieri could build only one aircraft carrier at a time? They delivered two 27,500 ton ships to the IN, within two years of signing the contract. And don't need 'proof' to assert that a vendor would deliver a product requested by a customer.

We can pointlessly speculate all we want everyone knew that IN was looking for a carrier there was no other SYs approaching us offering to build it (In other hand we had DCN approach us with Mistral and NG for SA class transport docks even before we sent out tenders. ) The only option we had were: Invincible or Gorshkov or perhaps Kitty Hawk.

AFAIK we never sent out a tender for light/medium carrier whether new or refurbished. The negotiations with the Russians were specific to the Gorshkov. And the offers of the Kitty Hawk (unconfirmed BTW) and Invincible were made because they were being retired. Foreign shipyards couldn't have been expected to make unsolicited offers without the IN laying out required specifications for a design.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Dec 2013 16:01

How one of the western world's most experienced carrier builders,second only to the US,has been plagued with problems,cost overruns,technical problems,etc.That too with a new carrier built from scratch! By these standards,the Russians did a great job on converting a missile cruiser-carrier ,the Gorky into a genuine flat top,far more difficult.

The UK's carriers cost 6.2 B Pounds as of now.That's about $10B,$5 B per ship.In fact,the costs have risen after abandoning cats which would've cost even more.This is for a carrier without its air wing,est. at $100m per JSF and heavy multi-role helos.There are fears that the costs could rise even further too.(Carrier cost 'could rise even higher than £6.2 billion'
Defence Secretary to announce cost of carriers has increased by £800m to £6.2 billion with warning may eventually go higher still. ) This is almost double than when the carrier was approved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24833555

Aircraft carrier: What is costing £6.2bn?

The cost of two new aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy has risen to £6.2bn, more than £2bn over the original estimate. This has drawn renewed criticism of the project to build the two ships, the first of which will not be ready for service until 2020.

INTERACTIVE
QE class aircraft carrier

Size of ship

Aircraft

Modular build

Control towers

Power

×
Aircraft carrier computer generated image

Size of ship
× Profile of carrier in shipyard

The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers will be the largest surface warships ever constructed for the UK. With a displacement of 65,000 tonnes, they are three times the size of Illustrious, the Navy’s remaining aircraft carrier. They are 280m long, about 70m wide, twice the width, and will accommodate about 1,600 crew, including air crew.
Flight deck
× Jet taking off from ship

The carriers will be equipped with F-35B, short take-off and vertical landing joint-strike fighters. The coalition government announced in 2010 that it would buy the F-35C jets instead, because they had a longer range and had a bigger weapons payload, but the cost of fitting the carriers with the “cats and traps” launch and landing system proved prohibitively expensive and the government was forced to reverse its decision in 2012.
Modular build
× Part of hull

The ships are built in blocks or modules, with pieces being constructed around the country and sent to Rosyth in Fife. The LB04, pictured, is part of the ship’s hull. It was constructed in the Govan shipyard by BAE Systems and taken by barge to Rosyth. The construction of the second carrier, Prince of Wales, is already underway but a final decision on its future has not yet been made.

Control towers
× Aft island

The carriers are designed with two islands, instead of a traditional single island. The forward or front island will hold the ship’s controls and the aft or rear island will control the flying operations. Under the flight deck there are a further nine decks. The hangar deck is big enough to accommodate up to 20 fixed wing and rotary aircraft.
Power
× Ship's propeller

The carriers are fitted with two propellers, with a diameter of seven metres. Each will output about 80MW of power, enough to run 1,000 family cars or 50 high speed trains. Two Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbines will provide about two-thirds of the ship’s power and the rest will come from four diesel engines. The MT30 is based on the engine which powers the Boeing 777 aircraft and around 80% of the parts are the same.

Continue reading the main story

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the cost of building the two carriers has increased to £6.2bn. The latest news follows a series of price increases since the contract was first signed in July 2008.

The original contract, signed by the Labour government, was worth about £3.9bn. The carriers, over three times the size of the current Invincible class, were each planned to be equipped with up to 40 Short Take-off and Vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B jets.

By the time the coalition came to power in 2010, the project cost had risen to an estimated £5.2bn. As part of the government's Strategic Defence and Security Review, it announced a change of plan and said the carriers would be equipped instead to carry F-35C jets.

The F-35C jets have a longer range and are capable of carrying a higher weapons payload, but they require catapult and arrestor gear, so-called "cats and traps" to be able to take off and land.

Animated sequence of aircraft carrier (MoD/Aircraft Carrier Alliance)

At the same time, Mr Hammond also announced that the second carrier, Prince of Wales, would be built but its exact future was unclear. With costs continuing to rise, Mr Hammond said the ship might have to be sold or mothballed.

In May 2012, Mr Hammond announced a u-turn over the jets - saying the adaptations to the ships were going to cost far more than originally thought - so the government would stick to the original decision to buy F-35B jets. He estimated at the time that the change of plan had cost about £100m - but now says the figure was in fact around £62m.
Size comparison - carrier and Palace of Westminster

According to reports, the latest price increase to £6.2bn is mainly down to failing to factor in the costs of inflation and VAT into the original contract.

Mr Hammond said the government had agreed new terms for the contract and any future variation in price would be shared by the government and the contractors.

Explore the zoomable image below to see how a QE Class aircraft carrier (left) would compare in dry dock alongside HMS Illustrious.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... llion.html

By Ben Farmer, Defence Correspondent

8:44PM GMT 04 Nov 2013

The cost of Britain’s long-awaited new aircraft carriers could eventually top even the increased price tag of more than £6 billion, defence sources have admitted.

Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary, is expected to announce later this week that the projected cost of the two carriers has risen by another £800 million to around £6.2 billion.

The latest increase means the bill for the 65,000-tonne ships will be almost double the £3.5 billion estimated when the programme was agreed by the Labour government in 2007.

Defence sources admitted that though they now believe they have agreed on a “realistic” price, the final bill could one day be even higher.

In an attempt to rein in further overspending, a new contract being negotiated will see any further costs above £6.2 billion split half-and-half between the taxpayer and contractors.

A defence source said: “You can’t get a fixed price contract because no one else will build them. We have to go for a target price.”

The new Queen Elizabeth class carriers have been bedevilled by delays, cost increases and design u-turns since they were commissioned.

A U-turn on a decision over which type of F-35 warplanes to use on the ships wasted tens of millions of pounds through basic accounting errors, MPs said earlier this year.

Backbenchers on the Public Accounts Committee also warned in September that the programme faced further spiralling costs and remained a “high risk” because technical problems had not been resolved.

Vernon Coaker, shadow defence secretary, said the Government needed to explain the cost increase and said it was “the latest in a series of financial fiascos in the MoD under David Cameron.”

However the Government blamed the contract signed under Labour.

A Government source said: “The last Labour Government signed a flawed contract that allowed costs to spiral and gave industry no incentive to keep them down.

"We’re on the verge of a breakthrough which will finally set a realistic price for delivering the aircraft carriers and change the nature of the contractual relationship with industry to better protect taxpayers’ interests. We're turning around the toxic legacy into a credible funded programme.”

The cost increase is the latest setback for the troubled carrier programme. The Coalition announced in the 2010 defence review that it intended to switch from the jump-jet version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter planned under Labour, to the carrier variant.

It was then forced to carry out an embarrassing U-turn after it emerged the cost of fitting the necessary catapults and equipment would be too expensive.

It is also still unclear whether the Navy will be able to run them both when they are complete. The 2010 defence review proposed selling one or keeping it mothballed to save money.

Mr Hammond has said no decision will be made on what to do with the two carriers until the 2015 defence review.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Dec 2013 20:08

Philip wrote:How one of the western world's most experienced carrier builders,second only to the US,has been plagued with problems,cost overruns,technical problems,etc.That too with a new carrier built from scratch! By these standards,the Russians did a great job on converting a missile cruiser-carrier ,the Gorky into a genuine flat top,far more difficult.

And the QE cost escalation was not because of technical issues. The primary reason behind the cost escalation was two year deferral in the ship's delivery schedule because of a massive cash crunch at Whitehall. Adding to which is the cost of the catapult U-turn and simple inflation.

The main culpability for the cost hikes likes mainly with the UK MoD not BAE. Take any standard you like, the Gorshkov will still not be a bargain.