INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jul 2015 19:16

China has the money, interest and shipyards to build this 100k carrier. So maybe they will build just one varyag and move to this size. They are also good with Ukraine for zorya gas turbine if needed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jul 2015 20:08

Possible.

But that assumes plenty of things. Example: A catapult. I am sure they would have not have left this to chance.

Russia is investing in an "EMALS" of her own.

So, who knows.

The question is will India be able to peek into the future and keep up with China or any other threat. No matter what choice India makes, it has to deal with the future.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jul 2015 01:53

Philip wrote:Viv,the $4-5B that I mentioned is the approx. cost for Vikrant-2 ,based upon IAC-1's costs,which CSL says that they can build in 4 years,posted.

I'm not interested in CSL's timelines. I'm asking you to substantiate this statement by you -

Vikrant-2 will cost $4-5B says CSL

Please provide any reference to CSL making such a claim.

___________________________

Just to reiterate this is the actual value of the funds sanctioned by the Indian MoD - Phase I: Rs 3,500 crores. Phase II & III: Rs 19,000 crore.

That's a total of about $3.5 billion. Which unlike the Gorshkov includes the radars, SAMs, CIWS, auto-cannons, and all associated systems.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2015 06:35

Russia May Become Partner in India's Aircraft Carrier Project

Not much meat, but .................................

The Vikramaditya aircraft carrier built in Russian shipyards forms the bulk of the Indian navy and is one of the most powerful combat units in the Indian Ocean.

Russia appears to be India’s most logical partner in the construction of the latest IAC-2 aircraft carrier, official representative of the Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade (TSAMTO) told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

Earlier, India appealed to Russia’s "Rosoboronexport" company as well as to US, British and French enterprises with the request to participate in the development and construction of the modern Indian aircraft carrier with a displacement of 65 thousand tons.

TSAMTO representatives argue that cooperation based on Russian technologies would be profitable for both countries. It would make sense for India to equipe the new aircraft carrier with MiG-29K / KUB Russian fighter planes, which are already placed aboard the aircraft carrier, the official said.

He also noted that Russia actively contributed to the modernization of the Indian navy by supplying Kilo-class submarines and Project 11356 frigates.

Earlier, Indian and Russian enterprises signed an agreement on the establishment of a joint venture to repair submarines

A Russian-built, Kilo-class diesel submarine recently purchased by Iran, is towed by a support vessel in this photograph taken in the central Mediterranean Sea

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150722/ ... z3gfyQ2YnU

Pipavav + Chotu got their first girayak. Bonni.

~~Road~~ Sea side assistance is included in the $300 million.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jul 2015 10:34

How much did Phase1 of the Vikrant cost? Zero $? If you add your sums up you will get at least $4B for IAC-1. I will locate CSL's costing later.As for coming without weaponry,It wasn't the builder's fault but that of Israel/DRDO for delayed dev. of B-8.The IN wanted the vessel without anti-air defences which would be installed later. What has been the cost of it now? Zero,apart from installation flicking it from a G class FFG.
And as for coming without radars,etc.get your facts straight.Here it is right from the IN itself!

http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/news-event ... ndian-navy

Project 11430
Admiral Gorshkov was put in hibernation after her last sailing in 1995. With most of her equipment lying un-utilised since then, the task of breathing life and converting her from a VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing) missile cruiser carrier to a STOBAR aircraft carrier involved substantial degutting, equipment removal, refit and re-equipping. The major works envisaged were modification of flight deck to include ski-jump and arrester gear; modification of bulbous bow, aft aircraft lift & ammunition lifts; modification of 1750 out of 2500 compartments; installation of new main boilers; installation of new and additional Diesel Generators; replacement of existing distilling plants; fitment of Reverse Osmosis plants, new AC plants and Refrigeration plants and installation of new sensors and equipment. In 2007, as the refit and repair of the ship was in progress, the yard realized that the scope of work was much larger than initially estimated and so a revised timeline for completion of the task of modernization was agreed upon by both Russian and Indian sides. With a revised timeline the delivery of ship was expected by end 2012.

A Peek at the Scope of Work

Creation of Ski Jump
Putting the 900 tonne Ski Jump in place
Creation of the flight deck with structural modification to convert the VTOL carrier to a STOBAR carrier was the most intricate and arduous. The task involved installation of Sponsons to increase the breadth at the Flight Deck and a fitment of a new 14 degree Ski jump, strengthening of arresting gear area, strengthening of run way area and elongation of the aft end to generate the required length of landing strip aft of the arresting gear. In all 234 new hull sections were installed to achieve the desired shape. Total steel work for carrying out structural modification on flight deck amounted to 2500T.

Modification of Super structure
The superstructure was modified to accommodate a host of sensors and equipment such as radars, Electronic Warfare suite and Action Information Organisation system and other systems to suit the requirements of ship borne fighters and rotors. A very unique structural modification that was carried out on board the ship was the installation of the aft mast for accommodating various communication antennae.

Machinery Modification
Vikramaditya in its older avatar was powered by boilers fuelled by heavy oil, FFO. The re-equipping included replacement of these old boilers with state of the art boilers utilizing LSHSD and providing a steam capacity of 100 Tonnes per Hour each.

Electrical re-cabling.
The initial estimate included replacement of only 1400 kms of old cable with new cables. However, as degutting progressed and confined spaces were accessed it was realised that an additional 900 kms of cable will need to be replaced. Finally the mammoth task involved replacing 2300 kms of cable, which is a little short of half of the entire coastline of India.

Outfitting
The modification plan of Vikramaditya was not restricted to the gears and sparks alone. The change also necessitated revamp of the living spaces and galleys to cater to the needs of the Indian men in uniform. Of 2500 a total of 1750 compartments were completely re-fabricated. A host of new galley equipment suited for preparation of Indian food like dosas and chapatis was also installed.

Arrestor and Restraining Gears
The conversion of VTOL carrier to STOBAR involved fitment of three 30m wide arrester gears and three restraining gears. Installation of these equipment not only involved modification and strengthening of the flight deck but also changes to internal layout of compartments.

Summary
To sum it up, a total of 234 new hull sections were fabricated using 2500 tonnes of steel which is almost equivalent to the standard displacement of a mid-size frigate. Repair and re-equipping of Vikramaditya to give a new lease of life as a full- fledged carrier was no mean task and was probably as demanding a task as constructing a similar tonnage ship from the drawing board. The task was enabled by the expertise and experience of the Russian designers and yard workers working hand in glove with Indian experts. The extreme cold weather conditions of winter only made the work environment harder. At the end of this refit, spanning a little short of a decade, Vikramaditya has metamorphosed into a fully capable and potent platform.

Rise of the Phoenix …
Big & Agile

Vikramaditya sailed for the first time under own power at 1200 hrs on 10 Jun 12, after a gap of about 17 years.
The New Avtar ‘Vikramaditya’

An aircraft carrier carrying potent long range multi-role fighters is a platform inherently deigned for power projection. In as much as ‘Gorshkov’ was transformed to create ‘Vikramaditya’, so also Vikramaditya will transform the face of the Fleet Air Arm of the Indian Navy.

STOBAR Carrier
Displacement : 44,500 T
Length OA : 284 m
Maximum Beam : 60 m
Speed : over 30 kts
04 propellers
powered by 08 Boilers,
Aircraft component : MiG 29K, Kamov 31, Kamov 28, Seaking, ALH, Chetak

Vikramaditya, the floating airfield has an overall length of about 284 meters and a maximum beam of about 60 meters, stretching as much as three football fields put together. Standing about 20 storeys tall from keel to the highest point, the sheer sight of this 44,500 tonnes mega structure of steel is awe inspiring. The ship has a total of 22 decks.

With over 1,600 personnel on board, Vikramaditya is literally a ‘Floating City’. Associated with this large population is a mammoth logistics requirement - nearly a lakh of eggs, 20,000 litres of milk and 16 tonnes of rice per month. With her complete stock of provisions, she is capable of sustaining herself at sea for a period of about 45 days. With a capacity of over 8,000 tonnes of LSHSD, she is capable of operations up to a range of over 7,000 nautical miles or 13000 kms.

Preparing for sea trials

To enable this 44,500 tonnes floating steel city to cut through the choppy seas with speeds of up to 30 knots, she is powered by 08 new generation boilers of steam capacity of 100 TPH at a very high pressure of 64 bars, generating a total output power of 180,000 SHP. Vikramaditya heralds in a new generation of boiler technology with a very high level of automation. These high pressure and highly efficient boilers power four enormous propellers, each greater in diameter than twice the height of an average male. Such a four propeller - four shaft configuration is another first in the Indian Navy.

The 06 turbo alternators and 06 diesel alternators onboard generate a total electricity of 18 megawatts to power various equipment of the ship, enough to cater to the lighting requirement of a mini city. The ship also houses 02 Reverse Osmosis plants providing an uninterrupted supply of 400 Tons per day of fresh water.

An extensive revamp of sensors including fitment of Long range Air Surveillance Radars, Advanced Electronic Warfare Suite makes the ship capable of maintaining a surveillance bubble of over 500 kms around the ship.

The ship has the ability to carry over 30 aircraft comprising an assortment of MiG 29K/Sea Harrier, Kamov 31, Kamov 28, Sea King, ALH-Dhruv and Chetak helicopters. The MiG 29K swing role fighter is the main offensive platform and provides a quantum jump for the Indian Navy’s maritime strike capability. These fourth generation air superiority fighters provide a significant fillip for the Indian Navy with a range of over 700 nm (extendable to over 1,900 nm with inflight refueling) and an array of weapons including anti-ship missiles, Beyond Visual Range air-to-air missiles, guided bombs and rockets.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Jul 2015 12:35

In economics there is a concept of "sunk costs". Decision making should always be forward looking, not basis costs already incurred.

Vik-A is a reality, whether we spent 2.5 billion or 4 billion is really academic. We should make the best use of the platform that we can.

Any new decision therefore, should not be hamstrung by anything around Vik-A. Barring (unfortunately) the question of the carrier fleet.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jul 2015 13:39

Viv S wrote:Just to reiterate this is the actual value of the funds sanctioned by the Indian MoD - Phase I: Rs 3,500 crores. Phase II & III: Rs 19,000 crore.
hat's a total of about $3.5 billion. Which unlike the Gorshkov includes the radars, SAMs, CIWS, auto-cannons, and all associated systems.

Philip wrote:How much did Phase1 of the Vikrant cost? Zero $? If you add your sums up you will get at least $4B for IAC-1.

In general, do you read the posts before replying to them Philip? Or do you just close your eyes and swing away. If it connects well and good. If not, no matter eh?

Philip wrote:I will locate CSL's costing later.

Still pretending that the 'CSL statement' exists? And that you'll be able to find it 'later'.

As for coming without weaponry,It wasn't the builder's fault but that of Israel/DRDO for delayed dev. of B-8.The IN wanted the vessel without anti-air defences which would be installed later. What has been the cost of it now? Zero,apart from installation flicking it from a G class FFG.

Exactly. The costs of the SAMs, radars, CIWS etc are NOT included in the $2.3bn tag for the Gorshkov. They are however included in that of the Vikrant.

And as for coming without radars,etc.get your facts straight.Here it is right from the IN itself!

A surveillance radar that can guide a Barak SAM to target? Must be a nifty thing.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jul 2015 13:48

On the other hand, the report by the Parliamentary Committee on Defence put the revised total cost of the IAC program at Rs 19,340 crore or $3 billion. In which case the Rs 3,500 crore budget for Phase I, was included in the Rs 19,000 crore figure reported in the media.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Jul 2015 14:21

^^^Govt estimates on expenditure need to be taken with large doses of salt. They are typically a moving target. You just need to compare the Budget Estimates, Revised Estimates and Actuals presented in every Union Budget. The variations tend to make the exercise itself quite superfluous.

Given our limited experience in AC building, design challenges in building large ACs, and the fact that almost everything need to be imported, the costs will necessarily be high. Question is whether we can organise the funding in time.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2015 15:38

the P28 cost needs to come down and it will come down is 10 more are built. it does not feature expensive imported content missiles and radars that drive cost up.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Jul 2015 16:27

The Sukanya class model is great for building up numbers. If I am not mistaken, the Sukanya fleet was funded by ONGC.

A large ocean going ship (~3000 tonnes) with enough endurance, a decent volume search radar, gun and either a SAM or SSM fit. Built in numbers to plant our flag across a large expanse, armed enough to provide security to merchant shipping.

That will leave enough money for a smaller strike package of gold plated CBGs to take care of the rare intense conflict.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Jul 2015 11:55

Radars never came with the Gorshkov? Pl. read the IN's own details! Let the full cost of the IAC-1 come out when delivered in 2017,with Barak-8 whose cost is still an unknown as it has yet to be certified aboard an IN warship.Let's see what the CAG says then.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jul 2015 02:15

Does have some glaring mistakes, but .........

Indian Navy and its 5th Gen Fighter jet dilemma

Essentially, F-35, naval PAK-FA or naval AMCA. TBD.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Jul 2015 09:29

Philip wrote:Radars never came with the Gorshkov? Pl. read the IN's own details!

That is only a surveillance radar. Unlike the Vikrant's huge distributed MF-STAR arrays, it is not capable of cueing a Barak-8. Its like a soldier armed only with a pair of binoculars.

Let the full cost of the IAC-1 come out when delivered in 2017,with Barak-8 whose cost is still an unknown as it has yet to be certified aboard an IN warship.Let's see what the CAG says then.

Hmm.. so finally retracting your statement about the $5bn cost of the Vikrant?

Just FYI, the 'full cost' of the Gorshkov wouldn't be known either until the Vikramaditya's second refit in 2017-2018.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 26 Jul 2015 09:52

Viv

There is no use fitting an FCR is the missile isn't.

But more importantly, Why should an AC embark an area defence SAM? The Kolkatas will provide a higher radius defensive bubble around the ship with their Barak8.

Absence of a last ditch defence against a stray missile coming through the bubble was a glaring gap, it's been fixed now.

Not sure whether vibrant will have barak8 either, can't see the use.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jul 2015 10:01

on frontal view of Vikky I see two radars. the big square panel looks like surveillance podberezovik and the twin faces on top like Fregat (which guides Shtil's for sure). since vikky does not carry shtil's not sure what is the role of the fregat beyond a redundant search for the bigger podberezovik.

http://warfare.be/0702ey70/update/feb20 ... ezovik.jpg

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dyna ... 65893f.jpg

the separate rear mast houses a small atc radar, beacons etc I think.

beyond barak1 and maybe a few ak630 I see no need to waste space on the already limited space of vikky.
the amirkhan cvs do not even have guns, just boxes of ESSM and maybe few boxes of RAM. russia instead of building a world class DDG like the burkes went and kitted up the kuznetsov with 100s of SAMs of misc types and the huge kashtan system...if it could fly, would look like one of the robotech and avengers skyships....the one with lines of heavy cannon along the sides like a old man-o-war, unleashing broadsides in the sky

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Jul 2015 10:21

somnath wrote:Viv

There is no use fitting an FCR is the missile isn't.

Our Kolkatas are fitted-for-but-not-with Barak 8s. But it was still commissioned with the integrated MF-STAR.

somnath wrote:But more importantly, Why should an AC embark an area defence SAM? The Kolkatas will provide a higher radius defensive bubble around the ship with their Barak8.

Absence of a last ditch defence against a stray missile coming through the bubble was a glaring gap, it's been fixed now.

Not sure whether vibrant will have barak8 either, can't see the use.

Agreed, but the debate here was about cost (or 'value-for-money') rather than absolute capability.

The $2.3 billion price tag for the Gorshkov does not include the cost of radars, SAMs, CIWS that will be retrofitted to it, unlike the $3-3.5 billion cost of the IAC program which includes all of that (plus a major inflationary component), with the bulk of funding invested domestically.

amit · Post by **amit** » 26 Jul 2015 10:44

^^^^^^
Actually there is no need to go into all those details. Vikrant despite being 5000 tons (almost the weight of a Kolkata) lighter will carry an equal number if not more aircraft than the Vikky.

For aircraft carrier comparisons there can be no bigger indictment against a particular ship. Only an apologist can even bring the two ships into the same discussion.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jul 2015 11:18

Singha wrote:on frontal view of Vikky I see two radars. the big square panel looks like surveillance podberezovik and the twin faces on top like Fregat (which guides Shtil's for sure). since vikky does not carry shtil's not sure what is the role of the fregat beyond a redundant search for the bigger podberezovik.

http://warfare.be/0702ey70/update/feb20 ... ezovik.jpg

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dyna ... 65893f.jpg

the separate rear mast houses a small atc radar, beacons etc I think.

beyond barak1 and maybe a few ak630 I see no need to waste space on the already limited space of vikky.
the amirkhan cvs do not even have guns, just boxes of ESSM and maybe few boxes of RAM. russia instead of building a world class DDG like the burkes went and kitted up the kuznetsov with 100s of SAMs of misc types and the huge kashtan system...if it could fly, would look like one of the robotech and avengers skyships....the one with lines of heavy cannon along the sides like a old man-o-war, unleashing broadsides in the sky

You need those two/three radars they do different function and operate in different band which has its own benefit and each band provides its own qualities.

The pod.... radar operates in low frequency band and provides long range detection of targets , operating in C Band frequency also means it can detect low RCS target its a 3 D radar , the Fregat ( E-Band ) takes cuing data from the PODBEREZOVIK radar and does Tracking and FCS quality tracking with different band , once the target is cued within narrow range the data is passed to FCS of Barak , AK-630 , Shtil etc which have their own band radar for target illumination and guidance.

The STGR of Barak-1 which operates the AK-630 and Barak-1 system operates in FCS quality X and Ka band.

So we have three different radar band and frequency on the Ship operating in IEEE C , NATO - E and NATO- X/Ka band doing its own function , the radar data are sensor fused in Vikram C&C which provides a single picture.

PODBERYOZOVIK-ET1 Radar - http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/ra ... -et1-radar
Fregat - http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/ra ... m2em-radar
STGR ( X and Ka ) http://www.iai.co.il/Sip_Storage//FILES/9/35469.pdf

I think when MF-STAR gets retrofitted on Vikram for Barak-8 operating in S band it would just add up to the band and frequency of radars on the ship covering S , X ,Ka , E and C band.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Jul 2015 11:56

I really doubt vikky will get barak8 which needs a good sized 2 storey deep housing plus the big 4 panel radar..there is no room for it unless they move the Fregat out. such big weapons are best planned in from design stage...

if we can afford it, even just the MFSTAR might help...as its position will be much higher than the kolkata class tower.

if we sneak at the pic of HMS daring with a cvn, the daring has taller tower than kolkata class, yet its radar barely reaches the roof of the cvn island.....our fregat is another 2-3 storeys up...so would improve its LOS on incoming low level threats by another tens of km one hopes
plus it will be easier to exchange data with the kolkatas and vizag classes if having same radar system
we could paint targets from the vikky, while letting the ambush DDG further out along threat axis unleash SAMs with radar off.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... rprise.jpg

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jul 2015 12:10

Singha wrote:I really doubt vikky will get barak8 which needs a good sized 2 storey deep housing plus the big 4 panel radar..there is no room for it unless they move the Fregat out. such big weapons are best planned in from design stage...

They have made provision for Barak-8 hence VLS Shtil-1 was not fitted on Vikram , there is space for the radar of Barak-8 but it would be retrofitted when it goes into medium refit that would happens 5-6 years from now

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 26 Jul 2015 13:59

^^^it would be a waste of money to have an area SAM in an AC. The ship will move around in a flotilla of destroyers and frigates with the same SAMs.

Amit, the question of comparing the VikA with vikrant isn't fair - the former is a cruiser design, not an optimised carrier designed as such. At the time, it was the only available game in town, and it was available for an unbelievable price!

For bad or for worse, VikA is available today, and would go into action if things hotted up. No use dissing it, while its important to make the right design choices for IAC II

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jul 2015 15:02

somnath wrote:^^^it would be a waste of money to have an area SAM in an AC. The ship will move around in a flotilla of destroyers and frigates with the same SAMs.

That is a plan of the IN , They decided not to put Shtil-1 on it and wait for Barak-8 and next major refit.

French CDG have Aster SAM on board , so IN wont be the first to have it either.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jul 2015 15:23

NR that report is not available in the link,but I found this titbit in the same IDRW issue.

LRSAM to be test-fired in India in Oct: BDL Chief »
‘In 1971 war, Navy had brush with mystery N-sub’

Published July 25, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: ASIAN AGE
In a stunning revelation about the 1971 India-Pakistan war in a book written by a retired Indian Navy submariner, an Indian submarine had a brush with a hitherto unidentified nuclear submarine near Pakistani shores. According to the book Foxtrots of the Indian Navy, by Commodore P.R. Franklin (Retd) who has fictionalised the names of the vessels and the personnel, the Indian submarine was ready to fire and was within striking distance but refrained from attacking since the other vessel could not be positively identified and also drifted off on its own.

The book narrates various accounts of the now decommissioned Soviet Union-built Foxtrot-class submarines the IN used. While it is known that the Arabian Sea often saw nuclear submarines from naval teams of the US, Britain, France and Russia, the origin of the said nuclear submarine — which was confirmed to be nuclear-powered based on its “sonar acoustic signature” — could never be ascertained.

As per the book, the submarine, while on patrol during the war in 1971, picked up a “contact” on its sonar while closing in on her. Both then engaged in complex manoeuvres around each other. It is pertinent to note that Indian submarines were under strict orders to positively identify targets as enemy assets before attacking them.

According to excerpts from the book made available to this newspaper, the Indian submarine has been identified as Vanshali, a name arrived at by anagramming letters from the names of the eight submarines in the class. “It was classified as a platform being driven by steam turbines. All propulsion systems have their own signatures… Steam turbines are distinctive by their characteristics. The Sonar Officer reported details to the Captain… It was closing Vanshali. The Captain took Vanshali up to periscope depth again, for the second time… This was to identify the target in accordance with Higher Directives… Two bow tubes housing anti submarine torpedoes, and two housing anti-shipping torpedoes were made ready to fire at short notice. Since the contact was not identified, and since Vanshali was in hostile territory, any firing on her part could only be reactive, and in self-defence,” an excerpt from the book reads.

While the Vanshali went into “ultra-quiet” mode and stopped her propulsion, the officers and crew on board are described as having had “butterflies in their stomachs”. “… both were drifting. There was pin-drop silence in the boat. Then the ‘contact’ decided to go away. Her powerful props started churning water, and she could be distinctly heard revving up as she altered course, increased speed, and sped away,” another excerpt reads.

Defence analyst Joseph Chacko, the author of the first ever book on the history of the Indian Navy’s submarine arm, titled Foxtrot to Arihant, too confirmed the incident had taken place. “The submarine in question was INS Karanj, a Soviet-built Foxtrot-class boat. The incident was mentioned to me too by another submariner while I was researching on Navy submarines. However, it could not be officially confirmed,” he said. Cmde Franklin also states in his book that the Navy had received the reports with scepticism.

.

PS:Give me a little time and I will confirm this if poss.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Jul 2015 15:34

There were reports of US Navy SSN in close proximity of Indian ships and there were reports even by ex IN officer in this regard , The Submarine to Submarine encounter incident is the first to be reported though.

There were other reports of US Navy Sub sighting when INS Khukri was sinking

John · Post by **John** » 26 Jul 2015 18:06

Austin wrote:
somnath wrote:^^^it would be a waste of money to have an area SAM in an AC. The ship will move around in a flotilla of destroyers and frigates with the same SAMs.
That is a plan of the IN , They decided not to put Shtil-1 on it and wait for Barak-8 and next major refit.

French CDG have Aster SAM on board , so IN wont be the first to have it either.

Austin source for Barak-8 being now fitted on Vikram? Navy originally planned to have Barak-8 installed in refit but due to delays in Barak-8 decided to go for Barak-1 is my understanding. Also keep in mind Barak-8 does not require MF-STAR even EL/M-2238 can function as tracking radar and mid course guidance radar for the system. I see no mention of any upcoming procurement of Barak-8 for Vikram in arms transfer database or anywhere.

Viv S wrote:
The $2.3 billion price tag for the Gorshkov does not include the cost of radars, SAMs, CIWS that will be retrofitted to it, unlike the $3-3.5 billion cost of the IAC program which includes all of that (plus a major inflationary component), with the bulk of funding invested domestically.

Don't count the chickens before they hatch cost overruns are than likely to happen, i would be highly surprised if final total cost is below 4 billion. IMO i would bet around 5 billion considering 50% cost overruns from launch to omission that seems to happen with every program. As for Vikram, the cost for Barak-1s for Vikram aren't that much and since we are simply salvaging them and the FCR from existing vessel only cost will be in labor.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Jul 2015 02:11

John wrote:Don't count the chickens before they hatch cost overruns are than likely to happen, i would be highly surprised if final total cost is below 4 billion. IMO i would bet around 5 billion considering 50% cost overruns from launch to omission that seems to happen with every program. As for Vikram, the cost for Barak-1s for Vikram aren't that much and since we are simply salvaging them and the FCR from existing vessel only cost will be in labor.

- The cost overruns almost always happen over drawn out periods of time. If they can deliver the ship within the decade, cost overruns will be minimized.

- If the Vikram is equipped only with Barak 1s, it'll be proportionate less valuable than the Vikrant head-to-head, the latter in a pinch being able to double up as an air warfare destroyer.

- Finally, the difference in costs should factor in upto a decade's worth of inflation. The bulk of the Vikram's payments were made between 2009-12. While 85% of the Vikrant's funding will be transferred after 2016. Even at $4 billion that's better value-for-money, especially considering the local production aspect.

I have little doubt that had the Indian Navy been informed in 2003 that the 'free ship' ship they were negotiating for would cost well over $2 billion and be delivered only by 2014, the CNS would wrapped things up there and then, and have caught the next flight to Italy to talk to Fincantieri (1 proto-IAC), hopping from there to France to talk about the Clemenceau (modified with a ski-jump, if necessary) and UK to talk about an Invincible (+Harrier) sale to serve a bridge to a 2 x IAC order.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jul 2015 02:41

Glass cutaway aircraft carrier model showing EMALS installation at General Atomics stall at DefExpo 2014

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jul 2015 02:43

India - US Pursuing Tie-up on IAC-2 and LCA Mk-2 Engine Under DTTI

The TOI reported on July 17, 2015 that India and the US have worked out the terms of reference for building India's next aircraft carrier with US technology.

India is preparing to send a team to pursue talks on the aircraft carrier and the LCA Mk-2 jet engine, ahead of the next round of strategic talks due in September 2015.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2015 05:43

NRao wrote: India is preparing to send a team to pursue talks on the aircraft carrier and the LCA Mk-2 jet engine, ahead of the next round of strategic talks due in September 2015.

"Preparing to send a team to pursue talks"? What a completely meaningless and pointless news report.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 27 Jul 2015 06:01

ah diplomacy, my Good Doctor, diplomacy, nothing gets the ink unless the groundwork is done ahead of time.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jul 2015 06:14

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote: India is preparing to send a team to pursue talks on the aircraft carrier and the LCA Mk-2 jet engine, ahead of the next round of strategic talks due in September 2015.
"Preparing to send a team to pursue talks"? What a completely meaningless and pointless news report.

I do not think people realize the amount of ground that has been made up. Long ways to go, but still a great deal of progress.

The "carrier" and the "engine" are a subset.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jul 2015 08:00

That is a plan of the IN , They decided not to put Shtil-1 on it and wait for Barak-8 and next major refit.

French CDG have Aster SAM on board , so IN wont be the first to have it either.

Would be a waste of money. If the CBG loses its destroyer screen, then the mission is compromised anyways.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Jul 2015 08:09

somnath wrote:
Would be a waste of money. If the CBG loses its destroyer screen, then the mission is compromised anyways.

It's not just a question of losing the destroyer screen. IN destroyers, even the Kolkatas aren't very heavily armed when it comes to SAMs. The Kolkata class carries only 32 Barak-8s. Our carriers definitely need their own long range SAMs if possible.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jul 2015 08:45

John wrote:Austin source for Barak-8 being now fitted on Vikram? Navy originally planned to have Barak-8 installed in refit but due to delays in Barak-8 decided to go for Barak-1 is my understanding. Also keep in mind Barak-8 does not require MF-STAR even EL/M-2238 can function as tracking radar and mid course guidance radar for the system. I see no mention of any upcoming procurement of Barak-8 for Vikram in arms transfer database or anywhere.

Came on Force magazine and even if you google you will find the Barak-8 for Vikram , they plan to have 48 VLS with Barak-8 LRSAM.

IF Barak-8 was available by 2011 as was originally planned then they would have fitted on it , Now it would happen on next medium refit which is like 5-6 years from now , it just went through a minor refit where it got Barak-1 and AK-630.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Jul 2015 09:45

Austin wrote: Came on Force magazine and even if you google you will find the Barak-8 for Vikram , they plan to have 48 VLS with Barak-8 LRSAM.

Does it have space for 48 cells?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jul 2015 10:14

It would then most likely be housed in two 24 cell modules.If the size is the same as B-1,the missile being longer,then there should be locations already planned for it,perhaps plated over for the time being. We saw how the same was located on the Viraat.On the IAC-1,there are two sponsons on either beam at the stern clearly seen which could accommodate the SAM.However,given that saturation missile attacks are to be expected,a warship as large as a CV should ideally have at its four quarters anti-missile gun/missile defences for a final defecne screen against any missiles that have evaded destruction or decoy.The more you can "throw" at an incoming missile the better the chances of hitting it.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Jul 2015 21:41

^ Barak modules are 8 cells so it will be 6 vls modules. Kolkata for example has 4 modules.

Austin wrote:Came on Force magazine and even if you google you will find the Barak-8 for Vikram , they plan to have 48 VLS with Barak-8 LRSAM.

IF Barak-8 was available by 2011 as was originally planned then they would have fitted on it , Now it would happen on next medium refit which is like 5-6 years from now , it just went through a minor refit where it got Barak-1 and AK-630.

I see that's for major refit it would be interesting if they go ahead with it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jul 2015 18:58

Do not know what to say. Sore losers?

Does India Need a Yet Another Aircraft Carrier?

They should not have sold the Vikram in that case.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Jul 2015 23:59

There are 4 catapults on each american carrier. 1 and 2 (front) normally launch fighters and 3 and 4 will launch AEW birds and other heavier loads.

Would it not be possible to have CATS/EMALS for 3 and 4 (middle) and have a regular angled deck as well(STO-CAT-OBAR)? That way, you can launch with both methods. Why both? That way the NLCA, mig029K and possibly a EMAL enabled and tested aircraft like F35C can be launched and there is no constraint in operating all types.

IMO, it should be possible no? Advantages are clear, no dependence on any one type of fighter. What would be its disavantages? Why hasn't it been done? QE class could have easily gone with this type. I guess they didn't want to try EMALS for their ship as it wasn't ready and deployed yet.

Should we make a new thread for the new follow on carrier and track all news and discussions there?