INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 03 Jun 2016 03:19

what about a small RATO pack for carriers with ski-jumps ?
would that increase the so mentioned bubble.

however it guess there might be a cost by taking a pylon or two.
not to mention increased hazard at take off.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Jun 2016 03:30

Some data points I found:

"BAE quoted £1.8 billion to fit EMALS to HMS Prince of Wales"
"the US Navy has stated the cost of EMALS system is approximately £400m"

So I take it the total cost seems to be £2.2 Billion. That amounts to 3.2 billion USD to add EMALS. That might explain the 10 billion number. Even then that seems high. So this figure must be higher for us. The 3.2 billion gives us another spare carrier. The value add of adding redundancy of another carrier is far superior than having emals.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/governm ... _carriers/

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Jun 2016 03:37

Also, I think you're being too pessimistic vis a vis a ski-jump carrier. Its true it'll never be anywhere as capable as a E-2D/UCAV/tanker equipped Vishal, but with equipped with something like the F-35B it'll still be able to do respectably well against modern threats.

????? (I also mentioned F-35Bs)

I am basing my views on what I read in open source, mainly IN stuff.

So, IN (per the last doc I posted, page 26) primary cover is:

* The Strait of Hormuz between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
* Bab-el-Mandeb at the southern access to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.
* The Mozambique Channel between Madagascar and the coast of Africa.
* The Strait of Malacca between Sumatra and Malaysia.
* The Sunda Strait between the Indian Ocean and Borneo.
* The Lombok Strait between the Indian Ocean and the Sulawesi.

My argument is that a ski jump boat - *over* 50 years - will be handicapped because its air wing will be restricted to a certain set of air crafts, which IMHO will not provide adequate cover for that much of an area. I am not saying that either the ski jump or the steam cat will be obsolete. But, then if the air wing is ineffective, why go with a mechanism that cannot be changed?

Furthermore, my arg is that the eco will dictate the selection of the technologies. Not the current set of enemies.

*But* an underestimation, especially WRT a carrier, will be very costly - IMHO, more expensive than the risk of over estimating. And, once you get a carrier, it is a done deal, from then on the air wing will need to fit the carrier.

I would like to avoid the F-35 because I just do not see them coming at time in the near future (of course now that I have said it I am sure they will). The Bravo, IMHO, has more value if deployed along coasts - Marine territory. In open seas? Not a big fan of it. But ????????? May be two Vikrants with F-35B along the flanks, close to the coast and 2 Vishals to prowl deeper into the blue?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Jun 2016 03:41

IMO the catobar will save some fuel and may allow an aircraft pylons to be fully loaded, but more likely the benefit of catobar isn't the assisted take off fuel savings, but the length of the runway required to attain the same speed for take and allowing both takeoffs and recoveries simultaneously. The carrier has to be more than 300+ meters in length to achieve that. If you are going to put CATOBAR on a smaller carrier the largest beneficiary then is the AEW component. I would think the savings from CATOBAR or EMALS won't be anymore than 50-75 gallons of fuel for the same payload. It probably improves the safety margin somewhat for a fully loaded plane taking off as well.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Jun 2016 03:46

Emals can be added later as well once the carrier comes in for a refit, that might require some rework topside, but there is talk about doing that for queen elizabeth later on during first refit as costs of EMALS stabilizes. So carrier choice of ski-ramp is not set in stone.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 03 Jun 2016 05:27

Fighting a battle in the South China Sea with one Carrier Battle Group is not viable. Even the US will need to put 3 to 4 CBGs on station to take on the Chinese land and sea based assets in the area.

Building and operating a nuclear-powered carrier and its supporting ships will bankrupt India.

The IN and IAF have to fight the Chinese Navy in the IOR, and a CBG may not be the best option there.

In my opinion build another two Vikrant class, and a whole lot of submarines.

member_29413 · Post by **member_29413** » 03 Jun 2016 07:10

IMO an IN CATOBAR EMALS super carrier is not viable at this point in time.

R&D standpoint: Defense manufacturing is be a continuous learning experience to retain and add on existing knowledge/procedures. IN having worked tirelessly to become the most successful wing in indigenization- must not let its learning curve be driven by external players. Just like other bleeding edge technologies, we shouldn't expect others to share the know why and mass production processes. How we can do it better in-house is where our government should try to reduce interference and still ensure productivity/efficiency and management. DPSUs of 2015-16 are a whole different beast from the license-raj days.

Financial standpoint: Just like almost every successful Make in India venture, Indian EMALS will give every other run for their money (in terms of process standardization learning and manufacturing costs) as and when it comes online. I'm sure sufficient examples exist in other cutting edge projects we have succeeded. Who knows, we might succeed in STOBAR type EMALS that gives best of both worlds.

Operational Risk: Having a super carrier is great for exploratory warfare/show of power in Arctic/Antarctica 2 decades down the line but also a bigger target. Having a group of two would at ~1.5X costs provide two launch pads and redundancy. Refits/ maintenance would also cause lesser impact on capabilities.
Having to come up with an entirely new paradigm of SOP's will be another challenge; although, we have experience "helping" Russians with similar endeavors'.
Also, without a potent air wing, an aircraft carrier is actually a liability and IMO with each plane costing like Rafael does today; (Naval LCA little short on legs), we may want to steer away from this expensive experiment at this stage of economy, production capability, threat spectrum and political orientation.
Are we going to war with adversaries that have no missile/air power like the Superpowah did all these years?
How about a possibly a relook at US EMALS after 5 years?

MP seems correct to have focused his attention on submarine capabilities as they provide disruptive advantage to the operator.

Personally, we should push for Nuclear powered Vishal with usual STOBAR configuration and (F414 IN) N-LCA as air wing with UCAV's, missiles & ASW assets as primary armament. Salivating at the prospect of acquiring the Biggest/latest and greatest is not prudent when it's almost a hand-me-down. We have track record that we can do it on our own as per our needs and at our dictated pace.

Please feel free to discuss/disagree or add to this.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Jun 2016 07:31

sudeepj wrote: Dominance can simply be understood as asserting sea control. An enemy can not operate in such an area without being detected and coming into direct conflict with (presumably) your own superior forces.

Whether you can assert Control is directly related to
(1) Whether you have adequate scout/surveillance resources.
(2) If you detect an enemy, can you launch a weapon at it while the enemy is still out of range/can not launch its weapons.

All of this can be done with a STOBAR CV especially against opponents which field a similar or less capable threat - and this includes the PLAN - AFAIK they don't have plans for a CATOBAR CV. Only the Russians have floated a model - and we all know how long that takes to go anywhere, if it ever does. Other than the mighty USN and the piddly French CDG, which is ever hospitalized, nobody else is pushing for CATS.

It speaks volumes IMVHO, that most navies, including the RN, RuN, and the PLAN will see a STOBAR set up in the foreseeable future. WIth fighters increasingly more capable in terms of thrust, many of the issues related to STOBAR are mitigated.

The only place (at present) where CATS provide a distinct edge is payload for strike oriented ops and large birds like AEW; advantages in terms of A2A are negligible for all practical purposes. A CV with CATS offers limited value unless the IN is planning to take on an enemy with robust AEW support, in which case a solitary CV/N with CATS offers only marginal improvement, if any, over a STOBAR setup of similar size.

Without a Cat, a carrier is restricted to helicopter borne AEW, with a surveillance bubble of 150-200 kms. With a Cat, your carrier can launch fixed wing AEW with a surveillance bubble of 400+ kms.

Yes, I have to agree here, I see the light in operating a Hawkeye type. And this is indeed a nice advantage in the face of an enemy that presents little challenge - however, I don't see a single CV with Hawkeyes making much difference vs. the PLAN, least of all in waters that are swarming with their assets..

Without a Cat, once a carrier detects an incoming threat, it can not launch planes with an adequate fuel/weapons load to engage the threat in an optimal manner. With a Cat, you can launch planes at MTOW, increasing the punch and the range of your strike packages.

Why exactly do you need to take off @ MTOW to engage an already incoming threat? Consider that a MiG-29K armed with 4-6 A2A weapons and 3 EFT can takeoff from a ski jump with a nice combat radius of 1300 Km. If you had more space on the fighter or dual racks it has the potential to carry more AAMs. The only time you will approach MTOW weights is when you intend deep strike missions. BTW, the Mig-29K CAN takeoff at MTOW from a STOBAR CV. This was the case even with the original K way back in the 80s. What the IN has today is much better than that fighter.

Without a Cat, because your carrier can not launch a plane at max take off weight, you have to position the carrier closer to the enemy, thereby exposing it to threats for which there are no easy solutions.

Check above. Here is an image that should put this "STOBAR can't carry worthwhile loads" issue to rest...IIRC, those are pretty little 1500ltr tanks

Therefore a Cat less carrier can only be realistically employed in a defensive role to protect ones own fleet of missile firing frigates/corvettes etc. from an air attack. In other words, a Cat less carrier is simply an Air Defense Ship, or a glorified Kolkata.

For all practical purposes there is not much more you can do with one vaunted, 65K ton Catobar type.

Having said this, if the IN has to stick to being a 3 Carrier Navy, which is what the decision makers have decided, I can understand why it is pushing for at least one super carrier type. Rather a powerful 70K ton behemoth with all the bells and whistles than a single Vikrant class. However, if the costs are prohibitive (as suggested by the UK drama), perhaps the behemoth should have STOBAR like the QE Class.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 03 Jun 2016 07:46

I think the aircraft structure life is less for CATOBAR vs STOBAR because of the stresses involved. So there would not be much of a long term savings in cost. The advantages are wartime,relatively more payload for the same number of aircraft's.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Jun 2016 07:47

Subs are absolutely necessary. But neglecting the carrier will give the enemy the complete control of the airspace and the more air assets (anti-sub warfare) the more challenging it will be for the subs to remain undetected and especially against an adversary with a larger anti-ship anti-submarine capability using air power, we need carriers. If three or four required so be it. I don't think a growing economy which is going to be close to the United States in the long run cannot afford 5 carriers (2 conventional+three nuclear (without EMALS+with similar systems for the last two) by 2030. India going bankrupt may not be correct, if the aircraft carriers are getting build here and the technology is indigenous. It creates more jobs and more strengthening of the economy.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Jun 2016 07:59

^everything is possible, especially in the long run...in the short term, CSL hopes to get another order - are we to neglect this in favor of a long-term dream? Are we also to be with only two CBGs in the short term (2021-2035), when a 3 CBG navy is possible with the extra order to CSL? The US allocates a solid 3.5% of GDP to defence, China is unknown, INdia is a mere 2.5%. You may get your wish if these figures change a bit.
But for now, they are looking at a 3 CBG Navy.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 03 Jun 2016 09:30

Logic clearly states we should go for a modified Vikrant II which should be delivered by 2025-27, INS Vishal can be long term project, started in 2020 to be completed by 2035.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 03 Jun 2016 12:51

Indian Navy should consider a modified Vikrant II, a hybrid STOBAR & CATOBAR with one or two catapult on the angled flight deck and a slight increase in the tonnage

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Jun 2016 14:16

Wrt the sky jump assisted take off or the cat assisted take off. With the existence of the sbtf the navy has a good idea about the advantage or disadvantage of the sky jump system. The naval LCA being tested will be evaluated by the service and only then will they take decision about the take off.mechinism for the future Indian aircraft carrier.

Till then we will do well to give the navy the time to figure it out.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Jun 2016 16:33

What is. "modified Vikrant II"?

The Russians were the consultants for the Vikrant and they actually set up the facilities in Goa.

However, for whatever reasons, the IN had their pilots trained in the US. And not just the consultancy for the Vishal, but even the construction phase has a lot of US input. Natural to be influenced by the USN. (One reason why the Vishal will not be that late, IMHO.)

The US has also offered to help to certify the Vikrant and ops. Time savings. BTW, the way the Chinese are getting to float so many boats in such a short span of time - they have skipped the certification phase. And, the speed of the Chinese has caught India and the US (and others) off guard.

The picture posted above - Storm - is on offer by the Russians. They would love India accept the offer and help fund that boat too. Nothing wrong, but. It comes in at 100,000 tons or so - 90 air crafts.

What I am very curious about is which air craft does the IN envision on the Vishal. Anyone know?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 03 Jun 2016 18:48

The picture i have posted above is of Soviet carrier design Ulyanovsk and not of Shtorm

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 Jun 2016 19:30

Khalsa wrote:what about a small RATO pack for carriers with ski-jumps ?
would that increase the so mentioned bubble.

however it guess there might be a cost by taking a pylon or two.
not to mention increased hazard at take off.

It most certainly would, especially considering that RATOs will be needed mostly for the AEW planes. But the problem is, most RATOs emit highly toxic fumes and the flight deck will become a no go area for some time after the plane is launched. Then the rocket fuel itself is a low explosive, so the carrier will need to have an armored section to store it.

My pet fantasy is to see an H2O2 steam rocket RATOs utilizing H2O2 produced on the carrier itself.. Now that would be an out of the box solution!

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 Jun 2016 19:36

Cain Marko wrote:^everything is possible, especially in the long run...in the short term, CSL hopes to get another order - are we to neglect this in favor of a long-term dream? Are we also to be with only two CBGs in the short term (2021-2035), when a 3 CBG navy is possible with the extra order to CSL? The US allocates a solid 3.5% of GDP to defence, China is unknown, INdia is a mere 2.5%. You may get your wish if these figures change a bit.
But for now, they are looking at a 3 CBG Navy.

Can the CSL build large ships? The increase from 7500 tonne destroyers and frigates to a 38,000 tonne Vikrant was much bigger compared to an increase of another 20,000 tonnes. The technological and manufacturing leap from a 38,000 tonne ship to a 60,000 tonne ship is much smaller compared to the 7500 tonne to the 38,000 tonne. I dont remember the shipyard, but I think it was the CSL, that built much larger commercial ships as well.

As for the Cats, other than the EMALs type, its a fairly mature technology. We dont have to go through the cycles of 'technology demonstrator', 'prototype', 'low series production' etc. We have also operated Cats in the past on the first INS Vikrant. Even the Emals cat is going to be mature by the time we get to installing them (or another type) on Vishal.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Jun 2016 20:09

Could be I suppose. I like this rato thinking. IIRC, the yak44 AEW was designed to take off from ski jumps as well. Can they mod the E2 to do the same I wonder?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Jun 2016 21:55

rato bit dangerous for carriers?

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 Jun 2016 23:26

Rockets with toxic fuels are a complete no go.. but an H2O2 steam rocket? or an H2O2+kerosene rocket?

Wiki gyan says, H2O2 steam rocket produces a specific impulse of 161seconds. Therefore, a 1kg per second injection of the propellant will induce a thrust of 161kg. A 200kg per second injection will induce a thrust of 32200 kg, sufficient to launch the heaviest of planes. This thrust will be needed for around 6 seconds that the plane is on the carrier.. So a 1.2 tonne propellant load..

Now an H2O2 driven catapult.. that would be really interesting!

Like I said.. just a fantasy..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jun 2016 01:49

kakarat,

You are right.

However, that carrier was abandoned in the 90s though - along with the YAK-44. The latest was offered - in fact if you read Sputnik, etc they even declared that IN is going with the Shtrom.

But one never knows. Soon-to-be-signed FGFA, followed by Naval FGFA?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Jun 2016 05:01

NRao wrote:I am basing my views on what I read in open source, mainly IN stuff.

My argument is that a ski jump boat - *over* 50 years - will be handicapped because its air wing will be restricted to a certain set of air crafts, which IMHO will not provide adequate cover for that much of an area. I am not saying that either the ski jump or the steam cat will be obsolete. But, then if the air wing is ineffective, why go with a mechanism that cannot be changed?

Like I said, I agree with you in principle. A CATOBAR with that fixed wing AEW&C is a necessity. But the time-frame is still a problem. We need a gap-filler (especially since we still don't know what reliability issues the VikA will face in the future). If we could order a catapult-equipped type today and have it in service by 2025, nothing like it but that's not possible so we must make do with an interim buy.

*But* an underestimation, especially WRT a carrier, will be very costly - IMHO, more expensive than the risk of over estimating. And, once you get a carrier, it is a done deal, from then on the air wing will need to fit the carrier.

Yes. But the risk with not ordering it is that in its absence, we may be forced to go to war with one carrier under construction, another one in overhaul and only one available for operations.

I would like to avoid the F-35 because I just do not see them coming at time in the near future (of course now that I have said it I am sure they will). The Bravo, IMHO, has more value if deployed along coasts - Marine territory. In open seas? Not a big fan of it.

Assuming the carrier is delivered around 2025, the expectations vis a vis the air group will be updated as well. While the Tejas Mk2 will be cheap enough to be a no-brainer, new-build MiG-29Ks aren't going to cut mustard. By today's standards, these are mid-rung fighters, functional workhorses in the same class as the F-16 Blk 50/52 and the Mirage-2000-5. By 2025, they'll definitely be showing their age, and that's assuming they're still in production (Russian deliveries should conclude by 2020).

SH will be out of production. The Rafale-M will be expensive despite being non-VLO. That leaves the F-35C & PAK FA. The former is optimized for catapult launch while the latter won't have a naval variant ready before 2030 (realistically more like 2035). That leaves only the F-35B in the running.

But ????????? May be two Vikrants with F-35B along the flanks, close to the coast and 2 Vishals to prowl deeper into the blue?

That. Or alternatively they could operate as part of the same battle-group. Vikrant providing CAP, QRA & anti-sub sweepers, freeing up the Vishal's air group for long range strike/anti-shipping missions.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 04 Jun 2016 11:09

NRao wrote:kakarat,

You are right.

However, that carrier was abandoned in the 90s though - along with the YAK-44. The latest was offered - in fact if you read Sputnik, etc they even declared that IN is going with the Shtrom.

But one never knows. Soon-to-be-signed FGFA, followed by Naval FGFA?

Yes I know that It got abandoned due to the Dissolution of the Soviet Union and I am not saying that we should get that but to upgrade our current Vikrant-class design by adding one or two catapult in a similar layout and little increase in tonnage to accommodate the necessary equipment

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jun 2016 17:57

@Viv S,

My take is that the Vikrant was designed (for today - it is a little late) about 10-15 years ago. IMHO things have changed. And, if at all there is a need for something it is, IMVVHO, "eyes" (thinking of 2030+). That can manifest in any form or shape - does not need to be a plane per se, but a "carrier" needs it badly - in 2030+. Now, if a Vikrant can host something like that - perhaps a F-35, great, else I just do not see very, very nice planes on boat of that kind and flying close to being relatively blind. Since shore based assets are a possibility I had mentioned they would be relegated to close to shore. And "Marines" because of the relatively shorter legs of the B. Venturing into the deep blue, IMHO, would need the C.

However, I think the decision is a month away, when the JWG meet in India. If anything spills from that meet it should provide direction.

BTW, IF (huge IF) all goes according to *my plans*, the Vishal should come in by 2030 or even 2028. I am expecting HII to get involved and provide support in building that ship. ?????? July cannot come sooner. (It will mean more expense for tooling, etc, but it should help with other ships. I feel.)

@Kakarat,

I just do not think it works that a way.

The way I understand it is that the ship is designed for a plane (mostly the "dominant" one). So, one really cannot take a design and especially shrink it down and expect efficient ops. So, if the Vikrant was designed for say a MiG-29K, with some rate of placing these pups in the air, changing the design to fling them at say 20% faster impacts a lot: you need to fuel them 20% faster, arm them faster, bring them up to the deck faster - lifts that are faster, bring the ordinance faster, fueling pumps need to be faster, perhaps larger tanks of fuel, steam CATs take non-salt water - so a desal plant for that to be accommodated on a modified Vikrant, then all the plumbing and associated stuff. Soon you are talking of a Vikrant-II (modified) that is about 10,000 tons heavier. Might as well take the leap to the Vishal (which is also a Vikrant class).

Then you will need all planes that are certified for both CATs and Ski!!!! Russians will gladly do that for India - at cost.

That Russian boat was around 80-85,000 tons and the Shtorm offered weighed in at 90-95,000 tons (with naval PAk-FAs).

The problem I have with Russian is embedded R&D cost that India will have to shoulder. And, since R&D is done with high risk (in Russia due to lack of funds), India will have to carry that risk all the way through. Recall the IN person who said we wrote the book on MiG-29K ops? Risk. Not that it is bad, but the questions is can India afford such risk under the circumstances.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Jun 2016 18:15

Now, if a Vikrant can host something like that - perhaps a F-35, great, else I just do not see very, very nice planes on boat of that kind and flying close to being relatively blind. Since shore based assets are a possibility I had mentioned they would be relegated to close to shore. And "Marines" because of the relatively shorter legs of the B.

The F-35B has a combat radius (radius not range) of > than 850 km on internal fuel with internal weapons. This is before it is cleared for tanks which are a matter of when and not if (IDF is going ahead with it, and will probably be playing around with EFT's once they get their one test jet).

With EFT integration there really wouldn't be a whole lot of difference between say the QE operating the F-35B with or without EFT, vs the Vik operating the Mig-29K with or without EFT. You'll probably get longer legs with absolute ferry configurations on the fulcrum, but you would obviously loose payload in that scenario. The Brits would probably be making use of USMC's MV-22B VARS capability at the time of a conflict since they really don't have a comparable recovery tanker option going forward.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jun 2016 20:59

I will file it under "internet of nothing" - the gap introduced in communication by the inherent nature of the internet.

No problems replacing MiG-29K with F-35B, but my arg has been Vikrant-II vs. Vishal. So, a Vikrant with F-35B vs. a Vishal with CAT + F-35C (as an example) + proper AEW + proper tanker + localized repair/overhaul facilities + etc. The whole 7.5-8 yard - I will save the remaining yard for a 100,000 ton boat.

Multiple *thoughts*.

* Indian decision to invest in a "carrier" has implications for nations across the Indo-Pacific region (both sides of the equation)
* The US is in this game to help IN fill in the blanks and thus cut time/cost in fielding a "carrier". This in light of IN asking for info/help over the years
* I am willing to bet that another Vikrant could see US help slow down - I will predict that in fact. The US, in the entire DTTI body of work, is focusing on a "carrier" - should tell us something
* When I look back, what I find (again, this is my observation as an amateur) is that the events have overtaken the IN planner (for no fault of their own) (note that we do not even talk of the Vicky any longer, while just a year or two ago we were celebrating)(that, IMHO, is the reality). And, that is the foundation of my argument. I get that another Vikrant is cost effective, will come within good time, skills will be put to better use and not lost(?), etc. But, I am fairly confident that another Vikrant will be overtaken by events
* Vikrant was designed with the MiG-29K in mind. What happens if the F-35B is proposed for the second Vikrant?
* On a similar topic, the USN has offered to certify/ops the current Vikrant (with the MiG-29K). That should provide us with an idea of how far the IN has to go
* My feel is that India will recover any additional costs associated with the Vishal (EMALS, etc) in time, through better trade

Brar, could you possibly post something similar for the C? Thx.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jun 2016 23:52

Ahead of Modi’s visit, India and US to discuss new cooperation on defence

psy-ops wrote:In his speech, the minister described the Asia-Pacific region as “Indo-Pacific”. Asked why, he said, “when we talk about the Asia-Pacific we talk of the area from Suez to the shores of the Pacific. It’s the east and the west side of India that is the part of the Asia-Pacific, so I indicated the region as Indo-Pacific.”

Carter wrote:And there’s also a technological handshake: we’re moving toward deeper and more diverse defence co-development and co-production, including on aircraft carrier design and construction.

Parrikar noted that as much as half of India’s trade passed through the South China Sea.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2016 07:00

Indian interests in the SCS could not be stated with any more clarity at this point in time than this:

Time running out for Pak.: Parrikar

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar (right) with his Malaysian and Japanese counterparts, Hishammuddin Hussein (centre) and Gen Nakatani, in Singapore on Saturday.— PHOTO: AFP

South China Sea row

In the clearest articulation of India’s stand on the South China Sea dispute, Mr. Parrikar said half of India’s trade “passed through these waters” and any aggression could disrupt the robust economic growth in the region as a whole.

“All countries in the region need to recognise that our shared prosperity and the enviable rate of growth this region enjoyed in the past decade will be at risk by this aggressive behaviour or action by anyone of us,” the Defence Minister said calling for a regional framework for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

On several occasions in the recent past, India has pledged support for freedom of navigation in and flight over the South China Sea in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Mr. Parrikar said India would support other countries in the region and share its facilities with them, if need be.

“We are not only committed to safeguarding India’s land and maritime territory but we also make our facilities available to other regional countries. Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief or HADR is our major focus,” the Defence Minister said.

India is playing her role.

A Vishal with EMALS and F-35Cs would be perfect for HADR.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 05 Jun 2016 08:25

NRao wrote:Indian interests in the SCS could not be stated with any more clarity at this point in time than this:

Time running out for Pak.: Parrikar

A Vishal with EMALS and F-35Cs would be perfect for HADR.

Sure, India should man and operate this CBG under its flag, as long as the US pays the acquisition and operations cost for it.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Jun 2016 13:20

The most expensive parts of a carrier would ne the island with all the sensors, propulsion,
Air wing etc.
Increasing tonnage, shouldn't increase cost exponentialy since the only increase is in the dimensions, & maybe the powerplant. A 65 or 70k carrier shouldn't be 2x the cost of a 45k one. The dimensions only increase by 20-30-40 meters & corrospondingly or so...

Now changing propulsion to N power, adding a catapult will cause cost to fly away.
Do remember that India has a defence budget that is almost the same size as Germany, France and the UK now, & we're growing at almost 3x their speed economically, which we'll do so for the next 2 decades or so...

So I say, bite the bullet, get N power & EMALS now, starting with the Vishal itself.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Jun 2016 13:42

Vikrant 2 is a bad idea.
How many more chota carriers do we want? We'll have 2 already.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2016 22:23

Events that influenced the design of a carrier, including size and weight, in the past 100 years

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Jun 2016 10:00

Gagan wrote:Vikrant 2 is a bad idea.
How many more chota carriers do we want? We'll have 2 already.

The goal for IN should be to induct one aircraft carrier every decade to eventually reach a fleet with 4 or 5 carriers by 2040. Also, importance of retaining skilled labor force with the know hows to build carriers should not be overlooked.

With that in mind, Vishal with nuclear propulsion and EMALS is a two-decade project. India would need to heavily depend on the US for such technologies. Then it also needs to tender and purchase an entirely new air-fleet. Both are not cheap and time-consuming process. There is also high project risks both with the technologies themselves and with potential future US policy changes leading to sanctions or other disagreements.

On the other hand, Vikrant is a known commodity and an order placed today for second of its class would mean more or less a guaranteed delivery by around 2025. Existing planned air-fleet (45 MiG-29K and 60 NLCA Mk.2) can be used on it. India requires 3 carriers to make sure 2 are available to account for periodic refitments and repairs.

So on the contrary to what you stated, Vikrant-2 is needed as a bridge until the super-carrier comes about post 2030. Too often India has failed in continuity of its gains towards establishing a viable ecosystem.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jun 2016 11:00

Option1: Build a second sister ship of the Vikrant,parhaps with some minor modifications,easy to build,costs known,easy to induct,commonality of weapon systems,aircraft,machinery,sensors,etc.The carrier will arrive before 2025. PLan/design a larger CV later on taking into new developments like UCAVs,naval stealth aircraft,etc.

Option2:As said before,build the planned amphibs,at least 2-3 to the same flight deck and hangar deck stds as the IAC-1,plus ski jump so that they can operate any of the aircraft being used on the Vikrant (new) and Vik-A,29Ks and NLCA.CSL can easily build them within 5-6 years These multi-role amphibs will give the IN at least one carrier available on each seaboard at any time. This will save the cost of building a dedicated sister ship of the Vikrant ,but increase the cost of the amphibs.Overall savings though.

Option 3: Build a new large carrier with all the bells and whistles.This is the least attractive simply becos of the massive costs involved,unaffordable at this time.Why,we can't even afford Rafales let alone a supercarrier with EMALS,etc! However,let's not waste the offers of carrier tech from the US as there may be important components/eqpt that could be used in our indigenous efforts without buying the "store" as it were!

In the Indian context,our geo landmass and island territories gives us an "unsinkable" carrier right in the middle of the IOR. This in truth is our "supercarrier" that must be exploited to the hilt.LRMP aircraft equipped with LRCMs and supersonic missiles launched from legacy aircraft,P-8s and poss. Backfires ,along with MKIs refueled,operating from the mainland and islands would easily be able to sanitise the IOR against intruding naval surface forces. In addition,land based anti-ship missiles (LRCMs,BMs) could add to the arsenal. For successful operations outside the IOR,in the ICS,etc.,a large fleet of nuclear and conventional AIP boats would be able to cause havoc at the chokepoints and beyond. USN intel determined that just one heavyweight Soviet torpedo could sink a US carrier Ru torpedoes in general carry larger warheads and ranges can vary from 50-100km depending upon warhead size.

What we need is as many air capable platforms in the IN's inventory.I've said for decades that we should design warships above 12K t to have a flight deck.Other nations like SoKo and Japan have begun doing just so.These smaller flat tops ,mini-carriers whatever,can operate large multi-role helos and STOVL aircraft like the JSF-B. Missiles of all types can be accommodated in flush-deck silos. The reach and capability of such vessels would be "X" times more than a large DDG/CG. With the RMA in maritime warfare arriving with carrier UCAV ops and drones/UAVs for IRST/AEW ,CVs in the future may actually get smaller.BY 2020 we should be ready to start building a CV design for induction around 2030. Until that CV materializes,the two options above are the best way forward.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 06 Jun 2016 11:33

If we need a 3rd carrier now, Vik-II it should be. Vishal is too risky and too far off. We can buy F-35Bs if Mig-29K does not cut it.

But somehow, i get a feeling that IN is happy with only 2 carriers and is thinking of a replacement for Vikramaditya in the next 25 years.No other way to explain the willingness to talk and plan about a 85k tonne super behemoth with cutting edge technologies. The design itself will take 4-5 years and building plus fitting out will take another 8-10 years.

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Jun 2016 11:55

^^^

Also, let's not forget that shore-based facilities for CATOBAR would need to be built like INS Hansa for STOBAR training and NLCA development.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 10 Jun 2016 07:04

https://goo.gl/ubt5NY

So the scenario for INS Vishal EMALS is 3 routes:
ROUTE: 1.) Vishal Battle Group=
a.) 2 Kamorta P28s clearing up path for submarines
b.) 1 Vishakhapatnam + 1 Shivalik for AAW?
c.) Submarines = 1 Chakra + 1 Kilo (if it has range and speed)
d.) 9 Tankers for Vishal + 2 Tankers for P15B + 2 Tankers for Shivalik + 1 Tanker for P28 Kamorta

ROUTE : 2.) About the same as route 1?

ROUTE: 3.) = Double the number of tankers for whole Battle Group?

Hmmm while as Bharat's various armed forces chiefs has predicted future "short and sharp wars" which will be raging in Himalayas and punjab rajasthan gujarat planes.

A significant budget of armed forces will have been locked in this battle group which will go to Indo China Pacific (wrongly called south china sea).

Not to mention if a single sub manages to harm Vishal it will be big morale blow and talk of the town amongst war enthusiasts for next 2 centuries.

The other options could be what Shankarosky had once suggested though greatly opposed by philip. From Bharatiya Land Long range Sukhois with anti ship missiles accompanied by a refueller half way to reach around Chinese battle group release brahmos and nirbhays and turn back. Since Su-35S has one pilot and extra space for fuel it has longer range too then MKIs. Halfway they gulp more from Il-78s and while refueller turns back; off they go to unleash their missiles upon chineez.

Imagine the money saved for that much we can have 18 "Diesel-Electric Arihants" 4500 tons with Thyssenkrup help.

INS Samudragupta class stealth missile cruisers of 18000 tons just like Russian Lider Class, but using french Pielstik and Kaveri turbines loaded upto teeth with Nirbhay Brahmos Shourya and 128 Barak 8s.

While in case needed these same Su-35S A/cs can be used on NE front against yellowish reds.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jun 2016 07:33

We can buy F-35Bs if Mig-29K does not cut it.

Carriers are based on the air crafts they host. So, Vik1 and Vik2 will have substantial differences if they host MiG-29K and the other F-35s. Just a fleeting thought: both should host the same air craft, really no use mix-n-match.

Vishal is too risky and too far off

That is the sole purpose of USN's presence, reduce (not eliminate) risk. Need to wait till Jul, the next meeting of the carrier jwg. Modi's discussions should produce some pleasant surprises.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jun 2016 13:19

Given the speed with which UCAVs are longer-ranges supersonic (and hypersonic to come) naval anti-ship missiles are being inducted and under development, surface warships of all kinds are going to find the going tough.As major nations increase their ISR assets including dedicated maritime sats, remaining undetected on the ocean will become more difficult.Smaller surface ships like DDGs and FFGs featuring stealth will be less detectable,but a large CV with the accompanying elements of the CBG will once dtetcted become targets for massed missile attacks from diverse sources as well as subs. Navies with just a few carriers will find it tough protecting their assets from LRCMs.BMs,UCAVs,etc. Only the USN,and the UK followed some distance behind, has the history.skills and tradition of operating a large number of carriers since the type first appeared. The USN is the only navy also possessing N-powered supercarriers. With its large accompanying CBG entourage which also includes SSNs,these carrier forces will eb the most likely to survive,but will definitely suffer battle damage .The Soviets/Russians on the other,built dedicated SSGNs,Oscar,Sierra classes (still being upgraded) one for every USN carrier,armed with a large complement of LR supersonic missiles specifically meant to be "carrier-killers".

This why I postulate that for the IN which cannot afford a USN style navy or supercarriers,puttign all its eggs into one supercarrier basket,should build all its major surface warships above 10/12k t with flat tops/flight decks to accommodate a variety of aircraft ,both fxd wing and STOVL and helos.Missiles can be accommodated flush-deck. The increase/dispersal of aviation assets in such manner will vastly increase the combat radius and defensive zone of warships and task forces and their survivability.Instead of possessing just 2-3 carriers, a dozen such flat tops will spread the responsibility of ops depending upon the nature of the threat,whether it requires a CBG, large task force or smaller flotilla to deal with the threat. SoKo and the Japanese are systematically building such ships which are in fact mini-carriers and will in the future definitely operate JSF-B multi-role fighters.

The IN needs to design and build a new class of surface combatants upon the lines suggested apart from the 3-4 amphibs which should be able to operate both 29Ks and NLCAs or even the once offered Sea Gripen if the Gripen is also chosen for the IAF. lastly,the "unsinkable" INS India and its island territories should be leveraged to the maximum using the naval air facility infrastructure by stationing a variety of LRMP,multi-role strike and multi-role helos where possible.