INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Jun 2016 03:32

INs CBG has legs alright..

Did you factor in the fact that there won't be enough money for a full tank of gas because of *Super Carrier* ...

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 18 Jun 2016 03:47

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2016 03:49

Conventional propulsion, ski jump, no arresting wires, STOVL planes.
Conventional propulsion, ski jump, arrested landing, conventional naval planes.
Conventional propulsion, steam CAT, arrested landing, conventional naval planes.
Conventional propulsion, steam CAT, vertical landing.

Instead of steam, electric.

Repeat with nuclear propulsion.

For immediate comparison, from what I have read, nuclear saves on space, increases number of aircrafts, more fuel for them, more ammo for them, less maintenance if electric cat, etc.

Longer range, move to everything electric. Save a lot on space, etc.

As an aside, make electricity from sea water.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2016 03:50

On range, will depend on Indian interests and threat.

Low threat, not going too far from home.

On SCS, somewhere between 30-50% of Indian trade goes through SCS. Need to protect that interest.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 18 Jun 2016 04:27

sudeepj wrote:When you want to attack some one, you form a fist.. you dont poke the other person with your fingers at 'multiple locations'.

Strange kahaawat to prove your point, what happens when this 'fist' is in yard for 3-4 years for refits and maintenance at a time?

Just like the trend all over, first we need to build a big fleet of submarines, Destroyers, Kamortas & missile cruisers, until then Vikrant series will do for 3 carriers and NLCAs.

IAF chose 126 Rafale as MMRCA, but MoD said no money for that, Even 36 are in khataai.

While navy has least budget of 3 so having spent so much on heavy fighters like F-35, Rafale is going to "suck in" all the budget from subs and other platforms.

This is what US also wants, to lock up our eggs in one large basket, that too if EMALS has a problem the jets won't perform at optimum. Everything locked up in one BIG juicy target.

The fact is for US russian a/c carrier is hardly a problem, but those submarines and now seeing their jealous reaction to Lider Class cruiser.

When Kolkatta was unveiled everyone here was unhappy at so less number of Baraks on it, the space wasn't the problem but "THE BUDGET"

Yes it won't cost that much between 45000 and 65000 tons for empty shell platform, but more fuel, jets, powertrains for EMALS will make it more expensive, the salty sea air will eat into fighters life more, so more maintenance heavy they become.

When navy does have enough money to fill tip of the spear destroyers to their full capacity, why go wasting so much money on these high maintenance platforms which suck money from other platforms.

Just an example having Vikrant and Vikramaditya fighting on the mouth of malacca straits against BIG BAD SCARY CARRIERS of chineez if they need more help. We can have 90 Sukhois 35 or 30s with tanker escort taking off from Bharat Bhumi half way they drink up from tanker and go off to release their anti-ship and air to air missiles at chineez jets, Good backing for Vikrant and Vikramaditya.

Now again if the chineez don't venture into crossing in Hind Mahasagar then these 90 sukhois can be used over fight in Himalayas where the real danger is, yellow reds can occupy land there not coming from Hind Mahasagar side. Nope they can't.

And "heaven for submarines" arab and Hind Mahasagar will always have dangers from submarines, so we need to multiply their numbers. Amazing isn't it that NDA in 2000 makes 30 submarines plan 16 years ago when money was less and that has not been changed.

Time to change it, go for 54+ submarine force, then when we grow economically we can fulfill the needs of small countries in indian oceans.

For SOSUS systems also the japanese and amrikans need to be kept out, we need to develop our own systems and embed them ourselves, don't want these people to embed theirs and keep track of us too.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 18 Jun 2016 04:38

The speed of the oil tankers like Deepak is limited to 20 knots. So the entire CBG cannot sprint at 30 Knts only the SSN's can do that.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 18 Jun 2016 05:04

Advertisements are big, EMALS and all that, when C 17 were bought at huge price the presstitutes were advertising that boeing is going to build a state of art wind tunnel testing range for us.

Now its found they are transferring their old garbage thingy to us, fans and many parts are already being returned as they are too rotten and broken to be used.

For every indiginous product media pimps raise so much hulabaloo but amazing how much CIA controls our desi media, not a whiff of scandal, only few bravehearts like Shri Saurav Jha dare to expose this farce. CIA will make sure he never makes big in media world.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jun 2016 06:01

India, US in final stage of agreeing on aircraft carrier technologies

BENGALURU: India and the United States are on the threshold of arriving at an agreement on transfer of technology for aircraft carriers under the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) signed by the two nations, defence minister Manohar Parrikar announced on Friday.

“We are in the final stage of agreeing on aircraft carrier technologies,” he told the media here after witnessing the inaugural flight of Hindustan Turbo Trainer (HTT-40) basic trainer aircraft designed and manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) here.

Mr Parrikar has discussed the possibility of co-development and co-production of advanced defence products, including aircraft carriers, as part of DTTI with U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter. Though development and production of advanced jet engines too was part of DTTI, the minister said the offer made by the United States did not meet the expectations of ministry of defence (MoD).

So, the carrier is on, while the jet engine is off. ?????

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 20 Jun 2016 09:38

^ Would it mean GE 414 engines won't be manufactured here? Or they will still be assembled but not with level of ToT we wanted?

The deal is still on? Or now we need to go knock EJ 200 door?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jun 2016 13:56

GE Engine deal was signed a while ago, and after initial deliveries the rest were to be manufactured in india (no TOT). The DTTI initiative looked to be over and above that, as 'co-develpment' was being thrown around which would suggest something different since the F414 had been ordered already for the MK2.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 20 Jun 2016 14:00

Theres silence on the 414 front.
contract stipulated 99 engines.
With the LCA MK2 not on the horizon for now, where would they possibly use the 414s ?

A recent report mentioned SAAB offering to plug the 414s onto the Make in India, Gripen. Either this or on the F18s could happen.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 20 Jun 2016 14:04

Also for Tejas Mk 1A which are going to be 120 not order for GE 404 has been placed or talked about.

brar was LM2500 for ships was also part of DTTI?

I guess GE 414EPF or EDF may've been for co developing to have been used in AMCA.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jun 2016 14:05

GE F414 deliveries and contract fulfillment would naturally be subject to MK2 and its timelines, so perhaps they haven't signed all the stuff they needed to (Even the final documents and agreements on the M777 haven't been signed even after the deal was announced). The first few F414's were to be delivered by the end of 2015, so unless they delivered them, and we don't know about it they must have not been delivered. Its the only option for the MK2 so if that aircraft happens the IN at least would be needing lots of engines.

Regarding SAAB and G414, they already use the engine on the E/F but MP said a twin-engined foreign fighter which in this case can only realistically mean the Rafale if the initial purchase goes through. It would be rather stupid to go ahead and purchase the rafale and then look to produce yet another twin engined fighter. I see that carrot as a negotiating tactic for a sweeter rafale deal than a path that the MOD is likely seriously considering.

Also for Tejas Mk 1A which are going to be 120 not order for GE 404 has been placed or talked about.

That would be one quick way to look at MK1A delivery timelines. For a large order you need to go in about 2 and a half to 3 years ahead of bulk deliveries to shore up the agreements and contracts and get timely deliveries. IIRC they may still have quite a few F404's on order from one earlier contract but naturally, you would need to up the order and delivery rate to align with the aircraft production strategy.

I guess GE 414EPE or EDE may've been for co developing to have been used in AMCA.

That would have been a logical option. But honestly, other than paying GE to develop it, what 'co-development' could have potentially occurred? I had suggested letting GE develop it on their own (through the USN) and then spending that money on acquiring TOT for whatever stuff was needed. No need to fund GE's R&D. Most of the GE EPE and EDE technology has been extensively tested by GE in their labs both as part of a $300 Million USN contract from previous decade, and significant internal research on their part. Over the last few years, they have even managed to squeeze in R&D using that engine for stuff that was over and above their EPE proposals. Boeing is making a pitch for the engine enhancements again to the USN, and given that its about a 5 year process (from R&D award to first upgraded engine delivery) the USN has about till 2020 to fund it since the first batch (large batch) of Super Hornets go to the depot for overhaul around the middle of the next decade.

EJ200 is another option but there would be similar TOT areas there in addition to no real program need to develop enhanced variants. Some partners are heading towards the FCAS, for which the existing engines would be more than sufficient. The problem with this class of engines is that besides the GE-F414 there is really no other engine that has a need for such high thrusts, and that actually has a diverse operator base that can justify such an R&D project by acquiring engines.

It is also unclear whether South Korea, that only recently selected GE F414 family for its KF-X propulsion needs, will go ahead with the existing engine or the enhanced version that was mentioned quite a few times by its media. As Aviation Week pointed out, their weight estimates point to an EPE need given thrust to weight ratios. That wasn't made clear when they down-selected but perhaps as India looks at engines, GE could by themselves secure funding to develop new variants.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 20 Jun 2016 14:11

nirav wrote:With the LCA MK2 not on the horizon for now, where would they possibly use the 414s ?

NLCA MK 2 is very much there so it will be needed there.

We're going massively OT here better move to LCA / NLCA before danda parade starts here

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 20 Jun 2016 20:01

Bheeshma wrote:The speed of the oil tankers like Deepak is limited to 20 knots. So the entire CBG cannot sprint at 30 Knts only the SSN's can do that.

No taskforce will sprint at 30 knots all the time.. Itll only do so when its engaged in an active battle or when it has a time sensitive target. In such situations, the tanker will hang back out of harms way and rendezvous with the task force on the way back from the battle. At all other times, the task force will sail at an efficient 'cruising speed' which will be comparable for the tanker and the rest of the ships. Sailing at max speeds will burn such a tremendous amount of fuel that itll cut the range figures to a fraction of the range at efficient cruise speeds.

The problem with DE/AIP submarines is that their max speeds are comparable to the cruise speeds of the other ships. They simply cant keep up. Their ranges become severely limited when they go their max speeds besides turning so noisy that they lose stealth.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 20 Jun 2016 20:20

Dhananjay wrote:
sudeepj wrote:When you want to attack some one, you form a fist.. you dont poke the other person with your fingers at 'multiple locations'.
Strange kahaawat to prove your point, what happens when this 'fist' is in yard for 3-4 years for refits and maintenance at a time?

You would do well to post a little less and read a little more. Subs have always been the strategy of the 'insurgent' force among Navies in all conflicts past. Any force centered around subs is trying to implement a strategy of 'Sea Denial' as opposed to sea control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_denial

Sea denial is a military term describing attempts to deny the enemy's ability to use the sea without necessarily attempting to control the sea for its own use. It is a less ambitious strategy than sea control and can potentially be carried out by asymmetrical warfare or by maintaining a fleet in being that threatens offensive operations without actually conducting them.

During World War I and World War II, Germany pursued sea denial using U-boats. Owing to the substantial superiority of the Royal Navy's surface forces Germany's Imperial Navy (in World War I) and Kriegsmarine (in World War II) had little hope of seizing control of the high seas, but with submarines the Germans could hope to defeat the British by choking off their crucial access to seaborne commerce.

In both WW I and WW II, Germany was the far inferior naval force and resorted to a strategy centered around Submarines. Similarly, the Soviet navy was the far inferior naval force and resorted to subs and missiles. Then there is the example of the Sino-US posture, where the Chinese strategy is around subs and ballistic missiles. Lastly, the Pak turds - Why do you think they have tried to maintain a reasonable sub force while their surface combatants are rust buckets?

The Indian Navy strategy has always been one of Sea Control. Accordingly, the focus has been on surface combatants protected by carriers- Delhi class, Sivalik class, Kolkata/Vizag class and on SSBN/SSNs.

Even if the other side is DE sub heavy, the best way to match them is not through DE subs, which would be like making expensive compromise platforms fight each other, but through ASW corvettes and frigates with an ASW helicopter with sonar and through long range maritime aircraft such as the Tu95 / il38 / P8 etc. Let the Cheenis or the Pak turds send their subs into India's ocean. They will be hunted down in detail.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 21 Jun 2016 00:08

How about posting the latest picture of the Vikrant? Anyone have any?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 21 Jun 2016 02:05

Anurag wrote:How about posting the latest picture of the Vikrant? Anyone have any?

Ship Deck is being used for Yoga day celebration today .

nits · Post by **nits** » 22 Jun 2016 16:39

Jhujar wrote:
Anurag wrote:How about posting the latest picture of the Vikrant? Anyone have any?
Ship Deck is being used for Yoga day celebration today .

Seriously

nits · Post by **nits** » 22 Jun 2016 16:41

Yup... Googled it - Video below

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 22 Jun 2016 17:51

Guys, that's the Viraat, NOT the Vikrant which is being fitted out. DDM, classic!

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 14 Oct 2016 11:01

What is going on with the Vikrant?

The last news is this:
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/indian-navy-ta ... 018-693795
https://www.americanbazaaronline.com/20 ... an-navy-2/

Any pictures taken recently?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Oct 2016 12:25

Last news was that the carrier was being refitted for its final journey before a decision was taken as to where she would end up as a floating museum,etc.

I would advise the MOD/IN to keep her ins ervice for another year since the situ with Pak is dangerously close to an escalation of conflict.The Viraat would be very useful in any conflict with Pak,even with her small Sea harrier complement ,as she could carry a large number of ASW aircraft. I leave her targets of opportunity ,in concert with the VikA to members' imagination!

chola · Post by **chola** » 14 Oct 2016 16:41

Philip wrote:Last news was that the carrier was being refitted for its final journey before a decision was taken as to where she would end up as a floating museum,etc.

I would advise the MOD/IN to keep her ins ervice for another year since the situ with Pak is dangerously close to an escalation of conflict.The Viraat would be very useful in any conflict with Pak,even with her small Sea harrier complement ,as she could carry a large number of ASW aircraft. I leave her targets of opportunity ,in concert with the VikA to members' imagination!

Not really, the IN has more than enough firepower to completely overwhelm whatever crap the pakis have.

Leading the Viraat in close so targets can be in range of the short-legged Harriers is not a necessary risk we need to take. The only thing the pork can do navalwise is to gain some sort of "moral" victory. Presenting them with an old carrier as a target (from one of their subs) gives them that chance.

On the Vikrant, I pretty much gave up trying to follow after the CAG report. Every time one of these comes out (LCA, Arjun, Aakash, etc) we bitch and moan about they don't understand the projects but over time the CAG has proven itself to be consistently reliable even though it almost always bring bad news.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 14 Oct 2016 18:42

Philip wrote:Last news was that the carrier was being refitted for its final journey before a decision was taken as to where she would end up as a floating museum,etc.

I would advise the MOD/IN to keep her ins ervice for another year since the situ with Pak is dangerously close to an escalation of conflict.The Viraat would be very useful in any conflict with Pak,even with her small Sea harrier complement ,as she could carry a large number of ASW aircraft. I leave her targets of opportunity ,in concert with the VikA to members' imagination!

This would be nice, however, the SHAR's were in poor shape and could not really handle a long deployment. Spares etc were in short supply and hardly any support from BAe precipitated the retirement.
The ship could have gone on for a long time but without the Harriers there was no point.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Oct 2016 17:36

The carrier could provide the task force with CAP and ASW patrol though,even if the SHs aren't used to attack the ungodly.It would free the VikA to use max no. of its Fulcrums to exterminate the pigs at sea. Remember how the Vikrant fought in '71 with a defective boiler? It would be the least thing that the Porkis would expect.

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 17 Oct 2016 18:12

More pics here: http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/ia ... rd-limited

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Oct 2016 18:19

Can't wait to see this beauty in service!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Nov 2016 02:35

Been eons, so pardon if this is the wrong thread.

Navy’s second home-built carrier will be nuclear, but will come only in 2030s

7th Nov 16

The navy has made its choices. When INS Vishal, the Indian Navy’s second indigenous aircraft carrier enters service, it will be a technologically cutting edge warship, on par with the world’s most advanced carriers.

The navy’s finalised specifications include nuclear propulsion, a catapult launch system based on the new US “electro-magnetic aircraft launch system” (EMALS) and the capacity to embark 55 combat aircraft.

But advanced technologies also mean delay. Naval planners, talking anonymously to Business Standard, say INS Vishal will not enter service before 2030, and might take as long as 2035 to join the fleet as India’s third operational carrier.

Already, the navy faces six years of delay in the first indigenous carrier, the 44,000-tonne INS Vikrant, which Cochin Shipyard Ltd was supposed to deliver in 2015. Until the Vikrant is commissioned in 2021, the navy will operate just a single carrier --- the 45,000-tonne INS Vikramaditya, built in Russia and commissioned in 2013.

Yet the navy’s decision is clear --- delay is acceptable, but INS Vishal must pack the power needed to effectively dominate India’s extended area of operations. Over the years, the navy has defined this as extending across the Indian Ocean, from the Strait of Hormuz in the west, to the Malacca Strait in Southeast Asia.

To dominate this swathe of sea, the navy believes the Vishal would need at least 55 aircraft on board. These will include two fighter squadrons, electronic warfare (EW) aircraft, airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft to monitor and control airspace, and helicopters for special operations, anti-submarine warfare and communications duties.

Given the capability-to-weight thumb rule of 1,000 tonnes of aircraft carrier needed for each aircraft embarked, INS Vishal would have to be about 60,000 - 65,000 tonnes. To propel such a carrier at a sustained 30 knots (over 55 kilometres per hour), a nuclear propulsion system has been considered inescapable.

India does not yet have a nuclear propulsion system suitable for an aircraft carrier. The 83 Megawatt (MW) nuclear reactors designed for the Arihant-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) are inadequate, since an aircraft carrier requires several times more power than an SSBN.

Developing a new, purpose-built reactor remains an option, but planners could also attempt to modify the 540 MW nuclear reactors that India has developed for commercial power generation.

The navy has extensively debated the question of nuclear propulsion. Opponents of nuclear propulsion point to the Royal Navy’s 65,000 tonne Queen Elizabeth II, slated to be commissioned in 2017, which will be powered by Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines. Proponents of nuclear propulsion argue that India’s carriers would require more electrical power, since these would launch aircraft with the power-intensive EMALS system.

Even so, India’s carriers would be significantly smaller than the US Navy’s 95,000 tonne Enterprise-class; and the new 100,000 tonne Gerald R Ford-class supercarriers that embark 90-100 aircraft.

“We have conveyed our choice. Now the government will decide. An aircraft carrier has huge financial implications, with large annual outlays during construction and even while it is in service. So the government will understandably consider the choices carefully. And that means delay”, says a senior naval planner.

The government’s decision will be complicated by recent reductions in the naval budget. This year, allocations to the navy are down to just 14.55 per cent of the defence budget, from 18 per cent in 2012-13. Defence experts opine that, given the navy’s growing role and the cost of capital warships, an 18 per cent allocation is unavoidable.

Yet, in the wake of the Uri attack, a high-level empowered committee that visited Russia for emergency purchases of military equipment bought mainly army weaponry. The admirals worry that the current focus on tactical skirmishes with Pakistan on the Line of Control might shift focus from the strategic, long-term need to bolster the navy.

As Business Standard first reported (July 17, 2015, “India specifies 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier, with catapult”) the navy last year specified INS Vishal’s approximate weight while seeking consultancy assistance from global shipbuilders in designing the carrier. But that request was silent on several key questions --- including nuclear propulsion and EMALS. Nor was there a completion date.

Another crucial question to be decided is what aircraft INS Vishal will embark. The MiG-29K, which were bought from Russia for the Vikramaditya and Vikrant, have limitations that are still being ironed out. Nor is the Naval Tejas light fighter making significant headway.

That opens the door for two bigger fighters that already fly off aircraft carriers: the French Rafale, already procured from Dassault for the air force; and Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the world’s premier carrier-borne aircraft. With EMALS technology chosen for INS Vishal, the US fighter has a slight edge in this race.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Nov 2016 03:19

^^^
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2016/11/ ... e.html?m=1

"Yet, in the wake of the Uri attack, a high-level empowered committee that visited Russia for emergency purchases of military equipment bought mainly army weaponry. The admirals worry that the current focus on tactical skirmishes with Pakistan on the Line of Control might shift focus from the strategic, long-term need to bolster the navy."

Still not able 17 years after Kargil to avoid "emergency purchases". What were these "emergency purchases" of army weaponry? The Russians must rolling on the floor and doing the gopak.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Nov 2016 03:49

^ result of MOD decision making and former GOI apathy at its pathetic best

If they had followed up on some of the nda government's plans such as the m2k line, things might have been somewhat better perhaps. But all in all, the effect of ten lost years.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 21 Nov 2016 03:54

GOI apathy but what about armed forces planning? Corrupt bureaucrats and armed forces procurement mafia enjoy warm borders!!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Nov 2016 05:15

Vivek K wrote:GOI apathy but what about armed forces planning? Corrupt bureaucrats and armed forces procurement mafia enjoy warm borders!!

Lack of planning on part of the services is a relatively small factor imvho. They have the least say in the decision making process....Not too different from the R nd D agencies.

All three services have been planning and providing projections to the powers that be ad nauseam....No result. Case in point the navy's submarine procurement issue.

Similarly, in the m2k example I provided, one can hardly blame the AF for the fiasco of the mrca under the upa.

So, why don't we first look at the elephant in the room instead of immediately deflecting the blame to the non issues.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 21 Nov 2016 05:55

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2016/11/ ... e.html?m=1

"Yet, in the wake of the Uri attack, a high-level empowered committee that visited Russia for emergency purchases of military equipment bought mainly army weaponry. The admirals worry that the current focus on tactical skirmishes with Pakistan on the Line of Control might shift focus from the strategic, long-term need to bolster the navy."

Still not able 17 years after Kargil to avoid "emergency purchases". What were these "emergency purchases" of army weaponry? The Russians must rolling on the floor and doing the gopak.

Any sensible Army would fast forward delivires, as well as make contingency plans.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Nov 2016 09:40

The number of years we spent doing chai-biskoot on American EMALS we would have been at least half way through an indigenous PoC. But no, we are signing on to American system for which we will be paying through our @** and not even need for another 15-20 years.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 02 Dec 2016 00:20

Wall Street Journal: US efforts to help India build up navy hits snag

NEW DELHI—When top American naval engineers recently inspected India’s first locally made aircraft carrier they expected to find a near battle-ready ship set to help counter China’s growing sway in the Indian Ocean.

Instead, they discovered the carrier wouldn’t be operational for up to a decade and other shortcomings: no small missile system to defend itself, a limited ability to launch sorties and no defined strategy for how to use the ship in combat. The findings alarmed U.S. officials hoping to enlist India as a bulwark against China, people close to the meeting said.

“China’s navy will be the biggest in the world soon, and they’re definitely eyeing the Indian Ocean with ports planned in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh,” said retired Admiral Arun Prakash, the former commander of India’s navy. “The Indian navy is concerned about this.”

The February carrier inspection, in the port of Kochi, formed part of U.S. plans to share aircraft carrier technology with India. Indian naval officials followed up with a tour of an American shipbuilding yard in Virginia and strategy briefings at the Pentagon in September, the people close to the meetings said.

The U.S. and India are drawing closer politically and militarily. The two have participated in joint naval exercises with Japan. The U.S. has agreed to sell New Delhi everything from attack helicopters to artillery. Washington has approved proposals by Lockheed Martin and Boeing Co. to make advanced jet fighters in India. And in August, the two countries signed a military logistics-sharing accord.

ENLARGE
The emerging relationship has reshaped Asia’s geopolitical terrain, riling China, which has issued diplomatic complaints over the joint exercises, and sometimes sidelining Russia, long India’s largest supplier of military hardware.

Both Indian and American officials say they hope cooperation will grow under President-elect Donald Trump, who has signaled a tougher approach toward China. After the U.S. election, the American Ambassador to India said the ties forged with India under President Barack Obama were “irreversible.”

The centerpiece of the military cooperation are the aircraft carriers.

“Of all the U.S.’s efforts to cooperate with India’s military, the aircraft carrier project is the one with the biggest potential payout and could make the biggest difference to the regional balance of power,” said Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former U.S. adviser in New Delhi.

But U.S. concerns are growing about India’s military strategy. Experts worry New Delhi’s insistence on building complex military gear largely from scratch, a legacy of its period of nonalignment, has led to severe delays in modernizing its carriers, jet fighters and nuclear submarines and limited its ability to fight.

A Indian Defense Ministry spokesman declined to comment beyond saying that its aircraft carriers were “still under progress.” A Navy spokesman declined to comment. Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar recently reiterated a commitment to indigenous manufacturing, citing concerns that foreign supply of arms and ammunition could be cut off in a time of war. “I think self-dependence is very important,” he said.

China, meanwhile, is rapidly expanding its military forces. It launched its first aircraft carrier in 2012 and is building two more. Chinese state-owned companies have invested in strategic ports circling the Indian Ocean in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Pakistan, that have resupplied its naval vessels. And China is now building its first overseas military outpost in Djibouti.

Chinese officials have rejected assertions that they are pursuing military objectives in the Indian Ocean, saying submarines resupplying in Sri Lanka were heading to the Gulf of Aden on antipiracy missions.

India, for its part, pledged funding last year for a new port in Iran where India’s own ships could potentially resupply for Indian Ocean missions. And it is seeking to match China’s naval force by adding two Indian-built carriers to the Russian one it now operates.

The first homemade Indian carrier, the INS Vikrant, has fallen short of expectations. An Indian state audit, released in July, found serious faults in its design and construction, from gear boxes to jet launching systems and air conditioning units.

The shipyard building the carrier, which has already cost $3 billion, “had no previous experience of warship construction” and is five years behind schedule, the audit said. India’s military sticks by its 2018 deadline.

Other experts said the ship’s hull was built before the navy had decided on some of the weapons systems, likely hampering its eventual performance. India’s homemade Tejas jet fighters, which are slated to fly from the Vikrant alongside squadrons of Russian jets, are also struggling to take off and land with an adequate payload on a simulated flight deck where they are being tested, people familiar with its testing said.

The upshot, these experts say: the carrier’s defensive flaws make it unlikely to able to operate in important theaters like the Persian Gulf or off the eastern coast of Africa, outside of the protective range of India’s land-based air force.

Still, the U.S. Navy plans to step up cooperation, pinning its hopes on India’s second homemade carrier, which promises to be far larger and contain more advanced technology. While carriers are losing their relevancy with the proliferation of cheap antiship missiles and advanced attack submarines, they are still likely to remain at the core of most major navies for some decades.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 02 Dec 2016 00:34

Nikhil, the wsj article can be dismissed as written by someone who don't have enough knowledge about defense matters.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 02 Dec 2016 04:47

+1 Agreed, posting here for posterity when Vikrant rolls out

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 02 Dec 2016 05:19

Inshallah

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Dec 2016 14:18

India’s first homemade aircraft carrier falls short of US expectations: Report

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... s-4404232/

India’s first locally made aircraft carrier has been found to be non-operational by American naval engineers, according to a report in Wall Street Journal.

The report states that the engineers who inspected the carrier at the port of Kochi in February, expecting it to be battle-ready, said it wouldn’t be operational for up to a decade. They found it having shortcomings like no small missile system to defend itself, a limited ability to launch sorties and no defined strategy for how to use the ship in combat.

India and US have joined hands to counter China’s expanding sway in the Indian ocean.

“China’s navy will be the biggest in the world soon, and they’re definitely eyeing the Indian Ocean with ports planned in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh,” retired Admiral Arun Prakash, the former commander of India’s navy, is quoted as saying in the report.

The inspection formed part of US plans to share aircraft carrier technology with India. In August, both the countries had signed a military agreement sharing logistics. They also plan a joint participation in naval exercises with Japan. Washington has approved proposals by Lockheed Martin and Boeing Co. to make advanced jet fighters in India.

India and US naval agreement has given way to new dynamics to Asia’s geopolitical terrain, with China having diplomatic issues with the joint exercises.

Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar recently reiterated a commitment to indigenous manufacturing, citing concerns that foreign supply of arms and ammunition could be cut off in a time of war. “I think self-dependence is very important,” he said.

China has been speeding up efforts on expanding its military forces. China is strategically investing in ports circling the Indian Ocean in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Pakistan. It is also building it’s first overseas military outpost in Dijboputi.

India had pledged funding for a new port in Iran last year. It has also added two Indian- built carriers to the Russian one it now operates.

US, however, is showing concerns about India’s military strategy. Experts said there have been severe delays on the part of New Delhi in modernising its carriers, jet fighters and nuclear submarines.

Some serious faults have been found in India’s first homemade carrier, INS Vikrant. Its gearboxes, construction, design and jet launching system has fallen short of expectations. But the US Navy has hopes on India’s second homemade carrier which promises advance technologies.