INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Mar 2017 11:50

Apart from the negotiating maze,etc.the cost factor must be understood.An F-35B costs upwards of $125M.Add to that the establishment costs,weaponry,etc. and you have a fig. of around $150M /unit at least. The entire 70K t carrier with aircraft,AEW birds,helos,etc. will cost upwards of $15B.Unaffordable. This is why MP poured cold water on the ambitious large CV for the IN.It consumes too much of the budget,will beggar the IN which needs as a greater priority,subs,ASW helos,utility helos and surface warships. For the moment,with the IN on the cusp of possessing 2 carriers post 2020,our land-based LRMP aircraft (TU-142 Bears and P-8Is,armed with BMos,air-launched Klub and Harpoon ASMs) can take out any intruding enemy CBGs in the IOR.China will possess that capability ,of sending aa CBG into the IOR regularly only around 2025 when it posses 3 carriers.

A smaller slightly larger sister ship of the new Vikrant with Rafale-Ms ,since the IAF is also getting the Rafale,will be more affordable,easier to maintain and support,but even this requirement comes only after the other prioritiies. Subs,helos are urgently needed along with surface combatants,MCM vessels,coastal ASW corvettes,auxiliaries like extra fleet tankers,ASW/MRP aircraft,etc. Pak' and PLAN subs are the greatest threat to the IN and our ports and bases around our huge coastline. We must be prepared for mining of the approaches which the Ghazi attempted. The Pakis are predictable enemies. They will have 12 subs by the middle of the next decade,all AIP subs,and will be able to conduct offensive patrols off both our seaboards. The PLAN will send in their N-subs to add to the pot.

There is another key factor,time. We cannot build our CVs at the rate of IAC-1,taking around 190 years before the vessel arrives. A second Vikrant class carrier should not take more than 5-6 years to build and it should arrive by around 2025. The IN hopes to have the Vikrant by 2018,but the CAG says around 2023. We will have to wait and see.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 02 Apr 2017 12:22

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 987_1.html

Half baked Indian capabilities considered lesser than half baked Chinese capabilities. Was not able to find solid reason why 'India Loses Edge'. The gentleman is running down Vikrant to no end like he did LR SAM development effort.

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Apr 2017 15:08

Rishi_Tri wrote:http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 987_1.html

Half baked Indian capabilities considered lesser than half baked Chinese capabilities. Was not able to find solid reason why 'India Loses Edge'. The gentleman is running down Vikrant to no end like he did LR SAM development effort.

"Five years ago, India had two aircraft carriers and China had none. Now, perhaps as early as this month, the People’s Liberation Army (Navy), or PLA(N), will match India in carrier numbers.

With INS Viraat decommissioned last month, the Indian Navy has just a single carrier, the Russian-built INS Vikramaditya. The PLA(N) too operates a single carrier, the Liaoning, bought from Russia and refurbished in Dalian, China."

We had a 2-0 edge. Now it is 1-1 and the edge is gone.

Should have planned decades ago to keep our edge.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Apr 2017 16:28

Rishi_Tri wrote: China's 2nd aircraft carrier coming this month, India loses edge

Vishal will feature nuclear propulsion, an “electromagnetic aircraft launch system” (EMALS)

Is the nuclear propulsion a done deal?

For EMALS (and other future considerations) it would be ideal and perhaps a necessity.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 02 Apr 2017 17:04

Did we not already lose edge when Viraat was decommed.
I mean since we are already taking numbers in the article then I might as well too.

We had 2 they had 0
We had 1 they had 1
We had 2 they had 1
We have 1 they have 1
We will have 1 they will have 2
We will have 2 they will have 2
We will have 2 they will have 3

Yawn .... good night.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 02 Apr 2017 18:19

Agree on the numerical part. But qualitative edge is still there.

Anyways. Think that, given the length of India's coastline, our proximity to major global trade / oil routes, the nature of our adversaries, and likely help adversaries could get we should have five carrier groups.

Two to guard the western shores (one off the coast of Gujarat / reaching gulf of oman, one off the Coast of North Karnataka / reaching gulf of aden), one to guard the southern side (one patrolling Indian Ocean around Sri Lanka, Maldives), and two to guard the eastern side (one in Andaman sea, and one in North Bay of Bengal).

We should start building another Vikrant type and work long term on two Vishal types.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Apr 2017 18:42

Gagan wrote:The advance technologies from the US are the engine on the LCA and the AMCA too, please don't forget.
They are the LM gas turbine engines on the P-17 frigates also.

The US suppliers and Government have to be bound in a properly worded contract that makes servicing them sanctions free. These guys have really held up their end of the bargain once the contracts were signed. This is quite unlike what the sarkari suppliers the Soviets and the Russians have been doing

+1

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Apr 2017 18:45

srai wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what 'strategic independence' means in today's context. Genuine question. No sarcasm.
It's simple really. No two country share exactly the same interests. There maybe alliances for somethings but not everything. The country that supplies the other with weaponary dictates the terms and possesses the power to squeeze where it hurts in the hour of need. Relationship is not on equal terms.

So does India have strategic independence today?

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Apr 2017 18:52

Rishi_Tri wrote:Agree on the numerical part. But qualitative edge is still there.

Anyways. Think that, given the length of India's coastline, our proximity to major global trade / oil routes, the nature of our adversaries, and likely help adversaries could get we should have five carrier groups.

Two to guard the western shores (one off the coast of Gujarat / reaching gulf of oman, one off the Coast of North Karnataka / reaching gulf of aden), one to guard the southern side (one patrolling Indian Ocean around Sri Lanka, Maldives), and two to guard the eastern side (one in Andaman sea, and one in North Bay of Bengal).

We should start building another Vikrant type and work long term on two Vishal types.

Sir, have you been reading the Indian Navy thread?

Parrikar had reportedly rejected the IN's plan for any carrier past Vikrant (i.e. Vishal) on the basis of cost and other pressing needs such as frigates and subs. Adm. Lanba said IN is bringing up proposals to the Ministry of Defense to get approval.

So right now, there is no concrete plan in place for a third carrier. Given the lead time involved for building and commissioning a carrier, this bodes ill for the future. In fact, it is now a toss-up on whether we get any third carrier in our lifetime since there could be a shift in strategic thinking and priority (SSN/SSGN at the top, CV at the bottom.)

I agree that we have a qualitative edge right now. But that in the form of our crew and pilots not in our equipment.

Both carriers are crappy Russki designs but the Chini have the newer and more capable russki design in the Kuznetsov.

The Vikramaditya is a crippled Russki Kiev design with a crazy huge island sticking out into the flight deck and fvcking lift smack in the middle of it.

The PLAN's russian carrier at least has a flight deck with a rational deck layout and is 20,000 tons heavier.

Looking into the future, they are launching their second 65K-ton STOBAR. Our Vikrant STOBAR (whenever it is completed) will be 45K-tons.

Worse is they already have a CATOBAR carrier under assembly in Shanghai and possibly another one in Daliang.

Technology-wise and tonnage-wise we are already behind because we did not plan ahead and when we finally did we decided to go russian.

Their russian crap beats our russian crap.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Apr 2017 18:58

^^^F-35Bs for Vikrant/Vishal makes sense. Buttress that with 100 F-35As for the IAF that Turkey may not be buying given deteriorating relationship with DC.

IIUC, EMALS is going to need nuke power and that is going to drive up the cost no end. Just remember to reinforce the deck steel. The F-35b's landing has fried the pads on ships.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016 ... -ship.html

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Apr 2017 19:03

We should trade in the Vick as soon as the Vikrant is commissioned. Maybe the Ruskis will exchange it for a couple of SSNs.

I do hope they order a second, marginally larger Vikrant . It would be silly to let the built-up knowledge base atrophy. I think spending money on SSNs and SSGNs makes far more sense than a CVN

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 02 Apr 2017 19:08

How difficult is it to convert a STOBAR carrier into a CATOBAR one with steam cats? The Vikrant was a CATOBAR carrier later converted into STOBAR, is the reverse doable?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Apr 2017 19:10

It is not necessary to have nuke power for EMALS it is necessary for a ship to have sufficient electric generation capability. That can be done by having a gas turbine based generators. So a conventional design can be sufficient as well. The key is to get out of the khadi gram udyog mindset and decide desired capabilities the ship must have.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Apr 2017 20:14

I actually don't mind the stobar approach, IN have a handle on it, and it allows for a very decent protection bubble. Cats are great for powerful strike campaigns with bomb trucks, but where exactly the IN is supposed to carry out such campaigns is beyond me. Control of sea is manageable with stobar, power projection in any relevant corner of the world is not possible with a single super carrier., so what's the point.

If IN wants more teeth in this area, they should order one more Vikrant class and get the JSF. A squad of supersonic bombers with Brahmos and more SSGN is a cheaper and powerful option than a lonesome fat ass carrier. It provides little more than braggingg rights I'm thinking.

The critical short term need is that of Asw choppers. more p28s with proper ASW kit would be nice along with some med size mpaas

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Apr 2017 20:15

Cosmo_R wrote:We should trade in the Vick as soon as the Vikrant is commissioned. Maybe the Ruskis will exchange it for a couple of SSNs.

Great idea but it is akin to asking an used car salesman to buy back his lemon.

Remember, the russkis had retired the Adm. Gorshkov. It was a completely obsolete design (missile cruiser with angled flight deck tacked on.). They did a great sales job getting our babus to buy into the concept of a STOBAR conversion that they had to do at Sevmash.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 02 Apr 2017 20:19

No one will take that rust bucket aka kakkoose(in vina ji terms) better to use it to scare some little fellas not far from our coast. Better build Vikrant and two copies of the same if possible

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Apr 2017 20:27

chola wrote:Worse is they already have a CATOBAR carrier under assembly in Shanghai and possibly another one in Daliang.

US the only sole source of Cats (steam or otherwise). This is not trivial stuff and I will believe the story of CATOBAR IFF (i.e., if and ONLY if), the Chinese post full high definition videos of a plane taking off from their shore based Catapult launch facility. Okay , I will give them the benefit of doubt, if someone can even show a Google Map image of such a facility. If not, I will put this firmly in the category of Chinese Vaporware /Fartware after eating too many dumplings.

Their russian crap beats our russian crap.

Both are crap. Our's atleast has OEM support and we know the true state of things. I am willing to bet that the problems the Chinese face is far worse than ours. The Su-33 is really not the ideal sized carrier aircraft and is no way operating anything close to a full Flanker capacity either in terms of weapon and fuel load from that Chinese STOBAR. The Chinese carrier to have any functional operational capability that can stand up to any standard and not fall apart a serious high tempo operation is probably close to 15 years away.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Apr 2017 20:27

Erm.. Why all this name calling wrt Vikad? Kuch Hua kya? Seems to be alright so far despite some dire predictions by arm chair admirals, touch wood. The fulcrums seem to be the ones with teething problems.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Apr 2017 20:32

vina wrote:The Su-33 is really not the ideal sized carrier aircraft and is no way operating anything close to a full Flanker capacity either in terms of weapon and fuel load from that Chinese STOBAR. The Chinese carrier to have any functional operational capability that can stand up to any standard and not fall apart a serious high tempo operation is probably close to 15 years away.

This is a very important point and quite true. There is a reason the RuN chose to go with the fulcrum on the kuznetsov and abandoned the Flanker. The latter Iirc carries no more than the newer fulcrum. But I'd still think it makes a better a2a platform.

chola · Post by **chola** » 03 Apr 2017 09:57

vina wrote:
chola wrote:Worse is they already have a CATOBAR carrier under assembly in Shanghai and possibly another one in Daliang.
Okay , I will give them the benefit of doubt, if someone can even show a Google Map image of such a facility. If not, I will put this firmly in the category of Chinese Vaporware /Fartware after eating too many dumplings.

Sir,
Rajfortyseven had done exactly that:
https://mobile.twitter.com/rajfortyseve ... 4630025216

Jan 28
RAJ‏ ‪@rajfortyseven‬
‪#China #PLAN #Huangdicun training facility cats operational. #J15 awaiting its turn. #J15 entering shelter. ‬

I've been following Raj from Mumbai since I began China-watching (from the military end.)

Raj must be among the best desi resources on the subject (most of the others are gora.). He pointed out skid marks at the training facility and called out a J-15 crash before the commies acknowleged it.

Which one of these we didn't dismiss as vaporware?

J-10 "lavi"
J-11B "Flanker clone"
J-15 "SU-33 clone"
WZ-10 "attack helo"
Type 054 "stealth frigate"
Type 052 "Red Aegis"
Type 055 "100+ VLS CG"
J-20 "stealth fighter #1"
Y-20 "giant transport"
J-31 "stealth fighter #2"
Liaoning "not a floating casino"

Try looking back on their threads on PDF and you see nearly every major rumor pans out. I think they slow leak as propaganda. But they need to leak things that become reality or the gambit won't work.

I must be among the first to use "vaporware" as a bludgeon against the chinis during the J-10/LCA internet wars a decade ago. Back when we thought we were in a tight race. But I stopped when the J-10 came out with a flood of pictures and then it was repeated with all the other J's and Y's to the J-31.

Their russian crap beats our russian crap.
Both are crap. Our's atleast has OEM support and we know the true state of things. I am willing to bet that the problems the Chinese face is far worse than ours. The Su-33 is really not the ideal sized carrier aircraft and is no way operating anything close to a full Flanker capacity either in terms of weapon and fuel load from that Chinese STOBAR. The Chinese carrier to have any functional operational capability that can stand up to any standard and not fall apart a serious high tempo operation is probably close to 15 years away.

No doubt both Russian designs were and are shit. But the Flanker was and is a much better platform overall which was probably why the Russian Navy chose the SU-33 over the MiG-29K when it was still serious about carrier aviation back in 1995.

Surprise about the date? The 29K is not new. It began development in 1988 and was shittier than even the SU-33 as a naval aircraft. The Russians rejected it then. So what changed by the time they convinced us to rebuild a monstrosity of a cruiser as a carrier? We know the Russians didn't buy the MiG-29K until we bought it. And MiG was basically on welfare at that point. It needed a sale.

KNAAPO had stopped building SU-33s but unlike MiG, it had a huge backlog of orders for Flankers for the RuAF and exports as well as the Super Jet and the PAK FA. It could afford not having the Naval contract (which after seeing the Kuz limp to Syria with a sad dozen aircraft shows you how committed the Russians are to buying carrier aircraft.)

So you think the Russian Navy is committed? How many MiG-29K's were embarked on what might have been the last combat tour that the Kuznetsov (and its tug) ever went on? Exactly four. Four that is before one flew into the drink.

But after all that, I still hope you are right. I hope the SU-33 clone sucks worse than the MiG-29 and the Russian decision in 2009 was the correct one, not the one in 1995.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Apr 2017 10:42

The "crappy" Flanker has beaten the sh*t out've anything that the US/WEst has thrown against it barring the F-22. Similarly the MIG-29/35 with TVC is acknowledged as even better in air combat .What alleged glitches there may be,will be sorted out and Russia has ordered more than 40 29Ks for the Kuz,plus has sold MIG-29/35s to Egypt and now poss. BDesh.If we still do not get the defects rectified bu Russia,our course should be to ship the lot back to be replaced by the new ones Russia is building for its navy. There must be penalty clauses in the agreement which we can invoke ,if not,Babudom has done its dirty work yet again.It negotiates the agreements with OEMs.not the services sadly.

(http://quwa.org/2017/04/02/first-egypti ... 5-spotted/)

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 03 Apr 2017 11:35

The 65 K ton Vishal can be electically powered, with gas turbines driving generators, at full speed the exhaust gasses will have sufficient power to deliver 5 to 8 mw of electrical power. plus when u go electric powered you get a lot of flexibality. you could have a couple of extra turbines gas or steam driven off a boiler supplying steam power. the combinations are there if the will is there.The automation for electric power are readily available on a commercial basis as most cruise ships use them (however with large steady propulsive and hotel loads) The fuel consumption and supply becomes an issue compared to a nuke powered boat as a lot of your voids and free space are used to store fuel for 10-15 days of steaming, not to mention the fire hazards associated with damage control. these are the basic pros and cons , both are doable,
Anything over 65 k will have to be nuke powered as the equation will shift dramatically as size increases. If a nuke power plant is available, As far as India goes it will be bulky as earlier iterations were for both the super powers. However if there is a will/requirement money will appear.Like it did for our nuke sub surface boats. We need a Chinese aircraft carrier group to do a few excersises with their pak fishing fleet tagging along. that will put a rocket up a few babus/politicos behinds. Its going to be and interesting decade post 2020 as far as naval power goes.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Apr 2017 11:37

we need to build another 3 vikrants and scale up kochi to deliver them quickly and at reasonable price before venturing into supercarrier league. 2 can be equipped as ADS and 2 as ASW carriers on the lines of hyuga,shirane...

dont want a chakri narubet MKI moored at karwar with hardly any doctrine or backup

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Apr 2017 11:43

^^ Agreed they can build new Vikrant much speedier and IN can get logistic commonality ....IN cant afford to have 3 carrier with 3 different class and capability , Every new class built takes a long time to build and learn ... first INS vikrant not getting commisioned before 2023 !

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Apr 2017 18:23

Have to agree that more vikrant class is the way to go. If they want more teeth, and an edge, get the jsf as the new carrier fighter.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Apr 2017 19:27

Was puttering around the web a week or two ago and came across a couple of articles (which I will post once I get to that), which essentially stated that the Vishal could not meet the desired goals of the IN - which resulted in what we have come to know now: nuclear propulsion, EMALS, etc. I understand the proposal for more Vikrants, but I very much doubt that another Vikrant (with a proper air wing, NOT a base for helos) will do the job. (Again, Austin's arg that it will be very, very expensive still stands.)

From viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7293&start=1160#p2137743

I believe that the role of Carrier in Indian context is more of an Air Superiority/Air Dominance Ship and not a strike platform. The primary responsibility of attacking and striking enemy land and naval targets would be the responsibility of the DDG's, FFG's,SSK's and SSN's that are part of the CBG and not the carrier itself

My understanding is that is the previous/older philosophy. I very much doubt that the newer set of planes, be it the -29K or those being considered, fit this thinking. Am I right?

On ego, etc, understand the thinking. But find it very hard to believe that the IN would get so much assistance from the USN (NOT the US) (pre and post DTTI) to fan some egos in the IN. When one considers the proposed air wing, in the newly configured Vishal (as I understand it), it is hardly a defensive instrument.

My feel is that the role of the IN has been enhanced, but that the Indian Army and the Air Force hog the funds. A time has to come when this will have to be corrected. IMHO.

A couple of observations:

* The role of the IN within the IOR itself has become very much more difficult. And, it will get even worse as time goes by. This is far more than just dealing with China
* There is a lot going on between the IN and the USN. And, even what is in open source is not fully captured on BR, as a result the posts are delayed in thinking

??????

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Apr 2017 20:31

Can we not make IAC-3 with same design as that of IAC-2 i.e. STOBAR and bring it on in double quick time..? While launching programs to build our own EMALS and also miniaturised N-propulsion plant and have them ready for IAC-4 post 2035..? 15yrs for the two techs..? Doable..? I think we can retrofit our STOBAR ACs later with EMALS as well.

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Apr 2017 20:50

Keeping budgetary constraints in mind, a sensible strategy for India would be to build and induct one aircraft carrier every 10-years. That would keep shipbuilding skills alive indefinitely. For the next 10-years, Vikrant-2 is feasible given current Indian shipbuilding capabilities. After that, Vishal-1 with EMALS and nuclear propulsion would come about. Then Vishal-2/3 etc every decade. After 40 years, old carriers would be decommissioned which would mean the IN fleet would stabilize with around 4 to 5 carriers.

If the economy grows and is able to sustain more carriers in the future, then a new carrier could be constructed every 7-years (similar to what USN does presently).

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Apr 2017 20:58

The Zumwalt ships have oodles of power enough to fire off electromagnetic rail guns and is conventionally powered .

source wiki " 2 × Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines (35.4 MW (47,500 hp) each) driving Curtiss-Wright electric generators
2 × Rolls-Royce RR4500 turbine generators (3.8 MW (5,100 hp) each) "

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Apr 2017 21:01

maybe IN can get those R & R MT30 into aircraft carriers ..70 MW could easily power EMALS i think .. these power the QE british carriers as well

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Apr 2017 21:05

also do wonder whether four Kaveri marine engines could fit the bill !!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Apr 2017 21:05

JayS wrote:Can we not make IAC-3 with same design as that of IAC-2 i.e. STOBAR and bring it on in double quick time..? While launching programs to build our own EMALS and also miniaturised N-propulsion plant and have them ready for IAC-4 post 2035..? 15yrs for the two techs..? Doable..? I think we can retrofit our STOBAR ACs later with EMALS as well.

Certainly doable.

However, IF I am understanding the comms, there is an urgency around when the next IN carrier comes on-line AND that it be properly designed, for the tasks it is supposed to be built for. As I had posted earlier, there are two "phases" to this picture: pre-DTTI and post_DTTI. The pre includes the EMALS, Hawkeye and the like. The post is the one that is "consultancy" based: review design of Vishal, share design thinking and production techs. The USN then threw in certification of the Vikrant. The importance of all this came into focus when Tellis went to the extent of recommending that the USN share/provide nuclear techs with the IN!!!!

What is interesting is that the Pre-DTTI is pretty much all offer from the US/USN/whoever. The post_DTTI (or just plain DTTI) is all pretty much requests from India.

which is why I had also stated that I would not be surprised IF the Vishal grew in weight. Way out on the edge of space granted, but certainly a possibility IMO.

BTW, have not seen it on BR (not that I spend much time here any more), but India and the US (IN/USN?) signed a deal to share carrier techs (IEA is what it is called?) - they had to fill out which techs. It has been about a year now, so I suspect that has been completed, but not shared in public.

I think the biggest diff or major news with the Vishal will be how that boat is constructed. EMALS and the planes that it hosts will come after that.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 03 Apr 2017 21:58

chola wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:We should trade in the Vick as soon as the Vikrant is commissioned. Maybe the Ruskis will exchange it for a couple of SSNs.
Great idea but it is akin to asking an used car salesman to buy back his lemon.

Remember, the russkis had retired the Adm. Gorshkov. It was a completely obsolete design (missile cruiser with angled flight deck tacked on.). They did a great sales job getting our babus to buy into the concept of a STOBAR conversion that they had to do at Sevmash.

Not that it matters but, during the pre-commisioning problem phase, the Russkies (forget the name of the official) declared Russia was willing to take the Vicky back if the IN wasn't satisfied. They need a carrier more than we do.

Tangentially, I burst out laughing when the Russians were also sent collaboration proposals for the Vishal.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Apr 2017 22:19

Tangentially, I burst out laughing when the Russians were also sent collaboration proposals for the Vishal.

IIRC the Russians have provided assistance on the Vikrant. They have offered a 100,000 Ton nuclear powered Storm too. They have built the test facility in Goa. IMHO the Russians have behaved very predictably. I might not like their products, but cannot fault them, IMHO, for what they did - granted it could have handled in a far better fashion, especially the cost of the Vick.

I think what is happening is that the IN is in transition, between a UK/Russian thinking over to a US mentality. And it is driven by the future situation, not a negative reflection on any nation.

These are all, very, very expensive, growing pains. Do not see a way around them. To make decisions decades in advance, that too for an ever changing env is extremely difficult.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Apr 2017 22:25

Here is the article (IEA) I mentioned in my previous post.

April, 2016.

India, U.S. to conclude pact on aircraft carrier cooperation

India and the U.S. may not have signed the Logistics Support Agreement as planned during Defence Secretary Ashton Carter’s visit early this week but both sides are close to finalising an Information Exchange Agreement (IEA) on aircraft carrier technologies, as well as cooperation on air wing operations for carrier Vikrant under construction at Kochi.

The IEA will formalise the exact technology that the U.S. will share and at what classification level, design side, operations among other things, a senior U.S. Admiral said. Both sides had already signed the Terms of Reference on June 17, 2015 during the first meeting of the India-U.S. Joint Working Group (JWG) on carrier technology cooperation.

“We provided them a draft when I visited them in February and it is going through the necessary channels of the Indian government to make sure you are ok with it. We are very close,” said Rear Admiral Tom Moore in an exclusive interview to The Hindu, in the US capital late last month. He is the U.S. Navy’s Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers, and the Co-chair of the JWG. From the Indian side it is chaired by Vice Admiral G.S. Pubby, Controller for Warship Production and Acquisition.

“It is a necessary document to take the next step. We have made a lot of progress over the last year,” he noted.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 03 Apr 2017 22:49

kit wrote:The Zumwalt ships have oodles of power enough to fire off electromagnetic rail guns and is conventionally powered .

source wiki " 2 × Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines (35.4 MW (47,500 hp) each) driving Curtiss-Wright electric generators
2 × Rolls-Royce RR4500 turbine generators (3.8 MW (5,100 hp) each) "

Rail guns are launching a 300 Kg projectile, not a 18,000 Kg aircraft. An AC has over 300,000 HP purely on nuclear propulsion, and on top they have backup generators as well.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Apr 2017 23:54

sohamn wrote:
kit wrote:The Zumwalt ships have oodles of power enough to fire off electromagnetic rail guns and is conventionally powered .

source wiki " 2 × Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines (35.4 MW (47,500 hp) each) driving Curtiss-Wright electric generators
2 × Rolls-Royce RR4500 turbine generators (3.8 MW (5,100 hp) each) "

Rail guns are launching a 300 Kg projectile, not a 18,000 Kg aircraft. An AC has over 300,000 HP purely on nuclear propulsion, and on top they have backup generators as well.

The latest and greatest Ford Class USN AC has 2x300MW power plants..!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Apr 2017 00:43

Does anybody know the major differences between a flat-top helicopter carrier and an aircraft carrier. Let us say, we take any of our past (Vikrant, Virat) or present (IAC) aircraft carrier designs and remove the take off-and-landing assists, how un-optimized a helicopter carrier will we end up with?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Apr 2017 03:14

Indranil, check it out...article is from 2014

Not Every Flattop Is an Aircraft Carrier
http://www.realcleardefense.com/article ... 07238.html

Let’s face it. A 45,000 ton ship with a large, horizontal flight deck and up to 20 F-35B Joint Strike Fighters sure does look like an aircraft carrier. And I have to admit that on more than one occasion I have very publicly mused at the possibility of making better use of those planes to project seapower ashore rather than simply (or primarily) reserving them for the support of Marines ashore.

We must however, resist the urge to get sloppy with our designations simply because of budget constraints. The Congress of the United States requires the Navy to operate and maintain eleven aircraft carriers as a way of executing its responsibility to provide and maintain a Navy. I believe its intent here is clear, though admittedly the statute is worded in a manner which encourages the sort of mischief Dr. Farley advocates. So why is it important to get the designations right?

Moral of the Article: A [nuclear powered] aircraft carrier does power projection, a flat top cannot due to its technical limitations (lack of space, lack of nuclear power, etc). So the question to be asked is, what does India want?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Apr 2017 03:23

Some more articles on the topic...

USS America: The Navy's Newest Flattop Can't Decide What The Hell It Is
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/uss-am ... 1645391823

Japan launches flat-top destroyer Kaga, strengthening its fleet
https://www.stripes.com/news/japan-laun ... t-1.365090

The flat-top ships more closely resemble aircraft carriers, though they aren’t equipped with arresting wires, ski-jump ramps or other features used to launch fighter jets. The anti-war clause of Japan’s constitution has long been interpreted to bar weapons deemed offensive in nature, which includes aircraft carriers.

IMHO, power projection is VERY important for an rising country like India. But that power projection should be reflected in the annual defence budget. Unfortunately that is not the case and does not appear to be anytime in the near future. In light of that, it is better to have a sister ship to the Vikrant Class and get whatever plane that can fly off those vessels with a meaningful weapon load. I do realise that is an oxymoron, but that is what we have to live with.

I am more inclined in improving our submarine fleet. Woefully inadequte is the only term one can use diplomatically on BRF. Even 24 submarines (from the 30 year plan) is not enough. I would rather have a larger submarine fleet to a surface fleet.

Secondly, what is happening with our ASW helo purchase? We are talking about building nuclear powered, EMALs capable, aircraft carriers but MoD cannot even move the file in South Block for 16 ASW helicopters. What a joke this is.