INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 15 May 2020 16:04

hope to see a second one ordered ..what better boost to swadeshi

John · Post by **John** » 15 May 2020 17:10

Is that 3D ASR radar or Indra Lanza radar?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 May 2020 18:09

Any news of the sea trials?

hnair wrote:Celebration upcoming! Finally some dates on sea-trials and that seem close!

(source: tweet from a BRF favorite )
Ten years after I first visited the construction site at Cochin Shipyard where we had begun building the first indigenous aircraft carrier, I came back yesterday to step into INS Vikrant, just four months away from its trials at sea. Inspiring tour& briefing from a great team!

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 15 May 2020 18:55

Lockdown might have pushed it back... looking at the recent pictures just posted above --- does not look like it is ready yet

John · Post by **John** » 15 May 2020 19:46

Prithwiraj wrote:Lockdown might have pushed it back... looking at the recent pictures just posted above --- does not look like it is ready yet

Looks to be doing basin trials.

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 May 2020 01:12

^^^ I think basin trials mean that the sea trial is coming soon. From what I read basin trials are supposed to confirm that things are in working order before firing them up fully for sea trials. I assume you wouldn't test that stuff out and then let things sit for months so the test is no longer valid. I think sea trials will come soon.

But successful sea trials doesn't mean that work is done. There might still be a lot of things to do.

John · Post by **John** » 19 May 2020 05:06

Also It doesn’t look like MF-STAR has been fitted in yet.

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 21 May 2020 18:34

Covid-19 caused further delays for the trial of INS Vikrant

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2020/05/ ... craft.html

The long wait for India’s first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, is set to be even longer. Senior naval sources say the Covid-19 pandemic has set back the start of trials by at least six months – perhaps more if the lockdown and travel restrictions continue.

The first phase of the warship’s trials – termed basin trials – was initially scheduled to begin on March 12 at Cochin Shipyard Ltd (CSL), where INS Vikrant has been constructed. However, construction delays caused that to be moved back to April. Then, with the Covid-19 pandemic locking down facilities and travel, the navy says trials are unlikely to begin before September/October.

An example of the delay is the difficulty faced by marine engine specialists from Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) in travelling to Kochi for the trials. These HAL representatives are essential for the trials because the General Electric (GE) gas turbines that power INS Vikrant have been built and supplied by HAL’s collaborative venture with GE in Bengaluru. However, the HAL representatives are reluctant to travel to Kochi, where they would face 14 days of quarantine on arrival in Kerala and another 14 days quarantine on return to Bengaluru.

Similarly, there are about 40-50 vendor representatives, including 10 from abroad, who cannot come to Kochi for basin trials without facing the deterring prospect of mandatory quarantine.

“The navy has even offered to organise the vendors’ quarantine and to pay the expenses that are incurred. Given how much this delay in trials is escalating the cost of INS Vikrant, we would pay less for the quarantine and related expenditure. But the Kerala government is not agreeing to this,” says a navy admiral on condition of anonymity.

“We were optimistic about finding a solution because Kochi and Ernakulam are green zones. But when we request to the Kerala government, they say: ‘Yes, we are in a green zone but we don’t want to convert it back to a red zone’,” he said.

In his Navy Day press meeting last December, the navy chief, Admiral Karambir Singh, had said the navy would have a fully operational INS Vikrant before the end of 2022. The Covid-19 pandemic has already pushed that back to 2023 and further delays are possible.

Karambir Singh stated it was operationally essential for the navy to operate three aircraft carriers. It now appears that, for about three more years, it will have to make do with its lone carrier – the Russia-built INS Vikramaditya.

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 May 2020 20:15

^^^

These moves below were not the basin trials? What were they? The Vikrant moved away from dockside.

Rakesh wrote:Recent photos of Vikrant...

https://twitter.com/Isvikasnautiyal/sta ... 54784?s=20 --->

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 21 May 2020 20:50

May be to free up the dry dock for maintenance or other projects

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 28 May 2020 18:42

She's not in a dry dock, rather moored at outfitting quay. With tugboats around, doesn't look she's under own power.
Delay of six months or even more could not be caused by virus disruption only, they started only in late March.

Prithwiraj · Post by **Prithwiraj** » 28 May 2020 18:52

the article clearly stated that HAL personnel from marine turbine division are not willing to travel to Kerala.... etc. Also if overseas guys are also not able to travel for obvious reasons.....

chola · Post by **chola** » 28 May 2020 18:57

SNaik wrote:She's not in a dry dock, rather moored at outfitting quay. With tugboats around, doesn't look she's under own power.
Delay of six months or even more could not be caused by virus disruption only, they started only in late March.

Tugs are for maneuvering under harbor conditions too. She's definitely at a new location now according to the satellite photo below. She could have moved on her own to the new location with the final berthing helped by the tugs.

Look:

https://mobile.twitter.com/detresfa_/st ... 499419649p

d-atis
@detresfa_
Recent satellite data spots the #IndianNavy Indigenous Aircraft Carrier INS VIKRANT moving from its berth to new position as of May 2020, rumours suggest the movement took place using her own power indicating possible progress on the carrier's development

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 28 May 2020 22:33

Possible, when fully manned with trained crew. Which is definitely not the case at the moment.

John · Post by **John** » 28 May 2020 22:49

Thanks Chola you beat me to it with the reply.

Also if you notice the carrier looks to be missing few components including MF-STAR.

chola · Post by **chola** » 29 May 2020 17:11

So are these the basin trials? Basin trials would include running the engines and I assume navigation gear. Weapon acquisition systems like MF-STAR probably not necessary?

But nice to see pictures! First picture seems to be a ceremony before move. Not sure if the second picture has the tugboat actually tugging. If Vikrant moved under own power then this is the basin trial for sure. If not then maybe just a move to another part of the harbor.

* EDITED *

John · Post by **John** » 29 May 2020 18:58

For P-15A I recall the MF-STAR was installed prior to trail even while we waited for Barak-8 to finish development, not sure if there is some specific changes for Vikrant and that is holding it up. DRDO did have a specific entry for LRSAM for Vikrant:

LRSAM IAC ‐ Long Range Surface to Air Missile for Indigenous Aircraft Carrier

Added looks like the tweet has been deleted. Perhaps it hasn’t been approved for release.

chola · Post by **chola** » 29 May 2020 20:40

John wrote:For P-15A I recall the MF-STAR was installed prior to trail even while we waited for Barak-8 to finish development, not sure if there is some specific changes for Vikrant and that is holding it up. DRDO did have a specific entry for LRSAM for Vikrant:

LRSAM IAC ‐ Long Range Surface to Air Missile for Indigenous Aircraft Carrier
Added looks like the tweet has been deleted. Perhaps it hasn’t been approved for release.

Andreas Rupprecht is a respected China Watcher from Germany. It looks like those Vikrant pictures were from SDF one of the chini mil forums (none of those forums are actually in Cheen but US and Canada.)

I'll remove them just in case.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 29 May 2020 23:19

That side of the inlet is not Cochin Shipyard. That side is INS Venduruthy directly across from the shipyard, and further up (where INS Vikrant seemingly is) is Cochin Port.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 24 Aug 2020 07:31

Basin trails complete, next up harbour trails followed up by sea trails. Commissioning 2023.

This is an utterly beautiful and cutting edge ship but the time taken to build her and get her into service is utterly indefensible,2018 was a decent target, I don’t understand how they slipped by FIVE years. The navy seems to have given up on her as they became enthralled in bigger and better (IAC-2)

Forgetting the time delays it is a deep sadness that they didn’t order a sister ship for Vikrant, throwing away all the expertise after just 1 ship is criminal, when they get around to IAC-2 (surely not in this decade) they’ll be starting from scratch once again

+ does anyone have the definitive dimensions of the lifts?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 Aug 2020 08:41

Sad that Indian industry does not take these contracts as a challenge and tool to come of age. It is a shame that India is let down by both the buyer and the producers! Makes one lose hope!

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 Aug 2020 09:29

Worst part is none of these learning will be of any use since no 2nd copy of this is being ordered and we are already jumping onto the next complex shiniest thing wherein the same "our first time, so complex project hence a decade delay" can be trotted out

Same story as with the Scorpenes/IAC/AEWs etc

This thread started in 2012 and first few posts were about how it would be up and running by 2015-16 after all the delays!!!

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 24 Aug 2020 12:32

KSingh wrote:This is an utterly beautiful and cutting edge ship but the time taken to build her and get her into service is utterly indefensible,2018 was a decent target, I don’t understand how they slipped by FIVE years. The navy seems to have given up on her as they became enthralled in bigger and better (IAC-2)

Did you compare the time taken by other similar first of class ships?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)

Work on the ship's design began in 1999, and the keel was laid in February 2009. The carrier was floated out of its dry dock on 29 December 2011[14] and was launched on 12 August 2013. As of 2019, the ship is expected to start sea trials in February 2021 and enter into service in early 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford

Construction began on 11 August 2005, when Northrop Grumman held a ceremonial steel cut for a 15-ton plate that forms part of a side shell unit of the carrier. The keel of Gerald R. Ford was laid down on 13 November 2009.....Gerald R. Ford was delivered to the Navy on 31 May 2017 and formally commissioned on 22 July 2017. She is expected to leave on her first deployment around 2022.

Same for Queen Elizabeth

A lot of concurrent design work happens for first in class ships.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 24 Aug 2020 13:49

tsarkar wrote:...

It’s a fair point but I would argue that those 2 examples have faced more technical issues hence the delays- GF class is at the cutting edge and has been hampered by EMALS

QE’s delays were largely political, she was designed as a STOVL carrier which was scrapped mid way through (2010 SDR) and the govt pushed forward with a CATOBAR re-design which after a few years was reversed to the original STOVL design

Arguably the IAC-1 has had a much smoother journey in the sense that it isn’t at the bleeding edge of tech, all the delays just seem to have been self-imposed. That said I’m 100% confident that today CSL could make a sister ship in half the time but we all know that’s not going to happen. She’ll be launched and maybe in 5-7 years from now they’ll begin work on IAC-2 which will be plenty of time for all the supply chains and skilled labour dissolve and or move on.

I would have thought a self-styled ‘builder’s navy’ would be able to understand economies of scale and production stability

It’s the same story with the P-15As, could’ve ordered 7 from the start, instead they went for 3+ 4 15Bs and we all know how that has worked out

Maybe they’ve learned their lesson with 17A but even 7 of those isn’t sufficient. Could’ve had 10+

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Aug 2020 13:56

Bigger question in my mind, more than the delays, is why just one of this class?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 24 Aug 2020 15:12

KSingh wrote:Arguably the IAC-1 has had a much smoother journey in the sense that it isn’t at the bleeding edge of tech, all the delays just seem to have been self-imposed.

In my earlier post, I mentioned that IAC-1 was first in class. Just like a first in class fighter like Tejas requires immense lab based modelling followed by flight testing of the aerodynamics, a new first in class Aircraft Carrier also requires a lot of modelling and simulation. We dont have the data readily available and have to do everything from scratch.

KSingh wrote:QE’s delays were largely political, she was designed as a STOVL carrier which was scrapped mid way through (2010 SDR) and the govt pushed forward with a CATOBAR re-design which after a few years was reversed to the original STOVL design

In case of the IAC, it started off as a very modest Air Defence Ship (ADS).

Its displacement started from 28,000 tonnes and when in service is expected to be more than 40,000 tonnes. A lot of design iterations have happened on the way.

Its original purpose was to fly small and light Sea Harriers and Tejas with MTOW 12T & 13.5T.

It now has to fly 24.5 T MTOW MiG-29K & Rafale and possibly 30T F/A-18.

Because of these and other reasons, there has been multiple iterations leading to delays.

Funding from Government was not consistent, especially during the UPA era. Its only when MP became RM did work accelerate.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Aug 2020 17:58

KSingh wrote:It’s a fair point but I would argue that those 2 examples have faced more technical issues hence the delays- GF class is at the cutting edge and has been hampered by EMALS

QE’s delays were largely political, she was designed as a STOVL carrier which was scrapped mid way through (2010 SDR) and the govt pushed forward with a CATOBAR re-design which after a few years was reversed to the original STOVL design.

Both the QE class, and CVN-78 are actively conducting CQ's at the moment. In fact the CVN-78 is, for the rest of the year, the sole USN AC that is going to be handling all East Coast carrier CQ's for the remaining part of the year. Ford also has to qualify the EMALS and AAG for the entire US navy fleet so that too takes months and hundreds of sorties to do. In fact, they've now certified each fixed wing type for EMALS/AAG with at sea trials except for the F-35C (which won't be done on CVN-78). If it weren't for extensive testing, like shock trials for example, Ford could deploy more than a year ahead of when it is currently slated (probably by mid 2021 instead of late 2022). I'm not even sure whether the other two first in class carriers will even have shock trials. I'm pretty sure no such testing is planned for the QE.

QE likewise is actively doing CQ and is preparing for her first operational deployment next year. She has been busy because in addition to trialing the ship, he role is also to serve as the platform that qualifies a new fighter type to operate off of a STOBAR carrier. This process has involved multiple cross Atlantic journeys where it has done developmental and integration testing for the F-35B's carrier operations and suitability. So in a way, these ships are in the hands of the operators, crew, and are going through fleet integration, carrier qualification and operational training prior to deployment. In case of the Ford, the timelines will be different because she will get the shock trials prior to deployment and those come with uncertainties as any damage caused by shock trials needs time to be repaired and fully tested/re-certified etc.

There is a difference b/w when a ship is inducted, or handed over to the service and when it is fully capable, and equipped to embark on an operational deployment. In the end, the last date is the "real" metric that the services would be interested in with the rest being milestones that will help define how quickly it gets there. QE deploys next year. Ford will deploy a year later and go on a full length cruise (based on current plans subject to change).

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Aug 2020 19:09

KSingh wrote:+ does anyone have the definitive dimensions of the lifts?

The lifts can currently carry the MiG-29K and the Tejas Mk1.

Boeing has confirmed that the F-18 will fit on the lifts. The Rafale M cannot fit on the lifts. Dassault is suggesting detachable wingtips.

F-35B and F-35C will not fit either. I am not sure about TEDBF.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Aug 2020 19:10

Cain Marko wrote:Bigger question in my mind, more than the delays, is why just one of this class?

Another vessel of the class - with wider lifts - would have made sense. But the Navy wants IAC-2 and as per the Navy's own admission will take 15 years to build. I will add another 5 years to that, at minimum.

The 40,000 tonne IAC-1 is expected to take 15 years from keel laying (Feb 2009) to commissioning (2023/2024).

The planned 65,000 tonne IAC-2 will take much longer.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Aug 2020 19:15

The F-35C has a 9 meter folded wingspan so I don't think that will be an issue. Haven't checked other dimensions. But I suspect, given its IWB and large internal fuel carriage, it would not have as good as a range/payload when taking off from a STOBAR carrier. The F-35B would probably have been best suited had it been able to fold its wings. It should get about the same combat radius as the MiG-29K but as is it cannot fit on the lifts either.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Aug 2020 19:18

I stand corrected.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Aug 2020 22:35

Rakesh wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Bigger question in my mind, more than the delays, is why just one of this class?
Another vessel of the class - with wider lifts - would have made sense. But the Navy wants IAC-2 and as per the Navy's own admission will take 15 years to build. I will add another 5 years to that, at minimum.

The 40,000 tonne IAC-1 is expected to take 15 years from keel laying (Feb 2009) to commissioning (2023/2024).

The planned 65,000 tonne IAC-2 will take much longer.

I have a nagging suspicion that the length of time it takes to build a ship in India is a function of budget and not the industrial capacity of the yard. So if the budget is improved and made available on a timely basis the ship itself can be finished in 5 to 6 years.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Aug 2020 13:26

Pratyush wrote:I have a nagging suspicion that the length of time it takes to build a ship in India is a function of budget and not the industrial capacity of the yard. So if the budget is improved and made available on a timely basis the ship itself can be finished in 5 to 6 years.

Absolutely true. Money is released in tranches depending on milestones achieved. Each release has its own decision cycle.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/busin ... 93411.html

The company had signed the Phase-III contract for construction of the indigenous aircraft carrier on October 31, a press release said.

The Phase-III contract covers the operational and harbour acceptance trials of various equipment and systems installed onboard and also the sea trials of the carrier, which is to be handed over to the Indian Navy in 2021. It will be known as INS Vikrant once commissioned.

The contract also covers post-delivery activates, including support during weapon and aviation trials.

In between funding, its chai samosa for everyone in the canteen.

Sometimes hull is ready but weapons and systems are not ordered. Sometimes weapons and systems sit in warehouses while hull isn't ready.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Aug 2020 13:40

Rakesh wrote:
KSingh wrote:+ does anyone have the definitive dimensions of the lifts?
The lifts can currently carry the MiG-29K and the Tejas Mk1.

Boeing has confirmed that the F-18 will fit on the lifts. The Rafale M cannot fit on the lifts. Dassault is suggesting detachable wingtips.

F-35B and F-35C will not fit either. I am not sure about TEDBF.

The aviation complex for IAC-1 (Hanger Design, Lifts, Arresting Gear, Landing Instrumentation) were ordered from Russia who designed it for MiG-29K. LCA Navy Mk1 being smaller would have fit. Given that IN was not looking beyond LCA Navy Mk1 at that point of time, they didnt demand compatibility with all naval aircraft globally.

Having said that, as size of aircraft increases, aircraft carrier lifts are redesigned and rebuilt over the lifetime of the aircraft carrier.

The old carrier INS Vikrant was modernized to carry the Sea Harrier when it was designed to carry the old Sea Hawk.

Re-designing and re-building the new INS Vikrant elevators is no big deal. Been there done that in the 80's. Max one year of work.

Well within the capabilities of Indian Engineering Companies like L&T.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 25 Aug 2020 14:15

tsarkar wrote:In between funding, its chai samosa for everyone in the canteen.

Sometimes hull is ready but weapons and systems are not ordered. Sometimes weapons and systems sit in warehouses while hull isn't ready.

A country that's not serious about its defence deserves to be conquered. We had been that country, and sadly, still seem to be.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 28 Aug 2020 19:29

Rakesh wrote:
KSingh wrote:+ does anyone have the definitive dimensions of the lifts?
The lifts can currently carry the MiG-29K and the Tejas Mk1.

Boeing has confirmed that the F-18 will fit on the lifts. The Rafale M cannot fit on the lifts. Dassault is suggesting detachable wingtips.

F-35B and F-35C will not fit either. I am not sure about TEDBF.

TEDBF is being explicitly designed to fit into the footprint of the MIG-29K so their ability to fit on the lifts is a given

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Aug 2020 19:36

That is a relief. Thank You.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 28 Aug 2020 20:00

KSingh wrote:
Rakesh wrote: The lifts can currently carry the MiG-29K and the Tejas Mk1.

Boeing has confirmed that the F-18 will fit on the lifts. The Rafale M cannot fit on the lifts. Dassault is suggesting detachable wingtips.

F-35B and F-35C will not fit either. I am not sure about TEDBF.
TEDBF is being explicitly designed to fit into the footprint of the MIG-29K so their ability to fit on the lifts is a given

Omniously reminds me of the performance limitations on Tejas due to its dimensions being limited to MiG 21s. Would be happy if found to be wrong.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 28 Aug 2020 20:40

SidSoma wrote:
KSingh wrote: TEDBF is being explicitly designed to fit into the footprint of the MIG-29K so their ability to fit on the lifts is a given
Omniously reminds me of the performance limitations on Tejas due to its dimensions being limited to MiG 21s. Would be happy if found to be wrong.

That was a strange requirement from the IAF becuase HAS can be expanded with little effort or cost

It makes sense for TEDBF given the nature of the aircraft complex on the IAC-1 and Vikramaditya that were explicitly designed around the MIG-29K. ADA’s bird will be able to operate from both without the navy having to put either of their flattops through expensive and labour intensive overhauls, this is a huge pro in their column.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Aug 2020 01:46

KSingh wrote:
Rakesh wrote: The lifts can currently carry the MiG-29K and the Tejas Mk1.

Boeing has confirmed that the F-18 will fit on the lifts. The Rafale M cannot fit on the lifts. Dassault is suggesting detachable wingtips.

F-35B and F-35C will not fit either. I am not sure about TEDBF.
TEDBF is being explicitly designed to fit into the footprint of the MIG-29K so their ability to fit on the lifts is a given

TEDBF design is in a preliminary stage. With 2 F414 engines and an unavoidably larger wingspan than the Tejas Mk1, plus adequate space for internal fuel it is impossible for the final product to be smaller than the Rafale. The only way it can fit into the footprint of the Mig-29K is if it has folding wings.