INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

John · Post by **John** » 13 Sep 2020 03:34

Once again this is not the Indian aviation thread it is Vikrant news and discussion thread please stick to the topic.

There is Naval aviation for any discussions on F-35 and catapults please use naval aviation thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7308&start=1440

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2020 08:01

=== useless Russian ware peddling post deleted ===

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Oct 2020 05:02

Swarjyamag has this https://swarajyamag.com/amp/story/insta ... n-shipyard

chola · Post by **chola** » 28 Oct 2020 13:22

Vivek K wrote:Swarjyamag has this https://swarajyamag.com/amp/story/insta ... n-shipyard

There is so much stuff on deck. With basin and sea trials coming up, I thought it would be much cleaner now with most structural construction done.

John · Post by **John** » 29 Oct 2020 04:46

Vivek K wrote:Swarjyamag has this https://swarajyamag.com/amp/story/insta ... n-shipyard

The large air search radar doesnt look like Lanza or the BEL 3D air surveillance radar that was recently displayed.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 29 Oct 2020 10:17

John wrote:The large air search radar doesnt look like Lanza or the BEL 3D air surveillance radar that was recently displayed.

Selex RAN-40L

https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/pres ... s-in-india

More recently Selex ES has been awarded a contract to supply the Indian Navy with its 3D L Band Air Surveillance Radar (RAN-40L) which will be installed on-board the new aircraft carrier at Cochin Shipyard.

John · Post by **John** » 29 Oct 2020 13:53

I thought we scraped the procurement for RAN-40l after Leonardo-Finmeccanica was banned?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 29 Oct 2020 15:03

Deal was already concluded. Exceptions can be made with banned companies, especially for purchase of spares

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2020 23:21

Kattupalli.Then where will the aircraft be stationed on land? There are two existing options.The naval air station at ARK or perhaps the IAF's base at Tambaram. Not sure if there are old WW2 airstrips north of Katu.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 30 Oct 2020 00:24

Philip wrote:Kattupalli.Then where will the aircraft be stationed on land? There are two existing options.The naval air station at ARK or perhaps the IAF's base at Tambaram. Not sure if there are old WW2 airstrips north of Katu.

Mumbai?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Oct 2020 08:41

Philip wrote:Kattupalli.Then where will the aircraft be stationed on land? There are two existing options.The naval air station at ARK or perhaps the IAF's base at Tambaram. Not sure if there are old WW2 airstrips north of Katu.

The disused airstrip at Sholavaram nearby was being re-built. Don't know the current status.
IAF to turn unused Sholavaram airstrip into its first east coast surveillance base

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 30 Oct 2020 16:13

Philip wrote:Kattupalli.Then where will the aircraft be stationed on land? There are two existing options.The naval air station at ARK or perhaps the IAF's base at Tambaram. Not sure if there are old WW2 airstrips north of Katu.

Old INS Vikrant spent its South West Monsoons at Madras with aircraft at Tambaram. Tambaram is 60 km from Kattupalli which is minutes in aircraft time. Maybe IN base at Arakkonam that is 100 km from Kattupalli will be used. It anyways has massive infra for P-8I and Tu-142M that is empty since their retirement.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Dec 2020 01:12

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/133 ... 37861?s=20 ---> India's first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-1) completes basin trials, will enter the final phase of sea trials early 2021. Expected to be commissioned late 2021 or early 2022.

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Dec 2020 07:43

^^^ Wonderful news and photos. Cannot wait for shots of her in open waters during sea trials!

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 02 Dec 2020 06:49

^^ Brilliant. Want to see Vikrant showing off in South China Sea soon

Do the Sea Trials also mean landings and take offs?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 02 Dec 2020 08:10

With commissioning so close, what are IN plans for its air component?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Dec 2020 09:45

Sid wrote:With commissioning so close, what are IN plans for its air component?

The fixed wing component will see the MiG-29K/KUB. The Naval Tejas Mk1 could be there in test mode. No combat role. The future will see TEDBF though.

The rotary wing component will see the MH-60R, along with the Ka-31. Not sure how many Ka-28 or Sea King Mk42 airworthy airframes are available. Both are long in the tooth.

And assuming the 36 carrier borne fighter aircraft deal comes through, then that might also be on board once the MiG-29K retires in the 2030s. 57 examples have been reduced to 36 due to budgetary shortfalls and it appears even 36 may not come.

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Dec 2020 16:09

Rishi_Tri wrote:^^ Brilliant. Want to see Vikrant showing off in South China Sea soon

Do the Sea Trials also mean landings and take offs?

No. Initial sea trials are usually wringing out the propulsion and navigation systems. The aviation complex comes much later. We might get some "touch-and-go" (touching down on angled flight deck and then flying off again) before the full-blown launch and recovery trials though.

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Dec 2020 16:23

Rakesh wrote:
Sid wrote:With commissioning so close, what are IN plans for its air component?
The fixed wing component will see the MiG-29K/KUB. The Naval Tejas Mk1 could be there in test mode. No combat role. The future will see TEDBF though.

The rotary wing component will see the MH-60R, along with the Ka-31. Not sure how many Ka-28 or Sea King Mk42 airworthy airframes are available. Both are long in the tooth.

And assuming the 36 carrier borne fighter aircraft deal comes through, then that might also be on board once the MiG-29K retires in the 2030s. 57 examples have been reduced to 36 due to budgetary shortfalls and it appears even 36 may not come.

I hope we can see the TEDBF prototype soon. Maybe its DNA from NLCA can shorten the development time but realistically I don't think we can bank on the TEDBF before the next decade. This is still a new design with two engines instead of one.

So unless we decide on an interim buy of the F-18 or Rafale M, it will have to be the MiG-29K for at least 10 years. And any possible interim buy is complicated by the need to work out issues with the Vikrant's small lifts. So the chances are it will be just the 29K until the TEDBF arrives post 2030.

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 02 Dec 2020 18:36

I think we have to worry about enough aircraft for both the carriers only if both are operational at the same time. Since it was previously suggested that we should have 3 carriers so that any one can be under repair/refit at any time, the same logic can be followed now so that both the MIG-29s and Aircraft Carriers will be sparingly used -- Have one carrier operational at any one time and let the other be in reserve.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 03 Dec 2020 09:37

Even if we have one carrier operational at the time and that seems to be the new strategy now. How much time would it take for that CBG to deploy from say the Gujarat coast to the Malacca straights post receiving emergency deployment orders.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Dec 2020 10:26

Too long for immediate action,would take sev. days,why a supersonic maritime strike aircraft equipped with a doz.+ LRCMs,BMos,etc. is reqd. wiich can be in the straits within a couple of hrs. and still hit targets in the ICS!

jaysimha · Post by **jaysimha** » 03 Dec 2020 16:18

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/livefist/status/133 ... 37861?s=20 ---> India's first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-1) completes basin trials, will enter the final phase of sea trials early 2021. Expected to be commissioned late 2021 or early 2022.

really glad to notice HAL person on Vikrant ....

will love to see HAL aircrafts on Vikrant ASAP

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Dec 2020 05:34

There will be no compromise: General Bipin Rawat
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/inte ... 2020-12-18

Q. When we met in February, you had objections regarding the navy’s proposal for a third aircraft carrier. Do those objections still stand given the altered threat perception?

A. Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep, these are unsinkable aircraft carriers. Today, there is so much visibility on the battlefield, there is absolute transparency, whether you use satellites or drones or UAVs or any system. Anything which moves on the surface, even on land, is dead. Anything at sea will get picked up. And today you’ve got fairly accurate systems to bring down anything on land or at sea. So aircraft carriers are going to be vulnerable. One might say they keep moving, but so does the chap have the capability to keep you under observation. Adversaries have systems that will target you based on where you are next. Therefore we need to carry out an indepth assessment of requirement of aircraft carriers, grey hull ships, submarines and above all our ability to maintain all round surveillance and to target the adversary’s sea going vessels and aircraft.

chola · Post by **chola** » 23 Dec 2020 13:53

^^^ This cannot be very encouraging for our carrier corps. With all respect to the good general, the carrier is not dead. In fact, fleets around the world are getting carriers big and small. Our chief rival is building up to 10 fleet carriers along with LHAs.

India which has pioneered the aircraft carrier in Asia now will now allow the that arm to atrophy? With long lead times of over a decade, we are already well into 2030s for any new ship. If this attitude is entrenched in the upper echelons of MoD and DMA for a few cycles then we can forego seeing a new carrier in the coming decades. The Vikramaditya's hull is already nearly 40 years old.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Dec 2020 23:13

No 65,000K aircraft carrier will get commissioned as long as the present CDS has his way. The whole point of the CDS is one person recommending to his political bosses of future force requirements. Convince the CDS of a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier (with all the bells & whistles) and then the Navy can get what it wants. Regardless of the merits of land based air bases vs aircraft carriers, if there is no funding available...then nothing will move.

If the Naval HQ plays her cards well, she can get the bells-and-whistles aircraft carrier down the road. For now, lay the keel for a modified, second Vikrant Class vessel.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Dec 2020 23:52

CDS is giving a lot of takleef & heartburn to the arms lobbies and phoren combat aircraft manufacturers by statements like this (highlighted in blue). The sheer thought of a non-CATOBAR aircraft carrier is sacrilege to these folks. Without CATOBAR, the Indian Navy is doomed to lose onlee.

Carrier Or Submarine For Navy? Being Examined, Says General Bipin Rawat
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/state-o ... vy-2338616

"Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Submarines have their separate place in the naval warfare and so does an aircraft carrier. I am in no way saying the Navy does not need its Air wing. Yes it needs an Air wing. But how to manage it and how to ensure the security and sanctity of our sea lines of communication we are thinking about," he said. General Rawat indicated a probable alternative to an aircraft carrier.

"I think you also need to look at our Island territories that we have in large numbers. If we can leverage our Island territories to our advantage, then we can balance out... this can be used as territories to launch naval strike aircraft or do we need an aircraft carrier. Once we have studied all that in detail we will take a call," he said.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 24 Dec 2020 04:19

Rakesh wrote:Carrier Or Submarine For Navy? Being Examined, Says General Bipin Rawat
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/state-o ... vy-2338616

"I think you also need to look at our Island territories that we have in large numbers. If we can leverage our Island territories to our advantage, then we can balance out... this can be used as territories to launch naval strike aircraft or do we need an aircraft carrier. Once we have studied all that in detail we will take a call," he said.

could be that we might be go for a repeat of Vikrant, cost effective, possibly with some design changes for F18 if there is a political decision to buy. Else NLCA/NAMCA Zindabad.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Dec 2020 05:54

Any design changes for F-18 will have to be borne by the customer and the already cash strapped IN will not do anything of the sort. And the F-18 is a proven naval fighter. It does not require any design changes. And Boeing will have to agree to such a design change. Anything radical will not happen.

And there is no Naval AMCA. There is only TEDBF/NLCA. That's it.

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Dec 2020 09:00

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation ... 40484.html

‘Third aircraft carrier is essential for India given China’s activities’
A third aircraft carrier is a necessity for India due to operational and tactical reasons, especially in the context of China’s growing imprint on the Indian Ocean, said a senior Navy officer

By Mayank Singh
Express News Service

NEW DELHI: A third aircraft carrier is a necessity for India due to operational and tactical reasons, especially in the context of China’s growing imprint on the Indian Ocean, said a senior Navy officer.

“Three aircraft carriers are tactically needed with one each on the Eastern and Western sea board at any given time while the third will be under refit,” the officer said.

“To deny it just for financial crunch is misplaced understanding. We require a third aircraft carrier for operational and tactical reasons.”
...
The officer said the Navy cannot lose a skill mastered in the last 60 years as it takes time to develop the skill-set in terms of operational design and development. An aircraft carrier, the officer asserted, adds to the “surge capability” as the fighter jets operating from land will always have their limitations.

Given the Chinese belligerence in the Indian Ocean, the officer said the country will have to extend air power into far-off areas like the Malacca Strait on one side and Gulf of Aden on the other. “Concentration of force is a principle of war. If you have two operationally ready carriers, you can be active in two areas. If needed, you can move it, bringing a different environment to the battle.”

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Dec 2020 09:39

chola wrote:https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation ... 40484.html

‘Third aircraft carrier is essential for India given China’s activities’
A third aircraft carrier is a necessity for India due to operational and tactical reasons, especially in the context of China’s growing imprint on the Indian Ocean, said a senior Navy officer

“To deny it just for financial crunch is misplaced understanding. We require a third aircraft carrier for operational and tactical reasons.”

Therein lies the fault in the Navy's thinking. Right there highlighted in red. To be fair to the Navy, it is a problem that exists in equal measure in the Army and the Air Force. Will wear horse blinders and will only look at my service's needs. I don't care if the country can afford it or not, but what I want...I must have. With this kind of attitude and thinking, progress will be slow. Painfully slow. In order to get what the Navy wants, the other services will have to give up something what they want. Someone has to blink first.

And to claim that financial crunch is *JUST* misplaced understanding is just appalling. If there is no money to fund the carrier, from who or where is the Navy expecting the funds to come from? What planet is the senior leadership of the navy living in? No Money = No Carrier. This basic fact has to be explained to them? Like really?

No wonder a recent article stated that the Navy Chief believes he can have it all - six SSNs, six P-75I, a third aircraft carrier, phoren carrier borne fighters, phoren helicopters, etc.

The Navy can have a third carrier....but the 65,000 ton, EMALS equipped, nuclear powered + phoren carrier borne aircraft is fanciful thinking. Go with a larger Vikrant vessel or just go with the same size, but wider lifts. Quicker build time + Quicker induction. If the third carrier is this essential - given China's activities - then do this. If China's activities is this concerning to the Indian Navy, will not the third bells-and-whistles carrier be too little and too late in 20 years when she comes on the scene? Who is the Navy trying to fool?

A tweet that I initially posted in the Project 75I thread...and the Navy list below does not include the third carrier and the phoren carrier borne fighters.

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 46976?s=20 ---> Although there are some mistakes, this is the list of pending big ticket agreements for Indian military.

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Dec 2020 09:46

^^^ Number 1 on the IAF's life. $24B for phoren fighters. Rather spend that on a CATOBAR that will be built in India. And you will still have $10B left over for more of number 2 on the IAF's list.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Dec 2020 09:46

Even that is not going to happen. Good luck.

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Dec 2020 10:01

Admiral saar, the money for a carrier is split up over many years because it takes at least a decade to build and you are paying manpower, construction and material costs over that time. We are not paying for 65K tons of specialized steel all at once. And that money goes back into our industrial base. The AB/A grade steel for Vikrant was developed in India and forged in India by the Steel Authority (SAIL) because the Russkies fell through. A massive upgrade in the country's capability because of the carrier project. The CATOBAR will have even more beneficial spinoff effects because of the technology involved.

And even a new Vikrant will take over a decade to built. Is it worth it for yet another STOBAR that is fundamentally limited as a concept? IMO, the Navy is right in holding out for a CATOBAR.

With inflation, things will only get more expensive in the future. So we will never buy any big ticket item that will take years to build because the cost will always be high?

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 24 Dec 2020 10:34

why does our navy thinks that they can play defend India coast in arabian sea, bay of bengal and can come up on the top all the time in a naval war with china?
China with type 002, type 003 and type 004 aircraft carriers, which no one truly knows as to how many they will end up with by 2045.
My guess is that chineese would like to have atleast 50% more aircraft carriers than US. can we fight such an enemy with just two small size and one medium size Carrier and that too in a defensive mode?
Its time, Indian Navy is funded on par with Indian Army and we should go on a fast route of Nuke Reactor powered Aircraft Carriers of 5 more with at least 85K displacement.

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Dec 2020 11:08

^^^ I don't know if you are being sarcastic but not even I would ask for five 85K ton carriers. Obviously that would be beyond any possibility of funding. I only hope we can get a CATOBAR at 65K tons which is pretty modest and then get a sister ship later on. We need to keep the carrier arm relevant which I don't think is possible with STOBARs in an era where Cheen is fielding CATOBARs.

Unfortunately, the IN always had the smallest share of the budget and the standoff in Ladakh will put even more emphasis on the landward frontier so the Army and IAF will likely get more. I only hope for a carrier to signed so the carrier arm will get new ship in the 2030s when the VikA will be over a half century in age. I would be happy with another Vikrant class personally at this point. But the IN wants that CATOBAR and I wish they get it.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 Dec 2020 11:48

As long the armed forces keep lusting for imports, there will not be adequate funds for building the right sized force. India needs to develop local solutions to reduce the cost while delivering the required capability. The Chinese MIC is in full swing and will be rapidly adding hardware and capability for the Chinese forces. So unless India builds up domestic capability, it will be left behind and national security will be jeopardized.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 24 Dec 2020 12:00

chola wrote:^^^ I don't know if you are being sarcastic but not even I would ask for five 85K ton carriers. Obviously that would be beyond any possibility of funding. I only hope we can get a CATOBAR at 65K tons which is pretty modest and then get a sister ship later on. We need to keep the carrier arm relevant which I don't think is possible with STOBARs in an era where Cheen is fielding CATOBARs.

Unfortunately, the IN always had the smallest share of the budget and the standoff in Ladakh will put even more emphasis on the landward frontier so the Army and IAF will likely get more. I only hope for a carrier to signed so the carrier arm will get new ship in the 2030s when the VikA will be over a half century in age. I would be happy with another Vikrant class personally at this point. But the IN wants that CATOBAR and I wish they get it.

I am being serious, how can Indian navy face a 500 ship navy with two or three puny carriers? How long can navy hope to play defensive game against a country that eventually might deploy 15 100K carriers?
India needs to get its act together and increase the funding to each of its arms with a minimum of 1% of GDP dedicated to each of its armed service arms.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Dec 2020 12:03

chola wrote:Admiral saar, the money for a carrier is split up over many years because it takes at least a decade to build and you are paying manpower, construction and material costs over that time.

This line has been repeated a number of times on BRF. And I am aware of that. Now here are some hard numbers.

New weapons purchases suffer under India’s latest defense budget
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia ... se-budget/
04 February 2020

India’s defense budget for 2020-2021 will be $73.65 billion, the country government announced Saturday....

Wow! $73.65 billion for the services in 2020-21? Am sure the services can buy everything they need. But read the fine print below.

...but officials and analysts are warning the amount is unlikely to meet new demands for weapons purchases and military modernization, as India is set to spend about 90% of its defense funds on existing obligations.

Of the total budget, $18.52 billion is for weapons purchases; $32.7 billion is for maintenance of the military’s weapons inventory, pay and allowances, infrastructure, and recurring expenses; and $21.91 billion is for defense pensions.

Now take the $18.52 billion for weapons purchases and divide that (but not equally) among the three services. Every service states that its needs are the most urgent. Ask the Navy and they will say that the bells-and-whistles aircraft carrier is more urgent than the 114 MRFA deal. If you ask the Air Force, they will scoff at the aircraft carrier (like all air forces around the world do) and call it a waste of money. We in the Air Force have the squadron shortage and we need that money more urgently than the navy does. The Army has its own requirements and will fight tooth-and-nail for every coin.

chola wrote:We are not paying for 65K tons of specialized steel all at once. And that money goes back into our industrial base. The AB/A grade steel for Vikrant was developed in India and forged in India by the Steel Authority (SAIL) because the Russkies fell through. A massive upgrade in the country's capability because of the carrier project.

The cost of INS Vikrant is nearly $4 billion to date and that number will go upwards (remains to be seen by how much) as the commissioning date nears. Now taking your statement above, lets state that $4 billion was divided over the course of 10 years or a decade, so that works out to $400 million that has to be invested into the program each year. And that number is believable, because $420 million was invested in 2019 for Phase III of the build program of INS Vikrant.

Now let us look at the cost of a new build, new design, new technology vessel called INS Vishal. Designed to be 65,000 ton (a big increase in cost), a nuclear reactor which is another increase in cost and EMALS which is yet another increase in cost. The 57 air wing (before being reduced to 36) was expected to cost another $14 - $15 billion. If INS Vikrant costs $4 billion to date, how much will INS Vishal cost?

One is looking at a figure nothing short of close to $8 - $9 billion just for the vessel alone, which includes cost overruns and delays. And I am being conservative. That works out to an investment of minimum $800 million a year, so double the $400 million that is being invested each year now into INS Vikrant. And I state again, I am being conservative. Can the MoD afford that in light of all the other projects that has to be funded? The math does not exist and that is just the cost issue.

The Navy is doing voodoo mathematics in light of funding the six SSN program, six P75I program, the 111 NUH program, the Project 15B program, the Project 17A program, X number of phoren carrier borne fighters, etc, etc, etc. And this is just the Navy. The IAF's 114 MRFA program is going to go the way of the dodo, but in its place will be a reduced number of additional Rafales or another type of MRFA, plus 83 Tejas Mk1As, plus the Super Sukhoi upgrade, etc, etc, etc. All coming in the next decade. The Army has a list too long to type. I say again, Naval HQ is doing some weird voodoo math in coming up with the theory that this is all financially possible.

Once steel cutting commences on INS Vishal, that consistent amount of minimum $800 million has to be invested each year for the vessel to continue her progression into an aircraft carrier. Otherwise construction will stop and the vessel will just sit there as an unfinished hull. So the argument that we can fund a few programs in one year (i.e. INS Vishal and P-75I) and then fund another few programs (six SSN + 111 NUH) the following year, is not going to fly either. If Naval HQ wants it all, then they are going to have to pay for it all every year, till program completion. And all programs are needed, because there is shortage of all those platforms. The goal is not unobtanium platforms, but quicker acquisition platforms.

chola wrote:The CATOBAR will have even more beneficial spinoff effects because of the technology involved.

Among all the Western nations that operate carriers, only the French Navy operates a CATOBAR equipped aircraft carrier, apart from the US. And that CATOBAR system is acquired from the United States. That CATOBAR spinoff was so fabulous & beneficial for the French, that their second vessel (which they just announced) will have EMALS, again from the United States.

General Atomics is not going to give the ToT to the French and neither will they give that to India, assuming the Indian Navy gets EMALS. India will buy that system, as is from General Atomics and for every issue...India will have to run back to them onlee to resolve.

Chola, from where do you come up with these utopian theories?

chola wrote:And even a new Vikrant will take over a decade to built. Is it worth it for yet another STOBAR that is fundamentally limited as a concept? IMO, the Navy is right in holding out for a CATOBAR.

Here is the timeframe issue. As per the Navy's own admission, INS Vishal will take 15 years to commission. If a 40,000 ton vessel took nearly 13 years to commission (from keel laying in Feb 2009 to commissioning in 2021 end), a new design vessel with more than 50% greater tonnage than INS Vikrant and with much more complex machinery is going to take a mere 15 years and that too in an Indian shipyard? This vessel will take two decades to enter service, considering the complexity involved. It will be a case of too little, too late in 20 years.

So a wait time for two decades for a vessel to enter service versus one decade for a follow on Vikrant Class vessel. In 10 years, the PLAN will be much ahead, but in 20 years...the PLAN will be even further ahead. And STOBAR is limited versus CATOBAR in the amount of weaponry + fuel that a combat aircraft can launch with and a CATOBAR can launch aircraft quicker as well, but is that worth the wait time of 20 years? A new or follow-on Vikrant Class vessel can be commissioned by the early 2030s, while INS Vishal will be nowhere on the horizon in 10 years.

chola wrote:With inflation, things will only get more expensive in the future. So we will never buy any big ticket item that will take years to build because the cost will always be high?

India does not have the luxury of time in big ticket items. What India needs is platforms that can be acquired in the shortest time possible. Everything from submarines to aircraft carriers to combat aircraft to main battle tanks to a personal infantry weapon needs to be acquired ASAP. There is no time for white elephant projects like INS Vishal. I really hope the CDS kills the bells-and-whistles aircraft carrier program and replaces it with a more sensible one.

There is neither the time nor the money to fund this foolishness, especially to entertain foreign arms lobbies and acquire even more white elephant programs called F-18SH Block III or Rafale M or whatever other platform that catches Naval HQ's fancy.

And there is neither the time nor the money to fund this foolishness, to engage an enemy in 20 years at our backyard in the Indian Ocean or in their backyard which is the South China Sea.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Dec 2020 12:07

rajsunder wrote: I am being serious, how can Indian navy face a 500 ship navy with two or three puny carriers? How long can navy hope to play defensive game against a country that eventually might deploy 15 100K carriers?

This is what following the China Military Watch thread does to folks on BRF.

rajsunder, even the PLAN does not have a plan for fifteen 100,000K aircraft carriers. Even the mighty and infallible PLAN cannot afford this. They have reduced their future aircraft carrier acquisitions as well. Even they are facing a cash shortage.