ramana wrote:Answering my own questions from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)
Schedule and Cost
I think without further delay the next ship should be laid down to the same designs to ensure commonality.
I recall Admiral Ramdas once saying three ships of a class is the minimum order quantity for Indian shipyards.
This allows the supply chain to be viable.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian- ... yed-505119
In 2003, Phase 1 (14K-18k tonnes of Hull) budget was to be INR 3200 crore, wound up at least 2000 crore or more over budget and delayed.
Special steel from Russia was not available and SAIL had to make it. - Delay.
Faulty gearboxes had to be redone - delay
There was also an issue with diesel generators - delay.
Cost was then expected to be INR 12000-14000 crore overall or 7000-9000 crore for Phase 2 (hah!)
Phase 2 approval wound up taking 19000 crore.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 034399.cms
What you will not see is delays in getting funding approval, re-estimating etc - but they were surely there IMHO. Especially between Phase 1 & Phase 2, IIRC.
he CCS note for “approving INS Vikrant’s cost and timeframe” was ready last year itself
but did not get approval
https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... r-project/
There were administrative and procedural delays (approvals etc) in getting aircraft carrier equipment from Russia (not in getting aircraft from Russia - the Mig29K buy was made long before, but things like arresting gear, possibly lift or other equipment etc). The GoI placed this blame squarely on Russia, but someone who knows their foreign supplier, paperwork, escalations etc might have been able to reduce some of it.
And then there was very clear delay in trials, exacerbated by covid, impacting work and travel/availability of foreign OEM representatives.
And all along lack of experience and skills in doing a first of kind massive initiative like this would have told.
-----------
As far as buying multiple of a class is concerned, efficiency has to be traded off against (cost) effectiveness and justification of need. Can't claim buying 3 identical carriers as cost effective when there is no AoN. There will be even further cost efficiencies in buying more, and in how they are bought (eg block buys, timing etc).
I suspect/believe that the time for talking of buying multiple carriers of Vikrant's design is already past.
The keel/hull laying gentlemen and generator folks have not been churning out these in the last 10 years. Similarly for design/design tweaks. (If design team was sitting on Vikrant's hull design in the last year, things were surely wrong). There is a lead time to every equipment and skill in building a carrier and that efficient lead time was likely years ago, not now.
Further, dockyards at Cochin and Mumbai aren't big enough for Vishal, though Cochin might get a new one soon that might.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Ko ... 692548.ece
Cochin Shipyard dry dock length 255m, 270 m. Good for Vikrant (262m) but not Vikramaditya, QE/Vishal etc. Approval for 300, dry dock for LNG tankers, future carriers etc.
Naval Shipyard dry dock, Mumbai - 281m . (Vikramaditya 284 m but probably at different height like prow instead of sea level). Good for Vikramaditya but not Vishal.
https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... n-6014999/
For reference QE, at ~65000 t is 280 m long, Kuznetsov & liaoning are 305m long and Shangdong is 315m long
The best that you might do is hope to identify a few critical skills, retain them (preferably on other work, civil or military) and try to preserve and pass on the knowledge before they retire. And identify critical systems and technology that are needed and work to mature them, which is a long lead time. (eg emals, drones, digital power architecture, integrated electric power and propulsion, power storage, linear motor hanger lifts /advanced lift) And finally, do a force structure review, that takes into account some likely budget impact.