Indian Naval Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2009 03:31

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=11981

I thought navy would help nLCA to graduate with its support.. I doubt that with 5-7 year plan to induct these new A/Cs.. should cause nLCA going on board the ADS along with its induction in synch, be a problem.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 30 Nov 2009 03:37

Does the Indian Navy ever make use of the Tu-142s in-flight refuelling capability ?

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 30 Nov 2009 03:43

srai wrote: You have a good point. It might make sense if IN orders 6 ships of a type and splits the shipbuilding between two different shipyards (each building 3 ships). That way IN can get ships quicker (2 per year) even with delays (at one or both shipyards).

The system could work in two stages:

1. The design is frozen and given to multiple shipyard for multiple production.Shipyards hands over the hulls with the larger euipments like engines and propeller shafts already installed.

2. The hulls are transported in to a secure location for the fitting out by centralized establishment. They have the additional responsiblity for conducting sea trials. Any short commings noted during sea trial will have to be rectified by conserned party (Shipyard or Weapons/sensor manufacturer or the Integration Establishment).

Constuction in this mode has the following advantages:

1. Since the new centralized fitting out establishment should be under Indian Navy, preferably under the Directorate of Naval Designs, The navy has direct control regarding the quality of construction and integration.

2. Since the fitting out will take place in a centralized facility, exact details regarding the number of weapons and sensors on board, their specification and exact placement cannot be easily leaked.

3. The Indian Navy can use it own manpower - since most of naval officers and sailors are given an engineering certificate before they are commisioned in to service.

4. (If) such an establishment comes in to effect, Navy can no longer complain or blame anyone else about delay in production, Since they will be directly responsible for timely delivery and commisioning of the vessels.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Nov 2009 04:03

Anoop. A. wrote: I was talking about a Mig 29 K taking off with full air to air weapons, after using a considerable amount of fuel in STOBAR take off mode and still being effective in Air superiority role (in terms of range, on station time, Air combat manoeuvring with the weapons package etc.)

The naval fulcrum can carry upto 5 EFTs - 1 X 2000+ ltr centerline + 4 X 1500ltr underwing. It is capable of buddy-buddy refuelling as well. Don't see why it can't manage decent range, loiter, ACM with that kind of ability. It should be a quantum leap over the Shars for sure. Perhaps not optimum for deep strikes against enemies with robust AFs, but enough to provide the CBG the required bubble.

YOUTUBE has a report from a russian news broadcast showing the Indian Mig 29 K, landing and taking off in clean configuration (not even drop tanks are attached).You can view this on the following link,

The youtube video means little to nothing. Just cause it does not show the MiG-29K take off with payload/EFTs doesn't mean the bird is only capable of doing just that - Obviously the K is capable of a LOT more and the IN didn't invest the last decade and oodles of $$$s just to get a pretty bird.

IOWs, there is absolutely no need to feel that the a/c will be hampered due to STOBAR requirements either for A2G or A2A ops. It was specifically designed for this from the very get go.

CM.

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 30 Nov 2009 04:14

Cain Marko wrote:
Anoop. A. wrote: I was talking about a Mig 29 K taking off with full air to air weapons, after using a considerable amount of fuel in STOBAR take off mode and still being effective in Air superiority role (in terms of range, on station time, Air combat manoeuvring with the weapons package etc.)
The naval fulcrum can carry upto 5 EFTs - 1 X 2000+ ltr centerline + 4 X 1500ltr underwing. It is capable of buddy-buddy refuelling as well. Don't see why it can't manage decent range, loiter, ACM with that kind of ability. It should be a quantum leap over the Shars for sure. Perhaps not optimum for deep strikes against enemies with robust AFs, but enough to provide the CBG the required bubble.

YOUTUBE has a report from a russian news broadcast showing the Indian Mig 29 K, landing and taking off in clean configuration (not even drop tanks are attached).You can view this on the following link,
The youtube video means little to nothing. Just cause it does not show the MiG-29K take off with payload/EFTs doesn't mean the bird is only capable of doing just that - Obviously the K is capable of a LOT more and the IN didn't invest the last decade and oodles of $$$s just to get a pretty bird.

IOWs, there is absolutely no need to feel that the a/c will be hampered due to STOBAR requirements either for A2G or A2A ops. It was specifically designed for this from the very get go.

CM.

Ofcourse the navy would NOT go for looks

I was never understating the capabilities of the Mig 29 k.

I was merely pointing out the fact that there was some concerns regarding the Mig 29 k performance capability (as you, rahul have mentioned) and that there was NO reports (to the best of my knowledge) about Mig 29 k demonstraing the landing/take off on Admiral Kuznetsov WITH a weapons load. Also, I was supporting the idea that we should take delivery only after all the requirements were demonstrated by the aircraft in person. Such a test may have already taken place.....maybe the Navy didn't want to brag about it.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Nov 2009 04:26

Anoop. A. wrote:Ofcourse the navy would NOT go for looks

I was merely stating that there was concerns regarding the Mig 29 k performance capability and that there was no reports (to the best of my knowledge) about Mig 29 k demonstraing the landing/take off on Admiral Kuznetsov WITH a weapons load.

Anoop,

We need to see who has expressed what concerns, we have to also see what the final user has to say about such concerns. IIRC, the current or former CNS expressed great pleasure at how the 29K was coming along - there was an interview posted @ Keypubs by Austin i think.

Concerns based on a couple of token flights off the Kuznetsov are of little value. IIRC, the K, in one avatar or another, has been tested off the Kuz, on and off, ever since the 80s.

CM.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Nov 2009 04:35

Gilles wrote:Does the Indian Navy ever make use of the Tu-142s in-flight refuelling capability ?

Not that I know of , the bear has long legs (combat radius of over 6000Km) which is enough to meet IN mission requirements without having to refuel in mid air specially when the Bear can take off with complete weapons load out with a full tank. Crew endurance also is a critical factor for such long range AC.

Btw IN does not have a mid air refueling tanker.

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 30 Nov 2009 04:39

Sorry, I had edited my earlier post without knowing that you had replied.

The question was will the Mig 29 K still be an effective fighter operating from a smaller carrier like Gorshkov/Vikramaditya and Vikrant ADS. Can that be verified at present since none of them are operatinal...

It is likely that the Indian Navy was satisfied with the Kuznetsov test and executed the option for additional purchase...

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 30 Nov 2009 04:54

negi wrote:
Gilles wrote:Does the Indian Navy ever make use of the Tu-142s in-flight refuelling capability ?
Not that I know of , the bear has long legs (combat radius of over 6000Km) which is enough to meet IN mission requirements without having to refuel in mid air specially when the Bear can take off with complete weapons load out with a full tank. Crew endurance also is a critical factor for such long range AC.

Btw IN does not have a mid air refueling tanker.

Kindly let me add another question to the one mentioned above.

It is obvious Gilles is referring to Indian Air Force IL 78 MKI...............Is it possible for the IL 78 to refuel TU 142, if the situation arises?, If possible, Are the Indian Navy pilots trained for refuelling procedures?

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Nov 2009 06:38

The Russian Tu-95MS (derivative of Bear F/Tu-142) has demonstrated the mid air refueling capability from the IL-78 tanker so IN should not have issues if it wishes to have the capability ; its just that I am unaware of any such exercises involving IN's Tu-142s and IAF IL-78 tankers.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Nov 2009 06:57

Cain Marko wrote:Rahul,

While the MiG-29K will be a little more sluggish than the 35 or even the original A; it's TWR is still v.respectable. Empty weight ~ 12400kg: 18000kgf. Last I remember the rate of climb for the MiG-29M was shown at 290m/s - empty weight ~ 11600kg & Thrust ~ 17000kgf. I'd guess the K will be similar or a little lower. Still, better than most legacy counterparts but lower than the Rafale/EF-2000. FWIW, Y.Gordon puts the rate of climb @ 300m/s for the Mig-29K izd. 9.41. I'd wager between 280-300 m/s. I'm not so sure the Rafale M can do much better.

In terms of air superiority, it should be v.competitive vs. a blk-50 or possibly, even blk60. JMT

the figures will be much worse for the mig-35 but that's quite another matter altogether.
Why? The 35 is around 1 ton lighter than the K (800 odd Kg according to P. Butowski). Probably no heavier than the M but more thrust.

CM.

CM, calculating TWR in empty config doesn't give any real handle on the a/c's capabilities.

for a realistic evaluation we need to consider the TWR close to its max T/O weight, which is where its operational config will be. that has increased substantially for the 'k', even more so for the 35, without a similar increase in engine thrust.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Nov 2009 07:04

Anoop on Mig-29K , IN pilots are already undergoing training on shore based test facility in RU which simulates a carrier's flight deck ; a similar facility has already been set up at INS Hansa (Goa) it is obvious that these SBTFs would are made keeping in mind specs of Vikramaditya's flight deck.

Having said that taking off from a carrier with a full weapons load and fuel has always been an issue specially for smaller carriers which employ STOBAR to launch and receive AC , the carriers of USN fleet usually launch the AC with a MAX weapons load out but limited fuel only to be refueled by carrier based mid air refuelers later.Fwiw there have been reports about Su-33 not being able to operate with its designed MTOW from the Adm. Kuznetsov .

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Nov 2009 10:03

Rahul,

Aircraft will rarely be deployed at MTOW that might reduce lifespan considerably. IIRC, the MKI is rarely maxed out @ 38.8 tons. IMHO, it would be more practical to look at TWR with a given A2A load out + full or half internal fuel.

Here is a quick look at the fulcrum series and a couple of other naval fighters, and enemy number 1 - F-16 blk50;

MiG-29A
4 X R-27 + 2 X R73 + 3400kg internal fuel: Max Thrust - 16000kgf. TWR = 1.03. Combat

MiG-29K
4 X R77 + 2 X R73 + 5200kg fuel: Max thrust - 18000kgf. TWR = 0.96

MiG-35
4 X R77 + 2 X R73 + 5200kg fuel: Max thrust - 18000kgf. TWR = 1.05

Rafale M
6 X Mica + 4700kg fuel: Max thrust - 15000kgf. TWR = 0.96

Super Hornet
4 X Amraam + 2 X Aim 9 + 6500kg fuel: Max Thrust - 20000kgf. TWR = 0.93

F-16 Blk 50 (PAF)
4 X Amraam + 2 X Aim 9 + 3250kg fuel: Max Thrust - 13000kgf. TWR = 1.02

Thing to remember here is that while the TWRs are marginally different, the K and the 35 will have significantly greater range/endurance, something the MiG-29A or even the F-16 could achieve only with EFTs, which would make its TWR much lower. Another advantage the K has over the the A airframe wise is that it is statically unstable thanks to a cshift in COG iirc

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 30 Nov 2009 18:20

Induction of Admiral Gorshkov

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 30 Nov 2009 20:50

Jamal K. Malik wrote:Induction of Admiral Gorshkov

Finally, a date is set for induction, hope they would be able to keep this one.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 30 Nov 2009 21:30

negi wrote:
Gilles wrote:Does the Indian Navy ever make use of the Tu-142s in-flight refuelling capability ?
Not that I know of , the bear has long legs (combat radius of over 6000Km) which is enough to meet IN mission requirements without having to refuel in mid air specially when the Bear can take off with complete weapons load out with a full tank. Crew endurance also is a critical factor for such long range AC.

Btw IN does not have a mid air refueling tanker.

IIRC per a report Indian Navy SHARs are also IFR equipped.

IN has a great advantage that they can benefit from tanker support from the Indian mainland practically anywhere in the Indian ocean.

Apart from tanker indian aircraft carrier an also count upon support from shore based P-8I, IL-38 and Tu-142 on one hand and Su-30MKI and Jaguar IM on the other. IMHO navy should acquire at least 2 Su-30MKI sqns in shore based role preferably equipped with UPAZ pods to refuel MiG-29s as required.

Measly 6 IL-78 is simply too less. We need atleast 12 more. I wonder if we can provide IFR pods on the P-8I for a secondary mission to support the MiGs at sea.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Nov 2009 21:40

>> Does the Indian Navy ever make use of the Tu-142s in-flight refuelling
>> capability ?

well the sleek Bear could refuel the fat Midas to help it along...

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Nov 2009 21:44

IN operates Mk.51s and T Mk.60 and these are not equipped with IFR probe (bolt on IFR probe was a standard from newer FA2 onwards) , there were talks about MLU package for SHARs which iirc was put off in favor of the Mig-29K deal.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 30 Nov 2009 21:57

Here is the IFR probe on the IN SHAR

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gall ... 7.jpg.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Nov 2009 21:59

I have personally seen a Midas tanker in goa, most likely to train with shore based harriers in 2007.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 01 Dec 2009 01:37

if BARAK-8 is developed also as inclined launch which allows it to be fired from launchers on navy ships replacing older WAVE M SAM on rajput ships and will gives three fold increase in anti air capability to these ships.

its surprising that rajputs ships have 4 missiles ready to fire while talwar and shivalik frigates can fire only one missile at a time

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 01 Dec 2009 19:06

Navy to raise separate force to monitor coastal areas

Kolkata, Dec 1 (PTI) In the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai attack, a separate force would be raised to monitor coastal areas, a top Naval officer said here today.

"There will be a separate force, Sagar Prahari Bal, for the purpose of increasing vigil in coastal areas of the country, starting from Gujarat to West Bengal," Naval officer-in-charge (West Bengal) Commodore Chandra Sekhar Azad told a press conference.

The force will constitute 1,000 navy personnel, including 61 officers and 939 sailors and will have 95 Fast Interceptive Craft (FIC), Azad said, adding that the induction for the force will start from January next year.

When asked about the allocation for West Bengal, Azad said, the state would get 150 navy personnel, including four officers, and four FICs.

Azad said, "The new force will check every vessel above 300 tons...

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 01 Dec 2009 21:05

I recommend the following news as a must read for anyone interested in littoral warfare. Also for the benefit of many members who incorrectly think jazzy gizmos are the best way to win wars.

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx? ... 2540c992df

The other issue is most state policemen deployed for coastal police roles are from the interior, who have no clue about the sea, are seasick, have families in the interior and are homesick most of the time.

By the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan achieved a major strategic victory of diverting Indian financial and manpower resources in defending a vast coastline. The knee jerk reaction of our unimaginative leadership further compounds the situation.

The solution to infiltration is not speed or firepower but sustenance and intelligence.

When the Indian Navy was established in 1686, as the Bombay Marine to protect Bombay citizens and mercantile interests against Sidi and Marathas demanding chauth, the British hired local Koli sailors and used local gallivat rather than import fancy ships from UK.

http://indiannavy.nic.in/genesis.htm

The British similarly hired local levies elsewhere, like Corps of Guides or Cachar Levy that later became Assam Rifles, or the Manipur levy, that liberated Manipur from Burma and integrated it with the nation http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?t ... w&kid=1447

The successes of the Ladakh Scouts is known to all.

The state coastal police needs to hire local fishermen, generating employment in the days when mechanized fishing is diminishing local livelihood. The local fishermen are a tough & hardy lot, being able to spend days at sea. Their families are used to their absence. The locals are intimately aware of the lay of the land and the sea. Most importantly, they will be able to identify locals from outsiders in a jiffy. They would fight infiltrators ferociously since their home and hearth are close by.

Instead of wasting money on fancy boats that can be identified by infiltrators from afar and evaded, we need to use local trawlers with better endurance and, most importantly, can easily mix with local craft and not stand out like a red herring. This would also pump money into local shipbuilding.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Dec 2009 23:15

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=11987 The new force will check every vessel above 300 tons...

The link does not give the complete report.. btw, the new force will check every vessel above 300 tons onleee!?!!?!?.

the mumbai attack happened in a much smaller boat.. perhaps offloaded from a bigger ship. but qualifying this tonnage makes a secruity loop hole. why do we do these kind of strategies?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Dec 2009 23:36

^^^ IA had raised various Scouts battalions from local population in HP (for operation/deployment opposite the Tibet border) and Kumaon and Garhwal. IIRC, they were referred to as Dogra Scouts and Kumaon and Garhwal Scouts and affiliated to Dogra Regiment, Kumaon Regiment and Garhwal Rifles. But then these were subsequently absorbed into parent regiment or disbanded. May be RayC Sir can through some light on it and the IA's experience with them.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 02 Dec 2009 00:02

Sarkar sir, my guess is whoever decided to assign such personnel thought their 'shooting' skills was more important than sea faring skills.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Dec 2009 00:07

I feel that the best defense of Indian coast is to reduce, if not eliminate, the threat at its origin. IF Indian intel can get to know that ISI has moved Omar from Quetta to Karachi, India can do much to reduce this threat at its source - just that India has not done as much as she can.

Beyond that there should be both human and electronic means of detection. What use is "network centric" if it cannot be part of the intel effort?

The solution should include a competent group of people, proper funding and electronics. What is not needed and seems to be the norm in India (to a great extent?) is either misuse or abuse of anything.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Dec 2009 10:26

Was perusing through Gordon's "FAmous Russian Aircraft -MiG-29" - and was really impressed by what the IN-MiG have managed to achieve with the MiG-29K. Rest assured, the current bird can take off with massive loads probly @ MTOW from the Gorky.

The earlier protos - 9.31 and its follow up were able to take off with a full load of 4500kg + Interal Fuel (4500kg) @ 22 tons from the Kuznetsov or 3 EFTs and 4 AAMs. I think the test pilot managed this even on the shorter strip!

It was the Su-33 that had issues with MTOW and this was because its gross weight was too high. The MiG-29K (9.31) did just fine. Was not selected though cause of shorter legs.

IN terms of range, a typical CAP meant 250km from the ship with a 1.5-2.3 hour loiter time.

ONe thing though - despite the 9.31 having an engine that produced lower AB thrust 8.8 tons vs 9 tons (on the current 9.41), it did have an emergency reheat rated @ 9.4 tons. Wonder if the current MK engine has that set up (don't see why not).

IMHO, the current K (9.41) should be better in almost every way vs. the older version, more power, payload, range, less empty weight and so on. Enough to deal with Paki solahs and cheeni flunkers.

CM.

Ajit.C · Post by **Ajit.C** » 02 Dec 2009 10:46

"Navy to raise separate force to monitor coastal areas"

Then what would be role of Coast Guard and proposed marine state police?

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 02 Dec 2009 14:09

Ajit.C wrote: Then what would be role of Coast Guard and proposed marine state police?

as the news says..

The force will constitute 1,000 navy personnel, including 61 officers and 939 sailors and will have 95 Fast Interceptive Craft (FIC). The new force will check every vessel above 300 tons...

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 02 Dec 2009 15:38

Kiran, I have doubts about the marksmanship of men who have trouble climbing down ladders.

Importing US weapons won’t lead to better marksmanship.

Ordnance Factory Lee Enfield rifles fire NATO standard 7.62 x 51 mm rounds (incorrectly called 0.303) and the SLR are good rifles having better range and accuracy than an AK-47.

If I recollect correctly, a CRPF (or ITBP) jawan used his SLR to kill 2 or 3 terrorists during the Parliament attack in 2001.

The average policeman is wasted in useless bandobast duties. He needs to fire at least 10 rounds daily to maintain any degree of proficiency. He needs to clean his weapon twice daily so that how the weapon works is ingrained in his psyche. Marksmanship needs to be a part of the ACR.

A typical state police force takes 4-6 months to procure its ammunition from Ordnance Factory. Earlier, there were licensed private factories manufacturing rifles and ammunition across the country. The government in its wisdom closed most of them down post independence.

Secondly, I have doubts whether Indian 5.56 ammo is compatible with US M4. While both might use 5.56 x 45, chamber pressure is different for different rifles and cartridges from different manufacturers.

Edited later – OFB does manufacture both US M193 and Belgian SS109 rounds in addition to the INSAS round.

Kasab and his pal were so heavily loaded up with grenades and spare magazines that a reasonably accurate shooter with a Lee Enfield or SLR could have taken them out.

Instead of buying scores of RIBs, a couple of GPS guided Brahmos with 200 kg submunitions fired at known terrorist camps would have been a fitting reply. Pakistan could have done nothing about it. What could they possibly have said? “earthquake relief camps”?

Anyways, we’re going off topic here.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Dec 2009 15:40

Talking to someone in the know,the main problem affecting coastal security is that the tens of thosands of fishing vessels operating from Indian shores are not registered.If we can register two-wheelers,why can't we register fishing vessel say the maritime forces? The Fisheries depts. wash their hands off the matter saying that they do not have the resources.Equipped with RFIDs,these vessels can be monitored.Similarly,on the coastline,the newly forming "marine police",who are being formd because the local police are washing their hands of their responsibility,should be tasked with the job of registering all small marine craft.Another major problem is that boats set out from hundreds of points on the coast in any major coastal state,instead of being given allowed to operate from fewer harbours and ports from which they can be monitored.This is a ticklish political problem,as local politicians claim that fishermen should be allowed to use their "traditional" places to set out from.If the fishing ports are reduced in number,it will make a massive difference to the maritime forces and marine police.Fishing is a hugely profitable business and can easily afford to comply with security regulations.It only needs political will for these tasks to be implemented.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 02 Dec 2009 15:56

Delay in building Scorpene range submarines at MDL

Supply of sub-standard equipments for ‘corvett’

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 02 Dec 2009 16:50

First indigenous aircraft carrier to be launched next year: Navy chief
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... chief.html

India's first indigenous aircraft carrier, the IAC, will be launched next year and commissioned in 2014, navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma said at his maiden navy week press conference on Wednesday.

He hinted that the second aircraft carrier (IAC-2) which is to follow will be of a different type. "We are re-looking at the design. It won't be a copy of what we have today," Verma said.

Verma said he had been assured by the DRDO that the LCA's naval variant would be ready for carrier trials by 2013 and for deployment on the Gorshkov / Vikramaditya as well as the IAC. He said the navy was doing a concept study 'for more capable carrier-borne aircraft' for the IAC-2.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Dec 2009 17:21

A single-engined naval LCA will be hopelessly inadequate for the IN's needs and dangerous too,as out at sea,an engine failure will result in a total loss of the aircraft,not to mention the pilot having to eject/ditch.The LCA cannot carry a substantial payload and will be short-legged in the extreme carrying a reasonable payload of anti-ship and AAMs.Moreover,unlike the STOVL Sea Harrier,recovery and launch will have to be STOBAR.Whether the naval variant will be available by 2013/14,just 3-4 years from now,which requires a more powerful engine when even the LCA MK-1 with its underpowered engine hasn't yet arrived,is a moot point.I frankly doubt the schedule given our track record.HAL produced only 4-5 Hawks last year,when the rate was to have been around 25.It would be far better fo the IN to just order more TVC MIG-29Ks and if and when the naval LCA arrives to order one squadron,evaluate it as against the MIG-29K and Rafale and see whether it is really worth buying the bird.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 02 Dec 2009 19:05

Indigenous nuke submarine in two years: Navy chief

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 02 Dec 2009 19:20

Well, doesn't the SHAR have one engine too?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2009 19:28

posting in full..

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=11997
India's first indigenous aircraft carrier, the IAC, will be launched next year and commissioned in 2014, navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma said at his maiden navy week press conference on Wednesday.

Admiral Verma said price negotiations for aircraft carrier Vikramaditya (formerly known as Admiral Gorshkov) were in their fourth and final stages but would not like to guess when the issue over the cost escalation would be decided.

He hinted that the second aircraft carrier (IAC-2) which is to follow will be of a different type. "We are re-looking at the design. It won't be a copy of what we have today," Verma said.

The keel of the 40,000 ton IAC was laid down by Defence Minister A.K. Antony at the Cochin shipyard in February this year. The first two MiG-29Ks are to be shipped from Russia in completely knocked down condition. It is to be the primary carrier-borne fighter aircraft for both the Vikramaditya and the IAC.

Verma said he had been assured by the DRDO that the LCA's naval variant would be ready for carrier trials by 2013 and for deployment on the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya as well as the IAC. He said the navy was doing a concept study 'for more capable carrier-borne aircraft' for the IAC-2.

Concepts currently being examined by the Directorate of Naval Design for the IAC-2 are for a conventionally powered carrier displacing over 50,000 tons and equipped with steam catapults (rather than the ski-jump on the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya and the IAC) to launch fourth generation aircraft.

Senior naval officials denied knowledge of receiving feelers for the sale of one of two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers currently being built for the Royal Navy. A UK newspaper reported that budget cuts had forced the UK to sell off one of the 65,000 ton carriers which cost 2 billion pounds.

Officials said that the navy's sole aircraft carrier, the INS Viraat which completes 50 years of service this year is due for another inspection by 2013 to assess the life remaining in the hull.

The former HMS Hermes was acquired from Britain in 1987 and was to serve only for five years after which she would be replaced by two indigenous aircraft carriers in the early 1990s. However, a decade-long delays in the IAC programme meant that the carrier had to serve for another two decades.

why not nuke powered IAC2?

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 02 Dec 2009 19:31

Jamal K. Malik wrote:Indigenous nuke submarine in two years: Navy chief

I think that construction for other of this class were up...any news about those gurus...!

Quote from naval technology page..!!

According to a report in the Indian Express, the hulls of the second and third submarines have already been constructed.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 02 Dec 2009 19:34

SaiK wrote: why not nuke powered IAC2?

With already a submarine fleet envisaged, I doubt India has enough enriched uranium to go around to power nuclear powered aircraft carriers as well! We have to keep in mind that they are still building weapons and there are very few military reactors in India by comparison to enrich all the fuel they would need to have a nuclear SSBN fleet and nuclear powered Carrier groups.