Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

John · Post by **John** » 22 Jul 2015 18:47

Austin wrote:I suspect the entire propulsion system too is imported ie 90 % and above , the only reason it shows 40-50 % is because these engines like LM2500 and German one built by kirloskar are lic produced in India hence counted as indiginous.

The only hope of indigenous engine is the Kaveri marine variant.

Where are we with Kaveri? I know Navy wanted to incorporate into new vessels but i haven't heard anything since then.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jul 2015 19:21

http://idrw.org/lockheed-martin-and-ros ... more-69648
so all those 50 aircraft EMALS is all bull crap news

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 Jul 2015 20:42

How can you name a 50 aircraft with EMALS Vishaal, when you already have the Vikrant which can carry almost as much fighters on board. With the designs being touted in the press, just call it the Viraat please.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jul 2015 21:25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(CV-61)

we are probably looking at a ship the size and shape of the forrestal class 60,000t empty, 80,000t full load with a airwing of 60-70 and more in a crunch situation.
ie 3 reinforced squadrons of 20 planes each. plus some utility helis.

its a supercarrier size...the ranger and her sister ships of the forrestal class were the first supercarrier.

a clean squarish deck QE2 style, two islands, 3 EMALS catapults, E2 for awacs, some 64 SRSAM in sponson boxes , 4 x ak630 and 4 x 76mm guns for ciws.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jul 2015 21:32

anything less is a waste of time given 60 yr lifetime of ship, the huge costs involved and emerging threats.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 Jul 2015 21:56

Even Vikrant began as 20K+ tonne design in the early 90s and morphed into the 40k tonne now. So it is quite possible that will be the case with a true Vishal down a decade. Designs are not going to be frozen before 2020 in any case by recent media revelations.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jul 2015 21:59

Mumbai: Navy personnel among 3 arrested for raping minor

Three defence personnel including two Navy men were on Monday arrested on charges of repeatedly raping and blackmailing a minor girl, police said.

A case against four persons were registered at the Cuffe Parade police station. The fourth accused, Pruthvi alias Umeshsigh Chauhan, a sailor who is presently on duty outside Mumbai, has been asked to report back to Mumbai for the police investigation.

The three arrested accused were identified as Jitendra Singh Daragokul Walchand (24), Pawan alias Ompal Hoshiyar Singh (31) and Rakesh Prasad Singh (41).

According to police, the victim was in a relationship with one of the accused. Last year, they parted ways and the girl got engaged to another person.

"However, the accused started blackmailing her and demanded sexual favours from her. They threatened that if she does not agree to their demands, they would inform her fiance, following which the girl succumbed to their demands," police said.

The four accused repeatedly raped the girl starting January, police said, adding, they have registered an FIR under IPC sections 376 (rape) and 34 (common intention) and sections of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Meanwhile, the Navy said they are extending full cooperation to the police in the case.

"Full cooperation has been extended by the Naval Provost Marshal, INS Kunjali, to the police in the investigation and one civilian (a Military Engineering Service employee) and two sailors have been handed over to the police today," the navy release said.

"The third sailor is presently on duty outside Mumbai and has been asked to report back to Mumbai for the police investigation," it said.

Full assistance is being provided by authorities of Western Naval Command to the police in the conduct of the investigation, it said.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 22 Jul 2015 22:00

While the IN has called for proposals and is looking far ahead, we shouldn't lose sight of the near future.

What do the gurus think in terms of timeline of inducting this new carrier? When can we expect to have a design finalized, steel cut, hull completed? Then a few years for fitting it out (we need to add a nuke powerplant, catapults, EMALS, etc. and test it all out). After this, comes operationalising the carrier, which will take some time as IN will be new again to CATOBAR. So what's the earliest we can expect to have this CV(N) complete? I don't want to hazard a guess since we only have the dates of Vikrant's construction, which was smaller than the proposed new carrier, did not have new techs (for us, at least) like EMALS, nuke powerplants, etc., and most importantly, does not have the long test period this new nuke carrier will need to go through like the Arihant has undergone.

I am trying to address two things:
1. Time taken for the shipyard to be selected and start working on this carrier. Till then, current signs indicate CSL will be idle. Even then, CSL is not guaranteed to build this carrier.
2. Time taken from Viraat's retirement next year till this carrier is operational, for that's when IN can be a 3 carrier force. Till then, it will mostly be a single carrier force: Viraat is on its last legs and will be retired next year (2016), so only Vikramaditya active till 2018 when the Vikrant is expected to be back in action. Then VikAd will go for periodic refits and Vikrant will be the only active carrier for that duration. Only when the new carrier (Vishal, in case IN goes with that name) is ready can we expect to have at least 2 carriers deployed at any given instant.

To condense the above, what are our estimates?
- Design freeze (Added later: I see Bade saar mentioned 2020 as a possible date for this)
- Tendering, shipyard selection, etc.
- Keel laying
- Floating out the hull
- Hull complete
- Fitting out start
- Completing fitment
- Aircraft selection (AFAIK, the type is still unknown)
- Aircraft delivery
- Harbour trials
- Sea trials (incl powerplant, EMALS equipment)
- Aircraft trials (new aircraft + plus new operation type)
- Operational state

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 Jul 2015 22:18

With new design the earliest we will see Vishal is 2030, and that is being optimistic. Reality says 2035-2040 after all the niggles with EMALS and reactor adaptations for the carrier being taken into consideration. Even the US takes a decade or more with multiple decades of building carriers in the tens. So we will remain a 2-carrier force for another two-three decades at least with the Vishal plan. Kalpakkam facilities need to be jigged for this variant and resources increased to build more than for the subs as under present plans.

If CSL is given orders for a second Vikrant, even modified design to increase carrying capacity a bit more we could operate 3 carriers before 2025, in a decade.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 22 Jul 2015 22:34

Agreed, that's what my guess and hope is: IN will evaluate the proposals and decide they need something in the interim.

So here's where things stand, any other estimates (from others)?

- Design freeze (Added later: I see Bade saar mentioned 2020 as a possible date for this)
- Tendering, shipyard selection, etc.
- Keel laying
- Floating out the hull
- Hull complete
- Fitting out start
- Completing fitment
- Aircraft selection (AFAIK, the type is still unknown)
- Aircraft delivery
- Harbour trials
- Sea trials (incl powerplant, EMALS equipment)
- Aircraft trials (new aircraft + plus new operation type)
- Operational state (Bade saar: 2030, optimistically)

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 Jul 2015 22:40

Even with the current Vikrant we are only at the stage 5 in your list above and have no reliable numbers yet for the rest of the process. Even a second duplicate Vikrant will not be ordered before it is in early operational state, so that we can rectify any shortcomings from the experience in the next one.

Arshyam, I am sure other regulars in the business will have better estimates for numbers.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 22 Jul 2015 22:55

Bade wrote:Arshyam, I am sure other regulars in the business will have better estimates for numbers.

Bade saar, thanks for your comments, I meant to say any other estimates from everyone, not just you.

Sorry for not being clear, I have corrected the question above.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 22 Jul 2015 23:47

Why is Lockheed Martin being invited? They have no experience designing or building aircraft carriers. The US companies that do so are Northman Grunman and its subsidiary, Huntington Ingalls Industries.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 Jul 2015 23:51

Maybe for a catapult launched carrier ready NLCA and follow-ons ?

Who builds the cats (even steam ones) for the US carriers ?

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 23 Jul 2015 00:00

Then Lockheed Martin should be a subcontractor, not the overall contractor and integrator. Northman Grunman and Huntington Ingalls need to be approached & consulted for their aircraft carrier design and building skills.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 23 Jul 2015 00:29

Since General Atomics was not invited, does it mean no EMALS for sure. So it implies no need for reactors too.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2015 01:27

The navy's letter has gone out to US company, Lockheed Martin; UK company, BAE Systems, French shipbuilder, DCNS, and Rosoboronexport, the Russian export umbrella agency

What experience does Roso have?

No need to read too much into all these things. Seems like they are looking for a general contractor - to start with for the design phase. Sheet metal in around 6/7 years. Ways to go. But target is 2030 - with the right contractors and help doable.

Now, the guessing game is already shifting to: Which shipbuilder does the navy's specification favour? The US remains the leading horse, not just because it is the world's most experienced and technologically advanced carrier operator with more aircraft carriers in service than the rest of the world combined.

There is also a US-India "working group", constituted during President Barack Obama's visit to India in January, specifically to promote cooperation in aircraft carrier technology. New Delhi and Washington are known to have discussed EMALS under the rubric of the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI).

Yet, there could be others in the race. Vendors point out that the specifications framed bear similarities to the French aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle (in terms of speed and size, though not in displacement), and the British Queen Elizabeth II (in terms of displacement and size, though not in speed).

The responses should be in by now - today was the deadline.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jul 2015 01:38

Philip wrote:5000cr appears to be for the first 4 subs.That works out to around $200M per sub. This is around 1/3rd the cost of a new sub like the Scorpene which is around $700M now.There are 9 that will require refits/upgrades,why the total figure is 10,000cr. That would work out to $150+M/sub.

I've heard you say at least a dozen times that a brand new Kilo is available to India for just $300 million. So does the idea that a simple upgrade should cost 2/3rds as much as a new boat, seem rational to you? Or would you like rethink the full cost of a new Kilo?

Also, the full cost of a Kilo fleet upgrade according to the article was Rs 11,000, which for nine submarines comes out $194 million each (not $150 mil).

Also remember that none of our Scorpenes or U-209s have an anti-ship missile like Klub that the Kilos carry.

Its more important to remember that we have absolutely no dearth of AShM platforms (Su-30, MiG-29K, Jaguar IM, P-8I, N-Tejas plus IN's frigates & destroyers). And by most metrics the HWT remains a more lethal weapon against most targets.

But just for the record - the U-209s are being modified to fire Harpoons and the Scorpene are capable of employing the Exocet.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Jul 2015 01:50

I wish they would do the following:

1. Go with QE design and the design house.
2. Forget EMALS and go with regular cats if really required. EMALS aint ready yet. Let them sort the kinks out.
3. Explore f-35B for ops along with LCA. Don't add more K's.
4. Work on a long range UAV that can take off from a ship for AEW/AsuW work. A heavier version of Nishant UAV. Rail launched and regular landing. We have both versions working. Marry them and work on a twin engined larger platform 8-10 hour time on station and 20K ceiling and something that can carry a chin mounted gimball sensor and 200-300 kg antenna. 400Kg payload apart from fuel and other required items. (Rail launched is not necessary if the UAV can take off on its own power from angled deck).
5. Work on a heavy UAV AEW like the RQ-4C that can take off from land, arrive on station, connect with the ship based systems, stay on station for 10-12 hours at a time and then return to base. Move compute nodes on to the ship. Cheaper and more effective than E2 hawkeyes IMO.
6. Go conventional, we don't have many carriers that we can afford 5 year refitments and refueling cycles.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2015 03:57

1. Go with QE design and the design house.
2. Forget EMALS and go with regular cats if really required. EMALS aint ready yet. Let them sort the kinks out.

1. QE is S-Jump? So, #2 does not apply?
2. EMALS should be ready by the time this boat gets to sheet metal in about 6 years or so. Besides, I am not sure incremental designs apply here. Are there plans for any boats after the Vishal?

3. Explore f-35B for ops along with LCA. Don't add more K's.

A ship needs attention - it cannot change. The air wing is less important - in the grand scheme of things - it does change over time.

4. Work on a long range UAV that can take off from a ship for AEW/AsuW work. A heavier version of Nishant UAV. Rail launched and regular landing. We have both versions working. Marry them and work on a twin engined larger platform 8-10 hour time on station and 20K ceiling and something that can carry a chin mounted gimball sensor and 200-300 kg antenna. 400Kg payload apart from fuel and other required items. (Rail launched is not necessary if the UAV can take off on its own power from angled deck).
5. Work on a heavy UAV AEW like the RQ-4C that can take off from land, arrive on station, connect with the ship based systems, stay on station for 10-12 hours at a time and then return to base. Move compute nodes on to the ship. Cheaper and more effective than E2 hawkeyes IMO.
6. Go conventional, we don't have many carriers that we can afford 5 year refitments and refueling cycles.

BTW, teh IN has just published what the IN expects by 2030. I think that should be the core reference is future discussions here.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2015 06:56

maybe they are just looking for one "lead consultant" in US who will bring in and work with the others and offer a finalized proposal. we have never worked with northrop grumann unlike boeing(C17,chinook,apache) and LM(C130).

NG might have to pass some US Govt approvals before even consulting for any foreign project as CVN building has highly classified aspects.

by 2030 there is TINA factor. JSF will be the only CTOL fighter in town worth the money.

I do not know if the USN plans to keep the E2 forever or working on some newer platform, but we can hope to tag along for the ride.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2015 07:00

OK. Clarification from IN.

Indigenizing Aircraft Not In Indian Navy’s Plans

Local manufacturing of fighter and reconnaissance aircraft is not on the indigenization agenda of the Indian Navy for the next 15 years.

India has a huge requirement of carrier borne fighter aircraft as it is building its indigenous aircraft carrier and has another bigger carrier on the drawing board besides a steadily growing requirement for maritime surveillance planes.

The 15 year indigenization plan of the Indian Navy, released last week details naval platforms, helicopters, radars and missiles to be made in India over the in the 2015-30 timeframe. However there is no mention of either fighter aircraft or reconnaissance as part of the make-in-India thrust.

The plan document, under the aviation equipment sub-category has listed Naval Utility Helicopters (NUH) and Naval Multi Role Helicopters (NMRH) and Deep repair facilities for older generation aircraft TU 142M, IL-38, Sea-king and Kamov, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Micro UAVs but it is silent on indigenization plans for aircraft.

The indigenization plan was first prepared and promulgated in 2003, in keeping with the induction plan of new platforms. This plan is reviewed after every five years, with the last revision undertaken in 2008.

Indian Navy's aviation wing currently operates fixed wing, rotary wing and UAV types of aircraft. Indian Navy has 33 Mig-29K fighter aircraft, 11 BAE Systems Sea Harriers, 19 maritime patrol aircraft (7 Boeing P-8 Poseidon, 5 Ilyushin Il-38, 8 Tupolev Tu-142), 33 utility aircraft (25 Donrnier Do 228, 8 Britten-Norman Islanders), 37 trainers (17 BAE Hawks, 20 HAL HJT-16 Kiran), 101 helicopters (14, Kamov Ka-31 Helix B, 14, Kamov Ka-28 Helix A, 27 Westland Sea Kings, 8 Sikorsky Sh-3 Sea Kings, 8 HAL Dhruvs, 30 HAL Chetak) IAI Heron I and II UAVs

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2015 07:02

imo given the deep reluctance of GOTUS to share anything related to its big stick (CVN)...NG is always super busy with new carriers and refits...and they operate only in the XXL size factor

, a superior working project could be BAE systems producing a QE2-mki design of around 65000t empty, 80000t full load, and american help used for the EMALS , JSF , ATC etc. ........ for JSF they would already have done the necessary placement and parking studies albeit not in ctol mode.

BAE is completing its 2nd carrier and will not have new carrier work thereafter.

main change - instead of 280m length, make it 310m......opens big addl deck parking areas and improves sortie rates as more a/c can line up behind the catapults.

in killa iphone9 looks the QE2 is superior to the latest gerald ford class.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2015 07:12

I thought the Russians had input into the Vikrant. So, would not count them out. Just that I just do not see the US willing to sit and discuss with the Russians in the room.

On the flip side I would expect the IN wanting to dip into the US goodie jar. Natural.

I suspect the IN-USN meeting took place. They were really under the radar. And, I suspect the USN told the IN under what circumstances In would get help and what type/kind of help.

India has some decisions to make. Will not be easy.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 23 Jul 2015 07:13

Cybaru wrote: Work on a long range UAV that can take off from a ship for AEW/AsuW work. A heavier version of Nishant UAV. Rail launched and regular landing. We have both versions working. Marry them and work on a twin engined larger platform 8-10 hour time on station and 20K ceiling and something that can carry a chin mounted gimball sensor and 200-300 kg antenna. 400Kg payload apart from fuel and other required items. (Rail launched is not necessary if the UAV can take off on its own power from angled deck).

Regarding Nishant, a compact catapult contraption for Nishant can be implemented on vikramaditya (based on the current truck catapult) and an arrested recovery be made using the ATOL module of Panchi.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Jul 2015 07:19

NRao wrote:I thought the Russians had input into the Vikrant. So, would not count them out. Just that I just do not see the US willing to sit and discuss with the Russians in the room.

On the flip side I would expect the IN wanting to dip into the US goodie jar. Natural.

India has some decisions to make. Will not be easy.

AFAIK the only Russian input in the Vikrant is the aviation complex more so because of the MiG29K and to keep commonality with the Vik-A so that planes can be interchanged between the carriers.

It's pretty obvious that Vishal when it gets built is unlikely to fly MiG29Ks and hence it's improbable that it will carry Russian equipment for the aviation complex. The Indian Navy is going with the US on Vishal. How will that pan out? We'll have to wait and watch but I have feeling the need for partnership - in this particular case - is felt as much by the US as by India.

The US understands that when it comes to countering China and in a worst case a China-Russia combo in the Indian Ocean -South China Sea- Pacific region it can't rely on its European allies and it needs new allies. I think we may see some real help on the Vishal from the US.

JMT

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 23 Jul 2015 07:31

Anyone have the link to the latest Naval Indigenisation plan?

Interestingly, I just found the earlier released indigenisation plan from the Navy for the 2008-2022 timeframe. http://www.cii.in/inplan .

Let the analysis begin - if it hasn't already. It'd be quite interesting to see where we are now, given that its exactly halfway through that 15 year plan.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 23 Jul 2015 07:33

If INS Vishal is meant specifically for China and use in the Indo-Pacific seas then using US help with conditions makes sense in any case. India is not going to take on China in the seas on its own, even if it means for protecting its maritime interests in the region. It is not like at the land border, where India will do whatever it has to ensure its sanctity at least as it stands today at the LOC with or without US getting on board with our plans.

If no Naval AMCA/FGFA is forthcoming in a decade, then will have to fill Vishal with F-35 variants alone for commonality in joint operations.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jul 2015 09:22

I ckd with one of my earlier posts,Scorpene's escalated cost now is now stated to be approx. $800+M.Even if the Kilo refits are $200M,they will serve for another 10-15 years.Moreover,the 300km range supersonic M-3.0+ terminal homing Klub is far deadlier than the under 200KM subsonic Harpoon and Exocets. However,as clearly pointed out,this is an interim solution,as no new conventional subs are available anywhere in less than 3 years (Kilos).The Kilos would undergo deep refits with a host of replaced and new eqpt. and machinery.Brand enw Kilos are even being built for Russia.
This is the most cost-effective and faster method of keeping our numbers steady until the 75Is come along post 2020.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/03/24 ... 42171.html

Stealth submarines upgraded for India could hit targets at sea and on land

March 24, 2015 Vzglyad

Russian-built Varshavyanka (or Kilo class stealth) submarines, upgraded for India, could hit not only vessels, but also targets on land with cruise missiles, experts said. The modernization would also involve the submarines’ avionics. (? prob. means electronics)

Stealth submarines upgraded for India could hit targets at sea and on land

The Russian ‘Varshavyanka’ stealth submarines, which are being built under project 636.3 for the Black Sea Fleet, is a further development of the project 877EKM. Source: Oleg Lastochkin / RIA Novosti

After an upgrade, the Russian-made Indian ‘Varshavyanka’ submarines of Project 877 EKM will be able to strike not only vessels, but also ground targets with cruise missiles, Igor Vilnit, CEO of the CDB ME “Rubin” that designed the submarines, said.

He also said the possibilities of the strike missile complex Club-S, installed on these submarines, would be expanded, reports TASS.

“After the modernization, ships of 877EKM project will be able to use two types of missiles - 3M-54E against naval targets and 3M-14E against ground targets,” - Vilnit said.

In addition, the modernization process would involve part of the submarines' avionics.

“In some cases, the Indian side installs their own equipment. The architecture of the ship allows for it, as it has a substantial modernization potential,” the head of “Rubin” said.

The Russian ‘Varshavyanka’ stealth submarines, which are being built under project 636.3 for the Black Sea Fleet, is a further development of the project 877EKM. These submarines have been significantly upgraded and equipped with the latest weapon systems, electronics and acoustics for the Russian Navy.

In August last year, Andrey Baranov, “Rubin” deputy director of foreign trade and military-technical cooperation, reported that Russia has decided to offer assistance to India as reparation for all non-nuclear submarines. This is the second repair and extension of service life of nine diesel-electric submarines of Project 877 EKM, Baranov explained.

India had purchased ten ‘stealth’ submarines of Project 877 EKM (Kilo class) from Russia. After the loss of “Sindhurakshak” in 2013, nine vessels are left.

PS.For a long time I've been advocating that all surface combatants approx. 12000t+ to have flat tops.They could thus accommodate large multi-role helos equipped with ASW and anti-ship ASMs,STOVL aircraft and a range of missiles in flush deck silos like the Kuznetsov. This would increase the number of air capable surface combatants apart from the dedicated CVs. Their deployment esp. for ASW would be ore widespread.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2015 09:32

John wrote:
Austin wrote:I suspect the entire propulsion system too is imported ie 90 % and above , the only reason it shows 40-50 % is because these engines like LM2500 and German one built by kirloskar are lic produced in India hence counted as indiginous.

The only hope of indigenous engine is the Kaveri marine variant.
Where are we with Kaveri? I know Navy wanted to incorporate into new vessels but i haven't heard anything since then.

Not sure if Kaveri marine will see the light of day in any operational ships soon , though we need badly an indiginious Gas Turbine and Diesel engine for ships .....cant perpetual lic build german , ukr and us engine.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Jul 2015 11:29

NRao wrote:
1. Go with QE design and the design house.
2. Forget EMALS and go with regular cats if really required. EMALS aint ready yet. Let them sort the kinks out.
1. QE is S-Jump? So, #2 does not apply?
2. EMALS should be ready by the time this boat gets to sheet metal in about 6 years or so. Besides, I am not sure incremental designs apply here. Are there plans for any boats after the Vishal?

3. Explore f-35B for ops along with LCA. Don't add more K's.
A ship needs attention - it cannot change. The air wing is less important - in the grand scheme of things - it does change over time.

BTW, teh IN has just published what the IN expects by 2030. I think that should be the core reference is future discussions here.

QE can be S jump, but it can be quite easily be CAT enabled with no S jump. The french PA2 was the same QE design but reconfigured to be CATOBAR.
It's a sound design. Easy enough to replicate and expanded as the french did with it. They redesigned it to be 75K tons.

I don't follow what you mean by "A ship needs attention?"

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Jul 2015 11:30

Thakur_B wrote:
Cybaru wrote: Work on a long range UAV that can take off from a ship for AEW/AsuW work. A heavier version of Nishant UAV. Rail launched and regular landing. We have both versions working. Marry them and work on a twin engined larger platform 8-10 hour time on station and 20K ceiling and something that can carry a chin mounted gimball sensor and 200-300 kg antenna. 400Kg payload apart from fuel and other required items. (Rail launched is not necessary if the UAV can take off on its own power from angled deck).
Regarding Nishant, a compact catapult contraption for Nishant can be implemented on vikramaditya (based on the current truck catapult) and an arrested recovery be made using the ATOL module of Panchi.

Yeah I am hoping a scaled up version with higher payload in a few years will be most useful.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Jul 2015 11:39

Singha wrote:imo given the deep reluctance of GOTUS to share anything related to its big stick (CVN)...NG is always super busy with new carriers and refits...and they operate only in the XXL size factor , a superior working project could be BAE systems producing a QE2-mki design of around 65000t empty, 80000t full load, and american help used for the EMALS , JSF , ATC etc. ........ for JSF they would already have done the necessary placement and parking studies albeit not in ctol mode.

BAE is completing its 2nd carrier and will not have new carrier work thereafter.

main change - instead of 280m length, make it 310m......opens big addl deck parking areas and improves sortie rates as more a/c can line up behind the catapults.

in killa iphone9 looks the QE2 is superior to the latest gerald ford class.

65K empty and 80K full is very similar to JFK class. I think the french design was still 15 meters shy of 300meters. The JFK class is a good 321M. That thing carried 80+ aircraft of intruder and F-14 types. So I am sure you can fit quite a large load on these. They were also conventional which is I think a better approach.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2015 11:45

QE2=280m, beam 70m
PA2=283m, beam 73m

the steam catapults are 90m long. that drives a lot of deck design as one needs 3 for a ship that size to keep sortie rates. the angled waist cat being 90m long drives the tonnage of the ship. a longer and wider ship will have better parking areas on both sides and ahead of the island. 3 deck edge lifts would be mandatory including atleast two capable of bringing up 2 a/c in one shot with folded wings.

I vote we up it to 320meters and 77m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_ ... dy_(CV-67)
the incremental cost in steel will not be much, nor in fuel given the long sleek shape of these beasts.

need not fully kit up the 80 unit airwing on day1 but gives us lot of options. one of the key things that make superior defences is the american CVNs each always carry 4 x E2 no matter what their rest of airwing...so they can keep one hawkeye up in the air 24x7 over a long battle.

if we are going to steam out looking for a fight in the east, we need such ships.

LM2500 is a compact powerplant...I am sure even 8 can be fitted and ganged together for the task.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jul 2015 13:11

high quality canada/aus grade uranium reserve found in srisailam forests. early days yet..has to be checked how much is there.
http://idrw.org/major-uranium-reserves- ... m-forests/

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jul 2015 17:24

Philip wrote:I ckd with one of my earlier posts,Scorpene's escalated cost now is now stated to be approx. $800+M.Even if the Kilo refits are $200M,they will serve for another 10-15 years.

As it happens, I checked too -

The project has also overshot the budget by nearly Rs 5,000 crore and is expected to cost about Rs 23,000 crore. - Rediff

All the six submarines will be inducted by 2018 at a revised cost of Rs.23,562 crore ($4.6 billion), nearly a Rs.5,000 crore ($1 billion) increase from the originally approved cost of Rs.18,798 crore ($3.6 billion). - India Strategic

Timeline slippages also led to heavy cost escalation from the initially contracted Rs 18,798 crore to Rs 23,562 crore. - Sunday Guardian

That's about $625 mil per sub at the current exchange rate.

Even at $800 mil each with a 30 year lifetime, the cost expended for a decade's service is ... surprise, surprise.. just $266 million (compared to $200 mil for the Kilo life extension). Doesn't include cost-of-capital but delivers a far superior, far safer weapon system.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Jul 2015 19:57

somebody can photoshop with this ?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Jul 2015 22:02

Singha wrote:QE2=280m, beam 70m
PA2=283m, beam 73m

the steam catapults are 90m long. that drives a lot of deck design as one needs 3 for a ship that size to keep sortie rates. the angled waist cat being 90m long drives the tonnage of the ship. a longer and wider ship will have better parking areas on both sides and ahead of the island. 3 deck edge lifts would be mandatory including atleast two capable of bringing up 2 a/c in one shot with folded wings.

I vote we up it to 320meters and 77m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_ ... dy_(CV-67)
the incremental cost in steel will not be much, nor in fuel given the long sleek shape of these beasts.

need not fully kit up the 80 unit airwing on day1 but gives us lot of options. one of the key things that make superior defences is the american CVNs each always carry 4 x E2 no matter what their rest of airwing...so they can keep one hawkeye up in the air 24x7 over a long battle.

if we are going to steam out looking for a fight in the east, we need such ships.

LM2500 is a compact powerplant...I am sure even 8 can be fitted and ganged together for the task.

Yeah LM2500 would certianly would be a great choice.
I think we should aim for a 50 compliment air unit on these carriers. Designing something for 80 aircrafts would be somewhat wasteful. Having two of a smaller class would be more beneficial.

6-10 Helicopters.
4-6 AEW/UAV's
30-45 F35C/NLCA. So at any given time there are between 24-32 available for ops.
F35C have a good 799 Nautical mile radius and give legs, stealth and great payload carrying capablity.
If we still stick to mig-29Ks, we will need a larger carrier as the number of planes that will go down over a week or two of use will drop significantly.

John · Post by **John** » 23 Jul 2015 22:11

Viv S wrote:I've heard you say at least a dozen times that a brand new Kilo is available to India for just $300 million. So does the idea that a simple upgrade should cost 2/3rds as much as a new boat, seem rational to you? Or would you like rethink the full cost of a new Kilo?

Don't think Phillip responded to this but 300 mill for new Kilo is unlikely. Vietnam paid 2 billion for 6 Kilo's in 2009 and the deal was likely subsidized by Russia. IMO a brand new one would cost at least 500 million adjusted for inflation. That said it still confounds me why we didn't choose to build more U209s we had the design.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2015 22:50

. That said it still confounds me why we didn't choose to build more U209s we had the design

Convoluted logic. It is cheaper to pay more.