Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

[NRao]

Follow on order should mean selling the Vikram.

Two Vikrants, and make the Visual per its name 100,000. And order another.

[Karthik S]

If they get such order, then they should go for n-powered CATOBAR. Vikrant class is equal to Charles de Gaulle in size.

[srai]

So there was an official CSL statement on this 2nd Vikrant class vessel and reported two weeks ago.
CSL offers to build another aircraft carrier

The CSL is learnt to have assured the Navy in end-2014 that in case a follow-on order for a carrier is placed, it would be able to deliver the vessel in just four years from the time of delivery of INS Vikrant, scheduled to take place in 2018. The Navy has not responded to the proposal yet. “A follow-on carrier would be advantageous for the Navy, as there would be no time lost on detailed design, development of specialised material, technology, honing of skills of the workforce and so on. Since the Navy desires to operate two carrier task forces at any given time, it would be a good option to exercise,” said a CSL official.

This should be done. A sure way to get 3 aircraft carriers in fleet by 2022. A new design will take much longer to finalize and then put into production.

[arshyam]

it would be able to deliver the vessel in just four years from the time of delivery of INS Vikrant, scheduled to take place in 2018.

Hmm, so they can start only after completing the Vikrant, so we can expect this by 2022 at the earliest, assuming the IN takes it up. My question is, does CSL have the infra to start work on the new carrier in parallel, i.e. start the hull work while the Vikrant is fitted out. Or do they have only the one dry dock this large?

Follow on order should mean selling the Vikram.

Not necessarily - it will ensure 2 operational carriers at any time, with one in refit.

I hope the IN takes this up. It will be a long held dream realized!

If they get such order, then they should go for n-powered CATOBAR. Vikrant class is equal to Charles de Gaulle in size.

Not for this one. It will increase the delivery timelines and remove the purpose of a quick follow on carrier. Then they might as well go for the Vishal with all the bells and whistles then, at least it will be a bigger ship with more capability.

[srai]

it would be able to deliver the vessel in just four years from the time of delivery of INS Vikrant, scheduled to take place in 2018.

Hmm, so they can start only after completing the Vikrant, so we can expect this by 2022 at the earliest, assuming the IN takes it up. My question is, does CSL have the infra to start work on the new carrier in parallel, i.e. start the hull work while the Vikrant is fitted out. Or do they have only the one dry dock this large?...

Modular sections can be built even if only one dock is available for integration activities post 2018. But the modular sections need to begin assembly soon though.

[Bade]

I believe even the Vikrant was a modular construction, isn't it ? There was a video floating around of a large ship built at CSL which alludes to this.

The Admiral's article posted in the previous pages clearly articulates that the need for a nuclear powered carrier has not yet arrived. We could get two for the price of one with this scheme, other overheads may not scale linearly in this business. A nuclear carrier of 60k+ class requires the right aircrafts. When the Navy is planning on the naval LCA and the Russian options as of now, what use does the EMALS have ... CATOBAR maybe. What about reactor design ? India uses LEU which means more frequent refueling every 2 yrs (?) or so and a lengthy process.

Even if the US gives us EMALS tech and the F-35C what about reactors or even HEU for fuel (to fill and forget for a decade or more) option. Vishal is too far into the future, unless it is just a souped up Vikrant which can carry more planes.

[Bade]

Hmm, so they can start only after completing the Vikrant, so we can expect this by 2022 at the earliest, assuming the IN takes it up. My question is, does CSL have the infra to start work on the new carrier in parallel, i.e. start the hull work while the Vikrant is fitted out. Or do they have only the one dry dock this large?

CSL has two dry docks of similar size. The outfitting of the rest of Vikrant is going to be done after floating it out of the dry dock, as per reports so far. So in principle they may not have to wait till 2018 to start the initial works.

[Singha]

we must preserve scarce domestic stocks of HEU for n-sub projects only.

if needed 6x LM2500 and larger fuel tanks would be utilized to drive the 65000t vishal.

the QE2 carrier is 70,000t and uses this powerplant....
Full integrated electric propulsion
2 × Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 36 MW (48,000 hp) gas turbine
4 × Wärtsilä 38 marine diesel engines (2 × 12V38 8.7 MW or 11,700 hp & 2 × 16V38 11.6 MW or 15,600 hp)
---

we will likely need atleast 1 LM2500 dedicated from the pool for producing steam or electricity for the catapults.
the Lm2500 is smaller than the RR Trent above at 36000hp and 25MW.

I think QE2 is driving her screws only with the gas turbines and using the diesel generators to run her hotel loads and radars. a similar plan could be used for vishal also....infact we could replicate it to avoid any surprises.

[sankum]

The Vikrant carrier has estimated hanger dimensions of 120m*21m only which allows for 8 mig 29k and 5 Helos for a total of 13 Aircraft internally in two rows which can be increased to 17 aircraft if 2 more mig 29k and 2 helos will be carried in 3 row config to up total number of aircraft to 17nos in hanger which is quite cramped.

On deck 12 mig 29k plus 5 Helos can be parked in the parking area which can be increased to 14 mig 29k plus 5 Helos for a maximum of 36 Aircraft and standard load of 30 Aircrafts.

Rafale in no way can be carried on INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant as lifts are of 10m width and Rafale wing span is 11m.

INS Vikrant in CGI video has a turntables at hanger exit and a open hanger concept and so it is capable of carrying Naval PakFa if its nose and wings are folded to give a folded dimensions of 18m by 8m but the number pak fa will be limited to 20nos max.

I did a numerical analysis of 14.3 degree ski jump launch 15 years back and the Take of weight of Aircraft is as a thumb rule under ideal conditions is cube root function of the take off distance on full afterburner.
I have forgotten calculus and please don't quote me on this as I may not be that accurate but just to give a rough idea.

Take off launch points in INS Vikramaditya 110m and 195m. For INS Vikrant it is 145m and 205m.

Take of weight for Mig 29K MTOW 24.5T and payload 5.5T for 195m take off length.

Take of runway 110m- TOW-20.2T and payload-1.2T.

Take of runway 145m- TOW-22.2T and payload-3.2T.

Estimated NLCA mk2 with MTOW of 16T and payload of 4T for Take of runway 205m.

Take of runway 110m- TOW-13T and payload-1T.

Take of runway 145m- TOW-14.2T and payload-2.2T

Naval pak fa and naval Amca with high thrust to weight ratio will carry more payload(may be maximum) while using short runways.

Naval AMCA folded dimensions can be estimated to be 17.5m by 7.5m same as of mig 29k class.

[Singha]

>>Rafale in no way can be carried on INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant as lifts are of 10m width and Rafale wing span is 11m.

a design mistake. a carrier serves 50 yrs and I bet the Mig29K cannot soldier on for that long, even with a MLU. what then?

your calculations indicate the vikramaditya will be able to launch strike payloads only from the longer runway .. and coupled with its limited hangar area is a big compromise. the ADS overall is far superior, esp the mfstar, 3D radar and barak8 cells.

[brar_w]

Take off launch points in INS Vikramaditya 110m and 195m. For INS Vikrant it is 145m and 205m.

Take of weight for Mig 29K MTOW 24.5T and payload 5.5T for 195m take off length.

Take of runway 110m- TOW-20.2T and payload-1.2T.

Take of runway 145m- TOW-22.2T and payload-3.2T.

Correct on that, Mig-29K requires 195m for full payload it can do around 49000 pounds fro 195m which is near its MTOW, while @ 110m it should be able to launch @ around 39-40,000 pounds net so around 10,000 pounds short.

[Prasad]

Follow on order should mean selling the Vikram.

Two Vikrants, and make the Visual per its name 100,000. And order another.

Say, does Vietnam want an aircraft carrier ? You know, for friendship purposes.

[Philip]

A few years ago I posted a piece I think from the USNI about the longevity of carriers and their unique ability to stay "modern" because they would operate new naval aircraft as they were developed. The IN has done magnificently from the days of INS Vikrant operating vintage Seahawks in '71 ,Sea Harriers on both Vikrant and Viraat ,which has now been in active service for over 50 years. The Vik-A too will soldier on for at least 3 decades and looking at its total cost in restrospective ,despite the tardy delay and delivery of the carrier ,which was a difficult underestimated job,will be able to operate newer naval aircraft,UCAVs,etc. in course of time.

The Vik-A is an exceptionally valuable asset for our purposes in the IOR,to be ably supported by the new Vikrant. For the foreseeable future,at least 2 decades+,we will be operating the MIG-29Ks. The 65K T large CV planned with or without EMALS,N-propulsion will take some time designing ,costing and budgeting for. Right now it is imposs. for the GOI to fund the execution of the programme given or acute financial situ. The market fell by over 600 points yesterday with predictions of a poor monsoon and lower grwoth. This will have an effect on capital spending across the services.

With our parallel need for 4 amphibs,another Vikrant class CV as CSL has offered within 4 years is a great option.The carrier could be used for both power projection,and amphib support ops using heavy helos and its strike aircraft in support of such ops.Ro-Ro- ships used by both the merchant navy and IN in times of a crisis could transport the heavy AVs,arty,etc. That is how the Brits do it,v.cost-effective.
With 3 medium sized CVs in the fleet,at least two would be operational at any time. With another 2 amphibs based upon the hull of the Vikrant,aagain another cost-saving method,we would possess at least 5 flat tops for strike,ASW and amphib ops.,apart from disaster relief. As newer naval aircraft are developed and UCAVs mature for carrier ops,these carriers will still be sailing "into harm's way" 3 decades hence.

[SNaik]

Interesting report by Michael Gilmore, chief of the Pentagon testing office:

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... seidon.pdf

[Philip]

Tx SN.Are the various defects.limitations of the P-8A and its systems common to the IN? We have had no such news at all from the IN about P-8Is performance. It would be interesting to see whether the USN's experience is becos of their unique eqpt. or common to all variants.

[Pratyush]

Follow on order should mean selling the Vikram.

Two Vikrants, and make the Visual per its name 100,000. And order another.

Say, does Vietnam want an aircraft carrier ? You know, for friendship purposes.

Or may be Thiland needs another royal yatch

[Singha]

Tx SN.Are the various defects.limitations of the P-8A and its systems common to the IN? We have had no such news at all from the IN about P-8Is performance. It would be interesting to see whether the USN's experience is becos of their unique eqpt. or common to all variants.

I think the P8A being the gold std has functions of the EP3 built in for pure play electronic sniffing also, while the P8I does not. thats why P8A is seen lurking all around the south china seas these days...not hunting subs but sniffing at cheen activities.

the P8I for our needs has a air search radar in the nose and a MAD stinger in the tail.

[SNaik]

Tx SN.Are the various defects.limitations of the P-8A and its systems common to the IN? We have had no such news at all from the IN about P-8Is performance. It would be interesting to see whether the USN's experience is becos of their unique eqpt. or common to all variants.

I think the P8A being the gold std has functions of the EP3 built in for pure play electronic sniffing also, while the P8I does not. thats why P8A is seen lurking all around the south china seas these days...not hunting subs but sniffing at cheen activities.

the P8I for our needs has a air search radar in the nose and a MAD stinger in the tail.

Still, the trouble with excessive heating of main tank, for instance, will affect ASuW function as well as will the interference between ASuW equipment and comms.

I wonder, if P-8I has got the Multi-Static Active Coherent broad area acoustic system or not.

[Singha]

P8I can do AsUW alone with harpoons and its nose radar & ESM,

the USN certainly is not bothered by it.....when 100s of F-18s can be thrown at it....backed by the much better E2D radar and any lurking SSNs with harpoons & LRSAM it can call up.P8A likely will only hunt subs and do electronic sniffing...probably few will be dedicated sniffers with the torpedo bay having extra ELINT gear.

[NRao]

First time I am coming across this hyphen in print.

U.S. bears arms in India-China rivalry

Defense Secretary Ash Carter is expected to sign agreements with India to bring U.S. defense companies closer to helping the Indian navy build its own aircraft carrier and to encourage cooperation on jet engines — an effort to influence what could be the defining rivalry of the 21st century, between India and China

Need to wait and see what comes out of this trip, but if the goal (on both sides) is to influence the design (and build) of the Vishal itself then that is a quantum leap, not just in naval design/techs, but even more so in the area of politics. For India to be able to ply the SCS considering it international waters a small boat will not do. And, I just do not see one of the Vishal class ships sufficing either.

Even in the IOR, China is negating the Indian land mass through a string of ports in the region, one actually will co-exist with Western facilities (great to spy on). Seriously, I am now starting to feel that even a Vikrant will not suffice in the IOR. (As an aside, I do not see China as a lone wolf in the IOR. I fully expect host nations to at the very least provide some support to the Chinese, thus complicating Indian policy and action.)

IMHO, the Vikram is out.

What I would like to see:

1) Have no idea what India can do with the Vikram. I suspect Russia will not provide support to a nation willing to buy it - but that is a diff story
2) The Vikrant is there so use it (great experience - cannot be substituted)
3) Not sure what to make out of the US offer just yet, but assuming a very rosy picture, build out the Vishal to a 100,000
4) Get two (if not three) of these Vishal class

I am not in favor of getting another Vikrant just to get another carrier out there. A carrier has a political signature that no other ship carries and therefore a decision cannot (should?) not be made based on time-lines and costs alone.

[NRao]

Posting the above article in full, to display a better picture of the strategic/political forces in play in the region.

U.S. bears arms in India-China rivalry

Defense Secretary Ash Carter is expected to sign agreements with India to bring U.S. defense companies closer to helping the Indian navy build its own aircraft carrier and to encourage cooperation on jet engines — an effort to influence what could be the defining rivalry of the 21st century, between India and China.

Carter made the first-ever visit of an American defense chief to a major Indian naval base and is holding high-level meetings in New Delhi focused on what the Pentagon calls “maritime security cooperation.”

But Carter’s three-day stay is just as much about shaping India’s relationship with China.

With its fast-growing economy and simultaneous surge in demand for energy, China is seeking to expand its reach into the Indian Ocean in order to safeguard the transit of oil from the Middle East. That means Beijing is trying to increase its naval presence — including in relatively obscure but strategic places such as the Maldives, a tiny island chain less than 400 miles southwest of the tip of the Indian Subcontinent.
Full coverage of defense policy

POLITICO PRO
Full coverage of defense policy

China is already gaining a foothold on the string of 26 coral islands, generating deep concern from Washington to New Delhi that it is trying to replicate its controversial buildup on contested islands in the South China Sea.

“China’s interest in the Maldives suggests that China is getting serious about projecting power beyond its near seas and that the Indian Ocean will become a theater of greater strategic importance to the United States in the decades to come,” said Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes, chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee, who believes U.S. must take on an active role in the region.

U.S. Navy officials are expected to meet with their Indian counterparts to discuss New Delhi’s requirements for a new ship, including its range, design and the number of aircraft it could carry. India has two carriers, bought used from Britain and Russia, respectively, but it wants a new class of larger ships designed and built at home. Washington hopes American shipbuilders, contractors and aerospace vendors get a chance to do some of that work.

The paucity of available land in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans means an intense global focus on tiny points including places such as the Maldives and the artificial islands China is building in the South China Sea, where it has added 2,000 acres in the Spratly Islands. Carter scolded the Chinese for creating the artificial islands earlier in his trip, arguing that placing them in disputed waters and deploying artillery there only increases tensions in the region.

There are also reports that China is eyeing the Seychelles {Djibouti}, elsewhere in the Indian Ocean, as a place to establish a military facility, the same location from where U.S. launches unmanned aircraft that operate over places like Somalia or Yemen.

China is also making moves where the U.S. has its closest base in the Indian Ocean — Diego Garcia on the Chagos archipelago in Mauritius. While the United Kingdom has control over Diego Garcia, allowing the U.S. military to use it, China is investing in Mauritius through the tourism industry and is looking to strengthen bilateral ties.

Not everyone believes the arms buildup is wise. Both India and China — as well as India’s historic foe, Pakistan — are upgrading their nuclear arsenals. Last year the trio also were the top three arms importers in the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The institute, in a report published last year, noted that while “world attention is presently focused on … a conflict over a couple of small islands in the East China Sea,” China’s naval posture “might also bring it into conflict with India.”

“However, if China and India can transform their fragile and unstable relationship into something more cooperative, this could have an enormous positive impact on the two countries—and on global politics,” the group added.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been eager to find ways to cooperate with Beijing — including recently visiting Chinese president Xi Jinping in an attempt to alleviate tension — but analysts warn of growing friction between the two, which have had a series of violent border confrontations over the years and fought a ground war in 1962.

“In the security domain, India and China still have some issues and strategic distrust,” said Darshana Baruah, a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi.

Carter said "defense technical cooperation with India" is "a big priority for the United States, a big priority for the Indian government." | Getty

She predicted that distrust could grow with the developments in the Indian Ocean.

“China will try and increase its foothold in the Indian Ocean — with or without a relationship with India,” she said.

Like Washington, New Delhi is trying reorient its foreign and security policy to the east, where the most dynamic economic forces, and struggle for influence, are taking place. But If India wants to have more of a say in its own back yard, the argument goes, it’s going to need the hardware to match — ships, aircraft, drones and other systems.

India’s longtime defense patron was Russia, but it is turning away after years of disappointments in Russian naval and aviation exports.

That dovetails nicely with Washington’s desire to “rebalance” to the Western Pacific, an effort that Carter has tried to drive since his days as the deputy secretary of defense. As he began his Asia tour last week Carter said “defense technical cooperation with India” is “a big priority for the United States, a big priority for the Indian government.”

In one sense, his trip to India builds on groundwork Carter laid himself.

Carter has been an advocate for increased defense ties between the U.S. and India since he was deputy defense secretary from 2011 to 2013. For example, he pushed for the Indians to buy Boeing or Lockheed Martin-built fighter planes — both of which it ultimately rejected — as well as concluding other deals designed to open up new opportunities for American defense companies.

“Secretary Carter’s visit to one of India’s major commands sends an important signal” and demonstrates “the clear convergence between the U.S. rebalance and India’s approach to ‘Act East,’” said one defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly ahead of the talks.

India and the U.S. have signed about $10 billion worth of defense contracts since 2008, which include Indian purchases of Lockheed-built C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft and Boeing-built C-17 Globemaster III cargo planes and P-8I Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, according to the White House. If the U.S. goes ahead with proposed plans to help India build a new aircraft carrier, it could be a boon for U.S. shipbuilders such as Huntington Ingalls Industries and General Atomics, the maker of electric aircraft catapults.

Now, in addition to its American cargo aircraft, India is buying submarines designed by France and Spain, and it selected the French-built Dassault Rafale as the winner of a recent fighter competition

[Karthik S]

I am not in favor of getting another Vikrant just to get another carrier out there. A carrier has a political signature that no other ship carries and therefore a decision cannot (should?) not be made based on time-lines and costs alone.

+1

[NRao]

Interesting report by Michael Gilmore, chief of the Pentagon testing office:

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... seidon.pdf

That report -as the URL says - is from 2012!!!!

[brar_w]

Interesting report by Michael Gilmore, chief of the Pentagon testing office:

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... seidon.pdf

That report -as the URL says - is from 2012!!!!

Its been discussed before, the DOT&E reports are transitional in nature and therefore are only valid until well, the next report. For example, a standard DOT&E official begins to analyze testing in January, takes a break in the summer and winds up his/her activity by October so that he/she can prepare the report. So if the report is Dated 2013, it documents what they observed in 2012 and so on. Given the transitional nature of the report it looses most relevance in future years. Initial operational testing is done to ID areas where they need improvements. The services generally have their own observations and make the required changes. A lot of the times what the DOT&E finds is in conflict with what the Program Managers or the customers (the services developing the product) find so they keep on doing what they think best and the DG certifies the program if he is satisfied (which he did for the P-8). Over the decade or so DOT&E has taken a life of its own and if my memory serves me well has been the fastest growing bureaucratic department in the Pentagon. The CNO, independent pentagon oversight and the Congress has a line to the Program Manager and the DOT&E reports, and so can do a back and forth (in writing or live) with the PM if they so wish. Most of the time there is a philosophical difference in opinion between the PM and the DOT&E official, and its the job of the independent authorities, service leadership and ultimately the political masters to look into what is right and what to do if there is a difference in opinion. DOT&E are basically beancounters and auditors that review what the Program Management is doing, seldom do they have expertise of their own to physically conduct testing on their own. At times you can eliminate testing by getting approval from DOT&E, and at times you still eliminate unnecessary testing even if they show dissent . They do carry a stick, but a small one so their reports although most of the time look scary to read (not aware of a very vey positive DOTE report on any cutting edge weapon) are balanced with what the technical experts in the Program management world have to report (the people that have the authority and with it the accountability as well).

[Prasad]

Economies of scale, lessons learned to be put into use and all is fine. We are no USN to be building nimitz class, gerald ford class, chinnakutty class carriers and run a hundred different aircraft carriers in different parts of the world. We are going to be build a max of 4-5. Given that we want to prowl around IOR and foray into SC Sea, we'll need with a bit more punch than IAC1. So build something bigger and build mutiples of it. We have 2 right now. Make 3 of a bigger variety and call it quits.

Somebody please fund it though

[NRao]

There is a "cost" by not funding these carriers. And, there is a "cost" of underfunding the carriers too. Also, for funding carriers that are based on flawed projections.

There is a "cost" to china too - if they under build, etc.

Then there is another angle: apparently China is perhaps the last nation to build islands in disputed SCS areas. So, nations like the US and India are unable to give a bhashan to China, because such nations did not speak up when other regional nations built islands.

It is taking such things into account that I suggest to go to a 100K design. India can always store planes - perhaps a ship too. But India cannot afford to underfund. IMHO, of course.

[Bade]

When we have shortage of funds to even raise MSC why bother with Super carriers now. Our power projection area is at present and near future going to be in IOR region. China is already or will be tied down in SCS area by both US and Japan and others too.

First one needs to have enough money to buy the right aircraft types (F-35 proven types ?) or build equivalents like LCA and beyond family of planes, before we embark on a super carrier. Do we need to take a hundred planes to sea in a group in the next two decades to project power ? To support what or whom, just a few oil fields under development in the SCS ?

Our immediate needs are to secure the IOR basin and coastal regions to the west of us, where our shipping dependencies lie. A foot hold in Africa with a base in the Seychelles. Vikrant class will do for now as it can be stretched to carry 36 nos as claimed above in tighter storage columns. Even two or three Vikrant class with the Vikram will work for the near future.

Meanwhile, work on the design for a Vishal++ in the 65k-90k range to operate post 2030 era when money and expertise will be found to build them if needed. Right now we need to consolidate what we can build with the money we have. Vikrant with naval LCAs and AMCAs will be the right approach.

Get HSL to build more subs, as an even cheaper option with more power projection for SCS hidden underwater.

[ManuJ]

Advantage of a bigger carrier extends beyond the number of planes and size of planes it can carry.
A larger carrier allows higher sortie rate, mostly due to its ability to perform simultaneous take-offs and landings because of bigger acreage.
India's next carrier absolutely needs to have this ability, regardless of its exact size or its choice of propulsion.

[arshyam]

When we have shortage of funds to even raise MSC why bother with Super carriers now. Our power projection area is at present and near future going to be in IOR region. China is already or will be tied down in SCS area by both US and Japan and others too.

First one needs to have enough money to buy the right aircraft types (F-35 proven types ?) or build equivalents like LCA and beyond family of planes, before we embark on a super carrier. Do we need to take a hundred planes to sea in a group in the next two decades to project power ? To support what or whom, just a few oil fields under development in the SCS ?

Our immediate needs are to secure the IOR basin and coastal regions to the west of us, where our shipping dependencies lie. A foot hold in Africa with a base in the Seychelles. Vikrant class will do for now as it can be stretched to carry 36 nos as claimed above in tighter storage columns. Even two or three Vikrant class with the Vikram will work for the near future.

Meanwhile, work on the design for a Vishal++ in the 65k-90k range to operate post 2030 era when money and expertise will be found to build them if needed. Right now we need to consolidate what we can build with the money we have. Vikrant with naval LCAs and AMCAs will be the right approach.

Get HSL to build more subs, as an even cheaper option with more power projection for SCS hidden underwater.

Second that. We need to stick to a few priority things, and do them well. Dominating IOR is one. That's not an option. We cannot have the Chinese show up here and keep dhoti-shivering about string of pearls or whatever. A larger nuke carrier will get us to SCS, no doubt, but it needs larger support ships to keep up, and form a etc. Focus on turning out a few Vikrant size carriers to take care of IOR before stepping outside. It's a pretty big ocean, and no point going out leaving the front door open.

SCS is better dealt with subs at this point, we are not ready to deploy a task force there like the Americans do.

[ramana]

Hankering for super carriers when the PRC threat is land based is very Nehurvian miasma.

If they want to raise a naval threat to PLAN in South China Sea, get a base in Cam Ranh Bay.

[Cybaru]

Couple of observations over the previous few pages:

EMALS: I couldn't find any details on cost and how it has performed. I think we should skip it for now and go for regular catapults. Once this product is a known entity and USN shares how it has performed for a few years, we could look into it for our third carrier. Doesn't it seem too risky as of now? If for some reason we have to replace it once installed and it doesn't perform, how will we deal with it? I think the catapult's are a better bet as of now. Known cost and issues. We are too new in making carriers.

Carrier vs subs: Subs offer a huge asymetric advantage that carriers don't offer much as one can track them more easily than subs. The amount of money, time, training and assets required to track submarines by the enemy is far far greater. Given that, we should push for more submarines. Perhaps limit carriers to 55-60K with regular propulsion as we don't have the required infrastructure to mount a large operation too far from base. They will serve as offensive weapons in the region, but will end up in defensive posture farther they operate from support structure. Whereas a few submarines around enemy territories will cause a far more greater headache and continue to maintain excellent offensive/defensive capablities.

[Bade]

Subs prowling the SCS regularly and even permanently based out of the Andamans is a required part of the triad for now. Highest priority at the same level as having a MSC.

[brar_w]

EMALS: I couldn't find any details on cost and how it has performed. I think we should skip it for now and go for regular catapults. Once this product is a known entity and USN shares how it has performed for a few years, we could look into it for our third carrier

The system development phase of the EMALS is about to conclude with the Operational testing kicking off in a few months. I am sure a lot of data would be shared if some interest is shown given that they have been launching aircraft from it for some years now. Ultimately, the system has to go through its debugging, and through its paces at the operational testing level, but the timelines the new carrier is looking at has a lot of cushion built into it.

Obviously they would need to trade the benefits of each with the requirements and they'll do that

http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... _final.jpg

[srai]

...
Our immediate needs are to secure the IOR basin and coastal regions to the west of us, where our shipping dependencies lie. A foot hold in Africa with a base in the Seychelles. Vikrant class will do for now as it can be stretched to carry 36 nos as claimed above in tighter storage columns. Even two or three Vikrant class with the Vikram will work for the near future.

Meanwhile, work on the design for a Vishal++ in the 65k-90k range to operate post 2030 era when money and expertise will be found to build them if needed. Right now we need to consolidate what we can build with the money we have. Vikrant with naval LCAs and AMCAs will be the right approach.

...

The IN should go for another Vikrant class if it wants a 3rd carrier between 2020 and 2030. Any new design, especially ones where nuclear and EMALS are being considered, won't be available anytime before 2030 at the earliest.

IMO, the IN should target acquiring one aircraft carrier per decade. That would mean by the time 4th one is acquired (i.e. 40 years later) one of the oldest carriers will be retiring. So a fleet of 4 aircraft carriers can be maintained in perpetuity. That goes for keeping carrier shipbuilding skills alive as well.

[NRao]

Hankering for super carriers when the PRC threat is land based ................

1) There are only carriers. How big is based on perceived/expected threat
2) Nehruvia (what is that)? Suggesting PRC threat is land based, especially around 2040ish, is Nehruvian. IF it actually were so (land based), there is no way the US would offer techs like EMALS ........... India has no need for it in the IOR, see below*.

If they want to raise a naval threat to PLAN in South China Sea, get a base in Cam Ranh Bay

And, yet there is hankering for (not super) carriers within the IN. Which nation in the IOR is reaaaaaly a naval threat? NONE. And, if the IN can build a base in a foreign nation, why not build plenty of them in India. Cancel the Vishal and send those funds for the MSC I say.

When we have shortage of funds to even raise MSC

Funds, I think, are by Service. So, if at all, a super carrier will impact other naval assets. I do not think it will impact MSC.

why bother with Super carriers now

Why bother with any carrier? Why Vishal? What is IN doing with the Vikram? What has the IN done with the Viraat? Nothing. ????????????????

Simple: threat perception. Why even MSC? Because of threat perception. Why new artillery? Because ............ Why MMRCA/Rafale? Because ....

Same for a super carrier. Nothing different.

The threat in 20 years would make these carriers useless (I have said this before, I think the Vikram is not of much use even now. ?????)

We need to stick to a few priority things, and do them well

Good.

Priorities change. But, never mind.




* The US would never have offered technologies such as EMALS if the IN was to remain IOR focused. Why would they? Is the Vishal an under performer for the IOR? Why would the US talk about help for design and in the latest news item, talk about discussing the number of planes on the Vishal? And, the latest - news report about IN/Indians visiting US facilities. IF IOR centric, why? What does the Indians lack for the IOR?

Same goes for "engine" technologies.

Subs prowling the SCS regularly and even permanently based out of the Andamans is a required part of the triad for now. Highest priority at the same level as having a MSC.

{You are mixing too many things.}

One is strategic, the other is not. Mix-n-match does not work here.

Now, if one of the carriers had a nuke capable plane, then that story changes.

[arshyam]

* The US would never have offered technologies such as EMALS if the IN was to remain IOR focused. Why would they?

So why are they 'offerring' such techs, exactly? Even at their altruistic best, the US won't offer anything unless they see that it benefits them (which is fine, I am not saying they should just give stuff for goodwill). But I am curious - what are they expecting from us when offerring to share EMALS?

[Cosmo_R]

* The US would never have offered technologies such as EMALS if the IN was to remain IOR focused. Why would they?

So why are they 'offerring' such techs, exactly? Even at their altruistic best, the US won't offer anything unless they see that it benefits them (which is fine, I am not saying they should just give stuff for goodwill). But I am curious - what are they expecting from us when offering to share EMALS?

Money and the promise that we won't share it with China/Russia?

[Bade]

They are expecting a slice of the business of building the super-carrier and the aircraft that go with it perhaps.

[Kakkaji]

Order Vikrant2 first, to be delivered by 2025.

Vishal cannot be ready before 2030.

[brar_w]

* The US would never have offered technologies such as EMALS if the IN was to remain IOR focused. Why would they?

So why are they 'offerring' such techs, exactly? Even at their altruistic best, the US won't offer anything unless they see that it benefits them (which is fine, I am not saying they should just give stuff for goodwill). But I am curious - what are they expecting from us when offerring to share EMALS?

Simple answer is for "strategic reasons". The same reason why Japan and Australia want to strengthen ties with the Indian Military. The Indo-Pacific is responsible for nearly 2/3 of the global trade, and its a region where China and its Navy is increasing in influence, a military that does not have the best relationships with its neighbors and the other aspiring players in the region such as India. Under these circumstances one way to offset that changing balance is to back other powers in the regions specially those that are stable democracies that you have a good economic and now political relationship with.

Long term G2G deals, such as a decade long strategic partnership takes place when there is alignment of interests between two nations that then use those common interests to their mutual benefit. The US is a Pacific Nation, heavily invested in the region with nearly 1000 aircraft and soon a majority of its Navy. Nations like the US, Japan and India find it in their mutual interest to collaborate in their mutual interests in order to prevent the Chinese from eroding their influence in the all important region.

Strategic reasons are also what drive the Russians for example to offer S400 Air defenses to the Chinese, or the Su-35, knowing full well that they are ruthless copycats and will have clones sooner rather than later. In that relationship the Russians see China as a secure customer for its energy and a strategic partner against the US influence in the region.