INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jul 2015 05:48

Look at it this way. What is China doing? Sending ships anywhere, sending troops into POK, ......... And getting away with all that. Pays nothing, but gets what she wants.

Carriers or not, that is where India needs to be at. 100 fishing boats, or a 300 ship spanking navy. Does not matter.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 31 Jul 2015 05:51

A couple of Vishals @90k tonne is for Pacific fleet of INS. Are we game for that yet, perhaps in 2035+ era. We need two decades of solid economic growth for that and a 300+ ship Navy.

For the South China sea or Indo-China sea a Vikrant class (40k tonne) will do with Andaman so near. This should be the near term goal. We need to control SCS today so we need one more Vikrant just for that. Meanwhile we plan for the EMALS/CATOBAR Vishal to declare ourselves to the world as the next superpower.

Right now what will decide the size of the ship is air-wing purchase capability for the near future needs.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 31 Jul 2015 06:56

From a tactical standpoint, let's not call it "economic development". perhaps "2 decades of mil-tech industry development".

the problem with "econ dev" is that usually all the anal-ysts clamour for "econ first", then military stuff. No need to add fuel to this propaganda. Let's call it "foundational mil-tech industry development" or something like that. I would say even putting a hard timeline like "2 decades" puts us at a disadvantage. It reveals to the enemy what we think our trajectory will be.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 31 Jul 2015 07:04

No disagreement with your interpretation. The usual understanding (for economic development) even on BR is when we have the money to buy foreign maal to fit our military needs. That thought needs change for sure. One does not wage war as a superpower on the back of purchased materials even from allies. The more we depend on military imports the weakness is clearly visible to a superior enemy...of course import to go to war will work against TSP size enemy not PRC size one.

Still we can shore up our islands in the Indo-Pacific sea with what we can build ourselves for now. That itself will show clear intent. The trajectory will be visible to any intelligent enemy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2015 07:41

4 carriers are reqd because carrier refits tend to take long times. so with 3 seaworthy ships, 1 can cover home waters/TSP and 2 can pair together for a fast moving attack role.

there is no equal to a large strike carrier in speed, ability to use the open seas to strike and disappear and reach. a SSGN with some 30 TLAM type weapons is just 15 planes launching a single strike off the carrier......and the SSGN has to then run back home 1000s of km away to rearm...a carrier will take on more fuel and munitions and keep fighting for a while. per my surgex97 link the Nimitz air wing over 4 days put some 1000 bombs on target and generated some 700 sorties of all types. that would take a entire navy of SSGNs to match...and that's just 1 supercarrier...Khan will usually mass together 4 for a major fight like desert storm - 2 "smaller" carriers were inside the gulf and 2 big cvn just outside.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 31 Jul 2015 08:19

Amit-saar, shock and awe? India? We still get excited when NASA posts MOM photos

Singha, much as I love a large sized plank with four CATs, I think we again need to delink our requirement from khan's first-world problems:

Khan's #4 strike carriers evolved up the chain from #1s, based on their own changing requirements over the decades. Their requirement during WWII and upto end of Cold-war was only up to #3. During WWII, all that their carriers did was support amphibious assault for island-hopping and sea-control. That too mainly in the Pacific theatre. The Atlantic saga is one of tiny little #2s and #3 Escort carriers for sea-control, ASW etc. That is because the enemy had formidable airforces, they never really approached mainland areas with these carriers. This is India's situation till now, wherein the current two antagonists (paki-cheeni) have capable airforces, that can be dealt only with airforce assets.

Despite the carriers having to bulk up to super-carrier sizes for jets, this sort of requirement continued through cold-war, when Khan's CBGs, massed in four or single #4 sized carriers was purposed to keep the Channel, Mediterranean and Pacific sanitized of soviet Tu22Ms, LRMPs and SSGNs. There might have been a nuke strike option against Warsaw pact, but it was as a Plan B to the North Dakota tubes + SLBMs + Chrome Dome frameworks

It is only when the adversaries shrunk in size from a Soviet Godzilla to a Saddam Chinchilla and when third-world bases faced closure, did the carriers became re-purposed as floating airbases, which indulge in toe-to-toe air battles, land attack et al with a weaker airforce. A victim of that repurposing is the F-14, which were great for fleet-defence A2A and maritime-striker hunts, but did not do well despite the 90s effort for Lantirn etc, for land attack. They were phased out in favour of the multi-role Shornet, which fit in well with going head-on during first day against a weak airforce, followed by land attack on subsequent days.

Khan likes his carriers to attack weak-air force countries with four carriers as four airbases. Now, who is our target for such an action? Even a 1000 bombs are not going to make a dent in Pearl River Delta, which has evolved into a true megapolis like the US eastern seaboard, that needs atleast three to five separate BMs carrying 10 MIRVs each. If it is mission killing of Hainan etc, for a limited military purpose, that can be done with an SSGN load

Again, planning for future is nice, but khan's requirements might not be the best template. Cheen is making a big mistake by doing just that. Soviets, despite not doing this, had issues that sunk them.

(BTW, khan quietly maintains HUGE numbers of big-ass Amphibous assault flat-tops

)

Added later: wiki link on Naval land attack during WWII, which came in at nearly the end, in 1945. Kind of focussed on maritime aircraft destruction than the strategic bombing indulged by Le May's crew

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 Jul 2015 08:57

4 carriers is way beyond India's affordability quotient, now or in the foreseeable future. Large projects need appropriate long term planning. Committing to a large, capital intensive project means that larger portions of the capex budget would be "committed" out in the years to come. If total budget doesnt increase exponentially, a lot of tactical, immediate requirements will be affected. The forces are replete with such instances. Ammunition shortages because of commitments on raising extra divisions and Corps on the Eastern front. Delayed P75I because already Navy's capex budgets are almost fully acccounted for with existing projects.

As a comparison, France with an economy (still) larger than India's, can hardly operate one carrier. Brazil with an economy as large as ours operates one small carrier.

India needs 8-9% sustained growth for at least 10-15 years before the economy can handle such large ambitions. Till then, we need to be smart about things. Planning for one large carrier with mastery over critical technologies to partner the smaller Vik-A/IAC-I would leave money over for funding some of the critical gaps.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2015 09:59

>>During WWII, all that their carriers did was support amphibious assault for island-hopping and sea-control. That too mainly in the Pacific theatre.

I think you are wrong here. the carriers were the key to first destroying japans ever expanding island hopping campaign that had reached the doorstep of australia. coral sea and midway took out the japanese carriers and no american "bull halsey" battleship squadron could have come remotely close to the 4 japani carriers in midway without being sunk. midway was the turning point of pacific war and a landmark in warfare where the carrier firmly cemented its place was a much more powerful weapon than the battleship (if there were any doubters after pearl harbour).....from then on, carriers always led the attack and battleships were relegated to shore bombardment duty rather than seeking to attack enemy ships....isolated ops like the night battles in guadalcanal and surigao strait did feature ship vs ship gun and torpedo battles....bull halsey ran off into a decoy chase in Leyte licking his lips at one last chance to use his iowa class battlewagons in a glorious fight on the high seas....meantime the japani heavies including the Musashi pounced on the landing area....even there desperate attacks by planes from the escort carriers and suicidal TT attacks by destroyers convinced the japanis they had met some of the bigger carriers and they decided to withdraw rather than utterly destroy the landing areas.battle of philipine sea was again a land -vs- carrier thing..with 15 carriers

strung out into a line 30 miles long and fighting all day with hellcat planes and radars.....300+ shot down vs 30

>> The Atlantic saga is one of tiny little #2s and #3 Escort carriers for sea-control, ASW etc.

all the american big carriers were sent to the pacific. and there was no need since main threat was U-boats and the odd FW Kondor LRMP bomber thing.

--
none are saying start 4 supercarriers in parallel but eventually by mid century we need 4 heavies...how we construct them is variable perhaps one every 7 years starting.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2015 10:09

we will have a major sized problem in our doorstep in the PLAN+PLANAF tag team whether we like or not. already they have established a permanent presence in the gulf of aden under anti-piracy, seeking basing rights in djibouti, trying to nibble in the maldives and will get a R&R base in TSP for sure.

we can either fight for survival in our backyard(the old indian failing of not clearing and securing the indus valley and khyber of hostile elements and always fighting near delhi and raj when the enemy had time to prepare in force) or prepare to take some of the fight into their backyard as well.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 31 Jul 2015 10:28

Where is the "strike-carrier" (aka land-attacking floating airbase) model in all the above "I think you are wrong post....". What you are talking is all about upto #3 (amphib, fleet air defense, CAP and limited CAS for USMC) during WWII. That part I have no disagreement

saar, you are going off-T in what I am trying to say - Khan's operational needs are not a good template to take on Cheen. Cheen needs to be taken down, if needed. But right now you are talking as if Cheen can be tackled with a bevy of Class#4 carriers. No one can, including Khan. Khan relies on Tridents and Walmart for that. Those Class#4 carriers as is being used today by Khan, that is not sustainable against Cheen or pakis. Maybe an Indonesia or a Yemen (if we stick to IOR potential threats to India).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2015 10:47

for that era the enterprise & essex class types were the strike carriers. remember the planes were quite a bit smaller.
in all the battles i have mentioned the main missions were air defence and strikes on ships - same as we would do if we ventured east. A&N despite having bases is too far away - except for Tu160 blackjack types.

more the a.c the better.

WW2 midway era carriers
USS yorktown - 90 ac
USS hornet - 72 ac
USS enterprise - 90 ac
USS saratoga - 78 ac
USS ranger - the first carrier built from keel up as a carrier in usn - 76 ac

so america had supercarriers even in WW2 by the size of the airwings. just that a/c were smaller so the ships were smaller. each ship had 2000+ people. all were straight deck so parallel launch and recover not possible, the angled deck innovation came later. most had wood decks...kamikaze taught them wood decks caught fire so they moved to british idea of steel decks. imagine a troop of 3 of these "turning into the wind, speeding up and launching full deckloads" - they could put some 200+ planes into the air within 1 hr.

Khan has plans to take on the dragon using a mix of carrier and shore based air power - brar_w posts occasional good details on it. ofcourse carriers are part of the mix , not the whole...as it will be for us on a smaller scale.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jul 2015 10:49

The decisiveness of air power at sea was demonstrated at the Batttle of Midway,where the USN sank 4 Japanese carriers (thanks to their code-breaking),effectively putting Japan on the road downhill. Midway was literally the turning point in the Pacific War.

However,with a proliferation of anti-carrier tactics developed during and after the Cold War,anti-CV subs like Oscars,Chinese anti-CV BMs,carriers once detected in an NCW environment are vulnerable. Therefore as said umpteen times,we need several flat-tops from med/ Cvs,to amphibs and even smaller CG sized platforms.These will be able to handle a variety of fixed and rotary wing assets to conduct the varied maritime ops required.Max. usage of shore based facilities using LRMPs/MRPs,strike aircraft,etc.,will complement the objective of maintaining the IOR as an "Indian lake",and sending our advance elements into the Indo-China Sea for advance warning of PLAN adventurism.

We must remember that the USN has in its recent conflicts ,along with its western/NATO allies,always faced inferior forces,the strongest being Saddam's forces, which had no air force worth its name,little Libya,etc. The USN's supercarriers were the principal assets by which the US waged its air wars against these nations.,but even then was unable to overcome irregular forces in Iraq,Afghanistan and now Libya too,where ruthless dictators have been replaced by even more ruthless Islamic fundamentalists! The US and NATO have retreated from these battlefields,"Mission Unaccomplished!" A colossal defeat for the policies of the American/Western military and diplomacy.

The GOI however,has established an understanding with smaller littoral nations in the IOR like Mauritius,Seychelles,etc. To protect these island nations from being taken over by extraneous forces,the IN needs adequate amphib capabiliites to move rapidly troops and their huge eqpt. needs at speed. We also need vessels like the supercats developed by OZ which the US have acquired as fast logistic vessels. But for the moment,until we've decided upon the design for the amphibs,the best way to save time and money is to build a second Vikrant.After all,the Viraat/Hermes was used as an amphib .vessel in the Falklands,with Sea Harriers for fleet air defence.

PS:Hnair has echoed the same,that the USN has used its CV assets against insignificant powers.It is going to have a v.tough time against "Mainland China" (pun intended for Church St. gourmands !),with its huge numbers of land-based aircraft,subs,warships et al. The PRC is massively increasing its mil forces so that Taiwan will one day ripen and fall into its lap,without the US being able to do anything about it. The only thing that can save the Taiwanese is to acquire by hook or crook,N-weapons or develop alternative WMDs (chem.bio weapons) with which to use against the PRC should it invade.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jul 2015 10:52

I totally agree we need ALSO smaller carriers for sea control, new LPD ships (3-4) , smaller trentonish ships, large Ro-Ro vessels. these needs are more immediate than 4 heavies , but does not deny the need will come inevitably.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 31 Jul 2015 12:42

I think we should go for another 40,000 ton class while building up technology base for conventional CATOBAR 65,000 class. Then we should build two 65,000 conventional CATOBAR carriers with EMALS.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Aug 2015 01:22

OK, a good watch for "carriers". Provides a decent idea of what is needed to scale up - in terms of weight. While watching keep track of the time/year.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Aug 2015 12:34

One of the most intriguing designs saw some time ago was a for a CV with a cat config,two isolated decks with the islands and some lifts in the middle.TOs and landings kept entirely separate. This would of course result in a CV of approx. 75/80K t and accommodate at least 60+ aircraft. If we're going ahead with a scaled up CV for 2030,this is a good clean design concept to work on. If there is a landing accident,it would not stop air ops on the other flight deck,which would result if there was only one large flight deck. Alternatively,both flight decks could be used for either TO or landings with arrestor wires /cats/ski-jumps whatever.This would give a much better sortie rate of aircraft.Imagine two aircraft being launched/rcovered at the same time!

Another plus is that in a twin-deck concept,the linking space between the two flight decks apart from locating lifts would also have large VLS modules for LR SAMs,LR SSMs,etc.The launch of these straight up would not affect flight ops.BPDM gun/missile systems and decoys could be located around the deck edges on sponsons as is currently done.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Aug 2015 12:40

if you meant a catamaran type wide design, there are pros and cons. pro is massive deck space for relatively lower displacement. con is might be unstable in crossing waves due to low length:beam ratio, shallower draft and the two widely separated props might have trouble keeping the ship straight if one were to be shut down due to any issue.

maybe someone could build this design as a high speed ASW patrol ship and make it work first
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/20 ... bd6c1f.jpg

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Aug 2015 09:00

^^^

Speaking of future designs:

Floating platform:

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Aug 2015 09:04

Relevant to this topic: China's Indo-China Sea carrier facilities expansion.

With two CVs being able to be based at the facility,the IN's eastern fleet's shore/base infrastructure must also be speeded up.Little info about the new bases on the east coast.

http://www.ibtimes.com/beijing-south-ch ... ps-2036523

Beijing South China Sea Military Expansion: World's Largest Aircraft Carrier Dock Helps China Expand Naval Ambitions
By Cristina Silva August 03 2015
China has reportedly built the world's largest aircraft carrier dock at its naval base in the South China Sea. The 700 meter-long dock is able to accommodate ships on both sides, allowing it to service two aircraft carriers or other large ships at the same time.

“The onshore support facilities include docking ports for the aircraft carriers, airports, training facilities and so on," said Yang Yujun, a spokesperson for China’s Defense Ministry, during a press conference Friday. China's state-run media has reported that the dock was built in 2014 and that “the base incorporates a pier that can dock large ships on both sides." Aircraft carrier docks used by the United States and Japan are between 400 and 430 meters long.

China’s lone aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, was docked briefly in the South China Sea in September 2013. The South China Sea naval base includes space for China's nuclear submarine base, making the Sanya complex the largest naval base in all of Asia.

China has not shied away from expressing its naval ambitions. Beijing confirmed last week that it was building an aircraft carrier that may be nuclear-powered. "The priority missions of building the aircraft carrier and nuclear submarines have been carried out smoothly and with outstanding achievements," a government document noted.

The U.S. government has closely watched Beijing's military expansion. “China also continues to pursue an indigenous aircraft carrier program and could build multiple aircraft carriers over the next 15 years,” concluded a recent U.S. Department of Defense assessment of Chinese military power.

China claims most of the South China Sea, but the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam have overlapping claims.

The Liaoning aircraft carrier is a Soviet-era ship purchased from Ukraine in 1998. It is equipped with multiple warheads, CNN reported.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 14 Aug 2015 15:23

STOBAR Carrier Ski-jump Simulator

Automated Take-Off From Aircraft Carriers For India's Naval Light Combat Aircraft [LCA-Navy]

Putting NLCA data from above as 170 kts CAS and 14.3 degree and 67 metre ramp and 200 m runway for INS Vikrant and AoA limit of 21.6 degree observed in 1st ski jump flight of NLCA and rest the default aircraft setting data MTOW of 13.3T is feasible for WOD of 30 knots for the 84KN engine thrust.

Ramp Angle-14.3 degree
Total Takeoff Strip (m):200m
Ramp Length (m):67m
Wind Over Deck (knots):30knots
Takeoff Weight:29360 lbs=13.3T
Thurst:18920 lbs=84kn
Optimal Speed (knots):170 knots
Optimal AoA:12 deg
Lift To Drag Ratio:3.43
Maximal Pitch Rate (deg/s):12 deg
AoA Limit: 21.6 deg

Press Calculate to get the Table and graphs.

Comment and correction from aerogurus.

Flight Data

Time (s),Air speed (knots),Climb (m/s),G, Distance (m),Altitude(m),AoA, Comment
0.00 30.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 Start
0.20 32.4 0.00 1.00 0.12 0.00 0.00
0.40 34.8 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
0.60 37.3 0.00 1.00 1.12 0.00 0.00
0.80 39.7 0.00 1.00 1.99 0.00 0.00
1.00 42.1 0.00 1.00 3.11 0.00 0.00
1.20 44.5 0.00 1.00 4.47 0.00 0.00
1.40 46.8 0.00 1.00 6.08 0.00 0.00
1.60 49.2 0.00 1.00 7.94 0.00 0.00
1.80 51.6 0.00 1.00 10.04 0.00 0.00
2.00 53.9 0.00 1.00 12.38 0.00 0.00
2.20 56.3 0.00 1.00 14.96 0.00 0.00
2.40 58.6 0.00 1.00 17.79 0.00 0.00
2.60 61.0 0.00 1.00 20.86 0.00 0.00
2.80 63.3 0.00 1.00 24.17 0.00 0.00
3.00 65.6 0.00 1.00 27.71 0.00 0.00
3.20 67.9 0.00 1.00 31.50 0.00 0.00
3.40 70.2 0.00 1.00 35.52 0.00 0.00
3.60 72.5 0.00 1.00 39.78 0.00 0.00
3.80 74.8 0.00 1.00 44.27 0.00 0.00
4.00 77.1 0.00 1.00 48.99 0.00 0.00
4.20 79.3 0.00 1.00 53.95 0.00 0.00
4.40 81.5 0.00 1.00 59.14 0.00 0.00
4.60 83.8 0.00 1.00 64.56 0.00 0.00
4.80 86.0 0.00 1.00 70.20 0.00 0.00
5.00 88.2 0.00 1.00 76.08 0.00 0.00
5.20 90.4 0.00 1.00 82.18 0.00 0.00
5.40 92.6 0.00 1.00 88.50 0.00 0.00
5.60 94.7 0.00 1.00 95.05 0.00 0.00
5.80 96.9 0.00 1.00 101.82 0.00 0.00
6.00 99.0 0.00 1.00 108.81 0.00 0.00
6.20 101.1 0.00 1.00 116.02 0.00 0.00
6.40 103.2 0.00 1.00 123.45 0.00 0.00
6.60 105.3 0.00 1.00 131.09 0.00 0.00
6.65 105.8 0.00 1.00 133.00 0.00 0.00 On the Ramp
6.80 107.4 0.87 1.61 138.95 0.07 0.00
7.00 109.3 2.11 1.65 147.00 0.36 0.00
7.20 111.0 3.42 1.69 155.24 0.91 0.00
7.40 112.6 4.81 1.73 163.63 1.73 0.00
7.60 114.1 6.26 1.76 172.15 2.84 0.00
7.80 115.4 7.77 1.78 180.79 4.24 0.00
8.00 116.5 9.32 1.80 189.51 5.95 0.00
8.20 117.5 10.91 1.82 198.29 7.97 0.00
8.24 117.6 11.23 0.26 200.01 8.41 3.61 Left the Deck
8.40 118.7 10.12 0.34 207.15 10.12 5.53
8.60 120.1 8.93 0.44 216.20 12.02 7.92
8.80 121.5 7.95 0.56 225.43 13.71 10.31
9.00 122.9 7.19 0.67 234.83 15.22 12.70
9.20 124.3 6.66 0.79 244.39 16.60 15.09
9.40 125.6 6.38 0.92 254.09 17.90 17.48
9.60 126.7 6.35 1.05 263.92 19.17 19.87
9.74 127.4 6.48 1.14 271.12 20.09 21.60 Peak AoA
9.80 127.7 6.56 1.13 273.86 20.45 21.27
10.00 128.7 6.76 1.08 283.90 21.79 20.08
10.20 129.7 6.88 1.04 294.03 23.15 18.88
10.40 130.8 6.90 0.99 304.27 24.53 17.69
10.60 131.9 6.83 0.94 314.63 25.91 16.49
10.80 133.1 6.65 0.88 325.11 27.26 15.30
11.00 134.4 6.37 0.83 335.72 28.56 14.10
11.20 135.8 5.98 0.77 346.48 29.80 12.91
11.35 136.9 5.61 0.73 354.76 30.68 12.00 Optimal AoA
11.40 137.2 5.49 0.73 357.39 30.95 12.00
11.60 138.7 4.97 0.74 368.46 31.99 12.00
11.80 140.2 4.47 0.75 379.69 32.94 12.00
12.00 141.7 3.99 0.76 391.08 33.78 12.00
12.20 143.3 3.53 0.77 402.64 34.53 12.00
12.40 144.8 3.09 0.78 414.35 35.20 12.00
12.60 146.3 2.67 0.79 426.24 35.77 12.00
12.80 147.9 2.27 0.80 438.28 36.26 12.00
13.00 149.5 1.89 0.81 450.48 36.68 12.00
13.20 151.0 1.54 0.83 462.85 37.02 12.00
13.40 152.6 1.21 0.84 475.38 37.30 12.00
13.60 154.2 0.91 0.85 488.08 37.51 12.00
13.80 155.7 0.63 0.86 500.93 37.66 12.00
14.00 157.3 0.38 0.88 513.95 37.76 12.00
14.20 158.9 0.15 0.89 527.13 37.82 12.00
14.40 160.4 -0.05 0.90 540.47 37.82 12.00
14.60 161.9 -0.23 0.92 553.96 37.80 12.00
14.80 163.5 -0.37 0.93 567.62 37.74 12.00
15.00 165.0 -0.49 0.95 581.43 37.65 12.00
15.20 166.5 -0.58 0.96 595.40 37.54 12.00
15.40 168.0 -0.64 0.98 609.52 37.42 12.00
15.60 169.5 -0.67 0.99 623.80 37.29 12.00
15.80 171.0 -0.67 1.01 638.22 37.16 12.00
16.00 172.4 -0.64 1.02 652.80 37.03 12.00
16.20 173.8 -0.58 1.04 667.53 36.90 12.00
16.40 175.3 -0.49 1.05 682.40 36.80 12.00
16.60 176.6 -0.38 1.07 697.42 36.71 12.00
16.80 178.0 -0.23 1.08 712.57 36.65 12.00
17.00 179.4 -0.05 1.10 727.87 36.62 12.00
17.05 179.7 0.00 1.10 731.93 36.62 12.00 Done

Max AoA of 21.6 deg is reached 1.5 sec after leaving the deck and optimal AoA is reached in further 1.6sec.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 14 Aug 2015 15:39

Nlca mk2 has increased wing area of estimated 20% with scaling up of wing dimension by 10% so that a clean weight of 12T is expected with respect to Lca mk2 of Airforce clean weight of 10T targeted.

Mtow of Nlca mk2 can be expected to be 16T (20% more than Nlca mk1) for a 10T engine thrust.

Marginal decrease in aerodynamic performance in Nlca mk2 as compared to IAF Lca mk2 due to lower thrust to weight ratio.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 14 Aug 2015 18:04

No carrier can function without the protection of SSN (can also add 's here)

The 6 SSN plan's need to be worked upon very fast as no CBG will go into hostile waters without them.

The Pic of INS Viraat caught my eye today where its going for a refit. Another thing that i noticed is that INS Vikrant will stay in water till this refit takes place.

This means we don't have any dry-dock where both carriers can be worked upon simultaneously.
If INS Vikrant 2 has to be ordered then work will start only after this one is finished.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Aug 2015 18:45

Do not think any plan, ever, called or even envisioned two dry dock for carriers. The second order for a Vikrant is actually the Vishal. Another Vikrant is a BE dream.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Aug 2015 19:35

Vikrant will stay in the way now, most likely, except for a new coat of paint just prior to commissioning.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2015 19:37

we need 1 carrier drydock in karwar for the refit and repair business and 1 more in kochi to permit 2 carriers to be in various stages of construction. kochi is not our carrier base, karwar is....if you see the sole large carrier navy - their repair facility is co-located with the major bases like newport news.

even for SSN, their main groton base is a couple miles from the electric boat plant.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2015 19:39

karwar needs to become a large self sustaining city like vizag to justify and economise the cost of investing in a big naval base there. 1000s of people means everything upto colleges, hospitals, banks, shops needed.
locating some new civilian industries or PSUs there will help.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Aug 2015 19:57

Well, .......................... Long story.

Vicky, Vikrant and Vishal of old, were plans formulated around 2000 or so. Give and take a few years.

Vicky and Vikrant are a done deal - in the planning + design sense (not construction).

Vishal was the one that could have been influenced to make a mid-course change. They opted not to. They had a chance.

So, what is still on table: EMALS, Hwakeyes and as I read it, a far better (perhaps the latest and greatest?) construction methods.

For the Vishal, correct me if I am wrong, they will need to build a larger dry dock. So, at the end of the day there should be two dry docks for carriers.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Aug 2015 20:05

Hey,
There are two drydocks in Kochi, both big enough to hold the Viraat.
There is this repair / servicing drydock that the Viraat is entering, and where the Vikrant was until a few months ago.

Adjacent to this is the main dock for construction with the two big red/pink construction cranes where the Vikrant was built.
They are building an IN Fleet Oiler there now, so that dry dock is unavailable. The oiler looks like a deepak class type ship to me.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Aug 2015 20:09

Perhaps a Hawkeye/F-35 deal?
That still leaves the EMALS out. Because which plane does the IN want to embark on the carrier that will use the EMALS?

Rafale-M? FA-18? N-LCA? Mig-29K?

The F-35, N-LCA and the Mig-29Ks don't need the EMALS.

Hawkeye / EMALS deal with Massa, with some F-35 thrown in? Rafale-M from the french?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 15 Aug 2015 06:02

There are plans for a third dry dock at Kochi for larger ships. Not as large as the one in Pipavav, but 300m or so.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2015 06:21

Well, did not think Vishal had a dry dock it would fit in:

June 7, 2015 :: Consultant for shipyard’s new dry dock by August

The new dry dock, nearly 300-m long and 75-m wide and expected to cost approximately Rs. 1,300 crore, is being put in place to accelerate the yard’s growth in the coming decades. The effort is to operationalise it in three-and-a-half years, by which time the Navy will have floated the tender for its second indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, which is believed to have a displacement of 65,000 tonnes.

IIRC the Vikrant is about as big as they can build in India. ??????

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 15 Aug 2015 06:40

Why ? There are other places too, not just Kochi to build a 90k monster.

Even in Kochi there can be additional space acquired nearby. Vallarpadam comes to mind as its future is uncertain when Vizhinjam comes up.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2015 06:55

Have no good idea. A simple google showed there doe not seem to be a dry dock that fits the Vishal. There are DDs that are long enough, but not wide or deep. So, I suspect all the dimensions are not met in the same DD. BTW, Pipavav has a huge one, but could not find how deep it is. Also, I suspect Cochin is expecting the order to go to one of the familiar agencies. Just guessing all the way.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 Aug 2015 07:40

Singha wrote:karwar needs to become a large self sustaining city like vizag to justify and economise the cost of investing in a big naval base there. 1000s of people means everything upto colleges, hospitals, banks, shops needed.
locating some new civilian industries or PSUs there will help.

No one wants to live in that part of coastal karnataka. A bit North in Goa is more sexy.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2015 07:47

No one wants to live in that part of coastal karnataka

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Aug 2015 09:15

Singha wrote:karwar needs to become a large self sustaining city like vizag to justify and economise the cost of investing in a big naval base there. 1000s of people means everything upto colleges, hospitals, banks, shops needed.
locating some new civilian industries or PSUs there will help.

This has been done regularly in dozens of places throughout India. It was done for Nasik, Ozhar, Bhilai etc. I myself grew up in a relatively remote self supporting colony on the outskirts of Poona housing perhaps 5000 people with school, shopping complex, hospital, bank, theatre and sports center. That area is now an industrial area and the richest Municipal Corporation in India. All IITs and even the medical college that I studied in were based on that model, having been set up in the wilderness somewhere.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Aug 2015 09:18

ShauryaT wrote:No one wants to live in that part of coastal karnataka. A bit North in Goa is more sexy.

Not really. That is beautiful wilderness that attracts thousands of tourists and increasingly trekkers. Good cover for espionage. Karwar is a well recognized tourist destination with any number of buses going there.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 19 Aug 2015 11:46

There is an N powered station - Kaiga, not too far off from Karwar.
There are some Russians there in between. Those must be the gora tourists people used to see 10 yrs ago.

Now, tourism seems to have exploded even here as an extension from Goa

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 19 Aug 2015 15:16

Gagan wrote:There is an N powered station - Kaiga, not too far off from Karwar.
There are some Russians there in between. Those must be the gora tourists people used to see 10 yrs ago.

Now, tourism seems to have exploded even here as an extension from Goa

There are no Russians in Kaiga! There we have CANDU type PHWR that India has been building on it's own for decades.

Plenty of Russians in Goa though!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Aug 2015 15:30

Years ago when Karwar was announced as Seabird's location,a swarm of "hippies" descended upon it! Western spies masquerade very often as hippies because they get easy access to places. During the KKNM protests,a German "hippie" was caught with maps,etc. Unfortunately he was deported,not imprisoned and interrogated as a spy.

Shiv is right though.This stretch of the Western Ghats are spectacular. Gokarna is a great place.So is the stretch south of Bombay from Alibagh down to Ratnagiri with lots of unspoilt coves,beaches,etc. In fact the entire Western coastline is full of exotic surprises. For thos wiht plenty of time and moolah on their hands,start exploring.