INS Vishal (IAC- II) Aircraft Carrier - Flattop or Ski Jump

smestarz

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
1,929
Likes
1,054
Country flag
Did you see how MiG-29K are treated? Do me a favour, Take a trip to Goa by air, and when you land there you will find MiG-29K in the open, there are no blast pens or anything for them, all day they are in the sun. and this is true for most Russian planes in India. Where as for Rafale, one of the important part of the deal is infrastructure including blast pens and air conditioned hangars. If IAF or Indian navy gives such treatment to Russian planes, you might see a better availability etc. By the way when I was in Goa recently there were about a dozen of those MiG-29K at the airport, just parked in the sun.

The Mig-29K is a nightmare for Naval Pilots, it's fly rate is worse than other fighters.
At a time they have about 35% of the fleet ready for operations, this is horrible.

Other fighter have a rate of 55% to 75%.
 

Filtercoffee

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
615
Likes
214
Country flag
Did you see how MiG-29K are treated? Do me a favour, Take a trip to Goa by air, and when you land there you will find MiG-29K in the open, there are no blast pens or anything for them, all day they are in the sun. and this is true for most Russian planes in India. Where as for Rafale, one of the important part of the deal is infrastructure including blast pens and air conditioned hangars. If IAF or Indian navy gives such treatment to Russian planes, you might see a better availability etc. By the way when I was in Goa recently there were about a dozen of those MiG-29K at the airport, just parked in the sun.
This is such bitter sadness on par with being an emotional crybaby that one thinks about knocking out spots permanently. I hope there is still ample applicable infrastructures for the current fleet, just as hoped, being labelled robust and weather hardened does not mean the entire Russian tech is to be treated like servitudnal junk for pleasure. While the rest only dream about being at par with such honesty.
 

scatterStorm

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
2,242
Likes
5,335
Country flag
Not to shatter some high hopes here but IAC 2 is still a long shot, we might end up with a ski jump after all but again just speculation is all I can come up with, but I hope our Indian Navy Research bureau are doing there math ... I mean as we are moving forward to bring along more heavier class of destroyers, frigates and AC ... we must do a thorough analysis of the cost of spares and logistics, because spares ... aren't FC(fixed cost) ... they are VC(variable cost) ... and VC do get affected by Price Inflation ... but I hope LMOA would allow us at subsidised price. Later when we fully capable of creating our own stuff, we would not only have wisdom of doing cutting edge logistics but ops as well.

We must ask ourselves first, that are we ready to do the bidding with such high stakes ... CBGs take a good chunk of our navy's fortunes or any navy it may concern.

On a side note: 2 squadron worth of F18 block 3 advanced jets and 1 squadron worth of growler variant is capable enough to rage havoc ... I hope they give all of this with F414 EPM as it would be used in Tejas for first few squadrons until we improve our Kaveri. Let's also make use of Mig 29ks granted there worse operational ratings ... it still is a capable fighter.
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,502
Likes
16,946
Country flag
India Needs More Aircraft Carriers But Not At The Cost Of Key Strike Elements
Snapshot
There is no doubt that India, which is poised to become a great power, requires more aircraft carriers.
But if the Navy spends the big bucks on a second carrier, where does it propose to get money for the crucial support vessels?

by Rakesh Krishnan Simha
First the good news: the Indian Navy may soon tap the government for funds to build a second aircraft carrier. This would either be a 65,000-tonne nuclear-powered flattop or a 100,000-tonne supercarrier. The Navy’s move is significant because India is currently down to one carrier even as China has publicized its plan to develop six such vessels.
Now the bad news: According to Vice Admiral D M Deshpande, Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition, the new carrier could come at the expense of other projects and weapons as it is a “very big-ticket item”.
Before we analyze whether India needs more aircraft carriers, let’s take a look at the consequences of spending on carriers while ignoring other critical areas of defense.
In 1963, T N Kaul, India’s ambassador in Moscow, asked Russian defense minister Marshal Rodion Malinovsky what sort of defense preparedness India needed against the Chinese threat. The Indian Navy’s official history ‘Transition to Triumph’ records Malinovsky’s response.
He replied that what India needed was a strong, mobile Army, Navy and Air Force, well equipped with the latest weapons. Instead of a prestigious, overhauled, old British aircraft carrier (which he called the fifth leg of a dog and an easy target), India should go in for a submarine fleet to guard her long coastline.
Malinovsky wasn’t the first geopolitical expert who scratched his head in disbelief at a poor country acquiring a large and expensive carrier while neglecting its defense against hostile neighbors. Six years earlier, when Second World War hero Marshal Georgy Zhukov had visited India, he had disapproved of the Indian Navy’s decision to acquire an aircraft carrier, saying India was only doing it in order to make Britain happy.
Both Malinovsky and Zhukov had made pivotal contributions to Russia’s defense, especially in the Battle of Stalingrad, and as such were masters of warfare. However, on both occasions, Nehruvian India disregarded the advice of the battle-hardened commanders. The consequences of fielding an under-equipped military were visible in the next three wars.
In 1962, when the Chinese waltzed through the Himalayan frontier, the Indian Army was completely unprepared, lacking even winter clothing. INS Vikrant, which had been commissioned the previous year, played no role in the war.
Again, during the 1965 war, while the Indian Air Force flew Second World War Mysteres and Vampires against Pakistan’s latest US gifted F-86 Sabres, the Vikrant did not go out to sea at all.
In early 1971, when the political leadership decided to go to war, the Vikrant had been rusting in the harbor for over three years with cracked boilers. The flagship was pressed into service in a semi-fit condition because the Navy feared the Vikrant would be called a “white elephant and naval aviation would be written off”. Fleet Operations Officer G M Hiranandani told the naval brass, “Vikrant has to be seen as being operational, even if we do not fly the aircraft.”
Pakistan, on the other hand, had acknowledged its limitations and, instead of going for expensive surface vessels, decided submarines were a better option. The Pakistan Navy acquired its first sub in 1963 – four years before India did.
Because of the threat posed by Pakistan’s long-range submarine Ghazi, the Indian Navy had to hide the Vikrant in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. It was only after the Ghazi was sunk that the carrier started operations in the Bay of Bengal.
The Case For More Carriers
There is no doubt that India, which is poised to be the world’s third-largest economy and great power, requires more carriers. In a 2009 report titled ‘China’s Maritime Rights and Navy’, Senior Captain Li Jie, an analyst at the Chinese navy’s strategic think tank Naval Research Institute, declared, “No great power that has become a strong power has achieved this without developing carriers.”
Carriers are an essential element of sea control. According to India’s maritime doctrine, “Sea control is the central concept around which the Indian Navy is structured, and aircraft carriers are decidedly the most substantial contributors to it. This is because they possess ordnance delivery capability of a very high order, often greater than the balance fleet units in the Task Force. This is by means of their substantial integral air power, which provides integral, ubiquitous and enhanced combat power, with extended reach and rapid response capability.”
At a bare minimum, India should have three carriers – one for each seaboard, with a third on standby. India was without a carrier task force for six months in 2016 as its lone flattop INS Vikramaditya was undergoing maintenance.
Having three carriers on call is an ideal situation but is possible only if funds allow. If the Navy is prepared to sacrifice other platforms to divert funds to the second carrier, where does it propose to get money for the support vessels?
For, an aircraft carrier doesn’t travel alone. It usually operates with and is at the center of, a composite task force, including multi-purpose destroyers, frigates, submarines and logistics ships. The carrier task force is a self-contained and balanced force, capable of undertaking the entire range of operational tasks.
We do not want a situation like that in 1971 when a limping Vikrant was sent into battle along with only four light frigates (one of which lacked sonar) and a lone submarine to provide anti-submarine protection. In his book No Way But Surrender, Vice Admiral N Krishnan writes, “Even assuming that no operational defects developed, it would still be necessary to withdraw ships from the area of operations for fuelling. The basic problem was that if reasonable anti-submarine protection had to be provided to Vikrant and the escort ships had to be in close company for this purpose, then how were 18,000 square miles to be kept under surveillance?”
The Navy had deployed the entire complement of the Vikrant’s aircraft in offensive operations against East Pakistan, leaving none for the carrier’s defense. It was a calculated risk that paid off. Had Pakistan been in possession of another long-range submarine, the story may have been different.
Don’t Cannibalize The Navy
While aircraft carriers are symbols of prestige, the bits and parts needed to win wars must not be neglected. Sadly, this has happened. For instance, India’s submarine strength currently stands at 15 vessels and is behind Pakistan’s fleet of 17. Even North Korea, which can barely feed its population, has a fleet of 70 subs, which is why the United States carriers keep a safe distance from the Korean peninsula.
Submarines are the true predators of the deep and will allow India to wreak havoc on its adversaries during a war. A fleet of 24 subs (the sanctioned strength), but ideally 50 undersea vessels, can target every task force in the Indian Ocean. During the 1999 Kargil War, it was a submarine, and not a carrier, that was poised to deliver the first blow had India decided to escalate the conflict. INS Sindhurakshak was deployed very close to Karachi and had its torpedoes trained on the harbor installations.
As well as subs, India needs to spend on other less glamorous but critical weapons platforms such as missile boats, frigates, stealth ships, minesweepers, land and ship attack missiles, torpedoes, shore-based radar, close-in warfare weapons, electronic warfare suites and maritime satellites.
Former chief of naval staff Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat writes in Betrayal of the Armed Forces that after the 1971 war complacency had set into the force. For instance, the Indian Navy, which had devastated Karachi harbor with its Russian Styx standoff missiles (outside the adversary’s range) and thereby taken the lead in ship-to-ship standoff missile warfare, yielded space to Pakistan in two critical areas. “(Pakistan) acquired the wherewithal to become capable of standoff air-to-surface missile warfare in which they took a 15-year lead and sub-surface to surface missile standoff missile capability in which they took a 20-year lead, all in a 25-year tenure span,” Admiral Bhagwat explains.
The Navy As A Force Multiplier
India cannot – and should not – match China carrier for carrier, but it should emulate the Chinese strategy of shipbuilding to boost the economy. Admiral Bhagwat points out that the Chinese military and political leadership had declared as a matter of state policy that shipbuilding would be the springboard for China’s industrial development. For India, this is especially advantageous because it is hemmed into the north and the northeast and the only strategic space the country has to maneuver is in the oceans.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/04/india-needs-more-aircraft-carriers-but.html
 

Dharmapalas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
445
Likes
385
Country flag
I have a question, I am sure it has been asked before, but I am new.

Why doesn't India try to buy the John F Kennedy (or sign a lease) and/or the Kitty Hawk aircraft carriers.

Yes they are both old (over 50), they have been sitting in storage/reserve for about 10 years, they will need millions of dollars in upgrades to get them back up to operational status.

But it is probably cheaper than building a brand new one, and they would be bigger and with some upgrades probably better to anything China can build.

The Problem (other than age) is that Trump will want to do all the upgrade work in the USA and will probably want India to buy F-18s and make them in the USA, Modi with his "Build in India" program would not like that.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
I have a question, I am sure it has been asked before, but I am new.

Why doesn't India try to buy the John F Kennedy (or sign a lease) and/or the Kitty Hawk aircraft carriers.

Yes they are both old (over 50), they have been sitting in storage/reserve for about 10 years, they will need millions of dollars in upgrades to get them back up to operational status.

But it is probably cheaper than building a brand new one, and they would be bigger and with some upgrades probably better to anything China can build.

The Problem (other than age) is that Trump will want to do all the upgrade work in the USA and will probably want India to buy F-18s and make them in the USA, Modi with his "Build in India" program would not like that.
The US keeps it's recently retired carriers in strategic reserve for WWIII. They wouldn't sell them when they spend $1 billion to keep one in mothballs until they scrap it.
 

deejai

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2017
Messages
11
Likes
9
Rafale M, F-18 Advanced Super Hornet and F-35C will be the best option. But i don't know whether Rafale M tested for Emals system. Mig 29k is stobar aircraft.
The Rafale will most likely be certified on EMALs in the future because they often fly off US carriers. Dassault used US test facilities to certify the Rafale for catapults.
 

Cutting Edge 2

Space Power
Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2017
Messages
984
Likes
1,969
I have a question, I am sure it has been asked before, but I am new.
Welcome aboard.:yo:

Why doesn't India try to buy the John F Kennedy (or sign a lease) and/or the Kitty Hawk aircraft carriers.
Are those for sale?

they will need millions of dollars in upgrades to get them back up to operational status.
Billions if we include modifications.

But it is probably cheaper than building a brand new one
Cheaper to buy upfront. If we include modifications and operational cost (old equipment) and cost of bundled F18s then it won't be cheap. IN is running on a tight budget. Spending money on old AC (white elephant) will cut funding of other crucial projects.

with some upgrades probably better to anything China can build.
Such comparisons are meaningless because ACs don't fight each other one on one. ACs are for power projection and area denial.

The Problem (other than age) is that Trump will want to do all the upgrade work in the USA and will probably want India to buy F-18s and make them in the USA, Modi with his "Build in India" program would not like that.
Trump's rhetoric is nothing but feel good campaign speeches. He has 180ed on every single issue. The problem is such deals come with lots of strings attached. Historically US has been untrustworthy partner. In time of war, USA will decide when and where AC should or shouldn't be used.



IN doesn't need more ACs. IN's immediate priorities are helis and subs, then more destroyers and corvettes. 5 Acs and 11 destroyers don't make any sense. Not to mention our ships still not fully armed. Right now IN's priority is to dominate IOR not power projection.
 

Dharmapalas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
445
Likes
385
Country flag
Welcome aboard.:yo:


Are those for sale?

Billions if we include modifications.

They are for sale to people that want to place them as museums, it would deferentially cost billions to reactivate it from reserve status, even converting it to museum will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

I just figured if India's Navy is going to throw billions of dollars for a new carrier, perhaps buying/leasing an old one would be more economical, obviously it would depend on the fine print.

BTW a point that I forgot to make and it would be very important, the sale/lease would include the blue prints and the transfer of know how on building massive carriers.

Like how China paid a couple million dollars to get the blue prints from Ukraine for the Ulyanovsk project.

IN doesn't need more ACs. IN's immediate priorities are helis and subs, then more destroyers and corvettes. 5 Acs and 11 destroyers don't make any sense. Not to mention our ships still not fully armed. Right now IN's priority is to dominate IOR not power projection.
This is true, I do hear India is putting out a tender for 4 Helicopter carriers, that would help the Indian Navy much more than the aircraft carrier they say they want to build.
 

Filtercoffee

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
615
Likes
214
Country flag
They are for sale to people that want to place them as museums, it would deferentially cost billions to reactivate it from reserve status, even converting it to museum will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

I just figured if India's Navy is going to throw billions of dollars for a new carrier, perhaps buying/leasing an old one would be more economical, obviously it would depend on the fine print.

BTW a point that I forgot to make and it would be very important, the sale/lease would include the blue prints and the transfer of know how on building massive carriers.

Like how China paid a couple million dollars to get the blue prints from Ukraine for the Ulyanovsk project.



This is true, I do hear India is putting out a tender for 4 Helicopter carriers, that would help the Indian Navy much more than the aircraft carrier they say they want to build.
All IN needs first is a good choice of LPDs and viraat 2 (IAC-1 series), followed by Vishal class aircraft carriers(IAC-2 series).
 
Last edited:

Cutting Edge 2

Space Power
Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2017
Messages
984
Likes
1,969
They are for sale to people that want to place them as museums, it would deferentially cost billions to reactivate it from reserve status, even converting it to museum will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

I just figured if India's Navy is going to throw billions of dollars for a new carrier, perhaps buying/leasing an old one would be more economical, obviously it would depend on the fine print.

Building new is always a better option in the long run.

BTW a point that I forgot to make and it would be very important, the sale/lease would include the blue prints and the transfer of know how on building massive carriers.

Like how China paid a couple million dollars to get the blue prints from Ukraine for the Ulyanovsk project.
US isn't Ukraine. Getting knowhow from US would be extremely difficult.(near impossible)

All IN needs first is a good choice of LPDs and viraat 2 (IAC-1 series), followed by Vishal class aircraft carriers(IAC-2 series).
Exactly.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
I would say we should get another one of Vishal's class, as it will take less time and shipyard has required experience to make it. At the same time go for next generation carrier. That will make 4 carriers.

If Chinese is making them at such fast pace, we too should make assambly line for AC. Let our domestic shipyard gain from this.

We should be making one carrier per year.
 

busesaway

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
370
Likes
174
I would say we should get another one of Vishal's class, as it will take less time and shipyard has required experience to make it. At the same time go for next generation carrier. That will make 4 carriers.

If Chinese is making them at such fast pace, we too should make assambly line for AC. Let our domestic shipyard gain from this.

We should be making one carrier per year.
I think we need to stop being to ambitious in terms of military expansion. There is no way that India can catch up to China in terms of military development - and why should it? I don't think China is going to start a massive war over what is generally a friendly country like India.

The main worry for India is the Middle East. I think it's entirely feasible that we offshore everything to NATO rather than spend the precious money we have on importing foriegn military equipment.

And the idea that SEA can't defend itself is also stupid. We should provide firm diplomatic support and partake in military engagements, but we shouldn't try to lead the pack since there are countries better placed to deal with SEA issues.


We would do better by taking advantage of our cordial relations with practically everyone on earth, by asking for investment into out defense sector in order to encourage economic growth and enrich our scientists' knowledge.

We should ask for private insurance companies and western countries to pay India to patrol the Arabian Sea at cheaper rates. And we should demand that all military equipment is built in India using technology/knowledge transfers from the foriegn companies.

I would rather that our scientists and engineers got the ability to get a job, research/design/build military equipment, and enriched India with economic and military independence.
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,502
Likes
16,946
Country flag
Indian Navy Gets US Go-ahead to Deploy EMALS and AAG on its New Super Carrier
The Indian Navy will become the second navy in the world to deploy the advanced Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to launch planes from its aircraft carriers and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) to recover these planes after the U.S. Department of Defense recently approved the sale of these sophisticated systems to India.

DoD recently granted General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS), the California-based developer of EMALS, export approval for both EMALS and AAG to the Indian Navy.

EMALS is designed to replace the steam catapult systems currently used on all 10 of the U.S. Navy's Nimitz-class, nuclear powered aircraft carriers. The newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), is the first carrier to deploy EMALS. The Ford is scheduled for deployment in 2019.

EMALS launches carrier-based aircraft from an aircraft catapult using a linear motor drive instead of the conventional steam piston drive.

Its main advantage is it allows for a more graded acceleration, inducing less stress on the aircraft's airframe. It's also lighter than a steam catapult system and cheaper to operate. In addition, EMALS can launch aircraft that are heavier or lighter than those handled by steam catapults.

The Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system uses electric motors for aircraft deceleration during aircraft carrier recovery operations.

The Indian Navy's "Indigenous Aircraft Carrier II" (IAC-II) program calls for building 65,000 metric ton supercarriers. The second carrier in the Vikrant-class and India's first supercarrier, the INS Vishal, is in the design phase and will deploy both EMALS and AAG.

The Indian Navy in November 2016 confirmed plans to integrate EMALS catapults into its future supercarriers by revealing the dispatch of Letters of Request (LoR) to the U.S. DoD to buy this advanced aircraft launch system.

It said the LoRs cover the purchase of three EMALS under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program. Sources in the Indian Navy told media the LoRs were issued in February 2016.

The navy expects the Pentagon to approve the LoRs and to issue its Letters of Acceptance (LoA) approving the deal within the next few months.

http://defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=251979
 

Hari Sud

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,702
Likes
8,331
Country flag
The above report from a Chinese source is nit believable..
 

Kay

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,354
Country flag
Can EMALS be fitted in INS Vikramaditya?
 

indiandefencefan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
437
Likes
345
Country flag
Can EMALS be fitted in INS Vikramaditya?
In theory it can but it's not practical.

It requires lots of power to operate which without a nuclear powerplant can be difficult.

Redesigning, refurbishing and buying a new airwing for the Vikramaditya will cost billions. (Mig-29K can't operate from EMALS)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kay

Innocent

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
486
Likes
839
Country flag
Navy should return to 'goddamned steam' on carrier, Trump says


President Trump says the Navy should abandon longstanding plans for electro-magnetic catapults for carrier aviation and return to the traditional steam-powered launch and recovery system,
according to the president's interview with TIME.

In the interview, Trump was asked about the future of Ford-class carrier technology and he specifically addressed perceived differences between the antiquated steam-powered system and the Ford's new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, also known as EMALS.

"You know the catapult is quite important," said Trump. "So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said, 'You don’t use steam anymore for catapult?' 'No sir.' I said, 'Ah, how is it working?' 'Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.'"

The president's attitude became increasingly skeptical when discussing the switch to a new launch technology.

"It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated. You have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said — and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be — 'Sir, we’re staying with digital.' I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good."

The system replacing the steam-powered launch and recovery system, however, isn't digital, but electromagnetic. For years the Navy has struggled to get the new technology up and running.









The EMALS technology, installed for the first time on the Ford, aims to improve efficiency and substantially reduce cost of maintenance, a vast improvement over the fund-draining, maintenance-intensive steam catapult technology, which is less compatible with modern propulsion systems.

The switch to the EMALS, as well as other technological advancements, is estimated to save the Navy $4 billion in maintenance costs over the course of the ship's 50-year lifetime, Navy officials say.

The new Ford-class carriers are built with two newly-designed reactors that can produce 250 percent more electrical capacity than the carriers of previous generations.

The 90,000-ton carrier Ford is widely considered the most technologically advanced — and most expensive — warship in history, coming in with a cost of $12.9 billion. The ship set sail for the first time in April.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top