Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[Adm Kenobi]

Why can't the IN just order two more Carriers of the Vikrant variant to maintain a 3 carrier capability and then embark on a 15 year design period for the next generation carrier?

The two more carrier will take at least 12 years to be operational and you would need to convince the CCS for 4 carriers (they won't navy retire vikky this early, 1 Vikrant & 2 new). Convincing CCS for a 4 carrier fleet for now is impossible in itself. We won't have an air wing for even a second Vikrant before early 2030s, making 2 is just out of ques.
A small carrier can barely generate some 20 strike sortie (12hr time period) in high BSD threat. A medium sized carrier can generate 60-80 in the same scenario. And strike SGR can drop to near <<10 when operating in a high sea state with a small deck carrier as operations between the flight deck and hangar are severely constrained and most of the air wing on deck is used for air defense.
& these numbers are for carriers equipped with catapults, it will be less for Vikrant.

And building another IAC-1 class directly threatens the timeline of a large deck CATOBAR carrier. A 300m long large deck carrier can easily project more power than Vikrant and Vikramaditya *combined* in medium BSD threat and much more in high BSD threat. Comes with a benefit of larger flight deck, hangar, ammunition and fuel storage bay, sortie rate, Fixed wing aew&c, high SGR, and a larger air wing. And most importantly, larger carriers have a lower accident rate for a given amount of sorties compared to smaller ones.

Better to lay a large deck carrier in mid 20s and commission it by mid 30s with a replacement of Vikky laid in early 30s and commissioned in late 30s/early 40s.

Or even make a Vikrant mk II with catapults and IEP in a marginally bigger carrier - 50k tonnes. That I believe is the IN's intention - but the chaps in MoD and good old service rivalry (cough IAF cough) has flummoxed all attempts thus far.

IN made its' intentions clear when they said "65k tonne" & "around 300m long" in 2015, going for a small 260-270m long carrier is a compromise. Small carriers (Vikrant, Vikky included) can't survive high tempo of warfare if not aided by a larger one. A CBG with slightly larger Vikrant and catapults can't operate "alone and unafraid". And why not just build a larger carrier with slightly more cost than a "Vikrant mk II" if you plan to use Vikrant and "mk II" in tandem? A larger 300m long carrier with a medium sized air wing can generate 3× the strike sorties in high tempo compared to 1 "Vikrant mk II" at just 50% cost increase. And two large deck carriers at a cost of 45-50,000cr each aren't that expensive if you account the build period of 15 yrs (2025-40) and the budget growth (10% avg increase). 1 could work as a replacement to Vikky in 2040.

A fleet of 3 carrier by 2035 and more than 3 times the capability compared to present day (1 Vikky & Vikrant). And a much better capability in 2040 when Vikky gets replaced by a sister ship of the large deck carrier.

 

[binayak95]

IN made its' intentions clear when they said "65k tonne" & "around 300m long" in 2015, going for a small 260-270m long carrier is a compromise. Small carriers (Vikrant, Vikky included) can't survive high tempo of warfare if not aided by a larger one. A CBG with slightly larger Vikrant and catapults can't operate "alone and unafraid". And why not just build a larger carrier with slightly more cost than a "Vikrant mk II" if you plan to use Vikrant and "mk II" in tandem? A larger 300m long carrier with a medium sized air wing can generate 3× the strike sorties in high tempo compared to 1 "Vikrant mk II" at just 50% cost increase. And two large deck carriers at a cost of 45-50,000cr each aren't that expensive if you account the build period of 15 yrs (2025-40) and the budget growth (10% avg increase). 1 could work as a replacement to Vikky in 2040.

A fleet of 3 carrier by 2035 and more than 3 times the capability compared to present day (1 Vikky & Vikrant). And a much better capability in 2040 when Vikky gets replaced by a sister ship of the large deck carrier.

Umm, the 65k tonne has undergone several iterations and changes - with the last being a toned down version.
No carrier will ever sail alone and unafraid - surface and sub surface protection is integral to any task force. The reason why I vouch for a 50k tonne ship is its the sweet spot between effectiveness and price - 50k tonne will still allow you to field 40 odd F18SHs (look at the old Forrestals or the CdG for example) and yet wont be too big a leap for shipyards.

The addition of IEP and CATs is enough complexity IMHO without going for even larger ships.

Lets see what decision GoI takes.

 

[Adm Kenobi]

Umm, the 65k tonne has undergone several iterations and changes - with the last being a toned down version.

We heard the same about the number of LHD being cut down to 2 fron 4 told to some author by "unnamed/anonymous" sources. I am a bit skeptical about these unnamed/anonymous sources (or simply, "made up sources") saying that the size requirement of IAC-2 have been lowered, I am willing to wait for an official statement by Navy or CNS (Adm Sunil Lamba and KB Singh have mentioned the tonnage and it's plausible that one of their successor will mention the tonnage too). As I mentioned in my previous post, decreasing the size of the carrier to some 270×70m will result in compromise in terms of "capability".

No carrier will ever sail alone and unafraid - surface and sub surface protection is integral to any task force.

Never said the carrier would be alone, I mentioned -

A CBG with slightly larger Vikrant and catapults can't operate "alone and unafraid".

The reason why I vouch for a 50k tonne ship is its the sweet spot between effectiveness and price - 50k tonne will still allow you to field 40 odd F18SHs (look at the old Forrestals or the CdG for example) and yet wont be too big a leap for shipyards.

Forrestals spaned more than 320m, it was nowhere near 50k tonne displacement. And CDG comes under that small CATOBAR carrier category which I mentioned in my previous post, gives the worst value. & it can only take some 24-30 Rafale M and 2 E2 + a few helis (no simultaneous take off and landing). And that number 30 is for a surged flight deck and hangar, this will severely affect the sortie generation rate compared to the 24 Rafale M config.
It might come as a shock to some but Nimitz class carriers give the most bang for buck.

The addition of IEP and CATs is enough complexity IMHO without going for even larger ships.

Lets see what decision GoI takes.

Going large isn't as complex as you might think, modular construction with super blocks can help with that, the under construction facility spanning 310×60/75m can easily undertake construction of a large 290-300m long carrier. An additional 600T gantry crane (600×2) will further reduce the build time.
A 300m long (±10m) carrier is the best for IN. IN would choose a large deck carrier if it was upto them, let's see if the govt assists IN or hammers them.

What u r saying is much similar to his statement
Like enlarging it and adding iep catapult and other necessary features for a carriers which will increase tonnage to 50k-65k
Yeah some internal and external design changes need to be done but keeping vikrant as base can reduce the time for designing

It's not that similar, the og requirement was of a large deck carrier with a length of around 300m, and that simply can't fit in a 50k tonnage bracket. A CATOBAR of 50k tonnage would be in the range of (270×70m) at max and total flight deck area of ~13-14,000m². This is small compared to a 290-300×78m (at max) and total flight deck area of 17-18,000m². And both of these is for a advanced and light hull keeping the tonnage in 50k and 65k tonne range respectively. (±5k)

It would be more accurate to say "utilise the expertise gained from project 71" because IAC-2 will require major changes including but not limited to - flight deck, island, deck 1, hangar deck, weapons handling system, compartments, propulsion. Basically - "top to bottom".

 

[Blademaster]

The two more carrier will take at least 12 years to be operational

I disagree. The first one would take the longest. If you order 2 more, it would go faster this time because by that time IN would have an established protocol for building, testing, and inducting the carriers into service.

and you would need to convince the CCS for 4 carriers (they won't navy retire vikky this early, 1 Vikrant & 2 new). Convincing CCS for a 4 carrier fleet for now is impossible in itself. We won't have an air wing for even a second Vikrant before early 2030s, making 2 is just out of ques.
A small carrier can barely generate some 20 strike sortie (12hr time period) in high BSD threat. A medium sized carrier can generate 60-80 in the same scenario. And strike SGR can drop to near <<10 when operating in a high sea state with a small deck carrier as operations between the flight deck and hangar are severely constrained and most of the air wing on deck is used for air defense.
& these numbers are for carriers equipped with catapults, it will be less for Vikrant.

If Vikky turns out to be a lemon, CCS won't have a choice because the expenses for consumables on an AC is significant. IN needs fighting carriers so CCS would allow retirement of Vicky perhaps to a training carrier and have 3 Vikrant ACs.

And building another IAC-1 class directly threatens the timeline of a large deck CATOBAR carrier.
....
Better to lay a large deck carrier in mid 20s and commission it by mid 30s with a replacement of Vikky laid in early 30s and commissioned in late 30s/early 40s.

No it doesn't because it takes about 10-15 years to design a CATOBAR AC and then 10 years to build the first lead ship of its class and 2-3 years to commission which by that time, the first Vikrant would be ready for retirement and the 2 follow up AC can replace the other 2 Vikrant AC.

A 300m long large deck carrier can easily project more power than Vikrant and Vikramaditya *combined* in medium BSD threat and much more in high BSD threat. Comes with a benefit of larger flight deck, hangar, ammunition and fuel storage bay, sortie rate, Fixed wing aew&c, high SGR, and a larger air wing. And most importantly, larger carriers have a lower accident rate for a given amount of sorties compared to smaller ones.
IN made its' intentions clear when they said "65k tonne" & "around 300m long" in 2015, going for a small 260-270m long carrier is a compromise. Small carriers (Vikrant, Vikky included) can't survive high tempo of warfare if not aided by a larger one. A CBG with slightly larger Vikrant and catapults can't operate "alone and unafraid". And why not just build a larger carrier with slightly more cost than a "Vikrant mk II" if you plan to use Vikrant and "mk II" in tandem? A larger 300m long carrier with a medium sized air wing can generate 3× the strike sorties in high tempo compared to 1 "Vikrant mk II" at just 50% cost increase. And two large deck carriers at a cost of 45-50,000cr each aren't that expensive if you account the build period of 15 yrs (2025-40) and the budget growth (10% avg increase). 1 could work as a replacement to Vikky in 2040.

Problem with this plan is that IN would waste the expertise acquired in building the ACs. That is the whole point of building 2 more Vikrants - to keep that valuable industrial base from withering out and dying and then starting all over to build that new shiny AC with all the gizmos that IN wants.

A fleet of 3 carrier by 2035 and more than 3 times the capability compared to present day (1 Vikky & Vikrant). And a much better capability in 2040 when Vikky gets replaced by a sister ship of the large deck carrier.

No way that will happen. They have not started the design for the big CATOBAR carrier. That's my point. IN does not know what it is doing.

 

[swapcv]

Been hearing rumors of some new Glidefire SSM being Approved for fast tracking by the CCS for the Navy, anybody has more info on that?

 

[binayak95]

Been hearing rumors of some new Glidefire SSM being Approved for fast tracking by the CCS for the Navy, anybody has more info on that?

Yeah its a short - medium range Pvt Venture missile - its been accorded AoN for development, funds will be released for R&D.

 

[swapcv]

Yeah its a short - medium range Pvt Venture missile - its been accorded AoN for development, funds will be released for R&D.

I hope it turns out better than the initial concept which looked like as if the SA-4, Kalibr, SAAW and a few other missiles had a drunken orgy.

 

[Vamsi]

I hope it turns out better than the initial concept which looked like as if the SA-4, Kalibr, SAAW and a few other missiles had a drunken orgy.

The missile which you are talking is not Glidefire

 

[Vamsi]

 

[swapcv]

The missile which you are talking is not Glidefire

Glad to hear, otherwise it would be a terrible day to have eyes.

 

[Adm Kenobi]

I disagree. The first one would take the longest. If you order 2 more, it would go faster this time because by that time IN would have an established protocol for building, testing, and inducting the carriers into service.

I didn't say 12 years each, did I? And that 12 years is over optimistic btw, a best case scenario which is very unlikely to happen.

If Vikky turns out to be a lemon, CCS won't have a choice because the expenses for consumables on an AC is significant. IN needs fighting carriers so CCS would allow retirement of Vicky perhaps to a training carrier and have 3 Vikrant ACs.

1. What do you mean by 'If Vikky turns out to be a lemon'?
2. You are thinking of CCS as some kind of nice and friendly uncle that is going to help you. They're more like a Villan for IN & the reason why we won't be laying keel for a capital ship for next 5 years
3. And CCS hasn't even cleared the construction of 1 additional carrier and you think they'll clear construction of 2 additional IAC-1? IAC-1 is a good design but it doesn't even provide half the capability of a large deck carrier, it is nowhere close to a design that you would like to build in numbers.

No it doesn't because it takes about 10-15 years to design a CATOBAR AC and then 10 years to build the first lead ship of its class and 2-3 years to commission which by that time, the first Vikrant would be ready for retirement and the 2 follow up AC can replace the other 2 Vikrant AC.

Interesting, Vikrant will only serve for 15(or10)+10+3=23-28 years? I would really like to know where you got that number.
It will serve till 2060 at least given the avg life of a carrier its' size => 35-40 yrs. There's a good reason why navy doesn't want additional IAC-1 class carriers, => it threatens the larg-er carrier (which IN needs before 2040) and another IAC-1 doesn't provide any better/enhanced capability that IN needs.
Another thing, it doesn't take 10-15 years to design a CATOBAR carrier and neither does it take 13 years (since keel) to be operational, you can look at CVN 68 for comparison. Time taken is calculated in man hours, and you can prepare a detailed design in 3 years if you are working with an experienced partner (which IN was looking for in 2015, US included), that detailed design made in 3 yrs will be enough to give an order for steel cutting and block making. An year or two to make the super blocks and then laying the keel, launch time can be reduced significantly with modular construction (which we weren't able to fully utilise in IAC-1) & super blocks. Keel to sea-trials time can be brought down to ~6-7 years! It can be commissioned by 2035 and operational some years down the line.

Problem with this plan is that IN would waste the expertise acquired in building the ACs. That is the whole point of building 2 more Vikrants - to keep that valuable industrial base from withering out and dying and then starting all over to build that new shiny AC with all the gizmos that IN wants.

Problem with building two more IAC-1 is that it will be a waste of money and negligible improvement over the last one in terms of capability, and CSL is busy building other ships too, the workers aren't sitting idle. As for the supply line, it is concerning but it will have to hold onto itself in both cases, order for equipments isn't given at once, years will be wasted in either case and better to get a better capability at good value in a similar time frame. That's why CCS needs to clear a fleet of 3 carriers and with 2 IAC-2 class in it, 2nd IAC-2 being delivered around the same time as retirement of Vikky (2040).

No way that will happen. They have not started the design for the big CATOBAR carrier. That's my point. IN does not know what it is doing.

They already have a conceptual and preliminary design, IN has presented their case and design to MoD and CCS in 2020, 21 and likely to push for it again this year. Preliminary design stage started in 2015 with a cost of 30 cr, we don't know if detailed design phase has started or not.
IAC-2 is included in the next 5 yr plan which is part of larger 15 yr plan (5yr = 2022-23 to 27-28), 2 IAC-1s aren't included in that, such radical changes will mess up the whole shipbuilding plan and budget => it's unfeasible.
IAC-2 is very likely to be laid by the end of 5 yr plan (Steel cutting and block making would start a year or two before 2027-28)
IN knows what it is doing, CCS is being the jerk here for not letting IN follow the 15 yr plan and hanging IAC-2.
Let's see what happens this fiscal.

 

[Vamsi]

Only 45 TEDBFs, it won't be economical right??

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

Only 45 TEDBFs, it won't be economical right??

Highly uneconomical, would shoot up the unit cost in excess of $100 million per jet.

 

[ezsasa]

Only 45 TEDBFs, it won't be economical right??

deck based fighter jets are proportional to number of aircraft carriers.

 

[Arjun Mk1A]

Looks like ADA and HAL needs to convince AIRFORCE for ORCA.

 

[mist_consecutive]

Looks like ADA and HAL needs to convince AIRFORCE for ORCA.

IAF is looking for AMCA, ORCA will be a 4.5 gen. jet tailor-made for Navy (read, a stronger airframe & landing gear for deck landings, and skin material which has a resistance to sea-water corrosion, compromising on stealth instead).

 

[ezsasa]

If requirement is low then why develop entire new aircraft with time and space when orders will low and cost will be high

This is the prize, control over this area is the long term goal, such goals cannot be achieved on the back of either imported maal or below par strategic investments.

 

[Vamsi]

Highly uneconomical, would shoot up the unit cost in excess of $100 million per jet.

If they order just 3 more squadrons for shore based operations in addition to these 45, one at Goa, another one at Andaman Nicobar & 3rd one at Tanjore ,then it will economy of scale right??....That Su-30 sqn at Tanjore can be replaced with TEDBF and that Su-30 sqn can be moved north...

 

[FalconSlayers]

 

[Cheran]

via Twitter

IAC Vikrant & INS Kolkotta