INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[Armand2REP]

Than will lock IN into stobar regime for the next 30-40 years..
Stobar means no strike package, awacs, being limited to short range air defense role.

In order to avoid that, Vikrant needs to be converted to this...

 

[Hari Sud]

Try not to deal with UK as much as possible as long they maintain their anti Indian attitude thru media. They cannot have both anti Indian attitude as well as get a huge business deal from india.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Than will lock IN into stobar regime for the next 30-40 years..
Stobar means no strike package, awacs, being limited to short range air defense role.

Agree 100%.
But its not only the STOBAR to CATOBAR jump that is important. We also need IAC-2 to be a carrier capable of simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft. We need to give serious thought to the airwing composition because that has a massive bearing on sortie generation rates.

These three things are why Indian Navy should not just go for another INS Vikrant class STOBAR carrier:-

• CATOBAR >> STOBAR (heavier aircraft, more payload, greater combat radius, AEW&CS aircraft, offensive roles against enemy surface fleets)
• We need high sortie generation rate (no-brainer)
• We need simultaneous launch and recovery capability. Something that the French CATOBAR carrier lacks despite being a CATOBAR.

Many might remember how lack of simultaneous launch and recovery capability of the Japanese Carrier fleet lead to Admiral Nagumo's dilema which lead to Japanese Navy losing the Battle of Midway. Chinese carriers after Shandong will most likely have this capability.

IAC-I is a stop-gap solution, or one may call it a stepping stone. But this stone is floating on water. Step on it too long and we will sink. The progression needs to be:-
INS Vikrant, INS Viraat => INS Vikramaditya, INS Vikrant (IAC-I) => INS Vishal (IAC-II)

Now my question to you is, what size does IAC-II needs to be to support CATOBAR+Simultaneous launch an recovery. My guess is something at least as large as QE-class of Royal Navy. That will allow three catapults with one being off the landing strip (thereby allowing simultaneous launch and recovery capability).

 

[Armand2REP]

We need simultaneous launch and recovery capability. Something that the French CATOBAR carrier lacks despite being a CATOBAR.

It depends on how many aircraft you intend to operate and how long the missions last. If it is 100 aircraft flying 30 minute sorties... it is necessary. If you are flying 40 aircraft for several hour long missions, it doesn't impact anything if the Air Boss knows what they are doing.

 

[Jameson Emoni]

Thanks.
It's a pity, ideal course of action imho would be to print out a couple more Vikrants to quickly build up a fleet of 4 carriers, saves cost and time rather than building a new bespoke carrier.

But at the same time, would be preferable to have a common fighter jet across IAF and IN, either Rafale or Tejas.

Pity the mig-29s were so maintenance heavy else we could as well standardise that across the fleet.

The US concept of separate aircraft types for the navy (f-14, 18) is just bonkers logistics wise.

I slightly disagree.

It makes sense to have different requirements for naval aircraft. You want a backup that the second engine of a twin-engine aircraft provides. After all, you do not want your pilot to bail out in an open sea in case one of the engines fail.

 

[Jameson Emoni]

The Super Hornet is out of the question. It is 5 tonnes heavier than Rafale with much higher wing loading. Delta wing and canards is the perfect choice for a STOBAR carrier if you want to take off with a usable combat load.

I personally am a fan of delta wings. There is no disagreement there. However, I do think that a naval aircraft has to be a twin-engine aircraft. It provides added security for the pilot.

 

[Armand2REP]

I personally am a fan of delta wings. There is no disagreement there. However, I do think that a naval aircraft has to be a twin-engine aircraft. It provides added security for the pilot.

Last time I checked Rafale was a twin engine delta wing.

 

[Bhurki]

Now my question to you is, what size does IAC-II needs to be to support CATOBAR+Simultaneous launch an recovery. My guess is something at least as large as QE-class of Royal Navy. That will allow three catapults with one being off the landing strip (thereby allowing simultaneous launch and recovery capability).

The minimum size that can allow this is 60k ton. Something like French CdG+.( CdG has 2 x 75m). This is what IN quoted 65k crore for. However, due to high energy costs of EMALS( due to its operational advantage over steam cats), you'll certainly need it to be either full system IEPS(COGAG) or nuclear, both tech are way out of the league of Indian MIC.
Royal Navy, even though fully capable of implementing IEPS(type 45) + EMALS and creating a catobar, went for 2 STOVL carriers since thats the choice they made.( out of 1 catobar or 2 stovl carriers).

It depends on how many aircraft you intend to operate and how long the missions last. If it is 100 aircraft flying 30 minute sorties... it is necessary. If you are flying 40 aircraft for several hour long missions, it doesn't impact anything if the Air Boss knows what they are doing.

No!
A/c needs to do multiple manuevers to face the wind when arresting jets to allow headroom for emergencies. Steam cats also require tailwind assist. In fact this is one of the main reasons Ford has EMALS, because steam cats depended so much on wind to achieve desired SGR rates.
You can see the difference in achieved SGR between Ford and nimitz at 270, 210 of single day sustained rate.(surge)
Multiple independent Cats are absolutely critical to achieving those results.
CdG can achieve 80 sorties in sustained surge..(from a RAND study to find effect of CVLite as compared to CV)

 

[Raju Seth]

Navy's capex budget for ships in 2018-2019 is 12000 crore...
$8B spread over 10 years is still 5500 crore per year. Do you want almost half of entire ship procure budget to go to a single carrier which will fructify in a decade? While taking money away from subs, destroyers, frigates?.

If u will look closely all forces are facing the same issue,all want modern weapo & no one has enough funds,the reason for that all of them want new thing at same time,giving funds to navy is fine as they have more indigenous stuff,so money remain in country & can be allocated again,the most expensive is airforce with their expensive MMRCA gimmick program ,army also buys foreign stuff but the cost is low & is bearable.

NO ONE IS INDIA'S FRIEND

IOR is getting busy & busy with USA,UK,FRANCE,japan,austalia vs china russia,when everyone will be putting a/c face to face & controlling our ship lanes ,in that case do u want india to be sitting duck,fund or no fund we need carrier PERIOD


SUPRISE to the game is anti malaysia attitude,they got a joke in name of carrier,but honestly that is the only thing india can counter with IAC1

USA,UK,China all are operating bigger carrier the least we can do is build a 65K,doesnt matter if it never leaves dock(due to operating financial crunch) but we need to be ready

ALso in 5500cr per year you arent just building a ship but who new set of capability,nuke reactor(for ships),new class of ship building capability,CATOBAR tech,all new kind of metalurgy that can be used in other field as well

Also defence budget of UK & france are comparable & if they can afford we can also afford carriers

the only way to increase navy budget is put more emphasis on indigenous caps as more the oney remain in country ,stronger the economy gets,thus all forces can have huge funding

i say ins vishaal program should be given go ahead

 

[Armand2REP]

No!
A/c needs to do multiple manuevers to face the wind when arresting jets to allow headroom for emergencies. Steam cats also require tailwind assist. In fact this is one of the main reasons Ford has EMALS, because steam cats depended so much on wind to achieve desired SGR rates.
You can see the difference in achieved SGR between Ford and nimitz at 270, 210 of single day sustained rate.(surge)
Multiple independent Cats are absolutely critical to achieving those results.
CdG can achieve 80 sorties in sustained surge..(from a RAND study to find effect of CVLite as compared to CV)

No!

A/C needs a top speed of at least 27knts to launch AWACs which is why the UK is not an option, it is too slow with only 80MW of power. EMALS is only as good as the power it has to charge it. If you have low power supply your sortie generation will be slower or you sacrifice power of the launch. You will not be getting Ford class nuclear reactors... ever, so you can forget about comparing something to US super carriers. CdG sortie generation is limited by the number of aircraft more so than not being able to recover simultaneously. The RAND study is comparing 30 aircraft to 90, so of course the Americans will be 3X more.

 

[Bhurki]

The RAND study is comparing 30 aircraft to 90, so of course the Americans will be 3X more.

RAND baseline was 50(44 SH + 6 Growler) combat jets for CV and 36(30SH + 6 Growler) for CVLite.

 

[Armand2REP]

RAND baseline was 50(44 SH + 6 Growler) combat jets for CV and 36(30SH + 6 Growler) for CVLite.

So it wasn't comparing CdG... nice. FYI a Nimitz carrier only generates 160 sorties per day and CdG 80.

https://www.senat.fr/rap/r99-358/r99-3583.html

 

[Bhurki]

So it wasn't comparing CdG... nice. FYI a Nimitz carrier only generates 160 sorties per day and CdG 80.

https://www.senat.fr/rap/r99-358/r99-3583.html

That is its sustained campaign rate ... I'm talking about sustained surge as i said before..

 

[Armand2REP]

That is its sustained campaign rate ... I'm talking about sustained surge as i said before..

That is the surge rate, the campaign rate is half of that.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Yeah, until IN can make space for about 5000 crore fund every year for 10 years straight, nothing will happen...

Same 5000 crores can build 12-14 diesel subs over 10 years. Or 10 destroyers or 15 frigates. We now need numbers.

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

Same 5000 crores can build 12-14 diesel subs over 10 years. Or 10 destroyers or 15 frigates. We now need numbers.

I simply don't get the Navy's obsession with a 3rd aircraft carrier. We barely have frigates, destroyers, submarines to sustain 2 Carrier Battle Groups.
The Navy should focus more on submarines and minesweepers. Our Kilo class and Type 209 class subs are on their last legs and we immediately need more subs. The best and cheapest option is to go for 9 additional improved Scorpene class subs. This will reduce the logisitical stress faced by the Navy in operating 3 different types of conventional subs and will also give us 15 modern subs(not counting kilo and type 209 subs).
Minesweepers are badly needed and we must go for whichever company that is offering ToT and not waste time in tenders.
The construction of frigates seem to be on track but we need to up the construction speed and look to induct the new frigates as quickly as possible.
Another issue is the slow construction speed and piecemeal order size of the destroyers. Instead of ordering just 3-4 destroyers per class we must look to order 10 destroyers per class and reduce the construction time taken down to 5 years from the current 7 years.

 

[Bhurki]

I simply don't get the Navy's obsession with a 3rd aircraft carrier. We barely have frigates, destroyers, submarines to sustain 2 Carrier Battle Groups.
The Navy should focus more on submarines and minesweepers. Our Kilo class and Type 209 class subs are on their last legs and we immediately need more subs. The best and cheapest option is to go for 9 additional improved Scorpene class subs. This will reduce the logisitical stress faced by the Navy in operating 3 different types of conventional subs and will also give us 15 modern subs(not counting kilo and type 209 subs).
Minesweepers are badly needed and we must go for whichever company that is offering ToT and not waste time in tenders.
The construction of frigates seem to be on track but we need to up the construction speed and look to induct the new frigates as quickly as possible.
Another issue is the slow construction speed and piecemeal order size of the destroyers. Instead of ordering just 3-4 destroyers per class we must look to order 10 destroyers per class and reduce the construction time taken down to 5 years from the current 7 years.

These ships are not cheap either...
A 6-7k ton destroyer/ frigate costs $1B. ( Vishk, Nilgiri)
A diesel electric sub like scorpene also costs $1B each.
Total navy budget for acquiring ships is 12128 crore.( $1.8B)(2019-20)
This needs to include logistic ships, minesweepers, missle corvettes, opv, amphib ships.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I simply don't get the Navy's obsession with a 3rd aircraft carrier. We barely have frigates, destroyers, submarines to sustain 2 Carrier Battle Groups.
The Navy should focus more on submarines and minesweepers. Our Kilo class and Type 209 class subs are on their last legs and we immediately need more subs. The best and cheapest option is to go for 9 additional improved Scorpene class subs. This will reduce the logisitical stress faced by the Navy in operating 3 different types of conventional subs and will also give us 15 modern subs(not counting kilo and type 209 subs).
Minesweepers are badly needed and we must go for whichever company that is offering ToT and not waste time in tenders.
The construction of frigates seem to be on track but we need to up the construction speed and look to induct the new frigates as quickly as possible.
Another issue is the slow construction speed and piecemeal order size of the destroyers. Instead of ordering just 3-4 destroyers per class we must look to order 10 destroyers per class and reduce the construction time taken down to 5 years from the current 7 years.

True. I hate piecemeal ordering from Navy. Most of the follow on classes have just little upgrades over older ones. I simply dont get it. Building 10 will be cheaper than building 4.

90k crores for an carrier with fighters will better serve Navy in its number. In addition to that, its Nuk submarine program gets direct funding from PMO. So it doesnt come under Navy's budget so naturally its real Parliamentary budget is squeezed.

Navy should go for efficient use of resources. It should probably buy fighters capable of landing in carriers but operating from land from Andamans to use it like aircraft carriers. IAF fighters stationed in coast and islands should be completely reconcentrated against China and Pakistan. China didnt start building ac until it had better numbers in its navy. While the quality of officers or equipment is debatable it can only get better with time. And India has a larger coastline than China.

 

[Bhurki]

True. I hate piecemeal ordering from Navy. Most of the follow on classes have just little upgrades over older ones. I simply dont get it. Building 10 will be cheaper than building 4.

90k crores for an carrier with fighters will better serve Navy in its number. In addition to that, its Nuk submarine program gets direct funding from PMO. So it doesnt come under Navy's budget so naturally its real Parliamentary budget is squeezed.

Navy should go for efficient use of resources. It should probably buy fighters capable of landing in carriers but operating from land from Andamans to use it like aircraft carriers. IAF fighters stationed in coast and islands should be completely reconcentrated against China and Pakistan. China didnt start building ac until it had better numbers in its navy. While the quality of officers or equipment is debatable it can only get better with time. And India has a larger coastline than China.

The best way would've been standardizing on niligiri class frigate and kilo class sub and make a dozen of both.. But since India always likes to have a zoo in its forces, i guess.that.can't happen.

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

The best way would've been standardizing on niligiri class frigate and kilo class sub and make a dozen of both.. But since India always likes to have a zoo in its forces, i guess.that.can't happen.

What India really needs is the defence budget to be atleast 2.5% of the GDP( around $80 bn) and the Navy getting the largest share of the defence budget followed by the Airforce and then the Army.
The troop strength in the Army needs to be cut down to a total of 1 million troops to make the army a much leaner, meaner and technologically advanced army.
And whatever the defence equipment that the three forces are procuring, and if there is an indeginous alternative available which is just as good as the foreign one, then the indigenous alternative only should be procured. Only in that way can we inspire confidence in the indigenous defence industry.
China followed this and look where it is at today.