INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[cobra commando]

.............................

 

[Srinivas_K]

Nice pics !


Message aaaannnnnndddddd 30 character limit !

.............................

 

[cobra commando]

 

[NLD]

Is it really glitch with the hinges of dock gate??
As the process is being carried forward i feel their is something else other than this.
May be carrier is not completed or they have found some problem in it now.

Seniors over here pls tell am i right or really the reason is dock gate.

 

[Illusive]

Is it really glitch with the hinges of dock gate??
As the process is being carried forward i feel their is something else other than this.
May be carrier is not completed or they have found some problem in it now.

Seniors over here pls tell am i right or really the reason is dock gate.

Why would there be any other problem, the cabling and installation of system is yet to happen, the hull was already completed and inaugurated before, only the island was missing which has been constructed.

So relax and wait for further info.

 

[Defencearts]

Damn, I was really looking forward to seeing the finished structure. But now we have to wait two more days.

P.S. Love the new DFI forum look and features. Makes other forums look like they were created decades ago.

 

[rojo]

Nice analysis by a former admiral on the N-subs vs N-carriers debate.
.http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150602/commentary-columnists/article/n-carriers-vs-n-subs
N-carriers vs N-subs
DC | Arun Kumar Singh | June 02, 2015

The US defence secretary Ashton Carter is expected to visit Visakhapatnam on June 3 and then New Delhi on June 4-5 to sign the 10-year Indo-US Enhanced Defence Framework Agreement, and convince India to accept an American design for the recently announced indigenous 65,000-ton aircraft carrier, along with the latest American EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) and AAWS (Advanced Arrester Wire System), and operate the latest American carrier-borne F-35C jet fighters.

In April 2015, the media reported that the defence ministry had cleared various pending projects, including funding of an initial Rs 30 crore as “seed money” to commence project work on India’s next indigenous 65,000-ton aircraft carrier, to be named INS Vishal.

The Indian Navy currently operates non-nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, i.e. the 56-year-old, 28,0000-ton, steam-driven INS Viraat and the 43,000-ton, steam-driven INS Vikramaditya. At the same time, the gas-turbine-powered 37,000-ton INS Vikrant is under construction and is expected to join the Navy in 2018. The reasons stated for the new INS Vishal are valid, i.e. for an aircraft carrier to be viable, it needs to embark at least 36 fighter aircraft and another 12 helicopters, and this is possible only on carriers larger than 65,000 tons (INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant can each embark only 18 fighters and 12 helicopters).
A debate has now started about the need or otherwise of nuclear propulsion for the proposed INS Vishal. Nuclear power is expensive to acquire, maintain and needs highly trained personnel to operate.

While nuclear power provides natural stealth to submarines by enabling them to remain totally submerged in the ocean depths for months, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is visible and detectable by electronic and satellite surveillance as it sails on the ocean surface. Additionally, while nuclear power provides long periods of propulsion without refuelling, American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers still need weekly replenishment at sea (from a non-nuclear replenishment ship) of aviation fuel, lubricants, air armaments etc, and the same replenishment ship, needs to refuel another eight more conventionally powered warships every three days (these warships protect the aircraft carrier against various enemy threats).

In 1954, the world’s first nuclear submarine, the American USS Nautilus, was commissioned. It operated on LEU (low enriched uranium, i.e. below 19 per cent enrichment), and this reactor fuel enabled the single reactor submarine to operate for two years before uranium refuelling, and provided a total of 200 days sailing at economic speed.

Reactor uranium fuelling is expensive and time consuming. To overcome this shortcoming, the Americans gradually increased the uranium enrichment to HEU (highly enriched uranium, i.e. 93 per cent enrichment) to enable present-day American nuclear submarines and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to operate for 25 years, without reactor fuel change. India does not have this HEU propulsion technology yet.

Apart from nuclear or conventional propulsion, aircraft carriers are further subdivided into three categories. The first is the CATOBAR (catapult assisted takeoff but arrested recovery). It is the most expensive and most capable (rapid aircraft launch rate of one aircraft every 20 seconds, while the other two carrier types can launch at one minute per aircraft). It uses one or more catapults to launch aircraft within a 150-metre deck length and arrester wires to recover the aircraft which land within a 100-metre deck length by using an aircraft tail hook to attach themselves to one of the three or four arrester wires.

Earlier, American aircraft carriers used steam catapults and hydraulic arrester wires, but now the latest 2015 American Ford class carrier will operate the new EMALS and AAWS. These two new systems, which are now on offer to the Indian Navy, require the aircraft carrier to produce three times more electric power than earlier CATOBAR designs. Ideally it would need two powerful nuclear reactors of the American A1B BECHTEL type, which power the new USS Gerald R. Ford, and each of which can produce 180 MWe. Unfortunately, the Americans are not willing to transfer nuclear reactor propulsion technology. As a result India will have a non-nuclear, gas-turbine -powered, but still very expensive INS Vishal.

The second type of carrier is the STOVL (short take-off and vertical landing) type that is the simplest and cheapest. INS Viraat is an example of STOVL, where the sub-sonic Sea Harrier jets take off (without catapult) in about 200 metres deck length from a ski jump ramp, and land vertically. The American supersonic F-35B is the latest stealth jet fighter capable of such short take-off and vertical landing operations.

The third type of carrier is the STOBAR (short take-off but arrested recovery), which is used on INS Vikramaditya (and also for the INS Vikrant under construction). Here the Russian MiG-29K or the Indian light combat aircraft takes off from 200 metres deck length (without catapult) from a ski jump ramp and lands in 100 metres deck length using its tail hook to catch one of three hydraulic arrester wires.

The UK has got nuclear reactor technology for its nuclear submarines, but has wisely decided that its next two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers (due for commissioning in 2018 and 2020) will be non-nuclear, STOVL type and conventionally powered by gas turbines. The aircraft selected are the American F-35B jets. These British carriers are estimated to cost about $4 billion each (the new American nuclear Ford class 100,000-ton carrier with EMALS and AAWS costs $13 billion).

Before India embarks on a new 65,000-ton aircraft carrier and its aircraft, it needs to look closely at funding availability (for aircraft, ship, spares, training etc), state of indigenous marine nuclear powered reactor technology, availability of indigenous uranium supplies (and whether our limited uranium stocks are better used for indigenous nuclear powered submarines), and, finally, vulnerability of the aircraft carrier to Chinese nuclear submarines and the new-shore-based 1,500-km-range DF-21D, anti-aircraft carrier ballistic missile system which may be based on Pakistan’s coast. The aircraft would need to be a fifth-generation stealth fighter like the American F-35B (STOVL) or a modified version of the Russian FGFA (STOBAR) planned for the Indian Air Force. To put it simply, India could build two STOVL or two STOBAR non-nuclear carriers for the cost of one nuclear CATOBAR carrier. The money saved could be gainfully used for indigenous production of critically needed nuclear and conventional submarines.

The writer retired as Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam

 

[lookieloo]

Still stuck in the mud I take it?

 

[cobra commando]

.............................

 

[lookieloo]

Ok... are they gonna drag it out of the weeds or not?

 

[Khagesh]

@rojo

Great report. Several important points.

Nice analysis by a former admiral on the N-subs vs N-carriers debate.
.http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150602/commentary-columnists/article/n-carriers-vs-n-subs

N-carriers vs N-subs
DC | Arun Kumar Singh | June 02, 2015

The writer retired as Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam

While nuclear power provides natural stealth to submarines by enabling them to remain totally submerged in the ocean depths for months, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is visible and detectable by electronic and satellite surveillance as it sails on the ocean surface.

Additionally, while nuclear power provides long periods of propulsion without refuelling, American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers still need weekly replenishment at sea (from a non-nuclear replenishment ship) of aviation fuel, lubricants, air armaments etc, and the same replenishment ship, needs to refuel another eight more conventionally powered warships every three days (these warships protect the aircraft carrier against various enemy threats).

<snip>

Reactor uranium fuelling is expensive and time consuming. To overcome this shortcoming, the Americans gradually increased the uranium enrichment to HEU (highly enriched uranium, i.e. 93 per cent enrichment) to enable present-day American nuclear submarines and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to operate for 25 years, without reactor fuel change. India does not have this HEU propulsion technology yet.

<snip>

American Ford class carrier will operate the new EMALS and AAWS. These two new systems, which are now on offer to the Indian Navy, require the aircraft carrier to produce three times more electric power than earlier CATOBAR designs. Ideally it would need two powerful nuclear reactors of the American A1B BECHTEL type, which power the new USS Gerald R. Ford, and each of which can produce 180 MWe. Unfortunately, the Americans are not willing to transfer nuclear reactor propulsion technology. As a result India will have a non-nuclear, gas-turbine -powered, but still very expensive INS Vishal.

<snip>

These British carriers are estimated to cost about $4 billion each (the new American nuclear Ford class 100,000-ton carrier with EMALS and AAWS costs $13 billion).

availability of indigenous uranium supplies (and whether our limited uranium stocks are better used for indigenous nuclear powered submarines),

and, finally, vulnerability of the aircraft carrier to Chinese nuclear submarines and the new-shore-based 1,500-km-range DF-21D, anti-aircraft carrier ballistic missile system which may be based on Pakistan’s coast. The aircraft would need to be a fifth-generation stealth fighter like the American F-35B (STOVL) or a modified version of the Russian FGFA (STOBAR) planned for the Indian Air Force.

To put it simply, India could build two STOVL or two STOBAR non-nuclear carriers for the cost of one nuclear CATOBAR carrier.

The money saved could be gainfully used for indigenous production of critically needed nuclear and conventional submarines.

The writer retired as Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam

See chimes in well with what the Americans themselves are doing.

But there fanboys would have none of it. If Americans have it then we must beg the americans and even become their 'allies' aka busboys for things we may never need.

Let us see if anybody of the ra ra randies can reply to this naval officer.

This is why IN is heads and feet above the other services. These guys have to think about budgets and capabilities so far into the future that they develop a sixth sense about a rotten deal.

They would rather push the Chinese learning experience, of preferring Subs over ACs even while going against the Chinese instead of 'leap frogging' into the abyss.

 

[Khagesh]

http://aviationweek.com/blog/navweek-ballistic-bombast

NavWeek: Ballistic Bombast
Apr 13, 2015 by Michael Fabey in Ares

China may be able to take out an American aircraft carrier with its feared DF-21 antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) without even taking a shot.

For years the U.S. Navy has been warning of the potential of the DF-21 to strike a carrier as part of the justification for updating the systems and networks of shielding that protect the country’s most visible – and some say most vulnerable – military icons.


The Navy brass did a good job making its case. Maybe too good. Now some powerful people in DC are looking to reduce the fleet by a carrier or two in the belief that the DF-21 will make it too dangerous for the ships even to get close to Chinese territorial waters. Indeed, the thinking goes, the Navy won’t even be willing to risk a multibillion-dollar carrier and its air wing to get close enough to China to be operationally, tactically or strategically effective.

They just want our people to do their bidding. They have seen the chinese written on the wall and so they cannot risk their floating targets.

The Navy is now doing a carrier study for lawmakers to analyze the cost and operations for the biggest U.S. ships. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, says he wants to look hard at carriers and their air wings.

It certainly makes sense to do so – and often. When ships alone start to cost $12.9 billion for a new model, the Navy and the nation need to make sure the vessels are worth the investment, especially if the DF-21 can do all that some fear it can do.

That is more than the entire capital budget of all three armed forces branches of India, reckoned on yearly basis.

But the U.S. Navy has quite a few points in its favor, too. Carriers do not sail alone and unafraid anywhere. They are protected from missile attacks by Aegis combat systems on cruisers and, and from torpedoes by frigates and submarines. Navy officials have touted their “system of systems” for years now – it’s become a cliché. But that does not mean it’s ineffective.

See they have known for ages that an AC is a big asset against Irans and Libiyas, but also a big liability if the opponent becomes keen like the Soviets had and the Chinese could be in future.

DF-21 has already scored multiple hits on stationary targets. Even when their targeting assets are rudimentary. But targeting is not going to remain rudimentary for long. Advanced Imaging technologies, satellite relays, HALE-UAVs and LoS datalinks and Submarines are going to change the targeting scene completely in next few years. They know this and that is why they are friendly with India.

 

[Bheeshma]

The DF-21 is more hype than reality. Striking stationary target is not the same as detecting a ship in the blue ocean and then being able to track it while re-entering earths atmosphere. That said CSL is interested in making one more Vikrant class and that would be ideal.

 

[Illusive]

That said CSL is interested in making one more Vikrant class and that would be ideal.

For whom? Navy would be moving to Vishal class.

 

[rohit b3]

For whom? Navy would be moving to Vishal class.

Vishal wont be ready till 2030 atleast.
Getting one more Vikrant by 2022 will be a smart move.

 

[Khagesh]

The DF-21 is more hype than reality. Striking stationary target is not the same as detecting a ship in the blue ocean and then being able to track it while re-entering earths atmosphere. That said CSL is interested in making one more Vikrant class and that would be ideal.

Why?

Do the researchers, Navies of China, India, US, Russia and perhaps later on Japan agree with your assessment? Not to forget lawmakers in US.

 

[Bheeshma]

Yes..most know DF-21 ding dong is just hype. Neihter India, Russia or US is going to invest in Anti ship ballistic missile. It makes sense to invest in longer range cruise (hypersonic) or quasi ballistic missile like shaurya that do not leave earths atmosphere.

 

[Khagesh]

Yes..most know DF-21 ding dong is just hype. Neihter India, Russia or US is going to invest in Anti ship ballistic missile. It makes sense to invest in longer range cruise (hypersonic) or quasi ballistic missile like shaurya that do not leave earths atmosphere.

I accept my defeat against 'most' .

FYI,

1) Shaurya and hypersonic cruise will never be able to give the leg up that Ballistics can.

2) All the relevant Chinese signals have been picked up properly by people who matter - US Intel and Indian Intel.
India has already started working along same lines.
US already had something like this in its arsenal and is now actively wooing India to be its Gungadin sidekick in the IOR because its own CBGs are now deterred just enough.

Sample this major signal, regarding possibility of longer range (~2,700 km) which was 'erroneously' given out by China Daily in 2011, has immediately inspired the following report to US Congress in 2012. You can guess who assessed:

The assessed range of the DF-21D exceeds 1,500 km, and the missile is armed with a maneuverable warhead.

 

[power_monger]

I accept my defeat against 'most' .

FYI,

1) Shaurya and hypersonic cruise will never be able to give the leg up that Ballistics can.

2) All the relevant Chinese signals have been picked up properly by people who matter - US Intel and Indian Intel.
India has already started working along same lines.
US already had something like this in its arsenal and is now actively wooing India to be its Gungadin sidekick in the IOR because its own CBGs are now deterred just enough.

Sample this major signal, regarding possibility of longer range (~2,700 km) which was 'erroneously' given out by China Daily in 2011, has immediately inspired the following report to US Congress in 2012. You can guess who assessed:

You are forgetting that Brahmos III A block has vertical dive capability which could replicate ballistic trajectories.

 

[Khagesh]

You are forgetting that Brahmos III A block has vertical dive capability which could replicate ballistic trajectories.

That is one of the reasons we can be sure that India will be able to mount a serious challenge to any CBG.

But then I assure you when I mentioned the DF-21D it was not meant as a fanboy vs fanboy cat fight.

My working presumption is that whatever is currently being done in missile development, in for example US (who is the leader in R&D with really deep pockets), will quite soon be matched by the Chinese also (equally intelligent and now with deep pockets). You bet the Russians who are simply too innovative for the kind of money they can push in are not going to stay behind. Brits and Frenchies will simply get it for the asking (not doubting their intelligence).

But notice all these countries (except US) don't actually have a real ocean to take care of. Can explain later if need be. India on the other hand has a whole ocean to defend and then after that it has to be able to pose a threat in other seas/oceans, for both tactical and strategic reasons.

In such a situation if you try to figure out what would be the right way forward, considering our limited resources, I am sure you will realize that missilery will be a prime requirement along with the Sonars.

Missiles today are being used to even launch torpedoes. As if the nearly impossible trajectories were already not enough. Changes are coming in fast and we are actually not in the pole position. There are significant limitations. For example the Brahmos Block 3 you mention is obviously the Army version for hitting the reverse side of mountains. You cannot simply presume that the Brahmos Block 1 with IN are also capable of doing that. But even if it was such trajectories for supersonic missiles have already been intercepted, at least by US. And considering the fact that the guidance mechanism for the interceptor was Command Guidance+SARH, you can rest assured there will be others capable of doing that too.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-expanded-defensive-capability-207345421.html

We have got to be able to develop our missiles for Navy also. But how to do that? What is the way forward? What are the constraints in the way forward? What are the possibilities?

When you begin to search for answers you will hit a dumb solution - increase the number of attacking missiles. You also hit a smart yet paradoxical solution / requirement - increase speed, complicate the trajectory.

Ballistic courses, in the boost and mid course, are the solution to this apparently contradictory requirement of increasing speed as well as complicating trajectories to a point where the defender is truly stretched.

As a hard product, my suspicion is the US already has this, China started late but is not very far. Russians don't for the time being care. Brits and Frenchies don't need it. But we Indians need it and have the building blocks in place but still need quite a bit of working upon.

Instead of decrying the development of DF-21D and trying hard to ignore it, we should actually be supportive of such asymmetric weapon systems. DF-21D has forced major updates of strategies even without being completed. Like the Chinese we too should enable our people to think in an asymmetric manner and be supportive of their efforts.

If we persist in ignoring a good idea we will end up cutting domestic support for such weapons when we ourselves have to develop it and instead our money would be used to Import dreams. Does it sound comforting?