INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[pankaj nema]

 

[gslv markIII]

has been contemplating the case for a repeat order of P-17A as confirmed by MDL

Sorry for bothering you again but can I have a source? This is definitely a big deal.

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

Submarines:-
Project 75A: $6 Billion for first three
Project 75I: $3 Billion for first couple (all six can't be built within this decade)
Project 76: Not happening this decade
SSBN: Not under Naval acquisition budget, budgeted under NCA, PMO
.
Major Surface Combatants:-
DDG: None planned for this decade after P-15B
FFG: None planned for this decade after Talwar and Nilgiri class
NGMV: $2.2 Billion
NGC: $3 Billion?
ASW-SWC: $1.1 Billion
.
Other Surface vessels;
LHD: $2 Billion for first couple vessels (all four can't be built within decade)
Fleet Support Ships: $3 Billion
NGOPV: $1 Billion
.
Aircraft:
111 ALH for NUH: $3 Billion
26 MRCBF: $4 Billion?
Sea Guardian: $1 Billion?
.
TOTAL (for the rest of the decade): $29.5 Billion?
.
Total acquisition budget for Navy for this decade (@$8 Billion/year average): $64 Billion
.
Tell me where they'll spend all that remaining money? That is $34.5 Billion that we have no idea how the Navy will spend based on its current plans. Maybe I missed a few acquisitions that end up costing the Navy another $10 Billion. That is still $24.5 Billion more remaining. Where will it all go?



WT(actual)F?

Few Incorrect points,
FFG: 2-7 P17B (Nilgiri follow-on) are planned.
Orders will be placed in next 2-3 yrs.
DDG: 6 Project 18 destroyers are planned.

 

[Photon]

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Few Incorrect points,
FFG: 2-7 P17B (Nilgiri follow-on) are planned.
Orders will be placed in next 2-3 yrs.
DDG: 6 Project 18 destroyers are planned.

No AoN for P-17B yet even though Overtdefence says MDL says Navy is thinking about it.
P-18 subsystems aren't ready yet. No AD-1 and AD-2 tests yet. No news of new VLS, IEP, X-band radar project just started, L-band still AWOL. Only LR-MFR is in testing. So P-18 won't likely start building before 2027-28 which means we won't get them till after 2030.
But let us assume both these also happen this decade: That is still only a mere $15 Billion bill. Point is Navy has enough funds for a third carrier within this decade if it is given its due share of the Defence CAPEX. What CDS said about Navy not needing third carrier was because Army CAPEX is not sufficient, so they are trying to corner Navy's share, I think.

what about on going ones ?
iac2.
mcmv
uav
Hospital Ship and other vessels
P17b.
chakra
Q- list involves missiles ?
by the thanks for the list
Also there is no additional iac1 so far. and last time I read- goi/cds giving importance to ssk/ssn and asked[cds] how navy going to afford all these ?
who is going to pay for additional iac1 ?

Everything I missed (apart from carriers) won't cost more than $10 Billion. There is still sufficient funds for third carrier.
Munitions (including missiles) and FOLs are covered under Revenue head, not Capital Expenditure Head, AFAIK.

I'll answer this tomorrow, a small advice, use INR instead of USD for indigenous platforms & USD only for foreign equipments, like MRCBF.

If I go down that route, I'd have to separate costs for MF-STAR, Barak-8, etc in USD and CIWS, SRGM and BrahMos in INR. All I am doing is a back of the envelope calculation to show that Navy is not short on funds for a third carrier if it continues to get present share of Defence CAPEX and if economy continues to grow along the current projections.

 

[binayak95]

Very interesting, you choose to give a unique example that does not contribute to the discussion at hand. The problem with type 45 is unique to itself, there are other boats like QEC, Zumwalt, Juan Carlos I and several vessels in JMSDF, RN & RAN which work fine with their IEP/IFEP

Reality doesn't care about what the majority thinks.

Are you willing to bet a million on that or it's just your usual shitposting?

The cabinet needs to approve a fleet of 3 carriers for that to happen!

No it won't, the level of inflation that this growing country has witnessed/is witnessing/will witness will not allow that to happen. Even the projected cost of P17A repeat order (expected to be placed in 2024-25) is going to be 20-30% more expensive!


Different requirement results in different goals, we don't need 50-60 submarines, 40 DDG & 50 FFG in the next 15 yrs. Our in the next 15 yrs is more in line with 25-30 submarines, 20 DDG, 30 FFG.

IN is building 9 FFG & 3 DDG simultaneously right now, under different stages of completion.

Maybe ask your friends in the cabinet to approve a larger fleet for the Navy? Maybe they'll listen to you, you seem very knowledgeable, I'm sure they won't be able to resist whatever you have to offer. & NGD is to start construction in 2026-28, the last P-15B DDG will be delivered in 2025. As for the frigate fleet, IN will achieve 23 out of the 24 currently sanctioned & has been contemplating the case for a repeat order of P-17A as confirmed by MDL, it is now upto the cabinet to approve it, but you couldn't read that because YOUR BITCHY ARSE CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT

Get the cabinet to approve a fleet of 3 carrier tomorrow and I'll personally make sure that you'll see a new carrier by 2035-36 (<15 yrs). Deal?

8 NGC will be ordered in 2024-25, will provide capability that is far superior when compared to Talwar repeat in every dimension, 11356 by GSL are to be delivered by 2026-27.
6 NGMV, similar ASuW, better AAW capability when compared to Talwar class 'frigate'. ASW capability isn't present because it's not required for this type of role, order to be placed in this fiscal or early-mid next FY.
Autonomous minesweepers, under development & expected to be completed around 2027, it can be manufactured quickly thereafter. Initiative is taken by the Navy, so don't come with your BS of 'they'll take 10 more years to test'.
11 NG OPV, shipyards finalised, will help relieve some capital ships that have to go on foreign deployment therefore increasing the readiness of the Navy to fight, every ship contributes.
16 ASW SWC, they'll play a key role for the protection of our coast, don't dis them by saying 'it's just a <1000T corvette' every ship contributes.
5 NGD, order to be placed in 2026-28 as said earlier, the case is already present with the cabinet, Navy is seeking approval this FY. You will get all 5 of these in next 15 years if the cabinet approves everything on time!

Navy HQ has been making effort for a larger fleet for years now, it's upto thr CCS to sanction a larger fleet, not the Navy. Maybe start ranting on the people who are actually to blame rather than just blaming the IN for civil cabinet's fault.

Because they bankrupt themselves even before entering the market? Everybody knows what happened with 'large pvt shipyard' known as Pipavav, it was their undoing. Another pvt shipyard was involved in a scam recently, ABG AGS something. Pvt entities aren't free of blame, & it's not IN' responsibility to keep every pvt shipyard alive, that demand is to come from the transport services.

CDG is a compromised aircraft carrier, the recent refit with K-15 only allows it to run on full speed for some time, short bursts. 2×190mW (th) are not enough for a ship spanning around 300m long, you'll need a new reactors (2×220mW or above), and our production capacity is another bottleneck, we have to produce reactors for 9 nuclear powered submarines in the 15 yr timeframe. Anything less than 280m & 15,000m² is a compromise. You'll get a clean sheet design if you go ahead and try to modify IAC-1' design for catapults and nuclear reactors. Conventional IAC-2 is more feasible when compared to a CVN IAC-1.

You have no minesweepers because of the GSL, sub contract will be signed in the next 5 years with assurance from IN that the next sub class will be indigenous (with some consultancy). Navy only got the budget bump in FY21-22, budget was limited before that, the reason why we went with 24 NMRH instead of 123. & ALH/LUH has been finalised for NUH. There will be no additional P-8I because the govt delays in the deal signing in mid 2010s.
Navy has been overspending for the past 2 years, the liabilities (for projects already signed) is more than 1.7L cr, shipyards aren't going dry because of orders. All 4 shipyards under MoD are making something & have won the bid for more. GSL, MDL, GRSE, HSL all ARE busy with ongoing projects & will REMAIN busy with 8 NGC (they aren't 'small') 6 NGMV, 11 NG OPV, & 7 P-17A r/O. CSL is a commercial yard under GoI, & Navy has already made the case for another IAC.

someone just took the bitch to town and smacked arse. NOICE

 

[Adm Kenobi]

@Adm Kenobi

I remember seeing similar plans back in mid to late 2000's, so your optimism will not translate into reality in time especially for projects that have not already produced a lead ship. I agree its cabinet that need to set this in motion, they should fund anything including follow up to IAC-1 with improved characteristics as one is produced already. Your argument about inflation is not serious. Rupee is not a strong currency and with decent foreign reserves and more local content, increase in cost is bearable. You have not presented an argument why it makes sense not to do IAC1 follow up and relying on IAC-2 which is still in design phase.

I have seen plans of a fleet including 5 carriers in the late 2000s & early 2010s & am aware of the difference between reality and optimism. My 'argument' about inflation, the numbers I have stated are from shipyards themselves, I have not made them up. IAC-1 repeat will cost in upwards of 21,000cr easy, "can navy afford paying for it?" Yes, by delaying IAC-2. IAC-1 repeat does not provide the 'needed' capability, we have discussed about this just a few pages back & I'll suggest you to read those rather than repeating the same points again.

Right, all SSBN activity by every navy that has them is dependent on having LHD recon, what crap of bs and a stretch. An lhd is not going to get the andaman back if we were to lose it in the context of war.....I agree with ASW capabilities of recon helis but if money is limited then I would prioritize attack instruments over lhd's. Recon can be done via other means, we are mostly IOR navy. Sure if you have money and we can build LHD quicker than other ships then go for it.....LHD's can also be purchased if necessary, carriers are hard to come by in terms of need or time.

I did not say that you need an LHD to operate SSBNs, the point about SSBN was separate from the LHD argument and more towards 'I would rather invest in offensive capabilities' & the 'strike first' strategy you were suggesting. My point was - req for offensive, defensive & retaliatory capabilities all need to be assessed and spent upon, that includes platforms like LHD.
& one more thing that came up today, the cost of 1 LHD would be around 12.5 to 15k cr as per GRSE's recent earnings concall(happened yesterday, released today). IAC-1 repeat costing less than the current one is *impossible*.

 

[Adm Kenobi]

I have a doubt in recent article it's written that repeat orders for p-17a class frigates or p-17b will be given this decade so can we expect construction to begin this decade

Sorry for bothering you again but can I have a source? This is definitely a big deal.

Source for the article & my statement is the same, MDL's Q1 earnings concall. & GRSE's CMD has also mentioned P-17B in the Q1 earnings concall that took place yesterday. This isn't something that navy is just 'thinking about' but making an active case for, under thr maritime perspective plan.
Source - (this one is MDL)
Around 19:30 - likelihood that, 7 in number, repeat P-17A frigate is going to be there, which will be about 35,000cr
Around 26:25 - if you look at FY23-24, Navy is contemplating ordering a couple of P-17A repeat, could cost 30-33,000cr for 4 (if divided the same as before) ships.

Another (This is GRSE one)
Around 36:35 - Very hopeful that the P-17 Bravo project, right now it's in the liquid form, on paper, the project may fructify in the next 3-4 years years

The things I have quoted up here^ aren't 'exact' wording, so I suggest you watch it yourself around the specified time. You can also watch the whole thing, it's around 2hrs total, very informative.

If I go down that route, I'd have to separate costs for MF-STAR, Barak-8, etc in USD and CIWS, SRGM and BrahMos in INR. All I am doing is a back of the envelope calculation to show that Navy is not short on funds for a third carrier if it continues to get present share of Defence CAPEX and if economy continues to grow along the current projections.

you won't need to include the cost of sub components separately, you can just consider the total project cost, it's there, listed in INR. Converting INR to USD isn't always right, especially when you consider long term projects => exchange rate is subject to change.
& you are correct, navy will not be short of modernisation money when it comes to pursuing IAC-2, which is included in their maritime perspective plan, r/o IAC-1 is NOT. I think I have shared about the liabilities and the procurement plan (the raw value) b4, I'll repeat it - Navy expects the modernisation budget to be around 2.76L cr in FY26-27 (including this year's budget), existing liabilities are around 1.2L cr (I wrongly mentioned it as 1.7L cr in the quoted post, that was a mistake), there are projects worth 4.5L cr that are being processed under part A of AAP (2L cr) & part B of AAP (2.5L cr), they are to be ordered in the next 5 years (projects like P-75I, NGC, NGMV, NG-OPV, NUH, NGD, IAC-2 are included), as you know, this isn't to be paid upfront and will take some chunks (large and small) from modernisation budget of next 5 years (i.e. - after 2027). Navy will have appropriate amount of funds if they increase at an avg rate of 8-10% YoY, but they won't have 10s of billions of USD in excess as you have pointed out. Around 55,250cr/yr avg for next 5 years (current is 45,250cr under the budget estimate, subject to change in Revised Estimates)

 

[IndianHawk]

Repeat order of p17a makes lot of sense. They are quite modern and capable.

Repeat order will save time and bring economics of scale into play. They will come faster and at reasonable costs.

This will ensure shipyards have adequate work .

Also them we can go on for major changes in next generation frigate with time on hand .

 

[Vamsi]

Ops Room i.e Combat Information Centre of INS Vikrant

 

[omaebakabaka]

IAC-1 repeat does not provide the 'needed' capability, we have discussed about this just a few pages back & I'll suggest you to read those rather than repeating the same points again.

This is what is astonishing, they would rather have nothing and waste time and eliminate even minimal flexibility that a 2nd carrier would add to any contingencies or situations....then why did they start IAC1? I call this a senseless insanity that any business would not even think about....this is criminal risking it like that. Take what you can get while pursuing others is the #1 ops rule in most set ups.

the cost of 1 LHD would be around 12.5 to 15k cr as per GRSE's recent earnings concall(happened yesterday, released today). IAC-1 repeat costing less than the current one is *impossible*.

My point, I remember France charged $2b for mistrals 13 years ago, it is not cheaper and would not add the depth, this is something that becomes a multiplier when we have fighting ships like carriers, destroyers that can and do carry recon helis.

My whole point is increase the budget as we can not afford to not build navy that can actually attack and defend in IOR and do not proliferate # of classes imports or local but build numbers and upgrade paths. Navy's diesel subs is another shit show.

If carriers are expensive and of limited use then build extreme numbers of destroyers that can carry shit load of missiles to deter other navies in IOR region, clear strategy from navy is absent in that they do not try to achieve one thing very well to a goal. They want to be felt like US or some other navy with full spectrum fleet which is nothing but dumb strategy not in touch with reality or our abilities.

 

[Vamsi]

Ops Room i.e Combat Information Centre of INS Vikrant

Here's the video of it

 

[ClawReed787]

Ops Room i.e Combat Information Centre of INS Vikrant

Yo !windows XP?

 

[Javelin_Sam]

If anyone wants to have an idea of which jet will win mrcbf contest, just see this picture. The entrance to the hanger is even smaller than the lift itself. Enough to pass foldable wing MiG 29k and F-18s( i am not sure of length of F-18). Regarding Rafale we have to see how much of the 'wingtip' or wing of Rafale needs to be removed each time one has to get in and out of hanger

 

[karn]

Yo !windows XP?

Yeah .. Apparently despite microsoft having stopped support ...it is the last stable version .. Same reason ATMs use it.

 

[spiritb2]

Ops Room i.e Combat Information Centre of INS Vikrant

Extracted from the tweet. Image credits to owner

 

[Adm Kenobi]

IAC-1/Vikrant
42,800T
262.5m long, 61.6m wide, 61.6m high
Flight deck area - 12,500m²
Crew - 1600
Speed - 28 knots
Range - 7,500nm at 18 knots
Aircraft capacity - over 30
Propulsion - 88MW
Electric - 24MW
10+5 deck
2,300 compartments
32 MR-SAM
AK-630 as CIWS
2× 10*14 aircraft elevator (30T capacity)
2× weapon elevator (2T capacity)
145m & 203m take off position
191m long landing runway

Indigenous CMS (Tata), EW Suite (BEL), Ship's data network (BEL), power distribution system (L&T), Integrated platform management system (BHEL).

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

IAC-1/Vikrant
42,800T
262.5m long, 61.6m wide, 61.6m high
Flight deck area - 12,500m²
Crew - 1600
Speed - 28 knots
Range - 7,500nm at 18 knots
Aircraft capacity - over 30
Propulsion - 88MW
Electric - 24MW
10+5 deck
2,300 compartments
32 MR-SAM
AK-630 as CIWS
2× 10*14 aircraft elevator (30T capacity)
2× weapon elevator (2T capacity)
145m & 203m take off position
191m long landing runway

Indigenous CMS (Tata), EW Suite (BEL), Ship's data network (BEL), power distribution system (L&T), Integrated platform management system (BHEL).

They didn't mention one of its star capabilities: Sensor Netting.
Also missed 4X Oto Merla 76mm SRGM (although not yet installed).

 

[Blademaster]

INS Vikrant is better than INS Vikramaditya in every way. Why couldn't we build her before around the same time as the Russians started renovating and refitting INS Vikramaditya? We could have had two IAC carriers by now perhaps a third one and we would be well on our way designing our next generation carrier class that would be nuclear powered and have EMALS type of catapult and carry at least 3 squadrons of fighters (54).

 

[Vamsi]

India defensive country vroo....India doesn't need Aircraft carriers vro ..