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

Bleh

Laughing member
New Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,239
Likes
26,077
Country flag
Are bro we can barely produce a 40,000 t ship, an aspiration of 90,000+ t is a bit long shot don't u think.
Why? Vikramaditya is 45k ton but Kutzenov/Liaoning are 60k ton. No need of being of same size... I said about copying the concept.

Our IAC-2 can have a sky-jump in the same way as Russian carriers, instead of being full CATOBAR. That'll reduce building & operating cost. Having a single EMALS to launch more heavily loaded jets, larger planes like AWACS or Maritime Patrol Aircrafts etc.
Definitely seems like applicable idea for 65k ton sized ship that would be much longer than Vikrant... Long & short takeoff option for 2 jets & catapult for atleast 1.
IMG_20200115_221836.jpg
 
Last edited:

Aniruddha Mulay

New Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
1,847
Likes
9,861
Why? Vikramaditya is 45k ton but Kutzenov/Liaoning are 60k ton. No need of being of same size... I said about copying the concept.

Our IAC-2 can have a sky-jump in the same way as Russian carriers, instead of being full CATOBAR. That'll reduce building & operating cost. Having a single EMALS to launch more heavily loaded jets, larger planes like AWACS or Maritime Patrol Aircrafts etc.
Definitely seems like applicable idea for 65k ton sized ship that would be much longer than Vikrant... Long & short takeoff option for 2 jets & catapult for atleast 1.View attachment 41667
I feel the best bet for the Navy's 3rd aircraft carrier is the HMS Queen Elizabeth class design with a CATOBAR config.
images (10).jpeg
 

shuvo@y2k10

New Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,653
Likes
6,710
Country flag
Are bro we can barely produce a 40,000 t ship, an aspiration of 90,000+ t is a bit long shot don't u think.
Let me phrase it out loud, our ship building capability is absolute down the gutter pathetic.
Aside from Cochin shipyard and HSL Shipyard who do u think can handle high DWT ships?
Two of our biggest shipyards filed for bankruptcy recently. The shipbuilding industry is in a nosedive as it is so I don't see any market stimulated growth.

If anything I'll say the Socialist era policy hit ship building industry the most.

Whatever shipyard had the intention to boost their infra have already done it in 2008 shipping boom, now it's just stagnation.
Cochin shipyard can build ships upto 110K tons and repair ships upto 125k tons. It has build 2 tankers of 95k tons each. It is also building 3 cargo ships for Bahamas of 30k ton each.
Hence the problem is not about the tonnage CSL can handle. IAC 1 was late because it was the first time such a complex ships was built. The desigining part of IN DND is now using highly advanced autocad softwares, which coupled to modular warship construction, and supply of DMRL developed naval grade high strength steel, will reduce the build time of future carriers.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
New Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,239
Likes
26,077
Country flag
I feel the best bet for the Navy's 3rd aircraft carrier is the HMS Queen Elizabeth class design with a CATOBAR config. View attachment 41670
And why exactly is that? Full CATOBAR are much costlier to build & operate. The idea of "hybrid" is what I was pointing at.
If TEDBF manages take off a sky jump with mission load, then there's no need to operate a catapult full time... just when a large aircraft is being launched or bomb-truck jets takingoff near MTOW.

So just the side catapult & sky jump at front;
 
Last edited:

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
And why exactly is that? Full CATOBAR are much costlier to build & operate. The idea of "hybrid" is what I was pointing at.
If TEDBF manages take off a sky jump with mission load, then there's no need to operate a catapult full time... just when a large aircraft is being launched or bomb-truck jets takingoff near MTOW.

So just the side catapult & sky jump at front;
Ever seen MiG-29K take off with full load?

On the 29K though, the problems are two-fold. There's the issue of payload penalty because of STOBAR and then the issue of the jet itself, which is nowhere as resilient to carrier landings at heavy load as a plane like Rafale or F-18.

STOBAR is a crap system. If we have the option, we should go with CATOBAR without question.

As of that pic, if you look closely you'll see it doesn't have a ski jump. It has 2 CATs is all.

Nobody except Russians (who right now have even lesser carrier-operating & building experience than India) can dream up such things as hybrid launch system. And the primary motivation for that isn't aircraft weight, but because their existing jets (Su-33/Mig-29 or even an imaginary naval Su-57) are simply not built to take the stresses of a CAT shot.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
New Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,239
Likes
26,077
Country flag
Ever seen MiG-29K take off with full load?
Have you?...

And I mentioned "bomb-truck jets taking off at MTOW" to use one catapult at the side.
i.jpg

Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles... The confirmed take-off loadout of Mig-29K is 2x AShM, 2x AAMs & 1/2x EFT so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying there, but would still allow an escort or interceptor or air-patrol to take off with maximum AAM loadout, plus change!

And with Vishal I had TEDBF in mind, with TV & larger delta wings with canards too.
Otherwise building & operating cost of a skyjump is less than half of 2 catapults in its place.
 
Last edited:

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
But I mentioned "bomb-truck jets taking off at MTOW" to use one catapult at the side. View attachment 41675
Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles... The confirmed take-off loadout of Mig-29K is 2x AShM, 2x AAMs & 1/2x EFT so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying there, but would still allow an escort or interceptor or air-patrol to take off with maximum AAM loadout, plus change!
View attachment 41678
And with Vishal I had TEDBF in mind, with TV & larger delta wings with canards too.

Otherwise building & operating cost of a skyjump is less than half of 2 catapults in its place.
The typical operation of jets from STOBAR happens at 50% fuel and between 25 and 50% weapons. That's the most reasonable fuel-ordnance matrix that can be managed for a typical mission profile.

For any such role as escorting strike package you need fuel to match the range of the strike planes. Same goes for conducting BARCAPs for on-station time. The work-around is to launch with max weapons possible (which will never be 100%), but with 25% or so fuel, then buddy-refueling mid air from a jet which launched with 75% or above fuel but no weapons.

If you have to launch 2 jets just to ensure 1 gets to required potential, the purpose of cost-saving is already defeated. Not to mention all the extra stress placed on the engines for takeoffs (as unlike in CATOBAR, the entire burden of takeoff has to be born by the jet itself) which serves to reduce the already bad TBO/MTBF figures of Klimov RD-33 (situation much better for F404/F414 but still an issue).

As of price, the ultimate aim of operating a carrier is to deliver capability, not save money. Countries like UK could decide in favour of non-CATOBAR because they had F-35B on offer as alternative to 35C.

We had STOBAR carriers till now because given our geopolitical equations and situations which dictated the era when decisions to procure Vikramaditya or IAC-1 were made decided their configuration. US was the only one which built catapults and our relation wasn't so good that we'd buy fighters & CATs from them.

Going forward we no longer have these limitations and that reflects on IN's insistence of a proper CATOBAR carrier (not a hybrid).
 

Bleh

Laughing member
New Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,239
Likes
26,077
Country flag
Are you sure you're making neutral assessments?
The typical operation of jets from STOBAR happens at 50% fuel and between 25 and 50% weapons. That's the most reasonable fuel-ordnance matrix that can be managed for a typical mission profile.

For any such role as escorting strike package you need fuel to match the range of the strike planes. Same goes for conducting BARCAPs for on-station time. The work-around is to launch with max weapons possible (which will never be 100%), but with 25% or so fuel, then buddy-refueling mid air from a jet which launched with 75% or above fuel but no weapons.

Firstly, Mig-29KUB can take off sky-jump with 2x AAM, 3x tanks, 2x AShM... weight equivalent to 70-80% strike & 100% dogfight package.
I don't know why they'll carry 50% weapon/fuel, as you claim, when even NLCA took off with full fuel & 4x AAMs.

Anyways, you don't have to sing prasing psalm of CATOBAR. I know its advantages & was only pondering with the possibilities for "hybrids".
 
Last edited:

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
Are you sure you're making neutral assessments?


Firstly, Mig-29KUB can take off sky-jump with 2x AAM, 3x tanks, 2x AShM... weight equivalent to 70-80% strike & 100% dogfight package.
And with what quantity of internal fuel?

I don't know why they'll carry 50% weapon/fuel, as you claim, when even NLCA took off with full fuel & 4x AAMs.
I only saw videos with clean load takeoff. Provide the one with 4 x AAMs. I understand there were multiple takeoffs, let me know if that's the case.

IMG_20200116_115702.jpg


And the quote for full fuel as well.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
New Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,239
Likes
26,077
Country flag
And with what quantity of internal fuel?
Not publicly released, but if it is doing trials to takeoff with external fuel tanks, it can be safely assumed to be able to do so with full internal fuel... otherwise that's just odd.

Also, in December 2016 the IN rejected NLCA for being "too heavy, does not meet the thrust-to-weight requirement to take off with full fuel and arms load from an aircraft carrier".
I doubt they'd be that lowly to say such, if it weren't expected of all jets operational on our sky-jump carrier.
I only saw videos with clean load takeoff. Provide the one with 4 x AAMs. I understand there were multiple takeoffs, let me know if that's the case.

View attachment 41685

And the quote for full fuel as well.
I read the Tejas took off from Goa sky-jump with 4 missiles with full tanks, can't find that article. I think BRF. Looking for it right now.

And this conversation screenshot from NLCA thread by H.V.Thakur that it can carry more than 4;
So there is some reading between the lines, but I think you understate sky-jump's capability a bit too much to the extent of near uselessness.
 
Last edited:

Gessler

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,312
Likes
11,249
Country flag
Not publicly released, but if it is doing trials to takeoff with external fuel tanks, it can be safely assumed to be able to do so with full internal fuel... otherwise that's just odd.
It's not odd - its just reasonable. It's the prime drawback of non-CAT carriers.

Fuel or weapons. You can't have both and if you want both you can't have them in sufficient quantity to justify air operations in optimal manner.

Otherwise IN is a fool to ask for CATOBAR just for planes like E-2 when even UK Navy decides to make do with helicopter AEW.

A must-read piece: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2020/01/from-nlca-to-mrcbf-to-ted-bf.html
 

Assassin 2.0

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,087
Likes
30,705
Country flag
Indian Navy’s ‘Vishal’ Aircraft Carrier Officially Off The Table?
Shiv AroorFeb 15 2020 10 00 am



Could India’s planned indigenous ‘flat-top’ aircraft carrier, designated the Vishal-class, be on hold — or at the very least, the subject of a formal rethink? A series of indications this week suggest that the Indian government may not be speeding towards the Vishal under the Indian Navy’s long-standing doctrinal pressures for a 3-carrier navy.

The navy currently operates the INS Vikramaditya aircraft carrier and will, within the next two years, induct the similarly configured Vikrant, the first indigenously designed and built aircraft carrier in the country. The Vishal, forward planned as a break-away from the traditional ski-jump fitted carriers, is proposed to incorporate a catapult-based launch system. The configuration of the Vishal has been the subject of much discussion and debate over the last decade, with key design decisions — like the decision not to have a ski-jump for aircraft launch — taken in just the last few years. But rumours of a rethink on how soon, and whether the Vishal program will be embarked upon is now up for question.

For starters, India’s first Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat provided an unmissable indicator in his first detailed interview since taking strength in the newly created tri-service chief appointment that involves long-term acquisitions and planning within the confines of highly squeezed budgets. In response to a specific question on aircraft carriers by News18 journalist Shreya Dhoundial, General Rawat said, “One aircraft carrier will be on the seas next year. You look at when do you really need a third one. If you get a third one, how many years will it take for it to develop? Even if you place the order for 2022 or 2023, it is not coming before 2033. Also, aircraft carrier is not just a carrier, along with it will have to come the aircraft. Where are the aircraft coming from? Along with that we will need the armada protection for that aircraft carrier. It does not happen overnight. It will be bought if it is required. But you cannot predict what the situation will be 10 years from now. We don’t know what will happen.”


A file photo of the Vikrant-class aircraft carrier from a few years ago

His comments come in the wake of what has been a steady conversation on the Vishal, particularly over whether the ship would employ U.S. supplied EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) and reports in the British press claiming that the Elizabeth-class carrier’s blueprints had been sought by the Indian government in an effort to modify it for the proposed Vishal-class in an effort to reduce timelines. Running underneath these developments, however, there’s been unmissable sign that the Vishal was already a faraway castle, with no formal financial sanction from the Indian MoD, and a debate within government over whether a three-carrier navy was too much of an opulence in these financially strained times.

Another crucial indicator of the receding figure of the Vishal emerged earlier this month when Boeing revealed at the DefExpo 2020 show that it would shortly be testing its F/A-18 Super Hornet on a ski-jump platform at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. Dassault Aviation, which, like Boeing, has so far conducted simulations of the Rafale on a ski-jump, could also look at proving the aircraft in a real test setting going forward, though there are no firm plans for now.


F/A-18E Super Hornet launches from USS George Washington / U.S. Navy Photo

While it has generally been believed that the Indian Navy’s forecast requirement for 57 multirole carrier based fighters (MCRBF) were intended, at least in part, with the catapult-configured deck of the Vishal in view, the reality is actually significantly different. After conversations with the Indian Navy, Livefist can now confirm that the 57 jets being sought are fully and officially to meet the the combined requirement of INS Vikramaditya and the upcoming Vikrant/IAC1, in addition to a full shore-based training squadron. This position has been conveyed in discussions that the Indian Navy has held with both Boeing and Dassault.

Senior Indian Navy sources told Livefist, “The 57 deck based fighters (DBF) has is to meet the combined additional requirement of the current and next carrier, in addition to a training squadron we will be raising. Any conversation about aircraft for the proposed IAC2/Vishal will necessarily be only in the future.”

The jets will be ‘additional’ to the MiG-29K jets that currently form the carrier wing on INS Vikramaditya — and will, according Indian Navy chief Admiral Karambir Singh two months ago — operate off the IAC1 as well.

Boeing’s move to prove the Super Hornet from a ski-jump has very much to do with the Vikrant/IAC1’s nearing date of entry into service. The company has, for years now, said it has conducted simulations to prove the compatibility of the Super Hornet with India’s current and next carrier.


Significant questions have continued to swirl, however, over whether the Super Hornet and Rafale are truly 100% compatible with the size, space and mechanical system configuration on the INS Vikramaditya and IAC1. This would pertain, among other things, to their hydraulic deck chocks and the busy deck conditions typical of Russian-influenced deck design, unlike the larger and very different configurations of the Nimitz-class and Charles de Gaulle that house the U.S. and French carrier jets respectively. It remains to be seen how the Indian Navy plans to navigate and address these incompatibilities as it moves forward on this acquisition program.

Earlier this month, the MoD updated Parliament on progresson the IAC1 thus: Major structural and outfitting work of Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC1) has been completed. Major milestone activities including starting of Main Propulsion machinery and trials of Power Generation machinery have been completed. Trials of other ship’s equipment and systems are presently in progress. Ship’s targeted delivery was affected due to delay in supply of aviation equipment from Russia.

The IAC1 is expected to enter sea trials late this year or early next, with scheduled entry into service in 2022.

( Nice no need for aircraft carrier for now. If in future need arises we can build one in time frame of 6-7 year's. And we should move forward with SSBN and SSK.)
 

Akula

New Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
2,895
Likes
10,850
Country flag
Indian Navy’s ‘Vishal’ Aircraft Carrier Officially Off The Table?
Shiv AroorFeb 15 2020 10 00 am



Could India’s planned indigenous ‘flat-top’ aircraft carrier, designated the Vishal-class, be on hold — or at the very least, the subject of a formal rethink? A series of indications this week suggest that the Indian government may not be speeding towards the Vishal under the Indian Navy’s long-standing doctrinal pressures for a 3-carrier navy.

The navy currently operates the INS Vikramaditya aircraft carrier and will, within the next two years, induct the similarly configured Vikrant, the first indigenously designed and built aircraft carrier in the country. The Vishal, forward planned as a break-away from the traditional ski-jump fitted carriers, is proposed to incorporate a catapult-based launch system. The configuration of the Vishal has been the subject of much discussion and debate over the last decade, with key design decisions — like the decision not to have a ski-jump for aircraft launch — taken in just the last few years. But rumours of a rethink on how soon, and whether the Vishal program will be embarked upon is now up for question.

For starters, India’s first Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat provided an unmissable indicator in his first detailed interview since taking strength in the newly created tri-service chief appointment that involves long-term acquisitions and planning within the confines of highly squeezed budgets. In response to a specific question on aircraft carriers by News18 journalist Shreya Dhoundial, General Rawat said, “One aircraft carrier will be on the seas next year. You look at when do you really need a third one. If you get a third one, how many years will it take for it to develop? Even if you place the order for 2022 or 2023, it is not coming before 2033. Also, aircraft carrier is not just a carrier, along with it will have to come the aircraft. Where are the aircraft coming from? Along with that we will need the armada protection for that aircraft carrier. It does not happen overnight. It will be bought if it is required. But you cannot predict what the situation will be 10 years from now. We don’t know what will happen.”


A file photo of the Vikrant-class aircraft carrier from a few years ago

His comments come in the wake of what has been a steady conversation on the Vishal, particularly over whether the ship would employ U.S. supplied EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) and reports in the British press claiming that the Elizabeth-class carrier’s blueprints had been sought by the Indian government in an effort to modify it for the proposed Vishal-class in an effort to reduce timelines. Running underneath these developments, however, there’s been unmissable sign that the Vishal was already a faraway castle, with no formal financial sanction from the Indian MoD, and a debate within government over whether a three-carrier navy was too much of an opulence in these financially strained times.

Another crucial indicator of the receding figure of the Vishal emerged earlier this month when Boeing revealed at the DefExpo 2020 show that it would shortly be testing its F/A-18 Super Hornet on a ski-jump platform at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. Dassault Aviation, which, like Boeing, has so far conducted simulations of the Rafale on a ski-jump, could also look at proving the aircraft in a real test setting going forward, though there are no firm plans for now.


F/A-18E Super Hornet launches from USS George Washington / U.S. Navy Photo

While it has generally been believed that the Indian Navy’s forecast requirement for 57 multirole carrier based fighters (MCRBF) were intended, at least in part, with the catapult-configured deck of the Vishal in view, the reality is actually significantly different. After conversations with the Indian Navy, Livefist can now confirm that the 57 jets being sought are fully and officially to meet the the combined requirement of INS Vikramaditya and the upcoming Vikrant/IAC1, in addition to a full shore-based training squadron. This position has been conveyed in discussions that the Indian Navy has held with both Boeing and Dassault.

Senior Indian Navy sources told Livefist, “The 57 deck based fighters (DBF) has is to meet the combined additional requirement of the current and next carrier, in addition to a training squadron we will be raising. Any conversation about aircraft for the proposed IAC2/Vishal will necessarily be only in the future.”

The jets will be ‘additional’ to the MiG-29K jets that currently form the carrier wing on INS Vikramaditya — and will, according Indian Navy chief Admiral Karambir Singh two months ago — operate off the IAC1 as well.

Boeing’s move to prove the Super Hornet from a ski-jump has very much to do with the Vikrant/IAC1’s nearing date of entry into service. The company has, for years now, said it has conducted simulations to prove the compatibility of the Super Hornet with India’s current and next carrier.


Significant questions have continued to swirl, however, over whether the Super Hornet and Rafale are truly 100% compatible with the size, space and mechanical system configuration on the INS Vikramaditya and IAC1. This would pertain, among other things, to their hydraulic deck chocks and the busy deck conditions typical of Russian-influenced deck design, unlike the larger and very different configurations of the Nimitz-class and Charles de Gaulle that house the U.S. and French carrier jets respectively. It remains to be seen how the Indian Navy plans to navigate and address these incompatibilities as it moves forward on this acquisition program.

Earlier this month, the MoD updated Parliament on progresson the IAC1 thus: Major structural and outfitting work of Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC1) has been completed. Major milestone activities including starting of Main Propulsion machinery and trials of Power Generation machinery have been completed. Trials of other ship’s equipment and systems are presently in progress. Ship’s targeted delivery was affected due to delay in supply of aviation equipment from Russia.

The IAC1 is expected to enter sea trials late this year or early next, with scheduled entry into service in 2022.

( Nice no need for aircraft carrier for now. If in future need arises we can build one in time frame of 6-7 year's. And we should move forward with SSBN and SSK.)
Indian navy needs numbers. Navy can add more firepower in it's arsenal at the cost of Ins Vishal. I had mentioned in Indian Navy thread that if they want third carrier, they can order second Vikrant class carrier.
 

captscooby81

New Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
7,371
Likes
27,670
Country flag
What we badly need is SSK and SSN , Look at Japan they have close to 18 SSK and all they got is to cover the SCS and ECS and pacific and we have entire IOR to cover and hardly 12 subs . out of which 10 are 30 years older . We badly need to build new submarines and keep the minimum 15 submarine level fleet to have some power in IOR also need more destroyers what's the use of building 3,3 build 6 more of same class like Vizag one go and then move to next Generation
 

Hari Sud

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,945
Likes
8,863
Country flag
What we badly need is SSK and SSN , Look at Japan they have close to 18 SSK and all they got is to cover the SCS and ECS and pacific and we have entire IOR to cover and hardly 12 subs . out of which 10 are 30 years older . We badly need to build new submarines and keep the minimum 15 submarine level fleet to have some power in IOR also need more destroyers what's the use of building 3,3 build 6 more of same class like Vizag one go and then move to next Generation

Build like an economy of Japan and then talk about it. You spend only whatever you got.
 

Nietzche_Z

New Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
49
Likes
245
Country flag
Build like an economy of Japan and then talk about it. You spend only whatever you got.
The JSDF also doesnt have a 1.2 million strong standing army and another 1 million strong standing paramilitary. Plus add 5000-6000 tanks, artillery etc. The JSDF can concentrate their resources on their navy and air force. Defence spending wise India spends more than Japan - $66 billion versus $46 billion in 2019. If India didnt have to spend on its army she would have a much stronger navy and air force. But then Japan is an island and their navy is the senior service and first line of defence just as the Royal navy for UK. In India the army is the senior service. Our principal operational theaters will be in the land borders in the north west and east. The navy will play only a supporting role. The current force structure of the IN is sufficient to achieve sea control in the west and perhaps adequate sea denial in the east.
 

Articles

Top