IAC-2 Future Aircraft Carrier Project - News & Discussions

[vikata]

10 years is about the time it took to build a Ford or Nimitz-class carrier, but those construction times shortened as more experience with the design and construction process was developed, going from 7 years to 5 for the last of the Nimitz-class carriers. The Russian Kiev-class took between 5-7 years from start to commission, and their Kuznetsov took 8 years. Both of these are 40000-65000 ton ships.

Smaller LPDs, LHD and LHAs average 2-3 years. The American America-class has taken 6 years for the first ship of the class while the older Wasp-class averaged 3 years from start to commission. Unlike the South Korean Dokdo, Spanish Juan Carlos, Japanese Izumo or similar "helicopter carriers", the American Wasp and America class are 40000+ tons, or about twice to three times as large as LPD, LHA or LHDs of other nations. So yes, 10 years is a long time for a carrier, but it's not abnormal for the first ship of a class to have both teething issues with new technologies like the EMALS or Combat Management System - don't listen to Picdelamirand-oil's worthless opinion on EMALS when the US, China and Russia are working on them - and longer construction times.

Look at the Virginia class submarine too. The first boat took 5 years to complete, launch and commission. Hosting a bevy of new technologies and design and construction changes, the first boat both had some tech issues in-field and a longer construction time. Now, again being imposed upon by new techs like electric-drive systems, new propulsion, quieting techniques and electronic warfare equipment (to name a few) and the boat's construction times have widened from 1-1/2 years from Block I and II boats to 3 years for Block III boats. But going from a 5 year construction frame to a year-and-a-half isn't abnormal when you consider how familiar shipyards get with producing the boats and their modular construction, which allows them to be built in parts and snapped together like lego bricks. Only when you start to add new technologies does the construction time frame again widen.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I don't see the utility of an aircraft carrier for the IN apart from prestige. Against Pakistan it just adds another dimension to an already multi-faceted battlefield, and against China that carrier's shark food. For humanitarian efforts smaller ships are more useful anyway since more ports can accommodate them. I dunno, I just don't see the need honestly. Like the Russian Navy, they just seem more status symbols to say "we can" rather then "we should".

SSNs though are a must for any IN operations in open waters, so you've got my agreement there wholeheartedly.

so you mean to say that even in indian ocean this planned carrier has not with in it what it takes to hold on chinese navy??

 

[randomradio]

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I don't see the utility of an aircraft carrier for the IN apart from prestige. Against Pakistan it just adds another dimension to an already multi-faceted battlefield, and against China that carrier's shark food. For humanitarian efforts smaller ships are more useful anyway since more ports can accommodate them. I dunno, I just don't see the need honestly. Like the Russian Navy, they just seem more status symbols to say "we can" rather then "we should".

SSNs though are a must for any IN operations in open waters, so you've got my agreement there wholeheartedly.

We have areas in the IOR that cannot be reached by fighter aircraft. And we also have allies around who need the assurance that we will be around whenever there's trouble. Maldives, Seychelles and Mauritius among others.

We also need control over the Sunda strait, which is difficult without airpower.

And we need presence in the Pacific island nations like Fiji.

So it's not just about the Arabian peninsula and ASEAN, we want to gain control over the entire IOR and the adjoining oceans. The navy ultimately plans to operate 6 carriers in the long term. But we won't be getting anywhere near the 6-carrier mark if we don't keep building carriers and learn to operate them.

 

[Parthu]

BARC says they need 15 years at least to design and build a carrier compatible reactor. The navy's not gonna wait that long.

We will still have 2 other carriers (IAC-1 Vikrant and Vikramaditya) by then, and if LHD deal gets sorted we won't need carriers for HADR ops and the like (which we have used them for in the past) so that further frees them up.

Even if IAC-2 begins construction only by 2032, and delivers by 2040, we will still have 1 carrier in service other than that (Vikrant) by that time. IN won't go without a carrier. And if a P5 nation with global commitments like UK can be okay with going without carrier for years on end, I honestly don't see the rush to fulfill the "three carrier fleet" promise here.

so you mean to say that even in indian ocean this planned carrier has not with in it what it takes to hold on chinese navy??

The real Chinese threat within IOR, when it does get actively posed against IN, will primarily come from their SSNs. And the best way to counter a threat posed by SSNs is with SSNs of your own. If one sends a CBG (without SSN escorts) to fight SSNs, then the SSNs will win 10 times out of 10.

IN Chief Lanba puts it rather nicely: SSNs are about sea-denial, carriers are about sea-control.

The takeaway on my part is that you can't control seas which you are being denied (by the enemy's SSNs).

 

[nair]

Good to see that they are sticking with CSL.... Now their expertise could be useful..... Hope the workers work real 8 hours everyday.... We could get the ship 2 to 3 years earlier than planned

 

[randomradio]

We will still have 2 other carriers (IAC-1 Vikrant and Vikramaditya) by then, and if LHD deal gets sorted we won't need carriers for HADR ops and the like (which we have used them for in the past) so that further frees them up.

Even if IAC-2 begins construction only by 2032, and delivers by 2040, we will still have 1 carrier in service other than that (Vikrant) by that time. IN won't go without a carrier. And if a P5 nation with global commitments like UK can be okay with going without carrier for years on end, I honestly don't see the rush to fulfill the "three carrier fleet" promise here.

The Chinese will easily have 6+ carriers by 2035. We will need 2 carriers operational at any given time.

Our carrier plan is already broken, let's not make it worse. A better option is to build the IAC-2 for now, and then build a supercarrier after 2032 to replace the Gorky.

If we wait until 2032 to build our next carrier, all our experience with Vikrant will disappear. It will become a second Marut moment.

 

[Parthu]

The Chinese will easily have 6+ carriers by 2035. We will need 2 carriers operational at any given time.

There is no need to match the Chinese carrier-for-carrier, even in the IOR. What's needed to truly deny PLAN access to IOR (or to routes and places where our SSBNs patrol, which is arguably higher priority) are the SSNs. For effective defence of the A&N archipelago, what's needed is a more robust land-based offensive (airstrips, missile pads) & defensive (air & missile defence) infrastructure. Better connectivity with the mainland (being worked on), and our ability to network with the US-Japanese SOSUS hydrophone lines.

A carrier in the region with 1-2 squadrons of jets is a bonus, not a necessity.

But don't get me wrong - we do need multiple carriers in the long term. But I'm in favor of a different method of attaining those numbers, and when to do so.

Our carrier plan is already broken, let's not make it worse. A better option is to build the IAC-2 for now, and then build a supercarrier after 2032 to replace the Gorky.

If we wait until 2032 to build our next carrier, all our experience with Vikrant will disappear. It will become a second Marut moment.

It was already made worse when we bought Gorky instead of just building 2 x IAC-1s. Secondly, its not just about constantly building carriers so as to not lose the experience accumulated in building one.

The thing is, its about making the construction of each carrier-class as economical and cost-conscious as possible. And the way to do this is by building multiple carriers of the same class. Using the same tooling, workers, infrastructure & design studies which we spent money on. That's what making full use of the accumulated experience is about.

Building an entirely different class of carrier as soon as construction of the existing type (single ship) ends does not retain anything, very minimal amount of stuff is going to be common between IAC-1 and 2. Most the equipment and each of the bulkheads that go into each block of modular construction are one-of-a-kind and designed for that class of vessel only. Each piece of which has to be designed, realized & integrated for the first time, again.

This is a cost-prohibitive exercise, only thing it does for the shipyard is that it keeps them working. It doesn't make carrier-construction economical, nor does it make it faster, not one bit (because most of everything is new and being done for the first time again), whereas the whole point of retaining experience is to do exactly that: make everything cheaper & faster.

 

[randomradio]

There is no need to match the Chinese carrier-for-carrier, even in the IOR. What's needed to truly deny PLAN access to IOR (or to routes and places where our SSBNs patrol, which is arguably higher priority) are the SSNs. For effective defence of the A&N archipelago, what's needed is a more robust land-based offensive (airstrips, missile pads) & defensive (air & missile defence) infrastructure. Better connectivity with the mainland (being worked on), and our ability to network with the US-Japanese SOSUS hydrophone lines.

A carrier in the region with 1-2 squadrons of jets is a bonus, not a necessity.

But don't get me wrong - we do need multiple carriers in the long term. But I'm in favor of a different method of attaining those numbers, and when to do so.

We need to match the Chinese carrier for carrier in the IOR.

As for SSNs, those are coming anyway. We are not sacrificing SSNs for carriers.

It was already made worse when we bought Gorky instead of just building 2 x IAC-1s.

2 Vikrants were not affordable. We bought Gorky due to the low sticker price. It's still way cheaper than Vikrant even after the price hikes. The Phase III of Vik alone is over 10,000 Cr.

Also, when the decision to go for the Gorky was taken, the Vikrant class was supposed to be much more lighter and less capable. It was only after Gorky was purchased that the IN decided to make the Vikrant, years later, a full fledged carrier.

The thing is, its about making the construction of each carrier-class as economical and cost-conscious as possible. And the way to do this is by building multiple carriers of the same class. Using the same tooling, workers, infrastructure & design studies which we spent money on. That's what making full use of the accumulated experience is about.

Building an entirely different class of carrier as soon as construction of the existing type (single ship) ends does not retain anything, very minimal amount of stuff is going to be common between IAC-1 and 2. Most the equipment and each of the bulkheads that go into each block of modular construction are one-of-a-kind and designed for that class of vessel only. Each piece of which has to be designed, realized & integrated for the first time, again.

This is a cost-prohibitive exercise, only thing it does for the shipyard is that it keeps them working. It doesn't make carrier-construction economical, nor does it make it faster, not one bit (because most of everything is new and being done for the first time again), whereas the whole point of retaining experience is to do exactly that: make everything cheaper & faster.

There is no plan to make multiple numbers of inferior carriers. We will have to standardise on a small number of supercarriers in the future, but right now, that's not the goal.

 

[Milspec]

We bought Gorky due to the low sticker price. It's still way cheaper than Vikrant even after the price hikes. The Phase III of Vik alone is over 10,000 Cr.

.

I do not see it that way. Lets say you conduct direct purchase of goods a million dollars from a foreign vendor, vs CSL. In case of a foreign vendor, you release payments as per terms, where a certain % is at PO, and then interim deliverable and finally at receipt. All of the payment is paid out to the vendor, at whatever exchange rate is at the time of payments. While when dealing with a PSU like MDL or CSL, you are 1.5 million for the same goods, at the outset, you are getting close to 20% profit that CSL makes back to the treasury as you own it, All transactions are through local banks helping thier interim cashflows, next you are supporting thousands of jobs building skilled labor force within the country and paying their salaries who are tax payers and who are eventually spending that money back into your own economy, raw materials are mostly locally sourced thus you are in turn redistributing PSU Capex back into the local economy. Even at a higher cost sourcing locally is much more beneficial than procuring from outside. HAL Nashik has always delivered Soviet/Russian aircraft's barring Mig21 (because of volume) at a price tag higher than what Russian factories can provide it at, but it makes more economical sense in producing them locally, as it supports almost 40% nashik MIDC as well as sustains local economies of Nashik and adjoining villages.

 

[Parthu]

We need to match the Chinese carrier for carrier in the IOR.

We don't because we have home advantage. Our bases are nearer, resupply is assured, they cannot blockade us. No matter how many carriers Chinese can usher into IOR, they can't match airpower flying off of land.

These are trivialities actually because with a fleet of SSNs, those Chinese carriers are dead meat.

As for SSNs, those are coming anyway. We are not sacrificing SSNs for carriers.

On the face of it we are not. But when we are running two major projects like SSN & IAC-2 simultaneously, resources inevitably have to be split.

2 Vikrants were not affordable. We bought Gorky due to the low sticker price. It's still way cheaper than Vikrant even after the price hikes. The Phase III of Vik alone is over 10,000 Cr.

Gorky is a barely-holding together carrier. There's nothing in it that makes spending any amount on it worth it. Propulsion, sensors, the design itself (horrible use of deck space due to conversion from being a pseudo-carrier).

There would be no need to order 2 Vikrants at the same time. Even if we order a 2nd Vikrant today in 2018, it will still be great value because CSL will be building a second ship of the same class, all the infrastructure & practices would be reused for a 2nd time and that alone will greatly reduce cost as well as building time.

But one also has to look at value, not just cost.

There is no plan to make multiple numbers of inferior carriers.

That's exactly what we're doing.

We will have to standardise on a small number of supercarriers in the future, but right now, that's not the goal.

Obviously, it's evident that's not the goal, I'm not saying it is - I'm just saying that's how it should be. I'm well aware that the only "goal" that IN is rushing to meet right now is the Three-Carrier Force that was promised a long time ago.

I agree we need a vision for a minimum 3-carrier navy. I just don't agree with how IN seems to be approaching it. Carriers are extremely long-term assets, everything related to that has to be planned for the next 30 years, not the next 5 or 10. Everything from design, future growth capabilities, cost, and most importantly propulsion. I'm extremely glad IN is intent on a CATOBAR design with EMALS. That single decision alone is going to ensure IAC-2 remains infinitely more versatile in the types of aircraft (and by extension, types of missions) it can conduct when compared to similar size modern designs like QEC, with their Ski-jumps.

But I don't like the fact that they are proposing a conventional propulsion setup. I think that is going to be debilitating in the amount of power (continuous & surge needs, especially for the EMALS) it can deliver, especially when we keep in mind that future technologies that are likely to find use onboard capital ships are only going to get more & more electric-driven.

EMALS is only the first step. EM Railguns, DEWs, more power-hungry sensors & equipment, these all will be found on future carriers. N-propulsion would have been the way to go to meet their power needs. Conventional propulsion WILL severely limit our options.

And why are we going for conventional? It's obvious - same reason the British did. Cost. And also the fact that it's going to be a while for a suitable PWR in the 180-220MW range to be developed. Which is why I said it may have just been a better idea to scale back on the rush for a 3rd carrier.

Let there be a 10 year hiatus if it has to. We should have taken advantage of the fact that we will have 2 other carriers and 4 flattop LHDs to support operations in the meantime, which the British didn't have so their sacrifice of N propulsion and CAT is somewhat justified, not to mention ongoing global commitments. We on the other hand are in much more comfortable situation. Streamlining production, increasing the value in what's to be bought, that's where we could have made major strides in the way we do things in IN. Not to mention free up huge amounts for additional spending on SSN program & other capital purchases in the meantime.

Unfortunately it appears all that is not to be. At least not before 2030.

 

[randomradio]

I do not see it that way. Lets say you conduct direct purchase of goods a million dollars from a foreign vendor, vs CSL. In case of a foreign vendor, you release payments as per terms, where a certain % is at PO, and then interim deliverable and finally at receipt. All of the payment is paid out to the vendor, at whatever exchange rate is at the time of payments. While when dealing with a PSU like MDL or CSL, you are 1.5 million for the same goods, at the outset, you are getting close to 20% profit that CSL makes back to the treasury as you own it, All transactions are through local banks helping thier interim cashflows, next you are supporting thousands of jobs building skilled labor force within the country and paying their salaries who are tax payers and who are eventually spending that money back into your own economy, raw materials are mostly locally sourced thus you are in turn redistributing PSU Capex back into the local economy. Even at a higher cost sourcing locally is much more beneficial than procuring from outside. HAL Nashik has always delivered Soviet/Russian aircraft's barring Mig21 (because of volume) at a price tag higher than what Russian factories can provide it at, but it makes more economical sense in producing them locally, as it supports almost 40% nashik MIDC as well as sustains local economies of Nashik and adjoining villages.

The navy's choice of the Gorky has nothing to do with the economic advantages provided to civilians. They needed an aircraft carrier that could come in really fast. The idea was to induct it by 2008, ie, one or two years before Vikrant could begin construction.

Although it didn't pan out as planned, the way I see it, we have been operating a carrier since 2014, while Vikrant is nowhere.

 

[randomradio]

We don't because we have home advantage. Our bases are nearer, resupply is assured, they cannot blockade us. No matter how many carriers Chinese can usher into IOR, they can't match airpower flying off of land.

These are trivialities actually because with a fleet of SSNs, those Chinese carriers are dead meat.

We won't have a fleet of SSNs until 2035. And 1 carrier and 1 SSN can go out to sea only 3 to 6 months out of a year. So this is not a round the year capability.

All the Chinese have to do is come into the IOR when our lone carrier and our lone SSN is asleep, then we are the ones who are screwed.

On the face of it we are not. But when we are running two major projects like SSN & IAC-2 simultaneously, resources inevitably have to be split.

Our GDP growth should take care of it. Our requirement is not that big in comparison to the size of our defence budget.

Gorky is a barely-holding together carrier. There's nothing in it that makes spending any amount on it worth it. Propulsion, sensors, the design itself (horrible use of deck space due to conversion from being a pseudo-carrier).

It's a good ship, does the job we expect it to do.

There would be no need to order 2 Vikrants at the same time. Even if we order a 2nd Vikrant today in 2018, it will still be great value because CSL will be building a second ship of the same class, all the infrastructure & practices would be reused for a 2nd time and that alone will greatly reduce cost as well as building time.

A second Vikrant is pointless. We need a bigger ship that can launch AEWCS like the E-2D.

I agree we need a vision for a minimum 3-carrier navy. I just don't agree with how IN seems to be approaching it. Carriers are extremely long-term assets, everything related to that has to be planned for the next 30 years, not the next 5 or 10. Everything from design, future growth capabilities, cost, and most importantly propulsion. I'm extremely glad IN is intent on a CATOBAR design with EMALS. That single decision alone is going to ensure IAC-2 remains infinitely more versatile in the types of aircraft (and by extension, types of missions) it can conduct when compared to similar size modern designs like QEC, with their Ski-jumps.

But I don't like the fact that they are proposing a conventional propulsion setup. I think that is going to be debilitating in the amount of power (continuous & surge needs, especially for the EMALS) it can deliver, especially when we keep in mind that future technologies that are likely to find use onboard capital ships are only going to get more & more electric-driven.

EMALS is only the first step. EM Railguns, DEWs, more power-hungry sensors & equipment, these all will be found on future carriers. N-propulsion would have been the way to go to meet their power needs. Conventional propulsion WILL severely limit our options.

And why are we going for conventional? It's obvious - same reason the British did. Cost. And also the fact that it's going to be a while for a suitable PWR in the 180-220MW range to be developed. Which is why I said it may have just been a better idea to scale back on the rush for a 3rd carrier.

Let there be a 10 year hiatus if it has to. We should have taken advantage of the fact that we will have 2 other carriers and 4 flattop LHDs to support operations in the meantime, which the British didn't have so their sacrifice of N propulsion and CAT is somewhat justified, not to mention ongoing global commitments. We on the other hand are in much more comfortable situation. Streamlining production, increasing the value in what's to be bought, that's where we could have made major strides in the way we do things in IN. Not to mention free up huge amounts for additional spending on SSN program & other capital purchases in the meantime.

Unfortunately it appears all that is not to be. At least not before 2030.

The conventional propulsion is fine. It's not nuclear, but the ship is small anyway. Railguns and DEW can be placed in small ships also, so using the same on a carrier with many times more power won't be a problem.

We are in a rush to get a 3rd carrier. Going conventional is merely a compromise. Your plan to actually wait for a reactor will take us into the 2040s and we will be in a hurry to replace the Gorky by then. It's an unnecessary risk, especially considering the carrier building skills will have atrophied by then.

 

[Milspec]

The navy's choice of the Gorky has nothing to do with the economic advantages provided to civilians. They needed an aircraft carrier that could come in really fast. The idea was to induct it by 2008, ie, one or two years before Vikrant could begin construction.

Although it didn't pan out as planned, the way I see it, we have been operating a carrier since 2014, while Vikrant is nowhere.

Navy's choice with gorky doesn't, but building IAC1 and 2 does, even if same platform could have been built outside cheaper.

 

[randomradio]

Navy's choice with gorky doesn't, but building IAC1 and 2 does, even if same platform could have been built outside cheaper.

All carriers from IAC-1 onwards will be Indian built anyway.

 

[Parthu]

We won't have a fleet of SSNs until 2035. And 1 carrier and 1 SSN can go out to sea only 3 to 6 months out of a year. So this is not a round the year capability.

All the Chinese have to do is come into the IOR when our lone carrier and our lone SSN is asleep, then we are the ones who are screwed.

If the Chinese bring SSNs (which they do annually anyway) into IOR, then carrier or no carrier, we are screwed.

Which is why its important to prioritize SSN program above & beyond everything else. IAC-2 does not have even 1/10th the importance SSN should have. It's just that its highly visible whereas SSNs are not.

Our GDP growth should take care of it. Our requirement is not that big in comparison to the size of our defence budget.

Whatever GDP growth might be, with reducing percentage of it actually going to defence, we're seeing at best pretty marginal increases to defence spending year-on-year. Prioritization is the way to go in order to do more with what we're given.

It's a good ship, does the job we expect it to do.

So will Viraat if you bring it out of retirement. We inducted Gorky in 2014 and mere 7-8 years later, it'll already be hugely outdated compared to our current standard (Vikrant).

A second Vikrant is pointless. We need a bigger ship that can launch AEWCS like the E-2D.

You can do pretty bang up job with Helicopter-based AEWs if you go for a good one (like CROWSNEST). Is it as good as E-2D? Nope, but then is conventional as good as nuclear? No but we're going for it anyway.

The conventional propulsion is fine. It's not nuclear, but the ship is small anyway. Railguns and DEW can be placed in small ships also, so using the same on a carrier with many times more power won't be a problem.

Put them all together and the surge needs are enough to choke any gas turbine-based propulsion. And we're not talking about UAV-frying DEWs, we're talking about ones that will fully replace CIWS guns with full-fledged anti-aircraft and missile-defence capabilities of the future. As of now I'm very uncertain if a conventional carrier can even power EMALS. I'll be very surprised if what we're getting isn't an "EMALS Lite".

And you admit that nuclear carrier is in inevitability for the future. Why so, if conventional can do all the jobs?

We are in a rush to get a 3rd carrier. Going conventional is merely a compromise. Your plan to actually wait for a reactor will take us into the 2040s and we will be in a hurry to replace the Gorky by then. It's an unnecessary risk, especially considering the carrier building skills will have atrophied by then.

It's a huge compromise, one that will severely limit future growth potential on the platform. Between Gorky and IAC-1, we'll always have a carrier available even if nuclear IAC-2 only comes post-2040, it'll be in time to replace Gorky which would have retired a few years sooner**, while the 2nd in class of that supercarrier will come in a short while later (if we fully adopt modular construction methods by then) and fulfill the three-carrier promise.

The problem with building conventional IAC-2 now is that it does not actually fulfill three-carrier promise in the long term. If we begin construction by 2021-2022 as Lanba said and it takes 10 years, then we'll actually have 3 carriers for very brief period of time. Because Gorky will retire soon after and we're left with 2 carriers, with only 1 available at any given time.

We're rushing to meet short-term goals and losing perspective of long-term.

**Because I'd bet that carrier is going to cost way more to maintain than what's it's worth. Beyond a point, it's going to be an unneccesary drain on resources to maintain it and its outdated steam boilers & firebricks.

 

[randomradio]

If the Chinese bring SSNs (which they do annually anyway) into IOR, then carrier or no carrier, we are screwed.

Which is why its important to prioritize SSN program above & beyond everything else. IAC-2 does not have even 1/10th the importance SSN should have. It's just that its highly visible whereas SSNs are not.

It's not carrier or SSN though. Both are happening in parallel, with the SSN program getting the higher priority.

Whatever GDP growth might be, with reducing percentage of it actually going to defence, we're seeing at best pretty marginal increases to defence spending year-on-year. Prioritization is the way to go in order to do more with what we're given.

2022. Once the economy is brought on track, defence spending will get a big boost.

So will Viraat if you bring it out of retirement. We inducted Gorky in 2014 and mere 7-8 years later, it'll already be hugely outdated compared to our current standard (Vikrant).

That's how it works though. Our latest upgraded Kilos are now more advanced than the Scorpene.

You can do pretty bang up job with Helicopter-based AEWs if you go for a good one (like CROWSNEST). Is it as good as E-2D? Nope, but then is conventional as good as nuclear? No but we're going for it anyway.

Helicopter based AEWs are useless. They only manage 5Km altitude, have small radars and are very slow, we need something at 12Km that can see the horizon out to more than 400Km.

Put them all together and the surge needs are enough to choke any gas turbine-based propulsion. And we're not talking about UAV-frying DEWs, we're talking about ones that will fully replace CIWS guns with full-fledged anti-aircraft and missile-defence capabilities of the future. As of now I'm very uncertain if a conventional carrier can even power EMALS. I'll be very surprised if what we're getting isn't an "EMALS Lite".

They wouldn't consider conventional power if they haven't thought of everything necessary.

And you admit that nuclear carrier is in inevitability for the future. Why so, if conventional can do all the jobs?

Naturally nuclear is better than conventional. But conventional is better than nothing.

It's a huge compromise, one that will severely limit future growth potential on the platform. Between Gorky and IAC-1, we'll always have a carrier available even if nuclear IAC-2 only comes post-2040, it'll be in time to replace Gorky which would have retired a few years sooner**, while the 2nd in class of that supercarrier will come in a short while later (if we fully adopt modular construction methods by then) and fulfill the three-carrier promise.

A short while later is still a minimum of 10 years.

The problem with building conventional IAC-2 now is that it does not actually fulfill three-carrier promise in the long term. If we begin construction by 2021-2022 as Lanba said and it takes 10 years, then we'll actually have 3 carriers for very brief period of time. Because Gorky will retire soon after and we're left with 2 carriers, with only 1 available at any given time.

That's why I proposed the conventional IAC-2 now followed by a nuclear supercarrier for replacing the Gorky much later. It's much better than sitting around doing nothing.

We're rushing to meet short-term goals and losing perspective of long-term.

**Because I'd bet that carrier is going to cost way more to maintain than what's it's worth. Beyond a point, it's going to be an unneccesary drain on resources to maintain it and its outdated steam boilers & firebricks.

The conventional carrier itself is a long term goal. We will start construction in 3 years, apparently, then we will take 10 years to build, apparently, that alone is 13 years. If they have scheduled for 13 years, then there's no chance the carrier will come in 13 years. And then it will take many more years before it becomes operationally tested and properly integrated.

Gorky will survive 30 years easy. So we can push it well into the 2040s. I wouldn't be worried about resources in the 2040s for the Gorky.

 

[Grevion]

We will still have 2 other carriers (IAC-1 Vikrant and Vikramaditya) by then, and if LHD deal gets sorted we won't need carriers for HADR ops and the like (which we have used them for in the past) so that further frees them up.

Even if IAC-2 begins construction only by 2032, and delivers by 2040, we will still have 1 carrier in service other than that (Vikrant) by that time. IN won't go without a carrier. And if a P5 nation with global commitments like UK can be okay with going without carrier for years on end, I honestly don't see the rush to fulfill the "three carrier fleet" promise here.



The real Chinese threat within IOR, when it does get actively posed against IN, will primarily come from their SSNs. And the best way to counter a threat posed by SSNs is with SSNs of your own. If one sends a CBG (without SSN escorts) to fight SSNs, then the SSNs will win 10 times out of 10.

IN Chief Lanba puts it rather nicely: SSNs are about sea-denial, carriers are about sea-control.

The takeaway on my part is that you can't control seas which you are being denied (by the enemy's SSNs).

IAC-1 ki latest fotu dikhao

 

[Parthu]

They wouldn't consider conventional power if they haven't thought of everything necessary.

The question is what they compromised on. IN could even have gone for a Ski-jump design like QEC and that too would be after considering everything. But that doesn't make it optimal.

A short while later is still a minimum of 10 years.

Nah, more like 2-3 years at most. If you build the order simultaneously in a modular manner, you can launch & commission the ships 2 years apart like British did with QEC. In the late 2030s or 2040, it wouldn't be a problem for us to do the same with 2 nuclear carriers.

That's why I proposed the conventional IAC-2 now followed by a nuclear supercarrier for replacing the Gorky much later. It's much better than sitting around doing nothing.

Looking at the state of affairs with regard to much-needed purchases like helicopters, the long-delayed LHD program and the appalling situation with Minesweepers...it doesn't seem IN is all that worried about sitting around doing nothing even when core capabilities like rotary wing aviation are hugely sub-optimal across the fleet & mine countermeasures are on the verge of being completely lost.

The conventional carrier itself is a long term goal. We will start construction in 3 years, apparently, then we will take 10 years to build, apparently, that alone is 13 years. If they have scheduled for 13 years, then there's no chance the carrier will come in 13 years. And then it will take many more years before it becomes operationally tested and properly integrated.

Exactly. It'll be mid-2030s if everything goes to plan (which we know it won't). Give them a 5 year leeway. You're right in time for Gorky retirement give or take a couple years (that's provided something doesn't seriously go wrong with Gorky in the meantime).

Result? We're back to being a 2 carrier Navy with only 1 available at any given time. i.e. we will be in the same situation by early 2040s as we will be in early 2020s.

The only reliable way to having multiple carriers in service & available at the same time, is to build multiple carriers at the same time. We HAVE to eventually build at least 2 supercarriers of a single class simultaneously. That's the only way. Building 1 ship of a class and then go to building 1 ship of a different class right after the first is commissioned is not a sustainable strategy and doesn't meet long term goals.

IAC-1 ki latest fotu dikhao

Latest on the internet, not sure if latest chronologically:

 

[randomradio]

The question is what they compromised on. IN could even have gone for a Ski-jump design like QEC and that too would be after considering everything. But that doesn't make it optimal.

Why would they compromise on anything?

IN is not going for STOBAR because of the AWACS requirement.

Nah, more like 2-3 years at most. If you build the order simultaneously in a modular manner, you can launch & commission the ships 2 years apart like British did with QEC. In the late 2030s or 2040, it wouldn't be a problem for us to do the same with 2 nuclear carriers.

No chance we can do that. Even the US took 9 years from launch to commissioning for the Ford class, which means the actual work began even before.

Looking at the state of affairs with regard to much-needed purchases like helicopters, the long-delayed LHD program and the appalling situation with Minesweepers...it doesn't seem IN is all that worried about sitting around doing nothing even when core capabilities like rotary wing aviation are hugely sub-optimal across the fleet & mine countermeasures are on the verge of being completely lost.

Nothing's being compromised for the sake of the carrier. All other programs are going through their own procurement phases.

Result? We're back to being a 2 carrier Navy with only 1 available at any given time. i.e. we will be in the same situation by early 2040s as we will be in early 2020s.

The Gorky will easily serve even in 2045.

The situation by then will be completely different.

The only reliable way to having multiple carriers in service & available at the same time, is to build multiple carriers at the same time. We HAVE to eventually build at least 2 supercarriers of a single class simultaneously. That's the only way. Building 1 ship of a class and then go to building 1 ship of a different class right after the first is commissioned is not a sustainable strategy and doesn't meet long term goals.

We don't have the finances to build 2 carriers simultaneously today. We can think about it in the mid 2030s.

The current strategy we are following is sustainable regardless of ships being of different classes.

 

[Valkyrja]

As an aside, I was pretty disappointed with Gorshkov's conversion. The Kiev's were amazing ASW carriers, and with Harriers or F-35Bs, could be potent fleet-defence or expeditionary ships like the America or Wasp classes.

so you mean to say that even in indian ocean this planned carrier has not with in it what it takes to hold on chinese navy??

Yes. China, like Russia, has put a lot of emphasis on sinking carriers that operate within an integrated battle-group or are supported by land-based aircraft. China can't muster enough naval force to challenge India in the IOR, not with their movements being tracked the moment they leave port by Japan, the US, Australia, Vietnam and India itself, but they can fight. And they know carriers are capital assets that'd set India back years, and they have more then enough capabilities to sink them if needed.

China has invested a lot of time and resources into sinking carriers in open waters, no matter where they're fighting.

 

[Parthu]

Why would they compromise on anything?

They're certainly compromising. Otherwise they would have waited for nuclear.

No chance we can do that. Even the US took 9 years from launch to commissioning for the Ford class, which means the actual work began even before.

Second carrier in our case will take at least 80% of the time it took to build the first one, that's not the point. I'm talking about how far apart each carrier will enter service. Look at MDL now, they're building 2 x P-15Bs simultaneously, although the modular construction method (where each block is built at a different shipyard and then brought to the final assembly yard) is not being followed. The 2nd P-15B will be commissioned only about an year after the first, doesn't mean it took only 1 year to build the second. It just means they worked on both ships simultaneously.

When you divide the work between various yards (public/private) for various components of the ships, building 2 carriers at the same time (and securing the finances for it) won't be a problem for us post-2030.

Nothing's being compromised for the sake of the carrier. All other programs are going through their own procurement phases.

You misunderstood. I'm saying IN has been sitting on the serious requirements (which effect core capabilities like aviation & mine-countermeasures) for years with no progress, in other words, doing nothing. So I don't see why IN can't do the same for the carrier plans, especially when the purpose is it work toward a long-term goal.

The Gorky will easily serve even in 2045.

We could have kept Viraat in service till 2080 if we were willing to foot the bill. As of Gorky, even if we assume it stays in top shape for next 30 years (I'll bet it won't), it'll be anything but combat-effective. It'd be about as effective as the Viraat with Harriers would have been against PLAN in 2018.

We don't have the finances to build 2 carriers simultaneously today. We can think about it in the mid 2030s.

Not suggesting we do it anytime sooner than 2030 myself. We have to wait for the new PWRs anyway.

The current strategy we are following is sustainable regardless of ships being of different classes.

It's not sustainable because we are not making optimum use of money or time. There's no escaping the reality that unless we build a class of at least 2 identical carriers that will commission not more than 3 years apart, we will never realize the three-carrier plan in a long-term way. If we don't build multiple carriers, we'll sure have 3 carriers but in only a few years, one of them will have to retire and we're left again with 2.

If we build a conventional IAC-2 now, CSL will be tied up with it till mid-2030 bare minimum. If we start building 2 nuclear carriers starting mid or late 2030s, we'll only have them by the 2050s. But if we don't go the conventional route in the interim, and wait it out for the PWR, we can begin construction of the 2 carriers within or in early 2030s, and have them both in service in the 2040s, with Vikrant having atleast 15 years of life left still. By the 2030 period, finances for 2 carriers won't be a problem and the $6-8 billion we'll have to spend on IAC-2 can easily be diverted to other programs as a side benefit.

What we're doing by committing to a single conventional IAC-2 now is that we're effectively pushing the N-carrier plan back by around 10 years.