IAC-2 Future Aircraft Carrier Project - News & Discussions

First of all, 10.5 billion is expensive for the carrier. A Ford class costs that much.Somewhere someone should assess and compare for bang for buck, the option of 2,3 smaller heli carriers capable of and armed with 15-18 f35s....

Secondly, addressing the issues u correctly pointed out (but missed heavy torpedoes, towed array sonars in enough numbers, mid air refuellers and awacs), its easy to blame the babus and politicians alone, when equal blame lies with the equally corrupt generals.

....and admirals. Incompetent and/or corrupt. It isn't money all the time, but the Navy wasn't clear where it was going for a long time. It isn't clear that it does so now. That is why there is confusion in their minds about what they need.

Let us look at the options.

If it is for defence of our Sea Lines of Communications, we don't need Aircraft Carriers. There will be no carrier-to-carrier based air battles, there will be no massive amphibian landings backed up by carrier-based air power. If the Pakistani Navy, they will use submarines; if the PLAN, they will also use submarines; there is no incentive for them to use vulnerable surface vessels when they have such overwhelming superiority in manufacture of submarines, such access to friendly sea-ports around the entire northern rim that contains most of our SLOC.

If it is for defence against Pakistan, again, we don't need carriers; we need land-based aircraft, we need submarines, and we need missiles.

So where do we need carriers?

If we can answer this question satisfactorily, the rest of the discussion will be rational. And, yes, there is a scenario where carriers will be useful.
 
And, of course, they will curl up and die. And the rest of the world will go along with this blockade of a vital sea link.

Terrific strategy.
And of course, you feel not having a CBG will be better because then the Chinese can easily and effectively counter IN actions using the PLAN CBG!!. Hats off!!

As for the rest of the world, be rest assured, in case of a full fledged war between India and China, the rest of the world will have no option but to take sides with either one, at lease the major powers will have to. Because the sheer scale of this full fledged war will be such that it has the potential to wreak havoc with the entire planet's economy and ecology. For heaven's sake, we are talking about two economies that are currently driving a large chunk of world growth.

If the IN feels the need to have CBGs as part of their doctrine, I don't see what's wrong with that? If China can have the potential to disrupt our shipping assets in the high seas, why on earth should we not have capability to return the favour anywhere in the IOR at least?
 
Last edited:
Any one has more info on this....
Is this on a Tableaux for Republic Day....... INS Vishal :love::love:..... with Rafale M looks :whistle::whistle: and we have AWACS there too !! (y)(y)
Great News if the design is complete... Let's start construction... may be two of them at a time

View attachment 1484
No, this is french PA2 design. Republic day they will display IAC1 not some nonexistent design.
 
....and admirals. Incompetent and/or corrupt. It isn't money all the time, but the Navy wasn't clear where it was going for a long time. It isn't clear that it does so now. That is why there is confusion in their minds about what they need.

Let us look at the options.

If it is for defence of our Sea Lines of Communications, we don't need Aircraft Carriers. There will be no carrier-to-carrier based air battles, there will be no massive amphibian landings backed up by carrier-based air power. If the Pakistani Navy, they will use submarines; if the PLAN, they will also use submarines; there is no incentive for them to use vulnerable surface vessels when they have such overwhelming superiority in manufacture of submarines, such access to friendly sea-ports around the entire northern rim that contains most of our SLOC.

If it is for defence against Pakistan, again, we don't need carriers; we need land-based aircraft, we need submarines, and we need missiles.

So where do we need carriers?

If we can answer this question satisfactorily, the rest of the discussion will be rational. And, yes, there is a scenario where carriers will be useful.

A scenario must be analysed for the cost efficiency of the response and the opportinity cost of those $$$. So the scenario you have in mind deserves a 20 billion plus USD carrier with a 5 billion dollar plus support group? (Not even considering the op and maintenance costs)

While we r struggling to procure even basic things due to cost constraints, difficult to imagine. Looks like Lucknow metro project. Not needed, too expensive, nobody will use it, wasted opportinity to use the money elsewhere and designed to serve the decision makers who are not answerable to anyone.
 
A scenario must be analysed for the cost efficiency of the response and the opportinity cost of those $$$. So the scenario you have in mind deserves a 20 billion plus USD carrier with a 5 billion dollar plus support group? (Not even considering the op and maintenance costs)

While we r struggling to procure even basic things due to cost constraints, difficult to imagine. Looks like Lucknow metro project. Not needed, too expensive, nobody will use it, wasted opportinity to use the money elsewhere and designed to serve the decision makers who are not answerable to anyone.
Do you understand that economy is enhanced by increasing production and not by managing with limited production? Don't you see that India is capable of producing more than what it is producing now? In such scenarios, why are you even speaking of cost? Cost will decrease or wealth will increase as Indian manufacturing investments which are being done now gets a kick start. Plans for the future is made after taking future economy into account, not just about managing current economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shekhar Singh
Do you understand that economy is enhanced by increasing production and not by managing with limited production? Don't you see that India is capable of producing more than what it is producing now? In such scenarios, why are you even speaking of cost? Cost will decrease or wealth will increase as Indian manufacturing investments which are being done now gets a kick start. Plans for the future is made after taking future economy into account, not just about managing current economy.

Demogoguery in economics, really?

Where did i say dont invest in the future or dont prepare for it? I am questioning the prioratisation of that investment, a very relevant and most important aspect of an investment decision.

The aircraft carrier seems like a showpiece investment, same as lucknow metro. Questioning the investment is my patriotic duty.
 
Any one has more info on this....
Is this on a Tableaux for Republic Day....... INS Vishal :love::love:..... with Rafale M looks :whistle::whistle: and we have AWACS there too !! (y)(y)
Great News if the design is complete... Let's start construction... may be two of them at a time

View attachment 1484
I think it's a picture of a defunct project for a 2nd french carrier (non nuclear),
 
Demogoguery in economics, really?

Where did i say dont invest in the future or dont prepare for it? I am questioning the prioratisation of that investment, a very relevant and most important aspect of an investment decision.

The aircraft carrier seems like a showpiece investment, same as lucknow metro. Questioning the investment is my patriotic duty.
You don't seem to understand economy, production or the ultimate objective behind such production. Lucknow Metro is not well planned and its implementation was shabby resulting in abrupt change of plans and causing unnecessary losses. However, INS Vishal has a plan and a proper implementation roadmap. INS Vishal is meant for security, not comfort.

Questioning without proper contingency plans, limited knowledge of economy, lack of vision and any strategy to obtain results along with contingency plans in case something goes wrong is not patriotic but anti-national. India can very well be a military state and increase production rapidly by directing entire workforce into it. But certain things like carrier will take years of time as the construction is serial in nature and people can't work parallel on the same carrier
 
A scenario must be analysed for the cost efficiency of the response and the opportinity cost of those $$$. So the scenario you have in mind deserves a 20 billion plus USD carrier with a 5 billion dollar plus support group? (Not even considering the op and maintenance costs)

While we r struggling to procure even basic things due to cost constraints, difficult to imagine. Looks like Lucknow metro project. Not needed, too expensive, nobody will use it, wasted opportinity to use the money elsewhere and designed to serve the decision makers who are not answerable to anyone.

Work out the cost/benefit of running a manual tricycle in a Formula I race. You'll get your answer.
 
And of course, you feel not having a CBG will be better because then the Chinese can easily and effectively counter IN actions using the PLAN CBG!!. Hats off!!

Never said that; don't put words in my mouth.

As for the rest of the world, be rest assured, in case of a full fledged war between India and China, the rest of the world will have no option but to take sides with either one, at lease the major powers will have to. Because the sheer scale of this full fledged war will be such that it has the potential to wreak havoc with the entire planet's economy and ecology. For heaven's sake, we are talking about two economies that are currently driving a large chunk of world growth.

If the IN feels the need to have CBGs as part of their doctrine, I don't see what's wrong with that? If China can have the potential to disrupt our shipping assets in the high seas, why on earth should we not have capability to return the favour anywhere in the IOR at least?

All I feel like saying in response is that the phrase is,"Be assured", or "Rest assured". Nothing more needed since you have obviously neither read nor understood my post. Ask somebody less hysterical with patriotic fervour.
 

Thankfully sense prevailed and they decided to go for a conventional carrier for now. I hope they bring in IEPS propulsion instead.

The carrier after this one has to be a supercarrier with reactors.
Isn't 10 years too long a period to be building an AC? Sounds as if this would be commissioned, accounting for delays etc somewhere in 2035.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hellfire

Thankfully sense prevailed and they decided to go for a conventional carrier for now. I hope they bring in IEPS propulsion instead.

The carrier after this one has to be a supercarrier with reactors.

Personally, I would have preferred IN scaled back on carrier plans for time being and decided to wait for a suitable 180-220MW pressurized water reactor to be developed and certified (already being worked on for next class of SSBNs I would imagine). Once that reactor is ready, we should have gone in for ordering at least 2 ships of a ~70-75,000 ton N-powered carrier class.

In the meantime, the focus should have been completely on the SSNs.

Well, I guess IN decided what it wants. Now I just hope this conventional 65k tonner (should be pretty similar in size to QEC I would guess) can provide enough power for reliable operation of EMALS, because operating a steam catapult for a post-2030 carrier would be pretty anachronistic.

@vstol Jockey @Milspec @Hellfire @Nordic Wolf @Picdelamirand-oil @halloweene
 
Personally, I would have preferred IN scaled back on carrier plans for time being and decided to wait for a suitable 180-220MW pressurized water reactor to be developed and certified (already being worked on for next class of SSBNs I would imagine). Once that reactor is ready, we should have gone in for ordering at least 2 ships of a ~70-75,000 ton N-powered carrier class.

In the meantime, the focus should have been completely on the SSNs.

Well, I guess IN decided what it wants. Now I just hope this conventional 65k tonner (should be pretty similar in size to QEC I would guess) can provide enough power for reliable operation of EMALS, because operating a steam catapult for a post-2030 carrier would be pretty anachronistic.

@vstol Jockey @Milspec @Hellfire @Nordic Wolf @Picdelamirand-oil @halloweene
I do not believe in EMALS technology due to reliability problems. Each failure almost automatically involves the loss of an aircraft, and for the moment EMALS has 20 times more failures than steam catapults
 
Indian Navy Wants LCA To Fly Off Future Carrier Deck
Shiv AroorDec 03 2018 6 07 pm

India’s first attempt at building a carrier-based fighter may have just received its latest chance at a future, over two years after it was effectively placed on the proverbial backburner by the Indian Navy. In comments ahead of Navy Day 2018, the Indian Navy chief categorically declared the service was ‘hopeful’ of the LCA Navy flying off India’s second indigenous aircraft carrier.

The case for the second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier has received the necessary impetus. Though it is at least a decade away, the Aircraft Carrier project would accrue signficant national gains in terms of boosting indigenisation and the country’s economy, through its life cycle of construction, maintenance and upgradation. We are looking at ways and means to incorporate the immense potential of Academia, private industry and DRDO into the Project. Spread over period of ten years, the expenditure would not only be feasible, but would also be ploughed back into our own economy. We are also hopeful that naval version of LCA produced by HAL would fly from its deck,” Admiral Sunil Lanba said this morning.

The statement is significant, especially since the Indian Navy had officially de-linked its modernisation plans from the development of the LCA Navy — details of the decision reported first here — declaring simply that it would operate the LCA Navy if it ever met performance requirements. While the project was never shelved, and the Indian Navy indeed continues to fund it, removing the program from its immediate canvas all but ended its chances of a future flying of the navy’s aircraft carriers. If nothing else, the navy’s decision to specifically mention the LCA in the contest of the IAC-2 aircraft carrier suggests that certain alignments could be afoot towards the higher powered LCA Navy Mk.2.

The navy chief’s show of support today is significant, but also perplexing. In the event that the program does proceed in line with the navy’s wishes — and there’s been official opposition to it, in addition to a swirling debate— it is unclear how the LCA Navy Mk.2 will ever operate off said carrier without major structural modifications, even though the program hasn’t even begun yet. The Navy chief revealed today that the second indigenous aircraft carrier would be a 65,000 ton flat-top, unlike the navy’s sole current boat, the INS Vikramaditya and the under construction Vikrant-class boat, both of which use ski jumps to launch their aircraft. It is also unclear if the navy’s show of keenness in operating the LCA Navy on the IAC-2 will be followed by specific guidance on modifying the aircraft for a catapult-assisted launch. The IAC-2, it was also revealed today, would sport a General Atomics-designed electro magnetic launch system (EMALS), technology on offer to India as part of a defence-technical cooperation framework. General Atomics, incidentally, opened its India office in Delhi last week.

The Navy chief’s word specifically on the LCA Navy also throws up questions, since the navy in 2013 officially expressed interest in pursuing a naval version of India’s twin engine new generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program. The move had been initiated specifically to avoid the pitfalls encountered during the ‘navalisation’ of the baseline Light Combat Aircraft. Livefist reported the first extensive details of this push earlier this year here. Expressing interest in the LCA Navy at this juncture could indicate that the DRDO-MoD decision to stonewall a separate naval AMCA (NAMCA) has finally worn down the Indian Navy, and that it has decided to take a serious re-look at the single engine light fighter.

The IAC-2 revolves around the Indian Navy’s interest in operating higher performance fighters in carrier battle groups. In January this year, the navy officially invited information from global vendors to support a potential contest for 57 fighters. The program was initiated specifically because the navy came round to the view that it wanted higher specs and more reliably supported jets than its current fleet of 45 MiG-29Ks, that operate off the INS Vikramaditya and will from IAC-1 too. The Navy chief also commented on the fleet today, saying issues around spares and support had been ‘sorted out’ and that the fleet was performing ‘well’ now.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/12/indian-navy-wants-lca-to-fly-off-future-carrier-deck.html
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hellfire
Isn't 10 years too long a period to be building an AC? Sounds as if this would be commissioned, accounting for delays etc somewhere in 2035.

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.

maxresdefault.jpg


0877513.jpg


Virginia-construction.jpg


In the meantime, the focus should have been completely on the SSNs.

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.
 
Personally, I would have preferred IN scaled back on carrier plans for time being and decided to wait for a suitable 180-220MW pressurized water reactor to be developed and certified (already being worked on for next class of SSBNs I would imagine). Once that reactor is ready, we should have gone in for ordering at least 2 ships of a ~70-75,000 ton N-powered carrier class.

In the meantime, the focus should have been completely on the SSNs.

Well, I guess IN decided what it wants. Now I just hope this conventional 65k tonner (should be pretty similar in size to QEC I would guess) can provide enough power for reliable operation of EMALS, because operating a steam catapult for a post-2030 carrier would be pretty anachronistic.

@vstol Jockey @Milspec @Hellfire @Nordic Wolf @Picdelamirand-oil @halloweene

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