The sister ship will be ordered after P-75I, MRCBF and SSN orders are signed.
The IN is looking for new solutions for their minesweeper problem. Mostly UUVs.
INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aircraft carrier csl iac1 mig-29k
The sister ship will be ordered after P-75I, MRCBF and SSN orders are signed.
The IN is looking for new solutions for their minesweeper problem. Mostly UUVs.
Royal Navy is doing it but they still intend to use a Minesweeper to do conventional sweeps apart from being a mother ship for autonomous vehicles.
Australia is also moving in a similar area where they are looking to get an OPV as a mothership with the sensors and as a Launch platform for AUVs.
Is there extra power/space available in the OPVs we plan to order soon? Because a Hull Mounted Sonar will be required.
Another thing which the Japanese/Germans are planning is to have a OPV type platform do coastal ASW and minehunting duties both. Now this is one which I think can work out for us too.
Americans will likely use a America Class ship with King Stallions and AUVs for Minesweepeing in the Gulf. We might not be able to afford this solution.
But whatever it may be, we need to start on it very very soon. Atleast I hope so.
Japanese are also going to use their FFM. Netherland, Belgium and France are going to develop the City class Minesweepers.
IMO, Indian Navy is pressing on funding directly from PMO for the SSN programme similar to SSBN.
Only the Koreans are willing to give us minesweeper tech. So I feel this is one area where we have to do things ourselves, if the Koreans don't work out again.
I doubt that will work out. The deal is already with the CCS, so I don't think they are making changes to it. It's just final red tape time.
I am pretty sure if we want conventional designs, Russians will be willing to ToT of the hulls. And given that GSL had invested in a facility to manufacture such hulls, it shouldn't be a problem.
As for electronics, I think it's time now that the basics like sonar etc should be ours own.
For AUVs, we will need to depend on Germans/French.
I would like to have IN a mix of conventional design Mine Countermeasures Vessel and the Mothership/AUVs concept thing.
Yes, they ain't gonna get PMO support for SSN. Navy will have to manage on its own.
But for the upcoming S5 , that should be no issue. PMO will manage the funds for all SSBNs imo.
I get the feeling the minesweeper lease deal will just convert into a purchase deal over time, and more ships will be added.
It's a 10-year lease with a 5-year extension and a purchase clause at the end of the lease, so it's a no-brainer. Lease 4 now, lease 4 more a few years down the line, and in the meantime, work on a mothership/AUV design.
They are in negative import list. They can only be leased and can't be bought. GSL will certainly protest if something like this happens.
It shouldn't matter 15 years in the future. There's nothing GSL can do if the IN changes their minds anyway.
Kadi Ninda is mistaken imo here. Terminology.
Cause Navy did confirm few days back that we are still thinking.
Seems so.
Slightly enlarged version, maybe to allow for bigger lifts maybe
INS Viraat 2.0 incoming.
STOBAR is a major deficiency though. If not EMALS, then a Steam catapult. At least a study to find out the viability & feasibility (and cost) of such an upgrade is warranted.
One of the primary reasons why we went with STOBAR on the Vikrant was the fact that only STOBAR aircraft (MiGs & Sukhois) were available - CAT planes were either unavailable due to geopolitical reasons or just too expensive - along with the fact that we planned for Vikramaditya & Vikrant to have a common aviation complex.
This is no longer the case today.
Yes, this will introduce a delay - but we aren't going to have a sustained 3-carrier fleet anyway. At most we'll have a 5 year period in the late 2030s where we'll have 3 carriers, and then Vikramaditya will retire by 2040 anyway, so we're back to just 2 carriers till whenever IAC-2 comes.
That would've been ideal but its evident IN thought they won't be able to acquire the IAC-2 anytime soon. For either technological limitations with the reactor they wanted (possibly CLWR-B2) not being mature enough to go ahead with the design, or cost reasons...perhaps both.
It's the whole reason a repeat order of Vikrant is even being considered - this wasn't part of the plan before.
The Americans can make the same offer for the engine.
GE, BHEL agree to develop electric propulsion system for Indian Navy
GE Power Conversion and BHEL have signed a MoU to develop integrated full electric propulsion system for Indian Navy.www.navaltoday.com
This JV is actually meant for an Indianized MT30 IEP optimized for warm-water operations. GE Power Conversion is the vendor that made IEPs for all MT30s in the world today.
They are now in the process for developing an IEP solution for LM2500 series, meant to go on Constellation-class FFG. But this is yet unproven - and likely to have tech hiccups for a long time as each new IEP solution has to be tailor-made for the specific power delivery pattern of a turbine, and the specific needs of each ship-class.
MT30 IEP is comparatively far more mature.
Construction will happen long after MRCBF is decided, but the design has to be in place much earlier. In fact the work on design has already started:
The fact that it will take a long time to design, build and test a CATOBAR carrier is why we are going for a second STOBAR instead. I'm guessing 15 years vs 8 years.
We need jets in the air rather than anything else. I'd still like to see 1 or 2 more ordered before we take up CATOBAR work.
Nuke propulsion needs a new reactor. That's a decade plus of R&D work alone. I hope they have started somewhere at least.
I suppose the IN will have two options in the future.
MRCBF was necessary for a CATOBAR design. With Vikrant II being STOBAR, the jets are just placeholders. The ultimate replacement for these carriers will still be the 90+ TEDBF. I suppose the numbers will climb to 130+ now.
Basically, the CATOBAR carrier's been postponed to the 2030s.
That's what I'm getting at - its the ship propulsion that's holding up IAC-2.
A Steam catapult solution meant for a carrier very similar in size to the Vikrant already exists - on the Charles de Gaulle. We don't have to engineer anything, the Americans have already done it, and the French have already paid for the modifications to implement the system on a smaller ship.
All we have to do is modify the IAC-1's design to install it. Even the aircraft it flies will be the same now (Rafale-M).
Down the line, even the existing Vikrant can be made to receive a catapult/EMALS as part of a mid-life deep refit, unlocking the full potential of the MRCBF (or any future aircraft). In the past we had done the reverse (removed CAT and installed ski-jump) on the original Vikrant when we went from Sea Hawk to Sea Harrier.
In the 2030s we'll have the financial wherewithal to do something like this.
The Brits are also planning on installing EMALS on the QECs when they are refitted - though they only plan to launch drones with it as they have the F-35B STOVL.
Royal Navy seeking information on cats and traps to launch drones
Delve into the technological marvels of the UK's carrier-based aircraft operations, examining the innovative 'cats and traps' system.
www.naval-technology.com
IAC 2 was supposed to be the carrier you are talking about. A slightly extended Vikrant with EMALS and IEP coming up to 50kT. IEP can be done on the Vikrant II, but switching over to CATs is going to take years. Hence 15 years vs 8 years.
What matters to us is we get the Vikrant II and possibly even a Vikrant III up and running ASAP. We need the ability to put 2 or 3 squadrons on the high seas during wartime. CATOBAR is irrelevant if the PLAN brings mass to the battle and we don't have mass. It means we won't be able to take any losses. And the minute we start taking losses, then we have started losing.
The Chinese have 3 carriers, will get their 4th in 3-4 years and by the time Vikrant II is built, they could have as many as 6 or more. We can't endlessly keep debating cat vs sto when the most pressing need is to get fighters at sea. Surveillance will come through American tech anyway.
In the 2030s we'll have the financial wherewithal to do something like this.
The Brits are also planning on installing EMALS on the QECs when they are refitted - though they only plan to launch drones with it as they have the F-35B STOVL.
Royal Navy seeking information on cats and traps to launch drones
Delve into the technological marvels of the UK's carrier-based aircraft operations, examining the innovative 'cats and traps' system.
The Brits will be disappointed. Anyway, it says it's just a fact-finding mission, not an actual program.
We neither have the funds, infrastructure nor intention to match the PLAN ship for ship. If we attempt to do that, we will bankrupt ourselves. Leave that to the USN & JMSDF to worry about.
In the IOR, the PLAN is an out-of-area power. The way to deal with such a power is through Sea Denial, not Sea Control. Their ability to fight & resupply a naval battle in the IOR will depend on whether or not we manage to lock down the various chokepoints like Malacca, Sunda etc.
GLCMs, ASBMs, ASCMs and Su-30MKIs/Rafales flying out of Andaman with zero payload restrictions are the way to do this job. For anything outside their reach, we have a CBG (+ another CBG if we surge). Anything beyond that, you have to look toward Diego Garcia/USN anyway.
That's why IN still only plans for a 3-carrier fleet. They know we cannot compete with the Chinese on mass. If we build 4 carriers, PLAN will build 10. If they want, they can launch construction on 4-5 Shandong-class carriers right now, and before we even finish the keel-laying of Vikrant-II, all of them will already be in sea trials. We cannot compete.
Depends what they want from it. By the way, from the recent DEFEXPO:
Just a few months back, Rajnath Singh was saying that the US is transferring a major technology to India. Wonder what that could be?
