INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aircraft carrier csl iac1 mig-29k
Indian Navy to get its second aircraft carrier by 2021
Lift dimensions are known?
Possible fighter s that can be accompanied are?
Lift dimensions are known?
Possible fighter s that can be accompanied are?
MiG 29K.nothing else goes there. No Rafales or Hornets or any other plane. Except maybe the NLCA - Mk2, if further development is sanctioned and the ADA is able to deliver the product in a decade's time at the most.
N LCA mk2 to be rolled out Next year according to Vayu magazine Feb 2019 0issue..
Even though we know it's impossible, still clinging onto that year.
The entire program is awaiting funds from the MoD which will take a decision on this in a few months.
IAC-1 Status Update:
Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) project progressed satisfactorily. Trials of 6 out of 8 Nos. 3 MW DGs have been completed. Gas turbine starting and trials scheduled from September 19, 2019. STW of ship systems such as salvage, heeling & trimming, bilge and firemain etc. has been completed. 72000 Mtrs. out of estimated 82500 Mtrs. piping has been completed. 1475 km (75% of the estimated cable length) has been laid on board as on March 31, 2019. Trials of part of IPMS (Integrated Platform Management System) have been commenced. Installation & operations checks of electrical power distribution systems & internal communication systems and installation of Ship Data Network (SDN) are in progress. Installation of 2 Nos. restraining gear has been completed. Installation of other AFC equipments and systems such as arresting gear, AFC PSS, ammunition magazine etc., have progressed well. 3D modelling of the superstructure is nearing completion which will lead to the culmination of the design phase of the ship. Outfitting of super structure shall commence soon after above 3D modelling completion. Preparation has been commenced for the Basin Trials (BT) of the carrier scheduled in February 2020. Phase 3 contract negotiations are at an advanced stage and are expected to be concluded by mid of FY 2019-20.
Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) project progressed satisfactorily. Trials of 6 out of 8 Nos. 3 MW DGs have been completed. Gas turbine starting and trials scheduled from September 19, 2019. STW of ship systems such as salvage, heeling & trimming, bilge and firemain etc. has been completed. 72000 Mtrs. out of estimated 82500 Mtrs. piping has been completed. 1475 km (75% of the estimated cable length) has been laid on board as on March 31, 2019. Trials of part of IPMS (Integrated Platform Management System) have been commenced. Installation & operations checks of electrical power distribution systems & internal communication systems and installation of Ship Data Network (SDN) are in progress. Installation of 2 Nos. restraining gear has been completed. Installation of other AFC equipments and systems such as arresting gear, AFC PSS, ammunition magazine etc., have progressed well. 3D modelling of the superstructure is nearing completion which will lead to the culmination of the design phase of the ship. Outfitting of super structure shall commence soon after above 3D modelling completion. Preparation has been commenced for the Basin Trials (BT) of the carrier scheduled in February 2020. Phase 3 contract negotiations are at an advanced stage and are expected to be concluded by mid of FY 2019-20.
India requires at least three aircraft carriers to meet operational needs in the region: Navy Chief. China planning 10 aircraft carriers, we need at least 3: Navy Chief
Last edited by a moderator:
No 3 carriers will give us nothing substantial over 2.Use that money to build submarines,govt is right here.Force the navy to drop its carrier mania showpony prestige force show the flag mentality,force them to build subs.The navy vis a vis china is a sea denial force,not a sea dominance one.It needs to get this through its head and act accordingly.
You've a point. But I suspect the GoI will go in for a compromise with the IN. My guess is another iteration of the INS Vikrant. After all the infrastructure built up at Cochin can't be allowed to go to seed.
We need 6 carriers. But the IN wants to make do with 3 in the meantime due to financial constraints.
Basically, the Chinese plan to operate 6 carriers by 2030, so IN plans to counter that buildup with 3 carriers. This will allow us to have 24/7 presence at sea with at least 1 carrier, with 1 carrier on standby at port.
So, along with the subs, we also need the carriers.
And no, a carrier is not a showpony. People have got suckered in by western propaganda so people of other countries criticise any foreign carrier programs. So, while western countries will build and deploy a large number of carriers, non-western countries will get pressured into not having carrier programs of their own. Without carriers, you are not a blue water navy.
How about light carriers ? Like the Japanese Izumo class or the French Mistral class(Ok that's not a carrier, but let's look at the size.) ? How about limiting the number of heavy carriers but expanding light carriers in our future plans ? It's a shame that the LHD deal is just sitting there, if the order was placed in time maybe we would've already had a few in the Navy.
Another ship in the same class as INS Vikrant is pointless.
Vikrant is a product of old-think which was limited by our meagre resources at the time. It was initially planned as an air defence ship rather than a carrier, and then it later became a small carrier with some modifications. An air defence ship is primarily meant for fleet defence, ie, ensure air superiority over our ships.
But we can't go into the 2030s with carriers of this size. We need larger flattops with more aircraft, along with AWACS. We need a minimum of 50 fighter jets so that we can unleash the full gamut of capabilities that you can get out of a single air force base.
For example, if you wish to commit to air strikes over formations of enemy ships and land bases, you need a lot of aircraft in order to accomplish it. Just one such mission may require as many as 12-18 jets, possibly more, depending on the size of the enemy force. If you recall, we used 12 aircraft in such a mission during CI-2004, where only 4 aircraft were the strike package, with the other 8 meant to help accomplish the mission. And this was just a simple strike mission. The Pakistanis used as many as 24 aircraft post-Balakot.
So, apart from 16-20 aircraft that you need for 24/7 air defence, you need the remaining aircraft to perform complex missions. With the Vikrant, you can only commit to one such large scale offensive at a time, and then you can't handle any losses either. So the Vikrant limits the type and tempo of operations. And that's the reason why we need our next carrier to be able to handle 50 fighter jets during peacetime and as many as 70-80 fighters during wartime. The Nimitz class can go up to 130 jets.
Light carriers are possible, but we still need large carriers to do the actual missions. The 4 ships we are procuring are not enough for light carrier duties since we need them to first carry helicopters that are required to support marines.
I do support inducting at least 2 light carriers and a small fleet of F-35Bs, apart from the 4 LHDs. Like the Japanese and their plan to purchase 42 F-35Bs for their 2 light carriers. The Turks were also going for this with 2 Juan Carlos class ships and 16 F-35Bs, dunno now. The Turkish option can allow the operation of 12 F-35s and 12 medium helicopters. The Americans operate as many as 10 such ships with the ability to carry 20 F-35s.
But with our current funding, it's not possible to do it until the 2030s.
Even operating just 6 F-35Bs from each of the 4 LHDs can reduce the aircraft carrier's workload significantly. It is more than enough to handle the workload of a battalion of marines, but I think IN will likely carry more number of attack helicopters instead. So, we do not actually need a dedicated light carrier.
Is being a ' blue water navy' tag more important with a show the flag force or being more capable to handle china more important?
Chinese are building 'atleast' 6 85k-100k tonnes carriers.Personally i believe even our current force of carriers is largely not very useful except that they help us maintain vital chain of experience of carrier ops that we will need after 2040 when we graduate to real carriers( if hypersonic weapons dont render them obsolete by then) and because they can bully pakistan.They arent of much use even now in chinese context.Another 65 k tonne carrier against huge chinese flattops isnt going to change anything.We cant match the chinese in numbers or tonnage.But the best assymetric weapon is the submarine.A single silent submarine can paralyze a whole fleet .What is the greatest enemy of a submarine? Patrol aircraft.And the chinese cant use those away from their shores operating in the IOR.We need to exploit that.We will also have enough land based support from aircraft and shore batteries(andaman,southern and east india )where our surface fleet should operate( under umbrella) whereas ssk submarines should lurk in chokepoints in ambush and faster ssn should conduct hit and run attacks harassing the ingressing chinese fleet.
A 65k tonne carrier with its wing would cost 20 billion dollars plus.It would have over 2000 sailors with enormous daily maintainence costs.On top of that carriers are not ' future proof' ..we dont know how they will cope with the hypersonic era.
A modern diesel submarine costs around 500 million with low operating costs with 50 sailors.A nuclear submarine costs from 1 to 3 billion depending on sophistication.
What do you think will deter the chinese more for those 20 billion dollars of expenditure? 1 65k tonne carrier? Or 30-40 diesel submarines?Or may be 5 ssn +15-20 ssk mix?
Navy's current submarine plans are pathetic.They envision a force of 18 diesel submarines ,6 ssn and 6 ssbn.18 diesel submarines are a joke .Even pakistan is planning a force of 11 ssk(8 yuan plus 3 agosta).Navy needs to stop building loads of redundant ships ,especially these huge opvs and build submarines for a change.6 scorpenes,6 p75i and some older kilos is not going to cut it.Even ssn will come after 2030.They need to buy a dozen lada or upgraded kilos just to maintain numbers off the shelf in this decade itself.We need 24-30 ssk if we are going to only have 6 ssn.Once our submarine situation is stable let the navy buy a carrier if it can afford it,sure.But not at the cost of the sub fleet.Infact even if we had no carrier right now it wouldnt impact us much vis a vis china if we had a dozen more subs instead.Lets get to 10 trillion dollar economy first then start carrier building,china has a 12 trillion dollar economy before it started building.
If you want to see how to maintain a powerful navy and plan well with limited resources look to the russians.The russians understand very well the future is in the submarine.So what are they doing?
They scrapped their next generation destroyer programme, their carrier programme,they build corvettes,talwar frigates abd a very limited amount of the sophisticated gorshkov frigates.Instead they went all out on submarines and land based assets.The bulk of the budget goes to yasen m new generation SSNs which cost a whopping 3 billion plus each,but even then they build them above all.The rest have been used to build borei class ssbn t 1 billion each and upgraded kilo class ssk to make up numbers at (400-500 miilion each).
This tells you the russian navy planners clearly understand their role vis a vis their main enemy - the us navy.
They have deployed land based bastion ( oniks/brahmos) coastal batteries in crimea,kaliningrad and sakhalin islands,they upgraded tu22 maritime strike bombers and inducted su34 strike bombers.
The russians recognize they are a sea denial force.The problem with IN admirals is they have gotten so used to the idea of dominating the IOR they are embedded in a sea dominance mentality that they practice against pakistan,their egos wont let them switch to a rational sea denial strategy vis a vis china,because sea dominance would never work against PLAN irrespective of whether you build another 65k tonne carrier or not.Government must not give in to the megalomania of the IN admirals and force them to accept the rational practical solution,not the prestige solution.
Once UCAVs and swarm drones mature in tech, the need for large carries might be reduced, with smaller unmanned systems launch and recovery might be even more simplified eliminating the need for large carriers.