2 '45000' tons modified Vikrant aircraft carriers?

[Abingdonboy]

I need a honest opinion here.. if suppose IN goes for the 4 LHD as per the old tender RFI, do you think it will be feasible to have 4 mini ACC with helos of almost 35 tonnes as defined by RFI when our rest of naval fleet does not have enough helos..
The S70B will come but in limited numbers and our requirement is much much larger... Where do you see the LPD/LHD to fit in? i see a probable 1 for A&N ops other than that already if plan is for 5 CBGs do we still require 4 LHD/LPD?

Of course it isn't feasible bro- the IN (or rather the MoD) needs to pull its finger out and get helos (of all classes) inducted ASAP. I've expressed my dismay countless times of the pathetic scenerio the IN currently finds itself in- $1BN USD destroyers sailing with 50% of their aviation complement or empty hangers entirely and those assets are, at best, 30 year old moderately upgraded Sea Kings. This is beyond unacceptable.

The total requirements for helos by the IN is immense in the N-LUH class, <10 ton class and 10-12 ton- this is well over 150 helos and this is for the IMMEDIATE to very short term requirements (ie by 2020). If you throw in 4xLHD the requirement is going to increase substantially.

The S-70B deal will be signed this year but this is but a small victory (almost negligable in the grand scheme of things) with only 16+8 units to be ordered. To be honest this deal itself has drsgged on so long it has effectviely become irrelevent becuase it won't do much to satisfy the IN's mammoth need.

The numbers are so large MII is required for all 3 classes- I'm not sure who will win the N-LUH (that procurement is almost nonexsistent from what I can see, other than a RFP years ago what has become of it?) the 10 ton class clearly should/would go to S-70B and Sikorsky are more than happy to create a production line in India for this type if the numbers make it economically feasible (and if the IN stops this dumba$$ Indian Mil strategy of small tranche purchases this will be the case). And the 12 ton class should go to AIrbus Military for the EC725 AND if the MoD is smart they will pool the requirements of the ICG (already trialed this type and seemingly selected it), IN, maybe the IAF (they have looked at the EC725 for their dedicated CSAR requirements) and in the long term the IA (Airbus Military have said themselves the IA has stated they need 150 of this class) and have a MASSIVE order placed.


Anyway, the LHDs seem to be on the backburner for now and I think this is the right decsion- they can wait 2-3 years whilst some other projects get off the ground. This changes none of the above though.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

I still say , MoD should have a look at option of some 16-24 ka27s , why? Because the tenders and competitions they are or will be running will take at least 3 years to get the first heli and still we will hear rants about how costly the deal is. I am not even optimistic about signing of S70 deal.
And Ka27 is no obsolete system, it does the tasks its designed for extremely well. Its full paisawasool. We should even look to get some relatively new airframe of S3 seakings which US recently retired. Maybe some half dozen. All this would provide some much needed immediate respite.

 

[mkb95]

is there any plans of fitting barak-8 on ins vikrmaditya?

 

[kaykay]

is there any plans of fitting barak-8 on ins vikrmaditya?

Yes Ins Vikramaditya will have a total of 48 Barak-8 and 24 Barak-1 along with 4 CIWS etc for self defence.

 

[Aham Brahmasmi]

No I don't have a bias. I was talking logically. Aircraft carriers main aim is to be able to project power outside your borders. If India's aim is to be a powerful country in its nearby region you already have su-30 which I believe has quite some range. Aircraft carriers are for examples when UK wants to attack Argentina. If UK wanted to attack France or Netherlands let's say it wouldn't really need an AC, as an airbase in the south of England and a plane can easily go bomb the position, refuel if needed and come back.

Why was my Egypt example hilarious. I choose egypt specifically. Reason being it's not very close to India thus a AC is a great option to use in that instance, it has a weak navy but a decent airforce.

My point was currently India is stronger than Pakistan but weaker than China. In that case China can possible threaten India in the Indian ocean in the near future right? And that isn't too far from India borders? Would China feel more threatened away from its borders with Indias AC or let's say if India had much more advanced diesel AIP submarines and a combined stronger airforce etc. What I'm trying to say is India doesn't have a 2000trillion economy. Why spend so much on AC when it wouldn't be so useful, when that money can be spent on other things that will be more appropriate for India defence needs. More submarines, more aircraft etc. That's my opinion.

Oops. Indian oceon is massive but my case still stands. I don't believe India has many interests in the Indian oceon to protect. Does it have like 20 islands thst need protecting? No

we want to turn this ocean in to our lake/playground by 2030/50

 

[Penguin]

Guys I was reading SP's Naval forces magazine( feb-march 2014) in which there was an article about Indian naval modernisation. I was surprised to read something about 2 follow on carriers which will be 45000 tons( modified Vikrant) though there was no mention of Ins Vishaal which is altogether a different type.
Words goes exactly like this...
"The follow on programme of 2 additional IAC of 45000 tons displacement has the approval of the government."

Not sure what the question here is really but the IN wants a three carrier navy. It currently has the Vikamaditya, which will last fro some time. So a minimum of 2 carriers need to be built domestically to get to a fleet of three. It is quite likely that you need to complete a third by the time Vikramaditya reaches end of service life (which will not be as long as that of a new built ship).

You will get 1 Vikrant and 1 Vishal for sure. So, the only question is whether the third ship will be the same as Vikrant or the same as Vishal.

 

[KingRaj]

We need a amphibious forces/marines command.

 

[surya kiran]

You will get 1 Vikrant and 1 Vishal for sure. So, the only question is whether the third ship will be the same as Vikrant or the same as Vishal.

The talk is not of the third ship, but of 2 more ships.

 

[WAR-rior]

As per my knowledge, we were to induct 2 vikrant class cbgs(IAC-1,2) . INS Vikrant and INS Virat (version second of both )

Third will be Vicky which will be replaced by INS Vishal in 2030s. Overall plan of 3 active and 1 standalone.

 

[Baybars Han]

we want to turn this ocean in to our lake/playground by 2030/50

Impossible.

 

[kaykay]

Impossible.

Quite possible

Considering 3-4 aircraft carriers, 7-8 nuclear attack submarines, 14+ AESA warships and other stuffs. Not to mention 2 offshore bases in Seychelles and Mauritius along with our own massive A&N Islands and Lakshadweep islands.

Considering 3-4 aircraft carriers, 7-8 nuclear attack submarines, 14+ AESA warships and other stuffs. Not to mention 2 offshore bases in Seychelles and Mauritius along with our own massive A&N Islands and Lakshadweep islands.

Not sure what the question here is really but the IN wants a three carrier navy. It currently has the Vikamaditya, which will last fro some time. So a minimum of 2 carriers need to be built domestically to get to a fleet of three. It is quite likely that you need to complete a third by the time Vikramaditya reaches end of service life (which will not be as long as that of a new built ship).

You will get 1 Vikrant and 1 Vishal for sure. So, the only question is whether the third ship will be the same as Vikrant or the same as Vishal.

Well my question was whether we'll really go for 2 more IAC-1 type carriers( 45000 tons)? So for what we know that 1 IAC-1( 40-45000 tons) and 1 IAC-2(65000 tons) are confirmed but never heard of any plan for more IAC-1 type carriers( apart from first one).

 

[PARIKRAMA]

The thing is sureshot IAC1 and IAC2 both will have at least worst case one follow on ship each manufactured.

It is simply the economics bcz the investments and the expertise learned would be otherwise lost. The question is when such follow on comes online.

The orders would be continuous bcz a break of even a year or two for next ship order means idle capacity, loss of manhours, associated costs and idle time led service issues of big equipments used for such construction.

Bcz ships have a long life line we will see 4of these babies surely in next 2-3 decades and fifth being stand by unit of Vikramaditya which will be eventually replaced by most probably a stobar IAC1 or may be IAC2 with naval AMCA.

So the earlier 3+1 standby easily changed to 4+1 standby implying 5CBGs

 

[Penguin]

The talk is not of the third ship, but of 2 more ships.

You would need those. By the time the third commissions, you pay off Gorshkov, leaving you with a fleet of 3 domestically built carriers.

The thing is sureshot IAC1 and IAC2 both will have at least worst case one follow on ship each manufactured.

It is simply the economics bcz the investments and the expertise learned would be otherwise lost. The question is when such follow on comes online.

The orders would be continuous bcz a break of even a year or two for next ship order means idle capacity, loss of manhours, associated costs and idle time led service issues of big equipments used for such construction.

Bcz ships have a long life line we will see 4of these babies surely in next 2-3 decades and fifth being stand by unit of Vikramaditya which will be eventually replaced by most probably a stobar IAC1 or may be IAC2 with naval AMCA.

So the earlier 3+1 standby easily changed to 4+1 standby implying 5CBGs

No, you can't equate a carrier with a CBG. As US practice shows, you need 10 carriers minimum to maintain 2 CBGs on station at all times. 5 carriers means 1 CBG available (on station) at any given time.

Guys I was reading SP's Naval forces magazine( feb-march 2014) in which there was an article about Indian naval modernisation. I was surprised to read something about 2 follow on carriers which will be 45000 tons( modified Vikrant) though there was no mention of Ins Vishaal which is altogether a different type.
Words goes exactly like this...
"The follow on programme of 2 additional IAC of 45000 tons displacement has the approval of the government."

I.e. this is simple a program for 3 domestic carriers.

 

[indiatester]

You would need those. By the time the third commissions, you pay off Gorshkov, leaving you with a fleet of 3 domestically built carriers.



No, you can't equate a carrier with a CBG. As US practice shows, you need 10 carriers minimum to maintain 2 CBGs on station at all times. 5 carriers means 1 CBG available (on station) at any given time.


I.e. this is simple a program for 3 domestic carriers.

OMG. Never knew that. I always thought that a CBG meant one carrier and associated destroyers, supply ships etc.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

No, you can't equate a carrier with a CBG. As US practice shows, you need 10 carriers minimum to maintain 2 CBGs on station at all times. 5 carriers means 1 CBG available (on station) at any given time..

Sir please explain what you mean here. I see US has at least 4 Aircraft Carriers operational with related number of Destroyers and Cruisers. One in Indian ocean, 2 in pacific and 1 in Atlantic.

Isn't it like the amount of availability of Carriers and related vessels which count on when forming CBGs?

Impossible.

Quite possible.No reason to believe why it isn't ?