Krylov centre awaits order to develop aircraft carrier from India

[ashok321]

Based on the Gorshkov experience why deal with the Russians ?

Which country would hand you (India) over nuclear submarines?

There is only one answer here.

 

[Abba_Dabba_Jabba]

Also trying to understand the role of the Rafale in the IN ? why have it?

Rafale is the best platform available in 4.5 gen category, plus if IAF inducts 6-7 squadrons of Rafey then I think instead of going with some new 5th gen fighter, Rafale will be the better choice, it will be useful for IN & IAF to work on a network centric warfare .

@PARIKRAMA & @Abingdonboy mujhe itna hi ata hai, agee tum sambhalo

 

[Didact]

The Russian proposal is essentially a reworked ulyanovsk Aircraft Carrier concept and thus suffers from some of its fundamental limitations. There is also the element of Russian strategic doctrine having a negative implication on the efficiency of the proposed carrier.

Most people assume that the size of the air wing determines the capability of the carrier. The reality is that sortie generation rates are a far more important parameter for carriers (and land bases alike). And this is where the Russian hybrid concept bears a significant negative impact. The hybrid concept places undue stress on flight deck management operations, something most people disregard.

Deck operators would be forced to shuttle between completely different aircraft and disparate launch regimen for the CATOBAR and STOBAR launches.

Aircraft carriers already bear a steep penalty in sortie generation rates compared to land bases. A typical airbase can generate excess of 60-75 sorties a day with as few as 20 aircraft. A fully loaded Nimitz is able to do somewhere between 78-92 (sustained) with its 85 strong airwing . And that is with a homogeneous launch system and 4 catapults.

Our hybrid carrier wouldn't be able to match those sortie rates unless there is a revolution in deck management operations.

I will try to post a detailed write-up later if I can manage enough time.

 

[wiseone2]

Also trying to understand the role of the Rafale in the IN ? why have it?

Rafale makes sense in the IN. It i

Which country would hand you (India) over nuclear submarines?

There is only one answer here.

It will be a long journey
Russian Navy does not operate aircraft carriers

 

[GuardianRED]

Rafale makes sense in the IN. It i

??? What?

It will be a long journey
Russian Navy does not operate aircraft carriers

Whats this then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov-class_aircraft_carrier

 

[PARIKRAMA]

For argument sake - which Indian Shipyard is capable builting this .i.e having the drydock space? Also don't u think the Mig29K can be CATOBAR certified too?

Yes re certification can happen surely but in case additional strengthening is suggested, then its cost intensive..

Dry dock wise very limited choice - only CSL and Pipavav.

As per my data,

If i understand clearly the N carrier construction as to be near to Vishakapatnam for reasons you already should know. So i guess Rambili will be chosen provided Reliance can set up a location with minimum 14-15 meter draft.


++
About Rafale M its about

• Future upgrades for a fleet for minimum 30 years by comparision Mig29K may be obsolete in next 15 years
• Technological advancement that new product brings in
• Mig29 K used only for A2A and AShM roles - primary defensive roles within 300 nautical miles or 550 km max
• Proposed Rafale M or any other catobar aircraft for A2G aspect and using it for actual strike roles opening a new corridor for package delivery along with the above mentioned roles.
• Rafale M radius of operations are more like 600 Nm or 1000 Km and above types giving it the true bluwater capability
• A doctrine need for triad first step of aerial assets being over different places to get ambiguity.
• Commonality of the supply and spares from operational POV

+++

The Russian proposal is essentially a reworked ulyanovsk Aircraft Carrier concept and thus suffers from some of its fundamental limitations. There is also the element of Russian strategic doctrine having a negative implication on the efficiency of the proposed carrier.

Most people assume that the size of the air wing determines the capability of the carrier. The reality is that sortie generation rates are a far more important parameter for carriers (and land bases alike). And this is where the Russian hybrid concept bears a significant negative impact. The hybrid concept places undue stress on flight deck management operations, something most people disregard.

Deck operators would be forced to shuttle between completely different aircraft and disparate launch regimen for the CATOBAR and STOBAR launches.

Aircraft carriers already bear a steep penalty in sortie generation rates compared to land bases. A typical airbase can generate excess of 60-75 sorties a day with as few as 20 aircraft. A fully loaded Nimitz is able to do somewhere between 78-92 (sustained) with its 85 strong airwing . And that is with a homogeneous launch system and 4 catapults.

Our hybrid carrier wouldn't be able to match those sortie rates unless there is a revolution in deck management operations.

I will try to post a detailed write-up later if I can manage enough time.

Excellent post Sir. I wish you could post more regularly.

Just to add a little,

TBH there design revolves around using the heavy fighter PAKFA - M version from catapults and Mig29Ks from Stobar config. Owing to restricted small distance for takeoff, the actual payload capacity fo fuel will be lower in order to sustain basic combat load under stressed conditions and will require a AAR refuel up in air to proceed towards area of operations. Supposing the time is not there for AAR refueling then time on air will severely limit them.

The stress levels of sustaining PAKFA-M and Mig29K say in a emergency sortie will be too high.
In queen Elizabeth class, its estimated that 24 F35-Bs are launched in 15 Mins and recovery rate is 24 mins for all 24 birds. (STOBAR)

Now assuming this 85000 Tonnes mammoth carrier has considerable LACM and S500 elements + ASW and AEW crafts, consider the actual jets to be say 60 jets with 40 PAKFA -M and 20 Mig29Ks

• The Stobaroperations will mean at least a Mig29k sortie every 40 -50 sec meaning 14-17minutes to be airborne for 300Nm radii
• Catobar parallel launch will mean 2 PAKFA-M sortie together but mean time before next sortie is approx 1 minute to best case 40 secs (Nimitz class can launch 4 birds in 10 secs from different catapults but then next lot takes over a minute to launch even though they prefer to make it in 40 secs and practice for 30 secs with 2 catapult launch)
• So 14-20 mins approx for all PAKFA-M to be on air for say 600-800 Nm combat radii.
• Now consider all these take offs in a continuously busy deck and planes getting ready and carried to deck from elevator and waiting aspect too. .
• Thus flight deck arrangement will be a living hell in case of a emergency sortie.
• Recovery rates should see all these aircraft back in deck anywhere between 30-60 minutes bcz i dont have any data to substantiate and prove, other than comparing the F35B data but PAKFA -M will be much different.
• Daily sortie rates in such a condition wont be sustainable in very high rates
• Yet to prove the turnaround time between sorties /consecutive sorties for a 5th gen PAKFA from deck operations.and number it can sustain per day.

On top, The 23000E is basically the way of getting India agree on PAKFA-M or Indian FGFA M. This is a big issue bcz IN as part of the doctrine dont like to operate heavy fighters and are more happy with medium category jets.

As I said, its a fortress and in essence its a whole lot bigger than a airbase going there. The firepower of offensive LACM, the ABM/BMD of S500 Triumfator-M and a contingent of 40 heavy and 20 medium birds makes it a incredibly offensive powerhouse.

The question to ask is

1. Can we have such a doctrine shift?
2. Will we as a country ready to shell out a good amount in order to build a much bigger ACC of nuclear powered and take our ship building capabilities much ahead?
3. Are we ready to consider the limitation of such systems as well and understand that a ACC like 23000E if binded with Russian air wing will also limit us of actually having an optimized mission efficiencies?

+++

• Coming back to the same aspect of fighter fleet consider all 60 to be Rafale-M.
• Here lies the difference. Rafale M can also take off from short runways and also land in short runways.
• This commonality aspect of the entire air wing may help smoothen out the cross management between heavy going to catobar and medium going to stobar aspect.
• On top the payload package can be configured differently based on mission aim but thats far more convenient.
• Again recovery rates should be far more smoother as compared to mixed bag fleet.

 

[wiseone2]

??? What?



Whats this then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov-class_aircraft_carrier

Russian Navy does not a history of operating these ships
Without operational experience it is hard to get it right

 

[Lotus_stalk]

Whatever You Do, Don’t Buy Your Aircraft Carrier From Russia
India learned the hard way with INS ‘Vikramaditya’

https://warisboring.com/whatever-yo...t-carrier-from-russia-e0f6707cb4ee#.2hbdyjhyr


“Gorshkov curse” continues; Russian aircraft carrier fails trials

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/09/gorshkov-curse-continues-russian.html

Let's not get duped again.

 

[GuardianRED]

Russian Navy does not a history of operating these ships
Without operational experience it is hard to get it right

Yes, 16 years of operating this aircraft carrier, is not operating experience!

 

[wiseone2]

Yes, 16 years of operating this aircraft carrier, is not operating experience!

How often was this aircraft carrier functional in 16 years ??

The Russian navy is a sea denial navy based on SSBNs and long range maritime attack aircraft. Their operational experience with aircraft carriers is not too much higher than the Indian navy.

Right now the Indian navy is trying to be growing version of the US Navy than the Russian navy.

 

[GuardianRED]

How often was this aircraft carrier functional in 16 years ??

The Russian navy is a sea denial navy based on SSBNs and long range maritime attack aircraft. Their operational experience with aircraft carriers is not too much higher than the Indian navy.

Right now the Indian navy is trying to be growing version of the US Navy than the Russian navy.

Pal, The Russian Navy has a different doctrine to the rest of the world. Heck!. this ship has 12 supersonic AShM below deck

Just because they don't operate the same way doesn't mean they don't have the experience.

 

[wiseone2]

Pal, The Russian Navy has a different doctrine to the rest of the world. Heck!. this ship has 12 supersonic AShM below deck

Just because they don't operate the same way doesn't mean they don't have the experience.

their outlook is one of a sea denial navy. it is similar to the pakistani navy. if you want the indian navy to be a sea denial fleet it is okay

 

[Armani]

Yes re certification can happen surely but in case additional strengthening is suggested, then its cost intensive..

Dry dock wise very limited choice - only CSL and Pipavav.

As per my data,

View attachment 334087

If i understand clearly the N carrier construction as to be near to Vishakapatnam for reasons you already should know. So i guess Rambili will be chosen provided Reliance can set up a location with minimum 14-15 meter draft.


++
About Rafale M its about

• Future upgrades for a fleet for minimum 30 years by comparision Mig29K may be obsolete in next 15 years
• Technological advancement that new product brings in
• Mig29 K used only for A2A and AShM roles - primary defensive roles within 300 nautical miles or 550 km max
• Proposed Rafale M or any other catobar aircraft for A2G aspect and using it for actual strike roles opening a new corridor for package delivery along with the above mentioned roles.
• Rafale M radius of operations are more like 600 Nm or 1000 Km and above types giving it the true bluwater capability
• A doctrine need for triad first step of aerial assets being over different places to get ambiguity.
• Commonality of the supply and spares from operational POV

+++


Excellent post Sir. I wish you could post more regularly.

Just to add a little,

TBH there design revolves around using the heavy fighter PAKFA - M version from catapults and Mig29Ks from Stobar config. Owing to restricted small distance for takeoff, the actual payload capacity fo fuel will be lower in order to sustain basic combat load under stressed conditions and will require a AAR refuel up in air to proceed towards area of operations. Supposing the time is not there for AAR refueling then time on air will severely limit them.

The stress levels of sustaining PAKFA-M and Mig29K say in a emergency sortie will be too high.
In queen Elizabeth class, its estimated that 24 F35-Bs are launched in 15 Mins and recovery rate is 24 mins for all 24 birds. (STOBAR)

Now assuming this 85000 Tonnes mammoth carrier has considerable LACM and S500 elements + ASW and AEW crafts, consider the actual jets to be say 60 jets with 40 PAKFA -M and 20 Mig29Ks

• The Stobaroperations will mean at least a Mig29k sortie every 40 -50 sec meaning 14-17minutes to be airborne for 300Nm radii
• Catobar parallel launch will mean 2 PAKFA-M sortie together but mean time before next sortie is approx 1 minute to best case 40 secs (Nimitz class can launch 4 birds in 10 secs from different catapults but then next lot takes over a minute to launch even though they prefer to make it in 40 secs and practice for 30 secs with 2 catapult launch)
• So 14-20 mins approx for all PAKFA-M to be on air for say 600-800 Nm combat radii.
• Now consider all these take offs in a continuously busy deck and planes getting ready and carried to deck from elevator and waiting aspect too. .
• Thus flight deck arrangement will be a living hell in case of a emergency sortie.
• Recovery rates should see all these aircraft back in deck anywhere between 30-60 minutes bcz i dont have any data to substantiate and prove, other than comparing the F35B data but PAKFA -M will be much different.
• Daily sortie rates in such a condition wont be sustainable in very high rates
• Yet to prove the turnaround time between sorties /consecutive sorties for a 5th gen PAKFA from deck operations.and number it can sustain per day.

On top, The 23000E is basically the way of getting India agree on PAKFA-M or Indian FGFA M. This is a big issue bcz IN as part of the doctrine dont like to operate heavy fighters and are more happy with medium category jets.

As I said, its a fortress and in essence its a whole lot bigger than a airbase going there. The firepower of offensive LACM, the ABM/BMD of S500 Triumfator-M and a contingent of 40 heavy and 20 medium birds makes it a incredibly offensive powerhouse.

The question to ask is

1. Can we have such a doctrine shift?
2. Will we as a country ready to shell out a good amount in order to build a much bigger ACC of nuclear powered and take our ship building capabilities much ahead?
3. Are we ready to consider the limitation of such systems as well and understand that a ACC like 23000E if binded with Russian air wing will also limit us of actually having an optimized mission efficiencies?

+++

• Coming back to the same aspect of fighter fleet consider all 60 to be Rafale-M.
• Here lies the difference. Rafale M can also take off from short runways and also land in short runways.
• This commonality aspect of the entire air wing may help smoothen out the cross management between heavy going to catobar and medium going to stobar aspect.
• On top the payload package can be configured differently based on mission aim but thats far more convenient.
• Again recovery rates should be far more smoother as compared to mixed bag fleet.

You and @Didact make some excellent points.

I am considering how it would be if we went in for a bigger, improved sister ship of the Vikrant (which seems extremely likely now) and instead of following it up with the currently planned 65,000 tons IAC-2, we rework the requirements keeping future-proofing in mind, and develop a design comparable in size & scope to the Gerald R. Ford...around 90,000 tons.

Might seem excessive or unnecessary now, but in 10-15 years? I reckon we'll begin feeling the need for a bigger carrier than the 65k ton one we seem to be contemplating now. Developing a new design each decade won't be very economical IMHO, we'll need to build a class of supercarrier, and stick with it for atleast 30-40 years without wanting for more.

The future is is bright for carrier-based unmanned aircraft. We're seeing X-47Bs operating from US carriers today, in a decade the sight of AURA/IUSAV prototypes flying off Indian carriers shouldn't be surprising to say the least. Over the IAC-2's lifetime (we're talking about post-2050 here), I'd bet my left kidney that there will be orbital craft the likes of X-37B operating from carriers.

We need a bigger carrier than what the current IAC-2 envisages. Over 300 meters long and around the 90k tons displacement figure. EMALS are a must, as will be nuclear propulsion (if that's even a question to ask at this point)I believe you can understand what I'm saying here...or I hope you can convince me how I'm wrong.

 

[Kinetic]

Scene 1) Huge delay in refurbishing an old carrier.
Scene 2) India built its own carrier.


Still we need help from Russia for designing a bigger carrier!!! MoD did not change under MP, we are still so buy savvy.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Thursday, 15 September 2016 13:30

Naval Industry News - Russia, India

Russia's Krylov State Research Center Counting on India’s Aircraft Carrier Development Order

The Krylov State Research Center is counting on snagging an order for developing an aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy, Yuri Yeryomin, chief of the center’s Military-Technical Cooperation Department, has told TASS during the Army 2016 international military-technical forum.

Project 23000E Storm aircraft carrier showcased by Krylov during Army 2016 exhibition.

He reminded that the company had completed a conceptual design of the Project 23000E Shtorm aircraft carrier intended to displace 95,000 tons and carry an air wing of 65 aircraft. Her power plant may be nuclear. In addition, provision has been made for two electromagnetic catapults.

"India and China are among possible foreign partners on the ship, India in the first place. We hope for it to order its third aircraft carrier from us; there are grounds for this," Yeryomin said.

According to him, the Krylov Center has held a presentation of the Shtorm for the Indian Navy’s command."The Indians are interested [in the carrier]," Yeryomin said.

He added that the Nevskoye Design Bureau would take part in the program, if it gets off the ground. Nevskoye has been cooperating with India in maintaining the INS Vikramaditya (the former Admiral Gorshkov) carrier and developing the Vikrant flattop.

© Copyright 2016 TASS. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

A nuclear powered Project 23000E Storm aircraft carrier may displace 80,000 to 85,000 tonnes with some 70 aircraft on board.

Comment

It should be noted that India is working closely with the United States to develop an aircraft carrier. In 2015, both countries established the US-India Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology Cooperation (JWGACTC) to address the issue. The third meeting of the group is supposed to take place between August 9 and August 12 in Washington DC.

The Project 23000 multirole aircraft carrier is designed for operations far in the ocean, attacks on land-based and naval targets, provision of combat stability for friendly naval forces and air defense of Marines and supporting ships during amphibious assaults. The future ship is supposed to displace about 95,000 tons, measure 330 m long and have a speed of 30 knots. The carrier is to carry sophisticated radio equipment, radars and self-defense systems. Her complement will be several thousand servicemen, including the personnel of her air wing

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4358

+++

The important point is India and China both are possible contenders and India offered first and if India refused perhaps China may take it..
Talk about the way things work..