Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) News & Discussions

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by CONNAN, Dec 3, 2010.

  1. lca-fan

    lca-fan Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    3,769
    Country Flag:
    India
  2. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,193
    Likes Received:
    2,429
    Hopefully, the important point however will be, how expensive the deal will be and what US stuff we need to buy, under what conditions? They surely won't make it easy for us.
     
    RISING SUN and layman like this.
  3. nik141993

    nik141993 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    263
    Country Flag:
    India
    could you upload the pic again, I can't see it
     
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,193
    Likes Received:
    2,429
    Is there any official source available, for the dimensions of the lift and the hangar of IAC1?
     
  5. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,038
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Indian Navy may soon approach government for second indigenous aircraft carrier
    Published April 19, 2017
    SOURCE: IANS

    [​IMG]

    Discussions are on within the Indian Navy over the second aircraft carrier planned to be built in the country and it is likely to approach the government with a proposal in another two to three months, a senior Navy officer said on Tuesday.

    Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition Vice Admiral D.M. Deshpande noted that there is a “bit of question mark” from the Defence Ministry’s side due to the huge cost involved but added that there was a lot of “positivity”.

    “Lots of discussions are right now on within the Navy what type of an aircraft carrier we want, right from the tonnage, type of propulsion… We are debating on this. Once this debate is more or less within the Navy… we are clear on exactly what we want, we will take up this case with the ministry,” he said at the curtain-raiser event of seminar ‘Building India’s Future Navy’, set to be organised by industry chamber Ficci on May 31-June 1.

    Deshpande said everyone wanted to be clear on the “requirement” before a final decision is taken.

    “Right now there is a bit of question mark from the ministry’s side because we have taken this up with the ministry on a few occasions… it is a huge ticket decision, and before some commitments are made on allocation of these funds everybody wants to be very clear on the requirements… these are being addressed before we take that up with the government for final clearance,” he said.

    He said there was “positivity”, but added that the “big ticket” aircraft carrier will come at the expense of other things.

    “There is lot of positivity, both from government side as well as from the Navy. I am sure within two-to-three months, we should be able to take it up with the ministry to get the funds. It is a very big ticket item, it will have to be at the expense of things, we need to take these calls before we can go about doing it,” he said.

    India at present has only one aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya — a modified Russian Kiev-class aircraft carrier.

    The other aircraft carrier — INS Viraat, a British-built ship serving with the Indian Navy and the oldest carrier in service — retired on March 6.

    India’s first indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, a 40,000-tonne ship, is meanwhile being built for the Indian Navy by Cochin Shipyard.

    India at any time requires three aircraft carriers, one each on the east and west coasts, and a third one as a replacement for any of the ships that go for refit.

    On May 13, 2015, the Defence Acquisition Council cleared construction of a second aircraft carrier and Rs 30 crore was allotted for the preparations.

    The second indigenous aircraft carrier is likely to be nuclear-propelled.
     
    Sancho likes this.
  6. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,038
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Question mark looms over India’s aircraft carrier
    Published April 20, 2017
    SOURCE: Ajai Shukla / REDIFF

    [​IMG]

    As Beijing decisively implements its vision of aircraft carrier-based naval power, New Delhi seems uncertain about the form and structure of its naval combat aviation.

    Last month, China’s defence ministry announced the impending launch of Shandong, its first indigenous aircraft carrier. On Friday, a Beijing-based naval expert revealed that the People’s Liberation Army (Navy)’s, third carrier could be a US Navy-style nuclear-powered vessel, featuring an electromagnetic aircraft launch system.

    In New Delhi, however, a senior navy admiral revealed uncertainty about India’s indigenous aircraft carrier programme. The first indigenous aircraft carrier, named INS Vikrant, will roll out of Cochin Shipyard Ltd later this decade. But the navy and the ministry are still making up their minds about its successor, IAC-2.

    Vice Admiral D M Deshpande, the navy’s warship acquisition head, stated on Tuesday that the ministry remains uncertain about spending billions of dollars on a carrier.

    “Right now there is a bit of a question mark from the ministry’s side, [although] we have taken this up to the ministry on a few occasions. [An aircraft carrier] is a huge ticket item and, before some commitments are made on allocation of these funds everybody wants to be very clear on the requirement, whether we actually need that. So these are being addressed [before] we actually take it up to the government for final clearances”, said Deshpande, addressing defence industrialists in New Delhi.

    The three services are competing for the same limited budget. With the cost of INS Vikrant reportedly nudging $4 billion, the Indian Air Force argues that land-based combat aircraft, with their ranges enhanced with in-flight refuelling, would project offensive air power more cheaply than an aircraft carrier. The navy counters that an aircraft carrier is a mobile air base, that can move to a combat zone quickly.

    Even within the navy, some argue that the same amount spent on submarines, or a larger number of smaller surface warships like destroyers, frigates and corvettes, would generate greater combat effect than a carrier.



    This is the longstanding debate between sea denial (denying the enemy the use of the sea, primarily with submarines) and sea control (dominating the ocean with air and surface power, built around a carrier). Sea control requires massive spending on carrier battle groups, or CBGs — an aircraft carrier and the warships that accompany it. In contrast, sea denial is a defensive strategy that takes less money — the cost of a submarine-based force.

    Powerful, modern navies — like the US Navy, the Royal Navy, the French, Russian and now even the PLA-N — have all built their fleets around aircraft carriers, enabling the projection of power to large distances from home bases.

    Although the Indian Navy has decisively opted for aircraft carriers, discussion continues over whether to build a large, nuclear-powered carrier, or a smaller one like IAC-1. Reflecting this, Deshpande says: “There are lots of discussions within the navy on what type of IAC-2 we want. From the tonnage to the propulsion — we are debating on this. Once we are more or less clear within the navy [about] what exactly we want, we would take up the case with the ministry for various approvals.”

    The navy is inclined towards a 65,000-tonne, nuclear powered carrier that embarks 55 combat aircraft; and a state-of-the-art EMALS catapult that can rapidly launch fighter aircraft as well as larger aircraft for electronic warfare and airborne early warning. The name being suggested for IAC-2 is INS Vishal.

    Deshpande expresses confidence that “in the next two-three months, we should be in a position to take it up to the ministry to get the funds”. With INS Vikrant likely to be operationally ready only in 2023 — eight years late — there is little time to lose.

    Currently, the PLA-N operates only its first-ever carrier, the 65,000-tonne Liaoning, which Beijing bought from Russia, refurbished, and commissioned in 2012. India, with far greater experience, has operated at least one aircraft carrier ever since INS Vikrant joined the fleet in 1961.

    The PLA-N, however, now plans to commission and operate at least 5-6 carriers. The Indian Navy plans to operate a fleet of three aircraft carriers.
     
    Sancho likes this.
  7. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,193
    Likes Received:
    2,429
    Let's take this to the appropriate thread.

    Not at all, since you can retain with the good changes for commonality and ease of development, while you have more freedom for improvements. The most obvious mistake was to go for different engines don't you think? Not alone did it delayed the construction of IAC 1, but also increased logistical needs of both carriers and IN.
     
    Guynextdoor, RISING SUN and Bregs like this.
  8. GSLV Mk III

    GSLV Mk III Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Country Flag:
    India
    Maybe the naval architects of DND wanted to cut their teeth on AC design. Who knows?

    Gorshkov was steam propelled & I don't think IN is interested in that anymore. Even with our experience & the manufacturing capabilities of BHEL Bhopal.
     
    Guynextdoor and RISING SUN like this.
  9. Bregs

    Bregs Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    712
    Country Flag:
    India
    which fighter aircraft has finally been chosen for IAC 1 ?
     
  10. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,193
    Likes Received:
    2,429
    Which is the problem I meantioned. Our scientists use this kind of developments, mainly for their own sake, rather than a speedy and less risky delivery to the forces. DRDO is the prime example for that, since their aim is not proper support of the forces, but being world class. They don't care about delays or fulfilling development requirements and that's where indigenous developments and constructions start to fail.

    None so far, IN has just sent our an RFI.
     
    RISING SUN and Bregs like this.
  11. Bregs

    Bregs Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    712
    Country Flag:
    India
    It means the roll out of ship itself will be delayed that's why so much delay in the process of acquiring naval fighter
     
  12. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,193
    Likes Received:
    2,429
    Not necessarily, since we do have enough Migs to spread them on both carries as an interim option. I still wonder how much life the Sea Harriers have in them? We paid a lot to upgrade them and only because Viraat was phased out, doesn't mean we should stop using them.
     
    RISING SUN and Bregs like this.
  13. nik141993

    nik141993 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    263
    Country Flag:
    India
  14. lca-fan

    lca-fan Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    3,769
    Country Flag:
    India
    INDIA NEEDS MORE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS BUT NOT AT THE COST OF KEY STRIKE ELEMENTS
    SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 2017 BY INDIANDEFENSE NEWS

    [​IMG]
    INS Vikrant Concept by Directorate of Naval Design
    Snapshot

    There is no doubt that India, which is poised to become a great power, requires more aircraft carriers.
    But if the Navy spends the big bucks on a second carrier, where does it propose to get money for the crucial support vessels?

    by Rakesh Krishnan Simha

    First the good news: the Indian Navy may soon tap the government for funds to build a second aircraft carrier. This would either be a 65,000-tonne nuclear-powered flattop or a 100,000-tonne supercarrier. The Navy’s move is significant because India is currently down to one carrier even as China has publicized its plan to develop six such vessels.
    Now the bad news: According to Vice Admiral D M Deshpande, Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition, the new carrier could come at the expense of other projects and weapons as it is a “very big-ticket item”.
    Before we analyze whether India needs more aircraft carriers, let’s take a look at the consequences of spending on carriers while ignoring other critical areas of defense.
    In 1963, T N Kaul, India’s ambassador in Moscow, asked Russian defense minister Marshal Rodion Malinovsky what sort of defense preparedness India needed against the Chinese threat. The Indian Navy’s official history ‘Transition to Triumph’ records Malinovsky’s response.
    He replied that what India needed was a strong, mobile Army, Navy and Air Force, well equipped with the latest weapons. Instead of a prestigious, overhauled, old British aircraft carrier (which he called the fifth leg of a dog and an easy target), India should go in for a submarine fleet to guard her long coastline.
    Malinovsky wasn’t the first geopolitical expert who scratched his head in disbelief at a poor country acquiring a large and expensive carrier while neglecting its defense against hostile neighbors. Six years earlier, when Second World War hero Marshal Georgy Zhukov had visited India, he had disapproved of the Indian Navy’s decision to acquire an aircraft carrier, saying India was only doing it in order to make Britain happy.
    Both Malinovsky and Zhukov had made pivotal contributions to Russia’s defense, especially in the Battle of Stalingrad, and as such were masters of warfare. However, on both occasions, Nehruvian India disregarded the advice of the battle-hardened commanders. The consequences of fielding an under-equipped military were visible in the next three wars.
    In 1962, when the Chinese waltzed through the Himalayan frontier, the Indian Army was completely unprepared, lacking even winter clothing. INS Vikrant, which had been commissioned the previous year, played no role in the war.
    Again, during the 1965 war, while the Indian Air Force flew Second World War Mysteres and Vampires against Pakistan’s latest US gifted F-86 Sabres, the Vikrant did not go out to sea at all.
    In early 1971, when the political leadership decided to go to war, the Vikrant had been rusting in the harbor for over three years with cracked boilers. The flagship was pressed into service in a semi-fit condition because the Navy feared the Vikrant would be called a “white elephant and naval aviation would be written off”. Fleet Operations Officer G M Hiranandani told the naval brass, “Vikrant has to be seen as being operational, even if we do not fly the aircraft.”
    Pakistan, on the other hand, had acknowledged its limitations and, instead of going for expensive surface vessels, decided submarines were a better option. The Pakistan Navy acquired its first sub in 1963 – four years before India did.
    Because of the threat posed by Pakistan’s long-range submarine Ghazi, the Indian Navy had to hide the Vikrant in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. It was only after the Ghazi was sunk that the carrier started operations in the Bay of Bengal.
    The Case For More Carriers
    There is no doubt that India, which is poised to be the world’s third-largest economy and great power, requires more carriers. In a 2009 report titled ‘China’s Maritime Rights and Navy’, Senior Captain Li Jie, an analyst at the Chinese navy’s strategic think tank Naval Research Institute, declared, “No great power that has become a strong power has achieved this without developing carriers.”
    Carriers are an essential element of sea control. According to India’s maritime doctrine, “Sea control is the central concept around which the Indian Navy is structured, and aircraft carriers are decidedly the most substantial contributors to it. This is because they possess ordnance delivery capability of a very high order, often greater than the balance fleet units in the Task Force. This is by means of their substantial integral air power, which provides integral, ubiquitous and enhanced combat power, with extended reach and rapid response capability.”
    At a bare minimum, India should have three carriers – one for each seaboard, with a third on standby. India was without a carrier task force for six months in 2016 as its lone flattop INS Vikramaditya was undergoing maintenance.
    Having three carriers on call is an ideal situation but is possible only if funds allow. If the Navy is prepared to sacrifice other platforms to divert funds to the second carrier, where does it propose to get money for the support vessels?
    For, an aircraft carrier doesn’t travel alone. It usually operates with and is at the center of, a composite task force, including multi-purpose destroyers, frigates, submarines and logistics ships. The carrier task force is a self-contained and balanced force, capable of undertaking the entire range of operational tasks.
    We do not want a situation like that in 1971 when a limping Vikrant was sent into battle along with only four light frigates (one of which lacked sonar) and a lone submarine to provide anti-submarine protection. In his book No Way But Surrender, Vice Admiral N Krishnan writes, “Even assuming that no operational defects developed, it would still be necessary to withdraw ships from the area of operations for fuelling. The basic problem was that if reasonable anti-submarine protection had to be provided to Vikrant and the escort ships had to be in close company for this purpose, then how were 18,000 square miles to be kept under surveillance?”
    The Navy had deployed the entire complement of the Vikrant’s aircraft in offensive operations against East Pakistan, leaving none for the carrier’s defense. It was a calculated risk that paid off. Had Pakistan been in possession of another long-range submarine, the story may have been different.
    Don’t Cannibalize The Navy
    While aircraft carriers are symbols of prestige, the bits and parts needed to win wars must not be neglected. Sadly, this has happened. For instance, India’s submarine strength currently stands at 15 vessels and is behind Pakistan’s fleet of 17. Even North Korea, which can barely feed its population, has a fleet of 70 subs, which is why the United States carriers keep a safe distance from the Korean peninsula.
    Submarines are the true predators of the deep and will allow India to wreak havoc on its adversaries during a war. A fleet of 24 subs (the sanctioned strength), but ideally 50 undersea vessels, can target every task force in the Indian Ocean. During the 1999 Kargil War, it was a submarine, and not a carrier, that was poised to deliver the first blow had India decided to escalate the conflict. INS Sindhurakshak was deployed very close to Karachi and had its torpedoes trained on the harbor installations.
    As well as subs, India needs to spend on other less glamorous but critical weapons platforms such as missile boats, frigates, stealth ships, minesweepers, land and ship attack missiles, torpedoes, shore-based radar, close-in warfare weapons, electronic warfare suites and maritime satellites.
    Former chief of naval staff Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat writes in Betrayal of the Armed Forces that after the 1971 war complacency had set into the force. For instance, the Indian Navy, which had devastated Karachi harbor with its Russian Styx standoff missiles (outside the adversary’s range) and thereby taken the lead in ship-to-ship standoff missile warfare, yielded space to Pakistan in two critical areas. “(Pakistan) acquired the wherewithal to become capable of standoff air-to-surface missile warfare in which they took a 15-year lead and sub-surface to surface missile standoff missile capability in which they took a 20-year lead, all in a 25-year tenure span,” Admiral Bhagwat explains.
    The Navy As A Force Multiplier
    India cannot – and should not – match China carrier for carrier, but it should emulate the Chinese strategy of shipbuilding to boost the economy. Admiral Bhagwat points out that the Chinese military and political leadership had declared as a matter of state policy that shipbuilding would be the springboard for China’s industrial development. For India, this is especially advantageous because it is hemmed into the north and the northeast and the only strategic space the country has to maneuver is in the oceans.

    http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/04/india-needs-more-aircraft-carriers-but.html
     
    nik141993 and Sancho like this.
  15. ColdPlay

    ColdPlay Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    138
    Hope P-17A keel will be laid soon. Will be a great addition to CBG of IAC-1.
     

Share This Page