Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

china-UAV-conf-10.jpg

china-UAV-conf-09.jpg

china-UAV-conf-08.jpg

china-UAV-conf-07.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Indian Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Indian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Looks like the IN has planned to deploy 3 Aircarft carriers (by next decade) with a vision to have 2 ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 4.00 average.
Old January 3rd, 2009   #1
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
dragonfire's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 716
Threads:
Thumbs up Indian Navy Discussions and Updates

Looks like the IN has planned to deploy 3 Aircarft carriers (by next decade) with a vision to have 2 carrier groups with one back up (refit, mainteanance, repair work etc). Two would be Indian made 1. The Air Defense Ship - The Vikrant class 37K ton displacement ship. 2. A second indigenious ship with approx displacement of 70K tons will be ordered in 2010 and estimated commisioning by 2015-17. The third the Kiev class Vikramaditya (Ex-Admiral Gorshkov), the purchase of the same despite cost overruns has been given a go-ahead by the Cabinet Committee on Security.

Should the IN have 3 carriers - more or less or diff options - inputs invited
dragonfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates overlander Navy & Maritime 10845 15 Hours Ago 08:33 AM
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates stephen weist Navy & Maritime 205 5 Days Ago 05:06 AM
Russian Navy Discussions and Updates Spacearrow99 Navy & Maritime 798 1 Week Ago 02:13 AM
Indian Military Aviation; News, Updates & Discussions Twinblade Air Force & Aviation 198 June 27th, 2014 05:48 AM
Pakistan Navy (PN) News, Updates & Discussions mysterious Navy & Maritime 848 April 5th, 2012 03:48 PM

Old January 3rd, 2009   #2
New Member
Private
Bang-Bang's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 27
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfire View Post
Looks like the IN has planned to deploy 3 Aircarft carriers (by next decade) with a vision to have 2 carrier groups with one back up (refit, mainteanance, repair work etc). Two would be Indian made 1. The Air Defense Ship - The Vikrant class 37K ton displacement ship. 2. A second indigenious ship with approx displacement of 70K tons will be ordered in 2010 and estimated commisioning by 2015-17. The third the Kiev class Vikramaditya (Ex-Admiral Gorshkov), the purchase of the same despite cost overruns has been given a go-ahead by the Cabinet Committee on Security.

Should the IN have 3 carriers - more or less or diff options - inputs invited
aa its depend on what kind of aircraft carriers are . i think indian navy must have 1 heavy AC ( such as like KITTY Hawk Of USN ) . As far as i know Adm. Gorshkov will have 12~16 Mig 29's.
Bang-Bang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2009   #3
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,109
Threads:
Do you have a source on the second indigenous carrier design?
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2009   #4
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
dragonfire's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 716
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
Do you have a source on the second indigenous carrier design?
The design - no, however the plan is on as per the Indian Defence Minister A K Antony's 2007 announcement for the same, the IAC would probably use the Italian consultants as was in the first IAC's case, the carier will be fomaly announced only 2010 "when the first carrier would have reached a certain stage of completion", the Cochin Shipyard which is building the current IAC would also be responsible for the second one as well
dragonfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2009   #5
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
dragonfire's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 716
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang-Bang View Post
aa its depend on what kind of aircraft carriers are . i think indian navy must have 1 heavy AC ( such as like KITTY Hawk Of USN ) . As far as i know Adm. Gorshkov will have 12~16 Mig 29's.
The Gorshkov is what i think is a Medium size carrier, the current IAC being built is of a smaller class, the second 60-70K ton displcement IAC which will be built will be a big carrier, however all the USN carriers are a class apart - popularly known as super carriers - typical dicplacement is 100K tons

Personaly i think if a carrier group and control a theater of ops lets say 500 nautical miles then size can be offset with the compliment of armaments, fighters the rest of the carrier groups etc
dragonfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2009   #6
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,109
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfire View Post
The design - no, however the plan is on as per the Indian Defence Minister A K Antony's 2007 announcement for the same, the IAC would probably use the Italian consultants as was in the first IAC's case, the carier will be fomaly announced only 2010 "when the first carrier would have reached a certain stage of completion", the Cochin Shipyard which is building the current IAC would also be responsible for the second one as well
Ok. Do you have a source for the 2007 announcement that confirms the Indian plans?
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2009   #7
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
funtz's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chamoli
Posts: 634
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfire View Post
Looks like the IN has planned to deploy 3 Aircarft carriers (by next decade) with a vision to have 2 carrier groups with one back up (refit, mainteanance, repair work etc).

Two would be Indian made:
1. The Air Defense Ship - The Vikrant class 37K ton displacement ship.

2.A second indigenious ship with approx displacement of 70K tons will be ordered in 2010 and estimated commisioning by 2015-17. The third the Kiev class Vikramaditya (Ex-Admiral Gorshkov), the purchase of the same despite cost overruns has been given a go-ahead by the Cabinet Committee on Security.

Should the IN have 3 carriers - more or less or diff options - inputs invited
A second ship of the class (with possibly some modifications in the design) will be ordered

Quote:
We will have at least two CBGs, supported by long-range fighters and reconnaissance aircraft, modern destroyers and frigates for sea control, apart from submarines and coastal defence elements for sea denial," said Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta, in an exclusive interview to TOI.

The Navy chief, however, is not too much worried. "We are monitoring IAC's progress. It should not be delayed beyond 2012. The second IAC is already on the drawing board. At least three IACs are planned," he said.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/I...ow/2586598.cms

Thats a direct quote.

The plan is to have three carriers, and two carrier groups.
funtz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2009   #8
Senior Member
Major
nevidimka's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,002
Threads:
only could find the rendition for the 1st carrier.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/IAC.html


If the second ship is gonna be 60 000+ ton, thats in the league of the admiral kutznetsov. Perhaps it will look like that?

Also does India plan to continue with Ski jump on that bigger vessel class or any plans for catapults?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IAC01.jpg (61.7 KB, 79 views)
nevidimka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2009   #9
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,787
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by funtz View Post
The plan is to have three carriers, and two carrier groups.

That makes more sense, as you need one off for ongoing maint and refurb.

You normally have 3 types to allow 2 to stay active and one for maint and refurb.

3 active task force groups using 3 lead vessels as the flag would be unworkable in real terms. You would obviously raise, train, sustain all 3 in time of war - but in peacetime its not tenable
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2009   #10
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,109
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
That makes more sense, as you need one off for ongoing maint and refurb.

You normally have 3 types to allow 2 to stay active and one for maint and refurb.

3 active task force groups using 3 lead vessels as the flag would be unworkable in real terms. You would obviously raise, train, sustain all 3 in time of war - but in peacetime its not tenable
So countries with a single carrier would not be able to have it operational 24/7/365?
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2009   #11
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,787
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
So countries with a single carrier would not be able to have it operational 24/7/365?
At some point they cannot as the vessel must come in for regular maint and refit - thats usually every 3rd year depending on its duty cycle.

The reason why multiple vessels of type are advantageous is because it provides redundancy with minimal impact on the mission cycle.

min 3 vessels means 2 fleets can be actively maintained without disrupting fleet activities for the flag
min 4 vessels means 3 fleets can be actively maintained without disrupting fleet activities for the flag

I would have thought that if the IN wants proper redundancy, and to maintain all fleets at a relevant combat level, then they need 4 assets in play.

IN naval bases at west, east and the andomans could then be maintained without seeing a degradation when the capital flag is bought offline.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2009   #12
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
dragonfire's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 716
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
Ok. Do you have a source for the 2007 announcement that confirms the Indian plans?
Feanor: heres an article which quotes A K Antony's statement made in parliament regarding the second IAC

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus...0705171550.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevidimka View Post
If the second ship is gonna be 60 000+ ton, thats in the league of the admiral kutznetsov. Perhaps it will look like that?
Also does India plan to continue with Ski jump on that bigger vessel class or any plans for catapults?
I think nevidimka you are dead on - am sure that since the first IAC is going to be a STOBAR type carrier with an elevated ski jump it will be the same kind of technology on the second IAC as well, the kutznetsov not only has the same STOBAR ops but also is in the same displacment class as of the second IAC (60-70K tons), several Indian indigenious productions have russian charecteristics and design similarities

Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
3 active task force groups using 3 lead vessels as the flag would be unworkable in real terms. You would obviously raise, train, sustain all 3 in time of war - but in peacetime its not tenable
gf0012-aust - will India post commisioning of all three carriers in have three seperate carrier groups (support and accompanying vessels) or two carrier groups with one carrier on rotation am talking about the group apart from the carrier itself and also during the maintenance of the carrier itself what would be the role of the other vessels as carriers take longer periods of maintenance

Also gf0012-aust while on the topic could you also suggest what should be the group inclusive (pls suggest no's and class - hw many destroyers,subs, frigates or whatever)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
min 4 vessels means 3 fleets can be actively maintained without disrupting fleet activities for the flag. I would have thought that if the IN wants proper redundancy, and to maintain all fleets at a relevant combat level, then they need 4 assets in play. IN naval bases at west, east and the andomans could then be maintained without seeing a degradation when the capital flag is bought offline.
gf0012-aust: now we are talking about a fourth carrier, should india have a nu-powered carrier with a higher displacment may 85-100K tons, perhaps a CATOBAR carrier, which can be used for world missions, anti-terror, anti-piracy, power projection across the world - india already has a base in Tajikistan, so maybe IN can cruise the worlds oceans in a carrier group for extended periods as nuc-power extends range
dragonfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2009   #13
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,787
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfire View Post
gf0012-aust - will India post commisioning of all three carriers in have three seperate carrier groups (support and accompanying vessels) or two carrier groups with one carrier on rotation am talking about the group apart from the carrier itself and also during the maintenance of the carrier itself what would be the role of the other vessels as carriers take longer periods of maintenance
I have no idea what the IN end result will be, but the numbers of active vessels are determined by duty cycles and maint cycles. If you have 2 then at some significant point you will only have one available for full mission cycles - the more you buy, the greater your operational redundancy. It's unavoidable


Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfire View Post
Also gf0012-aust while on the topic could you also suggest what should be the group inclusive (pls suggest no's and class - hw many destroyers,subs, frigates or whatever)
It depends on the mission cycle for the fleet as opposed to the mission capability of the flag - any vessel can be the flag - the types of ships in the fleet determine it's duty profile.

A US Task Force is different in structure to a UK or French force structure. The structure is determined by politics before its crafted by your admirals. (under an assumed "separation of powers"' decision model.

Force structure is also determined by mission, but if it was broadly capable then you'd include, ASW, AA/AW, nuke sub support, and then non combat elements


Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfire View Post
gf0012-aust: now we are talking about a fourth carrier, should india have a nu-powered carrier with a higher displacment may 85-100K tons, perhaps a CATOBAR carrier, which can be used for world missions, anti-terror, anti-piracy, power projection across the world - india already has a base in Tajikistan, so maybe IN can cruise the worlds oceans in a carrier group for extended periods as nuc-power extends range
No one model fits all - for anti-piracy missions smaller carriers or even amphibious carriers are more than adequate. It's overkill and a waste of resources to use a super carrier (Forrestal size + was defined as the first super carrier class)

There is no point in having a carrier that can engage in true blue water patrols if the support elements cannot stay sustained as well (and I use the original blue water definition which was fleet capability into any of the worlds major oceans without degrading other ocean presence) Blue water capability is now regarded as any fleet able to traverse blue water and operate with relative autonomy. The old definition was "'cold war" and applied to those nations that had multiple fleets and multiple disparately located port facilties and could act in any blue water locale with minimal force disruption (USA, USSR, France, UK)
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2009   #14
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
dragonfire's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 716
Threads:
so how does the USN sustain 11 carrier groups most of which are away all the time or do the carriers travel by themselves perhpas accompanied only by one or more nuc-subs. Dont they do it for extended periods anyways I read somewhere that when the USN Ronald Regean docked last time it was after two years, or do they travel with maybe a support vessel loaded with stuff - i mean we are talking about thousands of crew members in all the vessels put together. Also would you suggest a nuc powered CATOBAR carrier for India
dragonfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2009   #15
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,787
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfire View Post
so how does the USN sustain 11 carrier groups most of which are away all the time
The USN has type critical mass and redundancy across all its fleet support assets - thats why she can do it.

By the way, the US also has between 10 and 12 Amphibious Response style groups as well - those carriers are also bigger than most nations aircraft carriers. In effect, the USN has over 22 flat deck carriers able to deploy vertical lift fighters at a full USN squadron level (not French Naval Squadrons which are half the size)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfire View Post
or do the carriers travel by themselves perhpas accompanied only by one or more nuc-subs.
They don't travel at flag level by themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfire View Post
Dont they do it for extended periods anyways I read somewhere that when the USN Ronald Regean docked last time it was after two years, or do they travel with maybe a support vessel loaded with stuff - i mean we are talking about thousands of crew members in all the vessels put together.
See above - the bulk of the information you are asking can be found on the internet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfire View Post
Also would you suggest a nuc powered CATOBAR carrier for India
The IN is best placed to determine what it needs within the budget it gets allocated by Government.

I have a launcher preference, but thats irrelevant to this debate.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:24 AM.