Indian Navy Discussions and Updates

dragonfire

New Member
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
 

Bang-Bang

New Member
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.
 

dragonfire

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
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

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
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
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
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?
 

funtz

New Member
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

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/India/Navy_chief_Russia_has_to_honour_Gorshkov_deal_/articleshow/2586598.cms

Thats a direct quote.

The plan is to have three carriers, and two carrier groups.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
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?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

dragonfire

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
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/001200705171550.htm

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

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)

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
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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


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


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)
 

dragonfire

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
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
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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)

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.

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.

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.
 

dragonfire

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
A USN CVG for India

India has plans for 3 carriers, there have been suggestions that India should have 4 carriers to effectively have 3 active carrier groups. I suggest India acquire a retired CVG from US either the USS John F Kennedy which was retired in 2007 or perhaps the USS Kitty Hawk which is scheduled to retire end of this month.
 
India has plans for 3 carriers, there have been suggestions that India should have 4 carriers to effectively have 3 active carrier groups. I suggest India acquire a retired CVG from US either the USS John F Kennedy which was retired in 2007 or perhaps the USS Kitty Hawk which is scheduled to retire end of this month.

You would purchase a 40 year old aircraft carrier for India?
John F Kennedy was Commissioned on the 7 Sep 1968.Its over 41 years old
USS Kitty Hawk was commissioned in 1961(i think?).Its older than 41 years.
"From 1987 to 1991 Kitty Hawk was overhauled for $785 million under the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) "Thats $785 million in 1991 dollars,with skilled labour who know Aircraft carriers.I wonder if these ships can even be overhalled?And would it be worth it,in my opinion NO!:nutkick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk_class_aircraft_carrier

Above link for US aircraft ,i knoiw its wiki,just wanted to show the cost of an overhaul and commisioning dates.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
India has plans for 3 carriers, there have been suggestions that India should have 4 carriers to effectively have 3 active carrier groups. I suggest India acquire a retired CVG from US either the USS John F Kennedy which was retired in 2007 or perhaps the USS Kitty Hawk which is scheduled to retire end of this month.
Those ships are shagged. You'd be mad to buy into them. India should have learnt her lessons about buying second hand major capital kit already.... Esp Kitty hawk which has done considerable miles, missions and has spent a large portion of her life operating in the worst locale of all as far as "friendly" blue water sea states is concerned.
 

dragonfire

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
Those ships are shagged. You'd be mad to buy into them. India should have learnt her lessons about buying second hand major capital kit already.... Esp Kitty hawk which has done considerable miles, missions and has spent a large portion of her life operating in the worst locale of all as far as "friendly" blue water sea states is concerned.

Sure these ships have spent tons of time already serving and thts why they have been retired, however i dont recall either of them being involved in any major accidents etc. China bought 3 diff classes of hulls just to study them - without even having a formaly announced CVG development program. Both Indian carriers were leagcy carriers having spent tons of time already in service with other navies. Even the Gorshkov is old. The only brand new carrier IN will get is when it going to operationalize its first small IAC. A Kitty hawk could give IN the platform to study for (a) to study a big/supercarrier - also a nuc-powered carrier (b) to make a platform to study and train personnel for CATOBAR ops
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Sure these ships have spent tons of time already serving and thts why they have been retired, however i dont recall either of them being involved in any major accidents etc. China bought 3 diff classes of hulls just to study them - without even having a formaly announced CVG development program. Both Indian carriers were leagcy carriers having spent tons of time already in service with other navies. Even the Gorshkov is old. The only brand new carrier IN will get is when it going to operationalize its first small IAC. A Kitty hawk could give IN the platform to study for (a) to study a big/supercarrier - also a nuc-powered carrier (b) to make a platform to study and train personnel for CATOBAR ops
If India wishes to purchase the USS Kitty Hawk to 'study' it, I think the US would cheerfully sell her, and then proceed to laugh all the way to the bank as the saying goes...

While the vessel might not have been involved in any major accidents, she is, at least in parts, over 50 years old, having been initially laid down in 1956. With that kind of timeframe, the design is not longer current in terms of carrier construction, damage control, etc. Additionally, IMO the US would remove the most interesting and up to date systems (like radars, electronics, computers, ESM, etc) and likely the catapult system as well.

Also, the design is a conventional, as opposed to nuclear-powered carrier. As such, it would give India no additional expertise or knowledge in terms of designing a nuclear-powered vessel of their own.

If the sale were done, the likely outcome would be that India would have a large, floating hulk to would likely be too expensive to modify and re-commission, nevermind keep operational.

-Cheers
 
Top