[dragracer567]

TW: I am going to suggest something that might seem outrageous to some.

For the airwing, can we do some temporary stopgap arrangement with a friendly navy like the Royal Navy did? Perhaps inviting the US Navy is not the best choice for India but maybe inviting the French to operate a squadron of their Rafale Ms from the Vikrant? It would be a win-win for both since the French are limited by their single carrier as well and this will increase their reach in the Indo-Pacific. Moreover, it would be a perfect demonstration of how well the Rafale would work on the Vikrant when the acquisition actually takes place. We are already taking help frequently from France and UAE for mid-air refueling, not the same but there is some precedent.

To paraphrase a geopolitics pundit on Twitter, the French are pretty much like the new Russia for India - it's the country that is providing unconditional support in the defense and increasingly in the strategic spheres.

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

Interesting thought. How is the PLAN placed with regards to this? China’s naval buildup is among the largest in history. It’s new aircraft carriers rival the US in tonnage as well as aircraft handling capacities. They are making carrier after carrier, and are openly and fairly successfully benchmarking against the US Navy. What kind of carrier capable aircrafts does China operate? How much numbers do they have?

That's a good question actually. According to wikipedia atleast, the PLA Naval Air Force only operates around 50 J15s - the only carrier-capable aircraft that the Chinese operate. The stealth J-31 is still not fully operational I think. So, 50 J-15s for 3 carriers - am I missing something here?

[rajeshks777]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Strange, isn't Russia generally the country that's more open towards ToT? Perhaps even more than the French?

IIRC the only reason that the Mig-29k program survived was because India bankrolled the stalled development of the project, so strange that the original contract didn't contain these concessions.

Also, its strange because the two aircraft in the Air Force's fleet that will get the first batch of indigenous missiles like the Astra are the Mig-29 UPG and the Su-30 MKI, so why did the Navy go for a dissimilar contract? The Russian aircraft in the Air Force's fleet tend to be the most customizable.

A question to the learned folk here - I am aware that the Air Force's Mig-29 is a formidable aircraft that served us well but did the Navy make a mistake going for the Mig-29K?

Let me try to answer last part on Navy. They look at it holistically not just on the aircraft part only.

Navy made a cool choice of having Mig 29K during the initial phase and then onboard Naval LCA with Indian, Israel & French weapons to complement the air power.

There are only 3 or 4 countries in this world who posses the capabilities to challenge a CSG. Look at the Vikrant or Vikramaditya CSG with its destroyers, Frigates, Submarine and even the P8-I. Its a mix of Indian, American, Russian, French and Israeli weapon systems. The only potential target for Vikrant CSG, China will find it difficult to develop tactics to counter such a diverse threat. Only viable option they have is swarm type saturation attacks, that itself near to their coast.

Only America will have the capabilities to challenge Indian Navy in Indian Ocean region. Probably they will leave IOR to Indian Navy to manage and focus on Pacific and Atlantic regions.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Perhaps inviting the US Navy is not the best choice for India but maybe inviting the French to operate a squadron of their Rafale Ms from the Vikrant? It would be a win-win for both since the French are limited by their single carrier as well and this will increase their reach in the Indo-Pacific. Moreover, it would be a perfect demonstration of how well the Rafale would work on the Vikrant when the acquisition actually takes place. We are already taking help frequently from France and UAE for mid-air refueling, not the same but there is some precedent.

The problem with the Rafale M is that it is too "wide" to fit in the Vikrant's elevators. Lack of folding wings is a big hurdle that has probably ruled it out of the race. The Super Hornet with its wings folded is touch & go as far width is concerned but it will fit. Then again, given how "fast" Indian military acquisitions are, when will the contract be signed, when will the first ones arrive?

Will Super Hornets remain relevant in the sea when the PLAN is going full steam ahead with a carrier based stealth fighter? Just to piss us off and how fast the Chinese are building ships, the Chinese might even think of "donating" one of their old carriers & its air wing of old J-15s to the Pakistanis 10-15 years down the line.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

Interesting thought. How is the PLAN placed with regards to this? China’s naval buildup is among the largest in history. It’s new aircraft carriers rival the US in tonnage as well as aircraft handling capacities. They are making carrier after carrier, and are openly and fairly successfully benchmarking against the US Navy. What kind of carrier capable aircrafts does China operate? How much numbers do they have?

Good questions Shreyans. There are others better equipped to answer your question. But I'll take a preliminary stab. The PLAN has two carriers in service and a third under construction. The two in commission are the Liaoning and Shandong. Both are 60,000-tonnes approximately and embark a 40 strong aircraft aviation wing. Their primary MRCA is the Shenyang J-15 an upgraded derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 developed by the Chinese. I would assume the J-15 is a powerful opponent till proven otherwise. But at the same time I wouldn't presume it to be magical given that Chinese aircraft exports have often come to grief. Yes, the PLAN is right to be proud of what they have achieved from a standing start. We must admire them for the speed with which they have progressed from a start in 2001.

A larger carrier is better up to a point. The constraining factor for most Navies is the number of carrier borne aircraft the budgets will permit. Is it better to have 4 carriers of 45,000 tonnes with 110 aircraft divided between them or to have 2 carriers of 75,000 with 110 aircraft between them. Any comparison we might make should also account for the fact that even on paper the Chinese military budget is 4X our own. In reality probably over 6X.

The Chinese want to overtake the Americans. We only want to deter the Chinese from miscalculating and indulging in stupid adventures. To deter you need only half or a third of the firepower of the would be attacker.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

[h3][center]One huge, huge reason for the Navy's successes in indigenization versus the other two Arms is this fact that the designers are in uniform and in-house. So the users, the maintainers and the designers are all in the same organization ie the Indian Navy. It bridges communication gaps, reduces administrative fiefdoms and ensures there is an overarching leadership

Makes you wonder if the other service branches see the success that came with having an in house design bureau within the service in terms of integration with industry and end user. Wonder how much better projects like the Tejas would fare if say the IAF was a key stakeholder in the entire development cycle. Have the other services adopted any changes following the example of the naval design bureau?

Originally Posted by dragracer567

TW: I am going to suggest something that might seem outrageous to some.

For the airwing, can we do some temporary stopgap arrangement with a friendly navy like the Royal Navy did? Perhaps inviting the US Navy is not the best choice for India but maybe inviting the French to operate a squadron of their Rafale Ms from the Vikrant? It would be a win-win for both since the French are limited by their single carrier as well and this will increase their reach in the Indo-Pacific. Moreover, it would be a perfect demonstration of how well the Rafale would work on the Vikrant when the acquisition actually takes place. We are already taking help frequently from France and UAE for mid-air refueling, not the same but there is some precedent.

It's a very interesting solution indeed. The worry being, why would the French need any modified Rafale-M's to include the wing fold/detachment that's only to fit on the Vikrant? Provided the Rafale-M could fit and work on the Vikrant relatively unchanged, it would create some interesting new questions for the Indian military. The RN and USMC can cross deck because those two nations actively participate in most military engagements together (barring a few exceptions). I just wonder if a suggestion like yours might prove a bridge too far for the strategic autonomy at all costs mantra of our defence thinkers. I still think it's a creative solution and in practical terms the experience would be good for all sides. French naval aviators get more STOBAR experience, which could be of interest if the French were to ever remotely consider going in on the QE template as is, instead of a CATOBAR config, and Indian naval aviators and deck handling staff would benefit from having their more experience French peers on board as they come to grips with IN Rafale-M's (in this scenario that is).

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

Interesting thought. How is the PLAN placed with regards to this? What kind of carrier capable aircrafts does China operate? How much numbers do they have?

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Good questions Shreyans. There are others better equipped to answer your question. But I'll take a preliminary stab. The PLAN has two carriers in service and a third under construction. The two in commission are the Liaoning and Shandong. Both are 60,000-tonnes approximately and embark a 40 strong aircraft aviation wing. Their primary MRCA is the Shenyang J-15 an upgraded derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 developed by the Chinese. I would assume the J-15 is a powerful opponent till proven otherwise. But at the same time I wouldn't presume it to be magical given that Chinese aircraft exports have often come to grief. Yes, the PLAN is right to be proud of what they have achieved from a standing start. We must admire them for the speed with which they have progressed from a start in 2001.

I think most observers, including some Chinese observers, accept that their first carrier Liaoning is essentially going to be a training vessel at best. It's primary utility to the PLAN is to have kickstarted their carrier aviation skill set. I can't see it being committed to combat operations, instead at most being used for soft power projection and sabre rattling in the Taiwan Strait. I have mixed feelings about the Shandong, again it very much feels like the interim step before they arrived at the Fujian, their true CATOBAR flat top - so I wouldn't be surprised if that too ultimately mostly gets used the way Liaoning is used. Fujian is a few years away from being fully operational but the staggering pace at which the PLAN is racing towards achieving carrier ops milestones, I don't think it's unsafe to say by the end of this decade you could have a PLAN carrier group that is a more than respectable approximation of a USN one, when you consider the fact they'll have a full fat carrier accompanied by those mammoth Type-055 destroyers and not to mention other assets.

In terms of aircraft, for the time being the J-15 is very much their mainstay though the numbers feel limited if you consider them for a combat load out for their carriers (which I feel supports the idea that primarily they fit in to being training for PLAN air wings). However crucially, in the lead up to the Fujian being launched we've been seeing on the defence twittersphere a whole host of what are widely regarded as state controlled leaks of key new carrier air capability. We've seen the Chinese testing prototypes for their KJ-600 AWACs platform (strongly resembling the venerable US E-2 Hawkeye), and of course increasingly mature prototypes of the FC-31. The latter has been spotted adopting more and more new features like modifications to the canopy and spine of the aircraft to name a few, so clearly work is progressing on that at pace. I won't put it past the PLAN to have operational variants of both the KJ-600 and FC-31 fielded on their Fujian and follow on carriers by the middle of this decade, let alone the end.

The Chinese want to overtake the Americans. We only want to deter the Chinese from miscalculating and indulging in stupid adventures. To deter you need only half or a third of the firepower of the would be attacker.

I feel this final point is a key distinction though. As has been rightly pointed out, the PLAN is gearing up now to project power beyond the First Island Chain and to attack beyond the Second Island Chain at targets like Guam. It's clear they feel satisfied in their A2/AD capability in territorial waters and now the focus is on being able to go toe to toe with the US Pacific Fleet. For the IN remember, the end goal is simply deterrence. It's simply about holding sway within the IOR and in that instance the numbers game always favours the defender, so India having relatively less carrier borne aircraft comparatively speaking isn't as dire an issue as it initially appears. Considering the IN's best case scenario of a 3 carrier force, of which only 1 is on active duty at any one time, with a second able to be surged, you then have to only ensure the overall air wing numbers are enough to meet surge capacity on the at sea platforms. Remember the USN supercarriers carry a fraction of their full surge capacity on most routine operations - only in rare instances do they pack them to the gills with airframes. I believe this is normal for carrier aviation once you take into account maintenance and training requirements for the airframes at hand.

In other news, just as rapidly as they went from having inklings of a ROKN carrier force, it appears the South Koreans have put the kibosh on their carrier plans for the moment, with their latest budget allocations instead favouring their AIP equipped quasi-second strike capable submarine programme. Which makes sense in the context of the Korean peninsula. Also is a good example of strategic SLBM equipped submarine capability taking precedence over carrier capability when push comes to shove. Many will remember hear how though there was dismay, there was a reluctant acceptance of the reasoning of late CDS Rawat when he essentially shelved plans for a follow on IAC-2 class of carrier in favour of prioritising the indigenous SSBN programme.

While to some it may look like Vikramaditya is adequate for IN needs, the harsh experience of getting the Vikramaditya only strengthens the case for Vikrant and at long last the important thing is that the latter is here and that an Indian shipyard has delivered on a domestic design. A major battle is won in that simple achievement itself. The key now is to ensure that this crucial shipbuilding capability and knowhow (especially in the workforce) isn't allowed to atrophy. I imagine the former is due for extensive refit soon, and I have a feeling Vikrant too might end up eventually undergoing modifications of the elevators in due course.

If wanting a reminder of how difficult carrier construction really is when you take into account you have at most one or two hulls of a particular design in which all the sub systems have to work flawlessly (unlike most manufacturing where you rely on volumes to iron out niggles), take the fact that just this week, HMS Prince of Wales came to a halt just outside Portsmouth harbour as it was setting off on a training deployment to the US. Ostensibly they've said it's an issue with the left propeller.

Sharing this video that came up as a youtube suggestion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gqmh9aex3Y&t=10

[dragracer567]

Interesting tweet from the French ambassador to India. I for one can’t wait to see the INS Vikrant with the INS Vikramaditya- that would be a sight to behold!



Message from what I believe is the UK defence attaché in India:



Message from the US embassy in India:



Meanwhile, foreign diplomats of friendly nations seems to have been invited as well. The British ambassador to India and the Consul General of France to Puducherry-Chennai posted videos from the deck.

I’m sure these countries are genuinely happy to see the Vikrant inducted - something to keep the Chinese in check! Can’t remember any of these countries posting such messages when the Fujian was commissioned. One can see the difference in reporting as compared to the response to the Fujian - my favourite was CNN’s headline: “ India's first homegrown aircraft carrier puts it among world's naval elites”

This seems like a bigger event that even the Mangalyaan and Chandrayaan launches. Now, India operates more aircraft carriers than Thailand (yes, they have 1 tiny carrier), Spain, Russia and France, same number of carriers as the UK, Italy and China (since the Fujian isn’t commissioned yet). Only the US Navy operates more carriers, atleast for now.

[sukhbirST]

Great day for all Indians and more so for those like me, who sailed on board. Imagine spending months without AC for most of the officers and men. Still Vikrant was more homely than Viraat and held special place in our hearts. Waiting to visit sometime in future. Last few years were sad as incidents like fire etc cost few lives. Was on board when the great fire took place and it was four months long sailing.

[V.Narayan]

For the record the chart below gives the milestones of Indian shipbuilding and design. Putting it here so that readers present and future have a snap shot as today we are celebrating the latest of these milestones.

[Akash_1806]

The commissioning of INS Vikrant is definitely a huge achievement for the Indian Armed Forces as well as thole nation. But there are a few shortcomings which are going to affect the operation of Indian Navy's Air wing in the near future-

1. INS Vikrant, though commissioned, will not be fully operational until end 2023 as the MiG 29K has shown severe operational shortcomings in the past few years.

2. I was one of the first people to see MiG 29k in 2012, long before it was inducted in service as the main fleet of INS Vikramaditya and got to know the fact that for each and every small or big problem, engineers from Russia have to be present. Same is the case with the Russian helicopters, especially Kamov Ka-31s.

3. MiG 29s can only carry Russian payloads and need severe modification to use other armament which is again, not a cost effective option. Out of all the aircrafts considered, Boeing FA-18 Hornets would be the best bet, considering the armament and radar package and also the delivery timeframe. Tejas Mk2 is at least one year away from being production ready. For helicopters, India has already placed order for 40 Lockheed Martin MH-60s AKA Romeos, which is again a US brand. Also, Lockheed has been India's arms supplier since ages.

Indian Navy's Air wing has been strong since decades and it will be exciting to watch what decisions are taken for the air armament of INS Vikrant. Currently the air trials are on using the MiG 29Ks and another phase will be required with the future planned aircrafts to check sea and battle worthiness.

[dust-n-bones]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I’m sure these countries are genuinely happy to see the Vikrant inducted - something to keep the Chinese in check! Can’t remember any of these countries posting such messages when the Fujian was commissioned. One can see the difference in reporting as compared to the response to the Fujian - my favourite was CNN’s headline: “ India's first homegrown aircraft carrier puts it among world's naval elites”

It may be more than friendly allies chirping in praise. All of them want India to scrap the Russian air complement and consider what they have to offer. Multi billion dollar opportunities in fitment of the carrier - that's not just aircraft - you would imagine.

[W16rocks]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

Also, think of how the nature of war is changing. in 2020, Azerbaijan deployed drones, robots and cyberwarfare against Armenia to force a swift outcome.

Talk of mis-placed priorities, I would say. We already have an aircraft carrier (Vikramaditya) which should be plenty for the foreseeable needs.

I would like to take the liberty to respond to your views, India already is on its way to make new Subs, frigates, destroyers, along with superior weapon systems like P8I, and CH-60 Romeos, An aircraft carrier is needed the most at this time if not 2 more, because it acts as a shield to a fleet.

Indian navy has asked for 3 aircraft carriers in service since long but this dream has been unfulfilled till now, hope this administration takes the effort to turn it into reality.

Also regarding carriers being unnecessary, the carriers protect the Fleet, we have seen in the case of Moskva, how it was drowned by Ukrainians as there wasn’t an aircraft carrier and it’s associated systems and weapons to protect it.

India wants to be a blue water navy for which it needs at least three Carriers with their associated fleet, also a carrier on standby as carriers take much longer to service and refit.

[dust-n-bones]

Originally Posted by W16rocks

I would like to take the liberty to respond to your views, India already is on its way to make new Subs, frigates, destroyers, along with superior weapon systems like P8I, and CH-60 Romeos, An aircraft carrier is needed the most at this time if not 2 more, because it acts as a shield to a fleet.

Indian navy has asked for 3 aircraft carriers in service since long but this dream has been unfulfilled till now, hope this administration takes the effort to turn it into reality.

Also regarding carriers being unnecessary, the carriers protect the Fleet, we have seen in the case of Moskva, how it was drowned by Ukrainians as there wasn’t an aircraft carrier and it’s associated systems and weapons to protect it.

India wants to be a blue water navy for which it needs at least three Carriers with their associated fleet, also a carrier on standby as carriers take much longer to service and refit.

Its all about prioritization. Another example. In response to Balakot strikes, PAF launched 'Operation Swift Retort'. This of course was no surprise operation, all Indian formations were on full alert. However, we lost one of our venerable Mig-21s and shot one of our own helicopters. This on the first day of any actual IAF engagement after the 1971 war.

We have a huge backlog of capabilities missing from our armed forces, starting for rifles and canons to Migs to drones to mountain warfare and submarines and integrated comms. Should we fulfill that first or project power over distant shores. If its the latter, our aim to become a blue water navy seems to be correct.

By the way, an aircraft carrier traveling at 50km/hr, which cannot hide anywhere, is a sitting target for cruise to hypersonic missiles that our friendly neighbours possess. Unless we deploy a billion dollar missile shield that we don't possess.
Blindly following a superpower template is what I questioned.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

Its all about prioritization. Another example. In response to Balakot strikes, PAF launched 'Operation Swift Retort'. This of course was no surprise operation, all Indian formations were on full alert. However, we lost one of our venerable Mig-21s and shot one of our own helicopters. This on the first day of any actual IAF engagement after the 1971 war.

We have a huge backlog of capabilities missing from our armed forces, starting for rifles and canons to Migs to drones to mountain warfare and submarines and integrated comms. Should we fulfill that first or project power over distant shores. If its the latter, our aim to become a blue water navy seems to be correct.

By the way, an aircraft carrier traveling at 50km/hr, which cannot hide anywhere, is a sitting target for cruise to hypersonic missiles that our friendly neighbours possess. Unless we deploy a billion dollar missile shield that we don't possess.
Blindly following a superpower template is what I questioned.

From the outset, I should specify that I agree with your general premise. There are basic capabilities missing including within the Navy itself, it seems obvious that there should be a rationalization of the procurement process. However, I don't think this is an either/or situation! India will have to build both its sea power projection as well as sea denial capabilities. I have a theory as to why India generally focused on sea power projection while China has focused on sea denial - it's just that the threat for China from the US Navy is far greater than the threat that India faced from the PLAN in the Indian Ocean. This had some consequences in the 1965 and 71 wars! Hence, India could afford to focus on power projection while somewhat neglecting its sea denial capabilities which is shown in the depleting submarine numbers. However, we've now come to a stage where the Chinese can focus on both power projection and denial while their increasing stronghold in the Indian Ocean means that India for the first time since independence has a significant threat rising from the sea - so building denial capabilities is crucial as well.

I know that carriers are becoming passé, especially with the new hypersonic weapons but we've to remember that:

1) To shoot down a carrier, you should be able to successfully track them which is not a given unless it's near the shore. A carrier is huge but is still a needle in a haystack in the sea!

2) The INS Vikrant would never operate close enough to the Chinese shoreline to be hit by ballistic missiles. The closest it would go is possibly off the shore of Vietnam and the Philippines with the GE gas turbine engines giving it the legs that the Vikramaditya never had and which would be hostile for the Chinese. I really don't think that the Vikrant would be sailing across the Taiwan strait (South China Sea itself is a huge stretch) and most power projection will be limited to the Indian Ocean where the Indian and US navies still dominate!

3) On the flipside, we've to keep in mind that as an airfield, the carrier is actually less vulnerable than a land-based airfield. 50 km/hr might seem slow but that's 50 km/hr faster than any land-based airfield. A carrier can travel upto 1,000 km in a single day which is a versatility that's always helpful. The loss of a carrier can be more devastating for morale though - it should be said.

It's not an easy choice to make, we desperately need more submarines but if we don't build a third carrier - the hard-won capabilities of CSL which built this ship would be lost for another generation! Look at it this way - the Vikrant apparently cost about $2.5 billion to build which is remarkably cheap for an aircraft carrier. To put it in perspective - a single Vishakhapatnam class destroyer costs about $1 billion. For 2.5 times the price, you get a ship that's 5.6 times as big and has twice as many SAMs. Offcourse, I get the silliness of this comparison - a carrier needs an expensive fighter jet complement and the survivability of a destroyer is probably higher, however, given the already depleting fighter numbers in the Air Force, the Navy's purchases somewhat makes up for it and the fact that the these jets can be deployed on an airfield that can travel 1,000 km in single day is an added bonus.

[V.Narayan]

From the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi

https://twitter.com/narendramodi/sta...07343195656192

[jamwaldds]

My two cents on the question that whether India is making a mistake by spending on Aircraft carriers and not on basic needs of soldiers-
Each branch of armed forces get their own allocation of budget. So, not spending on Aircraft carrier will not make other acquisitions easier. Our defense establishments need a complete overhaul to transform into a tech driven force starting with manpower rationalization to going digital. INS Vikrant is going to serve for at least 40 years and will ensure that our navy retains the knowledge and experience of carrier operations.