[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

If Quad actually does become a security alliance, this would be just as significant as the rise of China in the 21st century leading to repercussions I can't think of - for example, how will the Indian public take it? Our ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh had to face a no-confidence vote just for signing the nuclear deal with the US.

You raise a pertinent point. My thoughts --> The Quad may in my view morph into a military defense alliance in all but name. I simply do not see India ever entering into a formal NATO like alliance with USA and antagonizing China. For USA is protected by two oceans and we have the dragon at our door sill. Also the American responses to Ukraine are on our minds too. We didn't get into a military alliance with the USSR ever despite the matter being raised very seriously by Brehznev in 1973-74 and Gromyko & Ustinov in 1981. But having the over arching treaty with USSR in place gave us a significant deterrent affect with China. Similarly we would want USA to be a close cousin but not a blood sibling. The US is doing exactly what the USSR did on both those occasions - first threaten, then warn of dire consequences {remember you'll be alone when China attacks}, then beg us, then sulk, then come around to what we say........and then the cycle repeats.

Don't wish to nitpick but the IN strength your friend has put into the table is effectively the whole strength and not just the Eastern Fleet. But nevertheless it makes the point that without the USN, Australia, Japan and India are on the back foot against the PLA(N). On matters Naval we live in exciting times.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

While the cumulative numbers of the Quad countries may look impressive, you need to keep in mind that India and US have other responsibilities. The Indian Navy's Western Fleet which contains our more state-of-the-art assets like the Kolkata and Visakhapatnam class destroyers is primarily geared towards Pakistan while the US Navy needs to deploy ships to protect allies in the Middle East (5th fleet), Europe (6th fleet) etc with only the 7th and perhaps the 3rd fleets being geared towards China. Meanwhile, the PLAN (along with the JMSDF and the RAAN) have the luxury of deploying almost their entire fleet in the Indo-Pacific. So, I think the Quad will eventually end up getting morphed into a security alliance without any of the 4 countries actually realizing it. I mean, it is unprecedented for a US SoD to tell his Indian counterpart that they will defend India's sovereign interests (even if to suit their own goals), I believe the only other country to have promised this even if in mere words was the Soviet Union.

Simply looking at the cumulative numbers is a fools errand. Like you pointed out, the calculus is in the PLAN's favour because they can task most of their assets within the Island Chains, whereas discounting the USN assets being spread thin because of other commitments (the fact Russian aggression in recent years has led them to revive the 6th Fleet will only further stretch them), they have to contend with the tyranny of distance in the Pacific theatre. The entire PLAN A2/AD strategy is built on the fulcrum of progressively pushing USN CBGs further and further back to limit the bite of their air wings and thus give the PLAN more room to breathe in what they view as their own waters.

But in that vein, India benefits in the IOR from the fact that the tyranny of distance is against the PLAN should it choose to operate in force west of the Malacca Strait. Frankly I doubt India will get pulled into a shooting war outside the IOR, nor should it. Where I think there could be room to help is perhaps if the IN took on more of a load in the Arabian Sea in terms of anti piracy and ensuring FON. That should alleviate some of the pressure on the USN which could help task some of the Central Command assets towards the Pacific theatre.

Part of me wonders if in some way the US could rope in the ROKN too in terms of PLAN containment but Korean-Japanese historical friction and the fact you have PRK shenanigans to contend with will probably limit South Korean reach.

If Quad actually does become a security alliance, this would be just as significant as the rise of China in the 21st century leading to repercussions I can't think of - for example, how will the Indian public take it? Our ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh had to face a no-confidence vote just for signing the nuclear deal with the US

I think this is a key question. I must admit, looking at some of the responses on the Ukraine War thread have been disheartening in terms of the broader mood behind them. Granted it's a small snapshot but even as anecdotal evidence of public sentiment it doesn't bode well in terms of any prospective strengthening of ties between India and the US. That being said, while (perplexingly to me at least) there remains a considerable frostiness towards the West (wrt the Ukraine War), I imagine that broadly the trends in response to China would be more homogenous. Further, unlike Dr Singh, I think the staggering personal popularity of PM Modi, not to mention the mighty advantage he has in both houses, gives him a lot more wiggle room with the public when it comes to crafting the evolving and future response to a resurgent and increasingly muscular China. What's clear though is that the Ukraine war, if not the decades of conflict in the ME, officially marked the end of the unipolar world of Pax Americana that I grew up in. We're very much returning to a multi polar world indeed.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

How common are exercises with ASEAN partners? Could the IN exercise with the Vietnamese? Hopefully these patrols get tied in with the wider Act East policy, have synergy between the diplomatic corps and their efforts with those of the IN.

Based on updates I’ve seen on twitter and Instagram, the Indian Navy exercises fairly frequently with Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia (in that order, anecdotally). Exercises with Vietnam are relatively rare with the last one being way back in August 2021 when India sent a flotilla of 4 ships into the South China Sea (which we’ve discussed in this thread before & was significant enough to be covered by CNN). One reason is distance as Vietnam isn’t really close and another reason is that the Vietnamese Navy isn’t really as effective despite their growing economy. However, my best friend who is Vietnamese claimed that the Indian Navy has berthing rights at the Nha Trang port and aircraft refuelling rights at the Cam Ranh Bay air base (the latter probably for the P8i). The former is confirmed in this article by the ORF (a prestigious Indian think tank) but I can’t find any proof from a reputable source for the latter.

Also, we’ve to keep in mind that such activities with India are generally kept under wraps by the Vietnamese side to prevent a Chinese reprisal and also due to significant interference by China in Vietnam’s internal politics by supporting China sympathisers in the Vietnamese communist party which prevents them from publicising overt military exercises with countries like India.

[skanchan95]

Not too long ago, it was reported that the Rafale M's wings have to "removed"( as it does not have wing fold capability like the Super Hornet) before being taking down on the Indian Navy carrier's lift to the hangar below and now this....

France mulling sale of used Rafale jets to Indian Navy: Report

France mulling sale of used Rafale jets to Indian Navy: Report

Rafale Marine underwent trials in Goa earlier this year

Rafale Marine underwent trials in Goa earlier this year

The race to sell a new aircraft carrier-based fighter jet to the Indian Navy is heating up. Last week, US manufacturer Boeing announced it would be deploying two F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighters to an Indian Navy test facility in Goa for flight trials.

On Wednesday, French media outlet La Tribune reported the French government has been studying “for several months” the sale of four used 'Rafale Marine' jets to the Indian Navy.

The Rafale Marine is the carrier-borne variant of the Rafale fighter, which is already in service with the Indian Air Force.

The Rafale Marine and Super Hornet are considered the front-runners to win a contract that would involve supply of up to 57 jets to the Indian Navy. These jets would primarily operate off the aircraft carrier Vikrant, which is currently undergoing sea trials.

La Tribune reported France had been studying the sale of used Rafale Marine jets to gain an edge to win the larger contract from the Indian Navy.

La Tribune reported “the sale of four used Rafale Marine to the F3-R standard is likely to give a competitive advantage to France against the Americans in the context of the Indian call for tenders to equip the INS Vikrant. These four recently modernized devices could indeed be quickly put into service on the Indian aircraft carrier.” The 'F3-R' is the current production standard of the Rafale. Aircraft of the F3-R standard have the capability to fire the Meteor long-range air-to-air missile and use the Talios target acquisition pod, in addition to being equipped with upgraded sensors and electronics.

The report noted the Rafale Marine, which is smaller in dimensions than the Super Hornet, is well suited to the Vikrant. “... it can in particular easily use the elevators of the INS Vikrant. Which would not be quite the case for its American rival,” La Tribune reported.

La Tribune claimed India could decide to buy up to 26 new naval fighters by the end of the year. The La Tribune report comes days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to visit France.

Rafale Marine development

When design work on the Rafale started in the 1970s, it was envisaged to be one aircraft that would replace nearly all fighter aircraft then flying in the French Air Force and Navy.

The Rafale Marine formally entered service with the French Navy in 2004. In fact, the Rafale Marine variant precedes the air force variant of the Rafale. While the two aircraft types are largely identical, the Rafale Marine is heavier due to having a reinforced undercarriage and nose wheel to deal with impact of carrier take-offs and landings and also a stronger 'arrester' hook to catch the wires that bring the aircraft to a halt on landing.

Given its need to maintain commonality with the air force variant, the Rafale Marine also suffers from some limitations. The Rafale Marine is available only in a single-seat version, while the Super Hornet is available in both single- and two-seat versions. The Rafale Marine is also incapable of folding its wings when on deck, a major disadvantage given the limited space on aircraft carriers. The Super Hornet is able to do so.

Ski-jump trials

In January, the French Navy dispatched two Rafale Marine jets to India for trials at the Goa facility where the Super Hornet will be tested. The tests in Goa are being done to evaluate the two aircraft for their capability to operate off ski-jumps. La Tribune reported the Rafale Marine “carried out very successful trials” in Goa and “French Navy was able to demonstrate all its expertise in naval aviation (landing) and convinced the Indians of the performance of the Rafale Marine.”

During the tests in January, a blogger shared an image of a Rafale Marine jet flying with an Exocet anti-ship missile, two 2,000 litre fuel tanks and four MICA air-to-air missiles. French analysts claimed this configuration showed the Rafale Marine could take off from a ski-jump with an external load of over 5.5 tonnes, nearly matching the maximum weight of jets taking off from the French Navy aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle, which uses a catapult to launch aircraft. Aircraft using catapults can take off at heavier weights than those using ski-jumps.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Not too long ago, it was reported that the Rafale M's wings have to "removed"( as it does not have wing fold capability like the Super Hornet) before being taking down on the Indian Navy carrier's lift to the hangar below and now this....

Everyone knows that the main drawback with a STOBAR carrier is you're severely limited on the MTOW, thus affecting your combat loadout and fuel capacity. But this..

During the tests in January, a blogger shared an image of a Rafale Marine jet flying with an Exocet anti-ship missile, two 2,000 litre fuel tanks and four MICA air-to-air missiles. French analysts claimed this configuration showed the Rafale Marine could take off from a ski-jump with an external load of over 5.5 tonnes, nearly matching the maximum weight of jets taking off from the French Navy aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle

..if true, is quite amazing I would say. I really didn't expect it to have such a hefty loadout when operating from a ski jump. I remain a bit skeptical but this is mighty impressive. Could be a big win in favour of the French candidate in the tender (granted I've as yet not seen any data on what sort of max loadout in stores the Super Hornet achieved from the shore based tests).

Provided the above about the Rafale Marine is true, it goes a long way towards assuaging the primary concern on loadout. However there's another problem with STOBAR vs CATOBAR, and that is operational tempo. With ski jump carrier's you're already limited in your lack of ability to launch and retrieve at the same time, due to the fact that often the launch positions will overlap with the landing strip. In the case of CATOBAR carriers like the Nimitz for eg, the USN have launch via the forward two catapults while simultaneously having aircraft land via the offset strip too. This is such an enormous boon in wartime I don't think its significance is appreciated as much as it should be.

So when there is already a concern about slow operational tempo, I really am baffled as to this detachable wing tip solution to get the Rafale Marine to fit on our tiny aircraft elevators. Even in the best of times its a finicky jugaad shall we say, in the heat of battle it adds a critical point of error that I worry could count quite significantly against the Rafale Marine.

All that being said, I share your confusion. The quoted articles have no mention of the problematic wing issue. It seems to cheerfully avoid that topic. I wonder what they aren't letting on.

When are we reasonably expecting to see the results of the testing of both contenders at INS Hansa? I'm assuming the IN will be having the data or will it be the OEMs primarily?

sale of four used Rafale Marine to the F3-R standard

Didn't Dassault sell some used jets recently? I can't remember who it was to, Indonesia? Or was it Serbia?

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by ads11

When are we reasonably expecting to see the results of the testing of both contenders at INS Hansa? I'm assuming the IN will be having the data or will it be the OEMs primarily?

I suppose Boeing must already have shared data with the Indian Navy from their own ski-jump trials at NAS Patuxent River.
Two Super Hornets are slated to arrive in Goa in the third week of May and demonstrate take off from the SBTF at INS Hansa in all *possible* loadout configurations. The keyword however is "all possible". Clearly, one cannot expect the Super Hornet to take off/land from a STOBAR carrier with a heavy weapon loadout configuration that is possible on a USN CATOBAR carrier.

Originally Posted by ads11

Didn't Dassault sell some used jets recently? I can't remember who it was to, Indonesia? Or was it Serbia?

To the Hellenic Air Force and the first few have already arrived in Greece. These Rafales are replacing Greece's old Mirage 2000s(EG/BGs). Their Mirage 2000-5s will continue to soldier along for a few more years.
Croatia was close to buying second hand Rafales upgraded to F3R standards from France too. Indonesia signed up for brand new Rafale F4s while Serbia is still in the "interested in buying" stage.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

I suppose Boeing must already have shared data with the Indian Navy from their own ski-jump trials at NAS Patuxent River.
Two Super Hornets are slated to arrive in Goa in the third week of May and demonstrate take off from the SBTF at INS Hansa in all *possible* loadout configurations. The keyword however is "all possible". Clearly, one cannot expect the Super Hornet to take off/land from a STOBAR carrier with a heavy weapon loadout configuration that is possible on a USN CATOBAR carrier.

Oh for sure. If someone told me the latter were possible I'd laugh them out the room. But going by that purported Rafale M load out, if it's true, I guess the onus is on Boeing to demonstrate they too can achieve a considerable weapons and fuel store configuration - I think with their proven wing folding mechanism, that would give them the slight advantage in the context.

I'm inclined to agree. Boeing must've made their test data from NAS Patuxent available to the IN already but it's a no brainer to also come and do trials at Hansa. If that's in a month's time, assuming the trials last a month or so, I'm guessing we won't see any news on the results of this face off till Christmas at the earliest.

To the Hellenic Air Force and the first few have already arrived in Greece. These Rafales are replacing Greece's old Mirage 2000s(EG/BGs). Their Mirage 2000-5s will continue to soldier along for a few more years.
Croatia was close to buying second hand Rafales upgraded to F3R standards from France too. Indonesia signed up for brand new Rafale F4s while Serbia is still in the "interested in buying" stage.

Ah yes, thanks! It was Greece. I remember now that things were heating up in the Aegean with Erdogan and his subordinates ratcheting up tensions with muscular rhetoric. Soon after Greece made a number of weapons announcements.

[V.Narayan]

INS Vikrant to be commissioned on 15th August 2022.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/goo...y-2447580.html

India's first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, to be commissioned on 15-8-22 when India completes 75 years of independence. A very proud moment to say the least. The mighty ship is to be handed over to the Navy officially in May'22 for continuation of her sea trials.

Tomorrow after I get home I'll write more on the history of this project. I'm not very good at mobile phone posting.

As a boy when I used to hear of the challenges the IN faced in the 1970s over the old INS Vikrant's replacement I never ever ever ever thought that one day we would design and build our own carrier. Today it is hard to conceive how far fetched this seemed in say 1974. And here we are.

This ship is a salute to the IN's Corps of Constructors. Jai Hind.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

INS Vikrant to be commissioned on 15th August 2022.
Tomorrow after I get home I'll write more on the history of this project. I'm not very good at mobile phone posting.

The need to find a replacement for the old INS Vikrant and its super ageing Hawker Seahawks started to be felt by the mid-1970s. INS Vikrant then was a ship in late middle age at 30+ years since launch and fitted with literally WW2 machinery especially her boilers, electricals and lifts. But there was nothing on the horizon. Only USA & France made real aircraft carriers and neither would build one for us nor could we afford them by a zillion miles. The British Invincible class was considered briefly but once again the $ came into play. Just to give you an idea in c.1980 when we placed our order for the Sea Harriers and took delivery of our first 5000 tonne Kashin class guided missile destroyer they both cost us Rs 60 crores a piece in that era's money - about US$ 60mm of then $. It shows how much the Soviets were subsidizing us.

Falklands War and the subsequent availability of HMS Hermes came to our rescue. The Sea Harriers were certainly very modern, though short ranged, aircraft and the Hermes was only slightly more modern than INS Vikrant and was expected to last only till circa 2000. So with great effort we kept the old girl steaming and kept the rare and valued skill of carrier operations alive. At this time c.1990 given the enormous cost of keeping a carrier & its aircraft in good state of repair and operational we gave thought to moving down to helicopter carriers and give up fixed wing fast jet operations altogether. The French offered us a through deck helicopter carrier design called PAH.xx {can't recall the numerals}. It was something like a diesel driven Hyuga of the Japanese Navy that could provide anti-submarine and anti-ship sea control over an area. With the 1990-1992 financial crises that too went over the stern. But fate intervened in the form of the availability of the Kiev class Admiral Gorshkov. We did a detailed inspection of Gorshkov as far back as 1993-94 when she was in good material condition and then took a decade to decide on buying her!

So basically for the third time we were only able to buy a second line carrier to keep naval aviation and force projection alive. Simultaneously we started work on IAC-1 {Indigenous Aircraft Carrier Nos 1}. Initially in a preliminary evaluative way and from 1999 in a definitive way. Designing a carrier, which other than being a very large warship has an unusual structure is not easy. And we had our share of difficulties to overcome. A carrier by definition has a giant hollow box running through about 2/3rds of the ship, across the width and 3 decks high and it cannot have structural pillar impediments! This also then means that those wide gas turbine air intakes and even larger off takes (exhausts) must run beneath the hangar deck and then twist their way to the starboard side. And of course all your deck items - bridge, self defense armaments, electronics must somehow be packed into an island on the right or on the fringes and corners of the flight deck. Marrying all this with survival requirements and stability with XX compartments flooded add to the design challenges. The uptakes and downtakes of gas turbines {unlike diesels or steam turbines} are so large - hollow & unobstructed - that they are a major stability risk factor in case flooding were to happen. The Americans I assume helped with the layout of the engine room. The ski jump was our own design. A ski jump unlike its simple looks is a mathematically complex design with a change in angle every so many centimeters. To maximize take-off weight a ski jump's angle, curvature and length must be customized for the weight, take-off speed & power loading of the aircraft planned.

We took 15 years to build the ship including 9 years since its launch in 2013. This sounds a lot to us and indeed it is a lot. But such endeavours of national strategic importance need time and persistence. Hopefully the next time around we'll be quicker on our feet. I hope we build a Vikrant Mark II and don't fritter away the learnings and skilled manpower. The present administration is more hawkish than any we've seen thus far and I hope good sense will prevail.

Stalwarts of Indian Naval aviation and shipbuilding who have sailed over the horizon like Admiral RH Tahiliani, Commodore YN Singh, Rear Admiral Prakash Gour, Vice Admiral SC Chopra and others who are still with us like Rear Admiral SK Gupta MVC, Admiral Arun Prakash must be beaming with pride.

When this mighty ship commissions on the landmark date of 15-8-22 it will be a proud day specifically for Indian aviation, Indian ship designers and builders and of course the Indian Navy itself. Jai Hind.

[Gannu_1]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

India's first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, to be commissioned on 15-8-22 when India completes 75 years of independence. A very proud moment to say the least.

My immediate superior (personally detest using the word boss) worked on the General Arrangement plan of the IAC-1 during his posting in the DNA, IHQ MoD. Man, I’ve learnt so much working with this guy. He’s my current mentor too.

[sagarpadaki]

I was not able to identify the widely discussed aircraft elevators from the pics. Can some one mark the location of those elevators in the carrier pics?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

I was not able to identify the widely discussed aircraft elevators from the pics. Can some one mark the location of those elevators in the carrier pics?

They are both on the right hand side, one before and one after the island. Rough layout drawing below. It is not to scale.

[arijitkanrar]

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

I was not able to identify the widely discussed aircraft elevators from the pics. Can some one mark the location of those elevators in the carrier pics?

EDIT: Didnt notice that Narayan sir had already replied to your post with a much better diagram.

They are fore and aft of the superstructure. See the red arrows in the pic.
You can also see the gaps (marked by red lines) in the side structure of the ship (I think the side structures are called sponsons?). The gaps are for the elevators to move down to sit flush with the hangar deck below the flight deck.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

We did a detailed inspection of Gorshkov as far back as 1993-94 when she was in good material condition and then took a decade to decide on buying her!

A decade to decide! It's so painfully emblematic of our lethargic decision making.

This also then means that those wide gas turbine air intakes and even larger off takes (exhausts) must run beneath the hangar deck and then twist their way to the starboard side...The uptakes and downtakes of gas turbines {unlike diesels or steam turbines} are so large - hollow & unobstructed - that they are a major stability risk factor in case flooding were to happen.

I know a large part of the reasoning for the twin island design on the QE class is to split the inlet and outlet chimneys essentially and get some redundancy too - but that's twice the island now on the starboard side. I wonder how it impacts stability.

A big bonus of going nuclear is how tiny you can make the island - one need only look at the petite superstructure of the Ford class supercarriers compared even to Nimitz class islands.

The Americans I assume helped with the layout of the engine room.

Just curious as to what made you assume so?

I hope we build a Vikrant Mark II and don't fritter away the learnings and skilled manpower.

This is one of the biggest fears I have is that even when in a rare case we get to have some ToT and do a domestic build, training up the workforce and supplier base for a platform, by the time the decision is taken on the follow on those manufacturing skills have predictably atrophied. I know you and I have shared our concern in this regard to the Kaveri class boats for eg. It's such a shame because the IN has excellent recent examples such as the manner in which they progressed from the Kolkata class to the follow on Vishakhapatnam class. Even if it's at the design study stage, I really hope work on an improved Mk2 Vikrant is already underway because it would be criminal negligence otherwise to just sit on all that work for ages.

Originally Posted by arijitkanrar

They are fore and aft of the superstructure. See the red arrows in the pic.
You can also see the gaps (marked by red lines) in the side structure of the ship (I think the side structures are called sponsons?). The gaps are for the elevators to move down to sit flush with the hangar deck below the flight deck.

Yep, I believe those are the sponsons indeed.

Every time I see those puny elevators I shake my head. Vikrant has such clean lines but why oh why did they not follow their usual tendency (as V.Narayan has pointed out before with Indian shipbuilding - always build slightly bigger for some wiggle room) and build in some leeway?! I can only think that this was the Russian influence (I believe their shipbuilding philosophy runs counter - they prefer compact packaging; I also have a slight conspiracy theory that this was a move to limit the Vikrant to only comfortably fitting the Mig-29).

Still it could've been worse. Could've been like the Japanese still persisting with the bizarrely outmoded mid deck elevator smack bang in the middle of the flight deck.

All that being said, good to see that picture of the Vikrant, it's looking good. Nice clean lines.

[V.Narayan]

^^^^^
@ads11 because the ship is fitted with American GE LM2500 gas turbines