[jraj]

The Gorshkov wasn’t put on sale until ‘96. So no idea where the “evaluated in 93 and delay of 10 year” claim comes from.
It was a unique project from the get go. The Gorshkov itself was offered free of cost. India had to pay for the refit into a STOBAR carrier from the heli cruiser it was.
As with any modifications of that scale, there were many hiccups and cost over runs along the way.

Unlike the IAF, the IN had embraced MDL and CSL pretty well and that partnership has borne fruits so far .

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by jraj

The Gorshkov wasn’t put on sale until ‘96. So no idea where the “evaluated in 93 and delay of 10 year” claim comes from.

Sir I know the very people who went to inspect and evaluate the vessel. I am very careful to put down facts. Your sarcasm is unwarranted. Unlike many threads in social media we try and keep our threads on warships and aircrafts clear of the snarky tones one often sees on social media. Please let's keep it that way.

[Gansan]

^^ With all the delays and cost over runs and arm twisting by Russia, is the Vikramaditya at least a reasonably worthy carrier and not a lemon? What we hear about the Mig 29ks is also not very good. We are not using Vikramaditya to merely justify the money spent on it? After the induction of Vikrant which will be the primary carrier?

[ads11]

Originally Posted by jraj

So no idea where the “evaluated in 93 and delay of 10 year” claim comes from.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Sir I know the very people who went to inspect and evaluate the vessel. I am very careful to put down facts.

I don't think it's so farfetched to think that Indian procurement would sit on an evaluation for a good decade, if anything it's perfunctory enough to be par for the course (I wonder if the defence mandarins ever thought about getting into the wine business as a side hustle, they clearly have the patience to leave something to ferment for years and years before presenting the final product!). I can't personally vouch for it but I will say that over the years V.Narayan has always been one to limit hearsay, if anything his posts are underpinned (and vastly appreciated) for his factual assault!

Originally Posted by Gansan

^^ With all the delays and cost over runs and arm twisting by Russia, is the Vikramaditya at least a reasonably worthy carrier and not a lemon? What we hear about the Mig 29ks is also not very good. We are not using Vikramaditya to merely justify the money spent on it? After the induction of Vikrant which will be the primary carrier?

I don't know about it being a lemon in the sense the Kuznetsov is undoubtedly one. The Vikramaditya is nowhere near as bad. I believe a bit like it's distant cousin the Liaoning there were some predictable teething issues in its early service life, iirc many stemming from the Soviet era boiler architecture. Off the top of my head I can't recall anything other than boiler niggles as major issues that have made it to the public domain with the IN flagship.

There's no denying that the Mig-29K has pretty miserable availability - no putting lipstick on that particular statistic.

I mean the IN isn't the USN where despite enormous sunk cost (relatively speaking) it can have the luxury of cutting its losses with a platform it doesn't like (the Zummwalt class, LCS programme amongst others). India spent a great deal of capital on the Vikramaditya, a capital ship nonetheless, so expect to see it soldier on for at least another decade to come.

Is it a compromised platform? Of course it is! Remember that it was a helicopter carrying cruiser originally with giant missile tubes buried in the forward part of the deck. The conversion to a ski-jump STOBAR carrier was always going to involve compromises in the overall design when compared to its sister ship the INS Vikrant, which was built from the ground up as a STOBAR carrier. And we can see some of these compromises. Take the oddly positioned island of the Vikramaditya. Usually aircraft carrier islands are pushed as far out to the edge of the deck as possible to maximise flight deck area. Instead India has what it amusingly (to me at least) calls or tried to use as a "highway" to move equipment around behind the superstructure on the starboard side.

I think it's difficult to say if the IN will assign one or the other as the primary carrier. Originally it was envisioned that the Vikramaditya and Vikrant would form part of a 3 carrier fleet following the usual 1-1-1 refit-training-underway principle for carrier ops. I think organisationally each will be assigned to one of the two major commands respectively (correct me on this?), with realistically one able to be operationally deployed at a time. Maybe both can be surged under a war footing - not sure historically what the surge capability for assets under refit have been for the IN in wartime.

[jraj]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Sir I know the very people who went to inspect and evaluate the vessel. I am very careful to put down facts. Your sarcasm is unwarranted. Unlike many threads in social media we try and keep our threads on warships and aircrafts clear of the snarky tones one often sees on social media. Please let's keep it that way.

I am not sure where there is sarcasm or a sneaky tone in the post. I just stated information available in the public
domain. The Gorshkov returned to duty even after the boiler accident and was put on sale later.

INS Vikramaditya is definitely a force multiplier and a credible detterant. The challenges were unique to the refit it under went.

[dragracer567]

I was following the latest discussions on carriers but couldn’t find the time to jump in.

At the end of the day, it is quite the feat for the Indian Navy to maintain the carrier capability for 60 odd years, something even the Royal Navy hasn’t been able to do despite historically being better funded. Being the least funded of our three main branches of the military, our navy has really learnt how to get going on a budget.

The INS Vikrant when it is commissioned this year will not only be our first indigenous carrier but it will probably be our first carrier with the long legs to sail into the high seas. Our previous carriers including the Vikramaditya have generally been limited to coastal defence (the boilers in Vikramaditya don’t help either) but if needed, the INS Vikrant should be able to confidently sail into the South China Sea in the event of a crisis (should it/will it is another discussion). Based on my limited understanding of how the fleets of the Indian Navy works, the Delhi class destroyers have been moved to eastern fleet, so the Vikrant’s CSG can consist of Rajput class destroyers (while they last), Delhi class destroyers, Shivalik class frigates and Nilgiri class frigates with corvettes et al. Just a question for those knowledgeable about it, why does the Indian Navy always aggregate ships of the same class into the same fleet? For example, our Eastern Fleet that’s geared towards China doesn’t benefit from our state-of-the-art destroyers from the Kolkata or Visakhapatnam class destroyers since they are all aggregated into the western fleet. My apologies if I’m wrong/ignorant about this.

As with everyone else in this thread, I’d like to see a sister ship for the Vikrant as well, but to be pragmatic, I really don’t think that’s gonna happen. What we might see would be a push for more submarines before we start even thinking about another carrier but I get why there is a hurry with the carrier - all the skills, trained manpower etc will be lost if another carrier isn’t ordered quickly. But at this point, we should understand limitations of our defence establishment, we aren’t China (and probably better for it).

Originally Posted by jraj

The Gorshkov wasn’t put on sale until ‘96. So no idea where the “evaluated in 93 and delay of 10 year” claim comes from.
It was a unique project from the get go.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Sir I know the very people who went to inspect and evaluate the vessel. I am very careful to put down facts. Your sarcasm is unwarranted. Unlike many threads in social media we try and keep our threads on warships and aircrafts clear of the snarky tones one often sees on social media. Please let's keep it that way.

@jraj, just wanted to put this out there but there is a world of difference between ‘being officially put on sale’ and being evaluated behind closed doors without as much as a public acknowledgement. In case you are new to our defence threads, we’ve been at the receiving end of so many anecdotes of events from Mr. Narayan that you’d seldom find in any newspaper clippings or official account. Having extensively interacted and exchanged notes with him, I’d personally vouch for the accounts by Mr. Narayan. Again, just putting this out there.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by jraj

I just stated information available in the public
domain.

Exactly!!! "From the public domain". Everything mentioned in the public domain is not the Gospel Truth and at times when experienced & knowledgeable members post about a topic that is not well known in the public domain, it is always a treat to read and to imbibe knowledge!!!

There are members, including Narayan Sir, who quote from years of experience and have access to first hand accounts of events related to the topics they write on. Narayan Sir's posts, in particular, are fact based and to the point always. An armchair aviation and military enthusiast like me, has learnt a lot from his posts, most of which one cannot find anywhere in the public domain, even in books written by even the eminent Indian military historians. Instead, to question them with an apostrophe quote like this:

Originally Posted by jraj

So no idea where the “evaluated in 93 and delay of 10 year” claim comes from.

is unwarranted and borderline insulting. If you have something that you feel needs correction or feel the need to question, there is a way to write it down politely and in a respectful manner. For e.g you could have written your own post like this:

From what I have read from sources in the open domain, the Gorshkov wasn’t put on sale until ‘96. I would be genuinely interested to know how the evaluations took place in '93.

I am sure being the very helpful and knowledgeable person that he is, would have no problem sharing the story behind his claim. But to say that "don't know where the claim came from" is well, to put it very mildly, arrogant.

My only advice - Always be respectful towards fellow members. We are all here to learn from each other and learning is a never ending process, not matter how old or experienced one gets.

Coming to the the Gorshkov sale, as he has quoted, backdoor discussions would have begun much earlier than publicly declared. See the fate of the Gorshkov's sister ships for a hint. They were all sold in the mid-90s,
not touched by the legendary lethargic Indian bureaucracy/political will. That they did not see military service thereafter is another matter.

Discussions for sale probably might have begun some time after the collapse of the Soviet Union when the "new" Russia struggled economically and militarily.

The poor serviceability of IAF's MiG fleet (especially the MiG-29s), due to poor spares availability in the 90s is well known. In the 90s, Russia had even stopped placing orders for new tanks and fighters. It was the Indian interest in the Su-30, T-90 and MiG-29K that resurrected the three floundering projects and two of them went on to become export successes with other countries. The definitive MiG-29K was accepted by the Russian Naval Aviation Service after the Indian Navy, that again speaks volumes of how much Russia owes to India as a far as these three programs were concerned.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Just a question for those knowledgeable about it, why does the Indian Navy always aggregate ships of the same class into the same fleet? For example, our Eastern Fleet that’s geared towards China doesn’t benefit from our state-of-the-art destroyers from the Kolkata or Visakhapatnam class destroyers since they are all aggregated into the western fleet. My apologies if I’m wrong/ignorant about this.

Before you pointed this out I hadn't really noticed this. That is rather peculiar. My guess is that maybe it's a historical tendency to focus the core assets towards the longtime primary objective of the IN, containing the Pakistani Navy? Maybe as the new reality of increasing PLAN footprint in the IOR (specifically the Bay of Bengal, and in the undersea domain) sets in, we'll start to see this change with a more even split of the surface assets.
Or is it more to do with each class of ships being home ported and maintained from one of the hemispherical commands (ie, eastern or western)?

As with everyone else in this thread, I’d like to see a sister ship for the Vikrant as well, but to be pragmatic, I really don’t think that’s gonna happen. What we might see would be a push for more submarines before we start even thinking about another carrier but I get why there is a hurry with the carrier - all the skills, trained manpower etc will be lost if another carrier isn’t ordered quickly. But at this point, we should understand limitations of our defence establishment, we aren’t China (and probably better for it).

I think most of us are in agreement with the decision former CDS Rawat took to temporarily put IAC-2 on the backburner to focus attention on the SSBN and SSN programmes. We shouldn't get drawn into a ship building race with China because frankly, no one can compete with their staggering output. In the face of this asymmetry, it's only wise that India turns to the time tested naval platform that is tailored to even the field somewhat - submarines. You see the Pakistani Navy turning that way to combat the asymmetrical advantage India has, and in turn India leverages the same approach to counter the PLAN.
What I will say though is that with Vikrant set to be commissioned, I don't fear a loss in those hard won skills. Realistically, barring major mishap, Vikramaditya is set to serve another decade at the minimum, and even with 1 carrier it's possible to keep those skill sets from atrophying. Had Vikrant been pushed back significantly, I'd worry about the risk to the skill base, but for the short and medium term, I don't think that worry is there as such anymore.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

It was the Indian interest in the Su-30, T-90 and MiG-29K that resurrected the three floundering projects and two of them went on to become export successes with other countries. The definitive MiG-29K was accepted by the Russian Naval Aviation Service after the Indian Navy, that again speaks volumes of how much Russia owes to India as a far as these three programs were concerned.

For evidence of just how much Indian largesse helped underwrite the development of some of these Russian platforms, one need only look at the Su-57 programme. After India pulled out, it's been on life support (very low rate production, the RuAF has pretty much ignored any meaningful orders), and that combined with the impact of the post Crimean landgrab sanctions was just the double whammy to all but put the development of that jet on ice.

[handsofsteel]

Originally Posted by ads11

Before you pointed this out I hadn't really noticed this. That is rather peculiar…

Or is it more to do with each class of ships being home ported and maintained from one of the hemispherical commands (ie, eastern or western)?

What I will say though is that with Vikrant set to be commissioned, I don't fear a loss in those hard won skills. Realistically, barring major mishap, Vikramaditya is set to serve another decade at the minimum, and even with 1 carrier it's possible to keep those skill sets from atrophying. Had Vikrant been pushed back significantly, I'd worry about the risk to the skill base, but for the short and medium term, I don't think that worry is there as such anymore.

In the 90s and early noughties, we did have ships of the same class split on both the seaboards. eg the SNFs and the giris. However, the fact that historically our ‘classes’ were limited to three (budget constraints and long lead times) meant spreading of logistics over a wide geographical area. The benefits of keeping class of ships together soon became apparent. With the recent orders of 17As and 15Bs (numerically significant), one may again see cross-coast basing for longer durations. Please note that in addition to the spares and ordnance, the expertise of the maintainers who are largely Defence civilians (and practically not transferable) also plays a part in keeping ships of a class together.

With respect to loss of the “hard won skills”, I think the OP meant the skills of building such a unique ship to be nurtured (by placement of another order?) while you are referring to the skills of naval aviation (landing on a flat top, operating a CSG etc) which will receive a major boost with the commissioning of the Vkt.

Lastly, the debate of a submarine centric force vs a carrier centric force is age old with each side having their justifiable merits. With UAVs, swarms, lasers, space wars, killer satellites and myriad other tech advances, these have been reduced to just a small facet of the overall strategic contours. The final shape and composition of the forces and the battlefield is, more often than not, shaped by the political and diplomatic imperatives rather than the military necessities.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by handsofsteel

However, the fact that historically our ‘classes’ were limited to three (budget constraints and long lead times) meant spreading of logistics over a wide geographical area. The benefits of keeping class of ships together soon became apparent. With the recent orders of 17As and 15Bs (numerically significant), one may again see cross-coast basing for longer durations. Please note that in addition to the spares and ordnance, the expertise of the maintainers who are largely Defence civilians (and practically not transferable) also plays a part in keeping ships of a class together.

I had a feeling that the structuring that way would be a consequence of logistics. Thanks for clearing that up!

With respect to loss of the “hard won skills”, I think the OP meant the skills of building such a unique ship to be nurtured (by placement of another order?) while you are referring to the skills of naval aviation (landing on a flat top, operating a CSG etc) which will receive a major boost with the commissioning of the Vkt.

Ah you're right - I was only looking at it from carrier qualifications, less from the shipbuilding skills. Yeah, it's not as rosy when looking at the potential for that skill base to wither away while waiting on a follow on ship order. Maybe a deep refit and overhaul on the Vikramaditya will go some way towards keeping the workers in those yards engaged for the interim?

Lastly, the debate of a submarine centric force vs a carrier centric force is age old with each side having their justifiable merits...

None of what you said is untrue but I always get the impression that out of all 3 services (and this is more of a universal trend), naval top brass tends to be the most resistant to big change (ironic given you'd expect admirals to be amenable to a sea change in philosophy). Broadly speaking naval warfare seems to have followed some pretty long lived trends - going from the dreadnought era to the battleship era to pretty much the carrier group dominated fleet structure of the post WW2 world. Granted the lack of wide ranging naval engagements has impeded the widescale adoption of novel schools of thought (and that's a good thing in the sense no one really wants an actual shooting war to break out anywhere). I guess what I'm saying is that the naval playbook is an old and well thumbed volume

[sukhbirST]

Being a naval aviation veteran, had the occasion to embark both Vikrant and Viraat. Still remember my long sailings on both carriers. Ask any veteran about the two, he will definitely like Vikrant. Part of my life (younger) has been spent on both the carriers. It never looked old though ageing machinery had its own share of incidents onboard. Remember getting my(only so far) tooth extracted onboard Vikrant with the dentist sharing my name. When I looked around the old equipment , the dentist assured me all was good. Few times there were even pigeons who sailed for 45 days (got stuck onboard).Only one who has sailed on these ships know what kind of world it was. Thanks for sharing the news and am eagerly looking forward for the commissioning.

[narmad]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

INS Vikrant to be commissioned on 15th August 2022.
This ship is a salute to the IN's Corps of Constructors. Jai Hind.

This is great news and we have a true blue aircraft carrier.
Tremendous force addition to the Indian Navy.

Although now CSL will have no work and the hard earned experience would be idle and eventually dwindled .
The CSL chairman mentioned they could build a sister ship within 5 years .
I am not sure how the planning and budgeting works, but we should have had an order for follow-on ship out yesterday itself.

Same scenario with the Submarines. Lost HDW experience. Our shishumar class ( type 209 ) are long in tooth, while South Korea is already exporting design based on similar submarine.
Our P-75I project seems to be going no where, while MDL is just wasting their experience building the scorpenes.

[fulcrum29]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

The poor serviceability of IAF's MiG fleet (especially the MiG-29s), due to poor spares availability in the 90s is well known. In the 90s, Russia had even stopped placing orders for new tanks and fighters. It was the Indian interest in the Su-30, T-90 and MiG-29K that resurrected the three floundering projects and two of them went on to become export successes with other countries. The definitive MiG-29K was accepted by the Russian Naval Aviation Service after the Indian Navy, that again speaks volumes of how much Russia owes to India as a far as these three programs were concerned.

The Air Force MiG 29's have had a pretty good serviceability record since procurement. They were better than not only all other Mig types but also most western fighters operated by the IAF. Can't comment on the Naval ones though...

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by fulcrum29

The Air Force MiG 29's have had a pretty good serviceability record since procurement. They were better than not only all other Mig types but also most western fighters operated by the IAF. Can't comment on the Naval ones though...

So the collapse of the Soviet Union had no effect on spares procurement for the MiGs, especially the MiG-29? All those reports in the press and in the books written in the 90s era were all hogwash?

[fulcrum29]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

So the collapse of the Soviet Union had no effect on spares procurement for the MiGs, especially the MiG-29? All those reports in the press and in the books written in the 90s era were all hogwash?

I suppose so. Majority of MiG parts were made in Russia, some in Ukraine and few in Belarus. Rosvooruzhenie and Promexport insured continous supply of spares and the IAF had its own reserve too. At the end of the day, a baaz driver's flying log book summary for 91-92 read the same as the year before and year after.