CV-17 has the same overall configuration, but there are likely some internal changes, and also of course the island is the most obvious external change from CV-16. CV-17’s island is redesigned and has a smaller deck footprint as well.

That’s from a week or more ago. More recent pictures are here:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116737-PLAN-News-Thread-4&p=2386461#post2386461

‘Commissioning’ (i.e. handover to the IN) is scheduled for Dec 2018 (so probably early-2019) but I suspect that’s mostly a ceremonial thing unless they defer it further. The final bits of the aviation complex will also be delivered and integrated in 2019. IOC in 2020 with flight ops beginning 2020-21. FOC 2023. Of course I won’t bet the house on it.

Hmm I can’t help but feel like if the aviation complex will only be integrated in 2019 then “true” sea trials (which for a carrier, means having aircraft handling trials i.e: launches and traps?) will only begin after that?

I imagine delivering it in late 2018/early 2019 to the Navy could help expedite some functions, but even then I imagine the ship would have to undergo some form of yard sea trials before handing over it to the Navy even in its “uncompleted” state without aviation subsystems.

Arresting gear, restraining gear, hydraulic stations, etc. And yes, it can’t function as a carrier without them.

Yikes.

Same builder (Cochin Shipyard Ltd.) Again, at this point, whether it’ll even be ordered is still up for question. Timeline too is function of that. The IAC project was a huge learning process – there was next to no local design experience and no shipyard in India had built anything half as large as the Vikrant. Even the basics like warship grade steel weren’t available and core industrial capabilities had to built up simultaneously. That there was also a series of design changes midway (as IN upscaled its ambitions/requirements) didn’t help.

Having been through the grind, an upscaled IAC (supported by design consultancy from the US Navy) driven by conventional propulsion may not have as high a risk factor on the timeline; if the contract is signed in 2020, its quite feasible to have it fitted out by 2030 and operational in service by 2035. In contrast, if the IN opts for nuclear propulsion, the project almost certain to go over to 2040, given the lack of experience and the significant safety issues involved. At this point, its all hypothetical.

Would CSL’s drydock be big enough to accommodate a ship of the largest size for IAC-2 that’s been proposed (65,000 ton CVN)?

I don’t follow the Indian Navy’s developments super closely, but it was a bit of a surprise to me to read that the Indian Navy had yet to even settle on a design for IAC-2 yet. Reading some of the articles over the last year or so I was almost under the impression that it was fully decided IAC-2 would be a 65k ton CVN with EMALS.

P15C? Possibly. Haven’t heard anything concrete though. For the time being, 7 destroyers should be enough for two CBGs, I think. Four available at any time, two each for the two fleets. Supported by two Shivalik/Talwar class (later P-17A) frigates.

The RN carrier group, for example, is expected to consist of one QE class CV, two Type 45s DDGs, one/two Type 26 FFGs and one Astute SSN. Same for the French Navy; one carrier, two DDGs plus two/three FFGs for ASW and one SSN.

Yeah, I think 7 DDGs would allow 4 DDGs to be available for service at any one time, maybe 5 DDGs in a surge capacity, but I can’t help but think if 4 of those DDGs are attached to a CSG then it leaves no aegis type DDGs for other missions like forming SAGs, though if the IN brass haven’t got a new destroyer project in the pipeline for after P15B then I suppose they consider 7 aegis-type DDGs to be sufficient for their strategic requirements.

It’s interesting you mention the Royal Navy as well, as I hold the opinion that 6 Type 45s is not sufficient for their quite ambitious carrier plans as it’ll leave them short staffed of DDGs for other non CSG related missions, but obviously funding cuts were a thing and finances remain an issue for them.

Thanks for the comprehensiveness of your answers.

Can some members who follow Indian military matters comment about what exactly is happening with INS Vikrant and INS Vishal?

I’ve read varying articles over the last few weeks seemingly all from the same author from Business Standard, saying that Vikrant will only enter service with all its equipment fitted by the early 2020s (2023?) rather than the commonly cited 2018, and that INS Vishal to only enter service in the early 2030s rather than the commonly cited 2025 and that the configuration of INS Vishal is still not fully settled let alone having a finalized design??

The relevant articles are below, and are the full length articles from business standard posted on the author’s own blog. The relevant parts are quoted.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/china-s-2nd-aircraft-carrier-coming-this-month-india-loses-edge-117040100987_1.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2017/04/chinas-2nd-aircraft-carrier-coming-this.html

Meanwhile, India’s second carrier, INS Vikrant, being fabricated at Cochin Shipyard Ltd (CSL), has fallen eight years behind schedule. Originally to be delivered in 2015, it is now expected to be fully operational only in 2023, years after China’s second carrier joins the PLA(N) fleet.

India’s third carrier, INS Vishal, however, is being planned as a technologically cutting-edge warship with American design features. Like the Type 002, it will have a catapult launch system that equips all US Navy carriers. As Business Standard reported (November 7, 2016 “Navy’s second home-built carrier will be nuclear but will come only in 2030s”) Vishal will feature nuclear propulsion, an “electromagnetic aircraft launch system” (EMALS) and the capacity to embark at least 55 aircraft. It will be built in India and will join the fleet by 2030-35.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/as-china-races-ahead-mod-dithers-on-india-s-aircraft-carrier-117041900950_1.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.co.nz/2017/04/as-china-races-ahead-mod-dithers-on.html

Vice Admiral DM Deshpande, the navy’s warship acquisition head, stated on Tuesday that the ministry remains uncertain about spending billions of dollars on a carrier.

“Right now there is a bit of a question mark from the ministry’s side, [although] we have taken this up to the ministry on a few occasions. [An aircraft carrier] is a huge ticket item and, before some commitments are made on allocation of these funds everybody wants to be very clear on the requirement, whether we actually need that. So these are being addressed [before] we actually take it up to the government for final clearances”, said Deshpande, addressing defence industrialists in New Delhi.

What exactly is happening here?

With regards to INS Vikrant, if it really does want to enter service in 2018 then by now it should have completed fitting out and started sea trials, preferably last year. I’m not sure what the state of its fitting out is and how it will proceed, but if it goes the way of other big ticket Indian Navy warship projects and suffer delays in the post-launch fitting out process I cannot see it entering service before 2020, however as I say I’m not privy to the exact state of the many subsystems and subcontractors in control of them.

With regards to INS Vishal, if the Indian Navy has yet to even decide on a concept they want to develop a design on, then I can’t see them getting it in service by 2025, especially if it’s meant to be a CVN with EMALS which would be a far more complex ship than INS Vikrant, and that’s probably even if they receive US help. I mean, even if they had a finalized design ready and all the ducks from the various subcontractors and shipyard lined up in a row, steel cutting for INS Vishal should have already begun if they want to get it in service by 2025, assuming a construction time of about four years, a fitting out time of 2-3 years and a sea trial period of 1-2 years — which I think would be an optimistic schedule to be honest.

So would I be correct in saying that the Vikrant’s commonly circulated 2018 service date and the Vishal’s commonly circulated 2025 service date are very unlikely to be achieved? Or is the author of these articles (Ajai Shukla) not considered particularly reliable or something?

Has there been any more images of the Sovremenny upgrade yet? In many ways I find that more interesting than the CV-17 launch!

The most recent pictures are from December I think. The full extent of the MLU is yet to be known, but a bow HHQ-10 is confirmed as well as 2×8 cell 054A VLS at the front replacing the bow shtil launcher. It is likely there is at least another 2×8 054A VLS replacing the aft shtil launcher.
Sea Eagle radar has also replaced top plate.

There is some speculation about whether the universal VLS might make an appearance on the Sovs but imo it’s unlikely. The new AShM canisters to replace Moskits have yet to be seen.

soon.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2531981.html

Bal @ the Kurils.

http://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/701626.html

22350M frigates are planned to be about 1,100 tons heavier than the current ships, though it also quotes the 22350 displacement as 5,300 tons; most sources to date indicated it was about 4,500 tons.
If so this will be in size true replacements for the current destroyers, and confirms Leader will be a small cruiser sized ship, whenever it appears.

given the armament and sensors of 22350 a 5300 ton full displacement is not impossible despite its relatively conservative/medium dimensions.

When are 22350Ms expected to start construction and enter service, and what upgrades can be expected? I assume they’ll buildl at least four 22350s first?

Entry in service means different thing in eastern and western practise, given that we doesn’t know much about Chinese procedures, any of such announcements have to be taken with two grains of salt.
They often mix one nomenclature with other also, see the case of LRIP J-20 that sorted out being a gross equivalent to russian state trials prototypes…

Yes, definitely important to note. Though it’s not out of any desire to deceive but rather that the Chinese words for “enter service” are literally what they mean in the loosest sense of the term i.e. that they aircraft are now received by the air force and operated and maintained by them.
There probably are Chinese equivalents of IOC and FOC etc (of which IOC is usually the level of capability one thinks about in western military forces when a new piece of equipment enters “service”), but those are much more technical military standards which they would not openly disclose to the public.

In this case, when they say the J-20 has entered service it likely refers to the air force receiving them and starting the Chinese equivalent of IOT&E.

Similar to the original J-10, which entered service in 2003 for its equivalent of IOT&E, but was only considered operational (the equivalent of IOC) in 2006.

I expect it will take a similar two or three years from when J-20 first “entered service” for it to achieve its equivalent of IOC.

It’s all over the specialized press today. I was not that much offtrack in final 😉

Yes, but english language defence media are not exactly a shining example of their accuracy in reporting Chinese military developments.