JonesyIIRC, IN plans not for 3 operational carriers but 5. I doubt they are simply going to stop after producing 2 IACs. So, by 2025, you may have about 4 in service. 2 in various stages of refit/rehaul/remanning and two on station. JMT
USS.
Good!. For the fulfilment of the requirements the IN have stated they will need them. The major question mark will be, though, the longevity of the Gorshkov in Indian service. If the 2nd IAC isnt likely to appear until 2022, as Ante states, it could conceivably be more than a decade after that, until sufficient hulls could be put in the water to allow for Gorshkov to be retired. After the life she’s already had I’d not be too optimistic about taking her into the 2030’s.
Ante,
Quite the contrary. Had I taken the time to explain things properly earlier on I would have saved all of us much keyboard battering. My apologies!.
JonesyAnte
Even after negating that the final up time would be near 8-10 years for the 3 carriers in a 20 year period and 100 % availability for 2 carriers during the time frame. Its simple math really, I wish i could get more info on the time for small refits etc. so I could be more accurate.
OK I’m guilty of allowing you to build up a false impression of whats achieveable on three hulls because I was trying to keep things simple. Its obvious all that has done is to reinforce a fantasy.
Lets take this from basic principles. You will have 3 carriers. You have a stated requirement for two active duty flight decks at any one time assigned one deck to two separate fleets east and west.
With three fully available vessels this is almost impossible to achieve, without gapping, as carriers have a finite length of time at which they can be at sea on any one deployment. All things mechanical are liable to break, all things mechanical aboard big grey boats are liable to break at twice normal frequency. When enough things break the ship heads back to port – or the same when the crew have been out long enough that they are plotting mutiny. Either way deployments are finite.
Towards this terminal phase of a deployment a ship will be near combat ineffective or, at least, is severely degraded as a combat unit. If the requirement is to keep a full-capability naval aviation platform in each fleet permanently then the ship will need to be relieved on station. This means that a second, worked-up, vessel must have sailed some time period before the end of the firsts deployment cycle.
With me so far?
So, in routine operations here, we have one carrier steaming back to port for a regeneration cycle; one carrier fresh on station in one fleet and another on station with the other fleet. So you have zero spare capacity at this point and the other on-station carrier can not come off station until the vessel that is still only heading for home to begin a crew-rest, training and ship maintainance period completes and is ready to deploy again.
That is with the third available carrier as well. When you have one that is down for 2 years, to go through major refit and workups to get it back into full commission, you are trying to run that programme with only two vessels – good luck with that!.
You will not get 2 vessels permanently and 3 some of the time. You will get 2 vessels permanently whilst the 3rd is available and then probably 1 and a bit when its deep refit time!.
JonesyI also consider your requirement of a 2 year refit every 5-6 years as a bit over the top. If you check the refits done to other carriers worldwode, you would realise the period between refit is much higher and the time taken for refit much shorter.
You want to look into that a bit further?. CdeG’s next refit 2015 and likely to be another 15mnths yard time plus workups on top of that. Our rotation with the CVS’s has followed a similar pattern until Invincible was decommed.
You dont get 2 permanent deployments with 3 carriers available Ante. I’m afraid its simple as that.
JonesyYou are talking about worst case scenarios. As of now IAC 3 is not planned, the three carriers with be IAC 1 IAC 2 and the Vicky. The will probably be named Vikrant and Viraat.
The refits take like an year or so maximum and the period between the refits is rather big so lets say.
When the IAC comes out ( 2014 – 16) Vikramidtya will only be a few years in service and will not need a refit for another year or two and when it goes into refit IAC 1 will be the only carrier, By 2022 (acc to navy brass) IAC 2 will enter service, then Vikramditya will be fresh from a refit and IAC 1 will only have 6 years under her belt. So we are likely to have 3 carriers and then IAC 1 will go in for her first refit, we will have Vicky and IAC 2.
So going by this logic, 2 carriers will be available always and 3 most of the time. 😀
It was IAC-1, 2, 3 for ease of explanation though thank you for the correction very accurate of you!. Gorshkov is set for 2012 service entry so, going on current performance, IAC-1 commissions 2015 and Gorshkov is already likely to need a refit period especially if, as the single duty carrier, she’s been busy. Given the likely delay to IAC-1 presumably they are starting cutting steel on IAC-2 by 2013 for a commissioning date in 2018 at the very soonest.
That puts the maintainance intensive Gorshkov 6 years in service and IAC 3 years in service. If it hasnt had a refit by this point the Gorshkov is going to be in kit form!. Deep refit interval for Gorshkov over 24 months to be fully worked up and you have the 2 IAC’s on duty. We are now at 2020 Gorshkov is worked up and IAC-1 has been 5 years in service – deep refit time. 24 months later and IAC-2 has been out for 4 years – in she goes for refit with Gorshkov and IAC-1 as duty carriers.
Could the service interval for say, IAC-2, be stretched so it didnt go in until 2023 instead of 2022 yes – dependent on use. So it would not be impossible to see three Indian carriers at sea, if a crew and airgroup can be found for all of them simultaneously, but its not generally done in case of a defect or accident impacting on one of the other ‘duty’ carriers. If you want guaranteed availability of two decks you dont have all three of your decks deployed simultaneously!.
JonesyI know it was not available for some time, I also think the Viraat is under refit now, but these things do not happen always, when was CDGs last refit.
So ideally we will have 3 carriers most of the time with one being in dock once every few years.
Er no…you will have 3 carriers that will enter service over a phased period of time. Likely as IAC-3 commissions then IAC-1 will need to go into deep refit to make good any defects that have occured over its initial service period and to receive upgrades to bring it into line with the later ships. When IAC-1 finishes her deep refit then it will, likely, be about time for IAC-2 to undergo her first major period of yard time. By the time IAC-2 comes out it will be time for IAC-3 to go back in etc. Remember this does not include time for workups or make-good work to any major operational defects that surface under trials.
Deployments like this being juggled with just 3 hulls is going to be quite traumatic for the IN brass – ideally you would want at least 4 modern, low-maintainance decks to keep 2 out at all times.
JonesyAnte
Even with just the ex Hermes we are not doing that bad in terms of carrier availability. The Franch CDG is another example, you don’t need to refit your carriers all the time. So I don’t believe for one second that one of the third will always be sitting in the docks.
You may want to check quite how many operational aircraft carriers the Marine Nationale had between Sept 07 and December 08 and then google around and see where the Aeronavale was doing its flying during that period?!
You may be in for a suprise!.
JonesyScot,
Well, you made you own case for the F-35’s on the IAC’s. As China would likely start to field similar Aircarft Carriers around that same time. Also, Naval Aircraft don’t just encounter other Naval Aircraft. They could and would likely operate against a whole spectrum of Air Threats many of which would be landbased.
Huh?. Point 1 the Chinese carriers will just be coming on stream in that timeframe and, if all signs presently are accurate, they will not be fleet carriers in the old sense. The air-battle between a MiG-29K and any Chinese carrier aircraft conceivable in that timeframe will come down to who’s radar coverage the merge happens in. The F-35C stealthing will be no more advantageous than a longer-ranged air-air missile and will come at premium price.
Point 2 as I have said in my last post, clearly, they will not be operating against a ‘whole spectrum of air threats’. They will be operating at most against the air arms of neighbouring and coastal states in their theatre. They will not be sailing round to the SCS to invade bloody China single handed!. In theatre their opposition, even in 15 years time, will be states with limited numbers of 3-4.5 gen fighters. Threat systems that the Mig-29K will be adequate to challenge if employed properly.
Also, its very hard to predict threats 5 years from today. Let alone 15 plus
No it really isnt when you consider the lead time for procurements in that region. Who in the theatre is in the market for anything more potent than an upgrade Strike Eagle?. The Aussies with their F-35’s perhaps?. Anyone else?. Cant think of one that the IN may have to conceivably front up against?.
……..Its also funny that many nations will operate F-35B’s from Carriers
You may find it funny. I just find it irrelevent. None of the people signing up for F-35B have, or have ordered, MiG-29K’s to operate off their carriers.
The simple fact is Scot that the IN isnt the USN. The IN is not going to be building a dozen strike carriers. They’ll have 2 duty flat-tops one on each coast. They will not be invading China on the strength of their deployable naval aviation potential and they will not be steaming down under for a spot of Lebensraum on Bondi….though you may forgive them the endeavor.
Given those very plain facts the justification for F-35C and all that is associated with it – catapults, steam plants and the major mods to a bunch of GT-powered medium sized CV’s just isnt there. If there was such a need for a more capable, ie CATOBAR, carrier fighter then one already exists in the form of Rafale that would much better suit them anyway because of their experience with the M2K.
Ante Climax,
And Jonsey, India has plans to build a true Blue water navy, that is why it is acquiring three carriers and up to 6-8 Nuclear submarines. So your argument about punitive short range strikes do not hold water.
Sure the IN will have a real blue water capability. They are not going to be projecting a lot of combat power with it though which is the point. 3 carriers means, at best, 2 duty vessels and one stood down in refit. There will be times when you have one winding down from deployment and another working up when you will have but a single fully-operational carrier to cover both coasts. Thats just plain fact I’m afraid.
JonesyExactly, my point………….not today but possibly tomarrow. (say 10-15 years) Also, I wonder if the F-35C would be a better solution for the IAC’s. Has it has longer range, payload, and bring back weight.
I think you are missing the point a bit here Scot. The ‘longer range, payload and bring back weight’ are all absolutely meaningless. Just as those same advantages of the MiG-29K are over the SHAR FRS51’s they have now.
This is because, at a very basic level, there will never be enough airframes embarked, on the modest sized carrier platforms they will have, to handle anything more than punitive short-range strikes whilst in an air-threat environment. Their best bet is the LACM Club variant from the sub fleet and integration of Kh-59M with the IN sqdns, or something similar, to get some usefulness from the Fulcrum-K’s without risking them too far ‘feet dry’.
In 10 years time who, in that theatre, will have a naval aviation deployment capability that exceeds MiG-29K under air direction from its fleet units?. Answer no-one. In 15 years the Chinese may have a carrier or two that are just about finished working up….at most. Even then they will still be learning the trade and would be ill-advised to go up against an experienced operator. In reality there would be little need to anyway as the Chinese threat to an Indian carrier group would be from SSN’s not aircraft.
So with any blue-water naval threat in your timespan dispensed with the only thing left is striking power against targets ashore. In 15 years time will the IN have evolved into a power capable of sailing into the SCS and launching strikes on China’s mainland?. No. With a single, modest, deck its an utter absurdity to even contemplate it. Shall we also then dispense with IN MiG-29K’s running into Chinese 5th generation fighters?.
The point then rolls back to what the F-35C would be necessary for?. The only meaningful advantage that it brings would be a continuous development path from an airframe that will actually be in squadron service with the country that builds it….which cant be said for the MiG. Then again though they could have that today with the Rafale. Rafale bringing the training crossover from the M2000 fleet, extremely attractive uptime and turnaround rates, Meteor, Apache, Storm Shadow and AASM.
Hard to see, if the IN wanted to spend the money on a more capable and future-proof solution why they would have to wait for F-35C?.
JonesyFulcrum Ks IN version are more than capable of handling any threat Indian naval force would encounter, there is simply no need for the F35 ( VTOL or VSTOL ) in their near future, and that is from purely technical perspective.
Honestly in my humble uninformed opinion they could do worse then to sell off their MiG29 Ks and go with Rafale both in MRCA and carrier based. 😮
An opinion that I, for one, would concur with in every regard. The IN carrier force is, at full strength, going to place one deck in the waters East and another in the West at any one time so you are looking at on-scene IN naval aviation constituting, perhaps, a couple of fastmover sqdns at best?. That means its either CAP or strike packages but not both no matter what type they are flying!.
In that context and, as DJ states, in the theatre threat environment where is the requirement for JSF?. I dont share the general awe for MiG-29K and am of the opinion that the STOBAR MiG will be found significantly wanting if the IN ever have to use it as some of their brass seem to expect to do, but, it will be at no significant qualitative disadvantage against any threat system in theatre for a good long time.
JonesyIrrelevant, though for clarity perhaps I should have used BVT instead of VT, as the Khareef design and, subsequent work undertaken for C3 OCPV, transfered to BVT intellectual property.
Whether its VT or BVT that is the entity that moves forward with naval shipbuilding the fact remains that a developed hull exists that is suitable for purpose as the basis for C2.
JonesyIts got to be said that the Microwave Oven Maintainance Fundamentals course is fascinating and I’ll forever wonder about the stealth properties of the lowly Samsung unit that nestles in my kitchen from this day on.
I am just wondering what relevance, Crobato, the technology you are describing so accurately has to do with antiship missiles?.
JonesySwerve,
No major disagreement at all – the only point I was making was in response to your comment: “I think the FM400 is about the smallest ship that would be capable of carrying the required weaponry & have the desired range & endurance for C2”
Just wanted to drill a bit deeper there to make the point, IMO, that you dont need a 127m long hull displacing up to 4500tons for C2!.
BTW, what is your ideal C2, given that you say (& I’m not disputing it) that we can do better than a ship based on the Dutch OPV? I speculate that you’d specify some different systems, e.g. ARTISAN, for commonality with other RN ships, rather than that Thales sensor mast. What about displacement, speed, range, weapons, crew?
The key to ‘better’ for C2 is hull numbers i.e a C2 capability delivered by 10 3500ton OPV/FFL’s is, IMO, far superior to a C2 capability resting on, for sake of example, 6 FM400’s.
For my money we are looking at the following:
VT have already come up with the basic hull form that fits from its Khareef work. With that done the rest is a systems integration and packaging job. There is nothing in that list that would overly tax a 3500ton hull – the hardest thing potentially being the provision of aviation stores for a multi-element airgroup.
JonesyWan,
Bit steep in terms of the old shekels the NSC both in acquisition and, it could be reasonably anticipated, in running costs too. Good design, by all accounts, but other options exist that could do the approximate job very much more efficiently!.
Swerve,
You see what I’m getting at? You have just, rather nicely, proved my point! You have defined a ship which might meet the requirement, and it’s on my side of the minimum size divide.
The point I was disputing was that a hull – approximately the size of the Formidable – could not embark sensors, weapons, range and endurance suitable for the C2 mission.
Uparmed with the RAM mount and SSM added to the medium calibre gun the Dutch vessel is there or thereabouts with the only ship impact, in any measurable sense, being the additional crew requirement in the warfare and engineering dept. That keeps the displacement strictly on ‘my side’ of the 4k ton benchmark ;). Though I do, of course, accept that its not a directly comparable hull in armament or performance terms it would be my view that it would be an adequate hull in those criteria for the C2 requirement. Certainly you would need little more to meet the tasking.
Then we come to look at the FM400 concept. Is this really, one wonders, a hull that offers frigate performance, battlespace management and firepower with OPV range and endurance on a 4000ton hull?. An impressive packaging job to say the least.
Until you note that the FM400 is offered as a range of hulls, in 4 generic types, from 3500-4500tons offering a ‘range of options’!. So for your chokepoint escort, an austere 2nd class capability by any definition, you are now conceivably looking at a hull just 1500tons off a FREMM and one, given the actual orders for FREMM, probably not all that far removed in cost terms than the bigger unit.
Certainly in value-for-money terms a consideration of FM400 for C2 would have to raise the spectre of FREMM participation. This from the standpoint if we are looking at a hull so close to FREMM for C2 whether there is greater value in acquiring FREMM for C1 and an austere specced variant for C2.
DCNS would certainly be happy to provide a good quote for 8 FREMM ASM and another 8 or so bespoke patrol variants. The whole-life costs of the single class could also be quite favourable. Especially over a dual class approach like T45-based C1 and FM400-based C2.
Problem is it doesnt provide the numbers or quality we need. C1 needs to be bigger and much more capable than FREMM-ASM and we need more patrol hulls in the water than we’ll get by buying in an expensive thoroughbred warfighter for C2.
C2 needs to be the cheapest hull, in whole-life terms, we can get that provides the range, endurance and space for weapons and sensors to deal with a limited but modern threat environment. I’m sorry but thats not FM400 anyway you cut it – the Dutch boat is actually a better fit, but, one we can do better than ourselves!.
BTW, I think the C3 you refer to is not the one the Admiralty have in mind, which is smaller & more lightly armed than what you – and many others, think of as C3. I think the VT proposal has been rather too influential.
VT came up with that design on the basis of the requirements. The Admiralty might want a smaller and lighter armed vessel though apart from one officers comments more than 12 months ago I’ve seen nothing official (or unofficial!) on that point. I’m sure the Admiralty are hoping to get all the escorts that are promised under SDR as well. When they find they arent going to get them they’ll start to realise what they need C3 to be!.
JonesyThe Formidable class are fine ships, with all the gear needed for C2, but they don’t have – because Singapore doesn’t need or want – the range & endurance the RN wants for C2. To get the range & endurance needed in a Formidable-sized ship, you’d have to sacrifice weapons. That means you turn C2 into a big OPV, like the new Dutch ships, & it stops being C2 & becomes a big C3. To extend the range & still carry the weapons load, you need a bigger ship.
Its by no means that straightforward an equation though Swerve.
Isnt a ‘big C3’ exactly what the requirement for C2 effectively is?. A chokepoint escort – ie the gunboat component of gunboat diplomacy?. 30knt speeds are, in recent history, solely of value in chasing diesel submarines and we try to use a chopper for that, rather delicate, task today anyway. No way a circa 4k ton hull is keeping up 30knts, in any kind of seaway, on oceanic transit so thats out as a justification. Likewise, if the conditions are calm enough that you can crank up to 30knts after, say, a druggie go-fast boat then its odds on he’s good for 40-50knts and your best option is a few discouraging shells in his path or waking the wafu’s up!. Hard to see what you need 30knts for on a boat that needs to do economical patrol routinely and will rarely, if ever, see fleet duty?.
As for mission systems themselves the Dutch OPV you list is perfect illustration as to what can be achieved on this size of hull if the requirements are properly defined. 8000nm, endurance in excess of 21 days, organic aviation support, comms and sensors better than a great many warfighting escort vessels in service.
The only lack is in the weapons department and replacing the forward 27mm with a Mk49 GMLS for RAM and fitting Mk141 cannisters on the hangar roof for Harpoon Blk2 gives the ship rough parity with any light frigate in the world for the price of minor mods to the superstructure and, worst case, fitting another panel into the combat data system.
If you were prepared to undertake a more significant scope of works you continue the foredeck extension, housing the OTO and magazine spaces, for’d 12ft or so and push the mount to its forward extent. Behind the gun there is suddenly space, by my reckoning, for at least 4 Sylver A35 modules. With the sensor suite fitted thats automatically full-function VL-MICA territory for 16 rounds!.
What you have, bottom line, is an advanced high endurance patrol combattant. A platform capable of extended chokepoint coverage and optimised for MIOPS to undertake suveillance missions in support of friendly vessels transitting those chokepoints – in essence C2. All on a hull not wildly larger than the Singaporean frigate originally mentioned.
JonesyJonesy , even with a conservative estimate Brahmos can cover its near max range in under 5 minutes , if its doing a Hi- Lo profile it will be detected and I assume its detected during launch , the under 5 minutes is a very difficult time to beat , assuming you can track it very well during its entire flight profile , its low frontal RCS will make that difficult as well.
But if you need a discrete Lo-Lo Profile Brahmos can still achieve that , if a submarine manages to be any where ~ 100 Km away from CBG , the modern sonar can give an accurate bearing enough to fire Brahmos.
Problem is Austin that modern air defence systems can go through their engagement cycle, from standby, in 30 seconds or less through track-form to missiles launching. If you’re holding firm, clear, contact on inbounds even 5 minutes out then you stand a good chance of defeating them. Unless they can saturate your defence potential – see earlier point.
As a submarine weapon on a lo-lo profile yes I agree it does have merit, but, its an air and surface launched weapon at present isnt it?. Seems like an awful lot of effort wasted in developing the air and surface capability for a weapon that is best deployed from a submarine….especially when the IN has bought Club for deployment on its subs already?.
Sign In
