Posted on 11/15/2013 9:11:51 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
INS Vikramaditya, to be commissioned as an Indian Navy warship at Severodvinsk, Russia on Saturday, will be the navy's second aircraft carrier, supplementing the venerable INS Viraat. With INS Vikrant, being built in Cochin Shipyard, due to join the fleet by 2015, the navy continues the tradition of sea control through aircraft carriers, inherited from the Royal Navy.
Other navies have shied from this expensive and technically-challenging option. Australia decommissioned its lone aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, in 1982, and relies on a fleet of lighter warships and submarines. India, in contrast, commissioned INS Vikrant in 1961 and, after purchasing INS Viraat in 1987, operated two carriers for a decade till the Vikrant was decommissioned in 1997. Indian naval planners argue they must deploy an aircraft carrier on each seaboard, the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea.
With the 36-year Vikrant being decommissioned in 1997, the navy began looking for a second aircraft carrier. Work was only beginning on the first indigenous aircraft carrier, which will inherit the name of INS Vikrant. Since that was at least a decade away, the navy accepted a Russian offer, first made in the early 1990s, to refurbish and transfer the Admiral Gorshkov, a 44,500-tonne aircraft carrier that a bankrupt Russia had mothballed after the Cold War.
This faced serious resistance from the Indian Air Force (IAF). Every navy that has acquired aircraft carriers has encountered opposition from the air force, which naturally views the acquisition of fighter aircraft by a sister service as a threat to its relevance and turf. In 1998, Air Chief Marshal S K Sareen strongly opposed the Gorshkov, arguing the IAF could provide air support to naval vessels in the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean from its bases in peninsular India, which thrust like a dagger into the Indian Ocean.
"Aircraft carriers can be sunk, while a shore-based airfield cannot be," argue senior IAF officers even today. "Sukhoi-30MKI fighters, operating from shore-based airfields, can carry more weaponry than lighter fighters operating from carriers. And with mid-air refuelling, we can reach anywhere the navy wants."
The navy countered by pointing out when a target had to be struck from the air at, say, the Gulf of Aden, it would take at least two hours for shore-based fighters to reach. In contrast, an aircraft carrier launches fighter aircraft in less than five minutes.
Naval planners also believed the IAF would be so focused on the land battle and striking enemy airfields, it would not spare the fighters to support maritime operations, comparatively less visible. More, with three decades of Vikrant, the navy believed the pilots must be specially trained for maritime air operations - and IAF fighter pilots have little experience of those.
"While the IAF carries out initial training of our pilots, we orient and train them ourselves for maritime flying, since that requires pilots with salt in their veins. Last week, we procured our own Hawk advanced jet trainers (AJTs), which we use for orienting our pilots to the maritime environment," says Vice Admiral (retired) Anup Singh, who headed the navy's eastern command.
The Gorshkov proposal also faced resistance from the ministry of defence (MoD), with the sharp Budget cuts of the 1990s whittling the capital procurement Budget. Some defence planners dismissed a carrier as a "sitting duck" that could only operate as part of a carrier battle group (CBG). Since the sinking of a carrier could not be accepted, four-five destroyers and frigates were tied as escort vessels for its protection.
But the navy pointed out the weapons and sensors on a modern carrier like INS Vikramaditya made it far more potent than earlier carriers that required protection. While the Vikramaditya would still operate as part of a CBG, its radars, airborne early warning (AEW) systems fitted in Kamov-31 helicopters, and on-board strike aircraft would provide air defence protection to the vessels it sails with. From requiring protection of other vessels, the carrier has graduated to providing protection, say the admirals.
"The Vikramaditya will dramatically increase the reach of the navy, creating a sanitised bubble of 300 nautical miles (550 km) around the battle group, essential for conducting distant area operations in Indo-Pacific," says Admiral (retired) Sureesh Mehta.
With modern warships having a multi-role (anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine) capability, a CBG now fights as an integrated whole. Warships share the burden of surveillance for enemy aircraft, warships, submarines and even attack from land. For example, helicopters from each vessel take turns to conduct anti-submarine surveillance or monitoring of airspace. Destroyers are sent on "forward picketing" up to 100 nautical miles (185 km) away.
The navy would be carrying out these operations in wartime while blockading enemy shipping at Indian Ocean choke points like the Gulf of Aden or the Malacca Strait.
Eventually, even as these debates continued to rage, India and Russia signed a deal in December 1998 and an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) in October 2000 for the acquisition of Project 11430, as the Admiral Gorshkov was termed. On January 20, 2004, a contract was signed, which involved the payout of Rs 4,881.7 crore for repairing and refurbishing (R&R) the vessel at Sevmash Shipyard in Severodvinsk; spares; infrastructure augmentation; and documentation. The shipyard began work on April 4.
But the refurbishing that was to take 52 months quickly got extended. Owing to what Russian officials describe off the record as "sloppy contracting", it was discovered Sevmash was required to do significantly more than what the contract required. With the delivery date extended till 2012-end, another disaster struck, the Vikramaditya's engines gave way as it underwent trials last year. After another year lost in re-engineering the engines, the carrier is finally ready for delivery.
That flight deck is in nasty condition.
Yep, needs a buff an shine.
For the moment, but there is some change away from that.
HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide are both under construction at the moment. At 30,000 tonnes each, they are considerably larger than the carrier HMAS Melbourne was. While they are officially designated as LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), they are based off the Spanish Juan Carlos I, and retain its capabilities to operate as small aircraft carriers - pending suitable aircraft and crew training etc. Officially there are no plans in that direction - but they didn't get rid of the skijump despite the savings in weight and costs that would have provided.
That’s not a wooden deck, is it?
What makes you think otherwise?
ping...
non-skid...
These Indian aircraft carriers seem like expensive white elephants to me. When would India find it necessary to strike a target in the Gulf of Aden?
And even if it were necessary, unless a carrier just happened to be right on scene shore-based aircraft actually would be faster.
Perhaps someone should remind India how expensively ruinous a naval building program can be.
Wooden deck will absorb landing shock better than a steel deck. Much easier on structure of landing jets.
India justifiably has a proprietary view of the Indian Ocean. Not unlike, for example, our own view of the Gulf of Mexico.
Further, there are doubtless scenarios in the Indian War College concerning war with a Middle East caliphate and blocking Chinese incursions past the Malacca Strait.
From a strategic point of view, these scenarios are plausible.
The fact is, India's land borders are reasonably secure (exc. vis-à-vis Pakistan) but, due to her peninsular geography, she is highly exposed from the oceans.
Look at it this way...There are millions of graduate engineers in need of jobs in India. Defense industry is a good source of jobs.
The real intent of those carriers is not Aden, it is Karachi.
It sure is nasty looking.
Are those jets F-18’s?
MiG 29. Should be K model and KUB (2 seat) model aircraft. I can’t remember if these have the bigger fuel tanks or not. That would be critical at sea.
Wheres the non skid?
Thanks.
All the Russian and Chinese aircraft look similar to ours. But they’ve stolen or been given our technology so that figures.
I did a 4 day notice deployment once where they brought the boat out early from its POM period and they had stripped a large part of the deck. They slapped down a bunch of non-skid and slapped paint on it before anything had dried. That stuff was all coming up by the time we chopped into the Gulf. The ship battled that for the entire deployment. Wasn't their fault, but that deck was slippery. We were lucky to be in calm waters with fair weather most of the time. I hate the feeling of kicking the nose wheel into a turn and having the jet continue straight.
“What makes you think otherwise?”
I can’t tell for certain, but it sure looks to be in plank-width and -length sections. I just thought an armored deck was more state-of-the-art these days.
LOL any of the above ain't good news.
I did a 4 day notice deployment once where they brought the boat out early from its POM period and they had stripped a large part of the deck. They slapped down a bunch of non-skid and slapped paint on it before anything had dried. That stuff was all coming up by the time we chopped into the Gulf. The ship battled that for the entire deployment. Wasn't their fault, but that deck was slippery. We were lucky to be in calm waters with fair weather most of the time. I hate the feeling of kicking the nose wheel into a turn and having the jet continue straight.
I don't think I'll ever forget the sound of the machines taing up non skid.
Huh
I said I don't think I'll ever forget the sound of the machines taking up non skid.
Huh?
I SAID I WILL NEVER FORGET THE SIUND OF... OH wait never mind you were there too LOL. My ears LOL...
I would not have wanted to have been on the deployment you had to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.