[dragracer567]

Generally we don’t post jokes on defence threads but I couldn’t help but share the following

INS Vikrant single life

[SnS_12]

Some pictures from the web.

[Fuelrack]

2 cents -

Having worked with both Indian and international navies and shipyards for various warship projects, I will say that the quality of workmanship/ engineering that goes in building warships in India is the lowest that I have seen, and the lowest bidder procurement system is responsible for that.

The delivery-commissioning timeline post basin trials looks hurried to meet Azadi ki Amrit Mahotsav (whatever that means), meaning the ship could not be even half ready inside given the size and number of subsystems involved (not counting combat systems and armament).

Does it mean that the shipyard or the OEMs are going to stop working on the ship? No. Its business as usual, the ship could be docked for another year or five till it achieves RFO status. But on paper (and minds) we would have two aircraft carriers.

[dust-n-bones]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

1) To shoot down a carrier, you should be able to successfully track them which is not a given unless it's near the shore. A carrier is huge but is still a needle in a haystack in the sea!

There are now open sourced software to detect trajectories of thousands of tiny asteroids as telescopes scan the sky. You get the idea.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

2) The INS Vikrant would never operate close enough to the Chinese shoreline to be hit by ballistic missiles. The closest it would go is possibly off the shore of Vietnam and the Philippines with the GE gas turbine engines giving it the legs that the Vikramaditya never had and which would be hostile for the Chinese. I really don't think that the Vikrant would be sailing across the Taiwan strait (South China Sea itself is a huge stretch) and most power projection will be limited to the Indian Ocean where the Indian and US navies still dominate!

Yes, Indian carriers have their uses, mostly in peacetime image burnishing though, I have to add. A power which cannot deter neighbours from poking at it - at will - can hardly be taken seriously in overseas deployments.

Don't understand the reference to ballistic missiles not able to reach a carrier deployed in south east Asia. Let it pass.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

3) On the flipside, we've to keep in mind that as an airfield, the carrier is actually less vulnerable than a land-based airfield. 50 km/hr might seem slow but that's 50 km/hr faster than any land-based airfield. A carrier can travel upto 1,000 km in a single day which is a versatility that's always helpful. The loss of a carrier can be more devastating for morale though - it should be said.

Comparing defence of the homeland with a shooting practice target we put up in the sea is a little far fetched. We have to defend the homeland no matter what, whereas projecting power overseas with a carrier is a choice - hopefully informed, and not a result of hubris.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

It's not an easy choice to make, we desperately need more submarines but if we don't build a third carrier - the hard-won capabilities of CSL which built this ship would be lost for another generation!

This is putting that proverbial cart before the horse. Should our war doctrine include projecting power overseas at the cost of filling critical gaps in homeland security?
We have tiny defence budgets and technical base compared to say China, and there is always another critical area (or multiple areas if you want to splurge on carriers) that will stay compromised for decades due to this skew.

[W16rocks]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

Its all about prioritization. Another example. In response to Balakot strikes, PAF launched
Blindly following a superpower template is what I questioned.

In general I agree to most of your points, but the fact is that most of the shortcomings have to be dealt together, which is impossible so surely a few will be ignored, but an aircraft carrier is important at this time when Indian navy faces constant threat from PLAN, also I feel it’s not so easy to drown an aircraft carrier as we can do just the same to any other country’s carriers as we are pretty well equipped on the missile front.

Also in case of any war the navy can supplement the Air Force with its air wing as our Air Force has grown more and more week in past decade With declining squadron numbers, so navy is basically keeping the air wing numbers up.

Still a lot of shortcomings to face but this is a commendable start

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

There are now open sourced software to detect trajectories of thousands of tiny asteroids as telescopes scan the sky. You get the idea.

Erm that's a nice bit of code but last I checked, asteroids and meteorites tend to follow pretty well defined pathways following well established laws of physics, they don't tend to suddenly pull a hard turn if needed, let alone multiple changes of course at will.

I can see where you're coming from with the much touted "carrier killing" DF-21, the highest profile of the anti-ship ballistic missiles. If the PLAN have that to hand to spook USN carriers from not braving the First Island Chain when things go hot, there's scant chance the Vikrant has against it, right? Well while I think everyone is well to treat that capability with caution, the whole premise of the DF-21 relies on extremely accurate targeting in the terminal phase of a non-stationary object. I don't think I can stress that last bit enough - the fact the PLAN is still persisting with plans to adopt the age old policy of long legged platforms like the J-20 to sneak into the air defence bubble of a CBG and then vector in anti ship cruise missiles from H-6s (for now, until they get their H-20 online), to spam the air defence network of the CBG, is pretty telling that the DF-21 might not be the single silver bullet that a lot of folks have it out to be (any Clancy readers will be familiar of the famous scene of the Backfires punching through the GIUK gap and flinging all the ASMs they could at the NATO task force, to quite devastating effect). But of course, you can counter that any US carrier group would sail with Aegis equipped destroyers in tow, your ballistic missile defense shield for the uninitiated, whereas the IN to the best of my knowledge doesn't yet have any capability in the pipeline. I know the domestic ballistic missile defence programme is ticking along for a land based shield but once that comes on stream, timeline as ever a big question mark, is it that hard to envision a follow on to expand that to the naval domain?

Yes, Indian carriers have their uses, mostly in peacetime image burnishing though, I have to add. A power which cannot deter neighbours from poking at it - at will - can hardly be taken seriously in overseas deployments.

Don't understand the reference to ballistic missiles not able to reach a carrier deployed in south east Asia. Let it pass.

Comparing defence of the homeland with a shooting practice target we put up in the sea is a little far fetched. We have to defend the homeland no matter what, whereas projecting power overseas with a carrier is a choice - hopefully informed, and not a result of hubris.

I think you might be projecting a bit yourself in this idea that the Vikrant is part of some expansionist agenda, but as far as IN projection goes, really the idea is only to stick within the IOR. It's not remotely going to be used the way say a Nimitz carrier is to extend the long arm of the US military and bring it to bear on some far flung corner of the world. Vikrant is very much in the mould of Adm. Zummwalt's idea of a sea control ship. With the air wing it has to hand, and it's STOBAR config, the limitations on it's overall capability vs a CATOBAR flat top dictate that it will predominantly be responsible for extending the ASW reach of the IN and providing area air defence to any IN task force in the IOR.

Besides, no one has ever denied that any carrier capability is absolutely a soft power and prestige tool. If you're going to have a bolshy administration in power that pursues a muscular policy and rhetoric, you can't be surprised that they'd sing from the rafters about tangible and highly visible symbols of power like a carrier. Most on here know fully well something like the Arihant SSBNs are far more potent symbols of power but it isn't exactly something you'd make a big show about now will you?

This is putting that proverbial cart before the horse. Should our war doctrine include projecting power overseas at the cost of filling critical gaps in homeland security?
We have tiny defence budgets and technical base compared to say China, and there is always another critical area (or multiple areas if you want to splurge on carriers) that will stay compromised for decades due to this skew.

Again, I'm a bit bemused but rationalisation did take place with the domestic carrier programme. Late CDS Rawat did put any further plans for a follow on carrier on the backburner, instead prioritising (rightly so) the submarine programme. If the carrier programme was prioritised there'd be a date in place for laying the first steel for the follow on build but there isn't. You can't go ranting about misplaced priorities about a ship that got to this stage at a leisurely pace - the thing was cleared off ages ago. The very fact it's construction ambled along was a consequence of the fact that funding for the project was at a drip feed compared to the rate of development of recent destroyers and frigates or the pace at which in fact the follow on to the Arihant was put to sea.

There's a lot that isn't right about Indian procurement and the often times infuriatingly meandering defence planning - I get that, but it feels misdirected to have this ship get your goat when there's a myriad other low hanging fruit to go at when it comes to griping about the Indian defence sector.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by dust-n-bones

There are now open sourced software to detect trajectories of thousands of tiny asteroids as telescopes scan the sky. You get the idea.

I think Ads11 has given an appropriate answer for this.

Yes, Indian carriers have their uses, mostly in peacetime image burnishing though, I have to add. A power which cannot deter neighbours from poking at it - at will - can hardly be taken seriously in overseas deployments.

This is more of a policy problem than anything that a carrier can solve.

Don't understand the reference to ballistic missiles not able to reach a carrier deployed in south east Asia. Let it pass.

Again, accurately hitting a moving target 1,500 km away won't be easy! Such targeting will require constant monitoring by maritime patrol aircraft which will be forced to operate in an intense anti-denial environment. Also I should stress that SE Asia is a stretch, the Vikrant will most likely stick around the IOR.

Comparing defence of the homeland with a shooting practice target we put up in the sea is a little far fetched. We have to defend the homeland no matter what, whereas projecting power overseas with a carrier is a choice - hopefully informed, and not a result of hubris.

Seems like you are comparing apples and oranges. The defense of the homeland is not the same as defending a base - the former is a strategic objective while the latter is a tactical objective. A likely comparison would be land bases in the A & N islands which are supposed to be unsinkable carriers. The problem is that these unsinkable carriers are also immobile and the enemy knows exactly where the bases are and hence know exactly where to target. The former is required anyway but a carrier can increase the survivability of the air fleet and hence defend the homeland.

This is putting that proverbial cart before the horse. Should our war doctrine include projecting power overseas at the cost of filling critical gaps in homeland security?
We have tiny defence budgets and technical base compared to say China, and there is always another critical area (or multiple areas if you want to splurge on carriers) that will stay compromised for decades due to this skew.

Again, I actually do agree with you, the Navy has to set priorities. But as I mentioned earlier, the Vikrant was built at a cost of $2.5 billion over 15 years - compare this with the INS Visakhapatnam destroyer which was built at a cost of $1 billion over 8 years. This carrier certainly wasn't an unaffordable white elephant that cannibalized other more important projects.

Also, the priorities can't be if/or. If you are not able to project power atleast in the IOR, you are indirectly stifling homeland security as well. The gaps certainly need to be filled but this carrier atleast isn't an impediment to that!

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Fuelrack

Having worked with both Indian and international navies and shipyards for various warship projects, I will say that the quality of workmanship/ engineering that goes in building warships in India is the lowest that I have seen, and the lowest bidder procurement system is responsible for that.

The delivery-commissioning timeline post basin trials looks hurried to meet Azadi ki Amrit Mahotsav (whatever that means), meaning the ship could not be even half ready inside given the size and number of subsystems involved (not counting combat systems and armament).

Does it mean that the shipyard or the OEMs are going to stop working on the ship? No. Its business as usual, the ship could be docked for another year or five till it achieves RFO status. But on paper (and minds) we would have two aircraft carriers.

Thank you for joining this thread. We look forward to your participation and sharing of your insights. Your experience with ship building will, I'm sure, add to our knowledge and insights on this thread. This and our other Naval threads are full of members who are ex-Naval officers, current & past ship builders and each of us is a warship enthusiast eager to learn more rather than 'win' arguments in the typical social media style. And dissent is welcome. I see that our brother member @dust-n-bones is fulfilling that role in the face of some headwinds from dragracer567 and ads11. Power to them all.

To the extent you can, subject to professional confidentiality, please tell us about these quality shortfalls you refer to. We shall all learn. Given that except than L&T all others are PSU shipyards it is likely your observation has merit especially when compared to South Korean or American warship builders. Member Gannu_1 is also a ship builder working right now on some vessels. Maybe he can share his insights too. Given that the Godavari class frigates served their full life of 30 to 33 years and the Delhi class is going strong at 25 years the quality of work while not world class may still be just good enough. I don't know just sharing an observation.

On your second & third points I agree there must be trials still to be done, integration of the air wing and there may be one or two weapon related sub-systems still to be installed or fully operationalized. But having observed naval warship building in India for 51 years now and at times at very close quarters {we won't go into those details here} my estimate is that one year of post-commissioning trials and integration lie ahead not five. This would be within the norm of the time taken for the Queen Elizabeth class and Charles de Gaulle. From a political angle too it is important to display some visibility for this ship to show intent to China. As you will know the commissioning of a capital ship from HMS Dreadnought in 1906 onwards is a function of both engineering as well as geo-politics.

Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav means "elixir of energy of independence". It is the slogan given to celebrate 75 years of India's independence from colonial rule and is for all Indians regardless of our political stripes. I do not know if you are an Indian or of another nationality hence explaining this point as you raised it.

Cheers.

[Fuelrack]

Hi Narayan, thanks for the welcome! Hoping to learn a lot from the various discussions across this board.

My experience with Indian shipyards and the Navy pales in comparison with the collective experience this forum has.

To cite an anecdote (might sound trivial) of workmanship, without violation of confidentiality clauses, NDAs etc. -

I was working inside the Machinery control room of a frontline warship being built at an Indian PSU. I noticed that a master clock was being fitted on the bulkhead. A bunch of guys (daily wage workers) arrived with a welding machine, the master welder took three steps back and visually marked the 'best' place to weld the clamps and went on to weld them: inconsiderate of other equipment, people and cables in its vicinity. Post lunch another fellow came and realized that the clock was fitted a little too far, but manageable. Pulled a cable from the overhead tray, connected them to the clock and went away. I don’t know if the clock ever worked because I left after couple of days.

Talk about coincidences. Cut to a European shipyard, onboard a frigate under construction. I observed how the same activity could be done in a way that puts into use good engineering practices as well as value taxpayers’ money.

Two guys walked into the MCR, one fitter and another supervisor from the shipyards' hull department. They spread out a drawing on the table, pulled out the measuring tapes and marked out the precise spot the where the clock would go. The fitter proceeded with drilling and fitment of the clock after securing nearby equipment with protective covering. He put back the wall panels and vacuumed the floor before leaving. Another guy came the next day, connected it, powered it up and left, not before picking up the bits and pieces of wires he had cut and cleaning the place.

Now, this is what I wish one to take away from this –

I said bunch of guys in the first and named the professions of the guys in the later, why? – The PSU shipyards in India try to cut down cost by sub-contracting manpower and most of the work, why? Because their own work force is the cancer that’s eating them inside out by abusing Overtime (OT).

The manpower subcontractor has got to please labor unions and they need to mix and match people from all the unions. Few are taken in just for wages. They just sit around, play cards, spit gutkha all around and go home. Mind you, all these folks have total access to the ship where you have got potentially sensitive information floating all around. No background checks, nothing.

These untrained folks cause serious damages to equipment that are supplied by various OEMs, and who are often forced to honor guarantees for no fault of theirs. We have been at the receiving end, many times.

I am not sure if this was the case when the Godavaris and the Nilgiris (first batch) were built. My experiences are rather too recent.

Thanks for clarifying about the Amrit Mahotsav part. 75 years is indeed a milestone to rejoice as well as to look back and take stock of how far the country has come (and gone back) since.

[narmad]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Strange, isn't Russia generally the country that's more open towards ToT? Perhaps even more than the French?

IIRC the only reason that the Mig-29k program survived was because India bankrolled the stalled development of the project, so strange that the original contract didn't contain these concessions.

A question to the learned folk here - I am aware that the Air Force's Mig-29 is a formidable aircraft that served us well but did the Navy make a mistake going for the Mig-29K?

Getting TOT from Russia is like getting any work done from our Sarkari Babus [ Bureaucracy ]
There are different departments / organizations with no synergy.
Our Famed T-90 TOT , lot of subsystems we had to work out ourselves, including the main 125mm gun. The Russians simply did not share the design of the gun assembly.

Same issue with Mig-29K. The conversion of airforce designed for Airforce Mig-29 to handle Aircraft carrier landings was a big no no.

Aircrafts land differently on land verses a ship. Airport landings have luxury of long runway and you touch down smoothly.
Carrier Deck landings are basically controlled crashes. You slam into the deck with the same speed as you rotate and are only stopped on the ship because of the tail hook engaging one of the three arrestor wires.
IN Mig29K had low availability of 18%, because of lack of spares to replace the components damaged after each landing.
Imagine, of the squadron strength, having just 2 aircrafts in flying condition.

All this is in the CAG reports.

Did the navy not know while inducting is anybody's guess.
The negotiations for Admiral Gorshkov conversion to Aircraft carrier started in later 90s, when we were at receiving end of the western world sanctions post Pokhran. We had not choice, but the Russians for an aircraft carrier.
Original deal was Admiral Gorshkov was free with the Mig-29K.

Now we are stuck with two lemons .

[narmad]

Originally Posted by Fuelrack

Now, this is what I wish one to take away from this –

I said bunch of guys in the first and named the professions of the guys in the later, why? – The PSU shipyards in India try to cut down cost by sub-contracting manpower and most of the work, why? Because their own work force is the cancer that’s eating them inside out by abusing Overtime (OT).

The manpower subcontractor has got to please labor unions and they need to mix and match people from all the unions. Few are taken in just for wages. They just sit around, play cards, spit gutkha all around and go home. Mind you, all these folks have total access to the ship where you have got potentially sensitive information floating all around. No background checks, nothing.

These untrained folks cause serious damages to equipment that are supplied by various OEMs, and who are often forced to honor guarantees for no fault of theirs. We have been at the receiving end, many times.

I concur with your thoughts 100%. Heard similar stories from my close friend's Dad who worked in MDL.
The salaried workers who are actually trained, do not work much, while the bulk of work is done by untrained sub contractors without any supervision.
These people slog a lot, unionized workers hardly work. Subcontractors have lot of pressure to finish work, quality be damned.
Modular builds have introduced an semblance of accountability with the management, but nothing much has changed on the ground.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by narmad

IN Mig29K had low availability of 18%, because of lack of spares to replace the components damaged after each landing.
Imagine, of the squadron strength, having just 2 aircrafts in flying condition.

All this is in the CAG reports.

Did the navy not know while inducting is anybody's guess.
The negotiations for Admiral Gorshkov conversion to Aircraft carrier started in later 90s, when we were at receiving end of the western world sanctions post Pokhran. We had not choice, but the Russians for an aircraft carrier.
Original deal was Admiral Gorshkov was free with the Mig-29K.

Now we are stuck with two lemons .

More recent reports seem to indicate that the availability has improved somewhat but it's pretty much an open secret now that the Navy isn't contented with the Mig-29k.

Look at it this way, for the contract to purchase 26 aircraft in which the Rafale and F-18 are competing, it actually made the most sense to purchase 26 more Mig-29ks given that the Navy has clarified upfront that further orders might not be made and the focus is on the TEDBF. The Mig-29ks actually fit in the elevators while the operational and maintenance infrastructure already exists while for the Rafale/F-18, these have to be made from scratch - that too for just 26 aircraft.

This might seem anecdotal but the Navy must have some serious reservations with the Mig-29k that they would rather spend more to get western aircraft (+ associated infra) even if it's just a stop-gap than even think of getting more Mig-29ks. The Indian Navy is generally the most penny-wise of the forces given their tight budgets, so there must be a solid reason for their decision to buy western aircraft instead.

As you and many others pointed out, there weren't many options for the Indian Navy back in the 90s, those were the days of hard choices that we no longer have to make. In addition, the inability to integrate domestic weapons would certainly be a deal-breaker especially since IIRC both Boeing and Dassault promise the same.

[Venkatesh]

Amul Special doodle

INS Vikrant, India’s first homegrown aircraft carrier, commissioned

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Fuelrack

Hi Narayan, thanks for the welcome! Hoping to learn a lot from the various discussions across this board.

Welcome on board. :-)

I said bunch of guys in the first and named the professions of the guys in the later, why? – The PSU shipyards in India try to cut down cost by sub-contracting manpower and most of the work, why? Because their own work force is the cancer that’s eating them inside out by abusing Overtime (OT).

The manpower subcontractor has got to please labor unions and they need to mix and match people from all the unions. Few are taken in just for wages. They just sit around, play cards, spit gutkha all around and go home. Mind you, all these folks have total access to the ship where you have got potentially sensitive information floating all around. No background checks, nothing.

These untrained folks cause serious damages to equipment that are supplied by various OEMs, and who are often forced to honor guarantees for no fault of theirs. We have been at the receiving end, many times.

Originally Posted by narmad

I concur with your thoughts 100%. Heard similar stories from my close friend's Dad who worked in MDL.
The salaried workers who are actually trained, do not work much, while the bulk of work is done by untrained sub contractors without any supervision.
These people slog a lot, unionized workers hardly work. Subcontractors have lot of pressure to finish work, quality be damned.

Thank you for sharing these direct {@Fuelrack}and hearsay {@narmad} inputs. I have no doubt your observations have a healthy dose of reality. Maybe MDL is a little better and places such as Garden Reach a little worse. But these are only conjectures on my part. Having owned and run several medium sized, but very technically advanced industrial units that had to deliver to exacting standards in a repeatable and reliable manner, my take is that you cannot build a submarine or a 7000-tonne destroyer with so much of complex equipment if the bulk of your operating staff are playing cards or dozing around and the majority of your work is being done by unskilled contract labour. I think the reality is somewhere in between. Having said this our PSU shipyards have a very poor on-time delivery record to the detriment of the Indian Navy. I hope more orders go to the likes of L&T.

[dragracer567]

Another Mig-29k crashed today. Thankfully, the pilots seem to have ejected and have been rescued.

The crash frequency of the Mig-29k seem to be quite high given that we only have 40-45 in our fleet and it was procured only a decade ago.

I guess the F/A-18/Rafale and the TEDBF can’t come soon enough!