[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

This is very interesting given the increasingly adversarial relationship between India and Turkey due to the latter's support to Pakistan. However, in the end of the day, pragmatism and generating business are greater priorities it seems, India is still a better business partner than Pakistan]

Wasnt this put in hold when Erdogan, like Imran, kept on ranting about Kashmir a few months ago? At a time, when Turkey, under Erdogan, has developed a liking to needle India on Kashmir and there have been reports of a plan and unholy alliance between Turkey, Pak and Azerbaijan to make Kashmir boil again, I simply cannot understand how can the govt even think of going ahead with something like this!!!!

Why would anyone want engineers from a country that is now openly hostile towards India, have access to our shipyards. Terrible Idea, I feel.

[ads11]

I have to say that to my knowledge I wasn't even aware of there being any links to Turkey regarding fleet support vessels before this. A decade ago, before the turn of the country under wannabe Sultan Erdogan, sure it would've made sense but I concur with skanchan95. The timing and the wording of this all seems a bit.. suspect to say the least. Erdogan has indeed made comments internationally about Kashmir, and more than that he's shown himself in recent years ever more willing to get involved in noseying in on outside affairs using vague Turkish motivations (see the Syrian incursion ostensibly to beat back the Kurds; shenanigans in the Mediterranean with Turkey's equivalent of a 9 Dash Line and the increasing friction with Greece as a result; butting in against Gen Haftar's forces in Libya to prop up the govt.; siding with Qatar during its enforced blockade by the GCC; and finally coming to the aid of Azerbaijan against one of the Turkish states favoured historical targets, the Armenians).

Fleet support vessels are humble but important workhorses sure. I can't imagine there's a great deal of sensitive cutting edge tech there. Probably explains why it was an easy one to clear off in terms of tech transfer. Surely though by a similar logic there must be a European partner out there who'd be happier to do a deal without any of the potential risks. Maybe looking eastward there could be South Korean shipyards willing to license out an auxiliary vessel design or parts of it.

If the plan does go ahead, I imagine these 5 big old ships will cover the replenishment requirement moving forward. Out of the existing auxiliaries, would any of them be at risk of being decommissioned in the short term by any of these new vessels coming on steam?

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Wasnt this put in hold when Erdogan, like Imran, kept on ranting about Kashmir a few months ago? At a time, when Turkey, under Erdogan, has developed a liking to needle India on Kashmir and there have been reports of a plan and unholy alliance between Turkey, Pak and Azerbaijan to make Kashmir boil again, I simply cannot understand how can the govt even think of going ahead with something like this!!!!

Why would anyone want engineers from a country that is now openly hostile towards India, have access to our shipyards. Terrible Idea, I feel.

Well, the Turkey, Pak and Azerbaijani alliance is basically just wishful thinking by the Pakistanis. A lot of the talk of support was solely verbal and based on the idea of a shared religion but not much else. During the Azerbaijan-Armenia war last year, the Israelis were much better allies to the Azeris than the Pakistanis could ever be.

I personally don’t see much of an issue with this transaction since this isn’t a high-tech program as ads11 pointed out and Turkish engineers and companies are already involved in strategic projects such as the Atal (Rohtang) Tunnel on the Leh-Manali highway (see tweets below by the Turkish embassy in New Delhi)





Calling Turkey as openly hostile to India would be stretching it, they’ve been more hostile to their western NATO allies who are still engaging the Turks. Infact no country except Pakistan and China are quite openly hostile to India except for some criticisms here and there, so it’s best to keep it that way. It makes sense to engage Turkey to bring them to our side IMHO. Despite Erdogan, Turkey is a resilient and fairly developed country with excellent engineering firms and a remarkably secular and westernised population. It doesn’t make sense to boycott Turkey and make them our adversary but rather constantly engage with them like their NATO allies.

Originally Posted by ads11

I have to say that to my knowledge I wasn't even aware of there being any links to Turkey regarding fleet support vessels before this. A decade ago, before the turn of the country under wannabe Sultan Erdogan, sure it would've made sense but I concur with skanchan95. The timing and the wording of this all seems a bit.. suspect to say the least. Erdogan has indeed made comments internationally about Kashmir, and more than that he's shown himself in recent years ever more willing to get involved in noseying in on outside affairs using vague Turkish motivations (see the Syrian incursion ostensibly to beat back the Kurds; shenanigans in the Mediterranean with Turkey's equivalent of a 9 Dash Line and the increasing friction with Greece as a result; butting in against Gen Haftar's forces in Libya to prop up the govt.; siding with Qatar during its enforced blockade by the GCC; and finally coming to the aid of Azerbaijan against one of the Turkish states favoured historical targets, the Armenians).

Erdogan has been cut to size for now. A lot of the adventurism of Erdogan was because of the vacuum created by the Trump administration retreating. But the Americans are back, their Lira is in a freefall, Putin is untrustworthy and Iran is still a common threat, so Erdogan is now reengaging with Saudi and UAE along with their western allies to diffuse some of the tensions and I guess that explains the charm offensive with India as well.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Erdogan has been cut to size for now. A lot of the adventurism of Erdogan was because of the vacuum created by the Trump administration retreating. But the Americans are back, their Lira is in a freefall, Putin is untrustworthy and Iran is still a common threat, so Erdogan is now reengaging with Saudi and UAE along with their western allies to diffuse some of the tensions and I guess that explains the charm offensive with India as well.

I mean lots of tinpot strongmen saw an opportunity to be bolder in light of the isolationist and revanchist policies of Trump but Erdogan's started well into the tail end of the Obama administration. Anyway, is he actually reengaging with Saudi now? He was practically gleeful in sticking the knife in to MBS with the whole Khashoggi affair, all those press conferences and leaks from Turkish sources. I can't imagine MBS is the type to easily forgive the political bruising he got from that whole affair. Erdogan as well doesn't strike me as a conciliatory person given the hissy fit he threw when his AK Party mayoral candidate got soundly trounced in the Istanbul municipal election. I for one would welcome an Erdogan cut to size but his actions in Nagorno Kazabakh, Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean hardly seem to fit that bill. If anything he's resorting to the tired old playbook of strongmen faced with rising domestic problems - let's go pick on someone smaller and turn the people against them.

[dragracer567]

The venerable INS Rajput which happens to the first destroyer of the Indian Navy will be decommissioned on Friday. It was the lead ship of the Rajput class destroyers which consists of 5 ships including the INS Rajput class. The Rajput Class in itself was offcourse based on the Soviet Kashin class, the last of which was commissioned in 1987. INS Ranjit from this class was decommissioned in 2019.

I am quoting Narayan sir from the first page for more information on this class of ships.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

[b][center]

Kashin class; the first modern guided missile destroyers of the IN

In 1973 India decided to equip itself with modern guided missile destroyers that could serve as the fulcrum of a squadron (i.e. a mini-task force). In those days the only sources (USA, UK, France & USSR) had never sold guided missile destroyers to any one not in NATO or the Warsaw Pact. The Soviets agreed to build their Kashin design for us. The Kashin was an anti-aircraft missile armed ship. We needed more of a multi-role asset with long range attack ability against air, surface and under water adversaries. So came the Kashin II with medium range missiles, homing torpedoes and a Kamov ASW helicopter.

In the 1980s the western & Indian press criticized the Kashins for being too cramped, prone to fires, why does India need these, can the IN manage such complex ships, the hull plate will corrode (??!!) etc - propaganda & prejudice. The Rajput class as we call them have served us reliably for between 3 to almost 4 decades. So much so for our press ever ready to lap up Western propaganda and pout it.

5000 tonnes, 480' long, 72,000 shp from 4 gas turbines driving two shafts, 35 knots; Armed with 2 twin launchers for the SAN-1 22km range surface to air missiles; Two 80 kms range anti-ship Styx missiles; (some) 4 Brahmos supersonic 290 km range anti-ship & land attack missiles; Four 30mm anti-aircraft mountings; 5 anti-submarine homing torpedoes; 1 Kamov ASW helicopter (Ka-25 or Ka-28) and 2 multi-barrel ASW rocket launchers. The Rajputs have been modified over the years. The above data is representative but correct. e.g. some have received the Barak 1 anti-missile missile system

The 5 ships are INS Rajput, INS Ranjit, INS Rana, INS Ranvir & INS Ranvijit.

Funnily enough, the Rajput class 'destroyers' are actually smaller in terms of tonnage as compared to the newer Indian-made 'Frigates' such as the Shivalik-class and the upcoming Nilgiri class (6,200 and 6,650 tonnes according to Wikipedia). This leaves the Navy with 9 destroyers for the time being before the INS Vishakhapatnam is inducted. I am assuming that the Vishakhapatnam class destroyers will replace the Rajput class ships one by one, hence leaving the navy with the same net number of destroyers of about 10. But I am assuming that the number of Frigates will increase with the 7 planned Nilgiri class ships (not sure if these are replacing existing Frigate classes).

Indeed a majestic ship that brought the Indian navy into the elite group of destroyer operators (now builders). I just hope this isn't used as target practice like INS Ranjit!

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

The venerable INS Rajput which happens to the first destroyer of the Indian Navy will be decommissioned on Friday. It was the lead ship of the Rajput class destroyers which consists of 5 ships including the INS Rajput class. The Rajput Class in itself was offcourse based on the Soviet Kashin class, the last of which was commissioned in 1987. INS Ranjit from this class was decommissioned in 2019.

I am quoting Narayan sir from the first page for more information on this class of ships.

Funnily enough, the Rajput class 'destroyers' are actually smaller in terms of tonnage as compared to the newer Indian-made 'Frigates' such as the Shivalik-class and the upcoming Nilgiri class (6,200 and 6,650 tonnes according to Wikipedia). This leaves the Navy with 9 destroyers for the time being before the INS Vishakhapatnam is inducted. I am assuming that the Vishakhapatnam class destroyers will replace the Rajput class ships one by one, hence leaving the navy with the same net number of destroyers of about 10. But I am assuming that the number of Frigates will increase with the 7 planned Nilgiri class ships (not sure if these are replacing existing Frigate classes).

Thank you for sharing this news. Nostalgia. She arrived in Bombay in September or December 1980 {I can't recall the date now} After the formal ceremonies and parties were over a few weeks later the first commanding officer Late Capt G. Hiranandani (later Vice Admiral) allowed me visit to this mighty ship. He was a colleague of my father. First time I saw a gas turbine and was amazed how small it was. Also first time saw the Goa SAM in its magazine and shocked at how tall it was - more than a 2-storey house. She was our first modern offensive surface vessel. The cruiser INS Mysore and INS Delhi were also offensive assets for their era but this ship was literally the most modern in any Asian Navy, other than Japan, at the time. Goes to also show how far the PLA Navy has come in these 41 years.

The Royal Navy's HMS Invincible, Harrier Carrier, came visiting. They quietly slipped a few frogmen into the sea to go photograph the mighty Kashin's hull, sonars and props. An alert look out spotted the tell tale bubbles and fired off his automatic, frogmen were caught by the IN & locked up, the Brits were told to haul anchor and sail immediately. The Foreign Minister got involved and the frogmen were sent home. As I was penning this long forgotten anecdote I just realized there is probably no serving officer today who must have been in service then other than the naval chief! Christ, better count my grey hairs.

@dragracer567, ship sizes have been growing steadily since WW2 though roles expected to be played are fairly constant for a name. But as weapons and sensors and space for C3I has got more complex and need for sustainability greater the ship sizes have grown. The Visakhapatnam class of today is expected to shoulder the some responsibilities as the INS Rajput of 1980. The INS Shivalik frigate the same as the old Leanders did for the 1970s and so on. Big hull sizes, as I might have written earlier are good - more volume, better ability to absorb damage, longer endurance, usually better seakeeping and so on. The old Soviets had a penchant for going for the smallest practical hull. Americans look the other way. As an observer of matters naval for 5 decades I prefer the latter. Of course some names such as cruisers are practically dead.

When INS Rajput arrived in Bombay for months there were articles in the press of how it was a badly designed ship, how thin the hull plating was, how it wouldn't last even 15 years and utter rubbish like this. I wrote letters to the editor, of more than one publication, arguing back on this trashy uninformed style and sent copies of my letters to the then Naval chief (Admiral Ronnie Pereira) much to the horror of my Dad. I wish some of those second grade journalists are around today to see this fine ship decommission after 40+ years. This habit of two paisa journalists writing trash is an old habit that continues unabated till this day.*

*one I clearly recall is today facing a famous charge under 'me too' allegations.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The Royal Navy's HMS Invincible, Harrier Carrier, came visiting. They quietly slipped a few frogmen into the sea to go photograph the mighty Kashin's hull, sonars and props. An alert look out spotted the tell tale bubbles and fired off his automatic, frogmen were caught by the IN & locked up, the Brits were told to haul anchor and sail immediately. The Foreign Minister got involved and the frogmen were sent home. As I was penning this long forgotten anecdote I just realized there is probably no serving officer today who must have been in service then other than the naval chief! Christ, better count my grey hairs.

This is an incident I have never heard of! We can never have enough of Cold War trivia, very intriguing!

I know we say this often in our defense threads but oh how the times change! Decades later, their new flagship carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth is on its maiden voyage to the Indo-pacific apparently to signal 'Global Britain' (ahem). One of the important countries it is expected to visit would be India with whom it will conduct exercises and I am quoting here:

"The ship will conduct a series of joint exercises with Indian Military Forces in the Indian Ocean, expanding our interoperability and enhancing our capabilities to defend against shared threats and protect our democratic values" and the UK will "support freedom of passage through vital global trading routes and demonstrate commitment to a recognised international system of norms and behaviour that benefit all countries. It will also help to establish a maritime partnership with India to support our mutual security objectives in the Indian Ocean".

The British post-Brexit soul-searching aside, the language used is quite surprising since the UK was never really a 'strategic partner' like France was despite the cultural ties - perhaps a mixture of cold-war geopolitics and superiority complex against an ex-colony. That said, I am glad that the colonial yoke has finally been lifted since with the changing world order!

I really curious though if we will be having a mixed flypast of F35Bs and Mig-29Ks like the Indian Navy did with the American Super Hornets and French Rafales, would certainly be a treat to watch.

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The Royal Navy's HMS Invincible, Harrier Carrier, came visiting. They quietly slipped a few frogmen into the sea to go photograph the mighty Kashin's hull, sonars and props. An alert look out spotted the tell tale bubbles and fired off his automatic, frogmen were caught by the IN & locked up, the Brits were told to haul anchor and sail immediately. The Foreign Minister got involved and the frogmen were sent home. As I was penning this long forgotten anecdote I just realized there is probably no serving officer today who must have been in service then other than the naval chief! Christ, better count my grey hairs.

Wow. This is one incident that is hard to believe yet extremely and truly plausible when viewed in context to the geo-politics of the 1980s. Guess those spy movies set in the cold war have some truth to them after all

I am amazed though that such an incident was covered up so efficiently. Not even a rumour in the public domain in over 40 years. Quite scary if you think about it. I won't be surprised though if some mainstream publication picks up this incident from here and subsequently reveals it in one of those "unbelievable relevations" type article.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

I am amazed though that such an incident was covered up so efficiently. Not even a rumour in the public domain in over 40 years. Quite scary if you think about it. I won't be surprised though if some mainstream publication picks up this incident from here and subsequently reveals it in one of those "unbelievable relevations" type article.

If there's one thing you learn delving deeper into military affairs throughout history is that there is an enormous back catalogue of absolute shenanigans. Mostly it's a natural consequence of having young excitable recruits put in confined settings in close access to both expensive and complicated equipment. You only need to go on reddit threads with ex service men and women, and regardless of their provenance you come across a hoard of stories like this. When they make it through the cracks and trickle down to message boards like ours, they become all the better.

The Cold War alone probably must've been the conflict best suited to these tales considering the heightened and continual tension but rarely ever an actual flashpoint leading to something more. It's always such a treat when V.Narayan or others shares anecdotes like these for our military.

I don't find it the least bit surprising that the Royal Navy were having a peek. All allies do it to each other, you never know when you might find yourself on the other side of the divide. Which brings me on nicely to..

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Decades later, their new flagship carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth is on its maiden voyage to the Indo-pacific apparently to signal 'Global Britain' (ahem)...

I really curious though if we will be having a mixed flypast of F35Bs and Mig-29Ks like the Indian Navy did with the American Super Hornets and French Rafales, would certainly be a treat to watch.

I mean one only had to look at Teresa May's first international trip post the calamitous Brexit referendum - to signal a new Britain free from the yoke of pan European bureaucracy, her govt. chose to visit India. Now there was no denying that this was a cap in hand visit seeking a headline investment or trade deal to massage the burn of Brexit for the UK public, but I imagine there was a lot of wry amusement at the cold shoulder they got instead.

Anyway politics aside, I don't think, reading from the top of this thread, that the RN was ever really antagonistic with the IN. I think there might've been times when relations were on a back burner but I can't imagine it ever truly being fraught considering the history of ship and aircraft acquisitions and joint training through time.

It's pretty symbolic HMS QE is going to visit, for sure. I mean the RN has to show that their big new flat top can do far afield missions that also tie in with the new "Global Britain" message, and justify why they went to such expense to build the damn things. On the topic of the air wing photo, it won't just be RN F-35Bs but also USMC ones onboard (all part of the joint operations plan and the little old fact that the Brits built a ship way too big for the number of jets they could ever afford). So you'd have a photo op featuring assets from the IN, RN and USMC if they do take one.

What I hope from a practical standpoint to see is if there'll be joint exercises featuring the RN Crowsnest ASW featured alongside our rotary wing ASW assets. That would be very timely and relevant exercises from the Indian standpoint, and the RN one too. The other parts of the air wing complement is obviously sexier but this is the one that, as the discussion on the submarine thread elsewhere highlighted, is increasingly becoming a more pressing issue in the IOR.

One last point though before I leave is that I wonder if we will see ties between India and Britain evolving - there are increasingly a number of south Asian origin members of cabinet in the UK govt not to mention MPs and the electorate at large. It would be interesting to see just how much of that diaspora affect what shape the relationship takes. Anyway, this is political talk and I better keep it about actual ships.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ads11

If there's one thing you learn delving deeper into military affairs throughout history is that there is an enormous back catalogue of absolute shenanigans.

Anyway politics aside, I don't think, reading from the top of this thread, that the RN was ever really antagonistic with the IN. I think there might've been times when relations were on a back burner but I can't imagine it ever truly being fraught considering the history of ship and aircraft acquisitions and joint training through time.

The relations between the two navies were very active till 1967 i.e. till the UK maintained a presence East of Suez. After that a fairly solid commercial link continued - Leanders, Graesby sonars, Seakings and then Sea Harriers culminating with the purchase of HMS Hermes. But they started to view as differently only from the 1990s. The attitude from the other side was coloured with a colonial hangover. I don't blame them, our police still has that hangover vis-a-vis the citizens! For example even though we were becoming the biggest customer for the Seaking they refused to let us test their variable depth sonars in our tropical waters with a 'take it or leave it attitude. Sadly the French did the same. I mean what is that chopper worth without the right sonar. Those at the top in those countries in the 1970s were people who had started their careers in the 1930s and 1940s when the colonial empires reigned. Another example is here in post #37 https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/comme...ml#post3659898 (Indian Navy - A Shipbuilders Navy: INS Nilgiri, INS Godavari & INS Brahmaputra) In 1982 HAL developed some modification to the Jaguars - something to do with the hydraulics or fuel system I cannot recall. BAe copied it and patented it and then asked that we pay a royalty. There was a row over it and for the first time we learnt we can push back and win which we did. I recall reading this in a magazine around then. Frankly I too was surprised that (a) we can push back; (b) we can win; (c) we do not need to be in awe of the whites.

The Sepecat Jaguar deal & the Sea Harrier deal were the turning points but not till the 1990s had a whole new generation of leaders taken over in those countries.

It's pretty symbolic HMS QE is going to visit, for sure.

They're showing it to a potential customer.

One last point though before I leave is that I wonder if we will see ties between India and Britain evolving - there are increasingly a number of south Asian origin members of cabinet in the UK govt not to mention MPs and the electorate at large. It would be interesting to see just how much of that diaspora affect what shape the relationship takes. Anyway, this is political talk and I better keep it about actual ships.

My assessment is that their presence will not add to any improvement in relations beyond strictly business. If at all there will be sub-conscious tendency to prove they are not biased!

[Reinhard]

Haven't come across any concrete information about the future of the INS Rajput. Given the age and usual Indian budget constraints, I don't see there will be even a remote chance of mothballing. Just hope it will get preserved as a museum and wont have an unceremonious end at a scrap-beach. At least 1 ship of each class should get preserved as a piece of historic significance. Its a habit that will die with me. I keep hoping that these mute witnesses of history and glory will get preserved and continue to serve the nation as motivators of future generations to dig history and dream of serving the nation.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

They're showing it to a potential customer.

Forgot to reply to this bit! I mean there's a strong school of thought that eventually one of the two ships will get axed by a defence review. Given budgetary pressures it really is hard to see how they can keep both going given the well publicised issues with manning them, not having enough F-35s of their own and the small matter of stitching together enough ships to make a respectable carrier group.

All that said, if they both do survive I suppose the proof is in the form of the current Exercise Ragnar Viking where it is operating as part of a joint fleet. In this case it's part of a USMC ARG (Amphibious Ready Group - basically the USMC term for a CSG, Carrier Strike Group, but instead of a big CVN in the middle, it usually has one of their America class flat tops).

It sure would be curious to see how any future sale would pan out though. I know the Koreans in their latest images of their carrier mock up had the distinctive twin island arrangement of the QE class. BAE and Babcock won't be sitting idle on those blueprints for a lot of the features from this design, they definitely will have done the rounds if the Korean presentation is any clue. Could see them trying to get involved in the IAC-2 project (though given it's on a back burner I guess that's a long shot at the moment).

What do you reckon -

1. Do you think you could see India shopping the design and blueprints for features of interest?
2. Or at a future date, the Prince of Wales perhaps being offered to India for sale and India biting?

Only thing that makes me think twice about the outright purchase of one of those ships would be that the domestic shipyard skills from IAC-1 would basically be allowed to atrophy in such a case. On the flipside, it would be buying a mature platform straight up, saving I suppose time more than money in the IN case. Anyway, makes for good material to mull on.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by ads11

• Or at a future date, the Prince of Wales perhaps being offered to India for sale and India biting?

I feel there is far too much advanced equipment in the QE Class / PoW subclass if it exists. Even in case of a sale they'll want to strip it down so much that it will be more of a flat-top cruise ship that India then has to customize with own upgrades.
Then - the size and dependency on specific suppliers will be tricky too. Already we have very few dry-docking facilities even for ships as large as the Vikrant. QE is far too big, without investing huge money in building support facilities.

The naïve patriot in me since decades now has eyes set on the Charles De Gaulle instead. India should try to build something in that area. It has optimum size and aerial complement. India is mastering marine compact nuclear power stations now with subs already. Next IAC if there is one - should be a mid-sized nuclear carrier with catapults that can launch existing platforms like Rafale-M / Mig29K along with some small recon planes. A supercarrier at least for another 2 decades should not even be on the table. It would be better to invest more in submarines or frigates instead IMO.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

I feel there is far too much advanced equipment in the QE Class / PoW subclass if it exists. Even in case of a sale they'll want to strip it down so much that it will be more of a flat-top cruise ship that India then has to customize with own upgrades.
Then - the size and dependency on specific suppliers will be tricky too. Already we have very few dry-docking facilities even for ships as large as the Vikrant. QE is far too big, without investing huge money in building support facilities.

I suppose it lends more credence to BAE & Babcock licensing design elements of the QE class for IAC-2 than selling the vessel whole. I wonder though how much of HMS Ocean was stripped down when she was sold to the Brazilians - granted I don't expect it to have nowhere near as much current equipment as the QE class. She really is an enormous vessel. You see it when side by side with a US CVN, far from being dwarfed, the more rectangular aspect ratio of her deck, and probably the fact it tends to be emptier compared to a busy US flight deck, it just looks more expansive to me.

Originally Posted by Reinhard

The naïve patriot in me since decades now has eyes set on the Charles De Gaulle instead. India should try to build something in that area. It has optimum size and aerial complement. India is mastering marine compact nuclear power stations now with subs already. Next IAC if there is one - should be a mid-sized nuclear carrier with catapults that can launch existing platforms like Rafale-M / Mig29K along with some small recon planes. A supercarrier at least for another 2 decades should not even be on the table. It would be better to invest more in submarines or frigates instead IMO.

Okay first off I fully agree - investing more in submarines and frigates for the time being is absolutely the sensible course of action once IAC-1 is completed. At that time there'll be 2 carriers and for the most part it should cover the needs of fleet air support. The more pressing need absolutely is in the undersea domain, both in terms of boats and ASW frigates.

CdG is interesting. Size wise it makes sense for the IN as let's be honest, there is no practical need for a supercarrier in the Indian context. The size of the airwing on the CdG is more than ample for the naval air capability India would need to field. It's the catapults that really would add a lot to the sort of assets India would be able to deploy, especially if you can fling off AEW aircraft whilst stationed miles off the EEZ and further afield in the IOR.

I'm less sure about the nuclear aspect of the carrier. Hear me out.
I get what you're saying about the miniaturised compact nuclear powerplants - for sure India is developing that capability with the Arihant class boats and their follow ons. One concern I have is power wise. If using publicly available information as a baseline, the Arihant reactor is rated for 85 MW. Far as I can tell CdG has each reactor rated at 150 MW of power output and she has 2. I'm not sure how easy it is to scale up the power or fit in multiple reactors of the Arihant design in one vessel and daisy chain them but I imagine it would be quite the task.

Secondly, think about why we need nuclear power in the first place. Most of the time, having a nuclear powered boat essentially allows for greater power and endurance. Do we really need that? In terms of endurance, the USN needs to be able to send their carriers all over the planet. Will the IN ever really need to venture beyond the Indian Ocean? And while the speed benefits (US CVNs can hit 30 knots from their claimed information so in reality it'll likely be a bit higher), the newest conventional super carrier out there, the QE class isn't much of a slouch either (says ~ 25+ knots). So it is possible to be plenty fast using conventional turbines. Ah but you say "what about the power needs for future subsystems (EMALS, the radar suite, directed energy weapons, etc.)?" Well again, the QE class in her architecture is built with enough overhead capacity built in to account for the needs of future power hungry sub systems.

Really then to me the nuclear supercarrier for Indian purposes would only really boil down to brownie points. I just feel for our fiscal capacity and our ultimate force mix and end use scenario, a conventional super carrier would be plenty good enough and potentially far more feasible.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ads11

Forgot to reply to this bit! I mean there's a strong school of thought that eventually one of the two ships will get axed by a defence review.
It sure would be curious to see how any future sale would pan out though.
What do you reckon -

1. Do you think you could see India shopping the design and blueprints for features of interest?
2. Or at a future date, the Prince of Wales perhaps being offered to India for sale and India biting?

Between 2017 and now we have lost several years of GDP growth and it may take a while before we get onto a 7% growth track. Big ships need a vibrant economy. Having said that we remain the best candidate to buy off one of the two. And both sides know it. :-) Buying the design is an interesting thought. Except that it will deter us from building an improved version IAC-1.

Only thing that makes me think twice about the outright purchase of one of those ships would be that the domestic shipyard skills from IAC-1 would basically be allowed to atrophy in such a case. On the flipside, it would be buying a mature platform straight up, saving I suppose time more than money in the IN case. Anyway, makes for good material to mull on.

Very valid point. These skills are built with great effort and like we let submarine building skills dissipate in the 1990s we should not let it happen on carrier designing and building skills. If my views were sought I'd say build a second hull of the INS Vikrant-II class - improve the design from lessons learnt, retain the skills and go step by step. IAC-2 with EMALs etc is a jump too far IMHO.