India Launches INS Vikrant

ThePointblank · Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:57 am

Congratulations to India for launching the first of their own indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...s-vikrant/articleshow/21774896.cms

Quote:
KOCHI: India on Monday launched its first indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, joining the elite club of nations with the capability of designing and building a warship of this size and capability.

Defence Minister A K Antony's wife Elizabeth launched the 37,500-tonne carrier at Kochi shipyard almost four-and-a-half years after its keel was laid by the minister.

It's going to be another 1 and a half to 2 years before she is ready, but welcome to the carrier club.

WingsFan · Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:04 am

Congrats! Its an important milestone for India.

So this is aircraft carrier #3 for India and the Indian navy has already ran out of names? Why not name it something else? Is there any 'lineage' between the new Vikrant and the old ?

WingsFan

Max Q · Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:06 am

Looks like the stern is cut off..!

sturmovik · Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:31 am

Quoting WingsFan (Reply 1):
So this is aircraft carrier #3 for India and the Indian navy has already ran out of names? Why not name it something else? Is there any 'lineage' between the new Vikrant and the old ?

Actually, this is carrier #4. #3 is the ex-Gorshkov INS Vikramaditya, and #2 was INS Viraat. Vikrant#1 was our first carrier, and the only one to have seen action in battle. I think it's a nice nod to a ship that a lot of people are fond of, and one that served us 36 years.

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
It's going to be another 1 and a half to 2 years before she is ready

Quite the optimist, aren't we?

Kiwirob · Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:18 am

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 3):
Quite the optimist, aren't we?

It takes less time to build a Nimitz than to build this one.

ThePointblank · Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:22 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 2):
Looks like the stern is cut off..!

She's not fully complete. As you can see, large portions of the hull are not complete. The lower hull is completed. But the upper hull is only complted about 75% of the way from the bow back. The flight deck only covers that area of the vessel. So you still have approximately 20-25% of the upper hull and flight deck to complete.

And, of course the island is not on the vessel yet. All of that has to be complete, which will include significant portions of the innards and probably the aft section of the hanger deck, before the major weapons, sensors, and other systems can be added. They probably left the chunk of the aft flight deck off because they need a large hole in the hull to get large components inside the ship, and it was either this, or cut large holes into the hull afterwords and get whatever they need in.

I believe the Indian government was at a point where they had to launch the vessel, as the slipway Vikrant was built on was fairly small. She will probably be moved to where the rest of the work can be accomplished.

BarfBag · Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:04 pm

Part of the reason construction took this long was that the steel was originally planned to be procured from abroad. But that didn't work out, for several reasons. Ultimately they commissioned DMRL to come up with a warship grade steel, and the PSU plants successfully managed to produce it. This steel went into the Vikrant, and also into the P15A/P15B destroyers, P17 frigates and P28 corvettes. In the process they shaved off about Rs.1500crore off the cost, compared to the original price of imported steel, but at the cost of the additional time.

The island and sections of the angled deck have already been seen in pictures elsewhere. They need to be installed after this float out. CSL doesn't have the luxury of letting this hull occupy the drydock continuously - it's better to install those off dock, now that the basic hull is complete.

Keep in mind this is a pretty big carrier for a first local effort - it's larger than anything the RN has had built, except for the QE2 class under construction, for example.

Progress on this ship has been pretty good - there's quite significant progress since the pics from last year, and in a year both the angled deck and island might be in place, for a more complete look. The next hurdle is likely to be sensor and comm integration. The P15A ships are delayed for this reason - the ships are largely complete, but the collaborative weapons suite development (with Israel ?) is not.

Kiwirob · Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:07 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
I believe the Indian government was at a point where they had to launch the vessel, as the slipway Vikrant was built on was fairly small. She will probably be moved to where the rest of the work can be accomplished.

Cochin first floated her out from the building hall in 2011, they have been working on her whilst she's been floating for 2 years now.

BarfBag · Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:12 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 7):
Cochin first floated her out from the building hall in 2011, they have been working on her whilst she's been floating for 2 years now.

It was floated out in 2012, but to make space on the drydock for the INS Viraat's more urgent overhaul work. Once that was completed, the Vikrant hull returned to drydock.

Kiwirob · Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:40 pm

some more photos

[Edited 2013-08-13 10:41:03]

KC135Hydraulics · Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:31 am

Tell me a little bit about the propulsion systems that they are planning to employ on this vessel.

ThePointblank · Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:09 am

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 11):
Tell me a little bit about the propulsion systems that they are planning to employ on this vessel.

4 GE LM2500+ gas turbine engines, coupled to two shafts.

BladeLWS · Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:46 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
4 GE LM2500+ gas turbine engines, coupled to two shafts.

Any info on the running gear? Fixed or controlled pitch props? This sounds a lot like a USN cruiser/destroyer plant (same 4x LM2500 setup) which is fine for a sleek destroyer looking for speed but not for a carrier.

My concern with this kind of setup is it will be a fuel hog and they'll have to become very reliant on unrep for any kind of blue water ops. IMHO they should of went with a CODAG setup like the Makin Island (almost the same displacement) did so she could cruise on diesels and use the turbines for sprints, saves a ton of fuel.

Heck I'm sure if they asked us we would of sold them the entire engineering plant...

[Edited 2013-08-14 20:47:35]

ThePointblank · Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:23 am

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 12):
Any info on the running gear? Fixed or controlled pitch props? This sounds a lot like a USN cruiser/destroyer plant (same 4x LM2500 setup) which is fine for a sleek destroyer looking for speed but not for a carrier.

It is apparently and indigenous gearbox they are using, no word on the props. The running gear was designed in collaboration with an Italian shipyard, Fincantieri.

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 12):
My concern with this kind of setup is it will be a fuel hog and they'll have to become very reliant on unrep for any kind of blue water ops. IMHO they should of went with a CODAG setup like the Makin Island (almost the same displacement) did so she could cruise on diesels and use the turbines for sprints, saves a ton of fuel.

Apparently, the design goal was maximum speed of 28 knots, with a endurance of 7,500 nautical miles at 18 knots.

Revelation · Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:27 am

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 12):

My concern with this kind of setup is it will be a fuel hog and they'll have to become very reliant on unrep for any kind of blue water ops.

How far away do you think they'll want to be going? Seems their main concerns (Pakistan, China) are their neighbors.

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 12):
Heck I'm sure if they asked us we would of sold them the entire engineering plant...

Well it seems GE sold them 4x LM2500... If GE is like a lot of companies, I bet a lot of people of Indian origin worked on those suckers....

BarfBag · Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:52 am

A few more pics from the launch:

This is how it looked last summer when floated out to make way for the Viraat's overhaul:

Probably late 2010:

comorin · Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:18 am

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 3):
I think it's a nice nod to a ship that a lot of people are fond of, and one that served us 36 years.

I had a Heineken on board when she visited Madras Port in the late 60s...

Anybody, what are the pros and cons of having a ski-jump vs a flat deck? Thanks.

ThePointblank · Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:54 am

Quoting comorin (Reply 16):
Anybody, what are the pros and cons of having a ski-jump vs a flat deck? Thanks.

For STOBAR carriers, it means that aircraft can take off with more payload and fuel with a ski-jump than with a regular flat deck if no catapult is available. The limitation is that if you eventually decide to install catapults, they don't work on a ski-jump. Also a ski-jump cuts into space for deck parking of aircraft, which means smaller air group.

Kiwirob · Thu Aug 15, 2013 9:57 am

It's always surprised me the the US LHA's weren't built with ramps, especially the new America class, I'm sure the underpowered turd F-35 needs all the assistance it can get to haul it's lardy arse into the sky.

comorin · Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:23 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
For STOBAR carriers, it means that aircraft can take off with more payload and fuel with a ski-jump than with a regular flat deck if no catapult is available. The limitation is that if you eventually decide to install catapults, they don't work on a ski-jump. Also a ski-jump cuts into space for deck parking of aircraft, which means smaller air group.

Thank you, Sir!

Revelation · Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:22 pm

On the bad news side:

Indian submarine blasts: Divers struggle to search vessel

Quote:

Indian divers are struggling to search a submarine which sank after it exploded in a Mumbai dockyard with 18 sailors feared dead inside

Wikipedia tells us:

Quote:

INS Sindhurakshak is a Russian-made Kilo-class Type 636[2] (Sindhughosh-class) diesel-electric submarine of the Indian Navy.[3]

In happier times:

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Sindhurakshak_%28S63%29

A sad event at the same time the new carrier moves forward...

Kiwirob · Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:29 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
Also a ski-jump cuts into space for deck parking of aircraft, which means smaller air group.

Depends on how you design the ski-jump; if you removed the ski-jump from the Queen Elizabeth class I doubt there would be any additional parking available as that would be where the cat's would be located, it's nicely illustrated in this diagram (which shows more parking on the non cat version.

sturmovik · Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:56 am

Quoting comorin (Reply 16):
I had a Heineken on board when she visited Madras Port in the late 60s...

I've only seen her at Bombay, after she was converted into a museum. On the Viraat, however, I once got a chance to ride up to the flight deck on one of the aircraft elevators when she was visiting Cochin.. one of the thrilling moments of my early teens..

Max Q · Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:01 am

Can the F35B even use a ski jump, has this been tried ?

connies4ever · Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:22 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
Can the F35B even use a ski jump, has this been tried ?

Just ask around. I am quite several of our F-35 'specialists' can tell you, based on their apparently vast knowledge.
A WAG would be "it could be accomplished", especially if LM oversaw the certification. Cost unknown.

HAWK21M · Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:25 pm

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 6):
In the process they shaved off about Rs.1500crore off the cost

Nicepics.

Tugger · Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:14 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
Can the F35B even use a ski jump, has this been tried ?

If you look at the diagram's of the Queen Elizabeth class in reply 21, they show a ski-jump and F-35's. So it is safe to assume that yes, the F-35 can use a ski-jump.

Tugg

bennett123 · Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:00 pm

What is the source of the diagram in reply 21?.

Kiwirob · Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:12 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 27):
What is the source of the diagram in reply 21?.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-24.htm

Beedall is highly reputable, so I have not problem with the accuracy of the diagram. What I think is impressive is the size of the hanger, in the middle picture the red outline is the CVF hanger, the blue is an Invincible Class hanger.

ThePointblank · Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:29 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 28):
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-24.htm

Beedall is highly reputable, so I have not problem with the accuracy of the diagram. What I think is impressive is the size of the hanger, in the middle picture the red outline is the CVF hanger, the blue is an Invincible Class hanger.

On the subject of HMS Queen Elizabeth, this is what she looks like as of a few weeks ago:

All that remains from the hull and superstructure standpoint is to install two flight deck extensions fitted plus a ramp.

HAWK21M · Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:06 pm

Comming up real fast.....nice pics.

N328KF · Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:44 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
It's going to be another 1 and a half to 2 years before she is ready, but welcome to the carrier club.

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 3):
Quite the optimist, aren't we?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 4):
It takes less time to build a Nimitz than to build this one.

In India's defense, you're talking about a country's first indigenous effort to design and build an all-new class, and comparing it with a country who has been building aircraft carriers for almost 90 years, and whose current class has a lineage going back 60 years. The current carrier is the first one with any significant time gap, and that's because it's the largest revision, though it is still a derivative in most respects.

sturmovik · Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:43 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 31):
In India's defense, you're talking about a country's first indigenous effort to design and build an all-new class, and comparing it with a country who has been building aircraft carriers for almost 90 years, and whose current class has a lineage going back 60 years. The current carrier is the first one with any significant time gap, and that's because it's the largest revision, though it is still a derivative in most respects.

Agreed, but we do have a history of painfully long drawn development processes for defence projects, even accounting for the fact that it is a first time attempt. Hence my pessimism. I have no doubt she'll eventually turn out to be a good ship, it'll just take longer than any of us expect. And that bit of optimism comes from looking at our missile program.

As an aside, I saw this ship in COK the day before yesterday, you can see her from about 300ft away when travelling on the road that leads to Cochin Shipyard. She looks quite impressive, they seem to have made progress from what we've seen in the pictures in the media when she was launched.

bigjku · Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:09 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 18):
It's always surprised me the the US LHA's weren't built with ramps, especially the new America class, I'm sure the underpowered turd F-35 needs all the assistance it can get to haul it's lardy arse into the sky.

So very angry for whatever reason but for those looking for actual knowledge on this the main reason the US Amphibious ships don't use ski-jumps is the impact it would have on helicopter operations. You lose at least one if not two of the deck spots for supporting large helicopter operations which is the primary reason for these ships to exist. The F-35B will be quite capable of getting off the deck as the takeoff distance was 570 feet for full fuel and 2,700 pounds on internal weapons. Considering both the Wasp Class and America Class have over 830 feet of deck to work with there is a large margin for lengthening the takeoff run if you want to carry more weapons into the air. Conversely in air defense only modes you would see that takeoff distance shortened as the weight comes down.

My guess is, and we won't know until the NATOPS for the F-35B is published years and years from now as those are classified documents many times, that the USMC can carry all the weapons they would want simply by backing up and lengthening the deck run for the plane. A ski-jump takes those helicopter spots forever. A longer takeoff run takes those spots for a short period of time.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 24):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
Can the F35B even use a ski jump, has this been tried ?

Just ask around. I am quite several of our F-35 'specialists' can tell you, based on their apparently vast knowledge.
A WAG would be "it could be accomplished", especially if LM oversaw the certification. Cost unknown.

Ski-jumps were designed into the B from the outset and the UK plans to use the F-35 with ski-jumps as do the Italians I believe. I think there is a ski-jump on the ground at one of the testing facilities (Pauxtent I think but I am not going to bother to look it up). This was designed in from the start. The only thing delaying it would be if they stopped working on it for a while when the UK proposed to switch to the C variant. But testing for it was built into the program from the start.

BarfBag · Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:26 pm

While the Vikrant's construction continues, INS Vikramaditya was formally handed over to the Indian Navy at Severodvinsk today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKOn6CjKRXA#t=13

It takes the pennant number R33. The original Vikrant was R11, and Viraat is R22. So the next Vikrant will probably be R44.

Dreadnought · Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:19 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
On the subject of HMS Queen Elizabeth, this is what she looks like as of a few weeks ago:

I'm a big fan of naval history, and of the British navy in particular. The British for many years built the grandest looking ships. But the Queen Elizabeth looks like a block of flats...

Kiwirob · Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:36 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 31):
In India's defense, you're talking about a country's first indigenous effort to design and build an all-new class

They had a fair bit of help from Fincanteri, but that's beside the point it takes them significantly longer to build a ship of any class than say the Koreans or Chinese.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 35):
But the Queen Elizabeth looks like a block of flats...

Speaking of Queen Elizabeth, the ski jump was installed a week of so ago, so steel wise she's pretty much complete.

BarfBag · Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:27 am

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 36):
They had a fair bit of help from Fincanteri, but that's beside the point it takes them significantly longer to build a ship of any class than say the Koreans or Chinese.

Fincantieri's role is consultancy related to propulsion system integration, which hasn't yet been done. There was a previous plan to build a carrier based on the Fincantieri-built Garibaldi class, but IN wanted something much bigger. Building a carrier may be a first, but IN's inhouse design team has already delivered the Delhi, Kolkata and Bangalore class DDG designs, as well as the Shivalik class FFGa.

While the Chinese and Koreans may arguably make cargo ships faster, neither of them have ever built a carrier, while we are in the process of doing so. The Chinese took 7 years (2005-12) to refurbish the Varyag. India initiated construction of the Vikrant in 2009, with its current milestones on track to enable sea trials in 2016-17, about the same timeline to build something from scratch as opposed to refurbish an existing hull.

Kiwirob · Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:35 pm

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 37):
The Chinese took 7 years (2005-12) to refurbish the Varyag.

The Chinese took a long time because they were pulling apart and rebuilding her to study the vessel, I'm pretty sure when China builds it's own CVN's they'll be constructed fairly quickly.

dtw2hyd · Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:57 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 38):
The Chinese took a long time because they were pulling apart and rebuilding her to study the vessel, I'm pretty sure when China builds it's own CVN's they'll be constructed fairly quickly.

There is a catch, almost all western countries transferred dual-use technology to India to make Viraat a reality. When China wants dual-use technology western countries stay very quiet. Chinese media was all over this issue.

Chinese didn't realize the restrictions on towing a unpowered hulk through out the world. Otherwise they would bid on USS Forrestal in a heartbeat.

BarfBag · Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:37 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 38):
The Chinese took a long time because they were pulling apart and rebuilding her to study the vessel, I'm pretty sure when China builds it's own CVN's they'll be constructed fairly quickly.

And India took time because it wanted to get things right the first time on its own. I'd argue it's a hell of a lot harder to figure out how to built something from scratch, than to refurbish a decent hull - one of a proper carrier design like the Kuz class, rather than the Kiev-based Vikramaditya, which was harder for the Russians to convert.

Building from scratch involves also figuring out things like hull metallurgy - one of the primary factors that delayed the Vikrant's construction - that a refurb job does not entail. Further, they had an extra 5-7 years to 'figure things out' - I started the clock at the official refurb in 2005, not counting the fact that the hull was in PRC for years before, and could easily have been studied all that while, even as it was a 'casino'.

The bottomline is neither China nor Korea have built a carrier, and just figuring out its design and refurbishing one is a massive undertaking that took them as long as it's taking us to figure out and build one up from the keel the very first time.

BarfBag · Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 am

India to build four LPDs

Quote:
The Indian Navy has floated a US $2.6 billion domestic tender for construction of four landing platform docks (LPDs) and bids were sent to domestic shipyards, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering, and ABG Shipyard.

A senior Navy planner said the service will select a winning design based on the low bidder. State-owned Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (HSL) then will build two LPDs based on that design and the winning company will build two.

This will be India’s first attempt to build the 20,000-ton vessels.

“The Indian Navy is in dire need of modernizing its amphibious capacity and enhancing its sea lift capability. Given its large island assets and the fact that India is emerging as a security provider and guarantor in the Indian ocean region [which has many island nations], the need of amphibious assets cannot be understated. The addition of four LPDs is hence an instrument in the fulfillment of India’s growing strategic role,” said Probal Ghosh, senior fellow at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation.

BarfBag · Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:12 am

In the last year and half, the Vikrant has been dramatically build up, and just floated out of Cochin Shipyard a couple of days ago. It's powerplant , propellers and systems are already installed, and will now fit out all the cabling, flight support systems, radar/comm and air defence systems, before sea trials in 2016/17.

It has measurements comparable to the French Charles de Gaulle, but has a larger rectangular deck like the QE class. The island shows the influence of Fincantieri's early consulting input, but Vikrant displaces almost twice as much as Cavour.

Basic parameters:
Length: 265 metres
Beam: 60 metres
Displacement: 45,000 tonnes

Air wing: HAL Tejas-Navy, MiG-29K, HAL Dhruv, Kamov Ka-31, Sea Kings

Dreadnought · Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:09 am

Pop quiz everyone:

Why have all carriers for the past 90 years or so had their islands on the starboard side of the ship, and who (which navy) figured out that this was a good idea?

Max Q · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:32 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):
Why have all carriers for the past 90 years or so had their islands on the starboard side of the ship

Because it's better than having them on the port side.

L-188 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:49 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):
Why have all carriers for the past 90 years or so had their islands on the starboard side of the ship, and who (which navy) figured out that this was a good idea?

Actually the IJN had two carriers Akagi and Hiryu both had islands on the port side.

Akagi

Hiryu

ptrjong · Fri Jun 12, 2015 10:40 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):

My guess: UK or US, because torque made their single-engied propeller aircraft to veer towards port?

Peter

Dreadnought · Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:07 pm

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 46):
My guess: UK or US, because torque made their single-engied propeller aircraft to veer towards port?

Close. Trials during WWI aboard HMS Fearless which had a superstructure right in the middle, showed that when the pilot had to abort the landing, over 70% of the time he would yank the plane to port. At the time, British designers were working on HMS Eagle, which was supposed to have islands on both sides if the ship, connected by a connecting bridge 30 feet above the deck. The Furious trials showed that this was a bad idea, and Eagle was completed with an island on the starboard side, the first carrier in this config.

HMS Furious:

HMS Eagle:

[Edited 2015-06-12 07:10:06]

ptrjong · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:19 pm

Nice, thanks for posting!

Peter

ssteve · Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:57 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
Close. Trials during WWI aboard HMS Fearless which had a superstructure right in the middle, showed that when the pilot had to abort the landing, over 70% of the time he would yank the plane to port.

Symptom of driving on the wrong side of the road, perhaps.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net