What's new

India eyes USA aircraft carrier technology

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,470
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
NEW DELHI: India wants to use state-of-the-art US technology to boost the range and potency of a planned aircraft carrier, defence sources said, in a move that would tie their arms programmes closer together and counter China's military influence in the region.

The proposal, referred to only obliquely in a joint statement at the end of President Barack Obama's recent visit to New Delhi, is the clearest signal yet that Washington is ready to help India strengthen its Navy.

Although the aircraft carrier in question would not be ready for at least another decade, such cooperation could act as a balance against China's expanding presence in the Indian Ocean.

READ ALSO: US media sees geopolitical implications of Obama's India visit

It would also represent a shift away from India's traditional reliance on Russian military hardware, particularly if, as some experts expect, it leads to knock-on orders for US aircraft in the longer term.

After years of neglect, India's Navy is in the midst of accelerated modernization under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

It inducted an old aircraft carrier from Russia in 2014 to add to an ageing British vessel likely to be decommissioned in 2018. Last year, soon after taking office, Modi cleared funds to ensure another carrier being built domestically was ready for service in 2018.

He also endorsed Navy plans for a further carrier which would be its biggest, and it is this one that may be built with US technology, a defence ministry source and two former Navy vice-admirals with ties to the naval establishment said.

The joint statement by Obama and Modi spoke of a "working group to explore aircraft carrier technology sharing and design" as part of the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative.

READ ALSO: Nuclear deal sealed; India-US defence cooperation enhanced

Defence officials said this could lead to direct US participation in building the 65,000-tonne INS Vishal carrier.

"The US navy is the only one that operates large carriers today, so we are looking at what they can offer, what is possible," the defence source said.

More, bigger aircraft

Former vice-admiral Arun Kumar Singh said naval planners want a carrier that can launch heavier planes, and the only way to do that is from flat decks which US carriers have instead of Russian "ski-jump" decks.

"The Americans, I believe, have said 'ok, we will help you design a ship and you also buy our catapults' to launch aircraft," he said.

Former rear admiral Ravi Vohra said the Indian Navy's ultimate objective was a five-carrier fleet comprising a mix of large and small carriers.

At the heart of the proposed collaboration is a US offer to share the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) developed by General Atomics and which is now being installed on the Gerald R Ford class of carriers that are joining the Navy.

The new system means jets can launch off a flat deck at a faster rate and with less fatigue to aircraft.

US defence and industry officials said sensitivities over selling advanced EMALS technology to India meant any major movement on the carrier question was unlikely in the near term.

Two sources familiar with the issue added that the US response to Indian overtures had been cool until very recently.
"Things are finally beginning to look a lot more positive," said one of the sources, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

For India it is a big leap. Its existing carrier force uses ski-jump ramps to help planes take off and brings them in using wires to slow them down. For that reason, planes have to be lighter and are fewer in number.

With an EMALS system on a flat deck, India's Navy planners hope to increase the number of aircraft on board the INS Vishal to 50 from 34 and field heavier fighter jets with longer reach as well as airborne early warning aircraft.

"EMALS is one of the most revolutionary things in carrier technology because it completely changes the way you fire a plane off the top of a ship," said James Hardy, Asia-Pacific Editor for IHS Jane's Defence Weekly.

"The Chinese have been talking about getting it for their carriers for a long time ... but it's quite a big technological ask."

Chinese forays worry India

The Indian defence source said representatives of General Atomics showed the technology to members of a Naval Design Bureau working on the next-generation carrier back in 2013.

The defence ministry declined to comment.

China is operating a lone carrier, the 60,000-tonne Liaoning bought from Ukraine, but reports have circulated of a second carrier under development.

China wants to develop an ocean-going "blue water" Navy capable of defending its interests as it adopts a more assertive stance in territorial disputes with neighbours in the South China Sea.

READ ALSO: US, India's Asia-Pacific vision makes the Chinese dragon uneasy

Modi has sought to improve ties with China, seeing it as a vital economic partner.

But the government has been rattled by Chinese naval forays in the Indian Ocean, including when a submarine docked last year in Sri Lanka.

Vijay Sakhuja, director of defence ministry-funded National Maritime Foundation think-tank, said US involvement in the flight-launch technology of an Indian carrier could lead to future deals for US aircraft makers.

"It is early days yet, but once we get this carrier deck technology from the US, maybe there will be a joint development of fighter jets to be operated out of it.
 
. .
Waste of money for India.

US has belief in supercarriers which are not only huge but also super-expensive to maintain. Plus a super-carrier needs destroyer protection against air-attacks. India does not have that many destroyers to escort them.

The Russian models and the upcoming Indian self-made destroyer is enough.
 
.
Waste of money for India.

US has belief in supercarriers which are not only huge but also super-expensive to maintain. Plus a super-carrier needs destroyer protection against air-attacks. India does not have that many destroyers to escort them.

The Russian models and the upcoming Indian self-made destroyer is enough.

You can put weapons on a carrier. It just takes away room.
Screen shot 2015-02-04 at 12.08.47 PM.png
 
. .
Guns won't do good against modern supersonic missiles. Indian destroyers lack AEGIS and the SM-3 missiles that make US carriers so formidable. US destroyers weigh 12,500 tons while Indians hardly fit in the 8,000 ton category.

8000 Ton destroyers are enough if you have modern state of art technology.... Indian newly destroyers Delhi and Kolkata class are very gud and they can hold fight against any enemy ship.
 
.
8000 Ton destroyers are enough if you have modern state of art technology.... Indian newly destroyers Delhi and Kolkata class are very gud and they can hold fight against any enemy ship.

8,000 ton destroyers are not yet ready for deployment. Current Indian destroyers are less than 8,000 tons. Bigger the AC the bigger a target it will be. US carriers have like 6 destroyers each carrying anywhere between 60-90 SAM missiles. Plus their AC carry at least 3 AWACS. Indian AC will lack that.
 
.
Waste of money for India.

US has belief in supercarriers which are not only huge but also super-expensive to maintain. Plus a super-carrier needs destroyer protection against air-attacks. India does not have that many destroyers to escort them.

The Russian models and the upcoming Indian self-made destroyer is enough.

Who said anything about supercarriers? INS Vishal will be a regular sized carrier, like the British QE class - about 65K tonnes at most. Supercarriers are 100K tonnes+.

Your arguments are against aircraft carriers in general - the addition of an EMALS instead of a ski jump or steam catapult does not make the carrier any more vulnerable to aerial threats. What it does is reduce operational costs and mechanical complexity, and increase the range and payload of jets. In other words, it gives more bang for uck, and also reduced (not increased) costs over the lifetime.
 
.
8,000 ton destroyers are not yet ready for deployment. Current Indian destroyers are less than 8,000 tons. Bigger the AC the bigger a target it will be. US carriers have like 6 destroyers each carrying anywhere between 60-90 SAM missiles. Plus their AC carry at least 3 AWACS. Indian AC will lack that.

I thought you were talking about IAC-II which might be coming with New US launch system, then we are you going back to viki or the current IN fleet's Destroyers??

If we go with EMALS, US would only allow to place their fighters, then that's definitely going to be F-35, this carrier is going to be added only after 2025 that gives IN enough time to build destroyers if that's your worry, Kolkata class ships are around 7,500 with 64 Barak-8 missiles and the P-15B would be having more than 64 B-8 Missiles for air defence. mostly all the Kolkata class and follow ons will be used to protect the carrier. its well par with Aegis system. If we go for EMALS then IN would place an order HawkEye
 
.
Who said anything about supercarriers? INS Vishal will be a regular sized carrier, like the British QE class - about 65K tonnes at most. Supercarriers are 100K tonnes+.

Your arguments are against aircraft carriers in general - the addition of an EMALS instead of a ski jump or steam catapult does not make the carrier any more vulnerable to aerial threats. What it does is reduce operational costs and mechanical complexity, and increase the range and payload of jets. In other words, it gives more bang for uck, and also reduced (not increased) costs over the lifetime.

Compare the size of current AC, excluding Vikramaditya, and then compare 65,000 tonnes. Do you even realise how big a behemoth 65,000 means?

In war that will pose the biggest and most tempting target to enemy. The same is case with US AC but US ones have a blanket of Aegis+SM-3 equipped destroyer which is a formidable defence. Plus US AC have at least 3 Hawkeye AWACS and Prowler ECM aircraft. Does India have anything comparable?

Ski jump means nothing. Air defense is the key. Without a solid air defense modern AC mean nothing.
 
.
Compare the size of current AC, excluding Vikramaditya, and then compare 65,000 tonnes. Do you even realise how big a behemoth 65,000 means?

In war that will pose the biggest and most tempting target to enemy. The same is case with US AC but US ones have a blanket of Aegis+SM-3 equipped destroyer which is a formidable defence. Plus US AC have at least 3 Hawkeye AWACS and Prowler ECM aircraft. Does India have anything comparable?

Ski jump means nothing. Air defense is the key. Without a solid air defense modern AC mean nothing.

SM 3 - Aegis Aegis - SM 3!!What the hell are these my chica.............something from your make up kit or something shlyukha??But you need to keep in mind my chica,this a defence forum,not a ladies' beauty forum!! :D
 
.
I thought you were talking about IAC-II which might be coming with New US launch system, then we are you going back to viki or the current IN fleet's Destroyers??

If we go with EMALS, US would only allow to place their fighters, then that's definitely going to be F-35, this carrier is going to be added only after 2025 that gives IN enough time to build destroyers if that's your worry, Kolkata class ships are around 7,500 with 64 Barak-8 missiles and the P-15B would be having more than 64 B-8 Missiles for air defence. mostly all the Kolkata class and follow ons will be used to protect the carrier. its well par with Aegis system. If we go for EMALS then IN would place an order HawkEye

Our enemies are Pakistan and China, not US. US needs those monster AC for world dominance. Their AC can carry 70 aircraft. I doubt if IN has 70 aircraft in total.

IN should invest in smaller but more AC. 4 AC of 25,000 tons is more valuable than 1 AC of 65,000-75,000 tons. Also bear in mind that ships are not sea-worthy 365 days a year. They need service and repair. Larger the ship, longer the repair time. Instead of putting eggs in one basket it should be more eggs in more baskets.

Don't get me wrong. 65,000 ton AC sounds good on paper. How it works out is a different issue. How many fixed wing jets can it carry, what will be its operations, its area of operations, its role etc. will decide the type and size.
 
.
Waste of money for India.

US has belief in supercarriers which are not only huge but also super-expensive to maintain. Plus a super-carrier needs destroyer protection against air-attacks. India does not have that many destroyers to escort them.

The Russian models and the upcoming Indian self-made destroyer is enough.
Supercarrier? Who said you that India building supercarrier?

Compare the size of current AC, excluding Vikramaditya, and then compare 65,000 tonnes. Do you even realise how big a behemoth 65,000 means?
What are you talking about,, are you in your senses?

Lets compare INS Vikrant VS QE class.

Length: 262m vs 280m
Draught: 8.4m vs 11m.

In war that will pose the biggest and most tempting target to enemy. The same is case with US AC but US ones have a blanket of Aegis+SM-3 equipped destroyer which is a formidable defence. Plus US AC have at least 3 Hawkeye AWACS and Prowler ECM aircraft. Does India have anything comparable?
Thats why India buying EMALS, to procure Hawkeye in future, and allow heavy weight missions.

Ski jump means nothing. Air defense is the key. Without a solid air defense modern AC mean nothing.

Yes, ever you heard of P-15B and P-17A?[/Quote]
 
.
Good. India is interested in EMALS and AEW version of V-22 osprey. There was news today somewhere that Indian navy wants AEW version of V-22s for future carrier.
 
.
Compare the size of current AC, excluding Vikramaditya, and then compare 65,000 tonnes. Do you even realise how big a behemoth 65,000 means?

In war that will pose the biggest and most tempting target to enemy. The same is case with US AC but US ones have a blanket of Aegis+SM-3 equipped destroyer which is a formidable defence. Plus US AC have at least 3 Hawkeye AWACS and Prowler ECM aircraft. Does India have anything comparable?

Ski jump means nothing. Air defense is the key. Without a solid air defense modern AC mean nothing.
As I said, your arguments are about aircraft carriers in general, not about EMALS in particular. When you comment "waste of money" on a thread about buying EMALS, the reader assumes that you are talking about EMALS.

About carrier aviation - The IN has more than 50 years of experience in operating carriers, and I am sure they know the risks and challenges, and how to overcome them. Comparing with USN is pointless, because both navies use carriers for very different roles. USN uses their carriers to assault enemy countries and take on their air forces. IN only uses carriers to provide air cover for the fleet.

To make it simple - in the USN, the escorting vessels protect the carrier, and the carrier does the offensive action against the enemy. In the IN, the carrier protects the accompanying ships, and those ships assault enemy ships at sea.

Without a carrier, IN's ships will not have air cover or air defence. So a medium sized carrier is used to provide that. It makes the fleet untouchable by enemy fleets that don't have such a luxury. It gives naval supremacy on the sea, and that is the intention.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom