What will a nuclear INS Vishal cost?

[DivineHeretic]

It was sometime around 2010-11 when rumors began circulating of a new class of aircraft carriers that India intended to build. This, then non-existent project, was given the title INS Vishal

Most rumors speculated a design similar to the British Queen Elizabeth Class of carriers. But unlike the Brits, who were brought over by Lockheed Martin and their STOVL F-35B, India was to go with catapults. (This is something the Royal Navy may well rue in the coming years as they stare at the less than impressive flight range and payload of the F35B.)

The rumors, unsurprisingly, were right and come Feb 2014, we should have a design freeze of the new carrier. However, whether the new carrier will be nuclear powered or conventionally powered is still an unknown.

And this is where the metamorphic devil in the detail lurks.

There is always the cost angle to the purchase of any naval vessel. But equally, there is also the question of its cost-to-effectiveness ratio. And adding a nuclear reactor (or a couple) will most certainly stress the acceptable cost-to-effectiveness ratio for the Indian Navy even if the overall cost remains acceptable.

The following is a comparison by the US GAO of the lifetime costs of a conventionally powered carrier and a Nuclear powered Carrier of the USN using the year 1998 as the base line.

The data is compiled by GAO for the USN fleet of conventionally powered supercarriers and nuclear powered carriers. As one can see, the difference is $8 billion in 1998 dollar terms.

Now here is the another set of data...

spare Parts, supplies, and intermediate maintenance.

*c Includes a number of indirect support cost categories

As one can see, for the same air craft complement of around 70-75 aircraft, i.e. the same firepower, the conventional powered carrier costs considerably less than a nuclear powered one, both in initial costs as well as over the entire lifetime.

Historical data indicate that a conventional carrier uses about 500,000 barrels of fossil fuel each year or about 25 million barrels over its lifetime.

At today's value of $107 per barrel, this translates to $53.5 million in fuel expenditure per year or $2.675 billion over its lifespan.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Now below is the data (1998 year) for Nuclear fuel costs for a Nimitz class super carrier.

Note that all data, even for the Nimitz class carrier is based on 1998 AD.

This most definitely is far less than the fuel cost of a CV, but this still does not offset the enormous difference in costs of operating a CV & a CVN.

Furthermore, when this study was carried out, i.e. the year 1997-98, these were the observations made by the group.
In their original words"¦.

A nuclear-powered carrier costs about $8.1 billion, or about 58 percent, more than a conventionally powered carrier to acquire, operate and support for 50 years, and then to inactivate.

The investment cost for a nuclear-powered carrier is more than $6.4 billion, which we estimate is more than double that for a conventionally powered carrier.

Annually, the costs to operate and support a nuclear carrier are almost 34 percent higher than those to operate and support a conventional carrier.

In addition, it will cost the Navy considerably more to inactivate and dispose of a nuclear carrier (CVN) than a conventional carrier (CV) primarily because the extensive work necessary to remove spent nuclear fuel from the reactor plant and remove and dispose of the radio logically contaminated reactor plant and other system components.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Let's compare this bit of data with the HMS QE carrier, which should be similar to the INS Vishal.

The QE is expected to cost $7 billion dollars per ship, which we may add, is a STOBAR configuration, conventionally powered ship. In comparison, the Kitty Hawk is a 80,000 ton Conventionally powered carrier with steam catapults.

Now compare this with the estimated cost of a Kitty Hawk Equivalent class super carrier in 1998. That's estimated to be $3.2 billion( see above). That today would translate to $6.4 billion (using the analogy that Gerald R. Ford supercarrier costs $12 billion today, twice the original estimate in 1998).

But then what is the aircraft complement?

The Kitty Hawk, could carry up to 80 aircrafts, and launch them with the heavy duty steam catapult. In comparison, The HMS QE, will carry a wartime complement of 24 F-35B, which is less than 1/3rd the complement of the Kitty hawk.

So for twice the cost, you get less than 1/3rd the capability.

Note that the tonnage of QE is just 20,000 ton less than the Kitty Hawk.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Let's compare this bit of data with the HMS QE carrier, which should be similar to the INS Vishal.

The QE is expected to cost $7 billion dollars per ship, which we may add, is a STOBAR configuration, conventionally powered ship. In comparison, the Kitty Hawk is a 80,000 ton Conventionally powered carrier with steam catapults.

Now compare this with the estimated cost of a Kitty Hawk Equivalent class super carrier in 1998. That's estimated to be $3.2 billion( see above). That today would translate to $6.4 billion (using the analogy that Gerald R. Ford supercarrier costs $12 billion today, twice the original estimate in 1998).

But then what is the aircraft complement?

The Kitty Hawk, could carry up to 80 aircrafts, and launch them with the heavy duty steam catapult. In comparison, The HMS QE, will carry a wartime complement of 24 F-35B, which is less than 1/3rd the complement of the Kitty hawk.

So for twice the cost, you get less than 1/3rd the capability.

Note that the tonnage of QE is just 20,000 ton less than the Kitty Hawk.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

It is true, But again ' N ' gives the advantage of 20 years cruise anywhere in the world given food supply ..

 

[DivineHeretic]

The INS Vishal hopefully won't cost this much, but it will probably still cost in excess of $4-5 Billion, if it is built as conventionally powered.. This figure is also reinforced by the fact that it will have a steam or EMALS catapult, which is an essential, nonetheless additional expense.

The cost again will rise, possibly up to 1.5-2 times higher if nuclear propulsion is chosen, as shown in the data above.

Thus a nuclear powered INS Vishal could cost anywhere from $5 to $6 billion or even more, depending on time taken for construction and or addition of additional technologies, systems..

And as for the complement, it should be able to field 40+ MMRCA plus 2-3 AEW Aircrafts plus helicopters. This complement will be larger than the QE, and similar to that of the French numbers for their future carrier, but still far short of a Kitty Hawk.

So, for about 70% of the cost and about 80% of the tonnage, we pay 85% of the cost of a new Kitty hawk. Sound economics wise, but the air fleet will remain quite low compared to the Kitty Hawk class.

 

[DivineHeretic]

It is true, But again ' N ' gives the advantage of 20 years cruise anywhere in the world given food supply ..

True, but typically you cannot keep a carrier out at sea too long. Usually USN carriers are kept at sea for less than 180 days, and even lesser if not in an emergency. We do not expect a smaller carrier to have the same staying power at sea. And in any case, the longer the ship stays at sea, the longer the maintenance time required.

And not to forget, the fleet escorts have a much shorter staying power at sea. And given that we only possess some 8 destroyers, we cannot shuffle them without compromising deployments elsewhere.

 

[Decklander]

Vishaal will be really Vishaal. It will not be 65k tons but maybe 75ktons with CATOBAR and EMALS. Twin 150MW reactors or four 80MW reactors. Just wait and watch. I had told you so, gud about seven months back. We want to show the world our ship building capability which is second to none. Other than USA no other nation has built such a big warship till date in history.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Vishaal will be really Vishaal. It will not be 65k tons but maybe 75ktons with CATOBAR and EMALS. Twin 150MW reactors or four 80MW reactors. Just wait and watch. I had told you so, gud about seven months back.

I hope so. the 65,000 ton just doesn't seem large enough, especially when you can have much higher air complement by a 20% increase in size and tonnage.

In the next phase, I'll put up why going for a larger carrier, tonnage wise, will be better economics wise for the navy in the long run. Please note that the data is a combination of online sources and books.

 

[Armand2REP]

Cost projections for a nuclear PA2 were over $6 billion so you can assume that figure. Even though we are proud in France to have the only CVN outside of the US, its capabilities really are not that much greater than one with conventional power. The argument of range is a fallacy since a CVN can only travel as far as its diesel powered escorts. The advantages are more space for aviation fuel and a ready supply of steam for catapults. With the all-electric drive coming out on modern ships, nuclear does provide more future opportunities such as EM cats and DEW.

I hope so. the 65,000 ton just doesn't seem large enough, especially when you can have much higher air complement by a 20% increase in size and tonnage.

In the next phase, I'll put up why going for a larger carrier, tonnage wise, will be better economics wise for the navy in the long run. Please note that the data is a combination of online sources and books

You are basing projections on US super carriers of 1998. They spend $13 billion to build it, $13 billion to equip it and a billion a year to keep it running today. This is no economics any country can keep up. A 65t carrier is plenty for India's needs as long as it has catapults.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Cost projections for a nuclear PA2 were over $6 billion so you can assume that figure. Even though we are proud in France to have the only CVN outside of the US, its capabilities really are not that much greater than one with conventional power. The argument of range is a fallacy since a CVN can only travel as far as its diesel powered escorts. The advantages are more space for aviation fuel and a ready supply of steam for catapults. With the all-electric drive coming out on modern ships, nuclear does provide more future opportunities such as EM cats and DEW.

You are basing projections on US super carriers of 1998. They spend $13 billion to build it, $13 billion to equip it and a billion a year to keep it running today. This is no economics any country can keep up. A 65t carrier is plenty for India's needs as long as it has catapults.

Absolutely, I have repeatedly stated that this analysis has been carried out on figures for the year 1998. However, the current trends have also been taken into account and corrections applied, as I will show in the next article.

 

[DivineHeretic]

How do you calculate the cost of a future carrier, the INS Vishal

Here, we have used the 1998 figures of the USN conventional and nuclear powered Super carriers in coming up with a rough estimate of the cost of construction of INS Vishal, both in its nuclear powered configuration as well as in its conventional configuration.

We may add here that even though the numbers taken as reference are 15 years old (1998), the logic behind them remains same. Furthermore, additional corrections to these numbers, where necessary have been made as shown here.

Analysis

We begin with the figures for the US Carrier fleets.

The cost of the first of the Nimitz Class Super Carrier, The USS Nimitz was $4.5 billion in 1975. In comparison, the last of the Nimitz class, the USS George H.W. Bush, ordered in 2001, cost the US taxpayer $6.2 billion. Please note that this figure (of 2001) was already predicted (as shown in the article above)in 1998. (See investment costs)

Now, let's look at the data for a conventionally powered Super carrier of the USN.

The USS John F. Kennedy, the last conventionally powered super carrier of USN, cost the US $2.1 Billion when completed in 1967. This figure is just around half the figure of the USS Nimitz, (again as expected by GAO analysis.)

In 1998, the report by GAO again asserted that a conventionally powered Super Carrier will cost approximately half of a nuclear powered CVN, i.e. about $3.1 billion in 1998. We find no reason to expect this trend will be broken in the future.

Further extrapolating this trend, we estimate that a new conventional CV with similar technology and tonnage as a CVN (excluding the nuclear reactor and shielding works) should cost around $6 billion in 2013. But here we note that these are numbers are for a nation (The USA) that has and will produce carriers en masse. This, like in any mass production system, tends to drive down individual costs.

However for a nation which intends to produce just one or two CVs, and especially for a nation venturing first time into such large warships, we expect the costs to be on the higher side.

At this stage we introduce the British and French carrier concepts. The British QE class CV will cost $ 6 Billion per ship. But unlike the 86,000 ton USS John F. Kennedy or USS Kitty Hawk, this ship is a 65,000 ton Carrier.

The French future Carrier, with a total tonnage of around 70,000 tons, is again expected to cost around $6 Billion upon construction.

These two examples, which incidentally have nearly the same tonnage as INS Vishal, show that the trends expected from analyzing USN data of GAO would need to be modified for smaller Navies. At the same price as a new Kitty Hawk, the tonnage would be reduced by about 20% of the tonnage of original CV example as a correction.

This corrected extrapolation of the GAO data provides a figure of $6 billion for conventional INS Vishal. However, here we do acknowledge that the wages and other allied costs of constructing a ship in India is considerably cheaper than in Britain or France or USA. Also, the indigenous radar and other EW systems are expectedly cheaper than their western counterparts.

Further, the expected costs of INS Vikrant, estimated at around $1.5-2 Billion, has proven that a ship built in India is considerably cheaper than a similar ship built in Britain or France. For evidence we provide the French Charles de Gaulle Carrier as a good example.

The French Carrier cost $3.6 (Euro 3 billion) billion in 2001 to complete. That's around $5.6 Billion in 2013 terms. As it is nuclear powered, we apply the halving rule to it to get the figure for a conventionally powered Charles De Gaulle. This gives the cost of construction as $2.8 billion.

Thus the same 40,000 ton carrier being constructed in India would cost $0.8-1.3 Billion less in India, or about 32% less.

Using this reduction on the British and French figures for their 65,000 ton CVs, we come to a figure of $4.08 billion for a conventionally powered INS Vishal.

This number does appear to be very reasonable, both from a cost perspective as well as from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

However, as shown in the data before, a CVN will cost around 2 times the figure for a CV. Thus if INS Vishal was to be powered by Nuclear reactor, the cost of construction could reach $8 billion. Though we do hope that a nuclear IAC2, if constructed, will be built up under $7 billion.

 

[arnabmit]

@Yusuf these posts deserve to be collated and posted on the landing page as an article!

 

[kseeker]

Defence News - Indian Navy to freeze design of INS Vishal : Mulls Nuclear Propulsion

The Indian Navy is designing a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that it wants in its fleet, costs permitting. An indigenous nuclear-powered submarine, the Arihant, is now in trials in the Bay of Bengal.

The Indian Navy "desires" to have three operational carriers in its fleet but the only one in use currently, the INS Viraat, is rusting away faster than it would like.

"The INS Viraat is 'long in the tooth' (outdated and too expensive to maintain)," the chief of naval staff, Admiral D.K. Joshi, said here today.

Naval headquarters is gradually beginning to take the view that the ship will have to be decommissioned before the planned end of its extended tenure in service.

The 55-year-old carrier has had several refits that have cost the defence budget heavily.

The navy commissioned the INS Vikramaditya (formerly the Gorshkov) in Russia last month. The carrier, now on its way to India, will take about six months after berthing in Karwar on the west coast to be made fully operational. It is expected in Indian waters in January.

Only the US Navy operates two or more aircraft carriers — always nuclear-powered — in Asia. The importance of aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean region is right now a matter of focus for strategists after China commissioned its own, the Liaoning, earlier this year.

China also announced last week that it was imposing an air defence identification zone in the East China Sea, over waters disputed by Japan and South Korea. Aircraft carriers are the naval platform-of-choice for "sea control".

The Indian Navy will take a final call on its proposed 65,000-tonne nuclear-powered carrier after studying the experiences of the UK and France.

Naval headquarters has set itself a deadline of two months in which to freeze the design. Nuclear propulsion would give the vessel a longer life but the reactor is expensive to build.

But India has fitted an 80MW reactor, with Russian help, into the Arihant submarine. Nuclear propulsion also provides longer endurance and therefore capability to deploy the vessel farther for extended periods.

The UK abandoned the idea of nuclear propulsion for its Queen Elizabeth II carrier, now being built for its Royal Navy, because of the costs involved. France is the only country barring the US that has built a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier on its own, the Charles de Gaulle.

The other decision, apart from the propulsion, that the naval design department is yet to freeze is whether the second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-2) should have Catobar (catapult assisted take-off barrier arrested recovery) like the US carriers or a flight deck for short take-off and arrested recovery (Stobar).

The 65,000-tonne IAC-2, tentatively named the Vishal, follows the Vikrant, or IAC-1, a conventional diesel-gas powered 44,700-tonne vessel being built in Kochi.

The Viraat, the only operational carrier with the navy currently, is planned to be in service till 2017 when the Vikrant is scheduled for commissioning. The Vikrant was floated out of the dry dock in Kochi in August this year.

 

[Blackwater]

What will a nuclear INS Vishal cost?


Q is not how much it cost. Q is when will be it complete??

1) 5 yrs
2) 10yrs
3) 15yrs
4) never

:thumb::thumb:

 

[DivineHeretic]

(The lack of) Advantage of CVN over CV"¦..​

The previous section explained the procedure we used to arrive at the estimate for construction of the IAC2. The estimates obtained are once again summarized below:

Configuration________________Price:
Conventional________________$4.08 Billion
Nuclear____________________$8 billion ($7 billion may be achieved)

Both these figures are large, very large. To put this in perspective, the budget of the IN is just around $6.7 Billion this year. That's big, but within that budget the IN intends to build up a fleet of 7 AEGIS Frigates and 3 Stealth Destroyers, procure 4 additional P8Is, establish a massive base, and all by 2022-24. And all these plans and the IAC2 have the same budget pie to chew on.

At this stag, however, we do point out that this ship won't be constructed in just one year. Additionally, the IN budget should increase year on year unless another economic meltdown strikes us.

But regardless, if the IN decides it has the financial leeway to go for an $8 billion project, then so be it. They have proven themselves the best of the three services in long term planning.

However, if the IN does possess such funds, we here would like to propose an alternative that might be better cost wise as well as cost-to-effectiveness wise and finally even in strike capability wise.

But to do that, we have to first prove that nuclear powered carriers are not the best solution money can buy at that price. And the best way to do that would be to challenge the key aspects of a CVN put forward by the pro-nuclear lobby.

(Here, we do acknowledge that we were just as awe stuck as anyone by the touted advantages of a nuclear powered Carrier over a conventionally powered one.
But over the course of researching for this article, we came across statistical data, from the GAO, the USN and through the freedom of Information act detailing the difference between what was said/stated and the reality on the ground.)

The following are the most important factors influencing the decision of going for a CVN over a CV. On paper, the CVN does appear to be the better placed in most of these decisive factors, but as these statistics reveal, theoretical superiority must always be backed by physical data.

We now attempt to provide a statistics based rebuttal of the supposed advantages of the CVN over a CV.

1. Supply independence: The supply dependence is the Achilles heel for a conventionally powered carrier, or so the common wisdom goes. The expectation is that a CVN, without the need for fuel oil and with extra space for aviation fuel and ordinance, have a far greater endurance than a conventionally powered carrier. This theory appears to be reinforced by the table below.

The table clearly highlights the much higher storage facilities in the CVN USS Roosevelt as compared to the CV USS John F. Kennedy. However, as the following paragraphs will reveal, this table tells only half the story.

According to an April 1988 Congressional Budget Office study, a typical carrier battle group, exclusive of its logistics ships, has enough supplies for only about five days of combat before it needs resupply. With its logistics ships, a carrier can only operate for about 15 days before requiring outside replenishment. A modern Nimitz class nuclear carrier can only carry sufficient aviation fuel for about two weeks of flight operations (9,000 tons aviation fuel),while a conventional carrier can store about 65 percent of this, corresponding to about 10 days of flight operations.

In line with our belief that data is best backed up by real world statistics, we provide the following examples below:

In 1985, the USS Carl Vinson carried out "an exceptionally difficult one-hundred [sic] seven day at sea [sic] period during which the most extended prosecution ever of a Soviet CHARLIE I submarine in the Indian Ocean occurred."
Until its return to the U.S. West Coast, the nuclear carrier conducted 47 replenishments with other ships during 127 days of steaming, corresponding to once every 2.7 days.

This was an active campaign, as emphasized by the chase of the Soviet submarine. As the data shows, the CVN, with all its supposed advantages in supply independence, was found to need replenishment every 2.7 days.

Similar data for the CVN led battle group and the CVN itself found them needing replenishments every 6-11 days, and as in case of the above example, at times even less than that.

2. Endurance: The endurance of a nuclear powered carrier is often reported to be its biggest asset, its biggest superiority over a conventionally powered carrier. But as the following table will show, this advantage is hardly ever significant enough to justify the huge difference in costs.

But that is not all.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has often been credited with the longest uninterrupted day at sea since WW2. The CVN stayed at sea for 251 days during that time, which is approximately 8 months, which is as it turns out, is another ill-informed knowledge presented as facts.

The actual record for the longest sustained deployment after WW2 goes to the USS Coral Sea (CV-43). During the Vietnam War the USS Coral Sea (CV-43) set a record of 331 days away from home from 7 December 1964 until 1 November 1965.

These figures show that if need arises, a CV can stay as long as it needs to, provided it can be replenished by support vessels. The CVNs, as shown above, have similar need of replenishment ships from supply ships.

To further expand this fact further, the CV at 24 knots will sail some 24*24*100= 57,600Nm in a hundred days. That's equivalent to 6 round trips to the Cape of Good Hope. We doubt we need more endurance or range than that.

3. Sortie Rates: This is reputed to be an undoubted area of advantage of a CVN over a CV. The continuous supply of steam allows a smoother operation of steam catapults. This is translated into clear superiority in generating sortie rates.
The following are the statistics for the USN fleets during GW1.

 

[DivineHeretic]

continued from above.....

As the graph shows, the CVN was able to conduct around 15-17% higher sortie per day as compared to a CV.

In comparison, the QE class carrier is expected to carry out 420 sorties in 5 days or 84 sorties a day, and it has less than 1/3rd the aircraft complement of both.

But it is one thing to conduct a sortie and quite another to actually strike targets. The following table shows the ordinance expenditure in strike missions in Gulf War 1.

The CVN managed to deploy 350 tons more ordinances to target, that's equivalent to about 70 extra strike sorties by F/A18. We do hereby acknowledge the superiority of a CVN in maintaining a higher sortie rate (both air defense/offense and strike missions). Now whether this extra sortie rate is essential to the IN is a matter of debate for them.

4.Aircraft complement: This is another claim made by people in support of nuclear powered carriers. Actually, Even a Rear admiral of the USN claimed this apparent superiority of CVNs.

Rear Admiral Henry L. Miller, who commanded the USS Enterprise when it first went into combat, told Congress in 1966 that his ship carried one more squadron than any of the big conventional carriers due to the additional deck space afforded by the elimination of smokestacks, air intakes, and other items to support conventional boilers.

Lets see how this statement holds out against the barrage of facts. The following is the Carrier aviation Wings attached to the CVs and CVN during GW1.

As can be seen in the table above, the lone CVN was found to carry the same complement as the other CVs that took part in the aerial war for the Gulf. And need we remind anyone that this was a wartime complement.

And just to emphasize this, we decided to attach the Vietnam war records as well, The first time The American CVNs took part in a war.

We believe the statistics speak for themselves.

We would include range in this discussion, but here is the statement from the Pacific Fleet Commander in 1972.

"A task force...with nuclear and conventional power cannot take full advantage of the versatility of nuclear propulsion when married with non-nuclear-powered surface ships."

This assessment was in consonance with an earlier conclusion made by Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitze, that if a nuclear aircraft carrier task group is not escorted only by nuclear ships, its increased endurance "cannot be realized."

We rest our case.

 

[DivineHeretic]

@pmaitra, @Kunal Biswas, @Decklander, @arnabmit, @sayareakd, @bhramos

 

[Abhijeet Dey]

LATEST: Indian navy to freeze design of INS Vishal soon, considering nuclear power option

LINK: idrw.org/?p=30505

Source: Press Trust of India

 

[Yusuf]

@Yusuf these posts deserve to be collated and posted on the landing page as an article!

Yes. @DivineHeretic can you please put this into a good piece for our front page? Let me know once you are done