Indian Navy 'No' to Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers!!!

[Rehan's_Ninjato]

India doesn't need CVN on any count. They are expensive and are vulnerable. What we need is a fleet of 60-65 kTons CATOBAR CVs capable of operating upto 40 fighters above AWACs and helos.

 

[ace009]

I don't think there are any differences in capabilities between CV and CVN. If there are vast differences as you claim then please point them out.

The difference is not apparent in peacetime patrols - the difference can be seen in wartime. Also remember, they are comparing a 86,000 ton CV to a 95000 CVN - not a 60000 ton CV to a 95000 ton CVN.

If you look carefully - you will find the following -

1. The aircraft fuel storage - 1.4 million tons for the CV and 3.5 million ton for the CVN - 2.5 times more - that says something - doesn't it? At wartime that 2.5 times extra means 2.5 times more sorties - which means a CVN is equivalent to 2.5 CVs.

2. The carrier range itself - at 28 knots, max range is Singapore to Bahrain (6300 km/ ~4000 miles) - a CV steaming in from Vizag to Vietnam, (2000 miles) will be at the mercy of allies for refueling if it has to sail back home. A CVN can do the same without any problems.

3. Refueling a nuclear carrier takes about $2 billion. However, in a 40 year lifespan of a CVN, it needs refueling only once. So, $2 billion for 1.5 million miles comes to about $1200 per mile. Compare that with 2.4 million gallons for 4000 miles - at even $3 a gallon (which is ridiculous), it will be $1800 per mile (1.5 times more expensive). Not to mention you have to find a refueling facility every 4000 miles.

So, overall, CVNs are cheaper in terms of operational costs and better for wartime activity.

 

[Tshering22]

This confirms that our power projection will be limited to the coastal waters of IOR (including Arabian sea and BoB). Personally I would agree with this because if we make a nuclear power, the first thing our government will do is sent the carrier somewhere far away in a bid for "power projection" as if we are having no trouble at all of our own.

This way, Navy has made a smart move by limiting our carrier power to our own waters so that carriers are not sent far off by stunt-politicians but remain relevant in defending Indian territorial waters and waters that connect to our areas of interest.

 

[Param]

The US was using Kitty Hawk for half a century without trouble. No country has that kind of a conventional carrier even today.

Do we need anything better than a modern version of Kitty Hawk?
Instead of CVN we can focus more on SSNs.

 

[asianobserve]

The US was using Kitty Hawk for half a century without trouble. No country has that kind of a conventional carrier even today.

Do we need anything better than a modern version of Kitty Hawk?
Instead of CVN we can focus more on SSNs.

This is USSR naval doctrine last time I checked. But who dominated the World's oceans during the Cold War? And the benefit of maintaining a formidable surface ships and scores of ACs became even more pronounced after the Cold war during American military adventures...

 

[Param]

This is USSR naval doctrine last time I checked. But who dominated the World's oceans during the Cold War? And the benefit of maintaining a formidable surface ships and scores of ACs became even more pronounced after the Cold war during American military adventures...

Duh... we have no plans of Word domination. If we manage to keep all of the Indian ocean as our realm of influence that would would be a tremendous achievement.

 

[ace009]

This confirms that our power projection will be limited to the coastal waters of IOR (including Arabian sea and BoB). Personally I would agree with this because if we make a nuclear power, the first thing our government will do is sent the carrier somewhere far away in a bid for "power projection" as if we are having no trouble at all of our own.

This way, Navy has made a smart move by limiting our carrier power to our own waters so that carriers are not sent far off by stunt-politicians but remain relevant in defending Indian territorial waters and waters that connect to our areas of interest.

I am not sure if it is a smart move or not - because this means that India will never make a power projection beyond IOR - so there is no point in allying with India for most Asia-pacific nations and even the Mediterranean regions. It means India will never be able to match the rising PLAN naval power for the next 20-25 years.

Also a CVN would have enabled India to develop newer technologies associated with nuclear powered surface vessels.

 

[agentperry]

and i heard Indian forces are mocking up to give India strategic advantage. do they dont wish to have reach beyond Indian ocean??

having conventional AC is not bad but it will surely restrict indian navy reach to arabian sea, bay of bengal and most of the Indian ocean. lots of effort and arrangements would be required to take them to atlantic and pacific in short Indian navy will be still a regional force for next 50 years if not this 21st century.

 

[Yusuf]

and i heard Indian forces are mocking up to give India strategic advantage. do they dont wish to have reach beyond Indian ocean??

having conventional AC is not bad but it will surely restrict indian navy reach to arabian sea, bay of bengal and most of the Indian ocean. lots of effort and arrangements would be required to take them to atlantic and pacific in short Indian navy will be still a regional force for next 50 years if not this 21st century.

Saar current IN requirement does jot foresee a nuke carrier. It didn't say anything in the 50 year period. By the end of the decade, india will contemplate a nuke carrier.

 

[Ray]

Nuclearisation depends the task and the endurance required to fulfil the task.

US Navy requires nuclear naval platforms since they have strategic interests far from their shores or from friendly shores. They require great endurance since refuelling facilities en route or for loitering may not be guaranteed.

I wonder if India has such strategic interests that warrant endurance of its naval platforms for an indefinite period.

 

[Adux]

My apologies!!

Still 5.4 billion USD for 65k tonnes is as costly as nuclear powered. Think of EMALS and other stuffs in GRF class with ski-jump QE class.

QE is getting the EMALS, they have scrapped the ski jumps, and are getting the CATOBAR version of F-35

 

[Daredevil]

The difference is not apparent in peacetime patrols - the difference can be seen in wartime. Also remember, they are comparing a 86,000 ton CV to a 95000 CVN - not a 60000 ton CV to a 95000 ton CVN.

If you look carefully - you will find the following -

1. The aircraft fuel storage - 1.4 million tons for the CV and 3.5 million ton for the CVN - 2.5 times more - that says something - doesn't it? At wartime that 2.5 times extra means 2.5 times more sorties - which means a CVN is equivalent to 2.5 CVs.

By the way storage in CV was 1.8 million. The excess capacity in Nimitz-class CVN compared to USS Kennedy CV is primarily due to the way CV was designed not because of the propulsion type and also due to the fact that CVN doesn't have to carry the propulsion fuel. You see there is a difference of 7 years between the commission of USS Kennedy (1968) and USS Nimitz (1975) and Nimitz had a better design. And also the displacement of USS Kennedy is 9000 tons less.

A better designed CV will certainly be able to carry more Aviation fuel and may be a fraction less than the CVN provided they have same displacement ton values.

And regarding the aviation fuel, this is what US has observed during Operation Desert Storm - "During Operation Desert Storm, the conventionally powered carriers in the Persian Gulf replenished aviation fuel about every 2.7 to 3 days. The U.S.S. Roosevelt, the only nuclear-powered carrier in the
Desert Storm air campaign also operating in the Persian Gulf, replenished its aviation fuel about every 3.3 days.". Again, here the USS Roosevelt has more tonnage displacement.

2. The carrier range itself - at 28 knots, max range is Singapore to Bahrain (6300 km/ ~4000 miles) - a CV steaming in from Vizag to Vietnam, (2000 miles) will be at the mercy of allies for refueling if it has to sail back home. A CVN can do the same without any problems.

Here is a comparison of a CV and a CVN. There is not much difference in their speeds

And coming to refueling aspect, you have to remember that a CVN or CV doesn't go alone and move as part of a CBG in the sea and they are always accompanied by destroyers and cruisers which are powered conventionally and have limited fuel storage. So they need refueling irrespective of whether they accompany a CV or CVN. And this refueling is accomplished by Combat Logistics Force which usually also refuel the CVs in addition to replenishment of other provision which are also needed by CVNs.

So, at-sea replenishment offsets the CVs limited storage and endurance compared to CVNs.

3. Refueling a nuclear carrier takes about $2 billion. However, in a 40 year lifespan of a CVN, it needs refueling only once. So, $2 billion for 1.5 million miles comes to about $1200 per mile. Compare that with 2.4 million gallons for 4000 miles - at even $3 a gallon (which is ridiculous), it will be $1800 per mile (1.5 times more expensive). Not to mention you have to find a refueling facility every 4000 miles.

So, overall, CVNs are cheaper in terms of operational costs and better for wartime activity.

Here is the calculation of fuel costs of CV and CVN by US GAO. CVNs are expensive again - 738+469 million dollars for CV versus 2045 million dollars for CVN.

You can find more comparisons of CV vs CVN here

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ns98001.pdf

 

[ace009]

Except for the fact that the info is dated.

The crude oil prices were $19 per barrel in 1997 and it is $90 per barrel in 2011.

So, that $738 million of fossil fuel cost will be more like $3000 million now.

check out what the comparison looks like then!

 

[bengalraider]

I believe the answer lies more in the curious mix of soviet and American naval policy employed by the IN rather than any technical aspect.The Americans have always been the greatest advocates of "gunboat diplomacy" , of having the biggest stick in any conflict and by virtue of their own choice making the stick a very visible one(read supercarrier here). This completely fist into the standards american joe'sworldview wherein they like to advertise that they are the biggest the baddest and the best at what they do.. IN naval parlance this is known as a "sea control" policy, wherein a nation by the visible display of naval power chooses to dominate the seas/oceans around it.This is the best stratagem for a navy that has virtually unlimited resources(read money).
The soviet stratagem was one of"sea denial". they envisaged the use of bomber borne carrier killer cruise missiles and Submarines as a sort of denial force that would act as an elusive and hidden adversary to deny a superior surface fleet free usage of the seas.

The IN seems to be employing a "Sea control" stratagem "in the seas and oceans surrounding the subcontinent (using conventionally powered CV's and surface ships)while planning on employing a "sea denial stratagem (by planing for a larger nuclear submarine force) in the sea and oceans beyond our immediate neighborhood.

 

[agentperry]

Saar current IN requirement does jot foresee a nuke carrier. It didn't say anything in the 50 year period. By the end of the decade, india will contemplate a nuke carrier.

on which grounds one can say that by the end of in will start CVN project? first of all the nuke reactor needs to be fabricated for CVN. one cant have small sub nuke reactor for cvn. nor a full size civil reactor. its diff requirement. so designing of nuke reactor, checking its seaworthiness and testing it or its prototype. then one need to design a CV as the propulsion changes the entire characteristics of the carrier structure. the construction, the installation of reactors and reactors going critical and before installation checking the seaworthiness of carrier itself. after going critical there are many things like harbor trials and sea patrol trials etc etc. this thing along with international hue and cry and our very own red tape-ism.

deciding right now to have a carrier will give us one by 2030( conservative estimates).

 

[Yusuf]

In ten years our industrial base will be far stronger. Our gain from the experience of building a mini reactor for the submarine will come in handy. By 2020 we will be close to $5 trillion economy and have to assess where we need to go from there to leverage that kind of economy and also secure our interests. We will have our backyard covered with up to 4 carriers. If we need to meddle elsewhere, we will think about the nuke carriers.

 

[ace009]

on which grounds one can say that by the end of in will start CVN project? first of all the nuke reactor needs to be fabricated for CVN. one cant have small sub nuke reactor for cvn. nor a full size civil reactor. its diff requirement. so designing of nuke reactor, checking its seaworthiness and testing it or its prototype. then one need to design a CV as the propulsion changes the entire characteristics of the carrier structure. the construction, the installation of reactors and reactors going critical and before installation checking the seaworthiness of carrier itself. after going critical there are many things like harbor trials and sea patrol trials etc etc. this thing along with international hue and cry and our very own red tape-ism.

deciding right now to have a carrier will give us one by 2030( conservative estimates).

Unless we are buying one from someone else - like the British or USA?

that can work too - learning how to run a CVN?

 

[agentperry]

Unless we are buying one from someone else - like the British or USA?

that can work too - learning how to run a CVN?

as if its on ebay.
arent u a bit more optimistic and positive. come on its south asia

 

[ace009]

Wish there was CVNs on sale in ebay-
But if we look for it, I am sure we would find one floating around somewhere ... with a "for sale" sticker?
Try google earth?

 

[debasree]

Whats the relevance to this thread? Whats the point?
You can detect both a nuke and a conventional carrier.

u do not read the post i said sub detection is not easy not carrier.and besides if the carrier was hit the nuke rediation is extra problem to face with and i do not think we do not enough capable to do this.