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

[pmaitra]

How useful will ACs be if two more or less equally placed countries fought with each other? Each others' ACs would be the first targets.

While the US was building AC after AC, the USSR, realising it could not fund a comparable number of ACs, opted to develop the anti-ship cruise missile (Yakhont) to take out US ACs. If indeed there were to be a Soviet-US conflict, those ACs would have achieved little to modest amounts in terms of gaining the upper hand as many are likely to have been disabled or sunk in the early stages of the conflict. Most of the times these ACs come to good use when a bunch of NATO countries gang up on weaker countries like Libya or Yugoslavia.

Therefore, let us not overrate this AC propulsion. From my perspective, and given the times, non-nuclear propulsion is absolutely fine. Adopting nuclear propulsion will definitely be an option, but no need to rush in that direction.

 

[SPIEZ]

I would like to see larger class of FRIGATES with 10,000-12,000 ton displacement powered bu nuclear reactors. They should be allowed to carry a significant amount of missiles

 

[Yusuf]

I would like to see larger class of FRIGATES with 10,000-12,000 ton displacement powered bu nuclear reactors. They should be allowed to carry a significant amount of missiles

Not happening. That would be even more expensive to operate. And a frigate is not going to be more than 8000 Tons. Destroyers are as big as that.
Whey would you need a frigate with nuclear power? it will need food and other stocks that has to be replenished. its not worth keeping frigates at sea and then sending supply tankers to it.

This is the biggest frigate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F125_class_frigate

 

[SPIEZ]

Not happening. That would be even more expensive to operate. And a frigate is not going to be more than 8000 Tons. Destroyers are as big as that.
Whey would you need a frigate with nuclear power? it will need food and other stocks that has to be replenished. its not worth keeping frigates at sea and then sending supply tankers to it.

This is the biggest frigate F125 class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, let them be called destroyers. When they are nuclear powered they can stay afloat with replenishing fuel for a long time. only supplies have to given to them, this can be done easily by the tankers

 

[agentperry]

ACs are not for conventional water fights. there main function is to take air power to the shores of enemy. other functions are to give air support to advancing fleet and CAP over scattered naval and civilian assets. recon thru aircrafts which are carrier based are common to see in indina ocean and chinese coasts.
these ACs are not meant to fight a destroyer head on.
so seeing the above roles it is very important that they have long endurance. which is thru nuclear reactor only. the survivablity from anti carrier BM or CM is thru the the SAMs. both carrier and destroyer are at equal risk from anti ship brahmos or any other missile.

 

[Yusuf]

OK, let them be called destroyers. When they are nuclear powered they can stay afloat with replenishing fuel for a long time. only supplies have to given to them, this can be done easily by the tankers

If it was feasible to do it, the US would have done it already. They dont need to be nuclear powered.
The US had nuclear powered cruisers but all have been decommissioned.

 

[sandeepdg]

Our requirements in the current scenario as well as in the immediate future can be satisfactorily served by conventional carriers. Beyond 2020, this issue can be considered once we decide to go for a super carrier above 60k tons.

Other, than that I don't think any of the IAC, even IAC3 will be a nuclear propelled carrier. Till IAC3 becomes operational, the IN will do better to concentrate its resources on the Arihant subs and making the K-4 SLBM operational. 4 carriers are more than enough for India, its better to concentrate on conventional and N-subs.

 

[SPIEZ]

If it was feasible to do it, the US would have done it already. They dont need to be nuclear powered.
The US had nuclear powered cruisers but all have been decommissioned.

I believe proper study and planning with modern equipment usage could negate the disadvantage.

Besides it seems we are planning to adopt a total of 10 nuke subs in the near future. When nuke subs are worth it, why not bigger surface ships.

 

[Yusuf]

I believe proper study and planning with modern equipment usage could negate the disadvantage.

Besides it seems we are planning to adopt a total of 10 nuke subs in the near future. When nuke subs are worth it, why not bigger surface ships.

Subs go nuke so that they don't have to snorkel. Gives them unlimited range and stealth. A sub surfacing constantly gives away it's position.

The Europeans are moving away from nuke subs to AIP subs. They too don't need constant surfacing and are much more quiet than nuke subs.

All boils down to objectives, doctrine and may be also prestige.

 

[SPIEZ]

Subs go nuke so that they don't have to snorkel. Gives them unlimited range and stealth. A sub surfacing constantly gives away it's position.

The Europeans are moving away from nuke subs to AIP subs. They too don't need constant surfacing and are much more quiet than nuke subs.

All boils down to objectives, doctrine and may be also prestige.

yup ! but still cant understand why no nuke surface ships ???
fuel for 33 years. The modern reactors are good enough i hear. If only detection is the problem, than i guess thatr must be the reason

 

[asianobserve]

yup ! but still cant understand why no nuke surface ships ???
fuel for 33 years. The modern reactors are good enough i hear. If only detection is the problem, than i guess thatr must be the reason

Nuke power for destroyers is not practical. This is proven by the lack of interest of all major World navies in that power system. Nuke power is important for strategic submarines because of endurance under water. Nuclear power on super carriers on the other hand is important because of the need to save space in the carriers for aviation fuel and ammos. If the carrier will still need a space for its own fuel storage then there would be very little left for its aircraft needs. This will not bode well for its main mission of anywhere anytime. Note that the main armament of ACs are its array of aircrafts. These assets therefore must always be the top priority for fuel supply and ammos.

 

[SPIEZ]

Nuke power for destroyers is not practical. This is proven by the lack of interest of all major World navies in that power system. Nuke power is important for strategic submarines because of endurance under water. Nuclear power on super carriers on the other hand is important because of the need to save space in the carriers for aviation fuel and ammos. If the carrier will still need a space for its own fuel storage then there would be very little left for its aircraft needs. This will not bode well for its main mission of anywhere anytime. Note that the main armament of ACs are its array of aircrafts. These assets therefore must always be the top priority for fuel supply and ammos.

When an aircraft carrier can save space using nuke power why not a surface ship ??? We could even use a larger surface ship arm it with missile's and helis

 

[asianobserve]

When an aircraft carrier can save space using nuke power why not a surface ship ??? We could even use a larger surface ship arm it with missile's and helis

Other surface ships do not need much space for aviation fuel and aerial bombs and missiles unlike ACs. All factors considered, conventional power is the most practical propulsion system for these ships.

 

[Adux]

I would like to see larger class of FRIGATES with 10,000-12,000 ton displacement powered bu nuclear reactors. They should be allowed to carry a significant amount of missiles

Look up how military ships are classified before posting absolute trash. Do a bit of homework by yourself and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Adux]

yup ! but still cant understand why no nuke surface ships ???
fuel for 33 years. The modern reactors are good enough i hear. If only detection is the problem, than i guess thatr must be the reason

Kirov class battlecruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please use the damn internet for your benefit next time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_ship

 

[plugwater]

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

AFAIK EMALS is still under consideration.

Yes, they changed the plan to use F-35C using CATOBAR. Thanks.

 

[SPIEZ]

So You want technical stuff ah here
Frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


here's a paragraph from it

From the 1950s to the 1970s, the United States Navy commissioned ships classed as GUIDED MISSILE FRIGATES which were actually anti-aircraft warfare cruisers built on destroyers-style hulls. Some of these ships—the Bainbridge-, Truxtun-, California- and Virginia- classes—were nuclear-powered.

Now let's see VIRGINIA CLASS FRIGATE DISPLACEMENT
It's 11'666 tons


Oh! now what happen to your DETAILS ?????????????????????????????????

 

[plugwater]

WTF Spiez, you posted something from frigate wiki page and call it technical stuffs ?

You should read some posts of Kunal, p2p, Armand !!

 

[SPIEZ]

@plugwater : adux also pasted it from wiki page, when he posts it it's right and technical, when others do it it's shit is it ?????

Look at your own logic

 

[Yusuf]

Knock it off guys will ya