INS Vishal (IAC- II) Aircraft Carrier - Flattop or Ski Jump

[TPFscopes]

If you are expecting people to manufacture everything even before any orders are placed to simply keep them as showpiece, then you have something wrong with you.

Do you know, the reactor for Arihant class was developed by BARC and there is only unconfirmed reports about the uprating reactor to unconfirmed level.
Right now, Indian Navy denied to find the new development of reactor for IAC-2. So, why should BARC go ahead when the sole user of the reactor denied for the funds?

You should know that the area you are quoting again and again is calculated as the total surface area of multi storey Carrier.

Rest I can assure that with the present scenario, you will not have complete IAC-2 before 15 years from design phase.

 

[Kshithij]

Do you know, the reactor for Arihant class was developed by BARC and there is only unconfirmed reports about the uprating reactor to unconfirmed level.
Right now, Indian Navy denied to find the new development of reactor for IAC-2. So, why should BARC go ahead when the sole user of the reactor denied for the funds?

You should know that the area you are quoting again and again is calculated as the total surface area of multi storey Carrier.

Rest I can assure that with the present scenario, you will not have complete IAC-2 before 15 years from design phase.

The present scenario is a bit secretive. So, it is best to not speculate on what will happen. I am only saying that there is enough expertise and technology to make a carrier within 2025 if all out efforts are made without any restrictions on rupee based funds (not forex). What the situation is politically, budget etc can delay it. I am not interested in them but purely on ABSOLUTE capacity assuming war footing pace of construction

 

[TPFscopes]

The present scenario is a bit secretive. So, it is best to not speculate on what will happen. I am only saying that there is enough expertise and technology to make a carrier within 2025 if all out efforts are made without any restrictions on rupee based funds (not forex). What the situation is politically, budget etc can delay it. I am not interested in them but purely on ABSOLUTE capacity assuming war footing pace of construction

Best of luck for you...

By the way, I'm only calculate the timeline from the available data. As of now, IAC-2 is not the IN priority, so I can expect war footing pace.

For expecting such pace of development, we need multiple times Defence budget.

 

[Immanuel]

What will the docks do once Vikrant is released? Will the workers go unemployed? It is important yo construct another carrier to keep the working force active. It is not a matter of choice. Design - design is something I have been hearing for more than 2 years now. I don't know what kind of designing take 5 years? Is the design team a 1 man army?

INS Vikrant will probably be followed by another one of the same class, IAC-2. INS Vishal's design is not complete, doesn't matter whether we speak of a one man army or team of hundreds of engineers. Heck we are still not clear if Vishal will have coventional or nuke propulsion, either decision will have massive design implications. Till requirements are frozen, design can't be frozen. From weapons to ship's sensors all decisions have to be made at one point even if some of these things can't be decided before the design is frozen. Then comes the arduous process of preparing the build, getting all the private contractors in order and executing the build. Since we have no experience building a nuke carrier, it could take longer if we choose for nuke power. Those tests take even longer. Realistically the INS Vishal won't be ready for sea trials any time before 2028-2030.

If jobs are a concern, they need to go ahead and order 1 more Vikrant class carrier, which if ordered this financial year can be ready for sea trials around 2025.

Besides why would we rush into LR-SAM, MFSTAR etc. since the timelines are for 2030, by then DRDO XR-SAM could be ready for fielding in the IN as well along side Navalized QR-SAM, Brahmos-2, Nirbhay etc. I believe these things will only be finalized around 2024 when a lot of new weapons are available locally, sure by then the design is frozen and early work have well started but still idea would be to have new gen cutting edge weaponry.

 

[tharun]

Arguing with people without knowing ground reality is useless.

Sent from my AO5510 using Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

Arguing with people without knowing ground reality is useless.

Sent from my AO5510 using Tapatalk

When he said that India was incapable of making it due to lack of technology, then I pitched in. If he had said that India didn't have funds, I would have kept quiet.

I have different notion about economics due to my deeper understanding of it. I won't argue about rupee economics and rupee budget but only about capabilities and technology and Forex here. So, don't change your argument at the last minute.

 

[indiandefencefan]

The present scenario is a bit secretive. So, it is best to not speculate on what will happen. I am only saying that there is enough expertise and technology to make a carrier within 2025 if all out efforts are made without any restrictions on rupee based funds (not forex). What the situation is politically, budget etc can delay it. I am not interested in them but purely on ABSOLUTE capacity assuming war footing pace of construction

What you are talking about is the opportunity cost of making a carrier (IAC II) but what you fail to consider is what the military will have to forego in order to achieve your stated goal of a carrier by 2025.
Lets assume that what you say is accurate in terms of expertise and technology and if we proceed on war footing and devote all possible resources to carrier construction, then ceteris paribus, what the opportunity cost (ie: the other equipment they could have purchased with the same amount of money) of the project is too great to make such a project feasible.
That being said, while I may agree with you in terms of expertise in terms of our shipyards, I will argue that currently we do not have the necessary level of technology to construct IAC II. The power plant built for the Arihant class is geared towards undersea operations and hence, is built for low weight and stealth at the cost of speed at sea level. Thus, to upscale it to fit an aircraft carrier is not an easy task which requires a reconfiguration to improve speed at sea surface in order to keep pace with its escorts.
For the above reasons, neither is it feasible to accommodate multiple small reactors in the carrier.
The best course forwards in my opinion is to build a second Vikrant class carrier while expecting the IAC-II to be ready for field trials by 2030-2035 while giving BARC time till 2025 to work on the new reactor.

 

[Kshithij]

What you are talking about is the opportunity cost of making a carrier (IAC II) but what you fail to consider is what the military will have to forego in order to achieve your stated goal of a carrier by 2025.
Lets assume that what you say is accurate in terms of expertise and technology and if we proceed on war footing and devote all possible resources to carrier construction, then ceteris paribus, what the opportunity cost (ie: the other equipment they could have purchased with the same amount of money) of the project is too great to make such a project feasible.
That being said, while I may agree with you in terms of expertise in terms of our shipyards, I will argue that currently we do not have the necessary level of technology to construct IAC II. The power plant built for the Arihant class is geared towards undersea operations and hence, is built for low weight and stealth at the cost of speed at sea level. Thus, to upscale it to fit an aircraft carrier is not an easy task which requires a reconfiguration to improve speed at sea surface in order to keep pace with its escorts.
For the above reasons, neither is it feasible to accommodate multiple small reactors in the carrier.
The best course forwards in my opinion is to build a second Vikrant class carrier while expecting the IAC-II to be ready for field trials by 2030-2035 while giving BARC time till 2025 to work on the new reactor.

If there is a second carrier, non nuclear option will be extremely short sighted and foolish. Propulsion of submarine is definitely different from that of a carrier but carrier is much easier version than the submarine. Submarines have space constraint while carrier has enough space. This makes the equation as - if you can make a submarine, you can definitely make a carrier.

Also, considering that EMALS has been confirmed, it would be foolish to say that design of Vishal hasn't progressed. Qhy will anyone order EMALS without confirming design?

Conventional carrier is only for littoral waters like Mediterranean sea, Caspian sea, black sea etc and not for large area like IOR. Either there will be no funds for Carrier or there will be nuclear carrier. Simple as that.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

We don`t need nuclear carriers for our doctrine ..

Conventional carrier are capable of making combat patrols at IOR with fleet support tankers, IN is and was doing this quite for some decades now ..

 

[Kshithij]

We don`t need nuclear carriers for our doctrine ..

Conventional carrier are capable of making combat patrols at IOR with fleet support tankers, IN is and was doing this quite for some decades now ..

There is only 1 doctrine in defence - wipe out anything and everything that is hostile and non negotiable. If the doctrine is anything else, then it is time to change it.

 

[TPFscopes]

There is only 1 doctrine in defence - wipe out anything and everything that is hostile and non negotiable. If the doctrine is anything else, then it is time to change it.

@aditya10r
Now this what I expecting from him. You might be correct for this case...

@Kshithij
IN already mentioned that they require 3 Aircraft carriers out of which 2 will remain active at all time, to control IOR. And for controlling IOR , we don't need nuclear propulsion and unlimited range for Aircraft Carriers.
Also, at the present stage IN desire to increase the number of destroyers, frigates, submarines and induction of fast attack boats also on table. Along with this all, IN want to modernize its entire fleet because large number of battleships are near to life completion.
Hence, they need a lot of funds and a lot of workforce. It implies that IN will not go to prioritize the IAC-2 program.
Also, for you kind information, till now no EMALS are ordered for IN.

Please think practically for everything,
For nuclear reactor, Don't think that it is bajaj's DTSi that you can upscale and downscale according to your requirements.
As I said before, IN have to fund the reactor development because they are the only user of it. But here IN is not interested to fund BARC for reactor Development..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

If i am not mistaking its BARC told Navy that a reactor of such scale will not be ready to the given timelines with respect to IAC-2, Its not the other way around ..

 

[aditya10r]

There is only 1 doctrine in defence - wipe out anything and everything that is hostile and non negotiable. If the doctrine is anything else, then it is time to change it.

Dude even Pakistan and china is hostile and non negotiable, doesn't mean we can wipe them out of the face of earth.

Look Aircraft carriers are a great tool of force projection,no doubt.But their is nothing in this world which can come close to a silent fleet of SSN and SSK.We need them in numbers.

Our country is best example for that,in 71 war we were threatened by amreeki nooclear carriers and British carriers but their carriers were kept out of our shores thanks to Soviet SSN with AShM.

We need nuke carriers but not right now.we can have them 15-20 years from today when we will have a good technical military industry base and a good budget to afford that.But get this in your mind,SSN and SSK are immediate requirements.We need at least 30+ of them by 2030-32.We cannot compromise on that.

Plus aircraft carriers require good number of other capital ships,can we afford to put our capital ships on duties with aircraft carriers when we have only 11 of them and approximately half of them would be in need of retirement by 2027????

The Navy's requirements are based on current threats we cannot go bonkers and build 4-5-6 carriers just because china is building them.

A good number of capital ships with SSN and SSK are good enough to keep IOR ours.

Plus our role should be limited to SCS and IOR only.

 

[VIP]

If i am not mistaking its BARC told Navy that a reactor of such scale will not be ready to the given timelines with respect to IAC-2, Its not the other way around ..

BARC told IN that reactor needs 10+ years of development and funds. BARC asked IN for funds for development, IN bluntly said why would IN give funds to BARC? And so project stalled because of the funding issue, BARC didn't refuse to make a reactor for IAC because it didn't want to. imo, IN should fund the development as it's the primary user of such reactor, knowing BARC's expertise in this area, who else will help if not the navy? As BARC is not DRDO which focuses mainly on defence research.

 

[TPFscopes]

If i am not mistaking its BARC told Navy that a reactor of such scale will not be ready to the given timelines with respect to IAC-2, Its not the other way around ..

Its the very recent decision by IN.

 

[Kshithij]

BARC told IN that reactor needs 10+ years of development and funds. BARC asked IN for funds for development, IN bluntly said why would IN give funds to BARC? And so project stalled because of the funding issue, BARC didn't refuse to make a reactor for IAC because it didn't want to. imo, IN should fund the development as it's the primary user of such reactor, knowing BARC's expertise in this area, who else will help if not the navy? As BARC is not DRDO which focuses mainly on defence research.

Was this on the basis of solid source or that news clip which was filled with inconsistency that popped up recently?

If it was that news clip, then it is most likely fake news. It stated that India needed 550MW reactor. Even USA doesn't have such big reactor in its carriers. Nimitz Class which weighs 1lakh tons has 2 reactors of 275MW each. Ford class with 1.1 lakh tons has two 330MW reactors. Comparing, Indian carrier needs two 180MW reactor for its 65k tons weight.

As soon as I read 500-550 MW reactors are needed, I understood that it is fake news or IN is extremely crazy. Larger the reactor, higher the safety concerns and more difficult it is to contain in a moving vehicle/vessel. The melting temperature, pressure threshold etc of materials are not scalable.

 

[archie]

Fuel and other items can be replenished at sea, In war situation a carrier such as IAC-2 can stay for 2 months or more, Unless it require urgent repairs which cannot be done at sea ..

Exactly the Point i was making .. Supply Chain is more important to keep the Carrier Group Operational

 

[Tactical Frog]

Project starting to take shape. Nice !
300 Gauls can beat 300 Spartans

 

[aditya10r]

Project starting to take shape. Nice !
300 Gauls can beat 300 Spartans

Logical decision.

It would be similar to use Kitty hawk class.

 

[Kshithij]

Logical decision.

It would be similar to use Kitty hawk class.

I would say that it is very disappointing. It must have been nuclear powered to have more efficient operating ability and reliance on Indian fuel.

I wonder why nuclear carrier was rejected.