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

[asianobserve]

Now given these details, tell me which one you would or rather Indian Navy would prefer to operate.

Simply, for India's prestige, nothing compares to operating a nuclear powered AC. Of course it's not just for prestige, in terms of raw firepower and ability to sustain air ops, a nuclear powered AC is vastly superior to a conventional carrier of similar size.

 

[plugwater]

DD, Add some details about the size of both carriers.

Normally conventional carriers do not exceed 40k tonnes.

14 billion for 40k ton CV vs 22 billion for 100k tonnes CVN, CVN looks cheaper to me

 

[Galaxy]

Our 2nd IACC "INS Vishal" will be Nuclear powered. It would be more than 60,000 tons at least.

These 2 ACC which is under-development stage started in 2003, you can't expect The best in initial stage also do consider it was expensive as per defence budget at that time. But our current requirement is completed with these 2 ACC as we don't have to become world Police like US, Even China don't have single CBG as of now. By 2020 onwards, When our defence will be quite strong, then Nuke ACC will look better.

At one hand, we don't have enough quality fighter jets, Submarines, SAM, combat Helicopters, etc. and on other hand, we are dreaming to operate Nuke ACC. Things are done on priority. :thumb:

 

[Dovah]

Our 2nd IACC "INS Vishal" will be Nuclear powered. It would be more than 60,000 tons at least.

Source please?

 

[Daredevil]

DD, Add some details about the size of both carriers.

Normally conventional carriers do not exceed 40k tonnes.

14 billion for 40k ton CV vs 22 billion for 100k tonnes CVN, CVN looks cheaper to me

The comparison was between John Kennedy (CV) and USS Nimitz class (CVN) as they are of similar characteristics but the overall analysis was between KittyHawk/John Kennedy and Nimitz-class carriers. You can find the study done by US here

Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers by US General accounting Office.

 

[Daredevil]

Simply, for India's prestige, nothing compares to operating a nuclear powered AC. Of course it's not just for prestige, in terms of raw firepower and ability to sustain air ops, a nuclear powered AC is vastly superior to a conventional carrier of similar size.

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.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

No, it just means the Navy doesnt have the money for it as of now. So Vikrant, Vishal and Vikramditya will all be non-nuclear

Making a reactor of Sub is different form making a reactor of Aircraft carrier, As far i know French CV have 2 x Sub nuke reactor, they proved to be a problem when new, It took time to make them safer for carrier ops..

Its Possible IN know the value of Nuke Subs, But a Nuke Carrier is Needed ?
further the development time for such reactor shouldn't be a obstacle in carrier program..
Also the the money to operate such vessel, Making it is not a problem..

I think IN is on right path and know what its doing..

 

[Yusuf]

Though you can do all the comparisons in terms of cost, the real comparison lies in being at sea at the time it is needed and also the prestige factor as well that is associated with it. I am a proponent of the nuclear powered carrier, but right now, i dont think it is needed. I am sure in about a decades time IN will seriously start considering a nuclear powered carrier particularly if it goes in for super carriers of 80KT plus category.

 

[debasree]

submarine detection is not easy and specially nuke powered ,even still nowadays best quality sonars and surveylance planes find it heard to pick it.but in case of a aircraft carriers it will be allways a juicy target of enemy ships .

 

[plugwater]

Gerald R Ford Class carrier costs around 10 billion USD and Queen Elizabeth class costs 10.83 billion USD(7 billion GBP)

 

[Yusuf]

submarine detection is not easy and specially nuke powered ,even still nowadays best quality sonars and surveylance planes find it heard to pick it.but in case of a aircraft carriers it will be allways a juicy target of enemy ships .

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

 

[Yusuf]

Gerald R Ford Class carrier costs around 10 billion USD and Queen Elizabeth class costs 10.83 billion USD(7 billion GBP)

QE was about 2billion GBP..There were rumors of India buying it at that price. When did the cost go up to 7?

 

[plugwater]

QE was about 2billion GBP..There were rumors of India buying it at that price. When did the cost go up to 7?

Cost of Royal Navy carriers 'may rise to £7bn' - Home News, UK - The Independent

 

[Yusuf]

Cost of Royal Navy carriers 'may rise to £7bn' - Home News, UK - The Independent

Saar,

BBC reports suggested that building the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales could end up costing the taxpayer £7 billion, up from the £5.2 billion expected at the time of the SDSR.

3.5billion for each. up a billion on each carrier. imagine if those reports were true and India did actually buy the second carrier from there. We would have been stuck like Gorshky.

 

[Daredevil]

This is the conclusion by US GOA

GAO's analysis shows that conventional and nuclear carriers both have been effective in fulfilling U.S. forward presence, crisis response, and war-fighting requirements and share many characteristics and capabilities. Conventionally and nuclear-powered carriers both have the same standard air wing and train to the same mission requirements. Each type of carrier offers certain advantages. For example, conventionally powered carriers spend less time in extended maintenance, and as a result, they can provide more forward presence coverage. By the same token, nuclear carriers can store larger quantities of aviation fuel and munitions and, as a result, are less dependent upon at-sea replenishment. There was little difference in the operational effectiveness of nuclear and conventional carriers in the Persian Gulf War.

Investment, operating and support, and inactivation and disposal costs are greater for nuclear-powered carriers than conventionally powered carriers. GAO's analysis, based on an analysis of historical and projected costs, shows that life-cycle costs for conventionally powered and nuclear-powered carriers (for a notional 50-year service life) are estimated at $14.1 billion and $22.2 billion (in fiscal year 1997 dollars), respectively.

The United States maintains a continuous presence in the Pacific region by homeporting a conventionally powered carrier in Japan. If the U.S. Navy transitions to an all nuclear carrier force, it would need to homeport a nuclear-powered carrier there to maintain the current level of worldwide overseas presence with a 12-carrier force. The homeporting of a nuclear-powered carrier in Japan could face several difficult challenges, and be a costly undertaking, because of the need for nuclear-capable maintenance and other support facilities, infrastructure improvements, and additional personnel. The United States would need a larger carrier force if it wanted to maintain a similar level of presence in the Pacific region with nuclear-carriers homeported in the United States.

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

 

[Zebra]

U.S. Navy May Cut Carrier's Life in Half To Save Money - Defense News

 

[plugwater]

Saar,
3.5billion for each. up a billion on each carrier. imagine if those reports were true and India did actually buy the second carrier from there. We would have been stuck like Gorshky.

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.

 

[nrj]

Nuclear carriers are fancy. They may fit in particular doctrine or they may not. What else?

 

[Yusuf]

Well, these days forces are even dumping nuke subs for conventional AIP subs. So its all on the operational objectives and the $$$ in pocket.

 

[SPIEZ]

They must be Fucking MAD !!!!!!!!