INS Vikramaditya (Adm Gorshkov) aircraft carrier

[Kunal Biswas]

Having a nuclear reactor is good, But maintenance of such machine is huge task..

Its very expensive, further a Nuclear reactor of a Sub is not the same as reactor of an Aircraft carrier..

 

[badguy2000]

Re: China denies blame for damaged ship boiler

China denies blame for damaged ship boiler - UPI.com

exactly,PLA spokeman denied that CHina had exported "militarily purpose fire bric" to Russia...

Obvioulsy, it suggests that the fire brick Russian perhaps imported from China for India's great AC might be second-class civilian fire brics ..

 

[p2prada]

Could you please summarize? If all you are going to do is ask others to Google, then why post at all?

Edit: I looked up Kirov Class. I am still unclear why the Soviets never put nuclear reactors in their air-craft carriers?

[Tactical Aviation Cruisers to be precise]

I mentioned the Kirov class to show that the Russians have the technology to put nuclear reactors in their ships. The Kirov runs on two nuclear reactors.

Then I mentioned about the two carriers that the British are building to show that even they have opted for conventional power generation instead of nuclear. Funding issues.

Nuclear propulsion is determined by doctrine and the budget. Nuclear propulsion is good, but very expensive. While the Americans have preferred a nuclear powered carrier the Russians prefer to use nuclear powered cruisers and now they have started the design phase for nuclear powered destroyers in the 13000T class.

So, in the end the Russians do have the technology to build nuclear powered carriers, at least the Soviets did. But a carrier wasn't at the core of their doctrine, the Kirov class, Slava class and SSNs were. The carriers the Soviets built were primarily meant for fleet defence, not for the entire gamut of offensive and defensive need like the American carriers.

Using the same logic as Average American, I can say the Americans don't have the technology to place nuclear reactors on smaller ships like destroyers like the Russians can.

I know he is here only to troll. That's why I told him to Google it, so he can actually learn more by himself rather than me spoon feeding everything like its a Q&A round.

 

[ashicjose]

It has lot of space on the left side besides the island.

That for fishing MAN !!!!!!! :taunt1:

 

[average american]

I mentioned the Kirov class to show that the Russians have the technology to put nuclear reactors in their ships. The Kirov runs on two nuclear reactors.

Then I mentioned about the two carriers that the British are building to show that even they have opted for conventional power generation instead of nuclear. Funding issues.

Nuclear propulsion is determined by doctrine and the budget. Nuclear propulsion is good, but very expensive. While the Americans have preferred a nuclear powered carrier the Russians prefer to use nuclear powered cruisers and now they have started the design phase for nuclear powered destroyers in the 13000T class.

So, in the end the Russians do have the technology to build nuclear powered carriers, at least the Soviets did. But a carrier wasn't at the core of their doctrine, the Kirov class, Slava class and SSNs were. The carriers the Soviets built were primarily meant for fleet defence, not for the entire gamut of offensive and defensive need like the American carriers.

Using the same logic as Average American, I can say the Americans don't have the technology to place nuclear reactors on smaller ships like destroyers like the Russians can.

I know he is here only to troll. That's why I told him to Google it, so he can actually learn more by himself rather than me spoon feeding everything like its a Q&A round.

Its seems to make better sense to me to put nuclear power on an aircraft carrier then cruisers, and from the K19 and Chernobyl we know how great Russian nuclear reactors work.

 

[p2prada]

Its seems to make better sense to me to put nuclear power on an aircraft carrier then cruisers,

Explain your reasons for it?

But as usual, you won't have a reason for it and will simply ignore this post.

and from the K19 and Chernobyl we know how great Russian nuclear reactors work.

What a load of nonsense,

what about this, the reactor was designed by General Electric.
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there is this,
Three Mile Island accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of industrial disasters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How about actually going through previous disasters instead of rambling like an idiot.

Russian reactor designs are some of the safest in the world.

 

[pmaitra]

I mentioned the Kirov class to show that the Russians have the technology to put nuclear reactors in their ships. The Kirov runs on two nuclear reactors.

Then I mentioned about the two carriers that the British are building to show that even they have opted for conventional power generation instead of nuclear. Funding issues.

Nuclear propulsion is determined by doctrine and the budget. Nuclear propulsion is good, but very expensive. While the Americans have preferred a nuclear powered carrier the Russians prefer to use nuclear powered cruisers and now they have started the design phase for nuclear powered destroyers in the 13000T class.

So, in the end the Russians do have the technology to build nuclear powered carriers, at least the Soviets did. But a carrier wasn't at the core of their doctrine, the Kirov class, Slava class and SSNs were. The carriers the Soviets built were primarily meant for fleet defence, not for the entire gamut of offensive and defensive need like the American carriers.

Using the same logic as Average American, I can say the Americans don't have the technology to place nuclear reactors on smaller ships like destroyers like the Russians can.

I know he is here only to troll. That's why I told him to Google it, so he can actually learn more by himself rather than me spoon feeding everything like its a Q&A round.

I get it that Nuclear Powered propulsion is expensive. I also get that they have the technology.

My question is, why did they do it for their battle cruisers and not for the aviation cruisers (which Gorshkov was), especially so because the US has done that for their aircraft carriers. This has to do with operational doctrine and not cost.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

i believe the main reason to go nuclear is unlimited range where conventional ships have their limitations they need to refuel. Nuclear power for propulsion has several operating and logistic characteristics that appeal to the designers of ships for both civil and military purposes. A small amount of nuclear fuel can provide energy equivalent to millions of times its weight in coal or oil. It is quite practical to build a reactor which will operate a vessel for several years without refuelling. Although the cost of manufacturing nuclear fuel elements is high, the overall cost of fuel is much lower than that of the amount of fossil fuel required to generate the same amount of energy. Like sailing ships, nuclear vessels are independent of the vagaries of procurement of fuel at every port. The laborious and costly process of loading and burning fuel is largely eliminated for most of the vessel's operating life.

Because of its high power density and the elimination of the need for large fuel bunkers, a nuclear propulsion plant allows more space for paying cargo. It also allows a vessel to operate at higher speeds for years without refuelling. This improves the speed and efficiency of ocean-going commerce. Military vessels, such as submarines and aircraft carriers, can travel at high speeds over vast distances, limited only by the endurance of their crews. Arctic vessels can operate for months, independent of fuel supplies.

Nuclear reactors require no oxygen for combustion and emit no exhaust gas. This is a minor benefit for surface vessels, eliminating the ducts, exhaust stacks and machinery needed to support the burning of fossil fuels. For submersible vessels this is the most important advantage. With nuclear power, a submarine can be propelled at speeds comparable to those of surface ships for protracted periods, limited only by crew endurance instead of fuel supply or battery capacity.

 

[pmaitra]

^^

Good post.

And given these advantages, my question to P2P is why the Soviets did not build nuclear powered ACs (aircraft carrier or aviation cruiser).

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

^^

Good post.

And given these advantages, my question to P2P is why the Soviets did not build nuclear powered ACs (aircraft carrier or aviation cruiser).

Soviet military policies never called for building full-fledged aircraft carriers operating multi-role warplanes. Nor did Russia draft any clear carrier construction program at the turn of the century.

On July 4, Admiral Viktor Kravchenko, former chief of the Russian Navy's Main Headquarters, said the country had to build a carrier fleet in the near future. This call is a reaction to reports of two aircraft carriers being built for the British Royal Navy. As before, Russia is reacting slowly to Western naval successes.

In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union could have built a real prototype aircraft carrier. The Project 1160 carrier design would have balanced the Soviet-U.S. naval strengths. The United States had more surface warships and long experience of carrier operations.

Under Project 1160, the U.S.S.R. was to have built three nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with catapult-launched Sukhoi Su-27K Flanker warplanes. The projected carrier force was supposed to operate in conjunction with naval strategic bombers and attack submarines for the purpose of hindering the deployment of enemy carrier task forces.

However, Project 1160 was opposed by an alternative program for building heavy air-capable cruisers (Russian acronym TAVKR), supported by Dmitry Ustinov, secretary of the Soviet Communist Party's Central Committee in 1965-1976 with oversight of the armed forces, the defense industry and security agencies.

TAVKR was an unviable hybrid warship combining the specifications of a heavy cruiser and an aircraft carrier. The government decision to build TAVKRs also heralded the beginning of a program to develop VTOL/STOVL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing/Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) aircraft.

This was an ambitious task. Such aircraft are notoriously difficult to develop, and the British Aerospace Sea Harrier remains the only effective VTOL/STOVL aircraft to date.

The Soviet VTOL/STOVL aircraft program was a complete failure. In the fall of 1991, a Yakovlev Yak-141 Freestyle plane turned into a fireball after crashing on the deck of the air-capable cruiser Admiral Gorshkov. Fortunately, the program was cancelled in 1992.

In the mid-1970s, the government discarded project 1160, focusing on the TAVKR program instead and impeding the development of VTOL/STOVL aircraft. However, conventional fighters cannot be converted into carrier-borne aircraft because the latter experience 100-200% greater loads during landing. Consequently, such planes must be designed from scratch.

Nevertheless, Ustinov carried on with the TAVKR program and supervised construction of the Admiral Gorshkov, the fourth warship in the series. She is now being refitted as the Vikramaditya for the Indian Navy, highlighting the fiasco of the TAVKR concept, because nobody in the world is willing to pay for such hybrid warships.

Russia's only aircraft carrier currently in service was laid down in Nikolayev, Ukraine, in 1982. Originally called the Riga, the carrier was subsequently renamed as the Leonid Brezhnev, the Tbilisi, and the Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov.

However, the Admiral Kuznetsov features a steam-turbine power-plant with turbo-generators and diesel generators, while all modern carriers are nuclear powered. She has a limited range and endurance and lacks the steam catapult necessary for carrier fighters. The warship does have a ski-jump in her bow section, but numerous experiments have revealed that catapults are the only way to ensure safe take-off in any weather conditions, regardless of the plane's weight.

Moreover, the Russian carrier has just a few navalized aircraft and only about 20 experienced carrier pilots.

This year, the United States Navy will commission its tenth Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. There are plans to launch the new-generation carrier CVN-78 with electromagnetic catapults and about 100 aircraft, including unmanned aerial combat vehicles, by 2013.

"The state rearmament program until 2016 stipulates no allocations for carrier programs," Kravchenko said. In 2009, the government will approve a concept for expanding the Russian Navy until 2050. Hopefully, the document will call for building new aircraft carriers.

SOURCE

Why Russia lacks aircraft carriers

 

[pmaitra]

SOURCE

Why Russia lacks aircraft carriers

Thank you. I'll add this:

TAVKR = Takticheskyi AVianosny KReiser or Tactical Aviation Cruiser (which Gorshkov was).

The clue is in the first word.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

hope it answers most of the question even i wonder some times but it all depends on the recpective naval doctrine so we never know the complete truth and we may never get complete answers hope we see some changes in future :thumb:

 

[hit&run]

I think/read somewhere, Russian have problem with forging steel for building ACC not nuclear reactor for the same. (if) India asking Russians to make one for them will have problem with the steel not reactor.

 

[pmaitra]

I have discussed this earlier in detail. Let me summarize again.

The US doctrine was to have an Aircraft Carrier go to far flung places, accompanied by support ships, so that it itself remains well protected and can project power, enforce regime changes, etc.. US Aircraft Carriers (along with their respective battle-groups) were meant for a strategic role. The Soviet doctrine was, in contrast, was to have air capable cruisers, or aviation cruisers, so that air operation can be undertaken from the sea, for quick reaction, short term missions; but were not meant for power projection. Another reason was the passage through Bosphorus and Dardanelles would have been difficult, with a full fledged Aircraft Carrier. So, the Soviets built Aviation Cruisers for a tactical role.

This is in addition to what Average Indian posted.

Average American, I hope this answers your question.

Kunal and P2P, you mentioned the cost fact. I will have to disagree with you. If cost was the issue, the USSR would not have built a huge number of nuclear powered submarines, cruisers, and icebreakers.

 

[p2prada]

I get it that Nuclear Powered propulsion is expensive. I also get that they have the technology.

This sentence was my point to him.

My question is, why did they do it for their battle cruisers and not for the aviation cruisers (which Gorshkov was), especially so because the US has done that for their aircraft carriers. This has to do with operational doctrine and not cost.

All I know is according to the Soviet doctrine the carrier will be used for fleet defence. Comparatively the other ships in the CBG handle offensive and defensive operations. It probably has everything to do with the mostly single role Su-33s. I don't really know why they did not opt for nuclear propulsion on carriers, perhaps because they felt it isn't needed for the cost it comes at like how the British opted out after studying it first. Supposedly it is far too expensive and doctrine and capability is always determined by costs. So, these are inter-related factors.

A larger ship like the Kuznetsov will need larger reactors after all, hence more money, unlike Kirov class. They must have determined a ship carrying 12 Su-33s for fleet defence, a dozen or more helicopters and 3 or 4 Su-25s for CAS won't need something as expensive as nuclear propulsion, especially when it is operating only as far as the Mediterranean. Also, the ship does not have catapults. Something that needs steam to operate and is supplied by the reactors on American carriers. So, more advantages for the Americans to have reactors instead.

OTOH, I think we may face technological issues in getting a nuclear reactor on our first carrier. Earlier the Navy was kinda sure Vishal would be a STOBAR with conventional powered systems. Now with a guaranteed CATOBAR system, nuclear propulsion needs to be officially ruled out. But I don't think this will make any difference to our doctrine if our carrier is conventionally powered or has nuclear reactors. Costs won't be the biggest hurdle either. Hence why technology could be our biggest hurdle.

ZZZ. I hate this American and British spelling system, defensive, defence. Now I am so used to both words.

 

[GromHellscream]

The Soviet had got nearly everything ready for generating a nuclear carrier, which means that the specific related technology tree has been opened before the collapse.
If the Soviet would have survived another 10 years, there are great chance that one or two of them can be kept alive until nowadays, might be in China.:cool2:
The fact US and the west won the Cold War doesn't naturally give an idiot from them the right to downplay the Soviet's achievements and the height of their once achieved technology level.

 

[pmaitra]

This sentence was my point to him.



All I know is according to the Soviet doctrine the carrier will be used for fleet defence. Comparatively the other ships in the CBG handle offensive and defensive operations. It probably has everything to do with the mostly single role Su-33s. I don't really know why they did not opt for nuclear propulsion on carriers, perhaps because they felt it isn't needed for the cost it comes at like how the British opted out after studying it first. Supposedly it is far too expensive and doctrine and capability is always determined by costs. So, these are inter-related factors.

A larger ship like the Kuznetsov will need larger reactors after all, hence more money, unlike Kirov class. They must have determined a ship carrying 12 Su-33s for fleet defence, a dozen or more helicopters and 3 or 4 Su-25s for CAS won't need something as expensive as nuclear propulsion, especially when it is operating only as far as the Mediterranean. Also, the ship does not have catapults. Something that needs steam to operate and is supplied by the reactors on American carriers. So, more advantages for the Americans to have reactors instead.

OTOH, I think we may face technological issues in getting a nuclear reactor on our first carrier. Earlier the Navy was kinda sure Vishal would be a STOBAR with conventional powered systems. Now with a guaranteed CATOBAR system, nuclear propulsion needs to be officially ruled out. But I don't think this will make any difference to our doctrine if our carrier is conventionally powered or has nuclear reactors. Costs won't be the biggest hurdle either. Hence why technology could be our biggest hurdle.

ZZZ. I hate this American and British spelling system, defensive, defence. Now I am so used to both words.

Fleet defense was the primary objective of Baku/Gorshkov, but not the only objective.

The single role Sukhoi-33 wasn't originally meant for Gorshkov. Yakovlev-38 was meant for that role, and it was a multi-role fighter. Yakovlev-38 entered service on Kiev Class Aviation Cruisers, and Gorshkov, then called Baku, is one example of Kiev Class ships. Yakovlev-38 wasn't a very good design, given that it had lift-dedicated engines, thus making it heavier than it should have been. That is probably why they switched to Sukhoi-33.

As you have correctly said, Kiev Class ships were meant to operate only as far as the Mediterranean, and primarily for a tactical role, protecting other Soviet ships, coastal bombings, etc..

Capability to generate steam is one advantage of a nuclear powered ship. Other advantages are well explained by Average Indian.

 

[p2prada]

Fleet defense was the primary objective of Baku/Gorshkov, but not the only objective.

The Sukhoi-33 wasn't originally meant for Gorshkov. Yakovlev-38 was meant for that role, and it was a multi-role fighter. Yakovlev-38 entered service on Kiev Class Aviation Cruisers, and Gorshkov, then called Baku, is one example of Kiev Class ships. Yakovlev-38 wasn't a very god design, given that it had lift-dedicated engines, thus making it heavier than it should have been. That is probably why they switched to Sukhoi-33.

As you have correctly said, Kiev Class ships were meant to operate only as far as the Mediterranean, and primarily for a tactical role, protecting other Soviet ships, coastal bombings, etc..

Capability to generate steam is one advantage of a nuclear powered ship. Other advantages are well explained by Average Indian.

I am pretty sure I am talking about the Kuznetsov class and not Kiev class. But both carrier classes are support ships to the Kirov, Slava and SSN fleet.

Btw, your earlier comment on TAVKR is wrong. TAVKR stands for Tyazholyy AVianesushchiy raketnyy KReyser which means Heavy Aircraft carrying Cruiser, nothing to do with Tactical or Strategic.

Kiev never carried the Su-33, only the Kuznetsov did.

Kiev;

Kuznetsov;

 

[pmaitra]

^^

Ok, I had Kiev Class in mind, because this is the Baku/Gorshkov/Vikramaditya thread.

Baku/Gorshkov is guaranteed to be Taktichekyi Avianosny Kreiser. See this article I had posted long time back:

The fourth hull of the Kiev class was altered during construction into an improved design, intended in part to test systems planned for the forthcoming full-size CVs and CVNs.

Baku's island being lifted into position at the Nikolayev South shipyard in 1981

Compared to her near-sisters, Baku had a much-modernized sensor fit with redesigned island, more anti-ship missiles and fewer ASW and AA weapons, newer guns, and omission of troublesome items such as the torpedo tubes. Additional processing capability was built into the "Gauntlet" system, so four targets could be engaged simultaneously. They still kept the troublesome steam propulsion system, however. The "Sky Watch" phased array was not operational when Baku commissioned and according to some sources, never was.

detail of "Sky Watch" phased array; a "Gauntlet" VLS can be seen aft of the island and parked "Forger"


Tactical Aviation Cruiser (Kiev Class):
Classified as aviation cruisers (taktichesky avianosny kreyser), they were much closer to conventional aircraft carriers than the Moskva class. They had a large island superstructure to starboard, with an angled flight deck to port. However, unlike American carriers, the bow of the ships carried a very heavy armament fit, including the long-range, nuclear-capable P-500 Bazalt anti-ship missile, known to NATO as the SS-N-12 Sandbox. The air wing consisted of up to 22 Yakovlev Yak-38 Forger VTOL fighters and 16 Kamov Ka-25 Hormone or Ka-27 Helix helicopters. Ten of the helicopters were ASW machines, with two utility/SAR machines and four missile-guidance aircraft.

References:
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1497.aspx
Kiev Class Aviation Cruiser | Military-Today.com

Tyazholyy AVianesushchiy raketnyy KReyser should be TAVRKR, not TAVKR, but according to the article posted by Average Indian, which talks about Kuznetsov, the big brother of Gorshkov, I guess my assumption was wrong. So I agree, TAVKR is what you said.

 

[p2prada]

Adding a nuclear reactor would mean an additional expense of $500Million to $1Billion with actual costs at $2000 for every KWe in the US.

Comparatively the 4 General Electric LM2500+ that powers the Vikrant come at a far cheaper price, you can estimate it to be around $5-6 Million each if you consider costs for ToT and R&D. Just double the price because even the GE F-414s for LCA are coming at double the price including license production, ToT and R&D.

Artisans Breathe New Life into LM2500 Engines | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation

New twin-shank and single-shank LM2500 engines cost $2.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively. FRCSW charges approximately $800,000 per overhaul and averages 3,300 manhours or 155 days per job, Hansen stated.

That's around $25-30 Million at most without the fuel costs which is comparatively very less if you consider costs of operating the entire carrier.

Bring in cost vs capability ratio and it is obvious the Russians would rather choose conventional power instead. The Russian Kiev class carriers should be at the same level as the Wasp / America class LHAs. Kuznetsov being a bit better in terms of crew and air complement apart from endurance.