INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[swapcv]

If this is done and dusted than we should move on to Vishal
Can't have a shipyard laying empty for long.

Final design should have been frozen long back and Feasibility study should have been carried out by now.

And since Vishal is going to be delayed, better to keep the yard busy with a LPD, LST or LHD project. Indian Navy is going to be drafting new requirements soon as well after scrubbing the old tender IIRC.

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

No need for a third carrier.
Better build more submarine , better ashm and ships with ballistic missiles on board.
Or ships with missile defence on board , instead of these white elephants .
Aka scrap vishal

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

Agar itna hi paisa hai to

 

[Aditya Ballal]

 

[Nationalist Manasvi Papa]

10m wide x 14m in length

No that's Vikrant.

 

[Blank]

No need for a third carrier.
Better build more submarine , better ashm and ships with ballistic missiles on board.
Or ships with missile defence on board , instead of these white elephants .
Aka scrap vishal

China also use to say that ACs are crap and white elephants. Now they are the most enthusiastic on building ACs. If they were white elephants no nation will have build them. No need to hide the truth, our problem is money.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

No that's Vikrant.

They’re about the same, but Vikrants lifts are deck edge lifts so length is not going to be a problem, whereas in Vikramaditya length restrictions will also be there

 

[Nationalist Manasvi Papa]

They’re about the same, but Vikrants lifts are deck edge lifts so length is not going to be a problem, whereas in Vikramaditya length restrictions will also be there

How tf length is 14m.
Mig29Ks length is 17m

 

[flanker99]

How tf length is 14m.
Mig29Ks length is 17m

Deck edge...ass sticks out

 

[Nationalist Manasvi Papa]

Deck edge...ass sticks out

He's taking about Vikramaditiya

 

[abingdonboy]

And around and around the circus goes. So they haven’t even finalised the design? That’s another 2-3 years of procrastination then they’ll request the MoD for sanction, it might even have to go up to CCS- another 1-2 years (maybe more) only THEN do they actually start work which will involve a 2-3 year lead-in period to prep the yard and take delivery of requisite equipment. So *maybe* 8 years from now the first metal for IAC-2 will be cut. 7-8 year build followed by 2+ years of sea trails.

easily 2040s

 

[abingdonboy]

What do you think about the lifts on Vikrant, they are very small, some say 10 meters wide only. Which other fighter can fly from the carrier except the Tejas Navy? Migs are there but there is no chance for Rafales or Super Hornets, we can now try for the F - 18 legacy version with full cockpit upgrade till our two engine Tejas is available.

Guys, how many times? It’s over.

the deficient MIGs will cling on until TEDBF comes along

The F-18 Vs Rafale/lift debate is entirely moot.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

How tf length is 14m.
Mig29Ks length is 17m

That’s why I said about the same since debate was about widths, but VKD has a length limit, Vikrant not really. Hence fa 18 super hornet may just about fit, but those in incharge of transport and handling of the aircraft on the deck and below are going to have a nightmare of a time if it is purchased and used on Vikramaditya

 

[FactsPlease]

Even if not, start building a sistership of Vikrant with the same design.. It costed 3.2bil, nothing we can't afford.

Sir: I beg to differ. we may be able to afford that, may be.

But for now the air wing is already such a complicated issue. We got factors like lift size, STOBAR vs CATOBAR, which in turn impact on available models/body structure/endurance, and most of all the operation commonality, not just between different decks/take-off, but also between deck- and shore-based squadrons.

I'm most concerned about the last point as it will ultimately affect the sortie rate. I believe everyone already noticed both take-off lines on Vicky & Vikrant will block the landing area. It's a disadvantage compared against Chinese CV (they won't have this issue). Nevertheless, CV-to-CV compairson is NOT my point here. It's simply about how much power projection we can do with these beasts, not to mention to make best of our extraordinary achievements.

Going for 2nd Vikrant is kind of double betting on STOBAR, and thus our choice on air wings - unless Navy got a very strategic thought about how to upgrade our STOBAR with EM/Steam catapult - a very unlikely scenario to me (even that happen, before MLU it could mean ~20 years operation window to be restricted by the dilemma I mentioned).

I admit I don't have answer, but simply bring up my concern here.

That’s why I said about the same since debate was about widths, but VKD has a length limit, Vikrant not really. Hence fa 18 super hornet may just about fit, but those in incharge of transport and handling of the aircraft on the deck and below are going to have a nightmare of a time if it is purchased and used on Vikramaditya

 

[Bleh]

Sir: I beg to differ. we may be able to afford that, may be.

But for now the air wing is already such a complicated issue. We got factors like lift size, STOBAR vs CATOBAR, which in turn impact on available models/body structure/endurance, and most of all the operation commonality, not just between different decks/take-off, but also between deck- and shore-based squadrons.

I'm most concerned about the last point as it will ultimately affect the sortie rate. I believe everyone already noticed both take-off lines on Vicky & Vikrant will block the landing area. It's a disadvantage compared against Chinese CV (they won't have this issue). Nevertheless, CV-to-CV compairson is NOT my point here. It's simply about how much power projection we can do with these beasts, not to mention to make best of our extraordinary achievements.

Going for 2nd Vikrant is kind of double betting on STOBAR, and thus our choice on air wings - unless Navy got a very strategic thought about how to upgrade our STOBAR with EM/Steam catapult - a very unlikely scenario to me (even that happen, before MLU it could mean ~20 years operation window to be restricted by the dilemma I mentioned).

I admit I don't have answer, but simply bring up my concern here.

Khali parha rehega yar, construction dock... We officially have no plans, no designs of any 3rd aircraft carrier.

And looking at the design of INS Vikrant I have a feeling that it is designed with future possibility EMALS conversion in mind. Anyways 2 STOBAR is better than 2 stobar & one nothing.

 

[flanker99]

Khali parha rehega yar, construction dock... We officially have no plans, no designs of any 3rd aircraft carrier.

And looking at the design of INS Vikrant I have a feeling that it is designed with future possibility EMALS conversion in mind. Anyways 2 STOBAR is better than 2 stobar & one nothing.

Bro the design is 15-20 years old ...back then ghanta emals ko consider kia gya tha...not to mention the huge amount of power emals will require that i doubt the ship could provide

 

[Bleh]

Bro the design is 15-20 years old ...back then ghanta emals ko consider kia gya tha...not to mention the huge amount of power emals will require that i doubt the ship could provide

Yes actually.. back then it was seriously considered whether we're going for STOBAR or CATOBAR. Not new concept, tiny little older Vikrant had it.

And the power requirement is nothing to the propulsion of a 45k ton ship that runs at 30knots (faster than our destroyers). Many don't really comprehend how cool this beauty is, I only had one doubt that was cleared few pages I ahead in the thread.
$3.5 billion is not that high compared to our defence expenditures, we should definitely start cloning a sistership on the the same design ASAP.

 

[Gandaberunda]

The issue is with Navy wants 3rd carrier to be a Biggie with Nuclear propelled and CATOBAR/EMALS 65000+Tons minimum. They don't want another 40k Ton carrer or Vikrant clone. Hence the issue with Govt. If navy agrees for another Vikrant then govt may agree to build. Here due to navy stubbornness ( rightfully who wants new carrier with old design) and dwindling sub feet govt wants to scrap 3rd carrier plans and go for subs(again the number of subs proposed is not sufficient) instead which navy doesn't want. Navy wants both to have subs and 3rd carrier. In comparison IAF getting new toys with latest technologies inducted why will navy compromise?

 

[FalconSlayers]

EMALS should not be considered for INS Vishal, existing steam catapult should be used, EMALS will require a Nuclear Propulsion System on the ship, which will bleed our pockets.

 

[Suryavanshi]

First we should go for Nuclear propulsion and make sure it's ready, without it there is no scope for EMALS. We have a Rail gun prototype working I'm sure we can step it up a bit in 4 to 5 years.