INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[Kunal Biswas]

It's likely the N-LCA could only carry one Harpoon/Exocet Sized Missile with two external fuel tanks. Assuming that it could take off from a Ski Jump at such a weight. Even then the range would hardly be impressive......

Respectfully

My Dear..
Did u missed the rest of my post or u eat it?

 

[nrj]

The British Navy and Airforce are decommissioning the Harrier and most of them are in very good condition. Is there any talk of us purchasing those?

IN had such plan in mind over year ago but now it is dropped. They want heavy fighters & they want powerful catapults....

 

[Godless-Kafir]

IN had such plan in mind over year ago but now it is dropped. They want heavy fighters & they want powerful catapults....

Ya i remember that too and i know how british made a big fuss about selling the new version Harriers to us! Yet it would be a good by if we can get them at cheap prices, it will add a good punch to our arsenal.

 

[nrj]

Ya i remember that too and i know how british made a big fuss about selling the new version Harriers to us! Yet it would be a good by if we can get them at cheap prices, it will add a good punch to our arsenal.

IN's future fighter aviation will remain stable on 29K, NLCAs & NMRCAs. I don't think Harriers will be any good for upcoming carriers as they'll feature advanced catapults & ski-jump (IAC-1/Gorky). Also the current Harrier fleet is supposed to stay in service till 2023.

 

[captonjohn]

NLCA in Anti-ship role may carry 2 x KH-35 or 4 X KH-31A or 2Xkh-35 & 2 kh-31a for long range anti-ship strike..

NLCA normal payload is 7820kg or little less from a carrier

LCA on anti-ship strike may be fuel upto 40% only, for the rest of the journey it have to go for Air refueling via buddy refueling..

In case of NLCA, One NLCA will use as a buddy refuler for other NLCA..
Also note that NLCA carry 3000liters of internal fuel..

Nice info mate, thanks for this post.

 

[Crusader53]

My Dear..
Did u missed the rest of my post or u eat it?

No, it doesn't provide any specific information.




Also, let's not forget a quoted range means little unless it states it's from a Ski Jump.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

i am shocked at the audacity of the british to offer us decommisioned harriers.if they are thinking that india is a junkyard of obsolete weapons like pakistan then mod must ban them

 

[Kunal Biswas]

No, it doesn't provide any specific information.
Also, let's not forget a quoted range means little unless it states it's from a Ski Jump.

Read my Post, Its even quoted by captonjohn on this very page, It mentioned abt buddy refueling with a image too, What i explained is Cristal-clear..
I am repeating in simple language:

In Military Avition when Payload weights more than takeoff weight of the Aircraft, Aircraft usually fueled less so that the desired takeoff weight can be archived within limited length of runway..

After taking-off a buddy refueler will fuel the NLCA in mid air to archive needed strike range..


Now as u said NLCA can carry only one ASM is also true and not wrong, as per u its payload will be less and it wont need any mid air refueling....
Which is also correct..

 

[nitesh]

some interesting times ahead:

http://frontierindia.net/exercise-varuna-part-of-mission-agapanthe-2010-11

The French ships were open and one could see all aspects of the Carrier Operations and it was evident the French were impressing the Indian Naval Officers who visited and exercised that the Indian Navy should consider the Charles De Gaulle reactor, arrestor gear and systems to operate the Rafale from the reported IN 60,000 ton carrier on the drawing boards in Naval Design Bureau.

 

[SATISH]

some interesting times ahead:

http://frontierindia.net/exercise-varuna-part-of-mission-agapanthe-2010-11

I am totally against the CDG reactor on the IAC...you must be kidding me! The French have suffered a lot and are still suffering with the reactor issues. And the steam catpults are American. I rather stick with their EMALS.

 

[nitesh]

But satish, running such a huge carrier on conventional fuel will put strain on logistics and fuel bill too. Also it puts limit on the endurance. I guess it will be a wise idea to have a look in to the proposition

 

[SATISH]

But satish, running such a huge carrier on conventional fuel will put strain on logistics and fuel bill too. Also it puts limit on the endurance. I guess it will be a wise idea to have a look in to the proposition

niteshji,
We already have a prototype miniaturized PHWR built for Arihant. It supplies 80MWs Why cant we develop a design based on it for our own IAC 2. We have enough time in our hands.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gaulle/

So I rather suggest our own reactor to be fitted in the IAC2 because it is a newer design.

 

[p2prada]

The IAC 2 will require a much bigger reactor, maybe 2. But we have the time to develop it, if we start soon enough. Installing reactors is an expensive proposition.

 

[SATISH]

The IAC 2 will require a much bigger reactor, maybe 2. But we have the time to develop it, if we start soon enough. Installing reactors is an expensive proposition.

Yes I agree with you 2 reactors might be needed to power a 60k tonne AC. The CDG uses 2 61 MW reactors to power itself.

 

[nitesh]

Satish saar, I didn't meant to take designs of there reactor. Sorry the post came like that. I meant if they are ready to share the catapult tech then it is worth it. Better then current ones we are operating, gives us chance to operate AEW air craft from the deck.

 

[SATISH]

Satish saar, I didn't meant to take designs of there reactor. Sorry the post came like that. I meant if they are ready to share the catapult tech then it is worth it. Better then current ones we are operating, gives us chance to operate AEW air craft from the deck.

Niteshji...CDG catapults are from US. only the Arrestor gear is French.

 

[Armand2REP]

I am totally against the CDG reactor on the IAC...you must be kidding me! The French have suffered a lot and are still suffering with the reactor issues.

The reactors on CdG are proven submarine cores. There has never been an issue with them.

 

[SATISH]

The reactors on CdG are proven submarine cores. There has never been an issue with them.

But reports of high levels of radiation have emerged many times.

 

[Armand2REP]

But reports of high levels of radiation have emerged many times.

From who, James Dunnigan? He is just a Frogleg hater. There was no substantiation of most of his claims. If there were radiation leaks, CdG would never have entered operation. Safety precautions are not higher anywhere more than France.

 

[Crusader53]

The reactors on CdG are proven submarine cores. There has never been an issue with them.

The Submarine Reactors turned out to be ill suited for the Charles De Gaulle. Which, France has stated on several occasions.