INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[icecoolben]

The russian system figures a way to use the explosion from gun-powder to launch aircrafts from carriers. Its also catobar configuration. But the technology, efficiency compares to steam catapults. There explosive launch systems were tried even during ww2 to launch aircraft by the allies but ultimately steam cats prevailed later. The russians had success in research of the system and reportedly no gun-powder remains were left on the launch system. This research was part of russian effort to develop new launch systems on their future carriers comparable to super-carriers. The stobar configurations were a stop gap measure, as its performance combined the worst of both worlds stovl and catobar.

Emals are in a whole different league, they are potentially the next generation of launch systems. Capable of efficently launching not just aircraft of significantly high weights like awacs , transport planes, and future heavy combat fighters. But also, satellites, artilery launch systems etc, since the core technology is the same and mastery over this at this stage while no country has not developed & operationalised them, would give us an early lead in the race.

 

[bsn4u1985]

I am not sure If I did have posted any time before on this thread.
But,IN has finalized its mid-long term requirement need for 5 AC`s .And a serious debate is going on if atleast 2 of them has to be made nuke powered or not.
give the recent achievement of BARC in providing a compact and high efficient reactor for ATV,it is chest beating that It can upsize and modify the reactor if needed to be used in an AC.Long time back I put a few words on BRF as per what I came to know that BARC is also designing a compact AHWR for naval use.

Since MOD and IN showed interest in having large carriers ,the 2 or 3rd indigenous one most likely be one the lines of either CVF or Nimitz.
According to the sources which I had,I was told that before a reactor was to be fitted on a large carrier,It will be tested on else where. Which clearly hints me that the second IAC might see a propulsion change while the 3rd IAC will be large and go nuclear.

And the above points summarizes that there will be atleast 5 carriers in the near future of which 2 will be nuke ones capable of carrying AWACS and large compliment of fighters.
Hence we will be have 3 medium sized ones for defensive offence purpose while remaining will take care of strike roles far away from the mainland.

One has to look at the carrier needs of Russia at the same time which also proposed of having a whole flotilla.There could be some design consultancy or co-developments when large carriers are considered.

i don't think this is possible,its a distant dream,nuke ones are impossible,bcause even USA also rethinks about their own nuke carrier production due to its vulnerability against anti-ship missiles and cost, so i don't think India would think abt nuke carrier, India should stick to medium sized AC , but in great numbers.

 

[icecoolben]

The aircraft carrier programs of other nations have to been looked at in light of our own need to develop aircraft carriers. While v have envisaged our carrier, to have 40,000 std, ? Full load being capable of carrying upto 30 combat aircraft, and 10 helis with a top speed of 28 knots using 4 ge lm2500 turbines and range 75,000 . While the british queen elizabeth class under construction is supposed to be 40,000 std, 65,000 full load is capable of fielding 50 aircraft full load including 5 sea king helis with the option of using v-22 osprey developed into awacs, wit top speed of 24 knots using roles royce mtt-30 gas turbines and range of 10,000 nm.
These designs have to compared againist the other for our own interests. Probably the efficency of our design needs close scrutiny. Also the strategic planning involved while designing the queen elizabeth class states that the carrier can be easily converted from stovl to catobar using minimal modifications. I hope our carriers are configured the same way. But the optimum use of flight deck space needs to be worked out aboard the ins Vikrant. Though sacrificing on speed, the advanced design enables the carrier increased carrying tonnage, range and strike power. Probably our stobar configurations of our carrier and tejas needs to evolve to catobar configurations to optimise combat radius, payload of aircraft, and economy of operating the carrier.
Our second of vikrant class should consider optimising deck space and tejas operations. I wish our third indigenous carrier of this class conventionally powered would represent our launch to the next carrier platform class that would hopefully be nuclear powered. One country already working towards this end is france who prefer nuclear power still wish to operate at a lower 75,000 disp and hopefully we can extract their knowledge as we design our next class of aircraft carriers.

 

[Emperor]

One has to understand the IN doctrine and planning of future surface and sub-surface combatants.

IT is only in IN that a surface ship of 5900 tonn displacement is classified as a frigate while the similar sized one else where (e.g China) is termed as a destroyer with more or less same weaponry.

Believe me,IN`s ambitions are very fat stretched as compared to its counterparts in Indian armed forces.One can clearly understand the role IN wants to play in the near future by easily looking at its planned ships/subs.
Apart from the current ATV and its partner S3 all next subs will be larger with high weapon carrying capability.And at the same time looking at the IN`s projected second line and indigenous D-E subs, their displacement is going upwards.Could also be due to the installing of Brahmos and for long range and long stay periods at sea.

Breifly put, IN is not simply looking at to be a coastal defence force.Its aiming is to control high seas.IOR in the near future while venturing into south china sea and pacific were considered as long term roles. With such ambitions a either a D-E sub or a surface ship cant comply with.

With the commissioning of the next 24 D-E subs, they will be last D-E to be procured by IN.And its current plans to have a flotilla of a min of 12-13 SSN and a much deterrent patrolling force of SSBN`s(could be atleast 3) has to be considered in line with the present and future geo-politics.And it is quiet obvious that IN is considering the nuke carriers to be included in its flotilla.

Even the naval design headquarters is scrambling to keep upto the pace that IN wants and is looking at the IN need for future nuke powered surface combatants( like destroyers as well.)
Since the whole world is turning towards conventional propulsion doesn't imply IN has to follow the path. No US is planning to have a conventional propulsion on any of its future carriers.
And the CVF of brits is yet to be sanctioned.Brit ruled out of having any new carriers in the near future after taking a look at its economy.
Also one has to take the account of recurring costs of construction at indian ship yards to those compared with foreign yards.So far IN is doing far better than what is expected from it.While its counterparts failed to achieve even what is expected from them.

 

[icecoolben]

Our aircraft is purely a power projection platform, and improvement from stobar to catobar would surely enhance its capability and should be our next logical step. If our navy was so doctrine oriented what would the ins jalaswa serve according to the doctrine. Ours is mostly a learn, frame doctrine, indigenise navy. Not such an offence navy as u propose and it is largely involved in littoral operations compared to other forward capable navies like Us, france etc.

 

[Emperor]

I may have to agree with you partially but not completely. IN finalized building large LPD ships similar to Jalashwa .Jalashwa purchase can be counted as a learning the know how of US amphib operations. with the current strength and capability IN can win over as a kids play in any litoral warfare.But its deep sea war takes the bit shot.If IN has to control the choke points for eg during a confrontation with China,it definitely needs more surface and sub-surface ships.Together with air dominance on the high seas.Currently China can only station its ships at Gwadar in pak.And all other supposed bases were recently nuetralised by GOI.Its a big strategic achievement.And the Gwadar can be easily netralised either by the creation of balochistan or station extra ships in Oman.

Srilanka lately apologized to GOI for bringing China to construct its hambantota.And obliqued for not letting China station any of its military vessels.Same happened with B`desh but with a different spin.It is looking at strategic partnership with India. And Myanmar ready to opt out of coco if India feels insecure of China tinting at its movements in BOB.
You got my point ,I guess.
The next objective for India is ruling the high seas and to be able to checkmate any adversary anywhere in the Asia-Pacific.(ofcourse china-sea as well)

 

[icecoolben]

When was surfing around the net, i stumbed upon the capabilites of ins airawat which was sort like a mini-jalaswa with with a-third the displacement was commisoned in 2009. And reportedly 3 are planned, guess navy is alreay on its merry way. But talking of controlling the whole indian ocean region is premature,since it is the Us based in diego carcia that guarentee's sea lane freedom to ensure oil supplies.
Our under water capabilities are quite minisle compared to our potential adversary china, who might vie for a pie of her own in the indian ocean region, and would be willing to risk under-water warfare to protect her interests in the indian littoral region. So, a sea denial capability around our littoral waters is essential as well. Hence its important to build a sleeker carrier force that does not eat into our surface, and most importantly our submarine programs. That is why i was asking for optimissation present class of carriers and joint study, development of future carriers.

 

[icecoolben]

About myanmar showing signs of opting out, bangla back in indian bag and especially a serious srilankan apology are all part of political international diplomacy. V don't have any strategic hold on even the most smallest countries except bhutan. Example ecuador threatening to return dhuruv and rendering the contract void, would the country have made such a statement if v were so important as a power in the region and the world at large.anyway, If such diplomacy of gentle overtures has to bear fruit not just indian navy. but indian ministry of defence and m.o.external affairs have to work hand in hand.
One for a soverign country to feel secure it needs its own self-dependent armed force, at least to check militancy. But this requires tactical platforms and defence hardwares. Our navy has been leasing patrol ships out of its own inventory for good to nations of i.o.r just to maintain good relations, since external affairs turned down line of credit requested by the respective governments serially, eg. Fast attack-craft taillaching to seychelles, patrol vessels to maldives and lanka. Recently the coast gaurd demanded the return of the patrol vessel it leased to lanka in 2007 on the ground that the ltte threat is over and they need to secure the littorals after november attacks, these incidents could sour relations and push lanka back to chinese, paki embrace. Only by economic embrace,weapons supplies can v exert a strategic hold on them. So far external affairs is concentrated and determined on holding onto bhutan and nepal which receive both massive economic and military assistance, while remaining oblivious to the threat down south. The ministry of defence should be the nodal agency to finance and monitor arms supplies & exports and any indian armament up for export have to be branded and marketed jointly by the arms producer with active cooperation of the prime user be it the indian army, navy or air-force. Since it would promote inter-operatability and a psychological bond. The external affairs should be given the power only to promise availability of such platforms with relative ease in the future.

i know its way of topic. But had to be pragmatic of indian relations, capabilities and interests, and to assume all our relations to be rosy would be a mistake of gigantic proportions which we should be unwilling to make.

 

[bsn4u1985]

One has to understand the IN doctrine and planning of future surface and sub-surface combatants.

IT is only in IN that a surface ship of 5900 tonn displacement is classified as a frigate while the similar sized one else where (e.g China) is termed as a destroyer with more or less same weaponry.

Believe me,IN`s ambitions are very fat stretched as compared to its counterparts in Indian armed forces.One can clearly understand the role IN wants to play in the near future by easily looking at its planned ships/subs.
Apart from the current ATV and its partner S3 all next subs will be larger with high weapon carrying capability.And at the same time looking at the IN`s projected second line and indigenous D-E subs, their displacement is going upwards.Could also be due to the installing of Brahmos and for long range and long stay periods at sea.

Breifly put, IN is not simply looking at to be a coastal defence force.Its aiming is to control high seas.IOR in the near future while venturing into south china sea and pacific were considered as long term roles. With such ambitions a either a D-E sub or a surface ship cant comply with.

With the commissioning of the next 24 D-E subs, they will be last D-E to be procured by IN.And its current plans to have a flotilla of a min of 12-13 SSN and a much deterrent patrolling force of SSBN`s(could be atleast 3) has to be considered in line with the present and future geo-politics.And it is quiet obvious that IN is considering the nuke carriers to be included in its flotilla.

Even the naval design headquarters is scrambling to keep upto the pace that IN wants and is looking at the IN need for future nuke powered surface combatants( like destroyers as well.)
Since the whole world is turning towards conventional propulsion doesn't imply IN has to follow the path. No US is planning to have a conventional propulsion on any of its future carriers.
And the CVF of brits is yet to be sanctioned.Brit ruled out of having any new carriers in the near future after taking a look at its economy.
Also one has to take the account of recurring costs of construction at indian ship yards to those compared with foreign yards.So far IN is doing far better than what is expected from it.While its counterparts failed to achieve even what is expected from them.

I know I respect your view but i don't think India would go for nuclear propulsion for AC , because India always look for cheapest way for any military applications, and for destroyers it is always a waste of money my friend ,so i don't think what you are saying is possible.

 

[icecoolben]

It will be easier to adopt our reactor developed for our submarines on a destroyer than an aircraft carrier. The nuclear industry in india is poised for a huge leap forward. The logical step would be to equip our next generation large cruisers, destroyers, frigates lead ships in small numbers with nuclear propulsion, since it would ease the financial burden of spending on r&d for a reactor dedicated for nuclear aircraft carriers. If approximately 25% percentage gross displacement of our navy were nuclear powered, v then would have achieved the know how to develop any type of nuclear propulsion for ships.

 

[bsn4u1985]

It will be easier to adopt our reactor developed for our submarines on a destroyer than an aircraft carrier. The nuclear industry in india is poised for a huge leap forward. The logical step would be to equip our next generation large cruisers, destroyers, frigates lead ships in small numbers with nuclear propulsion, since it would ease the financial burden of spending on r&d for a reactor dedicated for nuclear aircraft carriers. If approximately 25% percentage gross displacement of our navy were nuclear powered, v then would have achieved the know how to develop any type of nuclear propulsion for ships.

its good thinking....i apprecieate that...but i think india would n't use their money to power the destroyers and frigates with nuclear propulsion......

 

[icecoolben]

Soviets, americans, french pursued nuclear propulsion for submarines first, surface ships like destroyers next and atlast on their carriers. For this very reason uss enterprise is said to be a conservative design with 8 nuclear reactors, and only one was built to avoid huge maintenance costs and subsequently the other 2 were canceled.

 

[bsn4u1985]

but employing of nuclear reactors in destroyers are not for long term purpose that is for R&D purpose only and that was at the start of the nuclear propulsion era.......

 

[SATISH]

It will be easier to adopt our reactor developed for our submarines on a destroyer than an aircraft carrier. The nuclear industry in india is poised for a huge leap forward. The logical step would be to equip our next generation large cruisers, destroyers, frigates lead ships in small numbers with nuclear propulsion, since it would ease the financial burden of spending on r&d for a reactor dedicated for nuclear aircraft carriers. If approximately 25% percentage gross displacement of our navy were nuclear powered, v then would have achieved the know how to develop any type of nuclear propulsion for ships.

Try reading the problems faced by the French in Charles de Gaulle class carriers. They adopted their submarine reactor and ended up facing a lot of problems.

 

[Emperor]

i know i respect ur view but i don't think india would go for nuclear propulsion for AC....bcoz india always look for cheapest way for any military apllications....and for destroyers it is always a waste of money my friend...so i don't think wat u r saying is possible......

I agree your budget point,given we were still in the late 80`s and 90`s.But fortunately we are in 2009 which is a day after 20,30 years when whole armed forces used to count on each cent. IAC is costing the navy around Rs 30 billion which is of 40kt.And a almost similar amount for ATV.

the Rs 30billion cost for IAC was reported in 2007 by Suresh Mehta.Even if you consider the inflation and other cost-overruns says 80billion rupees which is a mere $2billion/carrier( which is the far higher than what was sanctioned initially)
The cost of construction in Indian shipyards is far less than the same at foreign shipyards.While both comes with same weaponry and other systems.

IF included the indian sensors and indian propulsion,the costs come down further.Same happened with ATV which costed the MOD a 2+ billion dollar for the R&D of reactor,construction of S1 and a reactor for it,S2(current ATV)The same cost also includes the production facilities for BARC and fuel handling systems at Rambilli near Vizag.

IT all shows that the construction in Indian yards is far less than the same abroad. We are paying almost the same cost of IAC for gorshy.
And a carrier of CVF class is costing brits 2 billion pounds which is $3.34 billion.
Given my rough estimates and local manufacturing costs, a CVF class nuclear one can be constructed in home at a cost of less than $3 billion easily.Indian reactors are cheap,but efficient.(on the side)

So far we been though the construction costs at Indian yards relative to foreign yards.
Now lets have a look at the defence budgets and MOD expenditures.MOD is sitting on the throat of armed forces to spend the sanctioned budget first and then ask for more.This saga is continuing for the last 5 years.Every year the forces are returning the unspent money.
One fine day Antony said,"I was pushing these guys to spend the sanctioned amount first and ask me for more,Instead they are returning me the amount I got sanctioned." The actual budget of $ 26 billion is meant for public reports. Mentioning what the previous FM Chidambaram said,"Need money for buying more stuff? You will get what you want anytime". Indian armed forces are not the low cost kanzoos anymore. they are rich.Their equipments are costly when compared with nominal values.

IN want the next 4 destroyers to be constructed at a value of no less than 600 million each.From then onwards,It will scale the size and weapons capability.

 

[bsn4u1985]

I agree your budget point,given we were still in the late 80`s and 90`s.But fortunately we are in 2009 which is a day after 20,30 years when whole armed forces used to count on each cent. IAC is costing the navy around Rs 30 billion which is of 40kt.And a almost similar amount for ATV.

the Rs 30billion cost for IAC was reported in 2007 by Suresh Mehta.Even if you consider the inflation and other cost-overruns says 80billion rupees which is a mere $2billion/carrier( which is the far higher than what was sanctioned initially)
The cost of construction in Indian shipyards is far less than the same at foreign shipyards.While both comes with same weaponry and other systems.

IF included the indian sensors and indian propulsion,the costs come down further.Same happened with ATV which costed the MOD a 2+ billion dollar for the R&D of reactor,construction of S1 and a reactor for it,S2(current ATV)The same cost also includes the production facilities for BARC and fuel handling systems at Rambilli near Vizag.

IT all shows that the construction in Indian yards is far less than the same abroad. We are paying almost the same cost of IAC for gorshy.
And a carrier of CVF class is costing brits 2 billion pounds which is $3.34 billion.
Given my rough estimates and local manufacturing costs, a CVF class nuclear one can be constructed in home at a cost of less than $3 billion easily.Indian reactors are cheap,but efficient.(on the side)

So far we been though the construction costs at Indian yards relative to foreign yards.
Now lets have a look at the defence budgets and MOD expenditures.MOD is sitting on the throat of armed forces to spend the sanctioned budget first and then ask for more.This saga is continuing for the last 5 years.Every year the forces are returning the unspent money.
One fine day Antony said,"I was pushing these guys to spend the sanctioned amount first and ask me for more,Instead they are returning me the amount I got sanctioned." The actual budget of $ 26 billion is meant for public reports. Mentioning what the previous FM Chidambaram said,"Need money for buying more stuff? You will get what you want anytime". Indian armed forces are not the low cost kanzoos anymore. they are rich.Their equipments are costly when compared with nominal values.

IN want the next 4 destroyers to be constructed at a value of no less than 600 million each.From then onwards,It will scale the size and weapons capability.

i think u r mistaken.....CVF is not a nuclear propulsion AC......The MoD decided not to use nuclear propulsion due to its high costs.[20] The carrier's propulsion system will be Integrated Full Electric Propulsion (IFEP) with Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 36 MW gas turbine generator units.

The design places one gas turbine generator unit under each island in the starboard sponson. This relatively high placement removes the requirement for air downtakes/exhausts deep into the ship. The unrefuelled range of the carrier will be 10,000 nautical miles (18 520 km).

see.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier

 

[Emperor]

Try reading the problems faced by the French in Charles de Gaulle class carriers. They adopted their submarine reactor and ended up facing a lot of problems.

Charles De Gaullie was plagued with so many problems ,which is true.But its not because they adopted their submarine reactor.
De Gaullie problems mostly were due to quality control.
The De Gaullie construction can be termed as a construction of a crappy merchant ship in the name of Navy.
There were no problems with the reactor design.It was the problem with proper cladding and other insulations around the core to protect the crew from radiation.
The shafts and propellors ,almost everything related to propulsion were of lousy quality.the company that made these went bankrupt(one can understand from this) De Gaullie construction sometimes termed as a invisible corruption in french MOD.

i think u r mistaken.....CVF is not a nuclear propulsion AC......The MoD decided not to use nuclear propulsion due to its high costs.[20] The carrier's propulsion system will be Integrated Full Electric Propulsion (IFEP) with Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 36 MW gas turbine generator units.

The design places one gas turbine generator unit under each island in the starboard sponson. This relatively high placement removes the requirement for air downtakes/exhausts deep into the ship. The unrefuelled range of the carrier will be 10,000 nautical miles (18 520 km).

I know it got a conventional propulsion.I said," A CVF class with nuclear propulsion(means same size with diff propulsion)"

Its been historic that the advantages of having a nuclear propulsion over conventional are trivial. With a high uncertainity in imported oil prices,you are putting your high value assets on high seas at a significant risk. These ships can sail,given our strategic reserves wont exhaust.Nuclear propulsion is definitely a cost saving option,but not a costly option.

 

[icecoolben]

Try reading the problems faced by the French in Charles de Gaulle class carriers. They adopted their submarine reactor and ended up facing a lot of problems.

please read my three previous posts and quote, reply me.

 

[bsn4u1985]

Charles De Gaullie was plagued with so many problems ,which is true.But its not because they adopted their submarine reactor.
De Gaullie problems mostly were due to quality control.
The De Gaullie construction can be termed as a construction of a crappy merchant ship in the name of Navy.
There were no problems with the reactor design.It was the problem with proper cladding and other insulations around the core to protect the crew from radiation.
The shafts and propellors ,almost everything related to propulsion were of lousy quality.the company that made these went bankrupt(one can understand from this) De Gaullie construction sometimes termed as a invisible corruption in french MOD.


I know it got a conventional propulsion.I said," A CVF class with nuclear propulsion(means same size with diff propulsion)"

Its been historic that the advantages of having a nuclear propulsion over conventional are trivial. With a high uncertainity in imported oil prices,you are putting your high value assets on high seas at a significant risk. These ships can sail,given our strategic reserves wont exhaust.Nuclear propulsion is definitely a cost saving option,but not a costly option.

in that point of view i will agree with u....nuclear propulsion means unlimited reach capability to anywhere in the world and several strategic advantages....i will tell nuclear propulsion is a costly but u can't get good quality without good cost......

 

[icecoolben]

but employing of nuclear reactors in destroyers are not for long term purpose that is for R&D purpose only and that was at the start of the nuclear propulsion era.......

i cant get u clearly pls be precise.
We don't test a nuclear reactor meant for sub on a destroyer, obviously this would be a learning curve, the french want to pursue nuclear propulsion to guard their strategic autonomy.
The russians had equipped their heavy cruisers and destroyers with nuclear propulsion and were on the verge of leap frog to nuclear propulsion for their carriers when the state collapsed.
The Us navy that reportedly has forward capability maintains a strategic reserve of fuel thats oil that can run down its economy for 3 years minimum. This gives it the opportunity to wage war even against the middle east without compromising their fighting power. Japan rammed down south asia to find sources of oil to fuel its war efforts.
in case india went to war against pakistan and the whole middle east gets sucked in and issues an oil embargo against india, v would have to make an embarrasing retreat and cease-fire due to non-operational fleets. So its essential for us to build a nuclear powered strategic force that would be operational on all occasions and make do with our domestic oil reserves. A nuclear fuel reserve is relatively easy to build than an oil reserve due to low cost of fuel and easier management of the reserve.