INS Vishal (IAC- II) Aircraft Carrier - Flattop or Ski Jump

[Indx TechStyle]

Design for Second Domestic Aircraft Carrier to be Finalized by Year-END

Directorate of Naval Design conception of India's New Super Carrier

It will be one of the largest carriers after U.S. super carriers.

By the end of the year, India expects to freeze the design for the largest battleship ever built for the Indian Navy. It will also be one of the largest carriers across the world after the U.S. super carriers, which weigh about 1,00,000 tonnes.

According to Navy sources, the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-II) would be of 65,000 tonnes, and will be capable of carrying over 50 aircraft. In comparison, displacement of INS Viraat is only 28,500 tonnes and INS Vikramaditya is 45,400 tonnes, both of which are of foreign origin and currently in service with the Indian Navy. The first indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant weighing 40,000 tonnes is currently under construction at Kochi.

The feasibility study for IAC-II has begun and will take about 8-10 months based on which the design will be frozen, a senior Navy official said on Wednesday.

Given that this the first time a ship of such size will be built in India which involves development of several new technologies, design consultancy will be sought from foreign companies with expertise in carrier design and construction.

Five countries have been identified for the purpose — the U.S., Russia, France, the U.K. and Italy — all of which currently operate carriers, the official added.

Officials said Vikrant was in advanced stage of construction and was on course to be delivered by December 2018.

Source>>

 

[Gessler]

The image is a Gerlad R. Ford ACC. Notice the the CVN-"78" mark on the deck. DND gotta be stupid to put up that image - unless they're actually trying to build a Ford-class carrier.

Some sources estimate that if nuclear propulsion is finalized, the ship could displace around 75,000 tons or more. Either way it's going to be a supercarrier.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

The image is a Gerlad R. Ford ACC. Notice the the CVN-"78" mark on the deck. DND gotta be stupid to put up that image - unless they're actually trying to build a Ford-class carrier.

Some sources estimate that if nuclear propulsion is finalized, the ship could displace around 75,000 tons or more. Either way it's going to be a supercarrier.

What are your thoughts about building a super carrier vs building two normal sized carriers considering the latter allows us to have a more nuanced approach. The former locks a large chunk of our offensive capabilities like putting all eggs in one basket. If we have two, we could project power over a larger area. After all, the size of the ship doesn't impart any more lethality compared to a normal sized ship, just the ability to carry more planes. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the cost-benefit analysis of 1 jumbo carrier vs 2 small carriers.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

The image is a Gerlad R. Ford ACC. Notice the the CVN-"78" mark on the deck. DND gotta be stupid to put up that image - unless they're actually trying to build a Ford-class carrier.

I know, but it's a representational image. Everybody does so before real design comes out.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

I know, but it's a representational image. Everybody does so before real design comes out.

Or perhaps that's the cookie-cutter design that the US passed on to India and the Navy selected it? Also, it's not just about possessing an AC, once there is an upgrade in your military capability, the strategic thinking of our political leadership also needs to be upgraded to think like a superpower. We can't be seen as a nation that has 4 ACs and running to USA to pressurize Pakistan to find petty ganglords. Do we have the guts to retake and claim Diego Garcia?

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Or perhaps that's the cookie-cutter design that the US passed on to India and the Navy selected it? Also, it's not just about possessing an AC, once there is an upgrade in your military capability, the strategic thinking of our political leadership also needs to be upgraded to think like a superpower. We can't be seen as a nation that has 4 ACs and running to USA to pressurize Pakistan to find petty ganglords. Do we have the guts to retake and claim Diego Garcia?

Nope, US didn't passed any design because design in the figure isn't even real design. That will come around December. That image is just representational.

 

[rohit b3]

Design for Second Domestic Aircraft Carrier to be Finalized by Year-END

Directorate of Naval Design conception of India's New Super Carrier

It will be one of the largest carriers after U.S. super carriers.

By the end of the year, India expects to freeze the design for the largest battleship ever built for the Indian Navy. It will also be one of the largest carriers across the world after the U.S. super carriers, which weigh about 1,00,000 tonnes.

According to Navy sources, the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-II) would be of 65,000 tonnes, and will be capable of carrying over 50 aircraft. In comparison, displacement of INS Viraat is only 28,500 tonnes and INS Vikramaditya is 45,400 tonnes, both of which are of foreign origin and currently in service with the Indian Navy. The first indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant weighing 40,000 tonnes is currently under construction at Kochi.

The feasibility study for IAC-II has begun and will take about 8-10 months based on which the design will be frozen, a senior Navy official said on Wednesday.

Given that this the first time a ship of such size will be built in India which involves development of several new technologies, design consultancy will be sought from foreign companies with expertise in carrier design and construction.

Five countries have been identified for the purpose — the U.S., Russia, France, the U.K. and Italy — all of which currently operate carriers, the official added.

Officials said Vikrant was in advanced stage of construction and was on course to be delivered by December 2018.

Source>>

Whether it be Frigates or Carriers, they always have to leak money to foreign countries, dont they?
""five countries have been identified for the purpose — the U.S., Russia, France, the U.K. and Italy — all of which currently operate carriers, the official added.""
Italy ? Really? a country that uses small STOVL Carriers ?
Uk? with their inferior STOVL carriers?
The only country that has experience in this case is US and to some extent France - the only CATOBAR carrier operators.

 

[archie]

What are your thoughts about building a super carrier vs building two normal sized carriers considering the latter allows us to have a more nuanced approach. The former locks a large chunk of our offensive capabilities like putting all eggs in one basket. If we have two, we could project power over a larger area. After all, the size of the ship doesn't impart any more lethality compared to a normal sized ship, just the ability to carry more planes. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the cost-benefit analysis of 1 jumbo carrier vs 2 small carriers.

I would Guess having more aircraft provides for more power projection or offensive capability and the ability to deploy aircraft that have more endurance and more ordinance .... The current Mig 29k , n Tejas or harrier will definitely be limited on range due to limits on MTOW..

 

[Gessler]

What are your thoughts about building a super carrier vs building two normal sized carriers considering the latter allows us to have a more nuanced approach. The former locks a large chunk of our offensive capabilities like putting all eggs in one basket. If we have two, we could project power over a larger area. After all, the size of the ship doesn't impart any more lethality compared to a normal sized ship, just the ability to carry more planes. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the cost-benefit analysis of 1 jumbo carrier vs 2 small carriers.

The needs are all interconnected actually. If we make 2 small carriers at cheaper price we'll have to ensure that it is based on IAC-1 design - this forces us to use STOBAR fighters, and no AEW fixed-wing aircraft + reduced payloads.

It makes sense to go for CATOBAR design, but a CATOBAR with EMALS makes far better sense and is likely to stay relevant for a much longer time in future. EMALS requires a lot of power - so it makes sense to go for Nuclear propulsion. But N-power would be under-utilized unless we have a huge power demand - Which implies that we go for a pretty large carrier just so that it all doesn't get too cramped or power gets wasted.

In the end, in our present scenario, going for smaller Vikrant class carriers = a bad decision (unless you're desperate to increase carrier nos.). While IAC-2 brings in a sense of future-proofing.

Either way, we could be building upto 4 of these nuclear supercarriers. So in the end it's all gonna be worth it.

 

[sasum]

What are your thoughts about building a super carrier vs building two normal sized carriers considering the latter allows us to have a more nuanced approach. The former locks a large chunk of our offensive capabilities like putting all eggs in one basket. If we have two, we could project power over a larger area. After all, the size of the ship doesn't impart any more lethality compared to a normal sized ship, just the ability to carry more planes. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the cost-benefit analysis of 1 jumbo carrier vs 2 small carriers.

True. Moreover in case of damage to the super Carrier the nation is rendered defenceless. Repair, maintenance of such carriers may also pose problems to Indian Yards.

 

[Gessler]

Whether it be Frigates or Carriers, they always have to leak money to foreign countries, dont they?
""five countries have been identified for the purpose — the U.S., Russia, France, the U.K. and Italy — all of which currently operate carriers, the official added.""
Italy ? Really? a country that uses small STOVL Carriers ?
Uk? with their inferior STOVL carriers?
The only country that has experience in this case is US and to some extent France - the only CATOBAR carrier operators.

Yeah. The UK still does have good shipbuilding expertise that we could find useful somewhere - although they have no experience with Nuclear-powered flattops, or EMALS operation for that matter.

Russia & Italy are currently behind India as far as carrier-construction prowess goes. But Russia is still likely to provide little tids & bits here and there, if needed. Even IAC-1 has some modules from Russian industry.

Only big foreign consultation for the IAC-2 is going to come from US, and to an extent, France. Even them are only likely to advice regarding how setups need to be to incorporate their tech (EMALS) into our carrier - the design in itself will be Indian.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

Yeah. The UK still does have good shipbuilding expertise that we could find useful somewhere - although they have no experience with Nuclear-powered flattops, or EMALS operation for that matter.

Russia & Italy are currently behind India as far as carrier-construction prowess goes. But Russia is still likely to provide little tids & bits here and there, if needed. Even IAC-1 has some modules from Russian industry.

Only big foreign consultation for the IAC-2 is going to come from US, and to an extent, France. Even them are only likely to advice regarding how setups need to be to incorporate their tech (EMALS) into our carrier - the design in itself will be Indian.

Is the EMALS ToT deal finalized? I thought it was cancelled.

 

[Gessler]

Is the EMALS ToT deal finalized? I thought it was cancelled.

It isn't cancelled - it's most likely to be there. Although not officially confirmed yet.

And there isn't likely to be any ToT, just off the shelf transfer of equipment. Unless you count local maintenance/training facilities as ToT.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

It isn't cancelled - it's most likely to be there. Although not officially confirmed yet.

And there isn't likely to be any ToT, just off the shelf transfer of equipment. Unless you count local maintenance/training facilities as ToT.

This one is unrelated but what happened to the M777 project? Is it on or cancelled?

 

[Gessler]

This one is unrelated but what happened to the M777 project? Is it on or cancelled?

I don't have updates on that, sorry. I think a month ago there was news that we'd buy like ~500 additional M777s than initially planned 145. But before that there was news that M777 production line was closed.

Do a Google search.

Latest artillery news I heard of was that Samsung K-9 Thunder SPG was selected in the competition for tracked SPGs.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

I don't have updates on that, sorry. I think a month ago there was news that we'd buy like ~500 additional M777s than initially planned 145. But before that there was news that M777 production line was closed.

Do a Google search.

Latest artillery news I heard of was that Samsung K-9 Thunder SPG was selected in the competition for tracked SPGs.

Yup, the K9 news is true. M777 doesn't show any results after google that's why I asked. This M777 drama has been going on since 7 years now. First they said they won't sell because it is cutting edge technology. When we signed the 123 Nuke deal, they opened up. The price was set 600 million. When we bargained, they told us to buzz off. 3 years later they themselves came saying that the assembly line is closing and if India wants to buy, it's our last chance. We said okay, then they said same 145 guns will cost 850 million. Again the deal got stuck. They are humiliating us over this piece of shit equipment. There is an alternate available with same characteristics. Light weight air-mobile howitzer 'Pegasus' from Singapore. It's 4700 pounds, I think. And M777 is 4000 pounds. We should go for the Singapore gun and fuck these blackmailing BAE trolls.

 

[Gessler]

Yup, the K9 news is true. M777 doesn't show any results after google that's why I asked. This M777 drama has been going on since 7 years now. First they said they won't sell because it is cutting edge technology. When we signed the 123 Nuke deal, they opened up. The price was set 600 million. When we bargained, they told us to buzz off. 3 years later they themselves came saying that the assembly line is closing and if India wants to buy, it's our last chance. We said okay, then they said same 145 guns will cost 850 million. Again the deal got stuck. They are humiliating us over this piece of shit equipment. There is an alternate available with same characteristics. Light weight air-mobile howitzer 'Pegasus' from Singapore. It's 4700 pounds, I think. And M777 is 4000 pounds. We should go for the Singapore gun and fuck these blackmailing BAE trolls.

Kalyani Group has a comparable ULH in it's roster - it was displayed at DEFEXPO 14 I think. Built with help of a US company.

But let's not derail the thread any further. :biggrin2:

 

[warrior monk]

Emals if finalized will be under India US Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) which requires the use of AAG ( Advanced arrestor gear ) which means only Lockheed Martin design team will be the only one capable of designing an aircraft carrier with both EMALS and AAG and it will require nuclear power to power it because of the huge energy spikes of upto 60 MW . It will also push the cost up by 1 billion dollar on above the cumulative cost because of EMALS and AAG .

 

[delta]

Emals if finalized will be under India US Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) which requires the use of AAG ( Advanced arrestor gear ) which means only Lockheed Martin design team will be the only one capable of designing an aircraft carrier with both EMALS and AAG and it will require nuclear power to power it because of the huge energy spikes of upto 60 MW . It will also push the cost up by 1 billion dollar on above the cumulative cost because of EMALS and AAG .

why does the use of EMALS require AAG if the aircraft is the same? or am i missing something here? how much energy would a steam catapult require for the same amount of power imparted by 60 MW of EMALS launch?

 

[warrior monk]

why does the use of EMALS require AAG if the aircraft is the same? or am i missing something here? how much energy would a steam catapult require for the same amount of power imparted by 60 MW of EMALS launch?

It doesn't specifically require but apparently India asked for it in 2013 and whatever little is available publicly it has better load and energy management so less stress on the airframe so longer service life margins and it apparently has reduced maintenance and currently EMS has system integration with AAG so its a package deal .

60 MW is the power spike

EMALS REQUIREMENTS
__________________________________________________________________
Endspeed 28-103 m/s
Max Peak-to-Mean Tow Force Ratio 1.05
Launch Energy 122 MJ
Cycle Time 45 seconds
Weight < 225,000 kg
Volume < 425 m 3
Endspeed Variation -0 to +1.5 m/s
_______________________________________________

courtsey- Naval air warfare centre