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

[Filtercoffee]

After making the new carrier, we can buy/ build a Sthorm class reactor and have a bigger vessel. 35 fixed wing is a small air group. I believe we can make four to six 90 thousand ton carriers and feel better about our efforts. Mind you only make in India.

Sent from my 2014818 using Tapatalk

 

[republic_roi97]

From Ajai Shukla's article



..............................................................................

Is that possible ? They can squeeze PFBR in there ? BTW, what reactor is Arihant running on ?

 

[republic_roi97]

After making the new carrier, we can buy/ build a Sthorm class reactor and have a bigger vessel. 35 fixed wing is a small air group. I believe we can make four to six 90 thousand ton carriers and feel better about our efforts. Mind you only make in India.

Sent from my 2014818 using Tapatalk

Do we need so many AC ? Mind you, the world would never approve of it, we need more time to get to that stage when we have sorted our domestic problems, which might not take too long with the efforts of current GOI.
That being said, we need to counter china, for that, we need subs and ASW Vessels, that would be the priority of IN as well as GOI.

 

[Filtercoffee]

Is that possible ? They can squeeze PFBR in there ? BTW, what reactor is Arihant running on ?

Arihant is at 83 mw



Sent from my 2014818 using Tapatalk

 

[Filtercoffee]

Is that possible ? They can squeeze PFBR in there ? BTW, what reactor is Arihant running on ?

Also what does PFBR mean?

Sent from my 2014818 using Tapatalk

 

[republic_roi97]

Also what does PFBR mean?

Sent from my 2014818 using Tapatalk

Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) that should go critical (operational) by March 2017. It would produce 500 Mwe of power and then subsequent plants would be generating 600 Mwe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor

 

[republic_roi97]

But I am not sure what reactor is Ajai Shukla referring to. Can be PFBR or maybe something else, but in any case, we can do it because we already learnt how to miniaturize reactors to implement them on a vessel like a submarine.

 

[SajeevJino]

But I am not sure what reactor is Ajai Shukla referring to. Can be PFBR or maybe something else, but in any case, we can do it because we already learnt how to miniaturize reactors to implement them on a vessel like a submarine.

Also the follow on Arihant's are doubler the size than ATV Arihant, and we know few of them already in construction..I sure they pack more than some 120 MW reactor inside it

 

[wuzetian]

From Ajai Shukla's article



..............................................................................

See the American naval nuclear reactors use Highly enriched uranium (HEU) , which generates more energy and has longer inter refuelling time gap(20 years) . India uses the light enriched uranium type which produces less power and have to be refueled every 5 years .

So unless the Americans give us HEU tech or we develop one ourselves the INS Vishal will have only steam catapults instead of EMALS

 

[IndianHawk]

See the American naval nuclear reactors use Highly enriched uranium (HEU) , which generates more energy and has longer inter refuelling time gap(20 years) . India uses the light enriched uranium type which produces less power and have to be refueled every 5 years .

So unless the Americans give us HEU tech or we develop one ourselves the INS Vishal will have only steam catapults instead of EMALS

The main issue with EMALS is that of costs. This system alone can run into billions .

 

[wuzetian]

The main issue with EMALS is that of costs. This system alone can run into billions .

Let us first deal with steam catapults , learn the challenge involved and move to EMALS later when we can afford a Gerald Ford size carrier

 

[IndianHawk]

Let us first deal with steam catapults , learn the challenge involved and move to EMALS later when we can afford a Gerald Ford size carrier

Actually there is an ongoing debate in USA about the size and vulnerability of Ford class carrier.

Given the advent of anti carrier missiles, large carriers will present a high risk deployment dilemma while multiple small carriers will prove more mobile .

India need multiple mid size carriers rather than Ford type behemoth

 

[Filtercoffee]

Actually there is an ongoing debate in USA about the size and vulnerability of Ford class carrier.

Given the advent of anti carrier missiles, large carriers will present a high risk deployment dilemma while multiple small carriers will prove more mobile .

India need multiple mid size carriers rather than Ford type behemoth

There are anti missile systems available today which better missile threats such as laser weapons, drones, CIWS and EMP weapons which create a bubble around the asset specifically tuned to only kill on coming treats. I don't think this should be a problem.

Sent from my 2014818 using Tapatalk

 

[IndianHawk]

There are anti missile systems available today which better missile threats such as laser weapons, drones, CIWS and EMP weapons which create a bubble around the asset specifically tuned to only kill on coming treats. I don't think this should be a problem.

Sent from my 2014818 using Tapatalk

With upcoming hypersonic missiles the game changes. A super carrier consist of 100s of jets sinking it becomes the priority of the enemy. For example china would literally fire whatever they have at a Ford class carrier. And that includes long range cruise missiles . So even at 1500km distance the carrier will be swarmed by multiple missiles. Whatever defense it applies won't be enough.

The most potent defense is agility and mobility. Which comes with small carriers. And if it gets strained or sunk that's huge moral blow it's just too much to lose. And that will always hinder deployment planning

 

[Filtercoffee]

With upcoming hypersonic missiles the game changes. A super carrier consist of 100s of jets sinking it becomes the priority of the enemy. For example china would literally fire whatever they have at a Ford class carrier. And that includes long range cruise missiles . So even at 1500km distance the carrier will be swarmed by multiple missiles. Whatever defense it applies won't be enough.

The most potent defense is agility and mobility. Which comes with small carriers. And if it gets strained or sunk that's huge moral blow it's just too much to lose. And that will always hinder deployment planning

You must assume the designers are aware of this and have everything into consideration while releasing this. Most of the missile signatures are well know in the defence circles so should be a problem for direct energy weapons. Assuming this they might want to make such carriers.

Sent from my 2014818 using Tapatalk

 

[Filtercoffee]

You must assume the designers are aware of this and have everything into consideration while releasing this. Most of the missile signatures are well know in the defence circles so should not be a problem for direct energy weapons. Assuming this they might want to make such carriers.

Sent from my 2014818 using Tapatalk

Sent from my 2014818 using Tapatalk

 

[SajeevJino]

Let us first deal with steam catapults , learn the challenge involved and move to EMALS later when we can afford a Gerald Ford size carrier

Indian navy already learned well the Steam catapult's by using the R 11, now it's time for more modern more capable EMALS

You think our Navy can't able to handle the EMAL

 

[republic_roi97]

With upcoming hypersonic missiles the game changes. A super carrier consist of 100s of jets sinking it becomes the priority of the enemy. For example china would literally fire whatever they have at a Ford class carrier. And that includes long range cruise missiles . So even at 1500km distance the carrier will be swarmed by multiple missiles. Whatever defense it applies won't be enough.

The most potent defense is agility and mobility. Which comes with small carriers. And if it gets strained or sunk that's huge moral blow it's just too much to lose. And that will always hinder deployment planning

That is exactly why both china and russia are developing submarine based navy, which are easier to maintain, less costly then a 100000 ton AC and would always be a direct threat to AC.

 

[SajeevJino]

Actually there is an ongoing debate in USA about the size and vulnerability of Ford class carrier.

Given the advent of anti carrier missiles, large carriers will present a high risk deployment dilemma while multiple small carriers will prove more mobile .

India need multiple mid size carriers rather than Ford type behemoth

They were discussing about the large carrier matter since decades, also Carriers won't sail alone, and you can't even know there is a carrier sailing nearby or not,

Our Vishal sized same like Charles de Gaulle, not a gigantic Ford size

 

[SajeevJino]

With upcoming hypersonic missiles the game changes. A super carrier consist of 100s of jets sinking it becomes the priority of the enemy. For example china would literally fire whatever they have at a Ford class carrier. And that includes long range cruise missiles . So even at 1500km distance the carrier will be swarmed by multiple missiles. Whatever defense it applies won't be enough.

The most potent defense is agility and mobility. Which comes with small carriers. And if it gets strained or sunk that's huge moral blow it's just too much to lose. And that will always hinder deployment planning

and you peoples still thinks, America strike their enemy after enemy fired a shot..