INS Vishal (IAC- II) Aircraft Carrier

angryIndian

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
303
Likes
648
Country flag
That's stupid logic has any indian sub fired in anger in its entire indian history no.that doesn't mean you should stop building subs its not if you use it or not its the deterence value and if a type 003 comes blaring into the indian ocean it would nt be tanks or soldiers who will try to stop it.it would be subs and aircraft carriers .tanks and soldier equipment are of army's problem fighter jets are airforces problem. Navy has its requirements.
Aircraft carriers are not bad but they are so damn expensive that if the country decides to spend money on it,it will eat into budgets of other program.
India is a fiscally constrained economy and we have no option but to prioritize your spending based on need.
As i said there are many things that deserves a higher priority than an Aircraft carrier.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
15,109
Likes
36,354
Country flag
It didn't take an attack from the US to crumble Soviet Union.You cannot project your external hard power if you are weak internally.
Abolition of Soviet hard power would have made them decay even faster. It was their superior military which fended off Nazis and kept directly hostile western powers at bay despite their faultlines. Nor money internally ever solved their problems.

Soviet literally gave freedoles to its citizens to "solve" its social problems but only ended up going bankrupt and abolished by its own people. Western people meanwhile hardened by struggles of capitalist system created huge eco-system independent of their governments which still run today. Their innovations became their business and solved their problems not vice versa what you wish to conduct here.


On topic,
External power and internal strength are two different things. Both of them are important but both of them may not coexist except a certain degree of internal system what has reached even in Iran and North Korea.

WW2 ended colonial goldmines for Europe and countries with large internal capacity to exert influence were left to rule the world.
So, definition of power became efficiency (technology+money) x population. China and India were dirt poor but American and Soviet populations had an infrastructure and population educated enough to exploit opportunity.

So, it was US & USSR in past, China & India in near future and may be Nigeria in distant future.

But once your country has a stable system = not being Afghanistan; you can act as a hard power.
As i said immediate threats should be prioritized over distant probabilistic threats because of the extreme financial limitations.
Both problems aren't being solved at cost of each other.

Aircraft vs submarine debate is within Navy
The need for Light Tanks and armoured vehicles,basic soldier equipments,unarmed combat vehicles,Figher jets and plethora of others far supseeds the need of an Aircraft carrier.
Those more are of parts of stuck procurement procedures and inconclusive decisions by military. They would cost a fraction of what an AC would anyway.
 

Rajaraja Chola

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Messages
512
Likes
1,446
Country flag
‘Chinese are so afraid of losing the Himalayan battle and with it loosing its prestige that they will posture but never fire a bullet. They know that to successfully invade via Himalayas, they need 6 to 8 times the numbers they have in Tibet, which they do not have. Moreover, India Army could crossover into China and give them a bloody nose like what Vietnam did to overconfident China in 1979. It is that scare that keeps them away. The other scare is copied and reverse engineered hardware and conscripts army which runs at the sight of guns firing.
Look man. Even if China loses, they will still win the propaganda war. Our propaganda sucks. Even if we capture 1000sq miles, they need to capture a small village and show to the world AP is captured and they withdraw.
 

Gessler

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,190
Likes
10,213
Country flag
Pretty much gave away the dimensions of INS Vishal, a 70000t CV will take her beyond the displacement of even the legendary Yamato, which would be quite an achievement.
Do you know how much does QE class that was offered for IAC-2 displaces at full displacement? :)
Fully loaded displacement of IAC-2 will be more or less 75-80k tonne.:cool1:
Just because a yard is capable of handling ships of a certain size doesn't necessarily mean the IAC-2 is going to be of that dimensions. As a publicly-listed DPSU there are other financial considerations like civilian shipbuilding that have an effect on the construction of new facilities.

Originally IAC-2 was estimated to be 65k tons but recent developments indicate it will be downsized.

"The entire design of an aircraft carrier is based on the kind of aircraft it will carry and the number of them. With a mix of both manned and unmanned assets, the weight will come down from the proposed 65,000 tonnes. With this, the cost will also come down,” the second source said."

 

rohit b3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
634
Likes
885
Country flag
Do you know how much does QE class that was offered for IAC-2 displaces at full displacement? :)
Fully loaded displacement of IAC-2 will be more or less 75-80k tonne.:cool1:
QE Class is an inferior STOVL design. Vishal is expected to be a superior CATOBAR, probably with EMALS.
Even Vikrant costs the same(or probably more) than a single QE ship, even with the difference in price inflation in both the countries.
 

Aditya Ballal

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
2,021
Likes
10,792
Country flag
QE Class is an inferior STOVL design. Vishal is expected to be a superior CATOBAR, probably with EMALS.
Even Vikrant costs the same(or probably more) than a single QE ship, even with the difference in price inflation in both the countries.
1638851061314.png

I wonder if they’d be willing to offer the second design which is a CATOBAR variant of the QE class carriers.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
8,393
Likes
33,481
Country flag
View attachment 123560
I wonder if they’d be willing to offer the second design which is a CATOBAR variant of the QE class carriers.
They'd sell the queen for right money. But buying a design does nothing to improve our own design and build capacity.

So at best they can be consultants for Vishal while designing will be done from scratch in india .
 

Gessler

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
2,190
Likes
10,213
Country flag
QE Class is an inferior STOVL design. Vishal is expected to be a superior CATOBAR, probably with EMALS.
Even Vikrant costs the same(or probably more) than a single QE ship, even with the difference in price inflation in both the countries.
View attachment 123560
I wonder if they’d be willing to offer the second design which is a CATOBAR variant of the QE class carriers.
The QE was originally intended to be a joint Franco-British CATOBAR carrier, but after UK decided the EMALS+F35C combo was too expensive, it was modified into a STOVL+F35B design.

Original QE (also known by its French name PA2):



All in all, a CATOBAR version of QE design is entirely possible - should we desire it.

But like I said before, recent developments indicate IAC2 could be considerably smaller than previously thought, so might actually end up being a modified/slightly enlarged IAC-1 design & nothing more.
 

Adm Kenobi

New Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
7
Likes
31
Country flag
The quoted displacement of IAC-2 is 65k tonne, this is NOT the fully loaded displacement. QE has an *empty displacement* of 65k tonnes, a similar design was said to be on offer for IAC-2, this is from where the loaded displacement of IAC-2 being 75-80k tonne is estimated. QE is expected to carry around 10-15k tonne supply.

You do note that the IAC-2 is already in the design phase? The carrier is unlikely to be downsized as it would further push the project 4-5 years, unnamed source are nit reliable. Because they are made up source. Remember "Navy cuts down the requirement of 4 LHD to 2 LHD" because of budget? It was never the case.




QE in NO way is an inferior design, just because it's a STOVL doesn't mean everything else in QE is inferior too. There is a CATOBAR configuration for QE as several others have told you.
As for Vikrant' cost, the total project cost is ₹23,000 cr (2021), this is not the cost of the carrier! The ₹23,000 cr includes the infrastructure & supply line built for IAC-1. ₹23,000 cr stands at $3.1B, the cost for 1 QE class carrier is £3.8 Billion (2019) or $4.9-$5 Billion.

Just because a yard is capable of handling ships of a certain size doesn't necessarily mean the IAC-2 is going to be of that dimensions. As a publicly-listed DPSU there are other financial considerations like civilian shipbuilding that have an effect on the construction of new facilities.

"The entire design of an aircraft carrier is based on the kind of aircraft it will carry and the number of them. With a mix of both manned and unmanned assets, the weight will come down from the proposed 65,000 tonnes. With this, the cost will also come down,” the second source said."

QE Class is an inferior STOVL design. Vishal is expected to be a superior CATOBAR, probably with EMALS.
Even Vikrant costs the same(or probably more) than a single QE ship, even with the difference in price inflation in both the countries.
 

FalconZero

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
3,775
Likes
19,662
Country flag
Actually they recommended and made a lot of good points, sharing the article here,

Making a strong recommendation that the Navy should have three aircraft carriers, the standing committee on defence has suggested that future acquisition plans need to take into consideration the requirement to enhance combat capabilities. The committee also went into the details of winter clothing for troops posted on the northern borders and bulletproof jackets for soldiers but the replies of the government have been deemed as classified and were redacted from the reports.

It has also suggested that the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) should concentrate on infrastructure projects along the northern borders and the feasibility of engaging another organisation for the development of coastal roads needs to be considered as an interim measure.

"Taking into account the long coastline and hostile adversities on both sides of the Indian peninsula, an aircraft carrier on both sides of the coast is quintessential to uphold operational requirements. However, repair work of a huge vessel such as an aircraft carrier takes a considerably long time. Therefore, to bridge operational deficiencies thus arising, three aircraft carriers are an unavoidable requirement to meet any eventualities," the committee has suggested.

In its response to queries raised by the committee on acquisition plans, the government has said that "the requirement of the third Aircraft Carrier will be worked out on the Indian Navy's committed liabilities and future acquisition projects", without committing on a timeline.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top