What will a nuclear INS Vishal cost?

[DivineHeretic]

This is the final section of this article. This section attempts to provide an alternative design for the INS Vishal which we hope and believe will be the answer to IN's quest for unquestioned dominance of the IOR and beyond.

Thanks to everyone who have read the article.

The Alternative INS Vishal-a Super Carrier.

What should be the tonnage of the new carrier?

This is invariably the first question to be asked in proposing an aircraft carrier. The cost, the capability, the size of the air wing, the range and a whole host of questions are dictated by the sheer size and mass of the aircraft carrier.

The US Navy, not surprisingly, has done numerous studies on the issue of size and tonnage of aircraft carriers and the conclusion has always been that larger carriers were the most efficient and cost effective form.( We here point out that these studies have been conducted by the USN over a period of 70 years.)

The US weren't alone in this reaching this conclusion. Towards the end of the USSR, the die hard communist state began building the first of their super carriers. Unfortunately, The collapse of the union meant that the design was scrapped even before 20% of the work was completed.

But then, nearly 20 years later, the Russian navy, with its newly found wealth, again came the following conclusion for their future carrier program:

The (future aircraft carrier) ship's capabilities might be dramatically expanded by increasing its displacement from the standard 60,000-65,000 tons to 80,000 tons, thus bringing it closer to the currently available and future American carriers. Heavy carriers are the leaders in their class when it comes to the cost efficiency ratio.

Recently, another nation joined this rather elite group, the French.

The French future aircraft carrier, the PA2, was initially expected to be a modification of the British 65,000 ton QE class carrier. However, we now know that the new PA2 will differ substantially from the QE, and is expected to be around 75,000 ton.

Thus, one by one, all the major aircraft carrier building nations save Britain have come to the identical conclusion that a larger, heavier carrier is money better spent rather than a smaller carrier.

Further, we also identify from the Russian and French future designs that the 75,000-80,000 ton appears to be the preferred tonnage for a fleet Aircraft carrier.

The British are the exception to this, but we note that this has more to do with a reduction in their overall fleet strength and deepening budget cuts than with the merit of the design.

The USN might appear to prefer a 100,000 ton carrier over the 80,000 ton, but they are nuclear powered and belong to a different design category and as such have different design considerations. A more apt comparison would be the conventional aircraft carriers of the USN, which again, are found to be around 80,000 tons.

In summary, we see that multiple studies by different nations over a period of 50 odd years have yielded the same conclusion: The 80,000 ton carrier is the most preferred size for a conventional large aircraft carrier.

We believe the same is true for the IN. A new design of such tonnage would increase the weight by around 15,000 tons and increase costs from the current $4 billion estimate (to around $6 billion, we think). However, as we will show below, the increase in capabilities would be disproportionate to the extra costs incurred.

The air wing strength and the deck area of the INS Vishal: The most effective choices.​

Since 1950s, various aircraft carriers have been designed in the 65,000 ton to 80,000 ton bracket. The INS Vishal will invariably be designed close to one of these ACs. A detailed examination of these designs could provide us with the most effective solution for the INS Vishal.

The following is a table comparing the tonnage, air wing and deck area of the various conventional aircraft carriers in the 65,000-80,000 ton bracket: (Note: INS Vikant has been provided as a comparison only)

NOTE: We begin with the supposition that the INS Vishal will be designed as a CATOBAR configuration and will be larger than 65,000 tons to be the most cost effective for the Navy. As such the Kuznetsov/ Liaoning and the QE are automatically rejected.

A comparative analysis of these fleet carriers should provide a skeleton framework for the IAC2..

USS Midway: Designed and constructed in the 1940s, the Midway appears to be the first choice from the list above. At around 70,000 tons, this ship is lighter than the USS Kitty Hawk, the Russian proposed (rumored) aircraft carrier and the French PA2, and is just 5,000 tons heavier than the HMS QE (and the IN's proposed design.)

The carrier boasts of two steam catapults and a massive 22,000 sq. m deck area, enabling the presence of 65 aircraft (58 in GW1) on board. Its dimensions too appear to be perfect, sitting comfortably between the French PA2 and the USS Kitty Hawk.

However, USS Midway has quite a wide beam for a ship her size, which translates to very deep flight deck overhangs. The ship was in fact a design compromise, a tradeoff between flight deck size and stability. This increased overhangs caused the ship to roll considerably in high seas.

Pic: USS Midway with its very deep overhangs. The unsupported flight deck juts out quite far from the main body

As such, we believe this design is not appropriate for the INS Vishal, leaving us with three prospective designs on which to base the INS Vishal

 

[DivineHeretic]

2. French PA2: The next carrier to be analyzed is the French PA2. This aircraft carrier is expected to begin construction by 2016 and be in service by 2022-24, almost the same timeline as that proposed for the INS Vishal.

In recent times, the Marine Nationale and the USN have been the only two navies to operate fleet carriers in actual missions. As such, it becomes imperative to analyze and compare their future carrier plans.

The french PA2 was initially intended to be a modified version of the British Queen Elizabeth Class of aircraft Carriers. However, as of today, the new designs that have emerged place it closer to the USN Gerrald R. Ford Class of super carriers than to the HMS QE. Of course the PA2 retains the twin island design of the PA2, but that is where the similarity ends.

The PA2 is a flattop with twin steam catapults for launching aircraft. By comparison, the QE has a ski jump. Fact is that even Britain had tried going down the catapult road, before finding costs too prohibitive.

Pic: French PA2 (unofficial). Notice the very short overhangs.

This design is fairly impressive and if chosen, will allow INS Vishal to operate an air group of:

Up to 32 Dassault Rafale M multi-role fighters;
3 x Northrop Grumman Hawkeye E-2C AEW&C aircraft;
5 x Eurocopter NH90 SAR & ASW helicopters.

The number of fighter aircraft is considerably less, when compared to the USS Midway which in GW1 had a complement of 58 or the USS Kitty Hawk, which had a complement of 85 aircrafts.

This deficiency is partially due to the shorter length of the ship. At 284m, this ship is as much as 20 m shorter than the USS Midway and 40m shorter than the USS Kitty Hawk. This has led to decreased deck space for the aircrafts.

We do note that this reduction in length is a consequence of the correction of the flaws of the Charles de Gaulle, which has deep overhangs similar to the USS Midway, requiring sophisticated anti roll features.

Another reason for the reduced aircraft fleet has to do with the design of the Rafale itself. As can be seen in the pic below, a large number of the F/A-18s are packed nose-to-tail. This allows for a very tight packing enabling a larger number of fighters to be kept.

The Rafale with their canards cannot be arranged in such a fashion without harming the aircraft. Furthermore, the Rafale does not have foldable wings as is the case in other carrier-borne fighters.

Therefore to enable a fair comparison of the air wings, we decided to use the F/A-18 as the standard. This aircraft wil be arranged in nose-to-tail mode in the PA2 to come up with an equivalent air complement number.

A single F/A-18 takes up 156sq. m area of floor space. As it is used in nose to tail mode, assume the overlap be 8 m. and let a clear space of 0.5 m around the aircraft be kept.
Thus the total floor area occupied by the two Hornets in such an arrangement is = (17x2-8x2+1)*(8.3+4.15+1.5) = 265 sq. m, less than that for two F-18s kept in normal wing-to-wing arrangement(312 sq. m)

Now, a Rafale is 15m long and 11m wide. Providing a free board of 0.5m around the Aircraft, the area of floor space taken by a Rafale is 192 sq. m. Therefore the space corresponding to 32 Rafale on PA2 is 6144 sq. m

This is equivalent to 23 couples or 46 nos. of F/A-18s being kept nose-to-tail on the PA2.

Therefore the PA2 equivalent air wing is 46+3+5=54 aircraft for F-18 as the aircraft in place of the Rafale.

This is a very formidable Carrier aviation group, perhaps the second most powerful after the USN CVWs. As such, this design is very much an acceptable solution for the IN's IAC2.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Kitty Hawk: Finally, we look at the nearly 82,000 ton super carrier USS Kitty Hawk. (The Russian Future Carrier project is just a speculation and is almost the same in design to the proven Kitty Hawk class of CVs and as such the two can be assumed to be the same.)

Pic:USS Kitty Hawk in "Recovery only" flight deck arrangement.

At 320x86m, the Kitty Hawk ship is 40m longer and 14m wider than the French PA2, allowing a deck area 2667 sq. m more than the French PA2. This translates to an air complement of around 85 aircrafts, nearly considerably larger than the PA2 equivalent aircraft of 54.

With such a large aircraft complement, which includes fighters (60-64), AWE&Cs (8) and helicopters (8-12), the aircraft carrier can simultaneously conduct BARCAP over the fleet, CAP over the hostile territory and strike missions and still be able to support amphibious forces.

Also, the presence of 4 catapults over 2 in PA2 enables higher emergency launch rates for the carrier. This is important as the carrier and the entire battle group relies exclusively on the carrier borne fighters for air defense cover.

As such this would be the most ideal design for the INS Vishal. However, we expect that the IN may choose not to base so many aircrafts on a single ship and risk losing them all in a single strike. As such a lower aircraft complement of around 50-60 jets may be kept on board the AC.

The other factor that goes against the Kitty Hawk is the limited fuel storage wrt the air wing complement. In comparison to 4050 ton capacity for aviation fuel in PA2 for 40 aircrafts, the Kitty Hawk has a 5920 ton storage for 85 aircraft fleet. In comparison, the USS CVN-76 stores 9000 tons to support its 90 aircraft wing.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Final conclusion:

For our design, we decided to go for a mix of the best features of the USS Kitty HAwk and the French PA2. While the Kitty Hawk has the largest aircraft carrying capacity, the PA2 has a very modern design and such is far more adaptable to new technology.

We note that the tonnage od the PA2 and Kitty Hawk is nearly same. Our recommendation is that the INS Vishal should be an aircraft carrier in excess of 75,000 tons yet not in excess of 80,000 tons

The next area of attention is the flight deck and the hangar bay. These two areas are collectively referred to here as Deck area. The Kitty Hawk has a combined deck area of around 23,000 sq. m while the PA2 has a deck area just under 20,000 sq. m.

We note that the expected air wing of the PA2 at around 54 aircrafts (excluding Euro canards) is on the lower side. It may be the case that the IN wants lesser aircrafts on a single ship, but at this tonnage the capability to carry and support a higher number is expected.

As such, we recommend a flight deck area of around 16,000 sq. m. This is more than sufficient to enable individual spacing for 4 catapults as well as providing sufficient area for a significant number of aircrafts above deck.

Also, a hanger deck of around 6,000 sq. m is desired, if possible. This will mean a combined deck area of 22,000 sq. m, about 2,000 sq. m more than the PA2 and about a 1,000 sq. m less than the Kitty Hawk.
Such storage area will enable an air wing somewhere between 65-75, which should be sufficient enough for the IN.

The next are the dimensions of the Ship. We noted that the dimensions of the PA2 are a little on the lower side for such a large ship, indicating extra attention being paid to avoid rolling. While that is important, the deck area is required to be larger to enable a larger air group.

Now, given that the dimensions are dictated by the deck area we just proposed, the length should be above 300m while the width should be no less than 75m to provide the required deck area.

However, point to be kept in mind is that excessive overhang of flight deck must be avoided. As such, extending the width beyond 75m is not recommended. Also, extending the length of the flight deck does not increase the deck area appreciably, as the extra length is usually on the front overhang.

The proposed aircraft carrier should also field a BMD system, given the emerging threats from ballistic missiles. In case a twin island design is chosen, the space between the two islands may be used to house the VLS launchers for the BMD missiles.

The design should also keep in mind that the next gen unmanned aircrafts will most likely be flying wing versions. As such, the aircraft width may be larger than the length of the aircraft. in the eventuality that they be required via catapult launch system, the catapults should be spaced keeping an extra space than the regular spacing



The End....

 

[arnabmit]

@DivineHeretic

4 catapult system would be oo much for a lesser displacement vessle than the Kitty Hawk. 2 catapult system on a vessel larger than the QEII class would not be effective.

I would like to suggest a 3 catapult system for Vishal. 2 short ones on the bow for fighters and 1 long one in the port overhang for the Hawkeye (also for fighters when the need arises).

 

[lookieloo]

...unlike the Brits, who were brought over by Lockheed Martin and their STOVL F-35B...

No one brought the Brits over to anything. They chose this configuration (long before the JSF program ran into trouble) on the basis of avoiding the operational/maintenance costs associated with CATOBAR/STOBAR ships. Their temporary flirtation with EMALS was a shortsighted, poorly-thought-out accounting-stunt motivated by politics (new government wanting to appear more-thrifty than their predecessors); and whilst the F-35B gives up some range relative to the F-35C, it's radius-of-action compares quite favorably to the F/A-18[ABCDEFG] and is vastly superior to what the RN was flying before (Harriers).

................................................. vvv Back on-topic vvv

As for which carrier design India should go with, that depends on your access to EMALS technology. Steam-catapults remain an option, but one should remember that carriers equipped thusly so-far were themselves steam-powered (giving ready access to the motive tool). These days, most conventionally-powered ships use gas-turbines, meaning that steam-catapults would require a dedicated steam plant for that function only (a very inefficient setup).

A nuclear-powered ship is steam-powered by default and gives you more options in deciding the method of launch, along with all the aforementioned advantages. On the other hand, if you can secure EMALS, you'll have more options in propulsion-design.

 

[Immanuel]

I think having 3 Vikrant class CV ships, 1 Vikky and 1-2 Vishals would be an ideal fleet to have by 2030. Vishal should be a CVN, however in order to take advantage of its nuke propulsion, time to look into having a Nuke propelled battle group.

I propose a new nuke powered cruiser class, a nuke powered Corvette Class to be the fast and manuevrable part of the CBG and a nuke powered Replenishment tanker class , we wouldn't need many, just about 3-6 heavy N-battle stealth cruisers around 25000 tons similar to Kirov and 2-4 nuke powered large replenishment ships, and they would be the cream of the IN. Each Vishal class carrier (if more than 1 is needed) with 3 battle cruisers, 2 Arihant Class subs, 4 N powered Corvettes and 1 Replenishment tanker would be quite a N-CBG. Even 1 such battle group could be the deadliest of modern formations.

 

[DivineHeretic]

@DivineHeretic

4 catapult system would be oo much for a lesser displacement vessle than the Kitty Hawk. 2 catapult system on a vessel larger than the QEII class would not be effective.

I would like to suggest a 3 catapult system for Vishal. 2 short ones on the bow for fighters and 1 long one in the port overhang for the Hawkeye (also for fighters when the need arises).

The choice of 2 or 3 or 4 catapult systems usually depends on the area of flight deck and not on the tonnage of the Aircraft carrier. Considering that in my idea I put the area of flight deck as 16,000 sq. m, there should be ample space to position 4 catapults.

But, I'll concede that the amount and rate of steam production will have a major bearing on the number of catapults. This might be one of the reasons for going for a lower number of catapults.

Btw, as far as short and long catapults are concerned,

 

[arnabmit]

We will get all of them when we have a $1 trillion defence budget. :thumb:

I think having 3 Vikrant class CV ships, 1 Vikky and 1-2 Vishals would be an ideal fleet to have by 2030. Vishal should be a CVN, however in order to take advantage of its nuke propulsion, time to look into having a Nuke propelled battle group.

I propose a new nuke powered cruiser class, a nuke powered Corvette Class to be the fast and manuevrable part of the CBG and a nuke powered Replenishment tanker class , we wouldn't need many, just about 3-6 heavy N-battle stealth cruisers around 25000 tons similar to Kirov and 2-4 nuke powered large replenishment ships, and they would be the cream of the IN. Each Vishal class carrier (if more than 1 is needed) with 3 battle cruisers, 2 Arihant Class subs, 4 N powered Corvettes and 1 Replenishment tanker would be quite a N-CBG. Even 1 such battle group could be the deadliest of modern formations.

 

[Kranthi]

I think having 3 Vikrant class CV ships, 1 Vikky and 1-2 Vishals would be an ideal fleet to have by 2030. Vishal should be a CVN, however in order to take advantage of its nuke propulsion, time to look into having a Nuke propelled battle group.

I propose a new nuke powered cruiser class, a nuke powered Corvette Class to be the fast and manuevrable part of the CBG and a nuke powered Replenishment tanker class , we wouldn't need many, just about 3-6 heavy N-battle stealth cruisers around 25000 tons similar to Kirov and 2-4 nuke powered large replenishment ships, and they would be the cream of the IN. Each Vishal class carrier (if more than 1 is needed) with 3 battle cruisers, 2 Arihant Class subs, 4 N powered Corvettes and 1 Replenishment tanker would be quite a N-CBG. Even 1 such battle group could be the deadliest of modern formations.

Oh god what a dream world u have been in..come on bro,that is not going to happen.not with IN, and not with USN. krivak class is a failure and N-corvettes is a waste of money again..we can operate the current IN fleet at the operating cost of one such NCBG . And above all, the crew cannot eat enriched uranium anyway I guess... no offence

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Immanuel]

Oh god what a dream world u have been in..come on bro,that is not going to happen.not with IN, and not with USN. krivak class is a failure and N-corvettes is a waste of money again..we can operate the current IN fleet at the operating cost of one such NCBG . And above all, the crew cannot eat enriched uranium anyway I guess... no offence

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2

I certainly don't think this is a far fetched dream. Kirov (not Krivak) Class cruisers IMO remain among the deadliest warships anywhere and , a list of the weapons they deploy can already challenge or heavily protect any battle group. N-Corvettes with a Typical Arihant Class n-plant won't need too much refueling during their life spans. If IN is thinking about having a Nuke Carrier, they should also think about a nuke battle group, as rightly said, a nuke carrier cannot properly take advantage of its real potential if the rest of the battle group is conventional. Sure The Cost of building such a battle group would be around 20 Billion and about 60 billion in total over a 40 years, but you would have 40 years of unparallelled Naval dominance against threats anywhere on this side of the world. 1 Such battle group with 1 80K N-Carrier, 3 N-Cruisers (25k Ton each), 2 Arihant Subs, 3 ASW N-Corvettes (4k Ton each) and 2 Replenishment Tankers (30k Ton each) i.e a total of 11 to 12 nuke powered vessels would be more than enough to have IMO the deadliest of Battle Groups.

I also think if we began today, it would take about 10-12 to bring this fruition and I also think by then we'd have plenty of indigenous systems to arm them with, Nirbhay, Brahmos 1/2, Sagarika, locally made Barak-ER, Maitri SAM, LCA MK-2 IN

I think the massive threat we face from PLAN on the long run justifies this.

Let's also keep in mind the cost of 126 Rafales is just about the same and life cycle costs over 30-40 years will also be around 40 billion+. So Nuke carrier group isn't necessarily much more expensive.

 

[arnabmit]

As a thumb rule, any nuke boat costs approx 3 times that of conventional boat of same capability.

We can make 3 frigates for the cost of a N-Frigate, 3 destroyers for the cost of a N-Destroyer, so on and so forth. Therefore we can have 3 conventional CBGs for the cost of a Nuke CBG.

Since IN's area of operation is IOR, which is very much within reach of a conventional CBG, and we do not plan to carry out ops in the Pacific or the Atlantic, why do we need the extended range of a nuke CBG?

As for cruisers, my personal opinion is that 3 destroyers with the same firepower as a single cruiser is much more effective.

I certainly don't think this is a far fetched dream. Kirov (not Krivak) Class cruisers IMO remain among the deadliest warships anywhere and , a list of the weapons they deploy can already challenge or heavily protect any battle group. N-Corvettes with a Typical Arihant Class n-plant won't need too much refueling during their life spans. If IN is thinking about having a Nuke Carrier, they should also think about a nuke battle group, as rightly said, a nuke carrier cannot properly take advantage of its real potential if the rest of the battle group is conventional. Sure The Cost of building such a battle group would be around 20 Billion and about 60 billion in total over a 40 years, but you would have 40 years of unparallelled Naval dominance against threats anywhere on this side of the world. 1 Such battle group with 1 80K N-Carrier, 3 N-Cruisers (25k Ton each), 2 Arihant Subs, 3 ASW N-Corvettes (4k Ton each) and 2 Replenishment Tankers (30k Ton each) i.e a total of 11 to 12 nuke powered vessels would be more than enough to have IMO the deadliest of Battle Groups.

I also think if we began today, it would take about 10-12 to bring this fruition and I also think by then we'd have plenty of indigenous systems to arm them with, Nirbhay, Brahmos 1/2, Sagarika, locally made Barak-ER, Maitri SAM, LCA MK-2 IN

I think the massive threat we face from PLAN on the long run justifies this.

Let's also keep in mind the cost of 126 Rafales is just about the same and life cycle costs over 30-40 years will also be around 40 billion+. So Nuke carrier group isn't necessarily much more expensive.

 

[ice berg]

As a thumb rule, any nuke boat costs approx 3 times that of conventional boat of same capability.

We can make 3 frigates for the cost of a N-Frigate, 3 destroyers for the cost of a N-Destroyer, so on and so forth. Therefore we can have 3 conventional CBGs for the cost of a Nuke CBG.

Since IN's area of operation is IOR, which is very much within reach of a conventional CBG, and we do not plan to carry out ops in the Pacific or the Atlantic, why do we need the extended range of a nuke CBG?

As for cruisers, my personal opinion is that 3 destroyers with the same firepower as a single cruiser is much more effective.

Not to mention the costs of Infrastructures. It seems someone thinks the costs is only related to the ships.
And good luck get all those for a mere 20 billions.
Btw isnt that 5 times the IN budget for 2013?:thumb:
P.S I do not comment on the challenges of actually building all those, only the costs.

 

[t_co]

It is true, But again ' N ' gives the advantage of 20 years cruise anywhere in the world given food supply ..

What use is one ship with unlimited cruise when its conventionally-powered escorts can't keep up?

 

[p2prada]

What use is one ship with unlimited cruise when its conventionally-powered escorts can't keep up?

It lets the ship shed excess weight so more aviation fuel and aircraft can be carried. The ship can have a better overall design in being unsinkable compared to a conventionally powered ship. Basically, nuke power means lesser internal estate and more space for backup systems and more leeway for design engineers. Huge amounts of electricity generated allows better performance of radars and the like. We don't need boilers for steam used on steam catapults or electricity for EMALS.

We don't have worldwide aspirations with just Vishal. If we need that we will need larger and heavier carriers with more capable escort ships, but that's like 20 or 30 years away.

 

[p2prada]

Not to mention the costs of Infrastructures. It seems someone thinks the costs is only related to the ships.
And good luck get all those for a mere 20 billions.
Btw isnt that 5 times the IN budget for 2013?:thumb:
P.S I do not comment on the challenges of actually building all those, only the costs.

Depending on the need, capital budget can flow in different ways.

Currently, both IN and IAF have the largest share in capital budget compared to IA. It is so much that the small IN has the same budget as IAF, it is just 1% difference. It wasn't the case earlier.

Also, 10% of the defense budget is capital budget. And this will increase as the years go by.

Apart from that, almost all the ships are built in India, so a lot of that capital budget comes in rupees.

 

[t_co]

It lets the ship shed excess weight so more aviation fuel and aircraft can be carried. The ship can have a better overall design in being unsinkable compared to a conventionally powered ship. Basically, nuke power means lesser internal estate and more space for backup systems and more leeway for design engineers. Huge amounts of electricity generated allows better performance of radars and the like. We don't need boilers for steam used on steam catapults or electricity for EMALS.

We don't have worldwide aspirations with just Vishal. If we need that we will need larger and heavier carriers with more capable escort ships, but that's like 20 or 30 years away.

Great answer.

The question then becomes whether it's worth it to pay 2x lifetime costs for a concentrated firepower package on one ship. There are pros and cons to that approach, but I'd let more qualified posters like @Decklander chime in here.

 

[Decklander]

Nuke carriers do have advantage over non nuke carriers in terms of compactness of propulsion and being able to carry larger load of aviation fuel as they do not need to carry LSHSD fuel for boilers or GTs. A Nuke carrier recovers its cost by saving on fuel cost for running it. But after it is decommissioned, the cost of removing the reactor and other nuke waste is also very high.
One better part is that in a harbour, the nuke nergy can be used to supply power to the entire harbour without any extra cost.

 

[Eastman]

My take is it better to have more nuke submarine.

 

[cloud]

I think along with supply ships etc. conventional ships can easily keep up with the Nuke carriers even for the very long range missions(if needed). That is what USA has been doing all along though they have bases pretty much every corner of the world.

Also Nuke propulsion in any ship weighting less then 15000 tons doesn't really look beneficial, but a lot of headache for ship crew and if such small ships gets hit and it will be like a mini nuke bomb exploding in the middle of ocean.

Someday I would like to see Nuke operated Modern version of battleships weighing somewhere around 25k tons, which may carry 140+ cruise missiles(like Nirbhay), 64 Brahmose types of range 500kms, 30 K4 types SRBMs(of range of 2000-3500KM), 200+ MRSAM/LRSAM combination, 60+ S400 types anti aircraft missiles of range no less then 300km, 32 AD1/AD2 types long range ABMs, Rail guns having the range in excess of 400 miles for land attack along with two/four 5 inches guns having range 150kms. I guess we could build such ship at the cost of approx 3 Billion $ each in India if 3-4 of them are planed, but will be a real nightmare for pretty much any fleet in the whole world may be except for USA.