What will a nuclear INS Vishal cost?

[lookieloo]

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.

As an aside, there's another, less-known advantage to nuclear power... general cleanliness. My understanding is that particulate exhaust-matter was a source of much discomfiture on our conventional carriers: bad for the aircraft, unhealthy for the crew, and generally unpleasant.

 

[t_co]

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.

Really? I thought standard USN protocol was to shut down reactors in harbor for refit and maintenance.

 

[t_co]

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.

So - basically a modernized Pyotr Velikiy. But that goes back to the discussion p2prada, decklander, and I had regarding arsenal ships a while back.

Why not spread out those missile tubes and guns over a number of smaller craft? And if you need a ton of firepower in a compact package, why not increase your survivability by putting those tubes underwater (e.g. an SSGN?)

 

[Eastman]

Really? I thought standard USN protocol was to shut down reactors in harbor for refit and maintenance.

Maybe the reactor do not require a maintenance every time it visit the harbour.

 

[t_co]

Maybe the reactor do not require a maintenance every time it visit the harbour.

Even if the reactor doesn't require maintenance every time it visits the harbor, one still wants to slow it down/shut it down and check it, just to be safe and prolong the reactor life. This is especially necessary given the IN's limited budget.

 

[DivineHeretic]

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.

A nuclear powered ship will shed excess internal volume, but not excess weight. As stated in the USN [sic] Navy's Aircraft Carrier Handbook, "The reactor was approximately equal in weight to the usual combination of boilers and fuel."

The extra free volume obtained was due to the non-requirement of conventional fuel to power the ship, allowing that extra space to be used for storing aviation fuel and/or ordinance. Indeed w.r.t. to the USS Nimitz, The Navy describes the extra ammunition space of the Nimitz as a "design bonus, not a design drive," indicating that extra ordnance capacity was not an objective of building nuclear carriers.

Finally, a nuclear powered carrier was found to require extra side protection/shielding to protect the vulnerable reactor from torpedo attacks, especially from the torpedoes designed to explode under the keel. This requirement for side protection of the nuclear propulsion plant from attack has resulted in inclusion of unique liquid filled side protective shields, an addition that reduces internal volume.

But I admit the ability of a nuclear reactor to produce steam and electricity is unmatched by any conventional powerplant of comparable size.

 

[cloud]

So - basically a modernized Pyotr Velikiy. But that goes back to the discussion p2prada, decklander, and I had regarding arsenal ships a while back.

Why not spread out those missile tubes and guns over a number of smaller craft? And if you need a ton of firepower in a compact package, why not increase your survivability by putting those tubes underwater (e.g. an SSGN?)

Spreading them out would mean atleast 6 destroyers, meaning almost double the cost as today's destroyer are easily reaching over the 1B$ mark(for each separate radar and all the electronics). Plus on a big ship you could mount much bigger radar/bigger sonar and all the powerful electronics that one could build along with the ability to carry more ASW/AEW choppers. You can also place bigger number of ballistic missiles such as K4/K5s which probably won't fit into a destroyer like ship as they need space for other weapons. But for the navy like India, which is just starting its ambitions for blue water navy, first we need enough small ships and we are decades behind, that is why I said someday . I'm pretty sure that if there is a actual war like situation with a worthy adversary in future for countries like USA,Russia or may be Japan,China, we will see these kindof ships. These bigger assets will be more useful during land invasion. But navy which will pursue it will be the one who is more confident in its other fleets.

 

[dian11]

Thank you very much for this sharing ):

 

[Kushal sinha]

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

kunal bhai is it's being constructed or in papers only

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Design phase for now ..

 

[rajsking]

The Alternative INS Vishal-a Super Carrier.

What should be the tonnage of the new carrier?
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.

PROPULSION
I would like to ask a more basic question. Why are we investing in AC at all. The simple answer is to defend us. However, when we consider defending, we fail to take into account the WORST CASE SCENARIO. In about 15-20 years, our defensive infrastructure will increase multiple times - be it tanks, fighter jets, destroyers, etc. Further, the capabilities of new arms will be much better than the older generation. And you know, what we need to run all these things - FUEL. Which we import. Even if we make strategic reserves, are the reserves sufficient to tank up our armed forces for atleast 2-3 months taking into account their then fuel requirement. In case of war, if we are unable to import fuel from overseas and have a limited supply of fuel what will be our priority. Our priority will be to provide supplies to IA over IN. If we do not have sufficient fuel for IN, then we are just wasting money into creating assets which will remain sitting ducks during wartimes.
To me a more prudent approach will be having NUCLEAR POWERED /ALTERNATIVELY POWERED every major asset for which it can be done. IN happens to be the one where it can be done in a major way - right from destroyers going all the way upto ACC. 6000t Arihant costs about 1-1.5b USD. Same propulsion can be used for our 5000t assets. Already one destoyer costs upwards of 1b USD. So, even if we make it nuclear powered, I see incremental cost @ .5b USD per core - not double/triple etc.

So, according to me, deciding the propulsion is not an economic question but a strategic one. Either built a nuclear powered ACC or build nothing. Period.


Few added side benefits - Stronger economy. 70% imports is on account of fuel. (and major chunk of it goes to armed forces) If we ensure that imports do not drastically increase, we can on one hand have exchange rate stabilization and on the other hand can have controlled inflation. Stronger economy means we have more resources to create such assets in long run.
Another added benefit, I foresee more drills/training happening with nuclear powered ACC than a conventional one. And more you sweat in peace times, less you bleed in war times.
All of this scenarios is unique in case of India and, as such, generalization arrived at, by studying historical trends of other nations should not be directly applied without taking into account the peculiarities of India's defense requirements.

Aircrafts
Design should not be based on f18 or any other folding wing AC. Minimum India will use will be Rafaele. We can even expect FGFA (naval version). New AC will require much greater support infrastructure ( i.e. parking, fuel, weapons etc) and there is no reversal in this trend. Any new ACC should be designed keeping in mind increased requirements of modern AC.

Design
I am not an expert, so pardon me, but I fail to understand difference in approaches that you tried to highlight regarding the deck designs. Only thing I understand was that one of the ACC has greater overhangs which effects stability of ACC.
In this regards, may I suggest you also read my post on a noob's approach for AC design which, if feasible, will result in much less overhangs than any present design.

Alternate approach to ACC

 

[laughingbuddha]

Design phase for now ..

So not before 2030. IST.