Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Navy drops cherished dream of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by proud_indian, Oct 27, 2017.

  1. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,312
    GRF? Nimitz?

    It's 350MWt each on GRF. I'm 1000000% sure.
     
  2. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    295
    A figure of 550 MWt each is quoted for two A4W units in Nimitz-class carriers, and these supply 104 shaft MW each (USS Enterprise had eight A2W units of 26 shaft MW and was refuelled three times). The Gerald Ford-class carriers have more powerful and simpler A1B reactors* reported to be 25% more powerful than A4W, hence about 700 MWt
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx

    For comparison purposes, the two A4W reactor plants used in Nimitz class carriers produce 1100MW and generate 260,000 shaft horsepower
    https://www.navycs.com/blogs/2014/12/18/a-new-beefed-up-engine

    "The Most Powerful Ford Ever Built” was written by Thomas Goering, Jr. “Tommy” served in the U.S. Navy aboard the USS Nimitz as a Nuke Electronics Technician.


    I feel so happy!
     
  3. InfoWarrior

    InfoWarrior Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    708
    Country Flag:
    India
    Maybe it will almost double the cost. Anyway Nuclear powered marine assets makes more sense. Indian Navy will have to operate at extended ranges to deal with Chinese bogey. China is building naval bases in places like Djibouti, near suez canal.
     
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    Nope, only R&D that suits an operational requirement is good, otherwise it's wasted time and money. Given the amount of money the R&D of such a propulsion requires, one has to think twice if that's really necessary and if that money is not more useful in other projects (indigenous SSKs, indigenous CATOBAR capable stealth fighter, proper AEW and ASW capabilities for our carriers...).
     
  5. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,312
    The CdG uses 2 reactors rated at 150MW each. A carrier like Nimitz should have roughly double, ie around 600MW. The GRF has 25% more over that.

    260000 shp is only 194MW.
     
  6. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    295
    [​IMG]
    Doood, tonight you can learn something new from me! - When you have dug yourself in a hole, stop digging!
     
  7. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,312
    :lol: Good luck believing what you want.

    Let's discuss again after you've grown up.
     
    Wolfpack likes this.
  8. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,312
    We have to spend sensibly.
     
  9. MKM

    MKM IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2017
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    5
    Country Flag:
    India
    Both of you are right some sources say 2x700 & some say 2x350=700MW
    BTW Bigger ships need bigger reactor more than directly proportional to weight, that's next submarines will have 190MW instead of 83MW.
    US carriers have EMALS which also require more power.
     
  10. Gessler

    Gessler BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,745
    Likes Received:
    9,636
    Country Flag:
    India
    Prasun K. Sengupta's take on the matter:

    The questions :

    and the answer:

    " To GESSLER, RAJ & SANDY: LoLz! Looks like the ‘desi’ Bandalbaaz’ is hell-bent upon certifying himself as a ‘Maha Bandalbaaz’! Wasn't he the very same nitwit who couldn’t figure out the differences is turbofan TTSLs & therefore had ASSUMED that the TTSL’s of the F404-IN-20 & AL-31F were the same & therefore each LCA Mk.1/Tejas Mk.1 would require 3 F404-IN-20s in its service lifetime??? Now let’s contextualize the issue & derive sane, credible conclusions.

    Firstly, all IN-sponsored seminars over the past 2 years have clearly stated during the Q & A sessions that the Govt of India will not part with even 1 Paisa for IAC-2 unless & until the IAC-1 is officially commissioned into service. That still remains the case.

    Secondly, in terms of budgetary priorities, therefore, as of now the topmost priorities are to acquire the 6 projected SSNs, followed by the four LPHs.

    Thirdly, since the IN’s concept of operations calls for aircraft carrier battle groups to operate ONLY within the IOR, there’s simply no need for super carriers of 90,000 tonne displacement & at-sea endurance of 6 months, meaning the IN’s aircraft carriers will be able to access IN naval bases along India’s coastline for re-supply/replenishment, whenever reqd. Hence, a 550mWT PWR for a 90,000-tonne carrier isn’t what the IN desires, but rather a 200mWT PWR for powering an E-MALS-equipped 65,000-tonne IAC-2.

    Fourthly, it is a matter of published record now (by Retired Admiral Arun Prakash in an article he wrote for FORCE magazine in 2010) that the idea of a 200mWT PWR (& not 190mWT as claimed) was first suggested by him in an audit- report he was commissioned to draft for the then Indian NSA M K Narayanan, which dealt with 2 topics: future developmental directions for the IN’s projected SLBM families; & future naval nuclear propulsion reqmts. This was because the DAE had informed Narayanan about its intention then to develop a 800mWT PWR for civilian applications within a 15-year timeframe & the DAE also wanted to solicit the IN’s views on spinoff applications of this developmental effort. Hence, the 15-year gestation period the ‘Maha Bandalbaaz’ is speculating about has its starting point in 2008, not 2017. Arun Prakash had proposed the 200mWT PWR for two platforms: the IAC-2 & for the larger & heavier S-5/S-6/S-7 SSBNs of the IN.

    Fifthly, the S-2/Arihant S-72 possesses an 83mWT PWR, & not a 550mWT PWR. The ‘Maha Bandalbaaz’ just ASSUMED that since the Nimitz-class carriers have 550mWT PWRs on-board, so then should the IAC-2! In fact, the figure of 190mWT for a PWR again is due to the Maha Bandalbaaz’s ASSUMPTION about the IN’s projected SSNs being powered by such PWRs just because the K-152 Nerpa/INS Chakra/Project 970 is also powered by a similar PWR. Little does he realise that the IN has already decided to go for smaller SSNs of a Russian design, & not for the larger SSGNs!

    Lastly, no one in this world is developing conventionally-powered E-MALS, not even Russia & China. The successive surge-power reqmts of E-MALS are such that only high-density PWRs can provide the desired power outputs. "

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3545138702780178046&postID=168568650674082989

    @randomradio @PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @ranadd @Hellfire @Agent_47 @vstol jockey @MilSpec @Sancho @GuardianRED
     
  11. GuardianRED

    GuardianRED Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    1,601
    Country Flag:
    India
    Take backs

    1) We are seeing that official defence news/deals are pretty slow - thus we see many many journos make some articles such as this with some so called sources - with ZERO contain, with just creates more confusion and errors from the actual !

    2) Honestly - that was my question ie can a conventional power hull have EMALS - so like i have my answer

    3) The IN has experience in Stream catapult system - and it is a tried and tested system - If EMALS is not in the table - best go with stream ... no?

    4) PKS have for a long time - said that the IN priorities have always being Subs and LPHs, so why is the news about IAC-2 keep coming up??? just irritating and the IN officially should come out put such stories abt IAC-2 to rest!!
     
    Sancho and Bloom 17 like this.
  12. Gessler

    Gessler BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,745
    Likes Received:
    9,636
    Country Flag:
    India
    Most journalists don't follow issues from the time they start so often they have an inability to look at certain things from a certain perspective...while others are clearly only after pageviews/hits so anything that is sensational is blown out of proportions and often even misreported because of that.

    PKS's view is clear: No nuclear = No EMALS.

    Previous experience was way too long ago. IMO, nothing much we can draw upon today.

    EMALS is basically the next step in the logical evolution of Catapults. Steam-based operation was previous-generation tech, if we're looking at building a new CATOBAR carrier post-2020, then buying Steam catapults will be pretty backward.

    Especially if you're looking at launching heavier aircraft from an overall shorter/smaller carrier - EMALS makes most sense.

    Downside is that EMALS tech is not yet mature - but then again it's not like we are starting construction of IAC-2 tomorrow. By the time our future carrier materializes, EMALS will hopefully be a mature system.

    SSNs are indeed the priority, but information regarding them is obscure due to the strategic nature of nuclear submarines (and cooperation with Russia in that field).

    IAC-2 news and discussions in the Navy's fraternity are far more transparent. It's no secret that even if the EMALS carrier project is not a priority, there will be constant developments and decisions in that field - we don't decide what type of carrier we want over the weekend, put it on paper on Monday and start building it on Tuesday.

    These decisions are a huge process and there will be continuous buzz about this project till 2030, rest assured.

    In the meantime, can't rule out a second, somewhat bigger ship of the Vikrant-class. CSL has to be kept busy and IN knows this.
     
    Sancho, Bloom 17 and GuardianRED like this.
  13. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    I had written in the beginning of this thread itself that IAC-2 will most likely be a sister ship of IAC-1 asa replacement for INS Viraat.
    Vishaaal, Vikraal ans Vistaar series is much in the future. I had given you a hint that these are very early days and things will again change.
    http://indiandefence.com/threads/na...nuclear-powered-aircraft-carrier.65956/page-2
     
    Gessler likes this.
  14. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    295
    No. Only I am correct. It is physically impossible for both of us to be simultaneously right and no source in the world would call a 550 MWt reactor a 275 MWt reactor.

    Nuclear vs Gas Turbine is a non question.
    • Nuclear takes a lot less space which is very nice for any space constrained vehicle
    • Nuclear doesn't need refuelling except every 20 years
    • Therefore less tanker ships, less port visits, longer ndurance.
    • Nuclear can run at full steam all the time, whereas running turbines at full power greatly reduces range
    • Can provide power to shafts and produce electricity simultaneously
    • Can produce a lot more electricity than gas turbines
    • Which we want for DEW, EMALS, AAG and even AESA.
    • Nuclear can provide power on shore which is very useful for Disaster Relief
    • Nuclear doesn't produce deadly and harmful pollution for the crew (they called it shitty kitty for a reason) let alone the Earth.
    Nuclear ftw:BVICTORY:

    In the end, it's a question of budget. If you have the budget, you will choose Nuclear. Nobody would not not choose Nuclear if they had the money to do so.

    For us, it's a simple question of whether we leverage our already developed technologies to greatly increase our war fighting capabilities, besides boosting our industries and indigenization or do we, like this asswhole here
    resort to magic thinking where things will somehow automatically happen, only to arrive in future to see the rest of the world has passed us by.
     
    Picdelamirand-oil and Gessler like this.
  15. ranadd

    ranadd 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    317
    Country Flag:
    India
    Hope sense prevails. That's what CSL wants as well.
     

Share This Page