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. Angel Eyes

    Angel Eyes 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    152
    Country Flag:
    India
    Nice cleavages......
     
  2. lca-fan

    lca-fan Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,388
    Likes Received:
    4,777
    Country Flag:
    India
    Both Her reactors can launch several rockets. Mine just launched. :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
     
    Sahil ecclstone likes this.
  3. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    Because Subs and LPDs are short to medium term procurements, but IAC 2 is a long term development and we need to seal the Base concept today, to have a capable carrier in future.

    1. Try to get catapult technology, to use aircrafts with heavier weights and payloads

    2. Choose the right aircrafts today, to know the required external and internal space (we see st IAC 1 what mess that can create, if you choose fighters later)

    3. Get the right development partners, to get the carrier designed and produced, according to requirements
     
    GuardianRED likes this.
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    That's not correct, if you look at where we coming from. The primary need is not catapults, but a larger carrier design, that can house more aircrafts! INs main disadvantage against PLAN carriers today, are the numbers and the size of fighters that their carriers can carry.
    The take off system is just the 2nd step, because that improves the capability of the airwing the carrier has. But even here, steam catapults would be a big upgrade compared to the 2 STOBAR carriers we soon will have, or the 2 VSTOL carriers we had before them.
    EMALS might add quality, but we could do well with a 60 to 70.000t carrier with steam catapults too.
     
  5. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate THINKER

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    4,904
    Country Flag:
    India

    @Gessler

    It is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, a hallmark of Indian strategic thinking and mismatch of objectives with resource allocation.

    Let us look at the issue a bit more carefully.

    1. The Mandate:

    The IN has been mandated by the GoI to dominate and execute 'sea denial' in IOR as also be the 'net security provider' in this region.

    This is where the dissonance creeps in. While the GoI has framed this guideline, it has simply failed to understand that being a 'net security provider' in IOR is not limited merely to anti-piracy and HADR responses, but also to be able to militarily intervene to protect the territorial integrity and security of a friendly foreign nation if required, in addition to being poised to meet own security challenges in both conventional and non-conventional format, 24 x 7. If the GoI has adopted a limited definition of being the net security provider, then the whole premise of this being able to earn India influence in terms of diplomatic currency, is flawed.

    2. Paradox:

    The assumption that Prasun K Sengupta has forwarded of

    '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.'


    in my opinion, is a bit naive, and may exactly define the approach of the GoI in this realm. The IN had initially scaled down requirement of the Aircraft Carrier based on the economics. It did not have the fund and resource allocation to be able to achieve nuclear propulsion for the aircraft carriers while achieving the aim of certain number of platforms which it needed to put to sea. This problem was at fore in the 2000s. As the economy continued on an upswing, and GoI revised it's directions to IN (IOR was shifted to not limit role to securing SLOCs in North IOR but also to ensure sea domination at all the major choke points in IOR) and IN revised it's requirement on this very fact.

    (@vstol jockey Please amend where I may be wrong in my understanding here)

    There are 6 major choke points that India needs to control to actually dominate and undertake 'sea denial' operations in IOR:

    1. The Strait of Hormuz between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
    2. Bab-el-Mandeb at the southern access to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal (the Chinese have opened their own base at Djibouti, thereby giving rise to a complex situation here).
    3. The Mozambique Channel between Madagascar and the coast of Africa.
    4. The Strait of Malacca between Sumatra and Malaysia.
    5. The Sunda Strait between the Indian Ocean and Borneo.
    6. The Lombok Strait between the Indian Ocean and the Sulawesi.

    Screen Shot 2017-10-29 at 9.22.40 AM.png

    Now, either the GoI does not understand the term "sea denial" and/or "domination" or there has been a re-think in the Indian 'strategic thinking', thereby giving a logic as above. So, is it back to the thinking of the 70s-90s, that of 'guardian of Indian SLOC'?

    3. INS Virat, had an endurance of 3 days before it required refuelling. This entailed undertaking refuelling every 72 hours while at sea to sustain a high tempo of operations. GoI has mandated IN to be able to undertake operations for two to three weeks in the IOR(Vice Admiral GM Hiranandani - 'Transition to Guardianship: The Indian Navy 1991-2000') . The sheer number of platforms required to logistically sustain the CBGs conventionally, beat the logic of costs for nuclear propulsion of the Carrier itself.

    4. The Conclusion: The conclusion from above -

    (a) Problems of an amateur/ignorant approach remain in the policy determination for this country as a whole.

    (b) The propensity to ignore the value of security imperatives in formulation of policy, both domestic and foreign, and the tendency to not rope in the expertise of the security establishment in order to enable cohesiveness of approach in the same, is continuing under the present government too.

    (c) India will be making a significant mistake in not building the capacity to not only dominate, but deny sea use to both PLAN and PN in case of a limited/broad conflict with either Pakistan and/or China. To achieve that, India will have to have the capability to field it's CBG far from Indian shores, which will negate the logic of fuel being easily available.

    (d) With CPEC, the probability of intervention by PLAN in case of a limited conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir, has risen significantly. With Djibouti coming online and Gwadar likely to be online shortly, the potential of PLAN to deny/disrupt Indian SLOC in case of any such conflict is a reality. It shall be very easy for China to deploy PLAN to disrupt Indian SLOC to 'relieve pressure on Pakistani SLOC by IN' as also to give such an approach a 'peacekeeping' role, thereby pushing IN into the unenviable position of having to decide on a military confrontation to secure own SLOC, thereby increasing risk of direct Chinese intervention.

    (e) CBG will play a vital role in any amphibious operations undertaken in a conventional war setting. Hence, point (c) and (d) have to be read in conjunction with this fact.
     
    Bloom 17, Sancho, randomradio and 6 others like this.
  6. Gessler

    Gessler BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,745
    Likes Received:
    9,636
    Country Flag:
    India
    We need larger carriers agreed - the proposed IAC-2 is indeed larger than any existing IN carrier and it's proposed design (CATOBAR, potentially Nuclear) ensure that it has maximum space utilization.

    However you can't ignore the advantages that come with the launch system + propulsion setup. The French CdG is roughly the same overall size as our IAC-1/Vikrant. But the operational capability the French can get from that carrier is much higher than what Vikrant is capable of: heavier aircraft, AEW planes, larger no. of aircraft carried (despite having no folding wings).

    How? Thanks to launch system and thanks to type of propulsion chosen.

    Sure - steam isn't unworkable. But given our potential timeline for IAC-2 (around 2030 or beyond), if we buy steam we'd pretty much be the only one operating that at that time. And what point would we be making? It's not like EMALS was denied to us forcing us to go with steam either. And it's not like EMALS doesn't have any operational advantages over steam - it has plenty.

    Even China (a nation with far less carrier experience than India) is already well into developing its own version of EMALS for its future carriers.
     
    Bloom 17 and GuardianRED like this.
  7. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    A CBG by nature and capabilities is for Sea Control. It is designed to ensure dominance in all realms of war from surface to sub surface to air and land. The LPD/LHD component is a missing link in INs armory for force projection and dominance over land. The present lot of landing ships that we have can only do duty in and around India. IN also has a very specific task like what happened in Maldives in 1988 Operation Cactus. Most of the African countries and small Island nations like Seychelles, Mauritius may need military intervention to save their nations from militants or sudden revolts or hostile take overs. India is supposed to undertake those missions. Once again a CBG becomes a very important part of such a force structure.
    The choke points as shown by @Hellfire are the entry points to IOR region but the Sunda and Lembok have very low depth and are restricted in the draught of the ships which can navigate thru them. The main and most important are the other points and they have been very well covered by IN by not only having its own men on ground but also having its own radar stations and air fields in those area with a couple of islands taken over by IN from the governments of these tiny island nations.
    Now coming to the third aircraft carrier, IAC-2 with EMALS was a project with Nuke propulsion only and at no stage was it considered very seriously. The first stepis commissioning IAC-1 and than decide the next step. As of now the priority is sea based nukes and sea denial in SCS for which we need more subs followed by LPD/LHDs. The PLAN bases in Karachi and Djibouti are a concern for IN because they may not take part in actual operations but can still provide a lot of information to PN about IN. Also it will make it difficult to target these places when PLAN ships are in harbour to avoid collateral damage.

    The third carrier will be a STOBAR only as the amount of power needed for EMALS or even for steam CATs is huge. IN has limited budget and they have to ensure that they not only get the required carriers but also aircraft to man them. A carrier may cost 20K crores like IAC-1 but its air group and support ships may cost five times of it. Moreover IN is woefully short of helicopters. nearly 75% of our ships do not have integral helicopter flights. The helicopters are rotated between ships. which ever sails out, may or may not get its helo.
    Air asset Planning has lagged behind the induction of ships in IN as far as aviation is concerned. The delay in getting nuke IAC will also mean demise of MRCBF of IN. because Rafale-M and F-18SH can carry a payload marginally higher than Mig-29K from STOBAR Deck. If IN is going to operate Nuke carrier with EMALS only after 2035, it makes little sense to buy aircraft now for operations twenty years hence that too which are already over three decades old designs. I foresee Nuke carriers with EMALS and AMCA-N as more viable option and a few more MIG-29Ks with Kaveri engines as follow on orders for IAC-1 & 2.
    Of the three services, only IN has been able to keep on track regarding expansion but like all such activities, some activities lead and some activities lag.
     
    Techy, Bloom 17, Sancho and 6 others like this.
  8. GuardianRED

    GuardianRED Captain FULL MEMBER

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

    No complains there - Issue i have is with the article with no research and only using some so called sources - such articles just make the narrative confusing!

    On the IAC-1 front, will wait till it is launched to pass judgement! :angel:
     
    Sancho likes this.
  9. lca-fan

    lca-fan Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,388
    Likes Received:
    4,777
    Country Flag:
    India
    A nuke powered steam CAT carrier is too expensive to operate and technologically challenging to make. Having said that, IN should consider using Nuke powered STOBAR carrier as this will provide enough power to reach anywhere across the globe and will release huge amount of space for aviation fuel for fighters while saving on costly hydrocarbon fuel which would be in short supply during war...... And this can be technologically possible as we now have experience in nuke propulsion.

    Also Mig35 k with better serviceability and Avionics should be considered to bring down the aviation wing cost. Since this is also linked with opponents we face, we have good relations with US & France which are the only nation to have better fighters than Mig 29k which can challenge IN at sea no other nation has fighters which can even challenge IN Mig 29Ks.

    Chinese carriers and fighters are still a big joke and they will arrive only after 2030 till then we should develop unsinkable air craft carriers at Andaman & Nicobar and Lakshdweep islands which are overlooking Malcca straits this will give Chinese navy a run for their money........

    @Gessler @randomradio
     
  10. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    352
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    F-35 B is the best plane for STOBAR carrier.
     
  11. lca-fan

    lca-fan Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,388
    Likes Received:
    4,777
    Country Flag:
    India
    Will cost a BOMB plus kill switches will ensure we can only use it in war uncle wants us to..............
     
    Bloom 17, Zer0reZ and Sahil ecclstone like this.
  12. Gessler

    Gessler BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,745
    Likes Received:
    9,636
    Country Flag:
    India
    For STOVL you mean. :smile:

    STOBAR would imply recovering the jet by means of tail hook + barrier (arrestor wires). And the only JSF version with tail hook is the F-35C, which is designed for catapult-launch.

    Now, the C could possibly take-off without catapult (in theory, even F/A-18 and E-2D can) but not efficiently enough.

    However you CAN operate F-35B from an otherwise STOBAR carrier like Vikrant/IAC-1....but the whole arrestor mechanism will be useless in that case.
     
    sunstersun likes this.
  13. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    352
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    lol i love the kill switch conspiracy theory. 10 countries are using their top people to make sure there isn't a kill switch, but beyond that the risk of a kill switch is far too great. If it was ever proven, USA would never get another weapons export deal ever.
     
  14. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    352
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    I just refer STOBAR as carrier with jump ski without a launching system emals or steam. You are correct about arrestor system, but with rolling landing technique it's not needed.
     
    Gessler likes this.
  15. lca-fan

    lca-fan Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,388
    Likes Received:
    4,777
    Country Flag:
    India
    Heard about ALIS? The entire fighter is controlled by a TABLET which sends all data to US.

    Pentagon sees risk in F-35 fighter's complex logistics program
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-l...mplex-logistics-program-idUSKCN0RG35320150917
     
    Bloom 17 likes this.

Share This Page