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. Gessler

    Gessler BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,745
    Likes Received:
    9,636
    Country Flag:
    India
    Yes, and therefore if one wants to use an existing/already built-up STOBAR carrier like IAC-1 for F-35B you'd need to do two things -

    1) Dispose of the arrestor system as you don't need it anymore

    2) Ensure your flight deck can take the heat of a vertical landing. Afaik, this has been an issue wrt F-35B landings - at least US ships like America-class and QEC were meant to operate 35B so this aspect played into their development from the start. But if you're converting an existing carrier for 35B ops, this is something that needs to be looked at IMO.
     
    sunstersun likes this.
  2. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    352
    Country Flag:
    Canada

    hardly a kill switch. repairs and spares have been used to as a sudo kill switch forever. besides every country has their own central unit of alis independent of the USA.

    it's not like sending data to the USA is some master evil plan or something. It's agreed to by allies in order to improve the program. like tesla cars sending info in order to improve AI driving.
     
  3. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,311
    I don't think the policy itself is ignorant. The problem is funding. As long as there is a policy, funding will trickle in. But right now, there is a mismatch between our policy and funding. We are trying to match the Chinese with a budget that is 4 times smaller, and we have to import while they are more or less self-sufficient.

    The more I look at our procurement requirements, the more I think of it as a joke. We can't afford half the stuff we want. And this carrier is like a cheery on top of the joke.
     
    Angel Eyes and vstol jockey like this.
  4. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    Exactly. I recently had a nice chat with one of the senior guys from IN & IAF and they both seemed convinced that with a growing economy, even if we take into account just 2.5% of GDP for services, all these projects can get funded easily. They were very convinced about the idea and to some extent correct also as they are not planning for tomorrow but for next ten years.
    However, the problem is that GOI has armed forces at least priority. the budget has only been reduced in real price parity every year and also as part of GDP. And this will not change.
     
  5. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    I didn't, that's why I said that steam catapults would add advantages to IN over the STOBAR carriers we have now too. So catapults are necessary and we have to do whatever it takes to get them, but we doesn't necessarily need EMALS and the take off capability is only secondary to the size requirement of the carrier.

    Take the new Russian carrier design and compare it to the French CDG.
    The latter can use Rafales with higher payloads via catapults, while the earlier launches naval Su 57 via ski-jump. Which carrier design is better?
    The Russian! Because it offers more space to carry a higher number of more capable fighters.
    Not to mention that the Russians aim on a mix of ski-jump for fighters and catapult take off for UCAVs and AEW aircrafts.
     
  6. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    It was no judgement on the carrier, but on the flawed project management (one of the biggest problems in Indian defence developments, be it the carrier, LCA or Arjun, all suffer from the same flaws).
     
  7. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,210
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Country Flag:
    India
    why so much negativity buddy?
     
    shaktimaan likes this.
  8. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    8,318
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Country Flag:
    France
    Yes the new 90000-100000-ton warship should be capable of accommodating 80-90 aircraft and stay at sea for 90-120 days. But construction of the carrier would take seven to ten years and cost as much as $9 billion and Russia has never built an aircraft carrier: all Soviet carriers were constructed in Ukraine. Russia’s shipbuilding industry currently lacks the capacity to build a supercarrier and does not even have a large enough dry dock to accommodate a vessel this size. They also lack the escort group needed. So it's really a better Carrier compare to CDG, but CDG exists!
     
    Gessler likes this.
  9. Gessler

    Gessler BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,745
    Likes Received:
    9,636
    Country Flag:
    India
    I guess we're just talking tomahto-tomayto.

    Size: quantum of your carrier's potential
    Launch system: exploiting your carrier to it's maximum potential

    IMO, both are very important. In defense of your view - you may say having a large enough potential is important first of all. And I can't negate that.
    However in my defense, I'll say choosing the right take-off system (catapult/EMALS...STOBAR is out of question for nuclear carrier) is equally important. Because without that, we may a big carrier but we'll never be able to utilize it to it's maximum potential, because our take-off system limits our operational capability. A smaller carrier with a better launch system will out-perform us in that case.

    And IMO, that's the mistake made by the British. They had a big enough carrier size in the QEC, but due to the STOVL design they failed to utilize it to it's maximum potential. The CdG design may be much smaller, but they made the right choices wrt launch system allowing to fly a wider variety of aircraft and get the most out of the CDG as they could.

    Edit: the choice of EMALS comes from what I think would be the global norm by the time period when we actually get to build IAC-2.

    Yes, on paper the Shturm is a better design...but only on paper. In fact much of the potential capability of a design may be lost by the time the design makes it to the real world - as it has to take economic and material limitations into account. And don't be quick to dismiss this statement....even the QEC could have been a much better carrier on paper (if it went with how the PA2 was meant to be), but much of that potential capability was lost by the time it made it through all the economic approvals.

    It's also important to ensure your carrier can deliver maximum potential straight from the design stage up...sometimes, your budget may not allow you to build a bigger carrier. In such a situation, choosing the right launch system can at least allow you to get the most out of the carrier size you are permitted to build.
     
  10. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    Interesting analysis, but I think you are streching the Sea Denial mission too far.
    We don't need IN to control the whole IO, but those areas where we actually could see a threat for the nation. That means the Arabian Sea wrt Pakistan / China, the Gulf of Bengal, to keep neighbouring countries in check as well China again. And the area around the Sunda straight, since that's a crucial point of entry for China.

    The "reach" of IN needs to go beyond these areas of course, for example in terms of HDAR or anti piracy missions. However, these are specific missions, that doesn't even require a carrier, nor do they fall under Sea Denial.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2017
    Angel Eyes likes this.
  11. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,311
    The defence budget climbing to 2.5% of the economy is a massive growth. It's not gonna happen anytime soon.

    But that's the point, we need a massive growth in the budget if we are to buy all that we need. Without this growth, there is not going to be much procurement.
     
  12. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    Because you are basically saying the same as I do (we need larger carriers, ideally with catapults), just that you are too focused on the benefit of EMALS over steam catapults, while I show the benefits of a larger carrier in the fist place and add any kind of catapult to it, to increase the advantage.

    Here is where we differ, because the take off system only is linked to the performance of the fighter, not of the carrier as a whole.
    The performance of the carrier is mainly dependent on the size and the layout, because that decides how many and what kind of aircrafts can be used. When you operate in an area where shore based assets can't help you, the numbers of aircrafts on the carrier are the key for the performance, not what payload you have for take off.

    That's a tricky one, because the STOVL design is not only different in take off, but also in landing too and offers limitations for both. It was a huge mistake not to go for CATOBAR, because they limited the performance of the fighters, but also had to choose the less capable version of the F35 itself.
    Thankfully IN will not do that mistake anymore.

    I know, but that only refers to the catapult tech, not the performance of the carrier.
    What will be the difference of aircraft numbers or take off capabilities, between a 65.000t carrier with steam catapults, compared to the same carrier with EMALS?
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2017
  13. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    That's realism, plain and simple.
     
  14. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    I wud like to correct you here. Till very recently, IN had same opinion about STOBAR deficiencies as you have written. But the problem for STOBAR was not the ship, but the aircraft. We never created an aircraft specifically for STOBAR ops. The first stage of naval aviation was with free stream take offs, next came Catapults and finally we had ski-jumps for S/VTOL fighters. STOBAR as a concept was never studied properly and we ended up using aircraft modified for STOBAR. Nearly all of them were V/STOL which were limited not by take off performance but by land back performance. Not only that, the use of thrust to make up for wingborn lift resulted in poor acceleration performance from Ski-ramp. While what we needed was an aircraft which cud accelerate away during the parabolic flight that it takes after exiting ramp. For that we need a certain TWR and wing loading.
    The cost mathematics is like this. You need to spend 1.5 times for a conventional CATOBAR carrier compared to conventional STOBAR. You need to spend ten times for a nuke powered CATOBAR compared to a STOBAR. And finally, a STOBAR needs less energy so it is smaller and everything else also reduces in propotion while it can carry larger number of fighters. It paints a small RCS and we can actually revert back to WW-2 era of pocket sized carriers. The reduced requirement of personal, and deck space to launch aircraft results in lot of internal space saving which results in overall reduction of carrier size.
    The number of sorties which can be launched from a CATOBAR carrier is limited by the number of CATs it has.But for STOBAR, there is no such restriction. You can launch aircarft in stream mode as you do on runway.
    The matrix of carrier design is such that for a given length you can have a fixed beam & keel size. This restricts your height above water for flight deck or the draught will increase beyond acceptable limits. If you change the keel area and its taper ratio, it will result in increased drag requiring more powerful engines for propulsion and larger fuel quantity for range and endurance. Just the way, we optimise an aircraft, we need to optimise a ship also. STOBAR offers least problems and lowest amount of requirements for every thing from propulsion to size based on tonnage required per unit aircraft carried.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2017
    Gessler and Sancho like this.
  15. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    3,461
    You mean historically, yes I know, but I didn't wanted to go back that far.

    I was wondering, if an unmanned Mig 29K would be feasible as a weapon launch platform?
    Replace the cockpits, seat and other unnecessary systems, with internal fuel tanks or to reduce the overall weight.
    In return you get a STOBAR carrier fighter, that should be able to take off with more or heavier weapons, whike having increased range as well and that could be guided by a manned Mig 29K twin seater in A2A config.

    What stops UCAVs from taking off via ski-jump? They are less heavy than fighters and carry less loads as well, do they really need catapults? If not only AEW actually requires catapults in operational terms.
     

Share This Page