Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 10 May 2017 11:29

What about a boiler or a bank of boilers steam could be used for propulsion and services

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 May 2017 12:02

Singha wrote:a nukular carrier where the reactor is always 'on' will have no issues producing steam or in the case of EMALS driving a generator using a steam turbine.

how exactly do you propose to run a large gas turbine on demand to charge this so called 'capacitor bank' - how many launches can this capacitor bank allow ? is it compact? when the banks are about to run dry, can this gas turbine spin up quickly and charge it to full or there needs to be multiple banks which the GT keeps topping up in a rotation? fuel consumption and storage of this GT needs to be factored in....space is always a constraint in carriers.

and this will be kind of unique to india?

we will imo need to build a POC on land with EMALS and this GT powerplant to figure out whether it will work. probably 2 turbines will be needed as you dont want to rely on 1 turbine always working.

I had done some calculations 7-8 months ago. I don't have my computer where the calculations reside handy, but quoting from memory, a capacitor bank costing 100K was enough energy to launch a 30,000 pound beast over 100 meters. The size of the bank was small. You could layer 8-10 banks in a container or two. 10 banks will allow you 10 ready launches. If you had a 3-5 MW generator, it could charge one bank in under 5 minutes. So its not very complicated. You could also use a flywheel setup, but it will occupy more space. There will always be spare generators on a ship this size. DOn't need spare generator, just a setup where power from other generators can be used to power the banks if needed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 May 2017 12:03

Even if the MOD gives the green light to this total absurdity in the current context where our sub fleet has been neglected and treated like the third wife's child,the astonishing "8 years" building time being given to pvt. yard to build the first measly 20,000t amphib makes one wonder how long it will take to build a carrier almost twice the size of IAC-1,years overdue,huge cost over-runs,etc. Keel laying was in 2009,commissioning expected in 2023.That makes 14 years for a 40K carrier. Now how long do you think our N-powered EMALS behemoth will take to build? By that time,China will have had 6 carriers in service with probably a second line on its way.

The IN can knock and keep knocking on the MOD's door very 3 months ad nauseum. The MOD can simply postpone the decision for as long as it likes! It is for the MOD/GOI to shoot down for the time being this nonsensical and simply unaffordable wet dream of some IN officers who fondly imagine that the IN is a smaller version of the USN.and whose role is to play second fiddle to it!

What we can barely afford and will be far more sensible is to build a sister ship to the IAC-1,perhaps slightly larger,which hopefully can be built in about 7 years time. As for the amphib req.,why we didn't pick up the 2 Mistrals which the French built for Russia but were unwilling to deliver-Egypt bought them instead along with their large nos. of KA-52 attack/assault helos beats me. We would've by now had two more flat tops in service boosting our maritime capability in the IOR considerably. The same opportunity lost when the German U-boats for Greece were unpaid for.

PS:Let me once again underscore our greatest asset given to us by God and Geography.The massive Indian landmass jutting into the IOR like a dagger which along with our two island groups on either side,give us true "unsinkable" carriers,from which land-based aircraft armed with super/hypersonic missiles can sanitise the seas from S.Africa to Oz,and even take the battle into the Indo-China Sea. Possessing LR assets like our erstwhile Bears (or Backfires whatever) would give us that quantum capability of range,endurance and huge payload to exterminate any external threat to the nation.

chola · Post by **chola** » 10 May 2017 13:42

^^^ Oh come on, Philip! 20K tons is "measly"? Save for the Vikrant, we have never built a warship over 7.5K tons! These are massive ships by any standard.

I believe this award to a private company to build the LHD is a good thing and in the long run will increase national capacity. I only wish they would award to multiple yards and build in parallel.

The CATOBAR (possibly CVN) would be a national moonshot. It would increase prestige and technical base for Bharat.

The Navy wants it and is willing to sacrifice for it. For a service that traditionally made do with the smallest of budgets, that is good enough for me. They are not spendthrift playboys.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 May 2017 14:05

Personally I would prefer that the P15 b and p 17 are added to the fleet @ of 2 per year, in addition to the aircraft carriers that are added @ 1 every 5 years. Our growing sea trade will demand such a fleet in under 10 years.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 May 2017 14:38

Sid wrote:Following is a transcript from an oversight committee on USN EMALS. Although old lot of info is relevant.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111h ... g52945.pdf

Page 15 onwards it got some interesting info.

Mr. AKIN. Well, there have been some problems on it. Is that right?
Captain MAHR. Yes, sir.
Mr. AKIN. What exactly were the problems? It is much more ex- pensive now. General Atomics did us a favor and charged a whole lot more, right, because some things happened that made it more expensive?
Captain MAHR. Yes, sir.
Mr. AKIN. Where did we get off the track to start with?
Captain MAHR. From an engineering perspective, we have found
a lot of things. We have tested the—we have completed one main phase of test, and we are in the process of finishing the next two main phases of test. The motor generator, as we have been talking about——

This is dated 2009. It is 2017, and EMALS is installed on the first in class vessel, and it will be launching aircraft over the next couple of months. The ground facility has launched hundreds of sorties, of practically all types by now and the first three ship EMALS prices have been stated as firm-fixed price. I've posted the current, relevant, cost data earlier in the thread.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 May 2017 16:23

Eric Leiderman wrote:What about a boiler or a bank of boilers steam could be used for propulsion and services

you can run a boiler or gas turbine but the main power plant being gas turbine, there would be no use for a boiler other than produce steam for a steam cat - which is not the case of EMALS. in any case the input will always be fossil fuel or nukular.

its better to use some diesel generator or a small gas turbine to charge the EMALS batteries. steam plants are quite dangerous if damaged as the steam is under high pressure and several 100 C

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 10 May 2017 18:50

srai wrote:
Sid wrote:EMALS will be hyper expensive, and will be a drain on ship's power supplies. Plus they won't part with any tech related to EMALS. Also it does not make sense to go for a Gen 1 EMALS. Risks for our second ship are just too obvious.

Why we end up being the first "~~guinea pigs~~ customer" for everything new in defense market.
The contract on the sale of EMALS stipulates the US personnel be on-board INS Vishal at all times during operation for monitoring usage and fixing minor issues. Personnel also need to be accommodated at the IN naval base where the ship will be berth for safeguarding of "sensitive" technologies. They are the only authorized people who can undertake inspection/repairs of the equipment related to it. Further, the contract states that in the event of any major issues the ship will be sent to a US shipyard for a complete "debug", and all related ship-design should be shared with the US entity for the fulfillment of the said support contract agreement

Where is the text of this 'contract'?

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 May 2017 21:45

^^^

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 10 May 2017 21:56

srai wrote:^^^

I'd love to see the Viky 'contract'. Now that would be a laugh. "In case of any failure, the cause shall be assumed to be foreign object damage ("FOD"). FOD shall encompass Indian personnel who use the carrier and or aircraft. In no event shall Rosoboronexport be responsible for any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Nothwithstanding anything to contrary in sales brochures , buyer is advised that all goods (as herein described) are warranted only partially for a single use. etc.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 11 May 2017 04:41

^^^^^
ha ha ha ha ha ha

I just had an idea.

Lets go with Chinese and work on that EMAL contract with them.
lets have another contract like this.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 11 May 2017 09:34

India should have started R&D into developing its own EMALS system ages ago.
The material costs to build a prototype are on the low side.
The technology is likely to be similar to that of rail guns.
i.e. discharging large capacitors sequentially with feedback from the track as to the aircraft's position.
I guess capacitor technology might be the stumbling block if it cannot be done with COTS caps.

Even if the R&D results in a "lite" version of EMALS with a lower payload launch capability, that may be sufficient for India's needs.

Foreign EMALS is very expensive and India is going to pay a pretty penny for it.
I posted some crazy numbers from the UK's costing EMALS for their Queen Elizabeth carriers.
If its anywhere near that amount, its insanely expensive.

China meanwhile is very optimistic about its abilities to match US in creating an EMALS system.
They develop stuff and improve their defense R&D base while we buy and buy and buy foreign stuff.

----------------------------------------

http://www.defencetalk.com/second-china ... als-67587/

American media claimed that China is testing the EMALS. Once the test succeeds, China’s aircraft carrier will be a very powerful combat force in the future.

Does that mean the second China-made aircraft carrier may adopt the EMALS? Yin Zhuo said that was possible. “In my opinion, the more advanced the technology, the better. There is no difficulty that we cannot solve about electromagnetic launch. We are as good at that technology as the United States, but whether this technology will be adopted will depend on the final decision.”

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 11 May 2017 09:40

Neshant wrote:China meanwhile is very optimistic about its abilities to match US in creating an EMALS system.
They develop stuff and improve their defense R&D base while we buy and buy and buy foreign stuff.

Chinese do a lot of things, but developing their own stuff is not one of them.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2017 09:57

Neshant wrote:Foreign EMALS is very expensive and India is going to pay a pretty penny for it.
I posted some crazy numbers from the UK's costing EMALS for their Queen Elizabeth carriers.
If its anywhere near that amount, its insanely expensive.

Except that UK never considered the EMALS and planned to employ its own version of the system (EMCAT developed by Converteam). And the resultant cost was high primarily because both construction on both ships had already begun, on the basis of fixed-price contracts.

All of this has already been discussed before BTW.

Also, instead of imagining/extrapolating the cost of the EMALS from unrelated developments in the UK, I'd advise just taking a look at the actual figures i.e. from the contracts signed with the US DoD. $530 mil for the third Ford Class carrier incl. 4 catapults & AAG.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 11 May 2017 10:10

More like 737 million.
That did not include the R&D costs which is a separate item from the build cost.
Foreign buyer however will get the full bill multiplied by a markup.
Then there is the maintnence cost for the next 40 years.
This can't be anywhere near low cost once the bill is totaled.
China saves on all that by developing it themselves.
We don't!

BTW is 737 million even the final figure or is there more to the bill below? What is the total cost of EMALS for USN anyone?

------
https://news.usni.org/2015/06/15/navy-c ... rther-cost

The Navy also released a $737 million contract to General Atomics on Friday for procurement of long lead materials for the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2017 10:27

8 yrs for a vessel that could be built in half that time. Let the next generation watch it being launched. We've built numerous merchantmen much larger than 20K t. Yes,it is a warship ,not an MV.However,if it is going to take us effectively 14 years to acquire just 4 LPDs of only 20K t each,imagine how long it is going to take the 65K t CV,whose design hasn't yet been frozen.Assuming that this behemoth will arrive 2030+,we can all go to sleep for a decade like Rip Van Winkle,or get into a cryo-pod like Wayward Pines,and turn the "heater" on to 2030 and hope for the best!

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 11 May 2017 10:32

8 years for a LPD is atrocious. I'd rather get it done in foreign yards than give some "training" to Indian shipyards and wait 8 years for first vessel.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 May 2017 11:03

Karthik S wrote:8 years for a LPD is atrocious. I'd rather get it done in foreign yards than give some "training" to Indian shipyards and wait 8 years for first vessel.

IMO, the best approach would be one or two in OEM shipyard and the remaining in Indian shipyards. Then repeat orders should be made to Indian shipyards only. Orders and deliveries should be planned in a way where a new class of ships are being inducted at x number or months/years. For large ships, like the aircraft carriers, that may be one every decade while for smaller vessels, like DDG/FFG/Corvettes, it may be one every 12-months. Continuity is a must.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2017 11:19

Neshant wrote:More like 737 million.

That did not include the R&D costs which is a separate item from the build cost.
Foreign buyer however will get the full bill multiplied by a markup.

No. A contracts signed in 2008 for the first Ford carrier is less relevant than the contract signed in 2017 for the third Ford-class ship. That should be pretty damned obvious. If anything, by the time India signs the contract the costs may have fallen further.

The R&D costs are spread out over a build order of 10 Ford-class carriers. And even that figure can be waived by the US DefSec.

Then there is the maintnence cost for the next 40 years.
This can't be anywhere near low cost once the bill is totaled.

The maintenance cost for the next 40 years will be paid for from the defence budgets over the next 40 years (growing at roughly the same pace as the economy).

And yes its non-zero figure. That doesn't change the fact that EMALS-AAG by its very nature requires far less maintenance support than the steam cats, requires less manpower and, mostly importantly, ensures that the carrier's airwing undergoes less stress during launch & recovery, conserving fatigue life. And there's also no evidence that a domestic alternative to the EMALS would undergo lower upkeep costs.

China saves on all that by developing it themselves.
We don't!

Chinese don't have an alternative. General Atomics is not exactly mailing brochures for the EMALS to the PLAN HQ. Meanwhile the equally nationalistic French continue to use US-origin C13 catapults on the CdG.

As far as India is concerned, investing in the development of a product that is expected to be built only in niche quantities isn't a wise economic decision in an environment where there are plenty of other avenues to productively invest capital in R&D. And one set of 2-3 catapults is the very definition of 'niche'.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2017 11:32

SR spot on! The OEM can be forced to deliver fast so that we can get capability quickly and follow-ons learning from the construction of the first two,which could even be done simultaneously for the first desi built vessel. Look at how we goofed with building all Scorpenes at home.Huge delay,extra costs,plus no torpedoes to boot tx. to the AW issue,which strictly speaking should not have affected the deal as it was another division of the group. We're not penalising RR for the Hawk engine scandal,why? Russia was planning to do the same with the French Mistrals,acquiring 2 asap from Fr. and building the rest at home. Acquiring the first from the OEM will also set a std. in quality of build and performance too.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2017 11:46

Philip wrote:8 yrs for a vessel that could be built in half that time.

HMS Ocean - Ordered 1993. Commissioned 1998.
MN Mistral - Ordered 2001. Commissioned 2006.
ROKN Dokdo - Order 2002. Commissioned 2007.
Juan Carlos I - Ordered 2003. Commissioned 2010.
HMAS Canberra - Ordered 2007. Commissioned 2014.
USS America - Ordered 2007. Commissioned 2014.
TCG Anadolu - Ordered 2015. Commissioning in 2022.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2017 12:12

China's latest carrier of 50K+ t,just launched,with superstructure complete,unlike IAC-1, has been built in record time.The Varyag,Liaoning was launched in 2011.Work started on the new 001A (Shandong?) only in Nov.2013,with the "dock"/keel laying in March 2014. .." power, electricity and other major system equipment installed in place.The next step, the aircraft carrier will be planned for system equipment commissioning and outfitting construction, and a comprehensive mooring test." When commissioned by 2020,it would've taken only 6-7 years for a 50K t carrier to have been commissioned.Compare that timeframe with our waiting 8 years to build a 20K T amphib instead!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-2 ... ft-carrier

And now plan to build their carriers even faster!

According to Nikkei, future Chinese aircraft carriers are likely to be built faster now that the country has amassed the design experience and technology to bring the first vessel to launch.

Confirming this, work on a second Chinese-made carrier has already begun. The vessel probably will employ a steam catapult to launch aircraft, retired Maj. Gen. Xu Guangyu told Chinese media. A third vessel which has yet to begin production is expected to use nuclear propulsion, eliminating the need to resupply fuel. Work on escort vessels and submarines for a carrier strike group is also underway.

Quoted by SCMP, Hong Kong-based military analyst Liang Guoliang said that with the launch of the Type 001A, China would still only have two carriers, with the new ship requiring two or three years before it was put into full service. He noted that the US has 10 carrier strike groups, with at least four deployed in the Asia-Pacific region.

So,its not just the carrier but its entire support group,surface warships,subs,auxiliaries,etc. that are being built simultaneously. Our leisurely timeframe for delivery of much needed assets wills ee us fall further behind China in naval power unless we change our attitude towards equipping the IN with its requisite needs on a war footing.

A key Q.Will we be able to build another sister ship to IAC-1 in 7-8 years at all?

An even more pertinent Q is whether we will be able to commission our 40K t IAC-1 whose construction started in 2009,but is years behind in arriving ,before China commissions its own home-built carrier expected "before 2020",larger by at least 10,000t !

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... ImEZM.html

China on Wednesday launched its first locally-built aircraft carrier, less than four years after the construction of the 70,000 tonne warship began at the Dalian shipyard.

The Type 001A carrier is expected to be commissioned into the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in two years as Beijing seeks to aggressively project its maritime power thousands of miles away from its shores.

The Chinese carrier has been launched at a time when India is still struggling to build its first indigenous carrier Vikrant, being constructed at the state-owned Cochin Shipyard Limited.

China's first domestically built aircraft carrier. (Reuters Photo)
The construction of the Indian carrier began in 2009 and it was launched in 2013. The Indian Navy said the carrier would be commissioned in 2018 but a report by the national auditor contradicted the claim, stating that the project is years behind schedule.

It will be a national disgrace if China beats us to the tape. Can our builders rise to the occasion?

KBDagha · Post by **KBDagha** » 11 May 2017 16:41

Technologies for Underwater Surveillance Systems

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... 17_WEB.pdf

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 May 2017 17:12

Neshant wrote:More like 737 million.
That did not include the R&D costs which is a separate item from the build cost.
Foreign buyer however will get the full bill multiplied by a markup.
Then there is the maintnence cost for the next 40 years.
This can't be anywhere near low cost once the bill is totaled.
China saves on all that by developing it themselves.
We don't!

BTW is 737 million even the final figure or is there more to the bill below? What is the total cost of EMALS for USN anyone?

------
https://news.usni.org/2015/06/15/navy-c ... rther-cost

The Navy also released a $737 million contract to General Atomics on Friday for procurement of long lead materials for the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG).

That $737 figure is not EMALS, but EMALS+AAG for the CVN-79. The CVN-80 cost for the same is lower as would be expected given touch labor, and concurrency change reductions given increasing levels of design maturity and lowering complexity of discovery concurrency instals. Foreign buyers pay an FMS surcharge (on the order of around 5%) if they chose to contract using that mechanism but this is likely to be a commercial deal with General Atomics.

A notional EMALS acquisition by the Indian Navy will be for a system that would have long since met reliability and real-world operational maturity given the pace with which it is being installed, tested on land, and fixes for discoveries being rolled in. The systems for the first 3 carriers are on order, and it is likely that 1 or 2 more would have been on order and/or delivered by the time the IN needs to put money down (USN is looking to shave its carrier build time by a third). If the French reverse their current investment track and do look for another carrier you could well have 4-5 operational EMALS equipped carriers by the time the Indian EMALS carrier is launched.

From a maturity metrics perspective that will be far ahead of the curve compared to a lot many other expensive systems that one could look at for a 2030+ carrier time frame such as a high powered phased array radar, or a new air and missile defense system for example. Since the number of carriers operational around the world is tiny (especially if you take out the USN), having 5 operational carriers collecting data on a new system will go a long way in quickly closing the maturity gap between it and the legacy system.

Meanwhile, here is another Trump Tantrum this time focused on EMALS because someone told him 'digital' is not good, and he wants to go back to steam. Of course this is not going to happen but it will invoke some good reactions on the internet.

http://time.com/4775040/donald-trump-ti ... president/

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 12 May 2017 02:44

nice slides on diesel engines in IN

https://www.slideshare.net/GauravPande1 ... sslideview

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 12 May 2017 10:55

I'm not against imported EMALS per say.
I'm sure it will prove its worth.
i.e. increasing the number of warplanes a mid sized carrier can host by shrinking the runway,
enabling launches of Hawkeye type AWACS,
saving A/C fuel on take off and wear on the engine..etc.

But these expensive imports sure take away the cost advantage India has building its own carriers.

Not only is China's economy approximately 3.5X the size of India's, its spending its defense R&D money internally.
Even if they build it at a loss, the gains to the technical base of their economy grows over time.
Projects like EMALS which isn't even at the leading edge of innovation help develop their R&D base.

They are also good at linking their development.
At least part of their experience on EMALS might even come from the Maglev trains they've built.

India by contrast has very limited investment in its defense R&D base.
An Indian EMALS should have started ages ago.

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 May 2017 13:26

brar_w wrote:This is dated 2009. It is 2017, and EMALS is installed on the first in class vessel, and it will be launching aircraft over the next couple of months. The ground facility has launched hundreds of sorties, of practically all types by now and the first three ship EMALS prices have been stated as firm-fixed price. I've posted the current, relevant, cost data earlier in the thread.

Well, it is 2017 , and the Great Trump An Zee, says that EMALS are Kakoose you have to be Albert Einstein to figure them out and the Navy needs to get back to Goddamn steam!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 May 2017 14:43

vina wrote:
brar_w wrote:This is dated 2009. It is 2017, and EMALS is installed on the first in class vessel, and it will be launching aircraft over the next couple of months. The ground facility has launched hundreds of sorties, of practically all types by now and the first three ship EMALS prices have been stated as firm-fixed price. I've posted the current, relevant, cost data earlier in the thread.
Well, it is 2017 , and the Great Trump An Zee, says that EMALS are Kakoose you have to be Albert Einstein to figure them out and the Navy needs to get back to Goddamn steam!

Yes we can safely ignore that for now since it aint happening. DB has a funny take on this if interested - http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/05/going ... new-rifle/

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 12 May 2017 14:55

brar_w wrote:
vina wrote:
Well, it is 2017 , and the Great Trump An Zee, says that EMALS are Kakoose you have to be Albert Einstein to figure them out and the Navy needs to get back to Goddamn steam!
Yes we can safely ignore that for now since it aint happening. DB has a funny take on this if interested - http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/05/going ... new-rifle/

I read DT's statement somewhere and almost thought it was a fake/spoof news.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 12 May 2017 15:19

One aspect that you'll notice is that Israeli's know much more about our culture and understand it. Three ships fitted with LRSAM.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2017 17:21

So much for EMALS! According to the reports,the $!B pricetag for each EMALS system,and huge cost overruns for USN carriers,now $12B+ for each, has seen the Donald suggest that EMALS be scrapped in favour of gool old steam (choo!choo!).Apparently,apart from requiring huge power for the system,they may be vulnerable to electronic attack(!) Terrible stress on aircraft too."Read all about it..!"

http://idrw.org/trump-wants-emals-syste ... e-worried/

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/1 ... ld_r_ford/

US Navy runs into snags with aircraft carrier's electric plane-slingshot
EMAL system was nearly bought by the UK. Bullet dodged? Oh no

11 Jan 2017 at 13:03, Gareth Corfield
The US Navy is having difficulties with its latest aircraft carrier's Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS) – the same system which the UK mooted fitting to its new Queen Elizabeth-class carriers.

The US Department of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOTE) revealed yesterday, in its end-of-year report [PDF] for financial year 2016, that the EMALS fitted to the new nuclear-powered carrier USS Gerald R. Ford put "excessive airframe stress" on aircraft being launched.

This stress "will preclude the Navy from conducting normal operations of the F/A-18A-F and EA-18G from CVN 78", according to DOTES, which said the problem had first been noticed in 2014. :rotfl: So what will the $12B+++ super-duper carrier launch from its EMALS system,paper planes?

In addition, EMALS could not "readily" be electrically isolated for maintenance, which DOTE warned "will preclude some types of EMALS and AAG (Advanced Arresting Gear) maintenance during flight operations", decreasing their operational availability.

The Gerald R. Ford is supposed to be able to launch 160 sorties in a 12-hour day – an average of one takeoff or landing every 4.5 minutes. She is supposed to be able to surge to 270 sorties in a 24-hour period.

Britain considered fitting EMALS to its two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers right back at the design stage. Indeed, the ability to add catapults and arrester gear to the ships was specified right from the start.

Lewis Page, late of this parish, summed up what happened when the government tried to exercise that option: "... it later got rescinded, on the grounds that putting catapults into the ships was not going to cost £900m – as the 2010 [Strategic Defence and Security Review] had estimated – but actually £2bn for [HMS] Prince of Wales and maybe £3bn for Queen Elizabeth. This would double the projected price of the two ships."

The Aircraft Carrier Alliance – heavily dominated by BAE Systems – had not designed the new carriers to have EMALS fitted at all, taking advantage of naïve MoD civil servants who didn't get a price put into the contract for the conversion work. Bernard Gray, chief of defence materiel, told Parliament in 2013:

Because the decision to go STOVL [that is the initial decision for jumpjets] was taken in, from memory, 2002, no serious work had been done. It had been noodled in 2005, but no serious work had been done on it. It was not a contract-quality offer; it was a simple assertion that that could be done, but nobody said, "It can be done at this price", and certainly nobody put that in a contract.
The US woes with EMALS are not complete showstoppers. EMALS is a new design, technology and piece of equipment, up against mature steam-powered catapult tech which hasn't really changed in more than five decades. Gerald R. Ford is the first-of-class of the new breed of US aircraft carriers which will see that country's navy through to the second half of this century. That said, the fact that problems identified in 2014 are still a problem two years later, and make it impossible to safely deploy fully-loaded combat aircraft, may come back to bite the US Navy.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/1 ... ld_r_ford/
Oddly, Gerald R. Ford's timetable for introduction into service – handover to the USN early this year, flight testing in 2018 and 2019, and operational deployment by 2021 – closely mirrors that of HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Britain's new aircraft carriers have no catapult system at all. The only fast jets capable of flying from them are Harriers (as operated by the US Marine Corps) and the F-35B. HMS Queen Elizabeth, whose sea trials date keeps slipping back to later and later this year, is planned to carry about 20 F-35s on her first operational deployment to the South China Sea in 2021.

Sources tell The Register that plans to operate F-35s from land bases once they are delivered to the UK have been shelved in favour of getting Queen Elizabeth to sea with as large an air wing as possible. Previously, military planners were working on the assumption that just 12 jets would be carried aboard QE on her first operational deployment, with the rest left in the UK for the RAF to play with

PS:This is simply hilarious.The RN to get just 12 for the 50K t carrier ,sailing into "harm's way",and the RAF to "play" with the rest!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2017 17:41

And some more.As this piece says,

EMALS is a poster child for immature technologies sent to the field too soon.

So is the IN still "steaming ahead" regardless with its majestic plans for a Yanqui style EMALS carrier ? I wonder which aircraft the IN plans to launch from its very own EMALS leviathan,since the F-18s cannot take the strain of an EMALS launch!

Donald Trump's Problem With the Navy's Electromagnetic Airplane Catapult, Explained
USS Ford's shaky new aircraft catapult has attracted the ire of the Commander-in-Chief.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... t-carrier/

Refitting the Gerald R. Ford with steam would cost hundreds of millions (if not billions ) of dollars. Ford is already the most expensive ship of all time, costing $12.8 billion in construction costs and another $4.7 billion in research and development costs. Ford is also three years behind schedule, and a steam conversion would send the carrier back to the shipyards for at least a year, if not two, just weeks from commissioning.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2017 17:55

Oooh er!..... Brutal baby what?!

Navy should return to 'goddamned steam' on carrier, Trump says
https://www.navytimes.com/articles/trum ... rier-emals

Navy should return to 'goddamned steam' on carrier, Trump says
By: Jon Simkins, May 11, 2017 (Photo Credit: Evan Vucci/AP)
President Trump says the Navy should abandon longstanding plans for electro-magnetic catapults for carrier aviation and return to the traditional steam-powered launch and recovery system, according to the president's interview with TIME.

In the interview, Trump was asked about the future of Ford-class carrier technology and he specifically addressed perceived differences between the antiquated steam-powered system and the Ford's new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, also known as EMALS.

"You know the catapult is quite important," said Trump. "So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said, 'You don’t use steam anymore for catapult?' 'No sir.' I said, 'Ah, how is it working?' 'Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.'"

The president's attitude became increasingly skeptical when discussing the switch to a new launch technology.

"It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated. You have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said — and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be — 'Sir, we’re staying with digital.' I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good."

The system replacing the steam-powered launch and recovery system, however, isn't digital, but electromagnetic. For years the Navy has struggled to get the new technology up and running. *( But are pushing it hard for (sucker) India to buy!!!)

Navy Times
EMALS fizzles in first public launch aboard the Ford

The EMALS technology, installed for the first time on the Ford, aims to improve efficiency and substantially reduce cost of maintenance, a vast improvement over the fund-draining, maintenance-intensive steam catapult technology, which is less compatible with modern propulsion systems.

The switch to the EMALS, as well as other technological advancements, is estimated to save the Navy $4 billion in maintenance costs over the course of the ship's 50-year lifetime, Navy officials say.

The new Ford-class carriers are built with two newly-designed reactors that can produce 250 percent more electrical capacity than the carriers of previous generations.

The 90,000-ton carrier Ford is widely considered the most technologically advanced — and most expensive — warship in history, coming in with a cost of $12.9 billion. The ship set sail for the first time in April.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 May 2017 18:06

I had predicted an internet tamasha and the comrade Phillip hasn't disappointed. In a few months there will be aircraft launched from the Ford and we could all go back to our lives and Trump could pick some other technology he knows nothing about to talk extensively about.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2017 18:15

It's Commander-in-Chief Trump,the Donald himself who hasn't disappointed....apart from EMALS itself!

The real tamasha is that the Ford can't launch anything other than paper planes ,unless it wants its F-18s falling apart,judging from the above reports.

PS:Its comrade "Filipov"!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 May 2017 18:26

The real tamasha is that the Ford can't launch anything other than paper planes ,unless it wants its F-18s falling apart,judging from the above reports

Of course that is not the case as you will see over the next few months. They've finished dead load testing on the carrier installed EMALS earlier this year (or late last year) and will embark on full envelope testing once the carrier is commissioned later this summer or early autumn. Not long to go for that. Doing technology is hard and it takes time to bring about changes such as this. But this is of course irrelevant since the timelines for the Vishal don't call for a first in class system..As mentioned, there will be likely 4 if not more operational EMALS equipped carriers by the time the Vishal is commissioned. The technology will be mainstream with the USN.

They will naturally require problem solving and will work past first in class system issues as is the norm with new equipment coming straight from developmental testing. DT revealed envelope issues which they have begun (or will shortly) testing after making corrections. This is why you do this sort of stuff.

In the meantime, watch the EMALS launch an E-2D and F-35C -

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 12 May 2017 21:32

^ Philip is right on this one. EMALs are still in the first segment of the Life cycle Curve, whereas steam power is reliable. Hence, its slight performance lag is preferable to a high efficiency but unreliable system.

The same goes for the carriers we are building, we ask CSY to build a 40,000 ton ship. When they are still coming to grips with it, we launch design study and announce that next carrier will be 65,000 ton. They should have built same class ships as a follow on, to leverage the experience gained by the shipyard. The 3rd ship could have had a small "plug" to extend it to 48,000 tons, which the shipyard could do more easily. This is what is followed by the Japanese, to very good effect.

Incremental technology upgradation at smooth and quick rate, and better than previous generation. They kaizen the whole thing, while everyone else is battling with the next big thing.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 May 2017 21:34

Philip is right on this one. EMALs are still in the first segment of the Life cycle Curve, whereas steam power is reliable. Hence, its slight performance lag is preferable to a high efficiency but unreliable system.

When is the Vishal expected to be commissioned? How many EMALS equipped carriers will be operational by then and how many Sorties would they have generated out at sea? Vishal appears to be a 2030+ vessel, and in that time-frame, as I have mentioned you will have 3-4 operational EMALS equipped carriers. This assumes the French don't reverse their carrier plans and the USAF does not follow through on the shorter build cycle that they are currently considering which would mean one additional carrier by 2033 (total of 5). You are talking about time frames where the number of steam and EMALS equipped carriers are approaching parity.

Building additional STOBAR carriers while also working on a larger CATOBAR carrier need not be mutually exclusive. It will take a long time to conceptualize, design, build and put to service a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier with a powerful air wing. You are looking at a 12-15 year project at the very minimum so the technologies you choose to integrate will have to factor this in.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 12 May 2017 22:29

^ And why is Vishal a 2030+ vessel ? Perhaps something to do with 65000 ton weight, and fitment of top end stuff like EMALS ? Pls remember, when the Vishal was proposed in 2009-10 time frame, the navy never expected the platform to take 20 years.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 May 2017 22:32

dinesh_kimar wrote:^ And why is Vishal a 2030+ vessel ? Perhaps something to do with 65000 ton weight, and fitment of top end stuff like EMALS ? Pls remember, when the Vishal was proposed in 2009-10 time frame, the navy never expected the platform to take 20 years.

You can keep churning out the current carrier design in the interim, but if the IN wants a more capable vessel it will take time at least at par with what it has taken others. As I said it is not a mutually exclusive decision..they can concurrently work on the design of a more capable aircraft carrier while procuring one or two examples of the Vikrant but if the IN has determined it needs X capability it will take time.

Also proposing something is not what counts, but funding it does. How much did the MOD put down for the program in 2009?