Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Aug 2017 18:58

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^What's more efficient: changing the lift or getting a new cv?

Neither. You will require some redesign and a significant down time if you want to cut up the existing carriers. Best option is probably to make the MiG-29 work or have a backup which in this case would be the N-LCA MK2, Sea Gripen or the F-18E/F (if it with its folded wingspan can fit the lifts).

changing the lift or getting a new cv?

I think it is pretty clear that this will not be the only reason to buy a new AC("hey we don't really need a new carrier but we are getting on only because the lifts on the existing ones are too small"). Now for a future carrier, the trade space would involve just building another Vikrant configuration, a modified Vikrant configuration (to support larger aircraft, perhaps the F-35B), or a bigger carrier that inserts things like Catapults etc. It will be a capability based trade with cost dictating MOD enthusiasm and timelines. For all practical purposes, the two current carriers would likely serve for the considerable future with the existing lifts so the rafale is probably not an option there. You could possibly also rule out the F-18E depending upon whether it fits on the lifts, and the Sea Gripen can be ruled out based on maturity. You are basically then back to MiG-29Ks, and the Naval LCA.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 15 Aug 2017 19:37

"You are basically then back to MiG-29Ks, and the Naval LCA."

Exactly.If the 29ks were working as advertised, we would not be having discussions. The NLCA is a long ways away.

Given this:

"Naval Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba had said in December 2016, that the LCA was "not up to the mark yet", due to which they were searching for another fighter aircraft for carrier operations within the next five years."

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

It is all devolving into circular reasoning. Why do they need another a/c within the next five years? Possibly IIUC, the 29Ks are not 'up to the mark' nor is the current NLCA and the Mk2 is more than five years away. The F35Bs won't fit the lifts on the new Vikrant, the F18s and the Rafale Ms have not been tested for ski jumps and sea Gripen is as ubiquitous as Grendel.

That is the context for the question. Does it make sense to have a slightly bigger lift on the new Vikrant vs. waiting around for Vishaal or the NLCA Mk2?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Aug 2017 19:45

I don't think it is that straight forward. Depending upon what the requirements and the analysis was before the IN embarked on the naval fighter acquisition path you could well end up with very limited options. The SH even with the folded wings may not fit the current lifts. The retrofit may be extensive, and may involve taking the carriers out of action for a significant time. IMHO the simplest and easiest path may as well be invest in the MiG-29K improvement and accelerate Naval-LCA.

Things could change if the Super Hornet can fit on the existing two carriers and if M&S and subsequent actual testing reveals a value add over and above the MiG-29K in terms of STOBAR environment performance and reliability etc. The cheapest option by far would likely be to invest in makign improvements to the MiG-29Ks and getting some of the originally advertised performance and reliability back.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Aug 2017 20:12

Why when designing carriers,the lifts MUST be oversized,given their long lifetime of service,40+ yrs. usually,during which time they could operate 3 diff. types of aircraft.Is it the CDG that has lifts that can accommodate two aircraft at a time? I know that there have been limitations with the Gorky/VikA,but IAC-1 should'be anticipated a larger future naval aircraft and oversized the lifts.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Aug 2017 20:24

brar, well I am beating a dead horse then. If the F-35B cannot fit, it cannot.

By the way, what are the dimensions of the lifts on the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Aug 2017 20:26

Not sure whether the CDG can carry two Rafales at the same time but the elevator width extends well beyond the wingspan of the Rafale and they are capable of accommodating two aircraft at the same time (The E-2 actually has a smaller wingspan than the Rafale). The Nimitz and the Ford can carry two Super Hornets at the same time -

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Aug 2017 20:29

Trust the Americans to do one better. that is a cool gif indeed.

But do we know the dimensions of the lifts on the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Aug 2017 20:37

Rakesh wrote:Trust the Americans to do one better. that is a cool gif indeed.

But do we know the dimensions of the lifts on the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant?

The French and British have done the same. The QE Class carrier's elevator can accommodate 2 F-35Bs as well. I don't know the exact dimensions of the lifts but one could always ballpark based on the gif i posted earlier (using he MiG-29's known folded wingspan and length as a reference) . Their weight lmit is 30 tons.

Edit :

FWIW this is what I could dig up on the Vikramaditya -

Primary Elevator - 19.2m x 10.3m with 30t capacity
Secondary Elevator - 18.5m x 4.7m at 20t capacity

If these figures are accurate this means that the SH may be able to squeeze in while the Rafale won't without folded wings. The F-35B also narrowly misses out.

___________

The radical conversion scheme has been prepared by the Neva Design Bureau in St. Petersburg, which originally designed both the Moskva and Kiev classes, under the leadership of Chief designer Boris Vasilyevich Shmyelev. The existing long-range anti-ship, surface-to-air and ASW missile systems on the bow section will be removed, and the ship will be converted to a flush-deck CTOL configuration with "ski jump" assisted take-off and arrested landing similar to the scheme as adopted for the Russian Navy's Admiral Kuznetsov. The modified ships will have a full load displacement of 45,400t. The flight deck will offer a 195m TO run with 14 ski-jump, and a 198m angled landing section with three arrestor cables. The converted carrier will be much more efficient and capable than the original design, but it will not be possible to simultaneously perform TO and landing operations. Furthermore, another significant limit is probably to be identified in the elevators (a main 19.2m x 10.3m with 30t capacity and a secondary 18.5m x 4.7m at 20t) which were originally designed for air operations with the Yak-141 and cannot be modified due to the ships' closed hangar design.

The existing 200,000shp power plant on eight high-pressure boilers and four geared turbines is to be maintained, but surprisingly enough maximum speed is now given at 28 knots as against the original figure of 32 - although the conversion entails only a relatively modest increase in displacement. The close-in anti-aircraft/anti-missile weapon suite will be increased with several KASTHAN gun/missile systems. The electronics will also be extensively modified, with the removal of the long-range surveillance and missile guidance radars previously associated with the anti-ship and air defence missile systems and the addition of latest-generation communications and ESM/ECM devices...~Naval Forces 1999

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Aug 2017 20:41

So if the F-35B has a wingspan of 11 meters and since the aircraft cannot fit on the lifts of the Vikramaditya or the Vikrant, the lift dimensions should be smaller than 11 meters. I believe the MiG-29K's folded wing span is close to 8 meters. So therefore the lift's dimension should be between 8.5 - 10 meters, no?

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

Added Later: I was not that far off (with the primary elevator)....but thank you. Brar, from where did you pull this info from? Would the Vikrant's lift info be there as well?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Aug 2017 20:59

And since the lifts cannot be modified - as per the quote above - modifying the lift on the Vikramaditya appears to be closed. Wow, the Russians really gave us a wonderful vessel.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Aug 2017 21:07

Rakesh wrote:So if the F-35B has a wingspan of 11 meters and since the aircraft cannot fit on the lifts of the Vikramaditya or the Vikrant, the lift dimensions should be smaller than 11 meters. I believe the MiG-29K's folded wing span is close to 8 meters. So therefore the lift's dimension should be between 8.5 - 10 meters, no?

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

Added Later: I was not that far off (with the primary elevator)....but thank you. Brar, from where did you pull this info from? Would the Vikrant's lift info be there as well?

The information is from a Naval Forces article from 1999. The F-35B and Rafale are out. The F-35C can still technically fit the elevators since it has a narrower wingspan than the F-18E. The Sea Gripen can fit as well.

So back to my point..the lowest cost option may well be to introduce fixes to the MiG-29ks and overcome the deficiencies. Alternatively, the more expensive option would be to consider the F-18E/F but that will also come with risk as the vendor would have to demonstrate performance using both M&S and live testing. For all we know the new interest in a new naval fighter program could be a means to get the Russians to provide improvements and design fixes as per the INs assessment. It could also mean that the IN has done the math and thinks that some of its concerns are strong enough to warrant a hedge.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 15 Aug 2017 23:05

Can the Mig29K be fixed? Can the existing airframes take structural mods that are apparently required to fix the problems seen? How about the engine reliability requirement? It sounds like the engines are so unreliable that the carrier cant operate out of range from a shore based facility.

chola · Post by **chola** » 15 Aug 2017 23:40

Are we sure that Vikrant's lifts are limited to the MiG-29K? That makes no sense. Why wouldn't they be oversized? Why would the IN tender the 57 fighters to SAAB, GD and Dassault if they were limited?

Already know the Gorshkov is a POS. The layout and the position of the elevators in mean that any alteration of the lifts would mean massive structural changes because the dumb things are located on the center line of the flight deck not on the edges. But the Vikrant has lifts in correct spots and they should be designed for larger aircraft than the MiG-29.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Aug 2017 23:56

Rakesh wrote:Added Later: I was not that far off (with the primary elevator)....but thank you. Brar, from where did you pull this info from? Would the Vikrant's lift info be there as well?

chola wrote:Are we sure that Vikrant's lifts are limited to the MiG-29K? That makes no sense. Why wouldn't they be oversized? Why would the IN tender the 57 fighters to SAAB, GD and Dassault if they were limited?

Measured via Google maps -

The Vikrant's lift shaft is less than 11 m wide. The actual elevator would be perhaps 10.5 m. The MiG-29K will fit comfortably. The SH will just about fit (10 m folded wingspan)

The Rafale M & F-35B aren't doable.

A modification to the Vikrant might be possible but that'll only be during a serious MLU rebuild, maybe two decades down the line.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Aug 2017 00:09

Best alternative IMO - would be to bite the bullet on more MiG-29Ks, if they can be had cheap enough. We've already sunk $6-7 bn into the two carriers may as well spend a bit more and give them a proper sized air component.

Meanwhile build a complementary carrier force around our LHDs - four Juan Carlos class LHDs with a F-35B complement would have a fighting potential equivalent or better than two Vikrant class carriers with MiG-29s.

By 2035, retire the older MiGs, transfer airworthy ones to shore duty (or sell them off to Bangladesh) and retire the Vikramaditya (or sell it off with the MiG-29K complement). Modify the Vikrant in deep refit to embark F-35Bs.

Sanction a parallel project for two 75,000 ton CATOBAR carriers to be commissioned by 2035; to be equipped with the N-PAK FAs and/or F-35Cs (or potentially even N-AMCAs). It'll be quite affordable in that time-frame. By 2025, our defence budget should be comfortably in excess of $100 billion.

chola · Post by **chola** » 16 Aug 2017 00:21

Viv S wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Added Later: I was not that far off (with the primary elevator)....but thank you. Brar, from where did you pull this info from? Would the Vikrant's lift info be there as well?

chola wrote:Are we sure that Vikrant's lifts are limited to the MiG-29K? That makes no sense. Why wouldn't they be oversized? Why would the IN tender the 57 fighters to SAAB, GD and Dassault if they were limited?
Measured via Google maps -

The Vikrant's lift shaft is less than 11 m wide. The actual elevator would be perhaps 10.5 m. The MiG-29K will fit comfortably. The SH will just about fit (10 m folded wingspan)

The Rafale M & F-35B aren't doable.

A modification to the Vikrant might be possible but that'll only be during a serious MLU rebuild, maybe two decades down the line.

Yeah, Viv, it finally just made some sense to me after reading Austin's post of MiG's response to the CAG report on the 29K. It made me sick to my stomach.

MiG said that the both the Vikramaditya and the Vikrant are designed only for MiG products. My god, we sold our future to Natasha. How could this be? Vikrant is OURS. How could we allow its specifications to be designed to Russia's benefit instead of our own?

If the IN is tendering to Dassault and others, then maybe the admirals know better and we are not locked into MiG.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Aug 2017 00:46

sudeepj wrote:Can the Mig29K be fixed? Can the existing airframes take structural mods that are apparently required to fix the problems seen? How about the engine reliability requirement? It sounds like the engines are so unreliable that the carrier cant operate out of range from a shore based facility.

The structure will be fixed. IN wanted the Russians to fix it. But, we know where that would go. So, they are looking at using LCA Navy's learnings to fix the Mig-29k. The engine(s) problem is more of a myth though.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Aug 2017 01:51

India wants new subs, while ones they already have sail with broken periscopes
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12 ... periscopes

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Aug 2017 02:55

Sell the Vicky back to the Russians along with the 29s, convert the Vikrant to a training vessel and buy 4 Wasp class size based on the Vikrant hull design to carry 20 F35Bs each and be done with it.

If the IN, let the Russians corner them into elevators that locked in the 29s for the Gorshkov, that's just another element in a really bad deal. If the Russians snookered the IN into doing the same for the Vikrant, they clearly do not know what they are doing and I would not trust them with 75KT Vishaals.

Never buy anything from the Russians again—especially not this PAK/FA nonsense or those frigates they don't have engines for.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Aug 2017 03:19

Cosmo_R wrote:If the IN, let the Russians corner them into elevators that locked in the 29s for the Gorshkov, that's just another element in a really bad deal.

If the Vikrant's elevators are between 10-11 meters then they will support the MiG-29K, F-18 A-F/EAG, Su-33, F-35C, Naval-LCA, Sea Gripen. They wouldn't be able to support the Rafale or the F-35B. I think the IN didn't much care for having elevators that could fit 2 aircraft so they designed for one to support a fairly large number of naval aircraft that existed at the time.

chola · Post by **chola** » 16 Aug 2017 05:19

brar_w wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:If the IN, let the Russians corner them into elevators that locked in the 29s for the Gorshkov, that's just another element in a really bad deal.
If the Vikrant's elevators are between 10-11 meters then they will support the MiG-29K, F-18 A-F/EAG, Su-33, F-35C, Naval-LCA, Sea Gripen. They wouldn't be able to support the Rafale or the F-35B. I think the IN didn't much care for having elevators that could fit 2 aircraft so they designed for one to support a fairly large number of naval aircraft that existed at the time.

This makes better sense.

What do you think of MiG's official reply on the 29K and the Vikrant? Just Roos bull manure?

"It should be mentioned that Vikramaditya and Vikrant aircraft carriers are tailored for carrying Russian-designed aircrafts including MiG-29K/KUB. All technical systems of the ship, radars and other deck-based systems were produced in Russia and were designed to be operated only with MiG aircrafts."

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Aug 2017 05:40

They were hardly going to come out and say that they'll be happy to help the IN in integrating an aircraft that knocks them out of the market. Carrier fast jet market is extremely tiny and if you go into competitive acquisition from international suppliers it gets even smaller down to just a few potential customers. The IN and the MOD would know exactly what incorporating a new type into its carriers would entail in terms of cost and complexity. They will also know exactly where these new types stand vis-a-vis its experience with the Mig-29K. So what MiG says is not really relevant to what the IN and MOD ultimately decides to pursue.

As I said earlier, for all we know this could be something put up only to extract more concessions from MiG and the Russians or it could be a result of some serious concerns the IN has with the system's ability to meet its future needs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Aug 2017 16:29

Interview with IN Chief

We back indigenisation, but Tejas didn’t fit the bill: Navy chief

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Aug 2017 16:35

Look,we've been on this beaten track umpteen times.At the time of Gorky acquisition,there was nothing else around,nothing worthwhile from the West and certainly no carrier based aircraft offered. The Varyag was too large,too much hull repair work reqd. no Indian port facilities available for her,etc.
Now,there's nothing wrong with the carrier.She's an excellent vessel and the only real fighting fit carrier in Asia barring US/Western ones on deployment. IAC-1 and the VikA should be in fine fettle once the 29K's glitches have been sorted out.MIG is building new ones for the RuN,so the perfected ones should be sent over here first ,as even the Kuz is going in for a lengthy refit/upgrade based upon her Syrian experience. There was a report that the dust is being removed from the NLCA and serious efforts are being made by the ADA to regain the IN's confidence and have the NLCA/MK-2 std. version flying within two years.Should that happen, we could have a sqd. or two by 2025. The same bird could even serve aboard the 4 amphibs if they're JC size with modified flight decks,or as in an above post,operate F-35Bs if/when available.But until the larger CV arrives around 2030,we will be operating only STOBAR or STOVL aircraft.

Perhaps the second QE-2 may come up for sale,Britain's BREXIT woes,etc. In that case larger aircraft than the 29K could be an option.

chola · Post by **chola** » 16 Aug 2017 17:01

Don't even care about the Gorshkov anymore. It is what it is -- Russian through and through and the IN will work with it.

But the MiG statement about the Vikrant really fvcking bothers me. A carrier last 40 to 50 years.

It is our carrier. Not Russia's.

But the MiG statement sounds like a blackmail. The nagging fear that we might have handed the Russians the Vikrant's future by incorporating Russian design and equipment makes me nauseous.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Aug 2017 18:03

Philip wrote:.MIG is building new ones for the RuN,so the perfected ones should be sent over here first ,as even the Kuz is going in for a lengthy refit/upgrade based upon her Syrian experience.

Back on earth, the OEM has publicly denied the existence of any design or performance deficiency with their aircraft or the existence of a "perfected variant" and a "not so perfected variant" distinction.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Aug 2017 18:19

Pakis Analyst worried views on IN

India’s Naval Development: Implications For Region – OpEd

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 16 Aug 2017 18:21

We really do have knack for repeatedly hitting the kulhaadi on our leg don't we?

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 Aug 2017 18:48

brar_w wrote:
Philip wrote:.MIG is building new ones for the RuN,so the perfected ones should be sent over here first ,as even the Kuz is going in for a lengthy refit/upgrade based upon her Syrian experience.
Back on earth, the OEM has publicly denied the existence of any design or performance deficiency with their aircraft or the existence of a "perfected variant" and a "not so perfected variant" distinction.

chola · Post by **chola** » 16 Aug 2017 18:52

Kashi wrote:We really do have knack for repeatedly hitting the kulhaadi on our leg don't we?

Yes, because we are using a Russian kulhaadi. After we lop off our leg with a few chops, the Russians will sell us a wooden leg from Rodina.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 16 Aug 2017 19:09

chola wrote:Yes, because we are using a Russian kulhaadi. After we lop off our leg with a few chops, the Russians will sell us a wooden leg from Rodina.

No, not just the Russian kulhaadi. We were shafted by Americans and Boeing on the rusty wind tunnel for C-17 offsets weren't we?

We were shafted by the French on Mirage 2000 upgrades weren't we?

chola · Post by **chola** » 16 Aug 2017 19:23

The C-17s are among the most well received imports we ever had. The wind tunnel offset is an extra on top of what we got. Nothing about the C-17 or M2K deals mortgaged our future like the Vikrant if MiG's statement has any real bite.

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 Aug 2017 19:37

Austin wrote:Pakis Analyst worried views on IN

India’s Naval Development: Implications For Region – OpEd

If it wasn't for the name and designation of the writer, i would have thought a high school student wrote this as homework.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Aug 2017 21:39

chola wrote:The C-17s are among the most well received imports we ever had. The wind tunnel offset is an extra on top of what we got. Nothing about the C-17 or M2K deals mortgaged our future like the Vikrant if MiG's statement has any real bite.

This is a case of "my bias is better than your bias".

The wind tunnel was not on top of it. It was "part of the offset". It was a way of circumventing the problem that India couldn't have had a way to produce 30% in offset so late in the game. Now, let us come to the wind tunnel itself. It is a 50 year old model which Boeing was about to pack and throw away. Instead of paying people to discard it, they got it accounted for in offsets! Great for them I say. On our side, I have not read or heard of a single run on the said wind tunnel till now. Has anybody else from the industry heard anything about it? On the other hand, I know that GTRE is setting up a couple of tunnels. ISRO has already set up theirs. So, you can infer ....

You may hand waive as much as you want but the IAF/IA/IN would not have been a meaningful force without the almost free equipment from USSR, and the PAF/PA/PN from America. And all four countries were working in their own self-interest. The equations have changed and yet all 4 countries are working in their self-interest. Any other way to paint this is bias.

When things line up, an aircraft carrier is always designed around the aircraft it is designed to carry. If you design yours to carry SH/Rafale, you would be strategically dependent on USA/France. There is no other way to paint that either.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 16 Aug 2017 21:43

chola wrote:The C-17s are among the most well received imports we ever had. The wind tunnel offset is an extra on top of what we got. Nothing about the C-17 or M2K deals mortgaged our future like the Vikrant if MiG's statement has any real bite.

I tried to use known figures of the length of the Vikrant (262 meters) and some open source pictures to estimate the Vikrants lift size. The lift platform appears to be about 10.5 meters, while the lift cavity is a bit more. 10.5 meters will fit the super hornet and the F35C. The only naval fighter it cant take as is is the RafaleM, and its possible that I underestimated the lift size, for instance if the carrier is 270 meters and not 262. Further, to my naive eyes, it looked like the platform could be enlarged if needed as the shaft itself is larger.

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Aug 2017 23:21

Guys, Dr Saraswat said that in his talk in Aero India. For the VikAd /Gorshokov, the only aircraft that will fit is the Mig 29K. The problem is the height of the hanger. The Navy I think wanted the NLCA's tail to be able to fold so that the height reduces.

The Russians are right. The only aircraft for the VikAd is the Mig29K. All this RFI business is just a cover to get more Mig 29Ks. That is the the ONLY aircraft that will fit both the Vikrant and the VikAd . The Navy is now wedded to it . It is like the monkey that put it's hand into a cookie jar with a narrow neck and grabbed one and can't pull it's hand out of the jar. Well and truly stuck.

It is the absolute vendor lock/ single option - no contest situation. The RFI business is to just make it look like it isn't. Come on. What other alternatives exist, Rafale, Super Hornet? come on, those are cat launched planes with huge performance penalties out of a ski jump launch, Sea Gripen, that is a perfect paper plane, F 35B ? wont fit the lifts..

There you go. That leaves only one thing out. Forget about the fact that it doesnt work.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 16 Aug 2017 23:25

Austin wrote:Interview with IN Chief

We back indigenisation, but Tejas didn’t fit the bill: Navy chief

The chief clearly and unambiguously states IN's plans for the next carrier:

As for the IAC-II [second indigenous aircraft carrier], we are taking up the case with the ministry for which we will get an approval sooner than later. We are looking at a CATOBAR aircraft carrier above 65,000 tonnes and with EMALS and an advanced air strip.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Aug 2017 23:54

Vina,

I remember Dr. Saraswat lambasting the strawman argument that LCA's wing cannot fold (at the moment). But I don't remember the height issue. Mig-29k and NLCA have the same height.

I hope IN sticks with LCA Navy Mk2. I can't imagine Rafale or F-18s having much higher hang time/armament load taking off from a skijump. The Sea Gripen is laughable. I am yet to see a naval aircraft conversion which hasn't needed decades to perfect. Dassault and Boeing got it right going from a naval variant to the AF variant. We should do the same with LCA Mk2.

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Aug 2017 01:19

Americans could not install the EMALs on Nimitz class that is powered by two A4W reactors which have a capacity of about 550 MW each ; the G Ford class which has the EMALs has new reactors supposedly with much higher power output . To get sense of relative size Charles de gaulle has two reactors of 150 MW each , I wonder what kind of power source we have in mind for IAC-II and more importantly the form factor to be able to provide both propulsion and power to the EMALs , things do not add up for me.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Aug 2017 01:30

Negi: As per wiki chacha, the Gerald Ford Class carriers have the A1B reactor...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor

The A1B reactor plant total power is classified, but the electrical power generation is 3 times that of the current A4W plants on Nimitz-class carriers. It is estimated that the total power output of the A1B will be a 25% increase on that provided by the A4W, i.e. around 700 MW. Improved efficiency in the total plant is expected to provide improved output to both propulsion and electrical systems.