INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

[chetak]

Everything about this picture. Beautiful Kochi. That lovely cloud deck. That green cover. And there in the middle, Vikrant

via@ShivAroor

[Vips]

2 to 3 small flat-tops aka helicopter carriers with 8-10 jets does not seem like a bad idea. Would give a quick fix solution to not having the budget or the will to go for 65-75K carriers.

[nam]

Someone posted a closer shot of the MFSTAR tower in teetar and it looks like the hole has been covered by a metal sheet. I am assuming it will receive a MFSTAR in the future.

There is also murmur on teetar that IN has decided to drop MFSTAR and just go with Barak8 radar, similar to INS Vik! We have to just wait and find out.

[sajaym]

An awesome video for flight simmers like me!

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/14231 ... 77/video/1

[John]

Someone posted a closer shot of the MFSTAR tower in teetar and it looks like the hole has been covered by a metal sheet. I am assuming it will receive a MFSTAR in the future.

That’s why I said earlier it seems like it won’t get MF STAR, installation of the radar shouldn’t take that long and we ordered them a while back so it shouldn’t be a case of manufacturing delay.

Since Barak-8 hasn’t been installed as well it seems like we are switching to another SAM system perhaps SR-SAM and will likely either not install another radar in place of MF-STAR (use RAN-40l/Lanza for targeting) or develop a domestic alt.

[KSingh]

Disadvantages
1) Sharing the reactor tech with India
2) Sharing the aircraft carrier tech with India
3) Assuming 1 & 2 passes, our MoD Babus will get asthma attack when they see the astronomical cost the French will charge for this.

Drop the nuclear reactor & substitute for conventional power and the cost will come down significantly. But then the cost savings for the French may not exist.

The infrastructure to support refueling, plus the storage/disposal of nuclear fuel for a single ship could be cost prohibitive as well. Whereas the infrastructure to support the future SSN and SSBNs are in the works, I have not seen such for a nuclear powered surface fleet.

Given that Vikky retires in the 2040s, the IN surely *has* to build at least 2 IAC-2 simultaneously if they want to realise their dream of being a 3 carrier navy within the next 30 years.


It genuinely blows my mind how myopic Indian planners are, even when India is a 5tn economy (the middle of this decade) India won’t have a SINGLE carrier under construction. When it is a >$15Tn economy (late 2030s) it will only have 1 under construction. To put this into perspective when the US was a 15Tn economy they had a global force of nuclear powered supercarriers


The navy is begging and pleading for just 1 IAC-2 but the discussion should be 2 vs 3.

[Karan M]

Someone posted a closer shot of the MFSTAR tower in teetar and it looks like the hole has been covered by a metal sheet. I am assuming it will receive a MFSTAR in the future.

That’s why I said earlier it seems like it won’t get MF STAR, installation of the radar shouldn’t take that long and we ordered them a while back so it shouldn’t be a case of manufacturing delay.

Since Barak-8 hasn’t been installed as well it seems like we are switching to another SAM system perhaps SR-SAM and will likely either not install another radar in place of MF-STAR (use RAN-40l/Lanza for targeting) or develop a domestic alt.

The LRDE had a 4 panel AESA for the IAC proposed. Would be interesting to see if that proposal was approved.

[gpurewal]

The infrastructure to support refueling, plus the storage/disposal of nuclear fuel for a single ship could be cost prohibitive as well. Whereas the infrastructure to support the future SSN and SSBNs are in the works, I have not seen such for a nuclear powered surface fleet.

Given that Vikky retires in the 2040s, the IN surely *has* to build at least 2 IAC-2 simultaneously if they want to realise their dream of being a 3 carrier navy within the next 30 years.


It genuinely blows my mind how myopic Indian planners are, even when India is a 5tn economy (the middle of this decade) India won’t have a SINGLE carrier under construction. When it is a >$15Tn economy (late 2030s) it will only have 1 under construction. To put this into perspective when the US was a 15Tn economy they had a global force of nuclear powered supercarriers


The navy is begging and pleading for just 1 IAC-2 but the discussion should be 2 vs 3.

It still comes down to infrastructure investments. Cochin can only build one IAC sized ship at a time, so the government will need to invest heavily into it, in order to expand its construction capabilities. Maybe, it can become India's own Newport News shipyard

[Vips]

Pipavav and L&T shiyards both are capable of building carriers but the PSU unions will move heaven and earth to make sure these private sector yards will not get the mandate to build done.

The P75I was initially reserved to be built only by the private sector but the policy was under pressure neutralized and we see that Mazgaon Docks got to bid for it. If tomorrow L&T wins the tender on merit they are already proposing that the order be split into two for work to be also done at Mazgaon Docks

[KSingh]

Given that Vikky retires in the 2040s, the IN surely *has* to build at least 2 IAC-2 simultaneously if they want to realise their dream of being a 3 carrier navy within the next 30 years.


It genuinely blows my mind how myopic Indian planners are, even when India is a 5tn economy (the middle of this decade) India won’t have a SINGLE carrier under construction. When it is a >$15Tn economy (late 2030s) it will only have 1 under construction. To put this into perspective when the US was a 15Tn economy they had a global force of nuclear powered supercarriers


The navy is begging and pleading for just 1 IAC-2 but the discussion should be 2 vs 3.

It still comes down to infrastructure investments. Cochin can only build one IAC sized ship at a time, so the government will need to invest heavily into it, in order to expand its construction capabilities. Maybe, it can become India's own Newport News shipyard

In that case for the majority of our lifetimes the Indian navy will only be a 2 carrier navy.


IAC-2 comes online—> Vikaramditya is decommissioned
IAC-3(?) comes online—> IAC-1 is decommissioned


The US has had a carrier under construction continuously for about 3 decades now whereas India continues to take huge gaps between single ship class builds.

The IN (and leadership above it) simply have not undertaken the mindset shift into possessing a carrier force.

A nation grows great when men plant trees under whose shade they know they will never sit. This is the antithesis to what is happening with Indian defence planning.

[sajaym]

This is the antithesis to what is happening with Indian defence planning.

Very true. In fact, here is where the Navy lost the plot

The proposed design of the second carrier class will be a new design, featuring significant changes from Vikrant

Freaking unbelievable! We are already operating/building ships which are just stretched versions of the previous design, even our nuclear submarines are steroid versions of the first design... Then why a new design for the next carrier?! If these guys were serious about a 3rd carrier, the minimum that they should have gone for is a stretched version of the INS Vikrant with bigger lifts.

I also wonder if it is technically feasible to build different modules of an aircraft carrier in different shipyards and integrate it in another. That way we could have Cochin Shipyard build another Vikrant in 2-3 modules, then add a catobar module from Mazagon dock and a nuclear propulsion module from L & T Shipyard, to get a stretched Vikrant with catobar & nuclear propulsion!

[shaun]

i guess the The new dry dock with a length of 310 m , width of 75m at the wider part and width of 60m at the narrower part and depth of 13m with a draught of up to 9.5m , can give us an idea of the things coming up for IAC2

[rajsunder]

PANG won't be entering service till the second half of the 2030's and it is likely going to be delayed given the complexity involved. IAC-1 is now in the water. If the IN does not require nuclear propulsion then it should simply iterate this design to meet budget, schedule and performance requirements for the future carrier aviation needs. Larger lifts to allow multiple aircraft, more power and cooling, and perhaps a Catapult if the IN thinks it will need larger payloads, naval 5GFA, or a more diverse and capable air-wing in the future. All of those things can be incrementally added to the basic design without throwing the entire design effort away and joining a 15-20 year French project which probably won't deploy operationally till 2040.

what makes you think that any option Indian Navy takes for IAC-2 would be faster than the French timelines you have mentioned?

[brar_w]

PANG won't be entering service till the second half of the 2030's and it is likely going to be delayed given the complexity involved. IAC-1 is now in the water. If the IN does not require nuclear propulsion then it should simply iterate this design to meet budget, schedule and performance requirements for the future carrier aviation needs. Larger lifts to allow multiple aircraft, more power and cooling, and perhaps a Catapult if the IN thinks it will need larger payloads, naval 5GFA, or a more diverse and capable air-wing in the future. All of those things can be incrementally added to the basic design without throwing the entire design effort away and joining a 15-20 year French project which probably won't deploy operationally till 2040.

what makes you think that any option Indian Navy takes for IAC-2 would be faster than the French timelines you have mentioned?

It isn't the French timelines that I am worried about, though, rest assured, even for the French Navy, PANG won't deploy before 2040. But what was mentioned here was to work with the French, and produce the design here. That means concurrent development, and industrial cooperation leading up to production. So basically producing something at the same time the French are doing which means a lot of the mistakes will be repeated. So you can add a number of years to the French timelines.

If, on the other hand, IAC-2 is a modification of IAC-1, then from a design perspective, from a shipbuilding infrastructure perspective, and from a workforce perspective, you aren't reinventing the wheel but rather picking 2-3 areas you want to modify or replace, and then focusing all your R&D on those while evolving everything else from the baseline IAC-1 standards that you are more familiar with. Jumping on PANG would mean a new ship, nuclear propulsion, digital design tools that are likely not yet fully mature etc etc. While it will most certainly lead to a better Carrier, it is not something that is going to be kind on either cost or schedule.

You are potentially looking at years after the French field the PANG before the IN gets hands on a sister vessel built in India. And because the basis of PANG's design is to use the French design and industrial base and grow to where it can begin construction in 2025-2027 timeframe, the cost and time required for the IN to do the same will be much higher. Designs have to either comply with the industrial abilities of the nation or you have to give shipbuilding and suppliers time to get to where you want them to be before launching the effort. For example, back in the Ford class inception, the project manager wanted 100% IDS with CVN-78 (first in class). The industry pushed back and was not ready and the compromise they struck was to be fully IDS only by CVN-80 that started basic construction in the post 2020 timeframe. PANG is designed to begin production in the second half of the 2020's based on the French shipbuilding and supplier industries to use the required technology and do that. Their industry will now be funded so that it modernizes and hires the right sort of talent needed to advance the design and to be able to begin production in the 2025-2027 timeframe. That initial CAPEX (basic ship building and nuclear side of the house) will be in the hundreds of millions of not a few Billion euros. Any gaps between where their shipbuilding is from a technology and HR perspective and where the IN's supplier base is will only add to the timeline or require expensive re-design. This even varies between shipbuilders within the same nation. In the US for example BII is much further along in many of the new technology areas than HII thanks to the formers work to produce the Zumwalt class (and the investments that flowed into the yard to support that).

The point was that the French designed the carrier and carrier design and production roadmap based on their industrial capacity and abilities to meet certain key schedule (CdG retirements). You add IN's suppliers and government and private shipbuilders in India and you can be looking at dramatically different timelines. IAC-1 doesn't have the same challenges. And if IAC-2 is an incremental improvement over IAC-1, then you are looking at a much more manageable transition which is much more favorable to schedules and cost.

[Rakesh]

In the manner the IN wants, IAC-2 will be anything but an incremental improvement over IAC-1.

* IAC-1 is a STOBAR vessel with conventional propulsion.

* IAC-2 is planned to be a CATOBAR vessel with EMALS. They initially wanted nuclear propulsion, but are now reportedly settling for conventional propulsion because of the high cost of the reactor.

Apart from the tonnage issue, IAC-2 will be an entirely new design. I don't expect any movement on IAC-2 for another 3 - 4 years. So if by the mid-2020s, the keel is laid...it will take 15 years for the vessel to arrive. This is the Indian Navy's own estimate. So we are looking at an induction date of early 2040s. And that is assuming everything will go to plan from suppliers to construction to labour issues. This will be India's first attempt to build a CATOBAR. I can guarantee it will take longer than 15 years.

Incremental improvement (larger vessel, wider lifts, etc) is the path to adopt, but the Indian Navy does not want it. So CATOBAR it is and the Indian Navy will live with the timeline. If it took 13 years to build a 45K, STOBAR vessel...it will take longer than 15 years to build a 65K, CATOBAR vessel. To avoid this long delay between IAC-1 and IAC-2, it would be best to do another Vikrant Class vessel (but with incremental improvements) and then move on to the CATOBAR vessel.

In the next decade ---> does the Indian Navy want two aircraft carriers (Vikramaditya & Vikrant) or do they want three aircraft carriers (Vikramaditya, Vikrant + follow on Vikrant Class)? Because no matter which way you slice it, they will not get a CATOBAR vessel in the 2030s. That is just not going to happen, whether in house or by placing an order with a foreign shipyard like Naval Group. Indian Naval projects have a chequered history of being late and with a complex build like the one the Indian Navy is planning for IAC-2, it will be delayed.

I would not venture to build the first CATOBAR in India either, but rather build it at shipyard that has built a CATOBAR vessel before. And there are only two countries in the world that have shipyards with experience building a CATOBAR vessel - France and Amreeka. That will eliminate the risk. However the caveat should be that the Indian Naval Design Bureau needs to be involved from Day 1 in the design and development, along with Indian suppliers and shipyard workers. PANG has everything (apart from the tonnage) that the Indian Navy is looking for in an ideal CATOBAR vessel - nuclear power, EMALS, wide lifts to carry AEW aircraft like the E-2D Hawkeye, etc. To be honest, it does not even have to be PANG....just do an improvement over the Charles De Gaulle design. I just said PANG because that is what they are planning for right now.

Best is the enemy of good enough. Best = PANG, Good Enough = Charles De Gaulle.

But all of this talk is moot because the host country should be willing to part with aircraft carrier technology and nuclear reactor technology. I just don't see that happening.

[Rakesh]

By the time the keel for a CATOBAR vessel is laid, the Indian economy will be on a far higher trajectory than it is right now. At that stage, it would be best to look at two vessels instead of just one. Right now...the main obstacle to the CATOBAR is money. Time is the second enemy.

A follow on Vikrant Class vessel will eliminate both and clear the path for the CATOBAR which is where the Indian Navy is looking at. But keep the shipyard and the skills learnt from IAC-1 (Vikrant) alive with IAC-2 (follow on Vikrant).

[chetak]

* IAC-2 is planned to be a CATOBAR vessel with EMALS.



I would not venture to build the first CATOBAR in India either, but rather build it at shipyard that has built a CATOBAR vessel before. And there are only two countries in the world that have shipyards with that experience - France and Amreeka. However the caveat should be that the Indian Naval Design Bureau needs to be should be involved from day 1 in the design and development, along with Indian suppliers and shipyard workers. PANG has everything (apart from the tonnage) that the Indian Navy is looking for in an ideal CATOBAR vessel - nuclear power, EMALS, wide lifts to carry AEW aircraft like the E-2D Hawkeye, etc.

But all of this talk is moot because the host country should be willing to part with aircraft carrier technology and nuclear reactor technology. I just don't see that happening.

AFAIK, the Frenchies are using licensed ameriki steam CAT technology so their hands are completely tied.

and the caveat will be the deal breaker everywhere unless very big bucks are forked over and that we cannot do.

The amerikis just do not trust our very lax security processes. afghan nationals just don't have any business working on any super sensitive military project like they did in CSL.

wonder how many more jehadis are yet undiscovered and are deep undercover ISIS and taliban assets

the amerikis will just not part with any CATOBAR / emals tech, as far as, India is concerned.

there is a small chance that some minimal and residual muscle memory maybe from the CAT days of the old Vikrant is available and someone wise had the sense to retain the original CAT machinery and all spares in safe storage conditions so that the study and development project can be initiated, if not already underway

[Rakesh]

Chetak, in the absence of EMALS...the other option is steam catapults. The steam catapult on the Charles De Gaulle is from the US. I don't believe (but I could be wrong here) that the Amreekis parted with that tech to the French either.

And with the CATOBAR vessel the Indian Navy wants, it will have EMALS or steam catapults. Either CAT system will have to procured from the US...lock, stock and barrel. So whether we do it with the French or we do it ourselves, our hands are completely tied when it comes to the CAT system. The reason why I am in favour of partnering with a shipyard that has built a CATOBAR vessel in the past, is because it gives valuable insight into how the vessel is constructed. That will eliminate a good amount of delay.

[chetak]

Chetak, in the absence of EMALS...the other option is steam catapults. The steam catapult on the Charles De Gaulle is from the US. I don't believe (but I could be wrong here) that the Amreekis parted with that tech to the French either.

And with the CATOBAR vessel the Indian Navy wants, it will have EMALS or steam catapults. Either CAT system will have to procured from the US...lock, stock and barrel. So whether we do it with the French or we do it ourselves, our hands are completely tied when it comes to the CAT system. The reason why I am in favour of partnering with a shipyard that has built a CATOBAR vessel in the past, is because it gives valuable insight into how the vessel is constructed. That will eliminate a good amount of delay.

The CAT on the CDG and the ameriki carriers are built for interoperability so the french and the amerikis can land and take off from each other's carriers. That's ameriki tech right there.

EMALS is needed for sure but that may just be a bridge too far just like the jet engine tech and the submarine reactor.

Crown jewels, every one of them.

Fall back is steam

[Rakesh]

chetak, you and I are saying the same thing

Unless we develop our own EMALS or steam system, the US is the only country to source either system from.

Setting aside the CAT issue, it makes sense to learn from a shipyard on how to build a CATOBAR vessel. Why do trial & error?

[brar_w]

By the mid 2030's it would have been 30+ years since the last steam catapult was delivered to an AC. Its really a technology dead end (most upgrades now are around sustainment, making it more reliable etc) so I highly doubt the IN would consider steam as a viable option if it decides to go for a CATOBAR unless it developes one in house.

[Rakesh]

So EMALS it is then or a system that has to be developed in house.

All reports to date state that the CAT system on IAC-2 will be of foreign origin, with EMALS being the only option talked about.

[chetak]

chetak, you and I are saying the same thing

Unless we develop our own EMALS or steam system, the US is the only country to source either system from.

Setting aside the CAT issue, it makes sense to learn from a shipyard on how to build a CATOBAR vessel. Why do trial & error?

they will not show you the entire CATOBAR part of the structure and machinery That's ameriki tech that the french have built into their carrier and paid for it along with a lot of caveats

we know how to make a carrier, so why would anyone help us to make them more lethal

The only other country with independent access to such tech and expertise is the UK.

Though not using ameriki tech, the pussies are still tied to ameriki policies and bound by ameriki dictats

[chetak]

So EMALS it is then or a system that has to be developed in house.

All reports to date state that the CAT system on IAC-2 will be of foreign origin, with EMALS being the only option talked about.

and the S-400 walks right into the already muddied mix

EMALS presupposes nuke power because of the massive power requirements

It's either no CATOBAR or an in house developed modern steam cat.

The amerikis will never part with the EMALS, no matter how rich we become.

they and the west cannot forget japan and china and overlook all that to help empower another strong and rising asian giant.

[Rakesh]

they will not show you the entire CATOBAR part of the structure and machinery. That's ameriki tech that the french have built into their carrier and paid for it along with a lot of caveats.

we know how to make a carrier, so why would anyone help us to make them more lethal

The only other country with independent access to such tech and expertise is the UK.

Though not using ameriki tech, the pussies are still tied to ameriki policies and bound by ameriki dictats

Sirjee, in that case....CATOBAR vessel will not come Then STOBAR it is.

and the S-400 walks right into the already muddied mix

More power to the S-400

[chetak]

Sirjee, in that case....CATOBAR vessel will not come Then STOBAR it is.

More power to the S-400

yes, I agree with you CATOBAR will be a very difficult proposition unless we ourselves develop the tech.

the S-400 is good for us no matter what political price that is forced upon us

[brar_w]

EMALS presupposes nuke power because of the massive power requirements

That is not true. The US Navy had conducted a feasibility study along with the Royal Navy and General atomics on modifying the QE class carrier with EMALS and it concluded that it was possible. China is currently building a non nuclear powered carrier where it is rumored to have adopted an EMALS based system though we will only know for sure in the next couple of years once it begins launching aircraft off of it during testing.

[Rakesh]

I doubt any OSINT guys will have any serious insight into how effective China's EMALS system will be. Although it will be touted as a game changer by these very same guys And if going by China's track record of all their other programs, it will be take a decade (if not more) before they finally get it to work with some degree of effectiveness.

With regards to the QE Class, I recently saw a documentary in which they said that the QE Class reportedly has all the building blocks in place for a CATOBAR conversion. It is the cost that forced them to switch to STOBAR, but the foundation for a CATOBAR refit is on board both vessels. Perhaps during their mid life refits, she and her sister might convert into a CATOBAR.

[chetak]

If the amerikis sanction us over the S-400s, it's back to the fatherland with maybe ukraine also opening up as another source for mil tech.

If they don't sanction us, the amerikis still have a market along with the fatherland and maybe ukraine too.

biden mama had better tread very lightly and also very deftly

[Rakesh]

Sirjee, in that case....CATOBAR vessel will not come Then STOBAR it is.

More power to the S-400

yes, I agree with you CATOBAR will be a very difficult proposition unless we ourselves develop the tech.

the S-400 is good for us no matter what political price that is forced upon us

You are 100% correct on the S-400. The IAF has made a sound decision going in for the system.

[brar_w]

I doubt any OSINT guys will have any serious insight into how effective China's EMALS system will be. Although it will be touted as a game changer by these very same guys And if going by China's track record of all their other programs, it will be take a decade (if not more) before they finally get it to work with some degree of effectiveness.

With regards to the QE Class, I recently saw a documentary in which they said that the QE Class reportedly has all the building blocks in place for a CATOBAR conversion. It is the cost that forced them to switch to STOBAR, but the foundation for a CATOBAR refit is on board both vessels. Perhaps during their mid life refits, she and her sister might convert into a CATOBAR.

Judgement is out on effectiveness but unless they never release an image of an aircraft taking off from it they won't be able to hide whether it is steam or EMALS. It is likely the latter based on most of what I read. Again, technically this is not something that is undoable its just that it wasn't done until now because the USN does not operate conventional CATOBAR carriers.

QE was an upgradeable design but the cost was determined too high because of the last minute changes required to add the system. They can still do it in the future but upgrading a ship like that is always going to be more difficult to build one from the start. Part of the reason back then was also that the requirements and configurations of EMALS was not fully defined because the capability itself was in development. Now it is deployed and by 2030 3 EMALS equipped CVN's will be operational so the system configuration and detail designs would be known quantities to design a ship with so a lot easier than when the Brits did the work on their 2 carriers. The Brits had a choice to pay the cost on one vessel and ditch the other or maintain 2 less capable carriers. They chose the latter for capacity reasons.

[chetak]

yes, I agree with you CATOBAR will be a very difficult proposition unless we ourselves develop the tech.

the S-400 is good for us no matter what political price that is forced upon us

You are 100% correct on the S-400. The IAF has made a sound decision going in for the system.

the frenchies will break many of the ameriki sanctions imposed on India because of the S-400s as will the russkis

The sanctions may well turn out to be farcical and a diplomatic disaster.

[Manish_P]

Could you please elaborate on what are the major engineering challenges which make steam powered catapults (and then EMALs) so complex a project. It seems to be almost as complex as designing an aircraft engine..

[brar_w]

Could you please elaborate on what are the major engineering challenges which make steam powered catapults (and then EMALs) so complex a project. It seems to be almost as complex as designing an aircraft engine..

There are a lot of things that need to happen to successfully introduce an effective and efficient steam or EM based CAT system. None of them are insurmountable but require time and commitment of resources. Resources that can only be justified if you want this capability to proliferated beyond just one or two systems. The US and PRC have made a determination that it is a strategic technology to develop and field and have invested likewise because it will be part of a fairly significant number of AC fielded over the next 30 years (the US has 4 Ford class carriers currently funded and all four will be operational by 2034 with more to come in the second half of the 2030s). It is going to be tough to justify that level of spending, or resource allocation (manpower, test resources, time and money) for one off systems (to support 1 or two carriers). That's the main barrier. Folks will always say that for the cost of AC technology x they can field Y number of AF squadrons, Z number of artillery guns etc. So it comes down to prioritization and where to allocate limited resources.

[Manish_P]

Ah. That's an angle I didn't look at.

But then the Indian Mil / MoD are often accused of being myopic and short term oriented, willing to putting large amounts of monies on small units of platform and then changing the requirements to import another platform

So assuming we would still like to go for a cat system even for just 1-2 carriers, then from a purely technical (engineering) POV, what are the main challenges in building what at it's core seems to be a sort of a very intricate pulley system?

Genuine question. I am not an engineer and certainly am not implying that it should be simple. Find it curious that even the handful of countries who make such complex stuff as their own turbofan engines have not been able to OR not gone for developing their own version of the tech.

[srin]

The original INS Vikrant actually had steam catapults. It became STOBAR during late 80s when Sea Harriers were acquired.

I don't think there is anything major or even secretive about catapults. It just requires solid engineering that needs to be extensively tested.

Added later: I'm referring primarily to steam catapults, not EMALS

[Manish_P]

OK.

From BRF posts, i am basically aware that catapults need a lot of power (EMALs even more so?), lot of internal space for it's machinery parts (thus forcing a larger size of the CV) etc.

Specifically does EMALs need some super costly and hard to obtain/make materials like some uber titanium alloy, in some of its components?

And secondly does it's components have some very hard to make part like, to take a very rough analogy, say those ultra high quality crystal blades ('blisks'?) are for aero engines.

[arvin]

The success of EMALS is linked to General Atomics other business of making super capacitors.
They are aware of chemistry and physics to hold lot of charge together and discharge it in controlled manner.

IMO some private player can invest in super capacitors considering the booming EV market.

[Pratyush]

The major issues with steam catapult is the the trunking required to move steam from the boiler to the catapult itself. The amount of space it will take and the displacement lost as a result of that.

I have seen documents on erstwhile FAS site to the effect of this taking upto 5 % of the internal volume of the ship. For the US Navy.

The fact that the US Navy has put steam catapults on close to 40 ships. Made it possible for them to completely understand the volume issues and how to maintain maximum aircraft capacity inspite of that.

The biggest challenge for em cat is the ability of the ship to produce enough electricity in order to feed the catapult.

The power cable is lot smaller than a steam trunk. Consequently the displacement lost as a result is a lot lower. Which can be allocated to other applications.

It's all about tradeoffs the navy in question prepared to make.

[Pratyush]

Regarding em cat's.

Personally, I see them as just linier motors. Consequently I don't quite understand the need to have some super capacitors in order to utilise the catapult.

A GT can power a linear motor catapult as well.

To me the biggest challenge would be solving what to do with the power being produced by the GT when the aircraft is not being launched.

Storing that power is the only role the super capacitors are playing in the whole process for me.

If you can take away the need to store all that power. I think that you can also remove the need to have super capacitors on the ship.