INS Vikramaditya: News and Discussion

rohanldsouza · Post by **rohanldsouza** » 02 Dec 2013 12:29

LESORUB-E in use on INS Vikramaditya.

http://www.npomars.com/en/products/sis_ ... n/asbu.php - Good info on the system designed by NPOMars based in Russia.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Dec 2013 19:14

india sent a C130 load of supplies and has sent another relief ship there.
http://www.firstpost.com/india/typhoon- ... 38973.html

khan always manages to get publicity .... even after tsunami when indians were onsite in SL, the USMC arrived with one ship later..and the SL newspapers blared "da marines have arrived!"

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 02 Dec 2013 19:44

Well, since this is the carrier thread after all... Folks should google DV visit + aircraft carrier and see the money and effort the US spends on getting the good publicity.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 02 Dec 2013 20:38

Every air squadron, battalion, and navy ship has a recruiting and retention person, usually a senior nco. They also do press releases. The press keeps track of these releases for official announcements. Home town newspapers even get a release when lance corporal snuffy gets promoted to corporal. It's a part of the US military tradition. I would point out that when USS Winnebago docks at Singapore for a visit a press release is generated prior to th visit and sent to all major american news organizations like CNN, etc. These organizations are global and tracked by other news organizationas such as the country they are visiting.

USAID does not do this. I guarantee USAID was at the Philippine disaster. Did you see anything much about in the news? Yet they send ships full of supplies around the world but they don't have press officers at every function they go to like the US Military does.

The military doesn't spend a lot of money on press releases or DVs. This is off topic and I won't post anymore on this.

Peregrine · Post by **Peregrine** » 02 Dec 2013 22:07

NRao wrote:Oh no. Elasticity!
Btw, in the IN thread someone posted that the z vicky runs on oil. Expensive was the word associated with it.

Peregrine wrote:NRao Ji :
The Vikramaditya Main Boilers consume LSHSD : LOW SULPHUR HIGH SPEED DIESEL oil
Cheers

NRao wrote:How expensive is it in comparison to other options out there?

NRao Ji :

Approximate Marine Fuel Prices in Rotterdam per MT :

For Boilers : 500 CST, 700 CST -

For Larger Diesel Engines : 500 CST - US$ 575

For Large Diesel Engines : 380 CST - US$ 630

For Vikramadiya : LS Marine Gas Oil : US$ 910 - LSHSD : Presently shortage but it is similarly priced.

Cheers

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 02 Dec 2013 22:42

TSJones wrote:Every air squadron, battalion, and navy ship has a recruiting and retention person, usually a senior nco. They also do press releases. The press keeps track of these releases for official announcements. Home town newspapers even get a release when lance corporal snuffy gets promoted to corporal. It's a part of the US military tradition. I would point out that when USS Winnebago docks at Singapore for a visit a press release is generated prior to th visit and sent to all major american news organizations like CNN, etc. These organizations are global and tracked by other news organizationas such as the country they are visiting.

USAID does not do this. I guarantee USAID was at the Philippine disaster. Did you see anything much about in the news? Yet they send ships full of supplies around the world but they don't have press officers at every function they go to like the US Military does.

The military doesn't spend a lot of money on press releases or DVs. This is off topic and I won't post anymore on this.

/OT ON
Just to continue the OT a while longer for reasons below:

While Public Affairs Officers (PAO) clearly have an impact on recruitment, they serve a much wider role. Mixing it up with recruitment and retention personnel paints an inaccurate picture. Here's from the Navy page.

http://www.navy.com/careers/business-le ... c-affairs/

OT OFF/

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 02 Dec 2013 22:52

Speaking of publicising one's good work, here is a gem about Hindustan Shipyard and Vikramaditya

:

HSL Tugs

When the $2.3 billion aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya eventually makes its way to the naval base on the Arabian Sea, the Port City located on the Bay of Bengal will have plenty of reason to be proud as three 50-T BP (Bollard Pull) tugs manufactured by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) will be waiting to berth the mammoth warship at the naval base at Karwar.

Now, if they could just put some positive spin on that Kilo that has been lying around...

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 02 Dec 2013 23:11

But USNavy doesn't have video of simultaneous take-off & landing. Also per liter cost hides total cost of giant USNavy warships. Total cost of all CBGs must be large if you count per hour cost and extrapolate to per day and then x365 for per year cost.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Dec 2013 23:59

Did not the article say $7 million per day per ship, with two nuke reactors, for some 80 planes with 5000 people and a busy flight ops. Vicky is nowhere close to that.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 03 Dec 2013 00:03

With 2 nuke reactors, $7 million per day isn't imported fuel cost equivalent. For an INS with nuke power, fuel cost won't matter.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 03 Dec 2013 00:26

RajitO wrote:
TSJones wrote:Every air squadron, battalion, and navy ship has a recruiting and retention person, usually a senior nco. They also do press releases. The press keeps track of these releases for official announcements. Home town newspapers even get a release when lance corporal snuffy gets promoted to corporal. It's a part of the US military tradition. I would point out that when USS Winnebago docks at Singapore for a visit a press release is generated prior to th visit and sent to all major american news organizations like CNN, etc. These organizations are global and tracked by other news organizationas such as the country they are visiting.

USAID does not do this. I guarantee USAID was at the Philippine disaster. Did you see anything much about in the news? Yet they send ships full of supplies around the world but they don't have press officers at every function they go to like the US Military does.

The military doesn't spend a lot of money on press releases or DVs. This is off topic and I won't post anymore on this.
/OT ON
Just to continue the OT a while longer for reasons below:

While Public Affairs Officers (PAO) clearly have an impact on recruitment, they serve a much wider role. Mixing it up with recruitment and retention personnel paints an inaccurate picture. Here's from the Navy page.

http://www.navy.com/careers/business-le ... c-affairs/

OT OFF/

All I can tell you is who did press releases at my squadron.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 03 Dec 2013 04:20

RajitO wrote:Speaking of publicising one's good work, here is a gem about Hindustan Shipyard and Vikramaditya :

HSL Tugs

When the $2.3 billion aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya eventually makes its way to the naval base on the Arabian Sea, the Port City located on the Bay of Bengal will have plenty of reason to be proud as three 50-T BP (Bollard Pull) tugs manufactured by the Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) will be waiting to berth the mammoth warship at the naval base at Karwar.
Now, if they could just put some positive spin on that Kilo that has been lying around...

Found a small picture:

HSL floats out three tugs, to be delivered to Navy by year-end
VISAKHAPATNAM, August 4, 2013

Quote: "It is 33.5 m in length and 10.8 m in breadth and 3.9 m deep, it has a speed of 11 knots and a complement of 14."

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 03 Dec 2013 07:55

TSJones wrote:
All I can tell you is who did press releases at my squadron.

Sure. And wouldn't that come under the definition of what the USN calls "Collateral Duty"? Or even an IA slot based on "the needs of the service"?

So that's Pranay and you now that we have from a US military background...seriously the mods need to give you guys an exclusive thread for your stories!

srin · Post by **srin** » 03 Dec 2013 09:15

vishvak wrote:With 2 nuke reactors, $7 million per day isn't imported fuel cost equivalent. For an INS with nuke power, fuel cost won't matter.

Aviation fuel matters ! Though I guess sortie rates and the number of aircraft increase when they are close to action, than typically on average.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 03 Dec 2013 09:28

So, Nuke power is free...got it!

http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcch.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2013 10:22

it is not just the fuel cost alone, but OPEX as well.

for example:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20596

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 03 Dec 2013 19:49

Vikramaditya voyage update

Possibly the first confirmation of the route, this source might be dodgy though...

After this they will head to Lisbon, and then to the Indian port of Karwar via Gibraltar and the Suez Canal.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Dec 2013 19:53

don't unkil's assets pass through the suez canal on a regular basis too?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 03 Dec 2013 20:00

RajitO wrote:

So, Nuke power is free...got it!

http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcch.html

Nuke tech harnesses for nuke power to run Carrier offers much more control on fuel part than imported fuel. If the tech is indegenous and fuel is indegenous then the cost is merely to run the ship. No one has to bother about fuel costs then since it is not dependent on foreigners. But it is OT here.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Dec 2013 20:02

Lalmohan wrote:don't unkil's assets pass through the suez canal on a regular basis too?

http://www.shedexpedition.com/wp-conten ... -Canal.jpg

one thing I have noticed about CVNs is when they are not in war mode, the entire bow area of the ship is used to park lots of a/c on deck and the
two waist cats are in use to launch a/c...or sometimes only one of the bow cats. they seem to lay emphasis on lots of deck parking area because probably the internal hangar cannot accomodate the 90 a/c of the airwing.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Dec 2013 07:47

http://indrus.in/news/2013/12/03/ins_vi ... 31325.html

INS Vikramaditya approaches Murmansk for refuelling

The INS Vikramaditya unmoored on the night of December 1 and is approaching the Russian city of Murmansk where it will remain until December 8. The aircraft carrier is accompanied by the INS Trikand frigate and the Deepak tanker.

Captain Vadim Serga, a spokesman for the Russian Northern Fleet, was cited by RIA Novosti as saying that the Indian ships will be refueled and will leave Russia’s territorial waters in a few days.

After this they will head to Lisbon, and then to the Indian port of Karwar via Gibraltar and the Suez Canal.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Dec 2013 08:37

Singha wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:don't unkil's assets pass through the suez canal on a regular basis too?
http://www.shedexpedition.com/wp-conten ... -Canal.jpg

one thing I have noticed about CVNs is when they are not in war mode, the entire bow area of the ship is used to park lots of a/c on deck and the
two waist cats are in use to launch a/c...or sometimes only one of the bow cats. they seem to lay emphasis on lots of deck parking area because probably the internal hangar cannot accomodate the 90 a/c of the airwing.

* The 90 A/C air wing actually consists of various A/C types: F-18, Vikings, Prowlers, Helos, etc
* The hangar below can accommodate about 80% of these A/Cs
* At that level there is a LOT of "stuff" that goes on, including testing of engines:

The more I google to learn the more I am convinced that IN needs to upgrade her thinking to a totally new level. IF - BIG if - India *really* wants a true blue navy, India has hell of a way to go. And, it needs to start with beyond the Gulf a Strait. They need a floating air field + a floating complete factory with ability to be supported from land any time.

BTW, the USN should be retiring a few AC - all nuclear - in the next few years. I do not think they will sell them to India, but I think it is worth a try. May be agree to replace the US reactors with Indian ones. But, I feel, India needs such machines and these would be great platforms to learn with. Plenty of Simple Green and Windex should help too.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 04 Dec 2013 14:22

Lalmohan wrote:don't unkil's assets pass through the suez canal on a regular basis too?

All the time. As do most of the world's navies'. I am assuming Sindhurakshak too transited through the Suez when it had an unfortunate incident in bad weather that needed Egyptian help.

vishvak wrote:
RajitO wrote:

So, Nuke power is free...got it!

http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcch.html
Nuke tech harnesses for nuke power to run Carrier offers much more control on fuel part than imported fuel. If the tech is indegenous and fuel is indegenous then the cost is merely to run the ship. No one has to bother about fuel costs then since it is not dependent on foreigners. But it is OT here.

Since this has become the default carrier thread (Mods in fact may want to suitably rename it, like the Arty thread we have), it is useful to gain insight into n-fuel consumed by a carrier in a year, the cost of enriched uranium, and the cost of disposing nuclear waste...and then come to an informed conclusion about whether fuel costs "matter or not", regardless of foreign or domestic supply.

The thread is again drifting into "informed guesstimates" about many things. Here's a US document that might help create a better framework for understanding...though it is a bit dated(1998).

Conventional vs N-powered Carriers - GAO Study

Broadly:

1. The size of a US Carrier Air Wing has shrunk from the heights of the Cold War. Some aircraft types like S3 have been retired altogether with no direct replacements. A CVW can have 60-80 aircraft these days.

2. The "record" for number of aircraft "deployed" on a carrier post-WWII is held by the smaller Saratoga - 120. I had raised it earlier in the thread as well that it will be key to find out what kind of aircraft mix configs the IN shares for Vikramaditya publicly. Adding 50% to that for wartime ops would be a good benchmark.

3. The magic number for math geeks is something called a "deck spot factor". USN currently assigns the F/A-18 Hornet (not SH) a factor of 1 and bases smaller/larger aircraft relative off it to calculate operational configs. "Installed capacity" in a later Nimitz class is 127 going by a factor of 1.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Dec 2013 14:40

Commodore Suraj Berry's finest hour

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 04 Dec 2013 19:40

Austin wrote:Commodore Suraj Berry's finest hour

A US Naval War College grad, in charge of a decent sized aircraft carrier. Nice!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Dec 2013 21:48

Look,the USN's super carriers are meant for expeditionary warfare.To support large scale land battles where "invasion forces" have to win wars far away from the US mainland.That is why each carrier has to have around 80-100 aircraft and helos.Nuclear power gives it a theoretical unlimited endurance of the carrier,while fuel and other logistic supplies are needed both for the air wings and vessel and its huge crew. India's carriers and the IN do not have such an operational requirement.We have no plans to invade China,or Pak from the sea.Special forces strikes are another matter.As I mentioned earlier,the max. capability we require from our CBGs is to protect and support our island territories,offshore assets and the security for smaller littoral nations with whom we have security agreements with.Therefore,the large supercarrier of size of the USN's flat tops is overkill for the IN. For this we need the multi-role amphib flat tops which can also transport troops and their eqpt.

Sea control of the IOR and attenuating waters where IN forces operate are the primary task of the CBGs. Offensive air strikes at land based targets,key naval and military installations, are also prime tasks. These strikes and actions are however meant to destroy as much of the enemy's capability to wage war in the maritime dimension,interdicting his maritime trade ,cutting off his supplies of energy and raw materials,thereby reducing the threat to India's maritime interests and threat from the sea. Therefore,the economics of an N-powered carrier should be taken only after very serious examination of all the pros and cons.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 04 Dec 2013 23:03

One thing is that if India does not think of the future it will be run over.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 04 Dec 2013 23:39

This picture shows in close up the aft corners of INS Vikramaditya. One is occupied by a largish satcom radome (at least ~10 Ft tall) and the other what looks like concrete ballast. The port corner is a good place for AK-630 installation.

http://www.wrk.ru/forums/attachment.php ... &type=.jpg

To appreciate the sheer size - see the man standing at the bottom:

http://www.wrk.ru/forums/attachment.php ... &type=.jpg

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Dec 2013 02:08

expeditionary warfare

I get a brain freeze.

My expectation would be that India would throw at a problem AND WIN whatever she faces. I do not even see the Vicky doing sea control in a few more years. What with BD (!!!!! BD?) looking for two subs from her close friend China. SL, the big bad wolf in the 'hood, has yet to display her XMas gift list, but rest asured it will be better than BD (DB? Again?).

The IN needs to stand and win, it is simple as that.

And, if that is translated - somewhere - into "expeditionary warfare", so be it.

As far as teh cost goes - and, eys, such alternatives are expensive - Indians need to take a very deep breath and look at the corruption within the nation and correct it right now. Not much time left.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Dec 2013 02:10

BTW, found the following quote from the CNS:

"Vikramaditya bridges the time gap between Indian Navy's existing capability and our indigenous aircraft carrier project.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 05 Dec 2013 02:36

Being able to launch fighter jets from a floating platform at your enemy is a nice capability to have. There may be many other considerations. Although I am no expert (I was in the Marine Corps for just 4 years) I would hazard to guess that:

a. Air superiority over the area of operations is mandatory.

In order to accomplish that, one must:

b. run silent

to do that, one must:

c. Establish air control many miles away from the fleet

in order to do that:

d. have a radar patrol plane loitering in cirlcles away from the fleet constantly scanning the skies

and THEN:

e. have the patrol plane vectoring the carrier's fighter jets to the target and then vector them back to the carrier.

So it's nice to talk about carriers and all of that but many other players come into the picture.

Really you need all the goodies to get 'er done regardless of expeditionary or not.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Dec 2013 03:33

The IOR needs a big stick. And, currently China seems to be the one to carry one (in the future).

India does not need to put any boots anywhere. Park it close enough and play some games to make sure that the vibs get through.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Dec 2013 04:14

Some seem to be losing the plot.The primary role for the IN for now and future decades is to dominate the IOR and approaches and chokepoints to the IOR,Malacca Straits,etc. The IOR in the Indian context has 3 regions.The Arabian Sea,Bay of Bengal and Indian ocean south of the Indian landmass.As of now we have two main naval fleets,Eastern and Western.The development of a Southern Command with teeth,other than mostly training ops out of Cochin is a must for the future.The amphib assets of the IN should also come under this command where one can sail to any compass point,east ,west or south,keeping in mind our obligations to smaller littoral states like SL,the Maldives and Mauritius,to name the most important.Hence 3 carriers and their accompanying fleet assets.
Here one must also remember that we have a fourth "unsinkable" carrier,"INS India".

The Indian landmass juts into the IOR like a dagger.LRMP aircraft operating from naval air stations with aircraft like TU-142 bears can fly to S.Africa,stay on station and return without refuelling! The Bears are being nursed along until 2020.The P-8Is ,which give us new teeth in ASW warfare are being inducted.If we also acquire a sqd. of LR strat. supersonic bombers like Backfires,the speed with which the IN will be able to prosecute any enemy intrusions into the IOR will be decisive.These aircraft given their range,can take the battle even into waters out of the IOR,like the Indo-China Sea for example and when operating out of our A&N airfields,willl be able to conduct ops before the enemy enters the IOR.

The secondary role for the IN is to venture forth into the high seas,trans-ocenic ops.The Indo-China Sea and Pacific mainly,to deal with the threat from the dramatically expanding PLAN.The PLAN has just conducted exercises where it has demonstrated the ability to move through at will beyond the "1st island chain",the innermost zone of defence of the Chinese mainland.Its ships,aircraft and and subs regularly operate just outside Japanese waters and have become a permanent feature,just as one saw during the Cold War,between US and Soviet navies.The IN to operate in these far seas will have to use carrier task forces,stealthy sub patrols,using N-subs in particular for range and endurance,and LR air surveillance using long-legged aircraft like the Bears.This calls for a balanced navy that is not lopsided which places all its eggs in one basket.Right now the sub fleet is in deep crisis.Even small nations like BD are acquiring subs,though throttling BD is a simple task and two noisy Chinese built subs would not be a great threat.On the other hand,Pak's new subs and the 24 subs that the Saudis plan to acquire post haste are real threats,apart from PLAN subs venturing into the IOR ,where last year alone we had 24+ contacts.

Our amphib ops will be to primarily defend our island territories and support for littoral nations.We are not the USN whose vast forces are required to invade nations and conduct wars for years far from home shores.For anyone to imagine even in the future that we need to acquire the capabilities to wage wars as the US has done in Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Af-Pak ,Libya,etc. ,hasn't understood the lessons of history,where the US is in full retreat,tucking its tail between its legs,wasting trillions of $$$ in its futile expeditionary wars ,resulting in a deep eco crisis at home.Secondly,the US did not achieve the political goals which these wars were meant to bring about.It lost in Vietnam where the Communist North vanquished the South.In Iraq,the situ has in fact worsened with daily violence and terror attacks on the increase.It has also brought into power Iranian backed Shiites.In Af-Pak,the Taliban is in resurgence,both in Afghanistana dn Pak.Karzai will last the length of time as a dog's dinner once the US has retreated in full. In Libya the Arab Spring has turned into a nasty winter of discontent,and wisely,it chickenened out in attacking Syria

India has neither the money to squander and bankrupt itself just as the Soviets did in the arms race with the US during the Cold War,nor the wish to be the planet's globocop or Uncle Sam's deputy. That ambition can be happily relegated to the pages of comicbooks for jingos to dream on.We happily announce to the world that we have 800m Indians who need food subsidies that will beggar our budget! Our essential core concerns have to be met with judicious planning and acquisitions.Apart from the sub crisis is also the need to replace/acquire around 100 multi-role ASW helos.All the existing and new surface ships and carriers have to have their integral ASW systems,of which the ASW helo is the most important element of our DDGS and FFGs. With the mendicant of snake oil calling for budget cuts,squandering money on large N-powered supercarriers is at this moment in time the least priority.In fact,under the current eco crisis,etc.,I have my doubts as to when the green light for IAC-2,whose design has yet to be finalised ,will be given.methinks not for a few years yet.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Dec 2013 06:10

Just saying. Someone seems to be reading BR out there.

Dec 3, 2013 :: Navy plans nuke-powered carrier

Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Indian Navy is designing a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that it wants in its fleet, costs permitting.

An indigenous nuclear-powered submarine, the Arihant, is now in trials in the Bay of Bengal.

The Indian Navy “desires” to have three operational carriers in its fleet but the only one in use currently, the INS Viraat, is rusting away faster than it would like.

“The INS Viraat is ‘long in the tooth’ (outdated and too expensive to maintain),” the chief of naval staff, Admiral D.K. Joshi, said here today.

Naval headquarters is gradually beginning to take the view that the ship will have to be decommissioned before the planned end of its extended tenure in service.

The 55-year-old carrier has had several refits that have cost the defence budget heavily.

The navy commissioned the INS Vikramaditya (formerly the Gorshkov) in Russia last month. The carrier, now on its way to India, will take about six months after berthing in Karwar on the west coast to be made fully operational. It is expected in Indian waters in January.

Only the US Navy operates two or more aircraft carriers — always nuclear-powered — in Asia. The importance of aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean region is right now a matter of focus for strategists after China commissioned its own, the Liaoning, earlier this year.

China also announced last week that it was imposing an air defence identification zone in the East China Sea, over waters disputed by Japan and South Korea. Aircraft carriers are the naval platform-of-choice for “sea control”.

The Indian Navy will take a final call on its proposed 65,000-tonne nuclear-powered carrier after studying the experiences of the UK and France.

Naval headquarters has set itself a deadline of two months in which to freeze the design. Nuclear propulsion would give the vessel a longer life but the reactor is expensive to build.

But India has fitted an 80MW reactor, with Russian help, into the Arihant submarine. Nuclear propulsion also provides longer endurance and therefore capability to deploy the vessel farther for extended periods.

The UK abandoned the idea of nuclear propulsion for its Queen Elizabeth II carrier, now being built for its Royal Navy, because of the costs involved. France is the only country barring the US that has built a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier on its own, the Charles de Gaulle.

The other decision, apart from the propulsion, that the naval design department is yet to freeze is whether the second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-2) should have Catobar (catapult assisted take-off barrier arrested recovery) like the US carriers or a flight deck for short take-off and arrested recovery (Stobar).

The 65,000-tonne IAC-2, tentatively named the Vishal, follows the Vikrant, or IAC-1, a conventional diesel-gas powered 44,700-tonne vessel being built in Kochi.

The Viraat, the only operational carrier with the navy currently, is planned to be in service till 2017 when the Vikrant is scheduled for commissioning. The Vikrant was floated out of the dry dock in Kochi in August this year.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 05 Dec 2013 06:31

I don't know what Vietnam or Iraq or "lessons of history" has got to do with it.......but if India sends its carrier task force group into harm's way, it had better be able to run silent and control the skies or it will be somebody else's soup du jour. Egg drop, sweet sour, or whatever.

I would also note that Chinese study the US use of carrier task forces very closely. They see the US Navy's sailors various color shirts on deck, they cream in their jeans and drool. Therefor expect exact copies.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2013 07:53

if cost is a concern, i would go for IAC-2 being nuke... straight away! the ads nuke should be maturing in couple of years, and perhaps enough time to even do an augmented reactor based on improvements from the first experiences or even next-gen reactors, fast-neutrons, etc that can pass safety-critical aspects for higher life miniaturization. i'm sure barc should have surged ahead in tech area, but only the safe-critical aspects takes a long time to test.. we should not rule out our fast breeder techs when Th is abundant... heck let us make it possible just for south-china sea ops subs first.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Dec 2013 08:53

India’s First Indigenous Aircraft Carrier - INS Vikrant

such as the two LM2500 Gas Turbines developing a total power of 80 MW, the diesel alternators capable of producing about 24 MW

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 05 Dec 2013 10:15

If we have a nuclear powered A/C it will have the advantage of a "single fuelling "and less dependence on refuelling etc. We already have learnt to decrease the size of the reactor so incorporating it to a carrier should be easier.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2013 10:19

i am not sure about single fuel model even though nuke power on board.. there will have to be standby gas turbines (and perfect fit would be kaveri marines).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2013 10:20

more than nukular, EMALS would be great to have and save weight vs catobar. single fueling reactor is only found in the latest paschimi/russian reactors on stuff like virginia, astute and yasen and I am not sure we can make such reactors yet. older models need refueling around every 10 yrs which is a huge process because I think the entire decks have to be cut down to reactor level and the reactors lifted out to shore based facility.....

TSJ, there is a entire gangnam style movement in cheen copying the actions of the takeoff crew and posting pics of it.