Akshay Kapoor wrote:Nirav, while tbe above reaction to your post is excessive and personal, with respect standarding on any tonnage makes no sense in our context. At most we will have 3/4 carriers which are highly bespoke and complex systems which will be made in serial production not a factory line. We are not going to churn them out like rifles or tanks or even aircatft so where does standardisation on a tonnage of 100k make sense ?
In fact I am still not convinced that we either need this 65 k tonne carrier or even if we will get it. A carrier is meaningless by itself. It needs an air wing and a support screen of destroyers and corvettes and frigates. I am with Philip sir on this. We need subs, aircraft and then lastly carriers.
I understand and agree with a large part of your post.
@tonnage, irrespective of the gent making fun of the use of the word, I'll choose to still use it considering AK sir too chose to use it !
Here is my take on it.
When vichar vimarsh on Vikrants replacement was carried out, ADS @28,000 T was intended.
Owing to perilous economic situation the project was placed in indefinite hold and when conditions were right the project was revived and the specs were changed to 32,000 T.
Then it was re revised to 37,500 T when the project was about to be launched and finally settled at 40,000 T.
The navy has decided to not follow STOBAR in its future carriers and opt for CATOBAR knowing fully well the limitations of the former.
Now,if the EMALs were unavailable, natural course of action would entail CSL to build a follow on IAC @ 40,000T.
But with the EMALs available, we have the opportunity to skip STOBAR and go straight to EMALs, which is one generation ahead of steam catapults.
@money with a STOBAR INS Vikrant costing us close to 4 billion dollars, the only difference between a repeat order of the same class vs the 65,000T EMALs would be the extra monies needed for the technology+ larger ship. The "tonnage".
@Induction - if we go by the standard timelines, it won't be until 2030 that the Vishal would be ready.
Same for a possible repeat follow on of the 40,000 The ship.
Looking at these factors, the capability accorded for the extra(somewhat marginal) expense on the 65,000 T ship is disproportionately higher by the CATOBAR.
Hence I believe that the decision to go in for the bigger carrier is correct.
Reason I speculated about 100k T as standardisation benchmark rather than 65,000 T is mainly due to the task given to the navy. The carrier growth plan is aimed at sea dominance and control rather than denial. It may or may not happen. We might standardise on the 65,000 T too.
But the thought isn't really THAT outlandish considering the timeframes of 2030-2040.
Who in their right minds,30 years back,in 1987 had thought that the Indian Navy in 2017, would be inducting indegenous destroyers costing a Billion dollars each or a French 'conventional' sub costing almost a billion dollars ?
The Chinese intend to standardise around the Varyag sized ships,60,000+ T ,and if we go by recent noises, they are looking to convert their future carriers to CATOBAR using EMALs rather than go STOBAR.
We've historically had an edge over them in carrier aviation, we simply cannot let it go away.