Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 28 Oct 2017 01:50

The higher altitude along with up to 30 hours of endurance allows Triton to use its much larger payload capacity to act as a persistent sensor and even a data pipe while the P-8's with much shorter endurance act as C2 against the maritime threats. It is a good way for the USN to cover large swaths of the Pacific efficiently and do things they simply couldn't with Satellites alone. The ESM/ELINT/SIGINT features especially when combined with the altitude and loiter are equally as important as some of the other payloads. Think of it combining capabilities of a P-8 LITE and a U-2 Lite but with much more endurance then both combined. All of this comes at a considerably higher cost.

Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3687
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 28 Oct 2017 04:33

Navy drops cherished dream of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
...
BARC has successfully developed a 190 Megawatt (MW) reactor for India’s fleet of four-to-six nuclear propelled, nuclear missile carrying submarines, of which the first – INS Arihant – has already been commissioned. However, INS Vishal would require a reactor capable of generating at least 500-550 MW. That means developing a brand new, miniaturised reactor, ruggedized against a marine environment.

Nor is such a 550 MW reactor in the development pipeline, because of a dispute over who will pay the bill. Says an indignant navy admiral: “BARC wants us to place a ‘developmental contract’ to fund the reactor’s development. Why should we do that?”
...


There is no such thing as "free lunch". Somebody always pays ;)

Usually, the funding will be shared by various entities with the government footing the bulk of it (60%-80%). The IN would need to come up with its cost share 10%-20% while BARC would need to come up with another 10%-20%. Think of it, if BARC was a private enterprise would they fund the entire reactor R&D of a product specific to a client's need?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 28 Oct 2017 05:06

Even the In money is GOI money.
Is there a real need for nuke powered a/c carrier?

550 MW is almost a shore based nuke power plant.

For example the UUS Ronald Reagan has this power plant

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

2 × Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors
4 × steam turbines
4 × shafts
260,000 shp (194 MW)





What are the specs of INS Vishal?
Why does it need such a big nuke reactor than the US Ronald Reagan?

I just read the article its a 65000 ton ship so less than USS RR.
So someone screwed up the hp estimation.
It should not need 550 MW reactor.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4166
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 28 Oct 2017 05:23

A Deshmukh wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:Check out Ajai Shukla's latest. No nuke power for Vishal

reason as per Ajai Shukla: BARC says 15 years to develop reactor.

Kakkaji and Deshmukhji....aap dono ke muh mein ghee-shakkar! YES!!!! Thank you for this amazing news. Hopefully money saved is spent on speeding the process for Project 75I. We need those boats like yesterday.

Have a whole bunch of questions for gurus, since EMALS is coming on the new boat. Will be posting them soon.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby arvin » 28 Oct 2017 06:02

The 550MW number seems to be lifted straight out of USS Nimitz two A4W reactor output.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4166
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 28 Oct 2017 06:12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor
The only ships to use these nuclear reactors are the Nimitz class supercarriers, which have two reactors rated at 550 MWth together. These each generate enough steam to produce approximately 100 MW electricity supply plus 140,000 shaft horsepower per shaft (104 MW).

Noob pooch....what is the difference between MWth (Megawatt Thermal) and MW (Megawatt)?

https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encycl ... m/mwth.htm

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby arvin » 28 Oct 2017 06:22

i think the thermal output is measured by way of amount of steam generared via reactor heat. The MW is the mechanical work for generating electricity by turbines and running the gearbox for propeller.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3043
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakkaji » 28 Oct 2017 06:29

What does India need nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for? The USN sphere of operations is the entire globe, hence they use nuke-powered carriers and its accompanying paraphenelia to fight wars far from their shores.

In India's case, we only need to patrol the Indian Ocean (all talk about steaming into China Sea to hit the Chinese mainland are just unaffordable fantasies). Two conventional-powered carriers with the specs as in Shukla's blog should be sufficient for the purpose.

We also have, as Philip Saheb describes, the giant aircraft carrier called the INS 'Indian Peninsula' from where land-based aircraft can dominate the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2717
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby arshyam » 28 Oct 2017 08:30

I hope they get cracking on the follow-on for the Vikrant at least. Let's get to the long-awaited 3-carrier force, and then revisit the nuke option - hopefully with more money on the table then, and we'll have more data on how the Arihant class reactors performed.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2130
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 28 Oct 2017 15:26

Kakkaji wrote:What does India need nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for? The USN sphere of operations is the entire globe, hence they use nuke-powered carriers and its accompanying paraphenelia to fight wars far from their shores.

In India's case, we only need to patrol the Indian Ocean (all talk about steaming into China Sea to hit the Chinese mainland are just unaffordable fantasies). Two conventional-powered carriers with the specs as in Shukla's blog should be sufficient for the purpose.

We also have, as Philip Saheb describes, the giant aircraft carrier called the INS 'Indian Peninsula' from where land-based aircraft can dominate the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea.


steaming into the China sea will need to be a part of the IN doctrine, taking the fight to the enemy's shore is the best step to contain a country like China.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1867
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 28 Oct 2017 15:40

Steaming into Chinese waters cannot happen until we can contain them in that region, which requires sea denial capabilities, with fully functional SSN and SSKs acting in synch with the DDGs/FFGs and MPAs to deny the enemy fleet access to the home waters. Else we will be forced to fight a holding battle near our shore rather than take to the enemy's home waters.
This requires significant funds for assets and infrastructure that the CVN dream would simply drain away.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4166
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 28 Oct 2017 18:23

arvin wrote:i think the thermal output is measured by way of amount of steam generared via reactor heat. The MW is the mechanical work for generating electricity by turbines and running the gearbox for propeller.

Ok, so as per the wiki quote....two A4W reactors rated at 550 MWth together generate enough steam to produce approximately 100 MW electricity supply plus 140,000 shaft horsepower per shaft (104 MW).

So, if I am understanding this correctly there is 550MWth from two reactors which produces 100 MW electricity + 104 MW (140,000 horsepower)? So Shukla's statement that Vishaal needs 500-550 MW is deeply erroneous, as that would be overkill.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5003
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 28 Oct 2017 18:31

@Rakesh: Most reports talk only of the MWt. So when someone writes MW, it usually refers to MWt. The MWe is actually a classified figure that is not easily known. For the latest reactors on Ford (A1B) even the MWt is not known. IF and this is a big if, as reports suggest the Arihant reactor is in the 150-190 MWt range then 3-4 of them would be enough to power a 65K ton carrier. One of the first USN CVN's had 8 reactors.

Strangely, the biggest advantage of CVN Vishaal would be using of indigenous propulsion due to lack of indigenous turbines!!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4166
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 28 Oct 2017 18:44

Rakesh wrote:Have a whole bunch of questions for gurus, since EMALS is coming on the new boat. Will be posting them soon.

Ok, now that Vishal will have gas turbine generators which will be powering the EMALS, here are the questions for Tech gurus that come to mind.

1) Will the catapult launch capability on Vishaal be similar to the launch capability on the Gerald R Ford Class? Will the power generated from a gas turbine generator - from an EMALS stand point - produce the same energy as a nuclear reactor? I am assuming it will be able to launch F-18, F-35, Rafale, MiG-29K off the Vishaal with a meaningful payload?

2) Since the Navy's main beef with the Navalised Tejas - in MK.1 avatar - is that it is underpowered during launch and take off (please correct me if I am wrong), can EMALS negate that? My understanding of EMALS is that it can more effectively (and safely) launch an aircraft off a carrier deck versus a steam catapult. I am assuming effectively means a greater payload. If the Navalised Tejas MK.1 is underpowered in launch mode, can EMALS overcome that deficiency to launch the aircraft into the air - with a meaningful payload - and then have the GE F404 engine take over? Although the engine will be in full afterburner mode during launch and take off.

3) Since Navalised Tejas MK.1 is only a test bed, can EMALS be installed on a ground based runway to validate concepts for the Navalised Tejas? And once it has been validated, then perhaps we can move on the Naval Tejas Mk2 with all the bells and whistles? I am assuming the greater power from the GE F414 engine (versus the GE F404) engine should convince the Navy that the Tejas is a viable platform for naval carrier ops?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5003
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 28 Oct 2017 18:59

The little I know and some questions.

EMALS is safer as there is no danger of steam leakage and issues of dealing with hot gas.

The EMALS on USN Ford gets charged in about 45 seconds for full power.

One of the advantages of EMALS is this power dispersed can be "right sized" for the craft being launched from UAV's to Tankers, making it less taxing on the craft and no excess power issues to deal with.

Gas turbines may be able to charge the EMALS but what is not known is, if they can do so in sufficient time and what is the load on the turbines for repeated charges. IOW the "maturity" of this power source for real-world carrier EMALS ops is unknown.

The US did their land-based EMALS testing with a nuclear power source.

There are others here who can post the exact details of power units needed for a charge from the turbine and disbursement units from the EMALS.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1867
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 28 Oct 2017 19:57

EMALS at the end of the day is an electrical system. As long as sufficient electric power is delivered as input, the system really neither cares nor distinguish between its generation source.
Coming to the ability of the gas turbine, usually the power source is about 10-20% higher capacity than the peak load of the system so that it can handle the load easily without undue strain, so if it consumes say a megawatt of power per hour, the generator will and should have the capability to generate anything between 1.2 to 1.5 megawatts per hour. Everything else from cycling time to energy distribution for control and systems is intrinsic to the EMALS and factored into its input power specification.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1961
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cybaru » 28 Oct 2017 20:04

It shouldn't be a big deal to create 10 banks of super capacitors or flywheels to discharge at a very high rate. Creating a bank for 10 allows you to launch 10 aircrafts off without worrying about recharging. I had some numbers before, but I seem to have lost my calculations. Will redo them, but you are pushing 30,000 pounds into 100 feet only and to 120 knots at the most. I am sure someone will post the answer here soon :)

Recharging should be possible in minutes as well, plus you will have time as you will need exhaust the whole bank before worrying. There are solutions around the problem. Nuclear is not needed.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Pratyush » 28 Oct 2017 20:07

Given that we are thinking of f 18 sized aircraft at best. Any system that produces 20 mw should be able to charge the ford size EMALS in a minute or so.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4166
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 28 Oct 2017 20:13

ShauryaT wrote:@Rakesh: Most reports talk only of the MWt. So when someone writes MW, it usually refers to MWt. The MWe is actually a classified figure that is not easily known. For the latest reactors on Ford (A1B) even the MWt is not known. IF and this is a big if, as reports suggest the Arihant reactor is in the 150-190 MWt range then 3-4 of them would be enough to power a 65K ton carrier. One of the first USN CVN's had 8 reactors.

Strangely, the biggest advantage of CVN Vishaal would be using of indigenous propulsion due to lack of indigenous turbines!!

MWt is the same as MWth right? I googled it. MWe is Megawatt Electrical which is generated from MWth right?

Good point on the Vishaal having indegenous propulsion via a nuclear reactor. Since it appears now that is not coming, I am assuming Vishaal will have a more powerful variant of the GE LM2500 marine gas turbine which is installed on the new Vikrant Class carrier.

As per wiki chacha, the A1B nuclear reactor produces around 700 MW :eek: Americans bring a whole new meaning to the term, Go BIG or Go Home :)

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.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby arvin » 28 Oct 2017 20:29

Vishal will not only be a radical design in the sense it will use EMALS, but it is also attempting to decouple mechanical gas turbine output to propeller via gearbox. If i read the article correctly propellers will be run via motors drawing power from electric system. Will like to be corrected on this.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 524
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sankum » 28 Oct 2017 23:15

Image

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5003
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 28 Oct 2017 23:27

The beauty of the A1B reactor is not just in its thermal output but its reportedly high electric conversion of this energy. This I think is the real secret. Also, would not be surprised if the thermal output itself is higher. What future use will all this electrical power have on the CVN is a big unknown. Maybe speed up the CVN to 60 knots, in response to a DF-21?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2017 00:16

The responsibility of the protecting the CVN from medium range ballistic Missiles is on the escort vessels. The additional growth built into the electrical power and architectures on new and future vessels is to support power intensive systems such a directed-energy weapons. At some point over the class life of the Ford Class carriers, a Directed Energy Weapons System would be standard across the USN fleet along side the VLS. Efforts were made to put in a significant amount of surplus power and cooling onboard a new ship design to support this future growth given how long CVNs last as both individual ships and as a design.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Pratyush » 29 Oct 2017 07:40

The concept art of P 17 A from garden reach looks like an evolution of kamoratta instead if the Shivalik.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9680
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sum » 29 Oct 2017 09:25

sankum wrote:Image

Twitter had shown this to be a shoddy cut paste of some 4 year old German concept ship

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 29 Oct 2017 09:35

True,but for either class where are the ASW weaponry?Yes it is a C&P artist at work! Sad to see our DPSUs sink so low when there is no need to do so.Earlier there was an RN sub masquerading as the Arihant!

When the RN discarded EMALS /CATS for their QE 65Kt CVs,being too expensive and requiring huge extra power that was best provided by an N-plant making the vessel unaffordable for "Little Britain,it would be an act of sheer folly for the IN to try and surpass the QE class when we have neither the money or tech. ability to do so.We are struggling sev years behind time to commission the new Vikrant,also exceeding initial costs,plus are clueless about the available aircraft options a decade+ from now.
Add to that the cost of the supporting cast- to protect the carrier,at least 2 DDGs,2 FFGs,a fleet tanker and 1 sub , we will be talking of anything upwards of at least $18-20B!

For that figure we could acquire approx 40 conv. AIP subs,or our 6 SSNs plus 18-20 conv.AIP subs!!! The economics simply do not work out.Instead a sister ship of the IAC-1 would be a far better and cost-effective solution ,which when available STOVL stealth birds are offered or become available ,add to the capability.Until then more perfected 29Ks/35Ks would suffice plus even the NLCA/Sea Gripen options.

Like the IAF,the IN must be told to forget its grandiose ambitions of being a USN "Mini-Me" and "cut its coat according to the cloth".

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4166
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 29 Oct 2017 10:11

ShauryaT wrote:The beauty of the A1B reactor is not just in its thermal output but its reportedly high electric conversion of this energy. This I think is the real secret. Also, would not be surprised if the thermal output itself is higher. What future use will all this electrical power have on the CVN is a big unknown. Maybe speed up the CVN to 60 knots, in response to a DF-21?

Good point. Check this out Saar...click on the first tweet link and read the exchange as well :)

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/924254472066363392 ---> Usually, the conversion efficiency of a PWR is around 33 %. So 83 MWth in electric power terms is basically around 27.4 MWe.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/924260491806916608 ---> The power rating of Marine propulsion nuclear reactors is usually mentioned in thermal terms. So you have 83 MWth.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/924324266438361089 ---> Only Gen IV supercritical water reactor concepts with the reactor outlet coolant at ~25 MPa will give you 45 %.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60490
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 29 Oct 2017 10:17

a ships top speed is in some way a function of its length and hull form. CVN has the length but not the racing hull form of a americas cup yacht or the even bigger ones that go around the world . ... i doubt it can haul anything faster than 30knots without prohibitive amts of more power and new drivetrains to transfer all that power to more screws

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2017 16:13

When the RN discarded EMALS /CATS for their QE 65Kt CVs,being too expensive and requiring huge extra power that was best provided by an N-plant making the vessel unaffordable for "Little Britain,it would be an act of sheer folly for the IN to try and surpass the QE class when we have neither the money or tech.


The study General Atomics was sanctioned by the US DOD to do on behalf of the UK Government showed that it can be done (EMALS integration without Nuclear propulsion) within the design abilities at the time. However, the added cost to Britain was on account of taking a vessel design that was already fixed and making costly modifications to it that had an impact on costs due to both the added capability but also the cost to modify something that was already solidified. In other words, they were to far along in their design efforts to introduce radical changes without incurring extra costs. The IN with IAC-2 is at the conceptual stage so wouldn't run into those issues. Furthermore, it was determined that the change from F-35B to F-35C would also involve significant life-cycle training costs on account of the unique training needs of arrested recovery. As to the added cost of the system (I have provided EMALS and AAG costs several times to you in the past) it comes with added capabilities.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 29 Oct 2017 17:28

The MOD is finalising a non-Nuclear powered 65K behemoth powered by GTs.I am sure that once the full costs of the CBT package is known to the CCS the proposal will be shot down at speed! The IN would be better advised to have a Plan B for a sister ship of the IAC-1 in the other hand when the file goes to the CCS,so that it gets something in hand.Otherwise it may get a 3rd carrier only sometime around 2040! NS , the new DM has just spelt out her/IN priorities which will be speeded up.Subs,ASW and utility helos,plus MCMs.

Had the IN studied hard how the Brits travelled 10,000 miles to retake the Falklands using merchantmen with sev.Ro-Ro vessels in tow, similarly acquired by the SCI (we're now for the first time shipping trucks to BDesh from Chennai by a ro-ro vessel,cutting 10 days time vs transport by road) ,our amphib req. could've been made smaller and the money saved used for carrier no.3.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2130
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 29 Oct 2017 18:17

An EMALS equipped 65k Vikrant can carry appx 50 fighter planes, now is there any plane in the IN that can use the EMALS to the fullest extent possible?.. that option would certainly be interesting . Maybe the F18 NG might make it to the IN and in an interesting way the Gripen to the IAF !!

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2130
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 29 Oct 2017 18:21

Philip wrote:
When the RN discarded EMALS /CATS for their QE 65Kt CVs,being too expensive and requiring huge extra power that was best provided by an N-plant making the vessel unaffordable for "Little Britain,it would be an act of sheer folly for the IN to try and surpass the QE class when we have neither the money or tech. ability to do so.We are struggling sev years behind time to commission the new Vikrant,also exceeding initial costs,plus are clueless about the available aircraft options a decade+ from now.
Add to that the cost of the supporting cast- to protect the carrier,at least 2 DDGs,2 FFGs,a fleet tanker and 1 sub , we will be talking of anything upwards of at least $18-20B!


The EMALS is indeed coming to the IN new carriers Nuclear or not !! Better to stop comparing the RN with IN . the latter is going to be much bigger in total tonnage and number of warships

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 29 Oct 2017 18:47

Philip wrote:The MOD is finalising a non-Nuclear powered 65K behemoth powered by GTs.

FYI, the IAC Vikrant is powered by GTs as well. :roll:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2017 19:17

kit wrote:An EMALS equipped 65k Vikrant can carry appx 50 fighter planes, now is there any plane in the IN that can use the EMALS to the fullest extent possible?.. that option would certainly be interesting . Maybe the F18 NG might make it to the IN and in an interesting way the Gripen to the IAF !!


EMALS would make the MiG-29K (or any of its future variants) a highly unlikely contender on future vessels equipped with the system. Unless IN/MOD/HAL? take full control of those, I seriously doubt that the USN/DOD would allow MiG officials, developers, and engineers anywhere near their test sites for integration. That could explain some objection in some corners as it shuts off Russian fast jets altogether.

That being said, it is preposterous to consider a system that has had over a thousand launches during development and is, as we speak launching aircraft on its way to completing development testing within the next year (and moving to operational testing with a full systems OT for the first in class vessel) but the IN should nevertheless consider YAK STOVL fighters for its future carriers. :roll:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&p=2224892#p2224892
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Oct 2017 20:12, edited 1 time in total.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby arvin » 29 Oct 2017 20:04

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:The MOD is finalising a non-Nuclear powered 65K behemoth powered by GTs.

FYI, the IAC Vikrant is powered by GTs as well. :roll:


Not to forget 45k vikramaditya is run by steam!!!!.
All 3 have different types of propulsion. Talk about variety.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 29 Oct 2017 20:28

Point being made that N-power would give the extra beef for EMALS and other systems.Our two exg carriers do not have cats either,requiring a less powerful plant.
Russia offered its carrier tech.Since it is helping us with nuclear subs and reactors,for the civilian industry too, it could've been sounded out for an N-plant for IAC-2.

If we were to go ahead with the 65K CV and money no object,I would plump for an N-plant.If BAARC can't deliver in time get it from elsewhere.Ru or Fr if the French are also willing.

The crux of the matter is why do we need such a large CV ( unlike Britain with NATO duties too),when we have no expeditionary ambitions? Are we attempting to enter into a western mil. alliance by stealth through the "bung hole"?

With a large fleet of long-legged SS-MKIs,Backfires ,P-8Is all supported by tankers, the IN using both carrier aircraft and LR land/island based aircraft can sanitise the entire IOR against Chinese surface forces ,and with the req. no. of ASW aircraft assist the surface fleet and subs in countering PLAN subs too.What is being proposed is a virtual clone of a western-, read US carrier ,that has interoperability with US naval/carrier forces.Cross-decking part of the plan.Has the IN decided to replace Pak in the IOR which was once part of CENTO? The new "quadilateral" being touted will see us being a bit player.To imagine any of the other 3 nations willing to listen to us is laughable.Even the prisoners of OZ think we are inferior beings who should be stripped of our N-deterrent!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 29 Oct 2017 21:52

Philip wrote:Point being made that N-power would give the extra beef for EMALS and other systems.Our two exg carriers do not have cats either,requiring a less powerful plant. Russia offered its carrier tech.Since it is helping us with nuclear subs and reactors,for the civilian industry too, it could've been sounded out for an N-plant for IAC-2.

You were just complaining about the cost of the IAC-2 and how the CCS is sure to shoot it down. Now you want it to be nuclear powered - because hey maybe the Russians can supply the power plant. (The galling thing is the Trumpian lack of self awareness.)

What is being proposed is a virtual clone of a western-, read US carrier ,that has interoperability with US naval/carrier forces.

What's being proposed is halfway between the French CdG & US Nimitz, the same size as the Kuznetsov & Liaoning, very similar to the French PA2 but smaller than the Chinese Type 002.

Hardly justifies all the hair wrenching and breast beating about India losing its sovereignty or independence.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 30 Oct 2017 04:31

Pl. read carefully.If we have won the jackpot,for argument's sake,an N-powered CV far better than a GT CV if EMALS is included.However I immediately asked whether we needed such a large CV unlike Britain linked to NATO responsibilities.We have no "exepeditionary" agenda whatsoever.Our amphib capabilities are limited.I was reading AM Patney on the issue of CDS,theatre commands and the problems in the A&N unified command,another issue.So what ground campaign are we going to support? We have no global mil.agenda either. Neither are we thinking of risking sending our large CV into "harms way", the ICS,unless we are lusting to be part of Uncle Sam's quadilateral posse! The 3 med. sized CVs plus land/island -based aircraft can serve our needs v.well. There is no need for us to widen our war risk with China by tagging along with the samurais of Nippon,cowboys of the Wild West or the jailbirds of OZ!
The risk for China sending its CVs into the IOR would be the same as our sending our CVs into the ICS.Subs are the preferred weapons of choice.

I totted up a list of "food " that the services require urgently.The list and approx cost is staggering. Our economy simply at this point cannot afford a CBG package as envisaged.If the IN wants CV no. 3 then it should have as I said a more affordable plan B,sister ship of the Vikrant-2 which could be slightly larger ,larger lifts, and could be built faster and at a more affordable cost.

PS:Imagine if we were part of the Quad. today.Trump and Young Leader Kim finally decide to put the gloves on and go to war.India gets dragged into the conflict as a bit player and an enraged Kim sends us a "non-stop flight" to Delhi! I know it's far-fetched,but in the case of a spat with China over ICS sovereignty,and here China is to exercise with ASEAN navies ,making serious efforts to undercut the US axis of evil,the risks are dramatically higher.We already have the Doklam crisis just subsiding but still unresolved,and an accelerated JV with Pak planned for the future.With the US unwilling to sever its umbilical cord with Pak despite Pak's duplicity,to expect Uncle Sam or any of the Quad. members to rush to our aid militarily in the event of another Indo-China-Pak conflict is ludicrous.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 106
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 30 Oct 2017 12:13

Philip wrote:...

PS:Imagine if we were part of the Quad. today.Trump and Young Leader Kim finally decide to put the gloves on and go to war.India gets dragged into the conflict as a bit player and an enraged Kim sends us a "non-stop flight" to Delhi! I know it's far-fetched,but in the case of a spat with China over ICS sovereignty,and here China is to exercise with ASEAN navies ,making serious efforts to undercut the US axis of evil,the risks are dramatically higher.We already have the Doklam crisis just subsiding but still unresolved,and an accelerated JV with Pak planned for the future.With the US unwilling to sever its umbilical cord with Pak despite Pak's duplicity,to expect Uncle Sam or any of the Quad. members to rush to our aid militarily in the event of another Indo-China-Pak conflict is ludicrous.


Is this the level of Strategic Analysis that goes for great wisdom? (1) India will be a bit player in the Quad... (2) North Korea will bomb us... (3) Australia doesnt care about us - they are against our Nuclear Weapons etc., and will take them away (a piddly 2.4 Crore odd nation that is finding difficult to handle China already) (4) We are done for (5) Without Russia we are nothing - Russians will now start giving weapons to Pakistan etc. etc. etc. (6) Indian Foreign policy establishment doesn't know anything, never knew anything

The above kind of rant reminds me of the time in 70s and 80s when we were actually a piddly player in the larger scheme of things, neither the Economy, nor the ability to influence others' behaviours etc., existed. And therefore the natural response of any Indian who was concerned was that everyone is out to screw us. There was a deep seated inferiority complex, defensive attitude that defined our existence. Most conversations would be like that of a chap who can't do much but shouts the most.

It took a revolution of sorts led by Mr. Narasimha Rao to get out us out of the rut, and get us back to our natural course of what we were over till at least early 19th century. The economic and civilisational decline had of course started, possibly after the 10th century, and what we saw even in the early 19th century was just a remnant of what had been going on earlier. And thereafter we had a massive decline over the 200 odd years. Till 1991 sort of started a climb back.

Now we are getting back to what we used to be. The dynamism of the economy, the youth, the ability to influence nations has started to emerge.

In such a situation, the options exist for us to manage, deepen relations with all the real Super/ Great powers like US, China, Russia, Japan, Germany, and UK, France, or EU and others that matter - including the West Asian states, African Countries. And that is what is happening. Broadly by all Governments - some better like the current, some worse like the second stint of Dr. Manmohan Singh, but the trend is certainly towards the right direction.

Yet, I can't seem to understand this repeated, consistent inferiority complex ridden, "everyone is out to screw us", "we are done for', "Even the Australians will screw us" - Hell, specifically on the Australian Prime Ministers, over the last 10 years or more, each of them has made a visit to India, while maybe just one Indian PM visit has happened to Australia. Similarly would be the case of UK Prime Ministers visiting India. That shows how the wind is blowing. A far cry from the 1998 Nuclear blasts when the Australians were jumping up and down and yapping because of some remnant belief that they actually mattered. Even on that one has to read what Mr. G Parthasarathy, the then High Commissioner of ours, has written on how he dealt with the Australian Foreign Ministry's missives and bullshit.

And where will the Russians go by the way? By being able to influence West Asia/ Middle East - Iran, Syria, Turkey by being able to take great, rapid decisions shows dynamism on their part. And they have done a great job, kudos to them. That doesn't mean they don't need friends. And a large powerful economy like India, now, and certainly in the future, provides massive opportunities for Russia. Similarly for us Russia has been a friend, and a mutual respectful relationship is what both our countries will have.

Indian foreign policy, even in the 60s when we were dependent on PL480 to get wheat to feed our people, was not hand maiden to the West. What to talk of now!

But to increase our options, we should certainly work with Americans, Japanese, Russians. Particularly in the context of China. The more options we increase for ourselves the better it will be for us. That doesn't mean we will be somebody's poodle. Great Nations never are. India will increasingly be a swing state, that will matter for all key powers, and that is how broadly our establishment (across the political establishment) has been largely working towards as well.

This consistent refrain that Americans will get us, Australians, of all the piddly nations, will get us, only suggests a deep seated fear, lack of confidence in our abilities, "everyone but for me, is a fool", "Foreign establishment of India doesnt know anything...", etc. etc.

What do we think the Russians are doing? Given the economic disparity between them and China, now itself, and certainly in the future, the only military leverage they will be left with w.r.t China will be the Russian Nuclear weapons. With China investing more and more in Technology and weapons, the Russian lead in weapon systems will increasingly be less and less, over the next 2 decades - what will Russians do then? Will they not feel threatened by China, overwhelming the Siberian part economically? They are also going to try to increase their leverage against China with other means - this could mean they would work towards partnering more with India in economic spheres, and combine well on other issues. That has already been seen, for example, in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) with the Russians proposing that India become a member to constrain Chinese influence in Central Asia, and over earlier Soviet countries, viz. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, from moving too much into China’s geostrategic orbit. Chinese are going to be concerned about that. To mollify them Pak was made SCO member too. But that doesn't mean anything in real terms. The Russians will certainly improve relations with Japan - and the current relations, would not necessarily define the future. They are certainly working towards improving the issue over the Kuril Islands/ Northern territories. They may look for Japanese investments in Russia to counter Chinese ones. Where else will Japan put their money into, other than India, or Russia, or Africa, wherever opportunities exist, now that Chinese are going to be difficult?

As for Russians giving weapons to Pakistan, tilting towards Pakistan etc. etc. - this has to be amazing. Pakistan will be a bit player in economic terms. They will not be able to help Russians with, broadly, anything other than probably in Afghanistan. Are we here at BRF, trying to suggest that because of some help that Pakistan can give to Russians in Afghanistan, Russia will abandon India and fall into Pakistan's lap - almost reminds me of the sort of comparison Indians used to do with Pakistan till even the 80s. A single F-16 squadron coming to Pakistan, and many people I knew starting imagining that India is now done for. Amazing.

We certainly need to grow up.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3274
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 31 Oct 2017 00:25

Enjoy folks;

Image

Image

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, nandakumar, sgopal and 47 guests