INS Vikrant: News and Discussion

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 11 Jun 2015 20:54

If the Arjun --> armata is any indication (& before that adopting mig29k and su30mki in RuN & RuAF), the next russian aircraft carrier would resemble IAC actually rather than the other way round (when they have money off course).

John · Post by **John** » 11 Jun 2015 21:44

Fyi Russian navy found Mig-29k superior to Su-27k for their carrier ops in trials in 80s but were pressured into procuring the latter. Regardless of IN's procurement they would have made that switch since Su-27k airframes need to be replaced.

Besides what does Russian carrier have anything to do with India navy carrier plans or Vikrant. There is dedicated thread for international naval news and please don't bring Armata-Arjun nonsense into yet another thread. Mods please clean up posts before another thread goes downhill..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2015 22:06

John,you're spot on.The Varyag,"Lion King",whatever,reportedlly burst a boiler when underway some time ago.The Chinese have not revealed the extent of damage which was caused,fatalities,etc.
Frankly,I don't see what purpose is served by selling the Vik-A which is the only CV that we have! It may have its "uniqueness" in terms of design,but approx. carries the same strike potential as the Vikrant.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2015 22:39

John wrote:Fyi Russian navy found Mig-29k superior to Su-27k for their carrier ops in trials in 80s but were pressured into procuring the latter. Regardless of IN's procurement they would have made that switch since Su-27k airframes need to be replaced.

Besides what does Russian carrier have anything to do with India navy carrier plans or Vikrant. There is dedicated thread for international naval news and please don't bring Armata-Arjun nonsense into yet another thread. Mods please clean up posts before another thread goes downhill..

replied: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1854610

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jun 2015 23:00

I think it has been asked before. How difficult is it to adapt the IAC to LPDs/LPHs? I am just thinking of commonality. Or is it just better and cost efficient to just import the design?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 12 Jun 2015 02:03

indranilroy wrote:I think it has been asked before. How difficult is it to adapt the IAC to LPDs/LPHs? I am just thinking of commonality. Or is it just better and cost efficient to just import the design?

Not an expert opinion but IAC will require redesigning to allow berthing of landing crafts. This might also require some changes to allow flooding so that it can lower itself to launch these crafts.

And maybe some strengthening to allow heavier armoured vehicles to be carried over.

Arrester gear for a/c recovery will also be removed.

Overall not a simple crossover I guess.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 04:50

Not simple. The engg deck might need moving to allow the docking area...parking decks for vehicles...much smaller hangar

But if u want a pure heli carrier like izumo or hyuga or Cavour its easy

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 04:52

Pure heli design is best for asw leader sea control role.

Carting marines can be given to smaller cheaper Rotterdam type ships

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 12 Jun 2015 07:28

Aditya_V wrote:GD-> Vikky was not designed and built as an Aircraft carrier in the 80's. It was a missile carrier which could carry a few STVOl aircraft. There was major structural work to convert it to Aircraft carrier from 2004-14. It is a clear misfit it was the best of the bad choices we had. the only plus point is Navy gets 45 Mig 29K which frees some of the duties of the IAF.

FWIW the USS Kitty Hawk was a possible choice at the time, or so I've heard. The issues there would've been of the aircraft complement. It is possible that the GoI did not want to go the US route for fighter acquisition at the time. Looks like the Kitty Hawk might still available though, as a possible bridge to the Vishal, maybe with an organic complement of F-35s. And, she has excellent steam catapults.

Just my 2c...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 08:26

kitty hawk was already around 50 yrs old. commisioned 1961. she would require a complete and very extensive overhaul of her propulsion and electrical machinery and F-18 fleet to operate. US would not tie up her shipyard even today for such a project.

buying 90 american a/c like f-18 would have bankrupted us also.

it would be gorshkov but on a 3X scale

we contained the damage to much less with gorshkov

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 Jun 2015 09:32

I think the future is clear if we need to be carrier aviation power.

1. STOVL is a dead end for fleet carriers. Wont work for us. We need CTOLS
1.1 - The way to go is EMALS. Get the Elec Engg depts at the Madrassas focused on this and get a few prototypes in and running. This kind of thing is NOT rocket science , but just hard putting nose to the grinding wheel and persevering kind of engineering

1.2 - Nuclear propulsion is way too expensive and won't work. Far easier to build out 3 to 4 fleet tankers. BUT - you need to increase efficiency . Go the IEP (Integrated Electric Propulsion way) and put in waste heat boilers and superheater to go Combined Cycle - COGAS with electric propulsion

1.3 - IEP will give flexibility to bring prime movers on and off as required, also gives ample power for EMALS, along with high efficiency. As an interim measure, go for conventional CATs, which are possible with COGAS systems

1.4 - The prime mover is LM2500+. HAL makes LM2500 (i think they have a license). Crank them out in numbers, go for deeper localisation and throw this Zorya business in to the Kakkoose. That Zorya power plants are a dead end . Doomed. Standardise on LM2500 fleet wide.
1.5 - NO MORE HULL IMPORTS FROM ANYWHERE. Parcel them out to all the local yards from L&T to Pipavav to ABG to of course the govt yards on standardised CODAG (LM2500+ & Pielsticks) made by their respective local licensees (HAL & Kirloskar). Will give economies of scale and full control over consumables and spares and drop op ex considerably

2. Standardise on the LCA MK2 for the bulk roles. Mig29K will have a limited life. Also, import EC-2000 Hawkeye . You need EMALS/Cats for that.

3. VikAd is a sunk cost. Squeeze that lemon as much as you can over the next 10 to 15 years and send it to the bottom after being struck off from the register as a torpedo and Brahmos target

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 10:19

HAL might be doing assembly from SKD kits of the LM2500 family going by their gas turbine division page:

Current Collaborators and Services Offered

Rolls Royce Industrial & Marine Gas Turbine, UK

Repair and overhaul & on site support of industrial Avon Engines. -> used in offshore rigs i think to generate power

Module change 'on-site' support of Industrial RB-211 Engines. -> offshore, project sites?(this is the tornado engine)

Rols Royce Allision, USA

Repair & Overhaul and Onsite Support of Allison 501K engines.

GE, USA

Assembly, Test, Repair & Overhaul of LM2500 Industrial and Marine
Gas Turbines
In India total population of the above Gas Turbines as of now is 104 and various customers operating these Gas Turbines such as ONGC, GAIL, TNEB & RSEB are fully supported in the smooth operations and maintenance of these Gas Turbines

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2015 10:23

rolls royce is the only other world level player in marine gas turbines. their RR Spey engine core also seen in the F-4 and the mighty FBC-1 in another form. some of the japanese and korean ships use it I think.

every conventional ship in the USN now uses the LM2500 family.

they have a very nice product portfolio for marine work
http://www.rolls-royce.com/customers/ma ... ducts.aspx

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jun 2015 17:16

EMALS requires massive elec power and only an N-powered carrier would suffice.The est. cost is anywhere between $13-15B.The IN at this stage simply cannot afford it and the sub needs are top priority. As CSL has offered,it can build another Vikrant class in 4 years time. The way to go ,so that the two Vikrant class CVs will share commonality,crews,etc.,making operations easier.The Vik-A stands alone,barring the air wing,aircraft,helos,etc.,the main task of all 3 carriers.Since they operate the same type of aircraft/helos,and weaponry,it is mainly the machinery/sensors,etc ,which differ and the shiphandling characteristics .

The IN has just come out with its "rules for combat ships",a terrific achievement.
http://www.marinelink.com/news/publishe ... 92826.aspx

Rules for Indian Naval Combat Ships Published
Posted by Eric Haun

Thursday, June 11, 2015
IRClass Rules for Indian Naval Combatant ships released by Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral R K Dhowan

The “Rules and Regulations for Construction and Classification of Indian Naval Combatant Ships”, developed by Indian Register of Shipping were formally released by the Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral RK Dhowan, PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC on June 9, 2015.

The release took place in South Block, New Delhi, in the presence of Vice Admiral P Murugesan AVSM, VSM, Vice Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral AV Subhedar AVSM, VSM, Chief of Materiel, Vice Admiral GS Pabby AVSM, VSM, Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition and other senior officers of the Indian Navy. The Indian Register of Shipping was represented by Arun Sharma, Chairman and Managing Director, Vice Admiral B.S. Randhawa, PVSM, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Principal Naval Advisor, U.S. Kalghatgi, Chief Surveyor and Senior Vice President, and Ravi Sachdeva, Chief Surveyor and Senior Vice President.

Traditionally, naval ships have been designed and built as per the navy’s own design standards. However, over the past two decades, advances in the commercial field have occurred, such as lightweight, high speed ships, with modern highly responsive propulsion plants etc., which have led to classification societies becoming capable of dealing with technology being deployed in naval ships. Some classification societies, in collaboration with national navies have developed special rules for naval ships which incorporate the best of commercial and naval practices and the usage of such rules has grown with time. Perceiving the substantial advantages to be gained in adopting specially developed naval rules, for building of naval ships, the Indian Navy and IRS joined hands to develop naval rules in 2006. A conservative approach was followed, and in the first instance, rules were drawn up for noncombatant vessels and not for major warships. These rules were first published in 2007 and were revised in 2010, in the light of experience gained in their usage. Following the release of rules for noncombatant vessels, the development of IRS Naval Rules for combatant vessels was taken up. These rules have greater focus on the military aspects of ship design.

This development marks a milestone in IRS’ history and is yet another contribution to make the nation, and more specifically so, the defense manufacturing sector, self-reliant. The Make-in-India initiative has been the raison d’etre of IRS’ existence which was established in 1975 with the active support of Ministry of Shipping to promote national maritime interests and serve as a nucleus for R&D in the shipbuilding and allied sectors.

A presentation on the salient features of the rules and on the process of development preceded the release. The release of rules marked the culmination of about four years of effort and Indian Navy has steadfastly stood by IRS in this endeavour, said Arun Sharma speaking on the occasion. He further spoke on the advantages inherent in having naval rules, which embody the best features of commercial and naval ship design features and production processes, leading to cost – effectiveness. He stated that IRS was looking forward to the rules being put into application in the near future and, in the process undergo further refinement and improvement. He also conveyed thanks to the naval officers in the Indian Naval Rule Committee, who, along with their subordinates, worked alongside IRS and provided invaluable guidance during the development process. The Chief of the Naval Staff congratulated IRS on the development of the rules and stated that it was necessary that the rules be implemented and continually reviewed and updated so as to remain abreast of contemporary technology.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 Jun 2015 17:37

EMALS requires massive elec power and only an N-powered carrier would suffice

As mentioned earlier, The royal Navy and NAVAIR jointly funded the work that showed that given QE class's existing architecture EMALS could be made to work. Now this doesn't translate to the fact that it could work on IN's carriers, but it does show the fact that EMALS was offered, and was deemed feasible for a non N-powered carrier but later rejected due to the overall cost of changing the basic carrier design and of course the added cost of procurement that would have made acquiring 2 carriers harder if not outright impossible.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jun 2015 08:33

word was an additional 2xLM2500 might suffice to cats/EMALS on vishal , and 4xLM2500 + diesel for the propulsion and hotel load.
when airwing is not used these can supply hotel at low power or be shut down since I think unlike steam turbines they do not need hours to build up pressure and might be ready to roll in few mins.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 13 Jun 2015 22:28

I think the primary reason IN want s CAT is it's desire to embark large fixed wing aircraft for AEW and supply roles. Currently, once out at sea, large equipment cannot be supplied far from the shores.

Does the power capacity of the CAT determine what aircraft it can support? Would gas turbines driven EMALS do the job for these large aircraft? While nuclear power provides endless reserves, it is not easy to turn it up and turn it down rapidly. What happens when we have intermittent periods of high frequency operations? A 65K ton AC will not embark as many aircraft as a USN carrier will. So proportionately IN activity rates will also be lower. Perhaps GT turbine solution is more efficient (besides being less risky).

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 13 Jun 2015 22:51

From what I understand EMALS and nuclear power is touted, as it opens up more space for other things on the carrier. With just an additional 25k ton displacement on Vishal, the aircraft nos carried is not a factor of two or more compared to the Vikrant. That can be achieved only with EMALS and a compact power source, both of which saves space on board; but it brings in other issues like shielding and additional weight due to it does it not.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 13 Jun 2015 23:11

I am quite sure IN is welldown the path of designing 200 mW plants with BARC involved.
Common sense wold dictate above.
How far along? In sync with comissioning of 65k carrier? Speculation ends.

Fall back options available.

You will not need extra gas turbines for E=mals if the vessel is diesel electric, with a hybrid steam plant generating steam off turbine exhaust.
An air craft carrier usually steams @ 20 knots + while lanching craft. with 4 gas turbines , there is a lot of power that can be spooled up for auxilary/electric generation.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jun 2015 12:49

The chief factor is ,as the RN found out ...cost. If we have a roaring economy,with a rupee that does not fall in value against major currencies as ours is doing,and can afford to spend $10B to $15B on an N-powered EMALS carrier,which even Britain could not afford,and can also afford to spend another $10B on the escorts of DDGs,FFgs,fleet tanker,plus an escort N-sub below the waves, and carrying $100M+ JSF type/equivalent strike aircraft,go ahead!

The simple truth is that we can't afford it and as of now have to develop a suitable compact N-reactor for the same. Let's remember that the ATV reactor has been designed with assistance from Russia.It may have some conditions attached,but I do think that if we want an N-reactor for a carrier,Russia will again provide assistance,perhaps similar to the one on the Kuznetsov.But that may come with some conditions ,buying Russian aircraft,helos,etc. I'm not sure if BAARC will be able to deliver on av.tight time schedule.

Nevertheless,sorting out the funding and tech requirements,suppliers,etc. will take a few years,not overnight. That gives the In a 4-5 yr. opportunity not to let the built up carrier skills capability at CSL go to pots. The GOI/IN should press the button for another Vikrant class asap,while building up the sub capability ,the highest priority as mentioned in earlier posts.
lies.
Just look at how many assets we're using to try and locate the crashed Dornier.That shows how difficult it is going to be locating enemy subs in the IOR,where the critical weakness in the IN's fleet exists.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jun 2015 17:08

The RN had a much higher cost because it involved redesigning a ship that had been designed around STOBAR. A new ship doesn't have to go through those design changes.

Plus, the choices to Britain were with affording 2 carriers in a era of decreasing defense spending. They could have well made the effort but then they would have had to scale down 1 carrier since they were unlikely to get additional funding over and above what was allocated for the QE program. Add to all that the UK doesn't have a threat like the IN, they essentially will be operating their carriers in an offensive role alongside their allies. I don't think the IN is in the same boat. While the 'extra' cost of procuring a CAT (Steam or EMALS) equipped carrier is relatively simple to calculate for the authorities, the cost of operating a tactically 'limited' STOBAR carrier in the 2050's in a region where the main adversary is likely to escort its ships with a full fledged CAT equipped carrier most likely equipped with stealth fighters is a bit harder to calculate. Once you go down the STOBAR path the ship essentially retires as a STOBAR as the cost to completely gut the innards and get an EMALS @ the MLU stage is highly unlikely if not outright impossible. While land/shore based support is provided by all navies, the ship prefers to have as much 'organic' capability as possibility, be it AEW, ISR, high-tempo fleet defense, ordinance for strike etc etc because a carrier is many times more survivable than a fixed, geo-located, known land base that first and foremost has to overcome runway denial, cruise missile barrage and even a ballistic missile attack during the first day of any medium-high intensity conflict. Organic and land based capability is therefore duplicated at times for this very reason such as many ISR roles through organic capability (GH Triton vs the proposed UCLASS for example, or the concrete Growler squadrons vs the onboard EA-18Gs) for this very reason.

Its something I am sure the IN and the MOD will factor in i.e. what the intelligence suggests the Indo-Pacific region and the threat will look like 10, 20 and even 30 years from now when the future carrier is likely going to be used. The fact that EMALS and AAG is something that both parties were interested in (to explore as in the IN and to sell for the US) and that a high level indian delegation is going to be in the US soon to discuss the matter seems to suggest that the MOD and the IN are considering it. Of course what eventually comes out of that will be based on the threat, cost, complexity, an AOA, and mutual G2G negotiations and whether they can be worked on or not.

As far as Hilary Clinton and her intentions IF (and a big IF) she is elected POTUS - As the Sect. of State she was a champion for the Asia-Pacific rebalance and some even go far as to suggest that in her absence the thrust towards the Pacific was watered down until Ash. Carter's arrival as the SecDef. Don't expect the G2G relationship to fundamentally alter regardless of who comes to power in the US. There are few issues in the US that have a bipartisan support, the Pivot to Asia Pacific, and to strengthen strategic ties with India are few of those.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 14 Jun 2015 17:24

Is it possible to collaborate with the French on getting an uprated version of the Nuclear reactor on their AC. Make this a quid pro quo for getting the second tranche of Rafales.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 14 Jun 2015 18:30

Paul wrote:Is it possible to collaborate with the French on getting an uprated version of the Nuclear reactor on their AC. Make this a quid pro quo for getting the second tranche of Rafales.

It was twin 30MWe reactors for a 38000 t displacement carrier along with 4 gas turbines. It had lot of teething problems and perhaps a reason why French are not going for nuclear propulsion for their next carrier.

If all it takes is such small reactors, then it is definitely within our capabilities. Whether we need the twin 100MWe+ reactors as those in Nimitz class is a question only time can tell.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jun 2015 18:34

I think on a carrier, the issue is not about a "small" (size of the) reactor, but an efficient reactor (which would include size as a component of the design). The one designed for a sub will not be a good candidate. My understanding: US has the lead on this - naturally - but is unlikely to provide this expertise to India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jun 2015 08:02

instead of hinging a giant investment like a carrier on a new reactor, we should probably build the reactor into a new fleet tanker of 20,000t size locally made and proof it first. amirkhans first used n-reactors on cruisers and russia on ice-breakers iirc.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jun 2015 09:58

NR has stated the obvious.Where is the reactor tech going to come from? Answ. Russia!

They just have to give us the design of the one on the Kuznetsov,after all they've helped us with the ATVs.However,the cost factor is a big no-no right now.Another Vikrant is quite affordable and will keep CSL busy and create jobs for Indians too.More subs and another CV which can help amphib ops seems possible given our current eco state. We should instead see how we can capaitalise upon the existing CVs and aircraft,esp. quickly deciding upon the 100 multi-role helo rrequirement,v.urgently needed,along with accelerating BMos-M,so that the MIGs and warships,subs can carry them giving the IN v.formidable striking power.

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Jun 2015 11:19

They just have to give us the design of the one on the Kuznetsov,

Trouble is Kuzentsov is conventionally powered , probably same power plant as on the Minsk/Vik Ad, now lost forever to Ukraine.

See the picture here from Wiki of the Grand Fleet Adm Kuzentsov smoking like a Chimney !

HMS Dragon With Kuzentsov

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 15 Jun 2015 12:00

vina wrote:
They just have to give us the design of the one on the Kuznetsov,
Trouble is Kuzentsov is conventionally powered , probably same power plant as on the Minsk/Vik Ad, now lost forever to Ukraine.

See the picture here from Wiki of the Grand Fleet Adm Kuzentsov smoking like a Chimney !

HMS Dragon With Kuzentsov

Yes, Kuznecov steam powered, but the boilers and steam turbines are produced in Russia (St.Petersburg and Kaluga, respectively). Vikramaditya has upgraded boilers working on Diesel fuel.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jun 2015 12:42

thats a welcome data point know that Vikramaditya is not tied to ukraine power plant.

however the 9 largest ddg in the fleet P15, P15A and P15B are tied at the hip to zorya.

then the 6 talwars also have zorya.

so we are tied to zorya for decades. atleast for P15B I was hoping they would move to GE but no can do.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jun 2015 13:09

Oops! I meant the Ulyanovsk,which was a "Kremlin" class CV,never completed after 20% was built. 65K+ t std. displacement,fully loaded 85K t,details given below.The N-reactor designs should be available or suitable compact N-sub reactors for the required power.The new Russian N-powered carrier design work is to start from next year,to arrive around 8 years later.

Ulyanovsk
characteristics

Type: Aircraft carrier
Displacement: 65,800 tonnes standard
75,000 tonnes full load[1]
Length: 321.2 m (1,054 ft) overall[1]
Beam: 83.9 m (275 ft) overall[1]
40 m (130 ft) at waterline[1]
Draught: 10.6 m (35 ft)[1]
Propulsion: 4 × KN-3 nuclear reactors
4 × steam turbines, four shafts, 280,000 shp (210,000 kW)
Speed: 30 knots (56 km/h)
Range: Unlimited distance; 20-25 years
Endurance: Limited only by supplies
Complement: 3,400 total[1]
Armament: 12 x P-700 Granit SSMs,
Buk SAMs,
8 x CADS-N-1 CIWS,
8 x AK-630 rotary anti-aircraft cannons
Aircraft carried: 68 aircraft total
44 Sukhoi Su-33
and/or Mikoyan MiG-29K
6 × Yak-44 radar picket aircraft
16 Kamov Ka-27 ASW helicopters
2 Kamov Ka-27PS SAR helicopters[1]

This would've been a formidable "whale" by any stds,but would've cost a bomb,as would any carrier that large.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jun 2015 13:43

china is alleged to have purchased the ulyanovsk design from nikolayev shipyard in ukraine.
beats have to do it from scratch I suppose.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2015 16:07

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the reactor design for ships is very challenging. Coming to the Russians, they had a few naval and ice breakers that were nuclear powered. But discontinued for some reason. Which left only the US in the field.

The issue of "teething" is a common thread. Do not think the first (Indian) ship will be able to overcome it even with foreign help - outside of the US.

??????

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 15 Jun 2015 16:34

1. We should start working on nuclear reactors for airfcraft carriers. The technology and that we will be using it, is inevitable. Let's start sooner, rather than later. In the long run (2100 and beyond), its largely an India-China race. China's winning, for now.

2. US cooperation - we will have to bite the bullet and build up this relationship in the strategic realm. No amount of PAK FA's will make the Chinese wary of messing with us. Having the US in our corner, which does mean, supporting the US economy by buying from them and having a few joint ventures going is the need of the hour. Modi is well suited to breaking the mould and moving the establishment and babus, closer to the US. Its a moot point how comfortable the babus are in their personal lives with the 'States - a lot of them have family there and have transacted with them. They need to now getting closer in mil-industrial field. The private sector maybe leading the way here.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jun 2015 17:18

Looking forward into the future,as we did with the ATV project which took decades to fructify,N-reactors for major warships from battlecruisers to CVs will be a future need for the IN,at some point of time post 2020. Therefore,as the engine is the key factor in any aircraft,which we have learnt the hard way with both the HF-24 and repeated the same with the LCA,the development of N-reactors for surface warfare vessels must begin now.We've learnt something valuable from the ATV project.perhaps a series of small N-reactors as was planned with the Ulyanovsk may do,or fewer larger reactors,perhaps 2 instead. While it may be difficult to get the same from the US,Russia has already planned the same for its future CVs.At least the contours/concept could be studied,as there is no problem with the Russians for acquiring N-reactortech (provided we also buy some aircraft,helos,subs,etc.,whatever in a package deal!).who knows,the reactor/s they are planning to install for their future carriers may just suit us.

Nevertheless,if we don't start our own home-designed naval N-plants,with or without help,we will be up the creek without a paddle when the time comes. The go-ahead for designing N-reactors for surface ships and CVs should get the green light. It may take us a decade to do so,but in the long run it will be worth it. till then we must also learn to develop our own GTs,diesels,AIP systems,etc. for all kinds of marine power plants.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Jun 2015 18:16

The next Indian Carrier should be 65+ ton class.
IN should look at Nuclear power - if not for this carrier, then for the next one.
BARC needs to design a navalized reactor for not just a carrier, but also aimed at power generation on board a boat that can be taken to disaster hit areas for providing electricity.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 15 Jun 2015 18:30

Gagan

Post subject: Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion

PostPosted: 15 Jun 2015 18:16

Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25
Posts: 6638

The next Indian Carrier should be 65+ ton class.
IN should look at Nuclear power - if not for this carrier, then for the next one.
BARC needs to design a navalized reactor for not just a carrier, but also aimed at power generation on board a boat that can be taken to disaster hit areas for providing electricity.

We already have N/Reactor the one in our Sub.I am sure same reactor can be used or can be easily upgraded. Only thing is to installed in we might need Russian help.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2015 20:01

1. We should start working on nuclear reactors for airfcraft carriers. The technology and that we will be using it, is inevitable. Let's start sooner, rather than later. In the long run (2100 and beyond), its largely an India-China race. China's winning, for now.

No ROI. I do not think carriers are considered strategic assets. And, there are not enough carriers to provide funds - and I just do not see any other ship being nuclear powered.

Even Russia - outside of an ego trip, which is likely - can justify it for her carrier/s.

2. US cooperation - we will have to bite the bullet and build up this relationship in the strategic realm. No amount of PAK FA's will make the Chinese wary of messing with us. Having the US in our corner, which does mean, supporting the US economy by buying from them and having a few joint ventures going is the need of the hour. Modi is well suited to breaking the mould and moving the establishment and babus, closer to the US. Its a moot point how comfortable the babus are in their personal lives with the 'States - a lot of them have family there and have transacted with them. They need to now getting closer in mil-industrial field. The private sector maybe leading the way here.

Form what little I have read/know, the issue seems to be that the US (carrier) reactors need highly enriched nuclear material.

Also, would like to touch on another aspect - the thought of what the US will do for India. The US will do just enough to help push India over certain humps in areas where there is common areas of concern (SCS, etc). IF those areas of concern decline (or vanish) the entire equation may change (I expect it to). {Just a reminder: All nations act in their own interest - there is no exception to this rule. Corollary: There are political and non-political interests.}

Point being do not expect the US to part with a ton of stuff - the relationship is still under great stress.

Finally, please remember that others have tried to go nuclear on ships - both military and civilians - and it has not panned out. France in military, Russia and the US is both military and civilian. There may be others that I have missed. I think China is one nation that could find the need to go nuclear for her carriers and yet be happy with the ROI. I expect China (and not Russia) to be all over the globe - thus justifying her need for nuclear techs on ships.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 15 Jun 2015 20:42

We have 18 or so potential ports in the IOR that PRC has access to and we worry about SCS games and a nuke powered ship which has a reach to the western pacific. We need to get our priorities right first and find the monies second.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 15 Jun 2015 20:46

population sizes have virtually condemned us to be the strategic rivals to China. There will be no peace without strength that maintains it.
What they do , we will more likely than not, follow.
nuclear carriers for global policing? yes, please.
it is chinas autocratic inefficiencies that will make them lose to us in the long run. we are two hundred years ahead of them in our political systems.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 15 Jun 2015 21:28

What are we protecting in SCS ? What do we have in there when the enemy is right in the IOR itself. One needs to answer that before embarking on becoming the world's beat policeman. Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia etc can take care of their own backyard with help from Japan and the US. We can do our little bit from the Andamans itself and extensions thereof. Our play has be IOR centric before we do our superpower duties if needed in 2100.