INS Vishal: Will India go Nuclear?

[Indian Patriot]

you don't make any sense at all....

ROFLOL!! Never mind, you did not get the joke.

1. The nation which build 5 thousand ton frigate was abbled to build 40K ton carrier and you still think its not possile to build 65k ton carrier??? Well let me assume, you must be in love with Congress.

Don't make assumptions here BOY. You maybe a terrorist for all we know, so why don't you shut up and concentrate on the topic?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

We must make TWO more Vikrant class Aircraft carriers

That is enough ; And it can be done quickly too

 

[Indian Patriot]

India is built 40000 + tonnage aircraft carrier, 65000 Tons is no big deal for Cochin shipyard.

India is in the process of building the 40,000 ton carrier and lets see how long it takes to be built. Only after that is complete will the 65,000 ton AC will commence work.

The docks are already there in place, India is building commercial ships which are bigger tonnage than 65000 Tons. So India do have the capability to build bigger warships and docks.

Building commercial vessels and naval vessels are different things. But never mind. And it is not just an AC we are talking about. We are talking about a nuclear powered AC, there is a reactor to be designed, built and ensured that it fits inside the hull.

India is a maritime power, IN needs bigger share of defence budget. India should concentrate on mountain divisions, warfare and also Navy these days. Kashmir and North east are mountainous terrains.

IN air wing is an added advantage and dimension to the already existing IAF capabilities.

I did not ask about India's priorities. I asked about India's defence budget, how much is allocated to the IN and how much you think would be required by the navy to operate the nuclear powered carrier.

India might have built one AC as of now but has lots of experience in building Bigger tonnage ships as indicated in the above link.

India is in the process of building an aircraft carrier, not already built.

Miniaturizing the reactor is difficult than building a bigger one. They have already designed a bigger reactor which gives double the power than the reactor used in INS Arihant.

Care to post links to support the claim? So you are saying the reactor is ready and all it needs is the AC.

With the increase of GDP defence budget should also get priority, Budget is not a problem.

Dont give me should, could, would. I am asking you how much does it cost to operate a nuclear AC. In theory India can buy 4000 Bofors Howitzers this year itself, but still not even 40 has been purchased so far. Defence budget and grocery budget are different things you see.

Reason why India needs many CBGs to protect its interests from straits of Malacca to Horn of Africa.

Sure why not, India can afford to build 6 nuclear powered AC if you believe the Indian posters in PDF.

I am talking about technologies used in F22 and F35.

For the last time, F-22 and F-35 are DIFFERENT aircraft. One is not a dumbed down version of the other. Who feeds you such silly things man? Who on earth gave you the idea that they are the same aircraft?

B-2, F-117, F-22, F-35 are all stealth aircraft, they read the same to you?

You guys are simply amazing. Your theories would give serious competition to Zaid Hamid and Co.

 

[kurup]

Not entirely correct. Diesel, or rather Steam was used to power the Kitty Hawk, which at 86,000 tons is significantly heavier than the proposed INS-Vishal.

Further, the difference between the operational and maintenance costs between a CVN and a CV, over a period of 40 years still cannot justify a nuclear propulsion. I went through the entire GAO report on the US CV and CV fleet to study this.

So you saying the entire life cycle cost of a CV will remain lesser than that of a CVN .

 

[Didact]

So you saying the entire life cycle cost of a CV will remain lesser than that of a CVN .

Precisely. And unlike a certain 'patriot', I can back up my claims with solid numbers, from the US GAO no less.

G.A.O. is the US version of the Indian C.A.G. (all numbers below are in millions)

This is the reason I had suggested on another forum that India go for a larger CV than go for a CVN at this juncture, if cost-effectiveness had to be maximized.

If you want to focus exclusively on life cycle costs, the following table will give you an idea.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Precisely. And unlike a certain 'patriot', I can back up my claims with solid numbers, from the US GAO no less.

Mind your own fcuking business little boy.

 

[kurup]

Precisely. And unlike a certain 'patriot', I can back up my claims with solid numbers, from the US GAO no less.

G.A.O. is the US version of the Indian C.A.G. (all numbers below are in millions)

This is the reason I had suggested on another forum that India go for a larger CV than go for a CVN at this juncture, if cost-effectiveness had to be maximized.

If you want to focus exclusively on life cycle costs, the following table will give you an idea.

By any standards a CV is economical compared to CVN , So why are we looking to acquire a CVN ??

 

[The Great One]

By any standards a CV is economical compared to CVN , So why are we looking to acquire a CVN ??

EMALS, no need for massive fuel dumps for the beast, Range unlimited (except for rations), much faster - US CVN's did 50 Knots+ on the way to GW1!, Future Direct Energy weapons

 

[Indian Patriot]

By any standards a CV is economical compared to CVN , So why are we looking to acquire a CVN ??

CVN is more modern, but far more expensive to build and maintain.

 

[Echo_419]

Kitty hawk?

Keep in mind those are Americans we are talking about with the largest def budget on the planet we are a poor country & if nuclear propulsion costs less in long term we will go for it is

EMALS, no need for massive fuel dumps for the beast, Range unlimited (except for rations), much faster - US CVN's did 50 Knots+ on the way to GW1!, Future Direct Energy weapons

If we go for EMALS then we would have to go for F-35s right

 

[Srinivas]

Read my post regarding f22 and f35 clearly and reply.

India is designing 196 mwe nuke reactor, all the technologies are there.

These aircraft carriers are in addition to the 4 yet to be inducted helicopter carriers.

Regarding who feeds me, I am not a baby. I learn.

India is in the process of building the 40,000 ton carrier and lets see how long it takes to be built. Only after that is complete will the 65,000 ton AC will commence work.



Building commercial vessels and naval vessels are different things. But never mind. And it is not just an AC we are talking about. We are talking about a nuclear powered AC, there is a reactor to be designed, built and ensured that it fits inside the hull.



I did not ask about India's priorities. I asked about India's defence budget, how much is allocated to the IN and how much you think would be required by the navy to operate the nuclear powered carrier.



India is in the process of building an aircraft carrier, not already built.



Care to post links to support the claim? So you are saying the reactor is ready and all it needs is the AC.



Dont give me should, could, would. I am asking you how much does it cost to operate a nuclear AC. In theory India can buy 4000 Bofors Howitzers this year itself, but still not even 40 has been purchased so far. Defence budget and grocery budget are different things you see.



Sure why not, India can afford to build 6 nuclear powered AC if you believe the Indian posters in PDF.



For the last time, F-22 and F-35 are DIFFERENT aircraft. One is not a dumbed down version of the other. Who feeds you such silly things man? Who on earth gave you the idea that they are the same aircraft?

B-2, F-117, F-22, F-35 are all stealth aircraft, they read the same to you?

You guys are simply amazing. Your theories would give serious competition to Zaid Hamid and Co.

 

[The Great One]

If we go for EMALS then we would have to go for F-35s right

Seems likely. And why not? Of the three open-source options available - F/A-18, Rafale and F-35, clearly it should be the most superior of them and most likely cheaper than Rafale.

 

[Didact]

Mind your own fcuking business little boy.

Do you know the value of 1 in 0.0000000001? That's precisely your (lack of) worth to me. Now that we are clear on the worth of your opinion to me, you may or may not choose to ignore me. Either way, your value can only diminish with time.

By any standards a CV is economical compared to CVN , So why are we looking to acquire a CVN ??

EMALS, no need for massive fuel dumps for the beast, Range unlimited (except for rations), much faster - US CVN's did 50 Knots on the way to GW1!, Future Direct Energy weapons

.
It is one of the more difficult questions to answer without in-depth technical knowledge. However there are certain advantages of a CVN that I should mark out.

1. The CV depends on boilers for steam generation, required by the steam catapult. Now given that modern ships are run on gas turbines/diesel generators, you would require additional space for boilers, as also additional fuel for powering the boilers. Boilers are also more prone to malfunction.

That additional space can be used to place the nuclear reactor.

It also goes without saying that an EMALS system will require a electrical output of a nuclear reactor to power it's massive magnets.

2. The flight deck and the bridge is far more cleaner and safer for the crew in a CVN than a CV. The diesel smoke was known to cause severe breathing impediment to the crews and the bridge operators in the KItty Hawk.

3. The steam catapults in the CVN are known to have a higher sortie generation rate, as well as a higher launch rate as compared to the CV. This is because the CV must wait till the boiler regenerates enough steam for the slingshot.

Just a little correction to @The Great One: The maximum range of a CV or a CVN is predicated by the reach of the logistics or supply fleet. The onboard resources on both versions of the carrier are roughly enough for 7 & 14 days respectively, far shorter than a regular deployment. Beyond those days, the carrier loses combat capability.

 

[The Great One]

Just a little correction to @The Great One: The maximum range of a CV or a CVN is predicated by the reach of the logistics of the supply fleet. The onboard resources on both versions of the carrier are roughly enough for 7 & 14 days respectively, far shorter than a regular deployment. Beyond those days, the carrier loses combat capability.

Obviously. That was the general idea, behind the word rations (yes the word doesn't include spares and support).
Anyway nuclear do have an advantage over the diesel-electric in range when looked from an operational POV as the D-E's max range is dependent on it running at an optimal speed while the CVN can run at full power all the time. The CBG except the SSN may be left behind, but it can be done and was done in war.

 

[Mike_Brando]

Mind your own fcuking business little boy.

Mind your language Mr.Patriot!This isn't your home,this is an international forum and hence you are seen here as a representative of India.So my advise would be to maintain your civility in front of everyone as you are only making a fool out of yourself by abusing others!!