India's 2nd air craft carrier would be, of Catobar Type.

[Dillinger]

But I heard that MOD took a different approach of building the AC's not consecutively but at the same time once IAC I completes.

Yaraa by the time IAC-2 will be well into the construction phase then the DAE reactor will come out. When the construction starts no one will know even the dimensions and requirements of the reactor so it cannot be fitted onto the IAC-2 since we cannot change the design. Unless we delay the designing process of the IAC-2 and wait for the reactor to be completed or somehow speed up DAE's work.

 

[Screambowl]

Yaraa by the time IAC-2 will be well into the construction phase then the DAE reactor will come out. When the construction starts no one will know even the dimensions and requirements of the reactor so it cannot be fitted onto the IAC-2 since we cannot change the design. Unless we delay the designing process of the IAC-2 and wait for the reactor to be completed or somehow speed up DAE's work.

they must have designed IAC2 on board so why they cannot take the dimension out of that?

 

[Dillinger]

they must have designed IAC2 on board so why they cannot take the dimension out of that?

Can't be done, you can't say that ok it should be this big and this wide now make the reactor, its a fluid process, abhi toh reactor ka design bhi firm nahi hai. There are too many technical impediments and such parallel developments are far too risky.

Chill yaara, a 65K tonne carrier conventional or not will still do the job. And once we have the capacity to build one of them AFTER that it'll be far easier to use that to build a nuclear powered one. Its either that or as I said the DAE will have to hurry up, no indication of the latter so far. We could try to use a dual 83MW reactor, dunno if that will work...depends.

 

[Screambowl]

Can't be done, you can't say that ok it should be this big and this wide now make the reactor, its a fluid process, abhi toh reactor ka design bhi firm nahi hai. There are too many technical impediments and such parallel developments are far too risky.

Chill yaara, a 65K tonne carrier conventional or not will still do the job. And once we have the capacity to build one of them AFTER that it'll be far easier to use that to build a nuclear powered one. Its either that or as I said the DAE will have to hurry up, no indication of the latter so far. We could try to use a dual 83MW reactor, dunno if that will work...depends.

but how China is going to do that by 2020? Though they lack experience and never operated before unlike India?

 

[Dillinger]

but how China is going to do that by 2020? Though they lack experience and never operated before unlike India?

They say they will, any construction started on their front, don't think so. Its not as easy as it seems, dunno about the dual 83MW RWRs though, its been done before in subs, maybe it could be done here, they are certainly miniature enough to fit in snugly.

 

[arp2041]

they must have designed IAC2 on board so why they cannot take the dimension out of that?

Let's Learn to walk first before we started running.

We are making IAC-1 which will be a STOBAR carrier of 40k tonnes.

Than we are planning to make IAC-2 which will be a CATOBAR carrier with 65k tonnes.

All the plans of a nuclear carrier, super carriers, etc. are TOO AMBITIOUS.

We aren't US, we have to work in small steps to become one.

 

[Screambowl]

They say they will, any construction started on their front, don't think so. Its not as easy as it seems, dunno about the dual 83MW RWRs though, its been done before in subs, maybe it could be done here, they are certainly miniature enough to fit in snugly.

then dual 83MW reactors like one in arihant can also be installed on our IAC xyz

 

[arp2041]

A 6000 tonnes INS Arihant needs 80MW PWR.

A 42k tonnes French Charles De Gaulle needs 2*150MW PWRs to keep it running.

Imagine what a 65k tonnes IAC-2 will need to Power it??

A CLEAR NO FOR NUCLEAR POWERED IAC-2.

 

[Screambowl]

Let's Learn to walk first before we started running.

We are making IAC-1 which will be a STOBAR carrier of 40k tonnes.

Than we are planning to make IAC-2 which will be a CATOBAR carrier with 65k tonnes.

All the plans of a nuclear carrier, super carriers, etc. are TOO AMBITIOUS.

We aren't US, we have to work in small steps to become one.

I was talking about after completing IAC 1. IAC 2(conventiona) and IAC 3(Nuclear powered) of course it will take more than a decade approx 2 no doubt in that.

 

[Dillinger]

then dual 83MW reactors like one in arihant can also be installed on our IAC xyz

Ya it can be done but we aren't seeing any movement in that direction. Lets wait and watch, even the dual reactors will still come up short in retrospect, we need something more in the range of 300MW+.

 

[Screambowl]

A 6000 tonnes INS Arihant needs 80MW PWR.

A 42k tonnes French Charles De Gaulle needs 2*150MW PWRs to keep it running.

Imagine what a 65k tonnes IAC-2 will need to Power it??

A CLEAR NO FOR NUCLEAR POWERED IAC-2.

IAC 2 is no doubt a conventional one. IAC 3 I was talking about. But If 194 MW reactors in total can propel 100tons of AC then 165 MW would be able to propel 70tons AC

 

[Dillinger]

@Screambowl we'll really have to wait and watch, its far too speculative atm...lets see. Anyway I'm headed to the banned member resort, lets see if I can dig up something on DAE's status in that time.

 

[Screambowl]

@Screambowl we'll really have to wait and watch, its far too speculative atm...lets see. Anyway I'm headed to the banned member resort, lets see if I can dig up something on DAE's status in that time.

hahaha okay. well I was curious about the Indian advancement but as compared to Chinese as they claim to build it by 2020 or so mean in a decade. India cannot afford to lag behind them in any case since this is the field where we are ahead of them. Tc, Thanks.

 

[Penguin]

Original Gorshkov was 33,440 tons (standard) / 44,490 tons (loaded). As compared to 30,530 tons (standard) / 41,370 tons (loaded) for the original Kiev. VIkramaditya is quote to be 45,400 tons full load i.e. slightly heavier than Gorshkov originally was.

By comparison, the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov displaces 43,000-tonnes, Light / 53,000 - 55,200-tonnes, Standard / 58,600 - 67,500-tonnes, Max. This is 52,000 to 54,000 long tons standard and 65,000 to 66,400 long tons full load.

The illfated (never finished) carrier Ulyanovsk displaces 65,800 tons empty and 75,000 tons full load

If the displacement of the Vishal will exceed 65,000 metric tonnes, it will likely be similar in size to Kuznetsov/Liaoning rather than Ulyanovsk.

The latter did feature a combination of ski-jump bow and side catapults and it is possible this arrangement could be adopted for the Indian design (just like it is speculated for Chinese ships to follow on Liaoning).

The E-2C Hawkeye demonstrated its ability to launch from a low incline ski-jump built ashore at NAS Patuxent River during the 1980s and thus the "new" Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye remained a viable choice... even for a non-catapult STOBAR ship. In 2004 and early 2005, Northrop Grumman did further research on a ski-jumping Hawkeye 2000 in the context of a proposal to the Indian Navy, and while insisting that this was perfectly feasible it had to admit that the required changes for STOBAR operations would reduce the aircraft's capabilities somewhat compared to the standard model.
Navy Matters | Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control

 

[Penguin]

A 6000 tonnes INS Arihant needs 80MW PWR.

A 42k tonnes French Charles De Gaulle needs 2*150MW PWRs to keep it running.

Imagine what a 65k tonnes IAC-2 will need to Power it??

A CLEAR NO FOR NUCLEAR POWERED IAC-2.

Charles de Gaulle carrier
Displacement: 37,085 tonnes (standard) 42,000 tonnes (full load)
Propulsion: 2 × K15 pressurised water reactors (PWR), 150 MW each
Speed: 27 knots (50 km/h)

Triomphant class SSBN
Displacement: 12,640 tonne (surfaced) 14,335 tonne (submerged)
Propulsion: K15 pressurised water reactor (150 MW), turboreductor system,
Speed: over 25 knots (46 km/h)

Barracuda class SSN
Displacement: 4,765 t surfaced 5,300 t submerged
Propulsion: 2 turboreductors groups (10 MW propulsion alternator feeding electric engines), Nuclear reactor K15, 150 MW
Speed: Over 25 knots (46 km/h)

Current USN CVNs have a pair of nuclear reactors, but e.g. Enterprise had no less than 8... Don't see why a future IN carrier couldn't use 2 80MW reactors or 2 reactors plus e.g. 2 LM 2500 boost GTu's or even 4 reactors. For example:

Displacing 65,800 tons empty and 75,000 tons full load, Soviet Ulyanovsk was to have
4 × KN-3 nuclear reactors and 4 × steam turbines, on four shafts (280,000 shp / 210 MW), to drive it to a top speed of 30 knots (55 km/h). That's 70,000 shp (52.5 MW) per reactor.

Displacing 55,200 tons (Full-load), Adm. Kuznetsov (and, presumably, Liaoning) uses a propulsion plant consisting of steam turbines, with 8 turbo-pressurised boilers, 4 shafts, 200,000 hp (150 MW), plus 2 × 50,000 hp (37 MW) turbines on 4 × shaft with fixed pitch propellers. Top speed:29 knots (33 mph; 54 km/h),

Kiev's/Gorshkov/Vikramaditya use(d) the same steam plant as Kuznetsov but without additional turbines and at approx. 45000 tons could reach 33 knots