What's new

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

@Abingdonboy Prasun sir feels that the INS Vikramaditya's aircraft compliment is close to 30 rather than wikipedia stated figure of 16, accurate? He stated the same thing for Vikrant, pegging the no. at 25+?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Abingdonboy Prasun sir feels that the INS Vikramaditya's aircraft compliment is close to 30 rather than wikipedia stated figure of 16, accurate? He stated the same thing for Vikrant, pegging the no. at 25+?

That was a very early estimation, but generally it is estimated at 30 aircrafts, with around 20 fighters
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was a very early estimation, but generally it is estimated at 30 aircrafts, with around 20 fighters

So 20 fixed wing platforms and 10 rotary platforms. That's quite a bit. One thing about our naval projects, seems to be the one area where our manufacturing capabilities are up to mark (not in the subsystems like air defense radar and all) but the projects get delayed due to the frequent changes instituted by the NDB?

Btw if we go for a steam catapult on the INS Vishal, will we have to get that too from the States?
 
So 20 fixed wing platforms and 10 rotary platforms. That's quite a bit. One thing about our naval projects, seems to be the one area where our manufacturing capabilities are up to mark (not in the subsystems like air defense radar and all) but the projects get delayed due to the frequent changes instituted by the NDB?

Btw if we go for a steam catapult on the INS Vishal, will we have to get that too from the States?

Plus minus and depending on how many helicopters will be carried.
Yes, the US are the only supplier of catapult tech at the moment and so far they have rejected our requests for it, that's why IAC 1 will be a STOBAR carrier, lets see how the improved relations turn out now.
 
Plus minus and depending on how many helicopters will be carried.
Yes, the US are the only supplier of catapult tech at the moment and so far they have rejected our requests for it, that's why IAC 1 will be a STOBAR carrier, lets see how the improved relations turn out now.

When did this happen? or this happened after MRCA..:undecided:
 
When did this happen? or this happened after MRCA..:undecided:

CATOBAR or even better EMALS would significantly increase our capability to exploit our naval air assets. This is one of those areas where they are not ready to face any challenge. Baniyagiri shall be required to get this one across the ball park.
 
@sancho

What are the technical difficulties regarding design of catapult tech.On paper it seems as very simple design which any country with decent R&D should be able to design?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So 20 fixed wing platforms and 10 rotary platforms. That's quite a bit. One thing about our naval projects, seems to be the one area where our manufacturing capabilities are up to mark (not in the subsystems like air defense radar and all) but the projects get delayed due to the frequent changes instituted by the NDB?

Btw if we go for a steam catapult on the INS Vishal, will we have to get that too from the States?

Nope, unlike IAF, IN don't change the requirements midway into any project.

There are absolutely NO MAJOR changes made to the original designs.

The delays can be attributed to the some older methods used by our Shipyards.

Currently our Shipyards capability to build a Frigate/Destroyer is about 7-8 years from the date of Keel Laying, add to this the fact that GOI takes few years to approve a project + defense shipyards take some few years in b/w the time of approval to time of keel laying to adjust to the new capabilities needed (like the project of Shivalik Class frigates was approved by GOI in 1997, but first ship was laid down in 2001).

Also, the low orders of ships i.e. in batch of 3/4 can be attributed to these delays, since till the time IN gets these ships, the complete tech. changes (it takes around 15 years as of now from GOI approval to inducting all the ships).

But, now there are some major improvements:

1. GOI is now giving approval in parallel to the already going project (like P-17A was approved even before P-17 got completed).

2. LOI is also issued to Shipyards in parallel.

3. All major Defense shipyards have Switched on the Modular Construction methods (MDL, GSL, CSL) & now every major ship will be constructed by modular methods.

So, according to Ajai Shukla, these changes will reduce the time of construction of major ships like Frigates/Destroyers to about 5 years, still we have to go a long way to catch Major Powers in Ship Constructions like SK & China.
 
@Dillinger @arp2041

The major delays for the IAC-1 can all boil down to two issues- 1) the inability to source the quality of steel from SAIL initially 2) a major road accident that occurred when transporting the gearbox assembly for IAC-1 to the shipyard, wrote-off the entire unit. These two delays have now,thankfully, been complelty addressed but have put the project back 2-3 years.


The fact is these mistakes simply won't be made again and all the expertise that has been learnt in the IAC-1's construction will directly relate into time savings for the IAC-2 and all future Indian ACCs. For sure could make a IAC-1 type ACC 3-4 years quicker at the end of the current production. As the IAC-2 will be significantly larger and more complex than the IAC-1 (with a catapults and the like) the IAC-2 will still benefit from the above lessons but may still take around the same time as the IAC-1, if not 12-18 months speedier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Dillinger @arp2041

The major delays for the IAC-1 can all boil down to two issues- 1) the inability to source the quality of steel from SAIL initially 2) a major road accident that occurred when transporting the gearbox assembly for IAC-1 to the shipyard, wrote-off the entire unit. These two delays have now,thankfully, been complelty addressed but have put the project back 2-3 years.


The fact is these mistakes simply won't be made again and all the expertise that has been learnt in the IAC-1's construction will directly relate into time savings for the IAC-2 and all future Indian ACCs. For sure could make a IAC-1 type ACC 3-4 years quicker at the end of the current production. As the IAC-2 will be significantly larger and more complex than the IAC-1 (with a catapults and the like) the IAC-2 will still benefit from the above lessons but may still take around the same time as the IAC-1, if not 12-18 months speedier.

OT: for all members here, if you have some dispensable cash lying around, I think we should buy SAIL's stock... it is going to provide steel to two IAC's and almost 38 ships in next 5 years. It's Mkt Cap is going to increase exponentially!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OT: for all members here, if you have some dispensable cash lying around, I think we should buy SAIL's stock... it is going to provide steel to two IAC's and almost 38 ships in next 5 years. It's Mkt Cap is going to increase exponentially!

lol, the second trading tip I have seen today on PDF relating to India!


If I had any disposable cash (I'm only a 19yo student so you can imagine what my finical situation is!) I'd think these were some safe bets for sure.
 
lol, the second trading tip I have seen today on PDF relating to India!


If I had any disposable cash (I'm only a 10yo student so you can imagine what my finical situation is!) I'd think these were some safe bets for sure.

10 yo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!whoaaa
 
When did this happen? or this happened after MRCA..:undecided:

No, in the initial planing stages of IAC 1, but shouldn't be surprising back then, since they had rejected several techs and assistance for LCA in the past as well.

@sancho

What are the technical difficulties regarding design of catapult tech.On paper it seems as very simple design which any country with decent R&D should be able to design?

On paper maybe, but I am not an engineer and can't tell you about the technical problems, but it might also be an issue of costs and need. For many country that might have the technical capabilities, it's simply not needed, or to costly to develop it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On paper maybe, but I am not an engineer and can't tell you about the technical problems, but it might also be an issue of costs and need. For many country that might have the technical capabilities, it's simply not needed, or to costly to develop it.

AFAIK , Chinese have also become successfull in developing EMALS after the US .

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/147913-chinas-emals-being-ready.html

Chinese Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System unveiled
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom