INS VIKRANT DUE TO BE INDUCTED BY DECEMBER 2018, SAYS NAVY CHIEF

[nang2]

@nang2 @Genesis any idea on the 001A's propulsion output?





But of course, 1 xyz = 10,0000 Indians afterall.

Likely just an enhanced version of current Liaoning AC, which is almost identical to 001A and propelled by Chinese engines, too.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Likely just an enhanced version of current Liaoning AC, which is almost identical to 001A and propelled by Chinese engines, too.

With a combined shaft power of.......?

 

[nang2]

With a combined shaft power of.......?

Would this help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning

 

[Abingdonboy]

Would this help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning

So steam turbines for the 001A? Not the RO101 Gas Turbine?

 

[Athen]

Wat?? You guys don't sleep??

 

[nang2]

So steam turbines for the 001A? Not the RO101 Gas Turbine?

Few people know the details. The performance should be similar between the two.

 

[John Reese]

 

[Abingdonboy]

^ pics from late 2015

 

[Genesis]

So steam turbines for the 001A? Not the RO101 Gas Turbine?

All three Russian carriers are steam. I guess they were made for steam. The new carrier may not necessarily use them. Gas turbines have been installed in type 052c and those were inducted before Liaoning.

Indeed, I had seen that I'm just wondering about the combined output for the 001A (as I don't read Mandarin )

As for the J-15, I understand it is the only choice the PLA(N) have but it is far from ideal.

I wouldn't say not ideal. Different goals. Americans have proved the worth of heavy fighters on a carrier. China has that goal, yes Liaoning isn't optimal for J-15, but eventually we will have something that can make it effective. At this point how effective is a carrier like this against a modern navy anyways.

Besides I understand a Mig-29, as a light fighter has many limitations that a heavy fighter doesn't. So in reality both are more or less ineffective against a modern force.

It will be HEAVILY pitched to India but I would rule it out (as we stand today).

That does seem to be your only 5th gen option for carriers. The Russians are many things, but a carrier power they are not. When will a carrier version, if ever make it on their agenda. You can make it yourself, but then you should have test flighted your non-carrier version 2 years ago for it to arrive in a timely fashion.

That leaves only the Americans.

 

[MilSpec]

yay!!

No no, 2023....CAG told me so


@PARIKRAMA what did I say bro?

@anant_s @Ankit Kumar 002 @Roybot @Vergennes @MilSpec @nair @SpArK @Joe Shearer @acetophenol @Water Car Engineer

 

[anant_s]

@Abingdonboy @PARIKRAMA

It looks quite certain now that IAC 2 onwards IN ACs will feature EMALS and heavier fixed wing air crafts.
That means (even conservatively speaking) we are looking at 60,000+ Ton displacement ACs. So 2 questions here:

1. Is it now given that we will have N powered ACs?
2. Who is helping us out in design of such a behemoth and subsequent construction?

As per this article, by 2018 IAC 1 will leave its construction dock and head for testing and commissioning. So a berth becomes available for next boat. If funding is not an issue now, the time frame mentioned indicates, the next AC construction should start by 2019. How ready are we?

 

[PARIKRAMA]

@Abingdonboy
By 6th Dec 2018 the warship IAC1 is suppose to leave berth and go for an extended 18_24 months testing. Expect during that period minor niggles to come up as its a different class of ship we are building first time. So such teething will require it to come back and dock again and again till everything is proven to be compliant with the norms.

the formal IN induction for deployment should start from Dec 6,2020.

Now let's play devil's advocate
All this is fine and that's what both you and me said. But there could be a twist if CAG report pointers are to be believed especially the inability of CSL to give sufficient proofs to negate CAG points.

Also I am muh more worried about the Air Arm going into IAC1. The Mig29K reports as per CAG makes me feel even with both carriers on sea, our strike capabilities are not at all upto mark.

Need to see if we do course correction or we just go blindly with it.

@Abingdonboy @PARIKRAMA

It looks quite certain now that IAC 2 onwards IN ACs will feature EMALS and heavier fixed wing air crafts.
That means (even conservatively speaking) we are looking at 60,000+ Ton displacement ACs. So 2 questions here:

1. Is it now given that we will have N powered ACs?
2. Who is helping us out in design of such a behemoth and subsequent construction?

As per this article, by 2018 IAC 1 will leave its construction dock and head for testing and commissioning. So a berth becomes available for next boat. If funding is not an issue now, the time frame mentioned indicates, the next AC construction should start by 2019. How ready are we?

Point 1-
If the class of boat is pretty large like 65-70k tonnes then most military planners feel going nuclear propulsion is the best possible option over time.
Bcz thumb rule is 1 medium class jet per 1000 tonnage, we are looking at a big fleet of jets, AEW, ASW etc fleet. But there is also a limitation of N fuel being available as priority needs to be given to 6 SSN which will be expanded to 12 later and 5 SSBN which will be eventually made 10 especially the last ones sporting 12+ silos meaning heavy tonnage and probably a 190MW class reactor.

So it will be a trade-off based on priority.

Point 2- design will be Indian by our own design bureau. But consulting will come from Russia and French DCNS. They will advice us on reactor placements , heat shielding and design to optimise space utilization.

CSL will get a follow on order unless something drastic happens and GOI goes back and wastes the opportunity. The question would be are we replicating IAC1 with small incremental changes or we will let this opportunity go. I am sure if MOD declines there should be a public outcry on this as I guess the skills lost will be more lethal than a enemy bullet....

 

[Han Patriot]

In quantity but not quality and in the long run India is only going to close the gap to China (militarily and economically).

Apart from the hull which was originally slated to use Russian steel, I am not sure what is actually Indian about the ship. Maybe the welders welding the ship together?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ion-deficiencies-CAG/articleshow/53400187.cms
Read this, cost overruns, Mig-29 problems, and induction only around 2023.

Btw, the Vikrant is based on the Kiev class whose design China abandoned in favour of the Kuznetsov.. Even the Russian decommissioned the last Kiev class years ago. Mig-29 is not the first choice for the Kuznetsov but due to it's smaller size, there are considering a mix wing.

Vikrant is a 40K class based on Kiev
001A is a 60K class carrier based on Kuznetsov

China has EMALS tech that will deployable in the near future?

Wouldn't that necessitate nuclear power?

I think it's better to let you guys live in bliss and fantasy.

 

[srshkmr]

Apart from the hull which was originally slated to use Russian steel, I am not sure what is actually Indian about the ship. Maybe the welders welding the ship together?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ion-deficiencies-CAG/articleshow/53400187.cms
Read this, cost overruns, Mig-29 problems, and induction only around 2023.

Btw, the Vikrant is based on the Kiev class whose design China abandoned in favour of the Kuznetsov.. Even the Russian decommissioned the last Kiev class years ago. Mig-29 is not the first choice for the Kuznetsov but due to it's smaller size, there are considering a mix wing.

Vikrant is a 40K class based on Kiev
001A is a 60K class carrier based on Kuznetsov


I think it's better to let you guys live in bliss and fantasy.

And I was thinking why the famous trolls were missing and Now i see that they were sleeping :p

ON-Topic :

so its jan 2019 the ship would be operational ?

 

[Armani]

But there is also a limitation of N fuel being available as priority needs to be given to 6 SSN which will be expanded to 12 later and 5 SSBN which will be eventually made 10 especially the last ones sporting 12+ silos meaning heavy tonnage and probably a 190MW class reactor...

What is better?

Building fewer SSBNs, but with more silos (like 24)? Or building more submarines, albeit with fewer silos per each (12-16)?

I'm more in support of the latter option...especially with MIRVs in play and the 2-ton payload capacity of K-5 SLBM.