INS Vishal (65,000 Ton Displacement) with CATOBAR Under Development

[sancho]

Guys, let's post the air-group we'd personally like to see on the Vshal

The important point remains what take off system will be used for the aircrafts, that decides everything! If catapults will be denied, F35C, F18SH and E-2D's are out of question, but if they will approve anykind of catapult, N-FGFA, Mig 29K, Sea Typhoon and most likely the Sea Gripen will be out of questions too.

Another important question is, what is more important, more advanced AEW plattforms, or more advanced (and operationally not limited) fighters?
Lets say IAC 2 will have a CATOBAR design, which leaves F35C as the only of the shelf 5th gen fighter solution, but also the E-2D as the most capable AEW plattform. But if it would be a STOBAR design, it offers the possibility for and N-FGFA / V22 AEW too. N-FGFA will be far superior as 5th gen fighter, as well as a carrier fighter, with it's long range and endurance. Operationally and industrially it offers anything we need and while the V22 AEW might not be as capable as an E-2D, it's still a leap forward compared to normal helicopter AEW plattforms.
So compromising a bit on AEW capability, while getting more advantages of the carrier fighters, is a highly interesting possibility too!

Anyway, my choice would be a naval AMCA, developed as a catapult capable carrier fighter from the start (similar to Rafale or F18), a CATOBAR carrier and E-2Ds, with some F18 Silent Hornets as compensations for the catapults and possibly Boeing as a partner in the development of the AMCA. The problem is only, if the F18SH will still be available by the time the carrier arrives, after the C17 in 2015, the F18SH production seems to end in 2016 too.


Btw, S70 is a no go for IAC 2 around 2025 or so. NFH90 offers better performance and more future potential, not to mention that most manufacturers already started developments for NG helicopters, which might arrive at that time too. Today for Viki and Vikrant it might be an option, especially on cost and fast availability reasons, but not for IAC 2. 

Operational by 2025 to fight the Asteroid!! 


I think this will be the last of the IAC to be built for another 25-30 years (Actually I do not know the life span of a well built and maintained AC). If yes then can it be nuclear propelled as we have experienced in INS Arihant or do we have to built a 3rd AC with nuclear propulsion? Or Nuclear propulsion system is out of bound for us?

Having developed a nuclear propulsion, doesn't mean you need to integrate it into carriers. Besides that it's far more expensive to operate a nuclear carrier, you also need to have the requirement to send a carrier to very long distance or long endurance missions, which IN actually don't have and currently can't support with our fleet anyway. Our aim will remain the Indian Ocean area and conventional propulsions are enough for our requirements and the size of carriers we plan with.
However, I still hope for 2 x IAC 2 carriers and not just one! That carrier is aimed to be sent to greater distances and to really project power, but IN can't afford to not have that capability (and neither Viki nor IAC 1 can offer the same), when the carrier needs repairs or refurbishment, so there must be 1 in reserve, when the other is not in service.
Ideally we would have 2 x 65000K + 2 x 40 to 45000k carriers, to cover the future requirements in the Indian Ocean areas and beyond.

 

[Iggy]

And it would be operational by.......?

2024? More likely 2035-36! By which time the Earth would have been destroyed by asteroid Apophis!!! Damn!

Doomsday Determined? Asteroid Apophis Could Strike Earth in 2036 | Fox News

Do not worry, we will have AAD and PAD by that time.. We will take care of it

 

[IND151]

INS vikarmaditya did levae bitterness even after successful delivery to Indian navy, Russia will be close friend but its monopoly of having 70% share of Indian arms imports will come down for sure

Yes it will happen.

India' recent purchases suggest, it doesn't want to be overdependent on Russia; also when it comes to reliability and maintenance costs, western platforms outdo do their Russian counterparts. 

The important point remains what take off system will be used for the aircrafts, that decides everything! If catapults will be denied, F35C, F18SH and E-2D's are out of question, but if they will approve anykind of catapult, N-FGFA, Mig 29K, Sea Typhoon and most likely the Sea Gripen will be out of questions too.

Another important question is, what is more important, more advanced AEW plattforms, or more advanced (and operationally not limited) fighters?
Lets say IAC 2 will have a CATOBAR design, which leaves F35C as the only of the shelf 5th gen fighter solution, but also the E-2D as the most capable AEW plattform. But if it would be a STOBAR design, it offers the possibility for and N-FGFA / V22 AEW too. N-FGFA will be far superior as 5th gen fighter, as well as a carrier fighter, with it's long range and endurance. Operationally and industrially it offers anything we need and while the V22 AEW might not be as capable as an E-2D, it's still a leap forward compared to normal helicopter AEW plattforms.
So compromising a bit on AEW capability, while getting more advantages of the carrier fighters, is a highly interesting possibility too!

Anyway, my choice would be a naval AMCA, developed as a catapult capable carrier fighter from the start (similar to Rafale or F18), a CATOBAR carrier and E-2Ds, with some F18 Silent Hornets as compensations for the catapults and possibly Boeing as a partner in the development of the AMCA. The problem is only, if the F18SH will still be available by the time the carrier arrives, after the C17 in 2015, the F18SH production seems to end in 2016 too.


Btw, S70 is a no go for IAC 2 around 2025 or so. NFH90 offers better performance and more future potential, not to mention that most manufacturers already started developments for NG helicopters, which might arrive at that time too. Today for Viki and Vikrant it might be an option, especially on cost and fast availability reasons, but not for IAC 2. 


Having developed a nuclear propulsion, doesn't mean you need to integrate it into carriers. Besides that it's far more expensive to operate a nuclear carrier, you also need to have the requirement to send a carrier to very long distance or long endurance missions, which IN actually don't have and currently can't support with our fleet anyway. Our aim will remain the Indian Ocean area and conventional propulsions are enough for our requirements and the size of carriers we plan with.
However, I still hope for 2 x IAC 2 carriers and not just one! That carrier is aimed to be sent to greater distances and to really project power, but IN can't afford to not have that capability (and neither Viki nor IAC 1 can offer the same), when the carrier needs repairs or refurbishment, so there must be 1 in reserve, when the other is not in service.
Ideally we would have 2 x 65000K + 2 x 40 to 45000k carriers, to cover the future requirements in the Indian Ocean areas and beyond.

Interesting suggestion but remember its large fighter; even Vishal will not be able to carry more than 20 Naval Pak Fa's.

 

[IND151]

I would love to see Naval FGFA!!!

I would too

 

[thesolar65]

Having developed a nuclear propulsion, doesn't mean you need to integrate it into carriers. Besides that it's far more expensive to operate a nuclear carrier, you also need to have the requirement to send a carrier to very long distance or long endurance missions, which IN actually don't have and currently can't support with our fleet anyway. Our aim will remain the Indian Ocean area and conventional propulsions are enough for our requirements and the size of carriers we plan with.
However, I still hope for 2 x IAC 2 carriers and not just one! That carrier is aimed to be sent to greater distances and to really project power, but IN can't afford to not have that capability (and neither Viki nor IAC 1 can offer the same), when the carrier needs repairs or refurbishment, so there must be 1 in reserve, when the other is not in service.
Ideally we would have 2 x 65000K + 2 x 40 to 45000k carriers, to cover the future requirements in the Indian Ocean areas and beyond.

Uh Uh the cost effectiveness didn't come to my mind. Yes, the cost and the risk will really huge. And who operated Nuclear AC apart from US?

 

[sancho]

Interesting suggestion but remember its large fighter; even Vishal will not be able to carry more than 20 Naval Pak Fa's.

Why so?

A Su 33 that has it's wings folded, has a smaller wingspan than an N-LCA, or Rafale! The lenght of these heavy class fighters will be bigger of course than compared to light or medium class fighters, but that's mainly an issue in the hangar, on the deck, especially of a larger carrier, the wingspan will be more important, so you actually might be able to park more N-FGFAs on the deck than N-LCAs!

P.S. Remember the recent pics of possible future Russian carriers?

 

And who operated Nuclear AC apart from US?

The French:

French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UKBengali]

Nah, US is the way to go. One only has to look at the mess that is the QE-class construction to see the IN would be better of staying clear of UK assistance on this front.

The US are the undisputed kings in this field-pumping out a 100,000 Supercarrier every few years without fail.

That is because the UK has never built a large carrier of 70,000 tonnes in its history.

For the last 30 years the only carriers the UK built were of the 20,000 tonne class and so many of the skills of building these huge carriers had been lost.

The UK will have learnt a lot of lessons by building the Queen-Elizabeth class and it may be better suited to help in the construction of the similar-sized Vishal than the US, that has only been making 100,000 tonne carriers for the last few decades.

If the Vishal is going to be nuclear, then it would make sense to go with the US though.

 

[Gessler]

@Abingdonboy

The air wing:

N-FGFA
E-2D Hawkeye
S-70B/MH-92
Dhruv

I would like a naval version of AURA drone similar to X-47B.

 

[Abingdonboy]

That is because the UK has never built a large carrier of 70,000 tonnes in its history.

For the last 30 years the only carriers the UK built were of the 20,000 tonne class and so many of the skills of building these huge carriers had been lost.

The UK will have learnt a lot of lessons by building the Queen-Elizabeth class and it may be better suited to help in the construction of the similar-sized Vishal than the US, that has only been making 100,000 tonne carriers for the last few decades.

If the Vishal is going to be nuclear, then it would make sense to go with the US though.

If you can build 100,000 ton ACC you can quite easily build 65-70,000 ACCs bro. The US is simply in another league when it comes to carrier (warships in general)building. They now have vast amounts of information and logistics/infrastructure refined over the span of decades.

Additionally if the IN are wanting to go for EMALS then they can't look past the US really.


The UK has done a pretty shoddy job on the QE-class overall and the shambles of CATOBAR vs STOBAR debate the RN/UKG had (that cost the British taxpayer millions in the process) only highlights this. The UK just doesn't have a credible ship-building industry anymore. The QE-class are a one-off project, and the best we can hope for is that will be indefinitely moth-balled on completion and the other may face the same fate- the decisions haven't been made yet.



The French would be pretty god partners too if the IN didn't want US help- for whatever reason (but this is unlikely, they'd take the American help if it was available). 

I would love to see Naval FGFA!!!

In an ideal world this is what would fly off the Vishal. The fact little has been said on this from either the Indian or Russian side is rather worrying also it isn't certain the N-PAK-FA/N-FGFA would be able to launch using a Catapult. Let's hope this is factored into the design.

 

[wolfschanzze]

I guess it's more likely with Babckock as a partner, since the UK are more trusted by the US, but DCNS would be the better choice, since they already have made CATOBAR carriers, while the Brits didn't. But as I said in other posts, we don't need approval for EMALS, but approval for catapults at all! Till now they even denied steam catapults to us, so even if we get only steam catapults now, it would be a clear improvement for IN, but no matter what, we have to wait and see what they want in return and if the deal is still worth it.

I agree it is worth it, but why not develop ours through trial and error, there should be a research team sitting and writing dissertations about how it failed and how it was a success.Unfortunately i don't see that scientific pursuit in our defence related things, people are always buying but never experimenting.I wonder it has something to do with the Ministers and some top in army getting kickbacks they don't allow such innovation or research.
When we can put Mangalyaan-I in orbit for 75million $ , We also manufacture the worlds cheapest and affordable drugs to everyone, Not super priced like western pharma companies.Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) costs at most 4-5 rs per tablet, in USA and other parts where Pfizer sells its around 1$ each pill, The cost of Chemotherapy alone would cost around 3-4 lakhs per month for a cancer patient in India if those western Pharma companies came here.While our Anti-cancer drugs cost less than 20-30k INR per month! see the difference.Before the Chinese and Pakistanis troll, Yeah our medicines are in great demand in china even Chinese Professors want our medicines for their patients as the normal patient cannot afford such prices for therapy.

 

[wolfschanzze]

I have a question, Why IN is not looking for nuclear propulsion for IAC2, I believe the one on Arihant can be tweaked ( slightly bigger) to generate the required energy? Is this feasible? or IN not confident about nuclear prop for now?
Tx

Yep why conventional propulsion? instead of Nuclear?Arihant is a clue, its hard to shorten a Nuclear reactor to fit in a Submarine, but in a AC it can be done easily, why not try it, them soviets who sold us our AC tried a mini nuke reactor aboard a bomber long time ago.Are we reinventing the wheel? or improvising?I thought Jugaad was famous for us desis im sure we can do something that next IAC induction is long,until then the threat perceptions and science tech would have grown by leaps and bounds.

 

[sancho]

Unfortunately i don't see that scientific pursuit in our defence related things, people are always buying but never experimenting.

On the contrary, we even have too many indigenous developments going on, but too less which gives something useful in return and that is also a reason why we have to import stuff. MMRCA is the best example, needed because several of our developments went into problems, or even failed completelly. Pilatus trainer is a similar one, needed because we couldn't wait for an indigenous trainer anymore, additional A50 Phalcons, needed because of DRDO AWACS delays and imo ordered way too late, since one can't make defence of India dependent on nothing but the "hope" that we can develop something indigenously someday.
We are spreading into way too many fields and most of them are either out of our capabilities or not even needed and that can be said not only about our defence developments, the whole Mars mission imo is a waste of money since the Indian people have no benefit from it. Space missions so far were meant to help Indian people, with better weather forcast, developing better maps or providing better connectivity of telecommunications. That's what was needed to develop India and what Indian people needed, but the mission to the Mars has no such benefits, except of prestige and pride in some media reports. We can brag now that we done something waaay cheaper than the NASA could have done it, but the fact is, those $75 millions could had been better spend in India itself!

=> N-LCA, when developed we can brag to have not only the smallest carrier fighter in the world, but also to belong to a few nations that has developed and produced indigenous carriers and fighters. In reality however, the fighter has no value for Indian defence and the $900 millions IN spent on it (with more to come for the fully fledged operational versions) could had been spend far better!

So indigenous developments are good, as long as they serve a real purpose and not only prestige and pride reasons!

 

[anant_s]

The important point remains what take off system will be used for the aircrafts, that decides everything! If catapults will be denied, F35C, F18SH and E-2D's are out of question, but if they will approve anykind of catapult, N-FGFA, Mig 29K, Sea Typhoon and most likely the Sea Gripen will be out of questions too.

Sancho, do you feel that the situation could actually be the opposite ie if IN wants E 2Ds (i believe IN has already expressed its interest) and F 35 C (again read IN is exploring the possibility with Lockheed Martin making some presentations) and Pentagon clears the possible sales, Steam Catapult (& may be even EMALS) could be a part of the package.
The Logic here is the scale of deal, buying carrier based squadrons would be a much bigger purchase and US may want to sweeten the deal (hypothetical but not entirely impossible).
That said with Naval variants of Rafale and future FGFA in scheme of things, don't know where F 35 C fits into Indian scheme of things.

N-FGFA will be far superior as 5th gen fighter, as well as a carrier fighter, with it's long range and endurance.

Don't have specifications, but i suppose, N FGFA too might require Steam catapults.

So indigenous developments are good, as long as they serve a real purpose and not only prestige and pride reasons

& most importantly they shouldnot become reasons to justify false ego.

 

[sancho]

Sancho, do you feel that the situation could actually be the opposite ie if IN wants E 2Ds (i believe IN has already expressed its interest) and F 35 C (again read IN is exploring the possibility with Lockheed Martin making some presentations) and Pentagon clears the possible sales, Steam Catapult (& may be even EMALS) could be a part of the package.
The Logic here is the scale of deal, buying carrier based squadrons would be a much bigger purchase and US may want to sweeten the deal (hypothetical but not entirely impossible).
That said with Naval variants of Rafale and future FGFA in scheme of things, don't know where F 35 C fits into Indian scheme of things.

IN so far didn't expressed official interest in anything. They sent out an RFI to different vendors, most of them who participated in IAFs MMRCA and the manufactureres replied with infos and presentations. Similarly, IN has requested infos wrt shore based AWACS aircrafts, that's where the E-2D was proposed in first place and not with a CATOBAR carrier in mind.
However, IN wants catapults again and I think that the US will combine the sale with the procurement of US aircrafts, just like Russia gave us the Gorshkov for "free" in combination with Mig 29K and Ka 31 orders.
My guess would be steam catapults + E-2D + F18SH, or EMALS + E-2D + F35C and actually the latter would be even better for the US at the current stage, since the costs of the F35C are increasing, while the defence budget is reducing. I bet USN would have no problems to divert some F35C orders to India and take additional F18SHs instead. But US stuff comes with a lot of operational downsides and IN will have to think about it very well, if they can live with these downsides, only to get catapults.

Don't have specifications, but i suppose, N FGFA too might require Steam catapults.

N-FGFA would only be a navalised version of a fighter developed for land forces, unlike carrier fighters that were developed for catapult take offs from the start. Developing an N-FGFA that could be used with catapults would mean a complete new development of the structural parts and since Russia might not go for it, it would be way too costly too. Developing an AMCA instead, as a CATOBAR fighter from the start, would be easier and cheaper.

 

[kurup]

Sancho, isnt that UK carrier?

Looks like a modified Charles de Gaulle AC design .

French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia