INS Vishal might be nuclear-powered aircraft carrier : Naval Design Bureau

[anonymus]

I suppose IAC2 could use 2x the Arihant reactor

Arihant class
Installed power: 1 × pressurized water reactor[2] 83 MW (111,000 hp)
Propulsion:1 × propeller shaft Nuclear

Vikrant class
Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM2500+ gas turbines, 2 shafts 80+ MW

Compare :

Triomphant class SSBN
Propulsion:K15 pressurised water reactor (150 MW), turboreductor system, Pump-jet
two diesel-powered generators SEMT Pielstick 8PA4V200 SM (700 kW) auxiliaries. 30,500 kW

Charles de Gaulle carrier
Propulsion:2 × K15 pressurised water reactors (PWR), 150 MW each, 4 × diesel-electric , 2 × shafts

But it would require at least 4 PWR Arihant type reactors to power IAC 2. Would there be enough space for 4-5 Nuclear reactors in an AC?

 

[Dillinger]

Whilst I agree with the majority of your post I don't agree with your assessment that the Silent Hornet is the best option available to the IN sir.

As @Dillinger points out, due to the time lines involved, with the IAC-2, the F-18 in whatever configuration will be facing obsolesce going foreword into 2030 and beyond. And considering the PLA(N) and USN will be likely operating 5th gen fighters in the IOR by that time (the former's of questionable quality but that is neither here nor there) getting a "suped up" 4.5 gen fighter isn't really a particularly attractive offer regardless of the level of customisation this platform might offer. As far as I see it a 5th gen fighter is a must for the IAC-2 and all other ACCs of this class (that I expect will be built).


I'm also not completely sold on the notion that the US will force the IN to select a US fighter (not that there are any better non-US options on the table) as the case of the Vikramditya is different- then the Russians were offering an entire ACC, here the US is merely offering a system (albeit a cutting edge one at that).

The Americans shall be placated, the only fixed wing AEW&C platform worth consideration is the E-2D, and the IN has locked its sights on said platform. As such the Americans will get their share of dollars, much like they did with the French, where the US provided the catapults for the carrier and the French bought the E-2s. The idea that the Americans will try and force the F-18 upon is a notion, one which is not substantiated by any facts on the ground.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Jesus H. Christ!! Your enthusiasm and thinking is all well and good but you've given little thought to the practicality of such solutions. The days of single-mission fighter a/c is LONG gone and especially for carrier fighters. The need of today and certainly going into the future are fully multi-role one-stop solutions and thus the IN will be going for only ONE type not FOUR- I'm sorry but that is not feasible.

Plus I think they use incompatible jet fuel.

 

[Abingdonboy]

The Americans shall be placated, the only fixed wing AEW&C platform worth consideration is the E-2D, and the IN has locked its sights on said platform. As such the Americans will get their share of dollars, much like they did with the French, where the US provided the catapults for the carrier and the French bought the E-2s. The idea that the Americans will try and force the F-18 upon is a notion, one which is not substantiated by any facts on the ground.

I agree wholeheartedly, the EMALS only coming with a US fighter it is nothing but conjecture.



+to add the rotary wing will also likely be a US affair (S-70B ASW helos are a given and maybe even Bell 429s will be on board as part of the N-LUH compliment).

Plus I think they use incompatible jet fuel.

Yes I believe this is the case- the Gripen runs off commercial aviation fuel AFAIK whilst all other fighter jets run off dedicated jet fuel.

I think there was an issue with this during the 2011 Libyan air campaign when Swedeish Gripens were deployed alongside other Western AF jets and they couldn't make use of the same logistics as them.

 

[Dillinger]

I agree wholeheartedly, the EMALS only coming with a US fighter it is nothing but conjecture.



+to add the rotary wing will also likely be a US affair (S-70B ASW helos are a given and maybe even Bell 429s will be on board as part of the N-LUH compliment).


Yes I believe this is the case- the Gripen runs off commercial aviation fuel AFAIK whilst all other fighter jets run off dedicated jet fuel.

I think there was an issue with this during the 2011 Libyan air campaign when Swedeish Gripens were deployed alongside other Western AF jets and they couldn't make use of the same logistics as them.

EMALS or steam powered catapult, regardless of the choice the IN will have to take a decision, we have invested in the 29K, as a platform it has brought a paradigm shift in the IN's airwing, in terms of what the IN had to work with and what it has now in the K, but the platform in itself is also going to be nearing obsolescence soon, as such the IN will have to look towards upgrading its capabilities rather soon (by 25), as such any other platform which is selected must be free of such issues. It was acceptable to pick the Fulcrum given that the IN was making a capabilities leap in terms of a heavier carrier and the bells and whistles which go with a CBG but it will not make sense to repeat such an action in the future. IF we invest in nuclear power and EMALS then the platform to go with it must be similarly contemporary according to the timescale.

 

[Abingdonboy]

EMALS or steam powered catapult, regardless of the choice the IN will have to take a decision, we have invested in the 29K, as a platform it has brought a paradigm shift in the IN's airwing, in terms of what the IN had to work with and what it has now in the K, but the platform in itself is also going to be nearing obsolescence soon, as such the IN will have to look towards upgrading its capabilities rather soon (by 25), as such any other platform which is selected must be free of such issues. It was acceptable to pick the Fulcrum given that the IN was making a capabilities leap in terms of a heavier carrier and the bells and whistles which go with a CBG but it will not make sense to repeat such an action in the future. IF we invest in nuclear power and EMALS then the platform to go with it must be similarly contemporary according to the timescale.

The MiG-29K is not even in contention for two reasons- the issues with obsolesce going foreword but more importantly the fact the MiG-29K (and all Russian naval fighters) is unable to launch using catapults (steam or otherwise) and the IN has set its sights firmly on a return to a CATOBAR design for the INS Vikrant (whose namesake was an Indian Navy CATOBAR carrier). The IN simply is not interested in anymore STOBAR fighters/carriers which entirely rules out the MiG-29K and, potentially, the Naval version of the PAK-FA/FGFA (unfortunately). As such, as troubled as the project as a whole is and taking into account the issues that come with any US-orign kit, the F-35C looks to be the only viable option for the IN.


Now, from a purely fantasist point of view, if I was the IN I would now be pushing so incredibly hard to take the AMCA under our wing and develop it as a fully-fledged Naval next-gen fighter from the outset (the IN has some truly remarkable success in indigenous project management) capable of taking off from CATOBAR carriers. This seems to be the ideal solution but it's possibly too pie in the sky.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Yes I believe this is the case- the Gripen runs off commercial aviation fuel AFAIK whilst all other fighter jets run off dedicated jet fuel.

Not sure about the French but most other NATO jets use JP8. However US Navy/Marine aircraft specifically use JP5 as it isn't as dangerous to store on ships as JP8.

So mixing and matching planes isn't as easy as it looks. Plus you have to add in utility/rescue helicopters and AWACS.

 

[Trawllu]

Navy has enough Migs to operate from both STOBAR carriers.

N-LCA would only serve training purpose, and Navy would put LCA on AC only if Ruskies put a knife in our back.( though some may be put on AC for flag showing/propaganda purpose ).





I think Russians would be developing PAK-FA as STOBAR aircraft.

If US gives us EMALS, then we would have to buy F-35C as part of package, else Rafale would be put up on Vishal.




1. You cannot say as to when DRDO would be able to finish it's AESA project.

2. You cannot say whether it would be as good as Rafale's AESA.

3. Given that nose radius of LCA is less, any AESA on it would be inferior for same quality.

the radar radius of tejas is MORE than that of Rafale

 

[narcon]

But it would require at least 4 PWR Arihant type reactors to power IAC 2. Would there be enough space for 4-5 Nuclear reactors in an AC?

Why cram the space?
Have 2 more powerful reactors.
83 X 2 = Under power = Not feasible against 65K displacement to maintain 30 knots at the same time.
Talking about possibility?
Even 8 reactors can be accommodated, as was done on "USS Enterprise"

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

But it would require at least 4 PWR Arihant type reactors to power IAC 2. Would there be enough space for 4-5 Nuclear reactors in an AC?

Why cram the space?
Have 2 more powerful reactors.
83 X 2 = Under power = Not feasible against 65K displacement to maintain 30 knots at the same time.
Talking about possibility?
Even 8 reactors can be accommodated, as was done on "USS Enterprise"

Plus the amount of space taken up by a nuclear rector is usually less than the space taken up by a traditional engine and the huge fuel tanks it needs to run for months (and those fuel tanks are a fire problem on a warship).

 

[narcon]

Plus the amount of space taken up by a nuclear rector is usually less than the space taken up by a traditional engine and the huge fuel tanks it needs to run for months (and those fuel tanks are a fire problem on a warship).

Above (fuel tank) underlined is called bunker in maritime parlance...

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Above (fuel tank) underlined is called bunker in maritime parlance...

yes, I know but if I said "bunker" many people might be questioning what i meant.

 

[Penguin]

But it would require at least 4 PWR Arihant type reactors to power IAC 2. Would there be enough space for 4-5 Nuclear reactors in an AC?

How so, a single reactor ( 83mW) already yields 1/3 more than the 2 of the 30kW LM2500+ Gtu's and Vikrant gets just 4 of those?

 

[narcon]

yes, I know but if I said "bunker" many people might be questioning what i meant.

Do what is appropriate, laymen are everywhere.
This is what I think...

 

[kaku1]

How so, a single reactor ( 83mW) already yields 1/3 more than the 2 of the 30kW LM2500+ Gtu's and Vikrant gets just 4 of those?

Let the BARC to do there job, they already working on new naval reactor, they definitely able to increase its power to 110-120 MW.