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

[narcon]

More innuendo and suggestion. Goodbye.

Bob, weave and duck?

 

[sancho]

@sancho I have always said, we haven't seen the last of Sup Hornets....

It's with everything the US offers to us, if they meet our demands, we are happy to buy their stuff, in MMRCA it didn't as a stop gap in return for catapults for the navy it can, so lets see about that. Sadly the visit of the PM doesn't seem to got us any meaningful change in the US policies.

 

[Utkarsh]

It's with everything the US offers to us, if they meet our demands, we are happy to buy their stuff, in MMRCA it didn't as a stop gap in return for catapults for the navy it can, so lets see about that. Sadly the visit of the PM doesn't seem to got us any meaningful change in the US policies.

What policy change were you expecting from the US ?

 

[sancho]

What policy change were you expecting from the US ?

Less limitations in transfer of critical technology, which is the base of every Indian competition, that is aimed on licence production in India, just as for the joint development of arms and techs. PM Modi has stressed this issue before the visit (India To Push Joint Weapons Development During US Visit | Defense News | defensenews.com but nothing seems to have happend. In fact there seems to have nothing happend wrt defence at all, not even the expected procurements of Apaches and Chinooks were announced, which is quiet surprising, as it was a good chance to highlight importance of the Indo-US relations.

 

[nair]

It's with everything the US offers to us, if they meet our demands, we are happy to buy their stuff, in MMRCA it didn't as a stop gap in return for catapults for the navy it can, so lets see about that. Sadly the visit of the PM doesn't seem to got us any meaningful change in the US policies.

I dont think there was any specific point on agenda, but if i remmeber properly in the joint statement they did mention about helping India in making ships...... But again there was no specifics.....

 

[TimeTraveller]

What happened to this Indian Navy Multi-Role Support Vessel programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sancho]

I dont think there was any specific point on agenda, but if i remmeber properly in the joint statement they did mention about helping India in making ships...... But again there was no specifics.....

From the report I posted:

New Prime Minister Narendra Modi will also discuss greater participation of US and Indian defense companies when he visits with US President Barack Obama, said the official with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)

Not sure about the US side, but our side had that point on the agenda, the outcome however doesn't seem to be too optimistic and the lack of specifics actually shows that. If any improvement would had been achived, they would had stated that, since that's part of the PR.

 

[nair]

From the report I posted:



Not sure about the US side, but our side had that point on the agenda, the outcome however doesn't seem to be too optimistic and the lack of specifics actually shows that. If any improvement would had been achived, they would had stated that, since that's part of the PR.

I remember watching a TV channel in which they specifically said the defense cooperation in which US will help India in making naval ships....... But then it was one of our TV channels, and we all know the quality of their reporting.....

 

[Abingdonboy]

@sancho I have always said, we haven't seen the last of Sup Hornets....

Sir they doesn't make for the IAC-2. The IAC-2 is meant to be in service by 2023/4 (maybe later IF n-powered) and will serve for 30+ years. The IN thus requires a next generation air wing across the board (AEW, ASW helo and fighters) and the F-18s (Silent or not) do not fit the bill, they will be too long in the tooth by that point. A 5th generation fighter is essential but here the IN faces a conundrum- the N-PAK FA/N-FGFA will not suite them (won't be able to launch fro catapults most likely) and the F-35C is far from optimum and comes with all the restrictions and obligations India has done well to avoid up until now.

 

[nair]

. The IAC-2 is meant to be in service by 2023/4 (maybe later IF n-powered) and will serve for 30+ years..

You are too optimistic, IAC one will be in service only on 2018/19, ADD another 7 to 8 years to it

 

[Abingdonboy]

You are too optimistic, IAC one will be in service only on 2018/19, ADD another 7 to 8 years to it

Once the design of the IAC-2 is finalised work will begin (orders placed, workers begin training, tooling designed) so in around 2015/2016 and then construction will start in late 2016/2017. 7-8 years from then is 2023/24 to be ready for seat trails BUT if the IAC-2 is nuclear powered it will take a bit longer (2-3 more years?).

 

[Dillinger]

Sir they doesn't make for the IAC-2. The IAC-2 is meant to be in service by 2023/4 (maybe later IF n-powered) and will serve for 30+ years. The IN thus requires a next generation air wing across the board (AEW, ASW helo and fighters) and the F-18s (Silent or not) do not fit the bill, they will be too long in the tooth by that point. A 5th generation fighter is essential but here the IN faces a conundrum- the N-PAK FA/N-FGFA will not suite them (won't be able to launch fro catapults most likely) and the F-35C is far from optimum and comes with all the restrictions and obligations India has done well to avoid up until now.

Well put, the notional Vishal will only see service in the latter part of the next decade, as such it is only befitting that its fixed wing component be up to date and free from premature obsolescence.

If the Vishal was operational yesterday then the Advanced Super Hornet would have been a good fit, the platform in question will remain relevant for another 20 years at least.

As things stand, when INS Vishal navigates its way through the IOR we will already be well past 2025, under such circumstances we shall require a few attributes from the fixed wing platform which shall be chosen- persistence (combat radius- sans refueling and with an appreciable payload), complete net-centricity over secure and 5th gen channels, appreciable payload, the ability to cart said appreciable payload from a carrier with negligible penalties, penetration (stealth- preferably all aspect so as to get past coastal defences/ADGE). The F-18, in any of its avatars, cannot fulfill these criteria in the 2030-50.

 

[sancho]

You are too optimistic, IAC one will be in service only on 2018/19, ADD another 7 to 8 years to it

Not necessarily, because that depends on the layout of the carrier. If it will be a CATOBAR carrier, it will be a complete new development of course, which will have it's difficulties and requires more time. But if we don't get catapults, we basically will build bigger IAC1s, no major re-design or new development necessary. All we need to know is, what aircrafts will be used to design the internals or lifts in a suitable manner. That's why the navy actually can't rule out that option so easily, because a STOBAR carrier with naval FGFA, can still be superior to a CATOBAR carrier with Rafale M, F18SH or even the F35C.

Well put, the notional Vishal will only see service in the latter part of the next decade, as such it is only befitting that its fixed wing component be up to date and free from premature obsolescence.

That's the way IAF looks at MMRCA, but that is not the way IN can look at carrier fighters, because their problem is not which fighter is the most capable, but what is on offer in the first place! That's why they sent out an RFI to all possible vendors that could develop a naval fighter, including those that could be used only on STOBAR carriers, but it doesn't stop there, because the use of fighters is also dependent on the layout of the carrier, with or without catapults and we all know that the US won't give us catapults without also buying US fighters! So catapults basically will rule out any Russian, but also most likely any European option and leave only the F18SH or the F35C.
It's the same scenario like with the Gorshkov deal and Mig 29Ks, where we all know that these fighters won't have the potential to be highly capable in the next 1 or 2 decades and even lack technically behind Rafale and the F18SH today, but still we chose it and even bought additional once! Why? Because we had to, no matter if there were better options or not and the same is the case for IAC2 if we want catapults. And in that scenario, where the prime point is not the fighter but to get catapults, the Silent Hornet is not only the most cost-effective choice, but also one that is close to 5th gen capabilities (fully internal fuel carriage, mostly internal weapon carriage, NG radar, NG avionics), not to mention that we might have more chances to customize the Silent Hornet, than the F35, which will give IN more operational freedom too. Using Indian avionics or weapons, licence producing the engine or upgrade parts in India (for LCA MK2), compared to fully take what the US allows us on the F35C is a clear advantage.

The choice is simply more difficult for IN, than it is for IAF, because the latter has the free choice and can set up their own demands. The navy has several limitations and they have to evaluate which options are there and which fighter / carrier combo will be the most effective one in war times?

 

[Abingdonboy]

Not necessarily, because that depends on the layout of the carrier. If it will be a CATOBAR carrier, it will be a complete new development of course, which will have it's difficulties and requires more time. But if we don't get catapults, we basically will build bigger IAC1s, no major re-design or new development necessary. All we need to know is, what aircrafts will be used to design the internals or lifts in a suitable manner. That's why the navy actually can't rule out that option so easily, because a STOBAR carrier with naval FGFA, can still be superior to a CATOBAR carrier with Rafale M, F18SH or even the F35C.



That's the way IAF looks at MMRCA, but that is not the way IN can look at carrier fighters, because their problem is not which fighter is the most capable, but what is on offer in the first place! That's why they sent out an RFI to all possible vendors that could develop a naval fighter, including those that could be used only on STOBAR carriers, but it doesn't stop there, because the use of fighters is also dependent on the layout of the carrier, with or without catapults and we all know that the US won't give us catapults without also buying US fighters! So catapults basically will rule out any Russian, but also most likely any European option and leave only the F18SH or the F35C.
It's the same scenario like with the Gorshkov deal and Mig 29Ks, where we all know that these fighters won't have the potential to be highly capable in the next 1 or 2 decades and even lack technically behind Rafale and the F18SH today, but still we chose it and even bought additional once! Why? Because we had to, no matter if there were better options or not and the same is the case for IAC2 if we want catapults. And in that scenario, where the prime point is not the fighter but to get catapults, the Silent Hornet is not only the most cost-effective choice, but also one that is close to 5th gen capabilities (fully internal fuel carriage, mostly internal weapon carriage, NG radar, NG avionics), not to mention that we might have more chances to customize the Silent Hornet, than the F35, which will give IN more operational freedom too. Using Indian avionics or weapons, licence producing the engine or upgrade parts in India (for LCA MK2), compared to fully take what the US allows us on the F35C is a clear advantage.

The choice is simply more difficult for IN, than it is for IAF, because the latter has the free choice and can set up their own demands. The navy has several limitations and they have to evaluate which options are there and which fighter / carrier combo will be the most effective one in war times?

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).

 

[Penguin]

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