What's new

INS Vishal: Will India go Nuclear?

I think INS Vishal will be ready by 2025 !

Most of the technologies are already there like IAC 1 once the carrier is laid it will take 2 to 3 years to go for sea trials at best considering cochin shipyard had already built a carrier and has experience.

We don't even have the design. We are conducing preliminary studies that will take at least 2 years. Then the design will take at least 3-5 years. Then the ship building will take at last 8 years. Induction will take another 2 years.

i.e. a Total of at least 15-17 years from today. Now calculate.
 
UK did not go for nuclear AC, since they did not want EMALS. They chose CATOBAR and an expensive and inefficient F-35 B which has vertical take off and landing.

Needless to say, they are regretting that now.

INS Vishal will take at least 2025-30 to become operational. EMALS need huge electric power which can only be provided by a Nuclear Reactor.

So if IN is going for EMALS as it plans too, Nuclear power is the only practical option. Advantage is that it provides more operational flexibility and range. Disadvantage is that its expensive.
EMALS is CATOBAR. The other type of CATOBAR is Steam catapult as seen in American and Frnch productions. QE is STOVL.

I believe Americanos take about 6 years per super-carrier. I also read one Americano - that it is very cost-effective to upscale once you've decided to have a medium sized carrier. Well, their carrier costs $15 billion though, so.....
 
We don't even have the design. We are conducing preliminary studies that will take at least 2 years. Then the design will take at least 3-5 years. Then the ship building will take at last 8 years. Induction will take another 2 years.

i.e. a Total of at least 15-17 years from today. Now calculate.

Less than that 10 years is the maximum. By that time IN and MoD will be talking about IAC 4 and IAC 3 will be in pipe line.
 
Last edited:
EMALS is CATOBAR. The other type of CATOBAR is Steam catapult as seen in American and Frnch productions. QE is STOVL.

I believe Americanos take about 6 years per super-carrier. I also read one Americano - that it is very cost-effective to upscale once you've decided to have a medium sized carrier. Well, their carrier costs $15 billion though, so.....

Sorry its a Typo, I meant STOBAR.
 
Defiantly IN should go with N carrier.. For all those indians who are thinking about the cost should also know conventional carries fuel for the lifetime would cost way more than constructing Nuclear carrier and need to refuel every 3 days and can't even launch big plans. while Nuclear carriers don't need to refuel, can stay longer time, can launch bigger planes.

and the best is when we get EMALS there comes F-35C... goign to be one kick@ss fighter in IOR
 
Yes you keyboard warrior. India cannot build nuclear carriers right now. India has a 46 billion dollar budget, not 460 billion dollars and how much of the 46 billion dollars go to navy? How much do you think it costs to build and maintain a nuclear carrier?

Don't come with your bullsh1t nationalist jingoism which has no connection to reality.

Dude, Navy is not going to build the carrier with in a year.. at least it'll take 8 years or more given the project delays.. with growing budget IN can easily accommodate N carrier and maintain it. and India has the tech.. if we can build a reactor for sub then there's no difficulty in building one for carrier.

Why not, there will be F-22 for the IAF as well.

care to explain ???
 
Sorry its a Typo, I meant STOBAR.
Which is still wrong as QE doesn't have any arrestor gear. It is purely STOVL, although the Brits have developed an alternate maneuver called SRVL- Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing.
 
Which is still wrong as QE doesn't have any arrestor gear. It is purely STOVL, although the Brits have developed an alternate maneuver called SRVL- Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing.

Ah, now I get to say you are wrong.

HMS Queen Liz has STOVL i.e. short take-off and vertical landing.
 
Dude, Navy is not going to build the carrier with in a year.. at least it'll take 8 years or more given the project delays.. with growing budget IN can easily accommodate N carrier and maintain it. and India has the tech.. if we can build a reactor for sub then there's no difficulty in building one for carrier.

1. What is the present ship-building capability of India?

2. My knowledge on such matters is not in-depth like you but I read somewhere that you need deep docks to build bigger and heavier ships. How many sites are there in India at present that can launch a 65,000 vessel?

3. What is the present budget of India and how much is allocated to the navy?

4. How many AC has India build so far?

5. Nuclear reactors are not based on jugaar or one-size-fits-all. IN cannot build a nuclear reactor for the AC taking the nuclear reactor of the submarine as benchmark.

It is safe to assume since the AC with 65,000 tons weight is bigger than INS Arihant in displacement it will therefore require a bigger reactor for the bigger vessel. How many such nuclear reactors, meant for military use, has been designed and built by India so far?

6. What is the cost of building, maintaining and operating a nuclear powered AC? Countries like UK have been deploying AC since ages. Yet even UK does not dare build a nuclear AC just yet because of cost issues. Thought their experience, infra and def budget is higher than India.

7. For how many months can a nuclear AC be deployed at sea and for how many months will it have to be berthed? The French CdG nuclear AC has to sit at port for six months. What will be the time frame for Indian AC?

care to explain ???

What is there to explain? If IN is getting F-35 then I am sure IAF will also pitch for F-22.

F 35 is comes close to export variant of F22.

They are different aircraft. But you are free to believe what you feel like.
 
What is there to explain? If IN is getting F-35 then I am sure IAF will also pitch for F-22.

you don't make any sense at all.... F-22's exports are banned by US congress.. and F-35 was offered to INdia long ago and IN showed little interest in them.. and If IN goes with EMALS then IN must buy F-35... Americans are not fools.. and we've no other option
 
Ah, now I get to say you are wrong.

HMS Queen Liz has STOVL i.e. short take-off and vertical landing.
o_O
How am I wrong? I was the one who said that its STOVL. You started with CATOBAR, then went to STOBAR and now finally on to the right one:o: after it being pointed out twice before:wave:
 
1. What is the present ship-building capability of India?

India has built 40000 + tonnage aircraft carrier, 65000 Tons is no big deal for Cochin shipyard.

2. My knowledge on such matters is not in-depth like you but I read somewhere that you need deep docks to build bigger and heavier ships. How many sites are there in India at present that can launch a 65,000 vessel?

The docks are already there in place, India is building commercial ships which are bigger tonnage than 65000 Tons. So India do have the capability to build bigger warships and docks.

4 Main Centres of Ship Building Industry in India

3. What is the present budget of India and how much is allocated to the navy?

India is a maritime power, IN needs bigger share of defence budget. India should concentrate on mountain divisions, warfare and also Navy these days. Kashmir and North east are mountainous terrains.

IN air wing is an added advantage and dimension to the already existing IAF capabilities.

4. How many AC has India build so far?

India might have built one AC as of now but has lots of experience in building Bigger tonnage ships as indicated in the above link.

5. Nuclear reactors are not based on jugaar or one-size-fits-all. IN cannot build a nuclear reactor for the AC taking the nuclear reactor of the submarine as benchmark.

It is safe to assume since the AC with 65,000 tons weight is bigger than INS Arihant in displacement it will therefore require a bigger reactor for the bigger vessel. How many such nuclear reactors, meant for military use, has been designed and built by India so far?

Miniaturizing the reactor is difficult than building a bigger one. They have already designed a bigger reactor which gives double the power than the reactor used in INS Arihant.

6. What is the cost of building, maintaining and operating a nuclear powered AC? Countries like UK have been deploying AC since ages. Yet even UK does not dare build a nuclear AC just yet because of cost issues. Thought their experience, infra and def budget is higher than India.

With the increase of GDP defence budget should also get priority, Budget is not a problem.

7. For how many months can a nuclear AC be deployed at sea and for how many months will it have to be berthed? The French CdG nuclear AC has to sit at port for six months. What will be the time frame for Indian AC?

Reason why India needs many CBGs to protect its interests from straits of Malacca to Horn of Africa.

What is there to explain? If IN is getting F-35 then I am sure IAF will also pitch for F-22.
They are different aircraft. But you are free to believe what you feel like.

Who knows if Americans have moved to 6th gen fighter jets then they will try to sell F22 to other nations, IAF might get it.

I am talking about technologies used in F22 and F35.
 
Last edited:
1. What is the present ship-building capability of India?

2. My knowledge on such matters is not in-depth like you but I read somewhere that you need deep docks to build bigger and heavier ships. How many sites are there in India at present that can launch a 65,000 vessel?

3. What is the present budget of India and how much is allocated to the navy?

4. How many AC has India build so far?

5. Nuclear reactors are not based on jugaar or one-size-fits-all. IN cannot build a nuclear reactor for the AC taking the nuclear reactor of the submarine as benchmark.

It is safe to assume since the AC with 65,000 tons weight is bigger than INS Arihant in displacement it will therefore require a bigger reactor for the bigger vessel. How many such nuclear reactors, meant for military use, has been designed and built by India so far?

6. What is the cost of building, maintaining and operating a nuclear powered AC? Countries like UK have been deploying AC since ages. Yet even UK does not dare build a nuclear AC just yet because of cost issues. Thought their experience, infra and def budget is higher than India.

7. For how many months can a nuclear AC be deployed at sea and for how many months will it have to be berthed? The French CdG nuclear AC has to sit at port for six months. What will be the time frame for Indian AC?

1. The nation which build 5 thousand ton frigate was abbled to build 40K ton carrier and you still think its not possile to build 65k ton carrier??? Well let me assume, you must be in love with Congress.

2.I don't know that... our yards can be upgraded to built one.. if you want nucks then you need to build a reactors, uranium enrichment facilities, missiles and so on.. How did India do that??? in the same manner.

3. we don't need to look at the budget.. even if 10 billion is allocated to the navy it's well enough to build one... One thing you're not understanding is that.. IN will not pay the entire money that's needed to build a carrier in a one go... as i mentioned building a carrier as per our standards will take more than 8 years. so if a carrier costs 5 billion, IN will pay the cash in little sums for 8 years. not a big deal.

4. Chinese are building carriers from the scratch without any expeience, India is building one. more than 90% of works are finished. that experience is more than enough to build a 65k ton.

5. In can build reactor for Carrier from the experience of ATV project. and we don't need to start that work from the scratch. some minor and major modification is needed.

Dude not a big deal.. Carriers are going to use 2 reactors. 100 ton Nimitz class carrier runs under 190MW rwactor, while 42 ton French carrier runs under 2 30 MW reactor.. we already have experience with 83 MW reactor.. so plaing 2 of them under 65k ton carrier is more than enough. and Miniaturizing the reactor is tough than making one big.

6. Just becasue UK with its history didn't build n carriers so we don't need one is not a answer man. its about operational needs. I hear many UK think tanks on BBC talking bad about building the current two cariers in a conventional model too..

7. it'll be deployed as long as its needed. ofcousrse like conventional ones these ones too needs maintenance but that a huge different from conventional one. i don't know that time it'll take to maintain, everything depends on the repair AC need. and i don't buy French navy stationed in port for 6 months, if yes so maybe because they don't want ot send it out due to costs or doesn't need to be out at that point of time.. not becasue it needs 6 months of maintanance.

and that's the one of the point we're going fo r 3 carriers. while one is in the port for maintenance other one can take its place.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom