MoD rethinking futuristic aircraft carrier plans

[Agent_47]

NEW DELHI: The defence ministry is doing a rethink on a prohibitively expensive naval programme for a futuristic aircraft carrier and is evaluating options for more optimal utilisation of resources for other critical purchases — like submarines and advanced frigates .

Officials have confirmed to ET that the Navy's plan for a 65,000 ton nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to be fitted with an American catapult system is not likely to get financial clearances soon as the ministry was looking at other options. While a detailed project report for the carrier is ongoing and the Indo-US Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology Cooperation (JWGACTC) is in place, officials say that the next step involving release of more funds could be deferred.

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar when asked told ET that he could not comment on the matter as he had not taken a decision on the project as of now. Navy officials said that they have not received information on the future of the plan yet.

A reason for the rethink is the massive cost involved in the new-age aircraft carrier. By conservative estimates, the cost of construction of the carrier itself, without the aircraft, would exceed Rs 70,000 crore. The high cost is primarily due to the integration of the nuclear plant as well as the American electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) being planned.

As of now, the defence ministry has allocated Rs30 crore to the project after an approval by the highpowered defence acquisition committee last year. Officials have told ET that out of this, only Rs 2 crore has been released in this financial year for the project.

With other critical naval projects requiring attention — including two lines of indigenous nuclear powered submarines — a line of thinking within the defence ministry is that allocating huge resources to a single platform would not be prudent.

"The aircraft carrier itself is expensive and also requires a number of warships and platforms around it to operate at sea. We also have other pressing needs of the Navy to consider," a defence ministry official said.

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

[Agent_47]

Mark my words, INS Vishal would be a diesel electric propulsion and catapult launch. These techs perfectly fits our needs. Diesel electric because IN's main area of responsibility is Indian ocean not the entire world, Catapult launch because less costly to operate and maintain (and better than our current system).
There is no reason for a country like India to pursue most hippy and costly technologies just because other biggies doing it.

 

[fsayed]

NEW DELHI: The defence ministry is doing a rethink on a prohibitively expensive naval programme for a futuristic aircraft carrier and is evaluating options for more optimal utilisation of resources for other critical purchases — like submarines and advanced frigates .

Officials have confirmed to ET that the Navy's plan for a 65,000 ton nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to be fitted with an American catapult system is not likely to get financial clearances soon as the ministry was looking at other options. While a detailed project report for the carrier is ongoing and the Indo-US Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology Cooperation (JWGACTC) is in place, officials say that the next step involving release of more funds could be deferred.

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar when asked told ET that he could not comment on the matter as he had not taken a decision on the project as of now. Navy officials said that they have not received information on the future of the plan yet.

A reason for the rethink is the massive cost involved in the new-age aircraft carrier. By conservative estimates, the cost of construction of the carrier itself, without the aircraft, would exceed Rs 70,000 crore. The high cost is primarily due to the integration of the nuclear plant as well as the American electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) being planned.

As of now, the defence ministry has allocated Rs30 crore to the project after an approval by the highpowered defence acquisition committee last year. Officials have told ET that out of this, only Rs 2 crore has been released in this financial year for the project.

With other critical naval projects requiring attention — including two lines of indigenous nuclear powered submarines — a line of thinking within the defence ministry is that allocating huge resources to a single platform would not be prudent.

"The aircraft carrier itself is expensive and also requires a number of warships and platforms around it to operate at sea. We also have other pressing needs of the Navy to consider," a defence ministry official said.

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Mark my words, INS Vishal would be a diesel electric propulsion and catapult launch. These techs perfectly fits our needs. Diesel electric because IN's main area of responsibility is Indian ocean not the entire world, Catapult launch because less costly to operate and maintain (and better than our current system).
There is no reason for a country like India to pursue most hippy and costly technologies just because other biggies doing it.

India will build this nuclear carrier but for a while our government wanted to divert attention of world community as we r on the verge of getting membership in world forum MTCR,NSG and ETC

 

[MKC]

Mark my words, INS Vishal would be a diesel electric propulsion and catapult launch. These techs perfectly fits our needs. Diesel electric because IN's main area of responsibility is Indian ocean not the entire world, Catapult launch because less costly to operate and maintain (and better than our current system).
There is no reason for a country like India to pursue most hippy and costly technologies just because other biggies doing it.

Recently someone from navy either three star or four star officer claimed that if EMALS used, EMALS alone will force IN to go for nuclear propulsion.
I think either next carrier will be delayed by some years if IN now has problem in building nuclear-powered carrier or will go for similar to Vikrant if diesel propulsion is used, conventional catapult can be used.
I don't know any advantage in 65,000 tonnes diesel carrier as you claimed primary area as Indian ocean.
War is not going to happen, when it comes to show off, diesel carrier are almost same be it 65000 or 50,000.
We can easily claim 3 carriers but Navy is short of 25 frigates showed in last report.

 

[Agent_47]

I don't know any advantage in 65,000 tonnes diesel carrier as you claimed primary area as Indian ocean.
War is not going to happen, when it comes to show off, diesel carrier are almost same be it 65000 or 50,000.

I don't understand how propulsion make an aircraft carrier less of a weapon.Nuclear means longer endurance, that's it.
Even the french and British are going for 75,000ton and diesel/CATOBAR design for their next carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_PA2

We can easily claim 3 carriers but Navy is short of 25 frigates showed in last report.

Which report quotes exact numbers ? source please.

@Penguin I heard japanese soryu class of subs only have life of around 16 years or so, is that true ?
Why would anyone design a sub for lesser lifetime?

 

[Penguin]

I don't understand how propulsion make an aircraft carrier less of a weapon.Nuclear means longer endurance, that's it.

@Penguin I heard japanese soryu class of subs only have life of around 16 years or so, is that true ?
Why would anyone design a sub for lesser lifetime?

The Japanese have decommissioned various classes of their subs after 19-20 years of service. That tells you something about how they invest in keeping their sub fleet modern and up to date. It doesn't necessarily mean theirs subs are spent after 19 years, however. Clearly, JMSDF can afford this replacement rat. Not all navies can and they will stretch service life. Some nations then give their subs a midlife upgrade to keep them relevant, which I don't think is what the Japanese do. And they couldn't / can't self their decommissioned boats secondhand, unlikely some states.

For carriers, nuclear propulsion does not eliminate the need for replenishment e.g. of food, ammunitions, spare parts, avaiation fuel. A key benefit of nuclear propulsion would be long duration high speed running, which is nice if you're transiting from one theatre to the next, or when in persuit.

 

[MKC]

I don't understand how propulsion make an aircraft carrier less of a weapon.Nuclear means longer endurance, that's it.
Even the french and British are going for 75,000ton and diesel/CATOBAR design for their next carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_PA2

Nuclear is for EMALS not conventional CATOBAR.
Every CATOBAR cost is more than STOBAR?STOVL.
QE class is STOVL british didn't had that much budget so plan was changed to STOVL

Which report quotes exact numbers ? source please.

I would have posted that if I would have link but I think both things was in same article possibly by India Today magazine.
Which told that navy is short of number in frigate category, also claimed that officer told if we go for EMALS then we must have to go for nuclear propulsion.
I can't find any advantage in 65000 tonnes diesel carrier from a 50000 diesel carrier, number of aircraft can be increased about 50 in 50000 tonnes easily.
If navy wants to stay in IOR.

@Penguin I heard Japanese soryu class of subs only have life of around 16 years or so, is that true ?
Why would anyone design a sub for lesser lifetime?

Not that less but yes I too heard Soryu have have much less life.

 

[Genesis]

@Penguin I heard japanese soryu class of subs only have life of around 16 years or so, is that true ?
Why would anyone design a sub for lesser lifetime?

The Japanese sub's life is around the same as others, however, being a pacifist country, it's military personnel and funding is limited. The thinking is if war was to happen, a bunch of experienced crew and proven submarines can be recommissioned to double or triple it's current fleet size.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

The logical decision is to build another class of 45000 tonnes Vikrant carrier. I had always doubt need India will go for another new design, seeing, the experience in building the Vikrant, the second carrier can be built fastly. If we want, with the same design, we can increase the length and tonnage to hold more ac.

If we go for Catobar, then it will be Rafale M. If we stick with old design its gonna be Mig 29 K, and even with this, it is the more potent naval fighter in the whole of Asia.

The Japanese sub's life is around the same as others, however, being a pacifist country, it's military personnel and funding is limited. The thinking is if war was to happen, a bunch of experienced crew and proven submarines can be recommissioned to double or triple it's current fleet size.

Also depends upon the hours the submarine spends in its 20 years under the Japanese. It can get weared and teared easily.

 

[Genesis]

I don't understand how propulsion make an aircraft carrier less of a weapon.Nuclear means longer endurance, that's it.
Even the french and British are going for 75,000ton and diesel/CATOBAR design for their next carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_PA2

For India probably a good idea, nuclear propulsion takes long maintenance time, unless you have 5+, you are going to have a hard time keeping a constant presence. I mean there's no better example than the French Carrier, when was the last time that thing had a impact.

Also depends upon the hours the submarine spends in its 20 years under the Japanese. It can get weared and teared easily.

From all the sources I seen, it's planned, hence there is periodic maintenance and other works done. This isn't an after thought like the US aircraft graveyard, this is a deliberate move by the Japanese.

 

[SR-91]

Mark my words, INS Vishal would be a diesel electric propulsion and catapult launch. These techs perfectly fits our needs. Diesel electric because IN's main area of responsibility is Indian ocean not the entire world, Catapult launch because less costly to operate and maintain (and better than our current system).
There is no reason for a country like India to pursue most hippy and costly technologies just because other biggies doing it.

Either that or its time to build another VIKRANT CLASS CARRIER, having 2 of the same carrier will bring down the cost and time. VIKRANT II will solve all immediate issues.

 

[kaykay]

AFAIK Cochin Shipyard has already upgraded a dry dock to build a 75000 ton aircraft carrier..

 

[Agent_47]

Nuclear is for EMALS not conventional CATOBAR.

I don't understand, what is wrong with Nuclear and Catobar ?

Every CATOBAR cost is more than STOBAR?STOVL.
QE class is STOVL british didn't had that much budget so plan was changed to STOVL

Only nations still going for STOBAR are those who don't have the tech. (UK is an exception,thanks to F35.They don't even an actual requirement for AC and they are going for two !).

CATOBAR and Rafale (or above) capable fighter is a must for next carrier IMHO.

I would have posted that if I would have link but I think both things was in same article possibly by India Today magazine.
Which told that navy is short of number in frigate category, also claimed that officer told if we go for EMALS then we must have to go for nuclear propulsion.

All official docs says their area of responsibility as IOR, but never seen an exact number of frigate/destroyer combo.

I can't find any advantage in 65000 tonnes diesel carrier from a 50000 diesel carrier, number of aircraft can be increased about 50 in 50000 tonnes easily.

I don't understand why you press 'diesel carrier' part. The difference will be same as 65000 tonnes nuclear carrier from a 50000 nuclear carrier !

The logical decision is to build another class of 45000 tonnes Vikrant carrier. I had always doubt need India will go for another new design, seeing, the experience in building the Vikrant, the second carrier can be built fastly. If we want, with the same design, we can increase the length and tonnage to hold more ac.

If we go for Catobar, then it will be Rafale M. If we stick with old design its gonna be Mig 29 K, and even with this, it is the more potent naval fighter in the whole of Asia.

I second that, we spend 15 years of sweat is in that design. Modify it to catobar and field Rafale + fighters.
It will be just like current french carrier - nuclear propulsion ie, less maintenance and less costly.

The Japanese have decommissioned various classes of their subs after 19-20 years of service. That tells you something about how they invest in keeping their sub fleet modern and up to date. It doesn't necessarily mean theirs subs are spent after 19 years, however. Clearly, JMSDF can afford this replacement rat. Not all navies can and they will stretch service life. Some nations then give their subs a midlife upgrade to keep them relevant, which I don't think is what the Japanese do. And they couldn't / can't self their decommissioned boats secondhand, unlikely some states.

It this just a matter of mid life upgrade ? When they lost ausis contract this is quoted as one of the reason. If that is the case why didn't they explicitly say so ?

 

[Penguin]

It this just a matter of mid life upgrade ? When they lost ausis contract this is quoted as one of the reason. If that is the case why didn't they explicitly say so ?

No. I'm just saying that the Japanese policy is to retire their boats at 19 years. We cannot determine if by that time the boats are actually spent (i.e. no longer fit enough to remain viable with an upgrade). Clearly upgrading would be possible from a technical point of view, but the Japanese choose not to. Rather the build new ships. That strategy does give one advantage: they can make alterations to the hull structure (which is not an upgrade possibility).

Japan modernizes and expands its force by replacing sub, not by refitting/upgrading existing ones. That may or may not be because the basic boat is worn out. I doubt that it is. But it is a more expensive approach in the long run. Which may be why the Australians don't want to follow it.

 

[GURU DUTT]

so in short its gonna be two more IAC-1 class with EMALS and AAG and diesel electrik propulssion