IAC-2 Future Aircraft Carrier Project - News & Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ins vishal
We don't have budget for that..
I ll be happy if we signed submarine deal soon.
MDL submarine production is idle..
Money is not a problem...... It's only a problem if you need to import stuff........... Most of the technologies need to build a Nuclear powered super Aircraft carrier is already within our grasp..... Chinese will be churning Nuclear powered carrier like sausages in future....... We can't be complacent anymore.
You also need ship building capability , required facility for such tonnage (which might be available to 1 or 2 shipyards esp pvt one but the design expertise is not) , the huge rigs etc setup that takes roughly 12-16 months to set p itself before the actual building begins. Without starting from a base design and gradually increasing tonnage step by step it is hard to arrive at maturity to progress into such tonnage class fighter jet carrier. This is just the main ship part. The associated systems emals , arrester gear etc that are subsystems to the main ship are another affair altogether. Without every building block ready, you can not progress from conceptual phase to engineering design phase, the design will fail in both IV&V as well as reliability test.
The matter is not being about complacent or over confidence, its about enough robust engineering design & manufacturing capability within the country. We definitely lack in certain areas which is why now Govt is coming out with large shipbuilding capability development plan. This capability comes with decade long practice, design , order and finally building the ship. No shortcut can bridge the gap.
Then why not order a somewhat bigger sister ship of vikrant?
With hybrid ski jump + catapult for take off.
Will allow it to be used even without catapults,and ship can enter service even without development of catapults being completed.
Plus the capaults being developed can be made with lot less intense requirements compared to ones found in pure catobar carriers, with less space taken, less power requirement, also easier to develop especially for a inexperienced country like india as they will provide just initial acceleration for ski jump takeoff, to allow more payload and fuel compared to pure ski jump method.
Can also open doors for a fixed wing awacs on a carrier
Only way you order a fully integrated ship is where you have a good reliable design and equally adaptable manufacturing workforce. In case of IAC we learned on the job and finally ship is in service. This means it is likely a proven established line that can build a sister ship if ordered.
Then comes the viability of order, whether you really need a new IAC by spending considerable resource into int. But if the existing IAC itself is not getting its jets supplied within next 5 years, why build another? IAC on its own would not fight a war, the fighter jets will. If those fighters are half capable Mig29K , there is no need to tie down resource for both the IAC-2 and its jets for next 10 years. We have to remember until rafale M or Tedbf whatever fly off the deck of IAC, it is not proven.
So what do you do with the resource on hand ie money ? you channel it into other big ticket project ie the nuke sub SSN program. Much better return time on the investment compared to IAC-2 and addresses a critical gap far better than the carriers would. IN obviously deliberated on this and found it is better to choose something else than a repeat IAC order at present. Once the Vikrant is operational with Rafale M and establish itself all mission capable with full combat capability, then you can go for a 2nd IAC with enlarged design. That day is still 10 years or more away. So right now a 2nd same design repeat order is entirely counter productive compared to immediate threat on the horizon.
Alright, thanks for insights.
by the way instead of vikrant's sister class, What are your thoughts on collaboration with France to get 2 75k+tons nuclear-powered emals catobar carriers in our service in early 2040s.( total 3 or 4 build, 2 for india, 1or2for france)
According. To current plans france will begin construction in. ~2030 and planned induction in~2040.
Currently work is going on in developing technologies and infra for it.
What if we join france on this project, right now limited collaboration on enabling tech and seprate industrial capabilities building and see how the collaboration develops before going full in around ~2030 if satisfactory?
The IN could easily bring in int'l consultants like Fincantieri or NG to validate airwing config and flight deck layout. Imo, the main hurdle is the capital outlay and not the lack of a mature design.
The IN has made multiple proposals to GoI ranging from a 65,000t CVN with EMALS to a much more modest Vikrant-2 STOBAR CV over the years.
The GoIs contention was that the overall cost of the CV+ imported airwing was too high with the admirals also pushing for 57 MRCBF some years back. That's where the idea of TEDBF germinated and the rest is history.
Am I reading this wrong? CVNs have higher sortie rate, carry more aviation fuel and ordinance - thus can sustain longer and CVNs have lower times spent at depot and so more time available at sea. The overall total lifecycle cost may be higher, but CVNs seem more useful for their intended mission... what am I missing?
I personally think conventional supercarriers will always be a compromise. I can see the argument for smaller cvs as light/drone carriers or just amphibious aviation ships. Regional air defense might make sense for some geographies, but I think most would be better suited with building a traditional air force. Sea control doctrine died in the 80s.
Otherwise most conventional carriers are compromises over costs, politics, industrial know-how etc. Or prestige like the Thai carrier.
Depends on the desired capability.
Its case by case.
Can remerge too, as i said case by case basis.
And they are still built because the compromise is considered worth it.
How ? If u have enough fuel for let say 3 months deployment then u dont need nuclear carriers.
What except endurance is beneficial for nuclear carriers ? Obv a 100k tonn nuclear will be more powerful as it will have more space to have fuel ammunition, parts and crew needes but more costly too
India future is a 100,000 ton displacement Nuclear powered super carriers not conventional powered carriers. A minimum of 6 are needed period. We have all the required technologies now & which we don't have we will develop
Nuke propulsion is better in every way for carriers, even for homeland defense.
CVN can run at top speed until it breaks. CV will run out of fuel very quickly in the same conditions.
During combat, carriers move around a lot.
CVN can ditch its escorts and Usain Bolt away too, while making it easier for the escorts to survive.