No. If F 35 is deemed to be the best lead fighter the catobar will be dropped. The ship will be designed around the lead fighter.
IAC-2 Future Aircraft Carrier Project - News & Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ins vishal
No. If F 35 is deemed to be the best lead fighter the catobar will be dropped. The ship will be designed around the lead fighter.
The problem isn't the F-35B. The problem is the STOBAR cannot launch AWACS effectively, so we need the CATOBAR for it.
Navy chief said it will be CATOBAR/Diesel electric. So no need to make up your own stuff. The ship will be designed to operate multiple fighters, from NLCA mk2, Rafale M to F-35C.
Wait, DE not Gas Turbine ? How will that power the CATOBAR's energy surge needs ? assuming CAT is a EMALS.
F-35B and STOVL are out of question. They cannot operate AEW planes & UCAVs which we will need.
If at all F-35 is needed, then we go with F-35C and stick with CATOBAR EMALS.
Depends on whether the setup is COGAG or CODAG. The IAC-1 has a COGAG setup, no diesels. The QEC however has CODAG (diesel & gas) combined with IEP.
It has to be modified with CATOBAR, otherwise it's useless for IN.
Besides, the QEC originally was a CATOBAR design (back when France & UK were both pursuing it). It can be repurposed for CATOBAR without much problem. It will look like the PA2 concept in that case.
There is only one reason why the qe will be considered at this late stage scrapping our current design for Vishal. To have a ship that will quickly deploy the f35 with all attendant limitations.
There is currently zero reason to believe there is any interest shown in QEC by the IN. Just because some media outlets spew some garbage doesn't mean we have to lose our minds over it.
If our people have visited and inspected the ships it’s not a casual talk. Besides no Matt how reviled the f 35 has been till now there is increasing proof that it’s growing into a true 5th generation jet with asymmetric edge.
This is the biggest BS I have heard till date. IN has its own design for Vishal ready with a stretch of IAC-1. Why the hell will IN spend money for the useless British carrier design.
We are not going to buy and copy paste QE design. That is the stupidest thing to believe if you know one or two things about IN.
Propulsion configuration could be similar to QE with IEP.
We visit pretty much anything worth visiting. IN personnel also visited Japan's Izumo-class LHD. Does that mean we're going to make a Izumo copy?
One island is all that's needed, provided the internal configuration supports it. The reason why QEC/PA2 designs have two islands is explained here:
Why does HMS Queen Elizabeth have two islands?
Navy is delusional if it thinks it can buy such an advanced carrier and 57 rafale or even more hilarious F-35.Even IAF struggling to get more than 36 rafales.With hypersonic missile age upon us,please stop with the carrier mania and focus on submarines.But too many exercises with us supercarriers seems to have given the navy boys delusions of grandeur.A tight slap by something called a budget will eventually wake them up.
While the 57 jet deal is slightly unrealistic because of the IAF's own demand for fighter jets with the same timeframe, the carrier acquisition isn't unrealistic 'cause we will be paying for it over 15 years, starting well after we are a $5T economy. We need 6 carriers. And a carrier will remain relevant as long as aircraft are relevant, hypersonic missiles or no hypersonic missiles.
Personally, I think the military will end up with more money than they know what to do with after 2030, when it comes to dominating the Indo-Pacific region.
It's because of the chimneys for conventional engines. American carriers are nuclear powered.
I totally doubt that. Going by the present tread of procurement rate and the growth of defense budget, the Indian military will always lag behind in onboarding new weaponry even after a decade. No surprises here.
The procurement rate is pretty good right now. Very good in fact.
All militaries in the world are always late when it comes to onboarding new weaponry. The F-35 is a prime example. Very little is actually done in time.
Whats the point in having a carrier without aircraft?We will be mostly fighting with shore based air support,we dont need global expeditionary forces.We shouldnt build any more carriers until after 2035 when we will be 10 trillion dollar economy.Until then focus on sea denial with submarines.This carrier project will sink the navy into a black hole of budgetary hell.Already this year navy got 41,000(!) crore less than it asked for in defence budget - more than twice the deficit of the other services.This shows the gap between navy's grandiose plans and actual budgetary sanction.
Hypersonic missiles do matter because its impossible for most current air defence systems to stop them,and because of their speed they can potentially 1 shot a carrier.A 10 billion plus carrier is not a wise investment unless you have all other bases covered.And navy doesnt have its submarine base covered.I keep saying submarines ARE the future.Especially since we will be fighting close to shores we should build many more of them as the subs would be mostly protected from enemy land based maritime patrol aircraft .