This is not like the case with SSNs and SSBNs. There is no reason to maintain secrecy here.
There is because the core technology (reactor) will be from a common design. Revealing something about one means you reveal something about other. And there's no way they'll reveal the timeline of the most strategic tech (reactor) in the most strategic project (SSBN) to Ajai Shukla.
Apart from the fact that they have a long history of building ships, the design matters a lot. In our case, delivery of equipment almost always gets delayed, and then we also end up changing the design and ask for major changes mid way during construction, like what happened with Vikrant. For the QE, the excellent French design experience was combined with a professional workforce that took delivery of equipment in time.
Everything is relative (whether its carriers or P-15A/B). If we graduate to truly modular shipbuilding methods (which we're already doing with MDL & GRSE), the experience-retaining aspect becomes less relevant, to the point where shipyards which have never previously even done repair work on carriers, can graduate to building blocks for carriers which will be shipped to the final assembly yard (CSL) to be put together into a carrier. The only shipyard here that might need some experience with handling ships of this size will be the final assembly yard. It won't be a problem for handling because CSL will be routinely docking both the Vikrant & Vikramaditya for repair/refit work from time to time anyway.
British yards did not even have that experience. The only flattop they had to play with was Ark Royal which by present standards is nothing but a 22,000T LHD at best.
And they were not building a supercarrier but just a 65,000T conventional STOBAR carrier.
It's STOVL really (QEC has no barrier-assisted recovery), anyway, technically anything 65,000T or above is a supercarrier, regardless of launch setup. The reason why only the American 100,000T ships were called supercarriers was because before the QEC came, the Americans were the only ones to have carriers of 65,000T or above.
What you are recommending is a direct jump to a nuclear powered supercarrier over 100,000T from nothing.
I have no disagreement if our nuclear carriers turn out to be in 65,000-75,000T range. That's pretty sufficient for foreseeable needs. The French nuclear carrier is only 42,000T and it can carry 40 aircraft, by that measure a nuclear IAC-2 can easily carry 50-55+, which is more than enough. A conventional carrier of the same displacement though, will be able to carry less, thanks to the fact they have to accommodate vast liquid fuel storage for the ship's own use internally. On an N ship the only fuel you need to carry will be for the aviation, allowing much more leeway in maximizing the capability of the ship for the purpose it was designed for - to carry aircraft.
And building a 65,000T carrier from nothing isn't an unheard-of feat. It's already been done. Twice actually. All we require from our yards is not experience, but simple competence. If we can't bring that to the table, then we have no business building or operating carriers.
The P-15A was delayed for the same reason as Vikrant. The IN changed the design many times during the construction process. Had MDL not gained experience with the P-15, the P-15A wouldn't have worked out properly.
Not to mention, a lot of delays were due to screw-ups not related to construction. For example, the Vikrant was delayed by 3 years because the gear train got involved in a road accident while it was being transported and had to be rebuilt. The P-15A saw major delays in delivery from Ukraine. The P-15B is now seeing delays from Russia. So every time something is delayed, the navy uses that time to bring in design changes, which may or may not work out and that brings in further delays.
As I said, everything I said is relative. But on this note, it's also important for us to take suppliers who don't deliver to book, and blacklist them from any further orders, going instead for the more reliable, albeit more expensive, Western supplier option wherever possible. To be honest I'm surprised we still stick with Zorya tubines and Russian shafts for a ship as advanced as P-15B (which is arguably more advanced than any warship in the Russian Navy). The P-17As with their GE turbines and MAN diesels are going to be so much more reliable, and the way to go really.
I guess we're still unable to shake off the Russian influence sourcing from the original P-15 Delhi-class design.
Unlike the British, we suffer from not having our own technologies, or easy to source technologies.
http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Public Accounts/16_Public_Accounts_32.pdf
(c) The need to have state-of-the-art systems onboard the ships leads to frequent mid-course changes;
(d) Considering long gestation for warship construction, generally 07 to 08 years, the experience gained on the first ship is implemented on remaining vessels. However, since the batch size is small, each new class has its own learning curve;
(f) Non-receipt of inputs relating to various equipment and systems under development on-time, sometimes because of concurrent development of technology by the industry;
(g) Delay in finalizing the weapon package leading to late receipt of binding data, resulting in frequent design changes and in some cases re-work;
(h) Unfamiliarity with modern technology experienced by the shipyard and navy, leading to delays;
============
P-15A:
As far as the build period is concerned, the initial build period was estimated on the work content in building the ships. However, there were delays in the project due to, inter-alia, delay by propulsion equipment suppliers, calling for cancellation of order and reordering, and developmental nature of main weapons and sensors. The delays due to above reasons could not be estimated at the beginning of the project.
============
Delays in Delivery of Equipment - Delay in delivery of equipment by both indigenous and foreign vendors has been a major cause of project delays. Indigenization of certain weapons and sensors, and development by R&D organization takes time, resulting in time over runs. Cases in example are IFF, SRGM, AK630, ATAS, EON 51 and Kavach for Project 17.
Just goes to show we need to get our house in order before building another carrier. What's happening here is that we're going to build a new ship, without correcting any of the mistakes (not just wrt building, but suppliers as well) we made in building the old ship.
The experience from older projects are definitely being carried over.
In terms of managing the project maybe, unfortunately it simply doesn't translate into tangible results. Maybe because not much is being carried over in the first place. But in terms of building, the carryover is very minimal. You do as much as adding a new module, which will change the center of gravity, and you have a whole lot of more work at hand, you simply can't blindly follow the old rules anymore, and that's with everything else remaining the same.
On the other hand, a 65,000T carrier is a whole different ball game from a 40,000T one. It's not even in the same league. The difference is to the tune of 25,000T, the difference is an entire LHD's worth.
If it didn't then even Bangladesh will be able to build a supercarrier from scratch with zero experience.
If they can get a competent design, if they can provide the investment needed to build a yard big enough to handle a supercarrier for final assembly, adopt modern computer-assisted training methods, and distribute the workload to a network of equally competent shipbuilders via modular block construction, and finally provide the money needed to build & operate, there's no reason why Bangladesh can't build a supercarrier.
The reason they can't, is because they don't have any of the things listed which it takes to do so, nor the money needed to procure them. But we do/will, by 2030, we certainly will.
Otoh, we don't even give more important ship contracts to our private shipyards.
There's another problem. Even if you are building a conventional carrier, modular shipbuilding involving multiple public/private yards is the way to go. Not doing that simply means we are not making proper use of time or money.
