IAC-2 Future Aircraft Carrier Project - News & Discussions

raghu1974 said:
I agree. Whenever we go for a 3rd carrier, we don't need a nuclear powered carrier as it will be cost prohibitive and also the need for nuclear fuel.
Click to expand...

Powering large ships with electricity is the way to go, and the best way to generate that electricity is with a reactor. Without a reactor, a ship as large as a carrier is wasted. It will never be as capable as a nuke-carrier, and it will never be able to use a lot of the tactics that a nuke-carrier takes for granted. No different than an SSK when compared to an SSN.

The only reason we aren't going for one is because the navy is in a hurry and the amount of time they think they have is not enough to build and test a carrier reactor.

When it comes to cost, although the construction costs are greater, the yearly expenditure for operations will actually be lesser. Our main goal for the navy should be to reduce operations cost and make it operationally sustainable rather than worry about initial construction cost. A carrier is not like a fighter jet that's operated in the hundreds, we are only going to have a handful, so long term sustainability of the fleet is much more important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot, AbRaj, Bon Plan and 1 other person
Bon Plan said:
It's harder to studied and produce a small nuc reactor for subs than a larger one for carrier. The harder is made.

But it's better for India not to make the same error than with Tejas : too many innovations together ! and a great miss as the conclusion.

Better to fine tune a classical powered carrier, and with the RETEX to built an optimised one but this time with nuc power.
Click to expand...

Vikrant's already helped us take that step. That was our LCA, and until now it's been pretty successful. Also, most of the CATOBAR and aviation capability needed is not indigenous but will be imported from either France or the US, so the risk there is the same as in France or the US.

We have two choices, one is to build a conventional carrier, start in 2025 and end it sometime after 2035, possibly 2040. Another is to build a family of nuke carriers starting in 2030 and have the first one in operation before 2040. Pretty much the same deadline, but different goals. What we are missing today is the Chinese ability to rapidly build ships and their financial clout to churn them out in numbers. So we need to take the time between now and 2030 to create such capacity. For example, we need to properly introduce modular construction for large ships using French or Spanish tech through the Mistral or Juan Carlos, and they need to be built in 2 shipyards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot
randomradio said:
That's fine for the carrier, but what's more expensive is the air wing, and that also needs to be indigenised.
Click to expand...

In the Mid Nineties , IAF and IN came to GOI with Two demands , SU 30 for IAF
And GORSHKOV for IN

GOI priortised SU 30 and Gorshkov ie Vikramaditya had to wait till 2004 AD
For Contract signature

Today 25 years later ,we want RAFALES
SWARM DRONES , ATAGS and a ROCKET Force -- all more important than a third Carrier
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker
STEPHEN COHEN said:
In the Mid Nineties , IAF and IN came to GOI with Two demands , SU 30 for IAF
And GORSHKOV for IN

GOI priortised SU 30 and Gorshkov ie Vikramaditya had to wait till 2004 AD
For Contract signature

Today 25 years later ,we want RAFALES
SWARM DRONES , ATAGS and a ROCKET Force -- all more important than a third Carrier
Click to expand...

The plan for 3 carriers was older than the Su-30. The IN's plan was to procure Gorshkov as well as 2 indigenous ADS, air defence ships. The two ADS became carriers and IAC-1 was the first of the two. A second indigenous carrier was to follow, but they decided they wanted a large carrier once the US offered catapults and EMALS. So the third carrier is merely a continuation of the old plan.
 
randomradio said:
That's fine for the carrier, but what's more expensive is the air wing, and that also needs to be indigenised.
Click to expand...
Also, we need to add the cost of the aircraft on IAC, it's not the ship alone ...for future induction TEDBF and EMALS needs to be indigenized
 
TARGET said:
Also, we need to add the cost of the aircraft on IAC, it's not the ship alone ...for future induction TEDBF and EMALS needs to be indigenized
Click to expand...

TEDBF will be indigenous. The question is whether they will make it CATOBAR capable.

EMALS cannot be indigenised for just one ship. We need to build a family of ships for that. Even the French plan on importing the American one.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Aditya b7777, Chain Smoker and SammyBoi
Ashwin said:
Why would they choose CATOBAR for next carrier and make TEDBF incapable to operate from it ?
Click to expand...

ADA can't make CATOBAR in double quick time, design to IOC in just 12 years, ie 6 years for first flight and 6 years of flight testing, when normal flight testing period is 9 years.

Rather the IN wants 3 squadrons of CATOBAR-capable MRCBF, so 2 squadrons can be used from IAC-2 while a part of the third can be used from either of the STOBAR carriers alongside TEDBF.

Plus STOBAR is more suitable for use from land bases. And I think this is the main goal. Once drones come into the picture, MRCBF can be exclusively used from all three carriers, while TEDBF could largely end up on land, a sticking point between the IAF and IN, but the IAF will have to acquiese once the IN has "no choice".
 
randomradio said:
ADA can't make CATOBAR in double quick time.
Click to expand...
Not the question. IN has already decided they want CATOBAR and there is no reason not to ask for update on the TEDBF.

Check the DDR interview of the program director. He explains it's not much of a problem at this stage.
 
randomradio said:
TEDBF will be indigenous. The question is whether they will make it CATOBAR capable.

EMALS cannot be indigenised for just one ship. We need to build a family of ships for that. Even the French plan on importing the American one.
Click to expand...
IF EMALS is difficult and expensive why not go for a steamed catapult... maybe Chinese are going for a steamed catapult


 
lcafanboy said:

China begins work on third aircraft carrier's catapult system

Recent images from China's Jiangnan Changxingdao shipyard in Shanghai suggest that work on the People's Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN's) third aircraft carrier's catapult...
www.google.com
Click to expand...
A Third Carrier will Never Come

Whether we like it or Not , we will need the Support of US , UK or French Navy for containing Chinese Naval Aggression

We have limited resources

Let us focus on the RAFALES and Missiles ie A large Rocket Force

Rafales and Su 30 can fight Chinese Carriers
 
Ashwin said:
Not the question. IN has already decided they want CATOBAR and there is no reason not to ask for update on the TEDBF.

Check the DDR interview of the program director. He explains it's not much of a problem at this stage.
Click to expand...

ADA will claim anything they want, they can even build a B-21 right now if they want, they just won't tell you how long it will take. A STOBAR design is the least risky. Politically too, a CATOBAR-TEDBF can end the procurement of MRCBF due to ADA/HAL pressure, along with IAF. The IN is not dumb enough to allow that to happen.

So the best option the they have chosen is to replace the Mig-29s with STOBAR-TEDBF and buy the MRCBF before the TEDBF comes in. And then push the TEDBF into coastal bases because it's impossible to operate it on a CATOBAR carrier. That's three birds with one stone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SammyBoi and Chain Smoker
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back