IAC-2 Future Aircraft Carrier Project - News & Discussions

Since IAC-2 will be built around the Rafale-M, the ski-jump and flight deck could be quite different from the Vikrant's.

Perhaps a wider beam to accommodate a diverse airwing as the IN is also developing CCAs.

A twin-island arrangement could be a distinct possibility.

I'd like to see a Shtorm class type design on the Vikrant 2, with both ski jump and EMALs. IEPS will allow the use of two EMALs.
 
I'd like to see a Shtorm class type design on the Vikrant 2, with both ski jump and EMALs. IEPS will allow the use of two EMALs.
Another Russian fan theory, nothing less nothing more. You either go for catapult or ski jump, not hermaphrodite design concept like Russian dream, shtorm.
 
Why would we go TEDBF now if we aren't going to operate three AC at tge same time, go for full 57 Rafale M pieces and save the money for mor stealth oriented aircraft design.
 
IEPS will allow the use of two EMALs.
No other IEPS carrier has EMALS fitted though, barring China's Fujian which is still undergoing trials. The Brits themselves chose not to go for it for cost and complexity reasons and settled for the F-35B instead.

Also the basic TEDBF is designed for STOBAR and nothing is known about the CTOL variant at the moment.
 
No other IEPS carrier has EMALS fitted though, barring China's Fujian which is still undergoing trials. The Brits themselves chose not to go for it for cost and complexity reasons and settled for the F-35B instead.

Also the basic TEDBF is designed for STOBAR and nothing is known about the CTOL variant at the moment.

IAC-2 is meant for 10 years from now, so EMALS will be well on its way by then. Technology wasn't mature for Brit carriers.

It's necessary for support jets like AWACS and UCAVs, not the fighters, those will use the ramp. Or we just have to make do without them.

The CTOL version marketed to the IAF is ORCA. It will come with a lighter landing gear and fixed wings. ADA claims they can make TEDBF CATOBAR capable, but I don't think that will come to pass.

Anyway, DRDO is working on EMALS, so there's a possibility of it actually being developed for ships much sooner than the planned date for future large carriers. IAC-2 would be a good starting point, followed by drone carriers.
 
Combining the two is realistic.
It's not realistic and un necessary, catapult gives you immense advantage over ski jump with an exception of cost. What is the necessary of ski jump when u have catapult in AC,it's like apple iphone introducing physical keyboard while having top end touch screen.
You work with what you can get.
Russian catapult is not existing today.
 
It's not realistic and un necessary, catapult gives you immense advantage over ski jump with an exception of cost. What is the necessary of ski jump when u have catapult in AC,it's like apple iphone introducing physical keyboard while having top end touch screen.

The main ramp will remain the same for TEDBF, but the landing strip can carry 2 EMALS for AWACS, transports, and large UCAVs, even Rafale M. It won't change the inherent design of the ship itself.

From the American perspective, a mixed type isn't efficient. The Russians want to operate Su-57 from their carrier, so STOBAR is their best option, while catapults will launch other support aircraft. But the Americans prefer operating an inferior aircraft with inferior capabilities for the sake of more sortie generation and greater turnaround.

The IAF is using the same strategy to deal with China's superior aircraft. That's why they prefer their Rafale + AMCA strategy in order to maximise their strength over the PLAAF's weakness instead of just buying Su-57 and playing to their strengths.

The Russian strategy is to use less carriers, but better performing jets compared to the Americans.

Russian catapult is not existing today.

Shouldn't affect us. We will either use American or DRDO's tech.
 
The main ramp will remain the same for TEDBF, but the landing strip can carry 2 EMALS for AWACS, transports, and large UCAVs, even Rafale M. It won't change the inherent design of the ship itself.

From the American perspective, a mixed type isn't efficient. The Russians want to operate Su-57 from their carrier, so STOBAR is their best option, while catapults will launch other support aircraft. But the Americans prefer operating an inferior aircraft with inferior capabilities for the sake of more sortie generation and greater turnaround.

The IAF is using the same strategy to deal with China's superior aircraft. That's why they prefer their Rafale + AMCA strategy in order to maximise their strength over the PLAAF's weakness instead of just buying Su-57 and playing to their strengths.

The Russian strategy is to use less carriers, but better performing jets compared to the Americans.



Shouldn't affect us. We will either use American or DRDO's tech.
We need the r-37m and for that we need the su-57. We need the r-37m's integrated to virupaksha somehow.
 
IAC-2 is meant for 10 years from now, so EMALS will be well on its way by then. Technology wasn't mature for Brit carriers.

It's necessary for support jets like AWACS and UCAVs, not the fighters, those will use the ramp. Or we just have to make do without them.

The CTOL version marketed to the IAF is ORCA. It will come with a lighter landing gear and fixed wings. ADA claims they can make TEDBF CATOBAR capable, but I don't think that will come to pass.

Anyway, DRDO is working on EMALS, so there's a possibility of it actually being developed for ships much sooner than the planned date for future large carriers. IAC-2 would be a good starting point, followed by drone carriers.
Higher sortie rates and reduced airframe stress are the main USPs of EMALS. For the foreseeable future, we'll continue to build medium 40-45k ton carriers with air wings of no more than 30 aircraft including helos.

Until a larger 65k-70k ton carriers comes along, EMALS' potential will remain underutilized. The costs would likely outweigh benefits in terms of longer airframe life.

Likewise for UAVs, EMALS would be best suited for fighter-sized birds like Ghatak/ISUAV. Smaller turboprop drones could probably do just fine without it.

Imo, our first priority should be to develop indigenous arrestor gear to replace the Russian origin system on the Vikrant.
 
The main ramp will remain the same for TEDBF, but the landing strip can carry 2 EMALS for AWACS, transports, and large UCAVs, even Rafale M. It won't change the inherent design of the ship itself.

From the American perspective, a mixed type isn't efficient. The Russians want to operate Su-57 from their carrier, so STOBAR is their best option, while catapults will launch other support aircraft. But the Americans prefer operating an inferior aircraft with inferior capabilities for the sake of more sortie generation and greater turnaround.

The IAF is using the same strategy to deal with China's superior aircraft. That's why they prefer their Rafale + AMCA strategy in order to maximise their strength over the PLAAF's weakness instead of just buying Su-57 and playing to their strengths.

The Russian strategy is to use less carriers, but better performing jets compared to the Americans.



Shouldn't affect us. We will either use American or DRDO's tech.
When TEDBF can be launched using catapult,why would we construct a special skills jump ramp for TEDBF when the AC have already a catapult for larger aircraft?
And don't mix words like better performance & Russian aircrafts and the USN fighters may be inferior to USAF fighters but they all are far more advanced than anything Russian.
 
We need the r-37m and for that we need the su-57. We need the r-37m's integrated to virupaksha somehow.

If it's really necessary, we can do that. But Astra Mk3 more or less matches it, while delivering superior perfomance. What we need is something along the lines of PL-17, but with ramjet.
 
Higher sortie rates and reduced airframe stress are the main USPs of EMALS. For the foreseeable future, we'll continue to build medium 40-45k ton carriers with air wings of no more than 30 aircraft including helos.

Until a larger 65k-70k ton carriers comes along, EMALS' potential will remain underutilized. The costs would likely outweigh benefits in terms of longer airframe life.

Likewise for UAVs, EMALS would be best suited for fighter-sized birds like Ghatak/ISUAV. Smaller turboprop drones could probably do just fine without it.

Imo, our first priority should be to develop indigenous arrestor gear to replace the Russian origin system on the Vikrant.

The issue is not fighters, but AWACS. Vikrant cannot use dedicated AWACS like E-2 without EMALS.

Arrestor gears will be indigenous. It will be tested at Hansa. They will be used on the older carriers too.
 
When TEDBF can be launched using catapult,why would we construct a special skills jump ramp for TEDBF when the AC have already a catapult for larger aircraft?

TEDBF is STOBAR only. A CATOBAR version can be developed if necessary, but what they are developing right now is only for Vikram and Vikrant. And Vikrant 2. By the time a CATOBAR carrier is developed, IN will ask for a 6th gen jet.

And don't mix words like better performance & Russian aircrafts and the USN fighters may be inferior to USAF fighters but they all are far more advanced than anything Russian.

No. Su-57 is more advanced and capable than the aircraft being used by USN. Including the F-35. Its main competitor will be the F/A-XX.
 
The issue is not fighters, but AWACS. Vikrant cannot use dedicated AWACS like E-2 without EMALS.
EMALS or not, doesn't look likely we'll be operating E-2s anytime soon. STOBAR is sub-optimal for fixed-wing AEW.

The IN is betting on IMRH as it's future AEW. Should be much better than in-service Ka-31 any day though.
 
EMALS or not, doesn't look likely we'll be operating E-2s anytime soon. STOBAR is sub-optimal for fixed-wing AEW.

An E-2 purchase for both Vikram and Vikrant was put on hold when they figured out that a ramp launch will reduce endurance from 5 hours to just 1 hour. The plan was to purchase the E-2D.

The IN is betting on IMRH as it's future AEW. Should be much better than in-service Ka-31 any day though.

That's for the first 2 carriers. Hence the hope that it can be corrected on IAC-2.
 
An E-2 purchase for both Vikram and Vikrant was put on hold when they figured out that a ramp launch will reduce endurance from 5 hours to just 1 hour. The plan was to purchase the E-2D.



That's for the first 2 carriers. Hence the hope that it can be corrected on IAC-2.
Once the E2D has taken off, we can send a Rafale nou nou to refuel it in flight. With two refuellings, it will be able to stay on station for 7 hours.
 
Once the E2D has taken off, we can send a Rafale nou nou to refuel it in flight. With two refuellings, it will be able to stay on station for 7 hours.

They considered that, using Mig-29s for the same purpose, but was abandoned.

With two Mig-29 sorties lost to refueling the AWACS, multiplied by 5 times, it was a bit too much. That's 15 sorties just to maintain a single AWACS presence for 24 hours. If during an emergency we need 2 AWACS, then 30 sorties gone in a single day. Maybe the carrier's maximum ability is just 70 or 80 sorties a day if we compare to CdG's 100.

Rather, the P-8I was given some basic air tasking with the addition of a rear-facing radar. It was adequate since the IOR lacked serious air threats. And potential combat areas were covered by the IAF, like the Arabian Sea and combat sorties from A&N Islands.