India eyes USA aircraft carrier technology

[Indian Patriot]

Is it? The IN is under a modernization effort but is this purely down to Modi?


Indian ACCs will have adequate protection don't you worry about that, the IN planners are no idiots.


The P-15A is in service and will be fully operational this year one the BARAK-2 is intergrated with the ship


Nope not true.

IAC-1 and INS Vikramditya will have AEW assets (the KA-31, future Indian ACCs will have EMALS and thus will have the E-2D- the exact same AWACS found on USN ACCs)


Look up the IAC-2 mate, it is going to be around 65,000 tons and in service in the middle of the next decade, final deisgn reviews are on now.


They will, see above.


The IN Fleet air arm has around 150 a/c in service right now, will be around 200-240 by 2022.


This is just nonsense. The INS Viraat is about 28,000 tons and we all now how limited her operations are.

Sorry, no one (especially the IN planners) agrees with your assesement.

1. True. IN is arguably the most modern and potent force.

2. Its not IN being idiots. Luckily for us PN has nothing to threaten IN. LOL!!

3. AD destroyers are usually 12,500 tons. They are this big because not only they accommodate the AEGIS radar but they also have quad-packed 126 cell VLS. The SM-3 is an anti-ballistic missile with a range of 700 km. So you can imagine the size of the weapon. US, Japanese Kongo class and South Korean destroyer (forgot the name) are all 12,500 ton class.

4. US AC have a destroyer fleet. I doubt they are less than 6 in number.

5. KA-31 is nothing compared to Hawkeye-2.

By 70 aircraft I meant fixed wing. USN air fleet has 1000+ aircraft. Their AC carries 70 fixed wing aircraft.

IN may not agree with my opinion but I said what I felt like.

Spare me the reading lessons.

Then spare me your lecture as well. I am not obliged to agree with you here.

India's enemies do not have a proper Navy.

We are not going to invade USA. What we have is more than enough for dealing with PN and whatever PLAN could throw at us in Indian ocean.

And Kolkata class equipped with Barak-8 is more than enough to defend an Aircraft carrier.

That is what I have been saying all along. A 28,000 ton AC is as good as a 65,000 ton AC against PN.

PLAN is problematic because of their DF-21. And lets be honest, their navy is bigger than us. India has like 7 destroyers they have around 16.

Barak-8 is good, but not good enough against DF-21.

 

[Abingdonboy]

3. AD destroyers are usually 12,500 tons. They are this big because not only they accommodate the AEGIS radar but they also have quad-packed 126 cell VLS. The SM-3 is an anti-ballistic missile with a range of 700 km. So you can imagine the size of the weapon. US, Japanese Kongo class and South Korean destroyer (forgot the name) are all 12,500 ton class.

Just because that is what others do doesn't mean the IN has to copy verbatim. The P-15A with the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR and BARAK-2 (in the future the P-15B will also have the RAN-40L VSR which the IAC-1 will have) is a deadly combination and more than capable of meeting any threats to the IN's carriers. You talk about the capabilities of others but don't underestimate the capabilities of the IN.

4. US AC have a destroyer fleet. I doubt they are less than 6 in number.

You can look up the composition of the USN CBGs, they don't even come close to consisting of 6 destroyers.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Just because that is what others do doesn't mean the IN has to copy verbatim. The P-15A with the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR and BARAK-2 (in the future the P-15B will also have the RAN-40L VSR which the IAC-1 will have) is a deadly combination and more than capable of meeting any threats to the IN's carriers. You talk about the capabilities of others but don't underestimate the capabilities of the IN.

You can look up the composition of the USN CBGs, they don't even come close to consisting of 6 destroyers.

I am curious how many VLS cells Indian AD destroyers will carry. AEGIS is the ultimate in AD tech, it is not copying others but comparing with the best.

 

[acid rain]

Who said anything about supercarriers? INS Vishal will be a regular sized carrier, like the British QE class - about 65K tonnes at most. Supercarriers are 100K tonnes+.

Your arguments are against aircraft carriers in general - the addition of an EMALS instead of a ski jump or steam catapult does not make the carrier any more vulnerable to aerial threats. What it does is reduce operational costs and mechanical complexity, and increase the range and payload of jets. In other words, it gives more bang for uck, and also reduced (not increased) costs over the lifetime.

Would an emals system fit into the 40 to 60k ton sized carriers? What about 4he energy requirement for it?

 

[Indian Patriot]

Are you saying that a 40,000 Tonne carrier would not present a tempting target to Enemy.



A 65000 Tonne ship cost only a fraction more than a 40,000 Tonne Ship. 4 AC of 40,000 Tonne would cost equal to 3 65000-70000 Tonne carrier. And be sure of one fact: There is no 25,000 AC in today's world. There are cruisers heavier than that.



This part of your post run counter to rest of your post. India does not have anythinh capable of E-2D because India does not field carrier capable of fielding E-2D.

It is this shortcoming that would be overcome by a heavier CATOBAR carrier.

I was referring to the 28,000 ton AC. There are 28,000 ton AC in the world. The Japanese have them, they call it helicopter destroyer since they are not "legally" allowed to have a AC. Even the USN have light AC, 12 of them.

Hawkeye-2 can be fielded in Vikramaditya. Prowler is something IN will have to invent because US does not sell that type of aircraft to anybody.

 

[nair]

Is there any official confirmation on EMALS????

 

[acid rain]

Theoritically Yes, Practically No.

EMALS selection would force you to have heavier nuclear powered carrier ; not because it could not be theoritically fitted, but because it has such huge power requirement that you would be struck with a very short legged carrier capable of just carrying a handful of Aircrafts because of large size of power plant.




I don't think there is.

That's what I figured...a nuclear powered 60k ton ac isn't of much use...The emals system and the core will take up much of the space.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Japanese Hyuga class "destroyer" that can carry 18 aircraft.

Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Italian Navy Cavour

Italian aircraft carrier Cavour (C 550) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spanish Navy Juan Carlos

Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[acid rain]

Japanese Helicopter carriers are what they are called, Helicopter carriers. In JMSDF's doctrine,Japan's Helicopter carriers are not expected to operate independently, but in conjugation with USN supercarriers. Japan's Helicopter carrier have a predetermined role in USN-JMSDF strategy. USN would concentrate on Aerial offence while JMSDF's helicopter carrier with their ASW Helos would conduct anti-Sub warfare.

USN light Aircraft at 45,000 Tonnes.They are as heavy as Vikramaditya at 45,500 Tonnes.

Growler or E/A-18 is a version of F-18 from which weapon load has been taken out and dedicated Electronic warfare module mounted. It is much much easier to construct E/A-18 Growler than constructing something equivalent to E-2D Hawkeye (not that any of them is easy). The reason that we or anyone else does not have dedicated naval Electronic warfare plane is because no other navy except USN field large enough an air wing capable of invading a proper country, thus having no requirement of dedicated EW aircraft.

Whatever little requirement IN or any other Navy has for EW is fulfilled by EW pods attached to pylons of normal Aircraft.


Till now you have not given even a single argument as to why Four 20,000 Tonne carrier would be better than a two 70,000 one?




Juan Carlos and Cavor class are LPD's which could also carry Short-Takeoff, Vertical landing Harriers. They are participating in India's LPD tender.

And how would you field a E-2D from these LPD's?




A 60,000 tonne Nuclear powered AC would be pretty formidable. It is a 60,000 Tonne conventional powered carrier with EMALS that would not make sense.

The challenge is scaling a relatively new technology to handle the required weights and power. EMALS motor generator weighs over 80,000 pounds, and is 13.5 feet long, almost 11 feet wide and almost 7 feet tall. It’s designed to deliver up to 60 megajoules of electricity, and 60 megawatts at its peak. In the 3 seconds it takes to launch a Navy aircraft, that amount of power could handle 12,000 homes. This motor generator is part of a suite of equipment called the Energy Storage Subsystem, which includes the motor generator, the generator control tower and the stored energy exciter power supply. The new Gerald R. Ford Class carriers will require 12 of each.

Gerald ford's got 4 of them..a conventional carrier wouldnt be able to fulfill energy requirements.

 

[Omega007]

I am curious how many VLS cells Indian AD destroyers will carry. AEGIS is the ultimate in AD tech, it is not copying others but comparing with the best.

Hey my chica,I'm back!!What are you doing here my darling,this is no place for girlies!!I mean what does a girl has to do with warships and shit??!!Now go,run away,shu.......help your mama in the kitchen or something or go do some shopping!!

 

[acid rain]

That is what I have also stated. In conventional carrier, you would have to install huge power plant to supply power to EMALS, hence it would not be practical.

Right....but assuming that the next Indian carrier will be in the 65K ton category and as there are speculations that it could be a nuclear powered one - is there enough room to accomodate an emals system, a nuclear reactor and a plethora of planes that would use emals?

 

[MilSpec]

Our enemies are Pakistan and China, not US. US needs those monster AC for world dominance. Their AC can carry 70 aircraft. I doubt if IN has 70 aircraft in total.

IN should invest in smaller but more AC. 4 AC of 25,000 tons is more valuable than 1 AC of 65,000-75,000 tons. Also bear in mind that ships are not sea-worthy 365 days a year. They need service and repair. Larger the ship, longer the repair time. Instead of putting eggs in one basket it should be more eggs in more baskets.

Don't get me wrong. 65,000 ton AC sounds good on paper. How it works out is a different issue. How many fixed wing jets can it carry, what will be its operations, its area of operations, its role etc. will decide the type and size.

Interesting . Please explain further, how multiple say 4 mini carriers will mitigate risk better than say two carriers. Also please do enlighten the lowered operating cost vi-avis CBM management, refit, maintenance and operating as well as capital costs.

 

[KAL-EL]

if I'm provided a genuine full course Indian dinner, I will gladly facilitate with some technology sharing

 

[acid rain]

if I'm provided a genuine full course Indian dinner, I will gladly facilitate with some technology sharing

Sure, you are more than welcome if you decide to visit Bangalore anytime soon. Not for the alleged TOT...just because you are a fellow forumer.

I think a Nuclear power plant for generating power output required by EMALS would take less space than a Diesel power plant with same power output.

More space would be required for e2d type of aircraft...a personnel carrier aircraft...twin engined long range fighters - so that the system can be truly used to its full potential.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Japanese Helicopter carriers are what they are called, Helicopter carriers. In JMSDF's doctrine,Japan's Helicopter carriers are not expected to operate independently, but in conjugation with USN supercarriers. Japan's Helicopter carrier have a predetermined role in USN-JMSDF strategy. USN would concentrate on Aerial offence while JMSDF's helicopter carrier with their ASW Helos would conduct anti-Sub warfare.

Your theories on what Hyuga class destroyers are used for is different from what they are actually used for.

Growler or E/A-18 is a version of F-18 from which weapon load has been taken out and dedicated Electronic warfare module mounted. It is much much easier to construct E/A-18 Growler than constructing something equivalent to E-2D Hawkeye (not that any of them is easy). The reason that we or anyone else does not have dedicated naval Electronic warfare plane is because no other navy except USN field large enough an air wing capable of invading a proper country, thus having no requirement of dedicated EW aircraft.

This looks like F-18 to you?

Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your arguments are self-contradictory. USN has aircraft like growler, prowler, hawkeye etc. because they field super carriers. USN fields supercarriers because they intend on sea dominance.

I don't know why IN wants a 65,000 ton AC but if they do then they need assets to protect such a beast which unfortunately the IN lacks at the present. And if you think DRDO will come up with something like prowler or growler within next 10 years then I salute your optimism.

Whatever little requirement IN or any other Navy has for EW is fulfilled by EW pods attached to pylons of normal Aircraft.

Till now you have not given even a single argument as to why Four 20,000 Tonne carrier would be better than a two 70,000 one?

I already gave the reason, you did not like the answer.

In case you did not know, NO country not even US can mobilise its entire aircraft or navy during war. This is for a simple reason called maintenance which is required. Bigger the vessel the more time it requires for repair. France has a nuclear powered carrier and that thing needs nearly 6 months of refit.

Having smaller but more AC gives IN the safety of numbers. If IN has 4 AC of 28,000 tons each then IN still has two AC in its disposal while the other two are going repairs. This still gives the IN the authority to patrol both the coasts.

What is IN supposed to do if the 65,000 AC is in the dock facing repairs? And the plan is for one 65,000 ton AC and not two 70,000 AC. Check your sources.