What's new

India nears catapult decision for second indigenous carrier

bloo

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
2,516
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
India
India nears catapult decision for second indigenous carrier
By: Greg Waldron Singapore



India is in the process of deciding whether its second indigenous aircraft carrier will be equipped with catapults.

The vessel, referred to within New Delhi naval circles as IAC 2 (indigenous aircraft carrier 2), will follow IAC 1, which is now being built in Kochi shipyard.

The lead ship will be similar in size to the INS Vikramaditya, formerly the Soviet carrier the Admiral Gorshkov, and displace approximately 36,000t, says a source familiar with Indian navy plans. As with the Vikramaditya, IAC 1 will launch aircraft using a "ski-ramp" structure.

IAC 2 is envisaged as a far larger warship - with a displacement of approximately 60,000t - and could enter the fleet within 10 to 15 years. Senior leaders within the navy are leaning toward deploying this ship with catapults, sources say, with a decision on whether to integrate steam catapults or an electromagnetic aircraft launch system to come as soon as July 2013. New Delhi is also considering the possibility of making IAC 2 a nuclear-powered vessel.

Indian navy plans call for a three-carrier fleet, with the service's only current example, the Viraat, to be retired in the coming years. This would allow one carrier to be stationed on each of India's coasts, while the third would undergo repairs or perform other duties such as training.

The Vikramaditya was supposed to have been delivered this month, but problems with the ship's propulsion system have reportedly delayed this until the second half of 2013. Prior to the emergence of these issues, Russian pilots in RAC MiG-29K/KUB aircraft conducted successful flight tests from the ship.

Through the use of catapults, IAC 2 would be able to operate larger, more powerful aircraft, such as the Dassault Rafale - the apparent winner of the Indian air force's medium multirole combat aircraft requirement - or the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Catapults would reduce the deck space required for launching aircraft, while allowing them to carry more fuel and heavier payloads. Ramp-assisted operations require long take-off runs, and involve fighters burning considerable fuel just to get airborne.

The addition of catapults would also allow IAC 2 to operate fixed-wing airborne early warning and control system and battle management aircraft, such as Northrop Grumman's E-2D Hawkeye, providing the fleet with far greater situational awareness than helicopter-borne surveillance equipment.


India nears catapult decision for second indigenous carrier

4350928300907310217d.jpg


in06lca140017f.jpg


rafaleusnavycarrier01.jpg
 
:hitwall: how about get the first one ready first and then think about 2nd or 3rd one?

The first one is going to be complete in the next three to four years. Plus this is just the design phase so they are going to make a list of capabilities for the second IAC-II and present it to the navy and government to see and decide on.
 
agree with you guys, first one got delayed for like 4 year , we should we focused on that first, get the carriers ready before 2015 , so in 2015 we can have 3 CBG. and then start working one ICA2.
 
:hitwall: how about get the first one ready first and then think about 2nd or 3rd one?

We are not Builting same class as IAC-1, it is different from IAC-1 much bigger so we planning every possibilities weather is will be power by nuke or conv. etc.......
 
Here are some lessons that i hope have been learnt from IAC 1:
1. The sea grade steel is a big issue. SAIL or whoever is supplying this to shipbuilder must get its act right in ensuring there are no glitches in supply of this material for next boat.
2. The Gear Boxes. For something as massive as an AC, getting to manufacture indigenous gear boxes is small feat. However, IAC 2 being bigger would have larger prime mover and consequently bigger gear boxes and shafts. The upscaling of existing design should begin right now.
3. The Aircrafts themselves. Naval Tejas, Naval FGFA or something else all together are in very nascent stages of development. If requirements can be frozen now, it will save IN and manufacturer a lot of time, money and not to mention embarrassment.
4. Quick course correction from the lessons that are (or will be) learnt from IAC 1 and implementing in IAC 2.
Considering all this, 10 years is not long a time period as it seems now. IF planning starts now, we may get to see IAC 2 by 2022. Amen to that
 
:hitwall: how about get the first one ready first and then think about 2nd or 3rd one?

How nice. But in practice, this type of approach would be boulderdash.

There is nothing to plan regarding IAC-1 now, its well into construction, the only
thing we now need to plan about is the IAC-2. Any ship will go through 2 types of
people before being commissioned - 1) the planning staff and 2) the building staff.

Regarding IAC-1, the planning staff's work is over its entirely up to the building
staff now. So while the buildersget they're hands full of work with IAC-1, why
exactly should the planning staff sit idle??

If planning/designing work of IAC-2 is over by the time IAC-1 enters service,
the builders can immediate get to work with the 2nd carrier.

IAC-1's planning is over and it would enter service in 2017 - until then IAC-2's
planning would be over too and IAC-2 can be commissioned by ~2020.

If the planning work of IAC-2 begins in 2017, then by all means the carrier
will come by 2030 or so.

---

Such advise as you've given is only good for the ears to hear, but worthless to put into practice.:)
 
:hitwall: how about get the first one ready first and then think about 2nd or 3rd one?

veeky, you do not seem to be familiar with any "planning" as part of your life, hence you just wrote what you did.
But it does not matter in any way.

Now on topic: This move was initiated by the DGND about 2-3 years ago, however the question was whether USA would make available the required technology for EMALS. Steam Cat technology was forthcoming from the US but the IN did not want to use it since it involved the use of a Steam Generation Plant which the IN has principally decided to eschew in favor of GT and Diesel plants. This news report indicates that there may be forward movement on the EMALS front. Needless to say, if it fructifies it will lead to major redesign of the Bow Section and Flight Deck of the subsequent Carrier(s). That has been mentioned in the news report itself.

All in all, seems to be a positive development.
 
Here are some lessons that i hope have been learnt from IAC 1:
1. The sea grade steel is a big issue. SAIL or whoever is supplying this to shipbuilder must get its act right in ensuring there are no glitches in supply of this material for next boat.

AC grade steel was never made in India, since India never used to construct any AC, It was pretty obvious that such high quality steel built for the first time will have some delays. Now since SAIL knows how to make them, one can rest assured that there will be no delays for second one.

2. The Gear Boxes. For something as massive as an AC, getting to manufacture indigenous gear boxes is small feat. However, IAC 2 being bigger would have larger prime mover and consequently bigger gear boxes and shafts. The upscaling of existing design should begin right now.

Again, there were delays due to the construction being the FIRST time. It's difficult to make a completely new product & easy to just upscale it, so again there will be no delays b'coz of this in IAC-2.

3. The Aircrafts themselves. Naval Tejas, Naval FGFA or something else all together are in very nascent stages of development. If requirements can be frozen now, it will save IN and manufacturer a lot of time, money and not to mention embarrassment.

I think N-LCA will be out of equation for IAC-2 as IN wants more capable ac for it, thus i think it will be a competition b/w Rafale-M & F-35s, now since both manufacturers have LOADS of experience in jets there can be no delays attributed to this one, remember we already have mig-29ks before INS viky.

4. Quick course correction from the lessons that are (or will be) learnt from IAC 1 and implementing in IAC 2.

There will always be delays for the first one, Look at China, it brought Liaoning from Ukraine in 1998 when it was 30-40% complete, it took them 14 years to make a complete AC, as compared to that the work on completely new IAC-1 only started in 2008-09 & scheduled to be inducted in 2017-18. Thus great lessons are learnt from the construction of the first one, this can help a lot to shorten the time of construction of second.

Considering all this, 10 years is not long a time period as it seems now. IF planning starts now, we may get to see IAC 2 by 2022. Amen to that

2025 is more a possibility, considering such huge & capable AC to be constructed.
 
:hitwall: how about get the first one ready first and then think about 2nd or 3rd one?

This is called planning

IN cant wait for the completion of first AC to decide about whether IAC 2 will use steam catapults or an electromagnetic aircraft launch system

another joke in making```better ask russians to build it for you lot````as they are much capable

J 31 and RD 93, SU 35.........hmmmm
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom