INS Vishal might be nuclear-powered aircraft carrier : Naval Design Bureau

[anonymus]

How so, a single reactor ( 83mW) already yields 1/3 more than the 2 of the 30kW LM2500+ Gtu's and Vikrant gets just 4 of those?

I was comparing Arihant's reactor to de-gaulle's reactor.

Arihant's reactor output = 83 MW

De-gaull's reactor output ( 150 X 2 ) = 300 MW.

 

[kaku1]

I was comparing Arihant's reactor to de-gaulle's reactor.

Arihant's reactor output = 83 MW

De-gaull's reactor output ( 150 X 2 ) = 300 MW.

I dont know, but lets compare power of submarines in MW/Tonnage (Displacement)

1) Akula-2- 0.014 MW/ton

2)Los Angles- 0.023 MW/ton

3) Rubis Class- 0.018 MW/ ton

4) Triomphant-class submarine-0.010 MW/ton

6) Ohio-Class--0.011 MW/ton

7) Borei-class- 0.008 MW/ton

8) Arihant Class- 0.012 MW/ton ( Displacement as 7000 tonne)

If you compare Arihant with Attack submarine, then definitely it is a looser. But in SSBN, it is winner by some margin. But the question is --the Arihant is true submarine? Or it is a quasi-SSBN, which is designed to work as SSN even.

But if it going to work as SSN in IOK, then its a sitting duck, it never going to attain more than 26 knots.

 

[anonymus]

I dont know, but lets compare power of submarines in MW/Tonnage (Displacement)

1) Akula-2- 0.014 MW/ton

2)Los Angles- 0.023 MW/ton

3) Rubis Class- 0.018 MW/ ton

4) Triomphant-class submarine-0.010 MW/ton

6) Ohio-Class--0.011 MW/ton

7) Borei-class- 0.008 MW/ton

8) Arihant Class- 0.012 MW/ton ( Displacement as 7000 tonne)

If you compare Arihant with Attack submarine, then definitely it is a looser. But in SSBN, it is winner by some margin. But the question is --the Arihant is true submarine? Or it is a quasi-SSBN, which is designed to work as SSK even.

But if it going to work as SSK in IOK, then its a sitting duck, it never going to attain more than 26 knots.

Dude, we have to make a 6000 tonne SSBN just because we could not make high powered reactor.If we would have constructed heavier sub, MW/tonne ratio would have deteriorated even further.

Arihant could carry only 4 K-4's while Ohio class could carry 24 Trident II. See the advantage of having bigger SSBN.

 

[Oldman1]

Dude, we have to make a 9000 tonne SSBN just because we could not make high powered reactor.If we would have constructed heavier sub, MW/tonne ratio would have detoriated even further.

Arihant could carry only 4 K-4's while Ohio class could carry 14 Trident II. See the advantage of having bigger SSBN.

The Ohio class boats carry 24.

 

[kaku1]

Dude, we have to make a 9000 tonne SSBN just because we could not make high powered reactor.If we would have constructed heavier sub, MW/tonne ratio would have detoriated even further.

Arihant could carry only 4 K-4's while Ohio class could carry 14 Trident II. See the advantage of having bigger SSBN.

SSBN is not designed for high speed. Actually they are for low speed, much quieter, much stealthier and can capable to remain underwater for months.

But, on other hand SSN require speed, that they can flank a Battle Group, strike it, and get away by using the speed.

But I think, Arihant is failing on both parameters, Stealth and in Speed.

 

[anonymus]

SSBN is not designed for high speed. Actually they are for low speed, much quieter, much stealthier and can capable to remain underwater for months.

But, on other hand SSK require speed, that they can flank a Battle Group, strike it, and get away by using the speed.

But I think, Arihant is failing on both parameters, Stealth and in Speed.

+ It is a very small SSBN, only 6000 Tonnes. It could carry only laughably small number of missiles ( 4 K-4 ). We should construct larger Subs in order to have a viable sea deterrent and for that powerful miniaturized Nuclear reactors are required.

Ohio class : 18,000 tonnes; 24 Trident II

Borei class: 24000 tonnes; 36 Bulava.

The Ohio class boats carry 24.

corrected.

 

[kaku1]

And on the carrier note, the current Nimitz has 2 A4W, that can produce 550 MW ( thermal),

SO, MW/ tonnage ratio would be

Nimitz- 0.010 MW/tonne

Charles De Guella- 0.007 MW/tonne

INS Vishal ( Displacement-65,000 tonne and 2 120MW Reactors)- 0.003 MW/tonne

The INS Vishal definitely going to be looser.

+ It is a very small SSBN, only 6000 Tonnes. It could carry only laughably small number of missiles ( 4 K-4 ). We should construct larger Subs in order to have a viable sea deterrent and for that powerful miniaturized Nuclear reactors are required.

Ohio class : 18,000 tonnes; 24 Trident II

Borei class: 24000 tonnes; 36 Bulava.



corrected.

You are not understanding my point.

INS Arihant is a quasi submarine,, the other work of that is also to work as SSN in IOR. But the problem is it failing drastically in power ratio and in speed term.

 

[Oldman1]

Plus the amount of space taken up by a nuclear rector is usually less than the space taken up by a traditional engine and the huge fuel tanks it needs to run for months (and those fuel tanks are a fire problem on a warship).

A conventional carrier the size of Nimitz would only allow to go around a few weeks. Not months. And if it goes flank speed for a long time, well then it runs out of fuel in days.

And on the carrier note, the current Nimitz has 2 A4W, that can produce 550 MW ( thermal),

SO, MW/ tonnage ration would be

Nimitz- 0.010 MW/tonne

Charles De Guella- 0.007 MW/tonne

INS Vishal ( Displacement-65,000 tonne and 2 120MW Reactors)- 0.003 MW/tonne

The INS Vishal definitely going to be looser.



You are not understanding my point.

INS Arihant is a quasi submarine,, the other work of that is also to work as SSN in IOR. But the problem is it failing drastically in power ratio and in speed term.

Considering the new reactor of the Gerald Ford generates 3 times as much power as much as the Nimitz reactor, its mind boggling. Not to mention being smaller.

 

[anonymus]

You are not understanding my point.

INS Arihant is a quasi submarine,, the other work of that is also to work as SSN in IOR. But the problem is it failing drastically in power ratio and in speed term.

India has brought Akula from Russia for SSK purpose. Arihant primary purpose is that of a SSBN since no one is going to sell us a SSBN. It is not performing that function satisfactorily due to number of missiles it carry.

And on the carrier note, the current Nimitz has 2 A4W, that can produce 550 MW ( thermal),

SO, MW/ tonnage ration would be

Nimitz- 0.010 MW/tonne

Charles De Guella- 0.007 MW/tonne

INS Vishal ( Displacement-65,000 tonne and 2 120MW Reactors)- 0.003 MW/tonne

The INS Vishal definitely going to be looser.

If we want a nuclear AC, we would have to start at drawing board and build a new reactor. It will delay IAC 2 by at least 3-4 years but would be good for India's SSBN project too.

 

[kaku1]

India has brought Akula from Russia for SSK purpose. Arihant primary purpose is that of a SSBN since no one is going to sell us a SSBN. It is not performing that function satisfactorily due to number of missiles it carry.




If we want a nuclear AC, we would have to start at drawing board and build a new reactor. It will delay IAC 2 by at least 3-4 years but would be good for India's SSBN project too.

Nope, Akula never meant to work as SSN in IOR, it just for training purpose. And again I am saying the most of the time Arihant will work as SSN in IOR, for a true SSBN one require a submarine that can carry 8-12 K-4, and able to achieve high degree of acoustic signature, that which able to operate in South China Sea.

A conventional carrier the size of Nimitz would only allow to go around a few weeks. Not months. And if it goes flank speed for a long time, well then it runs out of fuel in days.



Considering the new reactor of the Gerald Ford generates 3 times as much power as much as the Nimitz reactor, its mind boggling. Not to mention being smaller.

Dont talk about US, they are way ahead in Nuclear naval propulsion.

 

[anonymus]

Nope, Akula never meant to work as SSN in IOR, it just for training purpose. And again I am saying the most of the time Arihant will work as SSN in IOR, for a true SSBN one require a submarine that can carry 8-12 K-4, and able to achieve high degree of acoustic signature, that which able to operate in South China Sea.

Dude,

Akula does not have vertical launchers.It is a pure SSN and is meant for that purpose irrespective of what government says.

And it would be a stupidity to not use Akula as SSN since it is even superior to Arihant Acoustically. Also Arihant has very low SSN potential as it does not have good Armamant since most of space has been taken up by missile tubes.

We need not send our SSBN to patrol SCS. If we have Submarine launched missile of 5500 Km, we could target China from Indian ocean where PLAN could not hunt Indian SSBN.

 

[sancho]

Whilst I agree with the majority of your post I don't agree with your assessment that the Silent Hornet is the best option available to the IN sir.

I didn't said it's the best option available, but that it's the best option if we have to buy a US fighter to get catapults! The best option for IN as a fighter is an indigenous stealth fighter, be it N-FGFA or a dedicated naval AMCA, but they won't get us catapults right? So if the prime aim of the navy is to get catapults, they also have to compromise and take 1 of only 2 possible options (Silent Hornet or F35C). Btw, the Silent Hornet would not rule out an AMCA that is designed and developed for CATOBAR carriers, just as the Mig 29K didn't ruled out N-LCA (sadly though).

I'm also not completely sold on the notion that the US will force the IN to select a US fighter (not that there are any better non-US options on the table) as the case of the Vikramditya is different- then the Russians were offering an entire ACC, here the US is merely offering a system (albeit a cutting edge one at that).

It's not different, since in both cases they offer us a product that we can't get otherwise in a similar timeframe (we had no alternative to that carrier, nor to get catapults), which makes us dependent on them and therefor also to buy things in return if they demand it.

The Americans shall be placated, the only fixed wing AEW&C platform worth consideration is the E-2D, and the IN has locked its sights on said platform. As such the Americans will get their share of dollars, much like they did with the French, where the US provided the catapults for the carrier and the French bought the E-2s. The idea that the Americans will try and force the F-18 upon is a notion, one which is not substantiated by any facts on the ground.

Remember the rumors about the Kitty Hawk offer to India, which also was combined with the procurement of F18s? Even in MMRCA LM stated, buy F16s now and you can get F35s later. So combining things is not unusual, but it won't be as cheap as you suggest, since catapult capable AEW aircrafts are also only available from the US, so again we are dependent on them for that. Not to mention that if E-2s would had been enough, we would had bought them with catapults for IAC1 already, but the US rejected our request in the first place, so buying a handful of aircrafts won't convince them to sell us that technology, especially since we are not a NATO partner like France, but an ally of Russia!

 

[jha]

F-35 flying off a 80,000 Tons Vishal with EMALs. What a dream..

 

[sancho]

F-35 flying off a 80,000 Tons Vishal with EMALs. What a dream..

Whaaaaaaaaat??? Not Sea Gripen?

 

[jha]

Whaaaaaaaaat??? Not Sea Gripen?

Would have liked F-22 flying from Vishal .. Second option was Sea Gripen.. Both not available so chose the third best..