MoD rethinking futuristic aircraft carrier plans

[MKC]

I don't understand, what is wrong with Nuclear and Catobar ?

UK built QE as STOVL not CATOBAR, I think that tells difference.
I don't know why nuclear is needed for EMALS, may be energy & size but that claims was by a three/four-star navy officer.

I don't understand why you press 'diesel carrier' part. The difference will be same as 65000 tonnes nuclear carrier from a 50000 nuclear carrier ![/QUOTE
AC are needed for force projection, we won't have any war even in distant future with China, for force projection that size difference may not matter than diesel/nuclear.

 

[fsayed]

Nuclear is the future for future weapons like rail gun ,laser anti aircraft etc we required huge amount of power that can only filled by nuclear powered carrier

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Recently someone from navy either three star or four star officer claimed that if EMALS used, EMALS alone will force IN to go for nuclear propulsion.

It'd have to be nuclear. Remember, the US EMALs system:

Could not be retrofitted onto a Nimtiz Class Carrier - which have two A4W nuclear reactors putting out 100MWs of power:

That wasn't enough power for an EMALs system and the necessary overhead for emergency power.

USS Gerald Ford:

Has two A1B reactors each capable of putting out 300MWs, which gives Ford enough power to launch a fully loaded F/A-18 or F-35 like this:

Nimitz, a nuclear powered carrier didn't have enough power for an EMALs system. No conventional carrier will either. The IN's EMALs equipped carrier will need nuclear power too.

I don't know why nuclear is needed for EMALS

^^^

There's your answer. The high power requirements of the EMALs system, and the power requirements of the rest of the ship, for lighting, emergency power, plumbing, waste processing, elevators... and on and on, means nuclear is the way to go, and not all nuclear capable ships have the necessary power output either.

Nimitz didn't, but Ford does.

I don't understand, what is wrong with Nuclear and Catobar ?

Nothing is wrong with CATOBAR. But an EMALs system puts less stress on an aircraft during take off and thus improves maintenance costs and turn around.

It also launches aircraft faster allowing for a higher sortie rate and can support aircraft with higher weight then a steam catapult:

The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) is more efficient, smaller, lighter, more powerful, and easier to control. Increased control means that EMALS will be able to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult. Also, the use of a controlled force will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and a longer lifetime for the airframe. The power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.

USS Gerald Ford is also replacing the arrestor cable recovery method with high-power magnets, which again, will cut down of wear and improve maintenance turn around and costs:

This is replacing the Mk 7:

CATOBAR is fine, but for the trade off on greater development and ship cost and the necessity for more efficient reactors with greater power output, but less cost in ship maintenance as it's cheaper to maintain, an EMALs system is more efficient and capable then CATOBAR.

 

[Abingdonboy]

so in short its gonna be two more IAC-1 class with EMALS and AAG and diesel electrik propulssion

Another IAC-1 class in the same configuration (STOBAR) for delivery in early/mid 2020s with the IAC-2 pushed back to 2030 induction (so construction starting in 2020-22). It's a fair enough move as the costs were likely racking up with EMALS and nuclear tech AND most importantly EMALS is NOT ready for operational service or export so the IN was rather forced to delay their plans.

+ I suspect that the IN will opt for the Rafale-M though for the rest of their carrier needs for the forseeable future including for the STOBAR carriers. As it stands only 45 MiG-29Ks are in service and this is only really enough to serve 1 carrier, if the IN is lookig to induct another 2 STOBAR carriers (Vikrant and a sister ship) they require another 5 fighter SQNs at least but have shown no inclination to order more MiG-29Ks that would be a very simply G-G deal. Instead they seem to be waiting for the conclusion of the IAF's Rafale talks and the creation of a Indian production line for the Rafale.


@PARIKRAMA

 

[GURU DUTT]

Another IAC-1 class in the same configuration (STOBAR) for delivery in early/mid 2020s with the IAC-2 pushed back to 2030 induction (so construction starting in 2020-22). It's a fair enough move as the costs were likely racking up with EMALS and nuclear tech AND most importantly EMALS is NOT ready for operational service or export so the IN was rather forced to delay their plans.

+ I suspect that the IN will opt for the Rafale-M though for the rest of their carrier needs for the forseeable future including for the STOBAR carriers. As it stands only 45 MiG-29Ks are in service and this is only really enough to serve 1 carrier, if the IN is lookig to induct another 2 STOBAR carriers (Vikrant and a sister ship) they require another 5 fighter SQNs at least but have shown no inclination to order more MiG-29Ks that would be a very simply G-G deal. Instead they seem to be waiting for the conclusion of the IAF's Rafale talks and the creation of a Indian production line for the Rafale.


@PARIKRAMA

what i can guess is that one IAC1 type will have the Stobar but the other one will me moddfied/upgraded version with american CATOBAR/EMALS+AAG type cause going for nuclear just like that is not feasable either technically nor economically

as for the airwing well the first one might host a squad each on Mig29K and NLCA while the second one might have Rafale M

 

[Abingdonboy]

what i can guess is that one IAC1 type will have the Stobar but the other one will me moddfied/upgraded version with american CATOBAR/EMALS+AAG type cause going for nuclear just like that is not feasable either technically nor economically

I don't think so brother. The follow-on IAC-1 will be identical in most ways, maybe a bit larger and with some improvments but basically the same design and 100% guarenteed to be STOBAR. The EMALS/Nuclear tech is what is proving to be so time consuming and expensive for the IAC-2 class thus the whole point of an addtional IAC-1 class is to cover the delay as the IAC-2 is completed. Like I have said, EMALS is just not in a position to be exported to India as of now and likely won't be for a good while yet so it makes sense for the IN to have pushed back the IAC-2 by a few years.

as for the airwing well the first one might host a squad each on Mig29K and NLCA while the second one might have Rafale M

As for the airwing, I am all but certain no more MiG-29Ks will be inducted now- if they were going to be they would have been by now. From now for both CATOBAR and STOBAR roles the IN will be procuring Rafale-Ms and reaping the benefits that go with them (lower operating cost, lower maintainence requirements, higher availability, local supply chain, local support strcture, training commonality with the IAF and across the IN's own airwing etc etc). The N-LCA is a tech demonstrator for technologies that will feature on the N-AMCA and little more. It is not really something the IN is interested in beyond a learning opportunity.

 

[Agent_47]

Another IAC-1 class in the same configuration (STOBAR) for delivery in early/mid 2020s with the IAC-2 pushed back to 2030 induction (so construction starting in 2020-22). It's a fair enough move as the costs were likely racking up with EMALS and nuclear tech AND most importantly EMALS is NOT ready for operational service or export so the IN was rather forced to delay their plans.

+ I suspect that the IN will opt for the Rafale-M though for the rest of their carrier needs for the forseeable future including for the STOBAR carriers. As it stands only 45 MiG-29Ks are in service and this is only really enough to serve 1 carrier, if the IN is lookig to induct another 2 STOBAR carriers (Vikrant and a sister ship) they require another 5 fighter SQNs at least but have shown no inclination to order more MiG-29Ks that would be a very simply G-G deal. Instead they seem to be waiting for the conclusion of the IAF's Rafale talks and the creation of a Indian production line for the Rafale.


@PARIKRAMA

Please provide source for your claims.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Please provide source for your claims.

This is my analysis based on what I have heard and seen.

 

[Killswitch]

Considering indias defense budget is not even 10% of Americas, maybe India could just stick to the current Vikrant design (build more of them) and use this money in areas which have been badly neglected, like ASW helicopters, subs, fighter aircraft, artillery, AA guns, infantry weapons, etc.

 

[IndoUS]

Any info regarding the replacement for sea kings, they have served their time and need to be replaced. Any news on the S-70?