Navy ‘no’ to n-energy on aircraft carriers

[pmukherjee]

But all the carriers operated by US are the so called supercarriers and they are all nuclear powered. There is no fossil fuel powered supercarrier in existence as of now. So how can one say that nuclear powered AC will be costlier to operate than a conventional one.

"According to the United States Government Accounting Office (GAO), a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier cost about 58 percent more than a conventionally powered carrier." Aircraft Carrier History - Cost To Build A Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier | What It Costs

I am not aware of any other study conducted on the subject.

 

[sancho]

There is a big misunderstanding when people compare the nuclear propulsion in an SSN/SSBN, with the nuclear propuslion in a carrier!
The subs need it to extend their range and endurance, as well as to remain submerged, a carrier on the othe side don't has these requirements, because even if it has a nuclear propulsion, the range and endurance is limited by the range and endurance of its carrier battle group! A carrier will never sail alone without the necessary protection, so if the CBG has only a range of 10000 nmi for example, the carrier won't go for 20000 nmi, only because it has a nuclear propulsion!

Like Abingdonboy correctly pointed out, the only carriers that really needs nuclear propusion are super carriers and IN don't plan with these at the moment. Even IAC 2, which will be bigger might hardly be at the size of the new british QE class carriers, which also won't have a nuclear propulsion for costs reasons.

 

[IND151]

Pouring out our cash for a Nuclear powered Carrier would be very wasteful at this point , with conventional powered carriers we project power comfortably anywhere in the Indian Ocean as long as our Carrier battle group consists of a large number of subs and frigates/destroyers with ASW capabilities.

Nuke powered carriers would be for when we expand beyond the Indian Ocean which is our backyard. If we ever have bases in far off locations , or need to venture beyond Mallacca straits or the Coast of Africa.

unless we have nuclear powered battle cruisers to protect our N carrier and 3-4 trillion $ economy.

 

[Jango]

There is a big misunderstanding when people compare the nuclear propulsion in an SSN/SSBN, with the nuclear propuslion in a carrier!
The subs need it to extend their range and endurance, as well as to remain submerged, a carrier on the othe side don't has these requirements, because even if it has a nuclear propulsion, the range and endurance is limited by the range and endurance of its carrier battle group! A carrier will never sail alone without the necessary protection, so if the CBG has only a range of 10000 nmi for example, the carrier won't go for 20000 nmi, only because it has a nuclear propulsion!

Like Abingdonboy correctly pointed out, the only carriers that really needs nuclear propusion are super carriers and IN don't plan with these at the moment. Even IAC 2, which will be bigger might hardly be at the size of the new british QE class carriers, which also won't have a nuclear propulsion for costs reasons.

Completely agree.

 

[Varunastra]

INDIA for the time being does not need a nuclear powered AC .......because for the small amount of power projection(or should i say anti-piracy missions)it does in the gulf of aden a nuclear powered ac has got no use.....i would say a conventional powered ac is enough for the time being.....if india and china happen to go to war !! AC are vulnerable toys.....and should be labled-"HANDLE WITH CARE"!!!