Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
French and US could help but they will ask a lot of money specially for the catapults. British and russian's help for nuclear carrier is questionable as they don't have them but russia will ask far less money.
I won't be surprised if new icebreaker construction take precedence & CVNs r farther delayed, if not cancelled. Atomflot "needs 6 more", & they r to be built on the same shipyards.
So has whacking it to russia so much deluded your memory or something?
Oh again you ignorant child, not saying Russia cannot make anything just that it will take them a god-awful long time to make such things.
Fanboys I swear annoying no matter which side they are on.
Having required IAC 2 to have catapults, a nuclear propulsion should be the only viable option, still they seem to be still arguing about it.
GarryB wrote:Geez daddy, you sound pretty funny calling me a fanboi child when you don't know the difference between a CVN and CV.
GarryB wrote:French and US could help but they will ask a lot of money specially for the catapults. British and russian's help for nuclear carrier is questionable as they don't have them but russia will ask far less money.
The Russians have developed their own new generation nuclear power plant for very large ships... versions of it have been put on very large icebreakers.
The Russians are also in a similar position to India in having a blank sheet potential in carrier design, so their input would likely be useful.
And Britain pretty much invented all the serious technologies for carrier operations, including the angled flight deck, the mirror landing system, the catapult (steam), and quite a few other technologies besides... there is still plenty Britain could share with India.
I won't be surprised if new icebreaker construction take precedence & CVNs r farther delayed, if not cancelled. Atomflot "needs 6 more", & they r to be built on the same shipyards.
Ice breakers are useful now, and experience operating those NPPs will be valuable for plans for the future use of them in a carrier.
So has whacking it to russia so much deluded your memory or something?
I bow to your superior wisdom... whacking off or masturbating effects memory.
I guess you need to stop spanking the monkey yourself... the Vikrant class is a gas turbine powered carrier... not a nuclear propelled carrier and the fact that it uses American gas turbines for propulsion suggests India went to American for the propulsion...
Their new CVN... note n for nuclear, they will need a nuclear power plant, for which they could go to France or Russia or the US but they certainly wont be building on their own...
Oh again you ignorant child, not saying Russia cannot make anything just that it will take them a god-awful long time to make such things.
Fanboys I swear annoying no matter which side they are on.
Geez daddy, you sound pretty funny calling me a fanboi child when you don't know the difference between a CVN and CV.
Having required IAC 2 to have catapults, a nuclear propulsion should be the only viable option, still they seem to be still arguing about it.
They have been talking about various electric drives as far as I know which separates the propulsion from the screws, by replacing the gearing and transmission.
Very simply what ever the propulsion system is it is connected to a large electric motor that operates as a dynamo that stores electricity in capacitor banks and battery banks. the electric current can then be diverted to electric motors in pods that propel the vessel and also to systems on board that also need power.
Whether it is a gas turbine or a nuclear power plant they generate power which is used and stored...
Separate capacitor banks for Emals should be suffice for normal operations...
Extrapolating, they can use 2-4 submarine reactors to power a CVN, like the French carrier Charles de Gaulle with 2 Areva K15 pressurised water reactors (PWR), 150 MWt each, the same type the Triomphant-class submarine uses. So, the French could be asked, but no need to ask either the RF or USA for help on that.The lead SSBN of the class, INS Arihant, was quietly commissioned in October 2016. The Arihant, based on the Russian Project 971 Akula I-class nuclear-powered attack submarine design, primarily serves as a technology demonstrator for the rest of the class and a training platform for future submarine crews.
The Aridhaman will purportedly have a more powerful reactor than the 6,000-ton Arihant and also be slightly bigger. ..
the Indian Navy reportedly still plans to induct the second boat of the Arihant-class by 2019. India intents to build at least three more SSBNs of the class. https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/india-to-launch-2nd-strategic-nuclear-sub-by-end-of-2017/
Notice that future CVNs r not needed, even in the Indian Ocean. As I said before, all things considered, sending a RuN CBG there would do more harm than good. The same goes for other less contested areas.In the future, an integral part of such a connection should be a helicopter-carrying ship with a Marine division and an air group on board. Two such ships are planned to be built within the framework of the State Program of Armaments for 2018-2025. Such a [force], with the corresponding logistics forces and ..submarines, will allow solving the overwhelming part of peacetime tasks, including support for Russia's friendly regimes and their policies, and will ensure the deployment of larger forces if necessary. https://iz.ru/665985/aleksei-kupriianov-ilia-kramnik/vremia-vozvrashchatsia
Enough said, I'll be watching for news on that. The Russian Navy will do the same!The US Marine Corps (USMC) is in the final stages of preparation for the first operational shipborne embarkation of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), with the arrival of an advance detachment of aircraft on USS Wasp (LHD-1) on 5 March.
An undisclosed number of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) jets from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VFMA) 121 currently stationed in Japan have been deployed to the USS Wasp amphibious assault ship to undertake final preparations ahead of the unit’s first shipborne deployment.
The squadron will join the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) patrolling the Indo-Pacific region in the coming weeks with the ships of Amphibious Squadron 11 that form the Wasp Amphibious Ready Group. This deployment will mark the beginning of the MEU’s transition over to the F-35B from the McDonnell-Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, which has been in service since the mid-1980s.
Having been the first operator to declare initial operating capability for the F-35, the USMC is leading the way in developing and rolling out the capabilities of the fifth-generation fighter, and VFMA 121 has been at the forefront of the corps’ effort to develop the F-35B’s tactical capabilities.
In December 2015 the USMC undertook Exercise ‘Steel Knight’, which was a live-fire wargame that included the F-35B in integrated air and ground operations in an austere environment. This was done to prepare the 1st Marine Division for deployment as the ground combat element of a Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), and the F-35B performed “exceedingly well”, according to the corps. http://www.janes.com/article/78340/usmc-prepares-for-f-35b-maiden-operational-embarkation
Oh I didn't see the CV-N part I was in a rush at the time, so I am man enough to admit when I made a mistake. That is rare I do that but hey once and while something gets past you
That said India will not go to Russia, Russia has ZERO experience building CVN's, they may go to Russia if the US turns them down.
Not that imo they need help they already made a normal carrier, it's not to much harder to make a CVN at that point, unless they want the catapult.
India now operates 22 nuclear reactors + 1 leased Russian SSN.
Enough said, I'll be watching for news on that. The Russian Navy will do the same!
So, the French could be asked, but no need to ask either the RF or USA for help on that.
GarryB wrote:Oh I didn't see the CV-N part I was in a rush at the time, so I am man enough to admit when I made a mistake. That is rare I do that but hey once and while something gets past you
Anybody can make a mistake, and I respect that you are man enough to accept you made a (minor) mistake.
Having said that I am disappointed at how fast the abuse was unleashed because you thought I was being a pro Russian Fanboi or anti Indian...
That said India will not go to Russia, Russia has ZERO experience building CVN's, they may go to Russia if the US turns them down.
India might actually want to be free to use the technology it incorporates in its new carriers... what happens when Trump gives them the green light and they get US reactors and US EMAL cats and all sorts of flash shit and then India decides to do something that pisses off the Americans and all of a sudden all the support disappears and they have to tie the damn thing up in port because they can't support the vessel on their own and despite likely paying more than top dollar for the tech which they will only ever rent they will never be privy to the secrets or properly trained to fully utilise.
What makes you think the US is the centre of the universe in Carrier design?
I would trust the British more than the yanks... even though they get sanction happy a bit too.
The new large ship reactors the Russians have developed are state of the art... India could do rather worse than look in that direction.
Not that imo they need help they already made a normal carrier, it's not to much harder to make a CVN at that point, unless they want the catapult.
Well the obvious differences between a CV and a CVN with cats is the cats and the nuclear power plant... neither of which India would likely be able to master without an enormous investment of money and time.
With a start date of 2025-2030 I really don't see why they couldn't look to Russia for most of the technology they will be needing.
Certainly a much more reliable partner than the US could ever be.
India now operates 22 nuclear reactors + 1 leased Russian SSN.
Yeah... I use a washing machine... doesn't mean I can make one... except the obvious basic go to stream and find rock...
Enough said, I'll be watching for news on that. The Russian Navy will do the same!
Time to get out the popcorn... suffocate or drown...???
So, the French could be asked, but no need to ask either the RF or USA for help on that.
Quite true, though regarding the cats I am pretty sure that while they might want Rafales they will want EMALs cats rather than steam cats... AFAIK France has no EMALS option.
Well, they already produced a reactor for Arihant SSBN, so the bigger Aridhaman will likely need a more powerful reactor which isn't an insurmountable problem for India. I meant help from RF & USA on reactors isn't needed, not on CATs. But, IMO, the NP isn't that essential for Indian carriers, even with CAT on them- China may reportedly have them on its CV-18 & -19:India now operates 22 nuclear reactors + 1 leased Russian SSN.
Yeah... I use a washing machine... doesn't mean I can make one... except the obvious basic go to stream and find rock...
reading between the lines, they r not ready for them yet (hence the next 2 CVs), but at least they r becoming more transparent!
The state-owned paper quoted an article posted on the website of the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC) referring to the country’s need to “speed up the process of making technological breakthroughs in nuclear-powered aircraft carriers”.
The Global Times commented that this was “the first time a state-owned Chinese defence company has openly identified nuclear-powered aircraft carriers on its agenda”.
The newspaper article also referred to a speech made in late 2017 by CSIC Chairman Hu Wenming, in which he stated that China was capable of building “any type of aircraft carrier”.
http://www.janes.com/article/78347/china-signals-intent-to-build-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carriers
Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
As far as i know, France does not produce steam cats.if I a m not mistaken, the steam cats on their only carrier were provided by the US
Peŕrier wrote:
To make a long story short, India would need at very least to install four indigenous reactors in a 65.000 tons carrier to provide enough power generation capability, in turn escalating dramatically maintenance costs.
And the beauty of Math is, it kills (in the literal term) always and again whoever dares to defy her.
Make sense to me! It'll also be cheaper & won't require nuclear refueling, extra infrastructure & personnel. The Russians may do the same for their CVs. NP icebreakers r different- they need extra power & endurance at sea. Investing in them makes more bang for the buck on the NSR!Propulsion: Integrated electric propulsion System(IEPS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vishal
.. gas turbines or diesel generators or both generate three-phase electricity which is then used to power electric motors turning either propellers or waterjet impellors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_electric_propulsion
New Delhi, Oct 27: India’s second indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, which is under development, will not be nuclear-powered as country’s premier nuclear institution, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has said that it would take 15-20 years to develop a nuclear reactor capable enough to propel the 65,000-70,000 tonne vessel. ..An Integrated Electric Propulsion System (IEPS) will replace nuclear reactor in the original plan. The gas turbine-based drive generators will produce electricity, which will rotate motors to give power to the propellers.In a nuclear-powered vessel, the electricity is generated by generators that are run by steam produced by the nuclear reactor.
INS Vishal will have a capacity to house 55 aircraft and will also have the “electromagnetic aircraft launch system” (EMALS) to catapult aircraft off the carrier.
http://www.india.com/news/india/ins-vishal-not-be-nuclear-powered-as-barc-says-15-years-will-be-needed-to-develop-reactor-2571054/
AlfaT8 wrote:From what i can see.
STOVL carriers are simply not a good idea.
On the financial side alone, you have not only the costs of the ship, but also the new aircraft, plus part and equipment to maintain said new aircraft.
And the fact that these aircrafts aren't going to be as capable as the old ones, regardless of whether "Midways" happen anymore, bring the sanity of the decision into question.
Place on ship is pretty scarce, tell me how capable were Su-25 and Su-24 used in Syria? but they did the jobs int it? Rafale and F-18 speed equals the one of F-35B. Payload? have you seen any of carrie based fighter with all nodes with ordnance? me neither GunshipDemocracy wrote:AlfaT8 wrote:From what i can see.
STOVL carriers are simply not a good idea.
On the financial side alone, you have not only the costs of the ship, but also the new aircraft, plus part and equipment to maintain said new aircraft.
And the fact that these aircrafts aren't going to be as capable as the old ones, regardless of whether "Midways" happen anymore, bring the sanity of the decision into question.
That's why so many fleets have them
BTW combat radius of F-18 super hornet is 390 miles...F-35B 505 miles
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f-35b-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter-stovl-variant/
The aircraft can carry 6,803kg of weaponry payload. It is equipped with AIM-120C AMRAAM medium range air to air missiles, air to surface missiles, two GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs, six GBU-38 bombs and munitions dispensers.
Of course catapults cost billions and in case of 1 max 2 installations makes no sense whatsoever. Yes time will tell. If you look on the real world outside forum you'll see drones, transport goes vertical or at least STOL. Guess why
Of course US Marines, Royal Navy, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy and soon Japanese Navy know nothing about how poor are VSTOL damn they should have read thsi forum and expert's opinion perhaps?
AlfaT8 wrote: i was not talking about the F-35, it's not really a problem for the U.S, since it can afford such luxury.
And the carriers are already in service.
AlfaT8 wrote:
As for range, you are getting Nautical miles mixed up with Miles.
The F-18SH is 450mi and the F-35B is 580mi, but they don't make it clear if the F-35 is in Stealth or Non-stealth config.
Good, it will be a good target once external hard-points are used.
Although Trump was pissed that EM catapult costed already almost a billions USD but it is still cheap.
Steam-catapult is expensive because of heavy maintenance, EM-catapult won't have this problem.
Poor navies will be poor, beside they will get U.S support, Russia doesn't have that and should go for the best they can, without breaking the bank.
According to you logic Royal Navy is not a navy either? how great!And marines aren't the navy.
GunshipDemocracy wrote:AlfaT8 wrote: i was not talking about the F-35, it's not really a problem for the U.S, since it can afford such luxury.
And the carriers are already in service.
so countries with 10x smaller budget can afford for normal more expensive carriers? BTW I mentioned F-35B just because of your opinion thas STOL is waste of money.
AlfaT8 wrote:
As for range, you are getting Nautical miles mixed up with Miles.
The F-18SH is 450mi and the F-35B is 580mi, but they don't make it clear if the F-35 is in Stealth or Non-stealth config.
1) radius, ok if you prefer in kilometers:
F-35B: 833km
F-18Super Hornet: 722 km
Su-33: ?
Rafale: ?
Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?
Good, it will be a good target once external hard-points are used.
We both know F-35B can have option to go stealth and neither F-18 nor Su-33 cannot. So they must be invisible right? Or maybe you dont know?
Although Trump was pissed that EM catapult costed already almost a billions USD but it is still cheap.
Steam-catapult is expensive because of heavy maintenance, EM-catapult won't have this problem.
Poor navies will be poor, beside they will get U.S support, Russia doesn't have that and should go for the best they can, without breaking the bank.
Russian navy can spend 13 billions USD on first and only like 8 on second CV? +1 billion on EM catapult?
Russian CVs are not built not to fight US Navy. Then for what precisely are to be built for, can you clarify ? Colonial wars like Syria? Or pirates in Somalia?
Right now, they are barely a Navy.According to you logic Royal Navy is not a navy either? how great!And marines aren't the navy.
F-35B: 833km
F-18Super Hornet: 722 km
Su-33: ?
Rafale: ?
Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in