Indian Navy contemplating CVN. Folly or Vision?

[FirstSpear]

Here's an article from the USNI:

I post it here to invite debate on whether this is a rational upping of India's regional ambitions in the context of the USN's deployment of 7 CBGs in the Pacific and the PLAN's ambitions to develop a real carrier force and more robust assets to back up China's more muscular recent efforts and control of key sea lanes and contested islands. Or is this just another over-reach in a country that unfortunately has a bit of a habit of starting ambitious acquisition programs but not much of a track record of bringing them to fruition... Ok, I'll admit, I'm more on the fence than I let on.

What do you think? and why?


India Weighing Nuclear Powered Carrier

By: Sam LaGrone
Published: September 24, 2014 4:16 PM
Updated: September 24, 2014 4:17 PM

An artist's conception of INS Vikrant, India's first domestically-built carrier India is weighing constructing its second carrier with nuclear power. Indian Navy Image
An artist’s conception of INS Vikrant, India’s first domestically-built carrier India is weighing constructing its second carrier with nuclear power. Indian Navy Image

India is considering powering its second domestically built aircraft carrier with a nuclear propulsion plant, according to a Tuesday report by news agency Press Trust of India.

The design of the carrier is ongoing and nuclear power is still an option for the carrier, said Director General of Naval Design Bureau, Rear Admiral Atul Saxena, in response to questions from reporters.

India’s first domestically built carrier — the 40,000-ton INS Vikrant currently under construction in Cochin Shipyard in Southern India — will be powered by four General Electric LM-2500 gas turbines.

The second carrier Vishal is planned to be much larger — up to 65,000-tons — and is still in the conceptual design process, Saxena said.

Last year Indian officials said the two major decisions for the carrier were its power supply and launching and recovery methods for the planned Vishnal.

Though more technically complicated in design and construction stages, a nuclear powered carrier provides greater flexibility to commanders once in operation, Eric Wertheim, author of the Naval Institute’s Combat Fleets of the World, told USNI News on Wednesday.

“Nuclear power frees up space,” he said.
“You don’t have to store fuel for your ship onboard.”

Nuclear carriers have more room for ammunition and fuel for aircraft on the ship and shedding the requirement for refueling the ship simplify the logistics of resupplying the carrier at sea.

However, it’s unclear if India can overcome the technical requirements to fielding a nuclear carrier.

“It’s a big if. There’s a lot of challenges to overcome,” Wertheim said.
“I’m skeptical how soon India would be able to master that ability.”

India’s new leadership is bullish on the country’s carrier ambitions, writ large.

In July, India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi backed funding the $3.18 billion needed to complete INS Vikrant, following a visit to India’s Russian built carrier, INS Vikramaditya.

Vikrant supposed to be completed in 2013 but delays in construction have pushed the operational date to 2018.

Eventually, India wants to operate three carrier battle groups (CBG).

Part of India’s push to create a carrier force widely seen as a hedge against Chinese expansion and the growing capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).

China is currently working on its own domestic carrier program with a reported goal of four ships.

The Indian Navy currently operates two originally foreign carriers — the Russian built INS Vikramaditya and the 50 year-old carrier INS Viraat — the former British carrier Hermes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the author has said some silly things in that article.....

 

[FirstSpear]

the author has said some silly things in that article.....

I am pretty sure I read somewhere on this site that people were reprimanded for one liners that expressed no particular opinion and/or made statements that were unsupported.

Could give a couple of examples of what you mean? Or does the rule mentioned above not apply to everyone equally?

Thank you

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am pretty sure I read somewhere on this site that people were reprimanded for one liners that expressed no particular opinion and/or made statements that were unsupported.

Could give a couple of examples of what you mean? Or does the rule mentioned above not apply to everyone equally?

Thank you

If you want to tell a Moderator how to do their job your time on here will be really short.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This thread is now open again

Can I remind everyone that when cutting and pasting or citing an article, there is an expectation that some effort is put into contributing your own ideas before asking others for theirs.

eg platform discussions in isolation mean little when the bigger picture is about force construct and local conops against that capability.

eg making comparisons (as I believe the original author has done) against relative and comparative displacement has little relevance when all the host navies applicable have very different force development constructs and requirements

 

[Ananda]

Well India first domestic naval nuclear reactor on their first SSN/SSBN (not really sure if Arihant actually can be considered SSBN, but definitely SSN), still has not reached operational yet, and as the first domestic nuclear boat, I do believe the Indian Navy will strongly evaluating this domestic naval nuclear reactor.

It will take two decades at least before India put nuclear reactor in their carrier, considering that the nuclear reactor has to be much bigger that Arihant which means another development stages. This off course with consideration that Arihant reactor has satisfied the Navy.

India 3 CBG will be based on Vikramaditya, Vikrant and Vishal. All will be conventional based power plant. Even with their increasing economy, I don't think India will be gambling on Nuclear powered carier for Vishal. Whether the third carrier even will be much larger than Vikrant or another development of Vikrant, I believe is something that still being discussion and not yet finish. Besides, 3 conventional CBG, already more than enough considering what they are going to face in Indian ocean (outside USN off course).

Or am I missing something ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

re the power plant needing to be bigger - thats not necessarily so, eg the Charles de Gaulle CVN nasically uses a nuke from one of the SSBN designs

The other issue for India is which fleets will be flagged by carriers - ie she has 4 main maritime fleet headquarters for each fleet

in additon, there is the question of sustainment and rotation between fleets and amongst the existing carriers.

she's short on numbers

 

[Ananda]

Triomphant is much bigger than Arihant, while the Indian plan Vishal to be considerably bigger than CdG. Unless they plan to have more than two Arihant type reactors in one carrier, the way USS Enterprise have 8 SSN type reactors, due bigger reactors not ready yet for Enterprise.

Not it will made the carriers cost effective, even for Nuclear Carrier standard. Other way will be to design new one based on Arihant reactor (if the reactor considered successful), but even enlarging Arihant reactor need time. That's why I believe it will take 2 decades at least before India can put Nuclear Carrier, that off course if they are not going the Enterprise way.

Other thing around, I agree with you. India need increased the numbers of effective destroyers and frigates to build 3 effective CBG. Their new destroyers and Frigates seem fit the type, but they need to boost the numbers.

 

[StobieWan]

That'd be three single class ships - that's ringing some alarm bells from my point of view. Particularly if one of them is a nuke. I think going for nuclear power may be a stretch too far.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That'd be three single class ships - that's ringing some alarm bells from my point of view. Particularly if one of them is a nuke. I think going for nuclear power may be a stretch too far.

streamlined logistics has always been a weakness for india

 

[StobieWan]

I'm getting that...just taking a look at their airforce, with their "buy one of everything" strategy.


Potentially, if they really work at this, they could have three different *types* of plant let alone machinery.

 

[KiwiRob]

re the power plant needing to be bigger - thats not necessarily so, eg the Charles de Gaulle CVN nasically uses a nuke from one of the SSBN designs

Isn't that one of CdG's main criticisms, the reactor isn't big enough for the ship?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Isn't that one of CdG's main criticisms, the reactor isn't big enough for the ship?

I think its a bit more complicated than just that, it wasn't designed for a carrier. When the US went down this route they met the situation with 8 reactors. Its not just about peak power. Carriers are big, heavy and have significant drag, also need to produced a great deal of additional steam. They also tend to maintain a pretty high speed over a long distance, if your reactor isn't designed for this then you will have to refuel more often and you will have issues maintaining speed for long distances.

The lesson that France learnt from a CVN is if your going to do it, do it well. I do think a nuclear carrier will be an on going issue for India. France stuffed it up pretty good with CDG and they had extensive carrier experience, carrier building experience, nuclear and reactor building experience and US help.

Both the UK and France don't want nuclear carriers in the future.

I don't see how this improves things for India. So many unknowns, another unique acquisition. At least it is not ex-Russian designed or built.

 

[RobWilliams]

There was a developmental SNAFU with CdGs propellers, the ones designed for her had manufacturing defects or something like that and they put on some spares from Foch and those limited her speed. Once she got her proper propellers then that solved the problem.

India are making Vikrant right at least, taking the ideas behind Vikramaditya and modernising it.

EDIT: Plus France does nuclear differently, due to their extensive civil network they used uranium enriched to civilian regs for fuel or somesuch meaning that any waste can be lumped into civilian management methods. Drawback being that it's a weaker fuel and needs refuelling more often.

 

[StingrayOZ]

EDIT: Plus France does nuclear differently, due to their extensive civil network they used uranium enriched to civilian regs for fuel or somesuch meaning that any waste can be lumped into civilian management methods. Drawback being that it's a weaker fuel and needs refuelling more often.

I believe she is designed to be refueled every ~7 years, the next is 2015. Expected to take her out of service for 15 months. US carriers for example are now designed for 20 years before nuclear refueling.

There have been some issues:
Charles de Gaulle

The nuclear reactor was problematic, with the engine crew receiving five times the allowable annual radiation dose.

This is of course using a SSBN reactor with a country that has really extensive knowledge and use of nuclear technology in ships (decades of operational) and electrical generation (powering all most all of Frances needs). Using a smaller reactor in a bigger ship will of course result in limitations. French subs I believe now only need to be refueled every 20 years.

Which is the problem when you want to run a CVN fleet, you really have to plan for availability and refueling. The US has so many carriers, and has specifically designed them for long use between refueling, its not a big issue for them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There have been some issues:
Charles de Gaulle

CdG also had significant elements built to commercial standards to try and cut costs

I think you'll find that the principle problem was not that the nuke drivetrain was underpowered, it was about some inefficiencies in that drive train. They also made some fundamental dimension errors

this was from a country that is an experienced major capital vessel builder.

India has a somewhat fractured history in not just building efficient classes of vessels, but has also struggled to build an efficient and balanced force construct that has coherency across numbers of levels

 

[StingrayOZ]

CdG also had significant elements built to commercial standards to try and cut costs

I think you'll find that the principle problem was not that the nuke drivetrain was underpowered, it was about some inefficiencies in that drive train. They also made some fundamental dimension errors

this was from a country that is an experienced major capital vessel builder.

I think the frequent refueling is more of an issue of the reactor size, but not key problem (it was expected from the outset). It does seem as if they ran out of money and time and things were done cheaply. The first major refit they seemed to change most systems on the ship. I think key to running out of money was using nuclear power being a bit more expensive to install/maintain than first expected.

Does commercial standards really mean to a lower standard but sounds better?

India has a somewhat fractured history in not just building efficient classes of vessels, but has also struggled to build an efficient and balanced force construct that has coherency across numbers of levels

With hindsight it would seem easy to look at a 3-5 ship build of the QE class, built in India as a joint venture. India would have a very capable fleet of ships, affordable to build, crew and operate, suitable for pretty much any carrier aircraft they could ever want. Who really cares where the original design came from, and how original it is. Half of everyone's weapons and systems after WWII were ex-german designs, because many were just good designs.

Oberon subs, V2/redstone rockets, various jet engines, various guns, etc.

I was actually impressed with the Indian ship that attended the Sydney fleet review, the build quality seemed pretty good to casual observation and it was well maintained again to casual non professional observation. It just a shame that so many Indian projects get caught up in a wacky procurement cycle.

If they had a more reliable build process, other countries would be ordering off the peg from them. Instead they seem focused on super original designs and super local builds at the cost of getting the best tool for the best price.

 

[StobieWan]

CdG needed an extension of the flight deck to get the E2's on and off I believe, so that's suggesting they muffed up with some fundamentals. The reactor refuelling was something they'd have expected as they knew what the refuel life cycle was like for the sub fleet - I think it's just an outcome of the grade of fuel used.

I think going nuke powered would be a bit of a stretch for India given their industrial experience of nuclear engineering so far and it's possible that the economics of it all for one ship just don't make sense.

 

[KiwiRob]

I was actually impressed with the Indian ship that attended the Sydney fleet review, the build quality seemed pretty good to casual observation and it was well maintained again to casual non professional observation. It just a shame that so many Indian projects get caught up in a wacky procurement cycle.

If they had a more reliable build process, other countries would be ordering off the peg from them. Instead they seem focused on super original designs and super local builds at the cost of getting the best tool for the best price.

That ship was INS Shivalik, there are 3 vessels in this class. What I find interesting is that instead of building more Shivaliks they went back to Russia and ordered 3 additional Talwars, I believe a contract is close to being inked for another 3 Talwar's.

The procurement process is very strange, especially now that bribes have been rulled out the procurement people ask for a non refundable performance bond up front, before you win the contract.

 

[harryriedl]

That ship was INS Shivalik, there are 3 vessels in this class. What I find interesting is that instead of building more Shivaliks they went back to Russia and ordered 3 additional Talwars, I believe a contract is close to being inked for another 3 Talwar's.

The procurement process is very strange, especially now that bribes have been rulled out the procurement people ask for a non refundable performance bond up front, before you win the contract.

Indian procurement is from what I have seen the worst procurement system in the world generally. The best example of this is their attempts to buy 155mm arty since 1982 without any success.

What is very concerning is how it is breaking the basic sustainment of vessels already in service with many examples of the basics being neglected by a broken procurement(old batteries not being replaced, missiles which are past their sell buy date being used because their are no replacement, lack of towed arrays on surface vessels and helicopters).