Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Based off Indian CAG reports.

No that is Your opinion.

The fact that India has procured American systems debunks that. Particularly the P8 as they didn't just buy it they tailored the package to their wants.


Straw man argument. No one anywhere has. The US is the first to trail they system on ANY SHIP, EVER!!

The rest is just pure opinion and bunk.

Click to expand...

Didn't say Mig-29K were doing good. You classifying my comment as "pure opinion and bunk" forces me to reevaluate the value of the whole exchange.
Oh, did i trigger an american jingoist ? India isn't an american ally. How you deal with it is upto you.
I think i've mentioned my take regarding ASW platforms that India bought. Why reintroduce them and make a mockery of yourself?
You are in denial. India buying some US products isn't tantamount to India signing the deal to be an ally (vassal) like SK, Japan. Quick quiz. Name any powerful nation that has independent foreign policy and at the same time enjoys the perks for being an US ally? The only nation that comes anywhere close would be France but then again, their core interests overlap with that of NATO.

PS: you might want to look up what a strawman argument means. Quoting Debate tools within a debate has never made a good impression to me.

siegecrossbow said:

A rather tepid response nonetheless compared with the aftermath of the 2007 Chinese test. Media was crying about that one for over ten years.

Click to expand...

Because the chinese test spewed more debris and was in higher altitude while this test was in low altitude. China has designated ASAT missiles and clear intentions for reaching even GEO orbit. India merely destroyed a microsatellite at 300km altitude. The debris would fall back soon enough instead of posing ever lasting threat to other satellites.

At the heat of EMALS Intigration into such a carrier is IFEPS. Integrated Full Electrical Propulsion. The Queen Elizabeth class has that. It allows the ships power plants not to be segregated into propulsive and electric generation but to be used for both. This allows the Ship to have higher power draw systems like large modern radars, Rail guns, lasers or EMALS. This means that the ships internal generation of power is on demand.
EMALS for replacing a Cat also means the Ship doesn't need a steam boiler whether nuclear or otherwise.

China has done work on getting EMALS to work on conventional carrier. Not sure how eager they will be to export any of it, but they are most prolific carrier builder today that’s not America.

Maybe Russia can convince them to help.

Highly unlikely that The Chinese and Indians would ever partner.
The Russian carrier program is at the moment a Shodingers cat type deal.

Are there ships that are nuclear without steam boilers? AFAIK,
Nuclear power produces heat which is used to generate steam and that steam is used to run the turbines (producing electricity). If it used Catapults, a part of the steam generated would be diverted to the CATs.

Xsizor said:

Are there ships that are nuclear without steam boilers? AFAIK,
Nuclear power produces heat which is used to generate steam and that steam is used to run the turbines (producing electricity). If it used Catapults, a part of the steam generated would be diverted to the CATs.

Click to expand...

lead-cooled fast reactor (Alfa class Soviet submarines) a few other types use other materials like molten salt reactors.
Water cooled is the most common with Lead cooled the second for Naval use but rare for modern naval ships or surface warfare to my knowledge.
,of course there could be that sudden. "OH well you missed this random Obscure Russian Nuclear vodka powered fishing boat."

They always use steam turbines to generate either motive power or electricity from the nuclear fission. There are other theoretical possibilities on how to generate electricity from a nuclear reactor but none are proven at a large enough scale. Like magnetohydrodynamic generators. They do exist but their efficiency is really low and they are expensive.


This has never been used in power generation even in stationary applications let alone ships. Lead-cooled fast reactors use lead instead of water as the neutron moderator but they still basically generate hot steam to power a steam turbine. Same deal with a molten-salt reactor. The advantage of a MHD generator is that it would potentially be a lot less noisy to operate than a turbine. This would make them especially relevant in applications like strategic ballistic nuclear submarines if anyone ever got the technology to work.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

At the heat (heart?) of EMALS Intigration into such a carrier is IFEPS(IEPS). Integrated Full Electrical Propulsion. The Queen Elizabeth class has that. It allows the ships power plants not to be segregated into propulsive and electric generation but to be used for both. This allows the Ship to have higher power draw systems like large modern radars, Rail guns, lasers or EMALS. This means that the ships internal generation of power is on demand.
EMALS for replacing a Cat also means the Ship doesn't need a steam boiler whether nuclear or otherwise.

Click to expand...

IEPS is the preferred and most optimal power supply architecture for EMALS, but not a necessity. Ford class is not IEPS.

A boiler is always needed in nuclear powered ship in today's proven technology.

What do we want? An end to auto correct errors! When do we want It? Cow!

You are correct however as you point out Ford is nuclear. It's A1B reactors crank out more power than Nimitz reactors.

The Boiler is just the most proven, practical mode. I mean the Reactor has a almost limitless cooling supply thanks to the ocean.