Talk:INS Vishal

Nuclear

It is stated several times through out this article that this carrier is nuclear powered. Is it? Has this been confirmed by a source? - ^theWOLFchild 01:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

According to reliable source, Indian Navy wants a nuclear powered carrier, but the final decision is not with the navy, as the Ministry of Defence will have the final say (as always), after consulting with the Ministry of Finance (which will have to approve the additional cost of going nuclear). The ship's design is going to be confirmed and approved by the end of 2014 (hopefully), and only then we can be completely sure. Till then, we should just say what reliable sources say, i.e "either nuclear or conventional". Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Anir1uph: - Um, you seem to have tailored your answer to address a related editing point on another article. I'm referring to this article, where in the very lead, it states that this carrier "will be nuclear powered". It states it again in a sentence added to the bottom of the lead, that Vishal "will make India [the] third nation after United States and France to operate a nuclear powered aircraft carrier". Until this has been confirmed, perhaps the focus should be on fixing this article. - ^theWOLFchild 16:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care. Do what you feel like here, I was only giving you some background on this issue. If I disagree with some edit, i will raise it. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If Nuclear is not confirmed from a reliable source it is only speculation and should be edited as such until confirmation. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsindian-navy-seeks-emals-system-second-vikrant-class-aircraft-carrier

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 22:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

aircraft carried on ins vishal

@M.srihari: infobox are used to display basic important information to the readers.they are simple to read, officially confirmed information basic on reliable or very trusted sources and are agreed by all editors. as we still do not have any official confirmation on aircraft carried so we should not add to that infobox because in infobox we cannot explain to the readers that this is just a just a speculation and not a official information released by MOD or the indian navy. but in the heading Carrier air group we can add them as we already told readers that this not based official information released by the indian navy but based on industry experts

i have bolded some words which emphasis this

Decision regarding the carrier air battle group still remains unclear because of the lack any official comment regarding the subject but most experts believe that it may consist of naval variant of Tejas Mk II as well as future 5th generation fighter jets like HAL AMCA and UCAV like DRDO AURA that Indian navy may choose to develop. we have to explain this much information in detail to let them know exactly what they are going to read is based on industry experts and not from the indian navy.

i think we should remove HAL Tejas also from infobox becoz first of all no official confirmation, secondly current variant of tejas only works with stobar carried carrier like INS Vikrant so they will have to significantly modify hal tejas to operate on catobar carrier like ins vishal.if you want to reply then post your comment below. thank you :) Nicky mathew (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nicky mathew: As you have pointed out,the info present in the infobox are about proposed aircraft and are followed by a "expected" phrase to show nothing is yet confirmed. Moreover the citations provided inside indicate that the Indian Navy doesn't endorse these facts. so i don't think we need to remove the preexisting info.

As a Tejas II naval version is in Advanced design phase,it could be modified for CATOBAR use.so till final design is evolved,we could have it in proposed list

)

@M.srihari: expected can be used when we are fairly certain about it. we do not have any reference which says they will make a catobar variant of hal amca, drdo aura and hal tejas Nicky mathew (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nicky mathew: yes. but there is certain info that both the amca and tejas 2 have naval versions.As for AURA, the navy indicate a UCAV operation from Vishal,I added it as it is the only UCAV under development in the name of IUSAV. You could edit it if you think it unnecessary(talk) 00:19, 11 May 2015 (IST)

@M.srihari: thank you for understanding, i am going to remove all 3 from infobox as they lack any or no reliable sources to prove its development. in wikipedia we cannot make guesses. if we have multiple reliable source which says exactly about a naval caboar variant of hal tejas , hal amca and drdo aura then only we can add them. i know all your edits are made in good faith, the thing is in wikipedia you cannot add your original research or make educated guesses see this wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:No original research . if we are uncertain about something its better not to add them .Nicky mathew (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Vikrant-class?

If Vikrant is going to be a 40,000 ton conventionally powered STOBAR carrier with a length of 860 ft, while Vishal is going to be a 65,000 ton possibly nuclear powered CATOBAR carrier with a length of 980 ft, they're not the same class. Variations within a class are one thing, but when one ship is nearly 2/3 larger than the other that's far too radical a difference for them to be considered the same class. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@207.98.198.84: your logic is correct. But this is not added because of some own research or speculation, but the Indian Navy and MoD has decided to bring this completely different Carrier into the label "Vikrant Class". It seems they thought that naming each carrier into differnet class might mean that others are inferior or experimentalM.srihari (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

The original Viraat and Vikrant were single-ship classes, at least in IN service. best, 137.205.170.101 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispute: Contradiction to neutral point of view.

A user with ip 162.74.52.147 is trying to start an edit war over this statement which contradicts the neutral point of view. He is not discussing it on the talk page. He is including statements such as "The Indian fleet is grossly inadequate to match China" and "This showed that India is technologically inferior and incapable to design and develop its own systems". Many countries share technology with others this does not warrant above statements like being inferior. The county's fleet will depend on the money they have and their threat perception and wikipedia is not a threat perception analyst.

These statements are not what wikipedia is for and are to be removed to protect the neutral point of view. standardengineer (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not what the source Standardengineer provided says.

I simply used his own source, which quoted the source.

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait till a third person gives his point of view. standardengineer (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop Standardengineer's personal agenda of pro-India propaganda

The information current on the page is important because they highlight the reason why India need a better carrier with nuclear propulsion. Also, India invited 4 different countries for this project indicated India's inability to do it on its own. As the title of the source pointed out.

The user: Standardengineer used two different source to back up his claims yet when someone else used his own source for additional construction of this page. Standardengineer just removed them for his own bias sake ! Please take a look at these two examples:

1. http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/navy-s-wish-list-6-nuke-subs-n-powered-carrier/77422.html

This source clearly stated: "The Indian fleet is grossly inadequate to match China." which is why India wants and needs to build a better carrier. Standardengineer used this source in favor of his own personal Indian propaganda that INS Vishal is better than its predecessor, yet when I used this source to show why India needs a better carrier, he simply removed them because it obviously showed that the Indian navy is inferior to the Chinese, which is why India wants to build a better carrier with possible nuclear power.

2. http://news.usni.org/2015/07/21/india-asks-international-defense-firms-for-help-with-new-aircraft-carrier-design

This source clearly said that India is eager to seek help on its new carrier design and development. Once again Standardengineer tried to use this source to show that India is getting help from some of the top carrier building supplier so that India's next carrier will be better, once again he tried to pass his personal Indian propaganda. When I tried to point out from a different perspective that:"This showed that India is technologically inferior and incapable to design and develop its own systems which are crucial for aircraft carriers such as: carrier's propulsion systems, carrier's catapult systems, naval fighters and electronics. India will continue to seek help and rely on foreign technology in the future." Which is clearly true as it was shown in Standardengineer's own source as its titled India Asks International Defense Firms for Help With New Aircraft Carrier Design. Yet he accused me of threatening him and he removed the message I left on his personal talk page.

These evidence obviously showed Standardengineer's personal agenda of spreading pro India propaganda which violates Wikipedia's neutrality.

He also constantly sneak up on this page and remove materials for his own personal propaganda sake as it was shown on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=INS_Vishal&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Standardengineer&action=history

Please go take a look at his behavior.

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I added content that India openly asked for help from these companies which itself gives the understanding that India is unable to design such a thing. They you later added USNI's research giving their opinion on this thing. These things are understood by the reader from the first statement itself and does not warrant wikipedia saying that. You are adding a line that says India's fleet is inadequate to China, will someone write that UK's fleet is inadequate to US fleet? These understandings of inadequacy are strategic analysis. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a strategic analysis site. standardengineer (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________

Standardengineer you can not argue with the facts !!
1. http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/navy-s-wish-list-6-nuke-subs-n-powered-carrier/77422.html

The first source you provided clearly said: "The Indian fleet is grossly inadequate to match China." This is the center piece of the source, because it showed the reason why India needs to lease more nuclear subs from Russia, and more importantly, India needs to build better carrier to match the Chinese, since the Chinese current carrier CV-16 is better than anything India has at the moment; not forget to mention that the new carrier 001A and 002 currently under construction are also much better than anything India currently has.

Your argument of UK vs US navy is completely worthless in this, because UK and US are great allies they will not go to war with each other! China and India is different. China is India's worse and bitter enemy and China crushed India in 1962, not forget to mention that China is Pakistan's great ally, having supplying Pakistan with state of the art weapons. Due to these reasons, India sees China, especially the Chinese navy as a great threat as your source pointed out, to make India's nightmare even worse. The currently Indian fleet is grossly inadequate to match China, which is exactly what your source said. I did not exaggerate it one bit. You Standardengineer however, keep removing it for your own personal Indian propaganda.

You added the source in favor of your pro Indian propaganda, yet you removed the most important part of the source which is the reason. When someone else picked it up and added it, you keep removing them in the freakiest and sneakiest way possible !

2. http://news.usni.org/2015/07/21/india-asks-international-defense-firms-for-help-with-new-aircraft-carrier-design

The second source showed the exact same content as the first that India is seeking help from everyone! Why? Because India is not capable of doing it on its own. Standardengineer you are the one added the source and the source title: "India Asks International Defense Firms for Help With New Aircraft Carrier Design"

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to stop personal attacks on me and this is why I asked for a dispute resolution where a third person can give his view. There is no need to fight between us, wait till a third person gives his/her point of view. standardengineer (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote is unnecessarily inflammatory, and fails WP:NPOV. It also lends WP:UNDUE weight to a specific reasoning for the request for technical assistance for a project. Last I checked, India was not at war with China. Engineering cooperation is a normal process in major projects. Scr★pIron^IV 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Laid Down Year

Should the year of laid be mention as 2021-2022 as it is mentioned that construction would begin in 3 years in the source. Also by that time cochin shipyard would had completed its largest shipbuilding dry dock capable of building large carriers like INS Vishal of 65,000t Mayank Prasoon (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www-indiatoday-in.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.indiatoday.in/amp/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/largest-dry-dock-india-foundation-stone-1381193-2018-11-02?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#aoh=15539201172405&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiatoday.in%2Feducation-today%2Fgk-current-affairs%2Fstory%2Flargest-dry-dock-india-foundation-stone-1381193-2018-11-02 and https://mobile.twitter.com/shipmin_india/status/1057343175105433602?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-8635104143563903582.ampproject.net%2F1903262220080%2Fframe.html Mayank Prasoon (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

These are 2 refrences of india today and twitter Mayank Prasoon (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Mayank Prasoon, no. The project to build IAC-2 has not been approved by MoD. The India Today article merely says that a dry dock will be completed in 2021. There is no indication that construction of aircraft carrier will commence soon after. —Gazoth (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh...okay Mayank Prasoon (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27290/indias-first-ever-supercarrier-might-be-based-on-the-uks-queen-elizabeth-class Mayank Prasoon (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this refrence reliable for extra, updated information and the exact year of laid down as well? Mayank Prasoon (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It could be, but I don't see anything there that can add to this article. A mere proposal from BAE would be just news. —Gazoth (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

BAE offers QEC design for INS Vishal

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/bae-systems-offers-queen-elizabeth-carrier-design-to-india

BlueD954 (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't notable enough for inclusion. —Gazoth (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

IAC 2 or IAC 3?

There are contradictions in the page, it’s mentioned as 3 first but 2 later Paavang 14 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)