Bharat Rakshak

Both Cochin and Garden Reach have new photos

Australian designed AA built. Very capable ships, though I believe from order to delivery 15 years have passed, including 10 years plus build time.

Built to Australian design http://www.seatransport.com/products-military.phpMakar's smaller Australian cousins are shown.

Using such ships to patrol is like using AWACS for Close Air Support. Not worth putting all this electronics to mundane patrolling.

Makar has the draught of IN WJFAC despite double the displacement.

this small news report prior to the Vikramaditya leaving for its sea trials

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jUA3fn_L94

India to buy 8 warships from S Korea for 6k crore.

In tune with a growing 'strategic partnership' with South Korea, India is now getting all set to ink a major defence contract with the north-east Asian country for acquisition of eight advanced minesweeping and hunting warships.

Under the programme, which will be worth well over Rs 6,000 crore, India will get two of the mine counter-measures vessels (MCMVs) directly from South Korean firm Kangnam Corporation, while the other six will be manufactured by Goa Shipyard after transfer of technology. "The contract is now being finalized after the conclusion of the commercial negotiations," said a source.

India's need for advanced MCMVs that combine the role of traditional minesweepers and active mine-hunters to detect and destroy underwater mines is critical. Despite intelligence inputs holding that Indian harbours face the clear and present danger of underwater mines being planted by both state as well as non-state actors, the Navy's MCMV project has been hanging fire for several years now.

"Underwater mines are cheap weapons that can be used for high-impact incidents. It's relatively easy for someone to lay mines at the harbour approach or departure routes. There is need to step-up the protection of our harbours and offshore installations," said an official.

Made of composite material and high-grade steel to ensure 'minimal magnetivity', the new MCMVs will have high-definition sonars and acoustic and magnetic sweeps to first detect all kinds of marooned and drifting mines and then use remote-controlled systems like small underwater vehicles to then detonate them at safe distances.

That looks like the 85,000t Ulyanovsk to me. Two CATs for the Yak-44s plus the ski jump.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_air ... _Ulyanovsk

Doubt Vik can carry migs on the side.

^^^

Great looking C2 center.

Full session
http://kuleshovoleg.livejournal.com/65378.html

Does this not obstruct the runway and landing. It is on the opposite side of the main tower of CV

It is not found in any other CV

It does not at all. it is located behind the island and in no way impedes landing etc.

And it is not all that uncommon. it is found in older carrier designs.


See this picture for greater clarity

http://nl.media.rbth.ru/web/in-rbth/ima ... ra_468.jpg

So unless a plane wants to fly straight into the Island, this should not be much of a problem at all.

In fact it can even be seen as a defence in depth structure for protection against cruise missiles.

Corrected. Thanks

seems to be clad in very thin aluminium sheets to cover the mesh rods...looking at the hungry horse effect...I thought hungry horse effects come after a period of sailing but this is even before sea trials!

Is there any reason the Ins Satpura is equipped with Klub missiles instead of Brahmos?

I think it is pretty common with even new vessels ... noticed same even in INS Satpura (if light falls at an approprate angle)

Guru log; pls ID the sensors on the islands:





Looks like a crane on deck:



What is the purpose of the "gate" like hull feature?:

the big square radar looks like Podberezovik, but only a expert or insider could say ET1 or ET2 ...probably the more powerful ET1 given size or shipboard power is not an issue here. looks like this would cover C band and Fregat the E band...hence both being there though I think the Podberezovik is the more powerful set and can do all that Fregat does. does the C band have some leg up on detecting LO targets or is generally better suited to long range surveillance?

I read few pages back on this thread that it was ET1 and they already said so ....They are just air survellence radars i think unlike MFCR of Fregat ......I just wished they had one installed at the back too to give full 360 * coverage , the position of Podberezovik is such that it would give frontal/180 degree coverage , they certainly have space at the back of the huge tower.

May be in future we can have a dual face rotating Elta 2248 AESA ( UK Samson style ) and remove the Fregat from there when such AESA gets ready.

To me the entire radar package seems lacking on some front but then IN knows better.

Compare to what we have seen on Viraat and Vikrant post upgrades of these ships , Vikramaditya sensor suite is far better

Austin, shouldn't Podberezovik still be able to track high flying targets 360 degrees, low flying ones will be obstructed but Fregat will handle that job.

small clips of the Vikramaditya, but can be viewed in full HD

http://t.co/UNfTiXsZ

http://t.co/0Vaa19YK

India to buy 8 warships from South Korea for Rs 6,000 crore



Seems like this is more of engaging SoKo with Indian defence regardless of India probably can build same stuff at home.

Podberezovik has its view obstructed by the tower , its sits below Fregat , Fregat has nice full 360 * view but Podberezovik at best can have slightly more 180 * view of the frontal and sides ( port/starboard) but not at the back
considering its a Phased Array Radar it would scan the full 360 * in the frontal and side ways.

the reason Fregat has been given that premium space is because its an all Air/Surface search radar with ability to provide data to FC radars , more useful practically speaking and it has a decent 250 plus km range operating in NATO E/F band.

the nimitz class does have a fully rotating radar of same type...infront of mast.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... sps48e.jpg

I think on Vik it can also rotate 360'. degree of interference from the TACAN round thing may not be much.

I've a noobie questions for the gurus here.

It seems to me that, in relation to its size and landing and take off deck, the control tower of Vik is bigger than most other carriers, especially the US ones or even the new toy that China has? Is this a correct observation? If it is, is it due to design limitations of converting the ship from the Goroshkov or was/is it a design choice. Or is it because the Vik is a smaller carrier and the there's a minimum size for the control tower so that it can fit all the equipment required?

Would be much obliged if someone can throw light on this?

TIA

Arrey Dada,

You are talking about an old kiev class carrier modified to what is now the Vikad. The Soviet policy towards heavy aviation cruisers ( as they called it) was simple. The larger the island the more people you could staff in it thereby fulfilling the need to hire as many people as possible at sea and away from home. It ij adbhanced form of internal security onree. So less space for landing Yak-38 firebar.phroger or whatever other Harrier looking shit they would put on board these HACs and more space for Moscow design bureau clerks rubbing off pencil stains on the maps displayed in the generous room walls in that control tower.

you forgot the commissars.

seriously though, only people with some real life experience like tsarkar can answer your question.

the nimitz class carriers are truly massive compared to the kiev (and most other) classes, so the appearance may well look distorted

Well, I’ve never been onboard a Russian Aircraft Carrier, but here is the explanation from those in the know –

A well designed aircraft carrier has an overhang on both sides of the hull, like here http://www.trumanblog.com/wp-content/up ... ruman1.jpg The weight of the angled deck overhang on port is compensated an equal overhang on the starboard side where the island is placed.

Gorshkov was designed as a cruiser hull with an angled deck overhang. The weight of the angled deck on port has to be compensated by the huge superstructure on starboard to balance out. The following picture shows it is not balanced like the US carriers.
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4430/imgp0159au3.jpg
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2378/imgp0191up4.jpg

Because its a cruiser hull, the superstructure is on the hull slightly offset to the centerline, and there is an impression of space right of superstructure where aircraft can move. In reality, there can be no aircraft movement right of superstructure. There are boats and cranes there http://i38.tinypic.com/2rn8mfc.jpg

The IAC picture by SNaik shows a boxy hull like a proper aircraft carrier http://s56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/ ... =Kochi.jpg The angled deck overhang on port will be much less than the slimmer waist cruiser hulled Gorshkov. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lFGcAzNPC1I/T ... 0/IAC1.jpg This picture shows the IAC hull to be much wider than Gorshkov hull. The front part presently showing like a cavity will get a modular ski jump.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachme ... 1265299626

Moral of the story - a curvy figure is much better than a size zero figure

Sarkar Babu,

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Thanks DRoy and Rahul for the other explanation also.

As you can see on the picture of modifications to the original 1143 cruiser, the added width of the angled deck was off-set by the extention of the flight deck on the starboard. Thus the island looks more centrally positioned than previously. MiG with folded wings is a quite compact aircraft and can be at least parked on the starbord causeway. I doubt that it will be used for taxiing as on Ulyanovsk in the photo I posted, as there was certainly more space on Ulyanovsk than on Vikki.

Is there one lift only on vik ?

no, there is another one right next to the island amidships - atleast was on the kiev class.
you can see its outline on deck here http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1419/866 ... 75fb6f.jpg

hopefully the ADS will have a more full length hanger and khan style deck edge lifts to maximise hangar useable space...and because it just looks more cool to have fully armed fighters coming up in pairs with the sea in background like some iconic shots of the F-14

^^^

Thanks. Okay, I see it in the outline snaik posted, now that you shared the picture.

the con is neither can be used when landing cycles are on.

now looking at the big dog, the two edge lifts fwd of the island can be used to bring up hornets while landings are still on.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t-deck.jpg

and the system is handy when all u need is surge mode takeoffs, the 2 lifts in front feed the 2 fwd cats and the 2 in back feed the rear cats.

Yeah, only 5-6 planes on deck can take off on short notice, rest will need another 30-45 minutes of shuttling from bottom to up before all birdies can be launched.

Large superstructures are a common feature of Aviation Cruisers. British Invincible was built on cruiser hull, and had a large (long) superstructure to balance out the offset flight deck as shown here http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7Y4FgN2sTE8/T ... onse+5.jpg and http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f_TiAqdkqU4/T ... trious.jpg

The one located aft can possibly be used? Problem is - simultaneous landing/take off cycles are unlikely. Perhaps lift aft of the island and the starboard side take off strip can remain in use when landing cycles are on? Constrained ops for sure. Varyag has no such issues - plenty of deck space, I am a bit envious.



Not necessarily, I think at least about 11-12 fighters can be parked on the deck at a given moment

Impossible, actually. If you look at the picture you posted carefully, you will notice that aircraft taking off and their jet blast deflectors interfere with the landing strip. This will make it impossible to launch and recover aircraft simultaneously.

The Charles de Gaulle also is another carrier affected by this problem, because of the constraints the French faced and some of the changes the design had to undergo at a relatively late stage.

Looking at tsarkar's posts and what was discussed earlier, I'm beginning to come around to the view that the Vik, while a useful asset, will face several operational constraints because it is fundamentally an aircraft-carrying cruiser converted to an aircraft carrier. The IAC, even with its lower displacement, will likely be a superior platform, given that it was designed ground-up to be a "proper" carrier.

Yes, it is a compromise in more ways than one. But where do you see blast deflectors Hawkeye? Do the red bands stand for reflectors? Unfortunately many drawings of the Vikrant show a similar situation where the take off strip crosses the landing strip. I hope they make it wide enough for side by side take offs with plenty of width to allow simultaneous landing ops. I think even the QE class ships suffer from this to some extent. Especially if they are adapted for STOBAR ops. Kuznetsov design is a decent compromise, but it is huge.

> The IAC, even with its lower displacement, will likely be a superior platform

yes no doubt about that.

Funny, I could've sworn that the pictures published and models shown to date had jet blast deflectors. I don't see 'em on a single one now . I suppose I assumed that they would be present. If they aren't, how does the crew on deck go about doing their work when aircraft are taking off? It would be *very* inefficient for them to clear the deck when a plane takes off and run back into position with all sorts of equipment to prepare the next bird for take-off, resulting in a terrible sortie rate.

Coming to the IAC, yeah, it's be no different in this regard. "Small" and "aircraft carrier" are two terms that just don't go together very well. There's no getting around the fact that good carriers need to have a massive deck and gobs of internal volume. The more the better.