INS Vikrant: News and Discussion
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Good lighting is paramount for night time/low light flight deck operations. For personnel safety and preventing FOD.
Nothing decorative about it.
Nothing decorative about it.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
That was a joke.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 125
- Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
One thing I have wondered about & would like to ask the Navy Gurus here. Why are the runways as long as they are?.. Won't a few dozen metres increase the takeoff payload of the jets?
Why not this?
Why not this?
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
The initial groundwork is being laid for the third aircraft carrier. Whether it is CATOBAR or STOBAR (follow on Vikrant) remains to be seen.
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 87879?s=20 ---> "Chinese Navy (PLAN) now the largest expanding Navy in the world. We see the threat emerging in the Indian Ocean Region. India has to counter this threat by developing our naval prowess accordingly", says Chief of Defence Staff, General Bipin Rawat.
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 87879?s=20 ---> "Chinese Navy (PLAN) now the largest expanding Navy in the world. We see the threat emerging in the Indian Ocean Region. India has to counter this threat by developing our naval prowess accordingly", says Chief of Defence Staff, General Bipin Rawat.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Vikrant Sea Trials
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
I think your question is more about positioning /alignment rather than just pure length (can make runways longer by making ship longer, which has impact on cost / tonnage/ hull design, speed and drag etc. Which you aren't interested in)RishiChatterjee wrote:One thing I have wondered about & would like to ask the Navy Gurus here. Why are the runways as long as they are?.. Won't a few dozen metres increase the takeoff payload of the jets?
Why not this?
Couple of factors may be relevant. viz sortie generation and safety.
1. Operations. Aircraft have to both land and take off. Simultaneous landing and take-off with safe separation provides an advantage tactically (sortie generation) and can have other benefits also. CATOBAR has advantages here s the starting position for launch does not interfere with the landing area.
For stobar, you can check the starting position; there is some interference, but not as huge as your proposal . Imagine an aircraft waiting / in position to take off and you have to find a way to land another.
I believe also part of the reason why the offset landing area gained favor historically over using a single linear deck.
The landing area has to have the arrestor wires, and in case of break/issue, or a 'bolter' safety issues should be minimized (bolter is when a plane fails to catch the wires, or wire breaks. The pilots therefore throttle up after landing so that they can go around ( a bit like a touch and go) so that if they catch the wire, it will bring them to a halt, and if they fail to, then they can take to the skies instead of the sea.
Also, there has to be space for navigation and landing lights (and also landing safety operations officer area in some designs). You will see the former at the tail, and the latter sometimes at the tail, sometimes at various spots at the sides.
Parking. Aircraft may be parked up top and operations area (take, off, landing, taxi) and the landing, take off and taxi needs to be clear of it.
I can't be definitive but above points seem relevant.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 125
- Joined: 19 Jun 2021 09:15
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Thanks for responding, but no, on the contrary... Here I removed the unnecessary complication (of trying to get both outside the landing strip). My question is why not continue the takeoff strip till the end?.. That'd have the jet utilise the maximum available length in the deck, why restrict the long-position to 206m instead of ±250m?Barath wrote:I think your question is more about positioning /alignment rather than just pure length (can make runways longer by making ship longer, which has impact on cost / tonnage/ hull design, speed and drag etc. Which you aren't interested in)
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Same answer.
You don't get longer line in the same flight deck without changing the angle and starting position.
I will also suggest you re-examine your assumption that changing the start position will increase payload. STOBAR carriers have their planes carefully picked for high thrust to weight.
Normal tactics also call for the carrier to make speed to increase velocity of air under the wing, and not every sortie needs MTOW
The Russian and Chinese carriers (admittedly larger) have the far heavier Su-33/J-15 take off from the long waist position at max MTOW under operational circumstances. Extending the line doesn't increase payload above MTOW in that circumstance.
https://thediplomat.com/2021/04/its-tim ... e-fighter/
Worth checking if the Mig29K can take off at MTOW similarly from the shorter Vikramaditya. Maybe if one put a heavily loaded SH or Rafale, (designed for a different circumstance) on a shorter STOBAR the question may come up again..
You don't get longer line in the same flight deck without changing the angle and starting position.
I will also suggest you re-examine your assumption that changing the start position will increase payload. STOBAR carriers have their planes carefully picked for high thrust to weight.
Normal tactics also call for the carrier to make speed to increase velocity of air under the wing, and not every sortie needs MTOW
The Russian and Chinese carriers (admittedly larger) have the far heavier Su-33/J-15 take off from the long waist position at max MTOW under operational circumstances. Extending the line doesn't increase payload above MTOW in that circumstance.
https://thediplomat.com/2021/04/its-tim ... e-fighter/
Worth checking if the Mig29K can take off at MTOW similarly from the shorter Vikramaditya. Maybe if one put a heavily loaded SH or Rafale, (designed for a different circumstance) on a shorter STOBAR the question may come up again..
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
The below is the simplest answer.RishiChatterjee wrote: why restrict the long-position to 206m instead of ±250m? [/img]
In the area where you have conveniently drawn a yellow line, you seem to have ignored two circles marked '5' & '6'. What do you think those circles are for? For sailors to play kabbadi?!Barath wrote: Parking. Aircraft may be parked up top and operations area (take, off, landing, taxi) and the landing, take off and taxi needs to be clear of it.
What you're calculating in terms of mere meters is actually a lot of square foot area which needs to be used for other purposes. I'm not a pilot, but based on flight simulator experience I can tell you that to take a fighter to that 250m position, turn it around and positioning it for takeoff will itself consume so much real estate (not to mention time,effort, jet fuel) that your suggestion becomes unviable.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/v ... nwc-review
A little old article (2018) from a Military Analyst who has conducted courses for Singapore armed forces. Link from US Naval War College Digital Commons.
Examining the potential use of the carrier in Indo Pak conflict. Unfortunately there are no similar arguments or publications from the Indian Navy, or associated think tanks. on *how* carriers would be used.
A little old article (2018) from a Military Analyst who has conducted courses for Singapore armed forces. Link from US Naval War College Digital Commons.
Examining the potential use of the carrier in Indo Pak conflict. Unfortunately there are no similar arguments or publications from the Indian Navy, or associated think tanks. on *how* carriers would be used.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
A Chinese Look at Vikrant
Via : Blank_eye00 on a different forum
Source : https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=170787 ... der&for=pc
Author: Xiao Xin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 9th, India's first domestically produced aircraft carrier, the Vikrant, completed its first five-day test voyage (sea trials) and returned to the Cochin shipyard in Southern India to continue its armoring work. The main purpose of the test was to test the performance and reliability of the Vikrant's hull structure, main propulsion system, power generation and distribution equipment and other auxiliary equipment. The return of India's first domestically produced aircraft carrier has also attracted widespread attention on the domestic Internet. However, given the current conflict between the Chinese and Indian peoples, online rhetoric is almost one-sided to belittle the aircraft carrier, then today we may wish to go the other way, specifically to talk about the advantages and innovations of the Vikrant.
It's one thing to have an aircraft carrier, quite another to be able to build it. At any time in history, there have been very few countries capable of designing and building capital ships independently. Such as in the early 20th century where the ability to build fearless ships was only limited to Britain, Germany, the United States, Japan, France, Italy, Russia - all total seven countries; Although many latter countries often douse water when advertising "autonomous design and construction", but on the whole, India's propaganda this time is also true - Vikrant's design work was designed by the Indian Naval Design Bureau with the assistance of the Russian Neva Design Bureau, which is mainly responsible for the ship's aircraft adaptation (Russian-Indian version of the "aeronautical complex"). The ship was built entirely by the Cochin Shipyard, with a localization rate of about 75 per cent for the entire aircraft carrier components and 100 per cent of the steel needed to build the aircraft carrier being supplied by domestic steel mills.
The benefits of designing and building an aircraft carrier at home speak for themselves, and in addition to the old political issues of "preventing foreign stranglehold on your necks", it also means that much of the money spent on aircraft carrier design and construction will go directly to the domestic economy and boost its functioning. According to India, 80 to 85 per cent of the roughly 200 billion rupees (about 17.4 billion yuan) invested in the aircraft carrier Vikrant has been reinvested in India's economic cycle. Construction of the Vikrant aircraft carrier directly provided about 2,000 jobs in India, in addition to about 550 Indian companies that provided services to the Vikrant, including about 100 small micro-enterprises. These companies have added about 40,000 jobs to India.
By all accounts, the difficulties faced by designers in India (and the Naval Bureau) are probably the greatest of any country. Behind the development of Indian aircraft carriers are many constraints. In terms of the size of the aircraft carrier, everyone knows that the bigger (heavier?) the aircraft carrier, of course, the better it is, but India does not have a strong shipbuilding industry like China, Japan and South Korea. Responsible for the construction of the aircraft carrier, Cochin shipyard has only two "large" dry docks, the larger one length of less than 270 meters, the short one length of about 260 meters, the width of the two dry docks are about 40 meters. This has led India to be unable to build as many aircraft carriers as other large countries with dozens of super-large docks more than 300 metres long.
Carrier size is limited, tonnage is also limited to death, can only have a standard displacment (?) of 40,000 tons or so of a medium-sized aircraft carrier. At this size and tonnage, the best choice for any country is the STOVL aircraft carrier. Such as Britain's Invincible, Italy's ACs and so on. However, STOVL aircraft carrier has quite harsh requirements for ship-borne aircraft, the world can still find STOVL carrier aircraft with F-35Bs. The former is too old to fight too poorly, and the latter is too advanced for India to buy at all.
Future French aircraft carrier ( Porte-avions de nouvelle génération) PANG
STOVL is not feasible, so we have to build an aircraft carrier to block the landing. But in the French experience, the length of about 260 meters, 40,000 tons of displacement capacity to block the landing of the aircraft carrier is still too hasty. As a result, France's next-generation aircraft carrier, the PANG, has increased its length to about 300 metres and its displacement to 75,000 tonnes. But unlike France, when designing the Vikrant, India could neither buy catapults nor eject take-off ship-borne aircraft ; So while the size is about the same, the Vikrant is bound to be more slobby than the deck of the Charles de Gaulle - the ski takes longer deck lengths, the ship's skid deck cannot park the aircraft, and the gas turbine's airway requirements make its island much larger than the Charles de Gaulle.
But it was in this unfavorable condition that the designers of India (and Naval Bureau) came up with a pretty good plan. In deck design, the ship continued and developed the overall design idea of the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya, combining the deck landing area with the take-off area into the ship-borne aircraft take-off and landing area, which was arranged on the left side of the flight deck. As we have said before, although this design sacrifices the aircraft carrier's ability to reclaim ship-borne aircraft while stationing aircraft at take-off points ready for emergency take-off, it significantly reduces the area of the ship-borne aircraft take-off and landing area, leaving plenty of room for the entire preparation area. This is very conducive to improving the aircraft carrier's aircraft generation efficiency, thereby improving its overall combat effectiveness. In preparation for take-off, in the deck, Vikrant can refuel and mount at least 18 ship-borne aircraft in total, and can support 15 carriers for hot-vehicle operations (current planning, more in practice).
In addition to the layout, another feature of the Vikrant aircraft carrier is that the deck is particularly "square". This means that the deck of the Vikrant actually has a larger area available at the same length and width. Of course, other countries are not unaware of the "square" of the carrier's deck, they know the truth. But there have always been several factors that have led to the need for aircraft carriers to "dig up". One is that aircraft carriers have to deploy near-defense weapons around the flight deck, and the other is that aircraft carriers that traditionally use blocking landings to recover ship-borne aircraft must have a slightly lower-than-deck LSO position at the end of the beveled deck. For example, the left-hand corner of the rear deck of a Ford-class aircraft carrier in the United States is significantly larger than the right side, a compromise made to facilitate the setting of LSO positions.
However, the left side of the rear deck of the Vikrant has no obvious angle cutting processing, the reason behind may be that it will be the LSO battle position set farther away from the deck landing area, and may not even have set up the traditional LSO battle position - at least not yet installed equipment. Either way, it will undoubtedly reduce the level of human-assisted participation in the ship-borne aircraft-carrying process, and the instrument-assisted ships (ILS) and automatic landing systems (ACLS), which have developed quite maturely over the past few decades, will be used as the more important ship-borne aircraft-assisted ship-assisted means. It's also an innovation.
Another design that allowed the deck of the Vikrant to be "squared" was the ship's self-defense weapon design. Traditional aircraft carriers generally only design near-defense weapons around the flight deck, most of which are a combination of near-defense guns and anti-aircraft missiles. In order to ensure the rotation range of anti-aircraft missiles and reduce the impact of tail flame on the ship's hull when launched, the platform for setting up anti-aircraft missiles is generally not too small. The Vikrant, on the other hand, chose to deploy only the AK-630 near-defense guns, which were actively small on the ground, around the deck, while at the same time placing a Barak-8 anti-aircraft missile launch system in an unusable position in front of the right side of the flight deck, doing its best to balance the ship's self-defense capability with the available area of the flight deck.
In addition, the bridge design of the Vikrant is also novel. Since the days of artillery, warship bridges have generally had smaller windows in order to achieve the best protection in wartime. This limits the view of the bridge. Since the Americans invented CIC during World War II, the importance of ship bridges in combat has become less and less, and the windows of aircraft carriers pursuing good vision have become larger and larger. But even Britain, which has a more aggressive aircraft carrier design, uses large floor-to-ceiling windows only on the sea-going bridges on the front and the airship bridges on the back-ship islands.
On board the Vikrant, however, the aviation, navigation, command bridge and deck control room at the rear of the ship's island are designed with large floor-to-ceiling windows, which optimizes the visibility of all bridges to the maximum extent possible and facilitate the ship's commanding personnel.
In general, designers in India (and the Naval Bureau) did their best to rationalize the design of the Vikrant under the most unfavourable conditions. India's industrial system has done its best to ensure the successful completion of the aircraft carrier. From a worldwide perspective, India's ability to design and build aircraft carriers is already ahead of Spain and even its own teacher, Russia, which is an absolute achievement. India's first domestic aircraft carrier does have many shortcomings, the future development of Indian aircraft carrier will encounter a considerable number of rather difficult to solve problems. But the emergence of the Vikrant shows that the future of India's aircraft carrier is not bleak.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article isn't perfect, but it's sad that most Indian publications/articles on Vikrant do not rise to the quality of this Chinese one
Via : Blank_eye00 on a different forum
Source : https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=170787 ... der&for=pc
Author: Xiao Xin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 9th, India's first domestically produced aircraft carrier, the Vikrant, completed its first five-day test voyage (sea trials) and returned to the Cochin shipyard in Southern India to continue its armoring work. The main purpose of the test was to test the performance and reliability of the Vikrant's hull structure, main propulsion system, power generation and distribution equipment and other auxiliary equipment. The return of India's first domestically produced aircraft carrier has also attracted widespread attention on the domestic Internet. However, given the current conflict between the Chinese and Indian peoples, online rhetoric is almost one-sided to belittle the aircraft carrier, then today we may wish to go the other way, specifically to talk about the advantages and innovations of the Vikrant.
It's one thing to have an aircraft carrier, quite another to be able to build it. At any time in history, there have been very few countries capable of designing and building capital ships independently. Such as in the early 20th century where the ability to build fearless ships was only limited to Britain, Germany, the United States, Japan, France, Italy, Russia - all total seven countries; Although many latter countries often douse water when advertising "autonomous design and construction", but on the whole, India's propaganda this time is also true - Vikrant's design work was designed by the Indian Naval Design Bureau with the assistance of the Russian Neva Design Bureau, which is mainly responsible for the ship's aircraft adaptation (Russian-Indian version of the "aeronautical complex"). The ship was built entirely by the Cochin Shipyard, with a localization rate of about 75 per cent for the entire aircraft carrier components and 100 per cent of the steel needed to build the aircraft carrier being supplied by domestic steel mills.
The benefits of designing and building an aircraft carrier at home speak for themselves, and in addition to the old political issues of "preventing foreign stranglehold on your necks", it also means that much of the money spent on aircraft carrier design and construction will go directly to the domestic economy and boost its functioning. According to India, 80 to 85 per cent of the roughly 200 billion rupees (about 17.4 billion yuan) invested in the aircraft carrier Vikrant has been reinvested in India's economic cycle. Construction of the Vikrant aircraft carrier directly provided about 2,000 jobs in India, in addition to about 550 Indian companies that provided services to the Vikrant, including about 100 small micro-enterprises. These companies have added about 40,000 jobs to India.
By all accounts, the difficulties faced by designers in India (and the Naval Bureau) are probably the greatest of any country. Behind the development of Indian aircraft carriers are many constraints. In terms of the size of the aircraft carrier, everyone knows that the bigger (heavier?) the aircraft carrier, of course, the better it is, but India does not have a strong shipbuilding industry like China, Japan and South Korea. Responsible for the construction of the aircraft carrier, Cochin shipyard has only two "large" dry docks, the larger one length of less than 270 meters, the short one length of about 260 meters, the width of the two dry docks are about 40 meters. This has led India to be unable to build as many aircraft carriers as other large countries with dozens of super-large docks more than 300 metres long.
Carrier size is limited, tonnage is also limited to death, can only have a standard displacment (?) of 40,000 tons or so of a medium-sized aircraft carrier. At this size and tonnage, the best choice for any country is the STOVL aircraft carrier. Such as Britain's Invincible, Italy's ACs and so on. However, STOVL aircraft carrier has quite harsh requirements for ship-borne aircraft, the world can still find STOVL carrier aircraft with F-35Bs. The former is too old to fight too poorly, and the latter is too advanced for India to buy at all.
Future French aircraft carrier ( Porte-avions de nouvelle génération) PANG
STOVL is not feasible, so we have to build an aircraft carrier to block the landing. But in the French experience, the length of about 260 meters, 40,000 tons of displacement capacity to block the landing of the aircraft carrier is still too hasty. As a result, France's next-generation aircraft carrier, the PANG, has increased its length to about 300 metres and its displacement to 75,000 tonnes. But unlike France, when designing the Vikrant, India could neither buy catapults nor eject take-off ship-borne aircraft ; So while the size is about the same, the Vikrant is bound to be more slobby than the deck of the Charles de Gaulle - the ski takes longer deck lengths, the ship's skid deck cannot park the aircraft, and the gas turbine's airway requirements make its island much larger than the Charles de Gaulle.
But it was in this unfavorable condition that the designers of India (and Naval Bureau) came up with a pretty good plan. In deck design, the ship continued and developed the overall design idea of the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya, combining the deck landing area with the take-off area into the ship-borne aircraft take-off and landing area, which was arranged on the left side of the flight deck. As we have said before, although this design sacrifices the aircraft carrier's ability to reclaim ship-borne aircraft while stationing aircraft at take-off points ready for emergency take-off, it significantly reduces the area of the ship-borne aircraft take-off and landing area, leaving plenty of room for the entire preparation area. This is very conducive to improving the aircraft carrier's aircraft generation efficiency, thereby improving its overall combat effectiveness. In preparation for take-off, in the deck, Vikrant can refuel and mount at least 18 ship-borne aircraft in total, and can support 15 carriers for hot-vehicle operations (current planning, more in practice).
In addition to the layout, another feature of the Vikrant aircraft carrier is that the deck is particularly "square". This means that the deck of the Vikrant actually has a larger area available at the same length and width. Of course, other countries are not unaware of the "square" of the carrier's deck, they know the truth. But there have always been several factors that have led to the need for aircraft carriers to "dig up". One is that aircraft carriers have to deploy near-defense weapons around the flight deck, and the other is that aircraft carriers that traditionally use blocking landings to recover ship-borne aircraft must have a slightly lower-than-deck LSO position at the end of the beveled deck. For example, the left-hand corner of the rear deck of a Ford-class aircraft carrier in the United States is significantly larger than the right side, a compromise made to facilitate the setting of LSO positions.
However, the left side of the rear deck of the Vikrant has no obvious angle cutting processing, the reason behind may be that it will be the LSO battle position set farther away from the deck landing area, and may not even have set up the traditional LSO battle position - at least not yet installed equipment. Either way, it will undoubtedly reduce the level of human-assisted participation in the ship-borne aircraft-carrying process, and the instrument-assisted ships (ILS) and automatic landing systems (ACLS), which have developed quite maturely over the past few decades, will be used as the more important ship-borne aircraft-assisted ship-assisted means. It's also an innovation.
Another design that allowed the deck of the Vikrant to be "squared" was the ship's self-defense weapon design. Traditional aircraft carriers generally only design near-defense weapons around the flight deck, most of which are a combination of near-defense guns and anti-aircraft missiles. In order to ensure the rotation range of anti-aircraft missiles and reduce the impact of tail flame on the ship's hull when launched, the platform for setting up anti-aircraft missiles is generally not too small. The Vikrant, on the other hand, chose to deploy only the AK-630 near-defense guns, which were actively small on the ground, around the deck, while at the same time placing a Barak-8 anti-aircraft missile launch system in an unusable position in front of the right side of the flight deck, doing its best to balance the ship's self-defense capability with the available area of the flight deck.
In addition, the bridge design of the Vikrant is also novel. Since the days of artillery, warship bridges have generally had smaller windows in order to achieve the best protection in wartime. This limits the view of the bridge. Since the Americans invented CIC during World War II, the importance of ship bridges in combat has become less and less, and the windows of aircraft carriers pursuing good vision have become larger and larger. But even Britain, which has a more aggressive aircraft carrier design, uses large floor-to-ceiling windows only on the sea-going bridges on the front and the airship bridges on the back-ship islands.
On board the Vikrant, however, the aviation, navigation, command bridge and deck control room at the rear of the ship's island are designed with large floor-to-ceiling windows, which optimizes the visibility of all bridges to the maximum extent possible and facilitate the ship's commanding personnel.
In general, designers in India (and the Naval Bureau) did their best to rationalize the design of the Vikrant under the most unfavourable conditions. India's industrial system has done its best to ensure the successful completion of the aircraft carrier. From a worldwide perspective, India's ability to design and build aircraft carriers is already ahead of Spain and even its own teacher, Russia, which is an absolute achievement. India's first domestic aircraft carrier does have many shortcomings, the future development of Indian aircraft carrier will encounter a considerable number of rather difficult to solve problems. But the emergence of the Vikrant shows that the future of India's aircraft carrier is not bleak.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article isn't perfect, but it's sad that most Indian publications/articles on Vikrant do not rise to the quality of this Chinese one
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
I will add a few pics which may be helpful to the original poster [Rishi Chatterjee]sajaym wrote:
In the area where you have conveniently drawn a yellow line, you seem to have ignored two circles marked '5' & '6'. What do you think those circles are for? For sailors to play kabbadi?!
... I can tell you that to take a fighter to that 250m position, turn it around and positioning it for takeoff will itself consume so much real estate (not to mention time,effort, jet fuel) that your suggestion becomes unviable.
Pic of INS Vikramaditya
Here Rishi can see how the planes are parked; look at the positioning of the aft most Migs parked and imagine it taxi-ing to take off. You can also see that one aft circle is occupied by a chopper. As the carriers also operate choppers, which can come in for VTOL, you need to prepare for those, too
This pic shows a Mig at the aftmost position and choppers ahead.
Source via quora which shows bits of a Mig taxi-ing and deck markings but not great.
comparitive between Vikramaditya and Vikrant, in case there were any doubts. Even Kuznetsov, has similar markings, though that carrier uses blast deflectors behind the take-off points, (which Vikramaditya doesn't). There are also other differences such as position of short take-off point, missiles near the bow etc.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Source : https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=170787 ... der&for=pc
Author: Xiao Xin
I find Chinese assessments on Indian strategic thinking and military quite interesting ., it also keeps in context Russian assessments on India as well.
It might be as well that the move towards the IAC 2 is gathering pace and build on the capabilities in place
Author: Xiao Xin
I find Chinese assessments on Indian strategic thinking and military quite interesting ., it also keeps in context Russian assessments on India as well.
It might be as well that the move towards the IAC 2 is gathering pace and build on the capabilities in place
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5393
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
The comparison picture on the live fist Twitter handle is incorrect wrt the short take off position for the 29 on the vikad. That position is actually much closer to the tower and cnc structures.Barath wrote:sajaym wrote:
comparitive between Vikramaditya and Vikrant, in case there were any doubts..
I'm actually surprised that both take off positions are smack in the middle of the landing strip on the Vikrant. With a much wider deck, wonder why they didn't put it closer to the starboard side like on the kuz Might've allowed for simultaneous landing and take off ops.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
It's a design decision. Simultaneous takeoff & landings with 2 ski-jump paths + 1 landing path take up a lot more real estate than 2 catapult + 1 landing path. But opting out of simultaneous takeoff & landings, we greatly increase the parking & handling deck area (aided by deck edge lifts on Vikrant vs. VikAd's deck center lifts). A large parking & handling area will enable the carrier to rapidly fly off a squadron-sized strike group. This comes at the expense of having 2 aircraft ready for emergency launch while waiting to recover a strike groupCain Marko wrote: I'm actually surprised that both take off positions are smack in the middle of the landing strip on the Vikrant. With a much wider deck, wonder why they didn't put it closer to the starboard side like on the kuz Might've allowed for simultaneous landing and take off ops.
In a scenario where the Vikrant has launched 16 Mig-29Ks at Gwadar and is in the process of recovering them when a flight of JF-17s are spotted heading for the carrier...what do you do? Possibly the destroyers launch a massed Barak-8 volley, or 2 of the returning MiG-29s low on fuel are diverted to intercept and mission-kill the incoming strike. Once the JF-17s are beaten off, the 2 MiGs may have to ditch for lack of fuel and the aircrew rescued via helicopter. But this is probably a worst case scenario. Most likely a 2-ship CAP would be launched once it was known the MiGs are on their way back. That would give some coverage...
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
I should hope that they have a 2 ship CAP aloft, 2 more to spell them and a couple more in reserve.
Though that might mean shortchanging the strike package slightly.
Though that might mean shortchanging the strike package slightly.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 61836?s=20 ---> IAC-1 with fixed wings.
Further plans:
3x IMRH (AEW)
3x IMRH (ASW/AShW)
4x ALH (utility)
Estimate : 20 fixed + 10 rotary
Suggestions are welcome
Further plans:
3x IMRH (AEW)
3x IMRH (ASW/AShW)
4x ALH (utility)
Estimate : 20 fixed + 10 rotary
Suggestions are welcome
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
In such a case (where simultaneous takeoffs and landings are not supported), could they have gone further and removed the angled deck itself ? This would have allowed the ramp to move more towards portside and given a lot more real estate for parking.titash wrote:It's a design decision. Simultaneous takeoff & landings with 2 ski-jump paths + 1 landing path take up a lot more real estate than 2 catapult + 1 landing path. But opting out of simultaneous takeoff & landings, we greatly increase the parking & handling deck area (aided by deck edge lifts on Vikrant vs. VikAd's deck center lifts). A large parking & handling area will enable the carrier to rapidly fly off a squadron-sized strike group. This comes at the expense of having 2 aircraft ready for emergency launch while waiting to recover a strike groupCain Marko wrote: I'm actually surprised that both take off positions are smack in the middle of the landing strip on the Vikrant. With a much wider deck, wonder why they didn't put it closer to the starboard side like on the kuz Might've allowed for simultaneous landing and take off ops.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Angled deck is a safety requirement. It cannot be done away for arrested recovery landing.
If landing is vertical then you can conceivably do it.
If landing is vertical then you can conceivably do it.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
We are worrying about a scenario, which is I feel is not realistic.titash wrote:In a scenario where the Vikrant has launched 16 Mig-29Ks at Gwadar and is in the process of recovering them when a flight of JF-17s are spotted heading for the carrier...what do you do? Possibly the destroyers launch a massed Barak-8 volley, or 2 of the returning MiG-29s low on fuel are diverted to intercept and mission-kill the incoming strike. Once the JF-17s are beaten off, the 2 MiGs may have to ditch for lack of fuel and the aircrew rescued via helicopter. But this is probably a worst case scenario. Most likely a 2-ship CAP would be launched once it was known the MiGs are on their way back. That would give some coverage...
1. No commander would launch all the fixed wings for strike. Ideally 25% should stay home, to provide cover to the fleet and other contingencies.
2. The radar bubble of a carrier gives enough warning to delay landing for 3 minutes, launch the defender and start the process of recovery and hot refueling.
3. A takeoff run is 30sec only.
4. The incoming fighters would be making evasive maneuvers in the last 100 kms. due to LRSAM.
5. The other defenders of fleet read frigate would be further 50 nautical miles away from the carrier and creating their own radar bubble with LRSAM defended space.
All in all you would have a sanitized space of almost 300km away from the Vikrant, where no enemy aircraft would dare. So in my opinion they planned correctly.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
JF17s could be carrying AShMs, so they could launch their payload from 200-300Kms away. However before they launch, the exact location of carrier needs to be ascertained - that location confirmation sortie might in itself be much difficult to pull through. MFStar can easily locate LRMP aircrafts from 400+kms away. Those LRMPs might in themselves be brought down by CAPs.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
YashG' which missile Bakistan and Cheen have that is AShM and can be launched outside or at 300Km boundry and slewed to Bandar? Leave alone 600km or 1800 Km perimeter?YashG wrote:JF17s could be carrying AShMs, so they could launch their payload from 200-300Kms away.
On Brochure (and since we all suffer from Brochuritis), we assume the following:
1. JF-17 Bandar flies and flies well.
2. It can launch the most advanced YJ-12 subsonic/terminal supersonic cruise missile
3. And it can do all of the above outside the bubble of the carrier group.
You know that the Indian carrier group not just consists of the carrier, but also destroyers, frigates and corvettes and a submarine along with a supply ship.
And all of them will have Radars. And they can be spaced out in the vast ocean, easily giving a 1800 km bubble. It can be more.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
A carrier has organic defense and an escort. You aren't really going to stress that (given the Carrier has the flexibility to stand-off and move hundreds of km's over the course of even a short campaign) with AShM's on a fighter. The defenses, and keep out abilities will ensure that this remains a fairly manageable threat especially when the potential threat comes from light-medium fighters like JF-17 or F-16.
The most credible air-launched threat is and will come from the H-6 and the future H-20 bombers. Those can carry missiles across the range and performance spectrum (including ALBM's and supersonic-hypersonic cruise missiles) and do so in volume. A combined H-6/H-20 and J-20 strike is something that is leading some of the requirements for the US Navy's future fighter plans. Its not the strike fighters that you want to spend much time worrying about because the Carrier and the escort can more than handle those because these limited platforms have to trade the # of weapons they carry to get higher performance (long range or supersonic/hypersonic weapons are big and heavy thus limit magazines on tactical aircraft).
The most credible air-launched threat is and will come from the H-6 and the future H-20 bombers. Those can carry missiles across the range and performance spectrum (including ALBM's and supersonic-hypersonic cruise missiles) and do so in volume. A combined H-6/H-20 and J-20 strike is something that is leading some of the requirements for the US Navy's future fighter plans. Its not the strike fighters that you want to spend much time worrying about because the Carrier and the escort can more than handle those because these limited platforms have to trade the # of weapons they carry to get higher performance (long range or supersonic/hypersonic weapons are big and heavy thus limit magazines on tactical aircraft).
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Yes JF17 can carry a good AShM is an assumption only, but even then it will not be possible for pakistan to come and release their payload --> because they will not have specific target location. LRMPs that may acquire the target themselves be a toast.disha wrote:YashG' which missile Bakistan and Cheen have that is AShM and can be launched outside or at 300Km boundry and slewed to Bandar? Leave alone 600km or 1800 Km perimeter?YashG wrote:JF17s could be carrying AShMs, so they could launch their payload from 200-300Kms away.
On Brochure (and since we all suffer from Brochuritis), we assume the following:
1. JF-17 Bandar flies and flies well.
2. It can launch the most advanced YJ-12 subsonic/terminal supersonic cruise missile
3. And it can do all of the above outside the bubble of the carrier group.
You know that the Indian carrier group not just consists of the carrier, but also destroyers, frigates and corvettes and a submarine along with a supply ship.
And all of them will have Radars. And they can be spaced out in the vast ocean, easily giving a 1800 km bubble. It can be more.
I'm saying A-->B, A only isnt possible. You're saying B is also not possible. Even better.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 88037?s=20 --->
'All onboard'
IAC-1 / INS Vikrant with 30 aircrafts comprising of
* 12x TEDBF
* 8x NLCA
* 6x ALH (utility)
* 2x IMRH (ASW)
* 2x IMRH (AEW)
https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 91136?s=20 --->
Correction: 14x Teddys and 6x NLCAs
'All onboard'
IAC-1 / INS Vikrant with 30 aircrafts comprising of
* 12x TEDBF
* 8x NLCA
* 6x ALH (utility)
* 2x IMRH (ASW)
* 2x IMRH (AEW)
https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 91136?s=20 --->
Correction: 14x Teddys and 6x NLCAs
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
When L & T was bidding to build ships for IN at 1.7 times the cost of steel, why and how did this IAC-1 cost rs 23,000 crores?
Looked at the steel price in India today, it is about RS 45,000/ Ton. Say the specialized steel is even double that price or round it off to 1 lakh rupees/ton. Then a 45K ton ship should cost about Rs 4.5 billion X 1.7 (Rs 7.65 Billion or about Rs 8 billion) and not Rs 230 billion.
The whole ship is not made with that steel, only certain structures weighing about 29K tons are made with the specialized steel (DMR 249a grade steel)
Looked at the steel price in India today, it is about RS 45,000/ Ton. Say the specialized steel is even double that price or round it off to 1 lakh rupees/ton. Then a 45K ton ship should cost about Rs 4.5 billion X 1.7 (Rs 7.65 Billion or about Rs 8 billion) and not Rs 230 billion.
The whole ship is not made with that steel, only certain structures weighing about 29K tons are made with the specialized steel (DMR 249a grade steel)
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
It's not only cost of steel alone. You need engines, propulsion equipment, radars, CIWS, lifts, Arrestor cables, salaries to be paid for the workmen etc. 23k crores is cheap for a Vikrant class aircraft carrier.rajsunder wrote:When L & T was bidding to build ships for IN at 1.7 times the cost of steel, why and how did this IAC-1 cost rs 23,000 crores?
Looked at the steel price in India today, it is about RS 45,000/ Ton. Say the specialized steel is even double that price or round it off to 1 lakh rupees/ton. Then a 45K ton ship should cost about Rs 4.5 billion X 1.7 (Rs 7.65 Billion or about Rs 8 billion) and not Rs 230 billion.
The whole ship is not made with that steel, only certain structures weighing about 29K tons are made with the specialized steel (DMR 249a grade steel)
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Raw good vs finished good have no correlation.rajsunder wrote:When L & T was bidding to build ships for IN at 1.7 times the cost of steel, why and how did this IAC-1 cost rs 23,000 crores?
Looked at the steel price in India today, it is about RS 45,000/ Ton. Say the specialized steel is even double that price or round it off to 1 lakh rupees/ton. Then a 45K ton ship should cost about Rs 4.5 billion X 1.7 (Rs 7.65 Billion or about Rs 8 billion) and not Rs 230 billion.
The whole ship is not made with that steel, only certain structures weighing about 29K tons are made with the specialized steel (DMR 249a grade steel)
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Let's start cutting the plate for the next AC. It's too late already
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
I gave you the Bid made my L & T to build ships for Indian navy where the bid was costing about 1.7 times the material needed to build the ship and the bid was won by Government ship builder which won the bid by bidding it at a loss.Cybaru wrote:Raw good vs finished good have no correlation.rajsunder wrote:When L & T was bidding to build ships for IN at 1.7 times the cost of steel, why and how did this IAC-1 cost rs 23,000 crores?
Looked at the steel price in India today, it is about RS 45,000/ Ton. Say the specialized steel is even double that price or round it off to 1 lakh rupees/ton. Then a 45K ton ship should cost about Rs 4.5 billion X 1.7 (Rs 7.65 Billion or about Rs 8 billion) and not Rs 230 billion.
The whole ship is not made with that steel, only certain structures weighing about 29K tons are made with the specialized steel (DMR 249a grade steel)
The article that i quoted in my argument
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2018/03/priv ... e-off.html
“Our final quote was about 1.7 times the basic material price, to cover the other costs. But our public sector competitors’ quotes were just 1.1 or 1.2 times the basic material price. Clearly, they did not need to factor the costs that we did,” said Patil.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Even an American CIWS costs about $5.6 million(from google), even with 4 CIWS it should not cost more than $22 million. Russian CIWS that we use would be cheaper.Rupesh wrote:It's not only cost of steel alone. You need engines, propulsion equipment, radars, CIWS, lifts, Arrestor cables, salaries to be paid for the workmen etc. 23k crores is cheap for a Vikrant class aircraft carrier.rajsunder wrote:When L & T was bidding to build ships for IN at 1.7 times the cost of steel, why and how did this IAC-1 cost rs 23,000 crores?
Looked at the steel price in India today, it is about RS 45,000/ Ton. Say the specialized steel is even double that price or round it off to 1 lakh rupees/ton. Then a 45K ton ship should cost about Rs 4.5 billion X 1.7 (Rs 7.65 Billion or about Rs 8 billion) and not Rs 230 billion.
The whole ship is not made with that steel, only certain structures weighing about 29K tons are made with the specialized steel (DMR 249a grade steel)
Lifts, Arrestor Wires, Salaries should be taken care by the .7 part of the 1.7 times materials bid cost.
The only costly Item would be the radar and its associated electronics, lets say the cost is about $500 million. Even then the cost should be about Rs 50 Billion and not Rs 230 Billion.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 66373?s=20 ---->
IAC-1, the most complex warship ever built in india.
Crew: 1,700
Top Speed: 28 Knots
Cruising Speed: 18 Knots
Endurance: 7,500 Nautical Miles
Displacement: 40,000 Tonnes
IAC-1, the most complex warship ever built in india.
Crew: 1,700
Top Speed: 28 Knots
Cruising Speed: 18 Knots
Endurance: 7,500 Nautical Miles
Displacement: 40,000 Tonnes
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
^^^ From the bow wave, seem to be going at a decent clip and yet without any smoke plume. There are a lot of missile hatches in the front sponson and hope the missiles could be a combo of SRSAM and (if exists) a navalized Akash-NG. Will be one hell of a self-supporting platform
(wonder why the chinese review said the front missile sponson is useless, while the one at back did not attract that comment?)
(wonder why the chinese review said the front missile sponson is useless, while the one at back did not attract that comment?)
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
I am seeing UCAVs and TEDBF.
https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 38983?s=20 ---> My 65K ton IAC-2 (70% complete).
https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 38983?s=20 ---> My 65K ton IAC-2 (70% complete).
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
'Money Spent on Indigenous Aircraft Carrier No Waste; Need Airpower Now': Navy Chief
https://www.news18.com/news/india/exclu ... 25459.html
16 October 2021
https://www.news18.com/news/india/exclu ... 25459.html
16 October 2021
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/145 ... 49923?s=20 ---> The new Vikrant aircraft carrier sailed out today from Kochi for the second phase of its sea trials:
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 10754?s=20 ---> CDS General Bipin Rawat and CNS Admiral Karambir Singh to visit Britain's Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier today.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
No MF STAR IMO it looks like it will be fitted with SRSAM instead of Barak-8 once that is ready and use RAN-40l for target acquisition and a domestic alternative for MF-STAR when it is ready (may not be till next refit 2030?).
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
VIDEO. Please click on link below...
https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 79429?s=20 ---> WATCH: IAC 1 Vikrant stretches her sea legs for the second phase of Sea Trials out into the Arabian Sea.
https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 79429?s=20 ---> WATCH: IAC 1 Vikrant stretches her sea legs for the second phase of Sea Trials out into the Arabian Sea.
Re: INS Vikrant News and Discussion
Have they put arrest or wires? I cannot make that out from the picture