Indian Naval Discussion

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sankum » 15 Jun 2012 22:51

On deck 12 mig 29k plus 2 Helos are likely while my estimate are hanger can atmost carry 14 mig29k's and 10Helos . The total maximum aircraft that is surge load is 26 mig 29k and 12 Helos that is 38nos.

While in strike package the hanger can carry 17 mig29k and 4 Helos i.e, 29 Mig29k and 6 helos =35 nos.

This is based on hanger dimension estimate of 145m by 22m. As Cavour has hanger dimension of 134m by 21m and IAC is enlarged Cavour design.

Though normal load is 12mig29k +8NLCA +10Helos=30nos with 17 carried in Hanger according to reports.

The maximum surge load is on the basis of dense paking of mig29ks on INS Vikramaditya where 13 mig 29k +4 Helos are carried in Hanger and 11 mig29 + 2Helos on deck. Total of 24 mig29k +6 helos=30.

IAC will be able carry 5 more Mig29ks than INS Vikramaditya in strike role due to more space as it is designed as aircraft carrier from ground up.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2610
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 15 Jun 2012 23:02

Another jalshawa or two should be added. In case of operations all heli operations can be moved to it. While all fighter ops can be performed from the two aircraft carriers. A two carrier force could easily bring about 60-70 aircraft to a fight for sustained 50 aircraft aviable at any given time. Two jalshawa's could easily carry 24 heli for round the clock ASW/AsuW sweeps.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3973
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Jun 2012 02:45

whats the deal with sending your latest warships to a potential adversarys sea port ? will china send their latest subs to a indian port on a good will mission ? (though they might as well do that on an offensive purpose)

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3282
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kakkaji » 16 Jun 2012 07:08

kit wrote:whats the deal with sending your latest warships to a potential adversarys sea port ? will china send their latest subs to a indian port on a good will mission ? (though they might as well do that on an offensive purpose)


It was a CBM :wink:

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 16 Jun 2012 12:31

tejas wrote:Inside Vikramaditya:

Image

Image



LOOKS PRIMITIVE

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 16 Jun 2012 12:32

tejas wrote:GD, if the dials are more rugged and cheaper I'm all for them. It just seems like we paid Western prices for Eastern (Russian) quality. If somehow the extra money was quid pro quo for Arihant help, it's all good, But it just seems like the Russians have been screwing India lately.


:(( :(( :((

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12164
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Jun 2012 12:41

Kersi D wrote:
tejas wrote:GD, if the dials are more rugged and cheaper I'm all for them. It just seems like we paid Western prices for Eastern (Russian) quality. If somehow the extra money was quid pro quo for Arihant help, it's all good, But it just seems like the Russians have been screwing India lately.


:(( :(( :((


Boss, we were trying to keep/reduce the price of upgradation to the minimum, those 80's Boiler Engine related dials/instruments as the cost of putting a TFTA control room may not have bought any benefits. The journos would have hardly been should the radar control room etc, commander controls where the buld of money has been spent. Can we jusity costs for gettign these upgraded?

Do we need a Glass cockpit for the Anchor control??

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3973
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Jun 2012 16:37

looks as if nothing much has changed ! ah of course the cabling ! maybe it was a cosmetic job (for the outside).. it does cost a lot nowadays :lol:

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12164
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Jun 2012 16:44

So we look at Anchor Controls of Ship and deceide nothing has changed??? We need a Glass cockpit for that control??

What about the new generation radars ,related electronics, cables for landing arrestors, hull work, removal of soviet missiles, completly new avionics, adding a new generation command systems etc.

People this is not the Captain's room, its Anchor controls and basic Ship engine controls, mordernising this control would not have added much value so IN probably skipped it.

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1415
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sooraj » 16 Jun 2012 19:23

Behold the stride of the sun !! (Vikramaditya)


Image
Image
Image
Image

video of the same in mist

Vashishtha
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 23:06
Location: look behind you

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vashishtha » 16 Jun 2012 21:47

^^Superb pics
Had a question, not sure if it was asked somewhere here before or where to post it...
Can the mig 29's be equipped with nuclear weapons?
If yes, can the mig 29K's on board vikramaditya be loaded similarly?

It would make the vikr. an awesome second strike platform...

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SaiK » 16 Jun 2012 22:04

are you thinking tactical nukes?

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Christopher Sidor » 16 Jun 2012 22:17

^^^^
Combat radius ?? If we are talking about tactical nuclear weapons, i.e. weapons targeting a US CBG or chinese naval squadron then it can be thought off, though I have my doubts of the same. At current combat radius of Mig-29K, it would be impractical to have strategic strike options based out of carrier fighters.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Eric Leiderman » 16 Jun 2012 23:15

Inside Vikramaditya:

The old dials and automation, it is not just a question of cosmetics.
To give an example say u have a hydraulic gauge showing a pressure of 50 bar, This is connected to a metal pipe of say 1/2inch dia which is connected to the eqquipment being monitored.
If this pipe were to give way you would loose the indication (the gauge) but more importantly u will now have 50 bar oil spewing out somewhere on the ship, and effectively one of your critical systems is now suspect.(it is going to run out of hydraulic oil)
That is the main reason modern ships have gone with pressure transducers and other electronic sensors.
This is just one gauge I am talking about, U will have scorees of them carrying oil, air, lubes, water , sewage, to name a few
what happens if you have multiple fractures on systems simultanously. (after all this is a vessel designed for war and to take a hit if necessary) So I would suspect on a future MLU (mid life upgrade) this will be done. As had been mentioned earlier at the time of the deal this was the best option available (some say the only option) so lets look ahead.

Vashishtha
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 23:06
Location: look behind you

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vashishtha » 17 Jun 2012 03:32

are you thinking tactical nukes?


Yeap.

At current combat radius of Mig-29K, it would be impractical to have strategic strike options based out of carrier fighters.


For a ferry range of only 2000 km, I have to agree with you on that one. But striking a chinese CBG would not be out of question...

Oh, and mig 29's can be modified to carry nuclear weapons... Check this link out.
http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=1197

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 17 Jun 2012 10:02

are those two typhoons still active or laid up awaiting scrapping?

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3422
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 17 Jun 2012 10:13

Excellent summary of current carried and LHD and LPH developments across the world by Bill Sweetman.

Quite clearly, ship building in these classes of ships is on the upswing, but Harrier replacement is only one - F-35B. Irrespective of MiG-29K and Rafale-M acquisitions, F-35B acquisition will beneficial to us if we acuqire Juan Carlos/Cavour/Mistral type designs. IMHO multiple ships of this class make more sense than pure Aircraft Carriers alone.

A second option is to buy more sea capable attack helicopters like AH-64 Apache, Tigre and KA-52. These can operate along with a mix of Merlins and KA-31s.

We may also have to look at V-22 at some point or at least look at the Brazilian option.

This comes at a time when even the Sea Kings are getting old - Merlin is the best option given that IAF is also acquiring a variant of the same.

Navies Worldwide Invest In Sea-Based Airpower
By Andy Nativi, Jay Menon, Bill Sweetman
Source: Defense Technology International
April 01, 2012
Andy Nativi•Genoa, jay Menon•New Delhi and Bill Sweetman•Washington

Not that long ago, the number of nations wielding sea-based airpower seemed to be headed inexorably downward. Today, the reverse is true. China is a brand-new member of the club. Brazil is sustaining its membership, a decade after retiring a carrier that the U.K. completed in 1945. India is expanding its aircraft carrier fleet, and the nations that acquired or maintained sea-based airpower with the short-take-off-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) Harrier may renew that capability with the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter.

However, a common factor for almost all these nations is that they are just starting, or have yet to start, down a long and expensive road. It is not just that carrier-based aircraft are expensive, but that buying fighters and ships is only half the story.

Although public attention is always focused on the construction cost of carriers, its aircraft are a bigger investment. In 2013, the U.S. Navy wants $967 million for its aircraft carrier program and about $6 billion for procurement of carrier-based aircraft (not including Marine Corps F-35Bs). The operating costs involved in training and supporting the carrier's personnel, fuel and aircraft spares and refits are higher still. And the basic math says that you need three carrier groups for every full-time station.

Nations see the cost as justified, as sea trade and offshore resources gain importance and as as the use of insurgency-type attacks for national ends turns land-based deployed forces into targets. The question is whether all would-be carrier club members recognize that building the ship is the initiation fee and that the annual dues are a killer.

Money has already sparked a conflict within the British defense establishment over the aircraft type for the Royal Navy's new carriers (see p. 27). It may not be the last such discussion. With Britain still officially committed to the catapult-arrest F-35C—at least as of late March—Italy is leading the way among sea-based Harrier operators. The carrier Cavour has been designed around the Stovl F-35B.

Italy, Spain and India remain the sole operators of first or second-generation Harrier Stovl fighter-bombers, with Thailand having no longer a real operational capability.

Italy's Cavour is a hybrid vessel. It does not have a well deck but is designed to support amphibious operations. It has a full load displacement of 27,000 tons and is 244 meters (800 ft.) long. Its hangar can accommodate up to 10 F-35Bs, with flight-deck parking for another six F-35Bs and two helicopters.

Cavour illustrates the fact that small carriers must be bigger than they used to be, to sustain real air operations. Compared with Italy's “Harrier carrier,” the Garibaldi, Cavour is 64 meters longer and the flight deck has a total surface of 6,800 square meters (73,200 sq. ft.), with 4,450 square meters devoted to flight operations, versus 1,870 square meters on the Garibaldi.

The Italian navy plans to buy 22 F-35Bs to replace 16 remaining Harriers. Its long-term planning includes acquisition of two large JSF-capable LHDs and an LHA (similar but with no well deck) to replace the Garibaldi and three smaller LHDs. This will allow Italy to have at least one carrier operational at any time.

The Spanish navy is moving from its carrier Principe de Asturias to the large LHD Juan Carlos. It is currently operating 16 EAV-8B Plus aircraft, but would like to buy as many as 20 F-35Bs, budget permitting. The Juan Carlos is estimated to be able to operate no more than a dozen F-35Bs, because of its size and the fact that it has a well deck.

Multiple nations are acquiring large LHDs that could carry F-35Bs. Australia is to commission the LHDs Canberra and Adelaide in 2014 and 2015 respectively, which are based on the Juan Carlos design, even including the ski-jump bow—which is valuable for Stovl operations, but a penalty the rest of the time, since the sloping deck space is unavailable for anything else.

Japan has in service the Hyuga-class destroyer—a 200- meter-long, 20,000-ton vessel that can host 11 rotorcraft, and could lead to an F-35B-capable design. Japan, like Australia, is to acquire the F-35A for the air force. South Korea has yet another Asian navy that is considering building a large LHD, beyond the 18,000-ton Dokdo LPH.

China and India could start a “carrier race” in the Pacific Rim. A dual-role ship class—a large LHA/LHD capable of operating jets—is a cheaper, less politically and strategically sensitive naval vessel that can provide substantial capabilities if fitted with a supersonic, stealth fighter bomber.

The question is how many countries will buy F-35Bs to operate from LHDs. The LHD is a multimission ship that has to carry landing craft, helicopters, troops and vehicles and a command center and staff. Even in a ship of close to 30,000 tons, space is at a premium.

The F-35B is a complex aircraft, as heavy and powerful as a Super Hornet, and will have similar demands for maintenance personnel and space, test equipment, spares and fuel. The U.S. Marines, working with 50,000-ton ships, tried trading the well deck on the LHA-6 and LHA-7 for extra fuel and aviation space, but will not repeat that with LHA-8 and beyond.

Compared with true carriers LHDs have narrower flight decks, which limit the pace of flight operations. Another important factor will be the acquisition and operating cost of the F-35B, which has yet to be defined.

India is taking a different approach to expanding its carrier operations—although it is one that tends to underline India's reputation for a scattershot approach to acquisitions.

Sea trials of the carrier INS Vikramaditya, formerly the Russian Kiev-class Admiral Gorshkov, are scheduled to begin in the Barents Sea on May 29 and last two to three weeks. Its much-delayed handover to the Indian navy is due on Dec. 4.

Major changes to the ship include the removal of cruise missile tube and surface-to-air missile vertical launchers and the installation of a forward flight deck and ski-jump for short-takeoff-but-assisted-recovery (Stobar) operations. The ship can carry 24 MiG-29K/KUBs—developed specially for India—and six to eight Kamov Ka-31 airborne early warning helicopters.

The first MiG-29K/KUB fighter jets are already operating at the naval aviation base at Goa. These are from an initial batch of 11 aircraft ordered at the same time that the carrier deal was signed. India and Russia inked an additional $1.5 billion deal for 29 more MiG-29K/KUBs in March 2010. Delivery of the second batch of MiG fighters will start this year. The contracts include pilot training and aircraft maintenance, including the delivery of flight simulators and interactive ground and sea-based training systems.

These upgrades include a new avionics kit, with the N-109 radar being replaced by Phazotron Zhuk-M radar. The aircraft will also feature enhanced beyond-visual-range combat ability and air-to-air refueling.

The MiG-29K will also operate from India's indigenous aircraft carrier. Construction of the first of these 40,000-ton, 260-meter-long ships, named Vikrant, started in April 2005.

The new carrier will cost $762 million and will operate MiG-29K, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) Naval Tejas and Sea Harrier aircraft along with the Indian-developed HAL Dhruv helicopter.

India has indicated that at least two further carriers of the same or similar designs to INS Vikrant are planned. The first of these, to be named INS Viraat started construction in 2011 and is due to be commissioned in 2017. A $2 billion deal for the purchase of 45 more MiG-29Ks for the new carriers is near signature with Russia.

The only current naval fighters in Indian service—Sea Harriers—have been upgraded with new radar and missile systems and have started operating with air force Ilyushin Il-78 tankers.

A rather different carrier program, meanwhile, is being quietly undertaken in Brazil. In 2000, Brazil acquired the 1963-vintage carrier Clemenceau from France, along with low-use ex-Kuwaiti A-4 Skyhawks. Renamed Sao Paulo, the ship underwent a major refit from 2005 to 2010. Meanwhile, in 2009, a contract was issued to Embraer for a comprehensive upgrade of 12 A-4s, nine being two-seaters and three being single-seaters. The first modified aircraft is due to fly in August, with production deliveries in 2013-14.

The upgraded aircraft have a new full-color cockpit, a head-up display, a new electrical generating system and an onboard oxygen-generating system. Sensors include Elta's EL/M-2032 radar and a radar-warning receiver. They are intended to carry the Brazilian-developed Mectron MAA-1B air-to-air missile, and will be equipped for air defense and surface attack.

Also, last October, Brazil signed a contract with Marsh Aviation to modernize and re-engine four ex-U.S. Grumman C-1A Trader aircraft—the carrier onboard delivery version of the 1950s Tracker—and to provide training and logistics services. Marsh will install new avionics, Honeywell TPE331 engines, and centerline hose and drogue units, on the aircraft, to be redesignated KC-2. Deliveries are expected in 2014. An airborne early warning platform KC-2 is in the plans.

While the Brazilian naval air arm may have a retro look to it, it is not to be discounted. The country is well on the way to developing a full capability for Catobar operations, with definite advantages over Stobar. The Skyhawk is subsonic—but so is any land-based adversary in oceanic operations, unless the pilot feels like walking home. Unlike either Stovl or Stobar ships, the Sao Paulo will have a tanker, literally a life-saver if there are jets in the pattern and the deck is fouled by a malfunctioning aircraft. So far, Brazil's investment has surely been less than the price of a very small number of F-35Bs.


Copyright © 2012, Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies.

All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arun » 17 Jun 2012 11:17

India Today on the hydrographic survey fleet of the Indian Navy.

Reports that the second Alcock Ashdown Gujarat Ltd. built catamaran hulled hydrographic survey vessel, Meen, will be launched in November this year. The remaining four vessels of this catamaran hulled class are to be named Mithun, Mesh, Mahika and Mayank though “it's still not certain when they would be ready for delivery”.

Article also reports “the navy has been recently searching for four new survey ships to replace some of the Sandhayak class vessels. These ships will have a new design and won't be catamaran”:

Indian Navy's project for high-tech vessels sets sail after delay

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 17 Jun 2012 11:33

Russian control systems might look crude but they are designed for robustness and to be able to sustain operational efficiency even after battle damage.

That there is going to be a naval face off between the IN and PLAN in the future is not impossible,but more probable.We must preserve our lead in carrier aviation despite PLAN ambitions.

member_23061
BRFite
Posts: 222
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23061 » 17 Jun 2012 12:28

sooraj wrote:Behold the stride of the sun !! (Vikramaditya)


Made.My.Day!

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3422
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 17 Jun 2012 12:30

arun wrote:Article also reports “the navy has been recently searching for four new survey ships to replace some of the Sandhayak class vessels. These ships will have a new design and won't be catamaran”:

Indian Navy's project for high-tech vessels sets sail after delay


Perhaps some of these Sandhayak class vessels will be converted for use patrolling.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arun » 17 Jun 2012 12:54

arun wrote: ......... {Snipped} ............ Article also reports “the navy has been recently searching for four new survey ships to replace some of the Sandhayak class vessels. These ships will have a new design and won't be catamaran”:

Indian Navy's project for high-tech vessels sets sail after delay


More from PTI on the planned acquisition of 4 new hydrographic survey ships.

Besides hydrographic and oceanographic survey work, the vessels are to double up as hospital ships. Vessels will displace 2000-3000 tons, have a top speed of 18 knots, be armed with a CRN-91 30 mm cannon, be able to operate a helicopter weighing 6 tonnes and have a retractable hanger :

Navy to acquire four indigenous survey vessels

The May 28, 2012 RFI issued by the Navy has yet more details:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) : INDIGENOUS CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR SURVEY VESSELS FOR INDIAN NAVY

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kmc_chacko » 17 Jun 2012 14:28

sooraj wrote:Behold the stride of the sun !! (Vikramaditya)


8) 8) :D :D

krish.pf
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 20:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby krish.pf » 17 Jun 2012 15:22

A $2 billion deal for the purchase of 45 more MiG-29Ks for the new carriers is near signature with Russia.

Whoa! Really? So totally 90 Mig-29Ks?

Checked the article again and it was not confusing the earlier 45 with this currently reported 45. 90 Jets just for the Navy!

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17017
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 17 Jun 2012 15:58

he has counted the original deal twice IMO. and that one was 16+29, not 11+29 as he says.

kit wrote:whats the deal with sending your latest warships to a potential adversarys sea port ? will china send their latest subs to a indian port on a good will mission ? (though they might as well do that on an offensive purpose)

they already have. the 051B (or 051C) was in chennai few months ago.

what's the big deal with sending warships on port call ?

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Christopher Sidor » 17 Jun 2012 18:47

Aditya G wrote:Excellent summary of current carried and LHD and LPH developments across the world by Bill Sweetman.

Quite clearly, ship building in these classes of ships is on the upswing, but Harrier replacement is only one - F-35B. Irrespective of MiG-29K and Rafale-M acquisitions, F-35B acquisition will beneficial to us if we acuqire Juan Carlos/Cavour/Mistral type designs. IMHO multiple ships of this class make more sense than pure Aircraft Carriers alone.

A second option is to buy more sea capable attack helicopters like AH-64 Apache, Tigre and KA-52. These can operate along with a mix of Merlins and KA-31s.

We may also have to look at V-22 at some point or at least look at the Brazilian option.

This comes at a time when even the Sea Kings are getting old - Merlin is the best option given that IAF is also acquiring a variant of the same.

Navies Worldwide Invest In Sea-Based Airpower
By Andy Nativi, Jay Menon, Bill Sweetman
Source: Defense Technology International
April 01, 2012
Andy Nativi•Genoa, jay Menon•New Delhi and Bill Sweetman•Washington
....
....

While the Brazilian naval air arm may have a retro look to it, it is not to be discounted. The country is well on the way to developing a full capability for Catobar operations, with definite advantages over Stobar. The Skyhawk is subsonic—but so is any land-based adversary in oceanic operations, unless the pilot feels like walking home. Unlike either Stovl or Stobar ships, the Sao Paulo will have a tanker, literally a life-saver if there are jets in the pattern and the deck is fouled by a malfunctioning aircraft. So far, Brazil's investment has surely been less than the price of a very small number of F-35Bs.


The Highlighted part in bold is true, though I disagree on the so called "scatter-shot" approach of India. INS Vikramaditya ought to have been our last STOBAR carrier. We should have gone for CATOBAR with Magnetic launch system. CATOBAR places a lot of strain on the fighter's air-frame, and has its own maintenance headache, but it allows us to field more capable carrier borne fighters. If we were going with STOBAR based carrier, then we should have seriously evaluated F-35 for our carriers, even for Vikramaditya.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2358
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 17 Jun 2012 19:13


Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3422
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 17 Jun 2012 20:10

Revisiting the previous debate on whether Vikramaditya was our only choice or not;

How come Brazil was able to purchase the Foch? Did we ever examine it? I remember reading in a now-defunct online magazine that we were looking at the Clemenceau - eventually it was broken up in Alang.

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby AbhiJ » 17 Jun 2012 20:15

The launch of the satellite would make the Indian Navy the 4th country in the world to feature a satellite group as a core component of their mission. This, along with their carrier group, solidifies their place as one of the Asia-Pacific regions most powerful navies. This upgrade was the only thing they need to be considered a “modern” navy.


Indian Navy too soon have a Satellite

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby AbhiJ » 17 Jun 2012 20:27

INS Teg at Oman. Will be in Mumbai in Few Days.

http://main.omanobserver.om/node/99467

krish.pf
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 20:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby krish.pf » 17 Jun 2012 21:00

Some Info on the MiG-29Ks...

MiG-29Ks RD-33MK engines have a Take-off re-heat thrust of 10,500kgf each! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCIJtfSPQg0 (time 3:55 - 4:05) . Normal re-heat thrust is 9000kgf which is what is widely reported. So it would give the MiG-29Ks awesome payload carrying capability taking off from a ski-jump.

In comparison the RD-33 Series 3 on IAF MiG-29UPG has a normal re-heat thrust of 8300kgf(same as the old RD-33 engine if I may add) and a Take-off re-heat thrust of 8700kgf - http://klimov.ru/f/download/press-kit/2 ... 100054340/

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sankum » 18 Jun 2012 02:02

Image

INS VIKRAMADITYA can carry max 13 mig29+4 kamov in Hanger.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby srai » 18 Jun 2012 08:08

Image

Based on the diagrams, here are some load-out variations:
  • 11 x MiG-29K (below deck)
  • 7 x Ka-28/Ka-31 (below deck)
  • 7 x MiG-29K (upper deck)
  • 3 x Ka-28/Ka-31 (upper deck)

Total: 18 x MiG-29K + 10 x Ka-28/31

  • 13 x MiG-29K (below deck)
  • 4 x Ka-28/Ka-31 (below deck)
  • 8 x MiG-29K (upper deck)
  • 2 x Ka-28/Ka-31 (upper deck)

Total: 21 x MiG-29K + 6 x Ka-28/31

  • 13 x MiG-29K (below deck)
  • 4 x Ka-28/Ka-31 (below deck)
  • 10 x MiG-29K (upper deck)
  • 0 x Ka-28/Ka-31 (upper deck)

Total: 23 x MiG-29K + 4 x Ka-28/31

  • 12 x MiG-29K (below deck)
  • 5 x Ka-28/Ka-31 (below deck)
  • 8 x MiG-29K (upper deck)
  • 2 x Ka-28/Ka-31 (upper deck)

Total: 20 x MiG-29K + 7 x Ka-28/31

  • 12 x MiG-29K (below deck)
  • 5 x Ka-28/Ka-31 (below deck)
  • 4 x MiG-29K (upper deck)
  • 2 x Ka-28/Ka-31 (upper deck)

Total: 16 x MiG-29K + 7 x Ka-28/31

Roughly, we can estimate the hanger space below deck to hold around 17 aircrafts (MiG-29K and Ka-28/31) and the upper deck to hold around 10 aircrafts comfortably (without disrupting the air-operations by not putting them on the runways).
Last edited by srai on 18 Jun 2012 08:30, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 18 Jun 2012 08:18

gents its a total myth spread by pakistani spies, traitors and double agents that conventional steam plants are not efficient/incompatible with the idea of heavy duty catapults. let me present the evidence.
there were no less than *eight* fleet carriers in the USN with steam propulsion plants and operating heavy fighters that used more or less the same type of cat as in the nimitz class

Kitty hawk, Constellation, America, John F kennedy
60,000t empty , 80,000t full load
280,000shp steam plant geared steam turbines, 30 knot top speed
24 Tomcats, 24 a7 corsair, 10 a6 intruder + 4 refuelers, 4 hawkeye, 4 prowler, 10 viking, 6 sea kings = 86 airwing
all had 4 cats

forrestal, saratoga, ranger, independence
60,000t empty, 80,000t full load
260000-280000shp steam plant geared steam turbines
airwing identical as above except replace tomcats with phantoms.
all had 3-4 cats

as you can see Tomcats/Phantoms and hawkeyes were being operated at the heavy end of the airwing. the A6 while being slow could also carry a lot of bombs.

maybe they overbuilt the steam plant a little to account for the cats

NONE of these were austere air defence carriers only. they were all strike carriers expected to see thick of action in the article kola peninsula, norway, soviet far east, GIUK, mediterranean in the event of war.

so we need to convince ourself that nuclear is not a must and a large CV can very well do it.

even the much smaller types like vikrant and minas gerais used steam cats. there is no moon rocket stuff about it if we apply the resources and work on it.

instead of being in over our heads attempting a EMALS, let us get steam cats working reliably first.

carrier costs $2-3 billion and airwing another $1b. there is no point carrying on with this game if we are locked out of being a 1st rate carrier power without cats. instead invest the same money in getting Russians to build a fleet of 100 Blackjacks for us, armed with brahmos-A and nirbhay. enormous strike power. ofcourse fleet air defence will suffer but one cannot have both sides of coin. seek bases in mauritius, develop the andamans....

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3850
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby hnair » 18 Jun 2012 08:57

why do we cry because of some old-school toggle switches and control panels in such iron-sided war horses?

In all the excitement, I would rather punch a sturdy metallic button that frugally says "Panda Fry" than a beautiful touch-screen interface that has a check box for "check if you want launch confirmation mailed to your email id" next to the buttons that says "Submit for Approval" and "customer support"

I dont care how it fries, as long as it serves fry..... :evil:

Singha-saar, steam cats are apparently leaky and break down at sea, due to the abuse from kicking out nearly 30 tons every 30 seconds. Khan carriers has huge redundancies on such systems and sit smug due to the 2 reactors they tote around for steaming up. Their older carriers were steam turbine powered. So they already have steam generation paraphernalia for feeding that.

Vikditty went for diesel and Vikrant-class for gas turbines. So extra steam is an issue. EMALS looks promising in that context - buy from Khan, power it up with electricity fluted from the four LM2500 (throw in one more if need be) and be done with.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vina » 18 Jun 2012 10:03

Vikditty went for diesel and Vikrant-class for gas turbines. So extra steam is an issue. EMALS looks promising in that context - buy from Khan, power it up with electricity fluted from the four LM2500 (throw in one more if need be) and be done with.


That is why I wondered why no one explored using waste heat steam boilers to power the Cats and no one even seems to have done preliminary studies on it.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 18 Jun 2012 10:16

>> due to the abuse from kicking out nearly 30 tons every 30 seconds

to be realistic thats momentary "top gun" stuff. the peak sortie rate/airframe is very sustained stress exercises (extra pilots, crew, spares, UNREP tankers on standby probably) was found to around 1.5-2/day iirc. around 175-200 sorties/day/supercarrier. so they have 4 cats and thats a huge plus in taking 1 or 2 out of service periodically for minor repairs.
if we have only two cats off the bow onlee, need to be very reliable EM cats perhaps.

but right now the Qa khan appears in no mood to share such secrets.

for serious standup fights vs the soviets, the USN had a strategy of massing together 4 carriers for a huge 360 plane airwing, with maybe a dozen missile cruisers and 20 frigates and 10 subs as "escort" and sending that armada in harms way. I believe thats the mode they exercises north of the artic circle to practice attacks on the kola peninsula which as we know crawls end to end with soviet bases and assets.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 18 Jun 2012 11:17

Singha wrote:if we have only two cats off the bow onlee, need to be very reliable EM cats perhaps.

but right now the Qa khan appears in no mood to share such secrets.

Available to "key NATO ally" UK.
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2011/UK_11-47.pdf

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 524
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SNaik » 18 Jun 2012 12:56

Austin, how is the construction of the "Carrier" dry dock (270 by 45) in Mumbai Naval Dockyard going? The contract to Hindustan Construction Company was issued in April 2010 to be completed in 48 months. Should be about halfway now?

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby akimalik » 18 Jun 2012 14:17

SNaik wrote:how is the construction of the "Carrier" dry dock (270 by 45) in Mumbai Naval Dockyard going?


http://frontierindia.net/indiandefence/new-dry-dock-constructed-naval-dockyard-mumbai/


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests