The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
This about lifts size is BS in the context of India’s current and future fighter wing spans as Shiv’s video points out succinctly
All lifts need a huge hole on the side and eats into the structural bracing, which is vital for ship strength during bad sea conditions and shocks. Add to that, a 500-800 ton asymmetric load of the island right in the middle of the two lifts and we have a nice crumble zone that is not welcome.
A longer ship can afford a proportionally bigger lifts due to those reasons, and the Nimitz CVNs use four single-size lifts. The Ford class deleted one but made the remaining three slightly bigger ones. Am sure it was not easy to do structurally, but probably based on operational experience
John wrote:That’s why I said earlier it seems like it won’t get MF STAR, installation of the radar shouldn’t take that long and we ordered them a while back so it shouldn’t be a case of manufacturing delay.
Since Barak-8 hasn’t been installed as well it seems like we are switching to another SAM system perhaps SR-SAM and will likely either not install another radar in place of MF-STAR (use RAN-40l/Lanza for targeting) or develop a domestic alt.
DRDO's ABM test ship with 2 panel ABM radar, as big as MFSTAR, is been built right next to IAC-1!
I am pretty sure someone in the IN would have noticed the big a*** radar on the DRDO ship and wondered why that thing is not coming on our carrier.
IAC-1 would be a perfect candidate to test out our own "AEGIS" system.
But then even Khan carriers also don't have any such MF radar. They have the usual long range volume search radar.
ldev wrote:By the way I would not be certain that the Rafale M/FA-18 are DOA. Like all programs the TEDBF is likely to take much longer than planned and the IN's patience with the Mig-29K may not last. As of now first TEDBF flight is planned for 2026.
MRCBF RFP—> delivery maybe 10 years, 2-3 years on top of this to make them operational. So best case 2033.
TEDBF first flight —-> 2026, targeted IOC is 2031. Even if there’s a 2-3 year delay with cumulative issues where’s the benefit? For reasons I outline below MRCBF isn’t even viable unless the IN wants to spend a few 100 million cutting into their brand new flattop to refit her to make her compatible with F-18/Rafale.
+ the entire lift issue is a red herring guys, don’t buy into Boeing propaganda. A launch from a static ramp is meaningless to the IN. The entire aviation complex- that includes the RGS is designed around the 29K, ADA had to design NLCA’s landing gear to be compatible with it- ditto TEDBF. Boeing’s solution to this? Hold F-18 on toe brakes (with full thrust+ AB) that too on a deck with no jet blast deflectors!
One brake failure and you have potentially a fully loaded/armed fighter shooting across your live deck. I think even the IN would know enough to oppose this.
hnair wrote:This about lifts size is BS in the context of India’s current and future fighter wing spans as Shiv’s video points out succinctly
All lifts need a huge hole on the side and eats into the structural bracing, which is vital for ship strength during bad sea conditions and shocks. Add to that, a 500-800 ton asymmetric load of the island right in the middle of the two lifts and we have a nice crumble zone that is not welcome.
A longer ship can afford a proportionally bigger lifts due to those reasons, and the Nimitz CVNs use four single-size lifts. The Ford class deleted one but made the remaining three slightly bigger ones. Am sure it was not easy to do structurally, but probably based on operational experience
CDG (French carrier) is almost identical in dimensions and displacement to IAC-1 but her lifts are 2-2.5x larger so moot point
KSingh wrote:
CDG (French carrier) is almost identical in dimensions and displacement to IAC-1 but her lifts are 2-2.5x larger so moot point
1) try not to quote an entire post for a one liner answer. Pain for those who use phone and makes the host servers creak
2) Ship’s structural strength as specified by each navy is not a moot point.
KSingh wrote:
TEDBF first flight —-> 2026, targeted IOC is 2031. Even if there’s a 2-3 year delay with cumulative issues where’s the benefit? For reasons I outline below MRCBF isn’t even viable unless the IN wants to spend a few 100 million cutting into their brand new flattop to refit her to make her compatible with F-18/Rafale.
Rafale, CCS clearance September 2016, first delivery July 2020, 35 to be delivered by December 2021 - already operational with the IAF.
C-17, CCS clearance June 2011, First delivery June/July 2013, order completion end of 2014
C-130J, CCS clearance sometime in 2008, deliveries completed for 6 in 2011. New order for 6 more placed in 2012
In comparison, LCA, first flight January 2001, IOC December 31, 2013.
If you think that the TEDBF with a first flight planned for 2026 will have an IOC in 5 years, you have more faith in HAL then I do based on their record of the Tejas. It is almost a clean sheet design. The issue with the imports is not the on time delivery capacity of the vendors, it is the protracted selection and order placement process of GOI.
Anyway, IMO, nothing, absolutely nothing is predictable with the procurement process for the Indian armed forces. Anything is possible!! So the best thing to do is watch and see!!
ldev wrote:Rafale, CCS clearance September 2016, first delivery July 2020, 35 to be delivered by December 2021 - already operational with the IAF.
C-17, CCS clearance June 2011, First delivery June/July 2013, order completion end of 2014
C-130J, CCS clearance sometime in 2008, deliveries completed for 6 in 2011. New order for 6 more placed in 2012
In comparison, LCA, first flight January 2001, IOC December 31, 2013.
Are you really comparing CCS' clearances of Rafale, C-17 and C-130 to the first flight and subsequent development of the Tejas?
You honestly thought no one would notice? At least compare apples to apples....
* C-17 first flight was in 1991. First deliveries to the IAF was in June 2013...around 22 years later.
* C-130J first flight was in 1996. First deliveries to the IAF was in Dec 2010...around 14 years later.
* Rafale first flight was in 1986. First deliveries to the IAF was in July 2020...around 34 years later.
* Tejas first flight was in 2001. First deliveries to the IAF was when No 45 Squadron was raised in 2016, although IOC happened much earlier in December 2013...so around 12 years later.
But this is not an achievement or some measurement to go by, but since you brought it up (and I don't know why!)....the Tejas leads the pack.
ldev wrote:If you think that the TEDBF with a first flight planned for 2026 will have an IOC in 5 years, you have more faith in HAL then I do based on their record of the Tejas. It is almost a clean sheet design. The issue with the imports is not the on time delivery capacity of the vendors, it is the protracted selection and order placement process of GOI.
Anyway, IMO, nothing, absolutely nothing is predictable with the procurement process for the Indian armed forces. Anything is possible!! So the best thing to do is watch and see!!
They will soldier on with the MiG-29K till well into the early 2030s, as that is when the retirement date is planned. They will not operate F-18 or Rafale M + MiG-29K in this decade. They will not be able to afford the annual OPEX hit that will occur, operating two distinct fleets + plus the CAPEX hit in purchasing 36 - 57 new fighters.
The TEDBF is designed to replace the MiG-29K. At this stage in the game, getting either Rafale M or F-18SH makes little sense. Otherwise the naval air arm will have to pawn the MiG-29K fleet off to someone i.e. IAF. There is nothing indicating that is going occur. This entire CATOBAR plan + a new set of phoren carrier borne fighters was never going to pass muster at the MoD. The first red flag was when the fleet of 57 fighters was costing more than the estimated cost of IAC-2.
And as frustrating as selection and order placement process of GOI is, budget availability has the final say. The longer this deal is delayed (along with the CATOBAR), the odds increase of the deal never seeing the light of day. And the CDS is not making matters any easy for them.
Rakesh wrote:
Are you really comparing CCS' clearances of Rafale, C-17 and C-130 to the first flight and subsequent development of the Tejas?
You honestly thought no one would notice? At least compare apples to apples....
Yes, precisely because the Tejas and the TEDBF have to be developed from scratch they will take longer to deliver to the IAF or IN. That is why part of my response was that the TEDBG is a clean sheet i.e it will naturally take significantly longer to reach milestones such as first flight and IOC. And because the foreign platforms were/are already in service the time to delivery will naturally be shorter. The question I am addressing is "time to field a given capability" for the IAF or IN from the time that requirement is needed.
It is not every day that one feels the urge to respond to your articles, blogs or comments, no matter how provocative they are. However, after reading your latest piece in the Chanakya Forum titled “INS Vikrant – A Naval Liability’’(9 August, 2021), I am persuaded to believe that your piece deserves a response to correct an imbalanced narrative. I have read your magnum opus, “Why is India Not a great Power (Yet)”, and must say that the book is thought provoking though (yet) not fully convincing, at many places. Disagreement of views, however, does not make the book a liability.
From someone who identifies himself with a rather self-aggrandising description as “India’s Foremost Conservative Strategist”, certainly, a more researched approach was expected. But alas, what we have is a reinforcement of a drivel argument.
It is not my intention to embark upon a literary mission to bring out the virtues of an aircraft carrier, nor am I keen to contest you on everything you bring out in your critique. I will however, try and disambiguate some tactical notions that you seem to have misrepresented, and suited their flawed understanding to support your argument, to present a one-sided picture to the reader.
Firstly, aircraft carriers as prized targets in a war. Yes, they are, and would be prized targets, and why not, given what they bring in the battlefield? They offer unparalleled mobility of airpower, their air group complicating the enemy’s operational plans by presenting the factor of uncertainty in the direction from where offensive action could come.
Isn't INS Vikrant the most well protected aircraft carrier in the world right now?.. 64 Barak-8 is a AD protection standard, not even US carrier have.
She is definitely the most hard hitting aircraft carrier in Asia. Given the fact that Kuznetsov & Shandong carry not not than 24 jets each, 36-40 of her jets soundly outnumber them even at only 40k tons.
Also their Su-33/J-15s cannot take off with more than 4 AAMs, or carry more than the 30% fuel while taking off from sky jumps. While the Mig-29K, with all its reliability & maintainability issues, can apparently takeoff from her with more than 5 ton payload (runways are comparatively longer too).
ldev wrote:Yes, precisely because the Tejas and the TEDBF have to be developed from scratch they will take longer to deliver to the IAF or IN. That is why part of my response was that the TEDBG is a clean sheet i.e it will naturally take significantly longer to reach milestones such as first flight and IOC. And because the foreign platforms were/are already in service the time to delivery will naturally be shorter. The question I am addressing is "time to field a given capability" for the IAF or IN from the time that requirement is needed.
"Time to Field a Given Capability" has rarely, if ever, been adhered to in India's procurement system.
Here are some examples of how the allocated time to acquire a certain platform has gone past the overdue stage;
1) Acquisition of an Advanced Jet Trainer
2) Acquisition of 126 MMRCA for the IAF
3) Acquisition of 114 MRFA for the IAF
4) Acquisition of artillery guns
5) Acquisition of six new generation submarines
6) Acquisition of of six airborne tankers
One can go on and on. The only platform that I can think of - that arrived in a timely manner - is the VVIP transport aircraft deal and it does not take a genius to figure out why. Most of the above has gone on for well beyond 10, 15 or even 20 years. And some are still continuing. By the time the contest reaches the penultimate stage, the original requirements of the RFP are usually outdated. Then the entire process has to be rebooted and its starts anew again. A great example of this would be the plan to acquire 126 Mirage 2000s which got transformed to 126 MMRCA which then got transformed to 114 SE fighters which then got transformed to 114 MRFA. This is procurement, Indian style. This is our bureaucracy at work and you can thank the British for this system
Your single prism view - "Time to Field a Given Capability" - is fundamentally flawed, because it fails to take into account all the other factors that come into play in Indian procurement. Some of them are ---> Budgets, Change in Ruling Govts, Accusations of Corruption, Bureaucratic Processes, State and National Elections, etc. And some of these factors have no business being involved in the procurement process, but they do. Any one or a combination of them can bring the entire process to a crashing halt. At that stage, the acquisition plan is either thrown out or has to start anew. The politicians and bureaucrats could care less about "Time to Field a Given Capability", but they are the ones who sign on the dotted line.
So just because the Indian Navy is not happy with the MiG-29K/KUB and a contest to acquire a new naval fighter exists, it does not translate into an immediate embrace of the Rafale M or F-18SH i.e. a new fighter coming in the next three years. That is not the way it works. The system will dangle this juicy carrot to the OEMs and keep them waiting for a variety of reasons. And after all the hoopla, this very system could cancel the procurement. Or this very system could purchase a whole different aircraft. Or they could end up with either F-18 or Rafale M. But whatever happens, it will not occur any time soon. The Navy has not even gone past the RFI stage in this contest. There is RFP, Technical Down Select (L1), Contract Negotiation and then Contract Signature. And I am simplifying this process.
This contest only exists because of the Navy's desire for a CATOBAR vessel. That vessel is itself in serious doubt. So on what basis or hope are you expecting a contest to acquire a MRCBF to pass muster at the MoD? Take yourself out of the Navy's shoes and put yourself into the MoD's shoes and ask yourself this ---> two STOBAR aircraft carriers are there, MiG-29K is there, we can replace the lost MiG-29K/KUBs with more from Russia, TEDBF development has commenced........so what phor you need new naval fighters?
This term of yours "Time to Field a Given Capability" reminds me of Ashley Tellis' infamous line (when he was commenting on the 126 MMRCA deal) - that India settled for a plane and not a relationship. And because your foundational view is flawed, your subsequent analysis (comparing CCS's clearances of Rafale, C-17 and C-130 to the first flight of the Tejas and eventual IOC) is equally flawed. If you go to the MoD offices and lecture them about "Time to Field a Given Capability", they will laugh you out of their offices
Watch this old video (but still very relevant today) of Air Marshal PK Barbora (retd) talking about the procurement system;
After seeing the above video, look at this document. It is famous! Below is the last page in an MoD document relating to the Rafale deal. Just see the number of people who have to sign off for the process to move or how one signature can stop an entire deal! The then Raksha Mantri Manohar Parrikar put his own comments on this page. Rahul Gandhi was using a digitally altered version of this page to derail the Rafale deal, which obviously never worked. This is Indian procurement. It is a miracle how we manage to acquire anything.
Yes and Yes, regarding the dysfunctional Indian procurement system. Well known to everybody. But that dysfunction applies both to domestic production as well as imports. So if the procrastination prior to say CCS approval applies both to domestic production as well as imports, the time to "field the capability" will always be shorter for imports, simply because foreign vendors can produce faster than HAL. So let us assume that there is 10 years of procrastination for a domestic product and then 10 years of procrastination for an imported product. But then FINALLY an order is placed. Where will you get faster deliveries from? HAL or some foreign vendor?
Go back and read what my original comment to KSingh was all about. He was certain that the first flight of the TEDBG would be 2026 and IOC in 2031. My response was that is simply not going to happen. From that point on this discussion has evolved into a completely different direction.
PS: I am going to post a YT video on the International Aerospace discussion, actually 2 videos of 1 hour each, which are interviews with Elon Musk as he gives a tour of his new facility in Texas building the gigantic Starship and Super Heavy Booster launcher. One comment of his stands out above all, In effect he says " Design is 1% of the job. Manufacturing to scale is 99% of the effort". I think that comment is so very apt for the Indian domestic military ecosystem. Some great ideas and designs let down by poor engineering for at scale manufacturing.
What if the procurement of a phoren fighter is cancelled i.e. MRCBF? Because that is what is likely going to happen, in the absence of the CATOBAR vessel getting sanctioned. So what is the fall back option? At that stage, the foreign OEM delivering aircraft faster will be pointless.
Right now there is the MiG-29K. Flawed as she may be, the IN has no other choice but to use it...till her planned retirement date in the early 2030s. The TEDBF will be delayed, I agree with you there. Like military projects world over, it will be delayed. The other option is to adopt the Tejas Mk1, as is. That is unlikely.
So in the absence of the TEDBF arriving in a timely manner...they will likely give a life extension to the MiG-29K (like they did with the MiG-21 Bison, the Mirage 2000I, the MiG-29UPG, etc). That is a far easier and cheaper proposition than acquiring a brand new fighter. The Indian Naval Air Arm may give her a structural upgrade, change out the avionics, radar, sensors and add some new weaponry. Russia will offer an upgrade + some new build MiG-29Ks and the MoD will likely adopt it, at the Navy's insistence (due to the lack of movement in a new carrier borne fighter). The Navy will have to adapt to the situation. Otherwise they retire the MiG-29K fleet in the early 2030s and wait for TEDBF to come. That seems unlikely, as both Vikramaditya and Vikrant will be without a fighter.
If the Indian Navy could get a CATOBAR vessel by the early to mid 2030s, it opens the door for a brand new carrier borne fighter. But that is not going to happen if we attempt to build a CATOBAR at a shipyard in India. So if the Navy wants a CATOBAR vessel in the 2030s, then place an order with Naval Group for an improved CDG design minus the nuclear reactor. A 1+1 order, one to be built at the Naval Group shipyard in France and the second to be built later at an Indian shipyard. The first vessel can arrive in the 2030s and second in the 2040s. But with that will likely come Rafale M, not F-18. But even with this option, there are a host of factors to consider - as chetak rightfully pointed out.
I say again, go back and read the entire discussion. I am posting below one of my own quotes from my discussion with KSingh:
The present vision of the IN appears to be that it's area of responsibility is from the Persian Gulf to the Malacca Straits. This does not need anything more than the 40,000-50,000 ton displacement AC because as you have said there are numerous island bases from where primary land based air forces can be deployed in this area.
In other words, my view is that the status quo will be maintained i.e. 1 aircraft carrier which will be used to bottle the PN in Karachi, no CATOBAR, no 75,00 ton carrier, no nuclear powered propulsion etc. etc. So while we would all like the IN to do better, in all likelihood the Indian bureaucracy will have the final laugh.
This is great news Vips! Aap Ke Muh Mein Ghee Shakhar! Anything else?
The seven years is highly optimistic, but it could be a follow on vessel to IAC-1 that Cochin Shipyard is talking about. If it is an exact xerox copy of IAC-1, it could arrive in 9+ years. The result of the lengthy learning curve & time spent in building Vikrant can be overcome with a follow on vessel, which will arrive quicker than Vikrant. Many people have been arguing for this exact scenario to pan out.
But if CSL is talking about the 65K super carrier, that is not going to happen. And Saurav Jha just tweeted this today and brought back to the forefront, an article he wrote in 2018. Keeping my fingers crossed and hoping that the Indian Navy achieves her vision of three aircraft carriers by the early 2030s!
https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/142 ... 87876?s=21 —> I had argued earlier that the way forward for the Navy would be to settle for an 'enlarged Vikrant II' in the interim, while setting up a joint project body on the lines of the ATVP office for future carriers.
Enlarged Vikrant is also a problem. Why ? You need more engines or maybe more powerful ones. You need more fuel because of more power requirement. You need to then ensure that the centre of gravity isn't affected or else you need to redesign the lower decks. All this will take a few years in order to convince the CDS, get approval, get budget, do the design, validate the design, finalize the engines, start building and finally ensure that weight is kept as per estimates.
There is a scope for enlarged hanger in Vikrant sister ship by increasing width from 21 m to 27- 28 m so that 50 percent more aircraft can be carried in hanger while keeping the outer dimensions same.
By the time the IAC-2 gets built & inducted, air warfare would have changed.
We will have UAVs and UCAVs in more numbers than human piloted aircraft.
Current naval planes Mig-29s and new TEDBF will be complemented by these UAVs.
Without human weight and life support features, these can be smaller than current aircraft - Mig-29s, TEDBF, RafaleM (or equal in size but carrying more munitions).
So, IAC-2 of similar size of IAC-1 would be equally effective, as a larger sized Carrier.
These UAVs and UCAVs have to be designed to be able to takeoff and land on IAC-1 and also fit into its lifts and hangar.
2-3 smaller UAV carriers are better than 1 large aircraft carrier.
Of all the missions aircraft operating off of a carrier currently are required to perform, a UAV or UCAV can currently only take over a small fraction (10-20% max) of them and that too with restrictions and compromises. That will change over the coming decades but you will have and need a human in the loop for the vast majority of counter air, strike, and other maritime missions naval aircraft are expected to perform. Support duties like ISR, comms, gateways, CEC, refueling etc are prime candidates. But combat and strike needs a lot further work to ensure equal or better availability and effectiveness to manned fighters. If you can't achieve a same level of assured success you can only complement manned aircraft and can't begin replacing them. Completely replacing manned with unmanned is probably decades away. Autonomy isn't there where you can have these platforms perform without human in the loop which can't be assured when communications, and data-links can be jammed, denied, or disrupted.
Cochin Shipyard in association with the Directorate of Naval Design has offered has offered to construct and deliver a sister class ship to INS VIKRANT in the next 7 years that will come with more then 76% indigenous content as expertise and local eco-system has been created.
The Indian Navy which was strongly against the construction of a sister ship of the Vikrant is now reconsidering its position due to the rapid
construction pace of the chinese aircraft carriers that might see a permanent deployment of a chinese carrier strike group in the Indian Ocean region by 2025.
I am making some big assumptions here, but just look at the timeline ---> If a keel is laid in 2022 and CSL meets the 7 year timeline, the Indian Navy can have a sister ship to INS Vikrant by 2029. If CSL can do what they are claiming, it would be awesome. Call her Viraat
And then in the future, when the economic situation will obviously be better, lay the keel for the first of two CATOBAR vessels. An improved CDG design would be best. Around 50,000+ tons for the first vessel and then scale up to a larger size (65,000+ tons) for the second vessel.
Rakesh wrote:I am making some big assumptions here, but just look at the timeline ---> If a keel is laid in 2022 and CSL meets the 7 year timeline, the Indian Navy can have a sister ship to INS Vikrant by 2029. If CSL can do what they are claiming, it would be awesome. Call her Viraat
Snip...
A lot of the delays in the first voyage of the ship were on account of other factors. Such as moving the ship out of her dry dock for nearly 2 years for other commercial activities. Or for that matter the loss of her gears in transit adding several months to an years delay. Same with other systems. The delay due to external factors was about 4 years in building this ship.
So if such events can be removed. It is quite possible for the ship to be commissioned by 2029. Assuming construction begins in 2022. Based on the project management skills acquired by CSL for Vikrant.
Pratyush wrote:A lot of the delays in the first voyage of the ship were on account of other factors. Such as moving the ship out of her dry dock for nearly 2 years for other commercial activities. Or for that matter the loss of her gears in transit adding several months to an years delay. Same with other systems. The delay due to external factors was about 4 years in building this ship.
So if such events can be removed. It is quite possible for the ship to be commissioned by 2029. Assuming construction begins in 2022. Based on the project management skills acquired by CSL for Vikrant.
So true Pratyush-ji. Well said.
Assuming this reporting is true, CSL is likely pushing for a second vessel...primarily to capitalize on the investment made to build the first vessel. So it makes good business sense for them. It also keeps their carrier workforce active. It is a win-win situation for them.
The keel for Vikrant was laid in Feb 2009 and commissioning is expected in August 2022. So around 13.5 years in total. So the four year delay will bring it down to 9.5 years, which CSL is reportedly claiming that they can do it in 7 years. So lets see.
ldev wrote:Rafale, CCS clearance September 2016, first delivery July 2020, 35 to be delivered by December 2021 - already operational with the IAF.
C-17, CCS clearance June 2011, First delivery June/July 2013, order completion end of 2014
C-130J, CCS clearance sometime in 2008, deliveries completed for 6 in 2011. New order for 6 more placed in 2012
In comparison, LCA, first flight January 2001, IOC December 31, 2013.
If you think that the TEDBF with a first flight planned for 2026 will have an IOC in 5 years, you have more faith in HAL then I do based on their record of the Tejas. It is almost a clean sheet design. The issue with the imports is not the on time delivery capacity of the vendors, it is the protracted selection and order placement process of GOI.
Anyway, IMO, nothing, absolutely nothing is predictable with the procurement process for the Indian armed forces. Anything is possible!! So the best thing to do is watch and see!!
Apples and oranges
CCS clearance came after how many years of trails/talks? MMRCA RFI was issued in 2000/2001? First Rafale lands in India 2019?
MRCBF is no less complicated than MMRCA- in fact it is perhaps more complicated thanks to the incompatibility factor with Indian carriers.
Conservatively if all the technical/cost issues are addressed CCS clearance for F-18 will come in 2027-9 (IMO), 3 years for delivery=…?
Anyway guys, we can put to bed the MF-STAR question mark. She wasn’t fitted for contractor sea trails (what she just completed), she will now be fitted with that and the LRSAM VLS
At 45,000 tons....the Vikrant is 3,000 tons heavier than the CDG, but still the latter is more capable than the Vikrant.
The advantages of CATOBAR vs STOBAR. And 30 Rafales are on the deck in the picture below + a pair of E-2Cs and a few helos.
https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/142 ... 88588?s=20 ---> Charles de Gaulle has a displacement of just 42,000T still can carry 30+ Rafale along with 2/3 E-2C for AEW and multiple helicopters for ASW and utility. Would it be impossible for India financially to go with oil fired version of it instead of Kiev Class and then a Vikrant based on it?
Someone please confirm, but I am seeing four lifts in total (two aircraft lifts + two armament/supply lifts) in the graphic below.
about lifts size is BS in the context of India’s current and future fighter wing spans as Shiv’s video points out succinctly
Given the fact that Kuznetsov & Shandong carry not not than 24 jets each, 36-40 of her jets soundly outnumber them even at only 40k tons.
