INS Vikramaditya: News and Discussion

[Sid]

Yes it can, else why test it. It's a completely different beast.

http://thebharatmilitaryreview.blogspot ... g-off.html

[Austin]

http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... -aircraft/

The power plant provides a ferry range of 2,000km. The range can be increased to 3,000km with three underwing fuel drop tanks.

UAC has more detailed specs on K/KUB

http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lin ... -specific/

[brar_w]

Is there any range/payload or range/payload+loiter data on the Mig-29K off of the Vik? Ferry range is useful but again, not tactically relevant since whats important is how far can it go with a given fuel and weapons load.

Something like this:

[Singha]

reason may be due to lack of 1-engine clearance the fuel tank modes are not used yet in IN

[Austin]

reason may be due to lack of 1-engine clearance the fuel tank modes are not used yet in IN

Vishnu Som has already mentioned in keypubs that its qualified for 1 engine landing

[Austin]

Is there any range/payload or range/payload+loiter data on the Mig-29K off of the Vik? Ferry range is useful but again, not tactically relevant since whats important is how far can it go with a given fuel and weapons load.

Something like this:

I doubt IN or UAC would publish such data , Such data can only come from the user .....I have yet to see similar data from SHAR from IN if there exisit such data it would be from BA's

[Aditya G]

These are fascinating questions. The Navy will have to form operation concepts around the capabilities of the complete Vikramaditya complex:

- MiG-29K (range x payload)
- Onboard IFR via buddy refueling
- KA-31 AEW
- Sortie generation rate of the carrier and her crew
- Chetak/Dhruv SAR flight rate (a chopper is in the air everytime a fighter has to fly)
- Radar coverage from Ship, Ka-31, fighter, UAV, P-8I etc
- range of air to surface (KH-35) and air to air missiles
- offshore AEW support
- offshore tanking support
- offshore Su-30 support
- support from offshore UAVs (Herons)

I assume that unless the the situation calls for it, the commander will like his fighters to fly within the 500 Km surveillance bubble. Our ships have the data link capability to take control of the in flight UAVs. Also KA-31s can feed the radar picture directly to the MiGs.

All these capabilities and variables should crystallize into a capability that can be stated in operational terms. Simple examples:

"How much airspace can I defend for my ships at sea?"

"How far and how much can I strike a shore based target?"

Regardless of the issues on ground like maintenance, the Vikramaditya and her aviation component represents a dramatic capability leap for the Navy. I hope we deploy her to the corners of the world wherever our interest lie.

800km indicates 1600km flying time, 2 hrs @ 800kmph high altitude profile?
that would be for a in-and-out strike mission with no loitering.

for a air defence patrol mission would the eqn be different as in go 250km out (20 mins), loiter for 80 mins and then return for 20 mins with some reserve....? thats a very low endurance and given the small number of Mig29k onboard is not sustainable for long to keep up CAPs.

the real eqn will be with 6 AAM (4 bvr, 2 small) around 2 tons

I have never seen the Mig29K with drop tanks - the hornets can take off and land with 3 drop tanks.

this is a critical issue if the 29K cannot have drop tanks

we need 3 hour time on station 250km out with a pair of Mig29K, and radar scanning out some 500+km to give enough time for another pair of Mig29k to take off and join them if needed.

Is there any range/payload or range/payload+loiter data on the Mig-29K off of the Vik? Ferry range is useful but again, not tactically relevant since whats important is how far can it go with a given fuel and weapons load.

Something like this:

[Shreeman]

I remain amazed at how ill treated the flagship and her complement are in this thread. That group alone can take care of all the south and east, with more capability than all the banana countries there combined. This is not a british hand me down showpiece. It is a remarkable jump from having a complement of 6 to a complement of 25 sea+20 land today, and possibly twice as many when NLCA enters the mix. That number of that vintage platforms will be hard to IAF to put up, in the time that Navy can. Navy will take longer to get there, but in terms of putting 2 squads in the air in surprising places, IAF will not match it. A 100 platform force in the south is not something even the western challenge can cover for. And if even a small tiny small number make past the defenders then the western challenge will disappear overnight like the famous blazes of 71.

This is an incredibly capable platform. No less than CdG (nuclear enduance buys them zilch). Lets not shit and spit on the house thousands will live in for decades to come. Read up a bit. Respect it just the same as the other Rs even if its russian.

[member_28990]

Question - once the Virat retires, will the Sea Harriers operate from the Vik until, say the NLCA is operational?

[brar_w]

I doubt IN or UAC would publish such data , Such data can only come from the user .....I have yet to see similar data from SHAR from IN if there exisit such data it would be from BA's

Most if not all OEM's that offer fighter aircraft would be easily able to provide these charts. Most will offer similar charts for various mission requirements and one can dig up similar charts from lockheed, dassault and Boeing...

[Austin]

I doubt IN or UAC would publish such data , Such data can only come from the user .....I have yet to see similar data from SHAR from IN if there exisit such data it would be from BA's

Most if not all OEM's that offer fighter aircraft would be easily able to provide these charts. Most will offer similar charts for various mission requirements and one can dig up similar charts from lockheed, dassault and Boeing...

I hve yet to see such range/payload chart for MKI , never seen IAF releasing such data for even 29 or 2000

[Viv S]

I remain amazed at how ill treated the flagship and her complement are in this thread. That group alone can take care of all the south and east, with more capability than all the banana countries there combined.

That's a gross exaggeration. While Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar & Thailand have small air forces, the same doesn't apply to their Flanker heavy Malaysian & Indonesian neighbours. Not to mention Singapore that fields a very well trained and well equipped air force (one that may well field a fifth gen fighter before us).

And in any event, our primary threat lies North-West and North-East. And their fighter fleets are nothing to scoff at either.

A 100 platform force in the south is not something even the western challenge can cover for. And if even a small tiny small number make past the defenders then the western challenge will disappear overnight like the famous blazes of 71.

That's a fantasy. No western state has any interest in challenging India within the IOR. Quite the opposite in fact.

This is an incredibly capable platform. No less than CdG (nuclear enduance buys them zilch). Lets not shit and spit on the house thousands will live in for decades to come. Read up a bit. Respect it just the same as the other Rs even if its russian.

Equally one may wish to give a similar level of respect to Chinese platforms that are entering service in the region, driven by/equipped with similar levels of technology (in addition to the same Russian engine).

[brar_w]

I hve yet to see such range/payload chart for MKI , never seen IAF releasing such data for even 29 or 2000

I haven't either although some information may be available for the Su-27 (I'd have to look). In the west this information comes from two main sources :

- Publicly, disclosed range/payload parameters as part of requirements
- Performance metrics in response to foreign (or in some cases domestic) competition requirements

Data for the F-18E/F, F-35A, B and C as well as the F-16, and F-15E can be found in various official presentations (End user and OEM) or NATOPS and other manuals that have been made public.

For the Naval fighters I have the following on combat radius with payload and/or loiter included :

- F-18E/F - 700+ Km with 2 hour loiter with 6 missiles (CAP) [ with 3 EFT's]
- F-18 E/F - 1450-1500 km with 2 x AGM-84's, 3 A2A missiles, one ATFLIR and 2smaller EFT's + one CLT
- F-18E/F - 2000+ Km with a similar load as mentioned above but with 3 large tanks
- F-35C - 1100+ km with 2 AMRAAM's + 2 AGM-154 with no EFT.
- F-35 B - 811 km, with 2 AMRAAM + 2 x Gbu-32 with UK specified reserve fuel ( 450 ft. - ski ramp runway requirement from the QE) with no EFT.
- Dassault Rafale - I'm still trying to find the graphics but they did submit some charts as part of the Brazilian competition that showed 1500 km with 3 tanks, with additional combat radius through CFT's.

[NRao]

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/av-8.htm for AV-88 Harrier:

Operational radius with external loads shown:

Short takeoff (366 m, 12 Mk 82 Snakeye Bombs, internal fuel, 1 hour loiter) :: 90 nm
Hi-lo-hi, short take off (366 m, seven Mk 82 Snakeye Bombs, two 300 US gallon external fuel tanks no loiter :: 594 nm
Deck launch intercept mission, two AIM-9 missiles and two external fuel tanks :: 627 nm

Combat air patrol endurance at 100 nautical miles from base :: 3 hours



wiki, MiG-29K:

Internal fuel was increased from 3,340 kg to 4,560 kg, to give a combat radius of 850 km (531 mi). The combat radius can be increased to 1,300 kilometers with 3 underwing fuel drop tanks. The maximum weight of the aircraft grew from 19.5 to 22.4 t, to allow for increased payloads.[34] The MiG-29KUB two-seat fighter, intended for pilot training, can also conduct combat missions identical to the single-seat fighter.

[brar_w]

wiki, MiG-29K:


Internal fuel was increased from 3,340 kg to 4,560 kg, to give a combat radius of 850 km (531 mi). The combat radius can be increased to 1,300 kilometers with 3 underwing fuel drop tanks. The maximum weight of the aircraft grew from 19.5 to 22.4 t, to allow for increased payloads.[34] The MiG-29KUB two-seat fighter, intended for pilot training, can also conduct combat missions identical to the single-seat fighter.

[/quote]


With aircraft like the Mig-29K, harrier, and F-35B (or others) operating off of a non CAT carrier you end up with other considerations. The Rafale and F-18E/F on their respective carriers can be loaded with a lot of payload and EFT's and can also add CFT's and still be sent up. With ski jump deployments you have another dimension in range-payload since there is a limit with which you can take off so if you up the fuel for longer range, you may have to reduce payload..For the F-35B for example the UK specified a payload, a reserve fuel and combat radius, however if they load external weapons they most likely won't be able to carry future EFT's since take off performance would get the highest consideration.

[Karan M]

Su-27 range is at Sukhoi website. Note, internal fuel, no IFR.

Su-27SK
Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):
- at sea level, km
- at height, km
1,340
3,530

For Su-30 MK
Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):
- at sea level, km 1,270
- at height, km 3,000
- with one refuelling (at 1.500 kg fuel remaining), km 5,200
- with two refuellings in flight, km 8,000

[John]

I remain amazed at how ill treated the flagship and her complement are in this thread. That group alone can take care of all the south and east, with more capability than all the banana countries there combined. This is not a british hand me down showpiece. It is a remarkable jump from having a complement of 6 to a complement of 25 sea+20 land today, and possibly twice as many when NLCA enters the mix.

This is an incredibly capable platform. No less than CdG (nuclear enduance buys them zilch). Lets not shit and spit on the house thousands will live in for decades to come. Read up a bit. Respect it just the same as the other Rs even if its russian.

Because people have various agenda (NLCA or Rafale M) and bashing one product serves their agenda. Rather than realizing currently fulcrum is only AC currently available to navy that can operate from ski jump, we already missed out on acquiring second hand SHAR and decision by IAF to go with Rafale sealed the door for The navy to acquire F18s. N LCA for better or worse is decade away from reaching operational status.

[Shreeman]

I remain amazed at how ill treated the flagship and her complement are in this thread. That group alone can take care of all the south and east, with more capability than all the banana countries there combined.

That's a gross exaggeration. While Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar & Thailand have small air forces, the same doesn't apply to their Flanker heavy Malaysian & Indonesian neighbours. Not to mention Singapore that fields a very well trained and well equipped air force (one that may well field a fifth gen fighter before us).

And in any event, our primary threat lies North-West and North-East. And their fighter fleets are nothing to scoff at either.

A 100 platform force in the south is not something even the western challenge can cover for. And if even a small tiny small number make past the defenders then the western challenge will disappear overnight like the famous blazes of 71.

That's a fantasy. No western state has any interest in challenging India within the IOR. Quite the opposite in fact.

This is an incredibly capable platform. No less than CdG (nuclear enduance buys them zilch). Lets not shit and spit on the house thousands will live in for decades to come. Read up a bit. Respect it just the same as the other Rs even if its russian.

Equally one may wish to give a similar level of respect to Chinese platforms that are entering service in the region, driven by/equipped with similar levels of technology (in addition to the same Russian engine).

Viv,

I dont usually see your posts, but stumbled on this one. Far east (malacca etc) are the only challenges there and that is a complex geopolitical matter concerning everyone, 1000 air platform navies included. Obviously the description didnt stretch that far. Taking more than 180 degrees of local theatre from the air boys is no small feat. It does go unrecognized. The other Rs never had this capability. This is really the first aritime air strike component in modern times.

A lot of defense is deterrence, nukulars included. One would think the western challenge couldnt arise given their pitiful financial and equipment state. Yet it remains formidable. In bad times the bangladeshis were both hosting and supporting a good bunch of louses too. And they are buying up chinese hardware in a shopping spree. Their navy is a step up on the surface from everyone else in the neighborhood, not to mention their 29s. A return to islam lovers and you have an eastern theatre again. Navy had little to give from the air prior to the flagship. Now it can occupy anything both eastern neighbors can raise. It is a huge game changer.

Re. the west, they were securing their southern rear. Now whwther one place or three, 3 underwater or 8, it is all irrelevent. A few of the 100+ platforms, and I mean quite a few, must look south or all would have nowhere to fly from. That is a doctrine shift.

Lastly, the chinese are a whole another level. Like 25000 ton LPD and coastguard ship level. And they are spending steel relentlessly, keen to make use of their investment. That quality improvement isnt happening in my lifetime.

So I will take what you can get. Gives you a perspective on what those that spent years claiming rust buckets, extra cost, delays etc were really after -- denial of this improvement. And they havent been called out. They havent realised how, shall we just say, unreasonable that was. And they keep applying the the same arguments towards other small improvements happening by accident, just like this platform.

Kerp R22 as a rotary flattop, even if it means a new crew for her that the current lot train and head over to the new R22. Until the third arrives in good working shape standing down the one harrier carrier is also just as lame as complaining about R33. Your north east just put out its fourth gray painted 25k semi flat top. That stick gets longer everyday.

[vishvak]

That's a fantasy. No western state has any interest in challenging India within the IOR. Quite the opposite in fact.

Considering that the West is the top dog in naval warfare, has full access to the Arabian ocean/Bay of Bengal and is not stopping RnD in naval warfare - this line of thinking is not very smart. Like talk of American missiles on Rafale platform, that is the use of policies that are dependent on the top dog when ideally our options should be independent of interests of others, including the top dog. The most of the talk in the west is about how to make Indian navy a challenge to Chinese navy - a part of challenge etc. A Russian fighter jet (Mig 29K) with Russian A-to-A missile would not have to worry about alphabet soup binding agreements, too, such an option is available.

[John]

4 x 76mm super-rapid Oto guns with anti missile ammo would have extended the protection bubble from 2km to 8km.

Problem is to fit Super rapid you need to design the vessel around that req originally for Vik. She was to carry orig mix of Kashtan and vl shtil (later on added to design). After navy saw the price tag and had sticker shock we decided to fit our own. Too late for anything other than barak 1 and ak 630 I don't believe that it was meant to carry barak 8 since I don't where it could have been fitted.

There is only one STGR to guide ak 630 and barak which is pretty big limitation.

[SaiK]

[Aditya G]

....Too late for anything other than barak 1 and ak 630 I don't believe that it was meant to carry barak 8 since I don't where it could have been fitted.

There is only one STGR to guide ak 630 and barak which is pretty big limitation.

In this instance the fitment basically comes out of the box from ins godavari. This is a prudent decision as there was no other solution available. Barak-8 is coming online now and that too on a mf-star complex.

I don't think stgr and ak-630 are connected as the former is an illuminator for barak missile. They seem to be connected to the eo sight.

Having said that 76 mm cannon fitments should be simple as we have retrofitted the same on several ships.

[Singha]

the kuznetsov being a wider ship has been able to keep these portside sponsons for heavy kit like kashtans and vls launchers. I dont think its feasible on the vikky without major rework and adding same to starboard to balance it out.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo ... 8_221n.jpg

cheen has taken advantage to fit some 54 srsam and rbu type asw rockets
http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircra ... ing-24.jpg

[Cain Marko]

we need 3 hour time on station 250km out with a pair of Mig29K, and radar scanning out some 500+km to give enough time for another pair of Mig29k to take off and join them if needed.

Neither the M2K, nor the F-16 are carrier borne aircraft. Nor do they take off from a ski jump and have range/payload considerations that are important when carrying a lot of bags. Can the Mig-29K take off in the configuration in the picture or even a pair of tanks, a decent weapons load from a carrier? I have no idea but it probably can take off with some extra fuel given certain missions and payloads but eventually its the carrier limitation and not the aircraft.

Don't disagree. This is what I have from from Yefim Gordon's 2007 book for the 29K (original late 80s version - these loads were tested)

- MTOW of 22+ tons from the carrier allowing it to carry 4 AAMs and 3 EFTs from station 3 - 195m on the Kuznetsov.
- could take off from the shorter stations 1 & 2 (approx. 105 meters) with an MTOW of 17500kg.
- NTOW with internal fuel + 4 missiles = 15500kg
- TOW with 3 EFTs + 4 missiles = 18500kg
- Combat radius ~ 850km on internal fuel
- Combat radius ~ 1300km w. 3 EFTs.
- On station time varied from 1.6 - 2.5 hours @ 250km radius.
- Max landing weight = 15300kg
- Max fuel load with 3 X EFTs was greater than 6500kg (internal capacity was appoximately 4500kg)
- CT - 1500 lts, inboard EFTS = 1150lts

Remember this is for the older 29ks. The ones built for the IN are newer builds = more composite materials used, possibly more internal fuel capacity and payload capacity (as seen from the pic of 4 EFTs). MTOW is supposed to be 24500kg as per Rosboronexport catalog iirc.

My conclusion is that the 29k is no Shornet backed by CATS but it sure is no Shar either - A2A if it had to meet f-16s or mirages over the sea, they would be well enough prepared. For a strike mission, with long ranged munitions, they should pose a decent threat - but they are no bomb trucks. Overall, it would be very satisfactory performance for the IN - v.close to master jingo Singha sahib's requirements set forth above.

[John]

....Too late for anything other than barak 1 and ak 630 I don't believe that it was meant to carry barak 8 since I don't where it could have been fitted.

There is only one STGR to guide ak 630 and barak which is pretty big limitation.

In this instance the fitment basically comes out of the box from ins godavari. This is a prudent decision as there was no other solution available. Barak-8 is coming online now and that too on a mf-star complex.

I don't think stgr and ak-630 are connected as the former is an illuminator for barak missile. They seem to be connected to the eo sight.

Having said that 76 mm cannon fitments should be simple as we have retrofitted the same on several ships.

STGR serves as both target acquisition and illumination radar for Barak-1 and FCR for guns, without Fire control radar AK-630 are practically useless against any fast maneuvering targets. Ak-630 mated with EO are primarily used only for patrol boats and they have very limited Anti aircraft capability.

[tsarkar]

What would have been the optimum CIWS system for Vikramaditya in your opinion.

For an aircraft carrier, I would opine 16-32 LRSAM and 3-4 SRGM. For Vikramditya, there is lack of depth to mount SRGM, so AK-630 + LRSAM would be fine.

Couldn't we choose the better double barrelled 'AK-630M-2 Duet'

More than rate of fire, the ability to accurately guide is important. Which is why we replaced all MR-123 with Elta 2221 STGR. The original AK-630 gun is very capable and used by the MiG-27 to bust tanks like A-10 Warthog

Question - once the Virat retires, will the Sea Harriers operate from the Vik until, say the NLCA is operational?

Viraat is structurally old. Sea Harriers are presently more mature operationally than MiG-29K. They offer best A2A capability via ELta 2032 & Derby missile combination. They will not last until NLCA because UK has stopped manufacturing spares, and US AV-8B are manufactured to different standards, though presently certain spares are sourced from US

I don't believe that it was meant to carry barak 8 since I don't where it could have been fitted.

Original plan was fore & aft of bridge like INS Viraat Barak-1 fit.

STGR serves as both target acquisition and illumination radar for Barak-1 and FCR for guns, without Fire control radar AK-630 are practically useless against any fast maneuvering targets.

CMS ensures sensors & weapons are agnostic to each other. INS Delhi & Mysore use Fregat radars as primary tracking radar for cueing Barak-1. All other ships use Elta 2238.

Ak-630 mated with EO are primarily used only for patrol boats and they have very limited Anti aircraft capability.

Not quite, Type 1135.6 Batch 2 ships have only EO sight. Imaging Infra Red offers much better resolution against missile's glowing engine and airframe heated by air resistance than radar that suffers from sea clutter and ECM. No way to diffuse the heat of a missile travelling at close to Mach or multiple Mach.

[Aditya G]

tsarkar,

So for VKD the AK-630s could be cued by the Fregat or EO sights, or possibly by a combination of both?

Feast your eyes ... 14 MiGs plus choppers on deck! Also, note 3x8 Barak-1 VLS

[Austin]

Awesome Pics Aditya , Do we have a Hig Res Version ?

[Austin]

INS Delhi & Mysore use Fregat radars as primary tracking radar for cueing Barak-1. All other ships use Elta 2238.

Thats pretty interesting !

[Aditya G]

....Remember this is for the older 29ks. The ones built for the IN are newer builds = more composite materials used, possibly more internal fuel capacity and payload capacity (as seen from the pic of 4 EFTs). MTOW is supposed to be 24500kg as per Rosboronexport catalog iirc.

My conclusion is that the 29k is no Shornet backed by CATS but it sure is no Shar either - A2A if it had to meet f-16s or mirages over the sea, they would be well enough prepared. For a strike mission, with long ranged munitions, they should pose a decent threat - but they are no bomb trucks. Overall, it would be very satisfactory performance for the IN - v.close to master jingo Singha sahib's requirements set forth above.

+1. Thanks for the analysis

The only marine fighters deployed by Pakistan are Mirage-5 (originally equipped with Exocets), upgraded Mirage-3 possibly equipped with Ra'ad and now JF-17 with CM-400 missiles. It is not established whether Ra'ad as any anti ship capability, and i think JF-17 is still being developed. The MiGs may need to chase down P-3, ATR-72, ZDK-03 aircraft which may be protected by PAF fighters. Havent heard of F-16s deployed over sea ever

[Austin]

^^ A Mig-29K versus PAF F-16 duel would still be interesting over Arabian Sea

[Aditya G]

Austin; that is a screen grab from a Youtube video :-(

[Austin]

- MTOW of 22+ tons from the carrier allowing it to carry 4 AAMs and 3 EFTs from station 3 - 195m on the Kuznetsov.
- could take off from the shorter stations 1 & 2 (approx. 105 meters) with an MTOW of 17500kg.
- NTOW with internal fuel + 4 missiles = 15500kg
- TOW with 3 EFTs + 4 missiles = 18500kg
- Combat radius ~ 850km on internal fuel
- Combat radius ~ 1300km w. 3 EFTs.
- On station time varied from 1.6 - 2.5 hours @ 250km radius.
- Max landing weight = 15300kg
- Max fuel load with 3 X EFTs was greater than 6500kg (internal capacity was appoximately 4500kg)
- CT - 1500 lts, inboard EFTS = 1150lts

Remember this is for the older 29ks. The ones built for the IN are newer builds = more composite materials used, possibly more internal fuel capacity and payload capacity (as seen from the pic of 4 EFTs). MTOW is supposed to be 24500kg as per Rosboronexport catalog iirc.

My conclusion is that the 29k is no Shornet backed by CATS but it sure is no Shar either - A2A if it had to meet f-16s or mirages over the sea, they would be well enough prepared. For a strike mission, with long ranged munitions, they should pose a decent threat - but they are no bomb trucks. Overall, it would be very satisfactory performance for the IN - v.close to master jingo Singha sahib's requirements set forth above.

The 29K need to multi missile carrier rack so that their pylons can carry more than single R-73/R-77 perhaps 2-3 AAM per pylon , each of those rack are rated to carry many times over the weight of R-73/77

[Aditya G]

500K circle in north arabian sea. If IN can place Vikramaditya in this region, it effectively can control the airspace from all major PN bases:




In an offensive situation destroyers will first unleash Brahmos missiles to 'soften' up the shore establishments including customary destruction of oil tanks in Karachi. Air force will attack PAF and PN air bases close to the shore. Vikramaditya will then steam in providing cover to the P-8Is and Killer squadron as they lay waste to the surface fleets.

In defensive mode Vikramaditya can block all P-3 and ATR flights attempting to flank our shore establishments in order to target Bombay High. MiGs will take long range BVR shots on the slow moving high value assets and engage any JF-17 trying to attack our western fleet.

[John]

Tsarkar good to hear from you INS Teg and her sisters use puma aka 5p-10e FCR for their main guns and ak 630.
I will reply to your point on EO vs EO+Radar for ciws guns later on i have had.a few disscussions on russia EO only CIWS such as palma or kashtan eo whether they are worth the lower price tag.

[member_28108]

Where are the Barak VLS in the picture ?

[Aditya G]

^ check previous page

[member_28108]

^ can't see the VLS could see the planes helps and the CEOS! Can you mark it or give some "landmarks "?

[Akshay Kapoor]

There are 3 side by side on the right edge of the island. Two levels up from runway level

[Austin]