Indian Naval Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jun 2012 18:15

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

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 10 Jun 2012 18:29

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

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 10 Jun 2012 20:35

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

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

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 10 Jun 2012 20:41

Guru log; pls ID the sensors on the islands:

Looks like a crane on deck:

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jun 2012 22:52

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

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Jun 2012 23:11

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

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

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

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

John · Post by **John** » 10 Jun 2012 23:34

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

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 10 Jun 2012 23:47

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

http://t.co/UNfTiXsZ

http://t.co/0Vaa19YK

Gaurav_S · Post by **Gaurav_S** » 11 Jun 2012 07:37

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

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

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

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jun 2012 11:25

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

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

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2012 11:30

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

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

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Jun 2012 16:49

I've a noobie questions for the gurus here.

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

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

TIA

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 11 Jun 2012 17:18

Arrey Dada,

You are talking about an old kiev class carrier modified to what is now the Vikad. The Soviet policy towards heavy aviation cruisers ( as they called it) was simple. The larger the island the more people you could staff in it thereby fulfilling the need to hire as many people as possible at sea and away from home.

It ij adbhanced form of internal security onree. So less space for landing Yak-38 firebar.phroger or whatever other Harrier looking shit they would put on board these HACs and more space for Moscow design bureau clerks rubbing off pencil stains on the maps displayed in the generous room walls in that control tower.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jun 2012 17:32

you forgot the commissars.

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

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 Jun 2012 17:40

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

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Jun 2012 18:39

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

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

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

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

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

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

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Jun 2012 19:08

Sarkar Babu,

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Thanks DRoy and Rahul for the other explanation also.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 11 Jun 2012 22:20

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

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 11 Jun 2012 22:33

Is there one lift only on vik ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2012 23:19

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

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

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 11 Jun 2012 23:35

^^^

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2012 23:39

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

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

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

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 11 Jun 2012 23:43

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

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Jun 2012 23:58

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

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Jun 2012 04:21

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

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

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

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

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 12 Jun 2012 04:52

Cain Marko wrote:Problem is - simultaneous landing/take off cycles are unlikely.

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

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

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

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Jun 2012 06:54

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2012 07:46

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

yes no doubt about that.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 12 Jun 2012 08:00

Funny, I could've sworn that the pictures published and models shown to date had jet blast deflectors. I don't see 'em on a single one now

. I suppose I assumed that they would be present. If they aren't, how does the crew on deck go about doing their work when aircraft are taking off? It would be *very* inefficient for them to clear the deck when a plane takes off and run back into position with all sorts of equipment to prepare the next bird for take-off, resulting in a terrible sortie rate.

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

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 12 Jun 2012 08:25

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

How does it compare to INS Viraat which INS Vikram will effectively replace?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jun 2012 08:41

Want a super-secret Norwegian sub base that took 30 years to build? It's available for only 11.2 million pounds! MOD/IN,at least go and have a look at it ,fro it might give us ideas for our won SSBM bases.

http://www.ybw.com/news/motorboats/5318 ... 1-2million
Norwegian submarine port available for £11.2million

Mon, 11 Jun 2012
Natalie Davies

Ever wanted to be a James Bond-style super villain? Here's a perfect underground lair for sale

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2012 09:50

> How does it compare to INS Viraat which INS Vikram will effectively replace?

no contest there. Vik will crush the viraat in any scenario, but thats not the point...Vik and ADS1 will serve together for a few decades and ADS1 will always have a leg up...they wont be symmetric like a pair of CVN.

if I read the Kochi shipyard pic right, the ADS1 will have two deck edge lifts one behind and one ahead of the island on starboard side. it should be able to use the fwd lift to prepare a full deckload even if periodically planes are landing in between takeoff cycles.

imo we should have made this puppy longer by another 40m ahead of the island for a fuller 300m deck and 2 fwd deck-edge lifts and a bigger aviation hanger (perhaps 15 more fighters)...this would have left room for a substantial number of Mig29K...enough to take on some serious meaty threats. alternately, the expanded area below aviation hanger could have housed upto 800 marine cdo in a LHD kind of role using more complement of helicopters.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Jun 2012 11:17

^^^ And with that you would be in the 65 Ton range

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2012 11:27

tonnage like virginity is overrated.

the Kuz is 65kt but cannot be compared to a 65kt kitty hawk in strike power. kitty meow's airwing will CRUSH the Kuz at standoff range. it has a 2X sized airwing.

its what you do with the meat that counts.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 12 Jun 2012 13:18

Would it be cost effective to have a 65,000 tonne carrier on conventional propulsion? There are the mammoth 350,000 tonne tankers etc on conventional propulsion but they compromise on speed and maneuverability and can live with it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2012 14:02

the 65000t CVF/PA2 anglo-french carriers will use conventional propulsion. construction is ongoing.

2x RR MT-30 gas turbines
4x diesel-electric engines
two shafts

the french could have gone nuclear but for sake of commonality went with conventional. UK rejected nuclear as too costly.

the lifts are sized large enough for 2 JSF to come up side by side.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Pa2_uk.svg

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Jun 2012 14:31

Singha wrote:tonnage like virginity is overrated.

the Kuz is 65kt but cannot be compared to a 65kt kitty hawk in strike power. kitty meow's airwing will CRUSH the Kuz at standoff range. it has a 2X sized airwing.

its what you do with the meat that counts.

Well if meat counts that an Oscar can sink most of USN CBG keeping stand off range and element of surprise.

Its not only about meat but about Doctrine for these navies ,As I said before for these big boys Doctrine Drives every thing.

USN doctrine is based on the principle of long range force projection which logically meant putting more aircraft in air needing flat tops and catapult launch and building big flat tops and in numbers.

Soviet doctrine is based on defending its SSBN assets from enemy submarines ( SSN ) , surface ships and ASW/Fighter aircraft , so they build ships called Air Capable Cruiser that can do these multirole task plus have some decent fighter aircraft on board. Russian Navy too would move to flat tops with new carrier when its designed but integrating it with ASD so it wont be similar to CVN.

IN will have to choose what it wants to achieve with its Carrier , if its force projection then we are better off building Flat Tops with more aircraft on board with ships with larger tonnage.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Jun 2012 17:46

in our case we have no convenient bastions to defend.

infact we need to penetrate and damage the chinese bastions in eastern asia. so more a airwing focus is best esp given the PLANAF cannot be scared away with a over abundance of ASMs.

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 12 Jun 2012 17:47

I am also very appreciative of the fact that various design
improvements have been made on this ship over and above the build specifications

http://indiannavy.nic.in/cns-speeches/c ... ins-shakti

What does this mean exactly?

Is Shakti more advanced than Deepak?
Or Is the Design of the Class more advanced than IN Specifications?

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 12 Jun 2012 20:58

Aditya G saar, by "it", I'm assuming you mean the IAC. Like any carrier that is meant to operate modern high-performance fighters, deck length, area, and the volume of the vessel itself will be the major factors that decide the ship's operational performance. The Viraat 'wiggled out' of this requirement because its Harriers could land vertically (of course, the STOVL scheme imposed its own constraints on aircraft performance). That being said, my guess would be that either carrier (Vikram or Vikrant) would be no doubt superior to the Viraat, given their more modern design/redesign, better systems and sensors, as well as the punch the MiG-29Ks will pack.

Singha saar, you are right about the lifts on the IAC being able to bring to the deck more aircraft because of their location. However, there is a trade-off. Having two lifts on the same edge of the deck isn't the best solution from a damage-mitigation standpoint. The Vikram should be able to take more damage while keeping the lifts working, IMHO.

Coming to the length of the ship, it is basically a function of three things: operational requirements, the technology a country possesses, and the length of dry dock available. I think it was the latter two that influenced the length of the IAC-1 more than anything else. The thinking probably was: start off small, acquire experience and knowledge, build the tech base, and then go for a bigger design. That is probably why IAC-2 is slated to be a bigger, heavier, ship.

About the Kuznetsov: it wouldn't be fair to compare it with the Kitty Hawk on a one-to-one basis. If I remember correctly, the Kuz was also an aircraft-carrying cruiser, and not a full-blown carrier. The aircraft were only defensive assets, meant to protect the fleet from NATO bombers and MPAs, while the Granit missiles provided the offensive punch.

The French are being *very* sensible by deciding to go the conventional propulsion route for their future carriers. The decision to use a nuclear reactor in the Charles de Gaulle was essentially a political one, and it has caused them much grief. To accommodate the reactor, the designers had to resort to design compromises elsewhere that would otherwise have been deemed unacceptable. The result is a ship that faced great delays and cost overruns and yet does not come close to delivering the performance that was envisioned at the outset.