Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
India Launches INS Vikrant  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 2182 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 18566 times:

Congratulations to India for launching the first of their own indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...s-vikrant/articleshow/21774896.cms

Quote:
KOCHI: India on Monday launched its first indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, joining the elite club of nations with the capability of designing and building a warship of this size and capability.

Defence Minister A K Antony's wife Elizabeth launched the 37,500-tonne carrier at Kochi shipyard almost four-and-a-half years after its keel was laid by the minister.
http://www.airliners.net/uf/95260/1376357388VhgbCz.jpeg

It's going to be another 1 and a half to 2 years before she is ready, but welcome to the carrier club.

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWingsFan From India, joined Oct 2009, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18504 times:

Congrats! Its an important milestone for India.

So this is aircraft carrier #3 for India and the Indian navy has already ran out of names? Why not name it something else? Is there any 'lineage' between the new Vikrant and the old ?

WingsFan


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5708 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 18480 times:

Looks like the stern is cut off..!


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 575 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 18474 times:

Quoting WingsFan (Reply 1):
So this is aircraft carrier #3 for India and the Indian navy has already ran out of names? Why not name it something else? Is there any 'lineage' between the new Vikrant and the old ?

Actually, this is carrier #4. #3 is the ex-Gorshkov INS Vikramaditya, and #2 was INS Viraat. Vikrant#1 was our first carrier, and the only one to have seen action in battle. I think it's a nice nod to a ship that a lot of people are fond of, and one that served us 36 years.

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
It's going to be another 1 and a half to 2 years before she is ready

Quite the optimist, aren't we?  



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 9161 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 18361 times:

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 3):
Quite the optimist, aren't we?

It takes less time to build a Nimitz than to build this one.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 2182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 18359 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 2):
Looks like the stern is cut off..!

She's not fully complete. As you can see, large portions of the hull are not complete. The lower hull is completed. But the upper hull is only complted about 75% of the way from the bow back. The flight deck only covers that area of the vessel. So you still have approximately 20-25% of the upper hull and flight deck to complete.

And, of course the island is not on the vessel yet. All of that has to be complete, which will include significant portions of the innards and probably the aft section of the hanger deck, before the major weapons, sensors, and other systems can be added. They probably left the chunk of the aft flight deck off because they need a large hole in the hull to get large components inside the ship, and it was either this, or cut large holes into the hull afterwords and get whatever they need in.

I believe the Indian government was at a point where they had to launch the vessel, as the slipway Vikrant was built on was fairly small. She will probably be moved to where the rest of the work can be accomplished.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18254 times:

Part of the reason construction took this long was that the steel was originally planned to be procured from abroad. But that didn't work out, for several reasons. Ultimately they commissioned DMRL to come up with a warship grade steel, and the PSU plants successfully managed to produce it. This steel went into the Vikrant, and also into the P15A/P15B destroyers, P17 frigates and P28 corvettes. In the process they shaved off about Rs.1500crore off the cost, compared to the original price of imported steel, but at the cost of the additional time.

The island and sections of the angled deck have already been seen in pictures elsewhere. They need to be installed after this float out. CSL doesn't have the luxury of letting this hull occupy the drydock continuously - it's better to install those off dock, now that the basic hull is complete.

Keep in mind this is a pretty big carrier for a first local effort - it's larger than anything the RN has had built, except for the QE2 class under construction, for example.

Progress on this ship has been pretty good - there's quite significant progress since the pics from last year, and in a year both the angled deck and island might be in place, for a more complete look. The next hurdle is likely to be sensor and comm integration. The P15A ships are delayed for this reason - the ships are largely complete, but the collaborative weapons suite development (with Israel ?) is not.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 9161 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18250 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
I believe the Indian government was at a point where they had to launch the vessel, as the slipway Vikrant was built on was fairly small. She will probably be moved to where the rest of the work can be accomplished.

Cochin first floated her out from the building hall in 2011, they have been working on her whilst she's been floating for 2 years now.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18245 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 7):
Cochin first floated her out from the building hall in 2011, they have been working on her whilst she's been floating for 2 years now.

It was floated out in 2012, but to make space on the drydock for the INS Viraat's more urgent overhaul work. Once that was completed, the Vikrant hull returned to drydock.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 9161 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18224 times:

some more photos

http://oi44.tinypic.com/15k3eq.jpg

http://oi40.tinypic.com/2n1crro.jpg

[Edited 2013-08-13 10:41:03]

User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 17828 times:

Tell me a little bit about the propulsion systems that they are planning to employ on this vessel.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 2182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17808 times:

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 11):
Tell me a little bit about the propulsion systems that they are planning to employ on this vessel.

4 GE LM2500+ gas turbine engines, coupled to two shafts.


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17804 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
4 GE LM2500+ gas turbine engines, coupled to two shafts.

Any info on the running gear? Fixed or controlled pitch props? This sounds a lot like a USN cruiser/destroyer plant (same 4x LM2500 setup) which is fine for a sleek destroyer looking for speed but not for a carrier.

My concern with this kind of setup is it will be a fuel hog and they'll have to become very reliant on unrep for any kind of blue water ops. IMHO they should of went with a CODAG setup like the Makin Island (almost the same displacement) did so she could cruise on diesels and use the turbines for sprints, saves a ton of fuel.

Heck I'm sure if they asked us we would of sold them the entire engineering plant...

[Edited 2013-08-14 20:47:35]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 2182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 17790 times:

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 12):
Any info on the running gear? Fixed or controlled pitch props? This sounds a lot like a USN cruiser/destroyer plant (same 4x LM2500 setup) which is fine for a sleek destroyer looking for speed but not for a carrier.

It is apparently and indigenous gearbox they are using, no word on the props. The running gear was designed in collaboration with an Italian shipyard, Fincantieri.

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 12):
My concern with this kind of setup is it will be a fuel hog and they'll have to become very reliant on unrep for any kind of blue water ops. IMHO they should of went with a CODAG setup like the Makin Island (almost the same displacement) did so she could cruise on diesels and use the turbines for sprints, saves a ton of fuel.

Apparently, the design goal was maximum speed of 28 knots, with a endurance of 7,500 nautical miles at 18 knots.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 14217 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 17786 times:

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 12):

My concern with this kind of setup is it will be a fuel hog and they'll have to become very reliant on unrep for any kind of blue water ops.

How far away do you think they'll want to be going? Seems their main concerns (Pakistan, China) are their neighbors.

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 12):
Heck I'm sure if they asked us we would of sold them the entire engineering plant...

Well it seems GE sold them 4x LM2500... If GE is like a lot of companies, I bet a lot of people of Indian origin worked on those suckers....



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 17782 times:

A few more pics from the launch:

This is how it looked last summer when floated out to make way for the Viraat's overhaul:

Probably late 2010:
http://frontierindia.org/forum/attachments/f3/1349d1375583816-history-indian-aircraft-carrier-design-aircraft-carrier-ins-vikrant-indian-navy-beilg-built-cochin-shipyard-limited.jpg


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4909 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 17766 times:

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 3):
I think it's a nice nod to a ship that a lot of people are fond of, and one that served us 36 years.

I had a Heineken on board when she visited Madras Port in the late 60s...  


Anybody, what are the pros and cons of having a ski-jump vs a flat deck? Thanks.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 2182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 17734 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 16):
Anybody, what are the pros and cons of having a ski-jump vs a flat deck? Thanks.

For STOBAR carriers, it means that aircraft can take off with more payload and fuel with a ski-jump than with a regular flat deck if no catapult is available. The limitation is that if you eventually decide to install catapults, they don't work on a ski-jump. Also a ski-jump cuts into space for deck parking of aircraft, which means smaller air group.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 9161 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17694 times:

It's always surprised me the the US LHA's weren't built with ramps, especially the new America class, I'm sure the underpowered turd F-35 needs all the assistance it can get to haul it's lardy arse into the sky.

User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4909 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 17665 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
For STOBAR carriers, it means that aircraft can take off with more payload and fuel with a ski-jump than with a regular flat deck if no catapult is available. The limitation is that if you eventually decide to install catapults, they don't work on a ski-jump. Also a ski-jump cuts into space for deck parking of aircraft, which means smaller air group.

Thank you, Sir!   


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 14217 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17616 times:

On the bad news side:

Indian submarine blasts: Divers struggle to search vessel

Quote:

Indian divers are struggling to search a submarine which sank after it exploded in a Mumbai dockyard with 18 sailors feared dead inside


Wikipedia tells us:

Quote:

INS Sindhurakshak is a Russian-made Kilo-class Type 636[2] (Sindhughosh-class) diesel-electric submarine of the Indian Navy.[3]


In happier times:



Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Sindhurakshak_%28S63%29

A sad event at the same time the new carrier moves forward...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 9161 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17618 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
Also a ski-jump cuts into space for deck parking of aircraft, which means smaller air group.

Depends on how you design the ski-jump; if you removed the ski-jump from the Queen Elizabeth class I doubt there would be any additional parking available as that would be where the cat's would be located, it's nicely illustrated in this diagram (which shows more parking on the non cat version.



User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 575 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 17116 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 16):
I had a Heineken on board when she visited Madras Port in the late 60s...

I've only seen her at Bombay, after she was converted into a museum. On the Viraat, however, I once got a chance to ride up to the flight deck on one of the aircraft elevators when she was visiting Cochin.. one of the thrilling moments of my early teens..  



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5708 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 17116 times:

Can the F35B even use a ski jump, has this been tried ?


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17052 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
Can the F35B even use a ski jump, has this been tried ?

Just ask around. I am quite several of our F-35 'specialists' can tell you, based on their apparently vast knowledge.
A WAG would be "it could be accomplished", especially if LM oversaw the certification. Cost unknown.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31796 posts, RR: 55
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 17328 times:

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 6):
In the process they shaved off about Rs.1500crore off the cost

Nicepics.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 6208 posts, RR: 10
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17471 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
Can the F35B even use a ski jump, has this been tried ?

If you look at the diagram's of the Queen Elizabeth class in reply 21, they show a ski-jump and F-35's. So it is safe to assume that yes, the F-35 can use a ski-jump.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 8634 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 17781 times:

What is the source of the diagram in reply 21?.

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 9161 posts, RR: 14
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 17811 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 27):
What is the source of the diagram in reply 21?.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-24.htm

Beedall is highly reputable, so I have not problem with the accuracy of the diagram. What I think is impressive is the size of the hanger, in the middle picture the red outline is the CVF hanger, the blue is an Invincible Class hanger.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 2182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 17901 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 28):
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-24.htm

Beedall is highly reputable, so I have not problem with the accuracy of the diagram. What I think is impressive is the size of the hanger, in the middle picture the red outline is the CVF hanger, the blue is an Invincible Class hanger.

On the subject of HMS Queen Elizabeth, this is what she looks like as of a few weeks ago:

http://www.airliners.net/uf/95260/1377109455sMoI5K.jpeg

All that remains from the hull and superstructure standpoint is to install two flight deck extensions fitted plus a ramp.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31796 posts, RR: 55
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 15506 times:

Comming up real fast.....nice pics.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6597 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 14996 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
It's going to be another 1 and a half to 2 years before she is ready, but welcome to the carrier club.
Quoting sturmovik (Reply 3):
Quite the optimist, aren't we?
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 4):
It takes less time to build a Nimitz than to build this one.

In India's defense, you're talking about a country's first indigenous effort to design and build an all-new class, and comparing it with a country who has been building aircraft carriers for almost 90 years, and whose current class has a lineage going back 60 years. The current carrier is the first one with any significant time gap, and that's because it's the largest revision, though it is still a derivative in most respects.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 575 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 14722 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 31):
In India's defense, you're talking about a country's first indigenous effort to design and build an all-new class, and comparing it with a country who has been building aircraft carriers for almost 90 years, and whose current class has a lineage going back 60 years. The current carrier is the first one with any significant time gap, and that's because it's the largest revision, though it is still a derivative in most respects.

Agreed, but we do have a history of painfully long drawn development processes for defence projects, even accounting for the fact that it is a first time attempt. Hence my pessimism. I have no doubt she'll eventually turn out to be a good ship, it'll just take longer than any of us expect. And that bit of optimism comes from looking at our missile program.

As an aside, I saw this ship in COK the day before yesterday, you can see her from about 300ft away when travelling on the road that leads to Cochin Shipyard. She looks quite impressive, they seem to have made progress from what we've seen in the pictures in the media when she was launched.



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 14552 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 18):
It's always surprised me the the US LHA's weren't built with ramps, especially the new America class, I'm sure the underpowered turd F-35 needs all the assistance it can get to haul it's lardy arse into the sky.

So very angry for whatever reason but for those looking for actual knowledge on this the main reason the US Amphibious ships don't use ski-jumps is the impact it would have on helicopter operations. You lose at least one if not two of the deck spots for supporting large helicopter operations which is the primary reason for these ships to exist. The F-35B will be quite capable of getting off the deck as the takeoff distance was 570 feet for full fuel and 2,700 pounds on internal weapons. Considering both the Wasp Class and America Class have over 830 feet of deck to work with there is a large margin for lengthening the takeoff run if you want to carry more weapons into the air. Conversely in air defense only modes you would see that takeoff distance shortened as the weight comes down.

My guess is, and we won't know until the NATOPS for the F-35B is published years and years from now as those are classified documents many times, that the USMC can carry all the weapons they would want simply by backing up and lengthening the deck run for the plane. A ski-jump takes those helicopter spots forever. A longer takeoff run takes those spots for a short period of time.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 24):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
Can the F35B even use a ski jump, has this been tried ?

Just ask around. I am quite several of our F-35 'specialists' can tell you, based on their apparently vast knowledge.
A WAG would be "it could be accomplished", especially if LM oversaw the certification. Cost unknown.

Ski-jumps were designed into the B from the outset and the UK plans to use the F-35 with ski-jumps as do the Italians I believe. I think there is a ski-jump on the ground at one of the testing facilities (Pauxtent I think but I am not going to bother to look it up). This was designed in from the start. The only thing delaying it would be if they stopped working on it for a while when the UK proposed to switch to the C variant. But testing for it was built into the program from the start.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 13482 times:

While the Vikrant's construction continues, INS Vikramaditya was formally handed over to the Indian Navy at Severodvinsk today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKOn6CjKRXA#t=13

It takes the pennant number R33. The original Vikrant was R11, and Viraat is R22. So the next Vikrant will probably be R44.


User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 9387 posts, RR: 23
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 13411 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
On the subject of HMS Queen Elizabeth, this is what she looks like as of a few weeks ago:

I'm a big fan of naval history, and of the British navy in particular. The British for many years built the grandest looking ships. But the Queen Elizabeth looks like a block of flats...



Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 9161 posts, RR: 14
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13235 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 31):
In India's defense, you're talking about a country's first indigenous effort to design and build an all-new class

They had a fair bit of help from Fincanteri, but that's beside the point it takes them significantly longer to build a ship of any class than say the Koreans or Chinese.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 35):
But the Queen Elizabeth looks like a block of flats...

Speaking of Queen Elizabeth, the ski jump was installed a week of so ago, so steel wise she's pretty much complete.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13222 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 36):
They had a fair bit of help from Fincanteri, but that's beside the point it takes them significantly longer to build a ship of any class than say the Koreans or Chinese.

Fincantieri's role is consultancy related to propulsion system integration, which hasn't yet been done. There was a previous plan to build a carrier based on the Fincantieri-built Garibaldi class, but IN wanted something much bigger. Building a carrier may be a first, but IN's inhouse design team has already delivered the Delhi, Kolkata and Bangalore class DDG designs, as well as the Shivalik class FFGa.

While the Chinese and Koreans may arguably make cargo ships faster, neither of them have ever built a carrier, while we are in the process of doing so. The Chinese took 7 years (2005-12) to refurbish the Varyag. India initiated construction of the Vikrant in 2009, with its current milestones on track to enable sea trials in 2016-17, about the same timeline to build something from scratch as opposed to refurbish an existing hull.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 9161 posts, RR: 14
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13209 times:

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 37):
The Chinese took 7 years (2005-12) to refurbish the Varyag.

The Chinese took a long time because they were pulling apart and rebuilding her to study the vessel, I'm pretty sure when China builds it's own CVN's they'll be constructed fairly quickly.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13181 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 38):
The Chinese took a long time because they were pulling apart and rebuilding her to study the vessel, I'm pretty sure when China builds it's own CVN's they'll be constructed fairly quickly.

There is a catch, almost all western countries transferred dual-use technology to India to make Viraat a reality. When China wants dual-use technology western countries stay very quiet. Chinese media was all over this issue.

Chinese didn't realize the restrictions on towing a unpowered hulk through out the world. Otherwise they would bid on USS Forrestal in a heartbeat.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 13130 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 38):
The Chinese took a long time because they were pulling apart and rebuilding her to study the vessel, I'm pretty sure when China builds it's own CVN's they'll be constructed fairly quickly.

And India took time because it wanted to get things right the first time on its own. I'd argue it's a hell of a lot harder to figure out how to built something from scratch, than to refurbish a decent hull - one of a proper carrier design like the Kuz class, rather than the Kiev-based Vikramaditya, which was harder for the Russians to convert.

Building from scratch involves also figuring out things like hull metallurgy - one of the primary factors that delayed the Vikrant's construction - that a refurb job does not entail. Further, they had an extra 5-7 years to 'figure things out' - I started the clock at the official refurb in 2005, not counting the fact that the hull was in PRC for years before, and could easily have been studied all that while, even as it was a 'casino'.

The bottomline is neither China nor Korea have built a carrier, and just figuring out its design and refurbishing one is a massive undertaking that took them as long as it's taking us to figure out and build one up from the keel the very first time.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11895 times:

India to build four LPDs

Quote:
The Indian Navy has floated a US $2.6 billion domestic tender for construction of four landing platform docks (LPDs) and bids were sent to domestic shipyards, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering, and ABG Shipyard.

A senior Navy planner said the service will select a winning design based on the low bidder. State-owned Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (HSL) then will build two LPDs based on that design and the winning company will build two.

This will be India’s first attempt to build the 20,000-ton vessels.

“The Indian Navy is in dire need of modernizing its amphibious capacity and enhancing its sea lift capability. Given its large island assets and the fact that India is emerging as a security provider and guarantor in the Indian ocean region [which has many island nations], the need of amphibious assets cannot be understated. The addition of four LPDs is hence an instrument in the fulfillment of India’s growing strategic role,” said Probal Ghosh, senior fellow at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 42, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6655 times:

In the last year and half, the Vikrant has been dramatically build up, and just floated out of Cochin Shipyard a couple of days ago. It's powerplant , propellers and systems are already installed, and will now fit out all the cabling, flight support systems, radar/comm and air defence systems, before sea trials in 2016/17.


It has measurements comparable to the French Charles de Gaulle, but has a larger rectangular deck like the QE class. The island shows the influence of Fincantieri's early consulting input, but Vikrant displaces almost twice as much as Cavour.

Basic parameters:
Length: 265 metres
Beam: 60 metres
Displacement: 45,000 tonnes

Air wing: HAL Tejas-Navy, MiG-29K, HAL Dhruv, Kamov Ka-31, Sea Kings


User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 9387 posts, RR: 23
Reply 43, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6626 times:

Pop quiz everyone:

Why have all carriers for the past 90 years or so had their islands on the starboard side of the ship, and who (which navy) figured out that this was a good idea?



Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5708 posts, RR: 19
Reply 44, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6568 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):
Why have all carriers for the past 90 years or so had their islands on the starboard side of the ship

Because it's better than having them on the port side.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30148 posts, RR: 58
Reply 45, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6597 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):
Why have all carriers for the past 90 years or so had their islands on the starboard side of the ship, and who (which navy) figured out that this was a good idea?

Actually the IJN had two carriers Akagi and Hiryu both had islands on the port side.

Akagi
http://ww2db.com/images/ship_akagi4.jpg

Hiryu
http://ww2db.com/images/battle_midway9.jpg



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4129 posts, RR: 17
Reply 46, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6466 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):

My guess: UK or US, because torque made their single-engied propeller aircraft to veer towards port?

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 9387 posts, RR: 23
Reply 47, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6391 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 46):
My guess: UK or US, because torque made their single-engied propeller aircraft to veer towards port?

Close. Trials during WWI aboard HMS Fearless which had a superstructure right in the middle, showed that when the pilot had to abort the landing, over 70% of the time he would yank the plane to port. At the time, British designers were working on HMS Eagle, which was supposed to have islands on both sides if the ship, connected by a connecting bridge 30 feet above the deck. The Furious trials showed that this was a bad idea, and Eagle was completed with an island on the starboard side, the first carrier in this config.

HMS Furious:


HMS Eagle:


[Edited 2015-06-12 07:10:06]


Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4129 posts, RR: 17
Reply 48, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6204 times:

Nice, thanks for posting!

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 955 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6127 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
Close. Trials during WWI aboard HMS Fearless which had a superstructure right in the middle, showed that when the pilot had to abort the landing, over 70% of the time he would yank the plane to port.

Symptom of driving on the wrong side of the road, perhaps.


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4129 posts, RR: 17
Reply 50, posted (2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6032 times:

  Dreadnought said I was close, so I guess engine torque.


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 2182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6058 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 49):
Symptom of driving on the wrong side of the road, perhaps.

It was the way early aircraft were laid out; it's easier to pull left than to pull right, coupled to the torque steer provided by the engines.

Once the starboard side position was established and a few carriers were built in that configuration, it became difficult to change. Pilots used to landing with the island to their right would be confused on a ship with the island on the other side. There was nothing to be gained by moving the island, so it stayed in the same place. Once angled decks were introduced this became even more important, since the deck angle would have to be changed to move the island.

As mentioned, IJN Hiryu and IJN Akagi were built with port-side islands in order to improve flight patters when in conjunction with starboard-side carriers (Kaga and Soryu respectively), but this was apparently not even considered a very good idea, and never repeated in any other carrier design.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 52, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5179 times:

More pics from the launch:
http://i.imgur.com/fleThd3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cKqX6WI.jpg
The elevators on each side of the island are visible in this one:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tQbu2tG8NC8/VXlsXr6wdOI/AAAAAAAANOA/DCdt1hHVf6U/s1600/INS_Vikrant_New_12.jpg
Fitting out progressing after launch:
http://i.imgur.com/SDK59lw.jpg?1

There's talk that a second carrier of this design will be ordered. Originally, the plan was to build a second much larger supercarrier with CATOBAR/EMALS and potentially nuclear power. But considering that's an ambitious set of choices, a second school of thought proposes building another of these, potentially with a longer deck of ~280-290 meters to permit simultaneous takeoffs and landings. Cochin Shipyard also asserted that since they're already familiar with this design, they can float out a second hull within 4 years of the drydock being available, due to the use of CAD/CAM driven modular assembly, something they gained experience with through collaboration with Samsung Heavy Industries.


User currently onlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 1442 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5150 times:

Very crisp looking superstructure, particularly with those MF-STAR AESA installations.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 52):
There's talk that a second carrier of this design will be ordered. Originally, the plan was to build a second much larger supercarrier with CATOBAR/EMALS and potentially nuclear power. But considering that's an ambitious set of choices, a second school of thought proposes building another of these, potentially with a longer deck of ~280-290 meters to permit simultaneous takeoffs and landings. Cochin Shipyard also asserted that since they're already familiar with this design, they can float out a second hull within 4 years of the drydock being available, due to the use of CAD/CAM driven modular assembly, something they gained experience with through collaboration with Samsung Heavy Industries.

Primary source, or do you have a link for this? very interesting either way!

Cheers
A


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5038 times:

Quoting angad84 (Reply 53):
Primary source, or do you have a link for this? very interesting either way!

Combination of news reports and talking head chatter over the past week summarized.

The Vishal's design parameters are still up in the air, but there's clearly a lot of new technologies they're bringing together, while the new Vikrant is a surprisingly well implemented design from the naval design bureau, considering we've never built a carrier before, Cochin Shipyard itself has never built a large warship before (nearly all those went to Mazagon; CSL generally builds VLCC/bulk carriers) and the use of modular construction on this scale itself is new. Despite that, the implementation looks excellent.

IN usually doesn't go for one offs when building things itself, building DDGs in flights of 3-4 and FFGs in even greater numbers. Viraat is ancient. Vikramaditya isn't really an optimal carrier in many ways. Vikrant in comparison is a very good implementation from all that's visible today. Once CSL got the warship grade steel starting 2009-10 they have been pretty fast at getting the Vikrant together.


User currently onlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 1442 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4879 times:

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 54):
IN usually doesn't go for one offs when building things itself, building DDGs in flights of 3-4 and FFGs in even greater numbers. Viraat is ancient. Vikramaditya isn't really an optimal carrier in many ways. Vikrant in comparison is a very good implementation from all that's visible today. Once CSL got the warship grade steel starting 2009-10 they have been pretty fast at getting the Vikrant together.

Agreed 100%. Feels a bit like the political side (DTTI/EMALS etc) is pushing the Navy into a corner with Vishal, when they would have ideally liked to keep things consistent.

Cheers
A


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2375 posts, RR: 5
Reply 56, posted (2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4655 times:

Quoting angad84 (Reply 55):
Agreed 100%. Feels a bit like the political side (DTTI/EMALS etc) is pushing the Navy into a corner with Vishal, when they would have ideally liked to keep things consistent.

Indeed. The whole 'we'll give you EMALS technology' thing from the US sounds a lot like the Russians telling us some time ago "we'll give you this carrier free! You just have to pay for refurbishment!" Remember how that one turned out ?  

IN can get two new carriers by 2025 (plus the Vikramaditya) with ease if they agree to build a Vikrant follow on with similar specs, or a lengthened deck to accomodate simultaneous takeoff and landing. The naval design bureau has a long record of hull development from small to large, Shivalik FFGs and the Delhi/Kolkata/Vizag DDGs being the newest.

Vikrant, even though it's only 265m vs Vikramaditya's 285m, probably has far better carrying capacity and operational ability simply because it's a true carrier and not a 'heavy missile copter carrying cruiser' (or whatever the Soviets called it) turned into a carrier, with an island stuck halfway into the deck, and a longer deck on a Vikrant followon will provide even greater flexibility. I wish we hadn't acquired the VikAd, but instead just build 2 Vikrant-class in the first place.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic India Launches INS Vikrant
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Problems With India's Mig-21 posted Thu Aug 8 2013 07:40:15 by planespotting
Japan Launches New Mini-carrier posted Tue Aug 6 2013 18:35:41 by ThePointblank
SpaceX CRS-2 Launches On February 28th posted Tue Feb 26 2013 15:49:24 by zanl188
India To Buy Up To 189 Rafales posted Thu Jan 17 2013 07:13:20 by sebolino
North Korea Launches Rocket posted Tue Dec 11 2012 17:27:44 by PHX787
India Buys 15 Chinooks posted Tue Nov 6 2012 13:52:44 by kanban
India Select A330 For Tanker (again) posted Thu Nov 1 2012 12:40:52 by scbriml
India Russia Launch MTA posted Fri Oct 12 2012 12:39:26 by LAXDESI
India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia posted Sat Aug 18 2012 23:41:04 by comorin
India Air Force BBD Global 5000 posted Tue Aug 7 2012 09:34:37 by sturmovik

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format