INS Vikramaditya (Adm Gorshkov) aircraft carrier

[Bleh]

And just like ins jalashwa signed the deal that it can't be used in war..?

We probably needed one example to design our own...

 

[Aaj ka hero]

Recently Americans also started training support to napaks again

I don’t feel bad because that's they always do.
Also some assholes want to show india can be needled like always by throwing bones to pagalistan because jaishankar ji said something.
Why don't we cancel this miserly deal of s-60 helicopters?
You have a country that has a huge navy but still want to buy helis from others.
As a military nut I DON'T KNOW WHETHER TO LAUGH OR CRY at INDIAN NAVY so fixation with foreign made helis.
Despite helis being important part of any huge navy.
Aaack thuuuu sala Iss government pe they can't even bring people THAT ARE Decision makers just like THEY PRODUCE JOKER CMs like that Jharkhand guy and have Haryana CM that just got his ass saved because of timely intervention and fadnavis who if I am not wrong lost majority.
Everyone is saying INDIGENOUS INDIGENOUS but nobody is setting foot first in that direction.
Dhruv naval version in this case here we discussed how it was OK aircraft for navy tender but alas perfection is what desired and then come costly integration with foreign made helis.
Lootne ka Accha mauka hai loot lo.
From Italians to Mullaysians to Australians to even Russians, anyone if want to needle INDIA contact pagalistan and islamists open they ass too well they are good only for that.
Thanks to that jackshit UK legacy still motherfuckers cry "INDIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BRITISH EMPIRE DEATH" this type of their death neither India desired neither UK enemies at that time.

 

[Hari Sud]

As per US naval experience an A/c spends six months in the naval yard for repairs every three years. It spends about a month every year in the yard. Hence the current yard work of Vikramaditya in Russia is normal.

 

[fire starter]

INS vikramaditya's sensors are so much advanced ,including fitment of Long range Air Surveillance Radars, Advanced Electronic Warfare Suite makes the ship capable of maintaining a surveillance bubble of over 500 kms around the ship.

 

[fire starter]

It's totally wrong to say that INS Vikramaditya's induction haven't provided India with power projection capability.

A huge number of people even today sight the old CAG report and claim that Vikramaditya is a problematic carrier with short life, also the air power projection of MiG-29K is limited.

In reality, the Vikramaditya's refit had costed a lot and has made it almost a new aircraft carrier. The MiG-29K can carry more weapons than Chinese Sukhoi Su-33 duplicate J-15 aircarft. The Su-33 is a large heavy category fighter and cannot take-off from aircraft carrier when loaded with all it's weapons and fuel. If it has to takeoff with two Anti-Ship missiles and two AAMs it will have to carry less fuel, which depletes it's range and adds extra costs for a buddy refuelling post takeoff. This is the reason India chose MiG-29K over Su-33.

But the Chinese went for Su-33 and despite having larger carriers would have to manage their strike aircrafts in a limited range. With full fuel the J-15 can barely takeoff with just two MR-AAMs and two SR-AAMs. Upon this the Chinese don't have an experience in long range deployment of Carrier Strike Forces.

The Chinese are developing a medium category fighter aircraft and have other options like Steam Catapults or EMALS for their future carrier which will solve their problems.

On the contrary MiG-29K can takeoff with it's full weapon load from the aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya and the future INS Vikrant. It can also carry drop fuel tanks to dramatically increase it's effective combat range. The INS Vikramaditya has made many import patrols in Indian Ocean Region and the future INS Vikrant would add to the punch.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

 

[Assassin 2.0]

 

[bhramos]

INS Vikramaditya paid tribute to Corona Warriors!

 

[Assassin 2.0]

 

[Bleh]

Why is Kutzenov/Liaoning's frontal part so much longer than Vikki?.. Can extending the distance increase the takeoff payload of jets in skyjump careers?

@bhramos @Gessler @IndianHawk @sorcerer @Chinmoy

 

[piKacHHu]

Why is Kutzenov/Liaoning's frontal part so much longer than Vikki?.. Can extending the distance increase the takeoff payload od jets in skyjump careers? View attachment 49698

@bhramos @Gessler @IndianHawk @sorcerer @Chinmoy

Because Vikki is a conversion of Admiral Gorshkov to a ski-jump carrier. Gorshkov was designed to operate VSTOL aircraft Yak 38. Earlier, it looked like this ;

So, there is inherent limitation on the length of ski-jump based on the existing structure of ship. Moreover, the length of airstrip was sufficient for accommodating & operating MIG 29K.

Whereas, Admiral Kuznetsov class carriers are designed keeping in mind requirement of longer airstrip for heavy fighter i.e. Su 33.

 

[Bleh]

Because Vikki is a conversion of Admiral Gorshkov to a ski-jump carrier. Gorshkov was designed to operate VSTOL aircraft Yak 38. Earlier, it looked like this ;
View attachment 49699

So, there is inherent limitation on the length of ski-jump based on the existing structure of ship. Moreover, the length of airstrip was sufficient for accommodating & operating MIG 29K.

Whereas, Admiral Kuznetsov class carriers are designed keeping in mind requirement of longer airstrip for heavy fighter i.e. Su 33.

Ok. What of the 2nd more important question?.. Anything?

 

[piKacHHu]

Ok. What of the 2nd more important question?.. Anything?

May be or may be Not.. A lot will depend upon whether you could land on the deck safely with increased payload. The take-off part happens at full after-burner in ski-jump carriers; whether full load or no load again from safety point of view.
Length of airstrip may play important role in rate of launching of aircraft from the deck IMO. i.e. more aircraft could be lined up for launch in short duration of time.

 

[IndianHawk]

Why is Kutzenov/Liaoning's frontal part so much longer than Vikki?.. Can extending the distance increase the takeoff payload of jets in skyjump careers? View attachment 49698

@bhramos @Gessler @IndianHawk @sorcerer @Chinmoy

That much extra distance is practically meaningless.
The ski jump in both is proportional to overall length nothing more.

Remember both su33 and it's copy j15 are failed designs. Both Russian and Chinese will be forced to settle for a medium weight bird in the end in the class of mi29k / rafale etc.

 

[Bleh]

That much extra distance is practically meaningless.
The ski jump in both is proportional to overall length nothing more.

Remember both su33 and it's copy j15 are failed designs. Both Russian and Chinese will be forced to settle for a medium weight bird in the end in the class of mi29k / rafale etc.

Do realise that I am not asking with respect to Russky or Chinky birds...
My question is regarding the fact that carriers like Vikrant has both short takeoff & long takeoff positions. So I strongly doubt the extra distance is meaningless.

About the angle... Given jets don't fly straight up after sky jump, but kinda floats ahead at a high alpha until it accelerates enough to produce needed lift. You can't chuck them at whatever angle you want, they'll stall.

So modifying the skyjump-angle to whatever is optimum, can we elongate the carrier making those runways longer, to make jets haul more payload?

 

[piKacHHu]

So modifying the skyjump-angle to whatever is optimum, can we elongate the carrier making those runways longer, to make jets haul more payload?

It can't be deduced as simple as that; As I said earlier, there is a reason that Naval fighters carry lower load with their land based counter parts or with heavy modification. If you want to launch an aircraft with increased load and don't expect it to land on the deck again with that load, then you may be right. Let's get a little pedantic about science of ski-jump launch;

h is the minimum clearance above the sea level required for safe operations; which is kept constant irrespective of load-out.

This is the force balance of the aircraft launching from ski-jump. Following points are to be considered w.r.t your question;
1. Increasing length of deck means increasing the speed of aircraft at the point of separation from the deck assuming aircraft is on maximum thrust. But here, point is kept in mind that the lift 'L' becomes significant much after the separation when the aircraft is appeared to be dipping yet its speed in longitudinal direction is increasing due to continuous thrust.
2. The increasing longitudinal speed will increase the lift balancing the weight in the vertical axis and the aircraft will start its normal climb.
3. Again, the iterations could be done for longer airstrip, in fact, reaching up to the point where it doesn't require ski-jump; but the economics of building such a long carrier will be be gone for toss.
4. This is the precise reason, why there is a lot of emphasis on T/W ratio of aircraft for considering carrier operations.
5. With increasing rated load, you have to strengthen the undercarriage and belly structure as well; that puts additional weight penalty on the carrier fighter. Moreover, the fatigue load experienced during landing will increase as the weight increases.

For more details, please refer to this journal article;

https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2012/PAPERS/167.PDF

As I said earlier, the carrier length is optimized much more for carrier operations which also involves successive launching of multiple aircraft in short duration; landing or approach to landing; accommodating more aircraft on deck, and many more.. It's a complete science in itself !
So the long & short pathways for take-off that you were indicating in the figure are for facilitating successive launch of aircraft IMO; you can get the idea by locating the thrust/blast deflectors positioned in that path,

 

[Bleh]

Again, the iterations could be done for longer airstrip, in fact, reaching up to the point where it doesn't require ski-jump; but the economics of building such a long carrier will be be gone for toss.
...
So the long & short pathways for take-off that you were indicating in the figure are for facilitating successive launch of aircraft IMO; you can get the idea by locating the thrust/blast deflectors positioned in that path,

Damn that was good explanation.

About the quoted parts. None of ours have blast deflectors. If added would they, by your logic, negate the need to short/long take off?.. I'm not so sure about that.

Also, a carrier need not necessarily be stretched much for that. Slight increase would better facilities taking off with drop-tanks (to be ejected or emptied by landing)... Could be done with pretty minor (by aircraft carrier standard) changes;

 

[Rizvi Khan]

A little Mig29K

 

[silentlurker]

There is a computer game thread for video games, go post it there instead.

 

[Rizvi Khan]

There is a computer game thread for video games, go post it there instead.

Sure.