INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[Tridev123]

No.
Vikramaditya can carry a maximum of 34 aircraft while Vikrant can carry a maximum of 36 aircraft (19 on flight deck and 17 in hangar).

Information source:

Press Information Bureau

pib.gov.in

I have not made an 'assumption', to be precise.
I have made a preliminary assessment.

Would appreciate if you can base your 'preliminary assessment' on actual figures.
I believe the specifications of both the Vikramaditya's and the Vikrant are available in the open, on the net.

This would increase the quality of the discussion and also bring out the differences between the Soviet design philosophy and the Western approach to aircraft carrier design.

Would require some effort on your part. The call is yours. Other members would benefit.

 

[Akula]

No.
Vikramaditya can carry a maximum of 34 aircraft while Vikrant can carry a maximum of 36 aircraft (19 on flight deck and 17 in hangar).

Information source:

Press Information Bureau

pib.gov.in

I have not made an 'assumption', to be precise.
I have made a preliminary assessment.

Vikrant has 6 helicopter landing spots than 5 of Vikramaditya.

 

[AZTEC]

Would appreciate if you can base your 'preliminary assessment' on actual figures.
I believe the specifications of both the Vikramaditya's and the Vikrant are available in the open, on the net.

This would increase the quality of the discussion and also bring out the differences between the Soviet design philosophy and the Western approach to aircraft carrier design.

Would require some effort on your part. The call is yours. Other members would benefit.

INS Vikrant
As you can see, the following image shows a rough comparison of the length of the runways of Vikrant with its known overall length (262 meter).

The red line denotes overall lenght, and the green lines are for the runways.

Using basic ratio and proportion mathematics, the length of the runways are:
-runway 2: 262 x 0.84 ≈ 220 meters.
-runway 3: 262 x 0.60 ≈ 157 meters.

Note: This does NOT account for the curvature of the ski-jump ramp but it is nevertheless useful for rough comparison.

INS Vikramaditya
This is the image for Vikramaditya.
Again, the red line represents overall length (284 meters) and the green ones represent the runways.

Using basic ratio and proportion mathematics, the length of the runways are:
-runway 2: 284 x 0.69 ≈ 196 meters.
-runway 3: 284 x 0.51 ≈ 145 meters.

Note: This does NOT account for the curvature of the ski-jump ramp but it is nevertheless useful for rough comparison.

CONCLUSION
The runways of Vikrant is longer than the runways of Vikramaditya.

Hence, Vikrant's fighter jets can carry more fuel and payload while taking off.

Software used: https://eleif.net/photo_measure.html

 

[Bhurki]

The size of the lifts pretty much torpedoes the integration of either rafale or F-18E.

 

[AZTEC]

View attachment 72140

The size of the lifts pretty much torpedoes the integration of either rafale or F-18E.

No.
You got it wrong.
It appears you only measured half of the lift.

Rafale is smaller in size compared to MiG 29K.

 

[Longewala]

View attachment 72140

The size of the lifts pretty much torpedoes the integration of either rafale or F-18E.

Dumb question.
But, as I see close to half of the aitcraft are carried on deck and the hangers would not be able to accommodate all aircraft even in bad weather

Would it therefore be possible to carry say a dozen Rafales or f-18s on the deck full time

I appreciate any major repairs such as an engine change would be rendered difficult or even impossible, but given higher serviceability of those other aircraft Vs mig-29 (allegedly), potential for using them in future catobar carriers and if we ensure the ones on board are in top condition to begin with...

Would it be a decent tradeoff? Or am I displaying my ignorance of naval matters?

 

[Bhurki]

No.
You got it wrong.
It appears you only measured half of the lift.

Rafale is smaller in size compared to MiG 29K.

Lift size is no more than 30 ft wide ( same as Kiev class)

Mig 29k folded wingspan - 26 ft
F-18E/F folded wingspan - 32 ft
Rafale fixed wingspan - 36 ft (no wing folding)

 

[Bhurki]

Dumb question.
But, as I see close to half of the aitcraft are carried on deck and the hangers would not be able to accommodate all aircraft even in bad weather

Would it therefore be possible to carry say a dozen Rafales or f-18s on the deck full time

I appreciate any major repairs such as an engine change would be rendered difficult or even impossible, but given higher serviceability of those other aircraft Vs mig-29 (allegedly), potential for using them in future catobar carriers and if we ensure the ones on board are in top condition to begin with...

Would it be a decent tradeoff? Or am I displaying my ignorance of naval matters?

F-18E goes to the hangar after every sortie the USN performs.
I'll let you decide whether thats 'necessary' or not.

 

[silentlurker]

Dumb question.
But, as I see close to half of the aitcraft are carried on deck and the hangers would not be able to accommodate all aircraft even in bad weather

Would it therefore be possible to carry say a dozen Rafales or f-18s on the deck full time

I appreciate any major repairs such as an engine change would be rendered difficult or even impossible, but given higher serviceability of those other aircraft Vs mig-29 (allegedly), potential for using them in future catobar carriers and if we ensure the ones on board are in top condition to begin with...

Would it be a decent tradeoff? Or am I displaying my ignorance of naval matters?

In addition to maintenace, leaving your aircraft on deck exposes them to sea spray in anything but the most calm sea conditions. It would be very bad for your aircraft over the long-term, especially aircraft with special coatings like Rafale or F-35s

 

[shiphone]

it seems the clearer GE images of the same period exists.

the two carriers used to be in the same 'shots' on GE...it might be the reference for an inexact comparation of the lift size (and the vessels' Dimensions )...but very intuitive indeed.

 

[Tumba]

FULL BULL SHIT !
The origins of SNECMA engines are the german engineers POW.
It's not because SAFRAN (ex SNECMA) is producing 50% of the CFM56 familly that the fighter jet are GE derivatives. The US are jealous on high tech, specially about space and jets.
Stop that pityfull french bashing Bro.

I was banned so not able to reply to ur post...

Here look at this

"In 1971, Safran Aircraft Engines (formerly Snecma) of France selected GE as a partner to develop a new turbofan engine in the 20,000 pound thrust class. Three years later, the 50/50 joint company – named CFM International – was formally established and would become one of the greatest success stories in aviation history.

This original engine collaboration combined Safran’s fan technology with core engine technology from GE’s F101 military engine. "

Thr core engine tech was shared with France from GE pretty sure with US govt blessing.

I stand corrected no french bashing ... I love Rafales..

Source is from GE only:

Aviation History | GE Aerospace

Aerospacehistory

www.geaviation.com

 

[Bhurki]

Lift size is no more than 30 ft wide ( same as Kiev class)

Mig 29k folded wingspan - 26 ft
F-18E/F folded wingspan - 32 ft
Rafale fixed wingspan - 36 ft (no wing folding)

View attachment 72249View attachment 72250

 

[Cruise missile]

View attachment 72390

Why do I have feeling that it's deliberate sabotage.

 

[Bhurki]

Why do I have feeling that it's deliberate sabotage.

More like deliberate ignorance aka stupidity.

 

[silentlurker]

More like deliberate ignorance aka stupidity.

When Vikrant was laid down in 2009 the plans were for Mig-29Ks. I wouldn't call it stupidity, but a result of narrow design considerations. flexible designs naturally have some opportunity cost involved

 

[Bhurki]

When Vikrant was laid down in 2009 the plans were for Mig-29Ks. I wouldn't call it stupidity, but a result of narrow design considerations. flexible designs naturally have some opportunity cost involved

'Ignorance' covers that.

Ignorance about future integration of different platforms being one of them.

Managing to fit lifts 10 feet wider than what they are now, shouldn't have been that big a deal.

 

[BON PLAN]

I was banned so not able to reply to ur post...

Here look at this

"In 1971, Safran Aircraft Engines (formerly Snecma) of France selected GE as a partner to develop a new turbofan engine in the 20,000 pound thrust class. Three years later, the 50/50 joint company – named CFM International – was formally established and would become one of the greatest success stories in aviation history.

This original engine collaboration combined Safran’s fan technology with core engine technology from GE’s F101 military engine. "

Thr core engine tech was shared with France from GE pretty sure with US govt blessing.

I stand corrected no french bashing ... I love Rafales..

Source is from GE only:

Aviation History | GE Aerospace

Aerospacehistory

www.geaviation.com

1971.... SNECMA built efficient hot core for yearSSS in 1971.
M53 was studied since 1967. First prototyp was bench tested in 1970. So no special need of F101 hot core tech !
I add that it was BECAUSE SNECMA mastered hot core that US govt agree to a 50/50 joint company, because there was nothing secret to leak to France.

 

[Tumba]

1971.... SNECMA built efficient hot core for yearSSS in 1971.
M53 was studied since 1967. First prototyp was bench tested in 1970. So no special need of F101 hot core tech !
I add that it was BECAUSE SNECMA mastered hot core that US govt agree to a 50/50 joint company, because there was nothing secret to leak to France.

I take GE published words against yours any day ...
GE says core engine tech basically mettulurgic tech was shared with french company....

So no french shaman magic expert just plain TOT from GE... which India is trying to get..

 

[Longewala]

I take GE published words against yours any day ...
GE says core engine tech basically mettulurgic tech was shared with french company....

So no french shaman magic expert just plain TOT from GE... which India is trying to get..

This is a slightly weird thing to be discussing in this topic.
But I would suspect the truth lies somewhere in between - there was a lot of French tech and research involved, but also a great deal of research sharing between different NATO nations, and not just US to others but vice versa.

That I guess was why the Soviets lost out in the tech race, the US had four major tech partners - Germany, UK, France, Japan, the USSR had none.

 

[BON PLAN]

I take GE published words against yours any day ...
GE says core engine tech basically mettulurgic tech was shared with french company....

So no french shaman magic expert just plain TOT from GE... which India is trying to get..

Why do you want they share the tech? The 50/50 agreement, already in duty, said that the all hot core was to be produce by GE and the cold part by SNECMA.
Sure SNECMA can reverse engeneer the US hot core, but it was useless because M53 was already studied, with crystal blades and so one.
You don't trust me? OK. But it is easy to verify the M53 R&D phase, as I wrote.