INS Vikrant Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

[Bleh]

Show your sexy back.

Her back has some issues I can't quite figure out...

You people may know, that the two flight decks of an aircraft carrier are angled in such a manner that you can do simultaneously trapping & shooting of jets. Which would require having a clean touch-n-go path for the jets in case they do not "catch the wire" while landing (common).

Now in Vikramaditya it is just as it should be, with the shooting position of the jets on both sides of the landing deck... But on Vikrant, the starting positions of both tend to sit right in the path the landing jets. I don't get it, seems waaaaaay to obvious to be a design oversight.

I mean why not even have straight deck like the Viraat if you won't be able to carry out simultaneous landing-launching operation?.. That'll atleast give you a longer runway.

 

[flanker99]

Her back has some issues I can't quite figure out...

You people may know, that the two flight decks of an aircraft carrier are angled in such a manner that you can do simultaneously trapping & shooting of jets. Which would require having a clean touch-n-go path for the jets in case they do not "catch the wire" while landing (common). View attachment 102152
Now in Vikramaditya it is just as it should be, with the shooting position of the jets on both sides of the landing deck... But on Vikrant, the starting positions of both tend to sit right in the path the landing jets. I don't get it, seems waaaaaay to obvious to be a design oversight.

I mean why not even have straight deck like the Viraat if you won't be able to carry out simultaneous landing-launching operation?.. That'll atleast give you a longer runway.

Apart from the US super carriers no other ship can do take off and landings at the same time

 

[abingdonboy]

Her back has some issues I can't quite figure out...

You people may know, that the two flight decks of an aircraft carrier are angled in such a manner that you can do simultaneously trapping & shooting of jets. Which would require having a clean touch-n-go path for the jets in case they do not "catch the wire" while landing (common). View attachment 102152
Now in Vikramaditya it is just as it should be, with the shooting position of the jets on both sides of the landing deck... But on Vikrant, the starting positions of both tend to sit right in the path the landing jets. I don't get it, seems waaaaaay to obvious to be a design oversight.

I mean why not even have straight deck like the Viraat if you won't be able to carry out simultaneous landing-launching operation?.. That'll atleast give you a longer runway.

Umm no, NEITHER carrier can do traps and launches at the same time. Look at the launch positions and the launch markings (dashed lines) they are in the landing zone and cross the landing path direction. It’s utterly inconceivable.

Comparing them using this top down view actually shows you how much more Vikrant is optimised for the job than the Vikky.

not only can the Vikrant house more jets on the deck but her launch positions are far longer than the vikky’s so the jets will be able to take off with greater payloads.To an untrained eye it looks like the ‘short’ launch position on the Vikrant is longer than the ‘long’ launch position on the Vikky or at least it’s very close.



+ afaik even the USN doesn’t routinely trap and catch simultaneously-only after the last bird is launched so they prepare the deck for trapping.

 

[Trololo]

We have about 12 Mig-29K less than needed for two carriers... We have 45, only 21 flies. Can totally show on some NLCA here & there.

All the do is provide aircover as per Russian doctrine (so armed with only A2A load), until Teddy arrives.

Why do you say only 21 flies? Russian media is stating that IN wants more MiG 29Ks and also has approached UAC to upgrade the existing fleet of 29Ks. This is most likely planted news.

 

[Bleh]

To an untrained eye it looks like the ‘short’ launch position on the Vikrant is longer than the ‘long’ launch position on the Vikky or at least it’s very close.

No, but the longer deck is 180m & 206m respectively.

Why do you say only 21 flies?

I read that.. We have 45 but most in "war reserve". Pathetic situation.

 

[shiphone]

the correct 'short' taking off position

 

[Bleh]

the correct 'short' taking off position

View attachment 102177

Ok right

 

[Starlight]

"Doh aur Vikrant class banao!'

I was wishully thinking about two more Vikrant class aircraft carriers and how nice it would be for Naval aviation and aviators in India. It will be great! We then can have more TEDBFs, N-AMCAs, N-Dhruvs, N-LCHs if we buy 4 LHDs; MH-60s, N-AH64s and V-22s. It's a Naval pilots' dream.

 

[Bleh]

"Doh aur Vikrant class banao!'

I was wishully thinking about two more Vikrant class aircraft carriers and how nice it would be for Naval aviation and aviators in India. It will be great! We then can have more TEDBFs, N-AMCAs, N-Dhruvs, N-LCHs if we buy 4 LHDs; MH-60s, N-AH64s and V-22s. It's a Naval pilots' dream.

Frankly, if we could have altered the LCA Navy into a Harrier-like jumpjet, then & only then it'd have been possible to make smaller LHD or amphibious assault ships below 25k tons carrying a squadron of those. (I'm thinking of trying some fanarts with this concept:.)

Otherwise, forget 65k-class we can't even afford to try building a slightly larger 50k ton carrier with this economy.

 

[Starlight]

Frankly, if we could have altered the LCA Navy into a Harrier-like jumpjet, then & only then it'd have been possible to make smaller LHD or amphibious assault ships below 25k tons carrying a squadron of those. (I'm thinking of trying some fanarts with this concept:.)View attachment 102196

Otherwise, forget 65k-class we can't even afford to try building a slightly larger 50k ton carrier with this economy.

You are absolutely correct sir, there was a tender for LHDs floated, They are waiting for the newer HAL helicopter line to be fully operational. After the Naval versions are ready then the LHDs will be ordered. 2 more Vikrant class in my opinion will be perfect instead of a larger class simply due to economic strains and military strategic requirements today. Turn around time for refit will be quicker due to the same class, future nuclear conversion with catapults will also be simpler, again due to the same class. Remember the old vikrant had a catapult and we converted him to a 'ski jump' carrier.

 

[Marliii]

You are absolutely correct sir, there was a tender for LHDs floated, They are waiting for the newer HAL helicopter line to be fully operational. After the Naval versions are ready then the LHDs will be ordered. 2 more Vikrant class in my opinion will be perfect instead of a larger class simply due to economic strains and military strategic requirements today. Turn around time for refit will be quicker due to the same class, future nuclear conversion with catapults will also be simpler, again due to the same class. Remember the old vikrant had a catapult and we converted him to a 'ski jump' carrier.

I think One big carrier would cost less than two vikrant mate.but I think going for two vikrant may be worth the money than going for one large one.

 

[Starlight]

I think One big carrier would cost less than two vikrant mate.but I think going for two vikrant may be worth the money than going for one large one.

That's right two strategic medium assets are better then one larger asset which sticks out like a sore thumb. If they are ready to make two or more 65000+ tonnes worth of a carrier type simultaneously like the submarine fleet being built; then it's justified to have a dream of larger carrier class. It's a waste of time to have one carrier every 12 years and wait for another 8 years (here lesser time due to familiarity of the same - CSL promised to make another Vikrant class in 5 years after complete delivery of components.) for the other of the same design.

 

[mandestiny]

the correct 'short' taking off position

View attachment 102177

How much jets it can hold ? seems not much space

 

[Starlight]

How much jets it can hold ? seems not much space

As stated sir, 26 fighters and 10 helicopters.

 

[mandestiny]

As stated sir, 26 fighters and 10 helicopters.

Means how , deck space not much seems.

 

[Marliii]

Means how , deck space not much seems.

A photo isn't gonna tell everything of the size

 

[mandestiny]

A photo isn't gonna tell everything of the size

26 is not too much as per class ?. I know photo don't tell everything.

 

[Starlight]

26 is not too much as per class ?. I know photo don't tell everything.

Two MIG-29K squadrons are good enough if we are going to deploy the carrier close to shore. INMO we need 3 fighter squadrons per carrier as one can be shore based and totally attached to the CBG when deployed for back up. A Blue water Navy (Oceanic) like the USN needs that much back up so they have a mix - 90 aircraft and helicopters per carrier.

 

[Akula]

Frankly, if we could have altered the LCA Navy into a Harrier-like jumpjet, then & only then it'd have been possible to make smaller LHD or amphibious assault ships below 25k tons carrying a squadron of those. (I'm thinking of trying some fanarts with this concept:.)View attachment 102196

Otherwise, forget 65k-class we can't even afford to try building a slightly larger 50k ton carrier with this economy.

If Navy is interested in building LHD's than they should add drone launching capability in them. China and Turkey are working on this. If HAL Loyal Wingman naval version can be developed than it will be increase Navy's capability.

 

[Starlight]

If Navy is interested in building LHD's than they should add drone launching capability in them. China and Turkey are working on this. If HAL Loyal Wingman naval version can be developed than it will be increase

The drones are designed according to the Naval aviation requirements. So all the carriers, LHDs, submarines, destroyers and other fleet ships can carry specifically designed UAVs.