INS Vishal (IAC- II) Aircraft Carrier - Flattop or Ski Jump

[patriots]

Vikrant will be commissioned by 2021 as per naval chiefs statement.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Ok lets see........................,..after tejas arjun arihant......vikrant will be another achievement

 

[Vijyes]

Bdw imho.....india should go for a nuclear aircraft carrier......

If technology not available to us.....
Then we should go for a foreign partner......

Tye problem 2ith nuclear carrier is that it takes long time to repair and refurbish. In case of USA, it is compelled to get nuclear carrier due to its long distance from rest of the world. France needs nuclear carrier due to lack of indigenous diesel and requirement to operate with NATO.

India getting nuclear carrier will only make it more vulnerable. India can get indigenous diesel from coal liquefaction and hence doesn't need to worry here either

 

[Filtercoffee]

One more pair of MIG - 29K squadrons and 57 more for rotation of duty is what I would call for. So thats 90 (45+45) + 57 = 147 MIG - 29Ks due to seamless training and not becoming a "Jack of all and Masters' of none" due to different types of aircraft. If they get inquisitive, they always have the Air Force with Rafales to train on. Or 57 Super Hornets is my next choice.

 

[Longewala]

One more pair of MIG - 29K squadrons and 57 more for rotation of duty is what I would call for. So thats 90 (45+45) + 57 = 147 MIG - 29Ks due to seamless training and not becoming a "Jack of all and Masters' of none" due to different types of aircraft. If they get inquisitive, they always have the Air Force with Rafales to train on. Or 57 Super Hornets is my next choice.

Rafale would be better for logistics than hornets.

One thing I never understood though - how many aircraft are needed to sustain the air group of a vikramadiya / vikrant class of carrier?

Are the initial lot of 45 mig-29k just for the gorshkov, in which case we would need a 2nd batch pretty soon.

 

[Armand2REP]

Rafale would be better for logistics than hornets.

One thing I never understood though - how many aircraft are needed to sustain the air group of a vikramadiya / vikrant class of carrier?

Are the initial lot of 45 mig-29k just for the gorshkov, in which case we would need a 2nd batch pretty soon.

You can certainly operate Rafale without catapults. The low wing loading delta wing with canards will still be a better payload than a MiG-29. Of course it is still not close to its full capabilities that CATOBAR provides. Vikki will always be carrying MiG-29s until the end of its service life so no need to worry about that. The Vikrant could have two C-13 steam catapults installed to launch Rafale but would cost $40 million for the pair and whatever redesign that would cost. By the time the IN would get their Rafale the uprated M88 would be available as a stopgap until the IN had catapults installed on a platform. The Vikrant can have one squadron of MiG-29K and one Rafale squadron as a standard load-out until the catapult situation is resolved. The Tejas would replace MiG-29 at some point. The Vishul is going to have EMALs so there is no worry there. The only question is what to do with Vikrant.

 

[garg_bharat]

I think INS Vishal should be similar to INS Vikrant currently being built. 40K displacement and an air complement of 30 is good enough for India's needs. With Uncle complaining about S400, all lofty plans involving Uncle are likely to bite the dust.

Focus on local SSBN program. Get larger AIP conventional powered patrol subs made by L&T. And build a large frigate class in large numbers to escort shipping when needed.

 

[Armand2REP]

I think INS Vishal should be similar to INS Vikrant currently being built. 40K displacement and an air complement of 30 is good enough for India's needs. With Uncle complaining about S400, all lofty plans involving Uncle are likely to bite the dust.

Focus on local SSBN program. Get larger AIP conventional powered patrol subs made by L&T. And build a large frigate class in large numbers to escort shipping when needed.

If all plans with Uncle Sam are coming to an end, perhaps India and France should cooperate to develop our own EMALS system. We could also use this to develop rail guns. It would not be advantageous for either of us to fall to a US monopoly on the technology. Let us not dance around the bush, EM railguns are the future of naval and land based artillery, if we do not cooperate we will both be left behind. The proposed plans for the "British" carrier were actually designed by France, we can provide these plans if the IN is interested.

 

[aghamarshana]

If all plans with Uncle Sam are coming to an end, perhaps India and France should cooperate to develop our own EMALS system. We could also use this to develop rail guns. It would not be advantageous for either of us to fall to a US monopoly on the technology. Let us not dance around the bush, EM railguns are the future of naval and land based artillery, if we do not cooperate we will both be left behind. The proposed plans for the "British" carrier were actually designed by France, we can provide these plans if the IN is interested.

Good offer, indeed. But it all depends on the commitment France puts on any such joint development. We have done it once with Ruskies on the FGFA and they were not supportive of our concerns.
If we can mutually agree upon and lay out a plan to rectify such potental issues, there's a lot of scope for Indo-French joint cooperation in defense.

 

[Filtercoffee]

Rafale would be better for logistics than hornets.

One thing I never understood though - how many aircraft are needed to sustain the air group of a vikramadiya / vikrant class of carrier?

Are the initial lot of 45 mig-29k just for the gorshkov, in which case we would need a 2nd batch pretty soon.

The 45 MIG - 29 Ks are divided into INAS 303 and INAS 300. The MIG - 29 K is know to the pilots, so there wont be extra training or time wasted to even think about two different strategies if the MIG -29 K is sensibly selected for a follow on and the 57 requested. Since the choice for another batch is variable, I am a little pensive due to it. The A M C A and the Tejas NAVY are good enough, as they are better suited for the Indian NAVY because of 100% control of all aspects of the aircraft, though I hope they fix the engine import problem without spoiling international relations. About the current 45 MIG - 29 Ks, No they are going to be used on both the carriers, Indian NAVY ships Vikramaditya and Vikrant.

 

[Vijyes]

EM railguns are the future of naval and land based artillery, if we do not cooperate we will both be left behind.

Tail guns can never be the future. It is always convenient to simply place a charge and fire artillery instead of getting real fun projectiles. Tail gun requires to much time to recharge and to much power from the start that makes it a resource hog and slow system. It may be cheaper to fire rail gun as it only needs electricity and cost of charge and other logistics is less, but the slow nature makes it a hindrance to fight efficiently.

 

[IndianHawk]

Here is nlca mk2 info that somebody was asking.
It will probably have more fuel then mwf as fuselage is fatter and payload a bit less than mwf. mwf has internal fuel of 3300-3400 kg and payload of 6.5 ton.
Nlca mk2 will have fuel of 3800-3900kg and payload of 6 ton.

So it will have better range and payload then mig29k and original hornet. It is perfect for Vikrant and should be ready by 2026.

It can also carry on Vishal for few years until NAMCA comes along.

Btw even if Vishal is sanctioned by 2020 it won't be ready before 2030 (without delay) and NAMCA should be here before 2035 anyhow. So for 3-4 years in between and to further compliment namca nlca mk2 is perfect.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[IndianHawk]

Here is nlca mk2 info that somebody was asking.
It will probably have more fuel then mwf as fuselage is fatter and payload a bit less than mwf. mwf has internal fuel of 3300-3400 kg and payload of 6.5 ton.
Nlca mk2 will have fuel of 3800-3900kg and payload of 6 ton.

So it will have better range and payload then mig29k and original hornet. It is perfect for Vikrant and should be ready by 2026.

It can also carry on Vishal for few years until NAMCA comes along.

Btw even if Vishal is sanctioned by 2020 it won't be ready before 2030 (without delay) and NAMCA should be here before 2035 anyhow. So for 3-4 years in between and to further compliment namca nlca mk2 is perfect.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Also looking at load out it can carry 8 air to air missile that to without double rack that we saw on mwf model outer pylons. So probably could carry 10+ aam if need be.

In anti ship mission it can carry 3 anti ship missile + 4 aam or 3 anti ship + 2 wvr + 2 drop tank for extended range.

What more do we need. Remember Pakistan surface navy is non existent and Chinese aircraft carrier plane crashes more flies less.

This is more than enough till NAMCA is here .

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Vijyes]

Here is nlca mk2 info that somebody was asking.
It will probably have more fuel then mwf as fuselage is fatter and payload a bit less than mwf. mwf has internal fuel of 3300-3400 kg and payload of 6.5 ton.
Nlca mk2 will have fuel of 3800-3900kg and payload of 6 ton.

So it will have better range and payload then mig29k and original hornet. It is perfect for Vikrant and should be ready by 2026.

It can also carry on Vishal for few years until NAMCA comes along.

Btw even if Vishal is sanctioned by 2020 it won't be ready before 2030 (without delay) and NAMCA should be here before 2035 anyhow. So for 3-4 years in between and to further compliment namca nlca mk2 is perfect.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

NMWF will have thicker bottom to support the body integrity when landing using arrestor wires. It has little to do with fuel capacity. The arrestor wires exert such massive force that normal planes will simply tear apart. So, special modifications are made to naval planes to withstand such force. Fuel tank is a separate issue and not related to this modification. It may or may not be enhanced.

Also, IAC2 is diesel and hence doesn't need 10 years build time. Diesel 9nes are faster to build

 

[IndianHawk]

NMWF will have thicker bottom to support the body integrity when landing using arrestor wires. It has little to do with fuel capacity. The arrestor wires exert such massive force that normal planes will simply tear apart. So, special modifications are made to naval planes to withstand such force. Fuel tank is a separate issue and not related to this modification. It may or may not be enhanced.

Also, IAC2 is diesel and hence doesn't need 10 years build time. Diesel 9nes are faster to build

Not just bottom. Look at the top. Spine is fatter then mwf. And look at the payload difference between mwf and nlca . Nlca carries less payload and has less top speed ( 1.6 Mach Vs 1.8 Mach for mwf) because it will carry more internal fuel.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Vijyes]

Not just bottom. Look at the top. Spine is fatter then mwf. And look at the payload difference between mwf and nlca . Nlca carries less payload and has less top speed ( 1.6 Mach Vs 1.8 Mach for mwf) because it will carry more internal fuel.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

No, the empty weight of NMWF is high and hence payload is less. MWF needs augmentation of its body to withstand extreme force of arrestor wires. This is a major issue causing empty weight to increase. But this doesn't increase fuel capacity. It also has less top speed due to tail flaps and intentional modifications to lower speeds for safer landing.

None of this will mean higher fuel capacity. Fuel capacity is likely to remain same and NMWF is likely to be less capable than MWF. It is the normal case with all planes where naval variant is slightly less capable than air force one

 

[IndianHawk]

No, the empty weight of NMWF is high and hence payload is less. MWF needs augmentation of its body to withstand extreme force of arrestor wires. This is a major issue causing empty weight to increase. But this doesn't increase fuel capacity. It also has less top speed due to tail flaps and intentional modifications to lower speeds for safer landing.

None of this will mean higher fuel capacity. Fuel capacity is likely to remain same and NMWF is likely to be less capable than MWF. It is the normal case with all planes where naval variant is slightly less capable than air force one

This seems plausible but I have been hearing about more fuel in nlca mk2 .

Nlca mk2 is missing out on irst and have less pylons ( mean less internal wiring ??) That should provide it more internal space than mwf ?

Even if it has same fuel as mwf = 3300-3400kg it should still have better range and payload than mig 29k and and 80% of range / payload of rafale m and super hornet. Quite adequate for our use case I'd say.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Vijyes]

Nlca mk2 is missing out on irst and have less pylons ( mean less internal wiring ??) That should provide it more internal space than mwf ?

Internal wiring is not a bug space hog. Also, pylons may be lesser due to the wire arrested landing modifications and hence inability to use certain points. In addition, the wingtip of MWF may be absent in naval variant due to different wing.

Even if it has same fuel as mwf = 3300-3400kg it should still have better range and payload than mig 29k and and 80% of range / payload of rafale m and super hornet. Quite adequate for our use case I'd say

Yes, it is enough for or needs. In addition, it will be better than Rafale M as NMWF can take off from ski jump whereas Rafale can't

 

[Steven Rogers]

This seems plausible but I have been hearing about more fuel in nlca mk2 .

Nlca mk2 is missing out on irst and have less pylons ( mean less internal wiring ??) That should provide it more internal space than mwf ?

Even if it has same fuel as mwf = 3300-3400kg it should still have better range and payload than mig 29k and and 80% of range / payload of rafale m and super hornet. Quite adequate for our use case I'd say.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Mwf with the engine it has, will mostly engage afterburners so the range and combat radius will circle around mirage and mig29 not greater than those.

 

[IndianHawk]

Mwf with the engine it has, will mostly engage afterburners so the range and combat radius will circle around mirage and mig29 not greater than those.

M53 that mirage has more dry thrust but is heavier than f414 and probably has higher fuel consumption. Still I agree mirage mwf ranges maybe close.

But I have doubt regarding mig29 range.
The latest and greatest mig35 has internal fuel of about ( 4800kg -5000kg) .that is probably more then older version and equal to naval version .

Now that means just 2500kg for each rd33 to sip. And we know rd 33 is more fuel hungry than f414.

So if we don't consider afterburner mwf has 800-900 kg more internal fuel as it has single engine to burn . Than its engine is more economical. So even if it uses more afterburner shouldn't it still come ahead by some margin?

Mig29 will also rely on afterburner as that is it's USP. Manueverability.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Rogers]

M53 that mirage has more dry thrust but is heavier than f414 and probably has higher fuel consumption. Still I agree mirage mwf ranges maybe close.

But I have doubt regarding mig29 range.
The latest and greatest mig35 has internal fuel of about ( 4800kg -5000kg) .that is probably more then older version and equal to naval version .

Now that means just 2500kg for each rd33 to sip. And we know rd 33 is more fuel hungry than f414.

So if we don't consider afterburner mwf has 800-900 kg more internal fuel as it has single engine to burn . Than its engine is more economical. So even if it uses more afterburner shouldn't it still come ahead by some margin?

Mig29 will also rely on afterburner as that is it's USP. Manueverability.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Mig29 engine consumes more fuel but mirage engages more in ab compared to mirage in real-time ops, a report regarding that is available at brf..... However AIR MARSHAL R NAMBIAR alreadyasaid that mk2 will be a gen ahead that MK1A in ops and capabilities, that means it will easily outperform m2k...