[Dieseltuned]

Lift size or not one thing is for sure, India needs to move very quick on the acquisition of carrier capable aircrafts. Once this behemoth is operational in an year or two the existing lot of 29Ks are not going to be sufficient to service both the carriers. Any news on this and the aircrafts which will have the honour of the flight from Vikrant.

[Gannu_1]

I hear the officer Rear Admiral Philipose George who landed the Sea King 42B helo on the Vikrant during the maiden sea sortie has a unique distinction of landing a helo on all the IACs we have had. Quite something!

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by kosjam

One major issue with the hull being ready since 2013 and the vessel being finally launched in 2021 is that, the hull is already 8+ years old. Which means its already started rusting and losing strength. As someone from the marine field, 8 years of rust is more than a third of the life gone. In all probability, INS Vikrant will go for a refit in Cochin DD within a couple of years of being officially commissioned as the hull will require atleast some steelwork renewal basis 8 years of corrosion.

Thank you for the point you make and without doubt IAC-1 has taken a long time to build and has been in the water for 8 years. Allow me to add some colour from my perspective. First a hull, especially the hull of a large ship is designed not for 24 years but 50 with over engineering for 75. And that is with the hull sailing which is very different in stress and strain from a hull that is stationery. Big ships get decommissioned not because their hulls corrode* but because their propulsion machinery gets worn down beyond economical repair and the cost of re-equipping the vessel with new weapon systems is more difficult than simply building a new ship. A well preserved hull of a warship, still in water, will cheerfully stay intact 100 years from now. There are several museum ships around the world as testimony. I am sure Cochin Shipyard had the good sense to do what dry docking was necessary to preserve the integrity of the hull while it was under construction considering they need to pass all user trials eventually.
* the exception were small Soviet ships such as the Petya's and Osa's which had rather thin hulls that did not take well to our warmer waters.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Quite a lot of chatter on the elevators used in the INS Vikrant. It seems that the elevators are somewhere between 9-10 meters according to some internet armchair experts. If true, the elevators cannot accommodate the Rafale M while F18 Super Hornet and the F35C are either tight fits or may not fit either.

I hope this speculation on social media is incorrect. Without a perfect 90 degree top view or the official scale drawings everything is speculation. If the Naval Tejas does emerge to squadron service we will have less to be concerned about. While it might seem simple as to why an aircraft lifts dimensions could not be extended by a mere 3 metres say at the design stage it ignores the fact that a full carrier hangar is the tightest squeeze you ever saw and designers struggle to find adequate and right places for all that is needed. Any way till we know the facts I'll not pontificate on this. :-)

[kosjam]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Thank you for the point you make and without doubt IAC-1 has taken a long time to build and has been in the water for 8 years. Allow me to add some colour from my perspective. First a hull, especially the hull of a large ship is designed not for 24 years but 50 with over engineering for 75. And that is with the hull sailing which is very different in stress and strain from a hull that is stationery. Big ships get decommissioned not because their hulls corrode* but because their propulsion machinery gets worn down beyond economical repair and the cost of re-equipping the vessel with new weapon systems is more difficult than simply building a new ship. A well preserved hull of a warship, still in water, will cheerfully stay intact 100 years from now. There are several museum ships around the world as testimony. I am sure Cochin Shipyard had the good sense to do what dry docking was necessary to preserve the integrity of the hull while it was under construction considering they need to pass all user trials eventually.

You are correct that over engineering is built into the hull of a warship, and I will also add that the steel used for a warship is superior to that used in a merchant ship. That said, the issue is that the Sea water WILL corrode all steel, even stainless. The damage done in 8 years will definitely be there, whether it is moving or stationary. In fact, the corrosion damage is more extensive while stationary.
Cochin Shipyard must have done regular drydocking to ensure all steel which has thinned out is renewed, (which is a significant cost in itself, plus it is superior steel, which is costlier than regular MS) but that is the point I am trrying to make in the first place. The maintenance and upkeep are capital costs which are not reaping any outcome, just keeping a hull stationary. It cannot be used for power projection, it cannot be used in case of a war. It is money which is stuck, not working for the country.

In this day and age of CAD and simulations, there has to be a better way.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by kosjam

You are correct that over engineering is built into the hull of a warship, and I will also add that the steel used for a warship is superior to that used in a merchant ship. That said, the issue is that the Sea water WILL corrode all steel, even stainless. The damage done in 8 years will definitely be there, whether it is moving or stationary. In fact, the corrosion damage is more extensive while stationary.
Cochin Shipyard must have done regular drydocking to ensure all steel which has thinned out is renewed, (which is a significant cost in itself, plus it is superior steel, which is costlier than regular MS) but that is the point I am trrying to make in the first place. The maintenance and upkeep are capital costs which are not reaping any outcome, just keeping a hull stationary. It cannot be used for power projection, it cannot be used in case of a war. It is money which is stuck, not working for the country.

In this day and age of CAD and simulations, there has to be a better way.

All very valid points. When a nation is designing and constructing its first aircraft carrier and largest ever warship - something that is infinitely more complex than a cargo ship of 5X the size because of weapon systems and integration it is reasonable to expect time taken will be long. Certainly our design and production methods especially at PSU yards can do with improvement and a shift to modular construction {which came with the Scorpene project}. Certainly the South Koreans would not take this long without doubt. But when weapons and systems integration and designing in survivability and sustainability {in war} are the goals the hull maintenance while in the water is probably the smallest of our worries. I'm sure Cochin shipyard had taken what preventive measures are needed to protect the hull. Could the yard have done this with better planning - sure it could. Will it do so next time -I sure hope they will.

[kosjam]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

All very valid points. When a nation is designing and constructing its first aircraft carrier and largest ever warship - something that is infinitely more complex than a cargo ship of 5X the size because of weapon systems and integration it is reasonable to expect time taken will be long. Certainly our design and production methods especially at PSU yards can do with improvement and a shift to modular construction {which came with the Scorpene project}. Certainly the South Koreans would not take this long without doubt. But when weapons and systems integration and designing in survivability and sustainability {in war} are the goals the hull maintenance while in the water is probably the smallest of our worries. I'm sure Cochin shipyard had taken what preventive measures are needed to protect the hull. Could the yard have done this with better planning - sure it could. Will it do so next time -I sure hope they will.

And that sir was exactly what I had said in my first post. Learning from the IAC 1 experience and applying it to the IAC 2

Originally Posted by kosjam

Considering that hulls can be made much faster than the internals, in addition to the fact that modular construction is the norm these days, better planning needs to go for the next IAC-2 build, assuming it even happens. After all, most of the technology (not all, but most) is alerady commercially being used (Battleship Hull architecture, defence armament, propulsion technology, Integrated Management Systems, communication and guidance systems etc), only the Aircraft Carrier specific technologies need to be concentrated upon, which would ensure that the hull does not languish in the yard, literally rusting away while people are doing trial and error fitment on board.

[Dieseltuned]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

If the Naval Tejas does emerge to squadron service we will have less to be concerned about.

Is the Naval tejas still in contention ? The last we heard was i think more than a year back when Naval Tejas did a drill on the Vikramaditya. Any further progress on this project ? HAL is already i think overloaded with Tejas delivery for IAF will they have enough capacity to install one more production line for Naval Tejas ?

Interesting time ahead on which aircraft gets the honours to adorn the Vikrant

Regards
Diesel

[shortbread]

The beauty of our country is that every drawback, lesson, mistake, error etc. is publicised and discussed. Whether it's delays or struggles in indigenously developing a weapons system or a vaccine.

These challenges are not unique, similar experiences are shared by American and other western counterparts when they underwent similar issues. The transparency helps us paint a true picture.

Some countries on the other hand are reluctant to discuss this and hide relevant facts (I respect the intelligence on this thread to know who they are, clue: we share borders with a few). For them such news can only be used for the purpose of nationalistic propaganda and any discussion otherwise are met with severe consequences.

Eg. when a new oriental aircraft carrier, fighter aircraft, drone etc are revealed, I am sure in the back of my mind that it has a long way to go before reaching complete operational capability irrespective of what 'Gobar Times' says. I am also sure they have had to undergo plenty of short term fixes to overcome many serious drawbacks.

As the old phrase goes, 'the proof is in the pudding', but rest assured no one has made a perfect pudding in their very first attempt!

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by Dieseltuned

Is the Naval tejas still in contention ? The last we heard was i think more than a year back when Naval Tejas did a drill on the Vikramaditya. Any further progress on this project ? HAL is already i think overloaded with Tejas delivery for IAF will they have enough capacity to install one more production line for Naval Tejas ?

Interesting time ahead on which aircraft gets the honours to adorn the Vikrant

Regards
Diesel

The Navy has said the Tejas Naval variant does not have enough power and therefore not suitable in its current iteration. So the answer is no, it is not in contention anymore.

I believe both the Navy and HAL are committed and working towards a twin engine naval variant, nicknamed the 'TEDBF' or Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter. This proposal is for a canard delta wing, twin-engine, carrier based, multirole combat aircraft. I think the design has been fixed, dimensions ready and a scaled model revealed by HAL. Smarter minds on this thread might have more details.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NOKhRzAhp8

[torquecurve]

Originally Posted by kosjam

One major issue with the hull being ready since 2013 and the vessel being finally launched in 2021 is that, the hull is already 8+ years old. Which means its already started rusting and losing strength.

Considering that hulls can be made much faster than the internals, in addition to the fact that modular construction is the norm these days, better planning needs to go for the next IAC-2 build, assuming it even happens. After all, most of the technology (not all, but most) is alerady commercially being used (Battleship Hull architecture, defence armament, propulsion technology, Integrated Management Systems, communication and guidance systems etc), only the Aircraft Carrier specific technologies need to be concentrated upon, which would ensure that the hull does not languish in the yard, literally rusting away while people are doing trial and error fitment on board.

Good observation on the ‘years in water’ – however an equivalent ship would otherwise take between 2-5 years as is (Cavour, Ford, CDG – 4-5, QE – 2-4, Shandong 2). If I would consider a median of 4 years, yes maybe we lose 4 years of life from a 50-75 year life. However, do consider that this ship is still ‘in dock’ which means that repairs and maintenance will still be better than than if the ship was at sea for extended periods with limited port time and the ‘refit’ will probably be done before ship commissioning – expected Aug 2022!
Hull architecture of a AC varies very highly compared to that of other ships. For starters there is a huge cavity (aircraft hangar) on which rests an aircraft deck which has to manage loads (static and dynamic) and momentary loads to the tune of 1000+ kN when an aircraft lands (of course load is distributed) the bracing has to be that much stronger – while also being light enough. In addition to that the hull also has a ‘cantilever’ load to manage (e.g. lifts). This puts additional stress on the hull bracing.
In the case of armament, esp. on ships what you see ‘topside’ is literally the tip of the iceberg. Most weapon systems have just the 30 percent you see topside, rest of the 70 percent is below deck. This means factoring for additional loads, clear LOS, non interference,etc. The ship management system was also built in house – a mean feat!.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Quite a lot of chatter on the elevators used in the INS Vikrant. It seems that the elevators are somewhere between 9-10 meters according to some internet armchair experts. If true, the elevators cannot accommodate the Rafale M while F18 Super Hornet and the F35C are either tight fits or may not fit either. If that is indeed the case, it means that the carrier was designed with the expectation to accommodate the Mig-29k or the Naval Tejas but not western aircraft as the requirement evolved…snip…

Source

Originally Posted by Dieseltuned

Lift size or not one thing is for sure, India needs to move very quick on the acquisition of carrier capable aircrafts. Once this behemoth is operational in an year or two the existing lot of 29Ks are not going to be sufficient to service both the carriers. Any news on this and the aircrafts which will have the honour of the flight from Vikrant.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Thank you for the point you make and without doubt IAC-1 has taken a long time to build and has been in the water for 8 years. Allow me to add some colour from my perspective. First a hull, especially the hull of a large ship is designed not for 24 years but 50 with over engineering for 75. And that is with the hull sailing which is very different in stress and strain from a hull that is stationery. …snip….
* the exception were small Soviet ships such as the Petya's and Osa's which had rather thin hulls that did not take well to our warmer waters.

Snip… this. :-)

Great take Narayan sir – interesting points on the Petyas/ Osas.
The critical thing that we miss in terms of the size of the lifts is that the lifts have to be optimized in line with the overall ship design. Imagine a cantilever load of hundreds of tons which has to be managed even when the ship is moving – add to that a big hole in the side of the ship in all sea states!
Additionally, the below deck space is tight! A difference of 1meter – combined with 16 aircraft is 16 meters across, considered a folded size of 8m – could mean the ability to carrying two or more additional aircraft (I am over simplifying this – but just trying to give an example) . Space optimization on a ‘medium size’ carrier will drive a lot of decisions.
Some current aircraft (folded wingspan wise) - F/A18 SHornet (8.38m), MiG29K (7.5m), F35C (9.1m), Rafale (10.9m – non folding wings)
So, other than the Rafale M, we can accommodate existing all contemporary naval aircraft! The F35 is a tight fit, but I think it is not a fighter we are considering.

Originally Posted by Dieseltuned

Is the Naval tejas still in contention ? The last we heard was i think more than a year back when Naval Tejas did a drill on the Vikramaditya. Any further progress on this project ? HAL is already i think overloaded with Tejas delivery for IAF will they have enough capacity to install one more production line for Naval Tejas ?

Interesting time ahead on which aircraft gets the honours to adorn the Vikrant

Regards
Diesel

Originally Posted by shortbread

The Navy has said the Tejas Naval variant does not have enough power and therefore not suitable in its current iteration. So the answer is no, it is not in contention anymore.

I believe both the Navy and HAL are committed and working towards a twin engine naval variant, nicknamed the 'TEDBF' or Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter. This proposal is for a canard delta wing, twin-engine, carrier based, multirole combat aircraft. I think the design has been fixed, dimensions ready and a scaled model revealed by HAL. Smarter minds on this thread might have more details.
…snip…

The Tejas Naval is not in contention for the ship as it has severe range penalties (internal fuel is less than the land Tejas) and also can take off with a marginal load only. The only saving grace would be if the navy orders a few as ‘Trainers’ to reduce the workload on the 29’s.
The TEDBF is what the Navy is betting on and with it sharing a lot with the AMCA/ ORCA will mean that there will be a quicker delivery timeline.
Having said that we have 45 Mig29 frames. That’s about 3 squadrons worth – and manufacturing is ongoing for the RuN (they are retiring the Su33) – which means that we should be able to buy a few frames with accelerated delivery timelines if required. The VikAd will carry about 2 squadrons when at sea. The Vikrant will carry one squadron plus (when we order it). Considering that the Vikrant will take a couple of years (2022/3) to still see active service I think we have enough to cover both ships for now.

Originally Posted by shortbread

The beauty of our country is that every drawback, lesson, mistake, error etc. is publicised and discussed. Whether it's delays or struggles in indigenously developing a weapons system or a vaccine.

These challenges are not unique, similar experiences are shared by American and other western counterparts when they underwent similar issues. The transparency helps us paint a true picture.

Some countries on the other hand are reluctant to discuss this and hide relevant facts (I respect the intelligence on this thread to know who they are, clue: we share borders with a few). For them such news can only be used for the purpose of nationalistic propaganda and any discussion otherwise are met with severe consequences.

Eg. when a new oriental aircraft carrier, fighter aircraft, drone etc are revealed, I am sure in the back of my mind that it has a long way to go before reaching complete operational capability irrespective of what 'Gobar Times' says. I am also sure they have had to undergo plenty of short term fixes to overcome many serious drawbacks.

As the old phrase goes, 'the proof is in the pudding', but rest assured no one has made a perfect pudding in their very first attempt!

This is exactly what I wrote! The QE2 has a split superstructure – they advertise it as being the best thing as redundancy is built in! But what about the wasted space (both below and above deck). Will the enemy only aim at one of the superstructures? But the marketing spin makes it sound like it is the best thing since sliced bread. The Shandong/ Liaoning use oil boilers to the same design of the Varyag which means you can ‘literally’ see the smoke from far. The Shandong already suffered a cracked hull (something the Varyag was famous for). The QE2 is also optimised for one type of aircraft – STOVL – It doesn’t have arrestor wires! (And here we dissing our carrier for having 10m lifts!).
It is a learning process – IAC 2 will be probably built quicker, maybe enlarged slightly, have different propulsion (CODOG/ CODAG instead of the current COGAG) – making it a better long range cruiser.
Note: I am just a student of this subject – if I have made mistakes please do correct me!

[lancia_fanboy]

Sansad TV came out with a short documentary on INS Vikrant, giving a quick glimpse into what's life like inside. It's not on the level of some US documentaries about their aircraft carriers, bit it's still good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts8fETPqLnY