[arijitkanrar]

Question to all the gurus here since we are talking about carrier configurations.
The first Vikrant was a CATOBAR carrier but was later converted to STOVL.
Was that because of the Harriers?
Seeing as that CATOBAR is more versatile, wouldn't it have been beneficial if the Navy had retained the CATOBAR configuration so as to preserve the technical and operational know how of using catapults?
Had that happened, would it be possible that our first indigenous carrier Vikrant II could have been designed as a CATOBAR carrier right from the beginning?

[alphadog]

Thank you Sir, that was a superb write up going into the details.

I suppose the purchase of an aircraft from a manufacturer from another country is based not purely on the capabilities of the aircraft itself but also has to be done under the broad umbrella of the relations between countries, the potential for future fall out and the availability of spares and upgrades. On these counts I feel the IAF and the government made the right choice in going for the Rafale. The French are a more reliable partner as opposed to the consortium of European countries or the USA. The Russian aircraft was not specced enough for the role that we were looking for. That the Rafale was a good choice, is further reinforced by reading up your comparison of the 6 contenders. The only one which seems to come close was the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Hope to see more aircrafts delivered and hopefully a local production of the same to beef up our airforce capabilities.

Cheerio!

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by arijitkanrar

Question to all the gurus here since we are talking about carrier configurations.
The first Vikrant was a CATOBAR carrier but was later converted to STOVL.
Was that because of the Harriers?
Seeing as that CATOBAR is more versatile, wouldn't it have been beneficial if the Navy had retained the CATOBAR configuration so as to preserve the technical and operational know how of using catapults?
Had that happened, would it be possible that our first indigenous carrier Vikrant II could have been designed as a CATOBAR carrier right from the beginning?

Thank you for your very sensible questions. As always the answers reveal complexities of real life.

The first INS Vikrant started life as a CATOBAR. It was a light carrier and hence there were real physical limits to its CATOBAR's length and power. It's CATOBAR was not capable of being upgraded. Also at that time in the 1960s - 1980s the only competent aircraft light enough to be launched from its CATOBAR was the American A-4 Sky Hawk which for geo-political reasons was not available to us. The French Super Etendard were too heavy. The Hawker Seahawks we had were at the absolute end of their lives by 1977. The ski jump was built when the Sea Harriers were to be inducted. The Sea Harriers were our only option and the ski jump was a necessity. As we see it is good to have a CATOBAR but you should also have the aircraft! As an aside the British believed we could not design a ski jump or modify the old INS Vikrant without their structural designs. But between the Navy's design office and Mazagon Docks they figured it out. .

Design and production of steam catapults is now only with the Americans. So if any country, including India, wishes to install a steam catapult it had better be sure of stable relations with mercurial USA for 50 years. Steam catapults also occupy an enormous volume of space under the flight deck thus restricting parking space on the hangar deck for aircraft. If your ship is powered by modern gas turbines then a auxiliary boiler is needed too. Steam catapults also demand significant time, cost and effort on maintenance. Also, other than the Rafale the only aircraft compatible with a catapult launch are again American! Given that Vikrant II was designed in the 2000 -2008 and given our equation with the Yanks then, CATOBAR was simply not an option. Things have changed now somewhat though the Americans in my view remain politically unreliable, for us, though a vast improvement from 15 years ago.

Given the large size of combat aircraft today you need every inch of space below on the hangar deck. Vikrant II is the largest hull we could build with 4 units of the only big proven engine design available (the LM2500) and yet render a speed of 30+ knots a ski jump is a simpler more practical option. American super carriers' size, with each carrying a mini-Air Force suits CATOBAR well. Our needs are different and simpler - air cover and ASW - we are not likely to go around conquering Iraq or Vietnam. Our budgets are also about one-tenth. Everything has to be balanced. The British who have been pioneers of literally each major innovation in aircraft carrier design* also chose a ski jump for their latest QE-II class 65,000 tonne carriers.

CATOBAR is a great option if you can afford (at least) two 60,000 tonne+ carriers, if you have access to the propulsion plants or (like the British) know how to design them yourselves, and if you can afford the larger air fleet needed. That is a lot of if's. We are better off with two medium carriers each deploying say 20 MiG-29Ks or Rafale M's plus ASW & AEW helicopters each than one 80,000 tonne ship carrying 40. So as we see it is not just what is theoretically better but what is affordable, available, sustainable and practical.

*angled deck, landing lights, steam catapults, ski jump....all British inventions.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Design and production of steam catapults is now only with the Americans.

The French carrier Charles de Gaulle is equipped with (steam) catapults and is certified to handle American planes like F18 and the Greyhound.

Was their catapult system a French in-house development at the time, or did they borrow/buy technology from the Americans. (It is of course quite some time ago, as she was launched some 25 years ago I believe?)

Thanks
Jeroen

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

The French carrier Charles de Gaulle is equipped with (steam) catapults and is certified to handle American planes like F18 and the Greyhound.

Was their catapult system a French in-house development at the time, or did they borrow/buy technology from the Americans. (It is of course quite some time ago, as she was launched some 25 years ago I believe?)

Thanks
Jeroen

Charles De Gaulle is fitted with American 75-metre steam catapults* same as the ones fitted on the Nimitz class carriers. The only two countries that ever manufactured steam catapults were UK & USA. The French carriers Clemenceau and Foch too had American steam catapults. Catapults wear out periodically and fresh ones have to be installed - I don't know how often. The Soviets tried to master the design of steam catapults but did not succeed.

* Just FYI that is 75 metres long, about 3 metres deep and about 3 metres in width.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Charles De Gaulle is fitted with American 75-metre steam catapults* same as the ones fitted on the Nimitz class carriers. T

Thanks, quite interesting they gave the technology to a non-nato country and one that had nuclear capability too. (McNamara made a famous reference to the French nuclear programs in the mid 60s I believe;

dangerous, expensive, prone to obsolescence and lacking in credibility.)

That is the problem with the French, nobody likes them, but nobody can do without them, or ignore them.

Jeroen

[Sutripta]

^^^
France was a founding member, and still part of NATO. if I'm not mistaken.
Withdrew from the integrated military command structure in the 60s to pursue its own foreign/ defense policies (Force de Frappe)

And one French doctrine states (unlike the thinking in the Anglo Saxon world, forced on the rest of the world) that nuclear proliferation brings peace.

Anything more I'll leave to the experts.

Q for the experts - what progress on the electromagnetic catapults? What is the projected space and power supply requirements for those?

Sutripta

[bhairavp]

The French left NATO, but rejoined in 2009.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

^^^
France was a founding member, and still part of NATO. if I'm not mistaken.
Withdrew from the integrated military command structure in the 60s to pursue its own foreign/ defense policies (Force de Frappe)

And one French doctrine states (unlike the thinking in the Anglo Saxon world, forced on the rest of the world) that nuclear proliferation brings peace.

Anything more I'll leave to the experts.

Q for the experts - what progress on the electromagnetic catapults? What is the projected space and power supply requirements for those?

Sutripta

To summarise EMALS has faced a whole host of niggles that have basically been a major factor contributing to the Ford class and the lead ship not being rated for frontline service.

State of EMALS

I'll include some quotes from this report [Emphasis mine]:

• Statistics from a new Pentagon report show that the troublesome electromagnetic catapults and new arresting gear on the U.S. Navy's newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, performed terribly during at-sea trials over the past two years.
  
• ..Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) suffered 10 "critical failures" across 747 aircraft launches in at-sea trials since delivery in 2017..
  
• There are no additional details on what qualifies as a "critical failure" for the EMALS or an "operational mission failure" for the AAG. It is reasonable to assume these categories are instances where the catapults did not successfully launch the aircraft..
  
• When they're working correctly, the two systems are supposed to help increase the number of sorties the carrier can generate and reduce the physical strain on aircraft, lowering maintenance and logistical demands.
  
• For testing purposes, in the past, the Navy has defined a typical day of operations as launching and recovering 84 aircraft in a 24 hour period. The required number of sorties could easily be far greater during combat, especially during the initial phases of a major conflict or even a smaller crisis.
  
• ..the catapults broke down once every 75 launches or so, a significantly greater rate..
  
• ..it takes a minimum of an hour and a half to just begin troubleshooting an issue since there is no way to shut down specific components of the EMALS in order to inspect them.

Source

About the space and energy requirements of EMALS

Changes in the EMALS system in particular could potentially require a redesign of the ship’s basic profile or internal arrangement, not the kind of thing contractors could do during a brief port visit. A more drastic change, such as going back to a traditional steam catapult system – which no American company currently makes – would be even more time and labor intensive.

Source

A breakdown of EMALS

from 2013 by Tyler Rogoway, should help explain things-

EMALS, standing for Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, uses electrical current and a set of magnets to linearly accelerate a “shuttle” that is attached to the aircraft’s nose wheel forward along the catapult’s slot in the deck. The tremendous power needed for this system to work comes from the ship’s nuclear reactors, which is interfaced via a constellation of high-tech machinery called the Energy Storage Subsystem.When fully active, this system uses enough energy to light 12,000 American homes.

The Ford has 12 of these complex apparatuses to power its four catapults.
EMALS replaces the seemingly archaic (but incredibly well-proven) steam catapult systems that have been in service since the dawn of the Jet Age.


Simply put, an aircraft carrier’s catapult has to be very reliable, as a “cold cat-shot,” one that does not produce enough forward momentum to get the aircraft into a sustained flight profile, can result in the loss of a $50 million-plus jet, or in the F-35C’s case about triple that price, in the water. Add in a potentially a dead aircrew and a full stop to what could be critical combat operations, and you can see how big the problem is.
As it stands, EMALS, which has been in full-scale testing for the better part of a decade, does not appear to be reliable, even though the concept was supposed to be much more reliable and less labor-intensive than its steam predecessor.
Additionally, EMALS is supposed to be smaller, lighter, and less complex than its steam counterpart, while providing greater forward thrust, and a larger launch envelope for significantly different aircraft weights. This will theoretically allow launches of fully laden fighters to relatively light weight unmanned aircraft.
The issue of EMALS’ reliability is not the system’s only glaring issue. In EMALS’ current configuration, it cannot launch fighter aircraft with external fuel tanks mounted[!!], which is a show-stopper for modern U.S. fixed-wing carrier operations. Apparently, even though EMALS is supposed to have much more fine control over its acceleration than its steam counterparts, it currently puts extra stress on fighters carrying fuel tanks (and possibly other large and heavy external stores). This anomaly was discovered only last November, and there is said to be a software fix in the works, although it is uncertain if that fix will solve the issue once and for all and it is still a long ways out from being tested.
The [US] Navy and the defense industry were pushing this concept hard as far back as the late 1990s, stating that similar ‘linear induction motor’ systems are in use at theme parks across the U.S. (Aerosmith Rockin’ Roller Coaster to name one of the firsts). One of the biggest selling factors at the time was how these types of systems would be far more reliable than the steam systems they replace.
Well, either the Imagineers at Disney should be building aircraft carriers or this analogue is highly misleading. A roller coaster system similar to EMALS does not operate in the harshest conditions in the world for months on end, and a failed stroke from a vaguely similar roller coaster concept does not result in a 20-ton fighter jet being dropped in the ocean with a human or two inside.
This isn’t to say that EMALS technology should not be pursued. Quite the contrary actually.
One day it should be a fantastic alternative to steam catapults, and it should offer some benefits to a carrier and its air wing.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

^^^
France was a founding member, and still part of NATO.

Sort of a Brexit story for the military. They were founding member and were very active during the early years. Then they pulled out from the integrated command structure. Which basically meant they became an ally to NATO and could pursue their own (foreign) policies (and wars / military support). Technically they were still part of NATO.

According to the Gaulle at the time:

The integrated military system places France in an insufferable position of subordination. It deprives France of an efficient and autonomous force; might possibly lead the nation into conflicts that are not hers

From the early/mid 90s a proces of integration of France into the Command structure has taken place and we are back to where they were. (Although NATO, its mission and purpose has changed considerably over the last 5-6 decades of course)

According to him, the integrated military system places France in an insufferable position of subordination. It deprives France of an efficient and autonomous force; might possibly lead the nation into conflicts that are not hers.

Many articles and opinions about the NATO/French relationship over the years. I found this one interesting:

https://www.cairn.info/revue-politiq...-page-139.htm#

Politics at its best or worse, depending on your point of view.

Originally Posted by ads11

To summarise EMALS has faced a whole host of niggles that have basically been a major factor contributing to the Ford class and the lead ship not being rated for frontline service.

thanks for sharing all that information on EMALS. Very interesting. This is one of those cases where new technology, at face value, should bring so many advantages over existing (steam) technology. It’s is one thing to produce some slide ware around low/no maintenance which sort of goes with the concept of EMAL. But to get it to work, even at the current level of steam catapults appears to be a huge challenge. Let alone, perform better.

The engineer in me tends to think we can always improve on technical stuff. Whereas on paper that tends to be true, in practice it is surprising how difficult it can be to get new technology up to the mark of the old technology that it replaces.

Jeroen

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

thanks for sharing all that information on EMALS. Very interesting. This is one of those cases where new technology, at face value, should bring so many advantages over existing (steam) technology. It’s is one thing to produce some slide ware around low/no maintenance which sort of goes with the concept of EMAL. But to get it to work, even at the current level of steam catapults appears to be a huge challenge. Let alone, perform better.

The engineer in me tends to think we can always improve on technical stuff. Whereas on paper that tends to be true, in practice it is surprising how difficult it can be to get new technology up to the mark of the old technology that it replaces.

Jeroen

There's no doubt of the potential EMALS offers if done right, it's why the USN are still persisting with it. Everyone knew it was going to be a difficult development programme because the current Mk 12 steam catapult system itself was perfected as the USN is loathe to remind not just over many years but with actual blood sweat and tears - it's just how it is in the high risk high tempo world of carrier air ops. The main issue is basically the US drinking out of the cup of concurrency (like the they with the JSF, ie F-35) again but this time with their most visceral implement of their might - their supercarriers. By choosing the develop both the new cat and trap system on a brand new platform, they've just gone and built a $15billion dollar prototype ship that's meant to satisfy their Congressionally mandated 12 supercarrier limit. They really should've taken their time to perfect the designs on static test vessels (barges for eg) before maybe plonking it on a bloody great big ship that's meant to be the pointy tip of their spear.

Regardless the sentiment is that it'll be costly and time consuming but this is the right direction to move and so they will. Honestly it would be a whole leap and bound above anyone else's system.. basically the Chinese ("independently" arriving at their own catapult, albeit steam driven).

I think the critical factor that no capability exists to simply recreate the existing steam driven cats even in the US is telling for why folks have steered away from trying to implement their own design. I think everyone is essentially waiting for the Americans to iron out the niggles on EMALS and basically once there's an existing knowledge base for it on the engineering and manufacturing side, they'd proceed with their own effort from there - through the access granted by diplomatically established ties. Unless you're the Chinese that is. Then you redirect your incredibly competent state sanctioned industrial espionage units to work double time to hoover what they can and incorporate it into whatever design they must have on the simmer currently.

[devarshi84]

I would like to bring in an old horse, the MIG-29 UPG into the discussion. Some experts claim that it is the dark horse of the IAF.

The Mig-29 is still considered an awesome fighter jet when it comes to a dogfights. How does it compare to our Rafales considering the cost difference?

Russia is selling India its old MIG-29 frames readied to the UPG standard which India and Russia consider the most advanced version in the lineup.

A few articles have claimed that the UPG upgrades make them closely capable to some 4.5generation fighters like Rafale. Do other smart aviation specialists agree? While there's lots of information on the standard Mig-29 variants, I did not find much information on the UPG variant which seems to be heavily different.

The highlights of the MiG-29UPG upgrade are:

Able to deploy R-77RVV-AE (AA-12 'Adder') air-to-air missile.

Ability to use the advance subsonic anti-ship missile Kh-35E (AS-20 Kayak).

Introduced the OLS-UEM IRST sensor with the laser, thermal-imaging and television capabilities.

increased the range by 40% to 2,100 km on internal fuel.

The upgrade improve maintenance which helped reduced maintenance cost by as much as 40%.

Using the Indian licence manufacture of the new RD-33 series 3 turbofan engines

Introduction of new weapon control system.

Improved cockpit ergonomics with enhanced HOTAS design, two large and two smaller monochrome LCD.

Introduction of a retractable inflight refuelling probe, similar to Malaysian MIG-29N and Russian MIG-29SMT.

Weapons load was increased to 4,500 kg on six underwing and one ventral hard points similar to the MIG-35.

Secure datalink system.

Life increased to another 15 years of use.

Introduction of a bigger centreline tank from 1500 litres to 1800 litres tank extending range toward 3,000km.

ZHUK-ME AESA radar.

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26...et__Pilot_Safe

https://defenceupdate.in/mig-29-upg-...hter-aircraft/

NOTE: Video is of two RC models flying around and doing stunts (not of the real MIG aircrafts).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...V0&app=desktop

[black_rider]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

I would like to bring in an old horse, the MIG-29 UPG into the discussion.

That was informative. But I feel the embedded video should either be removed, it's clearly CGI, and does not add to serious discussion, or allowed to stay with disclaimer that it's CGI.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

I would like to bring in an old horse, the MIG-29 UPG into the discussion. Some experts claim that it is the dark horse of the IAF.

The Mig-29 is still considered an awesome fighter jet when it comes to a dogfights. How does it compare to our Rafales considering the cost difference?

Thank you for bringing up the MiG-29 especially as a final batch is under acquisition albeit of old airframes. While MiG lovers like me may find this hard to bite but the upgrade (- UPG) really brought our MiG-29s from 1985 to around 2005 at the very most. So it is a very welcome upgrade and a precious addition to our precarious strength and it is not a game changer. I have taken your points which I believe are from defenceworld.net and re-grouped them to address them better.

Members such as @skanchan96, @Foxbat and @ads11 will be able to opine a lot better than me.

When introduced in the mid-1980s the MiG-29 was the world's top dog fighter and in many respects is still one of the best. Dog fighting is very important but it is only one attribute in what a combat aircraft needs to do. Good as the MiG-29UPG is comparing it to Rafale is a chalk and cheese discussion. Single role & short range at one end versus multi-role and long range at the other.

Better to compare it with the Chinese PLAAF J-11 (Sukhoi Su-27 derivative) and J-10 the mainstays of their upper end. The MiG-29 UPG would be matched neck to neck with the J-11 and I believe would have an edge over the J-10. All 3 incidentally carry the same AAMs. Do I hear the Russkies laughing all the way to the bank.

• Introduced the OLS-UEM IRST sensor with the laser, thermal-imaging and television capabilities
• Ability to deploy R-77RVV-AE (AA-12 'Adder') air-to-air missile
• Weapons load was increased to 4,500 kg on six underwing and one ventral hard points similar to the MiG-35
• Introduction of new weapon control system

The new Zhuk ME Phased Electronically Scanned Array (PESA) radar, the new IRST (Infra Red Search & track) and the consequent upgraded weapons computer control & action information system are at the heart of this upgrade. The Zhuk ME PESA is the best that was compatible with the MiG-29 given limitations of space, nose weight etc. For our purposes, given our neighbourhood it is a competent system and the R-77 BVR it is matched to is an effective Beyond Visual Range air-to-air missile. PESA radars are the predecessors of AESA. With this all our interceptors are armed with competent long range BVRs. And of course in a dog fight with its helmet mounted sights the MiG-29 could upset any one else. I cannot comment on the 4500 kgs warload as real figures are hard to come by. And what is more important is how much fuel (read endurance) does it have with that warload. I suspect more than half of that external weight still needs to be fuel for even a moderately effective endurance. But it at last gives the MiG-29UPG a real secondary role in air-to-ground.

• Increased the range by 40% to 2,100 km on internal fuel
• Introduction of a bigger centreline tank from 1500 litres to 1800 litres tank extending range toward 3,000km
• Introduction of a retractable inflight refuelling probe, similar to Malaysian MIG-29N and Russian MIG-29SMT

Without wanting to sound unnecessarily harsh fact is the original MiG-29 along with the English Electric Lightning was notorious for a very very limited endurance. And both were the butt of many a joke on this. If they have found a way to suddenly increase internal fuel to take its ferry range up to 2100 kms then I’m delighted. But as I have said in earlier posts range of military aircraft (in service) are the most fudged figures on the net – reserves? centre of gravity issues? extra structural weight? does the extra fuel's weight put limits on the 'g' forces you can push the aircraft to?– we don’t know. For the MiG-29 if air defence is the primary role then this range improvement is very welcome. A ferry range of 2100 kms at 36,000 feet without any external stores very roughly converts to a lo-lo-lo radius of maybe ~ 300 kms with air defence munitions, full dry thrust, 3 minutes of full reheat and some reserves. But given how weak the endurance was any improvement is welcome. The refuelling probe is a real plus, a useful differentiation. An extra 300 litres on the centreline drop tank would increase range by at most 75 to 100* kms not 900 kms.

* a lot of this extra 300 litres will be consumed carrying the rest to the 2100 kms mark before they start adding to the range.

• Improved cockpit ergonomics with enhanced HOTAS design, two large and two smaller monochrome LCD
• Secure datalink system

These today are table stakes. You can’t expect to survive without these.

• Life increased to another 15 years of use
• The upgrade improve maintenance which helped reduced maintenance cost by as much as 40%.
• Using the Indian licence manufacture of the new RD-33 series 3 turbofan engines

I believe the increased life of 15 years. Sounds realistic. Value for money. The 40% reduction in maintenance sounds like a brochure figure. I know a little bit about aircraft maintenance and have never ever seen cost & time reductions of more than a few percentage points between one model and its upgrade. Is the RD-33 Series 3 a significant improvement in reliability and smokiness over its earlier marks. I hope it is.

[Motard_Blr]

Originally Posted by black_rider

That was informative. But I feel the embedded video should either be removed, it's clearly CGI, and does not add to serious discussion, or allowed to stay with disclaimer that it's CGI.

Not CGI. They are real, but they are scale model remote controlled aircraft. The logo in the video is "Essential RC". They are amazing machines in their own right, real marvels of miniaturisation and ingenuity.

Without a human pilot inside the aircraft, the performance of an aircraft is no longer limited by human frailty. I think that the age of autonomous fighter aircraft is not far away. Very "Terminator"ish, though.