Read the forum code of contact
By: - 1st November 2006 at 19:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm, good question. Of course it is better, it's much younger...
As you mentioned Gorshkov has double the weight, that serves for something... Even if they replace only half of the former weapons with fuel storage, it will be VERY handy to have. If they decide to get even more fuel, I'm quite sure Gorshkov will be able to maintain its aircraft in the air for a much longer period of time.
With a decreased air group she will most likely have less crew too, which leaves you more stores for the remaining crew, once again elongating your possible time at sea.
You shouldn't forget the helicopters either, they are VERY handy. If someone thinks of a carrier, he automatically looks at the fighters and that's about the only thing he cares about, how many and what type... You really shouldn't stop there when you want to assess an aircraft carrier. It's nice to have a fleet that can sustain a long distance and time at sea, but it's quite foolish if you have to send an extra tanker to keep your carrier up. Viraat can only do 6,500miles at 14kts while other more modern carriers, like Guiseppe Garibaldi (7000+miles at 20kts), De Asturias (6,500miles at 20kts). Gorshkov will be able to sail faster, most likely at some 19 or 20 kts economic speed, than Viraat and will most likely, if they increase the bunkers, keep that speed up for a longer time. This means that you can use your tankers more usefully to keep your frigates and destroyers running.
Those are just some advantages I wanted to point out. They will do something with all that extra deadweight and some of it will be taken up by all the extra deck pieces, but most of it will be used in different ways.
I do think the air group is really tight, 26 is not much (if you give up some 5 helicopters you can most likely add one or two MiGs), and along with their likely additional uptime, for now I think it will do for the Indian needs.
By: - 1st November 2006 at 21:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it still seems to be giving in effect the performance of a 20k carrier in the hull of a 40k i know its a bit of a genralisation.
i thought long distances wasn't that important as india didn't have the postering or the assects to peform exepadioarly warfare as it has neither the assects nore the inclation.
i also thought gorskhov would be that much more effcent cold war engines aren't at the cutting edge unlike PdA or GG.
so i feel the indians have a bad ship with the same poor relibaility
By: - 1st November 2006 at 23:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I always thought this.. yet india is making ADS same 40k tonne.
dont know when India will learn that carriers r long time investment and making a 0k carrier over 40k saves money and specifically wartime security.
20 a/c is puny.it cant ever work as a air offence ship.
By: - 1st November 2006 at 23:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I mean *60 not 0.
By: - 2nd November 2006 at 01:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The ADS (now it's called the IAC) may have a surprise up its sleeve. Rather a catapult on the angled deck. Why a cat even when both the N-LCA and Mig-29K are not cat capable? E-2.
At least that was the NG plan shown to the IN. That plan entailed some changes to the IAC, especially the length of the angled runway and slight redesign of some of the facilities on the flight deck and island. Oh, btw, NG not only makes the E-2, it also owns a little facility in the boondocks of Virginia called NNS. NNS might be of some help for the IAC.
Of course, the IN might not have accepted the NG plan. Dunno...
By: - 2nd November 2006 at 07:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i was wondering if Gorskhov was relly an improvement over the vernrable old WW2 centar class carrier it was replaceing.1. relieablity i know viraat R22 was one of the least relible moden carriers around ;) and it is a much to the indian technishines whop have manged to keep such an old vessle in serives for so long it astoashing. will gorskhov be any more relible as it had been badly looked after in the bad old days of Sovite union and had being liking around for a long time befor the IN navy bought the ship
2. air group was there no way viraat could be rifted to take the MIG 29k as the carrier was CATOBAR orgionaly or an other carrier with a better reputaion i.e speed up ADS buy old harriers untill new ships and planes are redey. also gorskhov wasn't a pure carrier it was a russian harrier carrier with a shed load of ASM and AAW wepons so even if it altered to be a pure carrier will still be the eqiverlent of a much small carrier. it won't be puching its weight when it comes to combat ops.
pre refit its air wing was ment to be 12 yak 38 12 ka27 helixsA 2 Ka-31 RLD
while it air wing post refit as being preticted at only 16 mig 29k by BHARAT RAKSHAK. along with a helo complament. i know the mig 29 it vast impovemt over the harrier but is it worth taking so few of them of such a large vessel.
i.e on the same site it says the hermes could take 30 harries at the expence of most of the helo wing it tonnage is only Displacement: 23,900 tons standard and 28,700 tons full load. it is about half the weight of gorskhov and lacks the one of the most useful abilities simaltaious lanch and recovery i know it isn't use very much if at all but it allows a much better safey at sea in condions such as unsheduled landings.pheew thats all i think of all possible problems with the buy im i compleatly wronge if so why sorry about the spelling it because im tired :o
Gorshkov's designed airwing was to include 36 aircraft: 14 Yak-41, 6 Yak-38M, 10 Ka-27PL, 2 Ka-27PS (SAR), 4 Ka-31 (AEW). On first sortie she carried 12 Yak-38M, 16 Ka-27PL, 2 Ka-25 PS and 2 Ka-25DC.
The hangar is 130x22.5x6.6 m and it's armoured (don't know if this feature will be retained on Vikram, but the hangar dimensions most likely will stay),
1500 tons of aviation fuel were carried, weapon storage was for 3 sorties.
It's hard to say what the range of Vikram will be, as the initial boilers KN98/64 are changed to KVG-3 which are more economic. Gorshkov was able to store 8900 tons of fuel for boilers, having 4050 nm range at 30 knots (30.5 knots during test runs) and 6900 nm at 18.6 knots. The new boilers are multifuel, meaning that tanking system may be changed and replenishment at sea may be much easier.
By: - 2nd November 2006 at 07:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I question your assumption that Vikramaditya will have poor reliability... do you not know that her entire propulsion plant has been replaced with new-build boilers & turbines of fully modern design?
Or that virtually all other systems have been fully overhauled or replaced?
In addition, the missile magazines that used to fill her bow have been replaced with holds for other stores, making her capable of sustaining combat operations far longer than when she was Adm. Gorskov? This is why her hangar was not enlarged.
The 16 Mig-29 number is the initial purchase contract only... note that the site you quote also mentioned an option to acquire 30 additional Mig-29 aircraft by 2015 is also included in the contract. This means that there will likely be more available for the normal increase in carried aircraft that all navies do in wartime.
Vikramaditya is getting the equivilant (or better) of the USN Service Life Extension Program overhaul after only 7 years of service (1987-1994) and 10 years of storage... a 4-5 year full modernization and conversion!
The USN gave their carriers 4 year complete modernizations by the 30-year mark in order to get a 40-50 year life... Viraat has been around 47 years with only piecemeal modernizations.
I am not surprised that Viraat is experiencing reliability problems... since she first commissioned in 1959 she had only a 2-2 year overhauls and 2-1 year refit in the first 30+ years of her life (commissioned in Indian service in 1989)... how many 1-year or more overhauls has she received since then?
By: - 2nd November 2006 at 10:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i still have problems about its reliablitity as in 1994, following a boiler room explosion, the ship was docked for a year of repairs. Although she returned to service in 1995, she was finally withdrawn in 1996 and offered for sale.
which means the indians would have to have a new engine room if they like it or not.
Kuznetsov also have had lots of proper refits which hasn't done it much good with all the fires and other problems which has plaged this vessle which was only built 3 years after gorskhov yet has to do a full tour in its whole servise life
also a coparison with US and western carriers is pointless conseredring the diffrent condions the diffrent carriers were in and the mid 90s neglect when the russians were bankrupt which won't have done gorskhov any good.true it wasn't as bad for gorskhov http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Gorshkov4.jpg i would love to know were all those fighter are going it seems incredubley full with 18 migs and 6 helos post refit
snake 65 do you have any sorces for that figuer because i haven't seen it anywere on the net
also nobody has answered my safty concerserns with with a shackled mig 29 having to move quickily when an unsheduled landing happens. i can see a big problem there and makes to me seems as dangerous as a single axis carrier taking STOBAR or CATOBAR and redueses the angle flight deck saftey margin .
also how will the indiens deal with bird strikes and other problems with planes in flight i would harly expect them to ask the planes to fly untill the deck is free. or would they?
By: - 2nd November 2006 at 11:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The information I quoted comes from 2 Russian monographs on 1143.4. One - dedicated to 1143.2-1143.4 is by Vladimir Zablocky, Captain (Ret.), who as one of Navy representatives at ChSZ warf participated in construction of 1143.1-1143.4 cruisers, second, dedicated to 1143.4 only, is by Aleksandr Pavlov, author of "Russian Jane's" almanachs on Soviet Navy. First was issued in 2004, second in 2000.
Also there's an excellent book "Our Carriers" by Valery Babich, one of designers and "test-pilots" off 1143 series, employed at ChSZ since 1967, also involved in design and construction of NITKA training complex, who has spent around 5 years at sea on Soviet carriers (14 months on Kiev, 8 months on Minsk, 19 months on Novorosiysk and 19 months on Baku).
By: - 2nd November 2006 at 12:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By the way, the drawing from Bharat Rakshak is seriously wrong on hangar dimensions it's way too wide 26m instead of 22.5m. On the other hand, 2003 model of Vikram shows a parking position also in front of island.
By: - 2nd November 2006 at 13:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thanks! do you have a more upto date hanger drawing and plane placemet do you think gorskhov will be able to carry troops like viraat
By: - 2nd November 2006 at 19:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would have required a new engine room anyway, fire or no fire, for the upgrade of the boilers you need a new engineroom. Those boilers seem to be very small compared to the regular merchant boilers though. I suppose I know why they have to have so many people in the engine room... Flamepipe boilers. brr, I'm getting the shivers of that.
USN just kicks a broken down aircraft oveboard if it poses a problem, I guess India will have to do the same if that ever happens. I wouldn't be all too fixed on that disadvantage though, it seems to me that you are looking for an argument to say it's rubbish? Honestly I don't think it will be the deal of the century, but I think they can do something very useful with it.
Range, even for India, is important. You don't want your carrier to transit somewhere and sit still... It has to keep moving and in that respect it's important to have a good radius. If you have to move back to port too often, you'll have a sitting duck with the risk of losing your carrier in a port strike. If you are too dependent on tankers, then the enemy will know that and start targetting your tankers, making sure you have to move to port every so often.
By: - 3rd November 2006 at 00:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In addition, the missile magazines that used to fill her bow have been replaced with holds for other stores, making her capable of sustaining combat operations far longer than when she was Adm. Gorskov? This is why her hangar was not enlarged.
Nonsense.
The ex-Gorshkov will retain her pitifully small hangar because the current refit is only minimal in terms of structural modifications.
It would take the removal of everything down to the floor of the hangar deck, followed by a complete rebuilding, to change the fundimental size of the hangar.
Vikramaditya is getting the equivilant (or better) of the USN Service Life Extension Program overhaul after only 7 years of service (1987-1994) and 10 years of storage... a 4-5 year full modernization and conversion!
The USN put far more money into its carrier SLEP refits than the Indians are willing to pay the Russian to make the ex-Gorshkov servicable.
Of course, the ex-Gorskov's very troubled service history makes me wonder about the soundness of the basic design and original shipbuilding practices.
By: - 3rd November 2006 at 06:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nonsense.Of course, the ex-Gorskov's very troubled service history makes me wonder about the soundness of the basic design and original shipbuilding practices.
I'd rather say personnel and maintenanance practices :diablo:
By: - 3rd November 2006 at 16:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nonsense.The ex-Gorshkov will retain her pitifully small hangar because the current refit is only minimal in terms of structural modifications.
It would take the removal of everything down to the floor of the hangar deck, followed by a complete rebuilding, to change the fundimental size of the hangar.
The USN put far more money into its carrier SLEP refits than the Indians are willing to pay the Russian to make the ex-Gorshkov servicable.
Of course, the ex-Gorskov's very troubled service history makes me wonder about the soundness of the basic design and original shipbuilding practices.
Not to mention the post cold war Russias idea of storage- tie it up somewhere and let it rust. :eek:
By: - 3rd November 2006 at 16:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I always thought this.. yet india is making ADS same 40k tonne.
dont know when India will learn that carriers r long time investment and making a 0k carrier over 40k saves money and specifically wartime security.20 a/c is puny.it cant ever work as a air offence ship.
How exactly will building a bigger carrier save money? :rolleyes: It wont. India is building 40k carriers rather than 60k carriers for two reasons, 1)despite what many people think India is still a developing country with large parts of its population living in severe poverty, therefore it has better things to spend its money on. 2) India is building carriers for the first time and seems to be looking at the smallest practical design for the type of aviation element it wants (non V/STOL) in order to gain experience.
Granted if china does deploy the Varyag with TVC Su-33's fitted with Zhuk-MFSE radars the ex Gorschkov will be the lesser capability carrier by some margin but ultimately it is very unlikely that India and china will go to war anyway so it realy is not that important.
By: - 3rd November 2006 at 16:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The whorenet or rafale can't even take off from the A/C. Why do people keep harping on the same thing? Mig-29K is good enough for IN and they seem to have no problem with it. Let china first learn how to operate a carrier , we can think about dealing with it later.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 1st November 2006 at 18:55
i was wondering if Gorskhov was relly an improvement over the vernrable old WW2 centar class carrier it was replaceing.
1. relieablity i know viraat R22 was one of the least relible moden carriers around ;) and it is a much to the indian technishines whop have manged to keep such an old vessle in serives for so long it astoashing. will gorskhov be any more relible as it had been badly looked after in the bad old days of Sovite union and had being liking around for a long time befor the IN navy bought the ship
2. air group was there no way viraat could be rifted to take the MIG 29k as the carrier was CATOBAR orgionaly or an other carrier with a better reputaion i.e speed up ADS buy old harriers untill new ships and planes are redey. also gorskhov wasn't a pure carrier it was a russian harrier carrier with a shed load of ASM and AAW wepons so even if it altered to be a pure carrier will still be the eqiverlent of a much small carrier. it won't be puching its weight when it comes to combat ops.
pre refit its air wing was ment to be 12 yak 38 12 ka27 helixsA 2 Ka-31 RLD
while it air wing post refit as being preticted at only 16 mig 29k by BHARAT RAKSHAK. along with a helo complament. i know the mig 29 it vast impovemt over the harrier but is it worth taking so few of them of such a large vessel.
i.e on the same site it says the hermes could take 30 harries at the expence of most of the helo wing it tonnage is only Displacement: 23,900 tons standard and 28,700 tons full load. it is about half the weight of gorskhov and lacks the one of the most useful abilities simaltaious lanch and recovery i know it isn't use very much if at all but it allows a much better safey at sea in condions such as unsheduled landings.
pheew thats all i think of all possible problems with the buy im i compleatly wronge if so why sorry about the spelling it because im tired :o