By: star49
- 12th November 2006 at 21:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
oh so if they can do that how come they don have F-22 or Typhoon or JSF with Su-35UB or Leopard2A6?
when they have MKI which is built for IAF requirement why they will need anything else especially when it will get Brahmos/KS-172 kind long range weopons. they have t-90/arjun(with MTU engine).
the guy up above you say the british will not sell them Radar?
when british is ready to sell them typhoon. so what preventing an obsolete radar. the probable cause is that India may not pay extra for radar and upgrade is time consuming and expensive process.
even if they will sell them it, it do not mean India will always make the right purchase. how come they are buying LCA? is it the best fighter in the market? :rolleyes:
maybe your indian pride make you blind.
LCA hasnt been bought yet. and where India made wrong purchase considering price/capability/customization/Indigeniousation/timeline consideration.
By: Jonesy
- 14th November 2006 at 01:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is the actual question here?. Is it how does the Gorshkov compare to the Viraat?.
Answer is simply that Gorshkov is bigger and, as Neptune says, offers greater consumables stowage. With twin-engine fighters that will, in all likelihood, consume at a higher rate than Viraats SHARS that may be an almost academic advantage. Other than that, I think, Gorshkov's advantage is modest at best.
The new boilers are going to be critical items, without them the ship would've been a pup from the kickoff, hopefully they work as advertised. No word has ever been mentioned about the ships running gear, power generation kit, HVAC systems, RO-water plants etc etc being replaced...least nothing I've seen. There will still be 'first-user' systems therefore that will be questionable until they've seen some repeated use. My opinion is that the operational sea trials of the remodelled Gorshkov will be where we find out what kind of ship the Indians have let themselves in for.
Reliability will doubtless still be better for the Russian ship over the Viraat but, for $700 mills refit cost (twice what the UK paid for HMS Ocean!), you'd really hope so!.
Other than that the actual range of missions that Gorshkov can accomplish over Viraat is questionable. This is mainly because such mission capabilities are not within the purview of the fighter type carried. Rather they are a function of the support aircraft types carried. Without its E-2's and S-3's even a US CVN offers little more in missions-achieveable than Viraat.
This is because the ability to perform power projection missions, Fleet ASW or Outer Air Engagement, against all but the most austere threat forces, is dependent on C4ISR. Without that any carrier is back to some latter-day, higher-tech, version of Midway sending out fighters on SURCAP's to try and get a sniff of an opposing fleet or standing local BARCAP at the extent of the practical altitude coverage of your fleets tallest air-search set.
Unfortunately, unlike at Midway, today packing upwards of 80 aircraft on a deck is a tall order and any carrier attempting such use of its airwing is going to find itself going through spares, fuel and probably pilots pretty quick....and thats before we get to the spectre of attrition!. Replacement aircraft probably wont be as available as they were in WW2!.
So in both cases, Viraat and Gorshkov, we have carriers that did/will provide local air defence to its deployed fleet, a modest antiship strike ability, some strike potential ashore (low threat environments only!) and the ability to carry a number of ASW choppers to assist with Fleet ASW in a modest way though at the expense of the other missions!.
Basically, at $700 mill for the refit, Gorshkov still looks like an expensive way to maintain modest capabilities to me I'm afraid!.
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 14th November 2006 at 03:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wasn't HMS ocean built to civilian standards instead of military standards? That would explain the cost difference. The harriers are pretty useless and the sea eagle is getting long in the tooth, compared to these the Mig-29K which is Kh-31 and Kh-35 capable equipped gorky will be far superior. Ofcourse a lot depends on the complement that gorky can actually carry. In would insist on atleast 10-12 helos for ASW.
It still will not match anything that USN CVN's can do because of the lack of E-2 and numbers. Unfortunately it will a tall order to launch E-2 from gorky or ADS.
By: Jonesy
- 14th November 2006 at 03:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Broncho,
Yep Ocean was built to Civilian rules but she's serving quite nicely, after some initial issues!, thankyou very much and the fact remains this 'free gift' of an aircraft carrier is actually turning out to be a little pricey!.
The harriers are pretty useless and the sea eagle is getting long in the tooth, compared to these the Mig-29K which is Kh-31 and Kh-35 capable equipped gorky will be far superior.
I'd stack Sea Eagle up against Kh-35 any day of the week and aren't the Indian Sea Harriers the same ones that gave a bunch of Aeronavale Rafales a bit of a pasting in WVR a wee while ago?.
Either way, its indisputeable that the MiG is the more powerful aircraft of the two. As stated though all this really means is that its a bit better at performing the local BARCAP and it has a bit more range when tooling uselessly over the sea on SURCAP missions. Gorshkov will do Viraat's missions better than Viraat I am sure....but no more than that and for the money spent I dont think thats good enough!.
New
Posts: 3,396
By: star49
- 14th November 2006 at 04:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Broncho,
Yep Ocean was built to Civilian rules but she's serving quite nicely, after some initial issues!, thankyou very much and the fact remains this 'free gift' of an aircraft carrier is actually turning out to be a little pricey!.
I'd stack Sea Eagle up against Kh-35 any day of the week and aren't the Indian Sea Harriers the same ones that gave a bunch of Aeronavale Rafales a bit of a pasting in WVR a wee while ago?.
Either way, its indisputeable that the MiG is the more powerful aircraft of the two. As stated though all this really means is that its a bit better at performing the local BARCAP and it has a bit more range when tooling uselessly over the sea on SURCAP missions. Gorshkov will do Viraat's missions better than Viraat I am sure....but no more than that and for the money spent I dont think thats good enough!.
MIG is simply faster. infact the fastest jet in naval operations. so no target can escape from it both in air and sea. it can stay longer and it can take heavier external fuel tank in centre line now. (500 gallon). and still have weopon stations for other work (11). Its radius of action will be extended further with longer range R-77/KS-172. it is almost 10 times as effective as seaharrier with smallish nose with no multi target ability against ships.
By: Jonesy
- 14th November 2006 at 04:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MIG is simply faster. infact the fastest jet in naval operations. so no target can escape from it both in air and sea. it can stay longer and it can take heavier external fuel tank in centre line now. (500 gallon). and still have weopon stations for other work (11). Its radius of action will be extended further with longer range R-77/KS-172. it is almost 10 times as effective as seaharrier with smallish nose with no multi target ability against ships.
Yep cool....as I said its a more powerful aircraft....it still doesnt allow the Gorshkov to attempt any more missions than Viraat though...which is kind of the point!!!!
New
Posts: 1,877
By: 21Ankush
- 14th November 2006 at 07:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:rolleyes:
oh so if they can do that how come they don have F-22 or Typhoon or JSF with Su-35UB or Leopard2A6? the guy up above you say the british will not sell them Radar?
even if they will sell them it, it do not mean India will always make the right purchase. how come they are buying LCA? is it the best fighter in the market? :rolleyes:
maybe your indian pride make you blind.
he's Pakistani, not Indian so cut the crap..
the F-22 was NEVER offered to India, and the Typhoon is a contender for the MRCA deal, and India already will get over 190 Su-30MKIs so why go for the Su-34 ?
As for the Leopard 2A6, the IA's fundamental doctrine is for light and fast tanks that move quickly over the deserts of Thar..even the Arjun is getting a fair deal of stick for being larger and heavier than the T-series tat the IA is used to till now..
and talking about the LCA, it was about INDIGENIZATION ! the point was to replace a MiG-21 size fighter with another INDIAN MiG-21 size fighter. the specifications for the LCA were laid down by the IAF only. compare the LCA to any fighter that is in its class and size then talk.
New
Posts: 1,877
By: 21Ankush
- 14th November 2006 at 07:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Broncho,
I'd stack Sea Eagle up against Kh-35 any day of the week and aren't the Indian Sea Harriers the same ones that gave a bunch of Aeronavale Rafales a bit of a pasting in WVR a wee while ago?.
Either way, its indisputeable that the MiG is the more powerful aircraft of the two. As stated though all this really means is that its a bit better at performing the local BARCAP and it has a bit more range when tooling uselessly over the sea on SURCAP missions. Gorshkov will do Viraat's missions better than Viraat I am sure....but no more than that and for the money spent I dont think thats good enough!.
yes Jonesy, the SHars were a handful in WVR combat..and Harry had written about DACT with Fulcrums where Fulcrum pilots lost sight of the SHars due to their small size and that the SHars actively employed VIFFing..
but the point is that as an overall platform, the MiG-29K is far superior to the SHar which lacks range, and payload capacity. even with a El-2032 and Derby, the SHar can only provide CAP for a short while for the fleet.
By: Jonesy
- 14th November 2006 at 08:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes Jonesy, the SHars were a handful in WVR combat..and Harry had written about DACT with Fulcrums where Fulcrum pilots lost sight of the SHars due to their small size and that the SHars actively employed VIFFing..
but the point is that as an overall platform, the MiG-29K is far superior to the SHar which lacks range, and payload capacity. even with a El-2032 and Derby, the SHar can only provide CAP for a short while for the fleet.
Ankush,
You are also conveniently missing the sortie rate issue here which balances out a hell of a lot of the MiG's superior virtues. How much is the MiG's range and payload capability going to do for an IN group if it cant get off the deck because a landing evolution is under way and the deck needs to be reconfigured for a takeoff?.
In ideal conditions the MiG is the superior aircraft. RN SHAR pilots admitted this under DACT....until the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM came along!. Then they started dropping F-18's/F-14's and all sorts of others. This doesnt apply to the IN aircraft obviously but the SHAR isnt exactly as poor a relation as you try to make out. Its endurance especially is perfectly fine for the local CAPing that both types will do.
Again, and this is the point, the fact that the MiG has advantages is unimportant....it will only be performing the same missions that Viraats SHARs were...even if Fulcrum performs them better. The problem is the your new 44k ton $700mill half-carrier is doing no more strategically than your old STOVL ship!.
By: swerve
- 14th November 2006 at 08:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wasn't HMS ocean built to civilian standards instead of military standards? That would explain the cost difference. The harriers are pretty useless
This civilian vs military standards thing keeps cropping up, & is rather misleading. Civilian ships are built to independently verified standards: naval ships traditionally have not been, but navies have established their own, internal, standards. In some respects, e.g. manning levels & damage control, some classes of naval ship (mostly warships) have been built to much higher standards than civilian ships. In other respects, naval ships (particularly auxiliaries) have sometimes been built to lower standards than civilian ships, as they're exempt from a lot of regulations. For example, many naval tankers do not meet legal minimum civilian safety standards.
One common difference is naval standards require high manning levels, & doing things manually that civilian ships have long done with machinery.
There has recently been a trend to establish independently verified standards for naval ship construction. So far, they're sort of hybrids, as far as I know, & have only been applied to amphibious ships, transports, & auxiliaries. Ocean was one of the first such ships built, which means that unlike many other naval ships, she should meet or exceed civilian standards in all respects, though she doesn't meet traditional naval standards in some areas. It's likely that in a few years all Western naval surface ships, except nuclear-powered ones, will be built to standards independently verified by civilian bodies, i.e. "civilian standards". But that doesn't mean either that they'll all be built to the same standard, or that they'll be built to standards used by, e.g, ferries.
Indian SHARS are having the old (& hopelessly out of date now) radar replaced by the Elta 2032, which should be a great improvement, & they're getting Derby BVRAAMs. Probably not quite up to the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combo, but far from "pretty useless".
By: swerve
- 14th November 2006 at 09:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Without its E-2's and S-3's even a US CVN offers little more in missions-achieveable than Viraat.
Aren't they retiring all the S-3s? There are large numbers, with loads & loads of airframe hours left, for sale. I reckon you might be able to fit the Erieye mission kit (the austere original Swedish one, which needs a ground station - or ship :D ) on one. Hmmmmm. Or they do good ASW. Or buddy tanking.
But you probably need a catapult to get one off Vikramaditya with a useful load. :(
By: harryRIEDL
- 14th November 2006 at 12:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ankush,
You are also conveniently missing the sortie rate issue here which balances out a hell of a lot of the MiG's superior virtues. How much is the MiG's range and payload capability going to do for an IN group if it cant get off the deck because a landing evolution is under way and the deck needs to be reconfigured for a takeoff?.
In ideal conditions the MiG is the superior aircraft. RN SHAR pilots admitted this under DACT....until the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM came along!. Then they started dropping F-18's/F-14's and all sorts of others. This doesnt apply to the IN aircraft obviously but the SHAR isnt exactly as poor a relation as you try to make out. Its endurance especially is perfectly fine for the local CAPing that both types will do.
Again, and this is the point, the fact that the MiG has advantages is unimportant....it will only be performing the same missions that Viraats SHARs were...even if Fulcrum performs them better. The problem is the your new 44k ton $700mill half-carrier is doing no more strategically than your old STOVL ship!.
jonesy what do you think of the angled deck issue as won't that slow the turing around the aircraft as they have to have the angled deck clear before the migs land. and take off. i thought that this would also increse the safety concerns
By: Neptune
- 14th November 2006 at 14:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This civilian vs military standards thing keeps cropping up, & is rather misleading. Civilian ships are built to independently verified standards: naval ships traditionally have not been, but navies have established their own, internal, standards. In some respects, e.g. manning levels & damage control, some classes of naval ship (mostly warships) have been built to much higher standards than civilian ships. In other respects, naval ships (particularly auxiliaries) have sometimes been built to lower standards than civilian ships, as they're exempt from a lot of regulations. For example, many naval tankers do not meet legal minimum civilian safety standards.
One common difference is naval standards require high manning levels, & doing things manually that civilian ships have long done with machinery.
There has recently been a trend to establish independently verified standards for naval ship construction. So far, they're sort of hybrids, as far as I know, & have only been applied to amphibious ships, transports, & auxiliaries. Ocean was one of the first such ships built, which means that unlike many other naval ships, she should meet or exceed civilian standards in all respects, though she doesn't meet traditional naval standards in some areas. It's likely that in a few years all Western naval surface ships, except nuclear-powered ones, will be built to standards independently verified by civilian bodies, i.e. "civilian standards". But that doesn't mean either that they'll all be built to the same standard, or that they'll be built to standards used by, e.g, ferries.
It's a bit more complicated than that. For example, auxiliary naval tankers are way above merchant manning levels. That is indeed partly due to the slower automatisation in that field, I do think that this higher manning is necessary in some cases as it allows for more flexibility in operations.
There is also the thing that merchant ships are constantly surveyed. I've seen quite a few warships which would be retained after a normal civilian survey. Merchant ships tend to be kept on a shorter leash when it comes to some standard maintenance.
Lloyd's has an own Military Ship classification standard nowadays. Most Classification societies actually have. Cavour, the new Italian carrier has been built following the rules and guidance of the RINA classification society. It is of course hard to still call it civilian standards... They are made by a civilian organisation, but are made specifically to military standards. It does however, allow other navies to follow a certain procedure and have less effort in determining their own standards.
It's logical that they are now going to civilian methods and standards. Crewing is a huge cost and most navies try to save on it now. Civilian standards are created because of the bad safety on the low manned merchant ships. On merchant ships there is no real plausible fire fighting possible (hope the automatic system works as it should), same with damage control. Now that most navies try to get rid of a lot of people, they will have to keep their ships safe. And the greatest experience in that matter can only be found in the Classification Societies.
By: swerve
- 14th November 2006 at 15:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neptune,
there is a lot of confusion over this. Many people do not appreciate the difference between a standard defined by a civilian organisation for naval ships, & a standard for civilian ships, & so apply the label "civilian standards" to all classification society standards.
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 14th November 2006 at 23:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Broncho,
Yep Ocean was built to Civilian rules but she's serving quite nicely, after some initial issues!, thankyou very much and the fact remains this 'free gift' of an aircraft carrier is actually turning out to be a little pricey!.
We all know what free means don't we? There are no free lunches in this world.
I'd stack Sea Eagle up against Kh-35 any day of the week and aren't the Indian Sea Harriers the same ones that gave a bunch of Aeronavale Rafales a bit of a pasting in WVR a wee while ago?.
Thats your opinion. IN certainly does not think so. KH-35 is considered superior to sea eagle. Thats why IN is replacing the sea eagles with KH-35. WVR has nothing to do with sea eagle and harrier is a very limited platform. In order to have any sort of decent range they need to carry 2 drop tanks leaving only 3 hardpoints for missiles. Harrier can only carry 2 sea eagle while mig-29 K can carry 4 Kh-35 or Kh-31. The elta/derby combo can only do so much for harriers.
Either way, its indisputeable that the MiG is the more powerful aircraft of the two. As stated though all this really means is that its a bit better at performing the local BARCAP and it has a bit more range when tooling uselessly over the sea on SURCAP missions. Gorshkov will do Viraat's missions better than Viraat I am sure....but no more than that and for the money spent I dont think thats good enough!.
I agree the gorky or ADS only seems to do viraats job much better than viraat. It is still not good enough to do any sort of force projection. 30 odd ac complement without E-2's is not good enough for any sort of force projection.
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 14th November 2006 at 23:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MIG is simply faster. infact the fastest jet in naval operations. so no target can escape from it both in air and sea. it can stay longer and it can take heavier external fuel tank in centre line now. (500 gallon). and still have weopon stations for other work (11). Its radius of action will be extended further with longer range R-77/KS-172. it is almost 10 times as effective as seaharrier with smallish nose with no multi target ability against ships.
Star, Mig will have 8 wing stations not 11. The range and payload is much more than sea harrier but it can only carry r-77 and r-73 for now. The KS-172 has a range >300 km which means the mig-29k's radar (zhuk-me) cannot guide it to the required target.
New
Posts: 3,396
By: star49
- 14th November 2006 at 23:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Star, Mig will have 8 wing stations not 11. The range and payload is much more than sea harrier but it can only carry r-77 and r-73 for now. The KS-172 has a range >300 km which means the mig-29k's radar (zhuk-me) cannot guide it to the required target.
its 11 but with twin rack it becomes 13. and KS-172 will have 100km or so seeker range. so i dont think there will be problem with long range bvr.
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/news/?page=1&tid=4&id=18
As a multirole fighter MiG-29K is capable to destroy different aerial, ground and naval targets using wide range of precision weapons. MiG-29K combat payload makes 5500 kg, number of hardpoints – 13 (including the ones on multi-lock bomb carriers).
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 15th November 2006 at 00:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, you are right I missed it in BR. Its 9 (8 wing+ 1 centreline) points. The 2 inboard pylons under each wing can carry dual racks making it 13 hard points). The KS-172 is quiet heavy and big (750 kg). Smehow I don't think they will be used on mig-29k.
By: Jonesy
- 15th November 2006 at 04:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Swerve
Aren't they retiring all the S-3s? There are large numbers, with loads & loads of airframe hours left, for sale. I reckon you might be able to fit the Erieye mission kit (the austere original Swedish one, which needs a ground station - or ship ) on one. Hmmmmm. Or they do good ASW. Or buddy tanking.
But you probably need a catapult to get one off Vikramaditya with a useful load.
I'd say definitely on the cat shot required to get a loaded Hoover off Gorshkov!. Dont know bout an Erieye on an S-3, but perhaps some lightweight variant of IAI's Phalcon might be feasible or, certainly, a Searchwater AEW in a retractable ventral bin would be possible and would be an immense improvement over rotary AEW.
IIRC the latter S-3/Searchwater was an option under consideration for UK's MASC requirement as it was.
Harry,
jonesy what do you think of the angled deck issue as won't that slow the turing around the aircraft as they have to have the angled deck clear before the migs land. and take off. i thought that this would also increse the safety concerns
I've not heard of any specific angled-deck issue regarding the conversion?. Any vessel utilising arrested-recovery techniques requires an angled-deck for reasons of safety and optimum deck-flexibility. It simply makes no sense to try and use an axial (single) deck for an arrested-recovery technique carrier these days....unless of course you build it bloody huge!!!.
The problem with Gorshkov is that the takeoff run for the Mig-29's is so far back it encroaches on the angled landing deck - at least according to published artwork. This means that to land-on an aircraft that launching spot must be clear. Conversley it means that to launch a number of aircraft in rapid succession will take time as the following fighters will have to wait, prior to being spotted, for the launching fighter to be up and emergency free. This also means that the first aircraft launched may have to be buddy-tanked to top-off fuel wasted whilst waiting for the launch evolution to complete etc!.
STOVL on the other hand can see a fighter spotted for launch, a fighter land vertically in front of it then taxi away, then complete the launch immediately when it has a clear run. Very much easier and safer!.
Broncho
I agree the gorky or ADS only seems to do viraats job much better than viraat. It is still not good enough to do any sort of force projection. 30 odd ac complement without E-2's is not good enough for any sort of force projection.
This is entirely the problem I have here though. The IN had a sea control carrier capability for years...what does this vessel offer thats really all that new?. They operated CATOBAR back in the day with the SeaHawks so the idea that they have no capabilities in supporting Cat operations today is unfathomable.
When you consider that the IN's stated requirement for a number of new carrier decks appeared in Janes back in '94 the fact that they sit here today patting themselves on the back for getting an old Russsian hybrid carrier that just continues the status quo, in capability terms, is also unfathomable.
The current thread on the larger Spanish BSAC design is case in point here. There was a 27k ton carrier available at the time, 1994, apparently with a sticker price of $400 million. The French, at the time, were flying their early Rafale-M and it was showing large promise as a revolution in efficient and capable carrier fighter design. Lets say that the IN put an order in for the three carriers its declared requirement was for in 94 - plan in for the first carrier to join in 2005 and the last in 2015. Bazan could have easily met those schedules, if not, delivered all three by 2010 through full trials and into commission.
We give the airgroup per boat as two 8-plane squadrons of Rafale-M for 32 in service. We then add in an additional 12/8 Rafale-M/N for OCU and attrition reserve and your looking at 52 aircraft to be purchased over the twenty year period from say 1995-2015. Now, even at $70 mill per copy for the Rafale-M the Indian Defence budget could've coped with paying for two and a bit Rafales a year!.
That would've put the IN as owners of an efficient, reasonably economical, carrier force operating largely future-proof, low-maintenance, true swingrole fighters capable of deploying SCALP, Meteor, AASM, ALARM and, dare I say, NSM too!. Grab hold of half a dozen E-2's or S-3AEW conversions and you have true deployed battlespace management capabilities in to boot. Equal to a US CVN perhaps not, but, the equal of anything else sailing under anyones flag until the French PA-2 hits the water!.
Instead they get Gorshkov, STOBAR, KA-31 and a Cavour-esque STOBAR ADS that will still do little more than sea-control work!. Indian posters here tell us that the IN is happy with this state of affairs too!!!
Posts: 3,396
By: star49 - 12th November 2006 at 21:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
when they have MKI which is built for IAF requirement why they will need anything else especially when it will get Brahmos/KS-172 kind long range weopons. they have t-90/arjun(with MTU engine).
when british is ready to sell them typhoon. so what preventing an obsolete radar. the probable cause is that India may not pay extra for radar and upgrade is time consuming and expensive process.
LCA hasnt been bought yet. and where India made wrong purchase considering price/capability/customization/Indigeniousation/timeline consideration.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 14th November 2006 at 01:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is the actual question here?. Is it how does the Gorshkov compare to the Viraat?.
Answer is simply that Gorshkov is bigger and, as Neptune says, offers greater consumables stowage. With twin-engine fighters that will, in all likelihood, consume at a higher rate than Viraats SHARS that may be an almost academic advantage. Other than that, I think, Gorshkov's advantage is modest at best.
The new boilers are going to be critical items, without them the ship would've been a pup from the kickoff, hopefully they work as advertised. No word has ever been mentioned about the ships running gear, power generation kit, HVAC systems, RO-water plants etc etc being replaced...least nothing I've seen. There will still be 'first-user' systems therefore that will be questionable until they've seen some repeated use. My opinion is that the operational sea trials of the remodelled Gorshkov will be where we find out what kind of ship the Indians have let themselves in for.
Reliability will doubtless still be better for the Russian ship over the Viraat but, for $700 mills refit cost (twice what the UK paid for HMS Ocean!), you'd really hope so!.
Other than that the actual range of missions that Gorshkov can accomplish over Viraat is questionable. This is mainly because such mission capabilities are not within the purview of the fighter type carried. Rather they are a function of the support aircraft types carried. Without its E-2's and S-3's even a US CVN offers little more in missions-achieveable than Viraat.
This is because the ability to perform power projection missions, Fleet ASW or Outer Air Engagement, against all but the most austere threat forces, is dependent on C4ISR. Without that any carrier is back to some latter-day, higher-tech, version of Midway sending out fighters on SURCAP's to try and get a sniff of an opposing fleet or standing local BARCAP at the extent of the practical altitude coverage of your fleets tallest air-search set.
Unfortunately, unlike at Midway, today packing upwards of 80 aircraft on a deck is a tall order and any carrier attempting such use of its airwing is going to find itself going through spares, fuel and probably pilots pretty quick....and thats before we get to the spectre of attrition!. Replacement aircraft probably wont be as available as they were in WW2!.
So in both cases, Viraat and Gorshkov, we have carriers that did/will provide local air defence to its deployed fleet, a modest antiship strike ability, some strike potential ashore (low threat environments only!) and the ability to carry a number of ASW choppers to assist with Fleet ASW in a modest way though at the expense of the other missions!.
Basically, at $700 mill for the refit, Gorshkov still looks like an expensive way to maintain modest capabilities to me I'm afraid!.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 14th November 2006 at 03:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wasn't HMS ocean built to civilian standards instead of military standards? That would explain the cost difference. The harriers are pretty useless and the sea eagle is getting long in the tooth, compared to these the Mig-29K which is Kh-31 and Kh-35 capable equipped gorky will be far superior. Ofcourse a lot depends on the complement that gorky can actually carry. In would insist on atleast 10-12 helos for ASW.
It still will not match anything that USN CVN's can do because of the lack of E-2 and numbers. Unfortunately it will a tall order to launch E-2 from gorky or ADS.
Posts: 1,732
By: Victor - 14th November 2006 at 03:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From this very small pic, one can get somewhat of an idea of what the size of that stbd "verandah" is going to be.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 14th November 2006 at 03:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Broncho,
Yep Ocean was built to Civilian rules but she's serving quite nicely, after some initial issues!, thankyou very much and the fact remains this 'free gift' of an aircraft carrier is actually turning out to be a little pricey!.
I'd stack Sea Eagle up against Kh-35 any day of the week and aren't the Indian Sea Harriers the same ones that gave a bunch of Aeronavale Rafales a bit of a pasting in WVR a wee while ago?.
Either way, its indisputeable that the MiG is the more powerful aircraft of the two. As stated though all this really means is that its a bit better at performing the local BARCAP and it has a bit more range when tooling uselessly over the sea on SURCAP missions. Gorshkov will do Viraat's missions better than Viraat I am sure....but no more than that and for the money spent I dont think thats good enough!.
Posts: 3,396
By: star49 - 14th November 2006 at 04:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MIG is simply faster. infact the fastest jet in naval operations. so no target can escape from it both in air and sea. it can stay longer and it can take heavier external fuel tank in centre line now. (500 gallon). and still have weopon stations for other work (11). Its radius of action will be extended further with longer range R-77/KS-172. it is almost 10 times as effective as seaharrier with smallish nose with no multi target ability against ships.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 14th November 2006 at 04:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep cool....as I said its a more powerful aircraft....it still doesnt allow the Gorshkov to attempt any more missions than Viraat though...which is kind of the point!!!!
Posts: 1,877
By: 21Ankush - 14th November 2006 at 07:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:rolleyes:
he's Pakistani, not Indian so cut the crap..
the F-22 was NEVER offered to India, and the Typhoon is a contender for the MRCA deal, and India already will get over 190 Su-30MKIs so why go for the Su-34 ?
As for the Leopard 2A6, the IA's fundamental doctrine is for light and fast tanks that move quickly over the deserts of Thar..even the Arjun is getting a fair deal of stick for being larger and heavier than the T-series tat the IA is used to till now..
and talking about the LCA, it was about INDIGENIZATION ! the point was to replace a MiG-21 size fighter with another INDIAN MiG-21 size fighter. the specifications for the LCA were laid down by the IAF only. compare the LCA to any fighter that is in its class and size then talk.
Posts: 1,877
By: 21Ankush - 14th November 2006 at 07:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes Jonesy, the SHars were a handful in WVR combat..and Harry had written about DACT with Fulcrums where Fulcrum pilots lost sight of the SHars due to their small size and that the SHars actively employed VIFFing..
but the point is that as an overall platform, the MiG-29K is far superior to the SHar which lacks range, and payload capacity. even with a El-2032 and Derby, the SHar can only provide CAP for a short while for the fleet.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 14th November 2006 at 08:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ankush,
You are also conveniently missing the sortie rate issue here which balances out a hell of a lot of the MiG's superior virtues. How much is the MiG's range and payload capability going to do for an IN group if it cant get off the deck because a landing evolution is under way and the deck needs to be reconfigured for a takeoff?.
In ideal conditions the MiG is the superior aircraft. RN SHAR pilots admitted this under DACT....until the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM came along!. Then they started dropping F-18's/F-14's and all sorts of others. This doesnt apply to the IN aircraft obviously but the SHAR isnt exactly as poor a relation as you try to make out. Its endurance especially is perfectly fine for the local CAPing that both types will do.
Again, and this is the point, the fact that the MiG has advantages is unimportant....it will only be performing the same missions that Viraats SHARs were...even if Fulcrum performs them better. The problem is the your new 44k ton $700mill half-carrier is doing no more strategically than your old STOVL ship!.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 14th November 2006 at 08:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This civilian vs military standards thing keeps cropping up, & is rather misleading. Civilian ships are built to independently verified standards: naval ships traditionally have not been, but navies have established their own, internal, standards. In some respects, e.g. manning levels & damage control, some classes of naval ship (mostly warships) have been built to much higher standards than civilian ships. In other respects, naval ships (particularly auxiliaries) have sometimes been built to lower standards than civilian ships, as they're exempt from a lot of regulations. For example, many naval tankers do not meet legal minimum civilian safety standards.
One common difference is naval standards require high manning levels, & doing things manually that civilian ships have long done with machinery.
There has recently been a trend to establish independently verified standards for naval ship construction. So far, they're sort of hybrids, as far as I know, & have only been applied to amphibious ships, transports, & auxiliaries. Ocean was one of the first such ships built, which means that unlike many other naval ships, she should meet or exceed civilian standards in all respects, though she doesn't meet traditional naval standards in some areas. It's likely that in a few years all Western naval surface ships, except nuclear-powered ones, will be built to standards independently verified by civilian bodies, i.e. "civilian standards". But that doesn't mean either that they'll all be built to the same standard, or that they'll be built to standards used by, e.g, ferries.
Indian SHARS are having the old (& hopelessly out of date now) radar replaced by the Elta 2032, which should be a great improvement, & they're getting Derby BVRAAMs. Probably not quite up to the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combo, but far from "pretty useless".
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 14th November 2006 at 09:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aren't they retiring all the S-3s? There are large numbers, with loads & loads of airframe hours left, for sale. I reckon you might be able to fit the Erieye mission kit (the austere original Swedish one, which needs a ground station - or ship :D ) on one. Hmmmmm. Or they do good ASW. Or buddy tanking.
But you probably need a catapult to get one off Vikramaditya with a useful load. :(
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 14th November 2006 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
jonesy what do you think of the angled deck issue as won't that slow the turing around the aircraft as they have to have the angled deck clear before the migs land. and take off. i thought that this would also increse the safety concerns
Posts: 627
By: Neptune - 14th November 2006 at 14:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's a bit more complicated than that. For example, auxiliary naval tankers are way above merchant manning levels. That is indeed partly due to the slower automatisation in that field, I do think that this higher manning is necessary in some cases as it allows for more flexibility in operations.
There is also the thing that merchant ships are constantly surveyed. I've seen quite a few warships which would be retained after a normal civilian survey. Merchant ships tend to be kept on a shorter leash when it comes to some standard maintenance.
Lloyd's has an own Military Ship classification standard nowadays. Most Classification societies actually have. Cavour, the new Italian carrier has been built following the rules and guidance of the RINA classification society. It is of course hard to still call it civilian standards... They are made by a civilian organisation, but are made specifically to military standards. It does however, allow other navies to follow a certain procedure and have less effort in determining their own standards.
It's logical that they are now going to civilian methods and standards. Crewing is a huge cost and most navies try to save on it now. Civilian standards are created because of the bad safety on the low manned merchant ships. On merchant ships there is no real plausible fire fighting possible (hope the automatic system works as it should), same with damage control. Now that most navies try to get rid of a lot of people, they will have to keep their ships safe. And the greatest experience in that matter can only be found in the Classification Societies.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 14th November 2006 at 15:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neptune,
there is a lot of confusion over this. Many people do not appreciate the difference between a standard defined by a civilian organisation for naval ships, & a standard for civilian ships, & so apply the label "civilian standards" to all classification society standards.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 14th November 2006 at 23:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We all know what free means don't we? There are no free lunches in this world.
Thats your opinion. IN certainly does not think so. KH-35 is considered superior to sea eagle. Thats why IN is replacing the sea eagles with KH-35. WVR has nothing to do with sea eagle and harrier is a very limited platform. In order to have any sort of decent range they need to carry 2 drop tanks leaving only 3 hardpoints for missiles. Harrier can only carry 2 sea eagle while mig-29 K can carry 4 Kh-35 or Kh-31. The elta/derby combo can only do so much for harriers.
I agree the gorky or ADS only seems to do viraats job much better than viraat. It is still not good enough to do any sort of force projection. 30 odd ac complement without E-2's is not good enough for any sort of force projection.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 14th November 2006 at 23:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Star, Mig will have 8 wing stations not 11. The range and payload is much more than sea harrier but it can only carry r-77 and r-73 for now. The KS-172 has a range >300 km which means the mig-29k's radar (zhuk-me) cannot guide it to the required target.
Posts: 3,396
By: star49 - 14th November 2006 at 23:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its 11 but with twin rack it becomes 13. and KS-172 will have 100km or so seeker range. so i dont think there will be problem with long range bvr.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 15th November 2006 at 00:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, you are right I missed it in BR. Its 9 (8 wing+ 1 centreline) points. The 2 inboard pylons under each wing can carry dual racks making it 13 hard points). The KS-172 is quiet heavy and big (750 kg). Smehow I don't think they will be used on mig-29k.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 15th November 2006 at 04:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Swerve
I'd say definitely on the cat shot required to get a loaded Hoover off Gorshkov!. Dont know bout an Erieye on an S-3, but perhaps some lightweight variant of IAI's Phalcon might be feasible or, certainly, a Searchwater AEW in a retractable ventral bin would be possible and would be an immense improvement over rotary AEW.
IIRC the latter S-3/Searchwater was an option under consideration for UK's MASC requirement as it was.
Harry,
I've not heard of any specific angled-deck issue regarding the conversion?. Any vessel utilising arrested-recovery techniques requires an angled-deck for reasons of safety and optimum deck-flexibility. It simply makes no sense to try and use an axial (single) deck for an arrested-recovery technique carrier these days....unless of course you build it bloody huge!!!.
The problem with Gorshkov is that the takeoff run for the Mig-29's is so far back it encroaches on the angled landing deck - at least according to published artwork. This means that to land-on an aircraft that launching spot must be clear. Conversley it means that to launch a number of aircraft in rapid succession will take time as the following fighters will have to wait, prior to being spotted, for the launching fighter to be up and emergency free. This also means that the first aircraft launched may have to be buddy-tanked to top-off fuel wasted whilst waiting for the launch evolution to complete etc!.
STOVL on the other hand can see a fighter spotted for launch, a fighter land vertically in front of it then taxi away, then complete the launch immediately when it has a clear run. Very much easier and safer!.
Broncho
This is entirely the problem I have here though. The IN had a sea control carrier capability for years...what does this vessel offer thats really all that new?. They operated CATOBAR back in the day with the SeaHawks so the idea that they have no capabilities in supporting Cat operations today is unfathomable.
When you consider that the IN's stated requirement for a number of new carrier decks appeared in Janes back in '94 the fact that they sit here today patting themselves on the back for getting an old Russsian hybrid carrier that just continues the status quo, in capability terms, is also unfathomable.
The current thread on the larger Spanish BSAC design is case in point here. There was a 27k ton carrier available at the time, 1994, apparently with a sticker price of $400 million. The French, at the time, were flying their early Rafale-M and it was showing large promise as a revolution in efficient and capable carrier fighter design. Lets say that the IN put an order in for the three carriers its declared requirement was for in 94 - plan in for the first carrier to join in 2005 and the last in 2015. Bazan could have easily met those schedules, if not, delivered all three by 2010 through full trials and into commission.
We give the airgroup per boat as two 8-plane squadrons of Rafale-M for 32 in service. We then add in an additional 12/8 Rafale-M/N for OCU and attrition reserve and your looking at 52 aircraft to be purchased over the twenty year period from say 1995-2015. Now, even at $70 mill per copy for the Rafale-M the Indian Defence budget could've coped with paying for two and a bit Rafales a year!.
That would've put the IN as owners of an efficient, reasonably economical, carrier force operating largely future-proof, low-maintenance, true swingrole fighters capable of deploying SCALP, Meteor, AASM, ALARM and, dare I say, NSM too!. Grab hold of half a dozen E-2's or S-3AEW conversions and you have true deployed battlespace management capabilities in to boot. Equal to a US CVN perhaps not, but, the equal of anything else sailing under anyones flag until the French PA-2 hits the water!.
Instead they get Gorshkov, STOBAR, KA-31 and a Cavour-esque STOBAR ADS that will still do little more than sea-control work!. Indian posters here tell us that the IN is happy with this state of affairs too!!!