INS Vikramaditya: Steaming towards Induction

[TR1]

First of all MiG-29K have a lift generating fuselage, LERX and LEVCONS all for aiding in lift.... AFAIK, Rafale-M does not have any of the above mentioned aids. I'm not sure if the leading edge seen on Rafale aids in lift. So, all it has is the canards to further aid in short take-off and engines which gives a thrust of 15tons. For a maximum take-off weight of 24,500Kg, it will be having a TWR of 0.612.

Where as MiG-29K in addition to the above said aids have 18t of thrust from RD-33MK. For the same max take-off weight of 24,500Kg, it will be having a TWR of 0.735. The 9.5t RD-33MKM is ready and will be the engines for RuN MiG-29K. If we consider that engine for next batch....then the 19t of thrust will give a TWR of 0.776.

Some calculation tells that for the Rafale-M to have the same TWR of 0.735 of current MiG-29K with RD-33MK, its max take-off weight needs to be lowered to 20,408Kg and to get a TWR of 0.776, the max take-off weight needs to be further lowered to 19,355Kg.

This in short means the so-called advantage of higher payload/capability said for Rafale-M is going to be nullified in STOBAR and its max payload is going to drop significantly and could even be lower than what MiG-29K can lift off with, which as of now is rated @5,500Kg from take-off position #2.

In general we can say that for any a/c to be STOBAR capable on INS Vikramaditya (& IAC-I) with the specified max weight, it needs to have a TWR no less than 0.735. In the case of Rafale-M, it would be always better to have more than that figure because it does not have much aid for lift other than the canards and a lower thrust engines.

In short Rafale-M might only be operating with lighter air-defense payloads. Does IN needs a fighter which is 2-3 times the cost of a MiG-29K to do the same job with lighter payloads..? Also, step aside the bull crap about the IAF's Rafale simplying the cost etc. Rafale-M have more difference than the land Based Rafale when compared to the MiG-29K/KUB which have maximum commonality with its land based variants down to the hook/dragchute housing.

Btw, few questions for anyone who know...
Is the Rafale-M actually rated with 9.5t?? or is that payload figure just for the land based version?

Good stuff Bogo, thanks!

[rayrubik]

Thank you Jonesy for the insight.Steam turbines..not the most reliable..but atleast the boilers are new.
It seems that the rest of the ship was renovated pretty thoroughly though.







Hangar looks pretty long but narrowish...will do the job.

Mess deck

and officer's mess..

[JSR]

Whew. Nice analysis there.

As for the last, a 9.5 ton engine has been proposed for the Rafale, but neither the French Navy nor the Air Force were interested, nor were export customers(the ones offered to India and Brazil will have the 7.5 ton Snecma M-88-4E). The only exception is the UAE for whom a 9.5 ton version of the M-88 was one of the main requirements. This version, should the deal happen, will be called the M-88-9.

There is no 9.5 ton engine for Rafale. and UAE simply wont fund 9ton as it is not commercially viable. In absence of second French carrier. I doubt there will be more Rafale Naval orders. Do Rafale wings fold up.

[Jō Asakura]

Is football allowed on Kuznetsov's deck?....ah, it's all Greek to me!

[Vetinari]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=-PQa0OJWgvY

[Stonewall]

Do Rafale wings fold up.

no

The Dassault Rafale is a relatively small airplane (it does not need folding wings to fit on a carrier)

http://weapons.technology.youngester...of-set-of.html

[Prom]

Lesorub-E. Developed by NPO Mars, an old institute that has been designing naval C2 systems for generations. Older versions of this system were installed on the Slava class cruisers and the Admiral Kuznetsov, among others.
http://www.npomars.com/en/products/s..._voen/asbu.php
http://www.concern-agat.com/products.../173-lesorub-e

Looks pretty advanced, though I would still have preferred a Western system like the Charles De Gaulle's SENIT 7.

Thanks for that. Looks quite early 1990ish system to me, in fact the console design looks almost identical to a UK design of that period. Is that picture to be taken literally and that is all the console positions? If so it doesn't seem many for a carrier.

I have to admit I am not a fan of the Senit 7 system either

[Witcha]

Thanks for that. Looks quite early 1990ish system to me, in fact the console design looks almost identical to a UK design of that period. Is that picture to be taken literally and that is all the console positions? If so it doesn't seem many for a carrier.

I have to admit I am not a fan of the Senit 7 system either

It was first advertised in the early 2000s IIRC. If I may ask why do you think it looks 1990s-ish?

There are likely additional consoles for individual pieces of equipment like the navigation system, radars, TACAN and so on. See their catalogue; there's a lot more featured there than the Lesorub.

What's wrong with the Senit 7 system, out of curiosity? It's one of the things Russia was adamant on being transferred with the Mistral deal; so it's probably better than this, at least.

[Prom]

It is the vertical orientation of the 2 screens that reminded me of the 1990s in particular. That was a fairly short term approach which was rapidly discarded when it became apparent that cognition was much less effective from that upper display. So although there are many such examples left, it seems dated to me. I may be wrong on the exact date though.

As for Senit? No one specific thing, several little things where I think (for example) Tacticos or the BAES CMS (whatever it is called this week) are better, but I can't think of any things at which the Senit family is better. Senit is OK, but I certainly wouldn't choose it as my "must have" CMS

[Witcha]

It is the vertical orientation of the 2 screens that reminded me of the 1990s in particular. That was a fairly short term approach which was rapidly discarded when it became apparent that cognition was much less effective from that upper display. So although there are many such examples left, it seems dated to me. I may be wrong on the exact date though.

I see. What would be a more optimal display configuration, then?

[Prom]

It takes up more space but this sort of approach is far better for operators.

2 displays position is from Tacticos
3 displays position is from BAES CMS On T45

Obviously for older ship designs it would be harder to fit in these consoles as they would not have been designed with such space in mind, so I understand why the IN has not gone this route.

Also, if you look at the 3rd image (simulated QEC ops room), you can see why I thought the number of console positions looked low for a carrier, I think this image is out-dated but is still relevant for these purposes. Note that the ENgineering position, duty room, Flyco positions shown on the picture earlier would of course be separate to this

[Wanshan]

With the to my untrained eyes low freeboard and other changes to her design I am curious to see how she handles at speed and in any kind of chop. Not a criticism before people jump down my throat but going on how the Kuznetsov handles in rough seas and her rather pedestrian performance its a reasonable question in respect of the Vikramaditya.

Pedestrian performance or not, IN needs to replace her current flattop.

[Fedaykin]

Indeed and it is needed as soon as possible Wanshan.

[Wanshan]

There is no 9.5 ton engine for Rafale. and UAE simply wont fund 9ton as it is not commercially viable. In absence of second French carrier. I doubt there will be more Rafale Naval orders. Do Rafale wings fold up.

The Rafale M features a greatly reinforced undercarriage to cope with the additional stresses of naval landings, an arrestor hook, and "jump strut" nosewheel, which only extends during short takeoffs, including catapult launches. It also features a built-in ladder, carrier-based microwave landing system, and the new fin-tip Telemir system for syncing the inertial navigation system to external equipment. Altogether, the naval modifications of the Rafale M increased its weight, it is 500 kilograms (1,100 lb) heavier than other variants. The Rafale M retains about 95% commonality with Air Force variants including, although unusual for a carrier-borne aircraft, being unable to fold its multi-spar wings for reducing storage space. The size constraints were eased by the introduction of the Charles de Gaulle, France's nuclear-powered carrier, which was considerably larger than previous carriers, FS Foch and Clemenceau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale

[X07]

Not so unusual, and understandable...

Rafale M wingspan is 10.8 m : 3504 ft, no folding wings
Sea harrier FA2 wingspan is 7.6 m : 25.3 ft, no folding wings
AV8B Harrier II wingspan is 9.25 m: 30.4 ft, no folding wings
A4 Skyhawk wingspan is 8.38 m: 26.6 ft, no folding wings
F18E Super Hornet wingspan is 13.62 m : 44.85 ft, folding wings
F18C Hornet wingspan is 12.3 m : 40 ft, folding wings
Su 33 Flanker wingspan is 14.70 m :48.25 ft, folding wings
MiG 29K Fulcrum wingspan is 11.99 m :39.34 ft, folding wings

X

[JSR]

10.8 metre is not small if it is going to be used on small to medium size carriers.
i havent seen more than 10 to 15 Rafales on flight deck. and without many aircraft on flight deck of carrier. it will decrease sortie rates.

[TR1]

Looking good!

[steely dan]

^ great pics!

the bow ramp extension still looks a tad out of proportion to my eye, but overall, a very nice looking ship. it's hard to believe that after however many decades, she's now finally ready to act like a real carrier. no more of that soviet "heavy aviation cruiser" nonsense.

[BlackArcher]

link

Posted by Austin on BRF.

MOSCOW, June 21. (ARMS-TASS). The aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya" Indian Navy (former Russian aircraft carrier "Admiral Gorshkov") this week successfully completes sea trials of the factory in the White Sea. This was reported by Itar-Tass source in the shipbuilding industry.

"Experts" Sevmash ", where the upgraded aircraft carrier, are deeply gratified that during the trial which began June 8 in a sea of ​​running the required characteristics of the spacecraft were not only sustained, but even exceeded," - said the source.

"The ship operates in the test crew of our Navy, on board are also commissioning team, representatives of the" Sevmash "and the officers of Indian Navy," - he added.

The source said that next week, "Vikramaditya", after loading the fuel, water and food to take a course from the White Sea to the Barents Sea, "where he will begin test flights of the deck on a ship-based aviation group decked Russian MiG-29K."

Previously, the spokesperson of the "Sevmash" Anastasia Nikitinskaya reported that "the testing program is designed for 124 days."

A source in the shipbuilding industry confirmed that the aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya" will give the Indian Navy in December of this year.

As previously reported the official representative of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Kravchenko, sea trials on factory aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya" in the White Sea, "will test the ship's main systems and components, main and auxiliary power systems, communication systems, navigation and others."

[Wanshan]

Not so unusual, and understandable...
X

Not my words/assessment

[X07]

10.8 metre is not small if it is going to be used on small to medium size carriers.
i havent seen more than 10 to 15 Rafales on flight deck. and without many aircraft on flight deck of carrier. it will decrease sortie rates.

You're right, that's because French Fleet Air Arm doesn't have enough Rafale fighters, for the moment...

X

[JangBoGo]

http://cs301113.userapi.com/v3011139...pey0gx5-CQ.jpg
Looking good!

Probably testing their fire-fighting cannons.... one is also at the stern @port side and one at front...

[JangBoGo]

Witcha & TR1, thanks.

There is little doubt w.r.t the RD-33MK and hope it can be cleared. The RD-33 on earlier MiG-29K had emergency high thrust mode which was employed during take-off to give it a higher TWR. Does the RD-33MK have 10.5t thrust for the short duration of take-off as reported by the older Russian program?

Btw, when we look little more closely to the carrier based aircrafts it looks like aircrafts with fold-able wings are the better option. JSR has raised a very valid point w.r.t the fold-able wings and lets do some analysis for these types. I'm taking hanger of INS Vikrant (Project-71/IAC-I) for the small analysis on what type of aircraft is best for constraint space like a carriers hanger.

Tejas LCA (N-LCA have little larger wings?)
Length: 13.20m
Wingspan: 8.20m
Height: 4.40m

MiG-29K
Length: 17.3m
Wingspan: 11.99m
Height: 4.40m

Rafale-M
Length: 15.27m
Wingspan: 10.80m
Height: 5.34 m

Number of aircrafts possible inside 134m hanger length.
LCA - 9 (10.152, as per simple division)
MiG-29K - 7 (7.746)
Rafale-M - 8 (8.775)

INS Vikrant Hanger #1 (134m x 21m x 7.2m)
^ this is the size of Cavour hanger

= 2 rows x 9 = 18 x N-LCA
= 2 rows x 6 = 14 x MiG-29K
= 1 row x 8 = 8 x Rafale-M

If we pack the aircraft in the IAC-I with 1 feet clearance between the wingtip, the hanger space (width) remaining will be as follows, represented as hanger width/total width used by aircraft/remaining space

N-LCA (8.2m wing span) - 21m/17.3m/ 3.7m
MiG-29K (7.8m folded) - 21m/16.5m/ 4.5m
Rafale-M (10.8m wing span) - 21m/11.4m/ 9.6m

INS Vikrant Hanger #2 (134m x 23m x 7.2m)

= 2 rows x 9 = 18 x N-LCA
= 2 rows x 7 = 14 x MiG-29K
= 2 rows x 8 = 16 x Rafale-M

N-LCA (8.2m wing span) - 23m/17.3m/ 5.7m
MiG-29K (7.8m folded) - 23m/16.5m/ 6.5m
Rafale-M (10.8m wing span) - 23m/22.5m/ 0.5m

From the above data, its clear that MiG-29K offers the best solution inside the hanger also. Hanger of IAC-I will be best utilized by the MiG-29K/KUB, 14 of which can be accommodated inside with enough space for a 3rd row (along width) to accommodate helos. My personal opinion is that aircrafts with foldable wings offer better space utilization. Even the smaller LCA is going to be a bad space muncher due to its fixed wings. Even after being small in size and capability, only 4 extra aircraft can be accommodated inside the hanger.

Rafale-M will not just be a bad choice for INS Vikramaditya, but for INS Vikrant also. I feel Chales De Gaulle is also facing/might also face the same problem of too much space being consumed by the non-folding 10.8m wingspan of the Rafale-M. I think French should return the courtesy for the Mistral purchase and buy two dozen MiG-29K from Russia to be based on their carrier. CDG would be able to carry more MiG-29K than what it can do with Rafale-M. With catapult, the MiG-29K would be back to its payload capacity of 6,500Kg that it can carry when land-based (read longer runway)

Per Wiki data

Ka-31
Length: 12.5m
Height: 5.6m

Ka-27
Length: 11.3m
Height: 5.5m

NH-90
Length: 16.13m
Height: 5.23m

EH-101
Length: 19.53m
Height: 6.62m (wont fit inside Vikramaditya hanger)

SH-60
Length: 9.75m
Height: 5.2m

Please contribute with the max width of the following helos. TIA.

[Wanshan]

Probably testing their fire-fighting cannons.... one is also at the stern @port side and one at front...

In case you're referring to that double barrelled thingy, I was under the disctinct impression that was a piece of ECM (PK-2 decoy launcher system).

[JangBoGo]

^^ Wanshan,

Yes, but I'm not sure, maybe you are right.... but on the Vik, there are suppose to be three water cannons to cover the aircraft parking area

[JangBoGo]

With the to my untrained eyes low freeboard and other changes to her design I am curious to see how she handles at speed and in any kind of chop. Not a criticism before people jump down my throat but going on how the Kuznetsov handles in rough seas and her rather pedestrian performance its a reasonable question in respect of the Vikramaditya.

She is currently undergoing sea trials and its now 14 days. The first reports from sea trials have arrived and it says, the ship has met the expectations. Also, as per report she is to arrive at Sevamsh next week after the completion of probably the 1st phase of the sea trials and then leave for the next phase in Barents sea with MiG-29K & Kamov's on board. Now, Barents sea have so much to offer and we know how rough it can get.

Btw, can you put more clearly the Kuznetsov's problem with handling and pedestrian performance that you have talked about?

Well she has a rather wet deck which is pretty much to do with her freeboard, as for performance certainly propulsion plays an important part but hull design is an issue as well.

As I said at this point it isn't a criticism, I am not an expert and so far we have only seen Vikramaditya slowly being tugged out on a very calm day. Going on how the kuznetsov performs which is based on a similar hull design it will be interesting to see how the Vikramaditya gets along.

Just curious speculation from somebody who is excited to see this ship go into sea trials nothing more.

I see Obi Wan Russell is taking a look and he is somebody who is lightyears ahead of me when it comes to understading of carrier operations ... I am totally happy with him poo-pooing my observations.

First of all we have not seen her wet deck.
Compared to other carrier she is having lower deck height, but lets wait for the sea trials to complete or for some good photos in high seas to come online before passing on the concern of a wet deck.

[Witcha]

Probably testing their fire-fighting cannons.... one is also at the stern @port side and one at front...

If you mean that double-barreled turret, it's not a fire-fighting machine. It's a PK-2 chaff and flare dispenser.

http://militaryforces.ru/weapon-2-44-244.html

If you ask me it should have been kept on a platform on the deck edge instead of taking up space where aircraft could be parked...

BTW, I've been wondering for a while; what is that material covering the deck that looks like someone laid a rug over it? Is this the anti-skid coating?

[JangBoGo]

If you mean that double-barreled turret, it's not a fire-fighting machine. It's a PK-2 chaff and flare dispenser.

http://militaryforces.ru/weapon-2-44-244.html

If you ask me it should have been kept on a platform on the deck edge instead of taking up space where aircraft could be parked...

BTW, I've been wondering for a while; what is that material covering the deck that looks like someone laid a rug over it? Is this the anti-skid coating?

Thanks man for the link. I should have considered that fire-fighting equipments are usually red. As for space, its at the edge and hardly takes up the paring space.

Yes, the flight deck have got anti-skid layer... helpful during wet deck ops...

[TR1]

Don't think you could park aircraft where the ECM launcher is, it would get in the way of birds taking off.

[JangBoGo]

Possibly, the view from the bridge.