Agreement reached on INS Vikramaditya?

you’ve seen deployments where this class actually carried 30 Mig-29s? That’s shocking. I’m sure su-33 takes a lot more space, but it’s also a lot larger. And theoretically capable of supporting up to 50 fixed, rotary combined. But of course, it carries less than 1/2 of that in the two recent deployments.

Did I claimed that i have seen it carrying 30?;)
My claim is that what Soviet navy did will not be same as Indian navy migth do, as Soviet navy had lot of unique and peculiar demands and ideas towards shipborne aviation and that philosophy is clearly relevant in aircomponent of Kuznetsov, both the planned Soviet fleet one and the current Russian deployments. And you should remember that currently the aircrew is limited by the pure fact that there isent enough planes nor trained crews to make up the full component

you’ve seen deployments where this class actually carried 30 Mig-29s? That’s shocking. I’m sure su-33 takes a lot more space, but it’s also a lot larger. And theoretically capable of supporting up to 50 fixed, rotary combined. But of course, it carries less than 1/2 of that in the two recent deployments.

you are comparing operation status of two decade old flankers with new built MIG-29. IN stuff will be new so they can put all of them. when u fold the wings the difference is smaller. In case of Su-33 the wing span becomes half in fold condition. I am sure MIG-29 can achieve similar size and lenght difference between Yak-38 and MIG-29 is smaller than between MIG-29/Su-33

http://www.vectorsite.net/avredvt.html
Yak-38
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 7.32 meters 24 feet
wing area 18.5 sq_meters 199 sq_feet
length 15.5 meters 50 feet 10 inches
height 4.4 meters 14 feet 5 inches

http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm
MiG-29K MiG-29KUB
Length, m 17,3 17,3
Wing span, m* 11,99 11,99
Height, m 4,4 4,4
in unfolded (fly) condition

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su33/lth/
Aeroplane dimensions:
– length, m 21.19
– wingspan, m 14.7 (7.4*)
– height, m 5.9

Back in the days I counted that with all the deckpark taken under service, total of 32 MiG-29 would indeed be carried. That tough ment that no helicopters at all and that isen’t realistic. But dropping the planenumbers you can add helicopters depending how much you want them. But the main bulk of the Vikramanditya aircrew will be MiG-29Ks, becouse there isen’t no other planes to take over the aircrew other than Ka-28 and Ka-31.

Russians have bit different philosofy. Back in the soviet days they were used to fit all the planes to the hangar due the harsh waters of northern atlantic. This meant that the flight crew was as big as the hangar allowed. In Kuznetsov the small aircrew is partially due this factor couped with the unwise move to use only the bigger Su-33 which takes alot of space and the fact that there isen’t enough of the planes in the first place.

you’ve seen deployments where this class actually carried 30 Mig-29s? That’s shocking. I’m sure su-33 takes a lot more space, but it’s also a lot larger. And theoretically capable of supporting up to 50 fixed, rotary combined. But of course, it carries less than 1/2 of that in the two recent deployments.

I don’t know how many birds Kuznetzov carry in reality but it supposed to carry 41 aircrafts: 12 Su-33, 5 Su-25UTG/UBP, 18 Ka-27PLO, 4 Ka-27LD32, 2Ka-27S.

Now we can see that if MiG-29 was to be chosen over Su-33 and with reduced number of helos, Kuznetzov can easily carry 30-35 fighters.

only a fraction of those 30+ are going to be Mig-29s. Take a look at Kutznetsov, how many su-33s do you think it carries during deployments?

Back in the days I counted that with all the deckpark taken under service, total of 32 MiG-29 would indeed be carried. That tough ment that no helicopters at all and that isen’t realistic. But dropping the planenumbers you can add helicopters depending how much you want them. But the main bulk of the Vikramanditya aircrew will be MiG-29Ks, becouse there isen’t no other planes to take over the aircrew other than Ka-28 and Ka-31.

Russians have bit different philosofy. Back in the soviet days they were used to fit all the planes to the hangar due the harsh waters of northern atlantic. This meant that the flight crew was as big as the hangar allowed. In Kuznetsov the small aircrew is partially due this factor couped with the unwise move to use only the bigger Su-33 which takes alot of space and the fact that there isen’t enough of the planes in the first place.

Operating costs depend on the number of deployments. I am willing to bet that the MGT powered Cavour will generate a lot more deployments than the boiler powered Vik. So, yeah, the Cavour could cost more to operate than the Vik but then the Cavour would be doing what it was built for.

Bronco is spot on here. Very succint and accurate reply. Only a modified (read enlarged) Cavour type can match capability (30+ a/c complement). And that would cost a packet. The Gorky despite all the issues, is still a great deal. BTW, no JSF types for India yet. As far as crew costs go, india can surely afford lots of crew – thats one HUGE resource india does have at its disposal.

Regards,
USS.

only a fraction of those 30+ are going to be Mig-29s. Take a look at Kutznetsov, how many su-33s do you think it carries during deployments?

Novice,

If you reread Swerves post timestamped 22:13 you’ll find that Broncho’s ‘succint and spot on’ posting was regarding a point no-one was actually disputing!.

Easy to win a contest when you are the only one involved in it!:rolleyes:

Please instead of guessing why don’t you ask them how much one would cost. ADS is not simply scaling up the cavour. It would require redesign and a cost of $3 bil is not unreasonable if built in europe. Heck for the sake of argument lets say 2.5-2.6 bil for a new built one. Even then to catch up with the cost of a new ADS from Italy it would take 26-28 years. Why don’t you just accept it that at $ 1.2 bil the gorky with 80 % of its parts replaced with new ones is a steal compared to anything europe can offer.:diablo:

Bronco is spot on here. Very succint and accurate reply. Only a modified (read enlarged) Cavour type can match capability (30+ a/c complement). And that would cost a packet. The Gorky despite all the issues, is still a great deal. BTW, no JSF types for India yet. As far as crew costs go, india can surely afford lots of crew – thats one HUGE resource india does have at its disposal.

Regards,
USS.

I’ve been playing with the deck layouts that Swerve’s Italian forum have been using and it looks to me that an airgroup of 14 JSF(8 struck below and 6 deck parked) with about 6 EH101 personally a 4/2 split of AEW/SAR&ASW would be about the biggest practical airgroup I’d want to entertain.

You might squeeze a couple more airframes aboard, but, I’d imagine that such a move would just place extra strain on embarked stores and aircrew for little real advantage. Plus it must be remembered that Italy is only ordering 22 F-35B’s so generating 14 airframes whilst holding some for a modest training programme and keeping a couple in attrition/maintenance-status is probably going to be as much as the Italians could wish to achieve!.

As Lawrence states though two short(ish) squadrons of JSF and enough rotary airborne radar for local coverage is a fairly useful capability set when your mission goals are fairly limited as the MMI’s are.

I reckon you can get 15 JSF on cavour deck and 4 helicopters without getting in the way of flight operations have another 5 JSF in the hanger total of 20 JSF and 4 Helicopters that would be a more realistic example of air complement.

What evidence have all the cavour proponents bought? Heck with the rubbish quoted like a bigger cavour would not require redesign to “it will cost the same” ? In my arguments I have even given you the benefit of assuming Cavour to have no operating cost. Fact remains at $ 1.2 bil gorky is an excellent deal. A bigger cavour only makes sense if built in India, else not worth it.

Built in India? Taking ten years to launch? How does that make sense? It may be justified as a long-term commitment to the development of the Indian military shipbuilding industry, & could pay off big in the future, but it was never possible as an alternative to Gorshkov, let alone preferable. And it’s been explained to you exactly why it would not necessarily cost much more, & even possibly less, depending on what choices of equipment fit & build location are made. Your apparent inability to grasp that is not my problem, but I do find your misrepresentation of my words annoying. I did not (& nor did anyone else) say that it would require no redesign. Those are your words, not mine, & even you must be capable of grasping the difference between me saying it would cost less to redesign than to design from scratch, so I must assume your distortion is deliberate.

Well at least you appreciate the difference between FY96 dollars and FY08 dollars so thats something I guess. It was just a basic lack of research on what you were talking about that was the problem and not an inability to comprehend the subject. Does make a person wonder how seriously you are taking this debate when you can so flippantly double the ‘estimated cost’ you placed on Vik earlier?.

130-150 mil per year for vik is certainly inflated. Its not going to be more than $ 100 mil. It doesn’t matter if Nimitz costs more to run I had anyway put cavours operating cost at 0, anything more only weakens the cavour. The site replaced and with or, it should be 8 harriers and 12 helis. Thats 20 not 24 that was quoted while Baku carried 30 without any modifications. No matter what spin you try cavour is a over priced mediocre product.

When you quoted turbine-powered frigate money for the support costs of a large steam-planted aircraft carrier a short while ago, Broncho, how the hell do you know what is inflated or not?. Or is it just ‘inflated’ because you really, really want it to be so?!

Baku carried 30 aircraft did it?. These were MiG-29’s were they?. I think you may find they were Yak-38’s and Ka-25’s airframes with a rather more modest deck-footprint than a Fulcrum. Far be it from me to make you actually do some research on your topic though!.

What evidence have all the cavour proponents bought? Heck with the rubbish quoted like a bigger cavour would not require redesign to “it will cost the same” ? In my arguments I have even given you the benefit of assuming Cavour to have no operating cost. Fact remains at $ 1.2 bil gorky is an excellent deal. A bigger cavour only makes sense if built in India, else not worth it.

130-150 mil per year for vik is certainly inflated. Its not going to be more than $ 100 mil. It doesn’t matter if Nimitz costs more to run I had anyway put cavours operating cost at 0, anything more only weakens the cavour. The site replaced and with or, it should be 8 harriers and 12 helis. Thats 20 not 24 that was quoted while Baku carried 30 without any modifications. No matter what spin you try cavour is a over priced mediocre product.

Yes I agree IN should have ordered IAC earlier but if we are going for things in the past they should also have negotiated the gorky deal better and russians should have had the ship inspected by competent managers.

If you are going to keep saying that you need to start providing some form of evidence, thus far the members of this forum have shot you down at every turn.

130-150 mil per year for vik is certainly inflated. Its not going to be more than $ 100 mil. It doesn’t matter if Nimitz costs more to run I had anyway put cavours operating cost at 0, anything more only weakens the cavour. The site replaced and with or, it should be 8 harriers and 12 helis. Thats 20 not 24 that was quoted while Baku carried 30 without any modifications. No matter what spin you try cavour is a over priced mediocre product.

Yes I agree IN should have ordered IAC earlier but if we are going for things in the past they should also have negotiated the gorky deal better and russians should have had the ship inspected by competent managers.

Cavours maximum displacement is greater than that of an invincible.

enrr’s excellent site lists 20-24 with no fixed air wing structure. That is certainly more believable than 8.

Also 40 metres longer I will eat my own arm if it can only operate 8 JSF!

The 8 JSF figure comes from the fact that the hangar is specified, in full aircraft carrier mode, to park 8 JSF’s.

What that doesnt state is that there is a deck park for an additional 8 JSF’s available. Each space being stated as offering room for 12 choppers instead of the fixed wings.

So its plausible, with deck parking, for Cavour to support an airgroup of 12-14 JSF and 4 Merlin AEW at full surge capacity.

An extremely useful load out. It will be interesting to see what the Vik will actually carry in service, beyond all the nice graphics we have seen so far.

Cavours maximum displacement is greater than that of an invincible.

enrr’s excellent site lists 20-24 with no fixed air wing structure. That is certainly more believable than 8.

http://digilander.libero.it/en_mezzi_militari/html/en_cavour.html

Unfortunately the MMI website seems to be inaccessible at the moment, so I can’t check what it says.

http://www.marina.difesa.it/programmi/portaerei.asp – for when it’s back.

This Italian discussion has some hangar layouts, including one with the official count (“L’hangar è praticamente deserto”, as the poster says) & a rather optimistic load of Harriers from enrr. It’s clear that 8 fixed-wing aircraft is less than the hangar can hold, let alone what’s possible with deck parking, & must be assumed to be peacetime easy, safe operations load.

http://www.aereimilitari.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=2107&st=540&start=540

Edit: Jonesy – you cut in quick there. 😀

Edit: Ah – enrr makes it clear that stuffed hangar isn’t for operations – “e non fattibile per operazioni”. If I understand right, it’s an illustration of the maximum packing for closing up in a storm, & that load would normally partly be on deck.

The 8 JSF figure comes from the fact that the hangar is specified, in full aircraft carrier mode, to park 8 JSF’s.

What that doesnt state is that there is a deck park for an additional 8 JSF’s available. Each space being stated as offering room for 12 choppers instead of the fixed wings.

So its plausible, with deck parking, for Cavour to support an airgroup of 12-14 JSF and 4 Merlin AEW at full surge capacity.

PS – For Broncho – a quick play round with a calculator, averaging US inflation at about 2.6%, means that a figure of U$160mn in FY96 dollars works out at about US$220mn FY08!.