WanshanFUrther comparison:
Garibaldi (13,370t)
“The ship’s flight deck is 174m long and 30.5m wide, and the forward 15m of the flight deck rises to a ski ramp of about 4°. The ship can accommodate up to 18 helicopters, for example the Agusta Sikorsky SH-3D Sea King or the Agusta Bell AB212. Alternatively the ship can accommodate 16 AV-8B Harrier II aircraft, or a mix of helicopter and Harriers. The vessel’s flight deck has been upgraded to allow operations with the EH101 helicopter, in service with the Italian Navy.”
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/garibaldi/
Invincible (20,500t)
“The Tailored Air Group (TAG) is composed of up to 24 aircraft including up to nine combined RAF/RN Joint Force Harrier GR7/GR9 aircraft. The Royal Navy FA2 Sea Harrier aircraft were progressively withdrawn from service from March 2004 and the last squadron was decommissioned in March 2006.
The TAG includes a mix of helicopters, depending on role: Sea King ASaC Mk 7 airborne early warning helicopters, Sea King and Chinook support helicopters and Merlin HM.1 anti-submarine helicopters. The runway is about 170m long with a ski ramp set at 12°.”
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/invincible/
Principe d’Asturias (17,190t)
“The ship supports up to 12 AV-8B Harrier II Plus and Harrier II (being upgraded to Harrier II Plus configuration) aircraft. The carrier also has facilities to support up to 12 helicopters, usually six Sikorsky Sea King SH-3H, four Agusta AB-212 and two Sikorsky SH-3 AEW helicopters. The ship normally supports a maximum of 29 fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft with up to 12 on deck and 13 aircraft in the hangar. In an emergency a maximum of 17 aircraft can be stored in the 2,300m² hangar. The hangar deck is accessed by two flight deck lifts. The 5,100m² flight deck is 176m in length and includes a 12° ski jump, 46.5m in length. ” nb: 29 max ac supported = 17 in hangar + 12 on deck
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/asturias/
Cavour = 27,100t
WanshanNothing. But when someone posts offensive (as well as off-topic) garbage like that, he should be challenged on it.
We have moderators for that, don’t we?
WanshanWhat’s any of this have to do with Vikramaditya?
WanshanWanshan, TO positions on your drawing are in wrong places. They are not going to be lined up, therefore two planes can take-off in quick succession.
Possibly. Got this of BR so just assumed it to be correct. Anyway, main point of illustration for me was available hangar space and number of aircraft.
WanshanAssume a Mig-29K compliment on the Vikram of about 30 (optimistically at around 2020 timeframe).
Assume Mig-29K availibility rate of 90% (optimistically). 27 available Migs.
Assume a takeoff every 3 mins or so (optimistically). 27 Migs in air in about 90 mins. When the last Mig takes off, the first Mig has already spent 90 mins in the air, which means that the first 4+ Migs to take off will be the Upaz equipped buddy-buddy fuellers.
So, in practicality, the package will contain about 20 hard kill birds. Of course this assumes that it’s a balls to the wall offensive posture with no CAPs for the carrier.
Other than exercises, that will hardly ever be the case. So, realistically, the offensive/interdiction mission would be about 10-15 birds with some birds remaining back for CAP, buddy refueling, and alert status.
I would doubt that the Vik can even carry 30 Mig-29Ks and 8-10 helos. I would put the Mig complement closer to 20 than 30. So, the strike package would be around 10 birds. Which brings me back to the “need” for the Vik. The ship will soak up over 2000 crew and massive chunk of the IN’s O&M budget to put 10 strikers in the air. Does the IN really need the Vik?
I doubt she will carry more than 16. For starters, she doesn’t have enough hangar space for 30 Mig29K. Further, she also needs to carry a minimum of some 2-3 Ka-31 for AEW and preferably also 2-3 Ka-28 for ASW.
As to the question of whether or not needed:
– For IAC, the projected air group will likely consist of a minimum of 12 combat aircraft along with 10 helicopters. The vessel is estimated to carry as many as 30 aircraft on board, with 17 parked in the hanger below. i.e. numbers not be much different from Viraat and Vikramaditya.
– The current airgroup of Viraat (which has capacity for about 30 aircraft and helicopters) isn’t much different either. While IN received 23 Mk51 plus 6 T Mk 60 Sea Harriers, several were involved in air accidents and at least some written off as a result, leaving a similar number (16-20).
“The current air group includes 12 or 18 Sea Harrier V/STOL fighters and seven or a eight Sea King or Kamov ‘Hormone’ ASW helicopters. In emergencies, the Viraat can operate up to 30 Harriers.”
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/hermes2.html
CVF will displace 65,000t compared to max 40,000t for IAC.
WanshanMaybe, but why would they want to? Kuznetsov is a heap o’ crap that’s constantly plagued with problems. I’ll bet that thing has spent more time in the shipyard being repaired than it has at sea. And I’ll bet any Kuznetsov successor would be equally crappy.
Russia should apologize to the Indians, give them their money back and just forget about building any more carriers.
Who said they want to. I pointed out what they have dock capacity for. As for her being crap, I would think that had there not been a funding crunch, her record would have been substantially better. Is she flawless? Certainly not. However, I think the judgement given is unfair: I’m sure not all early US or UK carriers were all successes in all respects and I’m sure they had their share of problems. I think it would be a mistake to write her off in that way, and to underestimate the russians (clearly without declaring them saints or supermen)
WanshanAGM-84L is a GPS-equipped Harpoon Block II, offered for export. Requested in 2008 by Taiwan as the UGM-84L sub-launched version.
http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Harpoon#AGM-84L
AGM-84L Essentially a Block 1C missile with GPS guidance to improve accuracy on the approach vector. It was an export model only, not used by the US
RGM-84L As per AGM-84L
http://middle-watch.com/Harpoon.htm
Crobato: since this version is GPS equipped, could it be used for landattack?
WanshanRussia possesses 40 shipyards; however only seventeen among them has the capacity to build vessels greater than 122 meters in length and only five among them has the capacity to build large ocean ships. St. Petersburg is the most important center of shipbuilding in Russia since three of the country’s main shipyards are located there, as well as many supporting industries (machine building, compressor manufacturing industry, ship design bureaus etc.).
Russian shipyards are not able to compete with the shipyards of South Korea, China, Germany and other European countries, where during recent years modern robotic shipbuilding technologies were implemented. Russia fell behind these countries in terms of level of production management, technology, construction period and prime costs. Due to this, Russia was threatened with the possibility that it could lose its competitiveness unless the shipyards were modernized.
…
Thus, in the mid-1990s the Council of the Ministry of Economy of Russia decided to create a modern shipbuilding complex. The investment project was included in the State program for the conversion and restructuring of the defense industry of the Russian Federation. This program, which is a Russian analogue to the US “Moritex” program, was called “Russian Shipyards” and received presidential status. The program envisioned the merging of the three St. Petersburg shipyards (Baltiysky Zavod, Severnaya Verf and Admiralty Verf), and the subsequent creation a joint ship-assembly complex in the form of a joint-stock industrial corporation.Positive dynamics in the industry’s development had been observed since the year 2000. Fixed assets were being renewed. Such plants as Sevmashpredpriyatiye and Baltiisky Zavod were carrying out reconstruction and retooling. In shipbuilding it wsa possible to maintain all the basic technologies that leading countries possess.
…
The Russian shipyards have traditionally specialized on warship construction, and civil ships have been built abroad. As the result, in Russia production costs are high, the production cycle is long, mechanization is low, labor intensity is high.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/rossudostroyenie.htm
II.1. Vessels with DWT 70-100 thousand tons and over 100 thousand tons.
Building such vessels in Russia is not possible due to lack of available capacities. Russian Ministry of Industry and Energy is reviewing the possibility of creating such capacities.
II.2. Vessels with DWT 20-50 thousand tons
Presently only three shipyards can build vessels of this deadweight group: Admiralty Shipyards, Baltisky Zavod and Sevmash. But their today’s orderbook or vague situation like at Baltisky Zavod does not allow expect these shipyards in building number of vessels demanded by the Russian market.
http://www.maritimemarket.ru/eng/flc.html
i.e. a ship the size of Kuznetsov could possibly just be built in Russia, but not something bigger like Ulyanovsk
WanshanYou need as many skilled workers as you need. Not just carrier experts but machine workers, steel workers, welders etc etc. The Russian shipbuilding industry spent two decades in degenerative decline during which new skills were not introduced and existing ones were lost as shipyard workers died or retired. The effects of this are being laid bare by the long delays being suffered by the new build surface units.
You massively underestimate how complicated and difficult it is to build a new warship and how important people are in that process.
I think we can agree that Russia has produced more naval vessels in the last to decades than has Ukraine. However, I have no idea about production of commercial ships. I would think the skilled workers mentioned above are not be produced solely in naval yards. So, any insights into production at commercial yards in Urkaine and Russia?
And yes, labor is mobile. On some of the pic of Gorshkov, there was a display of some food left by dockworkers. Based on the foods, I recall wondering where the dockworkers were from: I got the impression that at least some might were oriental. Now I know russia stretches way east so perhaps its nothing but might russia not employ skilled yard workers from Asian countries when faced with shortage of skilled personnel e.g. Vietnamese, Indians or even Chinese?
WanshanI never said otherwise, but the problems of the Russian shipbuilding industry are well known.
And I’ve never said the Russian shipbuilding industry has no problems.
WanshanSo? Does not mean that the Russian shipbuilding industry a world leader.
No but it does mean that to the extent there is a skill base left it is in Russia and not in the Ukraine.
WanshanAgree fully.
Kirov is big. Kirov is complex. But she is nowhere near as complex as a carrier! That is like saying that a Ticonderoga Cruiser is as complex as a Nimitz Carrier is.
Kirov is about 3 times the size of a Tico, nuclear powered and much closer to a Kuznetsov than a Ticonderoga is to a Nimitz.
Kirov
Displacement: 24,300 tons Standard, 28,000 (Full Load)
Length: 252 m (830 ft)
Beam: 28.5 m (94 ft)
Draft: 9.1 m (30 ft)
Kuznetsov
Displacement: 43,000 t (42,321 long tons) light
53,000–55,000 t (52,000–54,000 long tons) standard
66,000–67,500 t (65,000–66,000 long tons) full load
Length: 1,000 ft (300 m) o/a
900 ft (270 m) w/l
Beam: 240 ft (73 m) o/a
125 ft (38 m) w/l
Draft: 36 ft (11 m)
Ticonderoga
Displacement: approx. 9,600 tons full load
Length: 567 feet (173 m)
Beam: 55 feet (17 m)
Draught: 33 feet (10 m)
Nimitz
Displacement: 78,280 tons light
101,196 tons full load
Length: 1,040 ft (317 m) waterline
WanshanMaybe, but that is not taking into account the degrading effect of the last two decades on the Russian shipbuilding industry.
In the last 2 decades, the Russians have built more naval ships than have the Ukranians.
WanshanLooks can be deceiving. Both of the elevators will have to be in the static up position for launch and recovery. Very little aircraft movements can occur during L&R. Which all equals to a dismal sortie rate for a CV that size.
You are right, vis-a-vis a major opponent, with a carrier (i.e. US, France, UK, Russia, etc). However, even with dismal sortie rates, having Mig29K aircover and strike potential is a major advantage to have vis-a-vis any opponent that doesn’t have either capability.
WanshanRussia did not build and develope much of her Carrier Force. As they came from Ukraine and even then only one was totally completed (Kuznetsov) and the other (Varyag) laided derelict for years before being sold to China. So, Russia is hardly a expert by any means……..
Let’s also not forget the ex-Gorshkov is a conversion of a hybrid Cruiser/Helocopter Carrier. Which, of course gets back to my point…….:(
“Kiev”, “Minsk”, “Novorossiysk”, “Tbilisi”, “Baku” and the heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers “Admiral Kuznetsov” and Varyag, were made by Chernomorsky Sudostroitelni Zavod, Mykolaiv, Ukraine.
Kara class, Slava class and Moskva class (Moskva, Leningrad) were built by 61 Kommunara Shipbuilding Plant, Mykolaiv, Ukraine. This also built Kashin class ships
Kirov class were built by Baltiysky Zavod JSC St. Petersburg, Russia
Krivak, Kashin, Kresta, Kynda, Sovremanny, Udaloy by Severnoye, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Udaloys were also built by Baltic Shipbuilding plant Yantar, which also builds the Neustrashimy and Krivak ships. And Ivan Rogovs
I figure that if you can build something the size and complexity of a Kirov class cruiser you possibly could also manage to build a carrier…
Sign In
