JonSYeap they are limited to 20 and 30 tons but considering its designed to carry between 24 to 30 Rotary/fixed wing platforms it should be able to support that.
Edit:
Bigger issue in recent weeks for IN is going to be the credit crunch, rising dollar and how it affects vessel construction world wide most of SYs especially for large projects require cheap credit. Atleast russian and existing project are in the books so they should go down on time big question will be if construction of P-28s, Scorpene SSKs and proposed P-17As get delayed.
JonSBuilding a bigger Dokdo with fixed wing capability, while not a trivial step forward, wouldn’t be that much of a leap from the Dokdo itself.
The most important portion of the learning curve in building big deck ships has already been learned by Hyundai. The machy, the C3I, combat, manning, hull/structural design, DC capabilities, etc have already been done.
One of the biggest challenges for India in building the IAC is that it’s going from building a 7k ton warship to a 37+k ton warship without anything in between. It was a very good decision to rope in Fincantieri for the propulsion system design and integration and to use a Brit firm to validate the structural and seakeeping design. So, the Indians do know their limits and are working around them but still, the biggest problem in Indian shipbuilding are the yards themselves.
For starters its CODAD (20 knots…). Also there is question whether the deck can handle a 20 ton AC unlike Cavour which was designed to eventually handle F-35s.
Cochin is the largest SY it has build civilian vessels larger than this, only time tell whether it will do better than the military Shipyards.
JonSI am sure the ex-Gorshkov will enter service before the Indian Built IAC. That said, if South Korea or Europe started on a IAC at the same time Russian started the conversion. The new built IAC Carrier would beat it by a large margin…………and would get a new ship at that.:D
SK has no experience building a carrier unless you want a another Chakri, DCNS is only SY that can build IAC sucessfully and on time.
JonSIf the launcher on Talwar’s fits both Club and Brahmos, then why are the latter not (going) to be used on these ships and why is a big point made of the Club-to-Brahmos switch with the new batch? Doesn’t make sense to me.
No official report that 3s14 can fire Yakhont/Brahmos etc only document that says it can was a russian website which was probably the basis for many other reports. The brochure for it posted couple years back on the forums does not state that. It could be confusion of the word Universal which is also used to describe Yakhont/Onyk.
IN is said to float tender for helo launched AshM i believe harpoon is one of the contenders, Air launched brahmos is limited to just Tu-144 and Su-30s. It will be interesting to see if Harpoon is integrated with Mig-29ks.
JonSThere were russian docs of 3s14 being capable of firing Onyxs but i think license and other issues will likely keep brahmos from ever being integrated with it.
L&T’s launcher seems to be designed specifically to accommodate Brahmos, IIRC Klub canister have smaller diamter than Brahmos.
IN will standardize around Brahmos. Uran and 3M54 seem to be stop gap measures, there was talk about replacing Uran with Brahmos on Delhi probably might happen once the missiles are NEOL.
JonSYes it can my friend , the Club launcher are of Universal Type , it can accommodate Klub and Brahmos
They were universal launchers but from looks of things L&T/Brahmos launcher is different from Talwar’s 3S14E cells (the former seems much more simple just a steel structure holding Brahmos containers), it could be licensing or integration issue that is keeping Brahmos from 3s14e. Even the russians will not be using the Club launchers for Brahmos on their new FFGs.
JonSThe Rafale and Super Hornet are just as capable of operating from Ski-Jumps as Mig-29K’s. Really, both have better lift and slow speed handling characteristics……..Regardless, the cost of the ex-Gorshkov is going up by the day!
That was old news it just summarizes what we already know. F-18s were never offered couple years ago plus it was believed that it cannot operate from Skijump only recently did boeing come out and say in simulations it can.IMO much better off with Mig-29k than F-18Es for fleet air defense. However if naval-LCA was to get canned a mixture of F-18 (along with IAF MRCA F-18Es if it were to win) and Mig-29k would be ideal.
IIRC with Rafale there is issue of whether it has the ground clearance to take off from Ski jump with its Fuel tanks, plus its thrust compared to Mig-29k and asking price took it away from any consideration.
Added
NEW DELHI: After the Army’s plan to build its own “tactical” air force left IAF fuming, Navy too is going full steam ahead to bolster its ageing air power.
The Navy is in the hunt for more supersonic fighters, reconnaissance aircraft, multi-role and anti-submarine warfare helicopters, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) and AJTs (advanced jet trainers) to emerge as “a true three-dimensional blue-water force”.
“IAF will continue to play the strategic role but both Navy and Army want to strengthen their aviation wings. Moreover, unlike Army, we have long been in the business of operating fighters from aircraft carriers,” said a senior Navy officer.
The force, after all, wants to operate two “carrier battle groups” centred around two aircraft carriers, with their own complements of fighters and helicopters, to project power in the Indian Ocean and beyond in the next five to seven years.
First, with the delivery of 16 MiG-29Ks from Russia slated to begin from October, plans are afoot to go in for another 30-36 of these fighters. The MiG-29Ks will be supplemented by the naval variant of the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), the first prototype of which will take to the skies by end-2008.
The 16 MiG-29Ks were part of the original $1.5-billion deal signed in 2004 for Admiral Gorshkov, now being renegotiated after Russia demanded another $1.2 billion for refit of the 44,570-tonne aircraft carrier.
“Both Gorshkov and the indigenous aircraft carrier being built at Cochin Shipyard will require MiG-29K squadrons. The 37,500-tonne IAC, for instance, is designed to carry 12 MiG-29Ks, eight LCA and 10 helicopters,” said an officer.
Along with this, the Rs 476-crore upgrade of the remaining 10 Sea Harrier jump-jets, which operate from India’s solitary carrier INS Viraat, is also currently underway.
JonSWell, India own forthcoming IAC equipped with a Western Fighter would be a much better and effective choice. Having vastly better life cycle cost and more capable to boot!
IAC is not sure thing, Cochin has not built a naval ship of that size. Especially with viraat being decommissioned by 2012, Gorshkov was needed.
Also the only fighter i can think off for IAC is F-18E/F with recent Boeing claim that it can operate from Ski jump in its simulations. Then again it can its just simulations.
JonSSorry, many believe India had and still has better options than a ex-Russian Missile/Cruiser and a dozen or so naval Mig-29’s……….:cool:
Like what? i have not seen any other options. Currently there is option for 20 more Mig-29k but IN is not excersise it till Gorshkov is ready.
Anyway atleast it better than investing billions to build a carrier for a fighter aircraft that has not yet hit production and with a growing price tag. And lets not forget the picky seller who is refusing to even tech transfer etc 😎
Added
“Do you got any info regarding the cost of non-Russian systems for the INS Vikramaditya? For instance, if suppose, Barak is getting installed, how much is its cost for say 32-cell VLS.”
There were issues Russians insisted on installing their own weapons no idea on their price tag.
JonSI think the truth is India made its own bed and has little choice but to lay in it.:(
IN had to procure Gorshkov more or less if they wanted Mig-29ks as well russian assistance with Vikrant (Ski jump) with status of Naval LCA up in the air, only other options were Rafale and F-18E/Fs neither too have been tested from Skijump.
JonSAs has already been said, CVF building is contracted for, at fixed prices, & unlike the Russians, the suppliers can’t hang on to the ships & demand more money. What is so difficult to understand about that?
The CVF price is not only for the manufacture phase. If you look at the individual contracts signed on July 3rd, you see that they include a lot more. Thales gets £425 mn, for example, which includes all the design & integration work, BAe Insyte gets £275 mn for mission systems, etc. With the manufacturing contracts, that adds up to £3 billion, or £1.5 billion per ship. The £3.8 billion total (£1.9 bn each) includes another £800 million for other equipment (much of it already ordered), dockyard improvements, etc. Everything except the air group, in fact.
Yes, the total price for Vikramaditya includes MiG-29s, but the price excluding them still doesn’t look good for what’s being supplied. Over half the price of a CVF for what is really less than half the ship. If you were designing a carrier from scratch, you wouldn’t produce Vikramaditya. Gorshkov was a hybrid missile cruiser/VTOL carrier, & some of the design decisions were not optimum for a carrier. And then there all the questions already raised, of durability, maintainability & operating cost.
There is no such thing as fixed price considering the track record of last couple projects chances are there are gonna be overruns.
Anyway your estimates of price tag are bit off.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-22.htm
” In November 2006 the NAO’s “Ministry of Defence : Major Projects Report 2006” revealed that the Assessment Phase had completed at the end of January 2006 at a total cost of £302m. They also stated that following direction from the Investment Approvals Board, the project had adopted an incremental approach to Main Gate approval with the Demonstration and Manufacture (D&M) phases being divided into two sequential Main Gate approval points. The first phase (demonstration), which included expanding the alliance to include Babcock Engineering Services and VT Shipbuilding, was approved by the IAB and Treasury in December 2005. The total cost of the demonstration phase has been capped at £297m (not to exceed figure). A second and final submission seeking approval for the manufacturing phase was expected to be submitted in late 2006 – this did not occur because the the business case exceeded budget.
By 31 December 2006, the MOD had spent £411 million on the CVF Project, and the first long lead orders had been placed, e.g. with Converteam for its Advanced Induction Motor/VDM25000 converter, part of the baseline propulsion solution. In early 2007, estimates for the Manufacture Phase ranged from £3.6 billion to £3.9 billion. This is presumably in addition to the £599 million already approved for the Assessment and Demonstration Phases.
In July 2007 it was stated the Manufacture Phase would cost an estimated £3.8 billion”
JonSSigh before there is any more cost comparison, hope people do realize the £1.9 billion cost figure for CVF is for manufacture phase it does not include the fighter cost or the armament suite so comparing it to the $3.4 billion figure for Gorshkov which includes 16 Mig-29k and 9 Ka-28/31 as well as its armament suite (Supposedly vl-shtil and kashtan-m as well top plate and large unidentified 3d radar).
Either way chances are CVF is gonna hit with cost runs and heck so is gorshkov…
JonSAs bad as it is that Russia wants more to finish the Carrier. She wants alot more! Its like she is purposely trying to gouge India and to what end??? Personally, I think Russia mite as well kiss the MMRCA Contract Goodbye! (126+ Aircraft)
Russia is not trying to gouge India, they underpriced gorshkov in effort to sell it to india. Shipyard got stuck with cost of the refit after design team spent most of upgrade money on the armament suite for the vessel.
JonSNice drawing…looks a little like the HSC N130.
One question, any ideas why the NATO navies don’t use multi-use VLS in their ships that would fire SAM and SSM? The Russians seem to use this a lot more. It would help with the stealth and space since you don’t need a special boxed off area for the SSM launchers.
—–JT—–
Well Russia was planning a fleet (20) of 2000 ton vessels based on XXI design concept even plans for AAW version fitted with RIF but the plans were scaled back to just 4 2038.0 corvette.
Even with the economic recovery they have no plans to resurrect that, goes to show LCS is nice idea on paper but has its share of limitations.
JonSIts tarantuls not tarantulas.
Auto spell check for Firefox ftw, even know it tried to correct yours. Those are 2000 figures for 16 Urans’ plus you add in FCR and spare missiles you are talking about a very significant cost. The main reason P-28s were procured in first place was cost escalation and delays with P-17.
Sign In
