Please stop living in a fantasy world. RAF Hercs ran a regular shuttle run to Balad. This was confirmed by Air Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup. The flight was nothing out of the ordinary. UK business in Iraq is not confined solely to Multinational Division (South East). On board that flight was a Strike Command staff officer whose job in Iraq was liaison. If you believe that the casualty figure is higher then you are seriously deluding yourself.

TJ

U sitll did not reply to what i asked abt the 10 ppl on broad and the extra stuf that u mentioned ….

of the 16 Mig29K, perhaps 6 can be kept parked on deck and a few helos too to
create some moving space in the hanger. the helos could occupy the space on deck
just forward of the island.

yes, what i showed it in that was the total number can be parked inside…. in the normal stuff, the helos numbering atleast 6 and above (with atleast 2 x Ka-31 airborne) wud be outside and maybe even 6 x MiG-29K’s (not on combat situation) so that makes the hanger a lot more spacious to move around …..so that means it will be lot more roomier with 12 x MiG-29Ks ….. now if we take that 12 x MiG-29Ks are inside and a further 12 x MiG-29Ks are carrier on deck, that wud count to 24 x MiG-29Ks which means that the air-group can be maintained at the minimimal level mentioned of 12 x MiG-29Ks on the deck …… But, u guys can see that the there is lot more spcae so as to increase the deck air-group to atleast 16 a/c.

.. well…… I’d like to wait till the IN comes with their deck management to speculate further…or maybe I’ll do it laterI’ll ….. no time now.

But anyway just look this pic of the CDG’s hanger, this pic does not show very orderly ….

i don wanna comment more on the above one …. and some more hanger pictures …. But in the hanger layout that i posted , u can see there is enough space b/n the a/c, but as Victor said the trolleys etc etc I don think i’ve yet seen trolleys that is higher than the winglevel that might be inside the hanger

Vajar,

that place came in coz the there is no other place that I think (maybe I’m wrong) that can anchor the PJ-10.

Here is my speculative plan for the MiG-29K’s layout in the hanger.

MiG-29 model

The MiG-29K have been created from the ‘available source’ from the drawing in the below picture, so its almost – if not accurate – in scale to the carrier drawings and the MiG-29K’s thats been shown in that model.

The two pictures shows the MiG-29K and Ka-29/31 layout inside the a lengthened hanger configuration. As i don have for now the ‘normal’ hanger config with the a/c placed in, for now lets take only the ‘normal’ length capacity—– which means only those a/c shown in the pic which is fully inside the boundary of the forward lift would be counted. I’ve put in here two configuration that shows 16 x mig-29Ks placed inside and thats coz the initial order is for 16 and nearly 8-10 helos. This wud be the initial air-group on the Gorshkov. This cud be the maximum that the Gorshkov hanger wud be fully able to accomodate and the reason why the Indian Navy ordered an initial batch of 16 which might be eventually raised to 28 as per what i said earlier abt — in the time of crisis to have more airframes available.

also, note that the aft lift in this case has been shown to have been enlarged to include the Klinok area too, which may or maynot happen.

This one shows 16 x MiG-29K and 8 x Ka-29/31 placed in the hanger.

This one also shows 16 x MiG-29K and 8 x Ka-29/31 placed in the hanger, but in a differnt layout.

For those who really doubt that this is not possible shud check out that the a/c superimposed in here is near to the scale as has been shown above. Also, for any personal confirmation with actual ship, i reccomend that just take any good pic of the Gorshkov and see the width of it , just figure out if at all 4 x Mig-29K’s wud be able to place on the deck like I’ve shown in the speculative hanger config. And i am sure the matured ones wud be able to agree with me that yes …… on the deck , atleast 6xMiG-29K’s with wings folded can be placed along its beam …. which wud nearly confirm (atleast theoritically) that 4 x MiG-29K’s as shown in here can be placed inside with numbering as per the IN’s initial air-winf og 16 x MiG-29K’s and 8-10 Ka-29/31.

I’ll post some more pic, when the attaching probs gets resolved

BTW there wud be many dumbs to claim that look, the said 28 or 30 a/c talk abt Gorshkov is not at all possible and that I confirm it with these pictures. But the poor fellows are not gonna understand and is gonna ignore the earlier stuffs that they have been harping abt the hanger being too tight to even accomodate 12 x MiG-29Ks. Now that was something all have been banking upon after seeing the drawing of the BR picture and then again this pic.

I’d say this one is not to scale – the MiG-29K and Kiev. This was based on the model/picture of the Kiev class as has been menntioned earlier.

well I might be wrong from the original stuff, but at least theoritically u guys can see that the IN’s air-group of 16 x MiG-29Ks and 8-10 Ka-29/31 is possible inside the hanger.

Your post is dumb in itself. Firstly that is an unguided rocket that is being fired. I’ve flown in Hercs where I have been only one of three passengers. Have you ever heard of a transport carrying a mix of cargo and passengers?

TJ

Now genious, since u say that my post is dumb and also goes on record that even u have travelled in a Herc when u were one of the total 3 crews with the a/c transporting cargos. I’d like to know what else was there other than the 10 ppl on it, which was flying in a rather short route in an area controlled by the Americans when the Americans themselves is not short of any cargo planes or for that matter heavy lift choppers if it was for just 10 of the guys. If not the said casuality figures is actually higher than what BBC reported (10)

From what I could make out of your feeble attempts to create anything near a semblence of the English language, all I can is In your dreams buddy boy, naturally you would distort things to favor your Russo-Indophile interests rather than the bitter reality that one, a purpose built CTOL ship would naturally be better at CTOL than the conversion of an S/VTOL to CTOL ship, and secondly you fail to factor in the age of such a design, although you certainly do it for the price (which are mere assumptions that lack any calculations to back up your claims). Now go stroke your kitty my friend

I’d excuse u for the above reply coz u did not understand a bit of what i was saying and the hear of Russia naturally had to be an irritation for any Norwegian, now that they are the frontline state for the US against Russia in the Norther side ….. and since u confessed to have understood very little to what i said from ur confession —– “I could make out of your feeble attempts to create anything near a semblence of the English language” —- I’d advise u to only reply to stuffs that u clearly undersyand, if not abstain from replying. Good Luck, Honey.

Terran,

Can u give me more details abt the carrier …. the one thats been mentioned in there abt the lighter and heavier version of the Spanish carrier.
The carrier pic that i posted from the link don have its cat in the bow(or maybe not visible in the pic?) , hope anyone got better images for these carrier. Also I’d like to have the Spanish value of the carrier in 95-95.

Hamberg

Wow look at that price!..

Why didn’t India consider this? They could’ve gotten a BRAND NEW ship that would’ve been launched or nearing completion by NOW (given all that time spent on haggling for prices), HALF the price of the Gorshkov contract, AND could’ve imparted the option of either the MiG-29K or Rafale as it could be offered with Catapults.

Some one really dropped the ball on this one.

First of all, the ship looks very good for a 27,000 t or as mentioned 25,000t, and catapult. But I think, it retains the same problems of the Foch/Sao Paulo with a narrow beam (?) and a single catapult, which is not in anyway clearing the landing strip, a very criticized aspect of the Gorshkov’s model, which first of all wasn’t Gorshkov but even then, the foreward launch point of the real Gorshkov model don interfere with the landing at least theoretically…

BTW, is the 27,000 t mentioned light ton or the normal tonne or the fully loaded tonnage of the 25,000t, 240 m carrier??

Now the price seems very good and indeed it is cheap, but the year is 1995-96 and was not certainly a cheap year in the Asian countries. Also, it was a time when EURO had not even been born. So that means the trading was in the local currency, and the exchange rate wud have meant that it amounts to just $350-400 million, which also does not mean that Spanish rate was low. So the correct cost of the ship in todays measure wud only be got if we get the Spanish cost for the carrier at that time. But now that its in EURO and Indian Rupee trades at nearly 59 to a Euro, I don think the cost to be below $700 million for such a small ship in today’s terms.

For the case of India getting a nearly new ship by now or nearing completion……. I’d like to put that, if the Indian Navy had the funds and had not the Indian politicians myopic in their outlook of the national security, Indian navy wud probably have been operating the Russian Orel & Vyrag carriers and maybe the Gorshkov wud have been readying itself to join the Indian fleet ….. with the Indian Naval air-arm consisting of at least 120 (60+40+20) Mig-29K’s , Yak-44 AEW, Ka-31 and others . ……. Which also wud have meant an expanded Indian Naval infrastructure, logistics and fleet to meet the demands by the addition of the carriers.

Moreover the carrier SAC-220 had in it — American catapult which means a definite problem, it seemingly have a narrow beam and a single catapult which in addition to putting strain on the single cat is also fully obstructing the landing strip.

En los últimos tiempos, IZAR ha establecido contactos con la India para colaborar en el proyecto de modernización de los astilleros de Cochin, que comenzarán a contruir el futuro portaaviones de su Marina (cálculos optimistas prevén que el primer corte de chapa tenga lugar a lo largo de 2003).

BTW what does the above quote read ???…… it contains Cochin in it and what i figure out from the readable words it is that, there was some possible collaboration or something so as to built a modified version of the ship at Cochin … ???

Hope someone can translate it for me …… and also better specs of this carrier and pictures, links wud be more welcome.

Maybe if Syria would stop allowing terrorists to reside in it, stop its politics in Lebanon; intrusions into its airspace would be far less likely.

The dumb arab cudn’t have been more dumber when he allowed the camel to shelter itself from the harsh, chilly, hot and turbulent enviornment, in his own pathetic tent, when the rest of the civilized tents which were naturally protected from these harsh conditions weren’t intrested in sheltering the animal. Now the camel is the master of the tent and the arab is at the mercy of the camel. Pity!

Billy,

Not if it falls into the hands of terrorists and is used against for example airliners. I don’t think Israel is complaining about Syria itself using this weapon for its own defence, but rather about the possibility that terrorists might be able to obtain these weapons from Syria.

ofcourse not, i don think , so if at all the Russians are sellinf the S-300, it wud be purely for defensive purpose and the Iglas shud not be of much concern as they might as well have a clause which will not permit itself from getting into wrong hands.

BTW h many MANPADS can one see in the hands of the Palestanians????…… I guess , if there was any decent ‘shipment’ from Syria to the Palestanians the things wud have been very different for the Isreali helos in the Palestanian airspace. The most MANPADS are with those groups who was produced by the Unkil to fight the Soviets and who now is fingering the Unliks arse.