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.

Well, in the first place there are no Russian catapults to install. The prototype you speak of was an early one that was never tested on actual aircraft and was dismantled in the late 80s when the Russian Navy settled on STOBAR with ski jumps for take-off.

The said catapult was cleared for operation somewhere around 1989. And I guess the catapult tech have not changed much…. Its sort of mastering the art of playing with steam circuits and high pressure cylinders & pipes without blowing it up. Its complicated affair and US has perfected it over the years and the Russian have developed their version and cleared it for operation and already have the arrestor wire system operational.
By dismantling do you mean the carrier?
But the catapult was never installed on the carrier. The carrier construction did not reach that level and was cut apart before its completion. Btw, the catapult need not have to be tested with real aircraft….they always tests it with dead weights with rollers to simulate the load it has to throw. Its only after that aircrafts are utilized for the job.

Excellent Video of INS Vikramaditya shot from the other side of the bay. Same as that of the photos that Twinblade posted above. The music gives me the feel of Korean drama…

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

Some more pictures of 8th June 2012….

The below two are just 😎

^ Looks like the original 1970’s equipment. 🙁

AG came online in later half of 80s. So you can call it the 80s… and don’t forget that it was IN’s decision to retain it and they did not order for a complete revamp for more fancy and good looking stuffs. For them the current system probably was good enough to met the practical requirements.

How high is a MiG-29 ?
According to wiki 4.73 meters

MiG-29 height is not a problem. It was always the Kamov’s twin-rotor height…
But its no problem as we saw from the helos inside the hanger.

Damn! Can it make ‘Paper Dosai’ too?

PS: Despite all the naysayers, that rust bucket has transformed into that beauty. Now can’t wait until the MiG-29K starts to fly off.

I forgot about our neighbour…. well paper roast depends on how much IN want their crew to consume ghee/oil per paper roast… 😀

Actually, this pic of the aft lift shows that the hangar is directly below the flight deck. Yes, there is some space between, but that appears to not even be the height of one man, let alone enough for the messrooms and such you suggested.

two pages back I mentioned it as the aft lift and after few more looks after I posted that comment, I came to the conclusion that its not the aft lift but the lift near the island.
Badger1968 has already mentioned on the below deck aspect…but I’ll put it little more clearly below…
this is the aft lift
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cIKuDyGbdlY/T8SRLSoPbJI/AAAAAAAAAJc/-CdATPZsjow/s1600/IMG_4758.JPG

Since Jamwal has not uploaded all the pictures, I’ll attach a much clearer picture which will clear your doubts regarding the deck below the flight deck. In the attached picture (see below attachment) of the lift you can clearly differentiate between the flight deck level and the hanger ceiling and will help in identifying the deck below flight deck.

moreover, almost all carrier has that below deck space.
This is the CVF block. If you are getting what I’m saying you will see the below deck under the flight deck and above hanger.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=206061&d=1339600831

Its the same for Kuznetzov which can be seen from the sectional dia that Wan posted..
http://paralay.com/atakr/s8.jpg

And it is the same for INS Vikramaditya. In the picture below you posted it can be “felt” and estimated.

You have to remember that thanks to the original aviation cruiser design, the Vikramaditya’s hangar only has about half the total length of the ship and is much smaller in terms of surface area than the ship’s deck. The arrester mechanism, messrooms etc below the flight deck are probably in areas beneath the deck that are not occupied by the hangar, which would mean they are placed around, and not above, the hangar.

Atleast from the available images and drawings that I remember, it looks like a full deck. Anyway I’ve drawn it and picture attached below. The red marked area is the below deck. Its is just for illustration purpose and does not represent the correct dimension.

The Yellow one is to show how the “NEW” hanger would look like if for a moment we take the above photo to be the aft lift.

regarding the hanger length, allmost all the carrrier have less than ~ 2/3 of its entire length as its hanger. In the case of INS Vikramaditya, its little shorter than that. But the ship and its design has got its own history and that should console the shortages of the design.

One thing I’m slightly dissapointed with is how many of the pics of control panels and operator stations feature old-fashioned ‘steam gauge’ dials instead of modern digital displays and equipment.

Does anyone know where these are used? Propulsion control equipment?

Regarding the “old” fashioned stuffs…..we need to remember that it is what IN wanted/ordered. If they specified in the sub-contracts to completely upgrade the systems, Sevmash would have done it. For now, that is what IN preferred to stick around with. Anyway the carrier is going to serve for 30 years or so and it will surely undergo a modernization in between. Maybe then we’ll see upgraded to the more fancy stuff. But I do agree IN should have opened their pocket to upgrade it to newer fancy stuff. Because most of the media are dumb and when they see it they are going to cry how “old” the ship is and the two clown bloggers are sure to come up with their own touch in their blogs.

Regarding the instruments and control rooms….
First picture is probably related to the steam control… It maybe the below deck control room for the adjacent arrester wire and claw apparatus. The systems according to my knowledge works on steam and have good length high pressure cylinders.

Second picture is probably meant to monitor the steam density from the boilers. Only two units are seen here, so I am guessing that of the total 8 boilers, two boilers will be supplying/sharing steam to the system… or may be the two are units meant for the two lines of supply, considering that 8 boilers are arranged in 2 groups of 4 each.

Third picture have clearly written on it. It is controls for the port and starboard anchors. The dials shows the details on its deployment. In the digital systems, the screen displays the numbers indicating how much length of the chain have been deployed….etc