Good work by AK and if what I’m guessing is right, he took all these photos with super-zoom lens from the bridge across the channel. Front shots from the CSL end & the side shots from Naval jetty end. The height and the angle gives me that feel.

The article from Anantha Krishnan

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2012/01/navy-beefs-up-security-at-wellington.html

HERE COMES THE IAC | Navy beefs up security at Wellington Island with IAC float-out | Round-the-clock surveillance for INS Dronacharaya soon

By Anantha Krishnan M
Express News Service

Kochi: The Indian Navy has put the security in and around Wellington Island on alert with its prized, home-grown possession – the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) — setting out to quay at the Cochin Shipyard Ltd (CSL). While the officials at the Southern Naval Command (SNC) refused to divulge any details, Express has confirmed information that the areas in an around the ‘current position’ of IAC (INS Vikrant) is very closely monitored since its float-out last week.

Though the IAC, an air defence ship, is currently under the control of CSL, the Indian Navy is taking no chances and has increased armed patrol. Teams from the Sagar Prahari Bal are also said to be monitoring all movements closely. The naval officials in Kochi adopted an extremely diplomatic stand when Express sought information on post-IOC float-out security. “The more we speak about it the more we let our plans out. With the ship at the quay, we will have our plans intact, though it is currently under the CSL custody,” an official said. Even commercial vessels that operate closer to the vicinity of CSLIAC are being put under observation.

A senior serving naval official, who agreed to part with information initially back-tracked a day later, said that his higher-ups would get get worried, if the ‘security cover’ for IAC becomes a talking point.

CSL sources said that the float-out completed the Phase-I activities of IAC with the hull construction. “We have established that the vessel can float safely. There have been delays due to various equipment developing serious snags. We have addressed them and have conducted a series of underwater trials, in addition to testing all hi-end technologies time and again. The Phase-II work has begun and it mainly consists of out-fitting jobs. The platform will be re-docked again,” sources said.

The Indian Navy is also planning to upgrade the security levels at its Gunnery School (INS Dronacharaya) inside the Wellington Island. Tenders have been called for the supply, installation and commission of CCTV surveillance systems all along the periphery, including the seafront, of INS Dronacharaya. “We are looking for a complete package which gives us gapless, round-the-clock and all weather security coverage. The tenders are in and we will finalize after scrutinizing the technical and price formalities,” sources said.

(Copyright@The New Indian Express)

The Typhoon has a 105 kN engine, but the nominal output is still kept at 90 kN from the 90s in the advertisements for the more thrilling life-cycle cost from that. (Shown at the offer to Austria) Similar thing with Rafale.

Thanks. But I’m hearing the 105kN thrust figure from you… even though I have heard about 10t thrust engine for Typhoon.
Regarding life-cycle….the contribution from the engine to the life-cycle cost of the aircraft it powers will be acquisition cost, running cost and service/maintenance cost. In that regard….from a program aired last year dedicated to the Typhoon’s chance in MMRCA, the following data came from it

Unit cost of Typhoon engine – 6million Euros/unit (12million pounds is what makes up a Typhoon ****)
Fuel consumption for Typhoon in AB* – 6 liters/second = 360 liters/minute

* the documentary did not mention the parameters like at which mach number and if it was with weapons (or in what configuration). But I would consider the figure of 6 liter/sec was the most favorable with the lightest load and a low mach number.

with regard to the RD-33MK…… I was asking for the details of the same (increased) nominal thrust of RD-33MK series that I heard might be installed for the Russian Navy’s MiG-29K. Even the current RD-33MK might be able to punch out 500-1,000kg more, but it will be at the cost of its lifespan and SFC. The current setting is most likely a balanced optimization for better SFC (than its predecessor), maintaining a 9t thrust and a 4,000hrs lifespan. The next development cycle for the RD-33MK would most likely be to increase the dry or wet thrust or both by maintaining the same SFC (or improving it further) and 4,000hrs (or improving it).

It is now at least 4years since RD-33MK came online and 4 years is a decent time for a technically sound engine designer like Klimov to have increased the nominal thrust range for the baseline RD-33MK. Provided it was planned as future growth path according to company strategy and funded accordingly OR it was ordered by the customer…

Anyone want to guess or do simple math on how long a Typhoon will be in air using AB?? It goes for every fighter except the mighty MiG-31 and possibly MiG-25 which will probably be able to hang on for an hour and more in AB, all others will probably fall out in 10-16 minutes.

Mk2 will be powered by GE-414 engine of 98kN.

LCA Mk1 might be refitted later in MLU with the new kaveri.. but i have my doubts on that.

By the “new” Kaveri don’t you mean the new engine that is to be developed with French assistance with 90kN thrust? If the 90kN thrust is true, then that is the problem…..of not aiming for a 90+ to 100kN engine.

Jang, I am inclined to believe the RuNavy examples will have the same engines as the Indian Ks. Sadly the RD-33, a good engine, has not received the same priority as advanced Al-31 variants.

yes…the Sukhoi gang members taking it all…be it the engines or the projects.
But need to check out for the growth plans for the engine, because I don’t think RD-33MK, which is practically a new engine, will not remain static with 9t thrust. But info on the growth plans, immediate or future is not forth coming.

Thank you, and I trust thay yours was a good one. In my case, the Grim Reaper has thinned out family and friends to the point where such events are invariably quiet. But unlike Mark Anthony, I was never one that revelled long o’nights. I’m more in the category of those who ponder “weak and weary, over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore.”

…sometimes few and little calm environment is better. Mine was good, this time purely with family.

The figures I cited were last I’ve seen for the RD-33MK, as were 49 kN dry and 85 kN with afterburning for the RD-93. Tho’ I see that Jane’s is now quoting 50.42kN dry for the latter engine.

But aircraft propulsion isn’t my field, so I’m hardly up-to-date on the subject.

itz ok…neither am I. And being up to date on Russian stuffs needs a lot of patience unlike the western stuff, which are very forthcoming. As an example take the case of 9.5t RD-33MK itself, I read it somewhere in the forum but now I cant get a confirmation. Take another one as the 112kN thrust RD-33 series engine, at least for me it still not clear what happened to it and what Klimov is doing now or for future. Compare that to the EJ and we hear about TVC coming online around 2018…

From the (scant) photographic evidence available, the new ship is being built bows and mid section primarily rather than the Cavour’s mid-and-stern method. The photo posted looks more like an out of focus shot of the old Vikrant (now a museum ship) rather then the new vessel, the presence of an island with mast is the clincher for me as the new ship couldn’t possibly have them installed if there is only 14,000 tonnes of hull completed. I seem to recall the IN stating a few years ago that the ship would be assembled to around 24,000 tonnes before being floated out as the dry dock wasn’t big enough to take the full sized hull, and final assembly would be in a floating dry dock (as with Cavour). This seems to be an unexpected development, and the dockyard probably needs an influx of cash given the current economic climate.

If I’m not wrong, you are saying that the ship in that picture is not the hull floated out? …and that it is the INS Vikrant..

If yes, we are on the same side….in the sense that I did not comment on that picture which was not clear enough to me and hence I based my opinion on the figures quoted by the official.

Since, we don’t have much info of the hull floated out…what I put forward maybe just speculative… But I agree with you regarding the construction, launch & assembly. In my view (if it is actually being planned as large blocks) it maybe 3 large blocks namely bow-mid section, mid-stern section (likely to be the biggest) & the Island. If we take the officials word of installing the engines, transmission etc….it makes me believe that, the floated hull (if not the full carrier) could be the mid-stern section.

w.r.t to the launch tonnage etc….from my info,
1) the CSL may not be able to accomodate hull over 230meter long, even the INS Viraat is a tight fit…
2) the width between CSL (Cochin Shipyard Ltd) & the Naval jetty on the other side maynot be even 250meters. (Guys, how long is the bridge that connect to the Island??)
3) I’m not sure if any dredging was done to facilitate larger tonnage vessels to operate.

Few years ago, there was a contract with Russian shipyard for pontoon to facilitate launch of much heavier hulls. I’m not sure if that deal was limited to pontoon for just MDL, Mumbai or it cover the launch for IAC1 also.

As you said it is unexpected… but confusing due to lack of proper info and pictures. Lack of picture is surprising because, such a large thing will be noticed anyway and even the pleasure boat local tourists will be able to see this thing.

The normal takeoff rating of the RD-33MK is reported to be 85.3 kN, but up to 92.17 kN is possible using a ‘special emergency regime’ – presumably some form of short-duration combat emergency rating.

The most powerful member of the RD-33 family is currently the RD-133. This has a thrust-vectoring axisymmetric nozzle and a reported maximum rating of 88.25 kN.

HAPPY NEW YEAR to you Old Boy 🙂 how was your new year eve?

I do understand that the RD-33 for MiG-29K did have an higher emergency thrust rating, but what I’m talking about is the new/follow-on RD-33MK that is suppose to power the Russian Navy’s MiG-29K/KUB. I saw it being mentioned in the forum that the engine thrust for those MiG-29K/KUB will be 9.5t.

As far as I’m aware, the most powerful variant of the RD-33 series is the RD-33MK with 9,000kg/88kN thrust. More powerful variant of the RD-33 series that I saw is the spec sheet of RD-93 displayed for FC-1/JF-17 as a 93kN thrust engine. But I have not yet seen that engine in its physical (or did i miss it when displayed?) or operational form.

RD-133 as far as I know (and as u pointed out), employed on the MiG-29OVT is a regular/modified RD-33 with TVC but the thrust is lower than the RD-33MK. I consider it that way because RD-33MK have little more inlet diameter and the airflow tunnel of the a/c is also modified accordingly to aid in utilizing the increased 9,000Kg thrust. In addition, when MiG-29OVT was flying, RD-33MK was not yet ready…