I’m sure that I read somewhere that her Crossley Pielstick 16PC2.6 don’t lend her the best of peformance.

I was referring to the choice of commercial diesels over Gas Turbines, for the reasons outlined above. If they picked the wrong specific engines for the job, that’s another matter. She seems to get from A to B without much fuss though.

I am really beginning to believe that Russia wants the ship and badly! As its just dumbfounding on how she continues to treat India. Just doesn’t make sense…….:(

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Russians are putting the price up in the hope that India will back out of the deal… :diablo:,then the Russian Navy will get a second carrier to take the pressure off Kuznetzov and bridge the gap until they can get their recently announced new carrier program off the ground. The only question then would be whether or Not Vikramaditya caould comfortably operate the Russian Navy’s SU-33s (I’m thinking mainly about the lifts and the hangar) as she was redesigned with the smaller Mig-29s in mind. Might be a bit of a squeeze…:eek:

🙁

Even if its a bit delayed i still prefer Indian equipment. And guess what as my country makes economic progress more and more money will be allocated to R&D and manufacturing facilities.

These are our leaning steps, wait till we are on our feet proper :diablo:

Its still pathetic for a country like Russia to be 3 years behind schedule with a refit and counting……

The Russians always saw the Vikramaditya as a training ground for their own engineers and shipyard workers to learn how to build their own next generation of carriers. they are making all the usual mistakes the constitute a learning curve on someone else’s ship at someone else’s expense, so that when they get round to starting work on their own ships they will be better placed to do so. Meanwhile India has been taken to the cleaners.:(

As far as I can tell, Large commercial diesel engines as fitted to Ocean have similar up front buying costs to Gas Turbines the reals savings come in running and maintenance costs, requiring far fewer engine room personnel to look after them. Hence Super Tankers and other large merchant ships needing only a handful of engineers. Compare Ocean’s complement with an Invincible (upon whose hull Ocean’s design was based) and the difference is significant. Efforts to keep Oceans costs down at the design and build stage are generally agreed to have gone a little too far, and many of these problems have been remedied now, but the choice of engines was a sound one IMHO.

Is there anyone SERIOUSLY suggesting marinising the Typhoon?

Rafaele would make sense. Especially if JSF turns out to be as big a bag of **** as I think it will be. Rafaele will definitely be able to carry Meteor and ASSM for a start.

Of course Sarko cancelling the Franco-British design second carrier makes it a harder decision politically and economically.

Al

Many keep suggesting we Navalise the Typhon, but NOBODY is SERIOUSLY contemplating doing it. As stated previously, anyone who thinks SeaPhoon is plan B for JCA doesn’t know what they are talking about. Plan E at best. Rafaele might be plan D behind the F-35C and the F/A-18E/F if the choice is on technical issues, but will only move up the ladder if there is political intervention.

On the broader subject of RN Fighters, the side number system has always interested me, being distinct and separate from the RAF’s various systems of sqn/aircraft designation (which have changed so often over the years they must have trouble working out what they mean themselves! Also there doesn’t appear to be a single system in use in the RAF at present, different sqns and aircraft types using various methods almost to please themselves). I’ve worked out a lot of the details for myself over the years but if anyone has any online sources I’d be glad to hear from them.

The balance between fighters and strike aircraft is dependant on the type of mission the carrier is sent on, and to be sure the RN in the 60s showed flexibility when required. With only two commando carriers in service, strike carriers were occassionally pressed into service as makeshift commando ships eg Centaur transporting troops to quell a mutiny by the Tangayikan rifles in the early 60s, squeezing the troops into the hangar deck on camp beds and gingerly moving the ship’s air group around them. At the time Centaur operated a unique air group, composed of 12 Sea Vixens for both Air defence and strike, four Gannets for AEW and six Wessex for ASW/SAR. Previously she had operared with six Vixens and eight Scimitars, but the cramped conditions aboard (and a high attrition rate for the scimitars) lead to the Scimitars being withdrawn and the Vixen sqn being brought up to full strength.

If Victorious is retained through the 70s unmodified and the Vixens are withdrawn anyway she could carry a completely strike oriented air group of up to 20 Buccaneers, with the usual complement of Gannets and Sea Kings and sailed in company with Eagle or Ark Royal providing fighter cover with their Phantoms, though this would be unlikley given the normal independent nature of peacetime ship deployments.

From the American point of view, the Nimitz class are no longer ‘Super’ carriers but ‘standard’ sized carriers, so that is their baseline intellectually. Also in the CTOL/CATOBAR context, there are minimum requirements in terms of deck size to operate the current generation of aircraft, so these define their view of a ‘light’ carrier. To be fair anyone planning on entering the carrier club should beware of defining what can be afforded simply by physical size, as steel is still relatively cheap and constiturtes a very small percentage of the overall cost of any modern warship. For example increasing the size of a ship on the drawing board by 10% to 20% may well only increase cost by 1%, as most of the cost of the ship is tied up in expensive radar and weapon systems (eg Aegis, PAAMS etc). HMS Ocean was reported to have cost little more than a type 23 Frigate, mainly because she had only basic self defence weapons and sensors.

Why fit the Bucc airframe with Tornado avionics to produce a Mk3 Bucc? Because then you will have a superior strike aircraft to the Tornado of course! And that’s the opinion of the pilots who flew both.:D