INS VIKRANT (IAC 1) OFFICIAL RENDERS

[Abingdonboy]

Is it true that INS Vikrant will carry a more complement of ac including mig-29k & NLCA than what INS viky can carry, i mean INS viky is more heavier as well as length wise bigger than INS vikrant, than how is that possible??

The VIKRAMDITYA was never designed to operate MIG-29Ks or for STOBAR operations. As such the modifications have cut into storage space. The IAC 1 is designed and built for MIG-29K/STOBAR operations from the get go and as such optimises the availble space. For example if you look at the deck on the VIKRAMDITYA you can see there is a structure to the rear of the island that houses SATCOM and other sensors however on the IAC 1 this structure is missing and must have been designed into the main island meaning you can park more fighters on deck. I imagine similar space optmisation tricks are present all over the ship. Not to mention the VIKY is an old ship and the IAC 1 can take advantage of all the tech upgrades of the 21st that are much more compact than before.

 

[Dash]

Hi Dash, your posts got very rare these days.

Why shouldn't they? using only 1 type on 1 carrier will limit it's capabillities by far, especially since the Mig is clearly the better multi role carrier fighter.



AEW, ASW and tanker roles would be more important if we would buy the V22, but sadly it doesn't look like it.

don't know even they are going to field nlca...fielding 2 fighters is not a good idea from a logistical point of view. First of all you are carrying close to 20 fighters only and adding a mixture is only going to reduce your fighting power if the fighter is nlca.

especially when nlca us ha in a less fighting radius than migs.

Been away for a while Sancho after pdf went down. But its working now. So you will see more of me

Hi Dash, your posts got very rare these days.

Why shouldn't they? using only 1 type on 1 carrier will limit it's capabillities by far, especially since the Mig is clearly the better multi role carrier fighter.



AEW, ASW and tanker roles would be more important if we would buy the V22, but sadly it doesn't look like it.

don't know even they are going to field nlca...fielding 2 fighters is not a good idea from a logistical point of view. First of all you are carrying close to 20 fighters only and adding a mixture is only going to reduce your fighting power if the fighter is nlca.

especially when nlca us ha in a less fighting radius than migs.

Been away for a while Sancho after pdf went down. But its working now. So you will see more of me

 

[sancho]

don't know even they are going to field nlca...fielding 2 fighters is not a good idea from a logistical point of view. First of all you are carrying close to 20 fighters only and adding a mixture is only going to reduce your fighting power if the fighter is nlca.

especially when nlca us ha in a less fighting radius than migs.

Been away for a while Sancho after pdf went down. But its working now. So you will see more of me

Of course it increases logistics, but with such a low number of fighters anyway, the capability should be more important than logistics or?
As I often say, I would have taken Mig 29s only, or add some of the Sea Harriers to them if necessary, but N-LCA is just a waste.

 

[black_jack]

Of course it increases logistics, but with such a low number of fighters anyway, the capability should be more important than logistics or?
As I often say, I would have taken Mig 29s only, or add some of the Sea Harriers to them if necessary, but N-LCA is just a waste.

migs are more fuel hungry , migs are hell for maintenance .
NLCA can be used for point defense role .

 

[sancho]

migs are more fuel hungry , migs are hell for maintenance .
NLCA can be used for point defense role .

True, but the first 2 points is just a matter of logistics of costs, while the latter is a problem in operational terms and what is more problematic in war times?

 

[black_jack]

True, but the first 2 points is just a matter of logistics of costs, while the latter is a problem in operational terms and what is more problematic in war times?

With NLCA we are getting experience of developing carrier-based aircraft , if we dont work on this now next time we may take another 20-25years to develop carrier capable aircraft .

 

[sancho]

With NLCA we are getting experience of developing carrier-based aircraft , if we dont work on this now next time we may take another 20-25years to develop carrier capable aircraft .

Working on navalising a fighter is one thing, developing a fully fledged carrier fighter and inducting it in any useful number is a whole different thing!
To earn experience and know how, we only need the current N-LCA MK1, in low numbers as a tech demonstrator program. Cheap but good for the industry!
To develop and induct a fullfledged carrier fighter is more complicated and way more expensive too, but what makes it even worse wrt LCA, it's an unnecessary distractions from the real problems!

1) fixing LCA MK1 issues
2) getting it into operational service
3) further developing the upgrades

All this would be important now, especially after all the delays, but instead of keeping it simple, we have to develop LCA MK2 now, according to the requirements of 2 different forces and by splitting our resources, which leads into further delays (MK2 induction 2017!!!).

 

[black_jack]

Working on navalising a fighter is one thing, developing a fully fledged carrier fighter and inducting it in any useful number is a whole different thing!
To earn experience and know how, we only need the current N-LCA MK1, in low numbers as a tech demonstrator program. Cheap but good for the industry!
To develop and induct a fullfledged carrier fighter is more complicated and way more expensive too, but what makes it even worse wrt LCA, it's an unnecessary distractions from the real problems!

1) fixing LCA MK1 issues
2) getting it into operational service
3) further developing the upgrades

All this would be important now, especially after all the delays, but instead of keeping it simple, we have to develop LCA MK2 now, according to the requirements of 2 different forces and by splitting our resources, which leads into further delays (MK2 induction 2017!!!).

Currently ADA and HAL are working to fix issues with MK1 . Navy has not yet ordered any aircraft (except 6 prototypes) , orders will be less(no more than 2 squadrons ).
Resources are getting divided between two forces , but they are adding to their fighting capability .
LCA can be effectively used for point-defense , interception .
While migs can do CAP mission , long-range bombings .

 

[IND151]

@ post no. 13> Also N LCA is smaller than mig 29. Thus mix of both means more fighters can be carried on IAC 1. d. gUUhwxmC

 

[sancho]

Resources are getting divided between two forces , but they are adding to their fighting capability .

That's not correct, because we have teams working now on N-LCA and LCA MK2, that can't work at fixing problems of MK1, heck they have even started working on AMCA, which won't appear in the next 10 years and these resouces could be used more effectively today, without N-LCA and AMCA developments at the side.

LCA can be effectively used for point-defense , interception .
While migs can do CAP mission , long-range bombings .

Exactly, but we are not talking about IAF, where LCA will be used in big numbers per squadron and will have assistance of many more capable fighters, including strategic advantages like AWACS or Tanker aircrafts.
We are talking about N-LCA, a limited capable carrier fighter, operated in low numbers on a carrier, used via ski-jump take off which further limits it's performance, with very poor AEW support and only buddy refuelling capability of the Migs to extend their endurance and range.

LCA in IAF is a capable low end fighter, N-LCA in IN is a modest fighter and developed for the wrong reasons!

 

[sancho]

@ post no. 13> Also N LCA is smaller than mig 29. Thus mix of both means more fighters can be carried on IAC 1. d. gUUhwxmC

Not necessarily, because not the lenght it important for parking in deck for example, but the wingspan and while the Mig can fold it's wings to reduce the wingspan, N-LCA can't. If I remember correctly, the folded wingspan of the Mig is even smaller than LCAs wingspan.

 

[black_jack]

That's not correct, because we have teams working now on N-LCA and LCA MK2, that can't work at fixing problems of MK1, heck they have even started working on AMCA, which won't appear in the next 10 years and these resouces could be used more effectively today, without N-LCA and AMCA developments at the side.

I agree with you R&D takes time .But you are ignoring indigenous efforts .

Exactly, but we are not talking about IAF, where LCA will be used in big numbers per squadron and will have assistance of many more capable fighters, including strategic advantages like AWACS or Tanker aircrafts.

We are talking about N-LCA, a limited capable carrier fighter, operated in low numbers on a carrier, used via ski-jump take off which further limits it's performance, with very poor AEW support and only buddy refuelling capability of the Migs to extend their endurance and range.

twin engine planes do have many advantages over single engine plane , but there are many scenarios where NLCA can be effectively utilized like area defence , interception .

 

[sancho]

I agree with you R&D takes time .But you are ignoring indigenous efforts .

How so?

twin engine planes do have many advantages over single engine plane , but there are many scenarios where NLCA can be effectively utilized like area defence , interception .

That has nothing to do with single or twin engine and as I said, I truly believe that LCA will be a good fighter for IAF, but the operational requirements on a carrier are very different and N-LCA can't be a good carrier fighter, because it's performance will be too limited.

 

[Fireaxe888]

The Vikrant is a modified Cavour? Really?

 

[sancho]

The Vikrant is a modified Cavour? Really?

No, but the manufactuer of the Cavour was hired as an consultancy partner for this development, that's why it is likely that they will use their experience with that carrier for certain things and why author of the comparison thinks, some things like hangar size could be similar.