Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

[Ayan Barat]

Why are the runways as long as they are?

Runaway length, L = {m(Vₜ² - 2gh)}/{2(T - D - μW)}

m = mass of aircraft, Vₜ = take-off speed, g = 9.8m/s², h = ski jump height, T = thrust, D = drag, μW = rolling friction

But this length can't be too long compared to the hull of the ship because then a large part of it would extend beyond the hull and this might compromise it's structural integrity.

The hull can be made bigger according to the runway length but then your tonnage would increase drastically.

Won't a few dozen metres increase the takeoff payload of the jets?

Yes, but not significantly.

 

[randombully]

One thing I have wondered about & would like to ask the Navy Gurus here. Why are the runways as long as they are?.. Won't a few dozen metres increase the takeoff payload of the jets?

Why not this? Slightly longer runways with no tonnage increase
View attachment 24054
View attachment 24053

Could possibly allow extra 100-150 kg payload increase.
If we " assume" 2.5 ton payload with 60% fuel
The extra 20-30 meters can increase payload by 5+%.
But an astra mk1 weighs 154kg, so on the higher end of increased payload, risky to add.

So extra 100-150kg is payload is just not worth it, when even medium air to air missile weighs 100+kg.
If the increase was 200-250 kg then an extra missile(125-190 kg) can be safely added.

The only extra weight added can be fuel, but about 100kg more fuel will add 30-40km extra range, not worth it when you can carry an extra helicopter/ jet on that space.

 

[shade2]

One thing I have wondered about & would like to ask the Navy Gurus here. Why are the runways as long as they are?.. Won't a few dozen metres increase the takeoff payload of the jets?

Why not this? Slightly longer runways with no tonnage increase
View attachment 24054
View attachment 24053

Runaway length, L = {m(Vₜ² - 2gh)}/{2(T - D - μW)}

m = mass of aircraft, Vₜ = take-off speed, g = 9.8m/s², h = ski jump height, T = thrust, D = drag, μW = rolling friction

But this length can't be too long compared to the hull of the ship because then a large part of it would extend beyond the hull and this might compromise it's structural integrity.

The hull can be made bigger according to the runway length but then your tonnage would increase drastically.

Yes, but not significantly.

Why didn't the WDB make a larger design like Kuznetsov? iirc that's 60k displacement.

Did they wish to start small and manageable for first aircraft carrier and leave the 65k+ displacement for the future INS Vishal type CATOBAR carrier?

Never knew about this before but i'm reading a lot these days about the less payload carried by our carrier based jet as compared to something like the J-15 or F-18, those are bigger jets anyway and so are their carriers, I've read even our Rafale-Ms will carry lesser payload as compared to the French ones on CDG because of the STOBAR takeoff in Vikrant.

 

[randombully]

Why didn't the WDB make a larger design like Kuznetsov? iirc that's 60k displacement.

Did they wish to start small and manageable for first aircraft carrier and leave the 65k+ displacement for the future INS Vishal type CATOBAR carrier?

Never knew about this before but i'm reading a lot these days about the less payload carried by our carrier based jet as compared to something like the J-15 or F-18, those are bigger jets anyway and so are their carriers, I've read even our Rafale-Ms will carry lesser payload as compared to the French ones on CDG because of the STOBAR takeoff in Vikrant.

Vikrant construction started in 2013.
Our gdp was "1.8 trillion".
Vikrant was previously envisioned as a 32000 tons carrier, it was later enlarged to 45000+ tons, we couldn't even dream of a bigger carrier than this back then

 

[Bleh]

Why didn't the WDB make a larger design like Kuznetsov? iirc that's 60k displacement.

Did they wish to start small and manageable for first aircraft carrier and leave the 65k+ displacement for the future INS Vishal type CATOBAR carrier?

Never knew about this before but i'm reading a lot these days about the less payload carried by our carrier based jet as compared to something like the J-15 or F-18, those are bigger jets anyway and so are their carriers, I've read even our Rafale-Ms will carry lesser payload as compared to the French ones on CDG because of the STOBAR takeoff in Vikrant.

If we're have a kuznetsov sized AC while retaining our Vikky-styles runway structures then our Naval jets will be about to take-off at near full-load.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Why didn't the WDB make a larger design like Kuznetsov?

Can't comment on that but the most probably guess would be that they'd didn't want to veer off too much on the first try from whatever experience they had; INS Vikramaditya.

less payload carried by our carrier based jet as compared to something like the J-15 or F-18

It's illogical to compare with CATOBAR as you've thrust by engines + "thrust" by catapult; so you've more thrust.

It's more comparable to something like a J-15 where you don't have external force. So whatever thrust is necessary comes form the engines itself.

Runaway length, L = {m(Vₜ² - 2gh)}/{2(T - D - μW)}

If we declutter this a bit then we'd be left with; Runaway length, L = m/T. Or we can say that T/m (thrust-to-weight ratio) ∝ 1/L, which means it TWR is high then you won't need a longer runway.

TWR of both J-15 and MiG-29K is similar with probably just a 0.02 worth of difference. But it's wing area is around 68m² compared to 45m² of MiG-29K; that's 50% more wing area. This translates to it generating more lift.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

One thing I have wondered about & would like to ask the Navy Gurus here. Why are the runways as long as they are?.. Won't a few dozen metres increase the takeoff payload of the jets?

Why not this? Slightly longer runways with no tonnage increase
View attachment 24054
View attachment 24053

Ask orange man for EMALs, pay necessary jizziya with a smile. Haul the Vikrant back to CSL for an emergency refit with 2 catapults, extend the angled deck. Incorporate the same on IAC-2 but with wider lifts and more displacement. Revisit uncle, and ask for Hawkeyes, they can't be stowed below deck so they'll have to stay outside all the time.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Ask orange man for EMALs, pay necessary jizziya with a smile. Haul the Vikrant back to CSL for an emergency refit with 2 catapults, extend the angled deck. Incorporate the same on IAC-2 but with wider lifts and more displacement. Revisit uncle, and ask for Hawkeyes, they can't be stowed below deck so they'll have to stay outside all the time.

Maalik, if you're ready for this much hassle then why don't just order two Type-003 from Uncle Pooh. Delivery would be faster, can probably get a whole ahh carrier for the price of just one Muh Murican EMALS, pre-installed DeepSeek, bLuEtOoTh DeViCe CoNnEcTeD everytime a place lands

 

[shade2]

Ask orange man for EMALs, pay necessary jizziya with a smile. Haul the Vikrant back to CSL for an emergency refit with 2 catapults, extend the angled deck. Incorporate the same on IAC-2 but with wider lifts and more displacement. Revisit uncle, and ask for Hawkeyes, they can't be stowed below deck so they'll have to stay outside all the time.

EMALS is apparently so expensive that US ghulams like UK and Italy can't afford it.
It's another thing they won't sell it to us though, not a question of money even if our chindis were willing to pay

Last I heard DRDO is developing an EMALS, they are testing a smaller shore based version.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

Maalik, if you're ready for this much hassle then why don't just order two Type-003 from Uncle Pooh. Delivery would be faster, can probably get a whole ahh carrier for the price of just one Muh Murican EMALS, pre-installed DeepSeek, bLuEtOoTh DeViCe CoNnEcTeD everytime a place lands

EMALS is apparently so expensive that US ghulams like UK and Italy can't afford it.
It's another thing they won't sell it to us though, not a question of money even if our chindis were willing to pay

Last I heard DRDO is developing an EMALS, they are testing a smaller shore based version.

Problem here is that air wings from a STOBAR carrier can't undertake any meaningful ops these days. Lobbing a singular Kh-35 at a corvette might be fun, running a cap screen around the fleet during a limited conflict will be painful. Buddy-refueling is a band-aid solution and wastes reaction time. Whatever DRDO is cooking won't see service before 2035. For some weapons, we can kinda afford to wait for that long, not our carriers. If we don't do anything, IAC 2 will be another STOBAR carrier. Money wasted on a new ship that can't even match the performance of an older and smaller CATOBAR CDG.

 

[randombully]

Maalik, if you're ready for this much hassle then why don't just order two Type-003 from Uncle Pooh. Delivery would be faster, can probably get a whole ahh carrier for the price of just one Muh Murican EMALS, pre-installed DeepSeek, bLuEtOoTh DeViCe CoNnEcTeD everytime a place lands

Waise isse yaad Aya, fr*nch ke saath Kaye nai gush Rahe future carrier ke liye?

 

[shade2]

Problem here is that air wings from a STOBAR carrier can't undertake any meaningful ops these days. Lobbing a singular Kh-35 at a corvette might be fun, running a cap screen around the fleet during a limited conflict will be painful. Buddy-refueling is a band-aid solution and wastes reaction time. Whatever DRDO is cooking won't see service before 2035. For some weapons, we can kinda afford to wait for that long, not our carriers. If we don't do anything, IAC 2 will be another STOBAR carrier. Money wasted on a new ship that can't even match the performance of an older and smaller CATOBAR CDG.

IAC 2 is another Vikrant-class carrier, perhaps the only mod will be making the elevators bigger to fit Rafale.

Anyway emals is out of the question, we can try begging the US for their steam catapult though, will possibly need an inflated jaziya plus US personnel to operate it like CDG has.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

we can try begging the US for their steam catapult though

Not with Vikrant's powerplant.

 

[Bleh]

our carrier based jet as compared to something like the J-15 or F-18, those are bigger jets anyway and so are their carriers,

J-15 also suffer from the same issue, as our Mig-29s as despite having 65 K10 carrier they do not have longer runways. This is the max they can do.


I say our nival year Army should concentrate fully on air superiority. With BrahMos & AShBM on warships those puny A2G missiles aren't gonna do much. Let them prioritised protecting the fleet from enemy land-based air attacks.

Hawkeyes, they can't be stowed below deck so they'll have to stay outside all the time.

Again...

 

[randombully]

J-15 also suffer from the same issue, as our Mig-29s as despite having 65 K10 carrier they do not have longer runways. This is the max they can do.
View attachment 24066

I say our nival year Army should concentrate fully on air superiority. With BrahMos & AShBM on warships those puny A2G missiles aren't gonna do much. Let them prioritised protecting the fleet from enemy land-based air attacks.


Again...
View attachment 24065

And who the fuck offers a sea plane based awacs? Do you know how expensive and time consuming it will to develop it, but not us as we cant develop it.

 

[Bleh]

And who the fuck offers a sea plane based awacs? Do you know how expensive and time consuming it will to develop it, but not us as we cant develop it.

I do not... Why will it be extra expensive?
Hell we can even partner the ShinMaywa US-2 platforms from Japan, as it's rough sea capable. We don't need many of them, for 5-6 we should import.


Once the platform is developed you can use it as refueler & awacs both, enhancing the capabilities of our sky-jumps jets manyfolds!

 

[randombully]

View: https://x.com/Varun55484761/status/1887025031965794658

More upgrades.
Isse accha to ek stealthy airframe develop Kar lete, naval amca type ka.
Uske varients Bana lete, ek ko internal ke saath external bhi carry kare( not stealth) aur koi stealthy coating na ho usme f35 jaisi.
Dusra stealthy varient with stealth coating, jisse sirf stealthy missions karao( sometimes it can also carry external loads depending on need) aur high low mix ban gaya around same airframe.
And do you know, another advantage we can easily convert non stealthy varient into stealthy varient.
@Ayan Barat, now I believe navy must have smarter people than me so like any reason they Didn't went this way.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Runaway length, L = {m(Vₜ² - 2gh)}/{2(T - D - μW)}

m = mass of aircraft, Vₜ = take-off speed, g = 9.8m/s², h = ski jump height, T = thrust, D = drag, μW = rolling friction

But this length can't be too long compared to the hull of the ship because then a large part of it would extend beyond the hull and this might compromise it's structural integrity.

The hull can be made bigger according to the runway length but then your tonnage would increase drastically.

Yes, but not significantly.

Adding to the formula.


View: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/takeoff-and-landing-flight-mechanics-gate-aerospace/237803321

 

[Migflug]

View: https://x.com/Varun55484761/status/1887025031965794658

More upgrades.
Isse accha to ek stealthy airframe develop Kar lete, naval amca type ka.
Uske varients Bana lete, ek ko internal ke saath external bhi carry kare( not stealth) aur koi stealthy coating na ho usme f35 jaisi.
Dusra stealthy varient with stealth coating, jisse sirf stealthy missions karao( sometimes it can also carry external loads depending on need) aur high low mix ban gaya around same airframe.
And do you know, another advantage we can easily convert non stealthy varient into stealthy varient.
@Ayan Barat, now I believe navy must have smarter people than me so like any reason they Didn't went this way.

I think other than the internal weapon bay and design, it will be similar to AMCA in most aspects!!

 

[randombully]

I do not... Why will it be extra expensive?
Hell we can even partner the ShinMaywa US-2 platforms from Japan, as it's rough sea capable. We don't need many of them, for 5-6 we should import.
View attachment 24069
View attachment 24067View attachment 24068
Once the platform is developed you can use it as refueler & awacs both, enhancing the capabilities of our sky-jumps jets manyfolds!

Are you thinking of it travelling like a boat with a carrier group and then taking off to act as awacs?
In that case let me tell you, its range if it travels like a boat will easily decrease by 30-50%., it won't match range of ships.
And it won't have endurance that ships have.
In this case, it just makes more sense to bring a land based awacs with the help of aerial refuling.