It was most definetly a bad deal in the long run, If India had started construction of a carrier in 2001 when gorshkov dicussions started, then we would have had a functional carrier now to take over from viraat.
Also as is typical with any Indian Defence procurement the needs/expectations/additions on the AC kept changing from the Navy. Plus the russian initial estimates on the condition of the ship and the amount of rework to be done was also wrong.
India was not technically strong enough to start carrier construction in 2001, the basic infrastructure needed for a task of this complexity was missing from Indian shipyards.
Has India indicated any interest in Oto Melaras guided munitions?
India could have started construction in a foreign yard (Italy would seem to be a good choice), with Indian personnel being seconded to learn, & by now the IN would have a new carrier in commission, with a second building in India, & probably more advanced in construction than Vikrant (ain't that what the ship building at Cochin is called?). In a few years the IN would have a class of two ships in service, one foreign-built with Indian involvement, a second Indian-built with foreign assistance, with the advantages in logistics & crew training (particularly for cross-decking) of commonality, & be able to build further ships unaided.
10 years back fixing Gorshkov was a similar idea, lets get an aircraft carrier quick until the shipyards back home muster up the technology to do so
.But an extremely ill thought out one. The condition of the ship wasn't ascertained prior to starting work, so it was not known if the contract was achievable. There was obviously no provision made for a follow-on second in class, which would have been the logical way to transfer skills gained assisting in construction, & I've not been able to discover any real, useful, provision for transfer of skills via secondment of Indians to the build.10 years back fixing Gorshkov was a similar idea, lets get an aircraft carrier quick until the shipyards back home muster up the technology to do so
Why wouldn't it? There's anough material available from multiple ski-jump users to work out the parameters - on top of which they would have simmed this before cutting and welding metal.That is...ASSUMING, this rebuilt, grafted on ski-jump lump DOES actually work! DFO
the issue is about relevance of the angle and how the overall shape impacts turning into the wind etc...Take a good look at public photos of that ski-jump: instead of smoothly "fairing" the shape-on sides-into the hull, it has a "ledge" at its bottom that appears to jut out 6-12inches; should be wonderful in heavy seas?? DFO
I've worked on a variety of weapons, systems and platform programs over the last 30 years, both in govt and in the private sector as a consultant/contractor. functional aesthetics has never come into it. OTOH, the push in the last few years has been Human Factors, which takes functional layout considerations into how operators use the gear - but whether its pretty or not is not an issue. It's about form and function. The days of grace and form probably died with the US and Russian maritime engineers/shipwrights with the last of the clippers. (battleships/battlecruisers/cruisers)
CREF above. I can tell you that aesthetics is the last design priority, the notion that if it "looks nice" then it "fights nice" basically died in the 70'sFor example, when the USN did the various SCB 127 mods to the Essex class CVs, including the enclosed hurricane bows, function was the driving force behind smoothly fairing the new bow shape into the existing hull. Also, given the sleek hull forms Soviet/Russian warships typically have, this "tacked on" approach seems strange for them. Given the modified carrier was "FREE", I guess to much shouldn't be expected!!
Even tho the CLG Kerch was not a carrier, this view certainly shows what seems to be their normal approach to hull design. DFO
Human Factors is not about ergonomics though, ergonomics is part of the evaluation structure in HF, but its only a small component.Yes, I'm well aware of ergonomics (Human Factors) as I have worked those into every design project that had any need for them for 38+ years. Many times though expieranced Engineers didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about! DFO
Meanwhile BACK to the subject of the carrier...has anyone seen newer photos of her? DFO
Sorry it is not simply down to shape and other ships with similarly flared bow strcutures can manage quite well. A flared bow has the advantage of providing a massive increase in bouyancy a the bow dips limiting the risk of drivng the bow in.Take a good look at public photos of that ski-jump: instead of smoothly "fairing" the shape-on sides-into the hull, it has a "ledge" at its bottom that appears to jut out 6-12inches; should be wonderful in heavy seas?? DFO
Sorry to come in again so soon but I am reading through the thread. Sorry HF is not ergonmoics, athough this element of design does play a part in some contributory mechanism. As noted in the paper below, HF, cover a very broad range of issues that lead to risk to safety or adverse performance.Yes, I'm well aware of ergonomics (Human Factors) as I have worked those into every design project that had any need for them for 38+ years. Many times though expieranced Engineers didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about! DFO
http://www.geovs.com/_UPLOADED/Human Error and Marine Safety.pdf