Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

bd popeye said:

That is a great question..I wish we knew..

Now..INS Vikramaditya

What's this??

Is that a fuel truck? ^^^ A CV should have an independent aviation fueling system with fueling stations throughout the hangar and on the flight deck capable of fueling multiple aircraft simultaneously...Tell this is not a fuel truck? Because if it is this really limits your sortie rate.

Click to expand...

Since Vikramaditya is still under testing and trials Russians probably won't be adding in thousands of gallons of aviation fuel which will cost money, for pressure testing the lines they use fuel trucks and to refuel aircraft on board they use these trucks since the fighters won't be making landings with full aviation fuel because of safety reasons

During the trials fighter aircraft won't be taking on board lots of fuel anyway so they don't need much fuel so filling up carriers with aviation fuel is probably just expensive over kill, only when carrier is handed over they will switched on the fueling systems on the carriers and start using them all out

We seen same for Laioning and the fuel truck, PLAN probably didn't want to add in fuel, much easier just use fuel truck for touch and go and also for landings, once the carrier is commissioned aircraft are landing then aviation fuel system will be switched on as fuel truck won't be able to meet demand

So I think fuel truck is only there for trials and not once commissioned, and if my memory serves me correctly INS Viraat Carrys 1,500 tons of aviation fuel, I read this in Warship magazine few years back so I can't see INS Vikramaditya coming without aviation fuel systems, India may have been ripped off but I don't think they are that short sighted

Laioning will probably take more aviation fuel than INS Vikramaditya since its much bigger

Incidental how much tons of aviation fuel does USN carriers take?

bd popeye said:

That is a great question..I wish we knew..

Now..INS Vikramaditya

What's this??

Is that a fuel truck? ^^^ A CV should have an independent aviation fueling system with fueling stations throughout the hangar and on the flight deck capable of fueling multiple aircraft simultaneously...Tell this is not a fuel truck? Because if it is this really limits your sortie rate.

Click to expand...

I even saw a couple of pictures of farm tractors parked on the INS Viraat near its main structure on another forum. Someone there also mentioned that the Brits had some tractors on HMS Eagle as well but that was decades ago. Guess those tractors are cheaper to operate and their tires aren't as slippery??

It stands to reason that the Indians will use these type of tractors just like the Russians use

We seen same for Laioning and the fuel truck, PLAN probably didn't want to add in fuel, much easier just use fuel truck for touch and go and also for landings, once the carrier is commissioned aircraft are landing then aviation fuel system will be switched on as fuel truck won't be able to meet demand

Click to expand...

Never, ever seen a fuel truck on any carrier I served on. Never. That's why the ship has a aviation fueling system. I say use it.

just my opinion.

Incidental how much tons of aviation fuel does USN carriers take?

Click to expand...

A Nimitz class can store 3.3 million gallons of aviation fuel. nearly 12,000 tons.... and that's not metric.

Someone there also mentioned that the Brits had some tractors on HMS Eagle as well but that was decades ago. Guess those tractors are cheaper to operate and their tires aren't as slippery??

Click to expand...

The USN used farm type tractors 60+ years ago.

hkbc said:

Sea Hawks from the Vikrant never attacked Chittagong harbour or sank the East Pakistani gun boats in 1971?

Click to expand...

Well, as I understand it, The Vikrant was sailed towards the East Pakistani coast near Chittagong on the morning of Dec 4th. That day, the first strike against Pakistan was launched with eight Sea Hawks led by Lt Cdr S K Gupta. They attacked the Chittagong airfield and Harbour with bombs and rockets. The Harbour Control tower was damaged, a fuel dump destroyed , two gunboats in the harbour sunk and another two merchant ships in the outer anchorage heavily damaged.

Outside of a few bullet holes in one of the aricraft, the Indian aircraft all returned to the carrier in good working order.

The Vikrant attacked Chittagong again the next day. Additonal targets of Chalna, Khulna and Mongla harbours were also attacked. On the 6th, the Sea Hawks suceeded in sinking two more gunboats with rocket fire, an armed merchant ship, the Ondarda, was subk too. Also an Anti aircraft battery at Patanga near Chittagong was attacked and 12 AA guns were destroyed that day.

On the 7th, six Seahawks were launched against targets in Barisal and Pathuakali areas. Three enemy barges carrying troops and equipment were reported sunk.

As to PNS Ganzi (which was a former US Trench class submarine), it is widely believed that the INS Rajput found and sank her during the early morning hours of Dec 4th off the Indian coast where she had been sent to find the Vikrant...but the Vikrant has already left that area and somewhere near the Andaman Islands at the time. The records show that the Rajput found and prosecuted a submarine contact with depth charges and reported that after the attack the contact could no longer be found. The Ganzi never returned to base. The Pakisanis indicate that there are discrepancies in the INdian account and contend that a mysterious explosion destroyed the Ganzi which was no necessarily the Indian Navy's doing.

Here's a pretty good description of all the INS Operations in the Eastern Theater f the War.



So yes, the Indians did conduct naval air operations with their carrier during the war, and conducted numerous attack missions on Eastern Pakistan (Bangladesh after the war) ports and vessels and aircraft in or near them.

hkbc said:

So are you claiming the Sea Hawks from the Vikrant never attacked Chittagong harbour or sank the East Pakistani gun boats in 1971? For the purposes of full disclosure I am not Indian and I don't have an axe to grind about the disputes between Pakistan and India.

I think the PLA Navy has achieved a great deal with the commissioning of the Liaoning which they can be justifiably proud. That achievement stands on its own and doesn't need the denial of the history or the put downs of the capabilities and achievements of other Navies to "reinforce" it.

In the same vein the Indians can be proud that after the billions they've invested they'll have a Carrier that's a great improvement over the one that it's replacing.

Given the respective carriers are both STOBAR I for one would relish the sight of the IN and PLAN carriers in some cross decking exercises! A sentiment that's probably not universally shared!

Click to expand...

And since when has it become glourios to conduct air operations in skys free of enemy aircraft and attack and destroy civilian ground targets and lightly armed machine installations, I repeat "sky's free of enemy aircraft"

Its like Thailand deploying HTMS Chakri Naruebet attack few targets in Burma and declare victory

As this was in East Pakistan as in Bangladesh not West Pakistan, I was referring to India not deploying its carriers in war with Pakistan as in today's Pakistan

And Jeff, there is only one war India won that is the media war, in 1971 Pakistan had no government or leadership,
We had internal issue with East Pakistan when like cowards India jumped in and took advantage and then quickly declared victory, East Pakistan was always going to become independent it was never going to work, our supply's were thousands of mile apart and we didn't have logistics to resupply

Operating a carrier in a zone free of enemy aircraft and attacking few converted machine gun boats is nothing to brag about, when the only threat appeard in the form of PNS Ghazi like cowards they sent their carrier to Andaman Islands

Even today India use this as a pretext to validate arms procurements, but like I said operating a carrier in a "safe" zone attacking civilian targets, civilian shipping and few gun installations does not make a combat record

I wonder where the carriers were in 1998 and 2002, India would never dare to send its carriers into zone which it knows there is even 1% chance of a counter attack

asif iqbal said:

Since Vikramaditya is still under testing and trials Russians probably won't be adding in thousands of gallons of aviation fuel which will cost money, for pressure testing the lines they use fuel trucks and to refuel aircraft on board they use these trucks since the fighters won't be making landings with full aviation fuel because of safety reasons

During the trials fighter aircraft won't be taking on board lots of fuel anyway so they don't need much fuel so filling up carriers with aviation fuel is probably just expensive over kill, only when carrier is handed over they will switched on the fueling systems on the carriers and start using them all out

We seen same for Laioning and the fuel truck, PLAN probably didn't want to add in fuel, much easier just use fuel truck for touch and go and also for landings, once the carrier is commissioned aircraft are landing then aviation fuel system will be switched on as fuel truck won't be able to meet demand

So I think fuel truck is only there for trials and not once commissioned, and if my memory serves me correctly INS Viraat Carrys 1,500 tons of aviation fuel, I read this in Warship magazine few years back so I can't see INS Vikramaditya coming without aviation fuel systems, India may have been ripped off but I don't think they are that short sighted

Laioning will probably take more aviation fuel than INS Vikramaditya since its much bigger

Incidental how much tons of aviation fuel does USN carriers take?

Click to expand...

A good point about the fuel truck. Liaonang will have been using her own fuel system for fueling helicopters and J-15's from when the fuel truck was not carried. For fueling helicopters the fuel truck will have sufficed.

asif iqbal said:

And since when has it become glourios to conduct air operations in skys free of enemy aircraft and attack and destroy civilian ground targets and lightly armed machine installations, I repeat "sky's free of enemy aircraft"

Its like Thailand deploying HTMS Chakri Naruebet attack few targets in Burma and declare victory

As this was in East Pakistan as in Bangladesh not West Pakistan, I was referring to India not deploying its carriers in war with Pakistan as in today's Pakistan

And Jeff, there is only one war India won that is the media war, in 1971 Pakistan had no government or leadership,
We had internal issue with East Pakistan when like cowards India jumped in and took advantage and then quickly declared victory, East Pakistan was always going to become independent it was never going to work, our supply's were thousands of mile apart and we didn't have logistics to resupply

Operating a carrier in a zone free of enemy aircraft and attacking few converted machine gun boats is nothing to brag about, when the only threat appeard in the form of PNS Ghazi like cowards they sent their carrier to Andaman Islands

Even today India use this as a pretext to validate arms procurements, but like I said operating a carrier in a "safe" zone attacking civilian targets, civilian shipping and few gun installations does not make a combat record

I wonder where the carriers were in 1998 and 2002, India would never dare to send its carriers into zone which it knows there is even 1% chance of a counter attack

Click to expand...

No one is bragging about anything and there's never any glory in war!

In 1971 the Indians fueled up some planes, loaded them with ordnance, launched them from a carrier, the planes found it's targets, the targets were attacked, the planes returned and landed back safely on the deck of said carrier. The fact it happened in the midst of a war means it's deemed a combat operation rather than an exercise, that it happened more than once would indicate that they could repeat it, so it wasn't blind luck. The fact that it's in the historical record as explained by Jeff means I didn't make it up!

This in "most" people's lexicon would be considered "carrier operations" (I concede it's most since the mere fact I am having to write this means it's not universal!), this counts towards "experience" which can be built upon. The fact that the planes and the carrier were probably obsolete, even back then, that the targets they attacked were soft doesn't detract from the fact that the Indian Navy performed "carrier operations" and therefore has knowledge and experience, which other Navies, who have not, as yet, had the opportunity, do not. My ORIGINAL POINT before it got all bent into a Pakistan India thing!

Now, no one is besmirching the good name of Pakistan's military or for that matter Pakistan, this is the aircraft carrier thread and Pakistan's navy doesn't have an aircraft carrier, are about to build or buy an aircraft carrier, so it's pretty pointless to talk about Pakistan here. If you want to declare how great their airforce is or how superior their nukes are by all means I am sure there's other threads in the forum for that if not you can start one. But I am not interested in a Pakistan vs India d*ck measuring contest or people airbrushing history, what next the lunar landings never happened!

bd popeye said:

Never, ever seen a fuel truck on any carrier I served on. Never. That's why the ship has a aviation fueling system. I say use it.

just my opinion.


A Nimitz class can store 3.3 million gallons of aviation fuel. nearly 12,000 tons.... and that's not metric.


The USN used farm type tractors 60+ years ago.

Click to expand...

It is strange to keep seeing fuel trucks

As the carrier is going through it's sea trials I would have thought they would need to load it up with aviation fuel at some point, several thousand tons of fuel is going to alter the seagoing properties of the vessel which they must surely need to test! If they loaded it up they might as well just pump it into the planes! All a bit weird, unless the truck isn't a fuel truck!

hkbc said:

No one is bragging about anything and there's never any glory in war!

Click to expand...

Amen...though there is bravery and honor and accomplishments that are and should be lauded and remembered...as well as horrible things that also must be remembered and prepared for so as to not allow them to be repeated.

hkbc said:

In 1971 the Indians fueled up some planes, loaded them with ordnance, launched them from a carrier, the planes found it's targets, the targets were attacked, the planes returned and landed back safely on the deck of said carrier. The fact it happened in the midst of a war means it's deemed a combat operation rather than an exercise, that it happened more than once would indicate that they could repeat it, so it wasn't blind luck. The fact that it's in the historical record as explained by Jeff means I didn't make it up!

This in "most" people's lexicon would be considered "carrier operations" .

Click to expand...

Also spot on. It is what happened.

Now, if I mght just add that the targets were not all undefended. There were numerous AA sites at those targets which fired upon the attacking aircraft...some striking those aircraft. In addition, the PAK Air Force was operating in East Pakistan, they just never had the opportunity to contest these attacks.

As you say, this was not an action that was seriously contested...but it was combat and bullets were flying.

This does not discount Pakistan as much as it simply relates history. It is what happened, and the INS did gain combat operations experience with it. And the Pakistanis later talked about it, indicating thatt he presences of the carrier and its attacks made a diiffernce in the overall battle in the eastern theater.

Now, it was 40 years ago, and the experience has been folded into their SOPs of the Indian Navy and such, but no one operating the Indian aircraft today (outside of some older Admirals perhaps commanding them) acutally experienced it.

As one historian noted, this was the one occassion where Indian political leadership used their aircrft carrier to good effect in a conflict. Those few days amount to that carrier at the time, Vikrant, being where it needed to be and doing what it was built to do for a few days of actual flight operations, and being there for a few weeks to conduct any more that might have been necessary.