F-35B or 35C for future Indian Carrier?

The thing that needs to be kept in mind here is:
Will the Indians be willing to pay the huge price of the F-35 (which ever model is bought)?

Remember how the Indian’s always sign up for buying things but take years to negotiate a lower price by which time the cost has come down anyway so they try to lower it further!

Will the US (who really need funds atm) be willing to lower the price of the lightning to allow India to buy any? Given the recent debacle of the old Russian Spy ring in the US (what a joke that was), would the us allow the Indian’s to buy their premier fighter knowing that the Russians would some how get a look at them and thus produce a competitive version at a cheaper price some time after?

Sure the US have started selling various military systems to India (the P-8 for starters), but that’s all low risk sales, the F-35 comes in as a high risk item and I don’t think the US are willing to go down that path. So while LM might be offering it, selling it isn’t in their court, it’s down to Congress who I would be really shocked if they said yes!

Seems like the US Govt has given the go ahead to LM to market the F-35 to IN since they’ve had multiple presentations on this with the IN and are going to respond to IN’s RFI. The US has also had NG aggressively marketing the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye to the IN. I’m not sure that they’d market these to the IN unless at some level they did get a go ahead. I know that its one thing to get preliminary agreements from the US Govt. to market a product with presentations but quite another to get full blown licenses, but how likely the F-35 will be for the IN will likely depend on how much technology access they demand. I find it highly unlikely that the IAF will take any interest in the F-35, since they have the PAK-FA’s FGFA, so that leaves a small purchase of 40-50 F-35s the most likely option, for which ToT and local assembly may not be required (as in the case of the MiG-29K). That should ease US concerns over technology transfer.

Don’t forget that the IN is the first international customer for the P-8 and the deal was signed in record time (by Indian standards). The P-8I will almost concurrently enter service in both USN and IN, which indicates that the level of trust on the part of the US is not as low as you seem to think.

Your points also don’t hold any water when one looks at the C-130J deal, for which the IAF took a specialized Special Forces version of the aircraft that costs more than what is being sold to most other countries..And apparently the follow-on options for 6 more will be converted soon too. The deals that are being signed through FMS don’t seem cheap by any standards and the now in the news C-17 deal also bears that out.

One more item- the F-35’s price is not as exhorbitant as many people have been made to think. From RAAF’s recent quotes, one is inclined to think that the F-35 will be a sub-$ 100 million fighter, albeit with export variants at lower levels of capability than the US versions. I’m aware that the RAAF version is the F-35A, but with large USMC and USN as well as RN orders, the F-35C and B shouldn’t be substantially more expensive, IMO.

Anbody would think you have been talking to Carlo (I want the F22) Copp!:D Ja…

Looks like new JBD are the order of the day!

I spoke to him in person once at the Avalon 2007 do, this was when he was still trying to save the Pigs from the chop and still going on about how the RAAF should have bought the C747 rather than the C-17 due to commonality with Qantas. I tried to ask him about his Naval conclusions only to get told he had to take a call but it was nice chatting to me!

And for everyy link u post I can post
The oppisite. http://armoredd.com/blog/archives/3693
U still haven’t provej beyond doubt that F-35w burn
Decks. Remember 20klb cool down wash. (please excuse phone
(excuse phone typing)

I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything- you asked for links and there they are. I’ll let you argue with the person about this issue. But as I said, I do remember this being an issue back in the initial stages and also with the Yak-144 Freestyle.

And for everyy link u post I can post
The oppisite. http://armoredd.com/blog/archives/3693
U still haven’t provej beyond doubt that F-35w burn
Decks. Remember 20klb cool down wash. (please excuse phone
(excuse phone typing)

Anbody would think you have been talking to Carlo (I want the F22) Copp!:D Ja…

Looks like new JBD are the order of the day!

I had heard this before but I have never seen it in action, I did a bit of digging around and came up with this:

[INDENT]

Deck Damage

The Pentagon’s Gilmore said in his report that the engine and power-systems’ exhaust on the Navy and Marine versions is powerful enough to pose a threat to carrier personnel. The blasts also may damage shields used to deflect heat on the deck, including on the CVN-21 carrier, the Navy’s most expensive warship.

“Early analyses of findings indicate that integration of the F-35 into the CVN-21 will result in damage to the carrier deck environment and will adversely affect hangar deck operations,” Gilmore wrote.

The Navy model’s exhaust area is larger than the Boeing planes’, making the jet-blast deflectors used during launch “vulnerable to warping and failure,” he wrote.

Exhaust from the Marine Corp version’s integrated power system deflect downward and may be “a hazard to flight deck refueling, munitions, personnel and equipment” located on catwalks, the report said.

Lockheed spokesman Chris Giesel said tests conducted with the JSF Program Office and the Navy “are showing positive results regarding compatibility of the F-35’s exhaust with carrier decks and tarmac surfaces. The study will conclude in spring 2010.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at [email]acapaccio@bloomberg.net[/email].

[/INDENT]

Mind you this was when the program got underway.

After further checking I have more info:

Gates Sacks Stealth Jet Chief, Blasts ‘Troubling Record’ of Crucial Plane

and this:

Ministerial undersight of JSF falls to new low while its US critic Bill Sweetman is silenced

These are dated from Feb 1 and May 11 this year respectively so I guess it is a serious problem. I remember this being a problem with the Yak 144 as well back when it was around.

***Additional***
F-35 and V-22: Keeping it Cool on Deck

Im still waiting on that field evidence. Photos maybe.

I posted you factual data. I’m waiting on your evidence of deck Burn through.

I made an argument based on practical evidence. What the DOD is thinking. And so on.

Provide a source that says DOD is not skeptical anymore and it should be dated later than April 2010. I doubt it. As of April 2010 it is clear problems persist. What could have happened in two months that would change that perception.

It is very expensive to take a gamble with a carrier deck. If it buckles in 1 year the deck needs to be replaced costing lots of money.

This is a question of taking the carrier-based F35B operation from 95% to a 100% problem-free operation.

I know F35B can land vertically. :p

I dont think you understood what my line of thinking is. I am talking of realities on the ground. The article is called dodbuzz for a reason. These effects are being seen. Its like the difference between practice and theory.

What you are saying is = theory. Save it for the einsteins.
What I am trying to say is = practice = ground reality. :p

So you have actually factual evidence that a F-35 burned through a deck?
Your claiming that my simple math is a pie in the sky theory. please link the article showing evidence of F-35 burn through. Please link the evidence ( I want pictures of the burnt deck) of the ground reality that you speak of.

I know F35B can land vertically. :p

I dont think you understood what my line of thinking is. I am talking of realities on the ground. The article is called dodbuzz for a reason. These effects are being seen. Its like the difference between practice and theory.

What you are saying is = theory.
What I am trying to say is = practice = ground reality. :p

Link

Quotes:

“you have to look at it from the perspective of total kinetic energy of the engine thrust. AV-8B has a thrust rating of 23,000lbs, whereas an F-35B thrust rating is 41,000lbs. He’s comparing a cigar torch lighter to a blow torch. Additionally, he’s got other thermal issues he needs to worry about as well, like overheating avionics and cockpit temperatures,” the aide said.

“We showed the Lockheed comments to a congressional aide familiar with the data and the reaction was pointed, and skeptical: “Temperature may be the same, but at what force over time is the temperature being applied to the flight deck material and surfaces? The ‘extensive test results’ have not been provided to date. However, if that’s the case, then why was all the modeling and simulation of forecasted heating effects contained in the material incorrect, and why is the risk chart mostly red? Why is the test community very concerned about it in their [annual test] report? Why is the Naval Facilities Engineering Command concerned about it in how they build the VSTOL landing pads? What’s the temperature difference between AV-8B and V-22 engine exhaust, and why does V-22 require special landing mats aboard ship? Why does the Navy plan to not allow the Marine Corps to land F-35B aircraft on aircraft carriers?”

This is a very recent article dated April 2010 so this is a current issue. They are talking about cooled aviation fuel, and liquid cooled carrier decks.

23K pound of thrust is still 23k of thrust no matter how you slice it.
Your totally ignoring the 20k of cold thrust coming from the front end of the machine creating a significant plume and very likely mixing with the hot air plume below. Militaries and government agencies always test these types of things no matter if they are a risk or not. If the rear nozzle was 2 or 3 times the velocity of the forward fan the plane would not be stable. You have nearly the entire thrust of the AV8 coming form a cold Nozzle and your telling me that it will not have any effect on the heat plume below?

Link

Quotes:

“you have to look at it from the perspective of total kinetic energy of the engine thrust. AV-8B has a thrust rating of 23,000lbs, whereas an F-35B thrust rating is 41,000lbs. He’s comparing a cigar torch lighter to a blow torch. Additionally, he’s got other thermal issues he needs to worry about as well, like overheating avionics and cockpit temperatures,” the aide said.

“We showed the Lockheed comments to a congressional aide familiar with the data and the reaction was pointed, and skeptical: “Temperature may be the same, but at what force over time is the temperature being applied to the flight deck material and surfaces? The ‘extensive test results’ have not been provided to date. However, if that’s the case, then why was all the modeling and simulation of forecasted heating effects contained in the material incorrect, and why is the risk chart mostly red? Why is the test community very concerned about it in their [annual test] report? Why is the Naval Facilities Engineering Command concerned about it in how they build the VSTOL landing pads? What’s the temperature difference between AV-8B and V-22 engine exhaust, and why does V-22 require special landing mats aboard ship? Why does the Navy plan to not allow the Marine Corps to land F-35B aircraft on aircraft carriers?”

This is a very recent article dated April 2010 so this is a current issue. They are talking about cooled aviation fuel, and liquid cooled carrier decks.

Please explain How will the F-35 need special cooling when the harrier didn’t?

The harrier Puts out about 23k of thrust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Pegasus

Performance

* Maximum thrust: 23,800 lbf (106 kN)
* Overall pressure ratio: 16.3:1
* Specific fuel consumption: 0.76 lb/lbf-hr
* Thrust-to-weight ratio: 6:1

The Rear nozzle of the F-35 Puts out roughly 17-18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem

3BSM (dry thrust) Lift Fan Roll posts (combined) Total
18,000 lbf (80 kN) 20,000 lbf (89 kN) 3,900 lbf (17 kN) 41,900 lbf (186 kN)

You have a Hot nozzle putting out about 18K and a cold fan putting out 20K

The rolls posts put out 3k so again how will the F-35 burn decks when the Hot nozzle is cooler than a AV8? Also do you think that the cool air stream creates vortexes below the aircraft? Don’t you think there will be significant cooling?

The F35B will need a cooled carrier deck to prevent early buckling making F-35B ops more expensive.

The purpose of an aircraft carrier is to put bombs on distant targets. And the more distant the target, the better the ability to project power. By this measure the C wins over the B every time.

India has already decided to but the PAKFA/FGFA which is expected to cost just as much.
I never knew the prices came down with time, I thought it escalated over time and India ends up paying more than it originally bargained for. :rolleyes: perhaps you would provide an example or two to support this theory of yours ?

Sure- The Hawk Deal- took them 20 years to work on that deal- the cost of the Mk-60 version came down as the Mk-100 versions came into being. As a result the Indian Mk-132 (or 115Y) is a combination of the Mk-60 with a couple of added Mk-100 series additions produced on the Mk-120/LIFT frame. India wants the best but doesn’t want to pay the price and therefore has to make up the lost capabilities in house (which does seem to work sometimes).

Another example would clearly be seen with the LCA/Tejas aircraft- India wanted a good fighter that was cheap to build- they got it: 20 years later when prices of electronics and engines became a null matter to their respective companies as they had moved on to newer productions.

At this rate the Indians could buy a J-79 or an Atar 9K play with it to make them better and still only pay pittance for each engine!

lastly, except the gorshkov affair no other negotiation was held up purely on price matters.

Tegas, Hawk and to lesser extents, Hermes and some small arms contracts were

what does russian spies in US got to do with India ? :confused:
I haven’t heard of any concern from US sources about possible tech leak to russia from India (other than from you) , mind elaborating how you came to that conclusion ? the concern about tech transfer to India in US is more about Indians getting a look rather than russians getting a look, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

The US is worried about Current political posturing in Russia- the gestures of re-instating long range bomber patrols and under ice Sub routes for Boomers. The US know that Russia has the capability and technology to produce counters to it’s fielded hardware where as Indian doesn’t (yet). The recent contract agreement between Russia and India to produce Transport aircraft has the US worried about their future logistics train (the C-130 can’t last forever). As for front line equipment- recent Red Flag excercises have shown that the Indian Su’s are actually superior to much of the current US equipment save the latest Raptors which are the only planes that gave them a run for their money- now with the F-35 having new equipment, India would happily aid their production partner (Russia) with a new products.

I won’t call the P-8 particularly low risk but you are right that congress might block the F-35. then again, there were reports that LM’s offer was okayed by the pentagon.

Since when does the Pentagon over rule the US Congress? It may have been oked by the PG, but Cong will look seriously at the deal. For now it seems to be going ahead, but only because of one stipulation- India supplies it’s own electronics!

at the end of the day it also depends on whether the navy wants the F-35 and I’m not sure they do. 😉

I agree- I don’t think the IN does want it- they are most happy with the current fleet they field, looking forward to the introduction of the Naval Tejas and though sad about the loss of the Harrier to their force- respect that every machine has it’s day. I heard an IN pilot say that the one thing they will miss with the SHar is the manouverability and versatility that it brought to the service- especially the Vertical launch and recovery.

F35B:
– lower range and combat radius than F35C
– marginally better t/w ratio than the F35C very early on in a mission
– more expensive to maintain but cheaper to operate than F35C(catapult launch)
– not the USN’s carrier based aircraft, its the F35C
– likely to have lesser space in the internal weapons bay than the F35C

Weight doesnot matter that much because both the B and C have the same g-rating and can carry 10000 pound+ on external hardpoints if they need to.

Also as both aircraft progress into a mission the F35C’s T/W ratio improves faster than for a F35B because of the lift fan in the F35B.

For a CATOBAR equipped CBG the F-35C is a better option.

bagel, how much heavier is the F-35C?

I’m wonder if LM would have to further strenghten the MLG if the F-35B/C are to operate out from ‘ski jump’ Carrier?

Thanks

The F-35B is already designed to take off using a “ski jump”… both British carriers being built will have them, and both the Italian Cavour and the Spanish Juan Carlos I have them… and all 4 ships are intended to operate the F-35B.

The F-35C is up for question here… its higher take-off weight might be a problem… no info has been released on whether it could use a “ski jump” or not.

CATOBAR*

* I hate that acronym, should be either CATOAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off, Arrested Landing) or CALAR (Catapult Assisted Launch, Arrested Landing), not Catapult Assisted Take-Off, But Arrested Landing (the “but” indicates the two aren’t normally used together, but they usually are, with the vast majority of aircraft carriers built over the years having been {and still are} equipped this way).

+1. It’s a very bad acronym, & I try to avoid using it. Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with it. 🙁