Personally, I think the odds are good that India will at some point get the F-35. Especially, if an American Type is selected for the MMRCA. So, it seems like the Naval F-35 Lightining II. Would be the perfect place for a initial order. So, my question is which model of the F-35 would be the best suited to India’s forthcoming IAC Class Carriers??? That is the STOVL F-35B or the CV F-35C……………….:D
By: ante_climax - 3rd February 2009 at 09:13
Privatisation of defense industry is the way forward, nothing like 2-3 companies vying for every indegenous contract ahh….
By: ajay_ijn - 3rd February 2009 at 02:47
The South Koreans would be the ideal place based on cost, quality, and schedule. For an Indian built IAC………Clearly, Europe and the US could do as good or better. But never as low or even more important on-time!
but then indigenous industry needs to given priority. perhaps if Navy ties with private shipbuilder instead of govt one, things would happen much faster and definitely on time.
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd February 2009 at 02:31
I want my F-35 GE Powered!
GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team Beats Test Schedule With First Engine
February 2, 2008
EVENDALE, OHIO – The GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team has begun testing its first production-configuration F136 engine for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft a month ahead of contract schedule, a major milestone in the development program.
In keeping with previous contractual milestones, the first engine test was completed within budget and on schedule.
The first complete new-build F136 engine began testing January 30, 2009, under the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract with the US Government Joint Program Office for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. This represents the first complete engine assembled following US Government validation of the F136 design in 2008.
The F136 program has already totaled more than 800 hours of risk-reduction testing with two earlier engine prototypes, incorporating new-build components.
The F136 engine is a product of the best technology from two world-leading propulsion companies. The GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team has designed the only engine specifically developed for the F-35 aircraft, offering extra temperature margin and affordable growth.
The first runs of the new F136 engine occurred at the GE facility in Evendale, Ohio. Additional engine builds are already under way, with several engines scheduled to be in test by the end of 2009.
“This new F136 engine represents a major achievement for our powerful partnership. We are into the exciting part of the program, as we begin demonstrating what the F136 can do. We’ve combined the best technologies from GE and Rolls-Royce into an outstanding design that will benefit the military customer over the long run,” said Jean Lydon-Rodgers, President of the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team.
“This is our biggest milestone yet. Once again, the F136 team delivered on time and on budget. With a significant temperature margin and affordable growth built into the design, the F136 will offer outstanding value when it becomes available to the first military customer in 2012,” said Mark Rhodes, Senior Vice President of the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team.
The first test runs for the new F136 engine top a year of significant achievements for the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team. The program successfully completed Critical Design Review in 2008, as well as completing the first testing at the unique, new Peebles, Ohio, test site, and full afterburner test runs at the US Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) test facility in Tennessee.
The F136 engine program has a solid history of executing its contract on schedule and within budget. As a result, the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team consistently receives “exceptional” reviews from the JPO for program execution.
The F136 engine is the most advanced fighter aircraft engine ever developed and will be available to power all variants of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the US military and eight partner nations.
Editor’s notes
GE – Aviation, with responsibility for 60 percent of the F136 program, is developing the core compressor and coupled high-pressure/low-pressure turbine system components, controls and accessories, and the augmentor. Rolls-Royce, with 40 percent of the F136 program, is responsible for the front fan, combustor, stages 2 and 3 of the low-pressure turbine, and gearboxes. International participant countries are also contributing to the F136 through involvement in engine development and component manufacturing.
About 900 engineers and technicians are engaged in the F136 program at GE Aviation’s Cincinnati, Ohio, headquarters, and at Rolls-Royce facilities in Indianapolis, Indiana; and Bristol, England.
The new Site 7 at the GE test facility represents a multi-million dollar investment by the company in the F136 development program. Additional tests also occurred at GE’s Evendale facility, as well as the US Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee.
The Fighter Engine Team reached another important milestone in 2008 with successful completion of Critical Design Review (CDR), validating the unique design of the engine. The F136 program remains on schedule and within budget and is funded by the US Government for FY 2009. More than 50 percent of the SDD funding for the engine has already been appropriated and the US Government has invested more than $2 Billion in the program.
The SDD phase is scheduled to run through 2013; the first production F136 engines are scheduled to be delivered in 2012 for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft. This occurs during the fourth lot of F-35 aircraft production, which is very early in the overall aircraft production program.
The F-35 is a next-generation, multi-role stealth aircraft designed to replace the AV-8B Harrier, A-10, F-16, F/A-18 Hornet and the United Kingdom’s Harrier GR.7 and Sea Harrier, all of which are currently powered by GE or Rolls-Royce making them the engine powers of choice for the U.S. and U.K. militaries. Potential F-35 production for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marines and international customers, including the UK Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, may reach as many as 5000 to 6000 aircraft over the next 30 years.
For further information, contact:
George McLaren [email]george.h.mclaren@rolls-royce.com[/email] U.S.: 317.230.8260
Rick Kennedy [email]rick.l.kennedy@ae.ge.com[/email] U.S.: 513.243.3372
Nick Britton [email]nick.britton@rolls-royce.com[/email] U.K.: 44.117.979.5943
By: ante_climax - 2nd February 2009 at 22:50
Simply put it won’t be the IAC if done in a foriegn yard.
By: Arabella-Cox - 2nd February 2009 at 22:40
The South Koreans would be the ideal place based on cost, quality, and schedule. For an Indian built IAC………Clearly, Europe and the US could do as good or better. But never as low or even more important on-time!
By: swerve - 2nd February 2009 at 14:20
I am talking about it being built in a European shipyard compared to the IACs. I am not comparing it to the Vikramaditya. Which is a screw up of enormous proportions.
IAC built in India will be cheaper than built in Europe.
Perhaps – but half to a third of the cost?
Labour costs are much lower, but productivity is also lower, reducing the advantage, & there’s much less difference in capital costs. Take into account the less efficient use of capital in Indian yards (e.g. taking twice as long as it would take in Europe means your capital is tied up for twice as long, which is very expensive), & I doubt your figure is anywhere near realistic.
I suspect that Indian state-owned shipyards greatly understate capital cost in their accounts (not unique to India, BTW, but common in state-owned enterprises in many countries), which leads to underestimation of true costs. And the taxpayer picks up the bill, one way or another.
By: ante_climax - 2nd February 2009 at 10:47
I am talking about it being built in a European shipyard compared to the IACs. I am not comparing it to the Vikramaditya. Which is a screw up of enormous proportions.
IAC built in India will be cheaper than built in Europe.
By: swerve - 2nd February 2009 at 10:12
Apart from the fact that a new AC built in another shipyard will cost atleast 2-3 times more.
At current exchange rates, a CVF should cost ca USD 3bn – for a lot more ship. An enlarged Cavour (i.e. Italian-built IAC) should cost ca USD 2-2.5bn – and cost a lot less to operate than Gorshkov. How is that 2-3 times more?
By: ante_climax - 2nd February 2009 at 02:22
If, the Russian think they even the slightest chance at the MMRCA. Well, they must be crazy.
The only think that would win them any major deal from now on will be blatant bias and corruption.
By: Arabella-Cox - 2nd February 2009 at 01:30
The only thing good aboutt he Gorshkov deal was the price (initially), and thats when we jumped in. Only to be held hostage for being smart asses and not evaluating all the options.
All our defense procurement is marred by such wise thoughts about the cost.
Russians say their stuff is cheaper, submit the bid, gets selected because of Russian types already in service, and they increase the price 2/3 fold later.
We never learn and go for more Russian stuff saying most of our inventory is Russian so it appeals logistically, well to the Pro Russian Indians in this forum this is all i got to say YOU GOTTA START SOMEWHERE.
Its clearly a mess……………yet like you said “you gotta start somewhere”.
Remember, the old saying……….fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
If, the Russian think they even the slightest chance at the MMRCA. Well, they must be crazy.:eek:
By: ante_climax - 2nd February 2009 at 01:16
The only thing good aboutt he Gorshkov deal was the price (initially), and thats when we jumped in. Only to be held hostage for being smart asses and not evaluating all the options.
All our defense procurement is marred by such wise thoughts about the cost.
Russians say their stuff is cheaper, submit the bid, gets selected because of Russian types already in service, and they increase the price 2/3 fold later.
We never learn and go for more Russian stuff saying most of our inventory is Russian so it appeals logistically, well to the Pro Russian Indians in this forum this is all i got to say YOU GOTTA START SOMEWHERE.
By: Arabella-Cox - 2nd February 2009 at 00:42
Many of the key personnel in the armed forces and MoD are corrupted and even the non-corrupt ones are blindly pro-Russia to see apparent facts like Russia’s lack of prowess in building carriers.
For me its still not too late to scrap the project all togehter and even if that means being without a carrier for a year or two, its not worth paying them 3 billion for a reworked ship.
See, I would rather see India take the three billion and go to a foreign yard for the construction of one IAC! Then India could build the other two at home! This in turn would give the Indian Navy a fleet of 3 IAC! All of the same design and construction. Further, India would get at least two Carriers that she desperately needs much much sooner…………:D:D:D
He11, even a Russian built IAC would be better than the ex-Gorshkov anyday…….:eek:
By: Arabella-Cox - 2nd February 2009 at 00:26
That is definitely the truth. This is the reason that I just cannot comprehend the Gorshkov purchase. What’re they holding you up for now $3bn ish just for the carrier?.
How much smarter would it have been to throw the whole Russian mess in the bin two years ago order a BPE from Navantia for roughly $1bn, run on the SHARS until 2014, and go ahead with the MiG’s, STOBAR and IAC from that point. When you’re finished with the SHARs the still nice and, relatively, shiny BPE re-roles to amphibious and ASW-chopper carrying duties as required….and you do require both!. Plus you’ve saved yourself a couple of billion in to the bargain!.
Anyway this is pretty much what I said before the whole ludicrous mess kicked off (save for the fact I said that the Invincible would prob be available for pennies and would make a good fit to replace Viraat til IAC came on-line) and I didnt get any sensible replies at that point either so I’ll resolve to make no further comment on this!!!.
Well, the South Koreans have excellent record constructing both Commercial and complex Naval Warships………..
By: ante_climax - 2nd February 2009 at 00:12
Many of the key personnel in the armed forces and MoD are corrupted and even the non-corrupt ones are blindly pro-Russia to see apparent facts like Russia’s lack of prowess in building carriers.
For me its still not too late to scrap the project all togehter and even if that means being without a carrier for a year or two, its not worth paying them 3 billion for a reworked ship.
By: Jonesy - 1st February 2009 at 23:55
Apart from the fact that a new AC built in another shipyard will cost atleast 2-3 times more. We do have time on our side, Chinese do not have a carrier as of now and the Pakistanis do not have one either.
That is definitely the truth. This is the reason that I just cannot comprehend the Gorshkov purchase. What’re they holding you up for now $3bn ish just for the carrier?.
How much smarter would it have been to throw the whole Russian mess in the bin two years ago order a BPE from Navantia for roughly $1bn, run on the SHARS until 2014, and go ahead with the MiG’s, STOBAR and IAC from that point. When you’re finished with the SHARs the still nice and, relatively, shiny BPE re-roles to amphibious and ASW-chopper carrying duties as required….and you do require both!. Plus you’ve saved yourself a couple of billion in to the bargain!.
Anyway this is pretty much what I said before the whole ludicrous mess kicked off (save for the fact I said that the Invincible would prob be available for pennies and would make a good fit to replace Viraat til IAC came on-line) and I didnt get any sensible replies at that point either so I’ll resolve to make no further comment on this!!!.
By: ante_climax - 1st February 2009 at 23:53
This is exactly why I am wary of another deal like this. Its better to build your own even if takes a few more years than usual.
The South Koreans have large shipyards and make the biggest container ships, but they do not have any experience making carriers.
The best bet would be DCNS, but all things French are costly.
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st February 2009 at 23:36
Apart from the fact that a new AC built in another shipyard will cost atleast 2-3 times more. We do have time on our side, Chinese do not have a carrier as of now and the Pakistanis do not have one either.
Oh, I wouldn’t be surprised if the South Koreans couldn’t be competitive……..Let’s not forget the time wasted on the ex-Gorshkov and the large increase in cost!
Remember, after many many years of negotiation. It was finally to be completed by 2008. Now we are likely to see something like 2012-2013 and that assuming the current re-negotiation over the large cost increase can be settled??? (i.e. currently on going)
By: ante_climax - 1st February 2009 at 23:26
Apart from the fact that a new AC built in another shipyard will cost atleast 2-3 times more. We do have time on our side, Chinese do not have a carrier as of now and the Pakistanis do not have one either.
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st February 2009 at 21:49
Its operating costs Scoot, India can only afford two or three now. It will be able to afford more in the 2030s-40s-50s :diablo:
Well, even today I could see a need for at least one foreign built IAC. As by time India could complete even a second IAC. The ex-Gorshkov will likely need to be replaced……………:(
Which, should be the goal of the Indian Navy. (i.e. three IAC’s)
By: ante_climax - 1st February 2009 at 05:02
To bad that India didn’t get the first IAC constructed in a foreign yard….maybe even two. Which, would still leave India to construct 2-3 more……:(
Its operating costs Scoot, India can only afford two or three now. It will be able to afford more in the 2030s-40s-50s :diablo:
Sign In
January 29, 2009 at 7:58 pm