India and future Amphibious Ships?

Scooter, looks like your boys have been speaking to the russians… 😎 :p

National
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007071559951200.htm&date=2007/07/15/&prd=th&

Almost word to word what the russians said…

Well, if India is already lining up to purchase a second of the LPD Class. (i.e. USS Nashville) I don’t consider the small increase as much of a problem. Remember, India doesn’t have a long history of purchasing US Hardware unlike Russia. Regardless, it sounds like a minor problem easily resolved before the next ship comes on line……………….

USS Nashville LPD-13

V, not W.

for ship’s specs, etc:
www.navybuddies.com/ships/lpd13.htm

Last year:
Arabian Sea (Aug. 31, 2006) – The amphibious transport dock ship USS Nashville (LPD 13) underway patrolling the Arabian Sea as part of the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). Nashville recently deployed from her homeport of Norfolk, Va., beginning a regularly scheduled six-month deployed in support of maritime patrol operations and the global war on terrorism. U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Robert J. Flue

Scooter, looks like your boys have been speaking to the russians… 😎 :p

National
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007071559951200.htm&date=2007/07/15/&prd=th&

Almost word to word what the russians said…

U.S. military sale hit by cost overrun

Sandeep Dik****

NEW DELHI: The problem of cost and time overruns has also affected an American ship, INS Jalashwa (formerly USS Trenton), being sold to India.

The cost of the ship has increased by over 10 per cent and its delivery schedule extended because there was “more work than anticipated,” said senior U.S. military officers here on Saturday. They were here to “understand” Indian requirements for military hardware over the next five years.

The same problem is believed to have affected Russian aircraft Admiral Gorshkov (INS Vikramaditya) which would take two extra years to complete.

The cost of the ship had increased from $ 48.3 million to $ 53.5 million partly because “we did not know each other’s standards” and some work that was not in the original contract document.

Amphibious ship

Nevertheless, the giant 30-year-old amphibious ship has been refurbished to ensure several years of operation, said Rear Admiral Jeffrey Wiering, in-charge of international relationships of the US Navy,who is due to take over from Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler as the chief of the Pentagon’s Defence Security Cooperation Agency.

USS Nashwill

The two U.S. military officers also revealed that Washington wanted to sell USS Nashwill, another ship of the same class and design to India, the offer for which would be put to the US Congress for approval next year provided a positive response is forthcoming from the Indian Navy.

The officers did not foresee time and cost overruns in the transfer of this ship due to the better understanding of each other’s processes. :p 😀

Which would support Scooters argument that to be a viable carrier aircraft the Gripen would have to undergo considerable modification.

By viable I mean capable of regular carrier operations, not just the occasional rather dangerous sounding landing.

But the stretching would be for more fuel and the uprated engine for more lifting power (ordnance). So, not necessarily chances to the landing gear, or addition of an arresting hook. Which means that part is basically sound, even in a carrier role.

I’ve no idea whether or not those models appeared (including other variants) at Farnborough 2006. However, irrespective, if any carrier variant, it would be a stretched, up-engined version of Gripen, not the original.

Which would support Scooters argument that to be a viable carrier aircraft the Gripen would have to undergo considerable modification.

By viable I mean capable of regular carrier operations, not just the occasional rather dangerous sounding landing.

This apparently didn’t happen?

Perhaps Gripen International had shown models of a carrierborne Gripen concept privately, but the models in question didn’t actually appear in a public at Farnborough, did they?

I don’t question the source, or the reporting in the Flight International article.

If a carrierborne Gripen model or illustration has indeed been revealed to the public, feel free to prove me wrong.

I’ve no idea whether or not those models appeared (including other variants) at Farnborough 2006. However, irrespective, if any carrier variant, it would be a stretched, up-engined version of Gripen, not the original.

Models of enlarged and carrierborne fighter concepts of the Gripen are expected to be unveiled at the Farnborough air show in mid-July, says Gripen International.

This apparently didn’t happen?

Perhaps Gripen International had shown models of a carrierborne Gripen concept privately, but the models in question didn’t actually appear in a public at Farnborough, did they?

I don’t question the source, or the reporting in the Flight International article.

If a carrierborne Gripen model or illustration has indeed been revealed to the public, feel free to prove me wrong.

It isn’t the paving; carrier decks are smoother than runways. It’s the technique used for landing on short strips. It’s been described as, in effect, a carrier landing done on land – without arrestor wires, thrust reversers or braking parachutes. A bloody hard landing. Gripen’s designed to do that for its whole service life. It routinely lands in less than the length of a Nimitz-class deck – indeed, Swedish pilots have practiced carrier landings in simulators, without an arrestor hook.

“The Gripen is a true lightweight fighter, with 78% of the empty weight of an F-16C and about half the empty weight of the Viggen, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, or the Dassault Rafale.”

“Unlike the Viggen, the Gripen does not have a thrust reverser. The canard foreplanes can be tilted almost 90 degrees to act as airbrakes on landing. There are carbon brakes on all the wheels of the tricycle landing gear to reduce landing roll. Interestingly, pilots using the Gripen flight simulators have performed simulated carrier landings, without an arresting hook; it seems a bit unlikely that this will ever be done in practice, though no doubt some Gripen pilots would give it a shot if they got the chance. The landing gear has an antiskid system. The two-wheel nose gear retracts backward, while the single-wheel main gear retract at a forward angle. “
http://www.vectorsite.net/avgripen.html

This article from last year may be relevant: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/06/27/207410/new-gripen-variants-studied-by-saab.html

“New Gripen variants studied by Saab

Saab-led Gripen International is studying future development options for its Gripen multirole fighter, including the possible installation of a more powerful engine, increasing the type’s overall size and maximum take-off weight, and the potential availability of a carrierborne strike variant.
…
Models of enlarged and carrierborne fighter concepts of the Gripen are expected to be unveiled at the Farnborough air show in mid-July, says Gripen International.
…
The latter is understood to have emerged as a potential candidate to meet Indian navy maritime strike requirements, but could also be offered to countries like the UK if the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter project encounters future difficulties.”

“The JAS-39 Gripen: Sweden’s 4th Generation Wild Card
…
Flight International reports that Saab-led Gripen International is studying future development options. These include a more powerful engine than the current RM12 variant of GE’s F404.
…
The least probable option mentioned by Flight International, but perhaps the most interesting, involves the possible creation of a carrier-capable Gripen that would take advantage of the Gripen’s natural short take-off and landing capabilities (it can function on a 6m x 900m runway). The most likely sales target would be India, with a possible future role in Brazil as a naval aircraft or as a backup choice to Britain’s F-35B Lightning II STOVLs on its new CVF carriers. Though the concept is intriguing, these sales prospects may not be enough to justify the expenditure involved.”

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-jas39-gripen-swedens-4th-generation-wild-card-02401/

PARIS AIR SHOW 2001
Gripen Team Studies ‘Sea Gripen’

The Gripen export team of Saab-BAE Systems has extended its existing studies to a navalized version of the advanced combat aircraft at the request of a potential buyer. Sources close to the program described the interest as coming from “a potential customer with an existing carrier force and current V/STOL aircraft.” Other sources close to the customer say it’s India.

Some serious thought has already been given to developing a carrier-borne version of the Gripen, which has several inherent characteristics that make it well suited to operations at sea. Gripen is designed to use very short runways, and routinely lands using the high sink rates and angles of attack demanded for carrier flying. Any future Sea Gripen would incorporate the air-to-air refueling capability already being developed for all export Gripens. Other changes would include addition of an arrestor hook and some strengthening of the existing undercarriage. Gripen’s autonomous landing system could also be modified for maritime use. A Gripen armed with Rbs 15 anti-shipping missiles would give a maritime strike capability that is unmatched by any existing carrier-borne fighter.

By Robert Hewson
http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/01paris4/intell22.htm

The Gripen already has potential for significantly increased internal fuel tankage, and further volume could be leverages by using a new Tornado style main undercarriage.
http://img457.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gripenbobkemparticlero2.jpg

I don’t disagree…………Yet, I have never seen a landbased aircraft that didn’t need extensive modification to operate from Aircarft Carriers. Especially, as it applies to the landing gear. (i.e. sink rates) “enough said”

You do realise that is exactly why I mentioned the Gripen, & only the Gripen? Read what I said about the landing technique the Swedes practice. The Swedish air force has called it “a controlled crash landing”.

Note that I said “probably”. It’s an opinion, not a statement of fact, & so there is no source, but I’ve put forward arguments to support that opinion. You may not agree, but it would be appropriate to support any disagreement with arguments of at least equal merit.

I don’t disagree…………Yet, I have never seen a landbased aircraft that didn’t need extensive modification to operate from Aircarft Carriers. Especially, as it applies to the landing gear. (i.e. sink rates) “enough said”

You “mean” that you believe the Gripen could or do you have a source?:o

Note that I said “probably”. It’s an opinion, not a statement of fact, & so there is no source, but I’ve put forward arguments to support that opinion. You may not agree, but it would be appropriate to support any disagreement with arguments of at least equal merit.

Usually true, but not necessarily. Gripen, for example, could probably cope with carrier landings without landing gear modifications.

You “mean” that you believe the Gripen could or do you have a source?:o

What makes you say this. IMO It might get down OK a few times but would not last the course in the long run. The technique to landing on a carrier is more brutal than landing on an unprepared airstrip. Do Saab claim that it can, if so I will change my opinion.Although the Gripen can operate away from normal airfields ,pretty much all the road landing strip pics I have ever seen are all well paved.

It isn’t the paving; carrier decks are smoother than runways. It’s the technique used for landing on short strips. It’s been described as, in effect, a carrier landing done on land – without arrestor wires, thrust reversers or braking parachutes. A bloody hard landing. Gripen’s designed to do that for its whole service life. It routinely lands in less than the length of a Nimitz-class deck – indeed, Swedish pilots have practiced carrier landings in simulators, without an arrestor hook.

Usually true, but not necessarily. Gripen, for example, could probably cope with carrier landings without landing gear modifications.

What makes you say this. IMO It might get down OK a few times but would not last the course in the long run. The technique to landing on a carrier is more brutal than landing on an unprepared airstrip. Do Saab claim that it can, if so I will change my opinion.Although the Gripen can operate away from normal airfields ,pretty much all the road landing strip pics I have ever seen are all well paved.

… Of course a landbased type would require heavier landing gear to operate from either type of Carrier. …………………

Usually true, but not necessarily. Gripen, for example, could probably cope with carrier landings without landing gear modifications.

Well if the Rafale can operate of carriers without catapults why does the CdG have them?;) The Rafale was always intended to be a catapult aircraft and the Mig-29K was always intended to not use one.

Well, my good friend I think we are talking past each other. My point is the Rafale is a Carrier Capable Aircraft. Meaning that it can make catapult take off’s and arrested landings. So, the latter part is a given as both the Mig-29K and Rafale are designed to do both. As for ski-jump take off’s. Clearly, the Rafale has the power and wing area to be just as effective operating from a ski-jump equipped Carriers like India’s forthcoming ADS or Project 71 Ships as the Mig-29K. Of course a landbased type would require heavier landing gear to operate from either type of Carrier. As both take-off’s and landings from Ski-Jump Equipped Carriers. Require much heavier landing gear than there landbased cousins…………………

Well if the Rafale can operate of carriers without catapults why does the CdG have them?;) …

What Tinwing said.

From the same length deck, it can take off with a heavier load (more fuel, more weapons), using less fuel, if assisted by a catapult. The MiG-29K will be limited in T/O weight operating STOBAR from Vikramaditya.

do you have a source stating that the Rafale can operate from STOBAR carriers?

There is not, usually, a yes/no answer to the question “Can this aircraft operate off (STOBAR, whatever) carriers?”, only to the question “Can this aircraft operate off this carrier?”. And if the answer is “Yes”, one next asks “Can it do so with a useful load & within acceptable safety margins?”, because that’s what matters.

Whether Rafale (or any other CTOL aircraft) can operate from a particular carrier depends on –
length of deck
ski jump or not
catapult (& its power) or not
weight plane is carrying
wind over deck

Why does everyone thing that a CATOBAR carrier based aircraft is incapable of STOBAR operations?

The reality that any Western carrier based fighter is just as able to take off from a STOBAR carrier as any MiG-29K or Su-33!

Off course, a skijump is a poor substitute for a steam catapult for non-STOVL operations. CATOBAR is a superior operating concept compared to STOBAR. Even the Soviets accepted this, but were force to abandon catapult development for financial, technical, and political reasons. The Soviets were building too few carriers to justify the development of steam catapults, and it didn’t help that initial development had apparently been problematic. Another factor was the hostility of the MiG and Sukhoi OKBs toward steam catapult operation because both the MiG-29 and Su-27 had high mounted nose land gears that were fundimentally inappropriate for tow bar-style catapult attachment.

So, the Rafale M could have operated from the Vikrant (ex-Gorshkov) just as the MiG-29K will (eventually). The IN actually prefered the Rafale, and was willing to embrace a smaller inital order, with the prospect of future follow up orders.

do you have a source stating that the Rafale can operate from STOBAR carriers?:confused:

Why does everyone thing that a CATOBAR carrier based aircraft is incapable of STOBAR operations?

The reality that any Western carrier based fighter is just as able to take off from a STOBAR carrier as any MiG-29K or Su-33!

Off course, a skijump is a poor substitute for a steam catapult for non-STOVL operations. CATOBAR is a superior operating concept compared to STOBAR. Even the Soviets accepted this, but were force to abandon catapult development for financial, technical, and political reasons. The Soviets were building too few carriers to justify the development of steam catapults, and it didn’t help that initial development had apparently been problematic. Another factor was the hostility of the MiG and Sukhoi OKBs toward steam catapult operation because both the MiG-29 and Su-27 had high mounted nose land gears that were fundimentally inappropriate for tow bar-style catapult attachment.

So, the Rafale M could have operated from the Vikrant (ex-Gorshkov) just as the MiG-29K will (eventually). The IN actually prefered the Rafale, and was willing to embrace a smaller inital order, with the prospect of future follow up orders.

do you have a source stating that the Rafale can operate from STOBAR carriers?:confused:

The Rafale and a suitable carrier would have been prohibitively expensive and the need to rely on US catapults worrying. At the time the US route was out for similar reasons, cost and politics.

Why does everyone thing that a CATOBAR carrier based aircraft is incapable of STOBAR operations?

The reality that any Western carrier based fighter is just as able to take off from a STOBAR carrier as any MiG-29K or Su-33!

Off course, a skijump is a poor substitute for a steam catapult for non-STOVL operations. CATOBAR is a superior operating concept compared to STOBAR. Even the Soviets accepted this, but were force to abandon catapult development for financial, technical, and political reasons. The Soviets were building too few carriers to justify the development of steam catapults, and it didn’t help that initial development had apparently been problematic. Another factor was the hostility of the MiG and Sukhoi OKBs toward steam catapult operation because both the MiG-29 and Su-27 had high mounted nose land gears that were fundimentally inappropriate for tow bar-style catapult attachment.

So, the Rafale M could have operated from the Vikrant (ex-Gorshkov) just as the MiG-29K will (eventually). The IN actually prefered the Rafale, and was willing to embrace a smaller inital order, with the prospect of future follow up orders.