FedaykinThe problem may be the increased recoil from the more powerful L/70 – and of course compatibility problems with the existing L/60s of the AC-130 fleet. It would be pretty effective, but I think part of the reasoning with the 30mm Bushmaster was that it could effectively replace both the 25mm (high rate of fire) and 40mm (good down-range effects). Depending on what the problem was, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if they opted for just a slightly different 25-35mm weapon, e.g. the 35mm Oerlikon. The Bofors has a lot going for it, but as it is, the rate of fire isn’t impressive; and the 25mm GAU-12s simply don’t have the desired range, hence the aircraft has to be low and vulnerable to use the smaller guns. The 30mm was supposed to allow the Spectre to sit above the MANPADS envelope, and yet have the ability to put a lot of lead on the ground. The 35mm might be a good option though, and possibly not suffer from the same problems as the 30mm, though I worry that the whole thing may go nowhere, and the 25mm and 40mm will have to go on being used.
There were also proposals a while back to switch the AC-130s from using the 105mm (effectively an old Vietnam-era M101 howitzer) to a 120mm mortar. This had the prospect of having less recoil, and lower weight, and importantly, having commonality with modern systems. Though the C-27 is unlikely to be able to cope with such a system, it might not be impossible – a smaller mortar might not be a problem, e.g. an 81mm mortar. Alternatively, the C-27J may be able to carry something like Hellfire or Viper Strike, to allow heavier weapons to be used.
Indeed true. I was thinking more about its ability to slot in the same hole with minimal change rather then sharing parts with the L/60. Apparently there worn out anyway.
FedaykinIt is unlikely to be the 30mm, and I’d not be sure about the C-27’s ability to cope with the Bofors 40mm. It is a great pity that the 30mm Bushmaster didn’t work out, it was a pretty impressive prospect. The C-27 would have been able to carry two in all likelihood, i.e. equal to the AC-130, minus the 105mm. I wonder if there will be a new project to replace the existing 25mm and 40mm.
Thinking about the replacement of the Bofors 40mm (I presume they were surplus M1 anti aircraft guns similar to the L60) I have wondered why they haven’t considered the Bofors L70. It should fit in the same hole with little change and offer better performance and new ammunition types (the 3P-40 comes to mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq_y6kkDO7Y).
Also to show you the power of the L70 against ground targets have a look at this video of the cv9040:
FedaykinAbout the lines on the flight deck, that might be a sign that they decided to use rolling landings. They were considering it because it would mean larger bring back loads.
You beat me to it but Ditto on that idea.
They were looking at rolling landings in STOVL mode, since the CVF is designed with an angled deck it makes sense using. What I wonder is will they need something like the mirror landing sight to allow them to align up and land properly?
FedaykinWell, that arguement may have held water if not for the sale of the C-130’s, P-8A’s, Lease of a LPD, and the very likely hood that India will sign a Nuclear Pact with the US! Sorry, I think your boat has a little leak in it……
You are correct in that the IAF do indeed operate a small number of Mirage 2000’s. Yet, the Rafale is a totally new design and I doubt the saving would be that great. To counter balance that…………the Super Hornet would offer options the French Fighter just can compete with. Like the whole arsenal of US Weapons! Especially, PGM’s and let’s not forget the money and backing for future upgrades……..and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In short the aircraft itself is just a part of a whole package. So, while I believe the Rafale is a good product compare to the Super Hornet and even has some advantages from a pure performance aspect. When you take the whole package into account. The winner is obvious…………IMO
Been away on a business trip so I didn’t get a chance to construct an answer Scooter. Then again Swerve has gone some way to explain anyway…
I think your argument does hold water it would be far more problematic introducing a US type be it the FA18 or F16.
I think you are missreading the relationship between India, America and Russia . As I have already alluded to earlier the recent deals over the the c130, P8 and LPD are not a good indicator of a desire to buy American fighters. I think I need to explain why so I will cover each contract in order.
The C130:
The Indian’s wanted a large tactical transport for special forces use with a fairly short turn round to delivery. The only type on the market that meets those needs is the C130J, the a400 is a fair way off at this point and the IL76
isn’t in that class. It was going to have to be the C130J, we don’t know the logistics details yet but it isn’t going to be the same as a fighter as it won’t involve a weapons package, they even might source out major servicing to an outside player.
P8
The Indian navy want to completely recapitalise their blue water ASW and patrol capability with an entirely new type. This means new logistics investment as well. The majority of ASW/patrol types are coastal rather then blue water, counting out most of the European manufacturers. Considering the recent experience with the IL38 Sea Dragon upgrade the russians are pretty much counted out. The EADS offer of an a320 based type is a paper aeroplane at this point hence not a nice bet. This leaves the US with overhauled P3 and the P8. Well India wants new build counting out the P3 leaving the P8. Boeing are not really offering a direct copy of the type developed for the US navy rather a hybrid with local content and a unique weapons fit. It is pretty much the only safe bet blue water ASW type on the market so much like the c130 a logical choice.
(Before anybody shouts what about the Nimrod MRA4, the answer is too expensive and risky)
LPD
The LPD has not been a success in Indian service by any measure…the Indians have got themselves an old ship which bares no commonality with the rest of their fleet logistically or operationally. They have already had some serious incidents including a fatality. Many in the Indian navy are unhappy with the purchase and it has been raised in political circles as well. I will be interested to see how long before the Indian navy cuts its losses.
To go back to the issue of if India would be sensible to buy a US fighter type we need to look at the logistics situation firstly:
India already operates aircraft that share logistic commonality with the Rafale and Mig35.
India already operate fighters that can share weapons with the Rafale and Mig35.
They don’t operate anything that can share logistic equipment or weapons (easily) with US types.
US FMS sales are with a US weapons package, India has shown no interest in a US weapons package. Rather they want to use a hybrid package of already carried French and Russian weapons along with newly purchased Israeli and indigenously developed weapons.
The US has never shown much interested in integrating foreign weapon systems.
India wants significant technology transfer and access to source code something that America has difficulty offering to close allies like the UK (or Australia who had to hack their own F18’s source code) let alone a country like India which has a close technology relationship with Russia.
To look particularly at the Super Hornet it is a heavy fighter more in the class of the SU30MKI they already operate, they want a medium size fighter. The F16 would make more sense but suffers exactly the same issues the Super Hornet has.
Finally to look at the relationship with Russia I think you are seriously missreading it. Yes Russia has shafted India recently on a few projects especially the Gorshkov deal, but by in large India is paying up and continuing these purchases. I don’t think you realise how deep the historic defence relationship between India and Russia is. India has purchased an enormous amount of Russian defence equipment over the last year and is still placing orders. They are trying to get into the PAK-FA program and there will be more to come. I think the best you can say is they have increased their defence procurement horizons allowing the US to enter the market with new products that fit particular needs. For example I certainly see a Chinook order on the cards as its ideal for Indian needs and fills a hole in their helicopter fleet.
The nuclear pact is having severe difficulty going through the Indian parliment so I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one.
Thats all I can really say on this matter, I think I’m being realistic. If the choice was up to me I would want the Indian airforce to purchase my home product the Typhoon but I think it would be a tough sale considering there are more logical choices like the Mig35 and Rafale.
On a side note I think the only wild card is the Grippen which has an open weapons bus and computer allowing the easy integration of non standard weapons. Its cheap to operate and in my opinion closest to the spirit of what is required in the MRCA competition.
FedaykinWell, you lost me here…………How are the logistics any different for the Rafale compared to the Super Hornet. While, I agree it would add yet another type for India. She really has little choice unless she is going to stick mostly with Russian Equipment. Personally, the break is coming between Russia and India. With the writing on the wall so to speak. Personally, I don’t see it as a total break. As India will continue to purchase certain weapon systems from Russia. Of course when it is in her interests.
As for the Rafale and its chances. While its agood choice I still see the edge with the US. Especially with the Boeing Super Hornet. Really, the French has lost every chance to export the Rafale. They just can’t get the price in the ball park………Also, let’s not forget the winning aircraft of the MMRCA is just part of the overall package. Clearly, the Super Hornet is much more mature design and has the capability to carry almost everything in the US Arsenal. Which, has to be attractive to India…………………
Im really surprised by your answer Scooter.
Logistically it would be very different between the Super Hornet and Rafale, everything from support tools to ground power voltage are different. The Indian Air Force operates NO American fighter types at this point, on the other hand it does operate the Mirage 2000.
The IAF logistic chain is built around supporting French and Russian fighter types. To adopt the Super Hornet they would have to adopt entirely new ground equipment with different procedures, none of their current weapons are cleared for the Hornet and America has never been big on integrating non standard weapon types on FMS aircraft.
On the other hand there would be an equipment and procedure carry through for the Rafale (and MIG for that matter). Also I don’t see America giving the kind of technical release India wants for the project.
We will see but I think your love for the home product is clouding your sense.
FedaykinI think if we are to compare the two in very general terms. I think most would agree the Rafale is a little better in Air Defense and the Super Hornet a little more in Air to Ground. Really, both are very similar Naval Strike Fighters………
As for India and the MMRCA…………….I believe a Naval Type will win with the Super Hornet as the favorite with the Rafale a close second. Personally, the former will happen unless Indian/US Relations would take a turn for the worse. Which, at least for the moment doesn’t appear likely. IMO
I would disagree this is Dassault’s contract to loose, a US type hasn’t got a chance of winning this contest. Unless India really wants to introduce yet another different logistics chain. Also the Super Hornet is clearly in the wrong class, the MMRCA is for a medium size type which it clearly isn’t.
Certainly Indian relations are getting closer and the C130 & P8 deals are certainly a good foot through the door but the MMRCA contest is a step too far.
FedaykinSo it’ll basically be the three RC-135 Rivet Joint with the same systems used by the Americans (L-3 Communications Integrated Systems) (rather than Helix) that myself and several others discussed a while back. Maybe Jackonicko should chip in if he’s around as he seemed to know more long before this article was written.
Well the inference is that HELIX would get integrated at some point. I suppose it depends how much L-3 UK has sunk on the development work already.
FedaykinI suppose selecting the A330 for commonality with RAF tankers would be too simple a solution? :rolleyes:
Heck, if the UK wants to outsource defense and become the 51st state, fine; at least then we get Raptors 😀
Well as I have said long ago the a330 would be my first choice but its not going to happen with the state of the defence budget.
This is a cheap option which allows us to own the airframes and fit HELIX, I have a hunch the FMS price the Americans will ask for the aircraft is going to be small and the servicing will be treated in the same way as the C17 contract with the RAF buying into the American logistics base.
FedaykinAlso a sign of how good an allie the UK is and how much the effort in Afghanistan (including by the R.1) is appreciated.;)
It might be an old airframe but at least they are not falling out of the sky and are reasonably compatable.
Yes indeed!
And they are big enough for HELIX which was problematic with the Nimrod airframe.
FedaykinTrue but the RC-135 is a big old tough bird and in effect we would be buying into the huge American logistics base for the KC-135/RC-135 fleet. Also we would gain access to AMARG and all the spares from that source.
For me I would like to see the CFM56 fitted to give more comonality with the E3D fleet.
The fact that the American DOD are prepared to shift three airframes over to the RAF is sign to me how highly the RAF R.1 fleet are regarded in the US. I bet the Americans quite like the idea of gaining access to the skilled RAF crews and the Helix upgrade, for the loss of three aircraft that they have had difficulty crewing anyway.
FedaykinWhat chance some proper Migs and Sukhois in this film ? :diablo:
Probably a fairly good chance – they will throw enough budget at it and there is always CGI.
FedaykinAt one level I would say “OH GOD NO!”
But I’m not surprised our wacky Scientologist friends career has jumped the shark recently so he probably needs this…
I wonder if this will give the Super Hornet the same boost as the at the time unloved Tomcat.
And will there be any aliens? or even worse Psychiatrists (a strange obsession with this particular Alien Cult).
FedaykinThe E/F was an attempt to give the USN a light attack airplane that met the F-18’s original range spec, which the A/B/C/D never met. To do this they added more fuel tankage to the fuselage. To allow the fat fuselage to TO/land on the CV, the wing was scaled up (which allowed 2 additional pylons). To push the fat fuselage and upsized wing, the engine thrust was marginally increased. The result is what the E/F is today, a light attack airplane whose first duty is to fly from the CV. E/F was never optimized to be a fleet defense or air superiority fighter (too underpowered and draggy with the straight wing). Unfortunately, NAVAIR’s bureaucratic bungling forced the E/F into the fleet defense role because their ineptitude prevented a more capable platform from filling that role.
Indeed but the USN’s solution is clearly to improve the missiles on the Super Hornet to make up for its shortcomings. The AIM9X with HMS as well as the newest AMRAAM variants combined with the AESA radar will go along way to help the Super Hornet.
Looking at the fleet defence the USN now has a layered system utilising AEW,
ships with AEGIS (+advanced missiles) and Super Hornet all tied together using CEC.
FedaykinOn a side note I do wonder how much trouble the refit would of been if it had been done back where she was built in the Ukraine.
Certainly the Chernomorskiy yard have the experiance considering they built the Gorshkov and all the other Soviet carriers plus I bet they still have the blueprints. They certainly have the facilities for the overhaul and remodelling of large vessels.
Makes you wonder…
FedaykinQuite true,from what I’ve heard from the people I know who met him.
Debatable is a mild way of putting it (A lot of people I know who are in the Air Defence battle management business think that he should have been hung, drawn and quartered for his help in stabing Dowding and Park in the back).
Yeah certainly debatable, personally I think he was wrong and certainly it could be argued that modern QRA is based on Dowding/Parks tactics.
Sign In
