FedaykinThen again on reflection this is probably the Russians playing hard ball to get some extra money. Kind of “Don’t pay up! – Don’t get your shiny newish carrier!”
Whilst Russia would quite like another carrier INS Vikramaditya is built around the Mig 29 and not really suitable for the Su33. On top of that she is being fitted with a number of systems non standard to the Russian navy like Italian diesels.
I really don’t see why Russia would want to go for such a Nuclear option with an important customer, they would kiss goodbuy to a number of potential contracts.
Fedaykinhttp://www.kommersant.com/p-12082/military-technical_cooperation/
The aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov will be delivered to the Russian Navy instead of going to India after modernization. A source within the Russian military-industrial complex told RBK that Russia and India are now reaching an agreement on changing the conditions of the 2004 contract for the ship’s overhaul. Under that contract, India received the hull without charge on condition that it be modernized at Sevmashpredpriyatie. The value of that contract was $1.5 billion.
According to unofficial information, negotiations are currently underway to expand the value of the contract by about $1 billion. “That question is being worked out. If a compromise is not found with India, the aircraft carrier will probably be purchased by the Russian Navy,” the source said.The Admiral Gorshkov was built in 1978 as the Baku. Its name was changed in 1991. It will be equipped with Russian-Indian Bramos missiles and Russian or Israeli air defense systems after modernization.
Maybe the best solution!
What! Thats insane!
FedaykinAs far as I know, they will indeed be in airliner configuration with very little needed to be done for the AAR role. Problem at the moment is to where and how AirTanker (the consortium responsible for delivering and supporting the aircraft) will get the funding from and is allegedly struggling to find the finance because of the credit crunch. AirTanker and the MoD could end up financing the whole thing themselves, which defeats the purpose of the original PFI requirement. I agree that the RAF would find a few freighter versions extremely useful, although I’d guess that the MoD often leases such aircraft from civilian operators when needed.
Whats even more confusing for is the fact that Australia ordered her a330 tankers after AirTanker was selected yet they are taking delivery NOW!
Another PFI farce!
FedaykinGreat looking fighter, but probably going to be a political sacrifice in the end. Fundamentaly, the main issues are going to be:
– Airframe – not too big a problem for Japan’s aerospace sector
– Cockpit – again, ergonomic design etc isn’t too hard, especially given the F-2
– Engines – only a problem if the US made it a problem; could easily opt for existing types, e.g. GE-F110s to save some money
– Fly-by-wire – far more of a problem, and the main issue in development of a modern fighter; not beyond Japanese abilities though
– Radar – again, could opt for a semi off the shelf type, e.g. APG 63v3However, the biggest hurdle is the way Japan does defence spending – dribs and drabs of a couple of aircraft ordered per year simply will not work. You need a commitment to buy at least 150, over, say, five to ten years, at a steady rate. If this type were to be replacing not just the remaining F-4s, but also the F-15s, and ultimately F-2s, then it might well be worth it. However, you need a solid commitment to actually buy the aircraft.
As such, if Japan wants to do it, it can, but it requires a big commitment of resources. Personally, I would have loved to see the Japanese getting a license for the YF-23 Black Widow, and just putting in off-the-shelf equipment, to get a new fighter. Perhaps even using a podded internal missile bay (i.e. a stealthy Zuni-esque pod holding Sidewinders, and a similar pod holding AMRAAMs), to allow good numbers to be carried internally.
As has been agreed by all of us here its certainly not outside the scope of Japans aerospace industry. Certainly I think they pushed it into the public sphere to try and push the US of A selling them the F22.
Of course the Japanese are probably a bit cautious in respect of local development after the issues they had with the F-2. Looking at the pictures its clearly highly influenced by the F-22 and F-35, I would say they are looking at a design smaller then the F-22 and closer in size to the F-35 but with a twin engine layout.
If Japan stuck to buying as much avionics off the shelf (licenced built of course as has been suggested by Edlaw) then they could save themselves lots of problems. I think the GE-F110 (or the PW-F119 if they wanted something newer) would probably be a bit too big but on the other hand GE-F414 or maybe the Eurojet EJ200 would be just the job. Radar again can be sourced from Europe or America along with much of the other avionics. FBW is an issue but Japan does have experience developing it after the F-2 and there is no reason why they couldn’t use that aircrafts FBW system as a starting point.
If Japan stuck to a pragmatic development program then they could certainly do it. I just get a feeling that America will put alot of pressure to go for the F35 (or maybe even relent over the F22).
FedaykinThey’d have to go back in time, too.
(When the young Jag mates were busy killing less capable fighters!)
And while their famous victory was at low level, their victim wasn’t heavy.
Not forgetting that the Jag had a helmet mounted sight which makes all the difference up close.
FedaykinRafael unmanned protector model at defexpo
photo c/o sayareakd
And there was me thinking Dassault was proposing something interesting:p
FedaykinWell whatever really, I no longer care really as long as our government actually places some orders for Bl%^$y ships!
It breaks my heart when I see navies that once looked up to the RN overtake it in capability (no offence to our international members – you spent the money). The Royal Navy (and the other two services) are being nibbled to death.
I actually wish that the Argentines would be a bit more aggresive towards the Falklands if it got our government to do something!
FedaykinNice to see some new pictures with some serious cutting and welding of metal apparent. I wonder how well long lead items like the optical landing system and arrester gear engine are going.
Interesting to see that she is getting an Alaskan taxiway not too dissimilar to CVA01.
Of course the next question is with all this extra metal going on is how low will she ride when they float her. It will be interesting to see if she suffers similar problems to CDG when it comes to weight.
FedaykinWell whatever is decided for these vessels it has to be soon!
British ship yards are just not surviving on this drip drip feed of orders.
Whist CVF will get built even that faces stealthy delays, the govenmment will find an excuse plausible enough for your avarage Sun reader.
FedaykinTV can be used as a cheaper alternative opposed to expensive off-boresight missile systems such as IRST, ASRAAM.
The only use from a manouverability standpoint is the very slow flight velocity/post stall regime, as using it does alot of energy depeletion. I thought this is where no fighter pilot wants to find himself.
personally I belive an aircraft armed with the sophisticated off-boresight missiles/helmet mounted sight, and one which posses very hight T/W, sustained turn rates, should be more than a match for a thrust vectoring frame.
helllo Eurofighter :dev2:
Sorry its quite the reverse when it comes to cost!
Missiles like IRIS- T, Asraam, Aim9x etc are a far cheaper solution then fitting TVC to an aircraft. No changes have to be made to the airframe of the launch fighter to use them and they are an off the shelf item.
FedaykinWhat’s the report you’ve read? What the lesson the report taught you?
please quote the original dissertation to show us:)
The latest edition of Air Forces Monthly the magazine published by “Key Publishing” the company that runs this website.
FedaykinThere is merit in it, but it could be argued that all aspect missiles and helmet mounted displays reduce the need for hyper-agility. It may be more important to be able to get a good look at the enemy than to try to point the nose at them. Also, you can get excellent agility nowadays anyway, especially with canards, with less weight penalty.
Anyway, congratulations on passing the 1,000 mark!
Well your only a couple away from the magic mark youself Ed!:D
I think that Thrust vectoring is going to end up as an interesting side note of fighter technology.
FedaykinCongratulations for this achievement
Anyway, didn’t read that yet (the latest issue).
So, what about Raptor, MKI (both operational) and MiG-29OVT (that is not, but doesn’t stop to impress)? Or I’m missing something you wanted to say but you obviously didn’t:confused:
I would read the report first but it certainly challenges some of the missconceptions over thrust vectoring and its affect on manouvreability. Basically it makes no difference unless the aircraft is in the post stall regieme. On top of that the report concludes that high off bore site missiles and helmet mounted sights are a far better solution.
FedaykinOne thing that the Mk8 mod 1 will be, by the time C3 comes to fruition, is cheap!. Its not the best naval gun mount ever invented and we have, of course, a precedent for operating the OTO76 with the Peacock class boats. Presumably therefore we’ll still have the odd copy of the tech manuals for the mount in a cupboard somewhere. That said though we will have plenty of Mk8’s that can be refurbed into mod1’s coming off the 42’s, we have spares and logistics well set for the mount, we have lots of tiffies more intimate in the workings of the beast than they’d wish to be and, most simply, we have lots of 4.5″ ammunition stockpiled that doesnt have to be bought.
I appreciate what you say about landing a modular 76mm for survey taskings etc then refitting it as appropriate for the mission profile. For my money though I’d say that mounting the Mk8 and, if it isnt needed for the mission, just leave the Weapons O/M’s behind and dont bother with the magazine loadout for that trip…I’d expect that to be cheaper and easier than getting a dockside crane involved lifting the mount then transporting it to secure storage etc. It also has the advantage that, if the boat faced an urgent operational need to rerole to OPV tasking, then its just a matter of flying the weapons crew and C-17 load of shells out to a nearby friendly port and jobs done.
Also whilst the Mk8 is not exactly the zenith of naval gun technology it has, on several occasions, proven to be quite sufficient to scare the cr@p out of druggies in go fast boats thinking that, at seven or eight miles range and opening the gap, there was nothing that a 30knt British warship could do to them. That thought disabused by a rapid sequence of very large shell splashes ahead on their course.
I think you are right that the Bofors or OTO Mount is a more appropriate weapon for the tasking. Like Phelgan I dont see the RN inducting a new weapons system anythime soon though!.
I agree whilst the Bofors and OTO guns are excellent both being more suited to the class of ship we are talking about the MK 8 wins out in the end. Its going to be cheap to fit and it doesn’t have to be purchased as it can be taken off the type 42. No new logistics or training infrastructure has to be introduced and we have lots of rounds in stock.
In todays economic climate its the logical choice and as Jonesy said if it isn’t needed for the mission don’t bother hoisting it off just don’t bother bringing the ammo with you (Something the RN already does!!!!:eek: ).
Actually as the Type 42 are retired there is quite alot of things that they can give up for newer ships. The MK 8 and Phalanx will find a home on the type 45 and the torpedo launchers will find a new home as well. Wouldn’t even put it pass the RN to find a new home for the decoy launchers.
FedaykinIt is highly unlikely that the CVF would be cancelled imminently – the political fallout would pretty much sink the government. A Conservative government would be equally unlikely to cancel them, since the backlash would hurt them badly as well, and they would look weak on defence. Basically, almost no matter what happens, CVF will happen; the real question is what will go on them, and what other ships will be bought. It would not be a major surprise to see the C-1 and C-2 projects sidelined, in favour of upgrading the remaining Type 23s, and perhaps buying some patrol ships (a very basic C-3). Six T-45s, twelve Type 23s and six low-spec C-3s wouldn’t surprise me too much. In the long run, the two CVFs could cost the Navy a lot of ships, but it may prove to be their best investment…
Yes Ed I think its fair to say the RN will get 6 Type 45 (considering 8 and 9 haven’t been ordered that will be easy) and a life extension for the Type 23 will definately be on the cards.
What will hurt is the loss of the Type 22 batch 3 which I think is fairly likely. If the RN are VERY lucky they might get Type 45 8 & 9 (with lighter anti air fit) as a partial Type 22 replacement.
With the improvement in small warship technology a low spec C-3 might not be too bad especially if it has scope to be upgraded.
Sign In
