dark light

EdLaw

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 1,259 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: More Information of India's ADS Carriers? #2061616
    EdLaw
    Participant

    The build quality of the Delhis are excellent. What reports are you talking about?

    http://www.acig.org/exclusives/viraat/viraat_3.htm

    BTW The ADS is called Project 71.

    A friend of mine had the opportunity to tour the ship when she was in the UK for the Trafalgar 200 fleet review, and the finish quality of the ship was not very high. I believe it was largely with regard to such things as the weld quality – not a unique problem, and indeed one experienced by many yards. I have a lot of respect for the Indian shipyards, but the account of the quality control was pretty worrying. The location, quality, and extent of welds was the issue if memory serves. :confused:

    in reply to: More Information of India's ADS Carriers? #2061683
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Nick: I am basing my comments about build quality mostly on reports on the Delhi class destroyers, which were built fairly recently. It is entirely possible that the quality has improved since then, but I haven’t seen anything on any warships built since then. I hope I am wrong!

    Scooter: I agree that the CdG is smaller than I would choose, but it is big enough to be a potent carrier – the CVF will be much better, but the CdG is still worthwhile. France basically built the CdG to be a bit bigger than the carriers she replaced, but didn’t aim for a small supercarrier, whereas the UK basically aimed for a cheaper supercarrier. Twenty-four Rafales is enough for a lot of purposes, but obviously thirty-six or more is even better!

    in reply to: More Information of India's ADS Carriers? #2061805
    EdLaw
    Participant

    We wouldn’t even dream of getting India to build carriers. IIRC, India currently has only one shipyard capable of building a ship that size, & has never built such a ship before. Remember, they’ve hired Fincantieri for design assistance, which shows a realistic appreciation of the gaps in their own expertise. Building the first IAC will give them valuable experience & fill a lot of those holes, but until that’s done, they can’t even think about taking on any similar work. And even then, will there be the shipyard capacity? I reckon it’ll be busy with IAC 2 & probably Indias first indigenous LPDs, so Musashis estimate is probably right.

    No, if we lacked the capacity to build the ships ourselves (& that’d be shipyards, not expertise), we’d contract it out to somewhere like Poland (relatively close, which has advantages), or even Japan – which might like the practice.

    I agree, as I mentioned, it was really only in reference to the lower costs. The reality is that they would not have the capacity, and there are serious concerns about their yards’ quality control, which has led to some pretty worrying build quality on some of their ships.

    In reality, it might not be too insane to actually have someone else build the basic hulls, but ‘green’, i.e. not really fitted out, just wired for it. The UK yards (and French ones in the case of PA2) then put on the flight deck and island, and fit the whole ship out. It would be politically untenable, however, but it would probably save a fair amount of money. I am even tempted to think it would be better to simply have France actually build the basic hulls, then have them all fitted out in the UK.

    The ADS does, however, seem to be a lot of ship, for not too much money, especially if given cats, and ideally Rafales (naval Typhoons or Rhinos being too much to hope for). Two dozen Rafales, a few Hawkeyes, and it will make the Vikramaditya look like a poor imposter! :diablo:

    in reply to: More Information of India's ADS Carriers? #2061814
    EdLaw
    Participant

    You do realise that with India’s own orders, the Royal Navy wouldn’t see them any earlier than the late 2020s.

    Sadly, I agree, but it was a nice thought! It was largely the potential to get the carriers for less than half the price of the two CVFs!

    Gollevainen: I agree, it’s actually a real shame the Indians chose to go with the Russian STOBAR technique, when they actually had cat equipped carriers previously! Even the Russians originally saw STOBAR as a purely interim step, with the aim of switching to cats once their newer carriers came online. It is odd that the Indians seem to be sticking with it – I strongly suspect the (new) Mig-29K could have been modified to use catapults, since it was a fairly major redesign anyway!

    in reply to: More Information of India's ADS Carriers? #2061845
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Well with limited size and the STOBAR arragment which requires alot of deckspace, there is nothing more you can do.

    What comes its dimensions, 252 meter lenght is given and so is the 37,500 ton displacement so its not larger than the De Gaulle…

    Just a small thing – the CdG is only 238m at the waterline (261m flight deck), so the 252m could either mean it’s a little bigger, or a little smaller. The displacement is in the same ballpark as the CdG as well, if not a little bigger. It is probably most accurate to say that it is in the same size class as the CdG, and nothing more (especially until we see detailed info on the ADS).

    in reply to: More Information of India's ADS Carriers? #2061852
    EdLaw
    Participant

    It would be very interesting to see India abandon the STOBAR arrangement, in favour of cats, especially if they could be persuaded to buy Rafales! :diablo:

    Part of me would love to see the UK get India to build a few of them (in place of the CVF) to a cat-equipped version, but in larger numbers, maybe even four! They should be capable of carrying two dozen fighters, a few Hawkeyes, and a few helos, or act as commando carriers with two dozen transport and attack helos. The cynic in me, however, recognises that the build quality is, unfortunately, lacking, given the build quality on the IN’s Delhi class destroyers.

    It is a pity that most of the info on them is out of date, so I suspect that any figures quoted should be treated with a degree of scepticism. 🙁

    in reply to: Does Argentina have cruise missiles #1798608
    EdLaw
    Participant

    It looks like a target drone – but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a missile though, look at the Israeli Delilah, which is derived from the Chukar target drone.

    in reply to: German Phantoms Burn Coal. RAF Lossiemouth 2/3 May 07 #2533249
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Brilliant pictures! Thanks!

    It’s a shame that the RAF retired the Phantoms, they would have made an excellent contribution, especially with newer radar and AMRAAMs. It would have been interesting to see Phantoms being upgraded instead of the Tornado F3s, soldiering on, until being replaced after nearly 40 years by Typhoons! :diablo:

    EdLaw
    Participant

    It is perhaps worth noting that he referred to the fleet of 12 as being the start (i.e. the current order is for three, with twelve soon, and more later). It might have been better though for the UK to go with the US Army’s version of the Predator, i.e. the Warrior (ERMP), which could have been bought in very large numbers, and has a good enough weapons capability, i.e. four Hellfires! For the price of a dozen Typhoons, the UK could have had a dozen Warrior UAV squadrons! :diablo:

    in reply to: Rafale news #2535201
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Why not just accept the truth – the Rafale and Typhoon are both on a par. The Rafale probably has a slight edge in air to ground, but the Typhoon probably has a slight edge in air to air. The MMI in the Typhoon seems to be a little better, but frankly the Rafale is no slouch either. Put the two fighters up against each other, and it will be the better pilot (and the luckier one!) who wins.

    in reply to: Libya making big ticket weapons purchases #2535537
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Not a bad selection, though it looks a little odd buying a dozen each of Flankers and Fulcrums, it would be interesting to see how much cheaper the Fulcrums really are! It might also be interesting to see how they replace their old Yugoslav aircraft, G-2s if memory serves, along with a load of old L-39s. It might be nice to see them getting some new build L-59s or L-159s!

    in reply to: NOTAR?? #2536031
    EdLaw
    Participant

    If memory serves, the problem was with reduced tail control, and more importantly loss of power. The story seemed to be that they were less efficient than tail rotors, meaning less endurance for a given fuel load. For civilians, this wasn’t a big problem, but for military purposes, was a drawback. The other problem was that MD helos were the only ones with NOTAR, and there were plenty of other helos on the market, e.g. Bell and Eurocopter, who could outsell them. Hence, though still on the market, it hasn’t become widespread.

    in reply to: CVF News #2062652
    EdLaw
    Participant

    It certainly sounds good, I would far rather have the ships military-owned, but either commercially operated, or military operated and used for civilian contracts. I would ideally push the number of RoRos up to around eight, and ideally boost the Bay class up to eight as well. If we get two big LHDs (enlarged Spanish BPE type), and hopefully boost Albion class to four, we would have two LHDs, four LPDs (the Albion class) and eight LSDs (Bay class). This is then supplemented by the RoRos carrying an Army brigade or two.

    The ultimate aim should be to have the ability to transport and support a composite division, with heavy armour units, medium armour units, light infantry and marine or para units.

    in reply to: CVF News #2062687
    EdLaw
    Participant

    I didn’t mean to suggest they were RFA owned, sorry, I really meant that they should be. In effect, they should be RFA owned, even if they use commercial crews. I agree that they provide a massive boost to sealift, and if used correctly, could effectively replicate the American sea basing goals.

    As for the littoral combat ship, I certainly like the General Dynamics one, it has a lot of potential. It would probably be too expensive though. 🙁

    in reply to: CVF News #2062713
    EdLaw
    Participant

    I have a feeling they can – I have certainly seen a few pics of the RoRos taken up from trade in the Falklands being unloaded by landing craft. As long as they can lower a loading ramp aft, then they should be able to be unloaded by mexeflote. Personally, I would like to see more RoRos being bought for the RFA, to give more lift capability.

    As for the ships, I would actually love to see something akin to the Absalon design being bought, both as the high-end frigate, and as the patrol frigate. Then you just buy a slightly bigger OPV(H) for the offshore patrol role, possibly adding in a better gun (maybe 35mm Millenium gun, to act as main gun and CIWS), and ideally a SeaRam launcher for self defence. For the Absalons, eight would be finished with full combat systems, ideally including something like the Aussie CEAFAR radar. The eight patrol frigates would ideally have the radar, but omit some of the more expensive combat systems, relying instead on plug-in modules to add these capabilities. This would potentially give 24 first line vessels (8 T-45s, 8 Absalon frigates, 8 Absalon patrol ships), plus 8 patrol vessels.

    In terms of the LPHs, the cheapest option might be to simply buy a direct equivalent of the Spanish BPE, or something of that sort. It shouldn’t be very expensive, and two ships would probably cost about the same as one Type 45. The real issue is always going to be hangarage – the LPDs and LSDs we have bought lack helicopter hangars, they only have landing areas, which means the helos have to be carried on the LPH/LHD. This means we need to buy a helo carrier that can carry 16 Merlins, 8 Apaches, and ideally 4-8 Chinooks. This points to a carrier at least the size of the Spanish BPE, possibly even a little bit bigger. I would aim for an enlarged BPE design, somewhere around 35,000 tons.

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 1,259 total)