Specialists from the Baltisky Shipyard and boiler design bureau are already at Sevmash shipyard, where the carrier will arrive in the next few weeks. Engineers are focusing on the boilers’ heat insulation as the core of the problem. Repairs could take from four months to a year depending on the damage to the insulation, he said.

The worst case would be damage to the pipes carrying steam from the boilers, Shulyakovsky said. The pipes are made from a special steel which is no longer made in Russia. The steel used in Vikramaditya’s pipes was made in Ukraine.

See:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1930857&postcount=853

… plus, depending on the cooperation of Ukraine.

If i remember correctly, only Ticos carry spq9B. Burkes have no such radar.

052c is more akin to tico that way, as it does have a fast turning high resolution radar for horizon search, on top of its mast.

type 45, in my opinion, has merged the roles of all of those radars (almost even the EW radar, as well, except in saturation attack situations where SAMPSON couldn’t track close targets and do long range scanning at the same time as efficiently as RN wanted. That is why that L-band radar is there.) in a single radar sitting high up. It is one of the best aspects of Type 45 design.

The SPQ-9 is no a new radar and has received a number of upgrades over the years. It was originally built to be the main air defense radar on several American destroyer and cruiser classes, but over time it has been relegated to a secondary role on advanced air defense ships to fill in coverage gaps, or a slot on some amphibious ship classes as a relatively inexpensive, medium-capability main radar. Initially tested on the USS Norton Sound (AVM-1), SPQ-9A was deployed on Spruance-class destroyers, Kidd-class destroyers, Ticonderoga-class cruisers, Tarawa-class amphibious assault ships, Iowa-class battleships (1980s refit), California-class cruisers and Virginia-class cruisers.

The SPQ-9A is being replaced on all Ticonderoga Class cruisers by the SPQ-9B, which provides twice the range and improved range resolution, as a part of the United States Navy’s “Cruiser Modernization” program, and becomes a part of the Mk-160 Mod 11 gun fire-control system (MK160 GFCS). Its mission is to serve as a primary fire control or backup radar that can detect and track low-flying, high-speed, small radar cross-section anti-ship missile targets in heavy clutter environments. That’s especially useful amidst waves, or close to shore.

Still, the AN/SPQ-9B has known limitations. These were succinctly stated in a FY 2009 testing report for the San Antonio Class that cited: “Problems associated with SPS-48E and SPQ-9B radar performance against certain Anti-Ship Cruise Missile attack profiles.”

In April 1212 Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Melville, NY received an $8.8 million contract modification for AN/SPQ-9B cooperative engagement capability (CEC) interface kits and antenna group upgrade kits. The AN/SPQ-9B compensates for known weaknesses in the S-band SPY-1 main radar on American destroyers and cruisers, and CEC creates a common picture of the battlespace for participating ships. The USA’s DDG-51 destroyers don’t have SPQ-9 radars, so connecting the cruisers’ SPQ-9s to CEC makes sense for US battlegroups.

Note that while not on the Burke, the Royal Australian Navy’s Hobart class Aegis “air warfare destroyers” will also be equipped with the AN/SP-9B as a secondary radar, per DSCA requests. SPG-9B also equips the Legend class national security cutters, which additionally sport EADS TRS-3D Air Search Radar and AN/SPS-73 Surface Search Radar. IMHO Usefulness of CEC capability for those 2 classes of ships is evident.

ESSM didn’t exist in 1991. If we’re talking about modern setting, it is trivial to find an SSM which would outrange ESSM – even newest variants of Penguin can do it.

That ESSM didn’t exist in 1991 is besides the point. ESSM can be carried on a small ship like a FAC and WILL outrange Penguin. Clearly, that doesn’t mean defence against AShM, which have varying ranges (but tend to longer ranges). Meanwhile, all but a VERY few select navies will find their ship SAMs being outranged by SSMs. So, how does this disqualify (only) FACs?

The article below could be intersting to you!

China’s Aircraft Carrier: In Name Only

Well…

defense experts say it lacks the strike aircraft, weapons, electronics, training and logistical support it needs to become a fighting warship

… oh please, come on!

It is fitted with the same radar equipments found on 054A and 052C. It carries GUN and Missile CIWS. It has EW equipment and ECM launchers as well as anti-sub/torp weaponry. There is a land-based facility to approximate deck landings/take offs. There are Su27K-like combat aircraft and rotorcraft that will likely be seen to operate from her.

That’s interesting. Sensors & weapons to be updated, I see. I wonder what they’ll get.

Not sure that’s actually going to be the case. Perhaps lost in translation: Barroso (V34) itself is an evolution of class “Inhaúma” in AMRJ, with a more stealth and upgraded weapons.

Read more: http://www.naval.com.br/blog/2009/03/16/no-fremm-more-barrosos/#ixzz256o8huhb

http://www.naval.com.br/blog/?s=corvetas+

http://www.naval.com.br/blog/2009/03/16/no-fremm-more-barrosos/

Fan art strectched version with VLS:

Oh I totally agree that PoW or QE is pretty much a non starter. As for an interim carrier I think we are five years too late.

If five years ago India had put in a serious bid for Invincible, PdA or Chakri Naruebet then I think it might of been worthwhile as an interim solution. Now that they are months away from getting INS Vikramaditya and INS Viraat has had a SLEP to allow service through to 2020 with her remaining SHAR the investment in another interim carrier seems a bit needless. Even a hot swap of PdA requires some kind of work up and I think they are going to have their hands full crewing INS Vikramaditya through induction trials alongside INS Viraat. Actually in that respect I think they might even be a bit lucky that INS Vikrant has been delayed.

Agree. Still, PdA would require substantially fewer personnel than Viraat, freeing up bodies for new ships…

I just don’t think the Indian naval air service would regard inducting AV8B or PdA worth it considering the time frames. Just an opinion 😉

Nonetheless, delayed domestic production does not make PoW an option and in the meantime they might need something other than Viraat (my suggestions was PdA with SHAR, not AV8B, as potential interim solution, if the alternative is no carrier. As soon as Vikramaditya is there, this changes the game.)

No, there isn’t.

All the AV-8B in the boneyard have flight-hour expired airframes or lack essential items that have been stripped out to keep the rest of the USMC’s AV-8B/B+ flying.

The USMC bought the 72 retired British GR.9 Harriers (and the spare parts supply) to keep their remaining AV-8B/B+ flying until they can be replaced by F-35B. Not only will their engines & other parts be used, the GR.9’s airframe parts will be used in repairing/maintaining the USMC fleet.

While the plan had been to retire the AV-8B/B+ first, the availability of the Brit airframes has resulted in the USMC deciding to replace their F/A-18A+/C/D fleet first, and the AV-8B/B+ fleet last… which means that all of them will be at the end of their airframe lives.

– Who said anything about boneyard?
– 215 USMC jets aside, there remain 17+18 AV8Bs in Spanish and Italian service. Marina Militare AV-8Bs are slated to be replaced by 22 F-35B versions of the F-35 Lightning II, operating from the Cavour. In 2007, Spain conducted a contractual study into a replacement for the Harrier II, the likely option being the F-35B. According to a Lockheed Martin vice-president, Spain was still evaluating the F-35B as of 2010. Surely these jets have fewer hours clocked than the USMC jets.
– projected airframe lives don’t necessary correspond to usability (note Viraat herself had a much shorter intended service live, plus there are plenty examples of types older than AV8B still flying). So long as the airframes are better than those of the Sea Harrier, there is an option.
– again, we’re talking interim, not structural solution (short duration)