harryRIEDLmore fun in the Gorshkov deal Mig 29K and no carrier
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India_Russia_yet_to_reach_breakthrough_on_Groshkov/articleshow/2686282.cms
India, Russia yet to reach breakthrough on Gorshkov
9 Jan 2008, 1507 hrs IST,PTI
SMS NEWS to 58888 for latest updates
NEW DELHI: India and Russia are yet to achieve a breakthrough on resolving the Gorshkov deal, which has been in a deadlock over pricing.
“There has been no major breakthrough, though discussions are on,” Defence Minister A K Antony said on the sidelines of a function to launch the Golden Jubilee celebrations of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
India is supposed to get the delivery of the aircraft carrier next year, but the Russians told New Delhi that they cannot stick to the time schedule due to heavy cost overruns on the warship’s upgrading.
In the new terms, Moscow is demanding USD 1.5 billion more for carrying out complex cabling work on the warship to integrate its command and control stations. Under the original deal concluded in 2004, India was to pay USD 1.2 billion for complete retrofitting of the carrier.
Antony said that negotiation teams from both countries had held a number of round of talks, but no breakthrough had been achieved yet. His remarks assume significance in the backdrop of an expected visit by a Russian delegation later this month here on the issue.
Though uncertainty over the delivery of the carrier continues, Russia is expected to stick to schedule on supplying the first batch of Mig-29K, the warship’s main fighters by June next year.
The Defence Minister said that Malaysia had evinced interest in acquiring the surface to air Akash missiles.
“Malaysians got to hear about the 100 per cent successful trials and broached the subject of its acquisition during the talks,” he said.
harryRIEDLSome worrying views on C3 here I feel….more to my alarm they seem to be shared by industry too.
We are, apparently, looking at a class of 8 vessels replacing the current Minor War vessels fleet MCM’s, survey vessels and what patrol ships we have remaining. This is, quite frankly, lunacy. Mine Warfare, as the RN is well aware, is a major problem in the littoral…we were caught without it in the Falklands and had a coalition depend on us for it not once, but, twice in the Gulf over the past 18 years. A 2000ton OPV with a RoV is not going to replace a flotilla of three Sandowns and, likewise, we cant find ourselves in the position ever again of having a TF CO trying to work out which of his escorts was ‘most expendable’ to send through an area suspected of having been mined!.
C3 has to, therefore, be available to the group in number to maximise the area swept by UUV’s and RoV’s and be able to keep up with a deploying battlegroup. The last factor utterly precluding the kind of 20knt OPV designs being touted.
As the Dutch have noted with their version of this kind of vessel, on distant patrol station, you have to be big enough to cope with the kinds of disaster assistance, rescue and constabulary duties that are the staple diet of such patrols. The need for an aviation department capable of permanent embarkation of a chopper up to Merlin sized is obvious.
C3 therefore, by virtue of what it is replacing and what it will be tasked to accomplish, has to be at least the same size, and offer similar performance, as an old Type21 frigate. Given that C2 is intended to be a low intensity warfare/MIOPS platform analagous to the German Type 125 design it seems that the taskings, at least, between C3 and C2 produce an overlap.
That C1, the anticipated warfighter replacement for the T23’s, needs to produce some form of SONAR2087 equipped DDH is, I believe, widely accepted. Today there is simply no better system for putting the frighteners on SSK’s lurking in the littoral than the hunting, autonomous, chopper. In Merlin we have, possibly, the best in the world…not leveraging that is insanity of the truest sort!. Now BAE have, unsolicited, produced artwork showing the basic T45 hullform evolved to meet the DDH requirement.
We are in the interesting position, therefore, of having platform overlap between T45/C1 and C2/C3. The logical derivation from that is that we maximise volume savings by building C1 leveraged off T45 without PAAMs and with a redesigned after aviation section and with 2087 line handling gear installed astern. We then build C2 and C3 to a common hull/machinery design of circa 4000tons for, perhaps, 16 units and specialise them as was done with the Leander class. 8 as C2 ‘combattants’ with the 155 forward, UK PAAMS-lite and GWS60 plus ‘half-SAMSON’ and a good CESM/ESM/EO/IR fit plus aviation. 2nd batch of 8 as C3’s with the 155 (for commonality and warfighting tasking) plus a reused Phalanx 1B, extra aviation capacity, launching ramp/davits for fast boats, RoV/UUV handling gear etc.
This would have the net effect of reducing the escort/minor war vessels fleet from 6 or 7 classes to essentially 2. You could streamline machinery further by running C2/C3 on a shrink-to-fit version of T45 IEP with a single turbine and a few aux diesels. Imagine the efficiencies of a single training course and a single-type logistics train for damn-near the whole escort fleet?.
Is it going to be overkill putting a 4000ton vessel out on fisheries patrol duties – the Danes dont seem to think so and, by all accounts, find their Thetis class boats perfectly satisfactory. I’m pretty sure the Falkland Islanders would go for a 4000 ton, grey painted boat sporting a 155mm gun on the foredeck as patrol ship in their, increasingly important, waters too!.
Thoughts?
any idea for the kind hull for the joint C2/C3 would be a theits class, or a new design or even T23 or FREMM, would a Nancean class be overkill
harryRIEDLA Merlin sized hangar would be nice even if the vessel carries Future Lynx normally, I’m not sure if a double hangar is neccessary but it’d certainly add options for not a great deal of extra cost. On propulsion an evolved version of the T23 combined GT/diesel electric system would be ideal IMO, improved to IEP and using more modern prime movers and electrics, Wartsila diesels and maybe a single WR21? On sonar and ASW torpedo systems I’m no expert and I’ll defer to those who know about that side of things, but a low RCS top side, a close in missile system (RAM? Mica? CAAMS?), a 57 or 76mm gun with smart munitions for anti-missile screening and a couple of light cannon, job done. The Dutch OPV integrated mast would indeed have a lot of promise for such a ship. This could offer the RN of a truly first class ASW vessel with enough of a sting to protect itself, which IMO is the way to go rather than trying to do a little of everything to much lower standards.
in regards to torpedoes could spearfish be adapted as its meant to be a fantastic torpedo. everything else i agree with except that id like PAAMS replacing seawolf
harryRIEDLThere’s a certain resemblance to aircraft like the OV-10 Bronco and GAF Nomad in the three view! Nice looking design, I have to wonder what effect they might have had if the Royal Navy had bought them for the Harrier carriers in the ’70s! An AEW aircraft might have helped a lot, pity they didn’t pick up the project…
on that 3/4 cutaway where would the radar go:confused: it can’t go on the top as whole wing moves would there be space for a retractable mount as theres all those drive shafts.
looks like a mantance nightmare
harryRIEDLYou know these things have a funny habit of evolving with time – it’s just not in the plan now as far as I’m aware. Phantom II’s comment on Harrier is right on. Funadmentally, VL recoveries aboard ship don’t require the same precautions as conventional carrier recoveries (eg organic tanker in the overhead) because with VL the boarding rate is close to 100%. No bolters, few wave-offs, even in high sea state. At the risk of creating a hugely controversial thread: it’s all together a more gentlemanly way to recover aircraft at sea!
Why land and then stop when you can stop and then land?:diablo:
(Note however, to complicate the points made above, the UK is looking closely at what are called Ship Rolling Vertical Landings – I will put something on my website about this in due course).
a buddy pack would be handy for pushing the range out further and could give a comparable range to the CTOL F35 and would give the F35 even more versatility
harryRIEDLIt will be interesting to see how the French ships get fitted out, CdG has a very impressive armament of VLS ASTER-15, I wonder whether they will go down that route again? Or if they will do a fitted for but not with job?:confused:
anyone have any idea what CdG refit entails because its a sizable SLEP of 18mt is ASTER being removed, or is the Nuke reactor just being refueled
harryRIEDLLet’s talk about the platform design, the twin island layout is as innotive as it is quirky looking, and kudos to the MoD for having the balls to go with BMT’s original thinking rather than BAe’s design. The engines, GT’s and diesels whilst having their critics are an awful lot cheaper than nuclear, especially given that the UK would need to design a new nuclear reactor for just two ships with virtually no prospect of further sales of the reactor, or try and make a submarine plant work in an aircraft carrier in the way France tried, which isn’t the way ahead IMO. The MT30 engines, superb machines, although in a way I’d have liked to see the WR21, the engine installation looks worthy of discussion too. IEP looks like it’ll be used, again a very forward looking decision, one of the great innovations of T45 was IEP despite it being sadly ignored on this board. The C&C and self defence provision, these seem up in the air still, with estimates ranging from them having nohing beyond CIWS and relying on T45’s for C&C facilities, to full fleet flagship outfit with Sampson etc. and high capability self defence. Personally, my view is once the ships are built they can do what they want to improve that side of things later, get the ships past the treasury now and take care of stuff like that later, and IMO the weapons of an aircraft carrier are it’s aircraft, anything more than bolt on CIWS and final inner layer point defence is a waste of space and resources that should be going into air ops IMO.
if you on the CGI you can see the CIWS mounted underneath the deck in the manner of the CVN’s i think it has been desied to have the fleet flagship CIC fitted. the problem with WR-21 I think was that they weren’t powerful enough to be fitted in the manner of two diesels two GT all fitted in to the all electric . I think beadles site had all this info
harryRIEDLSpain currently operate Harriers of various models, have a single carrier for them and a new LHD on the way with a VSTOL capability. So theoretically they could be looking at the B model as a Harrier follow on.
In the UK Typhoons will be used for Strike as well as air Superiority. The RAF F35s strike/CAS. The RN F35s Fleet defence and strike/CAS
Spain should be in the market for the F35B but it will have to wait :dev2:
I do like the Probe on it can’t wait to see the test flights
harryRIEDLim enjoying this nice little fight between Jonesy and sealordlawrence i don’t get this kind of fun on other forums 😎
well now its nice to see the augments have changed from its not getting built and the RN’s doomed. the age old CTOL/STOVL debate which will continue till hell freezes over. At lest we got the option between the two which is more than the RN has had for 30 years.
well now keep it you two
harryRIEDLAgreed, mostly sorted, & the tankers are probably the biggest worry (apart from helicopters, but that’s as much an army problem), but I think there are also some holes to be filled in ISR. E-3 (as long as we can keep upgrading ’em), Sentinel & Nimrod MRA4 are good, but won’t cover everything – and we won’t have enough Nimrods. Got a bit of a short-term transport problem, as well, until the A400M are in service, but at least we know it’s only short-term.
the handy thing about the A400 is it will be able to deal with both the transport problem and the tanker problem. As it can be reconfigered for tanker ops quickly [is it fast enough for Tac air]
harryRIEDLThe comparison to Foch and Clemencau is perfectly valid. Gorshkov was a lot more than just an ASW carrier and that is part of the problem.
It will only be the third most powerful carrier in the world until the arrival of the world until the arrival of the CVF and PA2.
i personally feel that Cavour is a better carrier than the reconstructed gorskov.
harryRIEDLFunny, I suggested the same thing a few months back. Yet, some on this forum said it wouldn’t happen………not practical? Personally, I can’t wait to see some Pic’s. To bad the RN isn’t getting F-35C’s and Hawkeye’s or this could be a more regular event between Allied Carriers.:(
the French have been forced into this action as you can’t have 60+ pilots with no carrier Quals for over a year. they much rather do this on there own vessel:(
harryRIEDLThe French Aéronavale will embark for the first time on an American aircraft carrier. Without a second aircraft carrier, while Charles stopped for maintenance for eighteen months, pilots of Rafale and Hawkeye are going to train in July 2008 aboard the USS Roosevelt off Norfolk, in the Atlantic. “We are setting up this operation with the American Navy” said the French Navy Office. A dozen airplanes are to be deployed on Roosevelt: six to eight Rafales of the flotilla 12 F and two Hawkeyes of the flotilla 4F.
For the Navy, it is a simple “technical exchanges”. So far, FN aircraft could not land on Americans carriers. But since last July, as we announced then on this blog (see photo), the Rafale F2 have the capacity to do so after validating their alignment system. There are very few technical obstacles, since Charles is equipped with catapults and arresting wires made in the United States. Since the nineties, French navy pilots are trained in the United States, in the absence of trainer aircraft for learning carrier landing techniques.
The newsletter TTU, which reveals information this week, sees in this case “evidence of warming in Franco-American relations and the willingness of President Nicolas Sarkozy to ensure that France regains its place in the “Otan”. TTU said that this “initiative is strongly encouraged by Craig Stapleton, the United States Ambassador to France.” Boarding a dozen planes french aboard an American is indeed never seen before!
This operation will backfire against the interests of the French Navy. It gives arguments to the opponents of the construction of a second aircraft carrier (PA2), many in the upper héirarchy of the military. If the French can operate their Flotillas from the large American carriers in the event of an international crisis and non-availability of Charles, France can possibly save three billion euros, the cost of PA2. As for national independence …
http://secretdefense.blogs.liberatio…ilotes-de.html
if true isn’t going to be interesting example of cooperation
harryRIEDLI was not even suggesting that the radars were going to be podded now, simply that they are being kept boxed up so if push came to shove they could be put in pods and AMRAAM’s cleared……..I shouldnt have to tell you how fast things can move if there is a bit of urgency.;)
im just thinking allowed. Could your replace the Nose cone on the GR7/9 with one from the FA2. and wire it up
harryRIEDLPerhaps they already feel they have shot themselves in the foot with Vikramaditya and now the second batch Talwars? Certainly not the way to win repeat orders….
As to SHARS, they already turned down an earlier offer didn’t they – dispute over the radars?
yep the UK didn’t want the Blue Fox radar with the Indians. I was just wondering whether they can replace the attrition of the SHAR FRS1 which they will have and whether new builds are out of the question
Sign In
