JSRThe cost of setting up MiG-29K production infrastructure has nothing to do with the cost to refurbish the Gorshkov.
This is your assumption that is clearly wrong.
There is no chance of India signing for $2.5b Aircraft carrier in 2004.
JSRIrrelevant.
The MiG-29K could have been operated off any STOBAR carrier including one delivered by a western shipyard.
but not at this price. MIG-29 cheaper productionizing is related to Vik.
JSRWhy $1.7 billion? The INS Vikramaditya was budgeted at $2.35 billion.
And I suggest you read those quotes again. €1.3 billion for the Cavour. That’s $1.75 billion for a 30,000 ton carrier. Minus ‘electronics’ just like the Vikramaditya. A new STOBAR 45,000 ton carrier for under $2.5 billion is hardly a chimera.
They could have built the first Vikrant in a foreign shipyard, followed by a sister ship built at Cochin, economizing through commonalities and reducing the risk factor on the latter. The basic design would have been vastly superior to the Gorshkov, it would have had a longer life, it would have been more reliable and the after-sale support would have been decent for a change.
And just what makes you think that no shipyard from Fincantieri to DCN, BAE, Northrop Grumman and Hanjin/Hyundai/Daewoo could have delivered a carrier in that class by 2013 (assuming contract signing in 2004)? Especially considering that India with relatively limited experience with heavy shipbuilding will commission its first carrier about 10 years after laying it down (about the same time as taken by the Vikramaditya).
You do realize sigining contract in 2004 means paying a lot less for Productioninzing MIG-29K. there is no way India will sign up for any thing more expensive in 2004.
JSR.
…but this was already explained to you- that’s the whole point of KnAAPO produced prototypes being transferred to HAL initially planned for 2014, 2017 and 2019, and may include at least one of the upcoming batch pre-T-50-10 (though admittedly the bit about Japanese LEAN technologies & industrial management went way above your head), and this is how you responded:
Alenia has built production line for JSF. did any of JSF went there for testing?. infact that FACO facily will be jointly run by LM and Alenia.
if PAK-FA is too be supplied to HAL in 2014 there has to be $200 to $300m pmt for hand built prototypes. I don’t see any investment by HAL to manufacture PAK-FA and it is not even involved any manufacturing components. HAL is not even customer airforce that can even make suggestion about improvements.
JSRSorry, but that’s a stupid statement !
It is not the point what it offers more (in comparison to what the T50 could or will offer) but simply can the RuAF afford so many T50 that all older types can be replaced … or could it be an option to purchase also a smaller design similar to the F-35, which maybe offers not everything but is probably a bit more affordable to be purchased in larger numbers. As such with already an Russian engine … it could be an option even more if Russian avionics would be used !
Deino
yeah more stupid is wasting time on some thing irrelveant like J-31.
The following are disadvantages of J-31
1. Short range. so less flexibility in deployment. since internal fuel is smaller in J-31 the range multiplication advantage from Airrefueling is further eroded. One Airrefuelling gives Su-34 7000km range. J-31 will be half than that. so cannot effectively escort a strike package.
2. Less acceleration and less high altiude performance. It is obvious the range of missiles launched from such mediocre platform will be much less than T-50. and with less top end speed its ability to dictate fight and disengage at will be lot less.
3. introduction of costly training and maintaince by introducing another type along with limited upgrade flexibility of small airframe.
they are not even thinking of going smaller. small is for disposable UCAV. UCAV has very high crash rate relative to bomber/fighters and that are subsonic UCAVs. supersonic UCAV could be even more unreliable.
http://rbth.ru/news/2013/11/28/work_on_pak_da_will_be_intensified_-_head_of_united_aircraft_corporation_32117.html
Work on PAK DA will be intensified – head of United Aircraft Corporation
JSRThe point of a plane flying with mockups is to simulate the real weight.
it means real things haven’t been integrated and launched from platform. the mockup you shown is very lightly loaded anyway. It is not strike certified plane.
JSRWe’ve got state media saying J-15 will have guided Air to ground capability and we’ve seen mock ups of missiles on the ship with the J-15 mock up years ago.
And they’ve flown off and onto the ship with AShM mock ups too.
And we both know J-15 doesn’t need external fuel tanks, it’s internal fuel is more than enough for the kind of missions it will undertake.
This is still mockups not real weights of fuel tanks or missiles. Su-33/J-15 does need ET as those cannot have range of standard Flanker due to heavier weight. when you add heavier weight and higher thrust engine the range suffers. F-18E has same problem.
MIG-29K is very agile for its internal fuel capacity. 2000km range is certified by RAC MIG. 2000km range from MIG-29K is not the same thing as 2000km range from MIG-35 as they have different weights.
JSRSo where does that leave the two carriers in terms of power projection? Well Vikramditya’s airwing of Mig-29Ks are roughly F-18C/D class in terms of weight. That’s a decent ranged fighter. Liaoning’s J-15s are F-18E/F, F-14 sized, so much larger in both weight and dimensions. We’re all well acquainted with the flanker platform’s formidable range and payload. Both Mig-29K and J-15 have modern avionics to support use of modern air to air and air to surface weapons.
MIG-29K thrust is 20k lbs each. F-18C/D limited to 17k lbs thrust. MIG-29K is intermediate fighter between F-18C and F-18E. Also nose of MIG-29K can have much bigger radar than F-18C and Rafale. we haven’t seen any strike weopon qualifications on J-15 or external fuel tanks.
JSRThe French carrier was hobbled by the political decision to go nuclear when they didnt have a powerplant to do it (salutory lesson for Indians re IAC-2!!!). Their conventional carrier design prior to that was just fine…as any Brazillian naval officer you care to meet. The DCN Romeo/Juliette conventional hulls were cited as needin STOBAR IAC-1 or a simplified 50k ton variant of the DCN Romeo would have ballparked around the US$3-3.5bn built in Europe. Built in India you knock 25% off the top straight offg about 2.5bn Euro to deliver from French yards with European build costs and all the systems. A CATOBAR Fincantieri design stretched 10% or so from the current?.
2.5b Euro is about $4b dollar at that time. there is no way India would have sign up for carrier without air component for that price. with less proficient labor & dysfunctional management usually naval projects get much more expensive and delayed in India. so no chance of 25% knock off. infact increase it by 100%.
see the years of dithering on A330MRT deal by India which has active production line and known price.
Also India was bargaining with US at that time for nuclear supply deal so some of money like for C-17/C-130/P-8 was reserved for that purpose.
JSRLooks like more or less a sure thing at this point. This is another big win for the F-35. So much for the death spiral…
This wins coming around 2018 time line when most customers expect lower prices. next 5 years more important.
infact every one waiting for F-35 makes industrial chain more expensive for fighters like F-16/F-18/F-15/EF/Rafale.
JSRYou do seem very willing to overlook a 300% cost increase and 52 month original delivery schedule missed by about 4yrs for Gorshkov though. Not really a fan of the French JSR?.
300% is from very low base and no currency impact. for example in 2004 Euro-Dollar was 1.1 it balloned to 1.68 in 2008. If Russian didnot quoted lower price the deal could not have been closed.
with France negotiation takes much longer due much higher upfront price. so let say deal closed around 2010. by than even bringing back cheaper aircraft like MIG-29K production back on line could have been alot higher compared to 2004. (just look at wage and material inflation in Russia from 2004 to 2010).
Rafale is totally out of question price wise. IN is now wise (Scropene & barak missile saga) what things cost in reality and complex one off Naval projects Time line. so IAC-1 is very similar capability wise as Gorshkov with same planes.
JSRNot exactly DCN had its Romeo and Juliette designs doing the rounds in 2003/4 as it was trying to rouse support for them as PA2 contenders…an Indian order even if only for the licensed design, consultancy and a few bits of module construction would have been music to French ears back then…who knows what concessions you might have gotten from them….I’d imagine a great willingness in the MN to help with training at least!. I’ve seen French media reports that put the costs for PA2 with a DCN design at 2.5bn Euro built in French yards to MN spec. You would have had the same length of time to get the CATOBAR hull, Italian or French derived, over the political and technical hurdles that you’ve actually taken to get Vikramaditya over its political and technical hurdles…and theyve likely been more challenging than a new build!. Most importantly you would have been left at the end of the process with the right design…not that unfortunate situation you are in now where youve spent best part of 5bn but have to start again from scratch.
It takes on average 3 times more time taken to conclude a deal with French firm by India. so cost increases just by negotiation is astronomical. see Scorpene example or M2K upgrades. or non cooperation in Kaveri project. It is already two years after Rafale selection and no one knows final price.
Aircraft Carrier from DCN is simply a non starter.
http://centreright.in/2013/03/the-failed-negotiations-with-snecma-for-engine-technology/#.UpA1BTHTk5s
The Failed Negotiations with Snecma for Engine Technology
In 2008, MoD selected Snecma over Russia’s NPO Saturn as the collaborator for the Kaveri. It was reported that it would take 4 years to develop and certify a new engine, after which the technology would be transferred to GTRE. MoD entered into separate negotiations with Snecma on this deal even as it was processing the MMRCA proposals. These negotiations dragged on for more than three years
Why did the negotiations drag on for so many years, and on what basis were predictions of imminent agreement fed to the media on a regular basis (see here and here?)
JSRRussians had to buy souped up Searcher II UAV’s from Israel to “learn” from them, and same time Chinese are flying their own drones. Of course systems what make a fighter jet are different, but things are not that black and white when it comes to aircraft technology.
If Russian were decades ahead in every area they would not be buying drones from Israel.
you cannot learn from $400m deal when your going to spend $13b on development alone.
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20120614/174031126.html
Russia plans to spend around 400 billion rubles ($13 billion) on UAV development in the next eight years
UAV buy is more favor to Israel just like Mistral deal with France. Turkey is not buying that much from Israel. India has slowed down Barak missile and there is no follow up of Phalcon. Nato countries and US are in sequestration that will decrease Israel exports.
JSRJSR,
The $1.5bn Italian carrier that is specced out to MMI requirements which, from what I can tell, far exceed what Vikramaditya is outfitted with!. Not seeing a radar-missile fit on Vikramaditya that compares to the EMPAR/Aster SAAM/IT suite on Cavour as just a single example!. In fact I dont see a radar the equal of EMPAR in the entire Indian Navy!. Perhaps not too quick to judge there eh JSR?. The point was not that the IN should have bought a Cavour class instead of Vikramditya anyway though. Rather it was that there were carrier designs around, at the time that India signed up to Gorshkov, that offered the foundation of a proper class of carriers and not the hotchpotch of differing designs that you will end up with now. Cavour being one example of those and an example that, in actuality, did not come with the astronomical costs that posters here appear to assume.
India is already standardizing on Barak missiles for all its ships (Its another matter of delayed implementation). so its irrelevant whether Italians offer Aster/EMPAR combo. Its not big cost. atmost $150m. Italians things comes with astronomical costs. Boeing took away back work from Alenia. highly inefficient.
Vik doesnt meet IN needs. Effective Sea Control requires wide area surface surveillance. Vikramditya cannot provide that beyond what its Ka-31’s can deliver…the same coverage that Viraat delivered. Viraat was not an effective Sea Control platform…do you see where this is heading?. Higher cost to run…yes I have ‘data’ its called the machinery fit of the vessel. I’d encourage you to see if you can find an efficient and ‘cheap to run’ 8 boiler steam plant on any ship in any commercial or naval service on the planet. I know the UK never built one.
effective sea control needs fighter with higher top speed/climb rates, and faster /longer range antiship/anti radition missile. what you can do with subsonic fighter with short range weopons if you see threat couple of hundreds kms?. infact Ka-31 is not really needed. those carrier borne AWACS are 1960s era concept when fighter radars were not that strong and fighters have huge turn radius. now Fighter engine thrust is much more than turboprop AWACS.
Vik has its own radar system. Ka-31 is just for low altitude targets. its aircraft carrier it is going for one of voyages. that’s why you don’t see afterburner engines in civil airlines.
JSRThe ‘couldnt afford better’ argument doesnt work JSR. Neither does the ‘Russian fringe benefits’ argument…weren’t you meant to get Tu-22’s as part of this deal!?.
India was able to go from a spend of $800mn to 2.3bn on the Russian ship…was that money found down the back of a sofa between 2004 and 2009 perhaps?. The Indian media claim that the STOBAR IAC-1 will come in at about the same price…presumably that being a spend programmed in for a while before steel-bashing started?. Thats a total $4bn+ spend, which wil become significantly higher with the extra wholelife costs of supporting disparate types of capital ship, and there STILL isnt one definitive Indian carrier design that will be taken forward. So, on top of the $4bn, you now spend again designing the definitive Indian carrier. The words ‘false economy’ do come to mind.
I did not say $2.3b is small amount but when you look around what is available as alternative it become very small price. there is no such thing as IAC-1 before 2020 in operations (its real costs will known at that time). and that will still uses MIG-29K. so it is better to get infrastructure and pilots training up and running.
Gorshkov was big news in the early 2000’s as it was to be a ‘cheap, quick and dirty’ method to put in place a superior replacement for Viraat/SHAR. That myth, for those who believed, was disabused in ’04 by the “shock” announcement that the ship was in a poorer materiel condition than “was first thought” so an interim solution became a ship that now has to have a 30yr service lifespan!. What you have then is an expensive ship, that will cost a disproportionate amount to run by virtue of its machinery, that wont allow the use of the CATOBAR airgroup that the IN was always heading towards…there is no way that a case could be made that this is the ‘cheap’ option!.
It is still very cheap for $2.4b. as the follow on carrier IAC-1 will be using the same fighters. CATOBAR is just on paper as far as IN is concerned.
…unless you are Italian of course. They were able, even with funding challenges and political delays, to deliver a 30,000ton full load aircraft carrier for less than $1.5bn. A simpler STOVL design of course, but, with the added design complexity of it needing to be adaptable for amphib operations.
$1.5b Italian carrier is not the export price with IN requirements and thousands of Indian crew trained on it. Viki comes with its own radar and battle management system. you can see India practically canceled chopper deal with Italians due to corruption. you simply cannot comprehend the amount of corruption if Carrier deal was handed over to Italians. and India has to find fighter at much higher price from another source.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jIjCfe1fUFq6iXsIus9k_nkk3YHg?docId=b7bd703d-b7e6-455b-98c6-8295d7dcd24b
AgustaWestland fights to keep graft-tainted Indian chopper deal
No I’m suggesting that the IN never had an urgent need for the Gorshkov and, by 2004, several very much cheaper CVS options existed that could have allowed the IN to run on with SHAR at least as long as it will now. That they had, and could have taken, the time to assemble the funds to design and build the carrier that met India’s strategic requirements…which Gorshkov and STOBAR were never going to…and build a number of hulls to that single class design. The IN had been talking to DCN in France since the days of the ADS concept back in the early 1990’s so its a nonsense to suggest that they didnt know what they needed out of a carrier, what it would take to deliver it and had no assistance with the effort. Buying into a ship that doesnt meet your strategic goals, that doesnt offer design evolution potential and is going to cost a significantly higher amount to run than a contempory-tech vessel makes no sense…it is every definition of the elephant though.
As I mentioned they had smaller budget until this point. perhaps DCN could designed for IN if IN did not sunk all the money into scorpene subs. Just to give you example one export Mistral is close to $900m and that after all the efficiency of regular production line at DCN with Russian components. creating unique heavy carrier for IN requirements with DCN will cost IN fortune.
where you get this information Vik does not meet IN needs?.
higher amount to run? you have any data.
Sign In
