This post if from the World Navies Thread

India Admits To Building Nuclear Boats

September 13, 2007: India announced that it had been working on a nuclear submarine for decades, and that they had finally created the light water reactor technology needed to build the small reactors needed for warships. India is installing their reactor in a 5,000 ton Charlie II submarine that was purchased from Russia. This boat will be ready for sea trails next year. Eventually, India wants to build its own nuclear subs.

This project has been rumored for years, but this is the first time anyone in the government admitted that the nuclear sub effort was real.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20070913.aspx

“India is installing their reactor in a 5,000 ton Charlie II submarine that was purchased from Russia. This boat will be ready for sea trails next year. Eventually, India wants to build its own nuclear subs.”

Is this true?

I wonder if it would be possible to substitute a more modern engine for the J85s, in particular I am thinking of the FJ-44 engine. The Swedes switched to using a non-afterburning (I know the FJ44 is non afterburning anyway) FJ44 for their Saab Sk60s, and the Austrian Saab 105s (Sk60s for export) use J85s, so the dimensions are probably close enough. I suspect that if an afterburning FJ44 were used, the specific fuel consumption would be a fair bit better, and potentially boost overall performance. Lower engine weights, and possibly even more thrust would make a lot of difference, and considering that the F-5 has always been a pretty good performer, this might be worthwhile. A growth version of the FJ44, with an afterburner, could probably develop something like 5,000lb dry thrust, and 7,500 in afterburner, and still use less fuel!

The J85 is a turbojet and the FJ44 is a relatively high bypass ratio turbofan – and they aren’t even in the same thrust category either.

In the Swedish Saab Sk60s, the FJ44s replaced Turbomeca Aubisque turbofans, not the much more powerful J85s that were fitted to the Austrian SAAB 105OE.

There has never been an afterburning variant of the FJ44, there will never be an afterburning variant of the FJ44. High bypass ratios and afterburners are mutually exclusive.

Currently, there is no direct replacement for the F-5’s J85 turbojet. The closest modern equivilents are the Adour, TFE1042-70 (F125), or the AL-55 – all of which are larger, with greater mass flow requirement and entirely incompatible with the F-5E/F.

Any ship based 155mm would do………..

The problem is that the AGS is the only 155mm naval mounting available. Monarc is dead, there is no longer any realistic chance of a 155mm gun based on the Mk8 and OTOBreda is concentrating on marketing 64 calibre versions of the 127mm LW.

The F-35B does require jet blast deflectors – it takes off using reheat with the main engine pointed directly aft: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-24.htm

Try reading your own reference.

The jet blast deflectors date from the long superceded CVF Alpha configuration of early 2003. It seems that the current CVF Delta does not have jet blast deflectors, and the there has never been any indication that the USN would retrofit jet blast deflectors to the LHA/LHD amphibious ships.

The truth is that you only need jet blast deflector if you are going to park F-35Bs directly behind the launch position, which would seem to be very unlikely in a ship as small as the 16DDH.

You also should read a bit more about the exhaust nozzle of the X-35B/F-35B, which directs thrust downward, not directly aft, for STOVL capability.

The flight deck around the port side bow would need to be reinforced and slightly extended to the side for the ski jump. The flight deck itself needs reinforcing to take the jet blast from landings. All this adds weight up high, which would probably require additional ballast. Extra weight drives more of the hull into the water, more drag and less speed.

Are you a Japanese maritime engineer who has worked on the 16DDH, or are you just making this stuff up?

Only the aft section of the hanger is high enough for replacing the F-35B engine and the 6 m forward is probably too low to hanger the F-35B.

So the aft portion of the hangar is indeed high enough to engine removal?

You are basically admitting that the hangar is high enough (6 meter minimum plus higher aft) to both house and support the F-35B, which is 4.6 meters tall?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 21Ankush
Analysis: Russia-China military cooperation on the rocks
HONG KONG, Aug. 24
ANDREI CHANG

Andrei Chang a.k.a. Yihong Chang a.k.a. Pinkov is often quoted
to be the ‘editor’ of Kanwa publication (allegedly a Canadian
Publication). However, many believed him to a Japanese-influenced /
Japanese-inspired reporter.
Andrei Chang a.k.a. Yihong Chang a.k.a. Pinkov is notoriously
known for ‘sourcing’ his stories & pictures by combing through
& copying both articles & pictures from Chinese-language magazines,
articles & original writings.
In fact, he is so well known for pilfering stuff from other writers that many articles in Chinese magazines &
internet postings carried warnings specifically
directed at him: NOT TO BE COPIED BY PINKOV.

If this article is indeed written by the same man, it is a supreme
Irony indeed – written by a man who knows all about copying!!

So a Russian is supposely being “influenced/inspired” by the Japanese to publish articles based on Chinese sources in a Canadian magazine?

Doesn’t this all sound a bit paranoid?

I really don’t know how Chinese intellectual property laws apply to “Japanese-influenced/Japanese-inspired” Russians who write for Canadian publications?

Hyuga is unlikely to use the F-35B in the future as she is too small.

The F-35B requires either 167 m from flat deck or 137 m if the ship has a ski jump.!

It sounds as if a 195 m carrier has an adequately long deck for the F-35B. Much like the Dokdo, there is no reason why the Japanese can fit a ski jump.

Hyuga is 195 m long, but tapers forward at the bow – this would need to be extended.

This is not a problem. The hurricane bow is more than wide enough for a F-35B.

She is not fitted with a jet blast deflector, so could only launch one F-35B at a time – followed by a spotting the second and so on. Not very conductive to high intensity takeoff operations.

1. Jet blast deflector are not necessary for a STOVL carrier. No STOVL carrier to date has featured jet blast deflectors. Only CATOBAR carriers and the STOBAR Kuznetsov have jet blast deflectors.

2. I have never seen Harriers take off two at a time from a ski jump! It takes far less time to spot a STOVL aircraft for a deck run than to spot a CATOBAR aircraft for a catapult launch.

She would also definitely lack the space to be conduct simultaneous landings and takeoffs.

This is also not a problem for a STOVL carrier.

The F-35B wingspan is 10.64 m (non-folding) and 15.5 m long. At best the Hyuga is 33 m wide – and the deck tapers at the bow. To tight a fit for to use the flight deck as a parking space for the F-35B.

It depends on the size of a potential airgroup.

The elevators are optomised for operating helicopters – they are in the middle of the flight deck: http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/imimage/im20070823STXKE04932308200713.jpg

The elevators were in the middle of flighdeck on all of the conventional British carriers. On Ark Royal, Eagle, Victorious and Hermes the aft elevator was in the middle of the angled deck!

There is no reason why a F-35B can’t make a deck run over an elevator?

As above, the elevators need to be 10.7 wide x 15.6 m long (at least!). According to:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ddh-x-schem.htm
They are 13 m wide and 20 m long – large enough for the F-35B.

Well, the F-35B would indeed “fit” on the elevators, although we don’t know the weight capacity of the elevators in question.

As for practical carriers, the realistic bare minimum nowadays would be somewhere around 35,000 tons. Any smaller, and it can’t operate modern fighters, and would struggle to carry an adequate carrier air wing. A good target size would be the CdG – yes, she’s got problems, but she’s a fully functioning aircraft carrier, and at that size, still potentially affordable. Much bigger than the CdG, and there would only be a tiny handful of states that could afford to buy and run her.

It would seem that the Rafale M wasn’t the limiting factor in the size of the CdeG. I have no doubt that the Rafale could operate from a somewhat smaller CATOBAR carrier than the CdeG, but I doubt that the E-2C could.

It is fair to say that 25,000 to 35,000 ton carrier might be able to accomodate one, or two, 75 meter catapults, and perhaps even a full squadron, or two, of Rafale M fighters.

Even the Foch could launch the Rafale M, although at a reduced weight of 16,500kg MTOW compared to the current maxium of 22,200 MTOW, so it is wrong to think that even a 50 meter catapult couldn’t launch a modern fighter, within certain severe limitations.