TinWingGripen A/B/C/D has slightly less internal fuel than the Super Etendard (just over 90% of SuE) – which may be cheap, but is also bloody old, perhaps too old for hypothetical new carriers, & out of production.
It is doubtful that Argentina’s Super Etendards will run out of flight hours anytime soon, especially when you consider that their operational tempo has been very low since the fall of the junta after the Falklands.
Gripen NG has significantly more internal fuel than the SuE. Both have more fuel-efficient engines than the SuE.
Rafale is bigger, heavier, & more expensive. Needs a bigger carrier, & the point of this is whether small CTOL carriers are feasible.
Is a Rafale M really more expensive than a hypothetical navalized Gripen?
Keep in mind that the Rafale M is a real airplane with a real 60 unit production run.
TinWingWhere the hell did you get a max T/O weight of 6387 kg? BAe consistently say 9100 – and consistently say it can carry an external load of 3000 kg, & take off with that & full internal fuel.
The 6,387kg figure is a MTOW for carrier operations for the T-45, without any external load. Even though the T-45 has two underwing hardpoints, they don’t seem to have used.
The 9,100kg figure does not apply to the T-45, only to later land based versions of the Hawk with five (or seven) external hardpoints.
You keep comparing the T-45 with the Hawk T.1….
No, I never mentioned the T.1, which is the equivilent of export Hawk 50, while the T-45 was nominally based on the Hawk 60, but really evolved into a far different aircraft.
There’s not much commonality between a T.1 & a 128. Many of the changes from the T.1 to the T-45 were carried over to later Hawk models, & some have been superceded by subsequent changes. For example, the 128 already has the control surfaces ahead of the tailplane to improve low-speed, high AoA handling, the stronger airframe, a larger, higher-lift wing with larger flaps, etc. The T.1 to T-45 modification added 600 kg, much of it in airframe strengthening. A carrier conversion of the 128 would gain far less.
Do you know the difference between the T.1 and the later Hawk 100 and LIFT variants?
The whole point is the Hawk 128’s wing would have to be discarded in favor of the T-45’s to manage an acceptable approach speed. You don’t seem to understand that the Hawk has relatively high wing loading, and leading edge slats are entirely necessary for carrier operations. The Hawk 128 also lacks the T-45’s much more robust landing gear, tailhook and relocated air brakes.
What you don’t appreciate is that the T-45 is a relatively austere carrier training aircraft, but not a combat aircraft. It is far different than the current production Hawk 128.
TinWingI don’t know why you keep harping on about the Hawk 100, when I’ve made it clear I mean the Hawk 120 series. There’s much more difference between a Hawk 100 & 120 than between a Hawk 60 & a Hawk 100. The Hawk 120s have a new (lighter) wing, fin, tailplane & fuselage sections. Add all the avionics you’re obsessed with & you get back to the weight of an early Hawk 100, but with more thrust and less drag.
A Hawk 128 actually has an empty weight of 4,480kg – slightly more than earlier Hawk 100 models, not less. A carrier aircraft with a 5,000kg+ empty weight and a 6,387 kg maximum take off weight would be virtually useless as a combat aircraft.
Of course, a navalized Hawk would require the modified wing (with leading edge slats), landing gear and air brakes of the T-45. The T-45 wing is limited to two hardpoints as well!
It is entirely likely that the T-45’s two wheel nose gear is entirely incompatible with the long nose of the Hawk 100, and there would center of gravity issues as well.
You would also have to “marinize” the latest 6,500lb st Adour variant, which differs significantly from the F405-RR-401.
So you would still see a tremendous weight penalty, besides substantial developement costs spread across a small number of airframes.
In short, any idea of combat capable navalized Hawk variant is improbable to the point of lunacy.
Probably not realistic, but this is a hypothetical discussion. The point of a “what if” is that you set aside, for the moment, some particular constraint. In this case, it’s the political (not economic) constraints on naval expenditure of Argentina & Brasil, both of which currently have low defence spending, & could easily spend far more without economic strain, but for political factors which limit spending cuts elsewhere, e.g. Brasils extraordinarily over-staffed & highly-paid civil service.
Carrier aviation is not a major political priority in Latin America – and it probably shouldn’t be in light of the significant poverty in the region. Brazil has done well to purchase the well maintained and entirely operable ex-Foch. The most we can expect to see from Argentina is a small flight of Super Etendards to operate from the ex-Foch.
TinWingMy reason is the relative lack of other ASW assets in the South American navies. The US got rid of the S-3Bs (again, a decision of debatable wisdom) in part because its P-3, SSN, and ASW frigate/destroyer screen is so great. US carriers travel with huge entourage of protective assets. Most of its escorts will have their own ASW air assets. A smaller, South American carrier wouldn’t have that luxury, and the guarantee of land-based ASW patrol aircraft isn’t necessarily there for some of those countries. Also, their SSKs would be more limited in endurance than the carrier (even a conventional one) would be, something that a CVN doesn’t have to worry about with SSNs.
The USN was entirely correct to dispose of the S-3B fleet. As refueling platforms, the S-3B was far more limited than the Super Hornet.
There was also the issue of fatigue and a small original production run. The USN didn’t have enough aircraft to continue fielding full ASW squadrons of the S-3B in the long run. Even in the Reagan era there had been talk of restarting Viking production for the long term sustainability of the type, but nothing came of it. The final fatigue tests seem to have condemned the type, though.
Basically, the US got rid of its S-3Bs because it had a plan B. Argentina, Chile, or Brazil really do not. Argentina knows well the threat that undetected enemy submarines pose to a major capital ship.
Logan Hartke
South American navies don’t face any immediate submarine threat. In any case, the S-3Bs have been stripped of ASW systems.
Putting aside issues such the removal of ASW avionics, the age of the airframes, fatigue and operating costs, the S-3B is inherently unsuitable for operations from a small carrier. The take off performance of the S-3 is far more marginal than even the far larger and heavier E-2. It is doubtful that the S-3B could be launched at anything approaching a useful weight from the short catapults of the ex-Foch.
TinWingNo, carrying over some (not all! only the essential naval) modifications of the T-45 to the Hawk 120+, not the Hawk 100. Different generation – new wings, more powerful engine, etc. Hawk 120 series is the same weight as the T-45, but more thrust, less drag . . . It’s clear that you’ve not been paying attention to the last 10 years of Hawk development.
It is clear that you haven’t been doing your sums.
A Hawk Mk60 had an empty weight of around 4,000kg. The T-45 weighed in just under 4,500kg. An early Hawk Mk100, without many of the avionics of the later LIFT, had an empty weight of 4,400kg.
So, it should be very obvious that a fully combat capable, navalized Hawk would weight in at nearly 5,000kg – far more than the far more powerful late production A-4M Skyhawk.
The latest Adour might put out 6,500lbs of thrust, but even the old J-52 was capable of 11,200lb st, or 12,000 with a minor upgrade.
Any way you cut it, a fully combat capable T-45, or navalized Hawk, or whatever you wish to call it, would be an expensive, poor performing naval aircraft.
Again, you’re not paying attention. This hypothetical discussion is predicated upon there being such a customer. You’re saying that if, for example, Argentina or Brazil asks for a price for naval Gripen (call it the Kraken 😀 ), Saab will say “Oh no, we can’t do that because there are no customers”. Certain disconnect there. Note the hole in the logic?
At this point, it is unrealistic to think that either Argentina or Brazil would be realistic prospects for any new fixed wing carrier-based aircraft. Argentina can still field more than half a dozen Super Etendards, and while Brazil has a servicable carrier, it cannot afford to operate its Skyhawks at anything approaching a realistic operating tempo.
TinWing[QUOTE=swerve;1155975]Nobody has suggested navalising the Hawk 200. The suggestion was navalising the in-production Hawk 120 series, & perhaps producing a single seater version, which would bear the same relationship to the in-production Hawk 120 as the Hawk 200 did to the Hawk 100. [/QUOTE
Oh, pardon me.
You are still talking about burdening the T-45 with all of the weight from the late production Hawk?
Keep in mind that the T-45 is already far heavier than the Hawk 60 that was based on, and if you add in the additional structural and avionicsweight of the Hawk 100 or LIFT, you would have a tremendously heavy combat aircraft of very limited performance, but with huge development and production costs.
I suggest you tell the Indonesian air force that their Hawks have “very little potential as an operational combat type”. They (& others) have been used extensively in combat. Not air-air, but air-ground. Horses for courses, & what Logan is talking about is not going up against state-of-the-art air defences.
Yes, that is precisely what I am suggesting. Would the Indonesians have purchased the Hawk 200 if further F-16 sales hadn’t been embargoed?
As a fighter, the Hawk is dramatically inferior to the old Hunter, and even inferior to the A-4. The range of the Hawk is limited, the weapons load is limited, but the initial unit price was startlingly high.
His (Logans) points about the L-159 seem sound.
To the contrary, the L-159 program has failed for many good and sufficient reasons. The L-39 started life as a very limited performance basic trainer, and the same aerodynamics have limited the performance of the far more expensive and complex L-159. Production has ended, and the Czech government is quite correct in removing most of the fleet from service for disposal.
The L-159 represents a dead end.
If there was a customer, Saab would build a navalised Gripen (studies have been done, offers made), & the naval LCA fits fairly well into Logans timescale.
Saab has apparently made design studies, and even announed in 2006 that a model would be shown at Farnborough – although no such model has been seen in public.
However, there is no conceivable export customer for a navalized Gripen, short of a very unexpected turn of heart in India.
The naval LCA remains an unlikely prospect as well. Assuming the LCA program ever gets on track, export sales prospects appear limited because of the relatively high costs, limited capabilities and generally poor reputation.
It is also clear that the various N-LCA models shown over the years have featured a series of aerodynamic modifications, reflecting the unsuitably high approach speed of the basic LCA and other negative attributes for carrier operations. In short, the transformation from the LCA to the N-LCA will not be simple, cheap, quick or free from risk.
TinWing1. Sub-30,000 ton CATOBAR carriers have been discussed before. The Bazan BSAC-200/220 from the mid-1990s was a serious proposal, as was the Australian LSS from the beginning of the current decade. Hypothetically, you can operate first generation Hornets from a 25,000-30,000 ton platform, but any navy that can afford fixed wing aviation wouldn’t be willing to accept the operational limitations, and any navy that would be interested in such a limited platform wouldn’t be able to afford it anyway.
2. The A-4 Skyhawk represents a minimally capable CATOBAR naval combat aircraft. The T-45 Goshawk is merely a training platform, with very little potential as an operational combat type. It is silly to suggest navalizing the out-of-production Hawk 200, or the L-159. Incidentally, both types were commercial failures, if only because subsonic trainer-based were very nearly as expensive as true fighter, despite very poor flight performance.
3. There is really no foreseable prospect of a navalized Gripen, and the naval LCA (which was originally supposed to fly in 2004), probably won’t come to fruition until the middle of the next decade, if at all.
4. Besides the current MiG-29K, which has a very uncertain future beyond the curret 16 unit IN order, the only CATOBAR naval fighters in development or production are the Super Hornet and F-35C, both of which are far too large for small sub-30,000 platforms.
For the purposes of this tread, I have completely ignored the Su-33, which may or may not have been ordered by China, as well as any rumor of a navalized J-10, or any other indigenous Chinese combat aircraft.
TinWingThere has been no official acknowledgement because This is a programme which was never meant to be recognised officially.
Doesn’t that seem peculiar?
Is the lack of transparency meant to limit public accountability?
TinWingDemocratically elected leaders who find a super power wants them out might decide that the only way for the people to have the leader they want is to put democracy on hold for a while.
By that reasoning, the Pinochet’s dictatorial rule was entirely justified because a superpower, the Soviet Union, opposed his rule?
Whether the leadership is dictatorship or monarchy or democracy the balance of wealth rarely depends upon what sort of government you have.
There is no equality without accountability. Dictatorial rule results in greater income inequality – which is exactly what is happening in Venezuela. Chavanistas are enriching themselves, while the poor get appeased with welfare programs.
For many people free health care and free education is a necessity of freedom… what freedom do you have when you cannot read and write? If you think laughter really is the best medicine think about it the next time you are trying to pass a gall stone…
What is the point of literacy if you are denied free speech?
What is the point of eduction if you are denied the rewards for hard work?
What is the point of free healthcare if you are denied the simplest comforts?
That is what america and western europe want you to think. You nationalise things that make money. Things like the oil industry or your telecomunications industry. Sure they will be inefficient and have too many employees but when there are billions of dollars to be made why give that to a foreign country when you can do it yourself?
So, you would be happy living in an oil-producing country (Iran) that has petrol rationing?
How would you feel about having to wait 2 or 3 years to have a telephone connected? That is precisely why Venezuela originally privatived its telecom sector.
State owned oil companies and telecoms are invariably less efficient than the private sector. Nationalization is a discredited economic strategy. It has failed in every country where it has ever been attempted.
And things are really bad in Zimbabwe too, but is it really fair that the wealthy often white land owners should prosper while the average citizen has nothing? Is it OK to let rich people run everything and for them to keep the wealth of the country just because they know what they are doing? I can give an answer and so can you and our answers might even be the same but does the west really have the right to impose an answer on Venezuala or Zimbabwe? It is up to Venezuala and Zimbabwe to find their own solutions… telling them or even using force will only show them they were right not to trust us in the first place.
Fewer than 4,500 commercial farmers were driven off their land, but 3 million Zimbabweans have been driven out of their country by starvation and economic collapse. Is it fair to lets millions suffer so that the current political elite can steal property from the former political elite? The entire Zimbawean economic collapse has been driven more by the personal greed of the leadership than the legitimate land re-distribution issue.
Venezuela will be protected from the sort of complete collapse that Zimbabwe has seen, but only as long as oil prices remain high. Still, there is a comparison to be made between the leadership in Venezuela and Zimbabwe. In both case, authoritarian leaders have confinscated property for the benefit of the ruling elite, using populist propaganda as a justification. Venezuela has already seen rising inflation and food shortage, even if it is too soon to predict hyperinflation and outright starvation.
Nobody is suggesting any sort of outside intervention in either Zimbabwe or Venezuela. The sad truth is that the only viable option for many Zimbabweans, or Venezuelans, is to emigrate. It is a pity that the only recourse against the regimes of Chavez and Mugabe is for educated professionals to leave their own countries.
Cuba was sugar cane fields and tourism. The Sugar cane fields were owned by white people, and the tourism was largely controlled by the US Mob. The Cuban people got the drinks and cut the sugar cane and got very little of the money that was being spent in the islands. Why do you think the revolution was a popular one?
You really seem to enjoy race baiting? I would suggest that you leave aside broad characterizations. Property ownership in pre-Castro Cuba was never based on race. Actually, the Latin American perspective on race and ethnicity is far more nuanced than you might imagine. (My guess is that you know even less about the involvement of the “mafia” in Cuban affairs. It was basically a limited arrangement that only involved gambling.)
The truth is that Cuba produced far more sugar in 1959 than it does today. The Cuban people were both hard working and enterprising before the revolution. After the revolution, any Cuban with personal initiative, money or marketable skills left the island.
BTW standard of living in 1959 where? In some parts of the world 1959 was a great living standard. The only thing holding cuba back is the US foreign policy that punnishes anyone who cooperates with Cuba and also cooperates with the US.
Cuba is held back by its own leadership far more than any policy of the United States.
Back in 1959, Cuba had a thriving tourism sector, a growing economy and perhaps the highest standard of living in the Caribbean.
TinWingIf you don’t agree with that ask the democratically elected leader of Venezuala who made the mistake of nationalising some things so that the poor majority could benefit from the wealth of the country.
What is “democratic” about Chavez making himself “president for life,” or ruling by decree?
The dirty truth is that dictators inevitably create more poverty than they alleviate. You can nationalize property, but the inevitable result is the flight of investment and skilled managers. In the end all you are left with is derelict property, unproductive workers and economic ruin.
Venezuelans might get the laughable 6 hour work day from Chavez, but they will also see tremendous unemployement and decreasing buying power from their wages. Venezuelans have already seen high inflation and periodic food shortages, and things haven’t gotten really bad yet.
Ask Venezuala how reliable F-16s are when their spares are cut off.
Cross the wealthy landowners and the US will think you are communist… whether you are or not.
Funny thing is that if the US supported such countries it would do a lot to end extreme poverty in many places. Of course if the US had accepted Fidel Castro as someone who wanted to take from the rich white land owners and give to the poor cubans… a sort of modern day robin hood it would be stepping on too many of its own rich peoples toes. The result is Cuba is communist to this day.
Cuba would be a far more prosperous country today if Castro hadn’t come to power. What good is “free” health care and education if your standard of living is worse than in 1959 – and there is no hope of improvement?
TinWingIndia Today has brought out an article on Akula Lease by Sandeep Unnithan , posting the salient point of the write up
8 ) The ATV is also nearing its end of its construction it will join the navy in 2009 and will be armed with a 5000 Km range 3 stage agni variant
9 ) The ATV is a 5000 Tons modfied charlie 2 design SSBN , and will be launched for sea trial next year
So, when was this ATV laid down?
Why are there no pictures?
Or official published details?
TinWingTibet, if not invaded by China, would probably still be an independent nation state, similar to Bhutan and Nepal, rather than a colony of China.
The historical status of Tibet is debatable. Tibet was traditionally a tributary of China, and if Tibet enjoyed independence in the interval between the fall of the fall of the last emperor and Mao’s invasion, it was only because of the weakness of the Chinese state and British intervention.
The 14th Dalai Lama was the absolute ruler of a desperately poor people. It is a Western myth that Tibet was some sort of earthly paradise before the Chinese gradually took over. The truth is that Tibetans were controled and taxed heavily by a Buddhist regime that was just as “undemocratic” and arbitrary as any in history.
The Red Chinese were hardly the liberators of the Tibetan people, but it is also unreasonable to suppose that the Dalai Lama’s rule would have been entirely unopposed.
Taiwan is independent of China with a functioning, fully-fledged democracy and an independent foreign policy.
Taiwan’s first multi-party election occured in 1989 – 40 years after the nationalists fled to the island of Formosa.
Of course, 1989 was a lifetime ago, and China has changed almost beyond recognition. Today, trade matters far more than politics.
Debating Taiwan’s current status is an exercise if futility. There is no longer an ideological and economic gulf between the RoC and the PRC. The simple truth is the residents of the island of Formosa are ethnic Chinese, and in the last two decades Taiwan has become economically interdependent with the mainland.
TinWingFrom the things I have seen in print from the actual BAe evaluation (not the fanboy ho-ha), the “navalized Typhoon” plan was dependant on TVC and a new wing.
I really do have to wonder why a “navalized Typhoon” would require both TVC and a “new wing?”
What is the approach speed of the current Typhoon? How does the maximum allowable sink rate compare to the Rafale M?
By virtue of its canard delta configuration, the Typhoon should be far better suited to a STOBAR conversion than many other types that have been “navalized.”
TVC (earlier planned for T3) has been dropped from the Typhoon program, which means that any navalized Typhoon program would have to pay for BOTH items… along with landing gear strengthening and materials changes to minimize corrosion.
Thus, the navalized Typhoon would cost substabtially more now (even before inflation is included) than when that report was done.
Do-able? Yes, but very expensive… and thus probably not affordable even if all versions of F-35 were junked.
I would agree that if the UK opts out of the F-35, the Typhoon most likely won’t fill the void. A navalized Typhoon would be very expensive – and far too late to enter service – to be a viable option.
The choice is between the F-35 and nothing.
It would be ironic if the RN eventually gained two very large carriers, only to retire one (or both) after only a few years of service because there was no viable fixed wing airgroup and absolutely no mission to justify two large empty flightdecks.
TinWing32ft 10” long with a diameter of 9ft 10″
Finally, an answer?
So, how many rotary launchers would have fit in a 32′ 10″ by 9′ 10″ bomb bay with a capacity of 35,000lbs?
Keep in mind that rotary launchers came in two lengths:
Short (4.3m or 14′) for the SRAM/AGM-86A
Long (6.3m or 20′ 8″) for the AGM-86B or CALCM
The B-1B has three rotary launchers, two long and one short. The B-2 has two long launchers.
The total weight capacity for each long launcher is probably about 20,000lbs.
So, hypothetically, the Victor might have accomodated a single long rotary launcher, or a long and a short, or two short launchers, but probably not two long launchers….
So the internal capacity of the Victor would have been more than a B-52, but less than a B-1B or B-2?
TinWingThe Vice Admiral Zakharin is a pr.02668 class.
Many differences with the older pr.266 are noticeable. It lost the 2 twin 30mm turrets (in favour of one 6 x 30mm gatling gun), the RBU rocket launchers are also gone. The hull, the mast and minesweeping gear are different. I don’t know if it has minehunting capability.
Here is a photo of the ship during construction
It still looks like a Natya class steel hulled ocean minesweeper.
When was it laid down?
Is this yet another continuation of a partially complete Soviet era hull?
Sign In
