Indian Naval Discussion

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Jun 2010 14:33

Thanks to both you gentlemen, T Sarkar and Austin. I am wiser for the gyan.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2010 14:39

could these be kitted up with high frequency mine hunter sonar and required opcenter consoles inside to supplement the real mine hunters ? our EU design MCMV vessels are nowhere to be seen yet - since kargil and the ex-ussr types must be getting super long in the tooth.

generally, how big a threat does IN forsee from floating and captor mines in and around its harbours?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Jun 2010 16:31

Well I think MCMV needs to have more then HF sonar to be an effective mine hunter and locate different type of mines and it needs to be a large ship with ocean going capability.

May be some day some FAC will have some kind of anti-diver sonar suite just incase some friendly terrorist across the border learns to swim well courtesy SSG.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Jun 2010 19:00

WRT INS Delhi's visit to Colombo,

One can see several MARCOS teams on speedboats escorting the ship into the harbour. How normal is this? Is this because of the ship docking in Sri Lanka? The USS Cole incident will surely have caused extra protection measures to be taken all over the world.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Jun 2010 19:40

Singha - quite seriously. http://frontierindia.net/indian-navy-bu ... ing-system

Regards the minehunters, the material (amagnetic steel/composites) and shipbuilding techniques are quite different than normal ships. Hence identifying the right technology, getting ToT + willingness to absorb ToT is a big issue.

Gagan – the two men boats are unique to SLN. Usually harbor security is provided by the host nation. Visiting ships cannot / do not deploy manpower or firepower outside the ship, unless requested by the host nation. Within the ship, all security measures are taken.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2010 19:51

interesting, I hadnt the faintest idea that we had purchased this.

still - plastic hulled catamaran vessels, 26" retina glass apple cinema MFDs, Men in black type op center, cool stealthy looking UUV are good for psyops too

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 28 Jun 2010 21:45

Lockeed Martin Offers JSF to Indian Navy

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2010 22:21

parshuram wrote:Lockeed Martin Offers JSF to Indian Navy

The F-35C requires EMAL. Cannot use the normal steam operated cat.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 29 Jun 2010 00:23

^^ A technology possibly used by IAC 2, which would be bigger then IAC 1 and probably use the newer systems (as they can use AWACS/ REFUELLERS/ AMONGST OTHER AIR-CRAFTS)

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 29 Jun 2010 00:25

NRao wrote:
parshuram wrote:Lockeed Martin Offers JSF to Indian Navy
The F-35C requires EMAL. Cannot use the normal steam operated cat.

No way. All of US's carriers are steam powered cats. It would not make sense if F-35Cs can only be used on two carriers (the upcoming Ford class carriers) instead of 11 carriers. It would not justify the costs being spent on F-35Cs. So F-35C has to use steam operated cats.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2010 03:16

Hitesh wrote:
NRao wrote: The F-35C requires EMAL. Cannot use the normal steam operated cat.
No way. All of US's carriers are steam powered cats. It would not make sense if F-35Cs can only be used on two carriers (the upcoming Ford class carriers) instead of 11 carriers. It would not justify the costs being spent on F-35Cs. So F-35C has to use steam operated cats.

Yes way.

Please read up the latest DTI (I should have mentioned that in my earlier post - sorry). The "upcoming Ford class carriers" would have had to spend a ton to re-engineer for steam cats if the EMAL did not work. And, of course that would also have meant no F-35Cs too. The steam cats just do not have the power to throw a F-35, which is why it needs the EMAL (which has adjustable throw-power).

BTW, the proposal is to upgrade the rest of the carriers to an EMAL.

WRT IAC-2 - that is where IN is thinking of EMAL. Thus the RFI for F-35C (or B?).

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 29 Jun 2010 03:40

NRAO,

You gotta be joking! USN is not that dumb to go for a plane that will not work on existing carriers. There is no way in hell that Pentagon would justify that cost of the JSF program.

Show me the proof that F-35C are not rated for steam powered catapult please.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2010 03:57

Hitesh wrote:NRAO,

You gotta be joking! USN is not that dumb to go for a plane that will not work on existing carriers. There is no way in hell that Pentagon would justify that cost of the JSF program.

Show me the proof that F-35C are not rated for steam powered catapult please.

I gave you the proof: read the latest DTI!!!!! THAT is where I got the "proof" from (and IIRC, I had ALSO posted it here).

What cost of JSF are you talking about? BUT, please google and read up on that article. This is not something that I am making up for sure. I am not THAT smart.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 29 Jun 2010 03:58

Hitesh wrote:NRAO,

You gotta be joking! USN is not that dumb to go for a plane that will not work on existing carriers. There is no way in hell that Pentagon would justify that cost of the JSF program.

Show me the proof that F-35C are not rated for steam powered catapult please.

Are we expecting all the F-18 to go in one shot when they are still purchasing it?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2010 04:14

Hitesh,

June 7, 2010 :: Carrier Launch System Passes Initial Tests

Recent tests at NAS Lakehurst, N.J., should have builders of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) sleeping more easily. The Navy’s risky bet in the design of the Ford—its reliance on an all-electric replacement for the steam catapult—appears to be paying off.

Problems and delays with the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (Emals) last year were a threat to the carrier, because its design and construction reached a point where reverting to steam would have been difficult and expensive. With Emals in mind, the Ford-class features a much more powerful electrical generation and distribution system than the predecessor Nimitz-class ships, along with the virtual elimination of steam-energized services such as heating, galleys and pumps and 10 km. (6 mi.) of steam lines.

The F-35C Joint Strike Fighter demands more launch energy than the F/A-18E/F, and Emals will allow the Ford to launch the JSF at maximum weight with less wind-over-deck.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 29 Jun 2010 07:51

Lockheed Helps BEL On Coastal Surveillance

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jun 2010 07:54

well the EMAL thing may be more compact and less moving parts than the steam cat system but is the F35C heavier than the C2, E2 and F14D which steam cats are launching everyday? steam cats do have adjustable thrust which is how they launch a/c of different weights.

obviously being more compact and reliable helps - more space for other things.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 29 Jun 2010 08:27

NRao wrote:Hitesh,

June 7, 2010 :: Carrier Launch System Passes Initial Tests

Recent tests at NAS Lakehurst, N.J., should have builders of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) sleeping more easily. The Navy’s risky bet in the design of the Ford—its reliance on an all-electric replacement for the steam catapult—appears to be paying off.

Problems and delays with the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (Emals) last year were a threat to the carrier, because its design and construction reached a point where reverting to steam would have been difficult and expensive. With Emals in mind, the Ford-class features a much more powerful electrical generation and distribution system than the predecessor Nimitz-class ships, along with the virtual elimination of steam-energized services such as heating, galleys and pumps and 10 km. (6 mi.) of steam lines.

The F-35C Joint Strike Fighter demands more launch energy than the F/A-18E/F, and Emals will allow the Ford to launch the JSF at maximum weight with less wind-over-deck.

This is not conclusive. The F-14 Tomcat demanded more launch energy than the F/A-18 E/F and yet they were able to launch the Tomcats into the air. The E/A-6 Prowlers were considered as the heaviest aircraft because of the 3 man crew and the necessitating life support and the heavy EM warfare gear it carried and yet the Nimitz carriers were able to launch the Prowlers.

No, what the article is saying that the launch of the JSF would not be optimum as they would like when they have a working EMAL compared to steam cats. By the way, USN is only considering replacing 2 carriers with Ford class carriers for the next 15 years. So that means, by going your assertions, USN will only have 2 carriers that are rated to carry the JSF. SecDef Gates would flip out of his mind when he hears that. Besides retrofitting the Nimitz carriers with EMALS is still an expensive project. So I strongly disagree with you that JSF is only rated for EMALs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jun 2010 09:24

Zvezdochka shipyard plans to complete upgrade of INS Sindhurakshak in 2012

JSC Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center plans to complete overhaul and modernization of diesel electric submarine INS Sindhurakshak (Project 877EKM, Kilo class) by order of Indian Navy in 2012, reported the shipyard's press service.

The sub is expected to arrive to Zvezdochka for further repairs early August. INS Sindhurakshak will be the fifth Project 877EKM submarine passed overhaul at Severodvinsk's shipyard.

As it was previously reported, the corresponding contract was signed between Indian defense ministry and Zvezdochka on June 4, 2010 in Delhi. In the course of works the sub will be rearmed; the standard torpedo armament will be modernized, and missile system Club-S will be mounted into the submarine (developed by Novator Design Bureau). The upgrade also provides installation of some Indian-made systems like sonar USHUS and radio communication system CCS-MK. In 2008 Zvezdochka shipyard completed overhaul of the forth same-class Indian submarine Sindhuvijay. The first one – INS Sindhuvir – was repaired in 1999; the second one – INS Sindhuratna – left the yard in 2002; the third sub – INS Sindhughosh – passed overhaul in 2005. In fall 2009 FSUE Rosoboronexport and Indian Navy signed a contract on armament upgrade (including installation of missile system Club-S) of four Project 877EKM diesel subs – INS Sindhuratna, INS Sindhuraj, INS Sindhushastra, and INS Sindhuvir. Zvezdochka was assigned a major executor of the rearmament contract. The upgrade will be performed at Indian yards. Along with contracting parties (OKB Novator, NPO Avrora, and SPO Arktika) Zvezdochka will complete those works within the nearest five years.

Diesel electric submarine S63 Sindhurakshak was laid down in Feb 1995 at Admiralteyskie Verfi shipyard by order of Indian Navy. In Dec 1997 the ship was delivered to the orderer and obtained the current name. The Project 877EKM was developed by Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering.

Surface displacement is 2,300 tons; length is 72.6 meters; beam is 9.9 meters; surface speed is 10 knots; submerged speed is 19 knots; operational range is 6,000 miles; endurance is 45 days; test depth is 300 meters; crew is 52; armament: six 533-mm torpedo tubes.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jun 2010 09:27

^^^ The above news has some time lines of IN Kilo upgrade . The last 4 Kilo will be upgraded at Indian SY this is really nice news and its going to be Vizag as per Maz as they have some experience with Kilo.

How I wished they purchased couple of 636M to keep up with depleting sub strength and build up Kilo/Klub numbers.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 29 Jun 2010 10:58

What sort of numbers (in terms of aircrafts) would IAC2 be able to accommodate? And what sort of role will Tejas be expected to play on IAC2? Interestingly No RFI for Migs..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jun 2010 13:10

the french CDG @ 38,000t full load carries a airwing of 40.
the kitty hawk was 61000t empty and 80000t full load carried airwing of 85.

it is unclear if the IAC2 will be 55t full load or empty and if the final design and spec is frozen yet. if we figure it somewhere between the two @ 65000t full load and 50000t empty, then a airwing of 60 should be feasible. around 5 CSAR helis, 12 ASW/util helis, 3 E2, and 40 fighters - hopefully all naval tejas mk2 and if that doesnt work then rafale.

fairly austere self-defence armament of barak-SR , ciws cannons, self guided IIR SR sam and decoys. we will have enough meaty DDGs by then for SAM cover.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 30 Jun 2010 05:26

INS Cankarso & INS Kondul commissioned

INS Cankarso and INS Kondul, fifth and the sixth in a series of Water Jet Propelled Fast Attack Craft (WJFACs) of the Indian Navy were commissioned by His Excellency, Shri ESL Narasimhan, Honourable Governor of Andhra Pradesh, alongwith Vice Admiral Anup Singh, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command today, 29 Jun 10, at an impressive Ceremony held at the Naval Base here.
On arrival at the Naval Jetty the Chief Guest was received by Vice Admiral Anup Singh, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command. The Governor was presented a 50 men Guard and was introduced to the Ships Officers and Sailors. The inaugural address was delivered by Chairman and Managing Director, M/s Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE) Limited, Rear Admiral (Retd) KC Sekhar. On completion, Vice Admiral Anup Singh, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command gave the keynote address. Thereafter, Lieutenant Commanders Arun Bahuguna and Shashidhar R Patil, Commanding Officers INS Cankarso and INS Kondul respectively, read out the Commissioning Warrants, followed by hoisting of the Naval Ensign onboard for the first time and Breaking of the Commissioning Pennant with the National Anthem being played to mark the completion of the Commissioning Ceremony. Addressing the gathering later, the Chief Guest said the ships would provide the much needed coastal security cover against seaborne threats and enhance the coastal security of capabilities of the Navy.
Other Distinguished Guests present on the Occasion included Flag Officer Goa Naval Area, Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai, other Flag Officers, Commanding Officers and Senior Officers from Ships and establishments of the Eastern Naval Command.

[wine alert] After looking @ the Stealth Ships churned from the SDRE labs, this looks a wee bit dull [wine off/]
With that being said, is that an FLIR ishtyle IRST ball atop Cankarso???

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2010 08:43

yes I think so - much needed for passive night surveillance which is when most of the bad guys crawl out.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jun 2010 09:42

Hitesh wrote:
This is not conclusive. The F-14 Tomcat demanded more launch energy than the F/A-18 E/F and yet they were able to launch the Tomcats into the air. The E/A-6 Prowlers were considered as the heaviest aircraft because of the 3 man crew and the necessitating life support and the heavy EM warfare gear it carried and yet the Nimitz carriers were able to launch the Prowlers.

No, what the article is saying that the launch of the JSF would not be optimum as they would like when they have a working EMAL compared to steam cats. By the way, USN is only considering replacing 2 carriers with Ford class carriers for the next 15 years. So that means, by going your assertions, USN will only have 2 carriers that are rated to carry the JSF. SecDef Gates would flip out of his mind when he hears that. Besides retrofitting the Nimitz carriers with EMALS is still an expensive project. So I strongly disagree with you that JSF is only rated for EMALs.

May I suggest that you do a little research by yourself? (This issue has been discussed since at least 1999 or so on the net.)

Wiki references 3 Ford class have been sanctioned (by 2021) and a total of 10 are proposed.

On the number of "Ford class" ships being proposed. none other than Mr. Gates (Himself):

April, 2009 :: GATES :: Defense Budget Recommendation Statement (Arlington, VA)

We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040.

(These 10 - from Gates - I do not think all are Ford class - my calcs states 6-7 will be Ford class. BUT, I could be totally wrong. It could be a total of 10 Ford Class AFTER 2040.)

Another URL

It is envisioned that the Ford-class will be a class of 10 ships, he added.

However, with each Ford class being 25% more efficient in terms of sorties, 4 Ford = 5 Nimitz.

I have not checked the production of the F-35, but, I am fairly confident that it is tied to the delivery of the Ford Class ships. And, as each Ford Class comes on-line, it should/will replace a Nimitz.

Also, check the discussion of the F-35 WRT the UK carrier plans - the different type of take-off mechanism they plan on. But, be aware that loading matters.

Also, I need to check this a wee bit more, but, IIRC, there is an issue with the heat generated by a F-35 - it just cannot use any conventional runway.

Added l8r:

USN intends to get 480 F-35Cs and will get the first one in 2014. (It will be quite a bit different than the A and B.) The 480 figure just about jives with 10 Ford Class ships.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2010 09:55

my prediction is sher khan will not be able to afford keeping operational more than 5 next-gen CBGs. the rest will be put in reserve status and maintained for a while before being mothballed. maybe 3 will be kept in active reserve.

its a lot cheaper to just fly usaf out of munna airbases. russia and china will lower their nuclear response threshold and wont waste time on conventional fight club stuff. therein goes the rationale for a 12 carrier navy.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 30 Jun 2010 12:35

Submarine Crunch Hits Navy

Despite sounding an alert to the ministry of defence last year, Indian Navy continues to face shortage of submarines.

After Russia delayed the release of Nerpa K-152, an Akula-II class, nuclear-powered attack submarine sought on lease by India for 10 years,
Indigenous nuclear submarine INS Arihant, launched last year in Visakhapatnam, too may not be inducted into service on time.

Chief of naval staff admiral Nirmal Verma had said last year that Arihant would be inducted into service two years after its launch.

But The Submarine’s Reactor is Yet To Be Started. Nerpa was supposed to join the navy as INS Chakra in June 2010, but will now join only towards the end of this year. The Delay is Affecting the Training for Arihant.

Admiral Verma, however, said, “Arihant is expected to be inducted on time. I don’t see any delay.”

Sources told ‘DNA’ Nerpa was being modified to suit Indian requirements, but its trials were delayed after it met with an accident in 2008, killing 20 personnel onboard.

Now, safety aspects of the submarine are being reworked.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 30 Jun 2010 17:42

NRao wrote:
May I suggest that you do a little research by yourself? (This issue has been discussed since at least 1999 or so on the net.)

Wiki references 3 Ford class have been sanctioned (by 2021) and a total of 10 are proposed.

On the number of "Ford class" ships being proposed. none other than Mr. Gates (Himself):

April, 2009 :: GATES :: Defense Budget Recommendation Statement (Arlington, VA)

We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040.
(These 10 - from Gates - I do not think all are Ford class - my calcs states 6-7 will be Ford class. BUT, I could be totally wrong. It could be a total of 10 Ford Class AFTER 2040.)

Another URL

It is envisioned that the Ford-class will be a class of 10 ships, he added.

Due to the state of the economy and looming defence cuts, good luck on getting 10 Ford class within 30 years. It means a rate of a ship every 3 years. No way it is possible given the current state of the economy and the budget cuts. By the way, the Congress has only authorized funds for 3 Ford class carriers. Unless we see the Congress authorization for more Ford class carriers, we will not see any more Ford class carriers for now even the Pentagon is planning to acquire more ships. Now if it is ever 5 years which is doubt-able (most likely it is 7 years), that translate to 6 ships, but most likely it will translate to 4-5 ships. Now that means, at 2040, at the most F-35 could only operate on half of the carriers, which is not a sustainable fiscal policy for the Pentagon. Besides the planned retirement of the last Nimitz class carrier is due to take place in 2058 but could much take at a later date.

However, with each Ford class being 25% more efficient in terms of sorties, 4 Ford = 5 Nimitz.

I have not checked the production of the F-35, but, I am fairly confident that it is tied to the delivery of the Ford Class ships. And, as each Ford Class comes on-line, it should/will replace a Nimitz.

Also, check the discussion of the F-35 WRT the UK carrier plans - the different type of take-off mechanism they plan on. But, be aware that loading matters.

Also, I need to check this a wee bit more, but, IIRC, there is an issue with the heat generated by a F-35 - it just cannot use any conventional runway.

F-35 is not tied to the delivery of the Ford class ships. It would be a huge mistake of enormous proportions and the Pentagon are not that dumb to go for that kind of thing.

You are confusing F-35B with F-35C. There is a problem with the F-35B due to the heat of its exhaust since it is primarily a VTOL. F-35C is not a VTOL or a STOL but a carrier based aircraft. It is designed to be launched by a catapult either by steam or EMAL. By the way, since you suggested so nicely that I "do a bit of research," the F-14's maximum takeoff weight is 75,000lbs and its empty weight is 43,500 lbs whereas the maximum takeoff weight of F-35C is 70,000lbds and empty takeoff weight is 35,000 lbs and you are telling me that F-35C can't take off from steam powered catapults?

Your assertions simply do not make sense.

Added l8r:

USN intends to get 480 F-35Cs and will get the first one in 2014. (It will be quite a bit different than the A and B.) The 480 figure just about jives with 10 Ford Class ships.

the Ford class will come online by 2015 (most likely 2018 due to delays and testing). The F-35C is practically ready to fly since the first production F-35C has rolled out in July 2009. It will be ready for carrier operations by 2014, which is one year before the induction of the Ford class carrier if it can be delivered on time (which I highly doubt). And you are telling me that the F-35C can only operate on EMALs?

No I don't think so.
[

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Jun 2010 18:04

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jun 2010 18:07

Hitesh,

It is very, very difficult to discuss anything on the net (via posts). And, when we make simple mistakes it makes it that much more difficult.

Due to the state of the economy and looming defence cuts, good luck on getting 10 Ford class within 30 years. It means a rate of a ship every 3 years.

Gates clearly states a 5 year cycle, so, where do you come up with a 3 year cycle?

No need of luck "on getting 10 Ford class within 30 years". No one said 10 in 30 years, please re-read that statement!!!!!!

Now if it is ever 5 years which is doubt-able (most likely it is 7 years), that translate to 6 ships, but most likely it will translate to 4-5 ships. Now that means, at 2040, at the most F-35 could only operate on half of the carriers, which is not a sustainable fiscal policy for the Pentagon. Besides the planned retirement of the last Nimitz class carrier is due to take place in 2058 but could much take at a later date.

These are your doubts (which is fine - I have no problemS with that), not that I can see in any policy statement so far - and, sure it is subject to change - accepted.

A five year cycle puts (15, 18, 21 then 5 year cycle: 26, 31, 36, 41) it at 7 Ford class (to replace 7 Nimitz class). And, he stated in April, 2009 (yes that is dated too, but that is the best I can find so far - If I find something more recent I will post that too) AFTER 2040 USN is expected to have 10 carriers. So, of these 10 carriers - all it simply seems to state is that 7 should be of the Ford class. And, between these 7 and shore based air crafts there should be about 450 F-35C.

You are confusing F-35B with F-35C.

No. I confused the F-35C with the F-22 (which needs special runways, due to the heat generated by their exhausts). F-35s (any of them) as far as I can see do not need anything special.

Your assertions simply do not make sense.

(to you? Which is fine, no problem with that, I have nothing to prove here.) But on assertions, I have none. I do not represent the USN or the USDD.

What I post is quotes. You HAVE changed those quotes, made your own assumptions and found faults (which do not exist). ????????????

On looming def-budget cuts, yes that is a possibility (gates did say that the USN will take the biggest hit), BUT, that does not mean that the Ford class would be - for sure - hit. That is a determination that the USN will have to make. The Ford class may or may not take a hit.

Singha,

Possible. But the lesser the number of carriers only means that they will field the Ford class (over the Nimitz). Which means more EMALS and a propensity to field the F-35C (with the Super Bug).

Just BTW, here is the complete statement from gates:

9. The healthy margin of dominance at sea provided by America’s existing battle fleet makes it possible and prudent to slow production of several major surface combatants and other maritime programs.
• We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040.
• We will delay the Navy CG-X next generation cruiser program to revisit both the requirements and acquisition strategy.
• We will delay amphibious ship and sea-basing programs such as the 11th Landing Platform Dock (LPD) ship and the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) SHIP to FY11 in order to assess costs and analyze the amount of these capabilities the nation needs.

_________________________

Now, all this started with IN's interest in the F-35C (and EMALS). Need to get back to that.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 30 Jun 2010 21:25

NRao wrote:No. I confused the F-35C with the F-22 (which needs special runways, due to the heat generated by their exhausts). F-35s (any of them) as far as I can see do not need anything special.

It is actually F-35B that needs special runway coating as their exhausts are very hot.

Docs Say F-35B Too Hot, Noisy

...
For example, an operational assessment of the JSF says that heat from the STOVL version may result in “severe F-35 operating restrictions and or costly facility upgrades, repairs or both.” The OT-IID report says “thermal management” will “increase the number of sorties required to prepare an operational unit for deployment during summer months” at most American bases. Overall, it rates basing as red: “unlikely to meet criteria — significant shortfall.”
...
...
“AV-8B and F-35B temperatures might be the same, but so far they haven’t shown anyone their data; plus, you have to look at it from the perspective of total kinetic energy of the engine thrust. AV-8B has a thrust rating of 23,000lbs, whereas an F-35B thrust rating is 41,000lbs. He’s comparing a cigar torch lighter to a blow torch. Additionally, he’s got other thermal issues he needs to worry about as well, like overheating avionics and cockpit temperatures,” the aide said.
...
...
Why is the Naval Facilities Engineering Command concerned about it in how they build the VSTOL landing pads? What’s the temperature difference between AV-8B and V-22 engine exhaust, and why does V-22 require special landing mats aboard ship? Why does the Navy plan to not allow the Marine Corps to land F-35B aircraft on aircraft carriers?”
...
...

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 30 Jun 2010 21:31

I don't think the F-22 needs special landing runway, I think the F-35B does because it points its TVC nozzles downwards I think.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jun 2010 21:43

Carl_T wrote:I don't think the F-22 needs special landing runway, I think the F-35B does because it points its TVC nozzles downwards I think.

There is a running controversy with respect to the F-35B for sure. But the plane is in its infancy and the battle between LM and others will rage until it is resolved.

But, my recollection is from an article which was referring to deploying F-22s to A'stan. Let me see if I can dig it out.

It is actually F-35B that needs special runway coating as their exhausts are very hot.

Right. However, check out LMs response to that circus. Obviously LM does not agree - says that is worst case "data".

But, yes, the USN does not like the F-35B so far due to this issue.

(And, it is NOT coating. They will NEED special concrete - ALL over the place, even on aprons.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jul 2010 06:59

You guys are right. It is the F-35B and NOT the F-22 that needs the special runway. (Even in forward area deployment!!)

Apologies.

(The rest stands.)

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 01 Jul 2010 13:58

Interesting news by Head of Rosoboronexport Anatoly Isaikin during his speach at Tarkash launch: Club has been switched to Brahmos (that's old news) and Kashtan has been exchanged for couple of AK-630M.

It looks like the second triple will have AK-630M and Barak-1 combo similar to Shivalik class.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Jul 2010 18:08

Makes lot of sense to standardise on AK-630M/Barak-1 combo since all ship will have those including the P-15A/B

Did they managed to get a close loop guidance for AK-630M or integrate with Barak FC ?

maz · Post by **maz** » 02 Jul 2010 10:05

Naval enthusiasts,

Please support Seaforth World Naval Review 2010 by buying this excellent naval annual. Yours truly wrote the chapter on the IN.
The book is available from Amazon at
http://www.amazon.com/SEAFORTH-WORLD-NA ... 1848320515

Cheers

Maz

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 02 Jul 2010 13:54

Austin wrote:Makes lot of sense to standardise on AK-630M/Barak-1 combo since all ship will have those including the P-15A/B

Did they managed to get a close loop guidance for AK-630M or integrate with Barak FC ?

It will get Barak FC

John · Post by **John** » 03 Jul 2010 03:53

Yes Ak-630m will be guided by STGR or Shikari (P-16As) but closed loop spotting would require fair bit of customization even if FCR can track outgoing rounds. To my knowledge only Goalkeeper and Phalanx are advertised with this capability.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jul 2010 07:44

it was claimed the 2nd gen kashtan-M (not vanilla kashtan) had closed loop guidance.