Read the forum code of contact
By: 2nd July 2010 at 18:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Its Lockheed which offered. If F 35 is selected the choice will depend on two things.
a, Will the IN IAC 2 have EMALS.
OR in case if IAC 2 is STOBAR
b, Can the F 35 C take off with as big a payload as the B from a STOBAR carrier
By: 2nd July 2010 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ummm, the F35C can't operate from STOBAR carriers. It'd need Steam Cats installed, so unless India changes it's carrier style it'd have to go for F35B, or continue it's purchases of the Russian birds.
By: 2nd July 2010 at 19:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It doesn't have to be EMALS, a steam catapult would do nicely and may be more readily available if desired.
By the time IAC2 is being built, EMALS should be ready for export, as long as the USA is willing to export it to India. EMALS is probably easier to integrate than steam catapults unless the ship is to be steam-driven.
I think nobody is building steam catapults now, although the ability to do so should remain as long as there are catapults in service & needing maintenance.
By: 2nd July 2010 at 20:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-By the time IAC2 is being built, EMALS should be ready for export, as long as the USA is willing to export it to India. EMALS is probably easier to integrate than steam catapults unless the ship is to be steam-driven.I think nobody is building steam catapults now, although the ability to do so should remain as long as there are catapults in service & needing maintenance.
Puts my mind back to a thread I started long ago about future requirements of the Brazillian navy.
If India can keep the costs down a catapult IAC2 design could be an attractive replacement for the Sao Paulo. Maybe slighter smaller between 40 and 50 thousand tons which would put it inbetween IAC1 and IAC2 size wise. With some sections built in Brazil to support the growing naval industry of the country its an interesting concept. Considering Sao Paulo and her AF1 Skyhawks are good until around 2025+ and India will be busy with IAC2 until at least 2020 there could be a nice sequence to work on.
By: 3rd July 2010 at 00:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ummm, the F35C can't operate from STOBAR carriers. It'd need Steam Cats installed, so unless India changes it's carrier style it'd have to go for F35B, or continue it's purchases of the Russian birds.
Why not? Considering Su-33 and Mig-29K can.
By: 3rd July 2010 at 00:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Imho probably because among others Su-33 and Mig-29K have excellent low speed characteristics and lift , thanks to their aerodinamics...which again imho i dont think F-35 can match( low speed characteristics , that is )
By: 3rd July 2010 at 02:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Why not? Considering Su-33 and Mig-29K can.
I've never heard anything to indicate that the F35C could perform that way, it could certainly change things for the UK if an F35C could operate even half decently off a carrier without a catapult. It'd also mean that there is less rush for the USN to perfect EMALS.
If there is a problem with launching an F-35C off a ski jump it is most likely related to structural loads being different, depending on how steep the ramp angle is. IIRC the US Navy found a while ago that it could theoretically operate most of its fixed wing aircraft (except the S-3, for some reason) from a modest ski jump without major modification.Keep in mind here that for commonality reasons the CV F-35 is at least distantly related to an aircraft which is already designed to handle ski jump take-off, the F-35B. It's not a given that it could be done without some changes, but chances are better than with just about any other aircraft (Sea Gripen, Rafale) :) That said, the B-version would probably need a shorter deck run for the same payload (thanks to lift augmentation from the propulsion system), so flight deck area might limit payload for the STOBAR F-35C.
Actually isn't Sea Gripen meant to be STOBAR? And lets not play up the similarities between B and C too much, one of them has a honking great lift fan in its belly.
By: 3rd July 2010 at 13:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It is likely that F-35C can operate as a STOBAR aircraft however could it get a higher payload into the sky that the STOVL variant can? and how much more can it bring back than F-35B can in SRVL?
I'm not sure that there would be anyone seriously tempted by STOBAR operation of F-35C, it's unlikely that the benefits are anything more than marginal and it's even more likely that they would compensate for the increased drawbacks over a STOVL alternative
By: 4th July 2010 at 04:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Actually isn't Sea Gripen meant to be STOBAR?
SAAB has stated the Sea Gripen would be available in either STOBAR or CATOBAR* versions, depending on the needs of the customer (one for India, the other for Brazil).
* I hate that acronym, should be either CATOAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off, Arrested Landing) or CALAR (Catapult Assisted Launch, Arrested Landing), not Catapult Assisted Take-Off, But Arrested Landing (the "but" indicates the two aren't normally used together, but they usually are, with the vast majority of aircraft carriers built over the years having been {and still are} equipped this way).
STOBAR is fine, as Short Take-Off has not normally been used with Arrested Landing, therefore the "but" is appropriately used, since only one in-service aircraft carrier and 3 being built or modified use this configuration.
8 Aircraft Carriers and one LHD with "ski jumps", and many more LHAs & LHDs without "ski jumps", have operated in the STOVL configuration (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing).
And lets not play up the similarities between B and C too much, one of them has a honking great lift fan in its belly.
The other has not only larger fuel tanks and a larger internal weapons bay using the space the first uses for that "honking great lift fan", but also a larger wing which provides more lift... which would be useful for a non-catapult launch profile.
That is what likely would allow it to use the "ski jump" carrying the same weapons payload as its "vertical" half-brother, but with more fuel (longer range) and a greater "bring-back" weight.
Remember, the F-35C also has stronger landing gear for those high-sink-rate arrested landings, which would be able to handle launching at higher gross weights than the F-35B... as long as the nose gear can handle the rearward (and increased downward) stresses caused by the "ski jump" (this is what the S-3 had problems with).
By: 6th July 2010 at 09:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The thing that needs to be kept in mind here is:
Will the Indians be willing to pay the huge price of the F-35 (which ever model is bought)?
Remember how the Indian's always sign up for buying things but take years to negotiate a lower price by which time the cost has come down anyway so they try to lower it further!
Will the US (who really need funds atm) be willing to lower the price of the lightning to allow India to buy any? Given the recent debacle of the old Russian Spy ring in the US (what a joke that was), would the us allow the Indian's to buy their premier fighter knowing that the Russians would some how get a look at them and thus produce a competitive version at a cheaper price some time after?
Sure the US have started selling various military systems to India (the P-8 for starters), but that's all low risk sales, the F-35 comes in as a high risk item and I don't think the US are willing to go down that path. So while LM might be offering it, selling it isn't in their court, it's down to Congress who I would be really shocked if they said yes!
By: 7th July 2010 at 08:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Indian Navy RFI
Gorshkov and IAC-1:The Indian Navy has Gorshkov and IAC-1 around the horizon. They already have 45 Mig29K's on order. IN has initial commitment for 50 naval tejas fighters. That totals to 95.
IAC-2: It has been mentioned that IAC-2 will weigh 50000tons or more and will be CATOBAR-equipped. Indian Navy chief Nirmal Verma mentioned on Navy Day in Dec 2009 that the Indian Navy would prefer an EMALS system to the steam-launch system for IAC-2. Also IAC-2 will have fixed-wing carrier-borne AEW link.
It is quite clear that India is moving towards a CATOBAR equipped navy leaving only IAC1 and Gorshkov for STOBAR operations. The F35C seems better suited between the two.
By: 10th July 2010 at 14:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Imho probably because among others Su-33 and Mig-29K have excellent low speed characteristics and lift , thanks to their aerodinamics...which again imho i dont think F-35 can match( low speed characteristics , that is )
I'm wonder if LM would have to further strenghten the MLG if the F-35B/C are to operate out from 'ski jump' Carrier?
The Su-33 & Mig-29K MLG looks like its on sterioids if one where to compair them with F-35B/C MLG..
Thanks
By: 10th July 2010 at 16:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The thing that needs to be kept in mind here is:India has already decided to but the PAKFA/FGFA which is expected to cost just as much.
Will the Indians be willing to pay the huge price of the F-35 (which ever model is bought)?
I never knew the prices came down with time, I thought it escalated over time and India ends up paying more than it originally bargained for. :rolleyes: perhaps you would provide an example or two to support this theory of yours ?
Remember how the Indian's always sign up for buying things but take years to negotiate a lower price by which time the cost has come down anyway so they try to lower it further!
lastly, except the gorshkov affair no other negotiation was held up purely on price matters.
Will the US (who really need funds atm) be willing to lower the price of the lightning to allow India to buy any? Given the recent debacle of the old Russian Spy ring in the US (what a joke that was), would the us allow the Indian's to buy their premier fighter knowing that the Russians would some how get a look at them and thus produce a competitive version at a cheaper price some time after?
what does russian spies in US got to do with India ? :confused:
I haven't heard of any concern from US sources about possible tech leak to russia from India (other than from you) , mind elaborating how you came to that conclusion ? the concern about tech transfer to India in US is more about Indians getting a look rather than russians getting a look, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.
I won't call the P-8 particularly low risk but you are right that congress might block the F-35. then again, there were reports that LM's offer was okayed by the pentagon.
Sure the US have started selling various military systems to India (the P-8 for starters), but that's all low risk sales, the F-35 comes in as a high risk item and I don't think the US are willing to go down that path. So while LM might be offering it, selling it isn't in their court, it's down to Congress who I would be really shocked if they said yes!
at the end of the day it also depends on whether the navy wants the F-35 and I'm not sure they do. ;)
By: 10th July 2010 at 16:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-CATOBAR** I hate that acronym, should be either CATOAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off, Arrested Landing) or CALAR (Catapult Assisted Launch, Arrested Landing), not Catapult Assisted Take-Off, But Arrested Landing (the "but" indicates the two aren't normally used together, but they usually are, with the vast majority of aircraft carriers built over the years having been {and still are} equipped this way).
+1. It's a very bad acronym, & I try to avoid using it. Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with it. :(
By: 10th July 2010 at 19:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm wonder if LM would have to further strenghten the MLG if the F-35B/C are to operate out from 'ski jump' Carrier?Thanks
The F-35B is already designed to take off using a "ski jump"... both British carriers being built will have them, and both the Italian Cavour and the Spanish Juan Carlos I have them... and all 4 ships are intended to operate the F-35B.
The F-35C is up for question here... its higher take-off weight might be a problem... no info has been released on whether it could use a "ski jump" or not.
By: 10th July 2010 at 19:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-bagel, how much heavier is the F-35C?
By: 11th July 2010 at 04:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-F35B:
- lower range and combat radius than F35C
- marginally better t/w ratio than the F35C very early on in a mission
- more expensive to maintain but cheaper to operate than F35C(catapult launch)
- not the USN's carrier based aircraft, its the F35C
- likely to have lesser space in the internal weapons bay than the F35C
Weight doesnot matter that much because both the B and C have the same g-rating and can carry 10000 pound+ on external hardpoints if they need to.
Also as both aircraft progress into a mission the F35C's T/W ratio improves faster than for a F35B because of the lift fan in the F35B.
For a CATOBAR equipped CBG the F-35C is a better option.
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 2nd July 2010 at 18:26
Seems like Boening offered both models to the IN. Assuming they do go ahead with this, which model would better suit the needs of the fleet and carrier?