RFP issued for India navy amphibious vessels (LHD or LPD type)

[lookieloo]

what kind of a VTOL aircraft is F-35B that it can't land on a pad big enough for a Chinook? The deck can load 33t which is more than an F-35Bs sanctioned weight of 30t.

Jeez... are you still trying? Only one part of the deck is able to handle 33t (apparently, just landing a single CH-53 is a big event); and since you asked... no, the F-35B is not a VTOL aircraft, it needs a TO run (that's why it's called STOVL). Try laying off the Xbox for your research. Also, like the Rafale, the F-35B has no wing-fold; so a hanger that looks big with Gazelles is going to run out of room real quick.

I don't understand why you seem so butthurt about this. It's not as if Mistral is a bad ship; the designers just decided early on that fixed-wing wasn't critical to their requirements, which is one of the reasons it's so much cheaper than other LHDs.

 

[Crusader53]

Jeez... are you still trying? Only one part of the deck is able to handle 33t (apparently, just landing a single CH-53 is a big event); and since you asked... no, the F-35B is not a VTOL aircraft, it needs a TO run (that's why it's called STOVL). Try laying off the Xbox for your research. Also, like the Rafale, the F-35B has no wing-fold; so a hanger that looks big with Gazelles is going to run out of room real quick.

I don't understand why you seem so butthurt about this. It's not as if Mistral is a bad ship; the designers just decided early on that fixed-wing wasn't critical to their requirements, which is one of the reasons it's so much cheaper than other LHDs.

Sorry, your wrong on this one as I remember reading that the Mistral was design to operate the F-35B from the very start. Because the French planned on exporting the type and without a option to operate F-35's. It would likely loose sales to the Juan Carlos or similar designs.


I am sure you can find it somewhere on the web......

 

[lookieloo]

Sorry, your wrong on this one as I remember reading that the Mistral was design to operate the F-35B from the very start. Because the French planned on exporting the type and without a option to operate F-35's. It would likely loose sales to the Juan Carlos or similar designs.


I am sure you can find it somewhere on the web......

Mistral-class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, starting with Wikipedia (at footnote #13)...

"A review by the French Senate concluded that STO[VL] aircraft were outside the scope of the CNOA, requiring the modification of the design."

Of course, if you can find some marketing material that claims otherwise, I'll read it. FWIW, I'd also say that costing a fraction of its STOVL-capable cousins is a pretty damn good selling point.

 

[natarajan]

why no news for 3 years ?

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

why no news for 3 years ?

typical lazy babudum and what ever some ones pockets are not paid or that file is just rotting in defense ministry office to get approval

 

[Armand2REP]

Jeez... are you still trying? Only one part of the deck is able to handle 33t (apparently, just landing a single CH-53 is a big event); and since you asked... no, the F-35B is not a VTOL aircraft, it needs a TO run (that's why it's called STOVL). Try laying off the Xbox for your research. Also, like the Rafale, the F-35B has no wing-fold; so a hanger that looks big with Gazelles is going to run out of room real quick.

I don't understand why you seem so butthurt about this. It's not as if Mistral is a bad ship; the designers just decided early on that fixed-wing wasn't critical to their requirements, which is one of the reasons it's so much cheaper than other LHDs.

F-35B is supposed to be VTOL... let us see.


Who are you to talk about playing games? You don't know the first thing of French equipment or your own.

It has an 1800m^2 hanger... you can fit some F-35s in there. It is twice as big as the hangar for Juan Carlos which is designed to fly F-35B.

I don't seem to understand why you are so butt hurt over being wrong. Every point you have made has been false.

 

[lookieloo]

F-35B is supposed to be VTOL...

Wow... how an ignorant troll like you makes it to over 9000 posts is beyond me.

 

[Armand2REP]

Wow... how an ignorant troll like you makes it to over 9000 posts is beyond me.

I have survived over 9000 posts on DFI because I don't attack the person, just the message. Unlike you and your name calling only goes to show you do not have a leg to stand on. The proof is right there... a vertical take off which makes it VTOL. You are a n00b here so I will cut you some slack, next time pick a subject you know something about with some evidence so you can have an intelligent debate.

 

[lookieloo]

The proof is right there... a vertical take off which makes it VTOL.

If you seriously think that's how anyone intended to use it operationally, then there's nothing anyone can do for you. Even the Harrier only does vertical TO as a gimmick. In any case, nothing you say here is going to change the fact that no Mistral-class ship is ever going carry a fixed-wing component.

 

[Crusader53]

Mistral-class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, starting with Wikipedia (at footnote #13)... Of course, if you can find some marketing material that claims otherwise, I'll read it. FWIW, I'd also say that costing a fraction of its STOVL-capable cousins is a pretty damn good selling point.

The foot note that you refer to says...


A review by the French Senate concluded that STOBAR aircraft were outside the scope of the CNOA, requiring the modification of the design.[13]


Nonetheless, I'll see if I can find a source........

The

 

[Crusader53]

If you seriously think that's how anyone intended to use it operationally, then there's nothing anyone can do for you. Even the Harrier only does vertical TO as a gimmick. In any case, nothing you say here is going to change the fact that no Mistral-class ship is ever going carry a fixed-wing component.

Personally, I would be surprised if the Mistral Class ever operate STOVL Strike Aircraft like the Harrier or F-35B. Yet, if the Hanger is big enough that I see no reason why they couldn't.

 

[lookieloo]

Personally, I would be surprised if the Mistral Class ever operate STOVL Strike Aircraft like the Harrier or F-35B. Yet, if the Hanger is big enough that I see no reason why they couldn't.

Doesn't matter. Only one of the landing pads is able to bare the F-35B's weight. Perhaps useful in an emergency, but not at all capable of any combat operations without major modifications to the ship's basic structure. I'm not even sure if such modifications are possible given the amount of weight they would add topside and the likely reduction in hanger space (to say nothing of increased costs). Mistral is best left as the great bargain of a ship that it is.

This whole conversation may be pointless anyways as it would appear that India was only interested in some LPDs... not LHDs as indicated in the thread's title.

 

[Crusader53]

Doesn't matter. Only one of the landing pads is able to bare the F-35B's weight. Perhaps useful in an emergency, but not at all capable of any combat operations without major modifications to the ship's basic structure. I'm not even sure if such modifications are possible given the amount of weight they would add topside and the likely reduction in hanger space (to say nothing of increased costs). Mistral is best left as the great bargain of a ship that it is.

This whole conversation may be pointless anyways as it would appear that India was only interested in some LPDs... not LHDs as indicated in the thread's title.

Doesn't matter to me either way. If, you want to operate STOVL Harriers or F-35's. The BPE is a far better choice. As for India in LPD's and not LHD's. I think that would be a very poor choice if true. As the former in not nearly as flexible. Even if you don't operate STOVL Aircraft.

 

[lookieloo]

As for India in LPD's and not LHD's. I think that would be a very poor choice if true. As the former in not nearly as flexible. Even if you don't operate STOVL Aircraft.

Go read this thread's first post for yourself. I'm just gonna assume that the the IN knows more about what it needs than we do.

 

[Crusader53]

Go read this thread's first post for yourself. I'm just gonna assume that the the IN knows more about what it needs than we do.

So, a fleet of four LPD's in more effective than four LHD's. Next you will be telling us a Modern Fleet doesn't need Aircraft Carriers!

 

[lookieloo]

So, a fleet of four LPD's in more effective than four LHD's. Next you will be telling us a Modern Fleet doesn't need Aircraft Carriers!

Not sure why you're trying to put words in my mouth. All I did was refer you to what the IN said they needed (again, something I assume they know more about than you). Sorry if that craters your hopes for an F-35B purchase. Besides, even that limited plan appears to have fizzled-out as some years have passed without any action taken.

 

[WMD]

Defence Acquisition Council to discuss Navy's Rs 25,000 crore warship proposal

NEW DELHI: A Rs 25,000 crore proposal of the Navy for procuring four large amphibious warfare vessels is expected to be considered by the Defence Ministry here tomorrow.

A meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) headed by Defence Minister A K Antony is also expected to approve amendments in the procurement procedure to give a bigger role to the indigenous industry for supplying military hardware to the armed forces.

"We are looking to add four more Landing Platform Decks (LPDs) in our fleet to operate alongside INS Jalashwa, the only LPD currently in service. The proposal is expected to come up for discussion at the DAC meeting tomorrow," a Navy official told PTI here.

The procurement procedure has already begun with the release of the Request for Information (RFI) by the defence ministry, they said.

The four warships would be procured under the 'Buy and Make (Indian)' category of the defence procurement procedure under which the Indian shipyards, both private and public, would be required to form a partnership with foreign shipyards for the contract.

The Navy would use the warships to transport Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), heavy trucks, armoured personnel vehicles and other heavy machinery along with big troop contingents.

Under the DPP amendments, the Ministry will further ease the 'Buy and Make (Indian)' category under which Indian firms are asked to have tie ups with foreign vendors to produce weapon systems indigenously.

As part of this, the firms would be asked to "achieve" 50 per cent of the cost of the system produced by it in joint venture.

The Ministry is planning to give the 'right of first refusal' to the domestic industry before the armed forces are allowed to look at the import option for procuring weapon systems.

Defence Acquisition Council to discuss Navy's Rs 25,000 crore warship proposal - The Economic Times

 

[debasree]

and soth koreanns also in the fray.....https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...VBEEuT99AgsjB9eEaJzETzA&bvm=bv.44770516,d.bmk

 

[arnabmit]

@Daredevil @nrj @Mods

Please remove LHD from the thread title... It is LPD all the way and we are discussing LHDs.

 

[arnabmit]

Current LPD platforms seen around the world

Country	Class	In service	Commissioned	Length	Displacement (mt)
China	Type 071 (Yuzhao)	3	2007	210-m (690-ft)	20000
France	Foudre	2 (1 with-Chile)	1990	168-m (551-ft)	12000
Indonesia	Makassar	4	2007	122-m (400-ft)	11394
Italy	San Giorgio	3	1987	133-m (436-ft)	7980
Japan	ÅŒsumi	3	1998	178-m (584-ft)	14000
Netherlands	Rotterdam	2	1997	166-m (545-ft)	12,750 (Rotterdam) 16,800 (Johan de Witt)
Singapore	Endurance	5 (1 with-Thailand)	2000	141-m (463-ft)	8500
Spain	Galicia	2	1998	166-m (545-ft)	13815
United Kingdom	Albion	2	2003	176-m (577-ft)	19560
United States	Austin	3 (1 with-India)	1965	173-m (568-ft)	16914
United States	San Antonio	6	2006	208-m (682-ft)	24900