Indian Navy Kitty Hawk Deal

[alexsa]

Thank you for the comments mate. CG-47 class navigational draft is 10m, whilst DDG-51 is 9.4m and FFG-7 6.7m. CO's add about a meter for good measure. I based my statement on the problems encountered berthing the CG-47, DD-963, and DDG-51 ships in some of the ports along the Atlantic coast of South America, notably Montevideo, Fortaleza, Salvador, Porto Belgrano, and Buenos Aires. They often had to sit out at anchor due to draft restrictions. Luckily they were able to berth in Rio de Janeiro. I suppose those ports need some dredging.

Hmm sources please. The DDg 51 'navigation draft' is 31 feet (9.45m) but this includes under keel clearnce as far as I can tell. from any perspective 3.15m of UKC is a lot and appears to be an operational restriction the USN have placed on these vessels (often done to compensate for increase draft due to heel and the effect of a seaway but si still quite generous in this case) but then the same restriction wouel have to apply the the FFG7. I suspect the CG-47 data ayou are quote is based onthe same premise.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-specs.htm

Other source give the actual draft as 6.3m

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/specs.html

An now for some math. If the ship is 140m long (noting soem sources put the LOA higher) and 20 wide and has a draft of 9.4m then the FW block will have a mass of 26320 tonnes. The SW block at a density of 1.025 is 26975 tonnes. Being generous and using a block coefficnet of 0.5 (to allow for prop and sonar dome protrusion into the block as well as the low drag of teh hull) this give a displacement of 13489 tonnes ...... seems a bit high and wouel have a bucket laod of hydronamic drag.

Lets try a draft of 6.3m this gives an salt water block of 18081 tonnes and using a block coefficnet of 0.5 we get 9040.5 tonnes. Seems clsoer to the truth.

The block coefficnet of the FFG7 is probably lower because of the very large intrustion of the prop but the contact draft (i.e. when you run out of water) of the DDG51 is given as 6.3 while the FFG7 is 6.5 (22 feet) and this would explain this.

 

[AegisFC]

Thank you for the comments mate. CG-47 class navigational draft is 10m, whilst DDG-51 is 9.4m and FFG-7 6.7m. CO's add about a meter for good measure. I based my statement on the problems encountered berthing the CG-47, DD-963, and DDG-51 ships in some of the ports along the Atlantic coast of South America, notably Montevideo, Fortaleza, Salvador, Porto Belgrano, and Buenos Aires. They often had to sit out at anchor due to draft restrictions. Luckily they were able to berth in Rio de Janeiro. I suppose those ports need some dredging.

Their may of been force protection, hotel services and pier issues with those ports that kept the ships at anchor.

 

[alexsa]

Actualy I may have to correct myself as the Sonar dome on the DDG51 seems to have a very large intrusion below the keel line but the inforamtionon actual draft is confliciting. Even the NVR site gives the FFG7 draft limit as 26feet (about 8m as opposed to 6.5m).

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/FFG61.htm

However using BA as a good shallow water example the Mar Del Plata has a max draft fo 9.9 m without tidal restrictions at basin C. max sailing drafts (allowing for madatory 0.6m UKC) for BA is normally 10m

http://www.basal.com/drafts/drafts.asp

Again the limitng factor for a warship may be the accessm to deep draft commercial wharfage given operators would not nomally accept closure or restrictions of such facilities.

Montivideo has a max safe draft of 9.15m but max allowabel of 9.45 with the risk that any lower and you sit in the mud.

The Petrobas terminal in Fortaleza allows a max draft at PP-1 is 11.25m but at PP-2 is is down 9.12m. As bothof these are commecial bulk liquids berths again I doubt that the would be open to warships. The floating bertsh give 10.5m. Again not open to warships but why wouel you wnt to use this port as it is mainly a commercail outlet focused on bulk liquids.

These are all shallow water ports yet even Sydney has a maximum draft of only 13.7m yet has accepted the USS Midway in harbour and an Iowa class BB (maximum navigation draft 37 feet).

 

[Salty Dog]

Hmm sources please. The DDg 51 'navigation draft' is 31 feet (9.45m) but this includes under keel clearnce as far as I can tell. from any perspective 3.15m of UKC is a lot and appears to be an operational restriction the USN have placed on these vessels (often done to compensate for increase draft due to heel and the effect of a seaway but si still quite generous in this case) but then the same restriction wouel have to apply the the FFG7. I suspect the CG-47 data ayou are quote is based onthe same premise.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-specs.htm

Other source give the actual draft as 6.3m

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/specs.html

An now for some math. If the ship is 140m long (noting soem sources put the LOA higher) and 20 wide and has a draft of 9.4m then the FW block will have a mass of 26320 tonnes. The SW block at a density of 1.025 is 26975 tonnes. Being generous and using a block coefficnet of 0.5 (to allow for prop and sonar dome protrusion into the block as well as the low drag of teh hull) this give a displacement of 13489 tonnes ...... seems a bit high and wouel have a bucket laod of hydronamic drag.

Lets try a draft of 6.3m this gives an salt water block of 18081 tonnes and using a block coefficnet of 0.5 we get 9040.5 tonnes. Seems clsoer to the truth.

The block coefficnet of the FFG7 is probably lower because of the very large intrustion of the prop but the contact draft (i.e. when you run out of water) of the DDG51 is given as 6.3 while the FFG7 is 6.5 (22 feet) and this would explain this.

It was difficult trying to find a single source for all the data and every source was just a bit different.

The navigational draft is taken to the lowest protruding object on the ship's hull. In the case of CG-47 and DDG-51 this is the bow sonar dome, and the CRP on FFG-7.

Each ship has a chart which when used with the "calculative draft" markings at the bow and stern will give the ship displacement.

For your calculations, you should use the keel draft vice navigational draft. Try the data below.

CG-47
Navigational Draft: 33 ft
Keel Draft: 24 ft
Displacement: 9,600 t

DDG-51
Navigational Draft: 31 ft
Keel Draft: 22
Displacement: 8,900 t

FFG-7
Navigational Draft: 24 ft
Keel Draft: 15 ft
Displacement: 4,100 t

 

[alexsa]

It was difficult trying to find a single source for all the data and every source was just a bit different.

The navigational draft is taken to the lowest protruding object on the ship's hull. In the case of CG-47 and DDG-51 this is the bow sonar dome, and the CRP on FFG-7.

Each ship has a chart which when used with the "calculative draft" markings at the bow and stern will give the ship displacement.

For your calculations, you should use the keel draft vice navigational draft. Try the data below.

CG-47
Navigational Draft: 33 ft
Keel Draft: 24 ft
Displacement: 9,600 t

DDG-51
Navigational Draft: 31 ft
Keel Draft: 22
Displacement: 8,900 t

FFG-7
Navigational Draft: 24 ft
Keel Draft: 15 ft
Displacement: 4,100 t

See above. We seem to have posted at the same time. The data is very confilction as even NVR puts the FFG7 at 27 feet vice 24 feet but both are much deeper than the 6.5m given in other sources.

 

[Salty Dog]

See above. We seem to have posted at the same time. The data is very confilction as even NVR puts the FFG7 at 27 feet vice 24 feet but both are much deeper than the 6.5m given in other sources.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/64P7-101.html

The link above shows a navigational draft of 25 ft 6 in for the FFG-7 with the SQQ-89. The source is a lesson is for FFG-7 department heads.

 

[Firehorse]

Even if America did offer the Kitty Hawk, New Delhi might well refuse the gift. It was built in 1961 and has been declared too old for the U.S. Navy. The Admiral Gorshkov is not only younger (she was laid down in 1978 and launched in 1982), but fully equipped. The U.S. carrier will need to be supplied with new power plants and support, navigation and other systems. Nobody can say now how much this would cost.
In other words, by rejecting the Admiral Gorshkov, India could fall into a new trap with the USS Kitty Hawk. But that would not be Russia's problem.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080227/100165793.html

I think the case of "CV-63 transfer to India" is closed. Newer CV-67 was offered to NATO, for free, but they didn't want to take her. NATO nations has far more combined GDP than India!

 

[Salty Dog]

I think the case of "CV-63 transfer to India" is closed. Newer CV-67 was offered to NATO, for free, but they didn't want to take her. NATO nations has far more combined GDP than India!

The USA never offers military hardware. From another thread:

The US Government never offers any defense equipment, used or new. There must be a formal request made by the customer government. If Secretary Gates is carrying a letter, it will be a response for such a request.

In this case, the Indian Government would have initiated the request. Also, it's not a done deal even should India sign an acceptance letter. The US Congress still has to approve the transfer.

 

[Salty Dog]

I think the case of "CV-63 transfer to India" is closed. Newer CV-67 was offered to NATO, for free, but they didn't want to take her. NATO nations has far more combined GDP than India!

The forum referenced in your comment refers to a Navy Times article which may have mis-quoted another source. The fact of the matter is that it was "just an idea" by Rep. Duncan Hunter who at the time was the Chairman of the Armed Servics committee. Seems like the committe wanted to find a means to keep CV-67 in service. No offer of CV-67 was ever made to NATO:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/JFK05156.xml

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

So does anyone really see a case of the IN to purchase the Kitty Hawk for any other reason that "it'd be cool"?

IMHO such a purchase makes no sense whatsoever. The maintinance requirements, the CAG requirements, the operational sophistocation, the agregate cost, the drydock needed and the fact she's not in the greatest shape in her life mean CV 63 is simply to much burden for the indian navy and way to expenseive. The cost of a 30+ fixed wing CAG alone would be $1bn+ (could be $4bn if they bought F/A-18F BII's + E-2D) and while she may be able to operate more advanced aircraft than Gorshov, when she is decommed the IN will have a CAG without a carrier, unless of cource F/A-18F is chosen for the MRCA deal, which is unlikely considering the cost.

Its a bad idea IMO. Invincible would be a much, much more cost effective option considering they allready operate harrier.

 

[Firehorse]

The ex-FN CV Clemenceau was towed to India for scrapping, but was sent back thanks to the asbestos problem. They probably could have recomissioned and used her instead, but chose not to. I suspect that CV-63 has similar hazardous materials, besides being old and expensive.

India, Russia end spat over Soviet-era aircraft carrier

 

[Salty Dog]

The ex-FN CV Clemenceau was towed to India for scrapping, but was sent back thanks to the asbestos problem. They probably could have recomissioned and used her instead, but chose not to. I suspect that CV-63 has similar hazardous materials, besides being old and expensive.

India, Russia end spat over Soviet-era aircraft carrier

Asbestos was removed from USN ships in the 1980s. On CV-63 during SLEP (87-90) .

In terms of age, USN ships never just sat idle at the pier, so you can bet that the CV-63 hull and machinery have reached their life limits. OPTEMPO for former USN ships in other navies have never reached original USN levels, so they have manage to extend their usefulness by several more years, but with (8) steam boilers and 4 shafts, a carrier will be an enormous task to maintain.

 

[harryriedl]

So does anyone really see a case of the IN to purchase the Kitty Hawk for any other reason that "it'd be cool"?

IMHO such a purchase makes no sense whatsoever. The maintinance requirements, the CAG requirements, the operational sophistocation, the agregate cost, the drydock needed and the fact she's not in the greatest shape in her life mean CV 63 is simply to much burden for the indian navy and way to expenseive. The cost of a 30+ fixed wing CAG alone would be $1bn+ (could be $4bn if they bought F/A-18F BII's + E-2D) and while she may be able to operate more advanced aircraft than Gorshov, when she is decommed the IN will have a CAG without a carrier, unless of cource F/A-18F is chosen for the MRCA deal, which is unlikely considering the cost.

Its a bad idea IMO. Invincible would be a much, much more cost effective option considering they allready operate harrier.

they could with some more harriers as they have serious harrier problems http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Indias-Sea-Harrier-Shortage-04774/
sn’t India’s only naval air issue these days. In response to a Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) question, India’s Defence Minister Shri A K Antony said:

“The Indian Navy is facing shortage of Sea Harrier aircraft. The ongoing upgrade of Sea Harrier programme has also temporarily affected the availability of the aircraft. Contract for the limited upgrade of Sea Harrier aircraft was concluded with M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in March 2005 at a cost of Rs. 476.69 crore [DID: about $109.8 million at the time]. The upgradation programme is expected to be completed by 2009.”

India’s Sea Harrier Mk51s are old aircraft, predating the AV-8B+ Harrier IIs currently flown by the US Marines and Italian Navy, and their British GR7/GR9 or Spanish EA-8B counterparts. The V/STOL Sea Harrier fighters were inducted in 1983, with 25 used for operational flying and the remaining 5 as trainers. The current fleet reportedly stands at 13 as of December 2007, due to 17 crashes over the aircrafts’ service lifetime (a known hazard for Harriers). With only 13 aircraft on hand, cycling aircraft in for lengthy upgrades without disrupting already-low fleet numbers becomes a challenge. The current upgrade program will involve new IAI Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode fire control radars, RAFAEL’s Derby short-medium range air-air missiles, plus combat maneuvering flight recorders and digital cockpit voice recorders.

invinsable would probley be the best option if they can get some more harriers with it.

 

[Firehorse]

Asbestos was removed from USN ships in the 1980s. On CV-63 during SLEP (87-90).
In terms of age, USN ships never just sat idle at the pier, so you can bet that the CV-63 hull and machinery have reached their life limits. OPTEMPO for former USN ships in other navies have never reached original USN levels, so they have manage to extend their usefulness by several more years, but with (8) steam boilers and 4 shafts, a carrier will be an enormous task to maintain.

I didn't mean that asbestos was the main reason for India not to use that ex-French CV. I know that instead of removing it, it's possible to just paint it over-that's how one rental housing owner I know does. If they didn't get it inducted to the IN, it tells me that they had other considerations- i.e. high cost of upgrading, maintenance, & operating.

 

[Salty Dog]

JFK Towed to Philadelphia for Storage

The decommissioned aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CV 67) is scheduled to arrive March 22 at the Navy's Inactive Ships Maintenance Facility in Philadelphia for preservation and storage.

John F. Kennedy is currently on the Navy's inactive inventory, meaning the ship has been taken out of commission and laid up for safe storage pending a future SECNAV decision regarding the ultimate disposition of the ship. As required by the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, the Navy will maintain the ship in a state of preservation that would allow for reactivation in the event the carrier is needed in response to a national emergency.

http://www.marinelink.com/Story/JFKTowedtoPhiladelphiaforStorage-211280.html

If not the Kitty Hawk, perhaps the JFK.

 

[Sea Toby]

If India offered the United Kingdom a good price for the Invincible, they might sell her to India. While she probably won't see Royal navy service again, the British are keeping her in mothballs as a hedge just in case something happened to either the Illustrious and Ark Royal. A good price will be something a bit higher than a final refit costs, plus her scrap worth. The Invincible is several uears newer than the former USS Trenton, and a bit larger. Instead of $50 million, how about $100 million.

Unfortunately, the Harrier production lines are closed. Not many were built, but when the F-35B Lighting IIs are produced, used Harriers will be available for purchase in the future. Of course, that's probably five to six years away.

 

[harryriedl]

If India offered the United Kingdom a good price for the Invincible, they might sell her to India. While she probably won't see Royal navy service again, the British are keeping her in mothballs as a hedge just in case something happened to either the Illustrious and Ark Royal. A good price will be something a bit higher than a final refit costs, plus her scrap worth. The Invincible is several uears newer than the former USS Trenton, and a bit larger. Instead of $50 million, how about $100 million.

Unfortunately, the Harrier production lines are closed. Not many were built, but when the F-35B Lighting IIs are produced, used Harriers will be available for purchase in the future. Of course, that's probably five to six years away.

invisable would have probley been do-able if the Indians hadn't been stuck with Mig 29K.
the other problem for India if they bought Invinsable would be there struggle to get the F35 both from America and the internal difficulty

 

[AegisFC]

http://www.marinelink.com/Story/JFKTowedtoPhiladelphiaforStorage-211280.html

If not the Kitty Hawk, perhaps the JFK.

The JFK was in BAD shape when they decommed her. None of her catapults or arrestor wires worked, her flight deck was not certified to handle any aircraft, her engineering plant always had problems but was especially bad for the last couple years when she only left Mayport once or twice a year.

Unfortunately, the Harrier production lines are closed. Not many were built, but when the F-35B Lighting IIs are produced, used Harriers will be available for purchase in the future. Of course, that's probably five to six years away.

The Indian's were interested in some of the UK's Sea Harriers but the UK was only interested in selling them without the Blue Vixen radar, last I heard the Indian Navy decided it wasn't worth it.
The Spanish and Italian Harriers will be worn out and useless by time they get their F-35B's and the USMC Harrier II's will be at the end of their lives and are bomb trucks.
No, India's best choice seems to be Mig-29K.

 

[harryriedl]

The JFK was in BAD shape when they decommed her. None of her catapults or arrestor wires worked, her flight deck was not certified to handle any aircraft, her engineering plant always had problems but was especially bad for the last couple years when she only left Mayport once or twice a year.



The Indian's were interested in some of the UK's Sea Harriers but the UK was only interested in selling them without the Blue Vixen radar, last I heard the Indian Navy decided it wasn't worth it.
The Spanish and Italian Harriers will be worn out and useless by time they get their F-35B's and the USMC Harrier II's will be at the end of their lives and are bomb trucks.
No, India's best choice seems to be Mig-29K.

they are despert for new aircraft thought the Harrier's are being upgraded they only 9 single seat small wing harriers[which are going though a long overhaul seriously reducing numbers] so buying old shagged harriers from other air forces might still happen

 

[kato]

invisable would have probley been do-able if the Indians hadn't been stuck with Mig 29K.

Well, you could make the MiG-29K or another CTOL work with Invincible or another SCS. Would only require strap-on modules for the aircraft (JATO, RATO, ZELL), and some in-depth analysis on arresting gear, airframe strengthening, and deck parking layouts.
Could probably employ 6-8 fighters minimum in that manner without many problems from a small SCS such as Invincible, though it would be a rather extreme stopgap measure, and not exactly cheap in operation.