Posted on 03/23/2005 2:27:11 AM PST by Arjun
Navy turns down US' Hawkeye deal
Wednesday March 23 2005 00:00 IST NEW DELHI: After weighing the pros and cons for over a year, the Navy has decided to turn down the US offer of six E-2C Hawkeye 2000 carrier-borne early warning aircraft.
It was a tough decision, a senior Naval officer admitted today, as the Navy has a crucial need for such a capability, but the reasons for turning down the Hawkeye were compelling _ one being its bulky design.
Instead, the Navy may look to DRDO for a carrier-based solution. DRDO is currently working with the IAF for a homegrown airborne early warning and control (AWACS) product.
The Navy's Controller for Warship Production and Acquisition Vice Admiral J.S. Bedi told this website’s newspaper, ‘‘First of all, the Hawkeye is too big. In light conditions, the endurance of the aircraft goes down from five to just one hour. And for an early warning aircraft to have the capability of staying for only one hour makes no sense. We have decided not to consider the Hawkeye.''
On February 14, senior officials from Northrop Grumman, which makes the Hawkeye, met Vice Adm Bedi at the Naval headquarters to allay concerns that the Hawkeye 2000 was not compatible with ski-jumps, which would be standard on all three Indian aircraft carriers _ the existing INS Viraat, the soon to be procured Admiral Gorshkov and the home-grown Air Defence Ship.
The Navy saw this as a hurdle since the Hawkeye needs to be launched using a steam catapult off a carrier.
Northrop Grumman had insisted in February that the Hawkeye 2000 could take off on a carrier's angle deck but the Navy was not convinced. What's worrying the Navy, however, is that the Hawkeye is the only fixed wing Naval carrier-based AWACS product currently in the export market.
‘‘There are other reasons for not taking up the Hawkeye offer. In a full take-off, a single engine failure could be disastrous,'' Vice Adm Bedi said.
With a pair of aircraft carriers expected to be in service by 2012 (the INS Viraat will be retired in the next four years), the Navy had issued a request for information (RFI) to Northrop Grumman.
They have no big-deck carrier.
Not so sure I'd want to be doing a ballistic launch off of a ski-jump in a propeller-driven aircraft - especially one that big - either.
ping!!!!
Very valid concern. It is one thing to lose an engine with a flying "end" speed off a cat. It is another thing to be substituting a nose up attitude while you are still accelerating to a real flying speed.
I can't tell from the article whether they intended a ramp launch or deck run down the angle. A ramp launch would raise questions. The loading would be opposite of loading the aircraft experiences when flying. I don't know much about the E-2, but if it carries fuel in the wings at takeoff that might be a factor.
ramp launch.I think this will also complicate the E-2's chances with the proposed British carriers,which also use ski-jumps(though there is a proposal to add a catapult system later).
The ski ramp basically uses aircraft momentum from its engines and the ramp angle to project the aircraft in a ballistic (convex) curve ahead of the ship. The expectation is that the aircraft's wings will generate sufficient sustaining lift to keep the aircraft from falling into the water. Several countries operate small carriers with ski ramps: Spain, Thailand, Italy, India, and the United Kingdom among them. All these carriers use the ski ramp to give their embarked Harriers a running take off. The ramp launch serves to extend the jet's capabilities (primarily range) but are obviously not absolutely necessary because the Harrier is, of course, capable of pure VTOL operation (at a considerable fuel penalty).
In the case of the Russian Admiral Kutsnetzov (sp) carrier, the embarked aircraft are not VTOL-capable and the ramp compensates for the lack of catapults. Since the CTOL fighter jet aircraft that operate from this ship (sea-going variants of the SU-27, MiG-29, and SU-25) have outstanding power-to-weight ratios, they are able to rocket up the ramp and into sustained flight easily. The converted Admiral Gorshkov and the projected Air Defense Ship that India will operate will fall into this category. The air wing will be equipped with MiG-29K's.
On the other hand, the image of a fully loaded E-2 Hawkeye (turbine engines or no) attempting a full power ski ramp launch...well, I just keep seeing those grainy films of the B-25's launching from the Hornet during the Tokyo strike. They all made it but it was a d*mn near thing for a couple of them.
You can understand the Indian Navy's concern about an E-2 engine failure on take off. In addition, the aircraft has to launch with only an hour's worth of fuel to be light enough to even attempt the maneuver.
Yep,though it must be said that the Hawkeye would have been an invaluable addition to the IN's fleet airarm.IT's not only the best such system,but also the only such system.Guess the IN will have to stick with KA-31s for the movement.
PS-the Kuznetsov no longer operates the Mig-29Ks-that was stopped a long time back.It primarily carries the much heavier SU-33 & boards the SU-25 as a ornamental addition for exercises.
It sounds like the Indian Navy needs an EV-22 Osprey/Hawkeye.
Sounds like they need to build a real carrier with catapaults. Skislope launching ships tend to do nasty things to airplanes in heavier seas.
It appears that the Kuz has been having a decent time in the past 3 years or so.It's done atleast 2 major exercises with a full complement of SU-33s & last time around deployed the SU-25(a waste of money if you ask me!!).This article says that she is about to have another round of weapons training-
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5471814&startrow=1&date=2005-03-22&do_alert=0
Does IN have in-air refueling capability? I suspect that
E3 guzzles fuel - not as big a problem when you have
a tank orbiting conveniently nearby. Their choice of
carriers limit them to land based machines.
The IN's Ka-28 & Ka-31 helos are being outfitted with buddy refuelling systems & so will the (yet to be delivered Mig-29K)s-which would increased endurance by a weebit.Other than that,there is no dedicated carrierborne system.That being said,a dedicated carrier-tanker isn't necessary given that an Indian carrier group will rarely if ever operate more than 3,000kms away from the Indian peninsula for any stretch of time.So that makes the Airforce's longrange Il-78 tankers available.Besides,the option of using bases for these tankers in Vietnam or Singapore exists in theory.More than fuel,I think the problem here is getting the E-2C off the carrier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.