Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK Defence Cuts - 2nd CV Offered To India  
User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6870 times:

Basically

Indian journalists were given an all expenses paid tour to Britain and Glasgow in particular

The were informed that Concrete proposals were made for the 2nd CVF to be sold to India

India now has 3 CV's under 2 completely different CV projects under construction/order

http://www.business-standard.com/ind...kla-making-warships-happen/408614/


Vi veri universum vivus vici
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinevivekman2006 From India, joined May 2006, 537 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6865 times:

Interesting!

I doubt if the Brits have officially offered the carrier to India. I haven't seen any reports in the Indian media so far.

This article in The Guardian states that India has "lodged a firm expression of interest" to buy one of the two carriers being built.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...6/royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-sale


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7264 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6719 times:

I'm sure this is about as factual as the proposed sale of USS Kitty Hawk to the Indians last year. If it was true then the carrier would have to be modified to STOBAR, plus the logistics issues operating 4 different classes of carrier would be nuts.

User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6699 times:

The article appears to start off with facts and rapidly head towards rumour and supposition.
Is it any wonder that BAE systems would offer a few free trips to see UK warship production in the hope of future Indian business, especially considering the total failure of Russia to come up with the promised goods.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6637 times:

India could end up with as many as 6 CVs, in 4 different classes? Mean while the RN will end up with only 1 CVF. Has the world gone nuts?

User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2234 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6318 times:

I wonder how far-fetched it would be to start "leasing" out space on US carriers to the UK and Australia. As the only two countries as prepared as the US is to apply force when the situation demands it, it might not be a bad idea. We're all going broke together so perhaps pooling our resources and having two tight allies share the expense of using a combined platform like the navalized F-35 would be wise. I say let the UK deploy a permanent squadron in the Med and North Sea /Atlantic (there are your two carriers!) with Australia doing the same off a single carrier in the South East Asia region. Nothing like two Sierra Nevadas and a cab blend to solve massive budget issues!

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6166 times:

That could work. Of course there would be political and operational problems to over come, like if the US wanted that CVN to do a mission that Austraila or the UK did not want to be a part of. But I think those issues could be worked out by swapping out the RAAF or FAA/RAF squadrons for USN squadrons at sea using tanker support.

User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 6160 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
India could end up with as many as 6 CVs, in 4 different classes?

Not 6 - 4 diff carriers in 3 classes all procured within a 5 year interval. Its typical of India's haphazard procurement. While in the rest of the world bribing starts after the requirement is formulated and RFP issued..... In India most high ranking officers are kept on permanent retainers - and the Russians are famous for "honey trapping" Indian officers - So that they will not consolidate an order and thus be able to demand bulk discounts and complete TOT.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Has the world gone nuts?

Nope - just economic reality... its finally caught up with the Brits .... and ultimately if these economic willy nilly ways of the Indian MoD persist.... it will replay India's USSR to China's USA given that by 2025 the Chinese economy will be about 10 times the size of the Indian economy (i.e end up with India's implosion - this seems to be china's long term game plan at any rate)

Quoting wingman (Reply 5):
I wonder how far-fetched it would be to start "leasing" out space on US carriers to the UK and Australia.

I think this is where it is heading. The F-18 E/F and now G's are all carrier compatible and the two Canberra class LPD's will have ski jumps - so procurement of the F-35B is a given.

Repeated white papers on the issue since the Howard premiership have called for seamless integration with American forces.



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6133 times:

Wouldn't this give India's Navy the second largest fleet of CVs in the world, behind the USN's fleet of 11 CVNs?

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7264 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 6068 times:

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 7):
4 diff carriers in 3 classes all procured within a 5 year interval.

4 in 4 different classes if they bought a CVF.

The second locally built vessel will be considerably bigger than the first and will be equiped with cats.


User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1816 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5836 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Is it possible for the UK to do to the carriers what they are doing to the Nmrods?

The Nimrod MR4s are not coming into service now to save money, they will join the RAF in a few years time instead.
Could the UK slow the production of the 2 CVFs to have one on schedule and the other a few years later to stretch the costs somewhat? Instead of 2014 and 2016, push it back to 2014/5 and 2018? I think some construction has already begun earlier this year......

Apparently the order for 138 JSF will be reduced (up to halved according to Reuters) Could the UK 'save' money by having a mixed JSF/F-18, or JSF/Harrier airwing until the time when they can afford to transistion to an all JSF force? In the long term this could allow them to have more capable (later build) JSFs in 10 years time

I'm still shocked that the UK still has bases in Germany. I would have thought these were an obvious cost to get rid off in the post Cold War world. With efficient air transport the need to pre-position troops and eqiupment is lessened.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5828 times:

generally, when you strech out a military program to save money, it costs you more in the long run.

User currently offlinearniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

Sorry to sound stupid, I'm not really enough informed on this matter but has the Royal Navy never considered to
just join up with the Americans and just by 2 of the shelf America class LHA's?

Maybe even with the addition of a ski-jump-ramp it must be fairly close to the abilities the newly build British is expected to have.

It can handle the JSF, also all types of helicopters and even has the plus of having a docking bay for MARINES operations, something extra which might come in handy.



[edit post]
User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5583 times:

Quoting arniepie (Reply 12):
Sorry to sound stupid

Not stupid at all - the only people that were stupid were the ones who abandoned Britain's long standing STOVL carriers only policy - without weighing in futures, inflation etc etc ................... especially given how far the F-35B has come in reducing the performance deficit VTOL a/c suffer vis-a-vis CTOL


purchasing 2-3 Canberra Class/BPE type ship would have given far more operational flexibility, more dispersability, greater coverage, for the same number of deployable aircraft at significantly lower costs ................. especially if Mistral style COTS construction processes were adopted.

Of course its easy to retrospectively criticise this decision now - with the benefit of hindsight - But I always thought 2 big carriers was a stretch too far for Britain...... given that even the French in-spite of their notorious pig-headedness gave up plans for the 2nd carrier quite some time back...... at the first sign of economic trouble..



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7264 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5532 times:

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 13):
especially if Mistral style COTS construction processes were adopted.

They are using COTS. I was responsible for the bid which my company put in for ships lighting, the request was for COTS, NATO spec naval lighting was not required, we could also supply NATO spec lighting, we did the numbers as an exercise, the cost would have trippled.

The ships are being built in blocks then assembled in a dry dock, very much the same kind of contruction as the Mistral class and similar to most commercial vessel construction today.

3 Canberra/BPE class vessels are not going to be able to do the same job, for starters they are not carriers, they were never designed for that role, they are not even suitable as a replacement for an Invincible, they have docks, they are expiditary warfare vessels, designed to unload troops and equipment for a beach assult, not part of the plan for CVF. Canberra/BPE would make an excellent HMS Ocean replacement.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 13):
given that even the French in-spite of their notorious pig-headedness gave up plans for the 2nd carrier quite some time back

The French will build PA2 or something very similar, it always has been the intention for the French to operate 2 carriers, they have to.


User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5496 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 14):
They are using COTS.

So why is it so much more expensive than the mistral? Mistrals cost about 400 mil euros (560 million AUD) each at 21k tonnes but the BPE costs 3 times that much at 27K tonnes cus the deal for 2 ships was 3 billion AUD

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 14):
the cost would have trippled.

Just for lighting????? why ?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 14):
3 Canberra/BPE class vessels are not going to be able to do the same job

Why not?


I know since the die is cast this discussion is academic - but

AFAIK a pure carrier performs - Fleet defence, Air Superiority, ASW, Strike, Jamming

Traditionally a VTOL could also perform these roles except some of them were delegated to helicopters and limited by the Harriers inherent design limitations - Plus some of them can launch amphibian forces and perform CAS

Since the F-35B has far less by way of limitations than the harrier - it can significantly reduce the performance gap associated with such vessels.

Also 3 BPE's could function as Ocean replacements when required - and since they are anyway being outfitted for the F-35B (12-16 F-35's per ship seems reasonable) 3 X 12 = 36 F-35B which is round about what the CVF is meant to operate.

Besides the MoD announced CVF would operate the F-35B which means the same plane - same limitations across the board - just fewer numbers per unit.

This also means that the 1000 lbs JDAM limitation on the F-35B model and maximum 6 internal amraam and the inability to carry HARM internally would apply to both CVF and BPE

Basically 3 BPE's intelligently used - could replace the invincibles, oceans and CVF

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 14):
The French will build PA2 or something very similar

Ultimately yes - but they went about it lot more intelligently than the Brits did .............. now their 30 years defence plan isn't hostage to a recession blip. The fact is contracts wont be signed till concrete signs of recovery are indicated by their statistics bureau. And they've always operated a a CATOBAR carrier within their more or less stable defence budget

Britain's big problem was that it thought it could manage a huge capability leap at current budget rates - and that is very risky economics........ the budgetary danger signs were flashing right from the time the air-tanker "rental" contract was proposed which was basically an exercise in doctoring the books and fudging the capital and current accounts.



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7264 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5451 times:

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 15):
So why is it so much more expensive than the mistral? Mistrals cost about 400 mil euros (560 million AUD) each at 21k tonnes but the BPE costs 3 times that much at 27K tonnes cus the deal for 2 ships was 3 billion AUD

The Mistral is a pretty basic ship compared to the Canberra, plus I was under the impression that the French were going to build the Mistrals without Aussie content whereas the Canberras will be completed in Australia which adds significantly to the cost.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 15):
Just for lighting????? why ?

Yup sure it, the main reason that COTS is cheaper is volume we sell hundreds of thousands of COTS lights per year compared to a handful of NATO spec lights, there is also certification costs and since its military the margin is a little higher.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 15):
Basically 3 BPE's intelligently used - could replace the invincibles, oceans and CVF

3 Canberras still are not going to give you the same amount of deck and hanger space as a CVF. Besdies with the Ocean, Bay and Albion Classes the RN has a lot of expeditionary warefare capibility, second only to the US, what the Canberra offers is already covered elsewhere.


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8482 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5226 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Has the world gone nuts?

We should be glad, because India is probably the best friend we have in the region. IMO. All due respect to Japan.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7135 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5192 times:

Quoting arniepie (Reply 12):
Sorry to sound stupid, I'm not really enough informed on this matter but has the Royal Navy never considered to
just join up with the Americans and just by 2 of the shelf America class LHA's?

I think you are looking at the wrong capability, which is obtaining the boats, the primary factor at present is the economy, how much the boats will cost, how many jobs will be lost if not built, how much money already spent will be wasted, etc. etc. etc. Purchasing boats from the US means more jobs in the US not the UK, more contractors in the US not the UK, globalization only goes so far.

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 10):
The Nimrod MR4s are not coming into service now to save money, they will join the RAF in a few years time instead.
Could the UK slow the production of the 2 CVFs to have one on schedule and the other a few years later to stretch the costs somewhat? Instead of 2014 and 2016, push it back to 2014/5 and 2018? I think some construction has already begun earlier this year......

If my memory serves me correctly, the UK signed an agreement in principle to sell one of its Invincible class carriers while it was still in RN service, that for me would be the way to go. Sign an agreement with India to purchase one of the carriers in say 5 to 10 years at X amount of dollars, the X amount would be a depreciation for the number of years the carrier would be in Royal Navy service.
Benefits, the build could be placed on the books as a "loan" repayable by India in 10 years, jobs and industrial capacity would be preserved, the economy and world situation may pick up allowing another ship to be built which could be offered to India new for additional funds or simply continue with the deal, if the economy does ont pick up, cost reductions would be achieved by continuing the transfer and demobilizing the forces who were using the carrier.
A definate win win situation, however, I'll let the experts weigh in.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7264 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5020 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 18):
If my memory serves me correctly, the UK signed an agreement in principle to sell one of its Invincible class carriers while it was still in RN service, that for me would be the way to go.

You are correct the Australian Govt announced in Feb 82 that they were buying Invincible, in April Argentina invaided the Falklands, in June the Australian PM advised the UK that they could cancel the sale if they wanted to, a couple of days later the MOD announced the cancellation.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days ago) and read 4966 times:

Would the RN be interested if the USN gave them either 2 Forrestal class (there are 4 of them) or 2 Kitty Hawk class (there are 3 of them if you count the JFK) CVs, then modify and update them in British shipyards to what the RN needs?

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4898 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Would the RN be interested if the USN gave them either 2 Forrestal class (there are 4 of them) or 2 Kitty Hawk class (there are 3 of them if you count the JFK) CVs, then modify and update them in British shipyards to what the RN needs?

But isn't one of the 'attractions' for the RN with the QE class boats is their much lower design crew complement ? IIRC the total crew is going to be something on the order of 1,800 or so, whereas Forrestal or Kitty hawk ships would still need 4-5,000 -- unless you were prepared to put in billions and wait several years. The advantage of newer technologies.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7264 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Would the RN be interested if the USN gave them either 2 Forrestal class (there are 4 of them) or 2 Kitty Hawk class (there are 3 of them if you count the JFK) CVs, then modify and update them in British shipyards to what the RN needs?

Why would the RN be interested in 50+ year old hulls that are completely shagged, plus they have massive crewing requirements, well over double what a CVF needs.


User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4755 times:

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 10):
I think some construction has already begun earlier this year

Work has been underway for a while now on the first of the 2 carriers with the first metal cut for the flightdecks in July of this year:

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/8292931.__44m_joy_for_Cammell_Laird/


User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1816 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4684 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 21):
But isn't one of the 'attractions' for the RN with the QE class boats is their much lower design crew complement ? IIRC the total crew is going to be something on the order of 1,800 or so, whereas Forrestal or Kitty hawk ships would still need 4-5,000 --

That is my understanding of the new design. The amount of automation would allow the RN to have the power of 2 CVFs for the manpower costs of a single CVN........or something like that. The same is true with the new destroyers and frigates being planned for the RN.(Type 45 destroyer is larger than the Type 42 but has 100 less crew)


25 KiwiRob : A Nimitz CVN has upwards of 6000 crew, CVF will have about 1500, so you could man 4 CVFs for one CVN, makes you wonder what the US is doing wrong whe
26 par13del : Consider the difference is size and a/c compliment, a lot of human resources are geared towards the air operations. Additionally, the greates threat
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic UK Defence Cuts - 2nd CV Offered To India
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
US To India: We'll Throw In The Kitty Hawk posted Sun Feb 24 2008 19:27:34 by Atmx2000
P-3C Aircraft To India posted Thu Sep 15 2005 09:20:47 by HAWK21M
"A Deal For Jet Fighters Opens The Door To India" posted Sat Apr 16 2005 23:06:00 by STT757
Bad Move For UK Defence posted Sat Mar 16 2002 18:19:04 by GDB
Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 15:11:01 by Lumberton
F-35B/C To Be Offered For Indian Naval Fighter RFI posted Tue Jun 29 2010 04:02:41 by Shmertspionem
India To Spend $736m On 12 AW-101's.... posted Tue Mar 16 2010 11:39:21 by AirRyan
UK Times: Brown To Recommit To Carriers posted Mon Feb 1 2010 01:41:23 by Kukkudrill
UK Confirms Plan To Deploy 'new' Chinooks To Afgha posted Fri Jan 15 2010 08:42:48 by Revelation
India To Launch Lunar Mission posted Tue Oct 21 2008 17:27:45 by ZANL188
LM May Offer F-35 To India On Fighter Deal posted Mon Jun 20 2011 13:53:14 by comorin
CV-22 To The Rescue In Hurricane Ike posted Fri Sep 12 2008 10:21:15 by RedFlyer
US To India: We'll Throw In The Kitty Hawk posted Sun Feb 24 2008 19:27:34 by Atmx2000
P-3C Aircraft To India posted Thu Sep 15 2005 09:20:47 by HAWK21M
"A Deal For Jet Fighters Opens The Door To India" posted Sat Apr 16 2005 23:06:00 by STT757
Bad Move For UK Defence posted Sat Mar 16 2002 18:19:04 by GDB
Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 15:11:01 by Lumberton
F-35B/C To Be Offered For Indian Naval Fighter RFI posted Tue Jun 29 2010 04:02:41 by Shmertspionem
India To Spend $736m On 12 AW-101's.... posted Tue Mar 16 2010 11:39:21 by AirRyan
UK Times: Brown To Recommit To Carriers posted Mon Feb 1 2010 01:41:23 by Kukkudrill

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format