This is getting a bit tedious. A speculated 10 month delay due to boilers not being able to withstand full power. And then the whole other matter of the price escalation and its associated drama a few years back. Pity, I was looking forward to seeing her with the Indian Navy in December.
Also, mods, is it okay to post aircraft carrier related news here? Please delete if inappropriate.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1066 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9079 times:
I've read the news; apparently, the Russians wanted to use asbestos in the insulation of the boilers and the Indians directed the Russians to use an asbestos free substitute, so they used firebrick. Well, that substitute failed miserably... apparently 7 boilers are damaged, with 3 needing total replacement. Big undertaking to replace boilers as the ship will have to be cut open (again) from the flight deck to gain access.
nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1562 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9000 times:
So, just keep throwing good money after bad. They're going to wind up spending more than a new carrier would have cost and still have an old, worn out piece of junk. The first thing launched off the deck should be every idiot whose been keeping this monstrosity of a project alive.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10481 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 8422 times:
I imagine that India doesn't want to depend too much on any one nation or group of nations for its military equipment, but there's a point where it's just not productive to pour money into a program like this one.
Recently India has been buying more US made goods (P8I for instance). I hope it works out well for both nations!
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1418 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8022 times:
I'm not sure how the idea to modify an abandoned jump-jet cruiser which runs with boilers into a full-fledged carrier in shipyard that never did any kind of aircraft carrier work(the yards that built the ship ended up in Ukraine) seemed a perfectly reasonable idea to anybody.
Even the russians think the idea of keeping the boilers is silly and they are thinking of removing them from the Kuznetsov during its refit and replace them with either diesel powerplants or nuclear reactors.
I'm not sure how the idea to modify an abandoned jump-jet cruiser which runs with boilers into a full-fledged carrier in shipyard that never did any kind of aircraft carrier work(the yards that built the ship ended up in Ukraine) seemed a perfectly reasonable idea to anybody.
As I was discussing this with a friend of mine the other day, what else could the Indian Navy have done as a stopgap between the retirement of the old Vikrant and the introduction of the new Vikrant-class? Vikramaditya is an imperfect solution but was pretty much the only solution on hand if the IN wanted to have a two-carrier force. Around the time they were negotiating the sale, the second-hand carrier market was particularly thin. I'll agree that it's been a disastrous acquisition for them, but it's really about the only acquisition they could have made. The conversion from a VTOL-equipped TAKR to a STOBAR is just head-scratching though. Would the Sea Harriers have been able to operate from Vikramaditya had she retained Gorshkov's VTOL capabilities?
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1418 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7770 times:
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 9): As I was discussing this with a friend of mine the other day, what else could the Indian Navy have done as a stopgap between the retirement of the old Vikrant and the introduction of the new Vikrant-class?
Beating the chinese to the Varyag?
Seems that in its unfinished state, they were able to refit it and put it back in service faster thank the whole Gorshkov saga. They even managed to copy the Su-33 within that time frame, even if it shows that the chinese are copying for the sake of copying.
Quoting mham001 (Reply 8): The conversion from a VTOL-equipped TAKR to a STOBAR is just head-scratching though.
They did it so they could operate MiG-29K's from it.
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 9): Would the Sea Harriers have been able to operate from Vikramaditya had she retained Gorshkov's VTOL capabilities?
Probably, but since the soviet doctrine behind these ships was quite different from what the Indians intend to do with the ship made me question the choice in the first place.
They should still be able to use Sea Harriers from ex-Gorshkov now that it has a ski-jump and a bigger flight deck, though but seems they are going to base the air wing around the MiG-29K
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 11, posted (8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7571 times:
Quoting Acheron (Reply 10):
Beating the chinese to the Varyag?
Seems that in its unfinished state, they were able to refit it and put it back in service faster thank the whole Gorshkov saga. They even managed to copy the Su-33 within that time frame, even if it shows that the chinese are copying for the sake of copying.
Good call - I'd rather forgotten that Varyag was up for auction approximately contemporaneous to the retirement of Vikrant. On paper though, I think the Indians thought Gorshkov the smarter acquisition given how unfinished Varyag was. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm sure they now would have much rather gone the other route!
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
sturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 264 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7255 times:
Quoting Acheron (Reply 10): They should still be able to use Sea Harriers from ex-Gorshkov
There's very little of that fleet left.. and the harrier in general is on its way out. Woudn't make much sense getting a newer and bigger carrier for about 10 airplanes, perhaps even less. The aircraft choices were tied to the carrier itself (ie. buy Russian), and I'm fairly certain we picked the better plane on that count.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): Wouldn't it have been easier just to order a Queen Elizabeth class CVF from the UK? At least the IN would be getting a reliable warship.
When the IN started looking for a carrier, was that option available?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11712 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7198 times:
Quoting sturmovik (Reply 13): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):Wouldn't it have been easier just to order a Queen Elizabeth class CVF from the UK? At least the IN would be getting a reliable warship.
When the IN started looking for a carrier, was that option available?
The QE class CVFs began developement in the mid to late 1990s. I believe the RN began contract talks in 2002 and the QE and POW were authorized in 2004. The contracts were sign, IIRC sometime in 2006 or 2007.
QE was always designed as a STOVL aircraft carrier, for the F-35B and POW was originally going to be a CATOBAR aircraft carrier for the F-35C. When the RN decided to go all F-35B with their order, POW was redesigned into a STOVL CVF (also due to the increased cost of CATOBAR).
So, yes, when the In was looking for a 'new' CV, the QE class option was there. Also available having been decommissioned in 1997 by the French Navy was the Clemenceau. Clem's sister ship, the Foch, was sold to Brazil in 2000.
sturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 264 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7192 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14): So, yes, when the In was looking for a 'new' CV, the QE class option was there. Also available having been decommissioned in 1997 by the French Navy was the Clemenceau. Clem's sister ship, the Foch, was sold to Brazil in 2000.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5305 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7132 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): Wouldn't it have been easier just to order a Queen Elizabeth class CVF from the UK? At least the IN would be getting a reliable warship.
It was never an option because the Indians don't have a drydock big enough to fit CVF, not being able to maintain your own ship kinda makes it a pointless purchase.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14): Also available having been decommissioned in 1997 by the French Navy was the Clemenceau. Clem's sister ship, the Foch, was sold to Brazil in 2000.
Clemenceau was so knackered there wasn't much hope for her and she had been cannibalised to keep Foch operational.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, RR: 80 Reply 18, posted (8 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6833 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): Wouldn't it have been easier just to order a Queen Elizabeth class CVF from the UK? At least the IN would be getting a reliable warship.
Going back to STOVL for the QE Class, apart from the costs and technical issues with the 2010 plan to only have HMS Prince of Wales as the sole (CTOL) carrier, also means the RN get to have two ships. Again.
Many suspected that the idea to complete but not ever commission Queen Elizabeth, was dangling a morsel - all 60,000 tons of it - for foreign sale. India being an obvious example.
(What is it with UK Conservative Governments and selling off new or nearly new carriers? They, under Thatcher, had sold HMS Invincible to Australia in early 1982, but then a war intervened to make that politically unacceptable).
As to dry docks, surely building one in India - not short of a cheap and large labour force - is cheaper in the long run?
If India did go down the QE Class route, they'd want a CTOL version?
To avoid the technical risks of the as yet unproven EM Catapult system, modifying one with a steam plant would likely be cheaper and easier than the nightmare of Gorshkov.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6631 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 18): As to dry docks, surely building one in India - not short of a cheap and large labour force - is cheaper in the long run?
I would have thought they would needed major drydocks just for civilian ships, as I would assume there would be a market for repairing ships where there is cheap labor and... well... not having to tow it back to Korea or other current shipbuilding nation.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5305 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6537 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14): QE was always designed as a STOVL aircraft carrier, for the F-35B and POW was originally going to be a CATOBAR aircraft carrier for the F-35C. When the RN decided to go all F-35B with their order, POW was redesigned into a STOVL CVF (also due to the increased cost of CATOBAR).
But that's not true either, both vessels were originally designed as STOVL ships, it was the French version PA2 which was designed as CATOBAR, then the govt had an about tern and decided to convert both to CATOBAR, the QE after delivery, the POW during construction. If you remember the decision to convert to CATOBAR lasted less than two year's before the desicion to build them both as originally planned was decided on.This I'm sure will come back and bite the UK govt in the butt, I have my doubts as to the usefullness of the B model and won't be surprised at all if it's canned, leaving the UK with two massive but effectively useless carriers.
Quoting GDB (Reply 18): As to dry docks, surely building one in India - not short of a cheap and large labour force - is cheaper in the long run?
It's still going to cost billions of rupee even if they get thousands of labourss digging it by hand, and knowing how long it takes to build a ship in India it bet it would take the better part of a decade to build a drydock big enough for CVF.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1601 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6503 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 16):
It was never an option because the Indians don't have a drydock big enough to fit CVF,
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
I would have thought they would needed major drydocks just for civilian ships,
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 20):
It's still going to cost billions of rupee even if they get thousands of labourss digging it by hand,
Isn't India one of the places where they break ships? I'm sure that the dock would not have been a show stopper.
My question would be when did the RFP came out for the carrier? Remember that it was only recently that India was allowed to buy sensitive Military equipment from the US. I'm sure that India would have better relationship with GB but would have it been that easy to get the carrier approved for sale? The Pentagon may have had a lot to say about that possibility.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, RR: 80 Reply 22, posted (8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6396 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 20): B model and won't be surprised at all if it's canned
B looks a lot more secure than the C model.
One reason the UK switched back to B, aside from the major delays, big cost increases, serious technical risks (with EM cats), the notion that RN F-35C's could cross deck on the French carrier undermined by that vessel's cats being unable to launch a F-35C.
No, the F-35B has had successful sea trials with the USMC, training is underway.
B is for better, better than nothing, which is where the RN F-35C, only one carrier, not before 2023 at least, was headed.
It was also less politically toxic to admit (after numerous warnings since 2010) they were wrong, the government that is, than have to can the whole carrier program.
Not that this has a bearing on India, had the French proceeded with a CTOL CVF, with conventional cats and a steam plant, as was mooted, this might have been attractive to India too.
Quote: The statement posted on the Chinese Foreign Ministry did not quote any comments from Mr Kawai. But it quoted Mr Zhang as telling him that Japan needed to mend its ways.
"China will never tolerate any unilateral actions by Japan that harm Chinese territorial sovereignty," it said.
"Japan must banish illusions, undertake searching reflection and use concrete actions to amend its errors, returning to the consensus and understandings reached between our two countries' leaders."
I´m sure similar warings will soon go out to Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan and Brunei, with whom China has territorial disputes. Basically "relent or we will punish you".
Jan
25 moo: Uhm, perhaps you should look into *how* they break ships in India They don't use docks to break ships - they are driven into the shore at high tide,
26 comorin: Hey Moo, nice post-apocalyptic picture! I saw a documentary on the lives of shipbreakers and it is a dangerous occupation with frequent fatalities. B
27 neutrino: I know of a photographer who was at a kerbside snapping away. The next moment, a reversing 10-ton truck ran over him, severing both his legs at the p
28 comorin: Interesting follow -up but skeptical assessment in the New York Times, which states that the vessel is mostly for training, and that China does not ha
29 LMP737: Someone recently said the US government should send a thank you note to the Chinese government. US Navy ships pulling into port in Vietnam, makes you
30 bikerthai: The French will also send a thank you note when Vietnam gets to buy Exocets to counter the Chinese threat bt
31 MD11Engineer: Back in imperial days Vietnam (and Korea) had to pay tribute to the Chinese emperor and to act as vassals. They haven´t forgotten about it, in fact
32 sovietjet: They have every right to. I don't see what the big deal is with China having a carrier when the USA has 11 supercarriers and parades them around the
33 Oroka: I seen photos of 2 super ferries that I had traveled on many times, dragged up on the beach together, being cut to pieces. Quite sad. It is not the f
34 cosmofly: Even simply used as an attack helicopters carrier, it will be pretty scary for most neighbors. Russia may not want to sell a few MIG29s for China to
35 sprout5199: Yes they do. There is a reason why the USA is the only country that has so many carriers, something that China and India is starting to realize. He w
36 Acheron: China's carrier is pretty much harmless. They removed anything that could make it a threat, such as the P-700 launchers and the Flankers will have to
37 KiwiRob: That would be correct it is mostly for training, but the Chinese have now the capacity to build aircraft carriers and they did purchase a design from
38 bikerthai: Cutting edge technology yes . . . First world QA, maybe, but they will have to be very diligent from the top down or else the ship will be in dry doc
39 KC135TopBoom: Correct, the PLAN is planning on building 5 new CVs, or even CVNs. It doesn't take much money or design work to refit any warship if you compare the
40 comorin: Thanks for sobering us up! - easy to dismiss the Chinese as unsophisticated and then pay dearly for the misconception later. My concern is that with
41 MD11Engineer: The problem is that several neighbours are quite broke, e.g. the Philippines, who are in desperate need of some modern warships and aircraft (all the
42 Acheron: They could opt for some Club-K systems http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skj6A4KfLLA The carrier itself only has CIWS weaponry and the J-15 won't be abl
43 bikerthai: The Philippines has a special historical relationship with the US which can be re-started if needed. Vietnam may have some money, but it would be dif
44 MD11Engineer: At the moment the Philippines (after buying one former US Coast Guard cutter to replace their WW2 era destroyer flagship Rajah Humabon: Gregorio de Pi
45 KiwiRob: Ditto for a Nimitz, nobody has ever attempted to sink one but I bet if someone was determined enough they could. I don't believe that for one second,
46 Oroka: People often say that, but China's nature to copy or imitate things is putting them on a fast track to catch up. Their second stealth fighter design
47 BigJKU: You do realize that this is as much a two edged swords as anything and also is a pretty damning indictment of the Chinese economy. It generates more
48 cosmofly: They also want to keep US economy afloat by lending us more money so that we can buy more from them. The mere discussions of comparing US and China c
49 comorin: Or overestimate your friends! China's history is of being the 'other' - no country worth trusting as an ally. Back to Mil-Av - what exactly is the be
50 David L: Basically, they allow take-off at higher weights for a given deck length... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck#Ski-jump_ramp
51 comorin: Thanks for answering, David. I am still grappling with the physics of it. I now get the benefit for VSTOL, Forconventional jets, however, they are tr
53 KiwiRob: That was then this is now, does anyone really know what nthe Chinese are arming there aircraft with for use with this carrier, I don't and I'm pretty
54 bikerthai: Yeah, I think that destroyer was one of 4 or 6 destroyers that the Philippines requisitioned from the Vietnamese navy after 1975 when the South Vietn
55 BigJKU: While true it also can be expensive to vastly overestimate one. There are practical realities that everyone must deal with when trying to learn a ver
56 neutrino: Interesting. Care to share a little more of that chapter of your past?
57 MD11Engineer: As per Wikipedia, this ship went first from the US Navy to the Japanese one and from there to the Philippines. Jan
58 bikerthai: The operation is called "Frequent Wind". I was too young to remember much. http://www.npr.org/2010/09/01/129578...-ship-rescued-south-vietnam-s-navy
59 comorin: Yes! it was a long time ago...but I see your point.
60 Acheron: The ship itself maybe, but their Su-33 copy will be subjected to the same limitations that the originals had to face. And if the rumors about the per
61 KiwiRob: What about the Vigilante that used to fly from US carriers that was much bigger again.
62 bikerthai: Even if the ship is only good for a couple dozen helicopters, it would be of great value parked near the Spratley in the South China Sea. Does China h
63 sovietjet: The F/A-18C/E is not some some sort of benchmark that every fighter should follow. You can launch and trap heavier aircraft. Killing the pilot is no i
64 bikerthai: I think you two do agree. It's the speed differential over a short time that is more critical than weight. So what is the landing speed of the SU-33?
65 ThePointblank: Yes, they have the Type 71 Yuzhao LPD's (the Chinese apparently have 3 of them), and it is widely believed that the Chinese are working on a LHA / LH
66 KC135TopBoom: Your right, we don't know. But we can be assured, I think, the PLAN isn't doing all of this to provide tour flights looking at USN CVNBGs. Yes. The t
67 Stitch: Land-based aircraft and anti-ship cruise missiles? Their submarines and land-based aircraft. Anti-ship cruise missiles. They also have Aegis, which g
68 wingman: Jesus H Christ, those clips from Sovietjet look like Death was just hanging around the Tower just giggling and biding his time. Tell you what, if any
69 LMP737: From the time the keel is laid to it's first deployment around six years have will have passed for a USN carrier. That's taking into account the US h
71 KC135TopBoom: That's only since the Nimitz class. The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was laid down in Fed. 1958 and commissioned on Nov. 1961, about 46 months. The Kitty
Sponsor Message: 
From India, joined May 2007, 264 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1066 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1562 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5305 posts, 
From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1418 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13343 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
