By: broncho
- 3rd November 2006 at 21:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is nothing to suggest chinese will be capable of operating one carrier either. There is nothing to suggest UK will have a carrier fleet in the future at all.
There is nothing to suggest The world as we know will exist tomorrow.
you can stick to your beliefs and I to mine.
Exactly other than US which country has ever operated or designed a modern 60+ K-tonne carrier? CVF is the first attempt by Britain and france and not very confidence inspiring either. Are you suggesting India should have taken US's help? Why would they want to help us?
By: joey
- 3rd November 2006 at 22:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think Gorshkov can handle Gwadar/Karachi quite well.
Rest lets put money on ADS to defend chinese side of the story :diablo:
I've now started dreaming that there will be "something" new in the ADS.
just not a total copy of 40k tonne carrier.
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 3rd November 2006 at 22:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Copy of what? ADS is no copy of vikrant or viraat or gorky. Why take help from Italy if you just needed to copy something. If anythin it might resemble an enlarged Cavour.
By: harryRIEDL
- 3rd November 2006 at 22:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the CVF is just finishing off the negotion and the french and the UK will have 3 74.000 ton carriers
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 3rd November 2006 at 23:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is nothing to suggest chinese will be capable of operating one carrier either. There is nothing to suggest UK will have a carrier fleet in the future at all.
There is nothing to suggest The world as we know will exist tomorrow.
you can stick to your beliefs and I to mine.
Exactly other than US which country has ever operated or designed a modern 60+ K-tonne carrier? CVF is the first attempt by Britain and france and not very confidence inspiring either. Are you suggesting India should have taken US's help? Why would they want to help us?
There is everything to suggest that the chinese will be capable of operating a carrier, or do you think they are inferior to Indians?
There is also everything to suggest that the UK will have two CVF's or have you missed the thread on this site? Actually it is confidence inspiring, both Britain and france have built large warships before, france even built a nuclear powered aircraft carrier- dont see many of those in the IN.
If you bothered to read my posts you will see what I think India should have done and at no point did I mention the USA. :rolleyes:
By: Victor
- 3rd November 2006 at 23:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the same manner that the Chinese will be proficient with aircraft carriers in a few years with only a "minor challenge," I guess the Indians will also become proficient with SSN operations after a few years they induct theirs. Afterall, the IN can just read about SSN ops and observe other navies.
Also, SLL, you are criticizing the IN for not using Western expertise in carrier design but then you are slamming the IN for using Fincantieri as a design partner for the IAC propulsion system.
BTW, what makes you so sure that the IN didn't use Western help in design? Other than Fincantieri.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 3rd November 2006 at 23:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the same manner that the Chinese will be proficient with aircraft carriers in a few years with only a "minor challenge," I guess the Indians will also become proficient with SSN operations after a few years they induct theirs. Afterall, the IN can just read about SSN ops and observe other navies.
Also, SLL, you are criticizing the IN for not using Western expertise in carrier design but then you are slamming the IN for using Fincantieri as a design partner for the IAC propulsion system.
BTW, what makes you so sure that the IN didn't use Western help in design? Other than Fincantieri.
Indeed, once the Indians have SSN's I have no doubt that they will be proficient in both their strategic and tactical use within a few years. At a strategic level and even tactical most information is available through open sources, and as for the spefic use of systems it is no different to training for any other warship. An indivdual is trained to perform his/her paticular task. I believe the IN chose the wrong western help, personally I feel that DCN would have been a far better choice and that their help should have extended to the hull and systems designs. If you have any evidence to suggest further foreign involvment I will happily hear it.
By: Victor
- 4th November 2006 at 00:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Indians did take help at least in structural aspects of the ship. It was more of peer review/validation. That is not well known beyond naval circles. The Fincantieri deal is well known, obviously. The reason why Fincantieri was chosen was because the IAC's propulsion (and possibly the electrical generation system, my assertion) will almost be exactly like that of the Cavour. I believe it was bid out and Fincantieri won. One would assume that winning entailed technical as well as financial aspects. So, the best company did win, as far as the IN is concerned.
When this particular contract was put out, DCN did put in their bid but at that time, DCN didn't really inspire confidence with the complications the CdG had at that time. But in any case, the IAC will have the propulsion system the IN wants and will be designed and integrated by a company that has a good rep in the business.
Added later: One reason why the DCN bid might have lost is because, I believe, they proposed Alstom or RR GT. The IN clearly favored the LM2500.
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 4th November 2006 at 00:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed, once the Indians have SSN's I have no doubt that they will be proficient in both their strategic and tactical use within a few years. At a strategic level and even tactical most information is available through open sources, and as for the spefic use of systems it is no different to training for any other warship. An indivdual is trained to perform his/her paticular task. I believe the IN chose the wrong western help, personally I feel that DCN would have been a far better choice and that their help should have extended to the hull and systems designs. If you have any evidence to suggest further foreign involvment I will happily hear it.
Really how would seeking DCN's help in making a conventional powered carrier very similar to cavour be the correct choice?
What is wrong with Pilot training with US navy?
DCN was involved in the initial stages of ADS but them lost out to the italians. I don't see them complaining.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 4th November 2006 at 01:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really how would seeking DCN's help in making a conventional powered carrier very similar to cavour be the correct choice?
What is wrong with Pilot training with US navy?
DCN was involved in the initial stages of ADS but them lost out to the italians. I don't see them complaining.
I never said anything about pilot training in the US navy so Im not going to reply to that. Stop making up comments that people have never said. :mad:
Becouse DCN has more experience in the construction of large warships and the ADS could have fed of the CVF/PA2 programme. ;)
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 4th November 2006 at 01:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The comment about USN was just to show that you don't learn how to ioperate carriers by reading manuals and watching someone else do it.
OF course DCN has more experience but isn't the cavour closer to what IN wants? French carriers have had catapults, while IN did not have the option of one.
What is wrong with India seeing UK and DCN's help to make ADS-2? This would easily make the carrier 60k + in size. The ADS-1 has been modified enough, let it be. China does not have all these advantages: US,UK or France won't train them. DCN or other firms won't help them build a carrier, yet you seem to think they would find it easy to operate the unmaintained varyag easily?
By: Bager1968
- 4th November 2006 at 05:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering the French carrier experience is with 2 - 32,800 ton CVs built in the 1950s, and 1 - 40,600 ton CVN that took 10 years to complete, had to be modified before it could operate the intended aircraft, then had her propellor break apart in the middle of the Atlantic, finally passing trials after 2 more years... I wouldn't really trust them to get it right either.
The UK completed the last Invincible class ship in 1985, which is hardly recent enough to be encouraging.
Spain has built 2 small escort-type carriers (the largest 13,400 tons).
The only other European nation with current experience in building carriers is Italy... which is the one helping India. Seems fine to me.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 4th November 2006 at 12:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The comment about USN was just to show that you don't learn how to ioperate carriers by reading manuals and watching someone else do it.
OF course DCN has more experience but isn't the cavour closer to what IN wants? French carriers have had catapults, while IN did not have the option of one.
What is wrong with India seeing UK and DCN's help to make ADS-2? This would easily make the carrier 60k + in size. The ADS-1 has been modified enough, let it be. China does not have all these advantages: US,UK or France won't train them. DCN or other firms won't help them build a carrier, yet you seem to think they would find it easy to operate the unmaintained varyag easily?
Yes you can, flying with other navies is a bonus, but one can still learn by ones self.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 4th November 2006 at 12:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering the French carrier experience is with 2 - 32,800 ton CVs built in the 1950s, and 1 - 40,600 ton CVN that took 10 years to complete, had to be modified before it could operate the intended aircraft, then had her propellor break apart in the middle of the Atlantic, finally passing trials after 2 more years... I wouldn't really trust them to get it right either.
The UK completed the last Invincible class ship in 1985, which is hardly recent enough to be encouraging.
Spain has built 2 small escort-type carriers (the largest 13,400 tons).
The only other European nation with current experience in building carriers is Italy... which is the one helping India. Seems fine to me.
I personally feel that considering the ADS time frame it would have been better to cooperate with the companys involved in the CVF/PA2 programme, seeing as how these ships are true carriers and at the very forfront of technology. Not to mention the experience of these companys in other large contracts.
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th November 2006 at 15:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What would be the penalty of F-18 E/F or Rafale taking off conventionally? I am sure all the stated range and payload figures would go for a six. If F-18E/F could be carried aboard why not Su-33? Just use the same avionics as the MKI to get a kick-ass fighter. The only advantage over Su-33 is perhaps the fact that the wingspan is a meter smaller so gives slightly larger clearance while taking off. I don't see IN changing the AC configuration till ADS-2 comes out , hopefully 70K-Ton fully loaded.
The Super Hornet/Rafale would pay no more of a penalty than the Mig-29 and unlike the latter could cross deck with American and/or French Carriers. Also, the Su-33 suffers from similar limitations as the Mig and is much bigger! Regardless, the word is that the Super Hornet has very good odds on winning India's MCRA order......................So, we shall see in the very near future. :D
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th November 2006 at 15:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I personally feel that considering the ADS time frame it would have been better to cooperate with the companys involved in the CVF/PA2 programme, seeing as how these ships are true carriers and at the very forfront of technology. Not to mention the experience of these companys in other large contracts.
Many on this forum have been making that very same point for years. Only to be rebuffed over and over again? Now India will have two very different classes of Aircraft Carriers operating Mig-29's vs the world operating Su-33's, F/A-18E/F, Rafales, and very stealthy Lightning II's!
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th November 2006 at 15:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering the French carrier experience is with 2 - 32,800 ton CVs built in the 1950s, and 1 - 40,600 ton CVN that took 10 years to complete, had to be modified before it could operate the intended aircraft, then had her propellor break apart in the middle of the Atlantic, finally passing trials after 2 more years... I wouldn't really trust them to get it right either.
The UK completed the last Invincible class ship in 1985, which is hardly recent enough to be encouraging.
Spain has built 2 small escort-type carriers (the largest 13,400 tons).
The only other European nation with current experience in building carriers is Italy... which is the one helping India. Seems fine to me.
The UK and France build some of the best warships ever constructed. Further, both have vast experience building Aircraft Carriers and have very close ties with the Americans which clearly have the best Carriers in the World. With all do respect................ :rolleyes:
FLY NAVY :cool:
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th November 2006 at 15:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With China ordering advance versions of the Su-33 Flanker. Will that push India to ordering Super Hornets from the US in the short-term and possibly Lightnings down the road?
By: Neptune
- 4th November 2006 at 19:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Doesn't look that rusty to me...
As for Broncho asking in the other topic, the picture shown there was recent too, the quality was rather poor which makes it look like it was an old picture.
By: Himanshu
- 4th November 2006 at 20:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With due respect to all the members out here..
Please consider following when saying this is the best/worst deal etc etc..
Political climate and relations of GOI with the countries
Finance kitty availaible to IN in current and future projections
There priorities in allocation of these tight finances
Limitations of the shipyards today and there future upgrade plans
AND VERY IMPORTANT
Inefficiencies in the Indian Bureaucratic setup
along with
Political strings... (Classic case of IAF rejecting the good F-4 deal from US after China war in 62 because of such political strings...)
a couple more maybe......
Gorky may not be the best re-furb deal.. but what was/were the realistic options availaible to IN at that time.. gorky deal in itself stretched for so long... like other deals.. as HAWK and SCORPENE to name a very few..
As for the aircraft onboard the Gorky.. please consider the political strings attached to the deal ....everything is not in IN's hand... ex CNS Prakash liked Rafael a lot.. he was/is also very appreciative of the JSF and it's qualities... but he still cannot have them because of the points I have mentioned above..
Let's all consider and review the design and development of the IAC 1 first rather then speculating about the IAC 2/3/4/5/6 etc etc... It's fine to construct a hull.. what's even more important would be the standards followed... quality adhered to.. and the system integration.... (where we always lag behind in ordering the system on time first... )
In my Dreams.. I would like to work with Russia getting there Project 1153 OREL blueprints and working further on this and modifying it with best of electronics and self defence equipment from Europe/Russia and getting the US Capapults..
Order for 8 of such types with IN getting 6 and russia keeping 2...with the 2 for IN being built in Russia and rest being built at CSL in India... Aircraft for IN would be JSF and N-LCA with appropriate support systems.... :diablo:
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 3rd November 2006 at 21:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is nothing to suggest chinese will be capable of operating one carrier either. There is nothing to suggest UK will have a carrier fleet in the future at all.
There is nothing to suggest The world as we know will exist tomorrow.
you can stick to your beliefs and I to mine.
Exactly other than US which country has ever operated or designed a modern 60+ K-tonne carrier? CVF is the first attempt by Britain and france and not very confidence inspiring either. Are you suggesting India should have taken US's help? Why would they want to help us?
Posts: 682
By: joey - 3rd November 2006 at 22:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think Gorshkov can handle Gwadar/Karachi quite well.
Rest lets put money on ADS to defend chinese side of the story :diablo:
I've now started dreaming that there will be "something" new in the ADS.
just not a total copy of 40k tonne carrier.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 3rd November 2006 at 22:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Copy of what? ADS is no copy of vikrant or viraat or gorky. Why take help from Italy if you just needed to copy something. If anythin it might resemble an enlarged Cavour.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 3rd November 2006 at 22:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the CVF is just finishing off the negotion and the french and the UK will have 3 74.000 ton carriers
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 3rd November 2006 at 23:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is everything to suggest that the chinese will be capable of operating a carrier, or do you think they are inferior to Indians?
There is also everything to suggest that the UK will have two CVF's or have you missed the thread on this site? Actually it is confidence inspiring, both Britain and france have built large warships before, france even built a nuclear powered aircraft carrier- dont see many of those in the IN.
If you bothered to read my posts you will see what I think India should have done and at no point did I mention the USA. :rolleyes:
Posts: 1,732
By: Victor - 3rd November 2006 at 23:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the same manner that the Chinese will be proficient with aircraft carriers in a few years with only a "minor challenge," I guess the Indians will also become proficient with SSN operations after a few years they induct theirs. Afterall, the IN can just read about SSN ops and observe other navies.
Also, SLL, you are criticizing the IN for not using Western expertise in carrier design but then you are slamming the IN for using Fincantieri as a design partner for the IAC propulsion system.
BTW, what makes you so sure that the IN didn't use Western help in design? Other than Fincantieri.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 3rd November 2006 at 23:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed, once the Indians have SSN's I have no doubt that they will be proficient in both their strategic and tactical use within a few years. At a strategic level and even tactical most information is available through open sources, and as for the spefic use of systems it is no different to training for any other warship. An indivdual is trained to perform his/her paticular task. I believe the IN chose the wrong western help, personally I feel that DCN would have been a far better choice and that their help should have extended to the hull and systems designs. If you have any evidence to suggest further foreign involvment I will happily hear it.
Posts: 1,732
By: Victor - 4th November 2006 at 00:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Indians did take help at least in structural aspects of the ship. It was more of peer review/validation. That is not well known beyond naval circles. The Fincantieri deal is well known, obviously. The reason why Fincantieri was chosen was because the IAC's propulsion (and possibly the electrical generation system, my assertion) will almost be exactly like that of the Cavour. I believe it was bid out and Fincantieri won. One would assume that winning entailed technical as well as financial aspects. So, the best company did win, as far as the IN is concerned.
When this particular contract was put out, DCN did put in their bid but at that time, DCN didn't really inspire confidence with the complications the CdG had at that time. But in any case, the IAC will have the propulsion system the IN wants and will be designed and integrated by a company that has a good rep in the business.
Added later: One reason why the DCN bid might have lost is because, I believe, they proposed Alstom or RR GT. The IN clearly favored the LM2500.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 4th November 2006 at 00:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really how would seeking DCN's help in making a conventional powered carrier very similar to cavour be the correct choice?
What is wrong with Pilot training with US navy?
DCN was involved in the initial stages of ADS but them lost out to the italians. I don't see them complaining.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 4th November 2006 at 01:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I never said anything about pilot training in the US navy so Im not going to reply to that. Stop making up comments that people have never said. :mad:
Becouse DCN has more experience in the construction of large warships and the ADS could have fed of the CVF/PA2 programme. ;)
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 4th November 2006 at 01:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The comment about USN was just to show that you don't learn how to ioperate carriers by reading manuals and watching someone else do it.
OF course DCN has more experience but isn't the cavour closer to what IN wants? French carriers have had catapults, while IN did not have the option of one.
What is wrong with India seeing UK and DCN's help to make ADS-2? This would easily make the carrier 60k + in size. The ADS-1 has been modified enough, let it be. China does not have all these advantages: US,UK or France won't train them. DCN or other firms won't help them build a carrier, yet you seem to think they would find it easy to operate the unmaintained varyag easily?
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 4th November 2006 at 05:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering the French carrier experience is with 2 - 32,800 ton CVs built in the 1950s, and 1 - 40,600 ton CVN that took 10 years to complete, had to be modified before it could operate the intended aircraft, then had her propellor break apart in the middle of the Atlantic, finally passing trials after 2 more years... I wouldn't really trust them to get it right either.
The UK completed the last Invincible class ship in 1985, which is hardly recent enough to be encouraging.
Spain has built 2 small escort-type carriers (the largest 13,400 tons).
The only other European nation with current experience in building carriers is Italy... which is the one helping India. Seems fine to me.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 4th November 2006 at 12:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes you can, flying with other navies is a bonus, but one can still learn by ones self.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 4th November 2006 at 12:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I personally feel that considering the ADS time frame it would have been better to cooperate with the companys involved in the CVF/PA2 programme, seeing as how these ships are true carriers and at the very forfront of technology. Not to mention the experience of these companys in other large contracts.
By: Anonymous - 4th November 2006 at 15:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Super Hornet/Rafale would pay no more of a penalty than the Mig-29 and unlike the latter could cross deck with American and/or French Carriers. Also, the Su-33 suffers from similar limitations as the Mig and is much bigger! Regardless, the word is that the Super Hornet has very good odds on winning India's MCRA order......................So, we shall see in the very near future. :D
By: Anonymous - 4th November 2006 at 15:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Many on this forum have been making that very same point for years. Only to be rebuffed over and over again? Now India will have two very different classes of Aircraft Carriers operating Mig-29's vs the world operating Su-33's, F/A-18E/F, Rafales, and very stealthy Lightning II's!
By: Anonymous - 4th November 2006 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The UK and France build some of the best warships ever constructed. Further, both have vast experience building Aircraft Carriers and have very close ties with the Americans which clearly have the best Carriers in the World. With all do respect................ :rolleyes:
FLY NAVY :cool:
By: Anonymous - 4th November 2006 at 15:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With China ordering advance versions of the Su-33 Flanker. Will that push India to ordering Super Hornets from the US in the short-term and possibly Lightnings down the road?
Posts: 627
By: Neptune - 4th November 2006 at 19:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Doesn't look that rusty to me...
As for Broncho asking in the other topic, the picture shown there was recent too, the quality was rather poor which makes it look like it was an old picture.
Posts: 600
By: Himanshu - 4th November 2006 at 20:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With due respect to all the members out here..
Please consider following when saying this is the best/worst deal etc etc..
Political climate and relations of GOI with the countries
Finance kitty availaible to IN in current and future projections
There priorities in allocation of these tight finances
Limitations of the shipyards today and there future upgrade plans
AND VERY IMPORTANT
Inefficiencies in the Indian Bureaucratic setup
along with
Political strings... (Classic case of IAF rejecting the good F-4 deal from US after China war in 62 because of such political strings...)
a couple more maybe......
Gorky may not be the best re-furb deal.. but what was/were the realistic options availaible to IN at that time.. gorky deal in itself stretched for so long... like other deals.. as HAWK and SCORPENE to name a very few..
As for the aircraft onboard the Gorky.. please consider the political strings attached to the deal ....everything is not in IN's hand... ex CNS Prakash liked Rafael a lot.. he was/is also very appreciative of the JSF and it's qualities... but he still cannot have them because of the points I have mentioned above..
Let's all consider and review the design and development of the IAC 1 first rather then speculating about the IAC 2/3/4/5/6 etc etc... It's fine to construct a hull.. what's even more important would be the standards followed... quality adhered to.. and the system integration.... (where we always lag behind in ordering the system on time first... )
In my Dreams.. I would like to work with Russia getting there Project 1153 OREL blueprints and working further on this and modifying it with best of electronics and self defence equipment from Europe/Russia and getting the US Capapults..
Order for 8 of such types with IN getting 6 and russia keeping 2...with the 2 for IN being built in Russia and rest being built at CSL in India... Aircraft for IN would be JSF and N-LCA with appropriate support systems.... :diablo: