By: broncho
- 3rd November 2006 at 17:06Permalink- 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.
By: harryRIEDL
- 3rd November 2006 at 17:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the reson why i brought up the the angled flight dexk was because i could immagen a forristal insdent happering on the carrier i.e unshulded landing of a mig just as an other is powering up with shackeld wheels. landing plane can't stop quick enough and plows into the plane with the resulting explosion
By: TinWing
- 3rd November 2006 at 17:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not to mention the post cold war Russias idea of storage- tie it up somewhere and let it rust. :eek:
I do have to wonder if the Russian spent the money on dehumidification and properly securing the ex-Gorshkov with a caretaker crew - rare honest individuals who didn't steal?
If even active Russian ships were virtually stripped bare by corrupt officers and crewmen in the post-Soviet period, it is hard to imagine that the ex-Gorshkov was uniquely protected.
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 3rd November 2006 at 17:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Err and we are assuming IN did not check these things and bought a stripped down rusting, uncompleted heap like varyag without modification??
By: TinWing
- 3rd November 2006 at 17:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Forget the Mig-29K's and pass them on to the Indian Air Force. Instead replace them with N-LCA's or a western type like the Rafale, Super Hornet, or Lightning II. With China buying Advance Su-33's India will need a much more capable Naval Fighter. :rolleyes:
The IN apparently did prefer a small initial buy of as few a 8 Rafale M fighters. Historically, the IN also purchased its Sea Harriers in small batches.
Sadly, Russia tied the transfer of the ex-Gorshkov to the sale of the MiG-29K. What a deal, buy a batch of unproven variants of an out of production figher, pay for a refit in a Russian shipyard, and receive a free aircraft carrier.
In reality, a fair deal for the Indian taxpayers would have a involved the transfer of the ex-Gorskov for its true worth - scrap value.
India should have had the right to refit the Gorshkov in a third party country's shipyard. For instance, ex-Gorshkov could have been towed to South Korea for an extensive survey, and if the hull was deemed fit for further economical service, Russian firms could have provided boilers, turbines, and electronics as subcontractors.
Does anyone believe the the refit of ex-Gorskov in a Russian shipyard aids the indidgenous ADS program? Does restarting an inactive assembly line in Russia to build the unproven MiG-29K benefit the development of an indigenous Naval LCA?
By: harryRIEDL
- 3rd November 2006 at 17:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
they way you say it tin wing you make it sound like india got mugged and forced to help russian defece industrey. wouldn't it have been better for the indians to buy on old tarwa class LHA i know it isn't a proper carrier but nore is gorshkhov.
it would be an extra deck so they could keep viraat in servives untill the indgenes carrier is in servise. would this have been do able in the indiean time fram
the indians are buy a used car with no servise history from a dodgy area with a huge problems and a vage promise from the owner it ill be as good as new when you have it :diablo:
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 3rd November 2006 at 18:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Err and we are assuming IN did not check these things and bought a stripped down rusting, uncompleted heap like varyag without modification??
With the exception of some fitted systems (Most of which seem to be being replaced0, I doubt the Gorschkov was in much better state than the Varyag before it started its rebuild/refit. Ultimately it spent a decade tied up outside in poor weather conditions and most probably under the situation TinWing described above.
China though, bought the Varyag for the small sum of $20 million and can now do what it likes with it, learn from it, copy it, even commision it, which if they do will give them a bigger more capable carrier than India. Who on the other hand, having payed Russians to rebuild Gorshkov, Russians to build planes for it and bought the carrier still end up (reportedly) paying the Italians, a country which has never built a carrier above about 20k tonnes, to help with the ADS design.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 3rd November 2006 at 18:15Permalink- 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.
ADS-2, your funny, that is decades away. The IN has stated that it wants 3 carriers and that is regarded as a long term objective and includes the two current ADS and the Gorschkov, there even seems to be confusion over whether there will be 2 ADS to start with. If there were to be an ADS-2 it would likely be just an improvement of the original and only about 50k. Seeing as all this is entirely hypotheticalits not even worth talking about in this thread.
By: joey
- 3rd November 2006 at 18:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
so most of you guys think IN did a terrible mistake going for gorshkov.. and it simply is not worth the no of planes and stuffs.
really sucks, I thought IN had smarter peoples.
and IN do have budget to build a carrier of 60k tonnes considering a carrier is a 20-30 year investment not a 5 -10 year one.
what the hell is happening with IN.....:(
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 3rd November 2006 at 20:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
so most of you guys think IN did a terrible mistake going for gorshkov.. and it simply is not worth the no of planes and stuffs.
really sucks, I thought IN had smarter peoples.
and IN do have budget to build a carrier of 60k tonnes considering a carrier is a 20-30 year investment not a 5 -10 year one.
what the hell is happening with IN.....:(
The end product may be a 20-30 (actually more like 40+ year) investment but the initial outlay, actually buying and equiping the thing, is a 5-10 year investment. Thus the IN has effectively gone for the cheapest realistic option considering that the sea harriers are reaching the end of their lives and it is unlikely that the IN will procure another V/STOL type in the near future due to limited availability.
If the Indians wanted to do this properly, they should have contracted a European company to do the design (BAe, Thales, DCN, etc) then constructed it in India with technology transfer from said company and procured a number of Rafales, sure keep the Ka-32 AEW or go for a solution like the british AEW seakings. Personally I would still have kept displacement at around 40k for financial reasons as well as this being a first attempt. The result would have been considerable experience for Indian industry and designers with right ToT deal and a good modern vessel with alot of life in it. Not to mention a ship that is specifically designed as a full deck 'true' aircraft carrier from the start rather than being a seemingly akward rebuild of a carrier-cruiser hybrid.
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 3rd November 2006 at 20:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ADS-2, your funny, that is decades away. The IN has stated that it wants 3 carriers and that is regarded as a long term objective and includes the two current ADS and the Gorschkov, there even seems to be confusion over whether there will be 2 ADS to start with. If there were to be an ADS-2 it would likely be just an improvement of the original and only about 50k. Seeing as all this is entirely hypotheticalits not even worth talking about in this thread.
Ofcourse it is atleat 15-20 years away from being commissioned. You don't think IN will throw away the Mig-29K's in just 10 years do you? If you remember correctly ADS-1 was supposed to be 24 K-tonne then increased to 32 K-tonne and finally to 38K-tonne. I am sure IN will increase the ADS-2 similarly taking into account the changing scenarios. I am expectly a 60+ K tonne ship which is close to 70K tonne fully loaded. When IN bought Harriers they were pretty much outdated so how exactly is Mig-29K based on the new Mig-29M2 not good enough? Let china first learn to operate a carrier, that itself is decades away.
Someone came up with a ridiculous idea of buying an old tarawa class. The difference is it has been used for almost 30 years and despite repairs will only have a life of 20 years left. Not to mention the hassle of converting it to a carrier. In comparision Gorky will have more than 30-35 years left in it.
Second ADS-1,2 with italy's help is better than china hoping to build a carrier by buying a rusting heap like varayag or WW-2 antique carrier like HMS Melbourne :D . Cavour is 26k Tonne if I am not mistaken.
By: joey
- 3rd November 2006 at 20:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I believe it might also serve as a platform for N-LCA testing.
and the ADS just might come up a bit bigger.
God bless Navy, i hope ADS will be bigger, or the tonnage of ADS is already official yet?
My Cousins dad works in SAIL"steel authority india limited" and he told me today only huge steels are recently going for navy or whatever...
By: joey
- 3rd November 2006 at 20:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If ADS gets any Awacs and is a bit bigger i'll throw a free beer party to some guys here :P
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 3rd November 2006 at 20:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The end product may be a 20-30 (actually more like 40+ year) investment but the initial outlay, actually buying and equiping the thing, is a 5-10 year investment. Thus the IN has effectively gone for the cheapest realistic option considering that the sea harriers are reaching the end of their lives and it is unlikely that the IN will procure another V/STOL type in the near future due to limited availability.
If the Indians wanted to do this properly, they should have contracted a European company to do the design (BAe, Thales, DCN, etc) then constructed it in India with technology transfer from said company and procured a number of Rafales, sure keep the Ka-32 AEW or go for a solution like the british AEW seakings. Personally I would still have kept displacement at around 40k for financial reasons as well as this being a first attempt. The result would have been considerable experience for Indian industry and designers with right ToT deal and a good modern vessel with alot of life in it. Not to mention a ship that is specifically designed as a full deck 'true' aircraft carrier from the start rather than being a seemingly akward rebuild of a carrier-cruiser hybrid.
No it looks like you don't have the slightest clue as to the contrains IN had to face. Give it to some european firm indeed. Never heard rubbish being spewed out like this before. Do take sometime and read the article by the ex-chief of naval staff Admiral Arun prakash before posting such drivel. No one here is claiming ADS-1 or Gorky will spin circles around USN supercarriers or the CVF if it ever comes into existance. But if the bugbear you are using is China then rest assured IN has the sense to do some amount of future planning.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 3rd November 2006 at 20:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ofcourse it is atleat 15-20 years away from being commissioned. You don't think IN will throw away the Mig-29K's in just 10 years do you? If you remember correctly ADS-1 was supposed to be 24 K-tonne then increased to 32 K-tonne and finally to 38K-tonne. I am sure IN will increase the ADS-2 similarly taking into account the changing scenarios. I am expectly a 60+ K tonne ship which is close to 70K tonne fully loaded. When IN bought Harriers they were pretty much outdated so how exactly is Mig-29K based on the new Mig-29M2 not good enough? Let china first learn to operate a carrier, that itself is decades away.
Someone came up with a ridiculous idea of buying an old tarawa class. The difference is it has been used for almost 30 years and despite repairs will only have a life of 20 years left. Not to mention the hassle of converting it to a carrier. In comparision Gorky will have more than 30-35 years left in it.
Second ADS-1,2 with italy's help is better than china hoping to build a carrier by buying a rusting heap like varayag or WW-2 antique carrier like HMS Melbourne :D . Cavour is 26k Tonne if I am not mistaken.
Loose the arrogance about carrier operations, basic doctrines for carrier warfare are not that difficult to pick up simply by reading open source material and watching other navys. The actual operation of a carrier is platform specific, so when the IN gets the Gorschkov they will have to start learning again.
I would expect to see a chinese carrier within the next 2 decades at the lastest probably earlier if the Su-33 negotiations are already underway.
The Gorschkov was probably almost as much of a rusting hulk as Varyag before its refit, read the above posts. It is unlikely that a second ADS would grow in size significantly, more likely to just be an improved repeat of the first of the class.
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 3rd November 2006 at 20:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry if I sounded arrogant, it was just frustration not arrogance. Yes IN will have to relearn but thats like learning to drive a mobike after learning a bicycle not learning to drive a mobike without any cycle balance. Also I don't buy you can learn by watching bit. Then IN pilots wouldn't have to go to US to learn they could simply visit as tourists and gawk. You also believe it will take 2 decades for chinese to come up with a decent carrier of any sort. In this 2 decades I can see ADS-1 and 2 being commisioned. As long as ADS-2 is bigger close to 60k tonne. I have no problems. No I don't believe ADS-2 would be only 45-50 K-tonne. That would make no sense at all. IN also has other priorities like learning how to operate the trenton and building new LHD's (hopefully Mistral) and to get the new Destroyers and frigates faster not to mention the secretive ATV.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 3rd November 2006 at 20:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry if I sounded arrogant, it was just frustration not arrogance. Yes IN will have to relearn but thats like learning to drive a mobike after learning a bicycle not learning to drive a mobike without any cycle balance. Also I don't buy you can learn by watching bit. Then IN pilots wouldn't have to go to US to learn they could simply visit as tourists and gawk. You also believe it will take 2 decades for chinese to come up with a decent carrier of any sort. In this 2 decades I can see ADS-1 and 2 being commisioned. As long as ADS-2 is bigger close to 60k tonne. I have no problems. No I don't believe ADS-2 would be only 45-50 K-tonne. That would make no sense at all. IN also has other priorities like learning how to operate the trenton and building new LHD's (hopefully Mistral) and to get the new Destroyers and frigates faster not to mention the secretive ATV.
Choose what you choose to believe but the 'difficulty' of carrier operations although true is not insurmountable and to a country with the correct resources, which china has, should be only a minor challenge. There is nothing to support the idea that ADS-2 will be significantly larger than the first unit.
New
Posts: 3,396
By: star49
- 3rd November 2006 at 20:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The end product may be a 20-30 (actually more like 40+ year) investment but the initial outlay, actually buying and equiping the thing, is a 5-10 year investment. Thus the IN has effectively gone for the cheapest realistic option considering that the sea harriers are reaching the end of their lives and it is unlikely that the IN will procure another V/STOL type in the near future due to limited availability.
If the Indians wanted to do this properly, they should have contracted a European company to do the design (BAe, Thales, DCN, etc) then constructed it in India with technology transfer from said company and procured a number of Rafales, sure keep the Ka-32 AEW or go for a solution like the british AEW seakings. Personally I would still have kept displacement at around 40k for financial reasons as well as this being a first attempt. The result would have been considerable experience for Indian industry and designers with right ToT deal and a good modern vessel with alot of life in it. Not to mention a ship that is specifically designed as a full deck 'true' aircraft carrier from the start rather than being a seemingly akward rebuild of a carrier-cruiser hybrid.
and how many year would it have taken for such a technology transfer?. just look at first scorpene submarine schedule and its not even designing from the ground up. and we are not even going into price of rafale/f-18 and adding one extra aircraft to HAL to work on.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 3rd November 2006 at 17:06 Permalink - 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.
Posts: 932
By: TinWing - 3rd November 2006 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We all know what a single bad commanding officer managed to do to a certain aircraft carrier belonging to a certain superpower.
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 3rd November 2006 at 17:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sounds like the way Britain does it, at least with diesel-electric submarines....
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 3rd November 2006 at 17:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the reson why i brought up the the angled flight dexk was because i could immagen a forristal insdent happering on the carrier i.e unshulded landing of a mig just as an other is powering up with shackeld wheels. landing plane can't stop quick enough and plows into the plane with the resulting explosion
Posts: 932
By: TinWing - 3rd November 2006 at 17:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do have to wonder if the Russian spent the money on dehumidification and properly securing the ex-Gorshkov with a caretaker crew - rare honest individuals who didn't steal?
If even active Russian ships were virtually stripped bare by corrupt officers and crewmen in the post-Soviet period, it is hard to imagine that the ex-Gorshkov was uniquely protected.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 3rd November 2006 at 17:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Err and we are assuming IN did not check these things and bought a stripped down rusting, uncompleted heap like varyag without modification??
Posts: 932
By: TinWing - 3rd November 2006 at 17:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The IN apparently did prefer a small initial buy of as few a 8 Rafale M fighters. Historically, the IN also purchased its Sea Harriers in small batches.
Sadly, Russia tied the transfer of the ex-Gorshkov to the sale of the MiG-29K. What a deal, buy a batch of unproven variants of an out of production figher, pay for a refit in a Russian shipyard, and receive a free aircraft carrier.
In reality, a fair deal for the Indian taxpayers would have a involved the transfer of the ex-Gorskov for its true worth - scrap value.
India should have had the right to refit the Gorshkov in a third party country's shipyard. For instance, ex-Gorshkov could have been towed to South Korea for an extensive survey, and if the hull was deemed fit for further economical service, Russian firms could have provided boilers, turbines, and electronics as subcontractors.
Does anyone believe the the refit of ex-Gorskov in a Russian shipyard aids the indidgenous ADS program? Does restarting an inactive assembly line in Russia to build the unproven MiG-29K benefit the development of an indigenous Naval LCA?
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 3rd November 2006 at 17:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
they way you say it tin wing you make it sound like india got mugged and forced to help russian defece industrey. wouldn't it have been better for the indians to buy on old tarwa class LHA i know it isn't a proper carrier but nore is gorshkhov.
it would be an extra deck so they could keep viraat in servives untill the indgenes carrier is in servise. would this have been do able in the indiean time fram
the indians are buy a used car with no servise history from a dodgy area with a huge problems and a vage promise from the owner it ill be as good as new when you have it :diablo:
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 3rd November 2006 at 18:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With the exception of some fitted systems (Most of which seem to be being replaced0, I doubt the Gorschkov was in much better state than the Varyag before it started its rebuild/refit. Ultimately it spent a decade tied up outside in poor weather conditions and most probably under the situation TinWing described above.
China though, bought the Varyag for the small sum of $20 million and can now do what it likes with it, learn from it, copy it, even commision it, which if they do will give them a bigger more capable carrier than India. Who on the other hand, having payed Russians to rebuild Gorshkov, Russians to build planes for it and bought the carrier still end up (reportedly) paying the Italians, a country which has never built a carrier above about 20k tonnes, to help with the ADS design.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 3rd November 2006 at 18:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ADS-2, your funny, that is decades away. The IN has stated that it wants 3 carriers and that is regarded as a long term objective and includes the two current ADS and the Gorschkov, there even seems to be confusion over whether there will be 2 ADS to start with. If there were to be an ADS-2 it would likely be just an improvement of the original and only about 50k. Seeing as all this is entirely hypotheticalits not even worth talking about in this thread.
Posts: 682
By: joey - 3rd November 2006 at 18:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
so most of you guys think IN did a terrible mistake going for gorshkov.. and it simply is not worth the no of planes and stuffs.
really sucks, I thought IN had smarter peoples.
and IN do have budget to build a carrier of 60k tonnes considering a carrier is a 20-30 year investment not a 5 -10 year one.
what the hell is happening with IN.....:(
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 3rd November 2006 at 20:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The end product may be a 20-30 (actually more like 40+ year) investment but the initial outlay, actually buying and equiping the thing, is a 5-10 year investment. Thus the IN has effectively gone for the cheapest realistic option considering that the sea harriers are reaching the end of their lives and it is unlikely that the IN will procure another V/STOL type in the near future due to limited availability.
If the Indians wanted to do this properly, they should have contracted a European company to do the design (BAe, Thales, DCN, etc) then constructed it in India with technology transfer from said company and procured a number of Rafales, sure keep the Ka-32 AEW or go for a solution like the british AEW seakings. Personally I would still have kept displacement at around 40k for financial reasons as well as this being a first attempt. The result would have been considerable experience for Indian industry and designers with right ToT deal and a good modern vessel with alot of life in it. Not to mention a ship that is specifically designed as a full deck 'true' aircraft carrier from the start rather than being a seemingly akward rebuild of a carrier-cruiser hybrid.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 3rd November 2006 at 20:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ofcourse it is atleat 15-20 years away from being commissioned. You don't think IN will throw away the Mig-29K's in just 10 years do you? If you remember correctly ADS-1 was supposed to be 24 K-tonne then increased to 32 K-tonne and finally to 38K-tonne. I am sure IN will increase the ADS-2 similarly taking into account the changing scenarios. I am expectly a 60+ K tonne ship which is close to 70K tonne fully loaded. When IN bought Harriers they were pretty much outdated so how exactly is Mig-29K based on the new Mig-29M2 not good enough? Let china first learn to operate a carrier, that itself is decades away.
Someone came up with a ridiculous idea of buying an old tarawa class. The difference is it has been used for almost 30 years and despite repairs will only have a life of 20 years left. Not to mention the hassle of converting it to a carrier. In comparision Gorky will have more than 30-35 years left in it.
Second ADS-1,2 with italy's help is better than china hoping to build a carrier by buying a rusting heap like varayag or WW-2 antique carrier like HMS Melbourne :D . Cavour is 26k Tonne if I am not mistaken.
Posts: 682
By: joey - 3rd November 2006 at 20:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I believe it might also serve as a platform for N-LCA testing.
and the ADS just might come up a bit bigger.
God bless Navy, i hope ADS will be bigger, or the tonnage of ADS is already official yet?
My Cousins dad works in SAIL"steel authority india limited" and he told me today only huge steels are recently going for navy or whatever...
Posts: 682
By: joey - 3rd November 2006 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If ADS gets any Awacs and is a bit bigger i'll throw a free beer party to some guys here :P
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 3rd November 2006 at 20:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No it looks like you don't have the slightest clue as to the contrains IN had to face. Give it to some european firm indeed. Never heard rubbish being spewed out like this before. Do take sometime and read the article by the ex-chief of naval staff Admiral Arun prakash before posting such drivel. No one here is claiming ADS-1 or Gorky will spin circles around USN supercarriers or the CVF if it ever comes into existance. But if the bugbear you are using is China then rest assured IN has the sense to do some amount of future planning.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 3rd November 2006 at 20:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Loose the arrogance about carrier operations, basic doctrines for carrier warfare are not that difficult to pick up simply by reading open source material and watching other navys. The actual operation of a carrier is platform specific, so when the IN gets the Gorschkov they will have to start learning again.
I would expect to see a chinese carrier within the next 2 decades at the lastest probably earlier if the Su-33 negotiations are already underway.
The Gorschkov was probably almost as much of a rusting hulk as Varyag before its refit, read the above posts. It is unlikely that a second ADS would grow in size significantly, more likely to just be an improved repeat of the first of the class.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 3rd November 2006 at 20:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry if I sounded arrogant, it was just frustration not arrogance. Yes IN will have to relearn but thats like learning to drive a mobike after learning a bicycle not learning to drive a mobike without any cycle balance. Also I don't buy you can learn by watching bit. Then IN pilots wouldn't have to go to US to learn they could simply visit as tourists and gawk. You also believe it will take 2 decades for chinese to come up with a decent carrier of any sort. In this 2 decades I can see ADS-1 and 2 being commisioned. As long as ADS-2 is bigger close to 60k tonne. I have no problems. No I don't believe ADS-2 would be only 45-50 K-tonne. That would make no sense at all. IN also has other priorities like learning how to operate the trenton and building new LHD's (hopefully Mistral) and to get the new Destroyers and frigates faster not to mention the secretive ATV.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 3rd November 2006 at 20:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Choose what you choose to believe but the 'difficulty' of carrier operations although true is not insurmountable and to a country with the correct resources, which china has, should be only a minor challenge. There is nothing to support the idea that ADS-2 will be significantly larger than the first unit.
Posts: 3,396
By: star49 - 3rd November 2006 at 20:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and how many year would it have taken for such a technology transfer?. just look at first scorpene submarine schedule and its not even designing from the ground up. and we are not even going into price of rafale/f-18 and adding one extra aircraft to HAL to work on.