By: broncho
- 4th November 2006 at 20:15Permalink- 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?
No. I can't see IAF being worried about Su-33 and IN just won't go for F-18. You have quoted no figures to support the claim that F-18E/F can take off from Gorky or ADS without a catapult. How much load can it carry? I am sure without catapult it can't carry 7 ton load. Su-33 can carry 6.5 ton while Mig-29K can manage more than 4.5 ton.
Of the countries you quoted, Only France will operate Rafale from carrier, US will operate F-18, JSF and UK might get JSF. None of these are considered as a threat or enemies by IN, so why worry about them?
Other than delaying the ADS by another 5-10 years there will be very little to gain by jumping the boat and going with french or british design at this stage. CDG took a long while to complete despite their prowess in desiging and building so called big ships, lets see if the can do any better with CVF and PA2.
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th November 2006 at 21:39Permalink- 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.
Interesting Pics! Note that the bow section of the hull is missing and the island appears to be large for a ship of her size. Much like the American Tarawa Class LHA's...................... :rolleyes:
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th November 2006 at 21:43Permalink- 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.
Further, India could have one class of three like Carriers and all of its benefits......... :D
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th November 2006 at 21:52Permalink- 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.
India could of purchase F-35B or F-35C to operate from the ADS Carriers. Which would offer a very capable counter to any Chinese Carrier and its Su-33's! Interesting thought? Would the STOVL F-35B be more effect or the CV F-35C operating from India's future carriers???
New
By: Anonymous
- 4th November 2006 at 22:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No. I can't see IAF being worried about Su-33 and IN just won't go for F-18. You have quoted no figures to support the claim that F-18E/F can take off from Gorky or ADS without a catapult. How much load can it carry? I am sure without catapult it can't carry 7 ton load. Su-33 can carry 6.5 ton while Mig-29K can manage more than 4.5 ton.
Of the countries you quoted, Only France will operate Rafale from carrier, US will operate F-18, JSF and UK might get JSF. None of these are considered as a threat or enemies by IN, so why worry about them?
Other than delaying the ADS by another 5-10 years there will be very little to gain by jumping the boat and going with french or british design at this stage. CDG took a long while to complete despite their prowess in desiging and building so called big ships, lets see if the can do any better with CVF and PA2.
What information do you have that Super Hornets or Rafales couldn't operate as effectively from ski-ramp equipped carriers? I would also add the Super Hornet was designed from the ground up as a Naval Strike Fighter and has very good low speed handling and thrust to weight ratios. Surely, both types have the power to take-off for ski ramps and more than likley also have better bring back weight at least in the Super Hornets case.......
As for Chinese Su-33's being no threat to India. I would have to respecfully disagree. As the IAF already operates both landbased Mig-29's and Su-30's. So, she very well knows the capabilities of the very formidable Flanker!!!! Clearly both Naval and Landbased Flankers are vastly Superior to there Fulcrum cousins.................... :diablo:
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 4th November 2006 at 23:56Permalink- 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!
The Gorshkov programme seems to be the product of a number of issues.
1) Cost, India is not yet a true 1st world country and despite what many here think does not have huge sums to spend on 70k super carriers, thus a cheap option was required.
2) Aircraft availability, at the time of project iniation it looked extremely unlikely (considering the limited ties with the US until recently) that any new type of V/STOL aircraft could be procured in the future. Therefore the new carrier had to be of a certain size in order to operate non V/STOL types. The minimum realistic size for this seems to be about 40k tons (looking at the issues with size that the CdG has had and the reported inability of the Foch class to operate Rafales), I think that this is the real reason for the growth size of the ADS design, simply to allow to operate the Mig-29's and NLCA and not the previously used Harriers.
3) The lack of experience in building such large warships pushed back the in service date forcing the procurement of a stop-gap and the Gorschkov was it.
I realy feel that had India have cooperated very closely with the CVF consortium companys (to the extent that one of those companys effectively designed the carrier) they could have got a huge amount of technology and skills transfer and a very modern boat, probably not a CVF but something smaller (in line with the current ADS size).
New
By: Anonymous
- 5th November 2006 at 00:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Gorshkov programme seems to be the product of a number of issues.
1) Cost, India is not yet a true 1st world country and despite what many here think does not have huge sums to spend on 70k super carriers, thus a cheap option was required.
2) Aircraft availability, at the time of project iniation it looked extremely unlikely (considering the limited ties with the US until recently) that any new type of V/STOL aircraft could be procured in the future. Therefore the new carrier had to be of a certain size in order to operate non V/STOL types. The minimum realistic size for this seems to be about 40k tons (looking at the issues with size that the CdG has had and the reported inability of the Foch class to operate Rafales), I think that this is the real reason for the growth size of the ADS design, simply to allow to operate the Mig-29's and NLCA and not the previously used Harriers.
3) The lack of experience in building such large warships pushed back the in service date forcing the procurement of a stop-gap and the Gorschkov was it.
I realy feel that had India have cooperated very closely with the CVF consortium companys (to the extent that one of those companys effectively designed the carrier) they could have got a huge amount of technology and skills transfer and a very modern boat, probably not a CVF but something smaller (in line with the current ADS size).
To really be effective in projecting naval air power. Don't you need a Carrier in the 50,000 ton plus class? :rolleyes:
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 5th November 2006 at 01:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To really be effective in projecting naval air power. Don't you need a Carrier in the 50,000 ton plus class? :rolleyes:
Well the british have managed it with 20,000 ton carriers as have the Italians and spanish. It realy depends on what you are using your carrier for. If it is simply part of a naval action group then any soze will do depending on how you work the vessel into your fleet. But if you want the ability to project over whelming power on a global scale you need a bigger vessel.
New
By: Anonymous
- 5th November 2006 at 01:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well the british have managed it with 20,000 ton carriers as have the Italians and spanish. It realy depends on what you are using your carrier for. If it is simply part of a naval action group then any soze will do depending on how you work the vessel into your fleet. But if you want the ability to project over whelming power on a global scale you need a bigger vessel.
I was of course referring to projecting power ashore.................that is not to say small Carriers in the 20,000 ton class don't have a place. I think the Spanish "Principe De Asturias" is a excellent example of that class. Thereby giving even smaller navies with maritime airpower........which will be greatly enhanced with the arrival of the F-35 Lightning II! :D
By: HuntingHawk
- 5th November 2006 at 05:09Permalink- 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.
Yeah Right :rolleyes:
1) Cost, India is not yet a true 1st world country and despite what many here think does not have huge sums to spend on 70k super carriers, thus a cheap option was required.
With an economy growing between 8-9% a year and projected to grow faster in the future , we'll manage somehow . :rolleyes:
And 1.5 Billion for the Gorkshov isn't exactly cheap.
The US, UK, France, Thailand are not on India's threat list and are unlikely to ever make the list. So the Mig-29's will never meet the Litenings 2's,F-18's, Rafales, Harriers in a combat situation. Sure maybe in a training scenario, like has happened often, but otherwise the only threats Indian carriers face are Pakistani Submarines.
Non existent Chinese Carriers carrying non existent Chinese Su-33's, if they arrive in the future will probably be smart and wont venture too far away from home and hence probably wont meet Indian Carriers during their lifetime.
Let the Chinese get a Carrier first, and then learn to operate it proficiently (And no, it doesn't happen overnight like you implied), before we even begin to talk about it. (That is, if they think that a carrier even fits into their operational requirements.)
I realy feel that had India have cooperated very closely with the CVF consortium companys
And they would have been happy to transfer the technology right away ?? Carrier building is an art, you don't just pass away technology like that to every other nation that comes up and asks for it, especially one that might be a future economic competitor.
By: tphuang
- 5th November 2006 at 05:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
India could of purchase F-35B or F-35C to operate from the ADS Carriers. Which would offer a very capable counter to any Chinese Carrier and its Su-33's! Interesting thought? Would the STOVL F-35B be more effect or the CV F-35C operating from India's future carriers???
F-35Cs are obviously going to be better than F-35Bs. They are not restricted by the limitations put in as a stovl fighter. C should have better range and payload and generally, better flight performance.
New
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003
- 5th November 2006 at 06:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The "Principe De Asturias" is soon to be replaced by the "Buque de Proyección Estratégica" to be launched next year. At 27,000 shes quiet a big pocket carrier.
Spain apparently just wants one (to operate as a carrier) while Australia is looking at buying two, maybe.
The big problem with small carriers is the planes. Harriers are not cheap to buy, or run or find a alternative for (and many are being decommissioned). F-35B is certainly not going to be seen in the immediate future and may even be scrapped. Certainly STVOL aircraft are thin on the ground. F-35B's run to nearly 100 million each at current projections. Not to mention the Harrier/F-35B's limitations against land based aircraft.
New
Posts: 869
By: WisePanda
- 5th November 2006 at 07:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
>> There is nothing to support the idea that ADS-2 will be significantly
>> larger than the first unit.
>> It is unlikely that a second ADS would grow in size significantly,
other than some repair work is there anything to support the idea that varyag is joining the combat fleet ? is there anything to say what size of carrier if any china will build ? any statements by the defence ministry regarding carrier size, funding, timelines? and people are already having them prowling around with a fleet of 60kt carriers armed with Su33!
I see that all "speculation" about PRC is supposed to be accepted as gospel in the absense of any hard news while "speculation" about other countries is taken as speculation...rotfl. :diablo:
By: joey
- 5th November 2006 at 11:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well Chinas carrier will be 0k+ for granted as some members taking it for the sheer size of its economy.
If i was china and wanted powr projection surely give 2 billion dollars for free to any EU company and ask full TOT for 70k+ tonne carrier.
btw hunting hawk ur forgetting the aussies, they aint threat maybe their govt.
who criticises india for developing arms and yet gets involved in hyfly cruise missile "follows a ballistic trajectory to gain supersonics", yet gets lightnings,
They are sure a mild threat to us!!
By: joey
- 5th November 2006 at 11:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
*60k not 0k.
New
By: Anonymous
- 5th November 2006 at 14:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The "Principe De Asturias" is soon to be replaced by the "Buque de Proyección Estratégica" to be launched next year. At 27,000 shes quiet a big pocket carrier.
Spain apparently just wants one (to operate as a carrier) while Australia is looking at buying two, maybe.
The big problem with small carriers is the planes. Harriers are not cheap to buy, or run or find a alternative for (and many are being decommissioned). F-35B is certainly not going to be seen in the immediate future and may even be scrapped. Certainly STVOL aircraft are thin on the ground. F-35B's run to nearly 100 million each at current projections. Not to mention the Harrier/F-35B's limitations against land based aircraft.
You lost me here the replacement for the "Principe De Asturis" is already underconstruction??? I thought it was years away! Does anyone have more information? As for the F-35 it will see service and the B Model will be more than a match for most competitors thereby making even small carriers a threat not to be taken lightly............... :eek:
New
By: Anonymous
- 5th November 2006 at 15:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The "Principe De Asturias" is soon to be replaced by the "Buque de Proyección Estratégica" to be launched next year. At 27,000 shes quiet a big pocket carrier.
Spain apparently just wants one (to operate as a carrier) while Australia is looking at buying two, maybe.
The big problem with small carriers is the planes. Harriers are not cheap to buy, or run or find a alternative for (and many are being decommissioned). F-35B is certainly not going to be seen in the immediate future and may even be scrapped. Certainly STVOL aircraft are thin on the ground. F-35B's run to nearly 100 million each at current projections. Not to mention the Harrier/F-35B's limitations against land based aircraft.
The Buque de Proyeccion Estrategica is not a replacement for the Principe De Asturias Class. However she will be a large and very capable LHA/LHD type Amphibious Carrier able to operate both STOVL Aircraft and Helo's.
By: harryRIEDL
- 5th November 2006 at 15:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
also how many su33 could gorskhov operate as it is hard pressed to fit more than 20 mig 29k planes on board.
New
By: Anonymous
- 5th November 2006 at 16:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
also how many su33 could gorskhov operate as it is hard pressed to fit more than 20 mig 29k planes on board.
The Su-33's are just to large to operate effectively from a ship of the Ex-Gorshkov Size. Which, should tell everyone the China plans on very large Carriers.........
By: Gollevainen
- 5th November 2006 at 16:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember hearing that someone or something said that Su-33s wingspan is just too wide for Gorky and that the ships superstructual would block its path to the Ski jump....but thats just a rumour...
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 4th November 2006 at 20:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No. I can't see IAF being worried about Su-33 and IN just won't go for F-18. You have quoted no figures to support the claim that F-18E/F can take off from Gorky or ADS without a catapult. How much load can it carry? I am sure without catapult it can't carry 7 ton load. Su-33 can carry 6.5 ton while Mig-29K can manage more than 4.5 ton.
Of the countries you quoted, Only France will operate Rafale from carrier, US will operate F-18, JSF and UK might get JSF. None of these are considered as a threat or enemies by IN, so why worry about them?
Other than delaying the ADS by another 5-10 years there will be very little to gain by jumping the boat and going with french or british design at this stage. CDG took a long while to complete despite their prowess in desiging and building so called big ships, lets see if the can do any better with CVF and PA2.
By: Anonymous - 4th November 2006 at 21:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting Pics! Note that the bow section of the hull is missing and the island appears to be large for a ship of her size. Much like the American Tarawa Class LHA's...................... :rolleyes:
By: Anonymous - 4th November 2006 at 21:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Further, India could have one class of three like Carriers and all of its benefits......... :D
By: Anonymous - 4th November 2006 at 21:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
India could of purchase F-35B or F-35C to operate from the ADS Carriers. Which would offer a very capable counter to any Chinese Carrier and its Su-33's! Interesting thought? Would the STOVL F-35B be more effect or the CV F-35C operating from India's future carriers???
By: Anonymous - 4th November 2006 at 22:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What information do you have that Super Hornets or Rafales couldn't operate as effectively from ski-ramp equipped carriers? I would also add the Super Hornet was designed from the ground up as a Naval Strike Fighter and has very good low speed handling and thrust to weight ratios. Surely, both types have the power to take-off for ski ramps and more than likley also have better bring back weight at least in the Super Hornets case.......
As for Chinese Su-33's being no threat to India. I would have to respecfully disagree. As the IAF already operates both landbased Mig-29's and Su-30's. So, she very well knows the capabilities of the very formidable Flanker!!!! Clearly both Naval and Landbased Flankers are vastly Superior to there Fulcrum cousins.................... :diablo:
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 4th November 2006 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Gorshkov programme seems to be the product of a number of issues.
1) Cost, India is not yet a true 1st world country and despite what many here think does not have huge sums to spend on 70k super carriers, thus a cheap option was required.
2) Aircraft availability, at the time of project iniation it looked extremely unlikely (considering the limited ties with the US until recently) that any new type of V/STOL aircraft could be procured in the future. Therefore the new carrier had to be of a certain size in order to operate non V/STOL types. The minimum realistic size for this seems to be about 40k tons (looking at the issues with size that the CdG has had and the reported inability of the Foch class to operate Rafales), I think that this is the real reason for the growth size of the ADS design, simply to allow to operate the Mig-29's and NLCA and not the previously used Harriers.
3) The lack of experience in building such large warships pushed back the in service date forcing the procurement of a stop-gap and the Gorschkov was it.
I realy feel that had India have cooperated very closely with the CVF consortium companys (to the extent that one of those companys effectively designed the carrier) they could have got a huge amount of technology and skills transfer and a very modern boat, probably not a CVF but something smaller (in line with the current ADS size).
By: Anonymous - 5th November 2006 at 00:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To really be effective in projecting naval air power. Don't you need a Carrier in the 50,000 ton plus class? :rolleyes:
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 5th November 2006 at 01:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well the british have managed it with 20,000 ton carriers as have the Italians and spanish. It realy depends on what you are using your carrier for. If it is simply part of a naval action group then any soze will do depending on how you work the vessel into your fleet. But if you want the ability to project over whelming power on a global scale you need a bigger vessel.
By: Anonymous - 5th November 2006 at 01:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was of course referring to projecting power ashore.................that is not to say small Carriers in the 20,000 ton class don't have a place. I think the Spanish "Principe De Asturias" is a excellent example of that class. Thereby giving even smaller navies with maritime airpower........which will be greatly enhanced with the arrival of the F-35 Lightning II! :D
Posts: 348
By: HuntingHawk - 5th November 2006 at 05:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah Right :rolleyes:
With an economy growing between 8-9% a year and projected to grow faster in the future , we'll manage somehow . :rolleyes:
And 1.5 Billion for the Gorkshov isn't exactly cheap.
The US, UK, France, Thailand are not on India's threat list and are unlikely to ever make the list. So the Mig-29's will never meet the Litenings 2's,F-18's, Rafales, Harriers in a combat situation. Sure maybe in a training scenario, like has happened often, but otherwise the only threats Indian carriers face are Pakistani Submarines.
Non existent Chinese Carriers carrying non existent Chinese Su-33's, if they arrive in the future will probably be smart and wont venture too far away from home and hence probably wont meet Indian Carriers during their lifetime.
Let the Chinese get a Carrier first, and then learn to operate it proficiently (And no, it doesn't happen overnight like you implied), before we even begin to talk about it. (That is, if they think that a carrier even fits into their operational requirements.)
And they would have been happy to transfer the technology right away ?? Carrier building is an art, you don't just pass away technology like that to every other nation that comes up and asks for it, especially one that might be a future economic competitor.
Posts: 1,082
By: tphuang - 5th November 2006 at 05:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-35Cs are obviously going to be better than F-35Bs. They are not restricted by the limitations put in as a stovl fighter. C should have better range and payload and generally, better flight performance.
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003 - 5th November 2006 at 06:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The "Principe De Asturias" is soon to be replaced by the "Buque de Proyección Estratégica" to be launched next year. At 27,000 shes quiet a big pocket carrier.
Spain apparently just wants one (to operate as a carrier) while Australia is looking at buying two, maybe.
The big problem with small carriers is the planes. Harriers are not cheap to buy, or run or find a alternative for (and many are being decommissioned). F-35B is certainly not going to be seen in the immediate future and may even be scrapped. Certainly STVOL aircraft are thin on the ground. F-35B's run to nearly 100 million each at current projections. Not to mention the Harrier/F-35B's limitations against land based aircraft.
Posts: 869
By: WisePanda - 5th November 2006 at 07:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
>> There is nothing to support the idea that ADS-2 will be significantly
>> larger than the first unit.
>> It is unlikely that a second ADS would grow in size significantly,
other than some repair work is there anything to support the idea that varyag is joining the combat fleet ? is there anything to say what size of carrier if any china will build ? any statements by the defence ministry regarding carrier size, funding, timelines? and people are already having them prowling around with a fleet of 60kt carriers armed with Su33!
I see that all "speculation" about PRC is supposed to be accepted as gospel in the absense of any hard news while "speculation" about other countries is taken as speculation...rotfl. :diablo:
Posts: 682
By: joey - 5th November 2006 at 11:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well Chinas carrier will be 0k+ for granted as some members taking it for the sheer size of its economy.
If i was china and wanted powr projection surely give 2 billion dollars for free to any EU company and ask full TOT for 70k+ tonne carrier.
btw hunting hawk ur forgetting the aussies, they aint threat maybe their govt.
who criticises india for developing arms and yet gets involved in hyfly cruise missile "follows a ballistic trajectory to gain supersonics", yet gets lightnings,
They are sure a mild threat to us!!
Posts: 682
By: joey - 5th November 2006 at 11:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
*60k not 0k.
By: Anonymous - 5th November 2006 at 14:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You lost me here the replacement for the "Principe De Asturis" is already underconstruction??? I thought it was years away! Does anyone have more information? As for the F-35 it will see service and the B Model will be more than a match for most competitors thereby making even small carriers a threat not to be taken lightly............... :eek:
By: Anonymous - 5th November 2006 at 15:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Buque de Proyeccion Estrategica is not a replacement for the Principe De Asturias Class. However she will be a large and very capable LHA/LHD type Amphibious Carrier able to operate both STOVL Aircraft and Helo's.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 5th November 2006 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
also how many su33 could gorskhov operate as it is hard pressed to fit more than 20 mig 29k planes on board.
By: Anonymous - 5th November 2006 at 16:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-33's are just to large to operate effectively from a ship of the Ex-Gorshkov Size. Which, should tell everyone the China plans on very large Carriers.........
Posts: 1,773
By: Gollevainen - 5th November 2006 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember hearing that someone or something said that Su-33s wingspan is just too wide for Gorky and that the ships superstructual would block its path to the Ski jump....but thats just a rumour...