By: broncho
- 11th November 2006 at 19:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well since china's experience with carriers is piecing together pieces of scrap thay might want to buy them in order to study the design.
But on a serious note I think they can still be sold to anyone wanting a Helicopter/commando carrier. They are perfect in that role.
New
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003
- 11th November 2006 at 21:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the only viable non STOVL carrier comming on to the market it the US kitty and kennedy.
Being a oil burner shes the only one the US would concider to sell externally.
UK would be only buyer. US would only sell to UK, Australia, Canada or "tier 1 friendly". That means best friends, and the UK is the only one who could ever possibly run and protect them.
As for the Uk carriers.
Hmm. They would want to be cheap. Australia is concidering French Mistral and BPE and there are several small ships also a options. They run around billion each. They hold significantly more troops (1,100 + verse <500) and machinery and also offer amphib capability.
India might buy them as helicopter carriers, effectivly giving it 4 ex-fixed wing carriers.
Forget US getting rid of its harriers. They are rich enough to keep them in storage and sell parts to the UK and friendly navies with them that want to keep them going. You would be better off making a deal with thailand for theirs.
By: harryRIEDL
- 11th November 2006 at 21:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and i think that they have all been reftited to the commando carrier ark royal has just come out of refit with a the capasitiy to take 400 troops. also ins viraat has the same ablitly the indians seem not to have to have removed the abliltly.
gorskhov won't have the ablility will it?
also has no body got any info on the us carrier offered during the falklands invasion.
Invincible could be used as an anti sub beater
WisePanda: 'while the AG/ADS-1 are nice to have, I dont see any activity on the front where IN really needs some teeth - "Nueva Moskva" ASW helicopter carriers to dominate and sanitize large areas against the submarine threat.
also they buy like the itaiaiens by as a anti sub or what ever and by harriers or JSFs ;)
one last thing what condion will the spanish and the itainen harriers be when they stop using them.
New
By: Anonymous
- 11th November 2006 at 22:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the only viable non STOVL carrier comming on to the market it the US kitty and kennedy.
Being a oil burner shes the only one the US would concider to sell externally.
UK would be only buyer. US would only sell to UK, Australia, Canada or "tier 1 friendly". That means best friends, and the UK is the only one who could ever possibly run and protect them.
As for the Uk carriers.
Hmm. They would want to be cheap. Australia is concidering French Mistral and BPE and there are several small ships also a options. They run around billion each. They hold significantly more troops (1,100 + verse <500) and machinery and also offer amphib capability.
India might buy them as helicopter carriers, effectivly giving it 4 ex-fixed wing carriers.
Forget US getting rid of its harriers. They are rich enough to keep them in storage and sell parts to the UK and friendly navies with them that want to keep them going. You would be better off making a deal with thailand for theirs.
Well, the American Carriers are pretty much worn out and to expensive to operate. Also, for many third world countries you could make the same claim about the ex-Invincible Class. Steel is cheap so why not enlarge a Principe de Asturias Design and have South Korea build them? A ship of that type could be purchased at a reasonable price and could be operate with much smaller crews.......... :rolleyes:
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 12th November 2006 at 01:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Many modern warships of the same age as Invincible are refitted and sold on for further service with other nations, and the Invincibles have been well maintained over the years. As I mentioned earlier they were designed on the principle of upkeep by replacement, so there are few 'original moving parts' remaining aboard any of them. The RN has a long tradition of recycling parts from one ship to keep others running, simply a matter of prudent management. The US CVs that are in reserve are another matter, they have been stripped of parts not just for re use in other carriers but also because the US government has no intention of selling them abroad to prevent them ending up in the hands of a hostile regime (unlikely I know, but these are the same people who believed Iraq was full of WMDs). Decommissioned US CVs are stricken almost immediately and have their catapults and arrestor gear removed. Even if they were maintained in operational condition for sale they would not be a good investment as they will have had a much longer service life than most other nations carriers (and hence a shorter remaining hull life) and being old designs they are manpower intensive, ie very high running costs, something even the USN is addressing in it's new CVN-21 design (starting with CVN78). The CVF design is almost as large as a Forrestal, but has a ships complement barely one third the size.
A second hand Invincible (or Garibaldi or PdA) would still be much cheaper than a new carrier to buy, but the cost of refitting it for service reduces this imbalance to a degree. The RNs Sea Harriers are currently in storage and most have been preserved in saleable condition. Some of the airframes are very 'low mileage', the last one came off the production line in 1998. The Blue Vixen radar system is included in the offer but not AMRAAM capability unless the americans agree to it, which is in part why the deal fell through with India. Thailands Harriers are probably the oldest examples in service anywhere in the world today (having been delivered to Spain as EAV-8S Matadors back in the mid 70s) and arguably the least capable too, lacking any radar, 'laser nose' or any means of targetting anything beyond visual range. They are probably most useful as training aircraft, and Thailand always struck me as the most likely buyer of Sea Harrier F/A 2s, up to twelve would meet their requirements and provide some real air defence capability and anti shipping potential, rather than the existing Harriers which are really 'just for show'.
New
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003
- 12th November 2006 at 08:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the US would allow the UK to use its carriers on some sort of lease arrangement. But they would be expensive, and difficult to man. I doubt the UK could justify it. But in a world of no STOVL what would they do? Build there own carrier..
The fact the UK and france are looking at building a new carrier that can handle non STOVL is part of this. F-35B looks pretty shakey.
How many of these countries would be better served with a proper LHD like the BDP which has 300% greater troop carrying ability over these semi carriers, run cheaper helicopters and can actually land all those troops with choppers or boats.
By: harryRIEDL
- 12th November 2006 at 09:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
dosn't Invincible have davits for landing craft as part of the commando carrier converstion.
their is an advantage that the invincible have is speed over the BPE.
the us super carriers are a no go because most are in reseve and in a rotton condtion but what about their tawara and wasp classed of ships theyed make a good buy for a contry who whan't an flat deck
whats the background to Thailands buying a carrier
New
Posts: 819
By: broncho
- 12th November 2006 at 10:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think the deal fell due to AMRAAM. IN does not use AMRAAM and never wanted it, unless they want a few to study them. IN will go for R-77 with Mig-29K and Derby missiles. It probably had more to do with cost of removing the blue vixens and upgrading them with Elta radars so that they could fire Derby or pythons.
New
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe
- 12th November 2006 at 17:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i never say that all sea harrier will be retire, but you cannot lie that none will be retire when they cut down. that is when they can buy more for the invincible. plus when harrier is old, India can try to go for the JSF. you can say anything you want but JSF is better than MiG-29K
By: swerve
- 12th November 2006 at 18:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i never say that all sea harrier will be retire, but you cannot lie that none will be retire when they cut down. that is when they can buy more for the invincible. plus when harrier is old, India can try to go for the JSF. you can say anything you want but JSF is better than MiG-29K
You've misunderstood:
ALL the Sea Harriers in the UK have already been retired. Those in the best condition are stored, & for sale. The remainder are being scrapped, or given to museums, etc. If no customers are found for the good ones, they'll also be scrapped or given away to museums.
Invincible is officially in reserve, & being kept there for a few more years. She will then be offered for sale. By the time she is sold, it is very unlikely indeed that we will have any Sea Harriers for sale. They'll all be in museums, gate guards at naval air stations, or scrapped.
Do you really think it would be sensible to buy JSF for a ship which will be 40 years old by the time India could take delivery of its first aircraft? Also, Invincible is uncomfortably small for the F-35, which weighs twice as much as the Harrier. It's been reported she'd need deck strengthening & new lifts. Worth it? I think not.
By: swerve
- 12th November 2006 at 19:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think the deal fell due to AMRAAM. IN does not use AMRAAM and never wanted it, unless they want a few to study them. IN will go for R-77 with Mig-29K and Derby missiles. It probably had more to do with cost of removing the blue vixens and upgrading them with Elta radars so that they could fire Derby or pythons.
AMRAAM had nothing to do with it. It was never offered & never asked for. The ex-RN Sea Harriers were offered with the Blue Vixen already removed, so the cost of that (& why do you think fitting an Elta radar would be an upgrade? More like a downgrade :D ) was not a factor. To the contrary, it's been reported that India didn't want the Harriers without the Blue Vixen radars.
New
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe
- 12th November 2006 at 19:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You've misunderstood:
ALL the Sea Harriers in the UK have already been retired. Those in the best condition are stored, & for sale. The remainder are being scrapped, or given to museums, etc. If no customers are found for the good ones, they'll also be scrapped or given away to museums.
Invincible is officially in reserve, & being kept there for a few more years. She will then be offered for sale. By the time she is sold, it is very unlikely indeed that we will have any Sea Harriers for sale. They'll all be in museums, gate guards at naval air stations, or scrapped.
Do you really think it would be sensible to buy JSF for a ship which will be 40 years old by the time India could take delivery of its first aircraft? Also, Invincible is uncomfortably small for the F-35, which weighs twice as much as the Harrier. It's been reported she'd need deck strengthening & new lifts. Worth it? I think not.
oh so they retire already? good now they can buy them or reserve them. alot of ship is old, i dont know if you know that. how old do you think India's current carrier is? 40 year old ship will actually be a step up!! espeshally if it is a well maintain ship! also they can use their regular Sea Harrier on it.. no need to do new pilot training like they do with MiG-29. by the time JSF can be bought, India already can produce their own carrier too. you worry for nothing. relax and realize the reality. :cool:
New
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003
- 12th November 2006 at 19:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
WASP are huge and man intensive ships. They are also STOVL carriers but are basically used as massive helicopter amphib carriers. They might be able to convert to take more than STOVL but not sure about what fighters it could take. Maybe Rafales? Catapults would have to be installed, maybe electric.
Australia concidered them, but rejected them. Too much to buy, too much to man, to much to fit with STOVL. 40,000 ton US ships aren't cheap, crew of a 1000 or something. UK has more money to play with, but not a lot more. BDP was a better buy. For either as a regular LHD, or as a amphibious, or as a full carrier. Crew of only 270 ment it wasn't unreasonable either was the purchase price. Australia will have two of the largest light carriers out their at over 24,000 tons each with the smallest option.
The future of the light carrier is shakey. Until the F-35B starts turning up in numbers fleets are stuck with quite old harriers which are either retired or in the process of retiring. They will be harder and harder to run.
JSF won't be cheap in 35B form. Try 100 million a pop. So even fitting a carrier out with 10 of them would cost over a billion. So going cheap on the carrier doesn't make sense.
New
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe
- 12th November 2006 at 20:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
WASP are huge and man intensive ships. They are also STOVL carriers but are basically used as massive helicopter amphib carriers. They might be able to convert to take more than STOVL but not sure about what fighters it could take. Maybe Rafales? Catapults would have to be installed, maybe electric.
Australia concidered them, but rejected them. Too much to buy, too much to man, to much to fit with STOVL. 40,000 ton US ships aren't cheap, crew of a 1000 or something. UK has more money to play with, but not a lot more. BDP was a better buy. For either as a regular LHD, or as a amphibious, or as a full carrier. Crew of only 270 ment it wasn't unreasonable either was the purchase price. Australia will have two of the largest light carriers out their at over 24,000 tons each with the smallest option.
The future of the light carrier is shakey. Until the F-35B starts turning up in numbers fleets are stuck with quite old harriers which are either retired or in the process of retiring. They will be harder and harder to run.
JSF won't be cheap in 35B form. Try 100 million a pop. So even fitting a carrier out with 10 of them would cost over a billion. So going cheap on the carrier doesn't make sense.
show me the proof that 100 million is the price of unit by itself.. no one order it yet so there is no real price. if you do have price then show me long plan cost of it when you compare operation fees of MiG-29K over 10 year period with JSF? when you buy airplane you do not just pay one time, you pay over life time in maintenance, life cycle, rehauling etc. so please provide this information and compare it to price versus capability ratio ok?
By: swerve
- 12th November 2006 at 20:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
oh so they retire already? good now they can buy them or reserve them. alot of ship is old, i dont know if you know that. how old do you think India's current carrier is? 40 year old ship will actually be a step up!! espeshally if it is a well maintain ship! also they can use their regular Sea Harrier on it.. no need to do new pilot training like they do with MiG-29. by the time JSF can be bought, India already can produce their own carrier too. you worry for nothing. relax and realize the reality. :cool:
Pay attention! India has been offered ex-RN Sea Harriers & rejected them. The UK wouldn't sell the radars, India didn't want them without radars. India is already building its own carrier, & the navy wants to build another, so that with ex-Gorshkov, they'll have 3. All will be able to operate CTOL aircraft.
Gottit now? You're proposing a possible future which has already been rendered out of date by events.
New
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003
- 12th November 2006 at 20:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't have access to a MiG-29k operation costs comparison. My knowledge is only from a Australian perspective and the Mig-29k is not on the shopping list.
My point wasn't to perform a price comparison that would take a committee of a dozen people with assistance from provider nations several months to compile.
My point is F-35B's are not cheap. 10 would be the same price as a whole new 27,000 ton light carrier, As a full carrier you would want atleast 20.
New
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe
- 12th November 2006 at 20:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pay attention! India has been offered ex-RN Sea Harriers & rejected them. The UK wouldn't sell the radars, India didn't want them without radars. India is already building its own carrier, & the navy wants to build another, so that with ex-Gorshkov, they'll have 3. All will be able to operate CTOL aircraft.
Gottit now? You're proposing a possible future which has already been rendered out of date by events.
I see, so you saying India screw themself over by not going for it. sad story then. they could easily go to Israel for radar and then build carrier for stvol and no need to consider corkob retrofit. but maybe not so surprising, they still strong on old programs after all.
New
Posts: 3,396
By: star49
- 12th November 2006 at 21:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I see, so you saying India screw themself over by not going for it. sad story then. they could easily go to Israel for radar and then build carrier for stvol and no need to consider corkob retrofit. but maybe not so surprising, they still strong on old programs after all.
how India screw itself? India is the only country which has the money and can get the best defense systems from both east/west. they got the best aircraft which is currently available. (with added benfit of customizing with Indian systems and french helmet sighting systems) and fastest and cheapest way of getting carrier like in 4 years time.
STOCKHOLM, Nov 1, 2006 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- Higher price for the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) may force Norway to reduce its order from the 48 planes in the original plan, said reports reaching here from Oslo on Wednesday.
The Norwegian Air Force is planning to replace its aging F-16 jet fighters in 2008, and the JSF is one of three competitors for the Norwegian order, Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) reported.
Norway had planned to buy 48 planes at an estimated cost of 40 billion Norwegian krone (6.12 billion U.S. dollars), but on Tuesday it was revealed that it would cost 70 billion Norwegian krone (10.7 billion dollars) to purchase the U.S. planes, according to NRK.
There are two other manufacturers competing for the Norwegian order, the report said.
New
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe
- 12th November 2006 at 21:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
how India screw itself? India is the only country which has the money and can get the best defense systems from both east/west.
oh so if they can do that how come they don have F-22 or Typhoon or JSF with Su-35UB or Leopard2A6? the guy up above you say the british will not sell them Radar?
even if they will sell them it, it do not mean India will always make the right purchase. how come they are buying LCA? is it the best fighter in the market? :rolleyes:
By: swerve
- 12th November 2006 at 21:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I see, so you saying India screw themself over by not going for it. sad story then. they could easily go to Israel for radar and then build carrier for stvol and no need to consider corkob retrofit. but maybe not so surprising, they still strong on old programs after all.
Why did I waste my time responding to you. Ah well, I won't make that mistake again. Do you know how many Sea Harriers were actually offered? Well, let's put it like this - it wasn't enough to provide an air component for the smallest carrier that would allow them to take off with a useful load. When will you get it through your thick head that the Harrier has no future? The only secondhand Harriers currently for sale are ex-RN Sea Harriers. There aren't enough of them for anyone to buy them except as attrition replacements or for training (what India considered them for). They aren't being offered in operational condition.
There are unlikely ever to be any useful number of secondhand Harriers for sale, & if any ex-USMC Harriers are sold, they'll have a very limited life, due to their number of flying hours. It will never again be worthwhile buying or building a ship to operate Harriers, except as an interim measure pending delivery of F-35B, & even then, only for fleets which already have Harriers.
Get over it.
Now, the Gorshov refit - that was underway long before the UK decided to retire the Sea Harrier early, so there was never an option to buy more Harriers & a STOVL ship as an alternative. And in any case, there aren't (& won't be) enough Sea Harriers for sale to make that an alternative.
All your scenarios require that things which have already happened should unhappen. You have to go back in time & change the past for your propositions to be possible. And that's not to do with Indias decisions, but decisions taken by others, which India could not influence.
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 11th November 2006 at 19:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well since china's experience with carriers is piecing together pieces of scrap thay might want to buy them in order to study the design.
But on a serious note I think they can still be sold to anyone wanting a Helicopter/commando carrier. They are perfect in that role.
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003 - 11th November 2006 at 21:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the only viable non STOVL carrier comming on to the market it the US kitty and kennedy.
Being a oil burner shes the only one the US would concider to sell externally.
UK would be only buyer. US would only sell to UK, Australia, Canada or "tier 1 friendly". That means best friends, and the UK is the only one who could ever possibly run and protect them.
As for the Uk carriers.
Hmm. They would want to be cheap. Australia is concidering French Mistral and BPE and there are several small ships also a options. They run around billion each. They hold significantly more troops (1,100 + verse <500) and machinery and also offer amphib capability.
India might buy them as helicopter carriers, effectivly giving it 4 ex-fixed wing carriers.
Forget US getting rid of its harriers. They are rich enough to keep them in storage and sell parts to the UK and friendly navies with them that want to keep them going. You would be better off making a deal with thailand for theirs.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 11th November 2006 at 21:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and i think that they have all been reftited to the commando carrier ark royal has just come out of refit with a the capasitiy to take 400 troops. also ins viraat has the same ablitly the indians seem not to have to have removed the abliltly.
gorskhov won't have the ablility will it?
also has no body got any info on the us carrier offered during the falklands invasion.
Invincible could be used as an anti sub beater
WisePanda: 'while the AG/ADS-1 are nice to have, I dont see any activity on the front where IN really needs some teeth - "Nueva Moskva" ASW helicopter carriers to dominate and sanitize large areas against the submarine threat.
20Kt (vikrant sized)
25 knots top, 15 knots cruising'
to me that sounds like an to me Invincible :D
also they buy like the itaiaiens by as a anti sub or what ever and by harriers or JSFs ;)
one last thing what condion will the spanish and the itainen harriers be when they stop using them.
By: Anonymous - 11th November 2006 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, the American Carriers are pretty much worn out and to expensive to operate. Also, for many third world countries you could make the same claim about the ex-Invincible Class. Steel is cheap so why not enlarge a Principe de Asturias Design and have South Korea build them? A ship of that type could be purchased at a reasonable price and could be operate with much smaller crews.......... :rolleyes:
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 12th November 2006 at 01:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Many modern warships of the same age as Invincible are refitted and sold on for further service with other nations, and the Invincibles have been well maintained over the years. As I mentioned earlier they were designed on the principle of upkeep by replacement, so there are few 'original moving parts' remaining aboard any of them. The RN has a long tradition of recycling parts from one ship to keep others running, simply a matter of prudent management. The US CVs that are in reserve are another matter, they have been stripped of parts not just for re use in other carriers but also because the US government has no intention of selling them abroad to prevent them ending up in the hands of a hostile regime (unlikely I know, but these are the same people who believed Iraq was full of WMDs). Decommissioned US CVs are stricken almost immediately and have their catapults and arrestor gear removed. Even if they were maintained in operational condition for sale they would not be a good investment as they will have had a much longer service life than most other nations carriers (and hence a shorter remaining hull life) and being old designs they are manpower intensive, ie very high running costs, something even the USN is addressing in it's new CVN-21 design (starting with CVN78). The CVF design is almost as large as a Forrestal, but has a ships complement barely one third the size.
A second hand Invincible (or Garibaldi or PdA) would still be much cheaper than a new carrier to buy, but the cost of refitting it for service reduces this imbalance to a degree. The RNs Sea Harriers are currently in storage and most have been preserved in saleable condition. Some of the airframes are very 'low mileage', the last one came off the production line in 1998. The Blue Vixen radar system is included in the offer but not AMRAAM capability unless the americans agree to it, which is in part why the deal fell through with India. Thailands Harriers are probably the oldest examples in service anywhere in the world today (having been delivered to Spain as EAV-8S Matadors back in the mid 70s) and arguably the least capable too, lacking any radar, 'laser nose' or any means of targetting anything beyond visual range. They are probably most useful as training aircraft, and Thailand always struck me as the most likely buyer of Sea Harrier F/A 2s, up to twelve would meet their requirements and provide some real air defence capability and anti shipping potential, rather than the existing Harriers which are really 'just for show'.
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003 - 12th November 2006 at 08:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the US would allow the UK to use its carriers on some sort of lease arrangement. But they would be expensive, and difficult to man. I doubt the UK could justify it. But in a world of no STOVL what would they do? Build there own carrier..
The fact the UK and france are looking at building a new carrier that can handle non STOVL is part of this. F-35B looks pretty shakey.
How many of these countries would be better served with a proper LHD like the BDP which has 300% greater troop carrying ability over these semi carriers, run cheaper helicopters and can actually land all those troops with choppers or boats.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 12th November 2006 at 09:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
dosn't Invincible have davits for landing craft as part of the commando carrier converstion.
their is an advantage that the invincible have is speed over the BPE.
the us super carriers are a no go because most are in reseve and in a rotton condtion but what about their tawara and wasp classed of ships theyed make a good buy for a contry who whan't an flat deck
whats the background to Thailands buying a carrier
Posts: 819
By: broncho - 12th November 2006 at 10:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think the deal fell due to AMRAAM. IN does not use AMRAAM and never wanted it, unless they want a few to study them. IN will go for R-77 with Mig-29K and Derby missiles. It probably had more to do with cost of removing the blue vixens and upgrading them with Elta radars so that they could fire Derby or pythons.
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe - 12th November 2006 at 17:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i never say that all sea harrier will be retire, but you cannot lie that none will be retire when they cut down. that is when they can buy more for the invincible. plus when harrier is old, India can try to go for the JSF. you can say anything you want but JSF is better than MiG-29K
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 12th November 2006 at 18:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You've misunderstood:
ALL the Sea Harriers in the UK have already been retired. Those in the best condition are stored, & for sale. The remainder are being scrapped, or given to museums, etc. If no customers are found for the good ones, they'll also be scrapped or given away to museums.
Invincible is officially in reserve, & being kept there for a few more years. She will then be offered for sale. By the time she is sold, it is very unlikely indeed that we will have any Sea Harriers for sale. They'll all be in museums, gate guards at naval air stations, or scrapped.
Do you really think it would be sensible to buy JSF for a ship which will be 40 years old by the time India could take delivery of its first aircraft? Also, Invincible is uncomfortably small for the F-35, which weighs twice as much as the Harrier. It's been reported she'd need deck strengthening & new lifts. Worth it? I think not.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 12th November 2006 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AMRAAM had nothing to do with it. It was never offered & never asked for. The ex-RN Sea Harriers were offered with the Blue Vixen already removed, so the cost of that (& why do you think fitting an Elta radar would be an upgrade? More like a downgrade :D ) was not a factor. To the contrary, it's been reported that India didn't want the Harriers without the Blue Vixen radars.
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe - 12th November 2006 at 19:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
oh so they retire already? good now they can buy them or reserve them. alot of ship is old, i dont know if you know that. how old do you think India's current carrier is? 40 year old ship will actually be a step up!! espeshally if it is a well maintain ship! also they can use their regular Sea Harrier on it.. no need to do new pilot training like they do with MiG-29. by the time JSF can be bought, India already can produce their own carrier too. you worry for nothing. relax and realize the reality. :cool:
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003 - 12th November 2006 at 19:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
WASP are huge and man intensive ships. They are also STOVL carriers but are basically used as massive helicopter amphib carriers. They might be able to convert to take more than STOVL but not sure about what fighters it could take. Maybe Rafales? Catapults would have to be installed, maybe electric.
Australia concidered them, but rejected them. Too much to buy, too much to man, to much to fit with STOVL. 40,000 ton US ships aren't cheap, crew of a 1000 or something. UK has more money to play with, but not a lot more. BDP was a better buy. For either as a regular LHD, or as a amphibious, or as a full carrier. Crew of only 270 ment it wasn't unreasonable either was the purchase price. Australia will have two of the largest light carriers out their at over 24,000 tons each with the smallest option.
The future of the light carrier is shakey. Until the F-35B starts turning up in numbers fleets are stuck with quite old harriers which are either retired or in the process of retiring. They will be harder and harder to run.
JSF won't be cheap in 35B form. Try 100 million a pop. So even fitting a carrier out with 10 of them would cost over a billion. So going cheap on the carrier doesn't make sense.
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe - 12th November 2006 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
show me the proof that 100 million is the price of unit by itself.. no one order it yet so there is no real price. if you do have price then show me long plan cost of it when you compare operation fees of MiG-29K over 10 year period with JSF? when you buy airplane you do not just pay one time, you pay over life time in maintenance, life cycle, rehauling etc. so please provide this information and compare it to price versus capability ratio ok?
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 12th November 2006 at 20:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pay attention! India has been offered ex-RN Sea Harriers & rejected them. The UK wouldn't sell the radars, India didn't want them without radars. India is already building its own carrier, & the navy wants to build another, so that with ex-Gorshkov, they'll have 3. All will be able to operate CTOL aircraft.
Gottit now? You're proposing a possible future which has already been rendered out of date by events.
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003 - 12th November 2006 at 20:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Err, countries have definately seen a price list. However it is being scaled up all the time. Even the F-35A is rumored to be near $100 million a peice. http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/New-jet-fighters-could-cost-18-billion/2006/04/16/1145125994662.html
But if you wish figures I used for my statement are avalible here
http://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.html
I don't have access to a MiG-29k operation costs comparison. My knowledge is only from a Australian perspective and the Mig-29k is not on the shopping list.
My point wasn't to perform a price comparison that would take a committee of a dozen people with assistance from provider nations several months to compile.
My point is F-35B's are not cheap. 10 would be the same price as a whole new 27,000 ton light carrier, As a full carrier you would want atleast 20.
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe - 12th November 2006 at 20:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I see, so you saying India screw themself over by not going for it. sad story then. they could easily go to Israel for radar and then build carrier for stvol and no need to consider corkob retrofit. but maybe not so surprising, they still strong on old programs after all.
Posts: 3,396
By: star49 - 12th November 2006 at 21:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
how India screw itself? India is the only country which has the money and can get the best defense systems from both east/west. they got the best aircraft which is currently available. (with added benfit of customizing with Indian systems and french helmet sighting systems) and fastest and cheapest way of getting carrier like in 4 years time.
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe - 12th November 2006 at 21:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
oh so if they can do that how come they don have F-22 or Typhoon or JSF with Su-35UB or Leopard2A6? the guy up above you say the british will not sell them Radar?
even if they will sell them it, it do not mean India will always make the right purchase. how come they are buying LCA? is it the best fighter in the market? :rolleyes:
maybe your indian pride make you blind.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 12th November 2006 at 21:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why did I waste my time responding to you. Ah well, I won't make that mistake again. Do you know how many Sea Harriers were actually offered? Well, let's put it like this - it wasn't enough to provide an air component for the smallest carrier that would allow them to take off with a useful load. When will you get it through your thick head that the Harrier has no future? The only secondhand Harriers currently for sale are ex-RN Sea Harriers. There aren't enough of them for anyone to buy them except as attrition replacements or for training (what India considered them for). They aren't being offered in operational condition.
There are unlikely ever to be any useful number of secondhand Harriers for sale, & if any ex-USMC Harriers are sold, they'll have a very limited life, due to their number of flying hours. It will never again be worthwhile buying or building a ship to operate Harriers, except as an interim measure pending delivery of F-35B, & even then, only for fleets which already have Harriers.
Get over it.
Now, the Gorshov refit - that was underway long before the UK decided to retire the Sea Harrier early, so there was never an option to buy more Harriers & a STOVL ship as an alternative. And in any case, there aren't (& won't be) enough Sea Harriers for sale to make that an alternative.
All your scenarios require that things which have already happened should unhappen. You have to go back in time & change the past for your propositions to be possible. And that's not to do with Indias decisions, but decisions taken by others, which India could not influence.
Now go away & stop this trolling.