Indian Acquisition of the Gorshkov

[zombie:-)]

Look at wiki. One more carrier is expected to be ordered. Also I guess the expected life of Gorshkov is very less.

what ...who said that india is going to order another carrier coz expected life of gorshkov is less ...please remember that indian navy wants two carriers operational at any given time hence the new carrier is ordered

 

[zombie:-)]

Exactly and we could use more than 30 fighters on it, but this Russian carrier is far too old, expensive and delayed. I never understand what we want to do with just 15 - 20 fighters, specially when some of them will be LCA. STOBAR limit the usefull load of a fighter, cause they have to carry more fuel. So where is the sense of a naval LCA, that can carry less load as a normal LCA?
Also if you want to attack land bases, or other carriers 15 - 20 fighters are not enough. Even our indigenous carrier will have hardly 20 - 30 fighters if I'm not wrong, but again the combination of STOBAR and LCA + Migs will limit it's capabilities.

If we want only small carriers, we should go for US Wasp class multi role carrier types, with different aircraft for different missions.

Sea Control
20 - AV-8B Harrier attack planes
6 – SH-60 Seahawk ASW helicopters

Assault
42 - CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters

or a mixture which could be usefull now against pirates now
4 - CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
4 - CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters
6 - UH-1N Huey helicopters
6 - AH-1W SuperCobra attack helicopter
10 - AV-8B Harrier attack planes

The Ships that patrol against pirats now have only one helicopter and you need many ships to control such a long coast, this kind of carrier would be a big help!

WESTERN FANBOYS AT THEIR BEST

i am not supporting the russee either

about STOBAR ....if russian carriers and their operational doctrine are so pathetic as you presume to be ...why is the IAC having STOBAR intead of CATOBAR ...why are the new British carriers having STOBAR even after bieng a major ally of the US and previously they were using CATOBAR ......

sorry to go off topic but its important
you know what when i was a kid i used to love discovery channel and i still do ,not to forget history channel .....their episodes on military stuff are good but being a sensible viewer we must know to separate all the crappy AMERICAN SYSTEMS ARE ALWAYS BEST stuff from common sense this anomility is also due to the fact that most english channels are controlled by the west....

back to the topic
when mentioning the so called limitations of STBAR let me mention the limitations of CATOBATR
A) incrases the airframe stress and hence decreasing its life

B) CATOBARS can be very resource hungry all that superheatd steam requires lots of energy hence lots of fuel if the ship is out of fuel ... all the planes will be stranded and wont be able to take off and remember its not neuclear powered its powered by four General Electric LM 2500 gas turbines, generating a total power of 80 MW (~ 120,000 hp).

C) maintainance nightmare ...what if it gets jammed again plane will be stranded

D) requires more crew ...atleast by numbers close to 300 to operate the catpults

now tell me smart *** which is better ....im not asking you to stop watching discovery or history channel ...but stop drooling over what they say have some common sense ....and if what if the planes cant carry the max load the are able to carry ....weapons are becoming smart and compact GONE ARE THE DAYS WHEN YOU EQUATE THE WEAPONS EFFECTIVE KILL RADIUS DIRECTLY TO IS WEIGHT ...give some thought to it instead of typing aimlessly typo

 

[zombie:-)]

one more thing YOU NEED SUPERCARRIERS WITH 60 PLANES ONLY WHEN YOU PLAN TO INVADE OTHER COUNTRY NOT WHEN DEFENDING YOUR COSTLINE FROM AN ENEMY ...SHORE BASED AIRCRADTS ARE MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR THAT

 

[DeathInvader]

Russian carriers are good but British Carriers are better........... There INS Viraat Previously HMS Hermes is still is a good condition for a tough fight.... The Hull and keel are still too strong..... So if India Navy would have gone for it i would have much satisfied......

Moreover Russians fooled us by claiming to give the ship for free with certain aircraft deals....... and now they threaten us to keep the ship if they were not paid......

The ship is so extensively refurbished dat its like a brand new now.......... and the STOBAR is hell lot better than CATOBAR.......but still its a refurbished ship and the cost shoulnt have gone more than $1 bn ! $3 bn is like getting a new aircraft carrier! but i feel that this is the last ship of this class that India is importing...........

 

[heartwinlion]

Our IAC is cost at $1 billon and we are buy a 25 yr old carrier at $ 3B did it make any sense it is better to convert these $3 billion into 3 IAC rather then go for old 25 yr AC with limited feature.

 

[heartwinlion]

And remember one think if you are not buy this ship then Russia have to get for his Navy. But Russian navy is not going for 25yr old ship from $3B. coze it is too expansive Russia can't afford it. Then again they come to you with actual price

 

[DeathInvader]

Our IAC is cost at $1 billon and we are buy a 25 yr old carrier at $ 3B did it make any sense it is better to convert these $3 billion into 3 IAC rather then go for old 25 yr AC with limited feature.

i agree completely

 

[sob]

russians have really taken undue advantage of India.
At this stage we cannot do anything. Officially how much money has been paid for this AC we do not know, but unfortunately there is no other option at this moment.

 

[heartwinlion]

russians have really taken undue advantage of India.
At this stage we cannot do anything. Officially how much money has been paid for this AC we do not know, but unfortunately there is no other option at this moment.

We can cancel the deal and ask to give our money back which they can't do that coze Russian economy down I think the reason behind this
Russia also wants AC on urgent basis (to fulfill his navy requiremnt) but they don’t have money to make it and it may take 7-8 yr for making. If India give the money (around 3 billon dollar), which they ask for, then they easily make a brand new ship if we cancel this ship they will got what they want.

 

[zombie:-)]

Russian carriers are good but British Carriers are better........... There INS Viraat Previously HMS Hermes is still is a good condition for a tough fight.... The Hull and keel are still too strong..... So if India Navy would have gone for it i would have much satisfied......

Moreover Russians fooled us by claiming to give the ship for free with certain aircraft deals....... and now they threaten us to keep the ship if they were not paid......

The ship is so extensively refurbished dat its like a brand new now.......... and the STOBAR is hell lot better than CATOBAR.......but still its a refurbished ship and the cost shoulnt have gone more than $1 bn ! $3 bn is like getting a new aircraft carrier! but i feel that this is the last ship of this class that India is importing...........

YOUR DELUSION of british carriers being superior is just BS ....the credit goes to the indian NAVY for maintaining in a really good condition ....remember at the 50th aniversary of viraat british people said viraat(hermes) is in better condition NOW than the time when it was handed over from the britsh navy to indian navy ..if the british navy thought the hull was still stong why would they sell it instead of using it ?????

cost is left to the armed forces and the govt to decide .....and people what do you think the defensive systems on the IAC is going to consist of i bet russian systems WILL BE THERE as they have been on the shivalik ....right now its inevitable

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

All Gorshkov related news here please, instead of new threads.

 

[sancho]

@ zombie

Before you call others fanboy or smart... you should read the post carefully and try to understand!
I think you don't even get one single point the way I meant it, so let me explain it for you again.

I am not against all Russian carriers, but like I said before this one is too old, expensive, delayed and can only carry a small number of aircrafts. The Admiral Kuznetsov class for example, can use double as much and way more capable fighters.

Can you show me at least one single sentence where I said anything about CATOBAR?

I am not against STOBAR, only against LCA with STOBAR, because I don't think that fighter is capable enough for carriers! We should save the money for developing N-LCA and use only Mig 29Ks, or if possible better fighters.

Since you already think that I am a smart... let me be one and explain you one more thing. The meaning of STOBAR is Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery, the only countries who are, or will using this type of carriers are Russia, India and maybe China. The British carriers also uses a skyjump to start, but not arrested recovery because they only use aircrafts that can land vertically (Sea Harrier, F35B and helicopter).

Also so I never said American stuff is the best, or that we need super carriers!
I said if we build small carriers, we should also build multi role versions, to use them for different missions. US Wasp class was only an example, the spanish Juan Carlos class (Australia also wants to build two of them) is another one. They are smaller then our Vikrant class, but can use as much aircrafts. Wasp class is the same size as Vikrant class, but can use more aircrafts.

Mission profile - Modernization - Armada Española

Hope you understand it now and next time...

give some thought to it instead of typing aimlessly typo

 

[zombie:-)]

are yaar main to thoda garam ho gaya tha

sorry for my rude remarks BUT lets keep aside the recovery of the aircraft part ....

Can you show me at least one single sentence where I said anything about CATOBAR?

STOBAR limit the usefull load of a fighter, cause they have to carry more fuel. So where is the sense of a naval LCA, that can carry less load as a normal LCA?

you are right when you asked me to show a sentence where you spoke about CATOBAR but you cant be speaking of any thing other than a CATOBAR in the obove quote LCA cannot land vertically so that you cannot be speaking of a brithish system hence i presume you are speaking of CATOBAR...
do you seriously think any fighter operating from a ramp like structure will be able to carry it full payload ...that too considering almost all ship based fighters are mostly derived from aircraft designed for operating from land ...in that case every fighter even the f-35b will be carriying much less than what a land based f-35 could carry ....i realise that in STOBAR or CATOBAR i.e, arrested recovery types we should remember that the landing weight should be compulsorily less than take off weight ..hence the requierment for fuel dumping systems hence this is the only area i feel the brithish carriers or the aircraft designed to operate from them would have an upper hand and seriously naval LCA will be a dream come true if they ever test a prototype from a STOBAR config. fanboyism aside but if these chaps couldnt convince the airforce and are developing LCA MK2 naval LCA will come later than that ....
about the migs THEY ARE structurally close to a mig 35 ...a unique case where a ship based fighter is being improved (downgraded????) to a land based one ...it carries 30% more fuel hence better than having a conventional mig-29 and defenitely cuts the time taken to know the airframe and its performance except that they should learn to land on small spaces
and the last sentence in my previous post targeting you weapons are getting smaller and meaner we have to worry about the range ...but now its been taken care of

ok now about the wasp class

The Wasp class can operate six to eight AV-8B Harrier IIs in the combat role, but can support up to 20.

operating aircrafts in combat roles and supporting them are completely different things ....an aircraft carrier can operate all the aircraft on board and supporting means just being able to fill up the tanks ...and why do we wanna talk about this when navys doing away with its fleet of harriers and we being a non ally status nation to the us av-8b and the f-35 are out of contest ...one more thing you can operate stovl aircraft on STOBAR carriers hence even INDIAN navy gets f-35b in the future we can operate them on the present carriers

and about LHD Juan Carlos I also will not come into the bicture unless av-8bs or f-35bs are in picture

i apologize once again for being rude ..thank you for your patience

 

[sancho]

Everyone can have a bad day, maybe that was urs, so forget about it.

but you cant be speaking of any thing other than a CATOBAR in the obove quote

No, I said that a light combat fighter is the worng aircraft for a stobar carrier, because you have to carry more fuel to start via skyjump and can take less weapons. Land version of LCA should have a payload of 4 to 5t, if you modify it with a better airframe and frontgear for carriers, the weight rises and the payload will sink. You said that new weapons are smaller and lighter. Maybe, but you must also consider that carrier fighters must work from great distances, so the have to take extra fuel tanks on every misson. Another point that reduce the payload that is left for weapons. If you combine it all (more fuel to start, more empty weight, extra fuel tanks under the wing) it makes N-LCA the least capable of all carrier based fighters and totally unnecessary. We should consentrate on clear all the other problems that bird has and induct it in IAF, instead of developing it for the navy.

about the migs THEY ARE structurally close to a mig 35 ...a unique case where a ship based fighter is being improved (downgraded????) to a land based one ...it carries 30% more fuel hence better than having a conventional mig-29 and defenitely cuts the time taken to know the airframe and its performance except that they should learn to land on small spaces

I think Mig 35 is a similar project as F18 Super Hornet, just an improved version from the old one. Bigger airframe, modified engine, some things here, some things there. I don't think it is a good fighter for MMRCA, but as a IN version it clearly has some benefits like you mentioned.

operating aircrafts in combat roles and supporting them are completely different things ....an aircraft carrier can operate all the aircraft on board and supporting means just being able to fill up the tanks ...and why do we wanna talk about this when navys doing away with its fleet of harriers and we being a non ally status nation to the us av-8b and the f-35 are out of contest ...one more thing you can operate stovl aircraft on STOBAR carriers hence even INDIAN navy gets f-35b in the future we can operate them on the present carriers

In a sea control mode they carry only 6 - 8 Harriers + many transport and attack helicopter. But you can also put just harriers on it, then it can operate 20+ harriers. Only in war times we need that much or more fighters on a carrier, that's why I'd like to see at least one MR carrier in IN.
Navy want's more capabel fighters then our old Harriers that's right, but that doesn't mean we don't want stovl fighters. There was official reports that IN is interested in F35B and LM already offered us F35 but we have to take F16IN before(which is stupid). I think IN will try anything to get them for our indigenous carriers and we are clearly getting closer ties with US, so let's wait and hope that they can fix the deal in some years.

 

[Gabbar]

INS Vikramaditya delivery in 2012: Indian Navy chief news

Panaji: India is likely to take delivery of the long-delayed INS Vikramaditya (ex- Admiral Gorshkov\) aircraft carrier by 2012, according to Indian Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta. He indicated that the matter was on track and only some ''small monetary issues'' needed to be resolved.

''We hope to have the ship in the next two years. There are certain small monetary issues which are being tackled by the government,'' the admiral said on the sidelines of a function organised by Goa Shipyard Limited in the Goa port town of Vasco.

Adm Mehta said that the process of the carrier's transfer was ''progressing satisfactorily''.

The function marked the launch of the largest Indian-built offshore patrol vessel INS Saryu,

Meanwhile in Russia, media reports have quoted Anatoly Isaikin, CEO of Rosoboronexport Corporation, the Russian arms export monopoly, as saying, "Negotiations are currently underway about the setting up of delivery in 2012 and finalising increasing cost of warship."

Isaikin said the Indians understood that the initial price quoted was obviously low and should be revised upwards.

The 44-thousand ton Kiev-class carrier Admiral Gorshkov, was originally meant for induction as INS Vikramaditya in the Indian Navy in August 2008.

The Rosoboronexport official attributed the massive slippage in the project to the deal being signed hastily without proper technical and economic calculations.

''However, this money was not enough (to complete the work). This is also a lesson for us,'' Isaikin told government daily 'Rossiskaya Gazeta'.

According to Isaikin, half the work had been completed and an Indian naval team was supervising the work.

Earlier, a spokesman of Severodvinsk-based SevMash shipyard said that India has made some advance payment pending the final price negotiations and the work was at full swing.

India and Russia had signed a $1.5 billion deal for the Adm Gorshkov carrier, subsequently renamed INS Vikramaditya, in 2005. Of this amount, some $900 million was meant for retrofitting the ship and the remaining was to pay for a squadron of MiG-29K fighters that were to be deployed onboard the ship.

Admiral Gorshkov had been mothballed after a crippling blaze in 1995.

Citing unforeseen expenses, Russia unilaterally raised the price of the refurbishment to $1.2 billion and subsequently to $2.9 billion. The two sides have met repeatedly to resolve the issue.

Adm Mehta also spoke of a long-term plan to strengthen the Indian Navy. ''We are looking at a fleet of 160 warships and 300 aircraft by 2022,'' he said.