I know the french are not spending 6 billion on non nuclear carriers. The Ps are not ordinary boats. You don't know what's in them, this is the real deal not the astute.
Right.
So, first, you ignore totally the cost picture for four newly developed Dutch conventional submarines. Mind you, the proven, non-developmental Japanese
Soryu (which is a similarly large conventional sub) as proposed for Australia's requirement, with a three times larger production run of 13 planned boats, comes at a
unit cost of about $600-700 million (about €510-€595 million per boat). GO figure.
Second, total costs for Charles de Gaulle carrier topped €3 billion. She was laid down in 1989 and launched 1994. Construction quickly fell behind schedule as the project was starved of funding, which was worsened by the economic recession in the early 1990s. Work on the ship was suspended altogether on four occasions: 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1995. The ship was finally commissioned on 18 May 2001, five years behind the projected deadline.
Taking inflation into account (complicated a bit by the fact that the Euro was created only on 1st january 1999):
http://fxtop.com/en/inflation-calculator.php
So, in essence, you're looking at a unit cost of 4-5 billion Euro today for Charles the Gaulle, which uses the came nuclear power units as the Le Triomphant class SSBNs built during the same period: the Areva K15 pressurised water reactors (PWR), rated at 150 MWt (32 MWe) each.
The French Navy aimed to be a two-carrier navy, mainly to ensure that at least one ship is operational at all times even when the other is under repair. This scheme requires another aircraft carrier to be built; however,
Charles de Gaulle is the only aircraft carrier currently serving.
Cost considerations have made equipment standardization a necessity. In this context, there is a possibility of collaboration with Britain for future aircraft carriers. Thales UK (with BMT) made the design for the
Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier, suitable for construction for France as the French aircraft carrier PA2. Steps have been taken by both countries to make such a scenario possible: the new carrier had to be conventionally propelled to meet the requirements of the Royal Navy. France favoured nuclear propulsion, and a study is being conducted to see
if it is more cost efficient than gas turbines. However as of the 2013 French Defence White Paper, the plan for a second carrier has been cancelled.
And third, yes of course, India's 'P' ships aren't ordinary boats (you do realize that remark refers to ANY P-designation i.e from P16/16A Godavari/Brahmaputra to P28 Kamorta?). And "we", the internet savvy, cannot find out what's in them, since nothing is ever put out about it in the public domain, right? There never is any news about contracts for key components e.g. GTu's and automated propulsion control systems, or contracts for licence production of equipment such as radars or sonars, or weapon systems? What total non-sense!
P17A is projected at US$1.1 billion (€936 million) each. Why don't you compare that to the unit cost of Type 26?
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/navy-seals-45-000-cr-deal--seven-warships/479132
I'll tell you what, when you're done with the superiority complex, we can continue a mature discussion.
Good day.
@Penguin I wonder what advantages the P26 will have over this. I can see some edge in INS Kochi over the GCS-like speed, Barak 8 defense system which will be added etc. What do you think the GCS will have which this doesn't have? Even if there are some, I think that can be addressed through upgrades
UKs Type 26 should not be compared to an Aird-Warfare-Destroyer, as Type 26 is not intended as such (look at Type 45 for that). It's comparing apples and oranges. P17A now will also get Barak-8, but this was not initially/originally the case (the choice for rail launched Shtil in P17 still links to the original intention to fit VL Shtil on P17A), so that's a design change, which brings P15B and P17A much closer together in terms of capabilities. Likewise, P15A originally did not have Barak-8 (didn't exist yet when the ship project started), as is evident from e.g. the radar fit on early models
See e.g.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/make...e-indian-army-deal.400397/page-2#post-7711156
http://www. defence talk . com/pictures/data/3452/medium/p15a_1.jpg
There were 3 planned Kolkata class- all 3 have been inducted. I wonder how you call it delayed.
WHere did I say that about Kolkata class? (delusional)
It's one ship by 2022, and 2 ships each year from 2023-2025- I remember this from one of their tenders for helo landing grids (which now seems removed from the original website. I'll try to find it.
)
That would change the projection, yes. Also, the fact there will be 2 yards building rather than 1 should be taken into account in comparing with earlier building series....!
