Carrier OR Refund?

In the late 1960s the US offered Essex-class fleet carriers to Britain.

Of course, by that time they were a 20-year-old design that shared very little with those currently being built in the US.

Additionally, the ones offered weren’t the modernized ones, they were the unmodified ones that had been in reserve for years, so that Britain could modify them to suit the RN.

Refitting the Kennedy would have cost less than they’ve paid for this CV.

No fleet carrier or nuke carrier has ever been given over to a foreign navy. Most have been scrapped or sunk. A few remain on ‘museum hold’. Only 3 CVL ever transferred and served in foreign navies (Langley, Belleau Wood > France: Cabbot > Spain). Eventually these too were returned to the US and scrapped.

There are two possibilities with regard to the PDA,

The first speaks JEMAD (Chief of Staff of the Navy) that the carrier will be scrapped.

http://www.revistanaval.com/noticia/20120721-020315-revista-prensa/

While the defense minister said shortly after the aircraft carrier would be held in reserve with minimal resources, ie the port anchor and without spending one euro on it.

http://www.infodefensa.com/cache_noticias/el-/el-portaaviones-principe-de-asturias-tendra-minimos-recursos-de-mantenimiento-2.html

The PDA requires a thorough review of electronic equipment, propulsion plant, improved habitability, etc.

Now all naval resources will be focused on the L61 JCI LHD

1Saludo

Agreed, I don’t expect India to even ask about either ship.

Agreed that Garibaldi represents the same potential for extending the IN’s Sea Harrier deployment option as PdeA.

I suggested PdeA as the better option simply as, I’ve read, she’s in serious need of a refit before she puts out to sea on a full operational deployment again. Reading the stories coming out of Spain at the moment its hard to see where they are going to get the money to pay for an expensive refit for a vessel past her prime, so, I could have seen the Spanish govt being more than happy to have that particular burden taken off their hands.

Garibaldi does of course make equal sense from the commonality standpoint and, potentially if the IN started talking about design assistance/contract involvement for IAC-2 that could go to Italian yards, its entirely possible that Garibaldi could be made available very reasonably. As you say she’s likely in far better nick than the Spanish ship and could possibly even go over as an active transfer.

I have to state that I dont expect this to happen….I think the political momentum behind the Gorshkov will be irresistible and the simple ‘big grey boat’ dynamic will appeal to too many of the uninitiated. I just think its wrong to state that there is no other, or better, alternative?!.

Wan,
Originally, in about 2003, it was HMS Invincible which was, even then, slated for a spell at extended readiness. History shows us she could have been in IN service at latest towards the end of ’06 and had been the recipient of a 10yr refit shortly before.

Today PdA is the ideal option as it even shares its gas turbine type with the IAC. She is, apparently, sorely in need of a refit but, again, a decent refit is not going to cost a great deal compared to the Gorshkov spend.

Selling PdA would be possible, but there could be some political difficulties. It would leave the Armada with no dedicated carrier, something it fought hard to get, & would fight hard to keep. Even a dedicated carrier in reserve represents a commitment to keeping the capability.

Giuseppe Garibaldi, on the other hand, presents no such problems, as her (much larger, much more capable) successor is in service. She’s only slightly older than PdA, & while a little smaller & less capable, has room for all the Harriers the IN has, or could realistically expect to get its hands on, & would last as long as the Harriers. She also has the same type of turbines as the IAC, & the entire propulsion system is from the same Italian firm, hence one source for support.

AFAIK Garibaldi hasn’t been formally put up for sale, but I reckon an enquiry would be welcomed by the government & not opposed by the navy, which is currently more concerned about funding for the LHA-type ship it’s seeking to operate alongside Cavour when Garibaldi retires.

Garibaldi had major maintenance from September 2008 into early 2009.

Refitting the Kennedy would have cost less than they’ve paid for this CV.

Would the price include an air wing?

Supposedly the Gorshkov deal is connected with the Nerpa lease and assistance with the Arihant + its missiles.
That is something no European country was/can offer.

you sir, also make a good point.. there are some things that Europe can’t offer to India that Russia could.. however its still quite possible India could decouple the Gorky and the Nerpa/Arihant deals, perhaps by paying a bit more or offering something else.

Refitting the Kennedy would have cost less than they’ve paid for this CV.

Even now it is in both India’s and Russia’s interest for the deal to go through. The reality is it is still the quickest way for India to procure this type of carrier and they can afford it the $3.2 billion is very little to the Indian economy which as a BRIC country can access finance very easily. Russia needs the manufacturing base to help its economy so even if the Government has to cover the costs and the whole deal loses them some money it will be worth it in terms of wider economic growth and future opportunities.

So from an economic and military perspective apart from that the whole programme has been a farce it still makes sense to complete it. The only thing which could stop it is politics if someone decides they have to take a particular stance for whatever political reason.

It may or may not be in both parties interest. But what we do know is that a full refund with interest is good for IN to invest in new platforms as much that amount is nothing big for Russia to part with. Last time when the delay was mentioned, there was so much shouting and finger pointing, even by then Navy Chief (F-18 promoter during MMRCA), who pulled out some serious words. When things started to go over the line through the media, Russia offered to take back the ship, which finally ended the politics played by our Yankee Admiral.

That same thing will be repeated this time if the media continue to assault and Govt of India & Indian Navy fail to come up with an explanation. But this time, if we get to that level —- its actually Good News for both India & Russia. As India can claim a full refund with interest and use that amount for new carrier and the benefit for Russia would be a completely upgraded carrier.

If Indian Navy can enhance its sea control & strike capability from the seas with the carrier, Russian Navy too would be gaining the same capability with the same carrier. So its a great deal for Russia. All signs point out that such an opportunity is soon to knock the Russian doors once again, once we get to know about the full scope of work on the carrier. Only a complete idiot in Russia would let go off that carrier in such a situation. It would be a good addition to the Russian Naval fleet now and neither the ship nor the yard will have to receive the bad mouthing from the media.

India Navy can definitely do without that carrier. In addition the crew & personnel in Navy who supported INS Vikramaditya & find value in its capability will be spared of mud-slinging & other form of personal attacks from the media for the next 30 years, the time for which the carrier is likely to be operated by Indian Navy once commissioned.

So by taking back the carrier, Russia will not just be augmenting its own naval capability, but she will also be indirectly helping the Indian Navy personnel who found value with the carrier from getting targeted by the media and the opposing group.

It is almost amusing that the ship itself appears to be trying to reprieve the Indian Navy from its seemingly inescapable burden!.

Yes and Indian Navy should utilize this opportunity to make a clear cut decision if they feel the ship is going to be a burden and let it go.

The irony is also nearly unbelievable that the principle justification for carrying through with this deal is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago….that there is ‘no other option’.

10 years ago there might not have been an option, but now there is in the form of CVF, PA2 or even the IAC-I. With the refund, IN can either try buying the 2nd ship of CVF class or invest that money into building another 1-2 units of Project-71 in Cochin Shipyard Limited. If CSL can start the 2nd ship next year itself, they will be able to float out the ship in 3-4 years and Indian Navy can commission the two ships in quick succession. i.e in 2018, first of the IAC-I will be in service and in 2018-2019, the second unit can also enter service.

But would any other navy be interested in buying the Gorky off the Injuns?

Russia!

If Indian Navy can enhance its sea control and strike capability from the seas, Russian Navy too can derive the same capability from Gorshkov. It can also help the SSBN deployment in the pacific or atlantic from the current bastion basing, by giving them a helping hand…

I somehow doubt we’ll get the full $3.2 billion back. I don’t think there’s any clause in the contract for returning the entire ship once complete.

Even if possible, the Indian Navy wouldn’t do it because it has no choice. Like it or not, we are stuck with a bad deal. We need the carrier, whatever the condition it’s in.

well, that $3.2 billion is a loose speculative figure just to give an idea. There need not be a clause, it can be arranged with mutual consultation. But such a refund can only happen only & only if Russia demands the ship back OR if Indian Navy demands it to be taken back. At the same time, such a cancellation will also not move forward, if Indian Navy is not ready to part with the carrier it have waited for so many years.

There is nothing like a bad deal in this case. The ship is not yet in service and still under Russian flag. Indian Navy need not have to go ahead if it feels it is a bad deal and Indian Govt will whole-heartedly support that decision. They have got the time to cancel it. No one is forcing the Navy to induct the ship. There is only two clear cut outcome in this deal, not even a middle ground as unlike the past, Navy have the ability to get the funds it need and Govt the mindset to provide the required funds.
So if it is a…
Bad Deal – Indian Navy cancel the deal & gets the refund!
Good Deal – Indian Navy goes ahead and inducts the ship!

Lol, russia does not give refunds.

What we should do is abandon the deal. Stop all payments immediately, take back all indian equipment and forget about the money spent and the ship.

Bare the loss and get over it. Let the russians keep the ship.

why bare the loss??
If a deal is to be ended, there definetely will be a refund.

I feel that people are over-reacting to what is a manageable issue. Solve the insulation problems, repair the boilers or fit new ones and all of this needs to be managed by the shipyard and its suppliers without dragging the customer into the muck with claims that the warranty had expired BEFORE the boilers were even fit into the ship. If they try to extract more money out of the IN, then it may well end up being the last straw. And put in clauses that ensure that such problems don’t become recurring ones for the INS Vikramaditya, else she’ll end up being a dock queen rather, spending more time in refits than on sea.

Agree on the over-reaction, but things have already shown signs of where it is headed, atleast with the media guys. From the said time for repairs, it looks there will be penalty for sure. But that is not going to end the media from future sensational news after it is inducted.

From the IN’s perspective, the MiG-29K/KUB has probably been the silver lining in the cloud. The first squadron has been established and they’ve already gone past 1000 hours of flying operations since then. It gives them a naval fighter that is many times more capable than the Sea Harrier and at a fairly decent price as compared to the only other real option they had- the Rafale M.

Rafale-M never presented itself as a real option, neither in terms of its readiness as a multi-role platform or in terms of space utilisation on the deck & inside the hanger. The first of the operational multi-role Rafale-M came out only in 2005-2006, where as MiG-29K were multirole since more than 15years before Rafale-M. Without folding wings, at 10.8m wingspan, the Rafale-M would have took more space than MiG-29K with 7.8m wingspan folded. In addition to that, the STOBAR capablity of Rafale-M with different payloads is yet to be seen or heard from Dassault.

The only other option was Su-33 and as you know, it was rejected due to its size. Even for Kuznetsov class,its large. For best utilisation of the Su-33 class of fighter, probably a Nimitz class carrier is requird.

As for suggestions of going for Varyag instead, remember it was an incomplete hulk sitting in an Ukrainian shipyard. She was not for sale to be completed as a warship and many considered her beyond economic completion. That China was prepared to fudge the whole end use issue (and still do) and actually complete her is amazing. Then again they appear to have gutted much of the hull and I doubt we will ever know how much money they burnt to complete the ship. It appears to be a money no object project for the China navy and Dalian had the advantage over Sevmash of suitable dry dock facilities and gantry cranes.

China have had their set of problems during trials which we can see from the trials they conducted. They have been sorting it out after every outing. In the case of Vik, the problems encountered were to be sorted out after the completion of 124 day sea trial. But problems with boilers came in and so we are in for a major delay.

Supposedly the Gorshkov deal is connected with the Nerpa lease and assistance with the Arihant + its missiles.
That is something no European country was/can offer.

Wan,

PdA aside (which only apparently became an option in may 2012), which other Euro CVS’ would have been or are available at the time the Indian’s need to decide?

Originally, in about 2003, it was HMS Invincible which was, even then, slated for a spell at extended readiness. History shows us she could have been in IN service at latest towards the end of ’06 and had been the recipient of a 10yr refit shortly before.

Today PdA is the ideal option as it even shares its gas turbine type with the IAC. She is, apparently, sorely in need of a refit but, again, a decent refit is not going to cost a great deal compared to the Gorshkov spend.

Italy,

but its easy to say that in retrospect.

Quite a few said it before the deal as well!

But would any other navy be interested in buying the Gorky off the Injuns?

No.

It is almost amusing that the ship itself appears to be trying to reprieve the Indian Navy from its seemingly inescapable burden!. The irony is also nearly unbelievable that the principle justification for carrying through with this deal is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago….that there is ‘no other option’.

There are, of course, options to simply skip Gorshkov as a bad idea. They would involve dragging on the Sea Harrier with the current ship or picking up a discarded european CVS like Principe de Austrias for the cost of a refit. The current IN SHAR inventory is light but could be augmented from a couple of potential sources going forwards…not least the half a dozen complete FA2 airframes at Culdrose. Recompense from the Gorshkov deal would more than cover any costs for refitting a CVS and regenerating half a dozen airframes in the near term.

IAC commissions, last I heard, 2017ish according to current scheduling…a schedule that seems generous enough to cope with a good few set backs. Running with whichever CVS until then presents no apparent issue I can see in terms of the IN’s strategic situation. IAC takes over after that with CVS covering refits, and modest deployments, until the Harriers expire around 2020. They then run on with IAC-1 and the small pool of Fulcrum-K’s until the first CATOBAR carrier is online middle of the next decade. Then, I’d imagine, pass the Fulcrums to the IAF and convert IAC to CATOBAR with a couple of EMCATs to buy some time until IAC-3 can be built.

Thats the alternative. The only real reason for continuing with Gorshkov at this point is the momentum thats built up in the contract. The IN want better than STOBAR delivers already and Rafale is on the way regardless. STOBAR buys time for IAC-2 and Rafale-M but you have IAC-1 to deliver it…with a vessel that promises to be considerable cheaper than the Russian built unit to run.

I’m starting to see your point and it does seem to make sense.. the IN should’ve went catobar and Rafale-M to begin with, not Gorky and Miggy. but its easy to say that in retrospect. perhaps this is a good opportunity to cut the gangrene hand. But would any other navy be interested in buying the Gorky off the Injuns?

a discarded european CVS like Principe de Austrias f

In May 2012 rumours emerged that the Príncipe de Asturias could be withdrawn from active service and placed in a state of “restrictive standby” along with two of the F-80 Santa Maria class frigates due to the financial pressures on the Spanish government. Any decision on the fate of the vessel would have to be taken at the highest possible level due to the status of the ship as the flagship of Spanish Navy.

NO such decision has been taken yet…. the operant term is ‘considering’

PdA aside (which only apparently became an option in may 2012), which other Euro CVS’ would have been or are available at the time the Indian’s need to decide? The Invincible class remained in service or went to the breakers when retired. Foch went to Brazil, with Clemenceau providing spares. Garibaldi remains in service. There WERE no available discarded Euro CVS’ and there MAY be 1 in the forseeable future.

OTherwise, agree

It is almost amusing that the ship itself appears to be trying to reprieve the Indian Navy from its seemingly inescapable burden!. The irony is also nearly unbelievable that the principle justification for carrying through with this deal is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago….that there is ‘no other option’.

There are, of course, options to simply skip Gorshkov as a bad idea. They would involve dragging on the Sea Harrier with the current ship or picking up a discarded european CVS like Principe de Austrias for the cost of a refit. The current IN SHAR inventory is light but could be augmented from a couple of potential sources going forwards…not least the half a dozen complete FA2 airframes at Culdrose. Recompense from the Gorshkov deal would more than cover any costs for refitting a CVS and regenerating half a dozen airframes in the near term.

IAC commissions, last I heard, 2017ish according to current scheduling…a schedule that seems generous enough to cope with a good few set backs. Running with whichever CVS until then presents no apparent issue I can see in terms of the IN’s strategic situation. IAC takes over after that with CVS covering refits, and modest deployments, until the Harriers expire around 2020. They then run on with IAC-1 and the small pool of Fulcrum-K’s until the first CATOBAR carrier is online middle of the next decade. Then, I’d imagine, pass the Fulcrums to the IAF and convert IAC to CATOBAR with a couple of EMCATs to buy some time until IAC-3 can be built.

Thats the alternative. The only real reason for continuing with Gorshkov at this point is the momentum thats built up in the contract. The IN want better than STOBAR delivers already and Rafale is on the way regardless. STOBAR buys time for IAC-2 and Rafale-M but you have IAC-1 to deliver it…with a vessel that promises to be considerable cheaper than the Russian built unit to run.

Would be wise for India, if not for the fact that there’s no chance the Brazilians would buy her.

The Brazilian navy is not in the least interested in a STOBAR carrier. It already has a cat & trap carrier, operating recently modernised aircraft which need catapults, & wants to replace it with one or (preferably) two new cat & trap carriers eventually.

Agree with all those who say that India should carry on with the deal. IMO it was the wrong decision to have Gorshkov rebuilt, but it’s too late to reconsider. Any alternative would take much longer & cost much more than fixing Vikramaditya.

it would be very foolish to stop the Gorshkov at this late a stage, but it would be very wise that once its fixed and transferred to the Indians.. that they sell it to the Brazilians at a higher cost..win-win for Indiana. :diablo:

Agree with all those who say that India should carry on with the deal. IMO it was the wrong decision to have Gorshkov rebuilt, but it’s too late to reconsider. Any alternative would take much longer & cost much more than fixing Vikramaditya.