Return of the Gorshkov saga

Since your English is lacking, I’ll have to explain this a little more in depth. You suggest that the Gorshkov would be put out of active duty soon after the IAC was up, and therefore suggested that the vessel is a waste of money for India. Since the IAC is no where to be seen, this is clearly nonsense (the point I was making). That is all.

No, I never said that Gorschkov was a waste of money for that reason, if I did you would be able to qoute me, once again you have resorted to lying.:mad:

Why the hell did you make that post, all you actually did was agree with me, do you actually bother to read before posting?:rolleyes:

Since your English is lacking, I’ll have to explain this a little more in depth. You suggest that the Gorshkov would be put out of active duty soon after the IAC was up, and therefore suggested that the vessel is a waste of money for India. Since the IAC is no where to be seen, this is clearly nonsense (the point I was making). That is all.

It’s not going to be retired the moment the IAC is put to sea, or anytime soon after.

By the time 2 IACs are up, if ever, the Gorshkov will retire, yes, but I assure you with the way things in India go, it’ll be a while.

Why the hell did you make that post, all you actually did was agree with me, do you actually bother to read before posting?:rolleyes:

Precisely, but roles shift, with the Gorky being an aging and unique hull for the IN she will easily be the first to be retired and a jaunts as a training vessel or other ignominious non frontline tasks are more likely in the medium to long term, as a result.

It’s not going to be retired the moment the IAC is put to sea, or anytime soon after.

By the time 2 IACs are up, if ever, the Gorshkov will retire, yes, but I assure you with the way things in India go, it’ll be a while.

At what point did I say it would rot? I simply suggested that with two fully operational, cheaper to operate and maintain and capable of being operational for longer the ex Gorschkov is going to have a reduced status even if it is just fewer sea days, which should be expected anyway given the ships age and dated machinery. If you have three pieces of machinery and two of them work better than the third you will use the other two more.:rolleyes:

That is clearly a reasonable view………

Of course. Each machine still increases production (defense). As long as its still profitable (which of course doesn’t apply here).

Precisely, but roles shift, with the Gorky being an aging and unique hull for the IN she will easily be the first to be retired and a jaunts as a training vessel or other ignominious non frontline tasks are more likely in the medium to long term, as a result.

At what point did I say it would rot? I simply suggested that with two fully operational, cheaper to operate and maintain and capable of being operational for longer the ex Gorschkov is going to have a reduced status even if it is just fewer sea days, which should be expected anyway given the ships age and dated machinery. If you have three pieces of machinery and two of them work better than the third you will use the other two more.:rolleyes:

Of course. Each machine still increases production (defense). As long as its still profitable (which of course doesn’t apply here).

Yeah, the Indian Navy is just going to let a ship they bought rot. . . grand logic lawrence.

If you get two pieces of machinery, and can use them both to better yourself, you don’t let the other one rot.

At what point did I say it would rot? I simply suggested that with two fully operational, cheaper to operate and maintain and capable of being operational for longer the ex Gorschkov is going to have a reduced status even if it is just fewer sea days, which should be expected anyway given the ships age and dated machinery. If you have three pieces of machinery and two of them work better than the third you will use the other two more.:rolleyes:

It does not matter whether the IAC is built quickly or not, as soon as two of them are in the water expect Gorky to return to her seemingly natural state of not so well maintained pier side hulk.

Yeah, the Indian Navy is just going to let a ship they bought rot. . . grand logic lawrence.

If you get two pieces of machinery, and can use them both to better yourself, you don’t let the other one rot.

Bhagira…disruptive behavior…GTFO (get thyself fully offline 😀 ) Sorry for the delay, my internet connection has been sporadic thanks to some local construction.

And this will be the last thing I say to you guys about one particular issue: responding to an idiot in like form is NOT ACCEPTABLE. It never has been. Why you can’t figure that out or grasp that very simple concept is beyond me. Anyway I’ll delete the lunacy from Bhagira a bit later (I still have to clean the IAF thread now that I think about it).

USS,

Have little time at present to fully reply but just to pick up on a couple of points.

The US figure reported by FAS is suspect. They quote the same figure, IIRC, for the Kittyhawk CV as the Nimitz CVN which is plainly absurd. Year on year costs for a CVN are skewed by the fact that they dont need fossil fuel for propulsion and, naturally, fuel burn is a key factor in operations costs. Costs for Gorshkov, otherwise, will be comparable with Kittyhawk as many of the same cost factors are present. The smaller airgroup and lack of cats will see Gorshkov being a bit cheaper of course.

No it doesnt – which is the whole point. In whole-life terms the Gorshkov will likely cost, over a 20yr service life, about US$8bn. Another solution that also costs US$8bn is, by definition, no more expensive – effectively what you are doing is loading the same spend on acquisition rather than support costs. The $700mn for 16 Mig-29’s isnt effected whether they would be embarked on Gorshkov or a European alternative. Airgroup costs would be the same if both were specced for STOBAR and both used MiG-29.

Rafale-M is, IMO, the premier carrier fighter in existence and it is expensive…who knows what kind of deal the French would’ve offered if DCNS got the carrier deal and the IAF MMRCA contest was dangled though?. As it is thats all fantasy-football of course but it is very interesting to compare an Indian Navy operating 3 Rafale-equipped evolved CdeG carriers, with money saved on the whole IAC project, and with an airforce sporting 120 plus Rafale compared to what will be now?. If I was Indian I would be disappointed in what was being achieved with my taxes!.

Really, India knew the ex-Gorshkov was a compromise at best and a expensive one at that. Yet, the major advantage at least in India’s eyes. Was she would get the Carrier by late 2008. Now combined with a delay of several years and the vast increase in the cost of the deal. I believe most would have to consider the deal as a failure………

Let’s not forget South Korea could have likely built a IAC Carrier for less and quicker than many European Yards. As a matter of fact the South Korean have expressed interests in Carriers like many other Nations from around the World. So, constructing a Carrier for India would have given them first hand experience building one. Hey, maybe this would license build the IAC for the South Korean Navy! Regardless, India had and still has options…….

The cavour must be highly automated. Even the IN’s latest destroyers (P15) are estimated to have close to 300 plus crew complement. the shivaliks are at 250 plus crew.

Probably is very automated. But also, her weapons fit is more limited than that of a destroyer, which saves crew, big gas turbine propulsion systems don’t need proportionately more maintenance than small ones (they’re not proportionately more complicated), etc, etc. For comparison, the Italian Orizzontes have 189 ship crew, with space for 230 – 13 for the helicopter, 20 for an optional command group, & a squad of marines. That’s for a ship 25% of the displacement of Cavour. Type 45 is about the same: 190 with space for 235.

Perhaps, but there is also the distinct possibility that they knew exactly what they were getting into and still found the Gorky preferable to a Euro built IAC.

Yes, possible, but since the Sea Harrier fiasco, I’m deeply cynical of the INs procurement procedures, which up to that point I’d thought were rather better than the other services. If anyone can explain the logic of that decision to me, I’d be very grateful: having decided to upgrade their old SHARs with EL/M-2032 & Derby, they rejected ex-RN SHARs on the grounds that they were offered without radars & missiles, i.e. ready to accept the kit that was to be installed in the rest of the fleet! Doh!

BTW, don’t forget that acquisition costs for a carrier & its aircraft will be spread over several years. I believe the usual deal is a down payment after contract signature, & regular stage payments as construction milestones are passed.

USS,

Have little time at present to fully reply but just to pick up on a couple of points.

I don’t get it, the USN Nimitz class super carriers cost around $ 160 million (FY 1996, lets say $ 300 million as of present) to operate annuaylly, why should the Gorky cost that much?

The US figure reported by FAS is suspect. They quote the same figure, IIRC, for the Kittyhawk CV as the Nimitz CVN which is plainly absurd. Year on year costs for a CVN are skewed by the fact that they dont need fossil fuel for propulsion and, naturally, fuel burn is a key factor in operations costs. Costs for Gorshkov, otherwise, will be comparable with Kittyhawk as many of the same cost factors are present. The smaller airgroup and lack of cats will see Gorshkov being a bit cheaper of course.

Even going by your figures – $ 300m for Gorky & $ 200 m for european built IAC, a difference of $ 100 million per year, the Gorky turns out a much cheaper deal. Now, the Gorky costs $ 2.7 billion including a 16 MiG-29k airwing, while the cost of an IAC built in Eur, would cost about $ 4 billion according to your estimate, plus lets add at least another 2 + billion for the a/c (probly rafales).

No it doesnt – which is the whole point. In whole-life terms the Gorshkov will likely cost, over a 20yr service life, about US$8bn. Another solution that also costs US$8bn is, by definition, no more expensive – effectively what you are doing is loading the same spend on acquisition rather than support costs. The $700mn for 16 Mig-29’s isnt effected whether they would be embarked on Gorshkov or a European alternative. Airgroup costs would be the same if both were specced for STOBAR and both used MiG-29.

Rafale-M is, IMO, the premier carrier fighter in existence and it is expensive…who knows what kind of deal the French would’ve offered if DCNS got the carrier deal and the IAF MMRCA contest was dangled though?. As it is thats all fantasy-football of course but it is very interesting to compare an Indian Navy operating 3 Rafale-equipped evolved CdeG carriers, with money saved on the whole IAC project, and with an airforce sporting 120 plus Rafale compared to what will be now?. If I was Indian I would be disappointed in what was being achieved with my taxes!.

USS and Nick,

Sorry for the delay in replying to this. Lots of chaff in the way from our new friend with the recurring cat theme in his persona.

No worries. Yeah, we need a Sher Khan type mod on this thread ASAP 😀

Where are you getting the crew figures from?.

From BR.

The crew of a Cavour is less than 500 personel – why does IAC require more than double or even triple that…even if you figure in flight deck personnel you are only adding a couple of hundred extra hands at most. I cannot conceive of a need for 1200 crew on IAC unless something is seriously amiss with the spec of the ship.

The cavour must be highly automated. Even the IN’s latest destroyers (P15) are estimated to have close to 300 plus crew complement. the shivaliks are at 250 plus crew.

The original price solely for the refit of the Adm Gorshkov was released as US$700mn. That price alone has now raised by, if reports are correct, an additional US$1.2bn. So we have $2bn near as damnit for the free carrier to reach Indian service entry.

Fair enough. Catch at least an extra $ 1.5-2 billion for an IAC built in Europe. $ 4 billion perhaps?

That is before we look at whole-life expenditure which is the real factor of note as it will, rapidly, outstrip the initial build cost of the vessel itself. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Gorshkov averages out at $300mn per annum in ops costs – considering an RN CVS tips in at about half that figure I’d say its good enough for ballpark. Its going to cost triple its acquisition price again by the end of a 20yr service life.

I don’t get it, the USN Nimitz class super carriers cost around $ 160 million (FY 1996, lets say $ 300 million as of present) to operate annuaylly, why should the Gorky cost that much?

Whole life, including the new sticker price, you are looking at $8bn to keep what will be a modest number of unproven Russian fighters at sea. Without the costs of the fighters themselves.

$ 8 billion sounds high in view of the FAS figures, but you probly have a much better idea. So for the sake of convenience, we’ll stick to your figures for now.

So what you are looking for is a better solution than Gorshkov with a whole-life budget of US$8bn. If you can acquire a modern and efficient hull you shave $100mn off that operations cost a year. Remember CVF – 2 hulls aimed at ops costs of £200mn (US$400mn) or one hull, roughly, $200mn USD per annum. 20 years at $200mn -> $4bn in ops budget.

Even going by your figures – $ 300m for Gorky & $ 200 m for european built IAC, a difference of $ 100 million per year, the Gorky turns out a much cheaper deal. Now, the Gorky costs $ 2.7 billion including a 16 MiG-29k airwing, while the cost of an IAC built in Eur, would cost about $ 4 billion according to your estimate, plus lets add at least another 2 + billion for the a/c (probly rafales). So you have a difference of 3.5 billion $s just in acquistion costs! That Sir is a LOT of upfront dinero AND it’ll take a damn long time to even out.

for the same whole life cost, with an economical hull, India could’ve spent $4bn upfront on a carrier – present $4bn to Izar, DCN or Fincantieri in 2005 and they would have come up with a very nice vessel for you.

Not exactly. Let see, $ 4 billion (acquisition cost for ship) + $ 2 ++ billion (acquisition of Rafale types) = $6+ billion in just acquisition costs! Add to that $ 200 mil per year operation costs and you have a cost of $ 10 billion over a period of 20 years.
Compare this to the Gorky. $ 1.9 billion (acquisition cost for ship) + $ 750 million (acquisition cost of Mig-29ks) = $ 2.7 billion in acquisition costs. Add to that $ 300 mil per year operation costs and you have a cost of $ 8.7 billion for 20 years.
Despite going with your numbers, the gorky turns out a good $ 1.3 billion cheaper!

This isnt the end of it either…with a modern design in Gorshkov’s place there is a ready made template for IAC, so, India licenses the original design and carries it through for three or four hulls indigenising along the way. So your IAC spend is suddenly shrunk to the license fee and you have full commonality throughout your carrier fleet!.

No argument there, I’d rather they’d have gone the European way and maintained a single type of carrier fleet too.

They can still opt for MiG-29K and STOBAR as easily as the existing IAC has with Italian input so the ‘expensive fighter’ argument need not be relevent either. Unless the Russians would’ve pulled out of the MiG sale without the Gorshkov strings….who knows?!.

The deal I believe was ahem, “packaged”. Not only the fulcrums, but even the Akula/s. And it is the last bit that makes bickering with the Russkies really worthwhile imvho. 😉 Also, its not just the russians to consider, i doubt the IN would’ve chosen the Fulcrum at all had a Euro-IAC been chosen. It’d have been the Rafale (which was its preference) or at least a Flanker (which might’ve required the tonnage and associated costs of the ship to go up further) As a sidenote, the costs might have inched up if the russians had to test the Mig-29k on a totally new platform (esp. a european one). IIRC, they already had some worthwhile experience when it came to using the Gorky and the MiG-29k on their own boats. I presume such experience comes into play when trying to save valuable $$s.

Bottom line this is all fairly basic defence procurement procedure. No-one, not even the inept clowns in UK MoD, stop reading at the upfront costs because, as was alleged, you cant get away from whole-life costs – no matter how many attempts are made to ‘fudge’ them. You pay for the maintenance or sooner or later the the ship is tied alongside mission ineffective. Even the USN are in the process of relearning this lesson.

Aye, I’d agree but thats hardly practical. Upfront costs and capital are ALWAYS a huge factor, be it the cash strapped IN/GOI or a cash strapped small business. If as you say, “first world”, rich G8 nations like the U.S and U.K find it difficult to deal with upfront costs, what to say of a “developing” nation like India?

Make no mistake India, and its govt officials, knew that Gorshkov was a gamble every bit as much as the Indian Navy did. They couldnt have NOT known what the year-on-year expenses were likely to be….what they were banking on was that the inital $700mn price wouldnt move which, given the level of refit even as it stood in 2005, was extremely unlikely to be the case. Everyone knew that it wasnt enough money and the provided service entry schedule was a work of fiction. Still – thats why they call it gambling right?!.

Perhaps, but there is also the distinct possibility that they knew exactly what they were getting into and still found the Gorky preferable to a Euro built IAC.

regards,
USS.

$4B upfront extra is not the same thing as $4B extra spread out over 20 years. and there is no gurantee that Western ships cost half to operate vs Russian Ships of similar size. even in Civillian airlines the gap is 40% untill now at most. It is more or less $1m per day for operating six ships at maximum. I

Your point is a little elusive there Star.

$4bn is what it is whether its a short term spend over the build life of a vessel or whether its spent in the ongoing maintenance of the vessel. The money still has to be found. Usually a heavy capital spend like a carrier aquisition over a, say, 6yr build cycle is easier to find than the additional 100mn out of the recurring operations budget.

The capital programme would be one of few ongoing projects at that level of spend within a govt purview. With good project management the spend is easy to schedule. The Navy operations budget will be different and here a finite pot has to cover the deployments of every major and minor combattant in the fleet. Its at that level that the balancing act of what is possible and feasible for a peacetime navy to accomplish is determined.

I have not said, universally, that western ships are half as costly to run as Russian ones so dont try and put words in my mouth. I have said, in relation to this specific aircraft carrier, that its not unreasonable to put the costs of a 45k ton carrier (with the propulsion fit that it has) as roughly double that of a turbine-driven 20k ton CVS. In fact I’ve actually pitched low with the $300mn ballpark figure too as the CVS costs a bit more than £75mn (US$150mn) a year.

Swerve,

Official figures for Cavour are 451 ship crew, 203 for the air group, 140 for the command group (if aboard), & up to 416 marines (if operating in amphibious mode). Since the marine accommodation & command centre must be at the expense of something, I assume you could increase the air group a bit if she’d been built as a dedicated carrier. Shouldn’t make any difference to the ship crew.

Thanks for fleshing that one out. I managed to blur a few things together in my earlier post. I was assuming that the airgroup would be a constant for a set number of MiG-29’s and choppers no matter what. It will, naturally, be a fair bit larger than that the Italians embark for their vessel and it will have to include an extra 100 or so personnel for the STOBAR gear…arrester engine and cable handlers etc so I left it out intending to hilight later. My point was intended to be that even adding these sorts of extra’s to Cavours complement leaves you a long way short of the 1500 crew USS theorised as an upper figure!.

… The crew of a Cavour is less than 500 personel – why does IAC require more than double or even triple that…even if you figure in flight deck personnel you are only adding a couple of hundred extra hands at most. …

Official figures for Cavour are 451 ship crew, 203 for the air group, 140 for the command group (if aboard), & up to 416 marines (if operating in amphibious mode). Since the marine accommodation & command centre must be at the expense of something, I assume you could increase the air group a bit if she’d been built as a dedicated carrier. Shouldn’t make any difference to the ship crew.

What you didn’t say, but I know you’re aware of, is that however little they’re paid, extra crew cost a lot on board ship. The “hotel” cost, in terms of space, weight, power requirements, etc., all of which cost money & are at the expense of something else which could otherwise be aboard the ship, goes up as the crew does.

$4B upfront extra is not the same thing as $4B extra spread out over 20 years. and there is no gurantee that Western ships cost half to operate vs Russian Ships of similar size. even in Civillian airlines the gap is 40% untill now at most.
It is more or less $1m per day for operating six ships at maximum. I

http://redbannernorthernfleet.blogspot.com/
Daily demand for fuel and POL for a destroyer or large ASW class ship is about 100 tons (the optimal-minimal figure). Thus, the daily expenditure of fuel for a six ship task force (three warships and three support ships) taking into account the functioning of support equipment can reach thousands of tons. It is not difficult to translate this into monetary expenditure, figuring that diesel costs 18 thousand rubles/ton (lubricants 20 percent less). One day of a task force at sea costs the Navy around 15-20 million rubles – just for fuel….
But this is far from all the expenditures: modern conditions demand shipborne aviation to complete the commander’s missions. A helicopter demands around a half a ton of aviation kerosene/hour flight.
Aviation kerosene in Russia costs around 1380 dollars/ton today in Russia and in North-West Europe – 1270 dollars. World aviation kerosene prices have doubled in the last year, although in the West it has begun to fall in May, but in Russia, this hasn’t happened. Right now (19 June, 2008) kerosene costs 6.2 percent less in Heathrow than in Moscow and in Dubai – 8.1 percent less

USS and Nick,

Sorry for the delay in replying to this. Lots of chaff in the way from our new friend with the recurring cat theme in his persona.

Yeah but the crew complement for both the IAC and the Gorky are almost the same (1200-1500). Even the current Viraat employs a similar figure. Thats one of the advantages of having loads of relatively cheap and qualified labor, which india does.

Where are you getting the crew figures from?. The crew of a Cavour is less than 500 personel – why does IAC require more than double or even triple that…even if you figure in flight deck personnel you are only adding a couple of hundred extra hands at most. I cannot conceive of a need for 1200 crew on IAC unless something is seriously amiss with the spec of the ship. Likewise the maximum of 1600 generally quoted for the Gorshkov is for the Russian STOVL design – not the STOBAR version. Some crew savings will be made in the weapons/warfare branch but these will be more than compensated for with flightdeck crew. There is no way that Gorshkov will operate on the same crew that IAC will have….unless the IAC crew is padded out to ridiculous proportion!.

Building an IAC sized ship in Europe is no joke –
1) What would be the cost of building the ship?
2) What would be the cost of equipping it?
3) What about the cost of its air wing (probly rafales)
4) What about crew training costs?

The original price solely for the refit of the Adm Gorshkov was released as US$700mn. That price alone has now raised by, if reports are correct, an additional US$1.2bn. So we have $2bn near as damnit for the free carrier to reach Indian service entry. That is before we look at whole-life expenditure which is the real factor of note as it will, rapidly, outstrip the initial build cost of the vessel itself. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Gorshkov averages out at $300mn per annum in ops costs – considering an RN CVS tips in at about half that figure I’d say its good enough for ballpark. Its going to cost triple its acquisition price again by the end of a 20yr service life. Whole life, including the new sticker price, you are looking at $8bn to keep what will be a modest number of unproven Russian fighters at sea. Without the costs of the fighters themselves.

So what you are looking for is a better solution than Gorshkov with a whole-life budget of US$8bn. If you can acquire a modern and efficient hull you shave $100mn off that operations cost a year. Remember CVF – 2 hulls aimed at ops costs of £200mn (US$400mn) or one hull, roughly, $200mn USD per annum. 20 years at $200mn -> $4bn in ops budget. So for the same whole life cost, with an economical hull, India could’ve spent $4bn upfront on a carrier – present $4bn to Izar, DCN or Fincantieri in 2005 and they would have come up with a very nice vessel for you.

This isnt the end of it either…with a modern design in Gorshkov’s place there is a ready made template for IAC, so, India licenses the original design and carries it through for three or four hulls indigenising along the way. So your IAC spend is suddenly shrunk to the license fee and you have full commonality throughout your carrier fleet!. They can still opt for MiG-29K and STOBAR as easily as the existing IAC has with Italian input so the ‘expensive fighter’ argument need not be relevent either. Unless the Russians would’ve pulled out of the MiG sale without the Gorshkov strings….who knows?!.

Bottom line this is all fairly basic defence procurement procedure. No-one, not even the inept clowns in UK MoD, stop reading at the upfront costs because, as was alleged, you cant get away from whole-life costs – no matter how many attempts are made to ‘fudge’ them. You pay for the maintenance or sooner or later the ship is tied alongside mission ineffective. Even the USN are in the process of relearning this lesson.

Make no mistake India, and its govt officials, knew that Gorshkov was a gamble every bit as much as the Indian Navy did. They couldnt have NOT known what the year-on-year expenses were likely to be….what they were banking on was that the inital $700mn price wouldnt move which, given the level of refit even as it stood in 2005, was extremely unlikely to be the case. Everyone knew that it wasnt enough money and the provided service entry schedule was a work of fiction. Still – thats why they call it gambling right?!.

On a side note I do wonder how much trouble the refit would of been if it had been done back where she was built in the Ukraine.

Certainly the Chernomorskiy yard have the experiance considering they built the Gorshkov and all the other Soviet carriers plus I bet they still have the blueprints. They certainly have the facilities for the overhaul and remodelling of large vessels.

Makes you wonder…

Thanks Swerve.