Maybe this article in ACIG will help:

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_380.shtml

Its an old rumour from long ago spurred on by the press wanting to dig stuff up with the SDR and the PM’s recent visit to India.

India has expressed no interest in CVF, INS Vikramaditya is in final fitting out and the IAC is in construction at Cochin.

I guess that with the recent spat between Liam Fox and Osbourne that the Journo types have just plugged defence, UK and India into a search engine to see what they find!

What was a rumour from an unnamed source several years ago is all of a sudden current according to the press.

Its hogwash!

A mixture of rumours from the last few years, for example India has never expressed an interest in CVF.

If Trident replacement get shifted to the defence budget then thats pretty much game over for the armed forces. The Army, Airforce and Navy would have to cut down to a local defence force and most major equipment would have to be mothballed or sold at a lost.

Russian and Indian help would mean Pak-Fa variant.

Very interesting Israel really wanted local equipment in the F35, India will more then likely want Israeli kit in their Pak-Fa variant.

Ex-CIA chief: Strike on Iran seems more likely now

A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was “way down the list” of options. But he tells CNN’s “State of the Union” that such action now “seems inexorable.”

He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it’s just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.
Full Story

Then he is wrong, the US millitary don’t want to do it and the fact that Israel hasn’t attacked despite numerous exercises shows they regard it as a pointless exercise now.

Don’t change the subject. I know when someone is trying to backtrack.

The issue with me has never been about cost escalation. The issue has been about how technically sound i.e. risk free the project is.

I said the project is risk-free which you refuted. You even said the plans were not available. Prove it

I have proved beyond doubt that the process was risk-free because the original Russian design bureau was responsible for developing the conversion program. This is where the debate stands.

If you wish to move this discussion forward you need to prove it with sources and links. I don’t think you have anything to substantiate your wild speculations.

huh?

The DELAYS and COST OVER RUNS are clear evidance that it was not low-risk or as you say risk-free.

They were taking a carrier laid down in 1978 that among other things suffered a boiler room explosion in 1994 and then laid up for years prior to start of refit by a yard that had no experiance of this kind of work. They did it without the correct blue prints (a well documented fact if you bothered to use google)and underestimated the rework required. They were taking an ASW carrier designed for helicopters and STOVL jets replacing major parts of the superstructure and systems including the propulsion plant and you think there was no-risk?!:confused:

You need to spend five minutes using the technological miracle that is called Google to find the cold hard facts about the refit not the speculation that you talk of.

I leave you to your fantasies…I need a cup of tea…

I will only say this one last time:

The shipyard that built the former Baku is of no concern to me. They are not responsible for the original design. I think Sevmash is more than capable.

What is more relevant for me is the original design bureau and the original design plans which have been involved in the final conversion program. The only issue that I can see has been with cost and that has been dealt with.

Your quote “made a mess of it” is your inability to take this discussion forward in an interesting way. Let us move forward gentlemen.

Well you can point out your opinion once again if you like but it doesn’t change the FACT that the Gorshkov refit has been a mess.

Myself and Swerve have both pointed out that the original blue prints were NOT available and they had to be redrafted.

Sevmash specialised in the building of submarines not large surface combatants. They underestimated work required to refit the Gorshkov and the head of the shipyard was fired in 2007 due to the problems building up with the project. Sevmash has shown itself to be incapable of managing the project properly. Just because somebody else designs a ship it doesn’t mean the capabilities of the yard are unimportant. They didn’t have the staff, facilities or project management knowledge for this kind of vessel. Now these are all things that can be sorted (and they have to a degree) but at great cost and time.

The project is behind schedule and massively over budget, to say the yard “Has made a mess of it” is entirely reasonable considering it is true. Certainly they are now getting to grips with the issue but at great cost and time taken.

This isn’t to say that the Indian navy and MOD hasn’t contributed to the problems with specification changes.