germany was to some degree unlucky having hitler as its wartime leader in as much as, had he been less of a megalamaniac ( and a tad more patient) with the technical advancements in aircraft design on the drawing boards in 1940 and proved and produced in numbers, there would have been time to design a new class of battleship (,rather than having to use the WW1 design in haste) germany could then have declared war in 1942 confident that it had an exellent chance to defeat all of europe easily and with a plentiful suppy of proved aircraft and ships,(both Battleship and Aircraft Carrier) this iview may be simplistic but it could have been so, we were lucky it was hitler in the driving seat and not Albert Speer 😎 😎 😎

The problem with these ideas is they ignore the fact that all Germany’s enemies were also re-arming rapidly, the RN had embarked on a major fleet renewal program and the RAF was modernising fast, and France and the USSR were also investing heavily in response to German re-armament and diplomatic posturing. In many ways you can argue Germany made a sound decision by going to war in 1939 before the relative strenghs of her enemies overhauled German weapons decisively.

I imagine the potential implosion of Indonesia, PNG or East Timor gives ADF commanders a lot more sleepless nights than the Flanker family ever will. To me the real danger for the ADF wouldn’t be a conventional war, which they’re well equipped to fight, but the potential of a couple of hundred million people in a country tailor made for insurgency melting down on Australia’s door step must be an awful lot more worrying, as it’d be difficult for Australia not to be affected by it, if nothing else imagine the refugee exodus.
On the Flanker family, it’s important not to get too carried away, yes it is a superb fighter, still one of the finest fighters money can buy in Su30MKI form, but it’s not a super plane immune to all rivals, you don’t have to look to the F22 for an effective rival, the Rafale and Typhoon are already effective counters in terms of flight performance, whilst the super Hornet has a state of the art combat system no Flanker driver would relish going against. If you sort of grafted the combat system of a super Hornet onto a Typhoon or Rafale then you’d have a fighter that totally outclassed the Flanker IMO. So when guys like Kopp claim Australia must have the F22 as some countries in Asia have Flankers he’s blowing out of his ass. And that’s before going into tech support, training, tactics etc., this is excellent for the Indian flankers, I’m not so sure about many of the other Asian air forces using the type.

Oh and how do you forget how Russia is bold as ever not seen since Soviet times with the West. That wouldn’t be happening if relations with China weren’t civil. Russia and China don’t only deal militarily which accounts why the Russia economy is humming along these days.

How do you know that Putin doesn’t enjoy a bit of harmless fun with rhetoric and bomber flights precisely because he knows that the “West” really isn’t that interested in a cold war with Russia and isn’t a real threat to Russia, so it allows him to assert Russian power with no risk of upsetting those who may well be a long term threat, i.e. to his East and South. And the Russian economy is doing well based on extractive industries, look beyond extractive industries and it’s still not a pretty sight, and if Russia makes the same mistake as the USSR did in blowing that wealth on military hardware at the expense of economic development then they’ll regret it IMO. Really, Russia could learn a lot from how China has managed the modernisation of their economy.

As well as the manpower there is the investment in the support infra structure (dry docks and ship repair facilities big enough to handle a USN CVN), the nuclear engineering infra structure (and these days cross fertilising with civil nuclear programs is harder than it was in the 50’s), the air groups to make them worthwhile (could any other air force out there other than US forces actually support an embarked air group on the scale of a Nimitz without draining their other responsibilities to the point of impotence?) and ultimately it’d all be for a ship that has already served out it’s intended useful life. Just not realistic. Write Australia out as that is a dream, this idea wouldn’t make any sense for France or the UK who both want large carriers and have a pretty big budget ear marked for large carrier ops.

The former USSR could design some incredibly capable ships with genuinely innovative and class leading features, but they were also notorious for pretty shoddy build quality. Given the Gorshkov is 25 years old and had been a glorified hulk for quite a while before starting her conversion it’s a hell of a project to take on, it’s not a job any shipyard would take on lightly, and whatever some people say the russian yards are not in the same class as the best yards out there. Sorry, but I’m with those who think that all things considered India would have been better off accelerating their own program.

PS. If buying American doesn’t make sense for India why are ties between the two countries improving with India looking at American equipment as being a good candidate for their future requirements?:confused:

Northrop sold out to MD, the whole Hornet program was originally a MD-Northrop program based on Northrops YF17.

The determining factor in a major conversion is usually whether the conversion affects load bearing structures or stability. If a conversion can be planned such as not to significantly affect either of these things it can be quite surprising just how major work can be accomplished with little pain, if you run into major changes to the vessels stability or have to alter the load bearing structure and as a result have to re-engineer the basic box girders, stiffeners and cross members that give the vessel it’s basic strengh and rigidity then even a seeminglt quite minor re-construction can become a nightmare. I’ve seen conversions from twin screw to single screw involving replacing complete stern assemblies done in barely longer than a typical major dry dock, and total rebuild done quickly and efficiently. i’ve also seen attempts to add a couple of extra decks or side doors and hatches turn into disasters and reverting back to original configuration. All of this assumes the ship yard is well managed and efficient with a high quality work force. I’ve seen Japanese and South Korean yards do with ease work that’d be extremely problematic in many other yards, I’ve seen certain yards screw up on bog standard refits and planned dry dockings, it all comes down to you having the money to use the best yards, which in military work almost never happens due to the politics.