sealordlawrenceSomething we agree on! That’s nice.
First one built abroad, with some Indian input & a lot of Indians assigned to the design & build to gain experience, next built in India with considerable foreign input, third more or less (some imported components are normal – IIRC we’re importing Finnish diesel generators for CVF) all Indian. How does that sound?
Sounds like the suggestion that we have all agreed on here many times over.;)
sealordlawrenceOh, the Kitty Hawk would be a complete waste of time as a short-term Stop Gap. While, waiting for over a decade for the ex-Gorshkov at over twice the agreed upon price is not…………please.:p
Except Gorshkov is not another decade away and any serious refit of the 50 year old KH would likely result in her being ready for commission about the same time the Gorshkov is. Not to mention the manpower issues and the absurdity of procuring a stop-gap airwaing that will be incompatible with India’s future carriers.
India does not need three carriers, it has made a decision that it wants three and that is something very different.
sealordlawrenceThe CdG is just a little to small for conventional carrier operations. Which, is likely why France wasn’t interested in a second CdG and instead opted for a version of the CVF. Of course now she doesn’t have the funds for a second carrier. So, the point is likely moot…………
I would suggest that the cost of CdG is part of the reason why they only have one carrier now.
sealordlawrenceThat would have cost much less than the cost of the development of the F35B
Except that point is meaningless as the US was developing the B anyway for the USMC and to get the level of involvement they wanted the UK would still have had to pay the same if they bought the C variant.
sealordlawrenceI was only comparing it because its size is smaller and yet it manages to operate conventional aircrafts. The CVF is quite a bit bigger and hopefully after the CdG issues it should be possible to avoid most of them.
Nic
But not without extra cost, and it is extra cost that has resulted in only a single CdG, and managing is not impressive.
sealordlawrenceI don’t think it’s because they are big enough. But I think the performance advantage is important enough to warrant installing a catapult. And I don’t see why you would need EMALS? The CdG is smaller than the future CVF, and yet it’s capable of operating Rafales and Hawkeyes. Just the same, all the other countries managed and still manage to carry out CAS ops without STOVL planes either basing their planes around the theater or on AC carriers.
CdG is only just capable of operating Hawkeyes and Rafales, in reality she is too small. She raises steam from her nuclear plant. Her cost is as such that the French navy can only afford one of her and her availability is atrocious. She is a fantastic example of how not to build a carrier. CdG is the reason why the UK needs to keep the CVF programme cost down.
sealordlawrenceCATOBAR isnt an option for CVF until EMALS is available as there is nothing to generate steam for steam cats. So its STOVL or wait for EMALS. The F-35C range advantage over F-35B is less than dramatic. The overheads that come with the need to have a pool of carrier qualified pilots are significant, especially within a joint land/sea based squadron structure as we are using, and the attrition rate in crashed jets and unlucky pilots equally significant.
Not choosing STOVL simply on the basis that the carrier is big enough to take a CATOBAR arrangement is schoolboy fantasist thinking I’m afraid.
Jonesey, whilst at this stage i agree that the UK should stick with the B there are two issues with the above post. Firstly it is not entirely true that there would be nothing to provide steam for steam catapults. PA2 was to have had them so design drawings and plans must exist for a steam raising plant and associated systems, thus if one really wanted to a solution is available. Secondly the additional costs of a CTOL solution have not been quantified and in reality may not be as substantial as the generalities used here suggest. That is not to oppose the central thrust of your excellent argument but they are points that should be noted.
I would conclude by saying simply that the RN really needs to avoid creating an Anglo-Saxon CdG and in that sense even the slightest cost reduction in the current environment is advisable.
sealordlawrenceIf, India did choose the Kitty Hawk it would still be years before it entered service. (yet earlier than ex-Gorshkov)
Extremely doubtful, Gorskov is now afloat, Kitty Hawk would have to go back into dry dock and she needs allot of work.
As for the Rafale clearly India could purchase a small number more for Carrier Operation. Likely directly from France……
Whats the point for a stopgap?
Again very doable……….
No, a complete waste of time and money.
sealordlawrence1.) Well, how is India going to man three Carriers in the future???
By having a long work up period to recruit train and reserve the required personnel.
2.) Don’t be surprised to see the Super Hornet or even Rafale as the winner of the MMRCA.
So? Thats for the IAF and the not the IN. In the Rafales case it would not even be a carrier capable variant.
3.) The Japanese have given the Kitty Hawk extensive and regular refits. Regardless, any possibly use of the Carrier would very likely be only as a stop-gap.
No, she is being kept alive just long enough to get the George Washington back into service, nothing extensive has been done to her for a very long time and her material state is known to be poor. kitty hawk is a 50 year old tub.
sealordlawrenceSeahawk,
Disagree. The cost of an LHD that could operate a CVF-max airgroup at a practical optempo and still be configured to be a worthwhile amphibious unit would be at least equal to what we are paying for CVF. If we didnt have the Albions perhaps it might make sense, but, we do have them.
The other issue is that whilst the CVF, as its is intended to be rolled out now, isnt a Fleet Carrier it very swiftly could be adapted to that role. Its my fervent belief, after a great many years as a devout follower of the creed of CATOBAR and Hawkeye, that new technology is ageing manned naval AEW&C very, very badly. UAV systems exist today that I think are far more suitable for adaptation to the AEW/ISTAR mission than E-2 is and they would be deployable off a, big, STOVL deck too!.
The point being that its easier to build a dedicated aircraft carrier, and just not exploit its full capability in routine peacetime ops, than it is to build an amphib and try to force it into being a full-up aircraft carrier during full wartime conditions.
Right on the money. CVF is designed to work in cooperation with LPH’s (Ocean), thus the class does not need true amphibious capability. Secondly the ship is designed with a very long life span in mind during which the International situation may change thus requiring her conversion to a true fleet carrier of the CVA-01 ilk and very sensibly this capacity has been built into the hull.
sealordlawrenceThe drawing of Victorious demonstrates one of the reasons i like that vessel so much. After her reconstruction she was a very modern and cleaning looking design and that comes out in the above image when compared to the likes of the Oriskany and Midway.
sealordlawrenceSorry, Combat Ships of the World list the ex-Gorshkov with a crew of over 2,000. Regardless, the point is that India has the resouces if she wanted to do so……..
Also, if the Kitty Hawk aquired it would be just a stop-gap until at least two IAC’s enter service. Remember, the ex-Gorshkov is being purchased……….the KH would be a short-term solution if the former was to fall through…..
India will not take the Kitty Hawk.
1) How many people live in India is irrelevant, what matters is how many available trained naval personnel are available and the answer is not enough for Kitty Hawk.
2) India would have to get planes from somewhere, realistically this leaves Hornets or Rafales and such an expensive purchase would not make a great stopgap.
3) By all accounts Kitty Hawk was a wreck by the time she left service, to bring her up to spec now would require a huge and expensive refit that would likely conclude at about the same time Gorshkov is ready. And all this on a 50 year old hull that commissioned just six months after the ex-Hermes that the Indians are trying to replace.
sealordlawrenceYawn.. Big deal. Boeing just announced Wedgetail delay for Australian AF within up to four years, why don’t you go out screaming that the whole US aviation industry, too, is one big freakin mess?
Because this thread is about the Russian Navy, nice effort to troll though.
When anything like delay or price renewal happens in the US, you leave that completely unnoticed, your only effort is to pick up something from Russia (or China meybe, but Russia is better) in order to have a possibility to paint it like a disaster of monstrous dimensions.. You’re gettin quite boring with your single-sided bias, old chap. Time to retire..
I reguarly criticise the US, you just do not read it. The fact is that there are serious problems with the Russian shipbuilding industry that is resulting in major delays for new units.
sealordlawrenceI give you a point here, it was KnAAPO, I think, that complained about lack of skilled craftsmen in order to fulfill the delivery schedules for China/Vietnam/Venezuela. Another fact is that this was back in +/- 2003 and the problems could eventually be solved within few years. It’s definitely nothing that would hamper Russian industry once contracts are signed.
That easily solved hey? Russian Navy surface warship building programmes are facing delays of upto two years despite hving been laid down.
sealordlawrenceSide argument gets hosed, you get out of it. Not unlike you.
My argument was not hosed, in fact onec again you are just making yourself look silly.
Ha ha ha . . . right. So you are suggesting all forms of engineering did stop. What garbage. Just because carriers and cruisers weren’t built, doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of engineers to go around
Engineers and skills were lost, not all but allot, fact, that is part of the reason for the Gorschkov mess and why the surface shipbuilding programmes are running behind schedule. Skills have to be developed and regenerated they do not just exist in a vacuum.
Sign In
