er, the Sao Paulo operates a squadron of A-4s, so, obviously, a squadron of anything flying after 1980 should bring a better capability. Had India bought the Clemenceau, armed it with Hornets or Rafales (buying it in 1997 would mean it probably would enter service around year 2000, with the time to clean it up, restore and put in all the equipment needed), the picture is much less favorable to Kuznetsov class carriers which, for taking off needs over 2/3rds of the deck to be empty. not very practical, not to speak if you need to launch aircraft while recovering others. With CATOBAR carrier, you can always keep launching with the front catapult(s), keeping a higher sortie rate

Except that the catapults on it are good for 15 tons maximum, throws a wrench in your plan. You could have gone for A-4’s and more Harriers. That’s about all that was really available service-wise. Perhaps you could have acquired Super Etendards and F-8’s, but that wouldn’t have been much good.

Clemenceau would have been a good fit for N-LCA about two decades ago.

Something tells me that Sweden would never allow Gripen sales to the Ukraine. And if it did wouldn’t R73 be more appropriate considering the seeker is sourced out of Kiev? And maybe Kh-29T/TE rather than AGM-65G. They’d probably insist on their traditional GSh-23 rather than the 27mm Mauser, too.

The USN operated several times over the years rotating newer aircraft through the newest flattops and as they aged rotated them to older ships. Large ships tend to run light since the Cold War ended.

Hell ducks or Ninja ducks?

I’ll always be curious how Kaveri MiG-29 trials went.