Hmm, Wanshan, the Enforcer series costs approx $480million, that is of course quite a bit more… They could buy 10 of these old boats for the price of one enforcer. On the other hand it would be brand new and has some more capabilities. It would most likely be more interesting in training on an enforcer before building something like Mistral than training on one of these old ships.

If Trenton is just an interim platform awaiting the arrival of a couple of new Mistral ships, then its a good buy which allows the IN to work up to the new capabilities. Mistral would be an good purchase as it could operate Sea Harriers in addition to helicopters. So as new ADS/carriers become available with CTOL aircraft, Sea Harrier capability can be continued in various support roles.

IMHO the Kanshin class design has been stretched as much as it can be. It time for the IN to go in for a whole new design in the form of the P18 instead of going in for a P15 B later on.

The oldest IN Kashins were built in 1980 and still have some 10-15 years of service left in them (despite the design being older than that)

Though Austin class generally looks like the Russian Kondor class, French Jeanne d’Arc etc, it don have the capacity of these two ships aviation with the Kondor peaking at 14 x Helos with simultaneous landing/take-off for 4 helos …. but its deck well makes it a bit more useful than the others. In this come also the Ivan Rogov class too with a smaller aviation deck but with almost similar aviation capacity with hanger facilities for 4 x Helos.

lets do some quick comparison of the two LPDs, Austin Class & Ivan Rogov class (Info from Hazegray)

Vs

In comparison to the USS Trenton, Ivan Rogov class are fairly younger with the first one getting into service in the first half of the 80s with the two other in the later-half of 80s. But all three are now in ‘reserve’, but considering that off late Russia have been resurrecting many written off ships, these three being resurrected is a possiblity.

If we take a look at the capablities of both, we will see that Ivan Rogov is better than the Austin class with the well deck seemingly far greater than the Austin class LPD ….. i.e 246.1 x 42 x 26.9 foot Vs 168 x 50 with the Ivan Rogov able to carry 2 x ‘Lebed’ LCAC and Austin class with its 1x LCU. Below is the spec for the Lebed and some pics of Lebed.

Ivan Rogov if lengthened (& may be more beam) from its present 157.5m to the size of 170-175m (if not the 200+m the new LPD-17 is going to get) wud mean it wud get a far greater aviation deck than what it currently has, enhancing its overall capablity which already is much better than the Austin class LPD.

So my take is y not a ‘customised’ version of the Ivan Rogov class with our inputs? Any such inputs will also see that, these are also built in Indian yards ….. but thats the ‘future’ where as even now, 3 x Ivan Rogov is lying idle in ‘reserve’ in Russia which we can very well make use of, if we are really in need of the same or just wait and go in for a customised version which wud be a very good bet …

Ok, but wouldn’t India be better of with a NEW vessel e.g. Royal Schelde Enforcer 17000 or 18000? Sure, it would be probably cost more than the $42 million that the Trenton could become available for, but she would be new, more modern, more economical over the life cycle, and similar capability (NB 18000 would be Harrier capable!). Could even be built in India.

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

Another note on the picture you linked to Terran, she’s on evenkeel in that picture, so it actually seems the Chinese have taken something out somewhere in the back…

Now THAT’s an interesting observation! What could have been taken out/off that would be of interest e.g. for study, evaluation, or reverse-engineering purposes?

They might paint the waterline higher but would they paint it at an angle? There’s just too many points of reference for the horizontal to play a deception like that.

The engines don’t have to do anything with that as engines are placed more amidships. It probably are the rudders/steering gear that is not installed, as that gives a much larger momentum from the point of floation.

screwS?

Pretty bloody ambitiious for a nation that has never operated a naval vessel with more than two helos before to be quite honest 😀 Still since the evidence does seem to be stacking up against my intial thoughts on the whole 051C matter I guess I’ll adopt the wait and see line on this one.

If the Varyag really is being brought into service then why not just work with the Russian on that replacement vessel rather than build something entirely different and (given the age of the design and the fact it was formulated with the benefit of actually operating a Kuts vessel) probably flawed in some areas design.

Daniel

Agree afa China’s know-how of naval aviation is concerned. But that’s where the Russians could come in. As for a ‘new’ carrier design, I don’t think the Varyag will ever be an operational carrier like the Kuz. And how far apart would a non-nuclear Ulyanovsk variant and an enlarged Kuznetsov variant really be? The latter has been in service for some time, enough to draw lessons. There is a complete design for Ulyanovsk available (they did start building it, remember). I don’t see why they couldn’t or wouldn’t come up with an evolved design incorporating both Kuz’s lessons and Ulya design aspects.