Most of those countries you list can barely afford to run their surface combatants let alone a helicopter carrier. Because the most expensive part to purchase and maintain, is the helicopters, not the ships. To the extent that I think we would all be surprised at what percent of our countries defense budgets are spent on helicopters.

In case you missed it, Chile has in recent years acquired 1 Type 22, 3 Type 23, 2 L/Heemskerck and 2 M/Doorman frigates. That doesn’t create the impression of a shoestring operation.

Between 2004 and 2006, the navy of Peru has seen 4 ex-Italian Lupo frigates added to the 4 already in Peruvian service. An Invincible class ASW carrier could allow them to (finally) retire their even older steampowered ex-Dutch De Zeven Provinciën-class cruiser BAP Almirante Grau (CLM-81), which dates from 1973.

I’m sure useable SeaKings could be found (e.g. from US under FMS/FMA), in case EH-101s are too expensive.

Don’t know about the other countries, they were just examples of navies that could benefit from such a vessel.

I know that. However another raised platform could be erected, for instance, in that space besides the chimney stack.

I’m surprised the Indian Navy didn’t ask for more Klub launchers. The space on the Talwars is severely under-utilized.

You’ld need 2x RBU-6000 then to assure sufficient coverage, which is more expensive. As for additional CLub launchers, depends on what role you give these frigates. IMHO they are intended as carrier escorts. In that role, AShM and SAM suffice. And for AShM, 8 is sufficient. Additional VLU cells would be necessary for what: ASW, ASuW or land-attack?

djcross

The America SINKEX yielded a lot of useful information on ship vulnerability – some of which is being shared with the UK and other allies. It also proved that a warship of that size is a very hard thing to destroy – and that’s without the defences of the air group, the escorting warships, the carrier’s owb defences, and the damage control efforts of the crew.

Specifications (65-76)
Diameter: 650 mm
Length: 9.14m
Range: 50,000 m at 93 km/h, 100 km at 56 km/h
Max Speed: 50 knots (93 km/h)
Homing: active/passive sonar and wake homing
Homing: active/passive sonar and wake homing
Warhead: 450/557 kg high explosive, or nuclear (Russia only)
Propulsion: Probably gas-turbine powered by high test Peroxide, kerosene and compressed air fuel. Driving contra-rotating propellers.

650mm TT-5 (Model 1) HEAVY TARGET-SEEKING TORPEDO
Caliber, mm 650
Length, mm 11,300
Weight, kg:
torpedo 4,750
explosive charge (TNT equivalent) 765

How hard is it for the subs armed with 650mm tubes to get within 50km of a carrier? And what is the hit probability at that distance?

Now if they could relocate that RBU launcher to the aft to make room for another 8-cell Klub VLS. And add a stealth mount for the A-190E.

AFAIK, AK-190E is the designation used for export. The gun is called A-190 (model 1). It is available with stealth shield as A-190 (model 2). See company website: http://www.burevestnik.com/products_engl/a190.html

It would be difficult to relocate the RBU-6000 aft (or anywhere else for that matter) because underneath it is both an ammunition supply and an automatic reloading system, which rather limits the options. If more VLUs are wanted, best would be to delete the RBU-6000 altogether. Another option might be to install deck launcher 3S-14PE of the elevating type parallel to the RBU-6000. It might be feasible to place them 1 deck up from how they are indicated below.

http://www.concern-agat.ru/en/products/defense-products/81-concern-agat/202-club-u

http://defensetech.org/2010/07/20/u-s-south-korea-announce-invincible-spirit-exercises/#idc-container

Would The U.S. Just force the sub to surface? will the Sks shoot on sight?
What if its discovered inside strike range of a carrier?

Define ‘interfere’. If it surfaces near the group, no problem: past precedents are Chinese subs doing so. If it fires a torpedo, you bet ya it will be shot at if detected.

Actually, the 21956 uses new M96 gas turbines, which I believe are among the new family of marine gas turbines being developed by NPO Saturn, and not the old Ukrainian origin turbines. I imagine the shafting for the propulsion systems will be somewhat different as well.

Stages of the Russian marine gas-turbine engine-building base development at NPO Saturn

1992 – Beginning of experimental development work on marine gas-turbine engines: M75RU (7000 hp), M70FRU (14000 hp).

1993 – Russia and Ukraine signed an intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in the sphere of marine gas-turbine engine-building. Organization of the Russian-Ukrainian company ZAO Turborus for servicing the Ukrainian gas-turbine units (GTA), carrying out team-work for creation and operation of marine gas-turbine equipment.

2000 – Head of the Russian Navy approved the Concept of the Russian marine gas-turbine engine-building creation at NPO Saturn.

2003 – Beginning of the M75RU first Russian marine gas-turbine engine tests.

2005, June – Signing of a general agreement between NPO Saturn, ZAO Kirov’energomash Plant and FGUP NPO Aurora on cooperation in the sphere of the Russian marine gas-turbine units creation.

2005, November – ZAO Turborus completed the M90FR gas-turbine engine tests.

2005, IV quarter – Establishing of the GTA design department at NPO Saturn affiliate in St. Petersburg.

2006, IV quarter – The M75RU gas-turbine engine official acceptance tests.

2007, December – Successful technical design review of GTA for the high speed landing boat Dyugan developed by the Central Design Bureau (Nizhni Novgorod), the first Russian vessel equipped with the Russian-made GTA.

2007, December – Signing of an agreement between NPO Saturn, FGP Skorostnoi Flot (speedboats) and OAO Star on cooperation in joint developments, serial production and market promotion of the marine GTA and DGTA.

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?pid=83

Seeing the structures above and behind the parabolic dish I was under the impression it had two separate antennas. But do ESM suites have an effective range of upto 500km? And can they pinpoint the locations of radar emitters with the same level of accuracy under heavy clutter?

Mineral ME does have a back-to-back arrangement of antennea.
See this at p272

I agree! India still has much to go before they can make every thing on their own. but in what i mean is that, since the Shivilak seems to be the better frigate, is there no longer a need for them to import from Russia since Russia no longer offers the superior design?

You overlook that the Russian Severnoye designbureau is heavily involved in the designs of P15A, P17 and P28.