To Nick

Nick

Actually it proves the point. That relying on single reports especially when it comes to procurement issues…is not sensible.

How?. You’ve posted up a single report that has obvious credibility issues to show us that a single source can lack credibility?. The two articles I was citing both seemed sensible, detailed and credible to me….this was rather why I cited them. Dont understand the point you are trying for here?.

Now you can cherrypick all you wish, but such is the reality.

So your definition of ‘cherry-picking’ is citing credible-sounding sources with no obvious political agenda for obfuscation?. Hmmm ok!.

You can state that the earlier report was “credible” when it promptly declares that 2400 km of cabling was to be done. Whereas this one, makes the point that it was an incremental increase of 700 Km. Its but obvious you’d choose the earlier one, since that was what you swore by, but the reality is obvious- that none of these speculative reports by themselves are worth a dime, and that it would take half a dozen plus an actual source within Sevmash or the IN to make sense of the thing.

Well both articles do cite the figure to be replaced as 2400km. The earlier articles also describe a very specifc cost overrun figure and a Russian source that details worse structural conditions than originally assessed. Then we get back to the known history of the vessel and figure those factors in and it produces, for anyone with an amount of engineering competence, an unfortunate picture. Obviously you may need your dozen sources all undersigned by your Admirals or whatever….thats entirely your issue. I’ve always wondered how the IN does so much to conjure such blind, ignorant, faith in its adherents.

Sure enough, believe all you wish! The russian article was from their own website- with all the more reason to obfuscate, but you state it to be credible! If you wish to believe in conspiracy theories…the more power to you!

Well at least we are agreed on the fact that neither of our positions will be changed by this!. I would like to know what your thinking is to the fact that the Russians have reason to leak information that they are over time and budget on this deal?. Surely they would want that information quieted down as much as possible if they ever wished to win other foreign orders? Yet here we are with these stories that can only have come from one place?.

That is well expected because frankly you dont know the basics of Indian military procurement and nor are you interested in learning the actual details that go into each case and have determined its choice. No sire, in your world its “national prestige” or whatever hocus cliche that swings the deal. You can stick to that if you wish..

The simple fact is Nick that absolutely no-one here has said that this is going to be the vessel that the IN requires – end of story. Many have said that it was ‘the only game in town’ which, by the time the deal was signed, it plainly wasnt. The amount of money spent pre-signing for the Gorshkov would be in no-way significant enough to DEMAND that an extra $800 million PLUS, most significantly, the lifecycle costs to follow need be spent. No military in the world, not even one as arcane and byzantine as that in India, operates in such a fashion. Plenty of evidence for this exists all around the world….RAH-66 Commanche, half a dozen Soviet SSN designs, UK CVA-01 carrier etc… all examples where the strategic situation or the lifecycle costs weighed in against the design and saw them binned late in the programme. You cut your losses and reinvest the saved resources where they need to be. In the IN’s case this is ADS/IAC just as it always was, or rather, should have been.

Only a fool would take my post to be that. The other option is that you are intentionally being provocative, and that by itself merits a similar response.

Nick you spent almost that entire post bemoaning the nature of IN procurement and blaming it for the Gorshkov aquisition…how else can it be read than the apologists version of events?. You have accepted that the Gorshkov will NOT do the job its required to do….you are therefore, de facto, accepting that your men do not get the equipment they need to do the job that may be required of them. To this you can just shrug your shoulders and say ‘oh well thats just the way it is’?. I find that astounding for someone who clearly has an interest in the service?!.

My comment was and is simple- a process once started in a system which has already allocated limited funds for it, will be pursued by the service. Instead of cancelling it and pursuing an alternative which would take even more time to set up and pursue in a system which is hogtied by ad hoc funding availability, improper commitment to force modernisation and severe competition for available funds between the three services.

Mealy mouthed cr@p!. You’re making excuses for inadequate performance again. The ADS/IAC project started well before Gorshkov appeared on anyones scope. By your token ADS should have had priority funding as it had been in existence longer. The kind of yard partnership deals that saw BAE invest in Elfsis in Greece or DCN invest in the Karachi dockyards for the Agosta90 project could have seen the same thing for India. It could have produced a true interim replacement carrier to allow the continued leverage of the SHAR force you have…and STILL has no direct equivalent in theatre…then move to the IAC in 2011 even if we pretend that the same timetable would be applied to that project without the funds drain of the Gorshkov.

despite the lack of urgency viz the IN in the MOD, it is that service which has managed to maintain a constant force structure and is now even improving it (bar its abysmal LRMP coverage), whereas the IA and IAF have followed your suggestions to the T, and are stuck in tenders, retenders, RFP and RFQs.

Yet it is the IN which has the most wholly-lopsided force structure of all of them….from what I can make out. You have plenty of surface-warfare ships despite the fact you have a developed naval aviation capacity more appropriate to antiship tasking. Your most significant threat is from advanced SSK’s yet your ASW is marginal for work in the shallows save for what your own SSK’s can offer. You have two different types of circa 300km ranged antiship missiles yet no area defence SAM?!. Touting the IN as the model of balanced force structure evolution may be unwise.

I’ll state this once more. The funds were already allocated for the Gorshkov design work and it wasnt regarded as sunk cost. But it promised a future return at any rate, as compared to spending the same amount on european yards who would act as system integrators, with multinational equipment for a navy which wanted as much as possible from one supplier, with only specific items taken from reliable countries, strategically.

OK I’ll say this once more…just becuase you’ve spent 2 or 3 hundred $million on R&E for a project does not, and never should, oblige you to dump another 8 hundred $million in if you do not get the system that suits you. As to the ‘as much possible from one supplier’ line, frankly I find that unfathomable seeings that as a service the IN continually purchases equipment from east and west….which turbines are going into IAC again for example, how many OTO guns are bolted to the pointy ends of IN ships rght now….how many Barak SAM launchers are installed?. Not to mention that, if the concentration was on the Indigenous capability, then that would have to be the most reliable source possible…yourselves!.

The GOI has already stated that it does not have funds galore to spend on further shipyards or increasing their capacity. And the IN would have relied on them to deliver a carrier, a ship which they have had zilch experience of. And expected it to be ready just when they wanted it.

So now you are being an apologist for the poor performance of the Indian shipbuilding industry?. What experience did the Karachi yards have building modern-ish SSK’s before the khalid class boats?. What experience did the Greek yard have turning out top-flight Fast Missile boats like the Super Vita’s?. Answer – none. With the right input….input that was readily available….Indian industry could have benefitted from technology transfer and, probably, a quantum leap in its project management team skills by working in partnership with Bazan or DCN initially on aquiring a real interim carrier/LPH solution and, then, on realising the IAC. That, by 2004, the Gorshkov was still seen as a viable option despite all its shortcomings remains something that, for me, will always beggar belief.

Ankush,

anyhow, IN’s last experience with CATOBAR was with Alizes and the Vikrant..the IN’s philosophy is clear from the fact that they opted for STOBAR ops for even the new IAC and most likely its follow on ship.

A decision that was taken out of their hands the second they signed up for Gorshkov. The alternate is a STOBAR technique for one ship and an alternate technique for another. That is obvious insanity so if one’s STOBAR all are STOBAR and damned good luck to you!.

besides all that is well and fine from your perspective of just sitting and talking, they faced a whole different uncertain future where they would be without a carrier force itself..the economics or the logic of the Gorshkov purchase have to be seen from a perspective of an IN in 1997..a time when the US and Indian relationship was far from being anywhere near where they’d even contemplate buying a big ticket item from them.

Which is a position that one could sympathise with to an extent…if the deal had been signed in 97. It wasnt though. It was signed much later and, now, when Viraats remaining usefulness is bordering on expiring where is the promised land that is the Gorshkov?. Completed in early 2009 at the optimistic best….perhaps operational in 2010…still three years away!. Thats your reality.

the ADS got approved as a project MUCH later in 1999and till then there was absolutely no surety that the IN would have a carrier force once the Viraat was gone in 2010…so at that time, the Gorshkov was an attractive option considering that it would be in-service before the Viraat retired and would prevent the IN from being without a single carrier force till the time the IAC came into service. had the IN not gone in for the Gorshkov, it would’ve been without a carrier between 2010-15. and that is something that the IN would not allow.

As stated that is the situation the IN could still be looking at. The ADS project was around well before the Gorshkov became an option and all techniques were looked at and several yards were approached for design input. The IN was well aware of what they could have, for how much, and when it could be delivered. As Victor said, without Gorshkov, ADS could be a delivered reality right now!.

the IAC is the ideal carrier for them- no STOBAR, and not because the technology is only available with the US- its not, the IN could’ve taken British or French help-but what you see on it is what the IN wants-when they fund the N-LCA, its clear that they want it- some posters will point out to the flaws of having a short ranged naval aviation force, but they committed to it when they could well have backed out and refused to fund it- that does’nt happen without a clear objective- had they backed out that would’ve stopped the N-LCA project for sure. so, surely one can pick faults with ANY possible decision made by any Navy..I’m sure the RN is no exception to that.

The RN is surely no exception to that….which is utterly irrelevent to the debate at hand as pointing out the RN’s many failures and failings does nothing to diminish the IN’s now does it?. Essentially the paragraph above just says the same old routine…the IN wanted it and they know best. Its a valid argument…but one a bit scant on facts dont you think?.

whats the point in buying an airframe that has major shortcomings in other areas like payload and range ? obviously the IN rejected the offer after evaluating it. and a wise choice indeed,

Well the value is in the airframe life the later build FA2’s had. The weapon system as Wanshan accurately notes is hardly an issue. For a service that is still looking at a gapping in its naval aviation passing up a dozen low-hour airframes may not have been a great idea!.

they operate the E-2C which the IN cannot get due to an unreliable supplier,

Nope cannot because your ships cant launch it. The IN looked very hard at Hawkeye unreliably supplier or not!.

a very limited Rafale M (which can overwhelm the SHar till it gets its upgrades, but definitely not the MiG-29K on current specs)

LIMITED?. Do me a favour and put down the Milparade or Janes for a second will you!. Take a look at the airframe regeneration figures for the type. IIRC its something like 8 Man/hours per flight hour – thats absolutely incredible!. Lets see how much value your MiG’s AESA bits are when its still in the hangar getting turned around from its last flight – compared to the equivalent Rafale which is back spotted on deck and ready to go!.

besides, get off that condescending tone of yours- the IN knows what its getting and for what price. you dont need to act all high and mighty when the RN is lulling around without a fleet protection aircraft as of now- surely a very wise decision.

This is the point though – the removal of the SHAR FA.2 wasnt the RN’s idea. It was foisted on them by civvy politicians who know stuff all. What did your civvy politicians stuff your Navy with I wonder?!!!. You dont like my tone eh?. You know what…if you stopped to think instead of kneejerking it like most of the rest you’ll see I’m actually angry because your Navy p1ssed away a chance to become one of the worlds most powerful for no good reason. Why do you think that would be….funny way to go about it if I just wanted to show the superiority of my service over yours???. Think about it!

Nick

So, to summarise, you are not impressed with me for bringing this up again then?.

You dont like the Gorshkov deal any more than I do, by your own admission “you wont find anyone here who is tickled pink about the Gorshkov” which, incidentally, shifts the goalposts immensely as, if you look back, Gorshkov was going to be the uber-figurehead of the whole IN and the Russians were terribly nice chaps for agreeing to sell it – according to those posting at the time!.

You are still trying to peddle the ‘it was the only choice we had’ line despite the fact that this might have been the case in 1995….not 2004 when you eventually signed up for it!. Technically, it wasnt the case in 1995 either as several carrier designs were available back then and, if you had to have Russian kit they would have snapped your hands off at the arm if you’d wanted an in on the Yak-141 project back then. This letting you acquire a much simpler and cheaper vessel than Gorshkov to operate from.

By 2004 there is just no excuse for the unfathomable decision to go for Gorshkov. As I said go STOBAR fine….go MiG-29K fine….build something yourself to fly them off!. Nothings threatening your Harriers at present and nothing will for the next decade. You’ve had the time, still got the time and you’ve got access to all the knowledge you need to build the vessel that suits your requirements. Despite this you are still p1ssing about with antiques and smiling while you do it?!.:confused:

Then there are the other statements you make- which are almost willfully dismissive of the ground realities at the time! Negotiate with the US for steam catapults- sure, when the Seakings were grounded because of spares, and when the US had hit almost every defence and civilian scientific establishment with sanctions! What next, ask them for Aegis and a Seawolf?

By 2004 this was still the case?. I thought most sanctions were lifted by 2001 and by 2004 even the nuclear sanctions were being lifted?. Besides the IN had considerable experience with steam cats and, presumably, wouldn’t be too incapable of keeping them operational. The US hardly see the technology as that critical as they have sold them to the French (a handy under-the-counter spares source if ever there was one) and are replacing the technology in the next decade anyway. In your circumstances you need better than SPY-1/AEGIS and you need to sort out your littoral ASW before trying to run SSN’s IMO!!!.

If you cant take it in turn, dont dish it out- its that straightforward. If you can talk to people without talking down to them, you would recieve the same in turn.

I am perfectly able to talk to people without talking down to them – all they have to do is talk sense. Everyone I have spoken to, who’s experience I know in the maritime arena, has said this one is unfathomable and thats from Americans, Europeans and Asians. The ONLY people who trumpet this decision are those who’re concerned more with national prestige than the operational capability of their Navy. Not one of those people have ever come up with a defence for the acquisition other than the petulant 9yr-old-esque ‘Well the IN knows what they are doing, you know!’ line. Those people I WILL talk down to!.

As for ‘not being able to take it’ you’ve just had a go at me for defending my position so vitriolically in the past and now you say I am being sensitive?. Besides I actually invited you to keep having a go if you so wished….you are trying to obfuscate the issue with bombast and hysteria and draw the topic away from the facts which are uncomfortable for you. Unfortunately its a very old, tired and hackneyed technique in debating terms and not one likely to work really!.

Nick,

You dont work in advertising do you?

I said, originally, that the boilers were shot on the Gorshkov well BEFORE any release was made about them being replaced. Before that came out you lot were all banging on about how everything was fine and that surely the IN wouldnt have made such a mistake as to go for a vessel that was so bad. I was unprofessional and stupid for doubting the word of the Admirals. THEN you found out about the boilers being changed…and that was somehow proof that the IN knew what it was doing all along!.

The goalposts have been shifting all the way through this – at least there is consistency though!.

You cant honestly believe that a fourfold increase in the anticipated cabling to be replaced in the hull is down to a miscalculation in adding new systems?. 2400kms of new wiring is about 9000 runs along the full length of the hull!. That is not new installation – that is a total rip out of a good percentage of the original cabling loom. If the cabling’s that bad, lets see how the HVAC piping holds up – especially the kind of uprated system that will have to be fitted for service in the warmer climes of the IO!.

You can criticise me personally and express suprise that I have ‘latched-on’ to a single report so ‘feverishly’ all you like – the simple fact is still the same. There will be no corroborating story to back this up as, whatever yard source let this out, will be stopped at the rush….that is the real reason your admiral is on the way there now. To get the Russians to seal the breach before any other such ‘unfortunate’ information gets out and makes the deal look worse than it already does.

OK…same thing as it was at the start of 2005. You lads believe what you wish.

$113 milion in cost overruns sounds a bit too accurate to be make believe, in my estimation, and pertinent facts like a misjudgement on cable runs etc sounds like a yard source to me.

Even the IN admiral is contradicting himself saying that the project is on schedule and, at the same time, up to 4 months adrift of it.

Hopefully I’ll still be a member of this forum in ‘late 2008 – early 2009’ to see who’s right, but, I’ll put £20 up against the equivalent in any currency you like that Scooters evaluation of this one, written below, turns out a lot more accurate than the quote from the good Admiral Mehta!.

Scooter wrote:

I said the same thing only to be rebuffed over and over again? So, by time the former Russian Carrier is finished and handed over. It will be 2010 at the earliest. Further, add work up and training I wouldn’t expect to see it in full service until 2012 or later…………..all with a old ship that is expensive to operate and with a small airwing!

Most alarming is the US insint of fielding the missile-defence system near the russian border to detect “Iranian” missiles

The fact that the Russians have had a fielded ABM system in place for decades, and know exactly what a limited BMD system looks like, makes no odds here to you Gollevainen?.

Just because the Russians are posturing to try and retain some credibility doesnt mean everyone will buy into it!

Terrible news to hear – the English game has lost one of its giants all too early. As an Everton fan I say Alan Ball will live forever in memories around Goodison Park. Its not a bad epitaph to say that a man entertained tens of thousands, regularly, and wore his countries colours to victory.

Rest In Peace wherever you are Bally…you more than earned it.