wow, somebody was carrying a chip on his shoulder.

The Russians offered the Indians the Gorshkov for “free” on the condition that they buy the Mig-29K’s to populate them. The subsequent additional Russian piggyback order of the Mig-29K was just a continuation of the trend. That is political lobbying by MiG and others with an interest in keeping the MiG company alive are the main reason for the Mig-29K.

:rolleyes: the little problem with this hypothesis is that BOTH su-33 and mig-29k were on offer to India as part of the gorsh package deal. so unless you are making the ludicrous suggestion that India decided to bail out mig out of goodness of heart, your theory doesn’t hold water.

second that. I mean even the thread title is spelled wrong and hasn’t been corrected in 8 years.

witcha, what’s the weight of the run of the mill bulk and crude carriers that dock in India ? 😀

Note what you say there: you claim that the 65000 ton figure is not a rumour.

I do know what I said and thank you I do not need a reminder.
when you called OWR’s post a rumour were you referring only to the tonnage or the whole project ? I think it was the later, otherwise you would have pointed out the tonnage figure for clarification.

nowhere in my reply have I claimed that IAC-2 will be 65k tonnes, just that it was one of several possible numbers.
viz.

that they are looking at a number of possible designs and sizes of which 65,000 tonnes is one option.

=============
as for GoI approval it will be automatic once IN decides what it wants, barring unexpected financial difficulties. GoI has long back agreed to a 3 carrier navy on principle and it was members of parliamentary standing committee on defence who wanted IN to order a full fledged carrier of around 70,000 tonnes in stead of a 40,000 t IAC-1. they were going by navy’s presentation on its requirements but IN felt it was prudent to test CSL with a smaller project first.
DefMin has also gone on record in the past about the 3rd carrier which would be inducted by end of this decade but clearly the timeline has been altered by the navy.

Nothing to justify the claims that IAC 2 “will be” 65000 tons.

which is exactly what I said didn’t I ? that they are looking at a number of possible designs and sizes of which 65,000 tonnes is one option.

you can refresh your memory about what I said from my post above.

All you have to do is point me to something more definite, & I’ll accept what you say. Why won’t you do so?

you have already accepted what I said although you don’t seem to have realised it.

don’t assume things I did not say. 😉
did I say it would be 80,000 t ? I said it is a possibility, among others and that I won’t be surprised if it was. they haven’t decided yet and with upward revisions of air group it would well go up. it could be 65,000 tonnes or even 60,000 tonnes as well, depending on what they choose.

this decade, highly unlikely. like I said serious design work would begin in earnest only after IAC-1 trials are over and lessons from that would be incorporated. they are also waiting for a clearer picture to emerge regarding future carrier fighter. allowing 2-3 years for freezing design and getting clearance, construction won’t start before 2018. we won’t see IAC-2 before 2025 in my estimate.