Can the deck of the Invincible or other SCS take the weight of an aircraft slamming into it during an arrestor landing? Big difference between an arrestor landing at fairly high speed and a Harrier or F-35B doing a comparatively slow and gentle landing.
Indian Navy Kitty Hawk Deal
- Thread starter Generalissimo
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps the worst procurement decision the Indian Navy has ever made. It turned down RN Sea Harriers, according to the official statement because they were on offer without the Blue Vixen and AMRAAM (we couldn't actually sell the AMRAAMs without US permission, so nobody has any idea why that was even an issue), but had already decided in principle to upgrade its Harriers with EL/M-2032 & Derby, and was negotiating the deal.
In other words, it turned down aircraft despite them being a perfect fit for its plans, for the very reasons which made them a perfect fit.
Adding the RN Sea Harriers to the upgrade programme would have been extremely easy.
I wonder is the Russians have any old Yak-38s lying around anywhere? ;-)
WillS
www.boilingthefrog.co.uk
India can still buy them and upgrade them if necessary to fill a short term gap. But that is difficult to do when long range plans are bearing fruit within a few years.
They've fairly quietly bought 4 recently, without radars, supposedly as spares sources. It'll be interesting to see if they're actually refurbished & put into service. There are still a few more in the UK which could be restored to service. None flying, but some taxiing.
contedicavour
New Member
Only 9 operational Harriers left ? Ouch... plus if I got it right no Derby BVRs have been installed at the end ?
This means that effectively no significant carrier ops can take place until the former Gorshkov enters service with the MIG29... let's in 2010 ?
cheers
X posting from Indian navy thread
From report of standing committee on defence, 2006-7.
Swerve, The contract for Harrier upgrade had been signed in 2005.
As far Carrier ops, they did take part in multi-national exercise last year (one with US, Singapore, Australia Japan etc).
As to Gorshkov, I don't see how IN can get her before 2012.
So they refused ex-RN Harriers because of a lack of Blue Vixen radars a year after ordering different EL/M-2032, & missiles which are integrated with EL/M-2032 but not Blue Vixen, for the existing fleet!
Whoever was responsible for that decision should be keel-hauled on Viraat.
I found a quote: the IN said of the ex-RN SHARs that "devoid of their offensive systems, they wouldn't be of much use". True - but when you're already buying new offensive systems which will fit them nicely, totally unimportant . . .
Even if they asked for it I doubt the US would give it to them, no one has bought a carrier from the US since after WW2. Besides the USN isn't interested in turning any of its older oil fuel super carriers into museums, scrapping them or turning them into reefs that are accessible to the public since they are similar in construction to the in service Nimitz class, instead it will sit for a few years or decades and probably be sunk in very deep water.
I didn't think they'd said anything about it. The only official statements I remember from anyone were denials, or PR people saying "I don't know anything about this" (remember, they'll never deny anything without orders to deny it). As far as I could see, it was completely unfounded speculation. A journalist who spotted the planned retirement of Kitty Hawk wrote an article suggesting that the Indian navy might be able to buy her, in a similar deal to the one for Trenton. It then snowballed in the press and on the internet, feeding on itself.
I tried to track down the original source, & all I could find was a speculative article. All the other reports were referring back to each other. Really, there was nothing there. Pure invention.
The Indian press doesn't see any reason to let facts get in the way of a good story.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
IMHO this was never a realistic deal. The maintenance requirements for a 45 year old 3 cat super-carrier would be truly nightmarish, i doubt they have the logistical sophistication/capability to effectively service that beast. Does the IN have the drydock facilities for an 80kt super-carrier? Plus it would be a waste unless you put a multi-squadron air group, which means a $10bn SH purchase. Pipe dream and totally excessive. For that money they could have built 2~3 brand new indigenous carriers that combined would still be less trouble to keep operational.
And as I keep saying, there's no evidence it was ever even considered, outside the fevered imaginations of some journalists & internet dreamers.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Exxxxactly! Even in hypothetical terms it wasn't a realistic proposition.
Well Mr. Swerve you forgot the key part of the puzzle, A highly optimistic ministry of defence with a standing order after nearly decade long negotiations for the refurbished Russian carrier and mig-29k, that is what made the MoD confident about refusing to buy anymore harriers, rest as they say is speculation with quoted sources which will be hard to verify, a hastly decision when one looks back to it, extra harriers would have served the Navy well, and it is nothing but immature to think that the navy was oblivious of this, however they do not control the money.
IMO it was only to extract the last mile from the old birds that the whole upgrade package must have been introduced, imagine if they shelved that too, O o that would have been a bigger disaster, not that the situation right now is any less.
CSL can repair ships up to 1,250,000 dunno how that translates for the navy?
that was the plan, with the Russian ship serving as the gap filler till the whole thing came on line, however that gap filler turned into a big gap
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
I think the Mig-29 squadron is going to spend at least a year on land than in the seas where its supposed to operate.
I think the Mig-29 squadron is going to spend at least a year on land than in the seas where its supposed to operate.
Sorry 1,250,000 what? This is a bit of a throw away line that does not make sense
Are you talking total dock capacity in a yard or individual ship. I doubt the latter noting that the largest ships in the wrld was the Jarhe Viking (Built as the Knock Nevis) which was 564650 DWT and 548.5m long wiht a beam of 68.8m.
The other issue is even with a dock with sufficient weight capacity width is a common restirction. Look at Asutralia, we ahve floating docks that have an uplift cpacity sufficinet for the LHD's ordered BUT they lack the width. the extreame beam of the Kittyhwk is 68m whcih is wider than many graving docks. This is often compensated doe by putting the overhand over the side of the dock but tsi cannot be don for docks using gantry crains with rails on both side of the dock.
The point is it is not that simple.
- Status