What if India did not acquire the Gorshkov?

[helmutkohl]

the sale of the Gorshkov was, and still is one of India's most controversial naval acquisitions.

I recalled that it was close to not going through due to changes in pricing and schedule.

Lets assume that India decided NOT to go with the Gorshkov

- How would this happen?
- What would India's alternative plans be? Acquire UK ships temporarily? Continue using the older ships?
- How would India not acquiring the Gorshkov affect other countries? Such as Russia which ended up using the same MiG-29Ks, or China which could be interested in acquiring the Gorshkov?

 

[SSgtC]

IIRC, and I'm going off memory here, there was some discussion of India possibly acquiring a modified America class LHA optimized for use as a carrier (again, IIRC it would have had a smaller island, larger hanger and redesigned interior spaces).

 

[Archibald]

Then China could complete their collection of Kiev "amusement parks"with a third one; the fourth was scrapped.
One of the weirdest ironies of the post Cold war world
- China got two Kievs but copied the Kuznetsov sibling Varyag into the Liaoning
- India got the third Kiev and they transformed it
- Russia could not finish the Ullyanovsk CATOBAR hull

In a logical world Russia would have finished Ullyanovsk; passed Kuznetsov and Varyag to China; and all Kievs to India
Frack, how about Moskvas to North Korea ?

 

[Archibald]

I would love to see the 3 Invincibles, Garibaldi and Asturias sold second hand to many navies (as was Ocean to Brazil)

 

[CV12Hornet]

So Gorshkov was decommissioned in 1996, and from Wikipedia immediately caught the attention of the Indians. Negotiations were by all accounts contentious, an agreement only being reached in 2004, with intent to commission the ship in 2008. In the event, this slipped to 2013 due to the deteriorated condition of both Russian shipyards and the ship itself, with significant cost overruns.

So we have two places where India might decide not to go through with purchasing/finishing Vikramditya - in the late 90s and early 2000s, during the negotiations with Russia, and in 2008, when things became acrimonious between the two countries over the delays and cost overruns. Viraat, for her part, was refitted to last until 2010 between 1999 and 2001, presumably due to how long negotiations with Russia were taking.

We'll take the two options separately. In the late 1990s, the following options are available:
- USS Independence: decommissioned in 1998, had undergone the full SLEP treatment, had been offered to Brazil so the US wasn't overly worried about handing over sensitive technology with the class. On the debit side, she's 39 years old and rather large and expensive for the Indians.
- MN Clemenceau: decommissioned in 1997, sister ship sold to Brazil. Not much younger than Independence, but much cheaper to operate and still offers an upgrade over Viraat. Can likely be modified to carry modern carrier aircraft.
- An aviation-oriented Wasp class. Higher up-front cost, lower running cost and longer service life. Unfortunately limited to Harriers, which even in 1999 was a growing problem.

Looking at the options its not hard to see why the Indians continued to press for Gorshkov. You either have ancient second-hand ships, or a Harrier-only vessel when concerns are being raised about the age of the Harrier fleet.

In 2008, the following options are available:
- HMS Invincible is sitting in mothballs after being decommissioned in 2005. However, she's not much of a step up over Viraat and has the same Harrier problem.
- Aviation-oriented America. Timing is the issue here: the lead ship of the class only entered service with the US Navy in 2014 and I doubt the Indians are going to get their version any faster with all the design changes. Considering Vikrant was expected to enter service in 2013, and even pessimistic projections of Vikramaditya's refit got her to the Indians in the same time period, not very attractive.
- New-build Juan Carlos/Cavour. Proven design, maintains capability, but also Harrier-dependent and with similar timing problems to an America variant.

Again, it's not hard to see why the Indians forged ahead with Gorshkov. Despite the cost overruns she was still cheaper and faster to finish refitting than buying a new ship, and while Invincible would've been cheaper she has too many drawbacks to be worth it.

Fundamentally, the problem boils down to the fact that their best alternatives relied on the Harrier, and as the Indians never bought the Harrier II they were stuck with significantly older Sea Harriers. The only option I can see the Indians going for is Clemenceau, and as the Brazilians proved that's not much of a step up in the maintenance department from Viraat.

 

[helmutkohl]

So Gorshkov was decommissioned in 1996, and from Wikipedia immediately caught the attention of the Indians. Negotiations were by all accounts contentious, an agreement only being reached in 2004, with intent to commission the ship in 2008. In the event, this slipped to 2013 due to the deteriorated condition of both Russian shipyards and the ship itself, with significant cost overruns.

So we have two places where India might decide not to go through with purchasing/finishing Vikramditya - in the late 90s and early 2000s, during the negotiations with Russia, and in 2008, when things became acrimonious between the two countries over the delays and cost overruns. Viraat, for her part, was refitted to last until 2010 between 1999 and 2001, presumably due to how long negotiations with Russia were taking.

We'll take the two options separately. In the late 1990s, the following options are available:
- USS Independence: decommissioned in 1998, had undergone the full SLEP treatment, had been offered to Brazil so the US wasn't overly worried about handing over sensitive technology with the class. On the debit side, she's 39 years old and rather large and expensive for the Indians.
- MN Clemenceau: decommissioned in 1997, sister ship sold to Brazil. Not much younger than Independence, but much cheaper to operate and still offers an upgrade over Viraat. Can likely be modified to carry modern carrier aircraft.
- An aviation-oriented Wasp class. Higher up-front cost, lower running cost and longer service life. Unfortunately limited to Harriers, which even in 1999 was a growing problem.

Looking at the options its not hard to see why the Indians continued to press for Gorshkov. You either have ancient second-hand ships, or a Harrier-only vessel when concerns are being raised about the age of the Harrier fleet.

In 2008, the following options are available:
- HMS Invincible is sitting in mothballs after being decommissioned in 2005. However, she's not much of a step up over Viraat and has the same Harrier problem.
- Aviation-oriented America. Timing is the issue here: the lead ship of the class only entered service with the US Navy in 2014 and I doubt the Indians are going to get their version any faster with all the design changes. Considering Vikrant was expected to enter service in 2013, and even pessimistic projections of Vikramaditya's refit got her to the Indians in the same time period, not very attractive.
- New-build Juan Carlos/Cavour. Proven design, maintains capability, but also Harrier-dependent and with similar timing problems to an America variant.

Again, it's not hard to see why the Indians forged ahead with Gorshkov. Despite the cost overruns she was still cheaper and faster to finish refitting than buying a new ship, and while Invincible would've been cheaper she has too many drawbacks to be worth it.

Fundamentally, the problem boils down to the fact that their best alternatives relied on the Harrier, and as the Indians never bought the Harrier II they were stuck with significantly older Sea Harriers. The only option I can see the Indians going for is Clemenceau, and as the Brazilians proved that's not much of a step up in the maintenance department from Viraat.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply

what about the possibility of

1. In regards to the ageing Harrier issues, what about the US Harrier 2s? they still seem to be in service if I'm not wrong
2. Modifying one of those small carriers for stobar operations?

 

[CV12Hornet]

1. In regards to the ageing Harrier issues, what about the US Harrier 2s? they still seem to be in service if I'm not wrong

Harrier IIs would be a good buy from a lifespan perspective. But they don't seem to have been considered; India's response to their aging Harriers was to push all their chips into the STOBAR table, and then all the delays to Vikramaditya and Vikrant started happening, at which point there wasn't much point to buying Harrier IIs just to run them for a "few" years.

There are other factors at play as well. On the technical side, the Harrier II lacked the antiship capabilities of the Sea Harrier - the former could only fire Maverick missiles, while the latter had the Sea Eagle, a much more capable missile. MiG-29Ks, meanwhile, can fire Kh-31 and Kh-35 missiles, also a major step up from Mavericks. Further, this was around the time the US sanctioned India over their nuclear tests. Not only does that make acquiring the mostly-American Harrier II, it also strengthens India's tendency to not buy American. Which limits Indian options even further in the late 90s period.

2. Modifying one of those small carriers for stobar operations?

Maybe, but that means a new ship - the Invincibles are way too small for STOBAR ops. That means the timing problems crop back up again, and the sanctions mean a Wasp derivative is almost impossible.

 

[helmutkohl]

1. In regards to the ageing Harrier issues, what about the US Harrier 2s? they still seem to be in service if I'm not wrong

Harrier IIs would be a good buy from a lifespan perspective. But they don't seem to have been considered; India's response to their aging Harriers was to push all their chips into the STOBAR table, and then all the delays to Vikramaditya and Vikrant started happening, at which point there wasn't much point to buying Harrier IIs just to run them for a "few" years.

There are other factors at play as well. On the technical side, the Harrier II lacked the antiship capabilities of the Sea Harrier - the former could only fire Maverick missiles, while the latter had the Sea Eagle, a much more capable missile. MiG-29Ks, meanwhile, can fire Kh-31 and Kh-35 missiles, also a major step up from Mavericks. Further, this was around the time the US sanctioned India over their nuclear tests. Not only does that make acquiring the mostly-American Harrier II, it also strengthens India's tendency to not buy American. Which limits Indian options even further in the late 90s period.

2. Modifying one of those small carriers for stobar operations?

Maybe, but that means a new ship - the Invincibles are way too small for STOBAR ops. That means the timing problems crop back up again, and the sanctions mean a Wasp derivative is almost impossible.

i didnt know the Harrier 2s lacked the anti ship missiles of the Sea Harriers!

given some of the issues India has had with the Vik, and more so with the MiG-29Ks..
how likely do you think they may replace this ship a lot earlier than planned?

 

[CV12Hornet]

1. In regards to the ageing Harrier issues, what about the US Harrier 2s? they still seem to be in service if I'm not wrong

Harrier IIs would be a good buy from a lifespan perspective. But they don't seem to have been considered; India's response to their aging Harriers was to push all their chips into the STOBAR table, and then all the delays to Vikramaditya and Vikrant started happening, at which point there wasn't much point to buying Harrier IIs just to run them for a "few" years.

There are other factors at play as well. On the technical side, the Harrier II lacked the antiship capabilities of the Sea Harrier - the former could only fire Maverick missiles, while the latter had the Sea Eagle, a much more capable missile. MiG-29Ks, meanwhile, can fire Kh-31 and Kh-35 missiles, also a major step up from Mavericks. Further, this was around the time the US sanctioned India over their nuclear tests. Not only does that make acquiring the mostly-American Harrier II, it also strengthens India's tendency to not buy American. Which limits Indian options even further in the late 90s period.

2. Modifying one of those small carriers for stobar operations?

Maybe, but that means a new ship - the Invincibles are way too small for STOBAR ops. That means the timing problems crop back up again, and the sanctions mean a Wasp derivative is almost impossible.

i didnt know the Harrier 2s lacked the anti ship missiles of the Sea Harriers!

given some of the issues India has had with the Vik, and more so with the MiG-29Ks..
how likely do you think they may replace this ship a lot earlier than planned?

Vikramaditya isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The current plan is to replace her with Vishal sometime in the early 2030s. Knowing all the problems Vikrant is having with construction slippages - she was supposed to be ready in 2013, for god's sake - I seriously doubt the Indians will be able to meet that schedule and so Vikramaditya will have to soldier on like Viraat did. The good news: between the extended drydocking for the refit and the replacement of her original boilers she should be able to be pushed into the 2040s.

As far as aircraft, well, the Indians have kind of shot themselves in the foot on that front: Vikrant's elevators are too small to accommodate anything much bigger than the MiG-29K. In fact, they're smaller than the elevators of many WW2 carriers. Whoops! So despite India initiating a competition for Rafale M and Super Hornet fighters, they're going to have a hell of a time fitting them on the elevators, and their next-gen indigenous effort is going to be badly limited.

 

[Archibald]

As far as aircraft, well, the Indians have kind of shot themselves in the foot on that front: Vikrant's elevators are too small to accommodate anything much bigger than the MiG-29K. In fact, they're smaller than the elevators of many WW2 carriers. Whoops! So despite India initiating a competition for Rafale M and Super Hornet fighters, they're going to have a hell of a time fitting them on the elevators, and their next-gen indigenous effort is going to be badly limited.

Oh, sh*t. I didn't knew that... dear God (shall I say, dear Vishnu ?) that's very, very bad.
Carrier ain't easy business by any mean. Which make Chinese progresses even more awesome (alternately: they started in 1986 when they dismantled HMAS Melbourne and its steam cats and from there, charged ahead toward their present success)

Bad luck for the Indian with Rafale M: its wings don't fold, courtesy of a necessary commonality with the Armée de l'Air which did not existed on the Etendard days. CdG is doing with it.
Same for the two-seat variant, in passing, except in reverse: once planned as a naval Rafale B, it was canned a looooong time ago as too heavy and expensive.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Fundamentally, the problem boils down to the fact that their best alternatives relied on the Harrier, and as the Indians never bought the Harrier II they were stuck with significantly older Sea Harriers.

It might have been much cheaper in the long term for them to fund a next generation Sea Harrier.

 

[SSgtC]

As far as aircraft, well, the Indians have kind of shot themselves in the foot on that front: Vikrant's elevators are too small to accommodate anything much bigger than the MiG-29K. In fact, they're smaller than the elevators of many WW2 carriers. Whoops! So despite India initiating a competition for Rafale M and Super Hornet fighters, they're going to have a hell of a time fitting them on the elevators, and their next-gen indigenous effort is going to be badly limited.

Oh, sh*t. I didn't knew that... dear God (shall I say, dear Vishnu ?) that's very, very bad.
Carrier ain't easy business by any mean. Which make Chinese progresses even more awesome (alternately: they started in 1986 when they dismantled HMAS Melbourne and its steam cats and from there, charged ahead toward their present success)

Bad luck for the Indian with Rafale M: its wings don't fold, courtesy of a necessary commonality with the Armée de l'Air which did not existed on the Etendard days. CdG is doing with it.
Same for the two-seat variant, in passing, except in reverse: once planned as a naval Rafale B, it was canned a looooong time ago as too heavy and expensive.

I read an article on this awhile ago. Apparently, the Super Hornet will just fit on the elevators while the Rafale is almost literally only a few inches too big.

 

[lancer21]

This just popped it to my attention while posting another topic.

So i have a question, can the Clemenceau operate Rafales satisfactorily?

My ATL regarding the russian carriers is for Russia to somehow keep and finish Varyag (so they have two), China instead getting Baku and Novorossyisk (because i hate the idea of an almost new ship going to the breakers like Novo did) completed as STOBAR and buying 50 MiG-29Ks (so they have two small instead of one big), that leaving India with perhaps one or two Clemenceaus or perhaps other options as outlined above. What you think, if China has two STOBAR Kievs, would India get both Clemenceaus as reply?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Clemenceau cannot satisfactorily operate Rafales. The problem, AIUI from previous discussions on the ship, is that the decks are limited to 35,000 lbs, and for a Rafale that's a very light load of fuel and weapons, given it weighs 23,000 lbs empty and has an internal fuel capacity of over 10,000 lbs. The only Rafale to land on Foch was the A demonstrator, which was not kitted up for combat. Certainly it's unsuitable for Indian purposes, given their preference for carrier-based maritime strike.

Further, both ships are beat to shit, something India's not going to be happy with after their experience with the similarly old and beat up Viraat.

 

[isayyo2]

There are other factors at play as well. On the technical side, the Harrier II lacked the antiship capabilities of the Sea Harrier - the former could only fire Maverick missiles, while the latter had the Sea Eagle, a much more capable missile.

In regards to this bit, after the AV-8Bs were modified into the “Plus” model with APG-65 was there anything actual stopping Harpoon integration if a customer wanted it? The radar would already have the sea-search functions thanks to the Hornet. But trials would be needed for carriage and release. I suspect if the USMC wanted the carry the Harpoon they could have, but magazine space on the LHAs would be limited and the anti shipping mission would be better suited to their Hornet fleet. Production of the AV-8B only ended in 2003.

 

[CV12Hornet]

In regards to this bit, after the AV-8Bs were modified into the “Plus” model with APG-65 was there anything actual stopping Harpoon integration if a customer wanted it? The radar would already have the sea-search functions thanks to the Hornet. But trials would be needed for carriage and release. I suspect if the USMC wanted the carry the Harpoon they could have, but magazine space on the LHAs would be limited and the anti shipping mission would be better suited to their Hornet fleet. Production of the AV-8B only ended in 2003.

Probably not. Unfortunately, it doesn't change the political issues that make this a dead letter in the 1990s.

 

[zen]

Isn't the flipside having India acquire Varyag?

 

[uk 75]

Given the mess Covid has made of the UK budget a CV(F) could be on the market fairly soon.

 

[Archibald]

Clemenceau cannot satisfactorily operate Rafales. The problem, AIUI from previous discussions on the ship, is that the decks are limited to 35,000 lbs, and for a Rafale that's a very light load of fuel and weapons, given it weighs 23,000 lbs empty and has an internal fuel capacity of over 10,000 lbs. The only Rafale to land on Foch was the A demonstrator, which was not kitted up for combat. Certainly it's unsuitable for Indian purposes, given their preference for carrier-based maritime strike.

Further, both ships are beat to shit, something India's not going to be happy with after their experience with the similarly old and beat up Viraat.

The Rafale A that flew in 1986 - the demonstrator - made approaches but never tried landing.

Now, the Rafale M prototype (M-01) did the first, ever carrier landing, on Foch: April 19 1993, off Toulon.

Plans were made of operating Rafales off the Foch until 2004 (that was before Brazil stepped in and bought the old thing) and the limitations were just as you said, plus catapults. Old BS-5 were cut down Ark Royal / Eagle catapults, and these two were gone since the 1970's.
Max weight a BS-5 could throw to any reasonable speed was 17 mt, when a Rafale with a reasonable internal fuel load is 18-25 mt, missiles not counted.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Isn't the flipside having India acquire Varyag?

have zero clue why they didn't... it sold for about $25 million.

 

[CV12Hornet]

have zero clue why they didn't... it sold for about $25 million.

After having sat exposed to the elements while half-finished for six years. Why it wasn't an option in 1992 is the bigger mystery to me; India was one of the countries approached that declined, and yet four years later they were all over buying and rebuilding Baku.

 

[bobtdwarf]

have zero clue why they didn't... it sold for about $25 million.

After having sat exposed to the elements while half-finished for six years. Why it wasn't an option in 1992 is the bigger mystery to me; India was one of the countries approached that declined, and yet four years later they were all over buying and rebuilding Baku.

yeah she would be a bit rusty in spots, but you can weld in new steel if you must and take a rotary sander to the rest...

I have always wondered if they could have fitted a steam cat to her in a "Western" yard

 

[Archibald]

have zero clue why they didn't... it sold for about $25 million.

After having sat exposed to the elements while half-finished for six years. Why it wasn't an option in 1992 is the bigger mystery to me; India was one of the countries approached that declined, and yet four years later they were all over buying and rebuilding Baku.

yeah she would be a bit rusty in spots, but you can weld in new steel if you must and take a rotary sander to the rest...

I have always wondered if they could have fitted a steam cat to her in a "Western" yard

Because of the Forgers I often think of the Kievs as 20 000 tons Invincibleskis or Garibaldov or Asturievs.
Hell no: at 45000 tons they match(ed) CdG in tonnage. But I keep forgetting that point.

 

[bobtdwarf]

have zero clue why they didn't... it sold for about $25 million.

After having sat exposed to the elements while half-finished for six years. Why it wasn't an option in 1992 is the bigger mystery to me; India was one of the countries approached that declined, and yet four years later they were all over buying and rebuilding Baku.

yeah she would be a bit rusty in spots, but you can weld in new steel if you must and take a rotary sander to the rest...

I have always wondered if they could have fitted a steam cat to her in a "Western" yard

Because of the Forgers I often think of the Kievs as 20 000 tons Invincibleskis. Hell no: at 45000 tons they match CdG in tonnage.

Buy her for the $25 mil.. tow her to a European yard.... rip out the ASM in the bow, flatten it out and use that space to fit a pair C-11 or C-13 cats if the Russian steam plant can handle it. If not then she is half finished gives you a shot to rip them out and replace them with better quality.

 

[lancer21]

Recall that the initial designs for the Tbilisi class envisaged two cats in the bow, later replaced with the familiar ski-jump. So i think if anyone has the money and desire, they could probably fit two cats in the bow (western or even russian, they have tested a catapult in the eighties i believe, if someone has the money they could probably continue development), perhaps with some reduction in aircraft capacity, but it will cost even more that Viky's conversion.

 

[lordroel]

the sale of the Gorshkov was, and still is one of India's most controversial naval acquisitions.

I recalled that it was close to not going through due to changes in pricing and schedule.

Lets assume that India decided NOT to go with the Gorshkov

- How would this happen?
- What would India's alternative plans be? Acquire UK ships temporarily? Continue using the older ships?
- How would India not acquiring the Gorshkov affect other countries? Such as Russia which ended up using the same MiG-29Ks, or China which could be interested in acquiring the Gorshkov?

What about HMS Ocean, true not a carrier but still a flattop, could it be converted to a Harrier carrier.

 

[Archibald]

the sale of the Gorshkov was, and still is one of India's most controversial naval acquisitions.

I recalled that it was close to not going through due to changes in pricing and schedule.

Lets assume that India decided NOT to go with the Gorshkov

- How would this happen?
- What would India's alternative plans be? Acquire UK ships temporarily? Continue using the older ships?
- How would India not acquiring the Gorshkov affect other countries? Such as Russia which ended up using the same MiG-29Ks, or China which could be interested in acquiring the Gorshkov?

What about HMS Ocean, true not a carrier but still a flattop, could it be converted to a Harrier carrier.

Considering how long they used HMS Hermes (1986-2016, from 1943 / 1959 !) how about seeling them all three Invincibles ?

 

[ceccherini]

I'm quite surprised no one has cited what as an Indian admiral I would have considered the first best: a US conventional power supercarrier. Most were decomissionated just in the same timeframe of the Baku acquisition; most had less then 40 years (just over 30 in the case of America) and so 15 to 20 years of operational life left and they would be a cheap way to acquire a carrier capability second only to the USN itself, their study would have granted the headstart to develop indigenous full size CATOBAR carrier. In the late '90 to mid '00 USN was actively trying to give a second life to their first generation supercarriers, among the proposals I remember: to take them back on service as training carriers; after Enduring Freedom to give them to some European navy to form the core of a unified EU or NATO naval aviation branch; above all to sell one to Brazil. In retrospect selling to the relatively large and experienced Indian navy seems a much more realistic proposition than giving them to the smaller and less ambitious Brazilian navy, not to mention the the purely academical idea of a common European power projection asset. Still there were serious political contraindications: it's not an overly good idea to antagonize the closest thing you have to an allied Muslim nation and it took the Chinese economic and military rise to justify closer relationship between USA and India and to accept as a consequence a further deterioration of the alliance of the former with Pakistan. But all that came only a decade later than the closing of the Baku "deal".

 

[lancer21]

Question is, how much would it cost India to get a Kittyhawk? They paid eventually 2 billion and something (can't recall exactly, and can't recall now if the MiGs were included in the price) for Viky, for the US one would be what, 5 billion? More? American stuff is very expensive, not to mention the strings attached, They will probably insist India buys F-18s as well for it, god knows how much for 45 of them and related weapons, 3-4 billion minimum, maybe some E-2s as well? They will be lucky to get all this, ship and planes etc. for 10 billion, which is probably why they haven't tried OTL.

 

[bobtdwarf]

I'm quite surprised no one has cited what as an Indian admiral I would have considered the first best: a US conventional power supercarrier. Most were decomissionated just in the same timeframe of the Baku acquisition; most had less then 40 years (just over 30 in the case of America) and so 15 to 20 years of operational life left and they would be a cheap way to acquire a carrier capability second only to the USN itself, their study would have granted the headstart to develop indigenous full size CATOBAR carrier. In the late '90 to mid '00 USN was actively trying to give a second life to their first generation supercarriers, among the proposals I remember: to take them back on service as training carriers; after Enduring Freedom to give them to some European navy to form the core of a unified EU or NATO naval aviation branch; above all to sell one to Brazil. In retrospect selling to the relatively large and experienced Indian navy seems a much more realistic proposition than giving them to the smaller and less ambitious Brazilian navy, not to mention the the purely academical idea of a common European power projection asset. Still there were serious political contraindications: it's not an overly good idea to antagonize the closest thing you have to an allied Muslim nation and it took the Chinese economic and military rise to justify closer relationship between USA and India and to accept as a consequence a further deterioration of the alliance of the former with Pakistan. But all that came only a decade later than the closing of the Baku "deal".

There was some talk about Kittyhawk, but the thing is no one is sure if it was just talk... and it would have committed India to a purchase of 65 Hornets.

But yeah if it could be done it should be done.

 

[ceccherini]

Question is, how much would it cost India to get a Kittyhawk? They paid eventually 2 billion and something (can't recall exactly, and can't recall now if the MiGs were included in the price) for Viky, for the US one would be what, 5 billion? More? American stuff is very expensive, not to mention the strings attached, They will probably insist India buys F-18s as well for it, god knows how much for 45 of them and related weapons, 3-4 billion minimum, maybe some E-2s as well? They will be lucky to get all this, ship and planes etc. for 10 billion, which is probably why they haven't tried OTL.

Turning Baku into a STOBAR took a major structural redesign of the ship by a country that had never before built any carrier (Soviet carriers were built in the Ukraina SSR). A Forrestal or a Kitty Hawk wouldn't necessitate any major reconstruction and the modernization would have been carried out by a country that at the very least had one new carrier on stocks in every moment in the past 90 years except for maybe 2 or 3 years. Overall the cost of acquiring and bring back in service a US legacy supercarrier would be probably less than that needed to refit the Baku while it would have given India a vessel of incomparably superior power. For the aircraft part I don't think the F-18 is much more expensive than the Mig-29K but surely both are cheap compared to the Rafale that Indians had no problem to buy and that has a naval variant designed to take off assisted by US catapults. A Kitty Hawk refitted with Israeli electronic and maybe Russian AS missile embarking Rafale M would be a very potent combination, something even China has not yet matched (but it's coming very soon).

 

[bobtdwarf]

Question is, how much would it cost India to get a Kittyhawk? They paid eventually 2 billion and something (can't recall exactly, and can't recall now if the MiGs were included in the price) for Viky, for the US one would be what, 5 billion? More? American stuff is very expensive, not to mention the strings attached, They will probably insist India buys F-18s as well for it, god knows how much for 45 of them and related weapons, 3-4 billion minimum, maybe some E-2s as well? They will be lucky to get all this, ship and planes etc. for 10 billion, which is probably why they haven't tried OTL.

Turning Baku into a STOBAR took a major structural redesign of the ship by a country that had never before built any carrier (Soviet carrier were built in the Ukraina SSR). A Forrestal or a Kitty Hawk wouldn't necessitate any major reconstruction and the modernization would have been carried out by a country that has at the very least one new carrier on stocks in every moment in the past 90 years. Overall the cost to acquire and bring back in service a US legacy supercarrier would be probably less than that needed to refit the Baku while obtaining a vessel of incomparably superior power. For the aircraft part I don't think the F-18 is much more expensive than the Mig29K but surely both are cheap compared to the Rafale that Indians had no problem to buy and has a naval variant designed to take off asdisted by US catapults. A refitted Kitty Hawk with Israeli electronic and maybe Russian AS missile embarking Rafale M would be a very potent combination, something even China has not yet matched (but it's coming very soon).

They would have sold them Kittyhawk for a dollar and then it is a SLEP refit to the tune of about 1-2 billion and viola you got 20 years of portable boom-boom mcboatface

 

[ceccherini]

Question is, how much would it cost India to get a Kittyhawk? They paid eventually 2 billion and something (can't recall exactly, and can't recall now if the MiGs were included in the price) for Viky, for the US one would be what, 5 billion? More? American stuff is very expensive, not to mention the strings attached, They will probably insist India buys F-18s as well for it, god knows how much for 45 of them and related weapons, 3-4 billion minimum, maybe some E-2s as well? They will be lucky to get all this, ship and planes etc. for 10 billion, which is probably why they haven't tried OTL.

Turning Baku into a STOBAR took a major structural redesign of the ship by a country that had never before built any carrier (Soviet carrier were built in the Ukraina SSR). A Forrestal or a Kitty Hawk wouldn't necessitate any major reconstruction and the modernization would have been carried out by a country that has at the very least one new carrier on stocks in every moment in the past 90 years. Overall the cost to acquire and bring back in service a US legacy supercarrier would be probably less than that needed to refit the Baku while obtaining a vessel of incomparably superior power. For the aircraft part I don't think the F-18 is much more expensive than the Mig29K but surely both are cheap compared to the Rafale that Indians had no problem to buy and has a naval variant designed to take off asdisted by US catapults. A refitted Kitty Hawk with Israeli electronic and maybe Russian AS missile embarking Rafale M would be a very potent combination, something even China has not yet matched (but it's coming very soon).

They would have sold them Kittyhawk for a dollar and then it is a SLEP refit to the tune of about 1-2 billion and viola you got 20 years of portable boom-boom mcboatface

Exactly. Problem is politics. USA had many motives in not wanting India to possess such a formidable capability: keep Pakistan quiet, not forcing China to a military build up having ripercussions on the Pacific Ocean's ballance of military power, keeping a coherent anti proliferation policy after the 1998 nuclear tests.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Besides the political issues there's also running costs. A Kitty Hawk requires almost twice as much crew as Vikrant and Vikramaditya combined, and likely a similar ratio in other running costs. Granted, it would be able to carry more aircraft than the two together as well, but it wouldn't have the availability two carriers bring.

The Indian Navy is pretty financially well-off compared to most navies, but even then a Kitty Hawk is likely to badly strain the operating budget if not break it entirely.

 

[ceccherini]

Besides the political issues there's also running costs. A Kitty Hawk requires almost twice as much crew as Vikrant and Vikramaditya combined, and likely a similar ratio in other running costs. Granted, it would be able to carry more aircraft than the two together as well, but it wouldn't have the availability two carriers bring.

The Indian Navy is pretty financially well-off compared to most navies, but even then a Kitty Hawk is likely to badly strain the operating budget if not break it entirely.

US navy has large crews because its ships do very long deployment round the world and has a redundancy in crew to improve damage control readiness unknown to other navies. Indian navy's ships have a far smaller area of operation, being less manpower intensive. Also USN's carriers have not simply a far greater potential airwing size than other carriers but also a far larger loading factor: USN carriers have a standard airwing about 80% of the standard projected capability while virtually all other country are below 50%. An Indian supercarrier probably would have an airwing about half as big as that of the same ship in USN service. So I think the same ship in Indian service would have a smaller crew. Besides this manning seems not to be a problem for IN, even their most modern vessel have apparently limited automation and large crew.

 

[CV12Hornet]

US navy has large crews because its ships do very long deployment round the world and has a redundancy in crew to improve damage control readiness unknown to other navies. Indian navy's ships have a far smaller area of operation, being less manpower intensive. Also USN's carriers have not simply a far greater potential airwing size than other carriers but also a far larger loading factor: USN carriers have a standard airwing about 80% of the standard projected capability while virtually all other country are below 50%. An Indian supercarrier probably would have an airwing about half as big as that of the same ship in USN service. So I think the same ship in Indian service would have a smaller crew. Besides this manning seems not to be a problem for IN, even their most modern vessel have apparently limited automation and large crew.

Even with a smaller crew a Kitty Hawk is liable to still require more crew than Vikrant and Vikramaditya combined - there's a very wide range between the roughly 3200 men needed to operate the two Indian carriers and the 5600 Kitty Hawks operated with in American service. Almost certainly you're still looking at the same amount of crew or more for half the availability and 75% the tactical aircraft.

As for Indian crew sizes in general, while on the higher side the crew counts for most vessels are not out of line with foreign counterparts - their destroyers, for instance, have about the same crew as a Burke. The exception is the frigate force, as Indian-designed frigates have considerably higher crew requirements than foreign frigates, but that's a relatively small fraction of India's fleet.

 

[lancer21]

I just remembered that when the indians were threatening to cancel the deal, apparently Russia was very interested to keep Viky for itself, so Kuzya would have had a much needed companion, not to mention the 45 MiG-29Ks bolstering the VMF. Not a bad outcome as far as Russia was concerned i would think.

 

[Archibald]

I just remembered that when the indians were threatening to cancel the deal, apparently Russia was very interested to keep Viky for itself, so Kuzya would have had a much needed companion, not to mention the 45 MiG-29Ks bolstering the VMF. Not a bad outcome as far as Russia was concerned i would think.

Except the two carriers would have been a bit different. Better either to retain Varyag / Liaoning - or dump Kuznetsov to the Chinese. But wait, they already had the two others Kievs as "amusement parks"...

Post 1991-fate of all these Soviets carriers still hurts my sense of logic (I know, I already posted that up thread.)

We want Russia with Ullyanovsk, China with Kuznetsov & Varyag, India with the three surviving Kievs, and (why not ?) North Korea with a pair of Moskva helo carriers.

THAT would have been logical. But logic, those days...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=low6Coqrw9Y

 

[lancer21]

Bummer, just lost a fairly long rambling, anyway i was going on about India possibly buying a QE when the english were dithering whether to keep both, possibly flying Rafales off a ski-jump, and with russian arresting gear if the americans would not sell cats and/or arresting gear without strings attached (buy F-18 or no deal)! I doubt the indians would have been silly enough to fly any VTOL planes from such a big ship.

But it would still have been much more expensive that Viky.

 

[Adm_Kenobi]

Kuznetsov/Varyag/kitty hawk/America weren't considered seriously because of the reasons mentioned above^

+ there weren't any dry docks capable of maintaining/repairing ships longer than 270m (at waterline).
IN didn't have a dedicated dry dock for MRO of an aircraft carriers until 2019 (281×45×17m). Maintenance/repair work for INS Viraat was done by Cochin Shipyard (which was later chosen to build IAC-1/Vikrant). The shipyard couldn't support a carrier with a length of >270 (at waterline).

INS Vikramaditya in CSL's ship repair yard (270×45×12).