Article

2003-11-14 India-Pakistan

Indians to buy Russian aircraft carrier?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-14 12:53:42 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Unfortunately it's not as cheap as its made out to be. Though the ship itself is being offered for nothing, the Ruskies are charging a shit load about 500 million, for the upgrade, plus there is the cost for the Mig29s and mini-Awacs helos, the total is expected to be about 2 billion. And its quite a drastic upgrade (see here). Also I believe that this is supposed to be a temporary setup only until the indigenous aircraft carrier (known as air defence ship) is complete. In addition they are also looking to buy a second hand carrier from Britain. India's only current ship INS Viraat was also ex-British the HMS Hermes.

BTW, Steve you can un-strike the 'rusting away' comment, it really is a rust bucket.

Posted by rg117 2003-11-14 1:36:08 AM|| 2003-11-14 1:36:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Jeez, they've been talking about this for years. I think the Turks wouldn't let it through the Bosporus (sp) because the engines don't work, and no way in hell will Turkey allow something that big to be towed through.

I think it's a big waste of money. IMO, They ought to buy a new supertanker from Hyundai and fly Helos and UAVs off of it.

Posted by Pete Stanley 2003-11-14 1:46:59 AM|| 2003-11-14 1:46:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 If the reactor is operational, you might be able to use the power plant to provide utility service to a remote area of the country. Other than that - paint it white and name it the Elephant.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-14 8:35:25 AM|| 2003-11-14 8:35:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Tom Clancy has another piece of fiction correct when he points out in several novels that the Indians view it as the "Indian" Ocean. With a decent economy, no real enemies (the Paks? Don't make me laugh!), nukes, and what they see as a historical tradional of martial prowess, they are beginning to throw their weight around. Their "assistance" in Sri Lanka was one of the starting points. Bangladesh another.

The Aussies ought to be uncomfortable, with both India and Indonesia far too close for comfort.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2003-11-14 8:43:08 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-11-14 8:43:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Mixed feelings. First its a pride purchase. India doesn't really use the exbritish aircraft carrier they currently have. If they get in a war its a target they can't afford to put in harms way (much as the Bientocynco DeMayo during the Falklands war). So there really is no point. Stupid waste of money.

On the other hand, I'd like to see India have two carriers when France only has a single, non-working one.

Posted by Yank 2003-11-14 8:46:35 AM|| 2003-11-14 8:46:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 A carrier is also a handy thing to have around in case of natural disaster...

But I'm with Mr. Stanley on this... But I'd purchase one of those white elephant high-speed container ships for the purpose.

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-14 9:43:30 AM|| 2003-11-14 9:43:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Yank makes a good point. I don't think the Indians have the ability to conduct a carrier fleet operations. I am talking about aircraft here and technology. But the British claimed that India wasn't ready for self-rule and they proved them wrong. In that area of the world, a Carrier is a HUGE military advantage, especially against the PRC. I thought the PRC was trying to buy this Rusting Ruskie Rowboat? Anyways it will make the Indian a MAJOR power in the region and maybe a counter-balance to the PRC. 50/50 the damn thing sink on the way to India.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-11-14 11:31:10 AM|| 2003-11-14 11:31:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 No doubt the Russians have bondo-ed up the dents and poured saw dust in the engines to keep it working during the sales process. Hope the Indians kick the sides and check under the waterline, they could be buying the world's 2nd most expensive Aircraft Lemon (after the chuck d gaulle, of course).

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-14 11:53:55 AM|| 2003-11-14 11:53:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 One of the major problems with the Admiral Gorshkov is that it's not a very versatile carrier - more like the US "Iwo Jima" class helicopter carriers than one of our Nimitz-class ships. It's primarily designed to handle VTOL or STOL aircraft, has no real catapult capability (limiting take-off weight), and has a really crappy arrestor gear system. The "Kitty Hawk" would be a far better purchase, but the US probably wouldn't sell a US ship. Also, the Indians are probably trying to get a nuke-fueled ship since oil is scarce in India. Either way, the Indians are taking half-steps designed more for propaganda than military capability.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-14 11:58:01 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-14 11:58:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 The India aircraft carriers have been used in the past. In the 1971 war with Pakistan INS Vikrant (now decomissioned) was used to attack Pakistani Ports.
OP, with respect to it being not a very versatile carrier, that's true. But it will be going through a major overhaul (see this pic for what it will look like). Which is why it will cost so much.
As far for buying the 'Kitty Hawk', I think that would be much too huge for India, I don't think they are interested in it.
Like I said, the Gorshkov is intended to be a temporary setup. It is to help India gain more experience and understanding of how to operate large ships/carrier. The Chinese are taking a slightly different approach. They've been buying old carriers and converting them into floating museums/amusement parks. Though that doesn't give them experience fighting off a carrier, it is allowing them to learning maintaining large vessels something they didn't do before.
Finally, with respect to the Nuke-Fuel I think this will still be oil based. India is working on a nuclear reactor for submarines (which they call Advanced Technology Vessel) but that is years away. They may put it in the Indian built carrier if it is ready by then.

Posted by rg117 2003-11-14 12:33:29 PM|| 2003-11-14 12:33:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 A carrier is a stupid idea for India, and/or China. Carriers are about power-projection. India and China have no interests beyond a slightly extended fighter range so what advantage do they have moving the runway a bit further out? Mid-air refueling is a much better solution for their tactical issues.

Developing nations get the idea that Skyscrapers are what make developed nations wealthy so they build them and they are still poor. They think carriers are what make developed nations navies unbeatable so they build them and they tend to sit in port for fear they'll be sunk. This is often compared with the cargo cults in the pacific. Its a mentality they need to get beyond. The carrier will cost a fortune to get in the first place, then even more to pay for the crew, their supplies, and the fleet required to ensure the ships safety. And for what missions? To be able to attack Pakistan from the sea rather than flying planes out to sea and cutting in? To attack nations along the coast of Africa or the Middle East without the ability to drop in troops?

Posted by Yank 2003-11-14 2:05:48 PM|| 2003-11-14 2:05:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Welcome to Honest Ivan's House O' Surplus!

Our prices are INSANE!

Posted by mojo 2003-11-14 3:26:14 PM|| 2003-11-14 3:26:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 OP, America does sell or give ships away but I have never heard of the US selling something that could cause trouble down the road. I think we have even balked at providing Arleigh Burke class destroyers to Taiwan as a negotiated reunification would then hand that technology to the Chinese.

It will be very hard to build a navy around a carrier. For local defense it is more economical to go for the airfield option. A carrier will need submarines to screen for it. Normally it would require destroyer screens as well - they might be planning on using CAP aircraft to perform that function.

Here are some things that an emerging nation needs to conisder before they purchase a carrier:

1. How much will it cost me to outfit the carrier with planes?
2. Do I have the expertise to outfit an air detatchment to keep these planes running while the carrier is bobbing through the water?
3. Do I have enough pilots who can land a plane on a carrier including in heavy weather?
4. How do I plan to protect the carrier in heavy weather?
5. Which countries will this carrier most likely be operating against?
6. Does the Opfor have the capability to saturate my defenses with cruise missiles that can hit a target with accuracy?
7. Do I have amn exhisting navy that can screen and support this carrier?
8. How do I plan to resupply this carrier when it is operational?
9. Can I prtect this carrier from submarine attack?
10. Do I have the teams necessary to coordinate AAW, ASW and ASuW warfare from this platform?

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-14 4:36:48 PM|| 2003-11-14 4:36:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I expect there will be plenty of tragicomic footage to come out of this misadventure. Not to mention multiple Darwin Award candidates. I don't think much of squids, but naval aviators have to be pretty good [not to mention insane] to deal with carrier ops- that sh*t ain't easy.

Why a 3rd world frigate navy needs to invest in a carrier is another question.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-14 6:08:18 PM|| 2003-11-14 6:08:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 It is much more absurd that Thailand has a Harrier Carrier than India does.

SH- I think the Gorshkov is diesel/gas-turbine, so using it as a portable reactor is a non-starter. Though I read somewhere the Indian Navy wants to lease a Russian nuke sub. Again.

As for your questions, and rg117 might know this better, Indian naval purchases the last 15-20 yrs. look very carrier-battle group support oriented. As for opponents, I'd be surprised if the Pak sub force were up to anti-carrier ops. The Chinese PLA navy probably has practiced for this, but the Indian Ocean is a long cruise from Guangzhou or wherever their sub bases are.

I also thought the Indians already had IL-38s. They want the new ones or something?

Posted by OminousWhatever 2003-11-14 6:26:30 PM|| 2003-11-14 6:26:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Though I read somewhere the Indian Navy wants to lease a Russian nuke sub. Again.
I thought they were supposed to be leasing two Akula (Shchuka-B) SSNs, Fernandes mentioned something about this in Moscow a while back, not heard anything since though. Shchukas would probably upset the Paks somewhat, they're supposed to be pretty quiet, at least by Russian standards.

Posted by Dave 2003-11-14 6:35:34 PM|| 2003-11-14 6:35:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Interesting note on US Naval sales. The US sold the USS Phoenix (a Pearl Harbor survivor) to Argentina who renamed it the General Belgrano. When the UK was gonna sink it they realized the modern torpedos were built to smash up the thinner modern hulls and not the overly thick WW2 variety. Luckly they had a few older torpedos with less agility and such but larger warheads. The Belgrano still would have survived if the Argentines had actually chipped the old paint off each time they repainted the ship, but they didn't, and the watertight doors would no longer dog shut and she sank.

Posted by Yank 2003-11-14 6:35:34 PM|| 2003-11-14 6:35:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Shchukas would probably upset the Paks somewhat, they're supposed to be pretty quiet, at least by Russian standards.

I'm puzzled by the nuke sub thing. Lots of people who have worked/served on them have told me that a nuke is generally louder than a diesel of the same vintage. So one would think the Paks or whomever, would have an easier time finding a nuke boat over a diesel of about the same age. Unless India has major force projection aspirations, their boats wouldn't need the range of nuke engines. If I were them I'd just buy more Kilos or those German Type 209's they already have.

Posted by OminousWhatever 2003-11-14 6:52:34 PM|| 2003-11-14 6:52:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Ominous Whatever, I stand corrected. India has quite a few more ships than I expected. They don't have an abundance of oilers but the ones they do have the gear for underway replenishment.

The Soviet Union was finishing its first real carrier when their country fell apart. Don't know that I would want to buy their first try. For instance, gas turbine powering of a carrier strikes me as a very bad idea.

The data link for carrier battle group ops is critical to defending the high value units. Thier fleet better be all Russian - as it looks to me - or data might not be compatible.

If all their assets are operational; they should be able to knock the stuffing out of anyone in that area of the world.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-14 9:14:11 PM|| 2003-11-14 9:14:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Sounds like they're looking more toward Indonesia than Pakland, where they have a long land border.

Also think about the Chinese, who are cultivating Myammar(sp?)(former Burma).

Posted by Pappy 2003-11-14 9:27:11 PM|| 2003-11-14 9:27:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I'm puzzled by the nuke sub thing. Lots of people who have worked/served on them have told me that a nuke is generally louder than a diesel of the same vintage.
AFAIK the Akula/Akula-II is the quietest boat the Russians have produced to date, there were rumours that the USN have problems tracking the things when they come visiting. According to FAS they carry anti-ship/submarine missiles as well as torpedos, so they pack more of a punch than the export version of the Kilo. Not sure how important considerations about prestige were when the Indians decided to lease the boats (we're big boys now, we've got our own SSNs!) & I don't know how well the Indians will be able to operate/maintain them.

Posted by Dave 2003-11-15 3:31:22 AM|| 2003-11-15 3:31:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Diesel subs are incredbibly quiet when they are submerged because they are running on battery power. Nuke subs have become quieter as different methods of eliminating sound from operating pumps and such have been developed and employed.
Diesel subs are limitted by their need to snorkle to run their deisels to charge their batteries and their need to refuel.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-15 9:11:01 AM|| 2003-11-15 9:11:01 AM|| Front Page Top

09:10 Martin Stephen
12:12 Dan
09:11 Super Hose
03:31 Dave
01:46 Steven Den Beste
23:53 PBMcL
23:37 Dan Darling
23:35 Boris A.Kupershmidt
23:30 CrazyFool
23:26 CrazyFool
23:24 Boris A.Kupershmidt
23:22 eLarson
23:22 Robert Crawford
23:09 Gasse Katze
22:50 Mike
22:46 Jarhead
22:39 Anonymous
22:34 Robert Crawford
22:22 Stephen
22:05 Jarhead
22:04 Alaska Paul
21:52 Stonecutters
21:40 Robert Crawford
21:33 Pappy