Article

2005-12-26 India-Pakistan

For Gorshkov, Navy pilots head to US for training

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 2005-12-26 00:00|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The level of irony in this news is overwhelming : the Indian Navy is buying a Russian-built aircraft carrier, that is to carry Soviet-designed fighters; but the only way to get their pilots trained is to subcontract that to the US Navy. Meanwhile, the Russian Navy is barren of anything resembling Carrier Battle Groups; and the Red Chinese are rehabbing a scrapped Soviet carrier and hoping to put pilots on it without using foreign training - or just maybe some light French training. {The same French whose carrier keeps having to be towed into port since the freaking propellor keeps snapping off} If China and India ever go at it, I am putting $50 on the Indian Carrier Battle Group and giving points.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2005-12-26 09:50|| 2005-12-26 09:50|| Front Page Top

#2 Here's a picture of the carrier the Indians will start practice on...... at NAS Pensacola.

Posted by Leon Clavin 2005-12-26 10:08|| 2005-12-26 10:08|| Front Page Top

#3 India has operated carriers since 1961.

Lord Moutbatten (cousin of Queen Elizabeth and the last viceroy of India) persuaded Nehru in 1955 to purchase the HMS Hercules which lay unfinished in a Belfast shipyard since 1945. This became the INS Vikrant and was modernized with an angled deck, a steam catapult and a mirror landing sight.
Her airwing comprised British Hawker Seahawk fighter-bombers and a French Alize anti-submarine aircraft.

They later bought HMS Hermes from the UK and renamed her INS Viraat.

Both carriers were modified with skijumps for their Sea Harrier airwings. The catapults on Vikrant were removed.

The Gorshkov will not have catapults nor will the carrier being built in India (ADS). They will both be STOBAR.

Incidently the Vikrant purchase pissed off the Russians. They could not operate carriers then and they still can't now.

In 1957, the Russian Defence Minister, Marshal Zhukov, visited India. In Cochin, Rear Admiral RD Katari, the Fleet Commander, invited him to a banquet on board the flagship. In his memoirs, "A Sailor Remembers" he recalls: (Page 83). "From the moment Marshal Zhukov, stepped on board, he virtually impaled me against the centre-line capstan and demanded to know why we were acquiring an aircraft-carrier. Resisting the temptation to tell him that it was none of his business, I tried to explain to him the reasons which induced us to do so, but he could not, or would not, accept them. The discussion was obviously reaching a point of exasperation to both sides but the climax came when Zhukov made the provocative observation that we were buying the carrier at the behest of the British and to please them."

Posted by john 2005-12-26 10:35|| 2005-12-26 10:35|| Front Page Top

#4 French also train in USA. And its Aircraft Carrier even has E2C-Hawkeyes

Posted by Wheath Glavique1772 2005-12-26 10:46|| 2005-12-26 10:46|| Front Page Top

#5 The Indian Air Force attitudes towards the Russian training is similar... Russian combat training ain't worth a damn. Pilots have traditionally trained in India, the UK (after the Canberra, Gnat and Jaguar purchases) and France (after the Mirage purchases) with advanced training at the Indian TACDE (a fighter weapons school). Some have trained in Israel. Russians provided basic training on their equipment but their entire ground controller centric mode of operation was alien to the IAF.

With the recent Hawk trainer deal, detachments of IAF trainees are again being sent to the UK for training by the RAF.

If Lockeed Martin or Boeing wins the MRCA contract (either F-16s or the F/A-18s) then the USAF will be training Indian pilots...

Posted by john 2005-12-26 10:50|| 2005-12-26 10:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Yes to #4, I know the French run Hawkeyes. But that does not mean much when your carrier keeps losing its freaking propellor, and has to be towed back in. The French did not spend the time and money on the propulsion system that they should have, and their carrier problems are the result. And remember, it is their only full-sized carrier - we manage to run 11 or 12 of them all the time.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2005-12-26 11:15|| 2005-12-26 11:15|| Front Page Top

#7 The Wasp class amphibious assualt ships with their Marine Sea Harriers are larger than the carriers operated by the UK(2), Russia(1), India(1), Spain(1) etc.
And they are not even considered real carriers by the USN.

Hell, the Marines have more aircraft than the RAF.

In both quantity and quality, USN airpower far outclasses all other nations put together.

Posted by john 2005-12-26 11:33|| 2005-12-26 11:33|| Front Page Top

#8 Please refer to "http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2003127.asp" for a history of the French carrier woes.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2005-12-26 11:38|| 2005-12-26 11:38|| Front Page Top

#9 What I found astounding in the deGaulle mess was that the French, who have a very successful civilian nuclear power program, screwed the nuclear propulsion system up so badly.

Perhaps we should change the name of the San Antonio to de Gaulle so people would think only the French could screw up a ship so badly.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2005-12-26 12:13|| 2005-12-26 12:13|| Front Page Top

#10 Makes you think highly of the upcoming carriers to be built by the Brits and Frenchies in a French yard, huh.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-12-26 12:21|| 2005-12-26 12:21|| Front Page Top

#11 They will be conventional powered though...

Posted by john 2005-12-26 12:51|| 2005-12-26 12:51|| Front Page Top

#12 Yes but the new carriers are a British design, conventionally fueled, and the Brits will build two of them in their own shipyards. If the Frogs screw that one up, then as a real bitchslap, we should give them the Kitty Hawk after it is retired. That way, the Frogs would have one actual functional carrier, albeit a bit old.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2005-12-26 12:52|| 2005-12-26 12:52|| Front Page Top

#13 change the name of the San Antonio to de Gaulle

Ouch!

Posted by Leon Clavin 2005-12-26 12:55|| 2005-12-26 12:55|| Front Page Top

#14 I have always wondered why nobody has converted a SuperTanker to a cheap carrier? One of those 1/2 mill or 3/4 mill ton monsters would have a huge flight deck.

likely could pick up old ones pretty cheap to and with a double hull.

Posted by 3dc 2005-12-26 22:23|| 2005-12-26 22:23|| Front Page Top

#15 One antiship missile or torpedo hit will flood a tanker or freighter. Down goes $5 billion worth of aircraft and weapons.

Posted by ed 2005-12-26 22:49|| 2005-12-26 22:49|| Front Page Top

#16 The only value of a supertanker to carrier conversion would be to a country that already has ASW and anti-missile defenses in place in their fleet. At that point, the tanker/carrier would be a modernized version of the WWII jeep carriers. Otherwise, that conversion is just a really big target that would be easily sunk with a minor {for a warship} hit.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2005-12-26 23:26|| 2005-12-26 23:26|| Front Page Top

00:11 Thease Joluger6977
23:49 xbalanke
23:26 Shieldwolf
23:24 Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu
23:02 rjschwarz
23:01 ed
23:00 rjschwarz
23:00 3dc
22:49 3dc
22:49 ed
22:48 Florida Gators
22:47 ed
22:46 49 pan
22:44 49 pan
22:30 ed
22:23 3dc
22:21 xbalanke
22:19 Frank G
22:16 3dc
22:16 xbalanke
22:13 xbalanke
22:11 ed
22:10 Aris Katsaris
22:07 Aris Katsaris