Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers

If go by India's strategic goal then yes they'd need a few, at least 3 to maintain an effective presence, but if and only they can truly solve their teething problems in budgeting and project management, otherwise the carrier programme will break their piggy bank eventually.

You'd probably say that's not much different than in the past because India have operate more than one carrier at a time before, but consider this: a modern carrier battlegroup is expensive to build and maintain, and unlike China who putting it together in piecemeal over the decade, India is driving multiple programmes at the same time (navalised LCA, indigenous carriers), new surface combatants with modern air defense capabilities, plus all the other programmes running for other arm branches, and then throw in their infamous tendency to overshoot budget and timeline, it's not going to be a pleasant picture for them.

Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers

Jeff Head said:

Clearly, the Indian leadership thinks so. They have one old one, are receiving a newly refurbished on that is much more capable, and are building two more. They'll decom the Viraat and be left with three.

They need a lot of resources to continue building their infrastructure and society to help lift their standard of living, and the sea lanes to those resources is definitely in their national interests to be defended.

They do have strong enemies.

So yes, I would say they are definitely justified. But what you or I think is not really going to matter. What the Indian leaders and their people as whole, who elect those leaders, is what matters.

And as I said, right now, they are building them...and rather nice ones at that speaking realtively regarding the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

Yes, but Pakistan barely have any major surface combatants and China won't venture into the Indian Ocean for quite a while. Who else is actually a credible threat at sea for them?

Instead of focussing on aircraft carriers and buying hardware abroad, how about investing in their own domestic aircraft industry? The domestic fighters other than the Su30mkk produced under license and other heavy equipment they can come up with lag decades behind.

Maybe they like keeping getting ripped off by the Russians, French and Americans when they buy hardware. To each his own I guess.

Huntington Ingalls Agrees To Fixed-Price Deal For Next LHA Amphib

I can't post links due to low post count... the article is on AOL defense:



By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

Published: May 31, 2012

Shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls announced at 5:11 pm today that it has settled a $2.38 billion contract to build LHA-7, the Tripoli, the second amphibious assault ship of the new America class (pictured), at its Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi -- and it's a fixed-price contract. That's a major achievement for acquisition reformers but a significant risk for the contractor.

"Fixed price is the new wave of reform, [but] the second vessel in a class is relatively early to be introducing a fixed-price contract, particularly given the fact that every amphib is a little different from every one that came before," said industry analyst and consultant Loren Thompson in an interview with AOL Defense, where he is on the board of contributors. "With only one ship in the class having been built, there are still some uncertainties surrounding manufacturability, sustainment and other factors, so it might be a a little premature for a fixed price contract."

Nevertheless, he said, "nailing down the terms of a big contract for Ingalls has to be viewed as good news."

Amphibious assault ships played a major role in last year's Libya intervention, supporting air operations in the absence of aircraft carriers. Tripoli, like America, is a new design that sacrifices the traditional "well-deck," used to launch landing craft, in favor of a larger capacity to launch planes and helicopters.

Re: Huntington Ingalls Agrees To Fixed-Price Deal For Next LHA Amphib

thecheeto said:

I can't post links due to low post count... the article is on AOL defense:



By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

Published: May 31, 2012

Shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls announced at 5:11 pm today that it has settled a $2.38 billion contract to build LHA-7, the Tripoli, the second amphibious assault ship of the new America class.

Click to expand...

This vessel is going to be pretty much just like the America...another US Marine Air Assault Carrier with Sea Control, "Jeep" Carrier capabilities but with no well deck.

She will provide significant air assault capabilities for Marines and air support for them and amphibious assault Marines from other vessels in her PhibRon.

Also be able to act as a Sea Control Carrier as well with a full two wigs of J-35B JSF aircraft.

Glad to see they are proceeding with another full deck vessel and not going towards the sea basing they were thinking of.

Good move.

here's a link to the

According to the Tripoli will be delivered to the Navy in 2018, which means she will launch in late 2016, which should have her start building late this year or early next year after the America is launched this summer.

According to this article, Ingalls Shipbuilding will then return to well deck Amphibious Assault variants of the America Class thereafter.

Re: Huntington Ingalls Agrees To Fixed-Price Deal For Next LHA Amphib

I wonder how they plan on utilizing these ships... Will they be used in conjunction with more standard LHDs in an Amphibious Ready Group or instead of? If used with, that seems like a lot more Marines in and ARG... One per coast, or will they be part of the "pivot" and be based for use in the Pacific...

Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers

View attachment 6506View attachment 6507View attachment 6508View attachment 6504View attachment 6505

Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers

cn_habs said:

Yes, but Pakistan barely have any major surface combatants and China won't venture into the Indian Ocean for quite a while. Who else is actually a credible threat at sea for them?

Instead of focussing on aircraft carriers and buying hardware abroad, how about investing in their own domestic aircraft industry? The domestic fighters other than the Su30mkk produced under license and other heavy equipment they can come up with lag decades behind.

Maybe they like keeping getting ripped off by the Russians, French and Americans when they buy hardware. To each his own I guess.

Click to expand...

It takes very long to build a navy. This Indian longterm investment does pay off because it makes the Indian Ocean - Indian. We can dispute how many carriers are required for the purpose, but with 2.5% GDP military expenditure India is doing really fine. Among the international contracts you have to calculate voluntary know-how transfer from serious naval warfare experts that China for example lacks with carrier operation knowledge transfer from Latin America only. The joint cooperation with Russia on the PAK FA and with France on the Rafale is giving India a technology edge and confirms them as trustworthy partners.
Trust is one of the central issues lacking in many portrayals of the relations with China (They have a different idea about contracts, leading to as much bad blood as the first milk Vikings gave the native Americans). The degree of trust will positively affect longterm growth, while some corruption enhances economic growth, but too much stiffles it. India seems on the side of too much, making slow but steady progress towards much less.

Pakistan does have a major weakness vis à vis India, the lacking navy that makes their economy vulnerable and contributed to succesfully eliminating half the population of former Pakistan from the ongoing war efforts by creating Bangladesh. The Pakistani economic vulnerability has not yet been fully exploited by India because Pakistan lacks much of an economy worth mentioning with a compareably large military effort in their remaining land that stiffles their economic progress.

Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers

aksha said:

does india really need aircraft carriers???????????

Click to expand...

You asked the question aksha, what do you think of the question you posed?

Franklin said:

You are right that it's now too late for the Indians to back out of this deal for financial, political and legal reasons. At least the Indians will have their domestic carriers to look forward to that would have more credibility than this one. However i do believe that the flaws on this carrier are fatal..

Click to expand...

Again, significant flaws...but not fatal. Fatal would mean it could not opperate at all, from the beginning. it is not fatal...it is inhibiting.

Many prior carriers (including older US ones) operated wioth lifts in the same type of locations. UK Carriers too. it inhibits things as you say, and if damaged is a real game changer...but that was lived with for years...decades on some of those carriers and they continued.

At to the space on deck, look at all of the renderings...they are not mine. They show adewute room fore of the Island for three aircraft and aft of the island for quite a few more (five or so).

Finally, there can be no doubt that what they are about to get in the Virkamaditya is a huge improvement over the Viraat and its air wing. This is where the INdians are coming from and it got them this carrier earlier than their own builds. in the end, they will have three decent carries, two of them probably significantly better than this one.

Re: Does india really need aircraft carriers

why do you ask?