your talking about the philipines? if so, why dont they approach the disputed territories? until they (or any other USN vessel) do that, this is only a largely empty threat/warning/reminder (of course, you will disagree with me, but you cant disprove it). You cant carry over "carrier diplomacy" forever. That kind of thing can backfire on you someday.
Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
your talking about the philipines? if so, why dont they approach the disputed territories? until they (or any other USN vessel) do that, this is only a largely empty threat/warning/reminder (of course, you will disagree with me, but you cant disprove it). You cant carry over "carrier diplomacy" forever. That kind of thing can backfire on you someday.
kroko, both Stennis and Washington are still in the Pacfic after completing Valiant Shield 2012. their exact position I don't know. the Stennis should be "out-chopping" to the Indian Ocean in the next wek or sooner.
| Ships and Submarines | ||
| Deployable Battle Force Ships: 287 | ||
| Total Ships Deployed/Underway: 149 (52% of total) | |
| Ships Underway | ||
|
| Aircraft Carriers: | |
| USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - 5th Fleet | ||
| USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - 5th Fleet | ||
| USS George Washington (CVN 73) - 7th Fleet | ||
| USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - 7th Fleet | ||
|
| Amphibious Assault Ships: | |
| USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - 7th Fleet | ||
| USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean | ||
| USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - 7th Fleet | ||
| USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - 5th Fleet |
Bose
New Member
I think we can divide this into two parts - operating large combat ships & aviation. In both these cases Russia have more experience than either China or India in terms of number of ships operated as well as the number of aircrafts operated.
Indian Navy till now have operated only one large combat ship (carrier) with a maximum displacement of 28,500tons and for a brief period had two carriers in service list from 1987-1997.
To the flight ops, IN have for the past 30years been operating only STOVL and the number of Sea Harriers in service is now around just 11 or 12 airframes, 18 out of the total 30 procured was lost due to accidents. So a proper carrier ops in terms of arrestor recovery is also new to IN. Again in the case of China, none exist. In short we can say that both the navies are starting fresh for STOBAR ops, the only difference is China still does not have a proper fighter to operate from the deck of its carrier.
Agree. Also, if we are to take the capability to operate large ships with aviation, then Russia is far ahead of China or India. India have till now have mainly operated only one carrier and for a brief period had two carriers in service list from 1987-1997. China did not have any. But Russia have operated 2 x Moskava, 4 x Kiev, 1 x Kuznetsov (& 4 x Kirov class) class of ships and definitely more experienced than either of the two in terms of operating large combat ships.
Vikrant was modified with a Ski-jump in 1989 after the retirement of Alize which was the sole user of the catapults after the Sea Harriers replaced Sea Hawks as the main fighter on the deck during 1982-83.
i.e the catapult & arrestor recovery era came to an end by 1982 for Indian Navy. Since then, for nearly 30 years, it has only been STOVL for fighters. From 2013 onwards, it is going to be mainly STOBAR for atleast a decade to come.
It will be a learning curve and a similar one for both Liaoning & Vikramaditya, as both navies are going for STOBAR for the first time. But India can be said to have an edge as she have got prior experience with carrier operations. But that is something which China can address with proper training and help from others.
You have a very low opinion about the French.
France do not have to learn anything from Russia, absolutely nothing when it comes to sales & profiting.
for my friends in the UK!
[video=youtube;vJFbSB5PyVc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFbSB5PyVc&playnext=1&list=PLCBB187795CA28825&feature=results_video[/video]
[video=youtube;opyVMVsLqxU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opyVMVsLqxU&feature=relmfu[/video]
[video=youtube;vJFbSB5PyVc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFbSB5PyVc&playnext=1&list=PLCBB187795CA28825&feature=results_video[/video]
[video=youtube;opyVMVsLqxU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opyVMVsLqxU&feature=relmfu[/video]
I well remember the thickness of the padding on the flight deck of Moskwa when the experimental Freehand VTOL was tested on her deck.
If you want to use V/STOL or STOVL aircraft from the deck of a ship you make the deck able to stand the heat and you add a ski ramp - except of course when politics exclude this, as in USN. The British taught us that. So I think no ski ramp means no jet exhaust proof deck.
Its not the politics, but the practice of the USN, and as Jeff stated, the deck can be brought up to any spec desired as illustrated by the Wasp. It is not in the dogma or doctrine of the USN to to build ramps on Catobar carriers since the Catobar system is far more capable, and in my opinion as a pilot, it is far safer to be launched with flying speed, than to jump off the end of the deck at high alpha and low airspeed. I have made most of my departures off of a short sod strip, if the grass is tall, the field is short or soft, a cylinder a little low on compression, the airplane has a cruise prop, the nose gear strut flat or underinflated, same with tires, the airplane over gross, too many or to large a load, too much fuel, or there are obstructions, you will reduce airspeed from best rate to best angle of climb. As you do the pucker factor goes way up, add adverse winds, weather, or darkness and the odds of an accident or incident go way up, so no thanks to a ramp, I'm certain a very high percentage of USN pilots would agree, speed is life, especially off the deck on departure!
Indian Carrier Vikramaditya decides to go with asbestos cardboard to replace defective firebricks
"The malfunctioning of the boilers that occurred during high-speed tests will not require their replacement or removal from the vessel. The problem has been pinned down to insulation lining that is placed between the boiler steel casing and ceramic firebricks. Traditional asbestos lining was not used at the request of Indian specialists and replacement material developed slight deformation when the boilers were run at full power, causing some firebricks to fall out. The Indian side has now agreed to the use of asbestos cardboard."
Comments: Smart move by the Indian Navy. Get the INS Vikramaditya into service since everything else performed well during sea trials and get Mig-29Ks flying off her deck.
"The malfunctioning of the boilers that occurred during high-speed tests will not require their replacement or removal from the vessel. The problem has been pinned down to insulation lining that is placed between the boiler steel casing and ceramic firebricks. Traditional asbestos lining was not used at the request of Indian specialists and replacement material developed slight deformation when the boilers were run at full power, causing some firebricks to fall out. The Indian side has now agreed to the use of asbestos cardboard."
Comments: Smart move by the Indian Navy. Get the INS Vikramaditya into service since everything else performed well during sea trials and get Mig-29Ks flying off her deck.
So, in essence, they are going to accept her and do relatively minor fixes by adding the asbestos.
This will get them back much closer to their original time line.
It will be interesting to see what they announce that time line as. That will tell you how much real work has to actually be done, despite such press releases.
- Status