USS Kitty Hawk turned away from Hong Kong

[pikachu]

Five Chinese and one American are stranded on an island. One Chinese gathers fruits, the second fishes, the third finds water, the fourth gathers firewood, the fifth cooks.

 

The American is assigned the task of eating the food.

 

I think I got that from The Economist. Might not be an exact quote, though.

[Jeff]

Hah, nice one. Where'd you see that?

China upset at Kitty Hawk's Taiwan Strait transit

Tue Dec 4, 2007 6:35am EST

 

BEIJING (Reuters) - China said on Tuesday it had voiced "grave concern" to Washington after the USS Kitty Hawk sailed through the Taiwan Strait, just days after an aborted port visit to Hong Kong.

 

After first denying entry to the carrier and its accompanying strike group for a long-planned stopover during last month's U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, Beijing changed its mind and said the ships could dock after all in the southern city.

 

But by then the Kitty Hawk and its support flotilla was heading back to its home port in Japan via the Taiwan Strait, the narrow channel dividing mainland China from self-ruled Taiwan which Beijing considers its territorial waters.

 

According to the U.S. Navy, "the route selection was based on operational necessity, including adverse weather".

 

A typhoon did strike the South China Sea near the Philippines that week, but Beijing was unimpressed by the U.S. explanation.

 

"The United States informed China at that time and said it took that route due to a storm," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told Tuesday's regular news conference.

 

"China expressed grave concern to the United States and requested it to take prudent actions in this sensitive area."

 

Beijing has claimed sovereignty over Taiwan since 1949 when Mao Zedong's Communists drove Chiang Kai-shek's defeated Nationalists to the island.

 

Tensions between the two entities have played out in the strait several times since then, most recently when China conducted military exercises there in 1995 and 1996, prompting the United States to send warships there.

 

NO "MISUNDERSTANDING"

 

Meanwhile, China has refused to be drawn on its reasons for barring the Kitty Hawk from Hong Kong, repeating on Tuesday there had been no "misunderstanding" as put forward by Washington.

 

It also declined comment on a Pentagon report that Beijing had turned down a request for another U.S. Navy ship to enter Hong Kong.

 

"We have already expounded on China's standpoint many times," Qin said. "I believe the United States is fully aware of our position, so I don't have any more comments on that."

 

The White House said Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi had told President George W. Bush last week that the incident had been a misunderstanding, something China later denied.

 

Asked on Tuesday what the United States should do to avoid further misunderstandings, Qin said:

 

"China's position is very clear. So your mentioning a misunderstanding is not in line with the facts and we've expounded on our position on many occasions."

 

There has been speculation Beijing's move to block the ships was related to irritation over U.S. plans to help Taiwan upgrade its missile system, a meeting between Bush and exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama or Chinese war games in the area.

 

Hong Kong, a former British colony that returned to Chinese rule in 1997, is a favorite port of call for sailors from around the world, especially for Americans on R & R (rest and recuperation) during and since the Vietnam War.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...EK3008920071204

[Cookie Monster]

Last I heard about Kitty Hawks is that US wants to sell it to India after India is having problems with Russia over the funding of Gorkshov refitting. When I heard about it, my first thought was, "Man I got a bridge down in Florida to sell to you." But then I keep hearing about this in Indian online newspapers and magazines. Is there anything remotely close to this rumor? Or someone has way too much time and is smoking too much weed?

[Ivanhoe]

Last I heard about Kitty Hawks is that US wants to sell it to India after India is having problems with Russia over the funding of Gorkshov refitting. When I heard about it, my first thought was, "Man I got a bridge down in Florida to sell to you." But then I keep hearing about this in Indian online newspapers and magazines. Is there anything remotely close to this rumor? Or someone has way too much time and is smoking too much weed?

 

That does sound nutty. But imagine the ripple effect of India fielding a CV that can host USN fighters, and possibly vice versa in the long run. That would be quite a wakeup call for the PRC.

[Jeff]

Could India handle the KH at this point in their CV learning curve?

[Cookie Monster]

I am not sure if IN has any facilities that can berth a 90,000 behemoth or let alone, service her. But I am quite sure that the IN can man her and operate her. If they can operate a 45,000 ton aircraft carrier, they should be able to handle the KH. The question is how long does KH have on her life and whether the maintenance will be constant to the point where it reaches the point of no gain, meaning, it will be in port way too much for to be effective use. The second question is whether they can afford to operate her and maintain her consider the huge fuel bill the KH will present. That fuel bill for KH alone will roughly equal or cost more than the entire fuel bill for IN.

[Josh]

It seems extremely unlikely for the reasons provided. And to add to that, I don't believe any Indian aircraft or personel are rated for cats and wires *. So there's no aircraft to stage off Kitty and there's no pool of training for the pilots or deck crews.

 

Short version yes, it must be just a myth.

 

*That sounds like a really militaristic board game a la shoots and ladders

[swerve]

Could India handle the KH at this point in their CV learning curve?

 

"this point in their CV learning curve"? India operated a steam catapult-equipped aircraft carrier from 1961 to 1989. Their experience may be old, but they still have people who served on that ship, & they've operated STOVL carriers for over 20 years.

 

I think the real problems are -

 

Size of ship. I don't think any Indian naval base can berth her, or any Indian dock hold her. I think the largest dock is 321 by 60 metres, at Visakhapatnam, which isn't quite enough.

Size of crew. Too big. The IN would struggle to man her, & could probably only do it by stripping other ships.

Lack of suitable aircraft. Jua is right. India has no catapult-capable aircraft in service or on order.

Age & condition. I agree with Cookie Monster.

 

There are Indian pilots qualified in arrested landings, & more training (total 32 booked on the course), for the MiG-29K - experienced Sea Harrier pilots training with the USN - but I'm not sure about catapult-trained. That shouldn't take too long, if it's the only additional qualification, but there's not much point if there's nothing for them to fly.

Edited December 7, 2007 by swerve

[TSJ]

It's not just a ship, it's a system. That huge of a ship is going to take a lot protection. For instance, for any but the most primitive of enemy, the ship has to run silent. That means in order to vector planes back and forth from a mission, there must be tactical command away from the ship, not anywhere near it. Does India have anythng to do this?

 

Also, will get India get all the sophisticated electronics on the ship? Beside your basic comm gear and radar?

 

There are some questions to be answered before it could be determined if this is a good deal or not. It's an awful expensive way just to show the flag. But hey, maybe India is willing to pony up the dough for all the systems necessary. As a US taxpayer, I hope so.

[Jim Martin]

For a regional power like India, a supercarrier would truly be an expensive luxury, and as pointed out, she'd require massive outlays of capital, just to keep her in oil. India can and should have carriers, but something rather smaller than a supercarrier. I'd think all the money involved with purchasing and maintaining KH could probably be better spent in civil infrastructure improvements in India, or a more robust literacy program. India is the most populous democracy in the world, yes--but electoral ballots must have party symbols on them because huge numbers of the voters can't even read the ballots adequately to identify the name of their chosen party...

 

With better civil infrastructure, communications, education, India could one day end up building her own supercarrier. She has the human capital in spades. She just needs to develop that, rather than blowing money on a foreign white elephant.

[harryRIEDL]

I am not sure if IN has any facilities that can berth a 90,000 behemoth or let alone, service her. But I am quite sure that the IN can man her and operate her. If they can operate a 45,000 ton aircraft carrier, they should be able to handle the KH. The question is how long does KH have on her life and whether the maintenance will be constant to the point where it reaches the point of no gain, meaning, it will be in port way too much for to be effective use. The second question is whether they can afford to operate her and maintain her consider the huge fuel bill the KH will present. That fuel bill for KH alone will roughly equal or cost more than the entire fuel bill for IN.

the Indians are opreateing a 60 year old carrier [Hermes was laid down in 1945] so Kitty Hawk would be a youngling for them naa i don't think India could operate kitty Hawk for all the above reasons.

On another note do you think India can afford to run Gorskhov as that ship has had a truly terrible past and will be much much more expensive than hermes so can the indians afford to run it?

[Archie Pellagio]

For a regional power like India, a supercarrier would truly be an expensive luxury, and as pointed out, she'd require massive outlays of capital, just to keep her in oil. India can and should have carriers, but something rather smaller than a supercarrier. I'd think all the money involved with purchasing and maintaining KH could probably be better spent in civil infrastructure improvements in India, or a more robust literacy program. India is the most populous democracy in the world, yes--but electoral ballots must have party symbols on them because huge numbers of the voters can't even read the ballots adequately to identify the name of their chosen party...

 

With better civil infrastructure, communications, education, India could one day end up building her own supercarrier. She has the human capital in spades. She just needs to develop that, rather than blowing money on a foreign white elephant.

 

The idea of india buying something like that is a joke.

It is a pure luxury item. They'll keep plodding away and probably get on in a few years, but there is no real purpose for them. Who would they attack?

The indian ocean is a big blank space between india, africa, indonesia and australia.

 

Though if I were Maldivian or Seychellean i'd be very afraid...

[Cookie Monster]

the Indians are opreateing a 60 year old carrier [Hermes was laid down in 1945] so Kitty Hawk would be a youngling for them naa i don't think India could operate kitty Hawk for all the above reasons.

On another note do you think India can afford to run Gorskhov as that ship has had a truly terrible past and will be much much more expensive than hermes so can the indians afford to run it?

 

I am hoping that the IN dumps the Gorkshov especially after the cock up way the Russians have been pulling with IN and GOI. I would use the $1.2 billlion dollars that the Russians have been requesting as a down payment to build a shipyard that can design and build 50,000 to 60,000 warships. Or better yet, buy into that British -France joint partnership creating 50,000 to 60,000 CVs in exchange for technical know how. I really don't like the design of Gorkshov. It is way too inefficient for my taste.

[Cookie Monster]

The idea of india buying something like that is a joke.

It is a pure luxury item. They'll keep plodding away and probably get on in a few years, but there is no real purpose for them. Who would they attack?

The indian ocean is a big blank space between india, africa, indonesia and australia.

 

Though if I were Maldivian or Seychellean i'd be very afraid...

 

She's facing competition from China. Note the way that China has India surrounded. Tibet to the north, Pakistan to the west, Burma to the east. Burma is going in the direction of the Chinese camp despite Indian efforts. And Chinese is making moves in Sri Lanka. Hence, the need for projection of power in the seas to protect her southern flank. Besides, India's lack of navy in the 1600s and 1700s is what led to her downfall under the European powers. Indians are not going to make the same mistake twice.

[Archie Pellagio]

She's facing competition from China. Note the way that China has India surrounded. Tibet to the north, Pakistan to the west, Burma to the east. Burma is going in the direction of the Chinese camp despite Indian efforts. And Chinese is making moves in Sri Lanka. Hence, the need for projection of power in the seas to protect her southern flank. Besides, India's lack of navy in the 1600s and 1700s is what led to her downfall under the European powers. Indians are not going to make the same mistake twice.

 

Yeah, and are any of those a threat to India?

 

The only reason that comes vaguely close to logical is the potential of a future blue-water PLA-N.

 

But the key problem with that is still what are the Indians supposed to do with this carrier?

 

Nobody has ever given a satisfactory answer to this beyond vague "A counter to China" or "to have a navy commensurate with their place in the world..."

Those are not real reasons, its the usual crap peddelled by Clany-ite dilletantes.

A war machine needs a mission.

Plain and simple.

Now i'm not advocating being a doctrine-nazi, but aside from bombing Karachi, providing high-cover to the pending invasion of Seychelles against their fearsome airforce or perhaps providing CAS for Rambo in Myanmar, what can be done by an Indian CV that requires it?

Edited December 8, 2007 by Luke_Yaxley

[dpapp2]

The Indian Indigenous aircraft carrier has a planned complement of 1200-1500 but air group would be 20-24 aircraft. The Kiev class had similar complement.

 

In contrast, Kitty Hawk has a very large complement, only the ship crew itself is over 3000, add an almost as large (2000+) aircrew to it. With a smaller airgroup (48-60 aircrafts) and economizing this could be reduced somewhat in exchange for endurance and strike capability. If manpower is the critical issue, India should have three small aircraft carriers with the same number of aircrafts.

[harryRIEDL]

Yeah, and are any of those a threat to India?

 

The only reason that comes vaguely close to logical is the potential of a future blue-water PLA-N.

 

But the key problem with that is still what are the Indians supposed to do with this carrier?

 

Nobody has ever given a satisfactory answer to this beyond vague "A counter to China" or "to have a navy commensurate with their place in the world..."

Those are not real reasons, its the usual crap peddelled by Clany-ite dilletantes.

A war machine needs a mission.

Plain and simple.

Now i'm not advocating being a doctrine-nazi, but aside from bombing Karachi, providing high-cover to the pending invasion of Seychelles against their fearsome airforce or perhaps providing CAS for Rambo in Myanmar, what can be done by an Indian CV that requires it?

its kinda a moral thing showing that they can have carriers [i think its because after they bought Viraat the Russians said it was a load of crap]. its a India navel myth i think. i would be very nervous if the Indian carrier had to suffer any reasonable opposition as im not sure an CBG with out the AGEIS option [or equivalent] can cut it in this day and age

[Ol Paint]

India is currently looking at purchasing a Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft with two of the candidates being carrier-qualified: The Dassault Rafale-M and the F/A-18E/F... The Gorshkov was part of a package deal that included MiG-29Ks, so if they can the carrier deal, that could have an effect on the MiG acquisition, if they haven't been delivered already. In which case, alter the selection criteria for the MMRCA to put in an adder for CATOBAR capability.

 

According to the MiG-29 link, below, deliveries were supposed to start in mid-2007 for the initial buy. If the majority of the aircraft haven't been delivered, could they be axed in favor of the MMRCA? Alternatively, continue the deliveries but provide them to the AF to operate alongside the earlier MiG-29s in their inventory and go ahead with the MMRCA to support a CATOBAR carrier.

 

That would make the acquisition of a US carrier an interesting possibility as an alternative. The Kitty Hawk or similar would also put things like the E-2 back into the mix. There are still the issues with the size of the ship, her crew, etc, but it does make interesting fodder.

 

Just some random, unresearched thoughts, most of which would require faster action to put in place than is typical for governments.

 

Douglas

 

References:

MMRCA: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mirage...ges-01989/#more

Story on India's carrier plans: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/N...how/2586598.cms

MiG-29K Info: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/MiG-29K.html

[Cookie Monster]

Yeah, and are any of those a threat to India?

 

The only reason that comes vaguely close to logical is the potential of a future blue-water PLA-N.

 

But the key problem with that is still what are the Indians supposed to do with this carrier?

 

Nobody has ever given a satisfactory answer to this beyond vague "A counter to China" or "to have a navy commensurate with their place in the world..."

Those are not real reasons, its the usual crap peddelled by Clany-ite dilletantes.

A war machine needs a mission.

Plain and simple.

Now i'm not advocating being a doctrine-nazi, but aside from bombing Karachi, providing high-cover to the pending invasion of Seychelles against their fearsome airforce or perhaps providing CAS for Rambo in Myanmar, what can be done by an Indian CV that requires it?

 

Sure they can be a threat if not taken care of properly such as nipping them in the bud before it becomes a big problem. The canceled strike of the 1987 or 1992 IAF strike against the Pakistani nuclear reactor brings a painful lesson to India. If India had struck the nuclear reactore before it could be put to use in manufacturing weapons grade material, India would not have to contend with a nuclear armed Pakistan and thus be able to take care of the cross border terrorism problem much more effectively.

 

Do not forget that bulk of India's trade is through the sealanes in IOR. It is very much in India's national security interests that no country can interfere with her trade such as embargoes or enforced sanctions. To ensure that, she needs capability and that capabality requires force projection power that comes in the form of aircraft carriers. Don't forget that India has strategic islands to protect, namely the Nicobar & Andamans Islands that are very much of interest to the Chinese, not to mention Indonesians or Australians.

[TSJ]

Sure they can be a threat if not taken care of properly such as nipping them in the bud before it becomes a big problem. The canceled strike of the 1987 or 1992 IAF strike against the Pakistani nuclear reactor brings a painful lesson to India. If India had struck the nuclear reactore before it could be put to use in manufacturing weapons grade material, India would not have to contend with a nuclear armed Pakistan and thus be able to take care of the cross border terrorism problem much more effectively.

 

Do not forget that bulk of India's trade is through the sealanes in IOR. It is very much in India's national security interests that no country can interfere with her trade such as embargoes or enforced sanctions. To ensure that, she needs capability and that capabality requires force projection power that comes in the form of aircraft carriers. Don't forget that India has strategic islands to protect, namely the Nicobar & Andamans Islands that are very much of interest to the Chinese, not to mention Indonesians or Australians.

 

Airbase agreements with Singapore, Maldives and say, Oman, would be much more cost effective I would think. But hey, if India wants the Kitty Hawk so be it.

[Cookie Monster]

Actually, I don't want India to get the Kitty Hawk. That will be the biggest white elephant ever procured. Rather, I'd have India go for the British-France joint design and production of the 50,000 to 60,000 aircraft carrier. India needs 3 or 4 carriers. So in exchange for such a large order, India should get some of the subcontracting assignments. That will be better for India in the long run as it supplements India's budding naval building program

[Cookie Monster]

Airbase agreements with Singapore, Maldives and say, Oman, would be much more cost effective I would think. But hey, if India wants the Kitty Hawk so be it.

 

For some idiotic reasons, GoI have a policy of not stationing forces or bases overseas unless part of a UN assignment. The only exception is Tajikistan and that was in response to the need to build friendship in the Central Asia region and is only limited to a field hospital and training staffs. No helicopters or aircraft fighters or even special forces. That only came after the Russian government agreed to allow an Indian presence independent of a UN sanctioned mission.

 

So it is in the interest of India that IN obtain and retain a force projection power without the need to station forces overseas or abroad except in Indian territories.

[Archie Pellagio]

Sure they can be a threat if not taken care of properly such as nipping them in the bud before it becomes a big problem. The canceled strike of the 1987 or 1992 IAF strike against the Pakistani nuclear reactor brings a painful lesson to India. If India had struck the nuclear reactore before it could be put to use in manufacturing weapons grade material, India would not have to contend with a nuclear armed Pakistan and thus be able to take care of the cross border terrorism problem much more effectively.

 

Do not forget that bulk of India's trade is through the sealanes in IOR. It is very much in India's national security interests that no country can interfere with her trade such as embargoes or enforced sanctions. To ensure that, she needs capability and that capabality requires force projection power that comes in the form of aircraft carriers. Don't forget that India has strategic islands to protect, namely the Nicobar & Andamans Islands that are very much of interest to the Chinese, not to mention Indonesians or Australians.

 

So let me get this straight, the indians need a rediculously large aircraft carrier to "Power project" over the Andaman Islands against the Chinese and Australians?

 

And how exactly would a carrier make a strike against anywhere in Pakistan more probable?

 

Whatever you're smoking you need to be a good forum citizen and share, because thats some good sh*t!

 

And I don't want to enable the ThreadJacker 2000 so i'll not go into your statement about stopping the pakistani nuclear program..

[Cookie Monster]

So let me get this straight, the indians need a rediculously large aircraft carrier to "Power project" over the Andaman Islands against the Chinese and Australians?

 

And how exactly would a carrier make a strike against anywhere in Pakistan more probable?

 

Allows India another avenue of attack to use and force Pakistan to divert resources away from the east border to defend the south side from attacks

 

 

Ok if you think Chinese and Australia poses no threat, then why does Australia have the need to get more Hornets or F-35s or have a navy in the first place? Who wants to invade Australia? I am bemused at your "objective" thinking that India's security interests can be protected by small corvettes.

 

Note I said I don't want Kitty Hawk but having a large carrier allows a lot more capability and flexibility in planning a wide range of operations from strike missions to supporting amphibious operations. Having a small carrier like Viraat have shown IN that it is really limited in many roles and IN want to have a greater capability than before. Besides, India does not like depending on US's goodwill to keep the seas safe for India nor India will ever rely on such goodwill. India hasn't forgotten the Bay of Bengal incident during the 1971 war.

 

Whatever you're smoking you need to be a good forum citizen and share, because thats some good sh*t!

Reply Comment edited to conform with TANKNET ROEs

Edited December 9, 2007 by Cookie Monster

[MODERATOR]

Cookie Monster,

 

the last paragraph in your last post is in breach of the Site ROEs, please edit it and modify your behaviour forthwith. This is a sensible forum, if you wish to cast insults about take it to the FFZ and keep it within the rules.

 

MODERATOR