USS Kitty Hawk turned away from Hong Kong

[TSJ]

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.

 

 

It ahould be noted that Austrailia is surrounded by third world countries, Indonesia, New Guinea, and New Zealand.

Edited December 9, 2007 by TSJ

[Cookie Monster]

It ahould be noted that Austrailia is surrounded by third world countries, Indonesia, New Guinea, and New Zealand.

 

Ok then why does Luke Yaxley feel that Australia get a navy or even plan to get amphibious ships capable of carrying land forces? After all, those countries pose no threat whatsoever to Australia. After all, you cannot criticize another country for making decisions that play into the security interest picture Perhaps Luke and Jim Martin (I have read his post above) should give more credit to India's strategic planners who saw a need for aircraft carriers in their security interest picture.

Edited December 9, 2007 by Cookie Monster

[TSJ]

Ok then why does Luke Yaxley feel that Australia get a navy or even plan to get amphibious ships capable of carrying land forces? After all, those countries pose no threat whatsoever to Australia. After all, you cannot criticize another country for making decisions that play into the security interest picture Perhaps Luke and Jim Martin (I have read his post above) should give more credit to India's strategic planners who saw a need for aircraft carriers in their security interest picture.

 

I was making fun of Australia's geographic circumstances.

 

Australia has a global military history for such a young country (and small in population). Like India, they made heavy committments in WWII as well as WWI and even the Boer war. The Japanese were breathing hot and heavy against Australia in WWII. This has lead them to make alliance with the US. Always a heavy burden. I think their army is quite small in numbers but they do like the high tech gear. They just had a turnabout election so some of that high tech gear may get cancelled.

 

Australia has a large middle class in proprotion to their population. As goes with such (lucky) countries, they have certain middle class sensibilities. And one of those sensibilities is that poor countries should take care of their citizens before they start projecting power. When they think of India they may not think as you do, a country on the way up and the next super power, they think of a country with hundreds of millions of its citizens barely etching out a living. I know you find this thinking unreasonable, elitist or maybe even racist (although I don't think it is racist, the Australians are way, way, too ideologically correct for that), but it comes with cultural connotations and meme. It's part and parcel of how they perceive things given the environment in which they navigate. I know this explanation is unsatisfactory to you but I truely think it is the reason why they feel this way.

Edited December 9, 2007 by TSJ

[Nobu]

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.

 

Sounds like the Chicoms wouldn't be the only potential adversary in any INS Kitty Hawk or 50,000t equivalent scenario.

[MODERATOR]

Cookie Monster,

 

Thank you for your prompt compliance.

 

A note to all: thus far this has been a good humoured and informative discussion, but it has begun to acquire an edge. MODERATOR would appreciate the co-operation of all involved in keeping it in the former category.

 

MODERATOR

[Garth]

Actually, I don't want India to get the Kitty Hawk. That will be the biggest white elephant ever procured.

 

And remember that the Kitty Hawk isn't really all that much younger than Hermes ... and has had a MUCH more active and harder life.

 

--Garth

[Cookie Monster]

Sounds like the Chicoms wouldn't be the only potential adversary in any INS Kitty Hawk or 50,000t equivalent scenario.

 

When you say potential adversary, the possibilities are endless. Even Russia could be a potential adversary to India. It is just that India need to have a means of guaranteeing her security interests without being beholden to another country.

[rmgill]

I can see the path to a larger navy with 2-3 carriers. In one respect Kitty Hawk would be the next step for working up crews and training the NCO corps for handling those sorts of operations. Perhaps KH wouldn't quite be operational most of the time, but it would allow them to start exercising the muscles for when they could get newer flat top hulls with the lower maintenance requirements as well as lower crewing requirements.

 

Being able to project power a bit further than the IO would also behoove them. Our ties with India seem to be rushing towards quite warm position so I would welcome seeing them working IN vessels in US task-forces on joint missions.

 

It strikes me that china's going to need some serious counter weights in the next 50 years. Having several friends in the region that can carry the weight would be useful. Someone other than just Japan. As it stands now, the Philippines and other small nations are grudgingly giving ground to pressure from Beijing on issues like Taiwan and the Spratly Is. A 4 way alliance of Australia, India, Japan, US would be quite a good counter weight vs the PRC I think.

[swerve]

.... In one respect Kitty Hawk would be the next step for working up crews and training the NCO corps for handling those sorts of operations. Perhaps KH wouldn't quite be operational most of the time, but it would allow them to start exercising the muscles for when they could get newer flat top hulls with the lower maintenance requirements as well as lower crewing requirements. ...

 

I don't see why they'd need another old carrier to do that with, when they already have one. What would KH add to what they already have? Catapults (which they're not fitting to their new carriers) & arresting gear. Is it worth the huge operating cost, just for re-training (they had it until 1989) in the use & maintenance of arresting gear?

 

Many of the lessons learned from KH would not apply to their new carriers, e.g. the IAC they're now building will have completely different powerplants.

[Jim Martin]

Australia has a large middle class in proprotion to their population. As goes with such (lucky) countries, they have certain middle class sensibilities. And one of those sensibilities is that poor countries should take care of their citizens before they start projecting power.

 

 

Word.

 

And by the way, I do believe I stated that India probably COULD use some carriers, just not something as extravagant as a worn-out US supercarrier. It's a waste of resources that could be channeled to a carrier or couple of carriers that are a better fit for India's needs--more affordable, more sustainable. Besides which, if you have one carrier, you may as well not have any at all. A carrier is only available for operations for about a third of its lifecycle. And again, there are a lot of other pressing needs for India's people than a prestige supercarrier.

[Cookie Monster]

I was making fun of Australia's geographic circumstances.

 

Australia has a large middle class in proprotion to their population. As goes with such (lucky) countries, they have certain middle class sensibilities. And one of those sensibilities is that poor countries should take care of their citizens before they start projecting power. When they think of India they may not think as you do, a country on the way up and the next super power, they think of a country with hundreds of millions of its citizens barely etching out a living. I know you find this thinking unreasonable, elitist or maybe even racist (although I don't think it is racist, the Australians are way, way, too ideologically correct for that), but it comes with cultural connotations and meme. It's part and parcel of how they perceive things given the environment in which they navigate. I know this explanation is unsatisfactory to you but I truely think it is the reason why they feel this way.

 

Very well. By the way, I do not think Indian Australian relationship would head into a favorable direction especially in light of asinine comments by the Liberal parties telling Indian citizens to cut back on their use of energy as to save the environment and the declination of Liberals to supply Indian civilian nuclear uranium supply needs. They can kiss their own asses especially when you look at PER CAPITA the average Indian citizen is using less than 1/10 of the energy used by an average Australian and that they have continued to supply uranium fuel to China whose nuclear proliferation record is one of the worst in the world and is directly responsible for the nuclear arming of Pakistan, indirectly responsible for Iranian nuke program and N. Korea program.

 

Well frankly, i think the "middle class sensibilities" are running the way of "hypocrisy".

[BillB]

Well frankly, i think the "middle class sensibilities" are running the way of "hypocrisy".

What do you expect, they are middle-class.

 

BillB

[Archie Pellagio]

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.

Reply Comment edited to conform with TANKNET ROEs

 

What avenues are they that aren't able to be flown by land based aircraft?

The abilities of a single CV are limited at best, plus then there is the fear of losing her.

How close to the Pakistani coast do you think she'll sail?

How many escorts would a ship like that require in a war that the indian navy could spare?

 

And defend the south from who? The ELF's cessna airforce?

 

As for your diversion to Australia, personally I question the need for fast jets in many instances for australian usage anywhay however the purchases you mention i'll go though.

 

1) The F/A-18F's were bought by the government without prior consultation to the RAAF leadership.

In any instance they are a less than even replacement for the role of basic maritime strike as well as a small strike force.

Do you propose that Australia not show any interest in Sea Denial operations given our primarily trade based economy?

There is a distinct difference between a small force (24) of land-based strike aircraft versus a Super-carrier.

 

As for the F-35's, they are the eventual replacement to the now ageing and fatigued F/A-18A/B fleet who's operations are already limited. It is no different from saying "Why does india need a replacement for MiG-21's?"

 

As for our new LPH's they are required to support the many primarily humanitarian missions that Australia undertakes, often at great cost throughout the pacific and the rest of the world, where there are often poor or no port facilities (The Solomons, Bougainville, Aceh, East Timor to name but a few) and which are prime examples of the fact that throughout the region often the australian military is the only one besides the USN that can get forces and aid there when needed.

 

Who wants to invade Australia? Nobody wants to nobody can, but that is no reason to have no defence as you imply.

There is a difference between no force and excessively expensive and ultimately limited usefulness force.

Its ike the option between being unarmed or carrying a suitcase nuke.

 

I am bemused at your "objective" thinking that India's security interests can be protected by small corvettes.

 

Where did I say that?

Last time I checked india posessed small CV's, quite large powerful destroyers, frigates and a submarine fleet amongst other units in a quite substantial navy. Who proposed scrapping those for a fleet of "small corvettes"?

So by your logic, the current indian military is insufficiently equipped to defend indian interests and the only remedy to that will be a super-carrier like KH?

 

Who do you envisiage will or even may attempt to close indian sea lanes?

How will the presence of a super carrier serve to defeat said incursions?

 

I'm asking for specifics here.

Paint me a scenario.

 

As for the middle class speculation, I honestly couldn't care about domestic indian politics or social welfare and its relationship to military spending, but what purpose would be served by a single clapped out, overly large ultra expensive ship is simply beyond me.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Luke_Yaxley

[Cookie Monster]

Note that I do not support getting KH simply because it is a white elephant. However getting a 50,000 to 60,000 is not a white elephant and does serve India's needs quite nicely and fit with her budget.

[dpapp2]

The main problem India would face with the Kitty Hawk is her huge ship crew. It is not much larger than the French PA2 (82000 vs. 75000t full load) which has only a third(!) the crew.

[TSJ]

It's not that worn out. The US Navy doesn't let ships deteriorate that much while it is on active duty status. Ill bet the Navy keeps an active maintenace schedule on it. The ships elevators, catapults, crew quarters, galleys, small convience stores (to buy gedunk, magazines, books, ship's mementos), hot and cold fresh water to take showers every day, ships laundery, air conditioning systems, etc., in short, everything is working on that ship. And it probably wouldn't be that expensive to buy either, for a capitol ship. The only question is how much high tech electronics will the US let go with it?

 

I will admit that it ain't cheap to run or to maintain.

Edited December 10, 2007 by TSJ

[Cookie Monster]

It's not that worn out. The US Navy doesn't let ships deteriorate that much while it is on active duty status. Ill bet the Navy keeps an active maintenace schedule on it. The ships elevators, catapults, crew quarters, galleys, small convience stores (to buy gedunk, magazines, books, ship's mementos), hot and cold fresh water to take showers every day, ships laundery, air conditioning systems, etc., in short, everything is working on that ship. And it probably wouldn't be that expensive to buy either, for a capitol ship. The only question is how much high tech electronics will the US let go with it?

 

I will admit that it ain't cheap to run or to maintain.

 

Yes everything is working out but what about metal fatigue? Metal fatigue is very hard to guage and IIRC, the standard policy is to rid of ships whose age is more than 60 years old unless it fulfills a need that cannot be match by another platform. IN is purchasing a carrier which she wants to use for 40 years. That means KH has to reach the age of 100 and over. Frankly, I don't think that ship is gonna last that long. I mean take a look at JFK. It was so badly deterioted that the USN simply decided to retire her early. JFK was newer than Kitty Hawk so that tells you something.

 

Besides, the required crew complement is way too large for IN. An ideal size would be 1600 to 2000. That is far more affordable to IN.

[swerve]

.The main problem India would face with the Kitty Hawk is her huge ship crew. It is not much larger than the French PA2 (82000 vs. 75000t full load) which has only a third(!) the crew.

 

Actually about the same tonnage. As with other US ships, Kitty Hawks tonnage is usually given in US tons of 907 kg, while PA2 is in real tons - or tonnes.

 

Also, the lack of anywhere to dock her, or any catapult-capable fighters to fly off her, could be even bigger problems.

Edited December 10, 2007 by swerve

[dpapp2]

Er... indeed, for some reason I thought the 80,000t figure was long ton not the short one, with KH displacing 90000+ short tons at full displacement, but apparently not.

But then the question is why the KH can operate an 50% larger airgroup than the CVF?

[swerve]

Er... indeed, for some reason I thought the 80,000t figure was long ton not the short one, with KH displacing 90000+ short tons at full displacement, but apparently not.

But then the question is why the KH can operate an 50% larger airgroup than the CVF?

 

Yes, that is an interesting question. I've long been puzzled by the relatively small size of air group given for CVF. If correct, it's barely more than Charles de Gaulle, for a much larger ship.

[Josh]

Yes, that is an interesting question. I've long been puzzled by the relatively small size of air group given for CVF. If correct, it's barely more than Charles de Gaulle, for a much larger ship.

 

I recall this coming up a while back in the board. The only stated reason I recall was someone sugguested that aircraft could not be decked parked as easily in the North Sea for RN ops. Also they might be going opperating on the assumption of STOBAR/STVOL, which I imagine might drasitcally change the needed deck space. Cat launches probably require less run up. In particular I wonder if the requirement is to recover STOVOL a/c while launching them; this could take some realstate.

 

Alternatively it might be a case of 'fitted for, not with' to get past budget requirements but have room to expand the air wing.

[dpapp2]

Yes, but the catapult equipped PA2 is still rated for 48A/Cs. Prolly KH has a beamier hangar.

[Josh]

Yes, but the catapult equipped PA2 is still rated for 48A/Cs. Prolly KH has a beamier hangar.

 

Are sure that's just not the figure for the RN's CV's? If the link below is accurate it would lend credence to the idea that STOVL might change deck requriements.

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france...-project-01621/

 

"When complete, the ship will operate 60-70 Rafale M fighters, E-2C/D Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft, and AS565 Panther or NH90 NFH naval helicopters. Defensive missile systems will likely include the Eurosam Aster 15 PAAMS, as well as Mistral short-range missiles on a Sadral launcher."

[dpapp2]

Official figures are for 40 A/C. The 4700m2 hangar have space for no more than ~ 30 Rafales, and by the various published pictures the deck could not hold much more than 12. And then you need space for 3 E-2Ds and the NH-90s.

[swerve]

Official figures are for 40 A/C. The 4700m2 hangar have space for no more than ~ 30 Rafales, and by the various published pictures the deck could not hold much more than 12. And then you need space for 3 E-2Ds and the NH-90s.

 

 

Maximum 12 on deck? Count the F-35Bs on this picture of CVF -

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images...mparison_lg.jpg