Philip wrote:Sarcasm useless.Objectivity and commonsense appears lost when die-hard Yanqui-lovers want India to play puppy-dog to the USN and copy-cat their fleet.They want the IN to emulate the USN's mega-carriers before we've even got used to operating two med. sized ones. Anyway,it's not going to happen in my lifetime,15 yrs+ at the earliest if it ever comes. Funny how feku logic tries to worm itself into posts.No one has touted for the Shtorm,it's too large for us at 100K t,but the concept of using both a ski-jump and cats is novel and should be pursued to see if it can fit aboard a future 65K t vessel,or even a smaller sized carrier.
Feku logic heh Philip?
So Catobar is all about Yanqui-lovers heh? Let me help you out with your selective amnesia with this picture:
Recognise the ship? And horror of horrors the chaps are actually using a Catobar!
Yes the original Vikrant which did such a yeoman's service during the 1971 war, used planes launched by Catobar to bomb Chittagong port. So wanting to go back to Catobar is equal to becoming a puppy-dog to the USN? Only a stronger than vodka and fairer than Natasha friend
of the Bear would say something like that. But then I'm not adding any value to the discussion by pointing out this pout
Whether you like it or not the Indian navy's first AC experience was with a Catobar AC. Due to stupid reasons (I would reckon) nobody tried to copy the design of Vikrant and make an indigenous Catobar AC and instead we went for the Hermes which the British had available for sale. It wasn't so bad because then the Harriers were state of the art AC borne fighters which had the benefit of vertical landing.
After that we went with the Vikramaditya, I won't dwell on what a stupid decision that was, plenty has been discussed about this. And the MiG29s come into the picture. Again there is no need to discuss the failures of this plane, the most prominent being, IMO is not its single engine landing issue but the fact that it simply can't fly with full weapon and fuel load from a carrier deck.
The Navy seems to have realised this and also the fact that a ski ramp AC will never be able to fly a Hawkeye type of plane which is why they have decided to dig down on a flat top design. And for Catobar, whether steam or EMALs, the US is the only game in town and even the French have used a US Catobar on the De Gaulle. I wonder what kind of puppy dog worship it is to profess support for the Navy and yet insist that they should stay away from Yanqui stuff and go with an inferior Russian maal which has amply proved its inadequacy.
[Note: I'm not against Russian help where it has proved useful, for example in submarines, the Su-30 and other areas. It's just that there are no permanent friends or enemies in this game, only permanent interests. And IMO in this case it is in India's interest to go with US tech for the new AC. Also a trick question for you Philip, let's see if you choose to answer or whether you feign another bout of amnesia: India is getting its aviation complex for IAC-1 from the Russians. The VickD also has a Russian made aviation complex. Now curious minds want to know, where did the Chinese get their aviation complex for Liaoning and for the new one they are launching? Any idea? In effect the Chinese will know the exact capability of India's newest AC when it comes to its ability to put fighters in the air.]
Final point, the AC design will be Indian. The Indian Navy design bureau has already got the budget to conceptualise how the AC will shape up. Catobar, whether it's EMALs or steam will just be an off the shelf purchase.
Instead of ludicrous ,obtuse posts like the highlighted one,more objective and analytical posts would be welcome. One has mentioned the huge cost of such a carrier for the IN,which would beggar its budget.Right now,only a blind man cannot see the real no ! priority for the IN,subs,N-subs and sub-hunting helos,The stats about the Chinese going to have almost 80 subs by 2020 ,apart from Pak's planned 12+,should be more than a wake-up call top the MOD and IN,rather a torpedo up their backsides! The neglect of the sub fleet,and the numerous accidents to our subs in recent times,has reflected very badly upon the reputation of the IN today.It caused one CNS to resign,when in fact the Def. Min,AKA should've fallen on his sword/tripped on his dhoti.kilos undergoing their second lifetime refit is unheard of anywhere.U-boats almost equally old are also getting some sort of transfusion to linger on a little longer.Barely half the sub fleet is battleworthy,with the Chakra/Akula-2 our only force multiplier.
Now, now how convenient Filipkosy! You change the goalposts!
In your previous post you were talking about the need to counter 4-6 Chinese AC and for that reason we need to build another Vikrant 2 quickly (with of course MiG29 planes duh!). Now the Navy needs to move away from ACs and counter Chinese subs by building more subs with Russian help (why do I even to write that?). Can you prove that the third AC is going to be built by taking budget from our sub programme? Any factual evidence about this, instead of "I think..." kind of post?
Confabulating data about the need for investment in our submarine arm to dish our AC programme because it wouldn't help provide some billions to the Russians is par for course I suppose.
Drastic decision-making is required immediately to resolve the crisis in the shortest time.The 3rd. carrier requirement while needed,pales in comparison with the situ of our subs. What is needed here is a faster completion of IAC-1 so that it can be put through its paces and compared with the Vi-A so that the combined experience of operating both becomes input for carrier no.3.
Make up your mind. Does India or does it not need a third AC. And an answer, that it needs a third (and fourth, and fifth) AC only if it comes with a Stobar and MiG29 aircraft is not an option.
Incidentally, in case you didn't notice, the Navy has taken a firm decision to build a third AC around 65k tons with Catobar and most probably N-propulsion. Learn to live with that.