I'm afraid that's again a misconception. The figure quoted for the Ford includes the cost of development (about $4 billion). Since its the first of an entire class of ships, that's a one time investment.Ganesh_S wrote:Sounds Akin to saying buy American live Happy (but then it has to be the tax payer who provides for the deficit). Relatively speaking, cost overrun is the name of the game. Not speaking about F35 here.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-1 ... on-measureThe bill would increase the cost ceiling for the aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, being built by Newport News, Virginia-based Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., to $12.9 billion, making it the most expensive U.S. warship.
Must be a misunderstanding.reuben wrote:This is my first post. Been on this site for a while though.
I just have a small doubt. Why is Vik travelling under the Bhutan flag? I got this info from the marine tracker website.
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/det ... /410000033
IMO: -
MMSI: 410000033
Call Sign: AVWO
Flag: Bhutan (BT)
Type: Military Ops
This as well as the question I used to puzzle over 7-8 years back as to why the IN did not go in for even the older UK carriers and the corresponding Harrier fleet are really moot now.Klaus wrote:Is there a possibility that India might be able to pick up one of the to be mothballed, under construction QE class A/C in the future? Could buy for a percentage of the current price too.
The guy said cost overruns are part of the game. Are you saying that is a Misconception? Because the shipbuilder is not contesting the $2.3 billion overrun reported by the GAO.Viv S wrote:
I'm afraid that's again a misconception. The figure quoted for the Ford includes the cost of development (about $4 billion). Since its the first of an entire class of ships, that's a one time investment.
The recurring cost of a Ford-class carrier is actually around $8.5 billion. Which is about the same as what a new-build Nimitz class carrier would cost today. The Ford class will however have a significantly lower life-cycle cost.
That way the Russians could have charged $5 billion and gotten away with it. Since we had 'no options'. That being the case, perhaps we really should be grateful that they took us 'only' for $2.3 billion.Philip wrote:Nevertheless,there is no point in flogging the acquisition of the Gorshkov.In its chronological history ,it was the best option.It ws imperative for the IN not to lose its carrier skills and maintain its naval fleet air arm essential to control the IOR.What else could we have done?
The Harrier II entered production in 1981. New build Harriers were delivered till 1997 and rebuilt aircraft were delivered till 2003. Considering that the MiG-29K remained mothballed for decades till resurrected by an Indian order, the idea of Harrier production ending permanently in the 90s itself, doesn't hold water.There was no Harrier-2 ever developed for the RN and Harrier production had ceased.
They got a comfortable $400 million from the contract. And the impact of the Yak-141 on the F-35B is often overstated. They employed different propulsion mechanisms (lift fan vs lift jet) for VTOL operation and the swivel nozzle was developed by Rolls Royce based on internal research.The Russians gave away for a song their Yak-141 tech to the US who used in developing the JSF.
Actually its just a proposal not a fact yet. Flying a turboprop transport off a ski-jump is easier said than done.One interesting[/b] fact thrown up is that E-2C/D Hawkeye AEW aircraft can use STOBAR/ski jumps and was offered by Northrop-Grumman to the RN.[/b]
I was referring to the article he quoted. The $12-13 billion figure gets regularly presented for the Ford class is erroneous. The figure for the Nimitz class ($7-8 billion) for example is always the production cost (doesn't factor in decades of investment in the type's development).RajitO wrote:The guy said cost overruns are part of the game. Are you saying that is a Misconception? Because the shipbuilder is not contesting the $2.3 billion overrun reported by the GAO.
The ship's been launched, there's very limited scope for upgrading the existing equipment. There'll be plenty of add-on kit including DEW in the coming years (applies to other ships as well) but the basic design and fit is already frozen.Only three ships have been budgeted so far. The USN will keep asking for more stuff to be put in. That $8.5 billion/$13 billion/X figure is not going to remain what it is. Watch this space.
There is always a walk-away point for any transaction. Clearly $2.3 billion wasn't it. Maybe $5 billion would have been...who knows?Viv S wrote:That way the Russians could have charged $5 billion and gotten away with it. Since we had 'no options'. That being the case, perhaps we really should be grateful that they took us 'only' for $2.3 billion.Philip wrote:Nevertheless,there is no point in flogging the acquisition of the Gorshkov.In its chronological history ,it was the best option.It ws imperative for the IN not to lose its carrier skills and maintain its naval fleet air arm essential to control the IOR.What else could we have done?
The Sea Harrier FA2 primarily featured a new blue vixen radar and AMRAAM BVR missiles. American equipment was a no-no until quite recently. In fact, 4-5 years back we tried to procure the FA2 to supplement our dwindling Sea Harrier fleet but the deal ran into trouble because the aircraft were going to be stripped down and supplied without blue vixen. In any case, the basic airframe was the same and was still susceptible to high accident ratesViv S wrote:The Harrier II entered production in 1981. New build Harriers were delivered till 1997 and rebuilt aircraft were delivered till 2003. Considering that the MiG-29K remained mothballed for decades till resurrected by an Indian order, the idea of Harrier production ending permanently in the 90s itself, doesn't hold water.Philip wrote:There was no Harrier-2 ever developed for the RN and Harrier production had ceased.
reuben Ji :reuben wrote:This is my first post. Been on this site for a while though.
I just have a small doubt. Why is Vik travelling under the Bhutan flag? I got this info from the marine tracker website.
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/det ... /410000033
IMO: -
MMSI: 410000033
Call Sign: AVWO
Flag: Bhutan (BT)
Type: Military Ops
reuben Ji :reuben wrote:This is my first post. Been on this site for a while though.
I just have a small doubt. Why is Vik travelling under the Bhutan flag? I got this info from the marine tracker website.
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/det ... /410000033
IMO: -
MMSI: 410000033
Call Sign: AVWO (Call Sign is Indian)
Flag: Bhutan (BT)
Type: Military Ops
This should make the Indian Naval strategists think a lot more.Nikhil T wrote:Chinese media reports of plans to build a 110,000 ton 'super aircraft carrier' to rival US naval power
CHINA has declared it is building a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier of a size to rival the biggest in United States naval service in the first move of a major new arms race.The design is reportedly based on drawings from the former Soviet Union of a nuclear-powered, 80,000 ton vessel capable of carrying 60 aircraft.
Presenting: China Bay at TrincomaleePhilip wrote:Coupled with the Lankan govt., wanting to take back the lease to the IOC of 90+ WW2 oil tanks at Trinco (and supposedly give the Chinese a foothold in Trinco) .Trinco has the world's most spectacular natural harbour that is so large that it can accommodate most of the world's naval fleets at the same time and have room to spare.It is so deep that whales have found a safe haven there.Ideal for deep draught carrier ops!
The walkaway point might have been $1.3 billion. But the Russians took their own sweet time, waiting until the Indians were committed to the acquisition before handing over a bill for $2.9 billion, with negotiating buffer of $500 mil built in.titash wrote:There is always a walk-away point for any transaction. Clearly $2.3 billion wasn't it. Maybe $5 billion would have been...who knows?
We'll be shrugging off a heavy price when it comes to the MTA and FGFA programs, if that's the only lesson we learn.The only lesson from this story is to develop our own military-industrial complex so we can cater to all our needs in house. And perhaps we're half way there...in 10 years time, the carrier itself and all her escorts will be home-built
That was the RN's Sea Harrier fit. Nothing prevented India from contracting aircraft equipped with the EL/M-2032 and Derby, or RDY-2 and MICA.The Sea Harrier FA2 primarily featured a new blue vixen radar and AMRAAM BVR missiles. American equipment was a no-no until quite recently. In fact, 4-5 years back we tried to procure the FA2 to supplement our dwindling Sea Harrier fleet but the deal ran into trouble because the aircraft were going to be stripped down and supplied without blue vixen. In any case, the basic airframe was the same and was still susceptible to high accident rates
There's no doubt that the MiG-29K is a far better aircraft platform.The point to note here is a BVR capable MiG-29k was an option back in 1997 but a BVR capable FA2 wasn't. In any case, the white tigers were roughly handled by IAF Mig-29's during DACT and were suitably impressed.
reuben Ji :Peregrine wrote:reuben wrote:This is my first post. Been on this site for a while though.
I just have a small doubt. Why is Vik travelling under the Bhutan flag? I got this info from the marine tracker website.
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/det ... /410000033
IMO: -
MMSI: 410000033
Call Sign: AVWO
Flag: Bhutan (BT)
Type: Military Ops
Singha Ji :Singha wrote:probably bhutan flag avoids some legal / taxation / paperwork issues in suez transit as the ship's ownership etc is kind of 50:50 now...
Cheen would surely have obtained the Ulyanovsk design from Nikolayev and jointly working to amend it to todays needs and fix any drawbacks based on whatever they could spy up on american carriers of similar size.
Might not be a misconception. The plan seems to have been to spend $43 billion in building three ships. Considering $4 billion as development costs you still end up paying $39 billion for 3 ships which makes it approximately $13 billion a ship.I'm afraid that's again a misconception. The figure quoted for the Ford includes the cost of development (about $4 billion). Since its the first of an entire class of ships, that's a one time investment.
The recurring cost of a Ford-class carrier is actually around $8.5 billion. Which is about the same as what a new-build Nimitz class carrier would cost today. The Ford class will however have a significantly lower life-cycle cost
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/09/ ... 378404901/The Navy plans to spend $43 billion to build three Ford-class ships. However, the GAO said the program might need to be slowed down so the swarm of bugs and unproven technology issues, which have bogged down the construction schedule, can be ironed out.
http://www.defenseone.com/management/20 ... ers/70038/Delays and cost overruns for the USS Gerald R. Ford also threaten construction of the USS John F. Kennedy, the second of the Ford-class ships. GAO scoffed at the Pentagon's cost estimate for the CVN 79 as “optimistic.”
the Navy has consistently increased its procurement budget for the ship to account for cost growth as construction has progressed. Budgeted costs have grown to $12.8 billion, compared to the Navy’s initial $10.5 billion procurement budget request. This total represents an increase of $2.3 billion, or 22.3 percent, and includesalmost $1.4 billion in future years funding (fiscal years 2014 and 2015) to cover the anticipated cost growth. It also exceeds the $10.5 billion legislative cost cap on the program, which the Navy is currently seeking to amend as part of its fiscal year 2014 budget submission
Under NO circumstances should the GOI ever allow the GOSL to offer Trinco to any nation operating the WW2 oil tank farm or naval facilities other than India.It is past time to play hard ball with the Rajapakse regime on this score.Getting their facilities back is just the pretext to offering them to China.The reverberations will be colossal.For the GOI,total dereliction of duty in foreign affairs in the island.The recorded history of Trincomalee spans more than two and a half thousand years beginning with civilian settlement associated with the Koneswaram temple in the pre-modern era. One of the oldest cities in Asia, it has served as a major maritime seaport in the international trading history of the island with South East Asia. In the ancient world, it was successively the capital of eastern kingdoms of the Vanni country, developing under the Pallava Dynasty, Chola Dynasty, Pandyan Dynasty, the Vannimai chieftancies and the Jaffna kingdom through the Koneswaram shrine's revenue. Trincomalee's urbanization continued when made into a fortified port town following the Portuguese conquest of the Jaffna kingdom, changing hands between the Danish in 1620, the Dutch, the French following a battle of the American Revolutionary War and the British in 1795, being absorbed into the British Ceylon state in 1815. The city's architecture shows some of the best examples of interaction between native and European styles. Attacked by the Japanese as part of the Indian Ocean raid during World War II in 1942, the city and district were affected after Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948, when the political relationship between Tamil and Sinhalese people deteriorated, erupting into civil war. It is home to major naval and air force bases at the Trincomalee Garrison. The city also has the largest Dutch fort on the island.
The Trincomalee Bay Harbour, bridged by the Mahavilli Ganga River to the south is referred to as "Gokarna" in Sanskrit, meaning "Cow's Ear", akin to several areas of Siva worship across the Indian subcontinent. Its sacred status to the Hindus has led to the city being declared "Dakshina-Then Kailasam" or "Mount Kailash of the South" and the "Rome of the Pagans of the Orient." The harbour is renowned for its large size and security; unlike any other in the Indian Ocean, it is accessible in all weathers to all craft. It has been described as the "finest harbour in the world" and by the British, "the most valuable colonial possession on the globe, as giving to our Indian Empire a security which it had not enjoyed from elsewhere."
Regardless of the delays & wranglings over price, I am glad that the boat is finally headed home 
That pic has a helicopter hovering. Is that one of ours or one of them Biturds' Is this standard procedure?Viv, GaneshI was referring to the article he quoted. The $12-13 billion figure gets regularly presented for the Ford class is erroneous. The figure for the Nimitz class ($7-8 billion) for example is always the production cost (doesn't factor in decades of investment in the type's development).
Viv, GaneshI was referring to the article he quoted. The $12-13 billion figure gets regularly presented for the Ford class is erroneous. The figure for the Nimitz class ($7-8 billion) for example is always the production cost (doesn't factor in decades of investment in the type's development).
A decision on the QE carrier is expected 2014 (and will likely depend upon budget vs force outook at that time). It will likely be too soon for India to know what it has with Vik_tya and Vikrant and too much for India's budget at that time. (far-sightedness /early prep has NEVER been one of the strong points of India's MOD/procurement plans).Klaus: Is there a possibility that India might be able to pick up one of the to be mothballed, under construction QE class A/C in the future? Could buy for a percentage of the current price
Ok, here is what I know about the LCA-Navy. It IS based on the LCA Mk2, not the Mk1. That was a confirmed fact from the Deputy Project Director of LCA Navy. So if you do find out this fact in another 6 months, please don't tell us that the IN or ADA has finally gone and done what Vayu suggested or what you have been advocating.Philip wrote: VAYU on the NLCA's woes.Summation:
The IN would be best served with a NLCA based upon the LCA MK-2 variant,not the underpowered NLCA-1 given its limited operational effectiveness.The NP-1 can only carry light SR AAMs,stay aloft for a short time and has limited endurance.The solution is "more power and less weight",but given the small size of the LCA a task too difficult? Since 8 aircraft are on order and the MK-2 development likely to take more time,the suggestion is to use the first batch to validate the aircraft and test it at the SBTF facility at Goa,then aboard IAC-1 and afterwards used as a "shore based conversion aircraft for an eventual MK-2 fleet".
It is therefore most unlikely that we will see the Vikram operating NLCAs for quite some time.