Indian Naval Discussion

kit · Post by **kit** » 19 Jul 2010 10:10

Case in point.India is not looking for a war with any of the western countries and is more looking to interoperability with their military.And i do wonder why Boeing has to ask Raytheon to develop the P8I radar variant for India., is it like India has asked for a customized version or Raytheon has to really (sic) develop a dumbed down version for International (India) customers ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jul 2010 12:23

Excellent news report on the building of the RNs latest carrier in Scotland.Posting link here because of the numerous carrier related posts,easier to cross check with.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... vered.html

Britain's biggest warship uncovered
A wide-angle lens can barely do justice to the scale of the new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers being built by BAE Systems in Glasgow.

At a cost of £5.2bn, displacing 65,000 tonnes each, taller than Niagara Falls at 56m from keel to masthead, and built from three times as much steel as Wembley Stadium, the two new aircraft carriers are a pair of floating superlatives.

Providing four acres of sovereign UK territory wherever it sails, the carrier will have a naval crew of 679, roughly the same as on the carriers in service now, although the ship is three times larger than HMS Illustrious and Ark Royal. With crews to operate the 36 F35 Joint Strike Fighters on board too, there will be close to 1,600 personnel.

Helicopters used by all three services can operate from the ship, and the carrier could also be used to carry up to 500 troops,

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Jul 2010 12:47

chackojoseph wrote:
Kanan wrote: Yes, bro! U.S always gives the best tech even to Europe, So can India be left behind??

I am inclined to support chetak's post, because history and facts second his point! As per the voltage anology, such minor differences would not make 'em label it an international version but rather an Indian Version because India has no common platform with any (or most) potential customers for P-8s! So the conclusion is not Hasty but one based in the history of American Defence Policies!
You are right. I was only saying that don't jump into conclusion. I never said that What chetak said is false.

Guys,

Even the ruskies did not often give us the fully lethal stuff because they often worried about "leakage" to potential enemies.

A customer could easily "mislpace" a very sophisticated missile or even a complete system. This is how the americans and russians, not to mention the chinese manage to stay ahead of the curve. They blindly steal from one another, some more than others.

One would have to be very foolish to think that some one would trust anyone in today's dog eat dog world.

The IP involved in this sort of merchandise is worth much beyond its weight in gold.

Can't blame someone for being extra careful, especially when dealing with India with her demonstrated technical and scientific capabilities. ( and very strong ties to the russians as well!)

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 19 Jul 2010 13:59

Deflecting The Assassin's Mace: Pentagon's New AirSea Battle Concept And Its Strategic Relevance To India

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 Jul 2010 14:13

chetak wrote: Guys,
Even the ruskies did not often give us the fully lethal stuff because they often worried about "leakage" to potential enemies.

A customer could easily "mislpace" a very sophisticated missile or even a complete system. This is how the americans and russians, not to mention the chinese manage to stay ahead of the curve. They blindly steal from one another, some more than others.

One would have to be very foolish to think that some one would trust anyone in today's dog eat dog world.

The IP involved in this sort of merchandise is worth much beyond its weight in gold.

Can't blame someone for being extra careful, especially when dealing with India with her demonstrated technical and scientific capabilities. ( and very strong ties to the russians as well!)

Its Indian navy we are talking about. I think its a no holds bared force when it comes to what they want. I can understand if it is the other 2 forces.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 19 Jul 2010 14:54

11356 class:

http://vkontakte.ru/video_ext.php?oid=- ... 6ba19&hd=1

http://vkontakte.ru/video_ext.php?oid=- ... 1f245fccd6

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jul 2010 15:42

SNaik wrote:11356 class:

http://vkontakte.ru/video_ext.php?oid=- ... 6ba19&hd=1

http://vkontakte.ru/video_ext.php?oid=- ... 1f245fccd6

Very Nice Video on IN Talwar Frigate the closest you can get to see the frigate in action.

Interesting thing was the cummunication suite CCS something mention was being tested by Russians , the communication suite was a BEL one and one of sensitive piece of equipment , while the Sonar Suite Humsa had a Indian operator.

I am wondering if this gives the Russians an insight on sensitive piece of Indian equipment like Sonar and Communication suite , something that can be detrimental to us ?

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 19 Jul 2010 17:11

A thing like EM compatibility of Russian and Indian equipment should be considered, Austin, which certainly will give some insight into the systems. I'm not sure that Russians are that far behind India in sonar and comm equipment that they will learn much from CCS or HUMSA. Especially to the detriment of India.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jul 2010 17:30

Well I never said Russia were behind in Sonar technology , but it will give them a good idea our things work specially sensitive equipment like Sonars and Communication stuff.

Never mind lets hope they just keep it to them self what ever they learn .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jul 2010 17:41

why does the main cannon have a rubber hose running from its tip back into the turret? for fume extraction?
sounds like quite vulnerable to any debris or shrapnel....tanks have some kinda fume extraction sleeve and use compressed air to clean
the barrel after each shot methinks.

paschimi cannons dont seen to have it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nanse ... -07-03.jpg

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jul 2010 17:56

Great video feature on the Talwar.What comes across is the typical ruggedness and solidity of Russian eqpt.where "form follows function".One can see that the frigate is built for battle ,not for show,and what was quite interesting was the manner and design of eqpt. where all the weapon systems were reloaded automatically.The Kashtan anti-missile system displayed the missiles v.high speed required for a CIWS.It would be very interesting for the IN to secretly test B'Mos against the current generation of anti-missile defences we have,Barak,Kashtan,etc.,and see how they fare.

India and Russia have had decades of co-developing weapon systems,sensors and eqpt.During Soviet days,they gave us their best eqpt. to see how we would use it in the field and improve it.It is thought that many systems sold to us were of more advanced standard than described in brochures.There is nothing to be worried about co-developing,just look at B'Mos,where the hypersonic version of the missile is also being co-developed by both countries.If one traces a path of Indo-Russian defence cooperation,we can see a steady

In the case of the P-8I,barring the fact that the aircraft is a version of the 737,the rest is nothing fantastic and eqpt. inside is of P-3 std. depending upon what watered down features the US is giving us ,ever mindful of the need to also protect its favourite rent-boy Pak after selling it P-3s too! The P-8 cannot peform the ponderous "low and slow" ASW duties that are a feature of anti-sub tasks best performed by turbo-prop aircraft and because of this has to have its ASW torpedoes launched at higher alt. and fitted with a special wing kit to glide down to the sea.Of course one can definitely take for granted that the P-8 will come with superior crew facilities,something not to be scoffed at,as long hours takes its toll on human beings.however,the "meat" of the matter must be the capability of sensors and weaponry,which is a Q mark with the P-8 thus far.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Jul 2010 18:13

UPDATE on APY-10 surveillance radar to be installed on the P-8I Maritime Surveillance Aircraft built for Indian navy..

For all those worried (including myself) about the "International version" of the radar on the P8-i being 'dumbed down' version... Heres some reassurance (for what its worth).....

DNA reports.. Interview with Neil K Peterson, Raytheon's director of strategy and business development.

"The radar we will be giving to the Indian Navy's planes will have more features than those with The US Navy," he said. The radars will be able to work at significantly tactical ranges and also detect small targets. They will be capable of image targeting at very long ranges and also be able to carry out overall land operations including in the coastal regions.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_in ... rs_1411776

More features than the one being provided for USN??.. Hmmmm

Any takers?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Jul 2010 18:26

Rony wrote:Deflecting The Assassin's Mace: Pentagon's New AirSea Battle Concept And Its Strategic Relevance To India

This is a game of Chess with more than two strategic players which includes India and by thus Pakistan. In the course of this game there is going to be many snarls, howls, closing of fists but very few real action. Everyone seems to playing the waiting game. Any premature and wrong move by anyone is going to cost them their existing place in the pecking order. In this aspect it looks prudent by showing restraint in engaging Pakistan after mumbai 26/11 in a tit for tat manner. But only time will tell how this cookie will collapse.

As India’s satellite network grows, it risks becoming more vulnerable to ASAT. China has already shown that it is capable of neutralizing low-orbit satellites. As time goes by, its counter-space abilities will grow, and Pakistan may follow suit. In order to prevent Indian satellites from becoming “wasting assets”, it may be wiser to rely, as some US analysts have advised when discussing their country’s satellite architecture, less on a small number of large mainframe satellites, and more on a greater number of micro and nano satellites, in order to “spread out the damage” in the event of an ASAT attack.

This is the kind of solution we are already focussing on. A converted AGNI missiles will be used to launch these micro stats which will have stealth feature with redundancy built in.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 Jul 2010 19:15

Great news

India and Seychelles to increase Cooperation for Maritime Security in IOR

India reiterated New Delhi’s assurance, for continued cooperation in all fields particularly in the field of Defence and Security. Indian Prime Minister had announced a $ 5 million assistance for Defence related projects for Seychelles. The defence minister also agreed to provide one new Dornier and two Chetak helicopters from the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for maritime surveillance. Although the normal delivery time is 18 to 24 months, India will try to supply the aircraft in 15 months. In the meantime, India will provide one of her in-service Dornier Aircraft to carry out maritime surveillance. Indian Navy will also make additional visits this year to conduct surveillance and hydrographic survey. During these visits, Seychellois personnel can embark on board the Indian Navy Ships for maintenance training and conduct drills and exercises.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Jul 2010 19:32

shukla wrote:More features than the one being provided for USN??.. Hmmmm Any takers?

I think it was reported that the IN asked for a rudimentary air search capability as well (poor man's AWACS if you will) that is not there on the US version.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jul 2010 19:43

weather radar feature too...the air search mode makes sense for self-defence because IN cannot always count on lurking E2 for early warning unlike USN

http://knol.google.com/k/vijainder-k-th ... mdhy2mq/13#

At the Singapore air show in February 2010, Boeing revealed that the Indian Navy had sought an air-to-air mode for the Raytheon-built AN/APY-10, the primary sensor of the aircraft.

The Navy has also asked for an aft radar because the APY-10 provides only 240° forward coverage.

biswas · Post by **biswas** » 19 Jul 2010 20:29

Philip wrote:Excellent news report on the building of the RNs latest carrier in Scotland.Posting link here because of the numerous carrier related posts,easier to cross check with.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... vered.html

Britain's biggest warship uncovered
A wide-angle lens can barely do justice to the scale of the new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers being built by BAE Systems in Glasgow.

At a cost of £5.2bn, displacing 65,000 tonnes each, taller than Niagara Falls at 56m from keel to masthead, and built from three times as much steel as Wembley Stadium, the two new aircraft carriers are a pair of floating superlatives.

Providing four acres of sovereign UK territory wherever it sails, the carrier will have a naval crew of 679, roughly the same as on the carriers in service now, although the ship is three times larger than HMS Illustrious and Ark Royal. With crews to operate the 36 F35 Joint Strike Fighters on board too, there will be close to 1,600 personnel.

Helicopters used by all three services can operate from the ship, and the carrier could also be used to carry up to 500 troops,

The best part about these new Queen Elizabeth class carriers is that the steel is sourced from Corus.

Corus is owned by SDRE Tata onlee

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 19 Jul 2010 20:37

Philip wrote:Excellent news report on the building of the RNs latest carrier in Scotland.Posting link here because of the numerous carrier related posts,easier to cross check with.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... vered.html

From the above link.

BAE's own chief executive, Ian King, said last week both carriers may not go into active service with the Navy, although he believes that both will be completed.

There has been some speculation that the carrier may be sold to India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jul 2010 20:39

more likely they will keep one in port always to save on opex. capex can be reduced by having one airwing instead of two.
even stuff like cups, plates, tandoors and mattresses can be one set onlee in a pinch

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Jul 2010 20:55

Singha wrote:
The Navy has also asked for an aft radar because the APY-10 provides only 240° forward coverage.

Singhaji,

This may just mean that there may be an additional antenna covering the blind zone whose rotation will be electronically synchronized with the main display to provide a 360 degrees coverage in conjunction with the forward antenna.

The australian orion has two such antennae covering 180 degrees each but just one radar which integrates pictures from both so that there is a seamless 360 degrees display at the operator's console.

corrected spelling!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Jul 2010 20:59

neeraj wrote:
Philip wrote:Excellent news report on the building of the RNs latest carrier in Scotland.Posting link here because of the numerous carrier related posts,easier to cross check with.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... vered.html
From the above link.
BAE's own chief executive, Ian King, said last week both carriers may not go into active service with the Navy, although he believes that both will be completed.
There has been some speculation that the carrier may be sold to India.

The angrez have been trying to peddle the second carrier to India to offset the cost of the one needed by the royal navy.

This is what the new uk prime minister meant when he wanted a close relationship with India. Obviously he thinks that there are many more fools here than anywhere else.

Not to touch with a long barge pole!!!!

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 19 Jul 2010 21:36

chetak wrote:Not to touch with a long barge pole!!!!

Why, because of the cost? It seems very similar to IN's planned IAC-2 in terms of displacement and support for CATOBAR operations. If India can get the ship with EM catapult pre-installed, it may be worth it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jul 2010 21:39

shukla wrote:More features than the one being provided for USN??.. Hmmmm Any takers?

Yes provided he is willing to revel the features being provided to USN , then a one to one comparison can be done else its a PR claim

much of those features are just software upgrades something they can get via block upgrades

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 Jul 2010 22:38

If so, Kiss the IAC-2 ass good bye.

How much is the Gorshkov final deal worth?

IMO, we might then buy the carrier shell and the the great Indian circus will kick in. Ruskie+india+yahudi+firangi systems.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 20 Jul 2010 01:57

Indian Aircraft Carrier construction on schedule: CSL

In the latest report of Cochin Shipyard Limited, it mentions that the prestigious IAC project is proceeding on schedule with the company completing a large portion of hull block fabrication and erection in the building dock during 2009-10. The company is presently constructing 15 commercial ships for various international and domestic owners along with the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier for the Indian Navy.

In Ship repair, over the years CSL has gained experience in undertaking high tech repair jobs on rigs, defence vessels and all types of commercial ships. 50 ships were repaired in the year 2009-10, major works among them being normal refit of INS ‘VIRAAT’, extended short refit of INS ‘TARANGINI”, conversion of Research vessel ‘Sindhu Sankalp’, Medium refit of INS “Nireekshak” and short refit of “INS Jyothi”.

Amongst its new initiatives, Cochin Shipyard installed a bollard pull test facility upto 500 tonnes at Vizhinjam which was the first step towards geographical diversification. Presently facility of such high capacity is not available anywhere in India. The yard commissioned a Small Ship Division in the year 2009-10 for concurrent construction of small commercial ships during the pendency of the Aircraft Carrier construction. CSL is also looking for capacity expansion by way of Drydock / Shiplift for which project study is underway.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 20 Jul 2010 02:10

Singha wrote:weather radar feature too...the air search mode makes sense for self-defence because IN cannot always count on lurking E2 for early warning unlike USN

http://knol.google.com/k/vijainder-k-th ... mdhy2mq/13#

At the Singapore air show in February 2010, Boeing revealed that the Indian Navy had sought an air-to-air mode for the Raytheon-built AN/APY-10, the primary sensor of the aircraft.

The Navy has also asked for an aft radar because the APY-10 provides only 240° forward coverage.

Yeps! I recall that the Indian Navy wanted a mini-AWACS like MMA!

Another key difference between P-8A and P-8I is that the latter carries a Magnetic Anomaly Detector(MAD) while the former does not! The USN stated that MAD is too heavy and hence affects the endurance of the aircraft! If that is the fact, Why did IN insist on having MAD? Seniors, please throw some light on this!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2010 09:19

are you sure your statement is true....I thought the MAD sting in tail was kind of sop for LRMP a/c in a three stage attack
- sonobuoys locate a sub
- plane flies low and uses MAD to get a better idea
- release torpedo

looks like they intend to stay high and use the torpedo wing kit from 20,000ft.

maybe the US has better sonobuoys now that make the MAD redundant and perhaps MAD is not effective against
non-magnetized hulls (U212, Ohio SSBN) and deep running nuclear subs?

in kings bay georgia there is parking bay type dock where Ohio SSBN can sail in and undergo the non magnetic treatment and sail away.
not sure how it works, maybe some cables are wrapped on sub and a current passed?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 20 Jul 2010 09:37

^^^ That is correct GD the Poseidon for USN will indeed be without MAD and as you said they are looking for high altitude release of torps onlee...although will make it interesting to see how they will deploy sonobuoys from that sort of altitude

interesstingly though withose sort of altitudes the surface search radar will get a mucho better view of the horizon and should be able to see quite far...

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 20 Jul 2010 11:19

neeraj wrote:
BAE's own chief executive, Ian King, said last week both carriers may not go into active service with the Navy, although he believes that both will be completed.
There has been some speculation that the carrier may be sold to India.

This is old new matey.. Admiral Nirmal Verma, Chief of Naval Staff, in his interview with DefenseWorld magazine has already clarified that India had no intention of buying the Queen's-class carrier from UK at this stage.

You would know that the Queen’s-class of carriers are expected to be ready only after 2016,as such by then we should have Vikramaditya and IAC-1 operational with IAC-2 well under consideration. I do not immediately see any reason for us to explore foreign acquisitions at that time when the impetus is increasingly on indigenization.

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/detailin ... .jsp?id=37

kit · Post by **kit** » 20 Jul 2010 13:36

Not the Queen Elizabeth AC itself., but that design could be incorporated into a future IAC 2 along with some unique features.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2010 13:55

I see it more likely Fincantieri will be roped in and some machinery and design commonality
retained with the IAC-1 which is a Fincantieri consulted design.

we are also buying two fleet tankers from them, 1st one should be almost ready.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jul 2010 14:29

"It is an unfortunate commentary of the total absence of vision at the political level,and of the mindless obduracy of the bureaucracy that this approval (for the IAC-1/ADS) was withheld for over 10 years without any good reason".
Adm.Arun Prakash (retd.),former CNS,writing in VAYU on "India's Carrier Building Programme".

It is this attitude of the defence establishment (politicos and babudom)when it comes to critical issues and shortcomings that afflict India's defence preparedness are given such shoddy treatment,while the whims and fancies of the decision making monkeys (like the C-17 acquisition,where we are apparently buying 10-poss.20 aircraft,when the combined numbers of the non-US allies and NATO who also operate the type are less than 25!), that grates on the mind.I fear that our chiefs of the three services have to be more fearless and outspoken and if need be "fall on their sword" for the good of their service and the nation,if this sorry state of affairs is to continue,dangerously damaging the nation's security in these crucial years before the Sino-Pak military machine is fully modernised and ready to do battle with India.Retd, chiefs can also do their bit,must go public to educate the nation and parliamentarians and even in extreme cases take recourse to the courts, in order to bring to heel the tentacles of the politco-babu nexus that is throttling the smooth functioning of the MOD.

In the feature,the good admiral has done an excellent job showing how the IN's carrier capability was born,preserved and is to hopefully mature in the future as planned by our defence strategists in the '50s.What is now needed he says is the final design for IAC-2,which is going to be larger than IAC-1.The key issues to be finalised are the type of aircraft to be carried aboard which will impinge upon the design.If STOBAR is continued,then a skijump is required which imposes a compromise as far as AEW aircraft are concerned,which cannot operate (E-2C/D Hawkeyes-only available from the US,risk of sanctions) from ski-jump flat tops.He advocates a mix of aircraft that could include even a naval version of the PAK-FA and a MK-2 naval version of Tejas.

Since catapult tech is only available fom the US yet again and is heavy and costly to buy and operate,with EM versions yet to arrive,if the "2017" date for the induction of IAC-2 is to be kept on target,then a decision has to be made right now.Going by current yardsticks we have little other option but to go in for another STOBAR carrier,but larger in size than IAC-1.This will however require us to develop,perhaps with friendly nations-options from both from east and west,a new multi-purpose AEW/ASW helo,that is larger than the KA-31 and has a far greater endurance.Also required is a carrier long range AEW UAV.These two projects are sorely needed and if no action has been taken,then these projects must be started so that in 5-7 years time,we will be able to have both helo and UAV AEW/multi-role helos available.As far as aircraft are concerned,more MIG-29Ks,LCA MK-2 (naval) and even naval variants of the 5th-gen fighter should suffice for the future.I do not know how nuch a STOVL version of the PAK-FA will cost to develop,as the main users will only be India and Russia,but if the requirement is about 300-400,with the possibility of even exports,then it is a worthwhile option.If such an aircraft is available ,then all surface vessels of 12000t and above could be dsigned as flat tops like the new Japanese small carriers masquerading as destroyers,with a heavy wepaonload of missiles in VLS silos and equipped with a below deck hangar too for STOVL aircraft and multi-role helos.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Jul 2010 19:27

Fwiw MAD is a standard fit on Il-38 and Tu-142, perhaps it gives an idea of where the IN is coming from.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Jul 2010 20:02

chackojoseph wrote:If so, Kiss the IAC-2 ass good bye.

How much is the Gorshkov final deal worth?

IMO, we might then buy the carrier shell and the the great Indian circus will kick in. Ruskie+india+yahudi+firangi systems.

What you think about this info...
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/02/co ... craft.html

vina · Post by **vina** » 20 Jul 2010 20:14

Since catapult tech is only available fom the US yet again and is heavy and costly to buy and operate,with EM versions yet to arrive,if the "2017" date for the induction of IAC-2 is to be kept on target,then a decision has to be made right now

But why is that a problem ?. I am sure that Unkil will be more than willing to sell us cats, along with the EC-2000 Hawkeyes and later versions (you cant use Hawkeyes without cats) we need both. The French bought those two for their carrier. We aren't the Russians or the Chinese you know , to whom Unkil simply will NOT supply equipment ?.

After all we did operate a steam cat aircraft carrier (the old INS Vikrant) for close to 30 years before making it VSTOL. It is not unknown to us.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Jul 2010 20:20

^ Gurudev the IAC 1&2 at least are powered by gas turbines so we are talking about different boiler and fuel for steam generator, no ?

vina · Post by **vina** » 20 Jul 2010 20:34

^ Gurudev the IAC 1&2 at least are powered by gas turbines so we are talking about different boiler and fuel for steam generator, no ?

Actually even better, since the propulsion is not steam turbine. The exhaust from the gas turbines can drive a boiler to generate steam which can drive cats when needed or used for power generation as a co-generation system.

With atleast 4 GTs of the LM-2500 class there should be ample heat in the GT exhaust to generate steam for at least 2 cats I think.

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 20 Jul 2010 20:56

Noob Q.
Can we convert a sea plane like Grumman HU-16 Albatross into an AEW aircraft. In that case it need not land on the carrier.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2010 21:31

you could but would be difficult to launch/recover it from a ship in the open sea in anything but calmest of sea state.
some WW2 battleships did carry a spotter plane like spitfire seaplane fired off rails in the back using RATO and recovered using a crane.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Jul 2010 22:05

Kanson wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:If so, Kiss the IAC-2 ass good bye.

How much is the Gorshkov final deal worth?

IMO, we might then buy the carrier shell and the the great Indian circus will kick in. Ruskie+india+yahudi+firangi systems.
What you think about this info...
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/02/co ... craft.html

Sure, that is old news. This is new speculation. Lets wait for sometime and see. We don't require 4 carriers definitely.

Yesterday 2 thoughts passed my mind.

It could be with so many rattlings in China sea, unkil might have thought that it could do with a large friendly carrier around than in UK. So they set up a Lightning 2 upon us. Some one must be footing certain bill somewhere.

Other thought was that UK is actually wanting out of f-35 or minimum commitments. So may be Injuns could pick up balance of the commitments + other mall from unkil.

Injuns might have thought if not IAC-2 right now, then we can certainly make a IAC-3 to replace Gorshkov.

But, all di ij speculation.

Pleej dond thig tat thij ij Phrontier Indiya thing tang stuff. I am just speculating very wild.

Who knows what we hear tomorrow or the days after.