Indian Aircraft Carrier enters sea trials

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
The INS Vikramaditya, formerly Admiral Gorshkov with the Soviet navy, entered sea trials on June 8. It is scheduled for delivery to the Indian navy in December. She will be capable of carrying between 30 and 34 aircraft including the MiG-29K.

The Indian navy is also looking at a potential Rafale M purchase for their future ski-jump deck carriers. They are already scheduled to purchase 126 of the type for their air force.


Russia has commenced sea trials involving the Indian navy's refurbished aircraft carrier the INS Vikramaditya, as sources suggest the service could consider a future acquisition of the Dassault Rafale.

Originally built for Russia as the Admiral Gorshkov, with a maximum displacement of 43,500t, the refitted and modernised vessel left Severodvinsk in the north of the country on 8 June for open-sea trials, preceeding its delivery to India in December. Once operational, the Vikramaditya will be capable of carrying 30 to 34 aircraft, including RSK MiG-29K deck-based fighters.

Source




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
And here's a picture of it. By way of comparison, an American CVN is about 100,000 tons displacement. This carrier is equivalent in size to American LHDs (Landing Helicopter Docks) which are used to lead Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Units.



Below is a picture of what it used to look like. It was originally named the Baku and was laid down in 1978, but not commissioned until 1987. It was renamed the Admiral Gorshkov in 1991 because the city it was named after was no longer a part of the Soviet Union, but one of the independent states. It cost the Indians $2.3 billion with modifications.


edit on 6/12/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


And we are still handing them aid money every year....... Why???????



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


China is also getting in on the carrier actually. But people really miss the point on this. They don't understand the difference between an "indian aircraft carrier" and an American carrier strike group.

Sure india can build an aircraft carrier or china can... great but they have no idea how they are used in combat situations.

An american carrier strike group is totally different its composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates, Aegean missile defense ships and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. All working in unison to defeat an enemy.

So even with this deployment the chinese and indians are at least 10-15 years behind what the americans currently field.
edit on 12-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 


China's is already in sea trials as well. India has had a couple in service for a few years now, but they are all much smaller than US ships, as stated. They have a design on the boards for a 65,000 ton design, but are several years away from even starting construction.

It will be several years before anyone even thinks about operating their carriers like the US ships, but that's also in large part because the only nuclear powered carrier in service to date is operated by the French navy. Smaller conventional carriers don't have the operational time or range of a nuclear carrier, without a lot more support with them.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I personally am not sure if carriers are worth the money anymore... If we truly are moving towards a battlefield dominated by drones and automated warriors I think the idea of spending $4.5 billion each on a carrier is silly.

At the beginning of WWII everybody still thought Destroyers were the pinnacle of technology, with the Germans building the Bismark, etc. Not until we were facing Japan in the Pacific did we really grasp the importance of carriers at the time.

I hope our current crop of carriers won't turn out to be the folly destroyers were for us in WWII in any coming conflicts with china and the likes...
edit on 12-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 


Meanwhile China is also investing in Carriers.

Carriers still will have a place IMO. Simply because it's the easiest way to bring air power to bear on an opponent. I foresee Carriers utilizing Drone technology in the future. Drone fighters and bombers etc.

Carrier defense technologies will be a booming business.

ETA: I see KnawLick went back and edited his replies after others had replied to his initial posts.

edit on 12-6-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 



Not to nitpick, but the class of ship that was proven to be obsolete during WWII was the battleship, not destroyer.

Also, it was the British Fleet's attack on the Italian naval base at Taranto during the early stages of the war that gave japan the inspiration to plan and execute the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 


Carriers will always be a good idea to have around, as it allows a limited quick strike capability. Right now unless the Air Force happens to have tactical bombers in the area, our only options are heavy bomber strikes. With carriers around the world in various areas, we have a fairly quick strike capability, on a small scale. Why send a B-2, to do a mission that one or two F/A-18s can do. It makes more sense to use a smaller force, than to fly a forty hour mission from Whiteman AFB and back.

As for drones, the X-47B is undergoing testing at Pax River, and is expected to begin carrier trials within the next couple of years. Eventually we'll see more and more drones operating on ships, and within a generation or two, we'll see smaller class carriers, that are cheaper, since they will carry fewer manned aircraft, and require less deck space.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Touche. But there aren't very many places on the whole map that can't be reached by at least 1 US military installation.

The F-22 for example has a range of about 2,000 miles. Go onto a map of the world and randomly point at any spot. 9.5 times out of 10 I guarantee there is a US military base closer than 2,000 miles away.

But your right, we've already commissioned the Gerald Ford class carriers to replace Nimitiz, they aren't going anywhere.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I think the next generation of carrier will be a stealthy submersible,with VTOL drone fighters armed with beam weapons.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 


That 2,000 mile range is deceiving. That's 2,000 miles carrying external fuel tanks and no weapons (except for usually one self defense missile and a few rounds for the gun). The combat radius of most modern fighters is less than 800 miles, with a few closing in a 1,000.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


And we are still handing them aid money every year....... Why???????


I guess you never did learn geography, and thinking entire south Asia is India? lol

India its not even on the top 25 recipient for American foreign aid.

Stop making American stereotype even worse lol

Edit: US FOREIGN AID

____


On the topic... i guess they need to buff up their sea defenses... since China is also a rising in power.
edit on 6/12/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)
edit on 6/12/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


30+ Aircraft, especially when some are rafael's is a pretty significant airwing. Much larger and more capable than an LPH or LHD (unless they actually ever get the F-35Bs). Not as big as a Nimitz obviously, but they will be able to project some regional power with this thing and 30 Mig 29's and or Rafs.......



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Your right, I was being facetious. A Ford-class American aircraft carrier, filled with F-35's will be the tip of the american spear for the next 50 years.

I just like pontificating on military ideas.... carried over since childhood lol.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


And we are still handing them aid money every year....... Why???????


Compare to the aid money US give to Israel each yrs

it is nothing



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 


Only two Fords are under construction, USS Gerald Ford and USS John F Kennedy, with one more unnamed projected. My guess is they build two, maybe 4 of these before they go to something smaller. I doubt due to cost these replace the Nimitz Class 1 for 1 (although automation is reducing the Ford's crew, which saves lots of money, they also will have improved electrical power from new reactors able to run future rail guns and beam weapons, so who knows). If we get drones and the F-35, you probably will see a smaller carrier class being built.

The later Nimitz Class are much more upgradable then the earlier ones, they could stretch the service life of them to probably 80+ years if need be. (50 is considered the standard). We have 10 carriers currently, with some calls to reduce the force due to costs. Although with current defense plans, 10 is about the minimum beleived nessecary to keep 2-3 out at sea at a given time, with another 1-2 able to surge within days if needed. I could see 4 or 6 Nimitz and 2-4 Ford's as a capable and affordable mix.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The carriers are still very useful IMO. Sure, a few powers may have what it takes to keep the carrier so far away as to make it not very useful as an offensive weapon. That can be remedied by longer range aircraft. The US currently is looking for a true long range strike/air superiority fighter for its' carriers. The jack of all trades Hornet has some range problems and in a battlefield where tankers cannot be protected the carriers reach is limited. The F35 range is not too hot, either.

Even if the carrier can't get within range of one or two countries in the world it still has great use. It can deny shipping, as well as the projection of any enemy naval forces (including invasion forces). And to be sure, in open water against any navy in the world the American carrier group is so terrifying that I'm not even sure China or Russia even imagines themselves challenging it for control of the sea. Much less the more likely scenario in a battlefield environment of having to face 2 or possibly 3 reinforced carrier groups in the same theatre. So barring offensive capability the carrier can still command the blue oceans.

Hmmm, imagine a future carrier where drones are kept in a kind of mechanical revolving shelf (I'm imagining the drones in star wars), where the entire operation of deploying them is automated. The launch and recovery speed could be blazing fast, while numbers of aircraft could be crazily high since they could be stacked like cordwood.

Incidentally, the longe range air superiority navy fighter isn't the only plane the US lacks. There are not enough long range air force bombers, either. The B52 is useless against real enemies, except in the cruise missile role. The B2s are nice, but expensive, slow and too few in number. The B1s are actually good as well, but they are few in number also, and getting older. We don't have a medium bomber, either. The F-111 (medium load, almost long range fighter/bomber) and F14 (long range air superiority) have never been replaced and it is a weak spot in the US arsenal.

2,000 mile range for the F22? That seems a bit far. I would have thought more like 1000-1200 miles tops (no loiter time meaning no secure airspace at such a range)without a refuel.
edit on 12-6-2012 by Erectus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
India to Britain-'We do not want your foreign aid.'

Britain to India-'Foreign aid to continue.'

I bet theres something more sinister about these so called 'foreign aid'. Its not what it seems to be..to us atleast.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Erectus
 


The F-22 has around 2,000 mile range in tests, with no missiles or armaments. I was being facetious with the numbers in an attempt to prove my point. The combat range is about 800 miles as said above.

That said, there are few places on the map not reachable by american land bases, but everybody here is right carriers have a place in our future. Whether it be a drone, F-35 or a combination future.
edit on 12-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join