India's 2nd air craft carrier would be, of Catobar Type.

[Guynextdoor2]

From the pic itself you can see that the imagery date is 11/2/2013 .That is hardly two months old.

Must be the date when the image was taken from Google Earth, not when GE took the pics. The lag is a standard requirement from govts because of security implications.

 

[Abingdonboy]

It is not about past success or glory it is about experience. The fact is UK may not be building ACs or ships right now for economical and political reasons as you mentioned but that doesn't change the fact that they're best AC building. No one can deny that. They can help India more than France can.

British Shipbuilding Corporation? BAE systems?
Appledore Shipbuilders
Sir W. G. Armstrong Whitworth & Company
Vickers-Armstrongs, Limited
Austin & Pickersgill Ltd
Barclay Curle & Company
William Beardmore & Company
Caledon Shipbuilding & Engineering Company
Robb Caledon Shipbuilders
Clelands Shipbuilding Company
William Denny & Brothers
William Doxford & Sons
Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company
Ferguson Brothers
Appledore Shipbuilders
Hall, Russell & Company
Harland & Wolff
R. & W. Hawthorn, Leslie & Company
Henry Robb
Palmers Shipbuilding & Iron Company
John Readhead & Sons
Short Brothers of Sunderland
Smiths Dock Company
Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson
Thames Ironworks, Shipbuilding and Engineering Company
John I. Thornycroft & Company
Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
Fairfields, Govan
Alexander Stephens and Sons, Linthouse
Charles Connell and Company, Scotstoun
Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd (YSL), Scotstoun
John Brown and Company, Clydebank
Vickers, Sons & Maxim, Ltd
Vickers-Armstrongs, Limited
VSEL
BAE Systems Surface Ships
BAE Systems Submarine Solutions
Vosper & Company
J. Samuel White

Just to name a few. Britain is not building any ships nowadays is simply because they don't need to. But that doesn't mean they have forgot how to make them.

Plus it was the navies that Britain relied on heavily in past and Britain being an island has great maritime and naval history. To even suggest that France or any other European nation comes even close to Britain is laughable.

I'm sorry but you seem to be unaware of the ground realities. Yes, at a point the UK was the best ACC builder on the planet but that was many, many decades ago. Ever since the end of WW2 the UK's arm industry has been in decline, this is an established fact.


Today no one can argue the US is the undisputed king of ACC building. They are able to churn out a state of the art, nuclear powered, CATOBAR-configured, 100,000+ ton SUPERCARRIER every 4-5 years. It will take the UK 10+ years to build a 60,000 ton, STOBAR, conventionally-powered ACC for 75% of the price of a USN SUPERCARRIER! To say the UK still sits at the top of the pile on the ACC-construction front is sheer insanity!


Wrt France, I genuinely do believe they now have a far superior ship-building industry than the UK. We in the UK have nothing that can compare or compete to the giant that is DCNS. On the ACC front, it is pretty equal as they only build an ACC once a generation (almost) and the same could be said of the UK.

However France has been able to keep its military industry intact whilst the UK as decimated its and has either locked itself into European consortiums or just gone straight to the US and bought off the shelf.


The fact is the UK has had its hay-day and it is all downhill from here on now.



Now if we move on to who can help India more, not only does France have more to offer but has also got far superior relations (especially on the defence front) than the UK. The UK is seen as the US' poodle and also seems to be doing everything in its power to annoy India and sabotage bilateral ties.



This seems to sum it up quite nicely:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...reaty-india-may-cancel-its-delegation-uk.html


France supported it too but look at how they were able to remain friendly with India on the matter whilst the UK goes and stabs India in the back and in effect shots itself in the foot.

 

[kurup]

Must be the date when the image was taken from Google Earth, not when GE took the pics. The lag is a standard requirement from govts because of security implications.

Well mate , AFAIK , the imagery date is the date when the image was taken by satellite.

IDK about the lag but there is some agreement b/w GE and GOI according to which our "areas of interest" will be whitened by GE.

Comparing with the fact that IAC1 was scheduled to be in dry dock this february , the pic looks real time.

 

[arp2041]

@sancho you once said that the CATOBAR tech. is only with the US, so are we getting dependent on US for such a Precious ship of our Fleet??

I guess they will demand that even the carrier fighters are procured from US, so down goes the plans of Rafale-M??

 

[KRAIT]

@sancho you once said that the CATOBAR tech. is only with the US, so are we getting dependent on US for such a Precious ship of our Fleet??

French have it.

Brazil operate one. Don't know if they have technology.

US is at advanced stage at EMALS.

 

[arp2041]

French have it.

Brazil operate one. Don't know if they have technology.

US is at advanced stage at EMALS.

There is a reason i tag people

French Navy Charles De Gaule is build by US assistance in Catapult tech.

Brazil has AC GIFTED by France.

So, currently the TECH. is only with the US.

 

[sancho]

@sancho you once said that the CATOBAR tech. is only with the US, so are we getting dependent on US for such a Precious ship of our Fleet??

I guess they will demand that even the carrier fighters are procured from US, so down goes the plans of Rafale-M??

Yes we are dependent on them, that's why even IAC 1 is a STOBAR design and not a CATOBAR as IN wanted it back then. And yes, I also think they will combine the catapults with the procurement of US aircrafts (fighters and AEWs), just like the Russians combined the carrier with fighters.
That's one reason why I prefer F18SH with some upgrades + EMALS, because we need IAC 2 to be as capable as possible and to the F18SH should be the better option than F35s, especially with NG indigenous carrier fighters in the long run.

French have it.

Brazil operate one. Don't know if they have technology.

US is at advanced stage at EMALS.

The French got it from the US and the Brazilians operate a former French carrier, again with US catapults and even US fighters.
The Brits had made some developments in that direction, but didn't went for it at the end, Russia should be able to develop it, but the US have the most experience of course.

 

[arp2041]

Yes we are dependent on them, that's why even IAC 1 is a STOBAR design and not a CATOBAR as IN wanted it back then. And yes, I also think they will combine the catapults with the procurement of US aircrafts (fighters and AEWs), just like the Russians combined the carrier with fighters.
That's one reason why I prefer F18SH with some upgrades + EMALS, because we need IAC 2 to be as capable as possible and to the F18SH should be the better option than F35s, especially with NG indigenous carrier fighters in the long run.

@sancho considering how every US platform has some or the other STRINGS attached (case being INS Jalashwa which can never be used in a war), do you think we should get dependent on the US Tech. for a ship which will form the FLAGSHIP of IN??

We can still go for STOBAR tech for IAC-2 as well & obviously increase the Tonnage like the Chinese Varyag, since we will be already experienced in this tech & carrier operations after inducting INS Viky & making INS Vikrant.

So why completely make a SWITCH in tech.??

 

[asad71]

Second and third, eh! What about the first one?

?????????????????????

 

[Dillinger]

?????????????????????

Hull fabrication is complete, since modular construction was followed- the island and superstructure components have also been fabricated before hand. At the current moment its in the dry dock getting ready for fitment. 3 years away from completion. You wanted to ask anything in particular?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Brits are not the best in business? Yes, they may have some economical problems to tackle right now. But they have the most experience in aircraft carrier building. Even more than America I'd say. Plus CATOBAR is not the most advanced technology India can go for right now.

I am no British dalal but you taking cheap shots and uttering pure lies is also not appreciated. Brits are not best in the business? LOOL! Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) class 65,000 tonnes aircraft.

Plus the only aircraft carrier India has right now is also former British Navy's AC and I'm sure INS Vikramaditya wouldn't have taken so damn long if British were doing it.

Are you actually suggesting Frenchies are better in ship building and AC building than Brits? lool! List of aircraft carriers by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France has made 8 ACs when UK has made 41 ACs till this date plus 2 Supercarriers under construction when France has no plan of making any more. UK is to ACs what US/Russia is to fighter planes.

And no you can't call them POMs unless you're an Aussie. It's an inside joke. Just like Indians have Punjabi/Gujju jokes. Pakistanis have their jokes about Pathans and Sayieen.

Those stats don't mean much. Technology and its application has to be current. Once there is a hiatus in a particular kind of activity then it is very hard to pick up the slack.
Case in point: the RN's experience with constructing HMS Astute. Overall a rather painful experience. Was the Astute the first sub constructed in the UK? No.
Then what happened? Many skills had gone dormant/extinct from the last time that the RN built its last sub. Even hi-skill welders were hard to find. It forced the RN and Britain in general to re-look at its Apprenticeship schemes. Please read/research this subject; you'll find it to be an eye-opener.

The Yards in Clydebank turned out behemoth Passenger ships like the Cunard "Queens" in the past. Can it be done again? No. First of all the yards do not exist any more, secondly the labor force with the requisite skills have shrunk and in some cases even disappeared. So where were the latest "Queens" built? Across the channel in France.

This phenomenon has occurred time and again and in different parts of the world. It has affected Russian Yards that wound down post the demise of the Soviet Union. UK has run into problems with the new carriers too. I am not talking about financial problems but technical problems.

Even Tugs and Supply Ships being used in the North Sea and off the Shetlands are not built in Britain any more. They have been built in other parts of the world; Korea, China and even India (at CSL).

Things change. The UK is not a ship-building power any more. Even France is ahead now.

 

[kurup]

Second and third, eh! What about the first one?

?????????????????????

1st - Doing see trials in Russia.

2nd - Advanced stages of project completion.

3rd - Work started according to reports.

 

[minhnh10]

............!

 

[KRAIT]

@arp2041 Sorry, I thought I can tell. My Mistake.

 

[sancho]

@sancho considering how every US platform has some or the other STRINGS attached (case being INS Jalashwa which can never be used in a war), do you think we should get dependent on the US Tech. for a ship which will form the FLAGSHIP of IN??

We can still go for STOBAR tech for IAC-2 as well & obviously increase the Tonnage like the Chinese Varyag, since we will be already experienced in this tech & carrier operations after inducting INS Viky & making INS Vikrant.

So why completely make a SWITCH in tech.??

That's the point, we will go for it, if the strings attached are reasonable, but if they limit INs operational capabilities, we won't accept it of course (btw I doubt that rumor about not using it in wars).
The switch to catapults is necessary to get the most out of the carrier, since with the ski-jump config, fighters can take off only with limited loads and must have certain thrust capabilities itself, just like AEW aircrafts can be VTOL only. So it's not about the size of the carrier, but the operational effectivity. It needs to be seen for example, with what kind of loads the J15 will be able to take off, compared to a land based J11, or to a F18SH.