INS Vikramaditya commissioned

[[Bregs]]

Why news papers allow authors to publish such articles ? Just for sake of filling the empty space ?

But this news also mentions that INS Vikarmaditya is the only AC in the world without its own Air defence

 

[kaykay]

Hmmm so is it like getting a 250ml bottle free when buying a 500ml cola bottle??
Just kidding...

I wanted to know about this deal because earlier @kaykay's statement had confused me a bit



I am sure you both made contradicting statements,so i just confirmed it.

Well what I said was based on a report I have posted in previous page. Without air component, Vikrant will cost around $2.2 billions or even more.
PS: even for vikramaditya, India has to buy 16 Mig-29Ks for around $650 million. So Ins Vikramaditya's total cost will go around $3 billion while Vikrant will even more costly if you consider total cost.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

lol dude, what you don't know is, Kitty Hawk is going to be mothballed until 2015, everyones know that, so if a talk happened on 2008 saying US will transfer Kitty Hawk after it retired (Decommission not Retire) of service will be transfer to India Navy, that does not make sense. As ship can be extent their length of service from mothballing by congress. Iowa is an example.

As far as i can make out is, India believe the deal is Free Kitty Hawk with 65 fighter bought, so i don't see what's wrong with the "Free Deal" comment

And what i said is true, no deal (Free or not free) were officially considered or offered. Unless you can provide something that countr what the Navy Spokeperson said publicly in 2008, i see no point in your argument.

As i said, this is what we believe, we believe India Manufacture the deal so they can get a better price offer from Russia, which make more sense than to talk about a transfer of a ship 7 years down the road.

Well I cant convince to change your imagination now, can I !
The talk about Kitty Hawk began and ended years ago. Do you understand what I'm saying?
The talk ended as talk not today, not tomorrow, not yesterday; but some years ago. That chapter got closed before it even got written.

As far as what you have written in the underlined part; wake up to the fact that it is not and was not true. Did you get that also?
Hence to answer your question with another question: What on earth can you (or anyone else)find right with something that is BS?
Now you have pitched enough stories and self-contradictory statements already that you need not serve up any more.

About :we believe India Manufacture the deal so they can get a better price offer from Russia, which make more sense than to talk about a transfer of a ship 7 years down the road.
Maybe you believe in Djinns also?

I have grown out of the age to listen in on "bed-time stories".
So avast there.

 

[jhungary]

Well I cant convince to change your imagination now, can I !
The talk about Kitty Hawk began and ended years ago. Do you understand what I'm saying?
The talk ended as talk not today, not tomorrow, not yesterday; but some years ago. That chapter got closed before it even got written.

As far as what you have written in the underlined part; wake up to the fact that it is not and was not true. Did you get that also?
Hence to answer your question with another question: What on earth can you (or anyone else)find right with something that is BS?
Now you have pitched enough stories and self-contradictory statements already that you need not serve up any more.

About :we believe India Manufacture the deal so they can get a better price offer from Russia, which make more sense than to talk about a transfer of a ship 7 years down the road.
Maybe you believe in Djinns also?

I have grown out of the age to listen in on "bed-time stories".
So avast there.

Dude, i have no idea what you were saying......

Let set aside if the deal is free for any reason

Indeed the deal (If exist) ended in 2008, but do you realise even the deal did exist, US Navy require the Kitty Hawk to stay in US Navy until 2015.

Answer me this then, why would India in talk with US for a ship IN 2008 for a ship that can only be available in 2015? Which is 7 years later? The deal does not make sense, even with Russian Backballing the India Offer, the Russian ship delievered in 2013. 2 years before kitty hawk would even remotely be ready (Remember after mothballing you need to take out sensitive equipment, that would take another years or so.)

Now answer me this, why India would interest to talk with US about a ship in 2008 that have a delievery date BEYOND 2016??

All i can see from you is you blowing hot air, you have no reference that that dealwere even offered by the US Navy, oh yeah, you heard that from someone else, then that person heard that from someone else too.

I quote the news report in 2008, a NAVY SPOKE PERSON comes out in the pent and OFFICIALLY SAYING THERE ARE NO INTENTION TO TRANSFER THE KITTY HAWK TO INDIA.

Yet i still yet to see one supporting evidence from you and from the internet suggest that a deal is offered.

Seems to me the deal is on your imagination, not mine.

I repeat my statement. Unless i see some solid evidence that US offer Kitty Hawk to India, i would say general American Believe the Kitty Hawk Offer were a hoax, intent to lowball the Russian offer. I am not interested in hearing another word from you IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE SOURCE.

I repeat, India manufacture the deal so they can lowball the Russian offer in 2008, without any evidence suggest otherwise, this is the general belief american believe, this is the direction io believe

 

[MohitV]

well an already used medium range carrier(45000 tons) costed us around 2.35 billion.....imagine how much would a supercarrier cost?? i guess for future ....indigenous AC is the only good option

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Dude, i have no idea what you were saying......

Let set aside if the deal is free for any reason

Indeed the deal (If exist) ended in 2008, but do you realise even the deal did exist, US Navy require the Kitty Hawk to stay in US Navy until 2015.

Answer me this then, why would India in talk with US for a ship IN 2008 for a ship that can only be available in 2015? Which is 7 years later? The deal does not make sense, even with Russian Backballing the India Offer, the Russian ship delievered in 2013. 2 years before kitty hawk would even remotely be ready (Remember after mothballing you need to take out sensitive equipment, that would take another years or so.)

Now answer me this, why India would interest to talk with US about a ship in 2008 that have a delievery date BEYOND 2016??

All i can see from you is you blowing hot air, you have no reference that that dealwere even offered by the US Navy, oh yeah, you heard that from someone else, then that person heard that from someone else too.

I quote the news report in 2008, a NAVY SPOKE PERSON comes out in the pent and OFFICIALLY SAYING THERE ARE NO INTENTION TO TRANSFER THE KITTY HAWK TO INDIA.

Yet i still yet to see one supporting evidence from you and from the internet suggest that a deal is offered.

Seems to me the deal is on your imagination, not mine.

I repeat my statement. Unless i see some solid evidence that US offer Kitty Hawk to India, i would say general American Believe the Kitty Hawk Offer were a hoax, intent to lowball the Russian offer. I am not interested in hearing another word from you IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE SOURCE.

I repeat, India manufacture the deal so they can lowball the Russian offer in 2008, without any evidence suggest otherwise, this is the general belief american believe, this is the direction io believe

Listen up now: I have spent enough time (and bandwidth) explaining the lack of facts and infirmities in the arguments that you dished out.

Since BS is unworthy of further meaningful discourse.
Avast there.

 

[Abingdonboy]

well an already used medium range carrier(45000 tons) costed us around 2.35 billion.....imagine how much would a supercarrier cost?? i guess for future ....indigenous AC is the only good option

They cost around $4-5 for the USN AFAIK. The Viky was never intended to cost $2.35 though, but then it seems both sides underestimated the amount of work involved. The IAC-1 should cost around $2BN USD for 40-42,000 ton ACC but a MUCH more modern one at that. From there the IAC-2 (of it is set to be 65,000+ tons really) should be quite a bit more especially if the IN is intending to put CATs on it. However the lessons learnt from IAC-1 should translate into some cost savings for all future IN ACCs.

 

[Abingdonboy]

@Dillinger @Capt.Popeye just heard from a friend of mine the Viky will be sailing with 5 IN escorts/support vessels on its return journey to India later this year....

 

[Dillinger]

@Dillinger @Capt.Popeye just heard from a friend of mine the Viky will be sailing with 5 IN escorts/support vessels on its return journey to India later this year....

Dunno about the exact number but its operational escorts themselves will start getting commissioned from early next year so whichever ships get the honor at the moment- they will not likely ever provide escort to said carrier in the future.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Dunno about the exact number but its operational escorts themselves will start getting commissioned from early next year so whichever ships get the honor at the moment- they will not likely ever provide escort to said carrier in the future.

Do you mean decommissioned? And I don't know about the exact composition of the escort group as this is being kept hush-hush for now but I know it will comprise 1 (possible 2) Talwar class frigates and a Deepak class replenishment ship both new(ish) assets that may very well see themselves escorting the Viky again in the future.

 

[Dillinger]

Do you mean decommissioned? And I don't know about the exact composition of the escort group as this is being kept hush-hush for now but I know it will comprise 1 (possible 2) Talwar class frigates and a Deepak class replenishment ship both new(ish) assets that may very well see themselves escorting the Viky again in the future.

I was referring to the P-15A's commissioning (lead ship) early next year- as such the principal escort elements will be replaced (not decommissioned) by the P-15A.

 

[danger007]

Dude, i have no idea what you were saying......

Let set aside if the deal is free for any reason

Indeed the deal (If exist) ended in 2008, but do you realise even the deal did exist, US Navy require the Kitty Hawk to stay in US Navy until 2015.

Answer me this then, why would India in talk with US for a ship IN 2008 for a ship that can only be available in 2015? Which is 7 years later? The deal does not make sense, even with Russian Backballing the India Offer, the Russian ship delievered in 2013. 2 years before kitty hawk would even remotely be ready (Remember after mothballing you need to take out sensitive equipment, that would take another years or so.)

Now answer me this, why India would interest to talk with US about a ship in 2008 that have a delievery date BEYOND 2016??

All i can see from you is you blowing hot air, you have no reference that that dealwere even offered by the US Navy, oh yeah, you heard that from someone else, then that person heard that from someone else too.

I quote the news report in 2008, a NAVY SPOKE PERSON comes out in the pent and OFFICIALLY SAYING THERE ARE NO INTENTION TO TRANSFER THE KITTY HAWK TO INDIA.

Yet i still yet to see one supporting evidence from you and from the internet suggest that a deal is offered.

Seems to me the deal is on your imagination, not mine.

I repeat my statement. Unless i see some solid evidence that US offer Kitty Hawk to India, i would say general American Believe the Kitty Hawk Offer were a hoax, intent to lowball the Russian offer. I am not interested in hearing another word from you IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE SOURCE.

I repeat, India manufacture the deal so they can lowball the Russian offer in 2008, without any evidence suggest otherwise, this is the general belief american believe, this is the direction io believe

Thread is about INS Vikky.... not Kitty... chill friends...

 

[Abingdonboy]

I was referring to the P-15A's commissioning (lead ship) early next year- as such the principal escort elements will be replaced (not decommissioned) by the P-15A.

Yes very true.

 

[Sergi]

Dude, i have no idea what you were saying......

Let set aside if the deal is free for any reason

Indeed the deal (If exist) ended in 2008, but do you realise even the deal did exist, US Navy require the Kitty Hawk to stay in US Navy until 2015.

Answer me this then, why would India in talk with US for a ship IN 2008 for a ship that can only be available in 2015? Which is 7 years later? The deal does not make sense, even with Russian Backballing the India Offer, the Russian ship delievered in 2013. 2 years before kitty hawk would even remotely be ready (Remember after mothballing you need to take out sensitive equipment, that would take another years or so.)

Now answer me this, why India would interest to talk with US about a ship in 2008 that have a delievery date BEYOND 2016??

All i can see from you is you blowing hot air, you have no reference that that dealwere even offered by the US Navy, oh yeah, you heard that from someone else, then that person heard that from someone else too.

I quote the news report in 2008, a NAVY SPOKE PERSON comes out in the pent and OFFICIALLY SAYING THERE ARE NO INTENTION TO TRANSFER THE KITTY HAWK TO INDIA.

Yet i still yet to see one supporting evidence from you and from the internet suggest that a deal is offered.

Seems to me the deal is on your imagination, not mine.

I repeat my statement. Unless i see some solid evidence that US offer Kitty Hawk to India, i would say general American Believe the Kitty Hawk Offer were a hoax, intent to lowball the Russian offer. I am not interested in hearing another word from you IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE SOURCE.

I repeat, India manufacture the deal so they can lowball the Russian offer in 2008, without any evidence suggest otherwise, this is the general belief american believe, this is the direction io believe

If I may answer.....

Dude everything is NOT on paper always. eg India doesn't have S-300 officially , Israel isn't a nuclear state and so on


Many things are kept under carpet but some got leaked and always denied by all parties.
As @Capt.Popeye said Yes Kitty hawk was offereed by USA with air elements. That doent mean it was going to be transffered with the Nimitz class techs. And would have strings attached too. Some also say that it was offered so that F-18 could get a boost in MMRCA.

It was rejected by IN
- couldnt afford the total package.
- IN was/is not happy with the strings.
- TOT would have been zero so have to have depend on US for everything.
- cost of operating a N-Carrier is more than conventional one

If you look back to 2008 its the same period when Bush became pro-India and was the same time when Nuclear deal was being dissucssed. India is only country to have that ( for many reasons ) with USA backing it up.

How hard is it for US to decommission and water down a carrier to offer it to India ???
And Russia getting hands on US techs is total BS then why in world US sell india C-17/C-130/Apache/P-8Is ??? Are they outdated ???

2008 was the time when US-Pak relations were on the verge rupture. So all things were possible and it would have been worth billions of dollar deal. So it was total gain for US .... Even more than India.

 

[GR!FF!N]

hey guys,I'm asking an unusual question.what do you think will be India's best deployment CBG policy against a country having a good air force and Navy(not too powerful,but decent)??should we deploy them(I'm assuming 2 ACs are taking part) into different CBG having each 1 AC,2 Destroyer,2 Frigates,couple of ASW Corvettes and Mine Sweepers with 2 Submarines each or it is best to have them join to form a larger CBG having 2 ACs,4-5 Destroyers,4-5 Frigates,half dozen of ASW Corvettes and few Mine Sweepers and Submarines???I'm asking as IN Carriers are relatively small and so do our number of Submarines.for smaller country,its ok to deploy 2 separate CBGs.but for a powerful opponent,what should be the deployment policy???