Military Review

India intends to announce a tender for the acquisition of a new aircraft carrier

79
New Delhi plans to announce a tender for the purchase - designing with the help of foreign specialists and building a fourth aircraft carrier at shipyards in India, a blog reports bmpd with reference to the TTU newsletter.


Vishal aircraft carrier design image

According to the publication, the aircraft carrier must have a "displacement of 65000 tons, length of 300 meters and width of 70 meters." (“Almost English carrier of Prince of Wales”, - the author notes).

"New Delhi seems to be leaning in favor of the nuclear power plant, which is considered less costly for long-term operation, as India expects to keep the new aircraft carrier (called Vishal) for 50 years," writes the publication.

According to the author, “the composition of the Vishal wing will be one of the most difficult elements of the tender, since the number of aircraft required reaches 54 units.”

The country's Defense Ministry intends to achieve unification in the supply of spare parts for Navy and Air Force aircraft. Therefore, the Indians will evaluate "only Rafale and MiG-29, which meet this condition (modification of the MiG-29K already constitutes the wing of the aircraft carrier Vikrant)".

At the end of January, a French delegation visited India, the purpose of which was to offer the Indian Navy to enter into a contract for the supply of the deck version of the Rafale aircraft manufactured by Dassault Rafale.
Photos used:
indiandefence.com
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 25 February 2016 10: 04
    -3
    India hopes to keep a new aircraft carrier (named Vishal) for 50 years

    Are Hindus going to live forever? In the current geopolitical situation - a very optimistic planning horizon. Joke.smile
    I do not understand, they believe that the MiG-29 or Rafal will last half a century? In the future, thinking is not fate? For example, the decked version of the same FGFA is not considered?
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 13
      +4
      India intends to announce a tender for the acquisition of a new aircraft carrier

      Exactly! And WE continue to argue and chew snot, as in the previous article: http://topwar.ru/91188-avianosec-rossiyskomu-flotu.html! India probably has more money than ours? Or maybe considerations and tactical thinking?
      1. _Vladislav_
        _Vladislav_ 25 February 2016 10: 21
        +5
        After all the jambs (including the deadlines) that Russia allowed during the transfer of Vikramadity to the Indians, it will be hard to win such a tender.
        It will be necessary to offer special conditions, to make concessions.

        The technological level of the French, allows them to quickly collect something or a military vessel, but the French have a negative reputation after the Mistral.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 24
          +1
          Aircraft carrier, as you know, is a UNIVERSAL weapon. Due to the possibility of basing it on the deck of all the main types of military aircraft. Aircraft carrier knows everything that its aircraft PLUS can do, installed on it equipment and weapon systems. In addition, he is mobile. If we somewhere do not have the opportunity (As in Syria) to dull our air group, then the Aircraft Carrier will help us!
          1. Ami du peuple
            Ami du peuple 25 February 2016 10: 34
            +3
            Quote: GSH-18
            Aircraft carrier, as you know, a universal weapon
            An aircraft carrier without a full group of escort ships is zero.
            Quote: GSH-18
            Aircraft carrier knows everything that its aviation PLUS can do, equipment and weapons systems installed on it
            What kind of unusual weapons systems are there on aircraft carriers? For example, on the newest "Gerald Ford" only air defense for self-defense with very mediocre characteristics.
            Quote: GSH-18
            If we don’t have the opportunity somewhere (As in Syria) to blunt our air group, then the Aircraft Carrier will help us!
            Where we do not have the opportunity to "push" the air group, we do not go there. It is the Americans who support the "balance of power" around the world with their AUG.
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 43
              +2
              Quote: Ami du peuple
              Where we do not have the opportunity to "push" the air group, we do not go there. It is the Americans who support the "balance of power" around the world with their AUG.

              Buddy, understand a simple thing. In Syria, assaults on us will not end. And the next time they will create a situation for us when we will carry our planes on a hump to the base, and even pay money for it, if we can agree. Look a little further than the present situation. And about what aircraft carriers are able to do, it will only depend on us. Aviation already flies 4-5 thousand km, and can carry "Caliber" and "Onyx", which, in turn, can even be equipped with nuclear warheads. I am not even talking about the cover of our nuclear submarines in the areas of alert and possible non-conflicts.
            2. bort4145
              bort4145 25 February 2016 11: 22
              +2
              The Asia-Pacific region is becoming a "crowded place" - wherever an aircraft carrier spits, the sky is streaked with contrails from planes and missiles, and submarines scamper along the bottom.
              The step to the apocalypse is getting shorter ...
          2. VP
            VP 25 February 2016 10: 41
            0
            Quote: GSH-18
            If we don’t have the opportunity somewhere (As in Syria) to blunt our air group, then the Aircraft Carrier will help us!

            And let us tell you how many aircraft carriers with MiG-29K are needed to perform the same work with the same efficiency as the aviation group consisting of SU-24, SU-34, SU-30, SU-25 and 35, helicopter group ?
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 50
              +1
              Quote: VP
              And let us tell you how many aircraft carriers you need with the MiG-29K

              I’ll tell you, dear, that a normal Aircraft Carrier does not carry Mig-29k, but it carries a normal air group of MISCELLANEOUS aircraft, formed to carry out a combat mission.
              If YOU are interested in HOW? That read about the use of several American AUG in the war against Iraq. Very informative.
              And let's not go too far away from this "course of a young soldier of the times of the USSR" when the whole explanation about the absence of these ships was based on: well, we do not have them, well, it is not necessary, because this is a floating target barge with aircraft for the enemy! wassat
              But the Chinese, the Indians do not think so for some reason request I don’t think they are dumber than you and me.
              1. elmi
                elmi 25 February 2016 11: 29
                +2
                If the information is correct that the Chinese have made significant progress in creating high-precision ballistic missiles and the ability to hit large surface targets, this creates a great danger to large surface military targets, including aircraft carrier groups. If similar precision missiles appear in our country, then I think all NATO’s naval power will be neutralized. But we think we need an 1-2 aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant with escort protection capable of protecting the impacts of such missiles - perhaps in the future they will find the opportunity to place marine counterparts with-500 on ships
            2. tomket
              tomket 25 February 2016 11: 16
              0
              Quote: VP
              And let us tell you how many aircraft carriers with MiG-29K are needed to perform the same work with the same efficiency as the aviation group consisting of SU-24, SU-34, SU-30, SU-25 and 35, helicopter group ?

              And what do you have against the MiG-29 K? The armament is the same as on the above aircraft. The only thing is that by the number of them there is only one regiment now, well, you can still build it.
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 31
                0
                Quote: tomket
                And what do you have against the MiG-29 K? The armament is the same as on the above aircraft. The only thing is that by the number of them there is only one regiment now, well, you can still build it.

                I mean, against? This is primarily an air combat aircraft. What determines his choice for "Vikromaditya", this is a light aircraft carrier - not like the American nuclear scientists! Accordingly, the carrying capacity and weapon systems of these KUB are sharpened significantly for enemy aircraft, and this is already a minus for the entire aircraft carrier. Narrow specialization (so to speak) runs counter to the definition of an Aircraft Carrier as a UNIVERSAL weapon. On a normal flat-deck nuclear-powered aircraft carrier there are ALL types of aircraft, and there are more of them than on the converted from the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Vikromaditya". Something like this, I hope I conveyed the main idea and differences. yes
                1. tomket
                  tomket 25 February 2016 13: 11
                  0
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  I mean, I have against?

                  The question was not for you, with respect.
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  This is primarily an aerial combat aircraft.

                  Not really. He is rather a station wagon.
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  On a normal flat-deck nuclear-powered aircraft carrier there are ALL types of aircraft, and there are more of them than on the converted from the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Vikromaditya".

                  Actually, now the entire fleet of "Nimitz" is reduced to "Super Honets", "Growlers" and "Hawks". "Super Hornets" by the way are in about the same category as the MiG-29K. More, but not as significant as the Su-35, for example.
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 25 February 2016 18: 42
                    0
                    Quote: tomket
                    Actually, now the entire fleet of "Nimitz" is reduced to "Super Honets", "Growlers" and "Hawks". "Super Hornets" by the way are in about the same category as the MiG-29K. More, but not as significant as the Su-35, for example.

                    Re-equipment of the American aircraft carriers on the deck version of the F-35 (strike wing group) is in full swing.
            3. dyksi
              dyksi 25 February 2016 13: 34
              -2
              All that you have listed here can be made by two types of aircraft, the MiG-31BM and the MiG-35 (the MiG-31 will also replace the T-50, which has not yet grown to its level). I will also tell you one thing that many people here know, but do not write. Look at the payload of our supernova aircraft and weep. For example, the Su-34 has a normal take-off weight of 39 tons, and carries four OFAB-250-270, this is a ton of load and this is an unguided weapon, such bombs must hang at all nodes to cover targets with a carpet. Why am I writing this, and besides that this is the cost of a combat mission, these are several boxes of gold thrown into the wind. And you still write here about efficiency, first study the issue, and then spit such comments, about efficiency, or do you think why the question of urgent modernization of the Su-34 appeared, it has no thrust-to-weight ratio, everything that it does will easily be done by Su -30, MiG-29K (M / M2) and at the same time they remain full-fledged fighters. Syrian MiG-23s carry four OFAB-500s, sometimes six, but they are running out. This is a word about cost_efficiency. About the Su-35, the fighter has an airborne radar, with a viewing range of about 430 km. and missiles for combat at close and medium distances, and here you please write me something about the effectiveness. And I'll write you this. Several Raptors and AWACS planes will be brought there and they will cover the entire Mediterranean with their eyes. The Raptor, which does not have such a long-range AFAR, will have a great advantage over the thirty-fifth Sukhar. In a passive mode, he will begin to hammer from a distance of 200 km., While "Crack will have to reduce the distance to 70 km, you can feel the difference. The only one who can take the whole Middle East and the Mediterranean under real control is the MiG-31BM, with the threat of real Destruction of the enemy at long distances. Also for your information, accompany our "Crackers" on the "case" spat on all MiG-29, also MiG-29 and MiG-23 keep the Israeli direction. You take into account the fact that the Su-34 costs 130 lemons green, it is heaped up under the most do not spoil it has a very expensive combat mission (golden), there the Su-25 solves the same tasks with the same success and several times cheaper. Here we have almost completely destroyed Tu-22M bombers, they said that its tasks will easily execute the Su-34, well, what did you accomplish? No and never will, install a booster bar on the "Carcass" and it's practically "Strategist", so there are about 30 of them left, out of several hundred, the rest were destroyed under the promise of Poghosyan b his Su-34 (the hat was not for Senka). Without embellishment, see for yourself our own videos of how and with what our planes go on a mission. At least a MiG-29-9,12 with four OFABs will do this job no less efficiently and much cheaper, while it is also a fighter. Read less advertising brochures and more real information from different sources.
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 25 February 2016 18: 44
                0
                Quote: dyksi
                At least the MiG-29-9,12 with four OFABs will do this job no less efficiently and much cheaper, and it’s also a fighter. Read less advertising booklets and more real information from different sources.

                The nonsense on the site does not have to be carried. I don’t even want to comment on this whole set of gag.
            4. PSih2097
              PSih2097 25 February 2016 22: 19
              0
              Quote: VP
              And let us tell you how many aircraft carriers with MiG-29K are needed to perform the same work with the same efficiency as the aviation group consisting of SU-24, SU-34, SU-30, SU-25 and 35, helicopter group ?

              for a start, the air group on Kuznetsov will not be ice even when MiGs are driven onto it ...
              In my understanding, AB should be larger than "Ulyanovsk" by 15 - 20 kilotons,

              carry the following aircraft (provided that the T-50 will not be wet):
              S-37 (aka Su-47)

              Su-33KUB (aka Su-27KUB)


              Well, the MiG-29K with turntables, the main thing is that this one was also a catapult for him ...


        2. Yars
          Yars 25 February 2016 10: 32
          0
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          After all the jambs (including the deadlines) that Russia allowed during the transfer of Vikramadity to the Indians, it will be hard to win such a tender.
          It will be necessary to offer special conditions, to make concessions.

          The technological level of the French, allows them to quickly collect something or a military vessel, but the French have a negative reputation after the Mistral.

          such problems arise not only in Russia, in the west this also happens, and very often, the main quality and effectiveness of these products! So do not immediately denigrate Russia!
        3. Mera joota
          Mera joota 25 February 2016 10: 43
          +4
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          It will be necessary to offer special conditions, to make concessions.

          So Indians do not see Russia as a partner in the construction of an aircraft carrier because we have neither experience nor personnel.
          Who will help build an aircraft carrier for India is no secret:
          21.02.2016/20/XNUMX The American delegation, led by the head of the US aircraft program, Rear Admiral Thomas J. Moore (Thomas J Moore) visited various defense and industrial facilities in India, reports the Military Parity with reference to defencenews.in (February XNUMX).
          The purpose of the visit of a representative delegation of 11 people is to discuss US participation in the design and construction of promising Indian aircraft carriers

          In my opinion, everything is extremely clear. But they still kick at the wing:
          Therefore, the Indians will evaluate "only Rafale and MiG-29,

          It sounds naive that only US planes will take off from the deck of an aircraft carrier built jointly with the United States.
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          The technological level of the French, allows them to quickly assemble a military ship

          That's it, the ship ...
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          but the French have a reputation for minus after the Mistral.

          In the imaginary universe of the Russian patriot, yes. In reality, French ships are bought without regard to the incident with Mistral.
          PS: by the way, the money for the Mistral was arrested at the suit of Yukos, and the French themselves sold Mistral for money (not on credit) to Egypt ...
          1. _Vladislav_
            _Vladislav_ 25 February 2016 11: 03
            +1
            Quote: Mera Joota
            In the imaginary universe of the Russian patriot, yes. In reality, French ships are bought without regard to the incident with Mistral.

            No, I do not affirm.
            Yes, the French are quite imagined - they quickly and efficiently assemble good ships.
            Perhaps it is very possible that in the case of Russia, the rest of the consumers will not pay particular attention to the failure to fulfill the terms of the contract.
        4. tomket
          tomket 25 February 2016 11: 12
          +1
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          The technological level of the French, allows them to quickly collect something or a military vessel, but the French have a negative reputation after the Mistral.

          Someone minus, but someone doesn’t care.
        5. spravochnik
          spravochnik 25 February 2016 11: 25
          0
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          After all the jambs (including the deadlines) that Russia allowed when transferring Vikramaditya to the Indians ....


          In this case, the Indians plan to build themselves, and they have their schools above the head.
        6. seti
          seti 25 February 2016 11: 40
          0
          Well, the time has come to offer an export modification of our aircraft carrier "Storm" .. This will not only give an opportunity to work out the construction technique for yourself, but also shake up, in a good sense of the word, our entire shipbuilding industry, and not only one. For example, create an optimal nuclear plant or help form a new ship group. And of course, attract the attention of all interested parties as potential buyers .. Create thousands of jobs in our country.
          Such a tender cannot be missed.
        7. sergeyzzz
          sergeyzzz 25 February 2016 13: 33
          +1
          The tender is not for construction, but for design. And there were Hindu shoals there, they were warned that it would not work to reduce the cost of the project for thermal insulation of boilers, it happened.
      2. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 25 February 2016 10: 26
        +3
        Quote: GSH-18
        India probably has more money than ours?
        Not more. But they have more than a third of the population living below the poverty line. And Indian poverty is not like ours, we would call it poverty. Moreover, most Indians are vegetarians, it is easier for them to bear the hardships. Now imagine that you will be deprived of a piece of meat because of the program for the construction of a new aircraft carrier. smile
        Quote: GSH-18
        Or maybe considerations and tactical thinking?
        Maybe India has a coastline of more than 12 thousand km. Moreover, it is washed by the Indian non-freezing ocean. Vishnu himself ordered a strong fleet to have.
        Quote: GSH-18
        And WE continue to argue and chew snot!
        Well, we will not pull a modern aircraft carrier in the current economic situation! Especially. there are much more pressing problems in defense construction that need to be addressed immediately. It's time to stop these unnecessary disputes until better times.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 30
          0
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          Now imagine that you will be deprived of a piece of meat because of the program for the construction of a new aircraft carrier. smile

          I agree!
          AUG should be with the Russian Federation yesterday. Do you think in Ukraine and Syria the American jokes will end ???
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          Maybe India has a coastline of more than 12 thousand km. Moreover, it is washed by the Indian non-freezing ocean. Vishnu himself ordered a strong fleet to have.

          Russia has the longest coastline in the world. JESUS ​​himself ordered the AUG!
          1. Ami du peuple
            Ami du peuple 25 February 2016 10: 47
            +1
            Quote: GSH-18
            Russia has the longest coastline in the world. JESUS ​​himself ordered the AUG!

            Why did you decide this? Canada has the longest coastline (seven times more than ours). Russia ranks third after Canada and Indonesia. As you know, the two most powerful carrier powers laughing
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 13
              0
              Quote: Ami du peuple
              Why did you decide this? Canada has the longest coastline (seven times more than ours). Russia ranks third after Canada and Indonesia. As you know, the two most powerful carrier powers laughing

              The coastline of the Russian Federation is 38000 km long. Is this too small for you to have an AUG? lol
              Yes, maybe you're right, after Canada. But it does not change anything. Our shelves are full of minerals, unlike Indonesia and other sheluponi.
          2. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 25 February 2016 10: 56
            0
            Quote: GSH-18
            JESUS ​​himself ordered the AUG!

            Jesus is a little off topic lol .
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 19
              0
              Quote: Andrew Y.
              Quote: GSH-18
              JESUS ​​himself ordered the AUG!

              Jesus is a little off topic lol .

              Like Vishnu ... lol
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 35
          0
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          Well, we will not pull a modern aircraft carrier in the current economic situation!

          A strange statement ... The Indians are pulling the second, and we all will not swing at the first! belay
        3. Hon
          Hon 25 February 2016 10: 37
          0
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          Not more. But they have more than a third of the population living below the poverty line. And Indian poverty is not like ours, we would call it poverty. Moreover, most Indians are vegetarians, it is easier for them to bear the hardships. Now imagine that you will be deprived of a piece of meat because of the program for the construction of a new aircraft carrier.

          they and the population are ten times more than ours, and by the way there really is more money. In addition, they are developing an education in the field of electronics, and now many Indian citizens outsource to a foreign company, without leaving India.
          In China, too, at the beginning there was a very poor population, now they are ahead of us in terms of average salary and minimum wage
        4. tomket
          tomket 25 February 2016 11: 19
          0
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          Well, we will not pull a modern aircraft carrier in the current economic situation! Especially. there are much more pressing problems in defense construction that need to be addressed immediately. It's time to stop these unnecessary disputes until better times.

          We will not pull the aircraft carrier with the current government. We have seen a fall in GDP even before the collapse of oil prices.
      3. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 25 February 2016 10: 28
        +2
        Quote: GSH-18
        India probably has more money than ours?

        did you doubt it? oil is mainly bought, at current prices, manna, with electronics, is also not bad, let alone pharmaceuticals, we should dream ...
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 21
          0
          Quote: Andrey Yurievich
          And pharmaceuticals, we dream ...

          Their pharmaceuticals are high. Sell ​​only to third countries. The vast majority of the standards of the European Union and obscurantism does not channel!
          1. PHANTOM-AS
            PHANTOM-AS 25 February 2016 11: 40
            +1
            Quote: GSH-18
            Their pharmaceuticals are high.

            And from this theirs "bullshit" all our preparations are made, since in the Russian Federation pharmaceutical substances (medicinal substances) are practically not produced.
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 46
              0
              Quote: PHANTOM-AS
              Quote: GSH-18
              Their pharmaceuticals are high.

              And from this theirs "bullshit" all our preparations are made, since in the Russian Federation pharmaceutical substances (medicinal substances) are practically not produced.

              Yes, from this bullshit, we also produce something. But everything is secondary. Our antibiotics are made from Japanese and Chinese subsidies. But the green stuff, glycerin, iodine, etc. I will not list, it's all bullshit substances from India! lol
            2. GSH-18
              GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 50
              0
              Quote: PHANTOM-AS
              Quote: GSH-18
              Their pharmaceuticals are high.

              And from this theirs "bullshit" all our preparations are made, since in the Russian Federation pharmaceutical substances (medicinal substances) are practically not produced.

              Pharmaceutical substances will be produced in our very near future. And no naphazoline nitrate (naphthyzine) or Fuchsin with Diamond green (Zelenka) is there. And the substances of antibiotics and other important pharmaceutical groups. Plants are being built in Rostov-on-Don and in Krasnodar.
      4. VP
        VP 25 February 2016 10: 38
        0
        Probably more.
        Or maybe they have in rivals those for whom the aircraft carrier is wow how scary.
        Quote: GSH-18
        Or maybe considerations and tactical thinking?

        What, damn it, tactical thinking in the case of aircraft carriers?
        And why they need them, most likely, they themselves will not be able to say. Their rival is packs with which they have a very long land border, about three thousand km
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 25 February 2016 22: 35
          0
          Quote: VP
          Their rival is packs with which they have a very long land border, about three thousand km

          China has been forgotten ... there it is more and more interesting both in India and Pakistan.
      5. weksha50
        weksha50 25 February 2016 10: 39
        +2
        Quote: GSH-18
        India probably has more money than ours?



        At least, no less ... And India is not so surrounded by enemies as Russia ... No, it has enough enemies, for this reason it is building up its muscles ... Sometimes it’s directly enviable ...

        And India, unlike us, does not reduce, but increases the cost of armaments ...

        And nothing shines for us in this tender ... Not only in terms of developing an aircraft carrier, but also, most likely, with airplanes too ...

        But this, again, is purely my personal opinion ...
      6. Altona
        Altona 25 February 2016 11: 31
        +1
        Quote: GSH-18
        India probably has more money than ours? Or maybe considerations and tactical thinking?

        ---------------------------------
        To contain China's sworn friend and fellow Pakistani friend. And also many oceanic island states must have "long sea arms". This is good for us, maybe the order for submarines for escorting will break off or something else, in addition to aircraft. An aircraft carrier requires a luxurious escort, an entire escort squadron.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 44
          0
          Quote: Altona
          An aircraft carrier requires a luxury escort, an entire escort squadron.

          Aircraft carrier itself does not require anything. His aircraft covers a whole area of ​​radii of 2000 km today, and AWACS control even more. An escort is formed based on a combat mission. Let's think before pouring outdated Soviet stamps.
      7. Pereira
        Pereira 25 February 2016 11: 39
        0
        Apparently, the Hindus have banal more money.
        It first.
        Secondly, they are preparing for a confrontation with Pakistan. This determines the strategy and need for technology.
        We have one aircraft carrier - the White Elephant. For the Hindus, a serious political argument.
    2. Engineer
      Engineer 25 February 2016 10: 14
      +4
      I’m rewriting the answer for your second post)))) Obama traveled to India to offer them assistance in designing, building and equipping an aircraft carrier, and F-35 aircraft. They consider Rafal to equip what is already there.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 22
        +1
        Quote: Engineer
        I’m rewriting the answer for your second post)))) Obama traveled to India to offer them assistance in designing, building and equipping an aircraft carrier, and F-35 aircraft. They consider Rafal to equip what is already there.

        Obama thinks the Indians are suckers. The Americans want to build a barge stuffed with bookmarks for the Indians, so that if it happens, it will be stupidly disconnected. The Indians are aware of this, I think ...
        1. Hon
          Hon 25 February 2016 10: 41
          0
          Quote: GSH-18
          Obama thinks the Indians are suckers. The Americans want to build a barge stuffed with bookmarks for the Indians, so that if it happens, it will be stupidly disconnected. The Indians are aware of this, I think ...

          how do you know what Obama thinks and what the Americans want?
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 24
            0
            Quote: Hon
            how do you know what Obama thinks and what the Americans want?

            It is not difficult to guess in the light of events.
            1. Hon
              Hon 25 February 2016 11: 33
              0
              Quote: GSH-18
              It is not difficult to guess in the light of events.

              Well, and who had problems with American technology, because the Americans turned off something there?
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 53
                0
                Quote: Hon
                Quote: GSH-18
                It is not difficult to guess in the light of events.

                Well, and who had problems with American technology, because the Americans turned off something there?

                Not the Americans, but the French (that’s one xren NATO). Disabled via satellite Iraqi aircraft produced in France. The well-known fact of the Iraq war.
                1. Hon
                  Hon 25 February 2016 12: 23
                  0
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Not the Americans, but the French (that’s one xren NATO). Disabled via satellite Iraqi aircraft produced in France. The well-known fact of the Iraq war.

                  But can I reference this fact?
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 25
      0
      At the end of January, a French delegation visited India, the purpose of which was to offer the Indian Navy to enter into a contract for the supply of the deck version of the Rafale aircraft manufactured by Dassault Rafale.

      All of them rafali theirs to the Hindus and they all cannot diminish! laughing
    4. Maxom75
      Maxom75 25 February 2016 10: 31
      0
      "I'm also going to live forever, as long as everything goes well!" (Russian radio) Joke)))
    5. Hon
      Hon 25 February 2016 10: 32
      0
      Quote: Ami du peuple
      Are Hindus going to live forever? In the current geopolitical situation - a very optimistic planning horizon. Joke.
      I do not understand, they believe that the MiG-29 or Rafal will last half a century? In the future, thinking is not fate? For example, the decked version of the same FGFA is not considered?

      Aircraft can be changed and upgraded, and the aircraft carrier will remain in service
    6. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 25 February 2016 10: 36
      0
      I liked the part of the phrase about the French:
      In late January, the French delegation had already visited India, the purpose of the visit of which was to offer the Indian Navy to conclude a supply contract

      Well, well, negotiate with them ...
      Better yet, take the MINISTRY from them!
    7. Kars
      Kars 25 February 2016 11: 43
      +1
      Buy English Queen Elizabeth.
  2. fox21h
    fox21h 25 February 2016 10: 05
    +2
    Interestingly, the Indians will choose us or the paddles? The experience with the Mistrals seems to have taught nothing to them.
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 25 February 2016 10: 11
      0
      Most likely the ship will not be ours, but our fighters. The choice in favor of the Raphael is unlikely. Only now India may want to assemble most of the aircraft at its factories. request
      1. Temples
        Temples 25 February 2016 10: 12
        +2
        The experience with the Mistrals seems to have taught nothing to them.

        The highways were built efficiently and in a short time.
        This Indians took into account.

        Next we read -
        design with the help of foreign specialists and shipyard building in india
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 25 February 2016 13: 04
        0
        Quote: Wiruz
        Only India may want to assemble most of the planes at its enterprises

        And how many MiG-29K are assembled at the plants of India?
        1. Wiruz
          Wiruz 25 February 2016 16: 59
          0
          And how many MiG-29K are assembled at the plants of India?

          If I'm not mistaken, then not a single one. However, they assemble the Su-30MKI, they planned to assemble the Raphaels, so when ordering a large batch of MiGs, they themselves will want to make them.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. kote119
      kote119 25 February 2016 10: 13
      +9
      at one time we also "sold" s-300 to Iran, as we did the Mistrals
    5. weksha50
      weksha50 25 February 2016 10: 58
      +1
      Quote: fox21h
      Interestingly, the Indians will choose us or the paddles? The experience with the Mistrals seems to have taught nothing to them.



      Hmm ... And guessing is not necessary ...
      And supposedly "experience" with the guardians and their Mistrals received only we, Russia ...
      The rest of this failed "deal of the century" absolutely does not bother, or, in extreme cases, with such a nasty attitude towards us, it gave only a reason to gloat ...
  3. mpzss
    mpzss 25 February 2016 10: 07
    +2
    Well, and then an article appeared on the site that Russia does not need aircraft carriers!
    Everyone needs it, but we don’t need it!
    Damn, how these economists got it, who just want to ruin our armed forces behind the harsh economic situation!
    1. chikenous59
      chikenous59 25 February 2016 10: 14
      +5
      Quote: mpzss
      Everyone needs it, but we don’t need it!

      Give iPhones to everyone, but are they needed in terms of practicality?
      Do not think that crabs are sitting in the General Staff.
      We have developed other technologies that fully compensate for the lack of modern aircraft carriers.
      Hindus do not shine with such technologies yet, and they are building huge barges that a serious opponent can destroy with one volley of missiles.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Baikonur
        Baikonur 25 February 2016 10: 18
        0
        Quote: chikenous59
        Quote: mpzss
        Everyone needs it, but we don’t need it!

        Give iPhones to everyone, but are they needed in terms of practicality?
        Do not think that crabs are sitting in the General Staff.
        We have developed other technologies that fully compensate for the lack of modern aircraft carriers.
        Hindus do not shine with such technologies yet, and they are building huge barges that a serious opponent can destroy with one volley of missiles.

        That's it! And then chatterless nonsense too tired! - If someone did something, then we must also ?!
        Faster, higher, stronger? Type: are we Great Russia? Weak?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 19
      +1
      Quote: mpzss
      Damn, how these economists got it, who just want to ruin our armed forces behind the harsh economic situation!

      That's it. It turns out that India has money for a new aircraft carrier, but Russia does not. Nonsense! We have the longest coastline in the world, and we do not have a single AUG. For that, the Americans have 11! It leads to bad conclusions. We were practically locked in coastal waters. We need a fleet of the ocean zone, and without aircraft carriers it is impossible.
      1. Nick
        Nick 25 February 2016 10: 30
        0
        Quote: GSH-18
        We need a fleet of the ocean zone, and without aircraft carriers it is impossible.

        Isn't the nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great a ship in the ocean zone? The oceanic fleet is possible without aircraft carriers, take the Soviet fleet for example.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 40
          0
          Quote: Nick
          Isn't the nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great a ship in the ocean zone? The oceanic fleet is possible without aircraft carriers, the Soviet fleet, for example, take

          Is an. But without air cover in this ocean zone, its combat stability will tend to zero. Roughly speaking, they are gouging out from under the radio horizon (tactical use of carrier-based aviation) for target designation from AWACS aircraft by massive air-launched missiles of anti-ship missiles in rotation mode.
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 25 February 2016 12: 04
          0
          Quote: Nick
          The ocean fleet is possible without aircraft carriers, for example, take the Soviet fleet.

          What?? Soviet ocean fleet? belay Man, what happy parallel reality are you broadcasting from? lol According to the doctrine, the USSR ALWAYS had a defensive coastal fleet (the autonomy of cruisers lasted no more than 20-30 days!). Or is it different in your parallel reality? Well tell me, it’s already become interesting lol
      2. weksha50
        weksha50 25 February 2016 11: 03
        +1
        Quote: GSH-18
        We were practically locked in coastal waters.



        We now need to re-master and ensure the inviolability of our sea borders and coastal waters, which is done in modern conditions ...

        It was easy to collapse, it was difficult to restore ... God forbid, hands and budgetary opportunities will reach the AUG in due time ...
      3. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 25 February 2016 11: 30
        -1
        Quote: GSH-18
        That's it. It turns out that India has money for a new aircraft carrier, but Russia does not. Nonsense! We have the longest coastline in the world, and we do not have a single AUG. For that, the Americans have 11! It leads to bad conclusions. We were practically locked in coastal waters. We need a fleet of the ocean zone, and without aircraft carriers it is impossible.

        we are building a nuclear submarine fleet - and the Indians have one of our current in leasing. and no one bans us until we have dozens of apl
    4. Wiruz
      Wiruz 25 February 2016 10: 21
      +4
      I do not agree with you. Economics is a strategic industry. And it is not the economists who oppose the aircraft carrier because of the difficult economic situation that should be blamed, but those who brought us to this situation.
  4. Primus pilus
    Primus pilus 25 February 2016 10: 08
    +2
    It is necessary to try to push their MiG-29K Hindus.
  5. Wiruz
    Wiruz 25 February 2016 10: 09
    -1
    We survived ... The Indians are building atomic aircraft carriers ... And we have time there Rogozin on Twitter liberals troll request
    1. Maxom75
      Maxom75 25 February 2016 10: 20
      0
      And Siluanov tells us about difficult times for a long time. First they ruined the country, and now they demand tightening their belts. (((
  6. Engineer
    Engineer 25 February 2016 10: 10
    +5
    India announces a tender for the design of a new aircraft carrier, Brazil is developing a new aircraft carrier, France is developing a new aircraft carrier, China is designing a series of new aircraft carriers, Britain is building the second newest aircraft carrier, in Russia they argue why it is needed by a land regional power ...
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 25 February 2016 10: 16
      +1
      India announces a tender for the design of a new aircraft carrier, Brazil is developing a new aircraft carrier, France is developing a new aircraft carrier, China is designing a series of new aircraft carriers, Britain is building the second newest aircraft carrier, in Russia they argue why it is needed by a land regional power ...

      Russia needs it, and it needs it "yesterday," but building it without escort ships is more than stupid. The ships of Project 1164 and Project 1144 will not live long, but few of them remain. Project 956 and Project 1155 are no longer capable of anything. Until the destroyers Leader in the series do not stand up about the aircraft carrier, it is silly to talk about. And if we take into account that almost every year the bookmark moves forward a year ...
      In short, it's a shame and a shame crying
    2. sergius60
      sergius60 25 February 2016 10: 58
      +2
      Just because since the days of the Union, the naval ones have invented so many different things to get these aircraft carriers "just for a time" ... Now they seem to be afraid of themselves. ;-))) A war with the United States can only be nuclear missile. Then everyone is a scribe. Or not at all. The presence of aircraft carriers in such hands is completely purple. Our interests are in Eurasia. Quite within the coverage area of ​​the base aircraft. And the lionfish. ;-) An example of Syria is not enough?
      Are you going to jump on the American continent? Let’s take the whole world right away. Our 150 million people are just enough. ;-)))
      And another important point. The development of aviation itself. The one that we habitually call tactical, in fact, has already been transformed into strategic. Su-34, F-15 "Strike Eagle". And the deck ran up against the limits in terms of mass / dimension. More Hornet is impossible to do. And to squeeze the parameters of the aircraft out of the F-35 ... You yourself know perfectly well the course of this epic.
      At this stage of technological development, basic aviation gored deckers. Modern decks are legal game for shooting. Su-35 vs F-18? ;-))) F-22 vs MIG-29K? : - ((
      1. Wiruz
        Wiruz 25 February 2016 11: 23
        +3
        And squeeze out the parameters of the aircraft from the F-35 ...

        You can’t even say better. good laughing wassat
        I’ll write down this phrase hi
    3. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 25 February 2016 11: 33
      0
      so developments are also underway - there’s still no money flow for the construction itself, 5% of the budget cuts this year, 3.8% last year
    4. GSH-18
      GSH-18 25 February 2016 18: 57
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      India announces a tender for the design of a new aircraft carrier, Brazil is developing a new aircraft carrier, France is developing a new aircraft carrier, China is designing a series of new aircraft carriers, Britain is building a second newest aircraft carrier, in Russia they argue why it is needed by a land regional power ..

      With a coastline of 38000km! angry
  7. dojjdik
    dojjdik 25 February 2016 10: 11
    +2
    promotion of these "sea turtles" continues - who benefits from this? Do not the Americans want to shove off their sea junk - they have accumulated a lot of this floating scrap
  8. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 25 February 2016 10: 11
    +2
    Oh, in turkey, the budget is a military fool - we study and study. I’m interested in who supplies them with nuclear power plants - they recently got their own nuclear submarines, and now they are an aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant. Really yourself?
    1. chikenous59
      chikenous59 25 February 2016 10: 18
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Really yourself?

      Well, did India somehow have nuclear weapons, what could have prevented them from building a nuclear installation on nuclear submarines?
      By the way, their scientists are not so bad as many think of them.
    2. Gray brother
      Gray brother 25 February 2016 10: 24
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Really yourself?

      They themselves produce their own nuclear weapons, they have reactors - after all, they produce plutonium somewhere.
      Why not do my own nuclear power plant - it seems that nothing is interfering.
  9. Evil 55
    Evil 55 25 February 2016 10: 13
    -2
    Sly Indians will buy "Rafale" .. They believe that someday the captured French will repair and service the Air Force equipment ... with Russia, such a freebie will not work ..
    1. chikenous59
      chikenous59 25 February 2016 10: 20
      +2
      Quote: Evil 55
      Sly Indians will buy "Rafale" .. They believe that someday the captured French will repair and service the Air Force equipment ... with Russia, such a freebie will not work ..

      Interesting version))
  10. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 25 February 2016 10: 15
    +1
    This is where the project presented at the Sea Salon 2015 in St. Petersburg will come in handy.
  11. pts-m
    pts-m 25 February 2016 10: 21
    0
    I wonder if India is threatening someone or so for a walk on the oceans? Probably the British want to return the Indus to their control.
  12. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 25 February 2016 10: 27
    +5
    "Childishness" (V. I. Lenin). smile
    To build so to build. And only with a catapult.
    You can take off from a springboard only: either with half bombs, or
    without fuel (refueling in the air).
    The photo shows a comparison of Nimitz (USA) with Invincible (England).
    Like dad with a baby ...
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 32
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      "Childishness" (V. I. Lenin). smile
      To build so to build. And only with a catapult.
      You can take off from a springboard only: either with half bombs, or
      without fuel (refueling in the air).
      The photo shows a comparison of Nimitz (USA) with Invincible (England).
      Like dad with a baby ...

      Here I will support Voyaku at 100%!
      1. chikenous59
        chikenous59 25 February 2016 10: 53
        +1
        Quote: GSH-18
        Here I will support Voyaku at 100%!

        Do you not support Lenin’s statements regarding the Internet? laughing
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 25 February 2016 11: 02
          0
          Quote: chikenous59
          Quote: GSH-18
          Here I will support Voyaku at 100%!

          Do you not support Lenin’s statements regarding the Internet? laughing

          And you yourself at least one of his statement without the help of Internet can reproduce, dear? And what kind of question is this fool ? Did you like the very sound combination "Lenin"?
          1. chikenous59
            chikenous59 25 February 2016 11: 05
            +1
            Quote: GSH-18
            Quote: chikenous59
            Quote: GSH-18
            Here I will support Voyaku at 100%!

            Do you not support Lenin’s statements regarding the Internet? laughing

            And you yourself at least one of his statement without the help of Internet can reproduce, dear? And what kind of question is this fool ? Did you like the very sound combination "Lenin"?

            Yes, this joke smile
            It's just that at one time I was amused by a wave of reposts about Lenin's statement: "The problem with the Internet is that they believe in it." Something like that.
            But the Internet appeared 45 years after the death of Lenin)) That smiled.
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 25 February 2016 12: 17
              0
              Quote: chikenous59
              Yes, the joke is so smile
              It's just that at one time I was amused by a wave of reposts about Lenin's statement: "The problem with the Internet is that they believe in it." Something like that.
              But the Internet appeared 45 years after the death of Lenin)) That smiled.

              Ah, well, clear. I just didn't have to see this "statement" of Vladimir Ilyich lol
    2. Mera joota
      Mera joota 25 February 2016 13: 09
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      To build so to build. And only with a catapult.

      So Indians show great interest in EM catapult, and Americans do not really resist.
  13. Zurmansor
    Zurmansor 25 February 2016 10: 33
    0
    good luck to the Indians, in the right direction development
  14. Abbra
    Abbra 25 February 2016 10: 45
    -1
    India itself as an aircraft carrier ... See on the map.
    1. Abbra
      Abbra 25 February 2016 11: 28
      0
      Well, the question is ... Someone put a minus to me. For what? Fuck with them, the minuses, I just do not understand. Etc. Put - justify your point of view.
      1. chikenous59
        chikenous59 25 February 2016 11: 48
        0
        Quote: Abbra
        Well, the question is ... Someone put a minus to me. For what? Fuck with them, the minuses, I just do not understand. Etc. Put - justify your point of view.

        So someone did not see an aircraft carrier in India or found the joke unfunny.
        1. Abbra
          Abbra 25 February 2016 12: 24
          +1
          Surely it was some kind of Indian ... bully
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 25 February 2016 13: 10
            +1
            Quote: Abbra
            Surely it was some kind of Indian ... bully

            Nah, the pack is definitely ...
  15. VP
    VP 25 February 2016 11: 11
    +1
    Quote: GSH-18

    If YOU are interested in HOW? That read about the use of several American AUG in the war against Iraq. Very informative.

    Maybe you admit that besides you, someone else read about it?
    In the Gulf War, the States used 5 (five) AUGs.
    Several annual budgets of the Russian Federation, if we take the cost of the aircraft carriers themselves, ships of air groups, aircraft groups and maintenance costs.
    And at the same time, only one third of all sorties made during that operation were made on deck aviation. Those. aircraft carriers played only an auxiliary role.
    1. chikenous59
      chikenous59 25 February 2016 11: 15
      0
      Quote: VP
      Maybe you admit that besides you, someone else read about it?

      Do not try to convince such people, no offense is said to anyone.
      Everyone is deeply convinced of his truth, considering himself a strategist) The dispute will lead to nothing here.
    2. sir_obs
      sir_obs 25 February 2016 12: 10
      0
      Moreover, they did not risk anything, due to the lack of opponents with suitable weapons. An aircraft carrier will only frighten the Papuans and in essence an attribute of prestige and a scarecrow for the same Papuans. Against comparable opponents, this is just a big target. Drowning it is optional, it is enough to damage it so that it cannot lift and land aircraft. if there is someone to plant, if the enemy has modern air defense, the chances of returning to the aircraft carrier are illusory.
    3. Mera joota
      Mera joota 25 February 2016 13: 17
      +1
      Quote: VP
      Those. aircraft carriers played only an auxiliary role.

      The sea is the same theater of war as land.
      Why do you need aviation if:
      1. Intelligence can be carried out from space;
      2. For delivering long-range strikes, tactical ballistic and cruise missiles can be used;
      3. At the forefront, you can only work with artillery and MLRS;
      4. Air defense can be carried out only by air defense systems.
      Agree with that? I doubt it. Without aviation, starting from the Second World War, it is impossible to fight on land or at sea.
  16. ArcanAG
    ArcanAG 25 February 2016 11: 17
    +2
    And in the next topic they have just proved that aircraft carriers are not needed.

    They do not read our forums there in India or what?
    1. chikenous59
      chikenous59 25 February 2016 11: 21
      0
      Quote: ArcanAG
      And in the next topic they have just proved that aircraft carriers are not needed.

      They do not read our forums there in India or what?

      But the article was about Russia. Hindus read expert comments and realized that while there is an opportunity, it is necessary to build in order to overtake Russia far and for a long time in this direction))
      But they did not understand that this was a diversion.
  17. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 25 February 2016 12: 21
    +2
    Yes, we have a long coastline. Yes, we can build an aircraft carrier. So what ? Where will we all base them? Shove everything in Murmansk? Have you thought how many non-freezing ports we have? But even an atomic icebreaker is not enough to conduct such a colossus in the ice. There are a lot of questions on basing and theater of operations. And the emphasis of the USSR on the submarine fleet was not accidental. It is not for nothing that our country is considered to be a land power, and our marine doctrine is purely defensive. To operate aircraft carriers, you need to have bases in ice-free seas.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 25 February 2016 13: 28
      +3
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Yes we can build an aircraft carrier

      Can not. None, nothing, nothing ...
  18. VP
    VP 25 February 2016 13: 11
    +3
    Quote: 1c-inform-city
    Yes, we have a long coastline. Yes, we can build an aircraft carrier. So what ? Where will we all base them? Shove everything in Murmansk? Have you thought how many non-freezing ports we have? But even an atomic icebreaker is not enough to conduct such a colossus in the ice. There are a lot of questions on basing and theater of operations. And the emphasis of the USSR on the submarine fleet was not accidental. It is not for nothing that our country is considered to be a land power, and our marine doctrine is purely defensive. To operate aircraft carriers, you need to have bases in ice-free seas.

    This is not the only one.
    You need to know exactly why they are required by the country.
    The United States has cooked them for decades because AUGs were considered indestructible and unsinkable compounds that could have a strategic impact.
    Currently, this is no longer the case - and there are already and will be improved in the future, means of destruction that effectively work against aircraft carriers. Now the stage of development of hypersonic missiles is underway, there won't be even the slightest chance against them, I think that in 10 years 2-3 countries will finish them at once. So aircraft carriers have already lost their former halo of "unsinkable" and in the near future they will become targets altogether.
    Then, the concept of "power projection".
    But even in a war with an unimproved militarily enemy (Iraq), the role of AUG aircraft was auxiliary in comparison with the role of ground-based aircraft.
    And why then?
    To threaten different Papuans? Any local operations?
    But isn’t it unprofitable to keep them for such a purpose?
    Amusement to amuse?
  19. VP
    VP 25 February 2016 14: 41
    +1
    Quote: Mera Joota

    Agree with that? I doubt it. Without aviation, starting from the Second World War, it is impossible to fight on land or at sea.

    I do not mind a word against this.
    Only the question arises of using precisely aircraft carriers. Rather, three questions
    1. where
    2. how
    3. What are the benefits of an aircraft carrier after answering the previous two questions.

    1. For some reason, we’re fighting some Guinea not every decade, but it’s kind of silly to frighten Italy or Australia with an aircraft carrier.
    2. Chose and sail? Or bomb and start a ground operation? How do we start? We bring a powerful fleet of BDK? Where do we get it from?
    3. If the question is "how in the second world" then air regiments based on land will be more in demand than based on an aircraft carrier.