Britain may sell its Aircraft Carrier to India

smartindian

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
614
Likes
59
Country flag
British aircraft carrier offered to India once again

Making warships happen

I was taken aback last week to receive an invitation from BAE Systems, the world's third-richest arms corporation, for a four-day media tour to the UK. What surprised me was not the invitation. The rate at which India is buying up foreign weaponry, global arms merchants, eager for publicity, would happily pay for our small defence journalist community to globetrot through the year. What was remarkable in the BAE invitation was the company's proposal to fly us to Glasgow for the launch of a new Royal Navy destroyer and a tour of other warships. Why, I wondered, was British shipbuilding being showcased to India in the absence of a plan to buy a warship from the UK?

A few phone calls later I had my answer! A cash-strapped UK defence ministry, unable to pay for the two aircraft carriers on order with BAE Systems, had offered one of them to New Delhi. In the circumstances, a few news reports in India on "high-quality British shipbuilding" could only be useful.

Given that the Indian Navy already has four aircraft carriers in the pipeline — the lame but functional INS Viraat; the infamous Gorshkov (renamed INS Vikramaditya), being constructed in Russia; a third (so far unnamed) carrier being built in Cochin Shipyard; and another to follow that — Britain's offer of yet another carrier might be considered wildly optimistic. But desperate times demand desperate measures and the UK is conducting its greatest strategic downsizing since the 1968 retreat from the Suez. David Cameron's new government has initiated a strategic defence and security review (SDSR), which involves defence spending cuts of 20-30 per cent to bring down military expenditure to below 2 per cent of GDP.

Amongst the several multi-billion pound programmes that seem certain to be pared is the Carrier Vessels Future (CVF) programme: the £5 billion ($8 billion) construction, mainly in British shipyards, of two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers called the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales. These were ordered before the global economic downturn; the Labour government thought they were essential for the Royal Navy to retain its centuries-old capability to project power across the globe. Even amidst today's cost-cutting, current defence secretary Liam Fox had hoped to build both carriers, operating only one with the other kept in reserve. But just days ago, BAE boss Ian King revealed that the government had asked BAE Systems to evaluate the cost of cancelling the CVF programme entirely.

With £1.2 billion ($1.8 billion) already spent on the CVF, and 4,000 skilled workers busy fabricating the Queen Elizabeth, London knows that an outright cancellation would ruin Britain's shipbuilding industry. And so, one of the aircraft carriers hopes to wash up on India's shores.

The government of India must quickly decline the British offer. London could be forgiven for concluding from the fact that four Indian warships are on order from Russian shipyards, and the Indian Navy wants to build more abroad, that Indian shipyards cannot meet the country's maritime security needs. The truth, however, is that India looks abroad for warships because of the MoD's inability to streamline planning, sanctions and procedures, and to bring together the skills of the multiple agencies that contribute towards developing and building a warship.

Consider our production facilities. The MoD owns and controls four defence shipyards: Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai (MDL); Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers, Kolkata (GRSE); Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL); and the recently (and misguidedly) acquired Hindustan Shipyard Ltd, Visakhapatnam (HSL). Then there is Cochin Shipyard Ltd (CSL), a central PSU, which is building an aircraft carrier for the MoD since none of the MoD shipyards has facilities large enough for this. And, very recently, there is the emergence of state-of-the-art private sector shipyards — L&T, Pipavav and ABG Shipyards — with global-quality facilities.

Also in the production loop is the Directorate General of Naval Design (DGND), which has achieved notable success in the conceptual design of the Indian Navy's recent warships. Each shipyard, too, has its own design department, which translates the DGND's conceptual design into engineering drawings of the thousands of components that make up a ship. Then there are Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratories, which produce high-technology systems like sonars, radars, torpedoes etc., many of which money cannot buy. The existence of these technology labs is a key attribute of a warship-building country.

Finally, there are the educational institutions that feed into, and off, these agencies: the departments of naval architecture in IITs and universities; research departments in colleges and universities that feed into DRDO laboratories and assist them by taking on research projects.

India has, in varying degrees, every component of this ecosystem. The MoD must bring them together, compensating for one component's weaknesses by harnessing another's strengths. Instead, South Block's proclivity to view each entity individually creates the impression of a shortfall of capacity.

Consider how the MoD is processing India's second submarine line, allowing two of the six submarines to be built abroad although massive capacities will lie unutilised in L&T and Pipavav (Business Standard has carried a four-article series on this from August 30 to September 2). Here is the MoD's logic: Pipavav has the facilities but not the experience; L&T has the experience, but not the facilities; MDL has both, but it doesn't have the capacity!

Astonishingly, South Block considers it preferable to buy submarines from a foreign shipyard, rather than bringing together Indian capabilities that could produce them far cheaper, create jobs and build capacities. The MoD must be stopped from building abroad. India needs a significant navy but it can only afford to build up quickly if the MoD brings together the warship-building eco-system. Indian money must build Indian capabilities, not pay for British shipbuilding industry to survive.

link:Making warships happen
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,213
Country flag
Astonishingly, South Block considers it preferable to buy submarines from a foreign shipyard, rather than bringing together Indian capabilities that could produce them far cheaper, create jobs and build capacities. The MoD must be stopped from building abroad. India needs a significant navy but it can only afford to build up quickly if the MoD brings together the warship-building eco-system. Indian money must build Indian capabilities, not pay for British shipbuilding industry to survive.
This is the paragraph that brings out a 100% solid fact that MoD is simply not interested in promoting indigenous construction and therefore is still a slave of foreign maal. Right now GOI's priority is saving European skin rather than use this opportunity to develop indigenous capabilities to the hilt. No wonder Chinese laugh at us for everytime letting such blatant acts of national insults go unprotested.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Making warships happen

The 650-metre dry dock at the Pipavav shipyard in Gujarat. This dry dock can take two aircraft carriers simultaneously and still have space left over for the odd destroyer

by Ajai ShuklaBusiness Standard, 21st Sept 10
I was taken aback last week to receive an invitation from BAE Systems, the world's third-richest arms corporation, for a four-day media tour to the UK. What surprised me was not the invitation. The rate at which India is buying up foreign weaponry, global arms merchants, eager for publicity, would happily pay for our small defence journalist community to globetrot through the year. What was remarkable in the BAE invitation was the company's proposal to fly us to Glasgow for the launch of a new Royal Navy destroyer and a tour of other warships. Why, I wondered, was British shipbuilding being showcased to India in the absence of a plan to buy a warship from the UK?
A few phone calls later I had my answer! A cash-strapped UK defence ministry, unable to pay for the two aircraft carriers on order with BAE Systems, had offered one of them to New Delhi.
In the circumstances, a few news reports in India on "high-quality British shipbuilding" could only be useful.
Given that the Indian Navy already has four aircraft carriers in the pipeline — the lame but functional INS Viraat; the infamous Gorshkov (renamed INS Vikramaditya), being constructed in Russia; a third (so far unnamed) carrier being built in Cochin Shipyard; and another to follow that — Britain's offer of yet another carrier might be considered wildly optimistic. But desperate times demand desperate measures and the UK is conducting its greatest strategic downsizing since the 1968 retreat from the Suez. David Cameron's new government has initiated a strategic defence and security review (SDSR), which involves defence spending cuts of 20-30 per cent to bring down military expenditure to below 2 per cent of GDP.Amongst the several multi-billion pound programmes that seem certain to be pared is the Carrier Vessels Future (CVF) programme: the £5 billion ($8 billion) construction, mainly in British shipyards, of two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers called the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales. These were ordered before the global economic downturn; the Labour government thought they were essential for the Royal Navy to retain its centuries-old capability to project power across the globe. Even amidst today's cost-cutting, current defence secretary Liam Fox had hoped to build both carriers, operating only one with the other kept in reserve. But just days ago, BAE boss Ian King revealed that the government had asked BAE Systems to evaluate the cost of cancelling the CVF programme entirely.
With £1.2 billion ($1.8 billion) already spent on the CVF, and 4,000 skilled workers busy fabricating the Queen Elizabeth, London knows that an outright cancellation would ruin Britain's shipbuilding industry. And so, one of the aircraft carriers hopes to wash up on India's shores.
The government of India must quickly decline the British offer. London could be forgiven for concluding from the fact that four Indian warships are on order from Russian shipyards, and the Indian Navy wants to build more abroad, that Indian shipyards cannot meet the country's maritime security needs. The truth, however, is that India looks abroad for warships because of the MoD's inability to streamline planning, sanctions and procedures, and to bring together the skills of the multiple agencies that contribute towards developing and building a warship.
Consider our production facilities. The MoD owns and controls four defence shipyards: Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai (MDL); Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers, Kolkata (GRSE); Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL); and the recently (and misguidedly) acquired Hindustan Shipyard Ltd, Visakhapatnam (HSL). Then there is Cochin Shipyard Ltd (CSL), a central PSU, which is building an aircraft carrier for the MoD since none of the MoD shipyards has facilities large enough for this. And, very recently, there is the emergence of state-of-the-art private sector shipyards — L&T, Pipavav and ABG Shipyards — with global-quality facilities.
Also in the production loop is the Directorate General of Naval Design (DGND), which has achieved notable success in the conceptual design of the Indian Navy's recent warships. Each shipyard, too, has its own design department, which translates the DGND's conceptual design into engineering drawings of the thousands of components that make up a ship. Then there are Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratories, which produce high-technology systems like sonars, radars, torpedoes etc., many of which money cannot buy. The existence of these technology labs is a key attribute of a warship-building country.
Finally, there are the educational institutions that feed into, and off, these agencies: the departments of naval architecture in IITs and universities; research departments in colleges and universities that feed into DRDO laboratories and assist them by taking on research projects.
India has, in varying degrees, every component of this ecosystem. The MoD must bring them together, compensating for one component's weaknesses by harnessing another's strengths. Instead, South Block's proclivity to view each entity individually creates the impression of a shortfall of capacity.
Consider how the MoD is processing India's second submarine line, allowing two of the six submarines to be built abroad although massive capacities will lie unutilised in L&T and Pipavav (Business Standard has carried a four-article series on this from August 30 to September 2). Here is the MoD's logic: Pipavav has the facilities but not the experience; L&T has the experience, but not the facilities; MDL has both, but it doesn't have the capacity!
Astonishingly, South Block considers it preferable to buy submarines from a foreign shipyard, rather than bringing together Indian capabilities that could produce them far cheaper, create jobs and build capacities. The MoD must be stopped from building abroad. India needs a significant navy but it can only afford to build up quickly if the MoD brings together the warship-building eco-system. Indian money must build Indian capabilities, not pay for British shipbuilding industry to survive.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
I think its better that we stick to our ADS program and spend our efforts on it rather than spending insane amounts of money on the QE class AC !! I think 4 ACs are more than enough for our needs for at least the next 20 years or so, instead of thinking about a super carrier, we should spend our resources on SSBNs and SSNs, after we have at least 2 of each type, then we should think of going for a super carrier as by then the Gorshkov may be past its lifespan in the IN.
 

bengalraider

DFI Technocrat
Ambassador
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
3,779
Likes
2,666
Country flag
[
B]Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets[/B]
One of the Navy's new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold, ministers will announce on Tuesday.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 9:57PM BST 18 Oct 2010


An artist's impression of the future aircraft Carriers for the Royal Navy, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales

The Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review will also confirm that Britain will not have an effective "carrier strike" capability – a working aircraft carrier equipped with fighter jets – until 2020.
David Cameron had wanted to scrap one of the two carriers, the largest and most expensive vessels in British naval history, but the review found that contracts signed by the previous government meant that doing so would end up costing the taxpayer more than going ahead with both. As a result, the two carriers will enter service, but one will be mothballed as soon as possible.

Presenting the review to MPs, the Prime Minister will blame many of its outcomes on Labour, accusing its ministers of leaving a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget and signing contracts for over-priced and unnecessary military equipment. He will also announce:
"¢ The replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent will be delayed by a year until after the general election scheduled for 2015. He will insist he remains committed to renewing Trident but will say the delay is needed to save £750 million.
"¢ The Army will lose 7,000 soldiers, more than 100 tanks and 200 armoured vehicles. One armoured brigade will be lost and the end of Britain's 65-year presence in Germany will be signalled.
"¢ The RAF will keep most of its Tornado fighter-bombers but lose at least 5,000 personnel. Two RAF bases will close and be occupied by soldiers returning from Germany.
"¢ The Navy's fleet of warships will drop from 24 to 19 and it will lose 4,000 personnel. Harrier jump-jets will be scrapped next year but no F35 Joint Strike Fighters will be available to replace them until 2020.
"¢ Special Forces will receive a significant increase in their budget, allowing them to buy sophisticated communications technology and weapons. Recruitment is also likely to rise.
The decision on the new carriers has been at the heart of tense and prolonged Whitehall negotiations over the future of the Armed Forces.
Due to cost almost £6 billion, they were demanded by the Navy but strongly opposed by the Army and by General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff.
The final plan for the carriers was approved by the Cabinet on Monday, at a meeting in which Mr Cameron told ministers that the decisions on the future of the Armed Forces, had been "the hardest thing I have had to deal with" since entering No 10.
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister will outline a timetable under which Britain's one fully operational aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, is immediately retired. The Navy's other carrier, HMS Illustrious, will continue to function as a helicopter platform stripped of jets before retiring in 2014.
The first of the new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will enter service in 2016, configured to carry helicopters, not jets. The second new carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will arrive in 2019. At that point, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be put into "extended readiness", effectively mothballed indefinitely.
Government sources indicated that the Queen Elizabeth was unlikely to return to service after that, and could well be sold to another country to recoup some of the cost of building it. "There are no plans for it after 2019 and it could well be sold. No one wanted the second carrier but we had no choice," said one source. "No one is pretending this is an ideal situation, but this is what we were left with."
A senior defence source added: "This is not a perfect set of circumstances. There is no political benefit for us but it is the right thing for the country. It would have been more expensive to cancel than build the aircraft carrier."
Further angering Navy chiefs, the defence review will confirm that Harrier jump-jets will be abandoned next year but the RAF's Tornado will be spared to operate in Afghanistan.
Scrapping the Harriers will create a "capability gap" of nine years, with Britain unable to fly fast jets from an aircraft carrier until 2020, when the new JSF enters service.
Government sources tried to play down the significance of the gap, insisting that Britain had agreements allowing RAF jets to fly from overseas bases in most strategically sensitive parts of the world. But insiders admitted that the situation was "far from perfect".
Until 2020, Britain is likely to rely heavily on allies with a carrier strike capability, most significantly France.
Mr Cameron will meet President Nicolas Sarkozy next month to discuss expanding Anglo-French military co-operation, with naval collaboration at the top of the agenda.
As The Daily Telegraph disclosed in August, one of the new carriers will be redesigned with a catapult to launch aircraft.
That means that Britain will have to pull out of plans to buy a specially-designed short take-off vertical landing model of the JSF.
Abandoning this model could jeopardise jobs at Rolls-Royce, which was helping build it, and antagonise the US, Britain's partner in developing the aircraft.
However, the catapult system will allow the Prince of Wales to carry French and US aircraft. It also means that the new carrier will be equipped with the conventional form of the JSF, which the Royal Navy believes is more powerful and cost-effective than the jump-jet.
Navy chiefs were said to be extremely unhappy about the decision to axe the Harrier jump-jets, claiming that ministers had "underestimated the risk" from the move.
Sources raised doubt over the lack of carrier strike capability, questioning whether the RAF would be able to secure airbases for its jets if Britain needed to fight abroad.
"I can't see Oman happy to have Tornados flying from its territory to bomb Iran," said a source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...d-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html

lets wait for three years and then buy the one that's goin cheap!;)
 

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
Ice, why go for something that britain is looking to phase out when they are offering something that's going to serve them in the future?

Leasing the invincible is useless. We already have the refitted virat with harriers. We need to look forward and not back. With the mrca deal which will either be the super hornet or the mig 35, both carrier capable, the mig 35, being an upgrade of the 29 series that india has already ordered, the QE class will suit just fine with these ACs.
oftopic
yusuf bhai u seems dam sure that mmrca is either going to Russians or american.if it went to russians it would be criticized by lot here and if went with American which i think many would hate/heart broken but chances begin bright with every increasing day as every other defense analyst is started hooting for american fighter plane. but tell me one thing if we did n`t sign american cicsmo /eula would this birds would be as dangerous as without cicsmo/eula

buy why do not go with french but yes have a tight case agreement with them or russians and if last option then go with gripen
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top