India should initiate re-commissioning the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier

[kuku]

Kuku, if you read my post carefully, I said that unless we have the Battle Group capable enough, it is unwise to operate even larger carriers than what we are operating now.

This difference becomes more important when you are talking about a large carrier as it relates to more cost, more aircraft and more prestige, but I agree to the point you are making.

Well given that we agree on the importance of the group that escorts the carrier, i still think we should look more at the capability that a ship provides because all ships face the same threats.

Point is that does India actually need a supercarrier.

The current ships are supposed to provide air support to the fleet, with a secondary land attack capability, for that I suppose the ships should do fine, although a catapult assisted take off would be better.

All future French ACs will be conventionally powered.

I would not say all future ACs, the French have had some generations of carriers and the current carrier will have conventional power due to financial reasons and common design with the British, however never count on the French to go through with the program, they could at any moment disassociate themselves and go for a independent program for PA 2, after all they have done so in other programs (eurocanards).

 

[Payeng]

What is the reason that India have not opt. for catapult launch carrier, is it for the denial of technology and hardware, like the catapult launch system or reinforced landing gear, or is it due to the smaller size of the carrier (to note INS Vikrant had catapult assist launch) or the cost of procurement, like stress borne by aircraft during catapult launch and rapid servicing cost to check stresses on aircrafts,

One more question is why UK and Russia have not chosen a CATOBAR configuration, considering that they already have the technology or at least have access to such technology?

 

[indian_sukhoi]

Well i do realize the Gorskhov saga had made IN very furious, but chances for looking for second option is becamed narrow to nill. The Carrier weights almost three times the size of Viraat and two times size of Gorskhov. -See the pic below.

I rather prefer to be naked without a Carrier than opting for Kitty Hawk.




There are more than one reason to say NO for Kitty Hawk.

-The Carrier is big fat old lady which is about to die. The Gorskhov is younger than the USS Kitty Hawk, a 53-year old vessel.

-If,......I mean IF we ever buyed the Carrier. It will spend most of its time in repairs rather than in actual duty.

-Our Shipyards are not equipped to handle these giants. I realy doubt whether our Mazodon or Cochin can handle them them repairing.

-It will be big headache to maintain. I heard somewhere that USN spends more than 600million dollars per year on these Carriers.

-We dont have the expreince of mainting such a big aircraft. Expreince from INS Viraat will be no use for the IN sailors over Kitty Hawk.

-It will take years to form our doctrines with this new Ship and to expensive to be sunked

-Buying Kitty Hawk means buying more Military hardware. IN will be needed to start from the begining.
-You will no other option spending more money on buying F-18s and other aircrafts. You dont expect to operate Ruskie Mig-29K on a Uncle Sam Aircraft Carrier:blum3:

-The Money which we spended on Gorshkov and Mig-29K will be useless.


Face it guys,.....From both sides Gorskhov and Kitty hawk deal we will end up has the losers. The Real story behind Kitty Hawk deal is that, The IN using Kitty Hawk deal has a bargaining power with Russia in the negotiations over the delivery of Admiral Gorshkov

The Indian Navy wants to maintain a large fleet of "Three Carrier Battle Group Navy". The Navy keep on shouting for a 3 Carriers Group Fleet and its must for us to get that Mark. Navy hopes to have two fully-operational "carrier battle groups" till the year 2008 but ended Dissapoineted. The Navy Doctrine is to become a True "Blue Water Navy' and a "Sea Based Nuclear Deterrence", In future it will take a lot of work to achive this Goal.


Bottom line, Indian Navy will rather prefer waiting for delivery of Russia’s Admiral Gorshkov with MiG-29K/KUB naval fighters than to receive USS Kitty Hawk and Super Hornets.

 

[SATISH]

4 countries together operating one aircraft carrier?...What is the author trying to say? Does he mean that we should give money to the US to keep the Kitty Hawk operational or does he mean the 4 countries must buy the Kitty Hawk and man them? It is kinda confusing. Are these two options possible?

 

[SATISH]

In the event of war what will happen to the carrier? Who is going to contribute for the carrier battle group to protect it?

 

[Yusuf]

More still what would happen if for instance Pakistan attacks India and China attacks Japan at the same time. Who will get the carrier for its war?

 

[p2prada]

Kitty Hawk is expensive and a waste of time. We will have to work on our doctrine again. None of our ports can berth the Kitty Hawk anyways.

 

[K Factor]

What is the reason that India have not opt. for catapult launch carrier, is it for the denial of technology and hardware, like the catapult launch system or reinforced landing gear, or is it due to the smaller size of the carrier (to note INS Vikrant had catapult assist launch) or the cost of procurement, like stress borne by aircraft during catapult launch and rapid servicing cost to check stresses on aircrafts,

One more question is why UK and Russia have not chosen a CATOBAR configuration, considering that they already have the technology or at least have access to such technology?

Steam catapults are a logistical and financial pit that only the US can afford to step in. Moreover, owing to the smaller size of the carriers UK/Russia have, it is unwise to put an maintenance intensive component on board which would eat up precious space on a small carrier.
Hence the V/STOL and ski-jump aided approach.

Though it is a fact that catapult launch puts a lot of stress on the airframe, the airframe fatigue is not the major factor here as most carrier capable aircraft have strengthened airframes and landing gear to handle launch and landing from AC.

 

[venom]

There is no use in purchasing a 40 yr old junk even if it is for free.The maintainance costs will be too high even after upgrading.

 

[BOSS-Is-Back]

Guys if u look at the basic firepower a ship needs to defend itself on high seas, u would notice the Russian Carriers has an added advantage over the americans.
America's main focus in building carriers are for greater mobility of fighters to foreign lands. Their carriers though best in the world today , lacks an effcient self defence and attack system , while being too bulkyon the other side. ]
So u would find a contigent of ships and subs accompanying an american or a western carrier all the time.

On the other hand , russian designs were to basically gain an upper hands in sea-warfare. Their doctrine has limited use for carriers. Russian carriers are more of a modified warship carrying fighter jets , if small in nos., though very handy . Russian carriers dont require that kinda protection an western carrier requires.
INS Vikramaditya is of the same category. It can defend itself and even attack when situation demands, which the Kitty Hawk lacks to gr88 extent. On a 1 to 1 basis the kitty hawk simply stands as a sitting duck compared to our Vikramaditya.

So i guess, this should be the end of any doubts if u possess

 

[Yusuf]

Boss,

the Russians had self defence batteries on their carrier, but part of the modification on Vikramaditya is to remove all those from the deck.

 

[John]

Guys if u look at the basic firepower a ship needs to defend itself on high seas, u would notice the Russian Carriers has an added advantage over the americans.
America's main focus in building carriers are for greater mobility of fighters to foreign lands. Their carriers though best in the world today , lacks an effcient self defence and attack system , while being too bulkyon the other side. ]
So u would find a contigent of ships and subs accompanying an american or a western carrier all the time.

On the other hand , russian designs were to basically gain an upper hands in sea-warfare. Their doctrine has limited use for carriers. Russian carriers are more of a modified warship carrying fighter jets , if small in nos., though very handy . Russian carriers dont require that kinda protection an western carrier requires.
INS Vikramaditya is of the same category. It can defend itself and even attack when situation demands, which the Kitty Hawk lacks to gr88 extent. On a 1 to 1 basis the kitty hawk simply stands as a sitting duck compared to our Vikramaditya.

So i guess, this should be the end of any doubts if u possess

well not true, the US carriers themselves have 3 to 4 layers of defense excluding the AEGIS, subs, frigates and destroyers in the carrier group which are the key part of the impenetrable zone. Carriers have the Super hornet, the Nimitz can have over 70 of them, due to the long detection radius of over 1000 miles and a few super hornets always in the air, you'll have to deal with them and The flight deck crew can launch two aircraft and land one every 37 seconds in daylight, and one per minute at night. The SH is capable of detecting sea skimming cruise missiles and countering them using its Aim-120 missiles, not to mention nearly a squadron of SHs armed to teeth that can be launched in less than 5 minutes. if you get past the SH, you have to face the Evolved Sea Sparrow with a range of 50km+ and Sea RAM the Carrier can launch 22 in rapid salvos and Phalanx. US carriers are way better shielded than Russian carriers. The carrier group can destroy an incoming air force in matter of minutes, The AEGIS can fire upto 122 Surface to Air missiles (mix of missiles including SM-2/3) and all ships in the group have enough missiles to take out an entire nation's air force and all those SHs will make life hell for any opposing force. Suicide mission.

http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/...cuments/content/rtn_bus_ids_prod_mk29_pdf.pdf

The US Navy Aircraft Carriers

 

[rakesh]

Aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk not for sale to India

Aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk not for sale to India: US

New Delhi: The aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk is not up for sale to the Indian Navy as it has already "outstretched" its life, a senior US Navy officer said today.

"The ship was meant to last 48 years. It is in Wilmington (North Carolina) and not for sale. There is no intention to sell it. It has already outstretched its intended service life," Rear Admiral Allen G. Myers, the Director (Warfare Integration) of the US Navy, told the media.

This puts to rest all reports of the decommissioned carrier being offered to India, which, at one stage, expressed interest in the vessel.

Myers, who once commanded the warship, said: "I am proud of her service. There is no other intention but to keep her in Wilmington."

At 82,000 tonne Kitty Hawk is twice the size of aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov that the Indian Navy has bought from Russia and which is expected to be inducted in 2012 after undergoing an extensive refit. This apart, the keel of India's first indegenous carrier was laid at the Cochin Shipyard last year.

Commissioned in 1961, Kitty Hawk underwent three overhauls in 1977, 1982 and 1998. The ship's most significant maintenance period, however, was a Service Life Extension Programme (SLEP) at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in 1987. That rigorous four-year overhaul added an estimated 20 years to the originally planned 30-year life of the ship.

Decommissioned in May 2009, the Kitty Hawk's long years of service made her one of the oldest active warships in the US Navy. The carrier was replaced by the USS George H.W. Bush, commissioned in January 2009 and named after the 41st president of the US.

Named after the small North Carolina town where Orville and Wilbur Wright made the world's first aeroplane flight in 1903, Kitty Hawk saw action during the Vietnam War and the first and second Gulf wars. (IANS)


http://headlinesindia.mapsofindia.com/defence-news/navy/aircraft-carrier-kitty-hawk-not-for-sale-to-india-us-37983.html

 

[debasree]

if we buy a super carrier like kity halk,we cannot base her any of our existing base,our shipyard cannot built to handle such big ship,and why go for junk,instead of taking the white elephant, we should concentrate making our own carriers.