China's first indigenous carrier CV17

[smooth manifold]

My man, your answer shows that you have astonishingly not understood anything being said to you. The Indian Navy does ‘ not care’ about force projection beyond its immediate neighborhood. For now. Which is why they’re going for conventional carriers.
Even if the IN wanted to project power somewhere far, they could still do so. You assume that operating a conventional carrier is prohibitively costly. It’s not. If you still argue it is, then prove it and back it up with facts and figures. End of discussion.
Peace

https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-carrier-strike-group-cost
https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-cost-to-run-a-US-aircraft-carrier-for-one-day

conventional carriers are less expensive but still it'll be a huge burden for those not so rich countries. you can project your carriers somewhere far, but can you afford that on a regular basis?

 

[Sridhar_TN]

https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-carrier-strike-group-cost
https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-cost-to-run-a-US-aircraft-carrier-for-one-day

Here we go again.
Point number one: it’s Quora. Which is like this forum where users can say anything they want and nothing is verified.
Point number two: you just listed the operating cost of a nuclear carrier. No info on conventional. You’re also forgetting the maintenance costs and complexity for both carriers.

 

[smooth manifold]

Here we go again.
Point number one: it’s Quora. Which is like this forum where users can say anything they want and nothing is verified.
Point number two: you just listed the operating cost of a nuclear carrier. No info on conventional. You’re also forgetting the maintenance costs and complexity for both carriers.

conventional carriers are less expensive but still it'll be a huge burden for those not so rich countries. you can project your carriers somewhere far, but can you afford that on a regular basis?
you talk about your population. suppose two households make the same annual earnings. let's say 20k dollars. one has 3 families to feed, the other has 10 families to feed. guess which one can afford overseas trips? it's the same problem for your navy comparing with UK. it's all about budget.

 

[smooth manifold]

The British carriers are conventional, the America class is conventional... why would that stop them from operating globally?

because they have enough budget to do that. India and UK have the same level of military expenditure. but UK doesn't have a big ground force eating up their navy budget.

 

[Deathstar]

because they have enough budget to do that. India and UK have the same level of military expenditure. but UK doesn't have a big ground force eating up their navy budget.

Lol we have no ambitions to operate in others waters unlike the chinese. Even you guys have ambitions yet dont operate though u have infinite money.
Those countries who wish to operate A/Cs have already factored out operating costs viz viz their domain.
Whats stopping chinese A/Cs from cruising in gulf of mexico?
Though range of A/Cs especially Nuclear is infinite ,it cannot operate at that range as they need to refill their supplies. For that u need supply bases all around the world. Only USN has that ability ,not even chinese. Long way to go for PLAN. To establish that supply bases u need allies and not only economic prowess

 

[Armand2REP]

Even if the IN wanted to project power somewhere far, they could still do so. Do you even know how expensive it is to maintain a nuclear carrier? Astronomical.

It costs about $250 million a year to operate the CdG. The real costs don't come down until it is time to refuel the reactors but you are saving that in unspent fuel. It pays for itself over time and provides far more capability.

 

[smooth manifold]

Lol we have no ambitions to operate in others waters unlike the chinese. Even you guys have ambitions yet dont operate though u have infinite money.
Those countries who wish to operate A/Cs have already factored out operating costs viz viz their domain.
Whats stopping chinese A/Cs from cruising in gulf of mexico?
Though range of A/Cs especially Nuclear is infinite ,it cannot operate at that range as they need to refill their supplies. For that u need supply bases all around the world. Only USN has that ability ,not even chinese. Long way to go for PLAN. To establish that supply bases u need allies and not only economic prowess

Of course you calculate before construction. let me ask you one question. How much money does India's Vikrant actually cost?
wikipedia tells me
$0.5 billion (planned), $2.8 billion as of 2014
don't know if its' correct. if this is true, what's the point of your cost calculation? more expensive than a nuclear carrier when completed? that's insanely expensive. it's no small money for any country.

 

[Armand2REP]

because they have enough budget to do that. India and UK have the same level of military expenditure. but UK doesn't have a big ground force eating up their navy budget.

Are you suggesting the PLAN doesn't have the budget to do that? Have you seen the amount of expenditure on warship construction? The PLA is vastly reducing its numbers so it can build up its naval capability. Everything you are listing as impediments are the exact opposite of what China is doing.

 

[smooth manifold]

Are you suggesting the PLAN doesn't have the budget to do that? Have you seen the amount of expenditure on warship construction? The PLA is vastly reducing its numbers so it can build up its naval capability. Everything you are listing as impediments are the exact opposite of what China is doing.

that's my point. there's no extra budget. China's navy budget is spent on equipment renewal and personnel training. its carrier does not need or has the budget for regular global cruises. Liaoning's daily training cost is over 1 million dollars.

Liaoning's daily cost:
Aircraft fuel cost 1 million + carrier fuel cost 2.4 million + maintenance costs 2.5 million + 300,000 + salary 1.26 million + food costs 120,000 = 7.58 million (unit: Yuan)
this is the minimal estimate 6 or 7 years ago.

 

[Armand2REP]

that's my point. there's no extra budget. China's navy budget is spent on equipment renewal and personnel training. its carrier does not need or has the budget for regular global cruises. Liaoning's daily training cost is over 1 million dollars.

Liaoning's daily cost:
Aircraft fuel cost 1 million + carrier fuel cost 2.4 million + maintenance costs 2.5 million + 300,000 + salary 1.26 million + food costs 120,000 = 7.58 million (unit: Yuan)
this is the minimal estimate 6 or 7 years ago.

So you will build the world's largest navy just to send it into mothballs?

 

[Sridhar_TN]

conventional carriers are less expensive but still it'll be a huge burden for those not so rich countries. you can project your carriers somewhere far, but can you afford that on a regular basis?
you talk about your population. suppose two households make the same annual earnings. let's say 20k dollars. one has 3 families to feed, the other has 10 families to feed. guess which one can afford overseas trips? it's the same problem for your navy comparing with UK. it's all about budget.

Stop please. What exactly is your question? You started out saying conventional carriers are abhorrently expensive. Then you admitted that they are cheaper than nuclear. Now you are talking about not so rich countries.

UNDERSTAND THIS: No Navy in the world would go for a carrier without factoring in all the costs and their budget.(except maybe Pakistan cuz they buy shit in vast numbers without having a clue on financial constraint. Its like that guy who takes out 10 compounded loans to support a lifestyle that does not befit him).
To the question you KEEP REDUNDANTLY asking: GLOBAL POWER PROJECTION DEPENDS ON THE RESPECTIVE NAVY'S GOALS/OBJECTIVES. THE END.
You can sit here and shout all you want about budget cost budget cost. That is just ONE of the factors, especially for a country like China.
The French, the germans and the Japanese can field a plethora of top notch carriers if they wanted to. But their navy's 'objectives' are not aligned for that. Just beacause you have an infinite budget, does not mean you go for a bunch of carrier groups. This is the skewed way of thinking that you have going in china, paksitan etc. Coming up with shit just to match what Uncle Sam does shows the lack of understanding one's vision/mission. Uncle Sam has so many carrier groups because he has legitimate strategic interests all over the world.
China wants to be like the USA, but its not yet there. Not even Close. China could never do something like what Russia did in Syria. It Does not have the experience/Power projection/Dipolamatic reach.

 

[smooth manifold]

something interesting happens

 

[smooth manifold]

Stop please. What exactly is your question? You started out saying conventional carriers are abhorrently expensive. Then you admitted that they are cheaper than nuclear. Now you are talking about not so rich countries.

UNDERSTAND THIS: No Navy in the world would go for a carrier without factoring in all the costs and their budget.(except maybe Pakistan cuz they buy shit in vast numbers without having a clue on financial constraint. Its like that guy who takes out 10 compounded loans to support a lifestyle that does not befit him).
To the question you KEEP REDUNDANTLY asking: GLOBAL POWER PROJECTION DEPENDS ON THE RESPECTIVE NAVY'S GOALS/OBJECTIVES. THE END.
You can sit here and shout all you want about budget cost budget cost. That is just ONE of the factors, especially for a country like China.
The French, the germans and the Japanese can field a plethora of top notch carriers if they wanted to. But their navy's 'objectives' are not aligned for that. Just beacause you have an infinite budget, does not mean you go for a bunch of carrier groups. This is the skewed way of thinking that you have going in china, paksitan etc. Coming up with shit just to match what Uncle Sam does shows the lack of understanding one's vision/mission. Uncle Sam has so many carrier groups because he has legitimate strategic interests all over the world.
China wants to be like the USA, but its not yet there. Not even Close. China could never do something like what Russia did in Syria. It Does not have the experience/Power projection/Dipolamatic reach.

lol tell me how to build carriers without money? you have no basic economic common sense. you don't know anything about how empires rise and fall. you don't know why Soviet Union collapsed. if the French, the Germans and the Japanese can field a plethora of top notch carriers all they want, why haven't they conquer the whole world? why are the Germans and Japanese still under foreign military occupation if they're so militarily capable as you said? you don't know what you're talking about. This is post WWII order, don't you understand? the germans and japanese can't build their carriers all they want. they just can't. they don't have the resources. and I don't think their WWII experiences are related to present situations.
if you think money is not a problem, why doesn't India build a million tanks and a million fight jets to defeat its enemies? I believe to any sensible people, that's suicide.

 

[Brahmos_ii]

Of course you calculate before construction. let me ask you one question. How much money does India's Vikrant actually cost?
wikipedia tells me
$0.5 billion (planned), $2.8 billion as of 2014
don't know if its' correct. if this is true, what's the point of your cost calculation? more expensive than a nuclear carrier when completed? that's insanely expensive. it's no small money for any country.

There is a difference in R&D cost and finished goods cost....

In Vikrant case if IN plan to come up with 2 or 3 sister ships, with same design then whole world will know what its actual cost is.

As it is only ship to be built from this R&D and work line then it became the actual cost, so please don't advice before thinking.

 

[smooth manifold]

There is a difference in R&D cost and finished goods cost....

In Vikrant case if IN plan to come up with 2 or 3 sister ships, with same design then whole world will know what its actual cost is.

As it is only ship to be built from this R&D and work line then it became the actual cost, so please don't advice before thinking.

sure. .........................

 

[smooth manifold]

don't know what they're doing. but no signs of commissioning. pennant number was painted and erased later. what does it mean? @shiphone

 

[smooth manifold]

night view.............................................................

 

[Bhurki]

pennant number was painted and erased later.

Erased later? You sure its not an earlier photo?

 

[Sridhar_TN]

lol tell me how to build carriers without money? you have no basic economic common sense. you don't know anything about how empires rise and fall. you don't know why Soviet Union collapsed. if the French, the Germans and the Japanese can field a plethora of top notch carriers all they want, why haven't they conquer the whole world? why are the Germans and Japanese still under foreign military occupation if they're so militarily capable as you said? you don't know what you're talking about. This is post WWII order, don't you understand? the germans and japanese can't build their carriers all they want. they just can't. they don't have the resources. and I don't think their WWII experiences are related to present situations.
if you think money is not a problem, why doesn't India build a million tanks and a million fight jets to defeat its enemies? I believe to any sensible people, that's suicide.

You sound like one of those blabbering kids without even understanding or reading the responses directed at you. U really that dumb? Where the “F” did I say money is not a problem you nincampoop. I’m sure you’re not going to understand this response as well and I predict your next response will be the same half assed blabber about money again.
Try responding like an adult, and then maybe you would understand things with a higher perspective.

haha, japs and Germans don’t have the resources to build multiple carriers? You’re so immature. they can come up with stuff that would crush contemporary carriers. On their own. They CHOOSE not to. I’m sure you would not understand this either.

so, Toodle Doo muddafakka

 

[Bhurki]

haha, japs and Germans don’t have the resources to build multiple carriers? You’re so immature. they can come up with stuff that would crush contemporary carriers. On their own. They CHOOSE not to. I’m sure you would not understand this either.

You might not like the answer, but money is actually the quite a big issue in these decisions. Even US defense committees gasp when a Ford class carrier has cost overrun from of $1.5B, all the while having a massive $700B budget.
It isn't only the acquisition, r&d cost that matter, the operating and maintenance cost along with operationalizing an entire MIC is what is hard to commit to.
There isn't data about others but it costs $10M( 2015 const)/day to keep a USN CSG operational. Thats over $3B for just 1 CSG(includes airwing). The IN for example has a opex budget of barely over $3B, meaning if it were to maintain a CSG, then entire revenue expenditure would be spent on just a single CSG, and that discounts the fact that an MIC will have to be established to maintain it at that cost.
Both japan and germany have lower defense budgets than India's.