# Decommissioned Kitty Hawk to India ?



## tomahawk6 (22 Feb 2008)

Its certainly an interesting rumor and as the article points out wont be popular in Moscow. I am not sure we want to sell the SuperHornet to India, They could operate Russian aircraft just as well from the ship.Throw Pakistan into the equation and its not a real win win for the US. Better off giving the carrier to some US city as a museum.

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/772agroh.asp

the United States could end up providing India what its traditional Russian arms supplier has long promised to provide, but so far failed to deliver. In the process the United States could deliver a severe blow to Russia's defense industry, adding another item to the long list of grievances Russian officialdom has lodged against the United States.

During the Cold War, India was famously the largest and most powerful of the "non-aligned" nations that stayed out of the East v. West confrontation. At the same time, however, India enjoyed close relations with the then-Soviet Union that went beyond just the bonds of political convenience and trade ties between the two nations.

Former Indian PM Indira Ghandi was one of Soviet Party Secretary Leonid Brezhnev's favorite foreign leaders, and he loved to make a show of that affection when she traveled to the USSR. Residents in sections of Moscow that straddle the main road leading from Vnukovo airport to the centre of the city can still recount how in those times they were dragooned by their local party officials to line the streets and wave Indian flags (if during the day) or flashlights (if at night) to greet Mrs. Ghandi's motorcade on official state visits.

India took advantage of their favored but non-allied nation status by purchasing from the USSR  

some of the most advanced weaponry  
available at the time. In the 1970s and 80s, India's 
fledgling defense industry benefited from Soviet specialists providing them with numerous current-day weapons platforms and the establishment of production lines to license-build Soviet hardware, such as the Mikoyan MiG-27s that were assembled at the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) plant in Nasik.

The collapse of the Soviet empire only augmented Moscow's weapons trade with India. Russia needed export revenues to keep its defense sector alive, and New Delhi was only too happy to provide them. By the 1990s, Moscow was selling India some of the most advanced weaponry in its arsenal, including the high-powered Sukhoi Su-30MKI, a specialized variant of the heavyweight fighter than was optimized for aerodynamic performance and upgraded with a new-generation radar set, the NIIP N011M Bars model, that not even the Russian Air Force has in service.

In 2004 Russia and India signed a deal to provide the Indian Navy with an aircraft carrier and a navalized version of the MiG-29, designated the MiG-29K, in order to give New Delhi the power projection capability in the Indian Ocean that it had sought for some time.

On the face of it this seemed like the perfect deal for both sides. India was to be given an older-generation aircraft carrier, the Admiral Gorshkov, for free, but would have to pay $700 million for a refit of the vessel, plus they would have to purchase the MiG-29Ks and eight naval helicopters for another $800 million. India was also offered options to purchase an additional 30 MiG-29Ks and upgrades to Indian port facilities in order to dock and service the Gorshkov for a total of another $1.5 billion. But, the program has proven to be overly ambitious and has run into a number of snags that threaten to derail a decades-long symbiotic relationship.

For their part, RSK-MiG, the Moscow-based aircraft firm that is a combination of the old Mikoyan Design Bureau and several associated production facilities, have done a superb job with the MiG-29K. Prototypes of this aircraft first flew and landed successfully on the Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov in the late 1980s, proving that the structure of the basic conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant of the MiG-29 could be adapted into a carrier-suitable (CV) design.

Since that time, MiG has made numerous refinements to the configuration using more advanced materials and new-age avionics. So many changes were made that the original MiG-29K-9.31 designation has now been re-labeled the 9.41 configuration, with the changes making for qualitative and performance improvements almost equivalent to the difference between the Boeing F/A-18A/B and C/D models.

But, for all of the success at MiG in making good on their promises to the Indians to build a new-generation carrier airplane--tailhook and all--the progress on the carrier has been abysmal.

When the Russian state arms export agency Rosoboronexport (ROE) made the carrier deal, the vessel was scheduled to be delivered to the Indian Navy in 2008. ROE must not have known what they were getting themselves into and as of last summer the bad news for the Indians could no longer be kept secret. As reported by Russian military analyst Aleksandr Golts, "the money [$1.5 billion] was allocated, but the work was never done."

Another Russian military commentator, Pavel Felgenhauer, stated the situation more bluntly in  

one of his columns on the carrier entitled  
"Sold: The $1.5 Billion Lemon."

The Gorshkov is roughly have the size of a U.S. carrier and was originally designed with a flight deck large enough only for a vertical take-off and short landing (VSTOL) airplane like the famous Harrier jump jets operated by the U.S. Marine Corps and the Royal Navy. Russia's Cold War-era answer to the Harrier was the Yakovlev Yak-38, a lackluster performer and an airplane so dangerous that was referred to as "the widowmaker." 

In order to accommodate the MiG-29K, the Gorshkov requires an extension to its flight deck to accommodate a CV capable airplane, installation of an arrested landing system like that used on U.S. and French carriers, plus a replacement of its maintenance intensive steam propulsion system with a diesel powerplant. All of this has proven to be too much to do for the original price agreed, so ROE are now demanding an additional $1.2 billion to finish the job. The Indian Navy's chief Admiral, Surreesh Mehta, has obliquely suggested in the local press that this is little more than blackmail given that the Indians have already sunk so much into the program that it is too late to back out now.

Enter the United States. According to numerous sources inside India, when U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visits New Delhi late in February (provided his Tuesday Potomac Primary Day broken shoulder does not alter his itinerary) he will be carrying a signed letter from U.S. President George W. Bush offering a better deal for India than the one they have been struggling to get out of Moscow for four years now. The Indian Navy will reportedly be offered the soon-to-be decommissioned USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) aircraft carrier for free--provided the Indian Navy will agree to purchase 65 of the newest model Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to be operated off of it.

If true--and if New Delhi accepts--this can do more than just sink the Russian carrier deal and the MiG-29K contract. The Indian Air Force (IAF) are deep in the throes of a tender to purchase almost 200 new fighter aircraft, with Boeing and RSK-MiG both in the field of six contenders. An order of 200 fighter airplanes is unheard of--larger than any such export sale in more than 20 years. In an era where sales of 12, 20, or 40 fighters are more common, this is the PowerBall Lotto of export competitions.

If the Indian Navy decide to take on the F/A-18E/Fs, it makes logistical sense for the IAF to do the same and the competition for this massive sale would probably be over for all of the other competitors before it gets started. This would be a huge blow to the fortunes of RSK-MiG, who are bidding an advanced, developed MiG-29 model they have now re-labeled the MiG-35. It could make it hard for the famous Russian planemaker to stay in the military aircraft market.

Just last December Boeing placed $1 billion worth of outsourced production with India's HAL. To run for 10 years, this contract will have the Indians building portions of the F/A-18E/F, the Chinook CH-47 helicopter, and other Boeing platforms. This incentive--plus the carrier deal--could make the Boeing Super Hornet the proverbial offer that is too good to pass up.

Moscow's reaction is likely to be less than joyful. Americans in general and President Bush in particular are not very popular with the Russian populace these days and are generally blamed for all of the country's ills in the same way that the Jews were the scapegoats for every misfortune during Soviet times. One Moscow colleague told me recently that this "popular disease of blaming the U.S. for everything has reached almost epidemic proportions. The other day I heard some older, retired people talking about the high prices that we all pay in Moscow and--of course--that it is all the fault of Americans."

The Kremlin is likely to react in tune with the people on the street and take the official line that this is an American conspiracy to rob Russia of its long-time Indian market for defense exports. Boeing--the chief supplier of aircraft to the U.S. Navy--will be accused of giving away a billion dollars in orders and the U.S. Navy of giving away the Kitty Hawk so that the United States can extend its influence and make the Indian Navy an integrated component of the US Naval presence in the Indian Ocean.

"American Imperialism is rising--we must be prepared to counter it," will be the line from Russia's all-but-certain-to-be future President Dmitri Medvedev. Or, it may be ex-President and future designated PM Vladimir Putin who decides to use his new position as a bully pulpit to advance Russian foreign policy objectives.

Either way, Moscow will be most unhappy and looking for what means it can to celebrate this indignation, which means look for relations to take a turn downward and for harassment of U.S. carrier battle groups by long-range Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bombers to be on the upswing. All of which will look just like what it is--a return to Cold War behavior, as well as the thinking that is behind it all.

Reuben F. Johnson is a regular contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD online.


----------



## OnTrack (22 Feb 2008)

Wonder if there is any of YUKON's ship side grey left on the Kitty Hawk's flight deck overhang?


----------



## CougarKing (22 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Its certainly an interesting rumor and as the article points out wont be popular in Moscow. I am not sure we want to sell the SuperHornet to India, They could operate Russian aircraft just as well from the ship.Throw Pakistan into the equation and its not a real win win for the US. Better off giving the carrier to some US city as a museum.



Well the USS _Midway_ is already a museum in San Diego; it is the only ex-USN _super_carrier that is a museum so far. The only other preserved, smaller (though still large compared to most other nations' carriers) US carriers are the WW2-thru-Vietnam-era _Essex_ class carriers _Intrepid, Hornet II, Yorktown II_ and _Lexington II_, which are now naval museums as well scattered throughout the United States.

http://www.midway.org/site/pp.asp?c=eeIGLLOrGpF&b=3038957

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-9.htm


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Feb 2008)

Another article.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ins-vikramaditya-may-hit-delay-cost-increases-03283/



> multi-pronged move that would achieve a number of objectives all at once. First, the offer removes all Russian negotiating leverage over India by removing the issues of sunk costs, foreign possession of the Vikramaditya, and any danger of being left without a carrier. The Indian Navy would be greatly strengthened, and its ability to police the Indian Ocean from the Straits of Malacca to South Africa would take a huge leap forward. Any additional work to upgrade or refurbish the carrier could be undertaken in India, providing jobs and expertise while maintaining full national control over the refit. The USA gains financial benefits of its own, as the Navy avoids the expensive task of steaming the Kitty Hawk home and decommissioning it. Americans would almost certainly receive maintenance contracts for the steam catapults, and possibly for some new electronics, but those economic benefits pale in comparison to the multi-billion dollar follow-on wins for Boeing (Super Hornet), Northrop Grumman (E-2 Hawkeye), and possibly even Lockheed Martin (F-16 E/F, F-35B). All of which works to cement a growing strategic alliance between the two countries, and creates deep defense industrial ties as well.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Apr 2008)

Will the Hornet offer make the "Kitty Hawk" more attractive to India?

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,166422,00.html



> *EADS, Boeing Tout India Fighter Bids*
> Aviation Week's DTI | Neelam Mathews | April 26, 2008
> This article first appeared in the Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
> 
> ...


----------



## jzaidi1 (30 Apr 2008)

Wow!,

My father was born in India.  Does this make me an Indian citizen as well?  Anyway I am Canadian through and through and wouldn't even entertain the idea of flying Hornets for India.  Good on the US to try and bring India closer to the US War model although the Kittyhawk is sorely outdated.

Why couldn't the US offer up the Kittyhawk to Canada (with upgrades of course)?  We need a Naval battle group beyond our aging frigates and we have the hornets to do the job.  We just need to buy more of them or the Navy version of the JSF.

What do you guys think?

J


----------



## Sub_Guy (30 Apr 2008)

Here's what I think.  The question of Canada obtaining an Aircraft carrier has been beaten to death on this site, and I am certain that if you search it out you will find out what others think too.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Apr 2008)

Oh please Gawd....not again!?!?!!?!?

Jzaidi have you ever been on a Russian ship? Even the newer ones are half falling apart. The Kittyhawk while old is still in good shape. IMO they are much better off.


----------



## medaid (30 Apr 2008)

We don't need a carrier.


----------



## jzaidi1 (30 Apr 2008)

Gotcha,

Issue beaten to death.

J


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Apr 2008)

WAIT , I sense a tiny glimmer of life in the horse, give me the stick......  ;D

Well actually a carrier would come in handy for the next 20 years, our problems are that we can't man a carrier and can't afford one. If we had one we would be using it and it would have an impact on Global operations. There are lots of designs out there that would be useful, most likely the new French/British design would be the biggest we could possibly operate, with the Italian one running second. The other problem would be the choice of aircraft, the harrier is old and limited in use, the next generation fighters are freaking expensive, the price of the F35 seems to have a climb rate greater than the aircraft itself. The other options would be the Super Hornet and the Rafael, not sure if the superhornet could be used on smaller carriers. I suspect the Italian carrier would be the only design we could possibly afford, but again what do you fly off of them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_French_aircraft_carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavour_%28550%29


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Apr 2008)

Back on topic please:

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Apr 2008)

I suspect that the deal will go through, the offer is too good for India to pass up.  Win win for them, and win win for the Yanks.  
They would love to increase their influence in that part of the world while at the same time kicking the Bear in the nuts.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 May 2008)

Here is a reason that decommissioned carriers are not sold.They might be needed in a crisis or as a bridge if the Navy faces a shortfall in capability.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=54834

House considers putting Kennedy, Kitty Hawk back into service in five years 
By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Friday, May 16, 2008 

WASHINGTON — House officials want to explore the possibility of bringing the USS John F. Kennedy or USS Kitty Hawk back into service in five years to keep the Navy’s carrier fleet at full force.

During debate on their draft of next year’s defense budget authorization, the House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to study the cost and logistics of reactivating the carriers after their decommissioning over the next few years.

At issue is the Navy’s request to drop below the congressionally mandated 11-carrier fleet in 2012, when the USS Enterprise is taken out of service.

It will be replaced by USS Gerald R. Ford, the newest carrier from the class of the same name, but Navy officials have said it won’t be commissioned until 2015 at the earliest.

House officials were even more pessimistic, saying construction delays could leave the Navy with only 10 carriers for up to four years. But for now they’ve rejected the Navy’s request to continue temporarily one carrier short, instead asking for the study.

The committee rejected the idea of extending the USS Enterprise past fiscal 2013, noting the high costs of maintenance and limited nuclear fuel life of the ship. Both the Kennedy, retired two years ago, and the Kitty Hawk, scheduled to be retired next year, are conventionally powered carriers. 

Naval officials said annual maintenance on the Kennedy cost more than $120 million before it was decommissioned. The study would also look at the availability of dry docks to repair and maintain the ships if they are reactivated.

Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the study is an important tool for defense planners, if only because it draws more attention to the long-term planning challenges the Navy will face in coming years.

"You can’t really look at this from carriers alone. It has to be where they’re deployed, how it affects the air wings, what that means," he said. "It has to become a total force study, not just a carrier study."

House officials asked for the study to be completed early next year. Senate officials would have to approve the House language before the study could be begun.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 May 2008)

A hot layup for that size of ship will be expensive, as will a full mothball.


----------



## RickDevlieger (16 May 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> We don't need a carrier.




Perhaps not a supercarrier to launch jet fighters from, but an assult carrier with capable of carrying a variety of Helos would be just ducky to extend our sovereignty into the Arctic.


----------

