NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Naval Air Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Never Trust A Used Carrier Salesman

September 29, 2009: Indian officers have admitted that they were partially at fault in the billion dollar aircraft carrier Gorshkov fiasco. It seems it was not all the fault of the Russians that the refurbishment of the decommissioned Russian carrier Gorshkov cost a billion dollars more, and took several years longer. The Indians admit that, when they signed the deal in 2004, they had not had engineers go over the Gorshkov, and agreed, after a cursory inspection, that many electrical and mechanical components, buried within the ships hull, were serviceable. It turned out that many of those components were not good-to-go, and had to be replaced, at great expense. Shortly after the contract was signed, the Russians discovered that the shipyard had misplaced the blueprints for the Gorshkov, and things went downhill from there.

After four years of haggling over Russian demands for more money, India agreed to pay about a billion dollars more, instead of the original (2004) agreed on $1.5 billion, for a Russian shipyard to refurbish an old, damaged, aircraft carrier (the Admiral Gorshkov) for Indian use. Last year, Russia threatened to give the Gorshkov back to the Russian Navy if the Indians didn't, come up with more money.

All this was a sad tale of bungling, corruption, greed and lost blueprints. Work on the  44,000 ton Gorshkov was about half completed, when it was supposed to have been delivered last year, and renamed the INS Vikramaditya. But now delivery has been delayed until 2012. The Russians admitted that this project suffered from inept planning, shoddy workmanship, and poor management, and they wanted India to pay for most of those mistakes. The Indians were not amused, and played hard ball, making much of the fact that India was now the biggest customer for Russian military exports. Russia was also aware that India was increasingly turning to more expensive (and more capable) Western arms suppliers.

The original price for the refurbishment of the of the Gorshkov was $1.5 billion. Building a Gorshkov type carrier today would cost about $4 billion, and take eight years. Two years ago, the Russians admitted there were problems, and demanded another half billion dollars to make it all right. India went along with that. But last year, the Russians raised the price again, and now wanted $3.5 billion for the job, and an additional four years. The Indians refused to pay. The Russians were willing to admit to mistakes and put things right, for a price. For example, the boss of Sevmash naval shipyard, when the Gorshkov deal was negotiated, was fired and under criminal investigation, on suspicion of financial mismanagement.

Naturally, the Indians were not happy with all this, and at first insisted that the Russian government (which owns many of the entities involved) make good on the original deal. India sent its own team of technical experts to Russia, and their report apparently confirmed what the Russians reported, about shipyard officials low-balling the cost of the work needed. This is a common tactic for firms building weapons for their own country. It gets more complicated when you try to pull that sort of thing on a foreign customer. The Russian government initially offered to cover some of the overrun cost. But then they insisted that India cover most of it, or lose the ship entirely. Nothing was said about whether or not the Indians would get any of their money refunded. As Indian anger rose, the Russians began to realize that they would have to eat most of the additional mistakes, or risk losing billions in future sales.

The Admiral Gorshkov entered service in 1987, but was inactivated in 1996 because it was too expensive to operate on a post Cold War budget. This attracted the attention of India, which was looking for a way to expand their carrier aviation capabilities. India is currently building another carrier, from scratch, but that 40,000 ton vessel won't be ready until 2015. India's sole current aircraft carrier, the 29,000 ton INS Viraat, just emerged from 18 months in a shipyard getting maintenance and upgrades, which left India with no carrier capability. This was to have been avoided by the timely arrival (last year) of the refurbished Russian carrier. If that had happened, the INS Viraat would have been retired in 2012, after 53 years service (for Britain and India). But now the INS Viraat will get its engine and hull refurbished, and its electronics upgraded, and possibly serve for another decade.

Under the terms of the new deal, the INS Vikramaditya will be ready for sea trials by the end of 2012. Thus by 2015, India will have two large carriers in operation, and some bitter memories of their experience with the Russians over the Gorshkov.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article RUSSIA: Back In The USSR


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

cwDeici       9/29/2009 11:34:21 PM
India should put the money into its own economy by building its own carriers.
 
Sure, it's bound to be lower quality, but experience is necessary to achieve an indigenous arms industry.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       9/29/2009 11:34:51 PM
And I mean big carriers (I know about the small ones).
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       9/30/2009 12:45:37 AM
Why would India need a larger carrier? Larger carriers would require larger logistics, and larger escorts capable of world wide travel. Why project globally when all you really need is hemispherical dominance?
 
No, the current size will do for now. A third one would be nice, and may be started sometime after the lessons from the first indigenous build are absorbed. Or perhaps a helo carrier so that the two CVs can concentrate on fixed wing aviation. But  two or three are all they need, and the size they've selected fits their need admirably.  
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       9/30/2009 11:42:23 AM
UK is going to get rid of their carriers soon, because Queen Elizabeth class is about to enter service in, about, 5 years. Indians could, perhaps, cancel the order and buy British.
 
DG

 
Quote    Reply

PPR    Build your own   10/1/2009 1:34:45 AM
Build your own carrier is an easy thing to say, but a lot of technical and institutional knowledge goes into it.  It would probably take at least twenty use of building/using carriers to get good at it.  Just look at what a hard time the French had building one.  In truth, there are only two countries in the world with the ability to produce a good carrier: the US and UK.  Both have been operating carriers since the 1920's.  The US has the most experice and builds the most capable (by far).  India would have been better off trying to buy a surplus US carrier.  By my understanding, the US has 6 decommissioned carriers in our reserve fleet (not counting assault ships).
 
Quote    Reply

bandit87       10/4/2009 4:32:59 AM

Build your own carrier is an easy thing to say, but a lot of technical and institutional knowledge goes into it.  It would probably take at least twenty use of building/using carriers to get good at it.  Just look at what a hard time the French had building one.  In truth, there are only two countries in the world with the ability to produce a good carrier: the US and UK.  Both have been operating carriers since the 1920's.  The US has the most experice and builds the most capable (by far).  India would have been better off trying to buy a surplus US carrier.  By my understanding, the US has 6 decommissioned carriers in our reserve fleet (not counting assault ships).

I think the USN would in fact be very tight lipped about these carriers. They won't even release pictures of the USS America (which was commissioned in 1964) being sunk after explosives testing because the hull form is too similar to the Nimitz class now in service, so how do you expect they would react to a foreign country trying to buy one? Honestly if India wanted to stay cheap they would probably have a much better chance buying HMS Invincible from the RN as it has been in reserve for a few years but might be brought up to speed quickly enough and would certainly work with the Sea Harriers they are running now and POSSIBLY with some modification, the F-35s later on. Barring that I think that it would be smart for the Brits to convert the operational Invincible class light carriers into Helo ships like the HMS Ocean. May save them some $$$ on ordering new ships and generate/retain some employment for the refit/conversion.
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    Why India needs cariers?   10/4/2009 5:05:27 AM
Odds are they woul be used for evac from AFrica and middle East. India has large population working overseas where others dare not tread. Remember Uganda and recently Lebanon. Evacuation and also piracy in Somalia etc, plus general prestige as India has gotten intothis carrier hait. I am surea USS Enterprie osomething will be sold to India. Having an aircraft carrier group makes China ok so so backwrd. Its all about prestige. Personall I wouldn't be surprised if they threw in Calvin Klein uniforms.
 
Quote    Reply

PPR    Power projection   10/24/2009 10:55:30 AM
Actually, support for carriers was in decline until the recent War on Terror.  The carriers are big, expensive and vulnerable to relatively cheap weaponry--or so it has been theorized, since a super-carrier has never actually been damaged by an enemy attack.
 
What turned things around was the invasion of Afghanistan, in which carriers operating off the coast of Pakistan were used for air support and even to fly in a heliborne Marine assault, when the nearest friendly base (that we were allowed to use) was over a thousand miles away.  This emphasized the power-projection role.  We did not need to negotiate/beg for the use of foreign airfields, we just did it.  The carrier gives a nation the ability to act independently.
 
Granted, non-US carriers pack considerably less firepower.  But as the Falkland Island War demonstrated, even a small carrier can make a big difference.
 
In an age when America's allies are proving less reliable than we had hoped, stock in big carriers has gone up.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy