Armada India

[Luisfer]

No entiendo porque se insiste en lo mismo, si la clave esta en la información

http://www.airfleet.ru/index.php?staid=1001023

Saludos

[Vitali]

Hombre, diferencias se refiere a las necesidades que debe satisfacer un desarrollo de la envergadura del PACK-FA ....

No hombre queda clarito que el que se engaña eres tu, no es algo pues que puedas comprender aunque se te den las fuentes, que por cierto no es la única. Pero anda, sigue en lo tuyo.

Un saludo

el paquete-FA!)))
ps: Ya veo que no soy el unico en el foro que cayó en manos de Luisfer...

[Luisfer]

Sinceramente no te entiendo Vitali y lo eh intentado.

Corrijo entonces, PAK-FA.

[Stonewall]

Los EEUU bloqueian los motores de las nuevas fragatas

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... india.html

[ZULU 031]

El Gobierno de Estados Unidos aprobó la venta a la India de ocho aeronaves Boeing P-8I de patrulla marítima, valorados en 2.100 millones de dólares. Se trata de la mayor adquisición de equipos de defensa norteamericanos realizada por el país asiático. En enero de 2008, Washington y Nueva Delhi cerraron la adquisición de seis aviones de transporte Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules por 1.000 millones. El Departamento de Estado señaló en una nota al Congreso que permitiría la operación, tras esgrimir factores políticos, militares, económicos, derechos humanos y consideraciones de control de armas. La Marina india fue el primer cliente internacional del Poseidon, cuya variante de exportación se llama P-8I y la P-8A es la destinada a la US Navy.
La plataforma se basa en el birreactor comercial 737-800ERX y es un avión multimisión de patrulla marina, capacitado para realizar patrullas de largo radio. Está equipada con modernos sistemas de lucha antisubmarina y combate anti superficie y disponde de sensores para tareas de inteligencia, vigilancia y reconocimiento (ISR). India eligió la oferta de Boeing sobre la de varios competidores, incluyendo la del Airbus A319 de EADS. La primera entrega se producirá dentro de cuatro años y se prolongarán hasta 2015. Las compensaciones industriales incluyen servicios de ingeniería, manufactura y proyectos de apoyo logístico integrado.

[Luisfer]

Bueno se acaba de probar con exito la segunda versión del Brahmos.

http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=74

Saludos

[JPJ]

El Kitty Hawk , sigue sonando como opción al Gorshkov

Is the Gorshkov Aircraft Carrier India’s best option?
Interview with Jason Verdugo on a possible joint carrier programme in the Austral-Asian region
0 Comments

China’s secret construction of six aircraft-carriers is now out in the open and its aggressive expansion is scaring its neighbours. The only country that can theoretically contain it is the US, but under Obama and waning domestic support in the US for solitary military campaigns, especially against a powerful enemy, support is quickly fading so they cannot be expected to intervene.

The Austral-Asian region, therefore, needs to strengthen up in groups like IONS. It needs to leave behind its history, its differences and come up with creative solutions. One such suggestion is that the Quadrilateral (Quad) Initiative countries (Australia, Japan, India and the US) should band together and operate the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk that the US decommissioned in January 2009. If China’s growth is really peaceful as it claims, then it should feel no threat because getting four diverse countries to agree on a particular course of action will be inherently difficult.

Manu Sood, Editor of the India-based online news service 8ak (http://www.8ak.in), recently interviewed US historian Jason Verdugo and writer for the magazine Wings of Gold on this topic. Comments from various Indian, US and Australian experts have been discussed with Jason Verdugo at various stages and incorporated in the responses below.


Sood: Is the Kitty Hawk a capable ship?

Verdugo: Comparing the Kitty Hawk to the Gorshkov which India is about to buy from Russia, the Kitty Hawk is a full-sized aircraft carrier, a super-carrier which the Gorshkov was never intended to be, therefore it can fly more fighter aircraft types than a Gorshkov. Even after the deck extension the Gorshkov’s full-load displacement will be 45,400 tons as against 60,933 tons surface displacement for the Kitty Hawk which is 326 meters long. By the way, some people are already questioning the stability of the extension and construction quality of the Gorshkov.

The Kitty Hawk may carry at least 48 F/A-18's in addition to 30 helicopters and radar AEW (airborne early warning) aircraft. The Gorshkov will carry 16 MiG-29K and ten additional helicopters. Note here that the MiG’s STOBAR (short take-off but arrested recovery) configuration is a disadvantage, hence, the Gorshkov is lacking in aircraft capacity, overall sortie generation and sortie sustaining capability. The Gorshkov may be younger but it was decommissioned after an internal explosion and sat idly, rusting for ten years while former USSR states dealt with their break-up and bankruptcy. The Kitty Hawk on the other hand was in full service and the reason it was decommissioned in January 2009 was because the US has the budget to constantly build newer aircraft carriers, wants a 100 per cent nuclear carrier force, and has moved on to next generation Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier.


Sood. But it is an old ship with old technology...

Verdugo: This will basically translate to higher operating costs which can be offset against the near zero capital cost for acquisition. I believe that the ship is worth $3 billion. If the US were to give to the Quad Initiative for free, then the members have saved $3 billion up front. In this case don’t compare the operational cost of a new ship because a new ship of similar construction would cost about $6 billion now. Even if you spend another $100 million in extra operational costs, you still got an aircraft carrier for free!

While a ship may be old, the attack and defence capability depends on other factors as well, for example the aircraft that fly from them. So whether you fly the MiG-29, Su-27, Rafale, or F/A-18, the capabilities of the ship are directly related to those planes.


Sood: Can it easily be re-commissioned?

Verdugo: The normal practise of severing the shaft to make it useless has not been done and unlike other ships that have been decommissioned for a longer period, the Kitty Hawk has been kept so that in case of emergency it can be ready to go. Some systems that could be used on other ships have been removed and need to be replaced, aircraft have to be bought etc.


Sood: What are the costs and how are these to be shared?

Verdugo: A study would need to be conducted to get the exact cost and details. In my estimate, it would take six months and cost $150 million to bring her back into shape, $400 million to further equip her with reasonable condition fighter jets and systems and $50 million to train the crew and bring her to Asia. $650 million and we would have a full fledged aircraft carrier, not a pretend one like the Gorshkov. Since the US is being asked to give it away for free, the operational costs other than salaries of US soldiers on board would be borne by the rest of the Quad.

A lot of the $400 million cost is the cost of the fighter aircraft. Now if India plans to purchase 126 F/A-18E Super Hornets then some of these could be deployed to the carrier for certain time and then since Japan is going to buy the latest F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s anyway, it can buy the naval version ones to put these on the Kitty Hawk. The sharing will require negotiation between the parties and while it is not too complex it will require a study to work this out.

Also, for India, you must remember that you are in a bad negotiating position with the Russians on the Gorshkov issue and the price has not been finalised. Having this operational carrier in place would put India in a much better bargaining position with the Russians as they won’t need the Gorshkov that badly anymore. Hence, I believe that the final price could be cut another $300 million. This is actual money saved by India and can be used to participate in the initiative, so it won’t cost India anything!

Luckily the price of the Gorshkov hasn’t been finalised yet and by the way, most people don’t know that the Russians have lost the blueprint of the ship. Shoot me if I suspect the Chinese have paid someone to burn it! So anyway, the carrier is more or less free especially for the Indians and extremely cheap for the rest of the Quad.

Regarding operational costs, the other main objection to the Kitty Hawk is the steam propulsion. Given the huge cost of nuclear even the British are moving back to steam generation. It is arguable that the power plant in the Kitty Hawk will be more reliable than the Gorshkov because of its American design, robustness and reliability given that it was in full service in the field. It was run for decades until last year with no major issues. Just like any other equipment it will take qualified training and maintenance. Some counties are going to AIP submarine propulsion instead of nuclear. There are two advantages that nuclear propulsion provides: 1) it does not need fuel oil, 2) the fuel onboard can be for the planes extending flight ops. There have been debates as to whether it all matters. The escort ships still need gas. We still need a fleet oiler for those. And without those the carrier is vulnerable anyway.

Specifically for India, it already has the budget to operate two aircraft carriers anyway and the Gorshkov would only be ready 2012 but given Russia’s delivery history it would be at least 2013 so operational cost is not an issue for the next four years and then for everyone the costs are shared between three countries.


Sood: What kind of support would it need?

Verdugo: Aircraft carriers require minimum six ships and one or two submarines and twelve aircrafts to move along with it. Again, quite expensive for a single nation to do this together, but combined it could be much easier and cheaper. Despite initial problems Australia has a very capable submarine, India has a good stealth frigates programme and Japan may get the F-35’s sooner than other countries and can ask for the naval version.


Sood: Does it make sense for the US to give away the carrier given that it has no history of doing so?

Verdugo: Looking purely at its own interests, the US cannot afford to go to war in this region. The Iraq and Afghanistan campaign has cost it about US$1 trillion to date. The best way of preventing a war is to ensure that aggression in the region is contained. This can be done by strengthening its allies who stand for peace. Keep in mind that all the quad countries are well functioning democracies where the will of the people is supreme unlike the region they are in. Think China, Pakistan, Myanmar, Iran etc.
Further, India can be nudged to more favourably consider buying Super Hornets in its 126 fighter jet tender so the US would get $12 billion and keep this production line open instead of the money going to Sweden, France or the Russians. This is the single biggest leverage and the US has a great offer and great price, so if India were going to buy US anyway, make the most of it.

Again for India specifically, is there any doubt that it has been a colossal mistake for the two countries to have ignored each other for so long? Politicians from Nehru to Clinton have failed us and for all the flak that George Bush got, he is loved in India for building strong relations with the US. For the US this deal would seal the coffin of an already irritated Indian public with Russian arm supplies and put us both in a very strong geo-political relationship in a strategically important part of the world.

Also, the Quad would have to agree to buy US components, labour and training for the re-commissioning of the Kitty Hawk including Helicopters, AEWS, missile defence systems etc. And finally, it costs the US a lot of money to keep it in the US in a condition that is OK with the strong environmental lobby.


Sood: Does India need this initiative?

Verdugo: Right now India’s only carrier, the INS Viraat, is in dock and will be there for more than a year while India is naked. The Gorkshov is at least four years away (Russian PM promises 2012) and India’s new carrier being built in India will only be ready by 2015 which as history shows will be delayed a few years as well. So not only does India need a carrier now, they would also benefit from having experienced, full-trained crews ready when the other carriers come online.


Sood: Do Australia and Japan need it?

Verdugo: Australia is already having trouble crewing its existing naval fleet and while a super-carrier would help it to better protect its over-sized coasts, it cannot afford to have one on its own. By law, Japan cannot own one by itself. Additionally, let us keep in mind that the Quad can be grown to include other likeminded democracies like South Korea.


Sood: What if China attacks a single country on a single issue. Would the other nations be dragged in to war?

Verdugo: This boils down to risk mitigation. Each individual country has to decide that joining this initiative is the best option in their own national interests and looking beyond that, in the interest of the planet. Does joining the Quad improve their chances of survival in the most common sense? I think it does and, secondly, any special considerations could be included in an inter-country agreement. If Australia chooses not to support the issue, then it will become an easier target. How long can Australia risk its future on a presumption that the US/UK will intervene to protect it?

It is my opinion that we urgently need to counter China. Their influence is on every continent. They are trying to corner the oil market and this will lead to conflicts as oil supplies dry up in the face of increasing consumption of 2.5 billion Indians and Chinese and resource-hungry Westernised nations. That will really ratchet things up when the price of oil goes up permanently. China will also try and leverage global control through the banks. If the US can build up countries like the Quad then it will help reduce the danger that exists with China having so much trade and investment in the US. China is extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade. It would not only cut off imp oil supplies but kill its lifeline that it has built its aggression on, exports… How long a naval blockade is required to bankrupt it?

The other obvious benefit for India is that as India’s companies buy assets globally in far off places like South America and Africa, India’s carriers can be used to better back these areas up with military support if needed.


Sood: Don’t you think negotiations will be a complex process?

Verdugo: True. A further study of the costs needs to be done and talks between the various nations should be initiated. The purpose of this discussion was to kick start a thinking process that will precede a serious consideration.

Fuente defpro.com

[lords]

India lanza submarino nuclear

Redacción

BBC Mundo

Manmohan Singh, primer ministro indio junto a altos oficiales

Singh aseguró que India no busca amenazar a ningún país.

India lanzó su primer submarino nuclear con lo que se unió a los cinco países que cuentan con la capacidad para construir ese tipo de embarcaciones.

El primer ministro, Manmohan Singh, presentó el submarino Arihant, de 6.000 toneladas, en una ceremonia en la que destacó que Nueva Delhi no tiene intenciones de amenazar a ningún país.

Singh enfatizó en que, no obstante, "debemos tomar todas las medidas necesarias para salvaguardar nuestro país y mantener el paso con los avances tecnológicos a nivel mundial".

El submarino, que será sometido ahora a pruebas de navegación, tendrá capacidad para lanzar misiles a blancos a 700 kilómetros de distancia.

El corresponsal de la BBC en Nueva Delhi Sanjoy Majumder informa que hasta ahora India podía lanzar misiles de tierra y aire, por lo que el submarino nuclear, junto a otro que planea construir, añadirá una nueva dimensión a la capacidad defensiva del país.

La nave -añade Majumder- fue completamente fabricada en India con asistencia rusa, y la próxima será construida en breve.

El periodista agrega que el lanzamiento del submarino es una clara señal de que India intenta contrarrestar la presencia naval de China en el sur de Asia.

El lanzamiento coincide con el décimo aniversario del fin del último conflicto armado de India con su vecino Pakistán.

Hasta ahora, sólo Estados Unidos, Rusia, Francia, Gran Bretaña y China habían desarrollado submarinos nucleares.

[Stonewall]

India Releases $122 mn for Gorshkov Modification


(Source: Press Trust of India; issued August 14, 2009)



NEW DELHI --- India has cleared an installment of $122 mn to Russia to ensure that the modification work on aircraft carrier Gorshkov, also known as Vikramaditya, continues till a settlement on the final price is reached.

The payment was sanctioned earlier this month by the government following demands by Rosoboronexport, the sole Russian agency designated for importing or exporting defence equipment, according to India Strategic defence magazine.

India had paid around $600 million initially after an agreement between the two countries in 2004, according to which the old aircraft carrier was gifted as free but India was to pay $974 million to modify and upgrade it in accordance with Indian Navy's specifications.

In 2007, however, the Russians said they had made a mistake in their calculations to repair and modify Gorshkov, and demanded another $1.2 billion. Recently, they have added still another $700 million saying that modifications, and then sea trials, would be more expensive than as considered by them earlier.

The total demand by the Russians now touches $2.9 billion, instead of $974 million, or, approximately one billion as originally contracted.

The delivery of the aircraft carrier has also been pushed from 2008 to 2012-13, although repair work on it is continuing without break at the Sevmash shipyard in northern Russia on its Arctic coast.

The Russian government had extended $250 million to the shipyard in 2008, and now the installment of $122 million being paid by India is also to ensure that there is no break in the repair work, India Strategic quoted sources as saying.

Indian naval officials have been stationed at Sevmash for the past several years to monitor the day-to-day activity and to ensure that the repair and modifications are in line with the Naval Staff Qualitative Requirements (NSQRs), the dispute over the additional monetary demands notwithstanding.

India has naturally been reluctant to meet the post-contract Russian demands, and even the Comptroller General of India (CGI) has described the deal as a mess. But the Navy needs Gorshkov as early as possible as its only existing aircraft carrier, Viraat, is on life extension and undergoing a refit to serve for another few years.

It takes nearly 8 to 10 years to acquire an aircraft carrier. Procedures within the Indian bureaucratic system require two to three years, and then a company which is ordered to build it, should take another 5 to 8 years.

Although the Indian Navy is already building one of its two aircraft carriers in design consultancy with Italy's Fincantieri, it has no choice but to go in for Gorshkov in line with its sanctioned three-carrier planning. Ideally though, a country the size of India with 7,500 km of coastline should have at least five aircraft carriers.

A Russian defence delegation was in New Delhi in July but it refused to negotiate lower than its demand for $2.9 billion.

Discussions though will continue.

The government's Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) is reported to have asked the Ministry of Defence to continue the negotiations but has not acceded to the two revised Russian demands.

It may be noted that the Gorshkov deal also involves a related $740 million contract for 16 Mig 29K aircraft. That deal is going smoothly and the first four of these aircraft are likely to arrive at INS Hansa, the Indian Navy training facility in Goa, by year-end.

Ten pilots, initially trained by the US Navy for carrier landing at its Naval Air Station, Pensacola training facility, are now in Russia training on the Mig 29Ks.

Four of these Mig 29Ks are twin-seaters for training and the remaining 12 for routine operational flying.

The Navy will continue to operate the Mig 29Ks from its ground stations as all 16 of them are likely to be in India before the arrival of Gorshkov.

-ends-

defense-aerospace.com

[Claudio Daniel Erra]

Rusia y la India firmarán acuerdo adicional sobre portaaviones "Almirante Gorshkov" en octubre próximo

Moscú, 3 de septiembre, RIA Novosti. El problema en torno al crucero portaaviones "Almirante Gorshkov" que Rusia está modernizando para la Armada india será arreglado a mediados del próximo mes de octubre, informó hoy el jefe del consorcio Rostechnologii, Serguei Chémezov.

"Será firmado un acuerdo adicional (al contrato)", dijo Chémezov a medios de prensa este jueves.

Rusia está modernizando y reequipando a solicitud de los socios indios el crucero portaaviones "Almirante Gorshkov", vendido a la Armada de la India.

El contrato de modernización del crucero por valor de 616 millones de dólares fue firmado en 2004. Inicialmente, estaba previsto entregar el portaaviones al cliente en 2008, pero las fechas de entrega se revisaron varias veces por el aumento sustancial de las obras. Se planea que la India recibirá el portaaviones en 2012 y el costo de la modernización crecerá notablemente.

No obstante, la parte india se opone a aumentar los pagos a la empresa Sevmash, encargada de modernizar el "Almirante Gorshkov".

[Mauricio]

Esto si podría ser interesante...

El Royal Navy perdió su segundo CV-F en la última ronda de recortes del Strategic Defense Revie. Se contemplaba dejar al segundo casi completo y usarlo de Command Carrier y como complemento al primero durante sus períodos de dique.

Ahora The Guardian reporta que la Armada India podría estar interesada en comprar el segundo por la suma de 3.5 millardos USD, casi lo mismo de lo que costará terminar de modificar al Gorshkov. Excepto que al final les quedaría un barco muuuuucho mejor y con mucha más vida por delante.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009 ... rrier-sale

Royal Navy aircraft carrier may be sold to India

Government considering sale one of two £2bn machines as part of strategic defence review



One of the Royal Navy's new £2bn aircraft carriers could be sold off under government cost-cutting plans, the Guardian has learned.

It is understood that India has recently lodged a firm expression of interest to buy one of the two state-of-the-art 65,000 tonne carriers, which are still being built by BAE Systems in the UK.

Any sale of the long-delayed carriers would be highly controversial and would leave the Royal Navy with just one carrier. It could also force Britain to borrow from the French navy, which itself only has one carrier and is reluctant to build any more.

Last summer French president Nicolas Sarkozy proposed to Gordon Brown that the two navies co-ordinate the maintenance and retrofitting of their carriers, so that at least one of them is at sea at any time.

The government has accepted it would cost more to cancel the contract for one of the carriers than it would to carry on building. BAE Systems is also keen to increase its arms exports and would welcome the sale of such a flagship piece of hardware to a country such as India, which is keen to upgrade its military, particularly its air force.

According to senior defence sources, Whitehall officials are examining the feasibility of selling one of the carriers. It is understood they are planning to put forward the option as part of the government's strategic defence review, which will start early next year. The review will publish its conclusions after the general election. Whichever party wins the election, the review is expected to result in savage cuts to the UK's military budget.

"Selling a carrier is one very serious option," a defence source said this weekend, although the government is a long way from committing to any sale. It could take between six and 12 months to reach a decision, he added.

The £4bn aircraft carrier programme has been dogged by controversy and has become a totemic in the issue over how public spending – and in particular the military budget – should be cut. The programme has already been delayed by two years to push back spending commitments, which will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run. Construction finally began in July on HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is due to come into service in 2016. Preparatory work on the HMS Prince of Wales, due for launch in 2018, has also started. The two carriers will replace the ageing Invincible class carrier fleet, and are three times the size.

Military chief and the companies involved in building the carriers had feared the government could scrap one of the carriers altogether to save money. But it is understood that the financial penalties the government would be required to pay to BAE Systems, the company building the ships, would be prohibitive. The company is currently drawing up a formal estimate of the cost the government would incur from cancelling the order.

About 10,000 jobs in Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Fife and Glasgow depend on the work. Now that construction of both carriers will almost certainly go ahead, the government is desperate to find other ways to cut costs.

Another option under consideration is to only equip one of the carriers with aircraft, leaving the other to only operate with helicopters, which could save more than £3bn. Alternatively, the two carriers could share one complement of planes. The original plan envisaged equipping each carrier with 75 new US-made Joint Strike Fighter planes, but the cost has soared from the original price tag of £18m each.

Asked about the plan for a sale of the one of the carriers, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence said lots of options for the carriers were being considered, but stressed that no decision had been taken. "We have got the strategic defence review coming up, so all options are on the table," she said.

The debate over whether British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan have the equipment they need – most notably enough helicopters to enable them to avoid heavily mined roads – has brought the issue of military spending to the fore. Military analysts say that the navy's budget, such as that earmarked for the carriers under review, is most vulnerable to cuts, compared to that of the army and air force.

[ICBM44]

En que estado de construccion se encuentra el segundo CV-F Britanico???

No valla ser que a los Indios les vuelva a pasar lo del Almirante Gorshkov que se les duplico el costo.

Aunque estan formando una Armada mas que interesante...

[mikel hernandez gonzalez]

En verdad ya poseen una Armada con un poder de fuego que ya quisieramos muchos,su principal cadencia,la aviacion naval,ya tienen volando en tierra a sus mig-29K,pero sin ningun buque que los pueda llevar.
De aqui a unos años,yo pondria a la armada india ya superando a la francesa,inglesa,obviando que a españoles e italianos ya nos ha superado.
Nose si me estare equivocando,pero creo que la armada India esta optando,con asesoramiento externo,sobre todo ruso,a nacionalizar sus buques,y a sacar sus propios diseños,algo asi como una clase de fragatas stealth que planeaban,o su SSN propio,aunque por ahora sea un cascaron tan solo..
saludos

[Kalma_(FIN)]

El CVF es STOVL (Short Take Off and Vertical Landing), o en todo caso STO-SRVL (Short Take Off Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing), vamos, lo que viene siendo despegue corto y aterrizaje vertical o aterrizaje rodado a muy baja velocidad (Algo que solo los cazas STOVL pueden permitirse)... no STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery...Vamos,despegue corto pero aterrizaje con cables de frenado y otros elementos asociados a esta tecnica de "controlled crash").

En cuanto a que la India busque portaaviones con catapultas, puede ser una idea, pero le obligaria a depender por el momento de los USA en ese campo, porque son los unicos que las fabrican. Y caso de comprarlas, ademas, su instalacion en los portaaviones son tambien palabras mayores, hablamos de un refit considerable que obligaria a reconstruir practicamente medio navio en todo caso, pero ademas con mas dificultades en unos casos que en otros. Toda la complejidad de una catapulta de vapor puede resumirse en potencia bruta, recorrido o longitud de la catapulta,y circuito de alimentacion. El recorrido o longitud de una catapulta es quizas la variable mas sencilla a la hora de hablar de plataformas como los portaaviones indios, de unas 40000 toneladas, pero las otras dos son mas complicadas al estar intrinsecamente relacionadas con la capacidad de la planta motriz del buque. El mejor adaptado seria el Vikramaditya, ex Sergei Gorshkov, con sus 8 calderas Hi-Pres; Seria necesario adquirir las catapultas y preparar todos sus sistemas asociados, lo que llevaria su tiempo y su dinero. La necesidad de alimentar las catapultas disminuiria en algun nudo la velocidad maxima del buque sostenida, tanto en el plano teorico como en el practico (practico significa sin los cascos como una patena y sin toda la fuerza de maquina al 100%)...Pero teoricamente es factible. En los ADS/IAC con turbinas de gas la cosa es muchisimo mas complicada, y requiere o bien el volumen de una planta de calderas ex profeso para las catapultas y todos sus sistemas asociados o aquella tecnica de inyectar agua atomizada en el aire caliente exhaustado por las LM2500, de dudoso resultado por las altas presiones requeridas. Las EMALS serian una solucion, pero no parece que vayan a estar listas antes que los portaaviones indios.

Por cierto que el MiG-29K no esta preparado para operar desde catapultas, y el LCA-N tampoco.

Saludos.

[zodiac_187]

En verdad ya poseen una Armada con un poder de fuego que ya quisieramos muchos,su principal cadencia,la aviacion naval,ya tienen volando en tierra a sus mig-29K,pero sin ningun buque que los pueda llevar.
De aqui a unos años,yo pondria a la armada india ya superando a la francesa,inglesa,obviando que a españoles e italianos ya nos ha superado.
Nose si me estare equivocando,pero creo que la armada India esta optando,con asesoramiento externo,sobre todo ruso,a nacionalizar sus buques,y a sacar sus propios diseños,algo asi como una clase de fragatas stealth que planeaban,o su SSN propio,aunque por ahora sea un cascaron tan solo..
saludos

Eso sin contar que tiene el contrado para arrendar un SSN akula (971) y luego quiza comprarlo ( cosa que no tienen ni españa,italia,japon entre otros..)
y la ultima noticia otro arriendo para india :

http://sp.rian.ru/onlinenews/20091228/124530364.html