India May Buy UK Warship

Gordon

Here

So India need an aircraft carrier. UK needs two new "super-carriers"? I get the feeling that the UK will go as USA and Russia - get rid of their nuclear weapons. And they'll get rid of them into the pockets of India and Pakistan probably.

OK, all's fair in love and war etc. but why help a country that is on the brink of war, it seems like they want a war to happen. I wonder if they are doing as much to help stop this war from happening...

bonkey

Originally posted by Gordon
I get the feeling that the UK will go as USA and Russia - get rid of their nuclear weapons. And they'll get rid of them into the pockets of India and Pakistan probably.

OK - I have no idea how you got from Britain selling warships to an ex-colony to the concept of them selling nukes but even still.....the USA and Russia are not getting rid of their nukes. They are decomissioning some of them, and in the end, agreed that the warheads would not even be put permanently beyond use, but merely stored.

In the current international climate, I dont think there is a single western nation who would sell nuclear weapons - even to another "allied" western power. I mean - why do you think the US and Russia are lowering their stocks by storing the missiles (the Russians wanted them destroyed, IIRC, the Americans refused) rather than selling them? Im sure theres dozens of nations who would dearly love to buy that surplus from the cash-strapped Russkies.

OK, all's fair in love and war etc. but why help a country that is on the brink of war, it seems like they want a war to happen. I wonder if they are doing as much to help stop this war from happening...

Fair point, but to be honest, that article sounds like a a spot of opportunistic reporting to me. The sale of something like a warship takes time - so if the UK "are on the brink" of selling it, then it is probable that talks about it commenced long before the current round of Indian/Pakistani hostilities. Also - in fairness - when you have two nations who have lined up half a million soldiers apiece on either side of a border, and who are possessed of nuclear weaponry and confirmed short/medium range delivery mechanisms, isnt a single warship a bit insignificant? I mean - the thing has no significant guns, and can carry a load of 9 S/VTOL aircraft (typically harriers) and another 9 Seaking-type 'copters whch isnt all that much to be honest.

jc

Clintons Cat

from a quick browse the invincible can support up to 24 aircraft of various types,independant of on shore facillities.And also support a contingent of up to 500 marines.with a range of 7000 nautical miles.
more importantly is its modern and secure comand and control systems

COMMAND SYSTEMS

The combat data system is BAE SYSTEMS ADIMP with communication links Link 10, Link 11 and Link 14. Following refit, HMS Invincible has had the combat system upgraded to the same standard as Illustrious and Ark Royal, with new multi-function consoles and flat-panel colour displays. The secure satellite communications system, the Astrium (formerly Matra Marconi) SCOT, has the capacity to handle data rates up to 2Mb/s.

i-like-ships.com
what-ships-do.com
Apparently every full size invicible sold comes with the gift of a free Map Pin so customers can plot their progress around the world

the issue of the withdrawal of the invicible was raised on 25 march 2002

82
Mr Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he plans to withdraw HMS Invincible from service before 2012.
(46459)

Chaos-Engine

Fair point Bonky.

In addition I remember that India has been looking for top notch naval gear for years. Then went to the russians last year to get some rotten nuclear subs and a lease on an aircraft carrier. I don't think the deal for teh carrier went through as they are going to the brits now.

As for arms trade.
All arms produced in the EU should be used by the EU alone. The EU shouldn't trade in arms with anyother Country(assuming the EU has a united foreign policy) including USA and NATO allies(remembering Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finland arn't in Nato)

Victor

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
All arms produced in the EU should be used by the EU alone. The EU shouldn't trade in arms with anyother Country(assuming the EU has a united foreign policy) including USA and NATO allies(remembering Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finland arn't in Nato)

Leaving the market open for the Americans, Russians and Chinese and other less reputable countries.

This topic is BS as the possible sale of Invincible is only replacing both INS Viraat & INS Vikrant (40-60 years old) with one similar ship. Link 11 & Link 14 (high capacity line-of-sight radio systems) will not be sold to the Indians for security reasons and because the Indians would then need to install it on all their ships.

I would be much more worried about the nuclear weapons that both sides have already, the 180 Su-30MK's (upgraded Su-27's) that the Indians are buying from the Russians (with lots of other stuff), the submarine programmes both sides have (note the 17 French submarine technicians killed by a bomb in Karachi).

Clintons Cat

is it usual practice to "retrofit" a warship before sale?

Clintons Cat

apparently the indians have been negotiating to buy an aircraft carrier off the Russians for over 5 years,the russians got cold feet over the indians ability to pay and pulled the plug.
story here

Apparently the British stepped in to secure a deal...Anyone want to explain how Arms Credit Guaruntees work on Countries that default on Arms payments?

Victor

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
is it usual practice to "retrofit" a warship before sale?

Yes, either to remove equipment you want to keep / don't want to sell or upgrade the ship, e.g. when Brazil both FS Foch from France (now Sao Paulo) the ship spent several month in refit to replace worn parts in the engines, catapult and other areas of the ship (see the current edition of Air Forces Monthly). If nothing else it proves the ship is in working order. In addition, literally thousands of nameplates and the like need updating and translating (less important in the Indian example as many Indian engineers speak English anyway).

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
apparently the indians have been negotiating to buy an aircraft carrier off the Russians for over 5 years,the russians got cold feet over the indians ability to pay and pulled the plug.
story here

That reads more like the Russians inability to finance the upgrades and repairs and the Indians were being cautious. would you pay upfront for a 15 year old car (25 year old design) that has only done a few thousand miles, caught on fire once, the owner want to rip some of the electrics, all without a test drive?

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Apparently the British stepped in to secure a deal...Anyone want to explain how Arms Credit Guaruntees work on Countries that default on Arms payments?

I'm not sure if this would apply in this case, as it would be a government-to-government sale. Arms Credit Guarantees would only apply to companies.

For those not aware Export Credit Guarantees is where a national government will guarantee to its own citizens / companies that a foreign government will pay for its purchases. Often this is done on a non-commercial basis (e.g. when the Irish Government guaranteed Irish beef sales to Iraq).

Clintons Cat

I cant see the british taking out the communications systems and replacing them with obselete systems,it kind of defeats the purpose of upgrading the fleet if the indians will be getting something comparable to the two craft carriers they are replacing.
Sure there will be a refurbishment,probally carried out by marconi (they need a massive cash injection).This is where the arms credit guaruntees would apply,to the work carried out by third parties underwritten by the british taxpayer.

the timeline for this story
On 4th march 2002 Bernard Jenkin raises the possible sale of HMS invincible to india in the house,The Ministry of Defence claims it has received no representations from the Government of India concerning the availability of HMS Invincible for purchase here

On 11 march 2002 a three year negotiation between the Indians and Russians to sell an aircraft carrier,breaks down.more

On 25 march 2002 a question is motioned in the house of commons by Bernard Jenkin asking if there are any plans to withdraw HMS invincible from service prior to 2012
order of the day

On sunday june 3rd,just after England have played their opening match of the world cup,and at the begining of a three day bank holiday and royal jubilee celebrations,the government announces its decision to sell the indians a modern aircraft carrier at a time of hieghtened tensions with pakistan.

Cynical,lets just call it a good time to bury bad news.

Victor

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
I cant see the british taking out the communications systems and replacing them with obselete systems,it kind of defeats the purpose of upgrading the fleet if the indians will be getting something comparable to the two craft carriers they are replacing.

I think this is a little insulting to India's own engineers (and those of other countries that have supplied equipment to India) - the people who developed their own nuclear bomb. Both Link 11 & 14 are NATO systems, that the Indians may not want and NATO may not want to give them. Removing Link 11 is not necessarily a downgrade as the system is something like 15 years old anyway. And Link 14 is 20 years old.

Link 11

Link 14

It would be like selling your second-hand car into the American market and insisting the buyer takes (and pays for) your GSM hands free kit (GSM generally isn't used in the USA).

Draco

If memory serves, the Indians bought Air Craft carriers off the British before (sometime in the eighties I think) so this isn't really unusually.

Clintons Cat

they bought HMS Hermes(constructed 1959),back in the eighties,
HMS Invincible is a much more modern ship,constructed in 1980.
The INS Viraant (HMS Hermes)is at the end of its service life,It suffered a major engine room flood in 1993.a major refit scheduled for 1998 was cancelled and a minor refit was undertaken in 2000 to extend its service live to 2006.
The INS Vikrant (HMS Hercules,purchased in 1957) was decommisioned in 1997.It is debatable as to wether the purchase of HMS Invincible is designed to replace both carriers.


Victor regardless of what they replace the existing communications systems (link 11 and link 14)with when they refurbish the invincible do you agree they will be likely to be better than the systems than the ones on board the INS Viraant (link 10)which the invincible is intended to replace?

Victor

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Victor regardless of what they replace the existing communications systems (link 11 and link 14)with when they refurbish the invincible do you agree they will be likely to be better than the systems than the ones on board the INS Viraant (link 10)which the invincible is intended to replace?

Yes, it will be better, but that is not to say that they wouldn't get an improved system if they don't get Invincible. It already has Indian, Israeli, Italian, Swedish and Russian equipment on board.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Viraat.html

They also use Irish, Polish and French equipment, among others.

Clintons Cat

sure,but seeing as the russians are refusing to sell the
and the italians are stalling on the sale of a garibaldi class carrier,dont you think it sends the wrong message to a country on the brink of war with one of its nieghbours to offer one side the sale a modern warship?
Back in October 2001 Tony Blair was involved in shuttle diplomacy to try to avert conflict between India and Pakistan,some commented the overtures,(UK support for Indias Inclusion as a permanent UN Security Council Member,the agreement to sell more hawk and jaguar aircraft) ammounted to appeasement.
Now at a time of renewed tension,it transpires Britain has agreed to sell An Aircraft Carrier to a country that allowed 5000 of its own citizens to be massacred in the most primeval way,whilst the Authorities did nothing to prevent it.

Bateman

No, it doesn't say much for am ability/willingness on the part of Britain to diffuse the tension. India has, however, said flatly they will not be the first side to "go nuclear", how much they should be trusted is another thing.