Kitty Hawk to India

The Navy denies it but it seems that rumors are circulating that the United States will step into the breach of stalled India-Russia negotiations about getting India an aircraft carrier by having us give them the USS Kitty Hawk, which is slated to be decommissioned. Robert Farley explains why this is a good idea.

There's a substantial "international public good" aspect to much of what the US military does, and I think that's particularly true of the Navy. That's good for us, as far as it goes, but it makes sense for us to find ways to do that stuff in ways that allows for cooperation and burden-sharing. Helping friendly countries improve their naval capabilities in ways that both brings our countries closer together and save us money would seem like a big step in the right direction.

Comments

This is indeed good news. India is a natural ally if ever there was one.

India has long had a giant mishmash of items from all over the place throughout its military. So this probably isn't exactly a long term plan for either party.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 28, 2008 6:19 PM

this idea of shitting on the Russians whenever possible is GENIUS ! What can go wrong?

Posted by Ty Lookwell | February 28, 2008 6:29 PM

It figures that a neocon like Matt Yglesias would approve of this tansaction.

http://brainwaveweb.com/diavlogs/9077?in=00:54:23&out=01:03:16

Are you going to let Eli Lake get away with this?

Posted by Martin Ross | February 28, 2008 6:30 PM

Yeah, sounds good. I'm curious, though, whether the Indian navy will change the name of the carrier. If so, I'll be sad to see there no longer be a gigantic piece of military hardware half of whose name is "Kitty".

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | February 28, 2008 6:34 PM

Really? Aircraft carriers are used for force projection. Basically, they mean that any country that possesses one can bomb a country that isn't immediately contiguous to it. Does India have any non-contiguous enemies that I didn't know about? A CV would probably be useless in a war with Pakistan or China, so the only real use (beyond questions of national prestige-which is how the Anglo-German naval race prior to WWI heated up) would be to bully the island states of the Indian Ocean. Like nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers are potentially destabilizing. What is the US interest in promoting the tensions between India and her island neighbors that this sale would make inevitable?

Posted by Vivisfugue | February 28, 2008 6:35 PM

Kitty Hawk to India

For $0? You'd think we could at least get a second round pick back.

Posted by Al | February 28, 2008 6:39 PM

Future aircraft purchases from American defense contractors probably constitute players to be named later, and by avoiding expenses relating to bringing the Kitty Hawk home and decomissioning it, the U.S. is increasing its cap room.

Vivisfugue: it looks like India's intent on getting an aircraft carrier. The question is apparently whether Russia sells it to them or we do.

Posted by phil | February 28, 2008 6:45 PM

If we give them the Kitty Hawk, can we have our jobs back?

Posted by Adam | February 28, 2008 6:46 PM

My comment at Farley's place:

AFP says that the Indians and the Russians are going to sign a contract in March to complete the conversion of the Gorshkov at considerable extra cost:

Indian Defence Secretary V. K. Singh, returning from Moscow, said a new undisclosed price-line had been agreed for the 44,570-tonne Admiral Gorshkov.

Russian export firm Rosoboronexport in 2004 signed a deal to refurbish the aircraft carrier for 970 million dollars but last year demanded India pay an additional 1.2 billion dollars.

Singh declined to give details of the negotiations but conceded overnight that "there will be a substantial increase in the 'reworked estimate" for the modernisation of the 30-year-old ship.

"The figure cannot be disclosed as the modified contract has to be put up to the union Cabinet and the cabinet committee on security for clearance," he told reporters in New Delhi.

And that seems to be confirmed by several other sources, although its hard to tell if the reporting might be circular.

Itar-Tass, today:

NEW DELHI, February 28 (Itar-Tass) - India is ready for a considerable increase of the cost of the upgrade of the Russian-made aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. According to mass media reports published on Thursday, the Cabinet's security committee will consider the issue shortly.

Sources at the Ministry of Defense believe that the amount of acceptable extra expenses for New Delhi might reach 600 to 800 million dollars.

The sources pointed out at the necessity of making a positive decision, as a new aircraft carrier of the same class would cost some four billion dollars.

The Asian Age yesterday:
New Delhi, Feb. 27: Russia is "embarrassed" by the delay in refitting of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier but has told India that cost-escalation in the deal is "inescapable". According to highly-placed MoD [Ministry of Defense] sources, Russian minister for industry and energy Victor Khristenko recently told Indian defence secretary Vijay Singh, "You (India) have to trust us (Russia). It (the delay in refitting) embarrasses us, (but) cost-escalation is inescapable." India is now expected to agree to a "substantial" hike in the price of the deal.

On Wednesday [ 27 February], MoD official sources said that Russia had never threatened to take back the aircraft carrier or that they required it now for the Russian Navy. "But they (Russia) want a re-affirmation from us that we want it. There is no question of India giving up the ship," MoD official sources confirmed.

Bottom line - the Indians are getting a 20 year old Russian hull (that took 10 years to complete, BTW) and expect it to last another 30 years. With Russian workmanship. Good luck with that.

The Indians expect to use MiG-29s in the airwing. I hope they aren't part of the same batch that Algeria just returned because of Russian workmanship.

Posted by calipygian | February 28, 2008 6:51 PM

It figures that a neocon like Matt Yglesias would approve of this tansaction.

Oh, THAT makes a lot of sense. Yglesias, a neocon? Yeah..and Mike Huckabee is a secular humanist.

Posted by Mr. Noah | February 28, 2008 6:54 PM

I can't imagine why India would want it - basic maintenance alone has to be a major drain on their military budget, not to mention the cost of developing and maintaining support capacities meaning supply ships and whatnot.

There's a good reason why all of the other Forrestal class ships have been retired despite our mammoth military budget.

Posted by BFR | February 28, 2008 7:00 PM

We sure were resolute about punishing India for testing nuclear weapons.

Posted by Nathan | February 28, 2008 7:02 PM

This sounds extremely unlikely. The cost of maintaining and crewing a huge aircraft carrier, not to mention the other ships they'd need to support and protect it, and all the carrier capable aircraft they'd have to buy to equip it, would be a huge departure from their current defense planning. The Indian Navy doesn't have the budget to support it. This is a service that is running around acquiring elderly Sea Kings because it can't afford newer, better helicopters.

The idea also denies the well-known indian reluctance to be dependent on the United "We don't like what you just did now here's a big mug of embargo, bitch" States.

Then again, the Indian defense ministry is well known for its inefficiency and poor planning, so maybe they WILL do it.

Posted by Helter | February 28, 2008 7:07 PM

I suppose you'd have to ask yourself why India would want an aircraft carrier before you can truly answer whether this falls into the substantial international public good category.

Posted by Jinchi | February 28, 2008 7:31 PM

...would be to bully the island states of the Indian Ocean.

LOL.

China is busy building a naval presence all around India. They are the bullies, look at what happened in the S. China Sea.

Posted by SAO | February 28, 2008 7:42 PM

If we give them the Kitty Hawk, can we have our jobs back?

Adam wins.

Posted by southpaw | February 28, 2008 8:12 PM

1) CHina NEEDS Caspian Sea oil. That need will be desperate within a decade. Short route is straight down through Iran, then south around India. Which may explain why China ain't supporting US pressure on Iran's nuclear program.
(Alternative route is pipeline via Kazakhstan, which is also being discussed. But pipeline would be long and vulnerable. )

2) This sale is a way to smack China in the nuts.
Especially for China's recent energy deals with IRan: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080228/tbs-as-fin-china-iran-cnooc-4th-ld-write-618743b.html

3) Of course, the Kitty Hawk is just a fucking target for one of CHina's nuclear ICBMs -- assuming real time link between surveillance platform/satellite and launch.

4) This is a delicate time for US -- Dollar is falling as Fed desperately cuts interest rates to stave off recession.

Wonder what happens if China dumps its huge dollar holdings to espress it's annoyance?

Posted by Don Williams | February 28, 2008 8:28 PM

If memory serves, the Shitty Kitty was the CV that got suprised by the Chinese sub surfacing right beside it during excercises a few years ago. Maybe the Indians can figure out how to make it run more quietly.

Posted by Paper Mac | February 28, 2008 8:29 PM

1) So China is being smacked by US giving Kitty Hawk to India. Russia is being smacked/dismantled by US subversion in Ukraine, Georgia, and other points south.

2) Gee, I know. What if Russia and China form an alliance and start a military buildup? Maybe supported by an EU with a GDP equal to the US-- an EU which has decided it doesn't like being bullied by a hegemon?

Posted by Don Williams | February 28, 2008 8:33 PM

3) Of course, the Kitty Hawk is just a fucking target for one of CHina's nuclear ICBMs -- assuming real time link between surveillance platform/satellite and launch.

While you're assuming, don't forget to add the pony. Dude, you can't hit a ship with an ICBM. The Chinese are no different from us on this - ICBM's absolutely, no kidding, have national command authorities in the link deciding whether to launch. You have to get the decision to launch, get your targeting data to the ICBM mission planning site, launch, get your re-entry vehicles deployed, and all the way back to the surface. By then, the ship is out of range. I guarantee it.

I spent my entire adult life in the US Navy surface fleet. We worried about a lot of stuff, some of which we could avoid and some we couldn't. But we never even gave a thought to getting hit by an ICBM. They're quite simply not capable of hitting anything but land targets.

Posted by Sean Peters | February 28, 2008 8:54 PM

"Really? Aircraft carriers are used for force projection. Basically, they mean that any country that possesses one can bomb a country that isn't immediately contiguous to it. Does India have any non-contiguous enemies that I didn't know about? A CV would probably be useless in a war with Pakistan or China, so the only real use (beyond questions of national prestige-which is how the Anglo-German naval race prior to WWI heated up) would be to bully the island states of the Indian Ocean. Like nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers are potentially destabilizing. What is the US interest in promoting the tensions between India and her island neighbors that this sale would make inevitable?

Posted by Vivisfugue | February 28, 2008 6:35 PM"

I'm guessing China. India's border with China is along Tibet and is heavily mountainous. This is probably a form of force projection in the South China Sea. Also, there very well could be the pride factor at work here: "Holy shit, we got an American aircraft carrier!" A lot of policies, from both the BJP and the Congress Party, over the past few years have in part been about this. You see it in testing nukes, trying to skip over industrialism from agriculture to a service industry and high technology-oriented economy, etc. There could also be some factional work at play here with someone with major connections to the Navy getting their way.

Posted by Reality Man | February 28, 2008 9:04 PM

India is not a particularly militaristic country and its defence spending as percentage of GDP is pretty low. There are real and important historic and strategic reasons for an aircraft carrier and a blue water navy. Historically, India was colonized by throttling its sea lanes of communication and thus gaining control over its trade and consequently its economy. Strategically, India sits across all major sea routes from the Far East to Western Asia and beyond. It is in Indian and American strategic interests to maintain control over all these routes, and for India, it is an important leverage against China. A little know fact is that there is extensive Indian and American naval cooperation in this matter for the same reasons (joint naval patrols etc). This has little to do with national pride.

Posted by kris | February 28, 2008 9:40 PM

India is not a particularly militaristic country and its defence spending as percentage of GDP is pretty low. There are real and important historic and strategic reasons for an aircraft carrier and a blue water navy. Historically, India was colonized by throttling its sea lanes of communication and thus gaining control over its trade and consequently its economy. Strategically, India sits across all major sea routes from the Far East to Western Asia and beyond. It is in Indian and American strategic interests to maintain control over all these routes, and for India, it is an important leverage against China. A little know fact is that there is extensive Indian and American naval cooperation in this matter for the same reasons (joint naval patrols etc). This has little to do with national pride.

Posted by kris | February 28, 2008 9:41 PM

"2) Gee, I know. What if Russia and China form an alliance and start a military buildup? Maybe supported by an EU with a GDP equal to the US-- an EU which has decided it doesn't like being bullied by a hegemon?"

Who let Tom Clancy in here?

Posted by PTS | February 28, 2008 9:49 PM

Considering that we are currently planning to use the decommissioned USS Independence (CV-62) for TARGET PRACTICE(!) thereby sinking it to the bottom of the ocean, giving these things away seems like a better use of the resource.

http://www.navybuddies.com/cvn/cv62.htm

Posted by Tim_G | February 28, 2008 9:50 PM

Considering that we are currently planning to use the decommissioned USS Independence (CV-62) for TARGET PRACTICE(!) thereby sinking it to the bottom of the ocean

Tim_G, I think you've just provided us with a metaphor for the Bush era. "Sinking Independence" should have been Dubya's reelection slogan.

Posted by Dave Pooser | February 28, 2008 10:02 PM

"Strategically, India sits across all major sea routes from the Far East to Western Asia and beyond. It is in Indian and American strategic interests to maintain control over all these routes,"

Nobody's going to "maintain control" over anything any more, let alone sea routes, if you don't have nuclear or at least diesel attack submarines and subs capable of launching missiles.

The Chinese managed to surface a diesel very near the Kitty Hawk in 2006. And, yes, it was NOT detected by ASW systems.

Aircraft carriers are toast in any major war between superpowers. They're good for force projection - and it's precisely "force projection" which is the problem facing the perception of the US on the world stage.

India is not going to be able to use an aircraft carrier effectively against China in any future war. And China is not going to be concerned about an Indian attempt at "force projection" with one aging US carrier - not one it has already demonstrated it can take out with one diesel sub.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 28, 2008 10:15 PM

Re Sean Peter's comment "I spent my entire adult life in the US Navy surface fleet. We worried about a lot of stuff, some of which we could avoid and some we couldn't. But we never even gave a thought to getting hit by an ICBM. They're quite simply not capable of hitting anything but land targets."
--------------
From http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htspace/articles/20070313.aspx
"March 13, 2007: While China has backed off, in the face of widespread international criticism, from blowing up any more space satellites with its new anti-satellite satellite, they have found a new use for it. The chief designer of Chinese satellites and spacecraft, Qi Faren, announced that their anti-satellite system can be modified to attack aircraft carriers."
--------
The submariners I used to work for at Groton and Charleston were right -- You guys are big fat targets.

Posted by Don Williams | February 28, 2008 10:18 PM

It is a step to counteract China's string of pearl plan in the Indian Ocean. Plus there is the joint Chinese/Pakistani port and future naval base
in Gwadar.

Posted by maldives falcon | February 28, 2008 10:20 PM

More info for Sean PEters: http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2007hearings/written_testimonies/07_03_29_30wrts/07_03_29_30_erickson_statement.php

"29 March 2007
Dr. Andrew S. Erickson, Assistant Professor
China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI), Naval War College
Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
“China’s Military Modernization
and its Impact on the United States and the Asia-Pacific”

"China is also thought to be in the process of developing anti-ship homing warheads for its ballistic missiles, which is a very worrisome development. If they work, they would be extraordinarily difficult to defend against "
-------------

"All your carriers are belong to us"

Posted by Don Williams | February 28, 2008 10:29 PM

"India is a natural ally if ever there was one. "

The fact that we've lukewarm towards India for long periods of time, and tripping over ourselves to make excuses for Pakistan is definitely a mark against the idea we have a rational foreign policy.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | February 28, 2008 10:37 PM

Seriously, you don't think there are any downsides to giving away aircraft carriers?

Posted by Marshall | February 28, 2008 10:47 PM

James Dunnigan's "How to Make War" indicates that China's DF-5 nuclear ICBM has 3 Megaton warheads.
(p.451). On p.440, he estimates that a 2 Megaton warhead kills or permanently disables a ship if it hits within 3714 meters. 1 Nautical Mile = 1852 Meters, so let's estimate that a 3 megaton warhead can kill an aircraft carrier if it lands within 2.5 nautical miles.

The Kitty Hawk's propulsion plant burns fuel (oil) --its not nuclear. Fuel consumption increases greatly with speed --so while Kitty Hawk's maximum speed is given as around 32-35 knots, her cruising speed is around 20 knots.
(nautical miles per hour) http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89171/cv63---kitty-hawk-class-aircraft-carrier.html

Flight time of ICBM from CHina to Indian Ocean would be around 12 minutes. In that time, carrier would have traveled 4 nautical miles.

It seems reasonable that one could sight on a carrier at launch time, project its course 4 nautical miles forward and drop a warhead on that spot and kill the carrier, given that the carrier is dead if it's anywhere within 2.5 nautical miles of the aiming point.

This is even without any capability for midcourse correction -- which the CHinese seem to be also developing.

Posted by Don Williams | February 28, 2008 10:54 PM

PS Sean might also google a US Stratcom initiative called "Prompt Global Strike" -- which allegedly will be done with conventional not nuclear warheads.

Although I wouldn't bet on it. hee hee

Posted by Don Williams | February 28, 2008 10:58 PM

Ultimately I think Reality Man is right, and I'm surprised he's the only one banging this particular gong: this is as much a point of national pride as anything else. The Kitty Hawk is not going on yearly fleet maneuvers with the Indian navy for the next 20 years...no way. There are much better ways to ensure admiralty.

As others have wisely noted: Aircraft carriers are absolute beasts to maintain, much less keep in fighting trim. The breadth and depth of shipboard and support crew skill is staggering, especially when compared with surface vessels. That's why the list of nations who have built or bought CV's - only to mothball them later - seems to be growing by the year. Look at Argentina...it SEEMED like a good idea to have a carrier for things like wars against the UK...until you realize that if you don't feel confident you can protect it, you're basically floating a defenseless barge of 2000+ citizens toward your enemy.

Nevertheless, if a country has designs on superpowerdom in the next 50 years, this is a point on your wall-map you'll have to stick a pin into. Sail it once and snap some pictures for the press. Then park that thing and let your young naval architects get comfortable with CV construction and technologies in case they're ever called upon to start building them.

Posted by ssdagg | February 28, 2008 11:26 PM

Go read Cernig.

Are we really bringing stability to the region if we corner the market on the India/Pakistan arms race?

Posted by sfHeath | February 28, 2008 11:51 PM

We sure were resolute about punishing India for testing nuclear weapons.
Posted by Nathan | February 28, 2008 7:02 PM

Well, we were resolute for decades after India went nuclear in 1974 by no selling them anything, so I'm not sure I follow your point.

Posted by foo | February 29, 2008 12:34 AM

A little arms race never hurt anyone, right? Nukes are cute! Also- security security security. Please protect me Mommy with your hot hot genocide! Yumm-y!

Posted by littleblackpropaganda | February 29, 2008 12:42 AM

It is a step to counteract China's string of pearl plan in the Indian Ocean. Plus there is the joint Chinese/Pakistani port and future naval base
in Gwadar.
Posted by maldives falcon

Best post here.

Aircraft carriers are 1st and foremost a weapon against another force asserting naval dominance in your regional waters, or to seize such dominance. India has no intent of ceding the Indian Ocean to the Chicommies by being reliant solely on American goodwill.

Williams - "China is also thought to be in the process of developing anti-ship homing warheads for its ballistic missiles, which is a very worrisome development. If they work, they would be extraordinarily difficult to defend against "

Which explains a big reason why the US developed the Naval SM3 and Aegis - long range protection against MRBMs, ICMBs, sub-launched cruise missiles out of Kursk-class vessels, Backfire Naval Patrol Bombers with Sunburn or other HV missiles.
The other problem with launching 3 megaton warheads into crowded oceans far from your home waters is that it will draw ICBMs launched against your land-based missile fields and trigger takeout of any ballistic missile subs you have (China has one). Bad idea. You trigger global thermonuclear war by initiating stragegic weapons use as surely as by nuking Guam, Japanese Naval bases, or Minot AFB.

And better antiship missilery helps explain why Putin, his pals in the Anti-American Left, and the fellow-travelling Euroweenies hate ABM defense so much and swear it is "destabilizing" and will NEVER WORK. (Even with 9 of 11 SM3s launched in tests having successful intercepts of incoming missiles). The Soviets tried for decades to end the ability of the US Navy to project power only to be thwarted by US adeptness at evoving tactics, technology, and chokepoint strategy to checkmate them - now the Chicommies wish to try their luck.

Williams - Gee, I know. What if Russia and China form an alliance and start a military buildup? Maybe supported by an EU with a GDP equal to the US-- an EU which has decided it doesn't like being bullied by a hegemon?
Posted by Don Williams

Right! The Euros decide they like how the Russian Bear behaved in the past so much that they join with them against America!

Next up, Don Williams explains how "easy" it is for him to see an upcoming alliance between Israel and Sunni nations joining the Zionists to go to war arm-in-arm with them to stop Iranian hegemony.

Posted by chris ford | February 29, 2008 2:38 AM

The Chinese don't need ICBMs to sink the Kitty Hawk, they've already got Sunburns/Moskits that'll do nicely.

Posted by Paper Mac | February 29, 2008 3:00 AM

Maybe India could buy the Kitty Hawk, and then if a war started with China, it could offer the Chinese the Kitty Hawk as a peace offering. But once the Chinese opened it up, they'd find the Indians had stuffed the ship with Chinese-made toys and poisonous Chinese-made dumplings and bad shellfish. Then as the Chinese sailors started dropping like flies from all the tainted Chinese products, the Indians could attack them while they were vulnerable, and retake the ship.

Posted by Juan | February 29, 2008 3:14 AM

I think you all are missing the point. Its not going to happen - the Russians and the Indians are going ahead with the Gorshkov project.

Posted by calpygian | February 29, 2008 5:25 AM

So, basically, Don, you're saying that if the Chinese had a RORSAT (they don't) that happened to be overhead at the right time (very small chance) and was capable of real-time download (tricky) and if they could greatly speed up the launch decision cycle of their missiles (which they haven't) or implement mid-course correction from a ground control station receiving real time target information (which they can't) unless the carrier was cruising in a straight line at a steady speed in peacetime conditions (which it wouldn't be) then they could launch one of their very few, very valuable, somewhat unreliable ICBMs (which would be immediately detected by the US and cause massive panic, and which would be detected very shortly after by the Indians and trigger a nuclear response) and have about a one in five chance of hitting the carrier rather than just hitting unoccupied ocean and frying a lot of fish?

Well, that sounds great. Sign me up!

Posted by ajay | February 29, 2008 5:30 AM

Pretty good discussion here, with people examining a bunch of different angles of the same issue in a way that seems to add up to a coherent whole. Since such a thread cannot exist in the blogosphere, a rift in the time-space continuum has opened and we will all soon have never existed. Next up, the Cubs win the World Series. Maybe we need to do more threads on Indian military hardware.

Posted by Reality Man | February 29, 2008 6:45 AM

"Helping friendly countries improve their naval capabilities in ways that both brings our countries closer together and save us money would seem like a big step in the right direction."

And what do we do when Hindu nationalism becomes messianic and aggressive?

Posted by bob h | February 29, 2008 7:24 AM

The comments in this thread did overlook one obvious angle -- this deal is the mother of all "we give you free razor and you buy our expensive blades forever" promotions.

Posted by Bill White | February 29, 2008 7:33 AM

Not only did Gates deny the rumors, and left Delhi today without (apparently) making the offer, but the financial Times ran the following item:

The USS Kitty Hawk just cannot stay out of trouble. Last November, China refused the oldest aircraft carrier permission to drop anchor in Hong Kong over the Thanksgiving holiday.

This week the Kitty Hawk was at the centre of speculation that had Pentagon officials making some of the most extreme denials that Observer can recall hearing.

Robert Gates, US defence secretary, was greeted in New Delhi on Tuesday with rumours that the Pentagon was planning on giving the Kitty Hawk to India.

Asked about the rumours en route to Delhi from Jakarta, a Pentagon official responded by saying that India was interested in developing a blue-water navy, and let the matter go at that.

But another official chimed in, saying: "Come on, come on, squash it, if it is not true, squash it!"

Seeing his colleague's logic, the official offered a solid denial, saying: "It is simply not true". But after a bit more back and forth, the Pentagon official backed up his denial with a solemn vow: "I will fall on my sword. I will hurl myself out of this airplane if there is any truth to this stupid story."

Good thing Gates told reporters yesterday there were no plans to hand over the vessel. Or was he just worried about losing a valuable staff member in the last months of the Bush administration?

Posted by FlyOnTheWall | February 29, 2008 7:38 AM

Don,

Wonder what happens if China dumps its huge dollar holdings to espress it's annoyance?

Then the Yuan massively appreciates collapsing the chinese economy and Hu Jintao ends up hanging from a light post.

I don't think it's going to happen.

Posted by jmo | February 29, 2008 9:17 AM

RE Bill White's comment "The comments in this thread did overlook one obvious angle -- this deal is the mother of all "we give you free razor and you buy our expensive blades forever" promotions."
------------
Yep. The possibility of India buying $10 Billion worth of US fighter jets instead of Migs --and being locked long-term into the US for supply of parts -- is why I think there's foundation to the story.

although I think the possibly of Chinese economic retaliation at this vulnerable time for the US economy is a deterrent.

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 9:21 AM

Re "I will hurl myself out of this airplane if there is any truth to this stupid story."
----------
After the airplane landed, the officer dashed into the terminal. An officer and a gentleman keeps his word.

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 9:31 AM

Re Chris Ford's comment "And better antiship missilery helps explain why Putin, his pals in the Anti-American Left, and the fellow-travelling Euroweenies hate ABM defense so much and swear it is "destabilizing" and will NEVER WORK. (Even with 9 of 11 SM3s launched in tests having successful intercepts of incoming missiles) "
------------
I oppose ABM defense not because it is "destabilizing" but because I think it is far cheaper and easier to develop effective countermeasures to it than it is to develop ABM itself. Strategically, it seems a bad move -- and depending upon it is heading for disaster.

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 9:36 AM

Re Chris Ford's comments "The other problem with launching 3 megaton warheads into crowded oceans far from your home waters is that it will draw ICBMs launched against your land-based missile fields and trigger takeout of any ballistic missile subs you have (China has one). Bad idea. You trigger global thermonuclear war by initiating stragegic weapons use as surely as by nuking Guam, Japanese Naval bases, or Minot AFB. "
------------
1) The 11 US carriers are backed up by those 500 Minuteman ICBMS in Montana,etc --as well as by our nuclear ballistic missile subs. India's single carrier would not have that protection.

Would India start a catastrophic nuclear war with China over the loss of an aircraft carrier ? Don't know -- anyone here play poker?

2) If Chris thinks use of ICBMs is bad, then what does he think of the Pentagon's proposals to convert Trident missiles and Minuteman ICBMS to carry conventional explosive warheads -- as a way of rapid remote bombing of global sites?

Even though Putin has warned that doing that runs a strong risk of Russia thinking such ICBMs launches are nuclear -- and triggering a massive Russian nuclear response??

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 9:43 AM

"Chris thinks use of ICBMs is bad, then what does he think of the Pentagon's proposals to convert Trident missiles and Minuteman ICBMS to carry conventional explosive warheads -- as a way of rapid remote bombing of global sites?"

I think it is a huge waste of money for the most part. If people think cruise missiles are expensive, wait till they see the Pentago trying to budget a 60 million SLBM or a 80 million ICBM and the explosive equivalent of one JDAM being dedicated to blowing up the tent of a single "evildoer". In certain circmstances, it would be a great surprise weapon, but only with the launchings NOT being a surprise to people with nuclear tipped missiles ready to launch that take the launch of ICBMs suddenly coming from the oceans or America as a threat to them. It would require strategic protocols.

Even though Putin has warned that doing that runs a strong risk of Russia thinking such ICBMs launches are nuclear -- and triggering a massive Russian nuclear response??

Putin has power to block it under SALT if Russia feels that it is too easy to swap out a high explosive warhead for a nuke, and refuses to credit the reduction in US inventory to make equivalent cuts. We would feel the same if Russia proposed removing 100 "Satan" SS_18 missiles from inventory but keeping them fully active to launch "rain making dispersants" anywhere in the world to combat drought. We would not feel comfortable then destroying 100 Trident missiles on Russia's simple assurances that they's keep their word and never do a quick swapout of rain-making chemicals with 800KT thermonuclear warheads in a crisis.
Posted by Don Williams

Posted by chris ford | February 29, 2008 11:10 AM

1) The 11 US carriers are backed up by those 500 Minuteman ICBMS in Montana,etc --as well as by our nuclear ballistic missile subs. India's single carrier would not have that protection.

Good point, Don! Everyone knows the Indians don't have any nuclear weapons!

Posted by ajay | February 29, 2008 12:24 PM

Re Ajay's comment "Good point, Don! Everyone knows the Indians don't have any nuclear weapons! "
------------
Sigh.

My point was that India does not have 500 Minuteman silos plus our Trident Subs.

Yes, she has SOME nukes -- as I acknowledged when I said
"Would India start a catastrophic nuclear war with China over the loss of an aircraft carrier ? Don't know -- anyone here play poker?"

However, she does not have the enormous capability of the USA. Especially if China launched a first strike on India's nukes at the same time as the strike on the aircraft carrier.

Should I write my posts as if I talking to the contestants on "Are you smarter than a Fifth-Grader?" Talkee - Pointee??

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 3:12 PM

I can't imagine why India would want it

Steel. Google Alang ship breaking. This is just a slick way of getting her winched up on the beach while skirting the legal and ethically questions about sending PCB and asbestos ladened ships to India for recycling.

Posted by HatBox | February 29, 2008 8:36 PM