[sukhoi-30mki]

[USNBandit]

That flight deck is in nasty condition.

[naturalman1975]

Other navies have shied from this expensive and technically-challenging option. Australia decommissioned its lone aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, in 1982, and relies on a fleet of lighter warships and submarines.

For the moment, but there is some change away from that.

HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide are both under construction at the moment. At 30,000 tonnes each, they are considerably larger than the carrier HMAS Melbourne was. While they are officially designated as LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), they are based off the Spanish Juan Carlos I, and retain its capabilities to operate as small aircraft carriers - pending suitable aircraft and crew training etc. Officially there are no plans in that direction - but they didn't get rid of the skijump despite the savings in weight and costs that would have provided.

[PLMerite]

That’s not a wooden deck, is it?

[Chode]

ping...

[Leaning Right]

The navy countered by pointing out when a target had to be struck from the air at, say, the Gulf of Aden, it would take at least two hours for shore-based fighters to reach.

These Indian aircraft carriers seem like expensive white elephants to me. When would India find it necessary to strike a target in the Gulf of Aden?

And even if it were necessary, unless a carrier just happened to be right on scene shore-based aircraft actually would be faster.

Perhaps someone should remind India how expensively ruinous a naval building program can be.

[laplata]

Are those jets F-18’s?