In a full-blown war with India sinking the INS Vikrant should be top priority

[Philip the Arab]

It is not easy to sink an aircraft carrier as demonstrated by US Navy trying to sink their old decommissioned aircraft carrier some times back. The most powerful weapon would be torpedo due to its large warhead. Several torpedo would be needed to sink an aircraft carrier.

Anti-ship missile can be used to mission-kill a CV, i.e. make some damage to stop it functioning as its mission required and force it to retreat or face the danger of being a torpedo target.

Would a preemptive submarine attack be able to sink the ship in your opinion? Lets say the ship is at dock and Pakistani subs creep up and launch a 5-6 torpedoes. If the subs were lost the lost would be justified as your putting out a the biggest ship in the indian navy.

in event of war from pak... india would do something biblical. just instincts

Can MANPADS not shoot down helicopters?

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

Can MANPADS not shoot down helicopters?

something like a swarm of 35000 helis would be difficult

much more effective than jets or boats

 

[Philip the Arab]

something like a swarm of 35000 helis would be difficult

much more effective than jets or boats

This is beyond funny no country can have 35000 helicopters.
Indian helicopters will be rekt by MANPADS in the first 2 months of a war since they only have something like 300 and not 35000 which is literally impossible.

 

[Counter-Errorist]

in event of war from pak... india would do something biblical. just instincts

It is currently at war with us, and your instincts were right - their screw ups so far have been biblical.

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

This is beyond funny no country can have 35000 helicopters.
Indian helicopters will be rekt by MANPADS in the first 2 months of a war since they only have something like 300 and not 35000 which is literally impossible.

we know pak pilots are better. we know pak can use inferior jets to inflict damage on advanced jets.

if i was indian i would invest in a weapon that is manoeuvrable, high impact, lethal and in great number. just a thought. a helicopter would be great for land and mountain bases.

jets are useless in mountains. we know that

 

[Counter-Errorist]

This is beyond funny no country can have 35000 helicopters.
Indian helicopters will be rekt by MANPADS in the first 2 months of a war since they only have something like 300 and not 35000 which is literally impossible.

He's probably 12 and used to playing computer games where you just mass produce stuff attack away.

 

[lcloo]

Would a preemptive submarine attack be able to sink the ship in your opinion? Lets say the ship is at dock and Pakistani subs creep up and launch a 5-6 torpedoes. If the subs were lost the lost would be justified as your putting out a the biggest ship in the indian navy.

IMO, I expect less than 5 torpedo, probably 2 or 3 shall be able to sink INS Vikramaditya which is a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier. Reason, it is a relatively medium size ship of 33,000 to 35,000 tons standard displacement. An I doubt the Soviet Union placed as much importance on Ship Damage Control when designing the ship, as compare to the US Navy.

And if the ship is in dock, which means most of the sailors would be on land, damage control personnel might not be on standby, and many doors inside the ship might be open as oppose to when at sea. So it is easier to sink then.

 

[Philip the Arab]

we know pak pilots are better. we know pak can use inferior jets to inflict damage on advanced jets.

if i was indian i would invest in a weapon that is manoeuvrable, high impact, lethal and in great number. just a thought. a helicopter would be great for land and mountain bases.

jets are useless in a mountains. we know that

Helicopters are vulnerable and have different roles than fighter aircraft and hence both are needed. Pakistan invested in SHORAD to deal with helicopter threats as I stated before.

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

He's probably 12 and used to playing computer games where you just mass produce stuff attack away.

advanced weapons are crap. mass produced basic systems are way more effective.

 

[Philip the Arab]

He's probably 12 and used to playing computer games where you just mass produce stuff attack away.

What do you think of post #22? And would it be a good sacrifice if the Pakistani subs were lost?

advanced weapons are crap. mass produced basic systems are way more effective.

That's not how it works hence why F-22s go 20:1 against F-15s and F-16s.

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

What do you think of post #22? And would it be a good sacrifice if the Pakistani subs were lost?


That's not how it works hence why F-22s go 20:1 against F-15s and F-16s.

tell my why a taliban with an ak-47 can bring down nato.

 

[Basel]

This thread will be exactly what the title is about. I stress this simply because aircraft carriers allow strikes from the sea thus eliminating the need for airbases. How this can be accomplished is complex since most likely the ship will be with a carrier strike group but there are three options I see #1 being anti-ship cruise missiles launched in barrages from shore based batteries #2 being air-launched Exocets and #3 being ship-launched or even submarines destroying the ship. The ship will be well defended so the best option would be a preemptive sinking when war is imminent. If someone with more experience about Pakistan's and India's navy that could elaborate on options.
View attachment 543585
JF-17 with Exocet.

JFT carry C-802s which have higher range than AM-39s and later are not integrated in JFT.

 

[Philip the Arab]

tell my why a taliban with an ak-47 can bring down nato.

What are you talking about? 60000 Taliban got killed and the U.S. got tired of an unwinnable war because of the mountainous terrain and the bad history when it comes to invading Afghanistan. Every day drone strikes hit who they pleased and the Taliban did nothing why? Because they had nothing they could do because of their lack of technology and lack of industry.

 

[KhalaiMakhlooq]

What are you talking about? 60000 Taliban got killed and the U.S. got tired of an unwinnable war because of the mountainous terrain and the bad history when it comes to invading Afghanistan.

there were 20000 taliban to start off.
now there are 60000 and no nato.

nato has advanced weapons
taliban has none

do the math

 

[Philip the Arab]

there were 20000 taliban to start off.
now there are 60000 and no nato.

nato has advanced weapons
taliban has none

do the math

Did you want America to carpet bomb the whole of Afghanistan to eliminate a threat that doesn't involve them with no clear goals? The U.S. pulled out in 2011 when there was 36000 and now because of unchecked growth the group grew to 60000.