THey may still serve that same purpose or perform the same function.
Not according to the manufacturers, since they call it an air to ground missile, while Brahmos is mainly an anti ship missile, further developed with land attack capabilities.
And while you may park a few more jets on deck, that is not a preferable situation and certainly not a structural solution for increasing the air wing.
That's what you say, but that does't mean IN or any other carrier operating navy have to see it like that either right? Infact, carrying aircrafts in front of the island is very usual way to increase the number of aircrafts, be it the French CdG carrier, the coming Brithish Queen Elizabeth class carrier, the US carriers, even the Russian Kuznetsov class carrier and it's Chinese sister ship, are designed with parking slots like that in mind. So you are mistaken here again!
If you want to maintain AEW coverage with 1 heli in the sky, you need an absolute minimum of 3 and preferably even 4 AEW medium heli´s. Likewise for ASW: 4 medium hel´s. In addition, you have 2 light heli´s for SAR-Utility functions.
Yes for the first part, no for the last, because modern naval helicopters will be used for both ASW and SAR-Utility roles,
Even the French CdG carrier, which operates older helicopters currently, has just 4 helicopters
Dauphin, Alouette III, Puma ), the earlier for ASW and SAR, the latter for utility and long range transport, while the NH90 is meant to do it all and replace them infuture. For IN currently the older Kamovs will be used, while they will be replaced by multi role NH90s or S70s, that's why a mix of 3 x AEW and 3 x NH90/S70 helicopter (4+4 at max) would not be surprising and would allow 22 to 24 fighters, possibly more on IAC1.
Btw, Viraat is not a dedicated carrier, it's a VSTOL carrier, which uses the Harriers to support naval operations only, that's why it carries more helicopters and has a large compartment to carry additional troops, similar to USNs Wasp class, or to the older Russian designed Gorskov as well.
If configured for Sea Control roles, even the Wasp class, which is also a 40000+ t carrier would use around 20 fighters and just 6 naval helicopters. That's what any dedicated aircraft carrier does, maximising the numbers of fighters it can carry and improve fighter operations, with helicopters only in secondary roles.
There are a variety of scenarios feasible of which all out war between India and Pakistan is only one. Some scenario´s will include (threat - perceived or real - of) third party intervention.
Of course it is, but why do you change topic when we are discussing a clear point? Especially since such a scenario would only work against your argumentations. IF India would fight Pakistan and China at once, Indian carriers wouldn't be wasted to counter Pakistan anyway, since there is not much to gain, but would be used to keep PLAN in check. However, the way IN would attack Pakistan wouldn't be different as already stated, cruise missile attacks from subs, backed by shore based air wings, later diverting parts of the surface fleet for Sea Control roles.
So no matter what, PAF will still needs it's full force to keep the Indian western borders busy, while IN won't have any issue to divert their carriers to the east, since they are not needed wrt a conflict with Pakistan and the attack capabilities PAF/PN against our carriers would be unimportant.
I´m not here to deal with individual posters but with a discussion. ALL in this thread shoot take a step back from bickering over who´s latest toy is better.
That's the point, so when some people constantly trying to mess up these threads, shouldn't you step in as a senior an knowledgeable member to get some sense in the discussions, no matter what origin the trolls are from?
There is so much unclear about Chinese missile and so much speculationt that I am not going to comment on this further.
I fully agree, but by the fact that there is so less info about it, it would be better to take Chinese sources as more reliable than western sources that are speculating don't you think?
That's why Chinese sources calling it simply air to ground missile, sounds more reliable to me, than western sources hyping it as a carrier killer.