India’s Aircraft Carriers: A Giant Waste of Time?

[ARMalik]

View attachment 528630

Spoken like a true La, La land looser - what else can one expect from an Indian.

 

[Hellfire]

INS Versha & INS Kadamba are yet to reach its final phase, so IN will put-up papers for only 3-4 ACs, let the projects to complete then tell me about only 4 ACs theory. Matter of fact, I work in a valve body manufacturing industry and the way private companies like L&T & RNEL and accumulating data regarding production capacity of casting industries makes me feel that those fellows have plans in hand to execute.

IN is dreaming very big, that's why they more inclined towards indigenization which will enable them to force future Govt to give priority to them. Chabahar & UAE ports are one of the few strategies for forcing the Govt to fund itself to evolve into 200+ ships navy.

Again .... IN is looking at 02 x CBGs in full time deployment in Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea alone. The so called power projection entailing a CBG presence in East Pacific is merely a theoretical concept. It is far from being realized as neither our economy nor our political directives, support the same.

We have absolutely no war time berthing rights in either of the ports you have mentioned ex-India.

Your 'feeling' has absolutely no correlation with what is happening on ground.

Cheers.

Spoken like a true La, La land looser - what else can one expect from an Indian.

 

[Novice09]

Sure it looks powerful on paper. Any 3 years old kid can do that with fantasy spec. I dare to bet with you after another 10 years, this ship will yet to even start sea trial.

Good for you...

By the way this scamgress is your only HOPE for delay...
Because Modi knows how to utilise private sector in India...

2019 is very crucial year for India...

There is no chance of an Indian Carrier even coming close to Karachi. Pakistan will NOT hesitate to send a battlefield size nuke exploding near a carrier group which will take out the whole Carrier groups. Pakistan has these nukes and is willing to use them. People and specially delusional Indians thinking that Pakistan will NOT do this due to the "goodness" of its heart or some Western imposed morality are living in a La, La land.

Ahhh... I was looking for someone to say "NUKE"...

SO HOW ARE you going to send BATTLEFIELD SIZED NUKE...

 

[War Thunder]

well said , and good choice of the nickname , justifies your level of comments and understanding . although you are an honest person !

Well atleast he doent resemble a dog in his profile pic.

 

[enquencher]

Can india use lhd n lpd carrier with f35b instead of acarriers.
Will these serve similar purpose and be cheaper to make n operate?
@Nilgiri @hellfire @Water Car Engineer

 

[Hellfire]

Can india use lhd carriers with f35b instead of acarriers.
Will these serve similar purpose and be cheaper to make n operate?
@Nilgiri @hellfire @Water Car Engineer

Helicopter decks? Why would we want that when we can have larger capacity with Aircraft Carriers? With LPDs, coming in, we have an alternate deck to operated VTOLs from.

As for F-35B, if we get that in, it shall be a phenomenal upgrade of technology.

 

[Novice09]

Can india use lhd carriers with f35b instead of acarriers.
Will these serve similar purpose and be cheaper to make n operate?
@Nilgiri @hellfire @Water Car Engineer

F-35 is not in picture right now... so talking about it would be waste of time...

Indian navy is really fed up with MiG 29... just wait for 2019 elections, IN may opt for Rafale too...

 

[randomradio]

BoB 1 on station
AS 1 on station
1 on outbound for rotation (when due)
1 invariably as reserve.

That is what I remember as being the aim

Any takers for a few F-35B compatible amphibious assault ships?

Again .... IN is looking at 02 x CBGs in full time deployment in Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea alone. The so called power projection entailing a CBG presence in East Pacific is merely a theoretical concept. It is far from being realized as neither our economy nor our political directives, support the same.

If 2 CBGs are expected round the clock in BoB and AS, then I guess we need 6 carriers.

2 carriers will be down for maintenance. And 1 carrier each will have to be rotated every 3 months, which will allow each carrier 6 months at sea and 6 months at home, and the only realistic way for the IN to have 2 carriers at sea throughout the year.

It would be nice to see 3 out of 8 Juan Carlos kitted out with F-35Bs to make up for the 3 carrier deficiency. That way 2 of the ships can always be available for deployment with as many as 50 F-35Bs.

 

[Hellfire]

Any takers for a few F-35B compatible amphibious assault ships?



If 2 CBGs are expected round the clock in BoB and AS, then I guess we need 6 carriers.

2 carriers will be down for maintenance. And 1 carrier each will have to be rotated every 3 months, which will allow each carrier 6 months at sea and 6 months at home, and the only realistic way for the IN to have 2 carriers at sea throughout the year.

It would be nice to see 3 out of 8 Juan Carlos kitted out with F-35Bs to make up for the 3 carrier deficiency. That way 2 of the ships can always be available for deployment with as many as 50 F-35Bs.

Ah, wishful. 4 is the near term aim. Let us see how it fructifies ...

 

[randomradio]

Ah, wishful. 4 is the near term aim. Let us see how it fructifies ...

Honestly, I believe the IN is wasting time and money going for the Rafale-M for IAC-1. The purchase and modification of the carriers and aircraft will be too expensive. I would much rather they go for modernised Mig-29Ks and invest in making the 4 LHDs F-35 compatible instead.

The Mig-29Ks are significantly cheaper, use existing infrastructure and training, and both the carriers are already compatible. I won't be surprised if the infrastructure cost of the Rafale alone will be more than the cost of procuring 57 more Mig-29Ks.

 

[Nan Yang]

SOURCE: THE NATIONAL INTEREST

The Indian Navy has put out a proposal for its third aircraft carrier, tentatively titled the Vishal due to enter service in the latter 2020s. The 65,000-ton Vishal will be significantly larger than India’s sole current carrier, the Vikramaditya known formerly as the ex-Soviet Admiral Gorshkov, and the incoming second one, the domestically-built Vikrantwhich is expected to enter service later in 2018.

The Indian Navy has put out a proposal for its third aircraft carrier, tentatively titled the Vishal due to enter service in the latter 2020s. The 65,000-ton Vishal will be significantly larger than India’s sole current carrier, the Vikramaditya known formerly as the ex-Soviet Admiral Gorshkov, and the incoming second one, the domestically-built Vikrantwhich is expected to enter service later in 2018.

The Indian Navy is searching for a foreign-sourced twin-engine fighter for the Vishal, with the U.S. F/A-18 and French Rafale in the running , and India has already ordered 36 multi-role Rafales for its air force. This is a blow to advocates of an Indian-made fighter for the carrier such as naval version of the delta-wing HAL Tejas, which is too heavy for carrier work

But regardless of what kind of fighters Vishal uses, the question is whether India really needs a third carrier, which will cost billions of dollars over its lifetime. To be sure, a third and much larger carrier will free up the burden on the Vikramaditya and Vikrant, only one of which is likely to be battle-ready at any given time.

These smaller carriers probably have fewer operational fighters than they do on paper, given that the air wings likely have serviceability rates below 100 percent. Vikramaditya by itself could have significantly less than 24 MiGs capable of flying — and fighting.

Now imagine a scenario in which these carriers go to battle.

Most likely, India would attempt to enforce a blockade of Pakistan and use its carriers to strike land-based targets. But Pakistan has several means to attack Indian carriers — with near-undetectable submarines and anti-ship missiles — which must also operate relatively far from India itself in the western and northern Arabian Sea. China does not have a similar disadvantage, as the PLAN would likely keep its carriers close and within the “first island chain” including Taiwan, closer to shore where supporting aircraft and ground-based missile launchers can help out.

Thus, Indian carriers would be relatively vulnerable and only one of them will have aircraft capable of launching with standard ordnance and fuel. And that is after Vishal sets sail in the next decade.

To directly threaten Pakistan, the small-deck carriers will have to maneuver nearer to shore — and thereby closer to “anti-access / area denial” weapons which could sink them. And even with a third carrier, the threat of land-based Pakistani aircraft will force the Indian Navy to dedicate a large proportion of its own air wings to defense — perhaps half of its available fighters, according to 2017 paper by Ben Wan Beng Ho for the Naval War College Review.

“Therefore, it is doubtful that any attack force launched from an Indian carrier would pack a significant punch,” Ho writes. “With aircraft available for strike duties barely numbering into the double digits, the Indian carrier simply cannot deliver a substantial ‘pulse’ of combat power against its adversary.”

Essentially, this makes Indian carriers’ self-defeating, with the flattops existing primarily to defend themselves from attack rather than taking the fight to their enemy. Carriers are also expensive symbols of national prestige, and it is unlikely the Indian Navy will want to risk losing one, two or all three. Under the circumstances, India’s investment in carriers makes more sense symbolically, and primarily as a way of keeping shipyards busy and shipyard workers employed.

However, this is not to entirely rule out a carrier-centric naval strategy. Ho notes that Indian carriers could be useful when operating far out at sea and in the western Arabian Sea, effectively as escort ships for commercial shipping and to harass Pakistani trade. Nevertheless, this strategy comes with a similar set of problems.

“In any attempt to impose sea control in the northern Arabian Sea and to interdict Pakistani seaborne commerce by enforcing a blockade of major Pakistani maritime nodes, Indian carrier forces would have to devote a portion of their already meager airpower to attacking Pakistani vessels, thereby exacerbating the conundrum alluded to earlier,” Ho added. “What is more, Pakistani ships are likely to operate relatively close to their nation’s coast, to be protected by Islamabad’s considerable access-denial barrier.”

Another possibility is India massing its carriers in the later stages of a war after the Army and Air Force pummel and degrade the Pakistani military.

But this raises the question as to whether India strictly needs carriers at all if it cannot use them during the decisive periods of a conflict — as opposed to, say, less-expensive warships, and more of them, equipped with long-range missiles.

The only reason India needs a carrier is because they want to be recognized as a super power. There is no other reason.