sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
Hindsight is everything @sancho! At the time the deal looked pretty good- cheap(ish) and it would be a good replacement to the ageing/aged VIRAAT and would serve the IN well for a few years until Indian built ACCs came into the fleet.
Only if we simply believed what the Russians told us, but we sent own „experts“ to evaluate the vessel and the posssible changes that must be made. It's a shame that they didn't saw how complicated this re-design will be.
The Viraat replacement was the aim, but as I said, it was operationally not needed since the benefit in war times is very limited in our threat perceptions.
POV is EVERYTHING Sancho, am I right??
IN has made its Operational DOCTRINE around atleast one CBG since 60s.
No matter what we buy "INSTEAD" of AC, how will one change the working Doctrine of an Armed force??
That depends on what basis this doctrine was made right? According to IAFs doctrine they must operate the helicopter and maritime attack fighter fleets and still 90% of us say that it doesn't make operational sense, so why should this be different?
Let's be honest, operating a carrier in IN for so long, without real blue water capabilities to project power and logistical support to greater distances the operational benefits are more than limited. For coastal defence a higher number of SSKs, or Frigats would be more useful, since there is hardly any capable threat from the Sea.
Even IF we had retired the Viraat by now, there would be anything different with INs doctrines or defence tactics. Which means, we could have easily waited for IAC 1 and developing real blue water navy capabilities and could have used the money for the Gorshkov in the meantime for more important modernisations.
Last edited by a moderator: