INS Vikrant truly a pan Indian effort

[shiv]

We dont need one... Our missiles and air force are enough to repel India... But what about India... So much poverty... And buys huge white elephant projects..

hmm.. i guess u guys dont need bicycle handles as well cause you guys dont produce even that !

 

[rafiqali]

Let me put it across in simple terms.

Consider the sea as a chess board. You have pawns, knights, castle, bishop etc.... Castle can move straight, bishop can move diagonally, pawn can move only one step forward and can attact only one step diagonally.

The Queen is the most powerful piece in the board because it can move both Diagonally and straight. It can control more squares in the chess board when placed strategically. It's move are usually decisive and strategic.

ACC at sea is like the Queen on the chess board.

Now there are various kinds of plays ...... one in which Queen is used to distract while the attack is really from a different front, One in which Queen forms the main attack, one in which Queen is sacrificed for a strategic gain ....but all chess players acknowledge the importance of the queen in the game and they continue to treat the enemy queen as a game changer.

The Bishop, knight, pawn etc ... are like the destroyers, frigates, submarines, missile boats etc..

Of course all this is useful only if you know how to play chess. I am pretty sure you do.

Those who have, take care to hide it.

Those who don't, tom tom their powers.

I like to play Chess, but with stealthy, unanticipated moves. My choice of piece would be a stealthy Nuke powered sub.

3 ACs with not much to go with it is just like a high profile target magnet. Think of the massive psychological blow if an AC is sunk on the 2nd day.

I m trying to learn, but the "experts" don't turn out to be what they pretend they are. So now I ask enemies because they know the weaknesses.

Your words I always value.

 

[shiv]

Those who have, take care to hide it.

Those who don't, tom tom their powers.

I like to play Chess, but with stealthy, unanticipated moves. My choice of piece would be a stealthy Nuke powered sub.

3 ACs with not much to go with it is just like a high profile target magnet. Think of the massive psychological blow if an AC is sunk on the 2nd day.

I m trying to learn, but the "experts" don't turn out to be what they pretend they are. So now I ask enemies because they know the weaknesses.

Your words I always value.

Well the difference between a game of chess and international politics is, there is nothing called a defeat per se in the latter case.

The threat of using the ACCs are much more of a deterrent than the actual use itself. And it takes courage and clever planning to stand upto it.

Eg. in 1971, we didn't give a rats a$$ to USN ACC Enterprise, their pride of the navy, The Jewel of the 7th Fleet. That doesn't mean we had any answer for it if in case they had to use it but we made sure the stakes are quite high and the cost of using it would surmount the cost they have to bear if pakistan was pissed with them for inadequate support !

That is what Russia also did in Georgia ! While US was training their special forces for years but they simple disintegrated on face of a superior trained army and US didnt bother to intervene except for token verbal support !

 

[sankranti]

Those who have, take care to hide it.

Those who don't, tom tom their powers.

I like to play Chess, but with stealthy, unanticipated moves. My choice of piece would be a stealthy Nuke powered sub.

3 ACs with not much to go with it is just like a high profile target magnet. Think of the massive psychological blow if an AC is sunk on the 2nd day.

I m trying to learn, but the "experts" don't turn out to be what they pretend they are. So now I ask enemies because they know the weaknesses.

Your words I always value.

If the enemy has capability to sink 2 AC in 2nd day of war then it is foolish to go to war with such a powerful enemy. Its better to negotiate a 'friendship' with such a nation and bid our time till we can become powerful enough to fight him/them. (assuming there is something worth fighting for)

Each Carrier fleet is like a chessboard. Having two carrier fleet is like having 2 chess board, playing simultaneously and one where pieces can jump boards.

Three-dimensional chess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Its pointless to ask how a ACC will be deployed because like in chess, the position of the queen depends on the move the opponent makes.

 

[rafiqali]

Well the difference between a game of chess and international politics is, there is nothing called a defeat per se in the latter case.

The threat of using the ACCs are much more of a deterrent than the actual use itself. And it takes courage and clever planning to stand upto it.

Eg. in 1971, we didn't give a rats a$$ to USN ACC Enterprise, their pride of the navy, The Jewel of the 7th Fleet. That doesn't mean we had any answer for it if in case they had to use it but we made sure the stakes are quite high and the cost of using it would surmount the cost they have to bear if pakistan was pissed with them for inadequate support !

That is what Russia also did in Georgia ! While US was training their special forces for years but they simple disintegrated on face of a superior trained army and US didnt bother to intervene except for token verbal support !

Any references for that? I think we gave more than a Rat's ***. It was the USSR which told the US fleet to lay off.

As for threat of ACC as a deterrent, supports what I said all along. ACCs are good for bullying small countries. Don't try that with China though.

 

[shiv]

Any references for that? I think we gave more than a Rat's ***. It was the USSR which told the US fleet to lay off.

As for threat of ACC as a deterrent, supports what I said all along. ACCs are good for bullying small countries. Don't try that with China though.

its not the geographical size of the country which matters .. it the size of the strategic footprint it has in a particular region !

In case of a war with China, we can not only press ACCs near the andamans but we also press one in persian gulf ! The strategic foot print of CHina is quite less in that region !

 

[rafiqali]

its not the geographical size of the country which matters .. it the size of the strategic footprint it has in a particular region !

In case of a war with China, we can not only press ACCs near the andamans but we also press one in persian gulf ! The strategic foot print of CHina is quite less in that region !

Oh! you mean we will block the shipping lanes? How does it help us?

And won't it be better to block the lanes with a few stealth subs -- cheaper but more dangerous.

 

[shiv]

Oh! you mean we will block the shipping lanes? How does it help us?

And won't it be better to block the lanes with a few stealth subs -- cheaper but more dangerous.

An ACC will have an accompanying sub as well !

 

[anant_s]

We gonna need a bigger ACC for that. I think maybe by the time we get IAC III or IV we would get it. But then again, by that time there might me a newer smaller version of the E-2D have come out. So for now I am happy with what we have. Plus the P8I are beast on their own even if they can't be used from an ACC, they can cover IOR pretty well considering we are getting 7-8 if I am not wrong.

I believe Ship borne bigger fighters and surviellance planes will come into picture from IAC 2 onwards only which i guess are not equipped with Ski jump ramp. If CATOBAR is adopted (which i'm sure navy is interested in), India can negotiate a deal with US administration involving 5th gen fighters, EMALS and E 2Ds (or its variant) and make the already formidable ship even more effective.
P 8Is are in a class of their own, but with long terms plans of 3-4 ACs, it is quite imperative that India sees the CBGs for a far bigger role that just patrolling IOR. In this context bigger planes with be a crucial part of the group.

btw does anyone have a reliable information on, if F 35C is indeed offered to us?

 

[rafiqali]

Now we all know that IN have a long ambition of becoming a true blue water navy...and we all know what is really needed for being one...Of-course AC are here for power projection but that is what nuclear weapons/BM/ASAT weapons are for...no??

Thats what I m asking . What for? What are India's strategic interests in being a true Blue Water navy? Do we have any example...even one example of a power which was both a land and a sea power? Is it sustainable even?

and just like AC lot of money is spent on possessing/maintaing these weapons as well...so to be quiet honest money is not a concern..

.

Sorry! Money is certainly a great concern. India's def budget hasn't grown in real terms in 2013-14 due to fund constraints. When you have competing demands, it is surely right to question if a Billion dollar AC is what we should invest on.

You also mentioned about the fact that we lack better tanks etc etc and money should be spent on those....well, how naive of you...Are you suggesting here that money that was meant for upgrading tanks and other weapons in your list have been taken and moved towards AC's?? you can't be more wrong than that....

As I said, money does not grow on trees. There are always competing demands.

Anyhow let's try to anwer your basic question...why does IN wants AC

- Power projection(not just limited to Pakistan/China)
- Achieve Blue water Navy role
- With growing commercial interests in the China sea, as well for everlasting presence in Arabian sea(future need)

Im asking again. What are the strategic goals?

- As said earlier prime role of our AC is to protect our naval ships from Enemy Air attack and also launch limited attacks against enemy feets and coastal targets(have been exibited in 71 war)..

Wrong again? It is ACs which need protection. Not the other way round.

A carrier battle group (CVBG) consists of an aircraft carrier (designated CV) and its escorts, together comprising the group.

Indian carrier battle group
The centrepiece of the Indian carrier battle group is currently the INS Viraat, an updated Centaur-class light carrier originally built for the Royal Navy as HMS Hermes, which was laid down in 1944 and commissioned in 1959. It was purchased by India in 1986. India will commission a second aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, in 2012 and will follow this with a third carrier, INS Vikrant 2, in 2015. Whilst INS Vikramaditya is a former Soviet Kiev-class aircraft carrier, the Admiral Gorshkov, the Vikrant will be the first indigenous Indian aircraft carrier. India eventually will have 3 Carrier battle groups by 2017 (Viraat, Vikramaditya, Vikrant 2).[8][9]
The Indian Navy's CBG usually consists of two destroyers (usually of the Delhi class, previously Kashins were used) and two or more frigates, (usually a combination of Brahmaputra, Talwar or Shivalik classes) and one support ship.

Are you seriously suggesting that the AC is deployed to protect those 4 frigates and destroyers?

- Think about a task where your goal is to invade and occupy an Islant in Indian Ocean
- throw in couple of amphibious landing ships(another aspect which is work in progress)
- Your AC will act as a force multiplier of humungous magnitude..

Yes. that's a valid use. Remember I quoted Maldives, Mauritius etc

- They also act as a Second Strike capability and add another string to so called nucear triad...very important in our perspective as we are surrounded by 2 potential nuclear adversaries who are "all weather friends"...In other words our threat perception is of huge proportion and we may face a so called two frontal war scenario....it is no rocket science that you need to be prepared for the worst...

Come on now! AC is useless in nuclear war. For 2nd strike you need stealth subs . ACs are not nuke launch platforms.

- Last but not the least...AC is a mean to provide/sell security to smaller neighboring countries and to protect vital shipping lanes...

Selling part I agree.

An ACC will have an accompanying sub as well !

Address my first point also.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Oh! you mean we will block the shipping lanes? How does it help us?

And won't it be better to block the lanes with a few stealth subs -- cheaper but more dangerous.

Nope you are wrong in that scenario also. This way we will be drawing out the Chinese from their turf to fight on our terms where we hold the advantage and are supported by both shore based and sea based aircraft. Subs are good but they dont know when they have been targeted from the air. The SSN are the major tactical asset and is the one that fights long distance wars and the SSK are more for littoral combat and does not have the range to remain stealthy because they need to surface every once in a few days to fill up their air tanks and recharge their batteries. And none of the SSK can do a 30 kts when they are submerged or even when they are surfaced.

But the ACC has fighter aircrafts and ASW helicopters along with AEW helicopters too which has ranges more than 500 kms and also carry AShM, Heavy torpedoes and Depth charges along with sonobuoys that are dropped and dipping sonars. The area of around 300 Kms diameter will always be under surveillance of the CBG. Add to it the destroyers and Frigates along with the SSN that will be accompanying the carrier in it's mission thus making a full compliment of the three dimensional strike force that can both project power and take the fight to the enemy anywhere in the IOR.

And dont bring in that Gary Brecher and his rants on war nerd. That armchair general has no idea about what he is talking about most of the time. ACC are a potent component along with the CBG and brings in more versatility to the planning table than just a single sub. An aircraft will always be faster than a destroyer any given day and faster than a sub at any given time.

 

[senkakudefender]

INS Vikrat is more of a Helicopter Carrier..,

And thats why because of envy you will never be able to make a single LPD indigenously. This beauty can fly Mig 29Ks and Naval LCA. Suck on it dear Sir.

My respects

 

[AADHAAR]

Think of it as an forward operating base anywhere in the Indian ocean region. And the worst part is it can move wherever it wants. Taking down a FOB is a difficult task. Taking down an FOB when you dont know where it is is even difficult.

Plus AC can provide air cover to other warships such as destroyers etc, which themselves don't have their own air cover.

With AC we fight can force the enemy warships to fight on the high seas; otherwise we could end up fighting them in the Bay of Bengal - not a great proposition at all.

 

[GURU DUTT]

well the thread is about INC Vikrant and indian industry helping it taking shape and its impact on the strategick scenario

well first thing = india is using ACCs for almost 5 decades or more and knows the ropes and IN is quite comfortable and prepaired to go into the next phase= true blue water capabilities

SSK & SSBN & SSN are indeed power projection tools but ACC reins supreme and there is almost nothing that owr immideate & potential enemies can do about countring it since india right now has Viraat very soon Vikramaditya will join and in a couple of years Vikrant will be there aswell and make no mistake they all will never be deployed beyond bay of bengal in the east , indian ocean in the south and arabian sea in the west and to chek the trafic from mallacka straits we have the unsinkable andaman & nicobar islands which can have more fire power than all three IN ACC combined + more and it is very well placed and a couple of squads of MKIs on it with a bunch of P8Is and a couple of phalcons can keep even whole chinese and some smaller navies at bay

thirdli indian ACCs will have always the backing of shore based aircrafts as we have a very big land mass and can control sea lines of pakistan, sri lanka , bangladesh and burma withowt even taking owt owr ACC/CBGs into the water

so the point is why are owr naighbours so vocal about how bad vikrant and vikrmaditya are ...can some body clear my thoughts ...thanks

 

[GR!FF!N]

@rafiqali

bro...don't talk bullsh!t..India has a huge coastline to cover.and Carrier fleet always comes handy for fleet defence.you can't rely on other country for defence,right???Every Arm needs their own Air Fleet to cover their strength.e.g.,we've a decent airforce.but then why IA is inducting their own helo fleet??just for autonomy.India has an ambition to become Blue water navy.also,it is particularly needed when we've a huge numbers of islands to cover.you're assuming that southern air fleet can even bomb the Karachi harbour without breaking a sweat.on paper,its true.but what happen if they already wiped out several hundreds of aircraft of IA in preemptive strike??how IAF is going to provide cover for IN??you donot even understand the concept of Air Defence Ship,yet making huge noises..no wonder you'll be tagged as a troll.you're a newbie here.try to read Senior Members' posts than engaging in futile argument.

as for fund redirection on other projects,we're not short of funds.we've huge number of obsolete hardware to replace.for that,time will be needed.if you try to know how many induction projects are going on simultaneously,you'll get a heart attack.its not like we yell "Submarine",and there will be Submarine.it'll take around 8 years to make a Sub,around 10 years to make a Aircraft Carrier,around 15-20 years to develop and induct an Aircraft,around 7-10 years to make a new tank.yelling that we don't have this or we don't have that willn't help.what do you think,those who are command of these forces are fool??they're far too practical than you'll ever know..

I advice you to read others post than making a mess in this thread,also advising not to quote chinese members here..they're well known for trolling.