Navy needs more Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups

[Nirvana]

IAC-1 by 2014 and IAC-2 by 2017 seems unlikely. At best, both IAC-1 and 2 will be in service by 2020, 2015 at best for IAC-1. If you ask me, 3 are enough for India'a current threats. But the Navy definitely needs to think about what it wants to do 50 years from now.

The 2014 and 2017 for IAC-1 & 2 Were Initial Timeframe's which are Not Possible Now , I doubt we Will have IAC-2 In service By 2020 if they go for CATOBAR Carrier Design with EMALS Which is Likely

 

[perplexed]

First let the navy and defence ministry and shipyards churn out one submarine a year and take care of that dimension, if they can do that then we can concentrate on more aircraft carriers. And that too, only if there is a real, articulated need, and not on the basis of a bunch of emotional hot air that this author has given (like making India like the one in Kauilya's dream - as if aircraft carriers figured anywhere in his dreams).

Even pakistan has an edge over us in submarines, and will likely have it for the better part of this decade. Each sub that is added will bring tremendously more punch for money than more aircraft carriers. India does need three ACs, but no more - especially if one of them is going to be in the 65KT class as planned.

Exactly, I think more emphasis should be on mastering submarine tech + anti sub warfare. Its a fact that both PLAN and PN are investing their resources in subs. So, our resources better be planned against the most probable enemy.

 

[Rusty]

I don't see the point of India having an Aircraft Carrier.
A/Cs biggest purpose is power projections, so that you can get to a far away enemy. But all of India's rivals are close by.
Also if India does want to send and A/C to a far away place they need an entire armada to defend it, otherwise it's a sitting duck.

They are thus extremely expensive to maintain as well.

 

[sancho]

Carriers are meant to project the power, in Indias case to secure our costlines and the areas of interest in the Indian ocean, that's what Gorshkov and IAC1 will be meant for in the first place.
IAC 2 and followers will be meant to project Indias defence capabilities to even greater distances, mainly with China and future areas of interest in eastern Asia in mind.
However, the most important additions to IN will be SSNs and SSBNs, because they will be important to defend our carrierers and fulfill our nulcear traid, which is the most important point to have a credible deterrance against China. Add more ASW capability to the fleet (MPAs, SSKs, Corvettes, Frigats and helicopter carrier) and IN will have a strong defence capability agains PLAN + superiority in the Indian Ocean.

 

[Nirvana]

I don't see the point of India having an Aircraft Carrier.
A/Cs biggest purpose is power projections, so that you can get to a far away enemy. But all of India's rivals are close by.
Also if India does want to send and A/C to a far away place they need an entire armada to defend it, otherwise it's a sitting duck.

They are thus extremely expensive to maintain as well.

The Main Reason is to Protect Vital Sea Lanes from Arabian Sea to Strait of Malacca , And to Keep Power Projection Over Indian Ocean for Which 3 Carriers are Must and are on way

 

[janon]

I don't see the point of India having an Aircraft Carrier.
A/Cs biggest purpose is power projections, so that you can get to a far away enemy. But all of India's rivals are close by.
Also if India does want to send and A/C to a far away place they need an entire armada to defend it, otherwise it's a sitting duck.

They are thus extremely expensive to maintain as well.

That's not entirely true. Power projection is not the only purpose of an AC. Especially for medium sized carriers like these, the main role is naval warfare. With its aircrafts and other supporting ships, a carrier battle group can annihilate less powerful navies, and establish complete ocean supremacy in that region. Most small naval task forces will flee from an approaching CBG. Imagine the range of mig 29Ks operating from a carrier - they can go out and pound enemy ships long before the enemy ships even detect the CBG. They can attack enemy shores too, like the Sea hawks operating from Vikrant did in '71, but thats not the main purpose for the Indian navy.

So ACs will be an invaluable asset to the IN for establishing naval supremacy in the Indian ocean region. For that, 3 CGBs are more than enough. For true power projection on distant shores, we would need supercarriers like the US has, with close to a hundred combat aircraft on each, and a huge fleet of supporting ships. That should in no way be India's priority now, as India does not have such strategic ambitions. Three medium sized carriers, with maybe one 65KT class carrier for modest power projection in the IOR is all that the navy needs.

 

[pmukherjee]

Who wrote this? Sources? Links?

The defence of India's coast line and maritime territory including island territories is not solely the job of the IN. Yes, it is the primary task of the IN but when required, shore based fighter resources will be used against targets in range and the IAF trains for that. The ranges of Indian fighters are such that the entire Bay of Bengal is within range of shore based fighters. Same is the case with the Northern Arabian Sea, our Sukhois can take off from airbase in Gujarat, land at Muskat and return without having to refuel. Having mid air refuelers further extend the range of these fighters. Sukhois from Mumbai can strike targets on the Horn of Africa and be refueled on their way back. Sukhois based in the Andamans will totally dominate the Malacca Straits without having to be refueled, we will have at least one squadron there within the year. Dammit, we can even strike targets on Madagascar with a bit of midair refueling. The carriers that India will soon have will each have a squadron and a half of Mig 29Ks abroad. That is about 30 Mig 29Ks with the range of about 2000Kms. This will give us the capability of concentrating an awesome airpower far beyond our shores. I think that with three carriers, we are very well poised to meet any exigency. Three carriers will ensure that at any time we will have at least two operational with the third getting refitted of repaired. That is one for each seaboard.

Don't look at the problem as a problem of the IN only in isolation. Look at it as a problem to be resolved by utilising our air assets as best as we can. The Indian Naval aviation wing does not fight in isolation, it has the support of all shore based air assets in range and that is a phenomenal lot of air assets unless the CBGs are somewhere deep south in the Indian Ocean or in the western Pacific. If we send the IN into the western Pacific, it will not be one CBG alone, you can bet on that.

We do not stop making carriers after the IAC 2, it is just that the funds for subsequent carriers have not been allocated yet.

 

[Nirvana]

Carriers are meant to project the power, in Indias case to secure our costlines and the areas of interest in the Indian ocean, that's what Gorshkov and IAC1 will be meant for in the first place.
IAC 2 and followers will be meant to project Indias defence capabilities to even greater distances, mainly with China and future areas of interest in eastern Asia in mind.
However, the most important additions to IN will be SSNs and SSBNs, because they will be important to defend our carrierers and fulfill our nulcear traid, which is the most important point to have a credible deterrance against China. Add more ASW capability to the fleet (MPAs, SSKs, Corvettes, Frigats and helicopter carrier) and IN will have a strong defence capability agains PLAN + superiority in the Indian Ocean.

We Are Lagging In Submarine Fleet

Along 3 SSBN's Planned , we Need an Indigenous Production Line of SSGN's [Comparable with Leased Akula II] Atleast 6 of them.
Our Defence Brass Did Planned SSN Derivative of ATV Way back in 90's,the plan which later got hit due to Sanctions thus Leasing of Akula !

With 6 Scorpene's SSK [Possible 6 More] and 6 SSK Under P75 I [More Advanced Scorpene can be a Good Choice Considering TOT Of Scorpene's]

 

[ILLUMINATO]

What about developing indigenous nuclear AC as our third AC ??

 

[Nirvana]

What about developing indigenous nuclear AC as our third AC ??

Navy has Ruled out Nuclear Power for its Future AC's

 

[pmukherjee]

What about developing indigenous nuclear AC as our third AC ??

A number of factors need to be considered here. It is not just about making one, we will be able to make a nuclear powered carrier, no doubts about that. But do we need one? Nuclear powered carriers are phenomenally expensive and what advantage do they give you? Longer range before refueling, theoretically infinite range. They can therefore remain operational for longer periods without needing a break. But are all the warships in the carrier battle group nuclear powered? No. So, while the carrier itself can go on and on and on, one has to refuel the accompanying warships frequently. Then the humans abroad the CBG are not nuclear powered and they need frequent replenishment. There is a limit to how long food stuff can be stocked abroad. Ask any soldier what he thinks of the canned food on high altitude posts where they are stocked in the summer to last out the winters.

So, despite the nuclear powered carrier, the CBG has to stop in friendly ports frequently to replenish and refuel as the carrier can't go on alone. What is the point of incurring phenomenal expenditure and make a nuclear powered carrier when the main advantage that it gives you, is negated by its non nuclear companions. The second point is that why do we need a nuclear powered carrier at all? Are we planning to send it to the Atlantic? Or the South Pacific? One nuke carrier will use up the entire budget of the IN leaving nothing for anything else.

 

[sancho]

We Are Lagging In Submarine Fleet

Along 3 SSBN's Planned , we Need an Indigenous Production Line of SSGN's [Comparable with Leased Akula II] Atleast 6 of them.
Our Defence Brass Did Planned SSN Derivative of ATV Way back in 90's,the plan which later got hit due to Sanctions thus Leasing of Akula !

With 6 Scorpene's SSK [Possible 6 More] and 6 SSK Under P75 I [More Advanced Scorpene can be a Good Choice Considering TOT Of Scorpene's]

Actually the Nerpa is not an SSGN but an SSN, since it don't have the capability to launch guided missiles via vertical launchers or so, it's a hunter sub that could be used with Klub S missiles via torpedo tubes though. IN is also developing SSNs next to the SSBNs, my concern is the slow progress in the SSK fleet. Scorpenes delayed, Project 75 under evaluation for a long time, but no real progress here too. I don't understand why IN puts a higher focus on anphibious vessels than on credible ASW capability, because that is imo the most important field for Indias maritime defence.

What about developing indigenous nuclear AC as our third AC ??

Expensive to operate and only useful if you have a CBG that can be supported for the same endurance, because a carrier will go nowhere without it's CBG and whey they don't get enough fuel and have to return, the nuclear carrier must do it too.
Nuclear propulsions are useful mainly for blue water sub operations and super carriers, the size of carriers that IN is focusing on, might be better suited with conventional propulsions.

 

[Babur Han]

Now, leave one carrier group for the relevant areas of the Southern Indian Ocean, such as protecting shipping or infiltration around the Maldives or south of Sri Lanka, and we have a total minimum need for five CBGs at the very minimum just to firmly defend India’s vast coastline. Remember, India is not a small country, and large countries have large responsibilities, unless they want to be chiseled into smaller pieces. Force projection into the South China Sea to protect ONGC assets and exploration there, beef up presence at Na Thrang which is just across from China’s large naval base at Hainan island, and coordination with the navies of South East Asia require at least one more CBG; and protecting our western sea lanes from where 60% of India’s trade passes, including countering piracy and future threats from countries supporting Pakistan in the far west Arabian sea and Seychelles, where China recently expressed urgent interest, suggest one more CBG, taking a desirable force to seven aircraft carrier battle groups.

I'm sure the here in the Article arabian Gulf States as well Turkey could be meaned !

 

[Skull and Bones]

5-6 Aircrafts sounds reasonable, with 2 nuclear powered ACs atleast. Along with that, we need more nuke powered Subs as a sea based nuclear asset. Only 3 Arihant class subs in not enough.

Given that we can't match China in terms on Land force or air power, maintaining a credible offensive Navy is the only way out.

 

[janon]

5-6 Aircrafts sounds reasonable, with 2 nuclear powered ACs atleast. Along with that, we need more nuke powered Subs as a sea based nuclear asset. Only 3 Arihant class subs in not enough.

Given that we can't match China in terms on Land force or air power, maintaining a credible offensive Navy is the only way out.

Actually its the navy that we won't be able to match them with. They already have close to 80 submarines and are churning out subs and surface vessels like hot cakes from their shipyards. The good news is that geographically the navies are so far separated that neither of them can threaten the other in the other's backyard. We will soon have credible deterrent capability against them in air and land forces, if all aquisitions and capability building go according to plan.