Second indigenous carrier a long way off: Navy Chief

[faithfulguy]

We already have a carrier in the Bay of Bengal

Veer Savarkar International Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Car Nicobar Air Force Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Put a Su 30 squadron there and you can cover the whole Bay of Bengal including the neighboring countries, which means we only need carriers for the Arabian Sea (Vikramaditya + IAC1) and bigger carriers with more range and endurance for long distance operations (IAC2 + 3)




Hi Dash, I think this is the important part, because if we aim on China, the biggest threats are their SSBNs and SSGNs, not their future carriers. A single of these subs is more than difficult to find and would need so many resources of IN, not to mention that what damage they could bring to a country with such a large costal area like India. Keep in mind that PLAN SSBNs have way more capable balistic missiles then we have, so even from long distance, they can easily take out our naval, or airforce bases, or entire cities.
On the other hand, their carriers will only be available in small numbers and combined with a battle group they are easy to find with our satellite and surveillance capabilities, especially because the way they have to come to reach India, are predictable (Strait of Malacca, or around Indonesia), a credible defence against these can be set up way easier then against the subs, because we could not only use the resources of IN, but also land based fighters and aircrafts of IAF against them.
It is also the same, if we think about offensive tactics! IF IN would have to attack China, SSBNs and SSGNs are the most important assets that we have, for the same reasons (hard to detect, available in higher numbers, with a more deadly payload), while IAC2 will be the secondary and more conventional assets, in case we have to deploy fighters to a greater distance.
Vikramaditya and IAC1 are more meant for possible conflicts with Pakistan, because they can cover the Arabian Sea, would pose an air threat to their costline and more importantly the carriers could gain sea control and cut supply routes of oil and weapons. Again if we put China in this situation, any assistance of them would be by sending subs with weapons, Oil, or spares, because cargo ships and other surface vessels would be to easy to intercept for IN.

subs are good for attacking countries far away and has preempt attack capability. India and China are next door neighbors so India do not need any subs against China. India just need to build a large quantity of land base deterrent, like how China is build up their missile bases close to Tibet. If India do desire to attack America, than ICBM on subs in the way to go. Do India plan to attack America?

 

[axisofevil]

subs are good for attacking countries far away and has preempt attack capability. India and China are next door neighbors so India do not need any subs against China. India just need to build a large quantity of land base deterrent, like how China is build up their missile bases close to Tibet. If India do desire to attack America, than ICBM on subs in the way to go. Do India plan to attack America?

Sry after seeing your other posts.....I don't believe you will post anything in favor of INdia....if you are saying this then the opposite is true....Indians Take notice!!!

 

[Kinetic]

One aircraft carrier is equal to or more than entire surface fleet of a regional navy without carrier. Carriers are usually offensive and power projection tools, if used effectively can change the course of war. We need minimum three carriers battle ready anytime.

 

[sancho]

subs are good for attacking countries far away and has preempt attack capability. India and China are next door neighbors so India do not need any subs against China. India just need to build a large quantity of land base deterrent, like how China is build up their missile bases close to Tibet. If India do desire to attack America, than ICBM on subs in the way to go. Do India plan to attack America?

Of course we need, because the land border is only to Tibet and all major military, governmeant, or industry is on their eastern side, out of reach for our forces so far. That's why we need longer range ballistic missiles and SSBNs for a real nuclear triade and a credible deterrence against China.

One aircraft carrier is equal to or more than entire surface fleet of a regional navy without carrier. Carriers are usually offensive and power projection tools, if used effectively can change the course of war. We need minimum three carriers battle ready anytime.

Depending on the opponent and the targets! A single carrier will not be able to detect 10 SSNs at the same time, while a larger surface and MPA fleet, is more useful here. Also without SSNs that escorts the carriers, there is no point in projecting the power to longer distances with carriers, no no matter what, the base is a capable sub fleet.

 

[Dash]

Hi Dash, I think this is the important part, because if we aim on China, the biggest threats are their SSBNs and SSGNs, not their future carriers. A single of these subs is more than difficult to find and would need so many resources of IN, not to mention that what damage they could bring to a country with such a large costal area like India. Keep in mind that PLAN SSBNs have way more capable balistic missiles then we have, so even from long distance, they can easily take out our naval, or airforce bases, or entire cities.On the other hand, their carriers will only be available in small numbers and combined with a battle group they are easy to find with our satellite and surveillance capabilities, especially because the way they have to come to reach India, are predictable (Strait of Malacca, or around Indonesia), a credible defence against these can be set up way easier then against the subs, because we could not only use the resources of IN, but also land based fighters and aircrafts of IAF against them.
It is also the same, if we think about offensive tactics! IF IN would have to attack China, SSBNs and SSGNs are the most important assets that we have, for the same reasons (hard to detect, available in higher numbers, with a more deadly payload), while IAC2 will be the secondary and more conventional assets, in case we have to deploy fighters to a greater distance.
Vikramaditya and IAC1 are more meant for possible conflicts with Pakistan, because they can cover the Arabian Sea, would pose an air threat to their costline and more importantly the carriers could gain sea control and cut supply routes of oil and weapons. Again if we put China in this situation, any assistance of them would be by sending subs with weapons, Oil, or spares, because cargo ships and other surface vessels would be to easy to intercept for IN.

First bold thing -
When you dont have good SSBNs or SLBMs to hit their ports or cities, You have to rely on ACs to carry your bombers to a distance to bomb the cities. Its a little risky but yet has advantages as you cant specifically bomb a moving target.

Second bold thing -

Thats the reason we are building ACs for east costs primarily. The ACs we are building are manily sea lane protectors and not very much offensive carriers with 100 aircrafts. You get advantage in securing these important routes in times of war.

I see advantages. I will say its an over expense if we build more than 5 ACs. For China 5 ACs, some 20 subs and 12 P8Is are good to give them a sea denial.

 

[axisofevil]

First bold thing -
When you dont have good SSBNs or SLBMs to hit their ports or cities, You have to rely on ACs to carry your bombers to a distance to bomb the cities. Its a little risky but yet has advantages as you cant specifically bomb a moving target.

Second bold thing -

Thats the reason we are building ACs for east costs primarily. The ACs we are building are manily sea lane protectors and not very much offensive carriers with 100 aircrafts. You get advantage in securing these important routes in times of war.

I see advantages. I will say its an over expense if we build more than 5 ACs. For China 5 ACs, some 20 subs and 12 P8Is are good to give them a sea denial.

The solution is to put more resources into developing the tech we lack....by that I mean money, brainpower, tech theft, whatever. Having a narrow vision as to sea denial only will be our greatest downfall....there is no such thing as limited warfare with stronger or as strong powers......you are fooling yourself to think we only need sea denial. In fact that will be the death of us if we think like you.....5 AC's is too much when the sub numbers are too bloody small.....most of the subs will be used to protect the bloody AC's

 

[jha]

Vikramaditya and IAC1 are more meant for possible conflicts with Pakistan

One carrier is more than enough for the above... One CBG with full support will block Arabian sea completely...

 

[jha]

The solution is to put more resources into developing the tech we lack....by that I mean money, brainpower, tech theft, whatever. Having a narrow vision as to sea denial only will be our greatest downfall....there is no such thing as limited warfare with stronger or as strong powers......you are fooling yourself to think we only need sea denial. In fact that will be the death of us if we think like you.....5 AC's is too much when the sub numbers are too bloody small.....most of the subs will be used to protect the bloody AC's

Finally someone thinks just like me..There is no need to keep building ACs...Subs are the top most priority...

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

People Simply say's buy Sub instead of AC..... they need understand the scanerio.... Then why US, UK, Russia, China etc wants to keep AC floating... if everything is achivable by Sub and we don't need AC for Pak our cruise missile is more than enough..... After the American raid we can make out how Active is PAK Defence.

3 AC is more than enough now.... I don't think anyone will dare to go WAR with India.

 

[axisofevil]

People Simply say's buy Sub instead of AC..... they need understand the scanerio.... Then why US, UK, Russia, China etc wants to keep AC floating... if everything is achivable by Sub and we don't need AC for Pak our cruise missile is more than enough..... After the American raid we can make out how Active is PAK Defence.

3 AC is more than enough now.... I don't think anyone will dare to go WAR with India.

Did you forget how recent KArgil was? Nobody is saying don't buy AC's ...we are saying limit it to 3 or 4 that's it. UK and France has one. US has had a strategy of AC's for 50 plus years. Consider the new advances to take out AC's....they are sitting duck. In India's own experience, our AC was being hunted by Pakistan...we were only lucky it did not get taken out. Subs are most important priority.

 

[axisofevil]

Finally someone thinks just like me..There is no need to keep building ACs...Subs are the top most priority...

Dude sometimes I get so pissed at what our fellow indians say....they simply like to go for big ticket items that aren;t very helpful in our situation. We need to really have a strategic vision....which is sorely lacking in the defense establishment. The proof is the past 30 plus years.

 

[IndianArmy]

subs are good for attacking countries far away and has preempt attack capability. India and China are next door neighbors so India do not need any subs against China. India just need to build a large quantity of land base deterrent, like how China is build up their missile bases close to Tibet. If India do desire to attack America, than ICBM on subs in the way to go. Do India plan to attack America?

Subs are good for attacking countries far away?? Thats certainly not the case, Subs are best used to give the element of Surprise to the enemy nearby reaching him with Stealth and Speed... Land Based Deterrence is Certainly not an area where The Indian Navy Must Drill deep into... The Indian Navy has no intentions to set sail for America, Its hostile Peripherals Lies well within Asia... And as is said, the more offensive capabilities you get the Better Defense you gain... Air craft Carriers are must For a Country which is being necklaced by string of Pearls... A deterrence is a Must to break any active chain....

 

[sancho]

First bold thing -
When you dont have good SSBNs or SLBMs to hit their ports or cities, You have to rely on ACs to carry your bombers to a distance to bomb the cities. Its a little risky but yet has advantages as you cant specifically bomb a moving target./QUOTE]

That's why we are pushing the SSBN development and even if the missiles have not the range yet, it just means that we have to get closer to the target, while beeing submerged and hard to detect.

A carrier send to China will be easily detected and with their superioirty of surface vessels as well SSNs, it will be an easy target. Again, without the neccesary subs for protection any carrier is vulnerable and PLAN subs even surfaced alongside US carriers without beeing detected of their CBG, which shows how difficult it is to defend a carrier.

Second bold thing -

Thats the reason we are building ACs for east costs primarily. The ACs we are building are manily sea lane protectors and not very much offensive carriers with 100 aircrafts. You get advantage in securing these important routes in times of war.

True, but we have no real opponent navy in the Indian Ocean that could compete with IN, even without a carrier. That means Sea Control in these areas can be achieved otherwise as well, or at least without many carries.

Carriers have their duties in IN of course, but for the most important threat that we have (which are PLANs and PNs subs), more hunter subs are the better choice, just like for a better deterrance against China, SSBNs are more important.

 

[Dash]

One carrier is more than enough for the above... One CBG with full support will block Arabian sea completely...

Jha - No matter what you do, how much you try you can not add subs to your fleet. More than 5 years after Scorpene deal?, do we have a sub???..No Coz building sub is difficult than building surface vessels.

Until then we will have to sit and relax, till the day we get complete knowledge of building a sub. Until then Build ACs, coz no matter what you try you cant build subs..period.

 

[sancho]

Jha - No matter what you do, how much you try you can not add subs to your fleet. More than 5 years after Scorpene deal?, do we have a sub???..No Coz building sub is difficult than building surface vessels.

Until then we will have to sit and relax, till the day we get complete knowledge of building a sub. Until then Build ACs, coz no matter what you try you cant build subs..period.

Why not simply procure them from the vendor countires? They have the know how and can produce them even faster then we could, while licece production could be added later.