the effectiveness of the aircraft carrier

[zeeshuisb]

Pakistan doesnot need any aircraft carrier. instead pakistan need one or two amphibious assault ships or LHD's for naval force projection

 

[JK!]

You have to take into consideration that carriers are the nucleus of a large battle group that will include frigates, destroyers and submarines.

If Pakistan were to go for a carrier right now then most of the existing fleet would have to be used just to defend the carrier.

 

[zeeshuisb]

Read This

Military experts such as John Keegan have noted that in any future naval conflict between reasonably evenly matched powers, all surface ships—including aircraft carriers—would be at extreme and disproportionate risk, mainly due to the advanced capabilities of satellite reconnaissance and anti-ship missiles. Contrary to the thrust of most current naval spending, Keegan therefore postulates that eventually most navies will move to submarines as their main fighting ships, including in roles where submarines play only a minor or no role at the moment.

 

[iamunique]

Read This

Military experts such as John Keegan have noted that in any future naval conflict between reasonably evenly matched powers, all surface ships—including aircraft carriers—would be at extreme and disproportionate risk, mainly due to the advanced capabilities of satellite reconnaissance and anti-ship missiles. Contrary to the thrust of most current naval spending, Keegan therefore postulates that eventually most navies will move to submarines as their main fighting ships, including in roles where submarines play only a minor or no role at the moment.

I fully agree with the point mentioned in the above article.

In fact, I'm of the view that an aircraft carrier battle group serves no valuable purpose to India in the current scenario wherein Pakistan has sophisticated missiles and nuclear weapons, because:
a) In the event of war the Indian a/c carrier/s will be the first to be targetted with ballistic or cruise missile armed with/without nuclear warheads. The loss of such a major naval asset will be a great demoralising factor.
b)To prevent the above, a lot of naval assets will have to be dedicated to protecting the carrier which otherwise could have been used for offensive/defensive duties elsewhere.
c)India does not engage in any policing roles like the U.S. so why have an a/c carrier?

Unfortunately the Navy boys are still stuck in the 1971 war mode and hence are still dreaming of the 'naval blockade of Pakistan' scenario -- an idea which will simply not happen anymore. An a/c carrier is simply a big waste of money and I sincerely wish that the current circus on the Gorshkov with the Ruskies can be put to an end.

 

[zeeshuisb]

thank you iamunique

 

[nitesh]

I fully agree with the point mentioned in the above article.

In fact, I'm of the view that an aircraft carrier battle group serves no valuable purpose to India in the current scenario wherein Pakistan has sophisticated missiles and nuclear weapons, because:
a) In the event of war the Indian a/c carrier/s will be the first to be targetted with ballistic or cruise missile armed with/without nuclear warheads. The loss of such a major naval asset will be a great demoralising factor.

The CBG will not have any defensive missiles or what? Then what Barak systems are doing in navy? What kashtan guns are doing?

b)To prevent the above, a lot of naval assets will have to be dedicated to protecting the carrier which otherwise could have been used for offensive/defensive duties elsewhere.

So what does the Delhi class destroyers do in CBG? They carry BrahMos right? For what they carry? And what exactly the planes do by sitting in carrier? Care to elaborate please

c)India does not engage in any policing roles like the U.S. so why have an a/c carrier?

I don't understand what the hell are you smoking here?

Unfortunately the Navy boys are still stuck in the 1971 war mode and hence are still dreaming of the 'naval blockade of Pakistan' scenario -- an idea which will simply not happen anymore. An a/c carrier is simply a big waste of money and I sincerely wish that the current circus on the Gorshkov with the Ruskies can be put to an end.

Oh you are the only wise man that is remaining here and all others are waste of time. Give me a break

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

We dont need cariers But we need Submareenes And Reconisance aircrafts and long range destructive torpedos whic can be fired from air platforms like those buil in Iran

No need to go for expensive and lazy cariers

 

[khaled_m_ali]

Both BN and PN do not need any conventional or light aircraft carriers. Rather they should get LHDs and helicopter carriers with lots of escort vessels such as guided missile corvettes, guided missile frigates and MPVs.

 

[zeeshuisb]

Both BN and PN do not need any conventional or light aircraft carriers. Rather they should get LHDs and helicopter carriers with lots of escort vessels such as guided missile corvettes, guided missile frigates and MPVs.

and who will pay for all these vessels? dear we need smart solutions, we cant afford large navies both pakistan and bangladesh

 

[Kansu]

Greetings Brothers;
i think Pakistan doesnt need a carrier.if you have overseas expeditions,the benefits of a carrier cant be disclaimed.but if your intention is to defend your homeland and your own seas,a carrier is a waste of money and time...
as for me,as ''zeeshuisb'' said pakistan needs smart,effective solutions.
Best regards

 

[Contrarian]

I fully agree with the point mentioned in the above article.

In fact, I'm of the view that an aircraft carrier battle group serves no valuable purpose to India in the current scenario wherein Pakistan has sophisticated missiles and nuclear weapons, because:
a) In the event of war the Indian a/c carrier/s will be the first to be targetted with ballistic or cruise missile armed with/without nuclear warheads. The loss of such a major naval asset will be a great demoralising factor.

Your completely wrong. Ballistic missiles are not even near accurate enough to target a moving AC or for that matter even a stationary one. The biggest hurdle is to locate the CBG in the first place. Even if you have a dedicated sat, and manage to locate that CBG, it would take atleast an hour to transfer and process that image. In that hour, the CBG keeps moving. I leave it to you and google to find out the CBG's speed and evasive tactics they use.

Then on, even if you manage to find the CBG and launch an attack, chances are, your strike package will be detected well before they near the launch zone.

Now comes the interesting part, after you launch your planes, the CBG has its own air complement, that would be waiting for you.

Worst case scenario: the incomming planes launch their load of AShM's. You have this whole convoy of ships with some being dedicated AAW ships. You get past that layer, the AC itself is armed with something like Barak, and Kashtan-M.

Now-this is the ideal 3 layer protection. Currently India lacks all of it. lol. But the Vikramaditya will really change the Naval warfare in IOR. The quantum leap of capabilities it offers the IN is what you have to imagine. India is already developing(funding) Barak NG for the Navy along with MF-STAR, it is already installing Barak on major warships of IN. We already have Kashtan-M. And unlike the SHarrier, MiG 29K wont be short on legs or payload. IN could never conduct any strikes of any significance with the SHarrier, MiG 29K changes that. So in a decade you will have the 3 layered security needed by the CBG's.

b)To prevent the above, a lot of naval assets will have to be dedicated to protecting the carrier which otherwise could have been used for offensive/defensive duties elsewhere.

Any SAG always comprises of a lot of Naval assets. What do you do incase of an air attack on the SAG. The SAG will require air defence. AAW ships cant do that alone. You need air cover, the AC provides that.

c)India does not engage in any policing roles like the U.S. so why have an a/c carrier?

For fleet air defence. IN is not a coastal navy. They want to be a blue water navy. Their percentage of blue water to brown water ships is 40:60. Within a decade it will become 60:40. In out of area operations, you will need air cover, it gives a great deal of flexibility to your SAG in that they are free to perform their roles without worrying about leaving their aerial safety net.

And FYI: IN has slowly and slowly started performing policing roles and it has been growing for a while now. The trend has been very visible.

Unfortunately the Navy boys are still stuck in the 1971 war mode and hence are still dreaming of the 'naval blockade of Pakistan' scenario -- an idea which will simply not happen anymore. An a/c carrier is simply a big waste of money and I sincerely wish that the current circus on the Gorshkov with the Ruskies can be put to an end.

You just dont get what Vikramaditya offers and brings to the table. Even if the price has escalated, the freedom of action offered by Vik to our fleet is in a sense unmatched.

Naval blockade is not really a hard option, considering the disparity between the IN and PN. However PN is changing that with constant induction in their sub fleet. That IMO would prove the biggest hinderance. It remains to be seen how the IN plans to even this out. Induction of IN subs would be a step in the right direction, but that doesnt really adress the problem. SSK's dont hunt SSK's. SSN's/MPA/ASW ships hunt SSK's. Buying more SSK's is not the solution. While the MPA IN is getting is certainly top-notch, the numbers ordered are short. ASW ships in IN are good, not par excellence, something needed incase the HDW deal gets signed.

Secondly, the CBG doesnt really have to go all the way to the coast to get the job done. the MiG 29K has the legs, and the Navy is getting LACM's on their ships as well as the Kilo class subs. The point is to ensure that 99.9% of the ships are unable to unload at the Pakistani ports of Gwadar and Karachi, that can be achieved without the ships needing to goto the port like yesteryear's.

Vikramaditya, the day it gets inducted will create a lot of problems for neighbours, the next big thing to change the equation would be the induction of ATV.

And to remind you, IN wants Vik just to perform fleet air defence primarily, strike is a secondary consideration. Its more like bonus, what they really want and need is fleet air cover for out of area operations. Vik fulfills that criteria with a good margin.

And finally, all the Indian shipyards are absolutely overflowing with orders. Frankly, all the shipyards in India combined would not be sufficient to fullfill the orders of the IN alone, let alone the merchant navy, CG, etc. So, all the major public as well as private shipyards are undergoing massive upgradation and expansion. Some of the biggest shipyards in Asia are being built by private companies. That would REALLY increase the speed of expansion of the IN.

EDIT: All that i have mentioned has already been ordered or is in its final stages of development. The IN of 2010-2020 is already being built. Naval vessels have a long lead time, thus every Navy has to plan atleast 10-15 years in advance. IN planned all that is visible today, in terms of equipment and had ordered it a Long time back. And we have some additional gestation periods, because our shipyards take more time than the Korean/Japanese shipyards to build warships.

 

[zavis2003]

How an opponent effectivly destroy a AC. What opponent needs???????????????????/

 

[maqsad]

My opinion is that aircraft carriers became obsolete more than 60 years ago when radar was invented. Since then they have only been useful for bullying tiny countries. Even transporting aircraft is very risky with carriers because once an enemy knows where a carrier is then they also know that sinking that carrier means sinking dozens of planes with it. When ACs first started getting built they were reasonably stealthy and even speedy and could project power very efficiently against an equal oponent. Now they are just floating dinosaurs that cost way more to maintain and protect in relation to the "moving naval mini airbase" that they provide.

 

[zeeshuisb]

How an opponent effectivly destroy a AC. What opponent needs???????????????????/

diesel submairnes with AIP is the best answer for an aircaft carrier. during exercise American navy figured out that the aircraft carriers are very vulnerable against a diesal sub with an AIP installed and they are working to find a solution

Gotland class sub (HMS Gotland) managed to snap several pictures of the USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier. The exercise was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the US Fleet against diesel-electric submarines, which some have noted as severely lacking.

 

[Destructlord]

Its a strategical weapon! You might need it if you have a plan to invade anywhere! But its not worth it! Not worth it all! Its need heavey maintenance (Which need an astronomical budget $4-5 billion dollar per year!), Escort ships (2-7). and...

The only country which can use this weapon sufficiently is the U.S because she has many of these toys, and they're very huge, capable of carrying up to 80 fighter and several helicopters.

Anyway you can't invade any modern country just with a aircraft carrier which can only carry 15 or 20 aircraft.

However, You can lose them very quickly if the enemy reach anywhere near them (even 150 Km is very dangerous!). if the enemy has longer range missiles its not even worth to use it at all. specially if the enemy use a torpedo with nuclear warhead! (Suggestible only on U.S aircraft carrier, Others are not that tough!).