Vikramditya & the IAC Vikrant Threat To Pakistan Waters

[kaykay]

@Penguin Sir, If you meant tasks like Land strike etc then I am totally agree that buddy refueling will some what eat the punch or they have to bring CBG close to the shore which will make it vulnerable. But for Maritime missions and CAP, its more than enough.
PS: Personally I believe that One carrier won't make much difference If I consider war with a country like Pakistan. But again our Primary interest is different than to strike some country.

 

[Storm Force]

The vikramditya will be fitted out with the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_8_(missile)

Kashtan CIWS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This will be the eventually nos of Sam & ciws that are lntergrated into the carrier over the next 3 years

Armament:
- 3 X 24 SA-N-9 SAM
- 4 X 32 CADS-N-1 SAM/CIWS
- 4 X AK-630 30mm CIWS
-2 X 12 ASW RBU-6000
As per various new reports.

That is 72 SAM at any one time

Lets not forget

24 mig29k

These BVR fighters are a match for anything in the PAF including their small FLEET of F16 falcons, arguablly the most advanced MIG29 anywhere with FBW flight control new cockpits and twin egines.

Almost certainly when VIKRAM DITYA gos to war it will be escorted both on sea and in the air to give a massive circle of cover

P8 posedions
SU30MKI
AT LEAST 4 FRIGATES & DESTROYERS

 

[kaykay]

^^ not to forget Barak8 LR Sams for Viki.

 

[Penguin]

The vikramditya will be fitted out with the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_8_(missile)

Kashtan CIWS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This will be the eventually nos of Sam & ciws that are lntergrated into the carrier over the next 3 years

Armament:
- 3 X 24 SA-N-9 SAM
- 4 X 32 CADS-N-1 SAM/CIWS
- 4 X AK-630 30mm CIWS
-2 X 12 ASW RBU-6000
As per various new reports.

That is 72 SAM at any one time

At present she isn't fitted with any of the above armaments.

Kashtan is VERY unlikely, also given that the batch 2 Talwars didn't get any. CGs with Kashtan certainly do not show 4 united (actually only 1 above the bridge, foreward of the main survaillance radar.... you might be able to park another 2 united on port and starboard beam, but then you don't have space for AK630s anymore).

As for 3x24 SA-N-9, I don't know where you got that, but that's 3x the launchercapacity of the Talwar/Shivalik and I don't see where those would be fitted. Besides, she'ld need to get 4-8 Orekh missile directors as well to guide those SARH missiles.

Others have claimed she's to be fitted with Barak-8 (which may not become available for quite some time) coupled to Elta Alpha radar. Then again, I'm not convinces by the source references for that.

Personally, I expect 2x1 or 2x2 AK 630 or perhaps a pair of licence built 76mm Oto cannon, plus Barak-1 (moved over from Viraat).

As for the migs, it is a matter of putting together a good strike package or two with their own protection, adding a sub, surface and mpa componen for complexity, finding a good moment (so that many/most are not available for fleet air defence), and providing electronic support (e.g. ESM and jamming).

(overconfidence will get you killed)

 

[kaykay]

Ins Vikramaditya's combat management system.
LESORUB-E Combat Management Automated System - Concern Morinformsystem-Agat

 

[Contrarian]

Sir

You are forgetting one very important thing. The MIG29's are severely short legged. They are not being launched through a catapult, it is through a ski jump. Most likely the pilots will have to take off with half the weight as they would have already burned up most of their fuel during the take off. I would say they would have a maximum patrol radius of 250-300 km. In order for the aircraft to be effective against the enemy, IN commanders would have to bring the Carrier forward making it vulnerable to enemy's ASM strikes.

@Penguin
What you say depends on where the Carrier is to be used.
If its against Pakistan -
1. India does not require a CBG to blockade Karachi and Gwadar. It can be accomplished without them easily enough.
2. If its against Pakistan - then IN will have access to IAF refuelers and other resources to be effective in a task assigned to it.
3. Alternatively they could just be used as decoys to add another threat from a completely different direction to the PAF's highly overburdened and over-stretched resources.
Multiple ways it can be used..

However this particular Carrier is not potent in an individual situation in an area which has:
1. No Indian land based cover (Yes the Malacca Straits do have Indian land support)
2. The opposing faction has a professional airforce with the numbers to back it up.

In both such scenarios, this Carrier is next to pointless.

However this Carrier can be thought of as the stepping stone to IN getting familiarized with modern Carrier ops with high performance jets on a proper Carrier - the last one barely cut it at around 20,000 tons.

The IAC 2 - at 65,000 tons and a CATOBAR would be as big a leap forward from the Vikramaditya's capabilities as Vikramaditya has been from the Virat. That means a major leap.

Lastly, we never know how geopolitics shapes up, if say in a decade or so India decides to get F-35 for Vikaramaditya (transferring the MiG 29K's to the IAF and going for an off the shelf buy of two dozen F-35's), that would change the equations completely.

 

[Alpha1]

@Penguin

1. India does not require a CBG to blockade Karachi and Gwadar. It can be accomplished without them easily enough.

kindly elaborate this point

 

[MilSpec]

kindly elaborate this point

Indian Surface fleet along with the support from IAF Western command will be able to blockade Pakistan, i guess that is the contention

 

[Alphacharlie]

Doesn't matter to this point. Flying CAP for the carrier (not going anywhere else), Mig29Ks would be lightly loaded anyway (AAMs+ fuel). It is the rest of the Mig's that your point would apply to.



Buddy refuelling would eat into the Mig complement's punch carrying out tasks other than CAP. For the CAP units, it would increase the number needed to stay and defend 'home' i.e. the carrier force.



The IAF currently operates 6-7 IlyushinIl-78MKIs in the aerial refueling (tanker) role. As the Indian Air Force inducts new high-value aircraft, the need for aerial refueling tankers grows along with them. The IAF's requirement for mid-air tankers is urgent as it will be acquiring 200-300 additional combat aircrafts over the next two decades. In response, the IAF plans to buy another 6 aerial tankers. IN january 2013 Airbus got the order for 6 A330 MRTT air refuelling tankers.

... I doubt the IN (navy) would get much use of those .....

Mr Penguin...your skipped the Threat Posed by Buddy Re-fueling in your assertion......

 

[Contrarian]

kindly elaborate this point

The last time it was done by a couple of missile boats with Styx and the threat of the IN deploying off Karachi.

You have access to what Indian Navy fields now.
What IAF fields.

And you know that PN barring its 3 Agostas is not a capable force.

Its barely even a challenge anymore at this point. Give it another decade, with the new destroyers coming in, it would cease to be a talking point.

It is highly unlikely that the Carrier would be used to blockade Pakistan. The mere presence of the Carrier would/could infact force PAF to devote a lot of resources to target it.

 

[Roybot]

Will just ask/try and buy the DF 21 ASBM, with its long range it will keep the Indian AC far away from Pakistani shore for them to be effective..

Why would America buy DF-21 from China, and why would China sell it to America

 

[MilSpec]

The last time it was done by a couple of missile boats with Styx and the threat of the IN deploying off Karachi.

You have access to what Indian Navy fields now.
What IAF fields.

And you know that PN barring its Agostas is not a capable force.

Its barely even a challenge anymore at this point. Give it another decade, with the new destroyers coming in, it would cease to be a talking point.

It is highly unlikely that the Carrier would be used to blockade Pakistan. The mere presence of the Carrier would/could infact force PAF to devote a lot of resources to target it.

Hey.. if you blockade anything, PN will deploy, NASR on a Boat, and thus that is the answer to all games.... Like a Boss!

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Hey.. if you blockade anything, PN will deploy, NASR on a Boat, and thus that is the answer to all games.... Like a Boss!

Dude, if they're putting NASR on boats, what's the point of having a navy then? It's pretty much game, set, and match if they put legendary NASR on patrol boats.

Rumors going around that they're putting NASRs on the backs of JF-17s, like why have an airforce? It's over.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Dude, if they're putting NASR on boats, what's the point of having a navy then? It's pretty much game, set, and match if they put legendary NASR on patrol boats.

Rumors going around that they're putting NASRs on the backs of JF-17s, like why have an airforce? It's over.

lolzzzz that was realli funny dude any way i like your name "water car Engineer"

 

[Storm Force]

Some of this putting cruise missles on Thunder is made up.

We have no idea or proof its happening.

Not sure a tiny small single engined fighter can carry a LARGE enough cruise missle to seriuosly damage a frigate let alone a massive 40k tonne carrier.

But i understand sometimes whenm your response means are so limited outside the box thinking is required.