Where Is India's Carrier Fleet Going?

[Didact]

Why do we need a nuclear carrier?

> Longer operational endurance.
> Power projection.

At the outset, it appears obvious that CVNs will have longer endurance than a CV. Reality, however, is not so straight forward. Sure the carrier can hold station indefinitely, however as far as combat effectiveness is concerned, it is another story. There are a lot of other variables at play in determining this.

According to an April 1988 Congressional Budget Office study, a typical carrier battle group, exclusive of its logistics ships, has enough supplies for only about five days of combat before it needs resupply. With its logistics ships, a carrier can only operate for about 15 days before requiring outside replenishment. A modern Nimitz class nuclear carrier can only carry sufficient aviation fuel for about two weeks of flight operations (9,000 tons aviation fuel),while a conventional carrier can store about 65 percent of this, corresponding to about 10 days of flight operations.

And for sustained endurance at a theatre of operations:

Also a little trivia: The actual record for the longest sustained deployment after WW2 goes to the USS Coral Sea (CV-43). During the Vietnam War the USS Coral Sea (CV-43) set a record of 331 days away from home from 7 December 1964 until 1 November 1965.

These figures show that if need arises, a CV can stay as long as it needs to, provided it can be replenished by support vessels. The CVNs, as shown above, have similar need of replenishment ships from supply ships.

These are a part of my own research into GAO documents for carrier operations, USN. I don't like the idea of posting links to my own research.

 

[janon]

At the outset, it appears obvious that CVNs will have longer endurance than a CV. Reality, however, is not so straight forward. Sure the carrier can hold station indefinitely, however as far as combat effectiveness is concerned, it is another story. There are a lot of other variables at play in determining this.

Endurance, ie, how often it has to be refueled is one thing. But think about this - a nuke powered carrier does not have to refuel at all, during its lifetime. Does not have to buy a ton of fossil fuels every few months from gulf countries, does not have to berth and refuel in those countries, does not have to worry about fuel at all.

IN's carriers are not expected to go on year long patrols anyway. Range or endurance is not the biggest concern, unlike American carriers. But the fact remains that:

1) To have EMALS and a fast tempo of launch and recovery, nuclear power is a lot better than fossil fueled power. How many fighters can be airborne at a time is co-related to this.
2) Nuclear power is practically unending, for the lifetime of the carrier.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

India have no strategic need for any aircraft carriers. India’s number one threat to its sovereignty is its internal Maoist insurgent followed by Pakistan.

Maoist and Pakistan arent going to do anything to India's sovereignty.

 

[Skull and Bones]

India have no strategic need for any aircraft carriers. India’s number one threat to its sovereignty is its internal Maoist insurgent followed by Pakistan. The land dispute with China is peaceful, high up in the mountains and far away from the sea. While threats from the seas are pirates and infiltrations. In all these cases you do not need any aircraft carrier.
But India wants to be recognized as a superpower. That is why they spends money on so call superpower hard power such as aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons and delivery system, nuclear submarines, Space programs, ballistic defense etc.

All this when India economy is only the size of Italy and have no strong manufacturing foundation. It is totally not sustainable. That is why they will keep having problems.

As we got your valuable viewpoints, Indian defense establishments will scrap carrier fleet operations all together.

 

[OrionHunter]

At the outset, it appears obvious that CVNs will have longer endurance than a CV. Reality, however, is not so straight forward. Sure the carrier can hold station indefinitely, however as far as combat effectiveness is concerned, it is another story. There are a lot of other variables at play in determining this.

According to an April 1988 Congressional Budget Office study, a typical carrier battle group, exclusive of its logistics ships, has enough supplies for only about five days of combat before it needs resupply. With its logistics ships, a carrier can only operate for about 15 days before requiring outside replenishment. A modern Nimitz class nuclear carrier can only carry sufficient aviation fuel for about two weeks of flight operations (9,000 tons aviation fuel),while a conventional carrier can store about 65 percent of this, corresponding to about 10 days of flight operations.

And for sustained endurance at a theatre of operations:

Also a little trivia: The actual record for the longest sustained deployment after WW2 goes to the USS Coral Sea (CV-43). During the Vietnam War the USS Coral Sea (CV-43) set a record of 331 days away from home from 7 December 1964 until 1 November 1965.

These figures show that if need arises, a CV can stay as long as it needs to, provided it can be replenished by support vessels. The CVNs, as shown above, have similar need of replenishment ships from supply ships.

These are a part of my own research into GAO documents for carrier operations, USN. I don't like the idea of posting links to my own research.

Agreed 100%. That's the reason that Naval powers continuously scout for logistic bases in and around the area of operations.

Let's see how the USN does it. Their fast combat support ships (AOE) have the speed to keep up with the carrier battle groups. They rapidly replenish Navy task forces and one support ship can carry more than 177,000 barrels of oil; 2,150 tons of ammunition; 500 tons of dry stores; and 250 tons of refrigerated stores. It receives petroleum products, ammunition and stores from shuttle ships and redistributes these items simultaneously to carrier battle group ships. This reduces the vulnerability of serviced ships by reducing alongside time.

But yes, it is a complicated resource intensive procedure. The main advantage is that the AC does not have to berth frequently for replenishment as they can stay at sea for an indefinite period.