INS Vikramaditya (Adm Gorshkov) aircraft carrier

I see. However I Saw CBGs as an Exclusive Task Force rather than an entire fleet. Yes about networking I totally agree on that.

Should have atleast 2 destroyers and frigates and may be a submarine.

I have highlighted the key points you have made.

These super-carriers has only enabled the US to bully tiny countries. Even for Iraq Invasion, they had to get all their allies together, get airbases in littoral countries and launch an invasion after years of sanctions.

The USSR could not afford dumping money in such outlandish projects and they found it easier to build anti-ship missiles. Read up the history of the Yakhont.

As I said, they need a lot of protection. An AC alone is a sitting duck. The US Navy operates with battle groups, and there are many other ships protecting the AC. In case it is a super-carrier, it will need all the more protection, or risk sinking. It does not offer that kind of advantage as much as it costs to make them. It is too big and an entire battle group can be easily scared away by a potential foe worth its salt (role of Soviet Navy in 1971-72).

Given India, we are talking about Pakistan and PRC, where in an all out war, our ACs will be very vulnerable. OTOH, they will be very useful for countries like Maldives.

That's correct. MTCR is the problem, not the missile. It can be extended beyond its current range, only if the Russians agree to ignore MTCR. In any event, super-carriers are sitting ducks without all the other ships protecting it. If India cannot afford the accompanying ships that the US can for its Nimitz, India is better off with smaller ACs.

I agree with Mad Indian here. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The Nimitz alone is very vulnerable, just as an AC is. However, the Gorshkov was capable of offering protection to other ships, not needing protection. I am talking about the Gorshkov, not Vikramaditya.

Again, doctrines shape ships, and funding shapes doctrine to a large extent.

If you want to sink a carrier, then you need nuke powered submarines. Lots and lots of submarines if you are up against the US Navy.

True. However, that's not the case with Indian Navy.

Hey lets consider your idea of smaller carriers. Wont they need protection?

WE have to protect the Carriers no matter what. Hence we are better off defending a large one with a large fleet than a smaller one with a smaller fleet.

Common Pmaitra, Gorshkov needs protection too. Its not like it can take on the stuff which would target the Carriers all by itself. In any case, the stuff which can bring down a CBG will definitely bring down the Gorshkov with too much ease. Its not like Gorshkovs wont need a escort now is it?

Smaller ACs will enable us to have more CBGs. So our fleets are not concentrated at just one place and have more Air Capabilities as well.

Subha,


What makes you think lets say 20,000 10 smaller Carrier's are more cost effective than a 6 Large 40 - 60,000 ton carrier?

It needs requires the same amount support vessels yet delivering 1/3rd of the punch.
It would require more men to work
It simply isnt effective. Anyways it is moot point since IN has already decided either 40,000 ton as its minimum effective carrier size. Heck, it might increase it to the current world trend for a non-nuclear carrier's 60,000 tons.

Let me also continue regarding, World Politics is played with little guys not with the big guys. India will be playing with North Korea to teach China a lesson, China plays with Vietnam to teach India a lesson etc. There will not be much direct confrontation with the BiG 6. If USN CBG's werent any threat, the Soviets wont have tried tooth and nail to catch up with them. The real reason is, an american supercarrier requires money, Soviets didnt have'em. There is a reason why India follows the same method, also China by converting Varyag into a pure conventional carrier.

Aircraft Carrier Cruisers is bad design, history has proven it to be.

US has nothing to prove, the world runs the way they want it to, the USN makes sure it does.

"Whole is greater than the sum of its parts"- Aristotle

Also Adux has made the point I wanted to make . So I dont think i have anything to say.

And think about it,do you think small carriers wont be targeted? If so, then is it wise to have a larger defence fleet or a Smaller one? And if the defence fleet is going to be larger, what should be the carrier. leading the fleet?

Where is the MONEY for maintaining 6 Large 40,000 ton ACs. I called for a combination. We have 2 why not add the smaller ones as well.

I think you should drop it, I said hypothetical , not that India had money for 6 40,000 tons, for that matter where is the money for 10, 20,000 also?

Indian Navy has made a choice, and your understanding of the issue is not correct. Its not like placing 10 pieces on a map. There is much more to it, It will be far more expensive, difficult and not to mention lacks the firepower. So it is a bad idea. Please drop it, if not make a new thread.


Regarding your combination, This is what we know about 2020

3 Aircraft Carriers
4 LHD/LPD's ( What I hear through the grapewine is, 4 LHD's and 4 LPD's; and raising of a 50,000 Strong Marine Force)

I think the discussion should be around such lines that we know about, not some wishful thinking like the paki's.

Understand this very very well Gentlemen, India is not going to get be a superpower or achieve her security on the cheap; I am sorry that is not going to happen, our adversary's are powerful, focused, resourceful and worse in the neighborhood.

US Defense budget only for the US Navy:

Department of Navy Announces FY12 Budget


India's defense budget:

India’s Defence Budget 2012-13 | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses


Sounds like India can surely afford a supercarrier and its fleet of support ships! (sarcasm)

Dude. If we are gonna be like USA- That is firgging awesome, we have to make sure that we have the gadgets they have

India with Super carriers=

Again, we cant go for them if we cant afford it, but when we can, it is wiser to go for it than splitting up our resources