Have aircraft carriers become obsolete?

[Defcon 1]

PN is Pak Navy. :thumb:

PLAN is PLA Navy(China).

Nevermind.

 

[Armand2REP]

PN is Pak Navy. :thumb:

PLAN is PLA Navy(China).

He was making jokes of Pak mindset.

 

[roma]

From a pure military point of view India does not need a carrier, its no.1 actual enermy only has a token navy, its no.1 perceived enermy does not operate in the Indian ocean (PLAN has to pass narrow straits controled by no less than Uncle Sam to get to the India ocean). Now if not counting US, India is already the top dog in the region with or without carriers, but in the hypothetical scenario where India does go to war with US, the entire indian navy will sit at the bottom of the indian ocearn before the day ends.

ADMIN - it's posts like these coming from "certain" members that prompted me in the past and again now , to ask the admin to consider ranking the members

chaps like this deserve a low rank and we could have a facility that excludes having to read their ridiculous junk !

and also a ranking serves to let us know what admin thinks of them !!!

 

[roma]

Good topic - great question of whether or not AC's are obsolete

an AC , being huge and highly visible is an easy target vs it's ability to transport a whole load of stuff ...but the cons outweigh the pros especially when you consider the kind of defence warfare india might be forced to get involved in

so for transportation purposes we might need one or maybe two but india should not become an expert in possessing Ac's unless we manufacture them for export ....then again its use is to transport huge armaments offshore the target , like the USA did for desert-shield -

is India ever gonna do that kind of warfare ? i highly doubt it .

cost-wise ( after possessing "one or two" AC's )using the massive finances necessary for an AC would be wasteful considering the number of nuke subs with ICBM capability we could have instead

in any conflict with the dragon , india is much better off having the threat of using nuke subs with ballistic ICBM capability - so that like what my friend LF said , we can launch a nuke attack against shanghai, honkong , pudong etc from a nule sub located near, say the tip of south america ? and we can do it years AFTER the conflict is presumably over - by surprise , out of thin air !

that is the ultimate deterrent ( in today's technology - tomorrow a better option might come along ) would give a caution to any would-be aggressor

AC's cant ever hope to do any of that !!

 

[Virendra]

But subs can't support aircraft. I believe both are different utilities and cannot be compared or neglected either way.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

See the film 'Bridges at Toko ri'.

The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1954) - IMDb

I saw it. In a theater when it first came out.

 

[Armand2REP]

ADMIN - it's posts like these coming from "certain" members that prompted me in the past and again now , to ask the admin to consider ranking the members

chaps like this deserve a low rank and we could have a facility that excludes having to read their ridiculous junk !

and also a ranking serves to let us know what admin thinks of them !!!

There are much worse 50 cent posts to attribute a review of than that one. We don't want to infringe on freedom of speech so we should create a 50¢ Army user group so we know exactly what we are dealing with before they open their mouth.

 

[p2prada]

Nevermind.

He was making jokes of Pak mindset.

Ah! My bad. I am used to taking military related posts a bit seriously. Sometimes I forget to lighten up. :thumb:

 

[W.G.Ewald]

ADMIN - it's posts like these coming from "certain" members that prompted me in the past and again now , to ask the admin to consider ranking the members

chaps like this deserve a low rank and we could have a facility that excludes having to read their ridiculous junk !

and also a ranking serves to let us know what admin thinks of them !!!

That would be a lot of extra work.

 

[Ray]

From a pure military point of view India does not need a carrier, its no.1 actual enermy only has a token navy, its no.1 perceived enermy does not operate in the Indian ocean (PLAN has to pass narrow straits controled by no less than Uncle Sam to get to the India ocean). Now if not counting US, India is already the top dog in the region with or without carriers, but in the hypothetical scenario where India does go to war with US, the entire indian navy will sit at the bottom of the indian ocearn before the day ends.

A carrier is currently of little use for China too. But as China is very much dependent on trade and will very soon (inner 5-10 years) overtake US as the world's largest economy, China will, out of her own interests as wll as out of her responsibliliy as world's soon-to-be largest economy, operate a blue-water capable navy to ensure safety of the global trade routes. By 2050 China's economy will likely be 3 times as big as US, 5-10 times as bigger as who ever lands in the 3rd spot, thus China will be obliged to have world's largest navy, there is no other choice. US then probably would beg China to take a leading role in int'l security, even if China does not want to.

I'm not a chinese, and my country is tiny thus my country is unlikely ever to operate a carrier.

If India were to look at Pakistan alone, then there would be no requirement for a Navy - fishing boats would do!

Leaving the levity aside, India could do with a brown water navy.

However, given Indian strategic position because of its geography, the peninsula stick out into the Indian Ocean. Therefore, it is natural that India has to act as a bulwark to bring security to the area.

Hence, a Navy and a formidable blue water Navy.

Given China's interest in the Indian Ocean and its continual building of 'assets' in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, it would be suicidal if India sat back and be Pakistan centric.

India requires to extend its strategic reach from the East Coast of Africa, to the mouth of the Suez Canal and all the way to the Straits of Malacca.

It thus requires Fleets operating in the West and a Fleet operating in the East, a Fleet operating in the South and have something after that up the sleeve!

That tells the story of how many aircraft carriers India should have.

And I am not a Tutsi!

Uncle Sam is today an Uncle, tomorrow he could be Ebenezer Scrooge, the byword of misanthropy as far as India is concerned.

Today's friend, tomorrow estranged!

Then what would be the equation?

Carriers are important to China if they are to exert their influence in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean and ensure the security of the movement of their strategic assets.

They are not daft!

 

[LETHALFORCE]

In the future it will probably be USA dominating Atlantic Ocean and probably power sharing South China seas
with China? And India the Indian Ocean. Either way power projection is not need in international waters but
power projection is used by China to bully smaller neighbors into territorial gains for China. India has operated
carriers for almost 50 years now (INS VIKRANT).

 

[Ray]

As per western analysis, China has a long way to have a real blue water navy.

However, given the chokepoints into Indian Ocean, it would be difficult for China to be able to dominate it!

 

[bengalraider]

As Chanakya or Suntzu once said( truth be told i dunno which one), "If an Enemy believes you to be strong
; if you can inspire dread/fear in him, half your battle is won". That single line ladies and gentle men is what defines the primary role of a carrier today, the very presence of one of these formidable leviathans makes it clear to adversaries real and imagined that if pushed we can strike at their homeland we have the reach we have the capability and we are not afraid to use it. In the real sense the term "Gunboat Diplomacy" of the early 1900's has now been replaced with "Carrier Diplomacy".Every military just serves to serve it's nation's foreign policy by physical means and in this aspect the carrier is the 500pound gorilla everyone wants in their corner. True long range missiles have made the job of striking an enemy much faster , cheaper and easier than a carrier, but the carrier differs in the aspect that it is far more than a missile the herald of the thinly veiled threat. I rest my case.