Indian Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks against most of today's weapons

[tarunraju]

You are clearly a Pakistani. Since your country has never operated carriers, you don't know what it's like to do one.

There's this thing called carrier battle group. Carriers don't move out solitary. Most of the time, they're docked in their heavily guarded homeports, until the brass feels that there's a situation developing that could require air-power. When they do move out, they do so with a battery of destroyers, frigates, oilers (if the mission is big), and subs. A battle group can intercept incoming "carrier-killers," rogue vessels, and a Paki preemptive strike just fine. As for saboteurs inside, any organization (including Paki military), is prone to them. That's not a particularly carrier-specific problem.

Enough bullshit for one day.

 

[Zebra]

Whole of indian landmass is a sitting duck as it hardly moves

Those maroons in NDA / UPA moves, but only to buy transport stuff, nothing else. :biggrin2:

Have a look.............http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...then-transport-fleet/articleshow/48138408.cms

 

[Yumdoot]

4 days of studies have proved every strategist, naval officers who swear by a carrier wrong.

No seriously,

1) DF-21 at best is a theory.
2) DF-21 with its range cannot reach our carriers in the Indian Ocean it's to deny US carriers from coming close to Chinese waters

3) Pak is rogue state agree but it can't get close to our carrier which moves with other ships.

4) What holds good for carriers also holds good for other ships. We might as well abandon navy.

5) Undercover agents on our ship will come from where? MP & counter Intel is for what?

1) If DF-21D is a theory then all ballistic missiles ever made after Polaris were a waste of time. And the Chinese would not gather much from WU-14. Something coincidently that is being developed by everybody in the world today. A ballistic missile is not merely a rocket that goes up and comes down. And DF-21D is deployed with land forces at IOC level for quite some time now with longer than just 1500 km ranges claimed to be capable of hitting slow moving targets. Lets see how long can the USN CVN can move around on full steam - that would be fun - jumping about in South China Sea.

2) I think I have read of Chinese wishlists talking about putting DF-21D onto their subs. In any case at least one Indian Naval officer has voiced concerns about Pakis getting hold of DF-21D (named something like Ghauri-X), Which is not difficult to imagine for me. Besides there are wishlists/plans for larger Chinese conventional subs being given/sold to Pakis which can launch 2 ballistic/cruise missiles from vertical launch systems. Pakis will be happy to simply launch from surfaced submarines - that too is too big a science for them.

3) They don't have to. They can actually target just the supply ships. How long can our carriers remain at sea without the supply ships. Besides DF-21D kind of weapon is an area denial weapon. If our navy has to maintain a distance of 1500 km from karachi/gwadar then that implies a free run to the Chinese too.

4) It does. That is why the Chinese are a Sub heavy Navy and Russians too have avoided Carriers. While Americans deploy only 3 out of their 11 carries at any given time. And the sad part of it is that DF-21D is only a 'jumla'. The real weapon is what is behind it. The targeting system, C4ISR, which is ambivalent towards what delivery system is ultimately deployed (ASBM or Aircarfts or UCAVs or Submarine launched Cruise Missiles)

5) The guy is crazy even for suggesting it (must be a chinese disguised as an Indian). If somebody has to send in a spy why the hell would the spy be stationed on the vessels.

 

[DFI_COAS]

Thank you everyone for your valuable opinions on this issue.I've learned a lot from your genuine opinions and trolling

You are clearly a Pakistani. Since your country has never operated carriers, you don't know what it's like to do one.

There's this thing called carrier battle group. Carriers don't move out solitary. Most of the time, they're docked in their heavily guarded homeports, until the brass feels that there's a situation developing that could require air-power. When they do move out, they do so with a battery of destroyers, frigates, oilers (if the mission is big), and subs. A battle group can intercept incoming "carrier-killers," rogue vessels, and a Paki preemptive strike just fine. As for saboteurs inside, any organization (including Paki military), is prone to them. That's not a particularly carrier-specific problem.

Enough bullshit for one day.

I'm a patriot who is concerned with our navy's stupid policies.I want India and our army to excel in every fields but what I'm saying is that AC's are obsolete.Instead of that we should use those funds to make more and more submarines.ACs are only useful for nations who wants to invade other countries and do you think India is such a kind of nation?


MOD EDIT: Do Not make personal attacks.

 

[Bheeshma]

You are an idiot who thinks he knows more than the Navy officers themselves. If AC's are obsolete both china and russia wouldn't be trying to build and design bigger ones. The Dingdong 21's are all bluff and nothing more than simple MRBMs which are useless against any mobile target.
No one has said AC's at the cost of nuke subs. The six SSNs and 4 SSBNs are a given and will proceed independent of Vishal.

 

[Yumdoot]

Off course it is at the cost of Nuke Subs. The budget is not going to expand much.

Anyhow looks like our friends in US don't think we deserve to have hypersonic scramjet based MARVs. Wonder why!

WU-14 has rattled out friends in USA so much that they cannot allow it even to their best friends - the Indians.

http://bharatkarnad.com/2015/07/20/hypersonic-on-hold/

Hypersonic on hold?
Posted on July 20, 2015by Bharat Karnad
DRDO has been working on a hypersonic missile for some years now. It has reached testing stage. But a test of the Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle — HSTDV-2, scheduled at TsAGI (Central Thermal Hydrodynamics Institute) in the Moscow metropolitan region in December 2014 was abruptly cancelled. The rumour is Finance Ministry did not sanction the few crore rupees worth of funds required for trans-shipping the item, testing it in Moscow, etc. This happened, it is said by those in the know, because of pressure from certain Western quarters rattled by the prospect of India’s acquiring such a potent weapon. A supersonic missile is bad enough. But a hypersonic missile with a scramjet engine (where the through passing air is combusted at supersonic speeds unlike in ramjet engines where the air is slowed down to subsonic speeds before combustion) at Mach 20 plus is so indefensible you might as well give up the ghost. And its has tremendous range extension utility. For instance an Agni-5 with a hypersonic last stage will extend its range well beyond intercontinental distances. The Indian HSTDV-2 with a platypus nose, a titanium underside and an aluminum-niodium topside, could be a strategic killer. Instead of the technology being prioritised for accelerated development the government seems to be holding back. We may be repeating the mistake of not moving quickly and naturally with indigenously developed technology, tarrying, until the big powers wanting to limit the number of those with this lethal technology, slam shut the gates. This happened with nuclear weapons. Nehru and Indira Gandhi tarried, did not quickly weaponise once the threshold was reached in March 1964 and the country paid the price with the 1968 nonproliferation treaty shutting India out. Meanwhile China first tested a fission device in 1964 and by 1969 had gone thermonuclear and weaponised, and look where that got the Chinese! The gates will be shut on this lethal technology to limit the numbers securing it. Delhi better remove the brakes lest India again suffer grievously. Get the HSTDV out to TsAGI Arun Jaitley. The govt is wasting enough time and resources on nearly worthless military acquisitions. It better invest in a technology genuinely of the future. By the way only Russia, US, China and India are working on hypersonics. Russia is the most advanced in the scramjet technology. The US’ Waverider is having problems. The Chinese item — it is difficult to say.

 

[sob]

You are clearly a Pakistani. Since your country has never operated carriers, you don't know what it's like to do one.

There's this thing called carrier battle group. Carriers don't move out solitary. Most of the time, they're docked in their heavily guarded homeports, until the brass feels that there's a situation developing that could require air-power. When they do move out, they do so with a battery of destroyers, frigates, oilers (if the mission is big), and subs. A battle group can intercept incoming "carrier-killers," rogue vessels, and a Paki preemptive strike just fine. As for saboteurs inside, any organization (including Paki military), is prone to them. That's not a particularly carrier-specific problem.

Enough bullshit for one day.

Sir, that is his personal opinion and could have been made with the best of intentions. Let us not jump the gun.

 

[Mad Indian]

Cost comparison for nuclear sub vs carriers is probably the stupidest argument anyone can make -

Hey ,the cars cost a million times less than carriers. So lets build million cars instead of a carrier .

 

[angeldude13]

For the last time A ballistic missile traveling at a speed of mach 17 to mach 22 cannot hit a moving target.
You can't maneuvre a effin ballistic missile.

 

[ezsasa]

I'm a patriot who is concerned with our navy's stupid policies.I want India and our army to excel in every fields but what I'm saying is that AC's are obsolete.Instead of that we should use those funds to make more and more submarines.ACs are only useful for nations who wants to invade other countries and do you think India is such a kind of nation?

On contrary i believe Indian Navy is the most progressive of the three branches who have a vision into the future, Other two branches are almost a decade behind in planning and a lot of catching up to do. You have to consider the fact that Navy's turnaround time per vessel is a minimum of 3-4 years, There is nothing much they can do about it, and given their resources they are managing pretty well.

 

[Yumdoot]

For the last time A ballistic missile traveling at a speed of mach 17 to mach 22 cannot hit a moving target.
You can't maneuvre a effin ballistic missile.

What will happen after this last time. Hope you don't do anything drastic .

Anyways, at what highest Mach number would you expect a ballistic missile RV to be able to hit a moving target?

 

[pmaitra]

For the last time A ballistic missile traveling at a speed of mach 17 to mach 22 cannot hit a moving target.
You can't maneuvre a effin ballistic missile.

Technically, you are correct. The term "ballistic" is tossed left and right these days.

The Russian Topol-M is a "ballistic" missile that can perform evading maneouvers. So, it is not exactly purely ballistic.

 

[Yumdoot]

What is happening is that people have a resistance to change. They have been 'educated' that this happens some way and then they do not want to change, no matter what.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/20/20051120-115514-2217r/print/

Russian warhead alters course midflight in test
By - The Washington Times - Sunday, November 20, 2005
Russia recently conducted a flight test of a new warhead that can change course in midflight, which U.S. and Russian officials are calling part of Moscow's efforts to defeat U.S. missile defenses.

The warhead was tested Nov. 1 and tracked by U.S. intelligence technical monitors, including satellites, the officials said.

An analysis of the flight test by U.S. intelligence agencies revealed that it was a further test of a maneuverable warhead that Moscow has been developing for several years in response to U.S. missile defenses.

The warhead was flight tested on a Russian Topol-M missile, designated by the Pentagon the SS-27, that flew from the Kapustin Yar launch complex in southern Russia near Volgograd.

The missile booster fired for a shorter-than-usual duration in placing the dummy warhead and re-entry vehicle into space. The warhead then dropped down to a lower trajectory and was able to maneuver.

Kremlin officials were quoted in Russian press reports as saying the new warhead was designed to thwart the new U.S. missile-defense system of interceptors deployed in Alaska and California.

U.S. officials confirmed some characteristics of the new missile warhead based on an analysis of the Nov. 1 flight test, which was first reported earlier this month by several Russian news organizations.

Unlike current ballistic warheads that do not alter their flight paths sharply once they reach space, the new warhead can change course and range while traveling at speeds estimated at about 3 miles per second, the officials said.

Maneuvering warheads represents a difficult physics challenge because changing course at such high speeds normally would cause a warhead to disintegrate.

Maneuverability would let a warhead thwart missile defenses, because such countermeasures rely on sensors to project a warhead's flight path and impact point so that an interceptor missile can be guided to the right spot to knock out a warhead.

Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency (MDA), declined to comment on U.S. intelligence assessments of the latest Russian warhead test because data is classified.

But Mr. Lehner would say that U.S. missile defenses aim to counter a limited number of warheads from a small nuclear power such as North Korea, not a major strike from a nation with hundreds of missiles, such as Russia.

However, Moscow believes future U.S. defenses, including plans to deploy anti-missile interceptors in Europe or the East Coast of the United States, could be used against Russian strategic missiles.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said a year ago that the new strategic-missile system "will have no analogues," a reference to the hypersonic warhead.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced yesterday the Navy's Aegis missile-defense system conducted the sixth successful test of an anti-missile interceptor hitting a target warhead.

It was the first time that a ship-based SM-3 interceptor missile hit a warhead that had been separated from its booster, the MDA said in a statement. The test was carried out near Hawaii from the Aegis-equipped cruiser USS Lake Erie.

What is the range and associated re-entry velocity of Topol-M, RVs?

If its not possible then who 'helped cancel' the Indian scramjet project and why?

If its not possible then why are the Chinese pursuing it? Are Chinese engineers idiots?

 

[angeldude13]

What will happen after this last time. Hope you don't do anything drastic .

Anyways, at what highest Mach number would you expect a ballistic missile RV to be able to hit a moving target?

Dude read @pmaitra 's post. It would clarify your query.
If it doesn't then I would recommend you to go through various threads on ballistic missile.

 

[swastic_1170]

On contrary i believe Indian Navy is the most progressive of the three branches who have a vision into the future, Other two branches are almost a decade behind in planning and a lot of catching up to do. You have to consider the fact that Navy's turnaround time per vessel is a minimum of 3-4 years, There is nothing much they can do about it, and given their resources they are managing pretty well.

Exactly Navy is the most progressive wing in my view as well.. They are great in planning and they are one who has kept the Tejas program online..
And yes I agree that AC in terms of cost is huge but it is a necessity.. It is must for power projection and for India it is even more important as large portion of our country touches Sea.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

I think OP has brought an important point to debate. AC won't be sitting ducks but it makes sense to debate its usefulness for Indian navy.

Having a big submarine fleet support by small but large number of frigates and destroyers can easily keep the Indian Ocean safe for India at a much lower cost. AC are needed for force projection, which India would probably not do in the near term. So asking a question that whether India needs 2 or 3 AC is a valid question.

 

[TrueSpirit2]

When they do move out, they do so with a battery of destroyers, frigates, oilers (if the mission is big), and subs......

& Corvettes, as well. Especially since both our adversaries have chosen "sea-denial" as their Navy's operational doctrine.

 

[Mad Indian]

I think OP has brought an important point to debate. AC won't be sitting ducks but it makes sense to debate its usefulness for Indian navy.

Having a big submarine fleet support by small but large number of frigates and destroyers can easily keep the Indian Ocean safe for India at a much lower cost. AC are needed for force projection, which India would probably not do in the near term. So asking a question that whether India needs 2 or 3 AC is a valid question.

We can't have an Indian lake with sub's alone. We need a massive AC fleet for that

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

We can't have an Indian lake with sub's alone. We need a massive AC fleet for that

We need subs for secondary strike. AC are just a show-off which powerless Indian govt. would never use.

 

[EXPERT]

you can not turn DF 21 as total crap, but it's just that DF 21 is in a conceptual mode. Chinese need hundreds of small satellite's in earth's lower orbit for getting accurate position of ABG. And we needs hundreds of anti satellite's missiles to destroy them.
Everything has its own drawbacks, you cant make your weapon full proof. For every Virus, we have Anti Virus...