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

[jackprince]

http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

the Soviets did not send ONLY an SSBN, but a whole battlegroup of surface ships, when the SSBN was the final ultimatum. If Soviets had a comparable CBG, they would not have had to send in an SSBN with ultimatum of a nuke strike. And India cannot deter any conventional threat with his own threat of nuke, as neither it is the coldwar era nor India wish to be projected as halfwits like porkies. So SSBN would hardly work in any future conflict, dont you think? Further, the US CBG withdrew - more like did not intervene - as all said and done it was not their war to risk escalating conflict with soviets. Would they have done if it was US's own interest involved, the way chinese may be in future?

in 1971 war didnt soviet subs surfaced to show force projection to the US and in a way deterred any US military intervention.
Am not saying subs can replace CBGs but do we really need 2-3 CBGs?

that's exactly what I was saying!

 

[Neil]

true agreed. It was not their war and Pakistan had almost lost it so no point..
But how about using SSNs or even conventional subs to do the job? BTW I'm looking at IN from its limited resources, depleting sub numbers and in that sense if i have to use my resources judiciously and at the same time project power subs are the best option.

http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

the Soviets did not send ONLY an SSBN, but a whole battlegroup of surface ships, when the SSBN was the final ultimatum. If Soviets had a comparable CBG, they would not have had to send in an SSBN with ultimatum of a nuke strike. And India cannot deter any conventional threat with his own threat of nuke, as neither it is the coldwar era nor India wish to be projected as halfwits like porkies. So SSBN would hardly work in any future conflict, dont you think? Further, the US CBG withdrew - more like did not intervene - as all said and done it was not their war to risk escalating conflict with soviets. Would they have done if it was US's own interest involved, the way chinese may be in future?

 

[Mad Indian]

in 1971 war didnt soviet subs surfaced to show force projection to the US and in a way deterred any US military intervention.
Am not saying subs can replace CBGs but do we really need 2-3 CBGs?

I would say we need 15-16carriers to match USN.

And as some one said- subs - sea denial, carrier- sea dominance and force projection

 

[salute]

I would say we need 15-16carriers to match USN.

And as some one said- subs - sea denial, carrier- sea dominance and force projection

20 actually their 10 carriers are more than twice the size of viki,
not counting other 10 that are LHD same size of viki,
and other 3 out of 10 planned ford class carriers.

 

[Zebra]

@jackprince, I don't think you quite appreciate what threat a good submarine poses and how difficult it is to catch enemy subs.

US is the best in the ASW capabilities and Swedish subs have breached their defences (Thankfully for US they are friends with Swedes). Russians subs are regularly sought to be hunted in Scandinavian waters, and then nothing comes of these hunts.

Look at it this way. A large CBG is pretty hard to find in open ocean. Imagine the difficulty with Subs. Subs are slower, yes but they have a lot of time on their hands to maneuver and only need a very small window of opportunity to do their job.

Uploaded on Oct 26, 2006 , by NemoSaltadSobrius

 

[niku456]

20 actually their 10 carriers are more than twice the size of viki,
not counting other 10 that are LHD same size of viki,
and other 3 out of 10 planned ford class carriers.

thats right mate. We need to work on nuclear supercarriers, these are gamechanger with their range and firepower. 5 CBG of supercarriers with 70+ aircraft is enough to protect indian interest in IOR.

 

[Immanuel]

Carriers are the way to go, we need at least another 2 Vikrant class ships immediately, together the 3 Vikrant class ships can be used for defense our immediate waters while. I don't understand why we spend so much time designing the INS Vikrant and abandon this decent design with only 1 ship in her class. INS Vikramaditya can be used for Offensive ops against Pak. We need at least 3 INS Vishals for China centric offensive ops, they all should be at least 80K ton ships.

We also need to increase LPD orders from 4 to 6, while 1 can be used in conjuction with INS vikamaditya to take the fight to Pak, the remaining 5 can be used for offensive ops against China. LPDs should be able to deploy the F-35B. I think 7 CBGs by 2030 is ideal.

 

[niku456]

We also need to increase LPD orders from 4 to 6, while 1 can be used in conjuction with INS vikamaditya to take the fight to Pak, the remaining 5 can be used for offensive ops against China. LPDs should be able to deploy the F-35B. I think 7 CBGs by 2030 is ideal.

My choice is Juan carlos class LHD becaus it can carry F-35B fighter but france Mistral class is good too. These LPDs will work as light AC.

 

[laughingbuddha]

Whatever happened to the RFP regarding the LHD/LPD?
Will this also take a couple of years?

 

[jaci_zenfone2]

I spent more than 4 days of research on Naval warfare in today's world and I've concluded one thing.Aircraft carriers are totally obsolete.Pardon me for not writing a big essay on this issue.But I'll give you a brief idea on why I reached this conclusion.



Case 1 - Dong-Feng 21

Currently Indian navy do not have any counter measures against such weapons.Once China decides to use it then we all can say RIP our IACs.
Speed,Accuracy and with the help of China's current military navigation satellites it won't miss the moving or stationary targets.

Case 2 - Pakistan Missiles(preemptive strikes)

Again China's military navigation satellites can easily track the moving IAC battle groups and can successfully destroy it.None of the countermeasures in our arsenal can defend against 10s of missiles at a time.Again RIP to our IACs


Case 3 - Rogue fishing boats and trawlers

If all goes well an enemy combat boat(it can either be a fishing boat or a trawler in disguise) full of heavy explosives and combatants can damage an IAC.The chances of that happening are slim but still this cannot be ruled out.


Case 4 - Attacks similar to USS Cole bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
Hope you'll read it.

Case 5 - Undercover agents in our IACs

Who knows how many Pak/Chinese agents are on our IAcs!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/0...legedly-gave-undercover-agent-info-on-how-to/

tl;dr Indian Aircraft Carrirers are doomed.


Before posting reply.Remember this

Pakistan is rogue nation which has a history of carrying out terrorist activities and denying them.It has no honur.It has no ethics.It exists for the sole purpose of wiping out India and it's cultural history from the Asian continent.Every one of us should take this fact into consideration before planning/giving opinions on Indian and Pakistan issues.


Some Helpful Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Indian_Navy
http://www.wired.com/2012/03/killing-chinas-carrier-killer/
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2w6lw2/til_that_in_1972_some_of_aircraft_carrier_uss/
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/08/22/Nuclear-weapons-and-Pakistans-naval-strategy.aspx
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/0...legedly-gave-undercover-agent-info-on-how-to/
https://www.quora.com/How-daunting-...-protected-by-a-typical-deployed-strike-group

ABOUT DF-21 FROM WIKIPEDIA:-Military leaders in the U.S. Navy and Air Force, however, do not see it as a "game changer" to completely count carriers out. Firstly, there are questions on whether it has even entered operational service. Chinese publications said it was deployed in 2010 and U.S. officials reported it reached IOC that same year. Even so, being deployed does not mean it is combat-ready, and the Xinhua News Agency reported that the DF-21D was “still in the research stage” and not yet operational as of July 2011. Secondly, the missile may not be able to single-handedly destroy its target. The warhead is believed to be enough to inflict a "mission kill" to make a carrier unable to conduct flight operations, while other missiles would follow to actually destroy the ship. Thirdly, there is the problem of finding its target. The DF-21D has a range estimated between 1,035 to 1,726 mi (1,666 to 2,778 km), so a carrier battle group would need to be located through other means before launching. Over-the-horizon radars could detect ships, but their exact locations could be off by miles. Chinese recon satellites would be able to look for and locate a battle group. Recon aircraft and submarines could also look for them, but they are vulnerable to the carrier's defenses. Finally, the missile may have a hard time hitting its target. To hit ships moving at 55 km/h (30 kn; 34 mph), the DF-21D has radar and optical sensors for tracking. These are supposed to make it accurate, but the missile has not yet been tested against a moving target, let alone ones at sea against clutter and countermeasures. The "kill chain" of the missile requires processing and constantly updating data of a carrier's location, preparing the launch, programming information, and then firing it. How often this is trained is not known, and the U.S. military's AirSea Battle concept involves disrupting an enemy's kill chain.

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk

 

[Foxtrot 1]

I think thats why AC move with few more battleships collectively known as CBG (Carrier battle group).

Can anyone put light on Accuracy of DF21 on moving targets.

 

[Yumdoot]

YW-4 a damaged tracking cum intel ship was used for target practice before IOC stage of DF-21D. After that claims of DF-21D being able to hit slow moving targets came in. This was sufficient to convince US that DF-21D is in IOC stage induction. Obviously a CBG cannot keep moving around at 30 knots all the time, so the PLAAN was pragmatic enough to induct DF-21D.

As to what the state of the art is in terms of defending against such AShBM here is the latest data-point:
nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/america-tests-advanced-ballistic-missile-defense-system-13495

This is what was most likely intercepted:
https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-s...stems/ascm-targets/docs/Coyote_Fact_Sheet.pdf

 

[badguy2000]

not only india AC,but also all AC are sitting ducks in wars against major powers such as USA,Russia and CHina.

they can be destroies by missles/UAVs and so on when they are still thousands of mile aways from the targets.

In a word,

Today, AC is a good tool to deal with police mission such as driving somalia piracy,bombing ISS or Taliba,but a good tool to deal with wars.

 

[badguy2000]

ABOUT DF-21 FROM WIKIPEDIA:-Military leaders in the U.S. Navy and Air Force, however, do not see it as a "game changer" to completely count carriers out. Firstly, there are questions on whether it has even entered operational service. Chinese publications said it was deployed in 2010 and U.S. officials reported it reached IOC that same year. Even so, being deployed does not mean it is combat-ready, and the Xinhua News Agency reported that the DF-21D was “still in the research stage” and not yet operational as of July 2011. Secondly, the missile may not be able to single-handedly destroy its target. The warhead is believed to be enough to inflict a "mission kill" to make a carrier unable to conduct flight operations, while other missiles would follow to actually destroy the ship. Thirdly, there is the problem of finding its target. The DF-21D has a range estimated between 1,035 to 1,726 mi (1,666 to 2,778 km), so a carrier battle group would need to be located through other means before launching. Over-the-horizon radars could detect ships, but their exact locations could be off by miles. Chinese recon satellites would be able to look for and locate a battle group. Recon aircraft and submarines could also look for them, but they are vulnerable to the carrier's defenses. Finally, the missile may have a hard time hitting its target. To hit ships moving at 55 km/h (30 kn; 34 mph), the DF-21D has radar and optical sensors for tracking. These are supposed to make it accurate, but the missile has not yet been tested against a moving target, let alone ones at sea against clutter and countermeasures. The "kill chain" of the missile requires processing and constantly updating data of a carrier's location, preparing the launch, programming information, and then firing it. How often this is trained is not known, and the U.S. military's AirSea Battle concept involves disrupting an enemy's kill chain.

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk

YW-4 a damaged tracking cum intel ship was used for target practice before IOC stage of DF-21D. After that claims of DF-21D being able to hit slow moving targets came in. This was sufficient to convince US that DF-21D is in IOC stage induction. Obviously a CBG cannot keep moving around at 30 knots all the time, so the PLAAN was pragmatic enough to induct DF-21D.

As to what the state of the art is in terms of defending against such AShBM here is the latest data-point:
nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/america-tests-advanced-ballistic-missile-defense-system-13495

This is what was most likely intercepted:
https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-s...stems/ascm-targets/docs/Coyote_Fact_Sheet.pdf

China has more UAVs then anyone else............those UAV all are potential detectors

in fact,UAVs,subs, satelltes,AWAC and so on are all "eyes" detecting the trail of AC .

Unless USA were to destorys all those war asset in China in no time, USA's AC groups would be detected and easily locked by DF21.

however, if USA were to do so, that would be called "World war III".

 

[jaci_zenfone2]

China has more UAVs then anyone else............those UAV all are potential detectors

in fact,UAVs,subs, satelltes,AWAC and so on are all "eyes" detecting the trail of AC .

Unless USA were to destorys all those war asset in China in no time, USA's AC groups would be detected and easily locked by DF21.

however, if USA were to do so, that would be called "World war III".

And what do you think will happen if they attack a cbg?It will also mean world war iii.and where do you get the information that china has more uav than any other country?and it is not about finding the target,its about hitting the target accurately.

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk

 

[Yumdoot]

Unless USA were to destorys all those war asset in China in no time, USA's AC groups would be detected and easily locked by DF21.

What if they are able to track and destroy the launchers. Easiest part of the equation. And they have lots and lots of missiles and capabilities to do that.

however, if USA were to do so, that would be called "World war III".

Both sides will lose the WW-3. So no point in this observation.

 

[badguy2000]

And what do you think will happen if they attack a cbg?It will also mean world war iii.and where do you get the information that china has more uav than any other country?and it is not about finding the target,its about hitting the target accurately.

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk

guy, USA's manufacturing is decaying ,it causes its UAV overpriced too much...

for example,USD's MQ-9 Reaper UAV costs 30M USD ,while CHina's Yilong UAC can carry out the same missions,but are priced at only 1M USD(1/30 of MQ-9) in world weapon market.

due to its decaying manufacturing causing weapons overpriced, USA simplely can not afford a arm race against CHina now.
Otherwise, USA's economy would collpase as USSR.

 

[jaci_zenfone2]

guy, USA's manufacturing is decaying ,it causes its UAV overpriced too much...

for example,USD's MQ-1/MQ-9 UAV costs 4M USD at least,while CHina's Yilong UAC can carry out the same missions,but are priced at only 1/20 of USA's couterparts in world weapon market.

due to its decaying manufacturing causing weapons overpriced, USA simplely can not afford a arm race against CHina now.
Otherwise, USA's economy would collpase as USSR.

There is no country in the world who can afford to go to a arms race with U.S.A.And by the way your post is funny.

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk

 

[badguy2000]

There is no country in the world who can afford to go to a arms race with U.S.A.And by the way your post is funny.

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk

well,
it is always who have larger industry base/economy that win the arm race...USA is not on a good position.
let's wait and see.

 

[jaci_zenfone2]

well,
it is always who have larger industry base/economy that win the arm race...USA is not on a good position.
let's wait and see.

A dozen sanctions by the usa would make them handicapped.

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk