INS Vishal (IAC- II) Aircraft Carrier - Flattop or Ski Jump

[Assassin 2.0]

India doesn't have enough budget for a big chunky aircraft carrier. Our first aim should be area denial if we can't cutt of Chinese presence in our very own area how can we provide net security. We need to induct more Subs to cost effectively pose a challenge to Chinese. Porkis are also inducting more submarines. Chinese are also arming them with cheap junk. We should go with improved Vikrant and build a fleet of N and conventional subs.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

India doesn't have enough budget for a big chunky aircraft carrier. Our first aim should be area denial if we can't cutt of Chinese presence in our very own area how can we provide net security. We need to induct more Subs to cost effectively pose a challenge to Chinese. Porkis are also inducting more submarines. Chinese are also arming them with cheap junk. We should go with improved Vikrant and build a fleet of N and conventional subs.

I'll just wait here and watch how much of those funds needed for a carrier are diverted to the submarine fleet. P-75I is stuck in a loop, P-75A is already moving forward regardless, as are the SSBNs. The money you set aside for the submarine is going to get used up not by Navy, but by Army or Air Force. All the while, our submarine strength will fall and we'll also not have the third carrier either.

@Covfefe is right. If Navy concedes that it can somehow make do without the third carrier, you can bet your top Rupee that the other two services, MoF and MoD will work overtime to convince the Navy they don't need an aircraft carrier even 10 years later. Do you ever see Air Force compromise with its number of fighter squadrons? Look at Army, they compromised with number of Strike Corps (one Mountain Strike Corps instead of two), did they ever get it back? No, instead now a plains Strike Corps is being repurposed.

These discussions about "carriers being an expensive showpiece" need to be sunk regularly, as well as the arguments that proceed along the lines of "islands are unsinkable aircraft carriers".

Fleet planning is a long term game. You don't look at the immediate budget situation, you plan for the long term. In the long term, military CAPEX is sure to rise. Till then, its important that all three services keep on clamouring about how underfunded they are or the politicians of this country will end up giving all that extra money away in socialist schemes to win elections.

 

[Mikesingh]

How do you propose the individual ships would fare against a Chinese Carrier Strike Group?

Firstly, so called Chinese Strike Groups are nowhere in comparison to the USN CSGs. Secondly, the most significant threats to carriers are shipborne cruise missiles, wake-homing torpedoes, electronic warfare ships and land-based ballistic missiles.

In battle, ships don't sail individually. The aim of a fleet in war is to keep the coast of its own country free from attack, to secure the freedom of its trade, and to destroy the enemy’s fleet or confine it to port. So you can't do away with ships as someone brought out.

 

[Covfefe]

I'll just wait here and watch how much of those funds needed for a carrier are diverted to the submarine fleet. P-75I is stuck in a loop, P-75A is already moving forward regardless, as are the SSBNs. The money you set aside for the submarine is going to get used up not by Navy, but by Army or Air Force. All the while, our submarine strength will fall and we'll also not have the third carrier either.

@Covfefe is right. If Navy concedes that it can somehow make do without the third carrier, you can bet your top Rupee that the other two services, MoF and MoD will work overtime to convince the Navy they don't need an aircraft carrier even 10 years later. Do you ever see Air Force compromise with its number of fighter squadrons? Look at Army, they compromised with number of Strike Corps (one Mountain Strike Corps instead of two), did they ever get it back? No, instead now a plains Strike Corps is being repurposed.

These discussions about "carriers being an expensive showpiece" need to be sunk regularly, as well as the arguments that proceed along the lines of "islands are unsinkable aircraft carriers".

Fleet planning is a long term game. You don't look at the immediate budget situation, you plan for the long term. In the long term, military CAPEX is sure to rise. Till then, its important that all three services keep on clamouring about how underfunded they are or the politicians of this country will end up giving all that extra money away in socialist schemes to win elections.

Agreed. And as and when our indigenous component of the procurement increases, so will our appetite to invest. Currently almost every major procurement is a hit on forex reserves, hence, the dilly dallying by the CCS. Comparatively, sarkari company contracts get cleared easily (the blockade comes from forces).

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Firstly, so called Chinese Strike Groups are nowhere in comparison to the USN CSGs. Secondly, the most significant threats to carriers are shipborne cruise missiles, wake-homing torpedoes, electronic warfare ships and land-based ballistic missiles.

In battle, ships don't sail individually. The aim of a fleet in war is to keep the coast of its own country free from attack, to secure the freedom of its trade, and to destroy the enemy’s fleet or confine it to port. So you can't do away with ships as someone brought out.

Neither can your ships perform half the missions you listed without air cover. Especially if your adversary has carriers.
Chinese Strike Groups are bound to be the closest to USN CBGs in terms of capability by the end of this decade. It takes a decade for a carrier to be built in India. Its important that the third carrier's construction be started expeditiously.

Half the roles you listed (eg: destroying or confining to port enemy fleet, protecting your trade routes, etc) conflict with your own assertion that in war your ships should keep close to own coast. Please put some thought into your words, you are not being self-consistent.

 

[Mikesingh]

Good inputs! The aim of a good discussion for and against induction of aircraft carriers and building a potent carrier strike group is fructifying! Hope it doesn't degenerate into fisticuffs!!

 

[Mikesingh]

Half the roles you listed (eg: destroying or confining to port enemy fleet, protecting your trade routes, etc) conflict with your own assertion that in war your ships should keep close to own coast. Please put some thought into your words, you are not being self-consistent.

Really? Where did I ever mention that our ships should keep close to own coast? Please don't put words in my mouth! Thanks.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Really? Where did I ever mention that our ships should keep close to own coast? Please don't put words in my mouth! Thanks.

Apologies. I misread your comment.

But if you understand the importance of keeping our trade routes protected, surely you understand that it can't be done without fighter cover.

China is a practitioner of gray warfare. They'll have their carrier strike group regularly breach your EEZ to lower your guard and then suddenly, while breaching the EEZ for the 100th time, they'll suddenly attack, like they did in Galwan. Meanwhile our politicians and MEA babus and will keep the military's hands tied behind their backs through useless agreements, CBMs, etc that dictate ROE. Chinese will be keen on brinkmanship, and our politicians will regularly shy away from it.

In other words, $hit will hit the fan rather fast. Its imperative that whenever a Chinese CSG enters Indian Ocean, it is challenged by an Indian CSG. Its important that if our shipping lanes get challenged or are island territories get captured, that we have the capability to take them back. None of these things can happen if we don't have the aircraft carrier.

 

[fire starter]

I'll just wait here and watch how much of those funds needed for a carrier are diverted to the submarine fleet. P-75I is stuck in a loop, P-75A is already moving forward regardless, as are the SSBNs. The money you set aside for the submarine is going to get used up not by Navy, but by Army or Air Force. All the while, our submarine strength will fall and we'll also not have the third carrier either.

@Covfefe is right. If Navy concedes that it can somehow make do without the third carrier, you can bet your top Rupee that the other two services, MoF and MoD will work overtime to convince the Navy they don't need an aircraft carrier even 10 years later. Do you ever see Air Force compromise with its number of fighter squadrons? Look at Army, they compromised with number of Strike Corps (one Mountain Strike Corps instead of two), did they ever get it back? No, instead now a plains Strike Corps is being repurposed.

These discussions about "carriers being an expensive showpiece" need to be sunk regularly, as well as the arguments that proceed along the lines of "islands are unsinkable aircraft carriers".

Fleet planning is a long term game. You don't look at the immediate budget situation, you plan for the long term. In the long term, military CAPEX is sure to rise. Till then, its important that all three services keep on clamouring about how underfunded they are or the politicians of this country will end up giving all that extra money away in socialist schemes to win elections.

We shouldn't even spend A single rupee of these madarjaat farmers. Let them die bloody traitors.

 

[Vayuputra]

We shouldn't even spend A single rupee of these madarjaat farmers. Let them die bloody traitors.

Bro, it seems you commented on a wrong thread

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

We shouldn't even spend A single rupee of these madarjaat farmers. Let them die bloody traitors.

-Farmers Arhatiyas. Lets call them for what they are.

 

[nixin]

Indian Navy is considering twisting its design of its 3rd aircraft carrier in order to accommodate both fighter aircrafts and attack drones.

This will bring down the displacement of the carrier and cost of making it.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

Navy to tweak its aircraft carrier plan to accommodate surveillance and attack drones

Combination of manned & unmanned systems would mean overall displacement of proposed third aircraft carrier would reduce from 65,000 tonnes, while also decreasing cost.

theprint.in

 

[Longewala]

Do we have to choose?

One 55,000 ton carrier = 4bn
20 odd Rafale-M jets = 3bn
Another Mig 29 squadron to operate from Andamans "carrier" 2bn
Some additional support ships 5bn
Six subs 6bn

Over a 10 year horizon, that's 2bn per annum or 0.05% of GDP

Not too much to ask for to ensure the Induan ocean remains Indian

 

[maximus777]

Conflict in the mountains will be a bloody stalemate of sorts. I have utmost faith that IA will turn that into a meat grinder for the PLA regardless of their tech prowess. The IOR will be the place where the real game is played. This is where we can grab the CCP by its nuts provided the imbeciles in the govt have the foresight.

As someone mentioned if the so called permanent carriers like Andaman or Lakshadweep are taken over by PLAN or if there is an attempt, how do we resist such a thing or worse will we even be able to liberate them? We need serious naval hardware both above and below the surface on a war footing, or else we are finished in the next decade! In all likelihood, PLAN will be the biggest and probably the strongest military force in the world by then.

Babaji shantidoot vishwaguru will be long gone by then, but his policies today will have serious implications in the future for the very existence of this country.

 

[Chinmoy]

Navy to tweak its aircraft carrier plan to accommodate surveillance and attack drones

Combination of manned & unmanned systems would mean overall displacement of proposed third aircraft carrier would reduce from 65,000 tonnes, while also decreasing cost.

theprint.in

Koi logic hain iss baat ka?

 

[IndianHawk]

Conflict in the mountains will be a bloody stalemate of sorts. I have utmost faith that IA will turn that into a meat grinder for the PLA regardless of their tech prowess. The IOR will be the place where the real game is played. This is where we can grab the CCP by its nuts provided the imbeciles in the govt have the foresight.

As someone mentioned if the so called permanent carriers like Andaman or Lakshadweep are taken over by PLAN or if there is an attempt, how do we resist such a thing or worse will we even be able to liberate them? We need serious naval hardware both above and below the surface on a war footing, or else we are finished in the next decade! In all likelihood, PLAN will be the biggest and probably the strongest military force in the world by then.

Babaji shantidoot vishwaguru will be long gone by then, but his policies today will have serious implications in the future for the very existence of this country.

Chinese can't even invade Taiwan but surely they will be able to takeover Andaman soon.
Lol .

 

[IndianHawk]

Koi logic hain iss baat ka?

Logic to hai .
Sea guardian is coming in . Tapas / rustom just performed atol. Unmanned drone can save a lot of space on a carrier . By removing human factors like accommodation / food etc. And drones are only getting advanced so a carrier that will serve us next 50-60-70 years should be designed to accommodate drones with fighter jets .

Smaller carriers could actually have more Survivability than large super carriers in times of Carrier killer missiles. They can be faster more distributed in theatre and more agile against new hypersonic missiles.

All in all good direction to take.

 

[Super Flanker]

Regarding INS Vishal , I highly doubt that we will get a third Aircraft Carrier any time, because it will be over budget. In my opinion, we should build more Nuclear Powered Submarines and Induct them in the Fleet. I highly Doubt that a Third Aircraft Carrier is coming any time soon. It's my personal take that we should Induct more Submarines in our Fleet under:
1)Project 75I
2)project 76
3)Project 75 alpha

 

[Super Flanker]

Indian Navy Keen to Have Third Aircraft Carrier. but the government has to take a decision on it, Admiral Karambir Singh said on Friday. The Chief of Naval Staff also said the Indian Ocean Region is facing a slew of challenges. “The Indian Navy is keen on having a third aircraft carrier. If you see the blue of 1950s, it was built on three aircraft carriers,” he said.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/TeamAMCA/photos/?ref=page_internal

Not sure if a third Aircraft Carrier is feasible anytime soon to be honest.