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

[Mad Indian]

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

And Indian govt is somehow going to be powerlfull to use nukes?

Seriously, if you are going to bring in the spines of Indian govt, aircraft carrier means a much more. Maldives would not happen again if we have had two CBG on call near them

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

And Indian govt is somehow going to be powerlfull to use nukes?

Seriously, if you are going to bring in the spines of Indian govt, aircraft carrier means a much more. Maldives would not happen again if we have had two CBG on call near them

Haha. You need two CBG to stop stupidity in Maldives!!

It is hardly 1 hr by regular flight from Kerela!

 

[Bheeshma]

One flight from Il-76 is enough.

 

[blueblood]

.............................................................................

 

[Yumdoot]

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

I think that is a bit too harsh.

To think over a few things:

1) Why did the PLAAN claim that they can shut India up with 10 subs? I mean why did they not rely on their surface fleet? What reason was given to them not to think about that?

2) Given that India has a big coastline with hardly much presence of any other Navy nearby unlike the much smaller South China Sea, where you can find some very powerful navies. How many Indian subs could counter-shut-up-china, similarly.

3) The sea lane from Persian Bay and Suez to Mallaca is probably the only sealane in the world where only one Navy has eyes on both ends. All other sea routes require more than one Navies, often adversary or at least a bunch of navies have to gang up together as allies to police it. In such a situation at least 3 ACs on call seem pretty justifiable. Couple that with the Indian Navy's understanding that for a carrier it makes sense to have 30+ aircrafts to be effective as a strategic asset.

4) In such a situation how many subs would actually be required. My long term guesstimate
=>5 SSBN
+ 5 SSN/SSK to protect the SSBN
+ 5 / 10 smaller SSKs for shallow water ambush in IOR.
+ 7 SSN for open ocean duties, protecting CBGs and ambushing in SCS
+ 8 SSGN for SCS counter-patrolling
= totalling say 30 to 35 subs.

5) What is the budget available.

 

[jackprince]

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.

Subs are much more vulnerable than any ships, even a corvette. A far cheaper but in greater number of Anti-sub helicopters, or ASW ships can make subs running for life. They are for keeping silent till the final moment, caught before and they are done. That is something you cannot say about AC. Frigates and destroyers on the other hand can cover a large area and do both the actual work of patrolling and projection of strength, true. However, they can never project force the way a CBG can, nor can they have the leg and reach a CBG have because of its aircrafts. The immediate operational area is huge and its are area of influence is even greater.

Now, the immediate need for CBG in keeping IOR safe for our interest may not be there, but we would be fool to deny its future necessity. Particularly when China is determined to build up its navy and has shown its interest in IOR. China IMO is not building carrier to counter USA, at least not now as they cannot. But, when India may not in the first priority, their increasing interest and India's influence over its rivals like Vietnam and others, would definitely make it eager for countering IN in coming years.

Further, we can use CBG when the next war breaks out to blockade it and even deter any third party to intervene navally. There's no if but when a war breaks out with the porkistan.

For every Virus, we have Anti Virus...

ummm... for every computer virus may be? For most others we have vaccine.....

sorry, but that was a loose ball, could not let that go

 

[Yumdoot]

@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.

 

[Zebra]

Subs are much more vulnerable than any ships, even a corvette.

Sorry I disagree. Any given day subs are more safe than any ships.

A far cheaper but in greater number of Anti-sub helicopters, or ASW ships can make subs running for life. They are for keeping silent till the final moment, caught before and they are done.

To find an enemy sub in open sea, it is a hell of a task.
If you find it and that sub manage to get 500 m dive, then forget it.
You know that the sub is right underneath you, then also you can't do anything.
Unless you got something to fire heavy torpedos which can go beyond that depth.

That is something you cannot say about AC. Frigates and destroyers on the other hand can cover a large area and do both the actual work of patrolling and projection of strength, true. However, they can never project force the way a CBG can, nor can they have the leg and reach a CBG have because of its aircrafts. The immediate operational area is huge and its are area of influence is even greater.

Subs are good for spying, to keep an eye type jobs.
A sub can give a big surprise to enemy.

 

[Kharavela]

I wonder, why new members (particularly those who have no real life experience in defence) are jumping the gun & straightaway putting their absurd suggestions instead of reading the relevant information laden threads of DFI ?

 

[Screambowl]

Meanwhile in Beijing.. AC can come in

 

[Mad Indian]

Haha. You need two CBG to stop stupidity in Maldives!!

It is hardly 1 hr by regular flight from Kerela!

You are right, but nothing is scarier than a couple of CBG docked outside blockading your ports.

Subs can never provide force projection. AC on the other hand....

 

[Mad Indian]

Sorry I disagree. Any given day subs are more safe than any ships.



To find an enemy sub in open sea, it is a hell of a task.
If you find it and that sub manage to get 500 m dive, then forget it.
You know that the sub is right underneath you, then also you can't do anything.
Unless you got something to fire heavy torpedos which can go beyond that depth.



Subs are good for spying, to keep an eye type jobs.
A sub can give a big surprise to enemy.

You spy on your enemy and then what? Twiddle our thumbs?

I can't believe you guys are advocating for subs vs AC when you have China next door.

 

[Zebra]

You spy on your enemy and then what? Twiddle our thumbs?

I can't believe you guys are advocating for subs vs AC when you have China next door.

Sir, you missed this part......A sub can give a big surprise to enemy.

And that next door neighbor also prefer to send subs in your back yard.

 

[Mad Indian]

Sir, you missed this part......A sub can give a big surprise to enemy.

And that next door neighbor also prefer to send subs in your back yard.

Yes, surprise the enemy and then twiddle the thumb

 

[Kharavela]

Why are we having discussions Aircraft Carriers vs Submarines ? Isn't it that both have different objectives:
Aircraft Carrier ==>> Sea Control
Submarine ==>> Sea Denial
We need both for effective Naval Force.

 

[Rowdy]

@pmaitra please lock this senseless thread

 

[EXPERT]

ummm... for every computer virus may be? For most others we have vaccine.....

sorry, but that was a loose ball, could not let that go

Thank you...Your Majesty...
For not letting that go..

 

[Brood Father]

AC are very good while attacking distant land where our aircraft cannot reach in one go ..fortunately for India entire Pakistan is within reach of our aircrafts so according me (maybe i am wrong) AC are luxuary
Also we are very lucky that Pakistani navy is weakest link in their armed forces , so AC is not necessity

But in case of China we need AC deterrence as most of their important port are out of reach of our air force as well as navy
So I would say we do need AC but first we need to have enough destroyers and submarines to counter Chinese presence

 

[Neil]

You are right, but nothing is scarier than a couple of CBG docked outside blockading your ports.

Subs can never provide force projection. AC on the other hand....

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?

 

[DFI_COAS]

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!