INS Vikramaditya (Adm Gorshkov) aircraft carrier

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by nitesh, Feb 20, 2009.

  1. binayak95

    binayak95 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,337
    Likes Received:
    2,509
    Location:
    Cuttack, Orissa
    Bro agreed with everything but do your homework.
    One operational carrier? Man, I don't what to say. The Kido Butai that deployed under Vice Admiral Nagumo for the Pearl Harbor attack had three carrier divisions: the 1st, the 2nd and the 5th. That meant SIX fleet carriers comprised of Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku.

    Don't demean the achievements of the IJN. It was a brilliantly executed operation but a strategic disaster.


    Two carriers weren't used to their potential my ass. The only thing the Argentinians did was the Exocet missile strikes. Their own carrier never even sortied out to challenge the Royal Navy. The RN, on the other hand, improvised brilliantly to allow merchant vessels to carry more Harriers in addition to the Hermes and the Invincible. and the carriers were used to the best of their capabilities. The limiting factor was the Sea Harrier's own lacunae when faced with modern supersonic fighters.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2018
    aditya10r and scatterStorm like this.
  2. binayak95

    binayak95 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,337
    Likes Received:
    2,509
    Location:
    Cuttack, Orissa
    Again BullSHIT. The Gulf wars are an anomaly because the coalition forces had access to nearby land bases in Saudi Arabia. The Carrier's Air Group is the primary offensive arm of any carrier capable navy. The whole of the Pacific War saw both the USN and the IJN use carriers offensively.
    Battle of the Philippines Sea, Coral Sea, Midway, landings at Guadalcanal, Okinawa, defense of Port Moresby. Japanese ops in the Indian Ocean.

    Only in the Mediterranean theatre and in the Atlantic/Arctic Convoys where RN and USN carriers conducted convoy escort missions to Malta were carriers used defensively.
     
    aditya10r likes this.
  3. scatterStorm

    scatterStorm Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    914
    Location:
    India
    You are right there, my bad, 6 carriers were deployed. 1st wave was flown from 6 carriers.

    The argentinian navy on the other hand was outgunned, hence the significance of using other naval assets including the Anti-ship missiles was quite lit. Argentinian Carrier wasn't fully utilised because of the presence of a hunter killer sub, in such conditions still they put up a good fight, especially the sorties from it's air wing. This in a whole lot of perceptive put's other naval assets importance to why carrier numbers aren't just important.

    Another perspective to look at flakland campaign was that, having better jet (supersonic ones) were better options against an armada of two carriers having jets but still put under pressure from the supersonic.
     
    binayak95 likes this.
  4. Zer0

    Zer0 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2017
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    26
    Indian navy is sanctioned for 2 ACs while China 4 ACs till 2030s. For China its 2 for SCS and 2 for Indo-pacific while for India concept is to have 1 AC always available basically what @scatterStorm said we need only 1.
     
  5. undeadmyrmidon

    undeadmyrmidon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2017
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    863
    By making a statement like above, your namesake is reflected in your knowledge. India has plans for 3 A/C. 1 in Arabian Sea, one in Bay of Bengal and 1 under refit/reserve.

    INS Vikramaditya
    INS Vikrant
    INS Vishal (temporary name)

    That's why Indian Navy is buying 57 Naval Aircraft even though needs for first two are met by 45 Mig 29k.

    China has eventual plans for 4 - 5 A/C with 1 in SCS, 1 in Western Pacific, 1 in Indo Pacific and 1 reserve

    P.S: Don't feel bad. Welcome to DFI rookie!
    ☺️
     
    darshan978 likes this.
  6. scatterStorm

    scatterStorm Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    914
    Location:
    India
    It isn't anomaly, it was the first time if I am correct that the concept of joint forces was fully realised but this time each forces were given a designated role. F18s, A10 warthogs and Apache Gun ships were dropping bombs and providing air support to the ground forces. F16s, F15s & were providing air superiority.

    No matter you choose any navy, it will always be the air force who will provide air superiority but that doesn't mean navy jet's can't go offensive ... that is why we have the term "swing role".
     
  7. binayak95

    binayak95 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,337
    Likes Received:
    2,509
    Location:
    Cuttack, Orissa
    Carrier Battle Groups are by design, meant for offensive power projection and sea control. Aircraft carriers carry a large air group composed of multiple air groups (or are supposed to, anyway) so that different squadrons maintain CAP and strike formations throughout the battle.

    The CBG's other ships and submarines also from an integral part of the strike package and for defence of the carrier, with their given complement of long range AShMs and AD systems.

    Any nation's air force can only provide air support IF there are bases within the combat radius of the battle theatre. That's the biggest condition. In recent conflicts, Falklands stands out as one such operation where a Carrier Air Group completely dominated the skies over the Falklands islands and also conducted ground attacks in support of the landing forces.

    WWII and the fighting around the Philippines are the best examples, with the stand out being the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
     
  8. Kshithij

    Kshithij DharmaYoddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    1,892
    Navy's jets are limited in number and ammunition. You need 2000 sortie per day to have an effective bombing mission. Carriers don't have the required amount of fuel for even 1 day of such intense sorties (2000x3ton = 6000ton fuel). Also, number of jets per carrier is limited to about 50 which makes the job even more difficult.

    Navy planes are meant to go on offensive at times but it is not reasonable to expect them to be very effective against land Target. Navy planes are more useful in clearing the seas by dropping bombs on enemy ships and boats and hence destroying them.

    While fighting against land targets of advanced enemy with SAMs, carrier aircrafts will be seriously outgunned. Only technologically backward enemies can attacked by Carrier planes
     
    undeadmyrmidon likes this.
  9. Zer0

    Zer0 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2017
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    26
    I don't feel bad cuz i know you're wrong. IAC-II would replace INS Vikramaditya, lol so called experts.
     
  10. undeadmyrmidon

    undeadmyrmidon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2017
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    863
    I know that you're a Paki now. INS Vikramaditya will serve for 30 - 35 yrs and will retire by 2042 ish. By mid late 2020s IAC 2 will be in commission.

    You are simply here to troll. Go back to PDF Paki.
     
    darshan978 likes this.
  11. Sandeep0159

    Sandeep0159 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,696
    Likes Received:
    8,848
    Location:
    Bharat
    Bhai,INS Viraat served in RN for 25 odd yrs and then in IN for another 30 yrs.Is there any chance our INS Vikramaditya would have 50 plus yr service like the Centaur class carrier?Is larger displacement considered a backlog?
    @binayak95 Could u explain ur views on Vikramaditya and our future CBGs?
     
    darshan978 likes this.
  12. binayak95

    binayak95 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,337
    Likes Received:
    2,509
    Location:
    Cuttack, Orissa
    Difficult to say. While the Hermes was initially laid down back in WWII, she was completed only by 1959. Even then, she received major refurbishment and repair work periodically to the point that when she was offered to the IN in 1987, the IN's inspection team concluded that structurally the ship was 10 years younger than the Vikrant which was commissioned in 61.

    Now British ships have traditionally been well built and sturdy and have served us well. The Vikrant and the Viraat, both served us for 30 odd years. As did the various frigates and destroyers that preceded them (the R class DDs, Blackwood, River and Leopard class frigates, the Delhi and the Mysore cruisers, etc)

    Russian ships, on the other hand, have had typically lighter steel construction - the reason being they operated in colder and less saline waters of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans and thus faced less corrosion. While British ships operated all over the world and were built accordingly. An example of such 'light' construction would be the INS Andaman which was lost at sea in September of 1990.

    But apparently the Navy's concerns were communicated to the Russians and subsequent ships have better steel - including the Rajputs and the Kilo subs.

    So, the Vikramaditya has good quality construction even though she was in a really bad shape when we bought it. The ship has excellent sea keeping qualities as well and has powerful (if outdated and inefficient propulsion)

    Her EW suite is said to be a class apart and can cause massive problems for any opposing fleet - I'll leave it at that. Onboard radar and communication facilities are suitable for a flagship of a CBG.

    But all that aside, I am afraid her life in the Navy will depend on how our future flattop turns out. She doesn't have deck edge elevators which means that the elevators will not fit every plane (in fact nothing but the MiG 29K) without major modifications.

    If (and this appears likely) we switch to Rafale Ms or F-18 ASHs, then Vikramaditya will have to be modified extensively to operate them or she'll be relegated to MiG 29Ks for as long as possible before being switched to a helo carrier.

    But who knows, the MiGs have performed admirably in the last Malabar exercise, even though they had serious issues initially.

    The new Vikrant will have no choice but to operate MiG 29Ks and F-18 ASHs (Rafale Ms don't fit on the elevators in their present configuration)

    So, it's kind of balls in the air. But we are looking tentatively at 3 CBGs. Viki with MiG 29Ks, Vikrant with MiG 29Ks/F-18ASHs and the Vishal too with F-18s. (unless Dassault modifies the wings of the Rafale M, in which case I don't know what will happen)
     
  13. undeadmyrmidon

    undeadmyrmidon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2017
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    863
    INS Vikramaditya has 70% new structure and was rebuilt from ground not refurbished. Hence it is practically new and not some old shit like INS Jalashwa aka ex - USS Trenton. Thus INS Vikramaditya will serve for 30 years.

    http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...ll-serve-navy-for-30-years/article4996525.ece
     
    darshan978 and bhramos like this.
  14. undeadmyrmidon

    undeadmyrmidon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2017
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    863
    Most probably F/A 18 SH. Rafale N production line closed years ago.
     
  15. binayak95

    binayak95 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,337
    Likes Received:
    2,509
    Location:
    Cuttack, Orissa
    Rafale N are the nuke strike Rafales. We need Rafale Ms which are quite easy to produce. (Ps: our rafales are quite similar to the Rafale N)
     
    undeadmyrmidon likes this.
  16. Manish Khan

    Manish Khan Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    27
    From the Maritime Executive::india::india:

    In a recent article, David Brewster poses an interesting question: is there a cheaper and less risky way for India to project power in the neighborhood than by continuing to rely on its aircraft carriers?

    By developing the Andaman and Nicobar Islands into a strategic hub for power projection, Brewster wonders if India could replace its expensive and “sinkable” aircraft carriers with “unsinkable” island bases. Yet the choice for New Delhi to abandon its flat-tops in favour of a force projection hub at the Andaman Islands isn’t straightforward.

    The real odds that a maritime power will sink another’s aircraft carrier in peacetime are actually quite slim.

    The prevailing wisdom is that strategic defence at sea is best provided by mobile military assets, not least since adversaries have a range of flexible combat options at their disposal. Even if India did set up a sea-denial complex around the Andaman Islands, it would by its very “defensive” nature be incapable of furthering the Indian Navy’s force projection efforts in South Asia and beyond.

    But India’s political and strategic elite also remains divided on the question of developing the Andaman and Nicobar Islands into a springboard for strategic projection in Asia. What is described as a militarist school cites the China threat, deeming the development of advanced surveillance and power-projection capability as a rank imperative.

    This contrasts with the pragmatists, who are not against tapping the strategic potential of the islands, but oppose the idea of large-scale militarisation, which would hurt India’s image as a largely benign military power.

    Even assuming New Delhi decided to develop military facilities in the Andaman Islands, the Indian Navy wouldn’t want them as part of a swap-bargain with its aircraft carriers. Despite facing an increasingly hostile operational environment, the aircraft carrier is still the only platform that provides comprehensive access to littoral spaces, for surveillance and effective sea command.

    Many naval analysts seem convinced the aircraft carrier is still relevant to modern-day naval warfare.

    Consider this: despite losing more than ten fleet and escort carriers during the Second World War, the US Navy’s reliance on aircraft carrier operations has only grown over time. During the Cold War confrontation with the Soviet Union, US carrier battle groups were deployed in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and the Northern Atlantic, often facing the same heavy odds as in the Second World War.

    Skip forwards to 2018, and the US supercarrier still lies at the vanguard of maritime operations in the Asia-Pacific region. Arguably, America’s floating airfields aren’t any less susceptible now than in the past.

    Yet Washington persists with its carrier deployments because it is the only reliable way of keeping up a visible tempo of US maritime operations to deter adversaries in the faraway seas.

    It is the shifting context of naval warfare that provides the strongest argument in favour of aircraft carriers. In an era of hostile peace, when maritime powers have neither the resources nor the appetite to engage in fully fledged combat, big naval assets are necessary platforms for posturing and strategic signalling.

    Since all sides realise the importance of keeping maritime responses below the threshold of retaliation, rivals desist from targeting each other’s principal assets.

    This is not to suggest that a navy’s aircraft carrier cannot be sunk; rather that targeting such a ship is never an easy choice for the adversary. In attempting to target a rival aircraft carrier, a navy must ensure a high degree of internal operational coordination for simultaneous strikes by multiple weapons systems. It must also hedge against the possibility that a badly planned operation would be repelled, triggering a massive response by the adversary.

    Even if the attack was successfully executed, it would need more than a few missile and torpedo strikes for a big aircraft carrier to end up on the ocean floor. By then, both sides would have hit Armageddon.

    The real odds that a maritime power will sink another’s aircraft carrier in peacetime are actually quite slim. True, the flat-top is expensive, and perhaps more vulnerable than before. But so long as it is employed judiciously in less-than-war conditions (as is likely to be the case), there is still no platform to beat its strategic utility.

    For the Indian Navy, the aircraft carrier is an article of faith because of its ability to alter the psychological balance in the Indian Ocean littorals. It is a potent symbol of a nation’s pride and power; a floating piece of sovereign territory; and a projection of national will.

    Although the flat-top could be replaced by island facilities (unsinkable carriers), or even lesser floating platforms that might do the job, none can replicate its demonstrative impact. Far from being a status symbol, the ship is the “beating heart” of the fighting fleet that provides naval operations with an essential vigor.

    Abhijit Singh is Senior Fellow and Head of Maritime Policy Initiative at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) in New Delhi. A former Indian naval officer, he has edited two books on maritime security: Indian Ocean Challenges: A Quest for Cooperative Solutions (2013), and Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific (2014), and written extensively on India’s growing maritime reach, security of sea lines of communication and Indian Ocean governance issues.
     
  17. Jumbo

    Jumbo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    61
    Few years back, if I am not wrong, Indian defence forces themselves calculated that in future India economy will grow much more and they used it as a logical reason, to prove their point that Indian defence must be better accordingly.

    I do agree with you, India needs atleast three aircraft carriers.
     
    darshan978 likes this.
  18. Neeraj Mathur

    Neeraj Mathur Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    413
    From random surfing on Youtube.
     
  19. wairoa

    wairoa Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2019
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    7
    Yes and the Brits also were hampered by lack of AEW and a long range strike aircraft, and fighter such as the buccanearand phantom
     
    binayak95 likes this.
  20. The Ultranationalist

    The Ultranationalist Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2017
    Messages:
    891
    Likes Received:
    2,057
    Location:
    Noida UP
    Hey guys porkies are reporting that Vicky has left her home port and headed towards porky waters, is that true?
     

Share This Page