Disclaimer: This thread is strictly for discussion on the topic of INS-Vikramaditya, respected forum members, please take your pissing contest somewhere else. Regarding criticism, a forum should support obtuse view points as well. Everyone is welcomed to express there opinions, but your opinions should be strictly limited to thread discussion aswell. If you want to counter each other, there's a "chit-chat" thread. Let's behave like grown up's.
Regarding No of Carriers: Here's the thing, mandates come and go as they are highly dependent on threat projection and perception. If there's a mandate of 5, there's no guarantee that all 5 would be highly achievable as it dependent on Micro and Macro economic factors. That' being said, if the navy say's they need 5, but they have a "Plan B" i.e. At-least 3 for minimum credible deterrence, than it will be 3.
Remember, IAF Chief Dhanoa gave a very good understanding what differentiates expectations and reality. Force projection mandate is 3 CVAL's and 2 CVN's, making a total of 5, it good to have it, but minimum credible deterrence is 3 to take care of future strategic national maritime interest of India.
Regarding Naval Jets: Naval Jet's contrary to popular belief are not usually for offensive purposes, they are mainly required for more of CAS and defensive stance. Take the example of second gulf war fought between Iraq and Coalition forces (Now NATO: New Agenda of Terror and Oppression), most of naval air assets were there to do CAS operations. F18s especially.
Historical Significance of the value of carrier & Why Number's aren't the only thing:
Carrier's were born out of the need of for conducting long range strategic maritime missions of national interest and force projection. It's not a deterrence per se, it's more of a forward floating operational naval base and debating over it is pure subjective matter.
#1: It was Japan in WW2 to have only 1 operational carrier that carried out the infamous Perl harbour raid. That huge shit storm was carried by only 1 operational carrier, several thousand NM away of the cost of Japan ... rest is history.
Having a Carrier doesn't also mean you go policing the world (unless you are USN).
#2: In the Falkland wars, even though UK had 2 operational carrier, but Argentinian Navy proved that having few frigates and carriers and Airforce backing your 6, you can slow down the indecisive crack of Royal Navy's operations. In fact, to this day, military analyst are surprised to why the 2 carriers weren't utilised to it's full potential.
Lesson learn't over here are, you don't need to operate 5 or 10 Carriers. You just need to have your strategic objectives clearly formed, understood and realised. If you need to choke straits and create a naval blockade in eastern and western theatre, you have two of them, the last one is there for reserve and can be called upon when required or could be used to coordinate among the former two.
. I think this forum dont deserve quality posters like him.
