INS Vikramaditya (Adm Gorshkov) aircraft carrier

[pmaitra]

Location (undated) of INS Vikramaditya (2/2)

Ex-Baku, ex-Gorshkov, INS Vikramaditya, at Shevmash, Severodvinsk!

 

[pmaitra]

Gorshkov's neighbour, Dmitry Donskoi

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Why Can't we have 5 of these rather
HTMS Chakri Naruebet

Cost - US$336 million
Range: 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km; 12,000 mi) at 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph)
7,150 nautical miles (13,240 km; 8,230 mi) at 16.5 knots (30.6 km/h; 19.0 mph)

And Can carry about 30 (Total) Air Assets

I like that class of ship but IN planned for 3 carriers at most, With 3 CBGS also, There are new class of destroyers and Frigates under-construction part of that plan...

F-35B is better idea to replace Harriers, But again Gov have no plans for that..

 

[shubhamsaikia]

You mean this piece of s**t? Why dont we sail on a commode instead?

Size is not the only Area that has to be kept in mind. Its cheaper and thus because of large numbers can take care of larger areas. Ideas may differ. Because of being smaller in size we can also look at stealth as an option.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

The AC seems to have ample parking space. Will easily host 10-12 Aircraft. Is it going to retain any element of being a Air Cruiser...?

 

[pmaitra]

Satellite Eyes

 

[pmaitra]

The AC seems to have ample parking space. Will easily host 10-12 Aircraft. Is it going to retain any element of being a Air Cruiser...?

Most of the attack component in the bow have been removed and cross deck built in its place. It was designed as a Tactical Aircraft Carrying Cruiser, so the hull will still be more like a cruiser, but perhaps, not so much its function.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

Aircraft Carrying Cruiser weren't such a bad idea. In fact does a double role of a destroyer and can compliment submarines for teeth.

 

[pmaitra]

Aircraft Carrying Cruiser weren't such a bad idea. In fact does a double role of a destroyer and can compliment submarines for teeth.

I like the idea of TACC than pure AC concept, but then that's me.

I absolutely don't understand making huge ACs, like Nimitz type supercarriers. They are sitting ducks, and they need a lot of protection, and even if one anti-ship missile makes its way through, it is history. Too much trouble than it is worth.

To me, it makes more sense to see India having 4 or 5 small or medium sized TACC than full fledged ACs. Super-carriers are a big no-no.

 

[Adux]

There is a reason why the Russian couldnt influence the world as much as the United States Navy

There is also a reason Kuzentzov is always in the dockyard.

Russians, today regret making such carrier's and are looking to copy the Americans.

 

[Adux]

What will be a Indian Carrier Battle Group? By 2020, we will be having atleast 2! I was wondering how many ships will be left after, to do anything else.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

What will be a Indian Carrier Battle Group? By 2020, we will be having atleast 2! I was wondering how many ships will be left after, to do anything else.

We do not have carrier Battle groups. We have carrier base fleets. This is exactly what i wanted to point out. If we have Chakri class ships we can always have CBGs which are mobile and can attack anywhere in the world in greater numbers.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

There is a reason why the Russian couldnt influence the world as much as the United States Navy

There is also a reason Kuzentzov is always in the dockyard.

Russians, today regret making such carrier's and are looking to copy the Americans.

Thats not the reason. After the USSR split Russia never had enough Capital to maintain such forces. Its only now when they can think of building their force. The US military budget is 700 Billion USD that 3/4th of our economy. And even they are finding it difficult to maintain their fleets. Also apart from the Nimitz they have Amphibious Assault ships which actually are Chakri Class Like ships.

So Nimits its power projection and the AAS are CBGs. India already now has 2 full fledged ACs why not an addition of Mini ACs with F-35s.

 

[asianobserve]

I absolutely don't understand making huge ACs, like Nimitz type supercarriers. They are sitting ducks, and they need a lot of protection, and even if one anti-ship missile makes its way through, it is history. Too much trouble than it is worth.

As Adux said super carriers are the reason why the US can influence World events (they're bully sticks). The power of carriers are not in the missiles it carry (otherwise why not just build a missile cruiser?) it is on their aircrafts. The more aircraft it carries then the bigger power projection it makes as simple as that. Of course we know that power projection by super carriers is normally aimed at countries with smaller or less technologically capable militaries (as compared to the USSR, Russia or China).

In American doctrine super carriers are nothing more than moving US airfields that can be positioned practically anywhere in the World. The Soviets on the other hand tried to turn their carriers into a sort of jack of all trades. As a result they ended up with carriers that cannot carry as much aircrafts as their American counterparts thus not so effective at power projection.

Regarding aircraft carriers being huge targets, you might ask how many times have American supercarriers been actually targeted post-WW2? I know the North Vietnamese tried but none of their jets got past the Phantom umbrella. Aside from the North Vietnamese I have not heard of a country actually targeting US super carriers (with the intention of sinking them). You know why? It would be suicide to target a US super carrier. The risk of retaliation from American assets is enough to stop madmen at their tracks. China or Russia, although they have the technology to target US super carriers, will not do so unless they're prepared to launch WW3.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

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

 

[shubhamsaikia]

As Adux said super carriers are the reason why the US can influence World events (they're bully sticks). The power of carriers are not in the missiles it carry (otherwise why not just build a missile cruiser?) it is on their aircrafts. The more aircraft it carries then the bigger power projection it makes as simple as that. Of course we know that power projection by super carriers is normally aimed at countries with smaller or less technologically capable militaries (as compared to the USSR, Russia or China).

In American doctrine super carriers are nothing more than moving US airfields that can be positioned practically anywhere in the World. The Soviets on the other hand tried to turn their carriers into a sort of jack of all trades. As a result they ended up with carriers that cannot carry as much aircrafts as their American counterparts thus not so effective at power projection.

Regarding aircraft carriers being huge targets, you might ask how many times have American supercarriers been actually targeted post-WW2? I know the North Vietnamese tried but none of their jets got past the Phantom umbrella. Aside from the North Vietnamese I have not heard of a country actually targeting US super carriers (with the intention of sinking them). You know why? It would be suicide to target a US super carrier. The risk of retaliation from American assets is enough to stop madmen at their tracks. China or Russia, although they have the technology to target US super carriers, will not do so unless they're prepared to launch WW3.

With which country has USA fought which has a credible Military...? A Missile like the Brahmos could penetrate their Phantom Umbrella any day. And imagine the damage. Its like decentralising power into smaller assets.

Also tell us when has an AIrcraft Carrier post WW -2 been sunk..?

 

[shubhamsaikia]

The Battle of Midway - Where 3 US 20,000 Ton Aircraft Carriers defeated 5 Japanese 37,000 Ton Aircraft Carriers.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

USS Enterprise - 20,000 Ton AC

 

[shubhamsaikia]

Japanese Osaka -

 

[asianobserve]

Also tell us when has an AIrcraft Carrier post WW -2 been sunk..?

Exactly the point. Aircraft carriers are power projection tools. They're mainly used to "bully" or in diplomatic terms to influence events. And who can be bullied? Countries with less credible militaries. Hence, the bigger the aircraft compliment of a carrier the more forceful its "bullying" ability.

But if used for a strategic purpose carriers as floating airfields are like military bases. The bigger the base then the bigger is its defensive or offensive coverage.