INS Vikramaditya (Adm Gorshkov) aircraft carrier

[asianobserve]

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

Don't tell me you still envision a Midway type carrier-to-carrier battle in this nuclear age? Do you really think that Indian and Chinese will lunch missiles or planes against each other's carriers? That would be the start of the end of the World...

 

[shubhamsaikia]

Look Incase India goes into war with China, its only sensible that India opens another front to be equally footed. Our mainland is nearer to the border than of the Chinese. In that case say of you have 2 Nimitz class ACs, the Chinese will have an easier task cordoning off that area. But say if we have 5 smaller ACs , its easier attacking the Chinease from all sides or complimenting 2 ACs to open more fronts.

And in todays scenario except the US no one can actually have Carrier to Carrier battle, we hardly have any to have those.

 

[Adux]

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.

I suggest you read up on the Soviet Carrier Program, and how they considered Baku and Kuznetsov failures, were slowly towards the American model with Ulyanovsk. The new Russian Aircraft being drawn up will be similar to the USN, but smaller at 75,000 tons

 

[Adux]

And will you please stop polluting the Vikramaditya Thread. A lot of people had taken years to bring it to its current shape. Thanks.

Comparing Indian Navy with the Thai Navy is a joke. That too with a glorified Royal King Carrier's

Also, India will be operating a fleet of LHD's and LPD's. at 30,000 and 20,000 respectively

 

[Adux]

Again,

India operates conventional Carrier's, So it will need protection.

Lets take 2018 as a time mark

What all assets will be protecting a Carrier.


Vikramaditya

1 Delhi Class
1 Kolkatta Class
2 Talwar Class
1 Akula


Vikrant


1 Delhi Class
1 Kolkatta Class
2 Talwar Class
1 SSN ? ( the second akula to be leased)

What about the LPD's, LHD's and their protection ?

So what is left for the IN?



Fact of the matter is, the Indian Navy is severely under equipped and manned for the threats it faces.

 

[Adux]

Look Incase India goes into war with China, its only sensible that India opens another front to be equally footed. Our mainland is nearer to the border than of the Chinese. In that case say of you have 2 Nimitz class ACs, the Chinese will have an easier task cordoning off that area. But say if we have 5 smaller ACs , its easier attacking the Chinease from all sides or complimenting 2 ACs to open more fronts.

And in todays scenario except the US no one can actually have Carrier to Carrier battle, we hardly have any to have those.

You really need stop this, and especially in this thread. You make no sense and have no understanding of the capabilities that is required. Indian Navy has already chosen the lowest size of its aircraft carrier that is 40,000 tons. Anything less and capable of aerial attack as far as the IN is concerned would be a LHD's

 

[shubhamsaikia]

And will you please stop polluting the Vikramaditya Thread. A lot of people had taken years to bring it to its current shape. Thanks.

Comparing Indian Navy with the Thai Navy is a joke. That too with a glorified Royal King Carrier's

Also, India will be operating a fleet of LHD's and LPD's. at 30,000 and 20,000 respectively

Couldn't find a better thread than this to discuss. Secondly we are not talking of Amphibious Ships but ships that can be designated at Aircrat Carriers. Also I was suggesting a compliment and not scrap of the idea..

 

[Adux]

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..?

No, single Brahmos cannot penerate their phantom umberlla .

Why, lets start. What is the range of Brahmos 290 Kms. So you need to launch to be inside 300 Kilometers to launch one. If you are a hostile ship in radius of 500 Kilometers of US CBG, You are toast. You can thank their Ship Launched Cruise Missiles as well as their Fighters for that. They can hit you while you cannot hit them, heck even target them.

What is the maximum Brahmos carried by an Indian ship, 8 and you launch all of them, that is somehow you are able to get inside 300 Kilometers.

Imagine 8 of them being launched, You have Carrier's own defenses as well as her carrier group's defenses in other ships such as 2 Cruiser, 4 Destroyer, 4 Frigates. That Brahmos wont even pass 100 Kilometer mark before it is shot down by the Carrier's support elements.

Now what is left for the Indian Ship to attack a long range target with? Nothing! You will have nothing but completed roasted Indian Navy Ship. Courtesy the USN.

Stop believing the Russian Fancy stories.

 

[Adux]

Couldn't find a better thread than this to discuss. Secondly we are not talking of Amphibious Ships but ships that can be designated at Aircrat Carriers. Also I was suggesting a compliment and not scrap of the idea..

Do create your own thread then.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

"2 Cruiser, 4 Destroyer, 4 Frigates". And when you have a Air Cruser Battle ship don't you agree, the Ship is going to need less support.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

BrahMos is capped because of Russia being signatory to MTCR. We can always develop longer range cruise missiles. Infact Shaurya has the range and capability. And most o the Missile defences also don't work for such platforms.

 

[Adux]

"2 Cruiser, 4 Destroyer, 4 Frigates". And when you have a Air Cruser Battle ship don't you agree, the Ship is going to need less support.

No, the strength of the US CBG is the network and layering.

Air Cruiser Battleship will be over whelmed by the assets against it if it is facing it alone. It is quite simple really, it really cant be 4 different places at one single time and have a wide variety of weapons and multiple sub systems for redundancy.

It is useless to even talk about, quite simply. The Soviets and the Russians have given up on their idea of Aircraft Carrier Cruisers. It is simple not doable against the threats it might face.

And also not being a pure carrier degrades its capacity to work like a real carrier, therefore wont have much influence to project.

A squadron of super hornets over a enemy territory is a warning and short of a war. And can influence and is cost effective

While 4 GRANiT's flying over enemy territory is WAR, influence is war and is definitely not cost effective.

A Pure Carrier actually gives politicians options and flexibility

 

[Kunal Biswas]

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.

A carrier battle group priority is to provide protection to carrier, the formation is itself a fleet, having Chakri class or Modified Kiev class is more or less same, Main purpose of both ships are for mobile floating airbase..



Bigger the carrier more the air-power, More air-power more striking capability and more defense from enemy air-power..

 

[Adux]

BrahMos is capped because of Russia being signatory to MTCR. We can always develop longer range cruise missiles. Infact Shaurya has the range and capability. And most o the Missile defences also don't work for such platforms.

You are wrong. What is the furtherst element in CBG Group?

America has cruise missiles which are 1500 kilometers RGM/UGM-109B, a single SSGN carriers 154 of them. Lets not even go to Tico's having 66 anti air missiles and CIWS. No Brahmos, Shaurya etc etc are going to penetrate a US Carrier Battle Group. You want to do it, then you have an option it is called a squadron of Tu-22M with a new variant similar to KH-22 with a nuclear war head.
I dont think you have any idea how a CBG looks like. Do you imagine it as some ships floating in formations within a 5 kilometer area? No

Sometimes the outer ring element is atleast 200 Kilometers away. Its all about Networking.

 

[Mad Indian]

"2 Cruiser, 4 Destroyer, 4 Frigates". And when you have a Air Cruser Battle ship don't you agree, the Ship is going to need less support.

Dude. come on. That makes no sense at all. If you lower the defences with lower number of ships, then it will be easier to destroy each of them.

larger the fleet, harder it is to destroy any part of it. Remember- "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."- By Some one really great

I for one would have been happier if IAC1 and other future carriers are of the Super carrier league.

Anyway, any official news on what the CBG based on INS Vikramaditya will be comprised of?

 

[shubhamsaikia]

I see. However I Saw CBGs as an Exclusive Task Force rather than an entire fleet. Yes about networking I totally agree on that.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

Anyway, any official news on what the CBG based on INS Vikramaditya will be comprised of?

Should have atleast 2 destroyers and frigates and may be a submarine.

 

[pmaitra]

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.

I have highlighted the key points you have made.

These super-carriers has only enabled the US to bully tiny countries. Even for Iraq Invasion, they had to get all their allies together, get airbases in littoral countries and launch an invasion after years of sanctions.

The USSR could not afford dumping money in such outlandish projects and they found it easier to build anti-ship missiles. Read up the history of the Yakhont.

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.

As I said, they need a lot of protection. An AC alone is a sitting duck. The US Navy operates with battle groups, and there are many other ships protecting the AC. In case it is a super-carrier, it will need all the more protection, or risk sinking. It does not offer that kind of advantage as much as it costs to make them. It is too big and an entire battle group can be easily scared away by a potential foe worth its salt (role of Soviet Navy in 1971-72).

Given India, we are talking about Pakistan and PRC, where in an all out war, our ACs will be very vulnerable. OTOH, they will be very useful for countries like Maldives.

 

[pmaitra]

BrahMos is capped because of Russia being signatory to MTCR. We can always develop longer range cruise missiles. Infact Shaurya has the range and capability. And most o the Missile defences also don't work for such platforms.

That's correct. MTCR is the problem, not the missile. It can be extended beyond its current range, only if the Russians agree to ignore MTCR. In any event, super-carriers are sitting ducks without all the other ships protecting it. If India cannot afford the accompanying ships that the US can for its Nimitz, India is better off with smaller ACs.

I agree with Mad Indian here. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The Nimitz alone is very vulnerable, just as an AC is. However, the Gorshkov was capable of offering protection to other ships, not needing protection. I am talking about the Gorshkov, not Vikramaditya.

Again, doctrines shape ships, and funding shapes doctrine to a large extent.

Dude. come on. That makes no sense at all. If you lower the defences with lower number of ships, then it will be easier to destroy each of them.

larger the fleet, harder it is to destroy any part of it. Remember- "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."- By Some one really great

I for one would have been happier if IAC1 and other future carriers are of the Super carrier league.

Anyway, any official news on what the CBG based on INS Vikramaditya will be comprised of?

 

[p2prada]

If you want to sink a carrier, then you need nuke powered submarines. Lots and lots of submarines if you are up against the US Navy.