INS Vikramaditya (Adm Gorshkov) aircraft carrier

[pmaitra]

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.

True. However, that's not the case with Indian Navy.

 

[Mad Indian]

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.

Hey lets consider your idea of smaller carriers. Wont they need protection?

WE have to protect the Carriers no matter what. Hence we are better off defending a large one with a large fleet than a smaller one with a smaller fleet.

 

[Mad Indian]

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.

Common Pmaitra, Gorshkov needs protection too. Its not like it can take on the stuff which would target the Carriers all by itself. In any case, the stuff which can bring down a CBG will definitely bring down the Gorshkov with too much ease. Its not like Gorshkovs wont need a escort now is it?

 

[shubhamsaikia]

Hey lets consider your idea of smaller carriers. Wont they need protection?

WE have to protect the Carriers no matter what. Hence we are better off defending a large one with a large fleet than a smaller one with a smaller fleet.

Smaller ACs will enable us to have more CBGs. So our fleets are not concentrated at just one place and have more Air Capabilities as well.

 

[Adux]

Subha,


What makes you think lets say 20,000 10 smaller Carrier's are more cost effective than a 6 Large 40 - 60,000 ton carrier?

It needs requires the same amount support vessels yet delivering 1/3rd of the punch.
It would require more men to work
It simply isnt effective. Anyways it is moot point since IN has already decided either 40,000 ton as its minimum effective carrier size. Heck, it might increase it to the current world trend for a non-nuclear carrier's 60,000 tons.

Let me also continue regarding, World Politics is played with little guys not with the big guys. India will be playing with North Korea to teach China a lesson, China plays with Vietnam to teach India a lesson etc. There will not be much direct confrontation with the BiG 6. If USN CBG's werent any threat, the Soviets wont have tried tooth and nail to catch up with them. The real reason is, an american supercarrier requires money, Soviets didnt have'em. There is a reason why India follows the same method, also China by converting Varyag into a pure conventional carrier.

Aircraft Carrier Cruisers is bad design, history has proven it to be.

US has nothing to prove, the world runs the way they want it to, the USN makes sure it does.

 

[Mad Indian]

Smaller ACs will enable us to have more CBGs. So our fleets are not concentrated at just one place and have more Air Capabilities as well.

"Whole is greater than the sum of its parts"- Aristotle:thumb:

Also Adux has made the point I wanted to make . So I dont think i have anything to say.

And think about it,do you think small carriers wont be targeted? If so, then is it wise to have a larger defence fleet or a Smaller one? And if the defence fleet is going to be larger, what should be the carrier. leading the fleet?

 

[shubhamsaikia]

Where is the MONEY for maintaining 6 Large 40,000 ton ACs. I called for a combination. We have 2 why not add the smaller ones as well.

 

[Adux]

Where is the MONEY for maintaining 6 Large 40,000 ton ACs. I called for a combination. We have 2 why not add the smaller ones as well.

I think you should drop it, I said hypothetical , not that India had money for 6 40,000 tons, for that matter where is the money for 10, 20,000 also?

Indian Navy has made a choice, and your understanding of the issue is not correct. Its not like placing 10 pieces on a map. There is much more to it, It will be far more expensive, difficult and not to mention lacks the firepower. So it is a bad idea. Please drop it, if not make a new thread.


Regarding your combination, This is what we know about 2020

3 Aircraft Carriers
4 LHD/LPD's ( What I hear through the grapewine is, 4 LHD's and 4 LPD's; and raising of a 50,000 Strong Marine Force)

I think the discussion should be around such lines that we know about, not some wishful thinking like the paki's.

Understand this very very well Gentlemen, India is not going to get be a superpower or achieve her security on the cheap; I am sorry that is not going to happen, our adversary's are powerful, focused, resourceful and worse in the neighborhood.

 

[pmaitra]

US Defense budget only for the US Navy:

President Barack Obama's budget for Fiscal Year 2012 was submitted to Congress Feb. 14, with an overall request for the DoN of $161.4 billion, which is an increase of $1.0 billion over last year's baseline appropriations.

Department of Navy Announces FY12 Budget


India's defense budget:

US$ 40.44 billion

India's Defence Budget 2012-13 | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses


Sounds like India can surely afford a supercarrier and its fleet of support ships! (sarcasm)

 

[Mad Indian]

US Defense budget only for the US Navy:



Department of Navy Announces FY12 Budget


India's defense budget:



India's Defence Budget 2012-13 | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses


Sounds like India can surely afford a supercarrier and its fleet of support ships! (sarcasm)

Dude. If we are gonna be like USA- That is firgging awesome, we have to make sure that we have the gadgets they have

India with Super carriers=

Again, we cant go for them if we cant afford it, but when we can, it is wiser to go for it than splitting up our resources

 

[Adux]

I do think some people are in some other dimension when debating, I am yet to see a post by any member advocating for the use of supercarriers by the Indian Navy.

The little side dicussion was about whether it was better for India to go for the western concept of aircraft carriers or the ancient soviet style of aircraft carrier cruisers. I suggest people with short attention span and lack of comprehension skills to read the posts very well before posting drivel,

The discussion further went on, whether India was better served with smaller 20,000 ton carriers, than the current concept of 40,000 ton carriers.

That is the discussion not some Supercarriers. What a sad piece of commentary on human evolution.

 

[pmaitra]

@ Mad Indian

That is our goal, but it won't happen in the near future. Someday, we will be able to afford a huge military. Right now, we need to know our limits, and spend only that much we can afford - and the Indian Navy is doing just that. So no supercarriers for IN for the time being.

Edit: Right from the beginning of this discussion, I was talking about 'what India should get,' not comparing a strategic and a tactical vessel, just for clarification:

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.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Aviation Cruisers are good idea as long as they are also covered by there own land based Air elements against a larger CBG..

That is our goal, but it won't happen in the near future. Someday, we will be able to afford a huge military. Right now, we need to know our limits, and spend only that much we can afford - and the Indian Navy is doing just that. So no supercarriers for IN for the time being.

Adding to this:

We are also taking small steps to bigger in making carriers..

 

[Adux]

I wonder which country is making avaition cruisers right now? Oh, Yes. NONE. And the one's who ever had them are actually converting it to conventional aircraft carriers. I am sure the USN planners must be for the not seeing this 'awesome' conceptand Russian, Chinese and Indian planner's even bigger for converting aviation cruiser's they already had.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

I do think some people are in some other dimension when debating, I am yet to see a post by any member advocating for the use of supercarriers by the Indian Navy.

The little side dicussion was about whether it was better for India to go for the western concept of aircraft carriers or the ancient soviet style of aircraft carrier cruisers. I suggest people with short attention span and lack of comprehension skills to read the posts very well before posting drivel,

The discussion further went on, whether India was better served with smaller 20,000 ton carriers, than the current concept of 40,000 ton carriers.

That is the discussion not some Supercarriers. What a sad piece of commentary on human evolution.

Scroll back to the posts above. We were looking at 3 diiferent concepts of a navy.

a. Supercarriers/60,000 - 40,000 ton carriers
b. Aircraft Cruiser Ship
c. Smaller AIrcraft Carriers with F-35s for Punch.

Keeping reality in mind what could be the best solution for India is what I asked for.

a. Nimtz Class is worth 4.5 Billion USD (Just the Ship) (85-90 Air Assets)
b. 60,000 - 40,000 ton Aircraft Carrier (IAC) Roughly 700 Million USD (35-40 Air Assets)
c. CHakri Class mini ACs - 320-350 Million USD (20-26 AIr Assets)
d. Air craft Cruiser

All this had to kept in mind and if we could look at a better doctrine for the IN. I gave a suggestion, May be maintain 2 full fledged 60,000 - 40,000 ton AC and in addition have 2 Mini ACs for more teeth.We are not talking LHDs and LPDs. Lets keep them aside for a while. Or if at all are the Landing Ships should be like that of the WASP Class which can act as Mini Carriers.

Be realistic in Spending. We are not comparing but trying to guage wat is best for our Navy, No doubt if India was like the US from my side we should have had atleast 40 Nimtz class but unfortunately we have to make do of the 40 Billion only and so Gentlemen decide in the best interest and not to mock each other.

 

[Adux]

Scroll back to the posts above. We were looking at 3 diiferent concepts of a navy.

a. Supercarriers/60,000 - 40,000 ton carriers

British and French studies have shown, that the most efficient and cost effective design is a conventional (stress) carrier with 60,000 tons. They have concluded for militaries such as France and Brits, this would do. The Americans have the best carrier's, ideal for any super power with money. This is the way, the chinese will go, later part of their military build up. Indians according to various sources I know personally as well as sources in public, INS Vishaal ( to be confirmed) is going to be a 65,000 ton carrier.

b. Aircraft Cruiser Ship

Is a flawed concept. Nobody uses them for a reason.

c. Smaller AIrcraft Carriers with F-35s for Punch.

Any carrier's without catapult's takes huge toll the payload capacity as well as range. More number of smaller carrier's is a liability since we would require more number of frigates and destroyers give them cover. Therefore it is more expensive. There are many other reasons. Americans use their Wasp Class or new America-class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia America class. These are exculsively used by the Marines after a strong aircover is given by the Carrier's. It would imply the inability of these kind of platforms to area domination.

A Larger number of smaller aircraft carriers will give us less firepower with more expenses. Its not worth it. The Indian Navy has already made their choice.

a. Nimtz Class is worth 4.5 Billion USD (Just the Ship) (85-90 Air Assets)

b. 60,000 - 40,000 ton Aircraft Carrier (IAC) Roughly 700 Million USD (35-40 Air Assets)

c. CHakri Class mini ACs - 320-350 Million USD (20-26 AIr Assets)
d. Air craft Cruiser

You are wrong in all your figures, and you are wrong everywhere Go check them up. Like I said, Security and Super powerdom is not cheap. IAC is 700 million, unfortunately our Kolkata class itself is 700 million. IAC when finished will cost us more than 2.5 billion just for the ship, 20 MiG 29K 's will cost us nearly 1 billion.

All this had to kept in mind and if we could look at a better doctrine for the IN. I gave a suggestion, May be maintain 2 full fledged 60,000 - 40,000 ton AC and in addition have 2 Mini ACs for more teeth.We are not talking LHDs and LPDs. Lets keep them aside for a while. Or if at all are the Landing Ships should be like that of the WASP Class which can act as Mini Carriers.

Be realistic in Spending. We are not comparing but trying to guage wat is best for our Navy, No doubt if India was like the US from my side we should have had atleast 40 Nimtz class but unfortunately we have to make do of the 40 Billion only and so Gentlemen decide in the best interest and not to mock each other.

This will be post to you, because the problem is you keep harping on what is on your head and your imagination. You dont take the common decency or courtesy to actually go research and come back with a point of view. You are wasting my time , as well as polluting this thread. Wasp class is not a landing ship, you dont even know what a landing ship is. Wasp class is a LHD's, Do you know how a Wasp Class operates, what are the support structures given to it? Who operates and under what conditions.

So stop being an idiot and assuming that other people havent thought like you. No. Go research and learn from others.


An Indian Aircraft Carrier will cost us anywhere between 3.5 billion to 5 billion, including the air assets.

 

[shubhamsaikia]

Scroll back to the posts above. We were looking at 3 diiferent concepts of a navy.


British and French studies have shown, that the most efficient and cost effective design is a conventional (stress) carrier with 60,000 tons. They have concluded for militaries such as France and Brits, this would do. The Americans have the best carrier's, ideal for any super power with money. This is the way, the chinese will go, later part of their military build up. Indians according to various sources I know personally as well as sources in public, INS Vishaal ( to be confirmed) is going to be a 65,000 ton carrier.


Is a flawed concept. Nobody uses them for a reason.


Any carrier's without catapult's takes huge toll the payload capacity as well as range. More number of smaller carrier's is a liability since we would require more number of frigates and destroyers give them cover. Therefore it is more expensive. There are many other reasons. Americans use their Wasp Class or new America-class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia America class. These are exculsively used by the Marines after a strong aircover is given by the Carrier's. It would imply the inability of these kind of platforms to area domination.

A Larger number of smaller aircraft carriers will give us less firepower with more expenses. Its not worth it. The Indian Navy has already made their choice.



You are wrong in all your figures, and you are wrong everywhere Go check them up. Like I said, Security and Super powerdom is not cheap. IAC is 700 million, unfortunately our Kolkata class itself is 700 million. IAC when finished will cost us more than 2.5 billion just for the ship, 20 MiG 29K 's will cost us nearly 1 billion.





This will be post to you, because the problem is you keep harping on what is on your head and your imagination. You dont take the common decency or courtesy to actually go research and come back with a point of view. You are wasting my time , as well as polluting this thread. Wasp class is not a landing ship, you dont even know what a landing ship is. Wasp class is a LHD's, Do you know how a Wasp Class operates, what are the support structures given to it? Who operates and under what conditions.

So stop being an idiot and assuming that other people havent thought like you. No. Go research and learn from others.


An Indian Aircraft Carrier will cost us anywhere between 3.5 billion to 5 billion, including the air assets.

Everybody might not be as capable or as learned as you are and there is definilty no reason for you to get all worked up and be rude.

The estimate figure I gave was only of the Hull, not including the refurbishments and the Air assets. No one is as dumb and idiot as you think. And about Wasp sorry for using the word Landing but I meant since its called an amphibious Assault Ship so it necessarily has extra space for amphibious assets. So instead of an amphibious ship more of an AC i meant.

And I am extremely sorry I quoted you and asked something. Surely will not do the mistake again.

 

[p2prada]

True. However, that's not the case with Indian Navy.

We can't fight the US Navy, neither can China as of today.

 

[noob101]

I doubt that we are going to have very large power porjection with our current plans for carriers , not until IAC 2 are we going to have anything that is of much note..... sure the IAC 1 and the Vikramaditya are can pound the PN to kingdom come and completely effect a blockade of Pakiland but are gong to be much harder to deploy against PLAN....

IMHO IN's real power projection is going to come from 4 LPH/LPD's, with air cover from the carriers it would be a very formidable force

 

[p2prada]

A 20000 ton carrier cannot carry the equipment that a 40000 ton carrier can. Equipment capability increases as you increase the tonnage.

Power(electricity) is the biggest problem here. A large number of small carriers is impossible for us considering we don't have enough support ships. It is also useless considering it will be less capable and have less endurance compared to a 40k tonner.

Aircraft are getting bigger, not smaller. We can't send a squadron of Mig-29s against a squadron of Flankers.