INS Vikramaditya (Adm Gorshkov) aircraft carrier

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
2,449
Likes
8,413
Country flag
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.
.
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:

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
2,449
Likes
8,413
Country flag
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.
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.
 

scatterStorm

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
2,242
Likes
5,335
Country flag
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.
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.
 

Zer0

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2017
Messages
25
Likes
27
Country flag
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.
Bro agreed with everything but do your homework.
One operational carrier?
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.
 

undeadmyrmidon

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
548
Likes
872
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.
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!
☺
 

scatterStorm

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
2,242
Likes
5,335
Country flag
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.
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".
 

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
2,449
Likes
8,413
Country flag
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".
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.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
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".
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
 

Zer0

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2017
Messages
25
Likes
27
Country flag
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!
☺
I don't feel bad cuz i know you're wrong. IAC-II would replace INS Vikramaditya, lol so called experts.
 

undeadmyrmidon

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
548
Likes
872
I don't feel bad cuz i know you're wrong. IAC-II would replace INS Vikramaditya, lol so called experts.
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.
 

aghamarshana

Mitron......naacho
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Messages
2,031
Likes
10,867
Country flag
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.
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?
 

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
2,449
Likes
8,413
Country flag
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?
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)
 

undeadmyrmidon

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
548
Likes
872
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?
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
 

undeadmyrmidon

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
548
Likes
872
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)
Most probably F/A 18 SH. Rafale N production line closed years ago.
 

Manish Khan

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2018
Messages
33
Likes
34
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.
 

Jumbo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
113
Likes
62
Economy is built around defence, not other way around. If India can make 50lakh automobiles a year, these 3carrier is nothiing. Cost will reduce as industry consolidates
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.
 

wairoa

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
19
Likes
12
Country flag
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.
Yes and the Brits also were hampered by lack of AEW and a long range strike aircraft, and fighter such as the buccanearand phantom
 

The Ultranationalist

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
996
Likes
2,453
Country flag
Hey guys porkies are reporting that Vicky has left her home port and headed towards porky waters, is that true?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top