INS Vishal (IAC- II) Aircraft Carrier - Flattop or Ski Jump

[garg_bharat]

@Superdefender
How much time we need to bring N-AMCA into game..At present situation of AMCA is still under development. It needs another decade to mature and to get inducted..so lets keep it out of the discussion.
I heard that we gonna use N-LCa for Ins vishaal.
@abingdonboy @Gessler
Sir Is Mig-29k is perfect match for chinese sea shark?
Their naval squadron is bigger than ours.
We should never underestimate chinks.
30 character

I guess LCA can complement mig29.
Though mig29 seems a better carrier-borne plane.

 

[delta]

A large carrier needs a lot of resources to protect it. American carriers are shadowed by SSNs.

American carriers move in a carrier group which consists of several other cruiser/destroyer ships.

This is further protected by shore based airpower from dozens of airbases around the world.

The basic thing is a carrier is a large target. It is not stealthy, and can be detected easily by satellites.

The problem is, it is unpredictable how a conflict will unravel. having fixed bases reduces costs, but it also reduces flexibility of operations. a mobile asset will be much more effective in such uncertain scenarios.

A carrier based strategy imitating USA must include all components as to how these ships will operate effectively in wartime.

The fact is India can easily get 5-6 airbases in friendly countries around the world where su-30 can be based.

Even a half squadron of Su30 operating from countries like Bahrain can do wonders to safety of India's oil imports.

going by that logic, UK should have had airbases in south america too, especially in the falkland islands themselves. they ended up needing a task force to get those lands back.

imagine a fleet with only submarines, or just destroyers which can lob shells and fire missiles, but cannot provide any vital air cover to the ground troops. that's where the aircraft carrier takes prime importance. even our recent evacuation in yemen may have been further bolstered with the use of air power to protect the ships docked at the ports (im just speculating, not pointing out flaws in the operation)

in any case, like i said above, the nature of warfare is unpredictable, and it pays to have good flexibility & responsiveness to situations rather than cost effective measures which hinder your ability to react

 

[Gessler]

@abingdonboy @Gessler
Sir Is Mig-29k is perfect match for chinese sea shark?
Their naval squadron is bigger than ours.
We should never underestimate chinks.
30 character

The possibility of our MiG-29Ks meeting the J-15s in a battle is about nil. By the time the Chinese CBGs actually attain expeditionary capabilities (as of now Liaoning still remains a training ship) when they commission their first home-made carrier sometime in future, we would possibly be inducting Rafale-M and working on N-AMCA.

No need to worry there.

 

[garg_bharat]

The problem is, it is unpredictable how a conflict will unravel. having fixed bases reduces costs, but it also reduces flexibility of operations. a mobile asset will be much more effective in such uncertain scenarios.



going by that logic, UK should have had airbases in south america too, especially in the falkland islands themselves. they ended up needing a task force to get those lands back.

imagine a fleet with only submarines, or just destroyers which can lob shells and fire missiles, but cannot provide any vital air cover to the ground troops. that's where the aircraft carrier takes prime importance. even our recent evacuation in yemen may have been further bolstered with the use of air power to protect the ships docked at the ports (im just speculating, not pointing out flaws in the operation)

in any case, like i said above, the nature of warfare is unpredictable, and it pays to have good flexibility & responsiveness to situations rather than cost effective measures which hinder your ability to react

You are giving bookish knowledge without giving any rationale as to why india needs carriers or how India will protect its carriers.

India is not an empire. India does not control far flung territory.

The primary need is to protect trade or to deny use of certain sea lanes in extreme cases.

If ships need to be escorted, that won't be with a carrier.

 

[garg_bharat]

The possibility of our MiG-29Ks meeting the J-15s in a battle is about nil. By the time the Chinese CBGs actually attain expeditionary capabilities (as of now Liaoning still remains a training ship) when they commission their first home-made carrier sometime in future, we would possibly be inducting Rafale-M and working on N-AMCA.

No need to worry there.

You are a very optimistic man.

I doubt any of Indian carriers will get very far from Indian shores as they will always need protection of shore based aircraft.

 

[Superdefender]

You are a very optimistic man.

I doubt any of Indian carriers will get very far from Indian shores as they will always need protection of shore based aircraft.

Suppose another Syria type situation will happen in future. And lets think that India, at that time, is much more powerful than present. Now world is begging for your participation instead of staying neutral. Think for a moment, you have to take a decision as a DM. What will you do? Send fighters from India to bomb/destroy in Syria or send Vishal to their coast directly and order all 54 fighters on board to do that for you? Which is more cost effective, fuel efficient and more capable option? Tell me. Mind you, we have to consider Vishal to be nuclear here. You can't add Vishal's fuel cost for journey to your consideration!!

 

[archie]

India has invested in long range maritime recon for a reason. These planes can locate enemy ships. The su30 can fly up to 5500 km with air refuelling to attack such ships. The Brahmos missile can attack not only land targets but also ships.

Mate you have a knowledge looking only at cost of operating airbases ... you need to understand the strategic implications of actions as in thinking for steps ahead when you take an action..

Cost of a strategic position can best be explained by how we still man Icey heights of siachin ..

flying 5500 Km is ferry range and thats not with brahamos.. and duty time on station at 2000 kms will be 10-15 mins .. and if the enemy is expecting you then your toast... not to mention time to target will be hrs from launch compared to Carrier force few hundred kms away giving surprise..

you dont play attack all the time.. you play threat of attack most of the time with assets like subs and Aircraft carriers ...

If you dont understand what is threat of attack then you dont understand strategy or dominance of a region,, Indian Ocean is India's backyard and we need to exert dominance be it threat of attack or capacity to provide humanitarian assistance in IOR ...

Start playing Chess you will know what strategy of threat is

 

[archie]

Your post has more sentimental appeal than logic & pragmatism; by the same token Saudi Arab may say Arabian Sea is named after it and she has exclusive right of policing it upto Mumbai harbour
Jurisdiction of a country extends to 12 nautical miles from shore and upto 200 nauts for exploiting natural resources. Beyond that it is all international waters where every country has equal rights. We should be bothered only upto 200 NMs from shores.

People lacking vision and force of dominance will lead to other countries taking things for granted ..

Indian Ocean is not just a Ocean with India's Name .. it is the lifeline of our trade, Oil supply and backbone of our economy .. if we do not exert dominance over it and let other players challenge us right where it hurts us the most we are the ones who are to lose a lot ..

Its just like how Lions in a pride keep other lions out of its dominance region ..

FYI Dominance in a region is not harassment but being cordial yet being vigilant of whats happening in the region and act with appropriate force when needed when things can go out of our interest...

Well Arab Countries dont have a dominant Navy thats why somali pirates are such a menace ... You need someone who shows who the boss is .. i would rather see it be the Indian Navy than anyone else... Call it emotions , I dont care.. I find it logical to see my Country be respected as one of the powerful civilizations that maintains peace in IOR region

 

[delta]

You are giving bookish knowledge without giving any rationale as to why india needs carriers or how India will protect its carriers.

India is not an empire. India does not control far flung territory.

yes. because your wisdom supersedes all!

and haven't you read my posts with examples and rationale earlier? look, i'll break it down into simple language for you: submarines good. destroyers & frigates very good. carriers very very good. CBG (with total defensive and offensive components) very very very good. CBG's ships will protect carrier. this i know because india is actually making ships rather than planning them.

also, you never know what you will need in war, hence it is better to be prepared. i believe @archie and @Superdefender have also re-emphasised what i was trying to say, but theyve done it much better than me

The primary need is to protect trade or to deny use of certain sea lanes in extreme cases.

do you know what provides the quickest and cost effective method of denial in seas? a fast moving jet armed with a couple of missiles. a ship won't reach the site of battle as quickly as a MiG would

If ships need to be escorted, that won't be with a carrier.

thanks. i didn't know that. i owe you one!

Even a half squadron of Su30 operating from countries like Bahrain can do wonders to safety of India's oil imports.

do we have a base at Bahrain? are we planning one? is there even any talk going on? if no, then in the meantime we'd have to deal with having a carrier only. sorry boss, majboori hai!

IN is becoming a blue water navy and for that it requires carriers. but don't you worry. come monday, i'll ring up south block and tell them garg_bharat thinks you guys are wrong in pursuing carriers. im sure they'll be "whoa! he's right mate. let's call it off!!"

 

[archie]

You are a very optimistic man.

I doubt any of Indian carriers will get very far from Indian shores as they will always need protection of shore based aircraft.

Dude Just Google how carriers operate .. they never travel as a single ship.. they are always the centre of a battle group... and they move where ever required not just near shore.. AC usually carry ASW helos as well as fighters

Even the delivery of INS Vikramadithya from Russia had two escorts and with more ships meeting it near the gulf... AC carriers dont operate at a tactical level .. they mostly operate from a stratigic level and provide for tremendous force projection

Ins Viki can monitor the sky of more than 300-400 kms radius in addition to surface and undersea due to network centric nature of the ship.. tell me which single aircraft can do all of this??

 

[garg_bharat]

@archie, your posts are childish.

I suggest you study the military history of world wars before posting on this forum.

It is certain that Indian carriers lack sufficient protection, and this situation is not going to change with ins vishal.

 

[garg_bharat]

The best guarantee of India's security are ssbn. Even these will have to operate in protected waters, where India can assure air dominance.

 

[sasum]

Its just like how Lions in a pride keep other lions out of its dominance region ..

So you have no faith in international Admirality Law? Now what if big bullies like US, China decide to go by the law of jungle and put up a blockade in IOR?

Well Arab Countries dont have a dominant Navy thats why somali pirates are such a menace ..

With their petro-dollars, Arab countries can acquire 10 times bigger Navy than India's. Russians & Europeans will fall over each other to sell them ACs & Subs. It is just that Arabs are more level-headed & less sentimental than us.

People lacking vision and force of dominance will lead to other countries taking things for granted ..

First acquire capabilities then show it off. Bought & borrowed hardware only makes you into a laughing-stock.

 

[Superdefender]

The best guarantee of India's security are ssbn. Even these will have to operate in protected waters, where India can assure air dominance.

SSBNs require air dominance! I have not heard that anywhere. We need both Subs and ACs. SSNs are tactical in nature & SSBN and ACs are strategic in nature.

 

[garg_bharat]

SSBNs require air dominance! I have not heard that anywhere. We need both Subs and ACs. SSNs are tactical in nature & SSBN and ACs are strategic in nature.

You will learn much more what you have not learnt yet. Now satellites can detect underwater vehicles but satellites cannot kill.

They still have to send airplanes to kill the sub. It may sound odd but aviation is the biggest challenge to a sub today.

 

[garg_bharat]

The concept of ssbn operating in protected seas is used by both Russia and China.

A underwater vehicle hidden at sea is the best way your second strike will work.

However that vehicle has to be protected from sub hunting airplanes.

 

[garg_bharat]

India lacks SAM technology. India is deficient in both anti-air and antimissile technologies. Without it, expeditionary warfare is not possible.

 

[garg_bharat]

An indian carrier run the risk of facing saturation missile attack. That is more than dozen anti ship missiles fired simultaneously at it.

You have to consider the worst case scenario when deciding a weapon system.

 

[sasum]

They still have to send airplanes to kill the sub. It may sound odd but aviation is the biggest challenge to a sub today.

Are you referring to AUM? US tried it in 50s without much success. Aircrafts can hope to hit Sub only when they surface above. Subs can be hit only with torpedo/ depth charge from ships. Of course 2 Subs can engage in dog-fight.

 

[aditya g]

The best guarantee of India's security are ssbn. Even these will have to operate in protected waters, where India can assure air dominance.

Our SSBNs will not sail outside Karachi or in Taiwan straits.

SSBNs patrol in remote 'corners' of the ocean, where there is no threat from enemy aircraft or in fact no patrols from own aircraft are necessary as nobody knows where the boat is.