View attachment 11105
Hi,
You have extremely valid point that are important to the Indian Navy of 2030 to 2040. But these ships will be there till 2060. So in answer to you point...
- We do have a jet, Naval LCA which will be operational by the time these ships are ready. The LCA is the smallest carrier capable fighter in the world. Harriers are being retired. And they ship with modifications will be able to fit the fighters.
- The added capability works as a want not a need.
- A new plane does not need to be designed, the LHD needs to be redesigned. A 10 meter Hull section for the trap system will need to be added. An angled flight deck will need to be added and the aft elevator will need to be re-positioned from the aft to the port or starboard aft side. The lower deck at the aft will have to be raised with the flight deck. this will increase the fight deck to 230 meters, 240 with the added hull section. For INS Vikrant and Viraat/Hermes, both had angled flight decks added after the ship was constructed. This was done on the 1950's. INS Vikramaditya had a jump ramp and a 10 meter hull section added during its conversion.
- All of the above were done on completed ships not ships that have not yet been constructed, actually each and every carrier in the IN till date has had major structural modifications done to it. Design changes need to be made to the LHD before they are laid down.
- Operating the Jets will not reduce the capability of the ships as the Ships already have the aviation facilities for fighter as it is used as a carrier in the Spanish Navy. The Ship has a lower hanger/ Bay for vehicles and upper for Harriers and Helicopters.
- This is not about prestige but about deterrence. No nation will want to fight a country with 7 Carriers. Lose 3 carriers we still have 4 left to fight with . "Quantity has a Quality of it's own".
- This conversion into "Landing Aircraft Dock" will add even more capabilities to the Navy.
- And the F-35B, The squadron would cost more than 2 ships.
DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought that we were done with these pocket carrier discussions.
View attachment 11105
Hi,
You have extremely valid point that are important to the Indian Navy of 2030 to 2040. But these ships will be there till 2060. So in answer to you point...
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You mean we do not need dedicated amphibious capabilities till 2030-2040? I hope, for your sake, that that is not what youare trying to say here.
- We do have a jet, Naval LCA which will be operational by the time these ships are ready. The LCA is the smallest carrier capable fighter in the world. Harriers are being retired. And they ship with modifications will be able to fit the fighters.
Dude, the maximum Tejas you will be able to place on this ship is 4.
- The added capability works as a want not a need.
Again the message I am getting from your words here is:-
"IN does not need dedicated amphibious capabilities. Its a want not a need."
So you want us to defend our island territories without amphibious capabilities?
- A new plane does not need to be designed, the LHD needs to be redesigned. A 10 meter Hull section for the trap system will need to be added. An angled flight deck will need to be added and the aft elevator will need to be re-positioned from the aft to the port or starboard aft side. The lower deck at the aft will have to be raised with the flight deck. this will increase the fight deck to 230 meters, 240 with the added hull section. For INS Vikrant and Viraat/Hermes, both had angled flight decks added after the ship was constructed. This was done on the 1950's. INS Vikramaditya had a jump ramp and a 10 meter hull section added during its conversion.
- All of the above were done on completed ships not ships that have not yet been constructed, actually each and every carrier in the IN till date has had major structural modifications done to it. Design changes need to be made to the LHD before they are laid down.
How much would the redesign cost? Do a cost vs benefit analysis on the benefit a single flight of Tejas will provide you over the cost of redesign and lesser helos carried.
Done?Thank you.
- Operating the Jets will not reduce the capability of the ships as the Ships already have the aviation facilities for fighter as it is used as a carrier in the Spanish Navy. The Ship has a lower hanger/ Bay for vehicles and upper for Harriers and Helicopters.
We need more ASW and multirole Choppers in the sea than the Spaniards do for our ship to be able to act as an LHD. Think of it like this: we attach the LHD with Vikrant and hence we can now shift the rotary air wing of Vikrant to the LHD and now Vikrant can carry more LCA.
- This is not about prestige but about deterrence. No nation will want to fight a country with 7 Carriers. Lose 3 carriers we still have 4 left to fight with . "Quantity has a Quality of it's own".
No nation has benighted fools like you running their Navies. They actually leave that job to the professionals who do not get deterred if you simply drop a letter saying "WE GOT 7 CARRIERS. YOU MOFOS CANT DO SHIT TO US."
These professionals assess the quality of your quantity. They can easily see a token 4 carrier fleet as a bluff with no real offensive power.
- This conversion into "Landing Aircraft Dock" will add even more capabilities to the Navy.
And the added redesign costs will make this a fool's venture since you can get 3 more Vikrants in the amount of money a redesign and building a larger ship (Landing Aircraft Dock) will take. And do tell me if 4 tejas flying from a demi-carrier qualifies as an added capability, especially in wake of the added liability such an exercise will create for the navy.
- And the F-35B, The squadron would cost more than 2 ships.
Motion seconded. Thank you for not trying to force a discussion on this one. F-35B is not worth it even if they cost for 1/4th that amount.
Currently the Indian Navy is looking to dominate the Indian Ocean. Aircraft Carriers apart from being tools of Power Projection create a Massive bubble of area denial.
Dude carriers are tools of sea control, not denial. Area denial is the prerogative of the submarines.
With the advent of Super & Hyper-sonic weapons the LHD is even more vulnerable than the LAD. The LAD can at least hit back, while the LHD has no true offensive capability against other naval vessels. At maximum it can be used as a ASW carrier.
Agreed that LAD (very funny acronym) can defend itself better than an LHD as a stand-alone ship. But LHDs do not stand alone. They are part of a fleet. LHDs carry troops. They are never exposed to a threat like the other ships. They come in once sea control has been established. Even enemy shore-based defenses are effectively suppressed by the time they come in.
The issue is that the cost of doing these changes to the ships will not be that much. At the maximum it will cost $1 Billion, which is the cost of just 1 frigate or 1.5 submarines. The main reason is that the ships have not been laid down yet, so changes in design will not cost as much.
The reason why I am pushing this is that the cost over the long run especially given the long life times of these ships is actually very low. $1 Billion extra for 4 Escort carriers that will last into the 60's. Or 1 frigate that will last till the 60's, or 2 corvettes, choose.
Choose! <echo><echo><echo><echo><echo><echo><echo>
Erabe!<echo><echo><echo><echo><echo><echo><echo>
On a more serious note
:- Dude cost is not the only factor. Its cost vs capability. 1 billion $ can get you a Visakhapatnam class destroyer. It can get you a ship load of infantry gear that our troops currently lack. The Navy has already made the right choice. Unlike this certain someone in the picture above
.
The best part is we are the only country that can do it, the Juan Carlos with modifications is just large enough for it and we are the only nation with a low cost front line carrier based fighter in the works.
"Large enough"?
If a single flight of tejas is good enough
A few more points:-
- More carriers is not the answer. We need more surface combatants. Escort ships aside, we need more surface action groups. We need more ASW assets. We need more submarines.
- Look at how the Chinese played this out. They first built a giant fleet of surface combatants. Now they will be able to concentrate on carriers and will go from a no carrier fleet to a 5 carrier fleet by 2030. Look at the JMSDF; they also need only construct 3 carriers and they will become stronger than Indian Navy in any context.
- A fleet with 7 carriers and 10 destroyers is a paper tiger.
- The defense acquisition budget will be USD 17 billion per year by 2020. We need only hold back till we have enough funds by 2027. I will not be surprised if the navy finishes Vishal class design till then and then decides to make three ships of Vishal class.
- If you think about it, the navy can attach a LHD with a carrier and have the carrier's rotary air wing transferred (asset and role) to the LHD while the carrier itself will be able to embark more fighters. You suggest modifying the LHD but the end result will be the same (and with extra costs and time incurred).